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?"
Because it is not ever, ever going to happen.
If AMD and Intel sprayed all their CPUs with anthrax, would you buy a Mac?
i'd switch without a doubt. however, i wonder if this would severely hurt apple's hardware sales.
Never going to happen though, since Apple make their money from hardware, not the OS.
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.
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.
> Windows and OSX on the same machine
It's called "Virtual PC".
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
:P
:|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A strange coincidence, I'm sure, but I asked a similar question this week:
4 51087
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124599&cid=10
The replies to my post answer it pretty well, I think.
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.
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.
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.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Whoa, calm down there. This is that part where we learn to use our -imaginations-.
IF it happened, would you?
"We're breaking out the ramen noodles. . . "
"Really? Is it someone's birthday?"
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
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
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.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
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".
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
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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.
It's the 'as cheap as possible' bit that makes the hardware so attractive, even with all it's shortfalls.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
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).
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.
But for every second you gain in performance, you will lose thirty seconds fighting with your OS.
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.
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.
would a $1300 athlon64 machine come with an fx5200 though? I don't think so, unless it had 1Tb of drives to compensate.
They still do this, With Fat Binaries, you can ship software with G3/G4/G5 optimized binaries in the same package. What's stopping them from shipping G3/G4/G5/Opteron/i386/P4/Itanic/Whatever in a package?
The answer is Nothing. GCC supports the target. The format is built for it (it comes from next after all).
If it became possible, you can bet that Apple would make Xcode cross-compile if there was money in it.
I would be more than ready to drop 300$ 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 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.
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.
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
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Apple cannot do this. For multiple reasons that have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with marketshare and market forces.
.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.
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'
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.
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?
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
You've got Terminal.app running on Darwin x86?
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.
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!
All theory is gray
Would give a nice front end that Linux will most likely never have... I'd definately give it a try...
My Sig is better than your Sig, because my Sig is Mine!
$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.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
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.
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.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
"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.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
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.
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.
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!
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 might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
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.
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.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
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.
The above is not worth reading.
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.