allez

does anyone know the details on Garmin's suspected Mac compatible release of the Edge software?

DigitalRJH

Don't know. But do you know that you can run Windows XP on the newer iMacs? Then you can use your Edge software on it. So maybe it's time for a computer upgrade as well.

allez

ummmm yeah, i dont think so, id rather spend 2 grand on a new bike......i havent even had my powerbook for a year!!!! i love it.......

allez

plus who would WANT to contaminate a MAC with WINDOWS?

SSP

Anyone who would want to run one of the plentiful and cheap Windows software titles (e.g., the Edge software).

Alternatively, you can wait (and wait) for someone to develop the program(s) you seem to desire.

allez

no thanks......every piece of software i need (sans Edge, which i dont have, so i dont need it) has an equal or better mac equivalent. i have never felt limited because of lack of software. plus i dont need 12 different virus/spyware apps. im set with my mac. and will never go back.

bikalot

Have been in constant contact with Garmin every two weeks for past 3 months about Mac software. They originally were saying "completed in Spring 2006" but last week this shifted to "started in March 2006 now due at end of 2006." Big raspberry to them. While I intend to get a new intel mac sometime in next year, I don't want to HAVE to do it to run this one stupid piece of software. Ugh.

patentcad

Here's a newsflash for Windows Weenies:

• The new Intel chip Macs can boot either Windows XP or the Mac OS. Shareware called Boot Camp. So running Windows software is possible now. From all accounts relatively easy to install and run.

• A program will be commercially available shortly (currently in Beta) that will ALLOW YOU TO RUN WINDOWS ON YOUR MAC DESKTOP along with your Mac OS. It's called Parallel and should be ready for prime time by July or August.

In the meantime if you're happy with Windows, enjoy. We have 5 computers in my office, including a Dell. The latter has been a PAPERWEIGHT without the ability to interface with our wireless router (i.e. no Internet connectivity) for over a year. All the combined tech support wisdom (albeit INDIAN widsom in many cases) of Dell, the network card company and Microsoft AND a paid in-office computer consultant have been unable to unfarkle this machine. But why bother? We bought it two years ago to interface with our clients in the event they had something we needed a Windows machine for. WE HAVE NEVER NEEDED IT ONCE.

So, yes it's a Windows world. And people buy Hummers too. Go figure.

And by the way, Bill Gates makes even MORE money with this scenario as Macheads buy Windows XP at FULL RETAIL to install on their Macs.

One other note: I'm happy to report that Apple has PULLED OUT of their commitment to establish a tech support center in India and laid all the workers there off. Apparently they did get the message that the cultural gap between the West and the Third World may too great to ensure customer satisfaction with expensive high end tech products. Quick, somebody tell these Windows-centric hardware/software companies the news. My experience in speaking with those Indian support 'techs' was that they often sounded like newbies reading from scripts.

DigitalRJH

The one thing about running XP on a Mac, it will run faster and smoother than running it on a PC. I think that boot camp is a great feature, no question Macs are far superior in stability, security, and in some cases, speed (the new Core Duo's); but you only have 2 choices for some software that only runs on Windows, wait and wait until the Mac version is released, or run it on XP on your Mac. The only time you need to use it is when you are running that particular software.

shoerhino

What hardware on a Mac would allow XP to run faster and smoother? Intel made the Core Duo chip and it available for both Mac and PC computers. If they use the same processor and run the same software (windows XP), how is the MAC hardware any faster?

Mac's OS security is a not a product of great code writing. In fact, the security of a Mac is seldom tested. As far as I know, there has been a handful of virus written for a Mac. If you house is never broken into, it doesn't mean it's secure. You just might live in a good neighborhood. Either way, the security is better, but only because a virus written for a Mac would affect fewer people and in all honesty, this is probably the same reason companies seem to lag behind in writing software for the Mac.

Macs have their place in life and are good machines, but I think that their case gets overstated. They could be the greatest computers ever but if fewer companies write software that is compatable with Macs, you won't be able to run the applications you want. Several of the larger applications are written for both PC and Mac but most of the smaller scale software is written for either one platform or the other.

What I find most interesting is that in the 80's, Mac refused to allow licensed clones of their computers because they thought it would hurt their business and now their computers are essentially turning into expensive PC clones.

BillyBob

Better yet, e-mail garmin and tell them that you are not buying their products until they support the Macintosh.

They may decide to tell you to buy windows for your mac rather than spend their own money to make software that they should have made years ago.

Tarmac_Editor

I think a big part of the Mac's freedom from viruses has been because there's less of them out there, but OS X IS more secure from the ground up because it does not allow you to automatically sign in as root or admin as Windows does so it requires every piece of software installed on your system to be authorized to install by admin password. So trojans and viruses that might show up on your PC and install themselves without your knowledge can't happen on OS X. There are vunerabilities, and the more popular the Mac gets the more they'll be found out, but simply requiring passwords for installation of software is a major leap in security over XP.

allez

wow. i dont think ive ever heard a more false statement. clones?
two questions for you then:
1- have you ever used (or SEEN for that matter) a Macintosh?
2- do you know the definition of the word "clone?"
just curious.

shoerhino

Yes, I've seen and used a Macintosh. Never seen one running XP though.

A PC clone is a computer that is built with comparable parts that is capable of running the same set of software as the larger group of IBM Compatibles. If a Mac contains similar hardware (which aligns more every day) with PC's and is starting to run similar software (XP), in my opinion, it's becoming a PC clone. Mac's are not PC clones today, but they aligning themselves closer and closer to the PC market. Their OS may continue for a time, but I don't think it will go on forever. If anything, I think that their commitment to use Intel chips and their support for Boot camp shows the direction that Apple is heading. How is the statement that Macs are turning into clones false?

As for the security, I have no in depth knowledge of programming and what makes it more secure than other operating system but of the technology articles I've seen, several have said that Macs are only secure because they are not targets for virus writers.

"The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms.… If this situation was to change, in my opinion, things could be a lot worse on Mac OS X than they currently are on other operating systems, regarding security vulnerabilities," said Archibald. (wirtten January 2006)

https://www.zdnet.com.au/news/securit...9234678,00.htm

Third, this isn't the right forum to debate this. Maybe we can get this thread moved to foo?

knary

Garmin is supposedly releasing OS X software within the calendar year. When exactly, no one seems to know.

OS X is more secure from the ground up. The author of the article suggesting that it isn't is a security consultant who is, IMO, trying to drum up business. It's like asking a car salesman if you should buy a new car. No one else has stepped forward to back his claims or to take advantage of the exploits he hints at. Remember, while Macs are a relatively small part of the market (4% or so), that's still a body of many many millions of machines that are used by a relatively affluent segment of the population.

patentcad

The degree to which shoerhino just doesn't get it is rather astonishing. Suffice it so say that we'll all see Macs (which have been a better mousetrap for 20 years) start to increase market share. It's happening already. Any temporary glitch in this trend is purely due to Apple's switch to Intel processors - and things will pick up by next year again.

No skin off my news weenies. I've been running my business on Macs since 1991. In a Windows world. ALL my clients have Windows. Our compatibility issues with them? Zero. Our inability to get software that accomplishes our business needs? Zero. Our issues with viruses, etc.? Zero.

And now this whole 'but they don't write that for the Mac' issue would appear to be dead. Any weenie who WANTS Windows on a Mac (which is a bit hard to figure in the first place, but it happens, particularly in specific business applications) can INSTALL Windows on a Mac and run it just about as fast as on a Dell or HP. I'm trying to see the big downside here (other than somewhat higher initial hardware/software costs which many of us see as a no-brainer given the advantages) but it's not happening.

babetski

Empirically it has been shown that platforms and software that were hailed as more secure by the security community were, when they were put through the same level of intensive study and rigorous attack, found to be only a moderate improvement at best. Examples: Linux and Firefox. I don't recall the body at the moment, but it may have been the ISC, retracted a statement made a year ago that Firefox had significant security improvements compared with Internet Explorer. Upon further scrutiny, the number of security bugs was found to be much higher than previously reported and the discrepancy was attributed to the fewer number of attacks being pointed toward the browser.

Mac has two key security points: The first is that it is a severely bastardized, distant relative of what was once-upon-a-time a BSD kernel, and the second is security through obscurity. While the first may provide some lasting benefits as BSD has been put through a number of security rigors and performed well, security through obscurity may be a temporary status.

First time somebody writes a big worm for the Mac, a lot of users are going to double take and realize that it can happen to them.

If you like the system, that's great. If you like another system, that's cool as well. Just know the the evidence shows that historically, no system is safe and it doesn't do you much good to have a "slightly more secure" system because eventually someone breaks it just to prove they can and then its a wide open door again.

knary

IOW,
We can't know for certain how much more secure OS X is than, say, windoze. The empirical evidence strongly suggests that a mac is essentially infinitely less likely to get a virus than a windoze machine. Will that change IF someone writes a successful virus/worm for OS X? Certainly. But despite news reports to the contrary, we really are still waiting for that day. Right now the conjecture about the security of the OS is akin to talking about how earthquake proof a house in Minnesota is.

patentcad

I've given this quite a bit of thought and it occurs to me:

in the hacker culture wouldn't the fact that Mac OS X is considered 'virus free' be like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull? Wouldn't the ultimate badge of hacker honor be to write a virus that infects Macs via the Internet overnight and makes news headlines? I would imagine that might overshadow the Mac's small 2-3% market share to a large extent.

That's why I think there IS something to the Mac OS being harder to hack. Now watch some hacker reads this post and goes on a Mac-Attack : ).

babetski

Yes and no. Even within the "hacker community" there is a vast level of difference between those who know the details of the systems they're working with and those who can run programs somebody else wrote(arguably the latter are not part of the community, as it were). OS X is a very closed system(as is Windows but some portions of Windows are built on very old code and, as mentioned many times, it is just more common) and that means fewer people are looking at it as deeply and of those who are, fewer of them are as good.

Moreover, OS X is not an industry workhorse. What this means is that companies are rarely using Macs on the desktop and almost never in the back room for the servers and data systems. These targets are much more interesting than your home PC for a variety of reasons and because they are Windows, UNIX or Linux based 99% of the time or greater(again, corporate market share) Mac isn't on the radar.

babetski

Returning from the OS security fork that's happened and despite that I have little or no interest in Macs: Has anybody inquired with motionbased.com whether they plan to put out a Mac-based client? It doesn't seem terribly complicated and a good bit of the functionallity is duplicated.

Additionally, has Garmin published the protocol information for the Edge? If that is open, one could write one's own applet to deal with motionbased.com.