Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs 623
ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation.
However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."
Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
There is currently, no such equivalent.
For now, I will stick to my Ubuntu running AppleTV. It has digital audio and video out, and casts $250.
But if you have a suggestion, go ahead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
OR, they may be afraid of the truth: that a huge number of consumers buy the Mini because it's the cheapest Mac and given the option would be a slightly larger, louder, but faster tower in a heartbeat?
It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.
The truth is that Apple makes a wonderful OS. Their hardware is stylish, overpriced, and has too many gaps in their lineup. Licensing OS X probably would result in a dramatic drop in Apple hardware sales simply because: Apple's hardware is not market competitive. On equal footing, with the same software, many fewer people would buy their machines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's the whole point. A computer is determined by its software AND it hardware. When the two are integrated, such as in Apples products, the sum is greater than its parts. That's why Apple makes better computers. They make the WHOLE system, not only half of it. If they were foolish enough to one again license out their software, they'd be in the same boat as MS. They'd have to support who knows how many different hardware designs.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that Apple doesn't lower the prices of their machines over time, so if the machine hasn't been updated in awhile then the value does indeed suck.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
When Apple does an update, they tend to be using top-of-the-line, bleeding edge hardware. When you compare a freshly-updated MBP to other notebooks, the price/performance ratio is usually in Apple's favor, or very, very close to it. Apple makes their profits when parts prices fall, because they keep their prices the same. Near the end of a product's refresh cycle, Apple products look like horrible deals. Near the beginning, they're quite competitive. Unfortunately, people tend to remember the bad and spout off their vitriol even when the Apple machine is a perfectly good deal.
And then, as you alluded, there's the issue of options. With Apple, you just don't get very many. Even though OS X would probably run fine on a budget notebook, Apple doesn't offer budget products. It probably works in their favor--companies usually have fairly slim margins on their budget lines, and there are plenty of people who buy Apple computers simply to get OS X.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nearly every Apple product is *significantly* smaller than the majority of PC competitors (and is usually priced very similarly to the few PC competitors that have the same spec and form factor)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Informative)
My primary machine is a 4 year old Dell notebook. It plays Youtube just fine, handles Java, scans, prints, and edits photos (using Gimp) like a champ.
(It doesn't run OS X, due to a lack of CPU instructions (no SSE3, though I hear that there's a patch to get that working.)
Looking over the laptops at bestbuy.com, the ones that cost $500 are generally superior or equal to my notebook in every dimension[0]. Bump it up to $600, and you can find plenty of notebooks that are better in every way[0].
Heading over to Dell, $500 gets you roughly the same specs as the notebooks at bestbuy.com. Don't like the Celeron? Bump up the cost $50 and you don't have to have one.
If I could find any actual $400 notebooks, I would compare those specs, but such beasts don't seem to exist outside of sales, and I can't find any sales right now for them. I'm not the person to whom you were replying, anyway, so it's not like $400 was my claim. But it doesn't look hard to find notebooks with prices approaching that that are more than suitable for the tasks you're talking about.
[0] Except for screen resolution, but then, Macs have pretty crappy options for this, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Funny)
In which case, having your support inquiry routed to the US would probably suck. Those idiots can't even speak proper Hindi!
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've used quite a few HP laptops, and frankly, I'd never be caught using another one, if I could help it. I'd gladly pay a premium for the Apple-branded notebook, vs. dealing with what comes with an HP purchase.
1. Unless things are different in other countries, Apple tech. support is WORLDS better than HP in the USA. When I contact HP, I typically have to wait about 48 hours for an email response from some 1st. level technician who just quotes obvious nonsense from a checklist. Why email, and not phone? Because calling HP results in over an hour wait time on hold, as a rule, only to wind up with another clueless response.
2. Apple is far more conscious of "design" than HP. Apple notebooks have a bare minimum of plastic doors, sliding trays, and the like which tend to break/snap off. Even the CD or DVD drives on them are slot-loading, so you don't have a big drive tray sliding out the side of your notebook, requiring extra free space around it and potentially breaking. The 17" Macbook Pro and Powerbook before it were thinner and lighter-weight than anything 17" HP had to offer, too. And don't forget Apple's "mag-safe" AC adapter. That's one more great idea, especially when I see how many HP and other laptops are out of service due to loose/broken AC power jacks!
3. OS X, in my opinion, is a FAR less trouble-prone environment to use, day-to-day, than anything else offered for PCs. I can't run a legal and officially-supported OS X environment on non-Apple hardware right now. So essentially, even if Apple hardware costs me a premium, I understand that paying it helps support and subsidize further OS X development and improvement -- and to me, that's a good place for my money to go.
Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:5, Informative)
You also forgot the light sensor that can see how dark it is in the room and adjust the screen and keyboard backlight to adjust for it.
Then there is the fact that they keyboard even has a backlight that shines through the letters rather than squinting and trying to read the cheap painted keys by the light of your LCD. Then there is the part where your paint won't wear off your keyboard because they didn't use paint to label your keys.
Oh yeah...you also forgot the physical construction of the thing is both lightweight and stronger than the typical laptop. Most of those plasticy crap lids you can put slight torque on the corners or press on the back and see the LCD distort. This tells you that if you tap the stupid lid wrong you are likely to break the LCD. A nice sturdy frame for it means it is far less likely to have issues. (I have seen this type of better construction on a few PC laptops, but it is most certainly not a standard).
I used to think Macs were just overpriced nonsense based on fancy branding. After playing with a MBP for a while in the store I realized that they actually have a ton of better design in the hardware. If you just compare CPU/RAM/etc then yes a PC is cheaper, but if you compare the whole system and all of its hardware design the Mac is a far better deal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "Faster and cheaper" wins every time, only when it's also reliable! (EG. Apple moved to Intel because despite every effort, they couldn't get either Motorola or IBM to consistently improve on their product offerings in a timely manner. It was already proven that Intel CPUs are reliable, so that PLUS faster and cheaper made it a good move.) It does a person no good to have something that's "cheaper" and supposedly "faster", but is breaking down constantly.
2. My experience with AppleCare has been FAR superior to anything I ever received from Dell, HP, Gateway, or other PC vendors I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Yes, Apple systems are "proprietary", in the same sense that a Playstation game console is proprietary to Sony, or the XBox 360 is proprietary to Microsoft, or a Sun workstation was proprietary to Sun. That business model has its pros and cons, but it's the de-facto ways computers were ALWAYS sold, up until a bunch of different people decided to build "PC clones" running the same default operating system. I know my hold times calling Apple have averaged around 5-10 minutes, as opposed to 45 mins. to 1 hour with everyone else. I know I've always reached a person who speaks my native language clearly and effectively with Apple. I know that when I have sent in a Mac for warranty work, they've gone over and above what was promised or "covered in writing", replacing any dented or scratched casings, loose hinges, etc. etc. What makes you think Dell or anyone else will give you great support for old, out-of-warranty systems of theirs, anyway? Like Apple, they'd rather just have you buy a new model, too.
3. I'm not going to get into the big, raging "Windows vs. OS X" debate, other than to say one thing. Currently, you can poll Mac users and then poll Windows users on how often spyware has crippled their machines. You tell me who suffered the biggest productivity losses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When my what I thought was otherwise working, 4 year old ipod needed a new battery, I sent it in to Apple for that. What I got back was a newly re-furbished iPod of that model. With it was an explanation note, that after extensive testing, they determined that my old iPod was not meeting the original factory specs, even with a new battery. Like any other human endeavor, Apple may not be perfect, but they are orders of magnitude above others in the same gam
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Did anyone hold a gun to your head or a knife to your throat and force you to buy a Mac? No? Well then why do you care if others ARE willing to spend whatever amount of money Apple asks for their goodies? You and others like you just want to have an Apple computer at Dell prices. I'd like a BMW at Honda Civic or Chevy prices. Too bad BMWs sell for so much. So I have to settle for a Honda or Chevy car and you settle for a Dell computer.
Apple makes a WHOLE computer, OS and all, unlike everybody else, which only makes half computers. If I were willing to work VERY hard, it might be possible to turn a Civic into a BMW, no? So, if you work very hard, your time being worth nothing anyway, you will probably, finally, at last, get Apple's OSX to run on your cheap-ass homemade box.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.
Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Informative)
Apple MBP $1999
Dell Inspiron 1525 $1428.
The Dell is missing dedicated graphics, includes 50GB more hard drive space, and has a higher capacity battery.
Apple MBP $1999
Dell XPS M1530 $1602
Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.
When this line of MBPs came out, they were competitive. But Apple won't drop their prices as components decrease in price (it's where they make the bulk of their money!) while Dell does. So right now, you can get an equivalent Dell for almost $400 less than the MBP, and it's got better specs in a couple of areas.
Of course, whether or not this is competitive is pretty subjective.
Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
But below, I discuss why it's silly to discuss software for this exercise. If you want to discuss software, please pay attention to what I said above. If you don't want to discuss software, the I'll ignore OS X and its features as a benefit. You aren't allowed to have it both ways.
1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective.
And once we start talking about differences in software, we're throwing the entire argument out of the window, because it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm a huge fan of OS X. It's great software. I can't use Windows Vista without cursing like a sailor, because it's not just user-unfriendly, it's user-hostile. So if you want to talk about software, we're talking about an argument that can't be resolved with, "Go configure a similarly spec'd Dell." It doesn't even make sense to suggest that one do that if you're including software in the discussion.
The point is not that Apple computers cost more, the point is that Apple hardware costs more. In some cases, it's not a lot more, and in some cases it is.
I put Home Premium on both machines. Upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is (iirc) around $150 which, incidentally, is close to the retail price for OS X (at $130.)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
Come on Apple, put out a mid-tower priced around $800-$1,000 and they will sell like crazy.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Informative)
It's important, when comparing prices, to pick machines in the same class. Don't just compare CPU/RAM/HDD specs. I have a precision workstation and it's built like a tank compared to the dimension line.
It would be very easy to buy the cheapest ECS motherboard, no-name power supply and generic case then slap in a quad core Xeon, lots of cheap RAM and a high capacity value hard drive and try to pass it off as "similar" to less technical customers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas. I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home
Allow me to add perspective to your largely correct assertion:
Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Sony does, in almost all areas. I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home
You can buy a cheap, low reliability system with the features other than CPU stripped out for less than a machine with lots of features designed for real users who do more than run a folding@home farm in the basement. When you compare m
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Informative)
You will find this to be consistent. I bought my MacBook Pro after reading the review in the December issue of Laptop magazine where the regular MacBook was the price/performance king in the home/office category. I personally priced a Dell, an AlienWare, and an Apple. The AlienWare was the cheapest (despite the reputation they have, AlienWare laptops are very price competitive in the high-end), Apple was the next by about $100, and the Dell was over $1000 more expensive. I went with the Apple because it was half the weight of the Alienware and because the Alienware came with Vista.
The reason Apple has this reputation is because they don't sell cheap computers. You can compare an $1800 PC with an $1800 Mac: but you can't compare a $500 PC to a $500 Mac because Apple doesn't sell to that market.
* Note: In defense of PC manufacturers, they are crippled recently because Vista is making their benchmarks look terrible. When they compare the Mac's running XP to PC's running XP, the OS X advantage goes away and the results are nearly identical at the same price.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
First, go to the Dell web site and spec out a machine like the 8 core MacPro 3.2GHz. Apple Retail = $4,399. Dell T7400 = $6,338. (Don't forget the 512MB GeForce 8800 equivalent). Does the Dell have two independent 1.6 GHz busses or just one? I can't tell from the specs. The Mac Pro has two.
Second, look at how you install hardware in the two of them, like drives. The Dell is a rat's nest. The Mac Pro has carriers that slide the SATA drive straight into the logic board. No cables. The hardware certainly feels a lot better.
If I could get the equivalent performance and reliability from a commodity PC for less money, it might be worth it. Comparing new Macs and new PCs tells me that isn't going to happen with this generation of equipment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing with Apple is that they tend to give you everything you might need up front, rather than keeping costs low and letting you upgrade to the things you need. Sure, if you start with the Mac pro as your base and bring up other systems to match, the Mac pro may be less expensive, but I'd probably have everything I needed on a PC
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, the only time a mac beats an HP or Dell on price is in the edge cases - macbook air, fully loaded 8core workstation and so on. But that's not what most people buy. They want the imac, the regular macbook. That's where the volume is and that's where Apple takes their premium.
Peter.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I want a small form factor and don't care about 3-D graphic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
techbargains.com "coupon" deal, Inspiron 530. The coupons are frequent enough a savvy shopper can wait for the one they want rather than paying list. (Apple doesn't have this or we could compare to their best deal.) I assembled the machine I wanted online, though I ended up going with an HP notebook machine with Blu-Ray.
Technically to match the MacPro, you need to match Dell's workstations
I don't want to match the Mac P
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Informative)
Apple:
* Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Harpertown" processors
* 2GB memory (800MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
* ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT graphics with 256MB memory
* 320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive
$2,799
add 3 year warranty, $3,048
Dell:
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
3 Year Limited Hardware Warranty with Next Business Day On-Site Service
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD(TM) and Roxio Creator(TM) Dell Ed
320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive
$3,973
Waaay more expensive to go to dell.
Apple laptop:
# MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display
# 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 200GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# 2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
$2,499
Dell:
Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 3MB Cache) edit
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition edit
High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440x900) & 2MP Camera edit
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms) edit
Size: 250GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive edit
Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write) edit
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT edit
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini Card edit
Finger Print Reader XPS M1530 edit
$1,374
Better graphics card, and way cheaper at dell.
If you're willing to skip the dvd writer and use an intel graphics card, from dell you can get one with 3GB of ram, and it's $999.
~X
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ThinkPad X300 (SSD) > MacBook Air with SSD
I don't even need to back this up because the info that's available everywhere and on several
Yeah, that was too easy, I know..
Besides, before buying my T61, I considered Apple for a sec, but there weren't many options. Either a plastic MacBook with no videocard and expensive upgrades (like the "Superdrive"), or a $2000+ MacBookPro that burns your laps since the whole thing is a huge heatsink heating up at over 10
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if you're trying to match an iMac, it isn't hard to top the design. The G5 iMac design is a piece of shit, anything can beat that. Admittedly, it's hard to equal the other hardware designs Apple makes for their computers, but the iMacs blow.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
You lost credibility here. If you're going to add $225 for retail copies of OS/X and iLife to your comparison, then you need to add $250 to your costs on the Apples, to cover the copy of Windows Vista that it doesn't come with. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant, it's a question of comparing like for like.
Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.
What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.
Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.
So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).
As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.
I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.
Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:4, Funny)
I agree about the 5 years, but for a different reason:
Considering how much progress in user-friendliness Linux has made in that time, I guess it will catch up to the Mac OS X of today in another five years. So either Apple has something new and shiny by then, or cracking OS X will be pointless for most purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, no way THAT'S going to happen.
You don't think an Intel Mac running 10.5 has no advantages over a PowerPC running 10.2? You think a Linux box that's the equivalent of the latter would be able to seriously compete with the former?
Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet, I prefer Linux as far as the user experience goes. But I don't even have a Linux partition. Why?
It's the apps.
I'm a documentary director so I got the MacBook Pro because I can use it as a monitor and I can use Final Cut Pro. Sony Vegas for windows is good, FCP is better. To date, there is no native GNU/Linux solution that matches the power, stability, and functionality of Final Cut Pro. It has saved me time and energy and has produced some amazing footage. I bought an entire computer and operating system simply for the functionality - FCP, for me, is the Mac killer app.
But I'd rather run FCP on Linux, if I could.
What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app.
Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization.
The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?)
GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent.
So long as the GIMP remains substandard compared to Photoshop (with poor typography support, bad CYMK profiles, etc.) you won't see graphic artists considering Linux. So long as Cinelerra remains substandard compared to Sony Vegas and FCP (with poor stability, complex user interface, no 24p support) you won't get the video guys. So long as gaming continues to be a hassle on Linux, you won't get the gamers.
That's the bad news.
The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at. If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra. Get together a group of buddies and work to tackle problems as a team.
I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many businesses including Apple have recognized the benefits of simplicity. From a manufacturing view, Apple only offers 4 desktop PC models a
Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't exactly call AMD mutt-hardware...
Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge). And the support is likely no more than a series of kludges, just like in Microsoft and Linux operating systems. Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?
Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time. But Linux is also free. Apple is proprietary and expensive, and Microsoft is able to support a vast array of hardware and Windows compared to Mac's tiny amount (partially because the vendors are biased towards Microsoft in making drivers, but I don't see Apple encouraging them for the above reasons).
Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.
Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, not only would they be facing the risk of whether their hardware can stand on its own merits, but it'll also require Apple to support additional hardware-- and in some cases, crappy hardware, poorly designed hardware, or hardware where the vendors have done a horrible job writing the drivers.
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but it is true that a fair amount of the instability comes from crappy drivers. Linux overcomes this by using (mostly) open source drivers and not the manufacturer's proprietary dri
MacOS on PCs... (Score:5, Interesting)
MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.
I'm sure the crowd of people who feel the need to upgrade their computer every 5 seconds but like MacOS X otherwise might dig this. I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Re:MacOS on PCs... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MacOS on PCs... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well some us would upgrade if given the chance (Score:5, Insightful)
I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.
Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.
As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.
Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.
When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I am looking for a very practical reason to do so: I would like to try my hand at developing an application for the iPhone/iPod Touch using Apple's SDK, however, doing so requires a machine running Leopard. This means that at minimum, I must invest at least $500-$600 for a Mac Mini to do development. The problem is that there is no facility to "evaluate" the development environment without actually instal
But if your time has no value... (Score:5, Funny)
Never mind the buying part... (Score:4, Informative)
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf [apple.com]
Re:Never mind the buying part... (Score:5, Informative)
Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.
Breaking EULA's has not.
One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.
Re:Never mind the buying part... (Score:5, Funny)
I went there (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I went there (Score:5, Funny)
By the way, you are now breathing manually.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where is the charm? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I just want access to iLife and maybe later FCP. There's really nothing else all that compelling that I can't run on Linux. But, I want to run it in a virtual machine. And until I have a free VM with emulation of an OpenGL/T&L video card, I'm not interested anyway. By which time probably jahshaka will be worth using :D
It's not technical at all- (Score:5, Informative)
Step 2: download and burn onto dvd
Step 3: Use Intel hardware. SATA for hard drive if you wish, but use IDE for the DVD rom
Step 4: let the "leo4all.v2" do the rest.
Step 5: there is no step 5
I first started with AMD hardware, and had endless issues (no surprise really, AMD isn't fully supported by OS X) but the switch to intel hardware went much more smoothly.
The system I used was a D945GNT board, with an off-the-shelf nVidia 7300GT. OS X picked up everything but the sound (still working on why, claims it's suported) and for the fisrt time ever, I've had the pleasure of playing with OS X on fast hardware.
Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)
Apple updates worked fine, as did other software updates, so kudos to the OSX86.org crew for their outstanding work.
Re:It's not technical at all- (Score:5, Informative)
get that instead.
Hint leo4allv3 leo4all.v3 leo4all v3
Don't think about it? (Score:3, Funny)
Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.
Still, I'll think about it all I want.
Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
way ahead of you (Score:5, Informative)
It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.
The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.
Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.
Market drivers (Score:5, Interesting)
iGroundhogDay (Score:5, Funny)
posts as follows:
"Apple won't release Mac OS because they can't tightly control the hardware"
"That doesn't matter, it's down to the device drivers"
".. but will it run Linux"
"The Mac Book Air doesn't have a removable battery so it's shit"
"Why would you want to run OS-X, the earth is only 3,000 years old"
The Problem With Unsupported Hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).
I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.
This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.
In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.
Advantages of Mac mini (Score:4, Interesting)
In a corporate environment, uniformity of hardware and lack of 3D gaming performance are advantages of the Mac mini computer.
As I see it, the big reason that people are so obsessed with running Mac OS X on commodity PCs is to fill the gap in Apple's product line between Mac mini and Mac Pro. But Mac mini is perfect for administrative employees, and creative professionals could make good use of the power of a Mac Pro. What would make a product in that gap useful to someone in a corporate environment?
I can has torrent, plz? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, why would I give Apple any more respect than Microsoft in that regard?
Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4 (Score:5, Insightful)
The mini is over priced for it's hardware and the older g4 one cost $100 less with a real video card And $599.00 for 1gb of ram and DVD / CDRW what a joke and you have to add $200 to get a
DVD / RW and you still only have 1gb of ram and it's hard to open up next to a real desktop.
The imac are ok but the built in screen is not that good and it's hard to open up and only has room for 1 hd unlike the new dell AIO that can hold 2 and is a lot easier to get in to.
But a system at $1,199.00 with only 1GB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory is not that good of a price.
Apple needs to be more open to ATI and nvdia video cards in the mac pro and a real desktop as a big number of them use the same video chips and they only have 1 driver set for a lot of cards.
The mac pro at $2200 is over kill for a lot of users and the hardware is over the top with alot of higher costs from sever / workstation parts that are not needed.
Most office uses need a desktop with desktop parts and desktop ram not a over priced laptop in a small case with out screen that you need to force open.
Re:Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a quick note. You have a lot of assertions, but I bet Apple has a lot of formal studies on what the market wants. While you may want a given machine and while a lot of people on Slashdot may want it to, that doesn't mean it is the most profitable hardware niche for Apple to enter next. They've been doing pretty well so far. Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.
As a second note, your assertions about desktops versus laptops is well, not the way the industry is going. For office use and home use, the desktop has been slowly dying for several years now.
Violating the EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Violating the EULA *and* DMCA !! (Score:3, Interesting)
The price and the product line (Score:5, Insightful)
This low market share is often attributed to the relatively high prices of Apple computers.
They're only about 40% more than comparable PCs, and sometimes less. But if you are looking for a conventional desktop then the "entry level" is over two grand.
Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how an all-in-one provides a better "experience", and how you don't "need" the expansion slots, and for people who like the iMac
People aren't buying Macs because of the hardware "experience", they're buying them because of OS X, and they're often buying them despite the hardware "experience".
The cheapest Mac that really competes head-to-head with the average PC, on a hardware level, is the Mac Pro. For the rest of the line, you have an all-in-one with almost no upgradability, and a crippled desktop with even less than the all-in-one (the putty knife problem). Now I will go along (for the sake of argument) with the claim that mostly don't upgrade their PCs, but even granting that the reason is that you can generally get any combination of stuff you WANT in a PC, because there's so many of them. Apple can't do that, upgrades are the only route to fine-tuning the box, and Apple doesn't even let you upgrade the one thing that's top on people's list of upgrades these days... the video card.
And in the mini, you can't put a full sized hard drive in there, you're limited to low power low performance laptop drives, or higher latency external drives.
The mini, currently, may be the MOST overpriced Mac. For $600 you get a 1.83 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400 RPM hard drive, and Intel integrated graphics... and firewire 400 and wifi. For $300 from HP you get a 1.8 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 RPM hard drive, and nVidia integrated graphics, but no wifi or firewire.
Well, you may say that the small size, the wifi, and the firewire is worth $300.
But you can't upgrade the mini to match the specs of the entry level HP for any amount of money, and adding wifi and firewire to the HP costs you $30 from HP and about $20 from Fry's.
So, setting aside the size, after upgrades, the Mac mini is 70% more expensive, and you have to give up 3/4 of your disk, you get a much slower disk, you get a USB port that can't even charge an iPod Shuffle, you get a far inferior graphics chip, and to get no "comfort headroom".
The size? If that mattered to most people then you can bet HP would have an "a6400z mini" out there. They're not going to leave money lying on the ground. The hardware "experience" doesn't move boxes.
Apple has to sell Macs to people for whom Apple's hardware is a huge stumbling block. Buying a Mac is like buying a car... and finding the only options are a decked out luxury SUV, a souped up Civic, or a motorbike.
They're selling laptops like mad because everyone's laptops have the same kind of limitations that APple imposes on all their computers, but desktops are languishing because they're simply not in the race for most people.
A Wine counterpart for OSX (Score:3, Interesting)
Many parts of OSX are even open-source.
Has anyone ever considered this seriously?
System API's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly, I think the hardest part of creating a compatibility layer for MacOS apps would probably be re-creating the Cocoa and Carbon API's, though. There may be other API's that also need to be re-created (I think Mac's have something similar in concept to DirectX for accellerated media playback, image manipulation, etc).
I suspect a lot of people won't care (Score:3, Interesting)
I was one of the people who didn't bother. Most of my reason was that I already had a bunch of PC software that I knew how to use, and didn't want to bother re-learning other software. I suspect that once people get used to either platform, this is a bigger preventative factor in changing (either way) than the higher prices of a Mac machine.
~
Good Advice (Score:4, Informative)
This is good advice. However, I would also recommend reading the Leopard SLA too, particularly section 2:
This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legality? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do, however, recognize their copyright. So I'll buy a copy to respect copyright, and then install it wherever I damn well please.
That said, I'm not above copyright infringement either. The RIAA will not see a penny of my money.
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (âBOGUS AGREEMENTSâ) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
That ought to hold up in court, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if they could even find out that I had broken the EULA, it almost certainly wouldn't be worth their time to try and sue me for breach of contract - especially given the likely payout.
Re:Legality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.
Enforcing EULAS does not.
Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.
Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also I don't know if one can really consider oneself a nerd if one haven't run some Linux dist, installed OS X just because one can, run some other architecture than x86 and small
Re:Popular Choices (Score:5, Informative)
But it was only a couple weeks before I got tired of it. IMO, part of the charm of a Mac is... y'know... the actual Mac.
Anyway, I used this guide [insanelymac.com] for Dell Centrino Duo laptops, and other posts on the same site are extremely helpful if you're really interested in trying Mac OS X on a PC. Check the "OSx86" section [insanelymac.com], and especially this thread [insanelymac.com].
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, if you happen to have $500 to $1000 to blow away. Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey.
And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.
Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.
iTunes is free because it makes using an iPod and the iTunes store a breeze. Mac OS X client is low in cost and works as it does because Apple spent a lot of time and money to ensure you're getting your bang for the buck in a computer you buy from them.
Microsoft sells software. Others leverage Microsoft to sell their hardware. Microsoft doesn't always make the best hardware, nor do they read consumer needs very well (not to be confused with business customers). Zunes don't sell, for instance.
When Microsoft makes crappy software, the whole PC industry suffers a bit.
And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds. When Apple makes a good product, third parties dive in to complement the experience with accessories and the like. Crappy products in the Apple world today get bad press fast.
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:4, Informative)
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
I hate to use marketing buzzwords, but repeat after me:
Apple is a total experience company.
Apple is a total experience company.
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple used to be a computer hardware company. They branched out and now sell significant amounts of pro software, music players, and smart phones.
They could change their revenue models and sell their OS without tying it to their OS. Mind you it would be economic suicide so long as MS holds a monopoly on desktop OS's, but they could do it. I would argue, in fact, they'd be pretty much forced to do it if the OS market were restored to a free, capitalist market.
Still, right now Apple develops OS X to profit on complete computer systems including hardware and software. If they can't tie them, their OS development is just an expense with no profit involved.
Actually, Apple is a threat to MS, chipping away at their desktop OS install base, as well as several other key MS technologies. Apple, on the other hand, is very much affected by what MS makes, since they can use any market they enter to lock out Apple users, thus reducing Apple's sales. That is why Apple entered the portable music player business in the first place. In order to survive they must commit to entering every market MS threatens to monopolize, or find partners who will and who cannot be bought out by MS. It is a very precarious place for Apple and a situation no other company wants to place itself in. Apple would never have willingly entered it, but already had competing products when MS took over and was unwilling to abandon those markets.
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be criminal to be a legal issue.