PDA

View Full Version : Mac vs Pc



mr-white
07-28-2005, 03:43 PM
is a pc better than a mac at video/pic editing. a mate seems to think that having shed loads of memory, a fast processor and some good software would beat a mac ?

your thoughts please ?

MW

tristancarton
07-28-2005, 04:00 PM
macs used to be kings in many graphic apps due to the way the mac versions of the apps were specifically optimized for the power pc architecture. however nowadays things have changed quite a bit. while macs are still good at video and picture editing. a64s and p4s have caught up quite a bit.

my advice would be to pick up an x2 4400 and 2gigs of ram. that should do a pretty good job beating a mac and will give a wonderful video/audio/picture editing experience.

mr-white
07-28-2005, 04:02 PM
if it was pound for pound wouldnt the mac be better ?

MW

[XC] moddolicous
07-28-2005, 07:24 PM
I've always heard of the macs being really good in video-editing, and photos and stuff. I think with the way the apple is made and stuff, a 2.7ghz Mac G5 with about 2gig or more of ram will suit your needs. I'm not sure though.

masterofpuppets
07-28-2005, 08:20 PM
PowerPC systems (in this case, Macs) are excellent at graphical, and A/V tasks. They beat the living s**t out of an Intel or AMD box. Plus, since most A/V or graphics on the x86 platform is done on Windoze, the Macs get another boost by using a BSD based kernel, which is much more efficient than Winborks's kernel.

afireinside
07-28-2005, 11:27 PM
PowerPC systems (in this case, Macs) are excellent at graphical, and A/V tasks. They beat the living s**t out of an Intel or AMD box. Plus, since most A/V or graphics on the x86 platform is done on Windoze, the Macs get another boost by using a BSD based kernel, which is much more efficient than Winborks's kernel.

^^listen to this man

Even is winblowz editing was faster I'd still want to do it on a Mac for the stability and power of OS X/the BSD kernel as mop said.

masterofpuppets
07-29-2005, 12:27 AM
Mac OS X is one of the most stable OS around at the moment. I've heard of people using it since the release date, without rebooting. I am sure they are exagerating a bit, but people have had well over a years uptime.

afireinside
07-29-2005, 02:40 AM
Yeah I've had my ibook for 8 months now and its hardlocked once but it was 100% my fault opening some web page. Other than that I've run for months straight and only had to reboot for updates.

Ugly n Grey
07-29-2005, 04:36 AM
Operating systems aside, the x86 architecture is better and more versatile and definitely faster these days. Big production companies almost always use BSD/UNIX, rarely Linux for real hard work such as animation with SGI still in there but the Opteron class of x86 taking over. Windows apps work fine, I just find they need more RAM than their Unix counterparts..... this is just my opinion.

Let's not hijack this thread with a Windows bashing competition, the guy is asking for advice.

Order
07-29-2005, 11:17 AM
Mac OS X is one of the most stable OS around at the moment.
I think that can only be valid if the system is used strictly for one purpose, such as video editing. However, if you start using that machine on the internet for normal browsing, installing (x) amounts of other software, and still heavily taxing it through processor intensive editing, then its going to fail just as much as any XP-based OS.
If you're going to use it for the one purpose, though, I don't see stability being an issue whatsoever.
(Keep in mind that I would attest to XP being just as stable under the same "all work, no BS" circumstances, should you decide to go with an x86 solution.)

masterofpuppets
07-29-2005, 11:27 AM
Nope, many people use OSX for daily use (browsing, email, music, etc) and never ever have problems. Windows NT is a huge inside joke for Microsoft.

Order
07-30-2005, 10:16 AM
How so?

masterofpuppets
07-30-2005, 10:27 AM
Well, Windows 9x/ME is more of a joke, but still Windows NT is hugely exploitable.

Ugly n Grey
07-30-2005, 10:32 AM
You just have a huge anti microsoft bias. Every OS is exploitable. Get real.

masterofpuppets
07-30-2005, 10:39 AM
Yes, I do have a huge anti-M$ bias, but that is completely their own fault. They inflict stupidity on the world. They release buggy applications as final products, then delay a year to fix their mistakes. Opensource development is always active, since anyone can download the source and attempt to patch bugs.

Ugly n Grey
07-30-2005, 10:53 AM
Open source, yeah put all the code that runs my financial transactions out on the internet where anyone can work on hacking it at a real low level. Then make me hire programmers to code around bugs in house. And that's exactly what happens. I'll stick with what I have.

Anything is hackable, you can only go with the best numbers....

masterofpuppets
07-30-2005, 10:58 AM
How come plenty of production enviroments use open source software, it's not safe enough :rolleyes: I don't see many Windows production enviroments, production meaning server use, and workstation use. Most server/workstation use is some form of Unix, be it commercial or opensource. Commercial Unix is actually pretty good, since in alot of cases, parts of it are open source, or use opensource software.

Order
07-30-2005, 11:04 AM
I don't see many Windows production enviroments, production meaning server use, and workstation use.
You're looking in the wrong places. I'm rather sure the percentage of NT-based enterprises slightly trumps those with *nix-based enterprises. Also, what percentage of those *nix enterprises use OSX-Server?

masterofpuppets
07-30-2005, 11:06 AM
I am not talking about OSX for server use. Although, it makes a rather nifty workstation enviroment for digital content editing/creation. I was talking about systems such as BSD for a good opensource server platform.

Ugly n Grey
07-30-2005, 11:07 AM
I'm all for Unix, I'm not for open source for my commercial apps however. According to Gartner research most open source apps are for non mission critical use. No one (of the fortune 1000) uses them for financial , HR, manufacturing etc... I'd say open source is not what it's cracked up to be. It's interesting, it's fun, I like it personally from an amusement perspective, I use firefox for example, but that's about it. Commercial Unix AIX/HP UX/ Solaris is heavily in use for us as are IBM mainframes. I don't see any advantage to changing to open source and coding fixes in house for my operating systems.

Order
07-30-2005, 11:08 AM
Okay, what about the preceeding sentence?

masterofpuppets
07-30-2005, 11:10 AM
I'm all for Unix, I'm not for open source for my commercial apps however. According to Gartner research most open source apps are for non mission critical use. No one (of the fortune 1000) uses them for financial , HR, manufacturing etc... I'd say open source is not what it's cracked up to be. It's interesting, it's fun, I like it personally from an amusement perspective, I use firefox for example, but that's about it. Commercial Unix AIX/HP UX/ Solaris is heavily in use for us as are IBM mainframes. I don't see any advantage to changing to open source and coding fixes in house for my operating systems.

Apache is opensource, and possibly the most popular server app around, and you know what? Over half of the modern WWW uses it. It is THE most popular HTTP server around right now. PHP is also opensource, as is MySQL. All of those are used in mission critical enviroments.

Order
07-30-2005, 11:11 AM
Can you cite that "half of the modern WWW" statement?

Order
07-30-2005, 11:13 AM
Open source vs. Windows security
Research firm Security Innovation evaluated both and found:

Web server role:
Windows 2003, IIS 6.0, SQL Server 2000, and ASP.NET:
Vulnerabilities needing patches, 2004: 52
Average “days of risk” before patch: 31.3

Web server role:
Red Hat Linux 3.0, Apache Web server, MySQL and PHP:
Vulnerabilities needing patches, 2004: Minimally configured Linux, 132. Default configuration, 174
Average “days of risk” before patch: 69.6. Default configuration, 71.4.

Source: http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2005/opensource/070405-open-source-security.html

Order
07-30-2005, 11:16 AM
Newsforge.com article detailing the security flaws of Windows versus Linux: http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/06/1812203.shtml

Ugly n Grey
07-30-2005, 11:23 AM
We're using a mix, still mostly Netscape on Solaris, but there's some IBM flavour Apache, but IBM is supporting it, so I regard it as commercial. You'll find Apache is very popular in stand alone single web servers and then the market fragments much more signifigantly in large scale implementations such as those used in banks and manufacturing.

You'll also find that delivering a web page and delivering a web app are considered to be different things. MySQL is cute but without the capabilities of Oracle/DB2/SQL it's pretty limited for any serious apps. Maybe I'm thinking too big, but the fact remains open source isn't as wildly adapted among money makers as folks think, though I do see the influence of these open source programmers in the tools we use every day. I also see the US governments influence in having back doors everywhere, so don't always take that as a good thing.

Regardless, use what's right for you.

masterofpuppets
07-30-2005, 11:27 AM
I think I'll keep my Hardened Gentoo/Apache2/PHP4/MySQL5 server thankyou very much. Windows will never ever go anywhere near my server.

EDIT: If a L.A.M.P. style setup is so "insecure", how come the majority of webservers use it? :P

Ugly n Grey
07-30-2005, 11:32 AM
Mysql is a joke. If it wasn't free it would be worthless. The rest looks good for small stuff to me.

Order
07-30-2005, 11:57 AM
I will say, though, that the Secure Linux release by the NSA is, well, secure.

calcal
07-30-2005, 02:55 PM
mac sucks at everything including video editing, their just going to lock up and freeze =D

they even lock up when you search the web

:nono: to mac

[XC] moddolicous
07-30-2005, 04:40 PM
mac sucks at everything including video editing, their just going to lock up and freeze =D

they even lock up when you search the web

:nono: to mac
What mac do u use? My ancient mac (9600) doesnt freeze AT ALL. Do u own a mac?

calcal
07-30-2005, 05:10 PM
i dont own a mac and never will

used a school mac for 1 semester *headache*
(they used ones that looks like this http://classroom.la.utexas.edu/photographs/Default_Mac.jpg)

Platform
07-30-2005, 09:54 PM
The Mac OS simply ROCKS...........so nice to use, no crashes, looks, Programs made for mac by Apple :D :D

antipop
07-31-2005, 03:08 AM
mac sucks at everything including video editing, their just going to lock up and freeze =D

they even lock up when you search the web

:nono: to mac
Yeah right you dont know what a mac is!

I have a PB since april, and i had one KP (when i got it, i was trying several stuff) since i had it. I almost never reboot it and it's my main machine! I usally reboot when there is an upgrade.
OSX is the OS that gives you the less headache and it's the easiest to use. The iApps are amazing. Tiger just blow windows away and it's only getting better.
The speed is more than enough for my everyday use and i have extra power if i need it. A mac mini is enough for video editing if you add some ram and a 7200rpm disk (the bottleneck of the mini) and a dual 2,7 is a dream machine (with a 30" cinedisplay :slobber:)
Don't forget that the mac haven't got a major upgrade in a couple of years and we're seeing the end of the current base, expect some nice new machine next year.
I know people that are still using G3 macs without feeling the need to upgrade (more than 5 years old), you notice an increase in speed at each new osx even on the old macs.

OSX server is not good for web use, but it's still maturing and gives some pretty nice stuff. If you want soem hardened OS, try openBSD (it's not because it's open source that it's flawed ;) I have more trust in a linux app than in a windows one.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 04:59 AM
calcal, sorry, but you are just talking out of your ass. Mac OS is better by design in the first place. BSD+Mach is a winning combination, it blows WinNT out of the proverbial water. 'Nuff said. The hardware is also nicer, PowerPC is a hugely superior architecture to x86. x86 is basicly trash, the only appeal is that it is easy to code for, but still, look at it, it's ~30 years old and counting. Sure, Macs are proprietry, but you can still overclock them, and they have a wide range of upgrades. Just face it, you, are a complete idiot when it comes to this subject. Please crawl back into your little x86 hole now, kthxbye.

EDIT: Also, I've read some tests in pro audio mags, a dual G5 box has MUCH lower latency than any x86 box, including SMP opterons.

Order
07-31-2005, 09:19 AM
The hardware is also nicer, PowerPC is a hugely superior architecture to x86. x86 is basicly trash, the only appeal is that it is easy to code for, but still, look at it, it's ~30 years old and counting.
That is utterly rediculous and I challenge you to back that up with real evidence.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 09:22 AM
x86 is very inefficient compared with many other archs.

Order
07-31-2005, 09:25 AM
Real evidence.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 09:31 AM
Ever heard of Google? There's plenty of evidence that x86 is a total waste of our time. Why the hell are we still using what I would consider a deprecated, ineffecient, mess of an architecture, other than to let programmers be lazy!? :rolleyes:

antipop
07-31-2005, 09:33 AM
What do you mean by x86? P4? RISC vs CISC (i forgot which is which :D)?

As far as the fight RISC vs CISC is concerned this is pointless now, both architecture have evolved one toward the other, so you can't say the G5 is better because it's a RISC, ...

Maybe you can give us more detail about your thoughts?
PPC are not what they used to be, IMO. There is no will to invest into a mass produced chip like the G4 or G5 which is why Apple is switching to Intel, IBM is not investing and they're not capable to deliver what they promised on this plateform (3GHZ, and portable G5 for the PB, ...)

Order
07-31-2005, 09:35 AM
I've heard of google.
They run their infrastructure on Xeons. x86s.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 09:44 AM
All I am saying is that x86 is ineffecient, old, and really not that great. They onlt invented it to simplify programming, or something like that (I am a bit rusty on x86 history).

Order
07-31-2005, 09:49 AM
It is old in the sense that it has been around for 30 years, but it doesn't mean that it is considered legacy or even remotely outdated. Look at AMD's Opteron and the massive amounts of processing power it allows while maintaining an extremely efficient energy profile.

Ugly n Grey
07-31-2005, 09:53 AM
No one buys chips, everyone buys platforms. Think about it.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 10:59 AM
Order, ~10 years ago, other architectures had much more powerful offerings supporting them. BTW, an observation, is it just me, or is every thread turning into a Me vs. Ugly'n'Grey battle? :/ I think we should stop this fighting now, tbh, because, personally, I don't have time to waste argueing with some Unix-elitist who thinks he is above everybody because he uses some lame commercial software, no offense, nothing against you, but it's damn true. $0.02.

BACK ON TOPIC, OTHERWISE I WILL CONTINUE TO USE CAPSLOCK! ;)

Order
07-31-2005, 11:06 AM
LOL.
I'm just trying to understand your point of view regarding x86. I've no problem dropping it, though, if you want. Trust me, this argument can go on for fifty pages without resolution I'm sure :).

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 11:09 AM
Hell, I'd imagine it going on 100 pages which is why I am stopping it. Think of the server, please think of the server!! :rolleyes:

Order
07-31-2005, 11:09 AM
Oh yeah...get Solaris 10 to work on my Asus W1n and we can end my side of the Windows debate for good.

Ugly n Grey
07-31-2005, 11:17 AM
MOP, your personal comments really have no bearing on the discussion at hand. Stop being a hot head and keep talking about computers. If you have a point of view, promote it without attacking the writer, thanks. We have a different point of view and obviously a different perspective, happens every day, what's the big deal? I'm not fighting with you, I just can't stand watching you push out nonsense without a single piece of reputable white paper (you can post links you know, no need to copy a whole doc to the server, we all have browsers here) or research to back you up. Order touched on this fact and so am I.

Have a beer and chill.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 11:18 AM
Never could get x86 solaris to work, I have to say. The installer would crash.

Order
07-31-2005, 11:20 AM
I know that it works beautifully on hardware that supports it but I think its just butting up against the same wall that Linux users have on hardware that doesn't have driver support yet.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 11:26 AM
Ugly'n'Grey, I am not trying to give out any facts, I always state my opinion, and facts where applicable. Just stop prancing around trying to look leet just because your "big company" uses commercial Unix distributions. Or in fact, we could just GET BACK ON THE F**KING TOPIC! :D These "discussions" are going nowhere.

Ugly n Grey
07-31-2005, 11:29 AM
Well the main problem I have with it is graphics card support. I find that the Tyan and Supermicro boards are pretty well supported. I've never had it crash on install, but I don't install it on consumer grade mobos either so I can imagine it would be buggy if you didn't buy stuff off the compatibility list (and usually that defeats any kind of an OC because Asus and Intel boards seems to populate that segment). But it does rock when working, I love the way Oracle runs on it, like fingers slipping into a glove.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 11:34 AM
Hmm, well, with me, it hardlocked at the bootloader when loading the kernel. Any ideas?

Order
07-31-2005, 11:37 AM
Thats exactly what happens to me. I get a kernel panic when it first tries to initiate it. I've tried every version/update they've released but I've had zero success. I should probably just wait until I build my opteron system. Dammit.

Ugly n Grey
07-31-2005, 11:38 AM
What was the Solaris version/date involved, do you recall? And a rough idea of the hardware, I can probably point you in the right direction.

Order
07-31-2005, 11:42 AM
Was that directed at me? If so, I don't remember the numbers but I know that I've tried every public release. The last time I tried to do it was last month. The hardware is an Asus W1n notebook w/ a 60gB Hitachi 7200rpm, 1gB pc2700, 2.0GHz Dothan, Radeon 9600.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 11:43 AM
I can't remember the date, but it was a few months back. Solaris 10. Hardware was an old Asus P2B, Pentium II 450MHz, and 512MB of RAM, an old 20GB ATA HDD, pretty old stuff.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 11:49 AM
Btw, order, that rig in progress looks amazing, how the hell can you afford all of that gear!? I thought my rigs were expensive, then I read your specs...

Order
07-31-2005, 11:54 AM
Holy :banana::banana::banana::banana: I didn't know I still had that in there!
Thats my old rig in progress and since I've disabled sigs on the board I didn't know it was still there LOFL. I've since updated it...I will change it now to reflect the updates.
How can I afford it? Iunno...contract work n' stuff.

calcal
07-31-2005, 12:17 PM
sorry masterofpuppets mac do suck
i dont care if their os is better or their hardware, if they were better pease explain their lack for gaming and freezing

if macs were so good why are there so few users?

Order
07-31-2005, 12:17 PM
Price, lol.
The Mini's are kinda cute, though, in a feline AIDS kind of way.

calcal
07-31-2005, 12:19 PM
Price, lol.
The Mini's are kinda cute, though, in a feline AIDS kind of way.


price aint that bad, look at those freaking alienware, falcon-nw comps they can cost up to 6k

but you get what you pay for, unlike macs
you pay 3k for a system that will lock up a lot and pc systems that cost a lot less perform better



the only people who gets macs fanboys and teachers

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 12:35 PM
Macs do NOT lock up, unless it is some form of hardware defect (rare), or user error. And they aren't designed for gaming. They are designed for professional A/V workstation use. There aren't as many Mac users as PC users, since Macs are more popular in the "professional" market than desktop. And you do not get what you pay for with Falcon NW or Gaylienware. When I first built my rig, a similarily specced Falcon NW costed ~£1000 more :rolleyes: Macs perform tons better than most x86 systems, overclocked or not. Give me some real evidence, otherwise I will continue to call you an ignorant noob. Stick to your generic Windoze XP + x86 setup if you wish, I'll still continue to mock you.

calcal
07-31-2005, 12:47 PM
they do not lock uP? please explain to me why it freezes when i search the web?

you call me a noob because i think mac sucks..jsut pathetic
so pretty much your call most of us noobs

you seem to like macs so much why dont you replace all your pcs with them

im not going to waste my time finding that review comparing a dell 3.0 to a g4 or g5.

antipop
07-31-2005, 12:53 PM
I guess we all agree to say that calcal is an ignorant noob, don't talk about something you know nothing! Next time try to say something smart or just shut up. What you're saying is non sense and OT.
MOP they're not made for gaming even though there is a few nice game on it like WOW or Unreal, there is not as much choice as on pc but some of the game that are really worth it are present (i even heard of halo and fable coming soon). If i want to game, i just use my xbox!
Oh and it's not only for A/V editing since i do none of them and i use a mac as my main comp now :) I just like the fact that i don't have to worry azbout anything, i don't have to remember that i need to save my work nor to worry that it might crash and lose everything, i don't have to use an anitvirus since there is no virus. I can connect to wifi in less than a second, i can type in the dark because the KB is backlite ... All those small stuff makes life so much easier (don't get me started on expose or the spring folder).
My bro plays the piano, he was just blown away by garageband, he was looking for something similar on pc and he jut couldn't find. A friend lent him a usb keyboard (the instrument ;) ) and it was so easy to set up on mac (actually there was nothing to set up).
A lot of people should just try once osx to see how easy but powerful it is and how t can make life (on the computer) easier

antipop
07-31-2005, 12:57 PM
they do not lock uP? please explain to me why it freezes when i search the web?

you call me a noob because i think mac sucks..jsut pathetic
so pretty much your call most of us noobs

you seem to like macs so much why dont you replace all your pcs with them

im not going to waste my time finding that review comparing a dell 3.0 to a g4 or g5.
Because you don't know how to use it! I don't know why.

I just know that mine has crashed once in 4 months, that i restart it less than a couple of time every months (mostly because of an upgrade or adding some ram or installing tiger). I can give you testimony of people who are using for a long time and they'll tell you that it doens't crash. I know people that have never restarted they're mac for something else than an upgrade, and other than doing a repair authorisation every months there's no need for other maintenance. You obviously don't know what you're talking about so shut up

Order
07-31-2005, 01:06 PM
See pages one and two for the crashing discussion.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 02:15 PM
I could probably use a Mac as my main rig, if it had as much freedom of hardware as the PC. Alot of it is too proprietry, but something we should all agree on, OS X is awesome!!

Order
07-31-2005, 02:53 PM
OSX looks too much like a party in Jolly-Rancher land for my taste. To each his own, though.

Ugly n Grey
07-31-2005, 03:01 PM
OSX looks too much like a party in Jolly-Rancher land for my taste.

You've been quoted. Nicely put.

masterofpuppets
07-31-2005, 03:09 PM
I don't like it's look either, but the technology is great. The 2D rendering is vastly superior to anything X11 or Win32 has right now. And I just love the kernel :)

Ugly n Grey
07-31-2005, 03:12 PM
I still think MACS are for people who can't use a computer. So back to the original thread, MAC or PC, then it has to be a PC for me.

Order
07-31-2005, 03:30 PM
LOL, sweet. I'm honored.

[XC] moddolicous
07-31-2005, 06:51 PM
I have two OLD macs. 1 is a 6300 (older than me) and one is a 9600. I have had the 9600 on for 30 days at a clip when it was my main comp. Even though it only ran at 400mhz, it was plenty fast for internet & word processing. It NEVER crashed, and like others said, was only restarted for updates. If I had to choose, I would choose a mac over a pc, even though it has a lack of games. Mac g5 2.7 vs Either intel 4ghz or AMD 64 3ghz, I would choose the mac (I also never used either the 4ghz intel or 64bit 3ghz).

antipop
08-01-2005, 01:56 AM
I still think MACS are for people who can't use a computer. So back to the original thread, MAC or PC, then it has to be a PC for me.
I'm going to say that to all the dev that are working on it, to all the scientist that uses G5 for their computations, to the people at Pixar...
I know how to use a comp and i love mac, i just can't see why it should be only for newbs. I kno there is not the leet stuff like defrag or norton, it's a bit too easy to use wifi, i mean it should only be reserved to the people that have at least spent two hours figuring how it works. And an OS is not 1337 if you don't have at least to format and reinstall everything every couple of months. Oh and it's so for the newbs they included a real terminal, compared to windows that's almost too easy to use.

For the look, you can like it or not but come n, it's worse than the playmobil look of windows? I think the design of osx is very stylish, windows is a bit teletubbies (of course you can go back to the old windows 95 look for the 1337 people here).

rsGTS
08-01-2005, 02:43 AM
I will throw in my 2 cents here, just as a PC (Winblows and DOS) user for more than 15 out of my 23 years. (dabble in Linux but definatley don't use it enough to feel comfortable even calling myself remotely competent in its use)

My PC runs WinXP, its uptime is 3 months and 22 days at current. (restarted last time because of my video card flaking out, overclocked it a bit too much) :p: Windoze can be incredibly stable if you know how to configure it and disable all of the bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: unneeded services that M$ turns on as default. (BTW I don't run antivirus on my system either, for the last 4 years and I have gotten exactly 1 virus on my system in that period, but it was cause I didn't lock my box and my little brother tried to download :banana::banana::banana::banana:) ;)
I run a antivirus scan every 6 months from housecall.trendmicro.com and that is all I need. I also run adaware for kicks every few months and I have not seen any actual spyware on my system in over a year.

ANY OS can be stable (ok that is an exaggeration WinME is one of the biggest piles of :banana::banana::banana::banana: I have ever seen), if you learn the way it functions and you know what you are going to use it for. If you guys complain about stability on a patched SP2 WinXP machine, you are doing something wrong.

But to get back on topic (the original post) use the OS you feel comfortable with, or the software you know already, don't switch platforms either to OSX or to Windows just because someone told you to. I can guarantee your own understanding of the architecture will account for way more than what OS you run does. Either a Athlon 64 system or a G5 system will be plenty powerful to do ANY sort of video editing short of a full blown feature film if you know how to use the software properly.

Hope my 2 cents was appreciated, you guys take it easy.

antipop
08-01-2005, 02:55 AM
Windoze can be incredibly stable if you know how to configure it and disable all of the bull unneeded services that M$ turns on as default.
In windows ou have to spend time to make the OS secure and stable, whereas in OSX or Linux you don't have to do anything. I had only a few viruses on my pc with win2K, nothing major but everytime it was a pain in the ass to make everything clean again.
I spent a full day configuring a network at a friend's house, (nothing hard : ADSL + wifi under win2K), once i got the connection i got all the virus you can imagine (i just opened IE, i didn't click on anything, ddn't go to a weird website), once cleaned i lost the connection. I left the network was working an hour later i got a call that it wasn't working anymore (i didn't returned the call as it already screwed my week end)

I'm not trying to convert anyone to mac, i long forgot to try with my friends (i'm a sellout now :(); I'm just sharing a good experience hoping that it will interest some of the readers (and try to correct false idea)

rsGTS
08-01-2005, 03:56 AM
I do completely agree with alot of your sentiment antipop, even though I use Windows almost exclusively, and support it all day long, I hate it and love it both. Once you learn a OS and what you can and can't do with it, you become more than a luser and become a user. I can guarantee you I can crash OSX within 2 minutes of using it if I want to, just the same way I can crash Windows within 2 minutes if I want to. EVERY OS has its upsides and downsides, you have to choose for yourself what is the most important thing to you. I choose Windows because of the broad functionality it offers. It is worth having to stabilize it to get the functionality *I* want, and that is another reason I like Windows, if you know what you are doing, the customization options stomp on any other OS I have ever seen - barring the hundreds of types of Linux ;)
Now my opinion on OSX is, it has ALOT of killer features, but alot of em are force fed to you. As in, there is no other way to do certain tasks other than how the developers decided was the best way to do it. (before I get flamed, I know Windows has the same problem with certain things, but OSX seems alot more cut in stone about certain things) P.S. I HATE Finder :stick:

Anyway I like and hate almost every OS I have used for various reasons, and that is something every one of us has to deal with. I use Windows, because honestly it *is* the best OS for what *I* use it for. BTW gaming is extremely important to me, so that of course adds some to the weight behind the Windows choice.

Signed
Windows user by choice
but that doens't mean I can't appreciate the uses of the other options out there :toast:

antipop
08-01-2005, 05:12 AM
It does depend on your need, you can do almost anything on every OS but some are better suited than others.

Finder is the major weak point of osx IMO even though it has some very nice feature (like the column view or the springed folders). But anyway, there is less need for it with spotlight, i just press Apple + space and type the file or soft i want and i get it. But yeah if they could do something a tad better for the finder i would love it :)

Ugly n Grey
08-01-2005, 07:03 AM
I'm going to say that to all the dev that are working on it, to all the scientist that uses G5 for their computations, to the people at Pixar...

Do so by all means, then when you realize they have Unix/Linux running on those G5's you can visit the thread in my sig and pucker up.

Again; the closed nature of Apple, the simplistic approach of all MAC OS' reminds me of being pandered to. If you like MAC, use them. I don't, I probably never will and nothing will really change that. I don't buy closed hardware platforms. I buy hardware platforms (regardless of CPU) that can run whatever I want to put on them. With a PC, I have a choice of Unix flavours, I have Linux, BSD, Novell, Windows, DOS, OS/2.... everything but OSX in fact.......works for me. I like being in control. I also don't like MAC hardware builds.

There's nothing wrong per se, but that at the price point they charge for the big guns it should be better, more rugged with more features.

A fellow here on the board just built a quad core (2x275 Optys) for the money you would buy a high end G5 for. He has four cores running at 2.5Ghz with no need for liquid. Ask him if he'd trade for two measly G5's on a mac and a choice of one supported OS.

masterofpuppets
08-01-2005, 07:10 AM
Yes, in Windows you have to use an AV and a Firewall. Where as in OS X and many Unix/Linux variants, the desktop user can run a secure system with no protection at all (Big corporations should look into security measures though).

Btw, UglynGrey, if he runs Windows on them, tell him he will get a bomb in the post!! :D No Opterons should be wasted like that.

antipop
08-01-2005, 07:18 AM
I guess some people don't like when it's easy, it's not "cool" or "1337". Don't mistake simple with powerless, osx is very powerful. And i don't think, people buy PM to use linux, apple offers a lot of very powerful tools to the pro.
I laugh when someone tells me he doesn't like closed software then uses windows.

masterofpuppets
08-01-2005, 07:20 AM
OS X is very good. If you want, you can easily use it as a "l337h4x00rz" OS, just use a console instead of the GUI. Wow, incredibly 1337! :P

Ugly n Grey
08-01-2005, 07:28 AM
I guess some people don't like when it's easy, it's not "cool" or "1337". Don't mistake simple with powerless, osx is very powerful. And i don't think, people buy PM to use linux, apple offers a lot of very powerful tools to the pro.
I laugh when someone tells me he doesn't like closed software then uses windows.

Easy is fine, inflexible is not. Power is being able to do what you want, if OSX does it for you, I'm sure you feel empowered. OSX doesn't do it for me and the only thing I like about the hardware is the chips.

A PC isn't stuck running Windows, A PC platform actually has competition for your dollar on every single piece of hardware, even the CPU's....

Easy is great, just don't colour outside the lines.

antipop
08-01-2005, 07:33 AM
What do you do on pc that is so special? Maybe if you say "this is what i need and osx is not good for it" that would really mean something.

Ugly n Grey
08-01-2005, 08:20 AM
What do you do on pc that is so special? Maybe if you say "this is what i need and osx is not good for it" that would really mean something.

In my case, my moonlighting job is optimizing code for a top tier database vendor who shall remain nameless. I do this on different platforms, (including Windows yes mop). So I spend a lot of time coding and compiling on Unix/Linux/Windows on x86, Itanium, Power5 and HP. The majority of my boxes are Optys with Solaris. Some are Athlon MP's with SuSE Linux. The Power5 boxes run AIX. I have one E450 Sparc box.

On a personal level, I use my Home office PC to surf, benchmark, cryptography cracking and making custom DVD's, photo editing and printing with the odd round of Age of Mythology/Titans thrown in. I use it to telecommute to the office. I sometimes watch the news on my PC as well. It's an XP based unit.

I also use a Windows based HTPC in place of the usual assortment of stereos and DVD players. The HTPC also runs my household lighting. It runs XP.

The HTPC at the cottage in addition to normal HTPC duties monitors security and power generation, battery storage from the windmills and controls the lighting for the property, monitors temps inside the buildings and emails alerts. That same HTPC also controls things like turning on the backup generator, stuff like that. I only have the one PC at the cottage, It's running SuSe. The net connection is two way satellite backed up with a 24k dial up connection. I use it to surf and check email as well using the TV for a monitor.

Long story short, I like being able to pick and choose the tools I need to do what needs to be done at the moment. All operating systems do pretty much the same things, It's HOW they do them that makes us pick them. Though in cases like Winblows we often pick it because of compatibility, because it's the only thing we can run our games on, because it's the only thing that supports the office VPN solution, because we have to compile Win 32 code etc......

Could I do all this on OSX? maybe some of it, with a lot of hassle for the other ten percent - but only with MAC hardware at a premium price.

antipop
08-01-2005, 08:31 AM
If you do custom dvd's photo editing and all, osx is a pretty good plateform. A mini is enough and when you buy it you get all the software needed (osx + ilife).
You can also install debian package through fink but i never tried it. There is also an HTPC on mac but i never tried also so i can't say if it's good or no.
As i said it depends on what you do and you can't say that an os is crap only because it doesn't fit your need (i don't say that solaris is crappy because it's way out of what i do on a comp).
I don't think the premium is that high on macs, if you compute that it comes with a lot of very good softs, and you don't have to invest in a firewall or an antivirus (ok you can find them for free). Plus it has a lot of nice things like BT2 and wifi almost standard on every mac, the size and look... Also a powermac is overkill for most use, and a mini or an imac is better suited and cheaper.

Ugly n Grey
08-01-2005, 08:40 AM
I have no problems with HTPC , DVD's or photos' on Linux or Windows, Plus I get to choose from about seven zillion packages......Firewalls and AV are a part of life regardless of OS.

I didn't state the OS was crap, I said it was limiting, funny looking and good for newbies. I also said it wasn't for me.

I said the hardware was cheesy though, I expect a lot more for my money. I expect innovations like SLI, new competing chipsets, plug and play processor innovation like x2. I wouldn't buy a DELL, why would I buy a MAC?

Frisch
08-01-2005, 09:50 AM
Have a coke and a smile. WHERE IS THE SYSTEM FILE ? IT'S GONE YOU IDIOT, YOU OWN A MAC. (http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s032094/mac.wmv)

rsGTS
08-01-2005, 09:02 PM
I didn't state the OS was crap, I said it was limiting, funny looking and good for newbies. I also said it wasn't for me.

I said the hardware was cheesy though, I expect a lot more for my money. I expect innovations like SLI, new competing chipsets, plug and play processor innovation like x2. I wouldn't buy a DELL, why would I buy a MAC?

Ugly n Grey pretty much hit the nail on the head on how I feel.

Funny think is one of the companies he mentioned happens to pay my bills . . .
and I completely agree, there is no way I would buy one of em, even with my employee discount. :rolleyes:
I do have to say, that for all the evils of unnamed company, they do actually innovate new techs for partners normally 6 to 8 months prior to the other big manufacturers. Although none of it is documented, even for us that actually support the platforms, which is a big :slapass:

The PC provides the broad functionality I expect from a system whether it is hardware OR software that I need to run or add to it.
I think OSX/Mac platform has potential, but in its present form, it is way too closed of a platform for me to consider it as a potential choice for my own use.

If the Mac platform provides everything you need from and OS, I am happy for you, but for a whole hell of a lot of us here at xtremesystems, it just feels limiting in its present form. :fact:

Platform
08-02-2005, 12:03 AM
That is utterly rediculous and I challenge you to back that up with real evidence.

Here you go

;)

Platform
08-02-2005, 12:08 AM
Have a coke and a smile. WHERE IS THE SYSTEM FILE ? IT'S GONE YOU IDIOT, YOU OWN A MAC. (http://www.student.dtu.dk/~s032094/mac.wmv)

I have seen that one......funny....but that is OS X as a child 10.0 now it is an adult 10.4
;)

antipop
08-02-2005, 01:01 AM
And i'm not sure he did it under a mac (the extension is wma, the worst thing you can get as a codec!)

It was a parody of ads mac made about people discovering mac and seeing god :)

Ugly n Grey
08-02-2005, 05:49 AM
Here you go

;)

Can you give us some context for the shots please? I'd like to know the source and products run.

I am a bit of a Power 5 chip fan so it's not that I don't believe the screenies, I just want them to be credible.

Thanks
Ugly

antipop
08-02-2005, 05:54 AM
They look like some i saw on apple website, which are very very biased.
Anyway it's hard to compare chips that are different, running on systems that are different

Ugly n Grey
08-02-2005, 06:29 AM
They look like some i saw on apple website, which are very very biased.
Anyway it's hard to compare chips that are different, running on systems that are different

I agree very much, the closest I have been able to get on my own is Opterons vs Power 5 running Oracle and DB2.

Using the same SAN technology and network cards (to take those factors out of play) A pair of power 5's thrashes a pair of Opty's when running 64 bit Linux with both databases. (keep in mind, the code and OS get's optimized differently, there is no possibility of exact comparisons).

From a price performance perspective, the Optys rule by a mile, so it's pretty hard to justify buying 4 way PPC servers. However, 8 way PPC servers make a lot of sense because the overall architecture of the servers (NOT THE CHIPS, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT @%$#* CHIPS SO DON'T START YAPPING) beats by far what most companies are offering architecturally on the Opteron based line. This is not to say they can't build better Opty servers, they just don't right now though I see from a lot of hardware vendors upcoming server platforms that this is changing rapidly....

All things equal, I will likely keep buying the Optys for most things and recommending PPC for 8 way + servers.

Platform
08-02-2005, 08:22 AM
Can you give us some context for the shots please? I'd like to know the source and products run.

I am a bit of a Power 5 chip fan so it's not that I don't believe the screenies, I just want them to be credible.

Thanks
Ugly

OK fine.........Apple.com BIASED........I know..

But will give you some from an INDIPENDENT source OK? :(

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html Older P4 but also older G5;)
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/But-a-Macintosh-Is-Slower-Right-38631.html

Ugly n Grey
08-02-2005, 09:05 AM
Well it's a good read from a "Really, that's interesting!" point of view. To MasterofPuppets point, I'm kinda only interested in the high end of this block of CPU's. I think the G5 gets a lot of kudos in the high end UNIX server world - but on a PC (since basically only Apple makes any quantity of desktops with the chip) no has a fantastic implementation and they (Apple) are stopping production and switching to Intel. (bite me Jobs)

If there were an equivalent mobo (i mean nice features and lots of great choices) for a dual G5 like there is from Tyan and others for Optys, I'd probably buy one and run AIX on it. I bought a G3 clone board years ago and I really liked it, but it was limited from an x86 users point of view in what hardware you could buy and what OS would run (AIX and Linux in my case, and Linux was pretty flaky then).

Anyhow, IBM has stated the PPC architecture will become one of "build your own proc" for whomever (ala Sony,XBOX) including themselves (2-128 way servers). I don't think it'll ever see a desktop again unless someone like SGI uses it instead of their own stuff.

RISC is not dead, but I do see it migrating upwards and the overall workstation/PC market will be left to x86 with AMD and Intel beating the crap out of each other.

Regards
Ugly

antipop
08-02-2005, 09:20 AM
Real RISC is dead a long time ago, in the sense that both CISC and RISC have found a middleground between the two and chips nowadays integrate both type of instructions
(i'm not an expert but this is what i seem to have understand of my reading, correct me if i'm wrong)

tristancarton
08-02-2005, 09:22 AM
platform not sure why you linked to a much older article at barefeats but here is a much newer one with two opteron 252s, two 2.5ghz g5s, and two xeon 3.4s.(among others)

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html (page 1 audio/video programs)

http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html (page 2 gaming apps)

5-Clicks
08-02-2005, 12:36 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

Platform
08-03-2005, 09:38 PM
Well it's a good read from a "Really, that's interesting!" point of view. To MasterofPuppets point, I'm kinda only interested in the high end of this block of CPU's. I think the G5 gets a lot of kudos in the high end UNIX server world - but on a PC (since basically only Apple makes any quantity of desktops with the chip) no has a fantastic implementation and they (Apple) are stopping production and switching to Intel. (bite me Jobs)

If there were an equivalent mobo (i mean nice features and lots of great choices) for a dual G5 like there is from Tyan and others for Optys, I'd probably buy one and run AIX on it. I bought a G3 clone board years ago and I really liked it, but it was limited from an x86 users point of view in what hardware you could buy and what OS would run (AIX and Linux in my case, and Linux was pretty flaky then).

Anyhow, IBM has stated the PPC architecture will become one of "build your own proc" for whomever (ala Sony,XBOX) including themselves (2-128 way servers). I don't think it'll ever see a desktop again unless someone like SGI uses it instead of their own stuff.

RISC is not dead, but I do see it migrating upwards and the overall workstation/PC market will be left to x86 with AMD and Intel beating the crap out of each other.

Regards
Ugly

Well those are the competitors for the PPC 970 "G5".........not like the Power5 class CPU's
;)

khellandros66
08-03-2005, 11:58 PM
Why MACs rule and PC's will alwys drool.

Apple OS X:
Self Contained enviroment from gorund up.

Windows = Universal OS = Many Loop Holes, including incomplete coding and bulkyness.

Memory management:
Apple OS X Tiger Uses roughly 30MB+ at idle and since NO DLLs...more efficient use of resources.

Windows XP Pro uses around 238MB + at idle. Most of the software Ques up in the form of DLLs which eat up memory..

Hardware wise
Apple/Motorola G4 Processor can sustain more IPCs roughly 7Hz to complete a task where as Intel P4 can sustain only 4-6 IPCs, so therefore most cases 20Hz to complete a task. Not only this but the Pipelines in the G4 are much shorter then those of the P4. Hence forth making a faster Execute.

Expandability: G5 towers now have PCI-X which is geared for Server/Workstations. Also if I can put a new version of th Quadro FX 4500 in a Dual G5 2.7GHz running OX Tiger I can also run Virtual PC and use Server2003 within the system. Two OS' at same time. From here I have the power to run both 3D Studio Max 6 and Renderman or Lightwave.

BTW I have sold alomst 3 dozen Apple PCs in the past 2 months working at CompUSA.

~Bob

antipop
08-04-2005, 12:10 AM
The good thing about mac is indeed the close relation between the hardware and the software.

As for the ram, the more you put in Tiget the better it is. With 512 you soon find yourself limited (which is obvious on a laptop with a slow hdd). 1gb and it really express itself. But i'm talking about the overall system, stuff like dashboard eats up a lot of ram. Letting safari run for like a week and it takes up to a 100MB (of course i shut it down every once in a while). Then there's the aberation like office which is slower than on pc, which is even slower than using the pc version on a mac through ms emulator ! I'm trying apple's tool pages, it's good but still need soem work before competing with word (it's a great work for a v1 however). Maybe during the v2 it'll blow word, just like keynote is miles ahead of powerpoint

Ugly n Grey
08-04-2005, 12:35 AM
Can't argue with you about the OS, it does work, so do half a dozen others besides the one that doesn't (Windows). I just find OSX to be a very restrictive platform. Let's put it this way, I can make Solaris or Linux as skinny and fast as OSX any day. Faster actually, OSX is still the new kid on the Unix block.

A pair of G4 or G5 CPU's can't do any better than a pair of Opty's. They'd be pressed to match the cheesy x2 4200 on my bench that sells for a fraction of the cost. The Opty's are NUMA aware and if the OS is (any form of unix is, windoze 2003 server is) you are off and running.

A MAC tops out at 8 gigs of RAM, lots of my Opty boards from TYAN top out at 32. That's Apple cutting edge design, not a restriction on the CPU.

In all head to head comparisons of recent models, the Optys beat the G5's. And not by just a little bit. Expecially on 64 bit apps.

All other major server vendors are transitioning to PCI-E after using PCI-X for years. Apple is the last to jump on an empty boat. IBM, HP, DELL, SUN have all announced this. They will keep PCI-X on the mobos for years to come, the same way they kept a lonely old ISA slot on the PCI bus for years, but the new tech is being transitioned to multiple PCI-E bus'.

I can also run VPC (I do actually, it's how I build my Solaris installs before deployment) and run several operatings systems at a time... all in fact but MAC OSX.

Does Apple believe in the future of G5? Uh Duh..........But I will be buying PPC platforms for years to come, mostly in 8 way or larger sizes.. For system at 2-8 chips, right now, at this moment in history, you can't beat the optys.

More power to Apple, I hope they build competitive off the shelf working well alternatives to M$ for years to come. But you buy one because you like the way they do things, not because they are the best or fastest (neither in my opinion), but because of what they are and how they do it.

Regards,
Ugly

antipop
08-04-2005, 02:30 AM
Can't argue with you about the OS, it does work, so do half a dozen others besides the one that doesn't (Windows). I just find OSX to be a very restrictive platform. Let's put it this way, I can make Solaris or Linux as skinny and fast as OSX any day. Faster actually, OSX is still the new kid on the Unix block.
Are you talking to me?
You're comparing osx to Solaris? A normal person (not a dev, not a webmaster just regular joe) will never use solaris and will probably never try linux.
I used solaris at school, and it's hell for everyday tasks like web browsing i don't even know if you can listen to music or watch dvd's.
Linux is still ten times too complicated to be a serious option for the mass consumer. I spent more than a couple of month trying to make this thing work before deleting it. (don't get me started with the soooo expectional linux community, just a bunch of people thinking "oh god we are so 1337, the rest of the people are morons, ..."). It ends up windows vs osx (for EASY use and EVERYDAY tasks, for EVERYBODY) and clearly osx wins hands up.

What the point having a p56 67GHz if as soon as you go on the internet you get a zillions viruses and the comp just reboot twice everyday? You can always add firewall, antivirus, defrag, scandisk, condoms, it'll eat up all the power and won't make the os easier to live with.

I never said osx was the perfect flawless os, just the best for 90% of the people use. It has its own problem (finder is one of them) but overall it's pretty good. It's up to you to find the os that fits your need. I tried windows, linus and osx and i'm hooked on osx (plus the pb is really nice).

Platform
08-04-2005, 03:39 AM
Why MACs rule and PC's will alwys drool.

Apple OS X:
Self Contained enviroment from gorund up.

Windows = Universal OS = Many Loop Holes, including incomplete coding and bulkyness.

Memory management:
Apple OS X Tiger Uses roughly 30MB+ at idle and since NO DLLs...more efficient use of resources.

Windows XP Pro uses around 238MB + at idle. Most of the software Ques up in the form of DLLs which eat up memory..

Hardware wise
Apple/Motorola G4 Processor can sustain more IPCs roughly 7Hz to complete a task where as Intel P4 can sustain only 4-6 IPCs, so therefore most cases 20Hz to complete a task. Not only this but the Pipelines in the G4 are much shorter then those of the P4. Hence forth making a faster Execute.

Expandability: G5 towers now have PCI-X which is geared for Server/Workstations. Also if I can put a new version of th Quadro FX 4500 in a Dual G5 2.7GHz running OX Tiger I can also run Virtual PC and use Server2003 within the system. Two OS' at same time. From here I have the power to run both 3D Studio Max 6 and Renderman or Lightwave.

BTW I have sold alomst 3 dozen Apple PCs in the past 2 months working at CompUSA.

~Bob

Very good post
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :D ;)

masterofpuppets
08-04-2005, 05:33 AM
antipop, I am a part of many Linux communities, and not one of them (with the exception of a few retards) ever thinks they are superior because they use Linux. I'm sorry, but that is just not true. They are very very helpful. For example, when I first started using Gentoo, I had some teething problems. I asked around in their IRC channel and on their forums, got a few quick responses and the problems were solved. But I agree with you on one thing, OS X > Windows, by such a huge amount. OS X isn't restrictive, if you know how, you could probably strip it of all the proprietry crap down to a basic console-only system, I've seen it done. And with help of the SDK, you could probably port X11 and some X11 programs and a wm to it. I know the current GUI already supports X11 apps though, but I'm sure someone could port Xorg to it with absolute basic VGA support (until someone programs DRI for Apple Darwin).

antipop
08-04-2005, 06:09 AM
I lost you after SDK :)

As for linux, this was my feeling after trying to set up a linux on my pc. After two moths, it was still unusable (i had to type 5 lines before launching kde, i would get the sound depending on the mood of the comp, no way to make usb2 work, ...). I tried to ask (very nicely) to linux people and all they would do is to send to pages filled up with code and if you don't have a phd in rocket science it's pure garbage (i'm an engineer but computer is not my field anymore). I was just tired of spending weeks end trying to make that thing work for an easy everyday use, it took me so much time that i was using windows half of the time so i just forget of linux. I guess i got all the retards

Runner
08-04-2005, 07:45 AM
Yes, in Windows you have to use an AV and a Firewall. Where as in OS X and many Unix/Linux variants, the desktop user can run a secure system with no protection at all (Big corporations should look into security measures though).

I run zero AV and no firewall, ever. I have never once had a virus, trojan, or anything malware on one of my full time machines. I setup my networks so they run completely on netbeui/NWLink, minus internet of course. Want to know how many ports are open on a clean boot(no communication software, irc, msn, etc.) of my machine? 2. Guess what operating system I run. The one downside? It can be a pain in the ass when you go to lan parties, have to open a few ports to get filesharing to work over a standard TCP/IP network again. None of this requires anything running in the background, it actually cuts out a lot of crap. Throughput is also unaffected.

You can secure windows, and its not as difficult as many people would have it sound, no more difficult than configuring a linux box after first install.

While microsoft should bare some of the blame for a lot of their bugs/holes, its a lot about the person sitting in front of that monitor hooked up to that PC running windows. You know what they say about a million monkeys, now put them in front of a PC instead, now multiply their numbers by a few thousand...todays computing landscape.







"Well, my windows kept crashing, now my harddrive just won't even turn on!"
http://www3.telus.net/jcsnow/96sm.jpg

Ugly n Grey
08-04-2005, 08:28 AM
antipop, I am a part of many Linux communities, and not one of them (with the exception of a few retards) ever thinks they are superior because they use Linux. I'm sorry, but that is just not true. They are very very helpful. For example, when I first started using Gentoo, I had some teething problems. I asked around in their IRC channel and on their forums, got a few quick responses and the problems were solved. But I agree with you on one thing, OS X > Windows, by such a huge amount. OS X isn't restrictive, if you know how, you could probably strip it of all the proprietry crap down to a basic console-only system, I've seen it done. And with help of the SDK, you could probably port X11 and some X11 programs and a wm to it. I know the current GUI already supports X11 apps though, but I'm sure someone could port Xorg to it with absolute basic VGA support (until someone programs DRI for Apple Darwin).

Port shmort, a standard Linux distro installs fast and brainless, a more complex one has a ton of people willing to help you to install it. You don't have to be as skilled as MoP to use Linux, the OS has distros to suit every taste.

I never said the OS wasn't good , I said I don't like it and compared ti to it's cousins...

antipop
08-04-2005, 08:33 AM
I'm sorry but i tried Linux and tried to get help from whenever i could and nobody ever really helped me, i found out myself lost in the os and just dumped it.
If you don't talk the same language as the linux guru, you get lost and don't ever ask him to talk in english, he'll just say "you're a newb so rtfm!" Damn i printed two manuals that was more than a 1000pges, and that was barely helpful (but still most of the so called guru i met)

ps : i'm talking about the people i met, and how a newb can be lost in the linux world.

Ugly n Grey
08-04-2005, 08:48 AM
ps : i'm talking about the people i met, and how a newb can be lost in the linux world.

Fair enough those are your experiences and thank you for sharing those.

antipop
08-04-2005, 09:07 AM
Fair enough those are your experiences and thank you for sharing those.

I might have been a bit harsh on the linux community at first but the people i've met really turned me off of Linux and i'm not the only that have had such experience (other have a very good experience, it's a matter of luck i guess). Every OS comes with its moron preinstalled :D
Linux is very hard if you want to be self taught (it's not impossible but a newb gets easily lost) or so i found out. The variety of distro and graphics (i don't have to right term, but like gnome and al.) adds to confusion.
Linux has a very long way before really competing with MS on average Joe comp (i'm not talking about IT expert or devs).

Ugly n Grey
08-04-2005, 09:41 AM
I can understand that frustration, to me an operating system is just that...an OS. They all do exactly the same things just in different ways.....I've been loading and playing with operating systems since the early 80's when IBM released their first system with CPM (before DOS). I built my first apple two clone from a bag of chips and a PCB.

All through the years and it's all the same, load the core, move some files, load an app, save a file. Everyone of these operating systems does the same things. Once that hit me I became OS neutral... I'll work on any OS that I need to, OS/2, Unix/linux type, Windows, Novell whatever... but MACS don't make my list because they just run OSX (and Linux if you have to). It's the overall package I :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: about.

Wait till OSX is LOADED with the same digital rights (Jobs said they are going to do it - the hints are during the roll out of the Intel boxes) crap that Windows has. They are bringing other "improvements" and "features" as well. I don't see them as the good guys, I see them as guys out to make a buck just like everyone else.

For the record, every OS can crap out, every single one. There's too much code in an OS for it to be perfect. Want to see a MAC locked? Run a google, some of the pics and articles are really really funny.

At the end of the day, buy whatever floats your boat. Consumers tell the world what they like by using their wallets. Or not.

My personal decision has been to keep going with the X86 based hardware because I like the features and I like the competition. I will keep using Windows and Linux and Unix because they meet different needs.

On a side bar note I had mentioned that I had offered the MAC users (almost all of them in web and graphics design) in the company the opportunity to switch to x2 procs or Opterons running Linux or Windows supported by the help desk. Out of these hard core MAC guys, 21 have switched so far, all but two decided on Dual Opty's, Nvidia video cards with Linux. The other two chose x2 4800's with Windows XP.

The Linux users are making fun of the Windows users, but altogether they are quite happy, there have been transition issues with software, what to buy, how to buy it etc.. but so far it has gone well. The number one reason these guys elected to change was... New and fast hardware, top of the line video cards and the ability to run their Virtual machines a lot faster inside their desktops , making testing go better for them. No one is running a native 64 bit OS. That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

antipop
08-04-2005, 09:51 AM
I don't see them as the good guys, I see them as guys out to make a buck just like everyone else.
Of course they want to make buck, it's a company not a charity. Linux might be free but don't tell me Red Hat is here only becaue they like helping people. It's capitalism.
So far i think the DRM will be used to prevent installing osx on a regular pc but before starting a war this, just wait and see how they'll use it (that would be pointless to guess what they'd do with it).

masterofpuppets
08-04-2005, 10:35 AM
Port shmort, a standard Linux distro installs fast and brainless, a more complex one has a ton of people willing to help you to install it. You don't have to be as skilled as MoP to use Linux, the OS has distros to suit every taste.

I never said the OS wasn't good , I said I don't like it and compared ti to it's cousins...

Hehehe, I don't have that much skill, I just use my rather advanced getting-stuff-to-work skills to get me through! :D

Order
08-04-2005, 05:12 PM
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~100323,00.html

antipop
08-05-2005, 12:27 AM
Isn't Lucas owning dreamworks which competes against pixar owned by a certain steve jobs? :D

Order
08-05-2005, 09:24 AM
Maybe.
I thought it was cool to see AMDs in what would normally be assumed to be an all-Mac infrastructure.

Ugly n Grey
08-05-2005, 09:26 AM
Maybe.
I thought it was cool to see AMDs in what would normally be assumed to be an all-Mac infrastructure.

yep, those in the know are definitely changing over to the dark side...

Order
08-05-2005, 09:30 AM
Which, consequently, is the light side.

Ugly n Grey
08-05-2005, 09:38 AM
Which, consequently, is the light side.

:lsfight:

Order
08-05-2005, 09:40 AM
Lol.

masterofpuppets
08-05-2005, 09:45 AM
I certainly hope they aren't using Winborks.

Order
08-05-2005, 11:19 AM
Is that like Quickborks?

Platform
08-06-2005, 02:07 AM
Have a look at the tranfer rates......

http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10458

Ugly n Grey
08-06-2005, 07:02 AM
They are really low.....
Transfer rate : Mac: up to 187MB/s; PC 64 bit: up to 160MB/s; PC 32 bit: up to 99MB/s ****

Even old fashioned NV raid SATA is faster with four SATA I, lots faster with SATA II drives....I'm assuming that is sustained and not burst....burst speeds are much diff (faster) when reading from cache...

My SCSI 320 with seven drives will sustain the SCSI bus max of 320 if I use a single channel if I use two channels with seven drives I can sustain writes or reads at over 600MB/s easily...

The fibre channel array controller will sustain the max thoughput of a PCI-X 64 bit at 133MHz, over 1000MB/s.... a pair of of them in load balancing mode between two such slots is just plain sick...that is what server hardware is all about.... of course, you could go broke buying one....

Platform
08-06-2005, 07:35 AM
They are really low.....
Transfer rate : Mac: up to 187MB/s; PC 64 bit: up to 160MB/s; PC 32 bit: up to 99MB/s ****

Even old fashioned NV raid SATA is faster with four SATA I, lots faster with SATA II drives....I'm assuming that is sustained and not burst....burst speeds are much diff (faster) when reading from cache...

My SCSI 320 with seven drives will sustain the SCSI bus max of 320 if I use a single channel if I use two channels with seven drives I can sustain writes or reads at over 600MB/s easily...

The fibre channel array controller will sustain the max thoughput of a PCI-X 64 bit at 133MHz, over 1000MB/s.... a pair of of them in load balancing mode between two such slots is just plain sick...that is what server hardware is all about.... of course, you could go broke buying one....

I know just refeering to Mac = 187MB PC 64Bit = 160MB PC 32Bit = 99MB and Max 2TB as a single volume
:p: :p: :p:

saratoga
08-06-2005, 10:04 PM
I know just refeering to Mac = 187MB PC 64Bit = 160MB PC 32Bit = 99MB and Max 2TB as a single volume
:p: :p: :p:

The 2TB volume thing is only for 32 bit XP. In 64 its 2^73 bytes or something else impossiblely large. Also 187MB (let alone < 100 MB/s) is way to low for burst rates through SATA and PCI-X. They should be well over 200 MB/s. Sounds like crappy drivers to me.

Platform
08-07-2005, 12:02 AM
The 2TB volume thing is only for 32 bit XP. In 64 its 2^73 bytes or something else impossiblely large. Also 187MB (let alone < 100 MB/s) is way to low for burst rates through SATA and PCI-X. They should be well over 200 MB/s. Sounds like crappy drivers to me.

I know, I wrote it.

Since this thread is Mac vs PC......187 vs 160
;)

Ugly n Grey
08-07-2005, 05:44 AM
Yeah but that thing is supposed to be a serious piece of server hardware. The external RAID SATA drive cages from Promise that connect through SCSI ports are faster...and they are the cheapest thing going...they work on a MAC too for a fraction of the cost...if that's cutting edge MAC tech, they can keep it...

Order
08-07-2005, 07:38 AM
Jesus Christ Lacie is expensive.

Platform
08-07-2005, 11:22 AM
Yeah but that thing is supposed to be a serious piece of server hardware. The external RAID SATA drive cages from Promise that connect through SCSI ports are faster...and they are the cheapest thing going...they work on a MAC too for a fraction of the cost...if that's cutting edge MAC tech, they can keep it...

Not talking about that beeing the best and so on..........just wondering why Mac's would be so much faster ;)

saratoga
08-08-2005, 12:25 AM
Is that some custom card or can you use any external SATA controller? SATA cards aren't that expensive compared to disks. I'd probably get a real controller if I were going to buy one of those (assuming they aren't retarded enough to make it incompatable). Some of the new SATA RAID controllers with Intel processors, onboard DDR and PCI-E interface can burst transfer at well over 600MB/s. No sense playing around with something like this for that kind of money.

Ugly n Grey
08-08-2005, 06:37 AM
It's a custom PCI-X interface from what I understand Saratoga. I had previously ranted about the MAC not picking up the latest technology for a year or so after their PC counterparts, this is a great example of that (just getting PCI-X instead of PCI-E like all the other server builders? what are they thinking... :stick: )

Platform
08-08-2005, 08:25 AM
It's a custom PCI-X interface from what I understand Saratoga. I had previously ranted about the MAC not picking up the latest technology for a year or so after their PC counterparts, this is a great example of that (just getting PCI-X instead of PCI-E like all the other server builders? what are they thinking... :stick: )

Ehh.....they started using PCI-X long before there was PCI-E ;)

Ugly n Grey
08-09-2005, 04:58 PM
really? when was that.?

Order
08-09-2005, 05:40 PM
Back when Xenu started Scientology 6 trillion years ago.

Platform
08-10-2005, 02:42 AM
really? when was that.?

2003 with the introduction of the PowerMac G5.........

Ugly n Grey
08-10-2005, 08:10 AM
PCI-E was finalized in 2002. They could have used that since they were new to a high speed bus selection..."shrug" doesn't matter now though, they'll get it by switching to Intel chipsets without new development all on their own...

[XC] moddolicous
08-10-2005, 09:42 AM
I thought some of there older xservers had PCI-X back in like 95 or so? :confused: :confused:

Platform
08-10-2005, 09:43 AM
PCI-E was finalized in 2002. They could have used that since they were new to a high speed bus selection..."shrug" doesn't matter now though, they'll get it by switching to Intel chipsets without new development all on their own...

Yeah yeah.........Apple had PCI-X in consumer machines then......PCI-E consumer machines 2002.......nah.......late 2004 earily 2005 ;)

Does not really matter when it was finalized......when was it utilized by the avrage joe.

Ugly n Grey
08-10-2005, 10:08 AM
when you talk server hardware, the average joe don't matter :) . It's all about profits and giving us what we want... PCI-X never did make it's way to consumer boards and I always hated that fact. Instead we got sucky old AGP and PCI slots because they didn't want to wait for PCI-X to be finalized.. I was always bitter that I had to buy workstation boards to run PCI-X cards whan it would have been an easy add on for any motherboard...Oh well water under the bridge....Apple is now Intel' b1tch... they will do as they are told :)

Platform
08-10-2005, 10:27 AM
when you talk server hardware, the average joe don't matter :) . It's all about profits and giving us what we want... PCI-X never did make it's way to consumer boards and I always hated that fact. Instead we got sucky old AGP and PCI slots because they didn't want to wait for PCI-X to be finalized.. I was always bitter that I had to buy workstation boards to run PCI-X cards whan it would have been an easy add on for any motherboard...Oh well water under the bridge....Apple is now Intel' b1tch... they will do as they are told :)

Well the PowerMac is a computer for the avrage joe.......just a tiny bit powerful :p: Servers are Xserves ;)

antipop
08-10-2005, 10:34 AM
Well the PowerMac is a computer for the avrage joe.......just a tiny bit powerful :p: Servers are Xserves ;)
For the upper class average joe ;)

unclean
08-11-2005, 11:50 AM
Hmm, I'd say OpenBSD is more stable than OSX. In terms of performance, the x86 SMP has shown itself to be a whole lot faster recently, especially bang/buck.

Individual productivity may differ greatly, i personally am not a fan of the OSX "way", so probably wouldn't be all that productive on a Mac. I do quite like the PPC arch, and use Linux on an iBook, just a shame Apple had to grab defeat from the clutches of success, just as their arch was getting more popular.


Oh, but for server applications, OSX brings their own architecture to its knees! Microkernel(s) kill(s) the performance.

boshi
08-13-2005, 09:10 PM
PCI-E was finalized in 2002. They could have used that since they were new to a high speed bus selection..."shrug" doesn't matter now though, they'll get it by switching to Intel chipsets without new development all on their own...

Apple started using PCI-X with the G4, which was in 1999. It had PCI-X and AGP 2x.

MRBIGSHOT
08-13-2005, 09:47 PM
Apple started using PCI-X with the G4, which was in 1999. It had PCI-X and AGP 2x.

i hope your not implying that pci-e and pci-x are similar

boshi
08-13-2005, 09:59 PM
i hope your not implying that pci-e and pci-x are similar

No, apple has yet to implement pci-e, as it has no practical value currently other than the ease of running multiple video cards at once, which apple has little interest in. PCI-X is however very useful for running SCSI cards and network interface cards, which apple has always had a great interest in.

Platform
08-14-2005, 01:35 AM
i hope your not implying that pci-e and pci-x are similar

If you had read a tiny bit up you would understand.......the questions was why did Apple choose PCI-X instead of PCI-E and the answer was because they use PCI-X long before there was anything to put in PCI-E slots or anyone making them ;)

Platform
08-14-2005, 01:39 AM
Apple started using PCI-X with the G4, which was in 1999. It had PCI-X and AGP 2x.

Could you please show me that machine......I have not seen any before the PowerMac G5 came out in 2003........anyway.....still long ahead of PCI-E as I said earlier....just want to see it :p:

antipop
08-14-2005, 02:04 AM
I googled for powermac G4 + pci-x and i got no results, afaik the first pci-x where in the G5

Ugly n Grey
08-14-2005, 08:24 AM
^^^^
It was, Apple is a small company not known to adopt new innovations in architecture quickly. Yes they sometimes adopt different ones, but not new ones. The only positive thing I can think of is firewire...

As far as PCI-X... well, it's a dying standard too. As I said, Apple is just in time to jump on a sinking boat, all other major server vendors are releasing systems or have announced the release of systems with PCI-E technology.

Of course this point becomes moot with the transition to Intel. As Intel's b1tch they will get what they get as Intel releases new chipsets...So basically, Nvidia and ATI will keep pushing the curve and Intel will carry on behind lugging the toilet paper rolls for the real innovators.

With the transition to x86 , my opinion is that product differentiation has hit the toilet and the last valuable thing about the PC division at Apple is the OS.

boshi
08-16-2005, 08:53 PM
Could you please show me that machine......I have not seen any before the PowerMac G5 came out in 2003........anyway.....still long ahead of PCI-E as I said earlier....just want to see it :p:

well I'm on one right now as it happens. If my digital camera was working I'd shoot you a pic, but upon closer inspection it appears it simply has 64-bit PCI. ( those double wide slots ). Sorry for the false alarm there.

saratoga
08-19-2005, 12:58 AM
No, apple has yet to implement pci-e, as it has no practical value currently other than the ease of running multiple video cards at once, which apple has little interest in. PCI-X is however very useful for running SCSI cards and network interface cards, which apple has always had a great interest in.

PCI-E SCSI and SATA RAID controllers are already available.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816118027

Look around, theres more.