Now you've done it. This is like pointing out how the same people who go about saying Macs last longer and are more reliable than PCs are the first to deem Applecare a requirement for all Mac purchases.
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.
Mac OS X should be available for the PC platform
- Thread starter StateCCM
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now you've done it. This is like pointing out how the same people who go about saying Macs last longer and are more reliable than PCs are the first to deem Applecare a requirement for all Mac purchases.
That is not a fair comparison. The Mac Pro uses a server class motherboard and RAM. The Dell you linked is just a consumer class computer. Compare a Dell using Xeons for a fair comparison otherwise your numbers are pretty meaningless.
whats the difference of "server class" mainboard and RAM? how much more do they cost?
So you want to run an operating system with buggy software and exacerbate it by trying to run it on a wide variety of x86 hardware? Wait wasn't this about putting OS X on all "PC" hardware instead of pointing out how buggy running OS X can be?
Dual/multi socket and support for FB-DIMMs. There are quite a few Xeons that are just rebadged desktop Core 2 Duo and Quad parts for single socket, DDR2 workstations. So just saying Xeon/Opteron doesn't always apply.
Why waste money on so many licenses for individual machines when you can run Terminal Services. SunRays are love. <3
nice one
Also, I wouldn't want OS X to be put on PCs. OS X is like an engine of a car. The other hardware are like the shocks, chassis, and struts of a car. Apple makes computer with hardware that is tailor made to run OS X smoothly. If one were to put OS X on random hardware, it would be like everyone building go carts with different parts but they all use the same engine. The transmission and the frame of the car likely wouldn't be optimised for the engine and will fall apart after a while.
I also like how Apple is like a car manufacturer where all their computer models have actual names. This way, computers are more recognizable and all their models get reviewed. I hate how all the other manufacturers make so many models (with little differences between each one), that it's hard for a novice to figure out which one to get. Apple nomenclature distinguishes between consumer and pro models unlike hp who apparently uses a random number generator for their model names.
Duff-Man says...I have not posted much in the last while, and here I look at this moment and see not one but *three* threads on the first page all about that old beaten to death a thousand times over topic of OS X on non-Apple hardware. I have looked at all three threads and seen nothing but the same points pro/con that have been made countless times over the last few years.
Is there something wrong with the search feature here? Do the starters of all these threads not see that this has been done to death? Do the people responding (and it is frequently the same people) not get tired of it?
Here's an idea....newbies - search first. Veterans - don't feed the same arguments...one response saying "search - it's been done to death" or even get the mods to lock the threads.....oh yeah!
Is there something wrong with the search feature here? Do the starters of all these threads not see that this has been done to death? Do the people responding (and it is frequently the same people) not get tired of it?
Here's an idea....newbies - search first. Veterans - don't feed the same arguments...one response saying "search - it's been done to death" or even get the mods to lock the threads.....oh yeah!
I got tired of it. That's why I haven't responded yet. Same old, same old. Now someone just needs to mention the green zoom and the one-button mouse.
It is exactly the same hardware. Seriously, perhaps you should try learning about the subject before you try to attack Macs?
And you received a less stable system and absolutely no measurable gain out of it. For all practical purposes, 260Mhz is meaningless these days.
As Cromulent apparently just said, do some research.
Retard if your a kid playing with over-clocking boasting you got 260 MHz is really lame i got more out of over clocking a pentium 1 200 MHz to 500 MHz with a lot of tweaking and ice before it frazzled. And if im not mistaken you got a current AMD chip well if its a Phenom(pronounced venom) you got a really bad deal. They are buggy with VM and much slower than intel Core2duo/quad.
When you over-clock your CPU past 4 GHz which it should manage fine on a decent motherboard and then add another 3 graphics cards and over clock them you mite be able to get Crysis to play acceptably. But thats all you can do with it its a glorified Playstation that will be out of date in 3 months and on the date you bought it and overclocked it it lost 70% of its value and lifetime.
Enjoy your Playstation.
Software alone could “support” Apple, but they wouldn't make as much. Typically there are bigger margins to be made on hardware than software. Rightly or wrongly far more people feel less guilty about pirating software than going into a store and lifting a computer.
The bit about “OS X is so much better than Windows” were your words, not mine.
MS can do well with Software because they have worked hard to sign deals with OEMs and large companies etc.
Replicating all that would be hard, cause Microsoft have got a huge head start and already established relations.
Also Apple would have to restructure their business (think of support etc.). Why restructure a multi billion dollar business that is growing year on year?
It's nonsensical.
I'm not saying it's never going to happen, but why sell a slice of the cake when you are doing so well selling the whole cake?
No offense, and I probably not saying this to you. but I found its so ironic.
Some mac users accuse M$ didn't totally re-write windows from scratch for vista. That sounds like a redo-ing everything with a still dominating 95% market product, why? They seems to think apple is the one who is "willing" to re-do from scratch.
Also, when asking people, especially business users, to switch to OSX, who is considering their expense of restructure of IT service line?
Finally, This is response to what you said, Im curious to know how much better do you think of OSX than windows.
Also
I have to agree, this is the one of the very few open-ness from M$, and I support everything that is open...
Businesses cannot do vista home basic, they have to do the Business edition at minimum if you want things like being able to log into a Windows domain.
Reinvigorating a product and changing business plans are different, so I don't understand.
Maybe that's why Apple has made so little headway in the enterprise. Thi
I'm very comfortable with the Macintosh, I have used it for ~9 years now and every version of OS X, so I'm obviously biased towards it. I have used Windows 95, NT 4, 98, XP, and Vista. I'm not saying everything is perfect, but here's what I have found. These are my experiences:
[1] Macintosh Applications on the whole tend to have simpler, more coherent and consistent user interfaces which I find more conducive to having a productive environment.
I'll give you a concrete example: Application Preferences on a typical Mac App are very streamlined and it is easy to find what you are looking for, whereas on other platforms the convention is to offer long lists of options, which you have spend time manually scrolling through and reading each one.
[2] OS X tends not to need as much nannying as Windows. Often I see Win XP computers grind to a halt because they are full of bloat.
[3] Less stuff tends to break and not work for no obvious reason. Also related to this is that you get fewer cryptic error messages on the Mac. Maybe this is because the Mac supports less hardware. If so, then I don't care to be honest. All I care about is that is works.
I don't understand this I'm afraid. What are you saying: MS selling a proprietary operating systems to companies is an example of openness? (Obviously not! I need more details before I can fully understand your point).
Love it
"The poor man pays twice" is another nice proverb that's similar to that one
Wow great you just quartered your CPU life for no performance gain.
Depends which your talking about, the macbook/pro has just been updated, there good value. Same for the mac pro (try and find 8 cores at 2.8ghz for the same price). iMac and mac mini havent been updated in a while, they are expensive. Mac hardware is not crap, the motherboards are not garbage, there using the newest technology on most of their products, unlike other vendors. They are crap from a point of view that because most are laptop components, and laptop components aren't as good as desktop components. The Mac Pro was more expensive than the XPS, basically because it uses server/workstation components (better). And they offer huge amounts of expandability (can the xps take 2 cpu's).
By having an OS incompatible with most hardware, and not selling any of their own hardware?
Please do yourself a favour and don't join a forum and start talking out your rear, it makes you look stupid.
Good question!
Caution! - - do not read this post! It is absolute BS dreamed up by a crack-head.
Please see my correction later in this thread.
It's pretty obvious that while Apple has a very limited number of configurations, Dell has many, and a custom builder can have an infinite variety of configurations.
As for price, I just now started pricing a Mac Pro versus a Dell 490 and found this:
Mac Pro
Base: $2799
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $1,600
4GB RAM: $540
total: $4939
Dell 490
Base: $1369
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $2,459
4GB RAM: $500
total: $2959
No real need to price-out the remaining options.
Caution! - - do not read this post! It is absolute BS dreamed up by a crack-head.
Please see my correction later in this thread.
My primary reason for wanting to run OS X on "standard" PC hardware is because of the configuration flexibility and lower cost.
It's pretty obvious that while Apple has a very limited number of configurations, Dell has many, and a custom builder can have an infinite variety of configurations.
As for price, I just now started pricing a Mac Pro versus a Dell 490 and found this:
Mac Pro
Base: $2799
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $1,600
4GB RAM: $540
total: $4939
Dell 490
Base: $1369
2x 3.0GHz Quad Xeon: $2,459
4GB RAM: $500
total: $2959
No real need to price-out the remaining options.
WOWWWW. You will not be able to tell the difference and please don't say you can because it's a small bump. Also why overclock when it creates more heat and a good chance of shortening the life of the processor. There is absolutely no real reason to overclock today's processors as there is more than enough processing power to satisfy any user's applications and gaming needs.