Jump to content

Would you buy a Apple Mactel?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#21
Neuron Basher

Neuron Basher

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
If VMWare creates a MacIntel port, I will absolutely move to MacIntel when they're available. If not, I'll have to keep some Windows systems around for work requirements. (particularly MS SQL Server)

#22
natefrogg

natefrogg

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
i would possibly buy one, it depends, we'll see when they actually come out

i would, however, prefer to build my own and install the mac os onto it, if that ever becomes a legal option

#23
myzar

myzar

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
what do you mean with buy a mactel, buy apple hardware ? y would i want to buy normal pc hardware from apple at an overpriced price and prolly it would be sucky hardware being an intel combo.

I don't give a rat ass about how my case looks so no way in hell.

Apple should just make osx run on any hardware because their hw business will surely go to hell in the future.

The x86 business is another world where people don't buy a stupid looking case , It's way different from the zealot mac circle.

#24
zorxd

zorxd

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

This statement is fundamentally wrong in almost every way. Its like saying that WindowsXP isn't an Operating System, its a GUI over a a modified VMS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


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



In the old times of win9x, everybody was saying it wasn't a real OS because it still worked on top of DOS. It was true.



Mac OS X still works on top of darwin. Windows XP works on top of the NT kernel but there is no other OS that uses the same kernel (I don't count win2k as a different OS, it's the same OS, only a different version)





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.



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.



KDE is a desktop environment that can run in X11 on top of a lot of different kernels including Linux, freeBSD and Darwin

OS X is a desktop environment that doesn't rely on X11 and runs only on top of Darwin

#25
rohde

rohde

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

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



In the old times of win9x, everybody was saying it wasn't a real OS because it still worked on top of DOS. It was true.



Mac OS X still works on top of darwin. Windows XP works on top of the NT kernel but there is no other OS that uses the same kernel (I don't count win2k as a different OS, it's the same OS, only a different version)





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.



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.



KDE is a desktop environment that can run in X11 on top of a lot of different kernels including Linux, freeBSD and Darwin

OS X is a desktop environment that doesn't rely on X11 and runs only on top of Darwin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


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.

#26
zorxd

zorxd

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

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.

#27
bartman101

bartman101

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

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.

#28
rohde

rohde

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark

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.

#29
zorxd

zorxd

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

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.

#30
rohde

rohde

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
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.

#31
zorxd

zorxd

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

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

#32
darkten

darkten

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
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 :D

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"

#33
darkten

darkten

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts

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 :D

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

#34
domino

domino

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,958 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:/tmp
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.

#35
llothar

llothar

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

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.

#36
Peacabbage

Peacabbage

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts
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!

#37
dasepsilon

dasepsilon

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
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.

#38
DaffyDuck

DaffyDuck

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts

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.

#39
zorxd

zorxd

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

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

#40
zorxd

zorxd

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 39 posts

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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2015 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy