OSx86: Are You Serious?

[fryke]

First: I've learned we shouldn't make definitive statements about intel Macs running Windows. But more importantly: Don't bet any money on "how much slower and more bloated Windows really is". If the Macs can run Windows natively, this will basically be the first time we shall see Mac OS X and Windows being run optimised on the same hardware. Mac OS X - mostly in the UI - does a _lot_ of things that don't exactly make it fast. Make it good, comfortable, nice - whatever. But not necessarily quick. Also even with Safari, Camino etc., webbrowsing is still lacking in speed compared to IE on Windows. Etc., etc. - But I don't think we should care too much about that.

I agree that Apple will have less problems once they're using the same processors. They can talk about Mac OS X instead of the PowerPC. They can focus. That'd be good. Unless Apple will still not learn to update their machines more quickly, that is. If you go to the computer store and see dual core 4.0 GHz intel machines, but the "current Macs" are using 3.6 GHz chips of the same family, because uncle Steve wants to wait with the announcement for just a month or two longer, then that game is lost again. The situation with IBM and Moto was more comfortable, I guess, because Apple actually had to tell those to produce faster processors. Direct competition is good. But only _for_ Apple if Apple is ready to _be_ competitive.

I also wonder if we'll be able to buy any processor upgrade out there. Because that way, you could buy a first generation intel "PowerMac" (if it'd be called that) and replace the processor(s) with newer ones of the same family later on yourself. Much cheaper than replacing the whole Mac, of course. It'd also mean that people would keep their Macs a little longer, though. We'll see how that plays out.

But back on the topic of the thread (please?): I somehow hope that Apple would do specific licensing. For example, Apple could let Sony sell subnotebooks running Mac OS X, if Apple doesn't care for that market (they didn't create a subnotebook, ever...). And they'd make money from the OS X license sold with those, of course, and should Sony really sell a lot of those subnotebooks, Apple could still rethink after one or two years. I think Apple's in the great situation that other computer makers would actually _love_ to "sell Macs" - at least as an option. I don't think Sony, Toshiba etc. are actually 100% behind Windows.

The fault in letting PowerComputing and others create Mac-Clones in the 90s was that those were allowed to create very similar machines that _directly_ competed with Apple. And after all, a PowerMac 8500 or 9500 wasn't exactly a "work of art" considering its design. They were badly serviceable towers is what they were. PowerComputing offered ugly towers, too, but theirs were a little faster and cheaper at the same time and offered access to the motherboard without having to almost _break_ the motherboard.

Such licensing can have very strict limits and _still_ be interesting for Sony, Toshiba, Dell (gasp!) and others. Apple could tell them very specifically which markets it doesn't intend to work in and let others be guinea-pigs. Apple doesn't want to have their own media center PC (haven't gone there _so_ far...), well: Let Sony create it. And give them a one or two year contract that you can take back, should you decide to cater for that market yourself. Hmm... Interesting times coming up sometime next year (and in the future)...

[TommyWillB]

Originally Posted by RacerX

I miss the Apple Menu too (and use Fruit Menu on my systems).

I wrote about the Apple Menu for both Yellow Box and Blue Box here.

As a service person of Macs, one of the first things I do is clean up the Apple Menu.

Come to think of it I used to do the same thing. I'd ALWAYS make a folder under the apple called "Misc." and then move all of the odd things into it. I even did this for my Mom, so she assumed "Misc." was the out-of-box experience.

[fryke]

Veljo posted a pic here: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584 ...

[Veljo]

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125...=wn_story_top5

"The impact of the OSx86 hack on Apple's hardware brand could be severe."

And yes, the link Fryke posted (http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584) is a picture of my friend's PC running Mac OS X.

Apparently its a 6GB image file download, and Mac OS X will only install if it has its own hard disk. It hates using a partition. Strange...

[fryke]

Well, using a separate partition probably just wasn't important to developers yet. Before the WWDC announcement it was only run on a few PCs inside Apple, and now it's only intended for the devkits. The final version will probably work the same way Mac OS X does now: I.e. no problems with installing into a partition of the right size.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by Veljo

(from closed thread)

I mean to me as much as I love Macs, PC towers are more appealing to me because they can be upgraded with more parts. For example, my iMac only supports 802.11b AirPort cards, but my 1999 PC could easily be modified to use a 802.11g card even though it's older.

How does this example have anything to do with the PC verses Mac hardware argument escapes me.

What you seem to be bemoaning is your choice of hardware... all in one verses tower (which Apple has been making... they are called PowerMacs).

Now if we were to look at my 1998 PowerBook as an example of a system that could be modified, I can put an 802.11g card in it. But I couldn't do the same for an iBook from 1999/2000.

Of course my PowerBook has had the processor replaced, the RAM extended far beyond it's original specs, the CD-ROM drive has been replaced with a CD-RW drive and it has a second internal hard drive... I don't know many PC laptops from 1998 that have had their operational lives extended like this.


So it seems to me that the argument that PCs have some sort of advantage over Macs in the way of hardware when it comes to making modifications is deeply flawed. The only advantage that a PC would have over a Mac in the area of hardware is driver support... and that is a Windows verses Mac OS advantage, not a PC verses Mac hardware thing.

Having the Mac OS on PC hardware isn't going to change this.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by RacerX

What you seem to be bemoaning is your choice of hardware... all in one verses tower (which Apple has been making... they are called PowerMacs).

The problem there is that Apple doesn't offer any consumer-level towers, whereas even cheap PCs are usually very upgradeable. You shouldn't need to shell out $2,000+ to be able to upgrade things. So unless you're in the market for a high-end system (most people are not), this IS a PC-vs-Mac-hardware argument.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by Mikuro

So unless you're in the market for a high-end system (most people are not), this IS a PC-vs-Mac-hardware argument.

Well, if we are going to talk about most people... then most people (Mac and PC users) well never install a single piece of hardware in their systems from the time they buy it to the time they replace it. Apple realized this fact back in the mid 90's, which is why there is an iMac to begin with.

The professional models are aimed at people who are professionals... and make these types of changes during the course of their computer's active life. Consumers usually don't need this ability, so Apple doesn't include it (and the consumer doesn't have to pay for it).

And so it may be a price issue... but it is absolutely not a hardware issue.



Besides, anyone who really needed the expandability of a PowerMac wouldn't have bought an iMac G5 when for about the same price they could have gotten a first generation midrange PowerMac G5 (single processor G5 at 1.8 GHz) for the same price.

Anyone willing to buy a low end PC should be a perfect candidate for a used or refurbished PowerMac.

A PC comparable to a PowerMac is going to run about the same price... so like I said, no argument.






Oh, for future reference... the most people statement was a mistake on your part.

Most people don't do anything with their systems, so including the statement in a technical discussion is a bad choice. Most people don't know anything about the computers they own and most people will never see the inside of their own systems. And most people will replace their entire system rather than upgrade even the operating system.

Just FYI.