[SATLUG] Re: mobile devices with linux
kcoriginal at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 29 19:52:46 CDT 2008
The offense rests.
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, pixelnate at gmail.com <pixelnate at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: pixelnate at gmail.com <pixelnate at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [SATLUG] Re: mobile devices with linux
> To: "The San Antonio Linux User's Group Mailing List" <satlug at satlug.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 5:02 PM
> 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
> > 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
> 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
> > > 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.
> SATLUG mailing list
> SATLUG at satlug.org
> http://alamo.satlug.org/mailman/listinfo/satlug to
> Powered by Rackspace (www.rackspace.com)
More information about the SATLUG