Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?

Cliff posted about 10 years ago | from the microsoft's-worst-nightmare dept.

OS X 1409

A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward would like to put this query before you: "I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been, but I am a fan of the x86 architecture. I really like Linux, but there are still a few issues that are keeping me from switching completely. I really like Mac OS X but I don't want to drop $2000 on a computer that is only as fast as an x86 computer at half the price. Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been ported to x86 and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

i wouldnt (2, Interesting)

digitalsushi (137809) | about 10 years ago | (#10481669)

i wouldn't switch to it. the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck. they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.

at least thats my understanding of how it works. now what if they could promise that stability on x86 hardware? hrmm. i might switch. i'd venture a guess that the people who use linux and friends who also use windows dont have the typical end user problems that vex most windows computers. i'm no world class guru and i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners, other than being NATted and knowing where not to step on the web. so i'm pretty happy with what i've got, i'd have to say.

Re:i wouldnt (2, Insightful)

pcmanjon (735165) | about 10 years ago | (#10481772)

I would definately switch to MAC OS X if it was ported to x86. For sure. Legally even.

I have tried out the darwin core for x86 and it is just the kernel and the utilitys you need to browse the filesystem. About all you can find is


and a few other basic commands, no lynx, no wget, no ping, no whois, etc. No x86 drivers for your network card, etc.

I really wish apple would actually do something with the darwin core and create MAC OS X for x86.

This would kill apple however because nobody in their right mind would pay $2000+ for a good mac when they could pay for a PC at $1500 and get mac OS on it as well.

Re:i wouldnt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481774)

You completely miss the point.

People are on x86 because they need Win32 to run their programs. Microsoft has no intention of porting Win32 (again) to other architectures, so people will remain on x86. Even though MacOS X is a superior operating system, it doesn't have Win32, therefore it will not be useful for the vast majority of programs. So the majority of people will still not use MacOS X even if it is on x86.

If Win32 was ported to Xzg-27 architecture and x86 was phased out, the vast majority of computer users would be running a computer with Xzg-27 architecture in 5 years, with Windows as the operating system.

Re:i wouldnt (4, Insightful)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10481791)

i'm no world class guru and i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners, other than being NATted and knowing where not to step on the web.
Yeah, definately not a guru.

I hate to tell you this, but the problem with x86 has always been Windows. The BSOD was not built in at chip level. I'm writing this on a Linux box that hasn't been rebooted since March.

x86 (2, Insightful)

simpl3x (238301) | about 10 years ago | (#10481796)

While there are plenty of advantages to x86 hardware, windows did run at one point on the Power architecture. Perhaps a better question would be, if Microsoft ported Windows to the Power 6, or more interestingly, the Cell, would you switch? I like Mips and Arm also, and for low profile computers, which most people should be using anyway, these other architectures are great. Why the fixation on x86 or Windows for that matter?

I would much rather see a variety of devices and architectures coexisting in an environment where getting something done is the key. I happen to use a Powerbook, So! I can also run just about anything required through a VM of some sort. The general purpose computer should be made more general purpose.

Re:x86 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481810)

Finally, someone who gets the point!

GNAA fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481670)

first post you filthy niggers. that's right; suck the gay nigger cock.

Re:GNAA fp (-1, Offtopic)

aluminumtulips (598188) | about 10 years ago | (#10481705)

Hmmm, latent homosexuality rears its head. You're such an idiot! Come on out already!

Hey, I used OS/2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481672)

So, sure, why not?

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481673)


forget the hookers and the blackjack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481674)

forget the hookers and the blackjack!

I'm in for OS X!

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481675)


Yes (1)

redhotchil (44670) | about 10 years ago | (#10481677)

It about a split second.

I don't see it happening though considering the hardware tweaks in the GUI

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481783)

In an Instant. And I wouldn't be the only one where I work. Lets just say that work is with a 100% non-MAC company. :)

Try it maybe (1)

suso (153703) | about 10 years ago | (#10481678)

I think I'd try it for a while, maybe I'd dual boot to it for a while, but I think I'd still use Linux full time.

Meaningless question (2, Insightful)

Have Blue (616) | about 10 years ago | (#10481679)

Because it is not ever, ever going to happen.

If AMD and Intel sprayed all their CPUs with anthrax, would you buy a Mac?

Re:Meaningless question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481748)

You're wrong, you INSENSITIVE CLOD. Open your mind. One Computer, one OS. ITS THE GOAL STUPID!

Re:Meaningless question (1)

JVert (578547) | about 10 years ago | (#10481754)

No. But I would finally make use of the water cooler system I have sitting in the garage.

Re:Meaningless question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481763)

If OSX came to x86, I would switch.

Switch away from OSX, that is.

No, I'd just switch them on (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 10 years ago | (#10481795)

The anthrax would be cooked in seconds.

hello (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481680)


In a word... (0)

TedTschopp (244839) | about 10 years ago | (#10481681)


It would allow me to use Windows and OSX on the same machine with a dual boot.

Ted Tschopp

Re:In a word... (2, Insightful)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 10 years ago | (#10481719)

> Windows and OSX on the same machine

It's called "Virtual PC".

Re:In a word... (1)

generica1 (193760) | about 10 years ago | (#10481781)

Unfortunately, guess who is the new owner of Virtual PC [] ? And also unfortunately, they haven't gotten around to porting Virtual PC to the G5 processor yet... so I have to run it on my G3 iBook 900. And Windows XP isn't so fast when you're emulating it on a CPU that could barely run it natively very well (if it were native to this architecture).

Re:In a word... (2, Informative)

robbieduncan (87240) | about 10 years ago | (#10481809)

Virtual PC 7.0 was released (and shipped as well) a few weeks ago. It supports the G5 just fine.

without a doubt (2, Insightful)

sirmalloc (648119) | about 10 years ago | (#10481682)

i'd switch without a doubt. however, i wonder if this would severely hurt apple's hardware sales.

Corporate switch (2, Interesting)

herberts (648935) | about 10 years ago | (#10481683)

AS I already own Macs I would not switch, but I would try to make my company switch...

The problem with this question... (5, Informative)

the unbeliever (201915) | about 10 years ago | (#10481684)

Is one of "will my hardware be compatible with OS X?" -- if I could be assured that my hardware will work as well under OS X on x86 as it does under Windows XP, then I would switch in a heartbeat, or at least dual boot. Application support is another issue, as is migrating data.

This question does not have a simple answer like "yes" or "no" or "maybe" -- there are a lot of dependencies on each answer.

Sure! (2, Informative)

Kirsha (201264) | about 10 years ago | (#10481687)

You bet, dual booting though. Games are still a Windows domain.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481688)

If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?


os x (1)

YoJaUta (67458) | about 10 years ago | (#10481689)

I do believe the number one reason to have a Windows PC is to be able to play games... which OS X has very few of. And those that do get ported aren't released until up to a year from the Win release date.

The OS is not the reason I use a computer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481691)

If the apps I want to run are in Windows, I use Windows. Linux - I use Linux. MacOS (haven't found any I need yet), I'd run MacOS.

I don't understand this silly cult of OS-ism.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481693)

It really doesn't freaking matter if you would switch.

Apple is a hardware company. What don't you people understand about that?

Yes! (1)

turbogeek (224784) | about 10 years ago | (#10481694)

I have two Macs. 17 inch PB and a dual 2.0 G5. Great OS and great machines, but it would be nice to get a cheaper machine. I do Java development and very happy with the performance and capabilities.

uhhh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481695)

hell yeah... but this would not be a good move for Apple. Just ask NeXT. oh wait...

Probably not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481696)

The reason people are on the x86 architecture has nothing to do with the processor. It has to do with the fact that that is the only architecture that Win32 is implemented on. Not using the x86 architecure means you can't use 90% of all programs ever developed (since most people are dicks and don't port)! Switching to MacOS X does nothing to help on that.

Anyways, x86 is horrendous to program in assembly language. I'd rather program VAX.

Well.. (5, Insightful)

chewy_2000 (618148) | about 10 years ago | (#10481697)

I would switch in a second. OS X is by far the best OS on so many fronts that I have ever used (interface, ease of use etc, and the Unix core is nice). I'd still have to maintain a Windows boot for games, unless it was so popular most games were released for it.

Never going to happen though, since Apple make their money from hardware, not the OS.

Yes (1)

superlol (813554) | about 10 years ago | (#10481698)


yes (1)

Emugamer (143719) | about 10 years ago | (#10481699)

no, no yes, no .. does not compute...

no really, I have no clue, I might because I need to run Office without the hassle of windows but I also need it for 3rd party applications that do not run on a Mac. so no... I don't know, don't ask questions that don't have an easy yes no answer

Yep, yep, yep. (5, Insightful)

sllim (95682) | about 10 years ago | (#10481700)

I would most certainly purchase and install it.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't still run windows. Possibly do a dual boot or a windows on mac kind of solution.

Ain't never gonna happen though. Apple makes money off there hardware and the OS is why people purchase the hardware. Be a foolish thing for Apple to do.

Not for me (1)

MrMegster (689982) | about 10 years ago | (#10481703)

I would have to say that I wouldn't switch. The reason the OS is so nice now is that they can optimize it and make sure it works with their given hardware. Once you open it up to be run on almost any PC, problems arise and I don't feel that the response from users would be that wonderful. However I might be wrong, and Apple might outdo themselves once again.

Yes (1)

JamesP (688957) | about 10 years ago | (#10481704)

Mac OS is THE BEST OS user-frindly wise.

Only Linux can beat it. Windows... not worth mentioning.

I would switch... Dual Boot Linux/Mac OS

The only problem is that, bu the time they switch to x80, it's probably gonna be called something ELSE tham MAC OS

Are you asking me... (1)

alokeb (764754) | about 10 years ago | (#10481706)

1) Would you like a fast, stable and easy to use desktop for newbies and a powerful Unix based OS for pros? 2) Permanently get rid of adware/spyware/virus related problems? 3) Lessen the chances of my computer getting 0wned? All this without getting tied to proprietary hardware... Many more can be added here but you get the point. HELL YEAH!!!

Maybe, but.. (1)

Thangodin (177516) | about 10 years ago | (#10481707)

If I was going to go Mac, I would go all the way, and switch to the hardware too. It's better, and it's just plain cooler. The only reason I don't have a Mac is I like PC games, and there aren't enough for the Mac, and for compatability with work systems.

Yes. (1)

hattig (47930) | about 10 years ago | (#10481708)


Err, I suppose I had better write something else.


yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481711)

pretty sure I'd be interested in switching

You bet your Job's sniffin' ass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481713)

I'd switch! I'm tired of being oppressed by "the man" and having my twig and berries jerked around like I'm some kind of fruit farmer.

Please not again (4, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | about 10 years ago | (#10481716)

I can't count the number of times that I've heard this asked. The obvious answer is that yes a lot of people would switch if OS X was ported to x86. But I also can't count the number of times the people who keep asking this question have been told how irrelevant it is to do so. OS X is not going to be ported, for the simple reason that if it were Apple would go under and then OS X would no longer exist.

If you need to know why that is, just google for "if os x were ported" and you'll find the same explanation on thousands of pages. I don't feel like rehashing it here.

Longhorn diskliked by everyone???? (1)

XenonCJ (746056) | about 10 years ago | (#10481717)

Longhorn diskliked by everyone???? You must be a real closed minded uber-linux junkie to make that kind of blanket statement about an OS that isn't even released yet... goood greif.

Re:Longhorn diskliked by everyone???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481793)

I wish there was a "You must be ___ old to ride" restriction for Slashdot.

Switch? (2, Funny)

tickticker (549972) | about 10 years ago | (#10481721)

I would for all the games [] .

Here siggy siggy siggy... Has anyone seen a small nonsensical sig running around here?

The real question is... (2, Interesting)

SetupWeasel (54062) | about 10 years ago | (#10481722)

Would software and hardware companies support OS X more consistantly if it were available on an x86 PC?

The only reason I use Windows is that it is the easiest OS to find games, paripherals, and other things that support it. If Linux or OS X had that, I could consider them.

404? (1)

mroch (715318) | about 10 years ago | (#10481723)

There appears to be a broken link on the front page... curious.

Just a thought, but I'm sure Macs seem to work better because Apple knows exactly what hardware you're running. Linux has to run on *everything* and can be touchy about hardware. Windows is better about hardware detection because it's just for x86, but OS X is by far the best.

If Apple kept the same level of quality on x86 that they have on PowerPC, I would most definitely switch!

no. (1)

the original m0nk (112529) | about 10 years ago | (#10481724)

i've recently made the plunge to mac os x fulltime (home AND work) as opposed to just occasionally at home running music or graphics apps.

no way is os x going to be as tight and stable and reliable on x86 as it is on apple hardware.

besides, apple hardware looks so sweet :)

No... (1)

skinfitz (564041) | about 10 years ago | (#10481726)

...but then I sprung the $2000 for a DP G5 and another $2000 on a PowerBook. What can I say - I have the money.

I strongly agree with what someone else said about the Mac's stability being very much a function of the fact it runs on known hardware configurations.

Don't get me wrong here - Windows has it's place. I have my XP machine which I use for games and believe it or not Quicken as in UK form is not available for the Mac.

Yes, but it's not what you think. (2, Insightful)

solios (53048) | about 10 years ago | (#10481727)

I'm already a Mac user. I'm in that FUN bracket of having shit for credit and needing expandability to get anything done. I'm stuck on a dual g4 450, and for the price it would take me to buy a processor upgrade (dual 1.25 ghz- JUST SIX HUNDRED BUX!) I could buy a middlish PC with a decent video card.

Oh, and that PC is expandable, has more than two drive bays and one optical bay, and is stupidly cheaper to upgrade in terms of horsepower.

So if OS X on x86 were released and would run native OS X apps without recompiling* at the same speed as a g5 (or faster), yeah. I'd pick one up. I wouldn't completely SWITCH, because I still need Classic, and you can forget about that running on the PC. :P

People like me- Mac users who would jump the hardware boat for a cheaper, faster mac the SECOND they had the CHANCE- are why Apple will NEVER do this. EVER. :|

*It's NeXT. IT. CAN. DO. THIS. Or at least, it could.

I'd switch (1)

penis fish (671987) | about 10 years ago | (#10481728)

I'd switch. What's scary is, this isn't a troll!

Or is it? I don't know. I haven't trolled in a while. I'm too lazy.

Aint ever going to happen (1)

christurkel (520220) | about 10 years ago | (#10481729)

It issn't ever going to happen. Apple makes all their $$$ on their hardware. They have tight control of thier hardware and the OS which makes the seemless integration they enjoy easy.
If it came to x86, you know M$ will stop supporting the Mac. No more Office, which may not affect you but it would affect many people who need it for work.
And if it came to x86, you can bet Apple will still have custom roms to keep you from running windows on it or installing Mac OS X on just any hardware.
In short, it wont happen. Ever.

Macs aren't particularly expensive anymore (5, Insightful)

jralls (537436) | about 10 years ago | (#10481730)

You're out of date. Macs are comparable (the WSJ's Walt Mossberg even claims cheaper) in price/performance to x86 boxes. When you factor in the reduction in neck pain, the lack of truly low-end macs is easily compensated for. OTOH, you can always get a used mac; OSX runs fine on any PPC version. As to your question, one of the main reasons that OSX is able to be so stable and still provide all of the eye-candy is because of a very small HCL. That advantage would be lost by moving to the rather chaotic wintel platform.

Never happen (1)

PhreakMac (622082) | about 10 years ago | (#10481731)

It would never happen, Why would apple allow for vendors to put their OS on some $500 POS??

If it was centrally manageable (2, Interesting)

That_Dan_Guy (589967) | about 10 years ago | (#10481732)

I'm a Windows Admin, and live by Group Policy and remote administration tools under Windows 2000/2003 (NT4 had some stuff, but boy did it suck in comparison). I do not know what equivalent things are available under OS X or even unix/Linux. I've only installed Linux on a hobby basis (shrug).

But if I could manage them at least as well as I can with Group Policy, sure I'd switch.

It would also have to be able to run all the shrink rapped stuff we support.

I used to be a big Mac user, back 12+ years ago. So yeah, I'd love to get back to that. It sure seemed like computers were fun back then. But maybe thats becuase it was just a hobby and not my work :)

I'd Rather Fight Than Switch (1)

Pensacola Tiger (538962) | about 10 years ago | (#10481733)

Actually not. If OSX was available for x86 architecture, I'd switch in a New York minute! But, I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.

full speed of x86 at half the price? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 10 years ago | (#10481736)

Sign me up for Apple!

Joking aside I hate x86 and if you have ever done assembly level programing you can see why it sucks. Its ancient, awkward, very obsolete, etc.

I dont understand why Apple's have to be expensive. Powerpc's are not that expensive and I see a trend to lower the quality and speed of things like their video cards in the most expensive macs.

They are ripping you off to applease shareholders.

IF they are not carefull they may turn the way of SUN and SGI. They just made their equipment proprietary and super expensive while Windows cannibolized their makert with NT/2000.

counterintuitive interface (1, Interesting)

chuckychesthair (576920) | about 10 years ago | (#10481737)

For me, the Mac interface has always been an example of how not to do it. I want my menu's where my program window is, I don't want to drag cd's to the garbage to get them out, I don't want to have programs running after I click to close them.

I seem to be in the minority, but I don't like to work that way. So, unless they port KDE to the x86 OSX port, I won't be using it, no matter how streamlined it all works together.


No (1)

PoiBoy (525770) | about 10 years ago | (#10481738)

While many people like OSX for the easy-to-use GUI, I prefer the simple look of XFCE that I use with Linux.

Don't get me wrong, the OSX interface is very easy to use, even for complete novices.

I just happen to like a very basic, clean interface that allows me to have a few xterms, applixware, and firefox up and running.

Umm... (1)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10481740)

Not going to happen any time soon. _os_named_sized/ [] _200208/ai_ziff30554 []

This [] is about as close as you are going to get. Just google for "Marklar". It'd be nice to see, but Apple makes a nice margin on its hardware, and x86 would destroy it.

Since this is likely a marketing test by Apple (2, Funny)

itsNothing (761293) | about 10 years ago | (#10481741)

Let me contribute my 2 cents.

In a heartbeat.

x86 is the Hummer of the computer world. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481742)

PowerPC is the BMW.

in a heart beat (1)

yaroze32 (689185) | about 10 years ago | (#10481743)

maybe even quicker

I sure would (1)

Zugot (17501) | about 10 years ago | (#10481744)

and I would *pay* for it too.

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481747)


Why switch? (5, Informative)

muyuubyou (621373) | about 10 years ago | (#10481749)

The only "issues" I have with Linux is being forced to use certain windows apps (work mostly and no, I'm not leaving a job I like just so I can delete my windows partition). I also have a Mac and yes, if MacOSX was available, I'd install it, but I wouldn't "switch" - why should I use just one OS?

The whole "switch" thing is for basic users I guess. The rest of us aren't afraid to partition a hard drive.

Be careful how you phrase your questions... (1)

bahamat (187909) | about 10 years ago | (#10481750)

If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?

If you watch the keynote speeches by Jobs at the WWDC and by Schillner at the Apple Expo you'll see that Tiger [] is meant to do just that.

And yes, I already id switch, I'm typing this up on my new 20" iMac G5.

I would consider it... (5, Interesting)

Sanity (1431) | about 10 years ago | (#10481751)

...and that is sad. There is no good reason that free (as in speech) operating systems should not be as good if not better than OSX, but they simply aren't. OSX is great, and Apple has a more open attitude towards their OS than Microsoft, but it is not free (as in beer or speech).

Furthermore, I regret to say that I don't see much prospect of any of the Linux GUI efforts approaching the ease of use and elegance of OS X any time soon - partially due to a lack of imagination, and partially due to being over-wedded to X which is evolving way too slowly and is over-wedded to a basic design that is simply outdated.

Sure (1)

erick99 (743982) | about 10 years ago | (#10481755)

I was a loyal Mac fan from the first "skinny" 128KB mac up to the Mac II (worked for a dealer from '83 to '99). Then Apple got too arrogant for my tastes and Windows was catching up in terms of a decent GUI so I switched to Wintel. However, if OX X worked well within x86 platform I would seriously consider switching. I think the number of people that would switch is not a small number. In fact, I am guessing it is a big enough number to make it worth considering. What I do not know about are any technological hurdles. Does anyone know if this is possible within a cost framework that would allow OS-X86 to be sold at a reasonable price and profit? Surely they have thought about this.

Applications Applications Applications.... (1)

ndfa (71139) | about 10 years ago | (#10481756)

Its not really the OS that matters anymore; I think this is true for more ppl. than others...

For developers using Emacs / Vi the tools on all these are about the same.... If you use Eclipse then you are golden no matter where you go!

The main reason to not get away from Windowz then ends up being for most ppl i think the network effect! Fools keep sending documents in Word / Excel / PPT format that does NOT always work on OpenOffice etc... so what do you do, swithc to windows and keep working!

NOTE: If Apple did get off its high horse and release the OS-X to x86 then we could see M$ being forced to port the software cause of legal reasons which could be great for us!

If hte apps come, hte users will follow!

No apps (4, Insightful)

kundor (757951) | about 10 years ago | (#10481758)

There would be NO APPLICATIONS. Mac programs are compiled for the powerpc architecture, so the binaries wouldn't work. Windows programs wouldn't work except through something like Wine, which won't work any better for Mac than it does for Linux.

The only apps you could use would be source-based unix stuff, which you can use on linux anyway, and many of which won't actually run on OS X without a lot of work first.

So no...I wouldn't switch.

Yes. (1)

sjanich (431789) | about 10 years ago | (#10481760)

Yes I would. Why? Great biz interface when I am in that mode; and unix when I am in that mode.

stepstone towards a new mac? (1)

Barryke (772876) | about 10 years ago | (#10481764)

I would switch, to make myself more comfortable with mac osx and make a bigger switch later on.

I think thats the idea, making people try it, and buying a mac as their new pc.

I for one welcome or apple overlords. They should be able to survive without MS funding. I welcome mac. They are made for no-fuss solutions.

Wil the x86 platform downsize OS-X's features?

Yes, well maybe... (4, Interesting)

bblazer (757395) | about 10 years ago | (#10481765)

For the past several years I have been buying nothing but Apple products for myself, coworkers and family members. I have been willing to pay a higher price for better (more innovative) physical design, less cabling, and an innovative OS. The downside has been limited hardware choices that are generally a few steps behind the curve of x86 machines. That being said, I would seriously consider 'switching' to OS X on a x86 machine if it was produced and supported by Apple and possibly the hardware vendors. At the same time, however, I really like the ever evolving designs that come from Apple. When was that last compelling design change of the ubiquitous x86 desktop or laptop (maybe from Alienware)? So for me to do a pseudo-switch, I would probably also need to see some changes from the hardware vendors (how many cables run across the desk of a typical workstation?). To sum it all up, I think it would be a great thing for Apple to release OS X to the masses. It would certainly send Balmer on another sweaty spin!

Hell no. (1)

Silverlancer (786390) | about 10 years ago | (#10481768)

Hell no. The only reason OSX works so well is because the hardware is made by, guess who, Apple. If they ported it to x86 it would run like crap, be buggy as hell, and even more incompatible than it already is. I'm happy with my no-crashes-for-2-years Windows XP system dualbooted with my stripped-down Debian install, thank you.

Nope. I lke Apple hardware (1)

Whumpsnatz (451594) | about 10 years ago | (#10481771)

I might have considered switching during the desklamp iMac time, but I like the iMac G5. If I buy another machine, it'll probably be another Mac (maybe if my Cube decides to die). I hardly use my PC at all anymore.

MacOSX (1)

Zlib pt (820294) | about 10 years ago | (#10481775)

Why should I ?

The only reason Windows is on my hard drive is because of the games and a few programs I need.

Move to MacOSX?

If I was going to move I would move to Linux. The games would not be there the same, but I would have a far better scalable OS

I'd easily switch. (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | about 10 years ago | (#10481777)

Most apps that I use are actually on Mac already as well as a whole range of apps that are Mac only. The only reason I run XP is because the cost is so much cheaper.

Besides, i'm already using the Apple bluetooth wireless keyboard with XP, so i'm all set into tricking people.

Would Microsoft recompile Office for Mac for x86? (1)

artemis67 (93453) | about 10 years ago | (#10481780)

I doubt it.

Probably not (1)

eric76 (679787) | about 10 years ago | (#10481785)

In my office, I have 9 computers including one MAC OSX machine. The rest are two Linux, three Windows 2000, one Windows NT, and two OpenBSD machines. I use the OSX machine the least of all even though most of the people here only use OSX.

However, if they did come out with an OSX version and I could try it out for free, I'd probably put it on one machine for a while to try it out. But considering the probability that I wouldn't use it much, I doubt that I'd be willing to pay much for a copy just to try it out.

Forget my ignorance (1)

SirLestat (452396) | about 10 years ago | (#10481787)

But what is OS X more than bsd with some theme?

Yes, I'd switch in an instant (1)

The Famous Druid (89404) | about 10 years ago | (#10481789)

I'd definitely switch.

A little over a year ago, Mrs Druid got a mac, in that time I've found myself using the mac more and more, and the windoze box less and less. These days I only use the Windoze box when Mrs Druid is using the mac.

OS X really is a very nice environment, and as a Unix programmer, I like the fact that it's Darwin (a descendant of Free BSD) under all that sugar coating.

BTW - while there's some truth to the claim that Apple desktops are more expensive than a similarly powered PC, have a look at laptop prices. Apples are much more price competitive in that market.

My next laptop will be an iBook !

Yes (1)

Logeaux (811817) | about 10 years ago | (#10481790)

Yes I would switch, howerver I would do a dual boot. Cant let go of those games.

Bring it on! (1)

MsGeek (162936) | about 10 years ago | (#10481794)

I would do it in a heartbeat. Particularly if it was out-of-the-box compatible with Athlon 64. It will never happen...Steve Jobs is not thrilled with x86 architecture, and prefers the cleaner PPC arch. Still, one can definitely dream, can't they?

If they did this, it might be my best chance to run Tiger. Word on the street is that Blue And White (Yosemite) G3s and Yikes G4s will be shut out this time.

What do they need all that "power" for? (5, Interesting)

ShatteredDream (636520) | about 10 years ago | (#10481799)

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people who use their computers for just basic, simple tasks like office functions act like they have this incredible need for powerful hardware. I bought a Compaq Presario with a Sempron 2800, 256MB DDR Ram and a 80GB hdd for only $445 including S&H, and with SuSE 9.1 it does everything I need. It's not a game machine, so uhhh why exactly when it's just going to run Java and C++ programs for class, would I need the latest Athlon64 or Pentium4?

The reason for owning a Mac has never been about power, but utility. Every convert to MacOS X from Windows that I know switched because Macs are actually much more useful in many areas than Windows PCs. The hardest pill for many of them to swallow is that the "Apple way" really is significantly easier and more productive than the "Microsoft way."

The average computer user who could afford one, would actually be much better off with an iMac or iBook than a typical off the shelf PC. It gets the job done, and done well and it is made much better than the usual PC.

If Mac OS X Came to X86, Would Apple Die Off? (1)

VAXGeek (3443) | about 10 years ago | (#10481801)


The money is in the hardware.

Yes (1)

BCW2 (168187) | about 10 years ago | (#10481803)

I have not used an Apple product since the Apple II because there has never been one available to me. I have heard and read many good things about them, but never wanted to pay the heigher price. I would try it out of curiosity, just like when I got a copy of RH 6.2 in 2000. Using Linux ever since.

i would give it a try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481804)

i have become comfortable with Linux, and if OSX was ported to x86 i would try it, maybe even use it full time if it proved better than Linux in multimedia & graphics, i have turned my back on windows and use Linux 100% now, and i keep as eye on distrowatch for new releases, (looking for a user friendly desktop BSD)

just a pipe dream, or is that a port dream lol

sig - anony_mouse_cow_ard

switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481805)

Now with Steve making his money with IPods: what if Steve Jobs gives away for free OS-X for the Intels. Would that ruin Bills day or not?

Believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481806)

In a second. I can't switch to Linux because I need apps like Flash MX for work. But at the same time, the whole Grade-AAA Hardware paradigm that Apple has going on doesn't fit well within my student budget. OS X on x86 would be a wonderful compromise.

baseless statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10481811)

"and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft"

According to what statistics?

FFS! (5, Insightful)

xirtam_work (560625) | about 10 years ago | (#10481812)

drop a few hundred dollars (or pounds) on an eMac. If you find out that you don't like it flog it on ebay - mac's have great resale values. If you find that you do like it flog it on ebay and buy a more powerful model... duh!

there's no chance that apple will release OS X for X86.... and the software developers will not stand for another platform, cpu, os change.

also, the apple mac hardware would get left behind which is where apple make the money. unless of course osx86 was a poor cousin that lacked features or support and why bother in that case.

Would I switch? (1)

MoOsEb0y (2177) | about 10 years ago | (#10481813)

Given Linux binary compatibility (present in BSD already), Definately. There's a lot of little things in Linux that irritate me that BSD has gotten right. Example: Mandatory mixing of /dev/dsp. Not to mention, OS X has one of the sexiest GUIs out there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?