Apple Boot Camp discussion

[curtcheese64]

Eagleboy, I read an article in Maximum PC that said their is a 75% chance that Apple will have a PC friendly version of OS X out before Microsoft releases Vista.

 

[mac_mogul]

It's not that Apple thought of it first...

I suppose I should say that Apple acted first.

It wouldn't have been difficult for Microsoft to develop a BootCamp equivalent for PC's, but since Microsoft doesn't make computers, they had no reason to.
Apple makes their own computers, so it only makes sense that Apple did it first.

 

[RockyZ]

Why would you want to run OSX? Osx is not the best written OS, it has already been proven through benchmarks on a Mac that running Mac programs on Win Xp was faster than running it on OSX.

 

[curtcheese64]

Why would you want to run OSX? Osx is not the best written OS, it has already been proven through benchmarks on a Mac that running Mac programs on Win Xp was faster than running it on OSX.

Did you read any further than the title "Windows Faster than OS X!" If you had, you would have learned that they were running software such as Adobe CS2. The Mac version of this software has not yet been ported to X86 so it has to run thorugh Rosetta emulation, which explains the loss in performance.

 

[horndude]

OS X actually performance wise does fairly well, where it gets bogged down is with multithreading and the fact that the way the mach3 microkernel is set up certain apps cause more system calls than other OS's like linux, most users wont notice much of a difference, but in the server market running MySQL, Apache, php, and stuff ike that it gets crushed bigtime

the other thing about OS X is it has an extra layer of API's that other OS's avoid, this is because of the way they implemented the X server in OS X and added the API that runs the GUI it uses

parts of OS X have ALWAYS been closed source, Darwin is open source, and you can run that on a PC, but now Apple has closed the kernel, reason being kernel access allows hackers to easily make it run on any x86 hardware

like linux, OS X is modular in design, some parts you have open source access to, some parts you dont, now theyve closed the kernel off too

comparing the speeds of the different OS's is still mental masturbation at best, they are still too different to make really good comparisons, and when you can get a decent comparison most OS's are actually fairly close in most areas.........biggest difference being under really heavy loads, windows comes in last place there---and that is almost 100% a kernel scheduling problem that windows has had for a really long time

OS X and windows have crappy filesystems, although Id give the advantage to OS X just cause at least its maintenance free, no defragging cept with windows, that is a windows issue only, something else windows has NEVER fixed

for me personally, after having open source for awhile, to me, its all about freedom, freedom from proprietary file formats, freedom from DRM, fredom to do whatever I want, and no licensing issues or cost........if I want to hack my kernel and make the audio buffers bigger, I can do that, if I want to put it on 100 machines, I can do that too, no extra charge.......stuff like this makes a difference

 

[The General]

lol, CS:S is one of the least taxing games out there! And it sucks....
Try running FEAR or OBLIVION on that laptop at Highest settings 1440x900.

Enjoy the slide show...

lol, CS:S is one of the least taxing games out there! And it sucks.... Try running [poorly coded ****ty software that runs slow because the software developers can't code to save their life, nor can they design games] on that laptop and Highest settings 1440x900.


There, I translated your stupid statement to exadurate your ridiculous Mac-bashing.

You lose, good day sir.


I do agree, CS:S is unplayable. But I was merely setting a benchmark.

Here's another one, though I don't know if it's good enough for the Been Posted Police (BPP):

CoD2 @ 1440x900 Highest Settings = ~50fps

 

[The General]

linux pwnes all, the only thing linux needs is a stable and robust graphics standard like directX and the other 2 will fall.

Ummmm..... Ever heard of OpenGL?

 

[horndude]

OpenGL has been around for ages, predates DirectX before DirectX was even worth fooling with cause it was so buggy. Still used in many of the high end graphics apps in commercial applications where high resolution and rock stable conditions are needed. Hasnt changed much either, easy to write software for, and has very predictable results. What it does lack is all the new pixel shading and anti-aliasing toys to play with. Still, every OpenGL app Ive ever used has been quite good.

http://www.x-plane.com is a great example of what OpenGL can do, one of the BEST flight sims money can buy.

 

[Eagleboy]

Eagleboy, I read an article in Maximum PC that said their is a 75% chance that Apple will have a PC friendly version of OS X out before Microsoft releases Vista.

Can you tell me an issue number or month/year so I can look at a backorder? If that's at all possible.. I'm very interested in this.

 

[The General]

OpenGL has been around for ages, predates DirectX before DirectX was even worth fooling with cause it was so buggy. Still used in many of the high end graphics apps in commercial applications where high resolution and rock stable conditions are needed. Hasnt changed much either, easy to write software for, and has very predictable results. What it does lack is all the new pixel shading and anti-aliasing toys to play with. Still, every OpenGL app Ive ever used has been quite good.

http://www.x-plane.com is a great example of what OpenGL can do, one of the BEST flight sims money can buy.

Yep, ID Software always uses OpenGL. Since glQuake, Quake 2, 3, Doom 3. They all use OpenGL, and all have Linux versions.

IMO DirectX games all have a certain look, and so do OpenGL games (like Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004). I can't quite describe what the difference is, other than light-bending things like water and heat waves. From what I've seen in CoD2 and Half-Life 2, DirectX wins on water, and OpenGL wins on heat-waves like in Quake 4. Then again, I might have this whole DirectX/OpenGL thing confused and its the game engine that takes care of what water and heat waves and stuff look like...

Done rambling.