Apple, Microsoft on Windows on Mac; Benchmarks [Archive] - Page 2

roach

Apr 9, 2006, 10:49 PM

I guess I meant tight specs in terms of the overall package of hardware that Apple knows works well with its inhouse software.

Apple stick with their generally high spec but limited range all built with components known to definitely operate reliably within the limits required by OS X . I wonder if the Apple integration and Apple reliability could be replicated by any PC manufacturer that took the trouble (or the risk) to produce a machine with the specs required to run XP reliably and easily match the Apple hardware/software experience?

ie Do Dell have access to the inner workings of XP and know it as well as Apple know OSX - the big difference being that dell as hardware manufacturers choose to produce cheapo hardware in their range ( so the requirements of XP arent necessarily met long term and that is where the reliability problems running XP arise)

Boxx PC computer goes beyond what support and product quality Apple or Dell offers. Their specialty is the VFX market and they are very well known in the VFX industry. Infact, you can buy 3ds max, Maya, XSI and Lightwave 3d pre-installed in their system.

contoursvt

Apr 10, 2006, 03:11 AM

Bingo, exactly. Ask anyone with enough experience on a PC with X86 and Windows XP, they'll tell you the same thing.

Most people seems to be on the Christian side of a witch hunt, don't know enough to say otherwise, just going with the flow.

If you put your windows behind a firewall capable router, and use firefox, like me, you don't need anti-this or that. Unless you absolutely desire to visit pr0n sites in Russia every hour and open up every e-mail attachment from the latest pictures of "insert famous star here" series.

I agree. Actually I have done the same as you, except that I still use IE. For the past year and 2 months, I have run no Antivirus and have been fine. I do basic stuff like disable the preview pane in my Outlook and dont click on unknown attachments. I dont surf p0rn or download warez. Not one hiccup on the box. About once every other month I connect to trendmicro and run their remote antivirus to see if I'm still clean and I am :) Basically trouble finds you when you look for trouble... as long as you surf legit sites, you'll be fine :)

askegg

Apr 10, 2006, 06:28 PM

I agree. Actually I have done the same as you, except that I still use IE. For the past year and 2 months, I have run no Antivirus and have been fine. I do basic stuff like disable the preview pane in my Outlook and dont click on unknown attachments. I dont surf p0rn or download warez. Not one hiccup on the box. About once every other month I connect to trendmicro and run their remote antivirus to see if I'm still clean and I am :) Basically trouble finds you when you look for trouble... as long as you surf legit sites, you'll be fine :)

I have used Windows for many years and the newer versions have much better security than those that came before. However, you should not have to install firewalls, run different web browsers, disable program features, run auti virus scanners and avoid dodgey website to keep your computer clean.

95% of users are clueless about these things, and educating the masses is not a reasonable response. It is difficult, unreliable and unnatural. Computer systems need to change. The ideal computer would be naturally intuitive for first time users. It should act the way we would expect it to act. You should never have to consciously learn how to operate a computer, what behaviour it exhibits when you do certain things and how to coach it into what you desire.

The things you mention are not what most people should be expected to do in order to avoid the bear traps of modern computing. Remove the bear traps rather than stick a sign up and tip toe around them.

i hate pcs

Apr 10, 2006, 08:06 PM

Guys, can't you see... Apple wants to sell more of its computers, not OS. They allowed windows to boot on Apple computers so that people can enjoy the beautiful white or aluminium machines, not having to be put off by the OS.( face it, many people do not want a Mac because the OS cannot support alot of softwares and games.)

I think Apple realises that many people love the designs of its computers but are afraid of the OS. They are afraid that they can't load their applications on the OS. See...Apple allowed windows user to use ipods, so they are now doing the same thing to macbook pros, imacs, macbooks, mac minis. Look at the response of ipods, 42 million sold! You think all of em are mac users? The market is huge out there, they cannot afford to stay loyal to their own OS. They have to think of a way to get the computers out to everywhere. Face it, Apple is still a business, they wanted to earn as much money as they could. They dont exist to cater your unique needs (counterculture), they exists to make lots of money, so that all the shareholders are happy and their bank accounts are healthy.

Im a switcher myself. I got sick of all the crashes, virus, hangs on windows XP. I have to format my old PC every 1 month. If not for my games, I would have made a complete switch to MAC (im not afraid of the OS..lol..). I recently upgraded my PC for my games and is now waiting for my macbook pro to arrive..which will arrive on Monday or Tuesday ... cant wait to get my hands on it! Im two steps away from becoming a full blown Apple fan, those who wore "I love you , Steve !" tshirts at mac events.. lol

im still a bit confused about whats going on here, but this post helps me out a bit. so, you will only be able to run windows on a mac, and not os x on a pc correct ? even though you can through a emulation program.

im considering taking the apple certification program. but if you could run os x on a pc, what would be the point?

pleas help

i hate pcs

Apr 10, 2006, 08:12 PM

The Mac will never loose while it has dedicated Mac users who buy their hardware. And I think current Mac developers will realise that Mac users want to spend their time in the Mac OS and continue developing for it. The release of Boot Camp will probably be used as an excuse for Windows only developers not to release a Mac version, but would they have released a native Mac version if Boot Camp had not been released? I doubt it.

As for the benchmarks, it's early days for Apple on Intel and I think with point releases in Tiger we'll hopefully see an improvement.

im still a bit confused about whats going on here, but this post helps me out a bit. so, you will only be able to run windows on a mac, and not os x on a pc correct ? even though you can through a emulation program.

im considering taking the apple certification program. but if you could run os x on a pc, what would be the point?

pleas help

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 06:51 PM

Just to show you what I can do on a 1.25 ghz Powerbook g4 with 1.25 gb of RAM:

1. 48 STEREO tracks of audio (thats stereo - so 96 effective tracks)
2. Reason 2.5 running, with sequence
3. Virtual synths
4. Photoshop open (The picture of the Taj Mahal)
5. Word was open and running (the window didnt show up in the grab pic)

All this, on the powerbook's internal 4200 RPM DRIVE :eek:

Everything was running flawlessly.. THIS is what I love about the Mac.

The G4 Mac that is. Your Intel Mac will perform worse, I guarantee. You no longer have a massive throughput data crunching processor like the RISC you currently have. You will have an old x86 architecture processor incapable of the same level of throughput as a RISC. Also, the software you are using (I assume Pro Tools) is written so that the software takes advantage of the special instruction set embedded within the RISC processor. You will no longer have this on the CrapIntel MBP. What you will have is just another Windows capable box. The days of the G4 and G5 are over my friend. Apple, as we know it, is the iPod company. They're computers suck now and I've been using them since 1978. I never thought they'd produce garbage like this.

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:04 PM

That isn't to say that OSX isn't a better choice for live music productions - even with identical hardware one OS can have better real-time characteristics than another.

OS 10 isn't better for music production, commie. It's worse. OS 9 was WAY better for music production, using Pro Tools that is. That is all I use with my Moblie workstation. It's not the OS, it's the hardware. Now it's nothing.

longofest

Apr 11, 2006, 07:05 PM

The G4 Mac that is. Your Intel Mac will perform worse, I guarantee. You no longer have a massive throughput data crunching processor like the RISC you currently have. You will have an old x86 architecture processor incapable of the same level of throughput as a RISC. Also, the software you are using (I assume Pro Tools) is written so that the software takes advantage of the special instruction set embedded within the RISC processor. You will no longer have this on the CrapIntel MBP. What you will have is just another Windows capable box. The days of the G4 and G5 are over my friend. Apple, as we know it, is the iPod company. They're computers suck now and I've been using them since 1978. I never thought they'd produce garbage like this.

He wasn't using Pro Tools... he was using Digital Performer 4.x by MOTU, which isn't even made for Windows. However, as much as I am with you on the RISC thing, you are a little over-dramatic with it.

If Motorola/Freescale and IBM had reasons to invest in really making the G4 and G5 for the desktop architecture, then we would still have a far superior chip. However, with Apple as its only real desktop customer, both companies decided to focus their efforts elsewhere (Freescale for embedded, IBM for gaming, servers, etc). As great as the G4 was, it was really hampered by its bus. And as great as the G5 still is, it can't fit in a portable machine, nor is the 970MP a very good dual-core design (the best x86 designs like AMD and coreDuo from Intel have cache sharing).

Perhaps Apple should have just started plopping Power5 and Power6 processors into Macs... that would have taken the strain off of IBM, and we would still get our RISC design. The problem of course is that you lose Altivec, and you jack the price through the roof. But at least those processors have really good multi-core designs.

Then again, no running Windows natively with that solution, and I don't forsee a Power5 in a notebook any sooner than I see a G5 in a notebook.

longofest

Apr 11, 2006, 07:06 PM

OS 10 isn't better for music production, commie. It's worse. OS 9 was WAY better for music production, using Pro Tools that is. That is all I use with my Moblie workstation. It's not the OS, it's the hardware. Now it's nothing.

So you enjoy random system hangs during a recording session???

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:09 PM

So you enjoy random system hangs during a recording session???

Never had one that I can speak of.
Oh, yeah. Doesn't the XBOX 360 use an IBM processor? Strange how things work, isn't it?

longofest

Apr 11, 2006, 07:13 PM

Never had one that I can speak of.
Oh, yeah. Doesn't the XBOX 360 use an IBM processor? Strange how things work, isn't it?

XBox360, Playstation3, and Nintendo Revolution (or whatever it will be called) all use IBM processors or processors developed jointly with IBM (in the case of CELL).

In fact, Nintendo has used PowerPC processors for at least as far back as the GameCube... I think Nintendo64 as well...

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:20 PM

XBox360, Playstation3, and Nintendo Revolution (or whatever it will be called) all use IBM processors or processors developed jointly with IBM (in the case of CELL).

In fact, Nintendo has used PowerPC processors for at least as far back as the GameCube... I think Nintendo64 as well...

Yes, but nobody has the 3.2ghz 3 Core PowerPC that Microsoft uses. Maybe they'll sell it to Apple once Apple flops. Or perhaps when Microsoft finally buys Apple's computer division they will put their new IBM PowerPC processor in them.

ManchesterTrix

Apr 11, 2006, 07:22 PM

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:26 PM

I love your unreality.

Hey, there is still hope. Afterall, who would have thought Microsoft would have their own PowerPC chip when Apple said they couldn't produce them? They sure can make them for the XBOX 360 and everytime a shipment gets out they are sold.

ManchesterTrix

Apr 11, 2006, 07:31 PM

Hey, there is still hope. Afterall, who would have thought Microsoft would have their own PowerPC chip when Apple said they couldn't produce them? They sure can make them for the XBOX 360 and everytime a shipment gets out they are sold.

Well since neither Microsoft nor Apple actually make the PowerPC chips. And there's a matter of economies of scale and R&D. For example, The 360 is going to use the same processor for 5-6 years. Apple constantly needs newer, faster, more updated processors. There's no problem with the 360 stagnating. It wasn't that Apple couldn't get PowerPC chips, it's that Apple couldn't get a steady supply of updated PowerPC chips for a price where it would be beneficial to do so. But hey, if you refuse to believe that the MacBook Pro is better than the PowerBook G4, more power to you. I have the last model PowerBook and the first model MacBook and from my personal experience the move was a good one. Even if the new DVD burner doesn't like any of the media I already had.

Peace

Apr 11, 2006, 07:37 PM

Yes, but nobody has the 3.2ghz 3 Core PowerPC that Microsoft uses. Maybe they'll sell it to Apple once Apple flops. Or perhaps when Microsoft finally buys Apple's computer division they will put their new IBM PowerPC processor in them.

That PPC you talk about is quit different than the PPC in Macs..
The one in the Xbox360 is designed for graphics.It would suck at multi-tasking.

And please change your username.It offends me:rolleyes:

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:41 PM

Well since neither Microsoft nor Apple actually make the PowerPC chips.

No kidding, but Microsoft actually owns the rights to a PowerPC core. As far as using the same cpu for 5 to 6 years, I think that's pushing it. The XBOX has only been around for 4 years. I don't know how often people upgrade their own computers. I generally update my IBM compatible pc's every few months in some sort of way, but that's cause I'm a geek and I enjoy it. My G4 Powerbook is getting long in the tooth but I have no plans to buy another one until Apple switches back, probably next year. Probably the first company that actually believed their own add campaing to SWITCH.

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:49 PM

That PPC you talk about is quit different than the PPC in Macs..
The one in the Xbox360 is designed for graphics.It would suck at multi-tasking.

Well, it was specifically designed for multi-threading. The chip can execute 2 threads at the same time, meaning 6 threads at once. Not a shabby multi-tasker if you ask me. There isn't another cpu that can do that.

ManchesterTrix

Apr 11, 2006, 07:49 PM

No kidding, but Microsoft actually owns the rights to a PowerPC core. As far as using the same cpu for 5 to 6 years, I think that's pushing it. The XBOX has only been around for 4 years. I don't know how often people upgrade their own computers. I generally update my IBM compatible pc's every few months in some sort of way, but that's cause I'm a geek and I enjoy it. My G4 Powerbook is getting long in the tooth but I have no plans to buy another one until Apple switches back, probably next year. Probably the first company that actually believed their own add campaing to SWITCH.

And I believe the general thought is that this generation of consoles will be around longer, but we'll go with 4 years. Developing and maintaining one chip for 4 years is vastly different than what Apple needs. Switch back next year, HIGH-larious.

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 07:55 PM

And I believe the general thought is that this generation of consoles will be around longer, but we'll go with 4 years. Developing and maintaining one chip for 4 years is vastly different than what Apple needs. Switch back next year, HIGH-larious.

OK, realistically 2 years. People in here laughed when I said they'd switch to Intel. Hahaha. I was kidding at the time, not this time.

longofest

Apr 11, 2006, 08:10 PM

Well, it was specifically designed for multi-threading. The chip can execute 2 threads at the same time, meaning 6 threads at once. Not a shabby multi-tasker if you ask me. There isn't another cpu that can do that.

Dude, keep talking. You make me laugh.

Enter: UltraSPARC T1. Sun makes these puppys with up to 8 cores, and each core can execute 4 threads simultaneously. That's 32 threads at once. And power consumption for the chip is about that of a light bulb.

exmacuser

Apr 11, 2006, 08:13 PM

Dude, keep talking. You make me laugh.

Enter: UltraSPARC T1. Sun makes these puppys with up to 8 cores, and each core can execute 4 threads simultaneously. That's 32 threads at once. And power consumption for the chip is about that of a light bulb.

Yet, another perfect example of the RISC processor. My GIS machine is a Sun, I am familiar. I do love my Unix. But get serious, Apple's are already overpriced.

Brother Michael

Apr 11, 2006, 08:35 PM

This is a beta of Vista, it will probably much better once they take the debugging and logging code out.

Something tells me that they should save everyone the trouble and leave the debugging and logging code in...they might need it.:p

BGil

Apr 11, 2006, 09:34 PM

I really don't think you want to see the same benches run on Vista, particularly the 64-bit version. Vista is much faster than XP just as Windows 2003 and everything MS has released based on that kernel is. The memory management and multitasking capabilites are well beyond were Tiger is now.
Then it will be Leopard woopin' on Vista. For the amount of effort being put into Vista, with it's numerous delays and with MS's history of rolling out new OS's, I wonder if Vista is going to be a hit, or a belly flop.

Good releases from MS.

DOS 2.1 - finally got a decent workable OS
DOS 3.3 - solved many issues
DOS 5.0 - the best release to date
Windows 3.1 - rescued everyone from the disastrous 3.0 version
Windows 2000 Pro - (really NT 5) the last decent OS they have made

With their history, they do not have much of a track record for getting it right early on. For those folk required to work in the MS world, I hope Vista finally throws off the moronic design paradigm that has plagued Windows since Windows 95.

Windows Server 2003 was a very good release. And it's one of the most secure server platforms you can get.

So then what about aunts and grandmas that also get viruses? Are they downloading illegal software and looking at porn too?

Still just making excuses based on your own experiences, which seem a far cry from what appears to be a majority of PC users.

You'd be surprised. If you ever get a chance to talk to the Geek Squad or service people at Best Buy or CompUSA they'll tell you that the biggest proliferator of malwae on Windows is Kazaa. Nearly everyone and their momma uses it.

No nonsense at all. Here's why I haven't gotten any viruses the past years:

- I don't surf less reputable porn sites
- I don't download pirated software
- I don't open strange e-mail attachments

An even better solution would be to just use hotmail, gmail, or anyother service for your email (forward your mail there if you need to). The phrishing filters and built in virus scanners make it so you'll never get an infected email.

Billy Boo Bob

Apr 12, 2006, 02:21 AM

An even better solution would be to just use hotmail, gmail, or anyother service for your email (forward your mail there if you need to). The phrishing filters and built in virus scanners make it so you'll never get an infected email.
I forward most of my domain mail through my cable mail. I don't know about virus blocking, but it sure did cut down a lot of my spam. Not all of it, but the count dropped dramatically.

BenRoethig

Apr 12, 2006, 06:08 AM

druggedonions

Apr 12, 2006, 06:12 AM

OpenGL hasn't really been optimized for the Intel processor yet so this will bring the scores down for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Once Apple get those issues dealt with and ATI get their drivers refined I think you'll see those scores improve. :cool:

Ok so I was wrong about this. It looks like CineBench wasn't optimized to take advantage of the latest implementation of OpenGL in the Intel release of Mac OS10.4. Found this on http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ by way of HardMac (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-04-12/#5354)
check out the scores using the latest tests.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/CB95_xpvstiger_iMac183R.gif

exmacuser

Apr 13, 2006, 09:04 PM

It's not a 3.2ghz G5. At best you're looking speed equivilent to a 1.6ghz single core G5.

No, it's a triple core 3.2ghz PPc, faster then the G5 by leaps and bounds.

ManchesterTrix

Apr 13, 2006, 09:58 PM

No, it's a triple core 3.2ghz PPc, faster then the G5 by leaps and bounds.

There are more things to speed and CPUs, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Mike Teezie

Apr 13, 2006, 10:14 PM

*sigh* this has been discussed over and over, and basically, Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking. It's no competition :)

So basically, windows is faster so long as it's not doing anything?

:D

contoursvt

Apr 14, 2006, 03:05 AM

Ya I'm sure windows just sucks at multitasking :)

http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce1.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/allatonce2.jpg

-Doom3 in a window at high detail
-burning a DVD
-ripping a DVD (I've got two optical drives)
-playing music (mp3)
-running the horse radial blur benchmark
-outlook and messenger in the background (idle but sucking up some ram)

The computer is a one year old dual 3Ghz Xeon with a couple 36gig SCSI drives and an X800XT-PE for a video card. Yes its pretty good stuff but its no longer bleeding edge but still, doom3 framerates are playable and benchmark score for photoshop decent for doing all that at once....so I'd say it multitasks just fine.Oh also not even a hiccup on the music playback either.

exmacuser

Apr 16, 2006, 08:48 PM

contoursvt

Apr 17, 2006, 09:21 AM

I don't see what the point of this post is? Apple is now Intel so what's the big deal? They suck just as bad as your windows machine. There is no longer any hardware advantage. OS 10 is crap on x86.

Point was that I was showing that windows multitasks just fine and IMO just as well as OSX would have.

PS. If you're basing you're "Apple sucks now because they are using intel" then you're living in the dark ages. The machines have more power, longer battery life (in the laptops) and will probably have much more aftermarket support. The OS is still OSX and when more applications run native on these boxes, then how could you even tell them apart during use. Oh wait, you'll know which is which because one box will be faster ;)

exmacuser

Apr 17, 2006, 11:05 AM

Point was that I was showing that windows multitasks just fine and IMO just as well as OSX would have.

PS. If you're basing you're "Apple sucks now because they are using intel" then you're living in the dark ages. The machines have more power, longer battery life (in the laptops) and will probably have much more aftermarket support. The OS is still OSX and when more applications run native on these boxes, then how could you even tell them apart during use. Oh wait, you'll know which is which because one box will be faster ;)

Speed is relative. It is impossible for an x86 processor to process as much information as a RISC processor. So far, OS 10 is slower on the Intels. Enjoy the hiccups and viruses that come with x86.

ManchesterTrix

Apr 17, 2006, 11:18 AM

So far, OS 10 is slower on the Intels.
So what you're saying is you have no idea what you're talking about. Both anecdotal evidence and benchmarks are proving you wrong. It looks as if the mobile Core Duo chip is pretty comparable to an equally clocked G5. So how exactly is the PPC doing better? You can find the benchmarks all over, but for anecdotal evidence, my MacBook encodes video faster than my PowerBook with Toast even though Toast is running in Rosetta. Yes, yes, I know perfectly well that RISC is more elegant than CISC but you know what? It really doesn't matter in the desktop arena because CISC/x86 gets a lot more development than RISC/PPC.

Enjoy the hiccups and viruses that come with x86.

You do realize that running OS X on x86 isn't less secure than running OS X on PPC, right? No? Well that's par for the course, eh?

jhu

Apr 17, 2006, 06:04 PM

Speed is relative. It is impossible for an x86 processor to process as much information as a RISC processor. So far, OS 10 is slower on the Intels. Enjoy the hiccups and viruses that come with x86.

can't process as much information as a risc processor? you may want to point out which ones.

Yet, another perfect example of the RISC processor. My GIS machine is a Sun, I am familiar. I do love my Unix. But get serious, Apple's are already overpriced.

you do realize that "risc" and "cisc" are now meaningless, right? btw, the fact that the ultrasparc t1 can execute 32 threads has nothing to do with it being a "risc" processor and everything to do with design and implementation. you could do the same with a processor that uses the x86 instruction set.

contoursvt

Apr 17, 2006, 08:47 PM

Speed is relative. It is impossible for an x86 processor to process as much information as a RISC processor. So far, OS 10 is slower on the Intels. Enjoy the hiccups and viruses that come with x86.

What the hell are rambling about? Ya the fast machine is relatively fast compared to the slow one. That means that the new macbooks are relatively fast against your older powerbook ;)

Oh by the way, can you tell me how exactly the OSX operating system is comprimised by it being X86? Thats a stupid statement. Thats like someone running freebsd on a PC being worried about windows viruses and worms.

PS you're not some hippie that drives around in an old VW Fox with a giant apple sticker...preaching powerPC to everyone are you? If you are, then you were probably like the antichrist to the 68K crowd. God I am so glad I am not narrow minded anymore. I used to be long ago when I was an OS/2 guy hating on Microsoft. Sure I still think OS/2 was a great OS and could have had potential but it came a time (that would be NT4) that it just had no more advantages and even if it did, the other platform far outweighed it so no point to resist. You could but you'd only be limiting yourself.

With apple going X86, I believe there is going to be more hardware compatability, more software selection, the ability to run windows for things like games and certain multimedia that may not have been there as well as financial programs that were previously unavailable. The only negative (in the eyes of some) is that it might seem less 'special' because its using more readily available hardware - in theory. Oh and you cant go ranting about altivec. LOL.

jhu

Apr 22, 2006, 04:29 PM

Yet, another perfect example of the RISC processor. My GIS machine is a Sun, I am familiar. I do love my Unix. But get serious, Apple's are already overpriced.

one more thing genius, the t1 only has 1 fpu for the entire processor, not per core. it was designed for server use, not number crunching.

hulugu

Apr 23, 2006, 01:34 AM

WOh by the way, can you tell me how exactly the OSX operating system is comprimised by it being X86? Thats a stupid statement. Thats like someone running freebsd on a PC being worried about windows viruses and worms.

That's not entirely true, because of the change to x86, writing a virus will be easier. This doesn't mean that someone will, it just means the 'barries to entry' so to speak have been lowered.
However, the benefits outweigh the negatives. IBM and Moto/Freescale both dropped the ball with PPC and Intel is eating their lunch even with the relatively inefficient x86 code. However, one of the great things, is the Universal Binary, which allows for a possible transition back and forth between PPC and x86 and Apple gets to choose the best processor. This is in practice difficult, but maybe the future.

Amuraivel

Apr 23, 2006, 05:00 AM

Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking.

I just love running 20-25 applications at once. There is nothing better than having every single application that I have open at once.

weldon

Apr 23, 2006, 09:07 AM

That's not entirely true, because of the change to x86, writing a virus will be easier.
How so? I doubt that most viruses are written in assembly. And of course the script viruses couldn't be. Would you also say that the change to x86 will suddenly make non-viral Mac software easier to write?

rayz

Apr 24, 2006, 11:50 AM

However, the benefits outweigh the negatives. IBM and Moto/Freescale both dropped the ball with PPC and Intel is eating their lunch even with the relatively inefficient x86 code.

Didn't Apple account for about 4% of the revenues from IBM's PPC output? Not really that much. And having 'dropped the ball' with Apple, IBM picked deals with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Sony alone is expected to shift 100 million PS3s in the next five years.

IBM should drop the ball more often ....

contoursvt

Apr 24, 2006, 09:48 PM

That's not entirely true, because of the change to x86, writing a virus will be easier. This doesn't mean that someone will, it just means the 'barries to entry' so to speak have been lowered.
However, the benefits outweigh the negatives. IBM and Moto/Freescale both dropped the ball with PPC and Intel is eating their lunch even with the relatively inefficient x86 code. However, one of the great things, is the Universal Binary, which allows for a possible transition back and forth between PPC and x86 and Apple gets to choose the best processor. This is in practice difficult, but maybe the future.

While that might be true in the sense that x86 based viruses have been around a long time and probably more 'experts' writing them, but its now for a different platform so viruses would have to be re-written. The ones out now will have no affect on OSX. Although the secure nature of OSX will make it harder to penetrate so I think it should be fine.

JFreak

Apr 25, 2006, 12:48 AM

x86 based viruses have been around a long time

This sounds like the computer virus somehow operates on the CPU independently of the operating system. It doesn't work that way.

A computer virus is a piece of software that uses services offered by the operating system, just like every other application out there. The difference is that a piece of software we call "virus" does things that are simply wrong or at least unexpected, plus it makes copies of itself without asking the user who executed the code.

The virus problem of the Windows world only shows how Microsoft's software security sucks, it's not an indication of "bad x86" platform. If a virus wants to do something without the user knowing it, the Windows operating system just says: sure, go ahead. That's not acceptable, and it won't happen that easily with UNIX(-based) systems. Whether PPC or x86 platform, for sure UNIX is safer than Windows.

contoursvt

Apr 25, 2006, 11:03 AM

This sounds like the computer virus somehow operates on the CPU independently of the operating system. It doesn't work that way.

A computer virus is a piece of software that uses services offered by the operating system, just like every other application out there. The difference is that a piece of software we call "virus" does things that are simply wrong or at least unexpected, plus it makes copies of itself without asking the user who executed the code.

The virus problem of the Windows world only shows how Microsoft's software security sucks, it's not an indication of "bad x86" platform. If a virus wants to do something without the user knowing it, the Windows operating system just says: sure, go ahead. That's not acceptable, and it won't happen that easily with UNIX(-based) systems. Whether PPC or x86 platform, for sure UNIX is safer than Windows.

Umm, thats exactly what I wrote. I basically said that there are a lot of X86 programmers which CAN re-write viruses for OSX if they wanted, however the current PC viruses out right now cannot affect OSX. Also OSX being more secure will make it more difficult for something to execute.

Photorun

Apr 25, 2006, 12:50 PM

Didn't Apple account for about 4% of the revenues from IBM's PPC output? Not really that much. And having 'dropped the ball' with Apple, IBM picked deals with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Sony alone is expected to shift 100 million PS3s in the next five years.

IBM should drop the ball more often ....

A bit OT but considering all the delays Sony has made on the PS3 they'll be lucky they're not betamaxed out of existence by the XSux and Revolution. The "100 million" if Sony's president has his way with pricing at close to a grand a unit (can't find the link) AND that almost $1,000 a unit due to development overruns would STILL be at a loss for Sony per console sold. Sony dug themselves a giant hole filled with turd. I'm not sure how Microsuck did it and I hate to give the biggest rip off company with lackluster junk in the history of technology any credit (Microsuck that is) but they PWNed Sony and the console market. As it is we may not even see a PS3 until 2007. Bye Sony, it was nice knowing you as a game console, you'll be in the museum next to the (arguably at it's time superior) Dreamcast boxes.

hulugu

Apr 25, 2006, 09:12 PM

Didn't Apple account for about 4% of the revenues from IBM's PPC output? Not really that much. And having 'dropped the ball' with Apple, IBM picked deals with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Sony alone is expected to shift 100 million PS3s in the next five years.

IBM should drop the ball more often ....

IBM didn't have a choice between Apple and the consoles, they failed in one market and did well in another. IBM has been unable to make a good laptop chip and that is a serious market to falter at. IBM is not in danger of going away, but someone certainly screwed up.

While that might be true in the sense that x86 based viruses have been around a long time and probably more 'experts' writing them, but its now for a different platform so viruses would have to be re-written. The ones out now will have no affect on OSX. Although the secure nature of OSX will make it harder to penetrate so I think it should be fine.

The transition simply lowered one of the barriers for former Wintel virus writers. That's it.