Mac OS X

[azazel-]

Advocate, you wouldn't happen to be the genius that posted that XP services "guide" (and I shudder to even use that term in quotes as a description for that joke of an article) on DeviantPC, would you? If so, consider yourself irrelevant. Thanks. :right:

[Advocate]

The G4's are not 128bit or even 64bit CPU's period.

Unspec: Be Inc didn't have OS X :) OS X has the potential, the looks, the stability and the underlying stability of BSD. I really do believe that Apple could beat MS or certainly take a significant share of their market. Plus you're forgetting that Be never had the support that OS X ALREADY has just look at the games etc that are being ported/have been ported to OS X.....

[Advocate]

Ahhhhhh Azazel, you must be the person Alan told me about. Alan being the guy who wrote the article.

So no it wasn't me I'm afraid :) and as I keep saying, my opinions in this thread are just that, my opinions. I may be wrong it certainly wouldn't be the first time. ;)

[EDIT] What exactly is wrong with that guide by the way? Please do give me the benefit of your undoubtedly superior wisdom ;) [/EDIT]

[azazel-]

Well, as I stated in my comment (which was promptly deleted), to advocate and instruct people to disable services without a clear, concise description of what said services do, when simply telling them to set the services to manual would be just as feasible, is a tad bit idiotic. There are *many many* websites and instructional guides out there, dating back to the beginning of Win2k about the particulars of disabling services.

Example:

Windows Time

Unless you are in dire need to have exactly the same time as the administrator on your network this service can be safely disabled.

Um...no. This has nothing to do with a network administrator at all. It connects to an atomic clock server and synchronizes it. Can be set to manual. I'd think someone writing a "guide" would know this. It's pretty pointless really, considering far better has been written, and he states pretty much in every entry "depends on the person, but I recommend turning it off." Good advice.

Example:

Secondary Logon

Allow multiple users on one machine. Most people I think actually make use of this feature.

Real scientific there. Once again, um...no. This allows non-system administrators to install and run software as if they were an administrator, ie; su root. Since everyone at HOME (which is who this quide aspires to be written for) is their own system administrator, chances are, they are already running under an Admin account, so NO, you don't need to have this enabled at all. This can be, and is, set to manual on my system, and has been for a *long* time now.

I could go on and on, but this is getting tedious. In short, whomever wrote that is a stooge.

Sorry to everyone else for posting that here, but he asked.

[Advocate]

Thanks for the feedback Azazel, and no I'm not being sarcastic. Without feedback how would any of us improve.

tbh with you I don't know enough about the subject matter to comment but to me it sounds like you just don't particularly like the style in which the article is posted. Which is fine and we know that not everyone is going to like every article but it's pointless falling out over it and tbh I don't really care that much for the way in which you approach the subject. Manners cost nothing you know.

[unspec]

I really do believe that Apple could beat MS or certainly take a significant share of their market.

And I really do believe that is currently impossible, especially without MS Office.

Fortunately, Apple seems to agree. The recent release of new hardware and the latest software acquisitions tend to suggest that they are aiming to expand into 2 distinct market areas.

1. The A/V market. By providing a Digital Hub that seamlessly integrates with many A/V peripherals. The low-end consumer side may also be bolstered by Apple releasing other A/V hardware e.g. an iCam digital camcorder/camera, while the professional side is supported by FCP/PS/Cubase etc "pro" software (1st and 3rd party) with the Mac still acting as a hub.

2. The education market. The eMac and Xserve are being pushed on their strong selling points, the easy-to-use integrated Mac combined with a server system that (because of the background of the OS) lacks the "licence tax" of a MS server, and it runs Office.

What is harder to say is the role of the Xserve. It's certainly not Big Iron material, but it is new direction for Apple. Previous OS X Servers were simply high-end Power Macintosh Towers. This is a proper 1U server, with a NAS option to follow.

It is possible that Apple are using the smaller education market to test the water with the Xserve before they sell it to the main A/V market, possibly for use as a render farm or high capacity storage for video/audio work (this is just a guess on my part, as it is unlikely that Apple are going to try and enter the enterprise server market).

That is my opinon on the future of Apple, and although it might not seem as exciting as that lovely OS X on a nice cheap PC you can build up from parts, I feel that it is far more likely.

--

unspec

[Advocate]

I do agree that it would be a shame for Apple to leave the hardware market as they are innovative and produce damn sexy machines. But when you consider that a PC can do everything a Mac can at a better price all you have left is design and....yep you guessed it OS X.

Please Apple?

[azazel-]

Originally posted by Advocate

Thanks for the feedback Azazel, and no I'm not being sarcastic. Without feedback how would any of us improve.

tbh with you I don't know enough about the subject matter to comment but to me it sounds like you just don't particularly like the style in which the article is posted. Which is fine and we know that not everyone is going to like every article but it's pointless falling out over it and tbh I don't really care that much for the way in which you approach the subject. Manners cost nothing you know.

I'm like this, because it's all in the presentation. You present something on a website in a manner in which you appear to be an expert in your subject matter, people will believe you. In this case, a bunch of people that don't know much about windows services. They go in, start disabling things, without a clear, concise idea of what they are doing, or what they are disabling, then screw something up. To be quite honest with you, it really ****es me off, seeing people being fooled into situations like that. Then you get thousands of support threads "How do I fix this after I turned this off" "I did this like this website said now my computer won't boot". It's quite demoralizing and counterproductive. I am the way I am because I'm a firm believer in the "If you've got nothing good to say, don't say anything at all". If, thru laziness or ignorance, someone gets screwed over by something they read by an "expert" on a website, then that site/individual deserves a little harshness.

I apologize for coming on a bit strong. I know I do pretty frequently. But I remember what it's like to be a clueless n00b, and how frustrating it was to get incorrect information. It's not fun.

[Sticktron]

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

Since when was the amount of ram that a cpu can support the sign of how many bits it was.

The amount of ram a cpu can use is determined by the number of address bits available.

32-bit = 2 ^ 32 = 4GB memory accessible

64-bit = 2 ^ 64 = 17,000,000,000 GB memory accessible

I guess you have never seen the old servers that could run up to 64gb of ram off of a 450 pentium xeon which was 32 bit :roll:

Xeon's have 36-bit addressing, so they support:

36-bit = 2 ^ 36 = 64GB.

So before you go spouting off, know what you are talking about first.

Also, G4 processors are certainly NOT 64-bit. They have 32-bit integers, 64-bit floats, and 128-bit vector instructions. This is NOT the same as being 64-bit. In fact, the G4s can't touch the Athlon's in number-crunching. G4's are not as fast as Athlons, or even P4s.

And Windows XP-64 is going to be available for the ClawHammer cpu, as soon as it comes out, so hopefully we can all have state-of-the-art 64-bit systems soon.

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by Sticktron

The amount of ram a cpu can use is determined by the number of address bits available.

32-bit = 2 ^ 32 = 4GB memory accessible

64-bit = 2 ^ 64 = 17,000,000,000 GB memory accessible

Xeon's have 36-bit addressing, so they support:

36-bit = 2 ^ 36 = 64GB.

So before you go spouting off, know what you are talking about first.

Nowhere in there did it say that the ****ing 450 xeon is 64 bit did it sherlock? Didn't think so.

Also, G4 processors are certainly NOT 64-bit. They have 32-bit integers, 64-bit floats, and 128-bit vector instructions. This is NOT the same as being 64-bit. In fact, the G4s can't touch the Athlon's in number-crunching. G4's are not as fast as Athlons, or even P4s.

reference back to the thread that claimed that a dual 1ghz system got beaten by a 500mhz p3 in compiling, also reference back to why it got "beaten" and then shut up and go away, and while you're gone you can read http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/18421.html

And Windows XP-64 is going to be available for the ClawHammer cpu, as soon as it comes out, so hopefully we can all have state-of-the-art 64-bit systems soon.

windows xp 64 was already out for Itaniums cos they did the beta testing last year at the same time as for xp pro and home. Only prob was that the people that consumers didn't have 64bit chips, and why is that? Cos the average consumer doesn't need one and the computer industry flows around the average consumer, thats why MS is on top, AOL is on top, and Dell is on top.

[unspec]

Originally posted by Advocate

I do agree that it would be a shame for Apple to leave the hardware market as they are innovative and produce damn sexy machines. But when you consider that a PC can do everything a Mac can at a better price all you have left is design and....yep you guessed it OS X.

Please Apple?

I think you're missing the point again.

Let?s say Apple did port OS X to the open x86 platform.

There would be a small user-base, with little hardware support (think Be). Hardware drivers don't magically appear, the manufacturers don't throw money at some ideal of Apple getting one over MS.

They will mostly ignore the x86 OS X as the effort to create and support drivers for such a small user-base are not worth the profit from the small market.

What applications would they run? Carbon based applications are heavily PPC optimised and would need re-written. The same applies to Adobe, Macromedia etc etc...

MS would pull OS X support and that means no Office.

Without MS with them and any A-list titles and poor hardware support just how can they create a large market share? It's a catch-22 situation and just because you love the idea of being able to fire up OS X on your home-built box does not make it a sound business plan.

BTW Apple hardware isn't overpriced. It is expensive and this plays to the ethos Apple like to sell themselves, as a supplier of a premium experience - not just a computer. If it really was overpriced, by definition it would not sell and Apple would go bust.

However it is expensive, so Apple sells to a smaller number of customers and thus enjoys good profits with a small market share.

But when you consider that a PC can do everything a Mac can at a better price...

Ahh but it cannot. It cannot provide the Apple experience, the way the iPod meshes with iTunes, the way iPhoto works with a digital camera, the way iDVD and iMovies allow quality home video editing.

Only a company that makes the hardware and the software can provide that level of integration. Only a company that makes the hardware and the software can introduce innovations like USB and Firewire across their entire market and have it tie into applications like iPhoto/iTunes, or features like booting off an external FireWire disk.

It is because they do control the hardware and software that allows them to create these value added innovations/services. Remove that and you don't have Apple.

From what you have written, all I can gather is that you have a (very reasonable) desire to have a quality operating system on cheap hardware. However, I don't see any justification of why Apple would or could move OS X to an open x86 platform.

--

unspec

[shodan]

Ahh but it cannot. It cannot provide the Apple experience, the way the iPod meshes with iTunes, the way iPhoto works with a digital camera, the way iDVD and iMovies allow quality home video editing.

Only a company that makes the hardware and the software can provide that level of integration. Only a company that makes the hardware and the software can introduce innovations like USB and Firewire across their entire market and have it tie into applications like iPhoto/iTunes, or features like booting off an external FireWire disk.

Mmmm... maybe you'll flame me for what I'm about to say... but I really don't think as Apple as an Hardware company. I mean, excluding the Ipod (that's made by apple) when they do a new Mac they simply assemble various components... they took the Nvidia or Ati graphic cards, the motorola chips, and so on.... You could state that Apple write his Os on that specific hardware, but they surely don't make the hardware at all! So, when you say that Ipod meshes with Itunes let's say they make a good software, because all they do is a good software interaction between the Itunes softaware and the one installed on the Ipod.

Well that's what I wanted to say... and to me, Apple is not a real hardware company... even if they have a genius talent for Design..... I would love to have a mac desktop computer... but damn... it cost so much.... try to get the same piece by piece hardware (excluding the processor) and use on pc... it will cost surely half!

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by shodan

Ahh but it cannot. It cannot provide the Apple experience, the way the iPod meshes with iTunes, the way iPhoto works with a digital camera, the way iDVD and iMovies allow quality home video editing.

Only a company that makes the hardware and the software can provide that level of integration. Only a company that makes the hardware and the software can introduce innovations like USB and Firewire across their entire market and have it tie into applications like iPhoto/iTunes, or features like booting off an external FireWire disk.

Mmmm... maybe you'll flame me for what I'm about to say... but I really don't think as Apple as an Hardware company. I mean, excluding the Ipod (that's made by apple) when they do a new Mac they simply assemble various components... they took the Nvidia or Ati graphic cards, the motorola chips, and so on.... You could state that Apple write his Os on that specific hardware, but they surely don't make the hardware at all! So, when you say that Ipod meshes with Itunes let's say they make a good software, because all they do is a good software interaction between the Itunes softaware and the one installed on the Ipod.

Well that's what I wanted to say... and to me, Apple is not a real hardware company... even if they have a genius talent for Design..... I would love to have a mac desktop computer... but damn... it cost so much.... try to get the same piece by piece hardware (excluding the processor) and use on pc... it will cost surely half!

would you consider dell, gateway, compaq, or alienware to be hardware companies then?

[shodan]

Originally posted by Wickedkitten

would you consider dell, gateway, compaq, or alienware to be hardware companies then?

No.. just like i don't consider Apple an hardware company, at least reagarding computers.... :knocked-o

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by shodan

No.. just like i don't consider Apple an hardware company, at least reagarding computers.... :knocked-o

what are they then

[unspec]

Apple makes most of its profit from sales of hardware.

That makes it a hardware company in my book. While it does not make all the components that go into the Mac line up - what company does?

I mean, excluding the Ipod (that's made by apple)...

Is the HD made by Apple? Are the chips fabbed by Apple? No, they are sourced components. Apple does design many aspects of the hardware (mobo etc) but many parts that make it up are sourced externally. This is the way many modern businesses work.

The end product, say a Power Mac is a relatively expensive bit of hardware that Apple makes a good profit form.

They sell these bits of hardware with large mark-ups because of the added value they can give through tight software and hardware integration.

You might say that the MS X-Box isn't MS hardware, or that a Nokia 3330 isn't Nokia hardware on the same grounds.

I think that is a tenuous assertion at best.

--

unspec

[shodan]

Well to my opinion (and it's my opinion of course) they just assemble and sells computers.... hardware companies are Nvidia, Intel, Motorola, Transmeta... and so on.. those people really produce hardware.

Of course Apple is a step behiond Dell, Compaq and so on.... because apple deveolp some kind of hardware, like Ipod for example.... but i simply don't consider them as hardware companies.

[Advocate]

lol Nvidia design hardware they don't make it ;)

I'm starting to see Apple in a new light through this thread (and unspec)

:)

[shodan]

Originally posted by unspec

Apple makes most of its profit from sales of hardware.

That makes it a hardware company in my book. While it does not make all the components that go into the Mac line up - what company does?

Is the HD made by Apple? Are the chips fabbed by Apple? No, they are sourced components. Apple does design many aspects of the hardware (mobo etc) but many parts that make it up are sourced externally. This is the way many modern businesses work.

The end product, say a Power Mac is a relatively expensive bit of hardware that Apple makes a good profit form.

They sell these bits of hardware with large mark-ups because of the added value they can give through tight software and hardware integration.

That's what I want to say.. they take good hardaware (made by someone else) and write a great software integretion between them... after they sell a Mac Computer... but they didn't make the computer in the first place...

You might say that the MS X-Box isn't MS hardware, or that a Nokia 3330 isn't Nokia hardware on the same grounds.

I think that is a tenuous assertion at best.

--

unspec

In fact i say that Xbox is NOT Microsoft hardware... PS2 is made by Sony, GC is made by Nintendo... because they have develop the thecnology inside their consolle....

sorry don't know what's inside a Nokia 3330...

:D

[shodan]

Originally posted by Advocate

lol Nvidia design hardware they don't make it ;)

I'm starting to see Apple in a new light through this thread (and unspec)

:)

Yeah... right... when i said made i was referring most of design... thanks advocate! :)

[EidrahS]

After reading this thread ive come to the conclusion that we could debate on and on and on....but wether OSX will be ported to X86 - we'll just have to wait and see.

Those wanting it to happen - keep your fingers crossed. In the mean time use DesktopX, ObjectBar etc etc to satify your OSX needs.

USELESS thread........

[Advocate]

Yeah sorry mate didn't mean to be pedantic :rolleyes:

[Wickedkitten Veteran]

Originally posted by shodan

That's what I want to say.. they take good hardaware (made by someone else) and write a great software integretion between them... after they sell a Mac Computer... but they didn't make the computer in the first place...

In fact i say that Xbox is NOT Microsoft hardware... PS2 is made by Sony, GC is made by Nintendo... because they have develop the thecnology inside their consolle....

sorry don't know what's inside a Nokia 3330...

:D

ford cars aren't ford cars, mercedes aren't mercedes, and fender guitars aren't fender guitars

[unspec]

GC is made by Nintendo...

An IBM processor, NEC manufacturing process, Matsu****a optical drive, ATI GPU - all hooked up to a custom mainboard, running a custom OS.

PS2 is made by Sony...

A Toshiba processor, Simplex Solutions Graphics Synthesiser chip running on a custom mainboard, running a custom OS.

The point is that these days, consumer hardware is rarely the product of a single company. Parts are bough it and assembled.

Apple is no different.

Why is the iPod Apple hardware when the Power Mac is not?

Both have sourced parts from other companies and custom parts designed by Apple. Yet you don't consider this Apple hardware.

The GameCube and PS2 are both built with a mix of sourced and custom parts, yet you say they are Nintendo/Sony hardware.

I think your logic is flawed.

--

unspec