Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Mar 2006 18:40 UTC, submitted by Varg Vikernes
Apple Dan Kusnetzky, Apple program vice president, spoke to PC Pro News at IDC and said that Apple has no plans to support booting into Vista on the new Intel Macs. However, a Microsoft spokesman said that Microsoft would have no problem granting a Windows licence to Apple, in exactly the same way it currently provides licences to Dell and HP: "Microsoft would support Apple the same way it supports every other PC manufacturer." But Dan Kusnetzky said it would be difficult to know who would support that machine if Windows was running on a Mac. However, "no doubt someone will work out how to run Windows on the Mac, even if Apple doesn't technically support that."
Thread beginning with comment 103738
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Pseudo Cyborg
Member since:
2005-07-09

But parent was not talking about desktop usage, he talked about kernel.

You're absolutely correct. Hardening is much different than the kernel on its own. Still, OS's are installed with default kernel configurations as well that run deeper than the desktop.

If one secures WinXP as he should, usage without problems is almost guaranteed. The fact that 100% of viruses and mallware is Windows-ware should not count here either....

I agree. I've never said that XP can't be made more secure, just that, as you said, the default configuration (which the majority of users never change) is overwhelming vulnerable.

And comparing apples to orages doesn't make it either.

Comparisons can, indeed, make a point. The desktop does have an effect on the kernel with regards to interaction. Default installations have an impact on both the desktop and the kernel. There are a large number of variables involved in maintaining system security, and pigeon-holeing one aspect is akin to saying that living leads to cancer; the whole picture needs to be looked at.

Reply Parent Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

Comparisons can, indeed, make a point. The desktop does have an effect on the kernel with regards to interaction. Default installations have an impact on both the desktop and the kernel. There are a large number of variables involved in maintaining system security, and pigeon-holeing one aspect is akin to saying that living leads to cancer; the whole picture needs to be looked at.

Parent was talking about Vista not XP.

I'm not saying Vista hasn't got any problems, but as far as security goes. With Vista, Windows finaly got least-privilege and drivers running in userspace. Which takes away most of the problems with current Windows defaults.

And I'm a linux guy my self.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

Parent was talking about Vista not XP.

Incorrect. stephanem was talking about XP security:
After all the only magic in MacOS is at the UI level, the kernel has just been shown to be as insecure as WinXP.

stephanem only brought up Vista with regards to the responsiveness, or speed, of the kernel:
I really wonder how fast OSX kernel compares to WinVista in speed since MS has years and years of expertise in optimising for x86.

I do agree that Vista will be leaps and bounds ahead of XP as far as security goes, but my initial comment remains.

Reply Parent Score: 1