**POLL** Would you move to MAC OSX if they switch to AMD Hammer?

[Shuxclams]

If Apple decides to use x86-64 AMD Hammer chips would you consider moving to MAC?

 

[RemyCanad]

Umm I am already switching... But hey the Power PC 640 (I think thats the same) is going to be good enough for me.

 

[Robor]

I think the important thing is what apps run on OSX. If there's enough apps I'd consider it and I'd rather it be available in both Intel platforms as well.

 

[Shuxclams]

My main interest is the Server/serving aspect. As it (Darwin) is really or should be considered a *NIX variant now, you can run a whole business off of OS 10.2 with Apache, MySQL, PHP, any type of MTA (preferably QMail) have users access your services and the like VIA OpenLDAP and a myriad of other server programs. Most everything I can run on my Solaris or Linux boxs can be run on OS 10.2 Server.

As for desktop type applications M$ has already ported OFFICE for it, OpenOffice now has a port for it and most of the major software companies have or are in process of doing so. As for games? Hmmm, my feeling is if it does indeed go to AMD Hammer chips then there would be greater incentive for the gaming software companies to make a port for it. Its not like we dont already have a Linux version of Unreal and Quake right?








SHUX

 

[networkman]

3rd choice - only if it can be run on other x86 chips too. Color me narrow-minded, but I don't want to use an OS that's proprietary to a single chip.

 

[FoBoT]

only if the money fairy dropped a pot of cash on me, even if they do that, they won't drop prices of the hardware

 

[Slahr Dzhe]

I need another option!

I play computer games. If they make ALL the games I play(about 40 titles atm) available to any OS platform, then I might consider it. Currenty, of the games I play, there are 3 that have OSX ports. Until this number rises, I will continue to run my AMD/intel/MS platforms.

SD

 

[seaquake]

The first thing they need to do is install a second button on their mouse. One button just doesn't cut it!

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Have had too many nightmares dealing with Crapintosh hardware and software. It would take more than a new proc to make me consider spending my own money on their sh... shtuff.

 

[MoFunk]

I just can't get into the whole Mac thing. I would like to see this OS in person, but could not see myself ever wanting to use it. I am however converting over to linux slowly, but wont dump M$ entirely though. Call me wierd, but I do kinda like WinXP.

 

[RemyCanad]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteve
Have had too many nightmares dealing with Crapintosh hardware and software. It would take more than a new proc to make me consider spending my own money on their sh... shtuff.

Huh? Wanna list what software and hardware you have worked with? And why they are crap and nightmares to work with?

 

[muttley]

Well the problem is that you have to pay for the current Jaguar and a unlimited license is $10,000 and it is Unix next is that you would need a blade server to run the OS. Hey great for running a small school. But $1,000 for a 10 license setup ... ummm. Easy for a small school server GUI and for the diehard u can use the commandline.

muttley

 

[JWMiddleton]

Originally posted by: seaquake
The first thing they need to do is install a second button on their mouse. One button just doesn't cut it!

Exactly! I was at a frends the other day and used his son's mac to get some info off the web. I didn't have a clue what I was doing. I was minimizing when I thought I was closing, and so on. I know I could learn it, but why! I LOVE XP!

 

[ViRGE]

muttley, the costs are as follows:

$1,000 for OS X Server 10.2 Unlimited
$500 for OS X Server 10.2 10 client
$129 for OS X 10.2

$500 for OS X Server 10.2 Unlimited for Education
$249 for OS X Server 10.2 10 client for Education
$0 for OS X 10.2 for Education

You're off by a factor of 10 to 20 times there.

 

[Shuxclams]

Compare that to M$ Windows 2000 + Licenses......... :Q You'd Save lots of 0000000000000's in liceses and patching security issues.

Lowest I found was:
Microsoft WINDOWS 2000 SERVER 5 USER OEM VERSION FULL DSP C11-01872 - $603.00

and every 20 CAL will cost an additional $375, not to mention cost of "Internet connector license" $1875 and the additional SQL, Exchange, Terminal Server, etc... Licenses.









SHUX

 

[RemyCanad]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
muttley, the costs are as follows:

$1,000 for OS X Server 10.2 Unlimited
$500 for OS X Server 10.2 10 client
$129 for OS X 10.2

$500 for OS X Server 10.2 Unlimited for Education
$249 for OS X Server 10.2 10 client for Education
$0 for OS X 10.2 for Education

You're off by a factor of 10 to 20 times there.

LOL. 10 to 20 times seems to me, to be a bit off.

 

[poopaskoopa]

Shoot. I consider it now. OSX+G4 == sweet! I always end up blowing my play money on something else though...

My choice would be: "I'd add a Mac.. I can't move off x86 "

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: networkman
3rd choice - only if it can be run on other x86 chips too. Color me narrow-minded, but I don't want to use an OS that's proprietary to a single chip.

Windows is stuck on proprietary x86....

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: JWMiddleton

Originally posted by: seaquake
The first thing they need to do is install a second button on their mouse. One button just doesn't cut it!

Exactly! I was at a frends the other day and used his son's mac to get some info off the web. I didn't have a clue what I was doing. I was minimizing when I thought I was closing, and so on. I know I could learn it, but why! I LOVE XP!

Sounds like a problem with your ignorance. Im getting along fine with 1 button. Windows only uses two and that bugged me for a while...

 

[n0cmonkey]

I need a "I would stop using it if they downgraded the quality of their hardware like that" option.

 

[networkman]

Windows is stuck on proprietary x86....

Want to explain that again?

The poll is about whether we run OSX if was available for the AMD Hammer chip

Windows is not stuck on a single chip.. a single architecture possibly, but even that's a stretch. Win95 has been running on 386,486,Pentium, P2, P3,P4, oodles of AMD/Cyrix/IBM/IIT chips. Yeah, they're all x86 compliant, but the MS OS runs on lots of different chips. BTW, Windows NT is/was also available on the DEC Alpha processors as well.

 

[Shuxclams]

Windows NT is/was also available on the DEC Alpha processors as well

And they pulled that support, to RISC'y.....


As for the x86 platform, Windows is indeed stuck to x86... period, each incarnation of x86 whether 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium MMX, Pentium II, K5, K6, Cyrix, Cyrix II, K6-2, K6-III, Pentium III, Athlon, Althlon T-Bird, etc.... it has all been a "update to the speed/performance etc not the code. This is why Itianium is having difficulty, it is another un-sucsessful Intel code. It would be like saying that SUN Solaris can run on multilpe chips ( its does have a x86 version), like a Sparc, UltraSparc, UltraSparc III etc... There are many many many different architectures and only Linux, BSD and few others, all *NIX variants, can run on all or most all of them. Frankly I am tired of the M$/Intel/Dell trio and would welcome the chance to have a top quality OS like OS X and eventually Linux (hopefully) run all of my computers, it would cost less, be more stable (Although Win32 stabilty has gotten WAY better in 3 years) and more secure without having to kiss ass and pay for it at the same time.





SHUX

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: networkman
Windows is stuck on proprietary x86....

Want to explain that again?

x86 is the architecture. ?86, pentium, pentium MMX, pentium pro, pentium ii, pentium iii, pentium iv, k6, k6-2, k6-3, athlon, cyrix whatevers, are all x86 based chips. Much like the 603, 604, g3, g4, power3, power4, and this new IBM chip are all Poiwer PC chips.

The poll is about whether we run OSX if was available for the AMD Hammer chip

That is fine. The person I was responding to made a comment about not wanting to run an OS where you only had the choice of one proprietary chip. If the incarnations of the PowerPC are all considered one chip, then the children of the abortion called 8086 are all one chip.

Windows is not stuck on a single chip.. a single architecture possibly, but even that's a stretch.

It is all one architecture that has changed over the years, but not enough to make it good.

Win95 has been running on 386,486,Pentium, P2, P3,P4, oodles of AMD/Cyrix/IBM/IIT chips. Yeah, they're all x86 compliant, but the MS OS runs on lots of different chips.

And Mac OS X would probably not switch entirely to AMD's Hammer. The PowerPC chips would still be in use. That would be 2 full architectures, and many different chips. Something Microsoft could not get right.

BTW, Windows NT is/was also available on the DEC Alpha processors as well.

And MIPS and PPC. But where are they now? Where is the WinXP version for Alpha, MIPS, or PPC? Or even Win2k? How many current applications applications are available for WinNT Alpha? NT Alpha/MIPS/PPC support is basically dead. Windows is a one horse OS. Darwin, the basis of Mac OS X currently runs on x86 and PPC. FreeBSD, where much of the Darwin userland comes from, currently runs on 2 architectures. NetBSD runs on over 20. OpenBSD ships 9 on their cds. With Windows I would have one choice. x86. Now, would I go with an Athlon and have a better designed chip but still a horrible architecture? Or with the half assed Pentium 4, a horrible architecture with a bigger name? I could go with Itanium, gain no performance, spend oodles more and be stuck with an increadibly proprietary solution (who else makes IA64 chips?).

The processor itself is just a part of the computer really. The architecture around it is just as important. So why ignore it?

 

[RemyCanad]

Personally the one button mouse does not bother be to much. But I would not mind having a 5+ button mouse. I have an intilmouse explorer and I would like more buttons. Not becuase they are needed. (Under either OSes. For a bit I had to use my XP with a apple optical mouse. :Q) But becuase I am lazy and I my keyboards is not in the best place right now. I like being able to hit enter by a button on my mouse.

The thing about their mouse that really matters is a scroll wheel. But then again I can always just plug my mouse in and its good to go.

 

[Shuxclams]

Somehow I think that alot more people are thinking a move to MAC or Linux makes sense.














SHUX