# The Macintosh Platform.



## tlarkin

So, since everyone likes to toss in their opinions on the matter I would like to create a thread that only provides information.  So, if you are going to make fan boy statements don't do it on this thread.  This is solely for technical comparisons of the Macintosh platform to all others, be it:  Windows, Linux, Unix, Solaris, PPC, x86, etc.

A good place to start is to start at the beginning, and how OS X and a Mac is designed.  Apple has a wide range of employees.  They have customer service reps, sales reps, service and support staff, engineers, software developers, hardware developers, etc.  They design every aspect of their systems from the ground up.  They design the hardware, the specs, the chip sets (with some exceptions of what Intel designs), the OS, the APIs, etc.  Apple has also taken Unix and made it into their own version of an OS.  Even though it is Unix, it is definitely it's own version.  All apple applications have their own command line binary as well, which I will get into later on.  So, when trying to compare what a Mac is to anything else you must take all of this into consideration.  Like trying to compare an iMac to say a HP desktop is not really comparing the same thing.  An iMac is an all in one system, and spec for spec it is priced actually OK, more so than most people realize.  Which I will touch on later.

Why?  Why would anyone want to use a Mac?  I think it comes ultimately down to personal preference, but I also think that it comes down to features and benefits as well.  When you buy a Mac, you are getting a complete package out of the box.  When Apple says, out of the box you can do all of this, they are not kidding.  With many PCs you can't accomplish that, and yes there have been tons of articles out there about how to get a PC close to a Mac with free software comparable to iLife and the like, but it still doesn't compare when we talk about features and benefits.  If ultimately you dislike OS X, then a Mac is probably not for you, that being said however, does not make it an inferior or over priced product.  Most people never take the time to learn the differences, and that is on both sides.  Mac elitists never take the time to learn Windows or Linux and vice versa.  

Pricing and comparing to other platforms.  Like I said earlier, you can't really compare an iMac to a PC desktop because you can't build an All-In-One machine and when you compare it to other All-In-One machines, the iMac is far superior.  For grins, let us compare shall you say, an entry level iMac to a custom built PC.  Just to give everyone an idea of what it would take to build a machine comparable to an iMac.  I won't take the time to dig through newegg or pricewatch and build the cheapest PC out there, but I will instead list of what an iMac is made of to give you an idea of the quality of the machine you are getting for the price.  Here is the spec sheet:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...ome/shop_mac/family/imac&sf=wHF2F2PHCCCX72KDY

The first thing I notice is the built in 20" high resolution LED LCD that comes with the entry level iMac for $1200.  I am sure that is at least a $350ish retail purchase right there, with out buying any other hardware.  It also comes standard with built in WiFi (802.11ABGN), bluetooth, web camera, optical audio out, giga ethernet, media remote, IR sensor, and of course is really thin and takes up little space.  So you must take all of that into consideration when comparing it.  Apple also uses high quality components in their hardware, which is what they have always done.  This also does not include the software, which goes back to what I was saying earlier, features and benefits.  We have only touched on the hardware portion of it, and not even included the software portions of it.  That we can get into later on.

Security.  A lot of people will say that a Mac is more secure, and they are correct to make that assumption by design.  However, the Mac is not immune to social engineering attacks and there are some out there that do hijack your Mac.  However, given how the POSIX, and Unix permissions work (wikipedia search it for more info), technically from a design aspect Unix and Linux and all OSes of the like are more secure than windows.  For one, Windows allows kernel hook access from drivers and applications, which is a big security no no, but at the same time I guess it does offer some robustness.  Given how the world works, I personally would rather have security.

Software.  This is always a huge debate.  Macs don't have enough or the right software.  This is just wrong.  I have never ever not seen either a Mac version of a program or a Mac alternative.  The only exception is gaming, and if that is a huge issue for you, you can just load windows on your Mac, and then there is zero application barrier.  If you want to get into enterprise level networks and say that they don't work with AD environments, and exchange support, blah blah blah, sure that is true, but there are work around and there are ways to manage them in mixed environments, that is also a whole other subject, which I have a thread on that on another forum.  If you want to read about Macs on the enterprise level you can do so here:

http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=61788

So, there really is no such thing as a Mac not being compatible, because it can do everything that any other platform can.  

OS X, is the operating system of Apple and the Mac platform.  It is a multi user environment that uses Unix memory management, and runs just like most OSes and a lot like BSD Unix, which it is based off of.  There is the whole Kernel > shell > GUI environment.  Apple's GUI is called Aqua, and it is an OpenGL driven GUI environment which allows for smooth eye candy effects while in operating mode.  The multi tasking abilities built in are very streamlined.  I honestly can't work anymore with out expose and spaces.  I love out I can have 25 windows open at once and never have to minimize any of them with expose and spaces.  The hierarchy of the system is just like the Unix/Linux tree, with some exceptions.  That won't matter to most users, so I will keep it simple at first.  OS X also has what you call self contained applicaitons and user level preferences.  This is very advantageous over windows for several reasons.  For one, you do not have a clunky, system wide registry.  Every resource an Application needs is in the folder of that Application.  The pros of this are as follows.  I can move an application anywhere in my file system by simply drag and drop.  There are no absolute paths or registry entries that are stopping me from doing this.  This is great for rearranging and customizing how you want your filing system to work for you.  Since it is a *Nix multi user environment all data is stored under your home directory.  That also means all your preferences (.plist files) are also stored in your home directory (under ~/Library/Preferences).  This is great for several reasons.  In other platforms like windows when a preference for an application goes corrupted you can get things like registry errors that affect all users system wide.  Since all preferences are kept at the user level  in OS X, when this happens it only affects the user account in question.  You can then go out and just delete that .plist file all together and the next time that application launches it will realize that there is no plist file at all, and create a new one.  The easiest way to troubleshoot this type of problem is to create a new user account and if the problem does not duplicate then you know it is tied to your user account.  Now, there are always exceptions to every rule and there are some Apps out there that are not 100% self contained but for the most part what I said holds true.   Resource management is pretty much top notch, and it works a lot like most modern OSes, and Vista uses a lot of the similar things.

I can touch on advanced uses later on, but want to keep it simple, now for the criticisms.

Criticisms of OS X and the Mac platform:

There is no prosumer Mac out there.  I think that this is sort of hurting Apple in a way.  I mean the jump on their desktop models is iMac to Mac Pro, and a Mac Pro is overkill for 95% of computer users.  They need to implement some sort of mid tower non All-In-One desktop system with a core 2 duo or a core 2 quad processor.  Then allow users to add whatever HD and video card they want to it.  This I think would get that pro-sumer market talking about how they aren't all over priced since most people don't take all features and benefits into consideration.  Lack of third party support, but this goes both ways.  Apple products have more quality control because it is a closed platform and the down side to that is you get less choices, this hurts consumers in some ways, but in others it is good because generally you get better reliability out of it.  There are some basic features and technologies that OS X lacks that other platforms have.  There is no system roll back at all, however there is time machine, and while time machine can do some of that stuff, to me it is, well not quite like a system roll back.  I have had (on very rare occasion) a system update botch something and make it not work, and there was no way to roll back that system update.  Lack of backwards compatibility, and this is another one that goes both ways.  When developers have to keep lots of legacy code in their OS it does create a bloat, however, not everyone likes to upgrade all their software every OS release.  Apple is a bit notorious for this, and it has happened to me in the past.  However, with the release of 10.5 Apple finally started following and creating their own standards, so hopefully that will go away with future releases.  Some developers of plug ins and open source software can't always update their product, so sometimes it never gets ported over to the next version.  Windows does a pretty good job of backwards compatibility, but it also holds them back a bit as well.  There is some lack of customization in the OS natively that can be done with third party apps, but a lot of users would like to see that built in.  Their wireless has some issues and is not as controllable in other platforms.  There is no way to hardware profile something out in the OS like you can in device manager.

If there are any specific questions to comparing the platform to anything or technical questions about networking, advanced usage, application support, etc, then ask them here.  

DO NOT post fan boy comments from either side, I will move to have a mod delete any of those.  This thread is to dispel any myths and misinformation about the whole, "Mac Vs every other platform debate."

I will give more examples later on.


----------



## tlarkin

Some advanced usage of OS X, this is where it shines.  Shell scripting, Apple scripting, command line interfaces, etc.

Lets start with simple things that are built in and accessible via the command line:

Open up terminal...



		Code:
	

say 'Welcome to OS X'


Your computer should talk to you, this is part of the command line interface that can access OS features and applications.  it also allows you to script (automate certain things) as well.

Lets, say you set your machine up exactly how you want it.  Then you create images of how you want in case you need to wipe it out and reload everything, which can be done for free with all kinds of goodies from this site:

www.bombich.com

If you are a Mac user, definitely hit that site up and you will thank me later on....

Now back to the example of the robustness of Unix.  So, I have a certain partition schema set up, 50% of the HD goes to the OS, 50% to storage, and now I am going to create back ups to an external FW hard drive.  However, since I took all the trouble of setting this up and my computer is important to me I am going to make some shell scripts to automate this process, so if I do have a system crash I can be back up in a few minutes rather than hours of downtime just reloading software.

Disk utility is the app used to create partitions and it has a command line binary called diskutil, so we can use it to help automate our custom schema.  So, lets say that my drive crashes for whatever reason be it OS, or hardware failure, and I get a new drive in and want to copy my back ups right over with the right partition schema and be back up and running in no time.  I can use a simple script with Bombich's free software to do this.



		Code:
	

#!/bin/bash

#this will invoke disk util to create a 50:50 schema

/usr/sbin/diskutil partitionDisk disk01 2 HFS+ OS 50% HFS+ Storage 50%


That would create two partitions, each of them taking 50% of the total HD space and one named OS and one named Storage, now my syntax may be off and I didn't test this, so don't try to use it, but look at is as an example.

Then you can toss that simple script in the prescript folder in netrestore from the at previous link and when you run the restore of your back up image it will configure it and reimage it accordingly.

I'll post more examples when time permits or when questions are asked.


----------



## `PaWz

Great thread, man.

Would you mind doing an in depth comparison of Mac vs Linux (specifically, ubuntu or similar)?


----------



## tlarkin

`PaWz said:


> Great thread, man.
> 
> Would you mind doing an in depth comparison of Mac vs Linux (specifically, ubuntu or similar)?



Sure I can touch on that, and that is a world of difference.  Then again there is a lot of cross platform between Mac and Linux with things like the Fink project.

I will need more time, maybe later when I have more I can write a mock up on it.


----------



## Kill Bill

Great + I'm still writing the review on the MacBook pro also podcast capture doesnt work for me I need is it OS X Server

Also the speak thing is so cool


----------



## tlarkin

Kill Bill said:


> Great + I'm still writing the review on the MacBook pro also podcast capture doesnt work for me I need is it OS X Server
> 
> Also the speak thing is so cool



It wants you to connect to a pod cast server to publish your work, there are other ways to get it to work unfortunately I have yet to play with it that much, but I will take some time soon to learn all the ins and outs since at my work people will want to pod cast, and I think it can be a great educational tool.

Oh and you can have TONS of fun with the say command over ssh to your co-workers....Lets just say I have pulled a few harmless pranks!


----------



## ducis

Q: what desktop environment does OSX use


----------



## Kill Bill

firsttimebuilder said:


> Q: what desktop environment does OSX use



GUI is Aqua and Kernel is Darwin and its EFI


----------



## tlarkin

firsttimebuilder said:


> Q: what desktop environment does OSX use



That was answered by Bill pretty much, and the Finder is OS X's equivalent to Explorer in Windows, though they do work slightly different but they have the same function.


----------



## mep916

This is a very balanced, through article, and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write it. You have great fragments of Mac/OSX information spread throughout the forum, but it's nice to see everything compiled into one thread. I look forward to all the additional information you plan to provide, as I plan on purchasing a MacBook Pro sometime this year (probably after a graduate).  

I've added a few tags, but apparently each user is only allowed two per thread. Can someone add "OS X" as a tag? Any other relevant tags would be useful.


----------



## PabloTeK

I've Added OS X as a tag . Very good read this.


----------



## tlarkin

*OS X compared to Linux (Ubuntu - Debian)*


Some of the first things you will notice when you compare OS X to a Linux distro is how OS X hides certain directories from it's user base. Directories like /etc, /var, /bin, /sbin, are all hidden from the end user, this is because they will never need them for anything in the GUI.  You can of course have direct access via the command line, and can run anything as root via sudo.  OS X is a lot like Debian based distros in the sense of how it handles the root account.  Users that are in the Admin group, are also put in /etc/sudoers and allows them to execute root level commands via sudo from the command line.  So, the root account doesn't even need to be enabled to gain root access.  A lot of Linux and Unix distributions have followed this model, where as the Red Hat based ones still use the root account.  You can however, in OS X enable the root account and I personally do use the root account for a few things, but only those few things.  Otherwise I do everything from an admin account.

This brings up my next subject, accounts.   In OS X there are several types of user accounts:  root, admin, and simple.  Root accounts have carte blanche to everything, and require no authentication.  It is ideal to just stay out of the root account all together.  Later on I can outline some times when it could be considered beneficial to run as root.  Admin users, are users that are part of the Admin group and have full access to almost everything, however anything on the system level will require authentication to access.  So really for best security practices you can create a simple account and an admin account.  Use the simple account for daily use, so if you theoretically get any type of virus/malware/trojan on your system it would not have access to any system level folders with out the admin account's authentication.  Then, when you do need authentication (installing updates, software, or making system wide changes) you don't have to log out of the simple account, but just use the local admin accounts credentials to allow it to install.  This helps add to the layer of security that is Unix, and is one of the reasons why it is superior and why it is so hard to get a virus running rampart in the wild for the Unix/Linux platforms.

*Package Management:*

This is going to be some of the bigger differences.  Apple has a few ways to install software. Either an image file of the application (via a .dmg file) which to install you simply drag n drop it into the directory you want to install, and since it is self contained (like I said earlier) installing and uninstalling are the simplest and quickest things to do on this platform.  I can install Office 2004 on my mac in about 25 seconds, and voila its done.  I just drag and drop the application folder from my network share onto the the machine I want to install it on and it is done.  The other way to install packages is with Apple's package manager, which is an installation wizard that uses .pkg files.  These are used when applications need to put resources in other folders.  A lot of times they will need to put things in /Library or in /System to make the application work.  So, you can't just drag and drop the application.  Most of those things are admin or system level things.  Like ARD admin needs files in several places, OS updates, networking software, so on and so forth.  Most end user applications (with Adobe being an exception, but they have always been a pain to install) are simply all self contained, drag and drop installations.  If you no longer want the Application, you simply trash it and be done with it and there is no messy uninstall process.  Which is why a system registry is ultimately a bad idea.

Now, Debian/Ubuntu do some some simple GUI install packages via .deb files (.rpm for redhat based ones), and they have the command line package managers like APT.  While these can be robust and awesome, they can also be a pain in the butt.  I have had APT not find needed repositories sometimes and botch installs, but open source Linux doesn't quite have the money Apple does either.  

Of course now in both OSes if you can get a hold of the binary of an application you can also do manual installs and compile it yourself.  You may need to have X11 and developer tools installed on your Mac, which is free when you buy the OS, and you may have to do some advanced nerdy Unix configurations but you can get it to work.  The nice thing about OS X is that it is already running both Samba and Apache out of the box, no need to add that at all.  It is also running PHP and MySQL (as of 10.5) out of the box.  So there is a lot more advanced things you can do out of the box with a Mac than you could before.  The great thing about it being built in is that you don't have to mess with installation and configurations.  I myself, have had hair pulling sessions when i download the "alphabet soup" of open source installers and only find myself having version conflicts and configuration errors for days on end.

If you were to compare OS X to a Linux distro, I would say Debain based ones come the closest in similarities.


*Under the Hood*

Now one of the greatest things Apple did was create their OS based off of Unix, and at the same time the end user would never ever once have to touch a command line, nor would they even know it was running Unix.  That in itself is genius.  Now, furthermore, what is even cooler than that, is putting command line binary for your built in applications.  I can write apple scripts that run shell scripts, and automate applications and tasks.  A lot of this stuff is not handy really to the average end user, but it is invaluable to advance users and system administrators.  One example that an end user might want to fuss with is, lets say they have a good internet connection and a kick ass itunes library.  You could open up ssh in your router and forward it to your mac, then remotely from any *nix or windows box even (w/ 3rd party) create an ssh session to your mac.  Then tell your mac to run a script that could open up and run iTunes.  Your itunes could be set to stream over the internet and you could access all your music at work or where ever and never have to physically transport anything with you to carry it.  A simple open -a "itunes.app" from the command line will open up iTunes.  Now you could write a script that open it up and then did a few things else.  Like open a play list or start playing or what not.  You can do that through apple scripting too, by this:  



		Code:
	

[COLOR="SeaGreen"]tell application "finder"
open iTunes.app
end tell[/COLOR]


Of course I am barely scratching the surface with this stuff, and several other lines of code can be used to automate even more things.  

So, really when you look at OS X and say man that is really simple, that is just so simple, and then look at the advanced configurations under the hood and see how simple and complex it can be, it really starts to amaze you.

The down side to this, like running all Linux/Unix OSes, is that you will have to learn Apple's syntax for commands, and Apple's minor differences on how some commands are used.  That however, is not exclusive to OS X, because every version of Linux has slightly different syntax and command line interfaces.


----------



## mep916

When you get get a chance, tlarkin, can you cover EFI? You know, how it compares to the BIOS and it's benefits.


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> When you get get a chance, tlarkin, can you cover EFI? You know, how it compares to the BIOS and it's benefits.



EFI stands for Extensible Firmware Interface.  It allows hardware developers to develop robust full blown applications in firmware since now flash memory is so cheap.   It also allows for higher resolutions and a full functional GUI, so you can have full on mouse and keyboard interaction in EFI. EFI boasts full legacy support for older BIOS like systems, but some things will be lost -- any application that was meant to access or read from a BIOS, like cpuz for example, won't be compatible with EFI.  The developer will have to make a new one with EFI capabilities.  The up side to that is that it can be way more robust.

Apple currently uses EFI in all the intel based systems, and is really the only major manufacturer using it. It most likely will be the future but since Microsoft couldn't get support out for Vista like it was suppose to, and has further said that there may not be any support for it, it hadn't caught on.  That is until SP1 for Vista.  It seems MS did finally toss in some EFI support, I guess better late than never, and MSI just announced the first EFI board for PCs.

EFI is owned by intel, but is part of a committee, and all the big players are on board.  So, its not going to flop hopefully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Device_drivers


----------



## Vizy

I know it might be pretty stupid. But i've always wondered:

Q: How come OS x opnly works on Mac hardware?


thnx tlarkin!


----------



## tlarkin

Vizy93 said:


> I know it might be pretty stupid. But i've always wondered:
> 
> Q: How come OS x opnly works on Mac hardware?
> 
> 
> thnx tlarkin!



It has what is called a TPM in technology, or Trusted Platform Module.  It is basically a ROM that sits on the hardware side of the system.  If that ROM isn't present then the OS doesn't operate.  Things like OS X x86 hack around the TPM to get it to load on non Apple hardware.


----------



## tlarkin

*Buying a Mac and comparing it to a PC*

*Initial thoughts and preface*

If you are thinking about buying a Mac, think of the reasons why you would want to buy one in the first place.  Is it the platform, the features, the OS, the hardware, the look, or is it everything?  If you are considering switching from Windows then there must be a reason why.  Is it a bad Windows experience?  Bordem?  You want to learn something new?  You want to expand your computer knowledge?  I must admit when I first starting getting into computers the Macs were not my cup of tea.  I was not a fan of the classic Mac OS.  My first Mac I ever had was an older Quadro 6400 CDS Mac, 180Mhz PPC processor, 128mb of RAM, and a 3Gig HD.  It was an old machine when I got it, and it was one that was being tossed out.  My old boss at the time was a die hard Mac guy, and I could never figure out why because he was also a gamer.  He helped me take some good components off a damaged system and solder them on to a failed system to frankenstein a working Mac.  I took it home and started learning Mac.  Thought it was OK, nothing special and didn't like it.  At the time I was working in a Tech shop that did warranty repairs for Apple stuff, so it was in my interest to learn the Mac stuff.  Plus every certification you got there meant a raise, so I was really doing it for that dollar an hour raise I get for passing the Mac cert.  It also increased your bonus pay as well.

Then OS X came out and I was way more into Macs.  A lot more than I was.  OS X looked awesome, 10.0 (puma I think) was the prettiest OS I had ever seen.  The Open GL in GUI rendering and window management was just total eye candy.  However, 10.0 wasn't a huge impression on me.  In fact I didn't really get into Macs until about 10.2, and that is when Apple started really improving their OS.  After 10.2 I became about a 65/35 PC/Mac user.  I was still using a PC most of the time.  Mainly, because I was still an avid gamer at that point in time.  I don't play games as often any more.  Of course each release of OS X got me into the Apple platform even more, and now with 10.5 being out, I would say I am 60/40 Mac/PC using the Mac more now for almost everything.  Everything I do that is work related is 100% on the Mac.  I have no need for a windows machine, and I can manage windows boxes remotely from my Mac, which is dope.  So, that is the preface.

*Looking at what Mac is right for you*

This comes down to some basic questions and how you intend on using your new Mac.  If you are just looking for your basic basic machine, the Mini or the entry level iMac will suffice for you.  Depending on if you have a monitor or are looking to buy one.  If you want to some some more advanced things with your mac and possibly some light gaming the higher end iMac will be ideal for you.  If you are a professional doing serious business, the Mac Pro is your buddy there.  Now, here is one part of Apple that I do not agree with.  They have no Pro-sumer (as they dub it) mid level mid range mid tower desktop, that allows a user a bit of customization.  

For laptops this is quite easy.  If you are a student or a professional doing basic productivity then a Macbook will suffice for just about everything.  If you are a bit on the heavy side of applications a Macbook Pro will do you well.  The Macbook Air is not meant to replace either laptop, but is an edition, one that where the user will need to run it for a long extended period of time in the field.  

Things to consider when comparing, Apple has the standard following features in all their models pretty much.



*802.11 A/B/G/pre N WiFi
*EDR Bluetooth
*High quality LED screens (except the mini and Mac Pro)
*Back lit keyboards
*Gigabit Ethernet
*iLife software suite
*built in web cam (mini and mac pro excluded)

Other features of course is the ginormous amount of open source software you get access to, and the security of Unix.  The robust command line interface.  The intuitiveness of Apple and their OS, and most features you could ever think you might need, a lot of them are already there and built in.

So, if you want to compare make sure you take everything into consideration and you will see that Apple products are actually pretty competitively priced.


----------



## Vizy

tlarkin said:


> It has what is called a TPM in technology, or Trusted Platform Module.  It is basically a ROM that sits on the hardware side of the system.  If that ROM isn't present then the OS doesn't operate.  Things like OS X x86 hack around the TPM to get it to load on non Apple hardware.



Then how come an update to a 'hackintosh' can mess it up??? or am i mistaken?


----------



## tlarkin

Vizy93 said:


> Then how come an update to a 'hackintosh' can mess it up??? or am i mistaken?



They update the OS to break the TPM hack.


----------



## patrickv

> They need to implement some sort of mid tower non All-In-One desktop system with a core 2 duo or a core 2 quad processor. Then allow users to add whatever HD and video card they want to it. This I think would get that pro-sumer market talking about how they aren't all over priced since most people don't take all features and benefits into consideration



yeah i've always wondered as to why Macs were not upgradable like you said above. people would really appreciate the fact that they have an Apple computer that they can put custom parts in


----------



## tlarkin

patrickv said:


> yeah i've always wondered as to why Macs were not upgradable like you said above. people would really appreciate the fact that they have an Apple computer that they can put custom parts in



Yeah, let me give you some examples of the pros and cons of the iMac, from real life experience.

Now looking at upgrading computers on a massive scale, like enterprise level networks.  This is two fold.  For example lets say you have 5,000 desktops at your company.  Now, your desktops have a 4 year replacement cycle.  That is typical for any company or organization to keep technology replacement cycles, that way you can budget and plan for it.  Some places do it yearly, some places do it every 5 years.  Depends on needs for the users of your company.  Most places I have worked it is 3 to 4 years.  Also, most of them are deployed in phases that way you aren't stuck deploying 5,000 at once.  It is all about project management really.

So, you are at a replacement cycle for 1,000 of those 5,000 computers and you are looking at the new desktops.  Now, you already have monitors for these desktops so you can save some cash by just buying desktop replacements.  That is a plus.  OTOH, a lot of times it is more cost effective and more efficient to just replace everything.  So, with the iMac you don't get the price slash of just buying a desktop and not buying a display for it.  You don't get that luxury.

Now, what you do it, is it only takes one power cord, real little space and has everything built in and the powerful management of Unix under the hood.  In one of the buildings I admin, it is very old and in fact it is historically preserved and is part of some historical society.  The building is awesome I will have to take pics one of these days, and it even has a fall out shelter in the basement and tunnels from the whole cuban missile crisis and the cold war stuff.  Anyway, back on subject.  Since it is historically protected we can't drill holes in walls, or hang anything or do anything with out some sort of approval from whomever controls the historical society in my city.  So, instead we have race tracks running cables all over the place.  We also have limited power plugs, and that is where the iMac fits in perfect.  We needed half as many power outlets because the iMac only needed one power plug, instead of two like most desktops.  Of course we can't be running tons of surge protectors and extension cords either, you know if the fire marshal stopped by and saw that we could get fined for breaking fire code, but it is dangerous to begin with.

So, people can sit there and complain about it not being upgradeable, but to me that is moot.  I am going to build a new PC here soon because my current one is about 4 years old now and is not cutting it for modern games.  The only thing I need/use it for is pretty much gaming.  Everything else I prefer OS X or Linux, and in my experience they are both more stable than windows.  Now, I can't upgrade my 4 year old PC.  They no longer make AGP video cards, the RAM I have in there won't support the speeds of a new processor, and of course my motherboard won't support a new processor because of the difference in sockets.  I will need a new power supply to supply proficient enough power to my new video card since the new ones like to consume a bit more power.  So, really in all, you can't really upgrade your computer, you are always pretty much building a new one.  So, I don't fully understand how people cling to that argument like it is a valid reason to not like Macs.

The only thing I can agree with is not being able to say, choose to have a better video card in them.  I agree, that is lame, but then again that is not entirely Apple's fault, though I definitely hold some of the blame on them.


----------



## tlarkin

*Great, Free Open source apps for the Mac*

The following is a list of really cool and free Apps that I have found and use, or have used in the past.  

Textwrangler, best text editor ever!  I write all my shell scripts in TW, and I love how it shows line number and changes font color automatically when writing code, and it works for all sorts of code:  HTML, PHP, shell, python, ruby, pick your poison!

http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/

DJay, a fun way to turn your iTunes into a virtual turn table.

http://www.djay-software.com/

Lingon.  A plist editor for launchd items...real useful to automate launchd in OS X!

http://lingon.sourceforge.net/

VLC, everyone should use this regardless of platform since it runs on Linux/OS X/Windows

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

iStumbler - great wifi sniffer

http://www.istumbler.net/

Bwana - every shell manual page (man page) in html easy to read format!

http://www.bruji.com/bwana/

iAlertU - only works with systems that have the SMS controller in them, so all the laptops and i think the iMacs.  It is basically a car alarm for your laptop.  Once armed if anyone touches it, disconnects the power, closes the lid, or moves it an alarm will sound off.  Even cooler is that it takes a picture using the built in camera and then emails it to you instantly.  The youtube link shows how it works, it is really neat.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/29578

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkAtRfA1UXc

Macsaber - pointless SMS app that makes light saber noises when you move your mac around.  Actually, if you use this be sure you don't accidentally toss your mac across the room by swinging it.

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/21732

Copernicus - screen capture software.  Great for creating demos

http://www.danicsoft.com/projects/copernicus/

Carbon copy cloner and netrestore.  Great back up and imaging solutions totally free of charge

http://bombich.com/

Neo Office - Open source version of Open Office that runs natively on the Mac with out having to install X11.

http://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/index.php

There are other great apps out there and those are just a few that I use or have used and liked.


----------



## tlarkin

*Trying to compare Windows to OS X*

OK, to be fair here, we need to really just admit to compare OS X to Windows you need to be running Vista ultimate, because OS X has every feature Vista Ultimate has built in, and they didn't market it like MS did.  They don't have 5 versions of feature limited Operating Systems.

*Built in Features of OS X*


Remote desktop client

Encrypted file systems

The ability to connect to domain network

Back up abilities

Now some of those features are maybe not desired by everyone, but if you want to compare them feature to feature, then you must use Vista Ultimate as the comparison.  Otherwise you can not really fully compare OS X to Windows, unless you match all the features.

*Criticisms on OS X*

Not everyone needs those features so why pay for them all if you don't have to.  Price of OS X is $130 for everything.

*Criticism of Microsoft*

Why market something by feature limiting?  You give the consumer a choice but do they really want a choice and does the pricing really validate the feature limiting?  Price for Vista Ultimate is $200 for the OEM.


----------



## just a noob

my question is, is a mac really virus proof, as the commercials always say, is it really true(sorry if you already explained i only skimmed a majority of the posts)


----------



## tlarkin

just a noob said:


> my question is, is a mac really virus proof, as the commercials always say, is it really true(sorry if you already explained i only skimmed a majority of the posts)



There are no OS X viruses that are out in the wild like there are with Windows.  To answer your question, is OS X virus proof?  The answer is no, nothing is virus proof.  However, given the permissions of Unix, a virus would require your admin rights to install itself on the system.  So, the only way to get anyone to install a virus on their machine is through social engineering, or physical access.  Of course if I have physical access to a machine you can throw almost all security out the window because physical access bypasses most securities.  

So, for a virus to work effectively it would have to socially engineer you (trick you) into installing it on your system.   For example, there was a codec that was required by quick time (falsely of course) that wasn't really a codec but it was trojan horse in disguise.  You had to give it admin rights to install on your machine, and some people did.  No OS is ever going to get around something like this, and this tactic has been used on the Windows side for many years now.  Hey, install this anti-spyware software that actually downloads more spyware on your computer!!!!  

So, as long as you download software from trusted sources and use applications like VLC, that don't need codecs, you will never have a virus on your mac.  I have heard of office macro viruses for Macintosh platform and I have heard of the Classic OS viruses, but I have never ever once personally seen a Mac virus.  I have been working with Macs professionally since 1999.


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

I have never understood why Mac OS is always dogged on. I find that Mac OS X is just as easy to use as Windows, if not easier. The only thing that draws me back from Mac OS X is that most games aren't supported by it, but thats why you install XP.  Whenever I save up enough cash I plan on buying a Macbook Pro and use it as a desktop replacement pretty much.


----------



## tlarkin

I see some very immature little kids tagged this with the words balls and gay.

Just further proves my point that the people that bash the Mac platform on this forum are very ignorant, misinformed, and quite possibly not even at puberty yet.

Other myths to dispel:

They have the exact same hardware as a PC, so you can't say it is lower specs.

They have no compatibility issues, if anything they are the most compatible computer out there, period.

I will ask again, before getting a moderator involved.  Don't post anything childish here, start a new thread if you want to spread misinformation or act like your are 12.


----------



## tlarkin

*Shell scripting*

OS X of course is made from Unix, and Apple did a lot to make it their own version.  Over the years I have used scripts to automate certain things and help users out.

Below is a simple script I used to automate time stamped HMTL pages for bloggers so they can run a simple script to make a templated page with a date stamp.



		Code:
	

#!/bin/bash

# make_page - A script to produce an HTML file 
# that has a date stamp

RIGHT_NOW=$(date +"%x %r %Z")
TIME_STAMP="Updated on $RIGHT_NOW by $USER"

cat << EOF
    <HTML>
    <HEAD>
        <TITLE>
    
        </TITLE>
    </HEAD>

    <BODY>
    <P>$TIME_STAMP</p>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>
EOF


If you copy the code into a plain text editor, and I prefer Textwrangler.save the file to a certain location.  Like your desktop for example.  Then use this simple code to run the script from the terminal.



		Code:
	

sh ~/Desktop/myscript.sh | open -f -a "textwrangler.app"


This will out put the script into a plain text file in text wrangler which will look like this:



		Code:
	

   <HTML>
    <HEAD>
        <TITLE>
    
        </TITLE>
    </HEAD>

    <BODY>
    <P>Updated on 05/28/08 12:21:26 PM CDT by tlarkin</p>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>


So it puts that date stamp and adds the user name automatically and creates a template HTML file.  Just another really cool thing you can do out of the box with the Unix side of OS X.


----------



## tlarkin

*Overall Value*

*Overall Value:*

There is still a huge myth that Apple hardware is less powerful and truly more expensive.  When you look at a machine be it desktop or laptop and be it PC or Mac you need to look at the overall value of the machine.  Does it fit your needs?  Does it exceed your needs?  How long am I looking to own this machine?  

When we look at a Mac, and the life of a Mac it is clearly a better value than a PC.  This holds true to one simple fact.  When it comes time to upgrade the OS, a Mac last a lot longer.  Take a look at the minimum requirements for OS X 10.5:



> Minimum System Requirements
> 
> * Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
> * 512MB of physical RAM
> * DVD drive for installation



So minimum it needs a G4 867Mhz processor, with 512 MB of RAM and 9 Gigs of free HD space.  What does Vista Ultimate require?



> Windows Vista Ultimate
> Recommended system requirements
> 
> * 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
> * 1 GB of system memory
> * 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
> * Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
> o WDDM Driver
> o 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
> o Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
> o 32 bits per pixel
> * DVD-ROM
> * Audio Output
> * Internet access (fees may apply)
> 
> Additional requirements to use certain features
> 
> * TV tuner card required for TV functionality (compatible remote control optional)
> * Windows Tablet and Touch Technology requires a Tablet PC or a touch screen
> * Windows BitLocker Drive Encryption requires a USB Flash Drive and a system with a TPM 1.2 chip
> 
> Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system configuration. Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and edition of Windows Vista will run on your computer.
> 
> While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.
> Windows Vista Ultimate
> Minimum supported system requirements
> 
> Certain product features are not available with minimum supported requirements.
> 
> * 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
> * 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
> * Support for Super VGA graphics
> * CD-ROM



This is somewhat laughable.  We all know that Vista won't run on an 800Mhz processor.  I have a P4 3.0 Ghz at home with 1 gig of RAM and Vista ran like a snail running for it's life who also has asthma.  Even the minimum specs are misleading and the recommending.  I had a 3Ghz processor and it ran like crap, and yet they say it will run off of a 1Ghz.  I don't like it when companies dress things up like that.  Now lets look at cost of the OS.

Leopard = $129 for single $199 for 5 licenses

Vista Ultimate = $319 for the full $219 for the upgrade

So, if you have several Macs, you can upgrade them all for 200 bucks.  That is a great deal.  In fact you will find that software licenses in general are cheaper for the Macintosh platform.  A lot of that goes back to enterprise level networks, and you should really see my other thread on the Mac forum for that since it is long and huge and explains everything.  I don't want to retype all that stuff.

Now, I am using Vista Ultimate as a comparison because it is the only fair comparison.  Since Microsoft decided to feature limit their OSes I am forced to do this.  One plus with OS X is they don't do that.  You get every feature, hands down for that set price.  

When you want to compare a Mac to a PC laptop or desktop, you need to compare it feature to feature.  Macs tend to have higher end parts and more features out of the box, which makes up for the price difference.

Add in iLife suite and you would probably spend several hundred more dollars on software to make your PC have the same abilities.  I know not everyone wants to edit video or master digital audio on their computer and then maybe a cheaper PC for internet surfing and office productivity is best for you.  However, those that may be into that sort of thing should consider getting a Mac, because out of the box it does all of that.

Also just to give you a time line reference the G4 867Mhz processor came out sometime around the 2000 2001 era.  How many computers which are 7 years old do you know of that can run Vista at all and at any capacity?


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

tlarkin said:


> *Overall Value:*
> 
> There is still a huge myth that Apple hardware is less powerful and truly more expensive.  When you look at a machine be it desktop or laptop and be it PC or Mac you need to look at the overall value of the machine.  Does it fit your needs?  Does it exceed your needs?  How long am I looking to own this machine?
> 
> When we look at a Mac, and the life of a Mac it is clearly a better value than a PC.  This holds true to one simple fact.  When it comes time to upgrade the OS, a Mac last a lot longer.  Take a look at the minimum requirements for OS X 10.5:
> 
> 
> 
> So minimum it needs a G4 867Mhz processor, with 512 MB of RAM and 9 Gigs of free HD space.  What does Vista Ultimate require?
> 
> 
> 
> This is somewhat laughable.  We all know that Vista won't run on an 800Mhz processor.  I have a P4 3.0 Ghz at home with 1 gig of RAM and Vista ran like a snail running for it's life who also has asthma.  Even the minimum specs are misleading and the recommending.  I had a 3Ghz processor and it ran like crap, and yet they say it will run off of a 1Ghz.  I don't like it when companies dress things up like that.  Now lets look at cost of the OS.
> 
> Leopard = $129 for single $199 for 5 licenses
> 
> Vista Ultimate = $319 for the full $219 for the upgrade
> 
> So, if you have several Macs, you can upgrade them all for 200 bucks.  That is a great deal.  In fact you will find that software licenses in general are cheaper for the Macintosh platform.  A lot of that goes back to enterprise level networks, and you should really see my other thread on the Mac forum for that since it is long and huge and explains everything.  I don't want to retype all that stuff.
> 
> Now, I am using Vista Ultimate as a comparison because it is the only fair comparison.  Since Microsoft decided to feature limit their OSes I am forced to do this.  One plus with OS X is they don't do that.  You get every feature, hands down for that set price.
> 
> When you want to compare a Mac to a PC laptop or desktop, you need to compare it feature to feature.  Macs tend to have higher end parts and more features out of the box, which makes up for the price difference.
> 
> Add in iLife suite and you would probably spend several hundred more dollars on software to make your PC have the same abilities.  I know not everyone wants to edit video or master digital audio on their computer and then maybe a cheaper PC for internet surfing and office productivity is best for you.  However, those that may be into that sort of thing should consider getting a Mac, because out of the box it does all of that.
> 
> Also just to give you a time line reference the G4 867Mhz processor came out sometime around the 2000 2001 era.  How many computers which are 7 years old do you know of that can run Vista at all and at any capacity?



Also another thing to add. The G4's run Leopard quite well, and 512MB RAM goes quite a way in Leopard as well.


----------



## G25r8cer

Did I push your buttons too far? Man you take stuff too seriously. lol


----------



## `PaWz

Hopefully Microsoft will learn from their mistakes make Windows 7 a better OS


----------



## tlarkin

g25racer said:


> Did I push your buttons too far? Man you take stuff too seriously. lol



No, I don't get worked up over what some kid posts over the internet.  What I am clearly doing is putting out information so that if people are considering using a Mac, they don't buy into the ridiculous crap that get posted on this forum, not just by you, but by many others who are well misinformed on the subject.



> Hopefully Microsoft will learn from their mistakes make Windows 7 a better OS



I think you can tell that Windows is making a shift towards more of a Unix-like file structure and with Vista you can see that they are clearly getting rid of their user privileges and going to a more Unix-like one as well.  For example, they got rid of the C:\Documents and Settings directory all together, and now just have C:\Users, just like um well OS X.  They also don't require users to be administrators to do things like run programs, just like Unix.  They also have a super user account kind of like the root account.

Vista does actually have some security benefits over previous versions of Windows, that I will not deny.  I just wish it wasn't so damn bloated and I also wish they didn't feature limit and make you pay for more features in their OS, or at least changed their prices.  

I hope also that Vienna will fix a lot of these things and finally drop the software bloat of old and busted legacy software.


----------



## G25r8cer

I am not against mac's just to inform you. I simply dont have the money to dish out on a $2,000 mac. If I had the money then I would prob be in the same boat as you. I dont have alot of experience with macs but, it seems to me that the only reason I would get one is b/c of the over-security that Mac OS comes with. Although, I dont have too many issues with windows. Also, I simply like windows better b/c of the easy upgrades and compatiblity. Thats just my 2 cents. I am not trying to start WWIII here. Just stating my opinion.


----------



## tlarkin

I didn't start this thread to call anyone out personally.  I started it because I grew tired of trying to defend my position, and I wanted to consolidate all the facts into one thread.  If anything this should be referred to whenever anyone decides to start that age old debate again.

OS X has many advantages of usage over windows, not just security.  However, like any OS it is different than Windows, and it will require you to learn about the differences.  Most people who switch don't take that time and your average computer user could care less how it works as long as it works.  Gamers tend to have a negative bias against Apple products, but they also represent a small amount of users and are considered by me a niche market.  Plenty of people prefer to play games on consoles, and even I prefer to play games on consoles sometimes.

The advantages are outlined in this thread, but like I said in the beginning, if you are against using OS X and don't like OS X or Macs, and don't want to give it a chance or learn it, then it is most likely not for you.


----------



## tlarkin

*Software Bloat*

When I talk about how Windows has a software bloat, what I mean is by design it is chunky, and in my opinion has lots of unneeded things.  Like one the registry causes so much bloating it is more of a hassle than an advantage.  For one this causes the user to use add/remove programs or uninstallers.  These things take up unneeded resources and waste time.  Also, if you get a registry error everything is system wide and it affects all users.  

So, when I say it is bloated compared to OS X and Linux this is because of a few reasons.  OS X has what you call user level preferences.  All preferences for all applications are located in ~/Library/Preferences, and they will all be listed as a .plist file.  Each plist file goes by a standard conventional name, and the formula goes like this:

domain.companyname.applicationname.plist

So, if you wanted to locate the preference for say Microsoft Word on your Mac, you would browse under your home directory (which is what ~/ represents) to your preferences and it would look like this:

com.microsoft.word.plist

Now, in OS X if you had some weird errors with the application and you were loading a font, or it was acting weird but it worked great in a new user account you can assume it is related to a user level preference.  Delete that preference and then restart the application.  If the application can not find a .plist file present for that user account it will create a brand new one, with default preferences.  Where as if a registry entry gets corrupted you are pretty much screwed and have to do a uninstall/reinstall of your application.

Furthermore, Microsoft puts in compatibility code, for legacy applications.  While this is good for some users, it does also create more bloat.  More unneeded code to make the OS more sluggish and give more opportunity for errors.

*Criticisms:*

While Apple does not have things like a registry, it also does not really have as good backwards compatibility as Windows.  This is a two edged blade, with one edge being good for the user and one being bad.  It is good because it allows you to use your older software and you don't have to upgrade.  The bad side being that it creates bloat and also allows developer to be lazy and not upgrade their products but instead just create a new one.  That is also somewhat subjective.


----------



## PunterCam

I've had a mac pro for near on 2 years now, and I just couldn't get into osx. 

The lack of free software is a real issue for me - if I want to convert a video file to another format I'm pretty much stuffed. I can't find any good 3rd party software for my video camera (imovie is useless, it won't accept that my camera is a camera most of the time), I've experienced many freak lock-ups and programs quitting randomly.

Lock ups and random quitting never happens in windows - in that respect I find XP extremely solid these days. On the other hand I have experienced loads of damn virus/spyware attacks recently, and it's insanely annoying.

What I find interesting is how OSX appears to have slowed down with the introduction of intel chips. I have a G4, 2 new imacs and the mac pro in my immediate family. The G4 (dual 1ghz processors I think) performs small tasks (opening word, safari, etc...) instantly, there is literally no wait. 
The imacs (2ghz, 1gb ram) are, in comparison, extremely slow; it's a 3 second opening time for safari.
The mac pro still feels far more sluggish than the g4, but is quicker than the imacs.

Obviously performing full video encoding or something the pro is miles quicker than anything else, but it seems curious that a 4 year old computer is still speedier for day to day applications.


I disagree about apple needing a mid level tower - the imacs have easilly enough processing power and ram for gaming, they just lack a good video card. If Apple engineered the replacement to have an upgradable card slot...


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Exactly!! Windows bloatware? LOL


----------



## tlarkin

Punter-

I am willing to bet if you create a new user account all your slow downs probably go away.  There are other things that could cause that as well, however, I mostly see that happen when either a bunch of preferences get corrupted, or a user has like 100s of icons on their desktop.  That will slow down any OS regardless of platform.  Keep a clean desktop!

Not enough free software?  Are you kidding me?  What sort of free software are you looking for?

NeoOffice

Gimp

Audacity

textwrangler

Djay

handbrake

Max http://sbooth.org/Max/

Xlossless decoder http://tmkk.hp.infoseek.co.jp/xld/index_e.html

Mac the Ripper

Apple video rippers
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Best/mac-dvd-rip-osx.html

I am not sure where you get the notion there is no free software because I have tons of free software, and if you install X11, you can compile Linux and Unix binaries to run on the Mac as well.


----------



## Irishwhistle

Nice thread!


----------



## Fritzjavel

okay i'm not a fanboy of windows, but I enjoy windows Way more, because whenever i have a problem I don't need to run to Apple fro help, i can open my system check whats wrong, test a few things, make my conclusion, and go purchase what ever it is i need... DONE.. I herd that apple was this great customer support, but I don't always want customer support.. 

My other grief is that i use the MacBook Pro at school, and while it's not bad, i notice alot of lag on the computer, like moving a window around the screen, the window never keeps up with the mouse, and that small annoyance bother me, or how unsmooth some action are, while windows does once in a while minimize or maximize a window terrible, overall i just prefers windows..

I do like the fact that apple makes connecting things wireless super easy, like making a server, and connecting a printer...

My final statement is could you compare iLife to Windows Media Center?... because i personally see more advantage in WMC, buy i may be wrong...


----------



## Geoff

I've actually had a MacBook for the past month that was given to me from my work, and at first I didn't care for it too much, I was planning on using Boot Camp and run XP.  But after using it for a week or two, I've really begun to like the Mac OS, it has so many features that Windows doesn't offer, and not having the Start button is not a big deal anymore, as it used to be for me.


----------



## tlarkin

Fritzjavel said:


> okay i'm not a fanboy of windows, but I enjoy windows Way more, because whenever i have a problem I don't need to run to Apple fro help, i can open my system check whats wrong, test a few things, make my conclusion, and go purchase what ever it is i need... DONE.. I herd that apple was this great customer support, but I don't always want customer support..
> 
> My other grief is that i use the MacBook Pro at school, and while it's not bad, i notice alot of lag on the computer, like moving a window around the screen, the window never keeps up with the mouse, and that small annoyance bother me, or how unsmooth some action are, while windows does once in a while minimize or maximize a window terrible, overall i just prefers windows..
> 
> I do like the fact that apple makes connecting things wireless super easy, like making a server, and connecting a printer...
> 
> My final statement is could you compare iLife to Windows Media Center?... because i personally see more advantage in WMC, buy i may be wrong...



You just need to learn the platform.  No OS is bullet proof, and I can troubleshoot almost any issue you have with OS X, because I know it and work with it every day by trade.  It is different and it is a learning curve, you have to learn new things.  

Ask any question or concern and I will try to my best ability answer it, and you can maybe learn the differences and then make a decision on your own with out my knowledge on your own experiences and knowledge.


----------



## Fritzjavel

alright my question is, is WMC better than I forgot what the mac version was called... but which one is better?


----------



## tlarkin

Fritzjavel said:


> alright my question is, is WMC better than I forgot what the mac version was called... but which one is better?



Apple only has one OS, just OS X that is all.


----------



## Fritzjavel

No i mean their software called Fron Row i think compared to Windows Media Center


----------



## tlarkin

Fritzjavel said:


> No i mean their software called Fron Row i think compared to Windows Media Center



Oh front row is just like a interface the puts it all together.  With your media remote you can control itunes, iphoto, and the dvd player.  It has a full screen 3D interface so you can see what you are doing across the room.

I wouldn't say it really compares because Apple ended up making the Apple TV, and that is more like their media center.

However, I use VLC anyway on all my machines.  If I were to want a HTPC, I would build one and probably use Myth TV, but that is just me.


----------



## G25r8cer

^^^ VLC!! Yeah


----------



## Fritzjavel

This maybe off topic, but quickly.. .VLC ROCKS, but i get a better image with Zoom Player


----------



## Kornowski

Very detailed thread, Nice one!

Shame about the tags left, can they be deleted?


----------



## tlarkin

Kornowski said:


> Very detailed thread, Nice one!
> 
> Shame about the tags left, can they be deleted?



Yeah they can be deleted and a Mod does it, then someone comes back and adds them.  I got a kick out the newest one.  The kid can't spell "whipped,"  instead it reads wipped, which isn't even a word.


----------



## quagmondo23

Someone put some nice tags on..


----------



## patrickv

Kornowski said:


> Very detailed thread, Nice one!
> 
> Shame about the tags left, can they be deleted?



yeah, just by looking at em i can actually pin point the ones who did it. dunno why tags was created in the first place


----------



## tlarkin

patrickv said:


> yeah, just by looking at em i can actually pin point the ones who did it. dunno why tags was created in the first place



I am guessing it is part of a CMS to allow for more robust data base application, ie easier to search for things.


----------



## tacojohn44

tlarkin... nice thread. This is actually exactly what I was looking for when I first came to the site. Seeing as I'm thinking about buying the 2.66GHz iMac I wanted to see straight facts on apple computers. Most of my family have macs, so I really like the OS. But I kinda wanted something for a little gaming, then the intel chips came out. So I was wondering if you have ever used bootcamp for gaming? The graphics card that is in the iMac that I am looking at is the ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory. 

I do have another question for you about the iMac screens. I have seen a lot of the discontinued screens of the intel macs have vertical lines on them. But I think that was just a factory mess up. So I was wondering if you have heard anything about the new iMac screens.
Here's a good site explaining what I'm was talking about.

http://imaclines.blogspot.com/

Also is there any way to use the iMac screen for anything else say as a television monitor, game console monitor, etc. I'm pretty sure it has a video out so you can do monitor mirroring on something else. (I dont have cable so I watch TV shows from NBC and such on the computer which I then hook to a TV through a S-Video cord.)

But those are my only main concerns about buying the mac. Bootcamp runnign well, and the screen.

If you have any info, I would greatly appriciate it! 

-Tacojohn


----------



## tlarkin

running windows is running windows, it is the same on a PC, they use the same architecture.  As for the monitor question, I haven't seen that happen and I have several hundred iMacs at my work.  That problem you linked is likely due to hardware failure of the video card, which can happen.

For video input you would probably have to get some sort of firewire video input device, and they do have things like Myth TV and eyeTV that work on Macs.

For gaming it will run just like windows in boot camp, but that video card probably won't run the newest games on the highest settings very well.


----------



## tlarkin

Migrating our Tiger servers to Leopard as we speak.   Been interesting and surprisingly not too difficult of a task.  Only a few minor things broke during the Migration, which is something that I am not too used to really to be honest.  Typically, you expect all kinds of things to break.


----------



## tlarkin

It looks like 10.6 will be called Snow Leopard.  It will be a mild upgrade from 10.5, hence the name is of the same cat.  It will also drop PPC support from the OS and make the OS install about half the size.  Since Apple will no longer be supporting PPC machines with their OS, the OS size should be cut in half nearly.  This means that my 6gig base install of OS 10.5 will most likely be around 3gigs for a basic install of the OS now.  That will take away some of the bloat and should hopefully streamline some of the performances.

We just migrated our servers to 10.5, and they have netboot imaging now native, which is nice considering how expensive Ghost and other solutions are.  I will be testing out how that works in a few weeks when I reimage 5500 macbooks.


----------



## Mitch?

+1 tlarkin, much love my man.


----------



## tlarkin

I'll have more when I get some more time.


----------



## root

I dont quite understand this thread.


----------



## tlarkin

root said:


> I dont quite understand this thread.



You don't even understand Windows, you are using forward slashes


----------



## concorde

I hope Microsoft gets rid of their kernel for Windows and adopts Unix. 

ITS A UNIX WORLD
WHEN WILL MICROSOFT GET THAT ???


----------



## concorde

I hope Microsoft gets rid of their kernel for Windows and adopts Unix. 

ITS A UNIX WORLD
WHEN WILL MICROSOFT GET THAT ???

They never will though...it will take for the world to gradually stop using Windows and letting a LOT of Windows copies sit on the shelf to do nothing but collect dust for them to show the MS kernel the door. 

Unix opens doors to using the same OS on different platforms
Unix is adaptable 
Unix is secure
Unix is stable
Unix has the most years of experience under its belt, it's grown to be better
Unix is being slowly but surely adapted
Unix is designed well - for example, NO REGISTRY! NO DIRECT ACCESS TO THE CORES THRU COMMAND LINE W/O PASSWORD(S) Who came up with that idea?

*The same for Linux too! All POSIX systems!


----------



## G25r8cer

^^ Are you kidding me?? LOL That will never happen unless Mac buys out Windows!!


----------



## Interested

i think microsoft will buy UNIX. lol.


----------



## root

Somehow i have the same feeling^


----------



## tlarkin

Microsoft can't buy Unix, no one can it is published under the BSD (Berkley Software Division) license, which makes it open source.

MS has already purchased Linux technologies from Novell, since Novell purchased SuSe Linux.  Obviously, they have something in mind and already own properties with some Linux based technology.

Also, the windows kernel is based on POSIX and off the Unix kernel.  It always has been, it is just Windows has opened the kernel up and got rid of the shell which is why it is not as secure.


----------



## tlarkin

Well I am just migrating all of this stuff to my website.  It is under construction and I need to "pretty it up" a bit more.  Been teaching myself php, html, css, and cms.

So I am learning.  I should have a lot of things on my site about managing and maintaining Macs, as well as some Windows and Linux stuff when i get around to it.


----------



## mep916

tlarkin said:


> Well I am just migrating all of this stuff to my website.  It is under construction and I need to "pretty it up" a bit more.  Been teaching myself php, html, css, and cms.
> 
> So I am learning.  I should have a lot of things on my site about managing and maintaining Macs, as well as some Windows and Linux stuff when i get around to it.



Awesome. Keep us updated. Are going to blog and write weekly articles and what not?


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> Awesome. Keep us updated. Are going to blog and write weekly articles and what not?



No, more like when I have time.  My site is up and running it just isn't complete yet, and I am going to change some things around

go ahead and check it out if you want

http://www.tlarkin.com

There is some content on there but not a whole lot at the moment.


----------



## mep916

tlarkin said:


> There is some content on there but not a whole lot at the moment.



Looks good, so far. Interesting what your boss did with the Mac Mini. Clever idea.


----------



## tlarkin

mep916 said:


> Looks good, so far. Interesting what your boss did with the Mac Mini. Clever idea.



Yup he just had finished doing that when I was walking through the shop area and he was showing it off so I snapped a pic of it with my blackberry and told him I was tossing it up on my blog.

so it goes


----------



## tlarkin

I started making videos on how to manage macs in enterprise environments....

Going to revamp my website here soon as well.

Looking for some screen capture products


----------



## tlarkin

I am going to add yet another testimonial to why the Mac is the way it is by it's business model and my example will be my PC.

Three days ago my main hard drive in my PC died.  The BIOS would not recognize it at all.  My second hard drive was filled with data, and I did not want to wipe it, even though it was backed up.  So, I went on down to the local computer store and picked up a 1TB Samsung HD w/ 32MB of cache for only $80!  I thought that was insane...

So I popped in the HD and reloaded Vista Ultimate.  I then had to go through the plethora of Windows updates and driver updates.  Out of the box with Vista my PC has a lot of issues.  The first and most annoying issues is that if it goes to sleep I can't wake it, with out the updated drivers from Asus for the advanced power management controller of my motherboard.  Out of the box, this happens with Vista.  Next is that my NIC has all sorts of performance issues with the stock driver in Vista as well.  So I either gotta download that on another computer and copy it via thumb drive, or use the crappy performance and download it over the Internet, if I can.  Next, and this one stumped me for about 5 full minutes, after I rebooted my PC it still said system boot disk not found replace and hit enter.  After I had just replaced the HD, installed Vista on it and ran all the updates, I was like WTF is this crap?

So, I went into my BIOS and sure enough the new drive was recognized just fine, but after drilling through all the BIOS menus I saw that since my old HD had died and no longer was recognized it (my BIOS that is) automatically promoted my data drive as the first boot drive in the HD boot order.  Well, I don't know who thought of this feature to put it in the BIOS but it is not like people run multiple OSes off of multiple drives and want zero down time with it....I guess if you are like running a RAID 1 that would be advantageous but I had all RAID stuff disabled.

Now compare that to when I swap out a failed HD on my Mac.  I install the HD, install the OS, restore back ups and run updates.  It just works. I don't deal with drivers or any other third party annoyance that can cause problems.

While my problems were not major problems but more of annoyances, I typically don't have those issues with the Mac platform.


----------



## bomberboysk

Just a note, i was looking for this thread awhile back and couldnt find it. Your thread just earned itself a place in my bookmarks


----------



## tlarkin

bomberboysk said:


> Just a note, i was looking for this thread awhile back and couldnt find it. Your thread just earned itself a place in my bookmarks



due to the newest mac vs pc threads I resurrected it.  Maybe this will shed some light on people's views


----------

