[SATLUG] Re: mobile devices with linux

pixelnate at gmail.com pixelnate at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 17:02:58 CDT 2008


On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 16:35 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> pixelnate at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > That just goes to show you, you don't need to buy an Apple machine to
> > get the Apple experience. They have much better margins on HW than SW,
> > tho.
> 
> You're welcome to try to run MacOS X on non-Apple hardware.  Some people 
> have gotten it working, but the biggest thing is the lack of drivers for 
> most of the less common devices, and since most of the device drivers are 
> written by Apple themselves, you're not likely to see that situation improve 
> any time soon.
> 

I am an AMD fanboy. Alas, it was not meant to be. I'd probably run it in
VMWare if I could.

> 
> The miracle about the Psystar was that it existed at all, not that it worked 
> well.
> 

The miracle (for them) was that they weren't sued earlier.

> They're not Apple clones.  They're Intel clones, and it just so happens that 
> Apple has chosen to use Intel-based chipsets for their most recent 
> generation of hardware.
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 

Yeah, it is. They use the same chipsets and processors that everybody
else uses. 

> >                                 I 'd much rather use OSX than Vista to
> > pair with the Adobe CS Suite, but they will not allow that to happen.
> 
> You can run CS on MacOS X.  I've got a copy.  Works reasonably well.
> 

I meant run on commodity hardware.

> Oh, and BTW, CS on MacOS X on Intel proves that Adobe was wrong -- the 
> software is no faster on Intel hardware than it was on the PowerPC.  The 
> real issue with Adobe is that they're just plain fat lazy bastards who can't 
> be bothered to write reasonable code that actually performs well.
> 

The Intel platform was actually faster. It turns out Apple was the one
lying. The G5s were nothing special, and time has proved that.

> > And they won't build a sensible machine for those of us not willing to
> > a) give up our own tremendously awesome monitor, or b) pay $2800 for a
> > computer.
> 
> Because Apple is not willing to build a substandard computer.  They're not 
> going to push crap out the door just because they can, unlike all the other 
> computer manufacturers in the business.
> 
> >            If they would sell a box for $1000-1200 that is the equivalent
> > of an iMac with with a single PCI-E slot, I'd be all over it. But the
> > way things are, you either buy an iMac with a glossy screen and crappy
> > graphics HW (except for the top of the line) or you get gouged to the
> > tune of $3K.
> 
> Or you get a Mac Mini and bring your own keyboard, mouse, etc....  The Mac 
> Mini is due for an update, but with an Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.0Ghz, that's 
> only marginally slower than the current iMac at 2.4GHz.  Hopefully the Mac 
> Mini will get updated soon, and will be more on par with the faster iMacs.
> 

I have a Mini. It's far too slow for production work. And most
importantly, it uses discreet graphics. I want need a machine with more
graphics power than an X3100.

You may not know this, but I was a Mac fanboy for a looong time. I was a
diehard when that Pepsi guy was at the helm and when Amelio ruined the
company and when they were touting "Copeland" as the OS to end all OSes.
The Koolaid has gone gray and lost it's flavor for me. Now it's just
tastes like money.


~Nate



More information about the SATLUG mailing list