Why are computers temperamental?

[cyberface]

jimmyjimjim said:

cyberface said:

The main problem with Windows is that Microsoft don't have control over the hardware, so their software can be running on a combination of components that Microsoft simply can't be responsible for testing. A tenuous analogy would be like building a kit car, and then bunging in a Ford ECU, wiring it all up (let's assume the basics, it's a Ford 4 cylinder and the ECU is from a Ford 4 cylinder car, but not necessarily the same model or capacity) and expecting it to run without calibrating it.

I have no intention of this thread getting into yet another tedious platform argument so I'm not going to mention anything about Apple or Linux or Solaris or whatever.

I think that's put Microsoft's position very well. There was something the other day about the distribution of the cause of crashes on Vista; IIRC 80%+ were down to 3rd party drivers.

I'd love (no, not at all, really because I think it would be bad) to see Apple run OSX (or 11, or 12, or whatever) on a similar hardware base (i.e. enormously varied), just to see if they experienced a similar %age. It would be interesting to see that stats, and number of issues, just to see how they compare. It'll never happen of course, because Apple have enough sense not to; it would destroy the 'just works' image.

But it would also be interesting to see who got blamed; Apple, or the hardware people - perception is important.

As with cyberface, this isn't another platform argument, I'd be genuinely interested.

Easy answer to that one - check out www.insanelymac.com forums and the OSx86 Project boards...

Mac OS X running on non-Apple hardware is called a Hackintosh. Lots of people are doing it, because Apple boxes are just Intel reference platforms these days with EFI instead of BIOS. I'm involved myself - I'm working on getting OS X working properly on the Asus Eee...

And it's bloody ste, because if Apple haven't provided drivers for the hardware (i.e. your CPU never went in one of Apple's boxes, etc.) then it's either unstable, doesn't work, or you need to write your own kext. And there are people talented enough to do this, but the documentation is poor (unlike Linux) so the drivers can be a bit dodgy. If you get the drivers right though, or just build a box with the same components Apple uses, OS X is as stable as it is on a real Mac.

That said, it *is* a UNIX after all... and OS X is good... and even my first attempt at getting OS X running on the old Eee 701 NEVER EVER crashed - once the system was happy enough to boot, it wouldn't break.

The bottom line is that you need stable drivers that conform to Apple's kernel extension paradigm for each bit of core hardware you have. Once you've done that - the Apple code on top is just as reliable as it would be on a real Mac. The trouble is that OS X on Intel was released to expect SSE3 and various other CPU features, and the hacked kernels (kernel code is open source) that 'emulate' SSE3 on SSE2 CPUs etc. will have stability directly related to the quality of the code released by the lone hacker who did the job (Semthex IIRC on the early kernels) - and IMO whilst the guy's a god in the Hackintosh world, his kernels won't have had the testing Apple kernels will have endured.

Anyway, this is well off topic. The main difference between Windows and OS X on Intel hardware appears to be that *if* you can get OS X working at all... it'll be stable as a rock. You'll always get Windows installed, but it may be unstable. Your call really. Apple don't sell OS X for non-Apple machines so you're on your own... which is just the way some of us like it

[mcflurry]

JonRB said:

Sure, you can make a system stable if you have it so locked down you have no choice over hardware or software. But where is the fun in that? It's the automotive equivalent of a Daewoo.

But a Daewoo that comes with lots of autoglym and free driving lessons
(Apple will teach you in a free workshop how to use a shiny new mac)

[cyberface]

mcflurry said:

JonRB said:

Sure, you can make a system stable if you have it so locked down you have no choice over hardware or software. But where is the fun in that? It's the automotive equivalent of a Daewoo.

But a Daewoo that comes with lots of autoglym and free driving lessons
(Apple will teach you in a free workshop how to use a shiny new mac)

Err yeah and a Daewoo that has the world's premier engine (CPU) manufacturer's chief executive pleased as punch that they have Apple as a client, to sell their top-end engines (CPUs) to. Even the cheapest Apple notebook has a decent dual-core Core 2 Duo with a fat L3 (2?) cache - no Celerons, or Pentium Ds, or any other low-grade kit.

Yeah Apple have their detractors and proponents, and plenty of people hate Apple for psychological reasons and would reject their 'perfect wishlist machine' if it was Apple-branded, whereas if was Dell / HP or white-box then they'd sell their grandmother for one. There *is* a difference in business model between Apple and all the other computer companies (save Palm, for example, who seem to have missed the boat - if they had teamed up with Asus (for the mobility Linux) or Apple (for the mobility Darwin) then they may be in better shape, but they're trying to do it all alone that which has been done already and is already in the market....). Not everyone buys into this.

Personalities are also a big deal - Gates has IMO realised the historical decisions he made (ruthless, sometimes illegal business manipulation) meant he should step aside with his billions and rebuild his image. This, with Melinda, he has done successfully, whilst MS still get away with somewhat shady deals in 2nd and 3rd world countries - whether these countries actually adhere to MS's contracts (and whether MS can enforce those contracts) will be the eating of that particular pudding. Gates wisely let Steve Ballmer take the reins, who is similarly ruthless and aggressive but is 'obviously' aggressive and highly-strung - he can be laughed at by the anti-MS crew... but he still gets the job done. Ballmer may be comical to non-Microsofties but he can do the sneaky devious stuff Gates used to do whilst giving off the public image of being a 'I LOVE THIS COMPANY' buffoon. Clever management.

Apple have however had OS X working properly on Intel x86 platform since the beginning, and the way they kept that under wraps without any leakage is a true testament to the corporate culture there. Impressive. It seemed from Otellini's response when Jobs announced that all new Macs would use Intel CPUs that Otellini was overjoyed. Perhaps they put something in his drink. But Intel knew that increasing power Moore's Law style won't keep sales booming if the OS and Apps don't make use of this power. After all, for most people these days, an old Pentium 3 with a gig of RAM and an 80 GB hard drive, with Windows 2000 patched securely, is fast enough for virtually all tasks. It's just the gamers that push the requirements on.

And the console builders have something to say about that....

If Apple machines (I have 11 here, from their 'boutique' models to their 'workaday' laptops to their full-on 'Pro' workstations) are the equivalent of Daewoo cars, then let me know what Daewoo salesroom I can visit to get the cars I want - at a much lower price than my current two cars. I need a 4-door 4-seat family saloon with a big boot, but RWD, no traction control and at least 400+ bhp / lb ft (preferably supercharged V8). I also need a sub-900 kg sports car built on a Lotus Exige chassis with a non-temperamental, 200+ k miles turbo 4 capable of 250 bhp at the least with 300 an option. With the same adjustable suspension as the Lotus models.

Don't think Daewoo do this sort of stuff....



Pulling your leg mate. We need the so-called xMac - a minitower Mac with some PCI / PCIe expandability... or the other way - computers becoming disposable (like the Eee) so sell sealed boxes really cheap and expect a churn of replacements. Long argument you could have here!!!!!!