First Hand with Mac OS X on Toshiba Intel (x86)

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac OS X
Link: Apple Mac OS X on x86: a first test (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051109212948)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[Mudbug]

lemme make sure I understand what just happened here - ZDNet just reviewed software that, according to the NDA signed by developers, wouldn't be distributed or used for review.

It got good marks for it's relative position in development, but still... c'mon, Apple. You sued ThinkSecret and AppleInsider and others for talking about pre-release information - how is this any different?

[iGary]

I wonder how much it cost them to consult their lawyers on whether to run this or not.

[twoodcc]

i don't image that will be up for long

[iGary]

i don't image that will be up for long

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worst, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.

[Mudbug]

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worse, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.

Yep - as the saying goes - "I don't care what it is you say about me, as long as you spell my name right."

[winmacguy]

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worse, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.
You cant buy this kind of publicity;) Who needs advertising when journos just want to "unlawfully" grab your stuff and test it and then post in on the web so that everyone can read about it and talk about it in discussion forums:rolleyes: :eek: :D Shocking:p

[plinden]

So, the only application test they did was iTunes encoding, using the PPC version of iTunes via Rosetta, and found that it was 3x faster with WinXP. They said that this "may be" due to using emulation with Rosetta.

Still, plenty of people responded pointing out the flaws in the review, and the dubious legality.

[angelwatt]

I thought it was a fun little article and was good of them not try to say this was how the end result would and realized Apple will definitely have it in better shape when release time comes. I definitely agree Mac has an easier install than any windows OS. I think Bill might start sweating when he sees how well Mac runs on Intel in comparison to his Windows.

I'm stoked for relase day.

[mkjellman]

to be honest I couldn't believe that a large name like this posted this. it looks like a blog. the pictures are horrible quality and it seems like someone posted this without the editors approval. but we know that probably didn't happen.

as a select member I know apple is very stringent about even talking about pre-releace software. x86 OS X comes with the same terms as any other pre-releace non-public apple software.

what I do like about this information is that even with rosetta mp3 encoding is only 21 seconds on that AMD configuration. By the time this goes live I think we can be looking forward to a real treat.

also, i'd love to know what the "boot loader" is they talked about. Is it just the "Startup" control panel in System Preferences? That would be sweet!

[Abstract]

All these tests mean nothing to me until they're tested on machines using the proper Intel Chips that will go into the new Macs. Also, what about using software made for Intel Macs? Surely the iTunes we use when the system comes out will be a bit different.

All these early reviews are pointless in the real world until we get some real retail laptops and desktops (and real tests......iTunes encoding? :confused: ) to test them on.

[Sun Baked]

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worst, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.Apparently they are ...

They get a cracked pirated copy of Mac OS x86 and put it on their machines, then write a review on it.

They proudly tell the world...

1. I pirate software.

2. I used pirate software.

3. I tell the world I use that pirate software.

4. Somebody files a complaint with www.bsa.org

5. My ass and ZDnet's are lubed for the software audit.

6. The audit finds lots of unregistered software.

7. I cry when I write the check. :(

Edit: If the BSA posted their reward policy more clearly, I'd probably be turning these end-users in left and right. Heck an extra couple/few hundred a month would be cool for sending some e-mails.

Especially since it's so hard to catch corps doing this crap and going for the up to $50k reward for turning in a company.

[freiheit]

All these early reviews are pointless in the real world until we get some real retail laptops and desktops (and real tests......iTunes encoding? :confused: ) to test them on.

Agreed; any review of any pre-release product is pointless in the real world. But what's wrong with using iTunes encoding as a benchmark? Lots of people do it. That makes it a better benchmark that a lot of the WinBench or Sandra tests which are common among PC reviewers, which don't reflect real-world usage. As a reader, I'd much rather know how fast the system will do something I actually care about than to know what mystical scoring method came up with a high score on the system.

[Silencio]

Stupid article for any number of reasons.

However, I did have to chuckle over their apparant amazement and stupification over Mac OS X's graphical Installer and Disk Utility! XP's installer is still text-based, convoluted, requires way too much user intervention, and is otherwise generally horrible. Pretty sad that the vast majority of PC pros out there don't think it gets any better than that!

[autrefois]

If Apple doesn't ask ZDNet to take this down and/or doesn't sue them (the article was just posted yesterday), could Think Secret and AppleInsider use that in their defense to say they were unfairly targeted?

I would think that actively breaking NDA oneself (the ZDNet article says "our preliminary labs test", my emphasis) would be worse than reporting information obtained from a source who broke that NDA. ThinkSecret was just reporting, whereas ZDNet broke the agreement themselves.

If that doesn't prompt action by Apple, obviously Apple is closing their eyes to ZDNet's infringement.

[liketom]

this is very usefull for all them people out there who crave more info on Mac OS on X86

but this is just adding fuel to the fire for people to download iffy cracks of X86 Tiger - which in my view is wrong.

saying that it does look promising , and i wonder if apple is chucking out a few bones to get the hype up over there MAYBE release of a new Mac at macworld that just happens to have a Intel CPU in ?

who knows buy i think this will be left up on ZDNET for at least 2-3 days


//Rock
///On
////Tommy :)

[Passante]

Actual quotes for the review

"Partitioning the hard disk is also straightforward thanks to the efficient Disk Utility program. Unlike in Windows, this requires no data entry, but lets you use the mouse to create and resize a partition easily. Windows users will also be surprised by Mac OS X's disk imaging and backup capabilities. All this is possible simply by starting the setup CD; a Windows setup is light-years away from the user-friendliness of a Mac installation."

"All of which makes the current test results for Mac OS X x86 more remarkable. Clearly, essential components of the power-saving functions in the Pentium M processor (in our testbed Toshiba Portégé M300) are already supported. There can be no other explanation for the fact that the power consumption of Mac OS X x86 is on a par with Windows XP running on the same notebook computer. Mac OS X is even a little faster than Windows XP at starting up, while the two operating systems shut down at about the same speed. As far as resource hunger is concerned, Apple's OS is a little less demanding: after loading, Mac OS X x86 leaves 324MB of RAM out of 512MB free, while XP releases only 290MB."

"Mac OS X looks in amazingly good early form on the x86 platform. As far as power consumption and OS performance are concerned, it can already keep up with Windows XP."

?Apple Mac OS X on x86: a first test



Kai Schmerer November 09, 2005

Steve Jobs might not approve, but Apple's latest operating system can be installed on any x86 hardware. How well does it function? Read our preliminary labs test to find out.



Conclusion

Mac OS X looks in amazingly good early form on the x86 platform. As far as power consumption and OS performance are concerned, it can already keep up with Windows XP. Application performance clearly lags behind, though, and still needs to improve.



"
Mac OS X offers many advantages over Windows. The installation routine uses a graphical interface from the start, and any user interventions that are required are more intuitive than with Windows. You will look in vain within Windows for programs as effective as Disk Utility, which is available during the setup phase, while the efficient network tools make it straightforward to connect to a Windows network. Apple has continued to improve its intuitive control concept with Mac OS X, using 3D effects and other visual devices (see above).

[Seasought]

The whole thing feels like a planned PR stunt that Apple is part of. My reasoning is based on the very 'sales pitch' feel of the entire article that lacks much quality content and instead pushes inflated impressions of basic features.

I'm not complaining mind you, just a conspiracy theorist.

[atari1356]

I can't believe how they just flat out admit to installing a pirated version of the OS - hacked to make it run on non-Apple hardware.

Pretty pointless too since the Mac hardware that the final version will run on will be much different than the laptop they installed the pirated copy onto.

Oh well, I guess they're getting lots of press... and at least it's not through Mac-bashing like in previous years.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

OS startup time:
23.5s (XP)
20.5s (OS X)

SINCE WHEN!? Every PC I have EVER starte up takes at least 2 minutes and then once you see the actual desktop, it takes another minute before you can actuallt begin to start an Application. My iMac G5 goes from pressing the power button to first App in under 50 seconds!

[GorillaPaws]

I'm also a little dumbfounded at the legality of all of this???

All these early reviews are pointless in the real world until we get some real retail laptops and desktops (and real tests......iTunes encoding? :confused: ) to test them on.

Yes and no. I was plesantly suprised to see how well iTunes worked w/ Rosetta, even though it was slower than XP. I mean if iTunes can run fairly decently through what is essentially an emulator, on a slower processor, I'm starting to feel somewhat confident that native apps on the final products with better chips will be very competitive w/ apps running on XP.

That and the fact that Rosetta isn't all hype like I was fearing. It seems like it does a decent job (at least in iTunes). At least it's much better than running a Windows version of iTunes on VPC.

[liketom]

SINCE WHEN!? Every PC I have EVER starte up takes at least 2 minutes and then once you see the actual desktop, it takes another minute before you can actuallt begin to start an Application. My iMac G5 goes from pressing the power button to first App in under 50 seconds!
i read it as it takes a PC that long to boot OS X

but my mrs sony viao boots from cold to open in 64 sec snOOOORRRE

my mac wakes from sleep in like a billazilionth of a second hehe wel not quiet but its quick

[plinden]

Agreed; any review of any pre-release product is pointless in the real world. But what's wrong with using iTunes encoding as a benchmark? Lots of people do it.
That would be fine if it were iTunes compiled for x86. But it wasn't. So it says it took 3x longer for OSX than XP to encode using iTunes, and that "may be" due to Rosetta emulation.

It was due to Rosetta emulation, so is a pointless comparison.

[heartsglory]

A true comparison would be to compare any app compiled on OSX86 vs the same app on a windows machine. It isn't a fair comparison when considering running an app on emulation vs running it natively. You automatically lose about 20% if not more speed under emulation. A better comparison would be for something like MATLAB (that was demonstated during Steve's last Keynote when he announced the arch. switch).

[James Philp]

And where did they gat this marvelous copy of OS X 10.4?
I thought it was agreed that 10.5 would be the OS released with/for x86 Macs?
Where's this leak come from all of a sudden. Apparently Apple have been developing 10.x to work on x86 from the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a leaked version of Tiger? :confused:

[dejo]

I thought it was agreed that 10.5 would be the OS released with/for x86 Macs?

No, the first x86 Macs will come with 10.4 (Tiger), since they will be available, at the latest, next June. 10.5 (Leopard) will not be released until late 2006 / early 2007.

[vniow]

And where did they gat this marvelous copy of OS X 10.4?
I thought it was agreed that 10.5 would be the OS released with/for x86 Macs?
Where's this leak come from all of a sudden. Apparently Apple have been developing 10.x to work on x86 from the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a leaked version of Tiger? :confused:

Welcome to four months ago.

[James Philp]

Another thing.
Why are the pictures an obvious mix of a laptop and desktop screen?
What's wrong with the picture below?
Wouldn't the x86 version be Processor: 1.2GHz Pentium M?
Since when are:
1. The GHz speed quoted last
2. The chip manufacturers' names included

Me thinks this may be an elaborate hoax? :confused:

[sjk]

Welcome to four months ago.:)

[solvs]

Considering how sue happy Apple has been lately (not that they aren't right to do so sometimes) I find it odd that they aren't really actively going after the people who do this as much. Apple is being very smart about this. I'm sure they want to see what happens first, who can break what, and what people think. I truly believe the next version of OS X will be VERY hard to crack (though probably not impossible). But as long as it gets people interested, I guess all it can do is help Apple to have it out there. Probably.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

i read it as it takes a PC that long to boot OS X

ohhh ok. So, once the "OS" screen appears? That would make sence. My Mac is about 20 seconds form that screen. Most PCs I use still take longe than a minute.

[shamino]

And where did they gat this marvelous copy of OS X 10.4?
I thought it was agreed that 10.5 would be the OS released with/for x86 Macs?
Where's this leak come from all of a sudden. Apparently Apple have been developing 10.x to work on x86 from the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a leaked version of Tiger? :confused:
You may want to go back and watch the WWDC 2005 keynote (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/) where Steve announces the Intel transition.

He says that Apple has been developing an x86 version of OS X for over five years, as a shadow project within the company. He also announces the developer test machines, which come preloaded with an x86 version of 10.4.

[p0intblank]

This test as a whole was unfair to Mac OS X. The only app they ran, iTunes, was running under emulation. Emulation! The app was originally built for the PowerPC architecture. I'll be interested when it is final. :)

[macnulty]

Considering how sue happy Apple has been lately (not that they aren't right to do so sometimes) I find it odd that they aren't really actively going after the people who do this as much. Apple is being very smart about this. I'm sure they want to see what happens first, who can break what, and what people think. I truly believe the next version of OS X will be VERY hard to crack (though probably not impossible). But as long as it gets people interested, I guess all it can do is help Apple to have it out there. Probably.

I think it's all about generating a buzz. Whether it's putting OSX on other then Apple hardware or this article, it is more valuable then anything Madison Avenue can put out.

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ZDNet.co.uk posted (http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916,00.htm) a review on installing Intel Mac OS X on non-Mac hardware.

The [Intel Mac OS X] is bound directly to the hardware by a special security chip. However, some developers have succeeded in circumventing this coupling, allowing the operating system to be installed on any x86 system, as this test report shows.

The article describes the installation and use of Mac OS X on a Toshiba Portégé M300 notebook. There are some limitations with the test installation. Of note, there only exists support for the Intel integrated graphics chipset (915G) for 3D graphics support.

ZDNet reports that power-saving functions of the Pentium M processor is already supported and the Intel OS X shows similar power consumption as Windows XP on the same notebook they tested. They also post a few benchmarks but the results come with the usual caveats for beta software.

They also post an image gallery (http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916-6,00.htm) from the installation.

[killuminati]

Cool. I would love to be able to install OS X on some of my old PCs.

[Dr. Dastardly]

Wow! I wonder if they'll get sued for such a blazin violation of the Apple Developer agreement.

[picklescott]

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/rv/2005/11/macos-x86-25.jpg

Is that the equivalent of BIOS or open-firmware? Is that what we're going to see now when we hold down OPTION on boot? It's not as pretty as the gray background in open-firmware!

[evoluzione]

wondered how long it would take....

i'm personally looking forward to the intel OS X. there are unfortunately times when i need to run a PC, and having OS X on it would make it sooo much more bearable.

[VicMacs]

apple should not be happy with people doing this, I mean... this is bad... cool in a geeky way but just bad for apple... I do understand though, that people have to be able to choose their hardware and not be subject to what apple is offering... and the prices they have... but then theyd have to make the software more expensive and make it pirate-proof... heck it would be easier to globalize hidrogen as the main motor-vehicle fuel...

im gone to sleep... too much going through my brain..

[mymemory]

Will be fun to run OSX in some laptops.

[Blackheart]

apple should not be happy with people doing this, I mean... this is bad... cool in a geeky way but just bad for apple... I do understand though, that people have to be able to choose their hardware and not be subject to what apple is offering... and the prices they have... but then theyd have to make the software more expensive and make it pirate-proof... heck it would be easier to globalize hidrogen as the main motor-vehicle fuel...

im gone to sleep... too much going through my brain..

From where I'm sitting, all of this is VERY good for Apple. I mean, how good must an OS actually be for people to want to hack it to put on their machines?

For all of the non-techy people, if all they hear is this, they may wonder what all of the fuss is about and go check out an Apple computer; since they can't purchase an "OS X Dell" machine, and they certainly aren't going to be hacking to get their own OS x86 machine up and running.

[Nermal]

and they certainly aren't going to be hacking to get their own OS x86 machine up and running.

Thanks, now I don't have to type that :)

[gammamonk]

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/rv/2005/11/macos-x86-25.jpg

Is that the equivalent of BIOS or open-firmware? Is that what we're going to see now when we hold down OPTION on boot? It's not as pretty as the gray background in open-firmware!
That's neither, it's the boot-loader. It loads after the BIOS. Looks pretty typical. NT or lilo style.

[macbaseball]

From where I'm sitting, all of this is VERY good for Apple. I mean, how good must an OS actually be for people to want to hack it to put on their machines?

Ummm, they're not making any money if people steal their OS... :confused:

[gammamonk]

Information on how to do this has been online for a long time, but the huge cahoonas of ZDNet to do it... They have money to lose, unlike Joe Blog.

Whenever I see these demos, I'm always excited, "I could do that too!" Then I realize I have a single computer which is a Mac already.

[nagromme]

Well, it's piracy, AND it's not likely to be nearly so simple once Apple has protections in place.

And what's the surprise here? OS X for Intel runs on Intel chips. I think we knew that already :)

I see it more as a teaser for the Wintel users who are starting to eye OS X. That's all good--they'll have to get a Mac if they want it, though :)

[shanmui1]

Does the itunes test mean that in practice you only get 30% speed under emulation?

[kwajo.com]

lol anyone seen the poll on the side on the article? it's like 65% of respondents want to run OS X on x86 boxes versus 4.8% for windows xp and 7.8% for Vista :D

[shamino]

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/rv/2005/11/macos-x86-25.jpg

Is that the equivalent of BIOS or open-firmware? Is that what we're going to see now when we hold down OPTION on boot? It's not as pretty as the gray background in open-firmware!
Neither. That's boot-loader code, not firmware. And it's probably place-holder code, and not what Apple will ship, considering the fact that no Mac shipped has ever used a text-mode boot screen.

Firmware (of any kind) is built in to the motherboard and is not a function of the OS. Whatever firmware may be on that test machine is going to be generic PC firmware (probably based on the IBM BIOS.)

[EricNau]

Wow, this makes me want to vomit...everywhere.

I don't ever want to see the day when OS X gets put on anything other than Apple Hardware.

By the way, has it occurred to anyone else that any novice at Photoshop could make it appear that they have OS X on their computer?

[Spock]

I want this to run OS X!! http://www.techdigest.tv/2005/06/another_contend.html

[DakotaGuy]

This is only the beginning. If Apple really thought that this would not happen when they went with x86 they were kidding themselves. If they really wanted to keep OSX only on Apple hardware they should have stayed with PowerPC. Hackers will be working around the clock when this is released and there is not a lot they are going to be able to do about it. Who would not love the possibility of buying decent hardware that will run OSX for a lot less money then Apple hardware? After the Intel switch there is not going to be any difference (inside) between Apple hardware or PC hardware so unless you have to have the latest in style why not save money? I don't think this means mass marketing on software, but can anyone say...clones?

[bloogersnigen]

lol anyone seen the poll on the side on the article? it's like 65% of respondents want to run OS X on x86 boxes versus 4.8% for windows xp and 7.8% for Vista :D
That's awesome but the only people that would read an article titled "Mac OS on a PC" , or whatever it was called, would want to do it themselves.

This is great for the tech savy but the average person would much rather get the real thing than a hacked, buggy version (Kinda like frontrow on a non-imac).

Also bad for apple reputation. Some idiot puts mac os on a 5 year old peecee just to run mac-only programs and some non-tech person sees mac run horribly...apple just lost a potential buyer (and their friends.

my 2 cents

[shamino]

I want this to run OS X!! http://www.techdigest.tv/2005/06/another_contend.html
You're welcome to it. I touch-type and would never consider owning a computer with an under-sized keyboard.

[macmax77]

there goes the neighborhood:mad:

[kansast]

The article suggests iTunes slower speeds in OSX compared to XP are due to iTunes having to run in Emulation mode ? I thought all of Apple's software was redone to run in OSX on Intel "natively" ?

Kansast

[contoursvt]

Ericnau, OMG OSX is now tainted, it has touched non apple hardware, what will we do :rolleyes:

[DeathChill]

Wow, this makes me want to vomit...everywhere.

I don't ever want to see the day when OS X gets put on anything other than Apple Hardware.

By the way, has it occurred to anyone else that any novice at Photoshop could make it appear that they have OS X on their computer?

No...This has been known for about 6 or 7 months, so I don't know why ZDNet is JUST posting it. It's funny because they're actually using a patch to the DVD that the group responsible for hacking the original 10.4.1 x86 DVD created. You can easily download both the 10.4.1 x86 DVD and the Release1 patch and install it on just about any of the newer Pentium and AMD chips (SSE2 is the minimum requirement).

Also, Rosetta runs about 80% of the speed as running PowerPC apps on an Intel machine show no signs of lagging that would be noticable to the average user. I'm sure the larger power-user applications aren't translated as fast by Rosetta but it still should be usable.

EDIT: iTunes JUST got converted to be a Universal Binary, as with the 10.4.1 release it was not a unibin. It is now with the newest 10.4.3 x86 release, though. :)

[hopejr]

Neither. That's boot-loader code, not firmware. And it's probably place-holder code, and not what Apple will ship, considering the fact that no Mac shipped has ever used a text-mode boot screen.

Firmware (of any kind) is built in to the motherboard and is not a function of the OS. Whatever firmware may be on that test machine is going to be generic PC firmware (probably based on the IBM BIOS.)
That bootloader is just the standard Darwin/x86 boot loader. I don't think it actually comes with Mac OS X x86 (I've used it on a developer machine, and have never seen the bootloader).

I'm hoping Apple will use that EFI thing instead of stupid BIOS (which is 16-bit).

[Choppaface]

This is awesome. I don't care if it's piracy, the consumer is doing something useful with the software. It's Apple's fault that they haven't innovated away the market competition that Dell would impose if Apple were to free the operating system. If Apple is going to tie down OSX86 to their own platform, they should be doing so because their platform has some sort of unique capability (aesthetics doesn't count in my book), otherwise Apple is stealing a lot of utility from the cosumer and will always be fighting 'pirates.' I would personally be satisfied with respect to utility, though, if they are planning on offering a variety of machines like Dell does now. (And at comparable prices. If I can get a nice dual core box from Dell for under $1,000, Apple should be able to offer a similar G5).

[DakotaGuy]

If Apple is going to tie down OSX86 to their own platform, they should be doing so because their platform has some sort of unique capability (aesthetics doesn't count in my book), otherwise Apple is stealing a lot of utility from the cosumer and will always be fighting 'pirates.'

I would agree with your statement. Other then the aesthetics of the hardware on the outside the inside of the new Apple x86 hardware will be exactly like every other PC company will offer. Whatever Intel gives Apple they will be giving to Dell, Sony, Gateway, HP, etc.

[EricNau]

Ericnau, OMG OSX is now tainted, it has touched non apple hardware, what will we do :rolleyes:
Yes, now you understand.

Really, I think Apple's Hardware is 50% of the "greatness" of Mac computers. You get rid of that, you only have half, would you watch only half of a TV?

Really, I don't understand why people want to put OS X on an ugly computer, what's the point? People don't like Mac's because of the OS, most everyone loves the way they look.

[generik]

This is awesome. I don't care if it's piracy, the consumer is doing something useful with the software. It's Apple's fault that they haven't innovated away the market competition that Dell would impose if Apple were to free the operating system. If Apple is going to tie down OSX86 to their own platform, they should be doing so because their platform has some sort of unique capability (aesthetics doesn't count in my book), otherwise Apple is stealing a lot of utility from the cosumer and will always be fighting 'pirates.' I would personally be satisfied with respect to utility, though, if they are planning on offering a variety of machines like Dell does now. (And at comparable prices. If I can get a nice dual core box from Dell for under $1,000, Apple should be able to offer a similar G5).

*thumbs up*

Seconded!

[treblah]

The article suggests iTunes slower speeds in OSX compared to XP are due to iTunes having to run in Emulation mode ? I thought all of Apple's software was redone to run in OSX on Intel "natively" ?

Kansast

According to some rumblings, iTunes x86 was just recently compiled. Probably due to the fact iTunes was AKAIK the only Carbon iLife app.

[drater]

all this talk about how hard it would be to actually do it. Well, not to sound stupid, but can't you download a copy to install on your computer from different websites like thepiratebay.org? At least that's what i've been reading on different blogs (which I will not name for their sake).

I have no use for this though, i have one computer at home...my ibook. :)

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Kiddies will install os X on systems without compatible hardware, and POOF. Along come PC rectum pirates claiming buggy installations and incompatible software. This ain't the way it was meant to be.

[AidenShaw]

http://www.pcweenies.org/toon_send.php?id=787

http://www.pcweenies.org/images/toons/pcweenies_0787.jpg

[Object-X]

What's Toshiba precious?

They ruinsss it. :eek:

[shanmui1]

The point about itunes was that itunes for Windows XP is 3X faster than PPC itunes running under Rosetta in OSX for Intel on the same machine. Hence Rosetta is 30% native speed.

[illegalprelude]

hhmm...I hope apple saw this coming.

regardless, I feel like we are part of a nitch community. I mean how many other people do u know who will go through the trouble of getting the PC they want, finding a Hack version of OSX with the patches or whatever to run it on their PC and then following through with getting around future updates and yada yada? but still unless there is more to this then we know and maybe Apple still has plans for their OSX besides just goin with intel now

[contoursvt]

Yes, now you understand.

Really, I think Apple's Hardware is 50% of the "greatness" of Mac computers. You get rid of that, you only have half, would you watch only half of a TV?

Really, I don't understand why people want to put OS X on an ugly computer, what's the point? People don't like Mac's because of the OS, most everyone loves the way they look.


So are you saying that Apple computers actually having nothing going for them except for the way they look? Also if OSX was less attractive, that people wouldnt go for that either? I'll be the first to say I'm a windows guy and PC guy, but OSX has better security compared to XP and it has no viruses in addition to being a fairly stable platform which multitasks great. I dont know, I think that OSX has enough going for it that it can sell itself. It doesnt need a pretty box.

Also just because a box is 'ugly' doesnt mean its a bad box or has crappy components or is less reliable in any way. I hate when people look at some beige PC and think its crap when they have no idea whats inside it. If you remember, Apple computers were beige and ugly before the B&W G3 but that didnt make them crappy. Nobody was complaining about Mac OS being run on an ugly box then......

I think the issue is price. If someone paid 4x more for an apple computer to run OSX, then someone with a bargain basement PC from walmart decides to install and run OSX, then I'm sure that make you feel like you got a bit ripped off no? I'm not saying the hardware is better which it wont be, but its less exclusive now and if so, then can you justify the price you paid say 6 months or a year ago for a machine when down the road, any tom dick or harry might be able to somehow get OSX running on some crappy box.... I can see how that would be frustrating (I'm not being sarcastic..being serious). I'm sure if someone with a high end, quad core PC with high end parts decides to run OSX, it would be less of a problem. Its almost like maybe you feel OSX deserves better than to end up on some sorry ass box with some 14 year old hacker goofing around with it...still even so, OSX is a nice OS and I'm sure it will have enough protection that it will be a bit of a pain to install or maintain on a non apple platform. Maybe getting updates will be problematic..etc. They will think of something.

[mugwump]

So ZD net hacked an alpha build of a mac OS to run it on an unsupported PC laptop, and then they reviewed it?

Talk about a site desperate for hits to their windows advertisers.

Seriously, they had to break the user agreement to install the thing, I hope they get sued for millions.

I mean, if they were to review Microsoft Office by declaring they didn't pay for any copies and simply pirated the software from a young teen, they would be shot down.

Seriously lame, and it's not even a public beta yet. Sue the bastards, just because they are that stupid and desperate.

[drater]

like they say in business school...any kind of publicity is good publicity...


...well, that's only true cause I know apple can fix this problem.

Also, I wouldn't see the harm in os x running on different machines. If they handle it the right way that is. And besides, even if it did run on different machines, I'd still buy an apple cause I know it'd perform better. Just like windows is MADE to perform better on the pentium chips.

[EricNau]

So are you saying that Apple computers actually having nothing going for them except for the way they look? Also if OSX was less attractive, that people wouldnt go for that either? I'll be the first to say I'm a windows guy and PC guy, but OSX has better security compared to XP and it has no viruses in addition to being a fairly stable platform which multitasks great. I dont know, I think that OSX has enough going for it that it can sell itself. It doesnt need a pretty box.
I never said Apple was 50% looks, I said it was 50% good hardware. I have found, through the several PC's I have owned, that Apple uses better Hardware, which makes my life easier.

Also just because a box is 'ugly' doesnt mean its a bad box or has crappy components or is less reliable in any way. I hate when people look at some beige PC and think its crap when they have no idea whats inside it. If you remember, Apple computers were beige and ugly before the B&W G3 but that didnt make them crappy. Nobody was complaining about Mac OS being run on an ugly box then......
I didn't say that PC's weren't good because they were ugly, I said no one is going to refuse to buy an Apple because it's ugly. It's the OS they don't want, everyone thinks the "computer" is great.

I think the issue is price. If someone paid 4x more for an apple computer to run OSX, then someone with a bargain basement PC from walmart decides to install and run OSX, then I'm sure that make you feel like you got a bit ripped off no? I'm not saying the hardware is better which it wont be, but its less exclusive now and if so, then can you justify the price you paid say 6 months or a year ago for a machine when down the road, any tom dick or harry might be able to somehow get OSX running on some crappy box.... I can see how that would be frustrating (I'm not being sarcastic..being serious). I'm sure if someone with a high end, quad core PC with high end parts decides to run OSX, it would be less of a problem. Its almost like maybe you feel OSX deserves better than to end up on some sorry ass box with some 14 year old hacker goofing around with it...still even so, OSX is a nice OS and I'm sure it will have enough protection that it will be a bit of a pain to install or maintain on a non apple platform. Maybe getting updates will be problematic..etc. They will think of something.
I agree with you it is probably price, but I think people who think this haven't thought things through entirely.
It's not that Apple is much more expensive, it's just they don't make the bottom of the barrel. Once you start comparing similar PC's to an iMac the prices get relatively close. And then consider how much you pay per year for unneeded stuff on a mac (for example: AntiVirus Software).
And you nailed it: I feel OS X deserves better than being hacked onto a PC. (and I'm afraid people will start to blame their hardware problems on Apple).

[iQuit]

Rosetta can ONLY emulate a G3 processor, that is nowhere near 80% of a G5 lmao.

No...This has been known for about 6 or 7 months, so I don't know why ZDNet is JUST posting it. It's funny because they're actually using a patch to the DVD that the group responsible for hacking the original 10.4.1 x86 DVD created. You can easily download both the 10.4.1 x86 DVD and the Release1 patch and install it on just about any of the newer Pentium and AMD chips (SSE2 is the minimum requirement).

Also, Rosetta runs about 80% of the speed as running PowerPC apps on an Intel machine show no signs of lagging that would be noticable to the average user. I'm sure the larger power-user applications aren't translated as fast by Rosetta but it still should be usable.

EDIT: iTunes JUST got converted to be a Universal Binary, as with the 10.4.1 release it was not a unibin. It is now with the newest 10.4.3 x86 release, though. :)

[DakotaGuy]

I never said Apple was 50% looks, I said it was 50% good hardware. I have found, through the several PC's I have owned, that Apple uses better Hardware, which makes my life easier.


I think if you tore apart a Mac you would find the same components used in it as are used in just about every other PC. I am guessing they use many of the same vendors for their components. Once they go to Intel, they will be pretty much a mirror image inside.

[EricNau]

I think if you tore apart a Mac you would find the same components used in it as are used in just about every other PC.
If that's true, then why do Mac computers seem to last longer? My school has some original iMacs and they are working just fine (slow, but fine). My PC's would have turned to dust at the age of those iMacs.

[Moonboots]

Long term , this has to be the way forward for Apple .
Their current strategy of tying hardware and software together can't be justified
anymore. It's time for them to move out of the sandbox in to the real world.
The idea that OS x wil be " tainted " running on non Mac hardware is false .
Sure there will be the curious , who just try for the sake of it , but are real potential customers ,
who given the opportunity to dual boot on their PC and see the advantages.
These are the people , Apple needs to bring on board for the future ?

[matticus008]

Rosetta can ONLY emulate a G3 processor, that is nowhere near 80% of a G5 lmao.

You have to separate the G3 technology from the clock speed. True, it emulates G3 hardware, but it's not limited to 400MHz or whatever the top speed was. It could just as easily act like a 1.5GHz G3 if the host hardware had enough power to do so, even though no *real* G3 was ever made that fast. For applications that require only a G3, there's no practical difference between it and a G4 or G5. That's because none of that newer technology is used by the application. So it's quite possible for applications to run at 80% native speed.

Most of them don't run that fast, but that's another story.

[EricNau]

Long term , this has to be the way forward for Apple .
Their current strategy of tying hardware and software together can't be justified
anymore. It's time for them to move out of the sandbox in to the real world.
The idea that OS x wil be " tainted " running on non Mac hardware is false .
Sure there will be the curious , who just try for the sake of it , but are real potential customers ,
who given the opportunity to dual boot on their PC and see the advantages.
These are the people , Apple needs to bring on board for the future ?
These are also the people that would never want to touch a Mac in their life, what makes you so sure that they'd want to if it was on a different brand computer?

[Hetman]

Some of you are saying that people will switch to generic PCs to run OS X because it will be cheaper, will it really? The new Intel based Apple computers will basically have the same parts as a PC. So the cost of owning an Apple will be pretty much the same. Apple will surely have cool high end models that have more features and will cost more but people that want that will pay for it. Others will buy Mac mini style machines that will cost much less. I think the Apple market will be like the iPod in the future. There are alot of cheaper MP3 players out there that do pretty much the same thing but iPods are way cooler and the high sales show it. I think Apple will think of ways for people to lust over a Mac even if they can get a PC to do most of the same thing. :cool:

[CHess]

Well, if people keep this up, I forsee Apple will either have to implement changes on every update that breaks the hacks or we may see the rise of Microsoft like licensing. Right now, Apple doesn't keep you from installing a since copy of the OS on multiple machines, but it really hasn't mattered all that much since the OS was being installed on an Apple made computer--even if they don't get any money for an additional license installation, they've already sold you the computer. However, I would think hackers are more likely to break any locks on OS X, allowing it to run on non-Apple hardware, and post the broken OS for other PC owners to use (and steal). Though, it would be a pretty huge file to post somewhere :confused:

To a limited extent, this might be good for Apple since this would allow people to actually try OS X. I think many people will understand that working with a hacked version, a real version on a real Mac would work better.

Along those lines, maybe Apple should somehow make a free demo version of the OS that will run on anyone's PC. Give everyone a taste of the OS and include little tips that point out why an Apple OS on Apple hardware works better than trying to run it on a generic PC.

[EricNau]

Everyone just acts like putting OS X on a PC will solve all of Apple's problems. IT WON'T!!!
Most PC users don't buy Apple's, because they are Apple's. - putting OS X on a PC won't change the way they feel.

[wnurse]

Well, it's piracy, AND it's not likely to be nearly so simple once Apple has protections in place.

And what's the surprise here? OS X for Intel runs on Intel chips. I think we knew that already :)

I see it more as a teaser for the Wintel users who are starting to eye OS X. That's all good--they'll have to get a Mac if they want it, though :)

Really, like what protections would apple have in place that they don't have already?. I'm not the smartest person but i bet i could defeat whatever apple comes up with and so will many other people. People already defeated what they came up with. What is this protection apple will come up with, is this rocket science (so complex, no one can break it?).

[wnurse]

If that's true, then why do Mac computers seem to last longer? My school has some original iMacs and they are working just fine (slow, but fine). My PC's would have turned to dust at the age of those iMacs.

I seriously doubt this observation. My original Imac does not work anymore and i have a PC that is older than that and it still works. You should qualify your statement. Perhaps a sucky, $400 dollar pc would break before an imac but not a comparably priced PC. Realize that many of the components within an imac is not made by apple and also, these components are not unique to macs. Apple does not make CD or DVD drives, nor the hard drive, nor the video card, nor the processor, nor the power supply.. need i go on?.

[EricNau]

I seriously doubt this observation. My original Imac does not work anymore and i have a PC that is older than that and it still works. You should qualify your statement. Perhaps a sucky, $400 dollar pc would break before an imac but not a comparably priced PC. Realize that many of the components within an imac is not made by apple and also, these components are not unique to macs. Apple does not make CD or DVD drives, nor the hard drive, nor the video card, nor the processor, nor the power supply.. need i go on?.
I realize this, for example: my processor is made by IBM, Superdrive by Pioneer, graphics by ATI, and all of these are in my Apple.
But from my experience, Apple uses a higher quality, they take pride in their product, I may be wrong, but I don't think I am.
And it's not just the fact that they make their computers with good hardware, they make the hardware work with their computers, something I think some other companies forget to do *cough*gateway.

[wnurse]

So ZD net hacked an alpha build of a mac OS to run it on an unsupported PC laptop, and then they reviewed it?

Talk about a site desperate for hits to their windows advertisers.

Seriously, they had to break the user agreement to install the thing, I hope they get sued for millions.

I mean, if they were to review Microsoft Office by declaring they didn't pay for any copies and simply pirated the software from a young teen, they would be shot down.

Seriously lame, and it's not even a public beta yet. Sue the bastards, just because they are that stupid and desperate.

You know, people seem to think that license agreements are always binding. It is not if it violates common sense. Example. a spyware company recently have in their license agreement that if you use their software, you cannot analyze it to determine if it is spyware (the obvious purpose is so as to prevent anti-spyware companies from determining how to remove their software).. Another case would be if a license agreement states that you have to give up your first born to use the software. Obviously, a license is not an ironclad legal document. Don't you worry about ZDnet, i am sure they can take care of themselves. Suing someone only really works when the other party cannot adequately defend themselves. You should do a bit of reseach to see how many times a company wins when they sue another company with enough resources to defend themselves (see current suit against Linux). It rarely is worth it and it is very expensive... so expensive that the benefits of suing diminishes with length of case and even if apple were to win, so what?.. Does their license spell out some financial renumeration should the terms of the license be violated? What financial benefits would they reap from suing?.

[EricNau]

Really, like what protections would apple have in place that they don't have already?. I'm not the smartest person but i bet i could defeat whatever apple comes up with and so will many other people. People already defeated what they came up with. What is this protection apple will come up with, is this rocket science (so complex, no one can break it?).
I don't think Apple was that strict with their developer models, after all, they won't be around much longer. When these come out for real, we'll see stricter security.

[EricNau]

You know, people seem to think that license agreements are always binding. It is not if it violates common sense...Another case would be if a license agreement states that you have to give up your first born to use the software. Obviously, a license is not an ironclad legal document.
Last I checked, they very much could be used in legal courts, and for the record, if a license agreement said you had to give up your first born, you wouldn't hit "agree."
Some people don't know that you are also supposed to read them. :rolleyes:

[matticus008]

Really, like what protections would apple have in place that they don't have already?. I'm not the smartest person but i bet i could defeat whatever apple comes up with and so will many other people. People already defeated what they came up with. What is this protection apple will come up with, is this rocket science (so complex, no one can break it?).
Apple hasn't really done very much to secure the developer copies. There's a wide range of options available to them, some of which we'd prefer they not implement. I don't think you could single-handedly defeat any of the protective measures out there. I do think that you can follow instructions and apply cracks written by someone else, but even that is beyond what many people can do.

When it comes down to it, something like TPM or Apple's recent patent for securing "computer code" will come in handy. Since the vendor ID lies in hardware, all Apple needs is a chip and a series of checks to keep almost everyone from breaking the copy protection. Every time it's broken, they'll go one step further.

If Apple (1) instituted a check for a specific hardware ID in their logic boards and a second one in the CPUs supplied to them by Intel, (2) required signed code from the BIOS/OF replacement, and (3) had boot time and possibly post-boot software checks for the hardware IDs which must be executed and passed, it would be pretty difficult to circumvent. The Vendor ID in TPM can't be replicated in software, so you'd need someone to leak the chip specs and you'd need to solder that chip to your motherboard. You'd need Apple's OpenFirmware-replacing ROM to execute the boot process, which means your motherboard would have to match the specs of an Apple one. And then you'd need the right CPU. You could go at it from the software side, but reprogramming something that deeply entrenched wouldn't be so easy (especially if every application checked for the hardware ID at launch), especially since it wouldn't be open source.

EDIT: Just to hop into the license agreement battle obliquely, they ARE always legally binding. That binding can be overridden by proving the agreement to be illegal. But if the agreement breaks no laws, you don't get to dismiss it because you don't agree with it. Giving up your firstborn would be a contract asking you to do something illegal, and you would be reprimanded for agreeing to it, but it would be overturned. But it has to be overturned in order for you to be released from its terms. The provisions keeping you from sharing code are legal and have been upheld in the past, with fines levied against those who violate their agreements.

[booksacool1]

I don't think Apple was that strict with their developer models, after all, they won't be around much longer. When these come out for real, we'll see stricter security.

I hope not, I plan to install it on my laptop (dell 9300) when it comes out of alpha or whatever it is. Hopefully they don't learn from this, using windows sucks, almost as bad as using apple's mobile hardware (radeon 9700 on pbook... *shudder*)

[EricNau]

I hope not, I plan to install it on my laptop (dell 9300) when it comes out of alpha or whatever it is. Hopefully they don't learn from this, using windows sucks, almost as bad as using apple's mobile hardware (radeon 9700 on pbook... *shudder*)
You are avery weird exception to my argument :p Just Kidding ;)

I guess there are a few people out there who actually like Apple, but don't like their hardware. :confused: (but I will agree their mobile is lacking a little bit)

[SiliconAddict]

this is going to be taken down before Noon CST tomorrow. Place your bets people.

[EricNau]

this is going to be taken down before Noon CST tomorrow. Place your bets people.
Taken down? Why would they do that? :confused:

[Blackheart]

Ummm, they're not making any money if people steal their OS... :confused:

Please read the whole post before replying. :rolleyes:

[Garcia]

I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with some of the ignorance that is being spread around this thread but trolling windows fans, firstly what are you doing on a mac site? secondly, please please please, when you crack apples release version of OS X for intel, show me - i will happily give you a million bucks. Just how stupid do you think apple is? there are plenty of measures that will be taken to assure osx cannot be used on non-mac hardware.

Nobody will use the extremely slow, developers version and they wont be able to use the final version (some will say they have, or gone out and bought hardware to run it on (chips and processors), hardly cracking the OS though.)

[psxndc]

Unclean! So unclean! I keep washing but can't get clean.

*huddles in shower whimpering*

[ryanyogan]

This is beyond old news, there are whole communities and sites dedicated to running the leaked versions of OSX for devs on x86 boxes, I tried it atleast a month in half to two months ago. It is nothing new alot of people are doing it, if you have SSE3 it really is fast as hell, if not its still pretty quick and there are hacks for sound and SSE2 support to make carbon apps work. What alot of people on this site do not get regardless of what your freind told you, is they are not going to release there x86 version any sooner then they said 6 months ago, 2006 deal with it. They don't have enough apps written nativley yet and they would piss of a whole lot of developers. Rosetta is nothing more then something to get you by until everything is native with PPC/x86 binaries. Rosetta is good enough for thoes stubborn apps created by devs that don't want to convert yet.

[toneloco2881]

I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with some of the ignorance that is being spread around this thread but trolling windows fans, firstly what are you doing on a mac site? secondly, please please please, when you crack apples release version of OS X for intel, show me - i will happily give you a million bucks. Just how stupid do you think apple is? there are plenty of measures that will be taken to assure osx cannot be used on non-mac hardware.

Nobody will use the extremely slow, developers version and they wont be able to use the final version (some will say they have, or gone out and bought hardware to run it on (chips and processors), hardly cracking the OS though.)
This is a little naive. There is absolutely no doubt that OS X for intel will be cracked and, subsequently available to generic pc's. While the usability, and overall damage it does to the Apple platform is unclear, it's inevitability is not. Your average consumer is not going to go through the geek hack-jobs needed to install so I personally think it's going to be a non-issue. Might actually be a good thing for Apple if people had a chance to try out the platform, and learn to love it. After tiring of the perpetual cat and mouse game when Apple chooses to update its software, they might just go out, and purchase an Apple computer. Sounds plausible......I think:)

[reemas]

anyone waiting to buy a 1st gen. intel mac, deserves the crap he/she will buy. i remember the transition from os 9 to os x was very poor - but look at os x now. application support will be very sub-par initially for these intel-macs.

i say get a powerpc now and buy a intel mac in 2 years.

[Nermal]

People don't like Mac's because of the OS, most everyone loves the way they look.

Ha! There's only one reason I buy Apple's systems. Hint: It's not the hardware.

[Moonboots]

These are also the people that would never want to touch a Mac in their life, what makes you so sure that they'd want to if it was on a different brand computer?

Simple , a lot cheaper way than having to buy a Mac :)

[Garcia]

This is a little naive. There is absolutely no doubt that OS X for intel will be cracked and, subsequently available to generic pc's. While the usability, and overall damage it does to the Apple platform is unclear, it's inevitability is not. Your average consumer is not going to go through the geek hack-jobs needed to install so I personally think it's going to be a non-issue. Might actually be a good thing for Apple if people had a chance to try out the platform, and learn to love it. After tiring of the perpetual cat and mouse game when Apple chooses to update its software, they might just go out, and purchase an Apple computer. Sounds plausible......I think:)

Again, wrong.

Its not going to be a case of cracking it to run on every PC. It just wont happen like that.

[Staffroomer]

I heard kids at school going on and on about people doing this. Young geeks at play. :rolleyes:

[Will Cheyney]

Wow, this makes me want to vomit...everywhere.

I don't ever want to see the day when OS X gets put on anything other than Apple Hardware.

By the way, has it occurred to anyone else that any novice at Photoshop could make it appear that they have OS X on their computer?
Here here!

[mdavey]

Well, it's piracy

No its not, it is copyright infringement. Software piracy is selling (or renting) software for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright holder.

[matticus008]

No its not, it is copyright infringement. Software piracy is selling (or renting) software for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright holder.
No, no, no. Software piracy is unauthorized reproduction or distribution of applications/program code, regardless of whether or not it is for commercial gain.

This hacking is piracy. I'm not necessarily making a judgment, but call it what it is.

[mdavey]

Wow! I wonder if they'll get sued for such a blazin violation of the Apple Developer agreement.

That assumes that they signed the Apple Developer agreement in the first place.

[matticus008]

That assumes that they signed the Apple Developer agreement in the first place.
No it doesn't. The only authorized means of have a copy of the software is through a developer agreement with Apple. If you download a torrent, you aren't an authorized party, and the notice before you install will remind you of this fact. Downloading and/or installing the software is a violation of copyright law and an act of piracy. Uploading the torrent in the first place is a violation of copyright law, breach of contract, and criminal theft of property owned by Apple Computer. On one side or both, the cracking of the software is a violation of the DMCA and international equivalents. If you're not in the US and are using the US copy, its use is furthermore a breach of United States Export Law.

[mdavey]

No, no, no. Software piracy is unauthorized reproduction or distribution of applications/program code, regardless of whether or not it is for commercial gain.

No it really isn't, you have just described copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a serious crime that carries heavy penalties in most juristructions. This crime is allegedly committed by a large percentage of the technically literate, particularly students.

Software piracy is typically committed by career criminals, often criminal gangs and often netts each individual hundreds of thousands each year. Individuals found guilty of software piracy are often charged with other offences such as drugs, money laundering, credit card fraud and gun crimes. Software piracy is particularly problematic in developing countries where they don't have clear laws or police resources to tackle the problem.

Only the large corporations like Microsoft, Adobe, Sony and the like insist on calling copyright infringement as piracy. One can only assume they do that as piracy is an emotive term that helps with prosecutions.

[matticus008]

Only the large corporations like Microsoft, Adobe, Sony and the like insist on calling copyright infringement as piracy. One can only assume they do that as piracy is an emotive term that helps with prosecutions.
Actually, the US 9th District Circuit Court agrees with the standard definition of software piracy. Software piracy is governed by copyright law; the two are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Also the Oxford English Dictionary and the Supreme Court. (US v. Harrel established piracy in communications, in case you were wondering).

[mdavey]

No it doesn't. The only authorized means of have a copy of the software is through a developer agreement with Apple.

Agreed.

If you download a torrent, you aren't an authorized party

A torrent is just a pointer file, a tracker. I think you mean an unauthorised distribution (the thing the torrent is tracking).

and the notice before you install will remind you of this fact

Assuming the notice is intact.

If you're not in the US and are using the US copy, its use is furthermore a breach of United States Export Law.

No. If those hosting the distribution are in the US and hosting the US copy and the US copy contains material restricted under the United States Export Law and the make it available to those outside the US, then *they* have allegedly breached that law.

[mdavey]

Actually, the US 9th District Circuit Court agrees with the standard definition of software piracy. Software piracy is governed by copyright law; the two are not mutually exclusive.

That isn't the standard definition. The US 9th District Circuit Court is in the minority - most other juristrictions describe copyright infringement as unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyright material and pass harsher sentances if the individuals have gained commerically from their activities.

[matticus008]

A torrent is just a pointer file, a tracker. I think you mean an unauthorised distribution (the thing the torrent is tracking).
Torrent in the sense of the source of the compressed archive, which can come in varying forms.

Assuming the notice is intact.
Even if it's not, you know that you're liable for knowing the terms or getting that license. If someone hands you the keys to a house without the deed, the courts will still take the house away from you, even if you "didn't know it had a deed."

No. If those hosting the distribution are in the US and hosting the US copy and the US copy contains material restricted under the United States Export Law and the make it available to those outside the US, then *they* have allegedly breached that law.
Both parties are liable. Export law covers both the shipper and the recipient, and government at either end or both may prosecute for it.

That isn't the standard definition. The US 9th District Circuit Court is in the minority - most other juristrictions describe copyright infringement as unauthorized reproduction or distribution of copyright material and pass harsher sentances if the individuals have gained commerically from their activities.
No, it is the standard definition of software piracy. The Oxford English Dictionary is the ultimate source and grand arbiter of the English language, and it's in there. The online dictionaries of most legal reference sites refer to the same. Dictionary.com and Wikipedia, popular resources if not definitive ones, also share this definition. My printed legal dictionaries are older editions, but mention piracy in the interception of telephone or cable/satellite TV signals.

Software piracy is an act of copyright infringement. It is governed by applicable laws, and is any kind of unauthorized redistribution or reproduction of computer code. I'm not sure where you're getting your "standard" definition, but it's wrong.

[mdavey]

If someone hands you the keys to a house without the deed
That isn't what we are arguing. We are arguing whether the person downloading/installing the software 'signed' an agreement. If there is no agreement, they haven't signed it. Of course, they may still be infringing the copyright but they won't necessarily have broken any contractual agreement.

Both parties are liable. Export law covers both the shipper and the recipient, and government at either end or both may prosecute for it.

Yes, but the US government can't prosecute a French citizen living in France, for instance. Just as the North Korean government can't prosecute US citizens for running websites.

The Oxford English Dictionary is the ultimate source and grand arbiter of the English language

Rubbish, there is no "grand arbiter" of the English language. The English language doesn't have a standards body. That is one of the reasons why Americans and British have different spellings for common words and why the American definition of "pants" is different to the British one. The Oxford English Dictionary tracks usage of words in the media and in printed texts - it is a historical dictionary not a standards text.

Software piracy is an act of copyright infringement. (my italics)

Agreed.

[ksz]

The significant issue here is that Apple has every right to control the total Macintosh system -- hardware plus software -- to deliver a very specific end-user experience. Hardware design is part of the Apple experience, and it's something Apple wants to continue to improve with the transition to a more aggressive and capable component supplier.

Apple does not intended for Mac OS to be installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple is not licensing Mac OS to OEMs or to retailers. When they pulled the plug on Mac OS licensing within weeks of Jobs' return, they made a clear policy decision.

I agree with an earlier post by Matticus in which a more sophisticated node-lock mechanism is described. The shipping version of Mac OSX86 will no doubt implement a far more robust node-lock mechanism that may combine chip Id, signed firmware, and anything else deemed necessary.

[matticus008]

That isn't what we are arguing. We are arguing whether the person downloading/installing the software 'signed' an agreement. If there is no agreement, they haven't signed it. Of course, they may still be infringing the copyright but they won't necessarily have broken any contractual agreement.
Au contraire, the contract was broken by the uploading body. If you download a copy of OS X, and it has had the license agreement stripped out, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can throw away a paper contract or refuse to sign, but if I continue to use the product without a contract, the owner may do whatever it wishes to me. The only place you'd be safe is if you had a different contract giving you ownership rights, authorized by the original owner. Ignorance is not an excuse when you know there are rules.


Yes, but the US government can't prosecute a French citizen living in France, for instance. Just as the North Korean government can't prosecute US citizens for running websites.
They don't have to prosecute from the US. Apple has a French corporate office (or an EU one at least) that will do it for them.

Rubbish, there is no "grand arbiter" of the English language. The English language doesn't have a standards body. That is one of the reasons why Americans and British have different spellings for common words and why the American definition of "pants" is different to the British one. The Oxford English Dictionary tracks usage of words in the media and in printed texts - it is a historical dictionary not a standards text.
The OED is the most widely respected dictionary of the English language in the world. It includes both American and Commonwealth spellings (and archaic discards) and is used in courtrooms all around the world and has been for centuries. Its reputation of "grand arbiter" is not something I fabricated in my head. It is THE authority when definitions are contested, from Scrabble to academia to yes, even law. I applaud your bravery going against the OED, but it's the closest English speakers have to an academy on language, and it's never challenged unless its definitions are too vague.

By the way, a law dictionary's definition of piracy:

1: an act of robbery esp. on the high seas

specif
: an illegal act of violence, detention, or plunder committed for private ends by crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft on the high seas or in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state
(see also aircraft piracy Article I of the Constitution in the back matter)

2 a: the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright
Example: software piracy

b: the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use
Example: the statute's purpose is to proscribe the piracy of programming signals -- United States v. Harrell, 983 F.2d 36 (1993)

3: the crime of committing piracy

[iMeowbot]

"Piracy" meaning "copyright infringement" didn't originate with the courts or lawmakers, but was a favorite term used by writers in the 1840s. Dickens made the usage popular, Hawthorne tended to use it too.

[matticus008]

"Piracy" meaning "copyright infringement" didn't originate with the courts or lawmakers, but was a favorite term used by writers in the 1840s. Dickens made the usage popular, Hawthorne tended to use it too.
Bingo. 150 years later, and it's an enumerated legal term. Isn't language great? (Dickens and Hawthorne, not so much ;))

[mdavey]

I agree with an earlier post by Matticus in which a more sophisticated node-lock mechanism is described. The shipping version of Mac OSX86 will no doubt implement a far more robust node-lock mechanism that may combine chip Id, signed firmware, and anything else.

The essence of the Mac experience is the combination of the physical look and feel of the hardware (functional, sturdy) and the Mac OS X software itself. Arguably, a key part of Mac OS X is the graphics.

I wonder if we will see Apple continuing to add proprietary extensions to OpenGL and perhaps even creating a graphics firmware. That would effectiely give them a custom graphics card but using standard parts. That would be a particularly effective way to lock the OS to the hardware - any cracker would have to effectively make a standard graphics card emulate the Apple graphics card which would be non-trivial especially if Apple moved the core image and HDTV routines to the graphics card.

Hmm, maybe that is what vingle is ;) Video Interface something Graphics Library Enhancements. Vingle chip / vingle firmware :D

[HiRez]

Also, I wouldn't see the harm in os x running on different machines.The problem is that there's a HUGE variety of hardware available for PCs, which means Apple needs to support all of them to provide a consistent user experience. Drivers for everything, and many more tech support headaches from the guy who bought the $5 Komputor King ethernet to SCSI adapter at Walmart.

[ksz]

I wonder if we will see Apple continuing to add proprietary extensions to OpenGL and perhaps even creating a graphics firmware. That would effectiely give them a custom graphics card but using standard parts. That would be a particularly effective way to lock the OS to the hardware - any cracker would have to effectively make a standard graphics card emulate the Apple graphics card which would be non-trivial especially if Apple moved the core image and HDTV routines to the graphics card.
I think that for a chip-level node-lock mechanism to work, the chip must be captive to the motherboard. Proprietary firmware on a graphics card could be defeated simply by removing the graphics card from the PCIe slot and putting it into another computer. It's not going to be an easy problem to solve, but it's one that Apple has to figure out. They may enlist the aid of security/encryption experts.

[ksz]

Also, I wouldn't see the harm in os x running on different machines.
The harm would be to Apple's revenue and profitability. A large percent of Apple's revenue comes from thousand-dollar machines. They could not substitute this with software licensing royalties unless they sell massive quantities of licenses annually. With Macintosh market share being anywhere from 3-5 percent, OS royalties are not going to be spectacular. Apple needs the revenue from its hardware sales.

[mdavey]

I think that for a chip-level node-lock mechanism to work, the chip must be captive to the motherboard. Proprietary firmware on a graphics card could be defeated simply by removing the graphics card from the PCIe slot and putting it into another computer.

Perhaps they could have some kind of master-slave graphics card setup where the slaves only work when the master is present. Then put the master one on the motherboard. This would only affect the PowerMacs, right? Because those are the only ones that take PCI/PCIe cards.

[groovebuster]

If that's true, then why do Mac computers seem to last longer? My school has some original iMacs and they are working just fine (slow, but fine). My PC's would have turned to dust at the age of those iMacs.
This is an urban legend. I always owned PCs and Macs at the same time and also always owned about the same amount of computers for each platform. As long as you are buying good PCs for a similar price compared to the Macs, the percentage of machines with technical problems is even lower.

To talk about the Mac side during the last few years (just the machines with problems)...

PowerBook G3 (Wallstreet):
LCD had to be changed twice because of uneven illumination.

iMac G3 (one of the last ones sold):
Monitor wiring problems after 8 weeks (red didn't work anymore). Had to be repaired (warranty).

iBook G4:
Trackpad doesn't work properly anymore. Built-in microphone is dead. No repair since it happened right after the warranty ended. Replacement too expensive! So it stays like this...

PowerMac G4 (Quicksilver):
Several fans had to be replaced over the time (bearing damage due to low quality parts used, the old ones were noisy like hell anyway...). The original 40GB HD was dead after two years as well.

During the same period of time none of my PCs ever had any problem. My current Windows XP Laptop was a lemon though. Motherboard, LCD and keyboard had to be replaced one-by-one during the first few months of heavy usage. Since then it runs flawlessly... And since it has a "3 year bring in warranty" I am not too worried about it. Macs only have 12 months... except you are shelling out an additional few hundred bucks for Apple Care...

So please, stop the legend, that PCs are of inferior hardware quality. It is just not true... Also other people I know owning Macs had at least as many hardware problems with their machines as the average Joe Sixpack with his Windows-PC.

Regards,

groovebuster

[BenRoethig]

If that's true, then why do Mac computers seem to last longer? My school has some original iMacs and they are working just fine (slow, but fine). My PC's would have turned to dust at the age of those iMacs.

The cheap Dells and HPs of the world use lower quality OEM parts. The crowd that buys them (80% of the market) doesn't really care. Believe it or not, there are also PC makers who have very high quality parts and service.

[aegisdesign]

The point about itunes was that itunes for Windows XP is 3X faster than PPC itunes running under Rosetta in OSX for Intel on the same machine. Hence Rosetta is 30% native speed.

iTunes is a worst case application for Rosetta as during the rip it usually uses AltiVec and it's compute bound. 'Normal' desktop apps will probably not be that bad to use.

Worse though, on a PowerPC chip, AltiVec allows an otherwise similar performance PowerPC chip to beat the Pentium-M in iTunes.

I've a 1.7Ghz Pentium-M Laptop and a 1.8Ghz G5 iMac. Most of the time they are about equal in almost every benchmark. The P-M wins at Cinebench just (except for OpenGL where it's 2-3 times quicker than the Mac) whereas the G5 wins on most Photoshop filters. The OpenGL difference may be due to the Radeon 9700 in the laptop and fx5200 Ultra in the iMac though other results say it's not just the reason.

iTunes on the P-M rips at about 16x normal speed from the hard disk. The iMac at 20x. The test album I've just done (Green by REM) 1.58 on the iMac. 2.31 on the Pentium-M.

If I do it from the CD drive, the laptop gets speeds of only 6-10x and the iMac 10-16x. Must be a very ****** cd drive in my laptop. If I run off battery, my 500Mhz iBook isn't that far behind the PC laptop. The PC must really throttle back the power on battery.

So, that would appear as though Rossetta may be getting 30% of a native Intel chip but about 20% of PowerPC speed from an otherwise similar performance G5 in this case. That's more than the initial benchmarks were showing but still not encouraging for anyone wanting to run old PowerPC compute bound applications like Photoshop.

[BenRoethig]

From where I'm sitting, all of this is VERY good for Apple. I mean, how good must an OS actually be for people to want to hack it to put on their machines?

For all of the non-techy people, if all they hear is this, they may wonder what all of the fuss is about and go check out an Apple computer; since they can't purchase an "OS X Dell" machine, and they certainly aren't going to be hacking to get their own OS x86 machine up and running.

Walks in "Well, they look cool and are very well made but aren't very upgradable. Maybe as a family computer some day." Apple is a great company, but they do not have universal appeal.

I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with some of the ignorance that is being spread around this thread but trolling windows fans, firstly what are you doing on a mac site? secondly, please please please, when you crack apples release version of OS X for intel, show me - i will happily give you a million bucks. Just how stupid do you think apple is? there are plenty of measures that will be taken to assure osx cannot be used on non-mac hardware.

Nobody will use the extremely slow, developers version and they wont be able to use the final version (some will say they have, or gone out and bought hardware to run it on (chips and processors), hardly cracking the OS though.)

Excuse anyone for having an opinion other than "RA RA Apple rules and those who don't agree are idiots!"

[aegisdesign]

The problem is that there's a HUGE variety of hardware available for PCs, which means Apple needs to support all of them to provide a consistent user experience. Drivers for everything, and many more tech support headaches from the guy who bought the $5 Komputor King ethernet to SCSI adapter at Walmart.

This is only an argument against people building boxes themselves.

If you buy a PC from a major vendor then you can guarantee that it's been tested for Windows compatibility. Microsoft maintain a list of certified hardware. If you're a PC manufacturer or a card manufacturer then it's in your interests to make sure our hardware is compatible and certified.

Microsoft these days are making the list of certified hardware much smaller than the old days. They tried it in the past with their 'Multimedia-PC' specification and they're doing it again for anyone wanting to run Vista.

All Apple need do is set the list of hardware that is compatible and then any clone manufacturer need do is build to spec. Anyone sticking in a card that isn't in the spec is SOL but that's their problem, not Apple's.

We did the same thing in the BeOS days. It only had drivers for some motherboards and cards so you just built to spec.

[ksz]

iTunes is a worst case application for Rosetta as during the rip it usually uses AltiVec and it's compute bound. 'Normal' desktop apps will probably not be that bad to use.

If iTunes uses AltiVec, it will not run under Rosetta. Note bullet #3 here (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/).

EDIT: Sorry, link does not work for subpages. Here's a copy:

What Can Be Translated?

Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X. That includes CFM as well as Mach-O PowerPC applications.

Rosetta does not run the following:

Applications built for any version of the Mac OS earlier than Mac OS X —that means Mac OS 9, Mac OS 8, Mac OS 7, and so forth
The Classic environment
Code written specifically for AltiVec
Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
Applications that depend on one or more PowerPC-only kernel extensions
Kernel extensions
Java applications with JNI libraries
Java applets in applications that Rosetta can translate; that means a web browser that Rosetta can run translated will not be able to load Java applets.


EDIT2: If iTunes uses the Accelerate Framework for any vector-based processing it needs to perform, it could in fact run under Rosetta.

[iMeowbot]

If iTunes uses AltiVec, it will not run under Rosetta. Note bullet #3 here (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/).
iTunes does not require Altivec. It will run on a G3. (it will use Altivec if it's available.)

[SiliconAddict]

That assumes that they signed the Apple Developer agreement in the first place.

If they didn't then they have an unauthorized copy and its theft. If they did its breaking the EULA. There is no wiggle room here.

[Photorun]

i'm personally looking forward to the intel OS X. there are unfortunately times when i need to run a PC, and having OS X on it would make it sooo much more bearable.

Um, dude, do you realize how absolutely friggin' zero sense you just made, right? A peecee (PC) is nothing more than a machine, okay, hardware, so running OS X on that verses OS X on a MacTel is the same thing. If you really "need a peecee" unless there's some bizarre hardware (which again would need some Microcrap something, ruining your argument) what you say makes absolutely no sense. If you need to be on a peecee, it's 'cause of M$ Windoze, this has NOTHING to do with OS X.

Get it now?

[manu chao]

Since a couple of people here voiced their desire to run OS X on (their) Intel/AMD PCs, how about Apple selling an unsupported licence of OS X for $500 per processor core?

This might be acceptable for Apple from a financial point. However, a lot of people would cry foul for Apple to charge such a high price and there would be a lot of piracy as a consequence which could erode that financial acceptability.

Moreover, having an unsupported and therefore less satisfactory OS out there would harm the image of OS X probably noticeably.

So, what could Apple do:
- lower the price to avoid bad press and inccur an even bigger financial loss
- reduce the price and 'support' the OS to become another Microsoft (that is a big gamble)
- make piracy as hard as possible, do not sell the OS, continue current business model

Disclaimer: For me, copyright infringement becomes piracy when there is a financial gain on one side or a financial loss on the other.

Question: If somebody buys an Intel-Mac and installs the OS on another Intel-PC, without using the Mac at all, is this piracy. According to my definition it is if the PC in question is more expensive than the Mac.

[BillHarrison]

Ah, its not that tough guys.

OS X on intel will be cracked. It will also require far more hoops to be jumped through than it does now.

Average consumers are not hoop jumpers. I would guess less than 1% of the current computer using public would bother to do this.

Basically, my opinion is that Apple knows it will be cracked, but realizes that the amount done will not impact much of anything.

My guess is that those that are actually going to do it, already are, so what difference does it make?

[rosalindavenue]

PC Mag (US) columnist John Dvorak in this article (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1827485,00.asp) predicted that this kind of cracking would be the first step in Apple's march towards selling OSX for PCs.

Excerpt: 1. Apple releases OS X86 as a proprietary system for its boxes. It's immediately pirated and goes into the wild.

2. Apple squawks about the piracy to draw attention to it, thus increasing the piracy, creating a virtual or shadow beta test. The complaining is necessary to assure Microsoft that Apple does not intend to compete with Windows. This keeps Microsoft selling MS Office for the Mac.

3. There are driver issues that get resolved by the hobbyists, and OS X86 now remains in shadow beta, being tested in a process that is apparently outside of Apple's control, but is in fact carefully monitored by the company.

4. Once the system stabilizes in the wild, Apple announces that it cannot do anything about the piracy situation and that it's apparent that everyone wants this OS rather than Windows. It's "the will of the public." Apple then makes the stupendous announcement that it will sell a generic boxed OS, "for the rest of you!" One claim is that it is a solution to spyware.

I dont know that I agree with Dvorak, but he did call the intel switch (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1007215,00.asp) long before any of us thought it was coming.

[manu chao]

All Apple need do is set the list of hardware that is compatible and then any clone manufacturer need do is build to spec. Anyone sticking in a card that isn't in the spec is SOL but that's their problem, not Apple's.

We did the same thing in the BeOS days. It only had drivers for some motherboards and cards so you just built to spec.

Sure, that is an option but people will try to run OS X on other hardware anyway and their experience might not be as nice, and some of them will blame Apple nevertheless which cannot be good for the image of OS X and Apple in general.

[ksz]

PC Mag (US) columnist John Dvorak in this article (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1827485,00.asp) predicted that this kind of cracking would be the first step in Apple's march towards selling OSX for PCs.

Excerpt: 1. Apple releases OS X86 as a proprietary system for its boxes. It's immediately pirated and goes into the wild.

2. Apple squawks about the piracy to draw attention to it, thus increasing the piracy, creating a virtual or shadow beta test. The complaining is necessary to assure Microsoft that Apple does not intend to compete with Windows. This keeps Microsoft selling MS Office for the Mac.

3. There are driver issues that get resolved by the hobbyists, and OS X86 now remains in shadow beta, being tested in a process that is apparently outside of Apple's control, but is in fact carefully monitored by the company.

4. Once the system stabilizes in the wild, Apple announces that it cannot do anything about the piracy situation and that it's apparent that everyone wants this OS rather than Windows. It's "the will of the public." Apple then makes the stupendous announcement that it will sell a generic boxed OS, "for the rest of you!" One claim is that it is a solution to spyware.

I dont know that I agree with Dvorak, but he did call the intel switch (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1007215,00.asp) long before any of us thought it was coming.
Seems to me Apple will lose a significant chunk of the educational market, including high school and college students whose limited income will make the piracy alternative very appealing. If they can buy fast and cheap PCs and slap a hacked version of Mac OS on it, the money they would have spent on Apple would be reallocated.

Apple would also lose a big chunk of switchers. They may switch to Mac OS, but not to Apple hardware, thus protecting the investment they already made in PC hardware.

A hacked version of Mac OS would significantly cut into Apple's hardware sales just as the old Power Computing clone maker managed to do.

[maya]

You cant buy this kind of publicity;) Who needs advertising when journos just want to "unlawfully" grab your stuff and test it and then post in on the web so that everyone can read about it and talk about it in discussion forums:rolleyes: :eek: :D Shocking:p

What is the world coming to? :eek: ;) :p :D

[PCMacUser]

You're welcome to it. I touch-type and would never consider owning a computer with an under-sized keyboard.
Yeah, I have the JVC mininote, and at 900g it's wonderfully light and portable, but for touch typing I had to go for an iBook 12"...

[SiliconAddict]

Um, dude, do you realize how absolutely friggin' zero sense you just made, right? A peecee (PC) is nothing more than a machine, okay, hardware, so running OS X on that verses OS X on a MacTel is the same thing. If you really "need a peecee" unless there's some bizarre hardware (which again would need some Microcrap something, ruining your argument) what you say makes absolutely no sense. If you need to be on a peecee, it's 'cause of Windoze, this has NOTHING to do with OS X.

Get it now?


Nice to know we are all mature here. :rolleyes:
On the bright side you didn’t use M$.

[PCMacUser]

On the bright side you didn’t use M$.
LOL ditto

[virus1]

this is a little sad, how easily apple's chip can be hacked. it kind of is telling the windows users: apple has a better operating system for your computer, but the only way to get it is pirating it, and this is what happens.

[Photorun]

Nice to know we are all mature here. :rolleyes:
On the bright side you didn’t use M$.

Oh, sorry... I edited my post for you. Thanks for pointing it out my error in ways.

[Evangelion]

SINCE WHEN!? Every PC I have EVER starte up takes at least 2 minutes and then once you see the actual desktop, it takes another minute before you can actuallt begin to start an Application. My iMac G5 goes from pressing the power button to first App in under 50 seconds!

Enough with the BS, please. XP does boot pretty fast. Yes, it takes a while for the system to be usable after it gets to the desktop, but it's not 3 minutes in total! I can get to the desktop on this not-so-good desktop-machine in about.... 40-50 seconds (excluding the time it takes me to type the passowrd etc.). After that it takes about 15 seconds for Windows to load all the background-crap it needs to me usable. It takes about 1 minute total, nowhere near the 3 minutes you claimed.

[ksz]

Enough with the BS, please. XP does boot pretty fast. Yes, it takes a while for the system to be usable after it gets to the desktop, but it's not 3 minutes in total! I can get to the desktop on this not-so-good desktop-machine in about.... 40-50 seconds (excluding the time it takes me to type the passowrd etc.). After that it takes about 15 seconds for Windows to load all the background-crap it needs to me usable. It takes about 1 minute total, nowhere near the 3 minutes you claimed.
It takes 3-4 minutes on my 2 GHz Pentium M with 2 GB memory (Dell Inspiron 6000). I really do believe this is because of all the apps I've installed. Boot time increased significantly as more apps were installed. This, however, is not a good sign, but it is understandable given all the Windows Services that have to be loaded.

[Stella]

Igoring the crap about piracy and other issues etc... it has no bearing upon the quality of the article.

I thought it was a good article, though a bit disappointed about Application performance, however it was only a pre release. Hopefully now that PPC and Intel are up to par, things have improved somewhat.

[Evangelion]

Nice to know we are all mature here. :rolleyes:
On the bright side you didn’t use M$.

he's the same guy who wrote this little gem (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1831932&postcount=404) ;). I'm still wondering what "hardware-intensiveness" has to do with SOFTWARE-stability. Hardware-stability, sure, but software?

And when you read that reply of his, keep in mind that I in fact run OS X and Linux at home (I do have W2K buried in my PC for occasional game or two, but that's it), and dislike MS with passion. But since I dared to claim that XP is pretty stable, I'm apparently the ultimate MS-fanboy who should not be on Macrumors ;).

I guess there are two types of Mac-users: the "normal" users, and those who have drank the kool-aid.

[Evangelion]

It takes 3-4 minutes on my 2 GHz Pentium M with 2 GB memory (Dell Inspiron 6000). I really do believe this is because of all the apps I've installed. Boot time increased significantly as more apps were installed. This, however, is not a good sign, but it is understandable given all the Windows Services that have to be loaded.

And it takes about 1 minute on my machine, with tons of stuff installed (it even maps few network-drives). my machine is a desktop, however.

[PCMacUser]

It takes 3-4 minutes on my 2 GHz Pentium M with 2 GB memory (Dell Inspiron 6000). I really do believe this is because of all the apps I've installed. Boot time increased significantly as more apps were installed. This, however, is not a good sign, but it is understandable given all the Windows Services that have to be loaded.
A colleague of mine has an AMD FX55 machine with two Raptor 10000rpm drives running in RAID 0 and his computer boots into Windows XP in less than 10 seconds. After it's been bogged down with games and apps, bootup slows down to about 20 seconds.

[PCMacUser]

I'm apparently the ultimate MS-fanboy who should not be on Macrumors
HA! I knew it! ;)

[steve_hill4]

Um, dude, do you realize how absolutely friggin' zero sense you just made, right? A peecee (PC) is nothing more than a machine, okay, hardware, so running OS X on that verses OS X on a MacTel is the same thing. If you really "need a peecee" unless there's some bizarre hardware (which again would need some Microcrap something, ruining your argument) what you say makes absolutely no sense. If you need to be on a peecee, it's 'cause of M$ Windoze, this has NOTHING to do with OS X.

Get it now?
Perhaps they were suggesting that either they want to run OSX on their Windows machine as a dual boot, or perhaps buy a mac which can dual boot Windows for those few apps that need it.

It's certainly something I would consider, that way I could get rid of XP as default on my home computer and run Linux full time. If I needed windows, just boot into it on either machine. If you only have one machine, it would have to be that one. It would however be like buying an expensive sports car and then using it off road in the Peak District. Completely pointless.

[ioinc]

Wow, this makes me want to vomit...everywhere.

I don't ever want to see the day when OS X gets put on anything other than Apple Hardware.


Yeah! That would suck to have different options???
As a consumer I think we should have as few options as possible.:rolleyes:

[ksz]

And it takes about 1 minute on my machine, with tons of stuff installed (it even maps few network-drives). my machine is a desktop, however.
Are you running MS Office? My boot time went up considerably, if I recall correctly, after installing Office.

(Anyway, this is off topic.)

[sishaw]

PC Mag (US) columnist John Dvorak in this article (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1827485,00.asp) predicted that this kind of cracking would be the first step in Apple's march towards selling OSX for PCs.

Excerpt: 1. Apple releases OS X86 as a proprietary system for its boxes. It's immediately pirated and goes into the wild.

2. Apple squawks about the piracy to draw attention to it, thus increasing the piracy, creating a virtual or shadow beta test. The complaining is necessary to assure Microsoft that Apple does not intend to compete with Windows. This keeps Microsoft selling MS Office for the Mac.

3. There are driver issues that get resolved by the hobbyists, and OS X86 now remains in shadow beta, being tested in a process that is apparently outside of Apple's control, but is in fact carefully monitored by the company.

4. Once the system stabilizes in the wild, Apple announces that it cannot do anything about the piracy situation and that it's apparent that everyone wants this OS rather than Windows. It's "the will of the public." Apple then makes the stupendous announcement that it will sell a generic boxed OS, "for the rest of you!" One claim is that it is a solution to spyware.

I dont know that I agree with Dvorak, but he did call the intel switch (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1007215,00.asp) long before any of us thought it was coming.


Yes, Dvorak got one right. He's been wrong about Apple so many times (generally in predicting the demise of the company) that he was bound to do so at some point.

[Alex Cutter]

By the way, has it occurred to anyone else that any novice at Photoshop could make it appear that they have OS X on their computer?
Really? What's "Photoshop"?

[ticktick]

I think this is great, but only if it leads to OSX on any x86 machines. In the last two years I've spent well over ten grand on Apple hardware, so I'm no PC-lover, but I am sick of paying more for less from Apple.

Power to the people hacking OS X, Apple right now is like the music industry ten years ago--"I can charge whatever I want for this CD because there's no option." Napster changed that, iTunes was a good response. If enough people do hack OSX and get it all working then maybe Apple will "think different" and sell legit OSX for any processor. And maybe their hardware prices will improve, and like the iPod, actually be worth the premium for OSX.

To those who argue that Apple hardware is better, well, great, continue to buy it. That's free enterprise! The iPod is better hardware, and the market pays a premium for it. If Apple computer hardware is better then I and the rest of the market will pay a premium for it. But let the market decide that. I'm sick of getting gouged by Apple for the same bits of plastic and steel in other machines without an Apple on 'em. The Powerbooks are slow, have lousy battery life, very average screens (even the latest rev.), and cost a silly amount of $ for what you get (beyond OS X). The story is the same in desk-top land.

I'm currently running an iBook on the road despite having the $ and desire for a high-end notebook--I refuse to pay twice the $ for half the machine that the Powerbook offers. The iBook works well enough on the road for me, and it's cheap enough that I don't feel too burned by the price (an extra $500 just annoys me, paying an extra $1000 for the current POS powerbooks, no way). It kills me to see the notebooks I could buy for the same $ as a Powerbook in "PC Land." It's the same with desktops, but I need Final Cut so I have to run OSX (which I absolutely prefer anyhow). I'm holding out for a new Intel-based Powerbook, and will even pay a slight premium for an Apple on the lid if the hardware is equal, but if the price/hardware differential is the same as now for notebooks, well, my next notebook will be running Windows--and Apple will have lost me as a notebook customer (as they did for a few years around the 5300 or whatever it was era). But wait, if I can run OSX on any intel machine then yeah! I'll look at the Powerbooks and the others, and buy what I like--plus a copy of OSX if I go non-Apple.


-Written on a $5000 system that would cost $2,500 in PC land...

[digitalbiker]

high school and college students whose limited income will make the piracy alternative very appealing. If they can buy fast and cheap PCs and slap a hacked version of Mac OS on it, the money they would have spent on Apple would be reallocated.
A hacked version of Mac OS would significantly cut into Apple's hardware sales just as the old Power Computing clone maker managed to do.


My guess is that OS X on x86 will utilize a hardware protection scheme. This will mean that only very serious hackers will be able to get OS X running on non-apple hardware.

Also hardware protection scheme cracking usually means a hardware mod to the MB or some other equally as dangerous or costly intervention. I don't think you will have to worry about the general consumer making these changes in large numbers.;)

[hayesk]

To those who argue that Apple hardware is better, well, great, continue to buy it. That's free enterprise! The iPod is better hardware, and the market pays a premium for it. If Apple computer hardware is better then I and the rest of the market will pay a premium for it. But let the market decide that. I'm sick of getting gouged by Apple for the same bits of plastic and steel in other machines without an Apple on 'em.

You aren't getting gouged. It costs a lot of money to develop hardware and software.

How does the thought of paying $500+ for MacOS X with product activation sound? Apple's hardware profits subsidize OS development. Without the hardware profits, Apple can't survive. And when you're paying $500 for an OS, your supposed cost savings go right out the window.

Not only that, when someone buys a cheapo PC and run MacOS X on it, and it runs poorly, guess who they're going to blame? Do you want to pay for Apple gets bad publicity for no good reason. Supporting thousands of hardware configuration costs money, again, eliminating your supposed cost savings.

Where are the advantages? There's no savings for you; what you save in hardware, you pay in software.

[plinden]

If someone paid 4x more for an apple computer to run OSX ...

Ok, I know you're exaggerating for effect, but why say 4x more? The Apple premium for similar specs tends to be about 20%. You can pay $2000 (and more) for PC laptops as well as $500. It's just that Apple don't have $500 laptops.

[ticktick]

You aren't getting gouged. It costs a lot of money to develop hardware and software.

How does the thought of paying $500+ for MacOS X with product activation sound? Apple's hardware profits subsidize OS development. Without the hardware profits, Apple can't survive. And when you're paying $500 for an OS, your supposed cost savings go right out the window.

Not only that, when someone buys a cheapo PC and run MacOS X on it, and it runs poorly, guess who they're going to blame? Do you want to pay for Apple gets bad publicity for no good reason. Supporting thousands of hardware configuration costs money, again, eliminating your supposed cost savings.

Where are the advantages? There's no savings for you; what you save in hardware, you pay in software.

First of all, OS X should run just as well on a cheapo PC as Windows, so that's a moot point. If the hardware is bad then it's bad. Cheapo computer users who can't figure out out a hardware vs. an OS problem will likely think it's all the "computer's fault" anyhow. I've had as many hardware problems with Apple as with Dell or whatever, Apple does not have a lock on getting the guy in Asia to soldier their boards more perfectly than the ones going to El Cheapo or whatever. The idea of "integration" is over anyhow, I buy my drives, memory, mouse, keyboard, etc. after-market, I refuse to pay Apple's prices. It all works just fine despite not coming from the Apple tree.

Second, it costs $129 to buy OSX now. Maybe there's some left-over trickle-down hardware profit margin, but if you're buying OS X you're likely on an older system anyhow. I bet Apple makes $ on OSX at $129, and would make a lot more $ if it ran on any x86 machine out there. Windows Professional is $299--if the missing $170 is the hardware subsidization money then up the price of OSX to $300 and let it run on any x86 machine, yeah!

Third, if you're right that hardware subsidizes software then that subsidy is out of hand. The gap is crazy, and I bet I'm not the only person who reads this board regularly who is waiting for the new powerbooks with mixed emotions. If the new machines are equal to the Pentium M notebooks or better then great, we'll buy if the prices are also roughly comparable. If they aren't then I think we'll see a fair number of high-end notebook users elect to experiment with Windows or Linux or whatever. I'd just love the third option of running OSX on whatever notebook I like.

Last, piracy can be "good" when it changes the system as it did with iTunes. Without piracy we would still be paying $15 for a CD that we wanted one tune from... The industry recognized that people were done with that model, and iTunes and other download sites happened.

[plinden]

It takes 3-4 minutes on my 2 GHz Pentium M with 2 GB memory (Dell Inspiron 6000). I really do believe this is because of all the apps I've installed. Boot time increased significantly as more apps were installed. This, however, is not a good sign, but it is understandable given all the Windows Services that have to be loaded.
Not all the services have to be loaded - once again, I provide this link:
http://www.jasonn.com/turning_off_unnecessary_services_on_windows_xp

My 1.6GHz P-M Thinkpad is pretty fast at boot up - I haven't timed it but I'm pretty sure it's < 1 minute.

[noreturn]

I doubt a pre-release, buggy-as-hell, developer, and essentially skeleton version of OSX that can, under the right conditions, work on a PC, poses any real threat to Apple. People will not run these full time.

As for licensing helping Apple, I doubt it would. I love Apple as I know it now. You change anything in their current formula, and you risk upsetting the balance of price, quality, and support.

For those that want "options," go fly a kite. If you want to switch, then you can switch on Apple's terms. If you don't like it, then stick with Windows and wear out your Ctrl, Alt, and Del keys. Your "choice," buddy; Apple will do fine without your business.

[wnurse]

Last I checked, they very much could be used in legal courts, and for the record, if a license agreement said you had to give up your first born, you wouldn't hit "agree."
Some people don't know that you are also supposed to read them. :rolleyes:

I didn't say they couldn't be used in legal courts (of course they can) but a license is not as legally binding as people think (it's not ironclad, that's what i meant). For example, a license cannot violate a law. It doesn't matter if you click the agree button or not, once the license violates law, it is invalid so it becomes immaterial whether the agree button is clicked (for example, in new york city, i believe, it is illegal to distribute spyware). If a spyware company in their license agreement stated that no one can analyse their software to see if it is spyware (the name of the company that did this escapes me at the moment), they would be in direct violation of New York laws. See what i mean?. A license is just an agreement between you and the product maker. IF you break the agreement, they have a right to seek recourse in a court of law but it does not mean they automatically win (see Jack Kent Cooke and his Pre-Nup agreement with Marlene cooke). That is what i mean when i say a license is not legally binding. Of course, one would have to find some fault with the license to escape it.. just not liking a license terms is not good enough.

[ScubaDuc]

Perhaps they were suggesting that either they want to run OSX on their Windows machine as a dual boot, or perhaps buy a mac which can dual boot Windows for those few apps that need it.

It's certainly something I would consider, that way I could get rid of XP as default on my home computer and run Linux full time. If I needed windows, just boot into it on either machine. If you only have one machine, it would have to be that one. It would however be like buying an expensive sports car and then using it off road in the Peak District. Completely pointless.

I think that more than programs, people are concerned about drivers for peripherals. Consider my Brother MFC 3820CN: it is a rather new network multifunction printer/scanner. I can print over a network in OSX.3, but I cannot scan...I have to use run a USB wire to the machine and go back to the computer to click the mouse. With Windoze, I can scan over wi-fi from the scanner to any computer in my home network, except the Mac, of course. :mad:

[SiliconAddict]

Enough with the BS, please. XP does boot pretty fast. Yes, it takes a while for the system to be usable after it gets to the desktop, but it's not 3 minutes in total! I can get to the desktop on this not-so-good desktop-machine in about.... 40-50 seconds (excluding the time it takes me to type the passowrd etc.). After that it takes about 15 seconds for Windows to load all the background-crap it needs to me usable. It takes about 1 minute total, nowhere near the 3 minutes you claimed.

You ain't kidding. My SATA/2.8Ghz (Pentium 4 no less.)/1.5GB of RAM takes about 15 seconds to boot and another 10 to get to the desktop. (I've got my system set to auto login so the distinction is vague.) I think people need to stop talking **** about what they don't know. Windows is a fast OS but suffers from OS **** creep. After two years I redo my system. Not that its crashing or anything. (I can count on one half of my hand how many times my XP desktop has crashed in the last two years.) But because of registry creep. I have read, and I believe with every fiber of my being the registry is the worst idea in computer science. Or at the very least how MS handles the registry it is.
But anyways. I think people need to accept the fact that Windows can be fast. Can be stable. And please. For the love of god. Windows can multitask. I’ve read so many posts about blah blah blah. Windows can’t handle multiple apps as well as OS X. well I’ve never had a problem having about a dozen apps and another dozen TSR’s running while multitasking. Maybe I’m just “special” that way. :rolleyes:

[SiliconAddict]

As for the article itself. :rolleyes: Woah. pre-release software not designed to run on the system it was load on not running spectacularily fast?!?

Holy Duh Batman!

http://home.comcast.net/~jonnormand/master_of_the_obvious.jpg


*mutters* I've been waiting weeks to try out that image.

[VanNess]

It isn't too surprising that someone puts up an article on the net about running an unsupported hack of OS X on unsupported hardware, but it is surprising when that someone happens to be ZDnet. You would think that a major technology publisher like that would know better, but apparently not.

Bottom line: the article offers nothing in terms of meaningful information for anyone. There is certainly no scoop here. Like everyone else, ZDnet will have to wait for Apple to ship their Intel-based products running OS X. Then they can publish a review, run their benchmarks, compare other operating systems, and so on. But it's beyond silly to do that sort of thing now, like this article attempts to do.

[generik]

Ok, I know you're exaggerating for effect, but why say 4x more? The Apple premium for similar specs tends to be about 20%. You can pay $2000 (and more) for PC laptops as well as $500. It's just that Apple don't have $500 laptops.

Definitely not 20%, an equivalent Dull laptop is like 60% cheaper.

Of course.. it is a Dull..

[PCMacUser]

Of course.. it is a Dull..
Is that meant to be 'Dell' with a New Zealand accent?

[Cloetus]

I got 10.4.1 up on a Motion Tablet this weekend. The pen doesn't work and the trackpad on the external keyboard goes dead, but it's pretty cool and fairly snappy. XP is not that snappy on this machine, BTW. I'm hoping to figure out the pen input as well as update it to the latest crack floating around. It's fun...

[ksz]

It isn't too surprising that someone puts up an article on the net about running an unsupported hack of OS X on unsupported hardware, but it is surprising when that someone happens to be ZDnet. You would think that a major technology publisher like that would know better, but apparently not.

Developers who paid $999 for the Apple-supplied Mactel box after WWDC in June and signed the non-disclosure agreement are not at liberty to publish performance specs. I suspect, however, that Rosetta's performance even on Apple-supplied hardware (a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4) is comparable to what ZDNet published.

Transforming an MP3 with the Apple lossless codec (which just seems like a silly thing to do unless I am missing something) may or may not involve signal processing operations such as FFTs. Converting an original WAV into a lossy MP3 or AAC would very likely require FFTs to find and filter out frequencies not deemed audibly significant. Applications that perform heavy number crunching are not recommended for Rosetta:

From developer.apple.com
Rosetta is a translation process that runs a PowerPC binary on an Intel-based Macintosh—it allows applications to run as nonnative binaries. Many, but not all, applications can run translated. Applications that run translated will never run as fast as they run as a native binary because the translation process itself incurs a processing cost.

How compatible your application is with Rosetta depends on the type of application it is. An application such as a word processor that has a lot of user interaction and low computational needs is quite compatible. An application that requires a moderate amount of user interaction and has some high computational needs or that uses OpenGL is most likely also quite compatible. One that has intense computing needs isn’t compatible. This includes applications that need to repeatedly compute fast Fourier transforms (FFTs), that compute complex models for 3-D modeling, or that compute ray tracing.

To the user, Rosetta is transparent. Unlike Classic, when the user launches an application, there aren’t any visual cues to indicate that the application is translated. The user may perceive that the application is slow to start up or that the performance is slower than it is on a PowerPC-based Macintosh. The user can discover whether an application has only a PowerPC binary by looking at the Finder information for the application.

[EricNau]

For all those that think OS X on a PC is the bets thing since sliced bread, here's my thinking...

We are all hear because we like Apple, no? And there is more to an Apple computer than just the OS, no?

Part of what makes Apple computers so much "fun" is the appearance. There is no other company out there than can match the look and feel of the iMac, this is what makes Apple so special.

This is part of the reason why I went to Apple, I liked the fact that they had complete control, which may sound like a bad thing, but think about it, why don't Apple's have a lot of the problems windows do? It's because Apple has a better hold on their product than Microsoft.

Why would Apple want to give this up?

[ksz]

The same is true with just about every other electronics device. I might love the design of the Moto RAZR V3, but hate the software. I might want to install the Sony Ericsson or Nokia UI in the RAZR, but this is not an option and neither do I feel that my choices as a consumer are limited because of this.

When Apple decided not to OEM the OS, they made it rather plain that Apple is about the total user experience. Jobs has gone as far as to say that Apple is not about making the most obscene amount of money as quickly as possible. To be sure, they will grow their market with the Mac mini and other entry-level machines, but they will do so while remaining true to their ideals.

The iPod, iTunes, and iTunes Music Store integration is often cited by Jobs as an example of delivering a complete user experience. I, for one, do NOT want to see Apple commoditize their operating system.

[EricNau]

The same is true with just about every other electronics device. I might love the design of the Moto RAZR V3, but hate the software. I might want to install the Sony Ericsson or Nokia UI in the RAZR, but this is not an option and neither do I feel that my choices as a consumer are limited because of this.

When Apple decided not to OEM the OS, they made it rather plain that Apple is about the total user experience. Jobs has gone as far as to say that Apple is not about making the most obscene amount of money as quickly as possible. To be sure, they will grow their market with the Mac mini and other entry-level machines, but they will do so while remaining true to their ideals.

The iPod, iTunes, and iTunes Music Store integration is often cited by Jobs as an example of delivering a complete user experience. I, for one, do NOT want to see Apple commoditize their operating system.
very well put, I totally agree

[Marble]

The same is true with just about every other electronics device. I might love the design of the Moto RAZR V3, but hate the software. I might want to install the Sony Ericsson or Nokia UI in the RAZR, but this is not an option and neither do I feel that my choices as a consumer are limited because of this.

When Apple decided not to OEM the OS, they made it rather plain that Apple is about the total user experience. Jobs has gone as far as to say that Apple is not about making the most obscene amount of money as quickly as possible. To be sure, they will grow their market with the Mac mini and other entry-level machines, but they will do so while remaining true to their ideals.

The iPod, iTunes, and iTunes Music Store integration is often cited by Jobs as an example of delivering a complete user experience. I, for one, do NOT want to see Apple commoditize their operating system.

For what it's worth, I agree with the argument as I've been following it back and forth through the thread. This is what makes Apple special.

[chatin]

OSX does not run well on x86 hardware, and will only do so with Apple's "blessing."

:)

[contoursvt]

Ok, I know you're exaggerating for effect, but why say 4x more? The Apple premium for similar specs tends to be about 20%. You can pay $2000 (and more) for PC laptops as well as $500. It's just that Apple don't have $500 laptops.


Hi Plinden, Ok I admit I was blowing it out of proportion but I happen to like desktop systems and not one that closes me in. I took Apple's dual 2Gig dual core system, configured it with a 7800GT, 1 gig ram, 250gig drive and the price came out to nearly $3100 canadian $$.

I then went to a local PC shop and looked up their price list and configured the following for about $1650 - almost 1/2 price:

-Intel dual core 2.8Ghz P4
-1gig DDR2 memory
-Asus motherboard
-7800GT video card (PCI-E)
-16x dual layer burner
-250 gig SATA drive
-Antec P180 case with antec 380W supply
-Logitech silver/black keyboard
-Logitech MX510 mouse
-XP pro OEM

To have the option to build what I think is a comparable system for say 1/2 price and maybe run OSX on there if that is an option is great. The above system is by no means ugly or a poor performer either. I kind of like the P180 antec case http://image.donanimhaber.com/resimler/P180_antec.jpg

Now granted this is an option for those who are computer savvy, and likely, the majority of people would go buy a dell or HP and not get quite this kind of system for the $$, but if someone does have the ability to build their own, its still 1/2 price.

[mileslong]

this is just wrong
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/rv/2005/11/macos-x86-21.jpg

[fluidinclusion]

SINCE WHEN!? Every PC I have EVER starte up takes at least 2 minutes and then once you see the actual desktop, it takes another minute before you can actuallt begin to start an Application. My iMac G5 goes from pressing the power button to first App in under 50 seconds!

Agreed, but that is because of the corporate virus/spyware/networking/firewall crap that MUST be on all real world XP machines. They're very slow here at the university, while the Macs are quite fast to boot and use.

[DeathChill]

Agreed, but that is because of the corporate virus/spyware/networking/firewall crap that MUST be on all real world XP machines. They're very slow here at the university, while the Macs are quite fast to boot and use.
Definitely. My 3.6 GHz P4 boots up OS X in approximately 10-20 seconds to the desktop where I can actually perform tasks. That includes the grey screen right to where the desktop is usable.

[fluidinclusion]

This is an urban legend. I always owned PCs and Macs at the same time and also always owned about the same amount of computers for each platform. As long as you are buying good PCs for a similar price compared to the Macs, the percentage of machines with technical problems is even lower.

To talk about the Mac side during the last few years (just the machines with problems)...

PowerBook G3 (Wallstreet):
LCD had to be changed twice because of uneven illumination.

iMac G3 (one of the last ones sold):
Monitor wiring problems after 8 weeks (red didn't work anymore). Had to be repaired (warranty).

iBook G4:
Trackpad doesn't work properly anymore. Built-in microphone is dead. No repair since it happened right after the warranty ended. Replacement too expensive! So it stays like this...

PowerMac G4 (Quicksilver):
Several fans had to be replaced over the time (bearing damage due to low quality parts used, the old ones were noisy like hell anyway...). The original 40GB HD was dead after two years as well.

During the same period of time none of my PCs ever had any problem. My current Windows XP Laptop was a lemon though. Motherboard, LCD and keyboard had to be replaced one-by-one during the first few months of heavy usage. Since then it runs flawlessly... And since it has a "3 year bring in warranty" I am not too worried about it. Macs only have 12 months... except you are shelling out an additional few hundred bucks for Apple Care...

So please, stop the legend, that PCs are of inferior hardware quality. It is just not true... Also other people I know owning Macs had at least as many hardware problems with their machines as the average Joe Sixpack with his Windows-PC.

Regards,

groovebuster


You're right on cheap PCs vs. Good PCs. HOWEVER. If you look at Educational Macs vs Educational Dells, even of similar price, the Dells have historically sucked because they are DIFFERENT than the non-educational Dells. All the Macs are the same components. I can say that 90% of the educational Dells I've seen (about 20 of them) have had outright hardware failures (video cards, hard drives, cd drives, etc.). Home Dells I've seen or business Dells were problem free, however.

[Cinch]

I don't know the future of OSX holds, however I'm well aware of my current situation.

I'm using a Dell Optiplex 2.6Ghz w/ 1Gig of RAM and Window XP Professional at work. I have to restart this computer almost everyday, now I'm talking about pulling the plug restart! Please someone help get a gun and shoot this thing pieces!


Our budget is really tight now, and getting a new computer would probably not be in the near future.

-Cinch

[contoursvt]

I don't know the future of OSX holds, however I'm well aware of my current situation.

I'm using a Dell Optiplex 2.6Ghz w/ 1Gig of RAM and Window XP Professional at work. I have to restart this computer almost everyday, now I'm talking about pulling the plug restart! Please someone help get a gun and shoot this thing pieces!


Our budget is really tight now, and getting a new computer would probably not be in the near future.

-Cinch

I have a dual 1.25 G4 at work which freezes half the time when its printing and needs to be restarted like 3-4 times a day so whats your point :)

[SiliconAddict]

I don't know the future of OSX holds, however I'm well aware of my current situation.

I'm using a Dell Optiplex 2.6Ghz w/ 1Gig of RAM and Window XP Professional at work. I have to restart this computer almost everyday, now I'm talking about pulling the plug restart! Please someone help get a gun and shoot this thing pieces!


Our budget is really tight now, and getting a new computer would probably not be in the near future.

-Cinch

You Dell Optiplex it a perfectly fine computer. This coming from someone typing on one and who manages an office of aprox 100 of them. (Plus another 50 or so laptops.) In 4 years with this desktop in our office I've had one. Count em ONE system having problems with the hardware.
You are equating problems with your computer with its hardware when you should be pointing at the software. I've been in more IT shops that are completely freaking clueless as to how to configure a Windows computer. How to manage and deploy patches. How to manage your Anti-virus, firewall, and anti-adware software. Most places are clueless and simply use the default desktop "image" the comes with the system. Never bothering to roll their own. Tweaking it for their environment. Etc. In your case I will bet you $10 that your hardware is fine. You software is another matter.

[contoursvt]

I think people forget how complicated computers are. Its not like a toaster or kettle or anything. If you think of what the computer is actually doing, I'm amazed its anywhere as reliable as it is!!

[Cinch]

You Dell Optiplex it a perfectly fine computer. This coming from someone typing on one and who manages an office of aprox 100 of them. (Plus another 50 or so laptops.) In 4 years with this desktop in our office I've had one. Count em ONE system having problems with the hardware.
You are equating problems with your computer with its hardware when you should be pointing at the software. I've been in more IT shops that are completely freaking clueless as to how to configure a Windows computer. How to manage and deploy patches. How to manage your Anti-virus, firewall, and anti-adware software. Most places are clueless and simply use the default desktop "image" the comes with the system. Never bothering to roll their own. Tweaking it for their environment. Etc. In your case I will bet you $10 that your hardware is fine. You software is another matter.


I'm not saying it's a hardware problem nor am I saying it's a software problem. You are right, most people do not care what their computer do inside. They just want it to work and do their work. I'm one of those. I'm sorry if I offended those care to so much of such things as Service Pack 2 and partitioning a harddrive. I'm just thinking out loud here: Why do I need to partition my harddrive again? Aren't we pass the DOS days?

[Cinch]

I think people forget how complicated computers are. Its not like a toaster or kettle or anything. If you think of what the computer is actually doing, I'm amazed its anywhere as reliable as it is!!

You are absolutely right. We live in a very complicated world where just about everything we use are a product of some very complicated manufacturing process. Most of us do not know how modern furnitures are made, but we feel perfectly fine using them. What about high strength steel that holds buidings upr? What about the process that is involve in printing a newspaper? The point I'm trying to make is (and please understand that I'm not directing this personally at you although your reply seems to be directing at me) we can thrive in a complicated world even if we know very little details of everything around us.

[mugwump]

mileslong -- funny!



Anyhow, hey über dorks -- who gives an effin' shiite how long it takes to boot up your system? I see this "benchmark" on ZDNet and I just want to puke.

I reboot this powermac once a month if I have to, depending on system updates, and every two months for my wife's ibook.

To jack off about the startup times of a system startup is about as useful as how long it takes to tie your shoes in the morning, 10 seconds or 50 seconds? "Oh, my laces take just a few seconds since my boots are now velcro!" Dorks.

[contoursvt]

You are absolutely right. We live in a very complicated world where just about everything we use are a product of some very complicated manufacturing process. Most of us do not know how modern furnitures are made, but we feel perfectly fine using them. What about high strength steel that holds buidings upr? What about the process that is involve in printing a newspaper? The point I'm trying to make is (and please understand that I'm not directing this personally at you although your reply seems to be directing at me) we can thrive in a complicated world even if we know very little details of everything around us.

Thats very true but a news paper or the building support or modern furniture is not an open system where you can alter the material it was made with or the process it was created in. You can do that with a computer. You can go ahead and replace files in the OS with other ones, you can go delete things. You can go and download a virus (maybe like termites) .. all those things. I'm going to make a very stupid analogy now:

Imagine surfing and viruses ... I think its very close to walking with a wooden chair in the forest and parking it where ever you want. Some places may look like it could have pests (porn sites, pirate sites, free download music sites..etc). Some people will avoid that. Some dont care and might go and check it out. Same thing as taking your wooden chair and plunking it down beside what you might think could be a termite nest but you're not sure...but you dont care so you sit there for a while. You go home and a few days later you see that your chair is being eaten away... oh no and now they are spreading to your other furniture. This really sucks, but can you really blame the chair??? Its why some people can have zero probs and some have probs all the time. I think its about taking precaution.

I have the most unreliable car on earth according to review sites (I drive a Ford Contour SVT) but its gone 240,000KM now, doesnt burn any oil, I'm on my original fuel pump, original transmission..etc. I drive the think hard but I also listen for noises like wheel bearings. I change them before they get really bad. If I hear funny clunks, I check it out before it leads to someting going really wrong. Small bits of effort and time saving me major headache later. I run synthetic oil in the engine and transmission too (Actually saved my engine once because I drove over a big rock and it smashed the drain plug off and I went nearly 2 KM before i realized that I was out of oil!!! Oil light on and nothing in the pan. Engine is still good because I put the effort into better oil.

I dont know. Maybe my techie side just loves to tinker with everything and thats why I dont mind any of this.

[Cinch]

I dont know. Maybe my techie side just loves to tinker with everything and thats why I dont mind any of this.

well said

my daily rant is over:D

[contoursvt]

well said

my daily rant is over:D


LOL I'm done for the day too... All that rambling I did. Its like a freaking novel.

[Evangelion]

Are you running MS Office? My boot time went up considerably, if I recall correctly, after installing Office.

(Anyway, this is off topic.)

Just upgraded to Office 2003, as it happens.

[matix]

You are absolutely right. We live in a very complicated world where just about everything we use are a product of some very complicated manufacturing process. Most of us do not know how modern furnitures are made, but we feel perfectly fine using them. What about high strength steel that holds buidings upr? What about the process that is involve in printing a newspaper? The point I'm trying to make is (and please understand that I'm not directing this personally at you although your reply seems to be directing at me) we can thrive in a complicated world even if we know very little details of everything around us.

abstraction. it is a beautiful thing. How many people actually know what is going on inside their processor, inside the engine of their car, or even their own bodies! very few. It takes at least a university degree to begin to really understand these extremely complex things we use daily.

[sunfast]

The same is true with just about every other electronics device. I might love the design of the Moto RAZR V3, but hate the software. I might want to install the Sony Ericsson or Nokia UI in the RAZR, but this is not an option and neither do I feel that my choices as a consumer are limited because of this.

When Apple decided not to OEM the OS, they made it rather plain that Apple is about the total user experience. Jobs has gone as far as to say that Apple is not about making the most obscene amount of money as quickly as possible. To be sure, they will grow their market with the Mac mini and other entry-level machines, but they will do so while remaining true to their ideals.

The iPod, iTunes, and iTunes Music Store integration is often cited by Jobs as an example of delivering a complete user experience. I, for one, do NOT want to see Apple commoditize their operating system.

This sums it up for me. I am saving right now to finally make the switch from Windows - and "complete user experience" is exactly why I want an apple.

[ioinc]

For those that want "options," go fly a kite. If you want to switch, then you can switch on Apple's terms. If you don't like it, then stick with Windows and wear out your Ctrl, Alt, and Del keys. Your "choice," buddy; Apple will do fine without your business.

Are you the only consumer in the world that does not want options? Really?!?
You want to be limited to only one choice in everything you buy? Or is this a short-sighted ("go fly a kite") mentality that only applies to computers?

When you buy replacement tires for your car do you want to be limited to only one type of tire (because that’s all that will fit) or do you want to be able to pick and chose from different makes and models?

I am trying to figure out why some people are so averse to letting apple compete freely. Is it because they don't think enough of Apple products to allow them to win on their own merits?

Don't worry about apple…. They REALLY do put out a better machine (hardware and OS) let them prove it to the world, and in the process pick up the consumers on a lower budget that can't afford to pay a premium.

[TBi]

You aren't getting gouged. It costs a lot of money to develop hardware and software.

How does the thought of paying $500+ for MacOS X with product activation sound? Apple's hardware profits subsidize OS development. Without the hardware profits, Apple can't survive. And when you're paying $500 for an OS, your supposed cost savings go right out the window.

Not only that, when someone buys a cheapo PC and run MacOS X on it, and it runs poorly, guess who they're going to blame? Do you want to pay for Apple gets bad publicity for no good reason. Supporting thousands of hardware configuration costs money, again, eliminating your supposed cost savings.

Where are the advantages? There's no savings for you; what you save in hardware, you pay in software.

Personally i don't care if Dell can't sell OSX. It's apples' product and they should sell it with their hardware. Also circumventing the hardware protection OSX86 uses is against the law because of the DMCA so Dell can't do that.

I just wish Apple would leave a grey area for power users to run OSX86 on their machines (assuming they pay for it that is). Businesses would not be allowed this grey area and would have to buy an apple computer to legally run OSX86.

I'm not saying it should be legal for us to do it, just don't crack down on us or make it harder. They can crack down on massive sales (like from dell) by invoking the DMCA and suing them into the ground for it. Also for any computer store that sells the computers. The protection on the mac OS doesn't have to be strong for it to be illegal to break and most people who would buy an expensive mac will either still buy one or still HAVE to buy one.

Also anyone who wants to set up OSX on a computer for their family will more than likely get them compatible hardware because they will have to deal with all the heart ache if something goes wrong.

[mdavey]

I just wish Apple would leave a grey area for power users to run OSX86 on their machines (assuming they pay for it that is).

One way to do this could be to allow power users to sign up for a beta program ("Apple PowerBeta Connection" or somesuch). Once signed up, customers could get a beta copy of the current development OS without new features (that is, the current OS plus bug fixes and certain new hardware drivers, but not some of the cool in-development stuff like FrontRow or Photobooth).

This beta version would be provided under NDA and perhaps contain digital watermarks of the beta customers' account number but not contain the copy-protection features of the released version, so it could be installed on 3rd party hardware. Beta customers might be expected to report crashes (including providing diagnostics such as log files) but wouldn't be elegible for Apple support (by whatever means, including at the Genius bar). Apple would make a big deal about beta software not being production quality and not suitable for use in production environments.

[ioinc]

How does the thought of paying $500+ for MacOS X with product activation sound? Apple's hardware profits subsidize OS development. Without the hardware profits, Apple can't survive.


Yeah! No company could just survive on software profits alone! :confused:

[stelriah]

this is just wrong
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/rv/2005/11/macos-x86-21.jpg

Apple presently receives most of its supply of flash chips from Samsung and Toshiba

[Music_Producer]

For all those that think OS X on a PC is the bets thing since sliced bread, here's my thinking...

We are all hear because we like Apple, no? And there is more to an Apple computer than just the OS, no?

Part of what makes Apple computers so much "fun" is the appearance. There is no other company out there than can match the look and feel of the iMac, this is what makes Apple so special.

This is part of the reason why I went to Apple, I liked the fact that they had complete control, which may sound like a bad thing, but think about it, why don't Apple's have a lot of the problems windows do? It's because Apple has a better hold on their product than Microsoft.

Why would Apple want to give this up?


Exactly. This also goes out to all the morons who keep on with the "I'm a consumer.. i s hould have a choice" and make stupid comparisons with buying tires at a tire shop for your car.

Uh, anyone can change a car tire.. anyone can fill it up with air. Does the average user know how to change a friggin motherboard? Will he/she know how to resolve conflicts if OS X is installed on a Dell and it doesn't work??

So chill with the freedom of choice bit.. I for one, love the fact that Apple hardware runs apple software.. no third party crap. I hate it when my Palm treo hangs because of third party software. Give me a computer company that makes the hardware, software and the accessories.. oh wait, thats Apple :)

[contoursvt]

Hey nobody is saying you shouldnt be happy that apple hardware runs apple software and things like that, people here are saying that *IF* some people are able to get OSX to run on their PCs and if it can be done fairly reliably with certain hardware, then its good for them or anyone who really wants to run OSX but cannot afford the top of the line apple hardware and doesnt want to buy super restrictive and slow computers such as the Mac Mini. Apple would never support those users but if those users are techie enough, then they can make it work anyway. Nobody said you have to swap out motherboard and things. If you are not good at that stuff, then you will pay full price for the hardware, thats all.

Also you all say '3rd party hardware' like its a bad thing. Heck when ATI first put a video card in your computers, it was non apple made and everyone gasped that some non apple made item was in there. Apple doesnt actually make anything anyway. They pick and choose what goes in. They will have boards made for them in the same way that HP and Dell may have some boards custom made for some of their servers/workstations.

[matix]

part of this whole initiative to get OS X working on custom boxes is powered by the fact that apple has such a strict product tiering, such that there is no Consumer Desktop in a traditional sense. that sense being a $399 dell celeron ATX case cd-rom integrated graphics type of system. Sure, we can buy a mac mini, but like the previous poster suggested we can't DO anything to one, at least economically. they are slow by design: laptop and low-power components.

and an iMac, as beautiful as it is, is NOT a computer 'for the rest of us'. No student i know can justify buying any apple than maybe their portables. they ARE too expensive for what they are. This is where 'form over function' is apple shooting themselves in the foot.

until copyright infringement laws and "piracy" laws are more effective i doubt there is much apple can do about a parellel, community supported, copy-protection stripped version os OS x in the wild.

[BenRoethig]

"ive installed tiger on an inspiron 6000

no wifi, no scrolling, no power managemnt, no external mouse, overall pretty bad and useless.

as for osx itself, totally not worth the hassle of getting it installed. functionally provides nothing over xp, and wont be compatible with many of your apps."

This was a post at a message board I frequent from a PC user. This is exactly why Apple needs to provide a stable supported version for non-Apple computers. An unstable pirated version is exactly what the PC industry will see. They will tell everyone they know about their experiences with the hacked version and expect it to work just as badly on Apple's own computers. Casual Mac buyers will hear this and not buy the Mactels as a result. Apple cannot enjoy the same proprietary advantages on x86. They either need to go all the way or stay with an ISA where this is not a problem.

[ioinc]

Exactly. This also goes out to all the morons who keep on with the "I'm a consumer.. i s hould have a choice" and make stupid comparisons with buying tires at a tire shop for your car.

Uh, anyone can change a car tire.. anyone can fill it up with air. Does the average user know how to change a friggin motherboard? Will he/she know how to resolve conflicts if OS X is installed on a Dell and it doesn't work??

So chill with the freedom of choice bit.. I for one, love the fact that Apple hardware runs apple software.. no third party crap. I hate it when my Palm treo hangs because of third party software. Give me a computer company that makes the hardware, software and the accessories.. oh wait, thats Apple :)

Amazing how much you are missing the point.

You are also not making a lot of sense.

I for one, love the fact that Apple hardware runs apple software.. no third party crap.

Apple hardware does run 3rd party software (and some of it is crap :D )

I hate it when my Palm treo hangs because of third party software.

Then don't buy software that does not work with your treo. Simple solutions for simple problems.

Bottom line is that if you like apple software and hardware then continue to buy it... that simple.

Nobody wants to stop you from buying apple products. In fact you can buy everything you want from apple.

Why are you so anxious to place limitations on what other people want to buy? Why does your world end if someone else wants the option to buy OS X on a PC? Why do you care if people other than you want to have some different options without limiting yours.

Uh, anyone can change a car tire.. anyone can fill it up with air. Does the average user know how to change a friggin motherboard? Will he/she know how to resolve conflicts if OS X is installed on a Dell and it doesn't work??

Not withstanding that the average person can not put a new tire onto a wheel (which is what happens when you buy new tires), what difference does technical ability have when it comes to choice? Are you suggesting that people that don't know how to change motherboards should not be able to buy the computer they want? If I am not clever enough (or don't have the equipment) to put a tire on a wheel, should my tire choice then be limited?

In the end this would probably also be great for Apple. The real beauty of apple is the elegance of there software. If they could make the leap from generating their profits from a hardware/software combination to software only they could crush the competition on whatever field they want. Nobody makes software like Apple!

[mdavey]

In the end this would probably also be great for Apple. The real beauty of apple is the elegance of there software. If they could make the leap from generating their profits from a hardware/software combination to software only they could crush the competition on whatever field they want. Nobody makes software like Apple!

I wholeheartedly agree with your arguments and point of view regarding the OS but would like to take it a step further. Many here think that Apple's hardware is above average, the best value-for-money in the industry or simply the best in the industry. I believe that Apple's haredware is very good, too. But I also recognise that unbundling the software from the hardware would be a good thing for Apple, and here is why:

When the hardware and the software is provided together, there is a temptation to let one or the other sell both. You can get away with not-quite-perfect hardware if the OS is amazing; conversely the OS could be lacking in some places, but that's okay because the hardware is fantastic.

While the current Apple hardware is pleasing to the eye, it isn't as amazing as it could be - sure, most of the mainstream manufacturers don't come close to Apple, but anyone that follows the PC modding scene knows that there are niche players (businesses such as SilentPC, Hush and Silicon Acoustics) with technically superior aspects to their products; homebrew PCs that look simply amazing (http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=76374&page=47&pp=20) remind us that there is still scope for improvement.

By unbundling the OS, Apple would have to try harder with the hardware - perhaps we would see totally silent Mac minis (radiator instead of fan, compact flash instead of harddrive), more inventions like the recent patent for increasing the operating frequency of the CPU (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161700&highlight=patent), and a sub-$500 laptop as a sister product to the Mac mini.

Sun Microsystems makes a big deal out of the fact that for best reliability and performance, you want to be running Sun's software on Sun's hardware - and sysadmins take that on board. Apple could do the same. If Apple hardware really is as good as people say (and I think it is), let them buy it without an OS or with Windows - maybe they'll like it so much they'll try OS X later. Let the halo effect work between OS X and Apple hardware just as it currently does between the iPod and Mac ranges.

[DeathChill]

For the non-believers, the (2nd) newest Mac OS X x86 release (10.4.3 8F1099) has been patched to work on normal computers. Apple seriously stepped up their security with it but apparently it was still patched in about a weeks time.

[SiliconAddict]

Yeah! No company could just survive on software profits alone! :confused:

Do you know why sales of Microsoft's OS's are starting to tank? Because they have an OS that for many is stable enough and good enough. (Windows 2000 or XP.)

There is one undeniable fact that people who think Apple can subsist on their software wares alone are missing - The rest of the market isn't as ravenous to upgrade to Apple's latest and greatest OS's like Mac fans are.
If you released OS X 10.4 Tiger for X86 to any old computer the average consumer will install the OS and be done with it until the computer craps out or until they decide to upgrade there hardware. Something that Mac fans still don't get: most people couldn't give a rat's *** about Expose or spotlight or other "minor" updates to the OS. Esp at a price point of $120-ish. Simply: if it runs, doesn't crash, and is fairly secure it's good enough.
If Apple makes an OS that is good enough for most users they will initially make a massive killing in sales. This could last for years. But at some point Apple will saturate the market with OS X and at that time they have to convince Joe average to shell out $120-ish. And let's be honest here. Dashboard, Expose, spotlight won't do that for most.

Right now Apple is in a situation where they are bringing in sales from both software AND hardware. I'm 110% sure that Microsoft wishes to God that they could be sitting where Apple is right now in terms of how they generate cash.

[TBi]

Do you know why sales of Microsoft's OS's are starting to tank? Because they have an OS that for many is stable enough and good enough. (Windows 2000 or XP.)

I agree that most people won't upgrade from a good stable operating system. Change means effort and most people are lazy. Personally i'm bored of reinstalling Windows or any OS and only do so when i need to. I won't use Linux because XP works for me and learning Linux is too steep a learning curve. I don't have enough free time or will to learn it.

OSX was easy to learn though and that's why i use it so much.


Right now Apple is in a situation where they are bringing in sales from both software AND hardware. I'm 110% sure that Microsoft wishes to God that they could be sitting where Apple is right now in terms of how they generate cash.

I don't think MS want to be where Apple is, they could be by making their own MS branded computers but making software is cheaper than making hardware. With software you only have to pay for the designers and programming design software, with hardware you have to pay for the designers, the hardware design software and the hardware. They are sitting pretty with their global monopoly which will go on for years to come. It will not be easy to topple MS, there is too much collective investment in microsoft products. Not many companies are going to be willing to pay the massive initial investment to move over to mac's even if it makes better financial sense in the long run.

All we can hope is that companies who can easily switch do so as much as possible when they are buying new computers.