pleased with Apple

[Santaduck]

Just musing here...

I remember back say 8 years ago, Apple was in trouble, and even more recently.

The 604 chip and beige g3 days were a slow spiral downward, and I recall being MAD at apple for losing it.

Then came the design-influencing imac, the bombed cube, the bombed original ibook, and now currently Apple has been saved by the Titanium notebooks, iPod/iTunes/music store, and of course the announcement of the G5.

somewhere in there i'd stick in the bsd-unix based OS.

bottom line? I'm not worrying about Apple's longevity nearly as much these days as I was in the early-mid 90's. Of course I've been a fan since the Apple ][, and even recall seeing a Lisa.

[techfreak]

I still wish Apple would port their OS over to the PC platform. I like it a lot better than Windows XP plus it would give Apple more revenue and longevity.

The Apple cube was very cool but I heard a lot of them cracked which was a bummer.

[dang]

i like apple as well. My comp life in the early years went: Commode 128, Amiga 500, Apple (dont remember the model), PC x386, PC x486, Apple 8500/120, and then from there out all pcs. I sitll have my 8500/120! I would love to have a new apple. I have one at work but dont get a chance to use it much (plus its damn slow.)

[Santaduck]

wow, porting over OSX to intel would be a coup. Do you know any news about anyone even considering it?

Back in my pc poweruser days, I was always running slightly alternate OSs, from the moderate norton desktop (for win 3.x), to my preference which was OS/2. If I was a PC user, I'd love to run an OS X interface... but what do you mean, have it only a cosmetic difference, or really have it natively be bsd Unix underneath the hood? I'm a noob at this stuff, so what software would be compatible with what OSs in the case of an OSX port to Intel processors?

you're right this move would help ensure longevity for apple, and perhaps even more switching customers in the long run.
___
my first comp was a TI99/4a, although I really wanted an apple ][ of some flavor. I remember some great games, from Aztec, Lode Runner, and Transylvannia...

I currently run a cube now... the stock 40G harddrive was SUPER loud, which invalidated the whole reason of silence that I got the cube; it's been since replaced by a quiet liquid-bearing 120G maxtor... also I had some heat problems so it's running caseless now, especially after the fan on my oem radeon broke, and the replacement pentium fan doesn't fit inside the case. I'll move over an intruding powersupply daughterboard so I can fit in a larger (taller) video card... if I cut the top of the wire mesh above the card (the other toaster slit), then I may even be able to put the case back on, even if the card is too long and too tall to fit in a stock cube.

[dang]

They have had a ported version of OS X for the pc architecture for a long time at Apple. They simultaneously build OS X on PPC and PC. It's just not available. Not sure how stable it is either.

[Santaduck]

sigh Archon thanks for your productive comment, we're used to it.

I bet you've never really used a mac long term. Most of us here have been power users on both sides (mac/pc) of the equation, and after say 20 years of personal computing, it really does mean something that I've chosen to stay Apple. This is from real world experience both in the home environment (and n00b family users), school/education environment, and the work environment (LAN management issues and n00b office workers).

Your opinion, on the other hand, is the sort of knee-jerk reflex that really is meaningless without some explanation of your reasons. There are pros and cons to each side, and I've made my own balance, and will stand by them. I'll also abide by people that have used both sides and primarily end up on the PC side. But I suspect you're neither.

____


dang, thx for the clarification. I'll go look up some info now that I'm interested.

[Archon]

I like oranges instead of apples

[Santaduck]

... and my avatar is cuter than yours, by far.

[llbbl]

porting over OSX to intel would be a coup.

Does running OpenBSD on a dual proc AMD machine count? :D
No seriously the reason it hasn't been released is because Apple would loose a lot of money. Here is a good article that I found that explains the problem more in depth than I can at this time.


A few problems... (4.00 / 1) (#15)
Posted by Brian on Sun Sep 1st, 2002 at 12:41:06 AM PST
(User Info) (brian@artificialcheese.com) http://www.artificialcheese.com

You've got a few problems with your post. I dont' know where to start, other than the beginning.

1. To make a seamless transition to x86, applications would have to be written for Cocoa. Only if written in that language would they ONLY require a recompile. Applications written in Carbon, which means most applications, would have to be completely rewritten for OS X. You said an Xserve with and AMD chip would be perfect. Yes, except for all the software (which is everything).

2. Sure, OS X was born on x86, but all signs point to the fact that it was quickly ported to PowerPC, and the old copy was abandoned. Does Apple keep a version of OS 9 running on 68k processors? No, but it was born on them. You can't make the born/still existing connection.

3. You bring up the idea of Windows and OS 9 API's. This is a good point, and I had to do some research to argue against it. Operating systems are a viable product because they ship with common instruction sets that applications use (to print, to draw to screen, etc. etc). The hard part behind API's is the programmers thinking about what to program. The actual code is easy. So MIcrosoft people invented the Windows API's, and companies like Lindows (who actually use Wine software) use imitation Windows API's to run Windows software. Two problems with this. 1. It's illegal to do because of Microsoft's intellectual property and 2. because software run on fake API's is buggy and not very good. Apple can't tell its customers to buy a PC version of Photoshop, because it'll suck and it'll be slow.

4. They are slapping Lindows. It takes time. The API's belong to Microsoft. It's their intellectual property. End of story.

5. Apple could get drivers, sure. No argument here.

6. The ROM hack wouldn't be hardware. Software developers would trick OS X (which has an Open Source base) into allowing an install onto unsupported hardware. Like I said, Apple's methods to prevent unauthorized installs have already been cracked (search versiontracker for a program to install os x on unsupported hardware).

7. If OS X ran on cheap PC hardware, Apple would lose tons of money fast. Your customers might not have bought many clones, but maybe you just had really rich customers (or people who liked authentic stuff). If you look at the real numbers, Apple lost tons of money during the times it allowed clones. Apple's bread and butter is hardware.

I don't think Apple will die, but I don't think they'll switch to x86 either. More likely they'll switch to IBM's new Power4 processor.



http://www.artificialcheese.com/comments/2002/8/31/161044/348?pid=4

[neuroking]

*sigh*

I, too, am a big mac fan. But now I'm stuck in the business world, and addicted to gaming, so I have a PC.

Heck, beige G3 is nothing! I was a fan even during the whole PowerMac 9600 era. Did you ever use System 7.5.2? Neither did I. And it was installed on my machine. Undocumented changes (no one still probably knows that they changed the serial port speed to be incompatible with the current printers in the 9600), buggy as hell software (at least 5 crashes/day).

Man, those were the days.

having been through that, I figure if they don't go under that year, i would never have to worry. And they didn't. I think it was the Onion that had that ad spoof that read: "Apple: As close to death as Grandma"

Brandon