Welcome to Geeklog, Anonymous Tuesday, December 16 2025 @ 08:12 pm EST

Would you run OSX on an Intel PC if Apple ported it across?

1/1: Would you run OSX on an Intel PC if Apple ported it across?

yes YES NOW!		233 (41.98%)
Sure		69 (12.43%)
I'd Trial It		105 (18.92%)
On a Dual Boot		57 (10.27%)
Maybe OSXII		6 (1.08%)
Never!		56 (10.09%)
Lemon Curry?		29 (5.23%)

Other polls | 555 voters | 49 41

Comments

Would you run OSX on an Intel PC if Apple ported it across? | 30 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

However...

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, February 20 2002 @ 02:30 pm EST

They won\'t do it and for good reasons.
It\'s not my intention to start a troll but if you compare similar things and not the cheapest PC against the cheapest Mac, you\'ll realize that Apple\'s hardware isn\'t that expensive.

OK I\'m a Mac and OS X fan so I\'m partial. But using OS X, W2000 and Linux everyday I can tell you there\'s very little things missing on the Mac side for so many nicer details.

However...

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Sunday, October 06 2002 @ 02:25 pm EDT

Mac OSX is superior to windows XP in many ways (of course it is still buggy). So from an operating system point of view, the Mac is superior.

However, PCs are much better from a hardware point of view. If you compare what $3,000.00 will get you with a MAC and then compare what that will get you with a PC, PCs simply blow the mac away. Not to mention, Mac hardware is not only expensive, but offers only limited hardward upgrades.

So far apple\'s superior OS and loyal user base has kept it alive because people are willing to pay the very high premium for Mac hardware. But not for much longer. My partners and I use macs in our graphics studio, but 2 out of the three of us have decided that from now on, we will replace our macs with PCs since macs are just too expensive (photoshop, golive, etc. all run just as well on a pc).

The AMD v.s. Intel price battle and the availability of numerous chipset manufacturers has dramatically improved the price/performance ratio of PC hardware. As a result, the premium you pay for a mac compared to a PC is increasing rapidly and I think more and more mac users will begin to find that they can no longer justifiy the cost.

Also, most new technical innovations (DDR Ram, 266Mhz Bus, AGP, etc...etc.) are all PC innovations because the PC market has many competitors and the user base is large enough to absorb the R&D cost. Apple is just one company with a small user base. As time goes on they will continue to fall further and further behind and will (as they pretty much do now) just follow the PC hardware market\'s lead and release things like DDR Ram, etc.

So I think its inevitable that apple\'s os will need to run on PC hardware at some point so they can offer their users competitively priced hardware.

Sure this means you can just buy the apple OS and not the software which will cost mac some hardware sales. However, Mac can become like a Dell or a Gateway and still sell hardware. They can have their computer components made by independent manufacturers and bundled as Apple products and supported by them. Mac loyalists and people who like \"pretty hardware\" will be willing to pay a slight premium for Apple branded PC hardware.

Simply put, the hardware advantage of PCs will make the mac professional user base dwindle to the point where mac wont be able to survive by selling IMacs and IPods to college kids. They will need to switch to the PC platform to survive.

Won\'t do it

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, February 20 2002 @ 06:04 pm EST

They also won\'t do it because Apple is primarily a hardware company, from what I understand.

Will They Do It

Authored by: MLimburg on Wednesday, February 27 2002 @ 10:16 pm EST

Sure they will, I mean the poll says they should!

-----
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move
bodies.

---
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Hey Now

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Tuesday, March 05 2002 @ 10:49 pm EST

First off, you're all correct... well mostly... OS X's aqua options and many foundations of the Macintosh portions of OS X will NEVER be ported. However, the open soucre side of it known as Darwin. It is correct that Apple is a hardware company, though it is also correct that apple is a software company... Apple makes the whole machine. They are actually in quite a unique position to be able to provide users with an awesome experience straight from the box... with nothing to install, a registration form which can be quit out of :) , and coos software which looks good, works well, and is fully featured and somehow easy to use... it can't be beat.

Apple won't port OS X to an x86 based machine for several reasons:

1) Apple is the most profitable computer company in the world. Somehow apple has taken the process of building cool looking machines, with awesome spec sheets, and real world performance. and dropped the price... and not just because components cost less...

2) Mac OS X is uniquely grounded with the PowerPC G3 and G4 processors. Moreso the G4 than the G3, as you'll note with performance. The velocity engine on the G4 chips does wonders to the speed of the Aqua user interface, allowing it to run at some points almost 6 times the speed of an equivelant G3 based machine.

3) Apple is out to change the world. CISC (Core Instruction Set Computing) based processors have been manufactured for almost 30 years now. That's freakin old. RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) has only been around since the mid nineties, which gives Apple lots of legroom as the largest purchaser of PPC based chips. Also the PowerPC chips were designed from the bottom up knowing they were to be used in systems which would be sporting a graphical user interface. This gives another unique prospective since CISC based chips are still founded on the same pricipals of calculation they were 30 years ago.

4) Apple has always been an 'in house' company. While they've been shying away from that recently, it hasn't met with much enthusiasm from most 'in the know' Mac users, who all realize that Apple has lost some control over the quality of the product hardware wise in the past year. Apple is very enthusiastic about the open source Darwin base of OS X, and is happy that it runs on x86 based machines... however, OS X will not be ported because they simply couldn't justify writing the OS to work on that many different types of machines. Apple has been able to keep their OS more stable and ahead of its time for years by integrating the OS with the hardware that they create. Some see this as a weakness, but I see it as a strong suit, here's why:

{
Since Apple makes more innovative machines, they also make really creative and innovative software. They weren't the first to bring DVD-R to the desktop, but they wanted to wait to give consumers the ability to also burn CD's with the same drive, as well as give them a software package that could help them to easily put together an impressive DVD in just a few minutes. The same was with iTunes. While Apple admittedly was not the first company to bring CD burning to everyone, they brought the easiest way to burn CD's to anyone with a Mac. iTunes is fabulous (if you haven't tried it out yet stop by an AppleStore, or other retailer with a Mac), it really does simplify things a great deal. Data CD burning is built into the OS, so all the user has to do is insert a blank disc and the Os will prompt the user to give the disc a name, from there it's just ike moving files inbetween folders (literally).

Keeping the hardware controlled allows Apple the unique opportunity to make sure that the OS and the software work seamlessly. It also helps developers. Developers don't want to have to make sure their stuff works with this card and that, or this software or that external option... they just want it to work... Apple keeps this simple by providing an OS which is straight forward, and easy to develop for, as well as Hardware which is streamlined and only comes in certain configurations. While users can Upgrade the G4 PowerMac's very easily with new cards and such the likelihood of having the OS, or a software program spontaneously combust is much lower on a Mac. Keeping it this way allows Apple to keep that sort of happy setting within the Macintosh community, and they're not letting go of it anytime soon.
}

Life is study!

DigitalVolume
The Way It Should Be.

Hey Now

Authored by: Jason on Friday, March 15 2002 @ 06:50 pm EST

That\'s ok cause I want one of the new iMac\'s anyway! :-)

---
You are all a bunch of freaks!

Hey Now

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Friday, March 22 2002 @ 04:46 am EST

I don\'t know much about apple, so I won\'t comment on that..

However you mention that RISC has been around since the mid nineties...

I believe you\'ll find that RISC chips have been around for a lot longer than that... nearly as long as CISC chips have...

http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/history/histrisc.html

http://www.bluewaternz.com/startoff/intro.htm

:-)

Hey Now...

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Saturday, March 30 2002 @ 05:45 pm EST

I enjoy your enthusiasm, and consur that my previous
statements were incorrect, and have ammended all
information in my brain to synchronize with it.

Do we all however, agree that RISC is better than
CISC? I know the two technologies are now getting
very close to each other, but RISC sems to have much,
much more life left in it. Though if both technology
styles are that old, isn\'t it time for new technology?

I feel antiquated now. Oh well, more food for me :)

Life is study!
Chris Giddings

DigitalVolume
The Way It Should Be.

Hey Now

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Sunday, March 31 2002 @ 06:23 pm EST

Apple, MAC, whatever, is nice. But so is X-Box and the Cube. And they change faces just about as often. But let\'s get serious for a moment. MAC is good for coloring and my marketing department, but that is where it stops. Sorry, I guess I miss what the hype is here or the point of concern with OS X.

btw... Geeklog is an incredible project. Great Job!!

Hey Now

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, April 24 2002 @ 04:06 pm EDT

Umm... isn\'t it quite easy to miss points, no matter how stunningly obvious, if you are closed to objectivity? Can\'t you see you are a cretin? I mean, what other kind of person would post a first-hand statement regarding the affinities or capabilities of a complex OS which they know nothing about first-hand?

If you don\'t know what your talking about. Read. Study. Experience. Stop posting when your moutpiece is your ass. Installing Linux on your computer does not make you competent; it makes you part of the unconscious drones repeating just another new marketing slogan that is so popular right now.

Where were you when Linux wasn\'t easy to install or popular? Were you making comments about how it was only good for running Apache and XFree86 sucked? Probably not. And don\'t think we don\'t know why. Because you are an idiot. You don\'t even realize that by posting out here in the real, wide world, that what works on people even dumber than you won\'t work here, other than to prove your utter lack of credulity.

Small price to pay I guess, for our global consipiracy to get the dumbest people in the world to keep to themselves and out of our way. Come back when you can write a GUI program instead of use one. We know you\'ll never, ever get there. The conspiracy rests comfortably on that fact. Enjoy the fruit of Apple\'s innovation... you don\'t have to realize it. Just stay where you are.

Hey Now

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Sunday, August 11 2002 @ 02:49 am EDT

re: \"MAC is good for coloring and my marketing\"

Yep, I do think youve missed the hype. Take a look at os x. This isnt 9.

Hey Now

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Friday, September 20 2002 @ 03:10 am EDT

CISC is not a new development for the powerPC. I\'m not sure which came first the PPC or Pentium, but the original pentium (and everything since then) were all RISC as well. so the point is null.

uhh, Apple has an i386 version already.

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Sunday, November 03 2002 @ 07:46 am EST

Hey man...don\'t know if you know this or not but Apple has been keeping a i386 version of OSX in step with the PowerPC version since the very beginning, in secret of course. It was annouced August 2002 I think.

Here is the link.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

They also just released the Darwin Kernel for Intel processors, no AMD support as of yet.

Also, to whomever posted about how OSX is tied to the PowerPC and could never be ported to i386....thats just not true. OSX is based on BSD and contains little if any legacy code.

Stay on your PC

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, April 24 2002 @ 03:48 pm EDT

Most of the punkass dolts about nowadays have either recently switched from Windows, or are dual-booting, using RPM to install their KDE and then boasting about using Unix and complaining that what really needs to be accepted is a better, easier, GUI with Office applications.

Well. Linux does _not_ need that, never has, and they have never needed you. Likewise with Apple. Please, please, stay off of that computer. We\'d like to keep you people on x86 and believing that your \'70\'s era instructions really do rock, and so does IDE and shitty BIOS. Linux deals with this stuff nicely - a tribute to the cleverness and ingenuity of people all over the world to not only produce great quality, but do so with sub-par components.

Apple provides great consumer quality. And Sun and *BSD provide great commercial quality - as do some carefully chosen Linux options. If you like that quality, then go get it. If you don\'t, stay with x86 and keep jacking yourself off about one kind of motherboard, and one instruction set, and no alternatives. You can continue to hold your myopic views and not bother the rest of us with your burdensome anti-logic.

There are hobbyists who work with what they have and not with what they can\'t afford, and then there are those who consistently buy shit like Intel boxes and Windows who remain stupid enough to drive gear down to commodity prices for the rest of us. Thank you, but please, stay where you are.

Stay on your PC

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Friday, July 05 2002 @ 11:00 pm EDT

mmm.... I think im gonna go install suse now... hah!

- Rusty

Stay on your PC

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Friday, August 16 2002 @ 03:25 am EDT

I thought Apple ditched SCSI for IDE?

Stay on your PC

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, November 06 2002 @ 11:13 pm EST

they DID...

Starting with G3s Macs moved to cheaper IDE...the same guy that was complaining about PC users spouting trash is spouting incorrect facts himself.

In other news, I am a PC lover - BUT...I am buying a Titanium G4 because it is a wonderful machine. Simple. I\'ve always been a unix man, so being able to tinker on a command line level is often nicer and easier than using a gui...I also love the instant results of a Mac...

Unfortunately I never felt that you could immerse yourself too much in the mac\'s OS environment, where I could on a PC. Hopefully that has changed with the new OSx.

Two things that annoy me: OSx doesnt allow for a change in window managers like linux would, and I\'m not sure I will be able to get used to having programs just dumped in the / directory (at least that\'s how it is on my buddy\'s computer...maybe he\'s just an idiot)

Stay on your PC

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Saturday, February 22 2003 @ 12:08 am EST

''and I'm not sure I will be able to get used to having programs just dumped in the / directory (at least that's how it is on my buddy's computer...maybe he's just an idiot)''

He probably is. An app on OS X is an icon with a 'wrapper' underneath. Just take the icon (prog) and put it where you want. Apps are not confined to certain folders, etc

And if you don't want the app, just drop it in the trash

;-)

Hurt Me

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Tuesday, August 06 2002 @ 04:29 am EDT

I was so impressed with windows in the early days I ended up developing for it for the past 11 years. I therefor think I have a very well informed opinion of the os. It SUCKS!
You like windows.....bite me. You\'re a F*cking idiot! What is there to like? Stop bickering like a b*tch and accept the fact that they got your pants down and your taking it large!

As a serious business developer I have dabled with every aspect of programming technology. Nothing is sacred in the MS world. How can you back somebody who develops a \'data access object\' for windows that breaks the last one is not compatible with the new one and is different to the one you get with Office....which by the way is completely incompatible with any other one and so forth....I for one have had enough of this sh*t! I now spend my time redevloping everything I developed the year before to make sure it still works with all the same new sh*t MS brings out.

Don\'t b*tch about PCs being faster. That just means your machine crashes quicker and as for price.....do you drive a lada?. THINK before you speak. I do not own a mac, but I want to. I do not know if they are better but what an MS fan has to ask themselves is.....can it get any worse? Personal oppinion die Microsoft you had your chance....

.NET......what the f*ck? A whole new way to develop the same stuff you developed last year.....just when I thought I could enjoy my creativity instead I settle down to relearn everything again.

Oh how I love the sound of my new wind tunnel pc......not.

Hurt Me

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, September 25 2002 @ 06:44 am EDT

Littering your comments with profanities does not make your argument more convincing; it simply makes you seem like the \"F*cking Idiot.\"

macs are crap

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Saturday, November 02 2002 @ 03:48 pm EST

Im sorry i have a pc and a g4,,,,and the g4 is shit,,,i am always at the cutting edge with software, i like to keep up to date with what is going on,,,,when you get something for the pc,,,,like divx for example can you get it for mac yeah about 2 years later,,,,face it they are 3 times the price,,and they dont work any quicker,,,

what the guy said before my post about having to go over all his previos work to keep up with microsoft,,,,what about osx.2 jaguar,,,what a joke,,, you install the os,,,and then you realise no one has released anything to work with it yet,,like quark express only a £1000,,,but now jag is installed i can not print with it,cos it only works in classic,,,im sorry macs are a rip off,,and another thing matey was saying about macs being the biggest earner what are you going on about,,,i dont think bill gates is the richest man in the world cos mac make more,,,and no mac are not hardware based,,,, proccesors made by motorola,,,hard drives by ibm,,,,macs are just a rip off pc.

PC Crap

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Thursday, April 10 2003 @ 04:51 am EDT

Hi,

I converted to Mac OSX last year and recently had to use a windows Xp
system - what a load of crap, you forget after you have been using Mac
just how Sh*t windows is. It was so slow, It crashed, it couldn't manage
its own memory, the fan was like a bloody hurricane blowing through the
office. I know regard windows systems like cheap tarts on the make,
colourful, noisy, cheap and they go down all the time!

Mac Rocks they are the only people who put together a total package,
from looks to performance and if you want to you need never know what
an operating system is. If Mac ruled in terms of market share the
internet would fly, the world would have more computer users and
corporations would have saved Billions.

Bill Gates should admit defeat and join Saddam in obscurity.

Long live the Mac
Long live the Mac

Andy

PC Crap

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Thursday, May 22 2003 @ 12:44 am EDT

Are you kidding me. You can't compare OSX to Windows in terms of compatibility. Do you realize how many variables and different lines of code microsoft has to code in to account for all the millions of different types of hardware configs that are out there?? For apple, they only had a set limit of different hardwre there could be, and thats it. Thats why its optimized so well, because it runs on limited hardware. As for the hardware itself, your also comparing high end to low end hardware. You can't take a nice Mac comp and compare it to some walmart HP/compaq and expect it to perform the same. That just isn't going to happen. Get off your high horse and use the OS that you prefer and STFU. You techno geeks b*tch wayy too much. If you need to flame that much on the net you need a new hobby.

PC Crap

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:03 am EDT

you DO realize that Microsoft doesn't code all the drivers and other code to make it compatible with all the hardware out there? That would require effort. Its a lot easier to just use your monopoly over all that is PC and make any hardware company that wishes to use your OS to jump through hoops to work with Windows.

PC Crap

Authored by: Anonymous (Anonymous User) on Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:11 am EDT

Question: what kind of crappy PC were you using? I have had XP running on 2 PCs for just under 2 years now, one a Dell PIII, the other an AnthlonXP I built. I have BSOD'ed the AMD once, and only once, when trying to watch tv, play video files, and play a DVD at the same time. Sounds like the PC you were using was some eMachine piece of crap.

Dear Anonymous flamers

Authored by: klync on Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:46 pm EDT

Where did you all come from and why? This is not the kind of
discussion I've become accustomed to around here. It's a real
shame. I enjoy geeklog's collaborative and open atmosphere,
which you are trying to corrupt with your anger. Save it for
comment #847 on slashdot. Maybe the gl team should take a page
from k5: if it's worth saying, it's worth logging in.

This Will NEVER happen, so don't worry

Authored by: phpsocialclub on Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 05:05 pm EDT

Having been an Apple user since my apple II, I will tell you that unless someone kidnaps Steve and hold him randsom, they will never get port OS X to x86 hardware or anything other that their own proprietary chips.

They can not afford to get out of the hardware business. How hard would it be to launch an new product like the ipod, if they were not sure that all Mac would have fire wire. How are they going to continue to provide legendary tech support if they have to support some over clocked AMD chip.

Never going to happen, period.

People need to get over the fact that Mac hardware costs more, nobody complains that BMW parts do not fit in to Toyotas.

---
I work for a Wilmington NC Attorney

It's happened

Authored by: hellmaster_draco on Monday, June 06 2005 @ 09:53 pm EDT

well it looks like the thing that was never going to happen did

Mac is switching to X86

It's funny going back to this poll and seeing the opinions that this day would never
come.

I can't decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing. On the downside it'll mean a forced
hardware upgrade next year. The upside it means that windows software will be
easier to port to OS X, and there is the possibility of dual boot windows and OS X.

Would you run OSX on an Intel PC if Apple ported it across?

Authored by: kickit2 on Friday, September 02 2005 @ 07:29 pm EDT

I just want to point out that everyone in here has good points.. Apples are for the most part, very stable, and are very easy to use for beginners. The new OSx has finaly made the MAC a platform for more indepth users.
However! - You also need to realize that mac software selection is almost nonexistant when compared to the availible selection of PC software, and software that is availible for mac, is 99% of the time also avail for PC on one OS or another. If you want to play anything near a newer game, yer gonna need a PC, game devel and hardware devel goes where the money is, sorry. Also, some of you where bashing PC hardware spouting that the MACS has better hardware. Macs for the most part come with IDE hardrives, PC133 or DDR memory, and AGP video cards along with other things; all of which were designed for and made cost effective by the i386 followers. Also, if macs were so awesome, why dont they hold a majority on servers. The answer... bigger - more powerful systems for less $$, better support, more software. Overall better performance. Also, all you mac fans that spout yer G5s out there, the G5 is a great chip, ill give you that. But Apple themselves have given up on the RISC based motorola processors due to their insane heat and power requirements, and very limited headroom to grow. Recent Apple press releases have said that apple is moving over to an i386 based platform with a propritory rom systems to enforce Apple software only runs on their systems. Even Apple admits to having a fully running port of OSX for i386, requireing their rom.
So, what are you left with, Apple themselves have given up on their platform and moved to i386. Face it, apple is going the way of SEGA. Software only enforced by a hardware key. MAC lovers... stick it where the sun dont shine and realize that at some point the market is going to force you to mainstream or die.

debate close to an end

Authored by: ironclad on Sunday, June 04 2006 @ 01:16 pm EDT

The credits to the PC and the MACS are both note worthy. Personally I find
that in the working world, Mac is better in most enviroments. Sure there are
few games for macs, but look at the market for macs. Editing. Images,
Films, and Audio. For those purposes they are the best, the best because
they work clean and efficently. Need to transfer files from one computer to
an other? No problem! Just hold down a key and connect the firewire cable
to the two computers, or make a private network without configuretion with
eithernet. MAC hardware may not be perfect, from my experence it has its
problems, but I will say that I will not ever, EVER go back to Windows until
they make a decent OS! Windows is far behind, there is no way around it.
Your common Unix based OS's can easily be networked, become servers, and
be able to do their task quickly and cleanly once you know what you are
doing. Yes MS has the market cornered, but now in 2006 there seems to be
a new interest in the fact that mac is dual-boot. So what if mac is holding
back a I386 install. Like said before it keeps the quality of support and
makes it easier for the programers to write good code because they took out
all of the varibles and they can focus on making a better OS. Looking what
Mac is doing on the I386 arcitecture now, I am just waiting to see what is
around the corner, because unless Windows has something to compete with
in terms of OS, people might take a closer look at MAC. Just a thought.

Warning: Javascript required to enable functionality

Would you run OSX on an Intel PC if Apple ported it across?

Search

Resources

About

Getting started

Support

Development

Topics

User Functions

What's New

Articles last 4 weeks

Comments last 4 weeks

Pages last 4 weeks

Links last 4 weeks

Downloads last 4 weeks