Anyone used OSX on PC yet?

M

mancombseepgood

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
9,351
Reaction score
2
Location
.
I have thought of trying PearPC or something else if there is something else, that is...
Anyone else successfully emulated Mac and installed OSX on a PC yet?
 
Onepostwonder said:
I have thought of trying PearPC or something else if there is something else, that is...
Anyone else successfully emulated Mac and installed OSX on a PC yet?
Click to expand...

PearPC = snake oil as far as I know. I've not come across a single positive article about the product.
 
Interesting

martin said:
PearPC = snake oil as far as I know. I've not come across a single positive article about the product.
Click to expand...


I kind of agree - I think it is a nice idea that hasn't worked out yet. Just wondering why... guess the hardware emulation is a bit heavy - I hear it's slooooow. But they what should one expect... trying to do what a Mac does (especially visually) with the `raw power' of a PC :D
 
ummm Macs run core duo, so does pc ??

Anyway, why would you possibly want to run that disgusting operating system on a PC? I could understand Windows on a Mac, but OSX on a PC?

Rather go for a proper Unix based OS, like Ubuntu.
 
Well there have been quite a few articles on the net abouthow to "hack" OSX to install it on a "normal" X86 PC. I mean technically it is no different to a Mac nowadays, so there cant be that much stopping you from using it.
 
CPU is only part of the equasion... and core duo is fairly new at that.
As for which is better, the only reason I use XP is cos I have to - M$ have marketed their PC like a hoe and everyone has just followed. Of course PC open architechture added to it, but admit it - OSX just looks better. Just google for the number of Windozw tools to make your PC look like OSX...
OSX= Cinderella
Windoze= Phunderella
 
Last edited:
well I am qutie sure that it has been done without emulation. I have even heard of ppl running OSX on Athlons.. The problem is getting through the protction that Apple has implemented to stop people from installing it on "non-apple" hardware...
 
Onepostwonder said:
CPU is only part of the equasion... and core duo is fairly new at that.
As for which is better, the only reason I use XP is cos I have to - M$ have marketed their PC like a hoe and everyone has just followed. Of course PC open architechture added to it, but admit it - OSX just looks better. Just google for the number of Windozw tools to make your PC look like OSX...
OSX= Cinderella
Windoze= Phunderella
Click to expand...

Agreed that the CPU is only part of the equasion, but Apples and PC's run virtually identical hard ware in almost eveyway, in fact it's the same CPU's same RAM, same graphics cards, same hard disks and optical devices... infact the only component that really differes greatly is the motherboard chipset... even the CPU:Memory interfaces etc. are the same with the new systems.

Trust me, I am no big fan of Windows myself, in fact it's pathetically awkward and can be most annoying, especially the whole applications stealing focus thing.

But at the same time, OSX may look nice, but I find it close to impossible to actually attain any level of productivity on it... unless I open terminal :p

I have dabbled with Vista... it's much better than XP, basically making windows look almost as visually apealing as OSX, but at the end of the day MS is starting to make the same mistakes as Apple by making the interface too user friendly, which kills any productivity, as it's so much more difficult to figure out what has gone wrong when it inevitively does.

In Vista the dialup internet manager is so pathetic, it doesn't even tell you why the internet connection could not be established [I like knowing if I typed the password in wrong, or the remote computer did not respond or whatever]. :eek:
 
martin said:
PearPC = snake oil as far as I know. I've not come across a single positive article about the product.
Click to expand...
It is now just pointless. OSX runs on exactly the same hardware as a PC.
 
mic_y said:
The problem is getting through the protction that Apple has implemented to stop people from installing it on "non-apple" hardware...
Click to expand...
That protection is the only major stumbling block.

However if I am going to run both I'd rather run Windows on a Mac because it takes less of my time to get it to work.
 
WELL MAC IS NO BETTER THAN A PC NOW :)

used to be different now its just an expensive PC

imagine the nice pc you could buy with the money for an entry level mac?
 
Carlhead said:
infact the only component that really differes greatly is the motherboard chipset... QUOTE]

Well if running an Intel proc, the chipset can be identical. Not 100% sure what chipset the macs run but AFAIK it is the 965. So now it is just the mobo design that changes...
Click to expand...
 
Carlhead said:
Rather go for a proper Unix based OS, like Ubuntu.
Click to expand...
Oh please - dont compare that buggy linux crap to the highly refined OsX.
killadoob said:
WELL MAC IS NO BETTER THAN A PC NOW :)

used to be different now its just an expensive PC

imagine the nice pc you could buy with the money for an entry level mac?
Click to expand...
But then you can use the same argument for people who buy Dells or similar high end brands. Not everyone has the skill to build there own or even pick a decent budget PC. They still go for the name. With a mac you're assured of quality - and these days you're not paying a premium over the PC counterparts. In fact sometimes you're paying less.
 
Last edited:
bwana v.17 said:
Oh please - dont compare that buggy linux crap to the highly refined OsX.But then you can use the same argument for people who buy Dells or similar high end brands. Not everyone has the skill to build there own or even pick a decent budget PC. They still go for the name. With a mac you're assured of quality - and these days you're not paying a premium over the PC counterparts. In fact sometimes you're paying less.
Click to expand...

That's flawed because a high spec Dell is naught more expencive than the same spec custom built machine... maybe a R1 - R1.5k variance, depending on the Dell warantee.

I still don't see how Mac users think Mac's are ever cheaper than similarly spec'd PC's, esp in the laptop arena?
 
Carlhead said:
That's flawed because a high spec Dell is naught more expencive than the same spec custom built machine... maybe a R1 - R1.5k variance, depending on the Dell warantee.

I still don't see how Mac users think Mac's are ever cheaper than similarly spec'd PC's, esp in the laptop arena?
Click to expand...
Mac user think they're cheaper because they are -
http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php?lsrc=mwtoprss
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33576

Laptops are comparable and in reality they sure do last longer - we've bought enough of each to see that quite clearly.
 
killadoob : What?! Just because Macs dont use PowerPC prcessors anymore, you dont think they are supperior anymore? What has always made Macs supperior is their inovative build and integration between OS and hardware. And OS X
 
Last edited:
bwana v.17 said:
Mac user think they're cheaper because they are -
http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php?lsrc=mwtoprss
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33576

Laptops are comparable and in reality they sure do last longer - we've bought enough of each to see that quite clearly.
Click to expand...

Ummm, those are Xeons??? Not Core Duos :eek: Unless of course the Apples use the Dual Core Xeon chips?? I'm not sure.

I haven't doen a compairson myself, but I'm pretty certian if you put a PC Core Duo and a Mac Book Pro next to each other (with the same specs). The PC would be far cheaper.

You can't compare Apples with Xeons, it makes no sence :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X