OS X for the PC (The REAL PC)

[0p73r0nG33k]

I found a couple of articles on it - I'm curious, anyone here willing to consider this as an alternative OS?

http://geeklog.sourceforge.net/pollbooth.php?qid=osx&aid=-1

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp

P.S. I searched for this kind of topic on Anandtech here, so I hope this isn't a duplicate post. Sorry if it is.

P.P.S Silly me, I thought this bb would be advanced enough to let me post a URL and have it parse it automatically.

 

[Nothinman]

This has been covered before, basically apple is a hardware company first and foremost and will never release Mac OS on hardware they can't regulate.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

Don't hold yer breath on this one....As curious as I am to have OSX on my PC as well as my MAC, It'll never happen

 

[Nothinman]

I'd rather run it on native hardware anyway, it's all standard sh!t except the CPU and firmware. x86 and the PC BIOS need to be phased out already, all the legacy sh!t they carry around is killing them. And once Apple starts using the 64-bit PPC chip they're working with IBM on, things might be even cheaper and better.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd rather run it on native hardware anyway, it's all standard sh!t except the CPU and firmware. x86 and the PC BIOS need to be phased out already, all the legacy sh!t they carry around is killing them. And once Apple starts using the 64-bit PPC chip they're working with IBM on, things might be even cheaper and better.

The CPUs are standard too.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
This has been covered before, basically apple is a hardware company first and foremost and will never release Mac OS on hardware they can't regulate.

They can regulate it by creating a firmware for an x86 CPU and requiring that, much like they do for PPC. Most of the legacy crap comes from the chipset, not the CPU itself so I believe that would take care of both problems.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Macs are PCs. PC, in this instance, means Personal Computer. Macs fit the description.

If Apple switched to x86 based machines they would have to support both architectures, and that would be a hassle. I could see using c86 for server based stuff, but again, it would be a huge hassle and a drain on cash. Plus, There would be no AltiVec, and the "comparable" SIMD extensions dont measure up. Many of the Apple applications have some pretty extensive AltiVec support, and I dont think they want to recode everything to *maybe* support SSE2 and have it do less than what AltiVec does now.

With a move to the 7475 (I think thats the right model, but not positive) Macs (not MACs) shouldl show a nice speed increase. Remember when the Athlon moved to DDR? It was a nice speed increase, as it should be when Apple moves in that direction. Yes, I know the current machines have DDR inside, but what does that really mean? Nothing. The difference between the 7455 and the fabled 7475 (again, not positive on this model number) should be much like the difference between The Blues Brothers 2000 and the original Blues Brothers. Well, not quite like that since the 7455s arent *THAT* bad.

 

[Nothinman]

The CPUs are standard too.

I know, but they're not as ubiquitous as x86 chips. I was able to boot to DOS to update the firmware on my DVR-A04 (i.e. Superdrive in the Apples) something Mac users can't do and I don't even think an update was released from Apple yet.

They can regulate it by creating a firmware for an x86 CPU and requiring that, much like they do for PPC. Most of the legacy crap comes from the chipset, not the CPU itself so I believe that would take care of both problems.

It's possible, but probably a lot of work. And even then you know there'd be a hack to make x86 OS X to boot from a normal bios in a few weeks or so.

And like was said in the other thread, no apps would work except for what Apple ported during the initial release. Adobe, Corel, MS, etc would all have to recompile their apps to run on OS X x86 and who knows how long that would take.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It's possible, but probably a lot of work. And even then you know there'd be a hack to make x86 OS X to boot from a normal bios in a few weeks or so.

So? Apple would only provide drivers and/or support for their approved hardware. Why would they care if you PAID for OS X and then didn't end up using it?

 

[Nothinman]

So? Apple would only provide drivers and/or support for their approved hardware. Why would they care if you PAID for OS X and then didn't end up using it?

Because OS X would be pirated nearly as much as Windows and they wouldn't get any money from the software or hardware sales.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

So? Apple would only provide drivers and/or support for their approved hardware. Why would they care if you PAID for OS X and then didn't end up using it?

Because OS X would be pirated nearly as much as Windows and they wouldn't get any money from the software or hardware sales.

Someone has to write the OS X drivers for commodity hardware for piracy to be a problem. That isn't something your "average joe" can do. For that matter, the installer would probably not even work without being hacked to include whatever drivers are needed. Sooo.... two reasons piracy shouldn't be a problem:
1. It would take some SERIOUS effort, unless Darwin is similar enough to FreeBSD, but I doubt it would be difficult to make the driver model very different.
2. There aren't that many people who can do it.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

unless Darwin is similar enough to FreeBSD

I thought OSX was based off OpenBSD.

 

[Nothinman]

Someone has to write the OS X drivers for commodity hardware for piracy to be a problem

If OS X is running on x86 hardware and actually makes the boxes cheaper, they'll be more popular and manufacturers will start writing drivers. It won't happen right away, but as long as OS X keeps gaining popularity it will.

1. It would take some SERIOUS effort, unless Darwin is similar enough to FreeBSD, but I doubt it would be difficult to make the driver model very different.

Apple wants to make writing drivers as easy as possible because more hardware support means more money for them and the manufacturers. They had FreeBSD core developes on the payrole at one point, so it may be pretty close, and they're not going to change the interfaces just to make things difficult, that would be stupid.

unless Darwin is similar enough to FreeBSD

I thought OSX was based off OpenBSD.

OS X uses the mach kernel and the FreeBSD userspace.

 

[CTho9305]

Apple could do what MS did with XP and make signed drivers, except ONLY allow signed drivers. There, successful harware restriction.

 

[Nothinman]

Apple could do what MS did with XP and make signed drivers, except ONLY allow signed drivers. There, successful harware restriction.

If pirating OS X was in the same demand as XP, that wouldn't stop it either. As long as the code is run locally someone will find a away around it. When was the last time a commercial piece of software wasn't released as warez before retail?