Parallels to turn it around, help Mac OS onto generic PC boxen
By Paul Miller 
posted Jan 22nd 2007 5:25PM
posted Jan 22nd 2007 5:25PM
With the popularity of software like Apple's Boot Camp and SWsoft's Parallels, it's no secret that people want to run Windows and Mac OS on the same box, but who says that it has to be an Apple box? Well, Apple does, and the company has staunchly defended itself from the porting of OS X into the mad world of PC generics (not with total success, of course). But with mounting pressure from users and increasing software support from VMware and SWsoft, Steve Jobs might have to let go of his tight grasp on his shiny blue OS -- or at least turn the other way as OS X makes its way onto those vile, inferior, and cheaper x86 machines without his blessing. On that front, there's good news on the horizon: it turns out an upcoming version of Parallels just so happens to "make it easier to run Mac OS on a non-Apple computer," by some unknown but welcome means. VMware's own upcoming virtualization software for the Mac has been hamstrung by the trouble VMware has gone through trying to get Apple's blessing, and SWsoft's Parallels has been "crippled" in particular ways to make it more difficult to get Mac OS onto a non-Apple machine, but it seems like it's only going to get harder for Apple to have it both ways, and Intel's inclusion of virtualization in its own chips just compounds the "problem." Michael Dell has also reconfirmed his desire to pre-load Mac OS onto his own boring boxes "if customers wanted it and Apple would license it on reasonable terms," but that tantalizing offer doesn't seem to have swayed Apple yet.[Via Techmeme]
I hope Apple doesn't license OSX to be installed on a windows machine. I think it should stay the way it is now.
http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/
This is already done and put in a nice tutorial. There is even a way you can dual boot, but the above option is for putting in on a separate hard drive
Err...
Best. Comment. Ever.
Does that mean that I can say hater stuff like "Why the hell would I put that polished piece of shit OS on my blazing gamer PC?"
Now that I have gotten that out of my system, I wonder what the performance increase would be like, and what will driver support be like, and would there be windows-based game support? If I could play my games on it without jumping through hoops, since I only use my PC for gaming and minor things anyway, the extra leftover horses from a watered down, bulimic operating system could be put towards frame rates and stuff.
disciple83 said: "Does that mean that I can say hater stuff like "Why the hell would I put that polished piece of shit OS on my blazing gamer PC?""
Wait. "Polished" piece of shit? Only a Microsoft Executive could overcome the cognitive dissonance inherent in such a contradiction in terms. What? Was that comment too wry, too wordily clever for you?
I'll tell you one thing: I'd sure as hell rather a "polished piece of shit" than a "blazing (bag of shit) gamer PC" any day.
apple definately shouldnt release their OS. part of what makes it so great is that it runs in a box built by apple. a dell box or another 3rd party box would have compatability issues for sure.
apple has enough problems with market share as it is.
...wait...I'm an apple fanboy!
Take that Joseph!
/me slaps /me with a big trout.
I already run OS X in my inferior dirty generic x86 machine
This would also make it easier for people to test Leopard without losing their Tiger install.
That's easy to get around... you partition using BootCamp. Then you boot into install disk 1 ala Disk Utility, reformat to Mac OS Extended Journaled, and then install as normal on that new partition. Easy peazy!
Whoah..... as a person who switched from Windows to Macs earlier this year, I can also say PCs for me are just for gaming. I can also say that if given a choice between my 15" Macbook Pro and a Dell laptop running both OS', I would still probably pick the Macbook Pro. I LIKE the design, and deisgn matters to me.
That being said, price is always an issue. If I can buy the bland box for half the price of the pretty one.... I guess it would depend on how much expendable cash I had around vs. how bad I wanted the pretty box.........
after the fact that both would run both windows and OSX..for me it would be about dimensions/compactness of the notebook. If im gonna be carrying a notebook computer around. I think mobility is a bigger issue than style. When i look at an mac book i smile.. when i look at a dell laptop i think.."thats a big hunk of computer that i have to carry around".. Also built in webcamera for all your video conferencing needs all packaged up into the nice small package.. no assembly required.
"Only a Microsoft Executive could overcome the cognitive dissonance inherent in such a contradiction in terms. What? Was that comment too wry, too wordily clever for you?"
I'd guess most were thinking "what an ignorant parrot", cleverly, wordily wry never crossed my mind.
It's a pet phrase, we get it, don't you worry.
I don't use a dirty box, all of my cases are custom. That being said, if I didn't fabricate the case myself, I went with an Antec case. My current case is the Antec Nine-Hundred. For some reason, besides winter, the ambient temp in there is 65F.
My biggest complaint against Apple is it's customer service and the fanboy factor. If it looks like a PC and works like a PC, it is a damned PC, whether its glossy white or in my current case matte black. If you can't figure out how to use one OS, but another works for you, it may just be your understanding of how the OS works, or your lack of understanding how to take care of your stuff. Don't just trash the OS you don't use as being inferior, man up and say you can't run with it. You can't be criticized for that, in fact, you may bring more of a positive feedback than negative one. Don't just say "F**k M$ they are shit compared to Apple, Jobs is God! OSX is so easy to use and Windows suxx0rz! You never actually said why it sucks, other than you couldn't figure it out. But I am very capable at using and diagnosing both, to a source level. I prefer Windows for its layout and library of games, hardware, and mod-ability.
This comment has nothing to do with any of the above comments at the time of writing, EDawg was last. I just feel its necessary to try to squash the trash talking now.
I agree with you-- I don't hate M$, but I do prefer Apple. Which is why I said that if I could get windows and OS X together in one box, and it was cheaper, I probably would. If I could afford the prettier box (Apple), then I would get that one.
I am no coder, source level person. This is why I prefer something good looking and easy to use, and why I switched to OSX and Apple.
l33t is lam0rz anyway....... bwahahaha
Apple licensing OS X out to others?
It
.
.
.
.
.will
.
.
.
.
never
.
.
.
.
happen
I want a plain old beige box and Windows 3.1. And, I'll take a grayscale monitor -- only because they don't make those really good monochrome orange monitors anymore. That's all I need to type a letter. Oh, and a printer -- ink-jet if you got it, so it's a little blurry and ink smudges...
I can't say that I blame Apple for it. If people put an Apple OS on their PC Apple loses not only their horrendous hardware markup, but their OS' reputation for stability. Without strict first party driver control, I'd bet their software becomes just as buggy and irritating as Windows.
It's still prettier though
Cool, now people can install a crack version of OSX into a piece s shit white box and blame it on Apple every time it crash. A bit of Window medicine for Apple community! Before long Apple will be bombarded with complains why their OS sucks the big one! Ha! Ha! Ha!
roach said: "Cool, now people can install a crack version of OSX into a piece s shit white box and blame it on Apple every time it crash. A bit of Window medicine for Apple community! Before long Apple will be bombarded with complains why their OS sucks the big one! Ha! Ha! Ha!"
Apparently you don't understand how virtualization works. Most of the hardware is virtualized. That means native drivers are not required. Parallels et al sits in between the operating system and the hardware and interprets everything.
For example, if you look in an Parallel XP install in OS X, under Device Manager - Display Adapters, it says Parallels Adapter or something like that.
Native drivers will not be required as generic drivers will suffice for some things, and virtualized drivers will pick-up the slack (for stuff like video adapters).
If OS X is unstable running Virtually under Windows, it will be a function of Parallels, NOT a driver compatibility issue.
I don't care what computer you own, but if it's crashing all the time, maybe you are the problem?
I've used Macs frequently enough, and own PCs. They all have problems at one time or another - a lot of time the user is at fault.
Am I the only one here who finds beige sexy?
Still, I think jobs is an idiot for not opening the O.S. up to be used by companies such as Dell, DELL IS BIGGER THAN APPLE AND COULD EAT THEM FOR BREAKFAST, so I don't think this is such a long shot, and I'd like the competition that Microsoft would face, they would truly have to put out a good O.S. or risk all their users slowly turn over to apple... Apple, would face the same issues.
you made the exact point as to why Apple wouldnt give Dell their OS... Dell is the Walmart of Computers... Apple prides itself on being seen as a more "luxury" item. Just like how they are possibly not allowing Cingular to discount their iPhone. Apple doesnt make cheap products and doesnt want its products to seem cheap. Dell = cheap. Because Dell is a major player in laptops.. giving Dell Apple's OS would then take away from Apple's laptop sales. Dell relies on cheap prices to drive sales. Apple relies on its OS to help sell its hardware.
Apple giving its OS to Dell is probably one of the worst marketing/business ideas in terms of what is in the best interest of Apple.
"DELL IS BIGGER THAN APPLE AND COULD EAT THEM FOR BREAKFAST"
Actually, Apple is bigger than Dell. Yes, Dell has 2x the gross revenues. But Apple has a substantially larger market cap and enterprise value and much much better profitability.
I agree eric, the fact is that if Jobs tried to do what m$ does - make an os that runs on thousands of pieces of hardware, from a multitude of vendors - the macaddics would have macdows! Window$ may have it's problems on some hardware, but I've never had real issues with WinPC's, as if they become so unstable to become unproductive(probably because I build my own). Let's face it all you macaddics, with Window$ you can, program, play games, do your office work, and your internet, AND BUILD YOUR OWN PC! - yeah it's an art enjoyed only by PCaddics. PC - pure creation! in progress. That said I actually think Macs are cool too, and if Apple would learn from the past, and lower their prices they may just have a stronger market share - trouble is if they had that they would become a target and would have to put up with the same garbage m$ does from the creeps who target Window$ with virus attacks. It is true that Mac hardware is sexy, but if they faced the hackers the way m$ does just how good would their os really be!
This would obviously be a bad thing for Apple's tradition of compatibility through high software/hardware integration, but at the same time it is inevitable. I honestly think they should just license legitimate copies of it at high prices to generic PC manufacturers to try to curb some of the loss of their own hardware sales (so that competitors computers end up being priced at least a little closer to Apple's own hardware prices) and then continue to focus on making their hardware designs unique and innovative on the hardware/OS integration front (i.e. Front Row and the Apple Remote, built-in iSight, trackpad gestures).
Although unfortunate, Apple's design has become too much of a fad, and they would still sell computers to flocks of consumers who don't truly appreciate their quality and all the features and results of their good design (kind of like BMW). Those who truly appreciate it would still have a good alternative to generic hardware, too.
Plus, more PCs running the Mac OS around the world would ultimately mean more support and more compatibility for the entire Mac community.
Very nice, that was worth reading
Ok, I understand the comment about "not appreciating" the better hardware/OS, but it is NOT about that. I see it this way.... Apple has two goals.....
1. Make simple to use products
2. SELL THE HELL OUT OF THEM
3. Repeat from step #1
Whether you agree with this or not, Apple has been making these plans for years. Those that try and follow them in the market have seen some of this coming for some time. The rest is just up to you as a consumer.... if you like Apple stuff, buy it - if not, then don't.
Personally I DO like their stuff. As an IT specialist for over 10 years, I can tell you I have a lot less "critical problems" with Macs. When I do, they are usually solveable things that I can do without re-installing the OS. That is a HUGE thing in critical environments (and in non-critical environments it is a lot less of a pain).
TechMundial.com
Personally Id love to see this happen. I am a windows guy but have always had an appreciation for the clean look and design for OS X and Apple products in general but if I had the chance to install OS X on my custom built PC you are damn right Id give it a try!
The way these Apple fan boys think just enforces why dictatorships work for some people.
I mean seriously. What if Bill Gates ran Apple? Wouldn't everyone be pissed that he limits the customization of his machines, has extremely high prices for toys that are knock offs from overseas & doesn't allow his operating system on any other machine but his own?
Sounds like an a$$hole to me.
p.s. I run MAC at work (because I have to) and PC at home (because it beats the shit out of my MAC here at work)
Ive already got osx running on my acer laptop. I must say it was a major pain in the a** but it is possible now. The problems is, is that i have it running native. This creates all sorts of drivers issues that have to be sorted out. If apple were to offer a pc version of OSX, they would be faced with the huge problem of creating drivers. Just look at windows. It has tens of thousands of different bits of hardware that all work with it. The advantage of osx and its stability is due to the fact that they have such limited designs. They can debug and debug the drivers on the stuff they've got until its much more stable. Considering that it would probably run inferior to that of an apple computer on a pc and the billions that they would have to spend on compatibility R&D, I don't see any way that this would happen. Steve Jobs has given many a tacky speech about their hardware/software integration and I don't think hes going to be willing to give up his business plan.
i may be showing my age here, but does anyone remember powerComputing and the powerTower Pro models? Back in the day Apple opened up the licensing on their products to basically sit back and wait for some R&D to be done by some other companies. After a few years, they closed the licensing, purchase power computing and voila! The power PC was born :)
Been using different colored boxes with many different name badges for well over a decade professionally.
Have to say, i truly respect the out-of-the-box power and performance of the apple product, but it doesn't hold much value to me professionally with interactive development for both web and desktop delilvery.
a quick look at the numbers tells you that apple is not really a viable platform for business and the machines are mostly more than home users really need...
we are a split shop an our Windows machines run all the same software as the Apple machines... dollar for dollar, the Windows boxes cost slightly less for similar performance...if you beat the crap out of any machine, it requires re-formatting, install, etc. regardless of platform.
Obviously, apple has the temporary advantage for virus and malware issues, but that too is changing. In a perfect world [start flame throwers now] a unified OS would be great for content developers and viewers alike, but that will never happen...
next best thing, great virtualization software and licensing freedom to not have to necissarily choose.
just my .02 and hundreds of words:)
[sarcasm]That's great news. Been waiting for this forever. To install Mac OS on my PC. I mean... I didn't buy a Mac with built in Mac OS because I knew this would happen.[/sarcasm]
If someone really wanted windows, they would buy/make a computer with windows. If someone really wanted Mac OS, they would buy a mac computer.
Ranting aside, now PC fans can say "did you know PC's can run Mac OS?". On the negative, by bragging about that, you're essentially saying there are things you need on Mac OS that aren't found in Windows, which brings me to my next point:
What's with mac fans saying "You can run windows on a mac"? If mac is so great, you wouldn't ever need windows to run on it, so why brag about that feature?
PS: I'm not a Windows fan nor an Apple fan. I'd say I'm neutral but I'm with windows XP right now - but I'm not buying Vista. So yeah, I'm neutral.
"but I'm not buying Vista. So yeah, I'm neutral."
That's not neutral, cause nobody is buying Vista; "Erika Jonietz writes for Technology Review, “Ironically, playing around with Vista for more than a month has done what years of experience and exhortations from Mac-loving friends could not: it has converted me into a Mac fan.” http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17992/page1/
most were probably thinking "what did he just say?"
or if they were close to my thinking, which was either one of the following:
-"he must have learned those words today in school"
-"thesaurus.com"
And we all have the Thesaurus widget on our MACs too Brian.
arteekay said: ""Only a Microsoft Executive could overcome the cognitive dissonance inherent in such a contradiction in terms. What? Was that comment too wry, too wordily clever for you?"
I'd guess most were thinking "what an ignorant parrot", cleverly, wordily wry never crossed my mind.
It's a pet phrase, we get it, don't you worry."
Really? I pegged the comment as salient and SPOT-ON, as I did most people I think (except the fanboys like you that Microsoft hires to troll forums).
Unless you're saying you have some kind of empirical data to backup the claim that everyone shares your opinion? No? I didn't think so...
arteekay said: ""Only a Microsoft Executive could overcome the cognitive dissonance inherent in such a contradiction in terms. What? Was that comment too wry, too wordily clever for you?"
I'd guess most were thinking "what an ignorant parrot", cleverly, wordily wry never crossed my mind.
It's a pet phrase, we get it, don't you worry."
Methinks this obnoxious person doesn't get the concept of "rhetoric". He probably doesn't get "irony" either, which must make him an American...
Why is it that Engadget can contridict itself? They report that Apple makes 30% on an iPod and $.20 on a song; and then post an article like this.
Apple makes its money on its hardware: OS X and the iTunes Store are so that people will buy Apple hardware. Licensing Mac OS X to Dell so that Dell can take sales is completely against their business plan.
IT support to PowerPC tier one support: our CD ROM doesn't work.
PPC to IT: Which CD Drive is in your PPC product? We'll send out the right driver to you.
IT guy to user: "Mac crap"
6 months later, the PPC is STILL in the IT closet. Ya, I remember the beige Mac Clones and rejoiced when Jobs killed them off. PPC did an ok beige but it still did little to bolster Apple's reputation as a solid platform.
Cody said: "arteekay said: ""Only a Microsoft Executive could overcome the cognitive dissonance inherent in such a contradiction in terms. What? Was that comment too wry, too wordily clever for you?"
I'd guess most were thinking "what an ignorant parrot", cleverly, wordily wry never crossed my mind.
It's a pet phrase, we get it, don't you worry."
Methinks this obnoxious person doesn't get the concept of "rhetoric". He probably doesn't get "irony" either, which must make him an American..."
Yeah, er... Anyone else thinking "Idiocracy" too WRT arteekay's comment? The art of subtlety is apparently lost on a great many people.
@2Perfect
>> What's with mac fans saying "You can run windows
>> on a mac"? If mac is so great, you wouldn't
>> ever need windows to run on it, so why brag
>> about that feature?
Well, I love my mac but Office for it doesn't have OneNote which I also love. I can't run Guild Wars on my Mac either. While I wouldn't use parallels to run it, I'd definitely dual-boot Windows on my Mac for those few times I can't run some software. It's not a limitation of the platform, it's a limitation imposed (understandably, we're talking 5% of the computer market tops) by developers.
Sorry, but OS X > Windows for me. Built-in Unix, uninstall as simple as deleting a application directory (instead of files buried in system32, etc), it's just better and easier. It just works. XP on my current PC is great. Few complaints. But I've had my fair share of BoDs for no apparent reason on two different PCs I've owned and I just haven't had that on a mac. Like I said, it just works.
-p-
It is very very very unlikely that Apple would allow any one to run Mac OS X on non-Apple computers any time soon.
It is almost as unlikely for virtual computers. But there is hope.
One is the virtual computer that is running on Windows or Linux host - here it is as unlikely as hardware box. However if the host is a Mac - we have a chance. Virtualization has a big momentum now and there is a pressure on Apple to stay competitive. Since they do not offer blade servers virtual server for Mac OS X would be a desired feature for IT shops that want to use Macs, yet do not want/need 10 hardware boxes.
If Parallels or VMWare release a product that allows to install Mac OS X using just OS X installation DVD they will be sued like no tomorrow and they know that so they won't, more than that if somehow folks can find a way to use standard OSX on some hacked Parallels - Apple will force them to "fix" it ASAP
I just wish Apple would have decent remote desktop that is comparable in performance to windows RDC, and allow multi-user login. Because remote use of Mac OS X is pathetic right now, VNC, ARD and Timbuktu are not even close to RDC.
'bout the only way I'll ever try MacOS is when Dell start selling it. I'm not a Dell fanboy but between our family business and home pc's we've got 12 Dells and they all work quite well. In ten years I've had to deal with tech support 3 or 4 times and it always went better than expected.
Besides Apple doesn't yet make a laptop to match my D820 Core2 Duo with the 15.4" WUXGA (1920x1200).
If Steve really wanted a lot of people to switch he would toss out a stripped down OSX that would run on any old x86 box for $50 or less and get people hooked. Heck they could even give it away since they've paid for it many times over thanks to the current Mac users. Then tell them that if they want the latest greatest Mountain Lion (or whatever cat name du-jour) then they will only be able to get the full Mac experience on a Mac machine.
(By the way, I already patented that process so I expect a check and some stock options Steve)
Why it won't happen. The two most important reasons:
1) Apple makes their money from the hardware.
2) There is no driver support for any hardware that Apple is not using in their computers.
You won't get the greatest performance running OSX on a Windows box. How important are drivers? Well, you need them for your motherboard chipsets, CPU, video card, ethernet, printers, scanners etc. (sigh).
What you ARE going to see is Linux finally starting to become a solid alternative to Windows in a year or two. The Sony PS3 is going to help make this happen. I myself am not upgrading to Vista. I'm going to dual-boot with Linux but primarily use Windows, in a few years I'll still dual-boot but gradually switch to Linux, then finally drop Microsoft all together. One of the biggest hurdles is the issue of gaming, and for that it's simple: I'll probably end up buying a PS3 and eventually a PS4.
I'm not exactly off topic, I'm just trying to point out that the dream of OSX will actually be LINUX and the problem of gaming is solved by dropping PC games. Now that I'm forced to pay $300 for Vista and another $400 for a directX10 video card the decision to go with the Sony PS3 just got easier.
"Forced" to pay $300, huh? Check this: http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=AA66730
APple will lose a hell of a lot of cash if they license the os. If this happens the distinction between a macbook pro and say a SOny high end or any of the better x86 laptops , will diminish horribly
The problems is, is that i have it running native. This creates all sorts of drivers issues
--
Wow. You mean.. all the shit that Windows users have to deal with... You mean Steve Jobs wanted things to 'just work'... with a closed architecture?
Go ahead. If you guys want to settle for a mediocre experience of having OS X on a Dell, by all means... OS X is truly the heart and soul of the Mac, but if it doesn't do what it's supposed to, then it's just replicating the clunkiness of Microsoft anyway.
Man, I remember when I was in grade 8 and people were saying stuff like this... But... it was reasonable for 13 year olds to be obsessed with Video Games... An adult? *cringe
"PC generics"? I can tell you who makes everything in my box, even down to the ICs on the cards. I have no clue who Apple uses. To me, Dell and Apple are buying partners.
You can already do this fairly easily if you'd like. Just search google for OS X 10.4 Universal on x86 and there are a billions of forums out there with highly detailed instructions that George W. Bush himself could follow!
As for all of the people who claim to hate the Apple fanboys: I once had several PCs, 1 running windows xp pro, knoppix, and fedora, a laptop running xp pro and fedora, and another laptop running just windows xp pro. One day, my laptop that just ran windows xp pro died (it was a compaq armada) and I started investigating what to buy. I'd always been a fan of UNIX builds because of the stability and performance, so I decided, I've never really experienced macs except at school, so why not go out a buy one, of course keeping at the front of my mind that I could take it back within 30 days. I went out and bought an iBook G4. I loved it, and I still love it. The one thing that I love about it is this, that you literally are incapable of doing with a computer running windows xp:
When I open my iBook G4, it wakes up instantly, right to where I was when I closed it previously. When it is sleeping, it takes hardly any power at all. Foremost, I haven't restarted my computer in (I have a widget) 72 days. And if I remember correctly, the last time I restarted it was to install a software update.
Don't be so quick to judge us Apple/UNIX/Linux type until you've actually tried it for yourself. I swear you'll love it - it's more addicting than crack.
I'm sorry but this isnt new, i had os x running on a windows pc, fast but just no video card support, if you dont believe me, check out this website, http://www.osx86project.org/
Just to let you guys know:)
I really don't think good ol' Michael Dell would get an Apple clone deal if there ever was one to give. Remember, this is the same Michael Dell who said:
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." Michael Dell, 1997, when asked what to do to fix the Mac market.
The thing I love about Windows, that you literally are incapable of doing with a computer running Mac OSX:
I can browse the Internet, edit my videos, work on my web site projects (and I mean real, dynamic web sites, with SQL databases and the like), listen to (almost) any music I want for only $10/month, work on my 3D accelerated live presention software, play Day of Defeat: Source, check my e-mail, organize my photo collection, watch Sunday nights' Battlestar Galactica that I missed, send photos to Wal-Mart, play Oblivion, use Remote Desktop to QUICKLY remotely access my machine at work, upload 600+ songs to my cell phone, jump back to editing my lastest promo video, type up my next weekly lesson, IM my friends for awhile, fiddle with my new 3D shader ideas, link up with my other machine and my brothers' laptops to play some LAN games (Total Annihilation and Unreal Tournament still top the list as favorites, even after all these years), check my e-mail again, and leave my machine on overnight so it's ready to do it all again tomorrow.
All without once having to restart and switch OSes, go to a different computer, or run a virtual machine.
Try that on a Mac.
>I can browse the Internet,
Check
> edit my videos,
Check
>work on my web site projects (and I mean real, dynamic web sites, with SQL databases and the like),
Check
> listen to (almost) any music I want for only $10/month,
Check, without the monthly fee just to keep listening to my music
>work on my 3D accelerated live presention software,
Can't answer as you don't specify which app
> play Day of Defeat: Source,
You got me there
> check my e-mail,
Check
>organize my photo collection,
Check
> watch Sunday nights' Battlestar Galactica that I missed,
Check
>send photos to Wal-Mart,
Check
> play Oblivion,
Can't do that
>use Remote Desktop to QUICKLY remotely access my machine at work,
Check
>upload 600+ songs to my cell phone,
Check
> jump back to editing my lastest promo video,
Check
>type up my next weekly lesson,
Check
>IM my friends for awhile,
Check
> fiddle with my new 3D shader ideas,
What do you mean?
>link up with my other machine and my brothers' laptops
Check...
>to play some LAN games (Total Annihilation and Unreal Tournament still top the list as favorites, even after all these years),
D'oh! Got me there
>check my e-mail again,
Check
>and leave my machine on overnight so it's ready to do it all again tomorrow.
Check. Sometimes I leave mine on for two nights.
What's apparent is that the only key things a Mac user cannot do that you can relates to gaming. Macs have never been a gaming machine, and I doubt they ever will be.
The PC suits you down to the ground as you like to do all the things above and play games in addition. Therefore, the PC makes sense
However, for 'non-gamers', the ability to do everything else listed above without the need to buy (or steal) any additional software is an attractive option.
And thanks to its smaller market share, (and who knows, maybe due to its UNIX underpinnings, I don't know), it suffers less web attacks on a daily basis. Not having to update firewall/antiviral/malware software on a regular basis makes life that little bit easier for some.
Not turning this into a PC/Mac war (such discussions are pointless), but just drawing attention to the fact that both platforms can appeal to different markets.
Some people *like* running Windows (shock horror), and some people *like* running OS X. Other people *need* to run Windows, and others *need* to run OS X.
From my own experience (I own both a PC and a Mac), I find the Mac a better out-of-the-box experience. I like the fact that everything I'm likely to use is there.
That's just my experience, some will agree, some won't. Be careful not to assume other computers can't do what yours can, without checking first.
Depends what you mean by 3D accelerated presentations. With keynote I can do some high quality 3D presentations in HD. Aside from those specific games it seems like you can do everything on a Mac. You can also bring a random Mac in bluetooth range and connect directly with with it. Stream music, transfer files, etc. I can also stream music, video, photos through my 360 (yes, on a Mac), I can setup multiple user accounts and switch between them without logging out of any account or even closing programs. I can also instal new software without restarting, plug in peripherals, midi controlers, etc without loading drivers, encrypt sections of my hard-drive without third party software, record, edit, mix music without third party software, then export it directly to iTunes, or to a mp3. Write my own audio plug-ins with the built-in software development kit.
Hmm, what else? Edit movies in HD without third party software. Add soundtracks, visual effects. Share photos albums on the net, backup and share files on the net using .mac. Tell my computer to open and run applications from across the room using the built-in voice recognition software. Run video conferences. Automate repetative tasks in mac apps as well as third party (MS Office, CS2, etc).
Don't get me started on the Pro applications. The only thing mentioned above that you can't do with the system right out of the box is stream to a 360. You'll need to download Connect360 to do that. Sort of funny that you bring up not restarting your computer. Unless you have an OS upgrade you basically don't restart a mac even when installing software.
First I thought this was cool but quickly realised it's mostly a novelty..
Parallels was important because it allowed Mac-users to gain access to important programs only available for Windows without rebooting their Mac.
Boot Camp was important because it allowed Mac-owners to use programs/games only available for Windows which required Direct3D etc.
So - Mac-users saw quite a few advantages in being able to run Windows and Windows-only programs. But the other way around? I can't mention one single program available for OS X for which there isn't a equivalent or better version Windows-version among the programs I use.
Sure, maybe people in the media can find it useful when migrating from Mac OS to Windows? But anyone besides these and Geeks(tm)?
The release of Vista and a new office suite create an enormous opportunity for Apple to use capability like that from Parallels to wrest significant marketshare from Microsoft - but only if Apple encourages the use of Mac OS on non Apple hardware.
If past experince is a guy, Steve Jobs'll pass on this opportunity. Too bad for both Apple stockholders and PC users.
bogged more on that here: http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/01/apples_golden_o.html
Should Apple license OS X to other major computer makers the market share of OS X would probably rise a few percent units, but not more. Should it already today be a huge demand for OS X people would buy Apple hardware if necessary to run OS X, even if they could only afford a Mac Mini. Apple hardware is not primarily expensive in itself (Mac Mini is inexpensive as a mini-computer, iMac is inexpensive as a AIO (actually it's one of the least expensive AIO i have found) and MacPro is inexpensive as a workstation. But these are hardware solutions people ain't really interested in buying. Dell offer no Mini-solution or AIO because their customers have no interest in such formfactors. And while they offer workstations in the $2000-$10000-range, their bread-and-butter sales consist of fairly normal miditowers. And the same can be said about HP, Gateway and more or less any other computer manufacturer out there. And so the share of Apple hardware would fall like a stone in thin air. Let's not kid ourself, with the current lineup Apple would in only a few months lose probably ~90 percent of their sales to Dell since a major exodus from expensive and limited hardware to common towers would take place.
And this is why Apple as it stands now never will release OS X to other companys. They stand to gain a few percentage points in OS marketshare - but would at the same time lose almost all of their hardware sales.
The day that i will run OSX on my dell (legally) will be the day that my bro's zune will work again... it will never ever ever happen apple wants people to buy their shiny boxes when they want the best OS for all those who got exiceted over boot camp and the intel switch get over it jobs will never ever ever put his precious tiger / lepord on those heathens *shudder* which is why apple will never never never out compete microsoft in the market share ... they dont like sharing without paying a hefty to join the mac cult
Sell software while you can. The human race is transcending unfree data as we speak.
*post censored for open source/piracy encouraging content*
I would love to run OS X on an Intel Quad-core 1300 MHz FSB ECS motherboard...with 4 gigs of Mushkin extreme...and 1 gig of PC express crossfire video...
It would farkin' rock
Steve Jobs is the biggest idiot in world history for not porting a superior OS to Intel systems 20 years ago. Gates would now be working for him if he had...
I like the idea. I wouldn't be caught dead using an Apple, but wouldn't mind playing around with the OS to see if any of the opinions of those AppleFans are justified.
My perception of things is that the distinctions are becoming more and more blurred. Two things that have happened have changed the whole picture. Apple is now using Intel chips. Apple is now basing their system on an Open Source OS. The result is that today's Apple has no resemblance whastever to previous systems.
Amazingly, this means that current Apple applications are totally incompatible with previous versions. What little compatibility there is is solely due to emulation.
On the other hand, in the Intel/Windows world, you can boot up your Pentium Core2 Duo on DOS 2.1 and run programs written for the original IBM PC. Not that you'd likely want to, but this is backwards compatibility as it should be.
With OSX, Apple has effectively thrown the baby out with the bath water and, in my view, most of their credibility went with it.