Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs

ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation. However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."

Comments

Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[CogDissident]

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas.

I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini or Apple TV?

There is currently, no such equivalent.

For now, I will stick to my Ubuntu running AppleTV. It has digital audio and video out, and casts $250.

But if you have a suggestion, go ahead.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MightyYar]

Powerful, maybe. But have you seen the video of those clones? It sounds like a jet taking off!

Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

if you think video framerate and cpu crunching is the only measure of "performance" for a computer you should go back to sleep.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Nursie]

yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.

If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.

Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Lumpy]

They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.

They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.

Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

well heres a quick one for ya.. show me a workstation with multiple firewire800 and firewire400 ports standard

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[EastCoastSurfer]

When Apple does an update, the MBs and MBPs are usually pretty competitive pricewise. The problem is that most people don't need all that a Pro has to offer and can get by with a $400 laptop. I'm on a SR MBP now, and when pricing dells or Lenovos with the same features they were always within $100-$200 of the mac.

The problem is that Apple doesn't lower the prices of their machines over time, so if the machine hasn't been updated in awhile then the value does indeed suck.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[aliquis]

Which is why people should just use http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ live with it and stop complaining. Just wait until it updates and buy. Sure it sucks that Apple don't adjust prices, but there is nothing to do about it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[gEvil (beta)]

Admittedly this time around, they wouldn't be the sole providers of the R&D involved. In the era of PPC clones, Apple created the reference designs that Umax, PowerComputing, etc used in their machines. This time, it looks like Intel is the one providing the reference designs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[PenguSven]

you mean i could "save the mac premium" and buy the cards and hope to christ the company that makes them isn't going to disappear in 2 months, or that the drivers won't crash - insert os here - because they're written by a half-blind monkey on a chinese typewriter.
the "macs cost more" thing is a load of shit and you all know it. spec out a pc from a COMPANY (none of this home made frankenstein bullshit) and generally the stuff people harp on about (ie the macpro) comes out cheaper when configured the same.
and before you go on about "i want to build my own". fuck you. i don't. my time is precious, and expensive.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Nom du Keyboard]

Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along. The Intel mantra was, "You'll get your faster chips when we are ready to give them to you." Apple likes to time system upgrades to when Steve Jobs can introduce them at large, regularly scheduled, Apple gatherings. But improvements in the market march one regardless of the Apple timetable. How long did it take to get the excellent Nvidia 8800GT in your Apple system? How often is faster+cheaper+larger available from someone else? Will Apple ever sell a BluRay writer even though they were an early member of the BluRay camp? You get the idea.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[vasqzr]

Get out of here. Find a Mac Mini, iMac, or Power Mac from a manufacturer like Dell, Lenovo, Sony, HP. Match it spec for spec and have just as clean of a design.

Go ahead, I'll wait. You can't even get a dual quad from Dell for the same price as Apple.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[JimDaGeek]

Apple has a big hole in their lineup... Yup. My feelings as well. I have an Intel iMac and an Intel MacBook. What I really want is a mid-tower that I can replace the graphics card in. The Mac Pro is too much money for my tastes. My iMac is almost perfect, except for the fact that the graphics card will get outdated for my needs and then my only option is to buy a new iMac or switch away from Mac OS.
Come on Apple, put out a mid-tower priced around $800-$1,000 and they will sell like crazy.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[molarmass192]

No way that's right, first, purely semantics but the PowerBook is dead and gone, it's a MacBook Pro now. Compare the MBP with any other 2.6G Core2Duo laptop with a 17" screen and the difference is minimal. There's still an Apple "premium" but it's only a few hundred Euro/USD. On that note, Apple DOES charge far too much for it's products in Europe based on exchange rates. That's why my European co-workers always hit the Apple stores when they're over in the US, it's like getting a 30+% discount.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[kylehase]

I'm not a mac fanboy. I've never even owned a mac but I read an article some time ago comparing prices between a mac pro (workstation) and Dell precision (also a workstation) and the MAC came out the price winner. The article is a bit old but it's still interesting. Oh and it was written by Paul Thurrott, a Windows guy.

It's important, when comparing prices, to pick machines in the same class. Don't just compare CPU/RAM/HDD specs. I have a precision workstation and it's built like a tank compared to the dimension line.

It would be very easy to buy the cheapest ECS motherboard, no-name power supply and generic case then slap in a quad core Xeon, lots of cheap RAM and a high capacity value hard drive and try to pass it off as "similar" to less technical customers.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

Closest Dell i can build to a Mac mini ($799 version with DVD burner) includes a 2.4GHz processor, compared to Apple's 2.0, and a 500GB drive to apple's 160 (the Dell HDD is slower though, but either could be easily replaced cheap). The Dell is $759 + $149 for OS X, + $79 for iLife. ie, the Dell costs WAY more. This is a part for part match, as close as can be done. (Inspiron 530s). It's nowhere near as small and doesn't include a wireless remote or media sharing support. If I drop to a lower end Dell unit. the only way to go cheaper is to go to a Celeron, which would NOT compete at all.

As for a iMac, Looking at the 20" $1499 model, and comparing it's base config to a Dell XPS One, in a 20", the processor in the Dell is only an E6550 (2.33GHz), and doesn't compare to Apple's 2.66, the dell uses the slower and less powerful G33 chipset, and even with the best video card it can get (Radeon 2400) it can't compete with Apple's 2600 Pro graphics. Same RAM, Same HDD, and all configured, the Dell is MORE THAN $600 HIGHER IN PRICE, and that's before adding OS X and iLife to it's config! Even the lower end model Dell running on a 2.2GHz processor with no dedicated graphics is STILL more expensive, even before adding OS X.

A desktop compared to the iMac 20" you say? - Best I can configure is a Dell 420 desktop. including the graphic upgrade to the 8800GT (slightly better than the 2600Pro from Apple, but not a lot) and it comes with 3GB of RAM, but guess what, it's $1499 configured that way. It's the same price as the Apple, until you considder it's still missing a remote, uses more power, makes more noise, is not an all-in-one, and add OS X and iLife to it and you're over the mac's price by more than $200 again. Oh, no firewire either...

Every Dell to Mac comparrison I've made in nearly a year, the Dell costs more when you factor in Wireless N, Bluetooth, hard disk performance and size, video performance,screen resolution, and software equivolents. I did 2 others yesterday for the MacBook pro 17" and 15" compared to 3 different Dell machines, Apple was cheaper and had more components, and was lighter and had 2-4 times the battery life in all cases.

Power of the CPU is not a comparrison at all. The CPU and mainboard can easily be compared between 2 models and could very well be faster on Dell's side, since THEY USE THE SAME PARTS. However, add HDD performance, 3D rendering capability, and connectivity options, and Dell falls apart on price. Try editing a video, or running a lenghty photoshop render on a Dell and on a Mac. At the same price point, Adobe states clearly, you can NOT beat Apple's price/performance figures.

With Apple buying Intel and common name brand parts now, but having FAR lower support costs (fewer helpdesk calls vs microsoft OS by FAR!), simpler service logistics, a simplified model line-up, the other guys can't compete on price.

Dell outsold Apple last year nearly 4:1 on hardware. Apple's PC division had higher profits than Dell. If Apple ever really feels threatend on price, they can sell systems at BELOW Dell's cost and still make proffit.

Oh, and a word about support. Even if you can find a mcahine from Dell, HP, gateway, etc, that can compete with a mac on performance, including the cost of OS and typical application software, who supports it? Some friggin guy in India? ...and he's not going to know shit about OS X and Apple won;t help you either since it's not licensed legally. Apples' support is not only US based, but you also have walk-in access to Apple Stores, where most systems can be repaired right on their bench with in-stock parts, including Apple notebooks. (they might have to order a part, but 1 way shipping and on-site repair is a LOT faster than getting Dell to come to your house 2 days from now, find out your notebook really is broken, then tell you it has to be shipped to Dell and Back and it will take 6-8 days. A 2 week turnaround on repair is not acceptable. 3 days is bad enough on Apple's side of the fence, and I don't have to learn a foreign accent to get help!

by the By, Apple's macBook Pro is still the fastest machine running Vista on the market under $3500... and thats for their $2700 machine.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[AusIV]

Why do I want multiple Firewire ports standard? I don't have a single thing that uses Firewire. If I did (and one port weren't sufficient), I can buy a PCI(e) or PCMCIA card.

The thing with Apple is that they tend to give you everything you might need up front, rather than keeping costs low and letting you upgrade to the things you need. Sure, if you start with the Mac pro as your base and bring up other systems to match, the Mac pro may be less expensive, but I'd probably have everything I needed on a PC well before its specs rivaled that of a Mac pro.

As far as your argument on an sibling post about poor drivers and companies going under: if you buy the cheapest cards on the market this might be a concern, but you can buy expansion cards from reputable companies. Many OEMs (Dell, Hp, etc.) offer various expansion cards. I would expect their expansion cards work well with the systems they build, and these companies have five times as many sales as apple, so I don't see them going under any time soon.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[loony]

If your time is so precious, why do you spend so much of it on insults?

Seriously though, the only time a mac beats an HP or Dell on price is in the edge cases - macbook air, fully loaded 8core workstation and so on. But that's not what most people buy. They want the imac, the regular macbook. That's where the volume is and that's where Apple takes their premium.

Peter.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas. I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

Allow me to add perspective to your largely correct assertion:

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Sony does, in almost all areas. I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

You can buy a cheap, low reliability system with the features other than CPU stripped out for less than a machine with lots of features designed for real users who do more than run a folding@home farm in the basement. When you compare machines based upon all their specs, including reliability, Apple is pretty much in line with other premium vendors who come close to the same levels of features and reliability based upon independent testing like Consumer Reports.

In short, Apple offers reasonable prices on their hardware, they just don't have a wide selection of hardware compared to all other hardware vendors combined. As a result, if you're looking for a machine to meet your specific needs (like headless folding@home servers), you will probably be able to find something more exactly suited to your needs elsewhere and may save money by not paying for features that you don't need.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been widely reported that two of the top three factors that influence people who have never before owned a Mac to buy one are appearance (of the hardware) and "look and feel" of the OS. (The third is "ease of use").

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MobyDisk]

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas. Not according to any reviews I've ever found. For example, this month's Popular Mechanics comparison pits a PC and a Mac at the exact same price, and the Mac blows it away.

You will find this to be consistent. I bought my MacBook Pro after reading the review in the December issue of Laptop magazine where the regular MacBook was the price/performance king in the home/office category. I personally priced a Dell, an AlienWare, and an Apple. The AlienWare was the cheapest (despite the reputation they have, AlienWare laptops are very price competitive in the high-end), Apple was the next by about $100, and the Dell was over $1000 more expensive. I went with the Apple because it was half the weight of the Alienware and because the Alienware came with Vista.

The reason Apple has this reputation is because they don't sell cheap computers. You can compare an $1800 PC with an $1800 Mac: but you can't compare a $500 PC to a $500 Mac because Apple doesn't sell to that market.

* Note: In defense of PC manufacturers, they are crippled recently because Vista is making their benchmarks look terrible. When they compare the Mac's running XP to PC's running XP, the OS X advantage goes away and the results are nearly identical at the same price.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sandbags]

$400 laptop? bukllshit... I can't get by on a $400 desktop, not even including a monitor.

"Most People" buying a machine today work with digital photos, have a camcorder, want to be able to burn DVDs, want to play music while working, want to keep a web browser, e-mail, and at least 1 other application running. ANYONE buying a machine today that doesn't have dedicated graphics at some level (even if soldered onboard) is buying a throw-away machine. Anything with Vista and less than 2GB or RAM is also pretty useless once you add the overhead of security software to your load.

I have a Core 2 HP Notebook, 5400RMP 120GB drive, 965 chipset graphics, 1GB of Ram, and Vista Home Prem on a machine i use for work. It was a 4900 machine. My wife's 2.5 year old gateWay AMD 64 notebook runs CIRCLES around it. I've optimized every setting in vista that's available to tweak, I've gone through every one of the 140 services, performance settings, background tasks, and more, and it still takes longer to do anything on this PoS than any older machine I have running.

A $400 notebook? for anything beyond runnign XP home, cheap antivirus, and e-mail, there's no way. A Celeron notebook in that price range can barely handle Java apps without stuttering, faulters on You Tube, and runs out of resources scanning documents. I can't even imaging trying to open 8MP images and try even simple editing tasks on one, even under XP...

Apple doesn't sell machines in that price range for a reason. Their machines are designed to be home entertainment and personal systems for photo, movie, and music use. If they made anything less powerful than the Mini, half their own software would exceed the hardware capabilities. Same goes for a PC.

Apple is basically Vista ultimate, with a few other bells and whistles on top. Can you imagine running ultimate on anythingless than a $1000 notebook or $800 desktop? Microsoft won't even allow ultimate to be pre-installed on a system that doesn't have dedicated graphics and 2GB or RAM... The cheapest Dell with Ultimate as a configurable option is over $800...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Divebus]

First, go to the Dell web site and spec out a machine like the 8 core MacPro 3.2GHz. Apple Retail = $4,399. Dell T7400 = $6,338. (Don't forget the 512MB GeForce 8800 equivalent). Does the Dell have two independent 1.6 GHz busses or just one? I can't tell from the specs. The Mac Pro has two.

Second, look at how you install hardware in the two of them, like drives. The Dell is a rat's nest. The Mac Pro has carriers that slide the SATA drive straight into the logic board. No cables. The hardware certainly feels a lot better.

If I could get the equivalent performance and reliability from a commodity PC for less money, it might be worth it. Comparing new Macs and new PCs tells me that isn't going to happen with this generation of equipment.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[NemosomeN]

"And have just as clean of a design." Translation: "I am free to reject any evidence as invalid." The Mac premium is mostly for style, therefore any alternative should be considered cheaper, primarily, because it lacks style.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[sabre3999]

You should look around at stuff in the ITX form factor. They're hella small and insanely quiet. They mostly come with processors of the VIA flavor, in speeds of about 1GHz. However, if you really need something that small, you most likely don't need super awesome hardware. Pricing isn't bad either. I've seen fully-built systems for around $300-$350. IMO, you can't find a better option for the flexibility offered.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

I'm a little confused by your post.

My primary machine is a 4 year old Dell notebook. It plays Youtube just fine, handles Java, scans, prints, and edits photos (using Gimp) like a champ.
(It doesn't run OS X, due to a lack of CPU instructions (no SSE3, though I hear that there's a patch to get that working.)

Looking over the laptops at bestbuy.com, the ones that cost $500 are generally superior or equal to my notebook in every dimension[0]. Bump it up to $600, and you can find plenty of notebooks that are better in every way[0].

Heading over to Dell, $500 gets you roughly the same specs as the notebooks at bestbuy.com. Don't like the Celeron? Bump up the cost $50 and you don't have to have one.

If I could find any actual $400 notebooks, I would compare those specs, but such beasts don't seem to exist outside of sales, and I can't find any sales right now for them. I'm not the person to whom you were replying, anyway, so it's not like $400 was my claim. But it doesn't look hard to find notebooks with prices approaching that that are more than suitable for the tasks you're talking about.

[0] Except for screen resolution, but then, Macs have pretty crappy options for this, too.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[nine-times]

Of course, not only would they be facing the risk of whether their hardware can stand on its own merits, but it'll also require Apple to support additional hardware-- and in some cases, crappy hardware, poorly designed hardware, or hardware where the vendors have done a horrible job writing the drivers.

I'm not a Microsoft fan, but it is true that a fair amount of the instability comes from crappy drivers. Linux overcomes this by using (mostly) open source drivers and not the manufacturer's proprietary drivers. (ironic, right?) Apple overcomes this by controlling most of the hardware/drivers themselves.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

You really hit the nail on the head.

When Apple does an update, they tend to be using top-of-the-line, bleeding edge hardware. When you compare a freshly-updated MBP to other notebooks, the price/performance ratio is usually in Apple's favor, or very, very close to it. Apple makes their profits when parts prices fall, because they keep their prices the same. Near the end of a product's refresh cycle, Apple products look like horrible deals. Near the beginning, they're quite competitive. Unfortunately, people tend to remember the bad and spout off their vitriol even when the Apple machine is a perfectly good deal.

And then, as you alluded, there's the issue of options. With Apple, you just don't get very many. Even though OS X would probably run fine on a budget notebook, Apple doesn't offer budget products. It probably works in their favor--companies usually have fairly slim margins on their budget lines, and there are plenty of people who buy Apple computers simply to get OS X.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[credd144az]

I would also argue that Apple provides better service (than PC makers), in general, and better community support (except maybe linux). That has to be worth something.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[NormalVisual]

On the other hand, let's also see what a replacement parts costs comparison between all those machines looks like. My G4-400DP sits idle in the corner because I can get a new desktop machine for LESS than what the replacement Apple power supply costs. (Hey Apple - thanks for that goddamned proprietary 28VDC line in there to support the harebrained ADC hardware instead of just putting a power supply in my display) I can't imagine the current Power Mac parts costs are much better. I might also point out that the G4 is the *only* desktop I've ever owned that's eaten a power supply.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dana W]

Its nice to call Apple and get a call center in the US, not in Bangalore India.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

It's usually pretty hard to configure a machine with identical specs to the Apple, but I did my best.

Apple MBP $1999
Dell Inspiron 1525 $1428.
The Dell is missing dedicated graphics, includes 50GB more hard drive space, and has a higher capacity battery.

Apple MBP $1999
Dell XPS M1530 $1602
Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.

When this line of MBPs came out, they were competitive. But Apple won't drop their prices as components decrease in price (it's where they make the bulk of their money!) while Dell does. So right now, you can get an equivalent Dell for almost $400 less than the MBP, and it's got better specs in a couple of areas.

Of course, whether or not this is competitive is pretty subjective.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Eccles]

The problem isn't the comparison for specific designs, it's getting the machine that fits a typical slashdotter. Say I want a quad core machine with 8800GT-level video. What's the cheapest Mac that reaches those specs? $2449, by my check. What's the cheapest Dell? I've priced ~$600 for a decent configuration without the card, add another $150 for it. Power Macs are great when you need the full expansion, but for most users they're overkill.

If I want a small form factor and don't care about 3-D graphics, the Mac Mini is great, the best small form factor machine out there (save possibly the AppleTV.) The notebooks also seem more price-competitive.

But they definitely could use Blu-Ray now.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[KillerBob]

The Dell is $759 + $149 for OS X, + $79 for iLife

You lost credibility here. If you're going to add $225 for retail copies of OS/X and iLife to your comparison, then you need to add $250 to your costs on the Apples, to cover the copy of Windows Vista that it doesn't come with. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant, it's a question of comparing like for like.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[zerocool^]

I'll bite:

Apple:
        * Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Harpertown" processors
        * 2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
        * ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory
        * 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
        * 16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,799
add 3 year warranty, $3,048

Dell:
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
3 Year Limited Hardware Warranty with Next Business Day On-Site Service
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD(TM) and Roxio Creator(TM) Dell Ed
320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive
$3,973

Waaay more expensive to go to dell.

Apple laptop:
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
# 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 200GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
$2,499

Dell:
Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 3MB Cache) edit
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition edit
High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440x900) & 2MP Camera edit
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms) edit
Size: 250GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive edit
Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write) edit
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT edit
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini Card edit
Finger Print Reader XPS M1530 edit

$1,374

Better graphics card, and way cheaper at dell.

If you're willing to skip the dvd writer and use an intel graphics card, from dell you can get one with 3GB of ram, and it's $999.

~X

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[MBGMorden]

Indeed, there are no PC equivalents. Therefore Apple should just liscense out the OS and people should still buy the Mac Mini in droves because it's small, low power, and quiet.

OR, they may be afraid of the truth: that a huge number of consumers buy the Mini because it's the cheapest Mac and given the option would be a slightly larger, louder, but faster tower in a heartbeat?

It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.

The truth is that Apple makes a wonderful OS. Their hardware is stylish, overpriced, and has too many gaps in their lineup. Licensing OS X probably would result in a dramatic drop in Apple hardware sales simply because: Apple's hardware is not market competitive. On equal footing, with the same software, many fewer people would buy their machines.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Man in Spandex]

Since you asked for it

The ThinkPad X300 (SSD) > MacBook Air with SSD

I don't even need to back this up because the info that's available everywhere and on several /. articles.

Yeah, that was too easy, I know..

Besides, before buying my T61, I considered Apple for a sec, but there weren't many options. Either a plastic MacBook with no videocard and expensive upgrades (like the "Superdrive"), or a $2000+ MacBookPro that burns your laps since the whole thing is a huge heatsink heating up at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

I decided to go for the ThinkPad T61 which was about $1500 CAD total.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[bigstrat2003]

and have just as clean of a design. A rather unfair stipulation. Design is purely subjective, so you're essentially giving yourself a free rejection for anything, no matter how good.

Besides, if you're trying to match an iMac, it isn't hard to top the design. The G5 iMac design is a piece of shit, anything can beat that. Admittedly, it's hard to equal the other hardware designs Apple makes for their computers, but the iMacs blow.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[ejasons]

It's important, when comparing prices, to pick machines in the same class. Don't just compare CPU/RAM/HDD specs. I have a precision workstation and it's built like a tank compared to the dimension line.

Okay, then what's the comparable Apple price for a headless system, with an (preferably upgradable) 8800GT graphics card, 3 PCI-Express slots, 4 DIMM slots, 750GB disk, and a lower-end quad-core (Q6600-level) Intel Core processor?

You could say that a Porsche is cheaper than a Hundai, as long as you restrict the class of automobiles to those in the Porsche's class...

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Sancho]

The first comparison doesn't count because discrete graphics is a huge upgrade (no graphics intensive gaming without it). It depends upon the game. I haven't seen too many graphics-intensive games for OS X. If gaming is really part of your end goal, then you realistically want to add in about $200 to the cost of the Mac in order to purchase Windows. If you want to game in a virtual machine (which is becoming more and more feasible with the new releases of VMWare Fusion) then you add in $70 or so for the cost of that.

But below, I discuss why it's silly to discuss software for this exercise. If you want to discuss software, please pay attention to what I said above. If you don't want to discuss software, the I'll ignore OS X and its features as a benefit. You aren't allowed to have it both ways.

You fail to mention that:
      1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective. Battary capacity is not subjective. Battery life might be considered subjective, but even then, it's not based upon opinion or individual bias (as the term subjective implies)--rather, battery life on identical hardware is quite objectively different depending upon the software in use.

And once we start talking about differences in software, we're throwing the entire argument out of the window, because it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm a huge fan of OS X. It's great software. I can't use Windows Vista without cursing like a sailor, because it's not just user-unfriendly, it's user-hostile. So if you want to talk about software, we're talking about an argument that can't be resolved with, "Go configure a similarly spec'd Dell." It doesn't even make sense to suggest that one do that if you're including software in the discussion.

The point is not that Apple computers cost more, the point is that Apple hardware costs more. In some cases, it's not a lot more, and in some cases it is.

2. The quality of the hardware components are not identical Again, you're stepping outside of the bounds of the task presented. The quality is NEVER going to be identical, so when asking someone to "go configure a Dell with the same specs", you have to assume that this will be the case.

3. You don't mention which OS the Dell is configured with... I would put OSX somewhere between Vista Ultimate or the XP "Upgrade"... which probably adds some $$ to your dell comparisons. You got me there.
I put Home Premium on both machines. Upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is (iirc) around $150 which, incidentally, is close to the retail price for OS X (at $130.)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Eccles]

I tried to find your $600 Dell machine and I couldn't get it to match the Apple model.

techbargains.com "coupon" deal, Inspiron 530. The coupons are frequent enough a savvy shopper can wait for the one they want rather than paying list. (Apple doesn't have this or we could compare to their best deal.) I assembled the machine I wanted online, though I ended up going with an HP notebook machine with Blu-Ray.

Technically to match the MacPro, you need to match Dell's workstations

I don't want to match the Mac Pro, I want to match my needs. For the home user, how much difference does a Xeon make relative to a 6700? Not enough to justify busting the budget.

The iMac might fit a user's needs if we drop the Quad Core requirement, but 30" monitors are coming slowly closer to mainstream. I might be able to afford to upgrade my system unit now and replace my 22" monitor next year. And video cards are still advancing faster than other components, not to mention SLI being an upgrade option with PCs but not iMacs.

It's not the price (a small premium is more than justified), it's the holes in the Mac lineup. They apparently prefer pushing the high end (so anyone wanting more than an iMac has to go to a Power Mac) to enlarging their market share. It's their choice, and perhaps a smart one, but it has consequences.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[Dogtanian]

Its nice to call Apple and get a call center in the US, not in Bangalore India. Unless you're actually an Indian from Bangalore.

In which case, having your support inquiry routed to the US would probably suck. Those idiots can't even speak proper Hindi! :)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....Apple hardware is NOT worth what it costs...

Did anyone hold a gun to your head or a knife to your throat and force you to buy a Mac? No? Well then why do you care if others ARE willing to spend whatever amount of money Apple asks for their goodies? You and others like you just want to have an Apple computer at Dell prices. I'd like a BMW at Honda Civic or Chevy prices. Too bad BMWs sell for so much. So I have to settle for a Honda or Chevy car and you settle for a Dell computer.

Apple makes a WHOLE computer, OS and all, unlike everybody else, which only makes half computers. If I were willing to work VERY hard, it might be possible to turn a Civic into a BMW, no? So, if you work very hard, your time being worth nothing anyway, you will probably, finally, at last, get Apple's OSX to run on your cheap-ass homemade box.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[arminw]

....On equal footing, with the same software....

But that's the whole point. A computer is determined by its software AND it hardware. When the two are integrated, such as in Apples products, the sum is greater than its parts. That's why Apple makes better computers. They make the WHOLE system, not only half of it. If they were foolish enough to one again license out their software, they'd be in the same boat as MS. They'd have to support who knows how many different hardware designs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[mosch]

Also, Apple tends to offer form factors that others don't. Like the 17" MBP which is still only 1" thick.

Nearly every Apple product is *significantly* smaller than the majority of PC competitors (and is usually priced very similarly to the few PC competitors that have the same spec and form factor)

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

[atraintocry]

IIRC, Apple did have an official clone program, and it very nearly drove them out of business.

Of course they could always go back to the licensing program, which might provide a higher volume of sales, but at lower margins. But why bother? What they're doing now is working, and they're much healthier now as a company than when the PowerPCs were cutting into their hardware sales. I don't mean to say that ending the clone program saved them, but all of their past attempts to be more like MS got them into deeper and deeper trouble.

MacOS on PCs...

[TofuMatt]

MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

I'm sure the crowd of people who feel the need to upgrade their computer every 5 seconds but like MacOS X otherwise might dig this. I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[Anonymous Coward]

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-) Don't forget that Windows for Microwaves brings a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[AndrewNeo]

"What smells like blue?"

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[jbarr]

...it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

Actually, I am looking for a very practical reason to do so: I would like to try my hand at developing an application for the iPhone/iPod Touch using Apple's SDK, however, doing so requires a machine running Leopard. This means that at minimum, I must invest at least $500-$600 for a Mac Mini to do development. The problem is that there is no facility to "evaluate" the development environment without actually installing it on an Apple platform--which I do not have.

OK, I do realize that to make money, you typically must spend money, and a modest investment in a Mac Mini could bring a larger payback if I develop something that is successful. But in this case, being able to "test out" the SDK on a PC would give me that opportunity to evaluate it. And if I decide that it is worth my time and money, then, I'll happily invest in an Apple platform. In fact, I'd actively promote the SDK and the platform. But if it doesn't suit my needs, then I won't wast any more time or money.

Yes, there is a potential legal issue in this, but is this really that different from downloading a cracked version of an application to evaluate it with the full intention of purchasing the application if it proves to be what I'm looking for?

Re:MacOS on PCs...

[naibas]

I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Apple made the decision that if they can't control the user experience, then they don't want to sell it. That decision is not inherently good or bad, but allowing anyone to run MacOSX on any hardware would mean loss of that control.

If you look at Microsoft, they cannot guarantee the user experience. Any hardware producer can produce a buggy product with buggy drivers, or a product with conflicts when combined with some other product, etc, and if a consumer ends up with problems, either because they built a system with conflicting hardware, or, more likely, they bought a cheap computer that someone else built with conflicting hardware, they are likely to blame Windows.

Sure, you can still get that with Apple, but with the huge variety of hardware available for Windows, it is far more likely that someone will find two pieces that don't like each other. Plus Apple doesn't let you buy your own motherboards and power supplies, for example, both of which can cause all kinds of exotic problems.

And Microsoft really wants to try to gain some of the control that Apple has, but when they do stuff like try to enforce signed drivers, it makes the enthusiasts unhappy, because it is seen as a freedom that is being taken away. From Microsoft's point of view, they are trying to ensure a pleasant user experience.

Apple has avoided most all of that by just making all the (important) hardware themselves. I imagine their compatibility testing labs are infinitely smaller than Microsoft's. And unless Apple revisits that decision (which seems unlikely as long as Steve Jobs has anything to say about it), they will not market (or probably even license) Mac OSX as an OS that can be bought and installed on off the shelf hardware.

But if your time has no value...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why not just stick with Windows?

Never mind the buying part...

[mr_da3m0n]

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

Re:Never mind the buying part...

[adpsimpson]

Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.

Breaking EULA's has not.

One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.

Re:Never mind the buying part...

[dfm3]

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware. That's what the Apple stickers that come with your iPod are for...

I went there

[tripmine]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard." Oh, I thought about it...

Re:I went there

[hansamurai]

It's kind of like breathing, you don't think about it until someone brings it up.

By the way, you are now breathing manually.

Re:I went there

[Koiu Lpoi]

You are now imagining your mother naked manually.

Where is the charm?

[jkrise]

For the hobbyist and the experimenter, PC hardware is far cheaper than a license of Leopard. No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

Re:Where is the charm?

[drinkypoo]

No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just want access to iLife and maybe later FCP. There's really nothing else all that compelling that I can't run on Linux. But, I want to run it in a virtual machine. And until I have a free VM with emulation of an OpenGL/T&L video card, I'm not interested anyway. By which time probably jahshaka will be worth using :D

It's not technical at all-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Step 1: Visit your local friendly torrent site and find "leo4all.v2"
Step 2: download and burn onto dvd
Step 3: Use Intel hardware. SATA for hard drive if you wish, but use IDE for the DVD rom
Step 4: let the "leo4all.v2" do the rest.
Step 5: there is no step 5

I first started with AMD hardware, and had endless issues (no surprise really, AMD isn't fully supported by OS X) but the switch to intel hardware went much more smoothly.

The system I used was a D945GNT board, with an off-the-shelf nVidia 7300GT. OS X picked up everything but the sound (still working on why, claims it's suported) and for the fisrt time ever, I've had the pleasure of playing with OS X on fast hardware.

Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)

Apple updates worked fine, as did other software updates, so kudos to the OSX86.org crew for their outstanding work.

Re:It's not technical at all-

[Lumpy]

leo4all v3 is already out and fixes a LOT of issues.

get that instead.

Hint leo4allv3 leo4all.v3 leo4all v3

Re:Legality?

[somersault]

I would. Only if it was for a desktop though, I'm quite happy with the quality of Apple's laptops for everything I use it for, even with their apparently poor thermal paste application.. if I was going to do any more serious gaming on this laptop I'd probably be better off taking it apart and sorting the cooling out.

Don't think about it?

[b96miata]

Fuck that, I'm thinking about it, right now.

Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.

Still, I'll think about it all I want.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[somersault]

Not if you put an apple sticker on your PC!

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Personally, I don't recognize EULAs as legitimate contracts. If they want me to enter into a contract, then they need to negotiate it with me PRE-SALE!

I do, however, recognize their copyright. So I'll buy a copy to respect copyright, and then install it wherever I damn well please.

That said, I'm not above copyright infringement either. The RIAA will not see a penny of my money.

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (âBOGUS AGREEMENTSâ) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

That ought to hold up in court, eh?

Paradox

[jbeaupre]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

So buy Leopard before you even consider ever using it? Now that's marketing!

way ahead of you

[naibas]

I'm currently browsing slashdot in Firefox running in OSX 10.5.2 on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board with an Intel Q6600 Quad 2.4Ghz proc, 4GB RAM, and a DigiRack 002 Pro Tools LE rig. And yes, I have legally purchased my copy of Leopard (I was worried they wouldn't sell stand alone retail copies, since it normally comes with the hardware, but NewEgg had 'em, so now I do).

It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.

The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.

Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

[MightyYar]

You're breaking the EULA Wooooah, nooooos! I'm breaking the non-negotiated post-sale meaningless contract!

Re:Legality?

[adpsimpson]

Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.

Enforcing EULAS does not.

Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.

Re:Popular Choices

[snib]

I used to run Kalyway 10.5.1 on my Dell Inspiron e1505 - it all ran pretty flawlessly. Some hardware drivers had to be hacked, and I couldn't get my video card to run at a native resolution.

But it was only a couple weeks before I got tired of it. IMO, part of the charm of a Mac is... y'know... the actual Mac.

Anyway, I used this guide for Dell Centrino Duo laptops, and other posts on the same site are extremely helpful if you're really interested in trying Mac OS X on a PC. Check the "OSx86" section, and especially this thread.

Market drivers

[low profile]

The usual argument for wanting MacOS X on PCs is that it will foster wider adoption. Most organizations look for multiple sources when buying computers so Apple, being single source, gets locked out of many purchase decisions. But if you look at it from an OS level, most are buying single source anyway. Windows is M$, even Linux will lock you in to a certain extent to a distro once you add in all the applications needed to support a business. I prefer Apple HW with the OS. Apple is comming back with this strategy. Focus needs to be kept on maintaining the real value propositions: "it just works"; "less overhead to achieve secure operation", "pleasing to work with" ...

Think about XP SP3 for a second

[goombah99]

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt. Microsoft just had an XP SP3 disaster when on some machines with AMD based motherboards the system would endlessly reboot. I have no doubt MS did test this on AMD processors. The problem was that some motherboard makers and vendors improperly used both the intel and amd power management kernel mods simultaneoulsy. This did not show up for 10 years, and SP3.

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

  Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.

So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).

As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[Lonewolf666]

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

I agree about the 5 years, but for a different reason:
Considering how much progress in user-friendliness Linux has made in that time, I guess it will catch up to the Mac OS X of today in another five years. So either Apple has something new and shiny by then, or cracking OS X will be pointless for most purposes.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[UnknowingFool]

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

Many businesses including Apple have recognized the benefits of simplicity. From a manufacturing view, Apple only offers 4 desktop PC models and 4 laptop models. Southwest Airlines only flies 1 kind of airplane, etc. Many of PC issues come from the fact that there are a kajillion variations of hardware. Just recently, Apple seemingly offered sympathy and poked fun at PC for this.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[snl2587]

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

I wouldn't exactly call AMD mutt-hardware...

Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge). And the support is likely no more than a series of kludges, just like in Microsoft and Linux operating systems. Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?

Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time. But Linux is also free. Apple is proprietary and expensive, and Microsoft is able to support a vast array of hardware and Windows compared to Mac's tiny amount (partially because the vendors are biased towards Microsoft in making drivers, but I don't see Apple encouraging them for the above reasons).

Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[porcupine8]

So either Apple has something new and shiny by then

Oh yeah, no way THAT'S going to happen.

You don't think an Intel Mac running 10.5 has no advantages over a PowerPC running 10.2? You think a Linux box that's the equivalent of the latter would be able to seriously compete with the former?

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

[boyko.at.netqos]

Indeed. I've got a MacBook Pro as my main computer, and an AMD dual-core 4200+ computer in my living room running Windows.

Yet, I prefer Linux as far as the user experience goes. But I don't even have a Linux partition. Why?

It's the apps.

I'm a documentary director so I got the MacBook Pro because I can use it as a monitor and I can use Final Cut Pro. Sony Vegas for windows is good, FCP is better. To date, there is no native GNU/Linux solution that matches the power, stability, and functionality of Final Cut Pro. It has saved me time and energy and has produced some amazing footage. I bought an entire computer and operating system simply for the functionality - FCP, for me, is the Mac killer app.

But I'd rather run FCP on Linux, if I could.

What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app.

Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization.

The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?)

GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent.

So long as the GIMP remains substandard compared to Photoshop (with poor typography support, bad CYMK profiles, etc.) you won't see graphic artists considering Linux. So long as Cinelerra remains substandard compared to Sony Vegas and FCP (with poor stability, complex user interface, no 24p support) you won't get the video guys. So long as gaming continues to be a hassle on Linux, you won't get the gamers.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at. If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra. Get together a group of buddies and work to tackle problems as a team.

I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.

iGroundhogDay

[SimonGhent]

Here we go...

posts as follows:

"Apple won't release Mac OS because they can't tightly control the hardware"

"That doesn't matter, it's down to the device drivers"

".. but will it run Linux"

"The Mac Book Air doesn't have a removable battery so it's shit"

"Why would you want to run OS-X, the earth is only 3,000 years old"

Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

[Shivetya]

but seeing that only one manufacturer holds the keys to the kingdom and they are slower than shit and don't seem to listen to a lot of the forums what choice will we have other than by going this route. In fact I think the primary reason most of us didn't consider this route is because it was too difficult compared to just putting up with the hardware Apple allowed us to buy.

I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.

Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.

As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.

Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.

When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.

Re:EFI emulation

[Pentahex]

EFI emulation is not a full emulation. It only emulates the bios to allow Leopard to boot without modified files.

The Problem With Unsupported Hardware

[Ohio Calvinist]

Disclaimer: I am a Apple user.

The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).

I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.

This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.

In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.

I can has torrent, plz?

[pla]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

...Because, of course, the sort of people who would try this in the first place tend to strongly believe in honoring copyrights and EULAs, right?

Anyway, why would I give Apple any more respect than Microsoft in that regard? ;-)

Re:Mac OS Server

[Spencerian]

It should work fine since the differences between OS X client and Server are similar.

That is, if you happen to have $500 to $1000 to blow away. Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey.

And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.

Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs.

Repeat after me:

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.

iTunes is free because it makes using an iPod and the iTunes store a breeze. Mac OS X client is low in cost and works as it does because Apple spent a lot of time and money to ensure you're getting your bang for the buck in a computer you buy from them.

Microsoft sells software. Others leverage Microsoft to sell their hardware. Microsoft doesn't always make the best hardware, nor do they read consumer needs very well (not to be confused with business customers). Zunes don't sell, for instance.

When Microsoft makes crappy software, the whole PC industry suffers a bit.

And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds. When Apple makes a good product, third parties dive in to complement the experience with accessories and the like. Crappy products in the Apple world today get bad press fast.

Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4's and g5 stared at lower price then the $2200 mac pro does.

The mini is over priced for it's hardware and the older g4 one cost $100 less with a real video card And $599.00 for 1gb of ram and DVD / CDRW what a joke and you have to add $200 to get a
DVD / RW and you still only have 1gb of ram and it's hard to open up next to a real desktop.

The imac are ok but the built in screen is not that good and it's hard to open up and only has room for 1 hd unlike the new dell AIO that can hold 2 and is a lot easier to get in to.

But a system at $1,199.00 with only 1GB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory is not that good of a price.

Apple needs to be more open to ATI and nvdia video cards in the mac pro and a real desktop as a big number of them use the same video chips and they only have 1 driver set for a lot of cards.

The mac pro at $2200 is over kill for a lot of users and the hardware is over the top with alot of higher costs from sever / workstation parts that are not needed.

Most office uses need a desktop with desktop parts and desktop ram not a over priced laptop in a small case with out screen that you need to force open.

Violating the EULA

[Nom du Keyboard]

So ZDNet had just publicly confessed to the mother of all EULA violations, and done so to the most litigious of computer companies. Just what do they think is going to protect them from a massive lawsuit?

re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[King_TJ]

It's pretty obvious you've got a strong dislike for Apple -- and I have to think it goes beyond a simple, logical comparison of system specs for the money.

I've used quite a few HP laptops, and frankly, I'd never be caught using another one, if I could help it. I'd gladly pay a premium for the Apple-branded notebook, vs. dealing with what comes with an HP purchase.

1. Unless things are different in other countries, Apple tech. support is WORLDS better than HP in the USA. When I contact HP, I typically have to wait about 48 hours for an email response from some 1st. level technician who just quotes obvious nonsense from a checklist. Why email, and not phone? Because calling HP results in over an hour wait time on hold, as a rule, only to wind up with another clueless response.

2. Apple is far more conscious of "design" than HP. Apple notebooks have a bare minimum of plastic doors, sliding trays, and the like which tend to break/snap off. Even the CD or DVD drives on them are slot-loading, so you don't have a big drive tray sliding out the side of your notebook, requiring extra free space around it and potentially breaking. The 17" Macbook Pro and Powerbook before it were thinner and lighter-weight than anything 17" HP had to offer, too. And don't forget Apple's "mag-safe" AC adapter. That's one more great idea, especially when I see how many HP and other laptops are out of service due to loose/broken AC power jacks!

3. OS X, in my opinion, is a FAR less trouble-prone environment to use, day-to-day, than anything else offered for PCs. I can't run a legal and officially-supported OS X environment on non-Apple hardware right now. So essentially, even if Apple hardware costs me a premium, I understand that paying it helps support and subsidize further OS X development and improvement -- and to me, that's a good place for my money to go.

Re:Legality?

[MightyYar]

Oh, I most certainly do. While the case law on EULAs is all over the map, I can't find a single case of a single user of software getting successfully sued for breach of an EULA.

So, if they could even find out that I had broken the EULA, it almost certainly wouldn't be worth their time to try and sue me for breach of contract - especially given the likely payout.

Advantages of Mac mini

[tepples]

I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment

In a corporate environment, uniformity of hardware and lack of 3D gaming performance are advantages of the Mac mini computer.

As I see it, the big reason that people are so obsessed with running Mac OS X on commodity PCs is to fill the gap in Apple's product line between Mac mini and Mac Pro. But Mac mini is perfect for administrative employees, and creative professionals could make good use of the power of a Mac Pro. What would make a product in that gap useful to someone in a corporate environment?

Environmental case for mid-range Mac tower

[dwalsh]

A desktop Mac, between the mini and the pro would have another benefit: Displays become obsolete much more slowly than computers themselves (if at all), so all those iMacs lead to chucking away good LCDs prematurely.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[db32]

You are forgetting a few things. You have the motion sensor piece that everyone was turning into Apple Light Sabers. I have also seen this used as a type of motion alarm so that you can turn your back on your MBP and it will scream if someone tries to move it.

You also forgot the light sensor that can see how dark it is in the room and adjust the screen and keyboard backlight to adjust for it.

Then there is the fact that they keyboard even has a backlight that shines through the letters rather than squinting and trying to read the cheap painted keys by the light of your LCD. Then there is the part where your paint won't wear off your keyboard because they didn't use paint to label your keys.

Oh yeah...you also forgot the physical construction of the thing is both lightweight and stronger than the typical laptop. Most of those plasticy crap lids you can put slight torque on the corners or press on the back and see the LCD distort. This tells you that if you tap the stupid lid wrong you are likely to break the LCD. A nice sturdy frame for it means it is far less likely to have issues. (I have seen this type of better construction on a few PC laptops, but it is most certainly not a standard).

I used to think Macs were just overpriced nonsense based on fancy branding. After playing with a MBP for a while in the store I realized that they actually have a ton of better design in the hardware. If you just compare CPU/RAM/etc then yes a PC is cheaper, but if you compare the whole system and all of its hardware design the Mac is a far better deal.

The price and the product line

[argent]

The price is high, but the limited product line makes the high price for Macs a much bigger problem.

This low market share is often attributed to the relatively high prices of Apple computers.

They're only about 40% more than comparable PCs, and sometimes less. But if you are looking for a conventional desktop then the "entry level" is over two grand.

Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how an all-in-one provides a better "experience", and how you don't "need" the expansion slots, and for people who like the iMac ... I'm happy for you, fellas, I really am. But most people buying home computers don't buy a set-top style box like the Mac mini, or an all-in-one like the iMac, they buy a mini-tower or fat slab with expansion slots, drive bays, and room to grow. Whether they USE it or not, that's beside the point, that's what they buy. Companies look at Apple's high margins and come out with "iMac killers" and "Mac mini killers" and, well, they don't STAY on the market. Now I suppose they could just be selling out and they don't want to cut into their less profitable lines, but I suspect that they just don't sell well.

People aren't buying Macs because of the hardware "experience", they're buying them because of OS X, and they're often buying them despite the hardware "experience".

The cheapest Mac that really competes head-to-head with the average PC, on a hardware level, is the Mac Pro. For the rest of the line, you have an all-in-one with almost no upgradability, and a crippled desktop with even less than the all-in-one (the putty knife problem). Now I will go along (for the sake of argument) with the claim that mostly don't upgrade their PCs, but even granting that the reason is that you can generally get any combination of stuff you WANT in a PC, because there's so many of them. Apple can't do that, upgrades are the only route to fine-tuning the box, and Apple doesn't even let you upgrade the one thing that's top on people's list of upgrades these days... the video card.

And in the mini, you can't put a full sized hard drive in there, you're limited to low power low performance laptop drives, or higher latency external drives.

The mini, currently, may be the MOST overpriced Mac. For $600 you get a 1.83 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400 RPM hard drive, and Intel integrated graphics... and firewire 400 and wifi. For $300 from HP you get a 1.8 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 RPM hard drive, and nVidia integrated graphics, but no wifi or firewire.

Well, you may say that the small size, the wifi, and the firewire is worth $300.

But you can't upgrade the mini to match the specs of the entry level HP for any amount of money, and adding wifi and firewire to the HP costs you $30 from HP and about $20 from Fry's.

So, setting aside the size, after upgrades, the Mac mini is 70% more expensive, and you have to give up 3/4 of your disk, you get a much slower disk, you get a USB port that can't even charge an iPod Shuffle, you get a far inferior graphics chip, and to get no "comfort headroom".

The size? If that mattered to most people then you can bet HP would have an "a6400z mini" out there. They're not going to leave money lying on the ground. The hardware "experience" doesn't move boxes.

Apple has to sell Macs to people for whom Apple's hardware is a huge stumbling block. Buying a Mac is like buying a car... and finding the only options are a decked out luxury SUV, a souped up Civic, or a motorbike.

They're selling laptops like mad because everyone's laptops have the same kind of limitations that APple imposes on all their computers, but desktops are languishing because they're simply not in the race for most people.

Re:There is no such thing as a 'legit' Leopard . .

[Shados]

The argument tends to be that that particular piece of the EULA is dubious at best, probably not enforcable... but even if it isn't, Apple has another trick up its sleeves (as far as I can tell, someone tell me if I'm wrong): they don't sell full copies of OSX, only upgrades. The only way to get a non-upgrade license of OSX is with a Mac. So you can't just buy a copie at the store and install it, since you don't qualify for the upgrade license.

Re:Mac OS Server

[k2enemy]

Repeat after me:

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company. I think you are about six or seven years behind.

I hate to use marketing buzzwords, but repeat after me:

Apple is a total experience company.
Apple is a total experience company.

Re:Mac OS Server

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs. Repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company.

Apple used to be a computer hardware company. They branched out and now sell significant amounts of pro software, music players, and smart phones.

They could change their revenue models and sell their OS without tying it to their OS. Mind you it would be economic suicide so long as MS holds a monopoly on desktop OS's, but they could do it. I would argue, in fact, they'd be pretty much forced to do it if the OS market were restored to a free, capitalist market.

Still, right now Apple develops OS X to profit on complete computer systems including hardware and software. If they can't tie them, their OS development is just an expense with no profit involved.

And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds.

Actually, Apple is a threat to MS, chipping away at their desktop OS install base, as well as several other key MS technologies. Apple, on the other hand, is very much affected by what MS makes, since they can use any market they enter to lock out Apple users, thus reducing Apple's sales. That is why Apple entered the portable music player business in the first place. In order to survive they must commit to entering every market MS threatens to monopolize, or find partners who will and who cannot be bought out by MS. It is a very precarious place for Apple and a situation no other company wants to place itself in. Apple would never have willingly entered it, but already had competing products when MS took over and was unwilling to abandon those markets.

Re:Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Just a quick note. You have a lot of assertions, but I bet Apple has a lot of formal studies on what the market wants. While you may want a given machine and while a lot of people on Slashdot may want it to, that doesn't mean it is the most profitable hardware niche for Apple to enter next. They've been doing pretty well so far. Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.

As a second note, your assertions about desktops versus laptops is well, not the way the industry is going. For office use and home use, the desktop has been slowly dying for several years now.

Useful link

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be useful if you wish to obtain Leo4Allv3.

A Wine counterpart for OSX

[rbanffy]

Shouldn't it be rather easy to do a Wine counterpart to OSX? Windows is, in every aspect it can, Unix-offensive. The same is not true for OSX and I think it would not be that much insane to do a "compatibility layer" for OSX executables.

Many parts of OSX are even open-source.

Has anyone ever considered this seriously?

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[King_TJ]

A few things:

1. "Faster and cheaper" wins every time, only when it's also reliable! (EG. Apple moved to Intel because despite every effort, they couldn't get either Motorola or IBM to consistently improve on their product offerings in a timely manner. It was already proven that Intel CPUs are reliable, so that PLUS faster and cheaper made it a good move.) It does a person no good to have something that's "cheaper" and supposedly "faster", but is breaking down constantly.

2. My experience with AppleCare has been FAR superior to anything I ever received from Dell, HP, Gateway, or other PC vendors I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Yes, Apple systems are "proprietary", in the same sense that a Playstation game console is proprietary to Sony, or the XBox 360 is proprietary to Microsoft, or a Sun workstation was proprietary to Sun. That business model has its pros and cons, but it's the de-facto ways computers were ALWAYS sold, up until a bunch of different people decided to build "PC clones" running the same default operating system. I know my hold times calling Apple have averaged around 5-10 minutes, as opposed to 45 mins. to 1 hour with everyone else. I know I've always reached a person who speaks my native language clearly and effectively with Apple. I know that when I have sent in a Mac for warranty work, they've gone over and above what was promised or "covered in writing", replacing any dented or scratched casings, loose hinges, etc. etc. What makes you think Dell or anyone else will give you great support for old, out-of-warranty systems of theirs, anyway? Like Apple, they'd rather just have you buy a new model, too.

3. I'm not going to get into the big, raging "Windows vs. OS X" debate, other than to say one thing. Currently, you can poll Mac users and then poll Windows users on how often spyware has crippled their machines. You tell me who suffered the biggest productivity losses.

Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)?

[Viewsonic]

Since those are included by default, and you can't remove that cost from the Macs, they should be added to the Dell you are comparing them to. Since we're going to try and make this an OSX machine, you'll probably want to purchase these, no?

Re:Violating the EULA *and* DMCA !!

[Nom du Keyboard]

In addition to the EULA, they almost certainly violated at least one provision of the DMCA along the way as well.

I suspect a lot of people won't care

[Slugster]

When OSX86 first came out, there was a lot of curiosity--but most of the people who were watching (myself included) never bothered to actually set up a system. Most of the people who had gotten it running weren't using it much. Many of the people who I asked were people who already owned a Mac, and were just curious to see it running on a PC. I'm sure somebody at Apple worried about losing revenue but from my informal polls I got the impression that anyone who had wanted a Mac had already bought one, and being able to download OSX86 for free didn't change much of anything.

I was one of the people who didn't bother. Most of my reason was that I already had a bunch of PC software that I knew how to use, and didn't want to bother re-learning other software. I suspect that once people get used to either platform, this is a bigger preventative factor in changing (either way) than the higher prices of a Mac machine.
~

System API's?

[JSBiff]

I don't really know. I suspect it might certainly be possible to do a wine-like layer to run Mac Apps on other platforms, but I think Mac isn't *quite* as close to Unix as you think. Well, that is, Mac has, I think, a full Unix compatibility layer, but then in addition to that, they have all the Mac-only stuff like Quartz, Cocoa API, Carbon API, etc, which are not standard Unix libraries. Additionally, Mac OS X uses, I believe, a slightly different standard Filesystem structure than other Unix-like systems. For example, Macs have an "Applications" directory, I believe, where applications are 'installed' by dropping a folder for the application into the Applications directory (not completely unlike "Program Files" on Windows, but rather unlike the rest of the Unix like systems where a single application might have executables in /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, or some other directory, config files in /etc, library files in /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /opt/libs, etc.

Mostly, I think the hardest part of creating a compatibility layer for MacOS apps would probably be re-creating the Cocoa and Carbon API's, though. There may be other API's that also need to be re-created (I think Mac's have something similar in concept to DirectX for accellerated media playback, image manipulation, etc).

Good Advice

[CyberLife]

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

This is good advice. However, I would also recommend reading the Leopard SLA too, particularly section 2:

This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Re:Good Advice

[shentino]

For some reason that sounds like an illegal tie-in, sorta like GE saying "no lightbulbs unless you buy our toasters".

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[p0tat03]

ThinkPads are also more expensive than similarly-equipped Dells or HPs. You pay for superior design, whether it's coming from Apple or Lenovo/IBM.

Re:Get a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard

[nurb432]

One can debate if a EULA is a valid contract, but contracts as an entity are a legal issue.

It doesn't have to be criminal to be a legal issue.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[stewbacca]

Yeah, in other words, the Dell one I use at work is a "check the box" function. It has the auto sensing screen dimmer function, but it works about as well as the Microsoft built-in grammar checker. Some engineer can say they met the requirement, but we consumers get screwed with a bad feature.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[arminw]

....they've gone over and above what was promised...

When my what I thought was otherwise working, 4 year old ipod needed a new battery, I sent it in to Apple for that. What I got back was a newly re-furbished iPod of that model. With it was an explanation note, that after extensive testing, they determined that my old iPod was not meeting the original factory specs, even with a new battery. Like any other human endeavor, Apple may not be perfect, but they are orders of magnitude above others in the same game. Not all of Apple's profits go into Steve's pocket.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

[William Ager]

Is this the same Apple Care that refused to even speak to me for an in-warranty hard drive replacement without getting a credit card number first, along with an agreement that they could decide to charge me for the call afterward if they decided the problem wasn't covered under the warranty? And then took a month to replace the hard drive, while also removing my (perfectly functional) DVD+CD+-RW drive and replacing it with an older CD-ROM drive? Compared to my experience with Dell's email support, which replaced anything I needed replaced within 24 hours, with no questions asked, Apple seemed horrid.
Technical support anecdotes are generally not indicative of the overall quality of technical support that a company offers. I'm sure others have had horrible experiences with Dell and wonderful experiences with Apple.

Re:Mac OS Server

[mgblst]

The funny thing is that although Apple is a hardware company, and Microsoft is a software company, Apple produces better software that Microsoft.