Mac Or Pc

[TyConn]

FYI Macs use intel now.

Which, makes the whole argument about them being superior movie editing machines, moot. Same chipset, only thing different at this point is the OS. Which equates to you paying 1000$ more for the OS.

I have to go ahead and correct you there, as the chipset is NOT the same. The same processors are used with similar southbridge, however that is where the similarity ends. the northbridge itself is tailored by apple to accept hardware level interaction of all apple-specific peripherals, firewire for example, hardware boot support over wireless.

Every chip on the board is chosen because of the exacting standards that the AV industry runs by. Why do you think they have gone through so many different audio manufacturers for their chipsets. they don't use AC97 or realtek. They contracted with Cirrus Logic because their audio processors have an edge on the less expensive market offerings.

The trade off? Price.

Also, why was this thread at the top of Polls if no one before me had posted in it since freaking January

I feel kinda like i dug something up now

[thewhiteguy1]

Also, why was this thread at the top of Polls if no one before me had posted in it since freaking January

I feel kinda like i dug something up now

everytime someone votes on it the poll gets bumped to the top

[Bah]

I have to go ahead and correct you there, as the chipset is NOT the same. The same processors are used with similar southbridge, however that is where the similarity ends. the northbridge itself is tailored by apple to accept hardware level interaction of all apple-specific peripherals, firewire for example, hardware boot support over wireless.

Every chip on the board is chosen because of the exacting standards that the AV industry runs by. Why do you think they have gone through so many different audio manufacturers for their chipsets. they don't use AC97 or realtek. They contracted with Cirrus Logic because their audio processors have an edge on the less expensive market offerings.

The trade off? Price.

Also, why was this thread at the top of Polls if no one before me had posted in it since freaking January

I feel kinda like i dug something up now

Your point is?...

Last i checked, TONs of computers use different chipsets and use similar processors. My mistake, i should have been clear and said the MAC chipset is infact far more inferior for this day and age(Back in the early 90's, sure. With the rapid availability of drivers throughout the net...what the hells the issue?). Hell at this point windows does drivers through windows update, so you wouldn't even know if they've been updated. So it being HW integrated isn't much of a pro anymore...

SO you proved a VERY good point: a MAC is designed for the AV industry, whilist a typical PC is much more wellrounded. And oh wait, I can ADD whatever i want to a PC machine because unlike MACs chipset, which is forced and can only handle the peripherals they provide (Hence why you CAN'T build mac computers with whatever you want....They don't have drivers, everything is embedded)

Booting over ethernet has been around for years....i haven't played with new computers lately so i haven't check what the standard BIOS looks like nowadays, but in theory anything can be implemented. If that's what its got up over me, something your typical MAC user would have no clue how to do in the first place, then so be it.

Your leaving just tons of things out.

The trade off? Price?

Lets get into the definition of specialization why don't we.....

Much more trade-offs then you are even letting on.

As i believe i stated months ago, Macs win in A/V. Not that i couldn't build something to top it for much cheaper in other departments, since in a typical Apple product you pay out the ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD for the software and lack of specs thereof.

Tell me i'm wrong, since your arguement was purely that the MAC is customized for A/V. Which, is to say the least, a home brewed computer could be done just as easily, for a fraction of the price.

I love spending 500$ over what i should be, so that i can do home movies to play on my crappy TV which doesn't have HDMI in and my 2.1 surround sound setup because i spent so much money on my MAC i couldn't afford to buy the equipment to actually set up a worth a stuff HT. :lol: YOU know this is true with MAC owners. The professional A/V people are the only ones who even take advantage of anything you've stated.

To say that the end user has use for this on any day by day basis is a lie. They enjoy the simplicity of the OS, which is fine, but your paying for it. And as i believe i stated, i don't hate the laptops all too much, since, they beat out build quality on *MOST* laptops. But come to desktops, your a complete poke tard otherwise. Build quality = Irrelevant on a desktop. Unless you travel yours on a daily basis.

You may try to make it seem like your computer is superior and you paid for what you got, but every time i hear an arguement its that its so simple, so sleek, so thin, SO POWERFUL.

What may i ask are you doing on a MAC that requires so much power other then A/V editing?

Compiling Code? We've been over this, they use the same type of processor (not the same of course..)

All i ever see on TV or anyone's home, office, is a Macbook. Never a mac desktop.

I think this post gives reasoning behind that....You can't upgrade laptops(easily), and build quality is good on them.

And seriously..you had to bring this thread back to life cause in one of my essays i said chipset when i meant processor. *sigh* :lol: :lol:

[Serge]

Prefer PCs over Macs in terms of flexibility, value and overall usability (mostly due to familiarity, though). I do believe that Macbooks are the best laptops you can get in the price range. The build quality is second to none, the components are standard which is good, IPS screens on a laptop is also a plus. If I were to buy a new laptop, it would be a Macbook or Macbook Pro.

Although my issue with Macs is pretty much this:

Apple released the new Mac Pros, and touts them as the fastest things in the world. For the price, they are way more expensive than an equally spec'ed PC. With a PC, you can build it with YOUR choice of hardware. Pick a motherboard that works best for you, the types of drives you want, the video card, etc. Everything can be built from scratch. For the Mac, you are kind of stuck with what they feel works. Sure you get a nice case (but then, Lian-Li and others make great PC cases), but that's really it. The hardware, besides the motherboard and PSU, is off-the-shelf PC parts.

I am neither a fanboy nor a hater. As a matter of fact, I am typing on a new Mac keyboard right now. I think it is simply the best keyboard I have ever used and can't bear to use anything else anymore. But lots of their other products are gimmicks to me. The Magic Mouse? Okay sure. The Magic Batteries? Re-branded Sanyo Eneloops. The Magic Pad? I mean, come on.. it's a damn touch pad, albeit a nice looking one.

It's not even the fact that some Apple products bother me, they don't, but it's the elitist following behind it. It is great to believe in something and stand by it. But it's just hardware, not a damn cult. My friend with a Macbook and iPhone 4 shits on anything that's not Apple made. His defense is always just a reiteration of bullet points that Steve Jobs spews out during his keynotes. Every time Apple releases something, people believe that the product never existed before in any incarnation. Just look at the Apple TV; people will probably think that nothing like it had been made before, whereas the damn device can't even decode 1080p (and yes, I know there is no good 1080p content online, but people also have HD content of their own that's not Apple-mandated).

That "Apple A4 processor" that everyone thinks Apple made. It's a Samsung-made Cortex-A8 based CPUs. Apple just mandated some changes to it (L2 cache, power consumption, etc). Again, yet another product re-branded by Apple to make people believe they are superior.

Then we have Apple's marketing department -- good lord! When the iPhone 4's issues were publicized, Apple went silent for a while and then launched a full-out onslaught against other manufacturers; basically running smear campaigns to try and downplay their own errors. And when Apple switched to Intel CPUs, they had those stupid commercials saying Intel CPUs have been doing nothing in PCs and now they can shine inside of Macs. This coming from the same people that used the startup time of Photoshop as a benchmark to show Macs are superior.

Macs being more geared towards graphic design, video and 3D? Because of user friendliness to those who don't want to deal with computers, sure. But because they perform better? Give me a break. The only thing Macs have over PCs is that Final Cut Pro runs on only OS X. I'm sick of all the reasons Apple fanatics use as ways to overshadow the fact that Macs are no better.

"Windows 7 bit off OS X" -- sure, they took inspiration from it. But you know that dock you have in OS X? You know, the one that replaced the old way of managing open applications, does it not remind you of the task bar that Windows has had since.. oh, 1995? OS X is a very polished OS, but it did not invent everything. Same with Win 7, they did not invent everything from scratch.

</rant>

[yangotang]

plus fricking one. and now they have to ADVERTISE that all their features are there. what's up with that, can the operating system not stand on its own merits???

holy fucking thread revival batman!

learn to ship!

[T5wagon1717]

I've always had macs.

have a 15" mbp 2.66 4gb ram, 320gb 7200 drive.....

Dual 1.8ghz G5, 5gb ram, overclocked 5200 card, 1tb + 500gb drives, 15" apple studio display + 19" samsung.

It's my media/desk computer.

Works like a champ for a 7 year old computer. I love it. Plus, the G5 is just awesome.

Anyone else running the G5?

[Keaton85]

Ive got two broken G5 iMacs haha, about all for the old G5s. Any powerpc stuff is either an appletv or my parents failure to upgrade their mac mini G4 and ibook G4

To many macs and windows 7 computers to count in the house!

-2X black macbooks

-2x iMac G5s

-1X iMac intel

-2X iPhone 4s

-1X iPhone 3G

-4X iPod touch

-2X iPod nano

-1X shuffle

-2X windows 7 laptops

-2X windows 7 desktops

And then pilles of windows crap in the basement... was a windows guy for many years till I did one to many reformats! Macs save me so much time due to lack of software issues over the years.

[T5wagon1717]

Yeah, this Dual Gt seems to be very reliable...never had a problem with it. I really like the dual screen setup....

Heats up the house though. haha

[Piston Slapper]

Your point is?...

Last i checked, TONs of computers use different chipsets and use similar processors. My mistake, i should have been clear and said the MAC chipset is infact far more inferior for this day and age(Back in the early 90's, sure. With the rapid availability of drivers throughout the net...what the hells the issue?). Hell at this point windows does drivers through windows update, so you wouldn't even know if they've been updated. So it being HW integrated isn't much of a pro anymore...

SO you proved a VERY good point: a MAC is designed for the AV industry, whilist a typical PC is much more wellrounded. And oh wait, I can ADD whatever i want to a PC machine because unlike MACs chipset, which is forced and can only handle the peripherals they provide (Hence why you CAN'T build mac computers with whatever you want....They don't have drivers, everything is embedded)

Booting over ethernet has been around for years....i haven't played with new computers lately so i haven't check what the standard BIOS looks like nowadays, but in theory anything can be implemented. If that's what its got up over me, something your typical MAC user would have no clue how to do in the first place, then so be it.

Your leaving just tons of things out.

The trade off? Price?

Lets get into the definition of specialization why don't we.....

Much more trade-offs then you are even letting on.

As i believe i stated months ago, Macs win in A/V. Not that i couldn't build something to top it for much cheaper in other departments, since in a typical Apple product you pay out the ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD for the software and lack of specs thereof.

Tell me i'm wrong, since your arguement was purely that the MAC is customized for A/V. Which, is to say the least, a home brewed computer could be done just as easily, for a fraction of the price.

I love spending 500$ over what i should be, so that i can do home movies to play on my crappy TV which doesn't have HDMI in and my 2.1 surround sound setup because i spent so much money on my MAC i couldn't afford to buy the equipment to actually set up a worth a stuff HT. :lol: YOU know this is true with MAC owners. The professional A/V people are the only ones who even take advantage of anything you've stated.

To say that the end user has use for this on any day by day basis is a lie. They enjoy the simplicity of the OS, which is fine, but your paying for it. And as i believe i stated, i don't hate the laptops all too much, since, they beat out build quality on *MOST* laptops. But come to desktops, your a complete poke tard otherwise. Build quality = Irrelevant on a desktop. Unless you travel yours on a daily basis.

You may try to make it seem like your computer is superior and you paid for what you got, but every time i hear an arguement its that its so simple, so sleek, so thin, SO POWERFUL.

What may i ask are you doing on a MAC that requires so much power other then A/V editing?

Compiling Code? We've been over this, they use the same type of processor (not the same of course..)

All i ever see on TV or anyone's home, office, is a Macbook. Never a mac desktop.

I think this post gives reasoning behind that....You can't upgrade laptops(easily), and build quality is good on them.

And seriously..you had to bring this thread back to life cause in one of my essays i said chipset when i meant processor. *sigh* :lol:

Prefer PCs over Macs in terms of flexibility, value and overall usability (mostly due to familiarity, though). I do believe that Macbooks are the best laptops you can get in the price range. The build quality is second to none, the components are standard which is good, IPS screens on a laptop is also a plus. If I were to buy a new laptop, it would be a Macbook or Macbook Pro.

Although my issue with Macs is pretty much this:

Apple released the new Mac Pros, and touts them as the fastest things in the world. For the price, they are way more expensive than an equally spec'ed PC. With a PC, you can build it with YOUR choice of hardware. Pick a motherboard that works best for you, the types of drives you want, the video card, etc. Everything can be built from scratch. For the Mac, you are kind of stuck with what they feel works. Sure you get a nice case (but then, Lian-Li and others make great PC cases), but that's really it. The hardware, besides the motherboard and PSU, is off-the-shelf PC parts.

I am neither a fanboy nor a hater. As a matter of fact, I am typing on a new Mac keyboard right now. I think it is simply the best keyboard I have ever used and can't bear to use anything else anymore. But lots of their other products are gimmicks to me. The Magic Mouse? Okay sure. The Magic Batteries? Re-branded Sanyo Eneloops. The Magic Pad? I mean, come on.. it's a damn touch pad, albeit a nice looking one.

It's not even the fact that some Apple products bother me, they don't, but it's the elitist following behind it. It is great to believe in something and stand by it. But it's just hardware, not a damn cult. My friend with a Macbook and iPhone 4 I crapped my pants and I love how it feels on anything that's not Apple made. His defense is always just a reiteration of bullet points that Steve Jobs spews out during his keynotes. Every time Apple releases something, people believe that the product never existed before in any incarnation. Just look at the Apple TV; people will probably think that nothing like it had been made before, whereas the damn device can't even decode 1080p (and yes, I know there is no good 1080p content online, but people also have HD content of their own that's not Apple-mandated).

That "Apple A4 processor" that everyone thinks Apple made. It's a Samsung-made Cortex-A8 based CPUs. Apple just mandated some changes to it (L2 cache, power consumption, etc). Again, yet another product re-branded by Apple to make people believe they are superior.

Then we have Apple's marketing department -- good lord! When the iPhone 4's issues were publicized, Apple went silent for a while and then launched a full-out onslaught against other manufacturers; basically running smear campaigns to try and downplay their own errors. And when Apple switched to Intel CPUs, they had those stupid commercials saying Intel CPUs have been doing nothing in PCs and now they can shine inside of Macs. This coming from the same people that used the startup time of Photoshop as a benchmark to show Macs are superior.

Macs being more geared towards graphic design, video and 3D? Because of user friendliness to those who don't want to deal with computers, sure. But because they perform better? Give me a break. The only thing Macs have over PCs is that Final Cut Pro runs on only OS X. I'm sick of all the reasons Apple fanatics use as ways to overshadow the fact that Macs are no better.

"Windows 7 bit off OS X" -- sure, they took inspiration from it. But you know that dock you have in OS X? You know, the one that replaced the old way of managing open applications, does it not remind you of the task bar that Windows has had since.. oh, 1995? OS X is a very polished OS, but it did not invent everything. Same with Win 7, they did not invent everything from scratch.

</rant>

Hm... so much wrong... where to start...

Macs have had multibutton mouse capability for ages, even before OS X came around. They just didn't ship with them.

Maybe we should start with the fact that the OS can be run on damn near any x64 hardware. Yes, you can buy from newegg, throw it together, and run the Mac OS.

Next, the "chipset" issue... if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that a real mac does not use a standard intel chipset, they use special ones developed by apple and intel together, each mac model has a custom made motherboard. They do not even have a BIOS. They use something called an EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface.

Oh, and about drivers, the Mac OS does in fact have drivers. You can in fact, change them. I have custom drivers that allow me to use Mac, Windows, Unix, and even some obsolete hard drive formats. There are, in relation to the kernels for non-EFI (BIOS) hardware, drivers for most PC hardware, such as video cards.

Oh, and why, if the hardware is so "ridiculously expensive", is it that PC magazines gave Mac laptops running windows their highest ratings? Maybe because you actually get what you pay for in the hardware. Anyone who's ever performed surgery on a mac knows it is far easier to replace or (as you say is impossible) upgrade any component.

The desktop hardware is equally high quality and sells quite well, the iMac has been increasing Apple's market share for years in the desktop arena. You don't see many Mac Pro towers, because not many people need that kind of firepower, but again, for the price, you won't find anything better, even if you do run windows on it.

I personally disagreed with Apple's decision to switch to intel processors. The old PowerPC chips made by IBM and Motorolla were technically superior. They can now be found in every PS3 and Xbox 360. The original 36- development kits were Powermac G5s.

Oh, and I would like to point out that, while the windows taskbar is old, the Mac OS had a similar feature before OS X that showed open programs that were minimized on the bottom of the screen. It just wasn't enabled by default. They've been stealing ideas from eachother since they started, having stolen both their concepts from a scrapped Xerox project.

I am the first to admit that Apple has fukked up from time to time. They have more epic failures on record than any other major company I can think of that's still in business.

Enjoy your BSODs, Defrags, Reformats, Viruses, Trojans, Spyware, Adware, etc. There is a reason that any organization requiring real computers, even if they don't buy macs, NEVER uses windows. They learned their lesson when the Navy tried using windows to run a destroyer. It had to be towed back to port after windows crashed.

I am typing this on a machine that can boot Windows XP, Windows 7, Mac OS 10.6, and any flavor of linux I feel like playing with that's x86-64 compatible.

[socal850tuner]

I own both, even though I only recently bought my PC. I had a mac for years and despite the lag of programs for it that are important for cars (solidworks, ProE, turbotuner lol) it is a good platform for daily use and audio/video work. However I had to break down and get a PC simply because it is currently more practical for what I use it for. Yes I could have made solidworks and the like work on a mac but the hassle just wasn't worth it in my opinion.

[Serge]

Hm... so much wrong... where to start...

Macs have had multibutton mouse capability for ages, even before OS X came around. They just didn't ship with them.

Maybe we should start with the fact that the OS can be run on damn near any x64 hardware. Yes, you can buy from newegg, throw it together, and run the Mac OS.

Next, the "chipset" issue... if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that a real mac does not use a standard intel chipset, they use special ones developed by apple and intel together, each mac model has a custom made motherboard. They do not even have a BIOS. They use something called an EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface.

Oh, and about drivers, the Mac OS does in fact have drivers. You can in fact, change them. I have custom drivers that allow me to use Mac, Windows, Unix, and even some obsolete hard drive formats. There are, in relation to the kernels for non-EFI (BIOS) hardware, drivers for most PC hardware, such as video cards.

Oh, and why, if the hardware is so "ridiculously expensive", is it that PC magazines gave Mac laptops running windows their highest ratings? Maybe because you actually get what you pay for in the hardware. Anyone who's ever performed surgery on a mac knows it is far easier to replace or (as you say is impossible) upgrade any component.

The desktop hardware is equally high quality and sells quite well, the iMac has been increasing Apple's market share for years in the desktop arena. You don't see many Mac Pro towers, because not many people need that kind of firepower, but again, for the price, you won't find anything better, even if you do run windows on it.

I personally disagreed with Apple's decision to switch to intel processors. The old PowerPC chips made by IBM and Motorolla were technically superior. They can now be found in every PS3 and Xbox 360. The original 36- development kits were Powermac G5s.

Oh, and I would like to point out that, while the windows taskbar is old, the Mac OS had a similar feature before OS X that showed open programs that were minimized on the bottom of the screen. It just wasn't enabled by default. They've been stealing ideas from eachother since they started, having stolen both their concepts from a scrapped Xerox project.

I am the first to admit that Apple has fukked up from time to time. They have more epic failures on record than any other major company I can think of that's still in business.

Enjoy your BSODs, Defrags, Reformats, Viruses, Trojans, Spyware, Adware, etc. There is a reason that any organization requiring real computers, even if they don't buy macs, NEVER uses windows. They learned their lesson when the Navy tried using windows to run a destroyer. It had to be towed back to port after windows crashed.

I am typing this on a machine that can boot Windows XP, Windows 7, Mac OS 10.6, and any flavor of linux I feel like playing with that's x86-64 compatible.

Man, you really need to get your facts straight.

OS X does not natively run on all x86 hardware, as a matter of fact, the kernel is not compiled to run with anything other than most Apple hardware. A few releases by Hazard, iATKOS and Kalyway (might be others, I am not sure) removed the hardware checks and added support for more hardware. Good luck running OS X on an AMD build.

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Apple_hardware

Here's a good list of hardware that has been supported natively by OSX. You're pretty much limited to an Intel or nForce north bridge, and some select hardware. I've tested this, and had OS X dual boot on my Sony Vaio for shits and giggles, worked great (since it was virtually 100% Intel hardware). My workstation, which has an AMD chipset, is not entirely compatible. Because AMD sucks? Surely not. Because Apple is a walled off ecosystem? Yes.

EFI has been available on Intel motherboards since its inception. Plenty of Intel server boards (starting around 1999-2000, I believe) have had EFI as an alternative to the standard BIOS system; not "Apple specific" thing, so let's cut the crap

//edit: Figured you probably read about EFI on wiki, so I decided to go pull the facts out myself. Here's a nice quote from the "Apple-Intel architecture" article. It says that EFI was "designed by Intel, it was chosen by Apple to replace Open Firmware, used on PowerPC architectures." Wait wait.. designed by Intel, chosen by Apple. As a matter of fact, I did more research and found no mention that Apple was EVER involved in the development. Apple simply chose it during their transition to Intel hardware. Man, I can't believe you tried to credit Apple for its development.

Mac OS has kernel modules, just like any other UNIX kernel.

Macbooks are easy to work with, absolutely. But the only the new renditions. Ever hear of the polycarbonate iBooks? No? Well here is a 12 page guide on replacing the hard drive: http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Repair/Installing-iBook-G4-14-Inch-1-42-GHz-Hard-Drive-Replacement/731/1. And I'm not so sure why your better performance argument is being supported by the ease of disassembly. Non sequitur, much? Oh and in those PC magazine reviews, are you talking about equally spec'ed hardware, or a bare-bones $500 cheaper PC laptop vs. a better equipped Mac? Yet another fallacy right there.

As for Mac Pros, for the same price you can get a relatively better performing machine that is targeted towards professionals from any of the major PC manufacturers. Apple charges a premium for the hardware because, officially, OS X will only run on them.

You disagree with Apple's decision to switch to Intel? It was not economically feasible to continue developing on processors that were getting hammered in the price vs. performance category. Apple made a smart choice because you now have more powerful machines for less (or for higher margins to Apple, you choose).

Let's see.

BSODs: 0 due to Windows. Due to a failed hard drive? 1. Due to shitty RAM that I put in? 1.

Defrags: LOL! HFS+ (you know, the filesystem OS X uses) has issues with fragmentation, like ALL file systems. OS X runs defragmentation in the background. Scheduled defragmentation in Windows takes a minute to enable.

Reformats: XP Pro on the laptop the same as it's been since.. 2 years ago, had to reinstall after my hard drive crashed (stupid Hitachi drive). Windows 7 on the same machine for 1 year, changed all my hardware so installed it fresh.

Viruses: Sorry, I don't open "FunnyDogVideo.exe" every time someone forwards a chain letter, nor do I browse shitty porn sites and use Internet Explorer 4.0.

Trojans: See above.

Spyware: See above.

Adware: See above.

By the way, while we're on the subject of secure software, you may have missed this:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/22/secunia-ranks-apple-first-in-software-insecurity-safari-said-to/

Do you REALLY think they run Macs in "organizations requiring real computers"... wait a minute, let me back track and read that sentence. You said.. "real computers." Funny, the hardware inside your Mac is virtually off-the-shelf Intel. Guess our "real computers" are less "real" then yours. I was going to say how UNIX-based OSs and Windows are in use at the majority of organizations that need "real computers," and then back it up with references galore. But when I read that statement... oh God, your credibility as anything another than an Apple zealot went out the door.

I LOVE your argument about a machine that can boot anything. Thanks for praising Windows and Linux, buddy, because they don't lock the OS to specific hardware. You do realize the reason that OS X will not natively run on non-Apple hardware is intentional on the part of Apple, right? And that your piss-poor attempt at making the Apple hardware sound holier-than-though has just made you look like a fool?

You should have been defending Apple where they truly excel, like in physical hardware build quality (of the chassis), industrial and product design and UI simplicity. New Macbooks are truly stunning and have amazing build (the polycarbonate ones are just as bad as $500 PC laptops), iPhones have great build and layout, Apple TV is beautifully designed (both the original and the new one) and their software looks like a designer worked on it instead of a programmer (which is a good thing!). Instead you went off bullshitting about things that are not only trivial, but erroneous as well.

I had a long fun day working today, I couldn't imagine how much fun I'd have reading your reply in the evening. Thank you for entertaining me with your "knowledge"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Piston Slapper]

Man, you really need to get your facts straight.

OS X does not natively run on all x86 hardware, as a matter of fact, the kernel is not compiled to run with anything other than most Apple hardware. A few releases by Hazard, iATKOS and Kalyway (might be others, I am not sure) removed the hardware checks and added support for more hardware. Good luck running OS X on an AMD build.

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Apple_hardware

Here's a good list of hardware that has been supported natively by OSX. You're pretty much limited to an Intel or nForce north bridge, and some select hardware. I've tested this, and had OS X dual boot on my Sony Vaio for I crapped my pants and I love how it feels and giggles, worked great (since it was virtually 100% Intel hardware). My workstation, which has an AMD chipset, is not entirely compatible. Because AMD sucks? Surely not. Because Apple is a walled off ecosystem? Yes.

EFI has been available on Intel motherboards since its inception. Plenty of Intel server boards (starting around 1999-2000, I believe) have had EFI as an alternative to the standard BIOS system; not "Apple specific" thing, so let's cut the crap

//edit: Figured you probably read about EFI on wiki, so I decided to go pull the facts out myself. Here's a nice quote from the "Apple-Intel architecture" article. It says that EFI was "designed by Intel, it was chosen by Apple to replace Open Firmware, used on PowerPC architectures." Wait wait.. designed by Intel, chosen by Apple. As a matter of fact, I did more research and found no mention that Apple was EVER involved in the development. Apple simply chose it during their transition to Intel hardware. Man, I can't believe you tried to credit Apple for its development.

Mac OS has kernel modules, just like any other UNIX kernel.

Macbooks are easy to work with, absolutely. But the only the new renditions. Ever hear of the polycarbonate iBooks? No? Well here is a 12 page guide on replacing the hard drive: http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Repair/Installing-iBook-G4-14-Inch-1-42-GHz-Hard-Drive-Replacement/731/1. And I'm not so sure why your better performance argument is being supported by the ease of disassembly. Non sequitur, much? Oh and in those PC magazine reviews, are you talking about equally spec'ed hardware, or a bare-bones $500 cheaper PC laptop vs. a better equipped Mac? Yet another fallacy right there.

As for Mac Pros, for the same price you can get a relatively better performing machine that is targeted towards professionals from any of the major PC manufacturers. Apple charges a premium for the hardware because, officially, OS X will only run on them.

You disagree with Apple's decision to switch to Intel? It was not economically feasible to continue developing on processors that were getting hammered in the price vs. performance category. Apple made a smart choice because you now have more powerful machines for less (or for higher margins to Apple, you choose).

Let's see.

BSODs: 0 due to Windows. Due to a failed hard drive? 1. Due to shitty RAM that I put in? 1.

Defrags: LOL! HFS+ (you know, the filesystem OS X uses) has issues with fragmentation, like ALL file systems. OS X runs defragmentation in the background. Scheduled defragmentation in Windows takes a minute to enable.

Reformats: XP Pro on the laptop the same as it's been since.. 2 years ago, had to reinstall after my hard drive crashed (stupid Hitachi drive). Windows 7 on the same machine for 1 year, changed all my hardware so installed it fresh.

Viruses: Sorry, I don't open "FunnyDogVideo.exe" every time someone forwards a chain letter, nor do I browse shitty porn sites and use Internet Explorer 4.0.

Trojans: See above.

Spyware: See above.

Adware: See above.

By the way, while we're on the subject of secure software, you may have missed this:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/22/secunia-ranks-apple-first-in-software-insecurity-safari-said-to/

Do you REALLY think they run Macs in "organizations requiring real computers"... wait a minute, let me back track and read that sentence. You said.. "real computers." Funny, the hardware inside your Mac is virtually off-the-shelf Intel. Guess our "real computers" are less "real" then yours. I was going to say how UNIX-based OSs and Windows are in use at the majority of organizations that need "real computers," and then back it up with references galore. But when I read that statement... oh God, your credibility as anything another than an Apple zealot went out the door.

I LOVE your argument about a machine that can boot anything. Thanks for praising Windows and Linux, buddy, because they don't lock the OS to specific hardware. You do realize the reason that OS X will not natively run on non-Apple hardware is intentional on the part of Apple, right? And that your piss-poor attempt at making the Apple hardware sound holier-than-though has just made you look like a fool?

You should have been defending Apple where they truly excel, like in physical hardware build quality (of the chassis), industrial and product design and UI simplicity. New Macbooks are truly stunning and have amazing build (the polycarbonate ones are just as bad as $500 PC laptops), iPhones have great build and layout, Apple TV is beautifully designed (both the original and the new one) and their software looks like a designer worked on it instead of a programmer (which is a good thing!). Instead you went off I'm dumbting about things that are not only trivial, but erroneous as well.

I had a long fun day working today, I couldn't imagine how much fun I'd have reading your reply in the evening. Thank you for entertaining me with your "knowledge"... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hazard's builds for 10.6.2 run fine on most AMD platforms. There's a guy on the HCL running a Phenom 2 X4 in addition to tons of guns on Athalon64s.

I have had mac laptops going back to the good old G3 powerbooks, which were a dream of easy to work with.

The PC Magazine review was against equally spec'd models... here, let me go find you a link.

PCMag Article

I just started playing around with Dell's workstation configuration... seems to get the same performance Apple offers for $6199 I would have to spend $7454... and use windows? They're charging $255 more and not throwing in a super fancy proprietary OS?

Oh, and yes, real organizations use damn near anything other than windows for anything critical. The NSA has a huge Apple contract in addition to their own in house proprietary Unix based OS. The Navy usually writes their own stuff ever since the windows-on-board incident went public. Most retailers use a custom unix based server system for inventory and point of sale. Windows? Maybe for people in the corporate offices, but never ever ever when it actually matters if the machine works or not.

Power cores not powerful enough? Let's see here... ever heard of the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer? It uses Power cores. The Cell processors are power based. The real reason Apple switched to Intel was that the PowerPC 970 line wasn't designed for and couldn't be quickly adapted to a laptop platform, the power consumption was the issue with them. Not the cost or the performance. They had always kicked the crap out of intel in flops/$. "Man, you really need to get your facts straight."

[Serge]

Hazard's builds for 10.6.2 run fine on most AMD platforms. There's a guy on the HCL running a Phenom 2 X4 in addition to tons of guns on Athalon64s.

I have had mac laptops going back to the good old G3 powerbooks, which were a dream of easy to work with.

The PC Magazine review was against equally spec'd models... here, let me go find you a link.

PCMag Article

I just started playing around with Dell's workstation configuration... seems to get the same performance Apple offers for $6199 I would have to spend $7454... and use windows? They're charging $255 more and not throwing in a super fancy proprietary OS?

Oh, and yes, real organizations use damn near anything other than windows for anything critical. The NSA has a huge Apple contract in addition to their own in house proprietary Unix based OS. The Navy usually writes their own stuff ever since the windows-on-board incident went public. Most retailers use a custom unix based server system for inventory and point of sale. Windows? Maybe for people in the corporate offices, but never ever ever when it actually matters if the machine works or not.

Power cores not powerful enough? Let's see here... ever heard of the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer? It uses Power cores. The Cell processors are power based. The real reason Apple switched to Intel was that the PowerPC 970 line wasn't designed for and couldn't be quickly adapted to a laptop platform, the power consumption was the issue with them. Not the cost or the performance. They had always kicked the crap out of intel in flops/$. "Man, you really need to get your facts straight."

So you have nothing to say to your bullshit about EFI? Your "ease of disassembly = performance" argument? Nothing to say about the security of Apple software?

Hazard's builds still require patching to run on AMD platforms. The CPUs are obviously supported, but chipsets are a crap shoot. Your argument that the Mac is superior because it runs everything is flawed and incoherent. It assumes that if a proprietary and locked operating system cannot run on other machines, those machines must therefore be inferior.

Looks like you missed the hard drive removal article that I posted; I would not call that a "dream of easy to work with."

Thanks for the PCMag article link! It reads that the Macbook Pro is $300 more, yet offers the same performance (better GPU performance, but because the GPU and north bridge is in fact different). The clear benefit is, of course, the build quality of the machine and battery life. I don't see how this supports your argument in any way?

I'll eat my words about the Dell. Apple really went to town on offering a good price for the Mac Pros. A comparable Dell at that price is more, which does not justify getting the Dell (ugly looking machines, too).

Organizations run the operating system that suits their needs best; whether it be Linux, BSD, Solaris, Windows, OS X or anything else. An operating system is as secure as the administration that secures it. A stupid kid that sets up a Linux machine without any knowledge of security can make it less secure than a Windows 98 box. Is that the fault of Linux? The NASDAQ runs critical systems on Dell servers w/ Microsoft SQL Server (not sure which version of Windows). Or is the NASDAQ not a "real organization"? There is no doubt that research, defense and security organizations run UNIX machines for their mission critical servers, but most of the workstations will probably be Windows boxes.

Here's another question, can you name a major "real" organization (other than Apple) that runs OS X on Xserve machines? Do you really think data centers have racks upon racks of Xserve machines? They are running either IBM, Dell, HP/Compaq (maybe some newer Sun boxes?) machines or custom built variety boxes (Google's notorious Linux machines that have a customized Gigabyte motherboard w/ a dedicated 12V backup battery attached and are literally only the motherboard, CPU, RAM and hard drive).

Disclosure: I run 0 Windows servers, all my servers are Linux boxes.

Please provide the Apple and NSA contract information, would love to read more about that.

Performance per watt was definitely a consideration, don't see many RISC processors in laptops, do you? I would like to see your source for the $/MIPS numbers comparing PowerPC to Intel's x86 CPUs. Apple was paying a premium for IBM's PowerPC CPUs. According to IBM, they were actually LOSING money due to the cost of R&D and the requests Apple had. Supply was going to be an issue and Intel was the obvious choice. Yes, Steve Jobs will say that it is because of the need to have CPUs for laptops, but there is more to it. PowerPC CPUs still have their place and are probably found in most of the embedded platforms we have.

If you want, please, continue with your "Apple and Intel joint EFI development" defense

//edit: Oops, just realized I forgot to include Motorola in the PowerPC supply chain. Although, didn't IBM buy Motorola's Freescale brand? Either way.

[Piston Slapper]

Pretty sure IBM did buy out that part of Motorola prior to the PPC970 release.

Yes, the G4 iBook was a pain in the ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD to work on. But it's relatively ancient history as it was made long before the intel switch. The Gen 1 Macbook (non-Pro) was easier to work on, not that that's saying much.

No, I really can't think of anyone that uses Xserves... but I doubt they would still be making them if no one bought them.

But hey, let's be friends... we can agree that Dells are Fugly.

[Serge]

Pretty sure IBM did buy out that part of Motorola prior to the PPC970 release.

Yes, the G4 iBook was a pain in the ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD to work on. But it's relatively ancient history as it was made long before the intel switch. The Gen 1 Macbook (non-Pro) was easier to work on, not that that's saying much.

No, I really can't think of anyone that uses Xserves... but I doubt they would still be making them if no one bought them.

But hey, let's be friends... we can agree that Dells are Fugly.

Fair enough!

I'm pissed that the Macbook Pro has no removable battery. The Macbook has a very nice and clean access panel. The 13" Macbook and 13" MBP look identical until you flip them upside down. I don't use a laptop often, but I do want a MBP because of it's aesthetics and build quality. I guess I can live without the backlit keyboard. One thing that surprises me is that no Macbook has an IPS screen. Only the iMacs and Cinema displays have them. Apple needs to come down on the Cinema display prices, this is actually one place where Dell products out-price them. The 30" Apple Cinema display and 30" Dell display both use an LG/Philips LM300W01 IPS panel, same reference controllers, but different exterior. Yet the Cinema display costs 20%+ more. Oh well, can't justify a 30" screen for a workstation anyway, I'm happy with 3 smaller ones.

On the Xserve bit, I actually Google image searched it and found lots of people running clusters. Some universities run them for beowulf clusters (probably received a discount) and other people run them just as UNIX machines. They do look fantastic, I must say. I think they are priced well, too. One selling point is the lower power consumption, which is a HUGE deal for datacenters where their capacity is rated in W/SF (watts per square foot).

Dells are not all ugly, just the workstations ;)