Apple OS on PC

Topic

New Reply

Computers are pretty generic things (i.e., they have processors, memory, harddrive, optical devices, USB, etc.). So what prohibits loading an Apple OS on a PC?

Just wondering.

Reply | Quote

Replies

http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/answerst…2133841,00.html%5B/url%5D

HTH

Reply | Quote

http://www.techtv.com/callforhelp/answerst…2133841,00.html%5B/url%5D

HTH

Reply | Quote

Interestingly enough, there has recently been an emulator developed to run PowerPC programs (the processor that powers the Apple family) on an Intel processor. So far, there has been no success in getting Apple’s OSX to run on it, but there has been some success. It’s important to note that the performance will suffer since there is software translation taking place.

The clearest explanation in the article noted by Andrew is the comparison to English and French languages. Both languages allow for communication, but in order for that to take place you must first speak the language. Some hardware pieces are interchangeable, such as USB/Firewire devices, and memory as well in certain applications – but the language spoken by the CPU dictates much of what happens.

Also worth noting is that Apple’s hardware is a closed system. No one but Apple can develop on it, create new ways of doing things, or change it around. This is vastly different from the world of the PC, where end users can mix and match all kinds of hardware from several different vendors. On the one hand, Apple’s closed system enables them to predict hardware configurations and things usually just work. But the flip side of that is that there is no innovation outside Apple’s corporate walls, and significant advances in the PC industry come from competition among vendors. Even with the variation, Windows works pretty darn well for having so many thousands of combinations to deal with (and Windows is not the only operating system on PC hardware).

Reply | Quote

Funny – I was only looking at PearPC yesterday. Here are some screenshots of OS X running on some x86 platforms. Performance doesn’t appear to be the same either (500 times slower) but that could be about normal for some PC users

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

that could be about normal for some PC users

---

[/indent]Yes, those who think that running OSX is actually worth the effort but don’t want to pay ten times the price for the equivalent hardware…

Reply | Quote

Running OS X is worth the (very little) effort, and imho I find that the price is much better value for money. 10x ? not quite.

Reply | Quote

Variety is the spice of life.

Reply | Quote

Variety is the spice of life.

Reply | Quote

Running OS X is worth the (very little) effort, and imho I find that the price is much better value for money. 10x ? not quite.

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

that could be about normal for some PC users

---

[/indent]Yes, those who think that running OSX is actually worth the effort but don’t want to pay ten times the price for the equivalent hardware…

Reply | Quote

Let’s remember, the Apple OS now is only a BSD kernel and a custom front end. You can very easily install open-bsd (or any version of *nix) and customize KDE or Gnome to look and act just like OS X does.

Reply | Quote

Let’s remember, the Apple OS now is only a BSD kernel and a custom front end. You can very easily install open-bsd (or any version of *nix) and customize KDE or Gnome to look and act just like OS X does.

Reply | Quote

Funny – I was only looking at PearPC yesterday. Here are some screenshots of OS X running on some x86 platforms. Performance doesn’t appear to be the same either (500 times slower) but that could be about normal for some PC users

Reply | Quote

Interestingly enough, there has recently been an emulator developed to run PowerPC programs (the processor that powers the Apple family) on an Intel processor. So far, there has been no success in getting Apple’s OSX to run on it, but there has been some success. It’s important to note that the performance will suffer since there is software translation taking place.

The clearest explanation in the article noted by Andrew is the comparison to English and French languages. Both languages allow for communication, but in order for that to take place you must first speak the language. Some hardware pieces are interchangeable, such as USB/Firewire devices, and memory as well in certain applications – but the language spoken by the CPU dictates much of what happens.

Also worth noting is that Apple’s hardware is a closed system. No one but Apple can develop on it, create new ways of doing things, or change it around. This is vastly different from the world of the PC, where end users can mix and match all kinds of hardware from several different vendors. On the one hand, Apple’s closed system enables them to predict hardware configurations and things usually just work. But the flip side of that is that there is no innovation outside Apple’s corporate walls, and significant advances in the PC industry come from competition among vendors. Even with the variation, Windows works pretty darn well for having so many thousands of combinations to deal with (and Windows is not the only operating system on PC hardware).

Reply | Quote