Who is a real OS X's supporter?

stunned

Now, this is an interesting discussuon topic.



Many of us love Mac OS X and the beautiful Apple hardware such as ibook ad iMac.



BUT, assuming that apple is just a software developer and not a hardware developer, and OS X runs on "ugly" PC computers. How many of you would still prefer buy the so called Mac, an ordinary PC with OS X?



Do note that this computer is not windows compataible. And of course, the price of these Macs are still expensive...

pscates

I honestly believe I would. Like tons of others here, I began using Macs before the whole "iEra" and the curvy, colored, translucent period of Jobs' return to Apple.



My first Mac (as well as the ones I used in school and during my first 4-5 years of working) were all on beige, boxy 68040 Macs (IIsi, Quadras, Centris, etc.) and first-generation PowerMacs (7100, original beige G3 desktops, PowerComputing and Motorola clones, etc.).



I dug the Mac from the first time I sat down and used one (System 7.1, if I recall correctly)...and it certainly wasn't about any hardware prettiness. I bitched quite a bit about "I wish something would replace SCSI...it SUCKS!".



I've said, on many occasions, that if you could get the Mac OS to run inside an empty Folgers can, I'd use it before I'd ever buy a tricked-out, 2GHz-plus Windows-based system.



A lot of it is, of course, comfort level and having spent over nine years using a particular platform exclusively. But I've also dabbled enough (and have enough friends who use the other) to feel that I just probably wouldn't have the same level of enjoyment and all on a PC that I do on a Mac.



Here lately, with the iApps and all, OS X getting really snazzy, the true "plug and play/no fuss" nature that accompanies 99.7% of my Mac-using experience, I'm even MORE so that way.



"You can have my Mac when you pry my cold, dea..."







I'm in it for the long haul. I don't get too torqued-up over MHz and DDR this and FireWire 2 that. I'm lucky in that my computing needs - even in the graphic arts realm - are fairly modest (being a vectorhead rather than a pixel pusher helps...), so I'm never wringing my hands over any "MHz gap" stuff. As long as the OS and other software makes me happy and productive (which it does), then I'm completely fine.



The beautiful hardware is just really nice icing on the cake. REALLY nice, of course.

ast3r3x

i agree, its worth the extra price for the software...i'm only 16 but my first mac was a IIGS, then Performa, then StarMax (Moto clone), then G3 B&W, then QS G4



i wouldn'tswitch i love my mac that much, i can assure you that i dont buy macs for the hardware...but its an added perk!

quarem

I would stil buy the Mac. In some ways I think might even be better since there would be lots of cheap hardware (Sound cards, video cards, etc), because the developers would only have to write a driver to get OS X compatibility.



In fact I would switch to PC right now, just because they are so much faster. I like Linux, but there is no games for it, and I hate Windows. OS X and the iApps have me in a strangle hold. The combination of a Unix and a consumer desktop have really got me addicted, if there was no OS X I would probably just run a dual-boot Linux Windows PC that I built myself.

discocow

I?d follow X like a drooling NOUN to wherever the hardware suits it best, weather that?d be on a ?Real? Mac or a shit fast X only sub 2k pc with more drive and PCI slots than a cat has nipples. It all depends on the user experience. I spend 99% of the time looking (and /or ?interacting?) with the monitor, keyboard & mouse so as long as I have no problems with them, and/or no internal hardware/driver conflicts I don?t care what my computer looks like (of course as stated above, it is a real? nice perk to have a ?sexy? computer)



In retrospect, I will remain indecisive on this subject as long as I have my OS X with no worries, I?m happy.



I guess I?ll just have to wait till it happens

splinemodel

Believe it or not, x86 is dying. Intel wants to bring out IA64, which is actually quite awesome. PPC is pretty solid, but was underdeveloped as of the past few years.



Would I continue to buy PPC macs? Sure. I'm a notebook user, and the PPC is better suited for that. furthermore, as an engineer, it hurts to use x86's.

quarem

Yeah I supppose it doesn't make any sense for Apple to switch to x86 now. If they were to do such a move it would be better for them to wait until everything moves over to 64-bit on the PC side, since both AMD and Intel are going to be transitioning to this soon.



The 3.06GHz P4 Hyperthreader still has me in a trance though.

amorph

It depends on what you mean by plain boxes. If they were like the Digital PCs we bought at work five or so years ago - ugly outside but built like tanks and beautifully engineered - then sure, I'd consider one. If they're plain boxes as in cheap, forget it. A lot of the appeal of the Mac lies in the hardware. Even when it wasn't pretty it was thoughtfully designed, solid, feature-rich and reliable for the most part.

luca

EDIT: Whoops.



[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>

rhoq

If it's not an Apple-made machine, I want no part of it!

ghost_user_name

[quote]Originally posted by Rhoq:

<strong>If it's not an Apple-made machine, I want no part of it!</strong><hr></blockquote> Exactly how I see it.



Once Apple loses control of the hardware, it's screwed. Windows has to carry oodles of different drivers because of the oodles of possible hardware options and configurations. A number of Windows hassles come from driver and hardware weirdness. If that started happening with Mac OS X, I'd seriously question jumping ship altogether.



What has also been discussed a hundred times that *could* be feasible, though, is if Apple replaced the G4 with an Intel of AMD chip. That way Apple could still control hardware sales and actually remain profitable. If *this* would happen, yes, I'd still use Mac OS X.



Of course, I can't really imagine either of these things happening any time soon. To give up hardware would be complete suicide and conceding absolute defeat.



[ 11-27-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>

mrbilldata

It is by no means balanced. I know plenty of people that would run OS X on their PC if it was avaliable. Mac OS is usually much cleaner than M$ and most Mac Apps follow the rules ( because Apple makes following the rules easier ).

But at least as many would love to be able to run thier favorite PC program on their Mac natively, instead of running it at half speed through a PC simulator.



Personally I love the Apple Hardware and tolerate the OS. I still use 7.6.1 on two of my systems, 9.1 and LINUX on my G3 laptop, a proprietary OS on my DP PowerMac, and I plan to run Classic on my new Powerbook. I also have 3 Dells running Nt and two Sun Ultra 5's running Solaris. Solaris has given me the least OS problems, but Apple hardware has always given me the least maintenance problems.



As previously stated, its the quality. No matter how Apple packages their system, a person can be confident that a lot more Engineering went into it than most PCs.

ghost_user_name

[quote]Originally posted by MrBillData:

<strong>But at least as many would love to be able to run thier favorite PC program on their Mac natively, instead of running it at half speed through a PC simulator.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's another thing. Just because Mac OS X would run on Intel/AMD processors DOES NOT mean that it will run Windows software. Mac OS uses a completely different set of APIs for programming than Windows. The binaries would not do squat unless someone could magically engineer a program like WINE for Mac OS X. Even in that case the Windows apps would still look and behave like Windows apps. The UI niceties of Mac OS X simply would not exist when you used the Windows apps -- much like when you use Classic.



What would be the point of running Mac OS X on Intel/AMD hardware if you're going to run software that looks and behaves exactly like it is running on Windows?