http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...u=/ap/20050607
/ap_on_hi_te/apple_chips

The following are excerpts from yahoo's article:

After touting its Macintosh computers as superior alternatives for more
than 20 years, Apple Computer Inc. said Monday that it plans to switch
to the very Intel microprocessors that power machines designed to run
Microsoft Windows.

In a speech to software developers Monday, Apple CEO Steve Jobs admitted
the change will not be fast or easy. The first Intel-based Macs won't
appear until 2006, and the full product line won't shift to Intel until
the following year, he said.

Apple also quickly snuffed out the possibility that computer makers
other than itself might someday offer Mac OS X. But it did not say how
it would prevent users from installing a pirated copy of the software on
their computers from Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. or others.

It's also not clear whether the move might make Macs more vulnerable to
attacks by viruses and other malware. To date, they've been mostly
exempt.

On Monday, neither Apple nor Intel would specify the exact chips that
will be used. Jobs did say that Intel's focus on power management,
crucial to extending battery life on portable computers, was as
important as performance in the decision.

The switch ends years of squabbling between Apple and its chip
suppliers, IBM and Freescale Semiconductor Inc., which was spun off from
Motorola last year.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

In article <pighash-BA550F.08061507062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:

> Apple also quickly snuffed out the possibility that computer makers
> other than itself might someday offer Mac OS X. But it did not say how
> it would prevent users from installing a pirated copy of the software on
> their computers from Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. or others.

Wow, Yahoo is written by people not very tech-savvy, isn't it?

Apple will prevent people from installing OS X on a Windows machine
because there is more to a computer than the processor. the rest of the
motherboard, and the computer's firmware, will be different.

> It's also not clear whether the move might make Macs more vulnerable to
> attacks by viruses and other malware. To date, they've been mostly
> exempt.

It is not the type of processor that makes a computer susceptible to
viruses.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

someone <none@nospam.com> wrote:

> Firmware is not easily (or legally) cloned

It is the easiest thing cloned. You just remove the chip it is stored on
and clone the information. Very, very simple. There are cheap gadgets
just set up for this type of operation. They have been around for
almost 30 years.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

Stephen Henning wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...u=/ap/20050607
> /ap_on_hi_te/apple_chips
> \

For people who would like to see what Apple (Steve Jobs) said, rather
than third hand interpretations, watch his speech here:
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

GW

Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> a macro virus is not compiled.

but may insert machine code into an existing program using very simple
edit commands.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

In article <pighash-36EC41.08330108062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, Stephen Henning wrote:
> someone <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Firmware is not easily (or legally) cloned
>
> It is the easiest thing cloned. You just remove the chip it is stored on
> and clone the information. Very, very simple. There are cheap gadgets
> just set up for this type of operation. They have been around for
> almost 30 years.
>

As anyone who owned a BBC Micro would testify :-)

EPROM blower? What EPROM blower? Oh, *this* EPROM blower. That's, er,
that's for development work guv. Honest.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

In article <pighash-BEC749.08350708062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:

> > a macro virus is not compiled.
>
> but may insert machine code into an existing program using very simple
> edit commands.

Correction--may insert a *system API call*. Not the same as machine
code, and the system API is different on different operating systems.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> Wow, Yahoo is written by people not very tech-savvy, isn't it?

Well, the article was written by AP, not Yahoo. But once you get past
that silly first paragraph, it's actually better than most of the
articles written on this subject over the past five days.

Unfortunately, few of the people in the press, even those covering
technology, are very tech savvy. Even worse is the technical unsavviness
of many financial analysts who specialize in the computer industry. I
saw one on the tube Monday saying that this would mean that Apple would
make cheaper computers.

>>Firmware is not easily (or legally) cloned
>
>
> It is the easiest thing cloned.
>

Making copies with a EPROM burner is easy, yes - cloning (reverse
engineering kinda like what Compaq did way back when) isn't easy.


--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net

1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

spam the Federal Trade Commission thats spam@uce.gov

Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> Wow, Yahoo is written by people not very tech-savvy, isn't it?
>
> Apple will prevent people from installing OS X on a Windows machine
> because there is more to a computer than the processor. the rest of the
> motherboard, and the computer's firmware, will be different.

But those components are easy to clone.

> > It's also not clear whether the move might make Macs more vulnerable to
> > attacks by viruses and other malware. To date, they've been mostly
> > exempt.
>
> It is not the type of processor that makes a computer susceptible to
> viruses.

It depends. It is much easier if the processor is the same. Macro
viruses are not platform specific and a macro virus on platforms with
the same processors has the ability to be much more dangerous.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

> Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Apple will prevent people from installing OS X on a Windows machine
>>because there is more to a computer than the processor. the rest of the
>>motherboard, and the computer's firmware, will be different.
>
>
> But those components are easy to clone.
>
>

Firmware is not easily (or legally) cloned


--
Rob Fruth - Houston, Tx
http://www.rfruth.net

1981 Raleigh for errands & fun ____ __o
1997 Trek 2300 for real fun ! ____ _ \ | _)
2000 Civic hatchback (_)/ (_)

spam the Federal Trade Commission thats spam@uce.gov

In article <pighash-785568.15234507062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:

> > Apple will prevent people from installing OS X on a Windows machine
> > because there is more to a computer than the processor. the rest of the
> > motherboard, and the computer's firmware, will be different.
>
> But those components are easy to clone.

All except the firmware, which is protected by copyright law. firmware
is a computer program embedded in a chip; ask the guys who
reverse-engineered the original IBM PC BIOS, which was orders of
magnitude simpler than the ac's firmware, how "easy" it was!

> > It is not the type of processor that makes a computer susceptible to
> > viruses.
>
> It depends. It is much easier if the processor is the same. Macro
> viruses are not platform specific and a macro virus on platforms with
> the same processors has the ability to be much more dangerous.

No, macro viruses on platforms with the same *operating system API* are
more dangerous. processor is irrelevant; a macro virus is not compiled.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 2005-06-07 17:17:12 +0300, Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> said:

> In article <pighash-BA550F.08061507062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> It's also not clear whether the move might make Macs more vulnerable to
>> attacks by viruses and other malware. To date, they've been mostly
>> exempt.
>
> It is not the type of processor that makes a computer susceptible to viruses.

Hi,

It did happen lots of times, most of the "buffer overflow" hacks were
working because of Intel's x86 CPU arch.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UT...r+overflow+x86

I hope they added the instruction they promised, not following their
backward arch for years. Of course its a strange thing can affect PPC
and Sparc too but x86 ones are real well worked on by lamers :)

Ilgaz

In article <3gqccnFdpfhdU2@individual.net>, Ilgaz@spamcop.net says...
> On 2005-06-07 17:17:12 +0300, Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> said:
>
> > In article <pighash-BA550F.08061507062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's also not clear whether the move might make Macs more vulnerable to
> >> attacks by viruses and other malware. To date, they've been mostly
> >> exempt.
> >
> > It is not the type of processor that makes a computer susceptible to viruses.
>
> Hi,
>
> It did happen lots of times, most of the "buffer overflow" hacks were
> working because of Intel's x86 CPU arch.

Note that Apple released security updates yesterday, including buffer
overflow fixes, and a lot of others for the PPC/OS X.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs

On 2005-06-09 14:20:58 +0300, Randy Howard
<randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> said:

> In article <3gqccnFdpfhdU2@individual.net>, Ilgaz@spamcop.net says...
>> On 2005-06-07 17:17:12 +0300, Tacit <tacitr@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <pighash-BA550F.08061507062005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>>> Stephen Henning <pighash@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's also not clear whether the move might make Macs more vulnerable to
>>>> attacks by viruses and other malware. To date, they've been mostly
>>>> exempt.
>>>
>>> It is not the type of processor that makes a computer susceptible to viruses.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It did happen lots of times, most of the "buffer overflow" hacks were
>> working because of Intel's x86 CPU arch.
>
> Note that Apple released security updates yesterday, including buffer
> overflow fixes, and a lot of others for the PPC/OS X.
>
> As I said:
"Of course its a strange thing can affect PPC and Sparc too but x86
ones are real well worked on by lamers :)"

Those problems reported by white hat hackers, I am not mad to call them
"lamers" of course :)

I am speaking about blaster like crap etc

Ilgaz