MacCast Special – Mactel Log Part 2

Written by: Adam Christianson

Categories: Podcast

Listen to today’s show here! podcast-mini2.gif
MC20050621SP2.mp3 [21.5mb 47:00 64kbps]

A special edition of the MacCast. This is part 2 of a conversation I recorded with Adrian Bacon of the Apple Log, Microsoft Log and Linux Log. We discuss Apple’s switch to Intel based processors and Adrian brings a nice PC Geek perspective to the conversation. Enjoy!

There are 17 comments on MacCast Special – Mactel Log Part 2:

RSS Feed for these comments
  1. Marc | Jun 21 2005 - 08:35

    For some reason when the 2nd part installed on my iTunes, it only played about 7 seconds of it on my ipod. Has this happened to anybody else.

  2. Danny | Jun 21 2005 - 08:55

    no offense Adam, but if you dislike the name Mactel, don’t use it.

    This Podcast will affect what people call it. So don’t do it. :)

    remember, when we went from the 68K computers to PowerPC chips, they were called PowerMacs, not MacPower or MacPPC.

    So please, call em something else. Xtel Mac, maybe, but not just plain ‘Xtel’

  3. Bruce | Jun 22 2005 - 07:45

    Actually I like just plain old Xtel. It’s simple, sweet and sexy.

  4. Jason | Jun 22 2005 - 08:51

    How about Macintel? Or InteliMac?

  5. tim | Jun 22 2005 - 08:43

    Just got done listening to both parts. Incredibly informative on chip architecture and lots of other hardware things I never knew. Thanks.

  6. Don | Jun 22 2005 - 06:10

    Best discussion on the subject yet. Highly informative! Thanks.

  7. Squozen | Jun 22 2005 - 07:52

    Adam, I think you should seriously consider co-hosting the show with somebody. The flow is much better with two people. I really enjoyed listening to these.

  8. Paul D. Spradling | Jun 23 2005 - 08:21

    LOL, Squozen, we think alike.
    I actually came here to post a comment saying exactly the same thing.

    I also think that the show would be much better with a co-host or a guest.
    Having one is also very useful for when Adam states something incorrectly the other can correct him and vice-versa.
    Also, if we have 2 hosts and they encounter an issue then we could have 2 different opinions and go into mini-discussions in the show.

    What do you think Adam?

  9. Don | Jun 23 2005 - 10:59

    I tend to enjoy the single speaker, variety would be good @ times, but that would depend on the topic. But I thoroughly enjoy the current format.

  10. Barry | Jun 23 2005 - 10:51

    Listened to the shows and enjoyed the commentry. My only comment is that I believe you let your guest off too easy on several points.

    1) Comments about Apple producing just a “pretty box”. Macs are more than pretty, what with its unique firmware (instant on, reliable sleep mode, etc.), to Apple’s custom chip sets, make the Mac’s much more than just a box – with or without Intel chips.

    2) Windows is more for business, and Mac is more for consumers – what a misconception. Mac based businesses with XServes as backbones and OSX clients on the desktop provide a secure, reliable anf high-performance solution that is hard to beat for business. MS excels in “packaging” a lot of modules inside their own proprietary wrappers, and perhaps that is where Apple needs to improve. Sure OSX Server includes IM, Blog support, Webdav, SQL DB, server admin tools, etc., but it seems that these tools are more or less thrown into the package and not tied together better. MS markets small business solutions better than Apple, an area Apple needs to focus more by building a more integrated system and sell it as a packaged solution.

    3) The “security by obscurity” myth was trumpeted again, and this was not challenged enough, and exposed as pure fallacy.

    Other than some of those points, I enjoyed the podcast also.

  11. Adrian | Jun 23 2005 - 04:23

    Hey Guys and Gals,

    This is Adrian, glad you liked the shows… It was a lot of fun to do and maybe there might be more of the same at some point in the future… I’m certainly not adverse to it.

  12. Tim D. | Jun 24 2005 - 09:12

    I Just wanted to point out that when you compare OSX to Windows XP Pro, one very major thing that you get with XP Pro that you do not get with OSX is Remote Desktop.

    Don’t even get me started on VNC, I’ve used it on Windows machines, and I currently use it so that I can use my Dual G5 Tower in the basement from my Dell laptop in my room.

    Windows Remote Desktop seperates the processing of program elements from the processing of graphics elements.

    It’s easy to forget that you are using a remote computer when browsing a web page via Remote Desktop, because whenever a screen element is moved, the remote (Host) sends a command to “Move this over there.” and the rest is handled by the local, (Client) machine

    VNC simply reads the screen image out of the video card’s RAM, (A highly inefficient process, I might add) and sends the whole image to the client, whigh makes for a much less fluid experience.

    Anyway that’s my $.02

    Tim D.

  13. KYL | Jun 26 2005 - 05:32

    I have to disagree with Adrian over the importance of virtualization to the home market. People who buy Virtual PC do not buy it because they need to spend half their time in Windows, they do it because they need one particular program a few times a day. (E.g., IE for a banking site, some Active-X based site, or just to check compatibility of a page one is working on in IE). To reboot the machine, lose all the open programs windows and interrupt work in progress just to reboot in Windows to do online banking is insane.

    Take another example. My kid has this windows-only education game that he likes to run. It’s much more sensible for there to be virtualization so that I can take a break to prepare dinner while he plays the game on my machine in Virtual PC, without me having to reboot the machine and lose all the open windows in the project I’m working on.

    In fact, for me, dual booting is useless. I need to edit a page on my Mac and then check it in Windows IE. Short of getting another monitor, another machine, another keyboard/mouse and a KVM switch, I can’t do that unless I have fast virtualization. I’m simply surprised that one can conclude that fast virtualization is not important for the average home user. From my perspective, it’s the ability to virtualize, not dual-boot, that really matters to the home user.

  14. Mark in MD | Jun 27 2005 - 07:22

    Wow, really interesting shows. If Adrian is as accurate as he seems knowledgeable, then I am more confident than ever about this move by Apple.

    I do not agree with any comments about the Mac becoming ‘just another PC,’ and the likelihood of Apple allowing the Mac OS in commodity PCs. Not going to happen.

  15. KC Martin | Jun 28 2005 - 04:48

    These shows were really informative. Honestly, even though I consider myself pretty geeky, I didn’t expect to enjoy these shows on “Mactel” much. But I ended up listening to them both and learning some useful info in the process.

    Many thanks to Adam and Adrian for making these available.


  16. matt | Jun 29 2005 - 02:35

    Good News/Bad News?
    The biggest issue with this last conversation regarding CPU’s and keeping software sequestered etc:

    The CPUs Apple plans to use on its new line from Intel will NOT be pentium based. So a lot of this conversation is irrelavent. From the apple tech that was here at work yesterday, (for a server we have, which has all of the business stuff mentioned.. directories and so on.. and built in free video streaming stuff.)

    i digresss…

    Intel Codename for NEW CPU Apple plans to use has been referred to as Yana by the Apple Rep that was here. I dont know if i spelled it right, and I have not been able to find anything about it on Intel’s website. I am keeping an eye out though.

  17. Jonathan | Jul 01 2005 - 11:16

    I too use VPC.

    It is nice to have the ability to run windows only apps that my school would require for functionality while still having my homework open. I also use it to update my iPod so that I can use it as a windows drive on the school comps. Granted it is painfully slow, but I also have a 667 G4 so that is expected.

    But one point that is very wrong, was the assumption that getting VPC and the windows environment would be an even bigger investment. The truth is, if you get the OS in a VPC bundle or expansion pack, it can be almost half the cost of a clean copy. This is obviously because there is no good way to install the prefab OS on anything other than VPC. Also, The ability to run multiple simultaneous environments allows for greater flexibility, and stability. When, er, if you crash windows you can just reload from that last good save state. Not many people know this, but VPC is, or at least was, available for the X86 for this very reason.

    My point is, there will be a market for VPC, and Microsoft will take full advantage of any performance gains to unload more of their software.