Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'I like the hardware...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
I like the hardware...
Authored by: BenGleason on Apr 18, '08 09:25:08AM

I'd be disappointed with non-Apple hardware. If I needed to save money, I'd just buy a refurbished Mac.

Otherwise, you're just running OSX on a hacked PC,. You could get similar, cheaper results by just running Ubuntu Linux on your PC.



[ Reply to This | # ]
I like the hardware...
Authored by: robg on Apr 18, '08 09:40:52AM

Umm, no, then you'd be running Linux, not OS X. If you run OS X on your hacked PC, you're running OS X -- which is what many Mac users seem to prefer :).

I guess I don't understand your statement...

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
I like the hardware...
Authored by: dudemac on Apr 18, '08 07:36:42PM

I think what he is trying to say is that you would have more trouble with clone hardware. However, that is not really the case since I have been running generic PC hardware for years with windows and linux. In fact the latest version of ubuntu is so easy to use and install that it is almost as easy to maintain as my mac, which lately seems to be having more problems than my linux box that is a 7 year old tower with an old GeForce2 32mb video card that runs compiz (linux window compositing software) great. Wobbly windows and all the effects. I showed this to a couple of my friends and they have a hard time believing that it is an AMD duron 700 under the hood. :) But hey my macbook pro with 4gigs of ram is no slouch, and the performance that the mac interface has lacked for so long is not there anymore. It is now better than vista at most tasks. But what amazes me is that the opensource community has come up with a compositing solution that is so much more efficient than Quartz or Areo that we could have had vista or mac lick interfaces years ago.
Now what does this have to do with clones. Well it would allow people to not only configure their systems, but would allow incremental changes when things like core image happen and you need a better video card to take advantage of it. The rest of the machine doesn't really need to change. I still run Leopard on a 12" powerbook and it works great until I use a program that relies on core image. And when it off loads the work to the processor the computer will just hang. I tried using Pixelmator and that app just will not run more than a couple of minutes with out hanging so bad I have to power off the machine. Better video card would solve the problem but that is not an option. Now granted this is a bad example because it is a laptop but the point is that most people that own the essentially non upgradable macs have run into this kind of hardware limit at some point. Where on the PC side there has always been the option of component replacement. The PC maker that really made this difficult was Gateway, but they eventually changed and allowed user upgradable systems.
In my opinion there should be nothing wrong with clones. I don't think that apple should have to write drivers for clone hardware and that is where people would have problems.
For all that say apple would not make as much money if they let OS X officially run on alternative hardware. I call BS. The fact that I could run OS X on other hardware would probably result in apple getting more money from me. As I really love their portables but would also maintain a home workstation that has windows, linux, and Mac os on it. Right now I have a mini that runs parallels with these other systems on it in a virtual machine. So having a clone tower would make me purchase another OS X license. And I believe that most people right now who do buy macs would not switch to a clone. So from the outset apple would not lose any customers. What they might get though is more users and revenue via licensing.






[ Reply to This | # ]