I think iOS is roadkill. They're already huffing Android fumes instead of innovating. This could be it. I like Android so I hope it's the second place OS in about a year. Apple can make novelty watches and eMedicine gadgets.
Stop trolling; it's unbecoming.
While it was poorly worded, he meant to say the first PowerPC-native version of Word for Mac System 7.5. That would probably be Word 6.0. And it was ass-slow and terrible.
And what was really hysterical was that the 68k versions of Word ran circles around Word 6.0, even though they were running through Apple's 68k -> PPC JIT Compiler!!!
Yes,,WORD 6 sucked. I know. I tried to use it for about a month when it came out.
Oh, you'll wake up when it works. But you might have to change your crappy handle on Slashdot.
Apple is sort of phasing out Macs anyways, aren't they? It sure seems that way.
Mark my words, in 18 months, it will be as if this announcement never happened. It's the Microsoft Way.
And I should know: I write Windows Application software all day for a living.
Why do you think I like Macs?
Well, in Greece we have the (rougtly translated) saying "something is better than nothing"!
The American equivalent is "Half a loaf (of bread) is better than no loaf at all."
But, remembering the painful days of software Windows emulation on Macs, I don't think that either the Geek nor American phrase applies here!!!
By better interface, you mean 16-color brain damage that acts like it's from the 1980s.
Exactly!
And you thought XP was Fisher-Price land...
the headline accidentally left out a word. Windows 10 Can Run Reworked Android and iOS Apps, Badly, while Android and iOS can't run Windows Apps at all
In "bold", i added the phrase you accidentally left out - no need to thank me fellow slashdoter!
So you consider something that runs "badly" to be something worth crowing about?
I guess it depends on how badly, doesn't it?
From past systems like this, I think it would mean that you can technically use Objective-C code, just not any of the system frameworks... but that would be a pretty huge limitation if so, and involve a ton of re-work for anything existing.
That's what I was thinking. The devil's in the details beneath the word "Reworked".
By that same headline, pretty much any app written for any platform can be "reworked" to run on any other platform.
It's a ridiculous claim at this point. Typical Microsoft marketing babble.
Wake me when it works; I need a good long nap...
Actually this is hilarious. I remember the first version of MS Word that ran on the PPC Macs, it used a translation layer so they could use the Windows code on the Mac. It was a Dog, it ran slow and crashed often.
Sorry, sonny; that isn't even close to being correct.
The abomination that you are thinking of was MS Word 6.0 (IIRC) for Mac. Notice the "6.0" part of the name. That really does mean that it was the sixth major version of MS Word for the Mac. And it was truly horrible.
What you apparently don't know is that MS Word (and Excel) were available in GUI form for MacOS for at least two major revisions before a fully-GUI version was released for Windows.
Sorry for the Mac-centric link; but it was the only place that I could find that had the dates correct. I personally used MS Word 4.0 for Mac pretty much until the end of MacOS (Classic) in 2001, and it was very stable and "just the right size". Note that this article confirms that the awful, "ported" (emulated) version is Word 6.0...
I didn't know about the Xenix version, or that it was designed by Xerox PARC guys. So, technically, the Mac version was the second GUI version, I guess, then Windows was the third.
Now, get off my lawn!
Mod parent up. This is one of the most informative things I've ever read on
It's usually people just trying to win semantic wars about stuff and trash Microsoft (or open sores or whatever).
Nicely done. I've got a Mac and I
First, thanks for the "props" (blush); but now I feel ashamed.
Why? Because of what you mentioned about dual-booting two versions of OS X. And then it hit me: you're right! That's the ZERO-Cost (not counting download bandwidth) solution! So, here you go...
And also, since all accessible partitions automatically mount at startup (unless you do some simple command-line witchery), you should have no problem accessing/moving any desired stuff from the "old OS" to the new one. IIRC, these Partitions appear in the Finder like any other Volume.
Now, like any other dual-boot system, you really are only "in" ONE OS at a time. So, if you want to start migrating your "life" to the newer OS, but still seamlessly incorporate your Legacy apps into your workflow, then dual-boot is NOT for you. In that case, use the Virtualization method instead.
But if you only occasionally need to run some apps in the "old" OS, then dual-boot might be for you!
Then, Apple simply adds checking of DyLibs and other add-ons to OS X, and closes this hokey forever. Problem solved!
So, thanks to the black hat who brought this exploit to Apple's attention; so that they can take care of it.
WEll, not quite. Apple doesn't add essential security updates to pre Lion (10.7) systems. Since the rot set in after 10.6.8, many users are still on these OS versions simply because they're more accessible.. i.e. no new "improvements", and of course, many (like me) have just THOUSANDS of $ invested in software that is entirely obsoleted by 10.7 and up systems. These are developers that have either been bankrupted , or driven out of business, by the endless "improvements" in OSX (like the highly respected "Little Wing pinball", or Unsanity, creators of "Shapeshifter"), or they no longer supply updates to their OSX software. Using Snow Leopard, which is the last version to support the last 10 years worth of OSX software, exposes you to everyt malignant code for OSX in existence. Apple believes that the risk of infecting those user's computers with worms or trojans is good for the company's bottom line, somehow.... or what they are implying is that there is NO such malware after all...
As the owner of many PPC Macs, including a G5 tower that runs 10.5, (as well as "modern" Macs that can run Yosemite), and who has Mac consulting clients that still run 10.6.8'for the same reasons you mention (familiarity and software investment), I fully understand!
However, for at least the Intel Macs, there is a relatively inexpensive solution: Run 10.6 SEVER under virtualization.
So, for $69, you can purchase VMWare Fusion 7 (standard edition) direct from VMWare and then by CALLING Apple, for $19.95, you can (still) purchase the only version of OS X which is authorized by Apple for virtualization: MacOS X 10.6 Server Install Retail disc, part #0Z691-6495. So, for under $100, you can keep your Snow Leopard environment for your stuff that won't run on current versions of OS X, and still have a Mac that can enjoy security updates, newer features, etc.
Is it ideal? No. Do I wish Apple would support OS versions forever? You bet! However, it DOES provide a relatively inexpensive way to "bridge the Lion-gap", especially for those who have significant investments in pre-Lion software). Heck, you could even still run any PPC stuff under Rosetta!
So, how does this help with vulnerabilities? Simple. Like my friends who have both OS X and Windows on their Macs, you simply don't use your "vulnerable" OS to access the Internet. However, in the case of OS X, I'm not sure whether malware targeting new versions of OS X would have much luck running under Snow Leopard, anyway.
And as for having to use SL Server, I couldn't find a reasonable " guide" online to doing the same thing with a "client" version of 10.6.8, so I decided that using Server was a good enough solution.
And as for OS X being "ruined" in recent versions, I think that, if you start actually using newer versions, you'll find it is actually not nearly as "iOS-ified" or "ruined" as people would have you believe, and that the new features, such as vastly improved Multi-monitor support, Convergence, being able to do calls and texts from your Mac, etc, are really pretty damned nice!
Linux, BSD and Windows just suuuuuuck so much compared to OS X that even if it were the least secure OS, most security researchers would still run it exclusively. Source: I am a security researcher.
Wish I had mid points! Mods: Mod the Parent "Insightful".
Gatekeeper is supposed to prevent unsigned/non-Mac App Store code from running... so either if a download has been MitM'd or if the user was coerced into downloading something shady (e.g. trojan). The bypass I described bypasses this requirement - allowing unsigned code to be injected into existing downloads or hackers to now re-distribute unsigned/malicious trojans. So yah, it's about allowing unsigned code to execute - when Gatekeeper should block that.
Wrong.
Gatekeeper's default setting allows only signed apps; but the user can opt for lesser security. But that's on the user, not Apple.
In no way does what the guy is describing magically allow code to take control of the full OS. If an application is executing, and then executes a maliciously crafted dylib, that dylib is still running as the user who executed the parent application - a.k.a. not root unless you've bent over backwards to re-enable the root user and log in as root because you completely hate security and best practices.
so, IOW, about 100 Mac Users worldwide.
Its a problem because the OS isn't checking the entirety of the app for correct signatures, just part of it. Which kinda removes the point of checking at all.
Apple updating Gatekeeper in 3... 2... 1...
There! Problem all gone!
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs
