MAC OS!

I think OSX looks really cool. For the first time maybe you can use a Mac and it wont crash because of a memory-related problem. (They do crash, no matter how much ram u put in). If someone makes OSX for PC I will use it (alongside with Win2K for gaming).

Too bad that Apple are so F***ed in the head. When there's finally Graphics hardware available they don't support it. How will they be able to be competative on the gaming market without 3D-cards from 3Dfx and nvidia. The best they can offer now is a 16Mb Rage128. Oh yeah, that really smokes in Quake3.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by F-scape:
I think OSX looks really cool. For the first time maybe you can use a Mac and it wont crash because of a memory-related problem. (They do crash, no matter how much ram u put in). If someone makes OSX for PC I will use it (alongside with Win2K for gaming).

Too bad that Apple are so F***ed in the head. When there's finally Graphics hardware available they don't support it. How will they be able to be competative on the gaming market without 3D-cards from 3Dfx and nvidia. The best they can offer now is a 16Mb Rage128. Oh yeah, that really smokes in Quake3.

---

actually, apple should be porting OsX to the PC shortly. And nVidia will be making the geforce for macs shortly ive heard. It will be interesting to say the least



------------------
Compaq Armada E500
650MHz PIII 128MB RAM
8MB ATI rage mobility
11GB hard drive/DVD
dual booting win98/2k

who said you cant game on a notebook????

ATI radeon is supported too - this is a good card. As to why frame rates suck in apple PC's - a lot of this is due to a poor memory bus and a low bus MHz also - 66 MHz (not sure - but lower than wintel's - ram is slow too). they have apg now, but i think to is not a performer. - thier mobo/chip problems are similar to athlons - great chip/medeocre mobo's.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sandman:
i dont know why i wrote that, i just had the need to, since they have the best monitor!

---

Hey Sandman, do you happen to know if the G3 and G4 are completely compatible (if code written for the G3 will run w/o alteration on a G4)?

I wouldn't mind that 22" plasma monitor myself. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/08/2.gif

------------------
"I don't think so", said Rene Descart. Just then, he disappeared.

BSD = Berkeley Software Distribution

Mac OSX port to PC really shouldn't be that hard. After all, it is running based on a Mach3.0 kernal which already runs on a PC. In fact, since Mach3.0 can usually use linux binaries you might be able to compile in the linux nVidia stuff into the os. Steve Jobs is picking up just where he left off with Next (another Mach based OS). I have never been a Mac proponent but it will certainly be interesting to see what comes of this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zombor:
actually, apple should be porting OsX to the PC shortly. And nVidia will be making the geforce for macs shortly ive heard. It will be interesting to say the least

---

Mach, a unix variant created by the cs gods over at Carnegy Mellon University. Mach is almost interchangable with linux in many respects, in fact, because it can run linux binaries it is possible to compile and use a mach kernal on an existing linux machine...at least to some extent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by llreye:
zombor:

Ditto on the diehard friend, but he didn't mention which Unix variant it used. Do know which Unix variant NeXT is based on? By your open source comment does that mean you use linux and not Windows https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif?

-MKC

---

ive been reading some stuff about macOSX for a while and i now realize that an osX port for the PC will never occur. Sure, it would be easy as all hell to do, but think of the money apple would lose if they did port it to x86: Apple makes almost no money off their OS, they make all their revenue from hardware sales(which is why a full version macos9 is less than a windows upgrage). If they port an os to a more popular system(x86), there would be no point in buying a G4, would there? PC systems are so much cheaper that if someone wanted to use OSX, they would just buy a PC and apple would go down the drain(a happly thought for most of you out there). Damn the busnees world, i wanted to put osX on my system!

------------------
Compaq Armada E500
650MHz PIII 128MB RAM
8MB ATI rage mobility
11GB hard drive/DVD
dual booting win98/2k

who said you cant game on a notebook????

Ah, but what I like most about the open source community is the fact that if it can be done, it will be done. If OSX is as open source as people tell me it is then people will have it running on x86 before long if it is possible. Might turn out to be against the license agreement but that hasn't stopped anyone yet. I think if Apples hardware is really as good as they claim then they should port to x86 themselves and prove it.

Although parts of Mac OS X are open source, not enough of it to port it is: things like Quicktime, Classic and Aqua won't be.

Code written for the G3 is compatible with the G4 except code written using the G4's SIMD Altivec units.
(AFAIK, older PowerPC processors are also software compatible with the G3 and non-Altivec G4)

gaffo: all current desktop Macs (iMacs, G4s, Cube) have a 100MHz FSB and use PC100 RAM, a bit slower than PC133 but not drastically. Hopefully the next mac mobo upgrade will go straight to DDR SDRAM or something similar, and they'll actually have non 500MHz G4s to go on them...


Stoo

[This message has been edited by stoo (edited October 12, 2000).]