Well, a lot of my clients will be happy now. Toss away the x86 machine, and dual-boot their Macs. Or tri-boot if you feel like it (linux too!).
Solution posted, and $13k award gone : woot
How? Slipstreamed XP Pro SP2 CD with some custom files added / replaced.
Then install OS X on a HFS+ partition.
Neat stuff. More info and discussion here.
Who would do that to a Mac? Putting XP on a Mac is a waste of a machine. Mac OS X on a PC machine is progress!
macs are so stupid!
I would never buy a mac. You cant get nearly as much free stuff.
Just a mac its self is a waste of a machine
[quote=“yngwie_69”]macs are so stupid!
I would never buy a mac. You cant get nearly as much free stuff.
Just a mac its self is a waste of a machine[/quote]
Guess you have never heard of the GPL and the fact you can run linux apps on a mac. That kind of opens it up to a lot of “free stuff” now doesn’t it.
I myself prefer linux to OS X but you’re just ignorant.
[quote=“yngwie_69”]
Just a mac its self is a waste of a machine[/quote]
And again, you prove how you’re a waste of internet space.
[quote=“BigThumb”]
And again, you prove how you’re a waste of space.[/quote]
Fixed
[quote=“jesus”]
[quote=“BigThumb”]
And again, you prove how you’re a waste of space.[/quote]
Fixed[/quote]
TY
To each their own. It would be great to run OSX on my x86 PC, but I’d rather have a new Mac Book Pro with the option of having OSX and XP installed… Infact that would probably push my to buy an Intel-Mac as my next computer, portable or otherwise. I don’t understand why it would be a waste of a ‘machine’ to run XP/Mac OSX, on a Macintosh. I would love to have one.
Think of it like putting ford parts in a BMW (to use one of MiG’s analogies). You wouldn’t do that, right? So why would you put an inferior OS (that is, “parts”) in a superior machine?
How about becuase I happen to use Windows XP, and applications that aren’t available for Mac OSX. Is that a good enough reason? I think the $13K dollar reward speaks for itself… People wanted this to happen… For no reason?
That would kind of depend on a lot of things wouldn’t it… The GT40 is a Ford, would you want to put BMW parts in it? I really doubt it. We aren’t talking about ‘parts’ or ‘components’ here anyways. Maybe ‘fuel’ is a better fit, but neither have anything to do with computers, or their OS. Regardless, if Windows XP can install on a “MAC” x86 based machine as if it was meant to be, what’s the problem? It’s still going to be running OSX when you want it to… It would be kinda neat if you had a BMW that could transform into a GT40 in under a minute anyways.
No one is suggesting that we remove OSX from our MacBooks and install Windows XP as the operating system. If that was the case, I would agree with you, but it isn’t.
For a completely different argument… If you’re so Pro-OSX, and you feel XP is so inferior, wouldn’t you want people to start using OSX instead? I said in my first post that it “would probably push me to buy an Intel-Mac as my next computer, portable or otherwise”. I doubt I’m alone on this. I’m sure OSX would appeal to me and others, and we would eventually phase XP out of our lives, but until then, why would it be a waste to use both?
People are working on getting OSX to run on PCs… You’re time is sure to come…
Sorry Dave, I think he nailed you. 
[quote=“orangetang”]I doubt I’m alone on this. I’m sure OSX would appeal to me and others, and we would eventually phase XP out of our lives, but until then, why would it be a waste to use both?
People are working on getting OSX to run on PCs… You’re time is sure to come…[/quote]
Firstly, I never said I wanted people to convert to OS X.
Secondly, I never said it was a waste to use both.
I did say, however, that it was a waste of a machine (namely a Mac) to put XP on it. If you need to use XP, have two machines.
Now you argue that running both OS’s on the same machine might help people make the switch. Possibly, however, putting XP on a Mac will likely only be something that techies can handle.
I don’t think you’ll ever see an ad from Mac stating that XP will run on these machines, make the switch so you can still use XP.
[quote=“Dave”]
Firstly, I never said I wanted people to convert to OS X.
Secondly, I never said it was a waste to use both.
I did say, however, that it was a waste of a machine (namely a Mac) to put XP on it. If you need to use XP, have two machines.
Now you argue that running both OS’s on the same machine might help people make the switch. Possibly, however, putting XP on a Mac will likely only be something that techies can handle.
I don’t think you’ll ever see an ad from Mac stating that XP will run on these machines, make the switch so you can still use XP.[/quote]
Some people cant afford both a “mac” and windows pc but they would like to use both. I dont think dual booting is useful beyond the tech community. Because beyond the tech community nobody cares about their OS so long as they can get their porn and emails.
Dual/triple/quad… booting could be very useful for developers who need to test on multiple platforms, to say there is no use is silly. If you were a CEO wouldnt you like to be able to cut equipment costs in half? or should they still buy both a windows and mac pc?
OK, so it’s just a ‘waste’ to replace OSX with Windows XP, on a Mac… Agreed. That isn’t what the thread suggested though.
[quote=“Dave”]
Think of it like putting ford parts in a BMW (to use one of MiG’s analogies). You wouldn’t do that, right? So why would you put an inferior OS (that is, “parts”) in a superior machine?[/quote]
As a professional in the automotive industry, I’d like to point out another aspect to that analogy.
Go to your local Napa/Kampuchean Tire/Lordco whatever and get some parts for your Ford. Now go to the same store and get parts for your Beemer. You’ll likely get the “uhh, I’m gonna have to special order that in for you.”
And it’ll be more expensive. Though I’m not denying that it’ll probably be better.
I think that the same causes affect things like software cost and availability that affect virus/malware propogation: the acceptance and ubuiquity of a particular system.
Your local computer store probably doesn’t sell or service Apples, and the off-the-shelf software you buy at Walmart probably won’t run on OS X.
Just like the domestic, no-frills car, a Microsoft OS running on an Intel-based “IBM compatible” PC is the standard right now. If you want to hit the biggest audience, that’s what you cater to. Just like the American car, it’s not perfect by any means, but having to deal with it is a reality of the business world.
Dave, I realize that this post misses the point you were raising entirely, so I’ll try to address it:
You’ve already bought a BMW. It does a job, and does it better than the Ford that everyone else has. But what about when you’re driving through Fort Mcbumfuck and you need a new alternator, and the closest one is 1000 miles away? Wouldn’t be cool if you could use the same parts/services (in this case, software and tech support) that everyone else does, when you’re in a bind and it’s the only thing available?
But isn’t the BMW supposed to be way more reliable? So the probability of you needing the parts is reduced.
Ok, so what if you need your oil changed, and BMW specifies some sort of exotic 0W-40 synthetic motor oil? Or you blow a tire, and need to get some sort of super low-profile replacement? Or brake pads?
[quote=“Eso”]
Think of it like putting ford parts in a BMW (to use one of MiG’s analogies). You wouldn’t do that, right? So why would you put an inferior OS (that is, “parts”) in a superior machine?
As a professional in the automotive industry, I’d like to point out another aspect to that analogy.
Go to your local Napa/Kampuchean Tire/Lordco whatever and get some parts for your Ford. Now go to the same store and get parts for your Beemer. You’ll likely get the “uhh, I’m gonna have to special order that in for you.”
And it’ll be more expensive. Though I’m not denying that it’ll probably be better.
I think that the same causes affect things like software cost and availability that affect virus/malware propogation: the acceptance and ubuiquity of a particular system.
Your local computer store probably doesn’t sell or service Apples, and the off-the-shelf software you buy at Walmart probably won’t run on OS X.
Just like the domestic, no-frills car, a Microsoft OS running on an Intel-based “IBM compatible” PC is the standard right now. If you want to hit the biggest audience, that’s what you cater to. Just like the American car, it’s not perfect by any means, but having to deal with it is a reality of the business world.
Dave, I realize that this post misses the point you were raising entirely, so I’ll try to address it:
You’ve already bought a BMW. It does a job, and does it better than the Ford that everyone else has. But what about when you’re driving through Fort Mcbumfuck and you need a new alternator, and the closest one is 1000 miles away? Wouldn’t be cool if you could use the same parts/services (in this case, software and tech support) that everyone else does, when you’re in a bind and it’s the only thing available?[/quote]
Heyyyy! We get Loomis & Purolator too. Although you only PAY for overnight delivery, you don’t actually get it…
[quote=“orangetang”]
To each their own. It would be great to run OSX on my x86 PC, but I’d rather have a new Mac Book Pro with the option of having OSX and XP installed… Infact that would probably push my to buy an Intel-Mac as my next computer, portable or otherwise. I don’t understand why it would be a waste of a ‘machine’ to run XP/Mac OSX, on a Macintosh. I would love to have one.[/quote]
I just ordered my mac Book Pro. Should be home when i get there. I wish i had it in time to leave for vacation tho. BUT oh well. I played with a few here at the mac store. They are pretty nice. Still yet clean looking too.