Mac, Windows, Boot Camp
- Thread starter FordSVT
- Start date
And Windows doesn't want you to because you wouldn't go back to Windows.
--Ted
A
Amaris
Guest
TG CreakyDoor said:
And Windows doesn't want you to because you wouldn't go back to Windows.
--Ted
Not necessarily. I've used Macs and while I like the interface, I can go back to Windows without a hitch. I like compatibility, and I don't like exorbitant pricing. By selling Mac OS and making it bootable on a non Mac system, I would be quite happy. As it is, I'm not paying lots more money just to use Mac OSX, even with boot camp.
J.
That's what I thought. So it really is just a case of Apple not wanting their OS to be able to run on cheaper hardware so they embed some code in the OS to make it incapable of doing so? I can't see it being something MS has much control over, they don't "own" the x86 architecture like Apple owns theirs.
Macs are pretty, I just can't stand the thought of ponying up that kind of money when I can get a PC so much cheaper and be able to upgrade it over the years.
Macs are pretty, I just can't stand the thought of ponying up that kind of money when I can get a PC so much cheaper and be able to upgrade it over the years.
It is actually possible (with one or two code 'modifications') to run OS X on PC hardware, but it's not something of which Apple approves (to put it mildly!). The Darwin kernel, upon which OS X is built, can be freely downloaded (as it's open source) and run on a PC quite happily.
GM
GM
I suspect the biggest problem would be drivers. BootCamp works because Apple assembled lots of drivers for common devices which work with OSX; on other hardware, you'd need to somehow finagle the drivers for that hardware to work with OSX as well.
I wonder if you could run OSX inside a virtual machine that pretends to be Apple hardware? Probably minimal slowdown since the architectures are essentially identical.
I wonder if you could run OSX inside a virtual machine that pretends to be Apple hardware? Probably minimal slowdown since the architectures are essentially identical.
Deleted 2
Vice Admiral
It's more that they made Intel Macs subtly different from PCs. (in a quite defensible way, actually). Unchanged, neither OS will work on the other hardware, but the differences are very minor, which is why things like Boot Camp and the abovementioned Darwin hack work.
MS has never actively stopped competing OSes from working on the x86 architecture. They didn't stop OS/2, the free Unix-like OSes, BeOS, or anything else from working. As long as they get a piece of the action for most consumer pcs sold, they don't care if people dual boot or not.
OSX has been run in VMWare successfully by a number of people. As for driver problems, it's not as bad as one would suspect. Plenty of open-source Linux drivers have been ported over to OS X with varying levels of success and the system supports a decent selection of hardware natively with the Apple-supplied drivers. The major sticking point are wireless adapters, since Apple has stuck with a very short list of suppliers for that particular hardware.
It also bears noting that while Apple computers are on the expensive side, when compared to similarly equipped PC's the gap isn't nearly as wide as it used to be. Given that you get a far more capable and user-friendly OS, the price premium is not unreasonable. My next portable will most likely be an Apple product.
Although the kernel is far from being the OS. Without the userland utilities, the APIs, the GUI, etc., the kernel isn't too useful. Of course, almost all of those are kept proprietary by Apple.
(GM, I think you probably already know all that, since I think you work in the tech industry. This post was more for the benefit of anyone wondering how Apple could have a free (as in speech) kernel for their OS.)
A
Amaris
Guest
That's true, but I'm about to upgrade my 4 year old technology PC (within the next 6 months) to a current high end machine for approximately $200. Apple couldn't touch that if it tried.
J.
Isn't that because MS get a slice of the sale from each PC produced with Windows pre-installed anyway?
From MS' perspective, Mac users buying XP or Vista are an added bonus - a sale they wouldn't have otherwise, and a way of making money on a system where they ordinarily wouldn't have it.
Apple, in contrast, would be very hard-pushed to get that kind of deal with another manufacturer, and why should they bother?
They like being who and what they are - and a lot of people who use Macs like them for that, too.
A
Amaris
Guest
Maybe they should have Mac OS as an acronym. As in, "My Apple Computer Operating System!", since their operating system refuses to run on my hardware, hardware that is very similar to that of a Macintosh, well at least now it's similar to a Macintosh since they switched to Intel based processor encoding, which makes them less special. 
J.
J.
Which is why I really wish that Mac offered a mid-range tower system. I can't justify the cost of the dual-socket MacPro but a high-end single-socket tower would fit the bill nicely when the time came to retire my current desktop system.
If they tried, they certainly could. There's no hardware-configuration reason why Macs---desktop Macs, anyway---aren't just as upgradeable as anything. The problem is finding readily-compatible parts. A few 3rd-party companies make them; if Apple did as well, they'd undoubtedly be reasonably priced.
But Apple's business model doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's a shame. I would love to have the features and GUI from Mac OSX and the familiarity of Windows XP, as well as the ease of customization and upgrading on one system that was reasonably priced. I'm sure Apple has looked into such a strategy, but you're right, they just don't seem to work it that way.
J.
If Apple opened up the hardware to allow the wide range of hardware that is available in the Windows world, I think we would see that OSX isn't as stable as people think. A large part of the reason for Windows' stability issues in the past is due to the fact that it has to be able to run on so many different systems with widely varying hardware. Apple keeps the list of compatible hardware short so that their OS doesn't have to be so adaptable to the hardware environment. If all they have to do is make it run well on a defined list of hardware, they can make it run well and stable. If it has to run on all the hardware out there and also be able to run on not-yet-invented hardware in the future, all with third-party drivers, the job gets considerable more complex.
It's a blessing and a curse, on both sides.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Similar threads
