macgeekery.com— Excellent article on why OSX should never be sold for non-Mac hardware. I think this should put any further arguments to rest.
Mar 16, 2006View in Crawl 4
I think that part of Apple's appeal would be lost if it could work on any PC. The software is designed to work pretty much flawlessly (as a home computer) with the hardware.While it would obviously open many new business opportunities, it would give Apple many of the same problems that Windows has. One operating system designed to run on many different machines.I personally think it would be better to not try to conquer the world and keep it on the Macs, reliability and quality over (possible) profit.
Whoops, took to long to edit at the last minute.I have a question...Exactly what is the difference between a Mac and a PC? I mean, yeah, I know that Macs ran on the PowerPC/OpenFirmware architecture (hence "Power Macintosh") until January, and that it has a different keyboard standard, but in light of their move to the Intel x86 architecture, I've been wondering about exactly how Macs are different from the IBM-PC compatible. Is it how the Mac is laid out on the inside, or is it just the brand by itself which sets it apart from the IBM-PC and its subsequent variations?Furthermore, when I read the Wikipedia page on "personal computers", I was interested in the listing of so few alternatives to the IBM-PC compatible (let alone so fwe of them which still *exist*, including the Apple Macintosh and the Pegasos, which uses PowerPC). Why is that?Any help in this regard is appreciated, thanks.
>I have a question. How come macs don't run many games? Is it becasue they suck? or is>there some other ambiguose reason, because I am sure the main reason why people say mac>sucks is because you can't even boot up HL2 on it.it is a bit ambiguous. :) there are mac versions for most of the big titles. HL2...maybe they were waiting to see the new machines before making in an upgrade. i bet HL2could bog down rosette.i like consoles better. i think eventually you won%u2019t us a PC for gaming. it drives menuts to have to sit at a desk for hours. much better on my back...but that brings it to the next ambiguity. one of the biggest reasons apple switched tointel was that they weren%u2019t getting enough CPUs. and all the consoles are going to PPC chips... not because they were less powerful than intel chips. in fact, microsoft was shipping Macs to their xbox developers. so ya, i guess. what a tangled web they weave.
"Now that there's a comparable operating system with comparable popularity to Windows"Comparable operating system I can accept as a fair statement. Saying that it has comparable popularity is fanboyism to the extreme.
uh, OS X already *IS* running on PC hardware.- Intel chips- SATA drives- ATI/NVidia GPUs- Standard RAMJust because Apple only limits their hardware support to a few vendors and product models doesn't make it "Apple Hardware". I understand the benefit of limiting your hardware support to make working with drivers simpler. What they could do is release Apple-support hardware profiles, such as "We support this model chip, running with these model HDDs, and this type of RAM" and white box makers could make OSX boxen that fit those hardware profiles. But then Apple couldn't buy those parts and resell them at a huge markup.
brandizzleMar 16, 2006
I think that part of Apple's appeal would be lost if it could work on any PC. The software is designed to work pretty much flawlessly (as a home computer) with the hardware.While it would obviously open many new business opportunities, it would give Apple many of the same problems that Windows has. One operating system designed to run on many different machines.I personally think it would be better to not try to conquer the world and keep it on the Macs, reliability and quality over (possible) profit.
raynevandunemMar 16, 2006
Whoops, took to long to edit at the last minute.I have a question...Exactly what is the difference between a Mac and a PC? I mean, yeah, I know that Macs ran on the PowerPC/OpenFirmware architecture (hence "Power Macintosh") until January, and that it has a different keyboard standard, but in light of their move to the Intel x86 architecture, I've been wondering about exactly how Macs are different from the IBM-PC compatible. Is it how the Mac is laid out on the inside, or is it just the brand by itself which sets it apart from the IBM-PC and its subsequent variations?Furthermore, when I read the Wikipedia page on "personal computers", I was interested in the listing of so few alternatives to the IBM-PC compatible (let alone so fwe of them which still *exist*, including the Apple Macintosh and the Pegasos, which uses PowerPC). Why is that?Any help in this regard is appreciated, thanks.
starmanjonesMar 16, 2006
>I have a question. How come macs don't run many games? Is it becasue they suck? or is>there some other ambiguose reason, because I am sure the main reason why people say mac>sucks is because you can't even boot up HL2 on it.it is a bit ambiguous. :) there are mac versions for most of the big titles. HL2...maybe they were waiting to see the new machines before making in an upgrade. i bet HL2could bog down rosette.i like consoles better. i think eventually you won%u2019t us a PC for gaming. it drives menuts to have to sit at a desk for hours. much better on my back...but that brings it to the next ambiguity. one of the biggest reasons apple switched tointel was that they weren%u2019t getting enough CPUs. and all the consoles are going to PPC chips... not because they were less powerful than intel chips. in fact, microsoft was shipping Macs to their xbox developers. so ya, i guess. what a tangled web they weave.
halophoenixMar 16, 2006
well, staying out of the Apple category would be a good start...
arramolMar 16, 2006
"Now that there's a comparable operating system with comparable popularity to Windows"Comparable operating system I can accept as a fair statement. Saying that it has comparable popularity is fanboyism to the extreme.
an0nym0usMar 16, 2006
Since now mactel can run windows natively, it's officially a pc!
shodsonMar 17, 2006
uh, OS X already *IS* running on PC hardware.- Intel chips- SATA drives- ATI/NVidia GPUs- Standard RAMJust because Apple only limits their hardware support to a few vendors and product models doesn't make it "Apple Hardware". I understand the benefit of limiting your hardware support to make working with drivers simpler. What they could do is release Apple-support hardware profiles, such as "We support this model chip, running with these model HDDs, and this type of RAM" and white box makers could make OSX boxen that fit those hardware profiles. But then Apple couldn't buy those parts and resell them at a huge markup.