Apple iMac G5: New Look & Design

[Dagenais]

The http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?family=iMac is finally out after a very long wait from Apple Computer enthusiasts!

All new look too!

 

[faust9]

I'm undecided as of yet. I may get a new iMac for my wife, but I'll hold off until Tiger is released. By then a 2G iMac should be available.

[edit] Removed commentary about 5200 chipset.

 

[Dagenais]

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B018911FB-C940-44D5-A3C0-97B31418B766%7D&siteid=google&dist=google

The Apple design team was obviously held to this design by edict, since the result is hardly jazzy or interesting. What's worse, the engineering required that all of the USB, audio, Ethernet and modem connectors (10 of them, not including the power line) are awkwardly and inconveniently placed on the back of the bulky monitor-computer. With all these wires running off the back of this top-heavy machine, there's a good possibility that one will get tripped over. I suspect the iMac will go flying. This lash-up just does not look stable.

Wow, he's pretty harsh on the new iMac. Putting the computer in the back of the monitor isn't a new thing. Gateway and Sony has done it before.

He also says that Apple is concentrating too much on its line of MP3 players and that you can't "change monitors" with the iMac.

Why would you even buy an iMac if you wanted to change monitors?

I wonder when benchmarks are going to come out for the iMac.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

You could mount the imac on the wall
then just have the wires already connected and get a usb hub
and your up and running

its just so elegant looking

 

[Moonbear]

Dagenais, apparently that critique didn't come from someone forced to work in a cubicle! I just took a look at it and that design would be perfect for the cramped spaces of our students' cubicles in the lab. We have two old G3 iMacs that are getting ready for retirement (they take up probably a 1/4 of the desk and these are pretty old...the gray ones that came out right after the first fruit-flavored ones). Having all the cords come out the back would be perfect, then they could all head straight down through the little hole at the back of the desk made for cords. The only complaint I've ever had with iMacs is the cord from the computer to the keyboard is always too short, so you need to buy an extension to run it down the back of the desk and under to a keyboard tray. Considering most people use keyboard trays in offices (all those ergonomic police running around), it would be nice if they'd make a longer cord standard. Afterall, with these space-saving designs, what's the point of a smaller footprint if you still need to pull the computer toward the front of the desk to reach the keyboard? The only hesitation I have about buying the new iMacs for our lab is that then my students would have faster computers than I do!

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

Best thing about the new iMac

is that you can spend a faw more dollars and get it totally wireless, except for the power.

 

[Dagenais]

Dagenais, apparently that critique didn't come from someone forced to work in a cubicle! I just took a look at it and that design would be perfect for the cramped spaces of our students' cubicles in the lab. We have two old G3 iMacs that are getting ready for retirement (they take up probably a 1/4 of the desk and these are pretty old...the gray ones that came out right after the first fruit-flavored ones). Having all the cords come out the back would be perfect, then they could all head straight down through the little hole at the back of the desk made for cords. The only complaint I've ever had with iMacs is the cord from the computer to the keyboard is always too short, so you need to buy an extension to run it down the back of the desk and under to a keyboard tray. Considering most people use keyboard trays in offices (all those ergonomic police running around), it would be nice if they'd make a longer cord standard. Afterall, with these space-saving designs, what's the point of a smaller footprint if you still need to pull the computer toward the front of the desk to reach the keyboard? The only hesitation I have about buying the new iMacs for our lab is that then my students would have faster computers than I do!

I rarely hear or see of people that purchase expensive, all-in-one's for students. It's not very cost efficient nor do they have a very long life (you can't upgrade easily).

Most of the computers I've seen in schools, including post-secondary, are towers.

Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).

 

[Sirus]

Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).

One reason I can think of is that PCs (particularly those running Windows) cannot compare to Macs in stability and reliability. If his students are also lucky enough to have access to programs such as Wolfram's amazing Mathematica, they probably appreciate this greatly. If you have the $$$ to spend on it, go for it. I am buying an iMac G5 in a year (hopefully the one-step up model).

Sirus

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

I rarely hear or see of people that purchase expensive, all-in-one's for students. It's not very cost efficient nor do they have a very long life (you can't upgrade easily).

Most of the computers I've seen in schools, including post-secondary, are towers.

Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).

Macs last quite a long time actually. my cousins school is still using the original iMacs. that is a very long time to use a computer without needing an upgrade. all in ones are not bad things at all, especially in schools.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Does anyone have the percentage of college campus for macs vs pc? Since most campuses have both I mean like what percentage per campus.

 

[Moonbear]

Is there any specefic reason that you're lab and students use iMacs? (It would be interesting to know why, in the science field, a Mac is better than a PC running Windows).

A lot of reasons for running Macs. They don't become obsolete as quickly as PCs, so actually are pretty cost-efficient (even our G3's are still running current software, while PCs of the same generation are completely obsolete). They are far more stable, as in, they don't crash twice daily like PCs. And with OSX, even if one program shuts down, you don't lose everything that's open. Our biggest reason for using Macs, though, is we do a lot of image analysis (a lot of microscopy...the software for our microscope cameras runs on Macs too). Plus, towers take up a lot of space and sit on the floor where the janitor can destroy them with the mop (don't ask), and the all-in-ones aren't that expensive at all. And the best part, when the students open every attachment they receive in email, Macs don't catch viruses as easily.

 

[Moonbear]

Macs last quite a long time actually. my cousins school is still using the original iMacs. that is a very long time to use a computer without needing an upgrade. all in ones are not bad things at all, especially in schools.

The lab I did my postdoc in is still using Mac Pluses...at least they were a few years ago. We had ancient custom software that would only run on those that was essential for our data analysis. It was quite traumatic to my post-doc mentor when we finally convinced him we needed to upgrade for Y2K, but he still clings to one last Mac Plus. They were painfully slow, but still running (we put a sign up over it, something like, "I'm slow and stupid, please be patient with me.") But, you know what? That thing could be left on for months and wouldn't crash or freeze or anything. I miss the days when computers were that stable!

 

[hitssquad]

Mac flexibility vs PC flexibility

A lot of reasons for running Macs. They don't become obsolete as quickly as PCs, so actually are pretty cost-efficient (even our G3's are still running current software, while PCs of the same generation are completely obsolete).

How could two artifacts from the same technology category obsolesce at different rates? Could you give an example of a specific Macintosh and a specific x86 PC obsolescing at different rates?

They are far more stable, as in, they don't crash twice daily like PCs.

For 2+ years I have owned one particular Dell Inspiron 4100 laptop running Windows XP SP1. I have used this computer for ~8,000 total hours and have never experienced on it an operating system crash. Do you have some PC vs Mac crash statistics?

And with OSX, even if one program shuts down, you don't lose everything that's open.

Ditto for XP.

Our biggest reason for using Macs, though, is we do a lot of image analysis (a lot of microscopy...the software for our microscope cameras runs on Macs too).

This software is not ported to XP? What brand/model microscope cameras do you use?

Plus, towers take up a lot of space and sit on the floor

PC solutions come in many different form factors. If you don't like towers you can have your students build lanboys or pizza boxes instead. You might even want to get rid of the lab computers and instead hook up the microscope cameras to servers and let the students download the images wirelessly to their laptops. (And if they forgot to grab all the images, leaving them on the server would allow the sudents to download them while they are walking down the street, in a coffeeshop, in another class, etc.)

Here are some all in one PCs. Here are some PCs you can wear. Here is a PC the size of a http://www.ssv-embedded.de/ipc/msvr816.htm .

the all-in-ones aren't that expensive at all.

A typical modern PC can be built by your students for around $200-$300 in parts.

Macs don't catch viruses as easily.

Would you write a virus for an operating system hardly anyone uses? The Mac security model is security through obscurity, not rock solid security.

 

[Dr-NiKoN]

The Mac security model is security through obscurity, not rock solid security.

What obscurity?

You are aware that the various security implementation details of "OS X" both in kernel-space and user-space is open-sourced?

 

[Anttech]

OSX kernal is based on BSD .. AFAIK...

I think what he means by "security model is security through obscurity" is that nobody has written virus for Mac's but this does not mean they are more secure ...

To add to that people also have not proded and tested Mac security to the extent they have UNIX or Windows, thus you could conclude that a Windows or UNIX box would be MORE secure, as vunerabilities are well known (in security circles) unlike Mac's vunerabilities. Thus they are "secure through obscurity"... Not because the OS is written with security in mind...

 

[Adam123]

you could conclude that a Windows or UNIX box would be MORE secure, as vunerabilities are well known (in security circles) unlike Mac's vunerabilities.

what do you mean by that ?
can you paraphrase it again ?

 

[Anttech]

Mac's are "thought" of as more secure because nobody has bothered a great deal to find vunerabilities, thus they are deemed "secure through obscurity" by people who know about security

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/security through obscurity

Windows UNIX and Linux vunerabilities are documented and are well know... so you can patch up against attacks, thus your system will have a better security index (in the long run)

 

[Dr-NiKoN]

Mac's are "thought" of as more secure because nobody has bothered a great deal to find vunerabilities, thus they are deemed "secure through obscurity" by people who know about security

http://computing-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/security through obscurity

Windows UNIX and Linux vunerabilities are documented and are well know... so you can patch up against attacks, thus your system will have a better security index (in the long run)

Uhm?
Let me see if I can get this straight.
Darwin, which is 100% open-sourced, and probably consists of 90% code that also is in other Operating Systems is less secure than those operating systems because it's Mac OS?

Let me ask one question, is OpenBSD more secure than OS X? Let me remind you that there are fewer users of OpenBSD and more security auditing done of OS X code than OpenBSD. OpenBSD has a bigger amount of security trough obscurity than OS X, so OS X has a better "security index" than OpenBSD?

OS X is not less secure just because people are finding fewer security holes in it as compared to Windows, or other operating systems. On the contrary.

If you find a security hole in OS X that only applies to OS X it is either very high-level in the user-interface or very low-level in the Mach3 micro-kernel. All other holes would probably also be applicable to the *BSD's, thus your point about obscurity is kind of mute.

Also, Windows is not better documented than OS X. That's a silly statement. What's better documentation than the source-code?

 

[Anttech]

"If you find a security hole in OS X that only applies to OS X it is either very high-level in the user-interface or very low-level in the Mach3 micro-kernel. All other holes would probably also be applicable to the *BSD's, thus your point about obscurity is kind of mute."

no, it is not mute, as you said BSD has not been probbed as much as other flavours of UNIX / Linux / Windows... Thus the "security through obscurity" of OSx still holds...

Mark or don't mark my words, but a lot of top security sepicalists views on Mac security is changing... and for the worse...

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=How_Secure_Is_OS_X_&story_id=23467

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/256

http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798

http://tonytalkstech.com/2004/07/06/mac-os-x-not-so-secure-according-to-security-statistics/

I am not an OS bigget at all, I just aggree with the fact that OSx is secured through obsecurity... only time will tell... This does not mean that it isn't a very secure OS (currently)...

What I do find interesting is that Mac users are very aggresive towards any critism...This was not directed to you or anyone on this board, but from reading othere boards out there in the WWW

 

[ComputerGeek]

OSX kernal is based on BSD .. AFAIK...

I think what he means by "security model is security through obscurity" is that nobody has written virus for Mac's but this does not mean they are more secure ...

To add to that people also have not proded and tested Mac security to the extent they have UNIX or Windows, thus you could conclude that a Windows or UNIX box would be MORE secure, as vunerabilities are well known (in security circles) unlike Mac's vunerabilities. Thus they are "secure through obscurity"... Not because the OS is written with security in mind...

OS X is as secure (design wise) as BSD is, and BSD has a great security record

 

[Dr-NiKoN]

no, it is not mute, as you said BSD has not been probbed as much as other flavours of UNIX / Linux / Windows... Thus the "security through obscurity" of OSx still holds.

You don't seem to know to much about BSD.

Would you say that something like Solaris or Irix has been probbed more than BSD? What about Linux?
What about Linux vs OpenBSD?
Has Linux been probbed more than OpenBSD? Do you believe that Linux has more users than the *BSD's and OS X combined?

I'm afraid I don't understand this "OS X" has "security trough obscurity" because it's not Windows, linux or "UNIX" statement.

And, no, I'm not beeing aggresive towards criticism of OS X, I'm just disagreeing with your (media-based?) points.

 

[Anttech]

I most probably know more than you... An assumtion like your (very flippant) assumption...

You obviuosly can't comprehend the meaning of "security through obsecurtiy"

I have used FreeBSD... It is a very nice product, and yes it is a secure product. (Or as secure as the sys admin that maintains it)

Yes I would say that Linux is in use more than FreeBSD...

"I'm afraid I don't understand this "OS X" has "security trough obscurity" because it's not Windows, linux or "UNIX" statement."

I didnt say this... reread what I said.. and I stand by my statement, Mac OSx has security through obscurity! I am not saying that a Mac is not a secure platform (CURRENTLY)... But it is only though of as secure because nobody has bothered there arse to try and r00t Mac boxes...

"OS X is as secure (design wise) as BSD is"

Nope that is not true, there is software that is written for Mac OSx but not for FreeBSD, and as you probably know, software has LOTS of security flaws (like buffer overflows)... When implemented correctly BSD is secure, but Mac OSx has lots of nasty services running, straight out of the box...

I am not anti Mac or Pro Mac... I just do not subscribe to the Mac OS is so secure theory... And I aggree more with Hit squad than yourself sorry

 

[Dr-NiKoN]

You obviuosly can't comprehend the meaning of "security through obsecurtiy"

Yes I can, I just don't use it in this new context. And, even if I did, I wouldn't agree with you.

Yes I would say that Linux is in use more than FreeBSD...

That was not the question. The question was: Would you say that Linux is more used than the *BSD's and OS X combined?

But it is only though of as secure because nobody has bothered there arse to try and r00t Mac boxes...

They haven't? How do you know this?
Haven't they tried to "r00t" FreeBSD? Or OpenBSD?
A: Yes.
Does this matter?
A: Yes.

You are asserting that OS X has security trough obscurity, yet Linux hasn't. OS X and mostly any GNU/Linux system will probably share hundreds of thousands lines of code. And, it's here most of the flaws happen.
You are asserting that the Linux kernel has been security audited more than the OpenBSD kernel, FreeBSD kernel, OS X "kernel" etc.

"security trough maturity" would probably be a better term for FreeBSD.
"security trough strict auditing" for OpenBSD.

 

[Anttech]

"Quote:
You obviuosly can't comprehend the meaning of "security through obsecurtiy"

Yes I can, I just don't use it in this new context. And, even if I did, I wouldn't agree with you."

New context? What I am talking about is a VERRRYYY old ideal!

*nix was deemed VERY secure until it got a whole lot more populare... After this it was targeted by crackers by default and studied a lot more... the end result was lots of vunerabilities were exposed...

The way you are talking about OSX is that it is just *bsd... It doesn't even have an X-windows interface... The Microkernal may be based on BSD (totally diluted no doubt)..

And yes I would say *nix is used more than BSD and OSx combined, way more!

 

[Dr-NiKoN]

The way you are talking about OSX is that it is just *bsd... It doesn't even have an X-windows interface... The Microkernal may be based on BSD (totally diluted no doubt)..

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/
The Microkernel is Mach3.

And yes I would say *nix is used more than BSD and OSx combined, way more!

What is *nix if it doesn't include *BSD?

Nevermind, this is getting pointless.

 

[ComputerGeek]

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/
The Microkernel is Mach3.


What is *nix if it doesn't include *BSD?

Nevermind, this is getting pointless.

some how I think that no matter how much you educate him, he will always think what he thinks.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, Windows is not better documented than OS X. That's a silly statement. What's better documentation than the source-code?

I think you misunderstand. "Better documented" means there are more people out there poking and proding looking for weaknesses so we have a better idea of what the weaknesses are. That's a fact.

This is not about whether Windows is intrinsicly more secure than other OS's (I don't think anyone would suggest that it is - you're argument is a non sequitur) - its just simple probability that if 90% of the people who write viruses are PC users, 90% of the viruses out there will be PC viruses.

 

[Dr-NiKoN]

I think you misunderstand. "Better documented" means there are more people out there poking and proding looking for weaknesses so we have a better idea of what the weaknesses are. That's a fact.

No, that is really not a fact.
Are you saying the general "hacker" knows more about IIS than Apache?
No windows service can be better documented to the public than a "OS X" service, simply because the OS X part will be open-sourced. It will also run on a lot of different operating systems(BSD, GNU/Linux etc.).

For IIS you need to poke and prodd, you are fumbling in darkness due to the lack of any source-code. The Apache source-code is openly available. So is the rest of Darwin. How does this make Apache "secure trough obscurity" and IIS not?

its just simple probability that if 90% of the people who write viruses are PC users, 90% of the viruses out there will be PC viruses.

Yes, this I can relate to.
But, this is also true for Linux. Who makes email-viruses for Linux?
I can appreciate the fact that 90% of the world uses Windows, thus anything not Windows has security trough obscurity. I think it's a pretty strange statement, but I can see how someone might assert this.

BUT, when you try to put Linux in the same group as Windows, leaving out the BSD's and OS X, you would be way of base IMO.
From where I stand, the joint efforts of Apple's Darwin Core Team, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD and the usage of theese opearting systems will exceed the same efforts for Linux. Especially since the only thing Linux has going is the Kernel. The "Linux userland"(which doesn't even exist) is a chaotic jungle where very little joint effort is happening. This is also considered to be a somewhat weakness of the Linux plattform. I believe there is a chapter of POSIX that was supposed to handle some of this:
http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std_public/description/posix/1387.2-1995_desc.html

Thus, if OS X has security trough obscurity, so does the Linux distroes, the BSD's and especially the pure UNIX'es(Solaris, HP/UX, Irix. Not even sure if they still have the Unix trademark). The Unix specification seems to mostly be a thing of the past, and I don't really see any value to following it.

And, yet, I would still not say that OS X has security trough obscurity simply because 90% of the world uses Windows.

 

[Anttech]

I still don't think you get the ideal of "security through obsecurity"

"no matter how much you educate him"

I am not being educated here... lol... thanks for your input anyway computergeek

 

[ComputerGeek]

I still don't think you get the ideal of "security through obsecurity"

"no matter how much you educate him"

I am not being educated here... lol... thanks for your input anyway computergeek

your knowledge of computer science might be very high level. you may even be a respected researcher in the field, but you are using a definition for "security through obscurity" that is different than what the colloquial definition and the meaning of the phrase has been since the early 90's.

you are applying the phrase to a market share but you seem to think that Linux is not part of this criticism. the significance between the market share of Mac OS X and Linux is non existent, as are the user land differences that exist below the GUI systems. all the OS X's security problems have existed in GNU/GPL packages or other Open Source Packages like Apache. those holes are not an OS X problem alone. they are a problem of any OS that uses them, including windows.

I think you need to use a different rationalization of the situation.

oh, and as to your hubris, recall that knowledge consists in knowing that you know nothing