OSx86: Are You Serious?

[TommyWillB]

No... It won't!

The club will remain little because Apple will not let the scumbags in... And the scumbags will make up all kinds of BS about why they didn't want in anyway!

Think about it. Apple announced ONLY CPU changes... It's the Toppers and Feature Creeps who keep insiting that this means more. They say this will make them PeeCee's... it wont!

The problem is not Toppers and Feature Creeps invading our club. Instead our club seems becoming converted from this inside out... Don't be a Feature Creep. Don't let the stupid concerns eat at you.

[fjdouse]

Toppers? Interesting, sounds like an expression used in sexual contexts which only friends of Dorothy will get... but I digress...

Far be it from me to disagree with my web developer friend above, but only Mac-myopics are saying that Intel Macs will be Macs and not PCs. You could call anything a Mac, but a simple logic is being overlooked about the PC thing. Windows runs on generic PCs, if Windows will run on an Intel Mac natively, then logically, an Intel Mac must be a PC (as in an generic IBM PC compatible), even if packaged and sold as something different. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm afraid the chances are it's a duck. It's amusing to say the least to read the U-turns and the retractions, I could say some of it is two-faced. We've HAD to go from a position that the Mac experience is about the unique OS and hardware to it being just the OS, perhaps the same logic would apply if in 10 years Apple abandon Mac OS and use an Apple branded version of a Microsoft OS? We could try and convince ourselves that the Mac experience is all about iLife eh? Again, I rant...

Personally, although I accept the switch, it's only because I have to. I don't relish the idea of Apple producing x86 machines, I was attracted to a UNIX implementation where I wouldn't have to recompile a kernel to make a screensaver work, on unique PowerPC hardware, but the average Mac user cares little for the technicalities and frankly by what I've read before I humbly do not think many are able to understand the possible ramifications of what the switch could mean for the platform longer term. I won't even go into the subject about licensing it for chav PCs, quite possibly the most short-sighted and suicidal idea I've ever heard.

I think until Apple actually ANNOUNCE the first Intel Mac, people are quite literally, pi$$ing in the wind, nobody knows what protections and preventions Apple will put in place, I hope they put enough in to stop the majority of Chav-PC users from going through the grief of installing it on their boxes-of-woe. Hopefully they'll tie it into specific Apple hardware and try to make it run like a sack-o-cack on generic machines. It's all up in the air now, anything you see people doing -or not- in relationship to Tiger on x86 means NOTHING. Only dev kits have been issued, these cannot EVER tell you much about what the ACTUAL machines will be like, in hardware or software terms, and these idiots ILLEGALLY hacking and installing OS X on other machines could have wasted their time when the actual products start to appear.

Anyone who says or writes in their wee little blogs that they know what's coming, is basically talking out of their @rses and should be ignored on principle - ONLY Apple know what is going on.

[fryke]

Well, it's not _that_ easy. Apple does and will give _some_ information out before the actual release of the first intel Mac, because third party developers have to be able to make sure that their software as well as hardware (!) runs okay with the products. For example, I don't think that Apple actually writes the graphics drivers all by themselves. nVidia and/or ATi (or even intel, should Apple make some use of board-integrated graphics by intel) will have to be contacted well before the introduction of the first intel Macs. Apple wants developers to be ready for the transition, because if Apple makes the jump, consumers must be able to make the jump, too. If it's a disaster, however, and many third party software and hardware (drivers) don't run well or not at all from the beginning, then the transition will be a VERY hard one.

We've heard a lot of people complain about it already here on the forums, and Apple certainly has to renew the Mac users' trust in the platform - even if it goes intel. And going intel they will, as we know.

Most important are certainly the professional users. Also most difficult, I guess. Apple can try and lure professionals to make the jump by releasing machines that are technically attractive. For example, if the intel PowerBook that will replace the last PPC PowerBook offers more battery life and a big speed improvement, that might work. But should the customer's printer or scanner or (gasp!) Adobe CS not work right from the beginning, the customer either won't make the jump or make it and be very disappointed.

Hence the transition kits. Sure, those machines are not what the final machines will be, but they're out for the sole purpose of enabling third party developers to make the transition. We're probably talking software rather than hardware drivers here, but _those_ must be issued as well. And before the release of the intel Macs.

Hence: Some information _will_ drop out. And much information _has_ dropped out already. "Pi$$ing in the wind", "talking out their @rses", call it what you like, doesn't make it right: It's what the readers of rumour sites _want_ to read and talk about. And so they do... The fact that some people are now able to install 10.4.1 8Bxxx on plain vanilla PCs shows that _currently_, Mac OS X is not so far away from running on them. I agree that we all don't know about the final version of OS X for intel Macs, but opinions and guesswork are allowed. So are thoughts about what Apple should or shouldn't do.

[nixgeek]

For the record, I am in a quandry regarding the PowerBook.

See, we just refinanced and will have almost everything paid up (the house is the only thing we will still pay for). My wife is getting a laptop for herself along with a Rebel XT. She's a Windows user and doesn't like Macs so I'm not going to try that route with her (believe me, I have tried and she has used Macs before and prefers Windows).

Anyways, I am looking to get something for myself. I have looked at the PowerBook but I'm undecided. Should I get the PowerBook or should I get..............a..................nice Alesis QS 8.2 keyboard synth with hammer-weighted 88 keys??? You thought I was going to say "wait and get an Intel Mac" or "get a PC laptop" weren't you???

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter what the CPU is inside. It's still a Mac. Computers (in all honesty) have gotten to the point where the hardware isn't as critical as it used to be. It's the software. Even if Apple DID decide to license to PC vendors, what people will be experiencing is the "Mac OS Experience." Personally, I think Apple should keep making its own hardware, since they would still have the ability to crank out quality machines. But to be honest, if you purchase a bunch of components for your Mac, you still might have to download the drivers for it anyways. So how much different is it really than Windows at this point in that respect? The difference is that Apple is very particular about quality in their OS, which is what's behind the "Mac OS Experience." Microsoft still hasn't understood that (still evident in their Vista beta shots). People are now finally starting to see that the Mac is truly a better system because of Apple's attention to detail.

So big deal. I'll get a PPC PowerBook now (if I don't go for the synth)....eventually I'll end up buying another Mac, although it would have an Intel chip. So long as the operating system (and hardware) remains top-notch I'll keep staying on the Mac track.

[cfleck]

Since I'm pretty happy with my machines (pb and pm) I'd get the synth! Besides, I've been craving one!

And yes I thought you were going to say "wait and get a ..."

[nixgeek]

HAhaAhaH

I'm leaning more and more towards the synth at this point. Who knows...I might change my mind again. Regardless, it will definitely be a Mac no matter what the CPU.

[TommyWillB]

Originally Posted by fjdouse

Far be it from me to disagree with my web developer friend above, but only Mac-myopics are saying that Intel Macs will be Macs and not PCs. You could call anything a Mac, but a simple logic is being overlooked about the PC thing. Windows runs on generic PCs, if Windows will run on an Intel Mac natively, then logically, an Intel Mac must be a PC (as in an generic IBM PC compatible), even if packaged and sold as something different.

NO No No!

You've got multiple things wrong here. (Maybe it's your glasses that are on upside-down & backwards?)

1) Just sticking an Intel CPU in a Mac does NOT make it a "generic PC"... To be a "generic PC" it must conform to all kinds of specific things that Apple need not concern itself about.

2) So if it a Mac with an Intel CPU there is no guarantee that Windows will boot on it... because it will not be a "generic PC".

3) Besides, the discussion here is NOT about Windows running on it, but instead the exact opposite... being able to run OS X on a "generic PC". This is certainly technically possible, and while Apple might enable this for developer releases, it will never leave this in the final consumer release.

Everyone is making assumptions that a CPU swap = a complete change over to standard "generic" PC motherboards, bios, etc. Neither Apple nor Intel have implied any such thing, and to think the'll do this is a huge ASSumption leap.

The Mac "swan" will never walk like and WinTel "duck". Instead we are simply inserting a gene from this duck into our swan to enable it to make it be able to eat the same food as ducks to. This will be an internal change that will not change the beauty or outward behavior of our swan. It will not suddenly "quack", though it may adopt some ducks as new friends.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by TommyWillB

2) So if it a Mac with an Intel CPU there is no guarantee that Windows will boot on it... because it will not be a "generic PC".

<snip>

Everyone is making assumptions that a CPU swap = a complete change over to standard "generic" PC motherboards, bios, etc. Neither Apple nor Intel have implied any such thing, and to think the'll do this is a huge ASSumption leap.

The dev systems are "generic PCs". And Phil Schiller himself said that Apple will "do nothing to preclude" the use of Windows. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean anything about the final products, granted, but as of now, all signs point to the Intel-based Macs being "IBM PC" compatible. It's not just hyper speculation and hand-wringing. There is evidence to support this idea, and there is NO evidence to support the contrary.

And I really don't think a "PC" needs to conform to all that much that Apple doesn't need to concern themselves with. Certainly the Macs will lack things like PS/2 ports, but so what? Right now, what separates Mac hardware from PC hardware besides the processor? (I mean from a technical perspective; style and attention to detail don't count.)