Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
because of those "dozens" only 2 are usable by normal people. One only runs on proprietary hardware and the other one is made by the anti-christ.
Plenty of normal people can use any number of varying Windows products, Linux distributions, or BSD.
Any of the more esoteric operating systems are also completely usable to a person willing to spend a little time learning.
You choose to buy Windows, and you choose to buy Photoshop. No one put a gun to your head. You were free to weigh the relative pros and cons of that choice. The point is irrelevant.
The fact is, most, if not all, professional software will only run on Mac OS and Windows. Linux (let alone BSD) just isn't a viable alternative for average consumers. You're talking about "dozens" of alternatives. I'd be surprised if you could name more then 4 (and no, different distributions of Linux don't count) that will run on normal hardware, are readily available and are easy enough to use for someone who doesn't have a degree in computer engineering.
In the end it comes down to Mac OS, Windows and Linux. Only Mac OS and Windows will run the applications people want / need. So there go the alternatives. Windows is total and utter crap - and Mac OS, which would be great by itself, can't be used on the hardware you want because Apple (in some countries successfully) makes it illegal to use it by defining threadbare legal terms in their EULAs.
So I'd say it's your point that is irrelevant.
While it's true that it's not fair to compare the prices, the problem there is Apple's fault; they don't have an expandable desktop that doesn't waste money on server components. As long as that holds true, they're always going to come up short in the value-for-money department.
Well, all linux distros will run photoshop, with a little wine.
Because most people (designers and the like) use photoshop.
I think he was referring to Windows as a whole, not Windows as 6 different OS's. Although we do refer to each Linux distro as it's own OS, I wonder why? Oh well.
Probably because they effectively are; what packages and interfaces are available on one may not be available on another. And oftentimes a binary compiled for one won't run on another.
Oh. And they often have completely incompatible installer systems (package management).
Alternative OS options, etc.?
Honestly, the statements below are far less factual than most people tend to believe. The real problem is lack of awareness of people's options, and an unwillingness to learn new things.
For example, let's take Photoshop (since people keep bringing it up). For absolutely FREE, people can download "The GIMP" for Linux (or find a version recompiled for most Unix variants, actually). That's a program that has matured to the point where it can do just about anything that can be done in Photoshop. Most "graphics professionals" refuse to give it a serious try though, simply because they've "invested too much time and effort learning Photoshop" already, and refuse to change. The GIMP doesn't start up with quite as nice looking tool palettes or menu bars either. Much of its "power" is a little more hidden beneath the unassuming exterior.
I'm quite confident, however, if you took someone with ZERO computer experience, and the only tool you gave them to learn to edit and retouch graphics on was a BSD or Linux box running "The GIMP", they'd get the exact same kind of work done as the Photoshop user, after learning to master it.
As far as OS choices go, it's true that "dozens" have come and gone. Off the top of my head, I can think of ones like Solaris, BeOS, QNX, various versions of CP/M, IBM's OS/2, and even ReactOS.
The thing is, an operating system tends to only be as good as the applications that can be run under it. Developers can't afford to spend the time and energy to keep re-writing things for every OS that comes along. It's hard enough maintaining code for ONE platform. I'm just not sure anyone can even MAKE an OS that's SO good, people will clamor for re-writes of all their software for it, and refuse to buy things until they're made to run on it. That's why we're at the relative "stalemate" we see today.
Honestly, the statements below are far less factual than most people tend to believe. The real problem is lack of awareness of people's options, and an unwillingness to learn new things.
For example, let's take Photoshop (since people keep bringing it up). For absolutely FREE, people can download "The GIMP" for Linux (or find a version recompiled for most Unix variants, actually). That's a program that has matured to the point where it can do just about anything that can be done in Photoshop. Most "graphics professionals" refuse to give it a serious try though, simply because they've "invested too much time and effort learning Photoshop" already, and refuse to change. The GIMP doesn't start up with quite as nice looking tool palettes or menu bars either. Much of its "power" is a little more hidden beneath the unassuming exterior.
I'm quite confident, however, if you took someone with ZERO computer experience, and the only tool you gave them to learn to edit and retouch graphics on was a BSD or Linux box running "The GIMP", they'd get the exact same kind of work done as the Photoshop user, after learning to master it.
As far as OS choices go, it's true that "dozens" have come and gone. Off the top of my head, I can think of ones like Solaris, BeOS, QNX, various versions of CP/M, IBM's OS/2, and even ReactOS.
The thing is, an operating system tends to only be as good as the applications that can be run under it. Developers can't afford to spend the time and energy to keep re-writing things for every OS that comes along. It's hard enough maintaining code for ONE platform. I'm just not sure anyone can even MAKE an OS that's SO good, people will clamor for re-writes of all their software for it, and refuse to buy things until they're made to run on it. That's why we're at the relative "stalemate" we see today.
Depends on how you define OS. If the kernel is the OS, then Linux is Linux - and to be honest, that's the only definition I believe makes any sense.
What's packaged around the kernel is different among distributions. But it's incorrect to say that linux binaries from one distro won't work on another - if you install the necessary dependencies (libraries etc.) in the right spot in both distros and the architecture for which they were compiled is the same, then the binaries will run. But the same goes for Windows: if you try to run 64bit binaries on 32bit iterations of Windows, they won't work. If a binary needs a runtime environment that's not installed on a computer, it won't work.
peter
I have absolutely nothing against the GIMP - I use it myself occasionally and have used it extensively in the past. The thing is - Photoshop is the de facto industrial standard. Other workflow tools (e.g. the available RAW processors, which I heavily rely on) integrate perfectly with photoshop, while they don't integrate with the GIMP. The GIMP also doesn't do RAW, which makes it useless for most photographers. If GIMP actually had all of Photoshop's features and would integrate equally well, I'd be glad to give photoshop the boot. I don't like Adobe, I don't like their licensing schemes and I think photoshop is massively overpriced. But I still need it for my work
peter
So? This happened because customers made a choice to use a particular product because it best fulfilled their selected criteria. There is nothing forcibly stopping anyone from using or creating a different product.
What you gain in convenience and efficacy, you pay for in limitations. Without the restrictions imposed, the owner of the software would either sell it at a higher price or would not sell it at all. That is their choice to make, and you have no right to take more than is offered for sale.
If there is no offering that meets your needs, start from scratch and make your own, do without a product at all, or reassess your needs.
Your requirements are arbitrary, as is your characterization of the scope of competition. There are many verifiably independent software platforms available for your use, each of which is suitable for a different range of purposes.
There are always alternatives. There may not always be complete substitutes, but once again, life is about choices, and that means tradeoffs and weighing comparative advantages.
This moronic idea that people are "forced" is just a lot of whining and a false sense of victimhood. It may be inconvenient to use a different product, or it may be unpleasant to accept limitations in order to gain lawful access to a product you want to use. But you didn't put in the time, money, and effort to create the product, and it's not yours to control its distribution.
You're free to make something yourself and sell it how you like. You are not free to ignore the owner's conditions for sale. If you don't like the price or the terms offered or negotiated, walk away.
So?
Windows as a whole isn't an operating system. It's a diverse collection of products, some of which are compatible with each other, and some of which are not.
Because they are separate operating systems with varying levels of compatibility, a variety of different features and combinations of architectural elements, a variety of different licenses, and for which "user experience" is not immediately transferable from one to the next.
No, it's not. Debian binaries won't work on Red Hat. It is entirely possible to create products that work in one distribution and do not on another, just as it is possible to create cross-platform products or operating system-specific products for Windows Vista and OS X.
Further, defining the kernel as the operating system is simply wrong. Darwin and OS X would be the same operating system, while Windows XP and 2003 would be different operating systems. You had previously reduced all of Windows to a single operating system choice, so obviously this cannot be.
Of course we are, that's what this is all about - we can and will run OSX on a computer not force-fed by Apple, that's the choice some of us are making. We cannot walk away when the hardware offered is reduced and forces us to pay a heck of a lot more for the same functionality of a previous product (see MacBook to MacBook Pro).
So? So we have to use the same programmes for cross-compatibility with programmes like Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator.
And we're free to put OSX on a computer not made by Apple now.
Sounds like a "seller's market", which is strange considering the fact that there's other ways to boot the install CD and run the vanilla kernel.
It's not a choice you're offered. There is no product offered for sale by Apple that allows such a use, and there is nothing to authorize that use outside of permission from the owner, Apple.
Why?
Says who?
Thanks for the clarification, I guess I knew that info, but I didn't put it two and two together.
OK, if if you don't mid being a LIAR when you hit the agree button on the terms of service
Wow! I just saw the price increase, too! Supply and demand, I suppose.
I'm curious to find out how well it actually works.
I'm curious to find out how well it actually works.
The form factor of a box that sits on the floor out of sight and rarely handled is mostly irrelevant. The form factor of a laptop you handle constantly is however critical to it's function/usability.
When it locks up yet again or crashes or refuses to let me moves files or any time I use Finder to 'manage' files, yes.
I have a laptop with a far less glossy screen. It's very annoying to use at times. I have tried the new Mac. I could barely see the screen content due to the amount of reflections.
An argument that can only be stated by a non professional user, who doesn't know the facts, he/she claims to.
Actually, the reason people do not change to it, is because The Gimp is not really a professional tool as it is limited in so many ways. Such as the fact that many photographers use LR + Bridge as a major part of their PS workflow, so using Gimp would be adding many, many unnecesary hours of work to their day, then there's the crippling lack of CMYK support.
The Gimp is certainly capable of producing good work, but it's simply a copy of PS which is running several iterations behind the real thing. The later versions of PS are much better, much more powerful and save more time than earlier versions and why people tend to upgrade PS, despite the cost.
Plus the time taken to learn this inferior product could be spent more profitably doing some work in PS, which will earn you money and pay for itself many times over, way before you get to grips with Gimp. So the 'free' aspect doesn't actually pan out for professionals as time is money, so Gimp will prove quite expensive in fact.
Unless it's prepress! Or there's a deadline!
As an EFi-X owner, I would say don't buy one quite yet! Wait at least until the fabled "October Update" appears as there are a huge amount of issues with the product - almost all of which are claimed to be fixed by the "October Update"...obviously waiting for this update in November doesn't bode well for future support.
I suspect that we won't see the "October Update" until Apple have shipped 10.5.6 and EFi-X have had a chance to patch their firmware.
I suspect that we won't see the "October Update" until Apple have shipped 10.5.6 and EFi-X have had a chance to patch their firmware.