Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Might Windows 7 be a threat to MacOS X?

throttlemeister said:
- ICMP should be disabled by default. That means no ping. It is called security.
- Buggy? It is BETA, if you are a software developer, you know what that means.
- If you are a software developer, you know about address space. If you know about address space, you know that in a 32b system you CANNOT address more than 4GB physical memory. Period. You would also know that this means things like graphics memory and PCI address space is included in that maximum of 4GB. In other words, no 32b system will allow you to use full 4GB of memory if you put it in, because 4GB ram would take it over the 4GB limit of a 32b system.

You're not a developer, you're a fanboy without a clue.
Click to expand...

Blocking ICMP does not provide any security. It may provide some obscurity, but obscurity is not security. Anyone that thinks disabling ICMP provides a level of security is just fooling themselves and anyone else to whom they pass this incorrect idea.

plarusa was pointing out that the way Windows 7 does things, to utilize a full 4GB of memory using Windows 7 you need to use a 64-bit version. That's pretty sad considering all the issues that brings to the table. The current Mac OS X, Leopard, is a 32-bit OS yet still allows more memory to be used by the OS and applications. You are totally wrong when you say that no 32-bit system can access more than 4GB of memory.

So, learn before you speak and call someone a "fanboy".

S-
 
sidewinder said:
You are totally wrong when you say that no 32-bit system can access more than 4GB of memory.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, he's totally right. 32-bit computing is limited to a maximum of 4 GB of memory.

Leopard is 64-bit and thus can address more than 4 GB of memory. Windows is sold in 32-bit and 64-bit editions, so naturally the 32-bit version is limited to 4 GB.

I believe the same limitation also applies to Mac OS X 10.1-.4
 
sidewinder said:
Blocking ICMP does not provide any security. It may provide some obscurity, but obscurity is not security. Anyone that thinks disabling ICMP provides a level of security is just fooling themselves and anyone else to whom they pass this incorrect idea.

plarusa was pointing out that the way Windows 7 does things, to utilize a full 4GB of memory using Windows 7 you need to use a 64-bit version. That's pretty sad considering all the issues that brings to the table. The current Mac OS X, Leopard, is a 32-bit OS yet still allows more memory to be used by the OS and applications. You are totally wrong when you say that no 32-bit system can access more than 4GB of memory.

So, learn before you speak and call someone a "fanboy".

S-
Click to expand...
Please apply your own advice to yourself. Please write out 32 1's and convert them to decimal, and let us know the number.

Leopard is not 32b, it is 32b hybrid with 64b extensions. Using those extensions, they can address more than just 32b.

Windows is 32b or 64b, if you want to use more than 4GB memory you need to use the 64b version. Quite simple. Using 4GB memory + a 512MB videocard means 4.5GB of memory. In order to use the videocard, only 3.5GB of physical memory remains addressable. Same with PCI addressing etc, if all comes of the maximum of 32 1's of physical address space.

If you can't understand that, you're not a programmer. And if you are, you should not be one.
 
throttlemeister said:
Please apply your own advice to yourself. Please write out 32 1's and convert them to decimal, and let us know the number.

Leopard is not 32b, it is 32b hybrid with 64b extensions. Using those extensions, they can address more than just 32b.

Windows is 32b or 64b, if you want to use more than 4GB memory you need to use the 64b version. Quite simple. Using 4GB memory + a 512MB videocard means 4.5GB of memory. In order to use the videocard, only 3.5GB of physical memory remains addressable. Same with PCI addressing etc, if all comes of the maximum of 32 1's of physical address space.

If you can't understand that, you're not a programmer. And if you are, you should not be one.
Click to expand...
You explained this very well. It's a shame some people here just refuse to believe it, though. As an easy way to bash Windows around here is to say that it can only address 4 GB of memory.
 
throttlemeister,

Mac OS X Leopard is a 32-bit OS (sorry Quillz) that supports Physical Address Extension (PAE). You said that a 32-bit OS could not address more than 4GB of memory and that was a false statement. No matter how you slice it, Mac OS X Leopard is a 32-bit OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

To see what I understand about Windows and memory addressing, check out this thread:

http://www.vistax64.com/general-discussion/171771-32-bit-ram-issue.html

My screen name is the same there as it is here.

I was programming in 6502 assembly language in 1980. Were you even born yet?? I was coding in 68000 assembly language in 1984? Were you born yet?

As I said quite clearly in my first post in this thread, the way Windows does things, you need to run the 64-bit version to get access to all 4GB of memory. In other words, I clearly know that you can get a version of Windows 7 that supports access to more than 3.5GB of memory. This is sad because Windows 7 (Vista too) 32-bit will be the only major modern 32-bit OS available that runs on Intel processors that does not support PAE. It's also sad because there are a lot of driver issues on the 64-bit Windows systems still.

Mac OS X does not have these issues...

S-
 
Windows 7 has me interested, but my primary OS will be some flavour of UNIX for the foreseeable future (I'm also still on PPC).
 
sidewinder said:
throttlemeister,

Mac OS X Leopard is a 32-bit OS (sorry Quillz) that supports Physical Address Extension (PAE). You said that a 32-bit OS could not address more than 4GB of memory and that was a false statement. No matter how you slice it, Mac OS X Leopard is a 32-bit OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

To see what I understand about Windows and memory addressing, check out this thread:

http://www.vistax64.com/general-discussion/171771-32-bit-ram-issue.html

My screen name is the same there as it is here.

I was programming in 6502 assembly language in 1980. Were you even born yet?? I was coding in 68000 assembly language in 1984? Were you born yet?

As I said quite clearly in my first post in this thread, the way Windows does things, you need to run the 64-bit version to get access to all 4GB of memory. In other words, I clearly know that you can get a version of Windows 7 that supports access to more than 3.5GB of memory. This is sad because Windows 7 (Vista too) 32-bit will be the only major modern 32-bit OS available that runs on Intel processors that does not support PAE. It's also sad because there are a lot of driver issues on the 64-bit Windows systems still.

Mac OS X does not have these issues...

S-
Click to expand...
It is not using PAE (which btw has been available in Windows since the days of NT, and still is in Vista, just use the bcdedit command). You cannot, or ever will run 64b binaries in a 32b OS. Leopard can run 64b binaries, and ie in case of Adobe runs those by default on 64b processors. There is no way in hell you will ever in your life be able to run a 64b application on a 32b OS with PAE.

Funny. I coded 6502 assembly too. And was long born before that 1980 of your, so quit being a patronizing ass. Get your facts straight instead.

Native support by many libraries and frameworks for 64-bit applications, allowing 64-bit Cocoa applications. Existing 32-bit applications using those libraries and frameworks should continue to run without the need for emulation or translation.
Click to expand...

Or if you do not trust wikipedia quotes, how about a (cached) search engine link, since leopard pages have been removed in favor of snow leopard: CLICK

And to teach you how to enable PAE on vista: CLICK

Are we done now, or do you need more arguments to prove your mistake?
 
throttlemeister said:
There is no way in hell you will ever in your life be able to run a 64b application on a 32b OS with PAE.
Click to expand...

Right, personal bickering aside, it's worth pointing out that (at least at the kernel level) Leopard is 32-bit. It ships with 32-bit Carbon libs, both 32 and 64-bit Cocoa libs, and 64-bit BSD(-ish) userland tools/libs, but the underlying kernel and drivers are still 32-bit.

So in essence, 10.5 is doing exactly what you're saying can never be done. Sorry. :(
 
throttlemeister said:
It is not using PAE (which btw has been available in Windows since the days of NT, and still is in Vista, just use the bcdedit command). You cannot, or ever will run 64b binaries in a 32b OS. Leopard can run 64b binaries, and ie in case of Adobe runs those by default on 64b processors. There is no way in hell you will ever in your life be able to run a 64b application on a 32b OS with PAE.

Funny. I coded 6502 assembly too. And was long born before that 1980 of your, so quit being a patronizing ass. Get your facts straight instead.



Or if you do not trust wikipedia quotes, how about a (cached) search engine link, since leopard pages have been removed in favor of snow leopard: CLICK

And to teach you how to enable PAE on vista: CLICK

Are we done now, or do you need more arguments to prove your mistake?
Click to expand...
throttlemeister,

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course Mac OS X Leopard is using PAE. That is how a 32-bit OS can support more than a 32-bit address space and 64-bit applications. It is a feature of the Intel processors used by Apple. At its core, Leopard is 32-bit. If you were a programmer, you would know that.

Turning PAE on in 32-bit Vista doesn't change anything in regards to the 4GB address space limit or how RAM is handled by applications.

S-
 
Regarding x64 in Leopard and Vista/Windows

Back in March Appleinsider did a good job of explaining the differences between x64 in terms of Windows as well as Leopard and snow Leopard.

Most important to this current discussion is that Leopard host 32 and 64 apps on top of a 32 bit kernel, which ppc750fx previously mentioned.

Link
 
Whatever. I had a lenghty reply type up to correct several incorrect statements, but I can't be arsed to post it within this elite clique. You're all soooo right.

Not really, but whatever makes you feel good.
 
throttlemeister said:
Whatever. I had a lenghty reply type up to correct several incorrect statements, but I can't be arsed to post it within this elite clique. You're all soooo right.

Not really, but whatever makes you feel good.
Click to expand...

In other words, you had nothing valid to refute what you have been told so you post this to make it sound like you know what is the real truth even though you don't.

Classic.......

S-
 
throttlemeister said:
Whatever. I had a lenghty reply type up to correct several incorrect statements, but I can't be arsed to post it within this elite clique. You're all soooo right.

Not really, but whatever makes you feel good.
Click to expand...
Take a breath and try posting it.

sidewinder said:
In other words, you had nothing valid to refute what you have been told so you post this to make it sound like you know what is the real truth even though you don't.

Classic.......

S-
Click to expand...
Sadly I can understand the frustration that can happen all to often when coming up with a post.
 
throttlemeister said:
Whatever. I had a lenghty reply type up to correct several incorrect statements, but I can't be arsed to post it within this elite clique. You're all soooo right.
Click to expand...

Take it easy man -- it's the web, people are wrong all the time. :D

If you'd like to post your corrections here, I'm sure that many readers would appreciate it. It's hard to find accurate information on some things, and knowledgeable posters are what makes forums the valuable resources that they are. Your remarks don't necessarily have to be wordy; a brief clarification can be every bit as valuable as a lengthy one.
 
Quillz said:
As an easy way to bash Windows around here is to say that it can only address 4 GB of memory.
Click to expand...

Yep. Any such talk is nonsense.

Apple are playing catch-up here. OS X is pretty much last
of the major operating systems to be given a a 64-bit kernel.
Windows had one years ago.
 
sidewinder said:
It's also sad because there are a lot of driver issues on the 64-bit Windows systems still.

Mac OS X does not have these issues...
Click to expand...

Right...

So you can throw any video card in a Mac Pro and it will work? Oh wait..
you can't. The reason? Most graphics cards don't have any OS X drivers.

The same goes for many other devices. There is no greater driver issue
than a driver not existing. And there are thousands of devices without
OS X drivers (admittedly, you wouldn't want to use all of them).

Even where drivers do exist, they can, somewhat tragically, be worse
than their Windows equivalents.

OS X may be good for many things, but drivers are not one of it's strong
points. Windows, even 64-bit Windows, crushes OS X when it comes to
availability and quality of drivers.
 
Infrared said:
Right...

So you can throw any video card in a Mac Pro and it will work? Oh wait..
you can't. The reason? Most graphics cards don't have any OS X drivers.

The same goes for many other devices. There is no greater driver issue
than a driver not existing. And there are thousands of devices without
OS X drivers (admittedly, you wouldn't want to use all of them).

Even where drivers do exist, they can, somewhat tragically, be worse
than their Windows equivalents.

OS X may be good for many things, but drivers are not one of it's strong
points. Windows, even 64-bit Windows, crushes OS X when it comes to
availability and quality of drivers.
Click to expand...
EFI video BIOS is a bigger problem. If you look at OSx86 supported hardware Apple's drivers actually cover a wider range.

http://netkas.org/
 
The one item that most people seem to miss is that hardware also plays a part in the use of either OS.

I don't see the need to spend almost $1,000 on a laptop for my wife. She uses it about 3 times daily on a Dell Inspiron 1525 with a Celeron processor. It's just Facebook, email, and Skype. And it cost somewhere around $300-350 (can't remember the exact number now).

So, folks like me say no to Apple, because of hardware pricing not due to any OS differences.
 
I feel that windows 7 is beating Snow Leopard in a lot of very important aspects one of them being the age of the machines it will run on. Snow leopard won't run on anything before 2006. I have personally installed windows 7 onto a machine from 2001 or 2002, one of the two and it flew. It was fast and very usable. And for under 50 bucks I got a wddm graphics card and got all the compositing too. And it bots just as fast as leopard on a new machine too. Apple cutting PPC support in my opinion is unacceptable. Some of these machines aren't even three years old yet. The G5 didn't even phase out until late 2006 and there were stocks of them through 2007 still being sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back