Why Apple should port OS X

W

waiting_for_OSX

Registered
If Apple ports OS X to the Intel x86 architecture, everyone will see how poorly OS X performs next to Windows XP and Linux. No one will believe Apple's propaganda when any user can scientifically compare, side by side on one machine, Apple's OS X, Linux and Windows XP.
 
from te rules:

"No posting of arguments from other boards - We have plenty of quarrels here at macosx.com. We don't need to import them from other message boards."

Types of Posters We'd Like To Discourage:

"Trolls: This type of person has the tendency to visit message boards for the sole purpose of complaining or saying things that cause other members to get up into a frenzy. These type of posts are usually off-topic anyhow and they lead to nothing productive, so please just don't be a Troll or see yourself Trolled out of here."
 
actually Apple shouldn't port X because it will show how much better wintel hardware is than Apple hardware but on the other hand it will show how much better X will run on faster processors, which in turn will show how much potential X has, wuteva I hate whats ifs
 
Wait a second. Am I stupid? What is Darwin, and opendarwin.org but a port? People are running Darwin on Intel. Its ported.

People are running X86 and X on X on OS X. Linux is ported.

Both are based on Unix like stuff (e.g BSD).

The elevator stops at every floor. Get off where you want to...
 
Would you buy the fastest car, the cheapest car, or the one which fits your needs ?

Same thing may one day apply when people choose a computer.
 
They should, because I have to run a PC at work and am sick of Windows, and Linux sucks for a desktop.
 
Yes, but they would make no money any more... so no R&D... no innovation... death.
 
If Apple had died back when Microsoft supposedly "saved" them, every version of Windows since then would be exactly like Windows 95.

Oh wait, they still are!
 
If Apple ports OS X to the Intel x86 architecture, everyone will see how poorly OS X performs next to Windows XP and Linux.
Click to expand...
OS X may perform better on x86 than on PPC, since the processors for the time being are ahead. However how do you intend the measuring? Simple speed and snappieness? Or stability? Or compatibility? Or ease of use? On a lot of these terrrains the Mac would score higher than windoze, since windoze is only compatible with itself and not famous for its stability... Linux on the other side may have still to improve their GUI and suchlike which opften can be confusing to those who aren't familiar with the enivironment.

No one will believe Apple's propaganda when any user can scientifically compare, side by side on one machine, Apple's OS X, Linux and Windows XP.
Click to expand...
I would love this kind of comparison. Nobody would have to believe any kind of propaganda if scientific comparison would be possible of the source codes ... but alas, first and foremost it is windows which won't allow a peek under the hood ... However, there are quite a lot of benchmarks, both simple and complex wich measure system performance, from processor to application performance. Using those both architectures and OSes can already be evaluated.

What are you after exactly? Since you cannot have done this extensife scientifical testing yourself, how do you know and why do you suppose OS X would perform poorlyLook at my signature: I run 10.2.4 on a G3 with 192 MB RAM and only 4 MB video memory (no QE). It runs well. Not excellent, but good enough. There are delays in resizing windows etc. but it runs: up 19 days, 21:47 according to my Terminal. Try and run winXP on any three-year-old machine and see if you can get to that.
 
I agree whole heartedly with the last paragraph. I'm using a 2 year old G4, which is 400mhz with the original 16mb video card. Someone at tafe told me that XP isn't "nice" to work with using anything less than a 1ghz cpu...
 
Alright, I hate to disagree here, because I am a dual-system user who favours Macs, but uses PCs a little more often, but I have a system which is around about 3 years old -
AMD K6-II 800MHz 392MB RAM 40GB HDD nVidia RIVA TNT2 Ultra64

I run a psuedo-OSX system on it at the moment - a Dock (Y'z Dock) and a nifty StyleXP theme which looks a fair bit like OS X to all intents and purposes, and beneath the beautiful exterior beats the heart of an XP machine which runs intensive programs fairly effortlessly (Photoshop 7, FireWire Video editing etc) and quickly.

I also have a Mac, around 5 years old I suppose:

PowerBook G3 "WallStreet" 10.2.4 192MB RAM 8GB HDD

It is surprisingly fast in OS X (much MUCH faster than anything else running on 300MHz) - much faster than my 800 in some respects, but I can say that when you plug a FireWire camera into the WallStreet, your framerate may as well be streamed over the internet. Hardly worth the 400MBps I'm expecting from FW.
 
"Originally posted by texanpenguin:
Alright, I hate to disagree here, because I am a dual-system user who favours Macs, but uses PCs a little more often, but I have a system which is around about 3 years old -
AMD K6-II 800MHz 392MB RAM 40GB HDD nVidia RIVA TNT2 Ultra64"

K6-2 running at 800MHz? Overclocked? If I'm not mistaken the K6 family (including the K6-3) topped at around 550MHz, so what gives in your config? Your 40GB hard disk must be as fast as anything in the Mac era of 40GB HDs and by this I mean is a fast component by itself. Your TNT2 is at least double the graphics card that ATI Rage 16MB would ever dream to be ;) and also you have 1/3 more of the RAM that XP would like to have :D What I'm trying to say of course your system runs the Windows XP but can you multitask with it? Example: Listen to MP3s while burn a cd while downloading something from net, while browsing the net while you have other stuff doing their things? I know that I can do so with an iMac G3/500/512RAM/etc. easily which if I'll listen to the Dark Side's hype the poor G3 system isn't enough not even for watching DVDs :rolleyes:

"I run a psuedo-OSX system on it at the moment - a Dock (Y'z Dock) and a nifty StyleXP theme which looks a fair bit like OS X to all intents and purposes, and beneath the beautiful exterior beats the heart of an XP machine which runs intensive programs fairly effortlessly (Photoshop 7, FireWire Video editing etc) and quickly."

Until you will repost the correct CPU of your config, I think that telling that FireWire Video Editing is quick is suspecious... Speed benchmarking is VERY tricky and we have a discussion on this subject around FCP CVS Premiere on Macs AND Wintels... Also, take note that looking similar to OS X and doing what actually OS X does is a whole different beast... An simple example could be this: Load a 640x480 or bigger QuickTime movie on any PC and on any Mac. Then play the movie and try at the same time to move it around on the screen fast... Watch carefully: You will actually see the movie shaking inside the PC window while on the Mac it will actually follow your exact window movement! Maybe I'm confusing you because of my english but try to do it and you will see what I'm talking about.

"I also have a Mac, around 5 years old I suppose:
PowerBook G3 "WallStreet" 10.2.4 192MB RAM 8GB HDD
It is surprisingly fast in OS X (much MUCH faster than anything else running on 300MHz) - much faster than my 800 in some respects, but I can say that when you plug a FireWire camera into the WallStreet, your framerate may as well be streamed over the internet. Hardly worth the 400MBps I'm expecting from FW."

In order for PB to perform better install, if you are able to do so of course, more RAM and an external, newer (=bigger, faster) hard disk and you will see HUGE differences in just about everything under OS X... Believe me!

And then compare your AMD to your PowerBook :D and sometimes don't yell at it because its poor system bus, slooooow hard disk and almost absent graphics system would not be able to keep up with the demanding task of Video Editing (what app are you actually using for VE?)

Just to let you know this... Me too I have an old AMD K6-2 system which has Mandrake Linux 8.1, 2K PRO+SP3, XP PRO+SP1 installed, with the following config:
-350MHz, MPEG2 decoder for watching DVDs with NO problems whatsoever, Plextor CDRW 12x, 40GB hard disk 7200rpm, DVD 6x, TNT 16 MB, 512 RAM, NIC 10/100, External USB Supra 56 modem, USB keyboard and mouse (I hate PS/2 devices), SB Live 5.1, 5.1 Sony speakers
For everyday(!?) work (DVDs, internet, writing, sometimes serving other Wintels and Macs :eek: , MP3s, writing a CD, etc.) it works more than just fine BUT I cannot multitask even for 2 or 3 of the previous mentioned stuff without a problem or even the poor fella to slowdown SO much that sometimes lets me think that it actually crashed and yes many times it DOES crash :mad:

Sometimes, I wonder (all while HATING myself) why back at 1999 I didn't buy an iMac G3/400 or something better (keep in mind that Macs here in Greece are extremely expensive and 3-4 years ago the situation was even worst :eek: ) which does all those things that my AMD cannot even hope to do so, without even breaking a sweat! Now, that I'm thinking of it, I hate Apple for making me hate myself :confused:
 
I still don't see why people complain that Mac OSX unperforms. I am using a PowerMac 867 mhz system, and it runs fine. Mac OSX still needs some tweaking. Isn't that what Win 95-XP are, just tweaks. It still has DOS underpinnings, and that Registery mess.
I agree with CHEVY, just use what fits your needs and desires. I like MAC over PC. Both have specific problems. I chose to deal with MAC problems over WINDOWS. Windows makes me feel I am holding the big crayon in kindergarten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top