Another Vote For X On Intel

glurx · February 17, 2002 10:25PM

Cringely's <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020214.html"; target="_blank">latest column</a> advocates doing this . Slashdot is <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/02/02/17/133226.shtml?tid=107"; target="_blank">currently discussing it</a>.

ghost_user_name · February 17, 2002 11:13PM

Well this would be KEWL!! Finally a decent OS on decent hardware!

glurx · February 17, 2002 11:44PM

<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28113&cid=3021548"; target="_blank">This post</a> allegedly by someone who spent "Four years as a senior software engineer on Apple's OS teams" claim Apple maintains a concurrent Intel build which includes "Aqua, Quartz and Carbon".

the toolboi · February 18, 2002 12:23AM

Apple was planning a PC release of Rhapsody. I dont see why X isnt feasable.

Id love it, id dump this bloated POS called windows* in minutes.

*Can some one explain to me what changes they made from NT4 that took win2k up to 13 billion lines of code? USB support, some better windows 98 compatibillity, and...?

falcon · February 18, 2002 12:47AM

This would be awsome. But it seems like such a mammoth project. And not just the OS, what about software? What needs to be done in order to take an OS X PPC app, to x86 OS X??

junkyard dawg · February 18, 2002 3:22AM

No wonder OS X development is crawling along, Apple must develop for both PPC and x86!!!

WTF?

This is obviously a last resort measure, for when Motorola finally ruins it for Apple. If Apple released OS X for x86, they would have to convert to a software-only company, and then M$ would throw their entire weight into making sure Apple went belly up. And M$ would trample Apple.

So no matter how you look at it, OS X on x86 will never happen successfully.

What's funny is that the author of this article thinks that Mac users will still buy Macs even if OS X runs on Intel. What an idiot. Who the hell is going to buy a $3000 Powermac when you can buy a PC foir $1000 that's as fast or faster at most tasks? What an idiot.

[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]

airsluf · February 18, 2002 3:45AM

falcon · February 18, 2002 2:49PM

[quote]What's funny is that the author of this article thinks that Mac users will still buy Macs even if OS X runs on Intel. What an idiot. Who the hell is going to buy a $3000 Powermac when you can buy a PC foir $1000 that's as fast or faster at most tasks? What an idiot.<hr></blockquote>

Dont all of you already do just that?

ghost_user_name · February 18, 2002 5:28PM

[quote]Originally posted by Falcon:

Dont all of you already do just that?<hr></blockquote>

No, this is different.

Today, you pay the "premium" for the OS, the software.

Once all the software (OS and all) is available on a cheaper and more powerful box, why not go for it?

torifile · February 18, 2002 5:56PM

I dunno, right now 3 of 4 of Apple's offerings are somewhat competitive with their PC counterparts. Actually, the iBook and iMac win in that department. Get the power line up to snuff (and the PB is this >< close to being there already) and I think they'll still be able to compete.

ghost_user_name · February 18, 2002 5:58PM

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

Get the power line up to snuff<hr></blockquote>

Exactly my point. The PowerMac isn't so powerful, AltiVec aside.

rick1138 · February 18, 2002 9:15PM

Actually Altivec is quite powerful,more powerful than anything in the x86 world for certain data crunching tasks.Altivec delivers power when it is needed.The real problem has been the lack of high end video cards.I'd hate to see the PPC disappear because it is a superior architecture.And Macs are price competitive,the only area where they are lacking is in mid-range machines.Unfortunately,that is where most of the market is.

Another Vote For X On Intel

Comments