[Biallystock]

And yet NeXT and OSX ran on PCs for years before Apple let on.

All of the above are just excuses for Apple's choices.

The only hard part has been making sure that the retail OSX won't run on off the shelf PCs.

[DocNo]

Biallystock said:

And yet NeXT and OSX ran on PCs for years before Apple let on.

Is that sentence even english?

Quote

All of the above are just excuses for Apple's choices.
The only hard part has been making sure that the retail OSX won't run on off the shelf PCs.

Look, until some idiots started to try profiting from it (looking at you Paystar) Apple could care less if people ran OSX on normal PC hardware.

If Apple was serious about stopping OSX from running on non-Mac hardware they would implement a TPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustedComputingPlatformAlliance) and it's game over. Hardware encryption on the motherboard. They didn't - despite plenty of equally kooky conspiracy theorist swearing, before the first intel Mac shipped, this was the main reason Apple was switching to Intel. They were wrong, and so are you.

I'll state it again (although I doubt it will help you comprehend) Apple is not actively preventing PC equipment from running on Mac's. Mac's simply work different from the way they boot to the drivers that are built into the OS. You can chalk that up to nefarious purposes all you want - still doesn't mean it's true.

Again, if Apple was so concerned about hardware lockout, why are they compatible enough with the EFI standards that some non-Apple approved cards can be flashed to work with the Mac? Your premise simply doesn't make any sense.

[Biallystock]

[quote name='DocNo']
>

Biallystock said:

> And yet NeXT and OSX ran on PCs for years before Apple let on.

Is that sentence even english?

Yes.

Do you speak it: "looking at you PayStar", "Apple could care less?"?

Quote

> All of the above are just excuses for Apple's choices.
> The only hard part has been making sure that the retail OSX won't run on off the shelf PCs.

Look, until some idiots started to try profiting from it (looking at you Paystar) Apple could care less if people ran OSX on normal PC hardware.

If Apple was serious about stopping OSX from running on non-Mac hardware they would implement a TPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustedComputingPlatformAlliance) and it's game over. Hardware encryption on the motherboard. They didn't - despite plenty of equally kooky conspiracy theorist swearing, before the first intel Mac shipped, this was the main reason Apple was switching to Intel. They were wrong, and so are you.

I'll state it again (although I doubt it will help you comprehend) Apple is not actively preventing PC equipment from running on Mac's. Mac's simply work different from the way they boot to the drivers that are built into the OS. You can chalk that up to nefarious purposes all you want - still doesn't mean it's true.

Again, if Apple was so concerned about hardware lockout, why are they compatible enough with the EFI standards that some non-Apple approved cards can be flashed to work with the Mac? Your premise simply doesn't make any sense.

What they've done is incompatible enough to work. Why make life harder on themselves?

Glad to hear that Apple has never deliberately in all its history made incompatible hardware and software. Not even with their own products!

[HyperMactive]

Um, actually DocNo, the plural of Mac is Macs, not "Mac's." It's not a contraction or a possessive, just, you know, so you know.

While we're lecturing people about English, thought I'd throw in a lesson as well... :)

[mdawson]

Quote

Biallystock wrote:

>

Quote

Please explain how, now the Mac is basically a PC, Apple has managed to make PC Graphics Cards incompatible?

By making this statement you prove that you know absolutely nothing about computer hardware or the relationship between Macs and graphics cards. Firstly, all Macs are and have always been PCs as that acronym simply means personal computer. What has changed is that Macs now use Intel processors. That stated, Macs are still completely different systems from the cookie-cutter PCs that Dell, HP, Gateway, et al., assemble and churn out. If you had actually been paying attention to PC design 30 years ago when hundreds of incompatible PCs ran on less than 10 unique CPUs, or knew anything about computers to begin with, you could understand that very simple premise.

Apple designs their computer from the ground up and implements or removes technologies as they see fit. No Mac has ever been guided by the whims of some ATX/BTX motherboard manufacturer that insists on wasting board resources and space on obsolete ports?most Wintel PCs still have PS/2, RS-232c serial and IEEE-1284 Centronics parallel ports?, implementing technologies late?every new Ethernet standard from the original protocol up through gigabit Ethernet has been a standard feature on Mac motherboards long before they are standard on ATX/BTX boards?or not at all?most Wintel PCs lack FireWire 400 and none have built-in FireWire 800.

As to graphics cards, Apple does not make PC graphics cards incompatible with Macs, the graphics card OEMs do. It is the latter that make the decision to make the card they sell only compatible with Wintel PCs not Apple. Even if all graphics cards did have cross-platform firmware, Apple writes the drivers, again, because the GPU OEMs do not. Apple does not by any means have the resources to write drivers for every graphics card on the market.

Quote

Biallystock wrote:

>

Quote

And yet NeXT and OSX ran on PCs for years before Apple let on.

And? Apple had an x86 test bed in order to perform parallel development of OS X in case they needed to switch processor lines, as they eventually did. Apple has never intended, stated or implied that they were developing an open operating system that would run on any PC. The Intel-based Macs that finally made it to market starting in 2006 are not Wintel PCs nor or they compatible with them.

Quote

Biallystock wrote:

>
All of the above are just excuses for Apple's choices.

No one has to make excuses for Apple?s choices. Apple owns the products. Apple owns the platform. Therefore, Apple and only Apple has the right to decide in what direction their products and platform will move.
Biallystock wrote:
>
The only hard part has been making sure that the retail OSX won't run on off the shelf PCs.

Apple did not have to make sure of anything. The shipping Universal Binary versions of OS X are designed to operate on either legacy PowerPC Macs or x86 hardware that did not exist prior to the start of Intel Mac development circa 2005. But again, you are completely ignorant about hardware and cannot get yourself past the false pretense that a Mac is just another Wintel PC.

Biallystock wrote:
>
Glad to hear that Apple has never deliberately in all its history made incompatible hardware and software. Not even with their own products!

Right, because the Wintel world is the pinnacle of backward compatibility.

[DVA_Airwolf]

Biallystock said:

And yet NeXT and OSX ran on PCs for years before Apple let on.

Is that sentence even english?

Indeed it is. It's an informal British English term (specifically Ulster Scots) for:

Verb
Informal
1. to reveal (a secret)
2. to pretend: he let on that he was a pilgrim

[leicaman]

Biallystock said:

Quote

Please explain how, now the Mac is basically a PC, Apple has managed to make PC Graphics Cards incompatible?

Is it their last hold out on deliberate incompatibilities to prevent cloning?

That's like saying "Macs basically use electrons to power themseves. Please explain why they require OS X rather than Windows or Linux?"

You first have to understand all the issues involved before you can make a legitimate critique of how things work. Way too many people seem to be under the misconception that they understand all the things that make things work. Just ask a ID software about it. People assume ID can just whip out their next game "Rampage" on a deadline because they know what's in it and all the parts are there except for getting all the bugs worked out. So, it should be easy, right? But ID learned a long time ago that they can't promise a release date, because bugs are sometimes a lot harder to squash than they anticipate. Yet customers are all unhappy because they won't tell us when it's going to be released.

Same with hardware. Sure Macs use pretty much standard hardware, and the tools are out there for the graphics card manufacturers to create graphics cards that COULD work in Macs and PCs at the same time - it's been done. And yet, that isn't how cards are being built. Blame Apple all you want, but it's the card manufacturers who are making the decision on whether to follow that path.

You bought a Mac, and you knew this was the road it has been following for a long time. Well, maybe it's time to stop whining about it every time a new card comes out, as if this is some big revelation and a personal insult to your integrity from Steve Jobs himself. No wonder Peter gets a bit testy on the subject. He keeps hearing it over and over again, no doubt, and it's getting boring.

This is GOOD NEWS for us 2008 and 2009 Mac Pro owners. I'm going to pick one up. As a long-time Mac user, I'm really happy that Apple is stepping up to the plate and offering it so soon after introducing it in a new machine. Normally it has taken a long time for them to make a card that we can retrofit into older machines. So in one way, it seems to me this is better stuff from Apple than has occurred in the past.

Please, stop bringing up the same, old, tired complaints for once! There's plenty to complain about, this card is not one of them.
Message was edited by: leicaman

[HyperMactive]

Wow, lots of blind apologetics for Apple's overpriced, outdated graphics processors. No wonder they never feel compelled to fix the situation.

[Grapho]

Apologetics? Did you even read the thread, or understand what is being discussed? Things are what they are, no apology needed.

Now I will say this. nVidea or ATI would have more incentive to make their graphics cards compatible with Macs if they got a larger market to recoup their investment. But Apple makes on single model that can utilize these cards. The Mac Pro. This happens to be probably the lowest selling Mac on Apple's lineup. In reality, it's all about economics. In a way, I think Apple should at the very least dedicate a team of developers to aid the graphic card manufacturers in bringing more and better technology in this regard to the Mac Pro market. But then again, would this sell more Mac Pros?

If Apple was to come out with a smaller headless Mac, then this would expand this particular market, creating maybe more viability and incentives to bring better and more variety of cards to the Mac, by increasing their demand. Having one single niche product is hardly worth the effort for the GPU manufacturers, so Apple needs to pickup the slack.

[ChrisLJ]

The ATI 4870 HD actually looks like a pretty good deal at $349 when you consider Apple is still selling those blast furnace ATI X1900 XTs for $399.

The NVIDIA GT120 at $150 isn't much more than the ATI HD2600XT at $129. A miniscule difference.

A veritable cornucopia of graphics hardware delight. What's there to complain about people?

[Peter Cohen]

Grapho said:

>But then again, would this sell more Mac Pros?

I'm not satisfied that it would. The market for "big iron" is dwindling on the PC side, too. Obviously still large enough to support an ecosystem of third-party card makers, but the trend is definitely towards laptops more than anything.

[jecastej]

With Apple memory, hard drives and other components prices I agree, they cost more from Apple.

But there is an exception with some of Apple's video cards: Yes they do cost more, but I think Apple is giving us a mixture of a gaming video card with support for professional video applications. Even in iMacs and obviously in Mac Books and MB Pros. So the only Mac not supporting pro features may be the Minis, but I am not sure.

This is more evident with the new video card offering, or lack of it: No more Pro Nvidia card. Or at least up to this time.

The difference between the top Apple's gaming cards and Apple's Pro video cards in performance is sometimes negligent, but there is a big price difference. And if you know a little about the difference (in general) in professional and gaming video cards you know it is basically the drivers and support.

So this is my theory:
- From a gaming point of view you pay more, double or more.
- From the professional point of view you pay less than half.
But keep in mind that Mac Pros specifically are workstations.

From the Apple point of view it may be more convenient to develop both driver for the same hardware. So you end up with a gaming card hardware with convenient driver support for specific professional applications. Plus some Apple functionality like custom DVI or mini display-port connectors.

I don't see anyone complaining with their Apple gaming cards supporting Pro features.
But who knows ATI or Nvidia may offer other options at better price points. If so again keep in mind they will operate with different drivers/features than the ones Apple offer.

[Steve_S]

HyperMactive said:

Wow, lots of blind apologetics for Apple's overpriced, outdated graphics processors.

No, it's more like lots of blind ignorance by those making accusations they simply can't support. Those in the conspiracy theory camp have demonstrated they don't know what they're talking about pretty clearly.

You have to appreciate the irony though. We expect Apple to be innovative and on the cutting edge by supporting things like EFI over BIOS, display port (though new, is a better standard), etc. Yet, we have people complain when Apple is not perfectly compatible with seriously dated standards in the PC industry. Go figure!

[ChrisLJ]

Although Apple is always referred to as a hardware company, I consider their software to be vastly more important than anything they build, no matter how fast or powerful.

To my mind, having the capability of running the current iteration of OS X (or whatever follows) on the slowest Mac beats the bejesus out of using any Windows version on the fastest PC. Of course, this doesn't take into consideration hardcore gaming or professional needs, but for the average user it would probably suffice.

Just my opinion, so please don't rip me a new one.