# MAC OS X on Intel platform!!!



## CiPhEr (Aug 28, 2001)

Check out this site


This site is about Mac OS X comming onto intel based computers 

This site is really bad and i personally think that if apple go ahead with licencing OSX for intel then this will be another of their big mistakes. Just like Steve Jobs trusted Bill Gates when he came to join him @ apple "Big Mistake". If apple licence OSX 2 intel and let them have it on cheaper hardware then apple will go bust when it comes to selling G4's etc. 

Comptuter sales will go down greatly for them and they'll be lucky get back where they started from...

OS X is a native mac OS and should stay with hardware that can support it. it has supercomputers that can handel the system like a dream. To put OS X on an itel computer would not only be a crime but it will kill it. It has been said that a Beta version of OS X has been released for intel computers. I'm sure i'm not the only P***** off mac user out there about this. 

What do you think?

Thnx

CiPhEr


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 28, 2001)

He he he 
Coooool your engines man 
That site is at least one year old and we have discussed this matter many many many many (Com. Lassard impersonation) many many many wonderful times 

The answer is generally a big fat "no on x intel" 

No need to get all upset over a stupid web site 
Freedom of speech my good man.

Admiral


----------



## rharder (Aug 28, 2001)

I don't know what it would do for Apple as a whole, but I'd love to see OS X on an AMD Athlon. The AltiVec may kick butt for floating point operations, but the Athlon's a real screamer for overall speed.

-Rob


----------



## tismey (Aug 28, 2001)

I've never actually looked at this site. But I don't think a measly 31464 signatures since 9/18/2000 (which I make is nearly a year) is going to convince anyone of anything... Also, I love the fact that they want OSX, but at the same time they say it's "nothing more than PrettyBSD". Also, when they say that  "the Intel platform has dominated the PC industry. Ignoring this platform will be a mistake on Apple's part", they seem not to have noticed that Apple have been making OSs that don't run on Intel platforms for, well, ever. You didn't have petitions for OS8.5 on Intel, did you?


----------



## mfhaque (Aug 28, 2001)

heh you know what's funny. All my life, pc users would tell me to get a "real" computer like theirs. tell me how macs suck and so on. but since apple released  mac os x...who sucks now?? ever since mac os x came out, all i hear from pc users.."apple needs to make one for the pc", "why doesn't apple make a pc version". i'm sure you guys noticed it too.

the table has turned. hehehe. apple rules!


----------



## ladavacm (Aug 28, 2001)

> _Originally posted by mfhaque _
> *heh you know what's funny. All my life, pc users would tell me to get a "real" computer like theirs. tell me how macs suck and so on. but since apple released  mac os x...who sucks now?? ever since mac os x came out, all i hear from pc users.."apple needs to make one for the pc", "why doesn't apple make a pc version". i'm sure you guys noticed it too.
> 
> the table has turned. hehehe. apple rules! *



Heh, my place used to be a pure x86 shop (running FreeBSD, though).  With OS X and actually working MS Office (our clients send us Word documents, even though they don't mind our PDF--generated from LaTeX--documents) in a native environment, on something which is basically UNIX (and not some UNIX wannabe as POSIX or CygWin32 boxes on NT/2000) made us go for it: x86 is being phased out by attrition.  Even our clients like the idea--a vendor supported, commodity priced UNIX/hardware combo is very interesting to them.


----------



## PoweMACuser (Sep 2, 2001)

Apple can choose any type of CPU. It can choose 68000 and now Gx. of couse it can choose Intel. Apple survive because its operating system, not CPU. Apple doesn't develop any CPU.

Maybe in future, Apple choose IA CPU. IA 64 also can run OS X. Just theorically.

How many types of CPUs in this world? it seems there are a lot


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 2, 2001)

Actually you are wrong one one little detail.
Apple DOES have a say in the Gx CPUs.  Motorola, IBM and Apple are alla partners in the PPC CPU line.  Who do you think developed Altivec ???


Admiral


----------



## hyph-n (Sep 17, 2001)

actually, i can't even get to the site [dead link] - doesn't that say enough...


----------



## Kyosho88 (Sep 18, 2001)

Mac OS X on a PC.....IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.  The only thing a PC will come close to getting Mac OS X is Windows XP, which is a copy version of Mac OS X.
I already try the full version of Windows XP Pro and it feel like I'm using a Mac.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 19, 2001)

so I gather teh GM is out and about on the web ?  lol

OS X on PC has been discussed A LOT ever since the days of the public beta..... no need to repeat ourselves


----------



## tagliatelle (Oct 14, 2001)

Please, can I have MacOsX on Pc.


----------



## mfhaque (Oct 14, 2001)

Apple should have a group of people that goes out and beats the crap of anybody who asks for mac os x for the pc.  something like in Jay and Slient Bob Strike Back at the end heheh


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 14, 2001)

I am gonna send my resume to apple 
I want the execute position of CEAK (Chief Executive Ass Kicker) lol


----------



## tagliatelle (Oct 14, 2001)

Is that what it means AdmiralAk?
Our moderator pb3 means Itanium.


----------



## tagliatelle (Oct 14, 2001)

I'm thinking about a new webside for my Intelstock(1). Macosx is a derivate from Nextstep for Intel (32 bit os before Windows'95).


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 14, 2001)

what means what ? huh


----------



## apb3 (Oct 14, 2001)

He means the "AK" in your name. "Ass Kicker," get it? 

Actually, apb3 = "A.P.B." my initials and "3" I am the third, as in both my grandfather and father had the same name as I do.

pb3 is pretty cool though. Never even thought of that. Thanks.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 14, 2001)

oh 
lol damn, that is one big coincidence  but Admiral Ass Kicker sounds cool


----------



## gerbick (Oct 14, 2001)

personally, I think its the current "computer political" climate that is making the PC users - I own 4 PC's, and only one Mac - want MacOS X instead of windows.  I mean... think about it, Mac OS X is clearly a true next generation OS that looks, feels like one.  WinXP - which I am running on one machine - just feels like a candied version of Win2k.  Albeit stable, it just feels antiquated and sluggish.  Not the feeling I get on my lil' iBook.  

MS has the linux groups against them.  It has the bsd groups against them.  not to mention: the mac users, the hard core users, and if they push the MCSE's up to WinXP as quickly as they did with Win2k, they will be against MS as well.  Apple should seize the moment, and release a version of OS X that will run on the Athlons, what not.  Heck, allow Power Computing to make clones again (and have Apple charge $150 for each machine for the OS - that is guaranteed money on top of the licensing... it'll work!)... 

I, for one, am waiting on all of the Adobe apps, all of the Macromedia apps, some OpenGL tools, some XML tools, and I am SO on all Mac - goodbye PC's.

I would have personally put my name on that list of people that want Mac OS X on Intel (at least AMD that is)

I do, however... find some comfort knowing that AMD/Apple are on the same board concerning the HyperTransport Bus... so, there may be hope afterall


----------



## mailseth (Oct 14, 2001)

I have always consitered a mac os port to intel archtecture a waste of apple's resources. The x86 arcetecture is showing its age, and from the sound of it, amd's chips spend most of thier resouces converting the x86 commands over to a more efficent risc type design.

If anyone here hasnt seen the G4 vs. K7 review over at arstechnica.com, i highly suggest you do. The thing is pretty old, but it is a very good read. In short it says that the G4 is a small, elegent, and efficent design, and the K7 is a beast of a proc. that spends alot of resouces interperating x86 commands to a smaller, sleaker core.


----------



## gerbick (Oct 15, 2001)

x86 showing it's age!?

please... Apple is still using either PC66 or PC100 SDRAM, who knows what internel IDE, probably UltraDMA66, if that... yep, you guys beat the market to the SuperDrive... and... that's it.

If Apple wants to show me something, they need to be more adventurous of the hardware/bus implementations out there.  Use HyperTransport.  Use internal FireWire for the hard drives and CD-ROMS - just imagine that, and it would be easy to implement, and definitely would be the death of legacy IDE, and usher in some new business for hardware, as well as it would ideal for the "next generation" of hardware.  Use DDR-RAM - PC2700 is around the corner... that's 333mhz for those that don't know.  

They are still using G3's, with little optimizations - save the upcoming IBM models - with slow RAM (see above).  

...you can consider the above as a rant of somebody who would LOVE to get away from the x86 architecture, but not willing at the present state of things...


----------

