If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?

A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward would like to put this query before you: "I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been, but I am a fan of the x86 architecture. I really like Linux, but there are still a few issues that are keeping me from switching completely. I really like Mac OS X but I don't want to drop $2000 on a computer that is only as fast as an x86 computer at half the price. Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been ported to x86 and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

Comments

i wouldnt

[digitalsushi]

i wouldn't switch to it. the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck. they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.

at least thats my understanding of how it works. now what if they could promise that stability on x86 hardware? hrmm. i might switch. i'd venture a guess that the people who use linux and friends who also use windows dont have the typical end user problems that vex most windows computers. i'm no world class guru and i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners, other than being NATted and knowing where not to step on the web. so i'm pretty happy with what i've got, i'd have to say.

Re:i wouldnt

[pcmanjon]

I would definately switch to MAC OS X if it was ported to x86. For sure. Legally even.

I have tried out the darwin core for x86 and it is just the kernel and the utilitys you need to browse the filesystem. About all you can find is

ls
dir
mkdir
rm
touch

and a few other basic commands, no lynx, no wget, no ping, no whois, etc. No x86 drivers for your network card, etc.

I really wish apple would actually do something with the darwin core and create MAC OS X for x86.

This would kill apple however because nobody in their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac OS on it as well.

Re:i wouldnt

[Izago909]

i'm no world class guru and i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners, other than being NATted and knowing where not to step on the web.

Yeah, definately not a guru.

I hate to tell you this, but the problem with x86 has always been Windows. The BSOD was not built in at chip level. I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.

Re:i wouldnt

[AvantLegion]

>> they control all the hardware.

You mean like the nVidia and ATI graphics chips they use?

Yes, they do control what goes INTO their machines, but it's not like they make it all, and it's not like the hardware they use is so completely unlike what's common on the x86 platform.

I think they could achive a lot by simply not worrying about supporting the kind of legacy hardware Windows always strives to, and focusing on just the common x86 hardware. nVidia & ATI pretty much cover most of the graphics chips out there on modern hardware. USB device support's already there. There's not THAT much to have to support to just work on the average desktop, and support for more exotic hardware can come later. If some hardware's too shoddy or unreliable to maintain the Mac standard, then don't support it!

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

So your kernel is way out of date, and you've probably got a ton of remote exploits!

Mmm, love that Open Source Quality.

Who cares about uptimes? Unless your box happens to be a database server or something, which I highly doubt.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd switch in a heartbeat. Hands-down.

Re:i wouldnt

[nite_warrior]

I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.

so you are not running the latest kernel version of linux, shame on you!

Re:i wouldnt

[Izago909]

So your kernel is way out of date, and you've probably got a ton of remote exploits!

Mmm, love that Open Source Quality.

Who cares about uptimes? Unless your box happens to be a database server or something, which I highly doubt.

Bad troll. *smack* You don't have to go to runlevel 6 just to patch some softwre. My Linux box is an older P3 that I use as a NAT, firewall, router, VPN end point, and file server. I guess you haevn't touched Linux much and are a Windows script kiddie since you seem to be under the impression that all patches and upgrades require a full reboot. Yea, it's running 2.4 kernel but I have no need to waste my time by upgrading to a kernel that won't give me any features that are worth the effort. This is a box that sits in a closet 99.99% of the time.

Re:i wouldnt

[jcr]

the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck.

Well, speaking from the experience of NeXSTEP on x86, once you got it installed, it really didn't suck.

Now, most people who ran NeXTSTEP on a intel box went and built the box just for that purpose, and NeXT published a shopping list called the "NeXTSTEP Hardware Compatibility Guide", so that you could make sure that you had a supported video card, sound board, ethernet, etc.

So, I guess my point is: don't assume that OS X would suck on Intel, just because MS windows and Linux do.

-jcr

Re:i wouldnt

[iminplaya]

Lucky you...I've seen plenty of blue screens caused by hardware, usually RAM(corroded contacts) I installed 8 brand new identical machines at an internet cafe, and two of them would regularly crash just sitting there waiting for clients. New drives would sometimes corrupt files during a restore, requiring another try. x86 hardware even from the same model from the same company is extremely inconsistant. Much of it barely works when new(CD drives), then slowly deteriorates(not so slowly with our humidity). Once a mac gets through "infant mortality"(about a month), it's usually good for many years. I can't say the same for a PC. The crappy new hard drives not withstanding.

Re:i wouldnt

[thedogcow]

Wrong.
I've just checked using the terminal app... There is a ping, and a whois.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

On linux, every little update does not require a reboot. Plus the excellent firewall out of the box helps things here as well. I understand Windows is getting better for not needing reboots after every patch, but it's still stides behind linux/unix in this regard. Perhaps if everything wasn't so integrated in Windows, it would be even better. But it is integrated, and media player updates will need a reboot.

Re:i wouldnt

[fymidos]

>This would kill apple however because nobody in
>their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac >when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac >OS on it as well

apple is not as expensive as it used to be you know...
today you can buy the (delicious) imac g5 with the 17'' tft screen for $1300 -- and you get a 64-bit machine. An athlon64 with similar specs doesn't cost much lower, and you don't get the all-in-one design.
And $3000 for a dual 2.5ghz,64 bit is a good price. Definetely at the low end of the dual market.

Re:i wouldnt

[foniksonik]

Have you tried installing the GNU-Darwin ports? or FINK?

It's my understanding that they would work just fine with Darwin standalone... not sure about on x86 though...

Re:i wouldnt

[Enrique1218]

...i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners...

well you know what they say "Ignorance is bliss"

Re:i wouldnt

[keesh]

You're forgetting the tiny cache, the absurdly low number of general purpose registers, the crappy task switching, the lack of register windowing, the insanely long pipeline and all those other design features which aimed for "as cheap as possible" and "higher MHz even if it gives us a terrible per-MHz performance".

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

The entirety of Mac OS X has been ported to the x86 architecture. There are many reasons to NOT release Mac OS X on PC hardware. This information was confidential up to 2 years ago and has not made itself known to the general public. I am posting anonymously to preserve my job. My Father has SEEN Mac OS X Jaguar (10.2) on a PC computer, running on a Pentium chip. It does work and Apple does develop it concurrently with the PPC version.

'nuff said.

Re:i wouldnt

[User 956]

they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.

Hey douchebag, you do realize that Dells, compaqs, and apple machines are made in the same factory, out of the same parts, don't you?

The only real difference is the fancy plastic bits on the outside, and the processor (which, again, isn't Apple, it's from IBM).

Re:i wouldnt

[jericho4.0]

It's the 'as cheap as possible' bit that makes the hardware so attractive, even with all it's shortfalls.

Re:i wouldnt

[drinkypoo]

You could get that kind of stability by only supporting a subset of PC hardware, and it would still be cheaper than mac; For example, you'd only support the most worthy chipsets, like nforce for amd (it may not be the fastest, but it seems to be the most stable) and intel chipsets for their processors, only supporting the big-name video cards, et cetera. Another way would be to publish an API and stick with it so that developers could write drivers that wouldn't explode all over the place.

Re:i wouldnt

[drinkypoo]

Tiny cache? x86 processors have larger L1 caches than most other processors. The L2 cache size is usually pretty puny though, and few PCs support L3 cache (the AMD K6/2+ and K6/3+ had onboard L2 and the system L2 became L3, that's all I can think of in that category just now.) AMD made several very nice x86-compatible processors. The lack of registers is pretty lame but it is addressed in x86-64 and for many programs it is not that big a deal anyway because both intel and AMD (and their assorted competitors, as well) have implemented register renaming and other tricks to improve the speed of context switches and the shuffling of data due to register starvation.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have evidence of any kind, at all?

Didn't think so.

Re:i wouldnt

[jrockway]

You do know that macs use the same RAM, ATA hard drives, CD drives, etc. as PCs right?

Re:i wouldnt

[luna69]

Perhaps you're just choosing bad hardware.

When I administer cheapo PC's that some bean-counter thought would make a good purchase, I find that they, too, sometimes just crash while sitting idly by as you describe.

But on machines that *I* spec, and *I* build, I don't see the same behavior...even running Windows.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, definately not a guru.

If you're using BSODs to point out that Windows is the problem with x86, then I hate to tell you this, but neither are you.

Crappy consumer hardware (or drivers) are the cause of almost all BSOD occurances on 2k/xp, and when running on the same hardware, i'd be willing to bet that Linux wouldn't even grant you that much of a courtesy.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I guess my point is: don't assume that OS X would suck on Intel, just because MS windows and Linux do.

In what world does Linux on x86 suck? If you bought everything with a compatibility list in your hand (as you just mentioned NeXTSTEP users did), you'd have no problems. Even without doing so, most hardware works with a minimum of effort. Stability is excellent. The problems people have using Linux are unrelated to the platform.

Re:i wouldnt

[TheLittleJetson]

if os x did come for x86 and you had windows already, you'd be a fool not to at least give it a try.... however, its NEVER going to happen and here's why:

apple is a hardware company. their OS is a major incentive to use the hardware. releasing for x86 would be stupid. i wouldn't expect this unless it was like a last-stand measure right before going out of biz, and that's not gonna happen. :-)

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

but, who would pay 2000+ for a 64bit computer running windows and a 17 inch lcd when they could pay 1300 for a 64bit computer running OS X with a 17 inch lcd.
http://www.imac.com/imac/

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

would a $1300 athlon64 machine come with an fx5200 though? I don't think so, unless it had 1Tb of drives to compensate.

Re:i wouldnt

[EddWo]

I think it might be a long term strategy to move away from X86. They already have XP and 2k3 running on ia64 and the XboX 2 will be some form of NT on ppc970. If they are successful in getting the majority of Longhorn era apps written in .Net they could transition to a new architecture in the next couple of iterations after that.

Re:i wouldnt

[jcr]

In what world does Linux on x86 suck?

You're kidding, right?

-jcr

Re:i wouldnt

[BasilBrush]

Depends on the PC. You do know there are vastly different qualities of components available don't you? Quality: CheapPC AveragePC ExpensivePC.

Re:i wouldnt

[Marthisdil]

I hate to tell you this, but the problem with x86 has always been Windows. The BSOD was not built in at chip level. I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.

And my Win XP machine which I use for gaming hasn't been rebooted since January or so...I even have a Win NT server on a dual processor box that's been up for almost 2 years now...runs our email, SQL server, print servers, etc...

Re:i wouldnt

[Drakonite]

You're forgetting the tiny cache, Er... x86 CPUs tend to have a very large cache, largely to make up for the horrible bandwith of the bus.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Expensive?

My school has a site license for Mac OS X, so it only cost me $15 to buy a set of discs.

I installed it on my laptop (a Windows PC) using the PearPC emulator (from pearpc.sf.net). It runs a little sluggish, but surprising well. I suspect it might run better under Linux.

It even includes network support, amazingly.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Mac users are completely disconnected from the larger PC market. Apple's prices have been the same since the mid-90s, so they assume that's how the rest of the world works.

The more honest ones will just come out and admit that the expense was worth it rather than lame denial-whoring about how "cheap" Macs are.

(IMO, the biggest problem is not the prices, but the minimal lineup that only has iMacs and high-end workstations.)

Re:i wouldnt

[Coryoth]

This would kill apple however because nobody in their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac OS on it as well.

See, that's just not a good enough reason. In part because it's not true. Take a look at the G5 iMac. It sells, in a large part, because of its design and style. People in their right minds would still be willing to pay a premium for nice Apple hardware because, as the Apple fanatics keep telling us, it is nice hardware.

Yes, you'll definitely take a hit to your sales on hardware, but it wouldn't be utterly fatal - not when you've got all the revenue from charging MS style pricing for MacOS X on x86 (we're not talking OEM pricing here). I don't think it would put Apple under in any way shape or form. It just wouldn't suddenly expand Apples revenue to quite the extent people would expect either.

Jedidiah.

Re:i wouldnt

[PPGMD]

Hardware failure will bring a Linux box down as quickly as it will a Windows box, the only difference is the screen indication, with Linux, you get a Kernel Panic (in most cases), while in Windows you get a BSOD.

I have found in corporate environment where the user is regulated from doing anything stupid, the most common failure is hardware. One of the sales computers blue screen this morning. Do I blame Microsoft for the BSOD, even though it would give me brownie points here, after reviewing the machine in the lab, I put the blame on the RAM maker, simply replaced the stick and the employee was back working.

Just because a windows box fails doesn't mean it's Microsoft's fault.

Now to answer the article's question, I wouldn't switch to OS X, but I would probably buy a copy and run it in the lab. If I find uses for it, I may deploy it, but in the end, an operating system is a tool to get a job done, you simply use what you deem to be the best tool for the job. Which for me, in most cases is Windows, though I use *nix variants for certain tasks, where Windows is just not cost effective.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, except OpenStep/Intel sold about 12 copies.

Besides, isn't the whole appeal of owning a Mac is that you don't have to have some special shoppinglist for components?

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerPC doesn't have register windowing.

Re:i wouldnt

[Boltronics]

I had to laugh when I saw this, since as of last night (or should I say, early this morning), I'm running Mac OS X Panther on PearPC on Gentoo GNU/Linux on an AMD Athlon XP 2500+. Sluggish, sure, but usable. I'm posting to Slashdot using this setup!

It appears performance is top on the adjenda for PearPC developers too, so things should only get better (if you have a SSE-capable CPU). I don't know how much slower a Windows host is though.

I read sound support is out for people willing to try a pre-release also. Neat!

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I guess my point is: don't assume that OS X would suck on Intel, just because MS windows and Linux do.

Where do you get off throwing in Linux with a statement about the suckage of Windows? I would venture that a great many people here think Linux is great on x86.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, they talk about Linux zelots, you Mac guys are way worse.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this information has been reported to the general public and made the rounds on slashdot and all the Mac rumor sites.

Re:i wouldnt

[HuguesT]

Clearly you haven't been trying a recent Linux distribution. Linux works very well now for everything on the desktop, arguably better than MacOS, and I say this when I love my iBook.

Re:i wouldnt

[jcr]

I would venture that a great many people here think Linux is great on x86. ... and many more people than that consider MS-WIndows acceptable. What's your point?

-jcr

Re:i wouldnt

[peawee03]

This point has been brought up on other discussions in the past, but basically it comes down to quality of administration and use. I find that the point-clicky Windows UI lets people have dillusions of being good sysadmins, and three weeks uptime is friggin awesome. Get a MS and *nix admin who both know their stuff on modern versions of their respective OSes, and I betcha you won't be able to determine which machine is which based on uptimes.

I actually think Windows is having the same problem as Linux is right now: it makes a better server rather than desktop OS (crappyness of MS SQL, IIS, etc. notwithstanding). The problem is that the Linux community actively acknowledges that fact (and sometimes embraces and pushes it) while Windows is giving a rather powerful OS out to the masses with directions more-or-less along the lines of "1.) Move mouse to pretty icon. 2.) Double Click(TM) mouse button. 3.) PROFIT!!1one!"

Actually, my current desktop is a HP zd7000 custom build running Slackware, and I had better stability under Windows because I had *decent* nvidia drivers, and the built-in wLan works most of the time using ndiswrapper with the Windows drivers, but occasionally it hangs... hard. And Id Software has working sound engines under Windows, whereas I have to perform all sorts of ALSA voodoo to get it working

Sidenote: Yes. This is a post from a Linux user who is actually praising the OS from Redmond, and comparing Linux unfavorably against it. Doesn't mean I'm touching that XP CD in my closet anytime soon other than to play with it in Bochs

Re:i wouldnt

[ryanr]

This would kill apple however because nobody in their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac OS on it as well.

No kidding! That would be like Sun porting Solaris to x86. Can you imagine what that would do to their hardware market? Yeah, right... Sun is going to make Solaris for x86, and I suppose they are going to give it away and open-source it, too.

Re:i wouldnt

[BasilBrush]

You don't know much about manufacturing do you. A good factory will produce you any quality of product you specify. Why would a factory capable of producing high quailty products produce plow quality ones?

A) You give them a low quality design.
B) You spec lower quality components to contruct it with.
C) You want to pay less money to the factory.

Applies to cars, applies to breakfast cereals, applies to computers, applies to anything.

But really you didn't really understand the point the first poster way making anyway. He meant that the number of possible different configurations of PCs is huge, whereas Apple have the advantage that there are a limited number of Mac configurations. For OSX, they can test on all configurations of computer it will ever run on before release. That's not possible for Windows/Linux.

Re:i wouldnt

[Biffer4810]

crappy task switching?

The x86 is one of the most ROBUST chips ever manufactured in that respect.

Absurdly low number of general purpose registers?

Fair, perhaps. The only reason to boost the register count is to increase performance -- and if the chip CAN perform well with a lower number of registers, more power to it.

Lack of register windowing?

See above. It's not like you can DO less because the chip doesn't have register windows, it just takes more work. [Although in my head it's straight forward, but not too many write in assembly any more, and for good enough reason].

Tiny cache?

Hardly a part of the x86/IA-32 architecture.

Insanely long pipeline:
I'll give you this one by default, I'm not knowledgable about it.

Design features which aimed for "as cheap as possible":
Not quite: Design features that aimed for "we still have to support stuff that our processors supported 20 years ago." A more NOBLE fault, but most likely still a fault.

And this last point sums up all that IS bad about the x86, or at least the things that are confusing.

Honestly, the x86 was one of the most amazing chips ever built. It had extensive built-in support for task switching, and memory protection. Segmented memory is NOT a bad idea (just ends up that a lot of system software isn't written to use it, some of it even copies the hardware features in software for protability purposes).

I'd be really interested to see an OS on the scale of Windows, Linux, or OSX written SPECIFICALLY for this architecture (read: uses all of the hardware features).

I'd love to hear that I'm wrong on all of the above points if you can back up your arguments.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Crappy consumer hardware (or drivers) are the cause of almost all BSOD occurances on 2k/xp, and when running on the same hardware, i'd be willing to bet that Linux wouldn't even grant you that much of a courtesy.

First off, I'd like to know what your claim that crappy consumer hardware or driivers are the cause of almost all BSODs is based on?

Second, you haven't used Linux much to offer that bet, have you? I'll take that bet. Linux is far more immune to total crashes from shoddy drivers than windows is. BSOD = game over, restart. The ONLY time I have experienced hard crashes equivalent to that have been shoddy Xwindows video drivers. That's it. Even then, if you have a terminal setup on a serial port, you will more than likely be able to login and restart X. Who has terminals on serial ports? Anyone with a Palm pilot and a cradle can.

I service Windows machines for my customers, and when I run into intermittent freezes and I suspect faulty hardware, you know how I track it down? Not with some crapass windows diag utility that will likely freeze the machine if it tests a faulty component. But with a customized "live" Linux CD. Linux handles bad hardware WAY more gracefully than Windows. Any windows admins in the audience ought to learn about Linux just for the sake of taking advantage of this one aspect. It seriously makes things a lot easier.

Of course, you really have to learn how to use utilities and setup logging, because I swear to God, sometimes Linux can work with hardware that is failing and give the surface appearance that there isn't a problem, when that same piece of hardware will BSOD a windows box.

Re:i wouldnt

[webplummer]

I think anyone that switched would be surprised at how slow everything would run on the deficient x86 architecture.

Re:i wouldnt

[jcr]

What, did Linux suddenly develop UI consistency across its apps?

-jcr

Re:i wouldnt

[Zero Sum]

You would lose your money (and I'mn not even a Linux user).

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason 1: A fool and his money are soon separated and a Mac going for $ 2000 o.b.o is so much so.

Reason 2: Mac s are for tech lightweights- am not one.

Reason 3: To quote authority, MS says in future hardware will be free, so WTF with expensive Mac.

Enough said.

Uglrie Molonn, CIO Anti MacSoft

Re:i wouldnt

[Fallen_Knight]

2.4 isn't to old, and you do know they still update 2.4 with security patches....

from http://www.kernel.org/
The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.27 2004-08-07 23:28 UTC

well, that doesn't seem so outofdate and unworked on. and they just recently moved 2.6 to stable status.

And its not to often you need to patch the kernal.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

A G5 is $2000 because of the hardware is comes with.
Go to dell or some other manufacture ( built-it-yourself doesn't count ). Then look at a PC with all the same features as a G5 and see how much it costs. A very close dell is a several hundred more. Secondly. No PC mobo has dual 1.25Ghz system busses.

I bought a G5 for 2K.
I got a "superdrive" ( CD 52x, CD-R 8x, DVD 4x, DVD-R 2x in one )
I got a dual-head geforce FX 5200, it runs UT2004 and my 2d apps nicely.. And no the card isn't the 3D gamers dream. isn't the uber gaming card is a BTO option that I didn't need.

It also came with 80GB 7200rpm SATA Maxtor drive. I added a second in and data striped them.

Not to mention Firewire 800, Firewire 400, USB 2.0, Optical audio IN & Out, gigabit ethernet, v.92 modem, AGP 8x Pro, PCI Express.. So on and so on.

I have a 19" NEC running at 1600x1200 @ 75hz and a 17" NEC running at 1280x1024 @ 75hz.

So yes, as cheapo PC mobo with little or none of the above features being cheaper doesn't mean macs are expensive.

If you want a no-frills mac buy an eMac for $700 ( includes 17" built-in CRT ). Or a G5 iMac for $1200. The G5 is made for someone who uses the system for pro multimedia. Hell, the damn case is made of 1/4th inch thick aircraft aluminum. It has 9 fans that run at low speed and are automatically controlled to make it quiet. You might not care about noise but someone using it for multimedia does.

Somehow I really can't compare that to a cheap PC.
The G5 isn't a gaming rig or a cheap system to check your email and browse with, its a full out multimedia system.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't either. Though I might run it on x86 too then.

Re:i wouldnt

[User 956]

B) You spec lower quality components to contruct it with ... But really you didn't really understand the point the first poster way making anyway.

And you didn't read the links. Apple uses the same IDE hard drives, DDR/SDRAM, optical drives, and video cards as PC hardware manufacturers.

Re:i wouldnt

[pegasustonans]

If you can't utilize the full-power in a machine, or if you will not utilize said power in your everyday operations, then all power in excess of what will be utilized is useless power. Now, on a rather different topic, if you're trying to suggest that a $1300 Athlon system (assuming that you're going for the best cost/parts ratio you can find and consequently build it yourself) is comparable to an equivalently priced imac G5, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree. Now, I am not including the price of a monitor, which, assuming you don't already have one, would be an additional cost in the Athlon system. However, in terms of both upgradeability and utilizable performance in currently available consumer-oriented games and applications, I would suggest that the Athlon system as stated above would absolutely kick the teeth out of the imac. If you want to talk about the advantages of the Mac OS, talk about the OS, but don't for a minute suggest the price of hardware for Macs is somehow equivalent to PCs. The upgradeability issue alone shows that PCs win hands-down in this category. An example is in order (fast-forward to this hypothetical future scenario): If I want to do a major hardware upgrade on an imac I purchased a year ago, I'm basically out of luck. Thus, the most cost and time-effective solution is to essentially get a new machine. With a PC that I assembled a year ago, I can easily take whatever component out that I want and replace it with an updated component. This long-term cost factor must also be considered when comparing the differences between the two platforms. Thus, in my estimation, the PC is still the clear winner as far as hardware is concerned in the lower-cost categories.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about any of that? The simple fact remains that the fastest x86 processor is still faster than the fastest PPC AND it can still run software designed for the original XT natively.

The Mac has largely played catch-up with respect to PC hardware. This not only includes the processors, but PCI, AGP, video cards, sound cards, etc...

Not to mention that Apple didn't even have a multitasking OS until OS X, which they didn't even write themselves.

Re:i wouldnt

[donatj]

But if you want a machine that's not all in one, easy to work on, and self fixable, you have to go into the high end range. Its the exact oposite with pc's. LCD screens are not my thing either

Re:i wouldnt

[jsvesnik]

You've got Terminal.app running on Darwin x86?

Re:i wouldnt

[__aafkqj3628]

The HUGE GAPING difference is that Solaris is a server operating system, with much less flexibility on hardware.

Solaris x86 is nothing more than a hobbyists operating system (proved when they tried to kill it) and is extremely limited in its hardware support.

Besides, Sun's hardware market power is shrinking so fast anyway.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love how Mac zealots try to explain how their $2000 Mac is cheaper than a PC explaining how they saw a $1500 P4 or AMD64 and completely ignore the hundreds of $500 - $1000 PCs out in the market. It's like they're still trying to justify the expense to themselves.

Lol. I spend $1600-$2000 on a Mac about once every 3 years. I also spend at least $800/year on PC gear (usually a new Linux box). Computers are like tires, you just have to buy more of the cheap ones. You get what you pay for. Nothing (no single system anyway) I've used can match the Dual G5 at home for speed. Though, if I get the right deal, I wouldn't pass up some quad Opteron goodness this year. ;)

Call me a zealot if you want, but I use 5 different OSes on 4 different architectures daily. It's like the food pyramid or something. I have friends that spend $4000+/yr on windows boxen, but they probably have some serious gaming disorders and control issues! ;) (1TB mirrored for LAN party tote box? yeah...)

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

So Linux can magically fix bad hardware, huh? Flakey memory? No problem, just use Linux!

Dude, you're full of shit.

Re:i wouldnt

[csk_1975]

Most Mac users are completely disconnected from the larger PC market. Apple's prices have been the same since the mid-90s, so they assume that's how the rest of the world works.

This is completely wrong. I am looking for something to do digital video on and the new G5 iMac is very competitive. With 1GB Ram, 250GB HDD, DVD burner, 20" LCD and Final Cut it is $2300 and this includes a high end graphics card, TV out and some nice software. For comparison a Dell Precision with 1GB Ram, 250GB HDD, DVD burner, 20" LCD, Adobe Video Collection and graphics card is $3940

Of course the Dell Precision is extensible which makes it more attractive but if you can get a machine with the same spec as the G5 iMac for less, good luck. Its easy to say that Macs are crazy expensive and Apple is still in the '90s but the facts don't bare this out at all.

Re:i wouldnt

[__aafkqj3628]

Graphics card ROM is different and the CD/DVD drives have a different ROM as well (but I'm pretty sure this changed a while ago).

Re:i wouldnt

[__aafkqj3628]

Or did they solve the problem of fragile libraries and dependency hell.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

And $3000 for a dual 2.5ghz,64 bit is a good price. Definetely at the low end of the dual market.

Ugh, right. What are the specs of that $3k Apple?

I just built a dual Opteron 250 (2.4 Ghz; 64-bit; NUMA) with 4 GB of RAM and 500 GB of storage (in a RAID0 SATA stripe; 110MB/sec), GbE, 16x DVD burner, and dual nVidia DVI-out goodness for $3000.

I added two 20" 1600x1200 LCD's for another $1400.

I run Linux with VMware for my Windows development and PearPC for Mac development. I run between 6 and 8 machines (servers + development machines + test machines) on this one computer at any given time. How does your Mac compare to that?

Re:i wouldnt

[catwh0re]

Likewise my OSX has _never_ crashed, but I did get to visit all those bad sites, treaded all over the shop like a drunk, and didn't have to bother with a NAT, firewall, virus scanner, heck i randomly open attachments full of windows virii, I'm raw on the Internet and nothings gotten in.

Re:i wouldnt

[iminplaya]

Perhaps you're just choosing bad hardware.

In a way that's my point. The quality of PC hardware is just too variable. "My" machine were Compaqs(not what I would have bought), not top of the line of course, and to tell the truth, even when when I buy only eight of them, I expect one or two to die in "infancy". I've pulled out more than a few hairs looking for software bugs only to find something inside the case let the smoke out.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way would be to publish an API and stick with it so that developers could write drivers that wouldn't explode all over the place.

Hear! Hear!

I wrote device drivers for a number of OS's before Windows. When it came to Windows, I just gave up! Windows device drivers are a PITA. They also become a maintenance nightmare as Microsoft changes the OS interface with each new version of Windows. (To be fair, I also see problems of this kind with different Linux kernels, too)

I see a lot of comments here about Apple's tight control of the hardware they put into their systems, a limited subset of hardware that they support,etc, etc and then conclude that this is the reason for increased stability on Mac's. I think that the increased stability is the result of a much saner design.

How about it? Has anyone here written device drivers for Mac and Windows? How does driver design for Mac compare to driver design for the NT core OS?

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

So Linux can magically fix bad hardware, huh? Flakey memory? No problem, just use Linux!

So flakey memory is the only hardware that goes bad and causes BSOD on windows? Dude, you're full of shit, and you haven't used Linux on any serious level.

And since you started with the flaming, you're also an idiot.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I'd like to know what your claim that crappy consumer hardware or driivers are the cause of almost all BSODs is based on?

uh, I think i'd base that claim on crappy consumer hardware. take it out: stable windows. put it in: crashed windows. take it out: stable windows. put it in: crashed windows. Do you want me to test it again? okay. take it out: stable windows. put it in: crashed windows. Your expert knowledge of Linux doesn't seem to make up for your complete lack of common sense.

you haven't used Linux much to offer that bet, have you

[...]

The ONLY time I have experienced hard crashes equivalent to that have been shoddy Xwindows video drivers.

You obviously haven't been running linux much to take that bet, have you? Never had a kernel panic? Ever?

when I run into intermittent freezes and I suspect faulty hardware, you know how I track it down?

Safe mode? oh wait...

with a customized "live" Linux CD.

Oh right. I suppose this approach works on all the hardware that Linux doesn't even have 3rd party drivers for too. But you say it yourself! Sometimes Linux can't even spot when hardware IS faulty!

Any windows admins in the audience ought to learn about Linux just for the sake of taking advantage of this one aspect.

Or they can just learn how to boot to safe mode and use a half-decent diagnostic tool for windows, but you're right. taking time out to learn a whole other operating system that mightn't even be able to recognise the faulty hardware is worth it, even for that "one aspect".

One morning, when my car wouldn't start, I decided to do an electrical engineering degree to fix it. In the end, the problem didn't even turn out to be electrical, but whenever it is now: BAM! I got it NAILED!

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, why not? The FX 5200 is pretty bad for gaming, but it's good enough for casual user requirements, and at $40-50 it's a bargain. If the buyer wasn't into gaming, they could put the $100-200 they would need to spend to get a midrange gaming card into overpaying for a faster processor or obtaining more memory. It wouldn't necessarily make much sense to me, but I'm sure if we wanted we could find such a beast that would make sense for someone.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware failure will bring a Linux box down as quickly as it will a Windows box, the only difference is the screen indication, with Linux, you get a Kernel Panic (in most cases), while in Windows you get a BSOD.

This depends on the hardware failure. Raise your hand if you've had a kernel panic because of a soundcard(for a modern version of Linux)? Now raise your hand if you've had a BSOD because of a soundcard under XP? I have never seen the former, not even on older kernels, but I have seen the later.

Certain types of hardware failure, like critical components maybe, but BSODs happen for trivial hardware at times.

And this doesn't even touch on the software problems. I had a customer getting a BSOD when he plugged in a USB drive. That problem was software related, yes, but I have NEVER seen a kernel panic because I plugged something into the USB port.

Re:i wouldnt

[M3number3]

Why would it kill Apple? It might transform them more from a HW to a SW vendor, but certainly wouldn't kill them. I think M$ has shown there is plenty of revenue in software.....

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

No. And you're avoiding the question. What's wrong with Linux/x86? And I'm not talking about UI issues - those are unrelated to the /x86 half.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if what you spewed were true, there's always the Athlon64/Opteron line which is a lot closer to a PPC in terms of design (short pipeline, etc).

Re:i wouldnt

[Lord Kano]

• today you can buy the (delicious) imac g5 with the 17'' tft screen for $1300 -- and you get a 64-bit machine. An athlon64 with similar specs doesn't cost much lower, and you don't get the all-in-one design.

I don't want the all-in-one design. I have a perfectly good fleet of 17" monitors right now and don't want to pay for the new built in one of the iMac.

I guess it's the rose colored glasses. Every Apple shotcoming is an advantage to some people.

LK

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

1GB -- $200
250GB HDD -- $125
DVD Burner -- $50
20" LCD -- $675
Radeon 9800P - $175
Windows XP Pro - $199
Keyboard - $10
Mouse - $20

Thats around $1400 + Processor/MB and Software

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Step further, things I have seen BSODs for under WindowsXP while servicing customer computers:

DVD drive going south. No Kernel Panic under Linux on the same machine.
CD drive going south. No Kernel Panic under Linux on the same machine.
Soundcard going south. No Kernel panic...

While soundcards going south are rarer for me than memory going south, DVD and CD drives are the 2 biggest hardware failures I encounter among my home users. Sometimes, XP handles it gracefully, but more than a few times, BSOD. That's just the way it is. Maybe someone out there has seen Linux kernel panic on relatively trivial pieces of hardware, but I honestly haven't.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, the operating system _should_ start acting abnormally if data is at risk. Ignoring gracefully a failing NIC or HDD is asking for bigger trouble when components fail completely.

Re:i wouldnt

[base3]

Surprised you're still posting at 1--nothing seems to get the Mac users riled up more than being reminded that they paid twice as much for pretty much the same commodity hardware. Macs have always been expensive, but back in the day, they at least came with SCSI.

Re:i wouldnt

[arminw]

How can you compare an ugly block of a noisy beige box with an elegantly designed, very quiet piece of equipment? That's like comparing a Porsche with a Hyundai. Yes, both have 4 wheels and make it down the highway.

Even if the new iMac ran Windows (with Virtual PC it does) it is a far better machine. OSX is just frosting on the great integrated overall design cake.

Who needs an ugradeable computer (other than RAM) anyway? I upgraded a supposedly unupgradable, all in one purple iMac with a 120G HD and all the RAM it will hold. It still works ok for word processing, e-mail and web-surfing, but iTunes mp3 encoding and even simple graphics editing takes forever.

In a few years, even the most upgraded computer will be hopelessly obsolete and will be replaced if you need/want to run the latest and greatest software, especially games.

Try running the latest games on a tops 2000 vintage computer, whether Mac or x86. Some won't even run, most will be too slow.

In most things of this world you generally get what you pay for. If you want the barest of bones function in your den or workshop, get a cheap workable x86 with windows, but if you care about looks in your living or family room you may want to pay a little extra.

Not having to worry about any of those 70,000+ known malwares out for wintel may also allow you to sleep better and thus because you are healthier, save the extra money a Mac costs by having lower doctor bills. I am being facetious here!

Re:i wouldnt

[Mattintosh]

Meanwhile, the PPC almost always has 64K L1 cache (32K instruction, 32K data).

The PPC 750 (the "G3") had 512k or 1MB of L2 cache running at bus speed (66 or 100 MHz). (Source: Apple - Note: This page shows L2 cache to be 512k and 300MHz to be an available option. The 300MHz PPC750 had a 1MB L2 cache).

Early G4's had 1MB of L2 running at bus speed (100 or 133 MHz). (Source: Apple)

Later G4's had 256K of L2 (at processor speed) and 1MB or 2MB of L3 (at 1/4th processor speed). (Source: Apple - 1MB - 2MB)

The G5's have 512k of L2 running at processor speed. (Source: Apple)

And lots and lots of registers...

I can understand why you might like cheap/fast-enough/common x86 processors. I just don't understand why anyone would defend the poor design decisions that bite them in the ass.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, register windowing had questionable performance benefits.

All your other points I agree with, however. x86 CPU architecture blows. However, the original poster probably intended to refer to the overall machine architecture in general; something, ironically, which the Mac hardware platform probably shares these days..

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how you conveniently leave Processor and Motherboard out of it as if they're insignificant.

Add an Athon64 + Motherboard or a Xeon + Motherboard and THEN tell us the price.
Not to mention the fact that you have to put it together yourself.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, I think i'd base that claim on crappy consumer hardware. take it out: stable windows. put it in: crashed windows. take it out: stable windows. put it in: crashed windows. Do you want me to test it again? okay. take it out: stable windows. put it in: crashed windows. Your expert knowledge of Linux doesn't seem to make up for your complete lack of common sense.

The claim was, that most BSODs happen because of hardware. In my experience, I've seen far more BSODs because of software. Talk about my common sense? You tell me what is easier, taking apart a system piece by piece, rebooting every time to see if it works, or popping in a CD(or in some cases, having to hook up good CD drive), booting up, and running diags? You work harder your way.

Safe mode? oh wait...

Oh yeah, safe mode. Great, the machine boots in safe mode, loads virtually no drivers, and it works. How much closer are you really to finding the problem? Or here's a bitch, it won't even boot into safe mode. Most of the time I've seen this, it's been software related.

Oh right. I suppose this approach works on all the hardware that Linux doesn't even have 3rd party drivers for too.

No, but that's rarely an issue. Support for hardware is pretty robust in Linux nowadays.

But you say it yourself! Sometimes Linux can't even spot when hardware IS faulty!

No, that's not what I said, though you can interpret it that way. Linux can boot, say a DVD drive is okay on boot, then you can find out later when YOU TEST IT, that it doesn't work. All without a blue screen of death, or playing musical chairs with hardware.

Your way is too time consuming.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Read before you flame. He didn't say that Linux can fix bad hardware. He uses the linux CD to DIAGNOSE bad hardware. So he knows what part to replace.

In my experience, "error in /dev/" is alot better than "a problem has been detected and Windows has shut down."

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, the operating system _should_ start acting abnormally if data is at risk. Ignoring gracefully a failing NIC or HDD is asking for bigger trouble when components fail completely.

Acting abnormally doesn't, and ideally shouldn't, mean total crash. Logging the failure is much more intelligent, and continuing to boot, it's much more helpful, than BSOD.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

moreover, if you're going to mention a keyboard and leave out case & power supply, then you're kinda missing something... while they're not hugely expensive, they'll certainly add to the bottom line by at least $100 for a decent option...

Re:i wouldnt

[hazzey]

"There's not THAT much to have to support to just work on the average desktop..." Umm... what about the internals? Most of the external components are already covered as you said. It is all of the drivers for everything else that makes it hard. Just look at your system in windows and see exactly how many extra drivers windows loads to support just your machine.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Those later 2MB G4s you cite were ridiclously expensive "Extreme Edition" models that Apple only put in the very top-end models. Not that it mattered, because they still got their butts kicked by the PCs of the day.

Re:i wouldnt

[bot24]

I had Windows running stably for a while, but I hadn't been using it. I had been using Linux exclusively for weeks at a time, and didn't notice the "fatal error"s in Windows untill the Doom3 demo was released. There would always be a drive scan on boot, and after loading, it would run OK, for a few minutes, and then it would refuse to launch new programs, including CTRL-ALT-DEL launching taskman. Continueing to use it will eventually result in a message box that says something similar to "Doom3demo.exe: \n Fatal error.", and only an OK button. Once there is one error, there are more untill everything has crashed. Trying to shutdown gets the WinNT style logout stuff instead of the WinXP style.

I have had no problems like this before, but I have had worse. One time I updated Win95(required for DVD player with old PC) to Win98(required for update to ME), and then Win98 to WinME. Upon starting Windows again, I was shocked to discover that my executable files where no longer associated with themselves, and no applications could be run.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to http://www.hdnw.com and custom build a system, you can have them build what he described for $1,900 including XP Pro. They build it, they warrenty it.

You mac fanbois will never win in a price war.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you compare an ugly block of a noisy beige box with an elegantly designed, very quiet piece of equipment? That's like comparing a Porsche with a Hyundai. Yes, both have 4 wheels and make it down the highway.

Obviously you have no freaking clue what you're talking about. Ugly block of noisy beige box? Sorry to break it to you but PC's have had more case options than Macs for years and run just as quiety or more so.

Step out of the 80's freak.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a data-sensitive component like a disk driver or a filesystem, you really do want the crash instead of hosed data.

Re:i wouldnt

[Boltronics]

Firstly, I think my AMD AthlonXP 2500+ PC with Antec Super LAN-Boy case (with clear side-panel), CoolerMaster Aero 7+ HSF, ThermalTake PSU, 4 SATA hard disks, all rounded cables, etc. make my PC look beastly and very cool. I also know the design is nothing to be sneezed at, since it has excellent airflow and the case is made of aluminum - not cheap plastic like all Macs I've ever seen.

Now this may surprise you, but I haven't purchased a new computer in well over 4 years! I could never afford to fork out so much cash at any one point in time (being a student). I simply upgrade the bits and pieces as I need to when I can afford to. There is not a single component of the original computer (an old early Duron) left in the machine. Now the monitor is a 17-inch Hitachi LCD. The case has changed at least twice. Even the hard disks I originally had have all failed and been replaced.

The biggest upgrade I have ever performed was a simultaneous motherboard and RAM upgrade, and the lovely (almost) never-changing Socket A has let me get away with this.

So seriously... how can a Mac compete for somebody like me. I DO need an upgradable computer. Now take a look around - this is Slashdot! I'm not the only one who works this way.

As for malwares... I run a UNIX-based OS, just like you do. GNU/Linux, thanks.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Those processors required the larger caches to compensate for the larger binaries that resulted from the PowerPC's IA. You'll notice that even with less L2, the x86 processors of the day still won.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pentium 4 has long pipelines, but AMD doesn't have this problem. Clock for clock, the Opteron does more work than the G5.

Re:i wouldnt

[mentin]

In a few years, even the most upgraded computer will be hopelessly obsolete and will be replaced if you need/want to run the latest and greatest software, especially games.

It looks like with your "upgrades" of HD and RAM you don't even imagine people using PC have a choice to upgrade video card, motherboard and processor too.

But we do it all the time, e.g. my computer is slowly evolving PC which began its life in the end of 2000. I've replaced motherboard/CPU/memory, HD, added CDR and the computer serves fine to me.

If you want the barest of bones function in your den or workshop, get a cheap workable x86 with windows, but if you care about looks in your living or family room you may want to pay a little extra.

What a BS - there are tons of nice cases available for x86, just choose one that suites your taste. Much more than Apple has to offer.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing you prove is that any idiot can play with Dell.com and get any price they want to. The Precision is a PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATION -- in the same class as the PowerMac, not the fucking iMac.

Re:i wouldnt

[BasilBrush]

No the links do not say that. They don't support your case. Undoubtably PC manufacturers are able to choose the same parts as Apple use. That doesn't mean that any given PC uses them. Not Dell, not HPaq nor anyone else you mentioned.

And of course no PC has the major two components of a computer in common with a Mac. You mentioned the processor, but forgot the mobo.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

dude why dont you quit your sniveling you little BITCH! like youve never pirated software before.... fucktard

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of idiot can't or (god forbid) wouldn't put his own computer together to save a shitload of money?

Re:i wouldnt

[50ftpoodledog]

I would sure try it, and if I liked it I'd probably try and use it. I agree it would be better on their hardware, but the Darwin OS already will run on X86...right?

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been upgrading my 486dx40 with 4MB ram for 10 years now. Granted, none of the origianl parts have been in use for about 7 of the 10 years but the upgrades have still been going. In my house with 5 running computers, the upgrades roll down the hill. I buy a part for machine A and the old part from A gets put into machine B and so on down the line. Bascially, I can buy one upgrade and 2-4 machines benefit. The parts that drop off the bottom are either tossed or given to relatives for their second or third machines.

Re:i wouldnt

[tftp]

In my experience, such an incremental upgrade is more expensive. As you said, you bought the second computer already, as parts, and maybe even more than that - and you still have ONE computer! Where did the old parts go, ones that haven't failed?

In most cases it is practical to keep the old computer as is, and use it for whatever work you can foist onto it. I had an old 486DX2, for example: bought in 1995, switched to firewall duty around 1999, and scrapped only last year.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just spent the best part of 3 hours setting up a linux router box that took 10 minutes to set up in windows.

The cause? A USB ADSL Modem and a wireless network card. Fairly modern, innocuous hardware.

After hacking the driver source to accept the vendor and product ID of my modem so it might work with another manufacturers' driver, then trying to convince my wifi card to work with endless versions of windows drivers in endless versions of ndiswrapper, you can NOT try and say that support for hardware in linux is anything but 'lacking.'

I've still got to wait for a good few days to see if this driver for ndiswrapper is actually 'stable.'

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardware failure will bring a Linux box down as quickly as it will a Windows box, the only difference is the screen indication, with Linux, you get a Kernel Panic (in most cases), while in Windows you get a BSOD.--

I'am on a Debian SID box that have a PSU problem (or maybe a mainboard one). If i run windows sh~t on this box whenever the cpu usage gets >%95 for a second or more the pc gets a warm boot. But on this bleeding edge Debian SID it just gets a 'warmer' X boot (maybe not that much bleeding :))

Re:i wouldnt

[notthe9]

I like how you conveniently leave Processor and Motherboard out of it as if they're insignificant.
Add an Athon64 + Motherboard or a Xeon + Motherboard and THEN tell us the price.

You could get them for A LOT LESS then the next $900 difference if it were an iMac, less than half it. You could get those components pretty nicely for $250.


Not to mention the fact that you have to put it together yourself.

If for some reason this is a problem pay a tech $250 and you would still be at $1900, not $3940 for a comparable x86 system.

Re:i wouldnt

[bob beta]

Solaris x86 is a nice piece of work. I've installed it on one of my older systems (a Dell Optiplex GX1 box) and it looks great, and about any apps you need are available for it, for many purposes. Sun more and more embraces the GNU freeware all the time, and distribute a nicely packaged GNU toolchain that installs like any other package into their system. With the Gnome desktop, you're not even bound to OpenLook or CDE anymore.

It's an option well worth checking out. For those of us with a stable of boxes on a 4 way KVM switch, it's worth having a machine on hand that runs Solaris x86.

Re:i wouldnt

[bob beta]

There hasn't been an OS that fully exploits the x86 processor family since a few proprietary UNIX box vendors made them for the 80286 processor way back. The features of the '286 pointed on into a robust protected mode environment, but at the time all the market would bear was a 'faster box to run DOS on.' Intel tried to push the software 'envelope' back then, but have since just ridden along as a piece in the Wintel monopoly.

Re:i wouldnt

[jshriverWVU]

I was a Linux user from 1996 till 2001 or so when OS X came out, and after seeing it, fell in love. It's like having Linux w/ all of the OSS software + a nice GUI that works perfectly. Anyway.. I haven't tried Darwin x86 (via Virtual PC yet) But wouldn't the lack of core programs be rememdied by Fink? Curious if Fink would work on a strict Darwin system. If any fink ppl know email me jshriver gmail dot com

Re:i wouldnt

[jshriverWVU]

I somewhat disagree.. I think the myth that Mac's aren't easily upgradable went away when Apple began to use PCI/AGP components.. Even on my dual Mac I have ram I bought at Office Depot, and can plug in a AGP video card easily. USB and Firewire devices aren't a problem at all.. I have *oddly* several "retailed for Wintel only" devices on my Mac all working nicely.. lol I'm even typing this via an PS/2 Win keyboard using a PS/2 doggle... no drivers needed just works.. and even the win key automaps as the apple key.

Re:i wouldnt

[User 956]

No the links do not say that. They don't support your case.

Of course, lets not let the facts get in the way of your zealotry. And I quote:
From a technical standpoint, Apple have also been criticised for having a closed and proprietary architecture with the original Macintosh, and a "not invented here" syndrome against adopting open standards. That trend has been largely reversed with OS X, and the company now has an official policy of adopting open industry standards where they exist. Apple have now used industry standard hardware technologies for many years, which has helped to lower prices significantly.

Hell, go to Apple's site and check their specs yourself. Radeons, Geforces, Seagate hard drives, Micron RAM, the list goes on. But I suppose in your bizarro-world reality, those are all apple design, though, right?

Re:i wouldnt

[b17bmbr]

i don't make a habit of responding to AC's, but since everything on os x runs outside of kernel space, it's just a recompile with different flags. if darwin runs on x86y, then everything else will. the architecture is just lilke linux. linux runs great on ppc. my g3/700mhz ibook runs twice as fast with ydl versus panther.

Re:i wouldnt

[__aafkqj3628]

It's an option well worth checking out. For those of us with a stable of boxes on a 4 way KVM switch, it's worth having a machine on hand that runs Solaris x86.

It's lack of support for NE2000-compliant network cards quickly dropped it from my list of choices when setting up one of my file servers a while ago.

Re:i wouldnt

[misleb]

I thought he was including the cost for the Adobe software and whatnot that was included with the Mac. That made the PC $3940.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

i've been doing the same on a some win2k boxes for years, regularly getting uptimes up to 20 weeks (no ups, no need for one). the problem with x86 has always been linux zealots bashing windows.

Re:i wouldnt

[ImpTech]

You can talk about "poor design decisions" all day, and I won't argue that Intel has made several. However, you have to look at the whole picture.

For instance, where Apple (or Motorola) put L3 on their later G4s, Intel built a faster FSB and faster memory interconnect. I'm not sure a giant 1/4 speed cache would have ever made sense for them.

For the early G4s... well, they were slow. I'm thinking Apple was using those models while Intel and AMD were breaking the 1000MHz barrier (with caches running at CPU speed, not bus speed). Adding 1MB L2 was a hack because Motorola couldn't ramp their clockspeed up. It wasn't a feature.

The G5's L2 cache is the same as any recent x86 processor.

But yes, PPC has many many more registers than x86. Of course, x86-64 is another matter.

I don't think you'll find anybody who'll disagree that the PPC instruction set spec is superior to the x86. However, thanks to decades of really clever engineering, the ISA hardly matters anymore in terms of performance. Nowadays, its all about the manufacturing process. And due to intense competition and economy of scale, x86 processors tend to be faster and cost less than PPC, at least in the consumer space. This has been true for years, and is still true today, and it blows my mind that people still don't believe it.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's oh so difficult to keep the old parts, an reassemble them once you have a complete new computer.

some people really do only need one pc.
because well, i can't use two at once, and have no use for any sort of server.
so what would i use an older computer for, when i have a better one.

Re:i wouldnt

[fireboy1919]

$120 DVD-+RW drive (one of the new dual layer capable ones)
$180 Asus Mobo with built-in Optical audio, gigabit, a normal ethernet connection, AGP 8x PRO, pci express, firewire, and USB 2.0 and an Athlon XP 3200 installed
$120 120 GB harddrive
$250 Decent monitor - 19" or higher
$100 512 MB RAM
$20 Modem
$80 video card

Your grand total comes to $890, and I can get almost all of these things at an average of $40 under the price I quoted. This is closer to the "go to CompUSA and pick all of this stuff up" price. I mentioned Asus because they're generally acknowledged as one of the better Mobo manufacturers, and they sell a model that has all of those things I mentioned on it.

So...what features do Macs have that you pay for?
-Faster bus speed
-OSX
-Double the bandwidth of processor (of course, you can always add a few hundred to the price and buy the Athlon 64 equivalent stuff...)

I don't really care how much Dell charges, or about the Microsoft tax, since I use Linux. Apple doesn't have to compete with Dell to get my business, they have to compete with me, and I can build a system to your specs for $900 as an upper limit.

I guess they're more competitive than they used to be, though. They used to charge about three times retail for an equivalent x86 box.

Still, I think it's probably worth it because you get the twin benefits of being able to use esoteric hardware that won't work in linux (a great many of the 96Kbit capable soundcards won't work in linux, for example), while also not having to use Windows. But don't kid yourself into think it's because Apple isn't taking advantage of their market niche to increase prices.

Re:i wouldnt

[bigox]

Why is this moderated as troll? The author makes a very good point. The new macs are very elegantly designed, even when compared to the various aftermarket cases. The iMacs are very quiet. Their self contained quality made setting up a bunch of them a snap. Sure, they are not much use to the home/work power user, but for non technies, they are great.

And another thing. The author makes a good point about the upgrades. Have you tried to buy low density PC100 memory lately? Noticed the price? Being able to upgrade is nice, but as I get older and have less time, I'd rather buy a new machine.

I'm not too biased because my main machine is a x86 running linux.

Re:i wouldnt

[rawg]

Coming from a PC user I can see how you missed the boat on this. Even the LCD screen is replaceable on a iMac. You can upgrade the CPU, hard drive, memory... http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=868 12

Re:i wouldnt

[tftp]

Well, obviously you can't use the old computer until you collect enough of old parts for it. This may take several years - and those would be the only years when that old computer still might be of use to someone.

If you only need one PC, then sell the old PC on eBay for whatever $50 or $100 you can get, since the old parts alone definitely will not be of value to anyone. The post which I replied to was written by a student, and I can't imagine that a student can't dispose of an old computer for a reasonable compensation; there is always a student whose PC just got eaten by viruses, for example. In such a case eBay is not needed, just post a note on a bulletin board.

Re:i wouldnt

[JM Apocalypse]

If you want a PC as quiet as an iMac, you sacrifice speed. You can get a 1.8GHz iMac with display (which will completely obliterate a 3GHz Pentium 4), and have it run so quiet that you can't hear it.

I bought my 867 MHz powerbook 2 years ago, and it completely obliterated my 2.26 GHz Pentium 4 (which is *incredibly* noisy), and still does. And it does this all silently.

Re:i wouldnt

[rockwood]

umm... can you hook me up... for say $20 :)

Re:i wouldnt

[JM Apocalypse]

3k is not the starting price. It starts at $2,000, and you can pimp it out from there.

Remember: you also get _much_ higher quality components. How much noise does this system make? Also compare power consumption: G5s use about 40 watts per processor, Opterons can be about 130. Would you rather run a 4 60-watt light bulbs or 2 40-watt, and still have the same amount of light?

Re:i wouldnt

[afd8856]

Final Cut = Premiere =~ 700$, don't forget that

Re:i wouldnt

[Boltronics]

Typically I sell anything I no longer have a need for. I use iptables for my firewall.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

What a BS - there are tons of nice cases available for x86, just choose one that suites your taste. Much more than Apple has to offer.

For each of the extremely rare nice cases, there are a thousand crappy ones, and not a single one is as compact or accessible as the iMac's. How is that much more than Apple has to offer?

Re:i wouldnt

[CrashMan79]

Nevermind that you're comparing an iMac to a corporate-class workstation. If you'd configured a Dimension instead of a Precision, you'd probably not have had anything to post about, sorry to say. I just got done refuting someone else's claims that "Apples aren't any more expensive than similarly equipped PCs" on The Inquirer. Oddly enough, they did the same thing you did: went straight to Dell, picked a corporate class machine. Sadly, the other people made some gross misjudgements to jack up the PC price even more, by configuring the Dell with twice the RAM, more addons, etc... But still, when you get down to it, you're comparing Apples and oranges. Back on topic, even if Apple did release OSX on x86 architecture, it'd likely run poorly (at least as compared to OSX on a Mac). It's just not in their best interests to release a "perfect" version of OSX on x86 architecture, simply because I doubt Apple makes its money selling software. If there's no compelling reason for people to buy the machines (style only goes so far, OS and other software tow the load), there's very little profit potential for Apple in releasing OSX on PC hardware.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

We were talking hardware, right? In the cases you're talking about, Linux will very likely kernel panic. In the context of troubleshooting faulty hardware that causes a BSOD, that isn't a harddrive failure or RAM failure, a crash is a big pain in the ass.

Besides which, troubleshooting with a boot CD that does not mount harddrives, isn't going to trash a filesystem or data. If mounting it will trash it, you have probably already trashed it by booting windows.

Re:i wouldnt

[mcrbids]

I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.

Which sounds nice and all, and if you were talking about server uptime, I'd agree.

But, if you're typing this on said "Linux box", it's very unlikely to be a server. Which means, it's your workstation. Probably some AMD Athlon. Running 99.95% of the time with a load average between 0.01 and 0.00, while you sleep, party, work, or doze in class.

Think of the electricity you're wasting, both in the computer itself, and the A/C to cool your room down after your volunteer space heater warmed it up.

Let's run some numbers. In the US, (I don't know where you are) Electricity costs about $0.08 per KWH. It's been on since March, and let's say you actually use the computer oh, 6 hours per day? (Typical, unless you're a coder)

That leaves 18 hours per day since March - let's say March 15th. A quick check shows this to be about 208 days. (Thank you date() and mktime()!) An Athlon computer probably burns, on average, between 150 and 250 watts total, with graphics card, CPU, HDD, etc. Let's call it at 200 watts.

18*205*175=738,000 watt hours. You pay $0.08 per KWH, so the mere fact of leaving your computer (un-necessarily) has cost you $59.04, which assumes that you don't use air conditioning.

Other than stroking your ego, what purpose does leaving your computer on 24/7 really serve you?

Really?

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. We Linux zealots just made up the BSOD. It actually has never happened for anyone. Windows has actually been pretty perfect since 3.1 over Dos 6.2. All the upgrades since then have simply been feature upgrades to an extremely solid and bullet proof OS.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

you can get an FX5200 for around $50-$60

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Tiny cache? x86 processors have larger L1 caches than most other processors.

Are you on crack? The P4 has a minuscule 8k L1 data cache (Prescott doubles this to a mere 16k). I defy you to find another modern processor with an L1 cache smaller than that. Hint: you won't find one in the PowerPC family, unless you count the defunct BiCMOS-based X704 from Exponential.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

all this unsupported anecdotal evidence has convinced me! I ordered my grape iMac, then went to the local cruise spot and gave a bunch of blowjobs. I'm converted now.

Re:i wouldnt

[pegasustonans]

While this is a step in the right direction, I believe my previous argument still stands. If I want to replace the mainboard on an imac with an upgraded mainboard, say, from a dual-processor mac tower, then there is nothing to facilitate my doing this. In part, this is because of a lack of standardization in hardware specifications in macs, though this is getting better. However, in the imacs specifically, I believe there is still too much that the user cannot do in terms of taking their machine apart and upgrading it for it to compare favorably with PCs.
That aside, if I were choosing a computer based solely upon how well it matches my Scandinavian furniture, then I would most certainly buy an imac.

Re:i wouldnt

[Izago909]

You must have missed the part where I said it was an old P3 that sits in a closet and is used as a router/firewall/file server. Hell, the only reason there's a monitor and keyboard attached is because they're spares and have nowhere else to go but the closet. I also needed a server so I could SSH into my samba shares. I had the need, the hardware, the linux experience, and a lack of cash, so I think this was the best solution. Also, seeing how this is a basement closet, heat isn't exactly one of my concerns. I have to tape over the air vents because even in the dead of summer, it's too damn cold with the A/C on.

Re:i wouldnt

[pod]

How is that much more than Apple has to offer?

As in, if you don't like the way the Apple cases look, you're just shit out of luck.

Who cares that there are thousands of shitty PC cases... all you need is 1.

Re:i wouldnt

[DigiShaman]

Ya well...I hope a virus mutates and clogs your ports.

Take that, you big bully!

Re:i wouldnt

[pegasustonans]

I forgot to mention in my previous post that Apple specifically references this capability on the imac in the context of replacing faulty components, and not in the context of upgrading to newer hardware. While this capability is certainly a good thing, there is reason to believe that you may void the warranty on your machine if you upgrade or replace a vital component on the machine (such as the power-supply or CPU) as opposed to having a licensed Apple technician do it. Overall, I still have to cite the clear advantages of PC or PowerPC towers in this area.

Re:i wouldnt

[jcr]

OpenStep/Intel sold about 12 copies.

You're off by a factor of about 5,000 or so, but keep in mind that NeXTSTEP for x86 was priced at $800. Clearly, it was never intended for the mass market.

Besides, isn't the whole appeal of owning a Mac is that you don't have to have some special shoppinglist for components?

That's certainly a large part of it, and that would still apply.

-jcr

Re:i wouldnt

[Boronx]

Other than stroking your ego, what purpose does leaving your computer on 24/7 really serve you? When you want some Google, you want it now.

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Who needs an ugradeable computer (other than RAM) anyway?"

um... me?

"I upgraded a supposedly unupgradable, all in one purple iMac with a 120G HD and all the RAM it will hold."

You'd have fun if you tried to install a hard drive larger than 137 gb, as the ATA controllers of the time didn't support drives that big. I popped an SATA contoller in my PC that sounds like it's about as old as your iMac (ca. 1997), and now it has a 160 gb drive. I also popped a gigabit network card in, and now it's great file server.

Installing an SATA controller in an iMac from that time is impossible, the 160 gb drive would be impossible, and the gigabit interface is impossible on any iMac. In addition, the firewalling requirements of my server have caused me to install a total of 3 network interfaces-- this, too, is impossible on an iMac.

It might be 8 years old, but my NFS performance is about 15-20 mb/s. That's about the best you can do with NFS over ethernet. The hard drive performance is about 2% better than my desktop machine because the chipset in the SATA card is better than the on board SATA controller in my desktop machine, despite the fact that it runs a much faster OS with much faster hardware. As opposed to your iMac, which will be stuck at ATA/33 for the rest of time.

And I don't care what it looks like. It's tucked away under my desk where even I can barely see it. It just sits there working perfectly.

"In a few years, even the most upgraded computer will be hopelessly obsolete and will be replaced if you need/want to run the latest and greatest software"

That's odd. I could have sworn my server was running up to date everything. Either you're full of it, or I recall the versions of my stuff incorrectly.

"especially games."

Games on a Mac. Right.

"Not having to worry about any of those 70,000+ known malwares out for wintel may also allow you to sleep better"

My server is a fully patched OpenBSD machine. Everything else is not.

You're mistaking what you find useful from what others find useful. Just because you would derive no utility from an upgradable computer doesn't mean no one else would. You obviously don't feel like operating a server; I can respect that. However, I want a server, and if I hadn't bought an upgradable machine in 1997 I would have to get a new computer now. I knew I'd be doing something like this back then, so I got the upgradable machine. I know I'll be doing something like this 5 years from now, so my new desktop machine is also upgradable.

There are many other reasons to get an upgradable machine.

Apple is good for three things: immutable desktop machines, powerhaus workstations, and laptops. I have an Apple laptop and I'm happy with it. But Apple doesn't want to sell you an affordable, upgradable desktop. So some of us just have to look elsewhere.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, whatever, that's a fucking joke. And I don't think you'll be doing much serious video work on an iMac. (Shouln't you compare a high-end Mac to the high-end Dell you've speced out? Why cheap out on the Mac side, hmm?)

I just checked out the apple.ca store... their top of the line G5 machine clocks in at $4100, base. And I do use 'top of the line' very loosely.

512MB ram (!) It'll cost you $210 to up that to 1GB, which you'll need for any serious work.

Video card (this is the real joke here) is ATI 9600XT w/ 128MB. For a cool $420 you can be like the other PC kids with 256MB video to play their games... but that's ok, if you start saving your money now, by the time the games come out for Macs you'll have put together enough to upgrade... maybe.

These 'top of the line' systems come with, get this, a 56k modem. I guess people who have 4k+ to blow on a machine aren't expected to have broadband. You'll spend $140 for a NIC to join the 21st century. (Hey, you know, those shitty PC server motherboards (which you'll need for Intel dual-CPU, sadly) come with no less than 2 (two) GigE NICs on-board.)

That's nearly 5 GRAND! and you don't even have a display yet!

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

My P2 from 1997 has a gigabit network interface because I installed one. No iMac anywhere has a gigabit network interface.

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

PowerMacs are quite expensive, and they are the only ones that can be upgraded significantly. Were the iMacs similarly upgradable, it wouldn't be a problem.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read that Macs have some problems with standard DVD-RW drives if you try to replace the SuperDrive they have.

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

"If you want a PC as quiet as an iMac, you sacrifice speed. You can get a 1.8GHz iMac with display (which will completely obliterate a 3GHz Pentium 4), and have it run so quiet that you can't hear it."

errr... what?

That depends entirely on what you're going to do with it. Pentium 4's have substantial advantages in serveral areas. For example, they have more memory bandwidth than iMacs. Also, while Pentium 4s don't automatically have good video cards, iMacs automatically have bad video cards. If you were doing something graphically intensive, the P4 would likely win.

"I bought my 867 MHz powerbook 2 years ago, and it completely obliterated my 2.26 GHz Pentium 4 (which is *incredibly* noisy), and still does. And it does this all silently."

Again, that depends entire on what you do with it. any G4 computer has a maximum of a 187 mhz bus, which will choke immediately if anything memory intensive is run.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast AND inexpensive CPU. What's the problem here?

Re:i wouldnt

[wirelessbuzzers]

The latest iMac is upgradable. Parts you can upgrade yourself include the RAM, HDD, optical drive, PSU, CPU/mobo, LCD, wireless card, and modem.

Re:i wouldnt

[Cesare Ferrari]

All PowerPC Macs have come with ethernet, so that's since around 1992 or so. The current range all have gig ethernet, including powerbooks. You are right about the graphic cards as being a joke though - especially as apple have used OpenGL acceleration in their GUI (Quartz Extreme). The apple UI is really improved by a decent amount of video ram. You'd have to factor a 256Mb card, especially if you are running multiple screens. Another point which should be pointed out is that these Apple cards are dual DVI. For whatever reason noone seems to think that the average PC user wants dual DVI... Cesare

Re:i wouldnt

[grotgrot]

Now if only Apple would let you buy a machine without a screen for less than $2000.

Re:i wouldnt

[phulshof]

I'd love to know where you can get some of these prices, and brands you can buy for that. 250 GB for $125? 20" LCD for $625? What keyboard do you get for $10, and what mouse for $20? Is the 9800 high end still?

Also: where's the case (a nice one please, like the Mac has)? Where's the speakers? How much will you pay for the processor and MB? Now put that on a table, and put the Mac next to it. Does it compare? What's your endprice for both?

I personally still prefer the PC over the Mac, but I think Apple has come a long way in creating a level price field between PC and Mac.

Re:i wouldnt

[macgyvr64]

Use Pioneer drives and you can't go wrong. I've used everything from an A02/102 on up, and they work great in my G4 tower.

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

Apart fromt the wireless card, you're just changing out parts that are already there.

For example, I need (well... not need, but would heavily prefer) a gigabit network card. This is impossible on an iMac. Also, dual monitors are impossible with an iMac. Also, the iMac video cards often leave a lot to be desired, and they can not be upgraded.

You can basically exchange most of what's there for a faster version, but the capabilities are static except for the wireless card and whatever you can plug in with USB/firewire.

Re:i wouldnt

[martingunnarsson]

That's your opinion, I always prefer quality over price. Why buy the cheapest piece of shit you can find, if it's only gonna give you headaches? I've bought some cheap stuff and some expensive stuff throughout the years. I've almost always been disappointed by the cheap stuff and really happy about the expensive stuff. But then of course there are exceptions.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you not include the price of the monitor? The iMac includes one and to get a display of similar quality on a PC would be at lease $300. Your are basically comparing a $1600 computer to a $1300 one; Right? That's a petty big price difference (You are basically talking about an AMD system that costs about 23% more?). Also, your analysis of costs is so simplistic. For one thing the iMac (and Macs in gereal) holds value much better that a built to order PC. After two years of use the iMac will be worth much more, about 50-75% of what you paid for it while you would be very lucky to get 20-25% for the PC. To me the PC is not looking like such a good value anymore.

If your in a business setting we haven't even disused the additional cost of supporting a PC vs a Mac which is very significant (at least hundreds of dollars more per year). Not only in terms of tech support and virus cleaners, but also lost productivity solving problems that don't impact the Mac. It also has no mention of the fact that Macs in general are more reliable than PCs.

When it is all said a done I wouldn't be surprised if a $1300 headless Athlon System cost more than a $2499 Dual G5 2.0 Tower over the life of the system. At an office I use to work at they spent at least $750-1000 per CPU per year on support for the built-to-order Athlon PCs (re-configurations, hardware failures, MS service pack problems, viruses, etc.) I compare that to a Mac OS X office that my friend worked at where they spent less that $100 per CPU per year on unexpected computer problems. In the real world I truly think Macs are cheaper when you factor in the entire cycle of ownership.

Re:i wouldnt

[Xyde]

purrrr

Re:i wouldnt

[kyhwana]

XP/2k machines with uptimes that long scare me.
Why?
Because they havn't been patched for months. ;)

Re:i wouldnt

[jrockway]

The graphics cards are a bit different (big-endian vs. little-endian color representations, among other things). The drives, though, are the same. My Cube's CD drive died a while back, so I put in another IDE hard drive. Worked fine until the thing caught fire (pyro roommate...)

Actually the drives both still work and are happily serving files as we speak. Go cheap IDE :)

Re:i wouldnt

[BasilBrush]

OK, you are an idiot. You don't realise that there are quality "industry standard hardware technologies" components and there are cheap ones. What exactly do you think the difference is between a $300 PC and a $1700 PC they both use "industry standard hardware", so they must use the exact same parts, right? And no, it's not just processor speed, memory size and HD size that's different. It's the quality of the parts.

But you won't understand the concept of quality. Not until you grow up. There's no getting through to some people.

Re:i wouldnt

[slantyyz]

While I'm sure much of the debate has eroded into a "apple is a hardware company first", "macs are indeed price competitive", "g5s are faster" type of debate, I only ask people to think about this -- as a consumer (and a Windows user planning on augmenting my pc network with a Mac) - the thing that pisses me off about Apple is that it took over a year to add a G5 product to the consumer line, and that there still aren't any G5s to be seen in the notebook lines. Apple Otaku must be the most patient people in the world to tolerate this.

Sure, G5s are sweet processors, but if you're going to introduce chips into your product line, you could at least make sure that all of your market segments will use the chip within 6 months. At least with x86, you can expect to see the latest chips in professional and consumer machines as desktops and notebooks within a much shorter time frame. Yeah, an Athlon 64 notebook might burn a hole in your crotch, but at least you didn't have to wait two years to be able to buy one.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Those later 2MB G4s you cite were ridiclously expensive "Extreme Edition" models that Apple only put in the very top-end models.

Hey moron, there's no such thing as an extreme edition of the G4. The G3 and G4 were designed to accommodate variable amounts of backside cache. For a G4, the difference between 0MB and 2MB of L3 cache is exactly the price of 2MB of cache RAM. For a Pentium, the difference is more like $1000, since Intel artificially withholds that capacity for its very top-end models.

Apple also used the 2MB G4's in those cheap-ass G4 towers they continued to sell after the G5 was announced last year. That's almost as far from the very top-end models as you can get.

Re:i wouldnt

[johram]

hey retard. Any idiot with half a brain would realize that the $140 PCI nic is an add on. The Powermac has INCLUDED Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet on the motherboard.

Re:i wouldnt

[weileong]

the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck. they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.

I think it's important to be clear what "switching to x86" actually means.

Are we talking about Apple selling shrinkwrapped copies of "Mac OS X x86 Edition!!!" in stores, shopping it to manufacturers/OEMs, etc. etc.?

*OR* are we talking about Apple shipping - in their own housings, their own designed motherboards etc. etc. something that uses an AMD64/Opteron inside?

If it's the latter, then Apple would still have "total control".

I'm thinking that if it happens, it'll be Apple-ships-their-own-x86 hardware, not only because of the "total control" aspect, but also because they'll be able to control pricing (I'd personally forget the idea of super-cheap Macs; it's a conscious decision by them not to compete in that space, I believe. Where margins are low you have to make up for it in volume which carries it's own set of costs/difficulties), and, most importantly, offering shrinkwrapped "can install on any x86 machine" Mac OS X would be a total declaration of war against Microsoft.

Even a company that is not beholden to MS would be chary of doing something like that, and Apple absolutely needs Microsoft Office on their platform.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you own a shift key?

Re:i wouldnt

[notthe9]

I reallu doubt many slashdotters are paying for that kind of software.

There is no reason to compare Adobe Video Collection to the basic copy of Final Cut. Final Cut Express is a very limited program: Apple sells superior versions for $1000-$1300 which might be better compared to Adobe Video Collection. You cannot compare the $25 of final cut to AVC.

Then again, we are already comparing Apples and oranges when we compare and iMac (he must not have meant a PowerMac, since that would bring him up to at least $4050) and the x86 system.

Re:i wouldnt

[nitrocloud]

You can get a case + PSU + mobo + proc + USB keyboard = $200 - 250

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you read? He already said the CPU was installed on the mobo.

Case and PS? $50. If you wanna go for high-end (Lian-Li the best cases ever made for any system), $150 and that's with a side window built-in.

Re:i wouldnt

[Sunnan]

What, did Linux suddenly develop UI consistency across its apps?

Did Apple?

This is Apple:

• A mess of UI-styles - Aluminum, Aqua and soon that Platinum-ish look
• Both window hiding and window minimizing
• Obnoxious and overrated UIs for key apps like the QuickTime player, iTunes

Re:i wouldnt

[Trolling4Dollars]

Yes. Because everyone knows that stylish brushed aluminum cases with holes in them and blue or white LEDs add at least 5 gigaflops to a system right off the bat. ;P

By that standard PCs with those neon lights and side panels should increase processing power to the "nth" factor!

Ricers with Office Max wastebaskets hanging off the exaust and underside neon and hood LEDs should get 400 miles to the gallon and have a starting RPM of 100,000 with 12,000,000 HP.

Mustbe some, as yet, undiscovered property of neon and LEDs to increase the performance of, well... ANYTHING. By that logic, an old diner with more neon should be a real mean mover.

Ah yes... ;P

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that all of the neon and LED posturing and sticking of cars and PCs really seems to have a strong resemblence to the mating rituals of less civilized cultures. You know. The cultures where the guy is prettier than the girl? ;p Maybe we should start call riceboys and case modders (the uncreative ones who buy their mods at Autozo^H^H^H err.. CompUSA instead of actually engineering them with a real purpose) prettyboys? ;P

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

big deal. I'm in a mixed relationship - I'm a mac-nut, and my girlfriend loves windows (hey, she's going out with me, I didn't say she was sane...). She has a 3 gig peecee. When she saw my new powerbook, she loved all the little bits that osx has that are cool (go to the http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/ site for more info). So, I bought her the cheapest emac, so she could have a play. Here are my points, relating to the post above, and some others further up/down;
the emac was cheaper than the peecee, when a monitor was figured in.
I did save on not needing to buy antivirus/firewall applications, office applications (came free), and then saved me money through not having to set those up and maintain them. In US$ terms, say $400 - $500, once my time is thrown in.
This peecee, although bought a few months ago, about a month before the emac iteration came out, has an upper-quality vid card, decent drive, and enough memory. I replaced the crappy amount of ram that came with the mac (I ain't going to argue with anyone there!) with off the shelf ram, stuck a 160 gig drive in it (which took 20 mins to install, along with a generic DVD burner - not bad for a machine which "isn't" 'user-upgradeable') - all of which would cost the same as for the pc (fujitsu drive - I think - and NEC burner).
From first time power-up on a wiped HD to surfing, 12 mins tops. I defy anyone to do the same with a peecee. Not in a million years could it be done, with the stuff out of the box. Booted up in firewire mode, I could have done it in 4 mins, but I'm not sure if you can do that on a peecee, so that might be cheating. No drivers needed, thank you, a single restart, and a happy user.

Now, the missus ain't no mac convert. We spend a lot of time apart, so we use the video-chatting in ichat a lot (gotta love them free high quality full duplex calls, on free software), but other than that, the machine is just a toy for her. for now. She is using it more and more for general surfing, as it gives more peace of mind than the peecee, and guess what? No antivirus updates to worry about.
This bottom-of-the-line emac wipes the floor with the then top-of-the-ladder peecee when it comes to productivity things for her web site stuff, like Photoshop et al. Okay, so she still uses a basic text editor for html, but then she's crazy, so no speed benefits there. The one game she loves, age of mythology, runs smoother on the mac than on the peecee. I have no idea why, but there you are (same ram - one gig - on both comps, btw)

you are right, there are so many more games for the peecee than the mac, but we are grown-ups now, and don't need them.

besides, if I wanted a game machine, I'd buy a playstation.

you are also right, there are many more applications for the peecee than the mac. You can go here to start your list off http://www.wildlist.org/WildList/RTWL.htm

but most of the others are crap. There aren't that many name apps that either don't have a mac version, or don't have an equivalent. Peecee shareware apps make me laugh, on the whole.

As I said, and I'm sure you have gathered, I'm a mac nut, and biased. But it does annoy me that people are often so stuck in the '90s when it comes to thinking about pricing on macs, and extendibility.
I have the 17" powerbook. It's a lot of coin, more than I would have liked, but there you are. However, when I was buying it, it was a good few hundred pounds cheaper than the almost equivalent peecee laptop, which didn't have all the hardware functionality that the powerbook has. Ok, not everyone needs built in G wireless, bluetooth, gigabit ethernet, dual display video out, backlit keyboard, DVD burner, and speakers that don't sound like a $3 radio, but I do. Did I mention this is a one inch thin computer in an aluminium case, and I can be a regular slashdot weenie and still carry it? also, apart from software upgrades, and one time that a VLC beta caused a kern

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

yah i liek teh appel mac becuase ican run pohtoshop rily fast!!!! appel sez os on they're web sight!!!! adn they ahve proof!!!! jsut 1 lok @ teh bentch-mraks adn u can c macs r more beter then pc!!!!

Re:i wouldnt

[ocelotbob]

Any more excuses?

Re:i wouldnt

[csk_1975]

Yeah my comparison is somewhat bogus, but no more so than "the Macs are so overpriced" rhetoric. If you can honestly say that comparing a Dell Dimension to an Apple is a fair comparison then you've already blown it. A mid range Dell like an Optiplex maybe, but their low end, crappy, fall to pieces junkbox? In fact an IBM is a better comparison - start spec'ing up one of those and look at the total price.

As I said I am looking for a machine to do video editing on (for home). I purchase PCs at work, I use an IBM Thinkpad at home. I looked at the price our suppliers offer for something comparable to a G5 iMac and it just doesn't stack up. I assumed the Mac would be much more, but its less. You really should do a comparison and see how it stacks up - if the PC was cheaper I'd buy it and I wouldn't bother posting to Slashdot. I was amazed that Apple's price was cheaper.

Re:i wouldnt

[Beale]

I hear Deep Blue only started winning when they added some flashing blue lights and a transparent side panel.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

so you get a generic garage-built white box P.O.S. for only $400 less than a mac?

Re:i wouldnt

[boaworm]

Your calculation doesnt include...

2 x ~2 Ghz 64bit cpus

A great case

PSU

Cabling

Mouse and Keyboard
Add those, and you'll have a different equations..

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

"These 'top of the line' systems come with, get this, a 56k modem. I guess people who have 4k+ to blow on a machine aren't expected to have broadband. You'll spend $140 for a NIC to join the 21st century."

Fuck off. ALL Macs have had 10/100 for about a decade, all Pro Macs have 10/100/1000 on the mobo for about 5 years. You're full of shit.

Re:i wouldnt

[__aafkqj3628]

If only I'd know about that page 2-3 years ago...

(or it'd existed)

Re:i wouldnt

[DarkEdgeX]

Exactly, the built-in monitor/LCD/whatever it is is the problem. If your monitor or LCD goes out (or begins having issues), you're stuck with replacing the whole thing.

Not fun. No thanks.

Re:i wouldnt

[John Courtland]

I'm pretty sure no one uses the hardware task switching on the x86. It absorbs quite a few cycles from what I remember, and isn't as robust as a good software solution. I could be wrong now since it's been a while, but I do know for a fact that Windows NT specifically avoided using the task switching instructions for that reason. Maybe they're faster now, I haven't seen an instruction/clock chart since the 486.

Re:i wouldnt

[Dekortage]

If I want to do a major hardware upgrade on an imac I purchased a year ago, I'm basically out of luck.

Have you actually seen the new iMac G5? There are quite a few items you can replace yourself if you want -- with an amazing level of ease. As Macintouch said, "With the iMac G5, Apple has written a new chapter in computer accessibility. You simply lay it face-down on a flat surface covered with a cotton cloth, unscrew three captive Phillips-head screws, and tilt off the back with its integral stand. You then have complete, unfettered access to the entire computer, and it's very easy to add an AirPort card or upgrade memory. The hard drive is right there, too, along with the rest of the components. Apple seems to be setting up a new service system that encourages customers to do many of their own repairs."

You can't upgrade the processor (well, not yet -- look out for third parties to figure it out, like they always do) but right out of the box, you can upgrade most everything that you might want to upgrade.

Re:i wouldnt

[keesh]

...except that workstation class UltraSPARC CPUs, for example, had four or eight megs of cache five years ago. Heck, a ten year old hypersparc has more cache than any x86 CPU.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Power Macs have had 10/100 Ethernet on the logic board since about 1997, and GigE on the logic board since 2000 - guess you were too busy worrying about whether your PC was going to shit itself over the date at the time to notice.

Re:i wouldnt

[kynddaze]

The LCD is actually a user replaceable part. support.apple.com has an article that lists all the user-replaceable parts. In Europe there was some fiasco with the PSU being too noisy. Solution? Ship out a bunch of new PSU's that don't make so much noise and get the user to replace it themselves. Your LCD burns out? Get a new one, and pop it in yourself.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

there aint no GNU on my Linux box bub

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just bullshit that Apple doesn't make it's money selling software. Why the Hell would anyone buy a Mac if it weren't for the software (not withstanding the handful of loons that want to run Linux on a Mac portable) and it's not just the OS. Currently the most compelling reason for home users to buy an iMac is the iLife suite. The out of the box functionality is unmatched. If you think these programs are weak, check out http://www.macjams.com to see what can be done with GarageBand. On the professional end Apple is piling on titles for video and audio editing.

Sure, most of their transactions are for hardware purchases, but few are motivated by the PPC architecure. Most that say they are, are just following talking points. Those that aren't buying for the pretty case are after the Mac OS, iLife, Final Cut or some other software experience.

I'd buy a x86 box that ran MacOS and iLife that was built to Apple's recommendations, because I know Apple makes good software. If the box was built to their recommended specs, I doubt the experience would be much different.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

"and you don't get the all-in-one design."

it is precisely this all-in-one design that keeps me from buying apples. I dont want all my eggs in one basket, id much rather be able to replace this bit & that bit without having to buy a whole new machine.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Help!
Someone find me a place where I can buy a one-button mouse for my PC so I can do a *REAL* comparison!

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

An iMac is in the same league as a 'corporate-class' work station in terms of quality of components and arguably beyond that in terms of quality of engineering and construction and definitely beyond that in terms of design (which for most people is not that important). Engineering: Think noise for instance (which was *bad* with the G4 towers and has gone down considerably).

Secondly, the predecessor of Mac OS X (NEXTSTEP, Mac OS X is something like NEXTSTEP version 6-7) ran roughly with the same relative performance on x86, m68k, HP PA and SPARC architectures.

I agree that there is little potential for Apple for releasing OS X on PC hardware. That incentive would come only when Microsoft would drop Office support for OS X and Apple had to include Windows-compatibility (running Windows binaries in some way) in OS X. Doing that on PPC would mean a serious performance hit.

Re:i wouldnt

[nijk]

This would kill apple however because nobody in their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac OS on it as well

But since PCs are so much more common than Macs, Apple could make plenty of money simply selling their OS to PC users.

Re:i wouldnt

[bob beta]

I buy machines all the time, for a few dollars per system, that have 3C905 cards. Either plugged in or on the motherboard. I doubt I'll ever use anything else (certainly not anything 'cheaper') ever again for 100BaseT. If you're going to run Taiwanese junk hardware you're going to be limited in what software you can run on it.

Re:i wouldnt

[steeviant]

Hahahah. If only I had mod points.

I think they sell them at the Apple online store, they're just a standard USB mouse that costs lots of money and is probably a lot less than half-as-useful on any other OS.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

what a troll...gigabit ethernet comes as standard

Re:i wouldnt

[steeviant]

"I also know the design is nothing to be sneezed at, since it has excellent airflow and the case is made of aluminum - not cheap plastic like all Macs I've ever seen."

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any case more obviously made of aluminium or more thouroughly engineered for adequate airflow than the one on a PowerMac G5.

I think they've been around more than long enough for you to have sneaked a peek at one on the apple website.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

People used to say that MS Windows would be better if MS had control of the hardware. Well, Look at the PPC platform. They pretty much control all the specs for that and the OS is still a P.O.S. As far as your no firewall or virus scanner comment. I just cannot believe that you still have a clean system after two years. I had a HD crash a couple months ago. Installed XP clean on the new one forgot I had to DL a driver for some old piece of hardware I still have, so I thought to myself, I should be ok, just get on the net quickly, DL the driver and get off just as quick. In that short period of time, my computer got infested with crap. I just can't believe you've lasted 2 years. I can't.

Re:i wouldnt

[Kindaian]

Not true...

They controlled the hardware... not it's all AGP/PCI all over and standard of the stock PC/x86 cards just work in MacOS...

x86 hardware is stable enought... it's the Wxxxxxx stuff that kills it's stability...

Re:i wouldnt

[marcansoft]

PC upgradability is also a big win for me.

My computer began as an athlon XP 1800+ with an ASUS motherboard and a 40GB HD, 128MB RAM, 52X CD-ROM, GeForce2. Moved in a 16x10x40 old (but working) cd-rw, added 128mb RAM, replaced a failing PSU, replaced the failing HD with a 120GB one (that really scared me-it was new and i've still got 1GB old drives working, why did it fail so early?), replaced graphics card with a GeForce4, replaced the CD-RW with a DVD+/-RW/RAM writer. The newest upgrade: replaced mobo and processor with an MSI and an Athlon64, and added another 256MB ram (for a total of 768MB) and a new Zalman fan (changing architecture or cpu type is probably the worst-case scenario for PC; still, I'm running with the old case and network cards, and the old PSU if it wouldn't have failed.) All this without counting the changes in network cards (previously I had 2, added another one, now I took out one since the new mobo has integrated GbitLAN) and the addition of a BT878 tv capture card.

If I had a mac, most probably 2 months ago I'd still have the old computer, and then I would have bought a new one with everything in it. No, most probably i wouldn't have had the money, since I'm a very bad saver (I would have spent it on something else).

Re:i wouldnt

[radixvir]

maybe im just a newbie, but can someone explain why i would need a 64-bit processor on a machine with just 512mb of ram?

Re:i wouldnt

[dgatwood]

Only if you put it together yourself. Most people like to have a computer that's guaranteed to work. The mere fact that you are posting on Slashdot makes you not a typical user.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I did a comparison with a Dimension 8400. For the purposes of this comparison, I tried to stay as close to the base models as I could, only modifying them to match the other side. I also accepted all the freebies. In addition to matching hardware, I matched software as best I could. Also, I included software security upgrades for the Dell side, but none on the Mac side. This is because antivirus software, in reality, is a pre-requisite when using Windows, but not required at all when using Mac OS X. This is, essentially, an additional Microsoft tax, and added $119 to the cost of the Dell.

You could argue that this is unfair, because, after all, you don't have to connect the Dell to the Internet. The problem with that is then you have one Internet-capable machine and one non-Internet-capable machine. You could also argue that you could just install Linux and free video tools. The problem with that one is that Linux is still far more difficult to use than Windows, which is more difficult to use than Mac OS X (I use all three daily, and Windows is my least-favorite, so I am not trying to be biased). In any case, if you are still upset by the inclusion of security software, just subtract.

Additional notes about comparison at bottom.

PC Specs:

Dimension 8400 - Pentium® 4 Processor 530 with HT Technology (3GHz, 800 FSB)

Operating System - Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2

Memory - 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (2x256M)

Keyboard - Dell Quietkey® Keyboard

Monitor - FREE UPGRADE! New 17 in E172FP Flat Panel Display

Video Card - 128MB PCI Express(TM) x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon(TM) X300 E

Hard Drive - FREE UPGRADE! 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)

Floppy Drive and Additional Storage Devices - No Floppy Drive Included

Mouse - Dell 2-button scroll mouse

Network Interface - Integrated Gigabit Ethernet

Modem - 56K PCI Data/Fax Modem

Document Management - Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0

CD ROM/DVD ROM - 48X CD-RW/ DVD Combo Drive

Sound Card - Sound Blaster® Live! 24-bit ADVANCED HD(TM) Audio

Speakers - Dell A425 Speakers w/Subwoofer

Productivity Software - WordPerfect®, Powerful Word Processing

Security Software - Norton Internet Security(TM) 2004 15-mth (3 extra mths included)

Digital Music - Dell Jukebox - easy-to-use music player and CD burning software

Digital Photography - Paint Shop(TM) Pro® Trial plus Photo Album(TM) Starter Edition

Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options - 1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr Technical Support

Dial-up Internet Access - 6 Months of America Online Membership Included

Operating System Enhancements - Microsoft® Plus! Digital Media Edition (** Note: included this because Apple includes iLife for free)

Video Editing - IEEE 1394 Adapter

Dell Media Experience - Dell Media Experience(TM)

Price: $1,411 - $100 rebate = $1,311

Apple iMac G5 specs:

512MB DDR400 SDRAM - 1 DIMM
160GB Serial ATA drive
None - Bluetooth Module
Keyboard and Mouse + Mac OS X - U.S. English
17-inch widescreen LCD
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra w/64MB video memory

Price: $1,474

Processor: The Dell has a 3 GHz 32-bit processor, and the iMac G5 has a 1.6 GHz 64-bit processor. In many, but not all, performance tests, the PowerPC processors outperform or match the performance of higher clock-cycle x86 processors. Eg: As I recall (you can double-check) the 2 GHz G5 was pretty evenly matched with the 3.0 GHz Intel processor when it came out. The G5 matched the x86 on integer instructions, and was significantly faster on floating-point instructions. On average, though, I would say they were pretty much the same. Now, I figure this comparison is OK price-wise. I did not see an option to upgrade to a 64-b

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that you claim to know what Apple pays for CPUs.

The point is that iMac G4s only had 256K L2, so this has nothing to do with PPC design features and everything to do with Apple sticking more expensive CPUs in PowerMacs (minus the "extreme" marketing).

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of shit. The only way the iMac motherboard is "upgradable" is if Apple decides to sell you the part. Which they haven't promised to do.

Re:i wouldnt

[Micro$will]

Try Newegg. I didn't find any 20" monitors, but I found a 19" Sony for $579. The 250GB HD is a little too cheap, but it can probably be found on Pricewatch somewhere.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Pear PC for development?

What are you developing?

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenStep was priced/positioned high because NeXT would have gone out of business otherwise.

It would be the same story for Apple. You can't profitably sell a cheap OS unless you have a significant marketshare.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the benchmarks between Xeons (across architectures) and their lower-cache cousins, the performance gain for the cache on the x86 was rarely worth the difference in the cost. The x86 needs larger L2 caches less than RISC IAs because of the more compact instructions.

x86 L2 caches have been increasing, and will continue to do so as the ability to ramp up clockspeed by reducing die sizes continues to taper off. There is a serious diminishing of returns with this, which is why there is so much noise about multicore CPUs. Of course for multicore CPUs to make much of a difference, consumer software is going to need to shift its focus from uniprocessor specialization to more explicit parellization. The alternative at this point is that computers may cease to get much faster for most usage for some time to come.

All of this babble Apple people do about the x86 ISA being bad is sort of uninteresting in general. The Opteron is doing better clock-for-clock than the G5; super evil nasty legacy ISA decode path and all.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a consultant, I develop all sorts of stuff. One day I might be working for Apple, another Microsoft.

Re:i wouldnt

[boaworm]

In some mathematic tasks, when performing math operations with large (>32bit) numbers, things are speeded up significantly.
If you want to perform a sum(10,10) operation, its probably just as fast on 32 as on 64 bit CPUs (one CPU cycle).
If you perform sum(3000000000,3000000000), you can do this on one cpu cycle on a 64 bit, but you probably need 2 or 4 cycles on a 32 bit. (2 or 4x faster).
The dual FPU and 64 bit was the reason the systemX became the third fastest computer in the world.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I've several PC's with a similar configuration. And the parts keep dying in them. This past year, I've had to replace the RAM, video card, power supply and motherboard in a one year old PC. I have a 3 year old PowerMac that I haven't even had to open the case for except to add more RAM.

Re:i wouldnt

[summernot]

I know LCD displays have gotten cheap, but where can you find a 17"-23" for $250? If you do manage to find one, it would surely not offer the same quality as the glass Apple includes in the flat panel iMac G5s.

If you factor this into your comparison, along with your time and the included software and features in OS X, you come out with a system that costs as much as one you could build yourself.

Re:i wouldnt

[danila]

Stability is the last of the Mac OS X advantages. Mac OS9 crashed like WinME and probably worse - people still loved it. Apple doesn't win loyal customers by providing a secure and stable OS - they do it by providing a comfortable well-designed environment to work in. I would estimate that stability and security are only responsible for about 20% of total user satisfaction.

I am a Windows user. Sadly, the OS is prone to crashes and it's not always hardware's fault. So I don't think that Mac OS X ported to x86 will suck too much on this front.

However, I am still unsure if I would "Switch". A week ago I went to a Mac shop to check out the OS (to understand whether I want my new laptop to be a Mac). I am not sure I liked the experience. The interface may be slick, but for some reason on all machines the mouse sensitivity was set to very low (must be a OS default then). I like my mouse fast (1280 pixels ~ 1.5-2 cm), so I really hated to drag that stupid rodent all over the table. And I couldn't change the setting because I am not familiar with the OS and it was in German. :) So I didn't know where to look and soon gave up.

This might not sound like a valid criticism - after all, how many customers may be so exigent as to demand changing mouse sensitivity to be obvious for a novice user who can't read? May be I am alone, but that's the level of user-friendliness I would require to compensate me for switching costs. I know Windows pretty well, with all its bugs and follies, so I can have a relatively comfortable experience despite it all. In Mac OS I will have to endure unfamiliar OS behavior for some time and I'm afraid I can't accept it unless this time equals zero.

Re:i wouldnt

[fireboy1919]

Eh...I never considered an LCD monitor that great.

But...if you must get that, then you add an extra $300 to the price of the monitor.

You're saying that OSX is worth about $800? Forget about my time. I'm going to spend as much time fiddling with OSX for fun as I would with Linux.

Re:i wouldnt

[fireboy1919]

Okay,
CASE: $50 (great? who cares. FCC compliant. Your computer won't run faster with a better case, and it won't last longer)
Cabling: comes with the other stuff.
Mouse and Keyboard: $20
Power Supply: $30

I don't know...2 64bit CPUS?

You may have a point there...you can't get that easily. That probably does add an extra $500 to the cost.

It's money down the tubes for most people, though, since CPU is not usually a bottleneck.

Re:i wouldnt

[AvantLegion]

Jjust because Windows has a million entries in their little system window doesn't mean it's all necessary. Give Linux a try and you'll see that you don't need a million different "drivers" to support hardware.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

However, with linux distro's including the badram patch (mandrake for instance) you could just mark that memory as bad and keep using the chip.
perhaps not the right thing to do in a corp. env., but it saved me quite some times when having no spare ramchips around.

Re:i wouldnt

[stupidkiwi]

What I have found generally is that x86 architecture appeals to kiddies. x86 has some real strengths, but it has many flaws. Teens don't recognise the flaws because of two factors. The most obvious is they don't have the experience yet to do any due dilligence. The second is the biggest problem. Teens don't have a lot of spare cash. You can follow this logic back to before the 1950's when teens would buy model T fords and similar for little money and try to upgrade the performace with hacks. A cut down Model T could not compare with a new car, but it WAS a lot cheaper. Of course you could not upgrade a new car in the 50's by bolting in a new engine. You could however allways upgrade the Model T with bigger and better engines... and other parts. The new car was already at the top of the game. So now we have a lot of teens with a lot of spare time and with little money. They look at Macs and decide they are rubbish because they don't have the cash to buy a good one. They believe they can get better performance by getting a cheap box and then spend the next year regularly crashing it while they try new overclocks on the GPU or CPU, or RAM or fan speed... Like the teens from the 50's they will grow up for the greater part. They will realise (here is the due dilligence part) that their time is worth more than the small increase in price. These are the ones that will buy a Mac, or another all in one system that is fast and "RELIABLE" out of the box. There will be others that will be like the old 50 year old car fanatics today who will continue to paint up their boxes, and tweak their timings until the day they die.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Pathetic, pathetic example. The x86 architecture isn't what appeals to most people who use x86 based systems. As a matter of fact, most people who use x86 based systems don't even know that Macs aren't x86, what x86 is, or what the possible advantages/disadvantages could be. They run Windows because everyone else does and thats what they have been taught, and they run x86 because thats what Windows runs on.

Re:i wouldnt

[danielrose]

That's a load of nonsense :)

Re:i wouldnt

[Micro$will]

Computers are like tires, you just have to buy more of the cheap ones.

Plz explain to me what wears out in a computer in a year that requires you replace the entire thing? Case fans? Keyboard?

Re:i wouldnt

[drinkypoo]

Five years ago most Ultrasparcs had 2MB L2 cache, and 4MB was typically an upgrade. A ten year old hypersparc had no more than 2MB L2 cache per processor; x86 processors with 2MB L2 are available today.

Re:i wouldnt

[drinkypoo]

I'm not defending poor design decisions. Besides, when the 8086 was new, the design was entirely acceptable. Processors tended to only have to do one thing at a time. Even more systems with multiple users were job-based, and some of them weren't even multitasking, really. If there is a problem with x86 it is hanging onto the same crippled design forever. However, to most people it's not worth it to go to a system just because it's got a better architecture, as I will readily admit the G5 posesses (although frankly I don't see a problem with x86-64 for anyone other than compiler authors) when you have to deal with increased cost, reduced software availability, reduced compatibility, et cetera. The x86 processors definitely do the job and they do it well. They're clearly less efficient than the PPCs, but not in any way that matters to anyone other than scientific users. With the release of the Hammer core processors, it's not clear that PPCs have an advantage there, either.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention an OPERATING SYSTEM

as much as people say linux sucks, few of them actually think windows is worth paying for...

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

it's kind of like say 48-bit. The HW is 64 but in most ways the OS is 32.

Re:i wouldnt

[RedBear]

$120 DVD-+RW drive (one of the new dual layer capable ones)
$180 Asus Mobo with built-in Optical audio, gigabit, a normal ethernet connection, AGP 8x PRO, pci express, firewire, and USB 2.0 and an Athlon XP 3200 installed
$120 120 GB harddrive
$250 Decent monitor - 19" or higher
$100 512 MB RAM
$20 Modem
$80 video card

I'm sorry.

Rant mode on.

I too used to think lists like this made some sort of sense. But they don't. The only way this list makes sense is if you are a computer expert who uses Linux (or pirates Windows), AND you are building this computer for yourself, AND you can get the parts all from the same place or inexpensively shipped, AND you somehow managed to get all the right parts out of the dozens of different types of cases, motherboards, and CPUs, AND you know how to put them together correctly AND all the miscellaneous cheap parts you bought all work together and none are faulty and need to be replaced AND etcetera ad infinitum...

Everyone who makes a list like this is just wasting his time. The list only makes sense to you, unless you are in the habit of spending many hours ordering parts and building computers for other people FOR FREE... If you wanted to make any profit at all by selling that particular system to someone, there's this little thing called economics that gets in the way. You'll have to double the cost of all the parts, add compensation for shipping, and then bill for labor. Suddenly you have a machine that costs double the price of a low-end Mac (eMac) and you still haven't even added any software!

And lets be realistic here, 80% of the populace is either not ready for Linux or simply won't be happy with it (in its current state). Even if you do discount the cost of the software, to duplicate the usability of a Mac or even Windows you or someone else will have to spend X amount of hours setting this system up so all the hardware works and all the necessary software is installed to do the same basic tasks that can be easily done on either Mac OS X or Windows.

Just as a little experiment, why don't you go ahead and build yourself one of these systems from scratch. Just be sure and keep careful track of all the time you use from planning to ordering to assembly to installation and configuration of the software. When you're finally done and have a moderately usable system, multiply the number of hours it took you by whatever you get paid at your current job. Even if you don't get paid much you will probably be shocked at the number that comes up. Your time just spent finding each part will probably negate the "$40 less" that you think you can get all those parts for.

If you are a geek who uses Linux and you have free time on your hands then building a computer from scratch can be an entertaining, educational and satisfying experience. It's loads of fun, I've even done it myself a few times. But trying to compare this list to the actual market price of any pre-built computer with all necessary software installed... it's just insane. Another thing, you do not need a $2000 Mac to get the same functionality, usability and apparent speed as a PC half the price, this is a myth today. Macs simply cannot be directly compared to PCs speed-wise for anything but a few specific operations that only a small segment of the population uses their computer for. For most poeple, a Mac that costs $800-$1200 will be more usable, safer to use on the Internet, and more fun to use than any PC in the same price range, no matter if it's running Windows or Linux.

End of rant. I hate older Macs and Mac OS 7/8/9 and have been running Linux at home for years, so don't even think of calling me a Mac zealot. I'm just tired of seeing these BS "cost" lists being taken seriously here. The general reader and the moderaters need to come to the realization that they literally make no sense for anyone besides the original poster, unless the value of your time is zero and you already have all the requisite knowledge.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, since march hey. Our windows server hasnt rebooted since last year. Do I win some kind of moron reply award too.

Re:i wouldnt

[jovlinger]

Just to get this straight:

you're getting 20Mbit/s NFS over gigabit ethernet?

And here I was thinking I might upgrade to 1Gb Ethernet... but for 2% of theoretical max, my money's better spent on beer.

Re:i wouldnt

[greggle]

Umm, an Apples to oranges comparison.

Mac monitors are glorious, W I D E S C R E E N (gems).

Ever look at one?

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

megabytes per second :)

Re:i wouldnt

[jovlinger]

ok, that's a little closer to what I'd hope for.

Re:i wouldnt

[Micro$will]

Ever look at one?

My porn looks fine on my cheapo orange, thank you. I'd rather spend a grand or two on something useful, like a vacation or a down payment for a car. Besides, the question was where and what brand monitor is $600, which I answered since I didn't know it was supposed to be Apple.

Re:i wouldnt

[man_of_mr_e]

Hmm.. by your own admission, the PC you configured was almost 50% faster than the iMac you configured (you claimed the 2Ghz G5 = 3Ghz P4). You configured a 1.6Ghz G5 and a 3Ghz P4.

You also have a 128MB high end video card on the PC and a mid-grade 64MB video card on the Mac. Unfortunately, they don't make a 2Ghz iMac, but the 1.8 costs about $200 more. One might expect a 2Ghz model, if there was such a beast, to be at least another $200 more as well, plus throw in another $100 to compensate for the difference in video cards and you're at least $500 more expensive. You also configured the dell with a Gigabit network adapter, which would add another $50-100 to the cost, so more like $600.

Further, the iMac isn't anywhere near as expandable as the PC is. That costs money, as the PowerMac illustrates.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

The "smart" teens grew up to learn that a muscle car and a model T got you to the same destination in (give or take) the same amount of time, and that "looking cool" doesn't pay the bills. They they just sold their souped up Model T for a new one and a bit of spare cash to help pay off the house.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought my 867 MHz powerbook 2 years ago, and it completely obliterated my 2.26 GHz Pentium 4 (which is *incredibly* noisy), and still does.

Completely obliterated? Pardon me for not buying that. My 800 Mhz TiBook (92% of yours) isn't comparable to my 2400 ("PR" rating) Athlon. I would guesstimate that it has about 2/3's the crunching power at best. I base this on a year of experience running the same Linux distro on both machines. Understand that I think the G4 is a damn fine chip and I respect the design and thoughtfullness of Apple hardware, but your assertion seems biased to me. The noise factor isn't all it's cracked up to be with my powerbook either. Put it under a prolonged load (like playing a DVD) and it's fan will kick in and spoil the serenity.

Re:i wouldnt

[Squozen]

The old G3 iMacs can't deal with large drives, but the G4s apparently can. From xlr8yourmac.com:

Just a FYI that in 2003 several owners have noted that the iMac G4 has native 48bit addressing support for "big/large" IDE drives (those over 128/137GB). Apple's kbase doc notes only the MDD G4 and Xserves have native support (without using a 3rd party driver or PCI IDE ATA/100-133 controller) - but as noted in the main site news page and drive upgrade database reports, several iMac G4 owners noted they are running 160 to 200GB IDE drives inside their iMac G4s with full capacity available. (The drives as usual format to slightly under the 'rated' capacity due to the usual binary vs decimal numbering system noted in the FAQ years ago - but without 48bit/big drive support, a large drive would be limited to appx 128GB even with multiple partitions.)

Myself, I'm looking for a couple of 450Mhz G4 PowerMacs to replace my x86 Linux servers (which are too hot and noisy for my liking), but the buggers are still holding their value too well!

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

"The old G3 iMacs can't deal with large drives, but the G4s apparently can."

Perhaps you missed my point...

There's always something new. A computer that can't be upgraded will more quickly fall behind than one that can be upgraded.

The G4 iMacs have 48-bit addressing but they don't have SATA. The G5 iMacs have SATA but they don't have gigabit ethernet. When you can't upgrade you're stuck forever, no matter how nice the feature set initially is. As I said, my Pentium 2 has SATA and gigabit ethernet. I hadn't even heard those words when it was built, but it works fine with them.

Again, this is not a problem for anyone except people that want to upgrade, and those people should not buy iMacs. And, given that PowerMacs are quite a bit more expensive than other computers that can be upgraded, PowerMacs are not always a viable alternative.

Re:i wouldnt

[rawg]

This is the same thing that people have said about the Apple Cube. Yet I have upgraded the hard drive, video card, CPU (dual-1GHz), and memory. I also have a 23" monitor on it. This is on a computer that is 4 years old. I still use it as my primary system. So, I don't think that there will be no way to upgrade the iMac.

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

" 3k is not the starting price. It starts at $2,000, and you can pimp it out from there."

Some upgrades (like more than 256 mb memory) are nearly mandatory.

"Remember: you also get _much_ higher quality components. How much noise does this system make?"

Cheap Athlon boxes make a lot of noise. Most other systems, even homebuilds, aren't a problem.

"Also compare power consumption: G5s use about 40 watts per processor, Opterons can be about 130."

What?

All Opterons stay below 95 watts so people will put them in 1U cases. Even the dual core processors they're releasing next year will stay within that limit. You might hit 130 if you overclocked it, but not otherwise.

Also, G5s use more than 40 watts.

Re:i wouldnt

[wasabii]

Larger VM space.

Re:i wouldnt

[MattyCobb]

I too used to think lists like this made some sort of sense. But they don't. The only way this list makes sense is if you are a computer expert who uses Linux (or pirates Windows), AND you are building this computer for yourself, AND you can get the parts all from the same place or inexpensively shipped, AND you somehow managed to get all the right parts out of the dozens of different types of cases, motherboards, and CPUs, AND you know how to put them together correctly AND all the miscellaneous cheap parts you bought all work together and none are faulty and need to be replaced AND etcetera ad infinitum...


Your talking to the SLASHDOT crowd here... was that suppost to be a joke? lol. It really isn't that hard to buy the parts and build a computer for joe smoe if he actually tries. It is even less hard for the slashdot crowd. I was one of those people you don't seam to think exists and I build PCs for free for the few friends of my that can't build one on their own. Well, usually I do it for a 6 pack of beer or a free meal but at any rate I don't charge them. I enjoy building PCs. Its kind of a hobby. It takes me a few hours in total. I order the parts online the day before, send whoever I am building the system for a total. He/she (usually she. most of my guy friends can build their own PC) gives me the money. The parts arrive later that day, I build in in an hour or so. Then spend maybe another 30-45 minutes installing needed OS/software (which you would have to more or less do with any new PC from a manufacturer) and then I am done.

But back to the topic yeah I would definatly buy OSX if it was out for PC hardware. I love the way it looks, love the way it works, have no complaints. I use it on a daily basis in my gfx design classes. Nice sexi dual g5s with the 23inch cinema displays. MMmmmm.

However, the price of Mac hardware is something I just can't live with for myself. I am a college student. I don't have $3,000 laying around for some computer that will be dated in a few months. And as for the e-macs please! I won't waste $700 on a computer that can't even compete with my 2 year "LAN computer" in terms of specs. It has a tiny hd, less RAM than most laptops I have owned and they want that much for it? Not from me they won't get it. I could take that same $700 and build a very nice PC and put whatever OS I want on it.

Ive said this many times and as far as I can tell it still holds true: An 800Mhz Mac can kick the crap out of an 800MHz PC, but a $800 PC will destroy an $800 Mac.

Re:i wouldnt

[Ignignot]

However, thanks to decades of really clever engineering, the ISA hardly matters anymore in terms of performance.

This is the single most imporant post you made. The idea of register renaming allows a whole lot of general purpose registers to be used instead of special purpose registers (as it was in the earlier x86 line). Add that to the fact that you can make instructions into multiple commands on the processor ("you asked me to run a command that adds a number to a register and then stores it? I'll split it into two commands, one which adds and the other stores") and out of order instruction and all of the bullshit that came with the x86 line isn't too bad. I'd still never want to design one of the things, but the performance doesn't suffer. I do doubt that multiple cores on a die will produce much of a performance increase. All modern processors are already superscalar - they execute many instructions at the same time. Some sort of fundamental barrier in processor speed is coming up. We'll see if 64 bit is the answer, or if something else is. But rest assured, the clever engineering will continue and someone will get past it.

Re:i wouldnt

[jcr]

A mess of UI-styles - Aluminum, Aqua

There's no difference in the behavior of regular and brushed-metal windows. The close, maximize, minimize and toolbar buttons do the same thing in all of them.

Both window hiding and window minimizing

Nope. There's application hiding, and window minimizing.

Obnoxious and overrated UIs for key apps like the QuickTime player, iTunes

Excuse me? What's your issue with iTunes? I'm able to pick the song I want out of 1,429 choices in about three seconds.

-jcr

Re:i wouldnt

[RedBear]

I never thought people like us don't exist, that wasn't the point. The point is unless you do what you do (build the PC for free for your buddies), the actual cost ends up being much higher. And that doesn't even get into the software side of things. The cost to you for just the hardware is as you say "several hours", and so you either don't value your weekend or you just love to build computers for a pack of beer.

I had a co-worker that just bought a new Dell a few weeks ago. Windows XP, of course. Everything pre-installed. And yet it took me about 4 hours to download and install all the updates that were necessary to get Windows and the security software patched up to date. That doesn't include the time I spent in preparation downloading the 279MB network install of SP2. Was it necessary to download the whole thing? Maybe not, but I wanted to be able to install it on any computer.

So, on a DSL line (low end DSL, granted, but much faster than dial-up) it took at least a couple of hours to download all the necessary updates and install them. Norton AV required around 25MB and six (6!) reboots to get fully up-to-date with program updates and virus definitions.

OK, this computer was running WinXP with 256MB of memory on a 2.8GHz processor, brand new straight from Dell. Want to guess how long it took to log in, log out and switch between users while the computer was otherwise idle? About 3-5 minutes. In other words, just waiting for the machine to reboot after each update was painful and took up at least an hour all by itself. It was ludicrous.

In contrast I have seen Mac OS X (Panther) running usably on a 350Mhz gumdrop iMac from 1999, with 320MB of RAM. The important word here is "usably". It's not a gaming machine, but it will do Internet, email and many other things almost as quickly as any other computer I've ever laid hands on. OS X runs nearly as well on that old machine as OS 9 did, but with many more capabilities and much better stability. It was like getting a new computer. Can you put WinXP on a 600MHz PC and still have a usable computer?

Of course I also took the time on the XP computer to install Firefox, Thunderbird, Spybot S&D, Adaware, Spyware Blaster, and anything else I could think of to help keep this totally non-technical person from acquiring all the current worms, trojans and viruses on their first day on the Internet. If you don't do these things for your friends when you build them a computer, you are being irresponsible. I doubt very much that you can install the OS, all the necessary security software, patch it, and install some needed utility software all in 30-45 minutes. Sounds like you just dump WinXP on the machine and hand it over. For a non-technical computer user, that's insane.

Getting back to what I was originally talking about, we geeks on /. that actually like to build computers and have the requisite knowledge to match up all the parts (and the time to learn which parts go together and order them), we are a minority. Even on this website, but in the real world we are probably around 2% of the population. Most people don't have the time or the knowledge to build the computer, and they certainly don't have the time or the knowledge necessary to keep their Windows computer from becoming infested with malware, unless someone like us sets it up properly in the first place. That means that in the end, it takes a lot of time to set up a PC to be equivalent to a Mac in terms of being usable and safe to use on the Internet.

I'm sorry, but for numerous reasons I can no longer recommend a PC for anyone who doesn't know what they're doing, and that includes about 8 out of 10 people. For those people I recommend a new Mac, because whatever perceived price difference there is is well worth it.

I'd really like to know what you mean

Re:i wouldnt

[AuMatar]

I want a computer that garunteed to work. Thats WHY I put mine together myself. Total selection over all parts means I get very high quality parts, and its still cheaper than the major manufacturers.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

My Geo Metro has 45" tires.

Your point?

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparable to a G5 2.5 GHz? What are you smoking?

Re:i wouldnt

[NighthawkFoo]

The modem is thrown in - you can remove it if you want to save $29. Some people like having one in case their main broadband link goes down.

All Apple PCs come with built-in Gigabit Ethernet. The card that you mention is for an EXTRA network port.

Apple RAM is always overpriced - buy it from somewhere else.

Re:i wouldnt

[56ksucks]

Dell is overpriced anyway. Build it yourself.

Re:i wouldnt

[Sunnan]

There's no difference in the behavior of regular and brushed-metal windows. The close, maximize, minimize and toolbar buttons do the same thing in all of them.

There's a difference in appearance. It's like running two gnome themes at once. And the close button does work differently from app to app, and so does the zoom/maximize button. At least, that's the impression I've gotten.

Nope. There's application hiding, and window minimizing.

Why? Why is there both? And why is the WM so focused on the concept of "applications"? Before Exposé, if I wanted to switch to a browser window I had to first Cmd-Tab to the application, then use the application's internal window switching keyboard shortcut to find the particular window I wanted. Why?

Excuse me? What's your issue with iTunes? I'm able to pick the song I want out of 1,429 choices in about three seconds.

My issue is this: say I want to listen to "Chicks on Speed - For all the boys in the world", then "Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah", then the entire April March/Los Cincos album, then some Moloko tracks. With Muine, I can make that entire playlist (or any playlist) in maybe five seconds. With iTunes, as far as I know (and I really hope there's an easier way), I have to create a playlist and then drag the tracks/albums I want to it. That wasn't obvious to figure out, and if there's an easier way, it's even less obvious.

Re:i wouldnt

[nitrocloud]

Smoking nothing, I am stating the facts that were left out. This is for an Athlon64 3200+.

Re:i wouldnt

[timts]

my dell 400sc is $124+tax=$138.xx after 100MIR. Beat that!

Re:i wouldnt

[User 956]

OK, you are an idiot. You don't realise that there are quality "industry standard hardware technologies" components and there are cheap ones.

And you don't realize that a Radeon 9800 made by ATI is the same fucking card whether you get it from Apple, or from Dell. Who's the idiot?

Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

Re:i wouldnt

[AstroSurf]

Red Bear, you've nailed it. I've said, "Don't look at the numbers; look at what you're getting. Spend as much on a PC as you would on a Mac and the result won't be as good."

It's like saying, "Why should I spend all that money on the Porsche, when I can get a Beetle fender for $x, a Pacer roof for $x, a Pinto hood for $x, and Mini Cooper tires for $x each."

Fine! Buy them. Put them together. Forget about trying to tell me that it's better in ANY respect save the initial outlay.

We're not really buying computers; we're buying computer _experiences_ (and a whale of a lot of them at that!). The Mac experience is better.

If I spent *TWICE* what I paid for this iMac on a PC, **it would still be a PC**! And a freaking annoying one at that. Life's too short.

Re:i wouldnt

[arminw]

You sound like the kind of person who is quite adept with computers, not being afraid unlike most ordinary users, even to look inside the box. I do computer consulting and always get asked to recommend systems. For someone like you, who LIKES computers and knows how to do all the things you mentioned, I *always* tell them to get an x86 box, preferably build one, just to their needs.

The vast majority of computers however, are sold to people who don't know a bit from a byte. They just want to use them as a tool without careing too much about the inner workings. For such users, a Mac is a better choice because it is much more likely to just work out of the box, and even more likely to still work after the user has installed a variety of programs. Anyone writing software or designing hardware/drivers for a Mac has a much more narrowly defined system since there is only one manufacturer who has integrated the hardware and software really well.

For you, the x86 is definitely the better choice.

Re:i wouldnt

[CakerX]

motherboard and processor??

what about a case, and cables?? it all tacks another 300-400 dollars depending on what motherboard and proccessor.

Re:i wouldnt

[arminw]

Certainly, for you (and most /. readers) a flexible box is a much better choice. Because you are running a true multi-user *nix based system, your box is intrinsically much more secure than any flavor of windows. Most non-geeks however run windows and are afraid to even look inside their computer. For them an iMac is a better choice since it is less likely to give troubles they wouldn't be able to deal with.

As far as games .... well if I was into them I'd probably get an x-box. However I do have a teenager in the house, and he still plays some games on the old iMac even though he also has an x-box. I am not sure, but I think he still plays Starcraft and Age of Empires on that old iMac.

Re:i wouldnt

[arminw]

You, like most /.ers have the expertise to do all that wonderful techie stuff and you SHOULD be using as fancy a system you can afford. By replacing the mobo and all the other components you mention, you do in effect have new computer in an old box. I know that buiding your own computer, just exactly the the way you want/need is the way to go if you know how, which you obviously do.

I was talking about the vast majority of computer users out there who *don't* have your ability and many of them do care about more than just raw performance.

Re:i wouldnt

[arminw]

Indeed, for many, if not all /.ers a do it yourself kit x86 is THE way to go. I wonder if you have ever added the cost of all the parts. Of course since computers is your hobby, the labor is free. I was talking mostly about the non techies who constituite the vast majority of computer users and they mostly run bug infested, malware plagued windows boxes.

Since all flavors of *nix are true multiuser systems from the ground up, they are by nature much more secure than windows.

Contrary to the fervent wishes and hopes of Linux savy /.ers there is unfortunately no flavor of *nix as usable by the kinds of users who don't know a bit from a byte except the Mac. Someday, anytime, real soon now! maybe that will change and Linux will be able to be handled by those kinds of users.

Short of replacing the mobo, there is really nothing even you as a geek can do to *really* dramatically improve the performance of any given computer. Maxing out the RAM and perhaps a hot drive can give an older box a new lease on life, but then a savy user can do that to a Mac also.

Re:i wouldnt

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Certainly, for you (and most /. readers) a flexible box is a much better choice. Because you are running a true multi-user *nix based system, your box is intrinsically much more secure than any flavor of windows. Most non-geeks however run windows and are afraid to even look inside their computer. For them an iMac is a better choice since it is less likely to give troubles they wouldn't be able to deal with."

Yup. :) You'll note that nowhere in all my rants on this article did I actually deffend Windows. :) When the user just wants a black (in the conceptual sense) box that works properly, an iMac is a perfectly good choice.

What was bugging me in this thread was the Mac zealots blithely overstating the usefulness of the iMac in situations it's not designed for while simultaneously glossing over the expense of a PowerMac. The reality distortion field at work. Yeah, I know, welcome to every Apple thread on Slashdot. But as a Mac user that's not a zealot, it bugs me, and it was worse in this thread.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

That was not fucking insightful in the least.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to tell you this, but the problem with computers has always been UNIX and its clones. Kernel panic handlers and the kernel debugger are not built in at chip level. I'm writing this on a machine I switch off every night because there's really little point destroying the Earth's resources by running a million pissy little Linux boxes constantly with no load just to get better uptime stats so you can carp on about them at every opportunity.

They should take the fucking uptime stats out of Linux and save a few megatons of CO2.

Re:i wouldnt

[julesh]

This isn't a big problem, to be honest. The following comment coming from the Linux kernel explains that while Linux doesn't use TSSs, it isn't for performance reasons:

/* [...]
* NOTE! We used to use the x86 hardware context switching. The
* reason for not using it any more becomes apparent when you
* try to recover gracefully from saved state that is no longer
* valid (stale segment register values in particular). With the
* hardware task-switch, there is no way to fix up bad state in
* a reasonable manner.
*
* The fact that Intel documents the hardware task-switching to
* be slow is a fairly red herring - this code is not noticeably
* faster. However, there _is_ some room for improvement here,
* so the performance issues may eventually be a valid point.
* More important, however, is the fact that this allows us much
* more flexibility.
*/

Re:i wouldnt

[Jucius Maximus]

"CASE: $50 (great? who cares. FCC compliant. Your computer won't run faster with a better case, and it won't last longer)"

Firstly, your system will last longer with a better case. Better cases allow for better cooling and heat dissipation. Higher temperatures and temperature variations will kill your chips and hard drives more quickly.

And 50 Dollars? I suggest you try working with high end cases from Lian Li, Antec, Thermaltake and Coolermaster. They typically start around $120. You will never go back to working with cheap $50 cases again. The high end ones feature far better design, ease of installation of parts, fan control and placement and precision craftsmanship. (I mean really, have you ever opened up a Power Mac and worked with it? It puts standard PC cases to shame. Everything is much more accessible and well placed. Even compared to what's in my Lian Li PC-6070. And did you know that the G5's have a liquid cooling system? Try finding a complete liquid cooling system for PCs and figuring out the cost of all the peltiers, piping, pumps, etc. Of course installing it requires voiding your mobo and CPU warranty by modding them. Try not to damage them during the H20 cooling install either, OK?

"Mouse and Keyboard: $20"

For what? A low quality no name mouse and POS lightweight keyoard? The keyboard and mouse are the actual parts of the computer you touch and you want to get high quality of both. Get a proper logitech MX series mouse and logitech, fujitsu, or keytronics keyboard (though nothing replaces my Model M) and there's $100 to spend.

"Power Supply: $30"

For $30 you can get a POS low quality power supply that won't nearly power a dual CPU machine and will then crap out and fry your hard drives. Try an Antec TruePower 550 for $100+ with thermal fan control that does not have the per-fan fine tuning that the G5 has.

Re:i wouldnt

[Jucius Maximus]

"Moved in a 16x10x40 old (but working) cd-rw, added 128mb RAM, replaced a failing PSU, replaced the failing HD with a 120GB one (that really scared me-it was new and i've still got 1GB old drives working, why did it fail so early?)"

The HD probably failed early because of the failing power supply. Weak and/or highly variable voltages will easily kill a HD.

Re:i wouldnt

[marcansoft]

Hmm.. it was a mechanical failure for sure, but it was strange... it started clicking and it damaged some 48 sectors... Enough of my reiserfs tree to kill *exactly* /home/marcansoft in whole (everything went with dummy names to /lost+found, but, to f*ck it up further, contents were "shifted" i.e. I'd play an mp3 and a different one would show up, halfway through, then start another one up until somewhere down the middle). Murphy's law strikes back, as always.

Although the PSU was low quality, it shouldn't have damaged the hard drive. Voltages were realively stable and the failure was some internal overheating that basically killed a track. Tried to repair no to avail (possibly the transistor got damaged in the process and it kept heating up again).

Re:i wouldnt

[lost_n_confused]

Why do people keep talking about the PeeCees they can build for 50% of the price of a Mac? If they can build computers so cheap and they are such wonder machines why isn't a single soul building super-computers using these super cheap can run faster then any computer on the planet for $9.95 computers. Every time a super computer is spec'ed out using PC's why are the Mac's always 30% to 40% cheaper then their WinTel competition. Are all of the people building super computers so stupid that they can't see that the /. crowd can save them 50% with their home brewed computers running their hacked Linux on a pen drive.

Re:i wouldnt

[bursch-X]

When will fuckheads like you ever understand:

Apple is not competing with some bloody ROLL YER OWN PC IN THE GARAGE bloke

People who want to do that are not Apple's target group. And you know why? Guess what? Because they're are fuckheads who'll ROLL THEIR OWN PC IN THE GARAGE and won't buy PC from a trusted vendor and pay a bit more to get a neatly looking package that actually works and has a warranty.

If you make those calculations please don't forget to also calculate the cost for the time it'll take you get all the drivers working properly and such things. Also don't forget to include the cost for the time and phonecalls once you need some help, because one or the other piece of hardware won't work as promised and either of the vendors will tell you that it's actually
a) Window's fault
b) The other hardware's drivers fault
c) Your fault

Have a nice day.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucktard, buy Apple's 1-button mouse--it's a USB mouse. You have no other way to invoke a right click on Windows than to use the 2nd button?

Now, there you have a bad UI design.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Or worse... 64-bit processor on 32bit bus with 32bit ram... which makes as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

The list only makes sense to you, unless you are in the habit of spending many hours ordering parts and building computers for other people FOR FREE

No. You're looking at consumer-level prices.

OEM's acquire them significantly cheaper. OEM's who sell off some of their stock do so at a pretty markup.

Hence, that profit margin.

For most poeple, a Mac that costs $800-$1200 will be more usable, safer to use on the Internet, and more fun to use than any PC in the same price range, no matter if it's running Windows or Linux.

What happened to your cock and bull line about "cannot be compared"?

The general reader and the moderaters need to come to the realization that they literally make no sense for anyone besides the original poster, unless the value of your time is zero and you already have all the requisite knowledge.

No. They make no sense for people who don't know how to assemble a computer from parts.

For anyone with enough brainpower (slightly greater than the effort it takes to maintain basic life function), it IS a viable alternative.

Simply because a bunch of knuckle-dragging luddites aren't able to do it does not indicate otherwise.

I don't recommend Mac to ANYONE who has even the REMOTEST possibility of wanting to upgrade later on.

In the PC world, you can go ANYWHERE for upgrades.

In the Jobsiverse, you go to one place. APPLE. And then you get the nod or head-shake from on-high.

Re:i wouldnt

[OwnedByTwoCats]

From Apple, $2,000 gets you a 1.8 GHz 64-bit processor, 256 MB PC3200 RAM (expandable up to 2GB), 160 GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA HD, 20" 1680x1050 LCD Screen, VGA, S-Video, and composite video outputs, and a 4X DVD-R/CDRW optical drive.

From Gateway, at the same price, you get a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, an extra 256 MB of RAM, but a slower optical drive and a smaller screen. And you have WinXP Home, instead of MacOS X. And it's ugly.

Pretty much the same price.

Re:i wouldnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. The imac isn't made for EXTEME PC users. It is targeted towards the general populace. Macs tend to hold up a lot longer than a PC. You can still run all current software on a 300mhz g3 that you can run on a a G5. Most people just want to surf the internet, get e-mail, and use aim. And if you are always replacing parts, essentially you are just building a new computer, because you are still paying. If someone wants to upgrade their iMac, they can sell it on ebay, get back 75% of their money, and buy a new one. In the end they still have the same amount of cash you do, they have a *new* computer as opposed to your frankenstein computer that will periodically go beserk. Don't call me a Mac Zealot either. I have several certifications from Sisco systems all in the PC areas. I have been using PC's since pre-95, and I only recently started using a mac last year. I can't even use my brand new pc that I made, because the mac is so much more convienient. To set up a server on a Mac requires 5 minutes of my time. To set it up on a PC will take several hours. I could rant forever, but I have a life.

Tootles.

Re:i wouldnt

[spectre_240sx]

What's with the redundant moderation on this post? I think there are some valid points made here.

Hey, I used OS/2

[Anonymous Coward]

So, sure, why not?

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

sure

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

In an Instant. And I wouldn't be the only one where I work. Lets just say that work is with a 100% non-MAC company. :)

forget the hookers and the blackjack!

[Anonymous Coward]

forget the hookers and the blackjack!

I'm in for OS X!

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Doh

Re:no

[ericbrow]

That's pretty much my answer.

Yes

[redhotchil]

It about a split second.

I don't see it happening though considering the hardware tweaks in the GUI

Try it maybe

[suso]

I think I'd try it for a while, maybe I'd dual boot to it for a while, but I think I'd still use Linux full time.

Meaningless question

[Have Blue]

Because it is not ever, ever going to happen.

If AMD and Intel sprayed all their CPUs with anthrax, would you buy a Mac?

Re:Meaningless question

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong, you INSENSITIVE CLOD. Open your mind. One Computer, one OS. ITS THE GOAL STUPID!

Re:Meaningless question

[JVert]

No. But I would finally make use of the water cooler system I have sitting in the garage.

Re:Meaningless question

[Anonymous Coward]

If OSX came to x86, I would switch.

Switch away from OSX, that is.

Re:Meaningless question

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't touch a mac, I'd go for a SPARC, an ALPHA, or I'd just live with anthrax. The only way a mac would seem usable, is if I installed Linux or *BSD on it. Otherwise it's just a pretty paper-weight.

Re:Meaningless question

[Anonymous Coward]

no.

Re:Meaningless question

[noselasd]

But for those that won't wait forever. Try this.

Re:Meaningless question

[Ianoo]

You'll still have to wait forever just to boot Mac OS X on PearPC. I wouldn't exactly call their emulation speed "usable" at this time. It's more of a proof-of-concept. It may get better, but there are some challenging problems emulating PPC on x86 (or indeed any architecture on any other architecture with fewer GPRs).

Re:Meaningless question

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use Pear PC to make it happen.

Re:Meaningless question

[MrRage]

You're right, it's never going to happen, and you know why? Apple is not a software company like MS is. It's primary goal is to sell hardware. This would not translate into more hardware sales, and it would be a failure.

Re:Meaningless question

[jrockway]

Actually, Apple is a solutions company. They sell you everything you need for a perfect computing experience. iPod/iTunes + iSight/iChat + OS X + Powerbook = good.

Re:Meaningless question

[Feanturi]

I'd get a cluster of Intel machines together, and map the human genome so as to develop an immunity to anthrax. Or get a mask.

Re:Meaningless question

[__aafkqj3628]

I already did - paranoid got the best of me.

In a word...

[TedTschopp]

YES,

It would allow me to use Windows and OSX on the same machine with a dual boot.

Ted Tschopp

Re:In a word...

[Stormwatch]

> Windows and OSX on the same machine

It's called "Virtual PC".

Re:In a word...

[generica1]

Unfortunately, guess who is the new owner of Virtual PC? And also unfortunately, they haven't gotten around to porting Virtual PC to the G5 processor yet... so I have to run it on my G3 iBook 900. And Windows XP isn't so fast when you're emulating it on a CPU that could barely run it natively very well (if it were native to this architecture).

Re:In a word...

[robbieduncan]

Virtual PC 7.0 was released (and shipped as well) a few weeks ago. It supports the G5 just fine.

Re:In a word...

[generica1]

Whoops, my mistake.. looks like the XP Pro version of it just came out recently. Shoulda read deeper into the page before I linked it I guess...

Re:In a word...

[Ianoo]

And Windows XP isn't so fast when you're emulating it on a CPU that could barely run it natively very well (if it were native to this architecture)

I know that Mac users often lose touch with developments on the other side of the fence, but this is simply incorrect. You can run Windows XP on a 300MHz with 128MB of RAM computer. A 900MHz G3 (which is faster clock-for-clock than a Pentium III) could easily run XP if it were ported natively. Not that anyone would!

Re:In a word...

[linuxpng]

yeah, but redhat es 3 crashes 4 minutes into the install, every time.

Re:In a word...

[SecretAsianMan]

Unfortunately, it leaves much to be desired in terms of emulation speed and is missing most of its planned new features. VPC7 is hardly adequate for users with real performance demands. Of course, the emulation story could change in the future.

Re:In a word...

[PhoenixFlare]

so I have to run it on my G3 iBook 900. And Windows XP isn't so fast when you're emulating it on a CPU that could barely run it natively very well (if it were native to this architecture).

Funny, i'm running XP on a P3 667, and it works at a very passable speed. Have you actually used XP on native X86 hardware?

Re:In a word...

[NutscrapeSucks]

> It would allow me to use Windows and OSX on the same machine with a dual boot.

The "dual boot" crowd (meaning us) aren't a very good customer base. Mainly tech-hobbyists who install random OSes, play around with them for a while and then switch back to Windows as soon as its convienient to do so.

When you look at historical attempts to sell an OS to dualbooters, such as OS/2 Warp, BeOS, or various consumer Linux Distros, you see that the OS sells well at retail, but ends up with very few long-term committed users. I don't think that's Apple's game at all -- they sell primarily to hard-core repeat customers.

Re:In a word...

[jrockway]

XP is sloooo to load on a P4@2.4GHz with 128M of RAM. XP needs a lot more than 128M of RAM.

Re:In a word...

[csk_1975]

Improve your sex life - undo your circumcision .

My mouse hovered over the link for a second, but I couldn't click on it, just thinking about what horrors lie at the other end of that link brings tears to my eyes and cold shivers run up and down my spine.

Re:In a word...

[slantyyz]

Call me crazy, but if you are a user with real performance demands for Windows, it seems like the smart thing to do is to buy a Windows machine.

Re:In a word...

[Stormwatch]

Go ahead and click, I dare say it is even workplace-safe stuff. Nothing graphical, mostly testimonials and descriptions.

without a doubt

[sirmalloc]

i'd switch without a doubt. however, i wonder if this would severely hurt apple's hardware sales.

Corporate switch

[herberts]

AS I already own Macs I would not switch, but I would try to make my company switch...

Re:Corporate switch

[Ianoo]

An interesting question for you, then: If this happened, would your next purchase be a new G6 Mac (or whatever) or a Pentium 5?

Re:Corporate switch

[ccoakley]

I'm of the same opinion as the grandparent, so I will respond to your question. I would most likely buy a P5 OSX over a G6 OSX. Here's my reasoning:

1. Right now I favor my dual G5 over my dual Xeon because:
a. my dual G5 is plugged into a 23" display and my dual Xeon is plugged into a poor 19" display. If I upgraded to one of the new displays, ADC support is dropped and a P5 box will likely have hardware that supports the nice DVI display.
b. Most of my commercial software licenses are for my G5. This is actually a strike against switching to the P5 over the G6.
c. The dual G5 box is significantly quieter than the dual Xeon box. Again, this is a strike against switching.

2. Cost of hardware: Umm... my dual Xeon with SCSI hard drives cost 30% less than my dual G5 for approximately the same processor performance (better drive performance). I'll assume the same cost difference applies in the hypothetical scenario.

3. There exist very good compilers for x86. I ran some benchmarks against both of my boxes and the Xeon outperformed the G5 in areas where the Xeon should have lost hands down. Inspecting the assembly code I realized that gcc (for C++ especially, but even for C) generates much better x86 code than PPC code. In fact, the C++ PPC code generation was terrible (particularly for large array/martix math). Intel's compiler is even better for C++ than g++, and the lack of an alternative on PPC makes the gap even larger.

This really irritates me. The PPC architecture *does* have advantages over x86. However, they are almost completely unrealized due to the lack of a decent compiler (metrowerks on PPC is decent, and fares well againt g++ on x86, but doesn't compare to intel's x86 compiler).

If (3) was fixed, I may be willing to accept (2) and then change my answer, particularly because my commercial software licenses more than make up the difference.

I really like OS X. As far as driver support, it works with my wacom tablet, my microsoft mouse, my sandisk usb drive, my iRiver MP3 player, my Canon camera, and my Epson scanner. It failed to work with my Labtec usb headphones/microphone (which doesn't matter since I can't play CounterStrike on it anyway), my Canon scanner (which happened to be one of only two Canoscan models not supported--that irritated me), and my USB wireless adapter (which I tried just to see if it worked. I already have a wireless card. Besides, the USB fucker bluescreened my windows laptop on multiple occasions, so I wouldn't call its windows support great either). I would recommend OSX iMacs to people like my grandmother as and OSX powerbooks to fellow CS students.

Re:Corporate switch

[gamgee5273]

Now I have to ask this:

How can you have a Pentium 5? From a logical point of view, I mean. The Pentium was called the Pentium because it was the 586 chip.

If Intel ever called a chip the Pentium 5, I think any self-respecting consumer who knows what the meaning of "pent-" is would lose any and all respect for them.

Re:Corporate switch

[obirt]

As in the IBM XL compiler that has been out for a while now? http://airto.bmap.ucla.edu/mt-static/know/archives /2004/08/fsl_runtime_com.php and http://images.apple.com/science/pdf/xl_c_compilers .pdf

google search for IBM XL G5.

Re:Corporate switch

[ccoakley]

Kickass. I was aware of the IBM compiler for the Power5, but I wasn't aware that they had finally released it for OS X on G5. Thanks. I am downloading the trial right now. I am concerned about one thing: the compiler gives no indication that it can generate 64bit binaries for the G5. Also, the difference in benchmarks between g++ and XL is not nearly as big as the difference between g++ and Intel's C++ compiler.

The problem with this question...

[the unbeliever]

Is one of "will my hardware be compatible with OS X?" -- if I could be assured that my hardware will work as well under OS X on x86 as it does under Windows XP, then I would switch in a heartbeat, or at least dual boot. Application support is another issue, as is migrating data.

This question does not have a simple answer like "yes" or "no" or "maybe" -- there are a lot of dependencies on each answer.

Re:The problem with this question...

[kai.chan]

I think the question is just a hypothetical situation -- assuming that it will run well. For myself, I would definitely switch. Macs is supported by Blizzard and more big-name gaming companies than Linux. Because games is a huge driving force in increasing user-base, I believe that if Apple entered the OS market on x86 platforms, we might see an emergence of a new competitor, much like Firefox did to IE.

Re:The problem with this question...

[the unbeliever]

I'm not overly concerned with games, since as you pointed out, most big name game developers port their games to OS X now.

I'm more concerned with hardware and application support. Apple porting OS X to x86 will not just be an Apple affair. ATI, nVidia, Creative and every other hardware manufacturer on the planet will either have to invest heavily in developing new drivers or will have to open their specs to Apple for drivers.

Re:The problem with this question...

[FuzzieNorn]

nVidia and ATi, at least, have just opened their specs and driver source code to Apple, and Apple are responsible for the actual shipped drivers, which are only available as part of the OS. So presumably it wouldn't be a problem to port anything which is already supported on a Mac. And I doubt Apple would bother supporting anything they didn't ship in their own hardware. You can easily write open source drivers, though, for hardware with available specs or existing open source drivers.

Re:The problem with this question...

[the unbeliever]

Having to search sites other than the hardware manufacturer's for drivers is a distinct turnoff for me. One reason I stay with Windows, other than the fact that I just like it better.

*dons asbestos suit*

Re:The problem with this question...

[FuzzieNorn]

Well, yeah, but Apple might well be willing to ship other drivers with the OS, or the hardware manufacturers might be willing to ship them, so who knows.

As for that being "one of the reasons you stay with Windows", I don't get it. Right now I don't have any OSen which don't just work on the hardware I put them on. Maybe I just have non-shitty hardware. Linux comes with drivers for everything I have, Mac and x86, apart from the (unnecessary) proprietary nVidia drivers for gaming, which is on .. the nVidia site. This includes scanners, printers, webcams, video hardware, the works. Mac OS X fails on the webcam front somewhat, and there I do have to go to open source drivers, but that's just because I have a cheap webcam, and the rest of the hardware is fine.

Re:The problem with this question...

[BitGeek]

This whole thing is rediculous-- Macs are CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN PCS. They have been for over a decade.

Slashdot became a joke when it was overrun with kids who think that macs are too expensive-- and all the real engineers left. (Notice I don't post here much anymore.)

You want a superior computer on a superior processor, switch. Don't expect apple to port to the x86-- its more expensive and less powerful than the PowerPC, so why should they port? Its not like they'd get windows compatibility in the deal.

Re:The problem with this question...

[micromoog]

um . . . what?

Re:The problem with this question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, slashdot became a joke when swaggering dolts thought they could use ALL CAPS in place of a rational argument. Note that this happened in the early 5-digit UID days.

Re:The problem with this question...

[labradore]

Pass the crack pipe, man.

Macs are either faster than PCs or they are cheaper than PCs, but they certianly are not both. The advantage that the Mac has always had is that it just makes sense. Once you understand that Mac interface, you basically understand how to use your computer. With Windows, you have to learn how to do things over and over again.

By the way, 10 years ago was 1994. Those were the bad old days for Apple and the Macintosh as far as I'm concerned. These days Macs are pretty darn fast and they're closer to being price-competitive with windows machines than ever before, but an $800 Mac is going to have less disk space, less RAM and less processing power than an $800 PC. The same goes for the rest of the price points.

In addition, with a Mac, you pay over and over again. Every time OS X updates, you pay. Most people never pay more than once for Windows, if at all. The same goes for Office and most of the other popular software. On a Mac, you're usually buying instead of borrowing the install disk from a friend. Legal or not, that's the way it usually works. There are probably 50 little utilites that I use to do various things on windows. Everything from renaming music files to connecting via SSH to linux/unix. Most of these are freeware, Free software, shareware or stolen. Macs just don't have the same ecosystem of software developed around them that Windows and (to a lesser extent) the free unices do. I realize that with OS X, Mac systems are getting a lot of compatable free software from the unix world and there may be a bunch of things that OS X does that Windows needs utilities for, but it's still not nearly as extensive as the Windows world.

Windows is not good and frequently pretty bad. But it usually gets the job done. It sucks that people can't figure out how to keep spyware, viruses and hackers off of their machines and keep their internet connections and their critical programs running without a lot of handholding and behind-the-scenes work from administrators and consultants. I know this, because people pay me to do it. It would make more sense for them to use a Mac. Their critical software doesn't run on a Mac and they don't want to pay about 2x as much up front to get things working on a Mac, even if the critical stuff did run on it.

Macs are beautiful. In a lot of ways they make everyday computer use much easier and less stressful. There is a certian class of users (especially, I think, casual home users who don't require the use of specialized Windows-only software) who will benefit wonderfully from using a Mac. Many of the rest of us are forced, by habit, by contract, or by some other monopoly-related cause, to keep using windows on our desktop.

Re:The problem with this question...

[Bert64]

Funny you mention an SSH client. OSX comes with an ssh client (and server) by default which is far better than any of the commercial ones available for windows.

Re:The problem with this question...

[MasonMcD]

There's a nice little program called Move2Mac by detto that makes things pretty easy to migrate.

Screenshots here...

and here.

Re:The problem with this question...

[labradore]

That may be, but the best SSH client for windows is not commercial. It's PuTTY, a Free (capital "F" for Freedom) software project. In fact, often it works better than SSH clients on unix. It certianly has terminal emulation that just works right.

Re:The problem with this question...

[Bert64]

Which is exactly why i said commercial, putty is the only useable ssh client for windows (has decent terminal emulation) but it's still more hassle than "ssh ip" is on a unix machine, and doesnt have the flexibility unix ssh does like piping (ssh user@host cat /home/mp3/somefile | mpg123 -) and just executing a command without logging in etc..
Putty also didnt have a full screen (without window borders) mode.

Re:The problem with this question...

[Moofie]

I'm trying to remember the last time I had to install a "driver" on my Powerbook. I suppose there might be one somewhere, but I've never used one.

You like single-source drivers and you're going with Microsoft? You're weowd.

Sure!

[Kirsha]

You bet, dual booting though. Games are still a Windows domain.

Re:Sure!

[myowntrueself]

"Games are still a Windows domain."

For now.

(Ok so the Xbox runs a variation of Windows but...)

We already see game titles released for Xbox only.

How long will it be before the PC is a deprecated, legacy platform as far as game developers are concerned?

When you can no longer get games for a straight PC, only for Xbox and other consoles, will you switch then?

Re:Sure!

[Graff]

dual booting though. Games are still a Windows domain.

Of course a Wine-like crossover library would be relatively simple once Mac OS X and Windows are both running on the same hardware. You would just need to come up with an abstraction layer that translated a call to one set of APIs into another. Issues such as byte-order and low-level code would be greatly reduced.

Right now if you want to run Windows software under Mac OS X on a PowerPC chip you need to change data from little-endian to big-endian, translate the much longer and complex "x86" processor instructions into the RISC-like instructions of the PowerPC, emulate the hardware of the machine, and emulate the Windows environment. That puts a big bite on the speed of a program running under emulation.

If you could run each OS on the same hardware you would cut down many of those factors greatly, running the game at almost native speed in the operating system of your choice. That's basically what Mac OS X does for Classic Macintosh applications right now and it runs them pretty well.

However, I still don't think that Apple should port Mac OS X over to "x86". Apple makes a good deal of its money on hardware, that would go down the drain if they had to compete head-to-head with the likes of Dell and the Mom-and-Pop shops. Also, many people are not locked into the Wintel hardware but rather the Windows OS itself. Most people would still have Windows on the desktop at work and so most people would run it at home. Just look at Linux, it's free, runs on "x86", can run Windows software, and is has some nice environments but it still isn't really pushing Windows off of the desktop.

Apple owes a lot of its usability, stability, and good reputation to the fact that Macintoshes are fully-integrated experiences. The hardware and software is designed hand-in-hand to work well and be fashionable. Yeah, there's a bit of a premium to getting a Macintosh but with that premium comes enough benefits to make it worthwhile.

Re:Sure!

[drinkypoo]

Xbox games and Windows games are going to be even closer together, what with XNA making porting from one to the other much easier, especially in the Xbox -> PC direction. A game which used multires to handle performance degradation wouldn't even need any porting, just a recompile.

Re:Sure!

[myowntrueself]

I stand corrected! Cool!

:)
Lets hope it plays out that way

Re:Sure!

[Megane]

Hey, there's plenty of games for the Mac. There's Zork, Breakout, Super Breakout... uh, Photoshop...

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?

Yes

os x

[YoJaUta]

I do believe the number one reason to have a Windows PC is to be able to play games... which OS X has very few of. And those that do get ported aren't released until up to a year from the Win release date.

The OS is not the reason I use a computer.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the apps I want to run are in Windows, I use Windows. Linux - I use Linux. MacOS (haven't found any I need yet), I'd run MacOS.

I don't understand this silly cult of OS-ism.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't freaking matter if you would switch.

Apple is a hardware company. What don't you people understand about that?

Yes!

[turbogeek]

I have two Macs. 17 inch PB and a dual 2.0 G5. Great OS and great machines, but it would be nice to get a cheaper machine. I do Java development and very happy with the performance and capabilities.

uhhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

hell yeah... but this would not be a good move for Apple. Just ask NeXT. oh wait...

Probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason people are on the x86 architecture has nothing to do with the processor. It has to do with the fact that that is the only architecture that Win32 is implemented on. Not using the x86 architecure means you can't use 90% of all programs ever developed (since most people are dicks and don't port)! Switching to MacOS X does nothing to help on that.

Anyways, x86 is horrendous to program in assembly language. I'd rather program VAX.

Well..

[chewy_2000]

I would switch in a second. OS X is by far the best OS on so many fronts that I have ever used (interface, ease of use etc, and the Unix core is nice). I'd still have to maintain a Windows boot for games, unless it was so popular most games were released for it.

Never going to happen though, since Apple make their money from hardware, not the OS.

Re:Well..

[BlackShirt]

" Never going to happen though, since Apple make their money from hardware, not the OS."

Free MAC OS for PC-s. It will generate some hardware sales or at least support the mindshare?

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU ARE DENSE.

Re:Well..

[Kryxan]

Well... how much would you pay for OS X software. They don't currently make money from their OS, true. However that does not mean that they can't make money from their OS. I think that if the OS X software cost $200-$400 then people would buy it. It would sell and make money for Apple. However the issue is that PPC processor isnt exactly like an X86-64 that a modern PC would have. I bet that there would be some incompatability, which would likely cause more headaches than Apple wants to deal with. Of couse when it came down to it, yeah I would buy it. I like the Mac OS X, but hate that I can't build a Mac. That is what I like best about a PC.

Re:Well..

[karmatic]

I like the Mac OS X, but hate that I can't build a Mac.

Why Not?

Re:Well..

[Soul-Burn666]

"I think that if the OS X software cost $200-$400 then people would buy it. It would sell and make money for Apple."

No, it won't, at least not as I see it. It will be warezed like Windows is, and be used on non-apple hardware, while those with money would buy the apple hardware + OS, like they did before.
Meaning they will not only not gain money from it, but rather lose money.
People that "must have OSX" won't need to deal with the premium overpriced Apple hardware but rather very simply warez it and use it on an x86.

Re:Well..

[snol]

nah. Pretty colors on the tower don't matter that much; there'd be no reason to spend the thousand-dollar overhead on a Mac if the same software ran on cheap x86 hardware.

Yes

[superlol]

Definitely

yes

[Emugamer]

no, no yes, no .. does not compute...

no really, I have no clue, I might because I need to run Office without the hassle of windows but I also need it for 3rd party applications that do not run on a Mac. so no... I don't know, don't ask questions that don't have an easy yes no answer

Yep, yep, yep.

[sllim]

I would most certainly purchase and install it.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't still run windows. Possibly do a dual boot or a windows on mac kind of solution.

Ain't never gonna happen though. Apple makes money off there hardware and the OS is why people purchase the hardware. Be a foolish thing for Apple to do.

Re:Yep, yep, yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

Purchase?? Wait a minute, nobody said nothing about "purchase"! How do I change my vote? Or do we get multiple options:

1) No I won't
2) Yes I will copy and install
3) Yes I will purchase and install

</joke>

Re:Yep, yep, yep.

[FurrBear]

I have to agree with you on both counts: Yes, I'd purchase it and test drive it, just like I do with my x86 based FreeBSD, Slackware, & Solaris boxes. Will it happen? Most likely not. I can't see Apple, which makes its money from hardware sales from folks attracted to the OS, forking the OS onto commodity x86 PCs. And I'll add a third point, If I really want to run OS X (which I do), I'd rather go the easy route and get a nice G4 or G5 PowerBook (which I plan to do).

Not for me

[MrMegster]

I would have to say that I wouldn't switch. The reason the OS is so nice now is that they can optimize it and make sure it works with their given hardware. Once you open it up to be run on almost any PC, problems arise and I don't feel that the response from users would be that wonderful. However I might be wrong, and Apple might outdo themselves once again.

Yes

[JamesP]

Mac OS is THE BEST OS user-frindly wise.

Only Linux can beat it. Windows... not worth mentioning.

I would switch... Dual Boot Linux/Mac OS

The only problem is that, bu the time they switch to x80, it's probably gonna be called something ELSE tham MAC OS

Are you asking me...

[alokeb]

1) Would you like a fast, stable and easy to use desktop for newbies and a powerful Unix based OS for pros? 2) Permanently get rid of adware/spyware/virus related problems? 3) Lessen the chances of my computer getting 0wned? All this without getting tied to proprietary hardware... Many more can be added here but you get the point. HELL YEAH!!!

Maybe, but..

[Thangodin]

If I was going to go Mac, I would go all the way, and switch to the hardware too. It's better, and it's just plain cooler. The only reason I don't have a Mac is I like PC games, and there aren't enough for the Mac, and for compatability with work systems.

Yes.

[hattig]

Yes.

Err, I suppose I had better write something else.

Um.

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty sure I'd be interested in switching

You bet your Job's sniffin' ass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd switch! I'm tired of being oppressed by "the man" and having my twig and berries jerked around like I'm some kind of fruit farmer.

Please not again

[ravenspear]

I can't count the number of times that I've heard this asked. The obvious answer is that yes a lot of people would switch if OS X was ported to x86. But I also can't count the number of times the people who keep asking this question have been told how irrelevant it is to do so. OS X is not going to be ported, for the simple reason that if it were Apple would go under and then OS X would no longer exist.

If you need to know why that is, just google for "if os x were ported" and you'll find the same explanation on thousands of pages. I don't feel like rehashing it here.

Re:Please not again

[forgoil]

Not to mention that it would be pirated like wildfire...

Re:Please not again

[ravenspear]

Not trying to whore here but if my "google for it" suggestion was too vague for some, here are some articles on why porting OS X would be a very bad idea from Apple's perspective.

No Intel On OS X Part I: Economics 101
Porting Mac OS X to Intel

Re:Please not again

[ravenspear]

The problem with that argument is it is WRONG.

I suppose I shouldn't expect any more intelligence from an AC.

Apple is already turning into a media company b/c of iPod.

What nonsense. The iPod has formed a nice accessory to their core business. That is all. They are by no means a "media company."

Mac sales are not all that great.

You keep sinking further. Last quarter Apple reported total Mac sales of 876,000 units, a year over year increase of 105,000 units. In addition, Mac sales comprise ~90% of Apple's total revenue. Taking any step to cut down their core business would be insanely stupid.

Selling Mac OS to PC owners would be a CASH COW if they kept the price reasonable.

It would not be nearly enough to equal Macintosh hardware sales. Apple grosses about 1.8 billion per quarter selling hardware. To equate that with just selling OS X at $129, they would need to sell 14 million units a quarter. Even if a lot of people would switch, that is an unrealistic expectation.

I suspect the actual reason this hasn;t alredy happened is some hidden clause in an agreemnt with Microsoft.

Ok, I don't even think I need to touch this.

Next time, try bringing more facts to the table.

Re:Please not again

[Anonymous Coward]

So people are pirating wildfire a lot these days?

Re:Please not again

[jcr]

Your argument presupposes that the price of OS X would be the same on x86 and Apple's own hardware.

There are a lot of people in corporate america who don't get to pick their hardware, because their company's IT department has a deal with Dell or Gateway to provide *all* of their desktop machines. A lot of those same people are still authorized to spend $500-$1K for a software package.

If Apple offered Mac OS X for intel, at a price that roughly corresponded to whatever the margin is on a machine right in the middle of the Mac product line, they could double their installed base in a year. (That's a lot more people to sell apps like Keynote and iLife to.)

-jcr

Re:Please not again

[akorvemaker]

It would not be nearly enough to equal Macintosh hardware sales. Apple grosses about 1.8 billion per quarter selling hardware. To equate that with just selling OS X at $129, they would need to sell 14 million units a quarter. Even if a lot of people would switch, that is an unrealistic expectation.

Yes, it is. But rather than having the expectation to match/replace their hardware profits, they could simply hope to increase their profits somewhat, supplementing them by expanding into a new market. Some people would still pay a premium to get the whole "Mac experience" (hardward and software). Selling OS X for x86 would not kill off all their hardware sales. It would reduce it somewhat, but it would also bring in the potential for many more customers (some of whom may switch to the "one true Mac" at a later date).

Re:Please not again

[ravenspear]

Yes, it is.

Are you insane? M$ doesn't even sell 14 million copies of Windows per quarter. Are you seriously implying that you think just by entering the x86 space OS X will completely surpass Windows immediately?

Re:Please not again

[Coryoth]

I read both articles, and I think they were both overly pessimistic. I don't think Apple has very much to lose from porting OS X (presuming they don't seel it cheaply, or have stpid licensing schemes), the problem is that they don't really have much to gain either.

They would lose some of their hardware market, but it wouldn't crash to zer as some people here are claiming. As many Mac fans will point out, a decent part of the appeal of a Mac is the hardware - well designed, nice looking, nd generally just slick. There's a definite niche for such things and I think Apple hardware would continue to sell reasonably well. The articles you pointed to, however, made the very reasonable point that the uptake of OS X on x86 would not be as strong as many people would imagine. I suspect if they sold copies for $300 a shot, they'd do well, and probably cover any losses their hardware side had, but going to a lot of effort (for a port, and maintining drivers etc) to end up treading water really isn't worth it.

It may still happen at some time in the future of course: markets change (Apple is moving more and more into iPods and music sales for instance), and a shift in opportunities could make it more viable. I wouldn't write it off as impossible, merely as very unlikely without some serious changes in the market first.

Jedidiah.

Re:Please not again

[jcr]

Well, sure it would, but let's do a little thought experiment here...

Supposed fifty million people pirate OS X and install it on their Intel machines. That's now fifty million seats were you have a chance to sell an app like Keynote or iLife, isn't it? Okay, suppose iLife is pirated, too: that's a couple of million people who might order poster-size prints or a photo book through iPhoto, no?

If Keynote is pirated, doesn't that mean that many more people (including those who are scrupulous about buying what they use) are inclined to get Keynote, since more people around them are using it?

What I observe, is that what people pirate in college and high school is what they buy when they graduate.

-jcr

Re:Please not again

[catwh0re]

Apple wouldn't go under as a result to porting OSX on x86. Other than sales of OSX generating profit (hello Microsoft's entire business model.) You're ignoring that people choose macs for more than their software, such things include it's well designed hardware, which numerous posts on this same board have talked about (no googling the net to find matching opinions there). It's like saying sony vaio's line will send sony into the red, because they cost more than cheap pc's, but can run windows like any other PC.

The fact is that the apple hardware is tested at length to be of suitable quality for consumers, it's design is an endless delight to consumers. Even the ipod sells extremely well despite being just a music player, like all those very inexpensive-by-comparison flash players.
Being black and white in your logic is where it fails.

Re:Please not again

[zyridium]

It would not be nearly enough to equal Macintosh hardware sales. Apple grosses about 1.8 billion per quarter selling hardware. To equate that with just selling OS X at $129, they would need to sell 14 million units a quarter. Even if a lot of people would switch, that is an unrealistic expectation.

Although I do not think that it does make sense this is the most ridiculous argument I have seen. 1.8 billion gross for hardware is nothing like 1.8 billion gross for software. Software would cost SFA to produce, apple doesnt magically create the hardware for free...

Re:Please not again

[ravenspear]

Well Apple has about a 30% margin on their hardware. Even if they could do a lot better with software, let's say they could double it to 60%, that would still mean they would have to sell 7 million units a quarter. There's no guarantee OS X would see that kind of migration.

Re:Please not again

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wold porting to X86 kill Apple? Why would focusing on more than just one architecture be such death spell? If Apple's doing well on 2% of the OS market, I'de imagine that a few more OS sales aren't going to hurt them.

Re:Please not again

[micromoog]

The margin on high-volume commercial software is more like 90%. This is why FOSS is perceived as such a threat.

Re:Please not again

[Erik Hollensbe]

People keep forgetting one, very important thing:

One of the things that makes the Mac so "hands-off" is it's limited driver set.

Ever had a Windows driver go belly-up on you? How about Linux? It's so rare on the mac that when it happens (as was the case a few weeks ago with the G5 firmware update) it's a huge stink on all the mac sites.

Now think about it. Allllllll those drivers, allllll that code, allllll that hardware for x86. Apple doesn't have the resources to do that, heck, Microsoft barely did when they wrote '95, and immediately after that they pretty much laid down the law with hardware manufacturers that they had to write their own drivers.

Mac OS X is pretty mature these days and I wonder if Apple is ready or willing to risk that perception.

I really think it has less to do with controlling hardware or anything like that. Generally if something goes wrong in the OS on the Mac, it's bad hardware - almost always guaranteed these days.

Re:Please not again

[ravenspear]

But remember that it's not just cranking out copies if Apple ports OS X to x86. They would have an enormous new support load to deal with. They would probably have to do significant restructuring and hire different hardware people, etc.

And besides it doesn't really matter what the margin would end up being. They would be taking a huge risk and betting the future of the company on a vague uncertainty. It's just dumb, shareholders would scream bloody murder, and it's just not going to happen.

Re:Please not again

[_Sprocket_]

No kidding? Huh. I wonder why Windows isn't "pirated like wildfire" too. Oh... yeah.. it is. And it doesn't matter.

Re:Please not again

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter because Microsoft gets their cut on 99% of the PCs sold. Since that's not an option for Apple (etc), it would matter.

Re:Please not again

[michaeldot]

Er, I don't think he was disagreeing with you.

He was saying it is an unrealistic expectation to sell that many units of software alone, but that Apple could probably make up the revenue by still selling hardware and other value added stuff.

But it's not going to happen.

Re:Please not again

[_Sprocket_]

Fair enough point. However, keep in mind that Apple would be doing OEM deals too. Heck - they sell iPods via HP.

Another reason Microsoft doesn't worry is that the desktop is part of selling everything else. A ubiquitous platform, whether it was licensed properly or not, helps shore up sales in other areas. Especially Enterprise software where the REAL money is in licensing (CALs).

Right. So forget Windows. Let's talk the latest pixel-pushing eye candy dangling at your twitching fingers. The gaming industry is likely to feel "piracy" more. But it's still rolling along strong.

Re:Please not again

[Anonymous Coward]

...also considering Microsoft owns a sizable chunk of Apple, I doubt it would ever happen.

Re:Please not again

[Sentry21]

Well, it's already pirated like wildfire (among the tech cognoscenti), but only by people with $2000-3000 machines.

The poster seems to presume Apple wouldn't make any money (or as much money) at it if it were ported because people would pirate it (or perhaps I am misinterpreting). Keep in mind that OS X is surprisingly cheap compared to Windows, weighing in at only $129 USD for the latest incarnation of Panther in a pretty box, compared to $199 for Home or $299 for Pro (which is closer to the feature set that OS X has - dual processor support etc).

I'd gladly pay $129 for OS X, but I'd never pay even that much, let alone $300, for Windows XP.

--Dan

Re:Please not again

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposed fifty million people pirate OS X and install it on their Intel machines. That's now fifty million seats were you have a chance to sell an app like Keynote or iLife, isn't it?

Yeah, that's it. Apple should throw away the $2000 hardware sales so that they can get $50 software sales.

Re:Please not again

[auzy]

Actually, I dont think people realise that even if it is ported, that it wouldn't run official MAC OS X G5 programs, so until stuff was ported, it would be useless, and would have less compatibility anyway.

Either way, the base, Darwin has been ported to PC anyway. and I think that Apple have obviously analysed the benefits of a full port at the moment, but they are right, theres nothing even running on darwin for x86 now, and until there is, it would be a waste of time and effort.

In fact, I've been considering working on a few projects for darwin.. maybe would be nice to get it out there...

Re:Please not again

[danila]

Apple grosses about 1.8 billion per quarter selling hardware. To equate that with just selling OS X at $129, they would need to sell 14 million units a quarter.

First, Apple doesn't need to equate the x86 OS X sales with Mac sales, they just need to cover their porting costs while not cannibalising their existing sales. After they cover the porting costs, each sale would bring up to 100$ profit (allowing for admin, marketing, distribution, etc.). I am not sure they make a 100$ profit from each computer they sell. And even if they do, that would mean they need to sell only as many x86 OS X licenses, which is less than a million per quarter to make this their primary revenue source. Needless to say, if they manage not to harm their hardware business, any significant amount of copies would mean they earn a nice profit (and ROI).

Re:Please not again

[ravenspear]

Actually, I dont think people realise that even if it is ported, that it wouldn't run official MAC OS X G5 programs, so until stuff was ported, it would be useless, and would have less compatibility anyway.

Yeah I do realize that but it's just one more reason why it won't be ported.

Re:Please not again

[ceeam]

And that's a _very_good_thing_ if you plan to make heaps of money. Ask Microsoft. You "pirate" it, you get used to it, you think it's cool, it leaks to your workplace, here and there. It gains critical weight. Software/hardware support breaks "catch 22". You use it for important stuff. You occasionally buy it then.

Longhorn diskliked by everyone????

[XenonCJ]

Longhorn diskliked by everyone???? You must be a real closed minded uber-linux junkie to make that kind of blanket statement about an OS that isn't even released yet... goood greif.

Re:Longhorn diskliked by everyone????

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a "You must be ___ old to ride" restriction for Slashdot.

Re:Longhorn diskliked by everyone????

[XenonCJ]

What the hell do you mean by that statement? That I'm too young to understand how great [insert your favorite OS here] is, as compared to an OS that is not yet released??? Never mind that I'm 30, and I've been doing the "dba\server admin\notes admin\weblogic\EMC admin\yadda yadda admin" thing for quite some time... Lets just throw that shit out, because shit, you say so....

Switch?

[tickticker]

I would for all the games.

--
Here siggy siggy siggy... Has anyone seen a small nonsensical sig running around here?

The real question is...

[SetupWeasel]

Would software and hardware companies support OS X more consistantly if it were available on an x86 PC?

The only reason I use Windows is that it is the easiest OS to find games, paripherals, and other things that support it. If Linux or OS X had that, I could consider them.

Re:the real question is...

[easter1916]

In my case, a faster (7200RPM) hard drive and at least a GB of RAM. That's what I put in my 17" Powerbook as soon as it arrived. It's the perfect laptop...

Re:the real question is...

[xirtam_work]

I agree with the gig of ram, exactly what i did. my hdd is 5400rpm, and i've got 7200rpm external firewire drives connected with fw800.

404?

[mroch]

There appears to be a broken link on the front page... curious.

Just a thought, but I'm sure Macs seem to work better because Apple knows exactly what hardware you're running. Linux has to run on *everything* and can be touchy about hardware. Windows is better about hardware detection because it's just for x86, but OS X is by far the best.

If Apple kept the same level of quality on x86 that they have on PowerPC, I would most definitely switch!

Re:404?

[rpdillon]

It's called the
s-l-a-s-h-d-o-t e-f-f-e-c-t.

Some sites just don't load, others pull down the material to prevent fires, etc.

Re:404?

[mroch]

I was referring to the "Read more..." link to the rest of this story. I'm well aware of the /. effect, thank you.

no.

[the original m0nk]

i've recently made the plunge to mac os x fulltime (home AND work) as opposed to just occasionally at home running music or graphics apps.

no way is os x going to be as tight and stable and reliable on x86 as it is on apple hardware.

besides, apple hardware looks so sweet :)

No...

[skinfitz]

...but then I sprung the $2000 for a DP G5 and another $2000 on a PowerBook. What can I say - I have the money.

I strongly agree with what someone else said about the Mac's stability being very much a function of the fact it runs on known hardware configurations.

Don't get me wrong here - Windows has it's place. I have my XP machine which I use for games and believe it or not Quicken as in UK form is not available for the Mac.

Re:No...

[MadChicken]

Don't forget, according to the article, your $2000 DP G5 is "only as fast as a $1000 PC". I'd like to find that fast of a PC somewhere.

Face it, this whole article is flamebait.

Personally, I wouldn't run OS X on a PC... I have a Mac and love it, but I agree with you that it's a whole package, not just the OS...

Re:No...

[skinfitz]

Lets get one thing straight here - I come from a Mac hating background. I always thought, and still do, that OS9 is a piece of crap. It is.

OSX I always said was the one to watch, and sure enough it won me over. *NIX core with useable GUI.

The Mac isn't purely about speed. It's about being able to work comfortably and quickly. The main reason I bought a G5 was to run Cubase SX and it does this very very well. I have had literally no issues with the OS getting in the way. The other reason was the 1Ghz front side bus per 2Ghz 64bit CPU meaning it's unparalleled for multimedia apps.

Listen to me sounding like a zealot.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume a 1.8Ghz G5 is all that fast?

Re:No...

[MadChicken]

DP stands for *Dual* processors. Plus they're 64 bit, with specialized vector processors, and one VAST and FAST memory bandwidth.

I think it's safe to assume it's all that fast.

But hey you can find dual Opteron systems, and you can probably beat the speed, but remember, you are restricted to **$1000**.

Re:No...

[MadChicken]

I never bought in to OS up to 9 either, not counting my Mac Plus (4 years ago, it was an experiment). I jumped at the Panther level and it is very sweet. I have OS 9 installed on here somewhere, but I've never booted it. Never even wanted to.

The OS is very transparent, yes. I love how java seems to just fit right in with everything else. (e.g. Is NeoOffice/J REALLY all java? How can I tell?) GarageBand was a selling point for me, too.

However, as much as I play around with video capturing, compression & slight editing, I do all of that on my XP PC. a) Hardware (ATI MPEG2 capture is very nice) b) free tools (VirtualDub, TMPGenc, KVCD, AviSynth, DVDAuthorGUI, etc) c) The superdrive is not as reliable as my LG DVD burner, for some reason.

If I had the money for *software* I might switch over to doing multimedia stuff on here. But as for hardware, there's waaaay more bang for the buck on a Mac.

And here I go, sounding like a fanboy too. Back to my Debian box for a while, I think.

Re:No...

[DA-MAN]

DP stands for *Dual* processors. Plus they're 64 bit, with specialized vector processors, and one VAST and FAST memory bandwidth.

Actually it stands for double penetration . . .

Yes, but it's not what you think.

[solios]

I'm already a Mac user. I'm in that FUN bracket of having shit for credit and needing expandability to get anything done. I'm stuck on a dual g4 450, and for the price it would take me to buy a processor upgrade (dual 1.25 ghz- JUST SIX HUNDRED BUX!) I could buy a middlish PC with a decent video card.

Oh, and that PC is expandable, has more than two drive bays and one optical bay, and is stupidly cheaper to upgrade in terms of horsepower.

So if OS X on x86 were released and would run native OS X apps without recompiling* at the same speed as a g5 (or faster), yeah. I'd pick one up. I wouldn't completely SWITCH, because I still need Classic, and you can forget about that running on the PC. :P

People like me- Mac users who would jump the hardware boat for a cheaper, faster mac the SECOND they had the CHANCE- are why Apple will NEVER do this. EVER. :|

*It's NeXT. IT. CAN. DO. THIS. Or at least, it could.

Re:Yes, but it's not what you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason NeXT can do this is because it uses application bundles...just like Mac OS X!

NeXT application bundles had multiple binaries within the bundle; one for each hardware platform. It is perfectly possible to do this with Mac OS X as well; it uses the same bundle architecture.

Re:Yes, but it's not what you think.

[drinkypoo]

The only reason NeXT can do this is because it uses application bundles...just like Mac OS X!

Mod parent up, even though it's from an AC. NeXTStep did not feature a magic JIT translation layer to handle other architectures. Developers would have to support the system and new versions of the applications would have to be released with an x86 binary in the bundle.

Re:Yes, but it's not what you think.

[EddydaSquige]

Oh, and that PC is expandable, has more than two drive bays and one optical bay,

All of the powermac G4's (and probably the blue & white G3's) have four internal drive bays and two external (how many of those are optical depends on what you have, or if your willing to mod the machine).

Aint ever going to happen

[christurkel]

It issn't ever going to happen. Apple makes all their $$$ on their hardware. They have tight control of thier hardware and the OS which makes the seemless integration they enjoy easy.
If it came to x86, you know M$ will stop supporting the Mac. No more Office, which may not affect you but it would affect many people who need it for work.
And if it came to x86, you can bet Apple will still have custom roms to keep you from running windows on it or installing Mac OS X on just any hardware.
In short, it wont happen. Ever.

Re:Aint ever going to happen

[tricorn]

Apple hasn't had "custom ROMs" since the iMac in 1998. Open Firmware is used to boot, but that has a well-documented interface, and open-source versions of it are being developed. I've always thought that an excellent boot-loader would be to first load OF, then use that to load anything else. Build in ext2 support into OF, make Linux use OF directly to boot, and things could be a lot more flexible. Then, turn it around - get PC makers to use OF as the boot ROM, and load a legacy OF boot loader for backwards operating systems like Windows (unless and until they finally come around and support it directly themselves).

Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[jralls]

You're out of date. Macs are comparable (the WSJ's Walt Mossberg even claims cheaper) in price/performance to x86 boxes. When you factor in the reduction in neck pain, the lack of truly low-end macs is easily compensated for. OTOH, you can always get a used mac; OSX runs fine on any PPC version. As to your question, one of the main reasons that OSX is able to be so stable and still provide all of the eye-candy is because of a very small HCL. That advantage would be lost by moving to the rather chaotic wintel platform.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[dominyx]

Hmm, when I can throw together a Dell for $200 with a 2.8ghz processor and slap in a stick of ram and Geforce 6800 for $350 more, I don't think the price/performance is anywhere near comparable. When I can get a last-gen Mac for $500, then I'm game. Also, the only pain in the neck I've had around the office is supporting iBooks and G4s. Seems like all the Windows and Linux boxes play nice.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[drinkypoo]

OSX runs like crap on a G3 of less than about 800MHz, and even then there's features you won't get. It doesn't run too well on the slower G4s, either. I can't picture running OSX on an old imac for any purposes, though I can see putting darwin on there. Used macs are about three or four times as expensive as a low-end PC. High end macs are comparable in price to high end PCs, that much is true, but low end PCs are still dramatically cheaper than low end macs. I can get a fairly well-loaded P4 for what it costs to get a base imac. It's not as small or cute, and THAT is where Apple wins, in the "value added" of having a cute little machine, which is a benefit when space is at a premium or when someone just wants a pretty computer. Even your most attractive PC cases are still generally rectangular in shape, and I'm talking attractive to normal people, not gamers who want a case that looks like a demon's head.

You can't "factor in the reduction in neck pain" because it doesn't come with a dollar value and frankly my XP system doesn't give me trouble. This is of course because it's firewalled, updated, and I have a good virus scanner on it (I've seen about two viruses though, and I download from all sorts of shady sources) but these are not things that are out of the question for mere mortals and they're things I'd do with a Mac anyway.

You're spot on about the hardware support, though. It would eliminate much of the advantage of OSX. Besides, Apple is in the business of selling hardware more than software, and it would sharply decrease demand for their computers.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX runs fine on any PPC version

Mac OS X does not run at all on pre-G3 PPC Macs, and it does not run "fine" on the lower-end G3s, either.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[PrvtBurrito]

Hmm, where many of those support class for Office X or Mac/MS office 2004?

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[FuzzieNorn]

I used to run OS X on an original bondi iMac (233Mhz G3). It worked well enough for people to use Safari, iChat and Terminal without any problems, given enough RAM and with some of the eye candy like window shadows turned off.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[drachen]

OSX runs like crap on a G3 of less than about 800MHz, and even then there's features you won't get.

So which features are those? I have Mac OS X 10.3.5 running on my iBook 700Mhz (640MB RAM) and it works perfectly. Not slowly. Not like crap. In fact, 10.3 is faster than 10.2 ever was on here.

... my XP system ...

Ok, you say you have an XP system, but you don't mention your OS X system. So uh... you're just another anti-mac zealot, right?

Nothing to see here...

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[drinkypoo]

Safari is very fast when you're not having network problems, and useless if you are. Never tried to use iChat, and don't talk to me about terminal. You're talking about a tiny subset of computer functionality. I had a G3 350 (Yosemite) and it was abysmally slow, though I was kind of short on memory (256MB). It was a hell of a lot slower than a 350 MHz P2 system with 256MB ram running windows 2000, though.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[dbarclay10]

You're out of date. Macs are comparable (the WSJ's Walt Mossberg even claims cheaper) in price/performance to x86 boxes.

That article (and most others like it) compare brand-name Apple hardware to brand-name x86 hardware; typically from the likes of IBM, sometimes from the likes of Deel.

If you're going to add 20-30% markup by going with a brand-name vendor, of course it comes out to about the same, at least now that the Apple has the G5.

However, if you want to build your own, or buy a beige box, there's no comparison. You can easily get comparable x86 hardware for two thirds or even half the price of a Mac.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

On my 333Mhz G3, Safari can't even keep up with my typing in textboxes. Basic programs like MS Word are unusable. The machine is basically useless beyond simple web sufing. (At least for me, having been spoiled by 1Ghz+ PCs for many years.)

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[FuzzieNorn]

Well, yes, this was on a stable broadband link, as just a spare machine, for web browsing and ssh when the other machines were in use. IE was fine too, but the Gecko-based stuff on OS X chews RAM and CPU. And, yes, OS X is slow as hell compared to Windows, even with the eye candy turned off, but it's really not totally unusable on that era of machine, with enough RAM.

256mb is indeed not enough, though. 384mb is the minimum for sane OS X usage on any machine, as ridiculous at that may be, especially given Apple still ship new machines with 256mb as default.

I should probably have just put OS 9 on the thing, but it worked as it was, and I have a hatred of old MacOS versions. Runs Debian now, and is very zoomy for aforementioned web browsing and ssh purposes.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird. You sure you have a decent amount of RAM in that thing?

And, it's not 'useless', it's just useless with an OS installed which is intended for newer, faster machines. I'm sure Linux or OS 9 would be fine.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Billly Gates]

Not expensive??

Go read yesterdays news and look for an article from an editor who switched to a mac for a month?

$3000 later and they include a crappy RAedon 9600?? Increadible.

Apple is like an expensive SGI or SUN workstation. Nice eye candy but a lintel or wintel system performs better for a fraction of the cost.

Apple needs to be reasonable or go under. THey overcharge alot to satisfy their investors.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, as I *only* have 320MB of RAM. Keep in mind that this machine shipped with 64MB though.

Your point about the OS is correct -- OS X is bloated and CPU heavy. Yet Mac Zealots like the parent say the opposite; that there is some Mac Magic that makes old hardware usable.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[eMartin]

I think the main one is that Quartz Extreme doesn't work on many of the machines released just before yours. That has a lot to do with the whole "runs like crap" thing.

Altivec also helps with OS X, and is only a feature on G4s and up.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's true if you live in the U.S.
But here in Brazil a *good* x86 box costs just about the same as a crappy Mac.

Let's say I want to buy a new computer, a decent one. I could either spend about R$6000 on a pretty damn good PC, or about R$18000 on a pretty good Mac. Also, if you don't live in a really big city or near one, chances are that you'll need to travel quite a bit to find somewhere you can buy a Mac.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

My sister has a 350Mhz iMac running 10.3 and while it can't play the latest 3D games, (hell you can't even watch Divx Movies) it is totally capable of surfing the web in Safari, listening to music in iTunes, and writing documents in Word. And that's with 128M of RAM. I was actually impressed with how well it works.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Mattintosh]

OSX runs like crap on a G3 of less than about 800MHz

No, OSX runs just fine on my PowerBook G3 333MHz. It has 320MB of RAM. And for reference, the system bus clocks at 66MHz, so OSX works just fine with that performance limitation as well. I run Mail, TextEdit, iCal, Address Book, Word X, Excel X, Powerpoint X, Entourage X, iTunes, Melody Assistant, Audio Overload, Graphic Converter, Safari, IE(if necessary), and Terminal on it. All work just fine, and at a decent speed.

Being from the old (read: MacOS 8 and 9) school, I tend not to run more than 2 or 3 apps at a time, which probably helps performance. Then again, my Athlon (32-bit 3000+, 1GB DDR333, Win2k) system even chokes occasionally when I run too many apps at once. It's usually a disk usage problem.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Sheepdot]

No offense, but I'd consider the comparision of the campus lab monitors to be far more accurate than the comparision made by a journalist. Even if he is from the WSJ.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Zork the Almighty]

The picture gets more interesting when you consider notebooks though :) I was recently in the market for a 12" notebook, and ended up getting an iBook. On price (cheap), performance (midrange), and battery life (long) there was no contest. For 14" notebooks PCs were much more competitive, but for good battery life you need a Pentium-M and that made it expensive. And if you want decent wireless under Linux, it is going to cost you more on average.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Bert64]

The "neck pain" he refers to is the installation and keeping up to date of your firewall and antivirus software, not to mention the tweaking of the firewall when apps need to access things being blocked by the firewall, aswell as the keeping up to date of the base os. None of these things are necessary on a mac. A base install of OSX will not become worm fodder, doesnt require a firewall (although a very capable one comes by default) and even without updates will not get remote rooted under default settings.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[ggy]

And Windows runs like crap on anything lower than a P3-1 GHz (you should see it on my P2-333, in fact, I'm writing this on it). Seriously, KDE runs like crap on slow hardware. So why do people keep using this argument? And when comparing prices, why not compare Mac prices with high-end, well designed PCs, like http://www.alienware.com/ or http://www.falcon-nw.com/? Last time I did it, I found the prices to roughly the same.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[drinkypoo]

Low end hardware? A P3-1GHz isn't even on the map any more. I'm talking about 1.6GHz P4s and ~2.4GHz Celeron systems, which are seriously inexpensive. I've already stated in numerous comments that in the high end, macs and PCs are price-comparable.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[JamieF]

>It doesn't run too well on the slower G4s, either.

This is just nonsense. My wife has a 450MHz G4 desktop and it's totally fine at running OS X and a bunch of apps all at once (Firefox, Mail, Photoshop, BBEdit, Terminal, InDesign, etc. etc.). Only when you're doing something that's very very CPU intensive do you need a faster machine. I can't convince her that she needs a faster machine because it's fine for the stuff she's doing (web development, Photoshop, etc.). It's fine for 3D games too (WarCraft III, Dungeon Siege, etc.). I repeat: only if your work is extremely CPU-intensive or if you've just got to play the latest greatest 3D game would you need anything faster.

One word of advice for anyone wanting to get the most out of an old Mac: max out the RAM in your machine. Unlike Classic Mac OS, OS X will actually use it.

Re:Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

"OSX runs like crap on a G3 of less than about 800MHz"

Not true. I run Panther on a four-year-old 500 MHz G3 laptop (Pismo) every day. Email, Firefox, Photoshop, and Xcode for Java dev all run fine. It's not blazingly fast, but decent and stable.

Never happen

[PhreakMac]

It would never happen, Why would apple allow for vendors to put their OS on some $500 POS??

If it was centrally manageable

[That_Dan_Guy]

I'm a Windows Admin, and live by Group Policy and remote administration tools under Windows 2000/2003 (NT4 had some stuff, but boy did it suck in comparison). I do not know what equivalent things are available under OS X or even unix/Linux. I've only installed Linux on a hobby basis (shrug).

But if I could manage them at least as well as I can with Group Policy, sure I'd switch.

It would also have to be able to run all the shrink rapped stuff we support.

I used to be a big Mac user, back 12+ years ago. So yeah, I'd love to get back to that. It sure seemed like computers were fun back then. But maybe thats becuase it was just a hobby and not my work :)

Re:If it was centrally manageable

[rwoodford]

Compare Mac OS X Server and Apple Remote Desktop to what you work with now. You can do a lot with these packages.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/

Re:If it was centrally manageable

[Artega VH]

Two clicks into the apple.com website and you find OSX Server

Also keep in mind OSX has BSD under the hood.. the things you can do with Group Policy and remote admin can easily be replicated under a *nix environment. Apple also has graphical tools to do these things too..

Re:If it was centrally manageable

[TimTheFoolMan]

It would also have to be able to run all the shrink rapped stuff we support.

You have to support Psychiatrists doing Kutmasta Kurt & DJ Whookid tracks? That must be a very interesting workplace.

Tim

I'd Rather Fight Than Switch

[Pensacola Tiger]

Actually not. If OSX was available for x86 architecture, I'd switch in a New York minute! But, I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.

Re:I'd Rather Fight Than Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yet our best trained, best educated, best equipped, best prepared troops refuse to fight. Matter of fact it's safe to say that they would rather switch than fight."

Martin Luther King

full speed of x86 at half the price?

[Billly Gates]

Sign me up for Apple!

Joking aside I hate x86 and if you have ever done assembly level programing you can see why it sucks. Its ancient, awkward, very obsolete, etc.

I dont understand why Apple's have to be expensive. Powerpc's are not that expensive and I see a trend to lower the quality and speed of things like their video cards in the most expensive macs.

They are ripping you off to applease shareholders.

IF they are not carefull they may turn the way of SUN and SGI. They just made their equipment proprietary and super expensive while Windows cannibolized their makert with NT/2000.

Re:full speed of x86 at half the price?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not really much more expensive then an adequately equipped x86 counterpart. Also the speed issue, since when is PPC slower then a half price x86. I think some architectural research needs to be done, rather they just posting based on what your friends told you. x86 assembly is nasty, PPC assembly is where it's at. I do think Apple needs to figure out a pricing scheme that is a bit friendlier, but don't necessarily think they are overcharing on high end boxes that are comprable x86 high end boxes from companies like Alienware or the Dell High End machines..

just my two.5 cents

Re:full speed of x86 at half the price?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing bad about the x86 is that it has few registers and there is a FPU stack. SSE helped with the latter but not everyone has a CPU with SSE. There are some great things the x86 has like being little endian, handling unaligned memory access with a small hit, and no differentiation between GP registers and address registers (except for a few specialized instructions).

Re:full speed of x86 at half the price?

[tricorn]

Oh, come now. I've done a lot of programming in assembly with PDP-11, 8080, Cyber, 68K and Alpha - I saw the transition from 8080 to 8086 and beyond, and it wasn't until the 386 that they started to get anything right, and it still has a lot of garbage in it. 8080 was fun for an 8-bit inexpensive chip, but the IBM PC going the Intel route was a mistake, probably based on trying to stay close to the "standard" system, which was CP/M running on an 8080 or Z80. The 68K was so much better at the time, much reduced programmer hassle even in higher-level languages (remember FAR and NEAR and HUGE pointers? "Expanded" vs. "extended" memory?), and already a 32-bit architecture from the ISA side. The 68020 with an MMU and FPU was really a complete processor.

I haven't done anything significant in PPC, and I prefer the Alpha architecture to it, but it is still much cleaner than IA-32. I haven't looked at AMD-64, but from all I hear, it is a significant improvement, and I have to agree that the Opteron processors are damned fast.

Having worked a lot with both big- and little-endian processors (and processors with different character sizes than 8 bits, processors with different word sizes than power-of-two, processors without byte-addressable pointers), big-endian generally is less hassle. It simply matches better with (western, at least - reading characters and numbers left to right) expectations. The one advantage it might have is that if you have a small value in a long, but reference the pointer as a shorter type, you get the same value. That can also be considered a drawback - bugs are more quickly found if you get totally wrong values always instead of only when the value gets too large. It could also be done while retaining big-endian order by having a pointer always point to the LSB.

Of course, the PC architecture itself has always been a total mess, which is one reason I'd never switch to a PC running a Mac OS. If I needed a cheap machine, I suppose I'd get a PC and run Linux or *BSD on it. Not to say Apple hardware is always great - kludges abound, although from my experience, the clone makers (during their short run) managed to screw things up on their machines a lot more than Apple did.

Mac OSX on a $2000 G5 (plus about $500 to add an Airport card, 1GB RAM and 250GB disk) suits me fine right now, though. At least for the code that's important to me, it runs faster than anything I've tried other than an Opteron (code is 64-bit intensive). The Opteron smokes it, though - due in part, I'm pretty sure, to better optimization in gcc, but still...but how much does an equivalent Opteron machine cost (honest question - going name-brand, they appear to be more expensive, and I can't tell quality of the off-brand or parts route)?

counterintuitive interface

[chuckychesthair]

For me, the Mac interface has always been an example of how not to do it. I want my menu's where my program window is, I don't want to drag cd's to the garbage to get them out, I don't want to have programs running after I click to close them.

I seem to be in the minority, but I don't like to work that way. So, unless they port KDE to the x86 OSX port, I won't be using it, no matter how streamlined it all works together.

CC

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

There are reasons for the decisions that Apple makes, and a lot of them are documented. You can look at their Human Interface Guidelines here.

To quickly answer why they have the menus at the top of the screen: Fitts' law, which describes the amount of time that it takes to move a mouse pointer to an object on the screen, indicates that it's easier to get to the menu items at the top, since you can move your mouse pointer up with no regard for missing the menu bar. Because you run up against the edge of the screen, that parameter is effectively infinite, and reduces the amount of fine controlling you have to do to select your item.

You can also do further reading about such user interface decisions in the book 'The Humane Interface' by Jef Raskin, one of the orginal developers of the Macintosh and its interface. Their decisions for dragging disks to the trash, and having a one button mouse really DID make sense at the time, but a lot of those decisions are lost on us now, especially if we don't have a long Mac background.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Mike Farooki]

You are, at least in part, ill-informed. CDs can be ejected in any number of ways in OS X: keyboard shortcut (which is by default cmd-e), selecting File > Eject from the menu, dragging the CD to the trash (which changes to an eject icon when you start dragging, by the way), control-clicking or right-clicking (on a two-button mouse) on the CD and selecting eject.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Tibor the Hun]

You don't drag the CD into trash, you drag it on the "eject" button.

You're not closing the program, you're closing it's window. (if you really want to close it, you click on it's name and then click on "quit") (Once you start using an OS which actually does have a working and stable memory management, you find out how nice it is to have a dozen programs running, even though you're not using them all at once.)

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fitts' Law argument stinks of bogositiy when you have to move your mouse pointer 2-3 feet to get to the menubar (see 30" displays or multi-monitor systems).

Face it -- it was justified design decision on a 9" screen in 1984, and now it's more of an "Apple Trademark" than a good UI.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

Not at all. In fact, the problem is seriously and badly amplified with such a large monitor. The elements that you're trying to point to are now even smaller, and you have to go further to get to them. In such an instance, having something that you can throw your mouse pointer up at should be relatively faster, as long as you haven't attempted to eat a rock and set your mouse movement speed or acceleration very low.

An even better system at that point would actually be NeXTStep's implementation of application menus. The application menu sat in the top left corner at all times (though you could move it around, if you wanted to), but right clicking brought a copy of the menu to the mouse pointer. It wasn't contextual - it was a full application menu. Such menus have their drawbacks as well, though.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Anonymous Coward]

Their decisions for dragging disks to the trash, and having a one button mouse really DID make sense at the time, but a lot of those decisions are lost on us now, especially if we don't have a long Mac background.

If I have to have a "long Mac background" in order to find their interface intuitive, it's not really intuitive, is it?

Re:counterintuitive interface

[voixderaison]

All negative sigs are moderated "Troll". Well, not all of them. Just yours.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

As I've explained many times, I have my reasons for doing this. Mainly, I don't think the moderation system works. Temporary moderators shouldn't be able to moderate negatively, since they tend to abuse the system. The perma-moderators should do all of that. The rest of us should spend our time moderating comments UP.

Most of the time, negative mod points are used just because people don't like what's being said, not because what's being said is ACTUALLY flamebait, a troll or overrated. 'Overrated' is way too subjective in any case.

I stand by my sig.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Mac Degger]

"Their decisions for dragging disks to the trash, and having a one button mouse really DID make sense at the time, but a lot of those decisions are lost on us now,"

Look at that last sentence, and recall the syaing 'move with the times'; legacy shit is just that: crap which shouldn't be there anymore. Or to use a technical term: cruft.

And as for your sig: you're a real asshole if you do that to posts which (obviously) spread wrong/false info or are just plain dumb: they deserve to be modded out of sight, and are in fact the reason moderation was put in place. Wanker.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[voixderaison]

I simply couldn't resist the temptation of a flippant response to your provocative sig. I agree that the moderation system has flaws, but one of the most annoying is that hideously dull and even factually incorrect stuff gets modded up to 5, and I must filter it out with my wetware. I often make use of the "Overrated" mod while meta-moderating, and I consider it to be a valuable use of mod points.

In fact, to counter this problem of mod point inflation, perhaps everyone should be required to devote 1/3 of their mod points to modding down as "Overrated".

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X is only "unintuitive" if you already use Windows, and have it drilled into you. Macs are not easier to use than Windows machines for people who know how to use Windows but not Macs. It amazes me how many Windows users think that Macs are poorly designed because they do not behave the way they expect them to, coming from another platform. I mean, duh.

The Apple way of dealing with windows and menus is way more logical and efficient, if you study principles of usability, instead of blithely assuming that different=wrong. Say you have a Windows app with multiple pallets, windows, etc. How do you know which one to close to close the application? You have to invent some inane concept like a "main window" or some disaster like the since-abandoned multiple document interface- windows within windows. And how do you know if you have one application open with 2 windows, or two instances of the same application running?

A window should be a window. Some of them maybe should have smaller buttons or whatever, but they should all operate according to the same principles. OS X, for example, largely gets rid of floating dialog boxes.

Because all windows are not equal in Windows, people who use it all the time develop a warped idea of what a "program" is. To them, a program is a window. But really, a program is something that can spawn windows. This is true for any OS. Using a Mac helps people who do not know a lot about computers develop a workflow that matches what is actually going on behind the scenes.

Having the menubar at the top of the screen enables you to always know what program is in the foreground--- and it enables you to interact with a program that has no open windows. To open a file, say. If it weren't for OS X's stupid-ass putting the name of the application next to the Apple menu, I'd be able to say that it makes it so that common options like "File" and "edit" are always in the same spot, but that ain't the case.

Also, it makes sense to keep some programs open all the time due, yadda yadda.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Graff]

Most of the time, negative mod points are used just because people don't like what's being said, not because what's being said is ACTUALLY flamebait, a troll or overrated. 'Overrated' is way too subjective in any case.

So when a moderator takes the time to moderate down a true troll or flamebait you punish the moderator by meta-moderating it as unfair? To me that just means that you are just being lazy and not checking to see whether or not that was a responsible moderation.

Sometimes trolls are trolls, and flamebaits are flamebaits. Moderators who properly judge those posts should be rewarded in meta. Those who abuse moderation should be punished in meta. That's what meta moderation is for.

If you truly have a problem with the moderation system then take it up with the Slashdot editors and policy makers, not the responsible moderators.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

I would actually feel much better about the system if it took TWICE as many points to mod negatively as positively. People use the negative points too readily, and it makes my job as a temp moderator harder when I'm trying to look for honestly good material to promote.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

I disagree. While I agree that some of the moderators may use their points responsibly, I think that most people just waste them doing a job that they shouldn't be allowed to do. I HAVE taken it up with Cmdr. Taco himself, and he doesn't agree with me. This is my form of protest. I think the system is flawed. The practice of karma-bombing is fairly well documented, and this is pretty much the only avenue I have left. It prompts a response from people like you, and even if you disagree with my methods, I've at least gotten the chance to tell you how I think the system is broken. Slowly, I might be able to convince more people, and then maybe the Slashdot editors will listen to us.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

Some people are unwilling to change. The command line could be considered 'cruft' as well, from certain perspectives. The one-button mouse and trashcan-eject still work well enough, and there are other methods as well. You don't have to rely on them at all.

As for my sig, read my other responses in this thread. I have my reasons. I don't really think it my opinion requires name-calling. To be honest, from this brief interaction with you, you're the reason why I don't think people should have negative mod points.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[IamTheRealMike]

The original Mac menubar might have obeyed Fitts law because the most commonly accessed menus were always in the same place. Since they introduced a menu with the applications name, that fact is no longer true and so any usability advantage it once had has been lost. Nowadays it's just a relic from the early days that they can't remove for branding reasons.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Dixie_Flatline]

No, Fitts' law still holds. What you're thinking of is a reduction in the use of muscle memory. However, unless the application name is QUITE large, I find that my attempts to find the menu items largely through automatic muscle memory movement are unaffected.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Anonymous Coward]

I also found it troublesome to use the application menu when working on a second monitor. Then I found DejaMenu , and I've been happy ever since I installed it. It just pops the main application menu under a contextual menu. Very handy!

Re:counterintuitive interface

[Graff]

This is my form of protest. I think the system is flawed. The practice of karma-bombing is fairly well documented, and this is pretty much the only avenue I have left. It prompts a response from people like you, and even if you disagree with my methods, I've at least gotten the chance to tell you how I think the system is broken. Slowly, I might be able to convince more people, and then maybe the Slashdot editors will listen to us.

Unfortunately your whole plan has backfired. You have simply managed to convince me that the current system is correct. Meta moderation (properly used) is the answer for bad moderation. The only remaining problem is bad meta moderators who should be removed from the meta moderation system entirely.

Proper meta moderation will eventually remove bad moderators from the moderation pool. Meta moderation is a tool for creating responsible moderators. By subverting that system all you are doing is making the moderation process worse. You are potentially knocking out good moderators simply because they use the full power of moderation.

It is just as important to Slashdot to lower the score of posts of negative value as it is to raise the score of posts of positive value. Try browsing at -1 sometime. Now imagine if most of those posts remained at 0 or 1, the sheer amount of negative content would essentially negate the value of having any score below 2.

You say you want the editors of Slashdot to be the only ones who knock down negative posts? There are thousands of posts a day and only a dozen or so editors. This would not only flood the editors with a lot of messages to moderate but even worse it would put that moderation in the hands of a few people and their own biases. This would make the potential for abuse much greater as one "bad apple" could do far much more damage when he is one of a dozen than if he is one of a few hundred.

Re:counterintuitive interface

[OneDeeTenTee]

I agree with your sig.

I'll have to see if I can recall the password for my old account so I can start putting it into practice.

No

[PoiBoy]

While many people like OSX for the easy-to-use GUI, I prefer the simple look of XFCE that I use with Linux.

Don't get me wrong, the OSX interface is very easy to use, even for complete novices.

I just happen to like a very basic, clean interface that allows me to have a few xterms, applixware, and firefox up and running.

Umm...

[Izago909]

Not going to happen any time soon.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/02/apples_x86 _os_named_sized/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdewk/is _200208/ai_ziff30554

This is about as close as you are going to get. Just google for "Marklar". It'd be nice to see, but Apple makes a nice margin on its hardware, and x86 would destroy it.

Since this is likely a marketing test by Apple

[itsNothing]

Let me contribute my 2 cents.

In a heartbeat.

x86 is the Hummer of the computer world.

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerPC is the BMW.

in a heart beat

[yaroze32]

maybe even quicker

I sure would

[Zugot]

and I would *pay* for it too.

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

yes

Why switch?

[muyuubyou]

The only "issues" I have with Linux is being forced to use certain windows apps (work mostly and no, I'm not leaving a job I like just so I can delete my windows partition). I also have a Mac and yes, if MacOSX was available, I'd install it, but I wouldn't "switch" - why should I use just one OS?

The whole "switch" thing is for basic users I guess. The rest of us aren't afraid to partition a hard drive.

Re:Why switch?

[hc00jw]

The whole "switch" thing is for basic users I guess. The rest of us aren't afraid to partition a hard drive

But surely you have a *primary* OS? You know, the one you check your emails, chat, browse the internet, and generally do your day to day stuff in? What's the point in setting that stuff up in more than one OS? Sure, it can be done, but things like chat histories and bookmarks have to be moved from system to system, if they are compatible at all, and email would have to use a protocol like IMAP, not POP (unless you leave the messages on the server, but then you have to download all those attachments again), and... Why bother?

So, to rephrase the question;
If Mac OS X came to x86, would you switch to it as your default OS?

Re:Why switch?

[muyuubyou]

It would be a good option, but if it wasn't free or very cheap, I wouldn't pay for a second MacOSX license. I read my mail and browse the web from three computers regularly. One is my Mac laptop which is nice for the bedroom. My linux AMD64 has a better keyboard and mouse, and in the office Win2k doesn't give me much trouble.

My personal mail accounts have nice web interfaces and I leave all main in the server except to remove clutter and ancient mail. I refuse to check my work accounts from home.

Re:Why switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've run over 5 different OSes at one point or another, and you know why I've deleted all but one?

The computer can only actually run one at a time.

So these days, when it comes to dual-booting, whats the point? you're essentially condemning half your hard drive to not be used.

Re:Why switch?

[krunk7]

The whole "switch" thing is for basic users I guess. The rest of us aren't afraid to partition a hard drive.

I switched. I still use linux for my server, but moved to osx on my desktop and laptop. My question to you would be: Why reboot just to use a different app when you can run all of them on one OS?

Of course, you may have an application that can only be run for one OS, but this is rare. If not, than choosing the one OS that provides the choice of open source and the software options of the windows world isn't basic.....it's just plain smart.

Re:Why switch?

[Moofie]

Why would I partition my hard drive if OSX does absolutely everything I could want it to?

I guess I must just be a "basic user". I wish I could be more like you, O Elite One.

Afraid to partition a hard drive? No. Think it's a pretty silly thing to have to do? Ayup.

Be careful how you phrase your questions...

[bahamat]

If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?

If you watch the keynote speeches by Jobs at the WWDC and by Schillner at the Apple Expo you'll see that Tiger is meant to do just that.

And yes, I already id switch, I'm typing this up on my new 20" iMac G5.

I would consider it...

[Sanity]

...and that is sad. There is no good reason that free (as in speech) operating systems should not be as good if not better than OSX, but they simply aren't. OSX is great, and Apple has a more open attitude towards their OS than Microsoft, but it is not free (as in beer or speech).

Furthermore, I regret to say that I don't see much prospect of any of the Linux GUI efforts approaching the ease of use and elegance of OS X any time soon - partially due to a lack of imagination, and partially due to being over-wedded to X which is evolving way too slowly and is over-wedded to a basic design that is simply outdated.

Re:I would consider it...

[Amigori]

The open source community doesn't have as good of a reason to improve the usability as Apple does. Apple is a business and needs to make money, the various Linux gui maintainers, a community project, do not. Apple's big feature is the usability of their computers; for everyone, not just geeks. Linux vendors don't sell computers to everyday people with everyday needs; they sell to geeks who know what linux is good for. Two different target markets, two different reasons for improvements. Now I'm not saying that Linux developers aren't on the right track, which they are, and improvements can be seen throughout, but they are serving different markets.

If you don't like the way X is moving along, feel free to help. You're a veteran here, so I don't need to tell you where to find X. As a veteran, I'm surprised that you fell for a troll article like this. Although, I'm just as guilty in my response here.

As for paying for the OS, I will gladly pay Apple for their products, hardware and software. Is it more expensive? Not to me. My PBG4 has higher resale value if I ever sell it than a comparable dell/etc., I don't have to recompile and spend hours troubleshooting just to get my soundcard/joystick to work, which it still doesn't on my Suse 9.1 box, and I am more productive on my PB, I get the same things done quicker so I have more time for the things that I value in life, like playing with my dog or reading a non-sci-fi book. If you, as your primary mode of transportation, had the knowledge and resources to build a car versus buying one, what would you pick? Buy the car most likely, I would.

Can the Ask Slashdot topic itself be moderated (-1) Troll or (-1) Flamebait? Please?
Amigori

Re:I would consider it...

[Coryoth]

Furthermore, I regret to say that I don't see much prospect of any of the Linux GUI efforts approaching the ease of use and elegance of OS X any time soon - partially due to a lack of imagination, and partially due to being over-wedded to X which is evolving way too slowly and is over-wedded to a basic design that is simply outdated.

Yes, X11 really sucks. It sucks so bad that Apple packages it for OS X and calls it a significant feature.

Could you explain a little more as to why X11 sucks, or what exactly it is about X11's design that is so horribly outdated? I agree that under XFree86 things were progressin a little slowly, but now that Xorg has geared up we're seeing some significant improvements coming pretty fast.

Sure, right now Linux desktops are not exactly as "easy and elegant" as OS X, but on some levels they are very good indeed, and more importantly, they are improving surprisingly quick. X11 is far from the albatross you seem to think.

Jedidiah.

Re:I would consider it...

[crazyphilman]

You know, I don't understand why everyone keeps insisting that Linux is so difficult. I use Linux, OS/X, and windows, and the truth is, KDE doesn't seem to be any harder than Windows or Mac OS/X.

Take burning CDs for example. With KDE, I ran an app to burn CDs (like with Windows); with OS/X, I had to drag items onto the CD icon, then right click it, then select "burn disk"... Which is mystifying to someone used to using a third-party app. It took me a while to figure that out, simple as it is. I spent at least an hour looking for a third-party app, wondering whether Apple even supplied one. Some things can be made so simple that they baffle people.

So, which is easier? Kind of depends on how you're used to working, doesn't it? Some aspects of OS/X take some getting used to. KDE is more like windows in that it has a start menu, with easily-labelled apps, so it's more accessible in some ways to users migrating from Windows.

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Re:I would consider it...

[T-Ranger]

Ill wander into this tarpit of X11.

IMHO the problem with X, and surrounding technology, is the "not my problem" syndrome. X11, by itself, provides very little. Arranging windows is not its problem, thats for the window manager. Drawing the content of the windows is not either X11s or the windows managers problem, thats for the app. This is why you cant either really "draw window contents while dragging" or true transparency; both work by taking a screenshot and drawing that. X11 has some abilities to cut/paste, but it is limited to text only. Not text plus some limited formating. Text only. Period. Gnome (and assumably KDE) deal with this in their own ways, but not with each other, or other things like OOo and Mozilla, or the X11 way. At least not all the time.

What the fuck is a MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1?

Before anyone jumps on me, I am aware that both those things Ive mentioned are getting solved. The come to mind because of that.. But they are getting solved 20 years after they should have been.

Re:I would consider it...

[Inuchance]

The biggest problem I found with X11 is that it's ugly! All I get is this grey screen and an terminal window. ...Er, wait, what's this about needing a window manager?

Re:I would consider it...

[Khelder]

I don't know if this is intended to be a troll or flamebait (which it was mod'ed as), but I'll reply anyway.

This is why you cant either really "draw window contents while dragging" or true transparency; both work by taking a screenshot and drawing that.

If the window manager is written to allow it, there's no reason you can't draw window contents while dragging them in X. I'm not sure if any WMs today do that, or if they just let you see the static contents of the window while dragging. But it's not a limitation in X.

This doesn't mean we should abandon X. (Not that the parent advocated this, but there's some noise about it from others who make similar comments.) It means we should continue developing it (and apps and WMs that run on it) to be better.

What the fuck is a MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1?

It's used for authenticating clients, so you can do things like run the app on a different computer than the one you're sitting at. If you use tools like ssh to remotely log in, which automatically handles the authentication, you shouldn't ever see this.

Re:I would consider it...

[IamTheRealMike]

The open source community doesn't have as good of a reason to improve the usability as Apple does. Apple is a business and needs to make money, the various Linux gui maintainers, a community project, do not.

That clearly is not true - a lot of the people driving usability for GNOME are working for Red Hat, Novell, and Sun. They want a desktop system they can sell to the corporate world and that has to be easy to use.

Re:I would consider it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat, Novell, and Sun do not see the Linux desktop as a competitive advantage. They see it as a "good enough" replacement, usually for Unix workstation users accustomed to CDE.

Meanwhile, Apple's desktop superiority has been their primary sales point for many years. So Apple does have have a lot more motivation in this department.

Sure

[erick99]

I was a loyal Mac fan from the first "skinny" 128KB mac up to the Mac II (worked for a dealer from '83 to '99). Then Apple got too arrogant for my tastes and Windows was catching up in terms of a decent GUI so I switched to Wintel. However, if OX X worked well within x86 platform I would seriously consider switching. I think the number of people that would switch is not a small number. In fact, I am guessing it is a big enough number to make it worth considering. What I do not know about are any technological hurdles. Does anyone know if this is possible within a cost framework that would allow OS-X86 to be sold at a reasonable price and profit? Surely they have thought about this.

Applications Applications Applications....

[ndfa]

Its not really the OS that matters anymore; I think this is true for more ppl. than others...

For developers using Emacs / Vi the tools on all these are about the same.... If you use Eclipse then you are golden no matter where you go!

The main reason to not get away from Windowz then ends up being for most ppl i think the network effect! Fools keep sending documents in Word / Excel / PPT format that does NOT always work on OpenOffice etc... so what do you do, swithc to windows and keep working!

NOTE: If Apple did get off its high horse and release the OS-X to x86 then we could see M$ being forced to port the software cause of legal reasons which could be great for us!

If hte apps come, hte users will follow!

Re:Applications Applications Applications....

[Anonymous Coward]

Balmer, is that you?
Seriously though, as a Mac user of some years it irritates me that so many people think we can't read word documents without office. They open and translate just fine. PC columnists almost always get this wrong. Textedit even opens them. If it's something that is for layout, I want a .pdf .period.

No apps

[kundor]

There would be NO APPLICATIONS. Mac programs are compiled for the powerpc architecture, so the binaries wouldn't work. Windows programs wouldn't work except through something like Wine, which won't work any better for Mac than it does for Linux.

The only apps you could use would be source-based unix stuff, which you can use on linux anyway, and many of which won't actually run on OS X without a lot of work first.

So no...I wouldn't switch.

Re:No apps

[bahamat]

If you build it they will come.

If Apple ported OS X to x86 software vendors would do the same.

Re:No apps

[zangdesign]

There would be NO APPLICATIONS. Mac programs are compiled for the powerpc architecture, so the binaries wouldn't work.

Great googaly-moogaly! What a jam! What a fix! What a ... the compiler is readily available? Oh, well, then recompile that sucker!

Yeah, it's that simple. If you port the OS, you have to port the libraries because of the way the OS works, so obviously, you have to use a X86-based Objective C compiler, which it turns out is GCC.

Does that answer your question?

Re:No apps

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple ported OS X to x86 software vendors would do the same.

No they wouldn't, and it would be a disaster. Software vendors are cheap and lazy. They wouldn't rewrite their stuff for OS X-on-x86, they'd crank out half-assed ports of the Windows versions because it'd save money and time.

Any Mac users out there remember Microsoft Word 6.0 and/or the version of Office that contained it? Well, the reason it was so slow and shitty was because Microsoft recycled a great deal of bloated Word for Windows code in the Mac version. Customers were so outraged over the poor quality and speed of Word 6.0 that sales plunged and Microsoft had to resume selling Word 5.1 right alongside it. A case could be made that the forming of the Mac Business Unit at Microsoft was a direct result of the Word 6 fiasco.

Don't expect other software vendors to learn from Microsoft's experience. I'd bet my house that Mac-on-x86 users would have plenty of subpar software foisted off on them, at least at first. If Apple didn't act quickly to stop that sort of thing it would have a negative effect on the Mac platform as a whole.

Re:No apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah. Just like NT on alpha.

Re:No apps

[jcr]

There would be NO APPLICATIONS. ..for about a month. Then all the existing Mac vendors will have recompiled their apps to make fat binaries, and run through their Q/A process.

-jcr

Re:No apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's big software vendors like Adobe and Microsoft ALREADY aren't happy about their declining marketshare. If Apple split their installed base in half, it would be a disaster, and probably kill the major apps on the Mac.

Re:No apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Wine? Did you know Apple's engineers are involved in the Wine Project?

Hmmm?...

Re:No apps

[Anonymous Coward]

So the minute Apple releases MacOSX for x86 , every goddamn commercial software vendor will have recompiled and are ready to release an x86 version.
Not in this real world, mate.

Re:No apps

[constantnormal]

Gee -- I always thought that apps were compiled from source code, not hand-patched from raw binary.

Y'know... Xcode uses gcc... which can target the x86 platform (check your Linux kernel makefiles) as well as the PPC, as well as a host of others.

That reduces the *no apps* problem to a glue layer of code that replicates the Mach microkernel which OS X resides on, shielding the OS from a lot of the underlying hardware detail. D'ya think that maybe an x86 version providing functionality of the Mach microkernel already exists somewhere? Like maybe for the x86 Darwin port?
[http://www.apple.com/opensource/]

Seems to me that a LARGE percentage of existing OS X apps could be recompiled to an x86 OS X platform almost overnight [slight exaggeration]. No, that list does not include Windows apps targeting the Windows-dictated hardware platform. I don't believe that I am handicapped in the slightest by their absence.

But I'll bet you thought apps grew on trees... ... binary trees :-)

However, I'm not advocating an x86 OS X.
PPC architecture is different from x86, and has many advantages. Even if the economic argument (OS X goes x86, and Apple dies, taking OS X with it) were not there, I would prefer the existing market arrangements.

If others are not willing to do reasonable comparisons (i.e., don't compare a stripped down beige box to a dual cpu G5 -- or even a single cpu iMac), or have ridiculous requirements (like wanting all their old apps to run on a new machine, when they are perfectly happy to upgrade them for new Windows software that requires faster underlying hardware) -- hey, that's OK. Just don't whine about a lack of choices -- I'm pretty sure that the marketplace assures us that all the viable choices are available.

I chose a platform I like, with an underlying architecture that appeals to me, that works for a long, long time without requiring me to upgrade hardware every couple of years (I have a 1996 PowerMac that runs OSX, as well as a year-old dual G5 that I expect to keep for at least 5-6 years). I like not having to subscribe to antivirus software and having a reasonably secure system out of the box. I find that, for me, no software exists (and no, I'm not a gamer) for the Windows platform that does not have comparable or better software available on OS X

We each make our own choices. And not making a choice is also a choice. Just be happy with the choices you make, or change them.

Re:No apps

[saltydogdesign]

If Apple ported OS X to x86 software vendors would do the same.

I'm not so sure I agree. Vendors wouldn't waste their time porting software to a platform with no user base, and very few people would switch if there was no software.

IMO, the only way this would work is if there was a major corporate entity pushing it forward and doing a lot of the initial development -- more or less the way Apple did when moving from OS9 to OSX. And even then Apple couldn't do it alone. They had a number of major vendors on board -- Adobe and Microsoft notably. And they had a framework for easing the transition between the two platforms (Carbon). That would be a tough road for any potential porter, since there would essentially be two target markets -- folks going from Mac to this, and folks going from Windows to this.

And, of course, if there is any corporate entity that would do it, it won't be Apple. And since Apple has to give the go-ahead, I get the feeling this won't be happening.

Re:No apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you're pretty dumb for an Objective-C 'programmer'.

Re:No apps

[zangdesign]

No, but I hear there is a whole world of free software out there that's going to replace the commercial vendors any day now.

Heh. /snark

No, it wouldn't be that simple. On the other hand, nothing that Apple does happens in a vacuum, and so a lot of the same software that is currently available for the PPC-Mac would be rapidly available for the x86-Mac because I cannot imagine that Apple would just say "surprise!"

If it ever happened. Which it won't.

There is a suprising amount of discussion of something that will happen only when Hell truly freezes over.

Re:No apps

[jcr]

Well, my uninformed AC friend, whatever your opinion of my intelligence may be, I have direct personal experience of building multi-architecture binaries under NeXTSTEP.

It was possible to introduce byte-order and other CPU-specific dependencies in NeXTSTEP apps, but you had to go out of your way to do so. Most of the time, and in fact 100% of the time for my own code, it was just a matter of checking the boxes for compile targets: Motorola, Intel, HPPA, and SPARC.

-jcr

Re:No apps

[rthille]

Well, I believe that Q/A would take more than a month, and that ISV's would have more problems with byte order than you might expect, but I think that Apple could get developers on board.
I still think OSX on intel is a horrible idea though.

Re:No apps

[IamTheRealMike]

No they aren't, that's totally false. There are no Apple engineers working on Wine, unless they hide who they work for.

Wine doesn't even run on MacOS. Winelib (so apps for which you have the source) has run once or twice, then it breaks again.

Anyway, I don't know where the grandparent gets off saying Wine doesn't work on Linux. Lots of people use it to run MS Office, Photoshop, CounterStrike, Lotus Notes, various other games and so on - there are lots of people out there who can only use Linux because of it.

Yes.

[sjanich]

Yes I would. Why? Great biz interface when I am in that mode; and unix when I am in that mode.

stepstone towards a new mac?

[Barryke]

I would switch, to make myself more comfortable with mac osx and make a bigger switch later on.

I think thats the idea, making people try it, and buying a mac as their new pc.

I for one welcome or apple overlords. They should be able to survive without MS funding. I welcome mac. They are made for no-fuss solutions.

Wil the x86 platform downsize OS-X's features?

Yes, well maybe...

[bblazer]

For the past several years I have been buying nothing but Apple products for myself, coworkers and family members. I have been willing to pay a higher price for better (more innovative) physical design, less cabling, and an innovative OS. The downside has been limited hardware choices that are generally a few steps behind the curve of x86 machines. That being said, I would seriously consider 'switching' to OS X on a x86 machine if it was produced and supported by Apple and possibly the hardware vendors. At the same time, however, I really like the ever evolving designs that come from Apple. When was that last compelling design change of the ubiquitous x86 desktop or laptop (maybe from Alienware)? So for me to do a pseudo-switch, I would probably also need to see some changes from the hardware vendors (how many cables run across the desk of a typical workstation?). To sum it all up, I think it would be a great thing for Apple to release OS X to the masses. It would certainly send Balmer on another sweaty spin!

Re:Yes, well maybe...

[fm6]

When was that last compelling design change of the ubiquitous x86 desktop or laptop (maybe from Alienware)?

Alienware? Please. But you're right, the Apple do a lot of innovative physical design, imitation (never mind competition) is limited to trivial stuff, like using translucent materials.

Then again, so what? Most of the Apple design is eye candy. Yes, they do stuff that's a functional step forward, like those pedestal-stalk-lcd IMacs. But then they EOL it in favor of the latest gimmick du jour. Trivial changes made to keep their customers from getting bored.

OK, maybe you like spending a lot of money on eye candy. I don't, and I couldn't afford to anyway. Which I think describes most people.

Hell no.

[Silverlancer]

Hell no. The only reason OSX works so well is because the hardware is made by, guess who, Apple. If they ported it to x86 it would run like crap, be buggy as hell, and even more incompatible than it already is. I'm happy with my no-crashes-for-2-years Windows XP system dualbooted with my stripped-down Debian install, thank you.

Re:Hell no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess. Never touched a Mac?

Re:Hell no.

[Silverlancer]

Sure I have. They work fine--with mac hardware and PowerPC chips. I wouldn't touch it under x86 with a ten foot pole.

Re:Hell no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the same guy as above.

Mac OS X was ported from x86 to PowerPC. Well, not *exactly*, but Mac OS X is basically OpenStep ported from x86. For that reason, I doubt that OS X on x86 would be any less stable than on PowerPC.

Nope. I lke Apple hardware

[Whumpsnatz]

I might have considered switching during the desklamp iMac time, but I like the iMac G5. If I buy another machine, it'll probably be another Mac (maybe if my Cube decides to die). I hardly use my PC at all anymore.

MacOSX

[Zlib pt]

Why should I ?

The only reason Windows is on my hard drive is because of the games and a few programs I need.

Move to MacOSX?

If I was going to move I would move to Linux. The games would not be there the same, but I would have a far better scalable OS

I'd easily switch.

[Viewsonic]

Most apps that I use are actually on Mac already as well as a whole range of apps that are Mac only. The only reason I run XP is because the cost is so much cheaper.

Besides, i'm already using the Apple bluetooth wireless keyboard with XP, so i'm all set into tricking people.

Would Microsoft recompile Office for Mac for x86?

[artemis67]

I doubt it.

Probably not

[eric76]

In my office, I have 9 computers including one MAC OSX machine. The rest are two Linux, three Windows 2000, one Windows NT, and two OpenBSD machines. I use the OSX machine the least of all even though most of the people here only use OSX.

However, if they did come out with an OSX version and I could try it out for free, I'd probably put it on one machine for a while to try it out. But considering the probability that I wouldn't use it much, I doubt that I'd be willing to pay much for a copy just to try it out.

Forget my ignorance

[SirLestat]

But what is OS X more than bsd with some theme?

Yes, I'd switch in an instant

[The Famous Druid]

I'd definitely switch.

A little over a year ago, Mrs Druid got a mac, in that time I've found myself using the mac more and more, and the windoze box less and less. These days I only use the Windoze box when Mrs Druid is using the mac.

OS X really is a very nice environment, and as a Unix programmer, I like the fact that it's Darwin (a descendant of Free BSD) under all that sugar coating.

BTW - while there's some truth to the claim that Apple desktops are more expensive than a similarly powered PC, have a look at laptop prices. Apples are much more price competitive in that market.

My next laptop will be an iBook !

Yes

[Logeaux]

Yes I would switch, howerver I would do a dual boot. Cant let go of those games.

Bring it on!

[MsGeek]

I would do it in a heartbeat. Particularly if it was out-of-the-box compatible with Athlon 64. It will never happen...Steve Jobs is not thrilled with x86 architecture, and prefers the cleaner PPC arch. Still, one can definitely dream, can't they?

If they did this, it might be my best chance to run Tiger. Word on the street is that Blue And White (Yosemite) G3s and Yikes G4s will be shut out this time.

No, I'd just switch them on

[Colin Smith]

The anthrax would be cooked in seconds.

x86

[simpl3x]

While there are plenty of advantages to x86 hardware, windows did run at one point on the Power architecture. Perhaps a better question would be, if Microsoft ported Windows to the Power 6, or more interestingly, the Cell, would you switch? I like Mips and Arm also, and for low profile computers, which most people should be using anyway, these other architectures are great. Why the fixation on x86 or Windows for that matter?

I would much rather see a variety of devices and architectures coexisting in an environment where getting something done is the key. I happen to use a Powerbook, So! I can also run just about anything required through a VM of some sort. The general purpose computer should be made more general purpose.

Re:x86

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, someone who gets the point!

Re:x86

[jericho4.0]

That would be great, when I can pick up a Power 6 based system at WallyWorld for $299.99.

Compared to those other archs, the only thing going for x86 is price, but it's a big advantage.

What do they need all that "power" for?

[ShatteredDream]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people who use their computers for just basic, simple tasks like office functions act like they have this incredible need for powerful hardware. I bought a Compaq Presario with a Sempron 2800, 256MB DDR Ram and a 80GB hdd for only $445 including S&H, and with SuSE 9.1 it does everything I need. It's not a game machine, so uhhh why exactly when it's just going to run Java and C++ programs for class, would I need the latest Athlon64 or Pentium4?

The reason for owning a Mac has never been about power, but utility. Every convert to MacOS X from Windows that I know switched because Macs are actually much more useful in many areas than Windows PCs. The hardest pill for many of them to swallow is that the "Apple way" really is significantly easier and more productive than the "Microsoft way."

The average computer user who could afford one, would actually be much better off with an iMac or iBook than a typical off the shelf PC. It gets the job done, and done well and it is made much better than the usual PC.

Re:What do they need all that "power" for?

[C32]

Please refer to the anandtech "review" of the mac os X computing experience posted on slashdot yesterday.
One of the points of the article was that from a power-user standpoint, even a dual 2.5ghz g5 with os x 10.3 did not equal the gui responsiveness of wintel..
That's what we need power for..
Techies in particular (which is what /. caters to) don't like waiting for a widget to redraw while they could be doing something productive with an os.

Re:What do they need all that "power" for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read that article again.
You missed the point, and misinterpreted the results.
By a LOT.

Re:What do they need all that "power" for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you haven't used a Mac with OS X.

I have a PB G4 867 MHz and it runs Pather just fine. I have no problems with GUI responsiveness and I would even go as far as saying it's faster than my P4 2.4 GHz at work.

I can make an accurate assessment because I've used a Mac for over a year and I also use Linux at home and Windows at work.

Re:What do they need all that "power" for?

[Mistah Blue]

Actually, if you had read it carefully you would have noted Anand got an ATI graphics card with 64MB of RAM. Mac OS X offloads the graphics stuff to the GPU. Had he purchased a better video card he would have had a much better experience. I don't understand why he went cheap on the graphics when he got a top-of-the-line machine.

Dupe! (kinda)

[adam mcmaster]

A strange coincidence, I'm sure, but I asked a similar question this week:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124599&cid=104 51087

The replies to my post answer it pretty well, I think.

If Mac OS X Came to X86, Would Apple Die Off?

[VAXGeek]

Yes!

The money is in the hardware.

Re:If Mac OS X Came to X86, Would Apple Die Off?

[The Famous Druid]

Yes, the money's in the hardware, that's why Dell makes so much more money than Microsoft .....

Um, let me re-phrase that .....

That's why Gateway makes so much more money than Microsoft ....

Um, that's not right either, hang on ......

I'm going to have to think of a good example and get back to you ....

Yes

[BCW2]

I have not used an Apple product since the Apple II because there has never been one available to me. I have heard and read many good things about them, but never wanted to pay the heigher price. I would try it out of curiosity, just like when I got a copy of RH 6.2 in 2000. Using Linux ever since.

i would give it a try

[Anonymous Coward]

i have become comfortable with Linux, and if OSX was ported to x86 i would try it, maybe even use it full time if it proved better than Linux in multimedia & graphics, i have turned my back on windows and use Linux 100% now, and i keep as eye on distrowatch for new releases, (looking for a user friendly desktop BSD)

just a pipe dream, or is that a port dream lol

sig - anony_mouse_cow_ard

switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Now with Steve making his money with IPods: what if Steve Jobs gives away for free OS-X for the Intels. Would that ruin Bills day or not?

Believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

In a second. I can't switch to Linux because I need apps like Flash MX for work. But at the same time, the whole Grade-AAA Hardware paradigm that Apple has going on doesn't fit well within my student budget. OS X on x86 would be a wonderful compromise.

baseless statement

[Anonymous Coward]

"and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft"

According to what statistics?

FFS!

[xirtam_work]

drop a few hundred dollars (or pounds) on an eMac. If you find out that you don't like it flog it on ebay - mac's have great resale values. If you find that you do like it flog it on ebay and buy a more powerful model... duh!

there's no chance that apple will release OS X for X86.... and the software developers will not stand for another platform, cpu, os change.

also, the apple mac hardware would get left behind which is where apple make the money. unless of course osx86 was a poor cousin that lacked features or support and why bother in that case.

Re:FFS!

[Speare]

Once upon a time, I worked for Microsoft. Code of mine is in an ancient version of Windows. And today, I have zero Microsoft products in the house, unless there's some buried MSFT tax I was unaware. I got rid of Microsoft mice and keyboards, even. I have a network of multiple Linux machines. I specifically did not buy a Mac while MSFT still had their significant "non-voting" investment into Apple.

Now I've tried an eMac. First Apple since the Apple ][, which was my first hands-on computer experience. I don't think I'd try to go pure Apple, but it's a great extra machine on the network. It lets my buy off-the-shelf products that my 5-year-old would be interested in, instead of the very limited, very unpolished kid's games that Linux offers.

I use the eMac as a print server for a photo printer that GIMP-print doesn't (yet) support. I use the eMac as a media center for the house. I use the eMac's "Speakable Items" and text-to-speech as a sort of butler appliance who announces reminders for various household things. There are a number of things in Mac OS X which were easy to get going because someone's already done them, but nobody on the Linux world has yet bothered to build. I *could* write them myself for Linux, but I could also spend that time doing other things.

Re:FFS!

[ari_j]

I hate trackpads. If Apple made a laptop with an e-Clit, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Trackpads maximize finger and hand movement and waste space, meanwhile minimizing accuracy and movement speed.

e-Clits eliminate all of these problems - they waste no space, they require the minimum finger movement and zero hand movement, they move the pointer rapidly, and with minimal practice you get used to them and can move the pointer very accurately.

I was totally opposed to them at first, but a friend convinced me I really wanted a Tecra 8100. Four years later, that is still my only laptop because I have yet to find one that's as usable.

Re:FFS!

[xirtam_work]

Ed Nice to hear that you've had good experience with an eMac. I think the educational software aspect is interesting. I was just talking with my cousin about him getting an emac for his niece. she's only three, but plays with all sorts of stuff at the moment and he thought she'd be bright enough to use a computer. we got our heads together and decided against a pc right away. the mac has plenty of educational software available most of which is very good quality. i guess this goes back to apple getting apple II's into schools early on and the support just continued.

Would I switch?

[MoOsEb0y]

Given Linux binary compatibility (present in BSD already), Definately. There's a lot of little things in Linux that irritate me that BSD has gotten right. Example: Mandatory mixing of /dev/dsp. Not to mention, OS X has one of the sexiest GUIs out there.

Re:Would I switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be homosexual.

Re:Would I switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a halfwit.

Certainly worth a try

[pantaz]

About the only thing I've disliked about Apple/Mac over the years is the cost associated with being a "closed" architecture.
Linux is great for the hobbiest/hacker and large organizations that can maintain a knowledgable IT staff. The basic home user lacks the technical skills, and even the desire to learn something so different.

Core Values

[Doc Ruby]

If I can use all the apps that I like, without missing the old MS platform. That's how MS got me to switch from MacOS7 to WinNT. The key to IT decisions starts with "what do I need to do" (in simple human/business transaction terms). Then I ask "what apps do that?", then "what OS runs those apps?", and finally "which HW runs that OS?", and I've committed a basic platform. If the apps available can do what I need to do on MacOS, including work without a hitch with everyone else who hasn't switched, I'll be right there with Apple's otherwise superior OS.

Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[mrdlcastle]

Why reinvent the wheel?

Macs are More Expensive, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.ht ml

But Macs are Slower, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs -Are-Slo wer-Right-36964.html

Carlos

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[dema]

Links for the lazy

Macs are More Expensive, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html

But Macs are Slower, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs-Are-Slo wer-Right-36964.html

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[0x0d0a]

Yes, Mac OS X is both slower and more expensive (well, with hardware factored in).

That's not the point, though. If you get a Mac, you probably aren't that concerned with raw price/performance ratio. You're buying it for other reasons.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can upgrade a pc unlike an apple which has very limited choices. That article also uses a Dell to compare with the Apple. FACT: Average joes do not want to pay a "crazy" (according to them) price to navigate the web. They get a pc either pre-built by selecting the parts at a local pc store or get a brand cheaper than Dell like gateway or compaq.

made my point.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yes, Mac OS X is both slower and more expensive (well, with hardware factored in).

Please click on those links and read the articles. The conclusions are not what you wrote.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[legLess]

You know, I've been laptop shopping twice in the last year, once for me and once for my SO. I'm a serious geek -- I spend 90% of my time in a terminal -- and make my living with my hardware, so I spent a lot of time looking. My SO isn't a geek at all, and I'm her computer slave, so whatever she got had to be easy for me to support.

I'd never used a Mac before and was originally planning to get Thinkpad and run Debian on it. Both times, hands down, we got Macs. I have a 15" Powerbook and she has a 14" iBook. Both times I spent days on every major manufacturer's web sites, comparing every model I could find.

What I found was that there is no laptop, period, that matches anything Apple makes feature-for-feature at a comparable price point. Nothing even comes close. The only way to get the features I wanted in a Thinkpad was to pay $3,500 and gain an extra 2 pounds of travel weight. The only sub-optimal feature of the Powerbook is battery life -- after a year of constant use I get about 2 hours.

This comparison was done OS-agnostic, since I expected to run Debian on the Powerbook, too. After a week, though, I swore I'd never go back. OSX is amazing. It's the first time in 15 years of professional computer use that I haven't had to *think* about the operating system.

In short, Macs rule. if you don't believe me, do the research yourself. Anyone trotting out the "Macs are too expensive and slow" line is living in the past.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[toddestan]

Those articles are really only valid if you are stuck between buying an Apple and a Dell. And who wants a Dell?

When it comes to the high end, they may compare. Apple is certainly very competitive in laptops. But when it comes to what I can build myself out of components in the PC world vs. Apple, the Apples _are_ really expensive. The cheapest eMac runs about $800 - for that amount of money I can piece together a pretty nice PC system that's going to be far better than that eMac. Even better, that PC system is going to be exactly how I want it, unlike that eMac which would need a ram upgrade and a new mouse right away.

Just the other day, I was adding together what it would cost for a reasonable AMD64 based system. I think I ended up with a 3200+, Gigabyte motherboard, 1GB of Crucial memory, 250GB harddrive, and an ATI 9600 video card for about $1250 without the monitor. And that was with a nice case, CPU cooler, and an Antec power supply (I was trying to make it low noise too.) Apple simply doesn't anything like that for that price.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[freewilli]

That price comparison articles is grossly misinformed. Using Dell as a price comparison and focusing on the bundled software is pure spin.
Macs *are* more expensive than the comparable PC and once you cut through the BS of that article, it proves it.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[PrvtBurrito]

Sorry, desktops maybe but not with laptops.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Beek]

But for every second you gain in performance, you will lose thirty seconds fighting with your OS.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

you really are a retard. did you know that?

You don't have to spend that much on a think pad and it's faster and much more well built.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I don't fight with Linux. Or Windows, for that matter.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[thogard]

Laptop batteries seem to have about 400 recharge cycles and then they will be less than 1/2 of new. Buy a new battery.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the price at least, I can see why. The writer seems to have started out with a conclusion and then selectivly taken in evidence to support his view. Call me when I can buy a new mac for $200 as I can with the wallmart PCs.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using new batteries, Pentium-M laptops have a longer battery life than PowerBooks. I think that's his point anyway.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Joe Tie.]

Somehow I doubt that. I'm very familiar with my debian setup, I'm used to how the developers of most of the applications I use think. I never feel like I'm fighting with my OS. If anything, I'd have a hard time getting used to OSX, which does things in a slightly different manner than what I'm used to. I've only used OSX a few times, but it's enough to know I'd have to sit down for quite a while before the interface felt natural to me. Don't get me wrong, I 'like' OSX, but I think it gets a bit of an unfair reputation of telepathically reading the users mind when it comes to usability.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you must spend at least 20 seconds trolling slashdot with Mac Zealot garbage. It's in the OS X EULA.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[jcr]

After a week, though, I swore I'd never go back. OSX is amazing. It's the first time in 15 years of professional computer use that I haven't had to *think* about the operating system.

Comments like that warm me from the bottom of my stock options ;-)

-jcr

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[garote]

ROFL

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[ibentmywookie]

I can attest to that. I was looking at getting an x86 laptop and running Linux on it, but I couldn't find anything that had the same quality and pricepoint as the 12" iBook. I had never used a Mac before either, but now I am *so* glad that I bought it.

I have *never* been happier with a computer purchase - it just works really great. I didn't bother installing Linux on it, OS X does everything I want. My desktop is an AMD64 box running Mandrake, however... but I get the best of both worlds having an x86(-64) box and a PPC/Apple box.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[anthony_dipierro]

What if you have your laptop plugged in most of the time? Is it better to just take the battery out? Or should you leave it in?

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[d^2b]

I'm glad you love your powerbook, but I went for a thinkpad X40 for exactly those two pounds of travel weight (3lbs with the 4.5 hour battery versus 5 for the 12" PB). I don't think powerbooks really compete as well on a pure hardware basis if what you are looking for is an ultralight. Of course, there is a constant leapfrog game going on; next week Apple may win again briefly, but on the whole their dev cycle seems to be slower than IBM's.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[jdreed1024]

Those articles are really only valid if you are stuck between buying an Apple and a Dell. And who wants a Dell?

People who want a company standing behind the product and tech support. (I'm not saying Dell's tech support is great, read on)

The cheapest eMac runs about $800 - for that amount of money I can piece together a pretty nice PC system that's going to be far better than that eMac. Even better, that PC system is going to be exactly how I want it, unlike that eMac which would need a ram upgrade and a new mouse right away.

Sure, but you're in the minority. Most people who own computers do not build them. (Customizing your online order from Dell or IBM doesn't count) Most people pay money to a company which can offer support and warranty service, etc. So you build your computer for less than $800 and give it to a friend. The hard drive dies in two months. Yes, ok, there's probably a manufacturer's warranty, but you have to pull it out, box it up, send it to Mexico (Seagate) or wherever, and get it back, and put all the apps back on there that were installed when you gave it to your friend. Compare with Dell/IBM/HP/whoever, where you call them, maybe spend some time arguing with a phone monkey, and in a fairly short amount of time you have a new HD configured exactly the same as when you first got the machine. No re-installing Windows, or anything.

The major companies also offer extended warranty coverage, so for 5 years (a long time in the computing world, think of what your machine was like in 1999) you can be completely covered if you want to pay a little extra. You can't do that with generic hardware. Try asking some Pricewatch vendor for a 5 year warranty on your OEM video card.

The fact is, you have to compare name-brand to name-brand. Most consumers want something that comes with a phone number to call if it breaks and a place to return or exchange it. And even if you want to ignore that, there's still the corporate market. No company is going to buy a ton of computers from some guy putting them together from random parts. Yes, there are some larger "generic" vendors (PCConnection.com's "Epiq" brand, CompUSA's now defunct 'Compudyne' line, etc), but for the most part the large companies deal with Dell, IBM, or HPaq, and possibly Gateway. Therefore, those are the brands to be compared with Apple (or Sun, or SGI, or whoever).

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Mac Degger]

Except of course when you had to deal with that 'trash can' thing. Whoever thought about the Mac trash can functionality should not just be flogged, drawn and quartered, but shredded, pissed on and burnt in little bits too.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[legLess]

What on earth is wrong with the trash can? Christ, I even have a script alias for 'rm' that *moves* things to the trash for me.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[legLess]

Ah, I was thinking 2 pounds in the other direction :) I agree that for ultralights IBM spanks Apple. But a 15" screen was one of my requirements, and [a year ago] 15" Thinkpads were fucking heavy.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you included the cost for the OS and software bundle?

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Xenna]

I had the same choice and I compared a 12" PB with a Dell X300. The Dell has the same features (802.11g, Bluetooth, Firewire, etc) except for the optical drive, which I didn't really need. There was quite a price difference, especially when I considered the fact that the Dell had a 3 year next business day warranty. If you factored in that cost for the Powerbook there was really no comparison. The Dell was *much* cheaper.

I don't want to be stuck with a broken notebook that's just over a year old and will cost a lot of time as well as an arm and a leg to get fixed. That turned out to be the deciding factor.

Re:Is Mac OS X really that much more expensive?

[Gadzinka]

Have you included the cost for the OS and software bundle?

Oh yes, of course. OS was $0 and software bundle was another $0 from my hard earned money. Believe it or not, but neither me nor my wife have Windows installed, we both use Debian/KDE exclusively.

Robert

Yep.

[duran.goodyear]

The hardware cost is the only thing keeping me from switching.

I think OSX is a pleasure to use, and represents what computing SHOULD be for the masses.

Issue: Hardware Support

[igotmybfg]

If hardware support was widespread like it is with Windows and (to an extent) Linux, I would.

Bootable Games

[bstadil]

Games are still a Windows domain

Me too I would switch in a heartbeat. however the days of Windows as the pre eminent gaming OS might be numbered.

Latest rumor out of a major games house (Not sure which one as I got the "tip" at the Linuxshow) is that the game companies are working on using LiveCD technology for games. They can tweak the kernel and the ATI / Nvidia drivers (source code issues goes away since they will be supplying binaries only) and presto you have an almost console type platform for their specific needs.

Re:Bootable Games

[PhoenixFlare]

Latest rumor out of a major games house (Not sure which one as I got the "tip" at the Linuxshow) is that the game companies are working on using LiveCD technology for games.

Maybe it's just me, but just one "major games house" or even 2 or 3 or 4 or what have you isn't going to cut it.

Personally, i'd love to dump Windows completely, but until the day when I can just grab (almost) any game off the shelf and play it natively in Linux/OSX, the dual boot stays.

Re:Bootable Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous. That would return us the the problems we had with DOS gaming, namely "does this game support this hardware?" There are peripherals and components of a gaming computer other than video cards - sound cards, game pads, funky 18-button mice, whatever. There's only so much you can do with a Live CD, and you couldn't update it for new hardware. The OS (namely DirectX) enables the game developer to not have to write to every freaking device out there. Even if a Live CD was a sort of OS unto itself, there's no way it would have the support that DirectX does. If true, this sounds like a horrible idea and would die a quick death. PC gaming needs an OS - a BIG popular OS that supports a ton of hardware, and an OS that sits between the game and the hardware ... fuck, I think people have forgotten what DOS gaming was like. It was ass.

Re:Bootable Games

[Ianoo]

LiveCDs can typically only boot on a particular hardware platform. You may see LiveCDs, but they'll still be x86-LiveCDs, not Power-LiveCDs.

Seriously, though, I'd take this rumor with a pinch of salt. It seems fairly silly to create live-CDs that would need to contain all the drivers for every possible gamepad, graphics card, network adapter (for MP) and audio hardware, especially considering there'd be no possible way to upgrade or update these drivers, so when you go out and replace your GeForce 6800 with a GeForce 8000, all your games would suddenly stop working...

Not to mention the fact it would be almost impossible to provide patches for games, and the serious usability dent of having to enter network settings every single time the CD boots to do multiplayer.

Re:Bootable Games

[bstadil]

there'd be no possible way to upgrade

My Ubuntu liveCD went out and updated itself after boot and Internet connection via DHCP was established. If you are directly connected to ISP your get the IP from them plus most cheap routers now has DHCP servers included. Why not do same for games? We are talking DVDs by the way so a few 100megs of drivers seems trivial.

Re:Bootable Games

[Ianoo]

I am not connected directly to my ISP, and I'm not using DHCP. Thousands of people around the world aren't either, but they still want to play games. Also, what happens when my ISP releases super-dooper broadband that requires a brand new modem that connects via USB and has some super-weird chipset in it that needs all new drivers? I'm sure the millions of people who have bought a particular liveCD game are going to be real pleased when the multiplayer option suddenly stops working. Same goes for new graphics cards, new sound cards, everything.

Re:Bootable Games

[bstadil]

Have you ever used a LiveCD?

Take Knoppix as an example. If you want to use Wine it will search your hard drive to see if it can find better DLLs(in this case better means original MS files) and use them. If you need a special WIFI driver that is not yet supported under Linux if will invoke NDIS wrapper and use the Original Windows drivers.

In your case your super Duper new device will have a driver installed on your system that will be available to the LiveCD.

The argument, so why not just use Windows, is countered by the gamemakes ability to control their own environment.

Re:Bootable Games

[DigiShaman]

Ya, it was total ass. I remember having to jack with my Expanded and Extended memory setting with the config.sys among other things. What a pain in the fucking ass that was...YUCK. Also, adding new hardware sucked too for a PC newbie. And lets not forget about all the VESA extended drivers and soundcard settings....Grrrrrrr

Also, what happens when new game patches are released? You can't exactly update your standard CD.

Re:Bootable Games

[Ianoo]

So what happens when Longhorn switches to a brand new file system that your LiveCD can't access? The point I'm making is that PC hardware is too unpredictable for liveCDs. They're only appropriate when you can go and download an updated version from the Internet at any time you want.

Re:Bootable Games

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a profoundly stupid idea? I don't want to reboot my computer to play a round of Quake or UT; I want to load it up, play for twenty or thirty minutes to clear my head a bit, and hop back into work without missing more than a couple beats. I'm not an absolute, die-hard, use-a-CRT-instead-of-an-LCD-to-save-a-millisecond gaming nut; I just want to braindump once in a while. Between saving all my work, bookmarking where I am in things, shutting down, booting back up, shutting down again, booting back up into my actual OS, and starting all my applications again, I've added about half back onto my playtime, plus I've broken all my thought-chains. Right now, it's easy - I go through my start menu and open up UT on top of everything I'm doing; I close it when I'm done, and *poof* I'm exactly where I was before beginning the mess. Works really well for consoles, where you really aren't doing anything but playing around, and hardcore gamers, who sit down and focus entirely on the game anyway. I can even see it working really well if the medium were integrated with the game - it would work very well with an Uplink-style immersive game. But what about the rest of us, who just want a quick diversion sometimes?

Switsch schwitch

[Schmool]

If, and that's a mighty big "if", Apple would ever choose to release a full-fledged MacOS for x86, I would only consider using it on a custom-built box. To me, the only merit of using x86 is the ability to completely build a system from scratch -- with your own choice of CPU, GPU, cooling and case. This is why Apple notebooks are the best ones equipped on the market -- noone builds notebooks to their own specs, and Dell surely won't fit a notebook with FireWire800, Gigabit Ethernet and 54mbps WiFi unless there's enough demand.

Besides, the argument of Apple computers being more costly than IBM PC's is dated and simply wrong. Try and find any lower quotes (non-refurb or sale articles ofcourse) for brand systems that have similar specs, form factor, and hardware quality to Apple's new iMac or PowerBook series.

two words

[mattboston]

Hell Yes!!!!

It wouldn't go that way

[MarcQuadra]

If Apple switched to x86 (well, x86-64 now), they wouldn't let it run on your commodity boxes. You'd have an expensive (although less so than PPC) x86-64 box with OpenFirmware BIOS and a few Apple ASICs to provide the same functionality that Apple has on the PPC. You'd be buying Apple hardware to run it on, without a doubt.

There are several reasons for this:

1. Apple makes a lot of money on their hardware.
2. OS X has limited driver support, opening up to all breeds of hardware would slow the development of the OS down and reduce stability.
3. There's stuff you have on Macs that just doesn't exist with your typical PC BIOS, stuff like target-mode and netboot (much better implmentation than PXE).
4. Apple are about the total experience of the platform, putting OS X on your Dell with it's rat's-nest of cabling is something that makes Steve Jobs cry. Steve has a VISION, and a huge part of it is massive reduction in cabling.

Don't hold your breath for OS X on commodity x86 boxes, it'll NEVER happen. Apple might switch to x86-64 someday if the PPC architecture hits a dead-end, but I find it more likely that the opposite is true.

I will also venture to say that the submitter of this story has something wrong with him if he prefers x86 over PowerPC. The PPC architecture is beautiful, simple, and clean. And Apple isn't the only company selling PowerPC hardware.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[BobPaul]

Screw Steve's Vision. I agree with the Story Poster... MacOS = Good. Macs=Too Expensive.

No, it won't ever happen, but if it did I would definately switch.

Besides, with a BSD core, I don't think drivers would be any more of an issue on than on Linux.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Firehawke]

You were doing fine, if stumbling, until that last line. I think you let your bias show too clearly. OS X having limited driver support isn't necessarily a good thing, firstly. Secondly, the 'total experience' of the platform seems to include a "Well, now where do I find *software* for the damn thing?" right out of the box as well. Thirdly any platform that can thrive despite having a flawed architecture is doing pretty well on software, hardware, and experience.

Lastly, Intel is making steps towards fixing the major architecture issues (real mode, for one thing) through a next-generation replacement for the BIOS. In a few years, we'll be past that point.

As for the rat's nest of cables, I really don't see it being as bad as you say. There are pretty much the same level of cables either way. Power, video, keyboard, mouse, audio, external devices like a USB camera. The only time the Mac had a real edge on cables was when you got the system and monitor in one, and then you're screwed if your monitor goes out.

As far as *I* am concerned, the huge price differential outweighs any 'total experience'-- since I have enough common sense to keep my XP box safe (linux-based firewall helps, as does using FireFox) the common reasons for a switch wouldn't apply to me.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[PiGuy]

"You'd be buying Apple hardware to run it on, without a doubt."

I highly doubt this, because:

"There are several reasons for this:

1. Apple makes a lot of money on their hardware."

And IBM/Motorola (dunno who it is now) makes a lot of money on those G5 processors. Apple would only ever make x86 hardware if IBM/Motorola came out with an x86 chip (or if they drop PowerPC entirely, but I highly doubt that).

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

If Macs are too expensive, get an iBook or an eMac or whatever.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[MarcQuadra]

Alright! Round two!

Finding software for OS X/x86 will be just as hard, if not HARDER than it is for PPC. I don't own a Mac, actually, I use x86 hardware at home, but admin about 200 Macs at work. We don't have trouble finding software for them at all. There's good software in almost every category for OS X, and I've found that Apple's free development tools and NeXT-derived libraries lead even shareware apps to be of great quality and usability.

I know that EFI BIOS is coming, but it's still not here. I've been enjoying a 32-bit BIOS with a GUI bootloader, network booting, single-image support, and no hassles since the Blue and White G3 came out in 1999.

Most Mac setups have a LOT simpler cabling than their PC counterparts. I set these things up for a living. Macs typically install in about half the time from 'boxed' to 'bootup'. I've got a G4 on my desk at work, and an ADC monitor. My monitor gets signal, power, and USB on ONE cable to the CPU. The powered speakers get power and signal on one Y-cable, as opposed to a stereo cable, a left-to-right cable, and a power cable on the PCs. I've got ONE cable coming from the back of my screen to my keyboard, which has a built-in hub for the mouse and my flash-reader. Macs have a lot less cables when properly purchased and set up.

As for 'screwed when the monitor gives out', there are NO machines that Apple ships without external video. I just bought an iBook for my sister and she hooked it up to her monitor witht he included VGA adapter. My desktop G4 at work has both ADC and DVI out. Even the iMacs have VGA-out.

Where's the HUGE price difference? I don't buy 'low end' hardware, be it Mac or PC. Once you get to the 'good stuff' with name-brand components, quality hard drives and memory, and all the fixin's the price difference on both sides is close to zero. Apple's iBooks actually beat Dell laptops hands-down on price and value. The $300 difference on desktops like the iMac is easily accounted for in power savings (which also carry to lower AC bills), high-quality LCD screens, and time to setup and maintain. Once again, I sound like a fanboy, but I'm out there doing price/performance comparisons for my work all day.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[nite_warrior]

Macs=Too Expensive.
I dont quite agree with that... ofcourse you can get a good x86 PC for around 1000 USD, and a great Mac for 2000 USD... but the difference between the two is huge, try to figure out how much would u have to spend to get a dual x86-64 box... It will be around the 2000USD, that might be comparable to to a dual G5 that costs about the same.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

As I type this on my Powerbook G4, I'm streaming music and surfing the web wirelessly. I can also print and sync up my cell phone likewise. The only cable that's ever plugged into my notebook these days is power. Talk about an experience.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[the unbeliever]

If you define "comparable" as "smokes it in every possible benchmark that has a cross platform equal"

The "Macs perform better" myth has been debunked. Sure, RISC has some benefits over x86/x86-64, but those are minimal now, and the street runs both ways.

The two grand dual 64 bit box on commodity hardware will outperform the dual 2ghz g5.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[ElitistWhiner]

Jobs ran X86 before and it was not a problem running the OS. It took the hardware mfgrs a cycle or two to come up to speed on the requirements for the interface. In the end, PC mfgrs were superior to Apple hardware in quality and price.

In the interim years, Apple have discontinued SCSI and disable all the interprocess communication in the OS that provided for productivity gains. The moral is that there will be a price to be paid for the luxury of having promisuious hardware.

-r
Rex Riley

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[legLess]

Secondly, the 'total experience' of the platform seems to include a "Well, now where do I find *software* for the damn thing?" right out of the box as well

That's funny, I got a Powerbook a little over a year ago and I've never had trouble finding software. Ever. For one thing, most of the stuff I use on Debian and FreeBSD runs just fine on OSX. For another thing, there's a large and active OSX development community.

There are, of course, specialized applications that just don't exist for OSX. Many of these run just fine in Virtual PC. Some of them probably don't and yes, that sucks, but how many apps are we really talking about? Go ahead -- reply and list all the things you use regularly that aren't available, or for which good or better substitutes aren't available, for OSX.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[didde]

I agree with you on points 1, 2 and 4 (:

Now, what if Apple was to make a commitment to the OpenSource world it already has so much to thank for? What if they decided to publish some (or even all) of their API's (and I'm talking in UI terms here, not just Darwin), free for anyone to port / implement to a completely different platform?

I'm not claiming that this would ever happen, but perhaps they could create a business model where they charge people for support (i.e. AppleCare) along with licences, but only if you were running OS X on their own, supported, hardware.

Perhaps they could produce (or enable someone else to produce) a limited version of OS X as a teaser for the "real" choice of their own software and hardware - sort of like the initial idea of their iLife package, but on a completely different level.

I'd sure buy the concept of converting a bunch of non-OS X users this way (:

Those are my humble thoughts and ideas...

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a G4 on my desk at work, and an ADC monitor

Apple's current displays do not support ADC, so that's a non-argument.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Barlo_Mung_42]

That's funny. I have a camera that I can't run on my IMac because there are no OSX drivers (software). I Plug it into my XP box and it "Just works".

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Yakman]

So what? I do that with my Dell Inspiron too. It's not hard to get x86 laptops with WiFi and Bluetooth.

I can also play Doom 3 on mine today ;)

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[larkost]

Ya... and that is why there is a large wave of x86-64 cluster servers coming on line now... oh, wait... those are Apple X-Serves....

If you would care to point out specific hardware comparisons, then we can have a real conversation. But just saying "Macs are more expensive" without any evidence just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

So, can you find a large-vendor system (I don't accept white box comparisons) that will beat the specs, performance, and price of either the PowerMac G5's or the X-Serve G5's? If not... please stop spreading information that is not true.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[drinkypoo]

What you're saying is that you have a bunch of proprietary hardware with funny cables. Many of us avoided macs in the 68k and early PPC days specifically to keep away from shit like that. Every mac I've seen had about the same amount of cabling as a PC, as the other poster was saying. In fact I have an apple keyboard on my PC because I love it so, even if I do have to open and clean it periodically. I have hair on [the backs of] my hands :) and even that ends up in my keyboard, let alone crumbs and stuff. Yes, they tried to teach me not to eat at the computers in elementary school, but it never took.

Having external video is not enough - if the internal video dies, you're stuck with a big heavy lump of shit in your PC. Of course, they sell all in one PCs these days, and all in one PCs predate the Macintosh, so it's a stupid argument anyway.

EFI BIOS may not be here but you only need to deal with the PC BIOS at boot time if your drivers are good enough. Interfacing with the BIOS much is a sign of a stupid operating system.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[jrockway]

So, uh, use your XP box and quit-yer-bitching.

Any time anyone mentions a platform the same thing always comes up. The people from alternate platforms (like OS X, or Linux) make arguments about why their platform is better. The we get a bunch of cry-baby XP users making posts like yours. My point? WHO THE FUCK CARES WHICH PLATFORM IS BETTER!? Use the one you like! Done!

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you bought one of those cheapo 0.0005 megapixel digital cameras for $10

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[cheekyboy]

So x86 is only for poor shmucks, ie 90% of us all while macs are for rich pricks (unless you get a 2year old mac)

I think what needs to be done, is someone to make a PPC PCI card for $200 that will allow you to boot/run OSX perfectly at the same time as windows/linux, kind of like VMware, but also using the PPC chip for execution.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[the unbeliever]

We're not discussing server room, we're discussing desktop. I have no doubts that Apple X-Serves are very efficient, powerful boxes... but you don't play games or write email on those, do you?

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[nmk]

Thats funny, I have this HP bluetooth printer, and getting it to work has been a major pain in the ass on two different XP laptops. When I use the bluetooth detection wizard in OS X to setup the printer (default drivers), it just works.

The thing you have to remember about OS X is that things that are supposed to work with it always work, easily. A large number of the things that are supposed to work with Windows are a pain in the ass to set up.

All you have to do is make sure your device is compatible with OS X. With the very large number of printers, digital cameras, digital camcorders, phones, and PDAs that are compatible, that is usually a pretty trivial task. As least with OS X you know that if the thing is supposed to work, its usually just a matter of plugging it in. With Windows its still plug and pray.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[wolrahnaes]

"there are NO machines that Apple ships without external video."

Not anymore, but my first generation (233/B) iMac does not have any external video. I know Apple added a VGA port eventually, but the first generation does not have one.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

What? There IS a large wave of x86-64 clusters coming online. You are a clueless troll.

So, can you find an Apple system that will beat the specs, performance, and price of your run-of-the-mill $1000 Dell system. No, obviously you can't. Because Apple's low-end is overpriced junk.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[BasilBrush]

Secondly, the 'total experience' of the platform seems to include a "Well, now where do I find *software* for the damn thing?" right out of the box as well.

Where ever you are in OS X, no matter what app you are currently running, the first menu, 3rd item i "Get Mac OS Software...". Takes you to a list of software for just about everything. What software category do you believe is missing? Or are you just reiterating some meme you heard.

"Huge price differential" belies your bias too. There's little difference for systems of a similar spec and quality. You only get much cheaper if you go DIY or white box PC.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[BasilBrush]

Make and model?

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[cortana]

Are there really *any* digital cameras that don't act as universally compatible USB Mass Storage devices?

Apart from firewire gear obviously :)

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[drgroove]

"Go ahead -- reply and list all the things you use regularly that aren't available, or for which good or better substitutes aren't available, for OSX."

OK - here goes:

• Enterprise-class or SMB CRM software, such as Goldmine, ACT, Siebel, or PeopleSoft; non web-based, so you can skip your "well, just use salesforce.com" reply. Outlook has and always will suck eggs, so the Mac Outlook is as much a terrible option on Apple's platform as Microsoft's. Apple never has had and never will have a robust, comprehensive, intuitive contact-management application, which is a huge issue in breaking down the corporate barrier.
• Accounting software. Not home-user accounting software, either, like Quickbooks or something mickey mouse like that; no, I'm talking general ledger, CFO-feels-comfortable-running-a-Fortune-500-compan y's-finanacials-on-it kind of accounting software.
• Altova's XMLSpy. VPC can go jump in a lake on this one, or for use with any other windows-only software, for that matter. The darn thing runs at 1/4 the speed of native or even J2SE apps on the Mac, which makes using VPC a non-starter. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or trying to sell you something, or both. As such, Mac doesn't have a killer XML app such as XMLSpy available for it.
• Rational Enterprise Suite - ClearQuest, ClearCase, RobotJ, TestManager, etc etc. Yes, IBM/Rational is porting the suite to the Eclipse platform sometime this year, but as of now, if you're developing software in a large IT shop and using Rational, Mac isn't an option.
• Microsoft Access. I hate it, of course, but people use it - it's easy to use. Filemaker is probably the straight-off answer to this one, but a ton of people who use or used Access simply hate Filemaker... not to mention that FM is even less of a RDBMS than Access is, if that's even possible.
• Internet Explorer. Again, I use FireFox as my browser of choice, but most folks use MSIE, so if you're building a site, it is critical that you test your work in MSIE. VPC again? For this one, the inherant intolerable slowness of VPC isn't a critical issue, since you're very likely not to be doing anything w/ MSIE save testing your site in it.

That's the short, off the top of my head list. I'm certain if you thought about this for any significant period of time, you'd come up with many more examples. Software availability for Mac has always, always, always been an issue - the aforementioned examples are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[BasilBrush]

Why on earth would Apple want to do that? Apple make money from selling Apple hardware and Apple software to users. Making OSX open source would limit the sales of both. They have no need to change to a Red Hat model for their software. Red Hat only do it because the GPL gave them the software to build their business on, and they *have* to share back.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[The Infamous Grimace]

The new iMac ain't the old; many of the components can be replaced by the user.
Unfortunately, the same can't be said of the eMac.

And for what it's worth, one of the reasons we got an iMac in the first place (the original style, lime-colored, been with us for 5 years) was because my wife wanted a computer that I couldn't take apart and mess with :-)

Gonna get a new iMac real soon. They're worth every penny, IMHO.

(tig)

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Fallen_Knight]

and they don't ship them anymore:P

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[peawee03]

Sun makes the exact opposite of that for their SPARC systems to run x86 code; my father only uses SPARC workstations at his job, and they all use the "SunPCI" (creative name, eh?) with a full-blown AMD proc and everything.

Also, IIRC, somebody made/makes a full-blown G3 system that fits in a 5.25" drive bay, all you need to do is attach a drive. I'm trying really really hard to get a link if possible, and will post as soon as I find it... Something like that would work wonders with some VNC software.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[alienw]

You can buy a perfectly decent PC for about $400 these days (monitor included). Obviously, it's not high end, but it can do everything a $2000 G5 can do. It might not have the best components, but who cares? You could go through 5 of them and still save money over a G5 -- and generally they last for about as long. If you REALLY care, replace the power supply and the RAM and they'll be just as reliable. If you need 3D, add a nice videocard. The computer will still be a lot less than $700. As far as electricity consumption of CRTs vs. LCDs: unless you use your computer 24 hours a day, the energy difference will be negligible (less than a dollar per month). Monitors spend most of the time in powersave mode anyway.

It's not like Apple has exclusive suppliers or something. They get the same hard drives, videocards, and memory chips eMachines does. Unless you actually care how many cables it has coming out of the back, a cheap PC is a much better value than anything Apple offers, hardware-wise.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a G4 on my desk at work, and an ADC monitor. My monitor gets signal, power, and USB on ONE cable to the CPU.

Dude, I've never owned a Mac but even I know that you don't plug cables into the CPU.. or is this some kind of Mac-lingo I'm not aware of? I really hope what you wrote was just a slip-up.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[ti.payn]

Are you actually trying to argue AAPLs market share via servers? Seriously? X-Servers are a fucking joke in terms of % -- irrespective of how cool Mac hardware is, etc.

Brining servers into a Mac vs. x86 argument is pretty stupid (if you are trying to argue pro-Mac, as you are).

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[n4t3]

I don't think my Canon S30 can act in that manner. The "image capture" utility in OSX automatically detected and allows me to transfer the images from the camera, but thats not the same thing. It doesn't function as a "removeable" drive or provide that kind of functionality on XP either as far as i can tell you need the Canon software to transfer to and from XP. Can someone set me straight there?

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[SlamMan]

Yeah, cause those are things I really need dual 64 bit processors for.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[SlamMan]

Yeah, enjoy that serial cable you're connecting your Kodak DC 20 to your XP box with, and its .3 megapixels of glory.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[cyfer2000]

We have two printers connected to the local network by HP jetdirect card and the Macs simply know they are there, and the PCs I need to configure them as "Local printer", and actually they are in the other room.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[arminw]

We inherited two such vintage iMacs and I did indeed mess with them both and installed 512M RAM and a 120G HD in them. They run OSX 10.3.5 and are used for e-mail and browsing the web. On one of them the CD-ROM had to be replaced also. One of them makes a great iTunes music server.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[the unbeliever]

I didn't bring up dual CPU boxen either. nite_warrior did here. All of my comments up until that point solely related to single CPU desktop boxes.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

> Go ahead -- reply and list all the things you use regularly that aren't available, or for which good or better substitutes aren't available, for OSX.

A whole metric shitload of games.

Drivers for my weird-ass high end professional sound card.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Lehk228]

I think Apple should ship new macs with USB buckling spring keyboards (clicky), i scored an old Dell buckling spring a few weeks ago and am loving it after cleaning it up, also got another one but i need a DIN to mini-DIN adaptor to test it and use it. buckling spring keyboards are by far superior to "soft touch" or "quiet key" units, and if/when this one ever dies i will be spending the $60-$100 for a new BS keyboard if i cannot get an old one again.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[legLess]

That's all good information, and I certainly don't mean to deny that the problem exists. My question was an honest one, not sarcastic. Most of what you listed doesn't affect most people, but the for the people who are affected Rational, for example, is a deal-breaker. FWIW I run IE and Acccess in VPC with little trouble. Access is slow and nasty, but then it is in Winders too :)

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[BobPaul]

Well, your right... You do get a lot of computer in the Mac... They do know how to build them, and they do perform well.

However, therein lies the problem... They build it... The system I build won't perform quite as well, but for not too far behind I can save at least a grand.

That's a big deal when your in college ;)

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[curne]

Short answer is yes: There are plenty of camera brands which fail to work with either OS X or Win32, mostly the former.

Also the "universally compatible USB Mass Storge" is actually an illusion. As a Apple switchee, I had to go replace my no-name USB stick with one from SanDisk since the one I had did not work in OS X.

Still, I have had plenty of equivelant experiences with Linux and WinXP. I assume the hardware vendors are hacking their products together at the workstation instead of implementing the specification properly.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[JM Apocalypse]

Liar! http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually don't answer stuff that sounds too sterio-typed but this one i cannot pass up. I work for a major u.s. bank at the offshore accounts dept. I thougth that they would use super dupper programs but i ended up helping the accounting gals (2 of them, that's it, for the whole latin-america-32k+-brokerage-accounts-shop) with their broken excel spreadsheets. Yup, that's with what the CFO and other accountants there do the accounting for the shop....It is sad.

albert

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Col Bat Guano]

Microsoft Access. I hate it, of course, but people use it - it's easy to use. Filemaker is probably the straight-off answer to this one, but a ton of people who use or used Access simply hate Filemaker... not to mention that FM is even less of a RDBMS than Access is, if that's even possible.

The latest version of Filemaker is supposed to be relational...

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple would never Lie! Nosirree!

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I've never owned a Mac but even I know that you don't plug cables into the CPU.. or is this some kind of Mac-lingo I'm not aware of? I really hope what you wrote was just a slip-up.

Some people refer to the actual computer as the CPU to distinguish it from the monitor (since some people see the monitor and assume it is the computer, new iMacs notwithstanding).

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[snol]

who the fuck modded this troll? There's nothing trollish about it. It's a fact; you can buy a PC for well under $1000 that performs comparably to a Mac that costs twice that. Apple hardware is priced comparably to the most expensive versions of similar PC hardware; it costs much more than your everyday commodity stuff from Newegg. Look and feel, polish, all fine arguments for choosing Apple. But do a few random comparisons of hardware items between apple.com and newegg and tell me that their hardware is just as cheap.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[alekd]

The Oracle E-Business Suite is available for MacOS X and has both enterprise class CRM and accounting software. While the CRM software might not be in the same league as Siebel, it has other benefits as tight integration with Accounts Receivables and Daily Business Intelligence -- which can save you from implementing costly high-maintenance data warehouses. The accounting software is just about the best there is.

Anyway most enterprises I know choose to run their enterprise wide applications on UNIX-boxes or on Linux -- even though they use Windows for everything else. I should think a Mac is just as capable of connecting to these as any Wintel.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[godglike]

We recently updated our Oracle Financials and moved to the funky new interface. It's a java applet so theoretically it'll work just fine. That should cover your major accounting package. I admit I haven't tried it on my iBook but I think I just might...

This is a just another false dichotomy: there is something that will do the trick out there for all platforms. Get over it, move along, find something significant to worry about.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

Any web site today that is not being designed around web standards (XHTML, CSS, etc) is making the wrong decision, not the user. Please name a web site that you absolutly have to have MSIE for it to work on, and I will show you a better alternative. Yes, I would agree that testing on all platforms is important, not just MSIE. Your point about IE is pretty embarresing.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Large Green Mallard]

Amen to that.. I've upgraded the RAM on an eMac, as well as the hard drive on another one.. took the better part of an hour to get the thing apart and back together.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Ilgaz]

I don't understand all this Driver talk you have.

Clear example. Billionton bluetooth adapter. We fought to install it to my bros XP for CLEAR 1 day. It has a "hack like" installing for XP. Next 2 days passed with installing and making damn Nokia software work. For what? To Sync contacts, upload pictures to PC.

On Mac G5, guess what I did to achieve all? Insert the dongle to my keyboard usb!

I am also _not_ sure if OS X can do all those cool tricks on x86. We are speaking about a vector capable 64bit RISC cpu and years old CISC structure which still tries to emulate 8086.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[EvilTwinSkippy]

We're not discussing server room, we're discussing desktop. I have no doubts that Apple X-Serves are very efficient, powerful boxes... but you don't play games or write email on those, do you?

Considering the number of times I walk into someone else's datacenter and I see a cheapo optiplex running exchange or SQL, the line between a server and a desktop are very blurry.

A high-end desktop uses the same parts as a high-end server. If you are serious about performance you run SCSI or SATA on your drives. You use a procesor/MOBO/RAM combination that gives you the highest speed. You generally are looking for a computer with longevity.

About the only difference these days are the video cards. Most servers don't really need a good one. (In fact Xserves don't even have one by default.)

Once you get down to video performance the issue isn't Mac vs. PC. It's ATI vs. Invidia, and the various product lines between them.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Pharmboy]

Please name a web site that you absolutly have to have MSIE for it to work on, and I will show you a better alternative.

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[the unbeliever]

Hardly unbiased, wouldn't you say?

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[IamTheRealMike]

As for the rat's nest of cables, I really don't see it being as bad as you say. There are pretty much the same level of cables either way. Power, video, keyboard, mouse, audio, external devices like a USB camera.

Indeed, simply making everything use USB doesn't magically make cabling disappear. It's actually a disadvantage: if I bought a Mac the first thing I'd do would be to buy a 3 button wheel mouse. I already have one that I like very much but it's PS/2 not USB. This does not make it 'inferior', sorry, I plug it in and it works and never breaks so as far as I'm concerned using USB would not be an advantage. USB can be a disadvantage: I've known one Mac user who had to rewire his setup with extra hubs and such because he bought some USB speakers and when combined with his mouse/keyboard and other peripherals the bus was overloaded and mouse/keyboard events got lost!

OK, so now I'm posting, I might as well list the other reasons I'd not switch to MacOS from Linux:

• Usability. Sorry but I don't find MacOS X usable. I find it doesn't work the way I expect - simple, basic things like apps not quitting when you close the last window run counter to my 10+ years of experience. You don't unlearn such things quickly, or at least I don't, and the fact that I would have to annoys me: I can't think of a single advantage such an approach has. Likewise for the single menubar; in the OS 9 days this made sense as File, Edit etc would always be in the same place so allowing you to harness muscle memory. Then Apple demonstrated that they no longer understood usability and put the app name as the first item, which changes everytime you switch apps so destroying the point.

  MacOS does do some things very well, and often works the way I expect, however it has a lot of historical baggage I'd rather do without. The non-standard keyboard also irks me. Linux on the other hand is much more semantically compatible with Windows in terms of UI, keyboard shortcuts, and so on. Usability isn't interesting to me in the abstract sense: it's about making my day easier. MacOS X doesn't, regardless of how simple it makes some tasks.

• Consistency and theming: Linux lets me theme everything, yet is nearly always consistent. This may be surprising to some readers but I use unified themes to make Qt and GTK+ play together, and these days portable apps like Firefox and OpenOffice can track native theming as well. Only very rarely do I use an app that doesn't follow the native theme. On Linux though I can theme not only widgets but also stock artwork, window borders, and I can use SVG scalable icons for my desktop. I like that because I have a flat panel screen which only looks crisp at high resolutions.

  Some people hate theming and say it makes things non-consistent, but that's like saying you hate putting posters on walls or art in your room. My desktop is a personal space, I enjoy giving it a personal touch and when I get bored, redecorating. However, it's important that generally apps are consistently themed (I make an exception for XMMS) otherwise they are distracting to me.

  Mac fails both of these tests. You can't theme it without fragile 3rd party hacks which tend to break stuff (or the ones a friend tried did). Nonetheless, it's not consistent - some apps are Aqua and some are brushed metal. It's like living in a hotel where you can't decorate the room yet one wall is blue and the other is red. It is just jarring to my sense of aesthetics. The other thing that annoys me about this is that Apple did this because to them it looks cool and they want to sell Macs, but they didn't just admit this they had to rewrite their HIG to try and give it some lame justification. I think it was related to apps that are equivalent to real world objects. Safari obviously ignores that rule too.

• Games. I'm not a big gamer, but I do have one or two games that I tend to play in the 15-20 minute gaps you sometimes get in a day. I really like Supreme Snowboarding - it

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[IamTheRealMike]

The Mozilla Project maintains a database of them. Search bugzilla for tech evangelism - last time I did that there were over 2500 registered sites that didn't work, many of them very high profile and popular.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[macshome]

Erm...

FMP has been relational for years and years now. It just never supported more than one table per DB file. That went away in FMP 7.

We run our trouble ticket system and service contract system out of FMP 6. I can track customer histories, what hardware assets that are covered or not covered by contracts, automatic parts-price lookups, and even check warranty info in real time with a SOAP service that Apple provides to service providers.

Granted it takes 4 or 5 open db files to do that, and it makes me a bit crazy, but when we get around to picking up FMP Server 7 I can make that problem go away.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[saha]

Have you tried to use the Image Capture.app ? This application will grab any video and images off any camera with USB, if iPhoto is unable to recognize cameras. Out of curiousity what camera are you using, because I haven't come across a camera that OSX can't work with yet. I've seen it work with Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Kodak cameras.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[saha]

Lastly, Intel is making steps towards fixing the major architecture issues (real mode, for one thing) through a next-generation replacement for the BIOS. In a few years, we'll be past that point.

Intel may be taking steps towards addressing the BIOS issue, but for right here and right now, they aren't there yet. I install Windows, Linux, MacOSX, Irix and other systems at my work and Mac OSX target boot has been a real boon for me. Until then Intel boxes aren't there yet in terms of ease of use and administration. I have my Windows PC behind a Linux firewall router too, I don't have to be as concerned with my Mac OX systems. Regular scans of my network with Nessus show that Mac OX does very well in regards to security.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[mintcookie]

I am not saying it is likely because Apple culture seems firmly against it. But it makes sense:

>1. Apple makes a lot of money on their hardware.

But a x86 OS package would likely be a hit too. Apple could sell a lot of these. The market for hardcore tirekickers in the PC world may be as big as the native Mac OSX upgrade market.

Further - the commodity PC is exactly the product they want to support. Apple has a competitive workstation. They have a boutique all-in-one desktop and they have good competitive laptops. The machine they need is the cheap headless desktop. And around $100 per seat is good money in this market segment. Apple could sell to corporate desktops if they have this sort of PC box support. That is a considerable upside. And most current Mac buyers are not going to run out and buy PC boxes, they like the fit and finish of Apple hardware too much for that.

In my opinion Apple is perfectly positioned to roll a PC box version of the OS, simply because they have no current hardware that fits in this category, the cheap headless desktop box. Without a product in this low margin catagory they have little to lose in term of real hardware sales.

>2. OS X has limited driver support, opening up to all breeds of >hardware would slow the development of the OS down and > > >reduce stability.

Opensource community can help with this on the Darwin level. They already support the video cards, USB, firewire, PCI. It might not be that bad. They don't have to be 100% from day one. They could target specific setups and go from there.

>3. There's stuff you have on Macs that just doesn't exist with >your typical PC BIOS, stuff like target-mode and netboot (much >better implmentation than PXE).

These sort of aspects are partly an answer to point 1. They differentiate the Mac hardware. Apple could ship OSX for x86 and still offer an enhanced user experience on Mac hardware. Just like with the iPod you can use a PC, but a Mac makes life a little nicer.

>4. Apple are about the total experience of the platform, putting >OS X on your Dell with it's rat's-nest of cabling is something >that makes Steve Jobs cry. Steve has a VISION, and a huge part >of it is massive reduction in cabling.

Again, this speaks to point 1. The ascetics of a Mac are a real differentiator for Apple hardware. Is someone who buys a $700 pc box really the same customer as the new $1300 iMac at twice the cost? I don't think they are. The iMac buyer is already sold on the sleek form factor being a selling point over the rock bottom price.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[MarcQuadra]

Terrasoft Solutions Briq, a G3 or G4 computer in a CD-ROM drive form factor. They're basically uber-low power CPUs with network cards. I like these things, but can't afford one for myself.

It would be very cool to strap a SATA card into one and place the Briq inside a PC enclosure, sort of like a storage server turned inside-out.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[caseih]

Internet Explorer. Again, I use FireFox as my browser of choice, but most folks use MSIE, so if you're building a site, it is critical that you test your work in MSIE. VPC again? For this one, the inherant intolerable slowness of VPC isn't a critical issue, since you're very likely not to be doing anything w/ MSIE save testing your site in it.

Well, since IE for Mac is a completely different animal than IE for Windows, if you are a web developer on a Mac, you'll still need access to a Windows machine with IE for testing. So that point is basically a non-issue.

Also, I don't know what kind of crap you're talking about with VPC, but it really isn't that slow on anything over a gHz with plenty of ram. I recommend 1 gig of ram if you want to run VPC. Then you can give at least 384 mb to it.

VPC appears to run (raw execution speed) at about 1/2 to 2/3 the speed I expect it to run on my PC destop. I won't give you a mHz rating, because Windows XP for me runs at the exact same speed on every machine from 1 gHz on up to 4 gHz, doing daily work. VPC takes the most performance hit on the I/O layer, because of the extra layer of abstraction.

Thus the reason why VPC seems slow to some people is they are starving it for RAM, causing Windows to dip into it's swap file, which is very slow because it's going through another layer before it hits the disk. If you were serious about running VPC (and actually need it), you'd probably want at least 1 gig of ram for win xp alone (to stop swapping), and 512 to 1 gig for OS/X.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[summernot]

I don't have experience with most of these, so I can't comment on all, but I can on a few...

Peoplesoft: This works on a Mac. Apple uses it in-house even.

On a similar note, Apple also uses SAP. This, and/or Peoplesoft is the Finance/Accounting solution for many Fortune 500 companies.

Access- You mention that FileMaker is an equivalent application available on the Mac. Don't forget Crystal Reports, SQL, etc.

Of course, Internet Explorer is available for the Mac, but perhaps you listed it because it is no longer being developed for the Mac. If someone needs to test the web site on MSIE on Windows, there is no dearth of machines out there to use for this purpose. ;)

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[drinkypoo]

I just scored two IBM keyboards (clicky clicky) at a surplus sale at my place of employment which is a community college... $1 each :) I could have bought a whole pile of them but I already have way too much crap and I got a VGA/video projector ($5) and a dual-trace tek oscilloscope ($1) at the same time, which was way over my bringing crap home quota. If I wanted to use one on a mac, I guess I could get one of those PS/2 to USB converter boxes, but it's missing keys you'd want on a mac, as it doesn't even have windows keys one could remap to command.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[JavaRob]

Any web site today that is not being designed around web standards (XHTML, CSS, etc) is making the wrong decision, not the user.

This is (unfortunately) irrelevant to the user AND developer, though I wish it weren't. If I'm searching tech support for a product and their support website is IE only, that's rarely reason enough for me to switch products, though I'll definitely complain. I don't know about now, but IE came default on OS X, 2 years ago, and it's not that hard to use it if the need arises. If you are developing a website, you *must* test it in IE, preferably a few older versions of IE as well. That's why most web developers, even if they work on Macs, have a cheap windows PC lying around for this purpose. I could also point out that IE exists on the Mac as well, and still gets quite a lot of usage... but of course it's different from IE on windows, so you just have to test on them all. My point, then -- this isn't a reason for OR against developing on a Mac, since you need to have both platforms around in some form anyway.

Personally, I develop currently mostly on a win2k desktop, since that's what I have (I'm spec'ing out a new work PC which I hoping can be Mac or Linux if I can find proper support for my various hobbies) -- but when my wife needed a computer I got her an iBook with OS X so I can also use it for testing. It came with IE and Safari, and I installed Firefox (which is what she uses), and I can test in all of them.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[nite_warrior]

my point on bringin up dual CPU boxes is that if you want to compare a x86 box to a Mac you have to consider machines of similar characteristics, and you will see that the myth of the price difference is not completely true now.

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Ilgaz]

long live metamoderators, thats all I have to say...

Re:It wouldn't go that way

[Anonymous Coward]

2. OS X has limited driver support, opening up to all breeds of hardware would slow the development of the OS down and reduce stability.

so is that why my old 1997 all in one G3 233 running 10.2.3 was able to use a $3 Firewire card and a $2 USB 2.0 card from pricewatch.com all without having to install a single driver, just install the card boot up and it works?

oh you must be right and i must be wrong then. maybe its not working at all.

Slow down there cowboy

[poohsuntzu]

Whoa, calm down there. This is that part where we learn to use our -imaginations-.

IF it happened, would you?

Re:Slow down there cowboy

[tunah]

Probably. I hear bad things about anthrax.

would i switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

short answer: no

long answer: hell no

It really depends ...

[kbahey]

There are several things I need to know before saying yes or no, such as:

• Desktop or Server The poster does not say whether he means desktop or server. On the server, I don't think Mac OS X has an edge, since Linux or *BSD can do everything Apple does today. On the desktop, it is a different story though. Apple's interface is great of course.
• How much will it cost? I have six computers at home. Four of those are used as a desktop machine. If they charge 100$ or 150$, this would be too much for me when you multiply it by four.
• Resource requirements? How much RAM will it require, and how much CPU power? Most of my machines are Pentium II. Two have 384 MB, one has 768, and one has only 128 (laptop). How will it run on those?
• Hardware support? Will all my hardware work with it? Most of the configuration was done automatically by Mandrake, but I have had to configure some things manually, such as sound cards. Will they all be supported?

Anyway, I will certainly take a look and see. It is worthwile to at least evaluate it.

Virtual PC works on the G5

[MauriceV]

Yeah, they have: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/virtualpc/vi rtualpc.aspx?pid=vpcdemo

(You could run it pretty fast if you had enough RAM to put the entire C drive in RAM with a RAM disk.)

No; Linux on PPC, X86, X86_64

[macemoneta]

I use Linux (currently Fedora Core 2, Yellowdog 3.01) on all my PCs, both Mac and X86/X86_64. I had used OSX for a while, but I didn't like the user interface, just as I didn't like the WinXP user interface. In addition, OSX tried to hide too much from the user; while that made it easy to do simple things, complex things were much more difficult (for example, running a bash script from an icon, without opening a terminal window). Yes there were ways around it, but they increased the complexity for no particular reason. I also like X, and use it extensively to run applications remotely. Having to go though the additional setup and unique administration for X on WinXP and Mac OSX also increased the complexity for me.

For example, the hard drive in my laptop died, and it will take a couple of weeks to get a warranty replacement. I just booted a Knoppix CD, and mounted an old 16MB flash with a saved configuration and persistent home directory. My day-to-day use of the system is completely unchanged. This is something I can't do with OSX or WinXP, but it's important to me.

Obviously, other folks will have differing experiences and preferences, and that's OK. Linux works best for me, and that's why I use it.

No, thanks, I am happy with Gentoo

[Technomancer]

And I believe Mac OS X on PC would make it twice slower as well.

Re:No, thanks, I am happy with Gentoo

[craXORjack]

I agree. I would not switch from Linux to it but I would love to play with it at work. My boss is a former Mac addict and still a big fan so I think he would buy at least a few licenses to evaluate. I think OS X is ber-cool but at home I do open source development and love the coding tools that are Free so I'm not going to switch here. Maybe when I buy a new system I would load it on the one I have now since I have a KVM. It's just one more cable to buy.

Simple answer

[kc3lai]

YES!

PC hardware is crap

[Uncertain Bohr]

The original post propagates, once again, the "macs are slow" myth. Give me a break. I switched from PC a while back and have never looked back. My Mac(s) are great preformers, silent, reliable, come with a wonderful OS.

Yes

[OmniQin]

In fact: Hell Yes.

perhaps

[sewagemaster]

Why I would

Excellent Latex front-end Programs

MS office available without the need to run crossover office or vmware

The much more responsive GUI of course

GUI features (expecially eXpose)

Unix based - i can use a decent command line

Apps like firefox and thunderbiard are also available on that platform

Why I wouldn't

I'll have to PAY for an OS . Don't need to do that with linux. (I don't have windows on my computer at all)

Everything is customizable, and configurable by editing an ascii-txt file

tuxracer? :D

Linux on x86 would be a better choice anyway

[invisik]

You don't want to start over AGAIN with a new platform, do you? Drivers and all that crap. Linux is 90% of the way there and has 90% of the apps people need. Could the GUI stand to be improved on Linux (KDE and GNOME), yes sure it does. I really don't want to go through the whole drivers and hardware compatibility stuff again.

Besides, you'd then again be locked into a single vendor for your OS--might as well stay on Windows then. Is any OS that great to lock yourself back in?

-m

Fuck, yes!

[Pig Hogger]

Yes, I'd definitely switch.

BSD and a good user interface?

Heck, yes!

I'd switch hardware

[pbjones]

Apple would die. They build OS AND HARDWARE, they need to build both to maintain quality and compatibility. Part of the reason that Windows often fails is hardware and driver related, not the base windows instal. It is also not a question of running the OS on Intel, it's how much of the other sofware is ported over. Apple has the core of their available, there is MacOS on Intel. There is not the Interface on Intel, because that is what makes people buy Apple computers. If you start building hardware at the same level as Apple then the price gap closes, not the cheaply cased home builts, we build quality cased computers here at home and the price gap starts to narrow wheh you add the cost of Windows OS, good cases, etc.

Absolutely!

[Daimaou]

Yes, I would.

Yes

[halo8]

had a mac back in the 7.5.5 days.. love it.. want to get back in.. but cant afford the hardware.

1- i would support it because the more ppl that did crtical mass would mean more support (halflife2)
2- Its based on linux (BSD) and i want to support i WANT to support open source more than i allready do but i cant (no halflife2)

3- MacOSX would prolly be the first legit OS i actually pay for

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

YES SURE! GO APPLE!

Nope!

[bhima]

I'll keep using my dual G5

More important question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you put your brain in a robot body?

I'd run Baghira the moment I can find it neatly packaged for me. :) I like Linux. I'm also cheap.

but darwin is dead...

[SpootFinallyRegister]

but darwin is dead, isnt it?

i mean, its based on BSD.

(yes, thats sarcasm from a BSD user)

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I don't work with professional graphics or music, there is nothing that a x86 MacOs could do that can't be done on one of my x86 Linux boxes. Furthermore, great part of Macs superiority over the x86 PC is due to their better designed hardware. If I have to buy a Mac (this could happen in the near future) it will be a PowerPC machine.

Re:without a doubt NOT

[justsomebody]

No, it wouldn't. Even if they would release OSX for x86 there would be a lack of drivers probably. Darwin alone supports only some very obscure PC hardware that mostly belongs to museum. I doubt that OSX x86 would make a difference.

Take for example Solaris, no drivers for many things on x86.

btw. To answer the original question:
NOT, even now that I own two macs, I don't like OSX and probably wouldn't like x86 version too

As an Apple User ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I think would happen if Apple did an x86 version -

a) *nix nuts would switch.
b) Some others would switch out of curiosity.
c) Most people aren't interested and would stay with Windows because it's the de facto standard for the average desktop.
d) Apple would lose money since nobody would buy their hardware anymore.

So basically while great for those interested in OS X (which isn't that many) the world, at large, would just continue using Windows and Apple would lose hardware sales ...

Still I really wish there was an x86 version available. :-(

Yes I would switch, if...

[Slashdot Junky]

Yes I would switch to MacOS X if it would run as well on my existing box.

-Slashdot Junky

Support

[PsyKotyk4Real]

Linux battled for the last 10 years to get good driver support far all the various hardware found on the x86 platform. I don't think OS X could make that leap today, and it would certainly be lagging behind Linux.

It would be cheaper/quicker/easier to emulate the OS X libraries and applications - much the same way wine does. Intel based OS's are polarized at this point in time... Your choices are Windows or Linux. (not to diminish other guys like BSD etc)

yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I wouldn't personally switch. But, I would definitely set my parents and grandma up with a MacOSX boxen if I could build it with cheaper x86 hardware.

The force is weak in this one.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

I have a better question. If Apple computers are desired so much by the x86 crowd? Why aren't you saving up money, or taking out a loan to get one?

Or even buying a used one?

I've never seen so much desire backed by so weak a will.

Re:The force is weak in this one.

[Anita Coney]

As you point out, Apples are expensive. If we have to take out a loan to buy one, the fact that we won't switch to OSx has nothing to do with will. It has to do with value.

However, if I could simply run OSX on cheap AMD boxes, then I wouldn't need the loan, thus it would be quite easy to switch.

You can't make the cost of the switch huge but then claim it's only a matter of will keeping people from switching.

Games.

[tukkayoot]

No, since a lot of games never get ported to Mac, or get ported later.

I generally prefer console gaming, but there are a few games I enjoy that only are available for the PC, or play best on the PC. Windows isn't the greatest, but I'm not going to use one PC for my general computing tasks, and keep another around purely for gaming. I guess I could set the system up to dual boot, but that's a pain, and I'm not going to pay for two operating systems.

If I wasn't a gamer, I'd probably just get a Mac. It wouldn't have to be too fast if I didn't play games, and Macs don't seem all that expensive... plus, the machines themselves look cool without a lot of absurd case-modding. Why run Mac OS on a beige box when you could run it on a stylin' real Mac?

Re:Be careful how you...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yes, I already id switch, I'm typing this up on my new 20" iMac G5."
Quick! Call Applecare for that defective "D" key! ( j/k you lucky sob. I was going to go after the batteries in the bluetooth keyboard at first. )

No, all my games are windows!

[Mustang Matt]

Actually I think my blizzard games run on PC/Mac with the same CD so I might consider it.

There are finally some really nice quality open source apps for windows. I'm not sure if they all have an equivalent for Mac.

Is Mac OS X (and upgrades) cheaper than Windows for the home user?

Re:No, all my games are windows!

[Nermal6693]

An OS X upgrade costs US$129. I don't know what the US prices for Windows are like, but here in NZ it's cheaper to buy OS X than it is to buy XP Home. However, most people believe that OS X vs XP Pro is a better comparison.

Re:No, all my games are windows!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple sells OS X at a reduced price to commoditize their hardware. If they weren't making money from the hardware, they have to make money on their software so those prices would go up.

I probably would.

[Grey Ninja]

If my hardware was FULLY supported in Mac OS X, and the OS was stable, I would most likely want to dual (or possibly triple) boot from Mac OS X and some flavor of Linux. (and possibly Windows).

The thing that bothers me about Linux is that it often takes me a week to get a distro set up properly for my hardware (which is often strange), and then at the end of that, I am just plain tired, and switch back to Windows for some gaming.

The thing that bothers me about Windows is that it is Windows. The core OS kinda bothers me, and I prefer the power offered by a *NIX OS.

The appeal of Mac OS X is that it has quite a bit of mainstream software released for it, and has the capability to natively run some of the best Linux software. (I can't live without XMMS).

Yes on features, no on freedom

[spareparts]

I like OSX, but I use Free software for the freedom. Soon, I'm going to inherit an older iBook, with MacOS. Instead of trying to upgrade to OSX, I'm going to use Debian. I have the money to buy software, but Apple is in the same proprietary software business as Microsoft.

Missing the point.. again.

[RobRancho]

Yet another "switching" question that misses the reason behind the appeal of Macs, and in particular Mac OS X. The OS is just one part of the appeal, and if separated from the Apple hardware, would be just another UNIX, with just another DE, and just as many bugs, configuration issues, and support problems. While it may make a good BSD style OS for x86 were it ever released, it would pale in comparison to the Macs being sold by Apple for what would be probably be bewildering reasons to those who adopted it expecting x86 hardware to operate like a Mac simply because he/she switched OSs.

Yes.

[Mex]

It will probably never happen, but I would.

Dumb Question

[Mr. Cancelled]

That's like asking someone who's never driven a Jeep if they'd consider switching to one if the price was right. How can they say if it'd be a good replacement for their current vehicle after simply seeing one in a commercial?

For someone to truly consider switching, they have to interact with the OS. Since OSX isn't available on x86, there's no way for someone to make a reasonable decision.

What if it didn't perform as well on x86 as on the PPC architecture? What if tons of hardware was incompatible? What if the x86 requirements were such they they required a minimum og 2GB of memory?

There's just too many variables for someone to make a decision like this, sight unseen. And after buying a Mac last Spring, I can honestly say that while an x86 OSX would be nice, the experience still won't be that of OSX on an Apple built machine. It might be close, but I can't picture it being the same as an Apple-based experience.

Re:Dumb Question

[slim-t]

the experience still won't be that of OSX on an Apple built machine

There were Mac clones in the 90s, and for me the experience was no different than an Apple Mac. I actually liked my clone better than any Apple desktop I've ever owned.

Re:Dumb Question

[Mr. Cancelled]

There were Mac clones in the 90s, and for me the experience was no different than an Apple Mac. I actually liked my clone better than any Apple desktop I've ever owned.

But those were clones. They were all based off the same hardware/architecture.

A move to an x86-based system is an entirely different beast. Different CPU, hardware, configuration(s), behavior, and so on.

The variables are increased much more than a cloned box would be. A cloned G5 would still be a G5, or some similar PPC-based system, for example.

Why can't a PC serve that purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same token, isn't it true that basic x86 machines can do simple everyday tasks with ease as well, this is not about programs on the machine but the OS and how it would be if ported to the x86 architecture.

I do not think that it would be a wise move to have OS X on the most common PC's that people use today because it would hurt the reputation of the software. With Macs they know what is being put inside of the machine and would have to get used to and expand dramatically, in my opinion, to keep up with troubleshooting and compatibility issues.

Assuming application support was there...

[CRCates]

Having recently engaged in a switch for my wife's computer from WinXP Pro to Max OS/X 10.3, I can certainly say that the largest issue was application support. We spent the cost of the hardware many times over in purchasing "Mac" versions of existing windows applications that we had licensed for her previous computers. Basically, I think that the hardware cost is negligible when viewed in the overall scheme of things and that makes the hardware platform LESS relevant. We switched half our computers macintosh for the user experience but maintained cheap/high-performance windows boxes for compatibility. The Macs play so nice with the Windows machines that we hardly notice that they are running different architectures on the hardware side. It's just a UI decision where Hardware is a very small element of the cost. While you need to pay extra for a premium OS on Intel/AMD/X86 platforms (read as XP-PRO v. XP-HOME), Apple loads up their hardware with a top-rate OS without much extra cost. Add-in better designed hardware and peripherals and basically the value proposition is based on getting applications that do what you need.

Therefore, if application support was there for an OS/X based core running on X86, I would probably switch (but still keep at least one Windows box... just in case).

Later.

it will never be winbloze

[Anonymous Coward]

two things make this a dream question.
There are a million different versions of chipsets/busses/standards/video/audio outthere, with winbloze there is some kind of support/drivers for that old POS audio card. linux supports a good portion of most things, but I have a bunch of weird basement cards etc that are unsupported. mac is a closed system, if they started now they could in a few years support a good portion but not all.

Not that they would want to do this mind you, the stability of the closed systems sun/apple/ibm/hp has been because it only works with a small subset of hardware, and that support has been really good. quite a bit of microsoft stability issues has been because it has drivers/support for 300+ audio cards, 200+ net cards, a zillion different printers. Obviously all of the software was tested but not in conjunction with that no-name netcard+oddball motherboard+ bad ram+ a ancient printer... Of course the thing crashed, that combination was never tested. Oh and most no-name cards write their own drivers so big suprise.

apple wont make that mistake, their closed system and quality control is what makes people LIKE their products.

Switch? No.

[BeneathTheVeil]

Would I re-partition my hard drive, buy a copy, and install it? Yes... it's a very good OS, and certainly a nice alternative... the astronomical cost of running it, as opposed to say, Linux, or Windows, is what probably keeps most people out (This cost of course, being the price of a Mac).

Of course, we know it will never happen... a move like that would be bound to cannibalise Mac sales, so it wouldn't be smart on the part of Apple.

hmmmmm

[theJerk242]

If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?

I think I'd give it try. What do I have loose besides about $100? Mac OS X seems cool, besides the amount of games it has in comparison to Windows. But that is just my opinion.

Not to OS X but to PPC.

[Gadzinka]

Would you switch?

I would not switch to Mac OS X, Linux+KDE runs just fine for me. But I would gladly switch to PowerPC PC if they were made in volume, like x86 PCs are. The thing is that x86, even in its 64-bit incarnation is a total hack[1]. I'm not running to upgrade to x86-64 any time soon[2].

If I had comparable prices for barebone x86-32 and PPC system/components (up to 50% more for PPC) I wouldn't hesitate a minute. As it stands now, dollar for dollar, I can buy much better x86 machine which "solves" by force most of the architectural drawbacks.

Robert

PS Just don't tell me that I can buy brand X PPC machine for the price of some Dell/Gateway high-end PC: I have never in my life bought a brand name computer, I just buy the parts and build myself whatever machine I need.

[1] luckily, most of that is well hidden behind the C compiler
[2] price is not totally a non-issue ;)

Re:Not to OS X but to PPC.

[WillerZ]

Pure x86-64 (long mode) is a lot less of a hack than i686 -- the memory model is flat and is feels a lot RISCier than any prior x86 architecture. Gentoo for amd64 on my 2GHz Athlon 64 (which cost me less than GBP 500 to build) seems around 50% faster than 32-bit gentoo on the same machine.

I would, however, love a PPC64 machine; I've used a fair few of them recently, in the form of pSeries machines running AIX 5.2 and they seem to be about 50% faster clock-for-clock than my Athlon64. As a side note, Unix on PPC seems like a good idea, I wonder if Apple will try it*.

If I were to buy or be given a Mac, I would replace keyboard and mouse with USB PC components and run Linux on it. The OS X GUI seems to me to be an unconscionable waste of a powerful processor.

Phil

PS: Has anyone tried the IBM PPC compiler for OS X? On AIX it can give you some seriously good code (build with -O5 and link with -qipa=level=2).

* I know. But OS X is not Unix, never has been, and probably never will be. I'll believe it's Unix whe the Open Group tell me it is.

Re:Not to OS X but to PPC.

[mikefe]

"* I know. But OS X is not Unix, never has been, and probably never will be. I'll believe it's Unix whe the Open Group tell me it is."

Neither is Linux.

And the new extensions coming out in Xorg seems to allow the features of quartz in X. Maybe some day quartz will just be an abstraction layer to X + extensions.

Apple has created several proprietary parts where there weren't standard parts, but are surprisingly open for a non-linux company.

I'm not an OSX wizard, but finding out that the software raid on OSX only works with entire drives is an artificial limitation. I don't know what it does for LVM either.

Re:Not to OS X but to PPC.

[jrcamp]

The OS X GUI seems to me to be an unconscionable waste of a powerful processor.

The OS X GUI rendering is offloaded to the GPU--a job which it is good at. I don't call that wasting CPU power.

Re:Not to OS X but to PPC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, this is not the case. The final compositing of windows on the screen is accelerated by the graphics card (for example, Expose, the window minimize effect, and the Dock), however the actually drawing inside the windows is done primarily with the CPU. This is a very unfortunate design decision that has cost apple a lot of speed in comparison with Windows, or even Mac OS 9, which both render everything using hardware 2D accelleration. Unfortunately, there is no indication that this situation will be fixed even in Tiger (the next release of OS X). If the GUI were to run nicely on a cheap G4 with a decent graphics card, what incentive would the average Mac user (who doesn't play games) have for purchasing one of Apple's uber-expensive dual G5s.

A quick experiment that you can do is to get a dialog on the screen with a pulsating OK button. Then run top and take a look at the CPU usage. On my 1.33 GHz Powerbook G4, the pulsating application uses around 25% of the CPU, just for a damn 150x60 animation. If the operating system truly rendered it with the GPU, the CPU usage should be around 3-4% max.

Ideally, everything (fonts, images, buttons, and windows) would be composited using the graphics card, and the UI would run as fast as windows or Mac OS 9.

Regularly I find myself wishing for extra speed on my brand new Mac, but I can't remember the last time I had a need for extra speed on my 2 year old PC.

Absolutely

[Sniper_Peabody]

I love OS X. Very stable, great UI, and the speed and flexibility of Unix at the core. Too bad this will probably never happen.

I already did.

[Bombcar]

I took the $2000 plunge, got the PowerBook, and am loving it.

I do agree that if Mac OS X was available for the PC, it wouldn't be as nice as on the Mac, as part of the PC's problems stem from cheap hardware and bad installations.

But it would still be kinda cool to play with.

"Switch"-blade.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's turn the question one eighty. If Longhorn was ported to Apple hardware? Would people buy more Apple hardware?

yes, dual-boot.

[BlackShirt]

But the more important point is that developers have to make file system and graphcical user interface into separate packages.

I would prefer to access files in THIS way, but navigate in THAT environment.

Bone structure and clothes.

Two huge problems to overcome--

[DrDebug]

1) Sadly, the applications (and the developers) aren't there (yet).

2) Currently MacOSX supports only Apple hardware, and not the myriad quagmire of hardware that Microsoft has to deal with. This fact alone might be the long pole in the tent against this ever happening.

Other minor problems--

1) What makes anyone think Apple will be any cheaper? They currently charge a premium price for their products; why should they change?

2) I don't see the embedded corporate bigwigs switching anytime soon. Where is Apple's enterprise software and hardware? The rest of us corportate drones would rather use applications and datafiles that are compatible with what we use at work.

Individually, I would do it, but only because I think Microsoft products are not state of the art; and I am disgusted with the stench of their corporate ethics. But winning over one or two geeks who are knowledgable of MacOSX advantages is not the same as winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the unwashed populace.

JMHO

Why would they bother?

[WillerZ]

Porting all of OS X to x86 would be a huge waste of time, when they could simply take linux, bolt a ported version of the OS X GUI layers on top and sell that. Linux has the x86 hardware support that Darwin does not. Even with that time-saving plan, it's still a dumb idea.

The reason it's dumb is that it would create confusion in the marketplace over which Apple products work where. Apple's strength is in the simplicity of their message, in the knowledge that you can buy the entire contents of the Apple store and it'll all work together. Maybe if they didn't have the G5 processor there'd be a market for some Opteron-based systems, but the migration would be longer and more painful than the m68k->PPC switch.

If they did try this, here's why the market would reject it:

Corporate roll-outs will not happen because Microsoft won't port Office to any non-windows x86 platform.

Home-users will tend to either stick with the OS which came on their PC (windows), be technical enough to use Linux, or own a real Mac.

It might seem like a nice dream, but it'll never happen. Deal with it.

Phil

Yes obviously but why not push further?

[NeedleSurfer]

This whole multi boot system thing is very nice really but I believe osX introduced (to my world actually, don't know about reality) a feature far more impressive no one has truly exploited yet as far as multi-system is concerned.

Classic and X11 are both environment, various systems coexisting and sharing osX ressources at the same time, this is not emulation or virtual machines it goes beyond, letting apps access hardware directly amongst other.

Put that in the PC world, so as far as we are dreaming here anyway, here is my what if:

What if Windows could be made into an environment, and linux, and plan9 and so on? What if Windows implemented the environment concept and osX be made in an environment?
Forget multiple boot, welcome multiple concurent systems, it is possible, it would be awesome.

Doesn't seem likely, but...

[26199]

If there was indeed a way to install OS X on a PC, with a decent set of apps... no, I wouldn't switch. But I'd switch all my family's computers over in a heartbeat... I've had no luck persuading them of the virtues of linux, OS X might have a better chance.

(Why do I want my family to switch? Because I don't enjoy being the admin for a house full of Windows boxes!...)

Yes and no...

[Anita Coney]

If I could install OSX on one of my homebuilt systems I certainly would.

However, one of the reasons Apples are so stable is because the hardware and software is so strictly controlled. Thus, either OSX would be very unstable on the X86 platform or it would not work with most hardware. Either would be a huge disadvantage.

Re:Yes and no...

[Xyde]

Everyone always uses this "argument" but that doesn't take into account why linux on x86 can be perfectly stable with the exact same hardware. What gives, it's either the hardware or it isn't.

Re:Yes and no...

[Anita Coney]

Linux was designed to run on various hardware, Apple's OSX was not. That's the difference!

I'd give it a fair try.

[flushtwice]

XP never passed the smell test with me, so I never touched the stuff. My PC's guts get completely upgraded/replaced within a year's time, and I never got over the whole product activation creep-out. ("Whaddaya mean you're not going to re-activate me? My files! They do nothing!") Then the worms, malware, bloatware, and other creepy spyware started to rear it's ugly head essentially giving me more than ample motivation to make the leap to Linux.

These days when friends ask me whether or not to get "one of them Dell computers", I tell them flat out, "you'll get what you pay for, you'll eventually find out that their tech support will ultimately screw you, and if you're really serious about getting a computer-- BUY A MAC." At least then I don't have to worry so much about another worm knocking on my server late at night.

So yeah... I'd probably go out and actually *BUY* <gasp!> the OS and install it... I just hope it plays nice with Linux. It would be nice to be able to window shop for software in the brick and mortor stores again.

Not in this lifetime anyway!

[AnalogDog]

Because for the last 4 years I've been loving linux. All I would suggest is that you should build up a Linux box, then configure the GUI of your choice to act like a Mac. The only problem with that would be that you would have to break the right button off your mouse..... Otherwise, you can make the GUI look like any other OS on steriods. Go Open Source! Leave the commercial stuff behind!

YES!

[eur]

I have an Imac and several Windoze boxes and would love to run OSX on cheap hardware. Now that Apple uses PC video cards, there is no need for special ASICs. Yes, it can happen.

Will Steve ever allow it?

Is the x86 hardware Apple manufacturered?

[Bones3D_mac]

If it were, i'd consider it, simply because Apple has always ensured us a smooth transition path every time the hardware has changed. I'd imagine the first gen machines would use a hybrid x86-PPC setup for about a year, then go specifically x86... giving us all the time we need to move.

However, if we're just talking about a port of OS X to run on your $299 walmart-purchased celeron machine, then no. What would be the point in throwing away money on a product that would have practically no native apps at launch and highly questionable stability from system to system.

The Mac OS works because Apple can coordinate the hardware and software to work well with one another. If you remove this aspect, you reduce it to nothing more than being just another crash-prone PC, lik every other Microsoft-based doorstop.

apps

[laidon]

For me, it's all about the apps. I can run these on OSX: Web Email Office Apps irc putty vpn BUT I CAN'T RUN THIS ON OSX (elegantly anyway): PC Games Therefore I won't switch to OSX.

Would I switch?

[hkb]

Uhm no, because I already have. Don't buy the hype about speed lag and buy a Mac. If you don't want to buy a Mac don't bother sitting and dreaming about OS X on x86.

My beefed up dual G5 costs me around $2300, big whoopy. I sold my old G4/867 (2001) for almost $900 on Ebay this past June. So I ponied up $1400 for a new dual 2ghz G5. I imagine in a few years, I'll do the same exact thing.

Try getting that kind of resale value on any PC.

Heck Yes!

[House of Usher]

I would definitely consider getting my hands on a copy of Mac's OS X to run on an x86 architecture. Besides, Sun has been doing this with Solaris and their most recent release (10 Express Beta) has been working pretty well on most machines that I've put it on.

As we say in Mexico....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... "if my grandma was a bike ...."

i.e. why waste time in stupid speculation?

Re:As we say in Mexico....

[Anonymous Coward]

"if my grandma was a bike ...." ... you'd ride her all day?

To x86? NO

[RAMMS EIN]

I have a Mac that can run OS X (but runs Linux). If OS X were released for x86, I could start running it on a PC. But I wouldn't. The reason?

I have programmed x86, MIPS, and PowerPC assembly, and studied the instruction formats for these architectures. x86 is a mess.

Ever tried to use ACPI power management under Linux? Chances are it won't work, due to bugs in the BIOS. The USB controller on my old laptop wouldn't work, because the BIOS assigned the wrong IRQ to it (it said it was on 9, but it was hardwired to 11). Ever had PCs crash because of IRQ conflicts? I have.

The PC is so full of kludges it's amazing that it still works. The system starts in real mode (16 bit, 1 MB of addressable RAM). You really want to go to protected mode (32 bit, all RAM addressable). However, certain things need to be done in real mode, because BIOSes don't do protected mode. Does your hard drive use CHS or LBA?

Have you ever compared efficiencies of other architectures with x86? It's amazing how much power goes into supporting the cruft that's in x86. It's too bad the CPUs are so small, or you could use them for cooking.

Anyway, time to quit ranting. x86 is not for me. And oh, I run Linux on my iBook because I know how to customize every part of it, and because it starts applications faster than OS X. It also has more software available (a lot of software uses GNU extensions and thus requires a lot of effort to port to OS X).

Re:To x86? NO

[man_ls]

How tough would it be to remove 8- and 16-bit X86 instructions, and map them to 32-bit ones?

i.e. 8-bit pointers, 16-bit pointers padded with leading zeros internally.

Significantly reduce complexity.

Re:To x86? NO

[norkakn]

I really love how none of your follow ups seem to understand either your complaint or computer architecture in general.

Re:To x86? NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you could just remove the legacy modes and instructions, but that would break backwards compatibility. Then you might as well clean up the rest of the architecture while you're at it. And guess what? Some people have already done this! So you could as well use PowerPC or MIPS (or Alpha or SPARC), instead of rolling your own (like Itanium...)

the real question is...

[xirtam_work]

I'd like to pose my own question. what exactly would apple need to change about the current mac platform to make you switch to a real mac? more powerful video cards? faster processors? cheaper machines? personally, I'd like them to be cheaper, but you get what you pay for. I'd rather have a machine that is well built and looks fantastic (it actually makes other techies i know drool) than have a slightly cheaper crappier machine. when i bought my powerbook (after owning a 17" iMac for a year) I realised that in that year I had had exactly ZERO problems with the machine. no software conflicts, no viruses, no spyware, no driver issues, no lack of a particular type of program that I needed... nothing. it took me about 2 seconds to decide to drop the 2 grand I need for buying the 17"pb. how often have you thought that about a PC product huh?

Usability and speed and time.

[fermion]

First, one reason MacOS runs so well is because the minimum hardware requirements tend to be more stringent. This cuts out the possibility of cheap computers, but also avoids the issue of cheap components degrading the brand. If MacOS run on the half price computers, we would see many more people complaining that the computer was 'slow', when in fact they were using an underpowered gpu.

Second, as a Mac user I appreciate that, for the most part, computer will last more than a year or two. I have G4s running between 500mHZ and 1Ghz, and they all run great in the latest version of MacOS. OTOH, my 1.2 GHZ compaq is unable to do anything with Windows XP. Now some of this is due to the fact that I have more memory in some of my macs, but I would bench test my 1 gHz mac against my 1.2 gHz compaq, both with 256MB, any day of the week.

Really, this has always been the philosophy of Apple. Make products that last. Even with the design flaws on the Apple ///, I ditched that computer because the Macs came out. Even years later, it still ran like a dream.

So, for cheap office machines, the Windows PC is a fine choice. I often have used on at the office. Windows is a reasonable choice, and I would not see any reason not to run it. On my machines, in which i pay for, and buy so that I can get work done, I buy mac. Not just because of MacOS, but because the package is a useful holistic device created to allow me to do work, not minimize costs to my employer.

I guess what I am saying is that I would not recommend that anyone use MacOS on PC hardware unless that I knew that hardware meet minimum standards. It would just hut the Apple brand. Just like cheap hardware hurts the MS brand. I certainly would be unlike to buy a Compaq, Dell, or Gateway machine instead of a Mac. The price difference for comparable hardware would be like 10-15%. Such discounts would not be worth my time. As MS says, there are things that save you money only if your time is worth nothing.

Two Words...

[GypC]

Fuck Yes.

No, because I prefer the Free desktops

[gujo-odori]

I wouldn't switch (well, I'm already a Linux user, not a Windows user) because I prefer Gnome, KDE, and XFCE to Aqua, which would mean that I'd want to be running X and one of those (most likely KDE, which I run now) on OS X anyway. Since I already have a stable (and [Ff]ree) OS, I would have little or nothing to gain from switching to OS X on x86; it would just be more expense and less Freedom.

Would I switch my wife, ESR's Aunt Tillie, and others who cling to Windows over to it? Absolutely. The improvement in security and stability would be more than worth it.

As many have noted, it wouldn't be such a good deal for Apple, though; they make most of their money on hardware, and without the hardware cash cow, it would be really difficult for them to stand against Microsoft, even if they inked OEM deals with Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway, and every other major vendor. They'd still be going up against a huge installed Windows base, and they wouldn't have the applications available overnight.

Drivers wouldn't be that much of a problem, though, I think. The main thing that has taken Linux so long to get there on drivers has been vendor opposition and having to reverse engineer so many of the drivers. Apple, as a primarily proprietary vendor, would do what proprietary vendors do: sign the necessary NDAs, and release proprietary drivers. You'd also find many hardware vendors writing their own OS X/x86 drivers, since they could be proprietary and it would probably sell pretty well. While I myself would not switch, I don't think it would take OS X/x86 very long to surpass Linux in numbers as a desktop OS.

Re:No, because I prefer the Free desktops

[easter1916]

Oh enough with the Aunt Tillie crap... that's the creepiest shit that whacko gun-loving techno-hippy ever came up with.

Re:No, because I prefer the Free desktops

[gujo-odori]

OK, Aunt Bertha. Pass me that box of .40 S&W hollow-points, will ya?

only one to mod?

[poptones]

I cannot believe yours is the only one I could find here that mentions these points. It seems like none of the others who responded even care about things like "freedom" and having an os "we" control instead of some corporation.

Windows: lots of hardware supported, operating system tightly controlled, licensing issues.

Mac: little hardware supported, operating system (the part that makes it "osx" and not just another bsd) tightly controlled, licensing issues.

Linux: lots of hardware supported, few licensing issues (none for end user), operating system does whatever you're willing to make it do.

Duh. Why the fuck would I move from a corporate OS to a free one, then move BACK to a corporate OS?

"If you were free to become a slave, would you choose that instead of working for a paycheck?"

Sadly, many would say "sure!"

some good posts

[BlackShirt]

The rest of us corportate drones would rather use applications and datafiles that are compatible with what we use at work.
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125068&cid =10481939

No, since a lot of games never get ported to Mac, or get ported later.
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125068&cid =10481885

In a heartbeat!

[pejon]

This is what i have been waiting for, only the cost of an new i/powerbook is what has been keeping me. And no i dont want to buy an old Imac i need a laptop. if i could run os x on my current dell (crappy as it is) i would.

Only one thing prevents me from owning a Mac.

[Ectospheno]

I don't know about everyone else, but the only thing keeping me from owning a Mac is the price. They are too expensive.

I don't like Windows and I have no great love for the x86 architecture. I run FreeBSD now so switching to OS X wouldn't be too bad. If only they could charge a reasonable price for their products. You can trivially build a machine with the same performance as a Mac for half the price. That's just wrong. As soon as they price their products competitively then they will have me as a customer.

Re:Only one thing prevents me from owning a Mac.

[jcr]

the only thing keeping me from owning a Mac is the price. They are too expensive.

So, what's the magic number? $500 for a G5? $300 for a G4? With or without monitors/keyboards/etc?

-jcr

Re:Only one thing prevents me from owning a Mac.

[JoeCommodore]

How about $100 to $140 every few months for a new version upgrade. I've been a Mac user for several decades but I think Apple is looking more like MS in marketing (It's an upgrade not a bug fix; send check to...).

With the transition to X, Apple lost a bit of it's legendary OS versatility, ease of use and friendliness (Mac OS pre-X may have its problems but it was certainly more dynamic and intuitive for than OS X.), though Apple still rests on those laurels. They also lost a bit of the wide range of applications that were running on the Mac as many of the apps were made by companies that have dropped out of the market (or bought out by others like MS) prior to OS X. There are a few companies hanging in there but they don't have the numbers to keep the prices competitive. (some of oyu say "well you can run on classic" but the word from the mac side says classic is dead and a security risk give em up. Not really a winning situation for people tied to some legacy apps.)

I'm on a Linux box at home, my outlook from this platform seems brighter than OS X.

Ooh i would definetly switch

[phiberoptik3]

i would switch because it would be the best of both worlds cheap x86 pc and good unix like os

Let's see...

[bkhl]

Would I switch from Windows? Yeah, if I used it. Would I switch from BSD? No way.

fan of the x86 architecture?

[yagu]

This poster may be a fan of the x86 architecture, but for me it is a tipoff of pop-technology.

Have you ever programmed at the assembly level for x86?!? This technology has essentially been kludge upon kludge (IMO) for years. I've always marvelled it works at all.

Compare and contrast to some of the Apple chips, especially and specifically the Motorola architecture. A dream to code for, and nicely architected. I could write a compiler for the Motorola architecture in a day.

So, what are the criteria for this affection, or affinity? Maybe the price? Maybe the mainstream nature of the chips? As for whether to switch if OSX were implemented on x86, it'd sure be tempting I guess if it were price competitive.

No.

[Lord Kano]

But I'd try it.

I wouldn't switch, because as a former Mac user I don't trust the Steve Jobs controlled Apple to not try to fuck my wallet again.

LK

Switch to Mac OS X on x86?

[StLawrence]

No, I would not switch. I'm quite happy with my PowerPC Mac, thank you very much. It doesn't crash, I haven't been plagued by viruses, it's got the best apps, it's UNIX, it's well supported, it's (mostly) open source, etc. No reason to switch to x86 architecture.

I already have!

[leobaby]

I have an lcd that can take two inputs and a usb switch box which I plug the mac keyboard and mouse into and viola! I love having the best of both worlds on my desk.

Why this won't happen

[Eudial]

No, it isn't because of apple making money off hardware.

It's because no sane person would attempt to port a sourcecode the size of MacOSX to another architecture.

Thoughts

[taj]

No I wouldnt use it but I'd like to see them do it if they think they can. Apple does some great work in the open source community. When apple did this, they would be having engineers looking at x86 gcc, libc, and many many more packages. It would improve many parts of Open Source.

Will they do it? Probably not. The QA required on x86 would be a nightmare compared to their well controlled hardware offering. Drivers are the main thing. Sure they can use available code from BSD but they still have to do their own QA.

It sure would be a boost for GNU and BSD projects if they tried. It would probably take windows users in great numbers which cant be bad. Go for it.

There is no doubt in my mind...

[panth0r]

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would be more than happy to PURCHASE this product, I am similar to the original writer of the question, I enjoy GNU/Linux and dislike Microsoft Windows' instability (although, I give it to them, they are doing better than before). The only difference is that I'd make the purchase of a 1300 USD iBook, just a hundred more than what I purchased my current laptop for. However, I do run Microsoft Windows on my currently used computer because, well, I'm in college and I don't really want to take chances, however too small, and I didn't go with the Mac because it was a tad too expensive, anyway, the laptop I've got now has a SuperDrive, and that does get into the 2000 USD range on PowerBooks, money that I don't have to spend. In closing, if Apple released the x86 architecture version of OS X, I would be much, much more than willing to purchase this product for anything under 250 USD.

I'd consider it

[leereyno]

I'm deeply cynical when it comes to Apple. Every time it looks like they're going to do something right they find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory seems to be their mode of operation.

Apple has made plans in the past to port their various OS's to the PC, the most recent of which was Rhapsody (which eventually became OS-X). I was given a presentation back in 97 about how Apple was going to release rhapsody on both platforms. I was a little younger and more naive back then and so I actually expected it to happen. Had I understood then what I do now about the company I would have told the presenter not to hold his breath.

If Apple actually made an honest attempt to port he OS to the PC, and by that I mean that they didn't cripple it in some way or do something else to sabotage it, then I'd certainly consider looking at the OS as an alternative to windows for other people. I wouldn't consider it an alternative to Linux for myself unless some serious work was done on it. I'm not going to go into all of the issues I have with it because they are not important.

As it stands right now the only OS that I can honestly recommend to the clueless is Windows. I can't tell them to buy a Mac because they are overpriced and because knowing how to use a Mac isn't the same as knowing how to use Windows, which they will need to be able to do in order to function in 99% of workplaces. I can't tell them to use Linux because they're not going to be able to without a lot of hand-holding from me and because knowing how ot use Linux isn't the same thing as knowing how to use Windows.

As far as the non-clueless go, I don't need to recommend anything to them.

If OS's were cars then Windows would be a Chevy (or a Caddy at best), Linux would be a custom-tweaked musclecar / kit car, and OS-X would be an exotic european luxury car. Which car is best? Well that depends on what you want doesn't it?

Lee

Re:I'd consider it

[Anonymous Coward]

i couldn't agree more. your points are very well taken,
lest we also mention that apple isn't as secure, and flashy as most would think
most notably is there recent exploits, that have taken them ages to pacth,
in fact, much loger than the MSIE "phishing" bug timetable.
that is sad, now matter how the pie is cut.

having said that, i must add, that i believe that if Apple were to port its current os x
and its entire toolset to the x86 arch
, i believe that it would be recieved with open arms.. not to mention
they are now the 3rd desktop in the world,
and they used to be 2nd..
so it'd be yet another great way to gain more market share

but again, they control the hardware that the os can run on
so they can use cusom options, to see to it that the software
performs the best it should, on the specific hardware
when you port something over to x86, you as a devloper, open up pandora's box.
thats the reality of microsoft's nightmare that they havent caught up with yet.

overall, i must say that i would give mac a shot, an alternative to microsoft isn't bad.
but having gentoo is one of the best things i've done in the past few years
and now they have Gentoo-OSX, as seen here:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/Gentoo_for_Mac_OS_X
which would even further my interest in Gentoo and OS X..
hope my ideas have helped ;)

~KingPunk

Yeah, I'd switch

[__aailob1448]

MacOS X looks much cooler, I know it has a unix core so it's more stable than windows (just how much doesn't matter, as long as it's not worse). And it has some really cool features (expose anyone?).

Fan of x86?!?!

[CaptainPinko]

Who *REALLY* is a fan of x86? BIOS should have died a long time ago. x86 is a hideous architecture with an ISA that makes all assembler code look like vomit etc. I think the only thing people like about x86 is the cost. I think the more important question is can we ever replace x86 with another architecture (I like SPARC and with Intel's R&D I'm sure we could get over any problems) but keep it as open and mix-and-match as x86 is now? Write a decent emulator and legacy code is taken care of. I'm sure OSS and it's upward trend would minimize the transition costs. But really when can we get rid of this turd?!?

Re:Fan of x86?!?!

[winwar]

I think you already answered your own questions:

"But really when can we get rid of this turd?!?"

This may happen when a someone does

"Write a decent emulator and legacy code is taken care of."

No one has written a decent emulator (decent being one that doesn't run legacy code slower than the machine currently on their desktop while costing more....)

and it costs much less

"I think the only thing people like about x86 is the cost."

After all, end users don't give a flying f@ck about the architecture. They want it to do what they need it to do at the cheapest possible price. And they will often sacrifice the former for the latter.... :)

X86 may not be pretty but it works good enough. That is a hard thing to replace....

Re:Fan of x86?!?!

[stud9920]

Yeah, good idea ! We could call it Itanium ! I hear that new Linux 2.2 kernel thingy will run very fast on it !

Re:Fan of x86?!?!

[CaptainPinko]

No one has written a decent emulator (decent being one that doesn't run legacy code slower than the machine currently on their desktop while costing more....)

I disagree. I don't think an emulator needs to run as fast. It only needs to run fast enough for the few applications that aren't native. Considering that the majourity of computer cycles (95%) go to waste this means there is a majour difference between your and my position. For example my S.O. needs AutoCAD. So if she switched to Mac all that would matter is that her G5 and the Virtual PC were able to run AutoCAD within the number of cycles remaining after OSX is done. So even if the emulator takes 3 times as long to run it, it doesn't necessarily matter. Cost is also a vicious circle. The cost of a G5 (or a SPARC or insert architecture here) chip could be less if it was produced in the volume of Pentiums. But obviously people won't switch till price drops (I'm talking about a G5 mobo and chip not necessarily a Mac). What is really needed is a way to somehow shove the whole industry. Perhaps when we reach the end of produciton technologies (e.g. 45 nm?) the only way to get more performance will be from more streamlined cores and thus pure RISC...

Re:Fan of x86?!?!

[CaptainPinko]

Itanium died because Intel didn't want to play in the commodity game anymore so they pantented the hell out of it and over priced it. If I could buy an Itanium at comparable price to a x86 I'd go with the ia64. It didn't die because it sucked, it died because it was over-priced. No if Intel released a desktop level of the chip they could recusictate the line.

Mistaken assumptions

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Here are the mistaken assumptions implicit in this question:

1. Because Darwin runs on x86 (true), most of the work to port Mac OS X to x86 is already done.

False. Darwin is a very important part of Mac OS X, but in size it is only a tiny fraction of the operating system. The entire GUI and all of the hundreds of libraries ("Frameworks" in Mac OS X) that Mac OS X apps depend on would need to be ported, and many of these are only designed to work on PowerPC currently.

2. If Apple ported Mac OS X to x86, you'd be able to run it on a typical PC.

False. Not unless Apple is able to get every major PC hardware manufacturer to release Mac OS X drivers. Apple might have the drivers already for a basic low-end Dell, but what if you have a PC with a third-party sound card? Or a video card that's not a recent nVidia or Radeon? Or a brand-new DVD burner that's only supported on Windows? What if you have a laptop, and you want it to be able to sleep? All of this would require the cooperation of all of these hardware manufacturers, and it's not clear that they'd have any incentive to cooperate.

3. There would be plenty of applications to choose from.

False. Mac applications wouldn't run until they've been ported and recompiled for x86, and it's not clear what incentive Mac developers would have to spend all of that effort with no guarantee of returns. Windows apps wouldn't run just because it's on x86; the operating systems are too different (though porting WINE to Mac OS X on x86 would be slightly easier than on PPC). Linux apps would run the same as they already do - most popular Linux apps already run on Mac OS X natively anyway (see the fink project).

4. PCs are really that much cheaper than Macs anyway.

Sure, they're cheaper sometimes, but not nearly as much as most people think. Yes, you can build a PC yourself for a lot less than a Mac - if you know what you're doing. And yes, you can get a low-end PC without a monitor - while only high-end Macs come headless. But probably 90% of the world buys brand-name PCs with monitors. On the low end, a brand-name PC with a CRT monitor and DVD/CD-RW will be about $600, compared to $800 for the eMac (and the eMac will come with a better graphics card). A brand-name PC with a non-Celeron processor, a real graphics card (not integrated video), DVD/CD-RW, and a high-quality 17" LCD will cost $1200, compared to $1300 for the iMac (and the iMac is a fraction of the size and weight). It only gets better when you start looking at the high-end machines - you'll find that the Power Mac G5 is often cheaper than a dual-Xeon or dual-Opteron workstation.

Re:Mistaken assumptions

[thogard]

1) Most of the framework is in C derived language. unless its full of endianness bugs, it should be trivial to port to a different platform. The kernel is endian clean.

2) Most sound cards follow one of a 3 standards. If there are drivers for that it will work, otherwise it wont.

3) XCode knows how to link to other compilers. A simple change to it and it could be building binaries for other platforms at the same time. Apple figured out multi-cpu application bundles a long time ago.

4) I told my father to buy my mother a Mac. He said no because a PC was 1/6 the cost of a machine at Frys. Any $300 PC will have a better video card than the new iMac. I'm not sure you can still buy PC vidoe cards that suck as bad as what they put in the iMac (and yes apple, thats why there isn't a new iMac sitting on my desk)

Re:Mistaken assumptions

[Reziac]

"But probably 90% of the world buys brand-name PCs with monitors."

Actually, according to the last several years worth of stats compiled by the companies that compile such stats, name-brand PCs hover at around 50% of the complete-system market. Clone PCs have about 45% of the market (and growing, while OEMs have been slowly losing ground). The remaining 5% is comprised of Apple and other non-x86 manufacturers.

Re:Mistaken assumptions

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

4) I told my father to buy my mother a Mac. He said no because a PC was 1/6 the cost of a machine at Frys. Any $300 PC will have a better video card than the new iMac. I'm not sure you can still buy PC vidoe cards that suck as bad as what they put in the iMac (and yes apple, thats why there isn't a new iMac sitting on my desk)

OK, you don't know what you're talking about. First of all, point me to a $300 PC. Rebates don't count - they take 6 months to arrive, if they come at all, and you pay taxes on the pre-rebate amount. The cheapest eMachines box is currently $449 before rebate, and guess what? It comes with Intel integrated video (crappy 3D) that uses shared memory - which means it takes away from your system RAM. The eMac comes with an ATI Radeon 9200 and 32 MB of dedicated VRAM, the iMac comes with an NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra and 64 MB of VRAM. Are these top of the line video cards? No, but they don't suck, and they're infinitely better than Intel integrated video.

The cheapest eMachines I could find that had a real video card with dedicated VRAM cost $600. The cheapest Dell with a real video card cost $950.

If you have a counterexample, fine. But post a complete spec for a machine, the total price, and a URL.

Re:Mistaken assumptions

[thogard]

I can get beige box specials in Australia that are under US$300 and cheaper if I want to buy the parts. 64M GeForce FX cards are worth what about AU$35? With the different market in the US, It seems that such a pc should cost even less. In fact this was the cheapest thing at fry's outpost at $179.

YES

[JasonEngel]

oh god please let them port macosx to x86! oh please! jobs can own me!

Actually, I am serious. I would ditch windows in a second if I could put osx onto my PC instead.

Rumor is that Apple already does x86

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend has a friend that works for Apple Corporate who told him that Apple already has OSX working on x86 but has no intention of releasing it.

NO -- I like MS IE too much.

[jamej]

Of course there is also MS Access and Word and Power Point. Although they all have MAC OS X versions I'd have to buy them and that would cost too much. Further, now that MS has adopted their Secure Computing approach to software development I'm not leaving them. Finally, besides by using MS I already have the MAC interface.

YES. Most Certainly.

[borgheron]

OSX blows the doors off windows.

GJC

Slashdot should have a poll on this...

[vectorian798]

...I am one of the many people who have always dreamt of OSX on x86. Perhaps if a poll was taken, Apple might see just how much demand there is for it...

Re:Slashdot should have a poll on this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because Apples gonna make their decisions based on a slashdot poll...

I thought the story was already lame and then I come across this even lamer comment.

Re:YES. Most Certainly.

[borgheron]

I wouldn't switch from Linux, however. I'd put it on one of my many x86 systems. :)

I currently own a Mac, so the whole point is moot in my case anyway. ;)

GJC

Ummm... maybe... NOT!!!

[4Lorn]

There's a reason why OSX looks good, feels good and works good. It's because it's designed for the exact hardware it is sold with! It would lose a lot of its prestige if the web and usenet were flooded with complaints about transparency being slow on graphics board XYZ-pro, per-application audio volume setting working strange on ABC-blaster-123 or user swtiching freezing on mainboard NBACIA with an overclocked CPU on a A2B2A socket adapter.

I have great hopes for Linux and computers with a customized Linux preinstalled. Not just A distribution, bu a distribution designed to make the most of the hardware it's sold with. Hmmm...

Re:If it was centrally manageable - oh but it does

[foniksonik]

Just take a look here:

clicky click workgroup management

Ye needs but ask sir...

It will be pirated

[johansalk]

Mac OS X for commodity box x86 would almost certainly get pirated. Those who will buy an OEM box will almost certainly receive windows installed by default. The few people who would care to change the OS (the enthausiast crowd) or those who would build their own OS-less box and then buy an OS will probably know how to get a pirated copy. On the other hand, you can't pirate an imac or a powerbook. Apple would be giving up one incentive to buy a mac and in most cases be getting no money in return.

Headless, Audio, and Japanese Support

[MournsForHumans]

I would seriously consider it if I could purchase a headless mac. I know that the G4 cube is out there, but it's a little dated for me now (I do audio work and would love to try Logic, which is probably better suited towards faster systems). I have a nice monitor and thus no real need of a new flat screen display. Either getting one of those new dual core G4s or else one or two G5s for the cost the monitor would have added in would be nice. It'd be nice to see a system that was between the entry level consumer and hardcore user category, either at the same price point or slightly lower than the current flat screen G5 iMacs.

I do have two questions for Mac users: it appears that most Macs don't support >2.1 channel audio unless it's optical. I have a 4.1 system that accepts front and rear 1/4" inputs, and I have no desire to purchase a new audio system just to retain surround sound. Is it the case that Macs don't support this out of box? I know that upgrading to an optical system would be nice, but I don't have the money to do that and retain the same level of audio quality and volume that I have now. I know some PC boards with onboard audio can use the microphone jack as a 2nd phono out for the rear channel, but I'd prefer to keep it since I use the microphone.

Also, how is multilingual support on OS X? I speak / read / write Japanese and I know that while OS X has Japanese support, I haven't been able to find out how exactly it is implemented. Is it similar to the Microsoft IME (where one can type in romaji using an English keyboard), or does it require a Japanese keyboard? Does it have a feature where I can draw kanji to look them up?

Thanks.

Re:Headless, Audio, and Japanese Support

[KH]

For sound, It appears that your understanding seems correct. Mac can do surround sound only with optical system. (Although I find the sound quality on my PowerBokk is far superior to that on my nForce board. Surround may be nice when I pay FPS online to figure out where the e is ;) My understanding might be incorrect because I never pursued that option myself.

But for multilingual support, there is no os that supports multilingual seamlessly and transparently like Mac OS X.

I was completely appalled when I built this PC for gaming purpose to find out that I cannot choose system language in Windows like I can with any installation of OS X distributed all over the world. I would have to buy Multi-lingual kit (or whatever) to make menus and dialogues to be in English? (I got a Dutch version of Windows).

If you look inside .app bundles (an application) on OS X, you find bunch of directories named .lproj. You can switch what language you want to use throughout your OS X experience wherever you buy your copy of OS X, or independently for an app. Changing these settings is intuitive through International preference pane. (The name can change according to the systemwide language preference.) You can prioritize which language you prefer through that Preferences pane so that if an app support preferred language (if that comes with .lproj for that language), then the menu, etc. will be presented in that language. I set my most preferred language as Sanskrit (yes, there is such a menu item!) just for a kick. Whenever an app comes with st.lproj (or whatever Apple assigned for Sanskrit), I should get menus etc. in Sanskrit! (I read Sanskrit, by the way.)

As for Japanese support, you don't want to read anything written in Japanese on Windows because it comes with such a horribly ugly Japanese fonts. 4 or 5 Japanese fonts that come with OS X are utterly beautiful. They make Ryumin-light appear hideously ugly. Japan is perhaps the country where the Mac has the most popularity in the world. They use exactly the same OS X in Japan as you get anywhere in the world. From here you can figure the Japanese support in OS X.

Re:Headless, Audio, and Japanese Support

[Anonymous Coward]

To the Japanese question, I'm a mac user who is also bilingual Japanese. You can use romanji or kana input. Also, multibyte input fields are native so the only time that i've seen an IME pop-up was in Microsoft Word. As far as an IME goes, it behaves more like AOKI than MSIME. It was the Japanese support which made me a Mac user circa 1997 and then it was OS X which kept me here, so I'd say that it's good.

I'm not sure of the Kanji lookup part. I've never tried to do it.

Go to any store with a Mac out for demo and go to the "international" control panel in the "systems preferences". Turn on Japanese input and see what you think. That's better than taking my word for it.

-- degs at the domain of 68k with a dot and an org

Re:Headless, Audio, and Japanese Support

[Kourino]

I also have to comment on multilingual support on OS X here, because it's just that good.

Non-western text is supported throughout the operating system transparently. Switching input languages is as simple as pressing Cmd-Space. (You can also use the language menu at the top of the screen, which is similar to the language panel in the Windows taskbar. If you don't want to be able to use Cmd-Space, you can turn that off, but I've never accidentally hit it.) Just go to the International panel in System Preferences and select what languages you want to add to the language menu.

The system uses UTF-8 universally, not UCS-16 like under Windows. I'm not sure if you can use "legacy" character sets, so if Han unification is an issue for you, you'd need to figure out how to deal with that. (I'd bet someone's already had to.)

I absolutely love the Japanese input method. Kanji lookup works quite well, and "adapts" to remember which kana->kanji conversions you use most often. it's pretty much what you'd expect; type kana, hit space, select from the menu that pops up. You can navigate the menu using the keyboard or the mouse. Mac OS X makes Japanese input easy. (I've also had opportunity to try the Traditional Chinese input, it's basically just as good. Korean always screws me up, though, just because I'm not very familiar with the standard Korean romanization systems.)

Oh, and if you don't know a kanji's pronunciation, the Character Palette (kind of like Character Map in Windows, but not at all) lists kanji by radical, sorted by stroke order. You can also get easy access to various symbols (circled katakana, kanji numerals, and stuff like stars from the JIS tables) by looking in the "by Category" tab in the Japanese view. There's also listing by code tables, if you happen to know JIS or Shift JIS codes.

Similar facilities exist in other operating systems (excepting, I'd say, the Character Palette), but I've never had as good experiences with i18n as I have in OS X.

Project Builder, er, I mean 'XCode'..

[itomato]

Since the day NEXTSTEP was ported to the 486, and possibly before, Project Builder had the ability to compile binaries not only for the Motorola 68040, but also for HP PA-RISC, SPARC, and i486. Quad-fat binaries..
If you look at any of the remaining NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP archives, or search for an old OmniWeb beta, you'll find files with names like this:

Foo_App.1.34b.NIHS.b.tar.gz

That NIHS.b stands for Next,Intel,HP,Sparc-BINARY.
One binary runs on 4 different architechtures. If they could do it then, with most systems (all architectures) running between 25 and 100MHz, they should be able to do it equally well now, with a narrower range of hardware to support (nVidia or ATI, x86/64 or PPC as opposed to 4 totally different approaches in respect to CPU, display hardware, bridge ASICs, etc)

There's the issue of AltiVec/SSE2, etc, but there were challenges 10 years ago, too..

Re:Project Builder, er, I mean 'XCode'..

[AlexCV]

They still do this, With Fat Binaries, you can ship software with G3/G4/G5 optimized binaries in the same package. What's stopping them from shipping G3/G4/G5/Opteron/i386/P4/Itanic/Whatever in a package?

The answer is Nothing. GCC supports the target. The format is built for it (it comes from next after all).

If it became possible, you can bet that Apple would make Xcode cross-compile if there was money in it.

Re:Project Builder, er, I mean 'XCode'..

[aristotle-dude]

Yeah and a lot of you bought NeXTStep for your X86 boxes right? Oh wait, now you did not even though windows sucked even more back then than it does now. NeXT was run by Steve Jobs and if you look at the Cocoa API, bundled apps and development tools, OS X is NeXTStep 5.x+.

Yeah sure, you would switch. Bullshit, you would not. Steve Jobs already tried OS X on X86 (in the form of NeXTStep) but you bastards did not want to play the price for it.

I'm a switcher as of two years ago at home but i develop widows apps for a living. I built my last PC a couple years ago so I know what X86 is all about (since the XT). The X86 platform is crap.

Re:Project Builder, er, I mean 'XCode'..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you remember the cost for Nextstep x86 ? It was too high for people to buy.

Re:Project Builder, er, I mean 'XCode'..

[aristotle-dude]

Yes I do remember. Do you know how much it costs to develop and "test" an application, let alone and Operating System? There is also the silly thing called "profit" that companies have to earn on their products to make their share holders happy.

What makes you think Apple could get away with charging less given the rampant piracy in the industry, the even more diverse hardware configurations on the x86 platform and higher developer cost (wages) of today?

Development/bug fixing and QA cost time and money and Apple could not afford to use the public as their beta testers like MSFT does.

Stop living in your GNU fantasy land and realize that software "costs" money to develop and test and linux would "cost" money if the programmers did not have regular jobs outside of the time they donate. Perhaps MS and linux can get away with hardware compatibility issues (MS because of it's market dominance and linux because of the hacker mentality in the userbase) but Apple would get crucified by customers if it did not work with their XYZ motherboard with the ABC chipset and EFG CPU combination.

I recall that even back then, NeXT had limited hardware compatibility.

Even if we assume none of these problems exists (including piracy), there would be no software for the platform and no incentive to develop for it since it would be just another non-free OS on X86. If you believe the developers would just to a recompile, you don't have a clue about mac hardware/software. All Altivec code would have to be rewritten and there would be a performance penalty (it would run much slower).

Face it, X86 is crap from a technical point of view. The only thing it has going for it are: games and you can DIY a machine from parts but that last thing is not something the average joe would care about anyway.

If you really believe the X86 platform is superior from a technical point of view, go tell that to the top 500 list, VT and COLSA. I'd suggest looking up info on the Vector Processing Unit in the G5 and Altivec in general as it goes way beyond what SSE and SSE2 does on X86.

PS. X86 has a longer pipeline and a flush of the pipeline is required for each context switch whereas the pipeline is not flushed on the PPC on a context switch.

As an owner of both...

[Cloud K]

(PC and Powerbook)
I don't think I'd install OS X on my PC even if it was possible. Part of the joy of using it is the fact that it's tied to their hardware and doesn't suffer from the usual problems of cheap and nasty hardware, manufacturers not following standards or providing poor drivers, unstable features (sleep mode on most PC laptops?) etc etc. Granted when you start adding USB devices you can have these problems, but internal configuration such as motherboard and chipset are all standard.

To use it on a PC would cheapen that IMO, and spoil the 'magic' (yes I'm that sad)

But really, I see them as two completely different beasts. The flexible OS known as XP wouldn't make sense on an integrated 'plug and go' system of a Mac, which is great for just getting on with things. Conversely, a tidy, consistent, 'straight to work' OS such as MacOS wouldn't make as much sense on the PC, which is tailored more for customisation, flexibility and gaming.

Use the best tool for the job, as they say. I apply that to both the OS and the computer itself.

It could happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Their used to be a project called CHRP. Get a specboard, see what happens.

PearPC, $800=too much, apps/device compatibility

[davidwr]

I already dual-boot multiple OSes on my PC and on my Mac, I'd love the flexibility of adding MacOSX to the list on the PC, and MS-Windows to the Mac, without messing w/ emulation environments. Of course, the partition table issue will have to be addressed. Thankfully, PCs can read and write Mac filesystems w/ 3rd-party software, and Macs can read and write FAT. Anyone know if they can read NTFS and FAT32?

Speaking of emulation environments, giving PearPC a whirl is on my to-do list. Anyone have any experience w/ this w/ either OS X or classic MacOS?

The hardware problem w/ the Macs isn't so much the price-performance issue anymore, but the lack of low-end hardware. Cheapest new Mac Apple has is USD$799, and low-end new Intel/Athlon boxes WITH MS-Windows preinstalled start at well under USD$300.

As far as drivers, it'll be not much worse than Windows NT was in the early days. You'll have a lot of things not working at all, but many devices that currently work w/ Mac should work just fine on Intel. For most that don't, it should be just a matter of a little software tweaking by the manufacturer. As far as Apps, I'd hope that Apple would be smart enough to 1) make it relatively painless for software vendors to recompile and work out the inevitable kinks, and 2) include a basic PPC emulation mode for existing apps, similar to the old 68000 emulation mode.

Apple should start selling PCs

[willardj]

I'll start by disclosing that I have a mac and love it so the original question is N/A.
Why doesnt apple aquire a PC manufacturer and apply their elegant design to a line of PC's to increase their market share in the overall market? The could pick a different type of "apple" e.g. fuji, golden delicious to associate with the PC. I think a lot people crave apple's design but refue to run OS X for various reasons. Later if they ever wanted to abandon the Power PC platform for OS X, the hardware portion would be in place.

Mabye a Linux GUI

[tecker]

I have long since wanted to have Apple come out with a window manager for linux. Similar to KDE and Gnome and compatible the machine would look like (but probably not feel like) a mac. The windows manager would not be based on X11 bur whatever mac uses (Quartz I believe).

Also the question is if they can. When Micro$oft bought a load a stock to keep them affloat i wonder if the agreement would be not to port to Windows platform.

If they did then by all means. I believe Mac OS X is a better written os then Windows. Apple is already halfway there with darwin on x86 all they need now is the other libraries and the GUI. I shure hope that one day will. Mabye Mac OS 11 will be.

Tru Dat

[Mulletproof]

You're not a minority, you're just in a Mac Fanboy Unloading Zone here, second only to the slavish dovotion to Linux you'll find here as well. That was a joke. Take it in stride, people.

But seriously, after being introduced to the Mac in grade school (otherwise known as Apple's Advanced Studies in Brainwashing and Marketing) and continually throughout the rest of my life, I find the OS to be seriously backwards compared to Windows. Not saying Windows isn't without it's many flaws, just that it's organization and egronomics better thought out. IMO, of course.

And frankly, I don't buy into this "OS on x86 godsend!" crap. The sales numbers don't add up. If Windows were that bad or OS so much better, the hardware configs wouldn't make a lick of difference, regardless of how much corruption you credit MS with. I think it's the middle ground, honestly-- Windows isn't nearly the turd fanboys claim it is nor is OS the end-all-be-all of operating systems.

Re:Tru Dat

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess. The only time you were introduced to the Mac was in grade school, and so in your head, you compare Windows XP to the Mac OS of 1992 or so?

YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

For sure I'd switch

And I'd buy it instead of stealing it ;)

That just won't happen

[z1d0v]

That simply won't happen for several reasons. One of them being the fact that all the user experience with MacOS is related to hardware gui. If there was a port of MacOS X to x86 with no apple hardware involved, responsivity would suck. All those great, neat effects apple has would take ages, and everybody would just change the preferences of the eye-candy stuff as they (somethimes) do with KDE/Gnome...

Besides, apple has always based their sales in hardware...

Answering the question, I would probably try, but expectations wouldn't be that high, though.

NO. I can't stand the one button mouse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't stand the one button mouse. I get so much done with three buttons and gestures that one button would be a productivity hit. My mac booster friend was watching me work the other day. After three minutes or so he said, "Dude, how are you doing all of this without ever touching the keyboard?" One button mouse has to go, then, maybe. I'd like to see Linux on the G5's though.

Re:NO. I can't stand the one button mouse.

[presapm]

Anand from Anandtech simply swapped out the one-button mouse for a MS Intellimouse on a G5 that he reviewed just recently. He stated that almost any USB mouse will work fine with the G5. Pres

Re:NO. I can't stand the one button mouse.

[goMac2500]

They do have Linux for the G5 (ydl.com). Mac OS X supports a two button mouse natively with no extra drivers. In fact, it supports up to as many buttons as your mouse has.

Maybe, but it's very unlikely to happen

[scsurfer]

I was deeply involved in Apple's last attempt to make its OS available on non-Apple hardware. Two of the key issues that stopped that effort still exist and will likely block any future attempts:

1. 1. Financially, Apple is organized around the sale of hardware with its OS. While it may be possible (theoretically) for a company to switch from a hardware model to mixed hardware/software, it is
2. very difficult.

1. 2. The principle consumer benefit of Apple's products is the very tight integration of hardware, software and peripherals. This would be impossibly expensive to achieve with generic x86 hardware.

Steve

I would

[HenryKoren]

So if my X86 servers running FreeBSD all run flawlessly, and FreeBSD is in the core of OSX, what would stop it from being strong competition to windows? Why would Apple stop when such a wide range of users from beginner to professional prefer OSX? Why would apple thumb it's nose at such a massive potential market?

Does Apple really think they wouldn't be able to snag awesome deals with OEM hardware manufacturers like Microsoft does currently?
Does Apple really think their nifty hardware and industrial designis what makes their computers so great, not their awesome OS and its BSD forged core of stability?
Does Apple simply want to be Complacent as Linux and Microsoft dominate the throngs of X86 Sheep?

Or does Apple want to be the the ones that bring the joys of FresBSD to the masses... A pleasure up to now confined to a select few of the computing elite!

Call me a zealot fanboy! Mod me down! You shal only make FreeBSD become more powerful than you could have ever imagined!
*** EVIL LAUGH ***

Re:I would

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really know how much of FreeBSD is in MacOSX ?
Not that friggin much, at least not enough to call MacOSX FreeBSD.

Re:I would

[arminw]

A major strength of Apple is that they builds and tests the whole computer as a system rather relying on properly interpreting the written specs as the PC makers have to. When they allowed clones, some of the same troubles that plagues the x86 world also appeared on those clones. If Apple did switch to x86 I'm sure that NONE of the existing boxes would run their OSX and they's put some other special chips in their Apple branded x86 boxes that would prevent others from making clones.

What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft Windows was ported to ppc, would you buy a Mac?

I'd switch in a New York minute

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONLY think keeping me from buying a Mac is the outrageous pricing when you consider the performance delta with x86 hardware at half (or less) the cost.

Cheers,

Why wait for it to be ported?

[beaverbrother]

Run it now...
Pear PC has been around for a while, and can emulate Power PC platforms on x86.
Sure, its slow, but its better than nothing.
Plus, you can run it on your xbox ;)

Yadda, yadda, yadda

[dipipanone]

> Even though MacOS X is a superior operating > system, it doesn't have Win32, therefore it will > not be useful for the vast majority of programs. I don't know where people get this notion from. Yes, it's indisputable that there are many, many more apps for Windows than there are for Macs, and if you need a specialist app that runs only on Wintel, then yes, you don't have a choice. Similarly, if you want a computer primarily to play the latest, hottest games, you wouldn't have a Mac either. However, the vast majority of people use little more than Office. Semi-specialist areas such as music production, graphic design, animation, etc. are all more than adequately catered for, with many of the more robust applications, ie, Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. starting life on the Mac. Unfortunately, the economies of scale thing means that these apps are often much less expensive on x86 -- check out the difference in price between Office X and Office 2003, for example, but it just isn't true that the majority of people would lose any functionality by moving over to a Mac.

This should've been a poll

[Control-Z]

But I guess I wouldn't. I might dual-boot just to check it out, but at work I develop Win32 programs and at home I play games.

In a second.

[Jack9]

To answer the article's primary question summarily, AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

Just give me the GUI, we've already got the OS

[bugeats]

I'm thinking the other way around. Imagine if the source were opened for the OS X GUI and API, --now imagine this GUI on top of Linux.

All the applications are already there for Linux, and I don't know about you but I'd give up X11 and it's bloated, M$-aping window managers in a heartbeat.

Apple can still sell thier premium hardware while developing open-source software. Why hasn't this already happened?

Re:Just give me the GUI, we've already got the OS

[__aafkqj3628]

now imagine this GUI on top of Linux... Why hasn't this already happened?

Because that would entail Apple re-writing their Window Server & Manager and APIs, from scratch, for you.

Apple can still sell thier premium hardware while developing open-source software

They already do - http://www.opensource.apple.com/

Re:Just give me the GUI, we've already got the OS

[bugeats]

If the Window Server and API were opened like Darwin is, then somebody else could rewrite it... for me.

I guess I don't know enough about thier business model to see why other portions of the OS (GUI and API) are not open.

Re:Just give me the GUI, we've already got the OS

[__aafkqj3628]

I can see that causing two more problems -

1) Opening it like that would severely impact their profit for it, making it unfeasible to continue development, essentially killing it.

2) Opening it would cause a bunch of licensing issues with it. It's not pure 100% Apple/NeXT code in there, there's a lot of other licensed technologies.

What are you missing? Why Switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

There exist 3rd-party software today, that will give you 90% of the look, feel and functionality that MacOS Panther provides.

I myself love the Panters "Exposé" and "Dock" functionality, but rather than forking out over EURO 2000,- on a Mac, I'm very content with my ASUS laptop (running WinXP) being able to run less than EURO 200,- worth of software that does exactly the same.

The installation of software, configuration of whatnot and soforth, is still Win-style, but I'm really not bothered. Does desktop performance take a blow due to running these programs? Yes, but less so than what I'd expected and feared, and my system certainly performs better than an eqally pricey Mac-setup. 3D performance is neglibly reduced, having these progs running in the bacground eating up to 10MB of RAM.

The only reason to switch I can think of is WinXP's sad performance on multitasking compared to the MacOS (AnandTech has a GREAT article on that right now). And this is due to the Unix core of OSX. In other words, not much to do unless someone rewrites the XP-kernel. :) I love my sisters G5 for this, but wouldn't trade easeability of upgrades and driver support for it.

However, the XP driver support is excellent, and I feel that I'm not missing out on anything particularly in regards of the filesystem etc.

I'm going to install this software on my home-computer as well (though only for gaming, and really not in need of being packed with productivity-boosting Mac-features, I've come to love the interface so much) and always have the reasurrance, that whenever I want to upgrade, it wil go as smoothly as with any XP-box.

Tom Tarlebo - Norway

So then you're saying..

[GoClick]

If you have it in a closet 99.99% of the time, what does it do for that 0.8766 hours a year when it's not there?

On a short enough timeline I could say my computer not only has 100% uptime at 100% cpu usage with 0 user input and no connection to the power grid! Truth is the battery runs out in 2 hours and it seldom hits 100% usage but that's the breaks.

Re:So then you're saying..

[jericho4.0]

Umm....I think he means it runs in a closet, as a router/fire server/gateway type thing.

Re:So then you're saying..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire server? I hope not. That sounds... expensive.

Re:So then you're saying..

[Fallen_Knight]

your closets don't have a power outlet in them?!?!

daaaaamn, all mine have power/network and cable connectoins!! And bender's closet is the same way, just bigger

GNOME works for me

[steveha]

I wouldn't switch, because I'm perfectly happy with GNOME running on a Linux kernel.

OSX is really pretty. But GNOME is pretty enough for me. I love the clean, tidy look, and the antialiased fonts. And I have chosen a desktop theme that I like.

OSX is really stable. So is GNOME.

If you want to try out GNOME, the best way is to install Ubuntu Linux on a spare computer. (It doesn't have to be a brand-new computer, but the older and funkier the computer is, the greater the chance of a problem.)

The easiest way to try out GNOME is to get a Gnoppix CD. You boot from this CD and it will run GNOME on a Linux kernel, without touching your hard disk in any way. So you don't risk your data. And by the way, this makes a great disaster recovery tool, even if you are a Windows user and you aren't ready to switch yet.

I'll bet there is someone writing a "KDE works for me" posting right now too. KDE is also a good environment, although I personally prefer GNOME. To try out KDE, you could get a Knoppix CD. This works the same way as Gnoppix (and in fact Gnoppix was derived from Knoppix, not the other way around).

In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce, whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX.

steveha

Re:GNOME works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce [xfce.org], whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX.

Based simply upon Slashdot content, this is demonstrably false.

Re:GNOME works for me

[Zepalesque]

"If you want to try out GNOME, the best way is to install Ubuntu Linux on a spare computer."

Better yet, just burn the new Ubuntu Live CD. It can be found here.

Re:GNOME works for me

[tantalic]

"In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce [xfce.org], whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX." This is certainly not true. As a former Linux/BSD user on my desktop/server (respectively) I am now hapily posting this from my Powerbook G4, and it's my *nix background that drew me to OS X. I think the PowerPC archetecture is very attractive to many power users and the BSD background/basis of OS X has attracted many unix users (even Sun executives are known to run OS X at their home). When I first got my Powerbook I wasn't sure I would keep OS X, figuring I may run linux on it or at the least dual boot OS X and Debian. However I am know very happy to run OS X and only OS X. When i need a terminal I can easily access one (and even login to a non graphical environment) but when I want to listen to music, watch movies, edit movies, edit pictures, etc everything "just works!"

Re:GNOME works for me

[KZigurs]

You know what - such "fuck them, my pile of crap is better!" posts creates an urge to close browser and forget /. link each time I read them. And what is most pathetic is "5, Insightful" i see on the frontpage.

Bullshit. Go and shove your gnome up in your ass. It has nothing to do with operating envorement. It has inconsistent applications, you advertise OOs what is magnitutes slower and buggier than microsoft office, and you JUST DON'T GET the point of article.

(oh, and by the way. I use Windows, MacOS X and FreeBSD on my servers, but I just can't even consider Linux anymore. On desktop: It sucks. On server: It sucks. The comparision oupales it like a sun with some fairly small star beyond horizont. And I'm fairly open minded to even try out the latest archievements of Linux time by time.
Start promoting quality instead of "Support from major industry players")

Re:GNOME works for me

[Sentry21]

In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce, whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX.

Studies show that a lot of the people that switch to OSX aren't switching from Windows, they're switching from UNIX (can't find the link). As another example, Jordan Hubbard, longtime FreeBSD developer (and project co-founder) went to work for Apple on OS X.

The reason is that OS X provides the UNIX-like interface we know and love (command lines, X servers, and the like) as well as a functional, stable, friendly, and yet still powerful, graphical interface. Without having to hunt for themes, it is pretty. Without having to compile libraries, it works. Without having to install WINE, you can use professional applications, such as Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop and InDesign, and Final Cut Pro, while at the same time running XChat, Gterm, and... well, I can't think of any 'killer apps' for Linux, but I'm sure someone else can fill that in.

In short, there are a lot of reasons to use OS X instead of Linux (all else, like hardware support, being equal) for a desktop machine, but not a lot (that I can think of) to use Linux instead of OS X.

--Dan

Re:GNOME works for me

[steveha]

In short, anyone who has already switched to a *NIX desktop (GNOME, KDE, Xfce, whatever) is unlikely to be tempted by an x86 OSX.

Actually, I have to agree with the folks who said this is overstating the case a bit. Some people, given the chance, would switch; several of them replied to my original post.

There would be a wave of people who like OSX, but not enough to buy Mac hardware, who would buy OSX for x86. Anytime you make something easier to do, more people will do it. But Apple makes money on their hardware, and they simply won't port OSX to x86, so it's academic.

steveha

Wrong Question

[foonf]

Of course, if it was free, or could be easily pirated, and it worked as well on my computer as Linux currently does, I would switch. But thats not accurate.

First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now. Those are for people who have already paid their dues to Apple by buying a Mac. If it was any good, an x86 Mac OS port would wipe out a fair share of Apple's current hardware sales. Even if they could, say, double their current OS market share by running on cheaper commodity hardware, they would still need to make half the profit on each new, non-upgrade copy of x86 Mac OS that they currently make on the average new Macintosh sold. I would be very surprised if they could make this up with a retail price under $400. I definitely wouldn't pay $400 or more for it, as slick as it is, and compared to free Linux and "free" preloaded Windows I doubt many other current PC users would, and it would never be a market success for Apple if only existing Mac users bought it.

And thats all supposing that the product is every bit as good as the current version of Mac OS for Apple hardware. That means that they would have to support seamlessly every possible combination of PC components that could show up on a computer made in the last 3 or 4 years. Darwin x86 certainly can't do that now, and even if they could port over every current FreeBSD driver, plus support every video chipset they support on Macintoshes now, it would be far from universal, although it would be good enough for me. Microsoft spends a lot of money on testing and driver development to ensure Windows works on every wacky system they claim it will run on, and that is even given that most of the device drivers are written by vendors.

Given these constraints, I don't think Apple can bring a viable x86 Mac OS port to market at a price low enough to be successful, so no matter how cool you think it would be to have OS X on your computer, it isn't going to happen.

Re:Wrong Question

[leperkuhn]

A few things -

If they were selling the x86 box as well, they could get away with it. That way, they'd be able to graduallly expand the hardware they support out of the box while manufacturers catch up. They'd be supporting the hardware that they put out, and eventually supporting other hardware as well.

I'd probably switch from mac hardware to x86 hardware, especially if people recompiled those cocoa apps i've come to love so much (Quicksilver).

Re:Wrong Question

[slashdot.org]

Of course, if it was free, or could be easily pirated, and it worked as well on my computer as Linux currently does, I would switch. But thats not accurate.

First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now.

Well, here you hit a pet peeve of mine. We went to the Apple store in Palo Alto and got us a nice iMac. Nice machine and all, but really we are PC people and since we have about 6 PCs running at any given time, the Mac doesn't get that much time. As much as people like to hype it, it's not _that_ great. (for example, the main reason we got it was to deal with our DV camera stuff, and you run into limitations of the software within about half a minute)

Anyways, Apple starts releasing upgrades. Sounds great, but then let's look at the price: about $130 each. So we are going from the original to Jaguar and before we know it, there's Panther, at another steep charge. Perhaps we bought the machine at the wrong time, but these upgrades seem to be fucking expensive and at short intervals.

Now, if Microsoft would come out with upgrades that swiftly and at those price points, people would cry bloody murder. What I don't understand is how Apple can get away with this. The upgrades that they present are really more in the roam of 'fixing stuff that really was not as advertised' at best, yet they still get to charge a hefty price without any complaints.

Am I totally delusional here or what? Quite honestly I don't think that I should be charged for OS upgrades for a couple of years if I buy an $1800.- computer.

Re:Wrong Question

[foonf]

If they were selling the x86 box as well, they could get away with it. That way, they'd be able to graduallly expand the hardware they support out of the box while manufacturers catch up. They'd be supporting the hardware that they put out, and eventually supporting other hardware as well.

Its true that if they were only supporting a small set of hardware, it would be easier to support. But as long as it is publicly available and runs on commodity hardware, there is an expectation that it will work on most systems, and if it doesn't it could potentially do a great deal of damage to Apple's reputation and even hurt their hardware sales (whether their hardware was PPC or x86). After all, one of Apple's great selling points, dating back practically to the introduction of the Macintosh, is of products that "just work" out of the box without any hassle.

Now think of a typical mainstream review of a Linux distribution, wherein the reviewer ends by whining about how their Windows partition was deleted, their proprietary modem and printer don't work, and they can't find a decent money management program, and imagine the damage if Apple came to be associated with such a product. In fact, Apple would have to invest a lot of energy porting drivers and begging vendors just to get to the level of support for PC hardware that Linux distributions have now (compared to the current Darwin situation). A "defective" x86 Mac OS release could ruin them both as a hardware and software maker.

Re:Wrong Question

[RobiOne]

Yes, well to test the theory, someone just has to start an open source project like XPde, but with the OS X like GUI, and clone it's functionality. Then you can have the best of three worlds, x86 hw, linux software core and an OS X like GUI on top.
It's all about choice right? This is one option I haven't seen explored yet.

Re:Wrong Question

[Mildew Man]

First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now.

What if OS X for x86 was double or triple the price of OS X for PPC. Apple already did this for one of their pro applications. I believe it was Shake or Logic that was priced higher for a x86 version when it was first aquired by Apple. Even now Shake is priced at $4999 for Linux vs. $2999 for Mac OS X. This is a nice little incentive (albeit at the high-end of the software spectrum) to buy Apple hardware. This would be for the shrink-wrapped version for those with their own hardware or building their own systems and doesn't address how they would price OS X for system resellers. I would imagine that PC companies would have to pay enough thus making those low-end boxes not as cheap as with Windows on them.

I would also guess that some people out there would shell out $249 or even $289 for OS X on x86. Would this eat away at Apple's high end market? Some, but maybe not much. I represent Apple's current high-end market (print/3D/web designer) but I wouldn't be putting together a custom PC box and slapping OS X on it. Too much headache for me and I have work to do. Those that do build their own systems is a market, I think, that doesn't buy many Macs. Sure there are probably many on Slashdot that have switched to or added a Mac. But there are probably many more that haven't and won't because they just want to build it themselves. Remember, we Mac users have really never been able to build our own systems. Why would we start now?

Think probability.

[Anonymous Coward]

I might try it.

Shouldn't this be a Slashdot poll?

[haruchai]

But, in any case, I would switch. For one thing, if
MacOS came to x86, I think that a lot of companies
who were abandoning the Mac and are reluctant to embrace Linux, would quickly reconsider.

Why I would change...

[donkstuff]

I would change for the reasons that i like the interface, and the eyecandy is amazing. Also, in my opinion, mac OSX is everything linux wants to be, but can't be.

Use it over x86/windoze? Yes. Over linux? No.

[aldragon]

I would definitly use it over windoze, but I would never use it over x86 linux.

Yes

[Anabas]

Yes.

YES, and here is why:

[muecksteiner]

I'm one of the comparatively few people here to have extensively used NeXTStep (the direct precursor of OS X - the core OS technology is still the same) on Intel hardware, back in the day when Linux was a freaky pile of small-rodent crud, Macs were "Win3.11 with an attitude" abominations and no other alternative to the evil empire existed.

A lot of postings here have tried to make points like "Steven Jobs hates untidy hardware" or "they couldn't make it work as neatly on x86 machines as they do on PPC rigs they build themselves", or even "they can't make it work on x86".

The first is perhaps be true (good for him if it is), the second might just be the case (but I seriously doubt this), and the third is certainly absolute rubbbish.

Granted, a lot of time has passed since then, and OS X is certainly more than NeXTStep 5 (as some diehards like to call it). But the nasty fact remains that the technological foundation of NeXTStep/OS X is enormously more stable, robust and inherently cross-platform than that of Windows in all its assorted versions of degeneracy. The Intel port of NeXTStep was perfectly useable and delivered all the comfort and useability to this new platform (and two more, actually - Sparc and HP builds also existed). You could not use arbitrary hardware (only that which had NeXTStep drivers), but that hardware was rock-solid, and given the availabilty of the excellent DriverKit the only reason other stuff wasn't supported was the lack of device information from the vendors (which is more readily available nowadays, partly due to Linux).

In short: if Apple wanted to pull this off (BIG if), the technological underpinnings would be there, and if it worked half was well as NeXTStep (which is pretty likely) technological issues would be the least of it. It's just not very likely from a marketing perspective, that's all (a shame, really, but what can one do...).

Just my two euro cents

A. W.

Re:YES, and here is why:

[jcr]

OS X is certainly more than NeXTStep 5

Indeed. It's at least NeXTSTEP 8 or 9.

-jcr

Re:YES, and here is why:

[benzapp]

Macs were "Win3.11 with an attitude" abominations and no other alternative to the evil empire existed.

OS/2 was far more of an alternative than Next ever was.

The price myth

[PrvtBurrito]

While I agree that desktop machines are far less expensive if you by commodity pc components, I take issue with Mac's being twice the price. This is particularly true in the laptop world. A quick search on dell suggests that an Inspiron 8600 with a 15.4" screen costs $2,500+ (2 GHz, 80gb, 512MB, high end video, DVD R/W, 802.11g, etc). A search on the apple store tells me that I can get a 17" Powerbook (bigger screen) for $2,500 with a discount or $2,799 full price (1.8GHz, 512MG, 80gb, DVD R/W, 802.11g, etc). Basically the same price, and the 17" screen is huge. The 15.4" version (costs 2,300 w/discount and 2,500 regular price). I realize that these are apples and oranges (no pun intended) and Dell isn't the cheapest, but still, you will be very happy with a 15.4" powerbook.

Well, not exactly chip level...

[UserChrisCanter4]

Yeah, you're right, with the exception of a few CPU-level bugs along the way, the BSOD hasn't been built into the CPU, but that's not to say that it's always Windows' fault.

Other things that go into the Windows world's instability include:
El-Cheapo hardware du jour. This includes many, many x86 mobo manufacturers, as well as bottom of the barrel RAM and PSU suppliers. Guess what: If you're truly talking about making something the same as a $2,000 Mac for half the price (hyperbole, I know), then you're engaging in some of this, and it is where a lot of the BSODs originate.

As a follow-up to section 1: shitty driver support, particularly in the 9x days when everything, not just video, had an easy chance to cause system-level problems.

When people say x86 in a debate such as this, they generally mean the platform as a whole, not the cost of the chip. A Pentium 4 chip by itself is as useless to me as a G5 by itself. But to say that Linux or some other non-Windows OS is going to be magically immune to the cheap-ass, no-QA hardware that you frequently encounter in the x86 world is completely off base.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Drakonite]

El-Cheapo hardware du jour. This includes many, many x86 mobo manufacturers, as well as bottom of the barrel RAM and PSU suppliers. Guess what: If you're truly talking about making something the same as a $2,000 Mac for half the price (hyperbole, I know), then you're engaging in some of this, and it is where a lot of the BSODs originate.

Embedded Sound and either Embedded video or a lower end video card and you can build an x86 PC with high quality/name brand parts and high specs for under $800 without a problem. Granted, thats without an uber monitor. Upgrade to a nice LCD and you'll probably end up fairly close to $1000.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[UserChrisCanter4]

No doubt; my Girlfriend's gaming PC (A mac is her primary machine) cost me just over $600 with a very nice video card, although I got the video card for $7 because an old one had died under warranty.

An $800 computer will NOT have dual processors, a DVD burner, optical digital audio output, slots for 8GB of RAM expansion, both forms of Firewire, GigE, etc. I can build a solid, reliable computer for $800, but I'm not going to try and pretend that it's remotely comparable to a dual 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac. This is the point that everyone misses when they play this game.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[NutscrapeSucks]

Yeah, but the point stands that you can get a good-performing, stable, and expandable x86 minitower for about $1000, and Apple simply does not have a model which compares.

Instead Apple customers are encouraged to spend $2000 for "workstation" machine. If one does not need dualprocs, PCI-X, or a crapload of RAM slots, it is a fair complaint that you shouldn't have to pay for them.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[azpenguin]

You can get a expandable x86 PC for $800. You can also get a new eMac for $800. However, consider a typical graphic arts workstation - one of Apple's strongest suits. You're running Illustrator, Photoshop, Quark (or InDesign), Acrobat, and Distiller, often at the same time. And you're working with files that are in the hundreds of MBs. Considering that you need your files to render quickly so that you're not spending half your time waiting for the system, and that you need a stable system, what kind of money do you think you're going to spend on a x86 PC that can handle that kind of workflow all day, every day? You're not going to be able to build that kind of workhorse PC for much less money than what Apple is charging. If you don't need the $2000 Power Mac workstation, there's far cheaper options available. And if you don't need the $2000 workhorse PC, there's far cheaper options available there too.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[lavar78]

Yeah, but the point stands that you can get a good-performing, stable, and expandable x86 minitower for about $1000, and Apple simply does not have a model which compares.

Apple does have a comparable model... as long as you accept that a machine can be expandable without being a tower or having PCI slots. Firewire and USB 2.0 offer a great deal of expandability -- hard drives, burners, etc. (after all, that's how we laptop users do it). That won't satisfy some users, but it's certainly enough for a great deal of them.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[UserChrisCanter4]

Having a model that compares was one of the things that nearly doomed Apple in the mid-90's. Simply put, Apple can't afford to have a jillion different product lines, and it's something for which I'm willing to forgive them. Cheaper eMacs and iMacs are expandable over Firewire (not the same thing, I know) for those who can't swing the higher entry point.

While I would love to have a single proc, smaller tower version of the G5 in the mid $1,000s, I also understand why such a product doesn't exist. At the end of the day, I'm happy to take what Apple can afford to provide, given everything else that the company has contributed to the computing world.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[SunPin]

You haven't shopped for a computer lately, have you?

AMD 64 2800
512MB
256 MB ATI 9600
120 GB SATA HD
Sony DVD burner
Sony DVD player
USb2 (8)
Firewire (2)
Bunch of various cf slots
Venus 12 fan
350 watt 30 amp power supply
Gigabit LAN
24 channel audio

Geez, what else?... completely tricked out in a Lian-Li PC 61 case _with_ no-valid-purpose biohazard case window and case lighting for $850.

Add my 16msec 17in flat panel and it's $1300. I assume your $600 price isn't with the monitor but I thought I'd factor it in anyway.

It runs like a dream. Orders of magnitude superior to the G5.

Now, you won't get this from IBM, Dell or any other retailer because they have to factor warranty and customer service. Like everything else in life, if you know what you're doing, you won't pay out the ass.

So is your figure retail or diy? Most Mac users can't comprehend diy and pay a premium for their ignorance.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[NutscrapeSucks]

Actually, I think this brings up a problem for Apple. What you say USED to be correct -- graphic design needed a pretty high-end machine, but as time goes on there's less and less need for a top-end workstation in this market.

Without a "mid-level" Mac to sell to these people, they probably just go much longer between purchases. And if you are really crunching graphics files, I don't think there's much question that a generic 3.0Ghz Dell would be more suited than an old G4.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[UserChrisCanter4]

A) I'll assume you're using Linux here, since I don't see a price factored for a windows OS. Nevertheless, if you choose to boot that, you'll want to include it in the price comparo. Of course, the fact that you chose to use an ATI card rather than NVidia points to a plan to use Windows.

I'd also like to know how a single processor system is orders of magnitude better than a G5 (you can certainly argue cheaper here, but not "orders of magnitude better").

DIY? Well, it's not really a fair comparison price-wise, but when I actually compare my DIY costs I include all the stuff. Things like OS cost, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc. that a lot of people (including your list, apparently) tend to ignore.

Totally independent of that, though, I'd point out that many of the new Mac crew are old Unix-heads who fully comprehend DIY, but recognize the quality inherent in Apple products.

Again, it's not to knock that machine. I'm typing this from a similarly equipped home-brew PC. But you have to ignore a LOT of the things that Apple ships on their units to pretend that your theoretical computeris comparable and not merely "getting the job done."

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Anonymous Coward]

> An $800 computer will NOT have dual processors, a DVD burner,

Beg to differ. I built a dual AMD XP system (I modded the chips to MP status, but they started life as $60 XP's). I already had a monitor and network card. Bought a dual mobo (the most expensive part, around $180), some RAM, and a gfx card. The price for the whole thing was something like $500. For a dual 2GHz system. And it's rock solid - except for power failures, it simply never goes down.

Part of the advantage of PCs is that it's so easy to build one real cheap by cannabalizing parts you already have sitting around.

That said, I would buy OS X for X86 if I could get it.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Things like OS cost, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc. that a lot of people (including your list, apparently) tend to ignore.

Mostly coz we already have them and don't have to pay for them again.

I've been using the same network card, speakers, mouse, and so forth, for ages now. It just all moves along when I upgrade other parts of my system or move to a mostly new system.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[bob beta]

I'll assume you're using Linux here, since I don't see a price factored for a windows OS.

And it's now a common assumption that MacOS X users are well conditioned to pony over $120 or so per year for the latest bugfixes and fresh eye-candy called an 'Update'.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[SunPin]

Yes, you are correct that I am using Linux but I also paid the Microsoft tax for xp pro so that's $1500 altogether. Microsoft barely survived the last upgrade cycle because Linux doesn't have suitable voice dictation(crossover doesn't run DragonDictate) to go primetime yet and there's the annoying wireless network setup hassle, lack of (my) printer driver, etc. Only a few issues remain before Linux gets the whole drive.

Back to the Mac. It's a nice machine. I just think it's too expensive and doesn't age well. If OS X went to the x86, I wouldn't switch. Not because of animosity against Apple, but because I'm against the concept of a commercial OS--or at least against the Microsoft vision of it.

Operating systems should be public utilities along with word processing, spreadsheets and email, etc should never be commercial. Think of the roads. We all pay for them through "neighborhood effects"--a capitalist concept. It's for the greater good that they are publicly accessible & maintained and improved. Road technology and software have progressed at the same rate which is to say almost not at all.

Why do we keep falling for the same crap over and over? How much better would Word 2003 be over Word 6(over 10 years ago) if Microsoft didn't break it to sell new versions. The real innovation was multitasking. What would be left for Microsoft if they didn't have a wonderful position as the OS proprietor?

I see Apple as being equally evil. Atleast with Apple, they don't pretend to allow competitors in their core areas. The other good thing about Apple is that if anyone can kill the concept of the Operating System, they can. I just don't think they will. They'll continue to sell hardware at 300% markup and focus on the elitist market.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[UserChrisCanter4]

Um, read what you wrote. That system did cost over $800, just not all at one point. Having a NIC or HDD or Optical drive kicking around doesn't make it free, it just means that it's already paid for. And while it may make the short-term cost easier to swallow, the same goes for eBaying old Mac equipment.

I could probably pull $350 for my $1,200 (at the time) CRT iMac that I've had for four years, whereas a comparable PC is so nearly worthless by that point that it makes more sense to just carry over the random parts than make a pittance online.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[misleb]

Embedded Sound and either Embedded video or a lower end video card and you can build an x86 PC with high quality/name brand parts and high specs for under $800 without a problem. Granted, thats without an uber monitor. Upgrade to a nice LCD and you'll probably end up fairly close to $1000.

Yeah, but that $800 is probabaly gonna look and feel like a $800 computer and the Mac is going to look and feel like a $2000 computer. Macs are just that classy. And not just on the outside. PCs always have been and always will be clumsy hacks by comparison.

-matthew

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[balster neb]

But to say that Linux or some other non-Windows OS is going to be magically immune to the cheap-ass, no-QA hardware that you frequently encounter in the x86 world is completely off base.

I've thought of this before: if Apple ever ports OS X to x86, maybe they'll only provide support for a very limited range of hardware? And maybe they'll give you no support if you're running on non-supported hardware.

That would take away one of the main advantages of PCs - extensibility, but I think many would be willing to make that compromise. And OS X can remain around as stable it is on Mac hardware.

Just a thought.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[JM Apocalypse]

You're still dwelling on the megahertz myth.

For me:
2.26 P4 w/512mb DDR 400 867 G4 w/384mb PC133

There are mid-level stations. They're called iMacs.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[JM Apocalypse]

Bugfixes are free. They come in point-releases which are freely downloadable.

There is new eye-candy, but also quite a few new/renovated applications _each year_. And it's not called an update. You're letting the 10.2 -> 10.3 make you think it is. From 10.2 to 10.3, there was a 30% speed improvement, as well as $80 worth of applications (available for purchase separately if you don't want to update). You're not even paying for an upgrade edition. You're getting a full-fledged copy, of which you can install over any version. So if you don't feel the need to update, wait for one that you do.

And you're not required to update. Just as you're not required to update windows.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[killjoe]

What are you talking about? Go to the apple store on the web and look for yourself. They have macs for every budget. YOu can get one for 800 bucks if you want.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[kamasutra]

New iMacs don't have Firewire and you can't put it in there. Which is the reason why they may not be the best solution even for home video editing.

And I spend most of my time working on Powerbook 12", so I'm hardly anti-Apple.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's too expensive and doesn't age well.

This is what I don't understand - it seems like uninformed people are always saying that Mac doesn't age well. The reason Macs DO age well has to do with the fact that they've always had features that are considered fringe by mainstream....

Like: SCSI, ethernet, firewire (or IEEE 1394 as you people call it - since Apple owns the copyright to 'firewire' since they were key in it's invention)

Until i got my dual G5 a few months ago, I was running a G3 266 upgraded to a G3 500...(I bought my g3 in late 1997)...that's pretty good longevity, at least where I'm from.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Anonymous Coward]

but when I actually compare my DIY costs I include all the stuff. Things like OS cost, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc

Yeah.....um...don't forget perhaps THE most important thing - TIME. As a designer my professional time is billed at $150/hour. My i did with my machine is far more important that how I did my machine for $300 less. With research, drive time, putting everything together, testing, worrying about drivers, updates, etc. - for those of us who work 70 hours a week, those hours add up to money....how much more might that add to the equation?

And as for the 'mac users don't get DIY' comment....that's like saying all car drivers, router users, and television watchers are too stupid to get DIY, yeah....obviously - since they didn't build those things from commercially available commodity parts.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Kent Recal]

Sorry, but the $800 PC can do the stuff you mentioned (run Illustrator, Photoshop, Quark, Acrobat, Distiller etc. at the same time) just fine.

If it doesn't you may have to add another GB of ram ($150) and maybe a faster CPU (~$150).

You'll be ending up somewhere around $1200, maybe $1500 if you need RAID0, firewire and more fancy stuff but nowhere near $2000.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS.

There are numerous crappy hardware parts that linux includes bugfixes for! Realtek 8139, several older mobo's etc. You get quite good QA from "many eyes shallow" on the kernel drivers (where do people, and do they have a habit of reporting buggy drivers in windows?)

A linux box with crappy hardware isn't coming near VMS uptime but expect far better uptime than the same system on windows.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Sentry21]

But to say that Linux or some other non-Windows OS is going to be magically immune to the cheap-ass, no-QA hardware that you frequently encounter in the x86 world is completely off base.

I hate to keep posting without citing, but when I was in high school, I put Debian on one of the machines in our lab (I'd never used Linux on a good machine before). Turns out that in Linux (but for some reason, not in Windows - probably driver workarounds), there was a conflict with the Intel network controller and the Intel motherboard. The two didn't play nice together, and as a result, the interface had to be reset the instant more than one program tried to access the network. I could do a multi-source apt-get, but as soon as I opened Lynx it choked and had to reset it.

So talk all you want about low-quality el-cheapo hardware, but even the big boys with the big bucks screw up sometimes.

--Dan

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Anonymous Coward]

They most certainly do.

Maybe you meant to say they don't have Firewire 800, which is a little disappointing but hardly a deal-breaker to a home user.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Dwonis]

The two didn't play nice together, and as a result, the interface had to be reset the instant more than one program tried to access the network.

Assuming that's actually what was happening, it probably wasn't a problem with the hardware - it was broken drivers that didn't do locking where they should have. "Processes" are abstractions that are not visible at the hardware level.

There's another thing that might have happened: You might have had the (IIRC) 8390.o kernel driver loaded. At a company I used to work for, we had a Debian machine that kept getting really sluggish and crashing for no apparent reason. It turned out that the 8390 driver - which was a PCMCIA driver - was loaded, even though we had no PCMCIA hardware in the machine. Removing the driver from /etc/modules fixed the problem.

[For those of you who are wondering why the driver was listed in /etc/modules in the first place, it's because the Debian boot-floppies never used to have automatic hardware detection, so it presented the user with a list of drivers which could be loaded. We weren't entirely sure of what drivers we needed to load for our hardware, so we just tried installing various kernel modules until we got ones that loaded successfully. Thankfully, the new Debian installer is much smarter.]

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[misleb]

Instead Apple customers are encouraged to spend $2000 for "workstation" machine. If one does not need dualprocs, PCI-X, or a crapload of RAM slots, it is a fair complaint that you shouldn't have to pay for them.

Let me get this straight... you are COMPLAINING that Apple sells only quality, well designed hardware that leverages the latest standards in the world of personal computing? That is like complaining that BMW doesn't offer a $9,000 automobile.

If I was going to sell a line of computers, I wouldn't offer anything but quality even if it meant losing the business of people who just want something cheap and fast. Apple is doing the right thing. They are sticking to what they do best by not pandering to the masses who just want any ol' crap that will run their games. I sincerely hope Apple doesn't release OS X for x86. It would be the ultimate sellout (not to mention a support and driver writing nightmare). The brand would suffer.

-matthew

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[misleb]

You might as well be comparing a souped up Honda Civic to a BMW Z3.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[NutscrapeSucks]

The problem with your BMW comparision is the Yugo (eMac) sitting in the corner of the Apple Store. Apple does sell the $9000 auto. What we're talking about is a nice $25000 family sedan, which they don't sell.

BMW actually has a pretty compehensive model lineup and is trying to increase their marketshare. Therefore they don't compare well to Apple.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[NutscrapeSucks]

I don't understand your point. Either raw CPU speed matters for your workflow or it doesn't. If not, you can't really justify buying a high-spec G5 workstation. If an objectively slow G4 is working for you, you aren't exactly a "high-end" user and maybe shouldn't be spending top dollar for a new PowerMac.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Kent Recal]

Not quite, I was comparing what you are seeing on screen and how responsive it is. I'd claim that a 2GHZ/1GB wintel box will do the graphics stuff just as well as the $2000 mac we were talking about.

Ofcourse the mac is fancier, but I think that wasn't the point here.

Re:Well, not exactly chip level...

[Ohreally_factor]

New iMacs don't have Firewire and you can't put it in there.

Huh?

I would switch others

[BishopBerkeley]

I already have switched. My parents and my girlfriend, however, have not mainly because they don't want to spend the cash on a new computer. (Not necessarily on a Mac, but a new computer, period.) So, I would switch them over to OS X in a heartbeat. My folks are old folks, and my girlfriend is a hip chick who don't like to be mistaken for a geek. They would all, therefore, benefit tremendously from OS X because they would have an easier to use OS that is more secure as well.

I remember to keep my W2K machine up to date, but the average user doesn't. So, OS X on x86 would still have untold benefits for the average user.

Fan of the x86 architecture? Ack! Thtpft!

[jejones]

I have a hard time seeing how anyone familiar with the x86 architecture and just about any other recent processor architecture can be a fan of the x86. The x86 architecture is ugly and irregular, the result of decades of backwards compatibility. The performance such CPUs is where it is now because x86 instructions are interpreted on the fly into something decent, and I really wish that AMD and Intel would make those architectures public, so that all that chip real estate could be devoted to something other than backwards compatibility and so that compiler writers would never have to deal with the x86 again.

ObOSX: Yes, I would, assuming that drivers that can make full use of all the hardware I currently have were available. I'd be inclined to set up dual boot (OS X and Linux).

Re:Fan of the x86 architecture? Ack! Thtpft!

[bani]

and I really wish that AMD and Intel would make those architectures public

no you don't. you think you do, but you really don't.

those internal architectures are very limited microinstruction architectures and would have a not-very-nice binary representation. code would become bloated for no good reason at all, and wouldnt perform any better.

think of the x86 instruction set as being a compressed representation of those microinstructions. better?

It's not the Operating System so much

[GMFTatsujin]

As I understand it, OSX is a BSD-alike, and that's pretty cool. Security, stability, that's all great, but it's not unreachable elsewhere, and is therefore not the prime draw.

The real envy I have for Macs is the sheer, tight, totally-integrated desktop management environment.

Every app drags'n'drops the same way (which is much more than I can say for every X-based box I've worked on), the extra features of which are astounding. The keyboard shortcuts are impressive, especially when used on a laptop. Expose is a freakin' MARVEL. It seems like every app can pass user data to every other app in intuitive, functional ways. The single drop-down-menu means that app windows don't take up more room than they need to. The window manager makes the display hardware hop up and sing. The desktop looks like it was polished with silk and angel tears.

The BSD core is nice, but DAMN. I wish Gnome or KDE could stand up to the beauty, interfunctionality, and deeply philisophical majesty of the OSX GUI.

That having been said, I'm seriously looking into getting a good powerbook -- and putting Portage for OSX on it so I can keep all my nice OSS apps. :)

Re:It's not the Operating System so much

[Backov]

OS X is pretty great. Until early this year, I was a Windows dev.. Since Win 3.11 really, but since I'm doing mostly web work these days, I got a current gen iBook.. It's quite a sweet piece of hardware, and the OS is fantastic for a guy like me. Hell, the thing even comes with XCode, which is this RAD dev environment which easily rivals my Windows dev environments (Borland C++ Builder/Delphi).

As for Portage, check out http://fink.sourceforge.net/Fink

Java issues

[greg_barton]

Yes, I'd switch, if they could release Java VMs without as much delay as in the past. With a Java5 VM I'd consider switching.

Re:Java issues

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Mod the parent entry up; Java under Mac is either old, poorly implemented (yes you, Safari) or both.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad somebody said this. Why is this speculated on every month without fail? WHO CARES EVEN IF IT DID HAPPEN? People who'd do it would. The REAL point here is that is will NEVER happen. Let's all stop wasting time. There's plenty of real news for CmdrTaco to double-post.

Why degrade to Mac OSX?

[julie-h]

Why on earth should I degrade from Linux to Mac OSX?

Re:Why degrade to Mac OSX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is better than Windows, but Mac OS X beats all hands-down.

Re:Why degrade to Mac OSX?

[__aafkqj3628]

Because you're already as low as you can go?

Re:Why degrade to Mac OSX?

[Kourino]

Ease of entering non-Western text. OS X is the only operating system I've gotten to easily and effortlessly switch between QWERTY/Dvorak, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. If I could use it, I could also use about fifty billion other language input methods, including various eastern European languages, Hindi, Arabic, Hebrew, and Thai. The only way I have any idea how you'd do that under Linux/X11 is to multiplex X Input Methods, and I don't know of any applications that do that.

Besides that, Darwin's I/O systems probably aren't as bad as you've heard, speaking from experience. I do lament the lack of virtual desktops, and I'm running 10.2, so I don't have Exposé. OS X really isn't that bad of a system - which is a good thing, as I'm stuck with it for a bit, since my PC just died. (This post is written on my iBook.)

Re:Why degrade to Mac OSX?

[michaeldot]

perience. I do lament the lack of virtual desktops, and I'm running 10.2, so I don't have Exposé.

There are two virtual desktops for Mac OS X:

1. VirtualDesktop

2. Desktop Manager

Also, Panther's worth updating to, not just for Exposé, it has many under the hood enhancements.

Not on the x86 platform

[imckinnon]

Actually after long thought, I started moving the desktops in my house over to G5 iMacs, and just keeping my servers x86 and Linux. I am not sure if Linux will ever make it in any big way on the desktop (though I hope it will) I just not it is not there now, and I am tired of Windows problems and SP2 was the last straw. I agree with several posters I have seen that one of the reasons that OS X has few problems is that Apple does control the main hardware (though the prices could come down). One poster who commented that Apple is twice the price for half the system I agreed with until I figured out the cost of the time I spent in a year cleaning adware, spyware, viruses, ad nauseum off my windows system. Hmmm but I digress... I am not sure that OS-X on x86 platforms would solve much except be a midstep on moving people from Windows to OS X on RISC.

Oops that should be calls not class...

[PrvtBurrito]

See subject...

In a second

[teknokracy]

Simple as that

Switch to OSX

[Atreus413]

You betcha!

Several Linuxes that run on your Mac...

[davidwr]

Several supported Linuxes run on Macs. Yellow Dog Linux 4.0 just shipped.

Ubuntu is shipping PPC in its upcoming 4.1 release, and has PPC ISOs as recent as last month.

Mandrake and Suse have downlevel versions for PPC.

For a more complete, albeit sometimes inaccurate, list of what Linuxes run on what hardware, visit Linux.org's distribution page.

WINE = No apps?

[ebooher]

I am just curious, when was the last time you *actively* used WINE? Because, a couple of years ago, I was running a Red Hat 7.2 box with WINE and was running Microsoft apps very well. I used to have a screenshot of my desktop with IE open looking at microsoft.com while typing something in Word. On top of that, WINE has come a *long* way since then. I understand that you can now run Apple iTunes under Linux using WINE.

Also, it is funny that you should mention that "Windows programs wouldn't work except through something like Wine, which won't work any better for Mac ..." Check out Darwine and you might be surprised. http://darwine.opendarwin.org/ While I will admit that this isn't quite Beta quality, and much work needs to be done, there is something about a screenshot of Notepad running on a PPC Mac under OS X that makes me giddy like a school girl. .... Errr yeah ....

Anyway, the Darwine team isn't even satisfied with merely running Windows binaries. They are even working on a port of the entire SDK so that open source Windows x86 apps can be recompiled completely against Darwine as a more "native" app. Though, the underlying and most important component is a Bochs like x86 HCL emulator. So it isn't like it can automagically fix little to big endian problems. But hey, it's a start.

I can already say "Name me something besides a game app that I can't run on my Mac in an equivalent fashion." Soon we'll be able to say "Name me something I can't run on my Mac, period."

Oh ... and slipping slightly back on topic here, since this is about an x86 Mac OS X port ..... as was already previously stated in another post, OPENStep compiled fat binaries for each arch. it was available on. Look at GNUStep. An open source implimentation of the NeXT SDKs. In fact Linux Journal recently did an entire article on GNUStep, with a complete program .... some kind of image manipulation app .... so that they could go .... "Ok now, change this line and this line of code, recompile and viola instant OS X PPC Native app." Don't think there isn't a version of OS X on x86 hardware *somewhere* ... just know that it's more heavily guarded than anything in the government .... It was widely rumored that x86 development boxes that were welded shut were given out to very select important vendors (Adobe) just before IBM figured out how to get the G5 to be a viable option .... so it was thought about. But if it ever happened it would be *APPLE* x86 hardware, meaning there would be no BIOS so it wouldn't run x86 OS like Windows, it would be Open Firmware and would be designed specific to Apple's requirements .... it would have just happened to have an x86 chip as the CPU

Re:WINE = No apps?

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm a Wine developer and I can tell you there's a galaxy of difference between running a version of Notepad compiled for PPC natively and running real world applications at a useful speed from the binaries factoring in eg copy protection support. I wouldn't hold your breath.

no

[Anonymous Coward]

i like osx but alot of the nice things with osx is
that apple make a nice package with software and hardware. thats why osx just works it wouldnt work asswell when you have brand x main board brand y gpu and so on.

but then i wouldnt switch cus i had an apple and i almost never booted osX the applications i use most works best under linux so i switched the mac for a nice dual pc with linux.

Bad Premise

[sakusha]

"If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

I think you have this backwards. MacOS X is out now, today, Longhorn is a long time off. You can't predict where the two OSes will be when Longhorn ships, nor can you predict where chip technology will be. It's looking like the G5 and successors will be kicking Intel/AMD's ass by the time Longhorn ships. You'll be upgrading your CPU before Longhorn ships, why not do a full upgrade and switch to MacOS X?

Re:Bad Premise

[ckelly5]

I can predict where OS X will be next summer - integrated search across the OS and all apps (Spotlight - in Tiger), and a full HW accelerated graphics system for the desktop (Quartz Extreme - available now). That's two out of the big three things that Longhorn is/was touted to have in 2006 (but have apparently been pushed back to a service pack) The other is Indigo, a web services-based communications infrastructure, fyi.

I'd also have to assume that OS X 10.5 will have enhanced usability features that'll knock the socks off of Longhorn, or at least it will if The Steve (or his Reality Distortion Field) has anything to say about it.

and for the record, I own a powerbook running panther and a windows machine. Windows for coding and the occasional game, and the powerbook for daily use.

Re:Bad Premise

[tuxedobob]

The other is Indigo, a web services-based communications infrastructure, fyi.

WTF does that mean?

Is Microsoft reconfiguring the main deflector dish? /troll-sounding because it's short and sarcastic

Re:Bad Premise

[ckelly5]

Indigo FAQ (slightly outdated, but does the trick)

No.

[sparcnut]

As much as I'd like to see more commercial competition for MS on x86, it aint gonna happen. OSX/x86, if released, will go the way of Solaris/x86. Solaris/SPARC is much better supported than Solaris/x86, both on the software side and hardware compatibility side.

The only compelling reason to switch might be the GUI. Personally I'm quite happy with what I can do in Linux, with all the choices around. OSX on x86 might find a niche, possibly for office machines - cheap x86 boxes running user friendly software might appeal to many businesses who don't need much more than word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, and email.

x86 crappy, but Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The submitter claimed to be a "fan of the x86 architecture" which is a buffoon thing to say -- study Instruction Set Architectures any and be prepared to be blown away by how crappy (thanks mostly to being outdated) x86 is. What does kick ass about x86 is the vast selection of hardware, the many options you have, and the relatively low price.

That being said, I would switch to OS X on x86 in a heartbeat if I didn't have to use Apple-branded hardware. Of course if I had the choice of running OS X on PPC non-Apple branded hardware as well (i.e. what CHRP/PReP promised long ago), with good support for a variety of SCSI adapters, then I'd switch to that in half-a-heartbeat. The PPC is a pretty decent architecture.

None of this being likely at all, thinking about such a thing is the computer-user equivalent of mental masturbation.

apple's guidelines arent always right...

[bani]

...remember it took them nearly 10 years to come around to the fact that proportional window sliders are more intuitive than a tiny fixed size square.

the menus at the top of the screen has more to do with the singletasking nature of original 68k macos, than any specific ui design decision.

"pulldown" menus (eg menus you had to hold down the mousebutton while navigating) were also a bad design decision, because people's fingers often would slip and accidentally enable a setting they didn't want.

apple made a lot of good ui design decisions, and a lot of boneheaded ones. these are just a few of the boneheaded ones. there's lots more.

Re:apple's guidelines arent always right...

[Dixie_Flatline]

This may sound lame, but at least they're consistent. :P

I mean, you can get used to stupid things, as long as you have to do them all the time. I agree that those decisions weren't optimal, but they were documented and adhered to. This is in contrast to systems where some applications are well done, and some are brutal, but you never know what you're going to get. Consistency can buy you a lot of leeway - it's something that Microsoft banks on. Their interface is pretty rotten, but there's enough consistency that people now find it familiar, and projects like KDE copy quite a few of the UI elements just for credibility.

So, at least Apple has a document. It means that their boneheaded decisions can be looked at critically and changed for the better. Contrast this with the undocumented or non-existed guidelines that other OSes have, and Apple definitely has a leg up.

Re:apple's guidelines arent always right...

[jcr]

...remember it took them nearly 10 years to come around to the fact that proportional window sliders are more intuitive than a tiny fixed size square.

Remember also that NeXTSTEP 0.8 already did proportional scroll bars.

The UI people that you're ripping on aren't at Apple anymore, they're off somewhere writing snarky essays that boil down to "it's different than what I'm used to, so it sucks."

-jcr

Re:apple's guidelines arent always right...

[bani]

so uh, standardized mediocrity is a good thing? i thought that was microsoft's specialty. now you're trying to convince me it's apple's? :P

if their boneheaded decisions can be looked at critically and changed for the better, why did it take 10 years to fix proportional sliders? and why are many boneheaded decisions still there?

Re:apple's guidelines arent always right...

[Dixie_Flatline]

Well, you've got to start somewhere. :P

I say again, consistency is worth a considerable amount. Even if you find a system subjectively poor (ie. you find it annoying) , it's possible that it's objectively (that is, testably) better to use, just because it's consistent.

Again, Apple doesn't always make the perfect decision, but at least you're basically always sure of what you're getting. In the cases where they're RIGHT (and there are several), you've got a huge win because everyone is doing things right. In the cases where they're doing things wrong, well, it sucks. But you'll never be confused about it, which is better than it sucking, but you're not sure exactly how the system is going to bend you over today.

As for proportional sliders, I don't know. Maybe people didn't really complain. Maybe they tested it in the lab, and people found them easier/faster/better to use. Maybe people didn't like them, but were so used to them that switching didn't seem like a good idea. You'd have to ask Apple.

Re:apple's guidelines arent always right...

[bani]

I say again, consistency is worth a considerable amount. Even if you find a system subjectively poor (ie. you find it annoying) , it's possible that it's objectively (that is, testably) better to use, just because it's consistent.

i say fixing things when it's obvious it's broken is better than standardized mediocrity.

proportional sliders were objectively better in every UI usability test I know of dating back to the 1980s. nothing subjective about it.

i guess apple is just slow. they were among the last major vendors to finally move to real preemptive multitasking and memory protection.

now you'll try to convince me that singletasking and no memory protection are objectively better :-)

it wouldn't be nearly so bad if apple at least followed their own guidlines. yet so many of their own software breaks their own rules -- and this is a problem that goes back to the original mac. apple chants this 'consistency' mantra, yet they violate the rules themselves, so they come off as rank hypocrites.

worse yet, apple's osx ui is a regression in many ways. they abandoned usability and consistency in favor of eye candy. not that they're alone in making this error, but i would have expected better from apple.

Re:apple's guidelines arent always right...

[Dixie_Flatline]

I agree with most of your points. Keep in mind that I never looked twice at a Mac until OS X, and I didn't own one until I got my G5.

I know I come across as trying to defend them across the board, but I'm not really trying to. I'm just giving them credit for bothering to have a document that lays out some reasonable guidelines, doing UI usability testing, and generally holding people to high standards. I look at the state of other UIs, and am largely dissapointed in both OSS and commercial attempts to provide a useable, workable interface. Apple currently is the worst of all evils, so I'll throw behind them, and hope that convincing others to at least read the documents they provide will lead to better HCI in the long term.

As I do with every other OS...

[homerj79]

I would give it a whirl if my hardware was supported and there was a decent amount of software available. I tend to be more adventurous when it comes to my PC and like to try the newest and more interesting OS's (Linux, BSD, BeOS, etc).

Hell yes, and for all the bitching going on...

[frankmanowar]

It won't be that difficult for Apple to recompile their core OS to x86. They use GCC, which means you can recompile all your frameworks, and let the linker do the work.

Mac OS X Developers aren't going to see much changes as long as they are using the Frameworks provided by Apple. Even if you are coding in C and you still enjoy doing your own memory management, you still won't see much difference because the OS is compiled using GCC. Which is a cross-compiler, BTW.

There is a reason that hundreds of ./configure,make,make install software packages build in the darwin environment - GCC. So it's really not that far out of a proposition.

The big hurdle is going to be the hardware drivers. But Apple is already pretty good with them. Plug in a Dell flat panel VGA - OS X can recognize the freakin model number. The OS is well-made - the hardware abstraction kicks the shit out of windows, which is still backwards compatible with Win95. Imagine, all that CRUFT ... gone!

So lighten up a bit. It would certainly be fun.

Re:moron

[Anonymous Coward]

Which comes as a shock to the millons of people running useful software on it.

"no applications"

[bani]

the move from 68k to ppc didn't seem to slow down apple any. i recall 68k apps working quite well on ppc during the 68k->ppc migration.

i'm quite sure apple could pull off a move from ppc to x86 quite easily, if they chose to. they already managed a move from 68k to ppc with few problems.

Re:"no applications"

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless Apple has some magic technology which could produce a usable PowerPC emulator, it wouldn't be anything like 68K conversion.

So, um, id Software....

[zarthrag]

...how many MORE months until that OSx86 build?

It's a nice idea! But there's a BIG PROBLEM.

[Ayanami Rei]

I'd want this to happen more than anybody else. But here's the problem with MacOSX on x86.

You'd reach a difficult spot.
1) You wouldn't have any of the third party MacOSX apps, because they're all compiled for PPC. It'd be a bitch and a half waiting for all those companies to recompile and test in the new environment. Plus all those hardware developers that tout MacOSX compatibility on their drivers would have to backpedal and re-release .kos for Darwin on x86... not pretty.

2) You're on x86... but you can't run any Windows or *nix binaries. (Windows? needs win32. Linux/FreeBSD? wrong object format, wrong C library)
Linux and FreeBSD can be emulated easily... but Windows is much tougher. I assume a port of Wine world come out quite quickly... and Apple may even rebrand it as a product. (Sort of like Konqueror -> Safari)
But then you get the attention of Microsoft in a big way and they could come down HARD on the Wine project or Mono or anyone who provides a transparent way to run Windows software outside of Windows.

And you can forget about Microsoft porting it's own productivity suites to MacOSX/x86... why help a competitor?

So you'd have a real nice OS, which doesn't let you run any third party software. Basically you'd choose it over FreeBSD or Linux just to run the Apple productivity suites and enjoy an even smaller set of hardware support.

Sigh.

Loaded question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want commercial OS X with Aqua, you really are saying you want the Mac experience. The Mac experience is packaged a certain way, and what CPU hardware underlies it all, is largely irrelevant.

Now I would ask, why would you want to trade a four plus hour battery life lap top, for one that barely gets two hours? I used to get 1.25hours on my Intel based lap top. And, when it ran out of battery juice, it crashed on me -- often losing my work.

I have since switched to a G4 PowerBook. I have never lost work at the end of a battery charge. It doesn't get as noisey or as hot as my Intel based unit. A number of features of the Mac experience prevent me from going back to Intel.

You talk about half the speed. I suggest you take a closer look at the CPU architectures. Just because Intel requires faster clocks, does not mean that PowerPCs run half speed. Some things are faster on the PowerPC, others on the Intel. Nothing is cut and dried as your simplistic clock comparison might suggest.

Entry level PCs do not seem to compare well, in terms of price. Used Apple equipment tends to be more expensive than used PCs. Apple users also tend to experience longer life out of their systems than PC users, I might add.

Further, comparably equipped Dells do seem to be selling within a few percent of Apple's offerings. In some cases the Apples were less expensive. Certainly, OS X was less costly than XP Professional, last time I checked.

Measuring value, however, is not simply numbers and check boxes of features. It is difficult to quantify some of the quality features that Macs bring to the table. Some things need to be experienced first hand.

I have used every version of Windows since 3.0. I do still use Windows when someone pays me to.

I have used Linux on Intel since version 0.99.x. I am currently using Fedora Core 2. I have always liked Linux, as a hobby.

I am a Johnny-come-lately to the Mac, since OS X 10.1.x. I now use a Mac whenever I have work to get done.

But back to your question, and it is I believe, moot. It presupposes that CPU architecture has some intrinsic value to the end user. People don't use a Mac because of the CPU architecture. They use a Mac because of the tightly integrated hardware and software, which leads them to a more productive, less frustrating time on the computer. Afterall, sometimes we just want tools that work.

So, many of us Unix types have already made the switch, and it's been a far better experience than anything we've had with Intel.

Windows +Net - Antivirus = Ignorance

[sheepdog43]

Not tryingto sound like a jerk, but just becaue you are carefull where you go, no longer protects you.

I see people with that attitude daily when I come by to clean the stuff out that they catch. I can garantee I can find spyware, adware and possibly a virus or trojan on your system. Even Bill Gates has to run Ad-Aware (it was in an interview someplace).

If you use AIM or email, or anything that connects to anyone or thing, you are at risk.

To think your exempt is ignorant. I have seen virii in websites, many others are embedding spyware into websites that are trusted, and who knows if they were not hacked, or if your buddy who you trust did not pick something up.

Windows is not safe on its own, and your a fool to think otherwise. Firewall or not. If Port 80 is open, your at risk. If your connected, your at risk.

Re:Windows +Net - Antivirus = Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just a lie. Windows _is_ save. I've ran a Windows box a few month without any protection. I don't run any firewalls or antivirus. I checked my system for viruses and spyware today. Nothing found.

Re:Windows +Net - Antivirus = Ignorance

[sheepdog43]

Gee, I did not get AIDS from this hooker so they all must be safe right?

Its not safe, you just got lucky.

vmware, virtualpc

[davidwr]

It's already being done. Microsoft bought VirtualPC from Connectix last year. It runs on Macs and PCs and hosts Intel OSes. In theory it can host anything, in practice, suprise surprise, only MS-Windows is supported as a guest OS.

VMWare runs on PCs and hosts other PC operating systems. Like VirtualPC-on-Intel, it's more of a virtualization environment than an emulation layer.

but an x86 port of OS X doesn't mean ...

[timek]

that I would be able to install it on the PC that I'm using now.

Porting OS X to the x86 could easily be an opportunity for Apple to 1) do the BIOS right, meaning that it would require a custom BIOS; 2) make use of the the hardware (video cards, sound cards, etc.) available in the x86 world; 3) if the port was done with some preparation it could make use of drivers for the peripherals by using a wrapper for win32 drivers.

Even if OX X were ported to run on x86 processors, I don't see why Apple would have to give up complete control over the hardware on which it would run.

I realize I'm a little hazy here & even self-contradictory. But maybe somebody else can tease out some the implications of these thoughts.

Re:but an x86 port of OS X doesn't mean ...

[__aafkqj3628]

do the BIOS right, meaning that it would require a custom BIOS

Do it right? How have they done it wrong? The PC BIOS is so old, outdated and inflexible, it's only holding onto it's ass for legacy support. OpenFirmware is a lot better than the PC BIOS - Biggest feature - hardware independence.

make use of the the hardware (video cards, sound cards, etc.) available in the x86 world

With the exception of graphics cards, they already do.
And even on the graphics card front, they already have the latest chip-sets on their cards (and no BS from about 20 different manufacturers).

Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[Tibor the Hun]

As a techie, I always get bombarded with "Where can I get a good computer?" questions, and I just tell people either at Best Buy for 500 bucks or a Mac.

A few weeks ago someone answered that they don't like Macs because "they like to have control that Windows gives them".
So, yesterday that person needs help burning pictures off the digital camera to 3 CDs. It took us fourty (40!) minutes to burn 600 megs of data on a well equipped Windows XP machine (3.06GHz P4 HT, 512 MB RAM). This is why:

I drag the first set of files onto the CD, they burn OK (albeit a bit slow).
I drag the second set of files and get an "incorrect function" error. I'm thinking WTF?
I use a new CD and some drag-to-disc program comes up and burns the pictures much faster than the first CD did.
I try to burn the final CD, but get the incorrect function error again. It took me 20 minutes of CD swapping, ctrl-alt-deleteing, and cussing to figure out that I had to right click on the burner icon and enable CD burning for it.
Well, duh, one might say, of course you have to have the CD burning enabled. You might think so, but you'd better not wonder why the first two CDs burned, but the last one required enabling.

What I'm trying to say is that in the time it took me to burn 600 megs of data on a very well stocked Windows XP PC, I could have had the very same pictures sorted into albums, posted on my website (which runs on the same machine), and burned on a cd on a 1.4GHz G4.

Apple way might be more expensive at first, but it doesn't require you to randomly click on things to make them work. (Provided that the PC has a slew of 3rd party applications to keep it working in the first place.)

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[cheekyboy]

well,

1) that is the fault of the cd burning software or windows it self, ie MS for its stupid ass outsourced indian programmers, or the crackpot looser product manager who approved the spec.

2) macs have lots of wierd issues too, they are not perfect, check macintouch.com and see how many people complain about wierd things and failures.

As for your burning problems, why didnt you just use Nero, its quit easy to use and has wizards.

What id like to know is, why hasnt some stupid asshole just made smart burning software, so you can drag in 2gig of files and say "BURN THIS BABY" and it would burn the first 700meg, and ask to insert CD2 and burn the next, then cd3, all without having to manually seperate it out. Code wise, no more than a days work to detail the spec and logic/flow charts, and a day or two to code it with 2 days to properly test it. Total price? $1k-$2k at most by the software companies, or $900k for MS which is why it would fail the ROI.

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[NeoSkandranon]

You could have used the software that came with the CD burner, or downloaded a demo of nero and done it in 10 minutes instead of dicking around with the windows inbuilt "feature"

Infact, if the computer was a brand name odds are it already had SOME kind of software on it to do this. It's not the fault of the operating system neither you nor the user knew what software was available to do the job.

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[Tibor the Hun]

But I saw on the blue installation screens that "XP makes the CD burning easier than ever"! ;)

And there was no software installed on the PC (which happened to have deep-freeze, and autologged to a restricted user)

Yes, you're absolutely right, nero could have done it, but the point is that Microsoft advertises products that plainly don't work, but the public doesn't seem to care. (To be fair, my Mac can't burn CDs by itself, but at least iPhoto can burn pics, and iTunes can burn music)

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[ptudor]

(To be fair, my Mac can't burn CDs by itself, but at least iPhoto can burn pics, and iTunes can burn music)

Is your Finder defective? Sure, Toast has some extra features but for me Disk Utility and Finder both take care of anything the iApps can't.

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[CharlesEGrant]

What id like to know is, why hasnt some stupid asshole just made smart burning software, so you can drag in 2gig of files and say "BURN THIS BABY" and it would burn the first 700meg, and ask to insert CD2 and burn the next, then cd3, all without having to manually seperate it out. Code wise, no more than a days work to detail the spec and logic/flow charts, and a day or two to code it with 2 days to properly test it. Total price? $1k-$2k at most by the software companies, or $900k for MS which is why it would fail the ROI

So if it's only four days work why haven't you done it yourself?

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[Tibor the Hun]

holy crap, i guess you CAN learn something new every day!
i wasn't aware that finder can do that, but now i am.
thanx

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[snol]

The code he was describing would be easy to implement, but actually burning the CD is much harder to get right. Look how much work has gone into linux cd writing and how far there still is to go.

Re:Apple Way Vs. Microsoft Way

[HeghmoH]

This is classic PC user blindness.

"OS X makes things so much easier than PCs, see example X."

"X is just as easy on PCs as on Macs, as long as you know which program to use, buy and install said program, and know how to use it."

The whole point is that the Mac Just Works. Stick a CDR in the drive, drag your files over, burn the CD, and you're done. Coming up with a "simple" nine-step process that does the same thing as the two-step process on the Mac is actually proving the Mac-head's point.

Not Gonna Happen

[SecretAsianMan]

Sure, I'd switch in a heartbeat as long as all the software was there. It would be one of the best things to ever happen to the PC industry. But it's not going to happen in current market conditions. Apple's business model generates revenue through the sale of all that expensive, slick hardware. If Apple hardware were not required to run Mac OS X, many (most?) people would run it on cheaper machines from other manufacturers. Apple would have to cheapen its own hardware in order to compete. History has already shown (i.e. the Mac clone era) that Apple is incapable of operating in such a market. In addition, Apple has to think about its relationship with the folks in Redmond. Office's availability on the Mac is a great boost to the Mac's image as a viable platform. It is likely that Microsoft would yank Office if Apple released Mac OS X for PC.

The key phrase here is "current market conditions". I have a Mac friend who tells me Apple secretly maintains an x86 port of OS X. It's completely plausible. All OS X is, really, is the latest version of NeXTSTEP, and NeXTSTEP ran on x86. So supposedly Apple has this little weapon ready to fire if necessary - for instance, if Microsoft were to close its Mac business unit.

Re:Not Gonna Happen

[jcr]

All OS X is, really, is the latest version of NeXTSTEP

Umm... No.

OS X is the merger of NeXTSTEP and Mac OS, plus at least another hundred man-years of new development work. NeXTSTEP didn't have anything like Quartz Extreme (in fact, it never had OpenGL at all), its localization support was rather paltry compared to OS X, had basically no accessibility features at all, nothing like AppleScript, no voice recognition, no handwriting recognition, and I could go on for about another thousand words or so.

I loved NeXTSTEP, but I always said that once I saw something better I would switch: that something better was OS X, developer preview 4.

-jcr

Re:Not Gonna Happen

[SecretAsianMan]

But that's what we typically do when we evolve a software product in a major way: we add new features. Mac OS X is more or less a direct evolution of NeXTSTEP via OPENSTEP and Rhapsody. Yes, they did a bunch of work on the product, including the throwing in of influences from Mac OS, BSD, etc. But NeXTSTEP's parentage plays the primary role in the core design of the OS.

If not OS X, then how about ...

[tverbeek]

OK, so what if, say, BeOS was ported to x86? And updated? And was later going to be available as open source software? Any interest?

Re:If not OS X, then how about ...

[X-Nc]

> Any interest?

In a heartbeat. I'm just biding my time.

In a heart beat

[teknurd]

I would so switch to Mac OS X on x86

I do not have any idea why people keep harping hw.

[Gentlewhisper]

Let's look at it this way.

2% of the PC market * 2500$ vs say 50% of the PC market * 150$

Which would you prefer?

Oh yeah, and that 150$ comes in pretty frequently as you release yearly releases of your OS. Whereas we all know most people use Apple workstations for like forever since MacOS is such a durable platform.

Once Apple established themselves into the OS market, no hw manufacturer will even DARE to not support MacOS.

How about that.

As long as I could dual boot? YES

[kevn]

If it were possible to have both Longhorn or whatever the next gen MS software and Mac OS X on the same machine and cohabitate... yes!!! without a doubt I would install OSX. You know what? OSX would scoop up alot of Windows users this way.. many people would find themselves using OSX more and Windows less. kevin

old school Mac user, now Windows user - I would!

[Tek Tekson]

In a heartbeat.

I started out on Macintosh back in the System 5 days. I really got into it with the color LC, and was working in Macintosh technical support (certified Apple technician thankyouverymuch!) until 1998, at which time I started working with Winblows and Linux almost exclusively. When I saw Win2K, I switched outright.

I don't miss the expensive and slow hardware from Apple, and I dislike the direction Jobs has continued to take - heavy on the marketing, light on the value.

I would never give up the flexibility of OEM.

But if I could run Mac OS X on my Athlon XP, I'd buy a copy tomorrow.

Of course, I'd dual-boot XP for (now this would be ironic) legacy support, but if I had the choice of relatively evil-free MacOS X on my much-cheaper-and-faster-hardware - you betcha!

Dear Apple: Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a heartbeat.

hardware, hardware, hardware..

[josepha48]

marsha, marsha, marsha... okay I keep reading posts here about hardware support.. one thing I'd like to point ou, is that OS X is based on similar technology as FreeBSD. So I'd imagine that porting drivers from FreeBSD to OS X would not be a huge hurdle. This would probalby include, nics, mb, hard drives, etc. The only remainig issue would be video cards as I see it. I could be wrong.

The bigger hurdle is Mac actually wanting to port to X86. it would suddenly make supporting thier OS more difficult. Its easier to support an OS when you know what hardware you need to deal with, and when you have all the variables limited. Its more difficult to deal with all the windows unknowns.

Linux has to run on *everything* and can be...

[Ayanami Rei]

mmmmm... no... that's not why it's touchy about hardware.

Linux is first and foremost an operating system for x86 and x86_64. Now because x86 isn't the most demanding architecture out there, anything you implement on there easily maps to features of other popular architectures (SPARC, PPC, s390, IA64).

The problem is that the drivers are largely written by kernel developers, and that's about it (with the exception of some lovely folks at Intel, HP, Creative and NVidia). Because of this, you only get what's been tackled. So anything new and shiny is unlikely to be supported unless it so happens to be using an already-tackled chipset, then you've just got to update some PCI or USB ids in some obscure header file to make sure it's going to be detected.

OSX rocks at hardware detection because either it works on OSX, or it doesn't. There is no other more popular OS on that architecture that a hardware manufacturer would write drivers for or test first.
And the oh so helpful OSX compatibility logo on the box of whatever doo-dad you want at Fry's pretty much prevents any confusion.
Get it?

Just buy a Macintosh

[Enrique1218]

If Mac OSX goes to X86, would you switch?

Man, I already switched and its great. A company (MS) gives you less and charges you more. You are having doubts about trying a competitor? That like going to a car dealer and buying a lemon that stalls while you drive it and is easily stolen. Then, you go back to the same dealer and do it all over again. I started off with WIndows when I got into computers. I relied on it for its ubiquity even though I had to rebuild the system 4 times a year. But then I got fed up and gave a competitor a chance. It takes some work but it pays off in the end. I am typing this on 4 year old Powerbook running Panther. The hardware is fine. Why do you need the hardware to change? Just do it or go to Linux but stop asking dumbass questions

Re:Just buy a Macintosh

[tuxedobob]

4-year-old Powerbook? Are you ready to sell yet? /half serious if I had the $$$

From Windows? Yes

[Progman3K]

But I am running Linux now, and I am already more pleased with it than I ever was with Windows.

I ran Windows exclusively from 1989 to 2003.

I really believe that the reason for this incredible quality and stability is that the Linux operating system sprang up not as a product like Windows was, but rather as a desire to produce a good operating system.

It's two very opposed views in this case.

This is one of those cyclic questions..

[msimm]

Short answer:

Yes.

But Apple will never do it so its irrelevant. Just because you'd pay for their product doens't mean they'd sell it to you (especially if they have a business model that involves more then just OS sales..which they do).

I imagine the cost of simply supporting the hodge-podge of pc hardware that makes up the average pc desktop gives everyone at Apple nightmares.

I would not be switching...

[Thaidog]

Because I already have Mac OS X on PowerPV... but I would buy it for x86 for sure!

architecture doesn't matter...

[bani]

...when economy of scale dictates you can run that architecture insanely fast for incredibly cheap.

the relative simplicity of design also allows you to scale the architecture to incredibly high speeds. this is why "beautiful" designs like mips and 68k never made it into the ghz range.

mips and ppc might be "beautiful" internal architectures, but they are also not economical ones.

hell, sparc is a "beautiful" design with register windows and all. didn't save them in the long run though.

unless you're programming in assembly all the time, C/C++ will insulate you from the architecture details, so "ugly" instruction sets are largely irrelevant.

there is also nothing preventing someone from making a "beautiful" x86 hardware design. hell, SGI did this once with their visual workstation series. the linux kernel still has support for this subarchitecture type (processor type and features -> subarchitecture type -> sgi 320 / 540).

Did anyone thing about BINARIES?

[GFLPraxis]

Uh...did anyone think about BINARIES? x86 binaries won't run on PowerPC processors, and PowerPC binaries won't run on x86. If Mac OS X ran on x86, it wouldn't be able to run any PPC-compiled programs (basicly, EVERY MAC PROGRAM IN EXISTANCE), nor would it run windows programs due to lack of API's. Basicly, it wouldn't run ANYTHING whatsoever. It would suck.

Mac OS X PPC, though, rules :)

Re:Did anyone thing about BINARIES?

[__aafkqj3628]

There are two pseudo-solutions to this -

1) The installer supports fat-binaries (binaries for more than one architecture inside one installer package), inherited from NeXT.

2) They could just dig up YellowBox again, brush of the dust and use that to handle most of the API's. Given, things like the Accelerate framework and most of the hardware frameworks would break, but still... it's a start.

Re:Did anyone thing about BINARIES?

[voixderaison]

It's ancient history now, but a number of 3rd party software vendors supported NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP on 4 hardware platforms (m68k, x86, pa-risc, and sparc) via fat binaries. There were interesting non-trivial products, created and supported by tiny little companies. The frameworks did a good job of abstracting the hardware differences out of sight and mind, and the build tools did a good job enabling low-cost support of multiple hardware platforms. The operating system itself used these tools, and updates were simultaneously released for multiple platforms.

At the time, Microsoft's 3rd party software vendors were rejecting MIPS and Alpha and whatnot, because it was too difficult to support Windows applications on multiple hardware architectures.

The business model for Apple shipping Mac OS X on the Intel platform is problematic, but the engineering behind Mac OS X demonstrated a mastery of the technical challenge.

I'd like to respond to your comment with one word.

[loraksus]

Quark /I'd like to but the goddamn lameness filter won't let me.

Ever heard of NT Subsystems?

[WillerZ]

NT has subsystems, of which Win32 is just one. Microsoft services for Unix is another, as is their standard POSIX stuff. They don't like to tell anyone the API for writing your own subsystem, if they did I'd be tring to write a UML subsystem.

Phil

It really depends....

[Cnik70]

Since it does not currently exist, I really cannot give a 'real' answer. I like my Linux box. I've used Linux exclusively for years now. Yet Mac OSX has always interested me. I really would not know unless I tried it out first.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject

I don't believe they will switch

[KH]

Maybe I missed it, but not many people seem to have expressed what I feel about the issue.

I don't know if the post was an observation balloon from Apple, but I hope they don't listen to /. folks on the issue. They, or Steve Jobs, must remember what happend to Apple when it was still called NeXT.

Everybody was envious and awe-struck by the beauty and ease of use and the power in NeXTSTEP. Everybody who's ever seen it work wanted it on his desk. But the hardware was prohibitively expensive. So, when they figured out that their hardwares were not selling, they stopped selling the hardware and ported the OS (whatever it was called or however it was capitalized at that time). That should have prompted bunch of nerds jumping to the NeXTSTEP, which never happened.

Things may be different these days, PC hardware may be more or less uniform and easier to support. If *BSDs support certain hardware, they may not have to worry about them. The compiler is gcc which is available for ton of architectures. So, softwares available for OS X/ppc should be available for OS X/x86 easily.

On the other hand, the experience you get from Apple hardware in combination with OS X will not be the same as OS X on x86 hardware. Does anybody notice how this brushed metal look in OS X corresponds to their current displays? Do people honestly believe that OS X would look as nice as on a PowerBook when it is on a Dell/Toshiba laptop?

Also, despite the myth, Apple hardware is not much more expensive than those in the x86 world. Still, they are not selling very well.

Considering the above, I highly doubt that those who said they would switch with a heartbeat will actually switch when OS X became available on the x86 hardware. They may as well complain why they have to pay $150 when Windows comes with the hardware or they can get Linux for free. I'm afraid that the momentum that an OS has on people is so much bigger than one would think.

If you listen to the debate about one button mouse or menubar on top of the screen, it's all about which way they learned first :( Most people do have hard time changing habits, and they think their ways is the right way. So, I think very few people would switch even when OS X became available on x86. Those who will switch should have switched by this time or they will switch at the next computer purchase regardless of which architecture the OS runs on. Actually they don't even have to switch. Why not have two or more OSes running on different computers at the same time?

Hey, if it ain't broke.....

[barc0001]

As long as it's secure (behind a NAT) and does what they want it to, why upgrade? The constant "latest and greatest" mentality is what M$ and a ton of other people are counting on to drive their revenue. Office 95, 97,2000, 2002(xp) really, what is the huge gotta have it feature(s) over the last iteration? NHL 200x, Maddden 200x, NBA200x, same thing...

Step off the treadmill of upgrade upgrade upgrade!!!!

Re:Hey, if it ain't broke.....

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Because you're essentially freeballing it?
Once one person gets past your firewall they'll find the vulnerable kernel and get into your machine, and you'll be sitting around with a false sense of security not even attempting to detect such a break in. Keep in mind that any application you run can start tunneling in connections (reverse tcp proxy), or when you're out on vacation and your sister whos watching your house decieds to throw an open wap inside your net so she can use her ibook.

So, for the sake of security, throw some damned boxers on and maybe even a cup.

Thanks,
--Your Penis.

PS: Stop trying to use nair on me, it really burns. Just shave me every now and then, okay?

Re:Hey, if it ain't broke.....

[barc0001]

Once one person gets past your firewall they'll find the vulnerable kernel and get into your machine

Really? And how were they planning on doing that, short of breaking into my house physically? I run decent firewall on a dedicated box that is totally locked down. I seriously doubt anyone could breach it without some hard-core time investment. And besides, why would they? On my cable neighborhood there is so much more lower-hanging fruit...

So, for the sake of security, throw some damned boxers on and maybe even a cup

It's not like the box is completely open even once you're into my network, I'm just saying I'm not all that keyed up about upgrading kernels now, now NOW because of a couple of security issues that could only maybe be a factor to someone if they had already breached my not-insubstantial front security.

And as for my sister watching my house and throwing up a WAP for her convenience:

1) She's so far down on the list of people I'd ask to house-sit that I'd probably sell the house first.

2) She doesn't know what a WAP is, so I doubt she'd be installing one anywhere...

3) Re the ibook: She has a Mac-zealot for a neighbor who is so rabid about the things it's pretty much guaranteed that she'll never buy one. She fears that shit might be contagious.

4) And finally, I'd just have whoever use my WAP instead. Which does filtering based on MAC addresses. If you're not on the list it doesn't even acknowledge your existance.

Re:Hey, if it ain't broke.....

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"3) Re the ibook: She has a Mac-zealot for a neighbor who is so rabid about the things it's pretty much guaranteed that she'll never buy one. She fears that shit might be contagious."

So you're saying shes not the type to say her computer goes beep beep beep beep? (I wonder if anyone will still ge the reference..)

"4) And finally, I'd just have whoever use my WAP instead. Which does filtering based on MAC addresses. If you're not on the list it doesn't even acknowledge your existance."

So they sniff it first, find a mac address thats being sent into the air, then set their card to broadcast themselfs as that. (ifcontrol hwaddr 1111:2222:3333etc, iirc)

The real problem isnt what you're doing, its what you're thinking. No matter how secure your system is, there IS a way to break in, and denying that just makes you more attackable.
As for ways around your firewall.. Code execution exploit in some random buffer overflow (these .jpg parsing ones are just the start of a hellish amount of exploits coming out soon), then it phones home over a http connection that your firewall should allow (if not, you'd make theo de raddt proud). Client sends server a "I'm here what do you want me to do?" command, server responds with whatever it wants you to attack, or whatever new code it needs you to run (such as an autoexploiter onto your lan)

Or substitute buffer overflow for code execution with insecure autoupdating code and dns poisoning at your isp.

Re:Hey, if it ain't broke.....

[barc0001]

Thankfully my sibling would not complain about beep beep beep.

The real problem isnt what you're doing, its what you're thinking.

Actually, no. Here's the thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand, including yourself. It's not that I don't think someone can break in to my home system, it's that if they can get past the moat, and the automated motion tracking machine guns, and the pet dragon, I don't CARE. Good on 'em. They've obviously gone to a lot of effort for little or no tangible gain. I will find them there probably almost immediately, kick them out, and use it as an excuse to wipe everything and try something else. I have had a LOT of experience repairing other peoples' systems after they've been broken into, so I would wager that these person or persons of questionable parentage would not go undetected long.

I spend my life doing hard-ass computer security among other things in my professional capacity. The boxes I am paid to look after ARE locked down like you wouldn't believe, and I do apply the latest patches ASAP.

But when I get home, my home systems have nothing important on them, so I am not completely anal about security patching the minute something comes out. I do make more of an effort to secure them than anyone else within a 20 mile radius of my house, I would be willing to wager, and that seems to be sufficient. Again, the low hanging fruit gets picked first, and there's a shitload of low hanging fruit in my city, and on my cable modem's subnet. Who gets broken into on a given block? The guy with the yard screened off with cyclone fence and razor wire, iron bars on the first floor windows and a solid steel door, or his neighbors? So what if he didn't bother to lock one of his third floor windows for a couple of days? Do you think a potential thief is going to go after that third floor window, or perhaps they'll go after another window in another house that doesn't involve crossing the razor wire fence, the motion detector alarms, and somehow getting up to that window.

So they sniff it first, find a mac address thats being sent into the air

Again, this doesn't really concern me. I've checked out my own neighborhood for other WAPs or wireless activity. Know what I found? Exactly 1 other WAP in the whole neighborhood, and it's unsecured. My neighborhood is a small cluster of about 20 houses that are out of the way of anything else within range of even a yagi-based sniffer. I know all of my neighbors at least casually. They're nice people, and regarding computers, they're all pretty much dumb as a bag of rocks. I have no fears that any of these people are going to be sniffing my MAC addresses anytime soon. We're far enough away from everyone else that someone wardriving would stick out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood as well.

No matter how secure your system is, there IS a way to break in

That's true of everything, and the crux of my argument. I understand what you're saying, and I again will say that in my professional capacity on workstations and servers that are used in my company, security is job 1. But at home, it's a bit of a different story. At home is where I relax. I don't 1) spend that much time at home to begin with due to the amount of work I put in at my company. 2) When I am home, I don't spend that much time on my computers. So 3) I don't want to spend a significant percentage of that small amount of time resecuring holes that maybe .001% of the people out there could take advantage of, if they somehow magically knew that my home workstation that's on 2-4 hours a day inside a hardass firewall is vulnerable to it, if they could somehow get to it. I just make sure that my box is better than 99.999% of all the others out there and I'm content.

denying that just makes you more attackable

I don't deny it, I know it completely. But there's such a thing as a reasonable effort, and I already make far more than

Re:Hey, if it ain't broke.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Clue: a NAT doesn't make your machine secure, unless it's the only route to the internet and it's switched off. The moment you open a port on that thing, you're vulnerable to software bugs in your OS. Which is why you patch.

Isn't this in Slashdroid 101?

Yes i certainly would!

[anonymous leprechaun]

I would be more than ready to drop 300$ on OS X for x86!I've been saying so for months.

But, honestly, i don't think it will ever happen. Why you ask? Although it really sucks that apple sell hardware monopolistically, it's one of their greatest advantages. Why? well since they don't offer that much hardware, they don't have to bother with all the support. Do you think microsoft appreciates having to support all those stupid OEM devices whose drivers only differentiate on a couple bytes? Hell no. I'm sure microsoft wet dreams about controlling the hardware market as well. Well, more tightly than it already does so it only has to spend minimum amounts on hardware support.

Apple being a small company, cannot put forth all the ressources to support the amounts of hardware there's available for PC. Selling OS X for x86 would force them to, and i don;t think Apple is courageous enough to risk that.

It's a shame, because, i really would buy OS X for PC, and i'd even give them tip.

that was my 3 cents.

I'd switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I'd love to switch, I love Mac hardware but it kind of locks you in to using Mac OS. If I could dual boot my XP box with OSX that would be perfect.

Why do I need XP you say, well for games. I think Apple should spend a bit of cash and get (more) games developers to start making Mac versions of their games, then I'd have no reason to keep XP.

Andy.

No, but I would buy a PPC ThinkPad

[teeth]

...with a 3-button nipple mouse.

It would probably be running Linux, perhaps AIX, but I'd give OSX a try on it if I could.

who likes x86 architecture?

[Anonymous Coward]

... not somebody who knows the ISAs, that's for sure. Maybe this person means they like commodity hardware? (If so, say it!)

Maybe they like something else?

Re:who likes x86 architecture?

[ccoakley]

I actually have a friend who knows a great deal about the x86 ISA and does prefer the x86 architecture. I don't know how well he knows the PPC ISA, but would guess that he knows enough to form his opinion.

My preference for the PPC ISA has to do with the abundance of registers more than anything else (ok, decoding x86 instructions is kind of a pain). My preference for the G5 chip has more to do with power consumption than with the ISA. But, there are other systems that satisfy that need. Transmeta has a great position in the performance per watt and an acceptable position in the performance per dollar categories. I think those are the only thing transmeta has going for their chips (not that it isn't enough). It's the performance per watt and not the ISA or the performance per dollar that have made me consider getting the orion multisystem 12 node box.

Hell yeah.

[Drake42]

I have a powerbook and I love the OS on it. Everything works just like its supposed to and it's really smoothly intgegrated.

And I just gave it up to get another linux box.

Apple computers are just too damn slow to use for development. If I could get apple on X86 and blast up the speed, I would buy in a heart beat. I wouldn't even mind if I had to buy some kind of hardware dongle to make sure I wasn't copying it. But until Apple is on x86 I wont be switching to them again.

Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[mikefe]

It isn't the integration that causes requirements for reboots.

It's the base concept of not being able to move or rename a file once it is open. This is the same whether you are talking about a simple text file, or your system files for the OS.

Most filesystems (fat, ntfs, and of course all unix filesystems) have an abstraction between a directory entry, and a filesystem wide number that identifies a file -- in unix filesystem terminology that is the "inode". The problem is that windows does not use that natural abstraction.

In unix, if a program has a file open, you can "delete" that file -- wait it's not gone yet[1]. What happens under the covers, is that your filename in a directory points to an inode. Each inode has a count of the number of references to itself. When you open the file that reference count for the inode is incremented. So if there is one program with the file open, and the inode is referenced in one directory, the reference count is now two. Once that count goes to zero, the inode is unlinked -- which means deleted, but since "delete" is multi-step in unix, you need more terms.

[1] This is a great way to work with temporary files -- once you open and delete it, nobody else can access the file and many security threats with temp files are completely avoided.

Now you have a system file that needs updating. You delete the file (which just removes one reference from the directory) and the system still holds a reference to the inode and continues operating as before. Then, you write the new updated file to the same directory with the same name, but it doesn't cause a conflict because the new file goes into a different inode. Once the files are replaced, restart the individual application and the update is finished.

On windows, to update a system file that can not be closed during the operation of the system, you put the files in a special location with a script that specifies their desired location. Every time windows boots it runs those scripts that replaces files before they are opened. That is why windows will always require more reboots than unix based OSes.

There is more to updating system files than that of couse. For instance, most unix servers do not run a graphical environment on the server and every version of windows since NT boots into a graphical graphical environment. Most Unix based systems use the Xwindows system for their graphical environment, and an update to that environment only requires a restart of Xwindows not the entire system -- which is important if you are running any services on your computer that people depend upon.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[Fallen_Knight]

thats all fine and dandy, but doesnt' change the fact winodws still needs to be rebooted:)

And says windows is useing an outdated not so good filesystem.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[ti.payn]

Thank you for posting this. It was actually interesting.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[mikefe]

"Thats all fine and dandy, but doesnt' change the fact winodws still needs to be rebooted:)"

I was showing why windows will never be able to catch up in requiring as few reboots as unix OSes. If you didn't catch that, please read my previous post again, it was kinda long...

"And says windows is useing an outdated not so good filesystem."

Why do you say that?

NTFS supports all of the unix sematics natively. In fact, everything is a file -- even directories and "inodes".

You have a combined inode list and journal in the MFT file.

(in fact, the design of ext2 and 3 keeps the inodes close to the data with block groups spread out over the disk. (these block groups also provide a level of backup information that that helps greatly during filesystem recovery on bad disks -- but you have backups, right?)

So, if you implement NTFS so that the MFT file is intentionally fragmented to put the inode data close to the data blocks, you could have the same performance advantages ext2/3 does for reads on large files (I'm not sure what XFS does to get its speed advantages though). Or whatever else might be a better layout. But you wouldn't have the recovery advantages of ext2/3's block groups though.)

If the FLOSS community could just fork NTFS from the specs published before microsoft changed the FS and didn't publish the specs, NTFS could be one of the premiere filesystems in Linux. But alas, NTFS support in Linux and OSX is not about optimizing for production use, but for compatability with windows systems.

Fragmentation can be overcome by a better implementation like Suse's enhancements to ReiserFS does in the 2.6 kernel. (Did that make it in yet? I haven't been following LKML for the last several months.)

Just like ext2/3 for windows might not be as reliable because it might not follow the same integrity procedures that the linux kernel implementation does -- almost by requirement since since Linux's ext2/3 implementation is gpl, and I don't believe the MS FS SDK is gpl compatible.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[Ivop]

Xwindows? It's the X Window System!

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[Fallen_Knight]

Yes you did explain why, and i said something about explaining it doesn't change the fact you need to do it.

and if NTFS is so fine and dandy, just after you explained why linux doesn't need to be rebooted and windows does, why is NTFS like ETX2/3 if it has to be rebooted?

i mean why doesn't windows just do the same thing unix does and not reboot if NTFS is like EXT2/3?

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[mikefe]

I would immagine that it was inherited from somewhere else, either VMS or the other family tree of windows for compatability. Hopefully someone who does know will point it out...

One of the nice things about the windows semantics of "can't have two writers" is that programs can test for writability to see if someone else has the file open for write. This is used by word to keep two people writing to a file while another has it open. It also cuts into flexability as my origional post shows.

In the unix world, all locking is at the application level and nothing prevents someone else modifying a file you have open (as long as they have write permission of course). So there is greater flexability and greater ability to shoot your whole foot off, instead of just shoot yourself in the foot.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's the base concept of not being able to move or rename a file once it is open.

Ty to earch for FILE_SHARE_DELETE flag in MSDN (MS developer documentation).

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[AaronLawrence]

I'm sure that's a part of it, but the major problem is just that many parts of Windows can't* be restarted without a clean boot. So, the files they use can't be replaced except at boot time. It's irrelevant that the file can't be replaced at the file system level, because there is no way to restart the "application". Example (I think) - the HTML renderer behind IE - because it is also used in the desktop, and the desktop can't be restarted except by reboot. Hence, one of the components most commonly updated (browser) still requires a reboot to completely update. "Doh". Another reason not to integrate it like this. * When we say "can't" we could also read: Microsoft can't be bothered; or, due to other design decisions it is prohibitively hard to do.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[Kent Recal]

In the unix world, all locking is at the application level and nothing prevents someone else modifying a file you have open (as long as they have write permission of course). So there is greater flexability

I never really got that.
Why the heck would you ever want to write to the same file from two processes at the same time?
Is there a real-world example of when this feat has ever been useful for anyone?

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[legrimpeur]

Thanks!!! FInally I understood the magic of running "apt-get upgrade firefox" while using it!

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[m50d]

Syslog for a start. On the one hand this can be confusing, but on the other hand it's nice to have one log saying which IPs have been trying to attack my sshd and smb shares, makes it easier to see who is just running a big automated scan and who is actually looking at me.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[mikefe]

Thanks, I didn't know about this...

The first hit on google brings up: Use FILE_SHARE_DELETE in your shell extension

Here's an interesting quote:

In the CreateFile() call that opens the file, use FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_DELETE in the dwShareMode parameter.

The MSDN documentation doesn't make it clear at all, but FILE_SHARE_DELETE works with MoveFile() in the same way it does with DeleteFile(). In other words, it gives you Unix-style delete/rename semantics. Even while you have the file open, Windows can delete it or rename it right out from under you, but you can keep reading it--your handle to the file remains valid until you close it.

So, in the case above, Windows moves the file to the destination folder without interference from your thumbnail code.

Mike Mascari ran a test of this and posted the results in the comp.databases.postgresql.hackers newsgroup:

Well, here's the test:

foo.txt contains "This is FOO!"
bar.txt contains "This is BAR!"

Process 1 opens foo.txt
Process 2 opens foo.txt
Process 1 sleeps 7.5 seconds
Process 2 sleeps 15 seconds
Process 1 uses MoveFile() to rename "foo.txt" to "foo2.txt"
Process 1 uses MoveFile() to rename "bar.txt" to "foo.txt"
Process 1 uses DeleteFile() to remove "foo2.txt"
Process 2 awakens and displays "This is FOO!"

On the filesystem, we then have:

foo.txt containing "This is BAR!"

The good news is that this works fine under NT 4 using just MoveFile(). The bad news is that it requires the files be opened using CreateFile() with the FILE_SHARE_DELETE flag set. The C library which ships with Visual C++ 6 ultimately calls CreateFile() via fopen() but with no opportunity through the standard C library routines to use the FILE_SHARE_DELETE flag. And the FILE_SHARE_DELETE flag cannot be used under Windows 95/98 (Bad Parameter). Which means, on those platforms, there still doesn't appear to be a solution. Under NT/XP/2K, AllocateFile() will have to modified to call CreateFile() instead of fopen(). I'm not sure about ME, but I suspect it behaves similarly to 95/98.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[mikefe]

Well, it turns out that windows can use unix semantics (with the FILE_SHARE_DELETE flag), but I still don't know if it can be used for system files.

I'm sure windows could be fixed so that parts could be restarted, but it would be a major project that would take years. But they probably won't do it since every windows system in a large deployment is part of a cluster of servers, so one going down for a reboot isn't much of a hassle. It's where you don't have a cluster that it is a problem.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[mikefe]

Samba uses TDB (Trivial DataBase) and it does something like this. It allows multiple readers and writers to work on the same file (database) without having a lock manager process that would be a single point of failure.

Re:Windows integration not only cause for reboots

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you stop annoying us if we all chip in for some spelling lessons?

"^thats all fine and dandy"
"doesnt'"
"winodws"
"rebooted:)$)
"And says windows is"
"useing"
"an outdated not so good"

not quite

[jeif1k]

The entire GUI and all of the hundreds of libraries ("Frameworks" in Mac OS X) that Mac OS X apps depend on would need to be ported, and many of these are only designed to work on PowerPC currently.

Well, no, that's not true. The actual OS X GUI, frameworks, and libraries are largely NeXTStep, and that stuff is quite portable and even ran on x86 at some point.

Of course, OS X also has Carbon and the backwards compatibility stuff in it and that might be harder to port.

Re:not quite

[__aafkqj3628]

Well, no, that's not true. The actual OS X GUI, frameworks, and libraries are largely NeXTStep, and that stuff is quite portable and even ran on x86 at some point.

True, but that was many years ago now (and sort of died with WebObjects 4.5). But even Cocoa and the AppKit were an easy click of the fingers, what about the hardware frameworks?

Of course, OS X also has Carbon and the backwards compatibility stuff in it and that might be harder to port.

Maybe they could use the opportunity to finally kill Carbon!

Re:not quite

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

The entire GUI and all of the hundreds of libraries ("Frameworks" in Mac OS X) that Mac OS X apps depend on would need to be ported, and many of these are only designed to work on PowerPC currently.

Well, no, that's not true. The actual OS X GUI, frameworks, and libraries are largely NeXTStep, and that stuff is quite portable and even ran on x86 at some point.

The foundation is NeXTStep, but what about Quartz, Quartz Extreme, ColorSync, CoreAudio, I/O Kit, VecLib, developer tools like Shark? These were all built specifically for Mac OS X on PPC, and that's just naming a few.

Of course, OS X also has Carbon and the backwards compatibility stuff in it and that might be harder to port.

Carbon would be tricky, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as trying to port Classic.

Re:not quite

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

Maybe they could use the opportunity to finally kill Carbon!

A few years ago, Apple announced that they were going to eventually drop Carbon, but under pressure from a lot of long-time Mac developers, they changed their mind. Now, instead, they're slowly rewriting the cruftiest parts of Carbon so that they more closely match the ObjC implementation. There is now basically nothing that you can do in Cocoa that you can't do in Carbon. This is great for developers because Carbon, being a pure C API, is much easier to wrap to be called from other languages, than Cocoa is.

Carbon's not going anywhere.

Re:not quite

[__aafkqj3628]

So essentially, Apple is maintaining -

-Carbon
-Cocoa
-Core Foundation
-Cocoa for Java

Re:not quite

[ImpTech]

But do you even need Carbon and the backwards compatibility stuff? What are you trying to be backwards-compatible with? It's not like there's all these legacy Mac-x86 apps running around.

Re:not quite

[jeif1k]

These were all built specifically for Mac OS X on PPC, and that's just naming a few.

But what would be "specific" about them? Most of those are regular C, ObjC, and C++ libraries. They may contain a few assembly language inner loops, but those can be replaced easily. They may contain some hardware-related code, but that must already have a hardware abstraction, and, in any case, it's usually the same hardware as on PCs anyway (e.g., QuartzExtreme).

If the entire Debian and Gentoo distributions, composed of thousands of components from thousands of developers, can be maintained on half a dozen platforms each, I don't see why a much smaller platform from a single company couldn't be.

The main problem would be to get third party developers to recompile their applications.

Carbon would be tricky, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as trying to port Classic.

I don't think Classic needs to be ported--on every Mac I have owned, it was the first thing to go. If it needed to be ported, the most sensible thing would be as an emulator.

Re:not quite

[jeif1k]

what about the hardware frameworks?

Well, what about them? Presumably, their whole purpose in life is to make interfacing to a variety of hardware easier and more portable.

Furthermore, Apple uses many standard components in their systems anyway, so the hardware is quite similar. The only real problem could be hidden byte order dependencies in poorly written code, but those should be found and eliminated anyway.

Maybe they could use the opportunity to finally kill Carbon!

I suspect that Carbon will be around in MacOS for a long time, perhaps longer than Cocoa. Most of the ports and third party toolkits, as well as a lot of OS X software, for Macintosh are based on Carbon. Without it, OS X would be in crisis.

Re:Not Quite

[catwh0re]

Market share figures are slightly misleading, 3% for a single computer company is doing quite well. Doing exceptional considering it's not running the OS monopoly.

Most of the market share numbers come about from large company purchases, running software that needs to fit the monopolised standard.

Meanwhile this is still a redundant argument, "Apple are a hardware company, not a software company."

Re:not quite

[jeif1k]

You need Carbon: many new programs are written to the Carbon API and that isn't changing any time soon.

Re:not quite

[cremes]

I/O Kit is part of darwin. I support a "fat" driver that works on both PPC and x86. That particular part of the system requires no port.

cr

Linux + KDE + Mosfit Liquid + Baghira...

[wemgadge]

...is what I'm running already as a gui. It LOOKS sorta like MacOSX but FEELS just like KDE.

If they released an x86 edition of OSX I would switch in a second.

On the other hand, as has been mentioned above, it would kill their hardware business.

At the moment Apple is doing okay in the sense that their production is right around their demand. If you could throw together a system running OSX/x86 for $300 it may take on MS, but it would sink Apple's hardware division (except the ipod--they'll be selling gobs of those for the forseeable future)

Ya, I have Mac envy issues. I wanted an iMac Lamp for my next system, but couldn't afford to make the switch. So it's KDE with Baghira and Mosfit's Liquid running on Linux.

Re:Linux + KDE + Mosfit Liquid + Baghira...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, Who needs Mac or Windows. Debian - KDE or Gnome. Split a 64 bit processor in to two virtual 32 bit procs, or two in to four and Vmware and your rolling.

Some people thing BSD is Unix or Linux. Try coding ML to the Apple port. Not fun.

Yes, dual boot at least...

[fbg111]

Only thing keeping me from switching right now is that I refuse to give up ability to build my own computers. I'd love to have OS X on my PC, assuming it supported the hardware. I'd keep WinXP around for app/game support, though.

Another one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple isn't in the operating system business.
Apple is in the computer business.

You people are so stubborn and thick-skulled.
You'll never "get it."

The 80s want the post back, Cliff.

You like the x86 architecture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from price why would anyone like such a hacked up outdated mess? The only reason Intel and AMD continue to invest in it is because of the massive amount of momentum it has. Even the x86-64 is bodged (albeit slighty improved).

The time has passed for these games

[theolein]

Apple cannot do this. For multiple reasons that have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with marketshare and market forces.

If Apple were to switch, it would start at point zero, with no applications, just as it did in 2000 with the Mac OSX public beta. It would not even have the Classic layer to run the old Mac apps, although that is less of a concern these days. These days Mac OSX on x86 would either have to have some very fancy easy to use WINE like environment, so that Windows users could use their current apps until OSX equivalents came along, or run Windows in a VMWare like environment.

Also, you would have to kiss MSOffice for OSX goodbye. You, as an OOo user might think this is insignificant, but it sure as hell isn't to those who use it.

Then, there would be the hardware problem that people like the article author always always forget. Apple makes most of its money from hardware. Do you think Apple would still make as much money and sell as many units if the OS was able to run on x86 commmodity hardware? Obviously not. That would force the price of the OS up. How many newbies would then pay for the OS?

Talking of newbies, how many of the gazillions of windows users who currently have never heard of OSX, or think OSX is still the same crap they used back in 1995, will fork over $100 plus for an OS without Office, without games and without other pro applications? I seriously doubt that Apple's pro apps like FCP and Logic alone are enough to sustain the platform, not to mention the intensely pissed off current users on PPC.

That means that the only people buying OSX on x86 would be geeky types like those here who are so fucking stingy (and I don't mean poor - I'm poor yet I use a Mac because it's so good) that they bitch about a $100 price difference in a computer. The vast majority would not use OSX or even think about switching.

Apple's only recourse in this case would be to make an x86 mainboard, using a special OpenFirmware with no bios, such as current Mac mainboards do, to make it incompatible with other x86 machines so that it would not encroach on Microsoft's Windows territory too much and so that it would keep users from using other x86 hardware.

And the advantage of that over its PPC platform is right around zero, so why even think about it.

Apple could have done this exactly once in the past. Back in 2000 when everyone was started to switch to OSX and there were no OSX applications for the new OS, Apple could have gone with a proprietry x86 motherboard and kept on producing a few last PPC machines until their classic MacOS users had switched and there were enough new OSX apps. That time passed as soon as new apps started coming out for OSX and people started investing money in them.

The only thing Apple could possibly do to make money on x86 these days is possibly port its Cocoa frameworks and devtools over to windows to compete against MS' .Net stuff, but here again, who would actually buy this? .Net is far enough advanced that it is the king of Windows and no big shops would move to Cocoa.

I am so so fucking tired of some one night wonders asking this same stupid question, when it is so obvious that it is just a geek cheapskate wet dream.

Re:The time has passed for these games

[burns210]

Software:
Jobs did it in the past, supply Fat Binaries of the software, that run on(yup) multiple architectures(Nextstep ran on PPC and x86, a single application could run on either system.) the same idea would happen hear, keep OS X on ppc, while selling hardware, but supply to developers(in droves, give it away like CANDY to anyone who has taken a CS class, try and flood the market for the new sytem) the x86 system for development of fat binaries.

Port all inhouse software to fat binaries, and let longtime developers get free advanced copies of the OS to develop on, etc.

Userbase:
Have a long developer-only release... lots of beta and make sure that the x86 version is superior to longhorn, and release BEFORE longhorn.

While handing out OS X86(clever, ay?) to developers and creating a buzz, turn your back on piracy. LET the piracy nuts get copies, let them be beta testers and buzz spreaders.

Apple could make the OS source code compatible with many, if not most/all software for porting. They have done it before with Next, it CAN be done.

How would it work? Well, Apple would need to merge towards a software company. Buy a few more pro apps and secure a nitch. Then, Apple would have to strike pre-announcement contracts with atleast 1, if not 2+ OEMs to sell the systems on... IBM and Sony would be the most obvious. Get them to be able to sell systems when the 1.0 gets released.

My Opinion:
Would it work? Iffy, I would say the Jobs could do it if he took both of Apple's feet and dove 100% into the plan. He would completely gamble the companies 4+ billion dollar savings, and maybe survive. I own a 12" powerbook and I think that owning the hardware makes the system better. Yes, it could(maybe) be done. No, I don't think Jobs would do it. Yes, I would support apple if they actually were that gutsy.

Switch from my Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I switch from my Mac to run the same OS on Intel? Don't think so.

Use it yes, switch completely.....

[ToasterTester]

I wouldn't switch totally over to OS X until more Windows app's necessary to do business get OX X versions. My one gripe about OS X is it isn't Unix enough. Sure it's FreeBSD, Darwin, Mach, but Apple limits what you can tweak. I know they are trying to protect the typical computer user from themselves. A Mac is like a bicycle with training wheels welded on. They should have a config' switch to open thing up for people who want do things their own way.

no

[proclus]

anymore questions?

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Oh please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

We mac users like the fact that the OS is not available on X86. We like to be able to look down our noses at you lowbrow Neanderthals. If our OS was available on the same hardware you use, how would we be able to keep our superiority! /me quickly puts on his flame proof underware!

Built-in features

[guet]

"You could have used the software that came with the CD burner, or downloaded a demo of nero and done it in 10 minutes instead of dicking around with the windows inbuilt "feature"

I think the point he was trying to make was that most things on OS X work as you'd expect them to. With windows you will often have to fiddle with options hidden in a contextual menu or click through 10 screens of a wizard to perform a simple task (eg Burn a CD). Yes you can find software to do it, but it's a bit more painful than it should be.

Re:Built-in features

[Anonymous Coward]

No, with Windows you'll startup Nero and burn the CD in a few minutes.

If you're a Mac user you'll spend an hour dicking with context menus and producing coasters.

maybe

[phrostie]

i'd at least be willing to try it.

Switch? Oh, you mean to x86?

[jzellis]

I'm a diehard OS X convert, from many years of Windows/Linux use. I've been using free OSes since 1996 and I've never found any package management/GUI combination that makes installing and running apps as smooth as OS X. Plus...and I swear to God this is true...the Quartz rendering subsystem renders text better than any other window manager on the planet. Linux can't touch it, and neither can Windows. For somebody who writes and reads on screen an awful lot, that's pretty important.

I *would* switch if Apple ported OS X to x86; I would start buying x86 hardware again. Not for my primary machine -- I'm waaay too happy with my PowerBook for that -- but for my home server and for an XServe render farm...especially now that Logic can use a render farm to handle audio production (of which I do a lot as well).

As for the CPU clock speed argument...you're comparing RISC to CISC architecture. It's not comparable. My 867Mhz G4 is as fast as any 2Ghz Pentium 4, easily.

I'm so there...

[dcr]

If there was an x86 port of OS X, I'd have to pick it up.

Re:I do not have any idea why people keep harping

[Anonymous Coward]

More like: 2% of the PC market * 2500$ vs say 4% of the PC market * 150$

Maybe they could get lucky and get up to 10% like OS/2 did before Windows was established.

The average business customer couldn't switch off Windows even if they wanted to.

Give it a while longer

[TractorBarry]

Well it would be tempting apart from...

If the Xorg folk keep going at their current rate then I'm confident that Linux graphics will eventually (shortly ?) become the best in the business.

Similarly if the work of freedesktop org/Linux Standards Base can get enough Linux distros to start putting out packages that install consistently then the "ease of installation" part of OSX will be covered in the free software world (here I musn't forget to mention how nice it would be to get completely standard cut & paste between ALL GUI apps etc. etc :)

But... whilst an X86 version of OSX would be tempting it wouldn't be free software and I'd not buy it.

My reasons for this are simple and reflect the reason I got interested in GNU/Linux in the first place which was:

1 Over several years I spent well over £ 3,000 (uk) on emagics Creator/Logic software. First for the Atari and then the Windows platforms.

2 A few years ago I got burned when, shortly after paying £ 100 plus for an upgrade, emagic anounced they were going to stop supporting Windows. They did offer me the chance of a "subsidised" upgrade to a MAC but this would have been over £ 1,000. A sum I could ill afford.

At this point I was left with working software but, as it's closed source, I will never receive further upgrades. Nor would I have an opportunity either to continue work on the Windows software myself or (more realistically) to pay someone else to do the job.

Following that I simply said FUCK proprietary closed source shite.

So now I run free software wherever possible. I do still have a Windows box (which runs Logic & Sound Forge) but I will never again pay money for closed source software.

It's not that I'm tight as I am/will be quite happy to pay for software. Just so long as the source is provided and with a licence which would allow it to be forked should the vendor/developer stop supporting it.

So no thanks, OSX may be nice but it's still closed source poison. Never again.....

I would...

[node 3]

I'd switch from a Mac running OS X to an x86 PC running OS X, which is exactly why Apple won't release an x86 version of OS X unless there are a few dramatic changes in Apple's market.

lol not a chance

[Inconnux]

I use Linux for most of my work,
I use windows for games...
why would I want OSX?

I'll leave macs/osx to those who like
to spend more and get less...

Switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words, Hell no.

It's Dark Inside The Box... It truly is...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.josephpalmer.com/view/box.shtml

Joe had it right, and Be proved Apple wrong. Not only did BeOS run better on the toppest of Macs and clones (604e at the time), BeOS ran better on a PC than it did on Apple hardware.

Maybe Apple's hardware is "better" and "faster," or more "number-crunchier," but you cannot compare a 3 or 4ghz clock speed to a 1.8 or 2.5ghz one! Well, you can, but...

Panther's rather sluggish on my 867Mhz 12" PowerBook, and exhibits a lot of the same performance problems and choppiness on a 20" iMac G5 or a Dual 2.5ghz G5 desktop...

I love my PowerBook, and I prefer Mac OS X to Linux. I won't run Windows; computers suck enough -- why make it worse? I think a lot of people would "Switch" to Mac OS X, or at least dual-boot, but Apple knows that all they have left, besides a great hardware team, is good industrial design and flashy graphics.

They're faster on the PC.

What is with the trollish headline?

[Awptimus Prime]

Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been ported to x86 and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

For starters, OSX is tight because buying a mac is much like buying a console gaming system. All the hardware is pretty much going to be the same across the board. They do not have to worry about compatibility and bugs regarding AMD, intel, SiS, and hundreds of other hardware vendors. This, in my opinion is why Apple's systems are slightly more stable than your average Windows box. I say this with the assumption that both the OSX and XP boxes are unmaintained and run by users who do not keep their systems optimized.

I would not run a x86 Darwin, personally. Linux serves all my non-gaming needs as it is, and in my opinion, is a superior OS compared to Darwin. I don't really feel like typing up the many reasons for this, but I see no point in doing something less with something that costs more.

As for XP versus OSX.. I can't say much, except there is an enormous supply of business software and games. It would take many years for OSX to catch up. As much as people hate to admit, Windows 2000/XP are the standard for business workstations. Save yourself the responses like "I AM A DEVELOPER AND I USE LOONIX", as you are not the standard. I am speaking of the masses who do data entry, clerical, medical, and other types of work.

BTW, if you have not bothered to take into consideration, Longhorn is far from a finished product. Of course people are going to say bad things about it, it's incomplete and very broken at this point. Mind you, if you are going to buy into things that don't even exist yet, does that mean you are the type who is going to decide on your next game console by the preliminary marketing specifications of the console without taking into consideration developer support and the final technical specs of the retail product?

Re:What is with the trollish headline?

[tuxedobob]

As for XP versus OSX.. I can't say much, except there is an enormous supply of business software and games. It would take many years for OSX to catch up.

There are three things wrong with that:

1. Don't include proprietary business apps, in-house apps, and other "custom" jobs. They could just as well be written for OS X.

2. Don't let sheer numbers be the deciding factor. How many spreadsheet apps do you need? (For that matter, how many are there?) You can run a business on a Mac. The Apple Store is proof of that. (Can you run any business on a Mac? See #1.)

3. The Mac does not lag behind when it comes to games. In fact, I have games for my Mac I haven't even bothered to install yet. Granted, a few high-profile games are PC-only. There are also plenty of games that are (or were) Mac-only. The majority of games from big name software houses nowadays are cross-platform.

Though I do agree that the story is a Troll in Interesting's clothing.

Re:What is with the trollish headline?

[Awptimus Prime]

The discussion is not about whether OSX on a Mac has software. The thread specifically deals with opinions regarding OSX on an x86 system.

For instance, Linux and Windows both run on x86, but that does not mean Windows software will run on Linux or vice-versa. Just because someone may port OSX over to x86, this doesn't mean any of the OSX applications are going to run at all. Different CPUs.

Your points are valid, yet not related to what we are talking about here. Don't get me wrong, I think the new Macs are great machines. I'd love to own one if they didn't cost so much. Plus, I already bought Office 2003, so it will be a while before I feel like spending that money again for another system (yes, I use MS tools because they are the standard -- I can't afford a formatting problem or minor incompatibility with client systems). :)

Re:What is with the trollish headline?

[tuxedobob]

....hmmm, guess you're right. Sorry, reflex action.

long-time Linux geek & iBook owner

[cjsteele]

I think the bigger question we should be asking is: if OS X came to x86, would software vendors like Microsoft port their software? Realistically, Apple's viability as a computing platform has long-been tied to the availability of third-party software (just like Linux's viability.)

If Apple came in to the x86 market-space, I suspect you'd see Microsoft (and others) pull their product lines. The result of such things would surely be the death of Apple (as an alternative computing platform.)

Cheers,
-C

worthless, NOT NEWSWORTHY

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a worthless thread. Apple succeds because of the unique hardware/software mix. You will never see an x86 port of osx.

Since when is this news?

X86 Mac OS...Oh yes!

[Baseclass]

Interesting thought experiment, I hadn't considered that option.

Mac OS would be a formidable opponent to Windows. I would not switch per se, although I would set up a box dedicated to Mac OS to be sure. Of course I'm one of those geeks that has piles of extra hardware lying around just waiting to be utilized.

Apple has made a name for itself. They may not have the market share but anyone in the market for an OS is definitely familiar with them. A well thought out marketing campaign would most definitely score them some serious business.

Sure there's the stability factor but considering the fact that the current x86 leaders Windows and Linux are stable enough for the masses I'm pretty sure a company like Apple wouldn't have any trouble pulling it off.

They have my vote.

Wake up and smell the coffee

[MiniChaz]

Mac OS X looks great. It's reliable. It probably is great. But much of the reason for this is that the hardware on which it runs, expansion cards and all, is tightly controlled by Apple. This is the same reason that Solaris and AIX are fantastically stable and well appreciated by the people who have the hardware to run them.

If you want to buy into the whole Mac thing buy a Mac. It's never going to be ported to x86 because it's a crap architecture and everyone knows it.

And yes, I do have an x86 machine because everything else is too expensive, but I also have enough experience of other architectures (SPARC, Power, MIPS) to know x86 blows big time and if someone offered me a Sun Blade 1000/1500/2000/2500 or similar for a sensible price I'd jump at it.

Cheers,
Charlie

I don't get it...

[mr_angry]

I see all these utils and sites to make Windows XP act like Mac OS X. I see people whining all the time about how OS X for x86 would be so cool. If you want Mac OS X, get the real thing, get a Mac. As for the *but but but macs are too expensive* rant I think that if you get a PC with decent quality parts, it's not that much cheaper (add in the cost of a LEGAL Windows license...). Sure Macs are more expensive but they're not like twice the price when you start adding similar features to a PC.

Anyways i see it like for cars, some luxury cars are more expensive and won't go as fast as other cheaper sport models but they are way more comfortable. Mac = comfort, i don't care about my cpu being faster than anyone else and i don't need to have a dual 2.5ghz G5 for what i do (music, coding, some gaming and some gfx/3d/video besides net surfing and stuff...)

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Yes!

[Corson]

The quick answer is, yes, I would.

I don't want to buy a first price Macintosh only to have MacOS-X. Macintosh machines come almost twice as expensive as i386 machines for similar performance. So yes, if MacOS-X were available on Pentium or AMD PCs then I would switch. :)

Yes and no

[athlon02]

Windows and Mac OS X both have their ups and downs. I run both (XP Pro and 10.3).

I'd at least consider dual booting the two. But my concern would be OSX's ability to run windows apps or apps off other platforms.

But I will say this... if Safari comes to Windows (and works as well as on OSX) I will start using that over IE.

In a Word, Yes

[thegoofeedude]

I would definitely switch to OSX if it was available for x86 architechture. If they came out with it tomorrow, I would buy it, immediately. I like that OSX is built on a BSD core- and I like the ease of use. To me, it is the closest scoring OS on all fronts. If you are a power user and like to use terminal applications or whatever, you can do it. And if you are an entire novice to computing- OSX is very intuitive and easy to use. I realize device drivers could mean some instability if OS X was on x86 hardware, but I wouldn't care. It's such an attrictive environment!

Perhaps better suited for SlashPoll question?

[lems1]

It'd be lovely to see a poll on this question...

Have you people actually USED Longhorn?

[chaboud]

I have, and it's a pretty impressive OS. Microsoft is looking to do a lot of things to facilitate multi-tasking by the user, rather than just by the OS.

It's certainly not ready for prime time, but it's not a bad direction to take. I've also used Mac OS X extensively. Like most of you, I have a stack of running computers under, on, behind, and around my desk. I'm very sure that I would *not* switch to OS X were it available on x86.

The Real Question is.....

[noyzman]

When can we run Windows on one of those sexy powerbooks! (Without Virtual PC)

Re:The Real Question is.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Get one of those copycat x86 laptops from one of the trendy vendors. They're cheaper than PowerBooks to boot.

Round and round we go!

[Zobeid]

X86 fan: Macs are way too expensive! I can buy a bargain PC at Wal-Mart for way less, or even build a PC out of generic parts for 1/3 what any new Mac costs.

Mac fan: You fool! You're comparing Macs with generic, stripped-down, bargin systems from Wal-Mart, or (even worse) to home-built systems! That's not fair -- if you compare them with comparably-equipped name-brand PCs, the Mac is just as affordable or possibly cheaper.

X86 fan: You fool! You're comparing Macs with comparably-equipped name-brand PCs, which (as we all know) are only bought by techno-idiots! That's not fair -- I can buy a bargain PC at Wal-Mart for way less, or even build a PC out of generic parts for 1/3 what any new Mac costs.

Mac fan: You fool! You're comparing Macs with generic, stripped-down, bargin systems. . . . .

And so forth, ad nauseum. It's been going on for years. So. . . Which comparison is really more fair?

If you are a high school or college kid who has little money and loves tinkering with computers and playing computers games, then the Mac must look to you like something only an idiot would buy. The mistake is thinking that everybody else is just like you. They aren't. Most people aren't.

If you are an adult who has money and has work to do, but has little spare time and little patience for tinkering and troubleshooting, then buying a fully-featured, name-brand PC (either Windows or Mac) can make a lot of sense. From your viewpoint, building a PC from generic parts is out of the question, and the bargain box from Wal-Mart must look like something only an idiot would buy.

It's this latter group that Apple have chosen to sell to. It's nothing personal, it's not intended as any kind of insult against the young and cash-strapped computer geeks of the world. It's just their business decision about where they can best turn a profit. And as some have pointed out, Apple would face some hard obstacles switching over to X86, both technical and otherwise. There would have to be a huge payoff for doing that, and I don't see it.

If you boil all this down, the complaint about Macs costing too much is really misplaced. . . What they're complaining about is that there are still other hardware platforms besides X86. They think it's great that all these companies in Asia are cranking out mass quantities of inexpensive X86 hardware -- never mind the shoddy stuff, or the compatibility and driver pitfalls, or the general blecherousness of the X86 architecture. Cheap and plentiful is what matters, and companies like Apple should get with the program.

Personally, I'm glad there's still a viable hardware platform other than X86 in this world. I don't think it's the destiny of all other hardware to fade away, and for mankind to be stuck with X86 from now until robots take over the Earth. (Which happens in 2084 AD, by the way.) I think a lot of these people should quit their whining, save their pennies for a while, and buy an iMac. They are good machines.

vmware

[00420]

I wouldn't switch to OS X, but I'd definately run it in vmware.

Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[catwh0re]

/. is known for having a few people in the audience with less than up-to-date information. So I'd just like to clear some things up.

- Macs don't have a $2000 start up price tag, they actually start at $799 with the eMac, for portables $1099. Those of which are better spec'ed than low-end PCs.
- The second point is that there are no more G3's from apple, it's been that way for a while, plus no apple computer is spec'd below 1GHz.
- You can not get any apple computer without firewire. (It's an odd one I know, but I sometimes see some rattle about firewire cards and macs.)
- OS X, runs smoothly on a G3 700MHz, it runs smoothly on a G4 400MHz, a G4 1GHz won't leave you waiting in any application including Alias' Maya. Hence you don't need a dual 2.5GHz G5 to 'test' OS X, a second hand mac is usually just fine to try it out. (If you look hard enough, there are people giving away old powermac G4s.)

The final mistake, which is a good one, is that developers have not ignored the 64 bit G5, the reality is that developers have embraced it, and in cross platform apps, it's actually been the PC waiting for 64 bit updates from vendors such as Adobe, this when adobe apps were updated long ago for the G5.

The logic that Apple computers wouldn't sell, if PC's ran their software is also another fallacy. PC's already run iTunes and iPods, this hasn't affected the apple market share (it's actually grown because people aren't taboo to the brand anymore).

Additionally apple don't have any monopoly on the OS market or the hardware market, anyone that doesn't -want- to buy an apple, simply doesn't, it's not like windows software on x86. In a world where large purchases are governed entirely from the bottom line, you'll find that OS X on Intel would have little effect on apple computer sales.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[AstroDrabb]

OS X, runs smoothly on a G3 700MHz, it runs smoothly on a G4 400MHz, a G4 1GHz won't leave you waiting in any application including Alias' Maya. Hence you don't need a dual 2.5GHz G5 to 'test' OS X, a second hand mac is usually just fine to try it out.

That has not be my experience. Even a dual G5 feels sluggish coming from a _single_ P4. Did you miss the MacDate review yesterday? Here is a quote:

Although the performance of OS X on the dual 2GHz G5 system that I'd been running was definitely acceptable, there is definitely room for improvement. The overall responsiveness of the system was decent, but go back to using a top-of-the-line PC in Windows for a few minutes, and you definitely feel a bit sluggish on the G5.

The reviewer paid $3,000 for the dual G5! A nice top of the line x86 is around $1,200. I built my own x86 for about $700 (not including monitor) and it just feels so much faster then a single G5. Also, to get better performance out of a dual G5 with the latest Mac OS, you need a bunch of memory that further drives up the cost. The reviewer put 4GB, the wimpy 512MB that comes with a $3,000 system is not acceptable.

I would purchase Mac OS for x86 and give it a try. I would not dump Linux for it, buy I would certainly dump MS Windows. Maybe Apple should rethink their business and make software their "cash cow" like MS did (it has made MS billions). I bet Apple would make tons more cash with the x86 market then they could ever dream of. It could also be a selling point for their proprietary hardware. I am sure that if people used Mac OS x86 and really liked it that some of them would make the switch from x86 to Apple.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Zarkonnen]

On speed: Having used both OS X and Windows, and having read complaints about the sluggishness of OS X before, I think that the issue is not that OS X is sluggish, but simply that it's programmed to be not as snappy. Apple really likes their pretty animations and fade-in-and-outs, and this all means that the system simply takes its time. This can of course be construed as annoying and wrong, but would likely not change one whit if one were to run OS X on x86.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Mac Degger]

I know I'm being a picky bugger, but still:

" OS X, runs smoothly on a G3 700MHz, it runs smoothly on a G4 400MHz, a G4 1GHz won't leave you waiting in any application including Alias' Maya. Hence you don't need a dual 2.5GHz G5 to 'test' OS X, a second hand mac is usually just fine to try it out. (If you look hard enough, there are people giving away old powermac G4s.)"

Winxp runs smooth as silk, if you turn off the un-needed crap like scrolling menus, on a p3 550. And lower, even.

As for your comment about Maya...you don't do 3D work, do you? Or at least not high-end low-poly stuff (around the 3000 tri mark)...

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[rocketjam]

The overall responsiveness of the system was decent, but go back to using a top-of-the-line PC in Windows for a few minutes, and you definitely feel a bit sluggish on the G5.

It's OS X's quartz rendering. There's going to be a performance hit for all that eye candy no matter what kind of hardware it's running on. If you ran it on x86 hardware it wouldn't be as snappy as Windows. But Windows feels awful clunky after using OS X.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

The eye candy uses the graphics chip...I have a hard time believing that a system which can run modern games acceptably is going to fall short on those window swooshes.

I think the other poster is right, I think it's just a design issue. Might even be tweakable. You can definitely turn some of that stuff off.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the entire MacDate review you would also have noticed that he said/implied that as long as you were running one program at a time on Windows it was faster than OS X but as you opened more applications, the system began to slow down considerably where as Mac OS X didn't break a sweat no matter how many applications you had open.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Pandora's Vox]

i agree completely on this one. some people see this as being "fast" in fact, my mum included. the shadows and trasparence really give people the illusion of speed even if it's actually taking more time to render.

-Leigh

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, I didn't miss the anandtech article. It was a piece of crap. It was Anand's experience as someone who knew nothing about macs and apparently as someone who really didn't bother to learn anything about macs. I've seem more realistic writing on AMD Zone. At least I don't have to read Chris Tom's crap 3 times to figure out what he's trying to say.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an owner of a second hand mac (g4 powerbook) and a dual boot pc (shuttle X with a 3400+ AMD 64) I have to say that both systems preform well. However the PC I built was ~$800 new and that includes a Radeon 9800, 3400+ AMD 64, 1 Gig of Kingston RAM, a 120 GB hd, and a 52x combo drive. Even used the mac is more, and it is not quite as fast.

I think what you are really forgetting is that macs don't sell to the average consumer (Apple is only like 15% of the market and other OS's are like less that 5%). The availability of Apple software helps apple in that it get Windows users (the unwahsed savage masses) to use apple services like the iTunes music store or buy an iPod. however no one is going to buy a mac simply because iTunes or an iPod is totally sweet (which both are).

When you get down to it a PC is more versatile than a mac. PC's can run almost any OS on almost any hardware, while macs can run most OS's on a ver narrow band of hardware. Macs have a hardware monopoly which drives up cost, but can create a really incredible system.

also touting the eMac at $799 is kind of like saying that if you buy a pinto you csn get a cheap car. You get what you pay for. I do agree that the best mac deals are from second hand stuff, but for nealry the same price you can build a sweet PC that will do the same stuff, only faster. It is simply the way of the world.

-Andy

PS: I love my mac more than anything btw and OSX is so SUPERIOR to windows its comic, but the average user will never migrate to apple at the curent state.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[useosx]

Even a dual G5 feels sluggish coming from a _single_ P4.

I have a dual 1 GHz G4 with 1.25 gigs of RAM and I don't have to wait for anything. Nothing feels sluggish. The only things that are sluggish are things that have to do with grabbing data from the hard drive and rendering complicated things in Final Cut.

The machine is over three years old and I'm constantly amazed every day at how speedy it still seems.

RAM has an enormous impact. I also have a 1 GHz PowerBook with only 768 megs of RAM and it's much more sluggish. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the lack of another processor, but with the lack of RAM and the slower, more crammed hard drive.

When Anand was saying that he would need at least a 3 or 3.5 GHz G5, I was slapping my forehead in disbelief. Shouldn't a guy like him know how computers work? Don't you run CPU meters every now and then? The processor isn't the bottleneck for every little thing. You don't blame the processor when you're copying files to a USB 1.1 hard drive and it takes forever, do you?

There are so many factors at work, take Anand's review of Safari's rendering speed. His discussion of it seemed a bit simplistic. To see how complicated it is check out Dave Hyatt's take on it.

There are a bunch of dual 2.0 G5s at my friend's editing lab, but they only have 512 megs of RAM and video editing on them seems slower than on my dual 1.0 G4....that is until I go to render things or encode to MPEG2, then the G5s own my piddly G4.

Buy some more RAM.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Ninja Programmer]

Is Quartz some unoptimized piece of garbage? All graphics rendering (either 2D or 3D) is done by accelerated graphics cards these days. Are you saying that Quartz is more computationally intensive than video games like Unreal Tournament which are very responsive?

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[9mind]

I don't know where you are getting these prices... please post them. Just yesterday I was pricing MACs out from their website and local vendors (ie Micro Center) and could not find a decent price when comparing to x86 hardware.

If you can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Because I have been considering getting a MAC for my next laptop, but at the prices I was seeing... it would be insane not to get an HP with an AMD 64 and install linux on it.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[ian mills]

No, quartz is optimized, but it is also vsync'd and double buffered. It is also completely vector based. Take an explorer window and drag it around really fast. It'll tear. You can't get windows on OS X to tear. Also, because it's completely vector based its trivial to implement things like expose.

OS X is hardly unresponsive, but its not as snappy as running a GUI that was designed for pentium 1 pressors on a 4 GHZ Pentium 4.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

But Windows feels awful clunky after using OS X.

It's the opposite for me. OS X is round and soft, which makes it clunky and inefficient to me.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[CommandoB]

OS X also has a delay associated with some events, like opening up a new window. This can be configured in the Preferences (change it to zero!), and I think the default setting allows for some significant delay. So, if you're browsing in Finder and you think there's a delay, that could be it.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Servo]

I have a 1.2Ghz dual G4 and it is much faster than any PC I've used. Sometimes the interface isn't quite as "instantaneous" as on my PC (1.2Ghz thinkpad running XP), but thats the eye candy doing its thing instead of just popping up. The same could be said of the XP eye candy versus Windows 2000 as well though.

But in the end we use applications, not just launch them. The hardware and the OS on a Mac does make a huge difference. Throwing MacOS X on intel hardware might sound like a good idea to you but I don't see that being all that feasible. You probably don't remember, but Apple tried doing third party hardware before, and the experience sucked so bad they quit.

I personally wouldn't pay $3k for a top of the line G5. I paid around $1500 or so for my dual 1.2 g4 when it was still new. But I don't do anything *that* high end with it so I don't need a screaming G5. I do agree that 512Mb of RAM is very weak. My G4 only came with 256Mb and I quickly upgraded it with memory from Crucial.com (Apple branded memory is EXPENSIVE. Don't bother paying for extra RAM factory installed.) Spec for spec though, x86 costs more than a Mac. Mac's seem more expensive because they tend to have a much higher starting price. For those only concerned about the bottom line, (hey, some people are frugal, others just don't have the cash.) an x86 box might be the better choice. But have you looked at mac prices really? $799 gets you a eMac that *includes* the monitor. The equivalent Dell unit costs the same and comes with a smaller monitor (albeit LCD). Thats certainly along the lines of affordable for most households looking to buy a computer. $1100 gets you a brand new iBook. Dell's equivalent notebook is around the same price too. Not all that cheaper is it? Hell, even getting a used Mac thats cheaper will still rival equivalent cost brand new PC's.

I'm not saying that Apple is always right, always best. I will say that saying that buying a PC because a G5's interface seems sluggish is like buying a Yugo because the Ferrari takes longer to roll the engine over.

FYI, I bought a Mac because Linux just wasn't doing the whole desktop system thing for me but was sick of fixing Windows problems all the time too. My Mac does everything my old Linux and windows machines did, and I don't have to dual boot or keep multiple computers around anymore. Game/app choices are a bit more limited compared to Windows but for me it was worth the tradeoff for getting a reliable easy to use system that has all the power of Unix under the hood. Oh and if you want to see sluggish interfaces you should try using Sun equipment. You could be on a 64 processor server with 256Gb of RAM and still feel like you were on your antique 386. But damn can it crunch some numbers.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the point of this "expose" thing. Just hit the "show desktop" icon on Win98/2000/XP and you get what you need. If you want one particular app, just click it's icon in the taskbar.

No need for fancy eye-candy to achieve the same effect.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[ArbitraryConstant]

"That has not be my experience. Even a dual G5 feels sluggish coming from a _single_ P4. Did you miss the MacDate review yesterday?"

The dual G5 is sluggish because Apple chose to castrate it with 256 mb of memory. That's barely enough to run the OS without swapping. Swapping on a dual G5. That's really paying attention to the user experience.

I'd say 1 gb minimum is manditory.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[wirelessbuzzers]

The reviewer paid $3,000 for the dual G5! A nice top of the line x86 is around $1,200. I built my own x86 for about $700 (not including monitor) and it just feels so much faster then a single G5. Also, to get better performance out of a dual G5 with the latest Mac OS, you need a bunch of memory that further drives up the cost. The reviewer put 4GB, the wimpy 512MB that comes with a $3,000 system is not acceptable.

The reviewer was half-right. The memory that comes with new Macs is simply not enough, and their video cards aren't top-of-the-line either; this is the most consistently irritating thing about Macs that I've seen.

However, his claim about speed simply isn't true. I'm running an eMac 700MHz G4 right now, with 768MB RAM and an external hard drive replacing the internal one. It is by no means a fast computer. It has a 32MB video card. I found it quite slow under MacOS 10.1.

However, my computer doesn't seem slow. Most interface operations don't have noticeable latency even with many windows open; Expose is perfectly smooth with up to 10-15 windows and still looks nice at 25. Collapsing a transparent window into the dock makes no delays. The aggressive caching makes operations with inactive applications fast. The web pages that he claimed took 4 seconds to load on a dual G5 took only 3 seconds on my system, which makes me question his numbers.

There are a few things in the system that are slow. Launching an xterm is slow for some reason. All my other X applications launch almost instantly (except the GIMP of course), but xterm is slow. Displaying a mailbox takes a few hundred microseconds per message, which adds up in boxes with several thousand messages. And of course, raytracing and compile jobs are slow, but I either nice them and go surf the web or walk away and do some reading whether I'm on a Mac or a PC. The compile jobs can also make other programs run slower, even when niced, by flushing pages from the cache.

I've never seen the G5s in the computer lab (nor any of the X86s) take an appreciable amount of time to do anything compute- or memory-bound other than serious batch-jobs such as compiling or raytracing. For this reason, I've come to the belief that with properly designed software, almost any desktop computer built in the past 5 years is plenty fast for everyday tasks.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[catwh0re]

I do actually, that's because i 1. don't use high polygons, I'm more talented than that, 2. I am usually using NURBS before polygons. The fact is, even with my old dual 200mhz P2 I did 3d work just fine.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Bud]

I don't understand the point of this "expose" thing. Just hit the "show desktop" icon on Win98/2000/XP and you get what you need. If you want one particular app, just click it's icon in the taskbar.

No need for fancy eye-candy to achieve the same effect.

You've never tried it, have you?

Exposé is "undoable" and it enables really fancy drag-n-drop. Hit F11, grab hold of the file you want to drag, hit F11 again and drop it where you wanted it. Granted, the first couple of times it feels kind of wow-this-is-cool-but-sooo-useless, but after a while it starts getting useful. No more rearranging of windows just so you can drag-n-drop icons between them.

The fancy eye-candy window sliding is there to let the user follow the windows. If the windows were just snapped into a randomized order, it would take ages to find the right one.

--Bud

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[catwh0re]

www.apple.com/store, prices are in USD. Those prices have been like that for a while. Those prices are also the same as what they are in apple centres.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Moritishi]

keep in mind though, iTunes, and iPod, are not core programs, a computer can run without an iPod, however, a mac computer can't run without it's os.
Your statement is kind of like IBM saying that they shouldn't have allowed Mac to use floppy drives, as that would decrease sales on IBM computers.
the point made was that an x86 system costs about $800 (cdn) for a decent mid range system, os included
a Mac based g4 computer still costs over $1200(cdn) os included. Thats both for about a 2.5 Ghz comp. why would people go out and by mac based computers when they can get a mac based x86 for 3-4 hundred less.

Personally, I wouldn't switch over. For one simple reason. There is far more software support for the PC, and PC's are far easier, and cheaper to upgrade. Although Mac is doing quite well in that department.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'd like to clarify what makes it so that the Mac is actually a great deal more expensive than an x86. I am however a person that loves and hates Macs. I would run Windows on a G5 in a heart beat. I love the Mac hardware, unfortunately, I've never cared much for OS X (and I used to develop high volume retail software for it).

The Mac is a great hardware design. Typically Apple does an excellent job on cooling and noise reduction. The machine is definately engineered by experts. The PC industry is plagued by the standardization of hardware footprints. This makes it so that everything fits in certain places and are the right size. This also means that cases are large enough to hold a much larger motherboard than you're likely to buy. So there's wasted space, poor natural cooling, crappy little tin foil looking backplates for motherboard connectors, etc... Apple is a much more elegant hardware design.

Apple is tremendously expensive compared to PC since to upgrade a Mac from one level to the next, full replacements are required. I for example like iMacs. I bought a G3, bought a G4, will buy a G5. I have an x86 server which started out as a 286. I have upgraded it progressively throughout the years for very little money. Occassionally I buy a new case, then sometimes I buy a new motherboard and CPU. I always add hard drives. I just added another gig of RAM. But all in all, until my leap to Pentium 2, the machine in fact still had the original ESDI hard drive controller and 676meg Micropolis 5.25" full height drive which I kept around specifically for video CD authoring.

Over the years, I've spent a total of $4000 on this machine (not including the recent addition of 12 hard drives). That means that I've upgraded a server grade 286 to a SOHO server grade machine over a period of 18 years for about $4000. I've spent that on Macs over the past 4 years an never ran anything over the entry level (plus A LOT of RAM).

I've also been fairly legitamate about Mac OS X release versions. Instead of every minor version number, I pay for the upgrade every other. I don't even have a choice about upgrading versions since it seems that most software that comes out requires a version within 2 minor version numbers to run. For example, most software now might (and that's a real maybe) run on 10.2, nearly all requires 10.3 now.

The fact is that I can still run some of my old DOS 3.3 programs on Windows XP (and longhorn betas). Also, I can use many programs which I download now on machines running Windows 95 or even Windows NT 3.51 (I bet many might work on 3.1).

So Mac's are really very expensive machines. iMac's are at least priced disposable for households like mine with $120+K per year income. But sadly, I can't give Macs to my family since their income levels are less than half that and $1200 every 3 years for a new computer is too much. For now I simply make upgrades when I visit them once a year.

As for OS X. The software selection is still far too weak. CAD programs are rare and if they are there are limited. Development tools are not nearly good enough. You can't really develop applications from the command line and the Xcode tools are far too focused on Objective C. The C toolkit is a nasty extended subset of pre OS X Mac. Most Mac software vendors still think using the old methodolgy which tends to produce code of poor quality. NeXT companies don't really exist anymore. Although Trolltech Qt is native on OS X, it's still built on Carbon and is a bit imature for the platform and it costs a HUGE amount of money to develop commercially for. Apple has more or less alienated C++ developers from their platform and really, 90% of all quality commercian software on the market uses C++ for at least their internal data representations. Java doesn't even exist in the quality commercial software market.

I would like to see Apple release their Objective C tools for Windows as NeXT had once done. I would like to see them also make an effort to further GNUStep (or others). Taking their development system cross platform is much more interesting than taking the OS there.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[moderators_are_w*nke]

I have to say I haven't noticed any. My PowerBook G4 flies along with MacOS 10.3. Can't say I've noticed any difference in responsiveness compared to Win2k, and its a lot quicker than KDE 3 on FreeBSD 5 on my 1ghz Athlon. I bought mine because as far as I'm concerned, its the only way to get a UNIX powered laptop hassle free. Linux and FreeBSD have put a lot of work into their power management and ACPI support, but I wanna be able to shut the lid on my work and open it up again after lunch (or whatever) and my confident that suspend won't do any damage. Also, it looks great. I havn't seen a single x86 based laptop that is as nicer looking piece of kit as my aluminium powerbook G4. Maybe this is not important to everyone, but it matters to me.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[catwh0re]

okay, lets run through it again. First of all, a mac can run without OS X, or OS9, it runs any PPC linux distro fine, check out the yellow dog distro. you can buy apple hardware with it preinstalled.
Secondly, an eMac, which is I state again is a G4 (1.25GHz for $799), is priced below $800.

Additionally software support for both platforms is even in most categories, in the creative and scientific categories the apple platform has a considerable lead, it's only the mainstream games category where the apple platform is lacking.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[redheaded_stepchild]

As an addendum to catwh0re, I think it needs to be pointed out that Apple's primary targets are not those who wish to build/radically change their hardware.

The real competition comes from other companies that build PC systems (Dell, HP, Sony, Compaq). If you've ever looked inside one of these pre-built monstrosities, you'd be coming up with the same issues you face with a low-end Mac! Most have proprietary hardware of some kind inside them, such as:

1. Motheboards that don't conform to standards (this makes the replacement of a burned board with stock parts impossible)
2. Custom made RAM (thank you Compaq!)
3. Power supplies with custom power connections to mobo (see #1)
4. Case sizings that are just barely capable of holding the provided hardware, much less anything added later. (pick your villan)
5. BIOS rewrites/overlays that remove functionality from stock parts, when stock parts are used. (Booted a Compaq to BIOS lately?)
6. Because mobo, ram, and bios may all have been tweaked by the manufacturer, any additional tweaks are likely to make the machine unstable, or worse, fry a component.
7. Installed memory by most PC makers is well below 512. My last peek showed that most are still shipping with a measly 256.

Having said all that, try pricing a Dell with the same specs as a Mac, and you'll come pretty close to even. What's better, you can give one to your Mom and she can USE IT WITHOUT CALLING YOU.

Personally, this alone is why I suggest Macs to people with 0 computer skills.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Mac Degger]

"don't use high polygons, I'm more talented than that"

? What, you give your polies dope to smoke or something? And what does using polygons have to do with talent? If you're making realtime gfx, polygons is the only way to go; you're kinda buggering about the long way if you first do NURBS and then convert those ('cos there ain't an engine which can use NURBS directly).
So maybe you mean you only do high-poly movie stuff? But then your answer would be more nuanced, showing some actual knowledge of the 3d-arts. Furthermore, if you only work in NURBS, there is no way in hell you where satisfied with your p2 200; NURBS work chugged along on the old pc's (if your 3d package even supported them correctly back then), especially if you did high-poly work.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

dude ur an idiot, all your 'facts' are wrong, if you want a system that fully supports osx's features then you're already tacking on plenty of hardware to that barebones pc, and that is without any quality, what's the point of driving a mercedez if you exchange the engine for one from hyundai? fools like you don't get it, to you it's all about show, the only reason idiots like you want to run OSX is because it's prettier than windows. you'd still just run word on it, and never explore anything beyond the crap dtp of publisher and office. also the sort of person that thinks creative software is adobe photoshop.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

picking a fight much? to me, it looks like they made a valid point, and you're being a brat about it, can the crap, i work in the field and know that you can do just about anything fine no matter what your preference, it's not about the high polygon counts that you're talking about. Plus if you knew your stuff you'd know the new real time engines have PDB engines specifically for high polygon works, so they can always be used on lower end hardware.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

something else people think is that 2.5ghz on their pentium 4 is as fast as a 2.5ghz g5 chip. a 1ghz g4 is shit-loads "faster" than a p3 1ghz. PC users are only beginning to realise that clock speed is relative only to the chip design, with AMD making 'faster' yet 'slower(lower clock)' chips.

new consumers that don't understand electronics can use this analogy. A person who can carry 1 bale of hay at a time to his house, but do the trip 20 times an hour, is slower than a person who can carry 4 bales of hay, but only do the trip 15 times in an hour.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Top of the line x86 for twelve hundred? You're high.

Yeah, it "feels faster" because MSWxx still doesn't know how to manage system resources. Didn't read the rest of the review, did you?

And if you think Apple could make software its cash cow like MS has done, you have no idea of how MS has been screwing the industry. That kind of rape can only be done once.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they ported it, I'd try it. If they don't, it will never be on my desk, unless someone wants to give me a mac for free.

I have a monitor. Why should I have to buy a new one? I also have a keyboard, and a mouse. In fact I already *have* x86 hardware, and dont want to shell out $$$ for different hardware.

Even if I didnt have it already, even $800 (which only gets you the absolute low end mac) is pretty steep - I can put together a decent x86 system for under $500

MSI KM4M MOBO - $80
Athlon 2500+ - $120
512M RAM - $90
120G HD - $80
Case/PS $50

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the issue is not that OS X is sluggish, but simply that it's programmed to be not as snappy.

Uhh, which is it? Either OS X isn't sluggish or is wasn't designed to be speedy. I believe the latter.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[emilymildew]

I'd rather they put in a minimum of RAM and let me buy it myself from 3rd party vendors than charge me even more inflated prices.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[ArbitraryConstant]

I would agree had my 3rd party memory upgrade not been damaged one of the times I had the logic board repaired. Since it wasn't Apple memory, I was out of pocket for the replacement.

Best to have everything covered under Applecare.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[emilymildew]

They damaged your memory during a logic board repair? Ahh, that's why you remove all extra RAM when you're sending something in. I do, at least.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[ArbitraryConstant]

I do as well. Now. :)

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Jay Carlson]

Ah, fish, barrel.

- Macs don't have a $2000 start up price tag, they actually start at $799 with the eMac, for portables $1099. Those of which are better spec'ed than low-end PCs.

I've got a really nice 22" monitor here. What's the cheapest Mac I can buy that can use it?

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

..wow you can go back to old g3 iMacs and plug it right in.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Becareful whate you say! A "top of the line" P4 is $458/CPU meaning your paying $916 for the chips, so your getting a "top of the line" board, case, power supply, video card, drive and DVD burner for $284? WHERE do you shop? Damn, thats a great price.... seeing as a dual mobo on pricewatch is going to cost you at LEAST $150.

The cluster where I work got an AMAZING price on our dual proc nodes, and they're $1600 each.

Yes, a single processor, decent home built computer with the flagship AMD from a few months ago would be 1200, definatly not a dual "top of the line" prebuilt machine.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[danielsfca2]

> This can be configured in the Preferences

Sounds interesting. What Preferences are you talking about?

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[root2]

You CAN do this (or something reasonably close to it) in XP, too. Drag the file you want to the taskbar, on to the tab of the window you want to drag it to. Hold it for a second, and that window will come to the forefront. Move the mouse to the window, drop. Voila! (OK, maybe I've got to move the mouse a few more cm, but then I don't have to find the F11 key either ...)

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[John Jacob]

My experience is just the reverse. I use a 2.4GHz single P4 at work, and an 867MHz Powerbook at home. The Powerbook "feels" every bit as fast as the P4, running the same applications (MS-Office, Mozilla, Thunderbird, X-Server...).

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's weird that screen resizing via Expose or other programs on my 600 MHz G3 with 16 MB Radeon card is extremely smooth. It does have 640MB RAM I admit.

Whereas the machine at work, dual 3 GHz Xeon with 64 MB Quadra card running MS virtual desktop manager just crawls when clicking the MSVDM screen viewer. It's supposed to smoothly zoom out and show the 4 desktops then zoom in, it's so slow I had to switch it off.

Quartz just feels very smooth and slick, even on older hardware, imho.

Re:Some Falsehoods I'd like to make clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as easy to tell the difference between multiple windows of the same application in Windows where all you have to go by is the text in the taskbar.

Linux or Mac OS X

[JebusTheImpaler]

I would keep linux for my servers but switch to OS X
in a heartbeat for my desktop.

I recently went to look at Mac Boxen to see if I would be worth switching... NOT FOR 2000 BUCKS, WHEN MY MACHINE IS JUST AS FAST AND COSTED 1100.

I love Linux, but OS X is drop dead gorgeous.

this is what I saw when I read the article

[TonyMillion]

A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward would like to put this query before you: "I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been, but I am a fan of the x86 architecture. I'd really like to start a flame war on Slashdot. I really like Mac OS X and I am a mac fanboi I'd love to get a heated debate over x86 vs PPC architecture. Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been used as a incendiary device on slashdot before as has Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS as it seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?" or start a flamewar?

HELL YEAH!

[DeAxes]

I switched from a mac to a pc when I built my own. Thats the only way you can build u're own computer and modding it up without having to get upgrade parts, which is worst, performance wise, than the current computers Apple sells. Also, I'm not sure of this, but I think the current upgrade time schedual is 2-3 yrs on mac, and 4-5 yrs on pc. Plus, you can get a whole (not all in one) computer with the same amount or smaller than what it costs to buy a all in one comp.

i run debian on a G4 at work

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one wouldn't switch. I love linux, and I'm productive with it. At work I have to sysadmin a dozen servers, all running different kinds of stuff on different *nix distributions.

I had the option to use any old computer in the old junk backroom as my personal workstation, and I dug out an old G4 and installed Debian. I run fluxbox and have 4 or 5 tabbed xterms open running screen on different servers with another 4 or 5 virtual terminals in each screen session. I can switch back and forth very quickly with the keyboard and I hardly ever touch the mouse. If someone sends me an excel or msword file, I open it with openoffice, abiword, or gnumeric. I use evolution for my email to interface with the company's ms exchange server. If I have to do graphics stuff I use gimp.

I DO think PPC is expensive. If you build your own machine:

$230 MSI dual opteron motherboard
$200 each (times 2) opteron processors
$400 1GB ECC DDR400 Ram
$40 case
$40 128mb ATI graphics card
$300 a nice LCD monitor.
$70 samsung sata hard drive. ...

That is still a couple hundred cheaper than the G5 all-in-one box with 1GB ram, and it would SPANK THE CRAP out of that G5 in terms of performance.

Sure, OSX looks really nice, but for REAL WORK, if you're programming or running lots of terminals and other gui apps simultaneously, the screen gets cluttered and it's inefficient. Linux with multiple virtual desktops is more efficient, and running x86-64 architecture is cheaper!

otherwise, I got no beef with PPC or OSX. certainly better than microsoft's crap.

x86 blows dead goats

[menace3society]

"I'm a big fan of the x86 architecture"

Translation from AMD fanboy-speke:

"I like cheap computers, no matter how shitty."

Just because you mod me troll doesn't mean it's not true.

maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been running OS X since the public beta and I really like it.

Right now, my home machine is an AMD K6 frankenputer running Gentoo Linux. My good machine is a G5 tower I keep at work because the power at my house would make Tesla cry.

It might be beneficial to be running the same platform in both places. I work with photoshop all the time, and I have Gimp at home. It would be nice to have the same tools in both places so I can more easily take a day to work at home.

However, part of the benefits you get out of OS X are because there is a finite set of hardware out there that the OS is tuned for. That's one of the Mac's biggest benefits. Tight integration making a wholistically tuned and optimised system. This is partially why I chose Gentoo for my x86 box. It's as optimised as I could get on an ancient frankenputer. I don't think I'd get that with OS X on x86. Heck, I can't even get that with Windows for x86.

So if it were to happen, sure, I'd try it out. But keeping it would be a matter of if it were a good fit for what I wanted to do with that machine.

MACS SUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

vmaopiev aevm aoemv a vmeo vamwepvmaiv eampv eiagnjzkl;jcvz cv sxvmzm,.x cmv zx,mva nzsdfkjasdfiua vsaf ewarxkjcgn ias rtiuawr ipsahginbpoais hrt ariuigu saipfjsdaoir iu rhaiufkjfasd i a erfioewah fiushdfiahzsdiupfh aisud faiusf asfdnfairiupwiuaphgidfuahkjsf asd fiuapsh dfiaups hdfiupashfsdipuahskr asjdph fkjd fkja sdfjh asdlf hsdkf d fhrfwfheahiupashdioufha skdf aispaoishdfa sdfhaskjlhf dslafh ihevaihs erayhvka vweu aoi dfiaheowharkjs dfhaewh eaf ewfasdfha veasidfahslk AND YOU SUCK TOO!

Jef Raskin

[allanc]

Jef Raskin's only contribution to the Macintosh is the name. He was ousted by Steve Jobs very, very early into the design process.

And good thing, too. Raskin wanted to make a machine with a text-based interface that was impossible to expand and couldn't even use a disk drive.

--AC

Yes! Absolutely! Today!

[laxian]

Just to weigh in, YES! Yes I would, today if I could. MacOS X is wonderful, I don't use it because I don't want to get hooked on an expensive hardware habit.

Assuming that Apple would make it work with the world of x86 associated hardware, I would do it! My skillset would be so much better, too, since it would be more fun to get all good at BSD.

Hey Apple, you listening?

I'd switch in a heartbeat

[Anonymous Coward]

And Apple does maintain an X86 version of OSX just in case things fall apart with Motorolla.

IMO, they should drop Motorolla anyway and go with X86. They could not only give MS a run for their money, but Dell, HP, Gateway and a few others.

I like the style of the new iMAC but will never buy one. For one, Apples choice of video adapters is less than ideal and two, for that kind of money, I could build one hell of an Athlon 64 system.

Re:I'd switch in a heartbeat

[SilentEchoes]

Wow.. First of all Moto does not even have a microprocessor division anymore. It was spun off and is now called freescale. On top of that they are already demoing a dual core chip with on die memory controller at 90nm at the next microprocessor convention. Where is intels dual core chip? Thats right. So before you go an slam MOT (or in this case Freescale) do some research. Most importantly this is all moot anyways since the machine you are talking about houses a G5 processor which is built by IBM anyways..

Secondly you are talking about video adapters. I'm guessing you mean the interface in which the video card connects to the monitor? Apple dropped DVI just recently and uses the exact same connection as any video card you get for any Wintel machine now.

Re:I'd switch in a heartbeat

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be smoking crack because you missed the point entirely and that being the G5 is "not mainstream".

Or do you have a better theory as to why Apple has only a 4% market share? And why has Apple lost so many of it's customers in the educational sector to the X86 platform?

And as far as "The Onboard Video" that Apple chose for the new iMac, it is considered "low end" by todays standards and there is no provision to upgrade.

And what does dual core have to do with this topic? Which by the way we should be seeing offerings from both Intel and AMD sometime next year, most likely the latter before the former.

Under their current business model, it's not a question of IF Apple will go out of business, it's WHEN.

What difference would it make?

[electricsheep7]

Say MacOS X was ported to x86. You would be missing DirectX, there would be very incomplete hardware support, you probably would never see Microsoft Office ported, etc. That eliminates most reasons why people still use Windows. Basically you'd have OpenBSD with a pretty (but slow) UI.

If you don't need the performance that Apple hardware offers, then you're probably better off with Windows or Linux. Most of the features of Aqua tend to wind up in Windows and most major WM's/environments eventually.

in a word "NO", in two words "HELL NO"

[Grizzlysmit]

Ok personally I wouldn't, reasons, well it's part (== mostly) propriety, and I really hate that; well to be accurate I think thats bad, not as in morally bad, but bad for the computing industry/world and users: infrastructure should be free.

Besides imagine how even more unbearable the mac zealots would be if this happened

Already have Mac OS X on Windows XP

[theurge14]

Have both, Mac OS X interface running on Windows.

Click here for screenshot

running on Windows XP SP2

using:
Stardock's ObjectDock Plus on the bottom to replicate Mac OS X's application bar
Starock's WindowBlinds using the OSXP NG skin to replicate the Mac OS X Aqua window interface
Stardock's WindowFX to replicate the shadows and minimize/maximize animations on Mac OS X
Stardock's IconPackager to replicate some of the system icons from Mac OS X, such as the Trash icon and the default blue folder icon.

Re:Already have Mac OS X on Windows XP

[base3]

That's pretty cool looking--but wouldn't the price of all the licenses for those Stardock products (which IIRC are subscription licenses, also) make up a nice chunk of the difference in cost between a Mac and its PC equivalent?

Re:Already have Mac OS X on Windows XP

[theurge14]

$49.95 for Object Desktop for a year for the subscription, but everything you download still works fine if you don't renew the subscription. On the other hand, I have the advantage of running on Windows XP and being able to do things like play Doom 3 and run Visual Studio. That said I have no problem with buying a Mac in the future. But for now I have a lot invested in my Athlon based PC, so I'll stick with it for now.

Re:Already have Mac OS X on Windows XP

[base3]

Ah--thanks. So it's not so much a subscription as a year of upgrades.

The answer is...

[LazloTheDog]

No! Every praise heaped upon OSX is right on the money. However parts of Mac ethos don't sit well with me: less configurability, apps that do the specific thing you want tend to be shareware and, above all, the default image library seems pale in comparision to imlib2. Yes there are ways around those things using fink and whatnot, but I prefer to run them on the platform for which they were designed.

JM

I'd definitely give it a try

[Tamerlan]

There's at least one OS X feature that is not present neither on Linux nor on Windows (let alone other OSs). .Mac - it is really wonderful thing when you may keep your vital information synchronized between server and several computers. Oh yes, you could rsync a slice of your $HOME, but it is bot a replacement for specific, built into application, support. Though, I am not ready to pay for overpriced hardware just to get that feature.

Flamebait as article

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

I really like Mac OS X but I don't want to drop $2000 on a computer that is only as fast as an x86 computer at half the price.

Why do /. editors allow such idiotic misinformation in main articles. The plain fact is that Apple machines are very reasonably and competitively priced relative to x86 machines. It's true, you can't get the absolute lowest-end home-built or semi-built systems from Apple. But for what they sell (which is, realistically, what most people want to use), it's right on target. Even apart form PPC really being a much nicer chip family.

For example, a G5 is generally a better chip than a P4; but P4's go to faster clock speeds, and maybe even slightly faster top end bogo-mips. But an Athlon64 or Xeon is a more realistic comparison. In any case, you can buy a G5 iMac with a 17" flat panel monitor--in a beautifully integrated package--for $1300. And it comes with a a DVD/CD-RW drive; good memory architechture; and so on.

Does anyone think they can buy an x86 matching that spec for $650?! Maybe you can get an ugly white box with an external 17" monitor for $1000-1100. So yeah, you pay a few hundred for much better ergonomics, aesthetics, usability, stability, etc.

Likewise, a dual G5 tower for $2000 is a fast machine, and well-architected. No one is going to be buying a dual Xeon, or even dual Athlon64 system for $1000. Maybe you can bargain-basement it for a bit less than $2k, but let's not promote the "half as much" lie! And what you get is really not as nice in lots of ways.

And even more so of the same analysis with Apple laptops, with Xserves, and so on.

Re:Flamebait as article

[koan]

Lets see you build one, I can do that with x86.
Your $1300 apple can't compare to a $1300 x86 box running Linux OR WINDOWS.

Re:Flamebait as article

[delta0]

Does anyone think they can buy an x86 matching that spec for $650?! Maybe you can get an ugly white box with an external 17" monitor for $1000-1100. So yeah, you pay a few hundred for much better ergonomics, aesthetics, usability, stability, etc.

I don't mind "ugly" white boxes, and i prefer modular and generic over specialized and integrated. Take for example my bad past experiences trying to fix broken mac hardware w/ integrated monitors: if the power board goes, good luck fixing it affordably. Where as with a PC you just stick in a new PS, or replace the monitor, with a Mac the whole thing is screwed.

What if you wat to upgrade your monitor? Oops can't (unless you have a source for Apple parts $$) -- it's attached w/ all kids of funny internal connectors... and then do you have any upgrade path? Admitedly Mac hardware is much better now than it used to be, but it's still too fiddly and proprietary in many areas. OWC sells good supplies to outfit desktop Macs, just make sure to get a reasonably normal tower model.

Will never happen

[Teahouse]

You seem to forget that M$ holds a sword of Damocles over Apple's head. The only reason Apple was allowed to stay in business was so M$ could claim they weren't a complete monopoly. Apple got M$ office development as a bone. If Apple stsrts jumping into M$'s turf, all bets would be off.

Plus, let's not forget Apple tried another tact down this road in the 90's by opening up to a clone market Mac. It was poorly made, and degraded profit margins on the Apple gear. Apple almost went belly up. They do not have the bones to make a run at M$ in x86.

Now, what they COULD do is make a beefed up server version of OSx (sinve it's UNIX based) and possibly get into more office environments. THAT's where Apple could make significant moves. Small businesses want their few employees to be productive, not sit there and wait for the IT guy to fix their comps from viruses, spyware, and the like. Apple could offer 5, 10, and 50 user turnkey systems that would network easier, have higher availability, and get their home users to consider switching their small offices. They could even compete against M$ by touting lower TCO and more productivity, but for some reason they have never really made an attempt to grab this market.

I Agree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would switch over in the blink of an eye...I love OSX but I also love x86.

John C Dvorak Predicts the MacIntel

[stankulp]

Apple Switch
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,93345 3,00.asp

How the MacIntel Will Change the Market
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,10072 15,00.as p

Re:John C Dvorak Predicts the MacIntel

[aristotle-dude]

Dvorak is a dork.

His "prediction" did not come true and was made around the time the G5 came out. How can you take what he says seriously? He has been predicting Apple's death for almost two decades.

Given that Intel is having trouble with with 90nm process and IBM is starting to do fine with it, why switch? Look around you, Sony (PS3), MSFT (Xbox2) are switching to PPC chips from IBM. MS even bought G5s from Apple as development boxes for the Xbox2.

The US military and academia is switching to OSX (COLSA cluster, VT cluster).

Wake up. X86 might be cheap but it's not good and once economies of scale kick in with PPC, IBM 970 based motherboards will be cheap and good.

triple boot

[jjriggs]

I'd triple boot windows, mac, and linux.

Yes, definitely

[HangingChad]

My biggest objection to Mac has been the cost and inflexibility of their hardware. Give an HCL and I'd happily give it a try. McSoftware is kind of expensive but I'll give them that.

It'll be a pleausre to consign my last Windows partition to the scrap heap of history.

Re:Yes, definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... define "inflexibility." Macs have been CPU-upgradable for as long as I can remember. Their pro models have always allowed for ridiculous amounts of memory (the 9500 had 12 DIMM slots, G5's allow up to 8GB). I won't touch on cost because that's been covered repeatedly.

I second that

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.

Re:Did anyone think about BINARIES?

[GFLPraxis]

crap, I meant THINK about binaries instead of Thing. lol. Anyway: "1) The installer supports fat-binaries (binaries for more than one architecture inside one installer package), inherited from NeXT." Yes, *but* this still makes any earlier Mac OS X programs completely incompatible, such as Photoshop, Final Cut, etc, until the companies recompile them and offer fat binary editions.

Apple had proportional scroll bars in 1986

[danieleran]

Apple released the Apple IIGS in 1986, using "Quickdraw II" ( a ported and extended version of the Mac Quickdraw toolbox) which did both color and proportional scroll bars.

Apple did not change the Mac scroll bars because their behavior was already considered standard. Apple released changes to the interface in major upgrades, where a series of changes could be introduced together, avoiding constant change in usability.

One of the principles of Apple's UI guidelines is constancy. The guidelines are a good read. Others i recall off the top of my head are Forgiveness (undo/backstep) and Metaphor (mimic the behavior of real world objects).

Apple guidelines, which seem obvious after reading them, were the result of groundbreaking research that all modern software benefits from, in proportion to how well they are implemented.

Menu bars at the top of the screen is a good example. You don't have to think about where things might be or what the current application is. Your menu choices are always in a consistent place, and are easily targeted being at the top. MS put their Start menu at the bottom not as an improvement, but simply to be different.

Pulldown menus are not difficult to abort because you can just leave the menu and let go. There was no epidemic of users picking the wrong thing. That problem comes from complex submenus of options (such as say, navigating Start/Settings/Control Panel/Printers), which Apple discouraged.

In deep hierarchical submenus, users have to follow a narrow target through a series of menus. That is fairly rare in the Mac interface, but elemental to how Windows works: Start/Programs/Office/Word. Start/Settings/Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Blah/Blah/Blah/target.

You can argue about interface differences, but what convinces me that Apple made good decisions is that when I'm tired (or say drinking), its far less frustrating to use a Mac than struggle with outthinking the interface in Windows (which Linux distros have largely copied). I find MDI (document windows inside application windows) particularly retarded.

Re:Did anyone think about BINARIES?

[__aafkqj3628]

Yes, *but* this still makes any earlier Mac OS X programs completely incompatible, such as Photoshop, Final Cut, etc, until the companies recompile them and offer fat binary editions.

Very true. Also Photoshop is a Carbon application, making it a lot harder for anyone to port anywhere.

OSX look and feel

[euxneks]

You can get the OSX look an feel from using KDE 3.3 with Baghira (http://baghira.sourceforge.net/) and some sort of OSX bar on linux.

You gets the lookss without the nassty Jobses. ... Pocketses

switch...

[zxflash]

i'll put my cards on the table... i've never been a big fan of macs (maybe it's just the users i know that bug me) but i would definitly give it a try if they ported it to x86...

you can be sure that before long all my fav windows apps would be running on the mac so it would eventually just come down to quality of the os.... could actually be a toss up between osx and longhorn..

Good Grief...

[voixderaison]

Is it possible to mod a whole topic down?

Would I switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd switch in certain circumstances. Hmm, I have a P4 and a G5 under my desk at home. Would I replace the XP on the p4? Hmm, no, not at home but I might replace it at work. Or how about make another partition and put OSX on the P4 box...that might be feasable at home.

About cheap hardware, the wintel hardware is cheap because of economies of scale. Apple already adopted common components like the disk drive, memory, and usb 1/2 to name a few. Its not necessarily all garbage hardware with with windows pcs. Apple adopted some of that hardware! Also, when you buy a mac you are subsidizing software developement. eg. The bundled iApps. Then again buying a wintel box your paying for windows but economy of scale might apply to the license arguement aswell.

Moving OSX to the X86 platform would increase Apple's market share particularly in the enterprise. Many desktops in the enterprise might be owned by Dell or other service companies doing the outsourced IT work. So, when the service contract runs out then Apple could put in its own hardware but this would limit Apple.

Linux services would be threatened more by a port of OSX because linux does not have the iApps. Also, OSX might have more legitimacy in the corporate sphere.

I think ATT is writing off much hardware. I wonder if they are writing off those 70,000 x86 boxes?

Shocker

[SengirV]

Another story that has a Mac price point of $2000. Maybe the originator of the story should do a little research 1st.

In a heartbeat!

[dallask]

I would love a mac shell sitting on my MacDaddy Rig.

But tons of off-lease refurb Thinkpads avail

[Anonymous Coward]

I did some comparison shopping, too and Macs do compare favorably to Thinkpads.

However, there are tons of off-lease Thinkpads available from businesses which have been professionally refurbished and are available for peanuts.

I bought a T20 last fall and run Debian on it. Suprisingly its battery runs like new. Nice! Cheap!

fan of the x86

[Anonymous Coward]

I am NOT a fan of the x86 architecture for these reasons:
- the x86 architecture requires a fan (not just the fanatics) it's noisy
- it brings up the cost of a PC significantly (by now we should be commoditizing massively parrallel 64-bit processors like RAM) $3 32-bit chips are just becoming available.
- it's bulky (about the size of a PalmPilot) we need very small in-line CPU's that plug in easily

Re:fan of the x86

[Anonymous Coward]

"the x86 architecture requires a fan (not just the fanatics) it's noisy"

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a chip that runs at GHz speeds without requiring some sort of active cooling.

"it brings up the cost of a PC significantly (by now we should be commoditizing massively parrallel 64-bit processors like RAM) $3 32-bit chips are just becoming available."

Huh? The x86 chip is one of the most inexpensive chips when it comes to bang for the buck.

"it's bulky (about the size of a PalmPilot) we need very small in-line CPU's that plug in easily"

You're talking about completely different needs here. The desktop aims for speed over power consumption, while the handheld market is the opposite. It's like the old V8 engine vs. the 4 cylinder argument. Gas milage/speed/cost? Pick two.

Without a Doubt

[xombo]

I would be one of the first in line with cash in hand at the nearest computer store to purchase an x86 MacOS X.
I mean, consider this:
If I continue with Windows I have to deal with crash-ridden, hole-filled software and in a few years it will be further encumbered by DRM that could potentially keep me from using the programming tools provided by small open source operations and further limit any sort of diversity amoung applications.
If I transfer to Linux I have to deal with flaky driver support, confusing & inconsistant interfaces, unfamiliar software, and of course administering a system that I don't know the first thing about.
If I go out and buy (probably finance) an Apple system I'll end up tons of money in the hole and end up in the poor house for before I make any money with my 1337 graphic design skills.

Simple answer: Mac on x86!
Gimme gimme gimme.

Fight than Switch

[not_hylas( )]

And on and on.

In a perfect world yes, it would be nice.
But I LIKE the closed HW, ... stability.

Let's say this:
What if Sun, OpenBSD, (insert Brand) had such an interface such as Apple's. (what's stopping them?)
You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Go bug them.

http://www.sgi.com/products/software/irix/

FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY FAN

SoSueMe. :-)

Re:Fight than Switch rev 1

[not_hylas( )]

Forgot:
Check this
Rhapsody x86

A little spotty at times:

http://www.rhapsody-project.tk/

Works - get involved.

http://rhapsodyos.proboards20.com/index.cgi

I call bullshit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple: 17" iMac, 1.8GHz G5, 17" integrated LCD, 512MB DDR400, 80GB 7200rpm SATA, 64MB GeForce FX5200, 8x DVD-R, integrated speakers, modem = $1499 from store.apple.com

HP: GX5000Z, Athlon 64 3800 (3500 price + free upgrade), 17" separate HP LCD, 512MB DDR400, 80GB 7200rpm SATA, 256MB GeForce FX5500, 8X DVD+R, separate speakers, modem = $1967.98 from www.shopping.hp.com

Sony: PCV-W700G, Pentium 4 2.8GHz, 17" integrated LCD, 512MB DDR333, 200GB 7200rpm ATA/100, 32MB (shared) SiS 651 Graphics, 4X DVD+/-R, integrated speakers, modem = $1899.99 from www.sonystyle.com

Dell: Dimension 8400, Pentium 4 530 HT 3GHz, 17" separate LCD, 512MB DDR400, 160GB 7200rpm SATA (80GB price + free upgrade), 16X DVD+R, separate speakers, modem = $1477 from configure.us.dell.com

Note that the 1.8GHz G5 (900MHz bus) is faster on optimized code than the 2.3GHz Athlon 64, and even faster than the 3GHz and 2.4GHz Pentiums. Plus you get styling that only the Sony box comes close to matching.

Not only yes, but hell yes.

[zapp]

Screw windows, screw linux. seriously you guys.

I'd Dual Boot

[doormat]

I'd just dual boot Windows and MacOS. Use MacOS to do everyday stuff, and windows to play games (at least the games that wont run on MacOS). And I'm willing to bet a bunch more games would get ported to MacOS if it went x86.

The problem? MS would probably drop Mac support in a heartbeat. No Office for the Mac, no Mac IE (no big loss there). There'd be antitrust problems with that but its not like thats stopped MS before...

Would never be worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

I administer about 200 Macs and 300-400 PCs in the various labs at work.

Give me a Visa, a list of what you need to work, and a few days -- and I can make you an XP PC that's rock solid stable doing what you've told me you want to do. The problem comes when you want to do "other" things with it. You need to retool the system to make it stable doing that. It sucks, but it's job protection for me I guess.

Macs are great because even though you are somewhat limited, it does everything it's supposed to do when it's supposed to do it without having to make it do it.

I dream of the day when Microsoft develops a "Performence" version of Windows that follows the Mac ideology -- limited certified hardware, and damn good support of that hardware.

But, alas, it would be shooting themselves in the head. Just like Apple could never change their model now to go back to an "open" system, Windows would never be successful if they changed to a "closed" one.

In the Mac vs. PC debate I like to refer to the example of two first-time computer users I was helping, who each wanted to get a digital camera to use for eBay photos. They both bought the same camera, boasting support of XP and OSX all over the box.

The PowerBook lady took photos of her kids, plugged in the "funny shaped cable into the only hole it would fit in" and voila a few seconds later her pictures were open on her desktop. She dragged them to her mail icon and her entire address book had new kid photos in about 4 minutes from unpacking it from the box.

The XP user required me to come visit, update the USB core drivers, install camera drivers, reboot a few times, patch this and that, work out a bug, and then finally -- she too could just plug it in and voila there were her photos.

In the end, both systems worked flawlessly and easily for the end user -- but getting there wasn't the same.

When you spend all day "fixing" computers to do what they were supposed to do in the first place, sitting down in front of a Mac that does what it's supposed to do without your help is very liberating.

No, not really.

[Davorama]

OS X may have many advantages but after reading Ars' recent bit about the new dual G5 boxes wherein they claim that

...it seems with this machine that the hardware has finally caught up with the GUI.

I feel like it would be a step backward. A well thought out, intuitive interface is nice and all but as long as I know what I'm doing I'd rather stay with something more responsive.

Seconded.

[BiggerIsBetter]

If I were Apple (and I'm not) I'd take an approach like Sun has with Solaris x86 - spec up a list of supported hardware, and leave it at that. Even limit it to x86-64 so that you're further reducing the number of chipsets and legacy crap you need to support. As said already, most of the peripheral stuff (USB, Firewire, etc) is already there and well standardised.

Re:Seconded.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happened with Solaris x86? All the parttimers complained that it didn't work on their l33t Athlon G8m3rz system. And the Solaris people all stuck with Sparc even though it was slower.

That approach was a failure. Solaris x86 is real now because Sun builds x86 boxes.

If only...

[boola-boola]

...they could ensure that my hardware had good driver support, then make that a "HELL YEAH!"

But you see, therein lies the problem. Apple has [pretty] good support for all their products because they only use (and therefore support) a handful of 3rd party hardware out there. MS Windows has to support somewhere around 10x (rough, rough estimate) the amount of hardware that's out there, and I can imagine that's part of the reason Windows is buggy. The problem half the time is driver support! And if Mac OSX were to be released on x86, then they're gonna have the same problem as Windows, though knowing Apple, it won't be anywhere near as bad.

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I would in a heart beat it woudl support everything I do on my pc at the moment and I wouldlove to have osx on my pc

the only reason why I use windows is because I can't afford a mac, and audio software, photoshop, games

mac osx has the audio software I use, photoshop games why not switch to a better os

mac switch

[bendsley]

yes, i most absolutely would. this is of course assuming that the programs made for the mac platform would also be ported.

no, why should I?

[pair-a-noyd]

I doubt that you would gain anything other than different window dressing.

I would buy a mac, if I could afford one, for it's multimedia mastering capabilites. I hear they are fantastic at creating and editing multimedia. I would bet that it's a marriage of hardware, OS and apps.

Just dropping an alien OS into a cheap x86 box won't suddenly let me do the same things it would on true mac hardware.

Not to mention the price. Last time I checked, Suse is a LOT cheaper than "them" and would provide the same functionality.

Am I wrong?

Most Definitely

[failrate]

Especially considering that I can get a PC for about a hundred bucks or so...

Eye candy over functionality

[MoggyMania]

I know this'll doubtless get me modded down at the least, but I completely agree.

My BF told me recently that he really needs to get more RAM, as his Mac is constantly relying on the HD for virtual memory even though it has 512mb and basically all he has open is email and a few Safari windows. That strikes me as completely absurd -- my 256 meg system running XP doesn't grind the HD the way he described unless I *seriously* overload it (running Firefox with 15+ tabs, email, chatting, webcam, music, Photoshop, all simultaneously). Yet people jeer at MS for creating bloatware...? WTF?

I commented here months ago that whenever I found something (spyware-free, virus-free, adware-free etc) game/chat-wise that I thought we could use together, it turned out that there was no Mac equivalent... A Machead snarled that as a user of OS X, my BF should just learn to port stuff from *nix or write his own scripts. Again, WTF? To my logic, if I want to compile/code stuff, I go with a great free *nix OS, and if I want ease-of-use, I pay more to go with XP...paying a *lot* more for a system that will make it harder for me to just do what I want on a computer that then sucks resources to the point of needing huge upgrades just makes no sense to me. Sounds like the only thing that "just works" is Apple's marketing department!

Re:Eye candy over functionality

[Billly Gates]

Moggy?

THis is sinistertim101 from livejournal? Nice to see you here as well.

Keep in mind if your bf used any X11 apps like openoffice, the mac would buffer the video memory to ram. I think Aqua does this as well. A 64 meg or 128 meg card would consume A TON OF MEMORY.

Re:Eye candy over functionality

[Bert64]

That`s strange, i have a 400mhz g4 with 256mb and it runs very well, and thats with all the eyecandy still turned on. compared to a friends xp machine with 256mb that grinds the disk and runs really slow.. Mind you, the g4 has a displaycard that's supported by quartz extreme.
As for your game/chat programs, im sure it cuts both ways.. theres plenty of things which are mac only or unix only. You should instead look for programs which support standards, for chat that would be something like IRC, a well defined standard..
As for overloading a system, on my linux laptop where i'm typing this, which also has 256mb ram, i have 22 firefox tabs open, a compile running in the background, over 20 xterms open ssh'd to other machines, 8 bittorrent downloads, 3 irc clients, gaim, and a divx playing, plus X11, window manager etc... No memory issues atall

Shrinkwrap OSes always fail

[SideshowBob]

Many have tried, all shrinkwrap OSes have failed:

BeOS
OS/2
GEOS
GEM

Heck, Steve Jobs and Co. have firsthand experience with this; NeXTStep was available for years on the x86 platform and NeXT still nearly wen't bankrupt.

If there was a market for a better mousetrap one of the above would've caught on.

Microsoft makes money from deals with the hardware manufacturers. Apple IS the hardware manufacturer. Linux is free; the commercial Linux distros are not making money at retail. Any attempt by Apple to sell a shrinkwrap Mac OS X on the PC platform would be going against 25 years of history that it can't be done.

Re:Shrinkwrap OSes always fail

[X-Nc]

> Many have tried, all shrinkwrap OSes have failed:

Then later...

> Microsoft makes money from deals with the hardware manufacturers.

You listed OS's that were superior technicaly to MS Windows but were all killed by, as you then mentioned, MS cuttinig off their only hope of exposure. Shrinkwrap OS's would have a lot better life if they were also available preinstalled. Just like the shrinkwrapped OS called MS Windows.

Re:Shrinkwrap OSes always fail

[SideshowBob]

Yes that was the point, consumers don't buy operating systems. For them, it isn't a product category. They buy computers, and expect an operating system to come with it. Take it back to the DOS days and every computer shipped with its manufacturer's own OS. Take it back to mini- and mainframes and you get hardware the comes with an OS.

If Be wanted to succeed they should've stuck with their unique hardware and carved out a niche for themselves. NeXT dropped their hardware and it nearly killed them. Apple would be absolutely insane to not learn this lesson.

To the extent that Microsoft tries to cut illegal deals (exclusionary, or per unit royalties even when the unit ships without MS software) they should be punished, but it isn't their fault that the OS is not a standalone product category.

Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldnt switch unless I enjoy getting my games a year and a half after everyone else has played it. And even if that did float my boat, I would end up paying full price for the old game.

Thanks but no thanks.

Won't Happen

[NixusAM]

As much as I would like the hardware specifications to match the FANTASTIC OS that the Mac Team has but together, it won't happen. With out the Mac Team's strict control over the hardware, drivers and sofware issuses would rend the OS as crash prone as winBlows.

To make this possible, it would take a huge commitment from software/hardware manufacturers to make drivers for the new os/x86 combo. Any older components would most likely have to have homebrew drivers.

I believe the people behind my favorite OS wouldn't allow these complications for three reasons.
1. It would lessen their small market share
2. It is completely askew from the vision that is Mac
3. It would weaken the OS

*Dreaming of playing with Virginia Tech's New Toy*

Re:Won't Happen

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've read, in the past this concept was considered by Apple and then dropped. For several reasons, the above are probably only a few.

However, in this day and age, with everything that's happened since that time, I think this would be a good move for Apple.

It's an opportunity they'd be wise to consider.

Apple, I hope you're reading this thread!

I'd switch in a heartbeat

[Anonymous Coward]

But we all know that Steve Jobs hates money, else we would still have Mac clones and we'd have OSX already on x86.

Some of the worst decisions ever made.

I Definitely would!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything to get away from microsoft products.. Sorry I'm not all into linux as a desktop OS.

Abso-freakin-lutely!

[Rocco Bambieze]

I fail to understand the naysayers... I've used the core (of this) OS on mission-critical x86 hardware since the P133. I love linux, and am typing this from a linux system, but I would love to run OSX on my x86 hardware... It's perhaps the only thing that would finally get me to abandon OpenBSD and Linux which I currently use for various different purposes.

Count me in

[pavera]

if apple released OS X for x86, at anywhere below $200/copy, I'd buy 4 copies the next day. My 2 laptops, and 2 desktops would be running os X from that day forward, and I'd leave linux on my servers...

the people on here saying this would kill apple's hardware division I don't think are right... I'd buy 4 copies of OS X for x86, but the next machine I buy is still going to be a g5 imac, and the next laptop I buy is still going to be a 12" powerbook (I'm waiting til they fit the g5 into one though)

Apple's hardware is sexy and stylish, that is why I would still buy it (I already own a g4 powerbook), it might be a little expensive, but the g5 imac is very reasonably priced for such a nice looking piece of engineering. This fact alone is why releasing OS X for x86 is not the end of the world for their hardware division. They will pick up a bunch of OS market share, and the die hard mac fans (those 1-2% that have always bought their stuff) will still spend the extra ~$500 for the real apple hardware.

I would try it

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X woiuld be great .... but if MS did not port MS Office to it, then it would almost mean that you would have to use open office. So, Micro$oft's grip on Word/Excel might make OS X on x86 difficult.... then again is M$ was smart, they would get MS Office running on all platforms and embrace a future where they do not have the monopoly on the desktop

Re:I would try it

[TCaM]

If there was an X86 version of OS X how long do you think a port of wine would take anyway?

Jesus christ

[Negativeions101]

I'd definitely switch to MAC OSX! That'd be awesome! If they built in support for 2 button mice adn context menu's like Windows that be even better I guess. But hell, MAC OSX being Unix based, which means it's inherintly more secure than Windows by default, and with it's hardware 3D acceleration... damn people. Make the switch! Do it! Now!... oh wait... damn.

I would do it

[rsheridan6]

if it had the same trouble-free interaction with hardware that Macs have, or at least that Windows have. My wife doesn't like Linux, and I no longer have time to fuss over it every time I get a new piece of hardware. Going back to Windows would be like trading my car in for a tricycle. A Mac seems like the best option so she can have her slick GUI and I can have my unix CLI geek toys, but we can't justify spending the money, which is really tight. But we might be able to spend a little bit for an OS.

Yes, Would finally be a NICE UNIX OS for x86

[bling..bling]

Would give a nice front end that Linux will most likely never have... I'd definately give it a try...

In a heartbeat! Well...

[arashi no garou]

I would gladly give up Slackware Linux for OS X/x86, that is if it fully supported all of my PC's hardware. That, I believe, would be the biggest obstacle to such an endeavor. Personally I think it could be attempted, given the BSD core, but it definitely wouldn't be easy. As it stands, under Slackware all of my PC's hardware works, as well as most of my peripherals (scanner, printer, etc). My Dell DJ player even works using the libnjb driver, which I understand has been ported to OS X.

I really believe, though, that the major attraction of OS X is the airtight integration with the hardware. That kind of thing can't even be achieved by Microsoft with their 95% installed PC base. I don't really think Apple will settle for less than what they have now.

Not Quite

[ravenspear]

It's like saying sony vaio's line will send sony into the red, because they cost more than cheap pc's, but can run windows like any other PC.

It's not anything like saying that. Sony has thousands of products in very broad categories. If they stop selling Vaios, they aren't going to go under. They have plenty of other stuff to fall back on. Apple on the other hand is dependent on Mac hardware sales for almost all its operating revenue. If they lose that, they would have to create an entirely new business to stay alive. Basically, they wouldn't be the same Apple they are today.

You are right that some people might still choose Mac hardware for its superiority. But I suspect that the number would be minor. I am a Mac user and I know many others that are as well. Most of us don't care what processor our computers run on. The important thing is what we can get done with it. OS X lets us work more efficiently and effectively than Windows. If I could do that for $1,000 less I probably would. Think about it, with all the praise OS X has gotten and for all its acknowledged superiority over Windows, why is Apple's market share still very minimal. The answer is price. It is still the paramount factor for a lot of people.

That's a big 10-4

[Majik Sznak]

Mac OS X is tasty. The only reason I don't have a Mac is because of the high cost of buying one. I'm sure that for at least a few people, x86 OS X would be a "gateway drug" to buying the actual Apple hardware.

I'd buy Mac OS X if it would run on my Athlon XP, and I just might end up buying an iMac later on because of it.

Would a petition make any difference?

Not a Fan?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been.."

What I'd like to know is if you even know why you never have been a fan of Windows, or whether you're just another impressionable person on the pile of hive-minded Microsoft haters.

- AC

Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

While I would like to see OSX on my dell laptop, I don't think it would be a smart move on apples part. There no a 2-bit software company, and they're not just a computer manufacturer either. Apple is more like the mercedes of the computer industry. They may not be as high performance as x86, but what your buying isn't the performance, it's the elegance. OSX is, imho, designed to fit the mac look and feel, and this goes beyone what you see on the screen. It's designed to asteticly accent the hardware, to be pretty. If you could stick it on x86. it just wouldnt be the same. You can make gnome look and feel like OSX anyway, so I dont see the point. Anyway, I'm just ranting and raving, what do you think?

Yes, and Apple's real problem is image,

[Anonymous Coward]

I am assuming the idea is that x86 box running mac os would be cheaper than the stuff apple offers; if so, then yeah, I would switch in a heartbeat.

We just got two eMacs at work because we have to be able to compile on a g4 proc ( don't ask why ...) They're awesome. Love the OS and all the free open source linux stuff that's been ported to mac os.

The real problem is that Apple is still stigmatised by all the old rumors/issues. Our sysadmin was still worried about the eMacs "crashing alot, being really slow, etc. "

He was even worried that we would need - get ready for it - "special tools" to open the eMacs.

The guy was living in 1984 when it came to Apple's stuff, and that is the biggest problem Apple has right now. Its image is still tarnished from years before. The modern macs rule. They aren't slow, and they aren't expensive compared to comparably equipped PCs.

yup

[kaffiene]

I'd absolutely switch in a second. At the moment, why bother? You trade M$'s OS monopoly for Apple's hardware monopoly - no thanks!

Even if I didn't switch...

[mikelang]

...my users would force me to :-).

Even if personally not ready (both because of cost and technical reasons) to run OS X on servers, I would have to provide support for easy Window-type Unix system

In fact we already considered Linux migration but stopped because of time needed to learn all windows intricacies and application compatibility problems (just three: SwissPDBViewer, BioEdit and MS Office).

Virtual Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple should approach it like Microsoft does with Virtual PC which allows Mac users to install Windows on their Macs. Apple should create a Virtual Mac so curious Windows users can be exposed to OS X without investing in a new hardware system. If they see that they can do most stuff that they do on their PCs, then they may consider buying a Mac next time around. I don't see too many Windows people switching to Macs completely but rather, many would probably want the ability to use Mac software occasionally. If Apple can do this without letting it eat their hardware business, then it would be cool.

My story, coming to Slashdot, soon...

[rampant mac]

Would you chance it? I submit this query before you: "I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been, but I am a fan of the PPC architecture. I really like Windows, but there is still a few issues that is keeping me from switching completely. I LIKE Windows but I don't want to drop 2k on a comparatively configured Dell, a computer that is only as fast as an x86 processor, at twice the price. Linux and Darwin's unix-ish core, has been ported to PPC and Microsoft's past OS, NT, seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Microsoft released a Mac OS compatible OS to compete with OS X, would you switch?"

Think it'll get picked?

Probably not me

[ZeeCog]

I don't think I would. It would probably be dramatically less stable than windows on x86. Windows has had a long time to work out hardware compatibility issues on the PC and Apple has never had to deal with any other kinds of hardware other than the very small amount they let in their own machines. OS X would be really cool I think for things such as overall usability and the fact that it's built off of a version off of BSD, but I think it would be lagging behind fataly in the areas of software and hardware compatibility.

Re:Probably not me

[delta0]

and Apple has never had to deal with any other kinds of hardware other than the very small amount they let in their own machines

But you must be forgetting the PPC clones... too bad they all got the axe.

Re:Probably not me

[ZeeCog]

I considered mentioning them but like you said, they got the axe.

Yes, I would

[ajans]

I have even posted 'contact us' suggestions that they consider doing so, as I would be an immediate customer.

I probably would because of mouse buttons

[luvirini]

I would love to have a system with the BSD core and the finetuned way things work together in Mac.

Running the thing in intel plantform would allow me to get a notebook with 3 mouse buttons.

The only reason I have not have mac as my laptop is the single mousebutton. The day apple comes out with a computer with 3 mousebuttons or a software for computers with that capability and based on the BSD core, is the day I buy that.

I know that for historical reasons they have the single mousebutton, but I wounder why it would be so hard to segment the button on the touchpad and have all the parts work as one button while in macintosh programs, and allow me to use them as separate when in X11 programs.

Yes I know, you can connect external mouse to a mac, but I really need to use the built in mouse in many situations.

Re:I probably would because of mouse buttons

[5cameron]

holding down Ctrl is a right-click

Re:I probably would because of mouse buttons

[delta0]

Yuck.. and I grew up using earlier B&W macs

No more single button mice, it's terrible. I use a Microsoft Mouse w/ my Mac (5 button Optical Trackball) -- explain how I'm suppose to live w/ a single button and use X11-apps effiently?

Re:I probably would because of mouse buttons

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe people say things like this. Apple software supports multi-button mice, and has for eons.

Apple ships a one button mouse with their machines. If you don't want to use it, plug any other USB mouse in. I use a 5 button mouse with scrollwheel on my G5. I already had it from a previous computer; my G4.

Re:I probably would because of mouse buttons

[luvirini]

please read what I said about the laptop and the need to use the internal mouse. please tell me how can I plug in an internal mouse to a mac laptop?

Expensive and Slow

[Sheepdot]

Yes, After reading all the insightful-modded comments about how Macs are no longer more expensive and slow I just have a few points:

1) I don't measure cost in just initial purchase price. I also measure it in upgradability price. Specifically when I go to upgrade, oh, say a motherboard or cpu. Additionally when I go to add on a feature like water cooling or maybe just a better power supply.

2) I don't measure speed in just cpu speed of mathematical computations. I measure it in speed of doing things that I actually do, like play games, edit AVIs, load webpages, and Photoshop. All at the same time.

I mean seriously, let's put things in perspective. Everyone here can use Pricewatch and/or NewEgg to design a top-of-the-line computer for under 600 bucks (if want to sacrifice a little processor performance, you can also get a dvd burner instead of a combo drive). If you are really dying for that flat panel add about another 200. Contrary to whatever geek-chic you've been fed, you do NOT have to buy an Alienware computer to be equivalent to the "coolness" of the Apple. There are still a lot of us out that that value performance and functionality over looks. For the love of God, we're talking about a computer, not a kitchen appliance.

Where is this mythical Apple computer that can play HalfLife, Doom3, and Star Wars Galaxies for under 800 bucks? For that matter, where do I buy the new G5 processor and new motherboard for my old iMac?

Re:Expensive and Slow

[SilentEchoes]

Well I am glad to hear that your PC makes such a great toy. I would also love to hear how you are able to play games and edit AVI's while loading a web page (which takes all of three seconds mind you) and work in photoshop ALL at the same time. You must be a talented one. On the other hand its quite possible to have photoshop running a filter or action set while loading a web-page and rendering an image in Maya. OS X is one of the best operating systems I have ever used when it comes to memory handling as well as dual processor ability. I have both a Mac and a PC and I know its all a matter of opinion but simple things like Windows feeling the need to render all of my graphics with the processor instead of the video card is getting a bit old now. When it comes down to actual work I would take OS X out of any OS out there any day. Simply for Exposé alone. When you have 15 photoshop windows open 3 web browsers to test your webpage and 10 different text documents full of code on it. You will be glad you have a Mac when you don't experience a single slow down, or when you can simply exposé and see all of your windows perfectly. In fact, If anyone is up to a friendly challenge I would gladly challenge some one on Linux or Windows to a quick real world multitasking game. Just an animation of you working switching windows and getting around as quickly as possible while doing real work. If anyone is up for it I'll go ahead and make a video file of me doing the same.

Why would I switch to x86?

[rhesuspieces00]

I have a powerbook 12 inch, and have never so loved a computer since the the Mac 512 my dad brough home nearly 20 years ago. There isnt a x86 based laptop on the market, at any pricepoint, that I would prefer except for the purpose of resale. I would be sad indeed were Apple to turn the design and manufacture of OS X based computers to anyone less exacting. Having written assembly for both PPC and x86, I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the latter architecture. Im also a bit confused by sluggishness that is being reported. My laptop is nearly a year old, with a single 1GHz G4 and 768mb or ram, and is hardly sluggish. Perhaps once every 10 minutes a window shows some lag when opening, or the scaling animation jumps when minimizing something, but thats all-even with TexMaker, Photoshop, XEmacs, MatLab, iTunes, and a half dozen smalller xApps and iApps going. None of the PCs (or Suns) I use perform so well. As for software availability, i really dont think its an issue, unless you are a gamer. I dont have much time for games, and prefer a console anyway. I recall the difficulty in finding decent shareware in the OS 8-9 days, but now I cant think of any software category that doesnt have atleast one elegant solution available. Most basic users' needs are met by apps that ship with the computer, the whole world of Unix apps are availible, and many commercial products are better implemented than their windows counterpart. I suspect that most users, if they had the opportunity to run X as their primary OS for a few weeks-long enough to really see all Apple has put into the user experience, customize it, and make it their own, would find themselves quite reluctant to go back to using their current OS.

Am I the only one ...

[welshmnt]

who really dosn't like the mac interface?

I feel like I'm working in Willy Wonkas Disnyland ;).

Gnome's going the same way. I used to like that but now... well I'm no so sure.

FYI I'm sat here using blackbox so you can tell where I'm coming from.

Ah well perhaps I'm just too old for LaLa Po and crew now.

Have Fun

PS Did you know the the 'send me my password' on /. is on hotmail's spamlist? Tis true.

Linux is the newcomer on x86...

[Media_Scumbag]

Apple (er, Steve Jobs) got there first...

Remember NeXT Step? Open Step?

OS X is a direct descendent of the *NIX-with-an-Apple-GUI bunch.

Great OS, way ahead of its' time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXTSTEP

It does exist already

[dayton967]

For those in the know, or not in the know the core for MacOSX aka Darwin is available currently from www.opendarwin.org and comes with a PPC and ix86 version. When I get home I am going to look into it in more detail. jason

No

[HoboMaster]

I wouldn't switch for the same reason I use Windows instead of Linux: video games. I use my comp to browse the internet and for video games (occasionally for homework); I often do both at the same time, so not having all my video games wouldn't be acceptable.

Oh, the other reason I wouldn't switch is b/c if I did, I would have a pile of useless Windows software and would have to re-buy everything.

plain dumb...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a lame question. period.

One word...

[mcrbids]

NO.

A few years ago, I had decided to ditch Windows. I was getting through the inevitable Linux learning curve, and having somewhat of a time with it.

I saw a Mac Cube at the local Circuit city - and I just drooled. They had a guy with a mop as I left. It was drop-dead sexy. It was not windows. It was Unix. It was what I looked for in a workstation, only better.

I didn't buy it - I didn't have the $1,900 it cost at the time. And I am so, so glad I didn't.

Had I bought that cube, I'd be floating in an island of incompatability. The cube is no longer sold. If anything went wrong, I'd have to buy parts from Apple at a premium. I have numerous systems, often cheap, low-ball systems (think AMD K6) for dedicated/embedded systems and micro-servers. They use the same software my nice, fancy Dell laptop uses. I can test on the laptop, then deploy on cheap hardware with confidence.

For me, buying that Mac would have locked me out of my marketplace, and left me forever chasing the compatability train.

If you are going to "do" Linux, then do it. Dogfood. Put it on your workstation/laptop/home computter, then make it your primary operating environment.

Otherwise, go home and shuddup.

Re:One word...

[zpok]

"Had I bought that cube, I'd be floating in an island of incompatability."

Yeah, that would be a bad thing, I can clearly see that.

Um, I'm still working with that drop-dead sexy cube, it's pretty good, still. And did I mention it's sexy? Oh yes I did. Just upped the Ram to 1.25 Gig, btw, was extremely difficult must have took me oh say one minute?

Not sure what you're referring to, friend, but I don't really feel incompatible. Apart from not getting games in time, some not at all, it's all peaches and cream - and silent, and sexy, and small, and shiny....

BTW, I'm no expert on what you do, so you may be very right in your assessment, but I take great exception to "my nice, fancy Dell laptop". My wife just got one from work - as opposed to having to pay for her mac out of her own pocket.

It's clumsy, ugly and I daren't put it next to a powerbook for fear of having the poor thing implode in shame. ;-)

How about barebones Macs?

[Reziac]

The machine I'm using this instant started life as a 486DX2-66, over 10 years ago. Through various incremental upgrades (two major, lots of minor), it was finally maxed out as a P3, back in 2000. Combined cost for all the upgrades -- about $500. If I'd had to buy the two major upgrades as whole new machines, the total cost would have been around $2000.

Where did all the old parts go? into incrementally upgrading other older computers, in which I consequently have essentially zero cost.

As to the nominal topic... while I personally prefer Windows (or KDE as a passable second choice), and I detest the Mac interface, I *do* like BSD. If I could run OS X on x86 hardware, I'd be far more inclined to give OS X a chance to prove itself. But so long as it requires investing in a big chunk of hardware... it ain't gonna happen here.

However, back to the concept of upgrades ... given that Apple makes most of their money on hardware, what about the idea of selling "barebones" Macs? Those could be inexpensively and "incrementally upgraded" by the user by the simple expedient of plugging in last year's used x86 components, would run OS X without any hoop-jumping, and would be a lot more attractively priced to those of us accustomed to the low cost of x86 hardware.

I'm not sure such an approach would be economically viable for Apple, but ... anyone with a solid picture of Apple's economics want to try running the numbers?

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[paganizer]

Wow. a Family guy quote has come to me.

"Get out of my head"!

doesn't read as well as I would have thought.

Same here, but my seed machine was a Lan-Plus 386SX-33 (Tandy's and etc before that) whose case (the only surviving part)is currently in my daughters room with a K6-200 in it.
my rules-of-thumb: only your monitor and your motherboard have any reason to cost more than $100.00 each, and avoid integrated components if possible.

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[lavar78]

As to the nominal topic... while I personally prefer Windows (or KDE as a passable second choice), and I detest the Mac interface, I *do* like BSD. If I could run OS X on x86 hardware, I'd be far more inclined to give OS X a chance to prove itself.

I'm just curious -- how do you know you really prefer Windows and detest the Mac interface if you haven't given OS X a chance to prove itself?

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[Reziac]

I should have been more specific; the one I'm most familiar with is MacOS8.5, and it was everything I've ever disliked about a GUI or an OS, all in one handy package!! and I expect that OS X's fundamental GUI is still pretty much the same, if prettier (Mac users being, in my observation, somewhat more reactionary about UI changes than Windows users), but having a better OS under it should improve its behaviour. (And I do like what I've seen of BSD.) So if OS X were available for x86, I'd at least give it a serious look.

But -- not if I had to invest in all new hardware. (Especially since I didn't much like the Apple hardware I've had my hands on.) But if I could build my own box starting from a naked motherboard and CPU -- well, that's a lot more feasible, even given the constraints of what devices OS X supports. (After all, how hard would it be to read the "supported device" list, and pick up the required parts at the swap meet or from my junk box?)

BTW, I don't care much about "pretty" as a feature ... my desktop tends to be as plain and functional (IOW, non-distracting and glare-free) as it's possible to make it.

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[Reziac]

Egads, are you sure you're not me? :)

Dink (this here one-486's unglorious name) still retains its original case (but not PSU), some cables, sound card (tho it's now the 2nd sound card, for use in DOS), and both floppies. Everything else has been gradually swapped out over time. -- I bought a $400 19" monitor for everyday use, but the workbench gets whatever old CRT still produces something resembling a picture.

As to my "upgrade policy" -- the general rule is, every time I have a system's case open for any reason, any part that I happen to have an upgrade for handy gets upgraded (often as not, the handy parts are salvage). If I'm doing a *serious* upgrade or building a new machine, I start with the best motherboard I can afford at the time (with as little integrated as possible.. given a choice, I prefer Tyan), and initially skimp, if need be, on parts that are easily upgraded later. If the foundation is sound, you thus get far more longevity from the total unit, at very minimal cost.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rividh/pc/the_borg.htm :) Dink, Gremlin, and Argo run all the time.

[back to the nominal topic!] If OS X were currently available for x86, I'd probably try it on Levity or Fever, tho I expect they might be a bit bottom-end for the purpose, given that Levity is adequate for MDK 7.2, but not "crisp".

One of these days I need to build me a whole new monkey...

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[jovlinger]

which raises the somewhat sophilistic question: what constitutes the machine; at what point do you have a different machine than when you started?

unlike most philosophical questions, this one does have practical value, as some OS vendors restrict their software to run on one machine only; which leaves the question of how to define such a machine distressingly open.

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[Reziac]

That very question has crossed my mind, if only because I regard each of my machines as having an "identity" and "personality" that is largely tied up with the hardware.

Poor Borg has had the most trauma; it started life as my original "what do I do with all these leftover parts?" system, a 386DX40 and whatever else fell on my head or got obsoleted out of Dink. Over time the original case got sold to a client, the motherboard got shifted to another case and eventually replaced with what had been Dink's second motherboard (a salvaged P90), and by now I'm not sure there's an "original" part left other than maybe the floppies. But I still think of it as the *same* system, maybe because it ran the *same* software throughout its sad life.

That illustrates the issue ... is it the hardware, the OS, the apps, or the whole, that defines a "single system" in the eyes of the OS/application vendor? as you imply, the question is open to whatever interpretation a vendor feels will best serve their interest, which may well be quite contrary to the consumer's interest.

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[Anonymous Coward]

If OS 8.5 was the most recent mac os you've experienced, then OS x really is something to consider. I hate OS 9 and earlier. Because of its co-operative multitasking nature, it's prone to a lot of awkward pauses and crashes, and the UI, while it looks pretty, is horrendous to use. OS X corrects a lot of this and a lot of the UI shortcomings. I've also, for some time, though a barebones Mac would be a great idea. I don't think it would really correct, what I consider to be the inflated cost of apple notebooks. Power books still have G4's, the top speed: 1.5ghz. Benchmarks show less expensive centrino's Dominating it.

Re:How about barebones Macs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're about to be flamed by a Mac Zealot (I'm only an Anonymous Coward because I don't want to spend the time to create an account - don't usually visit slashdot, and won't be doing it anyway)...
Yes, I'm a proud Mac Zealot, and you are a proud IDIOT!! I never used Mac OS 8, or 9, or whatever, but I remember playing with OS 7, and I have already seen some Macs running OS 8 and 9, and all I can say is that those OSes SUCK BIG TIME!!... I only used Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, and now I'm running a completely diferent animal. Have you ever heard of PANTHER??? (And Tiger, which, btw, will be released in 2005, almost two years ahead of Long(wait)horn?) It beats the crap out of XPee, I can assure you! Of course, there are some minor things about OS X's interface, namely some inconsistencies that bug me, but you CANNOT compare it to XP let alone compare it with OS EIGHT!! Are you nuts? OS 8 dates back from... MID NINETIES!!
As for "Mac users being, in [your] observation, somewhat more reactionary about UI changes than Windows users"... Tell me, PLEASE TELL ME which significant changes there have been in Windows, since Win95 (or should I say, Mac OS 1.0 from 1984) to Windows XP??? However, from OS 9 to OS 10.3.5 there have been huge leaps in usability; the interface HAS significantly changed, and it's always gettin better! You try Exposé, and then try and say that "heresy" again... We Mac users LOVE interface IMPROVEMENTS, not superfluous eye-candyish changes like those that M$ develops every 2 years just to justify an upgrade...
You are, officially, and IDIOT... I've used Windows for years, and I've tried some other interfaces like Gnome or KDE, and all I can say that OS X has the best and most intuitive GUI I've ever used (oooohhh... I forgot you must be a übergeek, you don't care about ease of use...). Add to that the stability that BSD offers and... 'nuff said!

agreed

[ArbitraryConstant]

The only extensively ugradable Macs are PowerMacs, which are quite expensive. I tend to get Apple laptops because you can't upgrade a laptop no matter who you buy it from, but for desktops it would be crazy unless you knew for a fact you'd never want anything else from it.

My current server/firewall is a P2 ca. 1997. Just about everything in there would have been impossible on an iMac, current or past. It has 3 network interfaces (iMacs are limited to 1 ethernet), one of them gigabit (impossible on an iMac), an SATA controller (impossible on an iMac that wasn't built with it), a 160 gb hard drive (impossible on an iMac from 1997) that I can actually use at full speed (an iMac would have been stuck at ATA/33).

None of the software stuff would be impossible on an iMac (particularly if it were running OpenBSD, as it would be if I used it as a server), but the hardware stuff just couldn't be done. Thus, my return on investment has been increased.

It's not just the ability to keep the hardware in production 8 years later, it's the fact that what was once exclusively a desktop computer that I purchased exclusively for desktop use, and it's now a very capable server doing stuff no iMac from 1997 will ever do. And when my current desktop is a server 5 years from now, it will be doing stuff the iMacs of today will never do.

I'm not saying no one should ever buy an iMac, but I am saying an upgradable computer is worth a lot more to people that actually upgrade them.

Re:agreed

[James McTavish]

Disclaimer: I was a hard core "Mac sucks PC rules" zealot until I was given a G4 with OSX, and I've never lookd back.

I keep hearing arguments like this and I think it ignores one key factor: People generally don't upgrade their PCs. Only a small (geek) fraction do more than upgrade their RAM, HD or videocards, which on a Mac is exactly the same cost/difficulty as a PC (except for video cards which are more expensive). Most people don't have or want 3 NICs.

Once people have a computer they don't really think about upgrading the CPU alone, until it is way too slow. Then they will go for what is current, but the current processor will generally require a new motherboard, which will also require new ram (and possibly more eg: PCI-X video card). When you put all that together then most people forget it and buy a whole new system anyway. This cycle happens every 2-5 years.

So for the geek market, sure iMacs suck for upgradability, but geeks should be looking at a PowerMac anyway. For for the other 95% of the market, they do everything that regular people need. As for pricing, they are a medium to high end system that is priced accordingly. One of the parents said it right, they do compare pricewise to Dell systems with comparable specs. Tack OS X on and I think you end up with the best desktop system on the market of people who don't need the flexability because the won't use it, like 95% of the population.

There is the common comment about "I wouldn't be able to run application X". There are a few apps that I do wish ran on it, but an OSX version doesn't exist. For those I use VirtualPC, which would be MUCH easier and faster if the base system was x86 already. I'm sure that in a matter of weeks someone would create something that would allow you to run windows in a window. This does somewhat defeat the purpose of OS X on the x86 (ie why not just run windows), but i presonally prefer the feel and workflow of OSX for most things, so I would prefer an occasional venture into windows rather than being stuck there.

As for the article question: In a heartbeat. Usability that windows can't touch, with the underlying power of unix when I want a command prompt.

Re:agreed

[ArbitraryConstant]

" I keep hearing arguments like this and I think it ignores one key factor: People generally don't upgrade their PCs. Only a small (geek) fraction do more than upgrade their RAM, HD or videocards, which on a Mac is exactly the same cost/difficulty as a PC (except for video cards which are more expensive). Most people don't have or want 3 NICs."

A typically reasonable sounding argument from an Apple supporter. However you're ignoring what I actually said, so you sound like you're right. I'm going to quote myself from the post that you replied to, because this is the part of my position that you ignore: "I'm not saying no one should ever buy an iMac, but I am saying an upgradable computer is worth a lot more to people that actually upgrade them."

Wow. It turns out you're really just accusing me of ignoring a point that I actually make explicitly, and what I said was consistent with your statement. Therefore, I shall consider what I said to stand uncontradicted.

" Once people have a computer they don't really think about upgrading the CPU alone, until it is way too slow. Then they will go for what is current, but the current processor will generally require a new motherboard, which will also require new ram (and possibly more eg: PCI-X video card). When you put all that together then most people forget it and buy a whole new system anyway. This cycle happens every 2-5 years."

True. And if the now obsolete computer is upgradable, it can do something else instead of remaining a desktop computer that's "way too slow".

" So for the geek market, sure iMacs suck for upgradability, but geeks should be looking at a PowerMac anyway. For for the other 95% of the market, they do everything that regular people need. As for pricing, they are a medium to high end system that is priced accordingly. One of the parents said it right, they do compare pricewise to Dell systems with comparable specs. Tack OS X on and I think you end up with the best desktop system on the market of people who don't need the flexability because the won't use it, like 95% of the population."

While it's true that PowerMacs are comparable to similarly priced Dell systems, you're completely missing the point that any such system from any vendor is likely bigtime overkill for the needs of the geek in question. Dell is happy to sell you a much cheaper system that is comparable to an iMac, but is also upgradable. If such a system is cheaper and meets the upgradability requirements, it may be preferable to both an iMac and a PowerMac.

Re:agreed

[Inthewire]

How soft is Steve's tongue?

Re:agreed

[gobbo]

All you're really saying is that geeks should avoid the all-in-one form factor, no matter the platform.

Joe sixpack and grandma never upgrade, they replace when they can't use it to do what they want anymore. For them, macs usually stay serviceable longer, and go obsolete slower.

Business users run the machine with 8 apps for 4 years, then replace.

High end users replace as often as possible, since nanoseconds equal dollars.

Everyone else is a hobbyist or away from the mean.

That said, noone would use an iMac from '97, since they came out in '98. Even if they had been around in '97, serious users bought G3 towers, which can be upgraded up the yazoo, like any other tower, and except for the 160GB drive (limit would be 120), can do anything your P2 can. This is a disingenuous comparison.

Recently, a business I set up a database solution for on an old PowerMac 8100 (ca. '95) called me to ask if I thought they should consider replacing it soon. It wasn't broken, there were no problems, but isn't it old? Should we maintain it? Database is filemaker, about 30 related files, around 300K records, accessed around the clock from various locations. We all have anecdotes about old diehard machines... generally Macs last a long time. I used a pizzabox LCII as a headless print server for 11 years without any maintenance... etc.

MacOS X on x86 Never Likely to happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X will never come to the x86 architecture for one main reason...Apple is a computer company!!! Porting their famed OS would only hurt their sales (anyone recall the clone deal???). In order for Apple to remain in the market at all and keep releasing their operating system, it is going to remain based on ppc architecture and is never going to run on an x86 variant. Think logically people...

Absolutely not

[Figbash]

I'm sorry, but Mac OS X has a *long* ways to go before it can compare to Windows, most notably in the interface department. The dock is near useless and quite irritating, non MDI windows make professional applications like Photoshop and Maya exceedingly cumbersome to use (especially when attempting to multitask), interaction with the interface is bogged down by endless eyecandy rather than utility (I'm not against eyecandy by any means, but if you skip intuitive design elements to make something look pretty you have the wrong priorities), and lastly it is very slow on comparable hardware.
My roommate owns a Mac that he regrets buying endlessly, as he's still making payments on it and Photoshop still crawls relative to my PC.
I personally run Windows XP with Blackbox4Win as my shell, I use it everyday to run 3D Studio and Photoshop for my work and it has yet to crash in the past 3 months (and it was only down then as I bought a new video card). There is nothing wrong with the stability in Windows XP, so I personally see no need to switch to anything but.
However, if it becomes possible to switch out the shell and Apple rethinks some of it's design choices (PLEASE give us child windows), I'd certainly give it a go :)

In a word...

[drgnbear]

Yes. I would buy more expensive and sexier Apple hardware even.

Yes And No. Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer would have to be Yes and No at the same time. It depends on millions of factors. Consider this...

1.) Will it be buggy? Given that the base Apple (Mac) architecture is different, would a port be buggy? How stable (if at all) would it be?

2.) What kind of cost would it incur? I refuse to pay for my OS. Even the copy of Windows I have is covered by a University Alliance with Microsoft. I use Linux as well.

3.) How "dumbed down" will it be? One of the BIGGETS problems in mac OS is everything ie easy. I know you want to shoot me for saying this. But I am used to things being difficult and complex. I am used to C++, dynamic memory allocation, installing linux, and doing things the hard way. If its going to force me to drag a CD into the trash can to eject it then its obviously not for me! The Eject button was put there for a reason!

4.) Minimum System requirements for "DECENT" running? I know Microsoft for example says the minimum requirement for windows is a 133 Mhz processor. YEAH RIGHT!

Would I switch?

[kerobaros]

If Apple could promise it would run well on a old Pentium III laptop, and/or an old dual Pentium II server (my two computers? In a fucking heartbeat. But, then, I'm a heretic like that.

Summary of all informed Apple vs. PC debates

[shpoffo]

- Apple hard is a good thing, and I can give a test case that illustrates this.

- Apple hard is a bad thing, and I can give a test case that illustrates this.

.
-shpoffo

This CRM Software has Macintosh Support

[ModernGeek]

http://www.hiatlantis.com/ The website says so.

boneheaded decisions...

[bani]

...recall that apple initially argued against the use of color in the UI because it would "confuse the users"...

apple is not always right!

metaphor often fails because real world objects do not always nicely translate to computer oriented tasks, when you are trying to use eg a mouse to twiddle them. user interfaces which adhere too strongly to metaphor almost always fail.

this is something which has been repeatedly proven objectively through extensive usability testing.

don't let 'consistency' and apple dogma blind you to better design decisions.

for example MDI works excellently for stuff like tabbed browser windows (eg mozilla). (yes, i know it's not 'traditional mdi' but it is mdi.)

Re:boneheaded decisions...

[danila]

for example MDI works excellently for stuff like tabbed browser windows (eg mozilla). (yes, i know it's not 'traditional mdi' but it is mdi.)

It's even better in Opera, where you have real 'traditional' MDI. There is a separate workspace for browsing - you can use both tabs AND click/move the page windows.

uh, software? adobe video collection vs fc express

[Anonymous Coward]

The $2300 price only includes Final Cut Express.

Adobe Video Collection costs $1000 and includes:
Premiere Pro
After Effects
Audition
Encore DVD
(AVC Pro costs 1500 and throws in Photoshop and AE Pro.)

So for true price parity:
$700 Final Cut Pro HD
(pricing for upgrade from express; $1000 straight)
$1000 Logic (== Audition)
$500 DVD Studio Pro (== Encore DVD)

I don't know enough about Shake ($3000!) to compare it to After Effects, but there's an extra $2200 you'd have to spend right here, man.

The Mac price advantage is a myth.

good reason to switch to Max OS X in general?

[urikkiru]

Okay, so I code win32 apps for a living. Asking my work to switch to an OS X platform for everything won't happen, since all their clients are using win32 platforms. I can't play the majority of my games on OS X. The only thing I can use it for is misc. recreational stuff, like web browsing, email, and music/video. While that would be cool... in order to change/buy anything, I have to be able to use it in a practical way, either for work, or for games. I agree that everything I've seen about OS X, and used about it(in a limited fashion) seems really, really cool. I'm tempted to buy a Mac just for kicks. However, I'm afraid it would be a toy that I would use for a bit, and then not be able to use in my day to day operations. Which basically means it's worthless to buy in the first place. So, without these things, I cannot switch :(

Stability, price, and control

[Craig Ringer]

I rather like OS/X in some ways, but a few things would bother me:

(a) It's even more expensive than Windows

(b) Apple can't even make it totally stable on a hardware platform they entirely control, so how would it far on x86?

(c) The OS doesn't like to give the user control of a lot of aspects of the user interface. Don't want various animations? Well... too bad.

(d) Chances are that if Apple ever ported OS/X they'd do it on a custom x86 sub-architecture with a custom BIOS etc. We all know how overdue x86 is for a good revamp, and the idea of x86 with OpenFirmware sounds mighty good to me. The idea of an x86 box at Apple prices with Apple hardware design principles does not.

I also dislike Apple's general attitude to the user. Think removed reset switches (Why? Because "MacOS X doesn't crash?" Riiiight), no eject buttons on CD-ROM and Zip drives, and that infernal mouse. I could fix the hardware side with OS/X on x86, but not where that attitude makes its self known in the software.

Security would also be an issue. I remain unconvinced that Apple has security under control in OS/X - with MacOS 7 to MacOS 9 they largely ignored it, mostly because the systems had basically no externally visible services. There are signs they still don't quite "get it," like extremely long delays on updates, even later updates for older versions, etc.

I support a mixed network of Win9x, WinXP, MacOS 9, and MacOS/X, so I'm not just talking hot air. I rather strongly dislike all operating systems, just some more than others ;-) . MacOS X does pretty well overall, so just because I have some major issues with it doesn't mean I don't think it's an OK OS.

I guess overall I'd use it in preference to WinXP, _if_ application vendors got on the ball and started building for x86 as well. There would really need to be a fat binary scheme similar to what was done with m68k and PPC for that transition. However, WinXP is not my only choice, and for my personal needs OS/X loses against a well-customised Linux box.

For my users ... maybe. Apple would have to provide saner pricing, or an upgrade scheme that was a bit more reasonable than what they currently have. Upgrade pricing on the OS would be a good start. If the pricing issue was addressed, I'd provide OS/X for my users in a second - even if I had to buy overpriced apple hardware to do it. x86? Who cares, I'd put a bunch of eMacs in right now if they fixed their OS pricing (though the eMac's shoddy build quality does bother me). No more MSIE security holes - yay. Of course, there would still be network security holes, random crashes, and weird system and preference corruption (something Macs have been doing since MacOS 7), but that seems to be life with both major OS options.

I would not switch and prefer kde and gnome

[Ambassador Kosh]

Overall I just find I can't be productive in mac osx or windows. Without a good vfs layer I find them a pain in the neck to use. I the kde io slave system the most because more things are supported but the gnome one is good also and at some point they are likely to merege.

I save many hours a week from being able to use sftp, ftp, webdav, webdavs, http, https, imaps etc from EVERY gui app that I use (I use kde and gnome apps exclusively pretty much). Until you get used to being able to work transparently with any resource via url it is hard to see how much you really gain from this but once you use it and get it there are a lot of gains you can make. I often end up having to edit files on remote servers and with the wallet in kde I can have it remember the password and use sftp and then bookmark the files I need to work with so I can just open up a local editor and work with files anywhere.

The other thing is the kpart system is kde is used extensively to share components. Spell check is configured once for all applications to share it, my text editing component is configured once and it does not matter if it is embedded in konqueror, kmail, kdevelop, kwrite etc it is the same editor settings. So when I view source code from any url it displays with the same highlights that I have configured just once. The same is true of the proxy settings, the address book etc etc.

KDE just has so many things integrated together well with the system. It is not just network aware like windows and macs are but darn near network transparent in many cases. I don't have to worry about ftping a file locally, editing it, saving it back etc I just open the resource edit it and it saves normally.

Many of these things are true for gnome also and are continuing to become more true overall especially and kde and gnome share more technology.

Windows and macs may be easier for new users, for people that don't have to deal with network stuff very often etc. However I do python devel with zope and end up dealing with a lot of network resources.

Maybe one day windows and macs will get a good vfs layer. However by the time they get that kde and gnome will have yet another feature that makes my life easier as a programmer also.

Re:I would not switch and prefer kde and gnome

[Anonymous Coward]

Overall I just find I can't be productive in mac osx or windows. Without a good vfs layer I find them a pain in the neck to use. I the kde io slave system the most...

Aren't you confusing terms here? The VFS layer is part of the kernel while kioslaves operate in userspace.

Re:I would not switch and prefer kde and gnome

[Ambassador Kosh]

The kernel has a VFS layer however the kde ioslave system and the gnome things are also VFS layers they just exist in userspace. The gnome one is even called gnome vfs.

VFS is just virtual file system. http, ftp, imap, sftp etc are not really filesystems but can appear that way under both kde and gnome to make management easier.

Steve Jobs

[jalet]

is that you ???

Re:The culture of "cheap".

[ziplux]

(1) Remember the MB's with bad caps?

Bad caps have nothing to do with x86, they were a manufacturing defect that actually found their way into more than just PC motherboards.

Re: Stability

[Craig Ringer]

Agreed regarding stability. I have recently found that our win9x machines in fact quite stable. They do play up sometimes, but in all cases a reset cures it - no random preferences corruption, no weird registry stuff-ups, nothing that just doesn't go away on its own.

As someone who utterly loathes Win9x, having suffered my time on it, this irritates me greatly ;-)

Our (one) XP box has caused much more trouble, usually with broken software updates. In part it's my fault - I've been stupid enough to try to have the system used day-to-day on a restricted user account, and it just doesn't f**ing work.

Then there's MacOS 9, which I'd rather not talk about. *shudder*.

yes, if

[rehevkor5]

simple answer: yes. if the performance and reliability was comparable to osx on mac.

Go to SPARC or other non-x86 first

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject says it all - competing in the x86 arena first is a big loser since it competes too strongly with the Mac hardware.

Hardware Drivers Issues

[GabrielPM]

I'm a Mac lover, owner and fanatic. That being said, I do acknowledge that most of the advantages of OS X come from having to deal with a more restrictive hardware set.

If they were to release a OS X version for x86, then they'd have to have a way to also support most of the x86 hardware out there, and much of it is bsod-inducing crap. So, I don't know...

x86 sucks!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't switch! And I wish every day that PowerPCs would power PCs. I've programmed Motorola assembler and x86 assembler. I've written many programs on computers with Motorola and x86 CPUs. All I can say from this point of view: x86 sucks!!! Next reason for this statement: PPC with 1,5GHz is as fast(faster) than 2GHz x86 PPC with 1,5GHz consumes about 10W max. x86 with 2GHz consumes about 80W max. This shows very well that x86 is a real bad design. Ok, this is off topic here. But I wanted to react aboutthe statement "I love x86...". Nobody should be insulted with my post. Everyone has the right to like/love what he/she wants.

What exactly would make you switch????

[zpok]

If Apple would switch, they'd still keep hardware in control. It's not only good business, doing differently with their set of requirements to USE the OS and assorted toys and programs, doing it differently wouldn't be POSSIBLE. It may be possible for people used to being plagued by incompatibilities, but your average mac user still gets pissed like hell when his machine gives him lip - as he bloody well should.

So, given that, you, the x86 user wouldn't switch, because you could still get cheaper stuff than that mac box.

Or is it an article of faith that x86 stuff is better than the power family? And incidentally that would still mean that some hardware wouldn't work on your mac/pc. So imo nothing would change.

I really don't see the point of this question, apart from reading slightly amusing posts.

mmm, come to think of it, perhaps a good "sunday" /.

Absolutely hot

[5cameron]

Dont mean to flame, but I feel the burning desire to point out some flaws in your charred logic.

Child windows are not inherently more intuitive. MS utilizes a application-oriented interface paradigm which is a whole different ballgame. You claim the paradigm is 'inferior' when 'attempting to multitask' yet you don't even provide anecdotal evidence to support what you're saying. Application switching can be performed with or without the dock, and the inclusion of Exposé leverages OS X's extremely intuitive document-oriented system. System preferences allows you to tone down or remove the 'endless eye candy' and the 'nix terminal as well as X11 allow you to change your interface as much as you like.

OS X 'aint for everybody. If you're content with Windows, stay cool. I was, and did, for 12 years. Besides, where would you get your 3d progz without Kazaa?

Is it hot in here, or is it just my post?

Re:Absolutely hot

[Figbash]

Fair enough, maybe I wasn't clear about what I was getting at. I personally feel the Mac OS X "paradigm" is inferior, at least for the type of programs I use the most. An example of this is using a program like After Effects on Mac OS X compared to using it on Windows. After Effects loads up numerous windows at once, and while they are all considered one application under OS X they cannot be resized or moved as one application, thus it makes it difficult to multitask with other applications as you basically have to switch to them to see what they're doing, or move/resize 5 windows to see it. I realize application switching can be done without the dock, but alt-tab and expose are both much slower for me personally on OS X. I have also toned down every eyecandy preference I can find on OS X, and it's still endless.
I would be interested to know in what ways you can change the interface, as I could never manage to find much information on the topic and I do have a (rather slow) mac as a second machine.
Anyway this is just all my opinion, I was simply responding to the question asked and my answer is that I wouldn't switch to OS X in it's current configuration, but that doesn't mean I feel that Windows is the only way to go. Later.

you are talking out of your ass

[eadint]

(a) It's even more expensive than Windows

Last i checked it comes free with the hardware and 99$ upgrades. cheaper than winblows

(b) Apple can't even make it totally stable on a hardware platform they entirely control, so how would it far on x86?

My powerbook hasnt crashed in two years. can you say that about a PC

(c) The OS doesn't like to give the user control of a lot of aspects of the user interface. Don't want various animations? Well... too bad.

Have you heard of coctail or onyx. guess what you can do all of the above.

(d) Chances are that if Apple ever ported OS/X they'd do it on a custom x86 sub-architecture with a custom BIOS etc. We all know how overdue x86 is for a good revamp, and the idea of x86 with OpenFirmware sounds mighty good to me. The idea of an x86 box at Apple prices with Apple hardware design principles does not.

the X86 arch is the worst architexture in the world. i pray that apple would never use it. if they went with spark or power4 or even opteron 64 sans the x86 instructions that would be ok.

as for cdroms
little hole and a paperclip work in a pinch

reset
theres a key sequence called force quit

mouse
i have a logiteck 3 buttom weel trackball that works great.

after reading your post i believe that you are an MS troll
i support win2k winxp osX solaris and SUSE out of all of them i get more work and less pain out of the OSX apple boxen than any other. if i was your employer you would be looking for a new job. anyone who thinks that XP is an operating system is a compleat moron.

Re: you are talking out of your ass

[Craig Ringer]

<p>Last I checked it comes free with the hardware and 99$ upgrades. cheaper than winblows</p>
</i></blockquote>

<p>Perhaps the pricing is different in the USA. However, while the initial install may be free, upgrades to MacOS X are annual and cost (in Australia) AU$229. That adds up to nearly AU$700 over three years. No upgrade pricing is offered. By comparison, WinXP costs AU$289 (OEM, shipped on the machine just like MacOS) and doesn't have to be re-purchased annually. MS also tend to offer upgrade pricing from old OS versions.</p>

<p>What Apple does have going for them in this regard is that AppleCare, which is AU$419, also includes OS/X updates. It's still more expensive than Windows, enough to matter for a business on a budget, but not as bad.</p>

<p>Now, I'm no fan of MS - but I find Apple's software pricing a bit over the top given the premium one already pays for their hardware.</p>

<blockquote><i>
My PowerBook hasn't crashed in two years. Can you say that about a PC?
</i></blockquote>

<p>A Windows PC - hell, no. Any MacOS X machine I've ever used - hell, no, though they seem much more stable than XP. A Linux box - hell no, but it seems more stable than both OS/X and Windows.</p>

<blockquote><i>
Have you heard of coctail or onyx? guess what you can do all of the above.
</i></blockquote>

<p>The tip is appreciated. If Apple will support users using those utilities, that even makes a difference. I'm very surprised they don't offer these basic options built into the operating system, though - there's nothing wrong with an "advanced settings" menu.</p>

<blockquote><i>
The x86 arch is the worst architecture in the world. I pray that Apple would never use it. If they went with Spark or POWER4 or even Opteron sans the x86 instructions that would be ok.
</i></blockquote>

<p>I agree - I think x86 is pretty shocking in design, it's hack layered upon hack. The hacks add up to make it work OK, but it's still pretty gross. Unfortunately, it's also cheap, mass-market, and fast.</p>

<p>Your comments about architecture choice leave me a bit puzzled. First, I can't see any point in Apple going to Spark - it'd be an instruction set change for little purpose, as the spark is also relatively expensive and niche market. As for POWER4, Apple is already using it in a cut down and slightly extended form - the G5.</p>

<p>Finally, regarding the Opteron, I believe you are seriously mistaken. The Opteron, you see, <i>is</i> x86 through and through. The 64bit support and extra instructions do not compose a whole new independent instruction set, but simply some extensions that also clean up and fix a few things like the pathetic lack of registers in x86. An Opteron without the x86 instrution set does nothing.</p>

<blockquote><i>
As for CD-ROMs, a little hole and a paperclip work in a pinch.
</i></blockquote>

<p>My point is that it's absurd that that is required, when there's a perfectly good eject button that the user is being prevented from accessing.</p>

<blockquote></i>
Reset - theres a key sequence called force quit.
</i></blockquote>

<p>Yes, and sometimes it works. However, if the OS crashes (OS9 does this quite a bit, and OSX occasionally too), that does you no good at all. What's wrong with having the reset switch there? That's what I don't get - why make life harder for the user?</p>

<blockquote><i>
Mouse - I have a Logitech 3 button wheel trackball that works great.
</i></blockquote>

<p>Yep. All the macs at work have MS optical wheel mice and they work great too. I just don't get why I have to buy them in the first place. I've given

X86 suck and apple is smarter than that

[eadint]

1) G5 is far superior to X86 in every way in two years X86 wont exist because your winblow will be running on a G5 decendant ( HAL anyone)
2) aplle is commited that all apple approved hardware will work on an apple, you cant do that in a comodity market.
3) if aplle went to anything it would be power4 or spark they are real processors not gamer boxen
4) i want to play my video games ( wawawa) thats why you still lice at your parents have no real job and cant get a date
5) anyone who says XP is an operating system and not the wors blight on humanity need to have a frontal lobotomy.
6) if you dont want winblows and you want to keep your peice of shit x86 get SUSE ive been playing around with it and its quite impressive.
7) whoever posed this question is a compleat moron and anyone who likes windows needs to be shot.

disclamer: i am not a apple fanatic

Dream on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac hardware is OK but way too expensive. OS-X is a beautiful OS which is only slow because it doesn't allow apps to hog the CPU - and it supports multi-button wheel-rodents too.

I dream of using OS-X on my PC in place of Windoze, but this will never happen.

Unfortunately for us consumers, Steve Jobs isn't stupid enough to do something that would make MacroShaft crush apple like an empty coke-can.

The moment Apple announced something like that, Office for Mac would cease to exist. And that would only be the beginning.

So keep on dreaming...

yes!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

in a f**king heartbeat. i've always said i'd be an apple guy if i had the money, especially since OS X. running pearpc just isn't the same.

The Apple x86 HCL

[Macka]

As to your question, one of the main reasons that OSX is able to be so stable and still provide all of the eye-candy is because of a very small HCL. That advantage would be lost by moving to the rather chaotic wintel platform

The answer to this is quite simple. Apple decide to produce their own x86 systems, and only sell and support Mac OS X on their own products. Every other vendors x86 platforms they ignore. That way they get to control the size and quality of the HCL, can innovate in the same way they do today, and keep hold of their hardware profits.

So what's the point of that I hear you ask ... well, Darwin is Open Source and already runs on x86. So those people who wanted to run Mac OS X on their off the shelf standard PC would be able to write drivers for it, or piggy back on other people doing it for them. Hey, it works that way for Linux and the other BSD projects. I'm sure there are loads of drivers in FreeBSD that would port over very easily too. Potentially Apple could even work with VMWare to make it a guest OS option to give people the experience, and add to the sales volume.

I admit that I don't see this ever happening in reality. But I do think Apple could make it work in a profitable way if they wanted to.

This Again?

[brokenvoice]

Look, if you can't afford a Mac, stop bitching about it. I'm sick to the back teeth of this idea.

I might...

[Celt]

Having used OSX I have to say if I could use it instead of WindowsXP I properly would switch.

The interface is less spammy then what WinXP offers and its much more user friendly aswell.

Though in saying that I'll properly switch all my machines to Linux with KDE soon enough...

The Mac alternative

[littleghoti]

I too am a student, and run a mac as my main machine. Unlike you I have bought a new machine in the last 4 years (but I don't think it counts- it is an SGI indy that is only new to me). My G4 cube cost me about a grand. I could probably sell it for 400 and upgrade to a 1Ghz emac for nothing-100. I've upgraded 3 times (2x RAM, one HD). I could also upgrade the processor if I wanted, and in the past I could upgrade the video with no problem, now it would be a hack, but I could do it. Finally, the machine is still perfectly acceptable for everything I do with it. (But when doom3 comes out I may have to reassess. ;))

Re:The Mac alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Doom 3 has been out for some time now...oh, you meant for the Mac. Well, I'll give you some hints and tips next year while I'm blasting through Doom 4.

Well said!

[Sentry21]

Well said poster, well said.

First, to agree with your statement, the majority of people who use computers use them for business (spreadsheets, e-mail, web browsing) or for 'home use' (encarta, websites, e-mail, word documents). These users don't need a 3.06 GHz P4 with 512 megs of ram, a 160 gig HD, and a GeForce FX Ti 8.09e52. Still, they pay for them.

Some novice users are getting into movie editing and photo editing. These people, they say, DO need that kind of power. They buy a PC and a digital camcorder and make DVDs of their family instead of home movies. Well yes, they can do that. That being said, doing so is easier on a Mac, and if it takes another 5 or 10 minutes to finalize the movie and finish encoding it, then fine, they can check the turkey in the oven, play with the kids, or set the table.

The only people that need the kind of power that PCs provide are the people building clusters (and the big clusters don't use P4s anyway), gamers (and the l33t c0unt3r5tryk3 d00ds can stay on PC until hell freezes over for all I care), and people that use software that wastes CPU cycles

(In Windows on my Cyrix 133, Winamp took 58% CPU to play an MP3 (40% if I buffered the song into memory), but in Linux on the same machine, XMMS took 3% CPU use streaming from disk).

If the cost of entry wasn't as high as it was, if there were business apps like Simply Accounting on the Mac, and if people weren't so full of anger and distrust regarding OS X because they've been taught to be by elitists for years, then I can't help but think that Windows machines could become a niche market. Honestly, there's not much a Windows machine could do that a Mac couldn't, and as consoles approach (and surpass) the power and abilities of PCs anyway, games might be even less of an issue.

I dream of the day when Macs are a serious contender for market share and Microsoft really does have to innovate or die. Then, and only then, will we see what Microsoft is truly capable of, when they have to fight to maintain their position. That is a dream I long to see realized.

--Dan

I would do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure would. This should be a survey, but I would.

Well, talk about showing ones self up

[Craig Ringer]

Gee, wasn't that stupid. All that, and I (a) forget to preview and (b) forget to enable HTML.

Colour me an idiot.

Re:Well, talk about showing ones self up

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, the content of your post did that for you.

Ridiculous and Insensitive

[SpeedyG5]

Man, I find this question offensive. I mean would you ask someone if they would switch colors. I mean I believe a person is born this way. IDo you know how hard it is, do you think mac people choose to be that way? Its all in the gene's. I mean when I was just a little kid I had a tendancy to use GUIs, all the while my friends where using DOS or Windwos 3.1. I didn't have the courage back then to admit what I was. I was a closet Mac'er, but I did not choose to be. What happened to the age of enlightenment.

I would

[varanama]

First, I ve read the review about the new OS X and there i havent found anything about the "brand new" scripting method that its supposed to have. Something like building scripts with action-blocks or stuff like that. Back to the topic: -->If it's ported to the x86 arquitechture and remain stable: -i would surely make a new partition and give it a try. -->And if (like the review said) its better than windows/linux for working: -i would start using it just for working, without having to sacrificate my windows xp for gaming :P Probably i would stop using linux =/

Canadian prices don't count

[Anonymous Coward]

How must is $5k canadian? around $1250 USD? You might as well get your quote from apple.mx in PESOS!

As far as the modem, I don't suppose you've ever heard of FAX?

Your generic junk "pc server" motherboard may well have two gige nics, but will probably never even be able to hit 100Mbps on either one.

Why do that?

[pab89]

I run Virtual PC for mac to run windows to run pearpc to run macOS to run virtual pc to run windows to run pearpc to run macOS.

pc cases look like trash

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is fitting, because the power supplies bundled with them are absolute JUNK!

Enterprise software...

[Cpt_Corelli]

Agreed, there is a lot for the average home user for Mac OS X. But when it comes to software most companies require there is very little available for OS X. Some things missing:

• Document management systems with Office integration such as Documentum, Windows Sharepoint Services etc.
• ERP systems. A previous poster mentioned that some of them have web interfaces. These, however, tend to rely heavily on Active X controls and hence won't work in any OS X browser.
• CRM systems, Siebel, Amdocs, etc.
• Business analytics software.

Upgrade Mytht

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wont the upgrade issue/myth die? You CAN upgrade macs. You can buy new/more ram, new/more hard drives, new/multiple videocards, new/more cd/dvd/whateverthefuck drives, etc... what the hell are YOU "upgrading" on your PC?... a USB coffee pot? hell we can pretty much thank apple for the prevalence of usb
Someone tell me what a "MAJOR" hardware upgrade is... If its not listed above then its a damn myth... oh buy a new mb, then your well on your way to a new comp... dont give me the upgrading cpu bs either. I know Im not gonna drop the cash for a new chip and stuff it in some old mb.
In my opinion a MAJOR hardware upgrade is called building a new computer. The only thing that comes along for the ride are peripherals.
So what is the appeal of a pc then?
I can upgrade my speakers with a new brain!!! Oooo look my monitor got a new upgrade, its called a P4!

Re:Upgrade Mytht

[shepd]

>You can buy new/more ram, new/more hard drives, new/multiple videocards, new/more cd/dvd/whateverthefuck drives, etc... what the hell are YOU "upgrading" on your PC?... a USB coffee pot? hell we can pretty much thank apple for the prevalence of usb

Ok, tell me how much the Mac that can handle these upgrades cost at the time it was on the market new:

- DVD/CD burning tower (4 drives minimum)
- Storage server (1 TB of dish space minimum)
- Gamer's box (Top of the line AGP + whatever gamers like)
- Video editing box (If you like Macs you probably know what you need for this, minimum 2 x SATA raided + firewire, etc)
- Network server (3 or 4 NICs)
- The "I NEED MORE MEMORY" box (2 GB RAM)

I can tell you right now a PC that could handle upgrades to all of those things would cost about $300 just 3 years ago. No, I'm not including the cost of the upgrades (Mac users should be happy about that -- Apple branded parts usually sell for far more than the OEM PC parts [made by the same manufacturer and on the same line, I might add]).

>In my opinion a MAJOR hardware upgrade is called building a new computer. The only thing that comes along for the ride are peripherals.
So what is the appeal of a pc then?

You don't waste money on a new set of decent peripheral parts. Example:

- DVD Burner ($100)
- CD Burner ($50)
- Hard Drive ($100)
- Case ($50)
- Power Supply ($50)
- Floppy Drive ($10)
- Video Card ($300)
- Memory ($200)

I suppose if you find $860 to not be worth the trouble, yeah, buying a totally new PC is a smart idea. If you buy garbage generic parts, your savings will vary. Of course, one can only hope you're not going to compare ECS to Apple.

Re:Upgrade Mytht

[Mr_Matt]

Someone tell me what a "MAJOR" hardware upgrade is

Power spike at work fried my old P4 motherboard. Fortunately, the mobo 'took one for the team' and spared the rest of the components. $100 later, with a new mobo (and PSU), I put the old P4 processor, RAM, graphics card, gigabit ethernet, and hard drive(s) on the new board, powered up, and was on my merry way.

If it'd been a Mac, I'd be buying a new computer.

In my opinion a MAJOR hardware upgrade is called building a new computer.

More power to you. Some of us work for a living, though, and we'd rather not drop two grand replacing parts when we can get away with the same thing for a hundred bucks.

Re:Upgrade Mytht

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs can be upgraded. The upgrade myth is just that, a myth. Is it as cheap to upgrade a mac as it is to upgrade a PC? In most cases, it is the SAME PARTS!!!! but in others, the mac parts are definitely more expensive. That shouldn't really be a suprise though.

In my powermac G4 that I bought several years ago, I have upgraded my processor (from 400 mhz to 1.5 ghz) added a radeon 9800 pro for gaming and dual monitor support, have been running two monitors since I brought it home, have 1.5 gigs of RAM, 4 different internal hard drives inside of it, one internal Zip that I added, but haven't used for about 2 years now, the stock DVD drive, an external firewire CDRW drive, and I think that is it. Oh, I bought a two button mouse. (is that an upgrade?). None of those upgrades were bought from Apple, and most of them were actually bought from PC stores, and put into my mac.

If my motherboard broke, yes, I could fix it. I could even upgrade it a bit if I wanted to. Same with the power supply, and anything else inside of this box. Macs are upgradeable. iMacs and ibooks may not be, but the "pro" line if macs are very upgradeable.

First lesson

[Ilgaz]

Maybe everyone is tired of saying it, let me say last time:
" I really like Mac OS X but I don't want to drop $2000 on a computer that is only as fast as an x86 computer at half the price. "

If you are even at levels of story submitting to /. PLEASE learn, MHZ just means number of clock cycles per second.

Some SGI's we use at broadcast are 600 Mhz machines. So, they must be slow as a P2?

Maybe.

[Cinquero]

But have you read the latest Mac (OS X) review on slashdot? The reviewer had a box with two 2 GHz CPUs, a Radeon 9600 (which he called _slow_!!!) and complained that it was sluggish using all the graphical enhancements. I'm running KDE 3.3, Thunderbird, Firefox and OpenOffice on a 1.4 GHz Centrino with a Radeon 7500 (16 MB) and I'm totally happy with it.

Linux is small and lean. And you can use top-notch apps if you like. The only advantage of OS X in that review was the way OS X lets the user switch between apps: hitting a special key resized, relocated and zoomed all open windows such that you can see and select them immediately and side by side. THAT is probably the only task I would really want to have under Linux/KDE.

Everything else is a waste of cpu power. Und such will be Longhorn. Of course, if you are a designer, it is always good to show your clients such useless but impressive stuff.

Give it a rest, already.

[Anonymous Coward]

For cryin' out loud! Go out and buy the new iMac G5. $1200 is not that expensive for a computer. The suite of software that's
INCLUDED is more than sufficient for most users.

cheap plastic?

[jpellino]

try bulletproof polycarbonate.

Re:cheap plastic?

[shepd]

>try bulletproof polycarbonate.

Bulletproof polycarbonate doesn't crack with just the stress of the screws holding it together. $2 Candy phones and $0.10 CD cases, on the other hand...

BTW: $0.05 CD-Rs are made of polycarbonate. You'd be better protected from a bullet by a phone book, though.

Becoming less and less likely

[sagefire.org]

Back when OSX was in beta, I listened to a lot of this x86 port speculation. It was a lot more believeable back then. You see OpenStep (the predecessor to OSX beta) was already cross platform. They had even made a version of Rhapsody that installed as a layer into windows.

Apple has a long history of writing (or collaborating on) uber-cool System Software and abandoning it (anyone else remember PINK? or how about OpenDoc?).

It looks a bit different with Darwin for x86 though. As long as Apple keeps to its word and publishes changes to Darwin, the x86 version will track the cnages made to the PPC version (even if it is a bit behind sometimes).

If you head over to http://www.gnustep.org/ you will then find out about a very active GNU project to duplicate OpenStep 4.4 (the last version before the purchase by Apple). It is almost complete, and if you look through their roadmap, you will see that they plan to track the cnages forst to Rhapsody and then work toward the OSX changes.

What does all this really mean?

Well, right now, it is possible to load up Darwin (or linux) and make sure you have all the GNUstep libraries installed, then you would be able to head over to http://www.omnigroup.com/ or http://www.stone.com/ and grab the old versions of OmniWeb and Create for OpenStep x86 and you can compile them yourselves!

If you are interested in recreating the NeXT experience, why not go whole hog and load up the linux distro called Simply GNUstep (which only includes GNUstep tools and GUI stuffs wherever possible).

What would all this really give you?

Right now, all you would get is outdated versions of OpenStep applications (most /.ers would not be happy with that).

If Apple did a port of its own, you would probably be able to run all Cocoa apps but not apps that are Classic or Carbon (because those depend upon parts of Old MacOS.

In fact, that was the reason why I believed the x86 rumors back in the days of beta. Most apps were Carbon and Classic. An x86 version back then would have servered as an advertizement and not a complete threat to Apple's hardware business.

I would look to Apple playing with other more exotic chipsets and not x86. They need low power consumption, faster chips, not x86 compatibility. It's too bad that AMD Hammer Macs or SPARC Macs never materialized.

Something like them may happen (especially since projects like PearPC have gotten better at emulating the PPC chipset) but look to Apple to move up the food chain toward Workstation Hardware and across the chain toward advanced Embedded Chips (maybe adding Cell Phone or some such function to its iPod) and not down.

The eMac or something like it will continue to be the bottom of its line. At $699 including a well-built monitor, its a pretty good value actually.

same as with NEXTSTEP

[cocoa moe]

We had NEXTSTEP for Intel a while back. This was after NeXT was sure they would not sell enough hardware to be profitable anytime.

So if Apple released OS X for x86 this would mean the end of Apple, the last chapter of their history. Nobody in the Intel-World is waiting for a clean, stable user interface or Objective-C Frameworks. What they want is Windows without the bugs and the maybe cool snappy iLife-Applications.

So basically OS X for x86 would suffer the fate many other Intel-Unices: It would be ignored by everyone.

While the old Macs would still run flawlessly, drivers on x86 would not be updated until the whole OS is obsoleted.

I am however talking about standard PC hardware. If apple decided to create an supposedly incompatible x86-based computer and be profitable selling it, there would be hardly any difference to the world of today.

Mac-Users will not learn to love ordinary PCs.

Menus on multiple monitors are screwed up

[Space cowboy]

Sorry, I can't agree with what you say.

I've got 2 1600x1200 monitors set side by side, with a Belkin box to switch one of them, and 2 leads into the back of the other and a front panel switch. I can switch between linux/OSX by pressing two buttons, and they both run at the same resolution.

If I can't remember the menu shortcut, it takes me a *lot* longer to pull down the menu on the Mac than it does on a linux application...

• I have no problem at all moving the mouse a small distance to a point on the screen that's already in my field of view (since I'm using the application).
  
• I have a much larger problem turning my head to another screen, moving the mouse all the way over two screens and locating the pulldown, doing what I want, moving the mouse all the way back to the dialogue or 'drawer' that's just popped up, and clicking 'ok'. This is with the 'tracking speed' set to about 3/4 on the mouse - any more and I find close control harder to manage.
  

On a single screen, it's not really an issue. On two screens, it really is a problem. Since Apple have complete control over the UI and the layout, it might be a useful option to allow the menubar to be additionally embedded within the window titlebar as a cross-application standard...

Just my 2 pennyworth...

Simon

Re:Menus on multiple monitors are screwed up

[Dixie_Flatline]

Actually, it sounds like what you need is duplication of the important menu items on BOTH monitors somehow, without being confusing or messing up your menu bar. This is interesting.

Could you do me a small favour and determine approximately how large a menu item is on your screen? I just need a height/width approximation for both OSes. Oh, and the size of your monitors in the same units as those menu items. I'd be interested to do some back of the envelope calculations to see how fast you could THEORETICALLY be getting to menu items. :)

I'll get back to you with the results, if you like.

Re:Menus on multiple monitors are screwed up

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds more to me like he needs to learn some keyboard shortcuts and/or get a decent context sensitive menu by right-clicking. On the latter, Mac OS falls down because the default mouse doesn't do right-clicking-- therefore it's not a real option (and don't pretend that ctrl/option/apple-button clicking is an appropriate substitute for simply having a versatile pointing device, it's not).

Re:Menus on multiple monitors are screwed up

[Space cowboy]

Well, 'Bookmarks' is approx 18mm wide x 5mm high on Linux (Mozilla), and approx 19mm x 5mm on OSX (Safari).

Both screens are Iiyama Vision Master Pro 413's, horizontal 320mm, vertical 233mm (measurements made approximately, with a ruler to the edges of the displayed screen bitmap, so take with a pinch of salt :-)

One other thing, I had to move my screensaver-on 'hot corner' from top-left because I constantly used to get it triggered whenever I wanted the 1st menu :-(

Agreed, that putting the same menu bar on both screens would probably alleviate the problem as well, but I really have no problem finding (for example) the quick-link at the top of the Safari browser...

Simon.

Oh yeah... Bring it on..

[jedimark]

Darwin is microkernel. good first step to a decent(er) OS.
A decent GUI with that nifty expose thingy and lots of other eye candy on a PC? I'm still not complaining.
But I think you Mac nerds are too protective of your precious hardware. (my wife wont let me near her mac..) I'm sure you'd all like to see x86 crumble - and I agree, x86 is a crusty old platform, but without competition the G5 wouldn't have anything to shite all over... ;-)
I'm still sticking with my gentoo box for now.. And I dont care what architechture lies underneath...

Re:Oh yeah... Bring it on..

[DrVxD]

> my wife wont let me near her mac..

That's not Mac nerds being protective of their hardware - that's a woman not trusting a man :)

Re:Oh yeah... Bring it on..

[jedimark]

Considering my original plan was to turn it into a fish tank, it's no wonder she doesn't trust me with it.. :-)

I would stay with PowerPC and not switch to i386

[Anonymous Coward]

No I would not switch, I have thought about this long in the past. but one of the many things that I like is that apple hardware plays nicer then i386. I am an advanced user, but nothing make me more upset then trying to get people to update their hardware, then end up purchasing some i386 with Microsoft on it. If i386 prooved to be stable I would say yes, but I have problems runing Linux on i386, and better luck on PowerPC.

mm

[italy]

I might switch. I don't dislike Windows nor OSX. I don't like Linux, however because it's not a desktop system.

definitely!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would definitely switch.
It's what i've been waiting for all this while! the ease of use and excellent graphics of the mac, coupled with cheap hardware!
go apple!

Here's the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is seeing success recently not just because of Mac OS X, but because of the whole package - OS and software to be sure, but also physical style, hardware design and architecture. The fact is, the G5 is a pretty smokin' processor for the price, and if it wasn't, there's no way schools and government agencies would be buying them up for cluster use instead of Xeon-based systems.

Now, you contest that the price of a decent Mac is $2000. Actually, you can enjoy OS X from $799, but let's play your game. The dual 1.8GHz G5, Apple's high-end machine for professionals, starts at $1999 sans DVI monitor. Let's see what a competitive Dell costs:

It actually costs $2237 for a single 32-bit P4 3.4GHz with a frontside bus at 800mhz (Dual 1.8 G5 has combined 3.6GHz - I know, I know, but the P4 isn't exactly efficient, so any way you want to slice it - with bus speeds 900mhz - and remember it's 64-bit).

XP Pro for the most OS X-like operating system on Windows.

A free printer, which you can also get from Apple.

512MB memory (okay, this would up the price of the G5 another $75).

128MB Radeon X800SE DVI/VGA/TV out on the Dell. Point to dell - add $50 to the PowerMac to grab 128MB via a Radeon 9600 with dual-DVI out.

80GB hard drives and CD-RW/DVD-R burners all-around.

No MS Office or virus protection software on either system, but added FireWire to the Dell, and the cheapest Finance (the G5 comes with QuickBooks), Photo Album, and Video/DVD Editing options to try to make the bundled software comparison about even with Apple's iLife suite (iPhoto/iTunes/iMovie/iDVD/Garageband).

Add all this up and the Dell is STILL at least $125 more than the Power Mac. So my question is, what's all this fuss about paying more for the same specs? And the funny thing is, Apple's price-performance ratio only gets better as you go up the G5 line. Add an extra $500 and you gain the memory I had to add for $75, double your hard drive capacity, gain 400MHz of speed, and really start to blow Dell out of the water.

I wish people would let go of the misconception that Macs are so darn expensive. Let's face it - you get what you pay for, and then some. If people would realize this, we wouldn't have to talk about Mac OS X on x486 (which, by the way, would add about $129 to the price of your Dell).

Maybe

[pecosdave]

I like OSX, but I'm not sure I would give up all my Linux systems for it, though I would consider it. Then I would go to work and BEG them to get rid of Windows in favor of it. I don't use Windows at home. On anything.

Re:i wouldnt, i would

[denthijs]

I own a mac because it has a superior OS that almost gives me the power linux used to give me, but without the configuration hassle we all grown to love/hate
If they can make it run at 'normal' speeds on commodity hardware i definitely switch back to x86
so i guess they'll never do that, .. apple makes money on hard, not software

rare?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all if you work with your computer. Even for the scientific applications with ports to other OSs, I'm not paying extra licenses when they're worth thou$ands.

i may be

[Anonymous Coward]

will i switch? what does that mean? unisntalling my openbsd? no, I will install it that is for sure, i will like it? yes i will like the idea, but don't misunderstand me, i won't pay for it, i will still pirate it from bittorrent. so honestly i don't give a damn, if they offer, i will use it, besides my other OSs.

iMac G5

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like OS X. I like it more than Windows XP which is why I am planning to buy an iMac G5 when OS X Tiger is released (and the iMac G5 has some more hardware options like a better graphics card). Mac is more expensive however I have found the quality of the hardware to be of a really high quality.

I would not switch

[Anonymous Coward]

An equally equipped Dell would actually cost more than an Apple (that is, if you can actually get the equivalent, not just speeds, ports, but also noise, screen real estate, actualy quality of monitor, etc.). I think I read a review not so long ago that they tried to build a Dell equivalent to a G5 iMac and came up that it had to cost $1000 more, not less.

My personal experience with cheaper hardware is: you get what you pay for. Apple's performance used to be a lot lower for the same price, but those days are long gone it seems to me.

Tricky....

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably I'd have it as well as linux, but once it could run linux binaries and wine was working I'd be pretty tempted to switch from linux... but then you still wouldn't get many mac programs (if any) for OSX on x86 and there'd probably be compatability issues... the only way this to be any real use is
- Applications being ported to it (I doubt too many would be - and if it was likely they were going to be apple would never port OSX in the 1st place!)
- Wine being able to run most windows programs on it (as an ardent follower of wine on linux, I can tell you it's not quite ready)

So, all in all... it is unlikely to happen, and if it did wouldn't replace windows, but maybe linux.

Only to play

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a mac user already (3 machines ruuniing OS X) but have also have a number of intel platforms running various versions of Linux, and one (shock, horror) Windows 2000 server.

I've been experimenting with OpenDarwin on x86 and have got it running stably on a 3 year old compaq laptop. It makes an OK apache server but doesn't bring any benefits over linux that I can see. If OS X was available on x86 I'd try it out, just to see. I'd need some convincing that it's truly better than any other OS on x86 though.

Why should Apple or I waste each other time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly question to start with. Even worse comments. Cost of hardware isn't a factor anymore. If there was a market, Apples would be just as cheap as Win32 machines. It's not the hardware, it's the path of least resistance.

Apple G4 and G5's are great machines and do their job well. Lowering the hardware cost won't impact the solution cost. Apple will continue to sell Mac's for whatever the market will permit.

Apple keeps thier products in academic circles, so the academic privelege mindset is pampered and there is a significant trickle down effect.

People tend to take the path of least resistance. If teethed on a Mac, they want a Mac. Cost isn't a primary factor when faced with using and learning a new OS.

This isn't a technical issue, it's an economic and social issue.

A 'perfect version' woudln't run perfectly

[Anonymous Coward]

The PC architecture has a lot of cruft and has been cruddy right from the 8086, over the years more and more layers have been added a perfect version just wouldn't work as well as one running on a G5...
This whole subject is silly, apple apps would need to be recompiled to work on X86, plus all the different configurations of X86 to support, it'd be a nightmare, bye bye stability, bye bye applications... really the whole thing would be a costly, pointless and embarassing failure!
If you *really* want to run mac apps on a pc, try pearpc (of course in emulation it will be very slow).

x86 for FreeBSD, ppc for Mac OS X

[n0dez]

Having an x86 and FreeBSD why I would run something different on my servers? Porting Mac OS X to the x86 would remove the hardware integration factor and would make Mac OS X less attractive (at least for me).

Re:x86 for FreeBSD, ppc for Mac OS X

[nenolod]

It's already been done, all they need is the Aqua part done: www.opendarwin.org

resale value my friend

[kraksmoka]

the fact is, macs last longer, they are made better, and they resell extremely well!

personally, i just got a new 12" powerbook. spent $1600 total (had to buy airport) and this made great economic sense, because i sold my old 667 Tibook for $475.

when a PC is old, what can you do with it? if you're lucky, you don't have to pay for it to be recycled.

Re:resale value my friend

[steeviant]

Keep smoking that krak man, the track record of the Macs I have owned, my 667Mhz GigE PowerBook had no less than 9 serious hardware failures in two years, and the replacement Apple gave me after threatening legal action (1GHz AlBook) has been into the shop for latch problems 5 times now and still isn't working right.

It may just be that all laptops are shit these days, but I've owned a lot of PC laptops and never had anywhere near the number of problems as I have with the two Macs I've owned.

Then again, it doesn't seem like I've had the typical run of luck with PowerBooks, and I can't exactly say my sample size of 2 is very scientific. But it's a free (as in speech) internet, and I'm allowed to whine...

Re:resale value my friend

[kraksmoka]

i have seen a couple of slightly wormy apples in my time. However, and no offense to you, maybe you recieved reconditioned machines or used, that were abused, but. . . . . .

most of the people that have trouble with macs that i have observed, are terribly abusive to their machines. i knew one guy who managed to get a machine out of apple, after he dropped it repeatedly, spilled coffee on it, and probably untold horrors. his main goal was a free upgrade. and he beat that machine up too.

i think on the whole, mac users report that the apple hardware is of high quality and lives through lots of standard use.

my last 667 went thru three years between 2 power users, the first a 24/7 ebayaholic, and then he sold it to me and i beat it into my graphics design business, didn't shut the damn thing off for 2 years. by the end, one of the hinges was cracked, the battery is way low and the paint is disintegrated near the wrists from use, yet, 450 bucks was still a bargain to the buyer, and the machine still runs great!

Re:resale value my friend

[steeviant]

The machines were both brand new, and in unopened boxes. I have transported both laptops in a padded and armoured backpack, I also used a leather screen protector on the TiBook when transporting or storing it. I have never dropped either of them, I have only scratched the underside on either machine (there are no scratches on the albook, even though I have had it for nearly 6 months). I have never had problems with the hard drives or CD ROM drives in either machine, which (being moving parts) you would expect to be the first things to give up the ghost if the machines were being abused.

The laptops have both been very well used, but also well treated. I've never had these kind of problems with the other laptops I've used, and I've owned a few, about 6 in the last 10 years from various different manufacturers. If anything I treat these machines better than any others I've owned because I paid more for the TiBook than I've ever paid for any piece of computer equipment in my life.

I'm not knocking Apple, because I know plenty of other people have owned both types of laptop without having an endless string of problems like I have, I just feel I have to tell people about my situation when they say how great the quality of Apple hardware is. To be fair, they replaced the machine after only threatening legal action, so I didn't actually have to go to court. Although I got a free upgrade, I would've been much happier if the TiBook could survived a year in the life of any other laptop instead of spending week after week in the shop being repaired. Now that I have another machine that's repeatedly failing, I'm starting to wonder about the legendary quality of Apple hardware, and I think others should know.

Re:resale value my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

The iBooks have that rather infamous logic board problem. I dunno how the G4 iBooks are doing, but I no longer know anyone with a G3 iBook (11 people) that hasn't failed. 6 of them have failed more than once, and a friend and I are tied for most failures at 5.

about kludges

[MegaFur]

The PC is so full of kludges it's amazing that it still works.

Yeah, but isn't Linux, and more importantly the general *nix family of OSes chock full of backwards (and cross) compatibility kludges as well?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm no windoze fan. I know full-well windoze is an ugly botch of an ugly hack from hell. The people working on the WINE project get to find out about the deeply buried windoze flaws one bug at at time. (Uh, I'm not on the WINE project, I just felt like mentioning them. :) )

I know that, when compared to windows, Unix looks pretty streamlined. It's just, it seems to me that accumulation of cruft is par for any popular platform. Apple only just recently "cleaned house" with the switch to OS X. They support their old crufty system with ugly, slow emulation, but that's actually a good thing because it helps ensure the old crufty will mostly die off.

In time however, no matter how well Apple designed the snazzy OS X and the hardware it runs on (well they didn't exactly design all the hardware, but you know what I mean), I suspect the OS X platform will accumulate cruft.

Re:about kludges

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, operating systems are full of kludges, too. However, it is possible to remove those kludges, and only software that relies on them will break. I'd say that if you did this on a GNU/Linux or BSD system, you would be left with a clean system that would still run most apps, and some more with minor modifications.

In the x86, the legacy modes and instructions cannot be removed, because the software relies on them during boot up - even though modern systems get the legacy cruft out of the way as soon as possible. Secondly, even the non-legacy stuff in the x86 is crufty as hell. This means that, were you to strip out the legacy modes, you would be left with a crufty CPU that would run no software.

I think there are quite fundamental differences here.

And regarding OS X: the cruft is already there, and has been there from the beginning. I'd say Darwin is a bit cleaner than GNU (which is bloated with all kinds of extensions), but look at the filesystem, for example. HFS+ volumes look like HFS volumes with one file; a text file that describes that this is an HFS+ volume and you need at least System so and so to mount it. Filenames are case-insensitive. Disk Utility works with images created with old macintoshes, although the modern format is completely different. And that's not even the tip of the iceberg.

So here's another argument that illustrates the difference: with CPUs, I have choice. There are better, cleaner architectures than x86, which work now and run any software I want. With OSes, I don't. OSes always carry legacy cruft (unless you design one from scratch, but it will likely have design flaws and lack applications).

I already did. (support, costs, hardware quality)

[soward]

I used Openstep for x86 when it appeared at the end of the NeXT run. NeXT being smaller than Apple could only support a few bits of hardware, but if you bought the right pieces, it ran well. Though Apple is a larger company, the voulme of available hardware has expanded, so support for various components would still be an issue.

And of course there would be costs. Look at the software Apple bundles in, from iPhoto, iDVD, to their complete development environment, XCode. Waaaay more than you get with the XP pro box. Folx should figure that in when doing their x86 vs Apple hardware comparos. I figure OS-X would be at least a $499 product and maybe a $699 product.

But it's really not quite fair to compare low-end self-assembled products to Apple hardware. Coming from someone whos basement is strewn with machines, a dozen plus x86 machines, some 'box o parts' machines, plus stuff from HP, Dell, IBM, a few apples, a stray SUN or DEC here there -- I can tell you that the Apple gear is built more on par with Sun, or (old) SGI workstation hardware. Things like OpenFirmware let you do really interesting stuff. Like Firewire target mode, where, by booting your mac with the T key held down, the whole machine becomes a giant firewire harddrive. Pair this with Apple's new setup assistant and you can plug your new Mac into your old Mac, boot it up, and it will move all your accounts, applications, and other bits onto your new machine as it completes the setup. That would require a lot of fiddling and some third party software to acheive under windowz.

Not for x86, but I already did ... from Linux!

[papaia]

As a network and security person, I have never been able to justify/use any of the Microsoft systems on my systems equipped with tools for such areas, as I couldn't compile (or find binaries) for the majority of the stuff I am interested in - but I have used Linux for a long time for this. Now - when MacOSX came out with Panther - it was about the same time I was building a honeynet, struggling with some tools on a Linux laptop, to be used as monitor. A friend of mine had a G5 desktop, and challenged me to share with him the source of some programs I was having problems getting to run in Linux (libnet versions usually are the "killers" of sanity here) - and he had them all up in 1/10 of the time I've spent! Next thing? Apple store --> G4 1GHz iBook + 640 MB of RAM and ABSOLUTELY all the tools I have ever used/tried/dreamed of having, installed and running on this machine. Would I switch - then - from my Linux x86 machines at home, from Linux to MacOSX? If in need for tools, and to save my sanity + the best GUI I have ever worked with + the highest stability of any system I have worked ==> of course!

peel Mac OS X off the hardware? sure!

[grikdog]

Mac OS X is already just a Unix emulator that runs on generic hardware. Just as I can emulate CP/M faster than it ever ran on on my Kaypro 10, under Mac OS 9 (Classic) under Mac OS X 10.3.5, I would be happy to be able to restore my ASR images onto x86 or any other silicon aggregrate out there. In 20 years it would be nice to see my entire iBook running on a low-end holographic screen GameBoy.

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I would.

It's not quite that nice

[GlobalEcho]

Try finding an all-in-one (print/fax/scan) that works if you happen to use Fast User Switching. It doesn't exist. (BTW I just RMA'd the latest offering from HP)

I wish the built-in fax played nicely with an answering machine!

Re:uh, software? adobe video collection vs fc expr

[Anonymous Coward]

wow i like how you compared logic with audition. hahaha...that's damn funny.

so, how many professional music studios use audition?

actually, even better comparing premiere to final cut pro...

the pros use avid or final cut pro dude...

The Quality Would Suffer

[catdevnull]

If Windows only ran on one configuration built by Microsoft, then it would probably be more stable and perhaps more secure. All the drivers would be fine-tuned, there would be no IRQ conflicts, no hardware incompatibilies, mystery meat drivers, etc.

If Apple were to port their OS for the x86 architecture, they would inherit all the problems that MS has with Windows as they would try to become all things to everyone. Having a standard set of hardware and known combinations thereof is a huge advantage for Apple's ability to keep developing and innovating.

If IBM had never licesnsed the cloning of their PC, the world would have been a much different place and this question would probably be, "If MS ported Windows to run on Apple...."

To address the question: no--I'd stay with my Apple hardware. I rather like the design and they have most of the same basic components save the logic board. I'd rather not be a shady-tree mechanic on my home computers (I do enough of that at work on PCs).

Your mileage and opinion may vary.

--

I want the other around

[dillee1]

I prefer the PowerPC arhitecture over the kludge-on-kludge-on-kludge x86. x86 is shit, IDE is shit, most hw on PCs are kludgy. Mac hw are very clean and design ground up. I don't have interest on desktop user oriented OS like MacOS though.

no

[Anonymous Coward]

see subject

Geeks === Cheep

[amichalo]

Let's all face it, the reason us geeks don't, in general, buy Macs, music on-line, software, or manuals is that we feel this sort of entitlement that we know how to get around so many things and it becomes a fun game. There was that 'secret' BBS that had all the copyprotection hacks for Kings Quest and if you are 'smart', you can use Linux for FREE and don't have to pay the 'Microsoft Tax'.

It has been engrained in us that we don't HAVE to pay because we can figure out how not to and sub-contiously, paying, and especailly OVER-paying is analogous to being a non-tech who has no other choice and so we reject it with all out beings.

So get the hell over yourselves. You know what, the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, and Macs are awesome, 'premium prices' be damned. Take a look at teh 64-bit all-in-one iMac G5 that starts at $1,300 including a gorgeous display. If you've never been to the Apple Store, do yourself a favor and go.

So to answer the question, no, I wouldn't switch because the x86 architecture is a thing of the past living in the present. The best computing experience these days is coming out from Apple and that includes both the software and the hardware.

Re:Geeks === Cheep

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but can you run OSX on a 386?

(No troll intended.)

I'd set up at least one machine with OS/X x86

[Anonymous Coward]

Particularly if it supported AMD64. After all, why not support another OS on industry standard hardware?

People don't know what 'architecture' means.

[argent]

People don't know what 'architecture' means, so it's no surprise that someone would come up with that kind of comment.

What they're really a fan of is the market that makes it profitable for Intel and AMD to spend outrageous amounts of resources to make the hoary old x86 run so fast, by building chips with better architectures that emulate the x86.

I don't think it would be useful for AMD to make their internal architecture public. As I understand it, it's VLIW, so you'd need to recompile your code every time a new version came out. Intel is allegedly using a RISC-style vertical microcode, so it may be possible for them to keep compatibility at the microcode level at least within a couple of generations, but since they have the luxury of redesigning the internal architecture with each generation it's likely you'd still need to recompile for performance as you have to on the IA64/Itanium.

What I wish is that when Intel bought their share of the Alpha from DEC they'd done what they did when they bought the StrongARM from DEC. They simply labelled the next generation the "Intel XScale" and everyone's forgotten where it came from. They could have simply relabelled the next generation Alpha the "Intel AXP" or something, and pretty soon everyone would think of it as an Intel chip. Remember that until it got Compaqted it stayed at or near the top of the performance charts pretty much for its whole life, despite having a tiny fraction of the resources the x86 architecture has had to play with.

Nope.

[matyas47]

As many posters have pointed out, even Apple were to do this (which they won't), software support on a hypothetical X86 OSX would be pretty much nonexistent. One of OSX's greatest strengths is that it allows *nix-derived FOSS apps and mainstream commercial software to coexist pretty nicely on the same platform. But do you really think that all those commerical vendors, who pretty recently went through the trouble of porting their flagship apps from OS9, or 'Doze, or even *nix to PPC OSX are going to port them to x86 OSX? Does Adobe really want to have three binaries of Photoshop to have to worry about maintaining? And I highly doubt that it would be a simple matter of recompiling, because of stuff like optimizations. In my case, I'm typing this on an x86 Linux box, but I also own a G4 P-book. I love OSX, but I went with it because of app support - not eye candy, or style. I'm not talking about M$ Office here, either - I mean pro audio stuff. I need to run ProTools and Max/MSP (yes, I tried Ardour and Pd - good, but not there yet). Audio, video, and graphics people are still Apple's core market. That's why there desktop machines are workstation-class behemoths. You're just not going to get the commercial app support on an X86 OSX, and while there are a lot of great F/OSS apps that would run great on it, if that's what you want, you might as run Linux or *BSD.

I feel dumber for having read this thread

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest

Sales != Profit

[Big Sean O]

If you had a choice to spend $90 to make $100 or spend $10 to make $50, which one would you choose? If you had a choice to make $5 profit on 100 units or $1 profit on 10,000 units which one would you choose?

There's plenty of reasons why Apple should or shouldn't port OS X to PC architechture, and profit margin is one of them, but it's not a simple matter of gross sales.

On an alternate note, you _do_ have OS X available for PC architecture, it's called Linux... One of the reasons I buy from Apple is:

(a) I like the hardware, I feel it's better made and lasts longer

(b) I like the software: Safari, Mail.app, iTunes, and the unix-y command prompt work for me

(c) I like the durability and backward compatability. My main desktop is a iMac DV SE (Graphite), which I bought in 2000. I've never had anything break on it, and it runs Mac OS X 10.3 Panther like a champ. I'm getting ready to replace it with an iMac G5, not because I have to, but because I want to reclaim desk space.

Sure, why not?

[wazoo42]

Anything not microsoft is worth a try or two in my book. I would really like it to have amd64 support before doing so though. Linux is getting there, but it is slow going in my opinion so it will be a while before I switch over to it.

I did

[microbox]

I replaced the memory and hard disk on my eMac. Don't know about replacing the CPU, but I'm sure it can be done (so long as you stay in the G4 line). I'm sure you _can't_ touch the motherboard, but how often to you replace the motherboard on your computer and keep the case?

You can find instructions on the internet on how to mess with it, it's not that hard.

same old debate between mac and pc...get over it!

[Anonymous Coward]

was anyone else alive in the 80's? there used to be a commercial that made fun of Russia... a lady would walk out on to the stage wearing a dull gray moo moo. the announcer shouted, "Morning wear!" then she walked out again wearing the same ugly moo moo and the announcer shouted, "Evening wear!" she came out and twirled around in the same clothes once again for "Spring wear" or something. the point was that Russians have no sense of quality or fashion. they didn't "get" the American standard of style. same for PC users who come on this board and say, "blaaah, blaah, i can build an equivalent pc to a mac for $500." the truth is: no, you can NOT. personally? i could care less. i'm just not going to lose sleep over the mac and pc wars. i use both, and both have their good and bad points. Apple sucks because there is NO software for it. damn, man. I mean there is software, lots of it... but go and look at yEnc clients - there is ONE for the Mac. go and try to find some free C programming tools for classic Mac OS. practically none. and so on. On the other hand windows sucks because it's interface sucks the wank of a donkey - choppy text, 256 color icons, stupid .dll conflicts every other second, a ridiculous registry, and a cheesy ass animation of an orange dog when you search for files. Their interface is so bad that it's insulting. I am not joking. I feel personally insulted every time I use Windows because it's like they are intentionally saying, "We purposely going to make a bad interface, and YOU, dumbass, will sit there and use it." And then there is the "snappiness" and cleanliness of the interface in Mac programs like RealBasic - but BOOM when it gets ported to PC, it loses a certain something which can not be put into normal words. It would take a poem to fully explain what applications lose when they move from Mac to PC. They gain clunkiness, they lose snappiness. I don't just mean how long it takes once you click the mouse for something to happen... I mean there is a certain j'ne se quois to the matter. So, all in all: Mac users - get over it. These people who say stuff like they can build a comparable Frankenstein PC to a Mac for $500, just don't get it. And PC users - you need to get over it too. Because most Mac users don't view their machines as just gaming machines. Macs are very cool, PCs are very cool. Just realize what each offers and get what you need. Jesus God! It would seem insane to find a chat room with people arguing for YEARS about whether toasters or toaster ovens were better.

Duh!

[Falshrmjgr]

I'd be on it like white on rice.

marketshare

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, since the whole PC market is growing at an phenomenal rate (I don't have any concrete figures, could someone help out here), I don't think many people have considered this...

Even if Apple's marketshare remains at a constant 2-5% (of a growing market remember), wouldn't that mean that there are more and more macs being sold? That Apple are actually making more money?

Isn't that the point of business? To show qualitative growth? To make more profit each year? Because it seems like Apple is doing just that. Who cares if they don't own 90% of the market. They are making bucketloads and that's all that matters.

Oh and another observation...here in Australia I've noticed, with the release of the latest iMac G5 and also the whole spyware fiasco, it seems like Apple is beginning to grab a greater mindshare, which, down the line, possibly may result in even more sales (and maybe marketshare).

Add to that fact that many of the kids around reckon my icebook (and also OS X) is the coolest-looking computer they've seen...they're beginning to create awareness within the next generation. And when they are able to afford it when they get older, they just might buy Apple.

I don't think Apple has to worry too much about the future...

What?

[fsck!]

Back to x86? You've got to be kidding.

Re:Fight than Switch rev 2

[not_hylas( )]

http://home.sandiego.edu/~reinholz/rhapsody.htm

Re:Would Microsoft recompile Office for Mac for x8

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd probably stop writing software for Macs completely apart from Virtual PC.

Curious

[saha]

Finding software for OS X/x86 will be just as hard, if not HARDER than it is for PPC. I don't own a Mac, actually, I use x86 hardware at home, but admin about 200 Macs at work.

Out of pure curiosity, what kind of OS are you running on your x86 machine at home. I have both Windows 2000 and a Mac OSX at home, plus BeOS I play around with for purposes of nostalgia.

I admin a more mixed environment at work, which these days has more PCs, Macs, Sun, HP(UX), SGIs, Linux boxes in that order. Wish more people in my department would buy Macs and make my life a whole lot easier.

That's why AMD's so great...

[ebyrob]

They go for as cheap as possible without pursuing this "Maximum MHZ at all costs" garbage...

Hating microsoft.

[HeX86]

People hated windows 2000 before it came out. People hated windows xp before it came out. People will hate longhorn before it comes out. That's just how people are with microsoft, they're afraid of things they don't know yet.

Get that thing fixed!!

[ebyrob]

Unless that's a pure entertainment system, running on a system with messed up hardware is a gigantic risk and a complete waste of time. You could get disk corruption at any moment, or have your software do any number of random and unexpected things which you could spend days trying to fix. Heck your data may already be corrupted and you wouldn't even know it yet...

From Win to OS X or from Mac to a PC?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,

while powerfull PCs are faster than "normal" Macs Macs have a lot of benefits :D

They look beter :D he he, but yes: they are less loud! So I never would exchange my Mac for a PC, but probably for a even better Mac.

As I have Windows PCs, I certainly would switch them to Mac OS X; if they would run Aqua. But, I would want to have access to the old applications, so a "Virtual PC" running under Mac OS X on the x86 would be needed.

A serious question to the author of the article: what is so interesting about the x86 architectur? IMHO the x86 architecture is a complete mess. SPARC or PA RISC or a PowerPC, thats an architecture. MC 68k, that is a processor, not x86.

angel'o'sphere

Ok, so, if they did port it to x86,then what apps?

[jedi63]

Mac OS X on x86 does not equal Mac OS X on PowerPC.

Am I missing something here? Any of the applications that runs on top of Mac OS X PowerPC would have to be ported, too. This may not be a substantial effort, however, all of the apps would still need to be recompiled at a minimum. How many would be available at availability? For those thinking that MS Office would be available -- doubt it. You would have to switch office products.

So, unless there is a plan to have all of the great apps that help make an Apple an Apple, there's not much incentive to switch.

I, for one, would love to replace my windows apps that I do use, which are the only ones that keep me using Windows: home movie editing and DVD creation s/w, and, Truepoker.

I still would use Linux, still. But, Windows is a pain because even though I seldom use it, I still have to keep it maintained. So, yes, I would switch MS for Apple, but, not to bare OS for the sake of switching.

i would ive a try ....

[dindi]

I used os/2, tried BE OS, tried solaris, and using linux and bsd for servers .... ahm windows in a virtual machine for some stuff (like gadgets that have only windows drivers : eg polar heart rate monitor)

hmm .... ahm yep ... would I switch ? Probably no, I have 2 OSes that are 100% OK for me, I can work on them, and since I use the web (as in a browser) and work in the command shell, as vi/mcedit config/html/php files, I would stick with something that I already know well ...

On the other hand, I do not like the apple philosophy:
take the same crap (performance wise),
put it in a round box (computers should be square on my table),
overprice it as hell, sell it to HIP people (designers are hip people too, sorry, I am a cubehead)
interface is too flashy on osx, I would use that power for whatever else, not powering nicely opening windows .... well wmaker rulez (still I use gnome. that is a touch flashier ..)

hmm what else ... ahm, yep, a computer connected to the net should run a network operating system, not an insecure workstation ..... but i am a netcubehead .... cheers

Absolutely!

[Money for Nothin']

Hell yes I would switch! I would drop Gentoo like a bad habit and dual-boot OSX and XP immediately, without question. I would use OSX for everything except gaming...

Linux is nice and all, but I really wish there were *serious* commercial desktop app support for Linux. A good office suite (OOo is close, but it's not perfect in converting MS Office docs), better multimedia support, etc...

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I would. It would actually be replacing linux, though. I'd still have to dual boot windows for gaming (mainly Valve games). Which is quite unfortunate, as even Windows XP, which is miles ahead of '98, still sucks a hairy goat.

NO!! IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

[JackAxe]

Talk about not having any software support. OSX on the PPC took a few years to get the support needed and now Apple is in the proccess of moving completely to 64-bit, so that's another few years of porting. Moving to a X86 would be a "TITANIC" step backwards for Apple and would only mean their demise. I own both platforms and respect their strenghts. OSX is made possible because of Apple's control over their hardware and software. I've never seen anything on or for my PC that can even match the quality of software/hardware integration that my Macintoshes offer. So moving OSX to a PC and loosing that integration just does not MAKE ANY SENSE!!!

If you are one that says yes to this port, then you should really consider buying a Macintosh to live along side your PC. And before you spew out some price BS, EDUCATE YOURSELF!!! And because of things like Alti-Vec and GPU acclerated GUIs, Macs by no means are slow. Afterall, owning and using both platforms is not a crime.

*Now I must ramble.* When it comes to stability, I take pride in buying the best components for my PC (For me, that's the fun of owning one,) but even with XP Pro if I do not maintain it, it is no where as stable as my unmaintained Macs. But if I keep my PC maintained then it only falls slightly short of my Macs. But then again I only use my PC for LAN parties, rendering and Deep Exploration, where as my Macs are on for weeks at a time(Powerbook in particular.) and are used for everything else. On average I have about 5+ apps(Apps like Maya, Photoshop,Cleaner, AEPro FCP Pro, etc...) opened and switch between them continually. Oh and I did switch to my Macs for playing Warcraft3, because I got sick of it crashing every 6 months for no reason on my PC and requiring a system reinstall to keep it happy for the next 6 months or so. And I'm not alone on this, since my "Hardcore PC" friends also experience simlilar issues that are only fixable by a complete reinstall. But SP2 is on my PC now, so let's see if it that helps.

*I need to rant, this is directed at a small percentage of Slasdot users.*
STOP COMPARING A 64-BIT WORKSTATIONS TO A 32-BIT CONSUMER COMPUTER WHEN IT COMES TO PRICE!!! MOST OF YOU PEEPS ARE QUITE IGNORANT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS SUBJECT!!! GO PRICE OUT AN OPTERON WORKSTATION WITH THE SAME SPECS AS A TOP OF LINE G5 AND EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!

micro macro kernel I don't use M$ anything

[adaminnj]

You know if you read "Just For Fun" That Linus was courted by Mac for OSX-nix and you would get an Idea why he didn't go to work for them. I would like the apps, and the UI ported to PC *NIX but I like having the freedom to have the hardware I want even if it's non-standard. The Darwin Port has been around for a while with a specific hardware list (which is so Mac) I'll switch Distros I'll even use different kernels but to say I would jump ship and run OSX/Darwin because it's there well I would have save that answer for answering the questin "Why did I climb that Mountain" I am using Linux Not freeBSD at least Mac could port Aqua to FreeBSD it is underneath it all FreeBSD-PPC right?

This "power" thing

[Gadzinka]

If I hear this stupid "besides, who needs all those GHz", I'm gonna go postal.

I need.

Since a year or so ago, when I told my series-junkie friends, that I am able to reauthor and copy all those sci-fi series we buy, my computer doesn't stop processing MPEG2[1]. If I could make it encode 2-3 more FPS for a reasonable price, I would.

As it stands now, raw processing power is everything to me. The stability of Linux under heavy load helps enormously.

Robert
(happy AMD user)

[1] you know, there are countries where copying and giving away to your friends the movies or music you legally purchased is perfectly legal excercise of Fair Use

Summary thus far...

[kobayashii]

It's a resounding... Yes! No! Maybe? It won't happen. This same old argument? Shut-up! You're dumb!! Nuh-uh you are :P

Parts lists = commodity hardware. Makes sense.

[Behrooz]

Or you can go on Dell's website and pick up a fully-assembled and personally-configured machine matching those specs, with pre-installed legit software for ~$1200. For a bare-bones system running Linux (which they do offer) take a couple hundred off that price. It takes 15 minutes to customize your system and plug in your credit card number, a couple days later it gets shipped to you, and in roughly a week you've got your machine with no further annoyance other than plugging the various cables in.

If you don't want the looming 'threat' of having purchased cheapware, go to a local independent retailer. For a reasonable price premium, you can purchase a system with quality and attributes of your choosing, assembled by someone else, and working 'out of the box'. Want a super-quiet case? Pick up one of those high-end Antec cases that are cheap now 'cause they didn't sell well. Video card? Ain't no mac can live in the world of a 6800 Ultra. Dual Opterons? Well, that'll cost you, but it'll own the socks off a Mac where it counts.

Macs can't compete with commodity hardware on price, at low end or high end, and they can't compete with Windows for widespread software availability.

Plus, the mere fact that you're using a mac annoys the hell out of 80% of the first-line tech support people you're likely to encounter, and if you're planning on using your system to access outside computer resources you're going to have to talk to them sometime...

Re:Parts lists = commodity hardware. Makes sense.

[XeresRazor]

Speaking as someone who works in an IT Desktop Support department in a rather large company (we support upwards of 500 desktops at the site I work at), we love the macs, maybe 1/10 of the machines company wide are Macs but they get less than 1/100 of the total service calls. They just work. This is where Apple really has it's strengths over the PC world, not in thier shiny BSD based OS, not in their uber-sexy hardware, but in the fact that they completely control the platform. That means you open the box, plug the system in, and it works. You cna format the harddrive, reinstall your OS, and you're not going to be spending an hour hunting down updated drivers just so your sound card works, everything's there, designed to work together, and almost never needs tech support of any kind. The x86 platform has a hell of a long ways to go before it even approaches that, installing Windows XP on a ~1 yr old Dell system takes us around an hour between installing, running Windows update (several times), and installing drivers off the Dell driver disks (since for some reason the new hardware uses drivers that aren't in Windows XP). OSX is roughly half an hour or less from inserting disc and powering on, until the time you're sitting at your desktop browsing the iTunes Music Store and synching your iPod.

Mod parent up!

[KamuSan]

Absolutely right, especially the last comment.

Re:Gigabit Ethernet

[rawg]

If you want gigabit ethernet and more expandability, you should get a Power Mac G5.

Re:Gigabit Ethernet

[ArbitraryConstant]

My point is precisely that PowerMacs are very expensive when the only thing in the entire package that you need is expandability. Sure, they're worth it, if what you want is a dual processor workstation. If that is not the case, you're paying a very large premium for a great deal of overkill.

if it came to x86 and..

[Suppafly]

If OS X came to x86 and they made it possible to have each window have its own toolbar and when you x'd out of an application it actually closed, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

I would, right away

[nVIR]

I would right away, though, I think this would never happen. In fact, apple doesn't have any interest in doing so. If they do that, the HW sales would drop dramatically, and it's still where their margins are...

Re:Gigabit Ethernet

[rawg]

Sure, they're worth it, if what you want is a dual processor workstation. If that is not the case, you're paying a very large premium for a great deal of overkill.

Let me get this correct. I'm paying more for more computer? Yeah, that sounds right to me. I guess your objective is to pay less for less computer.

Myself, I prefer the Mac to a PC for more reasons than just the hardware. If I didn't care about all the other stuff, then a cheap PC with FreeBSD on it would be my next choice. I could run X, VIM, GCC, Firefox, and so on. But the fact is, it would still be less than what a Mac has, and therefor the reason a Mac costs more.

true, but

[Anubis350]

I build my desktops myself, always. The reasons: I have the inclination, I do run linux, I dont have loads of money, I do have time to build it. Yes, if you arent a computer person, this isnt a good idea. You will screw up on components, forget the cpu fan, break pins etc. But remember, this is /., the focus of this site is geeks. They are the ones the initial ask /. was asked of, so your rant makes no sense within context.

Re:true, but

[RedBear]

If you read my whole original message you'd see I've done the same thing myself. My point was that cost lists of a home-built PC running f/Free software are constantly modded up as insightful/informative in comparison to a pre-built Mac, as if they were somehow equal in value. That part is nonsense. It's nonsense for most people but also for any of us /. geeks, unless we do it for fun and place a value of zero dollars on the time we spend doing it. The hardware can be put together for fewer dollars, but the actual cost of the finished hardware/software system is always the same or much higher. We should just learn to stop making these silly comparisons.

All I know is, I have the honor of being in charge of an office with 10 computers, all Mac, all running OS X, and I rejoice every day that I don't have to deal with the trials and tribulations of the PC world.

Re:true, but

[Anubis350]

ok, maybe I misread your post above. In point of fact, while I bukd my desktops and servers, I do have a powerbook and rejoice in the fact that it "just works". I also do tend to point out to my friends buying computers that macs really arent more expensiv, which is what your saying. The only thing i was objecting to was that in the context of slashdot, such lists do have some relevance because the time is not a factor, most geeks would rather spend time than money.

Re:true, but

[RedBear]

Sounds like we are in agreement about Macs, but I still disagree about the geek thing, in a couple different ways. Firstly, from what I've seen there are a ton of non-geeks reading Slashdot even though it is a tech-oriented site. This crowd is extremely varied.

Secondly, I've never seen one of those lists targeted directly at geeks. They are always comparing a DIY commodity box with a pre-built computer, in this case a Mac, usually it's compared to a PC from Dell or something. In the context of Slashdot the geeks who know how to build a computer will already know the personal cost differences which are different for each person, and for the rest of the people it's just advice that makes no sense. It's not insightful or informative for either group of people, yet they keep getting modded up as a valid comparison, as if it demonstrates the fact that Macs (or pre-built PCs) are overpriced.

That was, and ever shall be, my beef with commodity spare-part cost lists. I feel they are great for a personal project but don't make sense when you apply them to others, even other geeks. Us geeks can figure that stuff out for ourselves. For me personally, I've figured out that a Mac has come to be a damn good investment for myself and most of the people that I know. (At least since Panther 10.3.3). You are a lucky dog to have a PowerBook in your possession.

Cheers.

Re:true, but

[Anubis350]

Touche.

c'mon - you're a better engineer than this, right?

[jpellino]

so you know the thickness of the material is a big deal in what stress it can take - so you know that the cd/phonebook comment is a false dilemma... BTW do you own a cube? we have 8 - we settled that "crack" issue a long time ago.

Re:c'mon - you're a better engineer than this, rig

[shepd]

>so you know the thickness of the material is a big deal in what stress it can take - so you know that the cd/phonebook comment is a false dilemma...

Exactly. Basically, polycarbonate can be made to be of bulletproof specifications, but there's no way in hell Apple is building their machines to those specs. If it's not built to those specs, it's just cheapo plastic, and no more special than the plastic Sony VAIO case I just managed to break (stupid chinese jigsaw puzzles always end up broken by the time I'm done with them... ARGH! I should refuse to repair name brand PCs...)

>BTW do you own a cube? we have 8 - we settled that "crack" issue a long time ago.

No, I don't. However, they clearly aren't bulletproof if they are built to such a spec that they manage to crack under the stress of their own screws. Apple was confident that during the cracked cube era they were living up to their normal standards, as evidenced in the article I linked; so I have no choice but to believe Apple that this is their modus operandi.

I have worked on eMacs a year or two ago, and while the plastic was reasonably strong enough to hold the machine together -- bulletproof? I wouldn't put my life to it. It appeared to have about the same strength as about any other plastic case I've come across, PC or Mac.

Cost justification

[SandiConoverJones]

And how much downtime will a Mac user have due to viruses and malware?

How much downtime will the Windows counterpart have?

This loss of production time, plus the loss of work product, plus the cost of the anti-virus software, and anti intrusion hardware and software that you need if you are in the Windows realm, a Windows box isn't as cheap as they'd like you to think. Plus, there is the spurious traffic that comes from the infested Windows boxes sucking up everyone's bandwidth, by sending out rubbish.

There is no comparison if we throw the Linux users into the mix. That really drops the curve on price, and raises the curve on stability. Gee, what a problem, you have to choose between:

• An expensive OS
• With stability problems
• With security problems
• With support problems

• An economical OS
• With great stability
• With great security
• With great support

• An expensive OS
• With great stability
• With great security
• With reasonable support

What should I choose?

Yes, but ther is a problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would switch to OSX any day, but the problem would be in the Apps. Darwin has been ported the rest of the OS would need to be ported. Of course what seems to have been missed is that all of the Apps for Mac OSX are compiled to run on OSX on a PowerPC and would not be binary compatable with OSX on x86. Neither would Windows Apps so companies would have to maintain more ports of their software which many are already hesitant to do. Without app support, porting an OS makes no sense.

Re:Gigabit Ethernet

[ArbitraryConstant]

"Let me get this correct. I'm paying more for more computer? Yeah, that sounds right to me. I guess your objective is to pay less for less computer."

Yes. How is this a difficult concept? I don't want to pay extra for stuff that doesn't benefit me.

Re:Parts lists = commodity hardware. Makes sense.

[RedBear]

You know, there is a lot more to this equation than you think.

Can you get FireWire preinstalled from Dell at that price point, with a quality LCD screen? Every Mac has FireWire 400, most now have FireWire 800 (which is twice as fast as USB 2.0) and every Mac now has USB 2.0 ports too. At that price you're talking about the new iMac. Get an eMac or an older iMac/eMac and we're talking $700-1000 and more than enough power for the average user.

Can you get a high-quality LCD monitor with excellent color response, ultra-wide viewing angles and high pixel-response rates? Not at the same price point. You may get one with the same number of inches but the quality will not be as high unless you pay as much or more.

Can you make a clone of your internal Windows-based hard drive onto an external FireWire drive, then shut down your computer and boot from the FireWire drive for disaster recovery? No? Didn't think so. Windows and Linux are both a pain to backup and restore without a lot of reconfiguration. Macs are a breeze, I could train a monkey to both the backup and the recovery. Norton Ghost sucks ass compared to the simplicity of Carbon Copy Cloner.

Upgrading to the next version of OS X will be a breeze too, just like it was a breeze to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3. And with every upgrade OS X gets faster, not bigger and slower like another OS we know. I have it running in a very usable state on a 350Mhz old gumdrop iMac that everyone had given up on because OS 9 sucked so bad. And yes, the classic Mac OS sucked hard, I will never dispute anyone on that. Mac OS X is a whole different animal. There is no comparison between the two.

Can you keep your pre-built XP system from being overrun with worms and trojans? Only if you have the requisite knowledge to avoid a large list of things, to activate a proper firewall, to install and update virus software regularly, and keep up to date with Windows patches. On a Mac, yeah it's a good idea to stay up to date with security updates and turn on your firewall, but if you don't there is a good chance you will survive your first day on the Internet, or even your first week, month or year.

Graphics? Last time I checked the Mac platform had some of the most powerful graphics cards in the world, including the one that had to be specially designed to run their huge new 30" cinema LCD monitor. But if all you ever want to do with your PC is to play games, then by all means don't get a low-end Mac. Even though they will all work pretty well with enough memory.

I'm sorry, but you'll also need to define in future discussions what you mean by "where it counts". What most people seem to mean by that is "ooo, Quake framerates, d00d!" So you'll have to be more specific. In my mind "where it counts" is that the average person can do the average computer task like email, internet browsing and word processing without getting clobbered with worms, trojans and macro viruses. "Where it counts" means that I spend very little time supporting an office of 10 Macs. They just work.

So maybe you can think outside your box and maybe even use a newer Mac for a few weeks before telling everyone that a "commodity box" running Linux is somehow competitive in the overall picture. There is a big picture here, and for most people it will never come down to simple dollars spent on hardware. Most people may not include you and me, and that's fine, it's a free world. But don't think that your solution is going to be the best for everyone because it's the "cheapest". In the end for most of us it is both not the right solution and not the cheapest by a long shot. To put it as simply as possible, the Mac is just less of a hassle every single day. And that's worth a lot to some of us.

I would and so would millions

[ATLgerm]

It would be the best decision Apple has ever made and would guarantee them at least a 10% market share. I have often wondered why they haven't done this yet considering the demand for a non-microsoft os for x86 that is user-friendly.

your sig

[Ohreally_factor]

I don't need no instructions to know how to rock... but it is always nice to have a reference manual handy.

You probably want to look at O'Reilly's How to Rock in a Nutshell.

Re:your sig

[misleb]

Does anyone else think that the real debate would be between Kerry and Cheney?

Only because Bush is a moral and intellectual simpleton, yes.

-matthew

Mac OSX + VChip

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all:
Current IBM G5 PowerPC chip Macs can run MacUNIX (Mac OSX),Unix,X11,Linux,Java & Virtual PC under one unit. What price is that worth? Check out MAC OSX on Apple.com regarding TERMINAL & X-11. YOU CAN POP THE HOOD NOW & WRITE UNIX & LINUX CODE! Mac OSX works on Wintel & Unix networks easily!

Second:
Quality Control is everything to Apple & success of OSX.
So, Why not have the best of both worlds?
Apple would make a UNIX PC BOX (XMac) with a Pentium 4 / Server Chip ( Itanium ) PLUS a propietary Apple V-Chip on the Apple motherboard. WITHOUT the Apple V-Chip Mac OSX-PC will not operate. Apple insures quality & builds the hardward XMac box for sale to the PC/Unix/Linux team that is preloaded with Mac OSX-PC.

After NeXT Unix + Mac OSX Darwin BSD Unix, Apple surely has the know how to do a PC version of OSX (maybe thay already have?)
If they built the XMac box too, they would have both worlds conquered.
Mac OSX PowerPC PowerMac for Mac Geeks & OSX-PC Itanium XMac for PC/Unix/Linux only Geeks!

Mac OSX + P4/Itanium 4 = XMac + V-Chip

[seattlite]

First of all: Current IBM G5 PowerPC chip Macs can run MacUNIX (Mac OSX),Unix,X11,Linux,Java & Virtual PC under one unit. What price is that worth? Check out MAC OSX on Apple.com regarding TERMINAL & X-11. YOU CAN POP THE HOOD NOW & WRITE UNIX & LINUX CODE! Mac OSX works on Wintel & Unix networks easily! Second: Quality Control is everything to Apple & success of OSX. So, Why not have the best of both worlds? Apple would make a UNIX PC BOX (XMac) with a Pentium 4 / Server Chip ( Itanium ) PLUS a propietary Apple V-Chip on the Apple motherboard. WITHOUT the Apple V-Chip Mac OSX-PC will not operate. Apple insures quality & builds the hardward XMac box for sale to the PC/Unix/Linux team that is preloaded with Mac OSX-PC. After NeXT Unix + Mac OSX Darwin BSD Unix, Apple surely has the know how to do a PC version of OSX (maybe thay already have?) If they built the XMac box too, they would have both worlds conquered. Mac OSX PowerPC PowerMac for Mac Geeks & OSX-PC Itanium XMac for PC/Unix/Linux only Geeks!

XMac box with AMD 64?

[seattlite]

Option 2 could be an XMac box with Apple V-Chip motherboard BUT with an AMD 64 bit chip with new OSX-PC?

Too late!

[AstroSurf]

The question should be: If MacOS came to x86, would I stay? Too late! I switched! Windows is the worst and Mac has the right back-end and the BEST front-end.

I know almost nothing about Unix or the Mac but, mercifully, knowing nothing is not a real impediment on the Mac. It just works! And looks beautiful doing it.

I've told people for years that if they wanted to be happy with their computers, use Mac. I decided I wanted to be happy. :)

Yeah, I know that _most_ /. users are serious power users. And quite honestly, I've mostly settled all the BS I've gotten from Windows. BUT I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! One day I'll know Unix & Mac as well as I knew PCs/Windows. In between times, I'm happier. Much happier. Join me. :)

GPU vs CPU for Eyecandy

[Gopal.V]

> it's OS X's quartz rendering. There's going to be a performance hit for all that eye candy no matter what kind of hardware it's running on.

Quartz uses the GPU for all the eyecandy (well, almost) - It shouldn't have ANY effect on the CPU speeds. Translucency composition, Gradients are all in the GPU - CPU is not used for those things.

While windows feels snappy, try running a background compile .... OS X will not skip a hearbeat

Incorrect

[israfil_kamana]

MacOS (and it's predecessor, NeXTSTEP) supports a notion called "Fat Binaries", where a binary has a shared text segment, and a separate code segment for each supported architecture. For a while, you had software distributed for m68k, i386, sparc, and hppa-risc all in one binary package.

And the developer tools supported this natively. All you did was choose the arch you cared to compile for, or archs, and it would magically spew out the binary, which you could run on any system.

MacOSX may not actually demonstrate this capability, but Rhapsody (MacOSX -1) had it, and the capability wasn't stripped out. Vendors would simply re-compile, unless they used assembler.

i.

Think about that question for a moment...

[Anonymous Coward]

A 32 bit patch to a 16 bit gui shell running on top of an 8 bit disk operating system originally written for a 4 bit cpu by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition ...ported ...to ppc? Sure, no problem! All you have to do is merge in all the relevant changes to windows NT since the ppc branch was dropped and then tweak it to work with the new G3/G4s that have shown up on the scene since that time. Oh...and all those wonderful windows applications too. The ones where performance is great but the chief design credo was "portability is for canoes".

yes yes yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hardly bear ugly, terrible Windows after using my sexy Mac. I only miss fast games and cheap hardware. Hell yes!

I'd blink first...

[caelyx]

but it's a forgone conclusion. Count me with the believers.

What are we comparing..

[phelix_da_kat]

What are we actually comparing:

1. I am a Mac user, I prefer a Mac over a PC because i do not want to spend my time "tweaking" things. It is not that I cannot - I have an undergrad and post grad in Computer Science. It is that I just realised my "experience" need not be determined by also being my own IT helpdek.

2. Why do ppl keep comparing Macs with home buily systems on performance and price. It is like comparing apples and pear - they are both fruit but.. put it another way: We can all go out and buy that nice Merc or BMW, but we also know for the same moeny or less we could get a cheaper car and mod it so it is as fast etc.. but you go not get the experience.. or those "special touches". Typical example - on laptops: the Mac has a small compact manageable PSU. The best bit is the tabs that come out so you can wind the leads!

3. It is horses for courses.. if you do not want to spend $3,000 on a MAc then don't. Same in cars: if you do not want to spend $30k on a car then don't. I cannot afford a car, but I know I rather spend my $3k on a new Mac.

Basically, you have a choice.. this is in part to your "background" (ie are you a geek or artist). Your priorities (ie how often you use yr computer, preferences etc).. I am not a Mac Evangalist, but I do understand the "lifestyle" choice I made. I do recommend Macs but I also recommend PCs. It depends on what my friends what to do..

Stability

[gjcamann]

OK true that faulty hardware will cause instability. But faulty drivers are a more common cause of crashes. Who will re-write all the drivers and make them quality drivers? And how many people will have modems and sound cards that won't be supported? Perhaps OS X could use some linux drivers...

IT'S ALL ABOUT SOFTWARE

[Austin Milbarge]

First off, Mac OS X's kernel (the OS's core) has been ported to run on the Intel X86 architecture. The question remains is Apple willing to move it's proprietary GUI environment to it. If they did this tomorrow it still wouldn't matter in the least to most Windows users and I'll tell you why. It's because more users have invested money and time in purchasing and learning the software they use now on Windows. As much as you and I know that Windows is never going to be as stable or as customizable as a Mac, most people don't seem to care.

What the first thing people at Apple, GNU Linux, or any other group who develops an alternative to Windows needs to do is EXACTLY what Microsoft did in 1995. If you can remember back when Gates wanted everyone to start using 32-BIT software as apposed to 16-BIT software he did the smart thing. He had NT, but instead of pushing it on home users, he developed the Win9x family which in a sense allowed users to still run their Win 3.1 programs. We need better Windows software emulation.

The second thing is that OSes like Linux need a better development environment for developers. One that makes writing software easy. Look at what Microsoft has to offer. Visual Studio .NET, C#, Visual Basic.. etc. Versus vi, gdb and make. The alternative OSes need better development tools that ease the pain of development, not make it worse.

Why not Apple?

[Danathar]

In my opinion...

Apple does not need to support the whole range of PC peripherals. If it used PC hardware but ONLY supported the devices it certified then they could have a PC with OS X that is just as good as the stuff they do now. (probably) The added advantage would be the cost savings from using the x86 architecture.

For example...they could come out with a powerbook or desktop system that LOOKS from the outside identical to the ones they make now...but have x86 hardware in them. They could still restrict OS X to systems they sell, but save a bunch of money over using the PowerPC stuff.

you say tomato, I say tomäto

[terminova]

blah blah blah

Macintosh = PnP heaven

It is a machine that is designed to be used "Out of the Box". This means: Open box. Take out Mac. Follow set-up directions. Turn-on Mac. Have fun.

If your are a person that can rip a computer apart and put it back together in 5 minutes and enjoy doing so then Macs are probably not for you. The reason for this is Apple designed the Macintosh line of computers to work like an appliance. This means, plug it in, hit the powerswitch, and it comes on.

Conclusion.
Macintosh = cool looking toaster
PC = Lego set
(these are simply categorizations, not what they actually do.)

Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions

[npsimons]

Q: If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?

A: No. See my sig. Next question.

I definitely would start using a Mac

[suman28]

I love OS X. It is rock solid, and has nice graphics. I just don't want to spend X$ to buy a machine that will work with only one OS. I prefer Linux as well. So, yes, if given the option of having a Mac on an x86, I definitely would buy one.

Switch? No. But I'd buy the OS...

[jonadab]

I'm a multibooter. Would I switch my main system to OS X? No. I can't use
it for more than a few minutes at a time, due to an accessibility issue[1], so
I would still keep Gnome as my primary system. But I would shell out the
$129 (assuming architecture price parity), install it, mess with it, shell
into it remotely and gain experience administering it, install various software
on it, play with Safari, ...

The problem is, the number of people who would shell out the $129 for an
x86 version of the OS is probably smaller than the number of people who buy
the Apple hardware in order to run OS X, given the current situation. That
combined with Apple's core goals of maintaining their image and fanbase is
good enough reason for Apple to only release their OS for their own hardware.

Would I buy MacOS X86 if Apple released it? Yeah, I would. Will they? No.

---

[1] It forces Evil Satanic Blinding White Backgrounds on me; I go snowblind.

If the Mac goes, I goes elsewhere :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X is fine where it is. If Apple switched to x86, I'd be switching to an Amiga or Pegasos system.

Re:Parts lists = commodity hardware. Makes sense.

[elakazal]

Whether or not using Macs annoys the support people (in general this hasn't been my experience, though there are probably exceptions) the fact is that excluding calls to Apple (who, oddly is not terribly surprised to learn I have a Mac) I have had to call support people on a grand total of three issues in 13 years of owning Macs (one issue was with a Microsoft game, which NEVER worked, despite their halfhearted efforts). I work on PCs at work (when I'm not on my own iBook) and they require relatively routine visits from support personnel. And that doesn't count all the issues we just live with because its too much effort for something small.

So what's a Corporate Class PC?

[TibbonZero]

What makes it right for Dell for sell "Corporate Class" PCs, but apple not to sell high end computers? Just because apple doesn't need to split their stuff into "Corporate", "Educational" and "Home" computers, doesn't mean that it's no equavalent.

So what's the difference in the "Corporate class PC" and the normal PC?

I have Three macs that I work on, and would gladly have a few more. I'm waiting for the G5's to hit dual 3.0 or dual 4.0, and for a G5 (or dual core) laptop before I upgrade again though...