Mac OS X on a PC?

[jaromski]

As to the Linux question... testing isnt complete. We have tested YDL/YHPC
We are also testing Suse.
So far Linux has proved to be on average 15% faster.

See now this is what I am talking about. For certain applications (usually enterprise-grade stuff) Linux can really shine. But you really have to get down & dirty to realize any return. And for most folks that just isn't reasonable to expect. But the eye candy in OS/X has to cost cycles. It is just another trade-off.

Plus I do agree that message-based kernels do take a performance hit. But don't you think you might be tripping over dollars to pick up nickels? If I were running a software business, it would be about leveraging my developers time over getting 10-15% on the same iron. Hardware isn't the limiting factor these days, cycles can be bought for cheap. It is about getting your product out as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Also, you may have heard, Virginia built a pretty decent supercomputer (it ranked 3 of 500 when it debuted) with off-the-shelf G5 systems, then replaced them with Xserves. So c'mon man MACs can't be that bad...

-jaromski

 

[~loserman~]

Well technically they use a hybrid of the mach 3.0 kernel and the freebsd system.

Well technically speaking Sort of.
The MACH kernel is very unrecognizable from all of its roots.
It has some BSD stuff in it, BSD stuff would be its Crypto support, Filesystem support for CD9660, DEVFS, NFS, VFS, MEMDEV this doesn't include UFS/FFS support
IP & IPV6 TCP stack support including BPF & IPFW
the BSD/Posix/SYSV system calls sysctl, fork, exec, ktrace,
mmap, etc
Parts from Mach 3 handles tasks, threads, memory management, and
messaging (but i digress)

So let's not get off into the weeds on this one, as far as I'm concerned you didn't respond to my original rebuttal.
-jaromski

Actually I did just look up a few posts.

But If you want to get off into the weeds and go into a discussion about the benifits/negatives of monolithic kernel vs modular kernel we can go that route if you wish.
Although it will become a complete thread hijack.

IMO the linux kernel went modular to make it easier to build distro's. As you have correctly stated(and I will paraphrase your thoughts and add mine) it is much easier for the distro builders like redhat/suse/ydl/and debian to provide a kernel that has gazillions of different device support prebuilt as modules.
While this hurts overall performance because the modules do not load in contiguous memory it makes it easier for the average user who doesnt know how to build his own kernels. If a person has the know how the best method is to build in only the hardware you actually need to support. i.e. a small tight monolithic kernel.
But none of this discussion actually has anything to do with my original premise which was the linux kernel is superior to mach.
The linux kernel has better thread management. Its schedular is far superior. Its virtual memory manager is great. Mach's is awful. Mach fragments memory worse than anything I've ever seen. We had to rewrite both the schedular and memory manager for mach to even make it halfway usable for us.
And now when we run our code we get repeatable results instead of as high as a 45% fluctuation in performance between runs. And by the way we also gained 5% overall performance.
Now personally I think the whole exercise was a waste of time because we got 15% better performance on our System by running a stock linux 2.6.9 kernel without even building it as a monolithic one.
But alas our customer wanted us to run OS X so we wasted 4 months doing the kernel mods.(But what the heck we got paid for it)

And lets not forget the Linux kernel can be compiled as 64 bit and who knows when mach will be 64 bit.( And as I have correctly stated earlier)
Tiger is not a 64 bit OS. Its kernel resides completly in 32 bit address space and will provide 64 bit memory to POSIX compliant programs(read command line; server daemons etc) thru a library call. Not very efficently I might add

which brings me to The real funny part

Now our customer has OS X now but it still doesnt serve his needs because he needs more than 2GB per single thread for part of his process. So he has to do part of his job on linux and then move his problem to an OS X to run(So he can still use his beloved OS) and whats even funnier is we will get to rewrite the memory manager and schedular again once TIGER Releases.(OH well job security)

 

[~loserman~]

See now this is what I am talking about. For certain applications (usually enterprise-grade stuff) Linux can really shine. But you really have to get down & dirty to realize any return. And for most folks that just isn't reasonable to expect. But the eye candy in OS/X has to cost cycles. It is just another trade-off.

I never disagreed with this. I never made a whole OS comparison or statement. I was only talking about kernels.

Plus I do agree that message-based kernels do take a performance hit. But don't you think you might be tripping over dollars to pick up nickels? If I were running a software business, it would be about leveraging my developers time over getting 10-15% on the same iron. Hardware isn't the limiting factor these days, cycles can be bought for cheap. It is about getting your product out as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Also, you may have heard, Virginia built a pretty decent supercomputer (it ranked 3 of 500 when it debuted) with off-the-shelf G5 systems, then replaced them with Xserves. So c'mon man MACs can't be that bad...

-jaromski

Didnt say that Mac's were bad.... just MACH.
And as for Virginia Tech. I have more xserves than them(1834 to be exact)
and when you are talking about numbers over a thousand 10 to 15 % performance for a software change means a ton of money saved in hardware costs

 

[~loserman~]

BOTH

Whenever you get to the "My dad can beat up your dad" shtick you know you've hit a bundle of nerves.

AND

"Waaah my daddy can beat up your daddy and I have many powerful armies of super-human-robots that will destroy you!"

Again, absurd remark. How can you verfiy this? Impossible. Are you just trolling us for fun at this point because it sures feelings like trolling to me.

Doesnt deserve comment

No you are right. How could I have been so daft? Of course Linux, oops sorry Stallman, I really meant GNU/Linux, is in _every_ way superior to OS/X. I mean you said so in your initial post.

Never said that.... I said the linux kernel is in everyway superior to the MACH kernel Reread my post.

I was really just interested in making you defend your all/none arguments. The high concentration of them in your posts makes me wish I had life/world/everything figured out in such absolute terms. It would be most convenient.

Getting a little testy I see

How's that for a logical argument? I still have yet to find one in your replies.

Sorry you must be misreading mine then.

 

[SyndicateX]

D*MN PEOPLE&^@#%$ WTF WOULD YOU WANT TO RUN OSX ON A WINTEL???? Seriously I never understand this. Yeah, it would be cheap. Yeah, I could run my lovely OSX on my cheap ass 150$ beige box. BUT WOULD IT BE WORTH IT? WOULD IT PROVIDE A MAC-LIKE ORGASMIC EXPERIENCE? absolutely not. PC's problems lie within the fact that every manufacturer makes cheap ass crap for hardware. Steve will never degrade the stability of OSX for anything.

3 companies....uhhhh....how about Sony, IBM...and ooh, whats that other one.....TOSHIBA??? the 3 companies developing the CELL??? Dur. In this case I could see Steve licensing the OS because of 2 reasons. 1. He can still control the hardware any of those companies put in their computers. Basically if its not in OSX, you cant use it in your computers. Secondly, all of a sudden its not ALLLL of Windows (Dell, Sony, IBM, Toshiba, Gateway, etc...) vs Apple. now its Apple, IBM, Sony, Toshiba vs the Dells, Gateway etc... (HP could go either way...) and when you compare windows vs OSX on a PowerPC processor........M$ IS GOIN DOWN BABY YEAAAAAHHHHHHHH@%#3

 

[~loserman~]

D*MN PEOPLE&^@#%$ WTF WOULD YOU WANT TO RUN OSX ON A WINTEL???? Seriously I never understand this. Yeah, it

Why would someone want to run OS X on a PC?

easy answer


IT'S BETTER THAN HAVING TO RUN WINDOWS ON IT!!!!!!!

 

[SyndicateX]

and just a question after I read the above stuff. I thought I read somewhere that with Tiger Apple was ditching the Mach kernel??? Dont remember where I saw it but just curious if anyone knew.

 

[~loserman~]

and just a question after I read the above stuff. I thought I read somewhere that with Tiger Apple was ditching the Mach kernel??? Dont remember where I saw it but just curious if anyone knew.

I WISH!!!!!

No they are not ditching MACH.

 

[SyndicateX]

Why would someone want to run OS X on a PC?

easy answer


IT'S BETTER THAN HAVING TO RUN WINDOWS ON IT!!!!!!!

Yeah, but then you gotta listen to all the pc n00bs b1tching about how unstable and crappy OSX is anyway.

Id rather be happy and listen to all my fellow mac lovers revel in our joy and let the pc punks whine all day by themselves.

 

[~loserman~]

Yeah, but then you gotta listen to all the pc n00bs b1tching about how unstable and crappy OSX is anyway.

Id rather be happy and listen to all my fellow mac lovers revel in our joy and let the pc punks whine all day by themselves.

Actually I would love to see OS X be sold for the PC....
For three reasons

GAMES,GAMES,GAMES

Even though I'm an old guy I still love games,and If the market share goes up the games for OS X will follow.
And its much easier to port a game to a different hardware architecture as long as the OS is the same.
In other words porting to diff hardware and diff OS is hard and time consuming. Porting to same OS running on diff hardware is fairly quick and painless.

 

[SyndicateX]

aaaaah, sorry, it was about tiger changing MACH from freebsd v4 code to v5 code. :\ Not quite as good as Id hoped but regardless that is still a major upgrade.

 

[SyndicateX]

Actually I would love to see OS X be sold for the PC....
For three reasons

GAMES,GAMES,GAMES

Even though I'm an old guy I still love games,and If the market share goes up the games for OS X will follow.
And its much easier to port a game to a different hardware architecture as long as the OS is the same.
In other words porting to diff hardware and diff OS is hard and time consuming. Porting to same OS running on diff hardware is fairly quick and painless.

Well...how about this instead. If Sony and Apple do make a deal with the CELL processor and all...then its most likely going to be VERY easy to port ALLLLLL those beautiful PS3 games over to OSX...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. iTunes from your PS3 to play on your PSP anyone? Play your PS3 games on your Mac? Now, if we could just get this 64-bit kernel crap down, I could bust a nut and die happy.


PS. and just what are you planning to do with 1834 xserves??? World domination? porn archiving? or just good ol stuff like aerodynamics and dna? (sorry had to ask, Im happy with my 9 G5 iMacs, 3 powermacs, and powerbook!! but now I feel inadequate. vroooom vroommmm)

 

[jaromski]

Well technically speaking Sort of.
The MACH kernel is very unrecognizable from all of its roots.
It has some BSD stuff in it, BSD stuff would be its Crypto support, Filesystem support for CD9660, DEVFS, NFS, VFS, MEMDEV this doesn't include UFS/FFS support
IP & IPV6 TCP stack support including BPF & IPFW
the BSD/Posix/SYSV system calls sysctl, fork, exec, ktrace,
mmap, etc
Parts from Mach 3 handles tasks, threads, memory management, and
messaging (but i digress)

Let's call this one a draw then.

Actually I did just look up a few posts.

But If you want to get off into the weeds and go into a discussion about the benifits/negatives of monolithic kernel vs modular kernel we can go that route if you wish.
Although it will become a complete thread hijack.

Too late...

IMO the linux kernel went modular to make it easier to build distro's. As you have correctly stated(and I will paraphrase your thoughts and add mine) it is much easier for the distro builders like redhat/suse/ydl/and debian to provide a kernel that has gazillions of different device support prebuilt as modules.
While this hurts overall performance because the modules do not load in contiguous memory it makes it easier for the average user who doesnt know how to build his own kernels. If a person has the know how the best method is to build in only the hardware you actually need to support. i.e. a small tight monolithic kernel.
But none of this discussion actually has anything to do with my original premise which was the linux kernel is superior to mach.

This is where I think we should just agree to disagree. I don't buy into your arguments that use any/all/every/none. There are just too many special cases. I do buy that for _your_ needs, your customer's need, Linux may be superior to Mach 3.0/OSX. But that doesn't make it superior to Linux in _every_ scenario.

The linux kernel has better thread management. Its schedular is far superior. Its virtual memory manager is great. Mach's is awful. Mach fragments memory worse than anything I've ever seen. We had to rewrite both the schedular and memory manager for mach to even make it halfway usable for us.
And now when we run our code we get repeatable results instead of as high as a 45% fluctuation in performance between runs. And by the way we also gained 5% overall performance.
Now personally I think the whole exercise was a waste of time because we got 15% better performance on our System by running a stock linux 2.6.9 kernel without even building it as a monolithic one.
But alas our customer wanted us to run OS X so we wasted 4 months doing the kernel mods.(But what the heck we got paid for it)

Hey if you get paid to kernel hack I wouldn't complain... And the new 2.6.x series kernel in Linux really is a work of art. I must confess I really like it. I just hate some of the methodology in Linux. For instance I told you before my RAID card broke from 2.4.x to 2.6.x. I don't want to go down to the local shop and get a different "supported" hardware device. It worked before, why doesn't it work now? Because they changed the whole kernel structure and it was just collateral damage. That really blows. And there are a host of other things that Linux has problems with- firewire, wireless, and all the other cards I've had to twiddle with to get them working in Linux. At some point you just get diminishing returns for your time invested. Now if I had that many Xserves I could justify a huge time investment. But I don't, and 99.99999% of the population (that wasn't a hard fact, so don't quote me on it) don't have that many machines to worry about. Most people have a laptop and/or desktop. For them the Linux kernel isn't superior in every way from the Mach. For them it is about productivity. Something that Linux hasn't figured out yet is leveraging its most valuable resource- developers and users time. Hence the reason the Linux Desktop has always been "just around the corner"...

But I am diverging from your point about threading. I agree, Linux threads blow BSD threading model out of the water. I think they have a port available so you can use linux threads in BSD. But for most poeple a 5/15% gain in clock-for-clock performance is still a net loss after having to go from actually using OS/X to GNU/Linux.

And lets not forget the Linux kernel can be compiled as 64 bit and who knows when mach will be 64 bit.( And as I have correctly stated earlier)
Tiger is not a 64 bit OS. Its kernel resides completly in 32 bit address space and will provide 64 bit memory to POSIX compliant programs(read command line; server daemons etc) thru a library call. Not very efficently I might add

which brings me to The real funny part

Now our customer has OS X now but it still doesnt serve his needs because he needs more than 2GB per single thread for part of his process. So he has to do part of his job on linux and then move his problem to an OS X to run(So he can still use his beloved OS) and whats even funnier is we will get to rewrite the memory manager and schedular again once TIGER Releases.(OH well job security)

Well I can't really comment on that as I can't substantiate your claims either way. I think your definition of superior presupposes what constitutes superiority in a system and what I believe constitutes superiority. Performance is a huge indicator for me, but not the end game. Chips, systems are getting fast enough that for me it is a zero sum game.

Perhaps the best thing to do is just agree to disagree.

-jaromski

 

[cyanide]

games, blah blah blah

why do you whipper snappers insist that because two pieces of equipment have the same processor it makes it easy to port GAMES?! easiER maybe.. but no it is not easy. there are things called file systems, and gpu's, and.. oh.. wait.. operating systems. this is why you cant throw a pc game in your xbox without changing a bunch of things. although i once convinced my friend you could...i dont want in on this discussion. you server juggling tech heads get back at it though, it was getting interesting!!

 

[PCMacUser]

I guess you might have me on that one then.
But I DO have more Xserve G5's than anyone else.

Yeah? Well MY dad's tougher than YOUR dad!

 

[PCMacUser]

"Waaah my daddy can beat up your daddy and I have many powerful armies of super-human-robots that will destroy you!"

Again, absurd remark. How can you verfiy this? Impossible. Are you just trolling us for fun at this point because it sures feelings like trolling to me.

-jaromski

Darn, beaten to it hahaha!

 

[kexii]

Am I confused?

I'm (currently) a PC user. I could almost claim virus, spyware and popup free because I use my XP machine with intelligence. Sure, popups still happen, but I have them under (somewhat) control so that they aren't completely annoying. I download my share of stuff and my Anti-virus software hasn't failed me yet. And what PC user doesn't have "backup copies" of some software. I also have games that aren't out for MAC (and may never be). My PC will be a viable computer for at least 2 more years (and I made it 3 years ago). It's BLACK -- NOT BIEGE -- Metal, not plastic (except the front bezel). And can you say iTunes for Windows!!! 10,000 songs baby AND an iPod. That said...

OMG!!! I want a G5. NOT JUST THE OS for my PC (I already have a PC). Actually, I already have a MAC too, it's just real weak (400MHz, no cdr or dvd, low ram and what the heck do I do with that slow-arse ZIP100 drive [how pointless is that?!]) I have one in my PC too, but NEVER use it.

I wouldn't buy the OS (without buying the MAC) and I WANT the OS. Most Wintel users are too ignorant to realize how much better it is BECAUSE of the control that Apple has over it. That being the case, I doubt many people would venture the OS purchase if they hadn't already intended to buy a MAC. And therein lies a dilemna. Both for me (and many people like me) AND Apple. If they would bring their prices down just a little, it would add a huge incentive to those who want to switch and at the same time reduce any viable need to license the OS to drum up more business (which I doubt is going happen anyway). Adding a few less expensive options (ie the mini mac) is a start. But I already own a weak mac that I can't upgrade. I want something that can compete with my 2.1GHz Athlon that cost me less then $1500 to build (including monitor, DL DVD+/-RW, CD-RW, perriferals, upgrades, OS, software, etc...).

I think Apple & OSX CAN put a hurt locker on MicroSux. And they CAN do it without compromising their OS or Hardware integrity. I just can't understand WHY it hasn't happened yet.

 

[BenRoethig]

why do you whipper snappers insist that because two pieces of equipment have the same processor it makes it easy to port GAMES?! easiER maybe.. but no it is not easy. there are things called file systems, and gpu's, and.. oh.. wait.. operating systems. this is why you cant throw a pc game in your xbox without changing a bunch of things. although i once convinced my friend you could...i dont want in on this discussion. you server juggling tech heads get back at it though, it was getting interesting!!

When I asked Brad Oliver what was the single most challenging part of a Mac to PC port (or something to that effect), he said Edian swapping issues. If the big eadian/ little edian issue wasn't there, ports would be much easier. By the way, the Xbox isn't a computer. they have to change a buch of things because of fundimental differences between the ways PC and consoles work.

 

[bgarnett]

Forward to the past

Because:
• No existing commercially important application would be able to run on it
• It would destroy Apples' hardware sales (responsible for 60% of profits)
• Apparently, there's not much future in x86 chips (according to many posters on this thread)

It's not going to happen.

Point 1: "No existing commercially important application would be able to run on it"

Just 4 years ago this is exactly where Mac OS X 10.0 was. Little major application support. No Quark. No Photoshop. No Illustrator. No Dreamweaver. The list could, and does, go on. Forward to 2005, all these applications now exist, and a great deal more. The x86 version would merely have some form of virtual machine for execution of power native applications, as in Mac OS X's classic environment.

Point 2: "It would destroy Apple's hardware sales (responsible for 60% of profits)

Microsoft is proof that you do not need to rely upon hardware sales to turn a healthy profit. Apple could continue to sell its hardware, perhaps marketing it as the 'full' experience. The PC market is massive in comparison to that of the Mac, there is a market out there now for people who want an alternative, quality operating system that is more secure, user friendly (rules out Linux!), and doesn't require them to go out and purchase new hardware.

Point 3: "Apparently, there's not much future in x86 chips (according to many posters on this thread"

Where's the facts to back this up, rather than heresay. Both Intel and AMD are releasing dual-core and 64bit chips which clearly out perform a dual G5 processor system. The G5 chip isn't scaling well at all, we are over 1.5 years since Apple first released their first G5 tower and chips have only gone from 1.6 to 2.5GHz. Where is that ever elusive 3GHz system Job's was promising over 6 months ago? The fact is that both processor families are not growing exponentially any more!

You may be right in saying that it may never happen, but never is a long time!!

 

[RacerX]

I want something that can compete with my 2.1GHz Athlon that cost me less then $1500 to build....

I just can't understand WHY it hasn't happened yet.

Sorry, but you (a person who builds his own PCs) are part of a small minority of people which PC manufacturers (including Apple) don't care about. In their eyes, people like you don't count. You don't add to market share and you most likely never will.

Apple builds complete systems for people who want complete systems. Apple's system prices compete with those of companies who build complete systems.



But here is something I'm confused about... either you like Windows and Microsoft or you don't. Why would you continue to use products you don't like?

I don't like Microsoft (we've had actual run-ins with each other), so I don't use Microsoft products (or offer support for them as a consultant)

Why use the odd names like MicroSux but continue to use their products. There are alternatives out there... even beyond Apple.

Just curious. I personally believe in no compromises.

 

[Blue Velvet]

You may be right in saying that it may never happen, but never is a long time!!

All I hear is a lot of wet dreams and wishful thinking by PC users who haven't got the guts to switch and/or drop their precious warez. All I hear is how hot their PC is and 9 times out of 10, and all they seem to want to do is play games on it.

If your PC is so damned fast, then tell us what it's like to do a day's video work on it, not some dumb stats that show nothing about productive you are...

If you're happy with a Windows machine, that's fine. But don't expect Apple to jump through hoops to bring OS X to a PC, it's just not in their long-term interest.

Most PC consumers take what they get on their machine. I don't know one PC user that's ever bothered to update their OS... for every 1 PC-modder and tech-head, there's another 10 ordinary users who don't even know what a hard-drive or an OS is. You think they're going to make an informed choice about their OS when they buy a machine?

And of course, those are the same people that will call you and me to fix the bloody thing when it gets infected with some crap they just clicked on...

The Mac's doing just fine without catering to PC fanboys & girls -- it's just because Apple is getting a lot of good press recently that it's suddenly become this massive object of interest.

Want a Mac? Get a Mac. If not, then console yourself that you have Longhorn to look forward to...

 

[RacerX]

Point 1: "No existing commercially important application would be able to run on it"

Just 4 years ago this is exactly where Mac OS X 10.0 was. Little major application support. No Quark. No Photoshop. No Illustrator. No Dreamweaver. The list could, and does, go on. Forward to 2005, all these applications now exist, and a great deal more. The x86 version would merely have some form of virtual machine for execution of power native applications, as in Mac OS X's classic environment.

Rhapsody was ready for released in 1998. It had a Blue Box environment that could run Mac apps as good (in some ways better) than a system running the Mac OS. The problem was that it would have required software makers do major rewrite to there existing software to get their applications to run natively in Rhapsody. Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia flat out said they would not take the time to port these apps to Rhapsody. That was what killed Rhapsody, and started Carbon.

By WWDC 98, Apple had put together a Carbon demo on Rhapsody. With that Adobe and Apple were able to port AppleWorks and Photoshop to run "natively" in Rhapsody.

But Carbon wasn't ready for public use yet. It would require another two years (though some would say it was more like three-four years) before Carbon would be up to comparable quality to Cocoa (formerly Yellow Box from Rhapsody) and the old Mac OS application environments.

For the first few years of Mac OS X, it wasn't even Apple's default OS for their own hardware because of the lack of software. And this is on hardware that Apple completely controlled.

The Applications Barrier for any new operating system is massive and has killed off many great operating systems. There is really no good reason for Apple to throw away their money on porting Mac OS X to PCs.

Point 2: "It would destroy Apple's hardware sales (responsible for 60% of profits)

Microsoft is proof that you do not need to rely upon hardware sales to turn a healthy profit. Apple could continue to sell its hardware, perhaps marketing it as the 'full' experience. The PC market is massive in comparison to that of the Mac, there is a market out there now for people who want an alternative, quality operating system that is more secure, user friendly (rules out Linux!), and doesn't require them to go out and purchase new hardware.

Microsoft is profitable because it uses unfair practices to lock in hardware makers (and users) to their software. Actually Microsoft is proof that no other company could hope to compete with them as software only. They have time and again crushed any company (no matter how small) that has tried.

Linux and Open Source are movements, not companies. That has made them a hard (but not impossible) target for Microsoft.

What business sense does it make to start a fight with Microsoft that doesn't currently exist? Right now Microsoft makes money on Mac users. Apple is not a threat. But if it becomes one... they will attack.

Why start something like that?

Point 3: "Apparently, there's not much future in x86 chips (according to many posters on this thread"

Where's the facts to back this up, rather than heresay. Both Intel and AMD are releasing dual-core and 64bit chips which clearly out perform a dual G5 processor system. The G5 chip isn't scaling well at all, we are over 1.5 years since Apple first released their first G5 tower and chips have only gone from 1.6 to 2.5GHz. Where is that ever elusive 3GHz system Job's was promising over 6 months ago? The fact is that both processor families are not growing exponentially any more!

Actually, you putting this on Jobs shows that you are not completely clear on who is behind Apple's processors.

IBM is currently the industry leader in processor development. Period.

You talk about Intel and AMD releasing dual-core 64-bit chips, but IBM had the POWER4 (a dual-core 64-bit chip) years ago. Who do you think Intel and AMD are copying?

The 970 series has two important technologies which have to be brought along with it as IBM improves those processors, Altivec and 32-bit compatibility. The 970 may be based on the POWER4, but it is different enough that it's development can't move in sync with the POWER line.

There is a reason why the PowerPC and POWER lines of processors dominates the top of the super computer list... they are just better processors.

 

[BenRoethig]

Point 2: "It would destroy Apple's hardware sales (responsible for 60% of profits)

Microsoft is proof that you do not need to rely upon hardware sales to turn a healthy profit. Apple could continue to sell its hardware, perhaps marketing it as the 'full' experience. The PC market is massive in comparison to that of the Mac, there is a market out there now for people who want an alternative, quality operating system that is more secure, user friendly (rules out Linux!), and doesn't require them to go out and purchase new hardware.

Plus there's one point that nobody seem to comprehend: Apple Makes unique machines. Exactly how many windows boxes look anything like the iMac or the MacMini? Apple's machines may not always be practical, but they fill an unique niche. Honestly, how many of you id you had the choice between a cooling looking iMac and a plain Jane ATX tower running the same OS would choose the later?

 

[PCMacUser]

IBM is currently the industry leader in processor development. Period.

You talk about Intel and AMD releasing dual-core 64-bit chips, but IBM had the POWER4 (a dual-core 64-bit chip) years ago. Who do you think Intel and AMD are copying?

I don't want to engage in a fruitless argument, particularly with a hardcore fanboy but I do want to suggest that accusing Intel and AMD of copying somebody else's technology isn't necessarily truthful. My understanding of IBM's approach to their 64 bit technology was that they started with a server processor and downscaled it for desktop use, whereas AMD and Intel's approach was to start with a 32 bit desktop processor and scale it up to a 64 bit desktop processor. But it was an Apple tech that told me that, so I can't verify its accuracy...

 

[PCMacUser]

Plus there's one point that nobody seem to comprehend: Apple Makes unique machines. Exactly how many windows boxes look anything like the iMac or the MacMini? Apple's machines may not always be practical, but they fill an unique niche. Honestly, how many of you id you had the choice between a cooling looking iMac and a plain Jane ATX tower running the same OS would choose the later?

To be honest, I think the iMac is quite cool looking (although I think they should bring out a "U2" coloured version), but the first thing that goes through my head when I look at it is 'how am I going to install any extra hardware in that?', so I'd have to go for the ATX styled case like a G5 Powermac.