PDA

View Full Version : Is apple hardware useless??



cityismine
January 13th, 2006, 07:34 AM
I don't know if you guys have been following the story of the hacked OS X, which runs on a PC. Alot of people who have tried it, say it runs faster on a PC, than a Mac. Although they haven't discovered why it runs faster on a PC, but I wouldn't be suprised if the overpriced Apple hardware is nothing but rubbish. I know Apple will be switching suppliers from IBM to Intel. But if OS X runs faster on a PC, is there any real reason to buy Apple hardware?

Here's the link to the story (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html)

briancurtin
January 13th, 2006, 07:36 AM
they already have switched to intel

mstlyevil
January 13th, 2006, 07:39 AM
they already have switched to intel

Only on two products. The rest are still using ppc chips until this summer.

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 08:06 AM
But if OS X runs faster on a PC, is there any real reason to buy Apple hardware?


Yep. Support for one. Oh, and the fact that all the hardware works (as OSX does not have drivers for most computers out there).

I was going to try the "hack OSX onto a PC box" for fun till I learned that except for a very small percentage of computers, the networking does not work. No internet means no fun and no go for me!

cityismine
January 13th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Yo braincurtin, I'm talking about Apple hardware in general, not just powerpc. Even the Intel chips for Apple will be sold with apple machines, not separately. And to my knowledge these aren't the same type of chips used in PCs. Even with intel chips, apple hardware prices will remain the same, which means their systems will continue to cost 2x or 3x as much as PCs. So this brings me back to my original question, why use apple hardware, when you can run the hacked OS X on a PC. Especially when it's been proven to run faster on a PC. Hell, you can save even more money by using an AMD chip.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 08:22 AM
Yo braincurtin, I'm talking about Apple hardware in general, not just powerpc. Even the Intel chips for Apple will be sold with apple machines, not separately. And to my knowledge these aren't the same type of chips used in PCs. Even with intel chips, apple hardware prices will remain the same, which means their systems will continue to cost 2x or 3x as much as PCs. So this brings me back to my original question, why use apple hardware, when you can run the hacked OS X on a PC. Especially when it's been proven to run faster on a PC. Hell, you can save even more money by using an AMD chip.

You have no knowledge, it will be the same hardware in those machines as in other pc's except for a DRM chip that allows it to run OSX, it'll run anything else just like any other PC does.

Why? Well for one it is illegal to run the Hacked OSX, not being a thief is something that some people take pride in.

BTW, as i said in the other thread, suggesting illegal activity is against the forum rules.

cityismine
January 13th, 2006, 08:52 AM
Your right, I don't much about the hardware yet. But I doubt it, that intel chips made for apple, will also work in PCs, and like most apple hardware, it will be overpriced compared to a PC. Even if the chips are just like the ones made for the PC, they'll use sort of TPM scheme which will only allow them to run OS X

I don't know what you mean by "illegal activity". I haven't posted a link to the hacked OS X, or shown anyone how to get it. I've just opened the topic for discussion. Plus I don't think it's considered piracy if someone who already has an OS X COA, and decides to try the hacked OS X. So just because it's hacked doesn't mean it's pirated.

Viro
January 13th, 2006, 08:59 AM
Yo braincurtin, I'm talking about Apple hardware in general, not just powerpc. Even the Intel chips for Apple will be sold with apple machines, not separately. And to my knowledge these aren't the same type of chips used in PCs. Even with intel chips, apple hardware prices will remain the same, which means their systems will continue to cost 2x or 3x as much as PCs. So this brings me back to my original question, why use apple hardware, when you can run the hacked OS X on a PC. Especially when it's been proven to run faster on a PC. Hell, you can save even more money by using an AMD chip.

Firstly I want to say that you are just trolling. And trolling poorly at that. Apple's hardware is 2x - 3x more than a comparable PC? Uhm, pardon me but 1990 just called. They want their excuse back.

Look at the iMac. At $1299, you get a dual core 1.83 GHz CPU, in a neatly designed small form factor computer. Tell me, do you get the same generic PC hardware costing $650 (if Macs are 2x more expensive) or $430 (if Macs are 2x more expensive)? Short answer is you don't. Same goes for the Powerbook.

With regards to the performance of the PowerPC chips, I suggest you get a clue too. They may not be the 'fastest' in the benchmarks you run, but that doesn't mean they are useless. For instance, in tasks that are well suited to Altivec like the FFT which is used loads in signals processing, media encoding, etc. Have a look at http://www.fftw.org/speed/opteron-2GHz-32bit/ and http://www.fftw.org/speed/g5-2GHz/ and look at the single precission scores (sadly Altivec doesn't have double precission). Suddenly, that AMD processor don't look so good, does it?

Apple didn't move to Intel because the PowerPCs were poorly performing chips. The moved because of the 'performance-per-watt' factor. G5s perform well, but you'll end up with a huge notebook if you tried putting it in one. That's why the Powerbook and iBooks were stuck with the G4s for a long long time.

So please, cut the misinformed nonsense.

Azriphale
January 13th, 2006, 09:34 AM
And aside from all that Viro mentioned (which I completely second!), the hacked x86 OSX will not, in fact, run on any PC hardware. The only native hardware support is that which apple decides to give it (i.e. their hardware), so if you get a third party wireless network card and plug that in, chances are it will not work. Any decent OS designed for an x86 PC, such as x86 Linux, has a far better shot at using your hardware.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 10:59 AM
Your right, I don't much about the hardware yet. But I doubt it, that intel chips made for apple, will also work in PCs, and like most apple hardware, it will be overpriced compared to a PC. Even if the chips are just like the ones made for the PC, they'll use sort of TPM scheme which will only allow them to run OS X

It's not different than any other PC except for the ability to run OSX and no there won't be any such restrictions, there are no such restrictions in their current hardware (you can run any other OS that exists for PPC on a Mac of today) and there won't be any such restriction on the PC's they'll sell in the future either.


I don't know what you mean by "illegal activity". I haven't posted a link to the hacked OS X, or shown anyone how to get it. I've just opened the topic for discussion. Plus I don't think it's considered piracy if someone who already has an OS X COA, and decides to try the hacked OS X. So just because it's hacked doesn't mean it's pirated.

By advocating piracy you are suggesting illegal activity, are you not, read rule number 4 here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item_gp#faq_new_faq_item_gp_st aff)

It's not about what you think, being in possession of the hacked OSX version is illegal in itself.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 11:04 AM
And aside from all that Viro mentioned (which I completely second!), the hacked x86 OSX will not, in fact, run on any PC hardware.

If it didn't run on any PC hardware then it wouldn't run on the PC's apple are going to sell either, it's standard PC hardware with a DRM chip. You can match the components if you wish, all of them are standard components that you can purchase at Newegg.


The only native hardware support is that which apple decides to give it (i.e. their hardware), so if you get a third party wireless network card and plug that in, chances are it will not work. Any decent OS designed for an x86 PC, such as x86 Linux, has a far better shot at using your hardware.

Well, that is simply not true, except that Linux will have better hardware support for the forseeable future.

Gowator
January 13th, 2006, 11:22 AM
And aside from all that Viro mentioned (which I completely second!), the hacked x86 OSX will not, in fact, run on any PC hardware. The only native hardware support is that which apple decides to give it (i.e. their hardware), so if you get a third party wireless network card and plug that in, chances are it will not work. Any decent OS designed for an x86 PC, such as x86 Linux, has a far better shot at using your hardware.

Consider that 3rd'd ...
First off apple hardware IS better than the average PC hardware.
It is not more expensive than quality PC stuff....

All you need to do is compare a ibook and top of the range laptop from sony/toshiba/et al... and you will see that apple is proably cheaper for the same quality of laptop in terms of build quality etc.

Yes you can buy cheap PC laptops, I have one and the battery can't be replaced anymore .. the case is damaged from everyday use which wouldn't even mark a ibook etc.

This goes through the whole range, genuine apple stuff is better made than the budget PC end and the same price as quality PC end. As a bonus you get OS-X, iTunes, iPhoto etc. and lots of goodies.

Check out the macmini, I saw one for 279 the other day...

When you plug something into an apple it just works... no complex config or drivers because its supported .. other than that its just a pretty interface.
Porting OS-X without this support is just a pretty desktop .

So is a x86 port that doesn't support most PC hardware useless?

Gowator
January 13th, 2006, 11:24 AM
If it didn't run on any PC hardware then it wouldn't run on the PC's apple are going to sell either, it's standard PC hardware with a DRM chip. You can match the components if you wish, all of them are standard components that you can purchase at Newegg.



Well, that is simply not true, except that Linux will have better hardware support for the forseeable future.
Subjective....

1) No it will only run on specially selected PC hardware that uses the same chipsets as the chosen apple hardware. Yes you can buy it at new egg but you are buying the same stuff was put into an apple anyway (like an ATI card)

2) Linhux will doubtless support MORE devices but OS-X official will probably still support them more completely in a PNP way...

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Subjective....

1) No it will only run on specially selected PC hardware that uses the same chipsets as the chosen apple hardware. Yes you can buy it at new egg but you are buying the same stuff was put into an apple anyway (like an ATI card)

The point was that it's standard PC hardware that you can buy at any computer store, you'll have to match the components, of course, but it's not special hardware made just for Apple or even BY apple as was implied.


2) Linhux will doubtless support MORE devices but OS-X official will probably still support them more completely in a PNP way...

Linux supports more devices in a PNP way today than Apple ever will, i don't know where you got it from that Linux device support isn't PNP oriented but you are completely wrong.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 11:35 AM
Consider that 3rd'd ...
First off apple hardware IS better than the average PC hardware.
It is not more expensive than quality PC stuff....

No, apple hardware is just standard hardware, it's nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing that you can't buy for half the price and put together yourself, or you can get an X2 AMD64 with 2GB of ram running faster at even less half the price.


When you plug something into an apple it just works... no complex config or drivers because its supported .. other than that its just a pretty interface.

Or it doesn't work at all and you can't get it to work either, which is more common than on a Linux PC



Porting OS-X without this support is just a pretty desktop .

So is a x86 port that doesn't support most PC hardware useless?

No, of course it isn't, there are people who like OSX, personally i find the limitations to... limiting.

Azriphale
January 13th, 2006, 12:24 PM
I'm sure the limitations of Linux are limiting too... But I'm yet to find them :)

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 12:27 PM
I'm sure the limitations of Linux are limiting too... But I'm yet to find them :)

If you do find them, you have an option to remove them (or tell others that can do it for you if you can't do it yourself), that is the beauty of OSS.

Azriphale
January 13th, 2006, 12:36 PM
Heh. Yes indeed.
So we can conclude, in fact, that the limitations of Linux are actually not limiting at all.

greenway
January 13th, 2006, 12:57 PM
No, apple hardware is just standard hardware, it's nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing that you can't buy for half the price and put together yourself, or you can get an X2 AMD64 with 2GB of ram running faster at even less half the price.



Or it doesn't work at all and you can't get it to work either, which is more common than on a Linux PC




No, of course it isn't, there are people who like OSX, personally i find the limitations to... limiting.

Dude, have you ever touched a Mac? Sounds like you're just babling on about something you have absolutely no clue about...

So, please name me some of your "limitating limitations".

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 04:24 PM
So, please name me some of your "limitating limitations".

No really good native (as in does not use Xserver and can copy and paste) Openoffice. Neo Office is the worst OO port.

Gowator
January 13th, 2006, 05:19 PM
No, apple hardware is just standard hardware, it's nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing that you can't buy for half the price and put together yourself, or you can get an X2 AMD64 with 2GB of ram running faster at even less half the price.

Most of it is used elsewhere but that doesn't mean its not the best quality. Apple used scsi disks for a long time before eventually starting with IDE because they were better... while PC's used MFM disks apples had scsi.
Sure so did lots of big computers but not PC's and not off the shelf ones for many years. The same goes for the accessories, Mac just don't do low end crap.



Or it doesn't work at all and you can't get it to work either, which is more common than on a Linux PC

Agreed, that is the whole point though. peple who buy Mac's don't want to fsck about with drivers and stuff that doesn't look aethetically pleasing to them, but Mac's are still good value for what you get which is diffwerent to cheap.



No, of course it isn't, there are people who like OSX, personally i find the limitations to... limiting.

So do I but that is because most people who buy a Mac don't wanna have to buy a scanner that comes with a CD .. they just wanna plug the scanner in and it work... this is WHY apple limits compaitible hardware and they won't bother to certify anything they think looks crap either.

The whole point of a Mac is not OS-X its presicely something you can't put together yourself... and even if you did it wouldn't be put together the same way.

Viro
January 13th, 2006, 06:27 PM
No really good native (as in does not use Xserver and can copy and paste) Openoffice. Neo Office is the worst OO port.

That's supposed to be a limitation? ;)

On Linux, I almost never use OpenOffice unless I'm working with Powerpoint files. Instead, I prefer Abiword and Gnumeric. These are much lighterweight, and seem to be more GNOME like.

curuxz
January 13th, 2006, 06:44 PM
Id realy like to try osX on my pc but I have made such moves away from windows to make sure that im 100% legal in my business and this article while intresting is piracy. If osX ever legaly comes to i386 I would love to try it, but I realy think alot of people around here wont want to touch pirated software.

xequence
January 13th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Why? Well for one it is illegal to run the Hacked OSX, not being a thief is something that some people take pride in.

I read that before looking at who posted, but I knew it was you ;O