Post by: Smash_Brother on July 01, 2006, 12:10:33 AM
The PC is and always will be the 4th console, but that whole issue up and blew away when Apple decided to drop THIS into their OS..
In case you missed all of the commercials, all new Macs are running on Intel components. Someone at Apple must have realized that this means you can effectively run Windows XP and beyond NATIVELY on your Mac. This isn't emulation, it's the Windows OS running right off of the Mac's internal hardware.
I tested it with UT2K4: maxed all of the settings, full lighting, texture detail, the works, and it runs PRISTINE. Some part of me expected it to run like crap for some reason, but it was flawless. In many cases, the PC build of a game will probably run better than the Mac build because the original hardware it was designed for was typically Intel hardware.
I don't know if anyone is considering a Mac or considering a NEW Mac, but I just wanted to attest to the fact that Boot Camp does INDEED work.
Now I can get Prey and Gears of War without having to pick up a 360...
Post by: Spak-Spang on July 01, 2006, 04:54:14 AM
My next computer is definately a MAC now.
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 01, 2006, 05:22:36 AM
Post by: KnowsNothing on July 01, 2006, 06:10:36 AM
Post by: capamerica on July 01, 2006, 06:48:40 AM
Anyway BootCamp is one of the greatest add-ons for the Gamin Community, Now we can use a Mac for EVERYTHING. Well except for getting Hacked, Viruses and Spyware. But those are things I don't really want anyway.
The Only reason I still own a PC is for gaming, But now with Apple using Intel and the release of BootCamp my next computer will be a new MacBook Pro. Guess its time to retire my PowerBook.
@KnowsNothing, Oh come on thous adds tell the truth and their very funny.
Heres one they should make for the Pirate Community (from Apple Matters):
Mac: Hi I'm a Mac.
PC: Hi I'm a PC.
Mac: What are you doing, PC?
PC: I’m stealing Cars off a torrent site. I’m good at that.
Mac: Oh, I’m going to get a copy of X-Men III, Macs can get stuff off torrents too, you know.
PC: I thought you guys were too "good" for that sort of thing?
Mac: I’m a computer, not a philosophy.
PC: Got it!
Mac: I’m done too.
PC: Well let’s see what you got!
Mac: (opens film can): Ah, just some Windows file pretending to be a movie.
PC: (opens film can, can explodes)
Mac: Well, if you’re going to steal, you might as well do it safely.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 01, 2006, 08:33:45 AM
Just what the Mac platform needed: The ability to turn your overpriced computer into a Windows box. Great. I'm sure that's what the world was waiting for. Perhaps I'd care if they allowed Windows to run inside a sandbox in OSX so you don't have to reboot each time you want an application from the other OS.
Well you'll be able to play Pray without a Xbox360
I'm sure the church would be quite upset if that was not the case. PREY
Post by: capamerica on July 01, 2006, 08:49:52 AM
But for now BootCamp will get rid of my PC which still makes me happy.
Post by: Ceric on July 01, 2006, 09:13:19 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 01, 2006, 09:17:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing After those arrogant and disgusting comercials, I have no desire to ever touch a Mac. Plus, I hate them anyway. But I don't want to get into any holy wars, Mac vs. PC is worse than Nintendo vs. Sony.
The commercials are intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator which, in case you're an optimist, is actually most of the world. It's not that Apple enjoys insulting people's intelligence (that only earns them hatred), it's that most people are literally just too DUMB to understand a commercial which addresses anything technical (like something you or I would understand).
So, in lieu of that, they have a heavy-set unattractive guy representing the PC and a thin, good-looking kid representing the Mac because they know this will allow even the dumbest of the dumb to understand what they're trying to communicate.
As for the holy wars, they're over. Windows runs on Macs now. What's left to argue? The merits of AMD components? If you don't like the Mac OS, it's not like anything I say will persuade you to do so but since Macs run windows natively, it's only now a question of cost and preference.
And Cap, are you 100% on that?
Quote
A PC version of Gears of War has been confirmed by Epic Games, possibly featuring some bonus content not seen in the Xbox 360 version. However, with the PC port not taking place until after the Xbox 360 version's release (expected in late 2006), its likely that we won't see Gears on the PC until 2007.
Source
I know it's a year later, but it seems it will be out for the PC at some point.
Quote
Just what the Mac platform needed: The ability to turn your overpriced computer into a Windows box. Great. I'm sure that's what the world was waiting for. Perhaps I'd care if they allowed Windows to run inside a sandbox in OSX so you don't have to reboot each time you want an application from the other OS.
Actually, yes it IS just what it needed: the ability to run Windows like a side car so anyone who was thinking of getting a Mac but always said, "I still need Windows..." can suddenly have both.
And the next version is rumored to do just that: run two simultaneous operating systems so you can boot applications from either one seamlessly.
I buy Macs because they're goddamn rocks: they never crash, never get viruses, never get spyware, never need to be defragged, and never need to be reformatted (MS actually recommends you reformat your PC and reinstall Windows once every 3 months).
You get what you pay for. The extra money I put in on a Mac purchase is insurance that, months down the road, I won't have the thing fail on me during a time when it's absolutely crucial and I won't have to pour HOURS of time into its regular maintenance just so its performance doesn't degrade as it gets fragmented and filled with viruses and spyware. My life is hectic enough as it is: I can't AFFORD that kind of bullsh*t from my computers.
I've dealt with XP a great deal already. If my computers were only that reliable, I wouldn't entrust them with anything.
Post by: capamerica on July 01, 2006, 09:25:21 AM
For me that ad was dead on accurate with my experience with PCs and Macs.
I guess your just one of the few Windows users who hasn't had a pain in the ass time getting devices to work with Windows. Hell the wireless Keyboard I had to hook up was a bloody MS keyboard. Yet when I plugged it into my Mac it just worked with no need to install drivers.
Post by: capamerica on July 01, 2006, 09:37:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherAnd Cap, are you 100% on that?Quote
A PC version of Gears of War has been confirmed by Epic Games, possibly featuring some bonus content not seen in the Xbox 360 version. However, with the PC port not taking place until after the Xbox 360 version's release (expected in late 2006), its likely that we won't see Gears on the PC until 2007.
Source
I know it's a year later, but it seems it will be out for the PC at some point.
IGN, GameSpot, Epic Games, GameFAQs, GameInformer, and 1Up all have it listed as Xbox360 only.
That artical is misleading, it wasn't Epic that said anything about a PC version is was MS's J Allard. Epic just said it Might happen.
From Mark Rein of Epic Games:
Gears of War is an Xbox360 exclusive. We're developing it specifically to take advantage of the power and features of the console. All of the work on Gears between now and when we ship is toward creating the ultimate Xbox360 game.
Could we, in the future, adapt Gears for Windows just as Microsoft did with Halo? Sure we could and, as you can see from J Allard's comments, Microsoft is clearly cool with that idea. But we're a long way off from thinking about that. Right now our only goal is to make Gears one of the "must have" titles for Xbox360 and judging by reaction to our relatively early showing at E3 we're well on our way toward achieving that. One major web site, 1UP.com, already voted us their Best Xbox360 Game in their Best of E3 roundup!
And even if it does happen It will most likley not happen for at least 2+ years and they will most likely pull the same BS they are doing with Halo2 and making it Vista Only.
Post by: Ceric on July 01, 2006, 12:05:47 PM
Capamerica: I wish I had your luck with Accesories being hooked to the Mac. I'm very surprised about that on the Windows side. XP is really good about having devices come up.
Post by: RiskyChris on July 01, 2006, 02:56:39 PM
I'll take building my own pc over macs for the not so near future.
Post by: Kairon on July 01, 2006, 03:15:09 PM
*swoon*
...and guess what it runs? ... LINUX!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 01, 2006, 09:11:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
...and guess what it runs? ... LINUX!
Holy sh*t, that thing is AWESOME....
Post by: KDR_11k on July 02, 2006, 02:31:54 AM
I like your jab at BeOS there.
Actually, yes it IS just what it needed: the ability to run Windows like a side car so anyone who was thinking of getting a Mac but always said, "I still need Windows..." can suddenly have both.
But that would mean you'd only run Windows on it anyway (why would you reboot back into OSX when you have to go into Windows pretty quickly anyway?) and there's no incentive to make OSX native programs since you can just make everything for Windows and cover both Windows and Macs.
I buy Macs because they're goddamn rocks: they never crash, never get viruses, never get spyware, never need to be defragged, and never need to be reformatted
Nice. MY PC does the same.
You get what you pay for. The extra money I put in on a Mac purchase is insurance that, months down the road, I won't have the thing fail on me during a time when it's absolutely crucial and I won't have to pour HOURS of time into its regular maintenance just so its performance doesn't degrade as it gets fragmented and filled with viruses and spyware. My life is hectic enough as it is: I can't AFFORD that kind of bullsh*t from my computers.
Macs are an attempt to make computers foolproof. The universe will just invent better fools and spyware and viruses will be on the Mac too. Sure you need to enter an admin password but that's what the better fools are for: A bit of social engineering and they'll do anything. Viruses are distributed in encrypted zips these days with instructions how to decrypt them, if fools do THAT fools will do anything.
Of course there are exploits in Windows but most likely there are exploits in any OS so you should NEVER neglect basic security practices. If you aren't stupid you won't catch any malware on a PC.
Post by: Kairon on July 02, 2006, 02:43:14 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 02, 2006, 07:27:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k But that would mean you'd only run Windows on it anyway (why would you reboot back into OSX when you have to go into Windows pretty quickly anyway?) and there's no incentive to make OSX native programs since you can just make everything for Windows and cover both Windows and Macs.
Aside from Macs which are 7 years old and are still supported by Apple's current OS and run those apps (only the new ones can run windows), Mac apps are made because Mac users still prefer to use OSX but want to be able to have windows as an option in case they need it for whatever reason (it's games, games are the only thing you can do on the PC better than you can on the Mac).
Quote
Nice. MY PC does the same.
Bullsh*t.
Sorry, I've installed Spy Sweeper on far too many WinXP PCs and seen the results to believe you. In the case of XP, either you take steps to protect the operating system via 3rd party programs and run a HD defragging utility or the installation gradually goes to hell. I'm not talking about scheduling regular maintenance under Norton, I'm talking about taking it out of the box, plugging it in, and that's the last thing you need to go out of your way to do to ensure it runs for years afterwards without a hitch (ok, so it asks for my password before it downloads software updates in the background, but I don't need to install 3rd party software without which it will eventually become slow as hell and buggy).
Quote
Macs are an attempt to make computers foolproof. The universe will just invent better fools and spyware and viruses will be on the Mac too. Sure you need to enter an admin password but that's what the better fools are for: A bit of social engineering and they'll do anything. Viruses are distributed in encrypted zips these days with instructions how to decrypt them, if fools do THAT fools will do anything.
Universe is behind schedule. I've been running OSX since half a year after the first version was released and I've yet to suffer any spyware or viruses. If what you were saying is true, I should have had to rebuild from a virus attack at least once in the 4-5 years I've run OSX. Hasn't happened.
Quote
Of course there are exploits in Windows but most likely there are exploits in any OS so you should NEVER neglect basic security practices. If you aren't stupid you won't catch any malware on a PC.
You catch "malware" because the Windows OS is poorly programmed and is full of literally thousands of holes and exploits. It has nothing to do with how stupid the user is. I just don't think a computer should need to be given regular maintenance when it can be perfectly capable of sustaining itself without failure. Windows suffers these problems because it's poorly made, no other reason.
I've neglected basic security practices for 5 years and I've never had an issue, having never installed even one application to "protect" my Mac. Let's see an installation of XP which can survive even a YEAR with no anti-virus or spyware utility, no defragging and no FIREWALL.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 03, 2006, 04:54:29 AM
Yes but it's cheaper to not make a OSX port and maintain that. The small number of Mac users who won't buy your product because of that won't make enough money for you to make the port worthwile.
Bullsh*t.
Sorry, I've installed Spy Sweeper on far too many WinXP PCs and seen the results to believe you. In the case of XP, either you take steps to protect the operating system via 3rd party programs and run a HD defragging utility or the installation gradually goes to hell. I'm not talking about scheduling regular maintenance under Norton, I'm talking about taking it out of the box, plugging it in, and that's the last thing you need to go out of your way to do to ensure it runs for years afterwards without a hitch (ok, so it asks for my password before it downloads software updates in the background, but I don't need to install 3rd party software without which it will eventually become slow as hell and buggy).
The first, obvious step is to let IE (and Outlook if you're using an email client) kick the bucket and use Opera (most govts already issued warnings saying that so it should be expectable). Second obvious step is to use a firewall (if you put any computer on the net without a firewall in between you're stupid) like the NAT provided by any router or even a firewall employed by your ISP. Then the only spyware you can get is from software you install. Surprise, when you install stuff you usually have superuser privileges and spyware could crap all over your kernel. Of course Macs have security through obscurity right now but as any sane person could tell you, security through obscurity is no security at all.
A quick spyware scan came up as clean as it was on the first day (and every subsequent day). Sure, a few tracking cookies but you can't tell me that's an OS problem. Virus scans were clean all the time. Comparison: My sister and father are stupid users and they regularly catch viruses and spyware (from the warez they download).
Universe is behind schedule. I've been running OSX since half a year after the first version was released and I've yet to suffer any spyware or viruses. If what you were saying is true, I should have had to rebuild from a virus attack at least once in the 4-5 years I've run OSX. Hasn't happened.
That's because noone can be bothered to write software for Macs, even hackers.
You catch "malware" because the Windows OS is poorly programmed and is full of literally thousands of holes and exploits. It has nothing to do with how stupid the user is. I just don't think a computer should need to be given regular maintenance when it can be perfectly capable of sustaining itself without failure. Windows suffers these problems because it's poorly made, no other reason.
No you catch malware because the superuser made a mistake. In most cases the superuser is the only user and people can't be bothered to set up a proper LPU account for everyday use. Granted, Windows lacking su and sudo doesn't make LPU as comfortable as it is under unix derivates but it's possible nonetheless. Sure there is privilege escalation but the only reason I've never seen anyone do that on a Mac is because I've never seen anyone using a Mac in a multiuser environment.
I've neglected basic security practices for 5 years and I've never had an issue, having never installed even one application to "protect" my Mac. Let's see an installation of XP which can survive even a YEAR with no anti-virus or spyware utility, no defragging and no FIREWALL.
You could hire a few hackers and they'd show you in five minutes that if Macs were worth targeting they'd own that system (if Macs were unhackable, don't you think people would use them for all security-critical applications?). Even NASA programs have bugs and those are checked hundreds of times per line and have formal proof for everything. If someone bothered to dig enough he'd find a weakness.
You should talk as badly as you can about Apple publicly, you don't want Apple to get a decent marketshare or you'd find your computer turned into a spambot within five seconds of turning on the internet connection.
Post by: capamerica on July 03, 2006, 05:43:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
You could hire a few hackers and they'd show you in five minutes that if Macs were worth targeting they'd own that system (if Macs were unhackable, don't you think people would use them for all security-critical applications?). Even NASA programs have bugs and those are checked hundreds of times per line and have formal proof for everything. If someone bothered to dig enough he'd find a weakness.
The FBI promotes the fact that OSX is pretty much unhackable. And that they have a love/hate relationship with it. The Love it cause no one can get into their stuff, but they hate it when they are trying to get into someone else's.
Also it should be noted that about 4 years ago Norton offered a $10,000 reward for the first OSX virus. To-date that reward is still unclaimed.
Post by: KnowsNothing on July 03, 2006, 08:03:40 AM
But then there's still the fact that you get less bang for more buck. Even if games can run on them, it doens't mean they run well. A good gaming Mac will cost you a billion times more than a good gaming PC, although I still think "good gaming Mac" is an oxymoron. Plus you can't really update them either, which is sort of a big thing for a gamer.
But if anyone would like to prove me wrong I'd be overjoyed. If Macs weren't weak and overpriced, I'd get one.
Edit: Just to clarify so I don't get raped, macs in general aren't weak. But they are when it comes to games.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 03, 2006, 10:46:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Yes but it's cheaper to not make a OSX port and maintain that. The small number of Mac users who won't buy your product because of that won't make enough money for you to make the port worthwile.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? Only the VERY NEWEST MACS can run Boot Camp. Every Mac sold since 1999 still runs OSX and can run the apps which we're talking about here, including every iMac out there.
Let's stop programming for 90% of the Mac userbase because 10% can run windows. Great idea, and even the 10% who own Intel-based Macs likely own older Macs (like me) and intend to still use those older Macs until they're no longer supported, which looks to not be any time soon.
Quote
The first, obvious step is to let IE (and Outlook if you're using an email client) kick the bucket and use Opera (most govts already issued warnings saying that so it should be expectable).
I prefer Firefox, but why does this seem like common sense? You'd think that the browser which the OS ships with wouldn't need to be replaced because it's full of gaping security holes.
One of the reasons I love Macs is because I can entrust one to ANYONE, no matter how computer illiterate they may be, and once they figure out the basics of the OS, I NEVER HEAR BACK FROM THEM. My aunt used to do all of her eBay listing on a PC which kept dying on her. We gave her a G4 running OSX and it has literally been years since I've had to explain anything to her.
Quote
Second obvious step is to use a firewall (if you put any computer on the net without a firewall in between you're stupid) like the NAT provided by any router or even a firewall employed by your ISP. Then the only spyware you can get is from software you install. Surprise, when you install stuff you usually have superuser privileges and spyware could crap all over your kernel.
Quote
Of course Macs have security through obscurity right now but as any sane person could tell you, security through obscurity is no security at all.
*Cough*
No one's offering $50,000 to write a virus for windows, bucko. I don't care how "obscure" the OS is, when $50,000 is up for grabs and STILL no one has done it, your little "oh, no one cares about viruses for macs!" argument goes right out the window.
Quote
A quick spyware scan came up as clean as it was on the first day (and every subsequent day). Sure, a few tracking cookies but you can't tell me that's an OS problem. Virus scans were clean all the time. Comparison: My sister and father are stupid users and they regularly catch viruses and spyware (from the warez they download).
Thanks for proving my point. My entire argument is that you shouldn't have to take steps to protect computers from the internet and your comment about your father and sister solidifies the fact that Windows out of the box will destroy itself.
Quote
That's because noone can be bothered to write software for Macs, even hackers.
Must be some rich hackers out there if the $50,000 isn't enticing enough, and that's being offered by Symantec, makers of Norton, who would benefit immensely if they could sell Anti-virus software for the Mac.
Quote
Granted, Windows lacking su and sudo doesn't make LPU as comfortable as it is under unix derivates but it's possible nonetheless. Sure there is privilege escalation but the only reason I've never seen anyone do that on a Mac is because I've never seen anyone using a Mac in a multiuser environment.
If you haven't seen a Mac working in a multiuser environment, then you've never been to a college library or computer room and it sounds like you don't have much experience with Macs in general.
Quote
You could hire a few hackers and they'd show you in five minutes that if Macs were worth targeting they'd own that system (if Macs were unhackable, don't you think people would use them for all security-critical applications?). Even NASA programs have bugs and those are checked hundreds of times per line and have formal proof for everything. If someone bothered to dig enough he'd find a weakness.
You keep saying this, and yet you provide absolutely no evidence to back it up (not even a link to a hacker-wannabe site with little 13 year old script kiddîes saying OSX isn't worth hacking).
And five minutes, you say? In that case, those hackers must already make $600,000 an hour to not want to be bothered to take Norton up on their offer (60 minutes / 5 minutes = 12 * $50,000 = $600,000 per hour).
You know what? I'll do your research FOR you: HERE
A Mac OSX trojan. It's not a virus so Norton won't pay them, but if the user opens it, then it can infect files.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 03, 2006, 12:45:34 PM
Post by: Ceric on July 03, 2006, 07:12:05 PM
Edit: Actually officially I still run the server. Though I don't get any hours now.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 04, 2006, 02:06:44 AM
Also I still don't see the point of boot camp. Even if OSX is completely unbreakable you are booting into another OS. You wouldn't get the "advantages" until you make a 100% migration to OSX which you could have done without bootcamp anyway. Linux had a bootloader for decades, that didn't make people pick it up.
If Apple would just remove the DRM that prevents OSX from running on normal PCs they'd lower the barrier of entry much more than bootcamp currently does. You still need a completely new (expensive) computer and a standalone Windows license (most people have OEM versions that cannot be installled on the Mac) if you want to try out a Mac.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 05, 2006, 06:16:22 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 05, 2006, 08:48:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kAlso I still don't see the point of boot camp. Even if OSX is completely unbreakable you are booting into another OS. You wouldn't get the "advantages" until you make a 100% migration to OSX which you could have done without bootcamp anyway. Linux had a bootloader for decades, that didn't make people pick it up.
Like I said, it's games. You hold down the alt key as your computer starts up and you can select between Mac and Windows right off the bat. The only thing I've ever wanted from Windows was some of the games it has access to.
Quote
If Apple would just remove the DRM that prevents OSX from running on normal PCs they'd lower the barrier of entry much more than bootcamp currently does. You still need a completely new (expensive) computer and a standalone Windows license (most people have OEM versions that cannot be installled on the Mac) if you want to try out a Mac.
I have friends who have OSX running on PC hardware. Now that the kernel has been compiled for Intel machines, it wasn't that hard to bring it over.
As for the argument, I don't think there's anything which can stop a trojan if the user opens it themselves. In the case of the Mac trojan, it should be obvious when you download a file which claims to be a bunch of pictures and then clearly isn't. I guess a computer can't defend itself from the stupidity of its user (which, in hindsight, is a bit much to ask anyway).
I maintain about viruses, spyware and defragging, though. I realize that its small marketshare helps to keep OSX from harm, but Apple is very good about fixing exploits like the ones mentioned in the article.
Also...
GUESS AGAIN!
"Schroeder had said he wants to publish some details on the attempts that were made to hack his Mac. The computer was connected to the Net for more than 30 hours, apparently without being compromised. In the earlier challenge, an anonymous hacker claimed he was able to compromise OS X within 30 minutes using an undisclosed vulnerability. However, attackers in that case had been given user-level access to the system rather than being shut out completely."
I should also note that ZDNET is one of the most anti-Apple sites I've ever seen. Even the article I quoted isn't newsworthy and is largely just an attempt to make OSX seem unsafe. And take a gander at THIS piece of hogsh*t.
Basically, the article warns that Mac users are more at risk to social engineering because, for some reason, they're not used to it already, as if the barrage of emails pretending to be their bank or Paypal aren't also sent to Mac users.
The site grasps at straws in a desperate attempt to attack OSX and Mac users. The fact that it published a bullsh*t article and then three whole days later admitted that it was false and yet didn't remove the article says this more than anything.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 05, 2006, 09:12:22 AM
Yes but it's still a reboot. I want my games to start as hassle-free as possible. Never mind that I'd prefer keeping my productivity apps* running while I take a quick gaming break.
I have friends who have OSX running on PC hardware. Now that the kernel has been compiled for Intel machines, it wasn't that hard to bring it over.
Yes but like the PSP firmware Apple tries to disable that with every new patch.
As for the argument, I don't think there's anything which can stop a trojan if the user opens it themselves. In the case of the Mac trojan, it should be obvious when you download a file which claims to be a bunch of pictures and then clearly isn't.
Many users still run the application if the email tells them to and the sender field looks right to them. It is obvious under Windows as well.
I maintain about viruses, spyware and defragging, though. I realize that its small marketshare helps to keep OSX from harm, but Apple is very good about fixing exploits like the ones mentioned in the article.
I don't klnow what definition of virus you use but the one I have includes the kind that propagates via email or attaching to binaries. Spyware is the same, it attaches to legitimate applications and the OS can't do anything about that. Defragging, dunno. Since when is that necessary? I never bother with it.
However, attackers in that case had been given user-level access to the system rather than being shut out completely.
Which is a good simulation of the environment a trojan would be in and with the privilege escalation anyone, even an underprivileged user in a multiuser environment could trigger it.
*= Most likely mod tools
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 05, 2006, 09:58:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Yes but it's still a reboot. I want my games to start as hassle-free as possible. Never mind that I'd prefer keeping my productivity apps* running while I take a quick gaming break.
They plan to have the application set up so it will run a simultaneous copy of both OSes.
But in the meantime, I do enjoy the fact that I can, after finishing work, switch over to windows and play games if I so desire. I refuse to use anything except OSX, but I don't want to have to keep a gaming PC around so that I can play PC games. You don't own a Mac so you don't know this problem. It's needing one less piece of hardware and, when we're talking about a laptop where carrying around two of them isn't an option, Boot Camp is a godsend for anyone wanting to play games.
Quote
Yes but like the PSP firmware Apple tries to disable that with every new patch.
I don't blame them. They're not ready to mass-market OSX to the PC hardware market and I'm not yet sure they want to because the Mac works so well because Apple controls all of the components which go into the computers. Opening the floodgate would either require Apple to write and maintain drivers for every piece of hardware which might go into their computers or leave them up to 3rd party developers which make the products.
I've owned a few 3rd party devices for the Mac and the provided drivers have typically been awful.
Quote
Many users still run the application if the email tells them to and the sender field looks right to them. It is obvious under Windows as well.
Like I said, user stupidity can't be helped, but it can be curbed. The definition of dumb windows users vs. dumb mac users, as per YOUR example, was that a win user would need to install a different browser right off the bat. The forgivable nature of the mistake, in this case, is a quantifying variable: I wouldn't blame someone for not knowing that software which comes with the system is unsafe. In the case of a Mac, you have to bring in unsafe software manually. IE being one giant security risk is, IMHO, unacceptable.
Quote
I don't klnow what definition of virus you use but the one I have includes the kind that propagates via email or attaching to binaries. Spyware is the same, it attaches to legitimate applications and the OS can't do anything about that. Defragging, dunno. Since when is that necessary? I never bother with it.
And as of yet, I know of no virus which has been able to do this with OSX. The trojan I linked to required the user to open it. There were even security issues where people would attempt to name trojans as "safe" files and Apple cracked down on that.
There have been issues of viruses which OSX users could pass to their PC using friends via forwarding email, though.
As for defragging, I'm unsure if XP does it in the background, but I remember that fragmented HDs were a thorn in the side of every PC user pre-XP and every Mac user pre-OSX 1.4 or so.
Quote
Which is a good simulation of the environment a trojan would be in and with the privilege escalation anyone, even an underprivileged user in a multiuser environment could trigger it.
We're not talking about a trojan here: the article you linked was intentionally misleading to make it sound as though someone had broken into an OSX server in 30 minutes which is absolutely not the case. The "hacker" was given a user account and then made his way up to admin access via an exploit which was actually fixed in 2004. The Mac that this guy set up was running a version of OSX from 2+ years ago and probably didn't even have any security updates run on it (which download automatically via Software Update and install after you authorize it to do so with the admin password).
IN OTHER WORDS, the whole thing was set up from the start to make OSX look like it had grievous security flaws which were never fixed when they in fact weren't very grievous at all and WERE fixed years ago.
Windows machines can be hacked easily enough WITHOUT giving the hacker user access beforehand.
Post by: Kairon on July 05, 2006, 11:00:35 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 05, 2006, 11:46:24 AM
Post by: capamerica on July 05, 2006, 07:58:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kYes but like the PSP firmware Apple tries to disable that with every new patch.
Actually Apple isn't as bad as Sony when it comes to patching, Infact Apple has not released a updated that was designed to stop hackers since 10.4.2. While on Sony's end ever update is to stop hackers. All of Apple's patches are used to fix both the Intel version and the PowerPC version. These are needed updates on bother fronts.
After OSX 10.4.3 BETA Apple stopped cracking down on preventing people from installing OSX on a PC. Thou the 10.4.3 update is debatable as to it being designed to stop hackers since It was a core system update and a full system upgrade. The only time Apple cracked down on it was during the time when it was in the news, once it left the front page Apple stopped making it hard to crack.
OSX 10.4.7 (The latest update) was patched and up & running on non-Apple hardware with in a couple hours of its release. When Apple was trying to crack down on the hackers during 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 it took up to a month for them to be cracked. 10.4.2 was the hardest one to be cracked. 10.4.3 was hard too, but not has hard as 10.4.2, 10.4.4 and up were easy.
Alot of people who work in the OSX86 project think Apple is purposely making it easy for us to get OSX up & running on non-Apple hardware. One example of this was the fact that when Apple released the ATI video drivers the drivers supported ALL ATI video cards. This made no sense since about 95% of your ATI cards were never made for Macs. The only thing we lose out on with the older non-Apple version of ATI cards is Quartz Extreme, But even old videocards created before OSX also have this problem so its common on Macs too.
Apple is aware that hackers are working on making OSX run on Non-Apple hardware. And we think they are letting us do this because instead of Apple pouring tons of money and time on developing drivers for non-popular hardware we are creating the drivers for OSX. Nvidia has not released a videocard for Intel Macs yet so there is currently no drivers for Nvidia video cards. But guess what the hacking community has done, They have created drivers for Nvidia video cards. And Apple gave us the tools to do that too.
I'm currently running Mac OSX 10.4.7 on my 3.0Ghz AMD64 on a VNF4/Ultra Zenith VE nForce4 motherboard with 1GB of DDR RAM and a Nvidia GeForce 6200 PCI-E Videocard. I've been running OSX on my PC since August 2005.
If you want to get OSX running on a normal PC all you really need is a AMD or Intel chip that has SSE2 and SSE3(SSE3 is optional) and a legal copy of OSX for Intel and a few patched files (you will need to create a new DVD with the orignal OSX files and the patch files.) I would also cross check on OSX86Project.org to see if your motherboard is supported, there are a few motherboards that don't work which is also something that brings many people to think Apple someday wants OSX on non-Apple hardware. As it stands the only real hardware that has issues with OSX are network cards, its a 50/50 shot with them.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 05, 2006, 10:05:31 PM
I don't blame them. They're not ready to mass-market OSX to the PC hardware market and I'm not yet sure they want to because the Mac works so well because Apple controls all of the components which go into the computers. Opening the floodgate would either require Apple to write and maintain drivers for every piece of hardware which might go into their computers or leave them up to 3rd party developers which make the products.
I've owned a few 3rd party devices for the Mac and the provided drivers have typically been awful.
Considering that faulty drivers are pretty much the only thing that can net you a blue screen on Windows these days (excluding hardware failure and deleting parts of the OS, of course) that does indeed add to OSX's stability. Probably the reason Apple doesn't offer OSX as a standalone OS, it would end up being not much different from every other OS in the market.
And as of yet, I know of no virus which has been able to do this with OSX. The trojan I linked to required the user to open it. There were even security issues where people would attempt to name trojans as "safe" files and Apple cracked down on that.
Once you got a working trojan it's trivial to add email propagation to it. Of course you are required to open it, almost all malware requires you to open it (because remote attacks are too easy to catch and identify).
We're not talking about a trojan here: the article you linked was intentionally misleading to make it sound as though someone had broken into an OSX server in 30 minutes which is absolutely not the case. The "hacker" was given a user account and then made his way up to admin access via an exploit which was actually fixed in 2004. The Mac that this guy set up was running a version of OSX from 2+ years ago and probably didn't even have any security updates run on it (which download automatically via Software Update and install after you authorize it to do so with the admin password).
1. A trojan has user-level access to the box when executed. This IS a simulation of what a bit of malware attached to a legitimate program could do.
2. The hacker stated the exploit wasn't known or patched when he used it so we've got conflicting statements here.
3. Windows gets patched regularly and automatically as well. The exploits previous worms used are no longer there. Past exploits don't matter for the present ability to break into a system. You could try unleashing a Blaster worm now and it wouldn't propagate because the exploit has been fixed years ago. A new worm always exploits a new vulnerability if it wants to be successful.
Like I said, user stupidity can't be helped, but it can be curbed. The definition of dumb windows users vs. dumb mac users, as per YOUR example, was that a win user would need to install a different browser right off the bat. The forgivable nature of the mistake, in this case, is a quantifying variable: I wouldn't blame someone for not knowing that software which comes with the system is unsafe. In the case of a Mac, you have to bring in unsafe software manually. IE being one giant security risk is, IMHO, unacceptable.
If the courts had any balls that default browser would no longer exist but no, that jerkwad Ashcroft has to come in and claim a few favours for his buddy Bill.
Post by: capamerica on July 06, 2006, 05:04:20 AM
First, The program was a standard compiled Unix executable. But because OSX does not show file extension you were unable to see that it was not a Image file. All They had to changed was the icon to make it look like a image. I've always felt that this was a problem with the Mac OS. Had this Trojan been released on a PC you would have see it for what it really was a normal .exe application.
And Second, You are required to enter your Administration password for the program to run. Almost all Trojan and Viruses don't need your permission to be installed or to run. And I'm sorry but if you are stupid enough to enter your password in to look at a image you deserve what you get.
In all fairness this Mac Trojan was not a Trojan but just a normal run of the mill application that they changed the icon on. With their logic I could take a generic "reformat HD" program change the icon and call it a Trojan. All they displayed to the Mac world was that having the file extension hidden was not that good of an idea.
All the "patch" did was deactivate Unix code that was used in the program.
And one last thing, Windows does not get patched regularly, there are Trojans, viruses and exploits that have not been patched in years. MS really only gets off their butt to fix the holes when the item in question starts getting press time. Windows is like a screen door, From a distance it may look solid and secure, but once you get up close to it you find its full of holes. OSX on the other hand is a very solid OS and with the exception of this fake Trojan and a exploit in iTunes 3 OSX. But seriously if you want to count those 2 as "real" that is just a drop of water in the massive ocean that Windows has to deal with.
I did a quick search on Google about Mac Viruses and this guy did a pretty good break down.
http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1.shtml
Sadly the artical is from August 2003, but still a good read might be worth duplicating his proses.
Post by: vudu on July 06, 2006, 10:35:08 AM
QuoteHere's a completely off-topic question, but since you guys are smart you'll probably have a quick answer for me.
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
(if you put any computer on the net without a firewall in between you're stupid)
I currently run Windows XP. I am hooked up to the Internet through a D-Link Xtreme G DI-624 wireless router. I also have the free version of Zone Alarm installed on my PC.
One of my friends has tried to convince me that the firewall that comes with XP is better than the Zone Alarm one. He also says there's a built-in firewall in my router that's better than Zone Alarm, too. Is he correct that I should just uninstall Zone Alarm, or does he have crud between his ears? Is there a different free/cheap firewall I should be using instead?
Post by: KDR_11k on July 06, 2006, 10:58:50 AM
Had this Trojan been released on a PC you would have see it for what it really was a normal .exe application.
Not on the default "hide extension" settings but anyone with a clue disables that anyway because it's friggin annoying.
And Second, You are required to enter your Administration password for the program to run.
With a privilege escalation exploit that's not necessary and from what I've heard many trojans can run with user privileges.
Honestly I do not believe that Apple can do what all the other OS makers cannot, I do not believe that OSX is completely free of exploits*. It's just that since it's neither opensource nor widespread it doesn't get as much bug searching (I'd say the same for Opera, that had very few publicised bugs and while it may be more secure than its competitors I'd say a big factor is just that it's closed source and obscure). OSes are complex things and I don't think that OSX is more secure than most other unixes. Sure, Windows is the weakest in terms of security and you'd be retarded to use it as a server OS but it shouldn't cause much trouble if the user uses it right. And really, it's nowhere near as unstable as geek jokes make it out to be.
*= An exploit can be in any application that is run with root privileges.
Post by: ShyGuy on July 06, 2006, 11:00:25 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 06, 2006, 11:27:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Smash_Brother: Yes but all other OSes had boot managers in the nineties already. Why did it take Apple so long to offer one? (yes, even on PPC there were other OSes)
You kind of answered your own question with your next paragraph. The reason Apple never offered a boot loader was because their hardware is proprietary and any non-Apple OS would have ran like crap on it.
Quote
1. A trojan has user-level access to the box when executed. This IS a simulation of what a bit of malware attached to a legitimate program could do.
2. The hacker stated the exploit wasn't known or patched when he used it so we've got conflicting statements here.
3. Windows gets patched regularly and automatically as well. The exploits previous worms used are no longer there. Past exploits don't matter for the present ability to break into a system. You could try unleashing a Blaster worm now and it wouldn't propagate because the exploit has been fixed years ago. A new worm always exploits a new vulnerability if it wants to be successful.
1. The article isn't talking about a trojan: it presents its argument as though the hacker cracked into Mac OSX with nothing but an IP address. This was a flat-f*ck LIE.
2. See #1. Given that the bugger lied about not having a user account beforehand, why exactly do we find him trustworthy when it comes to telling us that this exploit still exists? If it DOES exist, why hasn't he released it to the public so that the hackers of the world can wreck havoc on Macs everywhere? Why would he go out of the way to allegedly prove that OSX is crackable, then, out of the goodness and honor in his heart, not release the exploit to hacking sites everywhere?
Because he's LYING about the whole thing, that's why.
I'm toying with the notion of submitting an atrocious anti-Mac story to ZDNET and see how quickly they pick it up, then email Apple the link and see if I can get them sued for liable.
3. And I'm sure they'll find more and more holes because XP, like all of its predecessors, is a steaming pile of sh*t, poorly written and as secure as a paper towel prophylactic. Like Cap said, MS seldom gets off their ass to plug a hole unless the MEDIA starts to raise a big stink about it.
Quote
If the courts had any balls that default browser would no longer exist but no, that jerkwad Ashcroft has to come in and claim a few favours for his buddy Bill.
And this alters its status of "unacceptable"...how?
Post by: BigJim on July 06, 2006, 11:56:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Are the Indonesian children included in the package?
I think they built it.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 06, 2006, 07:56:14 PM
PPC Linux anyone? I hear that is pretty popular.
Post by: capamerica on July 07, 2006, 04:21:59 AM
Mac linux is kind of like PS2 Linux. Sure its Linux but its not all there.
Now don't get Mac PPC Linux confused with IBM PPC Linux. IBM PPC server run Linux alot better then a Mac does. Apple went out of their way to make it dificult to run other OSes on their Hardware.
MS even for a bit had a version of Windows NT that could run on PowerPC chips. But again it could run well (or at least as well as NT could run) on a IBM server. But on a Mac it was almost a Joke.
Post by: capamerica on July 07, 2006, 08:53:57 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 07, 2006, 09:54:51 AM
My guess would be that inviting the creation of other OSes on their hardware beyond their control increases the chances of someone decompiling your OS and consequently piracy, hacking, etc.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 07, 2006, 10:18:30 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 10, 2006, 09:41:54 AM
In Apple's case, the boot loader isn't even available to the user for examination.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 10, 2006, 10:05:53 AM
That can be analyzed without a bootloader and usually it's even in the documentation.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 10, 2006, 10:16:38 AM
Surely, since their hardware is so expensive by PC user standards, why should Apple care what people run on their hardware so long as they buy the hardware?
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 10, 2006, 01:22:37 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 10, 2006, 05:59:28 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on July 10, 2006, 10:18:57 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 10, 2006, 10:30:27 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 11, 2006, 07:02:45 AM
Quote
Wait, if a Mac runs Windows and uses an Intel processor, what keeps it a Mac?
The fact that it can switch between Windows and OSX on startup and soon will be able to run both at the same time, allowing you to boot apps from WinXP or OSX from the same desktop: games, business apps, whatever. It'll all be doable
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
No, why should they be special? This isn't a console.
The Intel Core Duo
It's a proprietary chip built by Intel specifically for the Macs. It's basically an advancement over the Pentium which still uses similar enough architecture that it can run Windows natively.
However, the real meat and potatoes will be the first Intel 64-bit processor which Apple is having them build for the new Mac towers.
Right now, the G5 chip is the only true commercial 64-bit processor on the market, but it was developed by IBM/Motorola, who promised Apple 4 GHz chips by 2005-6 and they didn't deliver.
Thus, Apple told IBM to go pound sand and turned to Intel for their processing needs. Intel, who hates MS (something about MS supporting AMD and stabbing Intel in the back...) and has recently embraced Linux, was all too happy to develop these chips for Apple. I followed Intel and AMD's respective stocks for a while and AMD was absolutely burying Intel for the longest time, with AMD processors being cheaper and receiving the same support from Windows, AMD was booming and they were beating Intel in the GHz wars.
Intel basically learned that MS had no form of loyalty to processor manufacturers and their business suffered because of it. With Apple, they're being directly commissioned to build processors for Macs, not like with Windows where they built hardware for PCs which could also run Linux. This time, Apple is an actual client who has a very specific set of demands.
Apple waited until the LAST possible moment to ditch IBM and move to Intel. Like I said, IBM promised 4 GHz G5 processors by now and, to my knowledge, they never even broke 3 GHz. In the end, IBM just didn't seem to care. So far Intel has delivered and as long as they continue to do so, Apple will remain with them.
I don't know what the specs on the new ones will be, but when the Intel Mac towers do come out, it's safe to say that they will be the most powerful Windows PCs on the market.
Post by: Athrun Zala on July 11, 2006, 07:46:12 AM
QuoteThe Core Duo isn't made just for Macs, the processor was even released *before*the MacIntels if memory serves right...
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's a proprietary chip built by Intel specifically for the Macs. It's basically an advancement over the Pentium which still uses similar enough architecture that it can run Windows natively.
QuoteThere have been Intel 64-bit processors for a long while now....
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
However, the real meat and potatoes will be the first Intel 64-bit processor which Apple is having them build for the new Mac towers.
QuoteThe Athlon 64/Opteron 64/Intels with EMT64 seem to disagree
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Right now, the G5 chip is the only true commercial 64-bit processor on the market, but it was developed by IBM/Motorola, who promised Apple 4 GHz chips by 2005-6 and they didn't deliver.
QuoteAMD never beated Intel in the GHz wars, as they processors had lower clock speeds
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Thus, Apple told IBM to go pound sand and turned to Intel for their processing needs. Intel, who hates MS (something about MS supporting AMD and stabbing Intel in the back...) and has recently embraced Linux, was all too happy to develop these chips for Apple. I followed Intel and AMD's respective stocks for a while and AMD was absolutely burying Intel for the longest time, with AMD processors being cheaper and receiving the same support from Windows, AMD was booming and they were beating Intel in the GHz wars.
QuoteNo, Intel suffered because AMD offered way better processors at a lower price
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Intel basically learned that MS had no form of loyalty to processor manufacturers and their business suffered because of it. With Apple, they're being directly commissioned to build processors for Macs, not like with Windows where they built hardware for PCs which could also run Linux. This time, Apple is an actual client who has a very specific set of demands.
Quotemodders diasgree
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I don't know what the specs on the new ones will be, but when the Intel Mac towers do come out, it's safe to say that they will be the most powerful Windows PCs on the market.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 11, 2006, 08:47:18 AM
Itanium. More bits than users. :P
If Apple ordered a special chip that'd get really expensive, especially if they wanted multiple versions (e.g. different clockspeeds). Consoles can afford that due to their large production numbers (I'd guess the GC has outsold any single CPU) bu Apple has nowhere close to the sales numbers of a console manufacturer, especially not per-model.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 11, 2006, 10:31:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun Zala The Core Duo isn't made just for Macs, the processor was even released *before*the MacIntels if memory serves right...
My bad. Should have looked this one up first.
Quote
There have been Intel 64-bit processors for a long while now....
The first appearance of 64-bit Intel/AMD processors came in 2004, but the term "64-bit" itself is often misleading because it has been used to refer to the bus speed OR the processor. This means that the system can contain a 64-bit component while not actually functioning at a 64-bit level, and that doesn't even take into account whether or not the OSes are designed to take advantage of 64-bit functionality. I admit, I don't keep track of MS's utilization of 64-bit technology, but it was only very recently that this hardware came to fruition and I expect the software is just now catching up.
Although a CPU may be 64-bit internally, its external data bus or address bus may have a different size, either larger or smaller, and the term is often used to describe the size of these buses as well. For instance, many current machines with 32-bit processors use 64-bit buses (e.g. the original Pentium and later CPUs), and may occasionally be referred to as "64-bit" for this reason.
source
When I say "truly 64-bit", I mean actually functioning with all components, both hardware and software, to take advantage of the processing speed. I suspect XP can do this at this point, but I've not found any information which confirms it (and I mean tests run by people who have no vested interest in proving that XP is 64-bit native).
Actually, I knew I was wrong when I said it because the first truly 64-bit computers were the DEC Alphas which were around 5-10 years before any of these.
Quote
AMD never beated Intel in the GHz wars, as they processors had lower clock speeds
I don't believe this is the case. I remember AMD hit 1.2 GHz before Intel did. Can you find a timeline of this?
Quote
No, Intel suffered because AMD offered way better processors at a lower price
Thing is, not one ounce of suffering would have been possible had MS not opted to support AMD processors and in some cases provide BETTER support for AMD processors than Intel.
Without Windows, AMD's processors would have meant nothing.
Quote
modders diasgree
I'm going to go ahead and have a hard time believing that modders are whipping up machines which can compare to the Intel quad-core chips and/or whatever proprietary design Apple has Intel do.
Quote
If Apple ordered a special chip that'd get really expensive, especially if they wanted multiple versions (e.g. different clockspeeds). Consoles can afford that due to their large production numbers (I'd guess the GC has outsold any single CPU) bu Apple has nowhere close to the sales numbers of a console manufacturer, especially not per-model.
They did this with IBM for years and years, requesting specific custom chips which ran at many different speeds and to different specs, and this is when their sales weren't nearly as good as they are now.
Why would it be any different with Intel?
Post by: Athrun Zala on July 11, 2006, 09:41:42 PM
)- XP is 32-bit, but they did release last year (or the one before) XP Pro 64, making full use of the 64-bit processors (but how good does it run I don't know)
- oops, my bad, had release dates mixed up, AMD's 1GHz processor was available 2 days before Intel's
- Maybe, but thanks to that we have better processors now
- Thus far Apple isn't using any processor that a modder can't buy....
Post by: BigJim on July 12, 2006, 12:26:00 AM
- There's nothing special about the chips Intel is delivering to Apple. The Core Duos and the upcoming Core 2 Duo parts are essentially over the counter. However, Intel is delivering customized motherboards to Apple that supports EFI. EFI is the eventual replacement to the BIOS on PCs. No PCs I'm aware of are using EFI yet since it's not supported by Windows out of the box. So by default, the motherboards for their product lines are "unique", but may not stay that way.
- Macs have been 90% PCs for the last decade or longer. They used almost all the same parts except CPU architectures and operating systems. What makes a Mac a Mac is what makes a Dell a Dell. The enclosure, the brand, and the operating system in Apple's case.
Post by: Bubba on July 13, 2006, 09:00:54 AM
I have an answer. Thats because you have a sh*tty PC.
The person above me did a good job explaining AMD vs Intel.
PC's are better in my mind because they are cheaper and I can custom tailor build them to my specs. Not Intel's, Apple's or whoever else. Plus, Windows is a great operating system for compatibility and gaming. To say it is insecure is to be ignorant. MacOS has just as many security problems as Windows, the only difference is the fact that it makes much more sense to code a virus for Windows because of the larger penetration. Linux has the same problems. You should ALWAYS have a firewall and antivirus no matter what OS you use. Now that Macs use x86, there is no reason to buy one anymore. Whatever a MAC can do, my PC can do better.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 13, 2006, 10:43:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bubba
To quote the title of the thread.... "My Mac is a better PC than my PC.."
I have an answer. Thats because you have a sh*tty PC.
2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
1GB (single SODIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
100GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA hard drive
8x double-layer DVD-R
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory
I don't think expecting that the aforementioned specs (for a LAPTOP, no less) will outdo most current gaming PCs should be much of a surprise to anyone.
Quote
To say it is insecure is to be ignorant.
ORLY?
Security experts have unearthed a hole in Windows XP that is large enough for a truck to drive through. With one simple line of code, a hacker can access a Windows XP computer and erase files from the hard drive.
YA RLY!
Microsoft has come under fire lately because of their habit of releasing software that has serious flaws, especially with security. Unfortunately, the criticism is justifiable. It even verges on being criminal: flaws (implementation bugs as well as just plain silly design decisions) have resulted in literally tens of billions of dollars in damage and losses worldwide.
Don't believe me? Think of all of the viruses that have devastated not hundreds, not thousands, not even millions, but tens of millions of systems. All of these viruses are allowed to "breed" (spread) because of one of the silliest, misguided, downright ridiculous decisions ever made by a major corporation. This was the addition of email scripting - without that incredibly powerful and almost totally unused (and many would argue not necessary) feature viruses could not spread in a matter of days or even hours. Since when does anyone need to script their email program anyway? I've never heard of a single person or corporation using this feature legitimately.
Quote
MacOS has just as many security problems as Windows, the only difference is the fact that it makes much more sense to code a virus for Windows because of the larger penetration.
Back to the wealthy hacker argument again?
Quote
Now that Macs use x86, there is no reason to buy one anymore. Whatever a MAC can do, my PC can do better.
Most PC users see it the other way around. Even the denizens of Penny-Arcade who were known Mac-haters both switched when Boot Camp came out.
Now that Macs can run Windows, they and many, many others decided that there's no longer a reason to buy PCs. They wanted OSX for the stability and how easy it is to use. The only thing holding them back was Windows and mostly gaming.
I purchased the iMac largely so I could gain the invulnerability that comes with criticising something from your own context: picture the comedian who is free to heap racial slurs on his own people. What happened instead is that I grew to crave it. Playing the new Tomb Raider demo or Oblivion day of - and having this software run well - is not a footnote for that beleagured constituency. As a mobile option, I think it's already a compelling choice - but until the full desktop line becomes available, these developments are largely nerd trivia. When Apple starts making machines that you can replace the videocard in, machines that run every OS and every application without the taint of performance sapping emulation, the conversation will become very interesting. - Tycho
They used to hate 'em, now they love 'em.
Post by: Bubba on July 13, 2006, 12:17:09 PM
Well well, they switch because Windows is able to run on a mac. Defeats the whole OS argument.
The difference between Mac and PC is becoming smaller and smaller. Now that they have switched to x86, I think of them just as a vendor like Dell. Assembling parts any person can do on their own. Once Vista coems out, Bios will slowly go away and Apple will have a hard time distinguishing themselves from PC's. They will still have OSX but what's the point if you are going to do productivity for your company or game on a windows platform?
I really think PC's are a better bargain. Their versatility, in mind, is more valuable than OSX and its perceived better security. I don't even like OSX. Linux is a much better build of Unix in my mind. Get that KDE running...man *drools*
Post by: BigJim on July 13, 2006, 12:23:01 PM
Penny Arcade didn't "switch" they added it to their collection.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 13, 2006, 03:29:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bubba
I really think PC's are a better bargain. Their versatility, in mind, is more valuable than OSX and its perceived better security. I don't even like OSX.
...And there's nothing I can do to change that opinion so I won't bother trying.
I've used both macs and PCs my whole life and I've done extensive troubleshooting for both: for stability, security and reliability, there's absolutely no contest: Mac or NOTHING.
Being able to run Windows on Mac machines is like emulating a gaming console: that's all most people will ever use it for anyway.
Quote
Penny Arcade didn't "switch" they added it to their collection.
From what I read, they've both replaced their gaming PCs with their new Macs, with Gabe playing WoW on his laptop and Tycho playing Oblivion on his iMac.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 13, 2006, 09:33:31 PM
Intel bought that company and used the tech from the Alpha to build the Itanium. It was rue 64bit but it turned out to be not much faster than 32bit (because BITTAGE DOES NOT EQUAL SPEED, the only reason the Athlon64s are faster in 64 bit mode are the additional registers)
To say it is insecure is to be ignorant. MacOS has just as many security problems as Windows, the only difference is the fact that it makes much more sense to code a virus for Windows because of the larger penetration.
I wouldn't say they are on the same level security-wise but Windows isn't as bad as it's usually made out to be, either.
2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
1GB (single SODIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
100GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA hard drive
8x double-layer DVD-R
ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 with 256MB GDDR3 memory
I don't think expecting that the aforementioned specs (for a LAPTOP, no less) will outdo most current gaming PCs should be much of a surprise to anyone.
At what price? I could buy an Alienware laptop and get the fastest gaming laptop available but I'd pay like 5000$ for that. What's important is price vs. performance, it's easy to cram high-end hardware into a machine and raise the price accordingly (XBox or PS3 anyone?), it's much harder to offer good performance at a reasonable price.
Back to the wealthy hacker argument again?
If you were running a large botnet, would you give your identity away to participate in some silly 50 000$ contest?
Now that Macs can run Windows, they and many, many others decided that there's no longer a reason to buy PCs. They wanted OSX for the stability and how easy it is to use.
The only new thing here is advertising, you could have installed BeOS in dual-boot with Windows but Be didn't have the advertising Apple has.
Being able to run Windows on Mac machines is like emulating a gaming console: that's all most people will ever use it for anyway.
Yes except this emulator doesn't run within your OS (as Wine does under Linux), it requires that you shut down your current OS and wait for another one to boot.
Post by: capamerica on July 14, 2006, 04:52:15 AM
You can always argue that you can get a cheaper PC, but you have to remember you get what you pay for. A cheap PC is a cheap PC. Mac on the other hand is all about quality they don't release crap on the market.
Antivirus software companies hire people who create viruses, The $50,000 is more of a signing bonus then prize money. cause if you could create a Mac virus Symantec would hire you in a sec.
I have a simple thing I do to nonbelievers.
Buy a Mac. Use it for a Year. If you don't like it I'll buy it from you for the same price you paid for it.
To date I haven't had to buy a Mac from anyone I know.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 14, 2006, 06:09:33 AM
I think you're talking some serious bull there because I've seen PCs with comparable specs for half the price of the Mac. You need to pay 1300 Euros to get a decent computer if you go Mac (the Mac Mini sucks so bad I won't count that as decent) and that thing has specs you can get on a laptop in the same price range. The iMac is equivalent to a low-midspec PC but costs as much as a high-spec desktop. While I admittedly don't know how fast a Core CPU is it could be the fastest CPU released and the rest of that crappy config would drag it down. 512MB RAM? A *600 GPU? I know it looks nice on the box but could manufacturers please stop putting high-end CPUs (i.e. pricey) into systems that otherwise barely clear low-spec?
Or in the near future just run it with in OSX once they get the built-in emulation working.
If they get it working, sure. But unless they go the VirtualPC route they won't have 100% compatibility. Hell, most games won't work because of the copy protection systems abusing the API and hardware in out-of-spec ways. Cedega has licenses from all major copy protection vendors in order to get them to work.
(no directX support right now but its a start for a program thats just on version 1. Also VMWare has a OSX version on its way and they are hinting at DirectX support so in the near future you could be able to run HalfLife2 within OSX.
Linux can already run DirectX based games through Wine or Cedega. HL2 used to work at times but Valve deliberately changed Steam in a way that made this impossible.
You can always argue that you can get a cheaper PC, but you have to remember you get what you pay for. A cheap PC is a cheap PC. Mac on the other hand is all about quality they don't release crap on the market.
A cheap PC is a machine that works for everyday office and web tasks. Do you think those things are less durable because they are cheaper? The cheaper systems are made from components from the same companies that supply them for high-end machines. The difference is the lower performance. Sure, you get what you pay for but smart shopping will still buy more for less. With Macs you pay for design and you get design. Unfortunately design doesn't make the computer go faster.
Antivirus software companies hire people who create viruses, The $50,000 is more of a signing bonus then prize money. cause if you could create a Mac virus Symantec would hire you in a sec.
What for? You found a vulnerability, big deal. What then? Would you work as an undercover employee in order to make sure there is a market for Symantec's product on the target platform?
I have a simple thing I do to nonbelievers.
Buy a Mac. Use it for a Year. If you don't like it I'll buy it from you for the same price you paid for it.
To date I haven't had to buy a Mac from anyone I know.
Maybe I would if it didn't cost 1300€ (+upgrades to make it comparable to my current PC) to get a decent Mac.
Post by: capamerica on July 14, 2006, 07:54:46 AM
Second Linux has also been working on Wine for years to get DirectX support, Apple just started a couple months back.
The low end iMac is a pretty good gaming rig out of the box, I would put in a extra $100 to get 1GB of RAM and thats it. I've used a iMac with BootCamp and it runs Half Life 2, Halo, Worlds or WarCraft, Guild Wars, Beyond Good & Evil, Oblivion and Quake 4 all perfectly with High setting on. I went all the way to Max settings for everything but Oblivion and Quake 4.
third a cheap PC designed for everyday office and web tasks is no where near a PC that can run games. They normally have builtin VideoCards that only have 32-64MB of VideoRAM. And if they have card based VideoCards they are low powered cards that are not designed for gaming at all but more designed to run WindowsXP better. They have cruddy underpowered and slow bus speed CPUs like Celeron or Sempron (or in the 64bit chips a Opteron) These are NOT good chips to have in a Gaming rig, these are bottom of the barrel chips that are only made as a cheap alternative. Also your RAM is normally underpowered normally DDR PC2100, thou to this day I still see more PC133 RAM in the low end models. Even doing all your shopping around the best parts for a gaming rig are always going to cost you more. At most you can shave off a couple hundred by not buying a pre-made system but you have no one to blame but your self if stuff starts to go wrong. Apple builds one of the Best computers out there, and their quality control is top. I've been using Macs since 1989 and I have never had any issues with them, no problems with drivers, no harddrives dyeing on me. No problems what so ever. Apples uses the best of the best with parts they want their Macs to last for years and be supported long after they become outdated. PCs don't work that way, they are pretty much designed to be thrown out every 5 years or so. You get issues with different hardware not working with different systems, cretin Ram not working with some motherboards it can become a nightmare some times. Apple on the other hand has always been plug and go.
You also don't seem to understand to well on how the Virus protection gig works. If there are no Viruses no one buys the software. If no one buys the software Symantec doesn't make money. Do you really think that some simple bored highschool students are making all these viruses? I had a friend who worked for a company who made AntiVirus Software and they do infact have a division that makes viruses. I guess the saying "Know your enemy" could work here, develop the viruses before someone else does. But my friend believes that his company actually releases the viruses to the web, What better way to make people rush out to the store and buy the latest version of their software.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 14, 2006, 10:14:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Intel bought that company and used the tech from the Alpha to build the Itanium. It was rue 64bit but it turned out to be not much faster than 32bit (because BITTAGE DOES NOT EQUAL SPEED, the only reason the Athlon64s are faster in 64 bit mode are the additional registers)
Er, maybe they licensed the hardware, but it was COMPAQ who bought DEC. As for bittage, it only makes a difference if the OS actually takes advantage of the increased bandwidth and speed. I know for a fact that OSX was among the first OSes (and certainly the first CONSUMER OS) to do this.
Quote
At what price? I could buy an Alienware laptop and get the fastest gaming laptop available but I'd pay like 5000$ for that. What's important is price vs. performance, it's easy to cram high-end hardware into a machine and raise the price accordingly (XBox or PS3 anyone?), it's much harder to offer good performance at a reasonable price.
I paid $2,600. I compared and you can get a Dell with similar specs for around $1,700. I didn't buy the thing to run Windows. I bought it because I wanted a powerful laptop which would be fast and solid when I absolutely needed it not to fail on me. Booting windows is just an added bonus.
Quote
If you were running a large botnet, would you give your identity away to participate in some silly 50 000$ contest?
Umm, for $50,000? I'm confident that SOMEONE would. Botnet admin or not, if I could write a virus for OSX, you'd best goddamn believe that I would. A shot at $50,000 which doesn't involve selling my body for medical research or sex? I wish I knew how to program for this alone...
Apparently, it still hasn't happened yet, but Symantec warns that it could at any minute, so "BUY NORTON ANTIVIRUS, PLEASE!!!" they say.
Quote
The only new thing here is advertising, you could have installed BeOS in dual-boot with Windows but Be didn't have the advertising Apple has.
Be also doesn't have the support that Apple has, both in software or dedication to quality.
Quote
Yes except this emulator doesn't run within your OS (as Wine does under Linux), it requires that you shut down your current OS and wait for another one to boot.
...Which still beats carrying around two laptops.
And like I said, the next version is anticipated to run both simultaneously. With enough RAM and processor speed, there's no reason you can't run Windows and OSX off the same processor at the same time, seamlessly booting apps from both via OSX.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 14, 2006, 10:30:07 PM
Which is the same as what the Mac Mini has (since that's the system I was comparing the 300$ PC with).
At most you can shave off a couple hundred by not buying a pre-made system but you have no one to blame but your self if stuff starts to go wrong.
And? Can't you deal with that kind of responsibility? I trust myself more than most retailers (since they have this tendency to engineer machines for marketing rather than cost effectiveness)
You also don't seem to understand to well on how the Virus protection gig works. If there are no Viruses no one buys the software. If no one buys the software Symantec doesn't make money. Do you really think that some simple bored highschool students are making all these viruses? I had a friend who worked for a company who made AntiVirus Software and they do infact have a division that makes viruses. I guess the saying "Know your enemy" could work here, develop the viruses before someone else does. But my friend believes that his company actually releases the viruses to the web, What better way to make people rush out to the store and buy the latest version of their software.
Writing one virus does not mean you're a genius virus writer and I question the effectivity of hiring people because they wrote one virus but whatever floats their boat.
...Which still beats carrying around two laptops.
Which shouldn't have been a problem in first place.
And like I said, the next version is anticipated to run both simultaneously. With enough RAM and processor speed, there's no reason you can't run Windows and OSX off the same processor at the same time, seamlessly booting apps from both via OSX.
One problem is that these things weren't engineered to run simultaneously or interface in any way. Windows will make numerous low-level calls that would conflict with OSX's low-level calls. OSX would have to intercept all hardware calls made by Windows and remap them to go through OSX's system. E.g. to create a window that displays Windows you need to intercept its video output and throw it into a window, you need to intercept its IO calls to prevent it from catching signals not meant for it, you have to catch its memory management calls to prevent it from overwriting OSX in RAM, etc. Windows assumes it's alone on the computer and it acts in that assumption. Low-level emulation (you are emulating another PC for Windows) is much slower than high-level emulation (i.e. remapping API calls) even though it has better compatibility (since many applications will abuse the API's out-of-spec behaviour). Apple can say they want to do that all they want, I don't think it'll work that easily.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 15, 2006, 11:07:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k And? Can't you deal with that kind of responsibility? I trust myself more than most retailers (since they have this tendency to engineer machines for marketing rather than cost effectiveness)
It's more a question of time. I'd love to have the time to f*ck around with computer components but I don't, hence why I'm willing to pay more for a system which will work right out of the box and never stop working.
Quote
Writing one virus does not mean you're a genius virus writer and I question the effectivity of hiring people because they wrote one virus but whatever floats their boat.
You don't think anti-virus software makers are writing viruses?
What do you think the Orkin man would do if business was slow? That's right: go around releasing ants around the foundations of people's homes.
Why do you think Norton was offering $50,000 to anyone who could generate an OSX virus? Because they stand to PROFIT from it, of course.
Quote
Which shouldn't have been a problem in first place.
In a perfect world, the Wii would be out right now and I wouldn't need to consider windows for possible gaming entertainment, but it isn't yet and so I've relished being able to never need to worry about a "gaming PC" in my budget ever again.
Quote
One problem is that these things weren't engineered to run simultaneously or interface in any way. Windows will make numerous low-level calls that would conflict with OSX's low-level calls. OSX would have to intercept all hardware calls made by Windows and remap them to go through OSX's system. E.g. to create a window that displays Windows you need to intercept its video output and throw it into a window, you need to intercept its IO calls to prevent it from catching signals not meant for it, you have to catch its memory management calls to prevent it from overwriting OSX in RAM, etc. Windows assumes it's alone on the computer and it acts in that assumption. Low-level emulation (you are emulating another PC for Windows) is much slower than high-level emulation (i.e. remapping API calls) even though it has better compatibility (since many applications will abuse the API's out-of-spec behaviour). Apple can say they want to do that all they want, I don't think it'll work that easily.
Once customers are aware that Windows is a no-brainer on an Intel Mac, Apple can start to manage the hardware and software infrastructure in which Windows resides. As customers are well exposed to the idea that Apple is the enabler of Windows on Macs, then a virtualization system can be introduced, touted as a great improvement, which runs Windows along side of Mac OS X instead of dual boot. Apple can continue to control the messaging on this which is important. Whether Apple will use the Parallels system or one of their own will be a technical/cost/benefit/legal analysis for the executive team to make. Apple is then poised to build tools (Apple's solution again) that manage Windows as it runs along side of Mac OS X.
source
This is from John Martellaro, an engineer and scientist who actually worked for Apple from 2000-2005 and he seems to have absolutely no problem believing that Apple is capable of doing this.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 15, 2006, 03:08:08 PM
OS9, the previous and DRASTICALLY LESS POPULAR operating system of the Mac...HAD VIRUSES, FOR F*CK'S SAKE!!!!!
It's OS X (10) which is known for it's security and which has yet to have a known virus and yet it's VASTLY more popular than Apple's previous OS, OS9, which had a plethora of viruses, thus proving that it is not Apple's low marketshare which keeps their OS virus free, but rather the mettle of their OS's security.
I can't believe it took me THIS long to remember that fact...
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 15, 2006, 04:20:59 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 15, 2006, 05:18:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sir_Stabbalot
I don't want to get into a debate here, but I really think it takes less time to fix a PC you scratchbuilt then one you bought at a store. You already know exactly what's in it, and there's no proprietary guybins that make you sit through that Indian man they call "tech support" when it doesn't work.
That's fair, but that's a scenario I've never encountered as a Mac user.
If you're paying some random computer seller to build you a computer, then yeah, who the hell knows WHAT they'll use. When you pay Apple to do the same thing for you, all of the components are selected and supported by Apple so any repairs which happen will be done with the knowledge of all components being used beforehand.
In other words, there are millions of other laptops out there running the exact same components as the one I have now. If something goes wrong (which it never actually has), no Apple tech would ever have to ask "What do you have installed in it?"
As an update, I just downloaded the "Prey" demo and it runs fabulously with all the settings turned up. FYI, it's an excellent game, if anyone was wondering.
Post by: oohhboy on July 15, 2006, 09:20:41 PM
Sisters PC went online for about an hour and was crippled. Go figure.
If I could get away with it, I would use a Mac to play games, but it is generally not a good idea considering you only see the biggest releases.
A light gaming OS would be great. Something that drops all that junk that loads up. I guess I have to stick to consoles for now.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 15, 2006, 11:42:11 PM
Translation:
Normal PC store: Builds a computer from parts they chose and requires you to go through them to fix it.
Apple: Builds a computer from parts they chose and requires you to go through them to fix it.
Really, you just described the same situation twice and used negative words for one and positive words for the others. Where do you work, marketing?
Usually you get a list of the components used when you buy a computer. Apple has detailled part listings on their website, the usual retailer has the same and sometimes an interface to choose those components.
In other words, there are millions of other laptops out there running the exact same components as the one I have now. If something goes wrong (which it never actually has), no Apple tech would ever have to ask "What do you have installed in it?"
Do they know that when you tell them you've got an iMac/MacBook/whatever or do you have to tell them WHEN you bought it? If you went to Dell tech support you'd give them the model name (instead of series and date of purchase) and they know what's in there (minus the configuration options of course but Apple can't guess how much extra RAM you installed, either).
As an update, I just downloaded the "Prey" demo and it runs fabulously with all the settings turned up. FYI, it's an excellent game, if anyone was wondering.
Any new computer will run the latest games at max settings even if it doesn't use the greatest components (provided the components are somewhat new, of course). What differs is how long you can keep doing that, i.e. when the first games come out that won't run at max settings.
A light gaming OS would be great. Something that drops all that junk that loads up.
Some people were thinking about building a Linux distro like that. Problem is of course that Linux isn't Windows and as such can't run everything out there. Windows can't be stripped down enough for that.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 16, 2006, 07:59:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Translation:
Normal PC store: Builds a computer from parts they chose and requires you to go through them to fix it.
Apple: Builds a computer from parts they chose and requires you to go through them to fix it.
Really, you just described the same situation twice and used negative words for one and positive words for the others. Where do you work, marketing?
Usually you get a list of the components used when you buy a computer. Apple has detailled part listings on their website, the usual retailer has the same and sometimes an interface to choose those components.
Sorry, I managed to not communicate the underlying point here which was that Apple only uses high-quality components which are drastically less likely to fail.
When you order from some PC manufacturer, it's their prerogative to use the cheapest components they can find because they're charging you so damn little for the PC as it is that they'll do anything to make a profit. Macs may cost more, but you get what you pay for.
Quote
Do they know that when you tell them you've got an iMac/MacBook/whatever or do you have to tell them WHEN you bought it? If you went to Dell tech support you'd give them the model name (instead of series and date of purchase) and they know what's in there (minus the configuration options of course but Apple can't guess how much extra RAM you installed, either).
Yeah, if it was a MacBook Pro purchased at a specific time, they'll have a pretty good idea of what to expect when it comes to components.
But it's otherwise irrelevant. You can always send them the system config list (which has an option for doing so built right in) and they know immediately what you have down to the model number on the RAM.
Quote
Any new computer will run the latest games at max settings even if it doesn't use the greatest components (provided the components are somewhat new, of course). What differs is how long you can keep doing that, i.e. when the first games come out that won't run at max settings.
And when those computers can run OSX legit, I'll buy one of those instead.
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 16, 2006, 09:49:48 AM
Quote
And when those computers can run OSX legit, I'll buy one of those instead.
From how it's going, I wouldn't doubt that Apple would do that soon. After all, if the OSX runs on x86 Intel Macs, why won't it run on an x86 Intel PC?
...That might be a good move for them to do, actually. Might net them more marketshare.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 16, 2006, 11:05:38 AM
Other than the windows zealots and PC gamers, would people chose to run OSX on productivity machines if they could?
More to the point, what happens when OSX runs windows in the background and people start installing it on PCs? You get the stability and near-invulnerability of OSX with all of the applications you might need to run from windows, all from the same computer.
Also, I should note this: when the Mac-Intel towers are released (which will likely be running a chip which is a modified Xeon processor), those WILL be the fastest commercial Windows PCs in the world. What better reason to switch to OSX when it not only runs windows at the same time but runs it faster than any Dell, Gateway or Alienware (before they got bought) ever could?
And yes, I'm talking about average Joe consumer X, not about the mod freak who has a freon cooling system rigged up to his/her windows box.
Post by: Galford on July 17, 2006, 05:24:10 PM
No, really...
Just a couple of points.
One reason OSX doesn't crash as much as Windows is Apple controls both
the hardware and softwar of the Mac.
As stated earlier, if OSX was released into the wild, it would suffer the same problems as Windows.
I don't think you'll ever see Windows run as seemlessly on Macs and on a PC setup.
Yes, I know Boot Camp does work as advertised.
I don't thinks Jobs wants to compete with the Dell and HPs of the world.
Post by: capamerica on July 17, 2006, 07:20:35 PM
Yet with Windows they're are hundreds of thousands of Viruses released every year and Windows is closed so no one can even peek at the code.
It was because of the fact that FreeBSD is Open Source that we were able to find ways to hack OSX for Intel to run on generic PC hardware. If hackers can hack OSX to run on generic PC hardware then why can't any of them create a simple virus and collect the $50,000. The Hackers collected the prize money for getting WindowsXP to boot on a Intel Mac and if I recall correctly there was a similar prize for getting OSX to run on a PC.
As I stated before I'm currently running Mac OSX 10.4.7 on my 3.0Ghz AMD64, I've been running OSX on my PC since August 2005 and I haven't had a single crash, It has never froze and I have never had to restart it (outside installing a new App) For a OS that wasn't even designed to run on a AMD chip OSX runs pretty damn nice.
I think with in a few years we may see OSX starting to pop up on other PCs. I think it will start out with companies like Dell, Sony, HP and Gateway offering it as an alternative to Windows 2010, so the only way to get it is as a OEM and then from there we might someday start seeing it being sold in a normal retail package. It all really depends on how long Apple needs to relie on Mac Hardware sales, Apple has been slowly moving away from that with all their new programs, iTunes and the iPod. So maybe with in a few years Apple will not have to worry as much about how many Macs they sell and can start licensing OSX out.
And one last thing, S_B brings up a good point. All the Mac OSes that came out before OSX had Viruses and they were less popular then OSX. OS 8 & 9 had alot of viruses, No where near as many as Windows but there were enough that having antivirus on a Mac was a must. But now you have OSX which already has over double the popularity and users numbers then OS8&9 and there isn't a single virus out there for them. Its not because its less popular then Windows its the fact that OSX is really that secure.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 17, 2006, 07:44:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica Apple has been slowly moving away from that with all their new programs, iTunes and the iPod. So maybe with in a few years Apple will not have to worry as much about how many Macs they sell and can start licensing OSX out.
I hadn't thought about that.
I'm willing to bet that the profit margins from iTunes and the iPod are more than their hardware margins could ever hope to be.
They may one day decide that releasing an OS which pushes iTunes for any and ever computer out there would be more profitable than ensuring they have their own hardware under every install of OSX.
Post by: BigJim on July 18, 2006, 01:24:15 AM
Anyway, I can't find it now but the math was done. For Apple to essentially "replace" their computer division with OSX licensing on PCs, they would have to sell something in the neighborhood of 60 million more copies of OSX *a year* at current profit margins. Not to mention that their current size as a company is only meant to support 5% (or whatever) of the market, and they would have to grow their overhead costs exponentially to support such an effort, IF it were possible and were successful. They could enter new markets to subsidize, but even still...
So it's a huge mountain to climb. But we knew that.
Another interesting tidbit which may or may not be relevant... The iPod deal with HP was supposed to be huge. HP has a worldwide retail and channel and distribution presence that Apple could only dream of. They licensed the iPod and despite this huge asset, the HP units only accounted for 8% of iPod sales. Bottom line: People didn't want the HPods even though they were the same exact thing. They wanted the "Apple" iPod.
Would a PC OEM with OSX even be accepted by the mainstream, or would it become another HPod? Frankly I don't really want to see them license the OS. They are like Nintendo in that they have a distinct vision about what hardware and software should be (in their eyes). It could taint the Apple image. Just IMHO.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 18, 2006, 03:06:07 AM
When you order from some PC manufacturer, it's their prerogative to use the cheapest components they can find because they're charging you so damn little for the PC as it is that they'll do anything to make a profit. Macs may cost more, but you get what you pay for.
That's what parts lists are for.
Other than the windows zealots and PC gamers, would people chose to run OSX on productivity machines if they could?
Most productivity machines are owned by companies or other larger institutions. They can just plop Macs in there without much trouble but from what I see they mostly prefer Linux and Solaris.
More to the point, what happens when OSX runs windows in the background and people start installing it on PCs? You get the stability and near-invulnerability of OSX with all of the applications you might need to run from windows, all from the same computer.
Wait, so if you push Windows on an emulation layer it suddently becomes highly secure?
capamerica: BSD is known for trading everything else for security. Out of date drivers, GUIs, applications, etc. Pure BSD is very secure (but not invulnerable) and lacks many features even Linux had for a loooong time now. You can only make guesses about the layers of proprietary software Apple put on top of that and most vulnerabilities are going to sit there.
For a OS that wasn't even designed to run on a AMD chip OSX runs pretty damn nice.
The chip is the least problematic thing, x86 chips(I think we have to say IA32 these days as there is very little of the original 8086 remaining) are compatible to the point where the OS hardly knows what it's running on. Try peripherials like USB scanners, printers, modems, stuff like that. Those are the biggest source of driver problems.
For Apple to essentially "replace" their computer division with OSX licensing on PCs, they would have to sell something in the neighborhood of 60 million more copies of OSX *a year* at current profit margins.
Tells you something about the profit margins on Mac hardware, doesn't it?
Post by: capamerica on July 18, 2006, 04:49:26 AM
Never had any problems todate, The only peripheral I've ever had to install drivers for was for my Scanner, and it was more for Photoshop then OSX, OSX saw it right off the bat, Photoshop didn't.
OSX is really good with external peripherals, Internal is a bit more tricky, But so far I've been pretty lucky and the OSx86 community has been pretty good at writing drivers.
I could say more but its getting pretty obvious that no matter what anyone says your still going to argue it and never except it. All I can say is until you actually use a Mac for more then a few hours you'll NEVER understand.
Post by: UniversalJuan on July 18, 2006, 07:02:42 AM
On another note...I can't wait to playaround on my new setup
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice Core
ASUS A8N5X 939 Socket Motherboard
2GB DDR 400MHz PC3200 RAM
500GB Hard Drive Space (x2 250GB SATA drives)
ATI Radeon X1900GT 256MB PCI Express 16X video card
Carry on
Edit: Oh, and since I noticed Mac vs PC price came into the picture, the price of those components (And the Power supply and case) came to roughly 686, give or take 10. I know it didn't come up to over 700. (Thanks PRiceGrabber and NewEgg!). Granted, I already owned the hard drives so that shaved some significant cost.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 18, 2006, 08:33:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k That's what parts lists are for.
Then I consider never having to look at one before ordering a Mac a luxury. I don't need to worry about what sound card, HD brand, ethernet adapter, etc. I'm going to receive because I've seldom had a problem with them. My HDs under OS9 used to die every now and then. I've yet to lose one under OSX.
Quote
Most productivity machines are owned by companies or other larger institutions. They can just plop Macs in there without much trouble but from what I see they mostly prefer Linux and Solaris.
For ease of use, nothing beats OSX, and I'm saying that from experience.
As a computer tech, you'd be hard pressed to not have a few relatives who think that, because you're tech savvy and a family memeber, they can milk you for all the technical support they'll ever need. Speaking as a guy who relishes every spare second he gets to call his own, this SUCKS. However, once OSX rolled around, I've seen to it that at least 4 relatives have all started using it. Now, these are some of the most computer inept people to walk the planet, and after a few initial questions about OSX, I don't hear a goddamn PEEP out of them. Meanwhile, OS9 and Windows generated plenty of questions from these people (mostly complaints about viruses).
So what's easier to do? Install security and maintenance utilities on the computers of all of these people and attempt to train them to use it and keep everything updated regularly...or see to it that they get an OSX machine and I never hear from them again on the subject of computers?
It's a rhetorical question.
Quote
Wait, so if you push Windows on an emulation layer it suddently becomes highly secure?
No, it becomes OSX's bitch. All of the normal activities which make Windows non-secure (email, web browsing, etc.) are going to be done on the Mac side.
So, yeah, as long as you don't get too many people who, for some godforsaken reason, cling tightly the the twin security abominations of IE and Outlook, Windows will be a great deal more secure because it should never expose any vulnerabilities to the web.
Quote
You can only make guesses about the layers of proprietary software Apple put on top of that and most vulnerabilities are going to sit there.
The same vulnerabilities which even Symantec cannot convince people to find for $50,000?
Quote
The chip is the least problematic thing, x86 chips(I think we have to say IA32 these days as there is very little of the original 8086 remaining) are compatible to the point where the OS hardly knows what it's running on. Try peripherials like USB scanners, printers, modems, stuff like that. Those are the biggest source of driver problems.
That's a given: in any and all cases, it'll be sloppy 3rd party programming which will cause the most issues.
Quote
Tells you something about the profit margins on Mac hardware, doesn't it?
Ever been to Wal-mart and seen those dirt-cheap items which tend to always persist on shelves near the name brand ones? Most people, upon seeing those, will say, "Hey, it's such a bargain!" and buy it, only to have it break or fail on them less than a month later.
That's what windows PCs are: they're cheaper, but they're cheaper for a reason.
Between the fact that my Macs never crash, never lose work which I was in the middle of doing, never become randomly corrupted and need to be repaired, never catch a virus, never become fragmented, never become bogged down with spyware, keep my relatives off my back about tech support and allow me to install one copy of OSX on as many computers as I want, the extra money I've paid for Apple quality has in turn saved me an amount of headaches and hassle monetarily equivalent to the difference I'd pay over windows machines.
The thought has often crossed my mind while struggling with an XP installation: "What would I pay to have avoided this and all subsequent problems I'm going to have with it?"
Windows is trash. It always has been and it always will be. It is a sloppy, poorly-written OS filled with gaping security holes, bad coding choices and ill-fated features which actually damage the OS and pave the way for malware (email scripting, anyone?).
Macs could cost twice what they do now and I'd still buy them. I've dealt with everything, DEC, Redhat, UNIX, even NeXT: Apple is the only company which literally protects my free time by ensuring that I never need to do anything to fix or maintain their computers.
As an additional comparison, buying a PC is like buying a whiny emo for a friend: the f*cker won't shut up about his problems and will spend a great deal of time cutting himself, is always getting sick, but he'll eat at dirt-cheap restaurants.
Buying a mac is like having a friend who never has emotional drama, never needs consoling, never gets sick and never asks any favors. He's always helpful, always has information, and if he says he'll do something, you know it'll happen, he just insists on eating at good restaurants when you go out to eat.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 18, 2006, 09:46:32 AM
Yeah, you're lucky. I don't know anyone who has enough money to afford a Mac Mini (not even I can afford one, at least not without using up my entire cash reserves). Their computers are combinations of leftovers I generated in previous upgrades to my PC. And obviously they are retarded enough to install random software off the internet and wonder why their computer gets sluggish. If I tell them there's a 50€ way to upgrade their PCs to suck less they would balk at the price. 600€ is completely out of question. Don't believe I haven't tried getting my father to buy a Mac for himself (but it'll drive him nuts if it's anything like Linux and insists on secure passwords, he thinks passwords are for paranoids).
Although I believe I'd still have to take away his root password to prevent him from screwing the computer up. He's the kind who, when he sees a warning, just clicks "okay" and wonders what it was about. You can label an option "do NOT change" and he'll change it. If I had a Euro every time I told him that that option has NOTHING to do with what he's trying to accomplish and in fact turning it on will make 100% sure that it won't work and he still goes ahead and activates it while telling me he thinks it will work. ("No, don't turn that on, we've already got a DHCP on the network and that will just cause a conflict" "I'll turn it on" "No you won't" "I think I should try it" "You shouldn't" "You don't know it won't work until you try it" "I know damn well it won't work because I understand just what the hell you're doing there" "I'll go ahead and turn it on then" Damn, sounds like a Dilbert strip)
That's what windows PCs are: they're cheaper, but they're cheaper for a reason.
That reason being that they aren't made by a company that considers itself to have a monopoly on its product (except for Windows but that's not the PC).
As an additional comparison, buying a PC is like buying a whiny emo for a friend: the f*cker won't shut up about his problems and will spend a great deal of time cutting himself, is always getting sick, but he'll eat at dirt-cheap restaurants.
Then my emo must have cut his throat already because my computer isn't complaining at all.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 18, 2006, 10:15:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k Yeah, you're lucky. I don't know anyone who has enough money to afford a Mac Mini (not even I can afford one, at least not without using up my entire cash reserves). Their computers are combinations of leftovers I generated in previous upgrades to my PC. And obviously they are retarded enough to install random software off the internet and wonder why their computer gets sluggish. If I tell them there's a 50€ way to upgrade their PCs to suck less they would balk at the price. 600€ is completely out of question. Don't believe I haven't tried getting my father to buy a Mac for himself (but it'll drive him nuts if it's anything like Linux and insists on secure passwords, he thinks passwords are for paranoids).
Who said anything about a mac-mini?
I give them $200 G4s off of eBay with OSX installed on them and I never hear from them with problems. $80 for the latest OSX CD (which isn't even necessary and I was going to buy it for myself anyway) and $100-300 for the mac itself and that's all they'll need. These are just email and web computers anyway. I can still install OSX on G3s and those can go for even less but they still run JUST fine so long as all they need is basic productivity and not video editing and the like.
Quote
Although I believe I'd still have to take away his root password to prevent him from screwing the computer up. He's the kind who, when he sees a warning, just clicks "okay" and wonders what it was about. You can label an option "do NOT change" and he'll change it. If I had a Euro every time I told him that that option has NOTHING to do with what he's trying to accomplish and in fact turning it on will make 100% sure that it won't work and he still goes ahead and activates it while telling me he thinks it will work. ("No, don't turn that on, we've already got a DHCP on the network and that will just cause a conflict" "I'll turn it on" "No you won't" "I think I should try it" "You shouldn't" "You don't know it won't work until you try it" "I know damn well it won't work because I understand just what the hell you're doing there" "I'll go ahead and turn it on then" Damn, sounds like a Dilbert strip)
He sounds like an ideal OSX candidate. If his processor supports SSE2, then you can install the PC version of OSX on his machine without much issue.
Seriously, I'll give you a URL to download the DVD image of the installer disc (it doesn't come on CDs, sadly). All you'd need to do is burn it and install it on his machine as a dual-boot scenario. I guarantee problems like the aforementioned will be a distant memory after a few months.
Quote
That reason being that they aren't made by a company that considers itself to have a monopoly on its product (except for Windows but that's not the PC).
They're cheaper because they're made from lower quality components.
There's a reason why you can get a "good" gaming PC for $500 or $2,000 which will run the same games: one of them was built with components which are are known for stability and high quality and the other was made from components built by the very lowest bidder.
Quote
Then my emo must have cut his throat already because my computer isn't complaining at all.
No, you're just preemptively attacking his problems so he has nothing to whine about via anti-virus and spyware utils.
And wait until the next unknown virus rolls around: he'll be whining plenty.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on July 18, 2006, 10:20:19 AM
My parents haven't figured out that they can have more than one application running at once, and that something can still be running even if they can't see it behind another window. I doubt that OSX would help me deal with that. Yet in spite of that my father knows that he should keep an up-to-date virus scanner and firewall on the computer. The man can't grasp the concept of Alt+Tab, but he never gets a virus. It's just not that complicated.
Post by: BigJim on July 18, 2006, 10:52:42 AM
Granted an over-the-counter $400 PC might be a time bomb. I would never touch one of those.
But compared to the industry average of 6-11% margins, Apple's average margins are closer to 20-25%. Much of the "quality hardware premium" is pocketed cash. That's their model, that's how they like it. Margins over volume. If someone wants to say the extra cost is for peace of mind or value as it relates to the iLife software, lack of malware, or even hardware style, etc. then that's cool. But hardware quality, in general, doesn't always fly. Even IF they incorporate better quality stuff, they're still pocketing more for it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 18, 2006, 11:37:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
My father's aunt has a Mac. It did not magically transform her into a problem-free computer whiz. It just changed the nature of her questions so that I can't answer them anymore. Fortunately, she has a son of her own to deal with it. Computer literacy isn't directly related to the operating system. Maybe she's less likely to get infected by random viruses now, but she still can't remember how to check her email. I don't think it would be user-friendly enough for her to understand it even if there were a gigantic Check Email button on the front of the computer and nothing else.
OSX's primary user friendly feature is the "dock", which is a bar which you can place on the left, right or bottom of the screen which contains all of the applications you use on a regular basis and you can simply click the one you want. The dock can be scaled to any size, can be told to hide when not needed or can be magnified when you mouse over it, making the icon larger. It also always displays the name of the application when you mouse over it regardless of settings.
The mail application is an application called "Mail". It's represented by a big picture of a stamp and has a little red number which appears in the upper right hand corner of the icon which indicates how many new email messages you have at any given time.
I never said OSX transformed people into computer whizzes, but when you remove the need for maintenance from the picture, things can only get better.
Quote
My parents haven't figured out that they can have more than one application running at once, and that something can still be running even if they can't see it behind another window. I doubt that OSX would help me deal with that.
The dock displays black arrows below any application icon which is currently running. It's visible at all times and you can clearly see which applications are running and which aren't.
I won't deny that there's a certain level of ineptitude that no OS could ever hope to overcome, but from my experience, OSX is by far the closest.
Quote
I don't agree with the notion that when you're buying a Mac you're paying more because you're always buying better quality. While it may be true depending on the product, I don't think it's always accurate.
Every Mac I've purchased in the last 7 years is still running and is also running the latest version of OSX because it's backwards compatible with all of the hardware, even 3 generations old. They're not gaming rigs, but they perform their basic functions just fine without ever needing maintenance or repair.
If seven years of reliable functionality, backwards compatibility, hardware stability and tons of use isn't the very epitome of quality, what is?
What product with moving parts lasts 7 years and is still supported by the company who built it after all that time?
Quote
But compared to the industry average of 6-11% margins, Apple's average margins are closer to 20-25%. Much of the "quality hardware premium" is pocketed cash. That's their model, that's how they like it. Margins over volume. If someone wants to say the extra cost is for peace of mind or value as it relates to the iLife software, lack of malware, or even hardware style, etc. then that's cool. But hardware quality, in general, doesn't always fly. Even IF they incorporate better quality stuff, they're still pocketing more for it.
They have to make up for R&D somehow.
Why do you think $50,000 can't buy a virus for OSX? That kind of security didn't come from just anywhere: it came from from paying some of the best programmers in the world to wrack their brains ensuring that there were no holes into OSX.
When they don't sell the volume of regular PCs, yet they likely incur far more in R&D costs, they have to make up the difference somehow, and like I said, that difference is more than worth it for the quality of the resulting product.
Post by: BigJim on July 18, 2006, 02:12:32 PM
Quote
Every Mac I've purchased in the last 7 years is still running and is also running the latest version of OSX because it's backwards compatible with all of the hardware, even 3 generations old. They're not gaming rigs, but they perform their basic functions just fine without ever needing maintenance or repair.
s
If seven years of reliable functionality, backwards compatibility, hardware stability and tons of use isn't the very epitome of quality, what is?
What product with moving parts lasts 7 years and is still supported by the company who built it after all that time?
I didn't say Macs weren't quality hardware. I can likewise say every PC I've had (or built) has so far has stood the test of time also. Only I retire them before they die since I upgrade every few years, and hand them off to a friend/relative. The oldest one that's still in use is my grandparents Pentium 2-233 from 98 or 99. We can exchange anecdotal evidence, but it's pointless. A decent lifetime can be managed as long as weak, timebomb hardware is avoided.
Mac motherboards come from Asus or Intel. CPUs come from Intel. GPUs come from nVidia, ATI or Intel. Hard drives come from Segate, WD, Maxtor, Hitachi, Samsung or Fujitsu. The essential insides are virtually identical. The failure rate of hard drives are a wash among all brands. And there is no "this Mac ATI x1600 is better than the PC one." It's the same stuff from the same vendors. There is very little that is particularly exceptional inside the Mac that can't be found in a typical PC. The only things to be cautious of are questionable RAM, motherboard, and power supply sources. Of which the "good ones" don't warrant much of a premium price over even the so-so ones, especially in volume sales.
Quote
They have to make up for R&D somehow.
Why do you think $50,000 can't buy a virus for OSX? That kind of security didn't come from just anywhere: it came from from paying some of the best programmers in the world to wrack their brains ensuring that there were no holes into OSX.
When they don't sell the volume of regular PCs, yet they likely incur far more in R&D costs, they have to make up the difference somehow, and like I said, that difference is more than worth it for the quality of the resulting product.
You don't need to be defensive. I'm aware of how margin is re-invested in companies. I'm also aware of OSX's quality. I use it frequently. But it's software. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of hardware coming off the assembly line. Like I said, if someone wants to associate the extra cost with better peace of mind from the OS, iLife software, enclosure style, or whatever, that's all well and good. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that the premium pays for hardware that's somehow better than PCs, when it's mostly the same stuff.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 19, 2006, 07:21:45 AM
And wait until the next unknown virus rolls around: he'll be whining plenty.
Neither of those found anything for years. I could go without them but I prefer having the option to scan immediately if I think there might be a problem. There have been plenty of "unknown" viruses over those years. Haven't been hit by one. As I said, firewall and some smarts and they won't even reach you.
OSX's primary user friendly feature is the "dock", which is a bar which you can place on the left, right or bottom of the screen which contains all of the applications you use on a regular basis and you can simply click the one you want. The dock can be scaled to any size, can be told to hide when not needed or can be magnified when you mouse over it, making the icon larger. It also always displays the name of the application when you mouse over it regardless of settings.
I agree, that is a great feature, I use it extensively.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 19, 2006, 07:28:36 AM
~~~~~
Of all the programs in the world, I use Windows Explorer the most. It kicks ass. Therefore, I just set it to a hotkey combo.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 19, 2006, 07:56:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
You don't need to be defensive. I'm aware of how margin is re-invested in companies. I'm also aware of OSX's quality. I use it frequently. But it's software. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of hardware coming off the assembly line. Like I said, if someone wants to associate the extra cost with better peace of mind from the OS, iLife software, enclosure style, or whatever, that's all well and good. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that the premium pays for hardware that's somehow better than PCs, when it's mostly the same stuff.
Sorry if I sounded defensive: I didn't mean to do so.
However, you answered your own question: you said yourself that, in order for Apple to make enough money on the sale of software, they'd need to sell 60,000,000 units of OSX or so every year.
The mainstay of their R&D goes into their software, and yet it's Apple's HARDWARE which nets them the most money, the money they spend on improving the software. Basically, that cash has to come from somewhere and you yourself said it ain't the software which is bringing it in.
Apple's basically backwards like that: they make money on hardware to ensure that their OS stays top-notch and near-free (you can use one OSX installer disc on as many Macs as you can find, no CD keys or registration required).
Quote
Neither of those found anything for years. I could go without them but I prefer having the option to scan immediately if I think there might be a problem. There have been plenty of "unknown" viruses over those years. Haven't been hit by one. As I said, firewall and some smarts and they won't even reach you.
IMHO, the computer should be smart enough on its own that you don't need to take extra steps to protect it. I have Macs connected to public IP addresses sans firewall via T1 and they've never seen a problem. I've tried the same with Win2K servers and they've been hacked the same goddamn day.
Quote
I agree, that is a great feature, I use it extensively.
Now you're just being bitter.
But unless those icons actually provide useful information like the the number of new emails or IMs or can be altered to any size, then the Mac dock is still superior.
Plus, for older and less computer adept individuals, when you launch an application, the icon jumps up and down, indicating that it's starting up. In the case of windows, double clicking an icon doesn't tell you anything while the application is loading which can easily confuse people who aren't computer savvy, causing them to open 3-4 instances of the same application.
It's not something you or I would need, but most of this discussion isn't about you or me, it's about the ability of an OS to negate the inexperience of its user.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on July 19, 2006, 08:14:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I agree, that is a great feature, I use it extensively.
I am now intensely curious about the contents of this mysterious cereals.txt file. Is it a list of favorite breakfast cereals? Code for a revenge hit list? Misspelled record of serial numbers? The mind boggles.
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Of all the programs in the world, I use Windows Explorer the most. It kicks ass. Therefore, I just set it to a hotkey combo.
But it already is set to a hotkey combo, unless you're talking about something else. I'm confused.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 19, 2006, 08:58:07 AM
Ctrl+Alt+/ since the Win95 days (pre-Windows Key era?), cuz on all my keyboards it's easy to press with index+middle+ring fingers (works for left- and right-handed people!).
On my laptop, I hit
On my laptop, I hit
Ctrl+Alt+Z, cuz it doesn't have a right-Ctrl, and the Windows Key is at some far off place where the Pause-Break key would be, in terms of location
Post by: Syl on July 19, 2006, 09:15:23 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 19, 2006, 09:35:07 AM
1) Dock. It's a love hat relationship. If I could have a seperate one that acted more like the windows taskbar then that be great. I always have multiple apps up and going between them. I find how the OSX does this to be annoying at times.
2) Maximize. When I hit Maximize in Safari I want it to fill the screen not just the middle. It might just be the Widescreen displays though.
3) Menubar not being part of the application. Sometimes I feel like I'm doing aerobics when I need to do something with the menu and then back to my window, menu, window menu window feel the burn.
4) I really don't like when I say for the OSX to "Open With" that it doesn't let me choice any program. I had a disc image that I was trying to load into Virtual PC I ended having to rename its extension to trick OSX into letting me open it with VPC.
5) Shortcut keys. This is a pet peeve for me on OSX. Apple's reason for a long time for not having a second mouse button was the more people kept with the keyboard the better. So expected shortcuts out the wah-zoo when I actually get to regularly use OSX I find that the OS is devoid of shortcut keys. Also who in there right mind decided that enter would be rename and Apple+O would be to open you file?
Just my rant on the subject. I have much of the same opinion on OSX as I do on Windows Mobile 5. Love the Background parts of it but disagree with/hate the front-end.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 19, 2006, 09:57:51 PM
The icons have two sizes (because Windows only requires apps to include two icon sizes) that can be chosen. You can use third party software with larger icons but quickstart should be sufficient for most purposes. These bars are simply depictions of folder contents (I could set one to a harddrive and navigate the drive from there). Some of the links go into folders I commonly use.
You can have dynamic display of stuff in the system tray which can contain application links as well (TweakUI). AFAIK no mail app bothers with putting much info there.
IMHO, the computer should be smart enough on its own that you don't need to take extra steps to protect it. I have Macs connected to public IP addresses sans firewall via T1 and they've never seen a problem. I've tried the same with Win2K servers and they've been hacked the same goddamn day.
Do what you want to do. I'm not saying Windows is perfect but it's not as bad as people make it out to be either. Most likely those Macs have an included firewall (these days all OSes come with one, including WinXP) because whatever happens you just don't want to connect to the web without a firewall. Even if you are 100% sure that your OS is without bugs you don't do that.
I am now intensely curious about the contents of this mysterious cereals.txt file. Is it a list of favorite breakfast cereals? Code for a revenge hit list? Misspelled record of serial numbers? The mind boggles.
List of serials since I take my games to LAN in a cd bag instead of the original cases (saves a LOT of room especially with those DVD cases used nowadays) and it's likely that I don't have the paper with the CDkey with me should anything happen (basic rule of LAN: Be prepared for ANYTHING) or should I need to spawn a few installs for multiplayer (these days you need cracks for that since I don't think we can find any game every participant owns). These days the latter case happens much more, I wasn't the guy who drew the arse card* (theory of LANs: One guy always has the arse card, i.e. his computer will refuse to work) for years.
*= Literal teranslation of our colloquial term for that. "Arschkarte gezogen"
Post by: 18 Days on July 20, 2006, 04:47:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I must say from my personal experience I don't like OSX Look and Feel that much. Here's why:
1) Dock. It's a love hat relationship. If I could have a seperate one that acted more like the windows taskbar then that be great. I always have multiple apps up and going between them. I find how the OSX does this to be annoying at times.
2) Maximize. When I hit Maximize in Safari I want it to fill the screen not just the middle. It might just be the Widescreen displays though.
3) Menubar not being part of the application. Sometimes I feel like I'm doing aerobics when I need to do something with the menu and then back to my window, menu, window menu window feel the burn.
4) I really don't like when I say for the OSX to "Open With" that it doesn't let me choice any program. I had a disc image that I was trying to load into Virtual PC I ended having to rename its extension to trick OSX into letting me open it with VPC.
5) Shortcut keys. This is a pet peeve for me on OSX. Apple's reason for a long time for not having a second mouse button was the more people kept with the keyboard the better. So expected shortcuts out the wah-zoo when I actually get to regularly use OSX I find that the OS is devoid of shortcut keys. Also who in there right mind decided that enter would be rename and Apple+O would be to open you file?
Just my rant on the subject. I have much of the same opinion on OSX as I do on Windows Mobile 5. Love the Background parts of it but disagree with/hate the front-end.
1. I find it more logical that apps in teh dock remain in teh same postion whethor they are open or closed. I throw all my frequent apps to the same side next to each other anyway.
2. Yeah this can be annoying. Try to think of the green button as a window "adjust" key rather than a maximise one. It's more a relic from earlier systems where it was better to have a button that would automativally adjust the window to the smallest possible size while still displaying everything.
3. Ten pixels is pretty difficult to cross, sometimes I try and move my mouse this far but die of exaustion halfway.
4. Did you ever try right clicking? or drag and drop? OSX has this and you can set default apps too.
5.What is Apple+O meant to be? I can't think of any other function beginning with O.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 20, 2006, 06:38:25 AM
Not everything is run in fullscreen.
4. Did you ever try right clicking?
With one button.
5.What is Apple+O meant to be? I can't think of any other function beginning with O.
That's not his problem, he's complaining about enter being rename instead of open.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 20, 2006, 06:50:31 AM
The "AutoFail" box is checked, and nope, you can't un-check it.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 20, 2006, 07:00:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11kDo what you want to do. I'm not saying Windows is perfect but it's not as bad as people make it out to be either. Most likely those Macs have an included firewall (these days all OSes come with one, including WinXP) because whatever happens you just don't want to connect to the web without a firewall. Even if you are 100% sure that your OS is without bugs you don't do that.
OSX does have a built-in firewall, yes.
Quote
With one button.
This actually ties into the shortcut argument because the mouse features many ways to set up macros to execute commands just by squeezing the damn thing.
If you don't want this one, do what everyone else does: buy a 2 button scroll wheel mouse for $15. I'm honestly not sure why they didn't integrate dual (or quadruple) button setup sooner, as OSX is built from the ground up to take advantage of the 2nd button and scroll wheel.
Quote
That's not his problem, he's complaining about enter being rename instead of open.
This is personal preference and what you "grew up with", I suppose. For me, enter will always be rename, command+Alt+esc brings up the menu to quit programs by force (like Stepmania when I click it by accident), etc.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 21, 2006, 06:14:44 AM
Enter is easy to hit so it should be a common function. I'd wager you open more files than you rename.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on July 21, 2006, 07:49:11 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 21, 2006, 07:51:58 AM
Also, whose idea was it to have specific folders which, when opened, require you to click a link that says "Display contents of folder"?
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on July 21, 2006, 08:23:11 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 21, 2006, 09:15:10 AM
Hitting enter to launch stuff makes sense since enter means "do that". If you select a file, "do that" means open it. Keyboard driven menus are activated with enter.
One thing I found interesting about Windows is that MS made sure all of their applications work without a mouse (yes even MS Paint). I don't think BeOS or the Linux GUIs allow that fully.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 21, 2006, 09:20:57 AM
Besides, there are vastly better ways to prevent people from deleting vital system files, like not allowing them to be moved, deleted or anything without making the user input a password first.
People generally get the idea that they're doing something important if it's asking for authentication.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 21, 2006, 11:04:03 PM
I think I could prevent my father from screwing up his PC (or our router) if I could take away his admin rights but he gets angry when I suggest that because he thinks he knows what he's doing.
As a sig on slashdot put it: Letting a normal user run as root is like putting a driver with a class 3 license into the pilot seat of a 747.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 22, 2006, 08:08:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k All unixes (which includes OSX) do that by default.
Actually, OSX creates the first user as an administrator, but like I said, it demands a password every time you're doing something which you might not realize you're doing.
That's another thing I dislike about Windows: its tendency to tell you to "Contact your system administrator" when something goes wrong but at the same time gives you absolutely no hints regarding what it might be.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 22, 2006, 10:36:39 AM
What is the difference between an OSX admin and a normal user? Will the user just not get the password prompt and get told to bugger off instead?
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 22, 2006, 08:00:58 PM
This assumes that the account password and admin password are different passwords.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 23, 2006, 03:46:28 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 23, 2006, 09:25:37 AM
Why not something like root? Welp I'm glad you asked. Programmers are great but dense people at times. Just because you could write the OS from scratched doesn't mean you know whats best for it. They mean administrator privilege for lets say Visual Studio but they do not need the privilege to change their system configuration manually. At that point you could give their user a policy that says they can authenticate for administrator Visual Studio but not system settings. That is more in line to how the Windows model was originally suppose to work. With LPU it can actually work like that. Though, if I as the administrator need to quickly fix something and their logged in then I can just use my authentication when the prompt shows up and get the thing done.
I'm sort of excited about the switch. Though I'm more excited about all the graphic rendering for the GUI being shifted to the Video Card so it stops eating my processor.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 23, 2006, 09:56:05 AM
At that point you could give their user a policy that says they can authenticate for administrator Visual Studio but not system settings.
In Unix that's what the setuser flag in a file is for, you could tell Visual Studio to be run as root no matter who runs it (of course that's dangerous as you could have it create a file and execute it and your program would have root level privileges). AFAIK that's missing in 2k and XP which makes LPU accounts annoying to manage as some applications require admin privileges for normal operation (e.g. because of low level hardware access). On the upside you can give file access permissions in much more detail under Windows, not just user, group and rest, you can define e.g. groups A and B can read only except for user x who can write as well while accound y which is used for some webserver program can only write into the folder.
Post by: Ceric on July 23, 2006, 10:08:38 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 23, 2006, 01:14:18 PM
That way, if you leave your computer on, you don't have to worry about little Timmy showing up and installing his AIM client on it without your permission.
Post by: Ceric on July 23, 2006, 01:46:48 PM
You know that sort of seems out of the blue. The point on that one? I mean that's how OSX incorporates the *nix part of it into the GUI. *shrug* Vista's going to be doing similar because it seems to work well.
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 05:57:05 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2006, 06:07:27 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 24, 2006, 07:00:29 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 07:15:57 AM
The admin account can set permissions for the subordinate user accounts, including what applications they can run, who they can email, who they can chat with, what sites they can access, etc.
You can lock down these accounts like crazy.
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2006, 07:46:17 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 24, 2006, 09:05:49 AM
