Laptop Or Tower?

[Antoine Baumann]

Yes, faster FSB helps a lot!

We've just sensibly overclock the Intel E4300 cpu, wihtout any special cooler, up to nearly 400 FSB, it now runs @ 3560Mhz. It is highly stable! (just rendered some frames over the night)

For a 125$ cpu, it is really rendering fast, again a blender benchmark shows that a 8 cores Mac Pro is only rendering about 2.5 times faster. When you thing it has 8 xeon cores....

About 64 bit OS, I don't get why it is so important when most of the applications are still written in 32 bit? Could someone explain me this.

antoine

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Yeah, this is what I had understood.

So what is the benefit to run a 64 bit OS, when all the applications you are running are written in 32 bit?

antoine.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Indeed Regina I see your point, but as Rob already wrote "Normal 32-bit applications can only use 3 - 4 GB of memory. However, modern (32-bit) OS'es support more than 4 GB and can use that to give 3 - 4 GB to multiple applications."
Theoricaly 32 bit OS are not limited to 4GB of RAM, and certainly Windows 2003 server is not.

antoine.

 

[Rob Lohman]

I was actually wrong. 32-bit XP (and normal server versions of 2000 & 2003) only allow you to use 4 GB (even if you have more in your system). If you want to run say three 32-bit applications each using 2 - 3 GB of memory you need the advanced / datacenter server versions or 64-bit XP. This limitation is basically a "license" limitation, not a kernel / Windows architecture one.

The number is 2 - 3 as well instead of 3 - 4 for 32-bit applications. Normally the kernel starts at 2 GB so an application can only use the first 2 GB (remember we're talking about virtual memory addresses here, it can resides somewhere completely different in real memory or even on disk). The kernel is mapped into each process so it can call / trap the kernel.

With the /3GB boot option & a large memory aware application the 32-bit app can use 3 GB (kernel is mapped into the last 1 GB instead of 2) instead of 2.

It's complicated stuff, hence I was a bit fuzzy on the details. The following gives a detailed overview:

http://kb.ultratech-llc.com/?File=/MaxRAM.TXT

In case anyone starts saying that overview is wrong in regards to # of cpu's supported. That is the count of *physical* cpu's supported. The amount of cores per physical cpu is not limited. Hence you can have an 8-core XP Professional system (two quad-core cpu's).

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

AppliedVisual -- it's not Apple Kool-Aid. I have a friend who is an everything-about-Apple-is-great-nothing-could-be-better type of guy, I'm not like that. I came from a PC background and was a hardcore PC supporter. But that's also because my early experience growing up with Macs was terrible, they crashed constantly, at least the ones at my school did. That was in the early 90s, way before something like OS X, and I personally believe (even my friend admits to this) that Mac's operating system didn't catch up to Windows until OS 9, and it didn't surpass it until OS X, but even the first releases of OS X I'd rather run than use Windows, any version.

It's funny to me when any arguments or debates over speed or memory ever come up between PC and Mac, because the first thing I'd say is -- who actually cares? When you're using a computer that can't even access the Internet safely without installing hundreds of things you don't want and that has immense virus potential, literally tens of thousands of viruses, that is not a computer I want to use. If your PC is down because it's been infected by a virus, it's speed is 0. Macs never, ever have that problem as there are ZERO viruses for the Mac. A point that PC users love to cringe over, but it's the truth.

My typical week running a Windows PC was spent about two to three times running AdAware, always worrying about what I was downloading and whether it would actually in fact be safe, things would sometimes download and try to run without my permission, Internet Explorer (which I still made the mistake of using back then) would crash my system probably at least twice a day, if I was lucky just once. The computer would give me "Not Responding" tabs frequently, it was just a disaster. That happened with every PC I ever owned. There is no excuse for it. Not even, "Well maybe you didn't know how to use your computer well enough!" Using my computer shouldn't be like navigating a mine field. Period. End of story.

Using my Mac, it has crashed on me three times total in two years. Twice the first week, I loaded a lot of software onto it, I guess that must have been it, then after that just one time. It's just such a joy to use, so much easier, and for me trying to play around in Windows is like going back in time or something to the Stone Ages.

Vista didn't offer anything that Tiger didn't already have. And most people who really follow these operating systems know that Leopard is the first true 64-bit operating system, NOT any version of Windows, none of which have actually been able to operate anywhere near bug free. I've read the literature, that system is a disaster. Leopard is going to be a huge leap forward for all of us who want powerful editing systems.

It won't be too long before your version of Final Cut will harness 16 gigs of RAM (at least) while editing. I personally am waiting on that day because this nonsense about 3-4 gigs of RAM used for one application just has to stop.

Alas, though, I don't mean to run over anyone's toes if they are a big Windows addict or something. I just have never heard a serious computer user say much good about Windows, even die-hard PC users. Although, there are always some, I guess. What an overpriced operating system, too. People always complain seemingly that Apple's are overpriced computers (I'd argue against that notion), but man the Windows upgrades are confusing (what version to get??) and expensive regardless. It's strange to me.

For everyone who loves Windows, wonderful, glad it has served you well. For me my life has been much better since abandoning that mess.

PS: My MacBook Pro shipped Friday! Yay.

 

[Rob Lohman]

Macs never, ever have that problem as there are ZERO viruses for the Mac

That is simply not true which a simple google search proves

Vista didn't offer anything that Tiger didn't already have.

that you need...

And most people who really follow these operating systems know that Leopard is the first true 64-bit operating system

As I said before, there are a ton of true (whatever you mean by that) 64-bit operating systems. In the Unix, Windows and custom OS worlds. And yes, that includes 64-bit drivers & applications.

Now if you're saying that Leopard will bring a unified 64-bit platform to customers then sure, but that's of little meaning in the end.

Windows, none of which have actually been able to operate anywhere near bug free.

Right. Every piece of software (and usually hardware too) has bugs. Deal with it. I've been using Mac for a year now and have come across a dozen or more bugs in OS X already. Everything has bugs.

I've read the literature, that system is a disaster.

Literature that claims a system is a disaster? I've worked with Windows systems for 15 years. I've managed and installed hundreds of servers and desktops. Since XP (especially SP2) & windows server 2000 things have been rock solid on good hardware (and more specifically good drivers).

I personally am waiting on that day because this nonsense about 3-4 gigs of RAM used for one application just has to stop.

Like how current Mac apps can only use the same amount of memory? Look, 64-bit has been available for years. There are a ton of 64-bit apps out that benefit from extra memory. The major NLE's don't seem to be 64-bit yet. If end-users really needed that badly it would've been here already.

64-bit is not a holy grail. It brings new problems (yes, even under Leopard).

I just have never heard a serious computer user say much good about Windows, even die-hard PC users.

That's why so much people and businesses rely on them every day. I'll take Vista or XP SP2 over OS X any day. But that is probably because it works the way I'm wired. Some have the same with Unix or OS X. That's fine too. To each his or her own.

What an overpriced operating system, too.

That too is *your* opinion. How much is a platform you use every day worth to you? I find the price a bit steep too, but if you buy a computer from say DELL you're actually only paying around $50 for that license.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

JonathanLB,

I was going to respond to a lot of your post, but Rob already did it so well... All I can say is that I do like my Macs and my G5 quad is one of my favorite computers of all time. But I use Windows systems daily as well... If presented with a task and I could only pick one system to use, it would have to be the Windows system. I'm actually a recently born Mac user after being a PC and SGI user for many years -- a good 18 or so after I left my first Apple computers.

These silly platform war discussions are pointless. Both Windows and OSX have their relative strengths and weaknesses. Most of the reputation of Windows being so unstable and buggy can usually be attributed to user error and ineffective hardware configurations.

As for viruses and spyware/malware, it certainly does exist in the OSX world and it's going to become an increasingly common problem now that Apple is rapidly gaining market share vs. other platforms. In many ways OSX is more secure than Windows and resistant to these types of programs, but not immune. But it's amazing how secure a properly configured XP or Vista system can be... Too bad Microsoft doesn't make it secure out of the box and most users don't bother to secure any aspect of it, other than install third-party bloat-ware. Most home users actually try to make it less secure by removing passwords, file and folder restrictions, etc..

 

[Lucas Wilson]

...When you're using a computer that can't even access the Internet safely without installing hundreds of things you don't want

Hundreds? I have AVG and Spybot. They run once a day at 3AM. I also do a weekly Windows Update on Sundays at midnight. I have had zero downtime due to viruses in the past 3 years.

Macs never, ever have that problem as there are ZERO viruses for the Mac.

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/a/inqtanaa.htm
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/p/oompa.htm
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/g/macvirus.htm

My typical week running a Windows PC was spent about two to three times running AdAware, always worrying about what I was downloading and whether it would actually in fact be safe,

If you're running a post-production system and you attach it to the outside world, well... you get what you deserve! Ninety percent of the serious post-production systems I know at facilities in LA have a laptop right beside them. The production system doesn't touch the outside world - that's what the laptop is for.

For everyone who loves Windows, wonderful, glad it has served you well. For me my life has been much better since abandoning that mess.

See - there's your problem. That "love" word. An OS is a vehicle for applications. As long as they do that job and do it well, it could be anything. If VMS kept up to date, I would love to be running SCRATCH on a VAX 11/780. Something about loading up spinning reels for data transfer just makes me happy. Who cares? Well, obviously you do!

 

[Cail Young]

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/a/inqtanaa.htm

In other words, Inqtana in its current form poses no real threat to Mac users.

Inqtana is a worm transmitted by Bluetooth requiring the user to accept an object transfer. It is not selfreplicating - it requires user interaction to infect - and, as mentioned above, it was coded to stop infecting on Feb 24, 2006.

Not a virus, and certainly not a threat any more.

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/p/oompa.htm

Leap also requires user interaction in the form of accepting an iChat file transfer of a .tgz archive which contains some disguised executables. If the user then tries to open these, Leap tries to send itself to every iChat contact you have.

Again, as it cannot selfreplicate it's really a worm.

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/g/macvirus.htm

That's a list of mostly pre-OS X viruses, which are hardly relevant.

The truth of the matter is that since Leap, which was discovered at some point last year, there have been no in-the-wild viruses of any kind for OS X. That's significant.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Jonathan,

I am running XP SP2 (+ some specificaly chosen updates) on all my workingstation, no antivirus, no spyware, no security updates, and I am surfing the internet (obviously only for professional purpose). Just have a ghost image of my systems that can be install within minutes and do it as soon as I feel any system slowdown, which I have not felt since long time ago.

antoine.

 

[Antoine Baumann]

About 64 bit OS, I have read a independant study on XP 64 bits that shows that 32 bit applications are running exactly the same than on XP 32 bits. Which I was not sure before.
Therefore I do not see disadventage to run XP 64 bits over the 32 bit versions.

antoine.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Inqtana is a worm transmitted by Bluetooth requiring the user to accept an object transfer. It is not selfreplicating - it requires user interaction to infect - and, as mentioned above, it was coded to stop infecting on Feb 24, 2006.

Not a virus, and certainly not a threat any more.

Sorry, don't have a link off the top of my head, but there are numerous and more recent forms of it. One is particularly nasty in that once it's on a system it will send out bluetooth pairing requests, masquerading as other devices in the the BT connection history. Some of the newer forms can be installed as a trojan if you download and install infected software. But with the masquerading effect, if you have a BT enabled desktop that is infected and then power on your Macbook and go to connect your PDA, your laptop could pair with your desktop, which appears to be that PDA (if it's been connected to the desktop before) if you're not careful.

The sad fact of the matter is that most viruses deliver themselves as a trojan horse implementation rather than being a worm. This requires user interaction in both the Windows and Mac world -- assuming the system is properly configured. Most Windows users run their systems at admin level and have no password protection and folder access restrictions like we have out of the box on OSX and other Unix systems. In other words, if you open an application on a Windows system and/or you allow all applications to run attached to user accounts or privileges on Admin level or there are no provisions in place to keep that application from placing a file in your system folder, you're kinda asking for trouble, wouldn't you say? There's a reason that by default on OSX you're asked for your password every time you install new software or attempt to write any data to a system area.

The truth of the matter is that since Leap, which was discovered at some point last year, there have been no in-the-wild viruses of any kind for OS X. That's significant.

Hmmm... I don't know about that. Apple's last security update a couple weeks ago had specific measures in it to counter a known virus threat, but I don't think any details about what it was were made public. We'll see what happens as time goes on, OSX isn't as magically secure as a lot of people want to believe. They just don't have the same demographic of the PC world to cater to virus development. In other words, current OSX systems aren't all that common in slummy areas around Romanian schools and tech centers. (sorry to profile, but nearly 40% of all origin-confirmed Windows viruses come out of Romania). It also helps in regards to worms and other network vulnerabilities that OSX has a more abstracted network layer.

Anyway I'm not trying to be a doomsayer for OSX viruses or anything like that. I haven't found any form of virus on my Macs since I started using them again less than 2 years ago. I haven't had a virus or worm of any kind on any of my PCs over the last 5 years either. I run Grisoft AVG for my virus scanner -- way better than that bloated crap from Norton, McAfee, etc.. It scans a couple days a week in the early morning hours - like 2AM and does an update before it scans. I also run AdAware and SpyBot occasionally. That's it. Even with all that, I don't think I've actaully detected a Virus in a couple years. I've had SpyWare and Malware attempt to install through IE, but that's an ongoing problem due to how MS designed their TCP stack and how it can access the system. Doesn't matter if you run IE, Netscape, FireFox, etc.. It will be interesting to see how Safari fares on Windows, but I doubt it will be any more secure.

 

[Cail Young]

The sad fact of the matter is that most viruses deliver themselves as a trojan horse implementation rather than being a worm. This requires user interaction in both the Windows and Mac world -- assuming the system is properly configured. <snip> OSX isn't as magically secure as a lot of people want to believe. They just don't have the same demographic of the PC world to cater to virus development.

Romania's a great theory, but the fact is that up until Vista, OS X by default will prompt you before any 'root' level changes are made, even while logged in as an 'administrator', and Windows would not. Even if your account has no password. Proper configuration has nothing to do with it, this is default configuration. The whole reason viruses and other nasties are successful, just as with their biological analogues is that the hosts are easily manipulated. OS X is not easily manipulated unless the user is careless, and if that's the case there's a bigger problem than the operating system.

Let's also be clear with what we're talking about.

Virus - selfreplicating (with no knowledge of the user) and causes damage in some way (loss of files or resources)

Worm - selfreplicating but ultimately benign, may require user interaction to infect

Trojan - not self replicating (requires user to activate) but usually harmful.

The problem with claiming the handful of existing threats as proof that OS X is just as unsafe as Windows versions is that none of them are actually dangerous. Sure, Leap modifies your applications but only to replicate itself, and only once you've performed two manual operations on a suspicious download. The Inqtana variants are a little cleverer but ultimately all they're doing is replicating themselves, there's been no reports of data loss or denial of service etc; and again, the end user needs to activate it manually.

When a threat exists in the wild (just one!) that is executed without the user's knowledge or interaction, and actually has some detriment to the host system beyond merely replicating itself, even then there is a long way to go before OS X catches up to the hundreds (thousands?) of Windows threats out there.

This is no longer an issue of market share. OS X has been around for almost a decade; what the hell is taking these virus writers so long? You can't tell me that it wouldn't be the ultimate cred for one of those Romanians to write the first successful OS X Virus?

 

[Cail Young]

Hmmm... I don't know about that. Apple's last security update a couple weeks ago had specific measures in it to counter a known virus threat, but I don't think any details about what it was were made public.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=305530

All I see is a number of remote denial of service fixes, some fixes for local exploits (you have to have already received the file and then used it with some other program) as well as local escalations (if you're letting Joe Hacker use your physical Mac you've got bigger problems) and a fix for a UPnP weakness which, given that unless you've really buggered your router up, cannot come from outside your LAN, doesn't seem that bad.

I really don't like being so combative about this but it's time that the myth dies. All operating systems are not equally insecure; some are indeed better than others. OS X is helped greatly by being based on BSD, where granular access and all these other wonderful things help to make it far more secure than pre-Vista Windows will likely ever be. This is regardless of "marketshare", or other irrelevent factors.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Relax, man..

In the end, I think we're mostly in agreement. I never said that OSX was insecure, in fact I said it was very secure, more so than Windows and vaguely touched on a couple reasons why. I was just stating that Windows is capable of being far more secure than a lot of people give it credit -- *IF* the right steps are taken to properly configure and secure it. Microsoft doesn't do this for you.. Even with Vista.

As for the addressing of virus threats in OSX security updates, I was thinking it was in this past security update, possibly in the one prior to that. It may not be a part of Apple's technical notes as you linked. Where I caught it was in a statement from Apple I read somewhere. Either way, doesn't really matter... They have to plug holes and patch potential security risks just as anyone else. Granted, they have to do this far less than Microsoft had to in the past with Win2K/XP. There were times it seemed as if Microsoft was plugging holes almost on a daily basis.

The Romania reference was probably a bad idea -- my point didn't really come across with that. But I still do believe that demographics, and not necessarily total market share, do play a role in virus development. Market share should be considered and 2006 was a record shattering sales year due to the Intel transition and the runaway success of the Macbook and Mac Pro. To say that marketshare is an irrelevant factor doesn't seem that logical. If that were the case, then why does OSX have such a small base of available software compared to Windows? OSX software development is starting to explode exponentially along with Apple's sales. Other aspects of this industry, even the ugly ones, are bound to grow at an increased rate too. That doesn't mean OSX is going to falter. But you can bet that there are more people looking for exploits now than ever before and more to come.

Ultimately my point was that we Mac users (and yes, I gladly admit that I like to use a Mac) should not be so cavalier about the threat of a virus on OSX. There's a good chance that somewhere, someday in the near future an exploit could be found that could wreak havoc on OSX. And likewise, the situation on Windows is nowhere near as grim as it's often made out to be, as long as a Windows user takes the time to properly configure and secure their system. Like you said, all operating systems are not equally insecure. But like party politics, it seems that most proponents on each side of the fence are putting a bit of spin on their arguments.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Thankfully caliyoung already did a good job responding to this. I was talking with my friend Erik about this weeks ago, how the only way you could possibly get a virus on a Mac is to download the file, then type in your password AFTER you click to open it, etc. That's not a virus, come on. That's intentionally trying to destroy your system. It doesn't even open automatically! You have to actually go to your desktop, double click, THEN go, "Yeah I have no idea what this is and it's asking for my password, sure! I'll put it in! Maybe it's going to give me $20 if I do!" Uhh, no.

As I said, no viruses. Mac has claimed it on the site many times, and it remains true. There are no in the wild viruses for Mac. Period. I won't argue that point anymore. I find it absolutely hilarious, by the way, that PCs are such incredible security liabilities that you can't evne plug them into the Internet if you intend to do serious work on them. YOU may take that for granted, but to me it's laugh-out-loud funny. For a Mac, it doesn't matter what kind of work you're doing on it, you never feel bad having it online 24 hours a day. For PCs, they're so lousy that if you're running Avid and you even plug the thing into the Internet they won't give you support, at least that is what they told the school I had went to. Which of course meant the computers were rarely if ever updated and functioned accordingly, which is to say poorly. What. A. Joke.


As for PC, if you trust Winblows over OS X, I really do pity you, and I surely wouldn't hire you to do any work for me. I would never, ever have any work done on a PC, I value the integrity of my work and there's no way I'd let an inferior, bug-ridden, awful operating system handle important documents or important projects.

As General Tarkin would say, "This bickering is pointless!" Which it is. Because ultimately I'm glad most people know nothing about computers and continue to use PCs, that way it's unlikely it'll even be worthwhile to try to make a virus for a Mac since not enough people use them [Rob I'm not saying YOU don't know how to use computers, obviously you do, but many PC users are naive]. I hope all businesses outside of the graphic design and filmmaking fields continue to use PCs, that way it keeps a lot more people employeed. If you have 1,000 computers in your company and they're running Winblows, you'd need at least 10 IT guys to service those computers on a daily basis. If they were running OS X you could get by with one part-time employee to help out when someone drops their monitor or something or when they have a defective mouse, lol.

 

[Cail Young]

Ultimately my point was that we Mac users (and yes, I gladly admit that I like to use a Mac) should not be so cavalier about the threat of a virus on OSX.

Fair enough. I just dont respond well to people saying "a simple Google search disproves claim X" and posting links that are ultimately not all that discrediting.

Feh, these long days are killing me. Perhaps it's time for a timeout from me.

*goes off and considers building a RED ONE from Lego™ just to pass the time*

 

[Antoine Baumann]

Jonathan,

OS are just tools, like software, and unfortunately most of the softwares are not develop under OSX. Of course if you only need Apple software of software that are running on OSX, that should be good enough for you. But I have seen a lot of people with Mac Book Pro running XP, it must be for some purpose, isn't it?

As fore hire people working on windows, well a lot of high end software are not running on OSX!

antoine.

 

[beatniq]

This reminds me of the late great Richard Pryor joke about a woman who catches her husband in bed with another woman. He proceeds to deny emphatically that he was cheating on her and says, "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?!"

Well my eyes don't lie. Microsoft fanboys can sing Windows' praises all day, but I ain't switchin' 'till I see it with my own two eyes... and I'm sorry but right now, they're not even playing the same sport let alone being in the same ballpark.

 

[beatniq]

Jonathan,

OS are just tools, like software, and unfortunately most of the softwares are not develop under OSX. Of course if you only need Apple software of software that are running on OSX, that should be good enough for you. But I have seen a lot of people with Mac Book Pro running XP, it must be for some purpose, isn't it?

As fore hire people working on windows, well a lot of high end software are not running on OSX!

antoine.

There is not a single piece of software in this world that you can run on a PC that you cannot run on a Mac.

This has been true for years now. If they didn't make it for Mac before, you could run something like Virtual PC and now, with the advent on the Intel Mac, you don't even need that. On the flip side, can you run FCP on Windows?