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

[groovebuster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

groovebuster

 

[BenRoethig]

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

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

 

[aegisdesign]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BenRoethig]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aegisdesign]

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

This is only an argument against people building boxes themselves.

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

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

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

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

 

[ksz]

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

If iTunes uses AltiVec, it will not run under Rosetta. Note bullet #3 here.

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

What Can Be Translated?

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

Rosetta does not run the following:

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

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

 

[iMeowbot]

If iTunes uses AltiVec, it will not run under Rosetta. Note bullet #3 here.

iTunes does not require Altivec. It will run on a G3. (it will use Altivec if it's available.)

 

[SiliconAddict]

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

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

 

[Photorun]

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

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

Get it now?

 

[manu chao]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BillHarrison]

Ah, its not that tough guys.

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

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

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

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

 

[rosalindavenue]

Dvorak predicted this

PC Mag (US) columnist John Dvorak in this article predicted that this kind of cracking would be the first step in Apple's march towards selling OSX for PCs.

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

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

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

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

I dont know that I agree with Dvorak, but he did call the intel switch long before any of us thought it was coming.

 

[manu chao]

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

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

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

 

[ksz]

PC Mag (US) columnist John Dvorak in this article predicted that this kind of cracking would be the first step in Apple's march towards selling OSX for PCs.

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

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

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

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

I dont know that I agree with Dvorak, but he did call the intel switch long before any of us thought it was coming.

Seems to me Apple will lose a significant chunk of the educational market, including high school and college students whose limited income will make the piracy alternative very appealing. If they can buy fast and cheap PCs and slap a hacked version of Mac OS on it, the money they would have spent on Apple would be reallocated.

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

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

 

[maya]

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

What is the world coming to?

 

[PCMacUser]

You're welcome to it. I touch-type and would never consider owning a computer with an under-sized keyboard.

Yeah, I have the JVC mininote, and at 900g it's wonderfully light and portable, but for touch typing I had to go for an iBook 12"...

 

[SiliconAddict]

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

Get it now?

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

 

[PCMacUser]

On the bright side you didn’t use M$.

LOL ditto

 

[virus1]

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

 

[Photorun]

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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

 

[ksz]

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

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

 

[Stella]

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

he's the same guy who wrote this little gem . I'm still wondering what "hardware-intensiveness" has to do with SOFTWARE-stability. Hardware-stability, sure, but software?

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

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

 

[Evangelion]

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

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