Re: OT: The Intel-powered MAC
- From: "Cos360°" <kwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:57:39 +1100
"suntzu" <suntzu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:du5pk9$i2c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cos360° wrote:
I still don't know what to make of this really. When I first heard the
announcement about a year ago, I thought great...an Intel powered Mac
would mean I would finally have no excuses for not getting a Mac. They'd
look good and I could run my favourite Linux Distribution, Wintel and OSX
on the same system. Perfect. Plus OSX would continue to support FreeBSD
(which in all honesty, probably means you don't need Linux).
yeah, but unless you want OSX, or you're really into the style of the
hardware, you might as well run your favorite *nix on far cheaper standard
intel/amd pc hardware (i like amd a lto more anyway, better architecture
AFAIK). like you said, it seems like there isn't much reason to run both
linux and OSX, unless you're really into the OSX GUI and there's something
that you just can't get for BSD that runs on linux.
I don't mind the OSX interface actually, they were consistently about 5 - 10
years ahead of the windows interface for a while (that's not saying much
though, the old Amiga interface was doing Win95 type stuff in the late
80's). But I don't know if I like that much. I think I might opt for the
inevitable Mac OXX interface capable of running windows binaries etc. Now
that would be nice, a single easy to use interface spanning three operating
systems. That would be a windows killa.
you should check out pc-bsd, btw, i'm running a server on it, and it'snot a bad buy
actually one of the easiest operating system installs i've ever done
(other than having to learn a bit about disklabels so that i could
partition it well). nice GUI. not OSX, but not bad, and it has a really
easy to use package management/installer system. and it's based on a
slimmed down version of freebsd. it's basically just a freebsd distro w/
few services installed by default (the whole installation image is one
CD). which is really nice, because i was able to do a default install,
and out of the box i had xwindows, kde, and the ssh daemon set up (with
other daemons like apache, telnet, ftp, etc turned off by default so it's
more secure). i'd highly recommend checking it out if you've got an old
PC lying around (i've got it running very nicely on an old duron 700 w/
half a gig of ram that i bought off some guy for $30 and added a hard
drive to).
I have never tried BSD, but have used Linux a fair bit...do most of my
simulation work on a Linux platform, mainly cause it's more stable and I
have never been big on windows IDE's. Not sure if BSD would do anything else
that a good Linux distro wouldn't (I use Mandrake or Mandriva now its
called). But will give it a try. I am hoping to upgrade my main desktop in
the next 6 months or so (AMD Xp 1.2Ghz, 384MB of RAM running
Win2K/Mandrake...it works fine but probably time for an upgrade), might make
it my new server and get rid of that P2 finally. My laptop is a P4 but I try
and I use that primarily/solely as a WinXP system.
Great so far. Given that they will now be running Intel, they might
finally break the 8-percent market share which they've had for ever (the
Ipod was meant to help increase this but it didn't) as consumers could
buy a Mac and dual-boot it with Windows.
i don't know that there are that many people who want to dual boot like
that... plus, i thought apple was supposed to be providing binary
compatibility with windows programs (which would be much easier w/ the
intel hardware). i can't imagine that sort of dual boot being an
attractive option unless you're a gamer and you can't run your games in
binary compatibility mode in OSX.
yeah, I guess. If they got the binary compatibilty right...there would be no
need to...even graphic driver compatibility could be done pretty easily.
I've never really had a play with linux compaitibility in OSX though...I
might be still tempted to throw on Mandriva (which has come along quite
nicely in the last couple of years...although one might argue its starting
to get a little bloated).
So then Apple decides to release the Intel-Mac early and almost
immediately announces that they will not be supporting FreeBSD in the
medium to long terms. Rumours abound that Mac's long-term goal is to dump
OSX and possible adopt Windows as its primary platform...making Apple
purely a hardware company, another HP or Dell for the most part. But no
FreeBSD support?? Killing off OSX??? What's going on? The operating
system is what always made the Mac 'special'...and for Unix aficionados,
Steve Jobs adding FreeBSD support when he came back in the fold
solidified is stature as the superior platform.
if that's true (hadn't heard about that), that's phenomenally retarded, at
least from my unix nerd point of view. the cool thing about OSX is that
it's a good GUI over a real unix OS. OS9 and prior, much like win98/ME
and prior, was trash. at least win98 had lots of software written for it,
and games.
It is a rumour though but it seemed to have some merit, I'll look for the
article and post it up here.
but OSX is nice.
if i left out the BSD aspect of OSX, i'd say OSX and winXP were on par
with one another. just a matter of which you know better and which style
you like more. as a consumer OS, XP (and 2000), really isn't bad. i
wouldn't run a server farm on it, but 2000 has been completely adequate as
a home operating system for me for the last few years.
My only real issue with the Mac interface for a long time was that it lacked
a proper command line interface but with the adoption of Unix, it seems to
have fixed that issue. I
so i guess what i'm saying is that apple's one big strength from my point
of view is OSX... what excited me about the move to intel hardware is the
possibility of running OSX on cheaper non-apple hardware. i just don't
feel like paying a $500 premium when i could build a system of equal
performance, for less (and with a style i'd like more if i shopped around
for the right case). i damn well wouldn't pay extra just to run XP on a
trendy looking box.
there are a couple of groups out there already playing with OSX on
non-propreitary hardware. Let me see if I can find a link for that as well.
I can't say that running OSX on non-propreitary hardware was/would be a big
purchasing plus for me. The mac-mini is pretty cheap as it is. If I were to
go OSX, it would be purely as a simulation platform (replacing my Linux
platform) in which case I'd just shell out the money and not have to worry
about compatibilty etc etc.
So this week the Ipod hi-fi system gets released and I start to think,
Apple doesn't even care about the platform anymore...it's all about
selling add-on peripherals and increasing market share.
apple, to one degree or another, has always sold style.
no doubt. although for many years I didn't think they were anything special
visually...they were just odd looking machines that seemed to appeal to
liberal arts sorts, mainly cause they stood out as being different visually
from PCs and they were actually easier to use. If I had as much access to
software on a Mac as I did a PC, I'd recommend my parents buy one...as I
think the interface is more intuitive and more stable than windows.
I think the Imac was the first apple machine to hit me as a must-have
accesory based purely on the design style
i've never found their software significantly easier to use than windows
equivalents, for the most part. i think itunes is bloated and intrusive,
and the ipod is good because it was one of the first mp3 players that
didn't have major flaws (people really fawn over it way too much, IMO).
I think that windows has come a long way in the last 10 years. I still think
OSX is still the better GUI but not by far. I'd have to agree with Itunes.
Dislike that program with a passion.
also, i'm not sure what the deal is w/ their hi-fi system, but why not
just buy a regular receiver and speakers of the quality level you're
looking for, and then plug your ipod or computer into the aux jack? i had
an old laptop running win2k hooked up to a stereo for a while, and it was
one of the better audio setups i've seen. with the addition of a remote
control for the PC and an audiophile soundcard, it would've been a really
great system.
yup, I'd agree with the that. you could do so much more with a dedicated PC
running windows media centre hooked up to a decent amp. but I guess the
average PC user would think its too involved?
So I am watching Apple with increasing scepticism, as it morphs from
cutting edge PC company to a home electronics vendor. I just hope they
leave their laptops alone, even if the rest of the platform becomes
increasingly generic and home consumer orientated, at least the laptops
will still look good.
yeah, i will say that i do like their laptops. i'd probably rather get a
thinkpad, but yeah, apple does make nice laptops. if i had money to burn
and i wanted a small computer to hook up as a media center, i'd consider a
mac mini, but probably only if i didn't have time to build my own PC based
system.
- Kwaj
.
- References:
- OT: The Intel-powered MAC
- From: Cos360°
- Re: OT: The Intel-powered MAC
- From: suntzu
- OT: The Intel-powered MAC
- Prev by Date: Re: Saigon - The Greatest Story Never Told
- Next by Date: Re: Beautiful feminine rap music?
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: The Intel-powered MAC
- Next by thread: New Dilated Peoples
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
