Snow Leopard will make it even more so, I suspect. Note that you offer no proof for your theories, only your anecdotes. Here is my anectode. My windows machine, which I built after a lot of research and considerable amount of money self destructed after about 2 years of use. Note that I researched my build for at least 60 hours, not an unreasonable time, and used only the best quality. If I had worked those 60 hours I would have made some $3000 dollars. So any difference in price is erased off the bat.
Good way to justify paying too much for your computer. 60 hours of your time is not paid time, so it does nothing to mitigate the cost.
I spent all of a half hour researching my machine because I keep up with manufacturers and features.
And when it self destructed, how did it do so? Could have been the same cheap capacitors that Apple used. My iMac lasted less than two years and then Apple bailed on me even though it was a manufacturing flaw.
Quote:
But supposed I was considering buying a dell or gateway. In those 2 years I must have spent 4 hours a week doing upgrades, getting better antivirus software, defragging, etc, etc. By comparison I spend less than 1 hour a month maintaining my two macs. If you do the math that is about $10 thousand dollars wasted every year and you don't even get the same level of functionality the mac offers.
Really reaching here. How do you spend four hours a week getting a better antivirus as part of that? Just get Kaspersky and be done with it. Set defrag to auto for once a week.
I had to take the same amount of time to clean up after the Mac as well.
And how is the functionality any different? Tell me something you can do that isn't Mac specific that I can't do.
There's no shame in admitting that you're being raked over the coals by Apple but you're okay with it. Rationalizing about how much money you could earn "fixing" your machine is ridiculous.
I've never spent four hours a week fixing a Windows machine, even when I've had problems. Have I had problems? Sure, but I also have had tons of problems with the Macs. My first iBook had at least three weeks of downtime for each repair it had to go through for being poorly engineered. Seems that Apple designed it with a gauge of wiring too thin for the case to be open and shut continuously. Poor design. That probably would've cost me $7000 in work lost if not for my PC backup.
My iMac was toast after a year and six months. I was not able to buy AppleCare in Florida at the time due to state law. Apple fixed iMacs right before mine but refused to fix mine even though it had the same flaw. I lost valuable time dealing with it too.
I've actually had far more hardware problems with Apples than with PCs I've built. Every Apple I've owned has had hardware failure of some kind. None of my PCs have ever had a hardware failure.
- Apparently Apple wanted to port Carbon initially. Then they realized that this is quite of a challenge. Remember, every engineering task is a matter of compromise. They had to take a look: how much work we will need? What we will gain? How long this code will be used?
It wasn't a technical issue. Carbon 64-bit was pretty much feature-complete as of WWDC 2006. I have the beta hanging around somewhere, and it does work. It's not buggy either. The cocoa menu system sat atop of carbon 64, for example.
What we can argue about is if Vista could have been more polished, considering time MS had to develop it; yes it could. More new features? Definitely. Could they have done more? Of course!
But even as it is, Vista is more stable, more secure than XP, and Vista 64 actually works - compared to XP 64 which was, much as I recall, very selective with software.
A couple of answers to the question above:- Mac OS 64-bit implementation does not require a separate version. You install one and the same OS. The reports on Snow Leopard suggest that if you have 64-bit processor you may restart in either mode. You have one and the same universal binary application which may have 32 and 64 bit code in one bundle. You can require that a particular 64-capable application is launched in 32-bit mode (e.g. for plugin compatibility).
OK. But why would you want to start Snow Leopard in 32-bit mode, if you have 64-bit hardware..?
OK. But why would you want to start Snow Leopard in 32-bit mode, if you have 64-bit hardware..?
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
However, since Apple is stepping their transition in a very smart and controlled manor it will be less likely that you have a driver issue. Microsoft decided to do a parallel build of a new OS that was 64-bit. This was a problem.
To switch between Snow Leopard's 32-bit and 64-bit versions you simply hold the '3' and '2' keys or '6' and '4' keys, respectively, when booting up. No need to make a tough decision about which one to install.
What we can argue about is if Vista could have been more polished, considering time MS had to develop it; yes it could. More new features? Definitely. Could they have done more? Of course!
But even as it is, Vista is more stable, more secure than XP, and Vista 64 actually works - compared to XP 64 which was, much as I recall, very selective with software.
100% true.
Vista certainly had issues at launch, though most were centered around compatibility issues as MS was trying to rid some legacy support. As I said earlier, that's why they made VPC available and are incorporating XP compatibility mode into Win7. Vista SP1 is very stable, looks great, and runs smoothly. And Vista 64 works quite well.
Vista SP2 does add a few new features, including Blu-Ray burning support directly for the OS. That just went RTM.
Vista is well beyond XP and the best OS MS has ever put out. It had problems and should have been more polished, though MS didn't spend as much time on it as people think. They had to constantly go back to XP and fix security holes. Vista is far more secure than XP, faster than XP, better to look at than XP, and utilizes some extra features to help users out.
As I've said, I think MS took Expose and did a better job of it. They're not exactly the same, but I love how it tiles each window image and allows you to go through them with Win-Tab. I also like that Alt-Tab shows you a small thumbnail of each app instead of the icon. You get a thumbnail when you mouseover things in the taskbar too.
Yes, MS took many things from Apple. Both companies have been taking from each other for years. Apple's growth over the past several years has actually pushed Microsoft. MS was horrible when they didn't have anyone pushing them. I see them being more creative and focused of late. That's a good thing.
Is Vista as good as OSX? Depends. There are pluses and minuses. Obviously Windows still has more options for programs. I also think that Windows is far easier to develop for. MS has done a very good job with the Windows API and giving developers a lot more power than Apple does, including greater access to the core of the system. I notice very little difference in functionality. Vista is snappy with 8GB and 8GB is hardly expensive nowadays if you have four slots. I was able to download a Dock for Vista that is more configurable than the standard OSX dock and was also able to configure the taskbar and the Windows (Start) button. I like how Vista has changed the layout for Start and how it is easier to turn off the Quick Launch Toolbar and to hide programs in the notification area. In fact, I find managing that easier here than in OSX.
And having one place to manage defaults is nice. Last I checked it was still a pain to manage the default web browser and mail client in OSX. You still had to go through Safari or Mail to change it. That's a ridiculous setup and much like how MS ran things in the past. I find it funny when Apple people have no problem with that yet criticized MS for doing things like it in the past.
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
However, since Apple is stepping their transition in a very smart and controlled manor it will be less likely that you have a driver issue. Microsoft decided to do a parallel build of a new OS that was 64-bit. This was a problem.
To switch between Snow Leopard's 32-bit and 64-bit versions you simply hold the '3' and '2' keys or '6' and '4' keys, respectively, when booting up. No need to make a tough decision about which one to install.
Is Snow Leopard able to run 32 bit code while in 64 bit mode? For example i think flash is still 32 bit i could be wrong.
Is Snow Leopard able to run 32 bit code while in 64 bit mode? For example i think flash is still 32 bit i could be wrong.
That is different. When we are talking about a 64-bit OS we are talking something specific. For instance, a 64-bit processor can run a 32-bit OS, and a 64-bit OS can run a 32-bit program. From what I've read and I'm not really the one to answer this so I hope someone else will be more throughout, Mac OS X can do this natively while Windows Vista emulated the 32-bit operation which created a great deal of overhead resulting in poor 32-bit app performance. I hear that WIndows 7 doesn't have this problem. Having emulation or an application layer option to use 32-bit or 64-bit version of the software is doable, but with device drivers you are talking about code between the OS and HW, where no emulation is possible, so your kernel has to be running in the mode that your drivers support.
x64 users of Windows were in a bind if they didn't have the proper driver. They had to wait for a new driver, use new HW that had support or reinstall a 32-bit version of Windows. If you come across this problem with Snow Leopard a simple restart and hoding of two keys will get you into 32-bit. At least, this is how I understand it.
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
However, since Apple is stepping their transition in a very smart and controlled manor it will be less likely that you have a driver issue. Microsoft decided to do a parallel build of a new OS that was 64-bit. This was a problem.
To switch between Snow Leopard's 32-bit and 64-bit versions you simply hold the '3' and '2' keys or '6' and '4' keys, respectively, when booting up. No need to make a tough decision about which one to install.
Thanks. That sounds like potentially useful feature. You do need to reboot if you have to use something strictly 32-bit, right..? But even then, it definitely beats not being able to print at all.
Thanks. That sounds like potentially useful feature. You do need to reboot if you have to use something strictly 32-bit, right..? But even then, it definitely beats not being able to print at all.
Yes, you will have to reboot, but it's only if there are 32-bit drivers that haven't been updated, which will be much less likely than when Windows put out a 64-bit version of XP. Apple already deals with many of the required drivers natively, but they've also given 3rd-party OEMs plenty of time to ready 64-bit drivers.
The only real benefit I know of for 64-bit right now is the size of native data sets which can now be over 4GB, but how many does that really affect at this point? I now there are two differing groups on which is the best method for moving to 64-bit, but I think Apple's in-line step method is best all around choice.
From what I've read and I'm not really the one to answer this so I hope someone else will be more throughout, Mac OS X can do this natively while Windows Vista emulated the 32-bit operation which created a great deal of overhead resulting in poor 32-bit app performance. I hear that WIndows 7 doesn't have this problem.
Decent compare between 32 and 64-bit Vista performance. It is year old - I don't know if and how many software titles were updated/patched to feel better on 64.
For those lazy to read all , here comes the conclusion:
Running 64-bit applications on a 64-bit OS doesn't yield clear cut results in these types of benchmarks. Part of the problem is the relatively small data sets used in the 3D rendering tests, where most of the pure 64-bit benchmarks were run. We'll be looking into larger data set rendering tests for future use. If anything, the Cinebench 10 test indicates what moving to 64-bit can do, under the right conditions.
With video and photographic applications, you'll also see mixed performance?some things will run faster, some cases slower.
The results for gaming was the most intriguing. As many users may have experienced, particularly with games like Crysis and Supreme Commander, modern PC games often push up against the 2GB limit. Given that an application gets its own 2GB partition when running on 64-bit Vista, that means a big game gets just a bit more memory than it would on a 32-bit OS.
On the other hand, 32-bit apps running on Vista 64 have to "thunk" through the WoW64 (Windows on Windows") subsystem, which is how 32-bit Windows apps run on Vista 64-bit. With games, at least, it seems that having that extra bit of space in the memory partition helps more than the thunking hurts.
In general, though, the situation with 64-bit applications and 32-bit applications on Vista 64 isn't mature yet. While a user running large data sets will almost certainly see improved performance, users with less demanding needs may actually see reduced performance. As always, check with the software supplier, and see if you can run a few tests of your own first.
The bottom line: 64-bit Vista is certainly viable from a performance perspective, but still has a ways to go. Now if we can get all the apps developers to think in 64-bit mode, maybe we'll get better performance all around. But don't forget to stock up on memory.
32 bit performance is not clunky at all in Vista, though I suspect that is partially to do with going beyond the 4GB barrier. It could run faster, though all 32 bit programs I've used run quick. Many are enhanced for 64-bit operation now, making them function more smoothly. All of the Adobe CS4 apps (outside of Photoshop, which is native 64-bit) are all enhanced to smoothly run on Vista 64. Apparently Microsoft made it easy for developers to enhance their current products to make them work more smoothly on Vista 64. Most have updated since Vista 64 came out to make use of this, especially since SP1 last year.
Windows 7 does reportedly improve operation in this manner, along with other enhancements to speed everything up in the system and make it work better. Its ability to utilize a XP compatibility mode and other features mean it will likely exceed Vista's 350million+ installed user base.
Why is iTunes not Cocoa? I run 64-bit iTunes and you can't do that on a Mac.
No, Adobe DID change, but they were too far along with CS4.
Apple's timing would have meant that CS4 would have been released on the PC well ahead of a Mac version. That would have been very bad for Apple.
Once again, Apple's failure to plan for moving to 64-bit is the problem here. Look at their apps.
How long has Apple had to move many of their apps over to Cocoa and yet failed to do so? Funny to hammer Adobe when Apple has also failed to implement their own API very well.
Why aren't Apple switching over?
They don't need to yet. Why release a new codebase before it's needed when they can work more on it in dev till absolutely required.
iTunes... I'd hazard a guess they move over with Snow Leopard.
Apple hasn't ported because Apple has the control over Carbon in the first place. It's like saying I'll throw a ball and I want you to catch it. I choose when to throw. I'm saying it's Adobe's fault for not being proactive. They don't know when apple will chuck that ball. You however are asking the person throwing the ball why he isn't getting ready. How do you know, and forgive me, but isn't it his choice when to throw anyway?
Kinda convoluted, but my point is apple have no reaponsibility to move because Apple calls the shots. Apple however did warn Adobe it was going to happen and that they should be prepared. Apple will have it's apps ready when required.
You say Adobe switched codes when told. They were, however informed of Carbon's deprecation status - planned obsolescence and removal, when Mac OS X was first released. Apple told everyone that if they want to stay on the bandwagon of changes, cocoa was the way because there were no promises for carbon. Apple holding the cards knew they didn't need to port their apps just yet (75% of the carbon in those apps is going 64 bit anyway, the UI is the part that isn't...) so Apple didn't have to. Simple as that. Apple's in control so they can choose when not to take their advice because it's good for business. Adobe has no such luxury and should have ported when and near after being informed - way way before CS4
Good way to justify paying too much for your computer. 60 hours of your time is not paid time, so it does nothing to mitigate the cost.
I spent all of a half hour researching my machine because I keep up with manufacturers and features.
And when it self destructed, how did it do so? Could have been the same cheap capacitors that Apple used. My iMac lasted less than two years and then Apple bailed on me even though it was a manufacturing flaw.
Really reaching here. How do you spend four hours a week getting a better antivirus as part of that? Just get Kaspersky and be done with it. Set defrag to auto for once a week.
I had to take the same amount of time to clean up after the Mac as well.
And how is the functionality any different? Tell me something you can do that isn't Mac specific that I can't do.
There's no shame in admitting that you're being raked over the coals by Apple but you're okay with it. Rationalizing about how much money you could earn "fixing" your machine is ridiculous.
I've never spent four hours a week fixing a Windows machine, even when I've had problems. Have I had problems? Sure, but I also have had tons of problems with the Macs. My first iBook had at least three weeks of downtime for each repair it had to go through for being poorly engineered. Seems that Apple designed it with a gauge of wiring too thin for the case to be open and shut continuously. Poor design. That probably would've cost me $7000 in work lost if not for my PC backup.
My iMac was toast after a year and six months. I was not able to buy AppleCare in Florida at the time due to state law. Apple fixed iMacs right before mine but refused to fix mine even though it had the same flaw. I lost valuable time dealing with it too.
I've actually had far more hardware problems with Apples than with PCs I've built. Every Apple I've owned has had hardware failure of some kind. None of my PCs have ever had a hardware failure.
So according to you the $400 you spend on an el cheapo build will give you MORE not LESS quality than a $2000 mac. Also according to you your mac was overwhelmed with viruses while your windows was 100% protected with kaspersky.
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
You mean that 64-bit drivers can be run on a 32-bit OS (essentially, 32-bit mode)? This is not very practical since you've to deal with addressing issues, especially more so when drivers operate at one of the lowest level in the OS. I think it would make more sense to automatically load 32-bit drivers while in 32-bit mode?
You mean that 64-bit drivers can be run on a 32-bit OS (essentially, 32-bit mode)? This is not very practical since you've to deal with addressing issues. I think it would make more sense to automatically load 32-bit drivers while in 32-bit mode?
I've read that the 64-bit drivers have 32-bit drivers in them for backwards compatibility in either mode.
Kinda convoluted, but my point is apple have no reaponsibility to move because Apple calls the shots. Apple however did warn Adobe it was going to happen and that they should be prepared. Apple will have it's apps ready when required.
No, you're just a rabid fanboy who'll defend Apple no matter what they do.
If Apple is encouraging developers to move over but Apple does not do the same it gives those developers the indication that Carbon is not going to be phased out very quickly.
The bloody Finder is still Carbon until Snow Leopard.
Quote:
You say Adobe switched codes when told. They were, however informed of Carbon's deprecation status - planned obsolescence and removal, when Mac OS X was first released. Apple told everyone that if they want to stay on the bandwagon of changes, cocoa was the way because there were no promises for carbon. Apple holding the cards knew they didn't need to port their apps just yet (75% of the carbon in those apps is going 64 bit anyway, the UI is the part that isn't...) so Apple didn't have to. Simple as that. Apple's in control so they can choose when not to take their advice because it's good for business. Adobe has no such luxury and should have ported when and near after being informed - way way before CS4
No, Apple gave mixed singles throughout. The spoke of Carbon64 and even were planning on using it themselves. The left hand didn't know what the right was doing.
Apple talked about gradually phasing out Carbon and then continued to NOT lead by example in making sure they DIDN'T port over their own apps. You can use the "Apple knew what they were doing and held all the cards" excuse all you want. They failed to provide leadership to their developers. That's why they have no hope to ever surpass Microsoft. MS has many negative qualities, but one of their positives is how well they deal with their developers.
Why have so few developers moved over? MS Office is STILL CARBON. Many Apple apps are still Carbon. Adobe is still Carbon.
It's pretty clear that Apple had NO ROADMAP to phase out Carbon. They kept talking about it, but never planned for it. No timelines delivered to developers with firm dates. Nothing.
Apple has done a horrible job of managing the APIs for OSX. They clearly have had nothing but a murky roadmap with fuzzy dates, if that.
They promised Carbon64 and were going to utilize it themselves before they realized that it was not an ideal alternative. Why even extend Carbon's life like that if you had long term plans to phase it out?
The truth is that Apple had no firm plans. They had only rhetoric. They've always been horrible at managing their APIs and creating roadmaps. Remember how murky the PowerPC roadmap was? I always thought Apple had been drawn to the PowerPC because it was similar to how they ran.
Intel has plans for years down the road. So does MS. Apple just has rough ideas. That's the bad part of heavily creative people being in charge. They're not good at firming up dates or plans for much of anything.
Blame Adobe all you want if it helps Apple not look like they dropped the ball. I know it's probably important to you that you think Apple is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. Good company, but they do make errors and they've made several in how they manage developers.
Most fail to realize how Microsoft became so successful to begin with. It is because they handled developers so well. They empowered them. They let them into the loop about what was coming in the future, even several years down the road. They let them know about new features well in advance. Game developers, for instance, knew about Direct X well in advance of launch. They had the tools to program so games were available when Direct X was rolled out.
Talk to developers that work with both Apple and MS. Most will tell you about how much easier Microsoft makes it to develop for Windows. Apple is so secretive and never wants to let its hand show, but that also means developers can't fully harness Apple's OS at times. It also means that Apple has been able to blindside developers with their own products by utilizing services and abilities of OSX that they didn't inform a developer of. Adobe would've left long ago if not for the large number of Photoshop users on Mac, but Apple has screwed Adobe numerous times.
Apple is just as bad as Microsoft has ever been, probably worse in some ways when it comes to trying to crush competition.
So according to you the $400 you spend on an el cheapo build will give you MORE not LESS quality than a $2000 mac. Also according to you your mac was overwhelmed with viruses while your windows was 100% protected with kaspersky.
Son, lay off the crack pipe.
I think you need to lay off the crack pipe since I didn't reference building a $400 machine. Mine cost $1000. The iMac that would come closest to it would cost me $3000 if I bought it from Apple and it would only be dual core.
I've thus far been protected by Kaspersky 100% of the time.
And in case you haven't noticed, Macs are now being attacked a bit more. The "no viruses" defense won't last for much longer and soon Mac users will need to have comprehensive virus protection.
But if you actually read what I said, my Macs had major hardware issues that were caused by poor engineering on Apple's part. Using a thinner cable was a major mistake. So was using cheap Chinese capacitor knock offs.
I'm not talking about a cheap PC. I'm talking about a good PC. It didn't take me days to figure out how good my Asus motherboard was. Nor did it take me hours to figure out that Kingston memory was the stuff to buy. How hard is it to select a Seagate HDD or a namebrand videocard?
I also bought just about everything retail box.
Anyone who spends 60 hours researching a computer build clearly is either over cautious or has no clue what he's doing.
My brother builds high end systems for various clients and doesn't spend 60 hours doing research. It takes him no greater than two hours to put together a quote for a build.
It's nice to try to imagine ways to rationalize how much of a "value" a Mac is even when it's not one. The rationalizations further prove that they are overpriced.
The simplest thing is to admit that they are overpriced but that you're okay with it. If you think they save you time then find.
I say they don't save as much time and effort as you might think, but then I know how to properly maintain a machine.
I switched for sever years. I bought an iBook back in 2002. I liked it. Bought a couple of iMacs too. But I wanted to do more and was very dissatisfied with my inability to upgrade anything save memory. I also am not willing to pay for the high end, so Apple has no interest in a Power User like me. They want the artists on the top and the simpletons on the bottom with no one in between.
Comments
Snow Leopard will make it even more so, I suspect. Note that you offer no proof for your theories, only your anecdotes. Here is my anectode. My windows machine, which I built after a lot of research and considerable amount of money self destructed after about 2 years of use. Note that I researched my build for at least 60 hours, not an unreasonable time, and used only the best quality. If I had worked those 60 hours I would have made some $3000 dollars. So any difference in price is erased off the bat.
Good way to justify paying too much for your computer. 60 hours of your time is not paid time, so it does nothing to mitigate the cost.
I spent all of a half hour researching my machine because I keep up with manufacturers and features.
And when it self destructed, how did it do so? Could have been the same cheap capacitors that Apple used. My iMac lasted less than two years and then Apple bailed on me even though it was a manufacturing flaw.
But supposed I was considering buying a dell or gateway. In those 2 years I must have spent 4 hours a week doing upgrades, getting better antivirus software, defragging, etc, etc. By comparison I spend less than 1 hour a month maintaining my two macs. If you do the math that is about $10 thousand dollars wasted every year and you don't even get the same level of functionality the mac offers.
Really reaching here. How do you spend four hours a week getting a better antivirus as part of that? Just get Kaspersky and be done with it. Set defrag to auto for once a week.
I had to take the same amount of time to clean up after the Mac as well.
And how is the functionality any different? Tell me something you can do that isn't Mac specific that I can't do.
There's no shame in admitting that you're being raked over the coals by Apple but you're okay with it. Rationalizing about how much money you could earn "fixing" your machine is ridiculous.
I've never spent four hours a week fixing a Windows machine, even when I've had problems. Have I had problems? Sure, but I also have had tons of problems with the Macs. My first iBook had at least three weeks of downtime for each repair it had to go through for being poorly engineered. Seems that Apple designed it with a gauge of wiring too thin for the case to be open and shut continuously. Poor design. That probably would've cost me $7000 in work lost if not for my PC backup.
My iMac was toast after a year and six months. I was not able to buy AppleCare in Florida at the time due to state law. Apple fixed iMacs right before mine but refused to fix mine even though it had the same flaw. I lost valuable time dealing with it too.
I've actually had far more hardware problems with Apples than with PCs I've built. Every Apple I've owned has had hardware failure of some kind. None of my PCs have ever had a hardware failure.
- Apparently Apple wanted to port Carbon initially. Then they realized that this is quite of a challenge. Remember, every engineering task is a matter of compromise. They had to take a look: how much work we will need? What we will gain? How long this code will be used?
It wasn't a technical issue. Carbon 64-bit was pretty much feature-complete as of WWDC 2006. I have the beta hanging around somewhere, and it does work. It's not buggy either. The cocoa menu system sat atop of carbon 64, for example.
Amorya
No offense here, but Vista Is just crappy.
Funny how XP is even better yet Vista was
launched after XP.
HUH Microsoft??
I'm usually not getting offended by ignorance.
No, XP is not better than Vista. Period.
What we can argue about is if Vista could have been more polished, considering time MS had to develop it; yes it could. More new features? Definitely. Could they have done more? Of course!
But even as it is, Vista is more stable, more secure than XP, and Vista 64 actually works - compared to XP 64 which was, much as I recall, very selective with software.
A couple of answers to the question above:- Mac OS 64-bit implementation does not require a separate version. You install one and the same OS. The reports on Snow Leopard suggest that if you have 64-bit processor you may restart in either mode. You have one and the same universal binary application which may have 32 and 64 bit code in one bundle. You can require that a particular 64-capable application is launched in 32-bit mode (e.g. for plugin compatibility).
OK. But why would you want to start Snow Leopard in 32-bit mode, if you have 64-bit hardware..?
OK. But why would you want to start Snow Leopard in 32-bit mode, if you have 64-bit hardware..?
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
However, since Apple is stepping their transition in a very smart and controlled manor it will be less likely that you have a driver issue. Microsoft decided to do a parallel build of a new OS that was 64-bit. This was a problem.
To switch between Snow Leopard's 32-bit and 64-bit versions you simply hold the '3' and '2' keys or '6' and '4' keys, respectively, when booting up. No need to make a tough decision about which one to install.
I'm usually not getting offended by ignorance.
No, XP is not better than Vista. Period.
What we can argue about is if Vista could have been more polished, considering time MS had to develop it; yes it could. More new features? Definitely. Could they have done more? Of course!
But even as it is, Vista is more stable, more secure than XP, and Vista 64 actually works - compared to XP 64 which was, much as I recall, very selective with software.
100% true.
Vista certainly had issues at launch, though most were centered around compatibility issues as MS was trying to rid some legacy support. As I said earlier, that's why they made VPC available and are incorporating XP compatibility mode into Win7. Vista SP1 is very stable, looks great, and runs smoothly. And Vista 64 works quite well.
Vista SP2 does add a few new features, including Blu-Ray burning support directly for the OS. That just went RTM.
Vista is well beyond XP and the best OS MS has ever put out. It had problems and should have been more polished, though MS didn't spend as much time on it as people think. They had to constantly go back to XP and fix security holes. Vista is far more secure than XP, faster than XP, better to look at than XP, and utilizes some extra features to help users out.
As I've said, I think MS took Expose and did a better job of it. They're not exactly the same, but I love how it tiles each window image and allows you to go through them with Win-Tab. I also like that Alt-Tab shows you a small thumbnail of each app instead of the icon. You get a thumbnail when you mouseover things in the taskbar too.
Yes, MS took many things from Apple. Both companies have been taking from each other for years. Apple's growth over the past several years has actually pushed Microsoft. MS was horrible when they didn't have anyone pushing them. I see them being more creative and focused of late. That's a good thing.
Is Vista as good as OSX? Depends. There are pluses and minuses. Obviously Windows still has more options for programs. I also think that Windows is far easier to develop for. MS has done a very good job with the Windows API and giving developers a lot more power than Apple does, including greater access to the core of the system. I notice very little difference in functionality. Vista is snappy with 8GB and 8GB is hardly expensive nowadays if you have four slots. I was able to download a Dock for Vista that is more configurable than the standard OSX dock and was also able to configure the taskbar and the Windows (Start) button. I like how Vista has changed the layout for Start and how it is easier to turn off the Quick Launch Toolbar and to hide programs in the notification area. In fact, I find managing that easier here than in OSX.
And having one place to manage defaults is nice. Last I checked it was still a pain to manage the default web browser and mail client in OSX. You still had to go through Safari or Mail to change it. That's a ridiculous setup and much like how MS ran things in the past. I find it funny when Apple people have no problem with that yet criticized MS for doing things like it in the past.
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
However, since Apple is stepping their transition in a very smart and controlled manor it will be less likely that you have a driver issue. Microsoft decided to do a parallel build of a new OS that was 64-bit. This was a problem.
To switch between Snow Leopard's 32-bit and 64-bit versions you simply hold the '3' and '2' keys or '6' and '4' keys, respectively, when booting up. No need to make a tough decision about which one to install.
Is Snow Leopard able to run 32 bit code while in 64 bit mode? For example i think flash is still 32 bit i could be wrong.
Is Snow Leopard able to run 32 bit code while in 64 bit mode? For example i think flash is still 32 bit i could be wrong.
That is different. When we are talking about a 64-bit OS we are talking something specific. For instance, a 64-bit processor can run a 32-bit OS, and a 64-bit OS can run a 32-bit program. From what I've read and I'm not really the one to answer this so I hope someone else will be more throughout, Mac OS X can do this natively while Windows Vista emulated the 32-bit operation which created a great deal of overhead resulting in poor 32-bit app performance. I hear that WIndows 7 doesn't have this problem. Having emulation or an application layer option to use 32-bit or 64-bit version of the software is doable, but with device drivers you are talking about code between the OS and HW, where no emulation is possible, so your kernel has to be running in the mode that your drivers support.
x64 users of Windows were in a bind if they didn't have the proper driver. They had to wait for a new driver, use new HW that had support or reinstall a 32-bit version of Windows. If you come across this problem with Snow Leopard a simple restart and hoding of two keys will get you into 32-bit. At least, this is how I understand it.
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
However, since Apple is stepping their transition in a very smart and controlled manor it will be less likely that you have a driver issue. Microsoft decided to do a parallel build of a new OS that was 64-bit. This was a problem.
To switch between Snow Leopard's 32-bit and 64-bit versions you simply hold the '3' and '2' keys or '6' and '4' keys, respectively, when booting up. No need to make a tough decision about which one to install.
Thanks. That sounds like potentially useful feature. You do need to reboot if you have to use something strictly 32-bit, right..? But even then, it definitely beats not being able to print at all.
Thanks. That sounds like potentially useful feature. You do need to reboot if you have to use something strictly 32-bit, right..? But even then, it definitely beats not being able to print at all.
Yes, you will have to reboot, but it's only if there are 32-bit drivers that haven't been updated, which will be much less likely than when Windows put out a 64-bit version of XP. Apple already deals with many of the required drivers natively, but they've also given 3rd-party OEMs plenty of time to ready 64-bit drivers.
The only real benefit I know of for 64-bit right now is the size of native data sets which can now be over 4GB, but how many does that really affect at this point? I now there are two differing groups on which is the best method for moving to 64-bit, but I think Apple's in-line step method is best all around choice.
From what I've read and I'm not really the one to answer this so I hope someone else will be more throughout, Mac OS X can do this natively while Windows Vista emulated the 32-bit operation which created a great deal of overhead resulting in poor 32-bit app performance. I hear that WIndows 7 doesn't have this problem.
Decent compare between 32 and 64-bit Vista performance. It is year old - I don't know if and how many software titles were updated/patched to feel better on 64.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2280808,00.asp
For those lazy to read all
Running 64-bit applications on a 64-bit OS doesn't yield clear cut results in these types of benchmarks. Part of the problem is the relatively small data sets used in the 3D rendering tests, where most of the pure 64-bit benchmarks were run. We'll be looking into larger data set rendering tests for future use. If anything, the Cinebench 10 test indicates what moving to 64-bit can do, under the right conditions.
With video and photographic applications, you'll also see mixed performance?some things will run faster, some cases slower.
The results for gaming was the most intriguing. As many users may have experienced, particularly with games like Crysis and Supreme Commander, modern PC games often push up against the 2GB limit. Given that an application gets its own 2GB partition when running on 64-bit Vista, that means a big game gets just a bit more memory than it would on a 32-bit OS.
On the other hand, 32-bit apps running on Vista 64 have to "thunk" through the WoW64 (Windows on Windows") subsystem, which is how 32-bit Windows apps run on Vista 64-bit. With games, at least, it seems that having that extra bit of space in the memory partition helps more than the thunking hurts.
In general, though, the situation with 64-bit applications and 32-bit applications on Vista 64 isn't mature yet. While a user running large data sets will almost certainly see improved performance, users with less demanding needs may actually see reduced performance. As always, check with the software supplier, and see if you can run a few tests of your own first.
The bottom line: 64-bit Vista is certainly viable from a performance perspective, but still has a ways to go. Now if we can get all the apps developers to think in 64-bit mode, maybe we'll get better performance all around. But don't forget to stock up on memory.
Windows 7 does reportedly improve operation in this manner, along with other enhancements to speed everything up in the system and make it work better. Its ability to utilize a XP compatibility mode and other features mean it will likely exceed Vista's 350million+ installed user base.
And so did Apple.
Why is iTunes not Cocoa? I run 64-bit iTunes and you can't do that on a Mac.
No, Adobe DID change, but they were too far along with CS4.
Apple's timing would have meant that CS4 would have been released on the PC well ahead of a Mac version. That would have been very bad for Apple.
Once again, Apple's failure to plan for moving to 64-bit is the problem here. Look at their apps.
How long has Apple had to move many of their apps over to Cocoa and yet failed to do so? Funny to hammer Adobe when Apple has also failed to implement their own API very well.
Why aren't Apple switching over?
They don't need to yet. Why release a new codebase before it's needed when they can work more on it in dev till absolutely required.
iTunes... I'd hazard a guess they move over with Snow Leopard.
Apple hasn't ported because Apple has the control over Carbon in the first place. It's like saying I'll throw a ball and I want you to catch it. I choose when to throw. I'm saying it's Adobe's fault for not being proactive. They don't know when apple will chuck that ball. You however are asking the person throwing the ball why he isn't getting ready. How do you know, and forgive me, but isn't it his choice when to throw anyway?
Kinda convoluted, but my point is apple have no reaponsibility to move because Apple calls the shots. Apple however did warn Adobe it was going to happen and that they should be prepared. Apple will have it's apps ready when required.
You say Adobe switched codes when told. They were, however informed of Carbon's deprecation status - planned obsolescence and removal, when Mac OS X was first released. Apple told everyone that if they want to stay on the bandwagon of changes, cocoa was the way because there were no promises for carbon. Apple holding the cards knew they didn't need to port their apps just yet (75% of the carbon in those apps is going 64 bit anyway, the UI is the part that isn't...) so Apple didn't have to. Simple as that. Apple's in control so they can choose when not to take their advice because it's good for business. Adobe has no such luxury and should have ported when and near after being informed - way way before CS4
Good way to justify paying too much for your computer. 60 hours of your time is not paid time, so it does nothing to mitigate the cost.
I spent all of a half hour researching my machine because I keep up with manufacturers and features.
And when it self destructed, how did it do so? Could have been the same cheap capacitors that Apple used. My iMac lasted less than two years and then Apple bailed on me even though it was a manufacturing flaw.
Really reaching here. How do you spend four hours a week getting a better antivirus as part of that? Just get Kaspersky and be done with it. Set defrag to auto for once a week.
I had to take the same amount of time to clean up after the Mac as well.
And how is the functionality any different? Tell me something you can do that isn't Mac specific that I can't do.
There's no shame in admitting that you're being raked over the coals by Apple but you're okay with it. Rationalizing about how much money you could earn "fixing" your machine is ridiculous.
I've never spent four hours a week fixing a Windows machine, even when I've had problems. Have I had problems? Sure, but I also have had tons of problems with the Macs. My first iBook had at least three weeks of downtime for each repair it had to go through for being poorly engineered. Seems that Apple designed it with a gauge of wiring too thin for the case to be open and shut continuously. Poor design. That probably would've cost me $7000 in work lost if not for my PC backup.
My iMac was toast after a year and six months. I was not able to buy AppleCare in Florida at the time due to state law. Apple fixed iMacs right before mine but refused to fix mine even though it had the same flaw. I lost valuable time dealing with it too.
I've actually had far more hardware problems with Apples than with PCs I've built. Every Apple I've owned has had hardware failure of some kind. None of my PCs have ever had a hardware failure.
So according to you the $400 you spend on an el cheapo build will give you MORE not LESS quality than a $2000 mac. Also according to you your mac was overwhelmed with viruses while your windows was 100% protected with kaspersky.
Son, lay off the crack pipe.
If there is an old printer or some other device that only has a 32-bit driver, and you need it to work, you will need 32-bit mode. The 64-bit drivers will be 32-bit compatible.
You mean that 64-bit drivers can be run on a 32-bit OS (essentially, 32-bit mode)? This is not very practical since you've to deal with addressing issues, especially more so when drivers operate at one of the lowest level in the OS. I think it would make more sense to automatically load 32-bit drivers while in 32-bit mode?
You mean that 64-bit drivers can be run on a 32-bit OS (essentially, 32-bit mode)? This is not very practical since you've to deal with addressing issues. I think it would make more sense to automatically load 32-bit drivers while in 32-bit mode?
I've read that the 64-bit drivers have 32-bit drivers in them for backwards compatibility in either mode.
Kinda convoluted, but my point is apple have no reaponsibility to move because Apple calls the shots. Apple however did warn Adobe it was going to happen and that they should be prepared. Apple will have it's apps ready when required.
No, you're just a rabid fanboy who'll defend Apple no matter what they do.
If Apple is encouraging developers to move over but Apple does not do the same it gives those developers the indication that Carbon is not going to be phased out very quickly.
The bloody Finder is still Carbon until Snow Leopard.
You say Adobe switched codes when told. They were, however informed of Carbon's deprecation status - planned obsolescence and removal, when Mac OS X was first released. Apple told everyone that if they want to stay on the bandwagon of changes, cocoa was the way because there were no promises for carbon. Apple holding the cards knew they didn't need to port their apps just yet (75% of the carbon in those apps is going 64 bit anyway, the UI is the part that isn't...) so Apple didn't have to. Simple as that. Apple's in control so they can choose when not to take their advice because it's good for business. Adobe has no such luxury and should have ported when and near after being informed - way way before CS4
No, Apple gave mixed singles throughout. The spoke of Carbon64 and even were planning on using it themselves. The left hand didn't know what the right was doing.
Apple talked about gradually phasing out Carbon and then continued to NOT lead by example in making sure they DIDN'T port over their own apps. You can use the "Apple knew what they were doing and held all the cards" excuse all you want. They failed to provide leadership to their developers. That's why they have no hope to ever surpass Microsoft. MS has many negative qualities, but one of their positives is how well they deal with their developers.
Why have so few developers moved over? MS Office is STILL CARBON. Many Apple apps are still Carbon. Adobe is still Carbon.
It's pretty clear that Apple had NO ROADMAP to phase out Carbon. They kept talking about it, but never planned for it. No timelines delivered to developers with firm dates. Nothing.
Apple has done a horrible job of managing the APIs for OSX. They clearly have had nothing but a murky roadmap with fuzzy dates, if that.
They promised Carbon64 and were going to utilize it themselves before they realized that it was not an ideal alternative. Why even extend Carbon's life like that if you had long term plans to phase it out?
The truth is that Apple had no firm plans. They had only rhetoric. They've always been horrible at managing their APIs and creating roadmaps. Remember how murky the PowerPC roadmap was? I always thought Apple had been drawn to the PowerPC because it was similar to how they ran.
Intel has plans for years down the road. So does MS. Apple just has rough ideas. That's the bad part of heavily creative people being in charge. They're not good at firming up dates or plans for much of anything.
Blame Adobe all you want if it helps Apple not look like they dropped the ball. I know it's probably important to you that you think Apple is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. Good company, but they do make errors and they've made several in how they manage developers.
Most fail to realize how Microsoft became so successful to begin with. It is because they handled developers so well. They empowered them. They let them into the loop about what was coming in the future, even several years down the road. They let them know about new features well in advance. Game developers, for instance, knew about Direct X well in advance of launch. They had the tools to program so games were available when Direct X was rolled out.
Talk to developers that work with both Apple and MS. Most will tell you about how much easier Microsoft makes it to develop for Windows. Apple is so secretive and never wants to let its hand show, but that also means developers can't fully harness Apple's OS at times. It also means that Apple has been able to blindside developers with their own products by utilizing services and abilities of OSX that they didn't inform a developer of. Adobe would've left long ago if not for the large number of Photoshop users on Mac, but Apple has screwed Adobe numerous times.
Apple is just as bad as Microsoft has ever been, probably worse in some ways when it comes to trying to crush competition.
So according to you the $400 you spend on an el cheapo build will give you MORE not LESS quality than a $2000 mac. Also according to you your mac was overwhelmed with viruses while your windows was 100% protected with kaspersky.
Son, lay off the crack pipe.
I think you need to lay off the crack pipe since I didn't reference building a $400 machine. Mine cost $1000. The iMac that would come closest to it would cost me $3000 if I bought it from Apple and it would only be dual core.
I've thus far been protected by Kaspersky 100% of the time.
And in case you haven't noticed, Macs are now being attacked a bit more. The "no viruses" defense won't last for much longer and soon Mac users will need to have comprehensive virus protection.
But if you actually read what I said, my Macs had major hardware issues that were caused by poor engineering on Apple's part. Using a thinner cable was a major mistake. So was using cheap Chinese capacitor knock offs.
I'm not talking about a cheap PC. I'm talking about a good PC. It didn't take me days to figure out how good my Asus motherboard was. Nor did it take me hours to figure out that Kingston memory was the stuff to buy. How hard is it to select a Seagate HDD or a namebrand videocard?
I also bought just about everything retail box.
Anyone who spends 60 hours researching a computer build clearly is either over cautious or has no clue what he's doing.
My brother builds high end systems for various clients and doesn't spend 60 hours doing research. It takes him no greater than two hours to put together a quote for a build.
It's nice to try to imagine ways to rationalize how much of a "value" a Mac is even when it's not one. The rationalizations further prove that they are overpriced.
The simplest thing is to admit that they are overpriced but that you're okay with it. If you think they save you time then find.
I say they don't save as much time and effort as you might think, but then I know how to properly maintain a machine.
I switched for sever years. I bought an iBook back in 2002. I liked it. Bought a couple of iMacs too. But I wanted to do more and was very dissatisfied with my inability to upgrade anything save memory. I also am not willing to pay for the high end, so Apple has no interest in a Power User like me. They want the artists on the top and the simpletons on the bottom with no one in between.