Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Edwi » Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:26:08


245-Trioxin wrote:

It's both of those things. The Motorola processor, and its supporting
chipset were all that were left of the Macintosh, which used to feature
things such as ADB, built in SCSI, NuBus, and proprietary CPU and Comm
slots. ADB was replaced by USB, NuBus by PCI, the Comm and CPU slots
were dropped.

Mac OS resided in the ToolBox ROMs, and it was written for, and tied
to, Motorola 68K architecture. The GUI and OS code in ToolBox ROMs
were all moved to software.

The switch to Intel and its supporting chipsets took away what was left
of the Macintosh, which was touted as an integrated bundle of hardware
and software both designed by the same company. It took away the
hardware that formed the very heart of the Macintosh.

Apple played a part in the design of the PPC chips, but had nothing to
do with the design of Intel processors or chipsets, and nothing to do
with the design of BSD Unix at the core of its Mac OS X.


AMD processors are Intel compatible, and both Intel and AMD build to
WinHEC standards.


That's true.


No, it doesn't stop being a machine that was built to WinHEC standards
even while its not running Windows.


Do you feel such a dilemma when you see a store selling software
labeled as being for the Mac or the PC? Do you call them to ask what
they mean by "PC?"


Sure you do. That's why you created a thread to 'solve' this vexing
issue for you.


Then you have a serious problem indeed, as Microsoft is the chief
architect of the WinHEC standard that PCs are built to.


It's really simple: PC means something more than just "personal
computer." It gained that extra connotation when IBM started building
personal computers and calling them "PC," and its evolved further with
IBM compatibles, and then further with Windows and AMD.


You're entitled to your opinion, but it's at odds with reality.


Your thread contradicts that, along with your need to avoid calling
Apple's new computers PCs, at any cost.


Reality does not require your agreement.

 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Sandma » Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:00:58

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,



Mac G5: Software by Apple, CPU from IBM
Mac Pro: Software by Apple, CPU from Intel

What has changed? Be specific.


--
Sandman[.net]

 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Snit » Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:12:06

"Sandman" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
XXXX@XXXXX.COM on 10/22/06 4:00 AM:


What has changed is Edwin has a *slight* new twist to his ancient trolling.

Oh well.

--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€he word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Snit » Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:15:52

Edwin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
XXXX@XXXXX.COM on 10/22/06 2:26 AM:


LOL! Edwin is *still* getting upset by some of the same facts:

€ac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS

€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)

Damn... I wonder how much stress these facts have causes Edwin? Amazing...
if he would only accept reality his life would be much better.

--
€ partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry



 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by 245-Trioxi » Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:27:01

n 2006-10-22 05:26:08 -0400, "Edwin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > said:


Of course I don't. On the box the word PC is assumed to be synonymous
with Windows. On this newsgroup, some Microsoft supporters are using
it as an irrational attack on Apple.


Not really. I started the thread because I was wondering why some
people were referring to intel based Macs as PCs.


I don't really see where I was avoiding calling Apple's new computers
PCs, 'at any cost'. Again, the intent of my thread was to get the
reasons some people were arguing that new Macs were PCs. It is
especially confusing since some in this group use the word PC to attack
the Mac platform and it's supporters as if it is some kind of attack on
Apple.


Fortunately that statement is reality and has nothing to do with my
agreement. If I stick an intel chip in a toaster and load Windows
Mobile on a ROM chip and throw it in there, it is still just a toaster.


 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Snit » Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:32:33

"245-Trioxin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
2006102218261116807-miketrioxin@gmailcom on 10/22/06 3:27 PM:


Ah, from the facts that *** off trolls:

Computer / industry facts:
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)

Clearly this still upsets and confuses Edwin. So be it.


Odd naming convention... one that confuses the dim witted such as Edwin.



--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€reamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Edwi » Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:01:58

245-Trioxin wrote:

That's a large part of being a PC.


Saying Apple builds PCs now instead of Macs is not an "irrational
attack." It's simply the truth.


The short answer is: because they are PCs. I've given you the long
answer why already.


You probably can't see where you're still doing it either.


What for? It isn't supposed to matter to you, remember? Do you
always seek out answers for things you say you have "no trouble" with?


Apple had a unique software/hardware platform that failed after over 20
years of being a beleagured niche machine. So Apple switched to
building Wintel PCs running BSD Unix. These are facts. Calling
them attacks or pretending all it takes to have a Macintosh is Apple's
logo will not make them untrue or anything less than facts.


No, it's simply your denial of reality. MacOS was a software
platform built on Motorola processors. The Macintosh was an integrated
bundle of hardware and software designed by the same company. Apple
doesn't build those any more.


You got that much right. ;-)


IOW, you're just going to ignore everything I wrote above.

 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Snit » Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:16:26

"Edwin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > stated in post
XXXX@XXXXX.COM on 10/22/06 7:01 PM:


Some of the facts that *** off trolls:

Computer / industry facts:
€ac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS

€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)

Amazing how these fact can befuddle and frustrate Edwin time and time again.

--
€here is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by 245-Trioxi » Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:39:34

n 2006-10-22 22:01:58 -0400, "Edwin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > said:


If Windows is a large part of being a PC, then without windows you are
calling something a PC that is missing a large part of what you
consider makes a PC a PC.


I'm not referring to that as an irrational attack. If you want to see
what an irrational attack is, read your statements below for where you
call them WINTEL machines.


I see that I am calling them Macs, yes, but I fail to see where 'at any
cost' applies. I disagree with citing the switch to intel chips as a
reason to call it anything other than what the product is called on the
box.


I wanted to see what actual reasons aside from Apple bashing some on
this newsgroup have for proclaiming Macs to be PCs. Sorry for trying
to hear out the other side of an argument. I promise to be much more
unreasonable in the future. ;)


Apple's software/hardware platform didn't fail. If it had, the company
would be out of business. That would be like saying Microsoft had a
unique software/hardware platform that failed with DOS and 386s. Apple
moved up to newer technologies. If you want to see why certain
statements are perceived as attacks, re-read your above sentence
claiming Apple moved to 'WINTEL'. I don't think I've heard of that
particular chip. Apple also did not install BSD Unix on the computers.
They installed OS X. OS X has as much in common with BSD Unix as
Windows 2000 and XP have with NT 4. Unless you're proclaiming HP,
Gateway, Dell, etc. all are shipping PCs with NT 4, you shouldn't make
an equally false statement about Apple.


They must have quit very recently then, because my Core 2 Duo iMac's
box says it's a Mac.


No, I'm rebutting what you wrote above. PCs have been called PCs over
a multitude of OSes and hardware changes. Why is this not a convention
afforded Apple?

 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Edwi » Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:38:16

245-Trioxin wrote:

But not the only part. The fact it's designed to WinHEC standards, as
are all MacIntels, is also a large part of it.


The MacIntels are not without Windows. They run Windows natively.


Calling them Wintel (all caps unnecessary) machines is not an
"irrational attack." It's simply the truth.


It applies in your refusal to see simple logic and facts.


You've already been told more than once that the switch in processor
involves a lot more than just plopping an Intel processor in place of a
Motorola processor. There's support chips involved also, which
together with the Motorola processor made up the heart of a Macintosh.


You imagine you've been reasonable through all this? All you've done
is go into heavy denial when you recieved the facts you supposedly were
asking for, and worse, tried to label them as an "irrational attack."


Sure it did. Apple ceased its production, after twenty years of being
a niche machine.


No, they just switched to building something else. I for one never
said they would go out of business, just that the Mac platform would
die, and Apple would sell something else to remain profitable. I've
been proved correct.


Windows and other processors evolved to take their place, but they
weren't replaced by the stuff their competitors developed, as the Mac
was replaced by Wintel PCs running BSD Unix.


Which are all Wintel technologies.


Since when is stating the truth an attack? The way you're hangin on
misperceptions are why I said you're trying to avoid admitting the Mac
is now a PC, at all costs.


We're talking about whole computers.


Yes they did.


Go to Apple's own site and see them admitting themselves that Mac OS X
is BSD Unix.


Okay, sure, why not? Windows XP, and 2000 are based on NT, just as
Mac OS X is based on BSD Unix. What point did you imagine you were
making?


Okay, sure, they ship with NT 4. No problem.


I haven't made any false statements about Apple. Your tin god has
feet of clay. Accept it.


Yes.


If you thing a Mac was nothing more than a label applied to a computer
case, then you have a Mac. But the truth of it is you have a PC in
the box, regardless of what it says on the outside.


Not in the least way. All you're doing is sticking yoru fingers in
your ears and yelling "la, la, la, la, la...!!!"


Yes, PCs have evolved throughout their history.


Because Apple dropped their hardware and adopted current PC designs to
replace the Mac.

 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Chris Boy » Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:41:55


In the true sense of the term for PC, or "Personal Computer", a Mac is
a PC. But by PC we usually mean an IBM-Compatible PC.

Perhaps what the question really is is what makes a Mac a unique
Personal Computer compared to an IBM-Compatible. I'm sure anyone would
have too much trouble making that list.
 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Chris Boy » Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:42:00


In the true sense of the term for PC, or "Personal Computer", a Mac is
a PC. But by PC we usually mean an IBM-Compatible PC.

Perhaps what the question really is is what makes a Mac a unique
Personal Computer compared to an IBM-Compatible. I'm sure anyone
wouldn't have too much trouble making that list.
 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by 245-Trioxi » Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:38:54

n 2006-10-25 12:38:16 -0400, "Edwin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > said:


There is not a single Apple product sold that comes with Windows.
Every single Apple computer bought from Apple is purchased without
Windows pre-installed.


Wintel is not a real word. It is a made up word that combines the
words Windows and Intel to instill a sense that Microsoft has conquered
Apple. Keep using it if you like, but don't argue that you aren't
attacking Apple when you use it.


No, what is happening here is a disagreement of what the facts lead to.


I did say 'the switch to intel chips'. When I talk about 'the switch',
just like when you talk about 'the switch', I am speaking towards the
whole of the switching. I never said it was simply plopping an intel
chip in a Power PC.


And all you've done is insult my position. Simply because I do not
agree with you on certain things, does not invalidate my position. You
are approaching this as if you are the 100% authority on the matter and
that all other views are completely wrong. What I asked for was the
reasons used by people that say Macs are PCs. I then started to debate
them. Whenever I would raise an issue - you would merely claim I'm in
denial. That's not how a debate works. I have not argued about what
Apple has done. The only point I am arguing is that of whether or not
this makes a Mac a PC. I do not agree with you that it logically
follows a switch in hardware.


To cease production does not mean failure. No one is churning 386s out
anymore, but I wouldn't say they failed.


Neither has Apple. Intel is not their competitor. You assume too much
about Microsoft's authority over Intel. Intel is a regular at WINHEC
and contribute as much as anyone to the standards that get developed at
the conference.


Wintel technologies? What are Wintel technologies? More use of the
same made up word.


You might say Microsoft is avoiding it at all costs too since they call
them Intel based Macs. But don't listen to them - we all know how much
of a zealot Microsoft is about Apple.

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/default.aspx?pid=macIntelQA


Then I don't think I've seen any official statements about those whole
computers.


OS X is not BSD Unix. How are you having a problem with this fact? Is
the code the same? Are the install disks the same? Is the interface
the same? No, No, and No.


The point I made is OS X is not BSD Unix any more than XP is NT.


You seem to think I think Apple is infallible - I do not. Just because
I don't agree with your assertions does not mean I see Apple as the end
all everything.


Just a reminder: regardless of what Microsoft says?

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/default.aspx?pid=macIntelQA


No, I'm making a statement to support my side of the issue. All you
are doing is insulting my position instead of debating it.


That's hardly 100% accurate. Windows requires non-standard drivers to
function on a Mac. If a Mac was merely a rehash of an HP or a Dell,
Windows would not require either bootcamp or the manual tracking down
of drivers.

 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Lars.Traeg » Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:26:15


There are no "WinHEC standards".
--
Lars T.
 
 
 

Intel + Mac = PC? Does AMD + PC != PC?

Post by Lars.Traeg » Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:26:16


Proprietary CPU? What *** are you on.

Face it, your beloved PCs are missing almost everything the original IBM
PC had.


So the Mac hasn't been a Mac for over a decade - what the hell have you
been doing here all the time?
--
Lars T.