nevermind1331 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I, along with many others, found myself recently wishing this would become a reality. However, i thought the other day. if the Windows API is implemented how would OSX prevent windows viruses and spyware from running. Would they infect the system? My guess would be some, but not others, though i cant be sure. Does anyone with better knowledge than i know the answer? (obviously no one can be sure since we cannot know how apple would implement this.) Personally, if it means being OSX open to windows viruses and spyware (more the latter actually, believe it or not) then it isn't worth it to me. With all the talk of a new kernel (speculation i know) i hope apple can find a proper filter for the windows world. In with the good, out with the bad. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superhai Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 As you say this will be implementation-specific. Many viruses uses bugs or weaknesses in the api which can also be avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harshboy Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 To me its worth it because im not a retard who downloads Microsoft Office 2003.exe and installs it when its only 53 kb I have Mcaffe on my Dell (ok, my hackndell) and when i scanned for a virus (one year after i got my compy) it found 2 harmfulless PUPs, which was actually Just my ISP browser modifying the IE UI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind1331 Posted July 14, 2006 Author Share Posted July 14, 2006 To me its worth it because im not a retard who downloads Microsoft Office 2003.exe and installs it when its only 53 kb I have Mcaffe on my Dell (ok, my hackndell) and when i scanned for a virus (one year after i got my compy) it found 2 harmfulless PUPs, which was actually Just my ISP browser modifying the IE UI i am the same, i have found maybe one virus in my past five years. But would i ever feel safe without antivirus and antispyware in windows. Nope. But in OSX im perfectly fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 To me its worth it because im not a retard who downloads Microsoft Office 2003.exe and installs it when its only 53 kb I have Mcaffe on my Dell (ok, my hackndell) and when i scanned for a virus (one year after i got my compy) it found 2 harmfulless PUPs, which was actually Just my ISP browser modifying the IE UI Well, it is only 53K, so it's more than worth a shot, Now in all seriousness, a Windows system without virus scanning and firewalls is like going to the junior prom with dental headgear firmly in place. Within twelve minutes, you'll be laughed out of the building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNap Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I think the differences between OS X and Windows would keep viruses from doing any major damage. OTOH, I think the possibility may be good for some people who are otherwise naively saying, "I'm on a Mac so I don't have to worry about anything." *shrug* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U.C. Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 In simple words no. Coz it wouldnot find the Windows directory and required files to infect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_the_killer Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 I suppose NO.... coz its not the product/part manufactured by Microsoft....LOL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind1331 Posted July 17, 2006 Author Share Posted July 17, 2006 but, like wine, apple would have to create a psuedo directory correct?, could viruses find this directory since its most likely that apps would run from it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenVa Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 First, The only way i can see apple building a Win32 wrapper for OSX is if it is based of wine.... I'm not saying they are not able to, more of it would be an unpractical Price over Pay ratio. WINE took 13 years with hundereds of programmers to get where it is now, and it is nowhere near what apple would really need to include with MacOS 10.5. Now, If apple used a system like wine (or something based off wine... which is more likely.)... Then some viruses will work... and most spyware, but the viruses will only be able to attack the win exe and directorys, unless they are designed to attack the osx running under wine... So again the virus will need to be programmed with osx in mind. In theroy spyware should run just aswell as in windows (again if the api wrapper is like wine)... but this would mean that spyware scanners and virus scans could work aswell(they do in wine). I think i wouldn't mind a win32 api wrapper in osx... if and only if i could easily see what apps are running under it. (there should only be a few... and it should be easy to tell what is spyware or a virus) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind1331 Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 actually, the implementation could be entirely different from wine. there is some speculation that apple has rights to use the actual windows api (whereas wine cant) and implement it directly from the kernel. obviously all speculation, but definitely would be an interesting development. but then again, i think us mac switchers are finding new mac programs to suit our needs every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Apple works with Microsoft in making Virtual PC work as fast (pokey) as it currently does. Why would Apple want to kill that in order to go it alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I really don't want any kind of windows api implmentation within OS X because it will just deter developers from creating superior mac alternatives to windows programs and we'll have to rely on (probably) poorly performing windows versions. To be honest i don't see this really happening though - i think it's just one of those "if the community wishes enough for it, then it must be true" falacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinx89x Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I bet if Apple even does decide to do something like this then the windows programs that would be running in OS X will not be running off of the OS X partition anyways. The only way this would even be legally possible is if there is a seperate Windows partition and OS X has a way running the programs from the Windows partition on the Mac. In this case, if a virus did infect the system, then it would infect the Windows filesystem. I can almost guaruntee you that Micro$oft would never allow Apple to run Windows apps nativly off of their own filesystems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 the capability of running a majority of the applications available today is the advantage windows has over os x. so i think that even if adding windows apis to leopard brings a lot of viruses, it will lead to more companies using osx for business because they will have compatibility with their old windows apps and will be easily migrated. so when you think about it, depending on how compatible these apis are, a LOT of people may switch from windows and use osx because there will be no need for windows. but like unstable connection said, most viruses won't work seeing as they are written to infect a windows file system, but i'm sure that viruses will eventually be written for leopard though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 IF this ever happened - and i don't see it - then windows programs would probably be isolated from the rest of the system in a sandbox, they would not have direct access to memory or system files etc so the possibility of a virus doing much harm would be limited. If this was going to be a leopard feature it would have certainly been shown at WWDC (theres no reason to hide that from microsoft afterall!) but it wasn't. It's just a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrupted Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 IF this ever happened - and i don't see it - then windows programs would probably be isolated from the rest of the system in a sandbox, they would not have direct access to memory or system files etc so the possibility of a virus doing much harm would be limited.If this was going to be a leopard feature it would have certainly been shown at WWDC (theres no reason to hide that from microsoft afterall!) but it wasn't. It's just a myth. So you're saying it would possibly be implemented like a Windows version of Classic? That'd be neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts