Topic: =/\= Behold! the future!

[stoneyface]

...and no, i'm not telling how



gotta love what the future holds...

[Javora]

NO kidding!!?!  That is on a PC??!?  How well does it work?  In a way I hope this does get out to a number of users, maybe Jobs will finilly get the idea that his hardware stinks and start selling the OS on the store shelf.

[Stormbringer]

The window says it's running on an AMD 64. So he may have. 

[stoneyface]

NO kidding!!?!  That is on a PC??!?  How well does it work?  In a way I hope this does get out to a number of users, maybe Jobs will finilly get the idea that his hardware stinks and start selling the OS on the store shelf.

prrrrrr prrrrrr prrrrr....

[Lepton]

Fishing.

[Javora]

The window says it's running on an AMD 64. So he may have. 

Yeah I saw that, who ever that is must have goten a hold of a devolopers copy.  I always figured if it could run on a Intel then it should run on a AMD.  Nice, very nice.

prrrrrr prrrrrr prrrrr....

 

[stoneyface]

i wouldn't call it fully functional in any case. got this from another forum where they were talking about the copy they were using(testing) would install on both intel and amd. strange no? hopefully we will see intel macos around january if all goes well.

[Commander Maxillius]

what are the PC min. specs for MacOS X 10.4?  I know the minimum for true Macs, but seeing as the PowerPC runs about half the speed an Intel does, I'd say the minimum is about 800MHz, with 256 MB RAM?

[Lepton]

See.  There you go.  A substantive post.

I am just wandering why anyone would necessarily want to run OS X.  Never used it myself, but doesn't it have a rather narrow but specific software niche, whereas everything is currently built to run on windows?

If someone were taking a principled stand on operating system, wouldn't they go for a linux distro?  I was excited at the prospect myself when I heard of it running on Intel, but I think I'd rather see linux take off as opposed to feeding more money to the company that has made money by being very proprietary and manufacturing need through cultivating an image as opposed to creating an accessible and successful product.

[Javora]

See.  There you go.  A substantive post.

I am just wandering why anyone would necessarily want to run OS X.  Never used it myself, but doesn't it have a rather narrow but specific software niche, whereas everything is currently built to run on windows?

Yes it does have a narrow software niche, but OS X is a very mature operating system.  I have said before and will say it again if Apple ever sells OS X on the store shelf next to Windows and the gaming comunity starts writing games for OS X then I think Apple's marketshare would quickly equal Windows.  If you ever get the chance you should try the Apple OS, at the very least I think you would find it as good if not better then Windows.

If someone were taking a principled stand on operating system, wouldn't they go for a Linux distro?  I was excited at the prospect myself when I heard of it running on Intel, but I think I'd rather see Linux take off as opposed to feeding more money to the company that has made money by being very proprietary and manufacturing need through cultivating an image as opposed to creating an accessible and successful product.

Linux is not nearly as mature an operating system as Apple or Windows, it is still a good 5~10 years away from being a serious contender in the home/office market.  I agree, I would also like to see Linux take off but (IMHO) until Linux can get its act together and trim down the number of distros and make the OS more user friendly, that is just not going to happen.  Too bad because out of the three operating systems Linux (again IMHO) has the most potential because of its open nature.

And yes Apple's business model for its PC line stinks.  But until someone can ever get that idea into the heads of Apple's management (jackhammer and vice may be required for this feat  ).  We are stuck with the operating systems that we can run on our PC's.  However as I said about Apple above, if Apple makes some serious changes for the better the could be a dominant operating system in the world.

[Bonk]

But will it run SFC? 

[Sirgod]

But will it run SFC? 

Man I remember those old days back on the Old boards. Unless they take advantage of Direct x, I doubt It.

Stephen

[Dracho]

But will it run SFC? 

If it doesn't, I nominate YOU to MAKE it run SFC.   

[Bonk]

But will it run SFC? 

If it doesn't, I nominate YOU to MAKE it run SFC.

I nominate FireSoul and the rest of the TransGaming crew! (its what they do...)

<Bonk passes buck> 

On the other hand there is that VirtualPC thing...

[Lepton]

How is Linux not mature?  It's basically UNIX with some stuff laid on top of it.  And how is OS X mature when my perception is that it was a major revamp of Apple's operating system just released a few years ago, based on UNIX, I think?  OS X may look pretty, but I'd rather take a free operating system than one with bells and whistles.  I'm not trying to be arguementative, but I think it could largely be a matter of perception here.

Be that as it may, I asked myself who is going to use this.  A slim fraction of the market who are comfortable with dual booting.  Someone with an extra computer who wants to futz around with a different OS for which he or she will have no software for.  Current Apple users won't be using it obviously, so you are talking about current windows users who are up for something niche and experimental.  Will software written for OS X on Mac hardware even run on an Intel or AMD machine?

[Commander Maxillius]

But will it run SFC? 

If it doesn't, I nominate YOU to MAKE it run SFC.

I nominate FireSoul and the rest of the TransGaming crew! (its what they do...)

<Bonk passes buck> 

On the other hand there is that VirtualPC thing...

Tried it, doesn't work   Of course, with Apple going Intel, VirtualPC will have native hardware to work with instead of making a PPC work like Intel.  Thus DirectX would have a chance of working

[Javora]

How is Linux not mature?  It's basically UNIX with some stuff laid on top of it.  And how is OS X mature when my perception is that it was a major revamp of Apple's operating system just released a few years ago, based on UNIX, I think?  OS X may look pretty, but I'd rather take a free operating system than one with bells and whistles.  I'm not trying to be arguementative, but I think it could largely be a matter of perception here.

Be that as it may, I asked myself who is going to use this.  A slim fraction of the market who are comfortable with dual booting.  Someone with an extra computer who wants to futz around with a different OS for which he or she will have no software for.  Current Apple users won't be using it obviously, so you are talking about current windows users who are up for something niche and experimental.  Will software written for OS X on Mac hardware even run on an Intel or AMD machine?

Again as I noted above the number of distros, the lack of user friendly features.  Something most computer users come to expect with either Apple or Windows as simply a base-line standard that Linux simply does not meet yet.  A lot of people would be put off by the simple fact that they can not play store bought DVD movies, at least not legally in the US and not by any store bought DVD program.  Installing Linux on a PC (depending on the distro) or installing programs on a Linux OS for that matter is not user friendly to say the least.  That plus being able to play games off the CD and not fight with port overs from Windows.  You may not need all those "bells and whistles" and that is fine but, the majority of the populace seems to want them.  That is not to say that Linux is not getting there, it is but it is still a good 5~10 years out.

Yes it will be a slim margin, but I think that people (like me) are hoping that enough people will start running duel-boot Apple/Windows on their machine that A.  Apple will discontinue selling stinky hardware in a pretty package and start selling the OS X on the store shelf.  B.  Enough people will start using the Mac OS X to make the game makers notice.  And yes software written for Apple's Intel/AMD machines should work, I'm not sure on the specifics yet (some type of patch probably) but it should work.

[Clark Kent]

But will it run SFC? 

If it doesn't, I nominate YOU to MAKE it run SFC.

I nominate FireSoul and the rest of the TransGaming crew! (its what they do...)

<Bonk passes buck> 

On the other hand there is that VirtualPC thing...

Tried it, doesn't work   Of course, with Apple going Intel, VirtualPC will have native hardware to work with instead of making a PPC work like Intel.  Thus DirectX would have a chance of working

I doubt we'll need VPC anymore, since we will most likely be able to install windows on our macs.  Has anyone thought of something important here?  Aple has a very slim marketshare, and Microsoft is very good at dealing with direct competitors.  I'd rather not here that it's illegal to squash competitors, the simple truth is that if a monopoly sees a threat, they make that threat go away in one way shape or another.
By going to ground and distributing the Mac OS on shelf for just about any PC, you would most likely be kissing Apple goodbye.  Direct competition right now would be a bad thing.  There are other reprecussions as well, such as lowered system stability on the vast myriad of intel and AMD based computers out there.

[stoneyface]

great article here about this subject. macos 10.4.1 on a toshiba laptop with intel chip

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916,00.htm

with pictures here:

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916-6,00.htm



tell me what you think.

[Clark Kent]

great article here about this subject. macos 10.4.1 on a toshiba laptop with intel chip

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916,00.htm

with pictures here:

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916-6,00.htm



tell me what you think.

Without really keeping up on the news here- it would appear that OS X for intel has been leaked into the public, anyone know where/how to get it?

[Lepton]

How is Linux not mature?  It's basically UNIX with some stuff laid on top of it.  And how is OS X mature when my perception is that it was a major revamp of Apple's operating system just released a few years ago, based on UNIX, I think?  OS X may look pretty, but I'd rather take a free operating system than one with bells and whistles.  I'm not trying to be arguementative, but I think it could largely be a matter of perception here.

Be that as it may, I asked myself who is going to use this.  A slim fraction of the market who are comfortable with dual booting.  Someone with an extra computer who wants to futz around with a different OS for which he or she will have no software for.  Current Apple users won't be using it obviously, so you are talking about current windows users who are up for something niche and experimental.  Will software written for OS X on Mac hardware even run on an Intel or AMD machine?

Again as I noted above the number of distros, the lack of user friendly features.  Something most computer users come to expect with either Apple or Windows as simply a base-line standard that Linux simply does not meet yet.  A lot of people would be put off by the simple fact that they can not play store bought DVD movies, at least not legally in the US and not by any store bought DVD program.  Installing Linux on a PC (depending on the distro) or installing programs on a Linux OS for that matter is not user friendly to say the least.  That plus being able to play games off the CD and not fight with port overs from Windows.  You may not need all those "bells and whistles" and that is fine but, the majority of the populace seems to want them.  That is not to say that Linux is not getting there, it is but it is still a good 5~10 years out.

Yes it will be a slim margin, but I think that people (like me) are hoping that enough people will start running duel-boot Apple/Windows on their machine that A.  Apple will discontinue selling stinky hardware in a pretty package and start selling the OS X on the store shelf.  B.  Enough people will start using the Mac OS X to make the game makers notice.  And yes software written for Apple's Intel/AMD machines should work, I'm not sure on the specifics yet (some type of patch probably) but it should work.

I'll admit Linux is not exactly as user-friendly as it could be but I don't find it that hard to work with.  Recently I installed Debian.  It wasn't that big of a deal.  With a little hardware detection which I think is there, but I chose not to use, and some default partitioning, it would be as easy to install as Windows.  The GNOME and KDE desktop GUIs are nearly as intuitive as any other OS GUI.

[Bonk]

We all know that QNX is the king of OSs anyway...   

e.g.: http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_1446_4.html

[stoneyface]

We all know that QNX is the king of OSs anyway...   

e.g.: http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_1446_4.html

love your new sig bonk! too funny...

+1 for you

[jualdeaux]

How is Linux not mature? It's basically UNIX with some stuff laid on top of it. And how is OS X mature when my perception is that it was a major revamp of Apple's operating system just released a few years ago, based on UNIX, I think? OS X may look pretty, but I'd rather take a free operating system than one with bells and whistles. I'm not trying to be arguementative, but I think it could largely be a matter of perception here.

Be that as it may, I asked myself who is going to use this. A slim fraction of the market who are comfortable with dual booting. Someone with an extra computer who wants to futz around with a different OS for which he or she will have no software for. Current Apple users won't be using it obviously, so you are talking about current windows users who are up for something niche and experimental. Will software written for OS X on Mac hardware even run on an Intel or AMD machine?

Again as I noted above the number of distros, the lack of user friendly features. Something most computer users come to expect with either Apple or Windows as simply a base-line standard that Linux simply does not meet yet. A lot of people would be put off by the simple fact that they can not play store bought DVD movies, at least not legally in the US and not by any store bought DVD program. Installing Linux on a PC (depending on the distro) or installing programs on a Linux OS for that matter is not user friendly to say the least. That plus being able to play games off the CD and not fight with port overs from Windows. You may not need all those "bells and whistles" and that is fine but, the majority of the populace seems to want them. That is not to say that Linux is not getting there, it is but it is still a good 5~10 years out.

Yes it will be a slim margin, but I think that people (like me) are hoping that enough people will start running duel-boot Apple/Windows on their machine that A. Apple will discontinue selling stinky hardware in a pretty package and start selling the OS X on the store shelf. B. Enough people will start using the Mac OS X to make the game makers notice. And yes software written for Apple's Intel/AMD machines should work, I'm not sure on the specifics yet (some type of patch probably) but it should work.

I really think you are over stating the issue about playing DVDs on the PC. I know of no one who really does this as they just use the normal DVD players.  I do think that if more developers write games for the Mac OS it would help the spread of that OS.

[Nemesis]

The Future according to Apple

Link to full article

Apple Computer, which is in the process of switching to computers based on the omnipresent Intel processor, has filed a patent application describing a method for securely running Mac OS X on specific hardware.

The Mac maker has applied for a patent to cover a "system and method for creating tamper-resistant code." Apple describes ways of ensuring that code can be limited to specific hardware, even in a world in which operating systems can be run simultaneously, in so-called virtual machines. The patent application was made in April of 2004, but only made public last Thursday.

Apple has no plans to allow its operating system to run on non-Apple hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said. An Apple representative declined to comment Wednesday on the patent filing. Clearly, though, Apple is gearing up the intellectual property push around the Intel move.

The company has reportedly been beefing up the technology that constrains the Intel versions of Mac OS X to run only on authorized machines, to this point a set of test Macs given to developers. The company has also applied for a trademark on Rosetta, its technology for running existing Mac programs on the Intel chips.

Perhaps the same attitude that IBM had resulting in OS/2 being a niche product that is effectively dead.

[Javora]

I really think you are over stating the issue about playing DVDs on the PC. I know of no one who really does this as they just use the normal DVD players.  I do think that if more developers write games for the Mac OS it would help the spread of that OS.

That's possible but with computer/TV convergence I really don't think so.  If it isn't a issue now (IMHO I think it is) it will be in a couple of years.

Perhaps the same attitude that IBM had resulting in OS/2 being a niche product that is effectively dead.

Yeah I read that article last week, I think that tamper resistant software is going to be an addition to the hardware Rom chips that Apple usually adds to their hardware.  And yep I think it is the same attitude that killed OS/2, and until Jobs leaves that same arrogance is going to continue.

[Clark Kent]

Yeah I read that article last week, I think that tamper resistant software is going to be an addition to the hardware Rom chips that Apple usually adds to their hardware.  And yep I think it is the same attitude that killed OS/2, and until Jobs leaves that same arrogance is going to continue.

As I said before, this may not be an issue of arrogance.  It could be signs of something that apple could use a bit of- good business sense.  If they keep their software limited , they avoid being seen as a direct competitor or threat to the microsoft monopoly.  It can save them alot of trouble from M$ trying to keep control of the market, if they were ever to deem apple a threat.  Also, it keeps them nice and friendly like, so M$ continues to make programs such as Office for the mac, so mac users can appear to be more compliant with the rest of the business world.  Technically, Appleworks and iWork are supposed to work with MS Office type files, but you know how people are, they see that everyone else is using Word, so they have to use it too.  It's hard enough fighting against the Windows mentality.

Now, secondly, OS X on any system out there could pose a problem for the Mac OS, since it's not designed to run on anything out there, it's designed to run on specific hardware.  Run it on the vast plethura of machines out there, and there could be all sorts of bugs and issues that pop up that apple doesn't have the resources to support.  It won't help their image if the other 95% start to use OS X on their Compaq and it crashes just like WinME.

It's possible that Apple is doing this out of a need to be anal and controlling, or perhaps out of arrogance, however, I'd like to think that  there is at least a possibility they are finally getting smart in the business world and this is a sign that the will stop shooting themselves in the foot.

[Dash Jones]

Hmm, actually not to damper anyone's spirits, but one overriding thing caught my eye.

The future is AOL hell???

He had at least three icons of it there...if not more.

[stoneyface]

for the curious!!!

http://buildyourownmac.com/

x86 mac anyone?