Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
I beg to differ. At the school where I am a technology coordinator, we have about half Macs. Our new machines are PCs, so all of our Macs are pre 10. Initially, when I was the tech coordinator, the Macs crashed hard and often. Once, though, I learned how to make them run properly, they ran wonderfully. In fact, i believe it has been at least 3 weeks since any of our 30 or so Macs has crashed. Usually, when they do crash, it takes just a simple reboot to wake them up. Quoting Matt Greer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: on 10/23/01 3:02 PM, Robert Pena at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have hardly seen Mac crash but as far as multitasking goes I get the impression it is slower than Linux and Windows. What MacOS are you talking about, pre 10 or 10+? As a big time Mac fan I can assure you Macs using 9 and earlier crash. They crash often, and they crash hard :) They're less stable than Windows9x, which is pretty sad. Also pre 10, Macs didn't have preemptive multitasking. Multitasking was up to the software, not the OS. If a program doesn't give up his share of the processor, everyone else is SOL. This is not the case for 10+. Matt _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
Okay to answer you question, and please I don't want to get into a Mac and PC arguement I have no favors in either, I bought it with MacX with Mac9 for older application support if I understand that correctly. Classic environment? In my post I stated that what I said was the impression I got SO FAR. I have not seen crash with my video editing, iMovie, and since it runs all of the time my family tells me they have no problem with it whatsover. I have seen 10.1 and hell yes it is fast but I don't have it yet. I am told contrary things about pre MacX so I really don't know other that what I have experienced so far. I love software and love them all including overlooking any snags they might have. Just an opinion. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
has anyone else seen the bench marks for the upcoming mac power chip that basically rate it at a little more than twice the 2.0 intel chip? what good will that intel mhz number do you if you have one instruction per clock cycle? :) On Monday 22 October 2001 18:02, you spoke unto me thusly: I would be interested in any thoughts/experiences people have concerning Mac vs Intel architecture (either relating to the above or in any other respect). -- Windows: Where do you want to go today? MacOS: Where do you want to be tomorrow? Linux: Are you coming or what? shane registered linux user #101606 @ http://counter.li.org/ http://www.mystic-light.net/personal/ Proud to be a DMOZ editor since 10-98 http://dmoz.org cause humans do it better! Link different. Profile at: http://dmoz.org/profiles/shen.html Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:02:30 -0700 (PDT), Mel Roman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone. I_ve been playing with linux (ML8.1) for a little while on my home machine (an old P166). Our family is getting to the point where we need a second machine, so I_m trying to decide on the merits of going with a PowerPC (Mac) architecture (perhaps a new Mac G4) instead of Intel. I forsee my current machine being used primarily as a linux box (file/print server, database server, secondary desktop for me). We would use the newer machine as the primary (user-friendly) desktop that all family members will be comfortable using. So long as the price is right (and remember that you tend to get better quality with Mac hardware) and you don't buy into the MegaHertz Myth, a Mac would be fine for you. One thing to be wary of is the Classic environment. There is little point in MacOS X if you're running most of your apps through Classic emulation. This situation will obviously improve over time, as more apps get written/ported to MacOS X. One of the things about the Mac that caught my attention was that its new OS X is basically another Unix variant. Aside from being more stable than Windows, Im hoping that each machine would be able to easily mount the others file systems. Has anyone tried this? I would expect it to be simply a matter of starting up an NFS service. I know that you can similarly use SAMBA to serve files to a Windows client, but I understand that this would be more limiting (the linux box cant write to the Windows partitions, etc...). MacOS X is based on FreeBSD, which is a very solid OS indeed. I think GNU/Linux can read the Mac HFS, but don't quote me on that :) I'm quite sure that SAMBA _can_ write to Windows partitions. I know that several distributions (Mandrake, SuSe, and Debian) come in PPC flavours, but I sometimes wonder if they will continue to find it worthwhile to develop for PPC. Although I expect that we would usually use OS X on the Mac, I would eventually want to someday put linux on that machine also. How does everyone else feel about the future of linux support for the Mac? I think the future is bright. Mandrake have only recently moved into the PPC arena, so they must have had a reason to do so. Macs are really hotting-up in both hardware and software. 64-bit G5s are due next year, and the Mac is improving as a server and gaming platform (e.g. the Mac had GeForce3 suport before the PC). MacOS X looks like the best release yet. I think its UNIX roots will get people more interested in trying alternate OSs like GNU/Linux. Apps like OpenOffice, Mozilla and Opera will be available for both MacOS and GNU/linux, so switching between OSs will be relatively easy. I would be interested in any thoughts/experiences people have concerning Mac vs Intel architecture (either relating to the above or in any other respect). Thanks in advance, Mel -- Sridhar Dhanapalan I'm not a big believer in revolutions. What people call revolutions in technology were more of a shift in perception - from big machines to PC's (the _technology_ just evolved, fairly slowly at that), and from PC's to the internet. The next revolution is going to be the same thing - not about the technology itself being revolutionary, but a shift in how you look at it and how you use it. -- Linus Torvalds Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
Just to put in my two cents. I have three machines. A 1GHz which I use to use for WindowsME is now a Linux box, WindowsME laptop which handles great and is just for strict use no fun whatsover, and I picked up an iMac about a month ago which the family enjoys mostly since it sticks out from the other two machines and OS. My sister plays with it from time to time, but uses Windows mostly. She doesn't care much for Linux until I installed the Aqua theme to it but mostly doesn't really care about it. My nephew like me wants to play with all of them. The only thing I have really used MacX is for home video editing which by far is superior to Windows and Linux. Easy to use but lacks the extras I can get from Linux and Windows. Linux for the most part has been my playground and classroom. Just the week before I got some good lessons from Professor Jose M. Sanchez and I have a great ole time with it. Basically, I have the best of all three and enjoy it all. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:35:27 +0100, Steve Borrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I know that several distributions (Mandrake, SuSe, and Debian) come in PPC flavours, but I sometimes wonder if they will continue to find it worthwhile to develop for PPC. Although I expect that we would usually use OS X on the Mac, I would eventually want to someday put linux on that machine also. How does everyone else feel about the future of linux support for the Mac? I think the future is bright. Mandrake have only recently moved into the PPC arena, so they must have had a reason to do so. Macs are really hotting-up in both hardware and software. 64-bit G5s are due next year, and the Mac is improving as a server and gaming platform (e.g. the Mac had GeForce3 suport before the PC). MacOS X looks like the best release yet. I think its UNIX roots will get people more interested in trying alternate OSs like GNU/Linux. Apps like OpenOffice, Mozilla and Opera will be available for both MacOS and GNU/linux, so switching between OSs will be relatively easy. There is also a distro called Yellow Dog for the PPC, which I tried and gave up on. I currently triple boot my Mac G4. I have Mac OS 9.0.1, Mac OS X (inc. 9.1) and Mandrake Linux for PPC. I have to say that I was pretty impressed with the Mandrake install. Mac OS X, now there is the problem. Coming from a unix background I thought, great, Unix on my Mac! Based on FreeBSD so it should be pretty good. However I have run into several fundamental flaws in it which seem to cause pain to Unix types and Mac types. Annoying things like not being able to su to root, having to sudo everything. From the Mac side of things, it refuses to remember where my windows are when it restarts and various other annoying things. I tend to think that Mac OS X is a good start, but no more. I think I could be described as a BIG fan of Mac OS 11 :) Ok, enough ranting. As to the longevity and support of Linux on PPC, I have to say I think that Mac OS X is only going to increase that interest. Some users will be more than happy with the somewhat limited Linux like stuff exposed in Mac OS X, while others will think, if only I could. and they may well give Linux a try. Additionally, I think Mac OS X has given the PPC market a bit of a revival and is persudaing traditionally skeptial users, like me, that the Mac is not just an artists and designers toy. Just my £0.02. Steve. I've been wondering this for a while: Does MacOS X keep a clear root/user distinction like other Unicies, does it blur them (like WinNT/2K) or doesn't it have any such distinction (like WinXP Home)? -- Sridhar Dhanapalan Yeah, yeah, it's 7PM Christmas Eve over there, and you're in the middle of your Christmas dinner. You might feel that it's unreasonable of me to ask you to test out my latest crazy idea. How selfish of you. Get back there in front of the computer NOW. Christmas can wait. Linus the Grinch Torvalds Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
Do you find that winME is less stable than say winNT or 2000? On Tuesday 23 October 2001 03:10 am, Robert wrote: Just to put in my two cents. I have three machines. A 1GHz which I use to use for WindowsME is now a Linux box, WindowsME laptop which handles great and is just for strict use no fun whatsover, and I picked up an iMac about a month ago which the family enjoys mostly since it sticks out from the other two machines and OS. My sister plays with it from time to time, but uses Windows mostly. She doesn't care much for Linux until I installed the Aqua theme to it but mostly doesn't really care about it. My nephew like me wants to play with all of them. The only thing I have really used MacX is for home video editing which by far is superior to Windows and Linux. Easy to use but lacks the extras I can get from Linux and Windows. Linux for the most part has been my playground and classroom. Just the week before I got some good lessons from Professor Jose M. Sanchez and I have a great ole time with it. Basically, I have the best of all three and enjoy it all. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
WindowsME is a joke if I want to say do some video capture or producing. If all I do is download email, surf the net, work on documents,play with some photos with Adobe, or do my finances I never seea crash or get a blue screen of death. Although, theMac does come with Quicken, personally never liked it, it does annoy me with the single button mouse. Mostpeoplewho tell me they get crashes usually are not opening email or touching up photos. Linux does crash but handles very well without taking whole system with it. Mac is the same way too. I have hardly seen Mac crash but as far as multitasking goes I get the impression it is slower than Linux and Windows. Thats my impression so far since I had the Macfor ashort time and have been using Linux for less than a year. With Windows2000 you get better stability compared to WindowsMEbut you pay a premium while with Linux it just comes standard and personally it should whether I download it for free or purchase a package box. Mac no matter what they put in is a premium price product.
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
on 10/23/01 3:02 PM, Robert Pena at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have hardly seen Mac crash but as far as multitasking goes I get the impression it is slower than Linux and Windows. What MacOS are you talking about, pre 10 or 10+? As a big time Mac fan I can assure you Macs using 9 and earlier crash. They crash often, and they crash hard :) They're less stable than Windows9x, which is pretty sad. Also pre 10, Macs didn't have preemptive multitasking. Multitasking was up to the software, not the OS. If a program doesn't give up his share of the processor, everyone else is SOL. This is not the case for 10+. Matt _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
Do you find that winME is less stable than say winNT or 2000? I do, Win2k runs like a dream, WinME has added clunkyness Rick Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com POV-Ray News Resources - http://Povray.co.uk TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037 PGP Public Key http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x231E1CEA Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
John Hokanson Jr. wrote: If that's the only reason, I would have to decline. Windows 2000 (not 9x) is already fairly stable, Of course, there's also which OS you would prefer to use, if stability is not an issue. I personally favor the Mac, hardware- software- and OS-wise, but some of my reasons may not apply to most people (I'm a professional musician, for one). and there's the old argument about software availability. Which begs two questions: 1) How much of the available software will you actually use? 2) How much of the available software is any good? Everything I do on a computer, I find I would rather do on a Mac, with the exception of a few games I play that aren't available for the Mac. It's partly because of the quality of Mac-specific software, and partly because the Mac is better-suited for some of those tasks, but it's also partly because I even find the Mac more aesthetically pleasing (and I'm not talking about all the fruity iMac colors). It may not sound very important, but it makes using a computer that much more enjoyable for me. But again, that's a personal preference, YMMV. Then again, I don't know how much all this matters to you (the original poster); how often would you be running Linux again? :) Jesse -- !! Jesse C. Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] [___] `|' I have the simplest tastes. I am always /|\ satisfied with the best. -- Oscar Wilde Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
[newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
Hi everyone. I´ve been playing with linux (ML8.1) for a little while on my home machine (an old P166). Our family is getting to the point where we need a second machine, so I´m trying to decide on the merits of going with a PowerPC (Mac) architecture (perhaps a new Mac G4) instead of Intel. I forsee my current machine being used primarily as a linux box (file/print server, database server, secondary desktop for me). We would use the newer machine as the primary (user-friendly) desktop that all family members will be comfortable using. One of the things about the Mac that caught my attention was that its new OS X is basically another Unix variant. Aside from being more stable than Windows, Im hoping that each machine would be able to easily mount the others file systems. Has anyone tried this? I would expect it to be simply a matter of starting up an NFS service. I know that you can similarly use SAMBA to serve files to a Windows client, but I understand that this would be more limiting (the linux box cant write to the Windows partitions, etc...). I know that several distributions (Mandrake, SuSe, and Debian) come in PPC flavours, but I sometimes wonder if they will continue to find it worthwhile to develop for PPC. Although I expect that we would usually use OS X on the Mac, I would eventually want to someday put linux on that machine also. How does everyone else feel about the future of linux support for the Mac? I would be interested in any thoughts/experiences people have concerning Mac vs Intel architecture (either relating to the above or in any other respect). Thanks in advance, Mel __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
One of the things about the Mac that caught my attention was that its new OS X is basically another Unix variant. Aside from being more stable than Windows, Im hoping that each machine would be able to easily mount the others file systems. Has anyone tried this? I would expect it to be simply a matter of starting up an NFS service. I know that you can similarly use SAMBA to serve files to a Windows client, but I understand that this would be more limiting (the linux box cant write to the Windows partitions, etc...). Yes, a linux client can write to a samba mounted share, regardless of the windows filesystem type. As a matter of fact, one backup measure I take on a weekly basis is to write a copy of .tgz'ed backups to a smb mount that uses the NTFS5 filesystem--primarily so that a copy of the backup files can be burned to CD -- they wouldn't allow me to put the CDRW in the linux server. Of course, since I'm not really sure what you mean by 'the linux box cant write to the Windows partitions, etc...', I could be missing the point. Michael -- Michael Viron Registered Linux User #81978 Senior Systems Administration Consultant Web Spinners, University of West Florida Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
Mel Roman wrote: I know that you can similarly use SAMBA to serve files to a Windows client, but I understand that this would be more limiting (the linux box cant write to the Windows partitions, etc...). The Linux box *can* write to Windows partitions (using Samba). Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
I stand corrected - thank you. I have been mounting my local NTFS partition read-only for quite some time, but did not know that SAMBA allowed you to write also. Aside from the SAMBA clarification, does anyone have any other thoughts about the pros and cons of getting into the Mac architecture? --- Randy Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mel Roman wrote: I know that you can similarly use SAMBA to serve files to a Windows client, but I understand that this would be more limiting (the linux box cant write to the Windows partitions, etc...). The Linux box *can* write to Windows partitions (using Samba). Randy Kramer Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
On Monday 22 October 2001 06:02 pm, you wrote: Hi everyone. I´ve been playing with linux (ML8.1) for a little while on my home machine (an old P166). Our family is getting to the point where we need a second machine, so I´m trying to decide on the merits of going with a PowerPC (Mac) architecture (perhaps a new Mac G4) instead of Intel. I forsee my current machine being used primarily as a linux box (file/print server, database server, secondary desktop for me). We would use the newer machine as the primary (user-friendly) desktop that all family members will be comfortable using. One of the things about the Mac that caught my attention was that its new OS X is basically another Unix variant. Aside from being more stable than Windows, Im hoping that each machine would be able to easily mount the others file systems. If that's the only reason, I would have to decline. Windows 2000 (not 9x) is already fairly stable, and there's the old argument about software availability. On the other hand, if you're thinking about games and educational software (with stability still a concern), the Mac might look attractive vis a vis the Win2k box. My advice would be to dual boot one or more of your machines with a Linux/Win2K combo. I presently have no opinion of Windows XP. I have yet to use it. - John Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
On Monday 22 October 2001 08:02 pm, you wrote: I know that several distributions (Mandrake, SuSe, and Debian) come in PPC flavours, but I sometimes wonder if they will continue to find it worthwhile to develop for PPC. There's always MkLinux and LinuxPPC. MkLinux has Apple themselves contributing to it (which just shows how much cooler than MS they are). I'd think the much more centralized hardware configurations of Macs would make hardware compatibility and drivers a smaller issue (although I've never used a ppc linux to know for sure). Although I expect that we would usually use OS X on the Mac I'd say the number one thing to consider is whether the software you want has an OSX version yet. If you have to run OSX in classic mode 99% of the time, you're losing basically all the benefits your new Mac would give you. I would be interested in any thoughts/experiences people have concerning Mac vs Intel architecture (either relating to the above or in any other respect). One thing to consider is the quality of hardware. If you avoid iMacs and Cubes, you'll get a machine that's very well made with excellent components. There's no such thing as a macmodem or anything like that. The same can be said for x86 machines, but you'd have to do a lot more homework. I added a second hard drive to my Mac at work recently which is just begging me to put Linux on it. But I don't want to risk it :) Matt Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
RE: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations
I use win2000 for work every day, (in fact I am writing this email using it.) It has service pack 2 and all updates,, and I crash it twice a day without fail,, i use my OS's very hard, and for long periods, I have been working at this box for 15 hours straight now, with an average 10 different programs happening... Win98 used to crash totally every hour, win2000 crashes totally twice a night.. not perfect but much better then 98.. neither work anywhere near as well as linux, my test box is a low end Ppro200 with 48mb of ram, and it served 7 domains for both website and email, scanned all email (3-4k daily) for virus's.. and shared the net to the network downstairs, ran portsentry and a firewall and several other apps, all on that crappy system and it lasted 3 months before I had to go in and restart some services... So I have a high opinion of linux for that reason... rgds Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Hokanson Jr. Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2001 9:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [newbie] Mac vs Intel architecture deliberations On Monday 22 October 2001 06:02 pm, you wrote: Hi everyone. I´ve been playing with linux (ML8.1) for a little while on my home machine (an old P166). Our family is getting to the point where we need a second machine, so I´m trying to decide on the merits of going with a PowerPC (Mac) architecture (perhaps a new Mac G4) instead of Intel. I forsee my current machine being used primarily as a linux box (file/print server, database server, secondary desktop for me). We would use the newer machine as the primary (user-friendly) desktop that all family members will be comfortable using. One of the things about the Mac that caught my attention was that its new OS X is basically another Unix variant. Aside from being more stable than Windows, Im hoping that each machine would be able to easily mount the others file systems. If that's the only reason, I would have to decline. Windows 2000 (not 9x) is already fairly stable, and there's the old argument about software availability. On the other hand, if you're thinking about games and educational software (with stability still a concern), the Mac might look attractive vis a vis the Win2k box. My advice would be to dual boot one or more of your machines with a Linux/Win2K combo. I presently have no opinion of Windows XP. I have yet to use it. - John Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
