Now that OSX is out on x86 computers, some speculate that Apple's next move will be to make it available separately from the hardware, thus competing directly with Microsoft for OS turf. If they do that, and (this could be no earlier than next year, when XP will no longer be available according to MS, who should know) your choices for your next OS come down to Vista, OSX, or Linux...which would you choose?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
If OSX were available separately would you prefer it over Vista?
- Thread starter xbeemer
- Start date
digital_exhaust
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2008
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 6,903
I would probably dual boot as well.... if it ever happens.
I would like to use Parallels to run both at the same time.. that looks really cool.
I would like to use Parallels to run both at the same time.. that looks really cool.
Oh no!
Not another OS and another box.
Hell yeh, I'd find the time to work with it, if it became available for PC's.
But, I'm having a hard time resisting my urges to go snag Ubunutu 7.04, right now, for the spare rig I have at the moment..
So many OS'es, so much hardware, so little time.
Vista would remain as my development machine though, and possibly my daily user.
Not another OS and another box.
Hell yeh, I'd find the time to work with it, if it became available for PC's.
But, I'm having a hard time resisting my urges to go snag Ubunutu 7.04, right now, for the spare rig I have at the moment..
So many OS'es, so much hardware, so little time.
Vista would remain as my development machine though, and possibly my daily user.
I would definitely leave Vista on my to production machines (one at work, one at home). I would set up a second box for OSX, and probably play around with some of the video editing stuff.
And before anyone turns this into a flame war, let's all remember one thing. OSX has been in existence that runs on x86 hardware for quite some time, and I don't mean the illegal hacked version. There's a very large company, a pure and simple monopoly, that's deciding NOT to make it publicly available. And no, that company isn't Microsoft. Instead of allowing you to buy their OS and run it on any hardware you like, you are forced to pay for their very expensive hardware. What's funny is that Microsoft is still being called the evil empire, and a monopoly, when they're much more open with their products than Apple is.
And before anyone turns this into a flame war, let's all remember one thing. OSX has been in existence that runs on x86 hardware for quite some time, and I don't mean the illegal hacked version. There's a very large company, a pure and simple monopoly, that's deciding NOT to make it publicly available. And no, that company isn't Microsoft. Instead of allowing you to buy their OS and run it on any hardware you like, you are forced to pay for their very expensive hardware. What's funny is that Microsoft is still being called the evil empire, and a monopoly, when they're much more open with their products than Apple is.
masteraleph
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 435
I voted, but this really is post #3,720 on this topic (bonus points for anyone who's enough of a geek to get the reference).
Apple will not move to open availability. The reason for this is very simple: Apple has no desire to support 8 zillion pieces of hardware, nor do they want to deal with support for people who have hardware with lousy drivers. As we've seen with Vista, this is one of MS's primary problems, and it has been the thing to compromise their stability most over the years. At this point, Apple does not want to deal with that, and it doesn't seem like they will for the foreseeable future.
From the OS standpoint, as I've said many times in the past and will continue to say:
Microsoft and Apple are not in competition with each other - and they never have been. So why people keep flaunting the "Us vs Them" debate is beyond my ability to reason.
It's been noted countless times before that Apple simply can not and will not ever offer OSX as a standalone product - to do so would undermine the basic idea of them controlling the OS. It would require new contracts with god knows how many hardware manufacturers as was just stated; it would require them hiring 100,000 people just to man the phones from the onslaught of tech support calls they'd field the first week, etc.
In other words: Apple couldn't handle it, and thus the reason why they will never offer OSX as a standalone OS for any generic PC. The sheer thought of trying to accomplish such a goal would blow even Steve Job's mind and turn his "Reality Distortion Field Generator" into scrap iron in Planck time.
It's nice to dream about, but it simply can't happen. And to the naysayers that'll come back with the "Oh that's your opinion" or "Never say never" etc etc blah blah - whatever. You know it can't happen, and you know it won't. While it seems like a good idea to hit Microsoft in such ways, it would only backfire directly in Apple's face and hurt them significantly.
Microsoft and Apple are not in competition with each other - and they never have been. So why people keep flaunting the "Us vs Them" debate is beyond my ability to reason.
It's been noted countless times before that Apple simply can not and will not ever offer OSX as a standalone product - to do so would undermine the basic idea of them controlling the OS. It would require new contracts with god knows how many hardware manufacturers as was just stated; it would require them hiring 100,000 people just to man the phones from the onslaught of tech support calls they'd field the first week, etc.
In other words: Apple couldn't handle it, and thus the reason why they will never offer OSX as a standalone OS for any generic PC. The sheer thought of trying to accomplish such a goal would blow even Steve Job's mind and turn his "Reality Distortion Field Generator" into scrap iron in Planck time.
It's nice to dream about, but it simply can't happen. And to the naysayers that'll come back with the "Oh that's your opinion" or "Never say never" etc etc blah blah - whatever. You know it can't happen, and you know it won't. While it seems like a good idea to hit Microsoft in such ways, it would only backfire directly in Apple's face and hurt them significantly.
I'd still use Vista, as I find OS X is only good for the basic stuff (the opposite of what they tell you it's for, but all it's really useful for is the basics, in my opinion.)
It would be like comparing Photoshop to Dell. One is software, the other is a computer.
As he already said- Apple will never do it, it's beyond their grasp. They simply cannot handle something as large as what it would need to become (like Vista).
Plus, I think Apple would finally be seen to be full of crap, and not up to par with everyone else when it actually gets right down to it. When you put Windows and OS X on a level playing field (as this would do), I honestly think Apple would be found to be the lesser in every situation.
And this is exactly right. Windows is software only. OS X also comes with hardware. This equates to not being the same product. Windows is software only, OS X is a computer.
It would be like comparing Photoshop to Dell. One is software, the other is a computer.
As he already said- Apple will never do it, it's beyond their grasp. They simply cannot handle something as large as what it would need to become (like Vista).
Plus, I think Apple would finally be seen to be full of crap, and not up to par with everyone else when it actually gets right down to it. When you put Windows and OS X on a level playing field (as this would do), I honestly think Apple would be found to be the lesser in every situation.
bashPenguin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 607
If hell froze over and we could legally run OSX on non-Apple hardware, I'd triple boot. Why not...I do that now (and more! ). It would certainly make my job cheaper as my company wouldn't have to acquire Macs specifically for development.
). It would certainly make my job cheaper as my company wouldn't have to acquire Macs specifically for development.Mac OSX, followed very closely by Linux, followed very distant by Vista. I think that Apple moving to X86 hardware was a bigger move than allowing Mac OSX on non-Apple hardware would be. I have no use for Windows anymore, all of my machines are running Linux and I have a PS2 and PSP for gaming.
i would call you an idiot, but you may just be ignorant.
From the OS standpoint, as I've said many times in the past and will continue to say:
Microsoft and Apple are not in competition with each other - and they never have been. So why people keep flaunting the "Us vs Them" debate is beyond my ability to reason.
It's been noted countless times before that Apple simply can not and will not ever offer OSX as a standalone product - to do so would undermine the basic idea of them controlling the OS. It would require new contracts with god knows how many hardware manufacturers as was just stated; it would require them hiring 100,000 people just to man the phones from the onslaught of tech support calls they'd field the first week, etc.
In other words: Apple couldn't handle it, and thus the reason why they will never offer OSX as a standalone OS for any generic PC. The sheer thought of trying to accomplish such a goal would blow even Steve Job's mind and turn his "Reality Distortion Field Generator" into scrap iron in Planck time.
It's nice to dream about, but it simply can't happen. And to the naysayers that'll come back with the "Oh that's your opinion" or "Never say never" etc etc blah blah - whatever. You know it can't happen, and you know it won't. While it seems like a good idea to hit Microsoft in such ways, it would only backfire directly in Apple's face and hurt them significantly.
There is nothing you say here that I would disagree with, on the face of it. Yet some of us old timers remember the days when that was pretty much how it was with the "real" computer companies (IBM, DEC) and upstarts like Microsoft. Yet look what happened. It may not be apparent from the history books, but those of us who were of age in the '80s remember the incredible hubris of IBM. "No one ever got fired for specifying IBM." DEC too: "I can't imagine anyone wanting to have a computer in their home."
I think the time is right in the industry for just such a sea change as we saw in the '80s when Microsoft started to gain industry dominance. I think it's likely that Vista will provide the final push. All we lack is a company that can come in and supply the product people really need. Apple *may* realize this and take the opportunity. Most likely, though, it's someone we either never heard of or few would have guessed. That's how it was with Microsoft.
Apple doesn't realize anything, that's why Microsoft keeps pulling them out of the hole...
They sold pretty good numbers of Macs back in the day, but then crashed and burned when MS and the PC market gained popularity. The iPod (again, with assistance from MS) brought them back up. Already, they're trying to market ideas such as the iPhone (Apple's whole argument on it (this is true) is "people should want to spend $600 on a "good" phone"). And Apple TV, both of which have not done so well.
The iPod's popularity is declining, and Macs failed to catch on again.
My point is that Apple seems to be going back into the hole again (granted, it's a rather slow start in decline, but I think it's happening). Where once more Microsoft will pull them out of the hole (to which I don't see the advantage in it... Apple really isn't an argument against monopoly, as they aren't in competition).
My main point to this? Apple ain't gunna be the one to do it. They can't even survive on their own, much less make something that's going to beat out Windows.
I do agree with you though- it's going to be someone we've never heard of.
Although... Nobody has had as much sucess with this field than Microsoft. You have giant corporations rise and fall, but Microsoft has been strong. I think the fact they have such a hold on the market is going to keep it that way. This isn't like search engines- where people just change a little setting to use a different one. We are talking a major change in how people use computers... which is why I just don't see it happening.
I had to grab zacdl's stupid comment about Microsoft always saving Apple so I can use it as a sig on a mac board.
It's.... it's.... so crazy. I wouldn't even know where to start. That whole post is like a Wall of Crazy.
I've seen some good, pointed criticism of Apple here. But I've also seen alot of zacdl's brand of Aggressive Ignorance.
It's.... it's.... so crazy. I wouldn't even know where to start. That whole post is like a Wall of Crazy.
I've seen some good, pointed criticism of Apple here. But I've also seen alot of zacdl's brand of Aggressive Ignorance.
And please don't use Pirates of Silicon Valley as a history lesson
(Not directed at you djnes)
That Intel switch was one of the best things Apple ever did. I love arguing with my Apple friends, who used to say Macs were more powerful than PCs. As soon as I ask them, if Apple was more powerful, why did they switch to using the same hardware as PCs? I am usually met with blank stares and white flags at that point.
And what drives me nuts is how Jobs turns around and thanks Bill Gates.
Hanging stupid banners up that say "Microsoft, start your photocopiers" and crap like that? I mean, come on.
Apple just lets everyone keep thinking Microsoft ripped Spotlight off of OS X.
The fact of the matter is the other way around- Apple just implemented it into their final product quicker (it's true, look it up before you argue about it).
The examples are numerous, but if someone bails your company out from the depths of Hell... most people would be grateful toward you. This is why I generally dislike Apple as a company anymore. It isn't just their products.
What's funny is Apple's proprietry systems are biting them in the butt now (they are having big problems with resolutions... back in the day they said their resolutions were "optimum", long story short- they were wrong, and now Leopard is having a heck of a time working with everything built under the old systems. Which is rather funny- as Apple is just getting a tiny taste of what Microsoft has always delt with- compatibility).
I personally think Apple has doomed itself once more. You can't be that restrictive. Intel helped a bit (was a smart choice, like you said). But it simply isn't enough. The problem: Apple can't go completely open. I think they know Microsoft dominates the open market, and then we also run into the problem with OS X running on PC hardware, etc as already discussed.
Hanging stupid banners up that say "Microsoft, start your photocopiers" and crap like that? I mean, come on.
Apple just lets everyone keep thinking Microsoft ripped Spotlight off of OS X.
The fact of the matter is the other way around- Apple just implemented it into their final product quicker (it's true, look it up before you argue about it).
The examples are numerous, but if someone bails your company out from the depths of Hell... most people would be grateful toward you. This is why I generally dislike Apple as a company anymore. It isn't just their products.
Yea, and what does this switch signify? Openness. I think Apple finally realizes they were doomed with their proprietry ways, so they switched.
What's funny is Apple's proprietry systems are biting them in the butt now (they are having big problems with resolutions... back in the day they said their resolutions were "optimum", long story short- they were wrong, and now Leopard is having a heck of a time working with everything built under the old systems. Which is rather funny- as Apple is just getting a tiny taste of what Microsoft has always delt with- compatibility).
I personally think Apple has doomed itself once more. You can't be that restrictive. Intel helped a bit (was a smart choice, like you said). But it simply isn't enough. The problem: Apple can't go completely open. I think they know Microsoft dominates the open market, and then we also run into the problem with OS X running on PC hardware, etc as already discussed.
I'll have to remember that one
Kevin Dean
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4
I use GNU/Linux on my home machines and my work machines.
For me, it's not a matter of "if".
However, if Mac OS X was released to work on "Mainstream" PCs I think it would crap out. Quite frankly, the entire Mac bundle is sold on being a solid, uniform system.
When Mac OS X has to support any combination of hardware thrown at it, it becomes as usable as FreeBSD from a kernel/driver viewpoint. Buggy drivers begin causing system lockups and then all of a sudden the OS you wanted to use for it's "ease of use" is as difficult as all the other options.
While this means very little to some people, I wouldn't use Vista or Mac OS X until it's released as software libre.
For me, it's not a matter of "if".
However, if Mac OS X was released to work on "Mainstream" PCs I think it would crap out. Quite frankly, the entire Mac bundle is sold on being a solid, uniform system.
When Mac OS X has to support any combination of hardware thrown at it, it becomes as usable as FreeBSD from a kernel/driver viewpoint. Buggy drivers begin causing system lockups and then all of a sudden the OS you wanted to use for it's "ease of use" is as difficult as all the other options.
While this means very little to some people, I wouldn't use Vista or Mac OS X until it's released as software libre.
If OSX was sold like Windows and could be used on every machine, Apple as we know it would pllummit. The way things are now is what makes Apple so great. Closed Hardware Architecture anyone? What a great idea! I know, the PC gamers can't upgrade, but that's fine. At least Apple gives you great hardware with pre-installed drivers that actually work (no driver hunting) and an OS to put everything together. I also know that Apple is more expensive . . . oh hell, I won't even jump into that debate. What more could you ask for from Apple? They are doing great and I hope they stay that way.
I used to always say that they should make OS X available for more systems before they used Intel hardware.
Now that they use Intel hardware I could care less. If only Apple would stop sounding like a pompous asshole all the time, I might actually buy an Apple laptop.
Now that they use Intel hardware I could care less. If only Apple would stop sounding like a pompous asshole all the time, I might actually buy an Apple laptop.
I was considering buying a Macbook as well. What turned me off was the fact I had to pay a lot more to get one in black, as compared to the ugly ass white. That's ridiculous, and when it changes, I'll reconsider. For now, I can get the same hardware in an HP or a Dell, or less money.
DeeFrag
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 8,076
If I wanted to load up an OS so I couldn't play games, I'd load up Linux cause it's free. lol
I'd probably buy a copy to check it out. The only reason why I don't own a Mac is that their product mix doesn't offer me anything. The mini is using crappy Intel graphics, I don't want a monitor built in to my machine and the Mac Pro...I'm not spending $3k on a computer. The OS purchased separately could run on some Intel hardware. It would be nice to have an actual desktop alternative to Microsoft. Linux certainly isn't providing one.
bashPenguin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 607
Have you tried Ubuntu? It's a pretty impressive package IMO, especially since it's free but if you have tried it, no worries. At least you tried it. As far as the Mac comment goes, Macs are a bit expensive, but I like the way they run things. I currently own an iMac Core Duo and it's a joy not only to use a great OS, but my desk isn't as cluttered. The keyboard slides perfectly underneath the computer and if you have a wireless mouse, put it in a drawer or somewhere to your likings. Boom, you have desk room! Saves a ton of space if you really think about it.