Posted on 11/07/2007 2:16:36 PM PST by Swordmaker
Do you know what Boot Camp is? It’s not virtualization. First, it’s a partitioning tool to non-destructively create a partition for Windows, just like in any other PC. Then you boot from your Windows install disk, format that partition and install Windows like you always do.
Then Boot Camp is a disk full of Windows drivers (you make this disk when setting up Boot Camp) that you put into your newly-booted Windows machine, where all the drivers are automatically installed.
If you have problems, you have problems with drivers, just like with any OEM machine, especially with Vista.
These same Windows driver issues would occur on a 100% Windows machine as well... not just on Apples running Windows... because the issues are a lack of non-standard drivers.
You are the one making assumptions based on lack of knowledge arguing with people who are actually USING their Macs and running Windows on them.
Who is the ignorant one here, Discostu? Who is the one not paying attention? It certainly is not those of us who are DOING what you claim can't be done based on a few problems with non-standard setups you found with a Google search.
Mac is a different platform, no matter how much you say it isn’t those links I found PROVE IRREFUTABLY that it is. The links you found, every one, applied only to the Apple's that had non-standard hardware installed without the proper drivers... and if that non-standard hardware had been installed in an HP, a Dell, or any of a hundred other Intel or AMD based computers without the proper driver they would have had the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. Your "irrefutable proof" is twaddle... and irrelevant to whether the hardware is so different as to make an Intel based Apple a different platform when running Windows.
These differences you claim are problem differences that make the Apple an unsuitable Windows platform, apply only to a tiny, tiny minority of people who have customized their Macs... and you generalize it to all Macs. Then you post about it. You then get upset when we disagree with you and challenge you to prove your assertions are in fact a problem for the majority. That proof should be general, applying to all Macs ... not specific to a few.
The same argument is easily found with the few Windows users who use non-standard hardware. Should I criticize Windows based on the tiny, tiny minority who have chosen to customize their machines with non-supported hardware? Could I criticize Vista for not providing suitable drivers for common hardware that is already installed in large numbers of Windows computers? You bet.
Before we even get to your "non-supported software" issues where we might get turned down by a tech support desk, we have to find a piece of software that doesn't work on an Apple running in Windows. You know, that's really hard to find.
YOU are the one claiming that the Intel hardware on a Mac is somehow drastically different from the bog standard hardware found on most other PCs. Different so much that it is outside of the range of normally found PCs in the market place. Except for the EFI, which many PCs are starting to include, and a chip that is sought by OSX to assure it is an Apple, it is essentially identical. Yet somehow YOU claim that no one will support it because it is running Windows... how come we don't find those non-support people? Or even run into the issue?
Where you are making your mistake is assuming the difference is in hardware, Discostu... the difference is in the Operating System. I have installed many different types of Operating Systems in standard PC hardware... from Theos, to Linux, to even OSX... the hardware remained the same... but the OS changed. OF course there is a difference and a different market between the Windows OS market and the Apple Mac OS market... but that does not mean that when you install Windows on the Apple hardware that it somehow runs differently than any other machine with Windows installed. It doesn't.
It’s clear at this point that you guys just don’t want to get it. I’ve fought this battle many many times in my professional career and was ALWAYS proven right, on good days I was proven right after winning the battle, on bad days the customers wound up proving me right. But it ALWAYS happens, there is ALWAYS a difference and it ALWAYS makes bugs. Sometimes minor, sometimes major, sometimes insurmountable. It is guaranteed. I showed you guys differences, if you want to write them off like marketing dorks that’s not my problems, differences exist, I proved it, you’re wrong. I’m done reading posts from guys that want to be marketers, especially when they were given the link proving why nobody in the industry respects marketers, the differences are there, it doesn’t matter at all if they’re “just” device drivers (of course only a complete moron would write off a device driver problem as “just”, when the OS can’t talk to the devices the computer is useless, devices are what the computer is all about) they ARE problems, they ARE differences.
And of course the real meat of it is that most software companies DO NOT support their software written for PCs on Macs. So if you really want to continue this conversation do it with them, because I am 100% done with this thread, no more posts on it will be read by me under any circumstances.
Just read this one.
Just this one! :0)
Which is the generally accepted status quo in the industry because you never know who's making the system. Which is why most vendors don't even bother, just high-end niche ones.
And of course the real meat of it is that most software companies DO NOT support their software written for PCs on Macs.
I have no software that is specifically supported on my Dell, Fujitsu, eMachines or DIY systems either. How is Apple any different?
Glad to see you keep evangelizing for Macs but I’ve gotten tired of begging people who aren’t predisposed to try them.
Some people seem to get hung up on the goofy advertising and perception that Macs are for metrosexual/homosexual/multicultural liberal zombies.
Others don’t want to shell out that extra $200 off the top for the hardware.
But, if they can get past all that and just go ahead and buy the stupid thing they’ll be amazed.
I don’t know how they couldn’t be. Paying that extra few hundred up front gets you the difference between a Chevy Citation and a Corvette.
My parents have these epic battles keeping their PC’s functioning smoothly - I’m at the point where I tell them I don’t want to hear about anymore. Get a Mac and stop bugging me.
Apples are much more like to contain consistent components but even they vary. However, Apple is far more likely to include the proper hardware drivers for the limited selection of what they do include on their .img file for Boot Camp.
Just because this particular Windows PC is built by Apple does not mean that it is somehow operating differently when Windows is loaded onto it. Your assumption that is does reveals an irrational bias against one of the best engineering teams in the world. What kind of poison do you think Apple puts in its hardware?
Do you think that PCs that can dual boot Linux are also somehow tainted by that extra partition?
I can testify to that: For us one specific order of several hundred identically configured systems from one OEM ended up having quite a variety of parts, mainly different graphics or network cards. It made the one standard load image we'd planned for them a bit more difficult.
However, Apple is far more likely to include the proper hardware drivers for the limited selection of what they do include on their .img file for Boot Camp.
Don't forget that Boot Camp also installs Apple Updater software that will keep all of the drivers up to date. I just had it update everything today.
That's generally true for all apps and computers. PCs have have different BIOS, different hardware, different drivers, etc. Some apps may not work on all PCs.
The Mac is just another PC as far as Windows is concerned. Boot Camp supplies the drivers for Windows to operate with the Mac hardware.
The fact that plenty of pirated copies of Mac OS X are running on Dells, HPs, etc., is further evidence of Mac's capability as a PC.
Are there special versions of OSX that run on PC’s? I’d like to try it before buying a while apple system only to find out I don’t care for the OS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because as it is, Firewire 400 is already faster than USB2 (up to 70% faster due to the architecture). People doing graphics or video work would need even better, Firewire 800. It takes an inordinate amount of time to transfer multi-gigabyte files to my 500 GB USB2 external drive. My next one will be Firewire 400 or 800, and I'll barely notice the difference between an internal or external drive.
Might want to re-consider Firewire. eSATA with 3gb/sec compared to 400/800MB/sec of Firewire is like the difference between old ATA33 drives and SATAII 300 drives.
Unfortunately, there is not a legal way to install Mac OS X on a PC, but an illegal, hacked version that runs on generic Wintel hardware is circulating in the software piracy community.
Instead, I'd suggest trying Apple's new Safari web browser for Windows -
;a href="http://www.apple.com/safari/">http://www.apple.com/safari/
It is still in beta-test stage, so an update will probably be available soon.
iTunes for Windows is another good free app from Apple.
Those two apps are very similar to the Mac versions, and fairly representative of all Apple applications.
Hal9000, thanks I downloaded SafaRI 3.0 BETa when Swordmaster posted the link in the other thread last week. Works well, but unless they add the ability to custom arrange bookmarks other than alphabetical, I will stick with Opera.
On the Mac, Safari Bookmarks can be arranged in any order by dragging items up or down in the list. That should work for the Windows version too.
First, you need to get your numbers right. eSATA is 3 Gb/s (300 MB/s) and Firewire 800 is ~800 Mb/s (~100 MB/s). eSATA is three times as fast on paper. But one hard drive can only read or write so fast, so in reality they're a little faster (maybe 20%), not three times as fast. However, eSATA would be a great choice to connect to a large external RAID, where all the drives together could actually saturate the eSATA line.
Firewire is far more flexible for my needs. I can daisy-chain lots of devices, including my digital video camera, and it provides power for its devices (IOW, no power brick required for the hard drive). eSATA provides no power and is one device per line (unless you buy a port multiplier). Firewire also lets me have a longer cable -- good for the camera, and it's easy on the processor since it's a peer-to-peer system (devices can actually talk to each other without needing the computer).
Your statement about the 3 times speed being only theoretical, but quicker is quicker. I have a fewHDD enclosures all with either USB 2.0, Firewire, SATA or eSATA, and without a doubt the USB and Firewire are close, but the eSATA knocks them in the dirt. Not sure why you are making some claim the hard drive can only read/write so fast. The throughput of a ATA133 drive still has the bottleneck of the interface, which even SATA can't surpass yet so that's a non-issue as Firewire is slower still. Your point of Firewire powering the peripherals is valid but for HDD's thats waiting for a disaster without secondary power at least.
As far as a port multiplier I am sure you are meaning an eSATA controller card. I have one with 4 ports and for now that's all I will need. Firewire is going the way of the DODO as far as I am concerned,
Whatever the interface of the hard drive, you are still left with that drive's maximum capability to read and write. Refreshing my memory of reviews, the same manufacturer's eSATA version only wrote about 20% faster than their Firewire *400* version. Looking at a newer Tom's Hardware review, I see that the eSATA had a write burst slightly faster than the Firewire 800, but the average and slowest writing was pretty bad in comparison. And the read was far slower than the Firewire 800 drives.
Not looking too good for eSATA. It looks like both the eSATA and Firewire 800 standards are capable of more bandwidth than most single drives can use anyway. IOW, no advantage for eSATA with one drive, and some disadvantages.
As far as a port multiplier I am sure you are meaning an eSATA controller card. I have one with 4 ports and for now that's all I will need.
Good. And when I get a Firewire scanner I'll just plug it to the back of the Firewire hard drive. Same with more hard drives, a printer, etc. And I didn't have to put a card in a computer, or get mad because my onboard eSATA is complete crap (as it is in many boards).
Heck I read a review from a Mac site that confirmed eSATA trumped Firewire 800 handily, but the idiot used different drives on all 4 different interfaces, which doesn't make for a valid comparison.
I read a few users comments and most seem to sheepishly acknowledge but they all seem like yourself in that they don't want to admit there is something superior to Firewire. Part of their reulctance, is Mac don't come native with eSATA and they like to point out the con it doesn't power the device like USB or Firewire does.
The last thing and probably the big reason is the paradoxical reason they don't like the move towards eSATA is the price. I think the review was a year old but (and I havent priced it myself, just going by some Mac users review) but they mentioned it cost close to $200 for the eSATA port added on to the airport? express interface or whatever that is. The paradoxical thing is Mac users don't have a problem getting ripped off paying more for most every other piece of software/peripheral over a PC counterpart, but for eSATA they can't budge.
ps. BTW I know the eSATA controller cards cost slightly less than that. How does $50 strike you? Hahahaha.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.