Mac OS X on intel PCs?

parb.johal@ante said:
I won't believe any of these videos until the person behind the camera actually shows themselves inputing things onto the screen.

They all always seem to happilly show themselves turning the machines on - but from there forget it!! theres no vids that show them typing / moving the curser etc etc. why not stick in a DVD and play it?!

Also - if you look at the video - when OS X starts up - I have never seen any mac at any version - stretch its video mode like that - even when i hook up a new screen to my laptop it optimises the screen res by itself so everything still sits square...
Click to expand...

You can actually see the reflection of the user's arms on screen, so the input itself is not fake. Of course, it could be a video playing or a fake interface that responds to mouse clicks (I did something like that a few years ago to fool the spymac community, tihi), but that seems unlikely.

However, being stuck on a development version of 10.4.1 doesn't seem like a viable option for any serious user.
 
It's not about serious users. Yet.

But even now: If I still had a decent PC (hah!) lying around, I'd quite certainly install OS X on it now. It'd make a nice backup machine for my work, should my PB ever fail. Also, if reports are true, the machines don't run Mac OS X very sluggishly. Even Rosetta-emulated software, once it's actually running, performs quite well. It's not a seriously viable solution now, but these people are trying, and they'll continue once a final version of OS X for intel Macs is available.
 
Maybe the switch to intel was the best thing afterall ?? I wonder how Apple are feeling right now with all the news about Tiger hacked to run on intel ...
 
ksv said:
However, being stuck on a development version of 10.4.1 doesn't seem like a viable option for any serious user.
Click to expand...
How do you define a serious user?

And does this mean that no one who has been using 10.4.1 is a serious user? Because if serious users have used 10.4.1, then 10.4.1 is a viable option for serious users for as long as the system provides the functionality needed by the user.

Sorry, but just because you wouldn't find 10.4.1 a viable option to be stuck at, doesn't make it not a viable option for other people. And just because they could make it a viable option doesn't make them any less a serious user than you.


If it sounds like I'm taking this serious user comment to heart... you're right, I am.

Because for years I've been hearing comments like yours about how being stuck on a development version of Rhapsody didn't seem like a viable option for any serious user.

And as someone who has made Rhapsody a viable option for years, I fine the insinuation that I might not be a serious user to be an insult.


And yes, I could make a development version of 10.4.1 a viable option for years if I was stuck with it... and I hope you aren't challenging my status as a serious user because I could do this (if need be).
 
I'm working on installing it this weekend, on VMWare, dunno how much this will effect speed, but I guess I will find out :)
 
Can't you install on an empty harddrive or something? I think that'd give you a _much_ better idea... Graphics power etc.
 
theoretically you can, afaik

I'd have to disable my graphics card and use the integrated intel graphics chip though, that and have an extra hd... so i'll wait on that ;)
 
RacerX said:
How do you define a serious user?

And does this mean that no one who has been using 10.4.1 is a serious user? Because if serious users have used 10.4.1, then 10.4.1 is a viable option for serious users for as long as the system provides the functionality needed by the user.

Sorry, but just because you wouldn't find 10.4.1 a viable option to be stuck at, doesn't make it not a viable option for other people. And just because they could make it a viable option doesn't make them any less a serious user than you.


If it sounds like I'm taking this serious user comment to heart... you're right, I am.

Because for years I've been hearing comments like yours about how being stuck on a development version of Rhapsody didn't seem like a viable option for any serious user.

And as someone who has made Rhapsody a viable option for years, I fine the insinuation that I might not be a serious user to be an insult.


And yes, I could make a development version of 10.4.1 a viable option for years if I was stuck with it... and I hope you aren't challenging my status as a serious user because I could do this (if need be).
Click to expand...

Now you're cute :)

My comment was not at all directed at you, but rather at those who desperately download patched copies of OS X and spend hours getting it onto their PCs, only to find that it's incompatible with most of the software that makes the Mac a Mac; rather than doing what they really want—to get rid of the PC and buy a Mac.

Surely enough, 10.4.1 for x86 is nice as it is, but there's a slight chance it'll never be able to run iMovie, Final Cut, Logic or any other Apple application that didn't come bundled with the OS.

If I were in charge of a company with a machine park of Mac OS X "compatible" Dells, I don't think I'd consider myself a serious user if I violated the software agreement by making copies of the disc, reverse-engineering and patching it to run on an unsupported system and then refusing to return the copies to Apple. In the long run, it could be far more affordable to simply get the computers the OS was meant to run on.

I'm starting to think I should replace my signature with a disclaimer, tihi.
 
All apps *should* work if you have an SSE3 enabled cpu and rosetta running from what I understand... o_O
 
I kinda want to try it to compare the A64 to the G5.
I want to see how fast it is for my self. It looked pretty quick in the videos but still, I have a hard time beliving that it would run faster on a P4 than G5...
 
fryke said:
They'd run just like on a G3 iBook. Slower, maybe, but they'd run.
Click to expand...

I mistakenly included iMovie in my statement; the other apps require a G4 or G5 as far as I know, and won't even install.

Neither the iBook nor Rosetta runs Altivec code, but many apps with Altivec code have a built-in check for the presence of Altivec on the processor and alternative code for non-Altivec processors.
 
lol.

It's quite surprising (IMO) how easy this is to do once you can get a hold of the right Tiger Intel image (i'm just going by all the stuff i've read on this) and if you have a spare PC with at least an sse2 enabled cpu.

I hope apple locks this up more tightly come the real macintels, just so it's not a viable option for the casual user.
 
Well, I actually hope they don't care too much. They could throw a lot of working hours into tightening it - but it only needs one clever hacker to find away around their work to allow many (illegal) users to make use of that hacker's work. I'd rather see them concentrate on making OS X and the hardware it's supposed to run on the best we've seen.
 
Installed osx86 on VMWare this morning, rather meh as far as speed goes, and multiple items crashing, generally in related to things requiring Quartz effects... I will attempt to install natively on my PC this weekend, dual booting with windows via a Linux booter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top