On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:32:58 -0700, Moshe Goldfarb wrote

(in article <1jkhzmjx7siwi$.1n3kf1vm8w9ia.dlg@40tude.net>):

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:24:37 -0500, Chance Furlong wrote:

>

>> In article <0001HW.C41255EC0001325BF01846D8@news.comcast.net>,

>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

>>

>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:30:30 -0700, Cork Soaker wrote

>>> (in article <fsihc4$9re$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

>>>

>>>> O x f o r d wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Learn what MAC means... hint: there is no computer called a MAC.

>>>>

>>>> Wow, you must be twelve years old.

>>>

>>> He has a point. MAC is an acronym for Media Access Control, while an Apple

>>> Computer is called a Mac -short for Macintosh.

>>

>> Some are too stupid to tell the difference.

>

> So where does that leave a Big Mac?

>

>

 

Behind at the MacDonalds restaurant where it belongs - uneaten.

 

--

Obama '08 = Osama '09

"George Graves" <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:0001HW.C41255EC0001325BF01846D8@news.comcast.net...

: On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:30:30 -0700, Cork Soaker wrote

: (in article <fsihc4$9re$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

:

: > O x f o r d wrote:

: >

: >> Learn what MAC means... hint: there is no computer called a MAC.

: >

: > Wow, you must be twelve years old.

:

: He has a point. MAC is an acronym for Media Access Control, while an Apple

: Computer is called a Mac -short for Macintosh.

:

 

We all know.

"Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message

news:fso1t7$fas$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>

> "George Graves" <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote in message

> news:0001HW.C41255EC0001325BF01846D8@news.comcast.net...

> : On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:30:30 -0700, Cork Soaker wrote

> : (in article <fsihc4$9re$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

> :

> : > O x f o r d wrote:

> : >

> : >> Learn what MAC means... hint: there is no computer called a MAC.

> : >

> : > Wow, you must be twelve years old.

> :

> : He has a point. MAC is an acronym for Media Access Control, while an

> Apple

> : Computer is called a Mac -short for Macintosh.

> :

>

> We all know.

 

There was a time when Macintosh meant something more than simply Apple's

name on the outside of the computer.

 

All this thread says is that the PCs Apple builds run Vista faster than do

PCs from Dell, HP, Acer, etc. A strange accolade coming from those who

also call Vista a POS and a failure.

"Hasta La Vista" <noemail@all.to.me> wrote in message

news:N6adnfQ-qvVPDnLanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

 

> All this thread says is that the PCs Apple builds run Vista faster than do

> PCs from Dell, HP, Acer, etc. A strange accolade coming from those who

> also call Vista a POS and a failure.

 

And then its only true for some things and for a few weeks anyway.

There is nothing in a Mac that is special, they sometimes get a new product

out before Dell, etc. and sometimes they don't.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 06:21:18 -0700, Hasta La Vista wrote

(in article <N6adnfQ-qvVPDnLanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast.com>):

>

> "Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message

> news:fso1t7$fas$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>>

>> "George Graves" <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote in message

>> news:0001HW.C41255EC0001325BF01846D8@news.comcast.net...

>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:30:30 -0700, Cork Soaker wrote

>>> (in article <fsihc4$9re$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

>>>

>>>> O x f o r d wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Learn what MAC means... hint: there is no computer called a MAC.

>>>>

>>>> Wow, you must be twelve years old.

>>>

>>> He has a point. MAC is an acronym for Media Access Control, while an

>> Apple

>>> Computer is called a Mac -short for Macintosh.

>>>

>>

>> We all know.

>

> There was a time when Macintosh meant something more than simply Apple's

> name on the outside of the computer.

 

It still does.

> All this thread says is that the PCs Apple builds run Vista faster than do

> PCs from Dell, HP, Acer, etc. A strange accolade coming from those who

> also call Vista a POS and a failure.

 

I don't run it on my MacBook laptop. I do have XP running under Parallels as

a client OS, but not very often. XP is a primitive OS (like all versions of

Windows) but at least its not the resource hog that Vista is.

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:13uvr79h8u6283@news.supernews.com...

> IIRC, "PC" refers to IBM Personal Computer, as in IBM PC compatible, not

> as in personal computer.

 

Exactly, and Macs are now "PC Compatible", since they use the same CPUs,

motherboards and chipsets as every other "PC" out there.

>Can Windows now be installed on a Mac without

> Boot Camp? Can Windows be installed directly on the metal?

 

Vista 64 probably can, since it can use EFI to boot instead of BIOS.

 

But even using BootCamp, Windows is "installed directly on the metal".

BootCamp is just a disk partitioner/BIOS substitute. There is no hardware

emulation going on, like running in VMWare or something.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:49:20 -0400, Bob Campbell wrote:

> "Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

> news:13uvr79h8u6283@news.supernews.com...

>

>> IIRC, "PC" refers to IBM Personal Computer, as in IBM PC compatible,

>> not as in personal computer.

>

> Exactly, and Macs are now "PC Compatible", since they use the same CPUs,

> motherboards and chipsets as every other "PC" out there.

>

>>Can Windows now be installed on a Mac without

>> Boot Camp? Can Windows be installed directly on the metal?

>

> Vista 64 probably can, since it can use EFI to boot instead of BIOS.

 

I'm not that familiar with Vista. Can Vista 32 use EFI?

>

> But even using BootCamp, Windows is "installed directly on the metal".

> BootCamp is just a disk partitioner/BIOS substitute. There is no

> hardware emulation going on, like running in VMWare or something.

 

There is a BIOS substitution going on.

 

 

 

--

Rick

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> wrote in message

news:13uvrsdgmsblc90@news.supernews.com...

>> Vista 64 probably can, since it can use EFI to boot instead of BIOS.

>

> I'm not that familiar with Vista. Can Vista 32 use EFI?

 

I don't think so, but I'm not 100% sure. Some Yahooing would turn up the

answer.

>> But even using BootCamp, Windows is "installed directly on the metal".

>> BootCamp is just a disk partitioner/BIOS substitute. There is no

>> hardware emulation going on, like running in VMWare or something.

>

> There is a BIOS substitution going on.

 

But that's just to get it to boot. Once it's booted, it is "running on the

metal" - no emulated video cards or other fake hardware. You are running

100% full speed of the hardware.

 

Basically the same thing happens in the other direction also. EFI is faked

on a "PC" so OS X can boot on it. After that, OS X is "running on the

metal".

Bob Campbell wrote:

>

>> Can Windows now be installed on a Mac without

>> Boot Camp? Can Windows be installed directly on the metal?

>

> Vista 64 probably can, since it can use EFI to boot instead of BIOS.

 

Vista 64 doesn't use EFI to boot. SP1 was supposed to add EFI - UEFI

2.0 support in particular, which isn't compatible with Apple's older

version. And I am not sure that even made it to SP1.

> But even using BootCamp, Windows is "installed directly on the metal".

> BootCamp is just a disk partitioner/BIOS substitute.

 

BootCamp is not a "BIOS substitute" and plays no part in allowing an

Intel Mac to boot Windows. All Intel Macs since like April 2006 have

come with BIOS emulation builtin, and a firmware update brought that

capability to earlier Apple Intel Macs.

 

Steve

Hasta La Vista wrote:

> All this thread says is that the PCs Apple builds run Vista faster than

> do PCs from Dell, HP, Acer, etc. A strange accolade coming from those

> who also call Vista a POS and a failure.

 

Right, it tells me something critical to my whole existence:

that some brand of Mac is the absolute fastest way of doing

something I can't imagine EVER wanting to do.

 

More useful to me is the fact that some brand of Mac is the

_only_ way to do something I _do_ want to do.

 

--

Wes Groleau

 

I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming

intelligent and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared

from the common culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with

the release of MS-DOS.

-- Larry DeLuca

Wes Groleau wrote:

> Hasta La Vista wrote:

>> All this thread says is that the PCs Apple builds run Vista faster

>> than do PCs from Dell, HP, Acer, etc. A strange accolade coming from

>> those who also call Vista a POS and a failure.

>

> Right, it tells me something critical to my whole existence:

> that some brand of Mac is the absolute fastest way of doing

> something I can't imagine EVER wanting to do.

 

Not the "absolute fastest". Just the fastest of the small subset of

available laptops they tested. And you also have to believe they

didn't bump the test score for PR purposes.

 

Steve

Steve de Mena wrote:

> Not the "absolute fastest". Just the fastest of the small subset of

> available laptops they tested. And you also have to believe they didn't

> bump the test score for PR purposes.

 

I don't have to believe that. In fact, it's VERY unlikely

that they lied. They'd be shown as fools within hours.

 

On the other hand, it's not so unlikely that they omitted

from the test machines that wouldn't be as fast as they wanted.

 

Either way, who cares? Ability to run Vista is not likely

to ever sell a computer to me.

 

--

Wes Groleau

 

There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

On 2008-03-28, Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> "Cork Soaker" <Ubuntu@ISeeTitties.invalid> wrote in message

> news:fsihc4$9re$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>>O x f o r d wrote:

>>

>>> Learn what MAC means... hint: there is no computer called a MAC.

>>

>> Wow, you must be twelve years old.

>

>

> Well mine's called FRED......

 

Mine are called frankie and riffraff.

 

Those are just the Macs. The other non-Macs have other names...

 

--

NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||

/ | \

That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

 

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

----------------------------------------------------------

** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usenet.com

"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message

news:65XHj.8143$p97.5093@trnddc03...

> Steve de Mena wrote:

>> Not the "absolute fastest". Just the fastest of the small subset of

>> available laptops they tested. And you also have to believe they didn't

>> bump the test score for PR purposes.

>

> I don't have to believe that. In fact, it's VERY unlikely

> that they lied. They'd be shown as fools within hours.

>

> On the other hand, it's not so unlikely that they omitted

> from the test machines that wouldn't be as fast as they wanted.

>

> Either way, who cares? Ability to run Vista is not likely

> to ever sell a computer to me.

 

The only people that care are the COLA nuts.. they think that one PC running

faster than another is a problem for M$ that they can exploit in their petty

war against choice. When M$ start making PCs they may be correct, but until

then its all bullsh!t.

dumbass@home wrote:

>The only people that care are the COLA nuts.. they think that one PC running

>faster than another is a problem for M$ that they can exploit in their petty

>war against choice. When M$ start making PCs they may be correct, but until

>then its all bullsh!t.

 

Are you enjoying flaunting your ignorance, dumbass?