OS X tiger X86 edition

[Maximilian]

Is it gonna be basically an actual choice for the typical user to use instead of windows? Or will things still be incompatible etc?

If it will be, what will the advantages of OS X tiger be over windows XP PRO? or the soon to come Vista? if it has any advantages.

 

[SLCentral]

No, it will be locked on the Mac hardware. Eventually there will likely be hacks to circumvent this, but that would be illegal.

 

[theMan]

i really like OS X, but i dont really want a mac computer, they are slow, and i want to game on my computer. its too bad it will be only for macs.

 

[Cynicist]

And you wouldnt be able to play any windows games...

 

[MAW1082]

Apple released new computers based on intel processors . . .

Am I right to assume these are x86 processors?

If so, I don't see how Apple could realistically prevent people loading Apple OS on their intel based PCs

 

[jazzboy]

I believe that Apple will add and extra chip to their computers to say that their Macs and then OS X x86 would look for that.

Even if you could get OS X to install on a non-mac computer you'd still likely have problems getting drivers for everything.

 

[phisrow]

OSX86 isn't likely to be a happening thing on generic whitebox gear, for the reasons given above; but it may well lead to greater ability to run Windows binaries on OSX. Up until now, the WINE project was basically useless on OSX, because it provided a reasonable subset of the WIN32 API, and others; but didn't do any translation of machine code. Now that will no longer be an issue. It'll be interesting to see how enthusiastic Apple is about this, though. On the one hand, I can imagine that they would enjoy being able to offer support for all the Windows only corporate software and the like that has kept them out of various markets pretty much forever. On the other hand, as the recent WMF issue in WINE showed, emulating Windows too closely leaves you vulnerable to its faults and Apple probably has no desire for their setups to be tainted by association with Windows native code running under WINE. I doubt that they'll touch it(though some sort of Crossover Office type product becoming available seems quite likely); but I imagine that some elements of the community will be all over the chance to do so.

 

[Ecgtheow]

Originally posted by: theman
i really like OS X, but i dont really want a mac computer, they are slow, and i want to game on my computer. its too bad it will be only for macs.

New Macs are only going to be as slow as new PCs.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: theman
i really like OS X, but i dont really want a mac computer, they are slow, and i want to game on my computer. its too bad it will be only for macs.

I'm sorry I'm the one that has to break it to you.... but you really don't know what you're talking about. OS X is in every way superior to Windows, I agree. However, it's the combination of the Mac OS and the perfectly tweaked, specific hardware that makes the Mac platform so appealing. Why do pofessional video editors, photographers, studio professionals, and movie makers choose the platform? Not because they are "slow". The Apple II you were using might not have stacked up to your PC, but try out a dual core, dual proc 2.7 G5 PowerMac and come back saying it's slow. Even low end units, barring the god forsakn eMacs, are rather quick and povide great bang for the buck. For that matter, even the eMacs have their place...

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: Ecgtheow

Originally posted by: theman
i really like OS X, but i dont really want a mac computer, they are slow, and i want to game on my computer. its too bad it will be only for macs.

New Macs are only going to be as slow as new PCs.

Look, people are begging for OS X for retail standalone purchase, correct? It makes sense that if your corporation controls the harware and the software, intertwining them effectively and efficiently is much easier, creating a better end product. I don't want compatability issues to belittle OS X, turning it into a windows look-alike, so I'm content to buy a Mac with optimized hardware to go along with my OS.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: Ecgtheow

Originally posted by: theman
i really like OS X, but i dont really want a mac computer, they are slow, and i want to game on my computer. its too bad it will be only for macs.

New Macs are only going to be as slow as new PCs.

also have you ever wondered y poeple dont whatnt to install win xp on the macs?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Is it gonna support everything windows does?

Is that question really dumb or what?

 

[QueBert]

no doubt Tiger x86 will support hardware outside what Apple puts in their box. Apple won't support it, and we won't see legit drivers. There are already ready Nforce 1/2/3/4 hacks out for the x86 Beta. I imagine when it goes retail, kiddies will have a field day. While I doubt it will ever be legal to buy a copy of x86 without having the Apple hardware to run it. We will still see Tiger x86 being ran by plenty of people who shouldn't be.

 

[spyordie007]

OS X is in every way superior to Windows

That is opinion, not fact. Many people see the fact that the software they have will run under Windows but not on a Mac as Windows being superior, but this is also opinion.

Why do pofessional video editors, photographers, studio professionals, and movie makers choose the platform?

Because not too long ago there were a lot of good arguments for using apple's old platform (Motorola) over the competing x86 products. Of course nowadays if the platforms go the same way it will simply be a question of what software they want to run (because the OS really wont make much of a difference to an application like Photoshop when it's running on near-identical hardware).

Also media prosumers may be good at graphic design; but this doesn?t necessarily make them hardware experts

Also have you ever wondered y poeple dont whatnt to install win xp on the macs?

There are some people who play around with running other OSes on Macs (most notably Linux) however it's not very common because the hardware is so overpriced. Especially with Mac going to x86, why would you want to pay so much extra money for apple's shiny case?

Not that I'm trying to pick on you, but nobody likes a zealot and that's exactly what you're coming across as. There are a lot of strong arguments for both Mac and Windows; they are both good solid platforms. Nowadays about the only time you're really going to be *wrong* is if you claim that one is unquestionably superior to the other.

 

[UlricT]

From the NY times
"Mr. Jobs said he fully expected some users to run Windows on the new Macs eventually, which could make Apple's computers an attractive alternative to PC's that run only Windows. "I'm not going to do anything to preclude that," he said."

WWOOOOTTT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/technology/11apple.html

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: UlricT
From the NY times
"Mr. Jobs said he fully expected some users to run Windows on the new Macs eventually, which could make Apple's computers an attractive alternative to PC's that run only Windows. "I'm not going to do anything to preclude that," he said."

WWOOOOTTT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/technology/11apple.html

so Job's doesn't care if I drop 1,500 on a Mac, then install XP on it? what a great guy! When he comes out saying he doesn't care if XP users install OSX on their x86 box, then I will give him his props.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: UlricT
From the NY times
"Mr. Jobs said he fully expected some users to run Windows on the new Macs eventually, which could make Apple's computers an attractive alternative to PC's that run only Windows. "I'm not going to do anything to preclude that," he said."

WWOOOOTTT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/technology/11apple.html

so Job's doesn't care if I drop 1,500 on a Mac, then install XP on it? what a great guy! When he comes out saying he doesn't care if XP users install OSX on their x86 box, then I will give him his props.

:roll:

 

[Falloutboy]

if someone ever programed a proper compatablity layer for OSx simlar to Winex then you would see alot more people switching, since all the "computer work" apps already are ported or have a good alternative on mac, if it can get some good game compatability every non moraly bound computer user will be using OS x on there computer

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Is it gonna support everything windows does?

Is that question really dumb or what?

Thanks for your two really great informative posts. They show your 39k post count are elite status are well deserved

As for my question being "dumb" Mr jobs has finally seen the light and switched to using the same type of processor the rest of the world is using, why not make his OS compatible with the OS the rest of the world is using too? It makes sense! In fact, why not just scrap that and use windows, then youve got stylish alternative to dell.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Thanks for your two really great informative posts. They show your 39k post count are elite status are well deserved

You're welcome.

As for my question being "dumb" Mr jobs has finally seen the light and switched to using the same type of processor the rest of the world is using,

The rest of the world isn't using Intel. There are a metric buttload of PPC chips out there. MIPS seems to be fairly popular too. Oh, and sparc, but mostly PPC.

why not make his OS compatible with the OS the rest of the world is using too?

The rest of the world isn't using Windows. While some embedded systems run Windows, I'd venture to say most don't.

What made the question dumb is that you did not explain compatibility. Did you mean compatibility on a software level? A hardware level? How much compatibility? Where?

It makes sense! In fact, why not just scrap that and use windows, then youve got stylish alternative to dell.

That makes no sense at all. Where does Apple's "user experience" theory go? How do they keep all of the customers that barely stayed with them after the switch to PPC?

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

The rest of the world isn't using Intel. There are a metric buttload of PPC chips out there. MIPS seems to be fairly popular too. Oh, and sparc, but mostly PPC.

Ok then, the *majority* of the world's domestic home pc's are using intel. Some are using AMD too, but since theyre both x86 i wont differentiate.

The rest of the world isn't using Windows. While some embedded systems run Windows, I'd venture to say most don't.

Your average joe is using windows. Joe dosent know other OS's exist. So the majority of the world is using windows for home pc use.

What made the question dumb is that you did not explain compatibility. Did you mean compatibility on a software level? A hardware level? How much compatibility? Where?

I mean, devices and software designed to run on windows will run on OSX too, for the most part. Like back in the 90's software and hardware designed to run on a pentium would also typically run on amd's/cyrix's equivilent (with a few exceptions).

That makes no sense at all. Where does Apple's "user experience" theory go? How do they keep all of the customers that barely stayed with them after the switch to PPC?

Their theory goes out the window. They dont need those customers as they will be appealing to a much wider market. Possibly the same people who bought an Ipod might want an apple if it was compatible with everything. Its got a cute name, it looks nice, its the same make as my Ipod, hell yea! lets buy one!
Their theory has left them with a single digit market share percentage, same with their customers, time to change.

 

[Link19]

Wouldn't this make it easy to port all applications written for OS X to Linux or BSD because they are now both going to run on an x86 CPU and MAC OS X is based on BSD and Linux is very much like BSD? SO who would even want to try and use MAC OS X on a non-Apple x886 CPU PC when you can juts use a different flavor of Linux or BSD? Or are they not that much alike?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Ok then, the *majority* of the world's domestic home pc's are using intel. Some are using AMD too, but since theyre both x86 i wont differentiate.

I meant x86 in general, not Intel specifically (aka: we meant the same thing ).

I mean, devices and software designed to run on windows will run on OSX too, for the most part. Like back in the 90's software and hardware designed to run on a pentium would also typically run on amd's/cyrix's equivilent (with a few exceptions).

Hardware: It'll work, if someone writes the drivers. I'm hoping companies decide to support OS X a little better.

Their theory goes out the window. They dont need those customers as they will be appealing to a much wider market. Possibly the same people who bought an Ipod might want an apple if it was compatible with everything. Its got a cute name, it looks nice, its the same make as my Ipod, hell yea! lets buy one!

People are doing that already with the mini and the ibook. I'm guessing the new IntelMacs will only strengthen this trend. If Apple switched to Windows they lose the Apple experience, and just become an over priced Dell. They'll kill off the Macintosh line and become an iPod only type company. Ick.

Their theory has left them with a single digit market share percentage, same with their customers, time to change.

If it bothered them, don't you think they would have changed everything a bit sooner? I think they're happy with their meager market share, as long as they're making money.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Link19
Wouldn't this make it easy to port all applications written for OS X to Linux or BSD because they are now both going to run on an x86 CPU and MAC OS X is based on BSD and Linux is very much like BSD? SO who would even want to try and use MAC OS X on a non-Apple x886 CPU PC when you can juts use a different flavor of Linux or BSD? Or are they not that much alike?

In general, Linux and BSD applications port pretty easily over to OS X. Many of the applications out there (especially the popular ones) run on the many architectures the BSDs and Linux run on, so getting it to run on PowerPC hardware isn't difficult.

It's not the command line applications that are the issue. The GUI programs are. Apple has an X11 server available, so I can run my X apps on it with no issues. But Aqua programs will be difficult, since there aren't any open/free implimentations of it out there.

 

[spyordie007]

But Aqua programs will be difficult, since there aren't any open/free implimentations of it out there.

And unfortunetly a lot of Mac software requires Aqua...