Running OS X on PC
-
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am
Running OS X on PC
It appears from searching the net that OS X (OSx86) runs faster on PC machines than OS X on Mac boxes.... And OS X 10.4 now runs perfect on both AMD and Intel PC's. Its only a matter of time before Jobs has to accept this and at least sell OS X for PC (no installed versions obviously without creating the legal battle from hell Jobs vs Gates) via a DVD version for sale. The cloners overseas near China are building these x86 boxes at a million miles an hour and selling them abroad right now so it must be addressed by apple now. And comparing OS X that hauls ass on PC machines to Bootcamp that runs half ass by comparison on macs is just another reason why Jobs has to address this imo.
Older
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commen ... 5/08/68501
Newer
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:om ... ent=safari
Older
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commen ... 5/08/68501
Newer
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:om ... ent=safari
Re: Running OS X on PC
JACKAL & HYDE wrote:It appears from searching the net that OS X (OSx86) runs faster on PC machines than OS X on Mac boxes
Do you have any links, recent benchmarks to back that up ? Bootcamp does not run half ass on my Core2Duo MacBook Pro, nor in any review I've read online. You might be confusing with Parallels, which is Windows running through virtualization inside OS X.And comparing OS X that hauls ass on PC machines to Bootcamp that runs half ass by comparison on macs is just another reason why Jobs has to address this imo.
Macs and PCs are pretty much the same inside now, I'm not sure where you've seen a performance difference running the same OS on two machines with the same guts.
-
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am
Re: Running OS X on PC
axou wrote:JACKAL & HYDE wrote:It appears from searching the net that OS X (OSx86) runs faster on PC machines than OS X on Mac boxesDo you have any links, recent benchmarks to back that up ? Bootcamp does not run half ass on my Core2Duo MacBook Pro, nor in any review I've read online. You might be confusing with Parallels, which is Windows running through virtualization inside OS X.And comparing OS X that hauls ass on PC machines to Bootcamp that runs half ass by comparison on macs is just another reason why Jobs has to address this imo.
Macs and PCs are pretty much the same inside now, I'm not sure where you've seen a performance difference running the same OS on two machines with the same guts.
Theres hundreds of examples; Games & certain apps running slower with boot http://digg.com/tech_news/Boot_Camp_Rev ... n_Windows_
I'm not going to scour the net for benchmarks because that was not my intention of this thread. And the comparison was not that boots that bad but that OSX runs really really fast on PC platforms.
The only point was yes, its the "same guts" so OS X should be available to PC users in DVD form from apple now. It is already working perfectly, just not legally. Jobs makes a Billion in software sales and people putting together workstation PC's can get OS X legally for use. Its a win or everyone.
Last edited by JACKAL & HYDE on Sat May 12, 2007 3:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: Southern California
two words will explain why you'll never see it happen.
Quality Control
Quality Control
15" Macbook Pro C2D, Live 6, Remote Zero SL
Click here for my tunes!
Click here for my tunes!
-
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am
-
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:01 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
im not going to say never (osx on non apple hardware), but i will say this, look at how many people (myself included) switched to mac after being awed by the iPod.
the iPhone is going to take over in the business world. its the must have gadget of the year already and its not out. best phone ever. all kinds of crazy new shit like selective voicemail, easy conference calls from a cell.
anyways, this will be like the iPod again but much larger scale, these is a different demographic with much more disposable income for shinny new macbook pros.
the iPhone is going to take over in the business world. its the must have gadget of the year already and its not out. best phone ever. all kinds of crazy new shit like selective voicemail, easy conference calls from a cell.
anyways, this will be like the iPod again but much larger scale, these is a different demographic with much more disposable income for shinny new macbook pros.
13" 2.0 gHz core 2 duo macbook, live 6, korg poly 800 (w/ moog slayer mod), roland rs-09, rhodes mark 1A stage piano, mattel synsonics analog drum machine
Re: Running OS X on PC
he sells hardware too. and people buy the hardware for osx.JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Jobs makes a Billion in software sales and people putting together workstation PC's can get OS X legally for use. Its a win or everyone.
spreader of butter
Re: Running OS X on PC
Oh sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought your point was :JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Theres hundreds of examples; Games & certain apps running slower with boot http://digg.com/tech_news/Boot_Camp_Rev ... n_Windows_
Windows on Macs runs slower than Windows on PCs
OS X on Macs runs slower than OS X on Pcs
Actually, your link shows that :
OS X on Macs runs slower than Windows on Macs
which is entirely different
Still, if you have any links that mention OS X on PC running much faster than OS X on Macs, I'd be very interested.
Anyway, to me the big problem is integration. OS X runs so well because Apple knows what's inside their Macs, and choice for hardware tinkering is rather limited when compared to the PC world, where you need to make sure all drivers run nice alongside each other.
besides, with macs now costing less then equivilantly specced pcs, why would you pay more to buy a dell? even after you've hacked it to run mac os.
Macbook Pro unibody 2.2 Ghz Quad i7, 16GB RAM, 512MB graphics, 500 GB SSD, 500 GB HD, Mac OS 10.8
http://www.bangbang-nyc.com
http://www.bangbang-nyc.com
most quality PC manufacturers are not much cheaper than Apple Macs - and buying directly from Apple you can hope that the system will work a bit more reliable - as the software developers know what the hardware developers slip in the box.
I hope the day when I have to worry that this chipset works well with that PCI-card and both with that USB-Device will not come so soon.
Win is a lot longer on x86 processors, would be a shame if their OS would run worse than an OS that still has to carry around code for PPC is on the x86 platform just for over one year ...... And in the end - Logic, Digital Performer, numerology, MetaSynth only run on Mac - so they will not run faster on Win - so why bother ..... ?
best
I hope the day when I have to worry that this chipset works well with that PCI-card and both with that USB-Device will not come so soon.
Win is a lot longer on x86 processors, would be a shame if their OS would run worse than an OS that still has to carry around code for PPC is on the x86 platform just for over one year ...... And in the end - Logic, Digital Performer, numerology, MetaSynth only run on Mac - so they will not run faster on Win - so why bother ..... ?
best
-
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:09 am
- Location: London, UK
Quite a strange little opening post here, because it is quite contrary to everything I am experiencing with my BRAND NEW LESS THAN A WEEK OLD iMac.
Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz
1GB DDR2 667 RAM
ATI 256mb graphics
230GB HD (I ordered a 160GB, but they gave me a bigger one by mistake! Nice mistake Apple!)
I'm running Bootcamp. OSX runs VERY quick. And guess what, I shit you not... but XP runs a LOT faster than my AMD machine:
Athlon 64 4200 X2
1gb DDR333 RAM
Onboard Nvidia Geforce 6100 128mb graphics
40GB HDD
80 GB HDD
200GB SATA HDD
Yes. The iMac beats the AMD machine on a few things: Graphics, faster RAM, and a faster system drive.
But again: My experience is totally contrary to what the opening poster is claiming.
Core 2 Duo 2.0ghz
1GB DDR2 667 RAM
ATI 256mb graphics
230GB HD (I ordered a 160GB, but they gave me a bigger one by mistake! Nice mistake Apple!)
I'm running Bootcamp. OSX runs VERY quick. And guess what, I shit you not... but XP runs a LOT faster than my AMD machine:
Athlon 64 4200 X2
1gb DDR333 RAM
Onboard Nvidia Geforce 6100 128mb graphics
40GB HDD
80 GB HDD
200GB SATA HDD
Yes. The iMac beats the AMD machine on a few things: Graphics, faster RAM, and a faster system drive.
But again: My experience is totally contrary to what the opening poster is claiming.
-
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:09 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Running OS X on PC
BTW: Yes, I do agree. OSX should be available to Windows users.
-
- Posts: 6490
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA.
Re: Running OS X on PC
Amberience wrote:BTW: Yes, I do agree. OSX should be available to Windows users.
Agreed
-
- Posts: 11421
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
Absolutely agree with Jackel . My perception of why this doesn't happen is more to do with Apple being warry of direct unadultrated attacks from Microsoft than any sort of worry about quality control. It would be too simple for Apple to sell the OS without support; say you get a mac pro, and Apple will answer your tech support questions, but if you don't own Apple hardware it's a no go.
I really believe the reason for this is is the combination of tech support BS "OSX sux! cuz my POS $250 PC is having problems with it!" and not wanting to be under Microsoft's gun as directly.
I think it's just a bad business move to go against a company that has more liquid assets than god.
I really believe the reason for this is is the combination of tech support BS "OSX sux! cuz my POS $250 PC is having problems with it!" and not wanting to be under Microsoft's gun as directly.
I think it's just a bad business move to go against a company that has more liquid assets than god.