Re: Any OSX86 users here?



In article <54u4dcF21rgpfU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@xxxxxx> wrote:

* The New Guy:

Well, no. MacOS X does have a shitload of security issues and glitches,
and Apple is not the one that does an open discussion of problems or
that fixes them fast.

Well I haven't heard of a single virus or any significant threat ever.
If there was, it would be front page news. They cover this area very
well.

Then you missed a lot:
<http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/>

And that's just a part of it...

And as to Viri for MacOS X are not possible:
<http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,108784,00.
html>

If you'd own a Mac you had probably recognized that Apple does provide
security updates - which would not be necessary if there wasn't any
significant threat ever. MacOS X has *lots* of security holes, several
of them allowing taking over the whole system. And it's not that Apple
is fixing these issues very fast, they are aware of several
vulnerabilities that are in MacOS X since 10.0 and which still haven't
been fixed. Security by obsurity. You can do a search on CERT to find
even more security holes...

BTW: there are several nice comments on MacOS X real security:
<http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798>

I've never heard of a single issue where Mac user's computer has been
compromised. And I hear about it all the time from Windows people.
ITs just not an issue yet. Theory is not the same as reality. If
there were significant problems, the PC world would jump on it so fast!

And stability is also often *very* questionable,
Apple often introduces new stability and compatibility issues with new
MacOS X sub-revisions. It's funny when the latest Apple updates bring
you some kernel panics after the necessary reboot...

So if you're patient you wait a few weeks. Problem solved. I've
never heard of anyone having a problem with updates. I realize it
happens, but its rare. But updates are only a very small part of
usage. The main experience in Windows is rife with issues - endless
fixes and patches. I spend 99% less time in maintenance of my own
machine now that I'm using OS X.

But it is a fraction of the Windows problems.

That's just wishful thinking. Reality is different. Just have a look
about the complains when Apple releases a new sub-release of MacOS X.
Really, MacOS X updates caused much more problems than Windows updates.
It's not uncommon that a new sub-release update renders your Mac
unbootable or affects stability. Apples last "present" (10.4.8) for
example made my Powermac G5 to crash after a while when under heavy
load. And yes, it's definitely no hardware fault...

Well if you read forums, the percentage of people having problems with
OS X's normal operation are extremely rare. Windows has far more
problems, at least from the people I run into. Your mileage may vary.

On the other side I never had a Windows update making my computer
unbootable or affecting stability. But then I'm only using high quality
hardware (brand name workstations) and no self-build crap...

What is "self build crap"? Most name brand computers use lots of
cheap parts to save money. Hence, I find people that want quality
stay away from them and assemble the right parts themselves.

In terms of reliability MacOS X is not better than Windowsxp on good
brandname hardware, often enough it's even worse. It's probably the
least reliable UNIX-like OS I know (and I know a lot of UNIXes).

Most users would disagree on that. We're comparing OS X to Windows,
not Linux.

Most users just don't have a clue that reliability depends on much more
than the operating system. As long as people use crap hardware and
install every piece of shit they find there will be stability issues...

I don't understand what you mean by sub-standard parts. Ram, hard
drives, optical drives, video cards........all very standard stuff.
Do you ever build or install anything yourself? It sounds like you
tried, and broke something, and now you're scared to open a case
again.

And what most users also don't understand: it's *much* easier to keep
closed systems with a very limited controlled set of hardware tidy than
it's possible with open hardware that includes every piece of crap that
is made somewhere...

More strange comments. I don't understand "closed systems" and
"tidy". You really need to read more on OSX86 machines. You'll learn
that using modern parts that are on the Wiki OSX86 HCL makes things
quite predictable.

Apple likes to make a very pretty,
all-in-one package. That appeals to impulse buyers. Thinking people
see through the sham. 5% market share........
IIRC the market share has raised to somehwere around 7% now.

Still a fraction of their potential.

Nope. Raising market share requires much more than just trying to
increase sales figures. Releasing MacOS X for generic PC hardware means
higher support costs, much higher certification and verification costs,
and also a big bunch of new competition. For me it's obvious that this
is not what Apple wants...

Support can be a headache. But all they have to do, is not offer it.
Just put the help files on the web. The end. Then sell support to
people that need it. Or don't bother. Its their product. They don't
have to offer support

Benjamin is typical of a gung-ho Apple worshipper. This mentality is
great for sales. They have 100% confidence in everything Apple.
Steve Jobs has attained close to cult like status in their minds.
These people make very good customers. Their loyalty is unquestioned.

I guess you don't read much. Thousands of people around the world
have it running perfectly (and very fast - just check their X-Bench
scores) on PC hardware. IF you do the research and pick an applicable
motherboard your problems are going to be few or non-existent.

Yeah, Great. *If* you pick up the right mobo (which is not that easy
when most of todays standard hardware has very short product cycles and
often get modified silently by the manufacturer)

Just look at the HCL. There are about 50 to choose from. Is that
enough? And at least 10 that require no patches at all. Surely 10
gives the public quite a broad choice in features and prices. I can
tell you're not that hardware oriented. The HCL will convert you
perhaps.

you may just experience
very few problems when illegally running MacOS X. What a great thing.
It's *much* easier to get hardware that runs Windows or Linux without
*any* problem - and it won't lead you to illegality...

I'd say 100,000 viruses and the software that protects you dragging
down your system resources is a problem. And so does just about every
Window user I talk to.

One
area you don't mention which is a problem though are updates. These
are a pain. But since security is so not-a-problem with OS X, I
wouldn't worry much about that. Unless you are really worried about
people creeping in.

Someone must be extremely naive to think that only Windows computers are
affected by security issues.

Well after reading thousands of articles and postings on OS X I have
yet to hear of a single person complain of any infection because they
didn't update soon enough. Its a non-issue - so far. Who knows what
the future holds though.

And he must be just plain stupid when
running any computer connected to the 'net without applying security
updates on a regular base. Most users misbelieve that this is only
necessary with Windows, but it's also valid with every other operating
system - be it Linux, BSD, HP-UX or MacOS X...

See above. Not with OS X.

They can
try and try but people will copy. They just have to make the best of
it.

Apple will make the best of it, they do have very good lawyers ;-)

Its like trying to kill mosquitos. Just a waste of time. ARe they
going to sue millions of people? Pointless and impractical.

Pirating can be very good for business. John pirates and tries a
program. He's an enthusiast who never pays for anything. Is he a
parasite that drains revenue from the company? Not really if you look
at all the people that value John's opinion because he is so plugged
in and experienced. He tells many, many people about good software
that he admires. Some of them go an buy it. So it has its good
sides.

Yeah, the standard excuse for warez, just as stupid as the ones that
pirate. It's very naive to think that warez does bring any renevue or
additional sales to the software industry. Your John is not an
enthusiast, he's just a prick, a parasite that wants everything for
free. Of course he gives a shit on the fact that life doesn't work this
way. Someone has to pay for development of new software. If all users
behave like John Prick there won't be any new programs from that
company. Period.

You're not realizing that John talks to his sphere of influence. And
because he recommends software products, he increases sales in those
same products. He's a form of advertising. Only his is far more
potent because its one on one. Its not an excuse to "break the law".
Its just one of the pleasant attributes of piracy. Also, some people
would never buy software ever. So you're not losing any sales to
them. But if they talk, they increase sales. Market share is
powerful.

Having 50% of the market share with only 25% of that being
actually purchased is better than 5% with 100% purchased. Its the new
economics.

Nope, it's not. Getting paid for only 50% of all installations out there
is a heavy loss. Pricks like John from your example are the cause why we
get flooded with DRM.

Guess you failed economics. Sorry about that. Hope you don't try to
run a business with thinking like that. You'll drown in no time. Or
only achieve a fraction of your possible financial potential. You're
letting pride interfere with business logic.

It just would be silly. Beta testing on shitloads of crap PC hardware
doesn't help anything to make MacOS X run better on Apple hardware...

You seem to live on a different planet. Intel 955/965/975
motherboards are hardly crap.

Besides the little fact that these are *chipsets*, not mainboards: yes,
there are crap boards out there that use these chipsets. Indeed, there
is a whole shitload of crap out there.

Almost all the motherboards that run with no problems with OSX86 are
made my Intel. Are they low quality? Is Asus, MSI and Gigabyte low
quality? But since Intel boards have the best compatibility with
OSX86, they are the board of choice. And I've never heard of anyone
complaining about the quality of Intel boards. They have a 3 year
warranty.

Simply because features for
overclocking and gizmos like LED fans are much more important for most
consumers than quality. Todays generic components have very short
product lives. Try to find a mobo that was current say 2 years ago
today. And even if you find one, chances are high that the manufacturer
has made some revision changes which affect stability or compatibility...

That's because the world is changing fast, buddy. :) Wake up!
The Mac Pro is quite current except for the lack of eSata, and I think
Raid 0.

I understand that this is not what Apple wants to run MacOS X on. And
since it's their product it's also their decision...

The Mac Pro uses a board that is either made by Intel or designed by
them. Its basically a Xeon compatible motherboard. And the developer
Intel machine was a 915 chipset. All very available stuff.

They are cutting edge and that edge is
changing every month. Apple is never up to speed. Even now the Mac
Pro only takes 667mhz ram.

Yeah, Fully Buffered DIMMs, running as quad channel on an intel 5000X
workstation chipset that provides each CPU with it's own FSB.

That sounds impressive but in the real world is not worth it for 99%
of the users. X-Bench scores are more telling about performance. And
the Hackintoshes have some of the best scores. At a fraction of the
cost of the loaded Mac Pros. If quad channel was so important, you'd
see the Mac PRos obliterate the Hackintoshes. But that is not
happening.

This is a good example how not knowing the background leads you t just
plain wrong ideas...

Check out the X-Bench page.

Other motherboards go way higher.

Right, but they are dual channel only, and don't even come close to the
memory bandwidth of the 5000X chipset with "only" 667MHzs FBDÌMMs...

so they should have better scores. Anyway, 99% of users don't need
that. They just want a quick computer that they don't need drywall
tools to open and upgrade. They want a computer where they can add a
hard drive without buying an external case. etc etc. ITs all about
choice. Maybe Apple will bring out a Mac Pro Junior in a few weeks
with their announcement of Leopard. That would be great.

Mac Pro
doesn't have eSata.

Mac Pro does have PCIe slots and is able to take an SATA card with eSata
connector. So what?

But at what cost? It should be onboard. Actually it probably will be
in the next version. eSata rocks.

I could go on and on. Because Apple wants to
control the hardware its always slows them in getting stuff out.

But having control over the hardware makes it easier for them to provide
a stable platform...

Yes - of course.

They should stick to their toy portable devices that make them lots of
money and then focus on the OS and make it fabulous for select
motherboards. Give the public a few motherboards to pick from and all
would be great. Ram, hard drives, optical devices, card readers are
pretty standard now. CPU's are pretty generic too. Its all in the
motherboard now. That's the link that stops Apple from reaching a
market about 15 times what it presently reaches.

This is just your opinion, and obviously based on incomplete knowledge.
However, all discussion about that is theoretical since it's Apple that
does the decisions, and it's up to them to decide if they want to
release MacOS X to everyone or not - and it seems like they stick with
limiting MacOS X on Macs only...

The whole of Usenet is just people's opinions!

If Apple's hardware prices ever come back to reality, you will see
Windows users purchasing Mac to run Windows.

I don't know where you live but here in Germany Apple prices are *very*
competitive. The Macbook for example was for a very long time the
cheapest notebook with dual core processor. The Mac Pro is much cheaper
than most brandname workstations (I paid way more for my new HP xw8400
with two XEON 5160 than I would have paid for a comparable Mac Pro). And
the hardware is not that behind the cutting edge as you believe...

Like I said, when you see a Windows user buying an Apple computer to
run Windows, then you will know the prices are competitive.
.