Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X x86 Put To The Test
stivi writes "ZDNet has tested Mac OS X x86 on a Toshiba laptop. The article discusses installation process, performance and power consumption comparison and has a thorough photo gallery as well." From the article: "Mac OS X will not be available on any old x86 PC, though, as Apple wants to retain control over its hardware platform. From the company's point of view, this is an understandable position, as the margins on Apple-branded computers are much higher than is usual for standard x86 PCs. Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. This would put enormous pressure on the price of Apple's own computers -- something the company is naturally keen to avoid."
I think that if Apple allowed third parties to make Apple clones, or Apple-Approved machines to run the new OSX on, this could potentially be good for Apple. I'd rather spend $200 on OSX for my workstation, than $200 for Windows anything -- especially if it worked properly.
This might be useful if Apple embraces the FOSS community, and lets them fill in the gaps in device drivers, etc. Keeping things closed isn't good for anyone except the company that is doing the closing, and there are many many anecdotes of where that kind of practice isn't even good for them.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Were Apple to put the x86 version of its operating system on general release, Dell would begin to manufacture Apple clones. And lose MS' favor? I highly doubt it. New techs needed, new marketing, a bifurcated customer base? Keep bullshiting, ye who know not business.
Dell's already said that they'd sell OS X if they could. That happened within the week of the Apple intel announcement.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Then every kid out there is wrong.
While it is true that Apple sells the hardware for more than the sum of the parts; Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things.
Regards to markup being your major opposition to buying Apple: what's wrong with the mini? Dirt cheap as far as computing goes and a very capable system to boot. It is actually your lust to possess the latest and greatest that prevents you from buying a cheap and good Mac? Perhaps you feel that you are something of a "top dog" with computing equipment and you don't want to loose that edge by going to the cheaper Macs and can't afford the uber-Tower G5's (which are really for professional work)?
While there are many reasons to skip Apple, price is no longer one of them!
When I was looking up tutorials online for this, I always found "It is completely illegal to install Mac os X on any old x86 machine, take no responcibility for your actions"
Then obviously they installed it on their computers (and probably downloaded the dvd img from bittorrent), and they act like they never did it. I understand they are trying to protect themselves by giving you a warning, but they have photographic proof that they did something that they shouldn't have. Seems silly to me.
public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
I bought a Mac Mini, just to give the Apple thing a try. And I have to say that the software is what impresses me. What comes for free on this machine is superior to many products under Windows I'd have to pay money for.
As long as people think software has no value, they are going to be unwilling to pay extra for what Apple is offering. I will not be one of those.
Is there middle ground in this?
The usual assumption is that Apple can't sell OS X x86 for generic x86 because they're a hardware company, and nobody will buy their hardware if they can buy x86.
I can think of several possible solutions. Right now Apple is making OS X x86 locked to their hardware. What if Apple was to license this locking technology to hardware vendors, allowing them to sell at a premium, a machine that could run X or Windows. This would allow them to collect part of the price.
The licensing agreement could also require that the licensing chip was only available to hi-tier machines priced at similar price points as Apple machines, as well as requiring certain hardware elements (ie, built-in BT, Firewire 800, USB2, display adapters, etc).
This would allow people interested in OS X but unwilling to buy an Apple machine to get into OS X, but still retain revenue from hardware sales and maintain the quality level associated with Apple hardware. Even if there were no restrictions on price points, the hardware licensing should make up for lost margin on Apple hardware.
Out of interest why do you compare an Apple branded x86 PC as a having a v12 when all other PCs are deemed as "Hyundais"? The straight fact is that any modern "Hyundai" could quite easily run any x86 operating system from Windows, Solaris, Linux, BSD and OS X with absolutely no performance issue whatsoever. If Apple wants to cripple their OS so it only operates on a subset of hardware that is their own business, but it doesn't mean it's somehow superior or intrinsically more demanding to run than any other OS out there.
I can understand why they don't want any common garden variety PC to run their OS - opening it up to any OEM PC system would seriously impinge on their hardware sales. Still, if that was their big concern, perhaps they should have stuck to the PowerPC platform where it would be the non-issue it is now. It's quite obvious that within six months of OS X x86 coming out that there is going to be some kind of emulator for it, possible running as close to full speed that it would be viable to use it from a generic PC.
I think it'd be interesting (though not worth apple's time to administer) if to expand the choices of the consumer that Apple would license OS-X to people at the price of the margin on their basic (no added RAM) highest-end hardware (ie. the current Dual G5). That way if there was hardware that Apple didn't support someone _could_ use it legally. However, I doubt anyone would want to pay $1000+ for OS-X just to be able to run it on their particular hardware, given that the drivers would also have to be custom written (not by Apple in this scenario) and the kind of situation where it might make sense would be a big honking server where OS-X just doesn't outperform the competition. :-)
So, never mind
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
And Michael Dell has also said about 100 times, that he was considering switching to AMD processors. He also said that Apple shareholders would be better off Apple shut down. He says things to promote himself or his company not because they are true. In this case, like the "we're thinking of going AMD" it's just about putting pressure on one of his suppliers to get a better deal. Anyone who takes this statement at face value is just not paying attention. Ain't gonna happen.
Vote Quimby.
I really do not see how having Dell or HP sell computers running OSX will degrade the quality of the OS, but that is just me.
Then you probably are exactly the sort of user who should switch to OS X.
It has become increasingly the case that Dell and Gateway computers have been using cheaper and cheaper components to undercut each other's price points, and quality has suffered. Many recent news stories and articles on this topic have been published lately. Have you not been reading?
Windows is a system designed to be installed on any commodity PC and with proper drivers operate flawlessly. I personally have had great luck with Windows on many PCs because I am careful in selecting my hardware when I put together systems. Unfortunately I have seen it is more often the case that people buy preassembled systems that were designed to meet low price points and the systems are absolute trash. Windows is unstable and the users are typically unsatisfied.
In these cases Microsoft almost always gets the blame. *nix users love to make jokes about Windows instability and what have you, because as a general rule the stories they tell of blue screens and lost data are backed by hard numbers. And yet there is still a huge percentage of users that have rock solid systems running on Windows without any problems (without Viruses and Worms, even, though that's an entirely different issue).
At some point you have to realize that when it comes to computers, sometimes you really do get what you pay for. That cheap CD-Burner is going to make coasters. That cheap sound card is going to hang and leave applications wihtout sound, or not allow different applications to share the sound device, this USB interface is going to interfere with that Parallel Port so you can either use your web-cam OR your printer, but not both (and sometimes your Sound Card or your Printer, but not both).
This all sounds like bullshit from MS-DOS days, but it's quite true today. I have on many occassions found that while repairing someone's practically brand new system that there really wasn't much wrong with it except that they were attempting to do two things with their system at once that it just doesn't like to do.
THESE are exactly the sorts of problems that Apple wants to keep tight control over.
"Why should they care?" people will ask.
They care because OS X is more stable than Windows. It functions more reliably, it does so with less complication and less knowledge required by the user. Apple does NOT want to add in the nightmare of universal hardware support and complicate things by trying to figure out what crap component some users added that made this or that program stop working unexpectedly.
If Apple can control the number of failure points in the OS, they can keep that reputation of being a more solid and easier to use/configure OS than Microsoft.
If they decide to open the floodgates of cheap hardware and 3rd party commodity system resellers, then they will simply turn into yet another *nix distributor, and take on all of the headaches that come with a huge sea of unsupported hardware. After all, Joe Sixpack would be pretty pissed if he buys a USB webcam that won't work on the OS X system he bought from Dell/Gateway/Whoever. That would then reflect negatively on Apple.
You might say you'd rather have OS X on generic x86 haredware, but Apple doesn't want the negative factors. They make OS X and you don't. They win.
For now, there won't be any official support for OS X on generic PCs. That isn't stopping you from buying a copy of OS X and tricking in into installing, but when something doesn't work right, don't expect Apple to care. You are, after all, an unsupported user.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.