Would you buy a Apple Mactel?

[zorxd]

Some people just talk and talk without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

 

Obviously you have absolutely /no/ knowledge of how OS X is structured in any way or form. OS X isn't just Darwing with a GUI on top of it. LOL. Not that it would matter anyway because your point makes no sense at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

As KDE is more than just a GUI

As Win95 is more than just a GUI

 

Can you tell me why is OS X an OS and not Win95 please?

 

Please at least explain yourself because you don't seems to know what's an OS.

Sometimes some people just can't admit they have been thinking something wrong from the beginning.

[bartman101]

Some people just talk and talk without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

 

Obviously you have absolutely /no/ knowledge of how OS X is structured in any way or form. OS X isn't just Darwing with a GUI on top of it. LOL. Not that it would matter anyway because your point makes no sense at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apple developed both Darwin and OSX, but the fact is that OSX is the gui part of Darwin. It is impossible to run OSX without Darwin installed first. Just like Win95 was a gui for DOS.

[rohde]

As KDE is more than just a GUI

As Win95 is more than just a GUI

 

Can you tell me why is OS X an OS and not Win95 please?

 

Please at least explain yourself because you don't seems to know what's an OS.

Sometimes some people just can't admit they have been thinking something wrong from the beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never said Win95 is not an OS. Talk about a strawman. Where are you getting this?

 

I'm only implying that the notion that OS X isn't an OS because it's based on Darwin is preposterous. OS X is not just Darwin with a GUI-layer on top. As a concrete example the whole driver subsystem is totally different from any BSD derivative. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

[zorxd]

I've never said Win95 is not an OS. Talk about a strawman. Where are you getting this?

 

I'm only implying that the notion that OS X isn't an OS because it's based on Darwin is preposterous. OS X is not just Darwin with a GUI-layer on top. As a concrete example the whole driver subsystem is totally different from any BSD derivative. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said you said Win95 is not an OS, but a lot of people did. Ask anybody who knows what is the true deffinition of an OS if Win95 is an OS or a bundle of apps and GUI that run on top of dos.

 

I thought all Darwin drivers were the same as Mac OS X drivers?

Don't we use kext from the Darwin CD to boot OSX86?

 

I know Darwin drivers are different from FreeBSD but they are the same than Mac OS X. You took the worst example.

 

A GUI and some libs and apps doesn't make an OS, sorry

 

I am still wating for your real arguments.

[rohde]

So this is your logic:

 

Apple develops Darwin and Mach based on BSD. And then open sources it. They releases OS X consisting of Darwin, a whoe lot of other {censored}, and a GUI.

 

But because they have released the Darwin part as a OSS effort which you can get separately OS X is not an OS! Makes no sense whatsoever. Just because it's modularized doesn't make it any less an OS.

[zorxd]

So this is your logic:

 

Apple develops Darwin and Mach based on BSD. And then open sources it. They releases OS X consisting of Darwin, a whoe lot of other {censored}, and a GUI.

 

But because they have released the Darwin part as a OSS effort which you can get separately OS X is not an OS! Makes no sense whatsoever. Just because it's modularized doesn't make it any less an OS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First they HAD to release Darwin because they didn't make it, it is 80% BSD and GNU tools.

 

 

What you don't understand is that OS X can still be nice even if it is not an OS.

Apple developped an OS from the open source FreeBSD and they call it Darwin. I know their only goal is to make a good OS for OS X to run on. But they could make OS X run on top of GNU/Linux if they wanted to. You would still be in love with Mac OS X even if it changed of OS behind.

 

Is MS Office an OS? Of course not. If MS Office came with windows xp on one single DVD, would MS Office be an OS? Of course not.

Just because OS X come in a bundle with Darwin doesn't make it an OS.

What you get on Mac OS X DVD 10.4.1 is Darwin 8.1 + Aqua + Few apps and libraries.

 

Open Terminal.app and notice what's written : Welcome to Darwin. Not welcome to Mac OS X

[darkten]

Let me explain this, as I actually *know* HOW IT WORKS, AS OPPOSED TO TALKING OUT MY CRACK.

 

The fact that Darwin *even exists* is actually a PR move. Darwin "didn't come first", freebsd is not required to be "free" or "open" in any way...read the bsd license.

 

Darwin is actually an enhanced version of NeXT's OpenStep core, which was a Mach/BSD hybrid.

 

Darwin was made "Open Source" back in the days when everyone thought Linux was going to be the "Next Big Thing".

 

The notion of "OSX" being a GUI on top of Darwin is a bit nutty; in fact you can run KDE on top of Darwin (KDE is an Operating Enviroment with a set of APIs), or Gnome on darwin or GNUSTEP or whatever.

 

However *none of these things* make Darwin MacOS X.

 

Why can't you download MS's flavor of VMS "for free"? Because MS has never offered it this way. This doesn't change the reality that WinNT1-WinNT6 are based on a modified VMS core

 

MacOSX is in fact one of the most sophisticated OS's ever produced. If you have any idea about *unix at all*, the fact that apple worked out how to sleep a running unix machine was quite amazing to/for those that know.

 

After OSX 10.0...everyone started doing it...even Slowlaris

 

In fact OSX is *so sophisticated and well executed* that it actually seems like its "just a gui"...an engineering *marvel*.

 

MacOSX -The Operating System - consists of a kernel-level driver architecture that does not require relinking to add functionality, several HALs, 3 distinct APIs for application development, 4 different supported file systems (2 journaled) a PDF-based live compositing display subsystem...it just goes on and on.

 

In fact, when Apple "Open Sourced the core OS" this was seen as a LAUGHABLE JOKE by everyone at the time that "knew better"...Apple basically "open sourced" their changes to BSD 4, and the magic they did between binding BSD and freeBSD over Mach (which was developed at Carnigie Mellon by none other than Avi Tevainian)...none of which is "OSX"

[darkten]

Open Terminal.app and notice what's written : Welcome to Darwin. Not welcome to Mac OS X

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You can make it say whatever you'd like, actually

 

Would it be "different" if it said "Welcome to Macintosh Shell"?

[domino]

If it can do what ever I need and cost less than winderz, my answer is simple. IN A HEARTBEAT! Plus, supporting the development wouldn't hurt. The more compeditors out there, consumer wins.

[llothar]

There isn't any reason why mass producing OSX would cost any more than mass producing another OS.

 

Testing and maintaining will increase a lot.

At the moment Apple only has a few different system to maintain and to deliver optimized device drivers.

 

And yes the status is important for there hardware sales.

We will see if Apple can maintain there status as a lifestyle company.

[Peacabbage]

I'll buy a Mactel the moment they're released. I have been planning on purchasing a mac for the last several months, but when word got around that Apple is switching to Intel, I had to wait... it just seems fruitless to buy a powerpc based mac right now. I sure hope something comes out sooner, rather than later!

[dasepsilon]

i've bought the mac mini the instant it came out. i always wanted to use macOS,

so i had to pay the extra-price. now, after the switch to intel i feel kinda 'betrayed'--

i sold my pc to get an apple and now i've to buy a pc to keep apple?

i just sell my mac mini now and buy an pc again, and if possible i'll never buy

apple again... sad but true.

[DaffyDuck]

Some people just talk and talk without knowing what the hell they are talking about.

 

Obviously you have absolutely /no/ knowledge of how OS X is structured in any way or form. OS X isn't just Darwing with a GUI on top of it. LOL. Not that it would matter anyway because your point makes no sense at all.

 

Obviously, Zorxd is an idiot, and doesn't deserve any answer at all -- you, on the other hand, along with darkten, deserve a heart slap on the back, applause, and respect -- for actually knowing what you are talking about.

 

Zorxd (once you figure out the name, it all makes sense), talks out of his ass-crack, based on hypothetical theories of esoteric concepts, far removed from reality, and detached from that same reality.

 

It's the definition of OS that is the core of this argumnet - whereas Zorxd's is very narrow, the rest of us, realistically, see if in broader strokes, to encompass everything that includes 'operation' of the computer, not just the basic I/O elements. Either way, Zorxd's arguments are as vaporous as his EQ, so it doesn't matter.

[zorxd]

Let me explain this, as I actually *know* HOW IT WORKS, AS OPPOSED TO TALKING OUT MY CRACK.

 

The fact that Darwin *even exists* is actually a PR move. Darwin "didn't come first", freebsd is not required to be "free" or "open" in any way...read the bsd license.

And what about the GPL tools in Darwin?... read the GPL license

Darwin is actually an enhanced version of NeXT's OpenStep core, which was a Mach/BSD hybrid.

 

Darwin was made "Open Source" back in the days when everyone thought Linux was going to be the "Next Big Thing".

 

The notion of "OSX" being a GUI on top of Darwin is a bit nutty; in fact you can run KDE on top of Darwin (KDE is an Operating Enviroment with a set of APIs), or Gnome on darwin or GNUSTEP or whatever.

 

However *none of these things* make Darwin MacOS X.

I never said Darwin was MacOS X, I said Darwin is the OS MacOS X runs on

Why can't you download MS's flavor of VMS "for free"? Because MS has never offered it this way. This doesn't change the reality that WinNT1-WinNT6 are based on a modified VMS core

I never said the opposite

MacOSX is in fact one of the most sophisticated OS's ever produced.

Maybe it's sophisticated, maybe it's not, but it is not an OS

If you have any idea about *unix at all*, the fact that apple worked out how to sleep a running unix machine was quite amazing to/for those that know.

Take a look at software suspend for Linux. Anyway if OS X can sleep it's because Darwin allows it. You don't need a GUI to sleep

After OSX 10.0...everyone started doing it...even Slowlaris

 

In fact OSX is *so sophisticated and well executed* that it actually seems like its "just a gui"...an engineering *marvel*.

Of course that's what it is (plus some libraries and apps)

MacOSX -The Operating System - consists of a kernel-level driver architecture that does not require relinking to add functionality

You mean Darwin

, several HALs,  3 distinct APIs for application development,

Add Cygwin to Windows and you have a new OS now? By adding Cygwin you add a lot of APIs. API != OS

The fact is that if you make an app for Darwin, it runs in MacOS X too. It's even more than that, Mac OS rely on Darwin to run.

4 different supported file systems (2 journaled) a PDF-based live compositing display subsystem...it just goes on and on.

Again, you mean Darwin support 4 filesystems

In fact, when Apple "Open Sourced the core OS" this was seen as a LAUGHABLE JOKE by everyone at the time that "knew better"...Apple basically "open sourced" their changes to BSD 4, and the magic they did between binding BSD and freeBSD over Mach (which was developed at Carnigie Mellon by none other than Avi Tevainian)...none of which is "OSX"

So? It doesn't make it an OS anymore

[zorxd]

Obviously, Zorxd is an idiot, and doesn't deserve any answer at all -- you, on the other hand, along with darkten, deserve a heart slap on the back, applause, and respect -- for actually knowing what you are talking about.

 

Zorxd (once you figure out the name, it all makes sense), talks out of his ass-crack, based on hypothetical theories of esoteric concepts, far removed from reality, and detached from that same reality.

 

It's the definition of OS that is the core of this argumnet - whereas Zorxd's is very narrow, the rest of us, realistically, see if in broader strokes, to encompass everything that includes 'operation' of the computer, not just the basic I/O elements. Either way, Zorxd's arguments are as vaporous as his EQ, so it doesn't matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

good post man, I read it twice and didn't find any argument to destroy. Maybe it means your arguments are so strong, maybe it means you just don't know what to say and have no arguments at all. I rely on facts, you rely on bitching.

[TheoCryst]

Interesting deviation from the topic... anyway, I love laptops and always have. When Apple releases the iBook x86, I'll be first in line to pick one up... assuming of course that it easily dualboots with XP/Vista. If not, I'll get one eventually, just not immediately. I love OS X, but I'm still a Windows user at heart... and sad as it is, I'm just not ready to give up on the operating system that taught me how to use a computer. Hell, I can thank MS-DOS for my current major in college (computer engineering, if you're curious).

 

Oh, and by the way... who exactly cares if Mac OS X is a "true" operating system or just a shell for Darwin? Either way, it kicks a**.

[DaffyDuck]

I rely on facts, you rely on bitching.

 

No, you rely on opinion, not fact.

 

I would like to suggest a solution for you - write a script that replaces every instance of 'Mac OS X' on your screen with 'Darwin', to make you happy, and you then no longer need to continue your mental masturbation.

 

On the other hand, if you just want to hear us proclaim you as being much smarter than us, I will gladly put it in my signature, if would just make you shut up. In the meantime, "Yes, Zorxd, you are much smarter than us, as only you know the truth of the OS that we call Mac OS X" There, now shut up, and stop thread-{censored} this thread.

[mikesown]

I will be MORE than happy to fork over $1,600 for a 12" powerbook that can run both Windows and OSX. The only thing limiting me from buying one now is the fact that I can't run windows on a powerbook, but this, obviously, is being fixed . I can't wait for the new powerbooks to come out!

[silicontrip]

I'll be buying the last G5 PPC desktop machine available. I'm going to be holding onto my PPC architecture for as long as possible (which will be around 2010) Maybe I should buy a Sun.

 

I didn't spend 12 months learning how to properly code Altivec, just to abandon it. I'm not a professional coder so I learnt it all in my spare time and had a hard enough time as it was. I'm not porting my apps that I spent time converting Linux endian specific x86 code to be endian independent. Like there is a point???

 

I bought a Mac to get away from the x86 platform. I really wanted a PA-RISC running NeXT or a DEC Alpha. But when I heard that Rhapsody (being the original name for OSX) was a rebuilt NeXT. I started saving for a Mac. Especially since they had dual cpus in their machines! tasty!

 

At work we use Xserves as unix servers and are no longer seeing the point to purchase an Xserve if it's just going to have the same cpu as those intel or ibm or dell servers.

 

 

Long live alternative architectures!!!

Pity there is no longer any consumer choice. x86 wins

[CFran]

>Then where can I download or buy that modified VMS because I don't like the XP GUI anyways?

 

get yourself some WindowsBlind {censored}

 

> Windows XP works on top of the NT kernel

 

well, Windows XP IS Windows NT (version 5.1, just, given a "better" name)

 

 

 

You can install Darwin without installing OS X. And Darwin is free. When you pay for OS X you are actually paying for a GUI and some apps because the kernel is free.

 

lol, sorry to tell you that man but now that sounded quite dumb. Want a Mac with nuthin but Darwin on it? What you're doing on that OSx86 {censored} if Darwin is all that, Darwin has been running on x86 for a long time, why you're bothering with OSx86 then??

 

> OS X is nice, but that doesn't mean it's a full OS. Saying OS X is an OS is like saying KDE and GNOME are two OS.

 

sorry again, but that was twice as dumb as the previous thing. Mac OS X isnt a full OS? hahahaha, if it aint, then there is no such thing as a full OS man (or do you think of anything that is a full OS, MS DOS maybe? oh wait, i'm sure u'd say BeOS is a full OS)

[CFran]

As KDE is more than just a GUI

As Win95 is more than just a GUI

 

Can you tell me why is OS X an OS and not Win95 please?

 

Please at least explain yourself because you don't seems to know what's an OS.

Sometimes some people just can't admit they have been thinking something wrong from the beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OS X is an OS. (period). Windows 95 is an OS too, i know that as a matter of fact, cuz i took on Windows 95 CD, i booted it in VMware, installed it, and well, looked pretty much like an OS to me.

 

Do I get as dumb as you if i say Mac OS 7 isn't an OS because it's based on Mac OS 6?

[CFran]

I never said you said Win95 is not an OS, but a lot of people did. Ask anybody who knows what is the true deffinition of an OS if Win95 is an OS or a bundle of apps and GUI that run on top of dos.

 

I thought all Darwin drivers were the same as Mac OS X drivers?

Don't we use kext from the Darwin CD to boot OSX86?

 

I know Darwin drivers are different from FreeBSD but they are the same than Mac OS X. You took the worst example.

 

A GUI and some libs and apps doesn't make an OS, sorry

 

I am still wating for your real arguments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ight, I got you some definitions of what an OS is from Google Define :

 

"The software that runs a computer, including scheduling tasks, managing storage, and handling communication with peripherals. Examples include DOS, Windows 95 and UNIX.

www.fkcc.edu/links/library/lis2004/glossary.htm"

 

"This is the software that manages a computer system. Windows 95 is an OS.

www.verio.com/support/files/glossary.cfm"

 

seems like some people who know what they talking about agree with me to say that Windows 95 is an OS...

[bartman101]

oh my god.. look no one is bashing OSX, people are here to figure out how to install OSX on their PCs because THEY WANT IT. Gnome, KDE, whatever are GUIs for linux and unix systems, just like OSX is a gui for Darwin. OSX DEPENDS on Darwin. When you setup a driver in OSX, its passing that information to darwin. Its true that a lot of drivers require that OSX be installed instead of just darwin, but that's only because they have to interact with OSX for some reason, not because its the OS. The fact that Darwin is distributed stand-alone means that you would have to give OSX itself another definition than an OS. Is the interface of XP the operating system, of course not, but since microsoft only releases the GUI and kernel together, you can name it the same thing. Just because OSX can access parts of Darwin that aren't assesable via the command line doesn't make it an OS.

[OSX Blows]

No I wouldn't buy one. To be honest OSX Blows lol my Media Centre leaves it for dead I wish I knew what all the fuss was about the only thing that I have seen that is worth mentioning is it boots very quickly. Now let's try playing CS oh you can't, um ok then let's play.... oh you can't, ok lets oh you can do that either lol

 

Oh well at least apple has a nice screen saver ROTFL......

 

OSX Blows

 

This is not the focus of Apple. Apple is designed, run and does R&D around a core concept that really escapes about 90% of the population, in *every* market and product segment (this phenomenon is not limited to "computers") and it its this:

 

 

Lol how arrogant is that statement yep that's an apple user for you lol apple users are snobs and arrogant with it lol...... Shame you can't buy an decent software for an apple lol

 

Apple developed both Darwin and OSX, but the fact is that OSX is the gui part of Darwin. It is impossible to run OSX without Darwin installed first. Just like Win95 was a gui for DOS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Windows 95 wasn't a gui for dos once you ran Win95 is was a 32bit OS in it's own right that surplanted dos. It was far in advance of what DOS offered and once launched it took over. It was just possible to launch from a command shell (which wasn't proper DOS either)!!!!

No I wouldn't buy one. To be honest OSX Blows lol my Media Centre leaves it for dead I wish I knew what all the fuss was about the only thing that I have seem that is worth mentioning is it boots very quickly. Now let's try playing CS oh you can't, um ok then let's play.... oh you can't ok lets oh you can do that either lol

 

Oh well at least apple has a nice screen saver ROTFL......

 

OSX Blows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

he he sorry I couldn't resist I work with a large contingent of apple users who rave and rave and rave about them but OSX and apple don't make a PC that does anything I need a PC for..... The general public don't want to just run photoshop or iDVD they need more from a PC and OSX and apple just don't supply it....

 

lol one of the apple "nuts" where I work brought i a key note speach by steve jobs from some conference or expo or other and his big thing was new wipes and fades in iphoto I was crying with laughter if you turned up to a PC expo and your new hot thing was a transition in and app/screensaver they'd laugh you out of the building but all the people watching were cheering a whooping lol like jobs had a stages full of playboy bunnies behind him lol IT WAS JUST A SELECTION OF TRANSITIONS lol they didnt have anything better to show i was really LMAO...... It reminded me of the last dying days of atari to be honest....

 

Oh well for only 2% of the desktops in the world apple users sure do like to tell everyone how ace their stuff is pity it can't do a 10th of what my media centre can........

 

OSX Blows

[Shuddertrix]

Hey OSX Blows: