"and it takes a bleedin' macolyte to make that claim -on a pc-tech website, where the mac speculation is one of dozens of articles about non-apple kit wot people are discussing.

i think i hear yer mum callin' yer fer supper, yer git."

But we were were in the comment section for THIS article, not the entire site, you beige boxed blithering idiot!!

and it takes a bleedin' macolyte to make that claim -on a pc-tech website, where the mac speculation is one of dozens of articles about non-apple kit wot people are discussing.

i think i hear yer mum callin' yer fer supper, yer git."

Are capitol letters not used in Australia or Liverpool, or wherever the heck you are?
No, wait, I'll bet you're just like that guy in the James Bond / Circuit City commercial that feigns being British to impress the clerk.

"and it takes a bleedin' macolyte to make that claim -on a pc-tech website, where the mac speculation is one of dozens of articles about non-apple kit wot people are discussing.

i think i hear yer mum callin' yer fer supper, yer git."

Well, it's only fair. After all, how many times do PEE CEEer's stick their nose in and leave snide comments on Mac only sites concerning Mac subjects?

Alright, for the people arguing over OSX its past:

When apple bought NeXT and it's OpenStep technology the operating system did not work on powerPC platform at all. It worked under Intel hardware. Apple had to port the technology to work under the powerPC technology to build Mac OS X. I seriously doubt that they scrapped the original workings of Intel hardware and just focused on the PowerPC platform. In fact up until the last beta the Original Mac OS X Server 1.0 would install on Intel hardware and the final release was very close to the beta that did install on Intel hardware. Obiously they were making sure that they would not be stuck with one company (Motorola) if the company could not produce good hardware.

This is not to say that Apple ever will bring Mac OS X to Intel or AMD hardware. I am not sure if you remember but Windows NT ran on a PowerPC architecture while in testing but Microsoft ruled that it was too fast under the PowerPC architecture.

And for those who would like to bitch about my computing preference, how I am a bias to the Mac or to the PC, or those who have anything better to do than to make fun of me for my grammer here are my two computers though I have to say I do prefer the Mac OS X operating system over Linux and Windows and as for preformence I really don't give a rats #&!*!@! ass these machines work fine for me.

Athlon 900 Mhz 512MB Geforce 2 32MB DDR
Apple PowerPC G4 400Mhz Geforce 4 Ti

I saw that movie.

DeNiro: "You blew it!"

It was pretty good, for a Stallone movie.

Originally Posted by Shepherd
Uh, no. OS X was based on Rhapsody. The operating system that they were working on just prior to purchasing NeXT was called Copland. I don\'t think it ever made it out of Alpha and was never released.

Rhapsody was the first incarnation of the OS developed from Openstep. A lot of the orginal code base for Rhapsody was used for OS X. It didn\'t have the aqua interface, the quartz rendering system, or the carbon compatibility layer. The Cocoa environment in OS X is an extension of Rhapsody\'s Yellow box.

I do think the main reason mac users hate pc's is becuase the only pc's they've used have been made with subpar components.

hmmm 512 ddr: Same as your mac...not subpar, porbably better as i bought corsair
geforce4: same as your mac, no not subpar
80 gig Maxtor Hard Drive : Same as a mac, nope not subpar
Lite-on DVD : nope not subpar
TDK 48x12x40 CD-RW: nope not subpar
MSI KT3ULTRA nope not subpar
AMD Athlon 1900+
Antec Case
Hercules Fortissimo3

shit now that i look nothing is subpar in my box, because i had the CHOICE to pick what was in it.

[q]There's been no verification that the x86 box story is even a true one, but look how much interest it's stirred up. As usual, it takes something in the Mac world to get people talking. [/q]
and it takes a bleedin' macolyte to make that claim -on a pc-tech website, where the mac speculation is one of dozens of articles about non-apple kit wot people are discussing.

i think i hear yer mum callin' yer fer supper, yer git.

I do think the main reason mac users hate pc's is becuase the only pc's they've used have been made with subpar components.

I can't speak for every Mac owner, but I think that statement is a rather sweeping generalization.

I love my Powerbook, it's light, attractive, and the OS rocks. However, I don't think I would ever get a Mac as a desktop unit. My Powerbook is great for surfing, work, IRC, etc., but it sucks at games. I use my homebuilt PC for gaming. Apple can't touch it for the money. My server dualboots Win2k Server and Linux.

So, I'd guess saying that Mac users hate PC users is a bit overbroad. I know plenty of people that use both and are happy with it.

Yeah, Rhapsody never came to fruitation. That was before OS 8 even came out.. long time ago.

Originally Posted by anonybomber
Kyzoku - Rhapsody was one go at a new OS, it got scrapped completely though. OS X is a second attempt, not a contiuation of the older Rhapsody.

Originally Posted by Kyzoku
Well, it seems to me that this should come as no surprise at all to anyone who\'s kept up with Mac news in the past 5 or so years. When OS X was still known only as Rhapsody, there was an x86 port. Originally, it was supposed to be a cross platform OS consisting of 3 or so \"boxes\".

If I remember correctly, they were Blue, Red, and Yellow boxes. Yellow was OS 8/9 style Mac apps, Blue was native Rhapsody apps, and Red was Windows apps.

Blue apps were supposed to run on both Apple and PC hardware, where as the Yellow and Red apps would only run on one or the other.

Needless to say, they had apparently killed off the whole x86 port at some point, but apparently they\'ve been working on it again.

I do think the main reason mac users hate pc's is becuase the only pc's they've used have been made with subpar components.
--------
I think it's because Macs have traditionally been designed for the image-conscious market, and they have traditionally had 'ease of use' built-in. That perception still holds, to some degree. Perhaps because of past horrid PC experiences too.

Macs aren't made by apple. They're manufactured by the same OEMs in Asia that make PC components. Quality and/or misconfigured or sub-par componentry in a PC could have made some users go for a Mac, but I think those numbers are really small.

They could have just as easily bought another PC from another manufacturer or local shop. I think it's more a preference thing, or what you're used to. I don't think Apple's switch campaign is doing anything for users already used to using PCs. I think they are simply preaching to the converted, and still appealing to the image-conscious market.

That's QUALITY control, not COMMUNIST.

Irrelevent all. The IBM chip is a done deal already. Apple has no intention to go to x68 arch. Wait and see.
There's been no verification that the x86 box story is even a true one, but look how much interest it's stirred up. As usual, it takes something in the Mac world to get people talking.

my gf is a diehard apple lover, i'm a diehard pc lover. You should see the strange arguements we get into about which direction to walk around the store in, when we're in Compusa. ;)

I think as long as the economy is down, apple has no choice but to cut costs. Strangely enough, cost would be cut way down switching to the x86 platform.

Apple runs all these "switch" commercials, but honestly the only people who pay attention to them are the people who have macs already, who just use it as more cannon fodder. I have to say, as an EE myself, it really doesnt matter about the hardware. Hardware only does what its told. The only difference to the user is the interface, and i agree Mac has a better one. If microsoft wanted to write a mac version of windows, they could, if apple would allow it to be installed. From a hardware level, the pc is better. There is competition at the x86 level, and that means better stuff coming out all the time. Thats what apple may be trying to do, is generate some competition to lift the moto arena a little. I would like to see/use a mac with an x86 processor. Its probably the only thing that could actually take on MS and make a real dent. I dont the os alone can do it.

I do think the main reason mac users hate pc's is becuase the only pc's they've used have been made with subpar components. Apple just exerts more communist control over their process. (sorry had to get my shot in with the communist ref, but the sentence is fine without it).

#103 said:

"The Z-80 was quite a bit better than a 6502, by the way."

I saw the Zilog building in San Jose - in front of the Videonics building (yrs ago). Are they still around???

Z-80 better explains why Galaxians always was a better game than it's Apple-2 clone Alien Rain (allong with all the arcade games vs. their Apple/Atari wannabes).

Today I play both via Applewin/MAME.......which now supports Cinematronics games!! SpaceWars/StarCastle/RipOff!!

He... The 6502 is still used in technology intro classes in high schools over here. Mostly used to program stuff as traffic lights and such in Motorola ASM. Great project along with the CNC programming the course thought me some years ago.

And please.. when you do your freaking comparisions, take either cpu vs cpu or
selling computer vs selling computer
and KEEP them apart.

Who cares. Both architectures go back to where most of us were pretty small and some werent even born yet. Who cares which go back 24 or 26 years.

You all that havent done it yet should go to Ars(technica) and read Hannibals cpu articles that *gasp* often uses a g4 for comparison, and *gasp* which isnt a pure risc anymore either.

I would point out that, having programmed both Z-80s and x86s in assembly, they did change the mnemonics at Zilog or somewhere. Because there are some (small) differences. The Z-80 was quite a bit better than a 6502, by the way. Almost everything on a 6502 required you to push and pop things off the stack to exchange data on the processor, and it ran like 1 MHz. The 6510, used in the Commodore 64, was an improvement. But not enough of one.

#73: It means it runs the old stuff.

And, before the 8008 there was the 4004, which I think was 1971 but I can't recall for certain. I believe that was for a calculator, and 4 bits.

where's droopy?

I was born in 1980..

AG87, http://www.qvctc.commnet.edu/classes/csc277/timeline.html

1979 intro year for the 68000
(It was also used in the Apple LISA before the Macintosh)

Originally Posted by DiM-
It wouldn\'t be that hard for Apple to port OSX over to X86, after all, the core OS is OSS, and freely available. They had a early beta of everything running on X86 a while ago.

However is this true? I doubt it.

[quote]ag#93, im sure that if these were shipped to people who knew their way around osx with any certantiy, all they would have to do is look at the "About this Mac" popup to see what cpu is running.[/quote]What would be the point of welding the computer shut if the "About this Mac" menu item showed that it was running an Athlon

and yeah intel was running x86 chips before 1978, they were used in trafic lights, and some are still in use.

ag#93, im sure that if these were shipped to people who knew their way around osx with any certantiy, all they would have to do is look at the "About this Mac" popup to see what cpu is running.

AMD + Macintosh = Applons

Boy was I surprised to see Yo-yo Ma in one of those Apple Switch commercials today. I noticed that he specifically mentioned the "G4" processor... no mention of anything called "Athlon". :)

If the boxes were "welded shut," how do we know an Athlon was inside? And where are the graphs???

Although the Pentium is RISC based, it isn't a true RISC processor.