http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 3:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Well Done.]]>Mar 16th 2006 4:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Now everyone can take a shut the flying f*** up pill.

Oh wait, everyone will still argue why this is necessary.]]>Mar 16th 2006 4:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 4:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Congratulations though, it must've taken a hell of a lot of work!
"Now that you've won, how will you spend all that cash?!"
...
"I'm going to Disney Land!" ;-)]]>Mar 16th 2006 4:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 4:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 4:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/ Hate to say it but Evan you got two things wrong there. XP on x86 has been happening for ages, its what happens on everyday pcs. The other thing is the 0Sx86 projects is very different. It intends to do the complete opposite, get OS X running on normal pcs (hence the x86 portion)]]>Mar 16th 2006 4:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Which brings me onto this point. Was this $13,000 needed to entice those who can most likely do this without the incentive?

I can see many a people kicking themselves when the solution comes out - As it's most likely they were headed down that avenue (yet at a much slower pace)]]>Mar 16th 2006 4:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
So what's in it for Apple when they start selling hardware ONLY?

Apple builds better mp3-players than any other company but that also has to do with the iPod software.

Guess Apple did their power-calculations and found out that Apple computers without an OS generates more profit. And it may well be that selling a x86 compatible OSX generates more cash as well...

What do you guys think?]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cwaidoh/]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Now tell me - does it make XP run any better? Does XP have less bugs running on a Mac? Will the User experience be enhanced by running an inferior OS on a better engineered machine?

The real challenge: Run OS X on a Wintel box

Now load OSX on a Wintel box and make it run and give the general public another option and see what difference it makes.

Create a valid and stable platform for individuals to evaluate separate operating systems on the same hardware with the same performance and measure the results.

Now that would be groundbreaking..

]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
I agree - the title is rather dumb. XP on x86 is so five years ago.]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 5:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Apple wanting to loose OS X? - No effing way. Apple hardware costs a premium, because Apple has to factor those OS X development costs, and there HW looks beautiful (if you ever took a look at the Powermacs innards - no matter which model during tha last 5 years - you see that someone actually thought about how to avoid cables strewn all over the place) People are willing to pay the premium, because they know that the unique combination (Apple controlling HW and SW) lets them work more effectively.
If Apple skips OS X and goes Windows or Linux with a nice Skin, it´d just be crap, with the same problems that plague Windows and Linux. Ergo: they´d stop selling HW the same day (if they´re smart, cause it wouldn´t sell)
- It´s the OS X, stupid!

Much rather, as pointed out here http://tinyurl.com/ovjs2 (article by chris seibold at applematters.com), Apple might license OS X under certain strict rules for limited hardware, so other vendors can sell those systems as well, and Apple *MIGHT* stop selling the actual hardware...

matt]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Not all of us speak american English. Being Dutch myself, living in Germany...]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
I only asked for your opinion. You can leave out your colorfull phrazing...
Like your line of thought though!]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 5:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 5:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
If you're going to take a shot at anyone, let it be #4, who says that we need to "learn to spell". I "learned to spell" just fine in grade school, as I'm sure many others have (including Evan). Besides, I'm sure people don't appreciate others nitpicking their work. I sure as hell don't.

Sorry about the rant.]]>Mar 16th 2006 5:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/ I hate to turn this into an argument but AC we are not nitpicking the work. If you look at my post (#8) then you will see that I was outlining two majoor errors in the post that could misinform those that are less in the know]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 6:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Congrats to Narf on his work... and for bein' 'bout that scrilla!

Alright. I'm done.]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
This isn't an argument, because you misread my post (#18)... "nitpicking" (at least, to me), refers to the criticism of small, petty issues (i.e. spelling, as #4 did).

The errors that you pointed out have very valid points, and, indeed, should be brought up. Heck, I'm glad you did.

But, as I'm sure most people would agree (maybe even you?), pointing out something so minor that it has no bearing whatsoever on the substance of the article seems to serve no useful purpose; taking potshots at authors (and people in general) because of those minor errors furthers the injustice.

What do you think?]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/$13k... weee!

As for the 'correct' spelling argument, it's all relative. Since I'm from the UK and speak the Queen's (proper) English, I'd say it should be cheque too. Although, in the CENTRE of all of this is the fact that somebody with an addiction to the letter Z decided to chop and change (bastardise _might_ be too strong a word) proper English. :)]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Inferior os on better hardware? Youre just an idiot. Just wait until the REAL benchmarks come out, not the bullshit posted as marketing material on the apple site comparing a crippled pc to the intel imac.

The selling point of macs is os x or the look of the box, noone buying one actually has a clue whats happening inside, they dont care, and most importantly: They dont have to.]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
We should do the same with the Xbox360
:evil:
]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Now we've got TWO arguments going - one fighting over the whole "Why run XP on a mac..." and now a brand new one over the spelling of CHECK/CHEQUE.

For christs sake guys - cant we all just get along?]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Let us all be happy that Engadget is in ENGLISH!

Although I'm Dutch, I certainly would not like a dutch-language Engadget website.

The international language is English.
Let us stick to that. The british vs. american English discussion only applies to professional publications, I think.]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Sorry about the confusion, folks.

Anyhow, funetik is right: spelling is all relative.

But here's something we can all agree is spelled wrong: http://www.imosh.com/NOVELTY/pages/A1638.htm]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Although, I don't think this will make me buy a Mac any time soon. I was never particularly fond of the Apple hardware anyway.

Still, anyone who appreciates Apple's design philosophy but hates the OS will no doubt be keen to try this.]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.ribix.com . Wish I had known about the prize money earlier!]]>Mar 16th 2006 6:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Anyway, Frank's right, thank christ engadget isn't in Dutch!

Haha, nice tee, AC. I americaniZed my name a little. It was phoneticSilence (get it or not?), chopped to phonetic and then funetik. 'fu-net-ik' is actually the phonetic though, so that's fun(etik)]]>Mar 16th 2006 7:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 7:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
I still have two big questions, that I posted toward the end of the "XP on Mactel: The Movie" thread: First, what kind of hardware issues will we have now, assuming that some Mac hardware is incompatible with some Windows software? And what is the risk of Macs now being affected by viruses -- if I get a Windows virus on a dual-booting machine, can it wipe out my Mac hard drive too? We still have a long way to go.

What's the deal with all the national superiority? If the author of the article is American, expect him to write in American English. If he's British, expect him to write the Queen's English. Don't get all huffy just because he's from another country than you. I'm an American and I spell it "check." Big deal. I read British web sites all the time and I don't get cranky about the way they spell things. How can you even call this an "error," as if the author made a mistake, when what he wrote is the correct and accepted spelling of the word in American English? One version of the language is no better or worse than the other, so just drop it.]]>Mar 16th 2006 7:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/You can't compare the performance of an emulator with code running natively. Emulators are slow as hell, because they have to translate every line of code to run on a different processor. Windows was written for x86 processors. Macs now use x86 processors. Hence the point of the challenge.

Also note that this means that every single piece of software made by Apple before the switch will NOT run natively - it must use the Rosetta emulator, which will run "most" PowerPC applications, at about half their original speed. Hence at present I would expect a typical XP system running on an imac with ALL it's applications running natively to run a lot better than a Mac system on the same machine which has to rely on emulation.

And you're also incredibly naive if you think there's any discernable difference between Mac OS and XP which makes one overall "superior". Both contain bugs - hence XP's service packs and Apples trademark crazy-long version numbers (OSX 10.4.3, iTunes 6.0.3.5 etc.) - and since people stopped using DOS the "user experience" has been virtually identical. ]]>Mar 16th 2006 7:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Anyway Yes Windows runs very well on the imac. Short of the driver issues things are working well. Big kinks are just the video (none of the mobility x1600 drivers I've tried work), and Sound (only get audio out of the headphones jack, no speaker output).]]>Mar 16th 2006 7:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 7:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
[url]http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php[/url]]]>Mar 16th 2006 7:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
That would be "...For Christ's sake guys - can't..."

Frank - "The british vs. american English discussion only applies to professional publications, I think."

That would be "British" and "American"

There's this key called a "Shift key," commonly found on the far-left above the Control (Ctrl) key.


]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
""]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 8:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/Mar 16th 2006 8:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/>
Tell me, would you spell it "eCock", "Ecock" or "e-cock"? I'm slightly confused with all this talk about capitalization mattering.]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
As for the whole "bad OS on ""great"" hardware", Windows isn't a bad OS, the gaming and Business world wouldn't be sitting where they are at the moment if it werent for the widespread use of a *once* cheap OS on affordable hardware. Still to this day, not to many people would say that Apple PC products are terribly affordable, compared to their WinTel counterparts.

As for the argument, yeah XP is buggy and has alot of crap4code but, it has it's apparent uses, and OSX is a great OS and it has it's uses and Apple hardware, is for the most part really good hardware (by make, not model) the parts are the same now, but the quality of the design and make of the hardware is of a superb quality

So why not run, the OS that you HAVE to use for what ever reason it is, on a fantastic pice of hardware?]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Noone really uses American English outside of North America.

I've not problem with American English, the differences are miniscule compared to the similarities, but what you've said is completely untrue.


Back on the discussion at hand. This looks cool. It'll be interesting to see how easy it is for non power users to implement.]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
SHAME ON YOU!]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
Now let's see what Apple would do to keep this happening again when announcing the intel iBook. heh.]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/16/xp-on-x86-is-official-narf-gets-paid/
You don't seem to get the point!
How would you cope dear Michael if Engadget were to be in the Dutch or German language?
We non-native English speakers do our best to get involved in this comments section. So don't get too picky when it comes to minor errors.
]]>Mar 16th 2006 8:53AM