Would you buy a Apple Mactel?

[OSX Blows]

Hey OSX Blows:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have done

[Prog]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was wondering how long it would take someone to definitively prove that zord bullsh*tter wrong. Thanks.

 

Hey, OS X blows: welcome to the Ignorance club, population: You and Steve Balmer

[DaffyDuck]

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

 

Seems like we're experiencing a healthy growth rate of the dumb{censored} demographic, lately.

 

At least OS X ships with a spell checker, and most of us know how to use it.

 

Media Center PC? Cute concept.

[Swad]

We're getting dangerously close to flamefest. Debate arguments here - not the intelligence of the people who make them. :-)

[bartman101]

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)!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

just because win95 added 32 bit support to dos, it doesn't make it an OS. DOS4GW also adds 32 bit support for dos but without a GUI. win95 runs on top of DOS; because you can run more programs once win95 loaded doesn't make it an OS either. An OS must be able to run indepently, win95 cannot run without DOS, and OSX cannot run without Darwin.

[OSX Blows]

Seems like we're experiencing a healthy growth rate of the dumb{censored} demographic, lately.

 

At least OS X ships with a spell checker, and most of us know how to use it.

 

Media Center PC? Cute concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm English, you know the country where the language comes from???? And in the QUEENS ENGLISH centre is the correct spelling..... It's only in America is it spelled center!!!!! your pronunciation leaves a lot to be desired too....

 

And if your best comeback for Windows MCE is to knock my spelling lol then what does that say about OSX lol my MCE box is awesome not only can I watch pause and record live tv just like tivo I can control it remotely form any internet connected PC in the world but can play all the latest games on it and use it for any business purpose you can think of it has 100 times (at least) the software and applications available for it than any mac, it's more powerful and is easier to use lol

 

Intel processoers lol welcome to our wolrd

 

just because win95 added 32 bit support to dos, it doesn't make it an OS. DOS4GW also adds 32 bit support for dos but without a GUI. win95 runs on top of DOS; because you can run more programs once win95 loaded doesn't make it an OS either. An OS must be able to run indepently, win95 cannot run without DOS, and OSX cannot run without Darwin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The command shell that runs Windows 95 isnt DOS it just looks like it

 

DOS was a collection of tens of applications and not just the command shell the Windows 95 command shell is not DOS and couldn't do a 10th of what DOS could. Don't think that because it looked similar to DOS that it was. DOS was made of two or three core files IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS & command.com and a lot of small apps built around this core. Windows 95 didn't need any of these three files and was totally it's own os NOT RUNNIG on dos. There were bastardised versions of these files included but they were provided to run a limited emulation of DOS and they weren't required to run Win95 they were just there for backwards compatibilty.

[Shuddertrix]

Hey OSX Blows:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(quoting myself to tell you it again.) I just combined your two posts.

[Prog]

Hey OS X blows;

 

When you're done being full of yourself and your crappy OS and your "lol"s, let us know, ok?

[zhLilDoggi]

Enough bitching...or ALL of you will get banned. (Shuddertrix, no, not you!)

[Prog]

Heh, sorry, people like that just annoy me.

[JayRx1981]

Would I buy a Mactel when it's finally officially released? Well, maybe. For me it'll boil down to the price. If Apple builds a machine 2-3 times more expensive than it would be if I built that same machine myself (including the cost of WinXP Pro or perhaps Vista), then probably not. Mac OS X, while being (IMO) the most polished looking/operating OS, would not be worth it to even double the costs of building an equivalent machine--for myself, anyways.

 

If Mactels are only slightly more expensive than their windows base component counterparts (1-1.5 max), then yes, I'll be buying one. The extra cost would be well worth it for the better stability (and likely support) that an official Mac OS X box would bring with it, along with the ability to make a triple-boot box (Mac OS X, Windows, and a Linux Distro (either Fedora or Ubuntu being my personal faves)) legally and not have to worry about cracking x-feature or y-security protocol.

 

Of course, I also think it'd be neat if as a standard feature (in order to get more Windows users to switch), Mac and Intel offered a hardware-level VMWare-like platform that allowed both OS's to boot simultaneously (and allowed for fast switching between the two, with little-to-no performance hits for either).

[CFran]

OSX Blows, if OSX blows to you, why did you join osx86project.org?

[zhLilDoggi]

OSX Blows, if OSX blows to you, why did you join osx86project.org?

 

I said ENOUGH

[Mr.Funk]

I would never buy it.

It will just be a BSD system for tons more money.

 

I will not purchase an Apple until they add real Thin Client services.

[guido420]

Well I first want to say thanks to the Admins and everyone contributing to the X86 Project.

 

This site is awesome and for the most part jerk free.

 

The fact that OSX is designed for ease of use first, makes it key for the beginning computer user.

 

Once reason (IMHO) that MACs are superior is that there has always been one family of hardware to work with and qualify. The x86 world, however more popular is plagued with untested , unreliable drivers.

 

Then add Windows into the mix, well then..... security flaw central. End users are stuck playing catchup to the spyware and virus writers.

 

If Apple plays it right, they will offer the OS to users and make sure that the hardware vendors stick to a qualifying process as strict as their own internal.

 

I have wanted my own Gx for sometime since Darwin has been under the hood. Prices are the only reason I haven't.

 

Now there is a chance to, but if the company restricts to their own equipment, the hobbyist is restricted to crack n' hack OSX.

 

Bottom Line: The OS is superior, but the prices of hardware will keep me in Gatesville. (Speaking of which...doesn't Mr. Gates own quite a bit of Apple stock?)

[guille]

I wouldn't buy a Mactel machine, for the same price I can get a faster and customized machine, I have an x86 pc right now, why would I buy a new slower one?

If Apple stays at ppc i could think about buying a new one, so I have requirements, and I use linux but staying at x86 I prefer to choose my machine.

[cyrana]

At the risk of being on topic...

 

Anyway, I'll probably buy an Apple MacTel when they get released. I'm waiting for a high-res (I like WSXGA+) powerbook with a Yonah CPU in it, though (or something better).

 

I like their build quality and have owned a number of Macs over the years including the original 128K one

[opieum]

I would so buy one. It is a rock solid system it comes setup with everything I would need it has a nice set of software already out for it. I think it is a good hallmark that it currently runs as it does in these early stages. It certainly runs a hell of alot better than even Vista does at this point. I like Linux BUT it can be a headache to setup. And while the different windows managers are good I still prefer the Aqua interface over any interface out there. (yes kde has addons that mimics it but it has issues)

 

Anyways it is a nice package. I plan on buying a MacTel when they are released.

[bebox]

i think i will buy a mactel if graphic card is correct and hardware is not locked

 

no spécial firware in graphic card

no limitation in hardware

 

i want to have dual or triple boot

 

then i really dont want to have a poor old radeon 9200 in my mac, i want to put the last nvidia or ati card in my mactel if i want .

 

OS X to work

XP to play (the a correct graphic card)

[Neomac]

i mis the windows start bar to launch applications fast

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If launching applications from the Dock icons doesn't suit you, try dragging your Applications folder to the right of the Dock (next to the Trash). Click and hold for a pop-up hierarchical view of your Applications folder.

[Neomac]

(Speaking of which...doesn't Mr. Gates own quite a bit of Apple stock?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah, he sold it ages ago, before it took off!

[blahsucks]

I bought a Mac. I'm buying a Mactel. There's probably not going to be a noticeable difference once enough apps are ported over, anyway. The prices might fluctuate a little, but I don't think it'll be that big of a change (aside from Classic).

 

Oh, by the way. This is my first post here. You guys are doing some great work. Thanks.

[orph3us]

if we're talking semantics, aqua is the gui on top of darwin. And i dont know this for a fact, but I would think that OS X is the operating system as a whole (including darwin). Because historically speaking, darwin wouldnt exist without Apple having made it... its pointless to argue because it was all put together by apple, thus the whole package being called "Mac OS X"

Good riddance I had to get that off my chest

 

btw, if i have the money I would love to buy a 12 inch powerbook with intel and a nice graphics card.... dual boot osx and windows... 3 partitions, one for osx system, one for xp, and one for both to use, im thinking either fat32 or ext filesystem... fat32 is writable in osx isnt it? i know ext is... but im not sure about mounting it in windows, ive done it with a utility before, but who knows.... anyway, thats my dream system.

[CFran]

if we're talking semantics, aqua is the gui on top of darwin. And i dont know this for a fact, but I would think that OS X is the operating system as a whole (including darwin).  Because historically speaking, darwin wouldnt exist without Apple having made it... its pointless to argue because it was all put together by apple, thus the whole package being called "Mac OS X"

Good riddance I had to get that off my chest

 

btw, if i have the money I would love to buy a 12 inch powerbook with intel and a nice graphics card.... dual boot osx and windows... 3 partitions, one for osx system, one for xp, and one for both to use, im thinking either fat32 or ext filesystem... fat32 is writable in osx isnt it? i know ext is... but im not sure about mounting it in windows, ive done it with a utility before, but who knows.... anyway, thats my dream system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't use ext, since Windows needs some third-party utility to read ext partitions, and as far as i tried, the utility i tried only could read. isn't FAT32 readable by mostly any OS?

[Yukon Kid]

I have a mac and a pc and I have used osx to connect with win 98 and xp, I dig around in the drives with no problem, as well as transfer files etc. No programs needed.

but you have to go into the net set up and make some adjustments.