Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Mar 2006 12:44 UTC, submitted by dhaneshr
Thread beginning with comment 105574
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Which hack do you prefer?
by ApproachingZero on Sat 18th Mar 2006 18:48
in reply to "Which hack do you prefer?"
Windows is designed at Redmond (and supported) to run on a whole mess load of configs versus OSX only runs on specific hardware.
Microsoft doesn't support the hardware, hardware vendors support Windows. There's a big difference there. Microsoft does not write drivers for the gazillion pieces of hardware you can use with Windows, the makers of the hardware do. If OS X were available for any x86 PC, as I firmly believe it will be someday, it will be up to the hardware vendors to write drivers that support OSX. And they will.
RE[2]: Which hack do you prefer?
by Sphinx on Mon 20th Mar 2006 16:41
in reply to "RE: Which hack do you prefer?"




Member since:
2006-01-08
I love MacOSX. That is the seller for me, not the hardware as teh "engineers envisioned it" or anything at all about the hardware. I like the OS. But alas the job I have uses Windows and they will not change at all no matter what it seems. So it's like this, I need Windows for work and want MacOSX for home. Just like MANY MANY people. So is it prefereable to hack up OSX to work on my "beige box" and run Windows on the machine it was supposed to, or is it preferable to run MacOSX on a Mac and a hacked up way of running Windows? Surely it would be the latter, atleast Apple gets a hardware sale in. Also let's face it. Windows is designed at Redmond (and supported) to run on a whole mess load of configs versus OSX only runs on specific hardware. So Windows is more adaptable to running on these machines. Also what I wonder is what kind of support MS offers for this kind of setup. Do they view it as any different than running on any old PC?