Re: The Number One Macintosh Myth...

In article
<20589719-646e-431a-b4d7-b81730e3ca63@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Edwin <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 24, 9:02 pm, Mitch <mi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of, come on -- none of these computers from HP and Sony and Toshiba are
using 'exactly the same' parts -- why do you insist that Apple's is
exactly the same as something that has no uniformity in the first
place?
You're going to quibble over what model of Intel processor or model of
nVidia chips Apple uses, as if they are unique to Apple, and aren't
part of Wintel architecture?
Not at all; I'm arguing against your description of 'exactly the same'
because it was all you offered to describe the differences between
kinds of hardware.
I say that there is nothing exactly the same across the industry -- yet
you are trying to *ignore* all the differences to say they are the
same.

They use similar parts, just as Sony uses similar parts to HP computers.
Where "similar"   means "not different in any way."
Incorrect; there are different specs in every model. You were forced to
include the different parts when you started writing about every part
being exactly the same.
The fact that Apple extremely limits your choice of Wintel parts
doesn't mean you can't find PCs with the same Wintel parts or better.
See? You've sunken to describing ALL computer parts as 'Wintel parts'
just to support your idea that Macs are exactly the same as all
'Wintels.' You had to remove all differentiation entirely!

Here is a consolation: if you define all computer parts as 'Wintel,'
parts, then obviously Mac computers are made of the same things.
Do you feel like you won something now?

They use a similar architecture, just as they always have, to varying
degrees.
They use the same architecture now.   Apple used to use Motorola
architecture.
System architecture.
Duh!
Uh... then your statement bringing up Motorola is entirely wrong.
And you haven't answered the problem of how all 'Wintel' systems are
defined by using Intel processors when a third use someone else's!

In either case, since there are different architectures, it's rather
obviously silly to suggest that they are all the exact same.
There's none that is unique to Apple. Whatever Apple uses now is pure
Wintel.
I was writing of how almost every maker is using different stuff,
including Apple, HP, Sony, Dell, etc. Since they all develop their own
specs, select their own components, etc, it's hard to see how you can
call them all identical.

They use a FAR SUPERIOR operating system,
In your uneducated opinion.
In my opinion, yes.
I am far better educated than you in computers and every other topic
we've brought up (that is not an opinion).
BWA HA HA HA HA!!! A damn funny joke is what it is!!!
Here's a clue: intelligent people would not write that in reply, nor
would they forget to include some evidentiary statement in their own
support.


I never said it was nothing more than BSD Unix.
Yes, you have done exactly that.

Right; Mach kernel adopted almost right away, which made it different.
Wrong. Mac OS X uses the XNU kernel, not the Mach kernel. The XNU
kernel is a hybrid, the Mach Kernel combined with BSD 4.3 Whoa! You
just got a little less ignorant. You're welcome.
I can't believe you actaully read some of the links you were given
before. Note, above, I didn't claim Mach kernel is used today. I
claimed changing kernels was a significant difference.

There's enough BSD in Mac OS X to call it just another BSD variant.
That would have been a far more intelligent claim, sure. it wasn't what
you wrote, and you added (several times) that Mac OS is nothing more
than BSD.

Right -- those people know and appreciate the technical accomplishment
of UNIX and appreciate that it has been used in a commercial product
effectively. Again, this isn't saying it is indistiguishable from UNIX.
If you distiguish an OS by the UI and AI Apple slaps on top of Unix.
The OS product is everything that is built into it. You had no reason
to isolate any discussion of OS down to nothing but the kernel and a
couple libraries -- this isn't a programming group. It's a group
discussing the whole package, and you knew it.


There
is no intelligent person who would claim it is therefore the same as
another car using that carb, with almost nothing added.
Nobody claimed that outside of yourself.

YOU claimed that by saying it is the same; you've done the same now by
saying that Apple has done NOTHING to the functional parts of the OS.

Nothing that wasn't based on somebody else's work.

Witness that what's currently called a "Mac" runs Windows out of the
box.   It's a Wintel PC.
IF anyone installed that, and used it largely under Windows, then you
would be able to say that ONLY FOR THAT USER.
No, we can say that for anybody who has an Apple PC, even if they
don't use it the way it was designed.
Oh, wow. Did you just claim that Mac computers are designed for
Windows,
No, I started this thread with that claim. Duh!
(don't argue before the statement is completed!)
and that all Mac users are therefore using them in a way they
are not designed for?
Does 2 + 2 equal four?
.... and which doesn't change the fact that you just did it again, and
it is still ignorant and wrong. Don't be childish.

Wintel PC means a PC built to WinHEC standards, i.e. any computer
Apple currently builds.
That's still not correct. You're leaving out the OS, which is always
significant, and is in fact the whole point of the group no matter how
much you say 'no!'
And even if you change to argue only about hardware, you'd only be
saying that we're using the same stuff you insist is so good -- or
argue that we're using junk and therefore define what you use as junk.
You're in a pointless argument with people better than yourself.

One should read your mind to know when you're referring to something
outside of the current discussion?
No, but I do expect you to know what you have posted before.

Do you assume everything you say cannot be held against your other
statements?
No.
I expect you to write in a comprensible way that indicates your
remarks address something outside of the post you're replying to.
Then let me explain it now: everything that YOU write can be held
against (or for) you at any time. It is always your responsibility that
you write it.

And continually ignoring that the whole point of the difference is what
you ignored -- the OS.
My post did not ignore the OS.
Not exactly -- it claimed it didn't exist at all,
No it didn't. Go back and read starting with the first post in the
thread.
Which read:
The Number One Macintosh Myth... is that the Macintosh still exists!
All Apple has sold since Summer of 2006 is a Wintel PC running BSD
Unix. Not even a pretense of the original Mac OS UI remains.
You either ignored the Mac OS, or every part of that last statement is
entirely and unforgiveably wrong.
Also, you define an OS as having a UI and yet deny it everywhere else.

since the hardware
was capable of running Windows. You just proved yourself wrong or
idiotic again.
Where "you" means "Mitch" and "yourself" means "himself."
God, it's been years since someone played "I'm a mirror" with me.

In any case, even if Mac OS could run on EVERY PC imaginable, it is
still an OS choice, one that many people prefer, and one that,
obviously, still exists.
Which proves that Apple PCs are no different than any other Wintel PC.
It was a supposition, not proof. It denies your stupid claim that Mac
OS doesn't exist and no one uses it.

I'm not the one who's ranting in this thread.
oof. That kind of irony and denial hits hard.

I just agreed that Apple has added (much) on top of some UNIX.
Besides, you've said all through this that Apple used hardly any
Unix. 5% was the figure you gave. Now you claim the above? Jeez!
Yes, follow this: if Apple uses only 5% of a UNIX package, then they
have built 95% on top of that. See? That's a lot of work, and it makes
it really *very* different from using UNIX.
.

Relevant Pages