OS X for x86 In the Wild?

I think I'll contemplate this one over a few gin and tonics!

Interesting, but I use windows for a reason.

What is that reason?

Probably because there's still a 10:1 ratio of new Windows games to Mac-compatible games.

But at least now that the future of Apple hardware will now be using a similar platform, this will hopefully give developers less of an excuse to design only for Windows, if the next-gen consoles using PPC isn't enough of a reason.
--
VIA sux 3K club GameCube online

I would love to just see Apple compete with windows in the X86 market. I like playing games but I would rather just install Win98 or 2K as a dual boot to play my games and use the Mac OS for all my other work. I do not know why Apple just won't come out and compete against MS in the X86 Market.

Simply, Microsoft just has much more brute marketing muscle, and wouldn't be opposed to taking a nose dive in profit loss for an extended period of time in order to compete against another company in a business segment it wants.

You also forget that Microsoft has multiple venues of income that it can turn to; so many in fact, it would make Apple's various products and services seem meager by comparison. Where they lose in one venue of market, they could more than make up in another to keep the company afloat.

Apple would have to remain indirect in their competition with Microsoft and under their proverbial radar in order to not get crushed by an extended Microsoft marketing blitz.
--
VIA sux 3K club GameCube online

AKA, lots and lots of $$$$$$. That'll pay for some of the best marketing in the business.

Yeah True, MS is the modern day Mafia...lol

With Apple on the same hardware, using BSD, I think they stand a chance. They support all their server stuff and warranty hardware. Pentium M & Radeon X700 sound just fine to me...

- Sherman

OSX hasn't used a BSD kernel since v10.2. It's moved to a Mach kernel. What does this mean? Google.

-Johnny

Because then their hardware department would be in the crapper. Why pay 2-3x hardware costs when you can simply get an x86 to run the same OS?

Software isn't designed to run on particular hardware, it's designed to run under a particular operating system. The hardware is irrelevant to most programming. Usermode programmers see a virtual machine that is defined by operating system APIs.

I know squat about games programming, but I imagine they're all coding to Direct X version N in the Windows world these days.

If the hardware made any difference, all those Windows games would already be available under Linux, no?
--
back from the shadows again...

Hardware does make a difference tho, because a program that would be designed to run on a PPC processor wouldn't work on an x86.

So, this "port" of OSX to the x86 format, I would have to doubt that it would run any 3rd party programs, like photoshop.

If you saw the WWDC keynote speech, Apple has taken this into consideration.

Xcode 2.1 is now available for developers to being able to compile universal binaries that support PPC and Mactel platforms (the resulting executable will then auto-load the proper codepaths for the platform it's running on).

They are also bundling an emulation-app known as Rosetta for MacTel systems to run PPC apps that are not yet with universal/Intel-supporting versions.
--
VIA sux 3K club GameCube online

Are you a programmer? I am (secpfically, I write cod e to run on LInux). I say that I very very rarely "design" a program to run on any particular hardware - I design it to run on Linux, period.

It's true that I only actually build it for x86. So what? That's not a matter of design. That's a matter of, well, the fact that I only need an x86 version.

If someone needed a Power PC version, and gcc-for-linux supports Power PC, then I'd build a Power PC version. Wouldn't change the design in the slightest.

Likewise, if the Abode dudes want to support OSX-on-x86, they'd likely need to do a Photoshop build-and-test cycle. No need to actualyl write any code.

I think you're confused about the difference between what programmers do and what compilers do. I last cared about "what hardware" in the late '80s, when I was developing a kernel for an embedded OS, and I had to write the hardware initialization code.
--
back from the shadows again...

I'm trying to learn to program....

But, what I was meaning, was: I have tried a program for x86 linux on ppc linux, and it will not run.

I think Apple can produce a DirectX port, Microsoft may support it. As long as you have a WinXP license that is...

Apple's time line is 2006 onward for Intel; 12-18 months doesn't sound unreasonable to emulate Windows (with DirectX 9) through Wine.

- Sherman

I can tell you my reasons.

- My digital camera is not recognized by MacOS 10.3 (haven't tried 10.4 yet, but since the camera is 4 years old I doubt it will work) yet it is recognized automatically by every Windows XP installation. (2000 and 98 with drivers).

- My favorite games do not come with a MacOS version. One of them (Everquest) does, but its development is abandoned and no longer being expanded on. Further more you only have one server to choose from as opposed to 20+ for the Windows version.

I really did seriously considering switching to a Apple computer for a while.... but the lack of many titles in software plus the fact I had to re-buy another license of Microsoft Office (I had just purchased Office XP not that long before) as well as re-purchasing Mac versions of other software I had bought in the last few years made it a financial endeavour beyond my budget. Especially since PC's are so much cheaper.

So I bought a new 2.53 Ghz P4 with 1 Gb of RAM and a 17" TFT screen and all the bells and whistles for about the same price a 900 Mhz G4 i-Mac with 512 Mb was going for at the time. I am still using that very same PC
--
And i'm right. I'm always right, but this time I'm a little more right then I usually am.

Compatibility with my own version of TurboPascal (yes pascal will live on forever), and gaming.

Assume it is true, and tons of people are pirating it and installing it on thier x86 computers. So what? That doesn't make any more software available for OSX then was available before. The only people who really should care are small time developers, who see an interest in developing OSX programs. Apple would probably like that anyways. OSX needs more software, and more developers.

If you want OSX on x86 why dont you just run FreeBSD? I mean cmon, its a shameless copy job. You sure dont see "New FREEBSD-RAPED OS" printed on the OS X box. Anybody with a clue and the ability to read a manual page knows that they are basically identical (minus that architecture dependant stuff) Big suprise they are going to run on intel chips, their OS already supports it with LESS WORK on their part. OK now your crying OSX ISNT BSD, yes it is, they just added their own window manager and its OSX. The very least they can do is publicly credit the hard work of all the bsd devs out there they are using simply because of the license "if you change it, its yours" policy.

Uh, because Unix isn't plug-'n-play?

Is it because OS X actually made using a *nix easy?

Isn't it because some of us (like me) can't stand using the command line? Or a scripting system that doesn't even follow proper programming etiquette?

I guess it couldn't be for that, huh?
--
VIA sux 3K club GameCube online

unix isn't plug-n-play?

ok maybe that's partially correct

neither is windows or the free-bsd base used by OS-X

not at the core, at least

it's all modules... there's a unix/linux plug-n-play madule

there's a free-bsd plug-n-play module

hell, even windows can have plug-n-play removed from it easily, because it's not a core part of the OS, it's a module (a service, whatever)

1) Um ya, BSD is plug and play. it works fine, USBd.

2) its easy enough somebody who comes off of windows 95 can sit down and use it first try. If your one of those AOL tards get your 12 year old daughter to set it up for you.

3) If you dont like command line, when the installer asks you about a gui, scroll down to KDE, or GNOME, or WINDOW MAKER or one of the other 200 window managers (including the clone of OSX) and hit enter. Its better looking than windows or OSX, and easier to use. Your soooo knowledgable about modern unix-like operating systems, i bet you havent ever seen a modern WM.

Please stay on XP and use AOL. Its deffinetly where you belong

•You assume too much. I haven't used AOL in over six years, and if i never see that application again, it will be too soon.
•Since when has *any* OS come with 200 window managers? Since when has anyone needed two hundred window managers? Arguing that any certain GUI "looks" better than another is purely subjective, but I happen to like OSX's Aqua Interface much more than Windows. Of the various Windows XP themes, I happen to like the new Royale theme that was initially made for XP MCE a lot (the stained-glass look of it is rather pleasing ).
•FYI, I have used several versions of Linux - SuSe, RedHat, and so on. SuSE's the only one that actually managed to look "pretty" by any modern standard. RedHat couldn't even understand the RedHat-optimized "rpm" for ATI video cards from ATI's website. Even Intel will not support *nix in any shape or form.
•Last I recall, I haven't been able to make Windows or OS X hang and lock up on a simple set of commands like I have when attempting to write unix scripts on a RedHat server box.
•To date, OS X is still the only *nix-based OS that I have used that hasn't made me wish I never heard of it. After that unix class in college, I wanted to grab the nearest sledgehammer, find that stupid server and send it to the hell it imposed on me. ;):D
--
VIA sux 3K club GameCube online

1) Six years? Where did you go to? AOL Over RoadRunner? No wait, AOL Over SBC DSL. Ya thats it.

2) The ports collection has what now, 10 thousand applications ready to use? No searching downloading and complex config required. "make all install" ~~DONE.

3) BSD IS NO LINUX. DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO. Intel is a HARDWARE MANUFACTURER and they dont care what OS you run.

4) again your comparing that trash redhat to the most stable os on the planet (SEE NETCRAFT UPTIMES IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME)

5) You havent used FreeBSD. And your still an AOL user at heart. You want everything to work with NO THOUGHT on your part. Thats what makes you an aol user permanently. DUUURR I DONT WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT! JUST MAKE IT GO!111. Get off the internet.

So you resort to personal insults because someone would rather things "just work"?

Why shouldn't things *just* work? Why shouldn't I expect an OS to make itself easy for me to use? Why should I expect to have to recompile *anything* or do anything to make something run beyond clicking/double-clicking on an executable or its shortcut/alias?

For that matter, why shouldn't I expect for the scripting API's of a given OS to follow good programming techniques (structure, error-capture, "keep it simple, stupid", logic)? Why is it that I should have to rewrite the same *known working code* into a new script all over again if a previous example of the same worked just fine? Why should a scripting API expect me to be someone that is either inebriated or taking mind-altering hallucinogens to actually understand its nuances (it's a fairly well-known urban legend that the best "scripters" of *nix/Linux are acid takers - at least around here).

It's also pretty hard to really give credibility to an OS when even the most ubiquitous hardware manufacturers (Intel as an example) does not even acknowledge its existence in their support pages. You'll be hard-pressed to find Linux drivers for *any* Intel hardware on Intel's website.

You expect people to just turn over all their habits and replace all their software so quickly because you feel like it? Then shouldn't you be trying to facilitate this process rather than spout out ridiculous insults about another person?

Or have you not ever heard of Murphy's Law? for some people, it's not just a phrase, but a very powerful entity in such a high-gravity procedure as switching to an entirely different operating System. In that case, Microsoft is rather smart in designing their OS versions to be as similar as they are, because it allows for transitions to new versions to be relatively quick, with someone that's already experienced with a prior version to learn the nuances of the next version within a couple of days, or to find a way to configure it to what they're more accustomed to. Apple knows this fairly well, and has kept the design and interface of OS X to be consistent throughout its previous revisions.

The internet would be a much less cruel place if people weren't as narrow-minded as you display yourself to be and realize that some people's needs are simply *not suited well* with certain Operating Systems. Linux/*nix can make a fantastic operating system for a server environment (which is why so many various Tier 1&2 OEMs offer *nix-based servers for sale), but I wouldn't exactly consider it something any Joe Blow could just sit at a desktop to use. When I'm at my desktop, I have a reasonable expectation to be able to just log on and go use whatever software I want to use.

What part of this is so difficult to understand?
--
VIA sux 3K club GameCube online

Really? They support my 2200bg wireless adapter. hmm.

I don't want to intrude upon your holy war but please research a bit before posting information. The IPW2100 and IPW220 are a good example of a major hardware manufacturer aknowlegding the existence of Linux.

»ipw2100.sourceforge.net/
»ipw2200.sourceforge.net/
--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you

Just had to comment on this one.... I reboot my Windows XP about once a month, usually when the updates for Microsoft come up.

Who the hell needs a home machine to have an uptime for 6 months or a year, other then being able to show off and copy/paste your uptime in IRC chatboxes for nerds?

And don't tell me that you run "important" services on it on you "resididential" DSL line, because rebooting takes about 5 minutes, and any business would have a site hosted FOR them on a shared 1 Gbps host somewhere
--
And i'm right. I'm always right, but this time I'm a little more right then I usually am.

Pardon my jumping in here -- you guys seem to be having such a pleasant conversation -- but isn't (5) exactly how computers are supposed to work? Why should the computer or the OS intrude on someone getting their work done (unless you're a developer or a computer enthusiast)? I think a successful computer system should "just work".

I have no idea how a car works (just a basic understanding of engines), but I still drive one. When it breaks, I call my mechanic. What's wrong with that?

Joe Doe has no idea how a computer works, but he still uses one. When it breaks, he calls Customer Support. What's wrong with that?

I want my computer to just work, just as I want my car to just work. My time is more important to getting work done, than tinkering with my OS.
--
less talk, more music

I suggest you take some english lessons before you try and insult anyone.

quote:

---

1) Six years? Where did you go to? AOL Over RoadRunner? No wait, AOL Over SBC DSL. Ya thats it.

---

Get over this obsession with his ISP. It's weak and has no bearing on the points he's making.

quote:

---

2) The ports collection has what now, 10 thousand applications ready to use? No searching downloading and complex config required. "make all install" ~~DONE.

---

Heh, which part of his not liking using command lines did you not get?

quote:

---

BSD IS NO LINUX. DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO

---

No, it's not Linux, but both make heavy use of GNU components. The result is that the end-user experience is similar with the two, regardless of the kernel and other differences.

I love *nix-based OSes for what they are, but you're delusional if you think they're ideal for mainstream users in thir current state.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network

And this is the very reason why Linux/UNIX/BSD will never be the standard of choice in the home market! There is no standard Window Manager.

How can you expect developers to create programs for the mass-market when they have to create it for multiple window managers?

This is where Windows was successful. One API, one Window Manager, one application code-base.

And do not call me a Windows or an AOL junkie, because that is NOT what I am. I host my web site on a Linux server with CPanel as my control panel, but most of my editing, especially script config files, I edited them on the fly using PICO/NANO. I also do much of my file management via the SSH command line, which is so much easier than trying to use the CPanel File Manager.

You don't write for multiple window managers.
Windows does not have one code-base.
For all of the UNIX experience you claim, you don't seem to understand much of it.

Plug & Play is really useful. Heres the Thing, Windows 2000 doesn't really have plug and play. Theres no drivers in it. As logn as you get the software with your crap you're fine.

Windows 2000 doesn't have plug and play???

WTF? You wanna explain how it DOESN'T have plug and play? Serious, I'm real curious cause it detects everything I throw at it. And I'm not doing acid either... lol

I get the feeling that you've never used OSX or FreeBSD. They are nothing alike. The similarities end at the core and 99% of people could care less what runs underneath the GUI interface that they use. OSX just works. You don't need to compile your software, you can go out to CompUSA and buy yourself Mac software, you can't run Photoshop, iTunes, iDVD, or iPhoto on FreeBSD. The reason is that Apple has innovated on top of FreeBSD... hell, you can't even run FreeBSD on PPC boxes. Apple has created excellent API's, a beautiful GUI, and a fluid user experience. I've been using unix & linux for about 10 years and there is no way I'd ever use either as my primary desktop OS.
--
Rest in Peace Hunter S Thompson."There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."

You don't pay for Darwin, the BSD variant (well, actually it's BSD+NeXTStep+Mach+Apple) under the hood, when you get MacOS X, you pay for Aqua, which is to MacOS X what KDE and Gnome (actually QT and GTX+) are to Linux and FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD. Aqua is the User Environment. And it's no small potatoes. It is the first xNIX User Environment that Just Works (tm) rather than requires the occasional foray to the terminal for command line tweakage.

And actually, one of the main developers of FreeBSD, Jordan Hubbard, is now a full time Apple employee, and has been since a few years ago.

If you want to run Darwin, there is a completely F/OSS version of Darwin out there: »developer.apple.com/darwin/
»www.opendarwin.org/

The developer.apple.com site even has Darwin x86, right there, free for the taking. Go right ahead! Apple will even give you the source for it! Add an X11 layer plus a window manager/desktop environment and you have FREE DARWIN ON PC! RIGHT NOW!!!! w00t!

You don't pay for the UNIX under the hood. It's Free/Open Source. You pay for the user environment. That's what makes MacOS X different from any other pay operating system on the planet. And this is a model by which Linux developers can profit from too. Build a better user environment that can be deployed from GNU/Linux, and damn right people will pay for it. People pay for Linspire and Xandros. And they are just half-assed reskinnings of KDE and Debian. Create a user environment that's as good as MacOS X, and people will pay for it. C'mon. I dare you.
--
Online since 1987, thinking different since 1995, Linux-friendly since 1997, Broadband since 1999. Where do I want to go today? Wherever I want!

this isn't true it hasn't leaked i challenge any of you to find it. You won't. All there is available is something called Darwin.
--
Email/MSN: Michael at hardwaregeeks.comAIM: MikeR35292

This could be someone renaming files, but not sure.

The word docs are chinese instructions on how to use mac os on your windows machine via emulation. (old way. there are much better methods now.) the iso images are most likely just regular osx images.

Great way to spread viruses...

Well I know this "guy" that frequents these "sites" and he hasn't seen anything of the sort even on the Mac orientated sites.
--
Close the Borders.»www.reformus.org/

Well, from an interview with Steve Jobs in which the switch was announced, he said that all along the way they built intel versions of OSX, just in case. So we know they exist, however whether or not they have leaked is another matter.

As for Darwin, Darwin is the osx kernel, and there was a x86 version available off the apple site a while ago, I am not sure if it still is, however, it supported very very little hardware, and therefore, was basically useless unless you had a certain chipset motherboard etc, If memory serves me, it was the intel 440 series chipsets (from the early p3's)

I believe I may still have a copy of darwin somewhere, but it was so primitive back then it isn't worth a damn, you would be much better off waiting a year or so for apple to release the newer versions.

Pardon me, I have a commercial emulator for Windows and OS/2 that pretends to be a Intel 440 series, I believe, it was from Connectix and Innotek. Connectix was purchased by MS, and they incorporated the product into Hydra (or whatever they called it).

I think it would be a hoot to run OSX on OS/2, the Mac people have been able to run OS/2 emulated for quite a number of years.....

Please contact me so I can try to load this on one of my machines....
--
»www.Warpstock.org

»www.overclockers.com/tips00793/

should give a little more insight as to what people are whining about with apple going to x86...

I aplaud this. This may not be true but it'd be awesome, and Give me a reason to go Mac. If this happens I might kick Bill Gates in the Nuts by switch to Apple.

"AKA, lots and lots of $$$$$$. That'll pay for some of the best marketing in the business."

Having lots of money to spend on advertising doesn't necessarily mean you are selling a good product to begin with.

Lots of bad products are marketed over radio/TV/press every day. All it means is your company has the ability to brain wash the simple-minded with lots and lots of hype. If you say it long enough people will start to believe it, unfortunately.

I bet most feel those people are real in the commercials that say how much they love "product X" because it does "y" so well. The best commercials at brainwashing are made by AOL who make sure to put a young white couple, a minority, and an elderly person and a child in the commercials. Cover all market segments in one 30 second spot that way.

Wow there's my early morning rant. What was the topic again here?

According to the press release for OS X on x86 from Apple and Intel it is stated that the reason for the change is for performance. This coming from a manufacturer who not too long ago hyped it's newest produce as the fastest on the planet (and we all know how that turned out) It is Apple’s feeling that IBM is not going to get around to making a faster processor for them anytime soon and that Intel has the capability to provide one now. The processor will be specifically manufactured for Apple and will not interchange with any available x86 hardware currently in use. In other words, Apple is making a play for the "my box is faster than yours" debate, feeling that the publics penchant for computers with large megahertz numbers can be tapped by using the Intel Inside logo along with that “Boing Boing Boing Boing” wordless jingle. It is not making its OS available for clone manufacturing and to insure that remains the case, the chip Intel will provide will only work with the Apples made for it. Essentially, Apple is continuing with its philosophy of obsolescing older models in favor new ones with the consumer being left in the lurch. Right off the cuff, this seems like Marketing made a decision that should have been made by Manufacturing. Perhaps Apple should take the time to learn about Focus Groups or perhaps just ask the guy in charge of the local recycling center who has to dispose of all those old Macs strangely thrown out in new Dell boxes. Sooner or later Apple is going to have to compete with the PC market (which is currently located in the real world if they need directions) I can’t imagine that their fan base will exist forever, no matter how fanatical their loyalty or deep their pockets. Now, just for the record, I’m certainly not an expert when it comes to marketing computers or operating systems, I just fix them, so I have no idea what the consumer base that supposedly exists for this product will think, but the important point is, will they spend their money to purchase one. Even more importantly is, will it induce non-Mac users to buy one. I’d have to guess that I’m just not in that demographic because this “news” really isn’t, unless mentioning “Apple” and “x86” in the same paragraph now constitutes news in the computer industry. I would think the discussion should be about the processor Intel will provide and how it will advance Apple’s market position, or at least, what benefit it will be to the user, but I guess that’s just me. Apple really just doesn’t generate that much interest in my book anymore. The advantages Apple once had over a PC, which were commonly touted as “ease of use” or “intuitive user interface” really aren’t there anymore. More recently, the current fact that Macs are less prone to viruses, malware, and the like has been given as a good reason to switch to Apple. That seems a pathetic reason to switch machines not to mention an expensive solution. That’s like winning because the other team forfeited; especially when you know they’ll be back in the game next week to play again. I really don’t have anything against Apple, they just don’t make a product that fits my needs, and that’s really the point isn’t it? To make a product that fits the needs of a consumer so that they BUY it. Maybe, and just maybe mind you, this actually is an intent on Apple’s part. To think about starting. To contemplate making a decision. That would move Apple in a direction. That…That….no, never mind, I lost it.
--
If you can break it,I can fix it.Of course, It'll cost ya'

»img173.echo.cx/my.php?im ··· l5wg.jpg

You can all put your panties back on, it's a confirmed fake. Just a bunch of repeating text, "GNAA". Seemed pretty fishy from the beginning

Looks like Mac OS X got caught

:o

hahahahaha nice

If and when it is out and about, I would imagine that the only video driver in it will be for the Intel graphics chip that ships with the PC model that Apple is distributing along with it to developers. That is going to kill trying to use it on must machines 'til someone hacks a way around that, and I suspect it will not be that easy to do. Probably the same for the Ethernet adapter, wireless, sound card/chip, etc.

thread that does not end...yes it goes on and on, my friend. some people started typing, not knowing what it was, and they'll keep feeding it just because this is the thread that does not end...yes it goes on and on, my friend. some people started typing, not knowing what it was, and they'll keep feeding it just because this is the thread that does not end...yes it goes on and on, my friend. some people started typing, not knowing what it was, and they'll keep feeding it just because this is the thread that does not end...yes it goes on and on, my friend. some people started typing, not knowing what it was, and they'll keep feeding it just because this is the thread that does not end...

I'm guess dks stopped posting at the risk of looking even more like the fucking idiot he is. Lesson learned here? Don't EVER claim you know the truth about something until you've verified it yourself. At the risk, of course, of looking like said idiot above.

It just warms my heart to see these "torrent kiddies" own your sad little ass by doing what you couldn't be asked to do --- open a fucking hex editor and check!

At least the Mac will always have that one game .......................photoshop

Who knows, in another 10 years Quake 2 might come out for it! And if they are real lucky........Diablo I! Just breath taking folks!

Would be quite the breakthrough for them!

Well, if nothing else.........you can say at least one thing about the mac.......and that is > EEP!

HAHAHA! Maybe they will start out by having Intel solder on the chip like they did in the beginning before the mac was upgradable!

Speaking of upgrades, I hear the monkey EEP! plays crystal clear when you add ssomething called "memory" but Mac people wouldn't know what that is becuase they don't know what an upgrade is becuase they have never opened the box, for fear they might wet themselves and have to call Mac suport and ask how to get rid of the wet pants file. Ceratinly ain't any Apple menu options for that!

Ohhh.....yeah! You know it's coming MSMac -- Windows for your MAC -- HAHAHAHA! They might even call it MacMan, becuase end users (mac users - a difference? no!) Like that. And then they will revise it and call it TigerLilly, then upgrade that upgrade and called MountainGoat becuase these are are sooooo cute.......the compuper-pewper has a namey wayeme........adding to the "culture" of the mac.

Speaking of which "culture" it's a Freakin computer! then only culter that is on a Mac is a live one and is most likley an STD at best!

At least the Mac will always have that one game .......................photoshop

Who knows, in another 10 years Quake 2 might come out for it! And if they are real lucky........Diablo I! Just breath taking folks!

Would be quite the breakthrough for them!

Well, if nothing else.........you can say at least one thing about the mac.......and that is > EEP!

HAHAHA! Maybe they will start out by having Intel solder on the chip like they did in the beginning before the mac was upgradable!

Speaking of upgrades, I hear the monkey EEP! plays crystal clear when you add ssomething called "memory" but Mac people wouldn't know what that is becuase they don't know what an upgrade is becuase they have never opened the box, for fear they might wet themselves and have to call Mac suport and ask how to get rid of the wet pants file. Ceratinly ain't any Apple menu options for that!

Ohhh.....yeah! You know it's coming MSMac -- Windows for your MAC -- HAHAHAHA! They might even call it MacMan, becuase end users (mac users - a difference? no!) Like that. And then they will revise it and call it TigerLilly, then upgrade that upgrade and called MountainGoat becuase these are are sooooo cute.......the compuper-pewper has a namey wayeme........adding to the "culture" of the mac.

Speaking of which "culture" it's a Freakin computer! then only culter that is on a Mac is a live one and is most likley an STD at best!

Not only do we have an annoying unix geek posting, now we have an annoying windows user posting. Why don't you all piss off and let the people who these topics actually matter to debate them!!!!

ie: the people who actually use Mac OS X now and know now that they would like to run it on a PC box, and are probably trying to get something going on a PC box now.

We (the above) really don't care what Windows or Linux or FeeBSD users think about it. If you want to bitch about Mac fanatics do it elsewhere, i'm sure there are plenty of other Windows or Linux or FreeBSD users who would love to do this with you. Why would you even be interested in posting on this forum if you're a dedicated windows user.

Bottom line Surely you guys have better things to do in your oh so interesting Windows world and Linux worlds, then get involved in discussions about Macs.

You know you don't care about an OS when you have as little to do with it as posssible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!»i.dslr.net/v2/lite/grey/wink.gif