Page 2 - OSX 86 Questions ANSWERED!

I'll agree with that, entirely. It's not like they'd need to write drivers for hardware, ms rely on hardware producers for them, so would apple. When you concider that crackers everywhere are already flocking to the darwin releases and the developer releases and using the two to make it usable, it only makes sense to open it up to all the boxes out there.
If i went up to a friend I know and told him his apple is using the same x-server that my linux is using, he'd accuse me of lying.

apple will always be a hardware manufacturer. The reason they dont open the OS to other hardware, is that theyd actually have to work then, and make sure their OS works on all motherboard types, graphic cards, sound cards etc...

they wouldnt have to write the drivers, however they would have to make sure the OS is bug free when running on any system.

I also like that after the Vista keynote at ces, all the apple fans were like "we've had this for like a year now..." well, vista is more than movie previews, search bar, and transparancy. It also incorporates many new and interesting features, such as Dx10 - gaming will never be the same again, Prefetch Cacheing - omg...plain and simple, load the os onto a usb memory stick, its going to include tablet and media centre features, in the standard release.

and for those who say apple is more secure and reliable

Mac OS X, is truly designed for excellent security, thanks to its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture however, for whatever its worth, it benefits from its relatively small market share, compared to Windows: Because the OS X user base is so small, few hackers ever bother to try and attack the system. Windows, meanwhile, is a minefield of constant hacks and attacks.

and in most cases when windows crashes, it due to a program, or driver - which arnt m$ fault. The same thing happens on mac's however it doesnt crash the system, just the app.

It's a hackers dream, it's been ported to a hugely used architecture, has hardware and software security measures, and it's tight-nit and it's a good operating system that many would like to use. there are plenty of crackers out there working on it, google around a bit.

I think apple is going for the Mac experience. They don't want the average consumer expecting great, then going out and getting the OS, and not gettting QE, or CI support. Or only VESA 2 on their high powered monitor and graphics unit. They also want the added hardware revenues. (Who's the monopolizer now, Microsoft is glad to let you use other hardware) OS X 86 is also using EFI BIOS, by intel, a system which can CONNECT to the INTERNET before boot and modify system settings and prevent reverse engineering and such. Do you want a computer company to be able to spy on you like that. Which means it won't be able to load after hacks on a PC anymore, and Windows may not install on an Intel mac. For the money, the performance isn't that much better, as a matter of fact, I think PC outperforms mac, even the intel ones. Because, you can add the top of line graphics card, which is in a Mac every so often, and a few updates later, they do it again. Stability really isn't an arguement anymore. Sure, as butmunch said, the commercialized linux Unix/BSD mach_kernel is stable, but the NT kernel only crashes when there's a driver or application issue. The same with OSX, I KPed with the new release of Quicktime a coupple weeks ago. Hmm, archnaid, intresting point about OS X being more noob friendly. It really depends on the noob. If you go in the dock, sure there's some easy stuff to get you going. But, when you want to get some apps going, the OS X installation processes can become quite confusing for noobs, I've seen this happen. With windows, getting apps installed is easier. I mean you get two computers in front of a 30 year old man, who's never used a computer. One had Macintosh HD, the other, start, which one is going to be easier. Then from start, he can go right to All Programs. Windows, you get protection, surf safely, and you should be fine. Oh yea, buying the OS. Every year, in order to keep running new operating systems, you have to pay for a $130 upgrade. All this upgrade is is a slightly newer kernel, and a slightly cleaned up GUI, with an added app or two. To me, this should be served as a free downloadable upgrade. Yes, also, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD etc, are NOT included with the OS, and should not be mentioned as integrated apps already with your os. They come, only with new macs, and otherwise are $80 for the iLife suite, which you must get each year to keep current. Also, Windows media player doesn't come to me limited. But yet, the integrated media player with OS X is limited. You need $39 to get the full functionallity of the included media player. Bull, after I just paid for the operating system. OS X also has a wierd way of working with some apps. A port of GIMP for Windows just runs. For OS X, you need to load X11 and such. Java, yea, they have to work around for that to work. Once more, apps on the mac just have to work so much more differently. Everything works on Windows. I can do everything I want on my Windows rig, and play any game I want, such as MSFT flight simulator. I can't say the same for the mac, as there are certain things I can't do. Microsoft and Windows were always there for me, and welcomed my usage with open arms, where macs want all of your money, for their OS and hardware, which are really not that good. Finally, if I tell a mac user I use a PC, they say, "You use that shit, Pee Cees suck", if I tell a PC user, I use a mac, they say "Oh cool" or really don't seem to care.

EFI is actually pretty cool, BIOS is antiquated and getting old anyway. It's been hacked together to keep running so many times... Connecting to the internet before PC boot? Cool! Trouble shoot issues, look up settings, troubleshoot, outside of a possibly non-functioning OS or from a computer whose settings are causing issues in an OS. Haven't heard much on the 'preventing reverse engineering' aspect though.





I doubt spying is an issue. I'd bet it only connects when told to by the suer, after all Apple can't assume all computers will have internet access, and if they were doing this, they'd have to lay it out in the license (and probably inform consumers before purchase).

But it will be possible to run Windows on Apple, Apple says so themselves - the catch is that it has to be a Windows that supports EFI, so basically anything post-WinXP.

Right now, the only OS that supports EFI is the versions Windows for the Itanium architecture. However, this is slated to change, as support is pleged in VISTA. While I do agree that the EFI features are cool, and I would love to get to use them, and put them to good use, I just worry that corporations may use them in the wrong way. Such as the iTunes, track information no concent issue. It'll be intresting to see how long it is before OSes like linux and BSD and whatnot can boot off of an EFI machine.

With a bunch of Linux programming geeks on the case? No time at all


I don't think companies can use EFI the 'wrong way.' It's still like BIOS, in that it's an interim between off and fully functional. Just like BIOS, the OS isn't booted yet, and so I don't see how applications could cause privacy concerns. Any code to do this would have to be built into the hardware.

It sounds like a good idea, i just think that the information could be used in a wrong way. I dont mind them connecting to my motherboard and updating etc while in an OS, however is there really a need to connect to my motherboard before i boot? I think that EFI is being intended to stop people pirating OS'es - tho i dont think it will be long before you can freely download a copy of mac osx, that runs perfectly on any system. I cant see a reason why the os isnt sold as a seperate package tbh, ie every system could be dual booted. Apple will still sell hardware, just like it sells the ipods - fashion statement, and because its macs official hardware. Thats the only way i can see mac getting more than 5% in computer market share.


i do agree that apple are money hungry leechers. If something on a mac breaks, such as something simple like the motherboard - holy moly, you try getting a replacement....on a pc, its a short hour, to drive to the store, to pick one up - 1~2 days if u buy online, total cost £40~120, mac....wtf? how much for a mobo?

Yes, but when they boot before your system is on, EFI can read an HFS+ partition, god knows what they can do. I agree with Pottsy, the cost of Mac parts is ridiculous, and the simple part of needing a TCPM chip, and EFI BIOS means you're going to have to go apple for the parts, and they're still going to hold you up for them. Look at it. They could have made the iMac a lot cheaper, but it stayed at the same price. The MacBook Pro, the Powerbook equivalent, STARTS $499 more than the Powerbook. The only way I can see the Mac coming back is with cheaper prices. I agree with Archnaid, I can see Apple's future in making the iPod. And I give their computer line 5-7 more years, they're never going to get bigger, with all these transitions, they're just going to get smaller. I saw two coupples in Best Buy last night, getting P.C.s telling the guys that they can't afford Macs, and they don't think the price is worth it. The one said they tried Xp and liked it better. I'm telling you, the average person likes the start bar better. Plus, how many more transitions can they take 68K>PowerPC 9>X and PowerPC>Intel, they made this transition way to close to the 9>X, they should, have done this 2 years later, but if prices weren't going to go down, they should have stayed PPC. I think, one day, we'll see Apple making software for Windows Blackcomb. (Just a prediction)

The thing i find funny, is windows is slowly moving towards x86-64 (and even tho support for 64bit pro is limited, im yet to find an application that was re-written for 64bit that does not give better stability or performance). Mac's are slowly moving to x86....which, windows has been running for over 10 years...

Theres no way a mac could compete with a 64bit windows pc, running on like 8gb of ram. Stuttering will be a thing of the past...untill programs games and os'es need 8gb each to run

Yea, and a recompile to Intel or Unibn doesn't work right off the bat. Firefox for Intel and Camino (even worse) have problems with about 1 in every 5 websites. This is the downfall of apple, people want to compute, not deal with another transition. Also, they should have gone x86-64 right off the bat, Windows is going to be so far ahead into 64 bit before apple gets there. A great thing to tout to the people. Apple should have never left the PowerPC archtecture, as there is now a dual core PowerPC which is cool, and low power consumption enough to put in a laptop.

no, i think the plain G5's werent very good, x86 is better than ppc, however i think that they should have chose to move forwards with the cell. Afterall, i do think the x86 arch is dying, and the x86_64 will improve this, however ideally, a revolutionary chip such as the cell is the way forward. Especially after watching the mercury demo, in which a high end worksation does a MRI render in 5 minutes, a dual cell does it in 3 seconds flat.

I don't think the Cell will make for a good computer. Only one of those cores is a true PowerPC core. x86 is dying, and I do prefer the x86 over the powerpc, however, Apple was better with the PowerPC, IMHO. But yea, for rendering and all the cell is great, but not ideal for Computing. One, that everything to fully utilize it will have to be recompiled, and two, that, the cell is extremely hard to write code for.

yes, however the x86 is incredibly easy to code for, and look whats happening to it, i dont think were going to see great gains in hardware, and i dont think well get 5ghz anytime soon, however i can see hardware levelling out, and software taking a great leap. Ok the cell is harder to code for, but theres a tremendous gain when its done.

There can be tremendous gains with the cell for the right things... but the Cell isn't as much of a general-purpose CPU architecture like x86 or PPC is. A Cell-based computer would be interesting, but I'm not sure it would always be better.