Latest Mac OS X Still Not Liking Intel Atom

[Mardy Matt]

I think this is hillarious. Apple has every right to disallow people from using their OS on any given hardware. It's like getting pissed off that an XBOX 360 game won't run on a PS3. If you don't want to buy their complete package, then don't run their OS, simple as that. Win7 is more or less based off of WinVista, and we all know how wonderful of an OS that was. I find netbooks in general to be pretty terrible systems overall. Don't be cheap, spend an extra $200 and get a real computer. Tomshardware has said in the past that they are covering all news regarding all computers, Apple included, I say keep the articles coming, some of us find it interesting to know whats going on on the other side of the fence. Plus, if we want an idea of what Windows PCs and their operating system are going to look like 2-3 years from now, we just need to open up a Mac - it's like seeing the future!

 

[Manos]

Just a reason for more people to not give a f**k about OSx... I know I dont.

 

[trevorvdw]

F notfree BSD aka OS X

 

[Ford75chero]

Mardy Matt, I don't like buying the first model of anything because of bugs and glitches and being based on Vista but they improved version and based on reviews by toms here it is a 10% overall feel improve over vista with an XP compatibility mode along with less "aging" of the operating system on load times and reactivity. Mac? Future 2-3 years? with six year old hardware. Lots of macs posting good 3dMarks and siSoft scores. Do those run on Macs? Maybe those progs are only for fast computers lol Toms thanks for all of your articles and updates you guys are awesome.

 

[rooket]

And I quote: A Pimp Named Slickback, "B*tch Don't start with that 'we need another computer' sh** again! You say that sh** every time a new iMac comes out. You ain't slick! You better make that keyboard work b*tch and stop playin' with me!"

Look at all the - I get for badmouthing mac and all the + everyone else gets for badmouthing macs. Someone on this forum doesn't like me Or I caught the Mac user's eye yet again with my thoughtful posts.

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]wildwell[/nom]It's obvious a lot of experienced computer users want to run OSX, Win 7 & Vista are more expensive[/citation]

How can you say this with a straight face? If you were to upgrade OSX from anything except 10.5, to 10.6, it'll cost you $169. You can buy a full copy of Win7 Home from Newegg for less than $110. So please, tell me, how is Windows more expensive than OSX, unless you're running 10.5? It cost my girlfriend $169 (before tax) to go from 10.4 to 10.6 for her Macbook Pro. So, how exactly is it cheaper?

 

[captaincharisma]

How can you say this with a straight face? If you were to upgrade OSX from anything except 10.5, to 10.6, it'll cost you $169. You can buy a full copy of Win7 Home from Newegg for less than $110. So please, tell me, how is Windows more expensive than OSX, unless you're running 10.5? It cost my girlfriend $169 (before tax) to go from 10.4 to 10.6 for her Macbook Pro. So, how exactly is it cheaper?

also note there are tons of deals where you can get it from schools and businesses cheaper and i do not think there would ever be an OEM version of OSX that could make it cheaper like what they do with a copy of windows.

 

[tester24]

[citation][nom]Mardy Matt[/nom]I think this is hillarious. Apple has every right to disallow people from using their OS on any given hardware. It's like getting pissed off that an XBOX 360 game won't run on a PS3. If you don't want to buy their complete package, then don't run their OS, simple as that. Win7 is more or less based off of WinVista, and we all know how wonderful of an OS that was. I find netbooks in general to be pretty terrible systems overall. Don't be cheap, spend an extra $200 and get a real computer. Tomshardware has said in the past that they are covering all news regarding all computers, Apple included, I say keep the articles coming, some of us find it interesting to know whats going on on the other side of the fence. Plus, if we want an idea of what Windows PCs and their operating system are going to look like 2-3 years from now, we just need to open up a Mac - it's like seeing the future![/citation]

First off, Windows 7 and Vista shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence, yes sure one is built from the other however the difference between the two is like black and white. And if you haven't used it then shut up. OSX has pretty much looked the same for the last 6 iterations of it. Sure it has had software improvements and a few minor facelifts but other than that same plain jane OS.

As for paying 200 dollars more, HA! More like 4 to 500 more. I'm pretty sure you can't even upgrade an iMac can you? So when you are stuck with USB 2.0 and Firewire 800 I can pay 30 bucks and slap a ASUS USB 3.0 with SATA 6gb support.

Future wise I believe the PC gets the best hardware support EVER! You can install the cheapest or the top of the line hardware, (can anyone say Radeon 5870?). As for OS yeah I think Macs still lag behind, sure they have tons of extra "features" like video editing out of the box and a few other cute things but that's about it. Can your OS say it's compatible with well over a million pieces of software. Not to mention fully capable with windows based networks (ie most office productivity use Windows machines) so you can pretty much control all windows machines in your network from a single Active Directory server? Pretty sure you can't do that with a Mac but then again that's why Windows is in over 80%+ market share.

Now to get back on topic, so 10.6.2 can't be installed on an Atom, who the hell cares its an ATOM the thing can hardly run windows and like many have said better for a lighter operating system such as Linux. It's not like you can game with it so you don't need directX

 

[Guest]

So, why doesn't it work? Lack of x86-64 support on Atom? (Only the desktop Atom cpus, e.g. 3xx series, IIRC, can run in 64bit mode.) I probably would have gotten a netbook by now if they hadn't been limited to crappy ia32. (I run x86-64 Ubuntu on my desktop, and it would be nice to avoid downloading 32 and 64 bit versions of every package.) Well, the terrible GPUs turned me away, too.

Now I'm looking at cheap ultraportables with core2solo SUxxx CPUs ("consumer" ultra-low-voltage).

I always wondered why Apple ever bothered making an ia32 port of OS X. I mean, why not wait a few more months until core2 came out, and then you never need to support OS X on ia32, just AMD64? Obviously you want to be able to run ia32 processes, but the system and kernel can be 64bit-only right from the start. But since they released core (not core2) apple hardware, they have to support OS X on ia32. I hope they enjoy maintaining the arch-specific asm portions of their kernel for both architectures.