Install MAC OS X on Intel PC

I don't have any real probabilities. It's not a huge mind bending guess to say a company which was owned by Apple probably uses a lot of Mac computers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes linux, I like Linux Mint but Ubuntu is the standard.

Of course it only as superior as your computer skills.

We would think that, yet in videos of tours of pixie not one can be spotted! Evidence should defeat assumption.

at a bloated price tag and with a cult attached.

if this was 1980 I could understand this comment, but it clashes so obviously with physical reality today I'm not even going to directly reply to it.

Wow, just wow, going to be honest, if your having these kinds of problems it probably because of you!

Never been a problem I could not trouble shoot on my own. This is what I mean by yuppie-chimps, you need a mac because you can't handle a cheaper general purpose modifiable system like a PC.

My Linux laptop has been going strong for 2 years now and no one tunes it up but me. My hand built (by me) windows gaming desktop has taken all kinds of shit, right now I'm considering going back to a force air cooler and chucking the broken down water cooling system which is left hanging onto it with plastic ties. But aside for it hardware problems from a machine that could probably run circles around your mac and cost only ~$500 in parts off newegg and school purchase $7 win7 os, I have never experience software problems like the ones you claim, never!

Emphasis on "interest", you should have interest, interest is what separates the lazy and apathetic from the survivors and movers of the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think thinking about it is a qualifier for a cult, probably the opposites, cults don't want to you think. You buy apple right?, you can't stand anything else, apple has conditioned you so, cult.

First of all, Modern Windows does not share code with any Windows before Windows NT, Microsoft completely rebuild from scratch their OS with the WinNT series of operating systems. More so the same argument could be made of Apples OS, which worse of all is at its core BSD Unix, which was created in 1977, they could not even make a new OS from scratch but had to modify a licenses version of Unix!

Worse of all Unix and Linux is proof your argument is flawed as despite decades of revisionism have only gotten more stable with a modular plug and chuck philology.

I like the implied appeal to authority there, sure maybe you are an "old software engineers" I know some old software engineers as well and they LOVE terminal commands, it what they were raised with, so I find endearment to a flashy GUI driven OS like Apple OS very out of character for and "old software engineers" (unless your summoning the terminal and loving it). But hey it could happen, my uncle use to work for Apple and still swears by them, drank to much of his own kool-aid we say.

Not really considering that most of the computers that run the world, the majority of mainframes and servers that is, are running Linux and Unix, and not Apple OS Unix mind you! And if it was a conspiracy of capitalism why would they be running Linux?

Yaawn, Appeal to Authority.

Honestly I could give a shit about Bill Gates.

Perhaps your problem is you surrounded your self with like minded farts and senile people? :shrug: Now I'm not a real advocate for Windows but you must accept that most people make do with windows just fine, that for most people it does not freeze up or lose data all the time unless there is a physical hardware problem, and that most of them can find the limited set of commands they want. I personal advocate Linux and love that Droid is taking over the cellphone market, way to go for Linux, Linux can't take over the desktop market because windows monopolizes the best apps, why anyone goes for Apple in the middle I figure is the cult thing: apple has close them in and prevented them from learning anything else, you re-enforce that belief.

Not at all, but if they ever want to get anywhere serious they are going to need to know how it works! I don't need to fuck around to make documents or graphics on Linux, I don't need to fuck around to play games on windows, why should I buy a mac, sell me on it, here is your chance!

 

Maybe because it over priced, maybe because it not compatible with what they need, maybe because they have more aptitude then you, who knows. I have one simply for the games, I use Linux for everything else.

Funny thing XP was based on NT! They completely rewrote the code from scratch for NT and then 2000 and Xp were based on NT, They almost did so again with Vista and its usable progenitor Win7

Not going to argue with that only that Apple is not much better.

yeah so exactly why do you want an mac Again?

I was talking about servers and mainframes, I don't think this argument stands for them. Administrators of such systems aren't bought by "flash" they want something rock stable and waste the least resources. Something Linux stripped of it GUI can easily provide for the corporation appealing price of free.

People pay for all sort of things.

Doesn't mean they are competent.

Not going to argue with that.

Considering the looming energy and water crisis of the world, innovation is the only thing that going to keep are civilization afloat! Also the cellphone industry throws out your whiz-bang feature argument out the window. We lost many industries in the USA not because innovations value went down but because it was much cheaper to innovate here (or anywhere for that matter) and then make those innovations somewhere with a hell of a lot cheaper labor!

 

And money. Lots and lots of money. The inflated prices are the primary reason that I have never considered purchasing a Mac (or an iPhone). For the cost, I could buy two PCs that were each as powerful as a Mac, keep one ultra-stable for work-critical tasks, and use the other one as a hacking sandbox. Or I could buy one at a time, but upgrade my computer twice as often. Supposing I want to build my own boxes and run a free OS on them, I can have three for the cost of a single Mac. Or, one computer and a big-screen TV. Most Apple products are quite simply in a price range that I will not even countenance.

At the end of the day, the differentiating factor between generic PC buyers and generic Apple buyers is whether they are willing to spend double the money for the little design touches - the brushed metal, the shadow effects, the magnetic power connection, etc. I don't buy that the difference is related to technical concerns about reliability or whatever - the bulk of Apple users are not particularly technical and don't think in those terms at all. They're paying big bucks for a sexily-designed status object. The comparison to Mercedes is, again, apt.

The "triumph of marketting" there consists of pricing and vendor competition, note. A world in which Macs were the standard would be a world in which the majority of people can't afford computers (or one in which Macs would look a lot more like windows PCs). Given the very high prices of Apple products, this sort of talk sounds a lot like elitism.

Ever use any Microsoft software other than Windows/Office? My Xbox360 has been rock solid for years now (well, it did have a hardware fault, but they replaced it right away). I expect that Windows phones and the Zune are comparably reliable.

The fact of the matter is that Windows and Office have to do a lot of things that Apple doesn't. QA is an entirely different undertaking when you have an order of magnitude greater market share and product requirements, and also do not control the hardware it's to be used on. It would be an easy matter for Microsoft to do comparable QA to Apple (as the XBox demonstrates) if they were to ditch backwards compatibility and only use proprietary hardware. But that would cost them a huge chunk of market share and greatly inflate the prices of their products - they do it this way because that's what the market wants, mostly.

Not sure how that applies here - Apple's products are the flashy ones.

What success would that be? They did so badly during that time period that we have a specific term for their ongoing failure ("Rust Belt"). The company responsible for your Trans-Am, in particular, began its death spiral in the early 1970's and steadily declined right up until its recent demise.

 

Here is why Macs cost more (only about ~10-15% based on equ. HW components).

Macs are engineered appliances! Not hacked together POS!

I have 4 Macs up and running in my house. A circa 1999 original iMac that is in our family room and used by my the family for light use (web, mail) I also have 2 PowerMac Dual 1.25Ghz MDD that are circa 2003 that are my family server and kids room Macs. And I have an early 2006 Core Duo iMac that is or primary system with 5-4 people logged in most of the time. All still run great (10.4, 10.5, 10.6). The only work needed was a hard drive that failed in my server PowerMac...

You simply can't compare the engineering of a Mac to a PC! The Mac is in a completely different league. As the man said, you get what you pay for!

KRR

 

I got an old Athlon 1200 Mhz from way back in 2001 running Linux downstairs, whats your point?

Complete BS! There both running Intel for crying out load! The very existance of this thread shows how the god dam same the hardware is! All you need to do is buy the same or similar hardware parts of a mac from a 3rd party (which is the same people that Apple gets the parts from!) and then you have a mac!

Aside for hard-drive failures I have not seen many problems with PCs hardware... well except for fans, never buy a motherboard with a fan on it, only the ones with passive heat sinks!

 

ElectricFetus, the very fact that you refer to it as "PC[']s hardware" leads me to believe you don't really know much outside of a few distributions of Linux based operating systems.

Linux, in short, is a kernel which acts as an interface between software and hardware. The layers atop that kernel are referred to as the Operating system. You prefer Ubuntu and Mint...which are essentially the same thing. Both are based on a Debian operating system, in fact Mint is a branch of Ubuntu.

A PC is just a "personal computer", and by strict definitions a Mac computer is a PC.
So what's the difference?

Most modern computer referred to as PC's are created by distributors which collect OEM parts from various sources which were designed to fit wide tolerances... most computer parts found in a PC were designed to work in every PC with exception to an occasional addition or *bonus*.

Apple, on the other hand, engineers every single part of the computer (up until a recent inclusion of Intel on certain models). The parts of the computer are designed to work ONLY with each other, and they are perfectly calibrated to each other in order to optimize the hardware. Mac's for this reason have lower non-induced failure rates.

On top of this is the Operating System.
In the case of Mac and Linux based computers, the same Kernel is used. Windows has its only kernel which was developed independently. Plainly...at the end of the day...there is not much you can do to improve the kernel... that is to say.
Three monolithic kernels are going to perform nearly identically in efficiency.
(http://widefox.pbworks.com/w/page/8042322/Scheduler#TimesliceUniprocessor)
In the case of the Vista kernel vs. the contemporary Linux kernal, the Vista kernel has a more normal efficiency with a higher lower-bound but a lower mean processing efficiency than Linux on standard processes.
I would venture to guess that since Mac is based on a Unix processor...it would have similar results...Windows would be faster.

However that means nothing! As you can see Linux OS' have a lower fail-rate than Windows machines, fewer errors, and less trouble.

You, as a clear noob to working with Linux chose Mint for a reason...that is...the work put into its X11. Usability, ergonomically friendly, etc etc.

Mac put focus into its display systems 15 years ago!!! The result, as Fraggle Rocker has mentioned several times, is a system which acts as an appliance. Its intuitiveness is unparalleled because Mac has been focusing on it longer than ANY OTHER OS IN EXISTENCE TODAY!

At the end of the day....
Mac - Is engineer through and through with a long-time focus on ergonomics, and it shows.
Windows - Is a conscript of several hardware components cluttered into a box with appropriate drivers put in, and an OS which is trying to be everything to everyone.

Linux - Is simply a Kernel which is probably slightly less efficient than its contemporary Windows driver.
Ubuntu / Mint / Debian - Is an Linux for idiots, it doesn't do anything accept replace Windows. It has no relationships to relevant projects like RHEL.
Red Hat based Linux (Centos, Fedora) - Are useful because they allow users to implement projects designed by very large organizations (especially Federal software) to be used by anyone.

You ElectricFetus use the most worthless of all Operating Systems on the market, Linux Mint... and you still won't stop blabbering on about how "PCs are better than macs and Linux is the best".

 

If you think that is all that goes into a computer... then their is no sense discussing it.

KRR

 

Yes, motherboard, ram, CPU, videocard, harddrive, CD/DVD drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse, done computer.

Take for example how easy it is to build a "Hackintosh" like the one described by the threads OP.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now that is buying high quality hardware individually without bulk discount and its still half the price for roughly equal capacity and reliability! Face it Apple got nothing special but shine and flash to sucker in people like you into iCult and buying for twice the price.

 

the above system is powerful, it costs about $1500 in malaysia

 

I could make a computer that can beat the living sh*t out of any make and still remain at 60%-70% the price of said mac without breaking a sweat.

 

I will be ditching this Windows box a job forced me to buy, and returning to whatever Mac has available, at the earliest opportunity.

The concerns about reliability and ease of use are not "technical" - they are a genuine pain in this non-geek's ass. I still have a '94 Powermac in the back room, and when I need reliability and speed but not internet, that's what I use. It has Wordperfect and Excel on it, plus some stats software, and it blows this Windows box away for anything I do except on the net.

It boots faster. It does not crash - not once, since '94, through two software upgrades and seven years on the net. When it was on the web, it picked up no viruses and needed almost nothing in the way of security drag.

My only objection to the newer Macs is their flash, the skool colored cartoon appearance of them and their interface, the pretty pretty. The price is OK, because I know from experience and observation I would be spending that money anyway, only on data recovery and de-worming and little "cards" and extra memory and security upgrades and help with software puzzles and malfunctioning hardware and shlepping the thing to the shop. Blow that for a goat.

It's like buying boots. I care not one whit about ease of modification. You buy cheap ones, you keep buying them, you keep repairing them, you run up minutes on the cell phone to India's finest shoelace advice center, you spend just as much money in the long run and your feet are wet and sore all the time. Because that's what fooling with a computer is, to me - walking around in wet socks. Sure, I can edit a registry. I fucking have to. I begrudge every stinking minute of the process.

 

Dear god what kind of "Windows Boxes" do you use?

Lol, I've seen an old G3 iMac boot up, you couldn't possibly lie anymore blatantly!

I've seen an old G3 iMac, crash, repeatedly.

My linux laptop gets no viruses and has no security.

And I know from experience that if I can save +$1000 by making a PC on what would have been a +$2000 Mac, that money earned. Never needed to spend money on "data recovery" since I build my desktops with RAID 1, haven't had any serious virus problems even on the Windows machine. Also I never brought a computer to a shop, the concept boggles my mind.

Got a pair of $5 barn boots for the last 8 years. Also boot would need to be pretty fancy to have tech support?

Lets see the 5 seconds it takes to call up regedit or $1000, hum, decisions decisions.

 

I can name half a dozen things I can do on a windows computer that you can't even dream of being able to do.

Interesting note on keyboards. Did you know that the original designer actually designed it to be as innefficient as possible? Think about where exactly the keys are. Some of the most seldom used keys are right at the 'prime' spots. ie, j;f;g;h;k;l;d. And the vowelas are all located at the edge of the keyboard other than 'y' and 'u' which are both infrequent.

 

Aaah the QWERTY myth, in competition Dvorak and QWERT with professional typist tie in typing speed, so no matter the origins QWERTY is no worse then Dvorak.

 

If you can afford the sticker price and prefer a Mac, well, more power to you. I personally don't see the value.

Since when is that exclusive of something being "technical?" Those are primary aspects of how a machine operates and interacts with a user - and so, explicitly technical - as opposed to how shiny the metal is, or how fancy the reflections on screen icons, or how much social cache the brand has.

And I've really never gotten the whole "ease of use" argument. I find Macs substantially harder to use. This seems to be because I am used to environments where I can easily rip the hood open and do things directly (Linux, Windows), while Mac forces me to go and figure out what collection of convoluted methods were designed into the system to do what I want to do. That latter approach is preferable if you are a vanilla user, using standard applications that the system has been designed around. But I'm as much a developer and power-user, and so that sort of thing just frustrates me and slows me down.

And the Mac approach is definitely the right one for embedded devices. Given the convergence of computing and telecomm technologies, we're getting very close to the point where nobody besides developers and power-users will have any reason to have a desktop computer at all. And to that, I note recent rumors that upcoming Mac laptops will have an OS that is more of an inflated version of iOS (the iPhone/iPad OS) than MACOS - anyone know more about this?

Speaking as someone who spent a lot of late nights on mid-90's vintage Powermacs (because such was mandated institutionally, as it happens), I do not share your outlook. A Mac that is used carefully by a single user who does nothing but vanilla applications may well last a long time without a hiccup. A Mac that is used by a variety of users for a variety of tasks, on the other hand, quickly becomes a boondoggle, and one that is nigh-impossible to address on one's own.

It was exactly my experiences with exactly the models of Macs that you recommend that led me to swear off of them permanently. In the end, our years of wrangling the things, consulting every Mac wizard we knew, reinstalling everything, etc. were solved by scrounging together about $200 to assemble a FrankenPC out of second-hand parts. Sure, that one had plenty of hiccups, but they were never anything we couldn't remedy ourselves in short order. And so we actually got work done, instead of spending long nights ineffectually screaming obscenities at a CRT. Those Powermacs would refuse to even boot, half of the time (literally: we had two, and it was a rare day that we could manage to log in to more than one at a time).

This is an area where my experiences again are at considerable variance with yours. Although, to be fair, the first thing I do when I get a new PC is to strip out all of the bloated garbage that the OEMs load onto it (and which I don't think should be counted as faults of Windows or Microsoft - it's all the garbage that Dell or whoever includes that is the real drag on boot times). And many of my experiences with Macs have been on machines that were similarly laden with extraneous crap by the large pool of users that had access to them, and so took ages to boot (supposing they'd boot at all).

But Windows generally has come quite a ways in boot time in recent iterations - my Windows 7 machine (which is admittedly pretty stripped) boots faster than any I've ever used - something like 40 seconds from pressing the button to an idle desktop.

Again, my experiences with mid-90's vintage PowerPCs were at considerable variance with that. Lost count of how many times I power-cycled those things - and they never returned to robust functionality, no matter what lengths we went to. PCs go slightly wrong all the time, but it's a fairly simple matter to bring them back in line (or just ignore the issue). Macs may take more pushing to go wrong, but once they do it's all over with.

Using an OS that is so marginal as to be beneath the interest of malware authors does have that particular advantage (although my understanding is that MACOS is less and less privileged in this sense, in recent years).

That said, my experience as a Windows user has led me to the point where I don't bother with the anti-virus stuff in general. Easier to just avoid doing stupid things like frequenting pirate sites, opening forwards from strangers, etc. The occasional blast with ComboFix seems to take care of my needs - although that approach is obviously not going to work in a business setting (my work machine has the usual always-on virus scanners - but the same is true of MACOS).

Well, pay what meets your expectations. I'll just say that I don't share them. And, actually, avoiding the need to take the thing into a shop for maintenance is a primary reason for me avoiding a Mac - those things are not nearly so user-serviceable as a PC. If you expect that it won't ever need service, then, sure, that's an advantage.

But that's not something I'd bet on, and it's worth remembering that ease of user-serviceability also works out to ease of user-upgradability (which matters a lot for me personally). I have never once needed to take any of my PCs anywhere for repairs - been able to keep all of them running smoothly myself (with a few pointers from knowledgeable friends). Meanwhile, I don't know any Mac owners that haven't had to take their machines into the shop for repairs at some point.

Also there is no shortage of security updates required to keep a Mac current and safe these days. That's just modern operating system/security for you.

I'd say that buying a car is a better comparison - you're guaranteed that the thing is going to need service regularly, the question is what terms that's going to be on. Also, given the pace of Moore's law, I view a certain amount of frequent re-purchasing as desirable (this also makes the boot analogy bad - boot performance doesn't double every 18 months, and so longevity is the same thing as quality/performance in that market). This is exactly why I build my own PCs, so I can throw in the latest components as desired, without having to pay for another DVD drive, power supply, case, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, video card, operating system, etc. Once the initial system has been set up, I can keep it cutting-edge for under $100 a year on average. I'd be going well over a decade between system refreshes if I spent that budget on Macs - which is totally unacceptable (especially for a MACOS machine, given their attitude towards backwards compatibility and legacy support).

But, again, my experience doesn't align with the characterizations of PC user experience. I haven't any real complaints about the reliability or longevity of my Windows systems in recent years.

I have had to edit a registry in many years, although I have done so by choice, in order to customize certain things for fun. But apparently most people still haven't heard of CCleaner? I've been saying that Microsoft ought to just buy them out and bundle that utility into Windows for years now...

Wait, on second thought, I did have to do some mucking about in the registry in order to install an older version of Visual Studio than I already had. And as far as that goes, I find the hamfisted jackassery that is compatability breaks between Visual Studio versions to be the most damning indictment of Microsoft, far and away worse than anything to do with Windows per se. I mean, this is a product that Microsoft is marketting to developers and other power users, for the purpose of creating all the software for the system, and they can't seem to avoid totally breaking compatibility every other year AND making it impossible to install appropriate legacy versions to work around that. It's to the point where serious developers don't even consider upgrading to the latest versions unless absolutely necessary, since it means re-doing everything they've worked on. Total facepalm nonsense, there...