Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Running 0S X on a standard PC
There are many people who think that Apple's OS X is the best operating system out there, but it only runs on Apple hardware. That's a problem, if you're on a budget - Macs are nice, but expensive. So quite a few people have been tinkering with OS X to get it to run on a standard PC, with variable results.
ZD Net has an article that gives a good overview of what you might have to do if you want to attempt this. Keep in mind that you'll be violating Apple's license agreement if you try. But if you're lucky, and have just the right hardware, you might get it to work.
Personally, I think it's more trouble than it's worth. It's easier just to get a used Mac. Still, I have to admit that if Apple came out with a PC version of OS X, I'd jump on it.
ZD Net has an article that gives a good overview of what you might have to do if you want to attempt this. Keep in mind that you'll be violating Apple's license agreement if you try. But if you're lucky, and have just the right hardware, you might get it to work.
For the Intel platform, the closer the components are to those in a real Mac, the greater the chances of success. Specifically, this means a motherboard with an Intel CPU/chipset combination that supports SSE3. However, there can still be problems. In our tests, for example, we couldn't convince the Esprimo P5925 with Intel's Q35 chipset to cooperate with Mac OS. Perhaps the Q35's integrated vPro technology for remote client management is the culprit. However, we were successful with motherboards using Intel's 975, 965 and X38 chipsets.
Personally, I think it's more trouble than it's worth. It's easier just to get a used Mac. Still, I have to admit that if Apple came out with a PC version of OS X, I'd jump on it.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Windows expert goes Mac
Scott Finnie, of the excellent Scott's Newsletter, has a three-part article in ComputerWorld about how he's given up Windows (almost completely) in favour of a Mac. His biggest complaint is the lack of an industrial-strength screen capture program for OS/X.
It certainly makes interesting reading. I've thought about getting a Mac as my next PC, but it would be more expensive than I can afford. Migrating to Linux is cheaper, if I want to move away from the Windows platform. One thing is certain - I won't be using Vista.
After living with the Mac for three months and comparing it to my Vista experiences, the choice is crystal clear. I've struggled to sort out my gut feeling about Windows Vista (see "The Trouble with Vista"), but the value and advantage of the Mac and OS X are difficult to miss. While I continue to work with Windows XP and Vista on a number of other machines, I am now recommending the Macintosh for business and home users.
It certainly makes interesting reading. I've thought about getting a Mac as my next PC, but it would be more expensive than I can afford. Migrating to Linux is cheaper, if I want to move away from the Windows platform. One thing is certain - I won't be using Vista.
Labels: Macintosh, Microsoft, Vista
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Mac OS X compared to Vista
Information Week has a long comparison of Windows Vista and Mac OS X. I won't keep you in suspense:
I've been considering upgrading my PC, which is now more than 5 years old. Since I got it, I've upgraded the video card, hard drives, and added a DVD burner. But it's still a 5-year-old Pentium 4 running at 1.7 GHz, and it's just not up to doing some things I'd like to do with it, like editing video. While I could upgrade the motherboard, RAM, and video card for under $1K, I've been thinking about switching to a Macintosh. Parallels would probably handle anything I need to do under Windows, and most of what I do on a PC would be just as easy to do, or easier, on a Mac. The limiting factor is, of course, the cost of getting a whole new computer - for the configuration I'd want, with software, probably close to $3K. But I am seriouosly thinking about it.
I've yet to see anything in Vista that blows away the Mac OS, even a version of the Mac OS that's over a year old. Microsoft still can't manage to make something simple and easy to use. Vista reeks of committee and design by massive consensus, while OS X shines from an intense focus on doing things in a simple, clear fashion and design for the user, not the programmer.
I've been considering upgrading my PC, which is now more than 5 years old. Since I got it, I've upgraded the video card, hard drives, and added a DVD burner. But it's still a 5-year-old Pentium 4 running at 1.7 GHz, and it's just not up to doing some things I'd like to do with it, like editing video. While I could upgrade the motherboard, RAM, and video card for under $1K, I've been thinking about switching to a Macintosh. Parallels would probably handle anything I need to do under Windows, and most of what I do on a PC would be just as easy to do, or easier, on a Mac. The limiting factor is, of course, the cost of getting a whole new computer - for the configuration I'd want, with software, probably close to $3K. But I am seriouosly thinking about it.
