Running OSX (or Leopard) on a PC

[vonfeldt7]

Yeah, I have been encoding a DVD, and batching some pics at the same time, no big problem... I think the problem is that you guys are probably trying to run it on old Semprons or A64's.

Has it ever crashed on your C2D? Aero is always on here...

I agree....Vista has never crashed on me...as long as you have a decent computer you should be fine.....Most people are just stupid and don't know what they're talking about when they say "like omg vista sucks lolz" (Not all people....but most of them)

Also, thanks to the guy who said to look for the patched Mac OS....that actually is against forum rules, but you did help me so....thanks lol.

 

[tlarkin]

Vista's never crashed on me.. What are you running it on?

when i first installed vista business on my work machine it wiped out my xp volume with out giving me an option for dual boot. so i loaded virtual PC on it and used it for virtual machines. The performance was poor (I had 3 gigs of RAM) and support in general was lacking. A lot of older Apps would not run, lots of applications crashed. It overall does not run any faster and hogs more resources so I stopped using it.

 

[vonfeldt7]

hmmm^^^ I have 2 gigs of ram and it runs fine...the only time apps ever crash is when its my fault....

One thing I want to "complain" about though...is the fact that "aero" isnt all that great....i mean cmon ubuntu has some REALLY kickass effects, and its free! Get with it M$!

 

[INTELCRAZY]

hmmm^^^ I have 2 gigs of ram and it runs fine...the only time apps ever crash is when its my fault....

One thing I want to "complain" about though...is the fact that "aero" isnt all that great....i mean cmon ubuntu has some REALLY kickass effects, and its free! Get with it M$!

Like Beryl? Beryl is awesome...

when i first installed vista business on my work machine it wiped out my xp volume with out giving me an option for dual boot. so i loaded virtual PC on it and used it for virtual machines. The performance was poor (I had 3 gigs of RAM) and support in general was lacking. A lot of older Apps would not run, lots of applications crashed. It overall does not run any faster and hogs more resources so I stopped using it.

RAM doesn't mean for jackcrap if you don't have the CPU to front, you know that as well as I do...

In reference to an earlier post by someone else, WHO on earth runs torrents, CS3, video editing, and a game at the same time? That is like trying to get a Honda Civic to pull an RV, it's just that dumb. Vista was NEVER meant for single cores, if it was, it would have been here before 2007 So, basically a Xp->Vista upgrade is useless...

 

[tlarkin]

Like Beryl? Beryl is awesome...



RAM doesn't mean for jackcrap if you don't have the CPU to front, you know that as well as I do...

No, its not just about CPU power either. I was running an AMD 3600+ with vista which supersedes the minimum requirement. Today, it is really all about RAM. Especially with vista. Vista preloads everything into memory, and utilizes a lot of your RAM. Virtual machines take very little CPU usage, but require a chunk of dedicated RAM that only that virtual machine can use. CPU is definitely important, but it really just depends on what you are doing. You can have the most powerful CPU of all time, but if you only have 512mb of memory you won't be running vista that well at all regardless of how high end of a CPU you have.

In reference to an earlier post by someone else, WHO on earth runs torrents, CS3, video editing, and a game at the same time? That is like trying to get a Honda Civic to pull an RV, it's just that dumb. Vista was NEVER meant for single cores, if it was, it would have been here before 2007 So, basically a Xp->Vista upgrade is useless...

Vista was meant to be a lot of things. Where is the EFI support? Eh? Where are all the new features? Really, the only benefit the end user gets from vista is a flashy new interface. Every other feature is geared towards IT/Tech people. There are more tools to find out why your system crashed than in any other OS in Vista. Microsoft just had the wrong approach. They tried to compete with how slick OS X looked, and how it utilized open GL, etc. Instead they should have been thinking about adding intuitive features to their OS to make it a better experience for the end user.

Look at Leopard...I just installed it this week on my Macbook Pro. I have had no crashes, and so far only one application of mine doesn't work. Casper Admin utility doesn't quite run right in Leopard. Look at the features they added for the end user. Space, multiple desktop support built into the OS for the productive user who does a lot at once. Time Machine - nearly 80% of users do not back up their data. Apple made a simple and intuitive way for people to back up their data to an AES 128bit encrypted sparse image file. So now maybe 50% of computer users may start backing up their data on regular basis, and that is a good thing. Spotlight, with quick search indexing. This allows users to instantly find things.

I am not saying Vista doesn't offer nice features, I am sure I could list all the nice new features you get, but they aren't taking the approach of adding intuitive new features for the end user. You also have to take into account your average user is your average user. They don't know how to write a cron job with rsync to automate back ups over a network, let alone even have a network. However, time machine is click, drop, and drag, so it is way easy for the user to back up their data.

I love it when people try to say mac users are dumb because of how simple the OS is. Really they are smarter, because it is more efficient, easy to use, and it just simply works. Also, under the hood is bonafied Unix. So you can do very advanced things from the command line. You can use robust scripting languages, and you can pick apart the contents of applications and adjust them to your needs. Trust me, OS X is way more advanced under the hood. Windows has been promising self contained apps for how long now? XP with SP 2 is solid. In fact I am typing this on my Xp machine as we speak. There is no benefit from running vista at all over XP because it doesn't offer any deal breaking feature, not even to the most advanced power user to your grandma who barely knows how to use email.

 

[INTELCRAZY]

No, its not just about CPU power either. I was running an AMD 3600+ with vista which supersedes the minimum requirement. Today, it is really all about RAM. Especially with vista. Vista preloads everything into memory, and utilizes a lot of your RAM. Virtual machines take very little CPU usage, but require a chunk of dedicated RAM that only that virtual machine can use. CPU is definitely important, but it really just depends on what you are doing. You can have the most powerful CPU of all time, but if you only have 512mb of memory you won't be running vista that well at all regardless of how high end of a CPU you have.



Vista was meant to be a lot of things. Where is the EFI support? Eh? Where are all the new features? Really, the only benefit the end user gets from vista is a flashy new interface. Every other feature is geared towards IT/Tech people. There are more tools to find out why your system crashed than in any other OS in Vista. Microsoft just had the wrong approach. They tried to compete with how slick OS X looked, and how it utilized open GL, etc. Instead they should have been thinking about adding intuitive features to their OS to make it a better experience for the end user.

Look at Leopard...I just installed it this week on my Macbook Pro. I have had no crashes, and so far only one application of mine doesn't work. Casper Admin utility doesn't quite run right in Leopard. Look at the features they added for the end user. Space, multiple desktop support built into the OS for the productive user who does a lot at once. Time Machine - nearly 80% of users do not back up their data. Apple made a simple and intuitive way for people to back up their data to an AES 128bit encrypted sparse image file. So now maybe 50% of computer users may start backing up their data on regular basis, and that is a good thing. Spotlight, with quick search indexing. This allows users to instantly find things.

I am not saying Vista doesn't offer nice features, I am sure I could list all the nice new features you get, but they aren't taking the approach of adding intuitive new features for the end user. You also have to take into account your average user is your average user. They don't know how to write a cron job with rsync to automate back ups over a network, let alone even have a network. However, time machine is click, drop, and drag, so it is way easy for the user to back up their data.

I love it when people try to say mac users are dumb because of how simple the OS is. Really they are smarter, because it is more efficient, easy to use, and it just simply works. Also, under the hood is bonafied Unix. So you can do very advanced things from the command line. You can use robust scripting languages, and you can pick apart the contents of applications and adjust them to your needs. Trust me, OS X is way more advanced under the hood. Windows has been promising self contained apps for how long now? XP with SP 2 is solid. In fact I am typing this on my Xp machine as we speak. There is no benefit from running vista at all over XP because it doesn't offer any deal breaking feature, not even to the most advanced power user to your grandma who barely knows how to use email.

Funny thing is this.. I don't run 3 or 4 intensive tasks at once, and I don't have Semprons, A64's(non X2), or CPU's below Core architecture running Vista, I have never had a problem with it either. You ppl that complain about Vista all the time are running processors that come from 4 yr's ago. I have more than a few ppl who will agree with this, too. You don't run today's games on a 386 or 486, do you? That is basically what you are trying to say...

BTW, I like Mac as well as PC, Linux is good, too. Ppl that dislike any of the OS types, have never used them, had a bad experience, or just to stuck-up and lazy to try something different.

 

[tlarkin]

Well, you can get a G4 867Mhz Mac to run Leopard which was just released, and it actually runs it well considering that machine would have come out in like 2002ish, possibly earlier. Try to even run Vista on a 5 year old computer. MS codes their OS in a sloppy manner because they don't go off any particular platform, they just provide needed specs to run. I mean, the quality control goes down a lot. I think MS should set a set of standards that hardware companies have to meet, and if they do they can have the MS stamp of approval for meeting their specifications. That would increase the quality control and perhaps lower the required hardware to run the OS. The companies that don't meet those specific set of standards don't get the seal of approval and you can run them at your own risk.

Vista is just crappy coded, and they decided instead of improving their code they are just going to require higher hardware specs because they want everything to run in memory.

 

[INTELCRAZY]

Well, you can get a G4 867Mhz Mac to run Leopard which was just released, and it actually runs it well considering that machine would have come out in like 2002ish, possibly earlier. Try to even run Vista on a 5 year old computer. MS codes their OS in a sloppy manner because they don't go off any particular platform, they just provide needed specs to run. I mean, the quality control goes down a lot. I think MS should set a set of standards that hardware companies have to meet, and if they do they can have the MS stamp of approval for meeting their specifications. That would increase the quality control and perhaps lower the required hardware to run the OS. The companies that don't meet those specific set of standards don't get the seal of approval and you can run them at your own risk.

Vista is just crappy coded, and they decided instead of improving their code they are just going to require higher hardware specs because they want everything to run in memory.

This isn't a Mac vs. PC argument, I am going straight to the point, the only reason Vista crashes on some ppl is because they run shit for hardware. BTW, the G4's sucked arse, I have used one that has maybe 2Gb of RAM and it is still slower than crap, it freezes while running FF only, this one was top-of-line when it was bought. MS should warn ppl that use 4yr old hardware, too.

 

[tlarkin]

This isn't a Mac vs. PC argument, I am going straight to the point, the only reason Vista crashes on some ppl is because they run shit for hardware. BTW, the G4's sucked arse, I have used one that has maybe 2Gb of RAM and it is still slower than crap, it freezes while running FF only, this one was top-of-line when it was bought. MS should warn ppl that use 4yr old hardware, too.

It must be your configuration or a hardware issue. My G4 dual 500Mhz machine runs tiger at a pretty fast speed, and my G4 MDD dual 1.25 GHz machine runs Leopard pretty quickly too. You must have something wrong with your Mac, or you need to run some maintenance.

It is a Mac Vs PC argument when you bring up the fact that people are forced to upgrade for new OSes where as an Apple computer lasts for years. Which is why their resale value is so high compared to a PC.

 

[INTELCRAZY]

It must be your configuration or a hardware issue. My G4 dual 500Mhz machine runs tiger at a pretty fast speed, and my G4 MDD dual 1.25 GHz machine runs Leopard pretty quickly too. You must have something wrong with your Mac, or you need to run some maintenance.

It is a Mac Vs PC argument when you bring up the fact that people are forced to upgrade for new OSes where as an Apple computer lasts for years. Which is why their resale value is so high compared to a PC.

Not with a PowerPC Processor, absolute junk IMO, and mainly why they are hardly used today.... Intel Mac FTW! Oh, and how was this turned into a Mac vs. PC debate? I was simply saying that you shouldn't complain about Vista if you are running it on something with no power. That's like arguing with physics, you just lose every time. As I said earlier, a Civic doesn't pull an RV so, you get a Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins Turbo diesel.

 

[Lord Of The Ming]

Is it possible to run Leopard on a PC inside VMWare Studio? Or do you actually have to dual boot?

 

[tlarkin]

Is it possible to run Leopard on a PC inside VMWare Studio? Or do you actually have to dual boot?

No, it is only possible (legally) to run OS X unless it is on an Apple branded computer. Macs use newer technology than PCs do. They use EFI (extensible firmware interface) where as PCs still use a BIOS. Boot camp translates legacy support to windows OS so you can run it on a Mac. Vista was suppose to have like 15 or 20 extra features that MS had to drop because they were taking too long to perfect, EFI support was one of the major ones they dropped. They said it may come out with a service pack or it may not. Or it may come out in 2009 when Vienna is released.

A virtual machine may be possible, but it would have to be hacked around the TPM, which is illegal.

 

[tlarkin]

Not with a PowerPC Processor, absolute junk IMO, and mainly why they are hardly used today.... Intel Mac FTW! Oh, and how was this turned into a Mac vs. PC debate? I was simply saying that you shouldn't complain about Vista if you are running it on something with no power. That's like arguing with physics, you just lose every time. As I said earlier, a Civic doesn't pull an RV so, you get a Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins Turbo diesel.

No, you compared to running vista on a Core 2 Duo machine versus a 4 or 5 year old computer to running it on a 386, which is like 20 years old. My comparison of Vista versus Leopard is that a 5 year old machine can run it. yes you should probably upgrade the 5 year old machine to 1 gig of RAM, and yes it will not perform as well as a new intel mac. That is not my point. My point is, since Apple designs their architecture from the ground up, which includes hardware and software they are higher quality systems. Where as MS can't possibly code their OS to support the thousands and thousands of hardware companies out there. That is why Leopard will run on a 5 year old computer decently (again not perfect) but vista would eat a 5 year old computer's resources for an appetizer and still want to eat the main course.

My point is Macs have a longer life span, there is no need to upgrade every new OS release. OS X 10.0 came out in like 2000 or 2001 and they have had 5 major releases since then. 10.4 can be ran on a G3 processor and it runs at a basic level very fast. You can do simple things like text editors, web surfing, etc and it is very fast considering the hardware. You try to load windows XP Pro on a machine that came out in the same era (1999ish) it may run, but it will run like crap. Try to load vista on a machine that old, and it probably wouldn't even boot off the vista install DVD.

Also, you are totally wrong about PPC. What is the cell processor based on? PPC technology. What do IBM blade servers run off of? PPC based technology. What do all three major console systems run on (xbox 360, PS3 and the Wii) PPC technology. What do all embedded networking hardware run on? PPC technology, this includes all your high end cisco routers and switches.

PPC is not a consumer product really anymore because of cost. It is cheaper for companies to produce consumer products with x86 technology over PPC. Plus there are more x86 manufacturers so more x86 based hardware can be produced. This is one factor of the intel switch that Apple did. IBM could not produce the PPC chip fast enough for Apple's liking. Now, look at Apple's sales now that they are getting ample supplies of C2D chips?