Topic: My Mac is a better PC than my PC...

[Kairon]

But...but...it's a MAC! ...isn't it?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[Athrun Zala]

wait, wait, wait.....

Quote
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.

The Core Duo isn't made just for Macs, the processor was even released *before*the MacIntels if memory serves right...

Quote
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.

There have been Intel 64-bit processors for a long while now....

Quote
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.

The Athlon 64/Opteron 64/Intels with EMT64 seem to disagree

Quote
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.

AMD never beated Intel in the GHz wars, as they processors had lower clock speeds

Quote
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.

No, Intel suffered because AMD offered way better processors at a lower price

Quote
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.

modders diasgree

[KDR_11k]

There have been Intel 64-bit processors for a long while now....

Itanium. More bits than users.

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.

[Smash_Brother]

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?

[Athrun Zala]

(I won't quote this time, too long )

- 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....

[BigJim]

- AMD and Intel were pretty competitive in the race up to and a little beyond the GHz mark. Since the Pentium 3 was getting long in the tooth, AMD was usually ahead. Intel would paper launch chips while AMD launched actual supplies. When Intel released the Pentium 4, there was a fork in the road. Intel ramped up GHz speed at the sake of IPC (instructions per clock cycle) while AMD went in the other direction by improving IPC. The "GHz" ratings didn't match, but their performances were more or less competitive. Although gamers have benefitted greatly from the A64 architecture for the last few years due to an embedded memory controller.

- 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.

 

[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.

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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.  

[Bubba]

I dont really care about the windows vs OSX argument because of the nature of it.  I know that I and many others get along fine with a Windows station without the "tens of millions" of people who get infected with viruses and other malicious apps.  Another good reason is that OSX locks you down to low permissions, similar to how Vista will work.  Security is a broad encompassing field.  It is more than just the OS.  Companies secure their networks the same way regardless of the workstation OS.

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*

[BigJim]

A few points... All else being equal the Mac is pretty secure, but its 4% penetration plays no small part in that. That's certainly not its only reason. OSX's foundation was built off of a mature openBSD base, afterall. OpenBSD itself was a spinoff of NetBSD which is like 15 years old.  But the relatively small penetration is absolutely a large asset against mass vulnerabilities.

Penny Arcade didn't "switch" they added it to their collection.  

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

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.

[capamerica]

Almost all PC Mags out there have said that you get alot more for your money when you buy a Mac with BootCamp then you do buying a PC. And when comparing PCs in the same price range the Mac always blows them away. The only down side the Mac ever had was the fact that you couldn't run windows. Which was important cause most of your software was Windows Only and people didn't want to go out and switch to another program or go out and buy a new version. But with BootCamp you don't. If you need to run a App that you only have for Windows you can just reboot. Or in the near future just run it with in OSX once they get the built-in emulation working. Or you can just buy a copy of Parallels Desktop and run Windows apps inside OSX now. (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.

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.

[KDR_11k]

And when comparing PCs in the same price range the Mac always blows them away.

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.

[capamerica]

First off one thing I would like to know is what is your Job profession? Do you work with Computers regularly?

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.  

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[Smash_Brother]

OMFG...why didn't I think of this SOONER?!?

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...

[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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.

[oohhboy]

OS 9 has Viruses? JK. On the 10 years I have been using Macs I have yet to encounter anything remotely like that.

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.

[KDR_11k]

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

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.

[Smash_Brother]

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.