Mac OS X for AMD/Intel

Seeing as you have a PC, you should download the GNU Darwin distro and you'll at least be able to escape with your dignity intact! :D
 
if you can have a super-dolly pc notebook or a base level apple powerbook: get the powerbook. it's really easy, once you start to think about, isn't it? :)

Btw.: If new iBooks and TiBooks come our way next week, we can all go buy the old ones cheaper. A TiBook 500? THAT's a computer. I got one, so I know. ;)
 
God, will people EVER stop whining about OS X for Intel. People - it aint going to happen. If Apple ever got to the point where it needed to shift to another processor other than the PowerPC, it might move to the Intel architecture. But you can bet your ass that Apple would engineer it so that it would only run on Apple hardware some how.

Apple would not survive as a software only company. Everybody bitchin that Apple should move to Intel should wake up and look at Be.

Be made a great OS for Intel. Pretty much gave it away, and it still couldn't gain share. Apple would be no different.

If you can't afford the Mac and have to go for the PC, I feel sorry for you. It's not the end of the world, as WinXP is pretty decent.

But as I write this from my TiBook 500 from my living room, connected to the net via Airport, browsing under OmniWeb 4.1, running Freehand, Lightwave, Dreamweaver and Photoshop (under Classic), I know I made the right choice. My butt ugly P3/800 sits in the other room, longing for attention.

Good luck. :p
 
Image there Windows XP running on PowerPC G3 processor computers and Mac OS X running on Intel 486 Pentium 4 processor...

Nah, I don't think that ever will happen.

But that would be nice, so you don't have pay other thousand dollars on computer if Linux, Mac, and Windows run on any kind of processor. Don't you think?
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
God, will people EVER stop whining about OS X for Intel. People - it aint going to happen. If Apple ever got to the point where it needed to shift to another processor other than the PowerPC, it might move to the Intel architecture. But you can bet your ass that Apple would engineer it so that it would only run on Apple hardware some how.

Apple would not survive as a software only company. Everybody bitchin that Apple should move to Intel should wake up and look at Be.

Be made a great OS for Intel. Pretty much gave it away, and it still couldn't gain share. Apple would be no different.

If you can't afford the Mac and have to go for the PC, I feel sorry for you. It's not the end of the world, as WinXP is pretty decent.

But as I write this from my TiBook 500 from my living room, connected to the net via Airport, browsing under OmniWeb 4.1, running Freehand, Lightwave, Dreamweaver and Photoshop (under Classic), I know I made the right choice. My butt ugly P3/800 sits in the other room, longing for attention.

Good luck. :p
Click to expand...

Alright, hows this.... Even if Apple doesnt do it for Intel procs, then at least they should start up with clones again... If that happened, I can see nice cheap G4's for less than the current Apple models.
 
This is the second thread you have started on this subject. Do you have no one who you can talk to? Do you honestly think it interests anyone ? Did you expect to find sympathy? But I'm a nice person so I'll give you a link from where you can start you PC adventures. maybe they'll be more interrested.
http://www.microsoft.com
 
Well...Good luck on your PC adventures.
But I have NO interest in PC Windows!

I can't wait to get pay day next month so I can get modem for my Macintosh!

Right now I have no modem for Macintosh, I am froced to use PC to get on online!

When I get modem for Macintosh, than I don't have to touch PC Windows ever again!

MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D
Also I don't think there will be Windows XP for PowerPC G3 processor and I don't even think there will be Mac OS X for Intel 486 Pentium 4 processor...
 
Give him a break :p
Perhaps he has not bought it yet and is looking for some support to thrust him away from it lol :p Counseling maybe ;)
 
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
Perhaps he has not bought it yet and is looking for some support to thrust him away from it lol :p
Click to expand...

You've got it! I'm still not totally sure... I was just throwing ideas out there... I think some people are so obsessed with Macs (and others with PCs), and that is where this "battle" between platforms came from... People who don't have the time to help someone make a decidion, but have the time to flame them for there "decisions".

However, I would like to say, that in my posts here, AdmiralAK is what I would call a nice, average Mac user who is willing to help out... PS Admiral, if you have AIM, IM me... my SN is JemsAIM
 
Right now Apple's biggest problem is their hardware. They have this awsome OS, but it only runs on over-priced under-powered hardware. For example, Apple's entrie level PowerMac is the 733Mhz for $1699. If I was to build a PC myself I could get a 1400mhz AMD (everything else would be the same, including mobo, ram, hd, cdrw, keyboard, mouse, case, etc) for about $450 not including shipping. For apple to survive the market they have entered with OS X, they are going to need take another look at their hardware. And by new market I mean *nix geeks, etc. It is quite obvious they are trying to tap the "open-source" community, but their over-priced hardware does not appeal to these people. The only Mac I own is a Powerbook, as this seemed to me to be the best cross between performance, design, etc (although it was overpriced as well, but mose laptops are), but this is not the case for desktop PCs. Even Apple's entry level desktops, the iMac, is way below the entry level pc's offered by people like Dell. Apple's cheapest iMac is $799 for: 500mhz G3, 64mb ram. Dell offers a 900mhz celeron wih 128mb ram for $699.

I do not see how Apple plans to stay afloat? Granted they have a strong and loyal user base, but what about expansion? In my opinion, OSX is too good a OS to no be dominating every desktop PC out there. If people can see what OS X is possible of and if they can get reasonably priced hardware to run in on, Apple can surely start chipping away at the 90% they have to go.

</rant>
-jdog
 
to see how intel are going to explain how an 800mhz Itanium, is faster then a 2ghz p4...

I have peecee, it is cursed...
 
immediately.

You all should know very well that if you compare a home-brew pc clone to an Apple machine you'll get a price difference. Compare to Compaq or Dell for that matter.

There are no Apple clones or Mac OS X for Intel, because it would cannibalize Apple's hardware sales.

Apple can shine, if their hard- and software shines.

It does right now. If you *really* want an AMD 1.4GHz, go buy one. If you want to get work done: Get a Macintosh.

And don't whine. Be ready to pay something for the best.
 
Cheaper hardware would be nice, but I am also concerned about quality. I have seen DELL machines just have sunstandard parts because they are cheap. I think if apple did this their name would be tainted. I think that apple has a name in making quality computers (granted there have been a few mishaps, like powerbooks turning into FIREbooks lol :p)
 
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that most of Apple's hardware is too expensive for the average consumer. The exception right now is the iBook, which feature for feature is the best buy out there for a portable on any platform right now.

That said, I think the low end iMac should be sold at $599 with a $100 rebate offered to users who sign up for 1 year with Earthlink. Apple needs at least one loss leader item to get people in to the fold. At $799, the low end iMac is better than a $999 low end iMac, but still not good enough when you can buy a pretty powerful AMD 1.2GHZ generic Windows box for $400.

That said, the clones didn't make sense. They didn't do their job of expanding the user base, all they did was cannabalize existing Apple customers. And they didn't contribute to R&D of the platform, so it wasn't a smart move for Apple to continue to license to them. Apple should have licensed the Mac OS from the beginning. If they had, the Wintel/Mac percentages would probably be swapped right now. But Apple missed that boat, and we've seen that licensing will not help the cause at this point.

The only way I could see licensing work is if Apple worked with one licensee to make a machine that was out of Apple's current market/customers. For instance, if Apple worked with 3rd party to create a Mac clone that would be targeted to an audience that Apple hasn't been successful in marketing to, specifically, the server & business market. These 3rd party Mac clone sales wouldn't be cannabalizing Apple sales (well, maybe a little, but Apple's server offerings suck and they can't be making too much money from Server hardware). This might work, but again, it's very risky.

When Jobs' killed the clones I was furious, but time has shown it was the right decision to keep Apple afloat and profitable.
 
Fryke: you either need a vacation or you need some good weed.

As far as Dell goes, my most recent PC purchase was a Dell and it has the same parts I would have got if I built it myself. I have had no trouble with it.

Paying higher prices for Macs does not mean you are getting high quality parts, it means you are paying for all the R&D that went into designing that product. Does anybody have numbers on the actual markup we pay for computer parts? I know the clothing industry has like a 800% markup or something and I would assume the computer industry has a very high markup as well. When you buy a mac you are paying for the cool looking case that has the nifty fold out side, etc.

The dual proccesor PowerMac costs: $3499. The exact computer with one proccessor costs: $2,699.00. Do you really think it costs that much more for an extra proccessor and a different motherboard?

-jdog

P.S. Fryke: there is no "real work" that you can't do on a PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top