From what I understand. Intel would like to advance and move on from its standard x86 architecture. Which from what I understand Itanium was supposed to do.
The reason Intel is stuck with its current architecture is because the PC world wants to maintain legacy compatibility.
Apple on the other hand has no connection with PC legacy and has no need to support the current x86 architecture.
This frees the Apple/Intel collaboration to come up with interesting new chips and designs.
Apple is a maverick, and has never had a history of just falling into place with what the industry standards.
I believe the collaboration will yield interesting surprises.
The Mac mini will fully and properly run OS X 10.5.
The Dell Dimension is not recommended for nor will properly run Windows Vista.
Final Cut Pro is able to edit HD on a 1.6 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Adobe recommends a 3Ghz P4 for editing HD on Premire.
You can edit anything with less than 3 ghz, the problem comes with rendering...The thought of rendering HD on a 1.6 GHz laptop (PC OR MAC) makes me laugh so hard that I nearly piss myself...SD mprg2 rendering takes about 1.5x the length of the clip to render on an AMD 3000+/1gb ram/80gb/100gb/NV 6800 under premere or Vagas...I have seen it done nearly as fast on a 3.2GHZ/1gb laptop, but a 1.6 for HD??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I gotta wonder what inside track you have on what the requierments for 10.5 or Vista will be at ship time. It WIL:L run, the gui may be a little differant but it will certinly run...in both cases
If a comparison is what you want, try this, my MINI cant fucking run TIGER to its potential...a 9200...what a fucking joke that is...I cant wait to see what I can't do in 10.5
I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...
I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...
I've been seeing this alot recently. People buy a Mac Mini and expect great things from it! What is the deal with that? Mac Mini was designed for the average consumer who will do email, internet, word processing, etc. not power users.
I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...
Ding, ding, ding!!!
We have a winner, you are correct my friend and there are soooooo many others just like you. My only problem is not with what you are wanting to do, I fully agree. My only problem is that I think that Apple should have a narrow line of machines that they support for this, and the only reason that I have that problem is because of the idea that, if they took this approach, Apple would be way behind in drivers, and not be able the end customer something remotely close to the Mac experiance. I still think that Apple could clean-up here and be better for it. The other reason that I weary of trying to support all things PC, is that it could hamper security, and that would be very bad.
[EDIT] The very best situation would be for Apple to license the OS for OEMs like Dell, Sony, etc, and to have them only put it on a curtain line of computers, that all include the copyright chip, which Apple would utilize fully. [/EDIT]
Now take a PC turn off virus protection, turn off firewall, and expose it to the net. It should take less than an hour, and it will be cracked open like a walnut. NO comparison, none. Security is lucrative.
You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.
Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.
You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.
Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.
I don't see the need to refer to Windows as 'a PC', because Macs are PCs too.
And be kind enough to acknowledge the fact that you used the wrong term instead of replying in a knee-jerk manner. Don't worry. Nobody is switching to the 'dark side' - and you can continue drinking your Kool-Aid.
You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.
Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.
Don't make the same mistake. FreeBSD ain't very personal, install that and you either have a server or a workstation. No PC in sight. Split the semantics and ignore common usage at your own peril.
Don't make the same mistake. FreeBSD ain't very personal, install that and you either have a server or a workstation. No PC in sight. Split the semantics and ignore common usage at your own peril.
Contrary to what you say, there are people who are not scared of playing around with FreeBSD and can install and use it as a personal desktop.
The point, though, was that PC does not equal Windows and that there are equal, if not more, secure OSs than OS X. The example could have easily been Linux, or something totally different.
Contrary to what you say, there are people who are not scared of playing around with FreeBSD and can install and use it as a personal desktop.
The point, though, was that PC does not equal Windows and that there are equal, if not more, secure OSs than OS X. The example could have easily been Linux, or something totally different.
I think that most, if not all of us, can understand the difference between PC/Windows and PC/BSD or PC/Linux, but thank you for clearing that up. Time to return to the thread topic, which by the way you appear to be a big backer of the security benefits that the MacOSX has. I too see that security should be something that Apple should exploit to its full advantage.
From what I understand. Intel would like to advance and move on from its standard x86 architecture. Which from what I understand Itanium was supposed to do.
The reason Intel is stuck with its current architecture is because the PC world wants to maintain legacy compatibility.
Apple on the other hand has no connection with PC legacy and has no need to support the current x86 architecture.
This frees the Apple/Intel collaboration to come up with interesting new chips and designs.
Apple is a maverick, and has never had a history of just falling into place with what the industry standards.
I believe the collaboration will yield interesting surprises.
I don't think much new will come out of this. Apple doesn't represent big sales to Intel. Apple came to intel to get cheap chips from a company that cared about desktop CPUs. Diving into another expensive niche platform negates those benefits. Apple most certainly is tied to the x86 ISA now. Going to a new platform would break compatibility with what they're trying to develop now. Sure they could do some more emulation but that has drawbacks. This platform shuffle every year keeps businesses away when they can buy windows and know they will be supported for a minimum of 5 years.
Windows dominates the PC platform! What is it, like 95% or so?
Therefore, most people, when referring to PCs are referring to Windows. So if a distinction needs to be made, it will.
The problem is that people have it back-asswords...PC is NOT a subtype of windows, in the same way Cola is not a subtype of Coke, Coke is in fact a subtype of cola and Windows is a subtype of PC, there are others, BSD, Linux, OS/2 Be-OS Mac (yes, Macs are Personal Computers)
The Mac will remain a niche until it can be installed on any x86 computer. Think of it this way: for everybody who hacks Mac OS X to run on their PC, Apple is losing $129. Why not offer it as a supported solution instead?
The Mac will remain a niche until it can be installed on any x86 computer. Think of it this way: for everybody who hacks Mac OS X to run on their PC, Apple is losing $129. Why not offer it as a supported solution instead?
The ones that hack OS X to run on their PCs are unlikely to buy OS X even if it were offered as a supported solution.
Think of it this way: for everybody who hacks Mac OS X to run on their PC, Apple is losing $129.
That's patently false. First because it assumes (yes, assumes) that these hackers would actually buy Mac OS X instead of, oh well, download it for free from torrent sites, and second because it assumes (yet again) that they would buy a new (or upgrade an existing) computer just to make this run.
Remember, it requires at least SSE3 which many PCs don't have, and while it's possible to install it in PCs that have SSE2 (my Sony Vaio Pentium M 2.0 Ghz from 1.5 year ago has only SSE2 for example) it is not easy, and it involves extra hacking and patching.
This is the same argument that RIAA and MPAA use: they are losing money because of P2P, yet numerous studies have shown that they are actually making billions of dollars more because of P2P and people that have the chance to try the music before they buy it.
Plus, Apple is actually gaining a lot of stuff; free publicity being one of them. Can you count how many times you have seen this posted on different news sites? That's all marketing, but a very subtle one. People will think: if others are going through all these hoops just to get OS X run on their PCs, then OS X must be very good. And they will most likely want to try it, and what is the most natural way of trying OS X if you're not a geek and have no clue where to get patched versions of OS X? Why an Apple Store, of course!
Apple will sell an x86 copy of OS X, you'll be able to pick it up at Best Buy right next to Windows XP, and at $129 it will be a steal. Millions will buy it. Sales of Macs will increase - selling overpriced PC hardware is something Apple has expertise in, and Alienware has proven its possible on the Windows side - but revenue from hardware sales will fall far behind revenue from OS X, and the iPod/iTunes Music Store.
Apple's marketshare will be measured in 'OS X' marketshare, conservatively I believe OS X will creep up near 10% OS marketshare.
These are just my predictions, but for what it's worth I've put my own money on it.
My current Mac is an AMD64 Venice core, the iBook still pulls up the rear.
Comments
The reason Intel is stuck with its current architecture is because the PC world wants to maintain legacy compatibility.
Apple on the other hand has no connection with PC legacy and has no need to support the current x86 architecture.
This frees the Apple/Intel collaboration to come up with interesting new chips and designs.
Apple is a maverick, and has never had a history of just falling into place with what the industry standards.
I believe the collaboration will yield interesting surprises.
Originally posted by TenoBell
This comes from narrow minded PC thinking.
The Mac mini will fully and properly run OS X 10.5.
The Dell Dimension is not recommended for nor will properly run Windows Vista.
Final Cut Pro is able to edit HD on a 1.6 Ghz G4 PowerBook.
Adobe recommends a 3Ghz P4 for editing HD on Premire.
You can edit anything with less than 3 ghz, the problem comes with rendering...The thought of rendering HD on a 1.6 GHz laptop (PC OR MAC) makes me laugh so hard that I nearly piss myself...SD mprg2 rendering takes about 1.5x the length of the clip to render on an AMD 3000+/1gb ram/80gb/100gb/NV 6800 under premere or Vagas...I have seen it done nearly as fast on a 3.2GHZ/1gb laptop, but a 1.6 for HD??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I gotta wonder what inside track you have on what the requierments for 10.5 or Vista will be at ship time. It WIL:L run, the gui may be a little differant but it will certinly run...in both cases
If a comparison is what you want, try this, my MINI cant fucking run TIGER to its potential...a 9200...what a fucking joke that is...I cant wait to see what I can't do in 10.5
I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...
I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...
You do have a choice.
Buy into the Mac platform or don't.
No one forced you.
Originally posted by TenoBell
This comes from narrow minded PC thinking.
The Mac mini will fully and properly run OS X 10.5.
The Dell Dimension is not recommended for nor will properly run Windows Vista.
Windows sucks. What's your point?
Originally posted by a_greer
I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...
Ding, ding, ding!!!
We have a winner, you are correct my friend and there are soooooo many others just like you. My only problem is not with what you are wanting to do, I fully agree. My only problem is that I think that Apple should have a narrow line of machines that they support for this, and the only reason that I have that problem is because of the idea that, if they took this approach, Apple would be way behind in drivers, and not be able the end customer something remotely close to the Mac experiance. I still think that Apple could clean-up here and be better for it. The other reason that I weary of trying to support all things PC, is that it could hamper security, and that would be very bad.
[EDIT] The very best situation would be for Apple to license the OS for OEMs like Dell, Sony, etc, and to have them only put it on a curtain line of computers, that all include the copyright chip, which Apple would utilize fully. [/EDIT]
Originally posted by Brendon
Now take a PC turn off virus protection, turn off firewall, and expose it to the net. It should take less than an hour, and it will be cracked open like a walnut. NO comparison, none. Security is lucrative.
You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.
Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.
Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.
Yea genius, I was referring to Windows.
Originally posted by Brendon
Yea genius, I was referring to Windows.
I don't see the need to refer to Windows as 'a PC', because Macs are PCs too.
And be kind enough to acknowledge the fact that you used the wrong term instead of replying in a knee-jerk manner. Don't worry. Nobody is switching to the 'dark side' - and you can continue drinking your Kool-Aid.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.
Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.
Don't make the same mistake. FreeBSD ain't very personal, install that and you either have a server or a workstation. No PC in sight. Split the semantics and ignore common usage at your own peril.
Originally posted by Hiro
Don't make the same mistake. FreeBSD ain't very personal, install that and you either have a server or a workstation. No PC in sight. Split the semantics and ignore common usage at your own peril.
Contrary to what you say, there are people who are not scared of playing around with FreeBSD and can install and use it as a personal desktop.
The point, though, was that PC does not equal Windows and that there are equal, if not more, secure OSs than OS X. The example could have easily been Linux, or something totally different.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Contrary to what you say, there are people who are not scared of playing around with FreeBSD and can install and use it as a personal desktop.
The point, though, was that PC does not equal Windows and that there are equal, if not more, secure OSs than OS X. The example could have easily been Linux, or something totally different.
I think that most, if not all of us, can understand the difference between PC/Windows and PC/BSD or PC/Linux, but thank you for clearing that up. Time to return to the thread topic, which by the way you appear to be a big backer of the security benefits that the MacOSX has. I too see that security should be something that Apple should exploit to its full advantage.
Therefore, most people, when referring to PCs are referring to Windows. So if a distinction needs to be made, it will.
Originally posted by TenoBell
From what I understand. Intel would like to advance and move on from its standard x86 architecture. Which from what I understand Itanium was supposed to do.
The reason Intel is stuck with its current architecture is because the PC world wants to maintain legacy compatibility.
Apple on the other hand has no connection with PC legacy and has no need to support the current x86 architecture.
This frees the Apple/Intel collaboration to come up with interesting new chips and designs.
Apple is a maverick, and has never had a history of just falling into place with what the industry standards.
I believe the collaboration will yield interesting surprises.
I don't think much new will come out of this. Apple doesn't represent big sales to Intel. Apple came to intel to get cheap chips from a company that cared about desktop CPUs. Diving into another expensive niche platform negates those benefits. Apple most certainly is tied to the x86 ISA now. Going to a new platform would break compatibility with what they're trying to develop now. Sure they could do some more emulation but that has drawbacks. This platform shuffle every year keeps businesses away when they can buy windows and know they will be supported for a minimum of 5 years.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Windows dominates the PC platform! What is it, like 95% or so?
Therefore, most people, when referring to PCs are referring to Windows. So if a distinction needs to be made, it will.
The problem is that people have it back-asswords...PC is NOT a subtype of windows, in the same way Cola is not a subtype of Coke, Coke is in fact a subtype of cola and Windows is a subtype of PC, there are others, BSD, Linux, OS/2 Be-OS Mac (yes, Macs are Personal Computers)
Originally posted by Placebo
The Mac will remain a niche until it can be installed on any x86 computer. Think of it this way: for everybody who hacks Mac OS X to run on their PC, Apple is losing $129. Why not offer it as a supported solution instead?
The ones that hack OS X to run on their PCs are unlikely to buy OS X even if it were offered as a supported solution.
Originally posted by Placebo
Think of it this way: for everybody who hacks Mac OS X to run on their PC, Apple is losing $129.
That's patently false. First because it assumes (yes, assumes) that these hackers would actually buy Mac OS X instead of, oh well, download it for free from torrent sites, and second because it assumes (yet again) that they would buy a new (or upgrade an existing) computer just to make this run.
Remember, it requires at least SSE3 which many PCs don't have, and while it's possible to install it in PCs that have SSE2 (my Sony Vaio Pentium M 2.0 Ghz from 1.5 year ago has only SSE2 for example) it is not easy, and it involves extra hacking and patching.
This is the same argument that RIAA and MPAA use: they are losing money because of P2P, yet numerous studies have shown that they are actually making billions of dollars more because of P2P and people that have the chance to try the music before they buy it.
Plus, Apple is actually gaining a lot of stuff; free publicity being one of them. Can you count how many times you have seen this posted on different news sites? That's all marketing, but a very subtle one. People will think: if others are going through all these hoops just to get OS X run on their PCs, then OS X must be very good. And they will most likely want to try it, and what is the most natural way of trying OS X if you're not a geek and have no clue where to get patched versions of OS X? Why an Apple Store, of course!
Apple's marketshare will be measured in 'OS X' marketshare, conservatively I believe OS X will creep up near 10% OS marketshare.
These are just my predictions, but for what it's worth I've put my own money on it.
My current Mac is an AMD64 Venice core, the iBook still pulls up the rear.