Puck said:
gee shocking coming from the biggest bias person around.
Actually, it could be done very easily if they wanted. Apple actively fights against hackers who try to run OSX on stock PC hardware.Puck said:
Here's the thing: Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a HARDWARE company. Yes, they write lots of software, but it is primarily to sell their hardware. The fact that Macs can now run Windows gives Apple a sales advantage that no one else can match. That's why their stock price has gone up close to 20% over the last 2 days.
And by giving Windows users who are "bi-curious" (if you will) a single compter that will work for both, they can steal sales from all the other PC hardware companies out there. Plus, they are banking on the fact that the average computer user, after spending some real time with OSX, will switch for good.
ok, maybe I should have said "properly"
how well would you think it would work ?
how well would you think it would work ?
Probably pretty well. I'm sure not all hardware would be supported, but if you could build or buy a PC that had the same basic components as an Apple Intel Mac has, and then get your hands on a copy of OSX for Intel that has been hacked to allow it to run on non-approved hardware, it should be just the same as on a Mac.
I'm not sure exactly what Apple does to secure OSX on Intel. Developer versions have been hacked in the past to run on stock Dell hardware, though I'm not sure by what means. OS 9 used to require a hardware ROM chip that only Apple had access to (in theory). That's not the case with their current hardware, though they could be using Intel's Trusted Computing (which involves DRM directly in the hardware). If so, then this whole post could be moot...
I'm not sure exactly what Apple does to secure OSX on Intel. Developer versions have been hacked in the past to run on stock Dell hardware, though I'm not sure by what means. OS 9 used to require a hardware ROM chip that only Apple had access to (in theory). That's not the case with their current hardware, though they could be using Intel's Trusted Computing (which involves DRM directly in the hardware). If so, then this whole post could be moot...
Fighting...... urge........ to........ hit........ ban...... user....... for....... life........ button.......Vigsted said:
I have used Windows and Linux and I am computer literate....Macs are worlds better than Windows. Linux is good, but it is hard to find stuff for it.Vigsted said:
Open your eyes and see clearly, Macs are the way to go with computers these days.
Why do new Macs allow windows, becuase some companies wont program for Macs, so Mac allows Windows so Windows only programs will run on Macs
In case you didnt know, Window has copied or "borrowed" loads of stuff from Apple
maximus said:
Better in what way? Runs smoother? more options? better for the advanced user? beginners? I mean it isn't hard to click on Internet Explorer and surf the net.
Isn't Mac hardware and Windows software? Shouldnt you be comparing either Mac vs Microsoft or OSX vs Windows?
Starkiller said:
I do work for Communications Bureau as they like to call themselves (ie. advertising company). Trust me, I see Macs daily.
Starkiller said:
Well, ported isn't the right word to use, since that actually implies rewriting the code to use a different underlying hardware and/or API. Often you port higher level programs between OS's. However the new Windows will run on the new Macs because they're will be Intel based, and thus use the x86 family specification. Now if Apple were so sure of their superior hardware and software, why aren't they sticking with it?
And I'm sure you can do a lot of Administrative stuff on Mac's as well (you can't make an OS without it), but my beef is that it's not readily accessible. Even in Windows there's only a handful of hidden programs that you want to know about.
Puck said:
Well, to say Mac sucks was obviously just a stab at Mac users. Just like some Vince Young fans say Cutler sucks :winker:
But Windows is by and large the better OS of the two.
Regarding OSX on x86, I actually spoke to a co-worker today who said it is possible, although it runs pretty... well crappy.
maximus said:
If so, why are they opening up to the "non-Mac"(so speak) architecture? If so, why are the sales of x86 PC's several times bigger than the Mac?
maximus said:
Some companies? I'd venture to say it's about 75% of companies that don't develop for Mac. Not because they don't "want" to, but a) because Windows is the more commong operating system and b) because of a lack of developer "support" from Apple. Now to elaborate on what I mean by support, I'd point to the fact that Microsoft spends a lot of resources on tools, documentation and the developer communities for their products in general. I haven't seen the same aggressive commitment from Apple.
maximus said:
Well that's not exactly a state secret. Then again, everybody probably copied IBM back in the days.
Gunny said:
Actually it would be Mac PowerPC vs. Intel x86 (not with the new Mac's though, since they will use Intel x86) and OSX vs Windows.
One of Apple's strongpoints over the years was actually their hardware. Their computers were very fast, especially for graphical applications, however being so tightly bound to the OS, it was useless in any other computer.
It's very simple. IBM's processors ran way too hot. They couldn't manage to create a decent G5 processor that was capable of running in a laptop. It just got too hot. That's one of the biggest (though not only) reasons they switched to Intel. Apple needs to have top of the line laptops, plus they also wanted a modern processor that could go in a Mac mini, which is also very small and needs an energy efficient CPU.Vigsted said:
The fact is, Apple had been developing an Intel native version of OSX from day 1. OSX was based on NextStep, which ran on Intel hardware. Apple always had it as a contingency plan in case they had to switch to Intel.
What about it isn't readily accessible?
You are welcome to your opinion, but that's all it is...Vigsted said:
Vigsted said:
This is the second most ignorant statement in the history of ignorant statements
but I'd LOVE to hear WHY you think so
I'm guessing it's because if all corporations actually implemented their systems into Macintosh architecture that you'd be out of a job ?
by the way, in the 6 years since "switching" to Macintosh, I have yet to have a single problem of any description
no virus'
no 'fatal exceptions' have occured
no hardware / software conflicts
no NEED to access administrative functions
not a single crash
NEVER needed to call tech support of any kind
none , nada, zip
no virus'
no 'fatal exceptions' have occured
no hardware / software conflicts
no NEED to access administrative functions
not a single crash
NEVER needed to call tech support of any kind
none , nada, zip
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
