Linked by David Adams on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 15:55 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Windows By all early reports, Windows 8 is going to be a good operating system. Microsoft's hegemony may be crumbling in a mobile computing onslaught, but its core empire remains undimmed. However, whereas Windows 7 had three versions, Windows 8 will apparently be ballooning to 9 versions.
Thread beginning with comment 509431
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Morgan,

"After weeks of struggling I finally ended up with a nice fake Mac. Then a little glitch here, a random reboot there, a kernel panic every few days..."

Many people build lin/win systems which don't crash that often. Reputable hardware is fairly reliable. The majority of crashes are caused by faulty software. It's always possible that it's the hardware, but if you bought good components with a correctly spec'ed power supply, then you'd need to have more evidence than MacOS crashing to convince me it's the hardware. What does memtest say?

Yes, I know someone might think that MacOS is reliable on apple hardware, therefor the other hardware must be faulty. But the fact is apple have the benefit of coding for a homogeneous product line and they needn't bother testing their code against a broader hardware base.

"I honestly think Apple was just fine with people trying OS X on their PCs; after all, the hardware is their real revenue stream, the OS is just a hefty selling point."

I think if Apple allowed MacOS on generic hardware then there would be a huge demand for it. Ultimately that would be great for their OS popularity, but bad for their PC products. People buy apple hardware because they want MacOS. Their new OS pricing would have to reflect lost hardware sales. Also, I imagine there's work involved before it'd be ready for generic use.

After killing Psystar though, I doubt this is in the deck. But if they did it then MacOS would be more within my price range; it'd offer a serious contender to the windows desktop monopoly for typical users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Many people build lin/win systems which don't crash that often. Reputable hardware is fairly reliable. The majority of crashes are caused by faulty software. It's always possible that it's the hardware, but if you bought good components with a correctly spec'ed power supply, then you'd need to have more evidence than MacOS crashing to convince me it's the hardware. What does memtest say?


I think you missed my point; the hardware was rock-solid under Windows and GNU/Linux. Mac OS X was specifically designed for the hardware Apple commissioned for it, and having almost-but-not-quite-the-same hardware means having hacked drivers from the various OSX86 sites. Hacked drivers means reboots, hard crashes, and kernel panics. Apple knows this, and I think (as in pure conjecture on my part) that they were willing to look the other way when the individual geek installed OS X on non-Apple hardware purely because they knew it would be a less than stellar experience and therefore push the user towards "real" Macs. They didn't look the other way with Psystar because that company sought to profit from the near-compatibility of OS X on generic PCs.

I think if Apple allowed MacOS on generic hardware then there would be a huge demand for it. Ultimately that would be great for their OS popularity, but bad for their PC products. People buy apple hardware because they want MacOS. Their new OS pricing would have to reflect lost hardware sales. Also, I imagine there's work involved before it'd be ready for generic use.


Exactly. As most people know, they are a hardware and services company, not an OS company. They know they can't support every old PC configuration out there, but if a few hard-nosed geeks want to fuss around with OSX86 (therefore generating buzz and interest in OS X itself) Apple sees potential new customers. Sure, there are a few people who buy the $30 SL or Lion disc with the intention of building a $400 faux Mac for production use, but for every one of those there are a dozen* who might go on to buy the real thing.



*I completely made up that statistic, but it's conceivable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Morgan,

"I think you missed my point; the hardware was rock-solid under Windows and GNU/Linux. Mac OS X was specifically designed for the hardware Apple commissioned for it, and having almost-but-not-quite-the-same hardware means having hacked drivers from the various OSX86 sites."

Oh I see. It's possible apple has an incentive to make OSX less stable on non-apple hardware, but that's pure conjecture, and I hope they wouldn't actually do that.

"They know they can't support every old PC configuration out there, but if a few hard-nosed geeks want to fuss around with OSX86".

I think it would be more than a "few hard-nosed geeks" though. Possibly a very significant proportion of home users would be interested if they were able to pick a mac OS based computer cheaply. Presumably they'd be sold in stores by hardware manufacturers who've certified their compatibility, so there shouldn't be unsupported hardware. I think it would be very popular, but it would risky if apple wanted to remain a "hardware company".

Reply Parent Score: 2