If Mac OS was offered on PC, would you buy?

[Rob Williams]

In reference to the news post here (http://techgage.com/archive.php?id=1571), would you ever consider purchasing OS X if it was available on the PC?

I would. But what aggrevates me more, is the fact that Dell's customer base have been asking for AMD based systems for over a year now, and they have not budged. But all of a sudden, he states how much he would love to have Mac OS X available on the PC. I think he has his priorities messed up personally.

Either way, would you buy it?

[madmat]

His priorities are right in line, OS-X will be running on Intel powered machines from apple, he sells Intel powered machines...taking a bite out of apple with their own OS, how much better could it get?

but in answer to your question, yes if and only if they manage to hammer in support for windows based apps...I really don't like the idea of having 2 OS's on my machine, one for just everyday computing and one for gaming and such.

This is why I haven't bothered with the penguin.

[Rob Williams]

I'd still rather have an option to buy AMD based laptops instead of being forced into Intel. If I wanted OS X that bad, I would buy a mac. :P

[madstork91]

The question owul dbe how would the OS x handle a different user interface all togeather? I mean would the masses really want to switch to one button use?

And how would they even handle that? Make people buy an "OS x mouse" ?

I personally like having all the buttons on my mouse that i do now ty vm...

[Rob Williams]

As far as I know, you don't have to use a one button mouse. There are programs out there to take advantage of the others.

Apparently, Apple has a 2-Button mouse in the works anyway. People who do use Macs though, don't usually complain about the 1-Button mouse.. it just works. If you never used a PC before, but just a Mac, you would likely think the same way of a 2-Button mouse.

[madmat]

Personally I like my 8 button mouse just fine, a one button mouse, gah!

[DarkSynergy]

The Dell/Intel thing is one of AMD points to take Intel to court. They are claiming that Intel is using bad business practices to strong arm the OEM's into useing their CPU's. This could be a interesting trial. I for one have bought a bit of AMD stock. I am hoping that it will leap up should they win the case against Intel. Even if they dont this is pretty good publisity for AMD, not because it will gain AMD anything aside from makeing Intel look bad.

[Rob Williams]

If anyone comes out of this case, I hope to god that Dell begins to offer AMD's in their computers. My laptops fast, but I want an AMD. They tend to run cooler, and are better for when I feel like gaming.

If they get AMD's in there, I will respect them more.

[DarkSynergy]

I have nothing against Intel, AMD just needs to market themselves as a peoples CPU better. Intel has been around forever and its just a name that the people recognise. Should Dell or other OEM's start using AMD then it would bring AMD into the spotlight more and more. Gateway's eMachine division is all ready using A64's in their higher end PC's......eMachine and higher end PC in the same sentence makes me LOL. Anyway, more power to AMD....I love them!

[madstork91]

Sorry... I just dont trust AMD...

I am however starting to LOVE low prices... and thats where I may finally just give in. I know intell is spending alot on R&D, but I'm a college kid (albeit a rich college kid, but a college kid none the less)

eMachines is a division of gateway? woah! /end.ignorance

[DarkSynergy]

eMachine was purchased my Gateway in June of 2004.


Not trying to start anything with anyone but can you please give reasons why you dont trust AMD? Intel has nothing that can match it's preformance in gaming. The differance anymore between the two chip makers in multimedia tasks is so minute that you have to go AMD for value alone. The prices are great. AMD owns Intel on the sever scene. The only thing I wold purchase an Intel for would be a Pentium M, based on the good old PIII architecure which proves that Intel's pushing of the P4 was a step in the wrong direction. The Dothan core P-M's are monsters in every aspect that makes a proc relevant.

It's a good thing that these forums are no larger than they are or this could turn into an ugly fan boy thread quickly!

I love rich college kids.

If you must distrust one CPU manufacturer, I vote for Cyrix or VIA as they are not AMD. Fanboys, Mount up!

[Rob Williams]

STORK! DUBYEW TEE EFF?

Don't trust AMD? The thing is, I have a local friend who doesn't 'trust' AMD either. The reason is because they heard they sucked. That's the only reason.

Back in the day, everyone was pro Intel, and disregarded AMD in every respect. Back 5+ years, I'd agree that I prefered Intel. Since then though, AMD has blown away Intel in everything, except Multi-Media development.

AMD is catching up in the Multi-Media too though. Since they incorperated SSE3 into Rev. E, I expect that they will continue that trend in order to completely overtake Intel.

We'll see ;)

[DarkSynergy]

OK, I am basing this comparison of Intel versus AMD on AMD's flaship proc, the FX-57. The only CPU's that beat the FX in multimedia is the Intel dual cores and then only the high end ones at that...........but wait a second, the new AMD 4800 X2 trounces virtually all Intel chips, single OR dual core, hands down. Now I know one of my main arguments for AMD was the value and I am not talking about 2 chips that will set you back a cool grand but when you think about who purchases PC's strictly for multi media purposes, they more often than not have the money to shell out so if you want the best, go AMD. Best Dual core, best server CPU and best gaming/desktop CPU. Intel holds the notebook game by the short hairs but AMD trumps them in everything else. This is of course my personal opinion and I in no way think that Intel is a bad company but then again benchmarks don't lie...

[madstork91]

LOL "DUBYEW TEE EFF?"

I dont like to just game...

I like to dl things, listen to music, surf the web, watch videos, and talk to ppl on trillian... ALL AT THE SAME TIME AND WHILE PLAYING GAMES.

I've never tried an AMD because everytime I research them their strong points are performance with games and their bad points are in the multi tasking.







Oh and even though they run cooler... they tend to want to shut down more often.

[DarkSynergy]

So are you saying that you haven't researched an AMD product since the A64's dropped? What you are saying was/is true for the Athlon XP line. They did game equally and sometimes better than their Intel counterparts but the A64's have taken some of Intel's thunder, actually damn near all of it. There is nothing wrong with Intel but is your going to down AMD, at least use some recent, relevant proof against them.

Either way you look at it, we need some fresh faces to open up our intelectual conversations that we are having (fanboy bullshit :))

[Rob Williams]

Well, for what you mentioned Stork, it would run the same on Intel or AMD. Intel is only noticable for hardcore Multi-Media editing, such as program compiling and movie/picture compressing or whatever.

Since my PC is hawt enough, I'd freak out likely if it was an Intel. Heck, after an hour of being on, my laptop is freaking hot.

At any rate, AMD for teh win. I'm sorry, but even top professionals are starting to sway to AMD.

[DarkSynergy]

^^^Boo Yah!

[madstork91]

**All of the above mentioned + model skinning, photoshop, sound/music editors

Eh I may be wrong... But not according the the article that ROB had posted for benchmarks on the latest AMD and Intel in one of his news reports about 2 months ago... (I havent done any "research" since then because I've been home)

Summary: Amd had hard shut downs more often, over heated when being OCed more often trying to keep up with w/e intel ship they were putting it against. Few minor details in performance.

Oh and I'm not a fanboy of anything except Blizzard... And even to them lately I'm more of a pissed off digruntled ex lover.

[Rob Williams]

Bah. I'll have to get an Intel board and chip on the table in the future.

Still, <3 for AMD.

[MacMan]

As a Mac and Linux user I must ask: when it comes to the one-button Mac mouse, where have you been?

Multi-buttoned mouse support comes built-into Mac OSX and all Apple mice are now multi-buttoned even though they look one-buttoned.

Personally I use both a Microsoft multi-buttoned and Dynatech mouse. Just plug it in and Go!




The question owul dbe how would the OS x handle a different user interface all togeather? I mean would the masses really want to switch to one button use?

And how would they even handle that? Make people buy an "OS x mouse" ?

I personally like having all the buttons on my mouse that i do now ty vm...

[Rob Williams]

Wasn't the Mighty Mouse (or whatever it was called) the first Apple-developed two-button mouse? Sure you can use your own peripherals, but when the computer comes with a one-button mouse, it doesn't exactly give the impression that other mice are supported.

[MacMan]

In reference to the news post here (http://techgage.com/archive.php?id=1571), would you ever consider purchasing OS X if it was available on the PC?

I would. But what aggrevates me more, is the fact that Dell's customer base have been asking for AMD based systems for over a year now, and they have not budged. But all of a sudden, he states how much he would love to have Mac OS X available on the PC. I think he has his priorities messed up personally.

Either way, would you buy it?


Of course I would buy OSX if it was available on a PC the way Michael Dell dreams of. As a user of OSX for the past six years and running all five major flavors of OSX from Cheetah to Tiger, the system is so simple and intuitive that I buy it if it was on a toaster!

Seriously, as much as I love different OS's I think OSX is still by far the most advanced OS out there. Could be why PC World named it BEST operating system of the year three years running.

How great is OSX? Simple: look at Vista, Beryl, XGL, etc. They are all trying to wow people by copying some animated, 3D like, Open GL like interface that OSX created.

For example, the cube effect, zooming, transparency, etc. are all lifted out of OSX. It had all these features six whole years ago.

Two years ago Google had a special Mac page which featured the zooming effect of the OSX dock. Apple legal closed it down since they patented all of these features. What happen's to Beryl, XGL if Apple legal decides to go after them?

Unfortunately, for Apple, Microsoft has a five-year deal that allows both companies to copy the other ideas. Linux adds with some innovation of their own, but Microsoft shamelessly just copies OSX and then pretends that they invented it.

OSX is based on the idea that things should be kept simple and uncluttered. OSX follows those principles to a tee. The more I use OSX the more I appreciate the forward thinking of its developers.

As great as Tiger is, it is about to be blown out of the water with the latest upgrade, Leopard! Let's see what happens and how quickly the other OS's try to copy it the way they all did with the earlier versions of OSX.

I read in the New York times, I believe, that Apple innovates... the world follows! Every OS is nothing more than a Mac clone. Drag and drop, trash cans on the desktop, pull-down menu's, etc, they were all created at Apple or , at least, brought to the market first by Apple. You can also ad laser printers, mice (Xerox), CD's, DVD's, blue-tooth, Wii, etc. They all appeared on the Mac first, though, of course, not necessary on OSX.

[madmat]

It would be nice if you could run Windows games on OS-X though. I use my PC for gaming and not having many games to choose from would really cripple my desire to use my PC.

[MacMan]

It would be nice if you could run Windows games on OS-X though. I use my PC for gaming and not having many games to choose from would really cripple my desire to use my PC.

Window's games on a Mac, why of course, my good man. First, you could always boot into Windows or use Parralell's, Cross Over or VMWare solutions, but then again, thanks to Trans Gaming out of Toronto, the full-range of Window Games will be available soon for the MAC.

How soon? Try this month. The first two games, Magic Kingdom V and another one, who's name I forgot, will be available.

Trans Gaming makes it possible for Window developers to easily add support for the Mac allowing the Mac to run Windwo games natively and at full speed.

How it work is quite simple and quite fastinating! By providing developers a Window API box, games think that they are running on a native Window's machine. The process works fantastically thanks to the hellp of Nividia.

The first two games is will be just the first of a avalance to quickly give the Mac the full benefit of the Window's gaming world.

I can't wait and I don't even care a toot about games! Also, remember that a very large selection of PC games have native Mac support already, plus the Mac has all kinds of really cool 'Mac ONLY games.' http://insidemacgames.com/

In the meantime, check out these videos of Window games running on a Mac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_CoXsXtk4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rad1FdVhEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrWplpCQUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGtrkZ6088&mode=

[moon111]

I wouldn't buy Mac OS if it was offered on a PC because it's such an extreme security risk. The only reason they're secure is because they're so small nobody bothers with them. If OS X went mainstream, the hackers and viruses would severely handicap it.

And forget about AMD in your laptops, go with VIA instead. :D

[madmat]

Window's games on a Mac, why of course, my good man. First, you could always boot into Windows or use Parralell's, Cross Over or VMWare solutions, but then again, thanks to Trans Gaming out of Toronto, the full-range of Window Games will be available soon for the MAC.

How soon? Try this month. The first two games, Magic Kingdom V and another one, who's name I forgot, will be available.

Trans Gaming makes it possible for Window developers to easily add support for the Mac allowing the Mac to run Windwo games natively and at full speed.

How it work is quite simple and quite fastinating! By providing developers a Window API box, games think that they are running on a native Window's machine. The process works fantastically thanks to the hellp of Nividia.

The first two games is will be just the first of a avalance to quickly give the Mac the full benefit of the Window's gaming world.

I can't wait and I don't even care a toot about games! Also, remember that a very large selection of PC games have native Mac support already, plus the Mac has all kinds of really cool 'Mac ONLY games.' http://insidemacgames.com/

In the meantime, check out these videos of Window games running on a Mac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF_CoXsXtk4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rad1FdVhEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrWplpCQUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGtrkZ6088&mode=

I've said already I do not want to dual boot. If I've got to game on an OS I will only use that OS, I hate rebooting my PC just to swap apps... talk about a pain in the posterior.

Actually, I hate rebooting my PC period. My OS is stable enough that my PC will run as long as I care to keep it on with zero issues. The only time I reboot is due to software updates or driver changes.

That said, I like the idea of running Windows games on OS-X without a virtual machine, seeings as how the new Macs are just PC's with a different OS I don't see why this hasn't been done sooner. If it can be done for OS-X I hope it happens for all the flavors of Linux especially seeings how OS-X is basically a jumped up version of Linux anyways. A Linux version of that app would be perfect for people wanting to escape M$ and since Jobs is afraid of his software competing with his hardware (heh, his hardware... it's not his any longer now, is it?) it would be the only real alternative for Windows users.

[Rob Williams]

That said, I like the idea of running Windows games on OS-X without a virtual machine, seeings as how the new Macs are just PC's with a different OS I don't see why this hasn't been done sooner. If it can be done for OS-X I hope it happens for all the flavors of Linux especially seeings how OS-X is basically a jumped up version of Linux anyways.

I respect Macs, but higer-end gaming is one area where Linux will succeed. Why? The video cards. The -best- video card you can get for a mainstream Mac is an X1900XT. The next step down is a 7600GT and finally a 7300GT. The only card that blows all of these away is a $1500 Quadro.

Linux on the other hand, supports -all- video cards. I am running Gentoo on an 8800GTX at the moment. We should be seeing support in Apples for that card in around 5 years ;-)

If emulation becomes a huge thing on Macs, then I could see companies shifting their focus there, and pushing out more video cards. Because at this point in time, -no- video card for the Mac would play a brand new game at full resolution, irregardless of how good the emulation is.

MacMan, you mentioned Trans Gaming, and I agree, they are pushing out some impressive stuff. Don't forget Wine though either, a completely free Windows emulator (of which Trans Gaming utilizes in their engine). Last night while bored, I actually managed to get my favorite MMO (Asheron's Call) of five years working:

http://deathspawner.net/aclinux.png

This was the fourth time in over three years that I've tried, but this is the first time I've actually been able to make it inside the game and play it at full speed. It just goes to show how fast we really are moving along. The game still has a few issues, namely with core Windows features that Wine doesn't support yet, but progression is evident.

As for Trans Gaming, I have been using the upcoming Cedega 6.0 for the past few days, and it runs both NFS: Carbon and Oblivion nicely. NFS: Carbon runs just as well as it does on Windows, but Oblivion is a little more finicky. Once you make it into the game, it runs really well though.

I think game developers should begin to get a clue and start coding their games for more than just DirectX though. If Linux has native clients of big games like Unreal Tournament, Doom III and Quake IV... why don't other companies follow suit?

I am not trying to compare the Windows market to the alternative OS market, because they dwarf it. It would just be nice to see some better support, so people wouldn't always have to run a VM or reboot their machine each time they want to run something.

[MacMan]

I wouldn't buy Mac OS if it was offered on a PC because it's such an extreme security risk. The only reason they're secure is because they're so small nobody bothers with them. If OS X went mainstream, the hackers and viruses would severely handicap it.

And forget about AMD in your laptops, go with VIA instead. :D

OSX a security risk, you got to be kidding? OSX is built on Unix, just like Linux and is highly recommended by the US government as a very secure system.

After a full six years of use there has yet to be one system that has been reported infected, just a lot of so called 'proof of concepts.' Remember, a full half of the Macintosh's user base of 55-60 million users are using OSX! You would think that after all of Apple's bragging that some one, some where would have seceeded in getting one measley virius on the thing?

If OSX is too much of a security threat, then by all means what do you suppose is more secure? Window's? Ha, ha, that's rather funny now that I think of it. Vista has already been infected with the 'cursor' curse! Black eyed Vista has only been out two measley months too!

True, Linux with approximately 30-million users is very secure, but then again, its based on the same Unix underpinnings as OSX. I am always amazedl to see just how alike they are in so many ways.

As much as I repect your opinion I think you are wrong. Very, very wrong and I just wish more people would get the opertunity to actually sit down and play with OSX for a couple of hours. Then, I am sure, you would be singing a different tune.

[MacMan]

I respect Macs, but higer-end gaming is one area where Linux will succeed. Why? The video cards. The -best- video card you can get for a mainstream Mac is an X1900XT. The next step down is a 7600GT and finally a 7300GT. The only card that blows all of these away is a $1500 Quadro.

Linux on the other hand, supports -all- video cards. I am running Gentoo on an 8800GTX at the moment. We should be seeing support in Apples for that card in around 5 years ;-)

If emulation becomes a huge thing on Macs, then I could see companies shifting their focus there, and pushing out more video cards. Because at this point in time, -no- video card for the Mac would play a brand new game at full resolution, irregardless of how good the emulation is.

MacMan, you mentioned Trans Gaming, and I agree, they are pushing out some impressive stuff. Don't forget Wine though either, a completely free Windows emulator (of which Trans Gaming utilizes in their engine). Last night while bored, I actually managed to get my favorite MMO (Asheron's Call) of five years working:

http://deathspawner.net/aclinux.png

This was the fourth time in over three years that I've tried, but this is the first time I've actually been able to make it inside the game and play it at full speed. It just goes to show how fast we really are moving along. The game still has a few issues, namely with core Windows features that Wine doesn't support yet, but progression is evident.

As for Trans Gaming, I have been using the upcoming Cedega 6.0 for the past few days, and it runs both NFS: Carbon and Oblivion nicely. NFS: Carbon runs just as well as it does on Windows, but Oblivion is a little more finicky. Once you make it into the game, it runs really well though.

I think game developers should begin to get a clue and start coding their games for more than just DirectX though. If Linux has native clients of big games like Unreal Tournament, Doom III and Quake IV... why don't other companies follow suit?

I am not trying to compare the Windows market to the alternative OS market, because they dwarf it. It would just be nice to see some better support, so people wouldn't always have to run a VM or reboot their machine each time they want to run something.

It is true that Apple itself only gives Mac users the choice of a few different video cards, especially on the all-in-one machines, but the Mac PRO will take any video card that runs on Intel hardware. All-in-one machines like the iMac and Mini can, of course, be updated, but the hassle involved isn't worth the effort. You really have to know what you are doing and it is not recommended except for the serious geek or technicians.

Hopefully, one day soon, Apple will be selling tower-based consumer Macs, but for now, if you want complete hardware expandibility, you have to go with the Mac Pro. These systems are high-end and as such...expensive.

[Rob Williams]

Hopefully, one day soon, Apple will be selling tower-based consumer Macs, but for now, if you want complete hardware expandibility, you have to go with the Mac Pro. These systems are high-end and as such...expensive.

Yes, that's the thing. Mac Pros cost $2,500 for starters. Most PC enthusiasts can build an absolute kick ass machine for $1,500 and have more overall freedom. If Apple wants the Mac to truly go mainstream, a lot of changes will need to be made.

The question is though... is that what they want? If they start opening up OS X on all angles, that might lead to even more exploits and we might see a Windows XP all over again. Who knows.