Market Study: Mac owners think they are extraordinary

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: mikeyes
My boss has been a PC/Linux user for years, bought a mac and suddenly PC's are evil and full of problems while the mac is a gift from god (aka Steve Jobs) He could not however answer the following question:

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

A few reasons:

1) Apple would beat your ass down so fast you'd never see it coming. They don't want OS X virtualized, there's not a heck of a lot you can do to make them allow it. It's a lot easier when Microsoft and the Linux distro groups allow you to sell a commercial virtualization product.

2) EFI based. No one currently has an EFI virtualization environemnt. VMWare and the like all emulate the BIOS.

3) 3D acceleration is a core feature of the OS and window manager, it's been that way for years now. Currently 3D acceleration support in virtualized environments is very very poor, you'd get a similarly poor experience on virtualized Mac OS X as a result.

#1 keeps #2 and #3 from ever being seriously worked on, since for now it would only largely benefit Mac virtualization (i.e. you'd have no way of recouping the R&D costs on other products that won't get you sued).

Oh, and it's "Mac" with a single upper-case letter. MAC is Media Access Control, a networking sublayer.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: mikeyes
My boss has been a PC/Linux user for years, bought a mac and suddenly PC's are evil and full of problems while the mac is a gift from god (aka Steve Jobs) He could not however answer the following question:

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

no demand.
people who want to run mac run a mac.
people who run xp in parallels or vmware are just transitioning/keeping compatibility. xp compatibility not because windows is brilliant but because its just a chore they have to do because of windows ubiquity.

 

[Leros]

Did the "Macs are better for video editing" thing start because Macs went 64-bit a long ago, so they could have more RAM than a Windows computer?

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Leros
Did the "Macs are better for video editing" thing start because Macs went 64-bit a long ago, so they could have more RAM than a Windows computer?

No, the software at the time was (and still is, IMHO) much better on the Mac than the PC.

 

[0roo0roo]

think they had the color matching profile thing setup much better as well

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: spittledip
Seriously though: Are Macs better for video and design stuff? And Music stuff? Or are PCs better? Or are they the same? They use pretty much the same ahrdware now, so unless Macs have better apps or something, I don't see why using a Mac for those things would be any better than using a PC. Anyone have a real, non-biased answer?

Low-overhead, low-latency high-performance APIs built into OSX allow many video/sound apps the ability to perform higher-quality, low-latency, real-time processing (Final Cut Pro, et al.)

It's hard to achieve the same thing in an OS whose APIs are still 16-bit compatible.

OSX is a "modern" OS - that is, they redesigned it for the most current trends in computing. Of course, by doing so, they pretty much made every single application written for prior OSes unusable. That's a decision they made, and it seems to have worked for them.

Microsoft, as entrenched as they are, could *NEVER* manage such a feat. It's a weakness of being at the top and so relied-upon by so many user. You lose agility and the ability to perform quick, 180-degree moves.


*shrug* I'm a Linux user.

 

[WTurner]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: txrandom
Why are Macs "so much better for video editing and digital design"?

they arnt, photoshop runs exactly the same as it does on a PC, so does any other major cross platform program that does that kind of wrok

the only real reason to use one and not the other is program pref, mainily Final Cut and apature

I think this is why Apple went X86. Back in the 90s Macs were always more powerful than PCs when it came to graphics work even though they ran the same programs as PCs. This changed in the 2000s when X86 hardware literally ran away from the Mac hardware in terms of performance. Graphics people started buying PCs to replace their aging Macs knowing that the programs ran the same in the terms of usage. Apple was losing market share in the graphics sector and the only way to recover it was to move to X86 and start offering the dual Intel Xeon boxes they are selling now. With the current dual-quad boxes they sell they can start claiming that graphics work on the Mac is fast again - whereas in say 1999-2004 they just couldn't say it was as fast as a PC or even close.

 

[mikeyes]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: mikeyes
My boss has been a PC/Linux user for years, bought a mac and suddenly PC's are evil and full of problems while the mac is a gift from god (aka Steve Jobs) He could not however answer the following question:

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

A few reasons:

1) Apple would beat your ass down so fast you'd never see it coming. They don't want OS X virtualized, there's not a heck of a lot you can do to make them allow it. It's a lot easier when Microsoft and the Linux distro groups allow you to sell a commercial virtualization product.

2) EFI based. No one currently has an EFI virtualization environment. VMWare and the like all emulate the BIOS.

3) 3D acceleration is a core feature of the OS and window manager, it's been that way for years now. Currently 3D acceleration support in virtualized environments is very very poor, you'd get a similarly poor experience on virtualized Mac OS X as a result.

#1 keeps #2 and #3 from ever being seriously worked on, since for now it would only largely benefit Mac virtualization (i.e. you'd have no way of recouping the R&D costs on other products that won't get you sued).

Oh, and it's "Mac" with a single upper-case letter. MAC is Media Access Control, a networking sublayer.

"Apple would beat my ass down?" at what overcharging for hardware?. OSX is a unix varient with a nice GUI running on Intel hardware. There is nothing special or sophisticated about it. Apple fanboys have developed the snobbish attitudes because they need some reason for paying the premium price for the same Intel hardware that runs my PC.

No commercial mac virtualization exists because there is no demand for it. There are some mac only pieces of software but like someone said those who what that software will buy a mac. You see PC virtualization on the mac because there are alot of Windows only programs that people with macs want to run. The other reason is that since macs are intel based it was very easy to dual boot or emulate a windows environment.

To answer number 2 - There is virtualization for OSX and EFI based booting. I have installed and run OSX inside a VMware session on my workstation. The only technical issues were driver based. If Apple would release VMware based drivers for OSX anyone could run it virtualized. There is no commerical virtualization because Apple wants to control everything about their products and won't allow it.

I agree with the Apple fans on some things. I think OSX is a very nice OS and alot of people could benefit from its use (especially considering how bad Vista is). Since OSX is now running on Intel hardware Apple could release their OS as a software product and allow more people to use it. As long as the price premium remains on the hardware there will be the snobbish attitude by the mac fans and the divide will continue.

 

[mikeyes]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: mikeyes
My boss has been a PC/Linux user for years, bought a mac and suddenly PC's are evil and full of problems while the mac is a gift from god (aka Steve Jobs) He could not however answer the following question:

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

no demand.
people who want to run mac run a mac.
people who run xp in parallels or vmware are just transitioning/keeping compatibility. xp compatibility not because windows is brilliant but because its just a chore they have to do because of windows ubiquity.

I don't think too many people will say that windows is brilliant, however there is a big difference between being brilliant and leading the market. Windows leads the market share because Microsoft made their product affordable. Their market share means that more software will be written and exists for the PC than the mac. Not everyone who runs xp in parallels or vmware is doing it just for transitioning sake. There are alot of Windows programs that will never be re-written for the mac. As long as that situation exists some mac users will have to emulate Windows in order to run all the software they need to use their computer for. Transitioning implies that one day they can throw away their windows emulation. That can only happen if and when the mac market share gets big enough that all software manufacturers can have value in releasing Windows and OSX versions of their software.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: spittledip
Seriously though: Are Macs better for video and design stuff? And Music stuff? Or are PCs better? Or are they the same? They use pretty much the same ahrdware now, so unless Macs have better apps or something, I don't see why using a Mac for those things would be any better than using a PC. Anyone have a real, non-biased answer?

Low-overhead, low-latency high-performance APIs built into OSX allow many video/sound apps the ability to perform higher-quality, low-latency, real-time processing (Final Cut Pro, et al.)

It's hard to achieve the same thing in an OS whose APIs are still 16-bit compatible.

OSX is a "modern" OS - that is, they redesigned it for the most current trends in computing. Of course, by doing so, they pretty much made every single application written for prior OSes unusable. That's a decision they made, and it seems to have worked for them.

Microsoft, as entrenched as they are, could *NEVER* manage such a feat. It's a weakness of being at the top and so relied-upon by so many user. You lose agility and the ability to perform quick, 180-degree moves.


*shrug* I'm a Linux user.

Actually, from what I understand, the next version of Windows will drop all backward compatibility in the core OS. Anything not using new APIs will be virtualized. I think that this is a very smart move and if done properly will really speed things up.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: spittledip
Seriously though: Are Macs better for video and design stuff? And Music stuff? Or are PCs better? Or are they the same? They use pretty much the same ahrdware now, so unless Macs have better apps or something, I don't see why using a Mac for those things would be any better than using a PC. Anyone have a real, non-biased answer?

Low-overhead, low-latency high-performance APIs built into OSX allow many video/sound apps the ability to perform higher-quality, low-latency, real-time processing (Final Cut Pro, et al.)

It's hard to achieve the same thing in an OS whose APIs are still 16-bit compatible.

OSX is a "modern" OS - that is, they redesigned it for the most current trends in computing. Of course, by doing so, they pretty much made every single application written for prior OSes unusable. That's a decision they made, and it seems to have worked for them.

Microsoft, as entrenched as they are, could *NEVER* manage such a feat. It's a weakness of being at the top and so relied-upon by so many user. You lose agility and the ability to perform quick, 180-degree moves.


*shrug* I'm a Linux user.

Actually, from what I understand, the next version of Windows will drop all backward compatibility in the core OS. Anything not using new APIs will be virtualized. I think that this is a very smart move and if done properly will really speed things up.

If that's the case, then it's about time. :thumbsup: The design of 25+ years ago, while holding up OK, isn't the most efficient is could be.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: spittledip
Seriously though: Are Macs better for video and design stuff? And Music stuff? Or are PCs better? Or are they the same? They use pretty much the same ahrdware now, so unless Macs have better apps or something, I don't see why using a Mac for those things would be any better than using a PC. Anyone have a real, non-biased answer?

Low-overhead, low-latency high-performance APIs built into OSX allow many video/sound apps the ability to perform higher-quality, low-latency, real-time processing (Final Cut Pro, et al.)

It's hard to achieve the same thing in an OS whose APIs are still 16-bit compatible.

OSX is a "modern" OS - that is, they redesigned it for the most current trends in computing. Of course, by doing so, they pretty much made every single application written for prior OSes unusable. That's a decision they made, and it seems to have worked for them.

Microsoft, as entrenched as they are, could *NEVER* manage such a feat. It's a weakness of being at the top and so relied-upon by so many user. You lose agility and the ability to perform quick, 180-degree moves.


*shrug* I'm a Linux user.

Actually, from what I understand, the next version of Windows will drop all backward compatibility in the core OS. Anything not using new APIs will be virtualized. I think that this is a very smart move and if done properly will really speed things up.

If that's the case, then it's about time. :thumbsup: The design of 25+ years ago, while holding up OK, isn't the most efficient is could be.

What about linux (ubuntu?)? Does that use backwards/old 16-bit compatible software or 'modern' stuff?

 

[walrus]

What PC owners can do and Mac owners can't


Also

http://www.news.com/5208-1002_...ssageID=224389&start=0

 

[mikeyes]

Originally posted by: walrus
What PC owners can do and Mac owners can't


Also

http://www.news.com/5208-1002_...ssageID=224389&start=0

That is awesome!!

"Its a computer not a social movement ......."

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: mikeyes
"Apple would beat my ass down?" at what overcharging for hardware?. OSX is a unix varient with a nice GUI running on Intel hardware. There is nothing special or sophisticated about it. Apple fanboys have developed the snobbish attitudes because they need some reason for paying the premium price for the same Intel hardware that runs my PC.

No commercial mac virtualization exists because there is no demand for it. There are some mac only pieces of software but like someone said those who what that software will buy a mac. You see PC virtualization on the mac because there are alot of Windows only programs that people with macs want to run. The other reason is that since macs are intel based it was very easy to dual boot or emulate a windows environment.

Apple would beat your ass down if you were a commercial vendor. Why do you think VMWare doesn't properly virtualize Leopard out of the box? Apple put some triggers in the OS to make it fail on VMWare, and specifically asked VMWare not to fix it. If VMWare did fix it and tried to sell it as a product that could virtualize OS X, Apple would be all over them like ants on a sugar cube.[/quote]

To answer number 2 - There is virtualization for OSX and EFI based booting. I have installed and run OSX inside a VMware session on my workstation. The only technical issues were driver based. If Apple would release VMware based drivers for OSX anyone could run it virtualized. There is no commerical virtualization because Apple wants to control everything about their products and won't allow it.

This is accomplished via using the same EFI emulators that Hackintoshes run, not via real virtualized EFI support. It has the same problems as EFI emulation on a normal PC does, and any kind of commercial product would need to offer real EFI virtualization.

 

[JM Aggie08]

Originally posted by: Crono
All Mac owners are smug, and some PC owners are arrogant.

 

[Randum]

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

I can't stand those ads because like the mac marketing model its misleading and creates new words. PC is personal computer- what they mean to say is "Windows Based PC vs MacOS based PC".

They sell a trend, not a technology, I think MS needs to create a marketing campaign that is based on "We sell technology, not trends" or something to that effect....

It bothers me that mac users are so concerned with "image" and "perceived performance" not actual performance, application, or efficiently, nothing is measured, its just "assumed" because the mac store or tv commercials tell you its "faster" or "last longer" (than what? benchmarked how?)

Computers have always been for tech minded individuals, and now its for the people who want to be trendy.

 

[JM Aggie08]

Originally posted by: Randum

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

I can't stand those ads because like the mac marketing model its misleading and creates new words. PC is personal computer- what they mean to say is "Windows Based PC vs MacOS based PC".

They sell a trend, not a technology, I think MS needs to create a marketing campaign that is based on "We sell technology, not trends" or something to that effect....

It bothers me that mac users are so concerned with "image" and "perceived performance" not actual performance, application, or efficiently, nothing is measured, its just "assumed" because the mac store or tv commercials tell you its "faster" or "last longer" (than what? benchmarked how?)

Computers have always been for tech minded individuals, and now its for the people who want to be trendy.

can i kiss you?

that was beautiful

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: Randum

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

I can't stand those ads because like the mac marketing model its misleading and creates new words. PC is personal computer- what they mean to say is "Windows Based PC vs MacOS based PC".

They sell a trend, not a technology, I think MS needs to create a marketing campaign that is based on "We sell technology, not trends" or something to that effect....

It bothers me that mac users are so concerned with "image" and "perceived performance" not actual performance, application, or efficiently, nothing is measured, its just "assumed" because the mac store or tv commercials tell you its "faster" or "last longer" (than what? benchmarked how?)

Computers have always been for tech minded individuals, and now its for the people who want to be trendy.

wonderful post

 

[StageLeft]

Of all the mac owners I know, I only respect one of them. The rest are douches. I am cooler, stronger, leaner, have a better looking wife, and smarter kids.

 

[mikeyes]

Originally posted by: Randum

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

I can't stand those ads because like the mac marketing model its misleading and creates new words. PC is personal computer- what they mean to say is "Windows Based PC vs MacOS based PC".

They sell a trend, not a technology, I think MS needs to create a marketing campaign that is based on "We sell technology, not trends" or something to that effect....

It bothers me that mac users are so concerned with "image" and "perceived performance" not actual performance, application, or efficiently, nothing is measured, its just "assumed" because the mac store or tv commercials tell you its "faster" or "last longer" (than what? benchmarked how?)

Computers have always been for tech minded individuals, and now its for the people who want to be trendy.

perfect

 

[Throckmorton]

I tried to install Vista today and it gave me an error saying it had no drivers for my DVD drive.


How did it get o that point of the installation? Clearly it can read the files from the disc... and DVD drive drivers are as universal as those for ps/2 keyboards.
I can't fathom something like that happening with MacOS.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Macs aren't terrible machines. A friend of mine (who knows as much about computers as I do) loves his Macs. The software is very well-made, but you pay a premium for it and there's no hardware customization on a mac. I like having a modular PC that I can build cheaply and still run the same stuff as a Mac (OSX has been made to run on a regular machine - it's just linux anyway).

 

[mikeyes]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: mikeyes
"Apple would beat my ass down?" at what overcharging for hardware?. OSX is a unix varient with a nice GUI running on Intel hardware. There is nothing special or sophisticated about it. Apple fanboys have developed the snobbish attitudes because they need some reason for paying the premium price for the same Intel hardware that runs my PC.

No commercial mac virtualization exists because there is no demand for it. There are some mac only pieces of software but like someone said those who what that software will buy a mac. You see PC virtualization on the mac because there are alot of Windows only programs that people with macs want to run. The other reason is that since macs are intel based it was very easy to dual boot or emulate a windows environment.

Apple would beat your ass down if you were a commercial vendor. Why do you think VMWare doesn't properly virtualize Leopard out of the box? Apple put some triggers in the OS to make it fail on VMWare, and specifically asked VMWare not to fix it. If VMWare did fix it and tried to sell it as a product that could virtualize OS X, Apple would be all over them like ants on a sugar cube.

To answer number 2 - There is virtualization for OSX and EFI based booting. I have installed and run OSX inside a VMware session on my workstation. The only technical issues were driver based. If Apple would release VMware based drivers for OSX anyone could run it virtualized. There is no commerical virtualization because Apple wants to control everything about their products and won't allow it.This is accomplished via using the same EFI emulators that Hackintoshes run, not via real virtualized EFI support. It has the same problems as EFI emulation on a normal PC does, and any kind of commercial product would need to offer real EFI virtualization.

I love the Apple is like ants analogy

Booting Apple in VMware required no EFI emulation. There was a kernel patch to make the OSX boot with certain Intel and AMD chips but the base OS would boot in VMware unpatched (before Apple broke it). The following article (Link) shows how you can install OSX on Intel based hardware without any hacks or EFI emulation. EFI has been supported by Intel hardware for awhile now ever since oh I don't know macs started using Intel hardware. The fact that Apple had to intentionally break it and ask VMware not to fix it proves that there are no technical issues only Apple issues.

VMware sells emulation software. Even if VMware fixed the bug and allowed OSX to boot you can't take them to court because their generic emulation software happens to be able to run your OS, just like you can't take a motherboard manufacturer to court because their motherboard happens to boot OSX. VMware is like a generic virtual computer and you can't be sued because of what your computer might be installed with. If that was the case Microsoft could sue every motherboard manufacturer because someone might use their motherboard to install a pirated copy of XP.

At the end of the day it's all a joke. We are not saying Apple or OSX sucks. We are saying your attitude sucks. Almost every PC zelot will admit that OSX is a cool operating system. The main reason they won't use it or accept it is because of the snobbish attitude on the part of everything that is Apple. Realize it's just a friggin computer and nothing more. It's not an zen experience and logging into OSX won't give you sexual release. Stop pretending it's anything more than just a piece of electronics that lets you lookup your gay porn.

If Apple would come to this realization and sell cheap affordable PC's, or better yet release their OS as software only and let people build their own macs all of this snobbishness would disappear overnight. OSX would become what XP is, just another great OS to be used and enjoyed.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Randum

Why is there PC emulation for the MAC but no MAC emulation for the PC??

I can't stand those ads because like the mac marketing model its misleading and creates new words. PC is personal computer- what they mean to say is "Windows Based PC vs MacOS based PC".

They sell a trend, not a technology, I think MS needs to create a marketing campaign that is based on "We sell technology, not trends" or something to that effect....

It bothers me that mac users are so concerned with "image" and "perceived performance" not actual performance, application, or efficiently, nothing is measured, its just "assumed" because the mac store or tv commercials tell you its "faster" or "last longer" (than what? benchmarked how?)

Computers have always been for tech minded individuals, and now its for the people who want to be trendy.

Don't you think that a lot of that is because computers have become ubiquitous and commodified? I mean, when was the last time you bought a wristwatch because of its superior time-keeping ability? After a certain level of performance, form > function (assuming a minimum level of performance is maintained.)

Maybe we've reached that point? Surely, my mother doesn't need a quad-core to check her email and write some word docs.