Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Mar 2006 18:40 UTC, submitted by Varg Vikernes
Apple Dan Kusnetzky, Apple program vice president, spoke to PC Pro News at IDC and said that Apple has no plans to support booting into Vista on the new Intel Macs. However, a Microsoft spokesman said that Microsoft would have no problem granting a Windows licence to Apple, in exactly the same way it currently provides licences to Dell and HP: "Microsoft would support Apple the same way it supports every other PC manufacturer." But Dan Kusnetzky said it would be difficult to know who would support that machine if Windows was running on a Mac. However, "no doubt someone will work out how to run Windows on the Mac, even if Apple doesn't technically support that."
Thread beginning with comment 103707
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I believe the OS X kernel is very efficient. I'm horrible with operating systems; I can crash them easily, and when I'm messing around with Linux I usually mess it up so I can't boot X anymore.

I have to reinstall Windows XP every six months because it slows down, and just generally becomes unstable. I used to have an iBook, and man no matter what I did I just couldn't screw up OS X. After a year the system was still working wonderfully.

I think Apple is just fine and dandy sticking with present OSX kernel. If these were the OS 9 days, then maybe I could see your argument, but saying that Apple should use the Vista kernel with OSX being so stable and mature now is just crazy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ma_d Member since:

No, the OS X kernel is very innefficient. It's a micro-kernel. It's an elegant, debuggable, modular, beautiful, slow solution.

I imagine Windows kernel is fairly efficient, although I think the massive amount of code dedicated to UI responsiveness may make it a lot less efficient, but that's a sacrific intentionally for responsiveness at the cost of throughput.

Linux is efficient. I'm sure most BSD kernels are efficient.

Apple should probably stick with their kernel, but if they did move it'd be idiotic to license the kernel from Microsoft. That'd simply be financially stupid (waste of money). It'd be strategically dangerous (depending on Microsoft, a competitor). And it'd be ignorant, of the other two kernels more suited to your present system.

OS X on top of NT would be nuts. OS X on top of OpenBSD's kernel might make a shred of sense though. But OS X on (is it mach?) where it's at now is a working solution and I don't think I've heard about many kernel security issues yet!

Reply Parent Score: 1

lanjoe9 Member since:

[QUOTE]OS X on top of OpenBSD's kernel might make a shred of sense though. But OS X on (is it mach?)[/QUOTE]

OS X is already on top of the FreeBSD Kernel.

[QUOTE] It'd be strategically dangerous (depending on Microsoft, a competitor)[/QUOTE]
AFAIK, Microsoft has some money inside Apple. I have never ever been able to understand how this exactly work, but I've read from reputable sources that Microsoft indeed does have some money inside apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1

situation Member since:

So you're trying to say that because you can cause Linux to not boot X the kernel is somehow ineffecient? I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a clear concept of what the kernel does or what would make it ineffecient (and yes, the OS X kernel is ineffecient imho).

Reply Parent Score: 2

Jimmy Member since:

I stated that I believe the kernel is efficient, and ended that statement with a period. The following did not relate to that statement at all. If I was continuing that statement, I would have used something called a semicolon. I'm sorry but I don't think you have a clear concept of how English grammar works.

Reply Parent Score: 1