The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
How Do I Setup/Configure a PC to Run Like a Mac
Old 13th September 2011
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
I tend to wonder if windows updates could cause issues with music software as well?
Updates for either OS or application specific updates can theoratically mess up at least one application. I've seen it on all systems.

Mac or PC, this is the way it should be:
-update available
-do I need it? Will I gain features or stability which is needed?
-if no, don't update
-if yes, back up, then update

It is not that hard.

All our systems we ship are completely updated, unless an update messes things up. We know that because we test our systems before they get shipped. My private setup hasn't had updates for a long time, only hosts and plugins get updated if they actually bring an advantage.
Old 13th September 2011
  #62
Gear Nut
 
jalguitarman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Granted.

That said, in my personal experience, I've never seen Norton or McAffee actually clean an infection. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying I haven't seen it happen -- and I have been pressed into service on several occasions in the now receding past to unscrew a small handfull of machines that had become infected -- all of which had Norton or McAffee or both on them, if memory serves -- although not necessarily updated. Seriously, I won't use that crapware. And, in fact, on one nightmare system, Norton had actually been 'coopted' by the malware and was literally protecting it from removal. That was a real TPITA.

[I should, however, hasten to say that my deep antipathy to Norton and McAffee is strictly based on personal experience; it is not based on any sort of objective, third party survey or analysis. FWIW, when I set up machines for other, not necessarily sophisticated users, I've tended to set them up using AVG Free, which has often seemed to be a consensus choice. I've also set up machines with MS's Security Essentials -- and I understand it's quite good as these things go -- but it definitely is a resource hog, as they all are to varying degrees. As I noted above somewhere, I don't, myself, use background running security software, other than XP's built-in firewall -- which should be considered a bare minimum for an online machine.]

However, those numbers do presumably reflect the probably extremely large majority of users who have not turned off Windows Auto Update, which defaults to on and whose machines are updated regularly.

Don't bet me wrong, inthere, I'm not suggesting that Mac folks should be shuddering in their boot-up profiles. Far from it.

I'm just passing along the info from MacWorld that Win 7 is more secure than OS X and that OS X has structural and feature problems that make it more vulnerable than Win 7. But, of course, historically, there is no question that Windows has been and probably continues to be the focus of more targeted attacks.
Funny I had a similar issue too. I had Trend micro-net and it became corrupted as well. Thing is I don't look at porn or go to music sharing sites like "bearshare" I don't think I go to any high risk sites and yet this machine ended up with freaking malware!!!

There was just one day that I couldn't get on the web. It would try to connect but you would never get anything but a white screen. A friend of mine from church who is a systems analyst by trade came over and helped us out with the trouble we were having with this computer. He downloaded "Malware bytes" and it turns out there was quite a bit of malware on this machine. It completely cooked "internet explorer" Point being, it can be easier to get malware than you think. That and apparently some of the most popular anti-virus programs aren't worth spitting on.
Old 13th September 2011
  #63
Gear Nut
 
jalguitarman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Updates for either OS or application specific updates can theoratically mess up at least one application. I've seen it on all systems.

Mac or PC, this is the way it should be:
-update available
-do I need it? Will I gain features or stability which is needed?
-if no, don't update
-if yes, back up, then update

It is not that hard.

All our systems we ship are completely updated, unless an update messes things up. We know that because we test our systems before they get shipped. My private setup hasn't had updates for a long time, only hosts and plugins get updated if they actually bring an advantage.
On this computer at least windows updates on it's own.
Old 13th September 2011
  #64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
On this computer at least windows updates on it's own.
You can and should switch it off on a DAW. This counts for all apps that like to search for updates automatically by default, like Quicktime and Adobe Reader, to name a few standards.
Old 13th September 2011
  #65
Gear Nut
 
jalguitarman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
You can and should switch it off on a DAW. This counts for all apps that like to search for updates automatically by default, like Quicktime and Adobe Reader, to name a few standards.
Point taken. Thank you.
Old 13th September 2011
  #66
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
You can and should switch it off on a DAW. This counts for all apps that like to search for updates automatically by default, like Quicktime and Adobe Reader, to name a few standards.
I've become so lazy with Win7. I have all automatic updates on for nearly every software I have. Most of them will pop-up a window asking me whether to proceed or not. I just click OK without giving it too much thought. Non of my DAW applications have suffered so far. (So far the only thing that has ever broken is Cakewalk's forum failing on Firefox 6. Duh!).

I don't recommend this approach to other people as it goes against all good DAW maintenance practices but it does show that any myths about how hard a Win7 DAW is to maintain are at the very least highly exaggerated!

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I've become so lazy with Win7. I have all automatic updates on for nearly every software I have. Most of them will pop-up a window asking me whether to proceed or not. I just click OK without giving it too much thought. Non of my DAW applications have suffered so far. (So far the only thing that has ever broken is Cakewalk's forum failing on Firefox 6. Duh!).

I don't recommend this approach to other people as it goes against all good DAW maintenance practices but it does show that any myths about how hard a Win7 DAW is to maintain are at the very least highly exaggerated!

Alistair
Well, it is not as much that the updates themselves ar ebreaking something, since that rarely happens (QT can be terrible though). It is more that while recording, you don't want any background services running that you really don't need at that moment. Same during mixdown/bouncing.
Old 13th September 2011
  #68
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Well, it is not as much that the updates themselves ar ebreaking something, since that rarely happens (QT can be terrible though). It is more that while recording, you don't want any background services running that you really don't need at that moment. Same during mixdown/bouncing.
Indeed. I won't press Ok to one of those pop-ups if I'm recording! ;-)

The point I was trying to make is that I used to read-up and make extensive online checks before installing any updates. These days, things having gone absolutely fine for so long I don't bother checking any more. I've got backups to turn to if everything turns pear shaped...

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #69
Lives for gear
 
mdoelger's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
You don't have to babysit the OS to keep the performance in shape for audio.
Sorry, but I myself consider my computer as a tool I use for work. For sure I'm willing to babysit the system a little...not only to keep it working at its optimum, but also to know when there might be a problem.

In my experience MAC users (vast generalization) don't know **** about the tool they work with every day.
Old 13th September 2011
  #70
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumdrum View Post
PCs and macs hardware wise are virtually identical these days.
You're joking, right? When I look at the Mac in front of me, I see a power supply attached with a Magsafe adapter, a unibody aluminum casing, that has microscopic holes so that you only see the sleep light and the battery indicator when they are on, a button-less multitouch glass trackpad, a backlit keyboard, a display that has a magnetic latch without any mechanical closing mechanism, audio in and out mini jacks with an integrated optical connection. On the inside, there is a battery without external housing, to preserve space.

I have never seen a PC like this.

Here is a recent arstechnica article - the writer tried to replace his Macbook Air with a feature equal Windows machine, interesting experience.


I still have an old 12" PowerBook G4 from 2003. The vast majority of PC laptops I see today cannot match it in terms of miniaturization and responsiveness (trackpad, keyboard).
Old 13th September 2011
  #71
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
Because it's NOT the kernel doing the indexing, it's the mdworker process.
...

As for 'scheduling' both OSX and Windows have background scheduling for mdworker and the Win search index anyway. Under OSX it's called launchd, and it certainly does call mdworker/mds.
You can read up on it here. Includes details on how the process interacts with the kernel. And why it's *not* scheduled indexing.
Old 13th September 2011
  #72
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaPi61 View Post

Not sure which part of "Win 7 is less vulnerable than OSX" is so hard to understand. Seems like your information on Windows needs some updating...

Windows 7 is MORE Secure Than Apple MAC OSX - Up & Running Technologies Calgary
This links to an article that is blissfully free of any technical information, and links to an article by Paul Thurott, who is famous for his cluelessness about Apple technology.

You can find security info that actually has some technical detail here, here and here.

There were links and talk about Macdefender earlier in this thred as well. Mac Defender does not exploit any technical weakness in OS X, it lures naive users into giving up their credit card details. Have you actually seen it? It displays a browser window that is supposed to look like a virus scan, but for Windows. If you look at some of the entries of the supposed malware that was found, you can tell that the writers of MacDefender most definitely have a sense of humor.

MacDefender is like the Nigerian Scam. It has nothing whatsoever to do with OS security.
Old 13th September 2011
  #73
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoelger View Post

In my experience MAC users (vast generalization) don't know **** about the tool they work with every day.
Thank you very much.

Btw, it's spelled Mac, not MAC. MAC stands for Media Access Control and refers to a hardware address for network interfaces.
Old 13th September 2011
  #74
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
You can read up on it here. Includes details on how the process interacts with the kernel. And why it's *not* scheduled indexing.
First off that's a 6 year old article for Tiger, so any comparisons to 'Windows' are out of date. Also saying 'at the kernel level' in that article does NOT mean it's IN the mach kernel outside of the fact that file i/o operations trigger mdworker and the metadata plugins. Ie, it's just the fact that file i/o ops trigger mdworker, which is a kernel level PROCESS (not in the kernel itself). The metadata plugins that enhance its indexing (located in~/Library/Spotlight, /Library/Spotlight and so on) are also not IN the kernel, as they obviously exist in those locations and are not prelinked/statically compiled into the kernel.

So how does this differ from a Win7 'kernel level' process that is a Service, which can utilize file association Extensions? Other than terminology and of course the difference in priority level between mdworker and Win7's indexing service which I also mentioned? And as I've stated mdworker is triggered by launchd periodically as well to update the index, which is in parallel to Win7's 'scheduling' which is triggered periodically. ALL modern versions of Windows & OSX can both update the index in realtime AND by daily triggered updates (scheduling). The fact that launchd (which replaced cron) isn't "called" scheduling per se is just semantics.

Are you not aware that search results in Win7 will also update in realtime? Again though due to lower priority if you're caning the heck out of your cpu cores it may not be as 'speedy' as OSX... and I also mentioned AGAIN the tradeoff there, when a Spotlight index fails and triggers a Spotlight to start over and you see a core at 100% repeatedly over & over....it's kind of a workflow killer. Win7 doesn't have this 'feature'. So OSX wins on priority level (faster updates) when it's not failing and starting over or a long index (a new drive from a client & etc being indexed), Win7 wins when there's work to be done and an index is underway...simply tradeoffs not major fundamental technical revolutions as you've stated.

How about I go further and state that while OSX's metadata indexing is actually a bit more robust than Win7's, being limited to simply clicking on a file when you use Spotlight from the upper finder bar is a bit lacking compared to being able to right click on files in Windows Search both in the search pane (part of the start menu) as well as in explorer windows. Sometimes I want to know WHERE a given audio or graphics resource (file) lives and not just open the damn thing and do 'save as' to find out where to locate it...so that I can relink it from my chosen app. Merely opening it via Spotlight doesn't help much there... Just a good example of some things are better in one camp, some better in another, both progress in parallel and are based on similar MODERN technologies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
You can find security info that actually has some technical detail here, here and here.

There were links and talk about Macdefender earlier in this thred as well. Mac Defender does not exploit any technical weakness in OS X, it lures naive users into giving up their credit card details. Have you actually seen it? It displays a browser window that is supposed to look like a virus scan, but for Windows. If you look at some of the entries of the supposed malware that was found, you can tell that the writers of MacDefender most definitely have a sense of humor.

MacDefender is like the Nigerian Scam. It has nothing whatsoever to do with OS security.
MacDefender is mentioned solely because it's the ONLY piece of malware that Apple has specifically mentioned and admitted to themselves, however their 'security updates' include a large number of other drive-by downloads that are flagged. And there's plenty of links out there to OSX vulnerabilities in 10.5, 10.6 and even 10.7. While there's nothing wrong with the 10.7 links you have per se, I'm sure we could counter them with Windows8 'improvement in security' links when it's closer to launch, at which point one can counter those with OSX 10.8 links, and then Windows 9 links...

I'll state again, I use both platforms (and others) and am familiar enough with the upsides & downsides of both to discuss things based on actual technical merit--AND to learn more about the discussion on both sides. You seem to simply be interested in defending your Belief System and to date you've done NOTHING to contribute to the original OP's question...beyond engaging in the endless-and imo pointless-Mac vs. PC debate in your mental ivory Mac tower. Why not come out of there and discuss things like a person instead of this stupid counterpoint loop you're stuck in?
Old 13th September 2011
  #75
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
Other than terminology and of course the difference in priority level between mdworker and Win7's indexing service which I also mentioned? Are you not aware that search results in Win7 will also update in realtime?
Regardless of how good, bad or whatever Spotlight might be I would just like to say that I disliked Win7's search function so much I installed something else to replace it. :-D

Just to remind myself how it was I re-enabled the search service and hit the Rebuild button. The little indexing window is telling me "Indexing speed is reduced due to user activity". Heh. I'm just typing! :-)

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #76
Lives for gear
I think it's time for everyone to start reporting stratology for hijacking this thread and turning it into the usual "OSX rules, Windows sucks" drivel spewed by fanboys.
Old 13th September 2011
  #77
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
First off that's a 6 year old article for Tiger, so any comparisons to 'Windows' are out of date. Also saying 'at the kernel level' in that article does NOT mean it's IN the mach kernel outside of the fact that file i/o operations trigger mdworker and the metadata plugins. Ie, it's just the fact that file i/o ops trigger mdworker, which is a kernel level PROCESS (not in the kernel itself). The metadata plugins that enhance its indexing (located in~/Library/Spotlight, /Library/Spotlight and so on) are also not IN the kernel, as they obviously exist in those locations and are not prelinked/statically compiled into the kernel.

So how does this differ from a Win7 'kernel level' process that is a Service, which can utilize file association Extensions? Other than terminology and of course the difference in priority level between mdworker and Win7's indexing service which I also mentioned? And as I've stated mdworker is triggered by launchd periodically as well to update the index, which is in parallel to Win7's 'scheduling' which is triggered periodically. ALL modern versions of Windows & OSX can both update the index in realtime AND by daily triggered updates (scheduling). The fact that launchd (which replaced cron) isn't "called" scheduling per se is just semantics.

Are you not aware that search results in Win7 will also update in realtime? Again though due to lower priority if you're caning the heck out of your cpu cores it may not be as 'speedy' as OSX... and I also mentioned AGAIN the tradeoff there, when a Spotlight index fails and triggers a Spotlight to start over and you see a core at 100% repeatedly over & over....it's kind of a workflow killer. Win7 doesn't have this 'feature'. So OSX wins on priority level (faster updates) when it's not failing and starting over or a long index (a new drive from a client & etc being indexed), Win7 wins when there's work to be done and an index is underway...simply tradeoffs not major fundamental technical revolutions as you've stated.

How about I go further and state that while OSX's metadata indexing is actually a bit more robust than Win7's, being limited to simply clicking on a file when you use Spotlight from the upper finder bar is a bit lacking compared to being able to right click on files in Windows Search both in the search pane (part of the start menu) as well as in explorer windows. Sometimes I want to know WHERE a given audio or graphics resource (file) lives and not just open the damn thing and do 'save as' to find out where to locate it...so that I can relink it from my chosen app. Merely opening it via Spotlight doesn't help much there... Just a good example of some things are better in one camp, some better in another, both progress in parallel and are based on similar MODERN technologies.
The article is about Tiger, because that's when Spotlight was introduced.

Quote:
"Any file i/o that goes through the Tiger kernel will trigger the appropriate metadata importer. "

This does not mean scheduled indexing, like it was done in 10.3. and earlier.
Windows 7 is competing directly with Mac OS X 10.3 when it comes to features, not with 10.7.


Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
MacDefender is mentioned solely because it's the ONLY piece of malware that Apple has specifically mentioned and admitted to themselves, however their 'security updates' include a large number of other drive-by downloads that are flagged. And there's plenty of links out there to OSX vulnerabilities in 10.5, 10.6 and even 10.7. While there's nothing wrong with the 10.7 links you have per se, I'm sure we could counter them with Windows8 'improvement in security' links when it's closer to launch, at which point one can counter those with OSX 10.8 links, and then Windows 9 links...

You mix up the terms 'malware' and 'vulnerabilities'. Vulnerabilities are just that - mistakes in code that could lead to security issues. They are not exploits.


Why should Apple release any official info on something like the Nigerian Scam, that has nothing to do with the OS? The only malware that exists requires the user to actively attempt to install malicious software. And, in most cases, type an admin password.
This has nothing to do with worms or viruses that exploit OS vulnerabilities.
Old 14th September 2011
  #78
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaPi61 View Post
I think it's time for everyone to start reporting stratology for hijacking this thread and turning it into the usual "OSX rules, Windows sucks" drivel spewed by fanboys.
Why? Because you ran out of retorts? heh
Old 14th September 2011
  #79
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
The article is about Tiger, because that's when Spotlight was introduced.

Quote:
"Any file i/o that goes through the Tiger kernel will trigger the appropriate metadata importer. "

This does not mean scheduled indexing, like it was done in 10.3. and earlier.
Windows 7 is competing directly with Mac OS X 10.3 when it comes to features, not with 10.7.
What file i/o does NOT go through the kernel on Windows *or* OSX? MS initially created Search 4.0 for their Longhorn effort, which was widely shared and then scrapped for Vista, Apple got the functions to market first but MS made press headlines first. Vista was on the market YEARS before Win7, but Tiger came to market about a year before (ish). And the only differences in speed is the process priority issue I've mentioned....though there are differences in use too. What you've STATED is that "Windows Search is stuck in the 90's with only scheduled indexing", I've refuted that pretty much 100% and given plenty of examples of how they differ as well as being similar. But the overarching point is that the technologies are SIMILAR and evolve in parallel, as do the rest of the OSes. In fact...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
You mix up the terms 'malware' and 'vulnerabilities'. Vulnerabilities are just that - mistakes in code that could lead to security issues. They are not exploits.
I don't 'mix the terms up', I use them in 2 subsequent sentences in similar context. OSX is no more or less secure *by design* than any other modern OS, though it is a much smaller userbase and thus target. This has been discussed already as well...and goes back to my point that technologies tend to emerge and evolve in parallel much like the rest of human undertakings and culture in a world where we aren't separated by physical ocean ports (the gateway for culture and technology in the past) but simply by a few milliseconds on these 'tubes'.

Tell you what, rather than continue to go down the same stupid rabbit hole and let you bring up points that are easily countered, I'll just repeat my earlier statement. ALL modern companies do is bring the current level of technology to market, in whatever field you're in. Since it's not that easy to lock down SOFTWARE code under PATENT (thankfully), all another company has to do is create a similar implementation that doesn't run afoul of copyright (direct copying line for line).

So while you might be able to create a Windows machine that has some *very specific* DIFFERENCES to a Mac (like being able to fully control the priority level of processes, power profiles and hardware functionality in the BIOS where EFI on Mac gives zero end user access), you can for all intents and purposes achieve similar levels of performance with similarly performing pieces of software. So let's either address the OP's original question in this direction or drop this entirely. You're ignoring this aspect of quite a few posts and to continue past this point in your blind quest for trolldom at this point is decidedly OT imo...

The reason I keep trying to steer you back in the direction of the OP's question is twofold:

From the Gearslutz FAQ: "OFF-TOPIC posting or thread de-railing is not allowed. Please try to stay on topic within threads."

From the Music Computers FORUM Rules: 4. We are tired of MAC vs. PC discussions. Threads like this will be automatically locked and/or deleted. If you continue to post these type of threads, after a warning, we may suspend your participation in the Music Computer forum.

You've contributed nothing that exists outside of these two points thus far...are you capable of doing so or is this all you have to contribute?
Old 14th September 2011
  #80
Lives for gear
 
phas3d's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
Why? Because you ran out of retorts? heh
LOL
Old 14th September 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumdrum View Post
PCs and macs hardware wise are virtually identical these days.
Same intel chips, same memory types, same hdd types ...the hardware differences are nearly completely eradicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
You're joking, right? When I look at the Mac in front of me, I see a power supply attached with a Magsafe adapter, a unibody aluminum casing, that has microscopic holes so that you only see the sleep light and the battery indicator when they are on, a button-less multitouch glass trackpad, a backlit keyboard, a display that has a magnetic latch without any mechanical closing mechanism, audio in and out mini jacks with an integrated optical connection. On the inside, there is a battery without external housing, to preserve space.

I have never seen a PC like this.


Yes you have...it's sitting right in front of you, and will run Windows 7 flawlessly.
Old 14th September 2011
  #82
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
Why? Because you ran out of retorts? heh
It's off topic. I know, I know, that's all you and the other fanbois can contribute. I'm avoiding mac threads, can't you do the same with PC threads or you just can't help trolling?
Old 14th September 2011
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihavezippers View Post
Short version of question: how do I configure through settings changes, or what do I need to add as far as hardware (e.g., soundcard, video card) for a PC to perform as well as a Mac for the purposes of a studio computer running a lot of VSTis.
I reported this thread and hope it gets closed.
OP just asked for some tips on how to work with a PC successfully.

He got some answers, there are a few helpful sticky threads with working setups - or contact a DAW builder. Windows 7 doesn't need much tweaking. Sandybridge doesn't even need BIOS tweaking apart from setting IDE to RAID or AHCI.

Let's move on to producing instead of having yet another cluster size pissing contest.

Old 14th September 2011
  #84
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
After reading a lot of stuff on this forum I was gonna build an X58 PC. The total came to around $1400. Then I found this '09 MacPro for $1600 and went with that. It's the same basic architecture, but speccing it up will be another $300. Sometime later I may drop in a W3565 or do the hack that enables hexacore support and go for a W3670.

I still wanna build that PC and if it works well I will gradually migrate. I want to step into this with an open mind, but my past experiences with Windows are such that I do not want to switch without having a Mac to fall back on.

IME, when it comes to dependability, the difference is not trivial, but I hear that Win7 is much better than earlier versions.
My x58 cost $503,its a i5 2500k no video card needed.


Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App
Old 14th September 2011
  #85
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

The issue is very simple...both OSX and Windows are solid operating systems for audio. The difference is driver compatibility. With a Mac, there are only a handful of hardware configurations, so drivers tend to work properly and compatibly. With a PC, there are hundreds of HW combinations, including questionable, low budget options. There are capable PCs out there. They're just similar in cost to their Mac counterparts. If you hold to the adage that you get what you pay for, then PC and Mac options tend to be on the same footing.

I still think the best PC is a Mac running Windows 7, but then again, I'm a sucker for aesthetics.
Old 14th September 2011
  #86
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
Yes you have...it's sitting right in front of you, and will run Windows 7 flawlessly.
Haha, very, very good point!
Old 14th September 2011
  #87
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post

So while you might be able to create a Windows machine that has some *very specific* DIFFERENCES to a Mac (like being able to fully control the priority level of processes, power profiles and hardware functionality in the BIOS where EFI on Mac gives zero end user access), you can for all intents and purposes achieve similar levels of performance with similarly performing pieces of software.
You can find out about end user access and EFI programming for OS X here. Singh's OS X book is not new, but has excellent information about system internals, including why EFI is a lot more secure than BIOS.



There's one thing I'd like to clarify: all of this is relevant to the OP, because a few years ago, I tried to do exactly what the OP is asking for. I was working in a Windows environment, and made daily efforts to make XP behave more like a Mac. This included trying to find a replacement for Stickies (I found one, it was crashy and installed malware), trying to get meaningful search results (I installed the Lookout toolbar, a good 3rd party tool that was purchased by MS just to kill it. Our sysadmins blocked the Lookout site, because of how the tool interfered with network traffic), trying to get organised in a way to quickly launch apps (half-succeeded on that one), quick access to required documentation (complete failure), half decent browsing performance (worked only with Firefox, company required MSIE for SAP access, argh), multitasking (no chance..), improve boot time (no way, best to not boot at all, leave it on), trying to find a replacement for Finder labels (I found one but did not install it, because all reports said 'malware' and 'crashes'), trying to find a replacement for Exposé (failed), Spring loading folders (failed), Automator type cross-application scripting (no chance), making cmd.exe behave more like a real Unix terminal (no chance, you could not even copy and paste properly), and on and on.


A few years before that I made similar attempts, when I studied some VB programming (Microsoft Visual Basic). I tried to write an app with UI elements less garish than the standard Windows UI. I partly succeeded, the app had not a single standard Windows element (e.g. window or button), but it was impossible to get the flexibility of Interface Builder (it was still separate from Xcode back then), or the animations when UI elements appear or disappear.
Old 14th September 2011
  #88
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
There's one thing I'd like to clarify: all of this is relevant to the OP, because a few years ago, I tried to do exactly what the OP is asking for. I was working in a Windows environment, and made daily efforts to make XP behave more like a Mac. This included trying to find a replacement for Stickies (I found one, it was crashy and installed malware), trying to get meaningful search results (I installed the Lookout toolbar, a good 3rd party tool that was purchased by MS just to kill it. Our sysadmins blocked the Lookout site, because of how the tool interfered with network traffic), trying to get organised in a way to quickly launch apps (half-succeeded on that one), quick access to required documentation (complete failure), half decent browsing performance (worked only with Firefox, company required MSIE for SAP access, argh), multitasking (no chance..), improve boot time (no way, best to not boot at all, leave it on), trying to find a replacement for Finder labels (I found one but did not install it, because all reports said 'malware' and 'crashes'), trying to find a replacement for Exposé (failed), Spring loading folders (failed), Automator type cross-application scripting (no chance), making cmd.exe behave more like a real Unix terminal (no chance, you could not even copy and paste propery), and on and on.
So basically you are telling us you are not smart enough to check software for malware before installing, don't know how to find alternative tools for Windows, Can't figure out how to configure windows, couldn't figure out cygwin etc etc and people should listen to your advice? Riiiiight! heh

Alistair
Old 14th September 2011
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
On this computer at least windows updates on it's own.
You can turn that off, I'm pretty sure. (I think that's true up through Win 7.)

One of the common 'optimizations' of Windows is to turn off Windows automatic updating. Windows is generally smart enough not to start doing an update in the middle of you actively working on your computer, but any service that runs in background slices a little bit of your available resources off. It doesn't put a huge hit on your machine -- and you will need to take responsibility for your own updates -- but it will make your machine run a little leaner/meaner. And if you have, perhaps, some old piece of hardware that has drivers that for some peculiar reason won't work with one of the Service Pack upgrades, it may be prudent. (That said, I don't know that the full service pack upgrades automatically update without approval from the user. And, for that matter, while a brand new SP update can sometimes 'break' a driver when that driver hasn't been written to MS's previous spec, those issues do often seem to straighten themselves out in time.)

RAM usage by service is not a foolproof way of estimating the resource drain from that service -- but it's at least an indicator.

Often worse than Windows' unused or marginally used services, though, not least because they can sometimes cause ongoing 'memory leaks' are third party services and background programs that perform generally useless tasks -- like the Java Updater applet from those [folks] at Oracle that just sits there waiting -- sometimes months at a time -- for an update to the Java runtime. Last time I checked it used as much as 13 MB just sitting there. My first computer had less than 1/20th that much RAM and did real work. Even if I had the biggest, nastiest computer on the planet, I'd still pull crapware like that off it, on GP.
Old 14th September 2011
  #90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
You can and should switch it off on a DAW. This counts for all apps that like to search for updates automatically by default, like Quicktime and Adobe Reader, to name a few standards.
QT updtate. Google update. I won't even let Adobe Reader on my machine. (I use FoxIt Reader.)

My XP machine boots with 19-20 services running and using about 120-125 MB of RAM. Almost every time I boot up, I check that. If there are more services running or more RAM usage, I figure out why.

Happily, the number of softwares out there that seem to think nothing of sucking down your resources even when they're not doing anything has shrunk considerably but there are still bad actors out there.

Aside from anti-malware background scanning apps like McAffee and Norton, one of the worst seems to be iTunes which has a number of components that run in background. I installed it on my good laptop (because it was such a huge burden on my lesser laptop that it meant that machine was virtually useless for almost anything else) and immediately realized that with iTunes and anti-malware scanning (AVG) running that the machine simply crawled. Even with AVG removed, the machine seems really stunted in comparison to before iTunes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Well, it is not as much that the updates themselves ar ebreaking something, since that rarely happens (QT can be terrible though). It is more that while recording, you don't want any background services running that you really don't need at that moment. Same during mixdown/bouncing.
My thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoelger View Post
Sorry, but I myself consider my computer as a tool I use for work. For sure I'm willing to babysit the system a little...not only to keep it working at its optimum, but also to know when there might be a problem.

In my experience MAC users (vast generalization) don't know **** about the tool they work with every day.
I'd say that what you acknowledge is a vast generalization certainly also applies to the overwhelming majority of Windows users, without question.

Neither is a slag against OS X or Windows, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
[...]


Why should Apple release any official info on something like the Nigerian Scam, that has nothing to do with the OS? The only malware that exists requires the user to actively attempt to install malicious software. And, in most cases, type an admin password.
This has nothing to do with worms or viruses that exploit OS vulnerabilities.
Mac Defender was a classic scareware exploit that tried to trick users into giving admin approval for the malware install.

MacGuard, however, was a classic zero-day attack that end-ran the admin-approval requirement.

FWIW, as the author's comments in the comment thread of that MacWorld article on Mac Defender linked in my post above notes, Windows 7's more advanced security architecture better protects against such exploits because of randomization of location of key system components.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump