Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

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?
 
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?
 
kwajo.com said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
itunes in emulation ?

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
 
EricNau said:
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?
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
shamino said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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).
 
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).
 
Choppaface said:
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.'
Click to expand...

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.
 
contoursvt said:
Ericnau, OMG OSX is now tainted, it has touched non apple hardware, what will we do :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Choppaface said:
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).
Click to expand...

*thumbs up*

Seconded!
 
kansast said:
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
Click to expand...

According to some rumblings, iTunes x86 was just recently compiled. Probably due to the fact iTunes was AKAIK the only Carbon iLife app.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
http://www.pcweenies.org/toon_send.php?id=787

pcweenies_0787.jpg
 
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.
 
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
 
EricNau said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
um, lame

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.
 
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.
 
contoursvt said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

contoursvt said:
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......
Click to expand...
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.

contoursvt said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back