Another example of superior Apple hardware

[i4004]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

>Also MacOS encouraged developers to directly patch the OS (extensions), which was extremely dumb from a stability point of view.

hold on...linux does that too!
<wink>

[i4004]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

oups double post

[ratdude747]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

well.. linux is so versatile that you have to do that. its a modular os in a way.

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

Ratdude, you have the right idea, but that's not exactly how the kernels work.

First off, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "dos type monolithic kernel", but lets make one thing perfectly clear: Despite it being a very widespread misconception, Win9x does NOT run on DOS. DOS is used as a bootloader and nothing more. It's the same as GRUB and Linux. GRUB is the bootloader but Linux does not run on GRUB. The Win9x kernel is full 32 bit and takes over everything from DOS and runs as a proper OS. The 16 bit stuff runs in userland. Even a DOS program running in Win9x runs on top of the windows kernel and not the bootloader DOS. It still has proper kernel/user mode separation (explained below), it just doesn't have separate security levels for user accounts. Win9x is a full OS, just not a very good one.

Now, you seem to be a bit confused between users accounts, like root, admin, and the difference between user mode and kernel mode. They are not the same thing.

Both Linux and NT (and 9x) use the same processor privilege modes to separate kernel space and user space. X86 has 4 privilege levels called rings, from 0 to 3. In both Linux and NT ring 0 is used for kernel mode and 3 is used for user mode. Unless the kernel allows it, stuff from ring 3 cannot screw with ring 0. Also, different processes in ring 3 are prevented from screwing with each other. Rings 1 and 2 are not used.

In Linux the kernel is monolithic so every part of the kernel runs in ring 0. Everything else, including root programs run in ring 3.

In Windows NT only the core of the Kernel runs in ring 0 while other parts run in 3. Which parts exactly depends on the version, Vista and above moved more parts from 0 to 3. All users run in ring 3.

User accounts and their processes all run in user mode (ring 3), even root or admin. Root and admin are just special user with more rights granted by the kernel then other users.

In Linux the kernel will do whatever root tells it to which makes it seem like root is running in ring 0, but it's not. The Kernel is just following orders.

In Windows NT, admin is not the same as root. Admin has a lot of power, but not as much as root. The kernel can say no to admin for certain things. The only account that can do anything is called SYSTEM, and is not normally used by a person.

In Windows 9x, every "user" runs as the equivalent of root/SYSTEM, so the kernel will follow orders from anyone. It still has the proper ring 0 / ring 3 separation. It will use this seperation to try to prevent programs from screwing up the kernel and crashing it, but it's just not very good at it.

Now as far as security goes: Win9x obviously has none as it cannot have a less privileged user. However, both NT and Linux are the same here. There is no magical way to bypass this security in NT. While the two kernels are designed differently, one is no more or less secure than the other. Linux and NT are the same here. Sure there have been privilege escalation bugs in NT, but they exist in Linux too. In fact, Linux has had more of this type of bug.

so if kernel= front door to house:

9x = door left wide open

linux= door dead-bolted with little chance of forced entry.

nt= door dead-bolted with a different but equally good brand of dead-bolt with little chance of forced entry.

Seriously, the NT kernel is very very good. It goes back a long way and was properly designed from the beginning. Sure lots of other stuff in windows is crap, but not the NT kernel.

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

hold on...linux does that too!
<wink>

Not the same thing. Linux has dynamic modules which can be loaded into the Kernel, but they have to be built properly to be compatible with the specific Kernel version. If the module isn't made for the specific kernel it won't load and can't screw anything up.

MacOS extensions just crap over whatever they want, kernel or otherwise. Nothing prevents them from seriously screwing with major OS functions.

[ratdude747]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

so mac= no lock on closed door.

but for a dude thats 17, not bad... at least we arnt talking micro-kernels.

[NxB]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

You guys all rag on 98, but at that time what were you supposed to use? Linux was definitely unfriendly, internet was dialup. 98 was pretty decent. I don't remember seeing many 16 bit apps after windows 95 OSR2. In fact, I had more problems with apps that needed real mode dos. They wouldn't run on the 95/98 kernel and you had to reboot to command prompt only.

[i4004]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

>Sure lots of other stuff in windows is crap

like what?
in compariosn to mac and linux, offcourse.
(as i hope we're not talkign about ideal os...heh)

oh yeah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_...rating_systems
ie
http://everything2.com/title/Windows...2520protection

>Not the same thing. Linux has dynamic modules which can be loaded into the Kernel, but they have to be built properly to be compatible with the specific Kernel version. If the module isn't made for the specific kernel it won't load and can't screw anything up.

yeah, but anybody can write the kernel and screw it up.
now it is question would anybody distribute such distro etc. but it's what open source is: encouragment to experiment.
offcourse, i also ment it as a joke...heh

[i4004]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

>You guys all rag on 98, but at that time what were you supposed to use?

nt?
but what about compatibility with older programs?
i see this
"Gates decided that compatibility with the 16-bit Windows API and the ability to run Windows 3.x applications unmodified were NT's paramount goals, in addition to support for portions of the DOS, OS/2, and POSIX APIs."
http://web.archive.org/web/200205031...ArticleID=4494

but was this ever truly realized?
ie could nt run most of older windows(16bit) programs?

this says it could:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q191690/
?

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

so mac= no lock on closed door.

MacOS = Piece of paper with a locked door painted on it hanging in the door frame. It liked to pretend it could play with the big boys, but it was no more sophisticated then DOS. DOS at least didn't try to pretend it could do more than it did.

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

>Sure lots of other stuff in windows is crap

like what?
in compariosn to mac and linux, offcourse.
(as i hope we're not talkign about ideal os...heh)

Windows NT based OSes really aren't that bad. The biggest problem would be how long they kept up with the default user being admin and then kludging UAC to fix that. MS should have put their foot down back at least at Win2K, if not earlier that programs should not need admin access to run properly. So now lots of programs assume admin and wont run as a limited user.

The same problem exists in Linux, but with a different solution. All UINXes have setUID which can make a program automatically run as another user, usually root. Windows has UAC and/or RunAS, but it's not nearly as seamless. The downside is that if any of th setUID programs has a bug (and there are lots of said programs on any normal distro) then the user can exploit them and gain root. That's the main reason Linux has had a fair number of privilege escalation bugs.

oh yeah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_...rating_systems
ie
http://everything2.com/title/Windows...2520protection

I oversimplified a bit. Win9x has memory protection in some cases, but not others. It can protect itself and other applications from certain types of crashes, but not all.

MacOS can't protect itself in any situation. A memory protection error = OS crash 100% of the time on MacOS.

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

but was this ever truly realized?
ie could nt run most of older windows(16bit) programs?

Windows NT could run almost all 16 bit windows programs flawlessly. It had a complete 16 bit subsystem called WOW (Windows on Windows). Basically it loaded a good part of Windows 3.1 and ran it on top of itself. Running WOW meant that almost everything worked, but it used more RAM because it was almost running two versions of windows at the same time. It could also run multiple copies of WOW for multiple 16 bit programs to protect them from each other. Also, the 16 bit WOW does not exist in 64 bit versions of windows.

Win9x didn't need to do this as enough of it's user mode system was 16 bit as to make it unnecessary. This meant it could run 16 bit programs without using as much RAM. The downside is that 16 bit programs had no protection from each other and could crash themselves or the 16 bit parts of windows.

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

You guys all rag on 98, but at that time what were you supposed to use? Linux was definitely unfriendly, internet was dialup. 98 was pretty decent. I don't remember seeing many 16 bit apps after windows 95 OSR2. In fact, I had more problems with apps that needed real mode dos. They wouldn't run on the 95/98 kernel and you had to reboot to command prompt only.

Some DOS apps would run properly if the didn't try to bypass DOS and use the hardware directly.

This points out a big problem for Linux. Back when Windows sucked, Linux was way to hard to use on the desktop. Now Linux is better on the desktop. Problem is, Windows doesn't suck anymore. Windows 7 is awesome. MS got off their asses and made a good OS. XP still has 5 more years to go and is way lighter then any of the "easy" Linux distros, so older PCs can still use that. Vista will just be bypassed by 7 and forgotten. With 7 and XP still around I don't see Linux making any big desktop inroads in the near future.

[i4004]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

>Also, the 16 bit WOW does not exist in 64 bit versions of windows.

yeah, but now you can emulate whole older os...and it will probably run a lot faster than wow on nt....

there was a demo about win7 where lead kernel dev showed it doing very,VERY early versions of windows....
http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...dows-7-minwin/
hihi...

imagine: you can have file created with windows1 and you were keeping it the whole time and now you load it again with emulator...hehe...gotta love that commitment to past windows always had....

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

yeah, but now you can emulate whole older os...and it will probably run a lot faster than wow on nt....

There's no way a full VM could be faster than 16 bit WOW. WOW is smaller than just the software to run a VM! It loads practically instantaneously on anything faster than a 486 and runs 16 bit programs at native speed. With a VM you would have to boot the whole OS. Even if your CPU supports VT there is going to be a bit of slowdown using a VM.

The old Windows versions was impressive. MS does care a alot about backwards compatibility. Win32 will go on for years after 64 bit is everywhere. Only OS that I think does better is solaris and mainframe stuff.

[ratdude747]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

MacOS = Piece of paper with a locked door painted on it hanging in the door frame. It liked to pretend it could play with the big boys, but it was no more sophisticated then DOS. DOS at least didn't try to pretend it could do more than it did.

me

that was a good one!

[KeriJane]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

Wow.

That's a pretty good lesson on OS Kernels.

But why is it in a thread marked "superior Apple Hardware?

Speaking of which, here's the newest Mac Pro......
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html

The pictures do not do it justice. It's an absolute WORK OF ART , inside and out.
Kinda like my old (but still viable) Mac Pro 1.1 but even better!

And let's not forget the "new, new newest" iPod Nano. It's another really, really nice iPod. Does anyone make something even remotely similar?
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/


Grumble and gripe about what you will but Apple is laughing all the way to the bank!

Gonna plug in my Gen3 Nano for a while,
Keri

PS. I think that I'll probably stick with my superior Apple Hardware and Software for awhile.... painted front door and all.

[washu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

Wow.

That's a pretty good lesson on OS Kernels.

But why is it in a thread marked "superior Apple Hardware?

I'm not sure exactly why, but that's where it went.

The OSX kernel is actually closer to the NT one in operation then Linux. The difference is that OSX is closest to a true micro kernel to the point where it hurts performance. Most of the kernel runs in ring 3.

One of the reasons Vista is slower than XP is that the graphics system runs in ring 3 instead of 0 on XP. OSX has run it's graphics (plus lots of other stuff) in ring 3 (or the PPC equivalent) from day one. Running graphics in ring 3 is a good idea on modern PCs because they are so fast. On the slow PPC Macs available when OSX first came out it was a really dumb idea.

Speaking of which, here's the newest Mac Pro......
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html

The pictures do not do it justice. It's an absolute WORK OF ART , inside and out.
Kinda like my old (but still viable) Mac Pro 1.1 but even better!

See, the Mac Pro is the only Mac that has ever been worth the money, assuming you need that kind hardware. Except for the current quad core, it's a ripoff like the rest of Apples machines. For whatever reason, the current gen quad core does NOT have the second CPU socket which would make it worth the premium price. Without that second socket it's no different then any other high end i7 PC which can be had for way less. Here in Canada a base Pro is $2500. My main PC was under $1000 and is faster than the base Pro.

The other problem is that even if the Mac Pro is a good value, for 99% of users it's overkill. Apple doesn't make a decent mid range desktop.

And let's not forget the "new, new newest" iPod Nano. It's another really, really nice iPod. Does anyone make something even remotely similar?
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/

Meh, iPods are OK, but since all the newer ones are stuck using iTunes I'll pass. iTunes is a horrible program and I won't let it exist on any computer I have, even Macs.

Grumble and gripe about what you will but Apple is laughing all the way to the bank!

Apple is doing well now, but they weren't always. Remember the mid to late 90s when Apple was in big trouble? It wasn't bad luck, their product was crap. The point I've been trying to make is that nothing, absolutely nothing that MS and the PC vendors have ever done is as bad as the crap Apple sold in the 90s. Apple has a history of crap way worse than MS and the fanboys ignore it. I look at their history and stay away.

Besides, would you really want Apple to do as well as MS? Apple is just as evil as MS, maybe more so. They just arn't as good at it.

[kc8adu]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

just had a g5 imac in for a recap.its used in a machine shop and has had 5 boards replaced under applecare.its out of warrenty so you guessed it.poof!
too bad this place drank enough of the apple koolaid to be heavily invested in this pretty toy and its software.it has absolutely no place in an industrial environment!

[370forlife]

Re: Another example of superior Apple hardware

just had a g5 imac in for a recap.its used in a machine shop and has had 5 boards replaced under applecare.its out of warrenty so you guessed it.poof!
too bad this place drank enough of the apple koolaid to be heavily invested in this pretty toy and its software.it has absolutely no place in an industrial environment!

Our school's machine shop still has a really old ibm desktop with a 286 that runs windows 3.1, and controls a mini cnc lathe. That has been running in the machine shop since it was bought new by the school for that purpose. No work has been done on it ever.