Mac OS X should be available for the PC platform

[StateCCM]

the system specifications for Macs are crap. their Motherboards are garbage and id prefer to use an AMD CPU rather than an intel. plus, Macs are waaaay too overpriced.

ive built an amazing rig on newegg for 1000$. and installing OS X86 is a real pain.

i think apple would make a lot of money if they released a PC version of their OS.

[Killyp]

Nope. They kinda did this quite a few years ago and it practically destroyed the company.

OS X is so good because it runs on hardware for which it was designed specifically.

This conversation has happened a million times before on the forum.

[Much Ado]

i think apple would make a lot of money if they released a PC version of their OS.

That's interesting, because I think it would destroy one of Apple's key markets.

But ho hum, what do I know?

[QuarterSwede]

That's interesting, because I think it would destroy one of Apple's key markets.
It did when Apple allowed clones.

It's a bad idea since Apple is 1) a hardware company first and foremost and 2) would destroy OS X's "it just works" montra because they'd have to support an insane amount of devices. I don't know about everyone else but I like my computer to "just work" and not have to fight with it all the time like when I was using Windows on a PC.

Old Chinese proverb: Buy expensive, Cry once.

[Much Ado]

It did when Apple allowed clones. It's a bad idea since Apple is 1) a hardware company first and foremost and 2) would destroy OS X's "it just works" montra

Ah, but you are forgetting the key market of newegg.com users who would like to run it on their custom-spec PCs. ;)

Yeah. Massive market for Apple there [Sarcasm smiley]

[StateCCM]

Ah, but you are forgetting the key market of newegg.com users who would like to run it on their custom-spec PCs. ;)

Yeah. Massive market for Apple there [Sarcasm smiley]

so i guess apple makes money by ripping people off with their low performance rigs?

just like the iphone when it was overpriced by 100$...
wish i could have waited a couple of months before buying it :( i could really use that 100$

[clevin]

i agree about bundle business mode.

But I also have the feeling that apple isn't capable of dealing with large scale hardware variations as PC industry now has. It can't even do it quite right in time on Macs.

[ChrisA]

the system specifications for Macs are crap. their Motherboards are garbage and id prefer to use an AMD CPU rather than an intel. plus, Macs are waaaay too overpriced.


I always wonder if the people asking these kinds of questions actually use their computers for anything. Notice he says "specifications for Macs are crap". He does not say anything like "The preview panel display lags the slider control even for simple filters in Photoshop CS3" (It doesn't on any current Mac.) People who use computers tend to talk about practical mattrs that impact usage

[Eidorian]

so i guess apple makes money by ripping people off with their low performance rigs?

just like the iphone when it was overpriced by 100$...
wish i could have waited a couple of months before buying it :( i could really use that 100$Macs are now more CPU oriented then their Windows only counterparts. I'll agree they should make more well rounded machines but Steve just wants his megahertz. :rolleyes:

What characteristic(s) would you use to define a low performance rig?

[flopticalcube]

so i guess apple makes money by ripping people off with their low performance rigs?

just like the iphone when it was overpriced by 100$...
wish i could have waited a couple of months before buying it :( i could really use that 100$

That's how Apple makes 35% margins. Its all about selling hardware and using OSX to do that. I could argue that the Mac Pro is actually very price competitive in its 8 core form.

i agree about bundle business mode.

But I also have the feeling that apple isn't capable of dealing with large scale hardware variations as PC industry now has. It can't even do it quite right in time on Macs.

And SJ even said that's what he admired most about Windows (i.e. we aren't going there).

[QuarterSwede]

Macs are now more CPU oriented then their Windows only counterparts. I'll agree they should make more well rounded machines but Steve just wants his megahertz. :rolleyes:

What characteristic(s) would you use to define a low performance rig?
It also sounds like he hasn't used a current Mac Pro or iMac. My fathers 24" iMac is fast enough to not have anything he runs lag. Only a gamer would say Mac hardware was slow.

[Eidorian]

It also sounds like he hasn't used a current Mac Pro or iMac. My fathers 24" iMac is fast enough to not have anything he runs lag. Oh wait, he's not a gamer ... Morons.As you can see from my signature I have two computers. My encoding and gaming minitower and my MacBook for travel. I love them both and they do their tasks well. I'd rather take two cheaper computers and have them complement each other them one lump sum on a single expensive machine. I've still spent less then a MacBook Pro w/ education discount. :p

I would have loved a Mac Pro but I can't very well take that on the road can I? ;)

[QuarterSwede]

As you can see from my signature I have two computers. My encoding and gaming minitower and my MacBook for travel. I love them both and they do their tasks well. I'd rather take two cheaper computers and have them complement each other them one lump sum on a single expensive machine. I've still spent less then a MacBook Pro w/ education discount. :p

I would have loved a Mac Pro but I can't very well take that on the road can I? ;)
While I was referring to the OP, I would've ponied up the extra cash for a MBP. Consolidation is worth it.

[Eidorian]

While I was referring to the OP, I would've ponied up the extra cash for a MBP. Consolidation is worth it.I was only elaborating on how I resolved my situation. That is all. I know you were referring to the OP. I had an iMac two years ago and it's in my sibling's care now. I feels more like a Mac then my laptop does from the user experience on the all-in-one desktop. The iMac is great in my opinion but it doesn't suit me much anymore.

I think the MacBook is more then enough. I just use the DVI and VGA ports on my monitor when I have to swap between the computers. I want a gaming rig with an upgradeable graphics card and a desktop is the only solution there.

Maybe you should use Forum Spy if you're not already.

[QuarterSwede]

I was only elaborating on how I resolved my situation. That is all. I know you were referring to the OP. I had an iMac two years ago and it's in my sibling's care now. I feels more like a Mac then my laptop does from the user experience on the all-in-one.
Good grief you respond fast! Sorry, I tend to post then edit quite often. I know, bad habit.

[stainlessliquid]

Why do you prefer AMD? Intel has been handing its ass to them for a couple years now. Sure AMD was the best when it was Athlon vs Pentium, but they have nothing that can compete with the Core 2 Duo. Plus if you went with Core 2 Duo youd be having a really easy time getting OSx86 to work.

As for the clones almost killing Apple I think it needs to be recognized that this was before Ive. Apple was already dying before the clones, Ive saved their ass. These days a lot of people only buy macs because of their aesthetics since having a stylish computer has become a popular thing to consider, Apple would be perfectly safe from clones if they can retain the crown for having the best looking computers while making a little extra money on the side from licensing.

[Cromulent]

the system specifications for Macs are crap. their Motherboards are garbage and id prefer to use an AMD CPU rather than an intel. plus, Macs are waaaay too overpriced.

Ugh not again. Spec me a PC on Newegg that has the same specification and monitor that the iMac has and I'll be surprised if it will be the same price.

The Mac Pro is the cheapest prebuilt PC available with those level of specs from ANY computer manufacturer.

Plus AMD CPUs are slower than Intel CPUs, what are you complaining about?

[elppa]

You wouldn't be paying $129 for OS X, you would be paying ~$400 if Apple ever released a “PC version” of OS X.

[NEiMac]

Only real grip I have with apple's computers is the graphics cards and that wouldn't be so bad if they would give us decent uncrippled drivers for the ones we got.

[clevin]

You wouldn't be paying $129 for OS X, you would be paying ~$400 if Apple ever released a “PC version” of OS X.
why?
Sure AMD was the best when it was Athlon vs Pentium, but they have nothing that can compete with the Core 2 Duo. Plus if you went with Core 2 Duo youd be having a really easy time getting OSx86 to work.


AMD is cheaper, generally more energy effective, and there is Athlonx2 64. Performance is that bad neither.

[callmemike20]

I think the OP gave up. Obviously he doesn't know what he is talking about. If macs are such crap, then why are they highly used in the media industry?

[ZiggyPastorius]

Ugh not again. Spec me a PC on Newegg that has the same specification and monitor that the iMac has and I'll be surprised if it will be the same price.

The Mac Pro is the cheapest prebuilt PC available with those level of specs from ANY computer manufacturer.

Plus AMD CPUs are slower than Intel CPUs, what are you complaining about?

People who are anti-Mac have a hard time understanding this concept. I dared my Mac-hating friend to find me a WinPC that is cheaper than even the Macbook for identical specs. He couldn't do it, I eventually had to do it for him, (I found one from I think HP after a while looking, it was about $100 cheaper) and then try to explain to him some key points about resale value, security, included software, Operating system, et cetera (obviously if you hate Mac OS X, getting a Mac is not your best option). His argument was that he could find a $700 PC with a graphics card like a Macbook Pro, so therefore the Macbook Pro is expensive, as if that's all that makes a computer. Sigh.

[dukebound85]

You wouldn't be paying $129 for OS X, you would be paying ~$400 if Apple ever released a “PC version” of OS X.

talk about pulling a number out of no where :rolleyes:

[clevin]

I think the OP gave up. Obviously he doesn't know what he is talking about. If macs are such crap, then why are they highly used in the media industry?

i dont think you want to go down this logic.

If windows are such crap, why 95% of the people use it?

[Eidorian]

AMD is cheaper, generally more energy effective, and there is Athlonx2 64. Performance is that bad neither.Sadly this isn't true after the release of Core 2.

I think the OP gave up. Obviously he doesn't know what he is talking about. If macs are such crap, then why are they highly used in the media industry?Not everyone lives on this board like we do. ;)

Only real grip I have with apple's computers is the graphics cards and that wouldn't be so bad if they would give us decent uncrippled drivers for the ones we got.Once again another check box and I'm sure we'd all be willing to cough up more money. Dell charges $100 for the upgrade to the 8400M GS from the GMA X3100. Why can't Apple do that? :rolleyes:

[ZiggyPastorius]

Once again another check box and I'm sure we'd all be willing to cough up more money. Dell charges $100 for the upgrade to the 8400M GS from the GMA X3100. Why can't Apple do that? :rolleyes:

You would think they would..I sort of wish I knew more about business so I could understand why they don't do this, as it doesn't seem to me like this could really do any harm...But, then again, Dell does a lot of things that wouldn't be beneficial to Apple (such as selling cheap cheap cheap crappy computers and expensive crappy computers). I'm sure there's some reason that I don't understand why they don't do it.

Of course, that being said, it could just be because they [Apple] are a bunch of pricks and don't want us to have a better graphics card :P

[stainlessliquid]

Spec me a PC on Newegg that has the same specification and monitor that the iMac has and I'll be surprised if it will be the same price.
Thats not hard. Looking at newegg I can build a computer that is the same as the base model imac but with a .2ghz faster processor since I couldnt find a 2.0ghz processor (I just used the search so I dont even know if I have the cheapest 2.2ghz processor) and it comes to around $800 after a dell 20" widescreen and the cost of Leopard are factored in (and keyboard/mouse too, I made sure to be fair and chose a nice keyboard instead of a $5 one, the mightymouse is garbage though so I didnt care much about the mouse). If I went with XP/Vista OEM and an e4300 Core 2 Duo to overclock it up to 2.7ghz+ then I would save probably another $100.

AMD is cheaper, generally more energy effective, and there is Athlonx2 64. Performance is that bad neither.
They are cheaper but the cost:performance ratio isnt there like it is with the core 2 duos. Also they dont overclock as well, you could get a really cheap core 2 duo and overclock the hell out of it very easily giving you great value. AMD's quickly lose their value once you enter the price range of the cheapest core 2 duo. Theyre fine if you have less than $100 to spend on a processor, but once you spend $130 or more then Core 2 Duos are way better.

[clevin]

Ugh not again. Spec me a PC on Newegg that has the same specification and monitor that the iMac has and I'll be surprised if it will be the same price.


it works both ways, most buyers set a expense and looking for acceptable computers, not the other way around.

A brand new laptop under $500-600, now matter how you look, you won't find it in apple's products line.

[Cromulent]

A brand new laptop under $500-600, now matter how you look, you won't find it in apple's products line.

That does not make them overpriced. That just means Apple does not cater for the real low end users. That is a big difference.

[joefinan]

I tend to agree with the OP.

The iPod really took off when iTunes was made available for Windows - and from that came the 'iPod effect' where people, like me, then went on to buy a Mac.

I think the same could happen if a version of OSX (or the main apps, at least) were available for PC users.

Or are Apple actually quite happy making high quality computers but making much smaller sales?

[ZiggyPastorius]

Or are Apple actually quite happy making high quality computers but making much smaller sales?

This is actually pretty much exactly what it is. Obviously they want to make a higher profit, but, extra-marketing the Operating System would not make them make more money, it would make them lose money as the hardware is where most of their money comes from.

[clevin]

That does not make them overpriced. That just means Apple does not cater for the real low end users. That is a big difference.

Its not only a low-end issue, limited/fixed models can't meet the needs of all people.

[joefinan]

it would make them lose money as the hardware is where most of their money comes from.

Think of the long term. Surely selling many millions more computers/software would make them more money.

[Hmac]

the system specifications for Macs are crap. their Motherboards are garbage and id prefer to use an AMD CPU rather than an intel. plus, Macs are waaaay too overpriced.

ive built an amazing rig on newegg for 1000$. and installing OS X86 is a real pain.

i think apple would make a lot of money if they released a PC version of their OS.

Doubt it.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Think of the long term. Surely selling many millions more computers/software would make them more money.

I don't really want to think about it :D If Apple becomes like Dell I'm going to have to give up computers completely, or go to Toshiba, because I'm not putting up with that kind of crap.

But yes, you're right :p

[StateCCM]

Why do you prefer AMD? Intel has been handing its ass to them for a couple years now. Sure AMD was the best when it was Athlon vs Pentium, but they have nothing that can compete with the Core 2 Duo. Plus if you went with Core 2 Duo youd be having a really easy time getting OSx86 to work.

As for the clones almost killing Apple I think it needs to be recognized that this was before Ive. Apple was already dying before the clones, Ive saved their ass. These days a lot of people only buy macs because of their aesthetics since having a stylish computer has become a popular thing to consider, Apple would be perfectly safe from clones if they can retain the crown for having the best looking computers while making a little extra money on the side from licensing.

AMD is much better than intel. AMD plans to develop a 16 core'd CPU and have a built in CPU in ther graphics cards. plus AMD makes their CPU;s much more stable

[Eidorian]

AMD is much better than intel. AMD plans to develop a 16 core'd CPU and have a built in CPU in ther graphics cards. plus AMD makes their CPU;s much more stableCan I buy it today? Benchmarks or it didn't happen.

[Cromulent]

AMD is much better than intel. AMD plans to develop a 16 core'd CPU and have a built in CPU in ther graphics cards. plus AMD makes their CPU;s much more stable

The fact is that Intel is faster than AMD at the moment. AMD CPUs are not more stable than Intel CPUs. Stability of a system is down to software in 99.99% of cases. It is extremely rare for a CPU hardware error to cause a system crash.

[flopticalcube]

AMD is much better than intel. AMD plans to develop a 16 core'd CPU and have a built in CPU in ther graphics cards. plus AMD makes their CPU;s much more stable

Right now, Intel is the performance leader.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

[StateCCM]

That does not make them overpriced. That just means Apple does not cater for the real low end users. That is a big difference.

a typical 500$ laptop really isnt a low end machine. they have core 2 duos, 1GB of ram etc, and an adequate hardrive.

ive compared a dell with slightly better specs than a mac pro. the dell was 200$ cheaper.

i mean 200$ can get you a lot. u could get a very good motherboard, CPU, or hardrive with that money.

[rhett7660]

Care to post the slightly better dell?

[jayhawk11]

a typical 500$ laptop really isnt a low end machine. they have core 2 duos, 1GB of ram etc, and an adequate hardrive.

ive compared a dell with slightly better specs than a mac pro. the dell was 200$ cheaper.

i mean 200$ can get you a lot. u could get a very good motherboard, CPU, or hardrive with that money.

Just give up dude...every point you've tried to make has gotten absolutely destroyed. AMD fell off as a chip leader a couple years ago. Once they stop stumbling over their own feet they might catch Intel, but right now thats not gonna happen. Apple won't release OS X for PC's. Its not gonna happen. So if you want an extremely stable OS from a company that controls every piece of hardware their OS comes into contact with, go with Apple.

For everything else, there's Windows. ;)

[ZiggyPastorius]

Care to post the slightly better dell?

Seconded. I had a hard time finding such a thing.

[Cromulent]

a typical 500$ laptop really isnt a low end machine. they have core 2 duos, 1GB of ram etc, and an adequate hardrive.

ive compared a dell with slightly better specs than a mac pro. the dell was 200$ cheaper.

i mean 200$ can get you a lot. u could get a very good motherboard, CPU, or hardrive with that money.

Post some details about the Dell. At the moment I don't believe you because I spent a couple of hours comparing prices myself.

[flopticalcube]

Seconded. I had a hard time finding such a thing.

I think he means the 1525 which comes for $500 with a 1.83GHz Celeron but can be upgraded (for $150) to a 2GHz Core 2 Duo (small cache size version).

[McGiord]

OP: it will never be a Mac unless it is made by :apple:.
Go with Ubuntu instead if you prefer the AMD HW.
________
Dodge Magnum history (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Magnum)

[Cromulent]

I think he means the 1525 which comes for $500 with a 1.83GHz Celeron but can be upgraded (for $150) to a 2GHz Core 2 Duo (small cache size version).

He said compared to the Mac Pro. There is no Dell which has the same specs as a Mac Pro and is cheaper.

[flopticalcube]

He said compared to the Mac Pro. There is no Dell which has the same specs as a Mac Pro and is cheaper.

Ah, I thought he was talking about a laptop.

a typical 500$ laptop really isnt a low end machine. they have core 2 duos, 1GB of ram etc, and an adequate hardrive.


When I think about it, you can't really go much lower than $500 unless you get a One or something like that.

Plenty of cheaper quad cores (with vastly inferior motherboards) but certainly nothing that can touch the 8 core.

[ZiggyPastorius]

I think he means the 1525 which comes for $500 with a 1.83GHz Celeron but can be upgraded (for $150) to a 2GHz Core 2 Duo (small cache size version).

He said the Mac Pro, not the Macbook. And even so, what about all the other stuff? An equal Inspiron to the Macbook was about $50 more expensive (and I think I found one very close for the same price).

Edit: Beaten, sorry.

[clevin]

i think he probably meant "macbook pro", he doesn't own a mac, its possible that he mis-spoked.

[sushi]

Old Chinese proverb: Buy expensive, Cry once.
Wise words regardless of the platform that you choose.

[stainlessliquid]

AMD is much better than intel. AMD plans to develop a 16 core'd CPU and have a built in CPU in ther graphics cards. plus AMD makes their CPU;s much more stable

What does any of that have to do with what you can get right now? My last 2 processors were an Athlon XP and Athlon64, since they kicked Pentium's ass in their price ranges. But now I have a Core 2 Duo because the current AMD processors suck in comparison. If AMD gets a better processor in the future then thats great, I'll get that instead of Intel, but the current AMD stuff is a waste of money. They need to get their act together, because Core 2 Duo's are killing them in benchmarks.

[StateCCM]

Care to post the slightly better dell?

no problem, give me a minute.

[Eidorian]

My Dell of choice (http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=104271&d=1203625060) for a cheap workstation and encoding rig.

[StateCCM]

ok i just finished putting this together


Mac Pro Specs ---------------------- $2,999

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
4GB (4 x 1GB)
320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X



Dell XPS Specs ---------------------- $2,609

Intel® Core™2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB,2.93GHz Factory overclocked)
Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
320GB - Seagate 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
No Monitor
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included
No Modem Requested



ok this is where i rest my case.
1. Core 2 Extreme's are more expensive than Xenons


ok like i said before, the dell is almost 400$ cheaper than the mac. AND, it is faster than the mac pro.

it is also using the ultimate edition of vista. the mac just has leopard, i didnt order final cut express for it or anything.

[flopticalcube]

ok i just finished putting this together


Mac Pro Specs ---------------------- $2,999

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
4GB (4 x 1GB)
320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X



Dell XPS Specs ---------------------- $2,609

Intel® Core™2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB,2.93GHz Factory overclocked)
Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
320GB - Seagate 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
No Monitor
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included
No Modem Requested



ok this is where i rest my case.
1. Core 2 Extreme's are more expensive than Xenons
2. the dells Graphics card is almost 2x better than the macs.

ok like i said before, the dell is almost 400$ cheaper than the mac. AND, it is faster than the mac pro.

it is also using the ultimate edition of vista. the mac just has leopard, i didnt order final cut express for it or anything.

Graphics cards are the same. The Extreme is going to be choked for memory bandwidth on an 800MHz bus. You should really start with these Dells if you want to compare:

http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/precn_biz?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

[Tallest Skil]

AND, it is faster than the mac pro.

it is also using the ultimate edition of vista. the mac just has leopard

For the first part: Prove it.
For the second: "just" Leopard... who are you? There's only one version of Leopard. Know why? Because Apple feels that their customers want and should get all the features of the OS.

[StateCCM]

Graphics cards are the same. The Extreme is going to be choked for memory bandwidth on an 800MHz bus. You should really start with these Dells if you want to compare:

http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/precn_biz?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

those dells are in a different bundle, they have a monitor included in the price.

[McGiord]

Seriously: why would you want to run OSX on a Dell ?
________
how to make a vaporizer (http://howtomakeavaporizer.info/)

[TheStu]

ok i just finished putting this together


Mac Pro Specs ---------------------- $2,999

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
4GB (4 x 1GB)
320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X



Dell XPS Specs ---------------------- $2,609

Intel® Core™2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB,2.93GHz Factory overclocked)
Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
320GB - Seagate 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
No Monitor
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included
No Modem Requested



ok this is where i rest my case.
1. Core 2 Extreme's are more expensive than Xenons
2. the dells Graphics card is almost 2x better than the macs.

ok like i said before, the dell is almost 400$ cheaper than the mac. AND, it is faster than the mac pro.

it is also using the ultimate edition of vista. the mac just has leopard, i didnt order final cut express for it or anything.

1: It is spelled Xeon, not Xenon, and the Core 2 Extreme and the Xeon aren't in the same class of processor. And furthermore, the Xeon is based on the newer penryn core, and has a faster FSB than your factory OCed Core 2 Extreme.
2: How exactly do you figure that the Dell's 8800GT 512MB is 2x better than the Apple 8800GT 512MB? They are the same card!

[StateCCM]

For the first part: Prove it.
For the second: "just" Leopard... who are you? There's only one version of Leopard. Know why? Because Apple feels that their customers want and should get all the features of the OS.

ultimate has all the features also. but, if u plan on buying 500 computers for an office building, u dont want an expensive ass OS on all 500 machines, so u could just go with the Home Basic edition of windows.

and by prove it do u want me to take a screen shot of the mac specs website and upload them?

[StateCCM]

How exactly do you figure that the Dell's 8800GT 512MB is 2x better than the Apple 8800GT 512MB? They are the same card!

yeah, i did mess up there, i was going to give the mac only a
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB, which still would have made the dell cheaper, but the mac allowed u to pick a specific gfx card so i gave it the same one as the dell.

my mistake.

[flopticalcube]

those dells are in a different bundle, they have a monitor included in the price.

I'll be generous and let you take $200 off the price then. The point is that they are much more like the Mac Pro than that XPS.

[StateCCM]

I'll be generous and let you take $200 off the price then. The point is that they are much more like the Mac Pro than that XPS.

macs let you have a 2.8 GHz CPU the dells only go up to 2.66

either way, it doesnt matter. a core 2 extreme may be an older version but they definently have much better performance.

[flopticalcube]

macs let you have a 2.8 GHz CPU the dells only go up to 2.66

Really?

[clevin]

Really?
oh... don't you love the options? never seen anything like that from apple.

[StateCCM]

Really?

i was looking at the wrong dell i saw this:

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5355 (2.66GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333) [add $1,000]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5345 (2.33GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333) [add $660]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5320 (1.86GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1066) [add $230]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5160 (3.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333) [add $730]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5150 (2.66GHz, 4MB L2,1333) [add $500]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5140 (2.33GHz, 4MB L2,1333) [add $260]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5130 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2,1333) [add $130]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5120 (1.86GHz, 4MB L2,1066) [add $30]

Dual Core Intel® Xeon® Processor 5110 (1.60GHz, 4MB L2,1066) [Included in Price]

Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor E5335 (2.00GHz, 2 X 4MB L2,1333) [add $430]

Quad Core Intel™ Xeon® X5365 (3.00GHz, 2x4MB L2, 1333) [add $1,430]





there are no 2.80GHz processors in here but the great thing about PC's is, i could buy the 2.66GHz processor and overclock it to 2.80 in seconds.

[StateCCM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjOIfGShQMY

[QuarterSwede]

Seriously: why would you want to run OSX on a Dell ?
That's what I was wondering! After a few Dell's I can definitely tell you the notebook build quality is aweful. I wouldn't buy one again.

[flopticalcube]

oh... don't you love the options? never seen anything like that from apple.
and there really is no reason why Apple couldn't, they just don't.

[elppa]

why?.

Cause Apple have to recoup their massive investments in software. Apple would lose money on hardware sales and would need to make it up.

talk about pulling a number out of no where :rolleyes:

Er. I'm not really. Microsoft charge about this for the closest equivalent and they are the market leader at working with far bigger margins.

There' clear logic in my thinking. Apple's not going to give up hardware sales and sell a whole operating system for the price they currently charge for an upgrade.

[flopticalcube]

there are no 2.80GHz processors in here but the great thing about PC's is, i could buy the 2.66GHz processor and overclock it to 2.80 in seconds.

That's not a solution for the businesses and professionals that buy Mac Pro level machines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjOIfGShQMY

What's your point?

[StateCCM]

Seriously: why would you want to run OSX on a Dell ?

o hell no. Dells suck, i wanted to custom build a PC. custome PC's with nice boards kick ass :)

im just using dell as a comparison

[StateCCM]

What's your point?

my point is the name of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3IjeVtPNcM&feature=related

[clevin]

Cause Apple have to recoup their massive investments in software. Apple would lose money on hardware sales and would need to make it up.


If M$ can do that good with software alone, and you believe OSX is so much better than Windows, where is the worry?

Its all speculations, and I see no proof that software alone won't be able to support apple.

[heatmiser]

If M$ can do that good with software alone, and you believe OSX is so much better than Windows, where is the worry?

Now you've done it. This is like pointing out how the same people who go about saying Macs last longer and are more reliable than PCs are the first to deem Applecare a requirement for all Mac purchases.

[Cromulent]

ok i just finished putting this together


Mac Pro Specs ---------------------- $2,999

One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
4GB (4 x 1GB)
320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X



Dell XPS Specs ---------------------- $2,609

Intel® Core™2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB,2.93GHz Factory overclocked)
Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
320GB - Seagate 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
No Monitor
nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
Dell USB Keyboard
Dell Optical USB Mouse
No Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included
No Modem Requested



ok this is where i rest my case.
1. Core 2 Extreme's are more expensive than Xenons


ok like i said before, the dell is almost 400$ cheaper than the mac. AND, it is faster than the mac pro.

it is also using the ultimate edition of vista. the mac just has leopard, i didnt order final cut express for it or anything.

That is not a fair comparison. The Mac Pro uses a server class motherboard and RAM. The Dell you linked is just a consumer class computer. Compare a Dell using Xeons for a fair comparison otherwise your numbers are pretty meaningless.

[clevin]

That is not a fair comparison. The Mac Pro uses a server class motherboard and RAM. The Dell you linked is just a consumer class computer. Compare a Dell using Xeons for a fair comparison otherwise your numbers are pretty meaningless.

whats the difference of "server class" mainboard and RAM? how much more do they cost?

[pastrychef]

my point is the name of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3IjeVtPNcM&feature=related

If you believe this to be true, why do you want to run OS X on your PC?

[Eidorian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjOIfGShQMY

my point is the name of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3IjeVtPNcM&feature=relatedSo you want to run an operating system with buggy software and exacerbate it by trying to run it on a wide variety of x86 hardware? Wait wasn't this about putting OS X on all "PC" hardware instead of pointing out how buggy running OS X can be?

whats the difference of "server class" mainboard and RAM? how much more do they cost?Dual/multi socket and support for FB-DIMMs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Buffered_DIMM). There are quite a few Xeons that are just rebadged desktop Core 2 Duo and Quad parts for single socket, DDR2 workstations. So just saying Xeon/Opteron doesn't always apply.

ultimate has all the features also. but, if u plan on buying 500 computers for an office building, u dont want an expensive ass OS on all 500 machines, so u could just go with the Home Basic edition of windows.

and by prove it do u want me to take a screen shot of the mac specs website and upload them?Why waste money on so many licenses for individual machines when you can run Terminal Services. SunRays are love. <3

[flopticalcube]

whats the difference of "server class" mainboard and RAM? how much more do they cost?

Seaburg chipset motherboards (for dual Xeons) are around $500 (no cpu).

[kockgunner]

It did when Apple allowed clones.

It's a bad idea since Apple is 1) a hardware company first and foremost and 2) would destroy OS X's "it just works" montra because they'd have to support an insane amount of devices. I don't know about everyone else but I like my computer to "just work" and not have to fight with it all the time like when I was using Windows on a PC.

Old Chinese proverb: Buy expensive, Cry once.

nice one :)

Also, I wouldn't want OS X to be put on PCs. OS X is like an engine of a car. The other hardware are like the shocks, chassis, and struts of a car. Apple makes computer with hardware that is tailor made to run OS X smoothly. If one were to put OS X on random hardware, it would be like everyone building go carts with different parts but they all use the same engine. The transmission and the frame of the car likely wouldn't be optimised for the engine and will fall apart after a while.

I also like how Apple is like a car manufacturer where all their computer models have actual names. This way, computers are more recognizable and all their models get reviewed. I hate how all the other manufacturers make so many models (with little differences between each one), that it's hard for a novice to figure out which one to get. Apple nomenclature distinguishes between consumer and pro models unlike hp who apparently uses a random number generator for their model names.

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says...I have not posted much in the last while, and here I look at this moment and see not one but *three* threads on the first page all about that old beaten to death a thousand times over topic of OS X on non-Apple hardware. I have looked at all three threads and seen nothing but the same points pro/con that have been made countless times over the last few years.

Is there something wrong with the search feature here? Do the starters of all these threads not see that this has been done to death? Do the people responding (and it is frequently the same people) not get tired of it?

Here's an idea....newbies - search first. Veterans - don't feed the same arguments...one response saying "search - it's been done to death" or even get the mods to lock the threads.....oh yeah!

[kuwisdelu]

Do the people responding (and it is frequently the same people) not get tired of it?

I got tired of it. That's why I haven't responded yet. Same old, same old. Now someone just needs to mention the green zoom and the one-button mouse.

[QuarterSwede]

Duff-Man says...I have not posted much in the last while, and here I look at this moment and see not one but *three* threads on the first page all about that old beaten to death a thousand times over topic of OS X on non-Apple hardware. I have looked at all three threads and seen nothing but the same points pro/con that have been made countless times over the last few years.

Is there something wrong with the search feature here? Do the starters of all these threads not see that this has been done to death? Do the people responding (and it is frequently the same people) not get tired of it?

Here's an idea....newbies - search first. Veterans - don't feed the same arguments...one response saying "search - it's been done to death" or even get the mods to lock the threads.....oh yeah!
True enough but you acting like Duff man is getting equally old in the tooth.

[StateCCM]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz

[Cromulent]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz

It is exactly the same hardware. Seriously, perhaps you should try learning about the subject before you try to attack Macs?

[Tallest Skil]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz

And you received a less stable system and absolutely no measurable gain out of it. For all practical purposes, 260Mhz is meaningless these days.

As Cromulent apparently just said, do some research.

[miniConvert]

Old Chinese proverb: Buy expensive, Cry once.
Love it :D I need that on a T-Shirt, or better still tattooed across my forehead :D

[Cabbit]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz

Retard if your a kid playing with over-clocking boasting you got 260 MHz is really lame i got more out of over clocking a pentium 1 200 MHz to 500 MHz with a lot of tweaking and ice before it frazzled. And if im not mistaken you got a current AMD chip well if its a Phenom(pronounced venom) you got a really bad deal. They are buggy with VM and much slower than intel Core2duo/quad.
When you over-clock your CPU past 4 GHz which it should manage fine on a decent motherboard and then add another 3 graphics cards and over clock them you mite be able to get Crysis to play acceptably. But thats all you can do with it its a glorified Playstation that will be out of date in 3 months and on the date you bought it and overclocked it it lost 70% of its value and lifetime.

Enjoy your Playstation.

[ZiggyPastorius]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz

I guess if you believe that, then more power to you.

[elppa]

If M$ can do that good with software alone, and you believe OSX is so much better than Windows, where is the worry?

Its all speculations, and I see no proof that software alone won't be able to support apple.

Software alone could “support” Apple, but they wouldn't make as much. Typically there are bigger margins to be made on hardware than software. Rightly or wrongly far more people feel less guilty about pirating software than going into a store and lifting a computer.

The bit about “OS X is so much better than Windows” were your words, not mine.

MS can do well with Software because they have worked hard to sign deals with OEMs and large companies etc.

Replicating all that would be hard, cause Microsoft have got a huge head start and already established relations.

Also Apple would have to restructure their business (think of support etc.). Why restructure a multi billion dollar business that is growing year on year?

It's nonsensical.

I'm not saying it's never going to happen, but why sell a slice of the cake when you are doing so well selling the whole cake?

[clevin]

Also Apple would have to restructure their business (think of support etc.). Why restructure a multi billion dollar business that is growing year on year?


No offense, and I probably not saying this to you. but I found its so ironic.

Some mac users accuse M$ didn't totally re-write windows from scratch for vista. That sounds like a redo-ing everything with a still dominating 95% market product, why? They seems to think apple is the one who is "willing" to re-do from scratch.

Also, when asking people, especially business users, to switch to OSX, who is considering their expense of restructure of IT service line?

Finally, This is response to what you said, Im curious to know how much better do you think of OSX than windows.

Also
MS can do well with Software because they have worked hard to sign deals with OEMs and large companies etc.
I have to agree, this is the one of the very few open-ness from M$, and I support everything that is open...

[pseudonymph]

ultimate has all the features also. but, if u plan on buying 500 computers for an office building, u dont want an expensive ass OS on all 500 machines, so u could just go with the Home Basic edition of windows.
Businesses cannot do vista home basic, they have to do the Business edition at minimum if you want things like being able to log into a Windows domain.

[elppa]

Some mac users accuse M$ didn't totally re-write windows from scratch for vista. That sounds like a redo-ing everything with a still dominating 95% market product, why? They seems to think apple is the one who is "willing" to re-do from scratch.

Reinvigorating a product and changing business plans are different, so I don't understand.

Also, when asking people, especially business users, to switch to OSX, who is considering their expense of restructure of
IT service line?

Maybe that's why Apple has made so little headway in the enterprise. Thi

Finally, This is response to what you said, Im curious to know how much better do you think of OSX than windows.

I'm very comfortable with the Macintosh, I have used it for ~9 years now and every version of OS X, so I'm obviously biased towards it. I have used Windows 95, NT 4, 98, XP, and Vista. I'm not saying everything is perfect, but here's what I have found. These are my experiences:

[1] Macintosh Applications on the whole tend to have simpler, more coherent and consistent user interfaces which I find more conducive to having a productive environment.

I'll give you a concrete example: Application Preferences on a typical Mac App are very streamlined and it is easy to find what you are looking for, whereas on other platforms the convention is to offer long lists of options, which you have spend time manually scrolling through and reading each one.

[2] OS X tends not to need as much nannying as Windows. Often I see Win XP computers grind to a halt because they are full of bloat.

[3] Less stuff tends to break and not work for no obvious reason. Also related to this is that you get fewer cryptic error messages on the Mac. Maybe this is because the Mac supports less hardware. If so, then I don't care to be honest. All I care about is that is works.

I have to agree, this is the one of the very few open-ness from M$, and I support everything that is open...

I don't understand this I'm afraid. What are you saying: MS selling a proprietary operating systems to companies is an example of openness? (Obviously not! I need more details before I can fully understand your point).

[Ludde]

Love it :D I need that on a T-Shirt, or better still tattooed across my forehead :D

"The poor man pays twice" is another nice proverb that's similar to that one

[nick9191]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz
Wow great you just quartered your CPU life for no performance gain.

the system specifications for Macs are crap. their Motherboards are garbage and id prefer to use an AMD CPU rather than an intel. plus, Macs are waaaay too overpriced.
Depends which your talking about, the macbook/pro has just been updated, there good value. Same for the mac pro (try and find 8 cores at 2.8ghz for the same price). iMac and mac mini havent been updated in a while, they are expensive. Mac hardware is not crap, the motherboards are not garbage, there using the newest technology on most of their products, unlike other vendors. They are crap from a point of view that because most are laptop components, and laptop components aren't as good as desktop components. The Mac Pro was more expensive than the XPS, basically because it uses server/workstation components (better). And they offer huge amounts of expandability (can the xps take 2 cpu's).


i think apple would make a lot of money if they released a PC version of their OS.
By having an OS incompatible with most hardware, and not selling any of their own hardware?

Please do yourself a favour and don't join a forum and start talking out your rear, it makes you look stupid.

[chaosbunny]

teh macs systemz suxx so much!!!!11 me cant afford sitting in me basement pwning teh n00bz all day!!!11 if me go macs me no can pwn teh noobz in crysis cause me hav no fps!!!11 me so cool overclocking cause me teh hero exxpert!!!11

Fixed that for you. :D

[Nick T.]

Caution! - - do not read this post! It is absolute BS dreamed up by a crack-head.
Please see my correction later in this thread.

Seriously: why would you want to run OSX on a Dell ?My primary reason for wanting to run OS X on "standard" PC hardware is because of the configuration flexibility and lower cost.

It's pretty obvious that while Apple has a very limited number of configurations, Dell has many, and a custom builder can have an infinite variety of configurations.

As for price, I just now started pricing a Mac Pro versus a Dell 490 and found this:

Mac Pro
Base: $2799
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $1,600
4GB RAM: $540
total: $4939

Dell 490
Base: $1369
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $2,459
4GB RAM: $500
total: $2959

No real need to price-out the remaining options.

[HLdan]

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz

WOWWWW. You will not be able to tell the difference and please don't say you can because it's a small bump. Also why overclock when it creates more heat and a good chance of shortening the life of the processor. There is absolutely no real reason to overclock today's processors as there is more than enough processing power to satisfy any user's applications and gaming needs. :p

[Nick T.]

<snip>If one were to put OS X on random hardware, it would be like everyone building go carts with different parts but they all use the same engine. The transmission and the frame of the car likely wouldn't be optimised for the engine and will fall apart after a while.Consider your scenario of only one engine like this:
One builder is limited to using drive trains, chassis, etc. that he designs and builds. All other builders are free to choose from the entire universe of hardware except that produced by the "closed system" builder.

Don't you think that it is most likely that one or more (many?) of the independent builders will build units with performance that is better than the "closed system" builder.

Take the example back to computers. The independent builders can much more easily optimize their systems for speed, or capacity, stabiliy, efficiency, cost, etc., and can easily customize the mix of all these factors and others.

Give me hardware and software independence any day! Maybe we should all take another look at the 1984 Mac TV commercial. It seems to me that for many Mac users, Apple has become Big Brother.

It IS possible! Think independently!
.

[JNB]

:rolleyes:

[kuwisdelu]

Take the example back to computers. The independent builders can much more easily optimize their systems for speed, or capacity, stabiliy, efficiency, cost, etc., and can easily customize the mix of all these factors and others.

The problem with your example is that it works the exact opposite of how you said. Apple as a company does have access to whatever components it wants to use. It's us, the end user, who does not (should we want to use OS X).

However, as far as optimizing our systems for speed, capacity, stability, efficiency, cost, etc., Apple is the one that worries about that. Not the consumer. OS X as a product is optimized to run on Apple-built hardware. The end user doesn't really have anything to optimize for themselves on their own hardware setup, unless they're building their own operating system. So Mac software is optimized for Apple's hardware, and it's because OS X is locked into Apple's hardware that makes it perform so well.

Now you may have meant something else. Perhaps you meant optimization, say, between a gamer who wants to optimize his rig for graphics and cpu performance vs. a photographer who wants to optimize his setup to have as much storage and memory as possible. You're right, that Apple's vertical integration model isn't quite as good when it comes to things like that. However, that's the cost of using OS X. Part of the reason it's such a stable, smooth operating system is due to the very fact that it's locked into a select group of hardware.

I agree that it's not always the best solution for some people, but when you look at the problem Windows has with drivers trying to support millions of combinations of hardware (and they've done a very admirable job, IMO), then I feel it's worth it. If I ever stopped feeling it was worth it, and decided I really needed to be able to choose my own hardware setup down to the chips, then I'd bite the bullet and build a computer to run a good Linux distro.

[Nick T.]

Don't get me wrong.....

Apple builds beautiful hardware! Even their packaging is aesthetically pleasing. The new aluminum keyboards, and the MB Air are works of art!

Personally, the exterior appearance of my computer isn't very important, but when the covers come off it's a different story.

Most PC sellers, such as Dell, cut a lot of corners when it comes to the cost of their cases. Flimsy and inconvenient aluminum brackets, cheap plastic latches, etc. - - and why not? Most users never see the inside of their computers, and the complete box is discarded at upgrade time.

When the covers are taken off of the Mac Pro I'm treated to an eye pleasing sight; it's obvious that a great deal of care was given to designing and producing a quality product, and a product that is relatively easy to service.

I have built my own PCs since the CP/M days, and have always chosen high end boxes. Each box has lasted through many upgrades - - motherboards, hard drives, video cards, audio cards, etc. - - before being handed down to some one else.

I'd be more willing to spend the big bucks for a Mac Pro if it were upgradeable.

[stainlessliquid]

Overclocking shortening the life of your processor is an old wives tale, atleast for modern processors. As long as you dont go crazy with the voltage then the processor can handle it just fine since it was designed to handle it. The default voltage for processors are way too high to begin with and generate too much heat, I can overclock my processor by almost 1ghz and still get lower temps than I got default since I am able to lower the voltage by a large amount. Plus since Im using less voltage than default my overclocked processor will actually last longer (theoretically of course, I will have gotten rid of the comptuer years before that becomes an issue). The fan on the heatsink will die long before an overclocked processor with reasonable voltage.

Its very very difficult to kill a processor these days, you can actually remove the heatsink and still wont be able to kill it since they throttle themselves when they get too hot.

PC hardware is much better than a Macs. just now i overclocked my CPU from 2.04GHz to 2.30GHz
you must be using AMD...

I have my e4300 Core 2 Duo overclocked from 1.8ghz to 2.7 with no temperature gain on stock cooling and realtively cheap hardware. I have done 3.2ghz on stock cooling as well but its too hot and loud, I would need a better heatsink to go 3ghz. Its possible to get more than twice the performance out of a core 2 duo by overclocking it, AMD cant do that.

[kockgunner]

Consider your scenario of only one engine like this:
One builder is limited to using drive trains, chassis, etc. that he designs and builds. All other builders are free to choose from the entire universe of hardware except that produced by the "closed system" builder.

Don't you think that it is most likely that one or more (many?) of the independent builders will build units with performance that is better than the "closed system" builder.

Take the example back to computers. The independent builders can much more easily optimize their systems for speed, or capacity, stabiliy, efficiency, cost, etc., and can easily customize the mix of all these factors and others.

Give me hardware and software independence any day! Maybe we should all take another look at the 1984 Mac TV commercial. It seems to me that for many Mac users, Apple has become Big Brother.

It IS possible! Think independently!
.

Now you've go me thinking...What is Apple then, aside from making nice-looking, closed-system computers?

[gnasher729]

the system specifications for Macs are crap. their Motherboards are garbage and id prefer to use an AMD CPU rather than an intel. plus, Macs are waaaay too overpriced.

ive built an amazing rig on newegg for 1000$. and installing OS X86 is a real pain.

i think apple would make a lot of money if they released a PC version of their OS.

A definition from Wikipedia is: "Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in."

Indications for flamebait are the usage of derogatory terms like "crap", "garbage", "waaaay too overpriced", plus the totally unexplained preference for a processor manufacturer that (a) Apple isn't using and (b) is right now way behind.

so i guess apple makes money by ripping people off with their low performance rigs?

just like the iphone when it was overpriced by 100$...
wish i could have waited a couple of months before buying it :( i could really use that 100$

More indications for flamebait: Further derogatory terms like "ripping people off", "low performance rigs", "overpriced".

I don't really want to think about it :D If Apple becomes like Dell I'm going to have to give up computers completely, or go to Toshiba, because I'm not putting up with that kind of crap.

If you go to finance.yahoo.com, for example, you can make a nice comparison of Dell and Apple. If you ignore the iPods and iPhone, then Dell sells ten times more computers, makes four times more revenue, and half as much profit as Apple does (you can investigate a bit to get more precise numbers, but that is about the tendency). And Apple is very much on an up trend compared to the rest of the industry (there are some PC manufacturers that have enormous growth, but that is just shuffling the PC numbers around between manufacturers; it doesn't mean anything when you compare Macs to the PC industry as a whole). So this would show that if you take the computer business on its own, Apple's business model is more successful than Dells and therefore you shouldn't expect any change to Dell's model.

On top of that, Apple has enormous advantages from the synergy between Macs and its non-computer product lines iPod and iPhone, and switching to Dell-style computer sales would mean giving up a lot of that synergy and damaging one huge market (iPods) and one market with an incredible potential (iPhone).

[gettingmy1stmac]

so i guess apple makes money by ripping people off with their low performance rigs?

just like the iphone when it was overpriced by 100$...
wish i could have waited a couple of months before buying it :( i could really use that 100$


if apple's specs are crap, why has the macbook pro been the fastest laptop on the market for the last few years (until this year...it FINALLY got beat)

apple computers aren't overpriced either. you compare what you get with an apple pound for pound and spec for spec against a pc, you're paying the same price for a much better piece of equipment by going with the mac

this guy is just pissed because he's too freakin' cheap to spend the money on a good piece of hardware and keeps buying cheap crap

[zap2]

No, that isn't Apple's goal.


Apple does the whole package, software and hardware.

Some people like it, some don't.

Those you like it, buy a Mac, those who don't look elsewhere(or buy a Mac, and install whatever you please)

But to suggest that Apple should change its core bussiness around, when clearly that did work for them in the 90s, is crazy

[gnasher729]

"The poor man pays twice" is another nice proverb that's similar to that one

My mother always said "we are poor, we cannot afford to buy cheap things".

[northy124]

Hmmmmm I Think That If Apple Created An OS That Will Work With The Rest Of The PC Components Then They Would Make A Good Deal Of Money From it Providing It Isn't As Expensive As Crapsta Sorry Vista. They Could Also Do With Making Final Cut, Aperture And Other Professional Software Cross Platform.

All They Have To Do Is Set Up A Small Group To Take Care Of It Just Like M$ Have Done With Office *Mactopia*.

But I Do Think That Apple Are Fine As The Are And Don't Need To Do This As I For One Will keep Buying From Them.

My Father Is Buying 25 iMacs For His Company After My Mum Bought Him A MacBook Pro For His Birthday (He Loved It So Much That He has Decided To Restructure The Whole Company ICT Network:eek:) So Some Companies Do Which.

Now I Wonder If What I Have Written Makes Semse To You All:confused:

Northy124

[soms]

My mother always said "we are poor, we cannot afford to buy cheap things".

Yep. Its true though. I can rattle off tons of things I bought cheaply that are long gone and broken, but there are only a handful of things that have been around for a long time, and yes I paid much for them.

[gettingmy1stmac]

Thats not hard. Looking at newegg I can build a computer that is the same as the base model imac but with a .2ghz faster processor since I couldnt find a 2.0ghz processor (I just used the search so I dont even know if I have the cheapest 2.2ghz processor) and it comes to around $800 after a dell 20" widescreen and the cost of Leopard are factored in (and keyboard/mouse too, I made sure to be fair and chose a nice keyboard instead of a $5 one, the mightymouse is garbage though so I didnt care much about the mouse). If I went with XP/Vista OEM and an e4300 Core 2 Duo to overclock it up to 2.7ghz+ then I would save probably another $100.


They are cheaper but the cost:performance ratio isnt there like it is with the core 2 duos. Also they dont overclock as well, you could get a really cheap core 2 duo and overclock the hell out of it very easily giving you great value. AMD's quickly lose their value once you enter the price range of the cheapest core 2 duo. Theyre fine if you have less than $100 to spend on a processor, but once you spend $130 or more then Core 2 Duos are way better.



Try...saving about $30 over the mac. And think of this, if you purchase a PC, it comes full of bloatware. Do macs have any of that on them? NO!!! The reason PCs (if this were actually true) would be cheaper is because the pc manufacturers receive subsidies from companies to put "trial" bloatware on the PCs. I just built a PC to match Mac specs on a 2.0 gHz merom IMac. I saved a whopping $35...now I get to build my computer AND install all the software (and hope none of the parts are DOA). Wow, what a great savings!!!

[Eidorian]

Try...saving about $30 over the mac. And think of this, if you purchase a PC, it comes full of bloatware. Do macs have any of that on them? NO!!! The reason PCs (if this were actually true) would be cheaper is because the pc manufacturers receive subsidies from companies to put "trial" bloatware on the PCs. I just built a PC to match Mac specs on a 2.0 gHz merom IMac. I saved a whopping $35...now I get to build my computer AND install all the software (and hope none of the parts are DOA). Wow, what a great savings!!!I don't consider Adobe Reader to be that bad on Windows.

[zap2]

Hmmmmm I Think That If Apple Created An OS That Will Work With The Rest Of The PC Components Then They Would Make A Good Deal Of Money From it Providing It Isn't As Expensive As Crapsta Sorry Vista. They Could Also Do With Making Final Cut, Aperture And Other Professional Software Cross Platform.

All They Have To Do Is Set Up A Small Group To Take Care Of It Just Like M$ Have Done With Office *Mactopia*.

But I Do Think That Apple Are Fine As The Are And Don't Need To Do This As I For One Will keep Buying From Them.

My Father Is Buying 25 iMacs For His Company After My Mum Bought Him A MacBook Pro For His Birthday (He Loved It So Much That He has Decided To Restructure The Whole Company ICT Network:eek:) So Some Companies Do Which.

Now I Wonder If What I Have Written Makes Semse To You All:confused:

Northy124



The Reason I Capitalize The First Letter Of Everyword Is So I Can Read It Back Better, So Everyone Stop Asking/Commenting On Why I Do It.

Couldn't you just have you're Mac read it to you? I mean, its kind of annoying, and since you're writing it, so we(MR users) can read it, it makes sense to do the thing which makes it easier for you're "target market" to read

[northy124]

@zap2 Not The Answer I Was looking For But The Mac Doesn't Do It And I Can't Work It Out Not That It Matters Now As I'm So Use To Doing It Like This.

[flopticalcube]

@zap2 Not The Answer I Was looking For But The Mac Doesn't Do It And I Can't Work It Out Not That It Matters Now As I'm So Use To Doing It Like This.

It might not be the answer you are looking for but it is the correct answer.

[anjinha]

@zap2 Not The Answer I Was looking For But The Mac Doesn't Do It And I Can't Work It Out Not That It Matters Now As I'm So Use To Doing It Like This.

You know your posts would be a lot easier to read if you at least used punctuation.

[TheStu]

My primary reason for wanting to run OS X on "standard" PC hardware is because of the configuration flexibility and lower cost.

It's pretty obvious that while Apple has a very limited number of configurations, Dell has many, and a custom builder can have an infinite variety of configurations.

As for price, I just now started pricing a Mac Pro versus a Dell 490 and found this:

Mac Pro
Base: $2799
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $1,600
4GB RAM: $540
total: $4939

Dell 490
Base: $1369
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $2,459
4GB RAM: $500
total: $2959

No real need to price-out the remaining options.

You know, I took a look at that too... configuring it to have 1 3.0GHz Xeon added like 1500 to the cost, the second one was something like 1750 more... kind of closes the gap wouldn't you say?

[dsnort]

You know, I took a look at that too... configuring it to have 1 3.0GHz Xeon added like 1500 to the cost, the second one was something like 1750 more... kind of closes the gap wouldn't you say?

Yeah, the Dell 490 with two 3.0 Ghz Xeons and 4 Mb ram is actually about $5300.

[Nick T.]

Along with the addition error, I don't know how I came up with those numbers - - I did use the Dell and Apple web sites, but when I saw those final numbers that should have been a clue that I'd gone wrong somewhere. I just now went to the Dell site and found that you can't even configure a 490 with two 3.0GHz CPUs.

Here is what I did get this time:
Dell T5400 base: $1489
1st 3.0GHz Quad: $1130
2nd 3.0GHz Quad: $1429
4GB RAM: $520
total: $4,568

Mac Pro base: $2799
two 3.0GHz Quads: $800
4GB RAM: $500
total: $4,099

Did I make another mistake?

[jonbravo77]

I don't know if this was said already but the biggest reason why Macs are expensive (in my opinion) is you are paying for some type of piece of mind. Knowing that everything in my MBP was made by or for the specific use in a mac is comforting to me. I know that the OS was built to run perfectly with the hardware.

In a PC I was always worried that if I had to get a new Optical drive or something else, was it the right kind? will the OS accept it? that is not always the case, depending on the manufacturer of the PC. There are a lot and I mean a lot of 3rd party vendors that make hardware for PC's and I believe that is one of the reasons for instability of Windows. MS has to build Windows OS to accept anything that these manufacturers can put out and it doesn't work.

I would rather pay more money for a reliable system. And that's what I think Apple creates, reliable systems. If people don't like to spend that much get a PC with Vista on it. Vista is just a very, very cheap copy of OSX.

my opinion.

Peace:cool:

[dsnort]

Who knows, seems like every time I go to the Dell website, it's rearranged itself to make stuff harder to find. ( And WTF is up with taking me to a survey page when I hit the back button?)

When I finally found the 490, the processor I used to configure earlier was no longer available as a second processor choice. I came out about $4500 this time.

[northy124]

Vista is just a very, very Expensive copy of OSX.

I amended it for you LoL

[MascisMan]

Some mac users accuse M$ didn't totally re-write windows from scratch for vista. That sounds like a redo-ing everything with a still dominating 95% market product, why? They seems to think apple is the one who is "willing" to re-do from scratch.



Ive never seen a Mac user accuse Microsoft of not totally rewriting Windows from scratch for Vista.

I have seen Mac users accuse Microsoft of building a new OS that has blatantly ripped off features from OSX. On top of this Vista is generally more expensive than OSX and generally comes with way more problems than Leopard.

Just because Microsoft owns 95% of a market doesn't mean it can spew subpar products out (knowing that people will reluctantly just have to accept it because they are afraid of change to OSX/Linux or have no idea that OSX/Linux even exists).

Microsoft should be creating an OS with users in mind instead of rushing a product (Vista) to the market to combat a growing marketshare from its competitor (OSX).

Me personally, I will use any OS as long as it works well and is somewhat aesthetically pleasing. I have no problems owning a windows machine. I actually have both a MBP and an HP laptop with XP.

[clevin]

Ive never seen a Mac user accuse Microsoft of not totally rewriting Windows from scratch for Vista.
if thats sincere, then you probably didn't read much about mac vs pc threads here.
I have seen Mac users accuse Microsoft of building a new OS that has blatantly ripped off features from OSX.
Since you didn't read mac vs. pc thread a lot, let me say this, OSX rips off features already in windows and linux alot as well.
shadow copy anyone?
On top of this Vista is generally more expensive than OSX and generally comes with way more problems than Leopard.


Not to mention you can get windows XP for $70, vista home pre for $99.

Tell me exactly what are the problems you are referring to with vista?
and what are the problems you are aware of about leopard?


Just because Microsoft owns 95% of a market doesn't mean it can spew subpar products out (knowing that people will reluctantly just have to accept it because they are afraid of change to OSX/Linux or have no idea that OSX/Linux even exists).

The guy who rushed OS out 6 months earlier is apple. again, see my comment right above.

Microsoft should be creating an OS with users in mind instead of rushing a product (Vista) to the market to combat a growing marketshare from its competitor (OSX).

Again and again, I heard some people bashing vista for unknown or known reasons, "rushing to the market" is a first, since most people laugh at M$ for its "SLOW" not "fast" of delivering vista. Tell me exactly how did M$ rushed it?

[kockgunner]

if thats sincere, then you probably didn't read much about mac vs pc threads here.Since you didn't read mac vs. pc thread a lot, let me say this, OSX rips off features already in windows and linux alot as well.
shadow copy anyone?

Not to mention you can get windows XP for $70, vista home pre for $99.

Tell me exactly what are the problems you are referring to with vista?
and what are the problems you are aware of about leopard?


The guy who rushed OS out 6 months earlier is apple. again, see my comment right above.

Again and again, I heard some people bashing vista for unknown or known reasons, "rushing to the market" is a first, since most people laugh at M$ for its "SLOW" not "fast" of delivering vista. Tell me exactly how did M$ rushed it?

didn't you copy and paste this from another thread?

[clevin]

didn't you copy and paste this from another thread?

did I? which one?

[kockgunner]

did I? which one?

nvm. maybe it was an extreme case of deja vu haha

[KingYaba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjOIfGShQMY
What's your point?
He posted that video in a thread of its own. No one replied so he stuck it in here. :rolleyes:

[HLdan]

Posted incorrectly sorry

[leigh.munro]

Apple is set to launch an assault on the world's biggest computer marketplace with plans to release a version of its new Leopard operating system for PCs.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17413/53/

[Nick T.]

Apple is set to launch an assault on the world's biggest computer marketplace with plans to release a version of its new Leopard operating system for PCs.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17413/53/
Take note of the dateline on that story.

[iPhil]

Apple is set to launch an assault on the world's biggest computer marketplace with plans to release a version of its new Leopard operating system for PCs.

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17413/53/



nice try to pull a joke... :p :rolleyes: :p

[erikistired]

Ive never seen a Mac user accuse Microsoft of not totally rewriting Windows from scratch for Vista.

it happened a lot right after MS realized they couldn't rewrite the OS from scratch as they said they were doing, and built longhorn (vista) upon the XP core instead. unfortunately, instead of polishing a turd they just stuck random bits to it and tried to sell it as new and improved.

[illuminous]

I was a Windows/PC user for most of my life, until I found Mac, and have never gone back. Apple should never put OS X on PC, it would be a disaster, takes away the whole appeal of buying a Mac. Not too mention the poor Apple support employees having to deal with the millions and millions and millions of PC issues.

I've got a Mac Pro and MacBook Pro and I don't care what anyone says, it blows the competition away...especially Dell (ihatedell.net). When you buy Mac you truly get the full package.

[gothiquegirrl]

a typical 500$ laptop really isnt a low end machine. they have core 2 duos, 1GB of ram etc, and an adequate hardrive.


:rolleyes:

Yeah and they fall apart. AMD sucks BTW. I have a $500 AMD laptop (1GB of ram) and it's already falling apart under a year of ownership - and It never leaves my house! Mostly never leaves my desk! The CD drive keeps falling out.. and the screen flickers. Not to mention it's slow as ******. The Graphic card is awful... Barely runs WoW.. I know it runs Vista - a known memory hog - but I don't think It would run OSX any better. It's crap - plain and simple. I only bought it because I was waiting on Leopard and I needed a new machine.

Let me tell you.. I love my iMac even though it's not upgradeable... and it's not the top-of-the-line, either.. I'd buy it again in a heart beat.

Ang

[pastrychef]

:rolleyes:

Yeah and they fall apart. AMD sucks BTW. I have a $500 AMD laptop (1GB of ram) and it's already falling apart under a year of ownership - and It never leaves my house! Mostly never leaves my desk! The CD drive keeps falling out.. and the screen flickers. Not to mention it's slow as ******. The Graphic card is awful... Barely runs WoW.. I know it runs Vista - a known memory hog - but I don't think It would run OSX any better. It's crap - plain and simple. I only bought it because I was waiting on Leopard and I needed a new machine.

Let me tell you.. I love my iMac even though it's not upgradeable... and it's not the top-of-the-line, either.. I'd buy it again in a heart beat.

Ang

To be fair, I don't think you should blame AMD for the fact that your laptop is falling apart. The manufacturer of the laptop should be at blame (i.e. Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) AMD is only responsible for the CPU that's inside the laptop.

[Sun Baked]

Should we call this idea Clone Disaster II or Apple Files for liquidation?

Right now the PC side of the company is raking in money for Apple, doubt it would be doing as well if Apple s-canned the Mac OS on Macs only idea.

[clevin]

:rolleyes:

Yeah and they fall apart. AMD sucks BTW. I have a $500 AMD laptop (1GB of ram) and it's already falling apart under a year of ownership - and It never leaves my house! Mostly never leaves my desk! The CD drive keeps falling out.. and the screen flickers. Not to mention it's slow as ******. The Graphic card is awful... Barely runs WoW.. I know it runs Vista - a known memory hog - but I don't think It would run OSX any better. It's crap - plain and simple. I only bought it because I was waiting on Leopard and I needed a new machine.

Let me tell you.. I love my iMac even though it's not upgradeable... and it's not the top-of-the-line, either.. I'd buy it again in a heart beat.

Ang

my $399 aspire 3680 (now my friend's) has been rock solid for a year now. Fall apart, what brand is it?

Graphic card is awful? please, if you want to talk about hardwares piece by piece, Macs have no advantages at all, they are normal PC hardwares, aren't they?

vista is a memory hog? how much memory does it need to run smoothly? how much memory does leopard need to run smoothly?

PS. Talk about screen flickering, you should really take a look at those rev A MacBooks.

[dejo]

I'm just wondering how long it will be until StateCCM starts new threads about "Macs suck cuz they have no second mouse button", "Macs are crap cuz they don't work with Windows PCs", "Macs are useless cuz there's no software for them", and "Macs bite the big one cuz they don't run Microsoft Office".

[HLdan]

I was a Windows/PC user for most of my life, until I found Mac, and have never gone back. Apple should never put OS X on PC, it would be a disaster, takes away the whole appeal of buying a Mac. Not too mention the poor Apple support employees having to deal with the millions and millions and millions of PC issues.

I've got a Mac Pro and MacBook Pro and I don't care what anyone says, it blows the competition away...especially Dell (ihatedell.net). When you buy Mac you truly get the full package.

Agreed, can you imagine how many common PC boxes would be flooding the Genius Bar at the Apple store for support? It would be a complete train wreck if Apple extended Mac OS X support for any old PC box. Thank goodness for small favors.