For MacOS it is pretty much by definition. Aside from recent hacking
endeavors WRT MacOS-X-intel on non-macs, the history has required
purchasing Macintosh hardware to run MacOS.
I presume you mean "purchasing Apple hardware". Mac OS runs on Apple
hardware, not "Macintosh" hardware. Yes, it's just semantics, but I like to
be precise about these sorts of things.
As long as we're being precise, I'll just clarify that the [Apple]
adjective was missing from my description. A Macintosh is by definition
an Apple product, but MacOSX doesn't run in an iPod or Apple II... only on
a "Macintosh."
Fun game... no really... :)
That's pretty much the main reason why I don't run MacOS today. My current
machine is a dual Athlon 2400 built for about 1/4 the price of a single
(slower) processor Mac at the time.
I suspect times have changed a bit. But Apple doesn't sell hardware at the
bottom of the market, they only sell mid range to high end, complete systems.
That's their business, and I think they're ok with it, given their earnings
these past few years.
Actually, performance-wise, I'd say low-mid to upper-mid. There
is no super-fast Mac hardware when it comes to overall system
performance. Memory bandwidth, chipsets, etc all tend to be a bit slower
than the PC counterparts. Not counting notebooks, I see a G5
dual/dual-dual for between $2000-$3300. Building a PC piece by piece will
get you dual core for $1000 or less. Mac hardware is well-built and worth
it to many who buy off the shelf. For tinkerers, there's quite a bit
better bang for the buck by building from pieces.
Hardware cost: 25% of slower Mac.
OS cost: $0
Application cost: $0
Aggravation: more.
Freedom to tinker: priceless...
lol ... that's funny.
Now, with the latest Apple Intel-dual-core based hardware, Mac OS X and Boot
Camp, most of the clients at my contract previously on Windows/Intel boxes
are buying the Apple laptops they have always wanted but were unwilling to
spend the money to convert their software to.
Agreed. It's pretty interesting times coming ahead I think. Now,
the answer to the question of "what is the most compatible machine" is
most assuredly an Intel Mac.
Overall, I appreciate the value of my Apple systems and prefer Mac OS X's
options over either Windows or Linux systems, even given comparable quality
hardware and forgetting about money for a moment. I hate it when I have to
deal with Windows ... I find Linux much easier to deal with apart from the
poor device and commercial software support.
I'd probably agree if I were fortunately enough to deal with Macs.
Haven't really had the opportunity on any modern Mac hardware... other
than the occasional oggle.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the philosophy of most Linux clients I've
worked with ... that they should never have to pay for software ... will
relegate the OS to specific niche uses. It's hard for a software vendor to
make a living if there is an inadequate base of paying customers willing to
praise the value of their efforts with money. ... I find Linux to be an
excellent platform for low cost, customized computing needs, like render
farms and servers. That's what my contract client uses it for.
Godfrey
It's kinda a catch-22. Commercial software development for linux
is stifled by the existence of open-source alternatives. It creates
competition though, which is good.
SOME commercial applications are very viable under the linux idea,
but they tend to be historically unix-friendly to begin with. Matlab,
Mathematica, Cadence, Synopsis, etc (sorry... EE-knowledge) have all come
around to realizing that real work is being doing using linux. PC's are
cheaper than macs and MUCH cheaper than commercial unix workstations. The
performance of unix without the cost.
Not just for servers and render-farms. Workstations are a very
popular and viable venue for linux boxen. It's not for Gramma, but sadly
those are the folks that suffer most from malware under winders.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
