[WinTard]

DMann said:

"Being that MS is, at the very least, 9 years behind OS X in terms of poor memory management, fragmentary DLL cache libraries, primitive file system, ancient BIOS firmware, redundant legacy (spaghetti) code, Registry, Product Activation, and it's monolithic nature overall, it is Microsoft which is lagging in the OS market."

pnosko wrote:
"I'm certainly not defending WinTard, but do you even know what you're talking about? Technology != Market. BIOS firmware?!? And redundant, legacy and spaghetti code are three completely different things."

Wrong: MS isn't at least 9 years behind OS X. It is OS X that is behind. Being based on a variant of Unix. All that differentiates OS X from BSD is the pretty user interface. Apple didn't develop anything concerning the kernel, the task scheduler, the file system, the architecture of loading and unloading device drivers, nothing. It's all available in ALL Unix/Linux. And it isn't superior. In performance, stability or otherwise. At best it approaches a subset of the functionality offered by Windows. But a full discussions of Unix vs Windows is well beyond the scope and depth of OS internals understanding of the general audience at PCWorld and even IT people. It delves into the developer's realm and deeper...

>{quote:title=DMann wrote:}{quote}

Quote

Yes, in fact, I do. FYI, Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, Vista, and even W7, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. The main reason that EFI was developed in the first place was to overcome several limitations of Legacy BIOS, including the use of 16-bit processor mode and having only one megabyte of addressable space. To illustrate the benefits of EFI, a Mac clone, using a motherboard with both EFI and a BIOS module preinstalled on it, running OS X, takes 50 seconds to boot using BIOS, and 32 seconds booting via EFI. Running W2003 - BIOS boot takes 64 seconds, while EFI takes 45 seconds.

Wrong: Apple is simply adopting the EFI method, pioneered by others, including all the major PC BIOS makers, including AMI, Phoenix, and also Microsoft, HP, Dell, amongst a slew of others.

Windows can boot directly using EFI: http://technet.micro...064(WS.10).aspx

Installing Windows to an EFI-Based Computer
Some EFI platforms support both UEFI and BIOS firmware. On some of those systems, it is not always clear if the default DVD boot option is an EFI or BIOS boot option. On these systems, using the EFI shell command may be required. If you do not specifically start Windows Setup by using the EFI boot entry, the default firmware boot entry for BIOS may be used. If Windows Setup starts in BIOS mode on a combined EFI/BIOS system, the ESP and MSR partitions are not created. After Windows Setup completes, use the Diskpart command to verify that the ESP and MSR partitions were created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WindowsBootManager
The sequence of booting Windows Vista is slightly different from any previous version of Windows that uses the NT kernel. First, when the computer is switched on, either the BIOS or the EFI is loaded. In the case of a BIOS system, the MBR of the boot disk, which can be a hard drive or external media, is accessed, followed by the boot sector of the drive or of relevant hard disk partition. This boot sector then loads the rest of the boot blocks. For Windows Vista, the boot sector loads the Windows Boot Manager (Filename:Bootmgr.) which accesses the Boot Configuration Data store and uses the information to load the final stage, the Operating System.

You only need bootcamp for 32-bit OSes...

>{quote:title=DMann wrote:}{quote}

Quote

EFI is extensible. It's not Open Firmware (sigh), but it's more future-proof and configurable than "BIOS". It also offers the opportunity to have a standard pre-OS environment on computers, rather than Phoenix vs AMI, etc. Tragically, while Vista was rushed to release, MS scrapped all hopes of WinFS, Monad and, yes, EFI support. BIOS has significant short-comings - the biggest advantage of EFI or Open Firmware is the possibility of OS-independent device drivers. Read that again: The same driver for all versions of Windows, Linux, OS X, BSD! Can you imagine what a boost that would mean to roll-out new hardware and stabilize old hardware??

EFI is the simple natural extension to BIOS. BASIC INPUT OUTPUT SYSTEM... Nothing more, nothing less. And is certainly not the exclusive domain of Apple, nor has it been thought of by Apple, or even pioneered by Apple. As for universal device drivers, nice, but already there is an Universal Operating System, and a Universal x86 architecture... Microsoft pioneered that industry standard x86 architecture, and implemented it via Windows, since the beginning, without spinning wheels and running in circles and getting back to square 1 like Apple did. As evidenced by the state of the industry and the x86 ecosystem that resulted, including Linux and all of open-source.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/ExtensibleFirmwareInterface
The Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is a specification that defines a software interface between an operating system and platform firmware. EFI is a much larger, more complex,[1] OS-like[2]:4 replacement of the older BIOS firmware interface present in all IBM PC-compatible personal computers.[2] The EFI specification was originally developed by Intel, and is now managed by the Unified EFI Forum.

Platforms that use UEFI or the Framework
Intel?s first Itanium workstations and servers, released in 2000, supported EFI 1.02.

Hewlett-Packard?s first Itanium 2 systems, released in 2002, supported EFI 1.10; they were able to boot Windows, Linux, FreeBSD and HP-UX; OpenVMS added support in June, 2003.

All Itanium and Itanium 2 systems ship with EFI compliant firmware.

In November 2003, Gateway introduced the Gateway 610 Media Center, the first x86 Windows-based computer system to use firmware based on the Framework, Insyde Software's InsydeH2O. It still used BIOS to boot Windows.

In January 2006, Apple Inc. shipped its first Intel-based Macintosh computers. These systems use EFI and the Framework instead of Open Firmware, which had been used on its previous PowerPC-based systems.[8] On April 5, 2006, Apple first released Boot Camp, which produces a Windows drivers disk and a non-destructive partitioning tool to allow the installation of Windows XP or Vista without requiring a reinstallation of Mac OS X. A firmware update was also released that added BIOS support to its EFI implementation. Subsequent Macintosh models shipped with the newer firmware. All current Macintosh systems are also able to boot BIOS Operating Systems such as Windows XP and Vista. (With the exception of the Xserve platform)

The grand majority of Intel motherboards ship with Framework-based firmware. During 2005, more than one million Intel systems shipped with the Framework.[9] New mobile, desktop and server products, using the Framework, started shipping in 2006. For instance, all boards that use the Intel 945 chipset series use the Framework. Production firmware usually does not include EFI support, and instead uses BIOS.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnifiedEFIForum
The non-profit corporation has assumed responsibility for the management and promotion of the EFI specification, a bootloader and runtime interface between platform firmware and an operating system. The original EFI specification was developed by Intel and was used as the starting point from which the UEFI version(s) were developed. The goal of the organization is to replace the aging PC BIOS.

>{quote:title=DMann wrote:}{quote}

Quote

As for redundant legacy code, and spaghetti code, they are two different things; redundant was used as an adjective for legacy. It is no secret that Windows QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) began as a thin veneer for older, severely hacked software code, and that it has become an obese monolith built on an ancient frame - patching layers of code upon code, adding features, plugging security holes, fixing bugs, fixing the fixes that never worked properly, all while maintaining compatibility with older software and hardware ? all of which contributes to Window's challenges and compromise in stability and performance - resulting in the primary problem that Microsoft can?t speed up Windows 7 appreciably because it is Vista, and the reason Vista is so slow is simply because Microsoft didn?t have, or take, the time to worry about optimizing code in its 6+ years of gestation.

>

How would you know? Complete FUD and BS! Let's leave it at that, since you offer NO PROOFS but just bigotry and Apple fanboism. Never underestimate the competiton. What do you think NT (New Technology) stands for? Completely rewritten from scratch! Instead of Unix and all its descendents... You've just perfectly described OS X... Apple doesn't invent everyting. It copies everything and makes it prettier, and markets it better through FUD. See for yourself where OS X came from... And then come talk about complete ancestral mess, spaghetti code, patches, variations, deviants, and legacy code...

http://www.levenez.com/unix/

>{quote:title=DMann wrote:}{quote}

Quote

We run XP, Vista, W7 (beta) and OS X. Our IT department maintains its full-time hours solely on the presence of Windows and Windows servers. Overall, Windows has been counterproductive for us, causing hours of downtime per week for defragging, re-booting, etc. Macs running OS X, on the other hand, have caused far fewer problems by comparison. As for Windows Registry, that pretty much speaks for itself.

Face it. Apple Macs are just another PC compatible running a proprietary OS X ripped off open-source, and made closed source with trivialities easily worked around by anyone with minimal technical background.

~~~~~~~~~~
I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief.
~ Gerry Spence

The more you learn, the more you realize you didn't know. That's the downside of continuing your education. The benefits come next.

[quackadilly]

Besides something like a software company, where would you need more than 1 OS?

[quackadilly]

Had to skip a few paragraphs, a little too long for me....but from what I read from your post...

Well said.

[pnosko]

You said any company. There are a lot of software companies, not to mention publishing and educational institutions that tend to have Macs. I'm a freelance consultant and use three OSes.

[quackadilly]

Here's what I originally stated:



"4 operating systems would be a mess in any company."





If you were in IT, would you want to fix problems in 4 different computer environments? Wouldn't your job be easier with just 1? I never said that no company needs more than 1 OS. I just stated that 4 operating systems would be a mess for IT.

[MarioJP]

you sir took the words out of my mouth. Did not have the energy to reply to this guy but i was going to replay about the EFI which going to add to that.

It was INTEL that designed EFI but it did not fell through on pc's. And quite frankly i am soo glad it didn't. EFI is not the way to go because it is limited only for what??. To have the hardware talk to the os without drivers?? not worth the disadvantages it has.

Bios in the other hand offers lot more flexibility. The only drawback is that the os requires drivers to talk to the hardware but so what. A small price to pay compared to what bios really offers. let see

1.Overclocking
2.Fine tuning system (depending on the mb)
3.Easy access to low level hardware without the os
4.Keeps getting better and better for every new motherboard that comes out. While we add it lets add a web browser as these newly bios is becoming a mini os.
5.can be easily updated and some Motherboards have a backup read only bios chip. A 6 core processor just came out but your current mb only supports 4 cores but both processors are same socket type. No problem fixed with just a bios update away. EFI be lucky if you can update without breaking any existing compatibilities. This is what makes bios the best thing is compatibility. To some truth to that the bios will only support what the mb is designed for it does not stack old code on top of older code. Its a yes and no. Yes if your socket type mb can go from x1 to x5 series and cutoff point is when socket gets changed.

A 775 socket cpu is not compatible with a 1366 socket type mb. Not only is it not compatible but even if you can somehow get it physically the bios for the 1366 is not programmed for 775. So there you have it the bios is not really old architecture. its only the "bios" name that is. Architecture changes from socket to socket.

[pnosko]

I know what you stated, but I can't see what point of view you're coming from. Are you in IT (I am)? I bet the overwhelming majority of organizations big enough to have an IT department deal with multiple OSes (and I don't just mean flavors of Windows). It's IT's job to support the needs of the organization.

Maybe I just don't understand what constitutes a mess to you. Integrating is a challenge and part of what makes the job interesting. When I hear someone say they would rather deal with only a single OS, that spells i-n-e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e-d.

[quackadilly]

Right....because you're in IT means your opinion means more than mine.....


The last 2 major companies that I've worked at have used only XP. It did everything they needed. There's plenty of ways to make a job interesting other than having to do every job 2 different ways.



Someone wanting to deal with 1 OS does not mean that they are inexperienced, it means they have a preference. You like dealing with multiple OSs, others don't.....it's all up to the person. The people I know that deal with these things like to deal with 1 OS because it makes their job easier.....and yes, with 1 OS you can still keep your job interesting.







Please don't turn into a troll and push your values and think you're better than everyone else. You seem to be at least somewhat intelligent, don't turn "evil".....

[pnosko]

quackadilly said:

Right....because you're in IT means your opinion means more than mine.....

I told you I was in IT and was speaking for IT.

quackadilly said:

4 operating systems would be a mess in any company. I can see why there's so much downtime there.

If you're not in IT, why are you speaking for IT? Aren't you making (inexperienced) assumptions about why there would be downtime? Pointing this out doesn't make me a troll. Just a little more experienced in IT. I'm probably inexperienced in what you do.

We're all ignorant. Just on different subjects.

[rgreen4]

WinTard - thanks for an informative post. I think a lot of people think that because the descriptive name has not changed, then the actual content has not changed. BIOS (Basic Input Output System) is as descriptive as "Automobile", yet no one would think that the automobile of today is the same as the one 20 years ago. Neither is the BIOS of today the same as it was 20 years ago.

MarioJP - thanks for pointing that out also. Anyone who has ever gone through the setup of a modern PC after building one, knows that the options and flexibility of today's BIOS is far more advanced that those of 20 years ago. They also forget that the BIOS is customized for every board manufactured by every machine, and is ordered and specified by the machine manufacturer and has little to do with Windows. If you load Ubuntu for example, you use the same BIOS as for Windows 7.

However, that has little to do with the topic at hand. Lets get this discussion back to the topic at hand, whether or not Windows 7 does more to support machines more than 3 years old than does Snow Leopard. Lets also keep the discussion civil. It has not yet crossed into severe name calling, but the tension is there. Let's all settle down a bilt.

[quackadilly]

Ok....I was partially IT guy at my previous job......really it was management/engineering/maintenance/IT....... Not a lot of chiefs there.... I am now management/engineering, mainly because our engineering group sucks balls and they don't want to support the night shifts....(I am an engineer by education, management by job title)



But I have been working with computers (building, and fixing) for a long time. I do "IT" for my friends and family now. My wife is in IT, and her previous job was in IT.



All I'm saying is, 1 OS is less trouble than 2, or 3, or 4 when problems do arise. That I do know from experience.

[rgreen4]

It's also very logical.

[mistoffolees]

"If you're not in IT, why are you speaking for IT? Aren't you making (inexperienced) assumptions about why there would be downtime? Pointing this out doesn't make me a troll. "

You have to ignore these juvenile Windows shills.

They aren't experienced in IT - yet they'll tell you what makes sense for your organization.

They have no experience with Mac OS X - yet they'll pretend that their uninformed opinion is valid.

They have no knowledge about Macs - yet continue to spew misconceptions and outright errors.

They choose to ignore the experience of everyone who might have a reason to use anything other than Windows.

Pure close-minded bigotry.

[quackadilly]

"You have to ignore these juvenile Windows shills.
They aren't experienced in IT - yet they'll tell you what makes sense for your organization.
They have no experience with Mac OS X - yet they'll pretend that their uninformed opinion is valid.
They have no knowledge about Macs - yet continue to spew misconceptions and outright errors.
They choose to ignore the experience of everyone who might have a reason to use anything other than Windows.
Pure close-minded bigotry."



And you know all of this how? My experience with Mac has nothing to do with my previous statement. You in fact don't know my IT experience. What misconceptions have I spewed? Please tell me.....



Just because you are a Mac fan does not mean that you know Windows better than anyone else, or OSX for that matter. And just because you can spew out your misconceptions about me does not mean that I'm "closed-minded". I am in fact very open minded.....if OSX was in fact superior yo Windows XP, I'd be using that. Why do you think I switch between AMD and Intel? nVidia and ATI? I go for the best tool for my needs, I don't care what brand it is.



I've been exposed to non-MS operating systems and have not been impressed enough to switch. I still useMicrosoft products for that reason.

[rgreen4]

No more personal attacks.

[SongEmu]

This article misses the point of Snow Leopard. Apple knows this is an incremental polished up version of Leopard. That's why they're selling it as a $29 upgrade for Leopard users. It adds high-end features like 64-bit and OpenCL. It SHOULDN'T support older hardware. That's Leopard's job.

Windows 7, unlike Snow Leopard, still has to maintain itself as a jack of all trades. And that's why Windows will always be a "heavier" OS than OS X.

[AINeutral]

Wow, I thought this was a on-line PC magazine ... but the majority of those making comments are the Applefanboys (more like hateful remarks) ... I guess they have nothing better to do than troll.

[WinTard]

SongEmu said:

This article misses the point of Snow Leopard. Apple knows this is an incremental polished up version of Leopard. That's why they're selling it as a $29 upgrade for Leopard users. It adds high-end features like 64-bit and OpenCL. It SHOULDN'T support older hardware. That's Leopard's job.

I agree Snow Leopard and Windows 7 shouldn't have to support older (obsolete) hardware. What for?

According to Moore's_law, technology becomes obsolete in about 18~24 months nowadays. Typically, the life-cycle of a PC (including Apple Mac PCs) is about three years, before the next 'wave' of bells and whistles, renders the older one redundant and obsolete.



The term Open in OpenCL implies Windows will also support it... As implemented by Microsoft, or others... For free!

However, Microsoft isn't standing still. And DirectX11 will surpass and outperform OpenCL, from the get go.

Excerpt from http://www.electroni...ith.gpgpu.tech/
Wednesday, July 23rd 2008 Microsoft preps OpenCL rival for Windows

Microsoft's next version of DirectX will have its own alternative to the OpenCL standard proposed by Apple, the company revealed yesterday at its GamesFest conference. DirectX 11 will have support for "compute shader technology" that allows modern, more generalized video cards' effects processors to perform tasks other than rendering video, including physics calculations and other chores that would normally be handled by the main system processor.

The technology could help not only games but also media editing and scientific work, which can often use the specific nature of newer graphics hardware to greatly accelerate math by using the video card as a parallel processor. Both AMD and NVIDIA already have video cards which can be used for the tasks and have also converted video chipsets into dedicated workstation processors, including AMD's FireStream series and NVIDIA's Tesla offerings.

SongEmu said:

Windows 7, unlike Snow Leopard, still has to maintain itself as a jack of all trades. And that's why Windows will always be a "heavier" OS than OS X.

Not heavier. Only more functionality and more sophisticated than OS X ever could. Ever heard of Dynamic-linklibrary? Only what is needed gets loaded, dynamically, just in time...





Yes, all DirectX 11 compliant. At the hardware level. At the software level. Windows 7 comes with DirectX 11 natively... No vaporware. No FUDware. No Futureware. Just reality and de-facto worldwide standards. Today!

That is why Windows has been, is and will always be a SuperSet of OS X and all other Unix-like OS. But not necessarily 'heavier'.

Fact:
- Windows XP x64
- Windows Vista x64
- Windows 7 x64
- Windows 2003 Enterprise Server x64
- Windows 2008 Enterprise Server x64

Gives Microsoft Windows the edge in any terms of compatibility, to support the widest range of available hardware out there. And also far superior proven track-record experience in pure-64 bit OS from a technological perspective. Past, present and future.

~~~~~~~~~~
Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.
~ Lou Holtz

All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.
~ Walt Disney

We don't laugh because we're happy -- we're happy because we laugh.
~ William James

Speak when you are angry -- and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret.
~ Laurence J. Peter

[asiafish]

mscalisi said:

@pnosko - I look forward to Snow Leopord as well! I disgree that 3+ year old computers won't perform well with modern OSes. I'd expect my 4 year old Dell with its 3 GHz processor and 2GB of RAM to work nicely with 7.

Any 3-year-old laptop should work just fine with any modern OS. The problem on the Apple side when it comes to supporting old machines isn't that Snow Leopard has such lofty requirements, but that Apple just didn't sell x86-based computers before 2006.

The first Mac Mini shipped with a 1.5 GHz CoreSolo processor with integrated GMA950 graphics, a very low-end computer that runs Leopard beautifully and is fully supported by Snow Leopard. Snow leopard is LIGHTER than Leopard, smaller, faster and more efficient. That CoreSolo Mini will run faster on the new OS than the old one, as will all supported Macs and Hackintosh PCs.

[asiafish]

Grr8008 said:

Hate to be a copycat but this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Apple does not let anyone else use their OS. Therefore they have the advantage in the no crash department. They don't have to support any other hardware but their own.

Yup, and running the Apple OS on Apple hardware crash-free sure is nice.

PCs with WIndows can be there too, but to do so requires either A LOT of trial and error with homebrew desktops, or machines in the sweet spot of mature technology with fairly modern performance. Bleeding edge video cards with the latest drivers are great for games, but also great for crashing Windows.

Macs don't use bleeding-edge video cards, but rather specify stable, high-end cards used in systems with adequate cooling and drivers written by Apple, for Apple. Older video cards often use a Microsoft driver in Windows, and those drivers don't crash either.