Re: Any OSX86 users here?

* The New Guy:

I've never heard of a single issue where Mac user's computer has been compromised.

I have...

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!

Nope. Why should they? Everyone with at least a basic knowledge in IT knows that *every* OS has vulnerabilities and thus needs regular security fixes. Not only Windows or MacOS X or Linux, this also includes Enterprise-grade OSes like AIX and HP-UX. Basically not a problem.

The real problem is that lots of users are just plain ignorant when it comes to security. This is sadly the case on Windows, but it's also the case with MacOS X. But such ignorance is just plain stupid...

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.

Waiting several weeks solves exactly nothing because you still don't know if your system will boot again after you apply the update. These problems are mostly due to bad QC from Apple. So your configuration might update flawlessly - or not. You won't know until you install it.

I've never heard of anyone having a problem with updates. I realize it happens, but its rare.

Sometimes it's indeed rare, often enough it's not.

But updates are only a very small part of usage.

Sure, especially since Apple is very hesitant when it comes to fixing bugs.

The main experience in Windows is rife with issues - endless fixes and patches.

Of which most just work - on all configurations...

I spend 99% less time in maintenance of my own machine now that I'm using OS X.

I spend very few time in maintenance any of my personal machine - and the now several hundred systems in my dept. at work. MS offers very good patch management tools which do everything necessary automatically.

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.

I don't read forums, especially Mac forums usually have a very high percentage of Mac lemmings that never ever would admit that anything from Apple causes problems. I only go after personal real-life experience with currently around 200 Mac users and over thousand Windows users.

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"?

generic low quality components. I.e. if you buy a mobo from PCChips you can be sure to get crap. But there is enough crap around even with brand names like Asus or MSI.

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.

This is true for most consumer brand name systems. Business systems usually are different beasts...

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 *** 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.

Still the quality level varies a lot between all of them. You can get brand name memory that comes with correct SPDROM entries (i.e. Micron/Crucial), and you can get cheap-ass crap memory with incomplete or just wrong SPDROM entries (i.e. most of these "Infineon on 3rd" modules) that renders even the best system unreliable. There are video card manufacturers that have a bad record for reliability (i.e. XFX), there are crap hard drives (i.e. Excelstore or certain models from generally good manufacturers like WDC, HGST or Maxtor). If you buy a PCChips mobo then the chance is very high that you bought just crap. Even if you buy Asus you might get several glitches with it (i.e. Asus still hasn't fixed ATA Security Locking on most of their mobos).

Quality has a very low priority on most consumer products. Most consumers don't care about quality but just look at price and features.

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.

Definitely not, especially since hardware (ok, mostly corporate IT and rugged/embedded stuff) is my job...

But for personal use I stopped building myself already years ago because what I need can be had better from brands like IBM and HP. Occasionally I build systems for friends or colleagues if they insist of having a selfmade system.

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".

"Closed systems" means that the platform is controlled by a single vendor only. Apple Macs are closed systems, HP9000 is a closed system, SGI MIPS was a closed system (it's EOL'd already), IBM POWER is a closed platform. It doesn't mean that everything that's used is non-standard. It just means that a single vendor controls the platform...

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.

Maybe, but it doesn't change a yota on the fact that this is illegal...

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

Yeah, right. Leaving users alone with their anger and problems is probably one of the best ways to damage their image...

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.

To something illegal? Definitely not.

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.

I know, most Windows users think that installing a virus scanner and a personal firewall will make their system secure which is just BS. Personal firewalls are just crap, all they do is to provide a false feeling of security. Same is valid for Norton products btw...

For home users the best protection is to use one of these cheap little routers with integrated firewall. Offers way better protection than every personal firewall and doesn't use up system ressources. Add a good(!) (means: not Norton) virus scanner like the free Avira or AVG antivirus (both which use very little ressources) to the list and you're set.


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 *** 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.

Advertising where? Do you really believe that John has influence on anyone else than other warez pricks? Do you really think anyone with a right mind would *buy* a product based on the recommendation of a selfish warez prick that *stole* it?

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.

No, it's just a poor mans justification for breaking the law.

Also, some people would never buy software ever. So you're not losing any sales to them.

This one, too. The same old way of lying to oneself to justify to pirate software. Of course in probably more than 20 years of warez there is not a single evident that these excuses are supported by reality. Of course this doesn't stop warez pricks to lie to themselves to feel good while breaking the law...

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.

Again, you're just plain wrong. You just should stick your homebrew economics and leave it to the people that do have the necessary knowledge and background.

Or only achieve a fraction of your possible financial potential. You're letting pride interfere with business logic.

Nope. But I don't support piracy. Simple as that.

Almost all the motherboards that run with no problems with OSX86 are made my Intel. Are they low quality?

Usually no.

Is Asus, MSI and Gigabyte low quality?

Some of them yes...

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.

Of course it does RAID0, it does it in software, though. So the same like all the "RAID controllers" on standard mobos which are nothing more than a generic (S)ATA controller with a BIOS with RAID boot facility. All RAID work is done by the CPU...

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.

It's designed by Apple and made by intel. Nothing that fits in your standard ATX case, though...

Its basically a Xeon compatible motherboard.

Since Mac Pro uses XEON processors this is not really surprising, is it?

And the developer Intel machine was a 915 chipset. All very available stuff.

Right. So what? You expect everyone go out and pirate MacOS X just because it's possible?

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.

Can't speak for the MacOS X scores of course since I'm not a warez prick but either the Mac Pro or X-Bench must have some glitches somewhere if the scores are not better than on a single processor system. As I said my personal computer here is an xw8400 (2x XEON 5160, 4x 300GB 15k SAS disks as RAID0, ATI FireGL V7200, at the moment with 16GB RAM only) which uses the same technology like the Mac Pro except for the disk subsystem, and the memory performance is *way* better than on any Core 2 Duo based system. And Core 2 Quad is even worse with a single FSB becoming a heavy bottleneck...

BTW: FBDIMM-based systems are *very* sensitive on the type (single sided/double sided; and this means the electronic configuration, not if ICs are apparent on both sides of the module!) of memory. Single sided FBDIMMs provide much lower performance than double sided modules.

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

Check out the X-Bench page.

This one?
<http://db.xbench.com/>

Looks like the Mac Pro does have the highest average score. I guess "unknown type" means the OSX86 fraction, right?

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.

99% of users don't probably even need a Core 2 Duo system....

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.

Yes, indeed. There is a huge gap between the iMac/Mac mini and the Mac Pro. Enough room for an expandable single processor system...

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?

Such cards are quite cheap today...

It should be onboard. Actually it probably will be in the next version. eSata rocks.

Depends on your needs. For me, USB2 is enough for external disks. And if I need more performance I go the SAS route...

BTW: SAS would probably the much better idea than just (e)SATA because SAS controllers also can use SATA disks...

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.

And I would not expect Apple to give up on that...

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

Then they must be competitive because there is a bunch of Windows users that bought a MacBook (Pro) just for that - running Windows...

Benjamin
.

Loading