posted
Just saw the other day that Apple is developing Darwin, an operating system based on the Mac OS, except that they are also developing a version for the Intel PC. http://betanews.com/article.php3?sid=954974795 I'm just wondering what people's thoughts on this are...especially that of resident Mac-man....Frank
posted
Well, although Mac OS X could probably be adapted to the Intel platform, it probably wouldn't happen, since Apple has considered and rejected ideas like this in the past. We'll see, I suppose.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited April 09, 2000).]
If I could have an OS that worked reliably (at least as reliably as the one I'm currently using) and didn't require me to scrap my hardware and all my old favorite software (the new OS will be compatible with older PC programs, won't it?) I wouldn't mind switching over.
The nice thing about PCs is that the hardware is (generally) inexpensive and reliable. I say generally because there are so many vendors out there that of course there will be a few idiots cranking out KREP peripherals, add-ons, motherboards, etc., for sale to the unwary in search of a bargain. On the other hand, one can build a decent PC for very little nowadays, something that can't be said for the Mac. A few more paydays and I'll be able to start buying bits and pieces for the new computer I hope someday to assemble.
posted
Actually, Darwin is just the kernel for OSX - it doesn't contain a UI or anything and is pretty useless without the rest of the operating system. It could be bootstrapped from a Unix system though and made to work with the GNU stuff (like Linux). It's basically a modified FreeBSD (think: UNIX) kernel though so chances are any things worth re integrating will be integrated.
Secondly even if they ported the entire OS to x86, well, just because it runs on the PC doesn't mean it supports Windows programs. Take BSDi, Solaris, XENIX, Linux, etc. None will really run Windows programs though the WINE project is working on changing that.
OSX on the PC probably would have binary compatibility with a number Linux, Mac OS*, and FreeBSD programs. Even now it appears to be able to compile a lot of common programs - I've heard that quite a few GNU utilities were included with the preview edition sent out a while ago.
posted
I'd have to disagree with PCs being reliable...we've had ten computers over the course of the past decade, and only the non-Apple ones have ever required hardware repair/replacement. We had a brand-new Gateway that began needing parts replacement within a month.
As always, you get what you pay for.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
posted
This is very interesting. It seems to me that Frank seems to get the lemons of PCs... Not once have any of our 4 PCs that we've had/have have ever needed replacement parts. Perhaps that's why he doesn't like PCs? He always gets the lemons? Sorta like how when people buy a Ford (for example), they get a lemon and think all Fords are that way...
------------------ Star Trek: Leeds Creator, Producer, Only Writer
posted
Well, the primary reason I don't like PCs is Windows. I'd be perfectly happy using a generic PC running Linux or something, given a choice between that and one running a Microsoft OS.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited April 09, 2000).]
posted
So far the only thing I've had to replace on my PC was the monitor, and that was after a year.
------------------ "Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Student
posted
The only time I ever needed to replace anything on my PC was when it had become obsolete. My first PC was a Tandy 1000 EX (read: dinosaur). It lasted from 1986 until I replaced it in 1990, not because it was broken, but because the new software coming out that I wanted real bad would not run on it. The only hardware upgrades I did were adding RAM and an external hard drive (it only had one internal 5.5" floppy and no room for a second internal one). It came with 256 kilobytes! -- so I upgraded it to 360, then later to 640 (more than my friend's IBM at the time -- it was like having a model A ford with the V-8 engine).
My second PC never got a hardware upgrade. I bought it (a 386) in 1990, then put it in storage in 1992 when I went to Korea. I could've brought it with me, but the horror stories about damaged goods and trouble getting reimbursed for same convinced me I could do without it for 1 year. Of course, I wound up doing without for 2 years, since I extended my tour, but that's another story.
When I came back to the states, I bought a 486 (My second, and last, Packard Bell :�). That computer served until 1995 when I bought my current computer -- a Pentium 100. The only work I've done to the hardware was to add 16 megs of ram (giving me a whopping 32 Mbtyes ) and upgrading to a 33.6 Kbaud modem, the fastest modem that will do you any good around here -- there's no cable modens and the phone lines have too much noise to connect faster than 31.2 Kbaud anyway. I was originally embarrassed that I could afford nothing better until I realized I bought exactly the right modem to go along with our KREP phone lines.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
