Yeah but surely that's only gonna stop it from natively booting Windows, right? I mean, some bright spark out there is surely going to develop some kind of bootloader to emulate a BIOS.

Supposedly XP Media Center 2005 has EFI support:

http://forum.osx86projec...ew=findpost&p=42256

Oh how nice, the Slashdotters have come out to play. *eyeroll*

I resemble that remark, you insensitive clod!

Not really disappointed by the news. You can still run windows software on a MAC if you use Virtual PC which is made by Microsoft. I have used it in the past and is was a little slow, but with these new intel processor it should run a lot faster. I personally use it to run software that is not available on a mac. Over all if you are using a mac for video or music is far better to just use the software that comes with mac os x.

Nono, Micro$oft virtual PC is a pain in the ass. Version 7 of the software works pretty SLOW, hang like hell. Conectix versions (upto v6) were pretty good. Microsoft is doing their best effort, to sink the product...
I just hope that vmware build a emulator for OSX now that Apple migrated to x86. I really hope so...

afaik, efi is at least as programmable (on software-side) as openfirmware was... so i think it shouldn't be a big problem to write some app similar to what xpostfacto does for oldworld-powermacs that are not longer supported by os x/ppc.
only the partition table could be a problem, yes.
but who knows ?
maybe we could patch some of xp's .sys-files with the reactos ones (which could be made compatbile to'efi-partitions') - as soon as ros is xp compatible enough.....
only speculation, though.
but if efi is as flexible as intel says, there won't be anyone who could permit accessing the efi shell and place some bios compatibility script.
we'll see.

"efi is at least as programmable (on software-side) as openfirmware was"

More so. almost infinately so. OEMs can simply add modules to it that would allow pretty much anyhting.

«"efi is at least as programmable (on software-side) as openfirmware was"

More so. almost infinately so. OEMs can simply add modules to it that would allow pretty much anyhting.»

EFI is indeed programmable, but Open Firmware is every bit as programmable as EFI. The only difference is you create EFI bytecode from C code, and you create Open Firmware bytecode from Forth code.

PCI cards can have EFI or Open Firmware bytecodes to provide their one self-loading drivers…

eWho need windows if you can use OSX..!! It's the proof that Microsoft isn't a good choose even when I'm writing it in a Windows PC. I wish to use other thing. But with Intel platform. get out over here Windows. Soon I'll kick you out my PC.. Muahaha

Industry-standard hardware? Clearly a comment from a company that doesn't appreciate good design.

efi sounds like a security risk in the making

"EFI also separates the control of devices from the operating system, meaning it can initialize hardware before loading the OS. This feature would allow for a system to connect to the Internet and download updated drivers before booting up."

Yeah, the viruses can run amuck long before the virus scanners can load.

I'm sure EFI resides in protected memory, dude.

How long do you think it would take to over come that?

"We have an open specification and a process for certifying the hardware. We welcome all efforts in this area and we'd support Apple the same way we support every other PC manufacturer," a company spokesperson told BetaNews. "Anyone, including Apple, can purchase and re-sell Windows for use on their industry-standard hardware."

Why on earth would Apple do that?
That's like selling nutcrackers which also does laundery! In a way, atleast.

OSX is good, Windows is bad, now go away.

Name one thing that OSX can do better and back it up from a site other than apple.com.

Name one thing...

1. Transparency (Alpha channels) at the OS level. Not only does it make the OS prettier, but it makes it more usable. But really it isn't better since Windows doesn't support Alpha channel transparency at the OS level.

2. A Unix shell

3. I haven't had a virus since 1993 (I had a hypercard stack virus on my old Powerbook 100. The only one I have ever had)

1. Transparency is a gimmick. Name one way it improves usability. It's kind of like skins: it's an interesting idea, but non-default skins in the real world are almost always ugly as sin (or in the case of XP, the default skin).

2. A unix shell is great, but on Windows cygwin is a short, free, download away.

3. I've used (and developed for) Windows since 1990 and the last time I got a virus was in 1989 on DOS. Your point?

There are some reasons the Mac is better (like the fact that you don't need to be some kind of uber-geek to actually install and use hardware), and that Apple actually thinks about usability and then acts on it, but really the difference between the platforms in terms of what you can accomplish and how is shrinking away.

Umm, no. That is just stupid. That is like saying , "I like Winders fer da perty colors".

My point was very simple, what can a MAC do that a Windows box can't do better? I mean as in functionality.

hell thats easy I have been a Mutilmedia artist for 10years + and a Windows Admin for 6 years +! (managed about 300+ Win PCs and 5-6 Windows Servers) so lets just say I have pretty equal experience from both sides of the fence. Keep in mind Id switch to something else tomorrow if it WAS better, but at present heres a small list for you:
OSX - with *nix underpinnings, hell I got more network tools than I ever could have right from the terminal (can a win user say SSH? wheres the tools to mount NFS, or HFS+ disks Hybrid Cds/DVDs, oh thats right you have to buy them, all you can read is NTFS/Fat32. And Video, Can you run industry standards such as FCP, Motion, Shake, Logic? Do all your Video devices seamlessly integrate? Does your FW hardware work flawlessly without buying expensive add on cards? (I stuffed around for 4 years trying to produce content in XP with enough money spent on capture boards to make a Quad G5 look dirt cheap!) How about Graphics? Does your XP box have built in Color management? Do the ICC profiles seamlessly integrate from your photo catalogue apps all the way through to Photoshop and what ever publishing app you use (sorry I have not seen an XP box do this effectivley yet) Can your XP Box handle PS1 PS2 TT and OPenType Fonts? I remember the days not long ago when Apple was doomed and NT4 was to dominate the publishing industry! Funny stuff indeed! How about general Office work? well clearly you have not used or compared Office for Mac to Office for PC? Drag and drop installation (no "Install Shields/Wizards here thanks) Superior security model (virus, spyware issues) yep none of those for the past 5 years on my Macs either! Oh and games! Buddy I stopped playing at PC based Lan partys when we all got the s***s spending 2 hours getting everyone connected, games and sound cards working! Can you say the word... Playstaion 2 or Xbox 360? My Windows friends you have been using dead technology now for at least 4 years! Time to move on and use OSX or Debian or something gawd! Hey you just might be blessed with Longhorn-Vista! (or the new name... Windows XMas 2006) But if my many years in the Windows industry watching promise after promise from NT3.51 thru to WinXP has taught me anything.... Don't hold your breath! ;-) mjb

yodamitsu,

"OSX - with *nix underpinnings, hell I got more network tools than I ever could have right from the terminal (can a win user say SSH? wheres the tools to mount NFS, or HFS+ disks Hybrid Cds/DVDs, oh thats right you have to buy them" No MAC has ever come close to the network tools Windows has as default, seeing how MACs have crappy networks, and let get on to the more proven side of things.

"And Video, Can you run industry standards such as FCP" that is far from a standard. sorry try again!

"Do all your Video devices seamlessly integrate?" Yes, yes they do. haven't had a problem yet.

"Does your XP box have built in Color management?" Yes it does, just as good as MAC's built in. Not speaking about the second or third party software that you need to even see pictures in the correct format with MACs.

"Can your XP Box handle PS1 PS2 TT and OpenType Fonts?" WTF are you talking about, are you stupid? XP can handle every font that a MAC can I have tested this a 100+ times!

"ow about general Office work? well clearly you have not used or compared Office for Mac to Office for PC? Drag and drop installation (no "Install Shields/Wizards here thanks) Superior security model (virus, spyware issues) yep none of those for the past 5 years on my Macs either" yeah and seeing how you can't teach even a 10th of the world to use MAC Crap that you can't use it so that is null!

"Oh and games! Buddy I stopped playing at PC based Lan partys when we all got the s***s spending 2 hours getting everyone connected, games and sound cards working!" Just because you have the lack of intel doesn't mena the rest of the world does too.

"My Windows friends you have been using dead technology now for at least 4 years!" OMG!!!!! MAC is the one that used the OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD version of FreeBSD! Get a grip!!!

Dude you need to stop telling lies and be honest with yourself the real world that MACs are out dated and that when we were in school and didn't know better we used then, but we grew up and moved to Windows or Linux (something that works) without having the BS you and others try and push down us with now facts to back it up, other that what you believe. MACs are out dated and have been for 10 + years now!

Like I said, I want FACTS that can be proven with numbers!

Let me preface this by saying that I use both XP and OS X on a regular basis. That said, I do use XP more. Each has its own strengths and I use them accordingly. Also, you seem to have confused Macs with MAC (media access control) ;)

"No MAC has ever come close to the network tools Windows has as default, seeing how MACs have crappy networks, and let get on to the more proven side of things."

Please, show me these tools. Until I install Cygwin, the default toolset in XP is lacking.

"Yes it does, just as good as MAC's built in. Not speaking about the second or third party software that you need to even see pictures in the correct format with MACs."

I'm not really sure what image formats you're talking about there. OS X's Preview app seems to handle most of the images I've thrown at it, plus PDFs, which XP requires a third party download for. If it's odd ones like tga and the various raw formats, XP needs third party software for that.

"WTF are you talking about, are you stupid? XP can handle every font that a MAC can I have tested this a 100+ times!"

I'll agree with you on that one. Unless there's some obscure kind that I'm not familiar with.

"yeah and seeing how you can't teach even a 10th of the world to use MAC Crap that you can't use it so that is null!"

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

"OMG!!!!! MAC is the one that used the OLD OLD OLD OLD OLD version of FreeBSD! Get a grip!!!"

If you think that OS X is FreeBSD, you're wrong. It uses the FreeBSD userland tools (which are far from being old versions. Most being actively developed.) and a fairly customized version of the Mach kernel.

"MACs are out dated and have been for 10 + years now!"

I fail to see how they are outdated. Perhaps aimed at a different market, but not outdated. My Mac supports just about every current technology as well as Windows XP does, and better in the case of Bluetooth (I really wish XP had a better BT stack, since I end up using XP more often than OS X)

Not only is transparency a gimick, but it is one that WinXP does support at the OS level, but it is undocumented, and has no interface.

There are a couple of free utilities out there that give you hotkey and rightclick control over the WinXP native window transparancy though:

http://www.chime.tv/products/glass2k.shtml

http://www.download.com/...000-2347_4-9661147.html

Blue tooth works only about, what 75% of the time, at MAX? Come one. I tell everyone to wait a few years until it gets the point where the batteries and the cutting out is a thing of the past. The batteries drain way to fast!

Sorry gawd, but here I have to disagree with you:

> No MAC has ever come close to the network
> tools Windows has as default, seeing how
> MACs have crappy networks, and let get on to
> the more proven side of things.

As of OSX at least, Mac's include a full bash shell with all of the command line tools that your hacker next door needs to nslookup, traceroute, remote login, etc. While WinXP handles a lot of different network types, and is now including a lot of network utils, you still don't get the full suite of network tools that a netfiend is likely to want, unless you install something like Cygwin utils.

That said, it sounds like you may be thinking of the old days when Macs were doing their own thing network wise. Remember, now they are effectively a unix box with a more stable and intuitive UI, so they deal with *a lot* more network types than they used to.

Here's one for you...

Exposé - Ability to find windows, instantly. None of this fiddling with the taskbar at the bottom of the screen to find your one of thirty open windows.

Intuitive and easy to use User Interface - Great keyboard commands to get around, plus well organized format that's easy to work in. Unlike Windows craptacular file browsing system.

Dashboard Search - Find what you need to, now.

Safari - Tabbed Browsing, RSS, the works. Firefox is good too, but I've used both (on both PC and Mac)...and I have to say Safari works better.

Viruses - eh? wazzat?

It is entirely possible for me to continue, but lets see how you do with those. :D

Keeping Malware from bothering the system.

I do some *nix systems adminstration.

One of the things that I have to do is to add/modify user accounts. I recieve an email regarding the problem. I leave the message open, kick over to iTerm which is partially transparent, which allows me to make the changes while being able to reference the original email at the same time.

Perhaps I'm the only one, but my Jabra headset and Nokia phone work pretty close to 100% of the time. I don't forget to toss both on the chargers at the end of the day. You can always say "Wait a few years" with any technology. There will always be something better a few years down the road. Some of us like to take advantage of what we have available now.

you can do the same with windows and remote desktop the only difference is that its not transparent but you can have the email an RDP next to each other.

on a side note: in an active directory environment you wouldnt have to remotely access the computer of the user you want to modify, you can do all this at a central location - the domain controller.

Wow! Anyone who is this angry and biased should keep his distorted view of macs to himself. I use both, they are tools. FCP is the real deal and most professionals (including spielberg) use mac for Audio and Video. Your lack of awareness makes the rest of the PC fanboy club look bad!

good widgets are also available on windows too. see yahoo widgets program

Just a few interesting observations, some mentioned in other posts:

Reasons to run Windows on a Mac:

* Games developers are still primarily DirectX users. Yes there are OpenGL games, but game companies like market share (i.e., DirectX on Windows).

* Corporate Inertia among software developers. Their comfort zone is in Win32 application development. The vast majority of commercial developers will be slow to adopt the new platform for fear of betamax syndrome. This does however leave a nice niche to be filled by startups and traditional mac developers.

* Software familiarity. Users often are reluctant to dump a program that they are comfortable with just because a better platform has become available. Witness all of the folks using MS Office when open office is free and opens and saves in portable MS Office formats (not to mention saving to PDF). It's just not the same old familiar program. Once all of their favorite programs will run on the new platform, then they might dump the old.

* Comfort Zone. -- "I'm not sure how to do XYZ on the Mac yet... Better keep Windo$ for a bit longer"

Reasons to run OSX86 on other than Mac HW:

* Gives users a chance to become familiar for a lower investment.

* Lets users learn that Mac is a platform that is more focused on usability than Windows (though admittedly not as much as when Tog (http://www.asktog.com) was evangelizing it)

* Forces a greater degree of competition, since OSX is the most useable *nix based OS out there, and the only one that really has a chance at home market penetration (until we tech geeks get our act together and make linux truly useable as well as powerful)

* Allows Apple to access the potential of the OS market to a degree that was previously only available to MS.

* Assume $1000 profit on Mac PC and only $10 profit on Mac OSX86 "boxed edition". 1000 copies of the OS makes you as much money as 10 PCs, and you now have 1000 customers (i.e., poor college students) that used to be MS customers.

* Having more users attracts more serious commercial software developers. Would you rather have 10 potential customers for your new XWidget software, or 1000?

* The Mac OS is no longer like a car with the hood welded shut. Now it is like a car that would run forever if it was welded shut, but that comes with a fully equipped automotive garage anyhow... So I want one!

:D

Reasons why added HW variety doesn't hurt Apple:

* HW manufacturers should be the ones shouldering the load of writing and testing the drivers (I have a friend who tests drivers for Macs professionally for nVidia, so this works...) and it is the HW manufacturer that is to blame if they suck.

* Users avoid HW with shoddy drivers (except when they are from ATI, go figure...) unless they cannot (or will not) afford better. In that case, they still expect the world, but you can point a laugh when their system gets hosed, comfortable in the knowledge that it is their own fault for being too cheap (there is a line there).

* When the cheap HW works, the system is still more stable than MS products with equivalent HW. This lets more of us "Poe Foke" get exposure to the exciting world of quality OSs (with consistent, usable interfaces. Sorry Linux guys...;), which breeds loyal users.

In all, my perspective is self-serving. I'm tired of the inconsistency and instability of open source GUIs, but I want the power of *nix AND a reasonable amount of software. How do I spell relief? M.A.C. O.S.X.86! Does that mean that I want to give up all of the SW that I already use regularly? Not overnight!

-John Sherwood
--------------
HW: AMD Sempron 2800+ on Abit NF8 mobo, 1GB RAM, 250GB HD, nVidia GeForce4 ti 4200 w/ 64MB

OS: Windows XP Pro, Kubuntu Linux v5.10 (Breezy Badger), Knoppix Live Linux DVD v4.0.2, 50 GB just waiting for OSX v10.4.4

All great points there

But did Apple make a 180 on its first statement and actually allows for OSX86 to run on anything but Apple HW?

Not as far as i know...

To the best of my knowledge, they still don't intend to sell it separately, but with all of the good reasons to change their mind, one can still hope. :D

well, like some people would say, why ruin a perfactly good Mac by installing windows on it?

one word:

Games....

Oh, don't bother with the whole there are Mac games bit... I have a Mac, I have a Wintendo. The Wintendo has certain games that kick a** and don't run on the Mac.

Here are a few good reasons for a dual boot computer.
Imagine you are an accounting firm with clients who use Mac's and some that use windows. It sure would be nice to work with the proprietary data formats that are not cross platform and only have one computer on your desk or to lug around. Quickbooks is one glaring example. Intuit states that the data files are cross platform but not if you use more than just the rudimentary features. There are numerous other accounting apps that either have the same problem or only exist on one platform with no way to read or write to the data file on any other platform.
What if you use proprietary software that only runs in a Windows environment that you have to use for a given purpose yet you really would rather use OSX for everything else you do with a computer. Once again, dual boot solves this problem without having to use more than one computer.
How about someone who does tech support? If you want to support Mac's, PC's, *nix etc... it sure would be nice to be able to do so with running software for all OS’s natively on just one computer without the horrendous loss of performance when using emulators like Virtual PC.
An IT department for an organization that works in a multi-platform organization should look at this possibility and be salivating for the solution. Imagine having only one spec for laptop hardware and only one spec for desktop hardware yet these two configurations will support all of the operating systems the users you support need to use or want to use and probably use without your blessing. The number of part numbers you would stock for break fix situations would drop.
The prospect of this being a reality should have many of you excited. Think about it. You get to use the best designed hardware yet run any OS you want to or need to plus get to use OSX for all the functions that it does so elegantly.

For me, Il like to run Windows on Apple hardware. I like Apple hardware but Im sceptical about the OSx. Here are some of my comments, not intending to insult anyone or the os.

I had my hands on the iMac G5 64 bit & code/run a c program to display the bits of a number. It probably not the best way, but it works. It showed 16 (which is 32 bit) & not 32 (for 64 bit). So, Im happy with the Hardware, but not the software.

I also feel that Windows users allows users to focus on their job & installing few applications makes windows very fast. With OSX, everything starts in 2-10 seconds. Firefox starts in 4 seconds. Personally, I would like Quartz turned off & use the processing power to work on the speed.

Another annoying thing is that OSx users cant create a new file with the mouse. This is a fatal mistake as I use this very often in Windows/Linux.

The terminal is black & white, not colors (try ls --color *linux*), Although theres a hack to it, I find it completely important to have this as an option.

Once in 20 times in iMac, the Osx Crashes with a grey box (before software upgrade)

Almost everytime its used used for dial up internet, it will disconnect after 2 minutes always & request a redial in which it would be stable. Downloads are faster than windows at this point.

There are lacking tools for OSx, I would use lots of Java applications but for Web Designing & RAD tools, Windows has a better share in productivity.

Windows on the other hand has loads of problems with drivers & viruses. These are easily solved with good hardware (thats y i would choose apple) & disciplined surfing/internet usage.

In short, Il Use Windows for Web Design & Making application with RAD tools. Il Use OSX for Server Side applications, Java & Unix based scripting. Both are equally needed for a developer.

I love OSX on Apple but it seems to be a patch job over bsd & needs to go a long way. Bios or EFI, Im sure its within time someone will figure out a way to beat the system.

"The terminal is black & white, not colors (try ls --color *linux*), Although theres a hack to it, I find it completely important to have this as an option."

Um, you just need to use the "Window Settings" menu item to set the colors you want. No "hack" is needed. Sheesh.

Re g.raj:

Try ls -G for a color listing. OS X is a BSD based OS, not a GNU based OS. GNU doesn't use the BSD options, hence ls --color will not work on a BSD system.

Also, Quartz actually speeds things up. Read up a bit on how it works - It's an OpenGL UI accelerator. It doesn't speed up program processing or loading, it speeds up the user interface itself. I share the gripe about the development tools. XCode is great, but Interface Builder is a program straight from hell.

Psh! I already have Mac OS X Tiger, Windows XP and Linux on my computer (PC) months ago... So this is nothing new (except its now "offical" and on mac hardware)..

Meh..

All Intel 945 chipset boards support EFI and boot Windows no problems.

Intel recently created a new compatibility layer for EFI to allow standard x86 operating systems that don't directly support EFI to boot.

See: http://www.intel.com/technology/framework/

Also, this Q&A is useful on the subject:
http://www.intel.com/tec...ogy/framework/qanda.htm

Especially this bit:
"Yes. The Framework provides the capability to support legacy BIOS interfaces through the Compatibility Support Module (CSM), allowing the system vendors to continue using the operating systems and tools they use today as they make a gradual and managed transition to EFI. A typical CSM is approximately 60 KB (38 KB compressed) of firmware that is specific to each Participating BIOS Vendor and is based on that Vendor's latest BIOS code base."

Presumably Apple didn't try to write its own BIOS, so one would imagine that a Compatibility Support Module is available for the motherboard use in Intel Macs. I hope anyway.

EFI has been on a Certain Gateway PCs for some time now... (Gateway 610 Media Center)

I give it about a week after these machines are in the hands of users before someone finds an simple hack that will allow this to happen. Of course, you can already boot Linux on EFI platforms...see here:

http://www.debian.org/re...ble/ia64/apbs05.html.en

Let's be realistic, people...Apple has always been a very monopolistic-behaving computer maker. Of course that's much of why they've never had kept a significant market share. They have always insisted on a closed platform, and they absolutely hated the short time they actually deigned to license out a few machines to clone makers, whom they always mistreated.

And this is no different. They're surely happy to make it as difficult to boot a competing OS on their hardware as possible, just as they've specifically gone out of their way to NOT make the OS boot on the open platform that most other OSs, like Windows and Linux, use.

Among other things, this gives them the opportunity to remain the most overpriced personal computing platform out there.

Wrong. Apple is a hardware company. Once you've bought the hardware they could care less if you put Windows on it--it doesn't affect their sales.

Conversely, Apple hardware sales would take a big hit if you could install MAC OS X on Windows... even illegally.

Great! Sounds like Apple is doing things their way and that we'll just need to wait for 3rd Parties to make compatibility software or a wrapper of sorts.

Sounds good to me - I am not a gamer and use mostly open source software with the exception of a few speciality softs -- SWiSH being one of the big things I'd like compatibility for (or a Mac Version).

Well yes, but if the EFI implementation includes the CSM module, Windows XP could boot on an intel mac. The CSM emulates a normal PC BIOS. If Apple used a reference implementation of EFI from intel, then the CSM module is probably in there.

Bigger problem will probably be the different ways in how hard disks are partitioned. (Can read windows xp a partition table that is made on osx?)

EFI sounds like it has some futore for new cool viruses :/

hmm, when 64 bit macbooks come out, is when ill buy one. i want dual boot, but xp no support macbook, but as far as i kno xp64 dose (any1 kno about win 2003?). AND NO!, im not gonna use vista.

yeah, but will it run Win Apps ??

Remember there's virtual Pc & Wine, who cares about Dual - boot.

For the skinny on what you're NOT getting with the new Macbooks.

http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000445.php

Honestly, that rant goes a bit overboard in order to get linked on Digg.

FireWire 800? Moderately useful, but how many mobile users will require that? I'd rather have more USB 2.0 ports.

No dual layer burning? Lame, yes. But how many people burn dual layer DVDs in their notebook? Hell, I've never burned one ever.

60 pixels less? The screen is actually bigger than previous PowerBook displays. Only in the most recent revision did Apple make the resolution larger, and it made things far too small.

The name sucks? Granted, but so what?

No modem? If you're one of the 2% of people who still needs a modem, pay an extra $30 and buy one. For the other 98%, we'd rather have a smaller laptop.

MUCH more than 2% of people need a modem. About HALF of Americans who access the internet do so via broadband connections, and only 35% of adult Americans have broadband in their homes.

Most laptop users connect wirelessly, anyway. And most people that don't have broadband either can't afford it, or don't want to spend the cash. People that shell out $2000 on a laptop would probably not have these problems.

man this is getting good 2 years back...all of this talk would NEVER have been thought possible!! lovin this

Many folks, myself included, learned the hard way never to say things like, "It'll never happen." again, that's for sure.

IT WORKS!!! I got OS X (Intel) to boot on my laptop! I now have a XP/OSX system!!!!

Where did you get OS X for Intel? I want to buy it, and do the same thing...

http://www.opensource.ap...es/darwinx86-801.iso.gz

you will need to register before you can download.

Darwin is not OSX

Lot's of people are using OSx10.4.x in VMware and norml PC hardware. xxx.xplodenet.com/blog/

Apple is all about FreeBSD. Why should anyone make an OS when they can get someone else to do it for them for free. Then rip/mod it and you got something..

I think you guys miss understood. This isn't Darwin.

What? It says Darwin right in the file name: darwinx86-801.iso.gz

Darwin is just the kernel, all you get with it is a command line interface. There is no GUI, no Aqua buttons, no Apple applications, etc. It's open source so you can download it; you cannot download OSX.

Mhh, just give us some time... I see a problem in the boot loader and partitions rather than BIOS-EFI.
I also think apple should open OS X to any x86 computer rather worrying about install ugly Windoze on Macs.

opening OSX is not a good idea because anyone would build a "budget" pc and install it,
which translates into bad business for apple since nobody would be willing to buy overpriced hardware from them anymore.

Also one of the things that helps make OSX so stable is that Apple doesn't have to support the bajillions of generic expansion cards out there. If they opened OSX to all hardware they'd have to support it all. It would be a horrible business decision.

I don't think so. Microsoft built their evil empire selling software. Apple could improve their market share trough software and later improve their hardware sales.
There are many reasons for buying a Mac, being the best design the more evident. Not everything is price. Maybe if you buy a bugdet :) PC and install OS X on it, it will work as bad as Windows.

yeah you're right. supporting a crap load of hardware has absolutely killed windows.

people don't want choices.

It explains pretty much 80% (probably more) of windows crash and instability support issues.

Easily. So, while you may have been joking, you were actually dead on. Most of the rants about Windows XP problems (Not security issues) arise from the use of substandard hardware.

I'm talking about stability smart aleck. Also Microsoft is not a hardware company, they aren't selling computers.

I don't understand how Microsoft is evil and Apple is not? Apple sell thoe most over priced hardware ever.

Apple hardware is actually not that bad, price-wise, when you look at similarly performing PCs. Granted, the peripherals and expansion cards are more expensive. It seems a little off that I'd have to pay $250 for a video card that would be $100 for a PC.

The real money is made in software. Microsoft is a perfect example. While money can be made with hardware, it is more general where software is more personal and people tend to gravitate to one standard for a number of reasons, two in this case relating to usability and compatibility. If Apple played their cards right, they could give Microsoft's flagship software (Windows) a run for their money. The Mac OS is the only one that can truly compete with and threaten Microsoft, and Apple could still sell their hardware to businesses and loyal consumers. Opening the Mac OS to the masses would be a smart move in my opinion.

exactly windows XP is a rock solid OS. the problem is there tpp much hardware you can put in it and too many programs that can crash it. most crashes theat happen in windows are probly not the fault of the main windows system.

What? "Apple hardware is actually not that bad, price-wise, when you look at similarly performing PCs."

You are crazy. The "PC" as you call it, would have to be a very cheap and old one to be as slow and incumbent as the newest MAC. There is no comparing the two. MACs aren't able to do anything better than a Windows Box! Windows has more supported apps and hardware. MACs have very little. I have still never found out what a MAC can do that Windows can't do better. Don't get into the virus crap as that will turn around as you will see and security flaws aren't there either. Take out anyone trying to hack the computer, and tell me what they do better with their slower and proprietary MACs.

> Don't get into the virus crap

Hmmm, so you concede one area where the Mac is better. Wow, I imagine there would be many more concessions if you knew a little bit about the Mac.

That has NOTHING to do with MAC being better or worse, that is a third person trying to hack your computer. Not all Windows boxes or MACs are on the net to get viruses.

EDIT: "Hmmm, so you concede one area where the Mac is better. Wow, I imagine there would be many more concessions if you knew a little bit about the Mac."
Then why hasn't anyone been able to state a fact to prove anything that MAC can do better? Not an opinion, but a fact that can be proven with numbers.

Why is it that the Apple folks have to prove they are better to you? Are you the ultimate decider of what is or isn't better? BTW dude, I don't own or use a Mac at all, I own 4 XP PCs. But man you are acting lke a butthole.

Lol, Banquo and I must of posted about the same time. Looks like we agree on the Pinto ;-)

The poor Pinto gets no respect. :D

Ok, maybe a dumb question here but "why" ???

Why would anyone want Windows on their Apple? Apple's OS is already light years ahead of Windows and tailered for the Apple hardware.

It's like complaining you can't get your old Pinto engine wedged into your Porche 928.

what "aspects" exactly put Apple's OS light years ahead of windows ????

the GUI ???

Oh I don't know, everything that is harped about being in Vista next year, plugging devices in and having them auto configured without a stupid box telling me "usb device found", installing software by dragging it to a folder, removing software by dragging it back out. No need for a hard drive status light to let you know your computer hasn't locked up, Mach kernel/BSD subsystem, OO desktop, etc.......

Other than just a few minor things, nothing I guess.

windows does autoconfigure devices. had no problem figuring my hp printer out, had no problem figuring my zen out, had no problem figuring my camera out ...

you're right the add/remove control panel option is way too complicated for the average user. why would you ever want to group all your applications in the same place? what windows should do is let users just drop program folders all over the desktop. that sounds like a stellar idea.

"No need for a hard drive status light to let you know your computer hasn't locked up"

just a spinny wheel to let you know your app is locked up? how is a hard drive status light a bad thing? that's the worst reason macs are superior i've ever heard.

"Mach kernel/BSD subsystem, OO desktop, etc"
not even getting into the argument about bsd. it's not more secure. it's that not enough people use the os to make it more attractive to look for exploits.

i take it OO desktop is object oriented desktop? there are plenty of widget apps for windows but even the diehard mac users i know end up disabling 99% of their widgets because they're oddly shaped, obtrusive, and just not needed 99.9% of the time.

good argument ender with "etc." too

grassy wrote a good response so I'll just quote him:

"The reason someone may do it is because they like the look of the apple machines. Another reason would be that they really do like and use OS X but also want to play games. As nice as macs are the game support is terrbile with games coming out much later and running slow on even the fastest machines."

Well then, since Windows serves you so well I'll let you off with a "glad it works for you" and be done with it.

I don't remember saying anything about BSD being more secure btw, but if you want to start the holy war about Windows vs. world and everything would be hacked silly if it was as used as much as windows please explain why Microsoft's web servers(20% market share), Databases servers(6% market share), and just about anything else they hold a NON-monopoly share of suffers the same fate as their desktops?

You won't sell me on it, but most of the time someone starts a holy war debate with me about Windows they are not trying to sell it to me, they are selling it to themselves.

Someone probably already mentioned it, but games inherently run slower on OSX because it's great multitasking abilities make it hard for the OS to focus on just the game. Also, since the majority of applications are written for win32, odds are there's going to be some sizeable group of people that want to use OSX but have to use a windows app for work or something.

Maybe to run applications that run only on Windows?

There are plenty of operating systems technologically superior to both Windows and OS X, but, see, an operating system in itself it pretty much worthless unless it runs the applications one wants. Nobody in general cares about operating systems in themselves.

Oooh, you mean like windows 98!

Win98 -> No stupid box.
Win98 -> Drag Program to Folder and it runs.
HD status Light -> Doesn't indicate properly on my system, so in effect does not exist.

None of the other stuff though.

another good reason is to use windows specific software such as Sonar (#1 pro audio recording software), etc etc. There are still windows-only programs out there, and a couple of them are actually worth using ;-)

sorry for the following response, but...
WTF??????

The bsd subsystem not only DOES provide more stability, it gives you the entire linux command list, the entire linux software library (plus x-windows when needed), and so much more.

Once you've used OSX for a while and discovered how much more responsive it is than xp AFTER INSTALLING HUNDREDS OF APPLICATIONS (which go in the applications folder by the way, not all over your desktop or whatever you said LoL)... well then we can talk again.

Sorry, but that sort of ignorance is really frustrating these days. It's common knowledge that linux has a superior kernel and is more reliable than windows, and osx is based on bsd which is the most advanced (Arguably) variation of unix (which is the father of linux). It's fact-based information, publicly available common knowledge. If you don't "like" osx for some reason then fine, but lying about it is just sort of sad.

and osx is based on bsd which is the most advanced (Arguably) variation of unix

Since you said arguably, I just had to interject...

The MOST stable (or damned close) would probably be Trusted Solaris. Now that's an OS that will run for YEARS ON END, without reboot.

>not even getting into the argument about bsd. it's not more secure.
>it's that not enough people use the os to make it more attractive to
>look for exploits.

So the reason it seems secure is no one cares to exploit it, or could it be the reason it hasn't been exploited is because its secure. I am very unclear on your logic.

Why would anyone buy an expensive (arguably over priced) Apple computer just to run Windows on anyway? Isn't the whole point to get OS X? The very idea is retarded. Why not just buy a BMW and switch the engine with a Ford Pinto? This really is not an issue.

The reason someone may do it is because they like the look of the apple machines. Another reason would be that they really do like and use OS X but also want to play games. As nice as macs are the game support is terrbile with games coming out much later and running slow on even the fastest machines.

I suppose they could always run Vista. :)

I want to run Windows, OSX86, and Linux all with virtualization hardware.

Why? Because I will soon be able to.

Why WOULDN'T anyone want to do that?

Not if you want a gaming machine...

Microsoft has really crapped up OpenGL in Vista... it's not worth running

PC (or mac for that matter) Gaming is doomed anyway. The Computer Games market (not consoles) has been going downhill for years. On top of that, windows Vista has screwed with OpenGL, and it'll be almost as bad as Mac sppeds (minus the advantage of decent multitasking) If you want games, but a PS3 when its out (or XBox 360)

I'd think one could get around this by somehow writing a BIOS emulator and abstract the dependencies on the BIOS to communicate with EFI...

Oh, give it time someone will write a bios or strip one from an imac and put it on the web. I agree why would someone buy an imac to run windows, it would be more interesting to build your own computer (or buy one) and run mac os on it.

Compatibility.

I'd love for MS to kick Apple in the teeth right about now by creating a Mac/Win PC. 1 or 2 un-changeable hardware configurations, Special version of XP optimized for *THAT* configuration, and 100% supported in MacOS.

It would be the perfect development machine, and the ultimate machine for anyone who wants 100% Hardware-Software compatibility.

Refresh it once a year and make a killing.

If someone can install OSX on a XBox it wont be long before we see dual boot systems.

VMware is working on a solution for this very problem, although their answer will of course be virtual machine software. So you'll be able to boot and run windows within a window in osx, sort of like virtual pc for the mac but without the cpu emulation (so it'll be quite fast). However probably the graphics etc will still be slow in the vmware stuff so games will probably be toast, as will maybe even some pro audio apps etc (no hardware connections through vmware for stuff like that).

So we may have to keep our windows boxes around a little longer, just until all of the best apps are ported to osx/intel. Then we can throw the garbage in the garbage and buy intel osx machines for our homes and live in peace and tranquility with everything working smoothly with no reboots or system crashes....

Now *that* would be amusing as hell.

Talk about strange bedfellows. *shudders*

Why would they do that? Microsoft doesn't want to hurt Apple. They could have let Apple die instead of bailing them out. It wouldn't be good for MS though. As for creating a PC that runs Mac OS, for one thing they don't make PCs and second they aren't allowed. Mac OS has a license agreement that says it's only allowed to be installed on Apple computers.

Are we sure that VMWare is working on this? I hope they make an annoucement before the boxes ship. Otherwise I won't buy one.

"Mac OS has a license agreement that says it's only allowed to be installed on Apple computers."

They signed a contract with themselves?

The bail out you are referring to was a settlement....

The money Apple recieved was due to the fact that Microsoft had stolen code (from Quicktime I believe) and didn't want yet another case in court. Along with the stock purchase, and the undisclosed sum of money, they also agreed, as a condition of the case, to support MacOS for something like 5 years WRT Office and IE (I think).

These were contractual obligations on MS's part due to getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar...again (It's not like it was the first time, or the second, or the third for that matter).

For the record... I used to spout the same line. Then I ran up against someone who knew the facts of the matter, and rather than continue looking like a moron, I decided to do some research...

For real, MS is one of the only companies that actually invests in Apple and has a dedicated staff to developing on the Apple platform..

This is an example of how he doesn't know what he is talking about...

They better not make it public.. MS already sued some gamers for making mods for the XBox.

Microsoft building its own PCs? What a great idea. No antitrust implications whatsoever.

Seriously, though, since Apple will not license its OS, as of yet, to other PC manufacturers, what would be the point of building such a machine? No one could legally put OS X on it anyway. Those that could hack around any barriers to doing this are a super-small segment of the market. There is no "killing" to be made.

How would that be anti-trust? They'd have a direct cmpetitor, Apple.

Never said they would. Just said it'd be interesting to see. :)

Thanks.

"This is an example of how he doesn't know what he is talking about..."

Yeah...

I make a joke...you don't get it (of course, neither does Banquo...so) and you tell me *I* don't know what I'm talking about.

I'll try to make future jokes more banal and adolescent...perhaps those won't fly entirely over your head.

Apparently it's in the OS. Of course, it wouldn't stop MS from releasing specifications that, in order for a system to be MS certified, include that it be Apple compatible.

Nothing then to stop users from breaking the EULA themselves.

Still.. it's not like this would ever happen anyway. It was just something to amuse. (and apparently fire up a few folks...)

That's because it wasn't a joke. I think I have figured out your tone, and you were wrong, you just don't want to admit it, so now you are backpeddling..

Isn't ignorance wonderful?

Obviously a sense of humor isn't a personality trait.

I think this debate is always interesting. The site at http://www.xvsxp.com/ is a very detailed comparison of OS X and XP and I, for one, learnt a whole lot about both going through the sections. But it's a systematic attempt to compare both and both do well on different aspects...

No one has really brought up the fact that a Mac, when taken out of it's box, is already equipped to do home video editing. It has FIREWIRE (PC has USB), and it comes with a complete suite of programs that all work together (video editing, audio, DVD burning). I know, I know...you can get all this "stuff" for a PC, but 99% of PCs don't come this way. All Macs come loaded with it. And yes, it's not professional level software, but for the majority of home users, it's perfect and it WORKS. For the PC, all of this "stuff" needs to come from different companies, increasing the likelyhood of incompatibility. For the professional IT person video editing may seem useless, but for mere mortals (llike myself), this was why I bought my computer. I use a PC at work day-in and day-out, and it's great, but for multi-media...Mac. Oh, I also love the fact that when I plug ANY device into my Mac, it's recognized with an icon on the desktop that I can open and see contents. Again, for the pro this may seem silly, but I hate having to dig into "My Computer>Devices>Drives>etc. to see what the hell I just plugged in. I've tried this as a test on both a PC and a Mac: Import a song from and audio CD, convet to MP3, burn onto both a data CD and an audio CD. Guess which system won? Again, for the pro, this may not mean much, but I do stuff the normal home user might do: audio and video creation on my computer, burning home DVDs with slideshows, etc. Oh yes, the PC can do this...but not right out of the box. PC = "Buy, download, install, buy more, download more, install more." It's not so much less expensive after doing all this and spending my valuable time to get a PC to do what a "crummy" Mac can do.

You guys are all f**king nerds. Macs are for serious computing (Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack, Motion), Windows PCs are nothing more than toys. Cry about it girls, cry some more, then save up your allowance money and bring it to the Apple store. Ask for Steve.

Well, I think Microsoft versus Apple rivalry stance is outdated now. Apple makes a cool product, a cool OS, and there will be no reason for them not to work out a money making scheme with Vista compatibility. While we do our "fan boy thing" these two companies are huge, healthy, profit mongers that do little more than pattent and buy out everyone elses' ideas so that they look more original. Apple copied Xerox. Microsoft copied Apple... but in the end "copying" just makes too much damn sense. If Bill Gates had been Adam, he would have pattented breathing and we'd pay a few for doing so.

Who has the pattent for the wheel? And what's up with crazy copywrite bs that keeps any iteration of Linus away from being able to play a simple DVD or any other type of video?

Quicktime and Ms have cornered the market. Do you really think nobody else could come up with a stinking way to compress video?

I say buy what you need and what you like. But don't cry a river over "poor little Apple" because that thing is a well oiled money making machine. Same with Microsoft. Can you imagine if instead of copycatting and doing the very least possible, Microsoft actually spent a few percent of its huge profits on actual research??

Dodge or Chevy... Ferrari or Porsche... Nikon or Canon... McDonald's or Wendy's... Mac or Linux or Windows...?

Who the hell cares? You buy what you want and I'll buy what I want and if I don't buy what you want, what does it matter to you? Are you so insecure in your buying decisions that you have to disparage everyone who doesn't do what you say? If what you chose works for you, great. If it doesn't, too bad.

I totally agree: Buy what works for you and be happy with it. Forget the battling Religion...now there's something to battle over because all religions are based on superstion and here-say stories. (Hey, just trying to change things here a bit.)