It is official Apple will be making Macs with Intel chips.
Not Me
<http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm>
Loadnlock
> Apple will be making Macs with Intel chips.
>
> <http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm>
Yeah! We won't have to bother pirating Microsoft Virtual PC anymore!!
Will-Lee-Cue
If you need to run Windows programs ... buy a PC.
Problem solved.
And before you get off on an Mac ver PC rant look at the June issue of Mac
Format magazine.
"5O killer bugs squashed" reads the cover.
And those are just the big ones.
William Lee
"Loadnlock" <load...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:T76dnVwmCYg...@comcast.com...
Daren Halfpenny
n5...@stx.rr.com wrote on 7/6/05 1:50 pm:
This is about more than just x86 processors, I'm sure. I bet that Intel have
something big up their sleeves sometime soon and Apple are more than aware
of that. I just hope that the same systems aren't open to Microsoft as if
the Mac platform is to stand a chance in the future, it has to be DIFFERENT
to the common PC infrastructure a-la Power PC processors opposed to
everything else out there in PC-dom. As Mac OS X is processor independent,
the shift to a new processor is going to be far easier than it will be for
windows so the Mac OS is always going to be the superior choice. By the time
Longhorn is out, Leopard will be available or just around the corner which
will p*ss all over it anyway!
However, Apple NEED big speed bumps, especially as far as the G4 is
concerned - those chips are easily 5 years old by now and these are what is
being offered in the top of the line Pro-laptop Powerbooks - a travesty
really! Sadly it means we'll never get to see the G5 Powerbook, something I
was actually quite looking forward to seeing, even if I wasn't in the
running for one.
Also, I can't see the new Macs, whether they run on Intel or not, running
Windows straight out of the box - I may be wrong but what I can be certain
of is that Apple will not allow X to run on a PC unless a PC-optimised
version is marketed separately - the new Macs will be sufficiently different
in the proprietary hardware to ensure that X cannot be transferred directly
from an Intel Mac to an Intel PC.
What bothers me more than anything though, is that we're going to see the
poxy "intel Inside" logo plastered all over these machines and at the end of
their ads which infuriates me enough already when I hear it...
ER
"Daren Halfpenny" <dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BECBED71.46D04%dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk...
optimized. BSD was hacked out of early Unix derivatives. Like the old
saying: Too many cooks spoil the soup. Unix can't compete with a modern well
designed OS optimized for a processor type. Apple is doomed unless it gets
off Unix. Unix and Linux are much the same and you get what you pay for.
ER
Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
> Now Unix has never been a big player on Intel processors so it is poorly
> optimized. BSD was hacked out of early Unix derivatives. Like the old
> saying: Too many cooks spoil the soup. Unix can't compete with a modern well
> designed OS optimized for a processor type. Apple is doomed unless it gets
> off Unix. Unix and Linux are much the same and you get what you pay for.
Uh-huh...well...it will still be better than Windows eXtra Pathetic.
fudo
> optimized. BSD was hacked out of early Unix derivatives. Like the old
> saying: Too many cooks spoil the soup. Unix can't compete with a modern well
> designed OS optimized for a processor type. Apple is doomed unless it gets
> off Unix. Unix and Linux are much the same and you get what you pay for.
>
Oh, c'mon now, that's a pathetic attempt at trolling. If you can't do
better than that, better not to play at all.
--
fudo can be reached at spamblocked d o t c o m
Loadnlock
"Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KKgpe.44113$6g3....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Why run Windows programs on a Mac?
Windows programs won't run on a Mac. Mac users have to run them on Virtual
PC.
~
laptops that run cooler and faster and less power usage.
i guess intel has better proprietary processes to make ships..
although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
staples and reformat it and run os x.
In article <T76dnVwmCYg...@comcast.com>, Loadnlock
ER
ER
"~" <~@1.2> wrote in message news:080620051242263889%~@1.2...
fudo
> although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
> staples and reformat it and run os x.
Nope. Oh, I don't doubt that some enterprising hacker will figure out
how to do it, but it won't be supported by Apple.
Michael J. Sherman
> although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
> staples and reformat it and run os x.
>
And this is why it can only hurt Apple in the long run. A lot of the
Mac experience is not just the OS X operating system, but the look,
fit, and finish of the hardware itself. Just sitting at the machine
you know you are in for a different experience.
Mac OS X on any cheap, beige PC will only harm the Apple image.
As an owner of several Apple products, I am *not* looking forward to this.
Odysseus
"Michael J. Sherman" <mshe...@dsbox.com> wrote:
>
> And this is why it can only hurt Apple in the long run. A lot of the
> Mac experience is not just the OS X operating system, but the look,
> fit, and finish of the hardware itself. Just sitting at the machine
> you know you are in for a different experience.
>
> Mac OS X on any cheap, beige PC will only harm the Apple image.
>
AFAICT the only aspect that will be reminiscent of a "cheap, beige PC"
will be the "Intel inside" logo (assuming that's part of the deal, which
it may not be). Even if Apple contracts out for the motherboards as well
as the CPUs, I wouldn't expect the overall design to lose its 'fit &
finish' -- or if it does, it won't be anything to do with the processor.
--
Odysseus
Randall Ainsworth
> although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
> staples and reformat it and run os x.
You'll need an Apple-branded computer to run OS X.
Peter Pan
cpus than intel (unless you consider the alpha descendants), however
they could put out a OS X version for older intel machines (of course
with an extra premium for the privilege:). This would give come
corporate sites an interesting alternative to windows, and could be a
good cash cow for apple. Besides most users don't realize that they
have a unix box, but a weird mac instead, and most major software
already runs on the mac (linux still has to catch up, though there are
very nice alternatives, but corporate world might not be happy with
them). It might also make it easier for many of the wintel developers
start coding for the mac world.
As for the PPC chips, it has been assumed for sometime that there might
not be a G5 for powerbooks, much less a G6. Motorola is basically out
of the game, and IBM might not be pursuing this hard enough. Remember
the time it took for the G5 to come out, and the gap between the G4 and
intel. Apple could always take what they have to intel (remember apple
is part of the ppc consortium), in exchange for a special intel chip
(this would kill the market possibilities for the wintel world).
Regardless, I was hoping for a nice g5 powerbook to replace my pismo
(there were rumors about this or next year), besides hating the idea of
having a mac with an intel inside logo :(
In article <WP0pe.15740$QX1...@fe06.lga>, Not Me <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
Hugh Gibbons
> from what i read the move is only because intel can build cpu's for
> laptops that run cooler and faster and less power usage.
>
> i guess intel has better proprietary processes to make ships..
>
>
> although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
> staples and reformat it and run os x.
Who says they're going to make it able to run on standard PCs?
==> ALL COMMENTS IMO <==
Hugh Gibbons
Daren Halfpenny <dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Also, I can't see the new Macs, whether they run on Intel or not, running
> Windows straight out of the box - I may be wrong but what I can be certain
> of is that Apple will not allow X to run on a PC unless a PC-optimised
> version is marketed separately - the new Macs will be sufficiently different
> in the proprietary hardware to ensure that X cannot be transferred directly
> from an Intel Mac to an Intel PC.
I have to disagree. I think this move signifies Apple's move away from
seeing itself as a computer company to seeing itself as a software
company. I think they may intend to go head-to-head against Windows.
I think everybody in the Mac world and many in the PC world see MacOS X
as a superior product to Windows of whatever version. But Microsoft
continues to clean Apple's clock year after year because their system
runs on the cheap, ubiquitous hardware as well as high-end hardware and
supports 90% of users' old software (almost 100% if they're upgrading
from a previous Windows version). If MacOS X is translated to run on
STANDARD PC HARDWARE, half the barrier to crossover is removed. This
is certainly a risky move, because there's no guarantee that the main
movement won't be the other way and spell Apple's doom.
But Apple has to keep some things clearly in mind in order to avoid that
doom.
1. OS X must remain clearly superior in the user interface.
2. OS X must make at least as efficient if not more efficient use
of hardware.
3. Apple/Intel machines must emulate G4 and G5 machines flawlessly
and blazing fast.
If there's a discernible loss of speed, the new Apple machines will seem
like junk to Mac users. I think the chances of doing this are not good.
If they fail in this, we'll be forced to do a complete software
migration, almost as bad as the conversion to Windows. And if it's as
bad as all that, why not go all the way?
If Apple wants to stand a chance of GAINING significant market share,
they must also:
4. Make OS X work on standard PC hardware.
and
5. Make OS X able to run most Windows software as-is.
If they do all of the above, this is a terrific move for Apple and my
advice would be BUY BUY BUY. If they stumble on any of the 1st three,
you won't be able to sell Apple stock fast enough.
> What bothers me more than anything though, is that we're going to see the
> poxy "intel Inside" logo plastered all over these machines and at the end of
> their ads which infuriates me enough already when I hear it...
Just because they have Intel inside doesn't mean they won't also have AMD
in other versions. So they might want to de-emphasize the Intel chips.
Me, I just want to see a definitive end to the PENTIUM brand. I still
have flashbacks of the original Pentiums with floating-point processor
problems every time I see it. Why oh why didn't Intel put that behind
them by giving the P2 a new name instead of recycling Pentium?
Randall Ainsworth
Gibbons <pa...@my.house.com> wrote:
> Who says they're going to make it able to run on standard PCs?
If you guys would pay attention, only Apple-branded boxes will be able
to run OS X.
Will-Lee-Cue
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote
> 1. OS X must remain clearly superior in the user interface.
Hugh, I have run both Apple and PC's since before there was a Mac.
How do you figure OSX is superior to Windows?
Both platforms have their own unique problems but both will work.
> 2. OS X must make at least as efficient if not more efficient use
> of hardware.
> 3. Apple/Intel machines must emulate G4 and G5 machines flawlessly
> and blazing fast.
What is this hang up on speed ????.
If you are into games then buy an X-box or Playstation.
95% of Mac users run office apps or internet software and would never notice
the difference between 350 meg and 1 gig in processor speed.
How many people drive the fastest car made?
If they did how often do they need that speed?
After a point all a faster processor does is allow software writers to write
more complex and bloated programs.
Example: OSX
(Goodbye old loyal OS9 users, Apple dont need you anymore cause they have
bled that horse dry and it is time for a fresh pony)
OSX is about as bloated with useless features as software can get and its
only reason for existance is to run the latest and greatest software
designed just for OSX.
I can not find ONE new feature that I just can not live without and none of
my existing MAC software wont run on it.
( Windows XP will still run my old DOS programs)
So ... you think I should go out and spend a few thousand dollars for
software upgrades so my word prosseor, spread sheet, iLife, and Adobe
software will run one tenth of a blink of my eye faster?
Should I be singing praise to Apple and bad mouthing Windows for that?
I think NOT.
> 4. Make OS X work on standard PC hardware.
Why ... what can Apple offer that PC's dont already have?
> 5. Make OS X able to run most Windows software as-is.
Again ... Why?
There is already an abundance of operating systems and programs available
for the PC.
Who needs yet another PC operating system?
Seems to me Apple fanatics have a big hang up about "Intel" for some reason.
Personally, I try to use the tool that best fits the job and ignore the
label.
I think far to many of Mac addicts are so wrapped up in finding fault with
PC's and measuring processor speed to the last micro-second that you have
lost touch with the common computer user and their needs.
Sure I can find fault and write up a wish list, we all can, but in the real
world the PC and Windows dominate home and business computing because it
works ... most of the time ... and people are reluctant to give up something
they are familiar with for something new.
fudo
"Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> "Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote
>
> > 1. OS X must remain clearly superior in the user interface.
>
> Hugh, I have run both Apple and PC's since before there was a Mac.
> How do you figure OSX is superior to Windows?
Security, security, security. Well, that's not UI, but it is a
difference.
> Both platforms have their own unique problems but both will work.
>
> > 2. OS X must make at least as efficient if not more efficient use
> > of hardware.
>
> > 3. Apple/Intel machines must emulate G4 and G5 machines flawlessly
> > and blazing fast.
>
> What is this hang up on speed ????.
> If you are into games then buy an X-box or Playstation.
> 95% of Mac users run office apps or internet software and would never notice
> the difference between 350 meg and 1 gig in processor speed.
That's not true. Try ripping MP3s at 350MHz for a while and see if you
can't tell the difference. And please don't say that most people don't
do that.
> How many people drive the fastest car made?
> If they did how often do they need that speed?
> After a point all a faster processor does is allow software writers to write
> more complex and bloated programs.
> Example: OSX
> (Goodbye old loyal OS9 users, Apple dont need you anymore cause they have
> bled that horse dry and it is time for a fresh pony)
> OSX is about as bloated with useless features as software can get and its
> only reason for existance is to run the latest and greatest software
> designed just for OSX.
> I can not find ONE new feature that I just can not live without and none of
> my existing MAC software wont run on it.
Protected memory? Real multitasking? MP support? Oh, that's right, you
don't care about speed, so strike that. Maybe you can live without 'em;
I was a late adopter of OSX, but even dog-slow 10.1 was such an
improvement in stability over 9 that I was hooked immediately. HMMV.
> Seems to me Apple fanatics have a big hang up about "Intel" for some reason.
> Personally, I try to use the tool that best fits the job and ignore the
> label.
I can agree with the "use the best tool" part.
> I think far to many of Mac addicts are so wrapped up in finding fault with
> PC's and measuring processor speed to the last micro-second that you have
> lost touch with the common computer user and their needs.
And I think all Windows users only care about what games they can play,
and nothing else. There, now we can both make broad, sweeping (and
false) generalizations, can't we?
> Sure I can find fault and write up a wish list, we all can, but in the real
> world the PC and Windows dominate home and business computing because it
> works ... most of the time ... and people are reluctant to give up something
> they are familiar with for something new.
We agree on that too; people stay with what they know, sometimes even
when there are better alternatives.
Hugh Gibbons
Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
If they don't, they're inhibiting users crossing over from Windows to
Mac. Why wouldn't they want to do that? Isn't most of the money in
operating systems sales?
fudo
Hugh Gibbons <pa...@my.house.com> wrote:
> In article <120620052125245093%r...@nospam.techline.com>,
> Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <party-1A4F92....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com>, Hugh
> > Gibbons <pa...@my.house.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Who says they're going to make it able to run on standard PCs?
> >
> > If you guys would pay attention, only Apple-branded boxes will be able
> > to run OS X.
>
> If they don't, they're inhibiting users crossing over from Windows to
> Mac. Why wouldn't they want to do that? Isn't most of the money in
> operating systems sales?
No, Apple makes far more money off hardware than software. I saw the
figures recently, though I can't remember where just now, but the
difference was on the order of 4-5 times more on hardware.
fudo
fudo <fu...@spamblocked.invalid> wrote:
> No, Apple makes far more money off hardware than software. I saw the
> figures recently, though I can't remember where just now, but the
> difference was on the order of 4-5 times more on hardware.
Following up: you can get Apple's annual reports here:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=107357&p=irol-reports
For 2004, Apple made more than 10 times on hardware what they made on
software.
Will-Lee-Cue
I think there are just as many security "holes" in Mac OS as there are in
Windows.
You just don't hear so much about them because there are not the same number
of people trying to exploited them. When the sellers of anti-virus programs
see a potential profit from Mac users there will be viruses created and a
need for their programs. It is already starting.
I did not mean to over generalize with my coment.
That is why I said "far to many" instead of "all" or "most".
Just pick up any Mac magazine or read any Mac newsgroup and you will see
exactly what I mean.
Believe it or not there are millions of computer users that DO NOT rip CD
music, play games, or need computers with dual processors that run at
gigabyte speed.
Its all a marketing ploy to create a need for new computers and upgraded
software.
Any computer that has a processor speed above 400 meg is plenty fast for
MOST users needs.
(opps ... another generalization ... sorry ... I just dont have the hard
numbers)
Do you think there are more G3 computers in use or more G5's?
Do you think OS9 or OSX has more actual users?
BTW ... where is the G5 laptop?
"fudo" <fu...@spamblocked.invalid> wrote
Will-Lee-Cue
Apple also is more willing to give away the older versions of their
operating systems.
"fudo" <fu...@spamblocked.invalid> wrote
fudo
"Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> I don't know about that Fudo.
> I think there are just as many security "holes" in Mac OS as there are in
> Windows.
> You just don't hear so much about them because there are not the same number
> of people trying to exploited them. When the sellers of anti-virus programs
> see a potential profit from Mac users there will be viruses created and a
> need for their programs. It is already starting.
That's not born out by the facts. If there were as many holes in OSX as
there are in Windows, we'd see some exploits already. There are millions
of broadband connected Macs out there that would make a tempting target
for any hacker, if they were easy to take advantage of. But there still
aren't any exploits in the wild, only proof-of-concepts in the lab.
> I did not mean to over generalize with my coment.
> That is why I said "far to many" instead of "all" or "most".
> Just pick up any Mac magazine or read any Mac newsgroup and you will see
> exactly what I mean.
>
> Believe it or not there are millions of computer users that DO NOT rip CD
> music, play games, or need computers with dual processors that run at
> gigabyte speed.
But there are millions more who do. For another example, manipulating
digital photos; how many people are now using digital cameras, and
editing them with their computers. And digital video too. I think I'd
agree with you if you said that most people don't need a 3.6GHz Pentium
or a dual 2.7GHz PPC, but your 400MHz level is too low for any but the
most casual user, in my opinion.
I do agree with you that there is a lot of hype around trying to get
people to buy newer, faster computers than they really need. Our whole
economy these days revolves around getting people to buy stuff they
don't really need, if people only bought what they needed, the economy
would collapse.
> Its all a marketing ploy to create a need for new computers and upgraded
> software.
> Any computer that has a processor speed above 400 meg is plenty fast for
> MOST users needs.
> (opps ... another generalization ... sorry ... I just dont have the hard
> numbers)
> Do you think there are more G3 computers in use or more G5's?
> Do you think OS9 or OSX has more actual users?
Well, I don't have any hard numbers either, so I have to speculate. Most
likely more G3s than G5s, but I'd guess OSX has more users than OS9 now.
>
> BTW ... where is the G5 laptop?
There is no G5 laptop, and at this point, there is never going to be
one. IBM is unable to deliver a G5 that will run in a laptop, which is
the major reason why Apple is moving to Intel.
Hugh Gibbons
> Do you think there are more G3 computers in use or more G5's?
> Do you think OS9 or OSX has more actual users?
I dunno. I have a 500 MHz G3 and consider it plenty fast. I'm running
OSX on it, which I GREATLY prefer to OS9. The only thing I really
dislike about OSX is running old OS9 apps under Classic. That's a
nasty kludge. I have some speed-of-execution issues, but they're
only related to how long it takes programs to load and switch. That
tells me it's a physical memory limitation, not my processor at fault.
> BTW ... where is the G5 laptop?
>
>
> "fudo" <fu...@spamblocked.invalid> wrote
>
> > "Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > 1. OS X must remain clearly superior in the user interface.
> >>
> >> Hugh, I have run both Apple and PC's since before there was a Mac.
> >> How do you figure OSX is superior to Windows?
It's personal preference. I have been using Macs since they were
introduced and have owned several since 1994 (Systems 7, 8, 9 and X).
I have used Windows machines continuously (Windows 3.1, NT, 2000 and XP
Professional) since the early 90s. Never at any time has Windows had a
superior UI as far as I was concerned. Apple's was always better.
However, I must say that running Classic on a OSX machine is shameful
kludge and harmed Apple's reputation.
> > Security, security, security. Well, that's not UI, but it is a
> > difference.
I think this must be true. There have been no significant malware
penetrations of MacOSX, compared to hundreds if not thousands for
Windows. I can't imagine that would be the case if Windows security
wasn't sloppier.
It could be that the prevalence of Windows machines effectively has
protected Macs from penetrations, because the same attacks don't work
on both platforms, so Macs end up being isolated from one another at
least for viruses by intervening windows machines that won't spread the
bad code. However, the I would think that trojans would still be
written and Macs would still expose themselves via the web.
Symantec's recent dire warnings appear to be purely an attempt to sell
its nonfunctional product.
Will-Lee-Cue
What do you find that makes it "better"?
It is different but I dont see anything that makes me think it is better
than Windows.
Both systems have their strong points and weaknesses.
As just one point I like the right mouse on Windows and find it a time
saver.
William Lee
"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote
fudo
"Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> As just one point I like the right mouse on Windows and find it a time
> saver.
>
Well, that's easy enough to fix; buy a two button mouse. I'm not sure
about the very low end ones, but any brand name USB mouse will be
recognized by 10.3 or .4, and right clicking will give you a contextual
menu. I have a Logitech with four buttons that works great, although you
have to use Logitech's control panel to get all four buttons to function.
As for what's better about OSX, I have my own opinions, but I'll let
Hugh answer since you directed the question to him.
Randall Ainsworth
> It is different but I dont see anything that makes me think it is better
> than Windows.
> Both systems have their strong points and weaknesses.
> As just one point I like the right mouse on Windows and find it a time
> saver.
OS X doesn't die. I have XP Pro lock up on me at work at least once a
day. And OS X doesn't look like it was designed by Walt Disney.
Will-Lee-Cue
You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
Is that right?
<grin> taking it with a grain of salt.
William Lee
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:170620051815561598%r...@nospam.techline.com...
fudo
"Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> Let me understand this.
> You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
> Is that right?
>
> <grin> taking it with a grain of salt.
>
Well, in over two years of running OSX, I can still count the number of
kernel panics I've had on my fingers. And some of those were provoked by
doing things that I knew might cause a panic.
Mark Dodel
wrote:
-> In article <4ihte.46373$j51....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
-> "Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
->
-> > Let me understand this.
-> > You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
-> > Is that right?
-> >
-> > <grin> taking it with a grain of salt.
-> >
->
-> Well, in over two years of running OSX, I can still count the number of
-> kernel panics I've had on my fingers. And some of those were provoked by
-> doing things that I knew might cause a panic.
You have to understand that windoze users just accept it as a matter
of fact that computers are unstable. That is all they know.
Remember the standard fix from microsoft for just about any problem in
the windoze world is to reinstall the entire system.
Mark
--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel
http://www.os2voice.org
Warpstock 2005, Hershey, PA, Oct 6-9, 2005 - http://www.warpstock.org
Brian Paul Ehni
"Mark Dodel" <madode...@ptd.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 17:05:28 UTC, fudo <fu...@spamblocked.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> -> In article <4ihte.46373$j51....@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
> -> "Will-Lee-Cue" <n5...@stx.rr.com> wrote:
> ->
> -> > Let me understand this.
> -> > You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
> -> > Is that right?
> -> >
> -> > <grin> taking it with a grain of salt.
> -> >
> ->
> -> Well, in over two years of running OSX, I can still count the number of
> -> kernel panics I've had on my fingers. And some of those were provoked by
> -> doing things that I knew might cause a panic.
>
> You have to understand that windoze users just accept it as a matter
> of fact that computers are unstable. That is all they know.
> Remember the standard fix from microsoft for just about any problem in
> the windoze world is to reinstall the entire system.
>
>
> Mark
No. Speaking as one who has to work in a Windows environment, I can assure
you the first line of defense is to reboot.
Format and restore is second.
--
Brian Ehni
Randall Ainsworth
> Let me understand this.
> You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
> Is that right?
I had a kernel panic with the initial release of OS X back in 2001.
Since then with Jaguar, Panther, and now Tiger, I have not had the OS
lock up. Yes, programs have died from time to time, but OS X keeps
right on ticking.
John Biltz
(in article <4ihte.46373$j51....@tornado.texas.rr.com>):
> Let me understand this.
> You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
> Is that right?
>
> <grin> taking it with a grain of salt.
>
> William Lee
Mine has never crashed in the 3 years I've had it except when I
improperly pull an external hard drive and hook it back up without
rebooting first. Which I can't blame on the machine. I never believed the
hype either until I bought this my first Mac.
Debo
RA> day. And OS X doesn't look like it was designed by Walt Disney.
I don't know what you're doing to your XP box at work, but I just hammer
on mine throughout the day, and I'm incredibly impressed with its
stability (especially considering it's a pre-install on a Dell, which is
usually asking for trouble in my experience). I don't think I've had a
single bluescreen, and I haven't actually been forced to reboot in a month
(although I shut down from time to time just to save power).
This from a machine that's running apache, postgres, and a bunch of other
heavy-duty bioinformatics software that wasn't even designed for the
windows environment in the first place.
I can think of environments for work that would be better suited for me,
such as gnome or ratpoison on linux or, of course, OS/X, but considering
the situation, I'm quite happy with XP and its behaviour on this hardware.
-Debo
Odysseus
> Let me understand this.
> You are saying that OSX does not ever crash.
> Is that right?
>
> <grin> taking it with a grain of salt.
>
As you should ... but can attest that I've had exactly one serious
system crash since I began 'phasing in' OS X a couple of years ago (I've
only used "Panther", v10.3.x; my system is dual-boot, as I still spend
about half a typical day in OS 9.2). That was when I tried to burn a CD
one day; the internal CD drive apparently has developed a hardware
problem and is now read-only. I've had plenty of applications (including
the Finder) crash or refuse to launch, but the system and all other
running programs generally just keep going.
--
Odysseus
Randall Ainsworth
<Pine.GSO.4.58.05...@cpu18.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca>, Debo
<mddi...@NOSPAM.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> I don't know what you're doing to your XP box at work, but I just hammer
> on mine throughout the day, and I'm incredibly impressed with its
> stability (especially considering it's a pre-install on a Dell, which is
> usually asking for trouble in my experience). I don't think I've had a
> single bluescreen, and I haven't actually been forced to reboot in a month
> (although I shut down from time to time just to save power).
I'm just working...with oddball apps like Fireworks, Office,
Dreamweaver...offbeat stuff like that. What often locks it up is when
I right-click an item on the Documents menu and select Delete. At
least once a day it's reboot time.
Kib Holt
I think you need to do the math. In a business environment, or any
collaboration effort, 1+1 does not equal 2. The strength comes from people
working together. Linux is the answer to forming a collaboration that
everyone can work together and create something really positive. No
boundaries exist, except those found in the minds of them who are to blind
to see. Not everything in this world has to be for profit. If you could by
a computer and have the hardware be the only expense, why would you not do
so?
Kib
On 6/7/05 6:15 PM, "ER" <ev...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
>
> "Daren Halfpenny" <dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:BECBED71.46D04%dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> in article KKgpe.44113$6g3....@tornado.texas.rr.com, Will-Lee-Cue at
>> n5...@stx.rr.com wrote on 7/6/05 1:50 pm:
>>
>>> Why run Windows programs on a Mac to start with?
>>> If you need to run Windows programs ... buy a PC.
>>> Problem solved.
>>>
>>> And before you get off on an Mac ver PC rant look at the June issue of
>>> Mac
>>> Format magazine.
>>> "5O killer bugs squashed" reads the cover.
>>> And those are just the big ones.
>>>
>>> William Lee
>>>
>>>
>>> "Loadnlock" <load...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:T76dnVwmCYg...@comcast.com...
>>>> Not Me wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apple will be making Macs with Intel chips.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah! We won't have to bother pirating Microsoft Virtual PC anymore!!
>>>
>>>
>> This is about more than just x86 processors, I'm sure. I bet that Intel
>> have
>> something big up their sleeves sometime soon and Apple are more than aware
>> of that. I just hope that the same systems aren't open to Microsoft as if
>> the Mac platform is to stand a chance in the future, it has to be
>> DIFFERENT
>> to the common PC infrastructure a-la Power PC processors opposed to
>> everything else out there in PC-dom. As Mac OS X is processor independent,
>> the shift to a new processor is going to be far easier than it will be for
>> windows so the Mac OS is always going to be the superior choice. By the
>> time
>> Longhorn is out, Leopard will be available or just around the corner which
>> will p*ss all over it anyway!
>>
>> However, Apple NEED big speed bumps, especially as far as the G4 is
>> concerned - those chips are easily 5 years old by now and these are what
>> is
>> being offered in the top of the line Pro-laptop Powerbooks - a travesty
>> really! Sadly it means we'll never get to see the G5 Powerbook, something
>> I
>> was actually quite looking forward to seeing, even if I wasn't in the
>> running for one.
>>
>> Also, I can't see the new Macs, whether they run on Intel or not, running
>> Windows straight out of the box - I may be wrong but what I can be certain
>> of is that Apple will not allow X to run on a PC unless a PC-optimised
>> version is marketed separately - the new Macs will be sufficiently
>> different
>> in the proprietary hardware to ensure that X cannot be transferred
>> directly
>> from an Intel Mac to an Intel PC.
>>
>> What bothers me more than anything though, is that we're going to see the
>> poxy "intel Inside" logo plastered all over these machines and at the end
>> of
>> their ads which infuriates me enough already when I hear it...
>>
>>
> Now Unix has never been a big player on Intel processors so it is poorly
> optimized. BSD was hacked out of early Unix derivatives. Like the old
> saying: Too many cooks spoil the soup. Unix can't compete with a modern well
> designed OS optimized for a processor type. Apple is doomed unless it gets
> off Unix. Unix and Linux are much the same and you get what you pay for.
>
> ER
>
>
>
Kib Holt
On 6/8/05 11:14 AM, "ER" <ev...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
> So why don't you just buy a cheap Linux PC?
>
> ER
>
>
> "~" <~@1.2> wrote in message news:080620051242263889%~@1.2...
>> from what i read the move is only because intel can build cpu's for
>> laptops that run cooler and faster and less power usage.
>>
>> i guess intel has better proprietary processes to make ships..
>>
>>
>> although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
>> staples and reformat it and run os x.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In article <T76dnVwmCYg...@comcast.com>, Loadnlock
Kib Holt
Hold your thought. There are computer manufacturers out there that want
to put OS X on their systems as OEM. I think there are three, undisclosed,
manufacturers if my memory serves me well.
On 6/8/05 7:11 PM, "Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <080620051242263889%~@1.2>, <~@1.2> wrote:
>
>> although if os x can run on a pc then you can get a budget pc at
>> staples and reformat it and run os x.
>
> You'll need an Apple-branded computer to run OS X.
Kib Holt
think he said OS X was a real innovation. Other os's , and their minor
changes, were just window dressing.
On 6/12/05 5:01 PM, "Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote:
> In article <BECBED71.46D04%dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Daren Halfpenny <dhalf...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Also, I can't see the new Macs, whether they run on Intel or not, running
>> Windows straight out of the box - I may be wrong but what I can be certain
>> of is that Apple will not allow X to run on a PC unless a PC-optimised
>> version is marketed separately - the new Macs will be sufficiently different
>> in the proprietary hardware to ensure that X cannot be transferred directly
>> from an Intel Mac to an Intel PC.
>
> I have to disagree. I think this move signifies Apple's move away from
> seeing itself as a computer company to seeing itself as a software
> company. I think they may intend to go head-to-head against Windows.
> I think everybody in the Mac world and many in the PC world see MacOS X
> as a superior product to Windows of whatever version. But Microsoft
> continues to clean Apple's clock year after year because their system
> runs on the cheap, ubiquitous hardware as well as high-end hardware and
> supports 90% of users' old software (almost 100% if they're upgrading
> from a previous Windows version). If MacOS X is translated to run on
> STANDARD PC HARDWARE, half the barrier to crossover is removed. This
> is certainly a risky move, because there's no guarantee that the main
> movement won't be the other way and spell Apple's doom.
>
> But Apple has to keep some things clearly in mind in order to avoid that
> doom.
> 1. OS X must remain clearly superior in the user interface.
> 2. OS X must make at least as efficient if not more efficient use
> of hardware.
> 3. Apple/Intel machines must emulate G4 and G5 machines flawlessly
> and blazing fast.
>
> If there's a discernible loss of speed, the new Apple machines will seem
> like junk to Mac users. I think the chances of doing this are not good.
> If they fail in this, we'll be forced to do a complete software
> migration, almost as bad as the conversion to Windows. And if it's as
> bad as all that, why not go all the way?
>
> If Apple wants to stand a chance of GAINING significant market share,
> they must also:
> 4. Make OS X work on standard PC hardware.
> and
> 5. Make OS X able to run most Windows software as-is.
>
> If they do all of the above, this is a terrific move for Apple and my
> advice would be BUY BUY BUY. If they stumble on any of the 1st three,
> you won't be able to sell Apple stock fast enough.
>
>> What bothers me more than anything though, is that we're going to see the
>> poxy "intel Inside" logo plastered all over these machines and at the end of
>> their ads which infuriates me enough already when I hear it...
>
> Just because they have Intel inside doesn't mean they won't also have AMD
> in other versions. So they might want to de-emphasize the Intel chips.
>
> Me, I just want to see a definitive end to the PENTIUM brand. I still
> have flashbacks of the original Pentiums with floating-point processor
> problems every time I see it. Why oh why didn't Intel put that behind
> them by giving the P2 a new name instead of recycling Pentium?
Brian Paul Ehni
<k...@cox.net> wrote:
> Randall,
> Hold your thought. There are computer manufacturers out there that want
> to put OS X on their systems as OEM. I think there are three, undisclosed,
> manufacturers if my memory serves me well.
>
>
Michael Dell said it publicly!
--
Brian Ehni
Brian Paul Ehni
<k...@cox.net> wrote:
> Didn't Bill Gates say that Apple was the way computers should be built. I
> think he said OS X was a real innovation. Other os's , and their minor
> changes, were just window dressing.
>
>
Bill has a lot of room to talk. The screenshots I've seen of "Longhorn" look
like an XP theme pack and not much else.
Unless "Longhorn" is a full-blown "-nix" (Unix, Linux, etc.), the game's
over. People are getting fed up with lousy security in the current Microsoft
OS.
--
Brian Ehni
Randall Ainsworth
> I think you need to do the math. In a business environment, or any
> collaboration effort, 1+1 does not equal 2. The strength comes from people
> working together. Linux is the answer to forming a collaboration that
> everyone can work together and create something really positive. No
> boundaries exist, except those found in the minds of them who are to blind
> to see. Not everything in this world has to be for profit. If you could by
> a computer and have the hardware be the only expense, why would you not do
> so?
<snicker> If Linux is the answer, I don't want to know what the
question is.
Randall Ainsworth
> Randall,
> Hold your thought. There are computer manufacturers out there that want
> to put OS X on their systems as OEM. I think there are three, undisclosed,
> manufacturers if my memory serves me well.
From what we know now, you will still need an Apple-branded computer to
run OS X. I know that Dell and other would like to do it, but it
probably won't happen.
Brian Paul Ehni
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
To paraphrase, "If Linux is the answer, it must be a silly question."
--
Brian Ehni