33 ms·

There's nothing general purpose about Mac OS X as far as hardware support is concerned. Just like iOS, it only has to target a very small set of hardware config

by paol 13y ago

There's nothing general purpose about Mac OS X as far as hardware support is concerned. Just like iOS, it only has to target a very small set of hardware configurations. Edit: as pointed out elsewhere, this doesn't excuse MS from not taking advantage of the same vertical integration on their own hardware...

__david__ 13y ago
As far as I know they still use the Darwin kernel in iOS. Which means it scales from desktops and servers all the way down to phones... That seems pretty general purpose to me.
- justincormack 13y ago
  No one uses Darwin for servers, not even Apple.
  - mitchty 13y ago
    No one except a fair amount of people: http://www.macminicolo.net/ http://www.macminicolo.net/ You can turn old laptops into "servers", or raspberry pi's, or hell even a commodore 64 for that matter. As long as it serves something of value over a network it qualifies. Whether its a good idea is another matter.
    - kbenson 13y ago
      I think the fact you felt the need to put the word servers in quotes does a lot to show that you and justincormack are talking about computers serving a similar role, but with such laughably different requirements that it's obvious what point he was trying to make, and your statement, while technically correct, doesn't really change his point. You are correct though, people do use commodity and low-end hardware for extremely light server needs, and even in data centers.
      - alayne 13y ago
        Apple took a shot at traditional datacenter rack servers with their Xserve product line. I don't think it failed because OS X couldn't scale.
      - mitchty 13y ago
        I put servers in quotes to denote something that serves that wasn't purpose built for the role. Nothing more, the context from justincormack wasn't lost but there are a lot of uses for osx servers, for example compile farms. What I was referring to, which I thought was apparent but failed to convey, is that this perception of nobody doing it is a fallacy.
        kbenson 13y ago
        We are saying the same thing. My post wasn't meant to contradict yours, just clarify. > What I was referring to, which I thought was apparent but failed to convey, is that this perception of nobody doing it is a fallacy. I just think that in this context the "nobody" you are referring to and the "nobody" he is referring to are not equal sets. Yours is a superset of his, which is why both statements are true (in spirit), while yours is true in fact.
        mitchty 13y ago
        True enough, think its been a long day for me then. Sorry for the confusion on my end. I do believe that means it is beer o clock time. Cheers and no worries mate.
  - kisielk 13y ago
    What's this then? http://www.apple.com/ca/mac-mini/server/ http://www.apple.com/ca/mac-mini/server/ I know of a lot of businesses that run their servers on OS X.
  - azernik 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure some of these [1] are still floating around - they were only discontinued two years ago. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xserve
- mitchty 13y ago
  Additionally its folly to think servers can't gain from power management. Most servers are idle, or running maybe 40%, might as well let those other cores sit idle if they aren't used. Example is at idle with power management our latest xeon draws 300W versus 390 without. 900W at full tilt and all power management disabled. The excuse that windows is a "general purpose" OS doesn't fly in my boat. Granted I don't use Linux for laptops generally but power management should be something any OS does somewhat sanely. We're moving to Amdahls law now away from Moore, also is there a law yet on power requirements for appplications? So power consumption is only going to be more of a basic feature than bolted on. That and doing things like using avx or gpu's for array multiplication because the power requirements are cheaper etc...
  - DanBC 13y ago
    See especially people who used to have performance problems realising that the server was running a screensaver. Terminal Server running serverside, not clientside, screensaver is poor for performance (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20server$20performance$20screensaver/microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services/6i-mfdhLs2g/Qm8wEaEnTL0J https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20...) Q: My server has poor performance. (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20server$20performance$20screensaver/microsoft.public.windows.server.general/R_GJdYwTH08/mlRf7NX4sEAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20...) I genuinely don't understand the Google groups interface. So I might not have linked to the correct messages. Some scrolling might be needed.
- conradev 13y ago
  The Darwin kernel scales down as far as an HDMI adapter SoC[1] [1] https://www.panic.com/blog/2013/03/the-lightning-digital-av-adapter-surprise/ https://www.panic.com/blog/2013/03/the-lightning-digital-av-...
  - adolph 13y ago
    Thanks for linking to that. I read it before the anon comment about the kernel so it was nice to catch up.
melling 13y ago
Plus, consumers don't really care. They just want the better product. "Yes, Mac's get twice the battery life but Microsoft has to support more hardware" doesn't really cut it. Sure, I appreciate it, but when it comes time to spend $2000, I simply want to know that I'm getting my money's worth.
- kbenson 13y ago
  To some people, the one that supports more hardware is the better product. Especially when they are spending $2000.
  - melling 13y ago
    Yes, Linux is very cool in that respect. I really home Linux continues its long and relentless march.
  - temac 13y ago
    He was talking about one $2k laptop. Once you buy one windows version of that, knowing that the software installed on it can support other laptop is not going to make you less sad about your short battery life...
nl 13y ago
Even with extra hardware support, I'd like to know the details of exactly what OS X is doing that Windows doesn't. "Supports extra hardware" sounds suspiciously like the "unoptimised 3rd party drivers" excuse that Microsoft used to throw around. I find it very difficult to believe that supporting extra hardware somehow costs Windows 50% of the battery life of a Macbook Air, but somehow doesn't have the same costs in terms of application performance.
- blinkingled 13y ago
  >extra hardware somehow costs Windows 50% of the battery life of a Macbook Air See mjg59's reply and my note on USB suspend elsewhere in the thread. (OS X turns off lot of things using non standard firmware implementation and uses out of band notifications that Windows and Linux aren't made aware of. Apple's Boot Camp drivers also turn off USB suspend on Windows. Those things matter a lot for power management.)

by paol 13y ago

__david__ 13y ago

As far as I know they still use the Darwin kernel in iOS. Which means it scales from desktops and servers all the way down to phones... That seems pretty general purpose to me.

justincormack 13y ago
No one uses Darwin for servers, not even Apple.
- mitchty 13y ago
  No one except a fair amount of people: http://www.macminicolo.net/ http://www.macminicolo.net/ You can turn old laptops into "servers", or raspberry pi's, or hell even a commodore 64 for that matter. As long as it serves something of value over a network it qualifies. Whether its a good idea is another matter.
  - kbenson 13y ago
    I think the fact you felt the need to put the word servers in quotes does a lot to show that you and justincormack are talking about computers serving a similar role, but with such laughably different requirements that it's obvious what point he was trying to make, and your statement, while technically correct, doesn't really change his point. You are correct though, people do use commodity and low-end hardware for extremely light server needs, and even in data centers.
    - alayne 13y ago
      Apple took a shot at traditional datacenter rack servers with their Xserve product line. I don't think it failed because OS X couldn't scale.
    - mitchty 13y ago
      I put servers in quotes to denote something that serves that wasn't purpose built for the role. Nothing more, the context from justincormack wasn't lost but there are a lot of uses for osx servers, for example compile farms. What I was referring to, which I thought was apparent but failed to convey, is that this perception of nobody doing it is a fallacy.
      - kbenson 13y ago
        We are saying the same thing. My post wasn't meant to contradict yours, just clarify. > What I was referring to, which I thought was apparent but failed to convey, is that this perception of nobody doing it is a fallacy. I just think that in this context the "nobody" you are referring to and the "nobody" he is referring to are not equal sets. Yours is a superset of his, which is why both statements are true (in spirit), while yours is true in fact.
        mitchty 13y ago
        True enough, think its been a long day for me then. Sorry for the confusion on my end. I do believe that means it is beer o clock time. Cheers and no worries mate.
- kisielk 13y ago
  What's this then? http://www.apple.com/ca/mac-mini/server/ http://www.apple.com/ca/mac-mini/server/ I know of a lot of businesses that run their servers on OS X.
- azernik 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure some of these [1] are still floating around - they were only discontinued two years ago. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xserve
mitchty 13y ago
Additionally its folly to think servers can't gain from power management. Most servers are idle, or running maybe 40%, might as well let those other cores sit idle if they aren't used. Example is at idle with power management our latest xeon draws 300W versus 390 without. 900W at full tilt and all power management disabled. The excuse that windows is a "general purpose" OS doesn't fly in my boat. Granted I don't use Linux for laptops generally but power management should be something any OS does somewhat sanely. We're moving to Amdahls law now away from Moore, also is there a law yet on power requirements for appplications? So power consumption is only going to be more of a basic feature than bolted on. That and doing things like using avx or gpu's for array multiplication because the power requirements are cheaper etc...
- DanBC 13y ago
  See especially people who used to have performance problems realising that the server was running a screensaver. Terminal Server running serverside, not clientside, screensaver is poor for performance (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20server$20performance$20screensaver/microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services/6i-mfdhLs2g/Qm8wEaEnTL0J https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20...) Q: My server has poor performance. (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20server$20performance$20screensaver/microsoft.public.windows.server.general/R_GJdYwTH08/mlRf7NX4sEAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!search/windows$20...) I genuinely don't understand the Google groups interface. So I might not have linked to the correct messages. Some scrolling might be needed.
conradev 13y ago
The Darwin kernel scales down as far as an HDMI adapter SoC[1] [1] https://www.panic.com/blog/2013/03/the-lightning-digital-av-adapter-surprise/ https://www.panic.com/blog/2013/03/the-lightning-digital-av-...
- adolph 13y ago
  Thanks for linking to that. I read it before the anon comment about the kernel so it was nice to catch up.

melling 13y ago

Plus, consumers don't really care. They just want the better product. "Yes, Mac's get twice the battery life but Microsoft has to support more hardware" doesn't really cut it. Sure, I appreciate it, but when it comes time to spend $2000, I simply want to know that I'm getting my money's worth.

kbenson 13y ago
To some people, the one that supports more hardware is the better product. Especially when they are spending $2000.
- melling 13y ago
  Yes, Linux is very cool in that respect. I really home Linux continues its long and relentless march.
- temac 13y ago
  He was talking about one $2k laptop. Once you buy one windows version of that, knowing that the software installed on it can support other laptop is not going to make you less sad about your short battery life...

nl 13y ago

Even with extra hardware support, I'd like to know the details of exactly what OS X is doing that Windows doesn't. "Supports extra hardware" sounds suspiciously like the "unoptimised 3rd party drivers" excuse that Microsoft used to throw around. I find it very difficult to believe that supporting extra hardware somehow costs Windows 50% of the battery life of a Macbook Air, but somehow doesn't have the same costs in terms of application performance.

blinkingled 13y ago
>extra hardware somehow costs Windows 50% of the battery life of a Macbook Air See mjg59's reply and my note on USB suspend elsewhere in the thread. (OS X turns off lot of things using non standard firmware implementation and uses out of band notifications that Windows and Linux aren't made aware of. Apple's Boot Camp drivers also turn off USB suspend on Windows. Those things matter a lot for power management.)