Mac OS X on a PC?

[jiggie2g]

as an apple certified technician i can tell you the dual 2.5GHz g5 uses active watercooling, there is your AMD getting owned http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html in all but one test, (your amd has 512k cache so will suck. we dont give a **** about your overclock i could overclock a G4 with liquid nitrocgen and beat the **** out of pretty much anything non overclocked do you care? no.

i'm not just taking wild guesses here i have information , i know 100% the G5's will be updated within the next month with dual core chips.

Uhh buddy last time i checked the G5 also had 512k L2 cache http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

and still used (Gasp) AGP , an FX 5200($55 card) and to add further insult uses cheap'o 3ns cas latency ram(256Mb standard) which is the cheapest and slowest form of DDR u can buy. on a $2000+ machine , but what do i know as you mac Zealots perfer form over function.

as for your beafeats beanchmarks , you see most of those apps are MP aware apps and when it's not the FX-55 is destroying it. when the playing field is even MP vs. MP the G5 is getting owned by the Xenon and Opteron in all but
Affter Effects AND Bryce.

Even the Writer of this artice mentions the G5 winning only 2 of 5 benchmarks and these Apps favoring Mac hardware.

Did you foget the 2nd page ..look at that FX-55 w/ SLI ......Fly.

here's another review of the 2.5ghz G5 from Cnet

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Power_Mac_G5_dual_2_5GHz/4505-3118_7-30912295-2.html?tag=top

Lastly you forget that the top end G5 is almost 3K US minus Monitor while my setup mentioned in the above post cost me about $1200 US

P.S. it's interesting how barefeats fails to post more SP beanchmarks.

 

[jared_kipe]

PC hardware is a little bit cheaper for older technology, but its more expensive if you want the bleeding edge tech. I think anybody who is going to sit around and spec out PC's all day long on a mac forum just doesn't understand it. Those are the ones who want OSX on x86 hardware, because they spend their small meaningless lives trying to get everyone else to jump ship into their own little geek world. That isn't going to happen boys.

So you can go home and do what-you-do-in-your-locked-bedrooms-at-night over Tiger. But at the end of the day, its the mac users who get to use that fine ass operating system.

 

[Mord]

Uhh buddy last time i checked the G5 also had 512k L2 cache http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

and still used (Gasp) AGP , an FX 5200($55 card) and to add further insult uses cheap'o 3ns cas latency ram(256Mb standard) which is the cheapest and slowest form of DDR u can buy. on a $2000+ machine , but what do i know as you mac Zealots perfer form over function.

as for your beafeats beanchmarks , you see most of those apps are MP aware apps and when it's not the FX-55 is destroying it. when the playing field is even MP vs. MP the G5 is getting owned by the Xenon and Opteron in all but
Affter Effects AND Bryce.

Even the Writer of this artice mentions the G5 winning only 2 of 5 benchmarks and these Apps favoring Mac hardware.

Did you foget the 2nd page ..look at that FX-55 w/ SLI ......Fly.

here's another review of the 2.5ghz G5 from Cnet

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Power_Mac_G5_dual_2_5GHz/4505-3118_7-30912295-2.html?tag=top

Lastly you forget that the top end G5 is almost 3K US minus Monitor while my setup mentioned in the above post cost me about $1200 US

P.S. it's interesting how barefeats fails to post more SP beanchmarks.

the cache is more or less importent depending on the cpu, i ment that your AMD wont do as well as a FX because it has 1MB L2 cache.

 

[jiggie2g]

the cache is more or less importent depending on the cpu, i ment that your AMD wont do as well as a FX because it has 1MB L2 cache.

It's not that big a deal I say my CPU should atleast perform atleast as fast as a Athlon 4000+ 2.4ghz 1MB L2 cache , being that my CPU is clocked 200mhz higher it should balance out the lack of cache on chip. plus the FX-55 is maybe 5-7% faster then a 4000+.
I may actually sell the CPU on ebay and get a Venice chip when they come out next week as i've been hearing stories of it over clocking up to 2.8-ghz on stock voltage thats insane , i've seen 3.4ghz water cooled . this may be AMD's fineset chip yet. San Diego(FX line) is the same as Venice except with 1MB L2 cache , FX-57 is expected to come in at 2.8ghz.

 

[Beeblebrox]

Beeblebrox is just trolling the forums guys. I'm pretty sure Beeblebrox/Timelessblur and another are all the same person.

Looks like someone has detected a non-kool aid drinker and doesn't like it.

As I said before, I quite happily use both systems. I'm not sure why that's so sacriligious to some people. No, I don't pretend that everything Mac is great and everything Windows sucks, but I don't personally consider that a negative.

Btw, the hardware discussion has now gone completely beyond me (I'm a filmmaker not a techie) so have at it.

PSS: No I'm not Timelessblur, although I do agree with him on a lot and appreciate the fact that there are still some Mac users that aren't part of the cult.

 

[mtscott]

Looks like someone has detected a non-kool aid drinker and doesn't like it.

You don't drink kool-aid? What's wrong with kool-aid?

I think anybody who is going to sit around and spec out PC's all day long on a mac forum just doesn't understand it. Those are the ones who want OSX on x86 hardware, because they spend their small meaningless lives trying to get everyone else to jump ship into their own little geek world. That isn't going to happen boys.

I must say, I totally agree. It seems like those people who've got this massive hate on for Mac hardware also spend their time finding benchmark after benchmark that "proves" that the x86 is so much better/faster, or every permutaion of hardware that makes an x86 machine "cheaper" than a Mac. And all those people that do sit around on a Mac forum, and attempt to counter every good thing about a Mac with what they think is negative don't get it either. They're even more annoying than Mac lovers on x86 forums.

 

[FFTT]

A whole lot of people fall for the "cheaper is better" routine or finances
simply don't permit an alternative.

That same mentality applies to buying a loaded big block American V8
or considering the benefits of a more efficient and reliable import.

Running OSX on X86 equipment makes about as much sense as
installing a Ferrari motor in a Buick

 

[slooksterPSV]

...

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Power_Mac_G5_dual_2_5GHz/4505-3118_7-30912295-2.html?tag=top
...

Uhh... there's something wrong with the benchmarks they did.

System configurations:


Apple eMac
Mac OS X 10.3.3; 1.25GHz PowerPC G4; 256MB DDR SDRAM 333MHz; 32MB ATI Radeon 9200; 80GB 7,200rpm Ultra ATA/100


Apple iMac G5
Mac OS X 10.3.5; 1.8GHz PowerPC G5; 512MB DDR SDRAM 400MHz; 64MB Nvidia GeForce FX 5200; 80GB 7,200rpm Serial ATA


Apple Power Mac G5 dual 2.0GHz
Mac OS X 10.2.7; Dual 2.0GHz PowerPC G5; 2048MB DDR SDRAM 400MHz; 128MB ATI Radeon 9600 Pro; 160GB 7,200rpm Serial ATA


Apple Power Mac G5 dual 2.5GHz
Mac OS X 10.3.5; Dual 2.5GHz PowerPC G5; 4,096MB DDR SDRAM 400MHz; 256MB ATI Radeon 9800; 160GB 7,200rpm Serial ATA


Bully Computers Tyrant
Windows XP Professional SP2; 3.2GHz Intel P4 Extreme; Intel 875P chipset; 1,024MB DDR SDRAM 400MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 GT (AGP); two WDC WD740GD-00FLX0 74GB 10,000rpm Serial ATA; WDC WD2000JD-00HBB0 200GB Serial ATA 7,200rpm; integrated Intel 82801ER SATA RAID controller


Velocity Micro ProMagix PCX
Windows XP Professional; 3.6GHz Intel P4 560; Intel 925X chipset; 1,024MB DDR2 SDRAM 533MHz; 256MB Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra (PCIe) ; two WDC WD740GD-00FLX0 74GB 10,000rpm Serial ATA; Hitachi HDS724040KLSA80 400GB Serial ATA 7,200rpm; integrated Intel 82801FR SATA RAID controller

All of the OSes were different versions. They should all be the same versions, and have the same specs for VRAM, and Video Card Type, etc. to have a real benchmark.

 

[jiggie2g]

Uhh... there's something wrong with the benchmarks they did.

All of the OSes were different versions. They should all be the same versions, and have the same specs for VRAM, and Video Card Type, etc. to have a real benchmark.

Like it matters , as you see the fastest mac had the most recet version of OSX at the time and still got pummeled by a P4....LOL. That's just shameful considering the G5 has 2 CPU's.

A whole lot of people fall for the "cheaper is better" routine or finances
simply don't permit an alternative.

That same mentality applies to buying a loaded big block American V8
or considering the benefits of a more efficient and reliable import.

Running OSX on X86 equipment makes about as much sense as
installing a Ferrari motor in a Buick

Well is puting a great OS in a pc is like putting a Ferrari Engine in a Buick then i guess keeping it in a old parts Mac would be like putting that same Ferrari engine in a cheap Import Ricer Car.

 

[FFTT]

Well no actually, it's like putting NOX in a rice burner

 

[Mord]

it's not even like that, remember the most expensive part of the emac is the case, the cost of macs is cause by the high quality design and parts in them not weather it has an x86 or ppc cpu in it.

Like it matters , as you see the fastest mac had the most recet version of OSX at the time and still got pummeled by a P4....LOL. That's just shameful considering the G5 has 2 CPU's.

the tests were HD intencive and both PC's had a 10,000rpm RAID array, what the hell do you expect, and the pc has a gpu that is twice as fast as the g5's.

 

[jiggie2g]

it's not even like that, remember the most expensive part of the emac is the case, the cost of macs is cause by the high quality design and parts in them not weather it has an x86 or ppc cpu in it.



the tests were HD intencive and both PC's had a 10,000rpm RAID array, what the hell do you expect, and the pc has a gpu that is twice as fast as the g5's.

I admit that those 10,00rpm Raptors are a big factor ,RAID Array maybe a little ...personally I think RAID is hype. Last year RAID was the next big thing then Anantech blew the lid off RAID proving that it was more hype then anything. Until 4Q 2004 all the PC vendors were offering RAID everything, now u can hardly find it except in Servers and High End Alienware stuff.

I think The Hypertreading may have been the biggest factor in this test as it's a monster when it come to stuff like filtering/encoding/rendering. as for the 6800 GT it is a well known fact amoung PC hardware Enthusiast that the GT is not very good at Video Acceleration or Hardware mpeg Assist , actually the 6600GT is much better fot that stuff as the Video chips was upgraded for that card.

That 6800Gt is a Phenomenal Gaming card , but thats about al it's good at, which is why I choose the ATI Radeon X800XL over it besides price. Nvidia's biggest advantge is just Shader Model 3.0 rendering and realtime 32bit Color Precision but the card chokes when this feature is turned on , ask any one who has played Chronicles of Riddick.

Nvidia 6800GT 256bit , 256MB GDDR3
Verticles/Polygons....540 Million/sec
Core 350mhz / Memory 1000mhz
Memory Bandwidth 32.0 GB/sec
Fillrate M Texels/ M Pixels.... 5600/sec

ATI X800XL 256bit , 256MB GDDR3
Verticles/Polygons....600 Million/sec
Core 400mhz / Memory 980mhz
Memory Bandwidth 31.4 GB/sec
Fillrate M Texels/ M Pixels.... 6400/sec

 

[im_to_hyper]

OS X on a computer by a PC manufacturer, yes

I posted this as part of my response to the built-in iPod dock thread:

I am still hoping for a future in which HP will run Mac OS X. BUT, I don't think they should run it on an Intel or AMD processer. I don't see why people are so stuck on the topic of PC manufactures running OS X on x86 hardware -- I think we should talk up the subject of letting HP manufacture "Apple Clones".

Yes, of course, the already discussed subject of revenue loss but what if Apple charged a liscensing fee of some sort both for using Mac OS X and for using Apple-compatible hardware. I don't think sales of Apple hardware would shrink as the multitudes of the Mac faithful would continue to buy from Apple. More people would continue to buy Apple hardware since computer upgrades would be added to Apple products 3-6 weeks before an update by HP and iPod updates would occur by HP 4-8 weeks after new Apple releases.

In conclusion, instead of focusing on the iPod dock semi-integration as well as HP-branded iPods and using an Apple-esque color scheme as an attempt to copy Apple, think of it as an attempt to join Apple and eventually sell Apple-compatible hardware based on the PowerPC architecture rather than x86.

Comments appreciated.

 

[jane doe]

They did this in the '90s. The sales of Apple Machines did shrink, they did loose money and it almost put them out of business. Oh, they did charge fees to "cloners" but it was not enough to sustain the business. Apple still had the same overhead in R&D but did not see the revenue from sales.

 

[BenRoethig]

They did this in the '90s. The sales of Apple Machines did shrink, they did loose money and it almost put them out of business. Oh, they did charge fees to "cloners" but it was not enough to sustain the business. Apple still had the same overhead in R&D but did not see the revenue from sales.

Yes we'll have the same results now when Apple is popular, there are differences between the machines Apple computers and PCs, and major PC makers would be involved as back in the 90s when you couldn't tell a Mac and PC and with upstart computer makers. A lot has changed in the last decade.

 

[jane doe]

Apple will not port to X86 or allow a clone. I do think (and hope) that Apple does take the success of the mini to heart and look into other markets. Going after publishing and genetic research will work for now but there are areas of science that Apple is not paying attention to and complete markets that they should cater to.

Whats going to open the market up more then anything is when business start deploying Macs, people working at those companies will buy Macs because "thats what I use at work". This is the same thing that allow wintel boxes to become so popular.

Once you start to "clone" or otherwise sell off the Mac OS, you loose the opportunity to gain market share as a company (Apple).

 

[FFTT]

Apple will not port to X86 or allow a clone. I do think (and hope) that Apple does take the success of the mini to heart and look into other markets. Going after publishing and genetic research will work for now but there are areas of science that Apple is not paying attention to and complete markets that they should cater to.

Whats going to open the market up more then anything is when business start deploying Macs, people working at those companies will buy Macs because "thats what I use at work". This is the same thing that allow wintel boxes to become so popular.

Once you start to "clone" or otherwise sell off the Mac OS, you loose the opportunity to gain market share as a company (Apple).

It may take some major doing to convince corporate users to break the chains of their embedded Microsoft Certified IT support dependancies, but the cost of replacing all that gear over the next 2 years will certainly have them crunching numbers when they consider the cost of upgrading to Longhorn compliant hardware, desktop and server licensing, software upgrades and retraining expenses.

Apple could easily offer a corporate software bundle along with bulk purchase pricing to make major system overhauls much more attractive.
All this with Unix based OSX 10.4 Tiger ready to roll in a matter of days.

 

[~loserman~]

It may take some major doing to convince corporate users to break the chains of their embedded Microsoft Certified IT support dependancies, but the cost of replacing all that gear over the next 2 years will certainly have them crunching numbers when they consider the cost of upgrading to Longhorn compliant hardware, desktop and server licensing, software upgrades and retraining expenses.

Apple could easily offer a corporate software bundle along with bulk purchase pricing to make major system overhauls much more attractive.
All this with Unix based OSX 10.4 Tiger ready to roll in a matter of days.

The largest hurdle for Apple to overcome in the Corporate IT market is the majority of IT departments rely on Windows based applications.

 

[FFTT]

Can Apple gain enterprise traction?

The largest hurdle for Apple to overcome in the Corporate IT market is the majority of IT departments rely on Windows based applications.

Of course I understand that some truly custom application may make it difficult to consider alternatives, but many high level IT personnel are not even aware of what OSX offers them.

There's also that MS certified comfort zone that has many highly paid
IT managers perfectly happy with the way things are.
Microsoft vulnerabilites quite literally insuring their job security.

I found this post over at eWeek and thought it applies here quite well.

Speaking in generalities such as "there's not any business software for the Mac" is a dangerous thing. Each person or company's needs are unique -- although there are certainly some common tools used in some situations. Regardless, let's look at Apple's Software Database of their own and third party applications to see what's there. The root of the database: http://guide.apple.com/in dex.lasso There are Development tools and data integration. Internet and Web publishing. Productivity and Utilities, including database uses. Servers and networking, including Database Servers & Utilities, File Servers and FTP Servers. And finally, Business and Vertical Markets. This includes categories for solutions in Accounting, General Management, Grants, Groupware, Inventory & Stock Control, Job Costing, Payroll, Project Management & Planning, Taxation, and Time & Billing software. What is ironic is that Apple's own database doesn't mention the fact that Novell has a Groupwise client for Mac OS X, as well as eDirectory Schema for Mac OS X. Further irony can be found in the absence of Citrix' client for Mac OS X in their database. There is also Lotus Notes for OS X and even Oracle Database Server and client for OS X. And finally, Microsoft Entourage, part of MS Office/Mac, can connect to Exchange servers. And then, there are flavours of Linux that can be run on a Mac. Google "Linux, PPC" and see for yourself. The point, however and in my view, of using Macintosh hardware is to USE Mac OS, itself, and benefit from its advantages... like NOT watching an entire homogeneous network get crippled by a virus. And then, there's Apple's unlimited client license with OS X Server. I'm SURE that this impacts on the old TOC somewhere down the road... There's the fact that OS X can connect to Windows networks without third party software. And -- in a crunch -- there's the possibility of VirtualPC and MS's free remote Desktop Manager if at all needed. SO, HOPEFULLY we can all see that there's more to the Mac platform than meets the eye and that it is due time to give up dated notions and bias. Will a Mac solution apply in every case? Far from it. BUT, I'd bet that it would apply in MANY more scenarios than most people would assume. And, with the Mac Mini as a cheap client option (think "volume discounts" below the US$499.00), the notion of Macs in the enterprise becomes more viable. Really, the biggest question regarding this isn't so much about the solutions available, as there are certainly ones to consider; the question is one of Apple's longterm commitment to xServe, OS X Server and continuing the Mac Mini price-point. Prior to the return of Steve Jobs, Apple burned a lot of bridges. And despite them utilizing some compelling technologies, they do have some trust to be earned. I believe such trust -- pending review of the needs of a company as they consider this platform -- would be well placed. BTW, check out these sites: http://macenterprise.org/ http://www.macwindows.com

 

[Yvan256]

Résumé of all the 29 pages:
- hardware knowledge pissing contest
- x86 users think a computer is only made of hardware
- x86 users don't get the software part of the computer (OS X, iLife, etc)
- some x86 users are STILL too cheap to buy a Mac mini and/or will never buy an "underpowered" machine.

Let me tell you this: I think my Mac mini 1.42GHz/512MB/OS X/iLife/iWork is way better than my Athlon XP 2600+/1GB/Windows XP/iTunes/OpenOffice in actual use, which is what computers are for, remember?

Stop quoting numbers and hardware: compare your computing experience. That's why I switched, that's why my brother is gonna switch when Tiger comes out, that's why I won't be fixing other people's computers anymore (and recommend a Mac mini, gaming aside).

Bah, stay in your x86/Microsoft-world if you like it. I know I didn't.

 

[im_to_hyper]

Apple will not port to X86 or allow a clone. I do think (and hope) that Apple does take the success of the mini to heart and look into other markets. Going after publishing and genetic research will work for now but there are areas of science that Apple is not paying attention to and complete markets that they should cater to.

Whats going to open the market up more then anything is when business start deploying Macs, people working at those companies will buy Macs because "thats what I use at work". This is the same thing that allow wintel boxes to become so popular.

Once you start to "clone" or otherwise sell off the Mac OS, you loose the opportunity to gain market share as a company (Apple).

That is true, maybe. But consider how much the market has changed.

Another thing that could be done is the "HP+mini" for an HP-branded and supported Mac Mini of which Apple would get most of the revenue. It probably wouldn't cut into HPs own current sales at all. In fact, selling the mini would probably expand sales of both the mini and HPs lineup, thus benefitting both companies.