*PIC* For those who say: "Macs don't Crash"

[FreakyOCR]

I play on my PC and work on my mac (Video stuff, boyz) So it ticks me off when I'm in the middle of something and I get this error window. I remember back in the day on the old macs they had a programmers button. A friend taught me how to recover (sometimes) But now? Hold down the power button or puch the reset button. Thanks. I do that enough with my PC.

In fact, my mac is now crashing more often than my PC! Unbelievable.

For those who say Mac's don't crash

So much for "Unix Stability"

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Um, no one with any intelligence says that any type of computer doesn't crash (besides something stupid like a calculator). Everything can break, and everything does, for someone, somewhere. Your best bet (if you have intentions beyond inciting flames) would be to ask for help, if you don't know how to fix the problem.

(edit: just to poke at your logic, how does "unix stability" have anything to do with the millions of lines of code that apple put on top of it?)

 

[drag]

haha. Nobody ever said that OS X doesn't crash.

I've had finder lock up plenty of times.

What people talk about is it's stability and ease of use, which it does both better then Windows.

However OS 9 was a big hunch of crap, it crashed almost as much as Win98 did. OS X is a world of improvement.

The same people that says OS X doesn't crash is the same sort that says WinXP doesn't have a BSoD. Which basicly means that they are morons and should be ignored.

PS.

Take your install CDROM, boot up with it. Instead of having it install, go and run a disk repair on your partition, then do a permissions repair. Don't bother to do a check, just repair both of them. See if that helps. A lot of programs go against Apple's guidelines and change permissions around when you install them... doing a repair like that is the first thing I do when dealing with macs that have problems like this. (that was with 10.2, haven't used 10.3 much.)

 

[osmoo]

Don't think Mac'll break the windoze record tho

 

[Zugzwang152]

I got that screen when I plugged in a DLink wireless USB adapter that was supposed to be compatible with 10.1, and yet still didn't work correctly on 10.3 :thumbsup:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Probably more idiot admin syndrome.

 

[spyordie007]

no one with any intelligence says that any type of computer doesn't crash (besides something stupid like a calculator).

Actually I've had calculators crash on me before; granted the last time it happened to me was with one of those TI-81s when I was in calculus...

What people talk about is it's stability and ease of use, which it does both better then Windows.

A generalized statement suggesting that either OS X or Windows XP are more stable than the other is just stupid. Both can be made to be really damn stable, on the other hand both can be made to really suck; nowadays it's far more common to have your stability issues caused by hardware or 3rd party software than by your OS.

Ease of use is in the eye of the beholder. For me Windows is easier to use, for some people Linux is easier to use and for some people OS X is easier to use. Personally I find the OS X interface inefficient; but than again I think the same about the default Windows GUI and have to change quite a bit of little things before I it works for me.

 

[addragyn]

Go to /Library/Logs

The panic.log file should be able to tell you what is causing this.

You're running 10.2. An update to 10.3 might also help if you've been considering it.

 

[FreakyOCR]

Originally posted by: addragyn
Go to /Library/Logs

The panic.log file should be able to tell you what is causing this.

You're running 10.2. An update to 10.3 might also help if you've been considering it.

lol

I just updated to 10.3 to solve my stupid Quicktime always "unexpectedly quitting"

hehe Well I'm pretty sure I know what it is. Pro-tools is very anal and I expect it's because I haven't updated to the latest pro-tools (I had clicked it by accident anyways)

So there you go, 3rd party software caused a Kernel Panic.

I'm just saying this to those who parade around saying that macs are the saviours of windows users.

 

[dheffer]

my calculator crashed sometimes too =)

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: FreakyOCR

Originally posted by: addragyn
Go to /Library/Logs

The panic.log file should be able to tell you what is causing this.

You're running 10.2. An update to 10.3 might also help if you've been considering it.

lol

I just updated to 10.3 to solve my stupid Quicktime always "unexpectedly quitting"

hehe Well I'm pretty sure I know what it is. Pro-tools is very anal and I expect it's because I haven't updated to the latest pro-tools (I had clicked it by accident anyways)

So there you go, 3rd party software caused a Kernel Panic.

I'm just saying this to those who parade around saying that macs are the saviours of windows users.

How can it be Apple's fault if third party software with kernel-level drivers takes down the OS?

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: FreakyOCR
I play on my PC and work on my mac (Video stuff, boyz) So it ticks me off when I'm in the middle of something and I get this error window. I remember back in the day on the old macs they had a programmers button. A friend taught me how to recover (sometimes) But now? Hold down the power button or puch the reset button. Thanks. I do that enough with my PC.

In fact, my mac is now crashing more often than my PC! Unbelievable.

For those who say Mac's don't crash

So much for "Unix Stability"

AHHH!! The infamous BSOJLD!!! Black Screen of Japanese Language Death!!! BTW, I had no idea the Apple OS was UNIX-based.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

no one with any intelligence says that any type of computer doesn't crash (besides something stupid like a calculator).

Actually I've had calculators crash on me before; granted the last time it happened to me was with one of those TI-81s when I was in calculus...

What people talk about is it's stability and ease of use, which it does both better then Windows.

A generalized statement suggesting that either OS X or Windows XP are more stable than the other is just stupid. Both can be made to be really damn stable, on the other hand both can be made to really suck; nowadays it's far more common to have your stability issues caused by hardware or 3rd party software than by your OS.

Ease of use is in the eye of the beholder. For me Windows is easier to use, for some people Linux is easier to use and for some people OS X is easier to use. Personally I find the OS X interface inefficient; but than again I think the same about the default Windows GUI and have to change quite a bit of little things before I it works for me.

I am talking out of personal experiance working with artists and people that generally have no clue about computers whatso over. Generally people pick up on using OS X a lot quicker then they do on WinXP. Stuff like mounting network shares, managing fonts, and running programs makes more sense to people in OS X. (although working with classic mode throws people for a loop)

In comparision showing people how to assign a network share to a drive letter is something that I would have to show over and over agian to the same people till I got tired of it and made them take step by step notes. OS X I am able to show someone once or twice and usually thats that.

That's what I mean from ease-of-use. The "oh, ok I get it" factor.

As far as efficiency of use, I personally prefer Linux with a very customized setup combining command line and a task bar full of icons, and a window drop down list ala OS 9.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: FreakyOCR
I play on my PC and work on my mac (Video stuff, boyz) So it ticks me off when I'm in the middle of something and I get this error window. I remember back in the day on the old macs they had a programmers button. A friend taught me how to recover (sometimes) But now? Hold down the power button or puch the reset button. Thanks. I do that enough with my PC.

In fact, my mac is now crashing more often than my PC! Unbelievable.

For those who say Mac's don't crash

So much for "Unix Stability"

AHHH!! The infamous BSOJLD!!! Black Screen of Japanese Language Death!!! BTW, I had no idea the Apple OS was UNIX-based.

It's a FreeBSD userland with a modified MACH kernel.

 

[pitupepito2000]

I would personally try to figure out what's causing your trouble and go from there. Mac's are build from a *NIX kernel, which makes them more stable than a M$ box. Like other have said nothing is inmune to a crash, you just to figure out how they work, so they won't crash again. If I had to choice a computer with an OS for me, my first choice would be Linux, you just can't get anything better than it. I love the flexibility and freedom that comes with *NIX, If you had a coat that fit you perfectly and make you feel cozy, would you use anything else?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I would personally try to figure out what's causing your trouble and go from there. Mac's are build from a *NIX kernel, which makes them more stable than a M$ box. Like other have said nothing is inmune to a crash, you just to figure out how they work, so they won't crash again. If I had to choice a computer with an OS for me, my first choice would be Linux, you just can't get anything better than it. I love the flexibility and freedom that comes with *NIX, If you had a coat that fit you perfectly and make you feel cozy, would you use anything else?

That would be a mighty pretty speech there, if Mac OS X was built on a *nix kernel.

 

[pitupepito2000]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I would personally try to figure out what's causing your trouble and go from there. Mac's are build from a *NIX kernel, which makes them more stable than a M$ box. Like other have said nothing is inmune to a crash, you just to figure out how they work, so they won't crash again. If I had to choice a computer with an OS for me, my first choice would be Linux, you just can't get anything better than it. I love the flexibility and freedom that comes with *NIX, If you had a coat that fit you perfectly and make you feel cozy, would you use anything else?

That would be a mighty pretty speech there, if Mac OS X was built on a *nix kernel.

Thanks. If I'm incorrect if you look in the following website http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#10 if you scrool to the end, it says in the year "1999" that Mac OS X is related to a *nix kernel. *nix is not a specific kernel, but more like a horny father, who had a whole bunch of children, and before you know it you can't count the relatives with all the thumbs in your hand

 

[FreakyOCR]

only an anantecher would have that kind of explaination lol

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I would personally try to figure out what's causing your trouble and go from there. Mac's are build from a *NIX kernel, which makes them more stable than a M$ box. Like other have said nothing is inmune to a crash, you just to figure out how they work, so they won't crash again. If I had to choice a computer with an OS for me, my first choice would be Linux, you just can't get anything better than it. I love the flexibility and freedom that comes with *NIX, If you had a coat that fit you perfectly and make you feel cozy, would you use anything else?

That would be a mighty pretty speech there, if Mac OS X was built on a *nix kernel.

Thanks. If I'm incorrect if you look in the following website http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#10 if you scrool to the end, it says in the year "1999" that Mac OS X is related to a *nix kernel. *nix is not a specific kernel, but more like a horny father, who had a whole bunch of children, and before you know it you can't count the relatives with all the thumbs in your hand

I've seen the tree before. It's not a *nix kernel. It's based on MACH. The userland is from FreeBSD.

It's kind of like when the cuffs don't match the collar. Blonde on top, brunette on bottom. It doesn't make much sense, but it's still good.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I would personally try to figure out what's causing your trouble and go from there. Mac's are build from a *NIX kernel, which makes them more stable than a M$ box. Like other have said nothing is inmune to a crash, you just to figure out how they work, so they won't crash again. If I had to choice a computer with an OS for me, my first choice would be Linux, you just can't get anything better than it. I love the flexibility and freedom that comes with *NIX, If you had a coat that fit you perfectly and make you feel cozy, would you use anything else?

That would be a mighty pretty speech there, if Mac OS X was built on a *nix kernel.

Thanks. If I'm incorrect if you look in the following website http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#10 if you scrool to the end, it says in the year "1999" that Mac OS X is related to a *nix kernel. *nix is not a specific kernel, but more like a horny father, who had a whole bunch of children, and before you know it you can't count the relatives with all the thumbs in your hand

I've seen the tree before. It's not a *nix kernel. It's based on MACH. The userland is from FreeBSD.

It's kind of like when the cuffs don't match the collar. Blonde on top, brunette on bottom. It doesn't make much sense, but it's still good.

Actually no. Your both wrong.

It is indeed based off of code from Mach 3.0, but Mach 3.0 is a microkernel and XNU isn't. (It actually has some BSD code in the kernel, too)

And it's not just based off of FreeBSD userland, athough it's a big part of it. Large parts of it come from NextStep OS. For instance the Cocoa API is based off of stuff aquired from NextStep.

So,

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
I would personally try to figure out what's causing your trouble and go from there. Mac's are build from a *NIX kernel, which makes them more stable than a M$ box. Like other have said nothing is inmune to a crash, you just to figure out how they work, so they won't crash again. If I had to choice a computer with an OS for me, my first choice would be Linux, you just can't get anything better than it. I love the flexibility and freedom that comes with *NIX, If you had a coat that fit you perfectly and make you feel cozy, would you use anything else?

That would be a mighty pretty speech there, if Mac OS X was built on a *nix kernel.

Thanks. If I'm incorrect if you look in the following website http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#10 if you scrool to the end, it says in the year "1999" that Mac OS X is related to a *nix kernel. *nix is not a specific kernel, but more like a horny father, who had a whole bunch of children, and before you know it you can't count the relatives with all the thumbs in your hand

I've seen the tree before. It's not a *nix kernel. It's based on MACH. The userland is from FreeBSD.

It's kind of like when the cuffs don't match the collar. Blonde on top, brunette on bottom. It doesn't make much sense, but it's still good.

Actually no. Your both wrong.

It is indeed based off of code from Mach 3.0, but Mach 3.0 is a microkernel and XNU isn't. (It actually has some BSD code in the kernel, too)

I said it was based on MACH.

There is BSD code everywhere, even in the Linux kernel.

And it's not just based off of FreeBSD userland, athough it's a big part of it. Large parts of it come from NextStep OS. For instance the Cocoa API is based off of stuff aquired from NextStep.

And NeXT was based on?

So,

:Þ

 

[drag]

Well if the kernel is based on Mach then it's based on BSD. So if your not wrong then both of you are right.

Nextstep came from? ummm.... Mach(and 4.3BSD)?
Donno

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag
Well if the kernel is based on Mach then it's based on BSD. So if your not wrong then both of you are right.

What doesn't have BSD code these days? Mach is a microkernel, IIRC. So it's quite different than BSD.

Nextstep came from? ummm.... Mach?
Donno

According to the link you posted, BSD 4.something and Mach.

EDIT: Not the link you posted. oops.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Subject: NeXT release of Mach
Date: Jan 3, 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------

Avie Tevanian of NeXT writes:

NeXT started with the Mach 2.0 sources and have picked up most of the
Mach 2.5 and beyond kernel fixes, except for external pagers.
The NeXT environment includes all of Unix and goes well beyond
supporting object oriented programs and lots of fancy graphics.

It is possible to get the machine-independent kernel sources as
well as all the library and environment sources from NeXT. Only
the machine-dependent sources such as device drivers are unavailable.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From Carrick Talmadge
clt@physics.purdue.edu

The latest NeXT price lists reportedly shows:

N5515 NeXT 2.0 Mach Source Release on Floppies $10,000
[$5000 for educational institutions].

I am led to understand that this includes the various licensing fees.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/NeXT.release

 

[drag]

Maybe I am out of step here but this is what I've read. Maybe I misunderstand.

XNU's BSD component uses FreeBSD as the primary reference codebase (although some code might be traced to other BSDs). Darwin 7.x (Mac OS X 10.3.x) uses FreeBSD 5.x. As mentioned before, BSD runs not as an external (or user-level) server, but is part of the kernel itself. Some aspects that BSD is responsible for include:

* process model
* user ids, permissions, basic security policies
* POSIX API, BSD style system calls
* TCP/IP stack, BSD sockets, firewall
* VFS and filesystems (see Mac OS X Filesystems for details)
* System V IPC
* crypto framework
* various synchronization mechanisms

Note that XNU has a unified buffer cache but it ties in to Mach's VM.

XNU uses a synchronization abstraction (built on top of Mach mutexes) called funnels to serialize access to the BSD portion of the kernel. The kernel variables pointing to these funnels have the _flock suffix, such as kernel_flock and network_flock. When Mach initializes the BSD subsystem via a call to bsd_init(), the first operation performed is the allocation of funnels (the kernel funnel's state is set to TRUE). Thereafter*snip*