I am switching to Mac OSX

[Alfa989]

Ok, here's a reply to the guy who picked up on the non-technical arguments against macs. Notice he diden't argue the technical points. So lets assume that because of that, macs do indeed suck because they have a bastardized version of the Mach kernel. Even so, here's an argument to what he said.

I did not reply to those technical arguments because I haven't got enough knowledge to do so... (Kernel-level stuff and the like...)

1. "Actually... Macs need only one mouse button to be efficient, so they didn't need it..."
Response: why did they have the control click for so many years then? And you're telling me that macs pre osx were effecient? They didn't even threat processes properly. If you clicked, the cpu would stop processing! You call that efficient?!

It's called "do it whatever way you want"... In Mac OS X, every option that's available in the contextual menu sits there one the menu bar too... Something, as GUI designers know, is a problem in other desktop environments...
Can you explain that "If you clicked, the cpu would stop processing"? Thank you...

2. when has a mactard said that? How about NOW. Here's a link to the apple website with exactally that. But since you're not going to check, heres a quote:
From http://www.apple.com/macpro/
Meet the latest addition to the Mac Pro family: The world’s first 3.0GHz, 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro. Consider the bar officially raised.
Basically they're saying "this is the first time we've done this!!" "consider the bar raised!!!"
But duh. There's never before been a mac thats 8-core. Thats because they are the people who make macs! its all steve jobs' crazy marketing.

You said: "Certainly, quad core computers existed before apple introduced their iteration. But fanboys take it to mean that apple did it first." And what Apple says is that the Mac Pro is the first eight-core Mac... Which is totally true!

3. I didn't mishear the person. I have an email from them saying this. Also, if you believe everything that apple tells you, then you're a tool;

Could you post an extract, please? Thank you.

"we use power pcs because they are better than intel chips" (two years later they are using intel chips). Come on!

Mmm... OBVIOUSLY, old PPC chips can't keep up with the latest x86 processors! This is not Utopia!

And lastly. Yes. Non-advertised products can be just as good as advertised products. You're using ubuntu over windows aren't you?

Yeah, I know... And yeah, that's why use Ubuntu too!

Plus, that wasn't my argument. My argument is that there are literally hundreds more coders out there for linux. More coders=better software.

If the coders are not really well-organized than we're in trouble... Apple coders are full-time employees, free soft coders, however, are not.

Open source just can't produce software in the same polished and finished level that closed source can...

[macogw]

and the usability of the Mac OS X platform

Which is to say, none.

[Alfa989]

What that means is you have 8 processor cores trying to use the same amount of L1 and L2 cache that a single or dual core processor used. So, if your application only uses one thread, guess what? You are only getting one eighth of the cache you would get in a single core processor. That means you can actually see a significant performance degradation if your aren't truly taking advantage of parallel computing. As usual, Apple's marketing is getting in the way of their technology.

I believe that multi-core processors can share their cachés between cores... Right?

Besides, Sun is almost a year ahead of Intel in bringing out an 8 core CPU, except the Sparc can handle 64 simultaneous threads, and is fully ubuntu supported.

Oh yes, Sun... How could we forget?

Sorry, Apple found their life-raft from their horribly marketed Computer product line, its called an iPod. They need to stick with those and leave the computing to companies who sell computers as computers and not furniture that beeps and comes in avocado green.

I've seen that exact same reversed "advice" tons of times...

Apple still produces the most polished and top-of-the-line machines along with Sony and IBM (now Lenovo)...

I don't have a problem with OSX, but people who brag about MAC hardware being superior need to understand that since Apple stopped using PPC, you might as well have bought a Dell or a beefy e-Machine.

1.- That's because it actually IS superior...
2.- A Dell, a Toshiba or an e-Machine Is never the same as a Mac... They look like beta-status computers...

[Grey Box]

You DO realize that pretty much any Linux application can be run on a Mac... right?

Reading this trollish/flamish thread, I had to respond to this. Honestly, the Fink project is very limited and buggy. I found it unusable by and large, and got native equivalents where I could find them. In practice, Linux apps are not freely available on OS X. You have to run an ugly X11 layer over it and it is buggy too.

Other open source software for Mac is available, and what's there is good, but before I got my macbook I was used to Ubuntu Linux's software integration and for what I use my PC for (Openoffice, Website development, a bit of coding, interacting with other computers on my network), Ubuntu is more responsive (ie: programs load quicker), more flexible and easier to use (I mean, I can get help without having to go down to the Macshop where they will try to sell me something). So, contrary to other people's impressions, I don't find OS X to 'feel' more responsive. Compared to XP, even, getting around in OS X is like wading through mud.

Honestly, if you don't pirate anything, you will end up paying around a thousand dollars extra to get a Macbook running OS X to do what my macbook is doing now with Ubuntu. The only things OS X has over Ubuntu on a macbook at the moment is better hardware integration (battery life and the touchpad and being designed for one button mice), and iChat (but even then, browse for people's "issues" with it and you'll see it's no walk in the park for many).

[toupeiro]

I believe that multi-core processors can share their cachés between cores... Right?


Oh yes, Sun... How could we forget?



I've seen that exact same reversed "advice" tons of times...

Apple still produces the most polished and top-of-the-line machines along with Sony and IBM (now Lenovo)...


1.- That's because it actually IS superior...
2.- A Dell, a Toshiba or an e-Machine Is never the same as a Mac... They look like beta-status computers...

I am disappointed... I really expected some real factually based responses. This looks like it was written like any other Mac fan-boyish reponse I've read over the years. A MAC today is just white shiny plastic over an IBM/PC. It has the same components inside it as any other manufacturer offers, except they charge their customers twice as much. from their hard drives to their disk controllers to their USB controllers to their FSB controllers to their memory manufacturers... All the same! You have provided no basis on their superiority, therefore your remarks carry no merit as far as I am concerned. If they are so superior, detail it. It should be easy to do, right? That graphic is funny, I can appreciate the humor in it, but its outright ridiculous if you can't see how apple has done the same thing over the years. The fact your Mac has an intel chip says it all in regards to that cartoon. That pretty much makes them Windows Pushers as well.. If MAC was so superior, they would have been able to make MAC-OS be as good of an OS as OSX, but they couldn't. They had to borrow from BSD to survive... the same way they had to borrow from intel... But enjoy your MAC, you'll have to use it twice as much to get the money you invested into it than you would have any other machine. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, it is what it is, but it certainly isn't anything more because you spent more on it.

Intel does has some cache sharing abilities, but it cannot overtake the cache footprint of another entire core, that would completely defeat the point of a multi-core chip, because as soon as one single-threaded application chewed up all the cache, the multi-threaded applications would die. If a computer only ever handled one task at a time, i guess that would work perfectly.. Software kills SMP, and until more software is written to support parallel computing, there will be a steep point of diminishing returns on multi-core technology as the core count increases. The true benefit of that archetecture is not fully attainable at this time, unless you are in the upper echelon of home computer users and are doing real-time rendering using programs designed to leverage multi-core, oryou happen to be doing seismic or astrological calculations in your home, or are hosting a High I/O database of some kind.. If you are this kind of a user, then time means money to you, Which if that were me, I would be looking at an UltraSPARC or or the NVIDIA Tesla blade for the performance numbers, unless you have the money to build a nice x64 cluster. Now, however, you have moved into supercomputing, which is not the scope here. I'm talking the amount of computing power you can get out of a single box for the price. Dual core is still the sweet-spot for the money. By the time end-user consumer software is able to appropriately leverage eight cores, that chip will be vastly outdated in the x64 archetecture. The benefits of multi-core are seen in clustering, grid computing, and application hosting on servers. It's just a bragging right at the desktop at this time, more than it is a true benefit. If you say you've heard this "reversed advice" a thousand times, maybe thats because .. its the truth?

Sun may be pushing intel/AMD chips, but they also offer chipset revisions that are further along than you can get from Intel or AMD competitors. And they still deliver solutions in that market nobody else can. Like 8-way quad core processing in a 4U enclosure. And.. most importantly, sun did not abandon their flagship chip, UltraSPARC, they've improved apon it in a fashion that the intel and amd chips are years away from reaching. No single intel or amd chip exists for the public to buy which can do 64 simultaneous threads for the price Sun offers it.

The truth is, Apple computers are not superior anymore. They are just an alternative... and an overpriced one at that. Its funny that its so hard for people to accept that. Buy them if you want, If thats what you want to spend money on, more power to you. Tell people how much you like them, but don't try to sell this superiority talk to people who actually know better... Sun is just an alternative too, but IMO with a competitive edge over other vendors in their technology solutions. They can offer something Unique, and rather than just saying it, I've outlined what. Apple used to be able to offer something unique their PPC line. Now, they can't. Do they use quality components? Sure they do, so do Lenovo, Dell and HP. Do they offer a quality OS, I believe OSX is a quality OS. Do I believe Mac hardware is superior to its competitors, no. Research will show you they are using the same components. Do I believe OSX is superior to FreeBSD, Ubuntu, or Redhat? No, I do not. I believe it is a choice, but I've not seen anything from a technical standpoint to show me that OSX is superior. It cannot boast the hardware compatibility or software library linux can.

Sorry for the extremely long ramble. Perhaps this thread is not the right venue to dissect things like this. I do admit I get carried away when talking about technology, but its only because I enjoy what I do for a living.