64-bit XP doesn't have a price that you can compare with XP Pro. It's OEM only, not a retail product. Apples/Oranges.
Why is separate paths a bad thing? The 32-bit support on XP64 is amazing. 64-bit apps just work. Why do you care, and why does that make it "the hugest piece of shit know (sic) to man"?
XP for the X64 platform is the exact same codebase as Server 2003 Service Pack 1. So if you're saying XP 64 is a piece of shit, then you're saying Server 2003 SP1, by definition is as well.
I don't think you really know quite what you're talking about. Of course, this is/.
Re:Apple opted for poor quality when they chose In
on
Apple's Growing Pains
·
· Score: 1
Why not AMD? Cost. No WAY AMD could match the pricing Intel probably gave Apple. Likely the same reason - and the lack of manufacturing capacity that they likely had - that AMD lost the place it had as the CPU for the original Xbox before Intel won. Honestly, the fact that Intel's EFI architecture - and some tasty proprietary Intel firmware - gave Apple a nice way to ensure that normal PC's - for the time being - couldn't run the Mac OS.
Why not Sun chips? Two reasons. 1) X86 is an obvious choice because it's a commodity. Dirt cheap, standardized architecture. A proprietary architecture based around a Sparc wouldn't be cheap, and wouldn't be a commodity. 2) For quite some time, the majority of the Darwin codebase ran just fine on X86. Meaning (IMHO) it wasn't nearly the task to make the Mac OS run on X86 that it would have been to have it run on a Sparc. Not that it was likely easy to get it onto X86. But easier.
IIRC, there was discussion some time back that the Core Duo chips (one of which powers my Tecra M5 - a machine which is very light, yet very powerful, and gets great battery life) are effectively 64-bit capable, albeit intentionally neutered.
Not really. It didn't bring them to the Mac. It doesn't help the average consumer. Until virtualized hardware allows for Windows UNDER OS X to run DirectX based games, it's not a consumer solution. Boot Camp, while technically neat, is a geek tool.
You either need to replace those 386's with something faster, or remove the swarm of malware from them... Something's seriously wrong with any modern laptop that takes that long to boot.
Actually, Longhorn setup has used image based setup for every release since before PDC 2003. No publicly available build of Longhorn/Vista has ever NOT used an image-based setup process.
That and, as far as I know, AMD hasn't had their cup of the EFI Kool-Aid that Intel provided them. And until AMD supports EFI, no Mac OS on an AMD system.
Parallels won't be cheap. Whether it's Microsoft, Apple (more likely), VMWare, or someone else... Parallels has to know the market is theirs to lose right now. Selling to a lowball bidder would be stupid.
Besides - if Microsoft bought Parallels, it would mean that their MacIntel product would have COMPLETELY different innards than their existing Windows virtualization offerings OR their MacPPC offerings... I don't think MSFT will buy Parallels. Someone will - I'd bet within the next 18 months. But I doubt it will be MSFT.
It's a shame that neither VMWare or Parallels have worked this out. Microsoft, with the 360, proved that software emulation of even an advanced video controller is possible (the 360 emulates the presence of the NVidia GPU present in the original Xbox). Once that is done, there is a huge step towards removing Windows from the equation for the avg home consumer. That and the ability to access any USB attached device natively. If my virtual machine can make Windows behave nearly as if I had an actual PC, it removes the sting of not having the hardware there. Today, that's not possible, and running Windows XP on Parallels honestly doesn't get you much - save a bit more application compatibility - than if you were just running NT 4.
BestBuy rebates routinely ask for more - and routinely get bounced, as the previous poster stated. I've had rebates that were PERFECTLY inline with the requirements get returned. Cingular screwed me in a similar manner after the AT&T Wireless acquisition when I had to buy new phones to keep my service. One rebate check was denied, one was never responded to. Rebates suck. And it isn't the consumer's fault.
That'd actually be rather financially irresponsible of them - to latch themselves to a train which is moving so slowly, will slip again, and even a year after it ships won't be ubiquitous. By the time Vista matters, if Vista ever matters, Apple would support it as needed.
Likewise. Nice to have a grown up discussion on./ for once.:-)
1. There are files everywhere in a root drive called C:\.
Windows has tried forever to make the drive structure opaque (or at least translucent) to the user... Witness the obnoxious "are you sure" dialogs when you go into C:, C:\Windows\ or C:\Windows\System32... pathetic at best, obnoxious at worst. But short of revamping the entire drive structure to make "the bad bits invisible" it'll be awhile before Windows makes it look as seamless as the Mac.
2. When my computer boots I see all these grey characters, bios, IDE info, etc. etc.
Yup. There's that issue of the hardware and software separation. OEM's don't seem to want to make the process less nasty-looking. I commend Apple on their move to the Intel platform (albeit EFI, not BIOS-based) without making it look crappy like a PC. If only a Wintel BIOS-based PC could look as good.
3. Some applications, when installed, seem to be "everywhere"... they aren't just single little entities.
That's the Windows "state problem". Little turds of system state, user state, and application state, all scatter-gunned around the system. Bits in the registry. Bits in leftover ini files. Bits in inf files. Bits in other random-ass config files. Without a rewrite of Windows that completely throws out compatibility, that will never get better.
4. There are thousands upon thousands of files, where you don't know what they do.
See 3. There are other OS's with the same problem - but at least they usually store state better (more logically or more hygienically separated) than Windows.
And where did NEXTSTEP come from? Mach. Where did Mach come from? That's right. BSD. That's why there's an entire BSD layer deep in the core of Mac OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't PXE boot the entire Windows OS.
I expect that AOL will find the kind of riches one could only find in Capone's vault.
64-bit XP doesn't have a price that you can compare with XP Pro. It's OEM only, not a retail product. Apples/Oranges.
/.
Why is separate paths a bad thing? The 32-bit support on XP64 is amazing. 64-bit apps just work. Why do you care, and why does that make it "the hugest piece of shit know (sic) to man"?
XP for the X64 platform is the exact same codebase as Server 2003 Service Pack 1. So if you're saying XP 64 is a piece of shit, then you're saying Server 2003 SP1, by definition is as well.
I don't think you really know quite what you're talking about. Of course, this is
Why not AMD? Cost. No WAY AMD could match the pricing Intel probably gave Apple. Likely the same reason - and the lack of manufacturing capacity that they likely had - that AMD lost the place it had as the CPU for the original Xbox before Intel won. Honestly, the fact that Intel's EFI architecture - and some tasty proprietary Intel firmware - gave Apple a nice way to ensure that normal PC's - for the time being - couldn't run the Mac OS. Why not Sun chips? Two reasons. 1) X86 is an obvious choice because it's a commodity. Dirt cheap, standardized architecture. A proprietary architecture based around a Sparc wouldn't be cheap, and wouldn't be a commodity. 2) For quite some time, the majority of the Darwin codebase ran just fine on X86. Meaning (IMHO) it wasn't nearly the task to make the Mac OS run on X86 that it would have been to have it run on a Sparc. Not that it was likely easy to get it onto X86. But easier.
IIRC, there was discussion some time back that the Core Duo chips (one of which powers my Tecra M5 - a machine which is very light, yet very powerful, and gets great battery life) are effectively 64-bit capable, albeit intentionally neutered.
I take it you weren't a business or finance major in college?
Not really. It didn't bring them to the Mac. It doesn't help the average consumer. Until virtualized hardware allows for Windows UNDER OS X to run DirectX based games, it's not a consumer solution. Boot Camp, while technically neat, is a geek tool.
That still won't help if the mass storage controller is changed - you'll end up with a blue screen with stop code 0x0000007B.
WDS doesn't support multicast - first poster was right.
You either need to replace those 386's with something faster, or remove the swarm of malware from them... Something's seriously wrong with any modern laptop that takes that long to boot.
I don't believe TAR includes ACL and metadata information related to the filesystem. Or does it?
Actually, Longhorn setup has used image based setup for every release since before PDC 2003. No publicly available build of Longhorn/Vista has ever NOT used an image-based setup process.
That and, as far as I know, AMD hasn't had their cup of the EFI Kool-Aid that Intel provided them. And until AMD supports EFI, no Mac OS on an AMD system.
I don't think the late Jef Raskin could add much assistance, no.
That suit is already settled: http://www.winternals.com/Company/PressRelease90.a spx
It's not THAT common. Yet.
Vista setup uses WinPE - which is available now for many Windows business customers as well.
Parallels won't be cheap. Whether it's Microsoft, Apple (more likely), VMWare, or someone else... Parallels has to know the market is theirs to lose right now. Selling to a lowball bidder would be stupid. Besides - if Microsoft bought Parallels, it would mean that their MacIntel product would have COMPLETELY different innards than their existing Windows virtualization offerings OR their MacPPC offerings... I don't think MSFT will buy Parallels. Someone will - I'd bet within the next 18 months. But I doubt it will be MSFT.
It's a shame that neither VMWare or Parallels have worked this out. Microsoft, with the 360, proved that software emulation of even an advanced video controller is possible (the 360 emulates the presence of the NVidia GPU present in the original Xbox). Once that is done, there is a huge step towards removing Windows from the equation for the avg home consumer. That and the ability to access any USB attached device natively. If my virtual machine can make Windows behave nearly as if I had an actual PC, it removes the sting of not having the hardware there. Today, that's not possible, and running Windows XP on Parallels honestly doesn't get you much - save a bit more application compatibility - than if you were just running NT 4.
BestBuy rebates routinely ask for more - and routinely get bounced, as the previous poster stated. I've had rebates that were PERFECTLY inline with the requirements get returned. Cingular screwed me in a similar manner after the AT&T Wireless acquisition when I had to buy new phones to keep my service. One rebate check was denied, one was never responded to. Rebates suck. And it isn't the consumer's fault.
That'd actually be rather financially irresponsible of them - to latch themselves to a train which is moving so slowly, will slip again, and even a year after it ships won't be ubiquitous. By the time Vista matters, if Vista ever matters, Apple would support it as needed.
Actually, XP will be 5 years old in a little over a month. It released in late August, 2001.
If he is, I'd research it carefully, because I think he's trying to steer you the wrong way - as APPL is NOT Apple Computer, Inc. Apple is AAPL.
Likewise. Nice to have a grown up discussion on ./ for once. :-)
1. There are files everywhere in a root drive called C:\.
Windows has tried forever to make the drive structure opaque (or at least translucent) to the user... Witness the obnoxious "are you sure" dialogs when you go into C:, C:\Windows\ or C:\Windows\System32... pathetic at best, obnoxious at worst. But short of revamping the entire drive structure to make "the bad bits invisible" it'll be awhile before Windows makes it look as seamless as the Mac.
2. When my computer boots I see all these grey characters, bios, IDE info, etc. etc.
Yup. There's that issue of the hardware and software separation. OEM's don't seem to want to make the process less nasty-looking. I commend Apple on their move to the Intel platform (albeit EFI, not BIOS-based) without making it look crappy like a PC. If only a Wintel BIOS-based PC could look as good.
3. Some applications, when installed, seem to be "everywhere"... they aren't just single little entities.
That's the Windows "state problem". Little turds of system state, user state, and application state, all scatter-gunned around the system. Bits in the registry. Bits in leftover ini files. Bits in inf files. Bits in other random-ass config files. Without a rewrite of Windows that completely throws out compatibility, that will never get better.
4. There are thousands upon thousands of files, where you don't know what they do.
See 3. There are other OS's with the same problem - but at least they usually store state better (more logically or more hygienically separated) than Windows.
As far as your final comment... agreed.
And where did NEXTSTEP come from? Mach. Where did Mach come from? That's right. BSD. That's why there's an entire BSD layer deep in the core of Mac OS X.