The true differences between Mac and PC

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Kix, May 17, 2005.

  1. Kix

    Kix Jailbait tested, Milf approved

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    6,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    i am curious as to what architechtural differences and stuff there are. Does it all basically work the same way as a PC jsut with a different OS? Why do they multitask better, is taht just the OS as well? so from the ground up, what separates macs and pc's other than just the OS?
     
  2. maczter

    maczter Life is trying things to see if they work.

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
  3. Pineapple Devil

    Pineapple Devil beat it!

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2001
    Messages:
    53,752
    Likes Received:
    8
    risc > cisc
     
  4. Rev. Johnny Vegas

    Rev. Johnny Vegas Rectal Ventriloquist

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2001
    Messages:
    66,615
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    250 miles north of home
    Not to mention....

    Unix core >>>>>>> Winders core.
     
  5. agent0068

    agent0068 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    39,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    it's completely different hardware and a completely different os. all of it has pros and cons, but this is a pretty general topic. in the end, it comes down to which you prefer, but i think you need to ask somewhat more specific questions
     
  6. Skoles

    Skoles Guest

    -OS that is built to optimize the select hardware that it can be run on. +1 Apple.
    -OS that has to contend with literally millions of different configurations. -1 Windows.

    -OS that is built secure from the start even tho it's "only" for 5% of the market. +1 Apple.

    -OS that left wide open for outside attacks, contains unbelievable security flaws and can be completely brought to it's knees with the removal of one single .dll file. -1 Windows.

    - OS that comes bundled with a slew of software that will get you more than what you need to import & clean up photos and movies, export them to a DVD and compose the music to go with it. +1 Apple.

    - OS that will run hundreds of thousands of applications that can do the same thing, but not all that intuitive or stable. But you have a wide selection to find what works for you. Also, first choice in most game releases. +1 Windows

    - Company that makes such a secure OS they don't need to sell you A/V software. +1 Apple.

    - Company that has such an insecure OS that they purchased an A/V company only to turn around & sell you a subscription to protect their shoddy OS. -11tybillion Microsoft.
     
  7. Icedog

    Icedog New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CO
    :o


    that's soooo shady of MS
     
  8. Kix

    Kix Jailbait tested, Milf approved

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    6,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    Im not asking for a comparison, i have both and love my mac. im asking what are the technical differences.

    what is the difference between the unix core and windows core? is the unix core just more efficient? why?

    what is risc and what is cisc
     
  9. urban ape

    urban ape take that take that take that

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    Messages:
    9,220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    League City, Texas
    i think risc stands for reduced instruction set computing, which means it takes less operations to accomplish the same or similar tasks. this is why the processors apple uses have lower ghz/mhz numbers but are just as fast or faster than x86 systems.

    thats about all i am familiar with. correct me if i'm wrong. :o
     
  10. turbo91

    turbo91 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA

    I dunno if I'd go that far. RISC has benefits over CISC including speed in some cases, but there's a lot to a hardware platform than just the instruction set :)
     
  11. Jkuao

    Jkuao New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, RISC can run higher processor speeds b/c you should be able to get by w/ less dedicated hardware. Intel/AMD chips generally implement RISC style features to improve speed but that's a terrible metric for measuring performance these days. They break down their complex instructions in the compiler to simplify the instructions used to the fastest parts of the processor since they have plenty of clocks to work with.

    Intel pushed its pipeline excessively long to post the impressive Ghz numbers. Technically since Intel has such a large pipeline it's doing far more per clock cycle than other processors. It's biggest flaw is that it can do a lot of wrong things before it figures it out b/c the pipe is so long. Imagine a lot of traffic doing 100mph on a freeway and missing an exit. Lack of places to turn around will take longer than if you were just putting along. In fact Intel has run into a major roadblock after hitting the Ghz wall since the ultra long pipe hasn't paid off enough in speed to make up for the expensive mistakes. If IBM goes to the Cell architecture for the PPC, I'd expect to see similar high clocks and just as many wasted cycles when branches fuck up. Sorry if it's really long winded, my specialization is in Systems architecture.

    As for the security issue, Mac enjoys security b/c of its lack of adoption. Just look at Firefox...the supposedly crack free and perfect open source solution. If not enough people use iMail, then the propogation of a virus is very unlikely. You hold 90% market share and have a bad rep for ripping people off and I'd expect just as many holes in Tiger.

    The benefits of being able to go to a Linux core, though nice does not work for many businesses. My company's product cycle has to be a minimum of 5 years b/c companies often don't like to change their systems before the 10-15 year mark to cut costs (Retail companies are cheap as hell). It also means I can't own a slick Powerbook if I want to be able to code from home since everything's done in Visual Studio.

    PC's deal with far worse issues of developers making substandard parts and non-standard equipment simply b/c its a far more competitive market and lower profits. To sit in a premium position and be able to support only a few models definitely makes parts integration far easier.
     
  12. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    what EVERY mac sack-rider fails to mention when they quote "mac advantages" is that they are NOT comparing apples to apples. All of their "pros" are for their unix core... NOT for anything mac-specific. Unix/Linux/BSD was available on the PC FIRST. Furthermore, the OS has *NOTHING* to do with the actual archetecture. Compare the Mac hardware to the PC hardware... You will find that PC hardware is cheaper, more reliable, and faster. As for the software, if you don't like MS/Windows, then run Unix/Linux/BSD... Problem solved.

    PC +11tybillion
    Mac +1

    PC wins in performance, reliability, and cost effectiveness.
     
  13. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    the hardware isn't shit without some type of OS running it though, so that can be thrown out. Now it comes down to which OS is more reliable and thats where the mac takes the cake.

    and whether or not unix is mac-specific or not is irrelevant. the fact is:
    macs = unix core
    unix core = very reliable
    summation shows:
    macs = very reliable
     
  14. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    again, you are a moron.

    hardware has NOTHING to do with software, in this instance. You can run netBSD/FreeBSD on a PC platform, and all of your arguments are NULL and VOID.
     
  15. turbo91

    turbo91 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    :jerkit:

    This has nothing to do with the security of the operating system. If Apple suddenly had 90% market share, the OS would still be just as secure (or maybe insure) as it is today. Adding users doesn't change that.

    Your argument is assuming there are gobs of security holes floating around like in Windows. Maybe, maybe not. The fact that Macs _don't_ tend to suffer worms and other destructive malware could just be an indication of how secure it is (or, as you are implying, could be because there aren't enough people using the platform to try to find the holes).

    Either way, it's kind of a stupid fucking argument. Windows users still sit there and patch up all day. On the other hand, I could plug the Mac directly into the Internet unfirewalled and still feel fine. Try doing that with Windows pre-SP2...
     
  16. Skoles

    Skoles Guest

    I would think it would be a big thing to gloat about writing the first Mac virus. It's the one of the key issues people bring up when comparing it to Windows. So either it's just that secure, or the hardware to start was too expensive (until the Mini).
     
  17. Jkuao

    Jkuao New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually it does. What makes a virus so dangerous? The ability for it to exploit a security hole and replicate itself among more users. If there are no other users, then a hole is limited in its value to a hacker. The security holes are there, it's just a matter of lack of users to propogate viruses. Mac OS users generally don't have the huge numbers of users that allow a virus to replicate. There are no OS/2 viruses. Does that mean there are no OS/2 security holes?

    The first virus to ever propogate itself was on an Apple II through its floppy disks. The first internet virus was through a flaw in Unix sendmail...and it stopped 6000 machines which was most computers on the internet at the time. What makes Apple Tiger developers so much more skilled at preventing security leaks than everyone else? MS arguably has one of the greatest brain trusts in the world. They have more skilled developers and testers than anyone else around and apparently they're the only ones that make swiss cheese of their security?

    How old is SP1 or even the earliest version of XP now? 5 years, 3 years? Every exploit that was found on those versions hasn't been addressed if you install an OS from 5 years ago so of course it's risky to plug one in. Apple has to issue security patches just the same as Microsoft. Panther had security holes all the way into May until a security patch was released. Look up the TIFF exploit, if you don't believe me.

    If you're a hacker looking for a security exploit, which does it make sense to put your effort into though? The company with 3.6% market share(up from a huge 2.6% last year), or the one with over 90% and a bad rep for bitching about piracy so much? My example of FireFox stands true since Mozilla which was touted as a safe alternative to IE was immediately torn to shreds as soon as its adoption rate grew. Even with the best open source writers out there, there were holes that they didn't account for. If you're a malware writer, you write to what can make you money or to what you hate and MS haters are aplenty. Of course that doesn't lessen the fact that as a Mac user, you are less likely to get a virus.

    That said, MS did mess up a lot in XP. They built in a ton of features either not used/secured and focused on connectivity features rather than closed security like they should have. Mac OS definitely is superior in its interface and design but that doesn't help its limited adoption. I'd be rocking a Powerbook right now if I wasn't working as a C++/C# software engineer w/ all MS based products.
     
  18. turbo91

    turbo91 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but your logic is flawed. You are arguing that an operating system becomes less secure when more people use it. This just doesn't logically make sense. The operating system security does not change due to the number of users. Windows NT through XP pre-SP1 were just as unsecure regardless of whether 1 or 100,000,000 users were using it. You are talking about one specific type of exploit/virus (a worm) which requires many users to be successful.

    "There are no OS/2 viruses. Does that mean there are no OS/2 security holes?"

    No, but it also doesn't mean that it DOES have security holes. You are assuming that security holes HAVE to exist. They don't HAVE to exist. Probability (average errors per line of code / number of lines of code) tells us they probably do.

    In practice, you may have an angle with your logic--but in theory, I would say you do not.
     
  19. turbo91

    turbo91 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    2,521
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Well -- whoever came up with the brilliant idea of executing ActiveX (COM) objects from the web is definately full of swiss cheese, imo. :)

    Listen, I'm not saying Windows is the only unsecure operating system. I'm saying that there are two possibilities regarding the fact that Mac OS X hasn't suffered the way Windows has:

    1) Nobody has found a hole yet
    2) There aren't any holes.

    I'd be a fool for thinking there are NO security holes--they crop up in strange forms (9 years ago in high school, my teacher was amazed that I could bypass their Windows security system by using a macro in MS Access to launch a shell).

    Time will tell.
     
  20. IcyHot4Life

    IcyHot4Life Str8 Ballin'

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    18,151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Inquire Within
    :bowdown: your architecture post was spot-on too

    I once had the difference between AMD and Intel chips explained to me in the following analogy: Imagine the AMD chip as a racecar with a moderate top speed that could take corners well... now imagine the Intel chip as a top fuel dragster that crashed into every corner, and had a team of guys hop out of the car, fix it, and turn it to face the next corner, and start again. :rofl:
     
  21. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    When you're compairing to the netburst archecture, that's not too far off. :mamoru:
     
  22. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    the moron is you since reading > you.

    I never said hardware had anything to do with software. All I said was hardware is hardware and can't do shit unless it has instructions. you can't just pop open a hard drive and expect it to run.

    All I said was MS chooses to use their own OS they devised. Apple decided to use an OS that was/is used in many server farms around the world.
     
  23. dmora

    dmora Guest

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
     
  24. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    omfg, you are such a moron... You say that Apple (hardware manufacturer) uses their own os... true. You say that MS chooses to use their own OS... false. Microsoft does NOT assemble systems. Dell, Compaq, HP, eMachines, Gateway, and a store-near-you do... That has NOTHING to do with the Apple hardware/software relationship. DIAF
     
  25. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    read before you reply...i never said microsoft assembled any system but they did create the os. companies like dell choose hardware they feel would be best suited for individual needs and slap their logo on the machine. is it a dell machine? Yes. Is it still a windows ran os? Yes. the os is still running the hardware.

    think before you reply...tool
     

Share This Page