OS X & Windows

[Dundain]

Is it going to be possible to run this operating system on a normal PC? And would there really be any benefit to it?

Also, what would be a better upgrade path, Windows 2000 or Windows XP?

 

[FOBSIDE]

there is the possibility. its already been told that they CAN port OSX to the x86 system but whether thats what apple has in mind is a whole other issue. i like win2k a lot and i cant see a need to go with XP at this point. i vote for 2k.

 

[potz]

steve jobs would NEVER port os x to pc. apple's revenue is based on its hardware sales. so it's never gonna happen. you can port the os x core (darwin) but they it'll just be yet another bsd-like kernel for i386.

i vote win2k.

 

[NOX]

Yes, bother Steve would never do it.

XP can sUcK me with that WA crap. There is no way I'm going to buy 3 copies of XP for my 3 comps, not unless each copy were $30 bucks (yeah don?t dream to hard). I will go Linux before buying XP.

[EDIT]

Forgot to vote Win2k.

 

[jacobnero6918]

Steve Jobs must have changed his mind because I was over at there website just reading that there making a X86 version as well. So you can run XP or Mac OS X or both.

I'm not sure how long it will take for the X86 version to come out.

 

[Yzzim]

Go with Windows 2000 Pro for sure, it's not worth messing around with that WindowsXP junk

 

[earthman]

OS X is based on Next. Big mistake I think, they should have went with Be when they had their chance.

 

[BOFH]

earthman


OS X is based on *BSD. They have modified it and done lots of interesting things to it. You can sample them on x86 hardware using Darwin. Problem is unless you want your normal UNIX applications, there are few for Darwin on x86

 

[Patgod]

if apple did decide to port OSX over to the x86 i would most likely dual boot win2k and osX for a while(30 gig hard drive, plenty of room) and see which i liked more. and yes XP can fall burning out of a building for all i care. ill download any god damn song i want thank you very much mr. windows man.

 

[bubba]

jacobnero6918, where did you see that it is being ported to x86? I have not heard or seen anything of the sort.

BTW, I am running OS X beta on a G4 at work, kinda nice, but a bit too graphic heavy. But then again I think Gnome and KDE are way too graphic heavy too.

 

[MGMorden]

I like KDE and Gnome and REALLY think it would do Apple good to release OS X for x86. It would expand their market tremendously. Apple is losing the hardware battle, but they still have a lot of influence so an x86 version of OS X would likely see good driver support, and with the UNIX underneath (but still a nice usable interface for the non-Unix lovers), they could really go a ways towards pleasing the entire range of users.

 

[Soybomb]

Its nice to think that OS X could even be a viable release for the x86 but its not. Look at how long linux/bsd has been in development for the pc and all the distros there are. In my opinion not one is more advanced out of the box for a desktop than windows 3.1 is for the average consumer. Sure you may be able to tweak it until its really sweet and an awesome os but they just don't dont work 100% out of the box for eveyone, you're either going to have to touch the command line or something and for most consumers that is a bad thing. If OS X is released for the pc it will flop.

 

[MGMorden]

Soybomb: I would say that almost any one of the current Linux distros or the current FreeBSD whoops da sheet out of Win3.1 on the desktop (they whoop on on 9x for me, though 2000 I'll admit is a little better on the desktop for the average user). OS X != Linux/BSD though. It's got a BSD-like kernel underneath, but that kernel is not the whole of OS X. It's got a command line but Apple has made it so that you don't even need to touch it if you don't want to. And Apple didn't go with X11 (which I like X11, but some people have a problem w/ it), they wrote their own stuff. From your comments you make it sound like OS X is just a fancy Linux distro. It's not. Though it has a Unix kernel underneath it is built from the ground up to be a very usable and user friendly system which any newbie could be productive on right out of the box (and it looks pretty good doing it too). For the power users among us though, we could use the command line and have all the fun we want with gcc compilers and such. OS X for x86 would be anything but a flop. People know the Apple name and they assosiate it with being easy to use (as they do with Windows. The mere mention of Linux scares many and they don't even know what BSD is), and hence if it were release for the x86 platform and Apple could push one or two big OEM's (Dell and Gateway are what I'm thinking) to have it as just an option, then I think Apple could double or trible their market share as far as the # of machines running MacOS goes.

 

[jacobnero6918]

It seems to have been removed from the apple site, it was under darwin section but that has change since I was there. I'll try and see if I can find it somewhere bury on there site.

Found it: click here




<< What is Darwin? Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and provides protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. Darwin runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers and work is underway to get Darwin running on Intel-based personal computers. >>

 

[FOBSIDE]

Darwin is different from OSX though. Here is a site advocating OSX on Intel machines. http://www.osxonintel.com/