• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Holy cow! Man bites dog story here.... [POLL]

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm using panther.. So are you telling me they have one button I can click which makes window the Full Screen in any app? Where please show me.. I see thier maximize button and all it does is make it bigger, or what you last positioned window as, not full screen.

I have Tiger.... Yeah, I don't wanna debate minutiae in either platform.... maybe your wife's machine needs more RAM.... My Mini boots in less than 10 seconds. I am just beginning to play with this thing.

I do feel that, unlike Windows, Mac OS X is an intellectual playground and far more elegant and unified than any other platform other than Windows (and maybe even more so than Windows) but that is just my HO. Then again, of course I'm a PC geek.
 
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm using panther.. So are you telling me they have one button I can click which makes window the Full Screen in any app? Where please show me.. I see thier maximize button and all it does is make it bigger, or what you last positioned window as, not full screen.

I have Tiger.... Yeah, I don't wanna debate minutiae in either platform.... maybe your wife's machine needs more RAM.... My Mini boots in less than 10 seconds. I am just beginning to play with this thing.

I do feel that, unlike Windows, Mac OS X is an intellectual playground and far more elegant and unified than any other platform other than Windows (and maybe even more so than Windows) but that is just my HO. Then again, of course I'm a PC geek.


I have 384 MB of ram in there. should be more than enough to browse web..play with PDF's and general office tasks. It's just unbelievably slow. even reinsalled OS a couple times.. same deal..

Anyway you're right to each his own... I'm not too "intellectual" or "elegant" 😛
 
Apple needs to get off it's high horse and go x86. It's naive to think that Apple doesn't have at least a rudimentary port of it's OS to the x86 architecture. The problem with the PPC architecture is not that it's a bad one (Power5's), it's just that there is zero competition so IBM and Motorola has absolutely no incentive to push the envolope. Necessity is the mother of invention. You've seen how much AMD has pushed Intel and vice versa. We're seeing a lot of good things in the x86 world, one of the best things being lower price. AMD needs to push the envelope to survive and Intel needs to at least match it or face erosion in the tech sector which could translate into the general use sector.

Initially when PPC's were introduced they were indeed better than the 386's out there at the time. However, after a while Apple faced stagnation when recieving CPU's from Motorola with low supplies and no performance updates so they switched to IBM. For a little while IBM produced, and then things became the same as when Apple was getting PPC's from Motorola. Why? Because unless Apple builds it's own fabs and produces it's own CPU's, they have only two suppliers to get PPC's from and that's Moto and IBM. There's no real need for IBM or Motorola to push things forward when they know the buyer is locked in.

Best case scenario is IBM produces some of the multi-core CPU's like they're doing for the three game console makers (MS, Nintendo and Sony).

If that doesn't happen and if Apple is smart, it goes and talks to AMD. Gives them a design document on features to implement into their AMD64 CPU that would be the equivalent of the Alti-Vec ones. Port their OS to AMD64 dual cores and never look back. It can build "geniuine" Mac's and then sell the Mac OS to compete with MS Windows on the x86 front at a later date for Apple compatible computers. Create a seal of approval program for tested hardware. Guarantee full compatibility only with approved hardware. One of the pitfalls of the x86 world is that while hardware is low priced and there's plenty of it, some of it is complete crap quality. Approved hardware might then carry a price premium for use with Mac OS but it would ensure that it's at least gone through some hopefully rigid testing. They should do very well. At the very least it's gonna be no worse than their situation with IBM now...if it succeeds and they steal share from MS, they can give IBM the big fat finger.
 
Wouldn't use apple at all. Apple is getting to be a more novelty computer company that anything else. It's like the "World Imports" of the computer industry. IMHO
 
Interesting vote counts here so far.... Like to see some more.... so I'll probably bump this a few times. I want some more SAMPLES, people! 🙂

So far 11 out of 35 voters have been at least somewhat favorable. That's pretty good. Frankly, after reading further, I doubt the Apple to Intel thing is actually gonna happen. (I'd 😛 Apple on AMD - a match made in heaven - but I am a reality-based person.)

But at least it's on Apple's radar screen. We do have some interesting stuff going on over here on the PC side and it's good that they see that, even though it's probably a pipe dream. I also won't deny that I've been an on/off Mac user for a long time. Hell, I bought a Mac SE/30 at a garage sale here in Guerneville for $20 for my little girl and it runs like a tank. (Damn. That thing is almost 20 years old!) It has 8 MB of RAM and Microsoft Word 5 (the best word processor ever IMHO) and just getting this Mac Mini (see sig) and seeing what Apple has done to become healthy again I couldn't be more pleased.

Please remember, Mac OS X is f*cking UNIX. It is a freakin' HARDCORE operating system. It has more power than Windows could ever dream of. Every TCP/IP stack is designed and built using Unix/Linux kernels. (I also wrote a book on Linux once upon a time, and ran network switches based on the Linux kernel, so I am coming from a position of some knowledge.) This will never happen using Windows. Period. Mac OS in earlier iterations was also a joke by comparison. I think those who are bashing Mac OS now need to take another look. It isn't just about clock cycles, you know (or why would anyone be using freakin' AMD, as I am?). Come on in, the water's fine:

  • Apple is starting to grow its market share again for the first time in eons. No one can deny that their OS property is solid.

    The form factor for the Mini is far beyond ANYTHING in the PC market.

    Apple is the established trendsetter in computer design. No one else even comes close. Sometimes they swing and miss (like the Mac Cube - but hey, that's the price you pay for being committed to innovation) but no one in the PC world is even close in fit and finish. Hell, PC geeks like myself have to physically mod our systems to get them even close.
So let's not be freakin' snobs here, or juvenile punks. We are all explorers of the digital realm. It is all about the bits and bytes, not about who pushes them just a scintilla faster than you. Jeez! Does a 3.8 Ghz Pentium 4 make you more of a man? (Rhetorical question here. 😀 )
 
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Please remember, Mac OS X is f*cking UNIX. It is a freakin' HARDCORE operating system. It has more power than Windows could ever dream of. Every TCP/IP stack is designed and built using Unix/Linux kernels. (I also wrote a book on Linux once upon a time, and ran network switches based on the Linux kernel, so I am coming from a position of some knowledge.) This will never happen using Windows. Period. Mac OS in earlier iterations was also a joke by comparison. I think those who are bashing Mac OS now need to take another look. It isn't just about clock cycles, you know (or why would anyone be using freakin' AMD, as I am?). Come on in, the water's fine:
I think you should take your own advice and remember how "hardcore" OSX is. For advanced users, yes you can get stuff done, but then there's always free Linux distros for that...then there's the users who only want the computer to do simple things they need it to do - run a specific program or surf the net and check email...there isn't much in between. You pretty much have to be a "hardcore" user, or a complete noob, to appreciate/"nut over" OSX. Those of us who have the potential to be a hardcore user but don't have the desire to can't be very happy with OSX, not as much so as Windows, which might not cater to the "hardcore" crowd but works perfectly fine for the noobs and those of us in between.

  • Apple is starting to grow its market share again for the first time in eons. No one can deny that their OS property is solid.

  • Um, you can't confirm or deny whether or not Apple would still be here without the iPod. They aren't exactly making money because of their OS...I'm not saying their OS is bad, its just that iPod is such a hit that OSX could be the worst OS in history and it wouldn't stop seeing updates. iPod has given Apple a new name, not the advances of OSX - people aren't considering or interested in OSX because of what it might offer but because "hey they made the iPod, I want to check this OSX out, should be neat"
 
Originally posted by: mdchesne
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
I... though no PCI-E or SLI yet. They may be also watching those developments with interest and that might be powering their talks with Intel.

they have pci-x 😉
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
dual 2.3 and up

How is that useful?
We're talking PCIe not PCI-X. You can get PCI-X for normal PC's too, it's not that special.



Also, if they are in talks, it suggests they are more likely to use future chips (Yonah IIRC or whatever the next gen mobile chips for desktops are called) and not current chips like the Preschott et al.
Apple would probably take a while to make the OS switch to x86 if they did it, and I would guess that loking at non-netburst architectures would be better.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Please remember, Mac OS X is f*cking UNIX. It is a freakin' HARDCORE operating system. It has more power than Windows could ever dream of. Every TCP/IP stack is designed and built using Unix/Linux kernels. (I also wrote a book on Linux once upon a time, and ran network switches based on the Linux kernel, so I am coming from a position of some knowledge.) This will never happen using Windows. Period. Mac OS in earlier iterations was also a joke by comparison. I think those who are bashing Mac OS now need to take another look. It isn't just about clock cycles, you know (or why would anyone be using freakin' AMD, as I am?). Come on in, the water's fine:
I think you should take your own advice and remember how "hardcore" OSX is. For advanced users, yes you can get stuff done, but then there's always free Linux distros for that...then there's the users who only want the computer to do simple things they need it to do - run a specific program or surf the net and check email...there isn't much in between. You pretty much have to be a "hardcore" user, or a complete noob, to appreciate/"nut over" OSX. Those of us who have the potential to be a hardcore user but don't have the desire to can't be very happy with OSX, not as much so as Windows, which might not cater to the "hardcore" crowd but works perfectly fine for the noobs and those of us in between.

  • Apple is starting to grow its market share again for the first time in eons. No one can deny that their OS property is solid.

  • Um, you can't confirm or deny whether or not Apple would still be here without the iPod. They aren't exactly making money because of their OS...I'm not saying their OS is bad, its just that iPod is such a hit that OSX could be the worst OS in history and it wouldn't stop seeing updates. iPod has given Apple a new name, not the advances of OSX - people aren't considering or interested in OSX because of what it might offer but because "hey they made the iPod, I want to check this OSX out, should be neat"



  • That wasn't my point, though. The fact is they're still in the game, and no one else can touch them when it comes to fit and finish. The Mini draws 20 watts, 28 under heavy load.

    Frankly, I think the free Linux distros suck. Nothing really comes for free any more. A good, well-integrated Linux system is another matter. However, I had my day with Linux and think the Unix kernels are superior - particularly BSD. But System V Release 4 will do just fine, thanks. But you gotta pay to play, I'll give ya that.
 
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Wouldn't use apple at all. Apple is getting to be a more novelty computer company that anything else. It's like the "World Imports" of the computer industry. IMHO

I work in the windows software industry and I have been seeing more and more macs enter our office in the hands of our software and systems engineers, even our own servers. Mac's are not the novelty they used to be, they are actually becoming usefull. I have an IBM thinkpad T41 and 3 mac mini's in my cube right now.

Mac os X is really starting to mature. I think it was in 10.0 it couldn't even play dvds. Xserves are nice too, or so I am told by someone in systems engineering.
 
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Please remember, Mac OS X is f*cking UNIX. It is a freakin' HARDCORE operating system. It has more power than Windows could ever dream of. Every TCP/IP stack is designed and built using Unix/Linux kernels. (I also wrote a book on Linux once upon a time, and ran network switches based on the Linux kernel, so I am coming from a position of some knowledge.) This will never happen using Windows. Period. Mac OS in earlier iterations was also a joke by comparison. I think those who are bashing Mac OS now need to take another look. It isn't just about clock cycles, you know (or why would anyone be using freakin' AMD, as I am?). Come on in, the water's fine:
I think you should take your own advice and remember how "hardcore" OSX is. For advanced users, yes you can get stuff done, but then there's always free Linux distros for that...then there's the users who only want the computer to do simple things they need it to do - run a specific program or surf the net and check email...there isn't much in between. You pretty much have to be a "hardcore" user, or a complete noob, to appreciate/"nut over" OSX. Those of us who have the potential to be a hardcore user but don't have the desire to can't be very happy with OSX, not as much so as Windows, which might not cater to the "hardcore" crowd but works perfectly fine for the noobs and those of us in between.

I would consider myself an in between user. I can get away with using the terminal when I need to, but I don't like using it all the time but I know its there if I need it.

You don't have to be a novice or harcore user to appreciate the thought and design that has gone into alot of the OSX features. Even the little stupid things that don't help functionality at all other than to make you go "wow" when you are using it.

I think alot of that feeling is just not being comfortable with using a mac. And that fine, when I use linux I am not that impressed but there are people out that swear by it. I just am not comfortable with using it. If I really had time to put together a Linux machine and really jump into it, my feeling would probably change. Even using it once a day isn't enough, it seems to really only show once you start to mix using it for personal and work needs. Atleast thats what I have run into when using Windows and Macs for personal/work needs.

fyi - versiontracker.com/macosx is a great website I have found atleast to expand the functionality of OSX. It provides tons of freeware, shareware, and comercialware trials to download. I seem to check it now everyday.
 
Originally posted by: mosco

I would consider myself an in between user. I can get away with using the terminal when I need to, but I don't like using it all the time but I know its there if I need it.

You don't have to be a novice or harcore user to appreciate the thought and design that has gone into alot of the OSX features. Even the little stupid things that don't help functionality at all other than to make you go "wow" when you are using it.

I think alot of that feeling is just not being comfortable with using a mac. And that fine, when I use linux I am not that impressed but there are people out that swear by it. I just am not comfortable with using it. If I really had time to put together a Linux machine and really jump into it, my feeling would probably change. Even using it once a day isn't enough, it seems to really only show once you start to mix using it for personal and work needs. Atleast thats what I have run into when using Windows and Macs for personal/work needs.

fyi - versiontracker.com/macosx is a great website I have found atleast to expand the functionality of OSX. It provides tons of freeware, shareware, and comercialware trials to download. I seem to check it now everyday.


OMG thanks for the reminder on that Web site. I had completely forgotten that URL and it was driving me crazy.

I also agree with you about non-novice or hardcore users - I think Mac OS X has really made strides - otherwise I wouldn't have considered it. Plus the form factor was perfect for me. PLus $800 for a solid entry-level system that runs that OS is a real good deal for me.

One of my old companies (CoSine COmmunications) developed a massively multiprocessing network switch (try 108 PPC CPUs ona system) on PPC Macs using OSX. They were developing for the Linux kernel on the switch but used hundreds of Macs for their development environment. Of course, OSX wasn't as mature then.

I can't believe you have three of those things on your desk.
 
x86 would give Apple the ability to more directly compete with it's competitors, i.e. Dell, HP/Compaq, etc. I would like to see it done, OS X is an excellent operating system, far superior to Windows (and anyone who says otherwise is either a Microsoft Zealot or has never used it). All of the iApps that come included with a new Mac are also very worthy of mention, as they are surely one of the reasons for the success of the operating system. I doubt it will happen, for the single reason that when you buy an Apple, you are not just buying a machine, you are buying into a certain lifestyle. You don't have to worry about 99% of the viruses or spyware out there, nor do you have to worry about your machine not being up-to-date because you forgot to run Windows Update, or download the latest drivers...Apple takes care of it all for you. Any Apple app you have installed, from iLife apps to Final Cut, will be updated from the same place that your operating system is. Everything is streamlined, from the update process to purchasing music, to playing that music on the go via your iPod or on your home theater via Airport Express, to updating all the Macs on your network via .Mac and iSync. Everything just works, that is where the problem lies between PC people and Mac people, is that PC people complain about a lack of apps on the Mac, but really, what do you need (minus certain specialized fields for which a PC may be better suited) that isn't there, hell, most of what you already need comes on the machine right out of the box. PC people also complain about the simplicity of OS X, but really, who really likes fighting BSOD's, annoying program quirks, and other such problems that pop-up on a daily basis? Are PC people glutons for punishment? I like to use my computer, not diagnose it's symptoms. There are areas, such as gaming, and engineering that a PC has better, more widely available software, and therefore would be better off handling (and will most likely perform better at). That is why I can say that Macs aren't for everyone, but if you are tired of spending the better part of your time on the PC trying to figure out what the hell is wrong now, then maybe you should look at getting a Mac as your main desktop, and a PC to tinker with. That's what I did, and I must say, it was probably the best decision I ever made.

BTW, the place where Intel chips could probably benefit Apple the most are not on their desktops, but on their mobile line, as G4's are ancient now, with poor battery life and even worse performance. Put a Pentium M in a Powerbook and I'd buy it in a second.
 
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
OMG thanks for the reminder on that Web site. I had completely forgotten that URL and it was driving me crazy.

I also agree with you about non-novice or hardcore users - I think Mac OS X has really made strides - otherwise I wouldn't have considered it. Plus the form factor was perfect for me. PLus $800 for a solid entry-level system that runs that OS is a real good deal for me.

I can't believe you have three of those things on your desk.

Yeah, other websites you might be interested in is macupdate.com and macnn.com. They have alot of good stuff too (macnn for forums).

I was going to post a picture of the 3 minis stacked next to my 3G ipod, but the only camera at work I have is the one on my moto V600 and I can't get f'ing bluetooth to work on the thinkpad. 3 mac minis are about 1.5 ipods tall. Minis are really slick. The only thing annoying about them are the power bricks...
 
Originally posted by: BouZouki
It would be excellent, it will make intel even more popular and bigger and have little amd starve.

<RANT> no offense, but if you want AMD out of business you are either rich or an idiot. Do you remember when a midrange Pentium II cost $1000? Why did it cost that? Because Intel said so, and no one could tell them otherwise. AMD was still cloning Intel's chips, and they were not very competitive, so it was pretty much Intel's way or the high way. If AMD goes away or ceases to be a threat, then do you think Intel will keep offering $150 versions of its high end line, like the P4 3.0, or a $250 dual core? No way. AMD keeps Intel honest; AMD is the main reason for Intel's price cuts, it's why you can now get x86-64 support from both companies, and it's the reason Intel is abandoning its god-awful netbust architecture for the much more elegant Pentium M. </RANT>

Anyways, I really hope this rumor is true. Granted, I will still never buy an Apple, because I hate the closed nature of their platform, and the dated technology they use (come on, PC2700 DDR and a 32MB RADEON 9200!!!!), and their high prices. But I would like to see an x86 version of 10.4 Tiger. I think that this move would signify a move by apple away from a proprietary OEM structure and towards a primarily software developing company. I'd love to dual boot WinXP x64 and Mac OS 10.4 on my A64 system (and there is no reason that MacOS for Intel wouldn't work on an A64), and I think I'm not alone.
 
If apple used intel's x86 processors, wouldn't it be possible to install osx on PCs, regular peecees? Even on amd processors?

Or would Apple set it up so that osx would only run if a certain chipset was detected or something?

Also, wouldn't this make it much easier to port programs to osx, would we finally start to see good games for macs? I'd love to drop osx into my intel lappy.
 
Originally posted by: mosco
Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
OMG thanks for the reminder on that Web site. I had completely forgotten that URL and it was driving me crazy.

I also agree with you about non-novice or hardcore users - I think Mac OS X has really made strides - otherwise I wouldn't have considered it. Plus the form factor was perfect for me. PLus $800 for a solid entry-level system that runs that OS is a real good deal for me.

I can't believe you have three of those things on your desk.

Yeah, other websites you might be interested in is macupdate.com and macnn.com. They have alot of good stuff too (macnn for forums).

I was going to post a picture of the 3 minis stacked next to my 3G ipod, but the only camera at work I have is the one on my moto V600 and I can't get f'ing bluetooth to work on the thinkpad. 3 mac minis are about 1.5 ipods tall. Minis are really slick. The only thing annoying about them are the power bricks...

Well, especially if you've got three of the F*ckers! Seriously, though, they've even made strides in that area. When they came out with the Cube, one of the big reasons I didn't buy one (other than the price) was that the power transformer was as big as the CPU. By comparison, the Mini's is much more manageable. Taking the PS out of the unit is the only way you can get a system that small. Frankly, I was really happy with ithis one by comparison. It just is sitting quietly on top of my rampaging monster of an A64.... and the Mini plays DVDs smoother than my $500 NVidia video card with the funky beta DVD drivers they had the nerve to charge me ANOTHER $20 for. Fvckers.

Yep, I'm just beginning to get reacquainted with this side of things. One time I went out to Berkeley MUG to give a talk on one of my books (which happened to be a PC/Mac title), and 50 people showed up on a Tuesday night. A bunch of bearded Berkeley hippie Mac users. My Power Mac blew up halfway through the talk. (Hey, it was OS9!) Bless them, four or five of them sprang up and helped me get the thing back up, and I couldn't have done it without them. I was able to finish the talk and no one even left. The place was a BONEYARD of old equipment. Ever since then I have always had a soft spot in my heart for the Mac community.

OK, Duvie, Zebo, you can go ahead and bee-atch-slap me now! :brokenheart:

Than again, I can't have a terabyte of storage in a Mini.... 🙂

Hey, 55 responses and almost 40% favorables. Not too bad. Apple, you listening?
 
Hey I started on a mac (who did'nt?) Actually Apple II's is what my school had, then my parents bought us a macintosh, old one with B&W. Then a Macintosh Classic II..then sometime in the early 90's I had a clone from "Power Computing".. After which I was introduced to Pentium line and OS that goes with it. Have never looked back since all my software is written for PC (scientific and analytical instrumentation SW mainly) and the PC is fun to play with. I was really surprised how "slow" everything feels on a mac compaitivly to a PC from day one and it continues to this day IMO. Just read ANAND's first mac article and you'll see tons of instance. The IMAC I have prolly an order of magnitude slower than what he used too.
 
Back
Top