Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
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.
Why reinvent the wheel?
t ml
s -Are-Slo wer-Right-36964.html
Macs are More Expensive, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.h
But Macs are Slower, Right?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Mac
Carlos
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
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!
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.
Just take a look here:
clicky click workgroup management
Ye needs but ask sir...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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: 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..
>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.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
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.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
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.
"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.
$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.