I HATE YOU XP SERVICE PACK 2!!!!!

[Bakadeshi [AuN Studios]]

Heh, not this again....

when macs introduce a new design, I've noticed that they are usually way above current pc standards in terms of performance (we are talking the top of the line stuff here like the dual cpu G5), this gap never really seems to last very long, and eventually pc's will outstrip them till the next time something is released and the whole thing starts over.

Thats how its always gonna be, one company will always be outstepping the other until the other comes out with something better. Same with Intel and AMD. Same with ATI and NVidia. And When/If the Japanese eventually decide to seriously design/make a cpu for the desktop.... well thats when all of em gotta start sweatin.

incidentally, for technicalites, Macs are actually superior in technology, but the actuall speed of their processors are lower, so their processor at the same exact speed as an x86 CPU would be much much faster. It has to do with the design. The X86 standards currently (such as PCI, among other stuff) is actually plagued with bottlenecks and is far from optimized. Too many different standards that it has to confirm to. If everyone settled on a single standard instead of the various diferent roads Intel and AMD among others are taking, we'd have much more streamlined systems optimized for 1 specific standard. I beleive this is one reason Mac systems are overall more stable and optimized than the x86 platforms.

[Bakadeshi [AuN Studios]]

I forgot to add, Linux has that same problem, thats whats holding it back from the desktop market, Too many different versions, implimentations, distributions and what not. So many people writing diferent parts of it that its hard to comfirm it to one specific standard, so you get stuff that works better on one kind than another. (Of course this is also a strength of linux in a way, but not when looking at it as a viable desktop solution as a competitor to Microsoft Windows.)

[TaranT]

Microsoft Warns Spyware Could Bungle Security Update

The company is warning users of the Windows XP operating system to check for spyware before downloading the free massive security update, called Service Pack 2.

Barry Goff, a group product manager at Microsoft, said some spyware could cause computers to freeze up upon installation of the update.

[trythil]

Factual errors:

I forgot to add, Linux has that same problem, thats whats holding it back from the desktop market, Too many different versions, implimentations, distributions and what not. So many people writing diferent parts of it that its hard to comfirm it to one specific standard, so you get stuff that works better on one kind than another.

Go read ietf.org, freedesktop.org, freestandards.org, Linux Standard Base (linuxbase.org), Linux Filesystem Standard, and tell me that there's no standard to conform to.

Anecdotally, I've used Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, and RedHat, and while I've found some to be more enjoyable to use than others, I've never had a problem with getting software developed on one distribution to work on another.

The X86 standards currently (such as PCI, among other stuff) is actually plagued with bottlenecks and is far from optimized.

PCI isn't an "x86 technology", and I don't know where you got that idea. It's a bus technology. It has nothing to do with the x86 architecture, as illustrated by the fact that Mac systems have had PCI buses as well.

And now, for opinions.

If everyone settled on a single standard instead of the various diferent roads Intel and AMD among others are taking, we'd have much more streamlined systems optimized for 1 specific standard.

Personally, I'm glad that we have competing designs. It gives me, the consumer, choice. If you think choice is the problem, by all means, think that, but I think it's a benefit, not an obstacle.

About standards: I don't hold the x86 design or its instruction set in any high regard, but what you're saying re: standards makes no sense. There's only one standard for the x86 architecture, and that is the core instruction set! The extensions are just that -- extensions! They're additional instructions which can, in many cases, be easily disabled or enabled in applications.

I'll grant that the current state of 64-bit is still a mess. AMD64 is more or less dominant there (IA-64 isn't x86), although Intel is pushing EM64T which is essentially a crippled AMD64 setup. Hopefully, though, we'll just get one dominant setup there, as it has worked out in the past.

[pen-pen2002]

I've come up against a fleet of Toshiba laptops that spontaniously lock up though, but I can't tell if it's because of SP2 or not. Need to do more tests.

Tell me if you figured out what was wrong, my comp happens to be a Toshiba Satellite (S103-1115.)

[Bakadeshi [AuN Studios]]

Factual errors:

Go read ietf.org, freedesktop.org, freestandards.org, Linux Standard Base (linuxbase.org), Linux Filesystem Standard, and tell me that there's no standard to conform to.

Anecdotally, I've used Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, and RedHat, and while I've found some to be more enjoyable to use than others, I've never had a problem with getting software developed on one distribution to work on another.

I said hard to comfirm it to one specific standard, Not there is no standard. I do realize they are trying to standardize most of it. But its not completely there, and this is why. I have tried many linux distributions including the ones you have (except Gentoo), and as a technical person myself, usually can get stuff to work on either one. but sometimes its dificult enough that the average Joe would not have been able to do it.

PCI isn't an "x86 technology", and I don't know where you got that idea. It's a bus technology. It has nothing to do with the x86 architecture, as illustrated by the fact that Mac systems have had PCI buses as well.

And now, for opinions.

I was being lazy, I know they are 2 diferent standards. I used x86 for lack of a better term. X86 is realy the technology used in the cpu itself, I know that. Perhaps I should have said IBM compatible or something. I did not however know that Mac used to use it also. Anyway PCI was just an example, there are other bottlenecks in the system, aswell as in the x86 cpu design itself. (I beleive RISC is what Macs use these days and is more optimized in its method of handling data than the x86 cpu design... corect me if i'm remembering wrong.)

Personally, I'm glad that we have competing designs. It gives me, the consumer, choice. If you think choice is the problem, by all means, think that, but I think it's a benefit, not an obstacle.

About standards: I don't hold the x86 design or its instruction set in any high regard, but what you're saying re: standards makes no sense. There's only one standard for the x86 architecture, and that is the core instruction set! The extensions are just that -- extensions! They're additional instructions which can, in many cases, be easily disabled or enabled in applications.

I'll grant that the current state of 64-bit is still a mess. AMD64 is more or less dominant there (IA-64 isn't x86), although Intel is pushing EM64T which is essentially a crippled AMD64 setup. Hopefully, though, we'll just get one dominant setup there, as it has worked out in the past.

And I agree on this point aswell, for the most part, since it encourages competition and cheaper prices. If Intel and AMD had an Identical CPU, people probably would just by Intel since there the bigger name. HOWEVER, it is Still a reason for some of the bottlenecks in system performance now. If your a developer for instance, you have to now make sure your software works for both platforms, for as many of the diferent hardware solutions available on motherboards (Nfroce, VIA, etc) aswell as the Graphics engine. (although Longhorn is trying to solve this problem now with its universal graphics engine) This is why gaming systems like the Xbox will outperform PCs on the same exact spec equipment with the same game, given the game for Xbox was optimized for xbox, and the one for PC written to run on all PCs. Macs have the advantage of having a more standard set of hardware to develop to in comparison to the IBM systems. That was all I was saying.

In otherwords, I wasn't commenting on personal prefrence, but rather on the big picture without bias.

[trythil]

I said hard to comfirm it to one specific standard, Not there is no standard. I do realize they are trying to standardize most of it. But its not completely there, and this is why. I have tried many linux distributions including the ones you have (except Gentoo), and as a technical person myself, usually can get stuff to work on either one. but sometimes its dificult enough that the average Joe would not have been able to do it.

Each of those standards are recognized as "the standard" in their respective categories.

If you are looking for one monolithic standard that covers EVERY aspect of OS behavior, you won't find one for any system. I think the closest you'll get is the Single UNIX Specification.

(I beleive RISC is what Macs use these days and is more optimized in its method of handling data than the x86 cpu design... corect me if i'm remembering wrong.)

These days the differences between CISC and RISC have become very blurred. Many modern CISC chips are RISC-like at their core, breaking down complex instructions down into smaller, simpler instructions. This is what RISC architectures do, except that they move it up one level, into the assembler.

I have not extensively studied modern implementations of the x86 architecture, so I can't tell you in depth what the impact of CISC is. However I've a hunch that the performance impact is next to nil.

HOWEVER, it is Still a reason for some of the bottlenecks in system performance now. If your a developer for instance, you have to now make sure your software works for both platforms, for as many of the diferent hardware solutions available on motherboards (Nfroce, VIA, etc) aswell as the Graphics engine.

If you stick to the core instruction set, you're fine for any x86. Extensions aren't much harder -- just surround the code in question with #ifdef HAVE_SSE2 ... #else ... #endif (or whatever). You can also do such checks at run-time, which does not incur much overhead.

Hardware abstraction does incur a performance penalty, but it's also not really a huge hit. (It should be noted that Mac OS X also abstracts the hardware, as does any other major desktop operating system.) The real performance hit comparing PCs vs. game consoles is not so much hardware abstraction but rather the fact that a game console has one task to run whereas a PC is usually juggling a couple dozen at any given time.

Macs have the advantage of having a more standard set of hardware to develop to in comparison to the IBM systems. That was all I was saying.

I don't think this really matters so much anymore. It used to matter quite a bit back in the DOS days of direct hardware access, but nowadays people write to standard APIs -- i.e. OpenGL, SDL, Direct3D/DirectDraw, QuickDraw3D/QuickDraw/Quartz Extreme for graphics, OpenAL, DirectSound/DirectMusic, QuickTime for sound. Instruction set extensions can be worked around in the manner described above.