OS X coming to PCs...What the hell?

Maybe. But that doesn't contradict from the fact that there are distros designed with extreme ease of use in mind.

Yes there are but I've never seen any Linux user (including me) using one.

Cheers.

Yes there are but I've never seen any Linux user (including me) using one.

Cheers.

I have tried every possible distribution out there.

Of course I don't use Xandros or Linspire myself, but they have my strong approval.

On the other hand when I have been asked by computer illiterate friends or relatives to install Linux on their PC, I have installed and configured SUSE. They have always said that it was just as easy to use as Windows, maybe easier.

One of the biggest fans of SUSE Linux was a 10 years old boy, because SUSE has so many nice games.

Hi Alesssandro17, good to see you still beating the Linux drum. :censored2: The graphical interface needs a bit of work to lift it up to O SX but there is so much to like, not least the speed.

I am a huge fan of Apple and did the right thing, as I'm sure many others here have, and bought Tiger. It will sit unused on a shelf, like a big question mark - why don't Apple get their act together and make their hardware more upgrade friendly so that programs like Parallels become small beer? I don't give a stuff if Apple supply said upgrade parts or field that responsibility out to a limited number of companies so that they can retain their understandable desire for control, so allowing them to maintain their all important reputation of 'everything just works', which in Vista's case it certainly does not, Vista being the most buggy release since Windows ME, in my opinion. Not to knock Microsoft, they are innovators and deserve a lot of praise; I have found XP more stable than Tiger (I own a Mac Mini) and it is early days yet with Vista.

Hi Alesssandro17, good to see you still beating the Linux drum. The graphical interface needs a bit of work to lift it up to O SX but there is so much to like, not least the speed.

Hi Detosx,

As you already know, in fact I decided that I prefer OS X over Linux.

However the "gospel" I am trying to preach is that OS X should be licensed to the large computer manufacturers.

Mr Dell is very keen on the idea. But alas the most important person, S.J., is not.

MS

OS X

Linux

In that order

Stevo is in his right mind to turn down Dell, for whatever they may be offering. Letting anyone other than Apple sell an OSX box would cut enormously into their PC sales. Not to mention users might start looking for Dell music players etc. to go with their brand new craptastic waste of silicone. I don't think Steve wants to see his beautifull product design smeared by Dell's grimy hands.

On the other hand liscensing out OSX for use in virtualized environments could work out well. Supporting a single virtualized network card in a virtualized computer is a lot easier than having to worry about coding drivers for everyone NIC out there. In the end product support woes fall upon the company providing the virtualization product not Apple. In addition a virtualized OSX may be easier for purists to accept on a beige box than a native booting counterpart. Not to mention the appeal to corporate customers who might not be so keen on buying a new fleet of Xserves.

The real question here is what is this spring update to parallels workstation that will make running OSX on it possible and wil the OSx86 community here be able to profit from it? EFI is one possibility but I don't see what sort of benefits it would add to Linux or Windows virtualization for parallels to bother including it.

Stevo is in his right mind to turn down Dell, for whatever they may be offering. Letting anyone other than Apple sell an OSX box would cut enormously into their PC sales. Not to mention users might start looking for Dell music players etc. to go with their brand new craptastic waste of silicone. I don't think Steve wants to see his beautifull product design smeared by Dell's grimy hands.

haha, that's pretty funny calling {C's craptastic. Hmm, let's see pervcentage wise who's reporing problems with their laptops. MBP owners or Dell owners.

See, I will go for function over from anyday. I need my computer to work. And i don't want to waste my time sending it out, or driving all over town to get my Pro product fixed. If i pay pro prices, I expect pro support.

Apple does not offer that.

let's see pervcentage wise who's reporing problems with their laptops. MBP owners or Dell owners.

A greater percentage of Dell laptops go back for repair than Apple laptops. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006499,00.asp

Apple % needing repair was 16% while Dell was 20%. Gateway was worst with 23% needing repairs.

I also put my on EFI Emulation

A greater percentage of Dell laptops go back for repair than Apple laptops. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006499,00.asp

 

Apple % needing repair was 16% while Dell was 20%. Gateway was worst with 23% needing repairs.

Yeah, well, that was a survey.

We all know that Apple users wouldn't say anything bad about their Prophet's products.

And, let's see hwo they stack up now, with teh MBP problems this last year.

Oh, and those number are a bit off. Accordign to THIS survey, it's more like a 49% repair rate.

http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/laptops.html

Dell and Gateway both out sell Apple and would have that many more RMAs

I've had only a hinge problem form an HP I bought my wife 2 years ago and Dell will send someone to my house to repair my Inspiron, the HP was shipped, repaired and back in service with in 72 hours.

We all know that Apple users wouldn't say anything bad about their Prophet's products.

I also put my :2cents: on EFI Emulation

I have to agree. In a 1-2 years, maybe less, the PCs are going to be using EFI anyway... That would be reason enough for it to be included in Parallels Workstation...

Peace

I bet this is going to go a lot further than EFI emulation.

Its going to be interesting to see where it goes.

Either way though, whether Steve likes it or not, OS X is going to have to be released for PCs at some point, even if Apple cripples features on non-Apple hardware along the way.

I have to agree. In a 1-2 years, maybe less, the PCs are going to be using EFI anyway...

Coincidense?

I think not.

Ok, my money is on support for GPT(GUID) driven OS solutions. A direct EFI emulation, who knows.

I read someone writting PC going to EFI. BIOS is oldsql and a lot of board makers already have EFI on their boards, even most ppl use the BIOS still. My thoughts also go in this direction, but currently it is close to impossible to get rid of BIOS that fast. It will at least take some years until there is a real noticeable revolution. But EFI will be the primary technology in the future.

Yeah, well, that was a survey.

So what? It still shows that Apple users are generally happy with their products.

Oh, and those number are a bit off. Accordign to THIS survey, it's more like a 49% repair rate.

 

http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/laptops.html

So your survey is more relevant than the one I linked because it agrees with you? Why do you think people visit Macintouch in the first place? BECAUSE THEY ARE HAVING PROBLEMS. Your survey pool has been peed in.

Truth is only Apple knows what percent come back in for repair. And I can't see them sharing that number regardless.

But why is that? My grandmother can, and has, installed Mac OS X. Insert disc, hold C. It's not hard, and there are no difficult choices. Point. click. easy. I made her set it up herself to get over the fear of it being hard. Also, why does my dad need a computer science major to install his computer for him?

 

You're right, some distros are better than others. But there are so many Linuxes that it's a guess which ones are best unless you try them all and who has time for that? And I admit to not going much further than SUSE and Fedora/RedHat lately. There are more Linuxes than editions of Windows... And that's bad for the average user looking to get their feet wet.

 

-John

How bout Ubuntu insert CD press enter to install... doubleclick install chose username/password install? hard I think not things just work? I think so! Stop acting like Microsoft Fudmachine.

How bout Ubuntu insert CD press enter to install...

I'll have to give that a try.

Stop acting like Microsoft Fudmachine.

Who says I encourage Microsoft. I think both options are flawed. For most people I work with Microsoft is the lesser of the two though.

I have to agree. In a 1-2 years, maybe less, the PCs are going to be using EFI anyway... That would be reason enough for it to be included in Parallels Workstation...

 

Peace

If that will happen, VMware should be the same

Imho ...Apple should build smaller and cheaper Desktop computers.

The macpro is a nice machine..but 2000 euros is a little over the top me thinkz.

If they would build a small version of the macpro, for let's say..500 euros or so..

then they would get back to the market. I would certainly get one of those!

On the other hand liscensing out OSX for use in virtualized environments could work out well. Supporting a single virtualized network card in a virtualized computer is a lot easier than having to worry about coding drivers for everyone NIC out there. In the end product support woes fall upon the company providing the virtualization product not Apple. In addition a virtualized OSX may be easier for purists to accept on a beige box than a native booting counterpart. Not to mention the appeal to corporate customers who might not be so keen on buying a new fleet of Xserves.

This doesn't matter IF you own the actual hardware companies that build the components you emulate.

E.g. IF Apple should own intel why would they encourage intel-emulation when they'd make more money by actually selling you intel cpu's and intel chipsets (whether in an Apple PC or generic mainboard). And in this scenario they still own and drive the actuall supported hardware while allowing generic PC's to be used which aren't so "generic" anymore by then.

This is especially the case with AMD now. If Apple would buy AMD then they'd have a high profile video-card developer/manufacturor, chipset/mainboard developer/manufacturor AND CPU developer/manufactor... virtually all the components needed to build PC's (or at least the most important parts). Why would they let you buy a emulated ATI-card then if they can sell you the real thing. By allowing exclusive support for e.g. ATI-cards then, they'd still controll the hardware part and therefore still give the impression of increased stability in OSX.

In fact IF Apple would buy AMD they could also bring stability in PC-part pricing policies. And build their own computers a lot cheaper which would answers Tiqo's whishes :-)

Just my 2 cents,

EPDM

Imho ...Apple should build smaller and cheaper Desktop computers.

The macpro is a nice machine..but 2000 euros is a little over the top me thinkz.

The small desktop is called mac mini and available for 599 Eur.

If they would build a small version of the macpro, for let's say..500 euros or so..

then they would get back to the market. I would certainly get one of those! :pirate2:

See above. If you prefer macbook, there s even a macbook for 900 Eur.

The small desktop is called mac mini and available for 599 Eur.

That's fine, except it's not very upgradeable... A less expensive Apple desktop that you can upgrade and add cards to would be very welcome...

Peace

This doesn't matter IF you own the actual hardware companies that build the components you emulate.

 

E.g. IF Apple should own intel why would they encourage intel-emulation when they'd make more money by actually selling you intel cpu's and intel chipsets (whether in an Apple PC or generic mainboard). And in this scenario they still own and drive the actuall supported hardware while allowing generic PC's to be used which aren't so "generic" anymore by then.

 

This is especially the case with AMD now. If Apple would buy AMD then they'd have a high profile video-card developer/manufacturor, chipset/mainboard developer/manufacturor AND CPU developer/manufactor... virtually all the components needed to build PC's (or at least the most important parts). Why would they let you buy a emulated ATI-card then if they can sell you the real thing. By allowing exclusive support for e.g. ATI-cards then, they'd still controll the hardware part and therefore still give the impression of increased stability in OSX.

 

In fact IF Apple would buy AMD they could also bring stability in PC-part pricing policies. And build their own computers a lot cheaper which would answers Tiqo's whishes :-)

 

Just my 2 cents,

 

EPDM

Don't get emulation of software and hardware confused. In my example I was trying to illustrate how virtualization would remove the burden of supporting a gadzillion different types of hardware found in non-Apple PCs. Basicaly, in a virtualized environment the operating system sees a virtual video card, a virtual network device, a virtual optical drive, etc. These emulated components might recieve occasional software updates but they will be the same no matter what components are actualy found on the host system. Thus, Apple has the relatively simple task of making sure that their network kexts/drivers support the Parallels virtual network card. In summary, supporting virtualization would be a good compromise fo Apple, alowing PC owners to use OSX on whatever system they choose without needing to support the myriad of components available for these machines. Granted this would cut Mac hardware sales, but not as much as opening the operating system to any PC or making an agreement with specific vendors such as Dell. There's a good chance that such a move could significantly bolster Apple's market share, expanding the user base of OSX which wouldn't be suca a bad thing for the company.

Also, complete vertical integration just doesn't make sense for computer manufacurers. For one, Apple doesn't have nearly enough capitol to purchase AMD, Intel or even a PC company like Dell or Gateway. Microsoft doesn't manufacture xboxes, they liscense production out to a company in Mexico. Neither ATI nor nVidia manufacture the chips that power their video cards. The cost of building and running your own chip fabrication plant is just too much. It's easier to design the product and then let a plant process your order along with those of a handfull of other companies. Much better to let ASUS(they build some damn fine notebooks under their own brand by the way) build those macbooks IMHO.