Well for a desktop, you can build a PC for <$1000 and run the developer image and have a machine that feels at least as fast as the Power Macs. For laptops it’s a more complicated question, as to what works to different degrees and what the hardware will cost you. But anything you do with regular PC hardware is very likely to cost much less than whatever Apple will be selling.
The problem with using VM software is that it’s horribly slow. And many people seem to note that the dev image seems to run with less problems if it is installed natively anyway.
I think the only thing that could save Apple’s cause now is if they go to using a totally-custom mobo chipset, unlike anything currently used for Windows. They could address some of the shortcomings of the ATX factor and tie their OS to their own hardware pretty well.
~
My, errr…friend has a Compaq Presario laptop that runs OS X natively (very fast, btw) and also dual boots the originally installed XP. Really the best of both worlds – pretty amazing.
He was using it at a coffee shop the other day and BLEW SOMEONES MIND!
Really? I know VirtualPC on the Mac and PearPC on a PC are slow as wintertime mud, but that’s because they have to emulate the hardware. Is Microsoft VirtualPC under XP slow when you run (let’s say) Windows 98 in a VPC window? I’d always heard it was only a very tiny speed hit. Akin to the Classic environment on a modern Mac (wherein MacOS 9 boots and runs as a process within MacOS X). Or the MacOS X port of SheepShaver (which lets you boot MacOS 8 or 9 in a window within MacOS X).
With both MacOS X and Vista running on the same processors (and associated hw), I’d think virtual machines for either, when run from the other, would really fly. As long as you had enough RAM to keep both operating systems fed, of course (think 4 gigs of real RAM).
VM or an emulator are different things. I’ll probably be first in line for an x86 Mac just so I can run Windows full speed – assuming there’s a VM available. I won’t dual boot – that’s sloppy and stupid and not convenient. What really bugs me about emulators though is that Virtual PC 7.0 on my 1.25ghz Mac is just as slow as VPC 2.0 was on my 180 MHz Mac.
Because my 933MHz Quicksilver and 1.25GHz PowerBook are still way, way, way, way more responsive than the 2.2GHz WinXP homemade machine I’m on now (trying to use Punch! Pro hence not on my Mac [I’m at home for the weekend!]), my next Mac will probably be an Intel Mac. But if I think I need a new machine before then, I wouldn’t hesistate to get another Motorola Mac. They’ll be supported for years and years and years.
Well, that does it. I’m NOT getting an Apple now, if their most-envied product doesn’t even meet basic standards.
I was trying to decide between blowing my moola on an iBook, or a PC box with 4 SATA drives running on raid-1 (disadvantage: I have to pretty much custom build these things to get the configuration I want and I am sick of wasting entire days fiddling with my computers–I’d rather have someone to blame now), or a giant TV or LCD display.
People who tried running the OSx86 developer image “both ways” noted that it has fewer problems and runs way faster in native mode. I have not seen either myself; I downloaded all the files to do it but decided not to bother at this point in time. I’d kind-of like to try it, but likely won’t have the money or time for quite a while.
And if you wanted one, just keep up with the news–the Cinema displays worked perfectly when they first came out. The pink-tint issue seems to be a recent problem.
…I think there’s another company (Dell maybe) who sells a widescreen LCD that uses most of the same internal components as the Apple one. It would be of interest to see if the others are having the same problem or not…
~
