Mac for PC, Isn't it time?

Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Forum rules
Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Post Reply
altrus

Mac for PC, Isn't it time?

Post by altrus »

I'm rather annoyed with apple.

They are quite ridiculous, there adverts still brand windows and pcs as dull, grey faced men, while macs are portrayed as hip and cool, boasting about how it only contains the stuff you need, while windows contains lots of junk from step one. This claim is untrue, a fresh install of vista will come with only the base windows apps, like mac it will have a photo gallery a movie maker and a media player and music jukebox.

The fact that the adverts brand a pc as a office guy not a home guy, is dumb and wrong.
Windows(vista) has just as much media capability's as mac os x now.
And finnaly, people claiming vista is a mac clone, take a look a leopard.

The fact is, mac should be legally runnable on a pc, like windows on a mac.

They seem to be hinting about it, releasing safari for windows.
Thats all, disscus if you want.

-Altrus
Should this be in apple discussion?

Admin edit: Corrected the topic title to avoid confusion.

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12621
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

Should this be in apple discussion?
Sounds like a Windows and Apple discussion so best to leave it here.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

They are quite ridiculous, there adverts still brand windows and pcs as dull, grey faced men, while macs are portrayed as hip and cool, boasting about how it only contains the stuff you need, while windows contains lots of junk from step one. This claim is untrue, a fresh install of vista will come with only the base windows apps, like mac it will have a photo gallery a movie maker and a media player and music jukebox.
Windows Vista (let's take Ultimate as an example) does not only come with the base apps. What about Media Player, Movie Maker, Media Center, Photo Gallery, Calender and so on? Do you consider these basic Windows apps? I consider them bloat. Surely, Mac OS X comes with these too, and a preinstalled OS X takes even more space than Vista, but you can deselect the stuff you don't need when reinstalling OS X. Does XP/Vista allow this? No.

Second, these are ads. Do you really expect them to tell nothing but the truth? Come on. I agree, sometimes they are ridicolous but this is advertisement.
The fact that the adverts brand a pc as a office guy not a home guy, is dumb and wrong.
Windows(vista) has just as much media capability's as mac os x now.
Agreed, that's partially wrong.
And finnaly, people claiming vista is a mac clone, take a look a leopard.
Truth is, they both have probably looked at the other for their ideas. So that entire "XX stole this and that" discussion is rather pointless IMHO.
The fact is, mac should be legally runnable on a pc, like windows on a mac.
No, it surely shouldn't be, as that would make drivers an issue for instability, and this is something noone wants on OS X. Apple just can't release (or somehow provide/have manufacturers code) thousands of drivers to support the gazillion hardware configurations out there, as buggy drivers crashing the OS would greatly annoy the users.
They seem to be hinting about it, releasing safari for windows.
What's your point? iTunes/QuickTime have also been around for Windows for ages (because of FAT32-formatted iPods). This doesn't mean Apple will someday release OS X for PCs. I doubt they ever will.

Just my 2 cents.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Re: Mac for PC-Is'nt it time?

Post by ppc_digger »

altrus wrote:They are quite ridiculous, there adverts still brand windows and pcs as dull, grey faced men, while macs are portrayed as hip and cool, boasting about how it only contains the stuff you need, while windows contains lots of junk from step one. This claim is untrue, a fresh install of vista will come with only the base windows apps, like mac it will have a photo gallery a movie maker and a media player and music jukebox.
That's not what they meant. The applications you mentioned are considered the good stuff. They (Apple) mean all the junk that comes with OEM PCs (e.g. AOL samples installed on brand new Dells).
altrus wrote:And finnaly, people claiming vista is a mac clone, take a look a leopard.
Care to provide an example?
altrus wrote:The fact is, mac should be legally runnable on a pc, like windows on a mac.
Why? The main reason Macs are so good is the full integration between the hardware and the software. Without that, OSX wouldn't "just work", and Macs would be nothing more than PCs with pretty cases.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Re: Mac for PC-Is'nt it time?

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

ppc_digger wrote:
altrus wrote:And finnaly, people claiming vista is a mac clone, take a look a leopard.
Care to provide an example?
I think Leopard looks a lot more Vista-ish than previous OS Xes too - just little things like the transparent menu bar (like Vista's taskbar) and the default wallpaper (very similar to a lot of those grassy wallpapers from Longhorn, completely different to the blue swooshes they've used since Mac OS 9.1 and for me are very Mac-ish), as well as a massive hike in the system requirements that's presumably just for extra eye-candy (and Apple trying to sell new machines to G3 owners, of course), as Leopard has no massive new features that need lots more power (same as Vista too).
Image

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

I don't see that Apple should have any reason to allow non-Apple hardware to run OSX, even if it is possible. I don't think they'll be doing that, and if they ever do it won't be soon. I don't see QuickTime/iTunes/Safari as a hint.

The adverts are sometimes almost misleading but hey, it's an advert.

OSs all share features, they always have... saying one stole from the other is petty and only encourages fanboyism.

I think Windows and OSX are both bloated to some degree. They both need a similar amount of space to install fully and work properly... to be honest though, a system running either Vista or Tiger/Leopard should have much more storage than either OS requires.

fusi0n
FTP Access
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:18 am

Post by fusi0n »

just my 2 cents

People who say vista stole mac feutures like spotlight and such I will just say take a look at the longhorn builds. They had these feutures waaaaay before.

TheWahbinator
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:45 pm

Post by TheWahbinator »

fusi0n wrote:just my 2 cents

People who say vista stole mac feutures like spotlight and such I will just say take a look at the longhorn builds. They had these feutures waaaaay before.
The thing is while that may be true, when they started over (5xxx branch) some of those features looked slightly closer to the Mac counterparts. Blame it on the media/fanboys.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:as Leopard has no massive new features that need lots more power (same as Vista too).
So, basically, you're saying Apple has bloated Leopard for no apparent benefits, just to be more like Vista?
fusi0n wrote:People who say vista stole mac feutures like spotlight and such I will just say take a look at the longhorn builds. They had these feutures waaaaay before.
Longhorn builds that were released before or after Appple announced Spotlight? Besides, neither invented it, as UNIX has had locate for decades.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

ppc_digger wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:as Leopard has no massive new features that need lots more power (same as Vista too).
So, basically, you're saying Apple has bloated Leopard for no apparent benefits, just to be more like Vista?
No, I was saying that Leopard seems to be like Vista in that it's a lot more bloated than the previous version of the OS but with no real new features that I can see need the extra power that it demands. Tiger runs great on a 300/400 MHz G3, whereas Leopard won't run on anything less than a G4 and the quoted MHz requirement (though whether the installer will enforce this or not I don't know) is about 800 MHz, and for what new features? An eye-candy dock, transparent menu bar, file backup (if that needs extra power they could easily put in an option to disable it on slower machines if they wanted to, like in Windows) ie not much in my view.
Image

Doctor Mindvipe
Donator
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by Doctor Mindvipe »

moonlit wrote:I don't see that Apple should have any reason to allow non-Apple hardware to run OSX, even if it is possible. I don't think they'll be doing that, and if they ever do it won't be soon. I don't see QuickTime/iTunes/Safari as a hint.
While I agree, I would anjoy it if you could go into a shop, pickup a copy of MacOSX, build a computer according to the hardware specs and install on that computer. Whether EFI or BIOS based motherboard shouldn't make that much of a difference... I believe the MacOS loads a "bios update" file from disk anyways?

So yeah... Would be really fun to be able to 2build a mac" for like half the cost or whatever Apple charges for it.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Doctor Mindvipe wrote:While I agree, I would anjoy it if you could go into a shop, pickup a copy of MacOSX, build a computer according to the hardware specs and install on that computer. Whether EFI or BIOS based motherboard shouldn't make that much of a difference... I believe the MacOS loads a "bios update" file from disk anyways?
No, it doesn't. The original Mac OS X for Intel is booting straight from EFI. That BIOS emulation is only used for OSes that haven't yet learned how to deal with EF, e.g. Windows including Vista, or if using a boot loader that doesn't yet support EFI (i.e. lilo or grub for booting Linux and *NIX). Using elilo or grub2, Linux can be booted directly from EFI on these machines, though.

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

Oh no, now that I completely agree with... it would be great to have OSX as an alternative OS for homebuilt PCs, I'd probably buy it myself... Thing is, it's not likely to happen (unfortunately) because they have no incentive or reason to enable any PC to run it. If they did that, people would be a little more reluctant to pay full-whack for a proper Mac when they could go to Dell and get a cheaper one with the same OS.

As was mentioned earlier though, drivers are also a problem. The reason OSX does "just work" is because there's a much narrower range of hardware for the OS to expect. A certain set of motherboards, chipsets, processors, disk controllers, etc, and they all have drivers provided with the OS because it knows it's gonna get one of those configurations rather than the Windows style "boot and see what's there, then try to find a driver that probably doesn't exist" method...

Doctor Mindvipe
Donator
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by Doctor Mindvipe »

Moonlit, if you noticed, I wrote "build computer according to hardware spec on the box" which means, if box says "nVidia GeFroce 5500 or better" then obviously that's the lowest card you should look for.

"Intel P-IV DualCore 4500MHz" means it will refuse to run with a slower CPU, for example. YES, I _KNOW_ there's no CPU with that label, but it'll come in the future, I'm sure. Besides, I was merely trying to prove my point, not give accurate ideas as I ahve no clue what MacOSX requires in the first place

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Doctor Mindvipe wrote:Moonlit, if you noticed, I wrote "build computer according to hardware spec on the box" which means, if box says "nVidia GeFroce 5500 or better" then obviously that's the lowest card you should look for.

"Intel P-IV DualCore 4500MHz" means it will refuse to run with a slower CPU, for example. YES, I _KNOW_ there's no CPU with that label, but it'll come in the future, I'm sure. Besides, I was merely trying to prove my point, not give accurate ideas as I ahve no clue what MacOSX requires in the first place
That wouldn't be ideal either IMHO. And there'll certainly be no P4 Dual-Core at 4.5GHz, fortunately.

Doctor Mindvipe
Donator
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by Doctor Mindvipe »

Probably not ideal, but.... at least it would give those of us who doesn't mind getting soldering irons heated up, a half decent chance to save a couple moenys
And... frankly..... What is REALLY stopping MS to release Vista with support for AST gfx-cards, but not nVidia cards? Or support only motherboards from MSI? Or harddrives only from Toshiba?

Absolutely nothing, if they WANT to.

Apple want their system to be as stable as possible. And as I see it, the way Apple thinks, is "to support only a few boards, to make sure the few drivers available are functioning optimally." Which, in this case, is in complete opposition to MicroSoft, who just want to get as much out there as they can, with little regard to untested system configs.

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:Tiger runs great on a 300/400 MHz G3, whereas Leopard won't run on anything less than a G4
First of all, Leopard runs on G3s with a setup tweak, just like older releases can be installed on 604s with XPostFacto. Second, Tiger doesn't run great on 300 MHz G3s, unless you disable Spotlight and Dashboard. Add Time Machine and Spaces, and 300 MHz G3s would be like Commodore 64s trying to run Windows 95.

Doctor Mindvipe
Donator
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by Doctor Mindvipe »

A C64 would run Win95 just GREAT... just remove the few millions lines of code that just jumps from one place to another without doing [censored]

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

ppc_digger wrote:
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:Tiger runs great on a 300/400 MHz G3, whereas Leopard won't run on anything less than a G4
First of all, Leopard runs on G3s with a setup tweak, just like older releases can be installed on 604s with XPostFacto. Second, Tiger doesn't run great on 300 MHz G3s, unless you disable Spotlight and Dashboard. Add Time Machine and Spaces, and 300 MHz G3s would be like Commodore 64s trying to run Windows 95.
The very early versions of Leopard from a year ago installed on G3s with the tweak you mention (though you would probably still need XPostFacto to install it on G3s that Tiger installation is blocked on), but the apps like Safari that had already been Leopard-ised (at that stage most of the OS was just Tiger) wouldn't launch, because they'd compiled them as AltiVec-only. Now that all the core apps like Finder and Dock will have been recompiled, probably only for AltiVec, it's unlikely that you would have much success running it on a G3 My dad's 366 MHz iBook and my 400 MHz Beige G3 both run Tiger great too - I've disabled Dashboard but not Spotlight on them. Time Machine should be disable-able, and I doubt virtual desktops will be very demanding as they've been around for years in other OSes.
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Doctor Mindvipe wrote:Apple want their system to be as stable as possible. And as I see it, the way Apple thinks, is "to support only a few boards, to make sure the few drivers available are functioning optimally." Which, in this case, is in complete opposition to MicroSoft, who just want to get as much out there as they can, with little regard to untested system configs.
The reason is Microsoft doesn't have any control over the hardware out there Windows is being run on, simply because you can just buy Windows and install it on your PC which results in gazillions of possible hardware configurations Windows needs to run on. Apple, however, also sells hardware, the only hardware OS X is certified to run on (it doesn't matter the hardware is actually Intel) and thus they only have to keep track of a few dozens of drivers covering all the hardware they use in their Macs. The fact they have full control over the drivers and can test and fix stability issues contributes to the fact OS X is very stable from the beginning. On OSx86, however, where you actually might have to install unofficial, unsupported and hacked drivers to get, e.g. a Radeon card which has never been used in any Mac, to work, this is another story. These hacked drivers may as well lead to a kernel panic.

Doctor Mindvipe
Donator
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am
Location: Manchester, UK

Post by Doctor Mindvipe »

Basically, Empireum, we're saying the same thing, we just use different words and different examples

On the other hand... Linux runs on anything that can run Windows, and then some, right? And Linux is STILL more stable than Windows..... doesn't that say something about how the Linux community works?

I mean... Slack11 could be run on a 486 with some obscure card from the early nineties, right? XP wouldn't run on such a config...... not in any usable fashion, anyways. But Linux Slackware would still run and be usable.....

Though I can agree with apple, in one way. I would however, enjoy to be able to throw together a "mac" as in stuff together what is actually IN a MacIntel box and build it for meself. I'm sure it would be cheaper than the readymade Mac, even WITH the OS from a shop :/

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Doctor Mindvipe wrote:Basically, Empireum, we're saying the same thing, we just use different words and different examples Wink
You're right I guess.
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:On the other hand... Linux runs on anything that can run Windows, and then some, right? And Linux is STILL more stable than Windows..... doesn't that say something about how the Linux community works?

I mean... Slack11 could be run on a 486 with some obscure card from the early nineties, right? XP wouldn't run on such a config...... not in any usable fashion, anyways. But Linux Slackware would still run and be usable.....
Correct.
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:Though I can agree with apple, in one way. I would however, enjoy to be able to throw together a "mac" as in stuff together what is actually IN a MacIntel box and build it for meself. I'm sure it would be cheaper than the readymade Mac, even WITH the OS from a shop :/
I agree with you on that one, I'd love to be able to do that too running an original version of OS X, not some patched and cracked version, as none of the current offers Apple has really suits my needs. (The Mac mini's a bit too expensive for its performance and specs, the iMac has a screen I don't really need, the Mac Pro's way too powerful and too expensive as well)

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:and I doubt virtual desktops will be very demanding as they've been around for years in other OSes.
That depends entirely on the implementation. It could either be hide-and-show (the generic UNIX way and the XP powertoys), one giant desktop or a compositing desktop/window manager which would have the GPU assemble the desktop (Beryl). The first should be very efficient for low-memory setups, but would have trouble with special effects (making them extremely complicated to implement compared to the third, so it probably won't be used with OSX), the second will have better transitions than the first, but would be unfitting for desktop compositing. The third (which is the obvious choice for OSX) would require a powerful GPU, probably one much more powerful than that of most G3s. As Apple is all about quality, it wouldn't make a product that can act badly on some setups.
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:doesn't that say something about how the Linux community works?
Agreed.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

ppc_digger wrote:As Apple is all about quality, it wouldn't make a product that can act badly on some setups.
Why not make it like Quartz Extreme or Aero Glass then, where it just takes a look at what video card the system has and automatically disables it if it can't handle it then?
Image

spaceship9
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:05 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by spaceship9 »

imho windows has more "media" capability over osx in the sheer number of applications available and the wide choice... though osx does have way better "specialized apps". I have yet to find something that I like as much as garageband on windows...
though to pwn both... linux can (though many times not as well) run apple and windows apps... so... owned..
And you can simply install a "fixed" os x on a PC if you so wish..
most hardware wont work of course
but on my test everything that was needed worked fine...
ethernet, RAM, hard drive, etc... except the graphics were very screwy..
leopard runs even better if you can find the rare "fixed" one...

but linux can run on... like... everything.. even on the microsoft 360... or the iTV or w/e it's called
and it's natively more secure (results may vary on n00b factor) then microsoft, and at least as secure as os x.
and the fact that you can run linux, apple AND windows apps on it (to varying degree) gives linux a far wider application selection...
w/e

in the end this'll probably become a fanboy war or something...
people choose what they use for a reason.. whether it's because they're un-educated.. to stubborn to get educated.. or because they truly think what hte picked is good... and quiet often it is...
Image

If you're havin' IE problems, I feel bad for you, son - I got 99 problems but a browser ain't one. - DJ Danger Mime


Image
include email

Post Reply