Thread: who needs linsux

I work in IT support and it must have been about the late 80's last time I had an IRQ conflict.

Even though the IRQ conflicts dont occur its amazing how different components in the wrong slots can affect performance of the system...

Often playing with the locations of cards results in performance gains...


I also run Ubuntu, nice but certainly not as easy to setup as OS X...

Originally Posted by HangOver

They use Core2 processors :same as a PC
They use SATA drives : same as a PC. Do they use SATA3 yet, PC's do.
They use DDR RAM : same as a PC. Do they use DDR3 ram yet, PC's do..
Superior -> how?

Yes, Macs now use Intel processors. As IBM couldn't deliver the performance needed from their PowerPC G5 processors, there was little choice. It's certainly something that has upset the Mac purists. I think it is a good thing.

I assume by SATA3, you mean SATA 3Gb/s, otherwise known as SATA II, in which case they do. That said, apart from supporting NCQ, there's not much advantage over SATA 1.5Gb/s as no commercially available hard-drive has a sustainable transfer rate that can reach the available throughput of SATA II (or that of SATA 1.5Gb/s for that matter).

Why use DDR3? The latencies are too high at the moment making DDR2 still the best choice. Right now a PC using DDR3 will be outclassed by one using DDR2. Once DDR3 improves, then Apple will use it.

Superior? The OS is the main advantage, and has been for many years. That and the fact that Apple control both the core hardware and the core software means the user experience is often less troublesome than that of a PC. Also, the design and build of the machines is generally to a higher standard than PCs. That said, Apple have had some problems with their notebooks, which they have tried to pretend don't exist. Sounds a bit like some car manufacturers!

You're right about IRQ conflicts. I think the last time I had to deal with one was around 1994!

Originally Posted by Bytemrk

One of the developers at work... creates and publishes electronic music as a hobby (In fact he is making a nice little earer out of it).. He also works all day on MS Dot Net developement and SQL databases.

MAC is perfect for his music work.... but no so much use for his developement work.

Only because .Net is a MS development tool.

XCode provides a very full development environment. OS X is similar other BSD systems except that it has Aqua for window management. I often use it for Oracle development and run SQL*Plus from the command line. And having all the *nix development tools at your disposal means you can write in pretty much any language you want without the hassle of having DLLs and things missing (drives me nuts if I want to compile code on Windows that I've got from someone else - even more annoying than lib versionitis on Red Hat and its derivatives that use rpm's).

You aren't stuck with Aqua though, any of the X Windows environments will run fine and periodically I use WindowMaker to run X apps.

"One of the developers at work... creates and publishes electronic music as a hobby (In fact he is making a nice little earer out of it)" Freudian slip? Sorry,couldn't let that'n pass

Originally Posted by disco2hse

Only because .Net is a MS development tool.

XCode provides a very full development environment. OS X is similar other BSD systems except that it has Aqua for window management. I often use it for Oracle development and run SQL*Plus from the command line. And having all the *nix development tools at your disposal means you can write in pretty much any language you want without the hassle of having DLLs and things missing (drives me nuts if I want to compile code on Windows that I've got from someone else - even more annoying than lib versionitis on Red Hat and its derivatives that use rpm's).

You aren't stuck with Aqua though, any of the X Windows environments will run fine and periodically I use WindowMaker to run X apps.

"One of the developers at work... creates and publishes electronic music as a hobby (In fact he is making a nice little earer out of it)" Freudian slip? Sorry,couldn't let that'n pass

Don't get me wrong Disco2hse, I'm NOT anti MAC, or anti Linux.... I work for an aussie company that is now part of a very large multinational group, about 90% of the systems I am responsible for are Microsoft based... that is why that part of our developement team use the MS tools... I also support a bunch of Linux servers and a graphics studio full of G5 MACs.

My main point to those trolling is that what is better .... depends on the application...

Would I use a PC in our graphics studio...don't be silly.

Would I justify the cost of MAC for our data entry staff or call centres... of course not!

Horses for coarses....

What do I use? Dell precision M4300..... dual boot Ubuntu / Vista at the moment. ( And yes, Captain Rightfoot - the screen is very close in brightness and clarity to my mates MAC book Pro.. it not the crap screen they put in the consumer Dells.)

What do I have for my kids to learn on here at home... PC running XP and a MAC G4......

Now... better look around for more of those slippery freudian things

Mark

Originally Posted by cdrtravis

For a start it's Mac, not MAC. As in short for Macintosh. Many people refer to Apple computers as Macs because for a long time that has been the family name for most of the models Apple make or have made, those being the original Macintosh, the eMac, iMac, Power Mac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro and MacBook.

To suggest that building the Mac in the first place was a mistake and to add that now the computers are nothing special at all... well, I'll leave other users of Apple computers to flame you.

I did play with Lisa a long time back.

Ron

Originally Posted by p38arover

I did play with Lisa a long time back.

Cool

32 bits and really really slow But the opposition could only offer 7 or 8 bits on DOS (in its various incarnations).