Macintosh OS X on a PC

[Neuro]

Past history on Hypography

If you have hovered over the thread titled Ah, the joys of vista! then you have no doubt noticed my attempted stance at defending Microsoft's role in the world as providing just another operating system that happens to have the largest market share of the three. I was widely and subtly criticized by people who seemed to idolize the Macintosh and Linux approaches to computing. I was dubbed a Microsoft fanatic for my position and claimed a heretic. I defended my position quite well by simply stating as a moderate defending a rational view, "If you view a moderate to be a radical, then you can be sure you are a radical."

 

After a while no one really argued against my words and simply went on to discuss similarities between conventions used in competing operating systems as well as wild claims of innovation always in favor of one of the big three in some fanatical attempt at propaganda. I am not here to reboot that discussion but am here to simply explain what I am about to say, this is just the pre-amble to set the scene.

 

My experience with Macintosh in the past

I have always viewed Macintosh as just another Microsoft. People can say what they like, however, if you dig deeply you will note that both Macintosh and Microsoft are just companies making money. Demonizing one instead of the other just makes you a living, walking, and breathing advertisement campaign of that company.

 

My primary problem with ever buying a Mac is that they do not have the widespread support for gaming that is critical to home-users; this was also my primary complaint with Linux, which is in an even worse situation because there is no one to complain to.

 

My secondary problem with Macs is that their operating system is only supported to work for an Apple computer, which is a bit of a turn off. Monopolies of any kind are parasitic, but just imagine the horror of a Microsoft PC being the only thing that ran Windows in a Windows world! This complaint is then just one of principle and not of much depth.

 

So why the thread?

I believe I am not fluent enough with Macintosh software in a way that would be comparable to my familiarity with Linux and Windows. In the future, a Mac may be the proper choice for me and in order to determine that I would have to have at least some experience with their latest operating systems and ways of doing things.

 

Fortunately so, I’ve caught wind via a YouTube video that Mac OS X can be made to run on a PC with certain hardware. I quickly began researching and found an IRC chat that was helpful and directed me to a list of supported PC hardware. The list of hardware that was supported contained all of my components which make this task seem worth embarking on. Thus, I am going to obtain a software license for their operating system tomorrow and begin installing it. More updates to take place later on with my review of this process, the operating system, and the usability of such software on a PC.

 

The reasoning for the poll…

If you think I have a pro Microsoft bias, just for the sake of it, vote in the poll but please do not post about it in the thread. The poll is to humour me and to let you discuss your dismay with my opinions without derailing the thread. I repeat, do not talk about Microsoft copycatting or being my operating system of choice in this thread!

[Queso]

iRepresent :) :)

[Queso]

Actually . .

could you change my vote to the first one?:)

[Buffy]

Actually . . . could you change my vote to the first one?

You don't want to Orb: remember Neuro said:

The poll is to humour me...

..so you you perfectly contribute to that spirit with the vote you chose! :)

 

Interesting project Neuro, its definitely supposed to be doable... This will be fun to follow!

 

Good luck!

Buffy

[Tormod]

Before you read this, please note I'm in a good mood today and am not trying to offend, okay? I just want to provide some real feedback on the "hardware lock-in" argument.

 

and simply went on to discuss similarities between conventions used in competing operating systems as well as wild claims of innovation always in favor of one of the big three in some fanatical attempt at propaganda.

 

I thought it turned into a fun thread, too.

 

My primary problem with ever buying a Mac is that they do not have the widespread support for gaming that is critical to home-users

 

1) Games for Mac OS X:

The Apple Store (U.S.) - Software

 

Granted, not the widest selection. But more than I have for my PC, at any rate.

 

2) The Mac has never been pitted as a gaming platform, and as such it's pointless to compare it to the PC as such. As a productivity platform the comparison becomes more useful.

 

My secondary problem with Macs is that their operating system is only supported to work for an Apple computer, which is a bit of a turn off.

 

This is true, although it's not a turn-off for me. The Apple hardware I have used has always been vastly superior to any PC I have used. However, that says nothing about PCs in general, but more about my budget.

 

Monopolies of any kind are parasitic, but just imagine the horror of a Microsoft PC being the only thing that ran Windows in a Windows world! This complaint is then just one of principle and not of much depth.

 

Well I don't buy this argument. First of all, when Apple release their first PC (before the IBM PC was introduced), their decision to lock the OS into the hardware was taken. They were not the only ones: look at all the micro computers of that age - the Commodore 64, Vic 20, ZX Spectrum, Acorn, Amstrad, Atari. They all ran proprietary OS based on varieties of chips.

 

Also, there has never been a Microsoft PC. Instead, the IBM PC had the reign for a very brief time, but then the clones came (some still talk about "IBM Compatible"...which is sort of outdated). Today, I think most people think of anything *but* Microsoft when they buy a computer. That the OS comes with the computer is something else. I'd argue that Microsoft has a near monopoly on the PC OS market because they have worked closely with all PC makers and made sure it is easy to build a computer that runs Windows.

 

Apple has this choice but refuses to make a PC version of OS X.

 

There were even Macintosh clones, most notably the PowerPC ones. IT was an interesting experiment (I almost bought one at the time) but in the end Apple quenched it for obvious reasons (it was a threat to their monopoly).

Macintosh clone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Job's argument was, IIRC, that Apple software should only run on an Apple computer, period.

 

Is Apple a monopoly? I am not sure. Do you have to own a Mac to use Mac OS? Yes (with the possible exception you will be working on). Do you have to use a Mac to use *all* Apple products? No. iPods, which arguably is the reason most people have heard of Apple these days, work fine with PCs.

 

Apple's market share in the personal computing market is less than 6 percent (source). Does that make them a monopolist? If so, doesn't that mean that every printer maker is also a monopolist, since you are locked into using their ink cartridges...

 

But if we think again. I can buy a MacPro tower today and change the hard drive, the graphics card, the mouse, the keyboard, get another DVD burner etc. So am I really locked in?

 

Apple hardware is also getting cheaper. No, let's not compare specs but whether they do what you buy them to do. An Apple MacBook is now an affordable machine for any "normal" PC user. A lot of people are jumping ship and getting Macs because they look cool.

 

I'd rather spend $1500 on a MacBook (which includes OS X) than tweaking my custom built PC to run OS X. But hey, that's just me.

 

I think that if Apple released a PC version of OS X, they would quickly take 20-30 % of the OS market. But obviously their market lies elsewhere, or they would have done it long ago.

 

Fortunately so, I’ve caught wind via a YouTube video that Mac OS X can be made to run on a PC with certain hardware.

 

This was done already last summer so it should be possible. But whether it works will be interesting. Please let us know how it pans out.

[Neuro]

1) Games for Mac OS X:

The Apple Store (U.S.) - Software

 

Granted, not the widest selection. But more than I have for my PC, at any rate.

 

2) The Mac has never been pitted as a gaming platform, and as such it's pointless to compare it to the PC as such. As a productivity platform the comparison becomes more useful.

 

With their current advertising campaigns you would be nearly positive that they are trying to attract the type of users that would likely want to play games. Going by what you said in the above quote, surely you are compelled to agree with me that their advertisements are misleading in every way. The image they are trying to develop is that PCs are about work, business, and so on while Macs are way to go if you want fun and games. Quite the opposite from the truth when we factor in that the Apple Store lists only 68 games that are compatible with a Mac while at the same time we know virtually every title in existence will run on Windows.

 

To further the point, only the ultra mainstream games are made for the Mac platform. These games are typically played by the masses and are made by large companies with the resources to produce multiplatform games such as EA and Blizzard. The problem with this is that gamers typically come across the odd title from a no name company that they connect with and put more hours into than any mainstream game that they’ve ever purchased. If you like games, stick with Windows. End of story.

 

This is true, although it's not a turn-off for me. The Apple hardware I have used has always been vastly superior to any PC I have used. However, that says nothing about PCs in general, but more about my budget.

The Apple hardware is typically powerful for the cost. The problem I have is that as a home user I would have absolutely nothing to tap that power with unless I was to load a game, which, unfortunately is not Apple’s field of expertise.

 

If you run a studio and are doing multi-track editing on a massive scale, fine. If you are compiling things or doing some sophisticated software development that I know nothing about, fine. The problem is, how do those two highly specialist roles fit into the advertising campaigns that they blurt all over the media which seem to suggest that the one function they cannot perform in reality (gaming) is the one that they perform best?

 

Well I don't buy this argument. First of all, when Apple release their first PC (before the IBM PC was introduced), their decision to lock the OS into the hardware was taken. They were not the only ones: look at all the micro computers of that age - the Commodore 64, Vic 20, ZX Spectrum, Acorn, Amstrad, Atari. They all ran proprietary OS based on varieties of chips.

So the <generic genocidal group> weren’t bad because <earlier genocidal group> killed <earlier genocide victims> and <etc>? Is that your logic?

 

If other people do things that I dislike, it does not justify anyone else doing it. As I said, it was a matter of principle to me. A company intentionally making their software run exclusively on their hardware is not a company I caringly want to become the replacement for Microsoft.

 

I would much rather see the operating system market dominated by a company banking in on their software sales while other individually owned companies bank in on their own little sub-market niches in hardware all of which having their own small market competitors. The idea here is that it gives birth to hundreds of hardware companies and allows users to fully customize their computers through the vendors or simply build them on their own by assembling the parts themselves. You may not like this opinion of mine, but it definitely has some validity when you consider the alternative strategy being the market leader.

 

Also, there has never been a Microsoft PC. Instead, the IBM PC had the reign for a very brief time, but then the clones came (some still talk about "IBM Compatible"...which is sort of outdated). Today, I think most people think of anything *but* Microsoft when they buy a computer. That the OS comes with the computer is something else. I'd argue that Microsoft has a near monopoly on the PC OS market because they have worked closely with all PC makers and made sure it is easy to build a computer that runs Windows.

That is sort of my point. I know they have a monopoly on the operating system market and I would much rather that monopoly be held by either open-source software or licensed software over software that is locked to in-house hardware.

 

Apple has this choice but refuses to make a PC version of OS X.

That bit is quite annoying. They simply refuse.

 

There were even Macintosh clones, most notably the PowerPC ones. IT was an interesting experiment (I almost bought one at the time) but in the end Apple quenched it for obvious reasons (it was a threat to their monopoly).

Macintosh clone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Job's argument was, IIRC, that Apple software should only run on an Apple computer, period.

 

Is Apple a monopoly? I am not sure. Do you have to own a Mac to use Mac OS? Yes (with the possible exception you will be working on). Do you have to use a Mac to use *all* Apple products? No. iPods, which arguably is the reason most people have heard of Apple these days, work fine with PCs.

I wasn’t referring to them as a monopoly. I was saying, if there is going to be a hegemonic monopoly, I would much prefer it to be the licensed software over the hardware-locked software. If Apple dominated by simply competing as licensed software rather than Mac only, I would have no such gripe.

 

Apple's market share in the personal computing market is less than 6 percent (source). Does that make them a monopolist? If so, doesn't that mean that every printer maker is also a monopolist, since you are locked into using their ink cartridges...

I am not that foolish. That was not what I was saying at all. Its been addressed, just a simple misunderstanding.

 

But if we think again. I can buy a MacPro tower today and change the hard drive, the graphics card, the mouse, the keyboard, get another DVD burner etc. So am I really locked in?

You can change the mouse, keyboard, hard drive, and DVD – That is much worse than the argument that you can still game on a Mac. Besides the software, how many components on a PC are built in house at Microsoft?

 

Apple hardware is also getting cheaper. No, let's not compare specs but whether they do what you buy them to do. An Apple MacBook is now an affordable machine for any "normal" PC user. A lot of people are jumping ship and getting Macs because they look cool.

Or they could just get a regular laptop that is simply assembled by companies like Dell or Toshiba who occupy small market niches and give birth loads of competition. For 1500$ you could get a pretty nice laptop from any camp. If you might want to one day play old games on it, you might still be obligated to stick with Microsoft corp.

 

I'd rather spend $1500 on a MacBook (which includes OS X) than tweaking my custom built PC to run OS X. But hey, that's just me.

 

I think that if Apple released a PC version of OS X, they would quickly take 20-30 % of the OS market. But obviously their market lies elsewhere, or they would have done it long ago.

A learning experience. Same reason I gave Linux nonstop whirls until I was comfortable with it.

This was done already last summer so it should be possible. But whether it works will be interesting. Please let us know how it pans out.

Long story short, I think my text is well founded. There aren’t many arguments to be made. Linux can run some games too, but who wants to subject themselves to the fate of a word like some?

[Tormod]

With their current advertising campaigns you would be nearly positive that they are trying to attract the type of users that would likely want to play games. Going by what you said in the above quote, surely you are compelled to agree with me that their advertisements are misleading in every way.

 

Indeed, I agree completely. Apple goes out of their way to show how incredibly cool Apple users are, when in fact there is absolutely nothing you can do on a Mac that can't be done on a PC. I have experienced Mac support and it is horrible. They talk to prospective customers with their hip marketing and they handle existing customers with service from hell.

 

If you like games, stick with Windows. End of story.

 

Well, as I have said in other threads - if you like games, go console. But that point is moot in this thread.

 

You can change the mouse, keyboard, hard drive, and DVD – That is much worse than the argument that you can still game on a Mac. Besides the software, how many components on a PC are built in house at Microsoft?

 

None, of course, since MS don't make hardware. And I was only referring to those components most people are going to replace - home users don't swap out their motherboards, CPUs etc. Oh, and add RAM chips to the list of replacables. And just about any peripheral made by companies that bother to write OS X drivers (for example audio card manufacturers).

 

But if we look at the console market, buyers are also locked into their console. Get an Xbox, and you can only play xbox games, and you can only expand the console by buying (horribly) expensive xbox-compatible (usually made by Microsoft or their affiliates) hardware.

 

So in the console scene, Microsoft is just like Apple in the OS scene - but they at least sell the console for what it is (a gaming machine).

 

Or they could just get a regular laptop that is simply assembled by companies like Dell or Toshiba who occupy small market niches and give birth loads of competition. For 1500$ you could get a pretty nice laptop from any camp. If you might want to one day play old games on it, you might still be obligated to stick with Microsoft corp.

 

That was my point. It used to be that you couldn't get a decent Mac computer for anything less than $2000. The price is coming down and the quality is going up.

 

I agree, by licensing OS X for non-Apple computers the Apple market share would blossom. But there must be a reason for why they are not doing it, and it can't be lack of money.

 

Frankly, if OS X was released for PC, I wouldn't buy it. I like Windows and will stay on it for what it's worth.

[Neuro]

Well, as I have said in other threads - if you like games, go console. But that point is moot in this thread.

Moot indeed. However, just for the sake of discussion I will give a response.

 

PC gaming has always been legions ahead of consoles and times have not yet changed. There exist titles for any PC that range from the very first games ever to the very latest. Consoles of each generation are limited to the library that comes out for them. Technology wise, each new generation of consoles seem to start out on par with current top of the line PC technology and thus the realms share titles for a short bit. That bit never lasts long as that console soon reaches the limits of its hardware potential and the world of PC gaming infinitely evolves to truck on and triumph.

 

Look at the titles that exist for the Xbox 360 right now. If we ignore the titles that Microsoft has paid big bucks to keep as exclusives, any title that you would be interested in playing is multiplatform and exists on the PC as well. It is no debate over which system offers the most titles as it just isn’t even worth mentioning the amount of games that are released for a PC that never see the light of day on consoles. Let us not even begin to forget the potential for great modifications and player made map packs as well as all sorts of tweaks available to gamers who favor a PC over a console.

 

Long story short, PC gaming is not close to dead yet. Console gaming is mainstream and appeals to the kiddies, PC gaming has and always will have its niche market that is big enough to interest multitudes of developers.

 

None, of course, since MS don't make hardware. And I was only referring to those components most people are going to replace - home users don't swap out their motherboards, CPUs etc. Oh, and add RAM chips to the list of replacables. And just about any peripheral made by companies that bother to write OS X drivers (for example audio card manufacturers).

Home users on a PC replace anything and everything as well as build their own. The point you are trying to hammer in isn’t working because you still end up buying the hardware from Apple first and then switching it out with additional dollars. Moving on.

But if we look at the console market, buyers are also locked into their console. Get an Xbox, and you can only play xbox games, and you can only expand the console by buying (horribly) expensive xbox-compatible (usually made by Microsoft or their affiliates) hardware.

 

So in the console scene, Microsoft is just like Apple in the OS scene - but they at least sell the console for what it is (a gaming machine).

That is a pretty ridiculous analogy. When you buy a console you are expecting it to perform a single operation and you are not buying any additional software licenses from the company that offers the hardware. The console is hardware, nothing more. The advent of console dashboards is irrelevant because they are not and never were a market. Buying games produced by the company Microsoft Games is also irrelevant because these games are simply multiplatform and if you buy the console and buy the game so what.

 

For Microsoft to be analogically similar to Apple in its approach to the Xbox 360 it would have to only use Microsoft games on the XBOX 360. (Sell hardware control software = Sell software control hardware) This doesn’t happen. Bad analogy.

 

Lastly, you are comparing two completely different types of products. I was only humouring you to make the above argument.

[Queso]

Everyone's different. Everyone does different things.

I personally love to game on my mac's.

The games that are available run flawlessly on both of my machines.

 

I primarily do audio editing and research on the computer, and my mac has never let me down.

 

It's 7am, dawn of the computers.

You can take sides, or

just manipulate the machines to better your existence.

 

Mac and Windows both have their ups and downs

Just like he does

and jut like she.

 

Might as well be bisexual with the OS.

[Queso]

I use windows for winamp + milkdrop when I'm drunk on wood vine.

 

Digital altar.

[CraigD]

After conference among the moderator staff, this thread has been reopened, with some controversial terms irrelevant to the thread's subject, and comments relating to them, removed.

[alexander]

Lol guys, OS X86 has been around for a while, it is getting a little better, but its still far, real far from being perfect. I am currently installing OS X on an IBM Think Center PC that i am setting up for my sister. (its a P4 3.0 HT with a gig of ram and a gforce fx5200 (pci)) and it seems to be running well, i mean i can't install the latest mac 10.4.9 (that is because all the tutorials on the update stink), but 10.4.8 should work well enough for my sister anyways, so far i think everything works, network, usb, graphics acceleration, the only thing i am yet to check is audio, but i see a line out as an output device in the setup manager holding my fingers crossed amd i have hope. Tomorrow will actually switch out the hard drive on the machine for an 80 gig one and setup OS X/Ubuntu dual boot, should be fun, but yeah a prowd creator of a Hackintosh :eek_big:

 

But yeah, my friend had OS X running on his acer (dual core turion 64) laptop and his dell dimension 4400 (2.8 P4), and another friend of mine has it running on his Dell c600 laptop, (although i myself have not had a chance to set one up, i have a dozen or so of them at work and not one power supply ;) )

 

I'll take some pics if you guys are interested or dont believe me...

[alexander]

orb, you could ofcourse use linux and project m, infact my friend hacked it (an older version of project m that has since been patched, but nontheless he uses that old version instead of contacting the developers and saying, hey look what cool things you could do with this bug you had back in version...) and uses a genetic algorithm to build animations, he has some crazy crazy milkdrop files that are uber cool for doing videos for party events and stuff, or just general VJ ing.