Will the OS-X from Apple that ported to Intel CPUs and boa..
Tags:
- Homebuilt
- Hardware
-
CPUs
- OS X
-
Apple
-
Intel
-
Systems
- Product
Last response: in Systems
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 5:03:44 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
More about : apple ported intel cpus boa
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 5:03:45 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:03:44 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Yes, but you must buy a special Apple approved "white plastic tampon" case
for your computer before it will run.
--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:03:44 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Yes, but you must buy a special Apple approved "white plastic tampon" case
for your computer before it will run.
--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
http://home.comcast.net/~safehex/
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 10:06:44 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
>>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>>>They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>>>I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>>>restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>>>anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
>
>
> Yes, but you must buy a special Apple approved "white plastic tampon" case
> for your computer before it will run.
I can live with that, as long as Steve Jobs doesn't make me give
up my three-button mouse.
>>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>>>They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>>>I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>>>restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>>>anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
>
>
> Yes, but you must buy a special Apple approved "white plastic tampon" case
> for your computer before it will run.
I can live with that, as long as Steve Jobs doesn't make me give
up my three-button mouse.
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 11:19:28 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
Al Smith writes:
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Part of Apple's motivation was supposedly some DRM features specific to
Intel processors.
In any case, I'd expect them to deliberately write Intel-specific code
to prevent the use of AMD processors, since approved Apple hardware
won't contain AMD processors. Anyone trying to run it on an AMD
processor would be a pirate.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Al Smith writes:
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Part of Apple's motivation was supposedly some DRM features specific to
Intel processors.
In any case, I'd expect them to deliberately write Intel-specific code
to prevent the use of AMD processors, since approved Apple hardware
won't contain AMD processors. Anyone trying to run it on an AMD
processor would be a pirate.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 11:19:29 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
>>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>>> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>>> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>>> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>>> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
>
>
> Part of Apple's motivation was supposedly some DRM features specific to
> Intel processors.
>
> In any case, I'd expect them to deliberately write Intel-specific code
> to prevent the use of AMD processors, since approved Apple hardware
> won't contain AMD processors. Anyone trying to run it on an AMD
> processor would be a pirate.
Yeah, but all this stuff hasn't happened yet, and I gather there's
a working, complete version of the Intel OS-X out there -- OS-X86,
as some wag on Slashdot called it. That's floating around on the
Net right now. I was wondering if I could run it on my AMD-64 box,
should by some chance I happen to obtain a copy.
>>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>>> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>>> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>>> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>>> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
>
>
> Part of Apple's motivation was supposedly some DRM features specific to
> Intel processors.
>
> In any case, I'd expect them to deliberately write Intel-specific code
> to prevent the use of AMD processors, since approved Apple hardware
> won't contain AMD processors. Anyone trying to run it on an AMD
> processor would be a pirate.
Yeah, but all this stuff hasn't happened yet, and I gather there's
a working, complete version of the Intel OS-X out there -- OS-X86,
as some wag on Slashdot called it. That's floating around on the
Net right now. I was wondering if I could run it on my AMD-64 box,
should by some chance I happen to obtain a copy.
jad
June 13, 2005 3:34:12 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
My question: Why would you want it on a PC? And you can be rest assured that
when the final version is released...it will be a MAc only intel chipped OS.
Personally I think its a stupid switch, and MAC will pay dearly for it.
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:QX4re.45946$Ph4.1145471@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
My question: Why would you want it on a PC? And you can be rest assured that
when the final version is released...it will be a MAc only intel chipped OS.
Personally I think its a stupid switch, and MAC will pay dearly for it.
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:QX4re.45946$Ph4.1145471@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 4:43:51 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
In article <QX4re.45946$Ph4.1145471@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
says...
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
>
It will run on a specific list of hardware. If you're that set on it,
why not just install Linux?
--
Conor
"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
In article <QX4re.45946$Ph4.1145471@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
says...
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
>
It will run on a specific list of hardware. If you're that set on it,
why not just install Linux?
--
Conor
"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 4:44:52 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
In article <Mm9re.46024$Ph4.1150702@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
says...
> >>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> >>> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> >>> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> >>> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> >>> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
> >
> >
> > Part of Apple's motivation was supposedly some DRM features specific to
> > Intel processors.
> >
> > In any case, I'd expect them to deliberately write Intel-specific code
> > to prevent the use of AMD processors, since approved Apple hardware
> > won't contain AMD processors. Anyone trying to run it on an AMD
> > processor would be a pirate.
>
> Yeah, but all this stuff hasn't happened yet, and I gather there's
> a working, complete version of the Intel OS-X out there -- OS-X86,
> as some wag on Slashdot called it. That's floating around on the
> Net right now. I was wondering if I could run it on my AMD-64 box,
> should by some chance I happen to obtain a copy.
>
Just put Linux on. THe leaked version is a preview. Basic OS stuff runs
full speed but applications run in emulation and are as slow as hell.
--
Conor
"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
In article <Mm9re.46024$Ph4.1150702@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
says...
> >>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
> >>> They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
> >>> I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
> >>> restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
> >>> anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
> >
> >
> > Part of Apple's motivation was supposedly some DRM features specific to
> > Intel processors.
> >
> > In any case, I'd expect them to deliberately write Intel-specific code
> > to prevent the use of AMD processors, since approved Apple hardware
> > won't contain AMD processors. Anyone trying to run it on an AMD
> > processor would be a pirate.
>
> Yeah, but all this stuff hasn't happened yet, and I gather there's
> a working, complete version of the Intel OS-X out there -- OS-X86,
> as some wag on Slashdot called it. That's floating around on the
> Net right now. I was wondering if I could run it on my AMD-64 box,
> should by some chance I happen to obtain a copy.
>
Just put Linux on. THe leaked version is a preview. Basic OS stuff runs
full speed but applications run in emulation and are as slow as hell.
--
Conor
"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 13, 2005 8:01:47 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
The recompiled OS-X will NOT run on standard PC hardware. It is tweeked to
only run on Apple's hardware.
--
DaveW
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:QX4re.45946$Ph4.1145471@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so. They
> already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what I've read on
> the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no restrictions at all --
> it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does anybody know if this OS-X
> modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
The recompiled OS-X will NOT run on standard PC hardware. It is tweeked to
only run on Apple's hardware.
--
DaveW
"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news:QX4re.45946$Ph4.1145471@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so. They
> already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what I've read on
> the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no restrictions at all --
> it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does anybody know if this OS-X
> modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 12:13:56 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
Al Smith wrote:
....
> I can live with that, as long as Steve Jobs doesn't make me give up my
> three-button mouse.
My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
Gert
Al Smith wrote:
....
> I can live with that, as long as Steve Jobs doesn't make me give up my
> three-button mouse.
My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
Gert
fisher
June 14, 2005 12:13:57 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:13:56 +0200, Gert Elstermann
<gert.elstermann@gmail.com> wrote:
>My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
>with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
>
>Gert
In XP I've got eight functional buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse
(mind you, two are just faster scroll buttons). Can you do that on
your Mac?
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:13:56 +0200, Gert Elstermann
<gert.elstermann@gmail.com> wrote:
>My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
>with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
>
>Gert
In XP I've got eight functional buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse
(mind you, two are just faster scroll buttons). Can you do that on
your Mac?
jad
June 14, 2005 12:13:58 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
"Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
news:i1kra1do9ktnenmgdp0ri3a8von5i8bi4m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:13:56 +0200, Gert Elstermann
> <gert.elstermann@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
> >with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
> >
> >Gert
>
> In XP I've got eight functional buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse
> (mind you, two are just faster scroll buttons). Can you do that on
> your Mac?
My graphic pad is bigger and does more than your mouse ever will on my Mac.
so there!
"Fisher" <fisher@no_email.here> wrote in message
news:i1kra1do9ktnenmgdp0ri3a8von5i8bi4m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:13:56 +0200, Gert Elstermann
> <gert.elstermann@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
> >with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
> >
> >Gert
>
> In XP I've got eight functional buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse
> (mind you, two are just faster scroll buttons). Can you do that on
> your Mac?
My graphic pad is bigger and does more than your mouse ever will on my Mac.
so there!
fisher
June 14, 2005 12:13:59 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:39:58 -0700, "JAD" <kapasitor@earthcharter.net>
wrote:
>My graphic pad is bigger and does more than your mouse ever will on my Mac.
>so there!
>
Bigger is not always better, neaner...neaner!
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:39:58 -0700, "JAD" <kapasitor@earthcharter.net>
wrote:
>My graphic pad is bigger and does more than your mouse ever will on my Mac.
>so there!
>
Bigger is not always better, neaner...neaner!
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 1:07:21 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
>>My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
>>>with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
>>>
>>>Gert
>
>
> In XP I've got eight functional buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse
> (mind you, two are just faster scroll buttons). Can you do that on
> your Mac?
You've got more buttons on your mouse than you've got fingers on
your hand? That might be tending into the realm of overkill.
>>My Mac mini runs perfectly with a standard Microsoft Optical Mouse
>>>with two buttons and a scroll wheel.
>>>
>>>Gert
>
>
> In XP I've got eight functional buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse
> (mind you, two are just faster scroll buttons). Can you do that on
> your Mac?
You've got more buttons on your mouse than you've got fingers on
your hand? That might be tending into the realm of overkill.
fisher
June 14, 2005 1:07:22 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:07:21 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>You've got more buttons on your mouse than you've got fingers on
>your hand? That might be tending into the realm of overkill.
The beauty is I only need two fingers and my thumb to access all the
functions.
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:07:21 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>You've got more buttons on your mouse than you've got fingers on
>your hand? That might be tending into the realm of overkill.
The beauty is I only need two fingers and my thumb to access all the
functions.
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 1:09:13 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
> My question: Why would you want it on a PC? And you can be rest assured that
> when the final version is released...it will be a MAc only intel chipped OS.
> Personally I think its a stupid switch, and MAC will pay dearly for it.
I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works.
I'd buy it in a second if it would run on a PC and recognize all
my hardware. I know the word is that Jobs isn't considering doing
that. :-(
> My question: Why would you want it on a PC? And you can be rest assured that
> when the final version is released...it will be a MAc only intel chipped OS.
> Personally I think its a stupid switch, and MAC will pay dearly for it.
I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works.
I'd buy it in a second if it would run on a PC and recognize all
my hardware. I know the word is that Jobs isn't considering doing
that. :-(
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 5:55:57 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
Al Smith wrote:
> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
Gert
Al Smith wrote:
> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
Gert
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 6:03:35 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
>> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
>
>
> I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
>
> Gert
By all means, by all means.
>> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
>
>
> I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
>
> Gert
By all means, by all means.
fisher
June 14, 2005 6:03:36 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:03:35 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>>> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
>>
>>
>> I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
>>
>> Gert
>
>By all means, by all means.
Do you mind if I post it in the Mandrake Linux group, I'll give you
full credit as the author, of course. ;-)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:03:35 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>>> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
>>
>>
>> I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
>>
>> Gert
>
>By all means, by all means.
Do you mind if I post it in the Mandrake Linux group, I'll give you
full credit as the author, of course. ;-)
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 10:26:31 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
>>>>I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert
>>
>>>
>>>By all means, by all means.
>
>
> Do you mind if I post it in the Mandrake Linux group, I'll give you
> full credit as the author, of course. ;-)
>
A lot of Linux folks are switching to OS-X. It's still Unix based,
but it doesn't require a lot of fiddling to make things work. The
word I heard, anywho.
>>>>I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. ...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am tempted to use this as a sig - if you would kindly allow...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert
>>
>>>
>>>By all means, by all means.
>
>
> Do you mind if I post it in the Mandrake Linux group, I'll give you
> full credit as the author, of course. ;-)
>
A lot of Linux folks are switching to OS-X. It's still Unix based,
but it doesn't require a lot of fiddling to make things work. The
word I heard, anywho.
fisher
June 14, 2005 10:26:32 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:26:31 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>A lot of Linux folks are switching to OS-X. It's still Unix based,
>but it doesn't require a lot of fiddling to make things work. The
>word I heard, anywho.
I might try it myself later but I have already downloaded and planned
to give this distro a whirl in the next little while. It's based on
Debian.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 06:26:31 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>A lot of Linux folks are switching to OS-X. It's still Unix based,
>but it doesn't require a lot of fiddling to make things work. The
>word I heard, anywho.
I might try it myself later but I have already downloaded and planned
to give this distro a whirl in the next little while. It's based on
Debian.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 14, 2005 4:00:02 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
Al Smith wrote:
>> My question: Why would you want it on a PC? And you can be rest
>> assured that
>> when the final version is released...it will be a MAc only intel
>> chipped OS.
>> Personally I think its a stupid switch, and MAC will pay dearly for it.
>
>
> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. I'd
> buy it in a second if it would run on a PC and recognize all my
> hardware. I know the word is that Jobs isn't considering doing that. :-(
It's like Linux, except it is BSD.
Al Smith wrote:
>> My question: Why would you want it on a PC? And you can be rest
>> assured that
>> when the final version is released...it will be a MAc only intel
>> chipped OS.
>> Personally I think its a stupid switch, and MAC will pay dearly for it.
>
>
> I think OS-X would be great. It's like a Linux version that works. I'd
> buy it in a second if it would run on a PC and recognize all my
> hardware. I know the word is that Jobs isn't considering doing that. :-(
It's like Linux, except it is BSD.
fisher
June 14, 2005 4:00:03 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:00:02 GMT, No One <aintnoway@blahblahblah.com>
wrote:
>It's like Linux, except it is BSD.
Yea, when I was using OSX in the store it felt just like I was using
the KDE GUI pretty much. To be honest with you I like the XP GUI
better. Not saying the OS is better but the feel and look I like
better. I've tried a few Linux GUI's but I still like the XP one best.
FreeBSD=version of unix
Linux=clone of unix
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:00:02 GMT, No One <aintnoway@blahblahblah.com>
wrote:
>It's like Linux, except it is BSD.
Yea, when I was using OSX in the store it felt just like I was using
the KDE GUI pretty much. To be honest with you I like the XP GUI
better. Not saying the OS is better but the feel and look I like
better. I've tried a few Linux GUI's but I still like the XP one best.
FreeBSD=version of unix
Linux=clone of unix
at
June 17, 2005 12:28:18 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
1- Apple hasn't ported anything *YET*
2- Apple system will require proprietary Apple firmware NastyMonopoly chip (the
one that keeps it a hardware co. and about doubles the price of every mac in
terms of bang for buck)
3- I *SINCERELY* doubt the Apple CPU will be a Pentium-class machine My
*personal* choice amongst existing Intel properties is for a revamped Alpha RISC
(the originally-DEC chip Intel obtained from HPaq and then killed) or Itanium
Cheap.
4) The only feature it will share will be PCI and possibly PCI-EX bus
structures.
TrAl
1- Apple hasn't ported anything *YET*
2- Apple system will require proprietary Apple firmware NastyMonopoly chip (the
one that keeps it a hardware co. and about doubles the price of every mac in
terms of bang for buck)
3- I *SINCERELY* doubt the Apple CPU will be a Pentium-class machine My
*personal* choice amongst existing Intel properties is for a revamped Alpha RISC
(the originally-DEC chip Intel obtained from HPaq and then killed) or Itanium
Cheap.
4) The only feature it will share will be PCI and possibly PCI-EX bus
structures.
TrAl
Anonymous
a
b
B
Homebuilt system
a
b
à
CPUs
June 17, 2005 12:07:04 PM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
AT writes:
> 1- Apple hasn't ported anything *YET*
They already have their software running on Intel x86 hardware.
> 2- Apple system will require proprietary Apple firmware NastyMonopoly chip (the
> one that keeps it a hardware co. and about doubles the price of every mac in
> terms of bang for buck)
Probably, or some other hardware-based method for locking people into
Apple-manufactured hardware will be found. I can't imagine Steve Jobs
licensing the OS to anyone, since hardware is the cash cow.
> 3- I *SINCERELY* doubt the Apple CPU will be a Pentium-class machine My
> *personal* choice amongst existing Intel properties is for a revamped Alpha RISC
> (the originally-DEC chip Intel obtained from HPaq and then killed) or Itanium
> Cheap.
I don't see any reason for Apple to get stuck with yet another highly
proprietary hardware architecture. At least if it goes with Intel it
will be using the same platform as Microsoft, which gives it a bit more
stability and equality with respect to the chip vendor.
Ideally the Mac would run on hardware identical to that of Windows,
except for a few key hardware differences that would make it impossible
to get the OS to execute on hardware not built or licensed by Apple.
This would allow the advantages of 99.9% common hardware, along with the
advantages of having a user base locked into a proprietary and
overpriced hardware platform.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
AT writes:
> 1- Apple hasn't ported anything *YET*
They already have their software running on Intel x86 hardware.
> 2- Apple system will require proprietary Apple firmware NastyMonopoly chip (the
> one that keeps it a hardware co. and about doubles the price of every mac in
> terms of bang for buck)
Probably, or some other hardware-based method for locking people into
Apple-manufactured hardware will be found. I can't imagine Steve Jobs
licensing the OS to anyone, since hardware is the cash cow.
> 3- I *SINCERELY* doubt the Apple CPU will be a Pentium-class machine My
> *personal* choice amongst existing Intel properties is for a revamped Alpha RISC
> (the originally-DEC chip Intel obtained from HPaq and then killed) or Itanium
> Cheap.
I don't see any reason for Apple to get stuck with yet another highly
proprietary hardware architecture. At least if it goes with Intel it
will be using the same platform as Microsoft, which gives it a bit more
stability and equality with respect to the chip vendor.
Ideally the Mac would run on hardware identical to that of Windows,
except for a few key hardware differences that would make it impossible
to get the OS to execute on hardware not built or licensed by Apple.
This would allow the advantages of 99.9% common hardware, along with the
advantages of having a user base locked into a proprietary and
overpriced hardware platform.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
vee
June 26, 2005 4:34:06 AM
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:03:44 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
This is how it is:
OS-X will run on Intel or AMD CPUs.
....- In an Apple computer!
(since Apple will only buy Intel CPUs for now, and since AMD cannot
afford to sell Apple CPUs, it will only run on Intel CPUs in practice.
Apple have however "played the AMD card in full", and they probably
intend to continue to do so, so I doubt they will code themselves
'off' AMD, provided such a thing can even be done.)
It will _NOT_ run on a PC.
The reason is obvious. Apple have no resources at all to support all
PC hardware the way that Microsoft can. Apple can only keep their
quality by concentrating on their own hardware.
Besides, Apple is a computer manufacturer. They are in the business to
sell computers. I see no reason why the platform for OS-X will not
continue to be proprietary hardware.
Who knows what the future will bring. But competing with Microsoft and
Linux now, as an OS provider for the PC, should be beyond Apple.
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 01:03:44 GMT, Al Smith <invalid@address.com>
wrote:
>Apple is going to switch over to Intel processers in a year or so.
>They already modified their OS to run on Intel P4 CPUs. From what
>I've read on the Net, this modified Intel version of OS-X has no
>restrictions at all -- it runs on ordinary PC hardware. Does
>anybody know if this OS-X modification will run on AMD-64 CPUs?
This is how it is:
OS-X will run on Intel or AMD CPUs.
....- In an Apple computer!
(since Apple will only buy Intel CPUs for now, and since AMD cannot
afford to sell Apple CPUs, it will only run on Intel CPUs in practice.
Apple have however "played the AMD card in full", and they probably
intend to continue to do so, so I doubt they will code themselves
'off' AMD, provided such a thing can even be done.)
It will _NOT_ run on a PC.
The reason is obvious. Apple have no resources at all to support all
PC hardware the way that Microsoft can. Apple can only keep their
quality by concentrating on their own hardware.
Besides, Apple is a computer manufacturer. They are in the business to
sell computers. I see no reason why the platform for OS-X will not
continue to be proprietary hardware.
Who knows what the future will bring. But competing with Microsoft and
Linux now, as an OS provider for the PC, should be beyond Apple.
Read discussions in other Systems categories
!