I think you are entirely correct,” suggests Lockergnomie John Howard Oxley, “if Apple could muster up the corporate mustard to allow OS X to be pre-installed on commodity machines, they blow both WINDOWS and LINUX right out of the water. The high-priced hardware of MACs has always stayed my hand, but if I could get OS X on a relatively economical box, I would change over in a heartbeat – except, of course, for my gaming machine, and that does not work anyway.”

But John is a lone voice amongst the handful of folks who wrote back on the subject of Apple’s OS X running side-by-side with Windows on Apple’s own hardware. Are we really that crazy to believe it’s possible? AnonymousJohn also weighs in:

“I too don’t really have a personal feeling one way or the other about the Mac/PC debate but my thoughts on the issue deal withIntel vs. my preference of AMD CPUs. While Intel spent their money on Blue Men in their advertising, AMD spent their money on research and development. AMD has a 64 bit processor, Intel discovered their P4 isn’t capable of going 64-bit so they have to go back to a P3 and they still have NOT made it to 64 bit processing. Instead of getting their act together, they give up and start pushing [another software platform]. To me, Intel PC chips have suddenly realized their inability to compete in the PC market any longer and are trying to change their image. How long will their lack of ability last on the Apple side of the fence? The genuine, true competetors make software that runs on either PC or Mac. It seems we can no longer say that in the processor and hardware side of things.”

First, I completely agree with AnonymousJohn’s final statement – and perhaps one day we’ll have universal compilers. Until then, our software will remain segmented… and we consumers will continue to lose. Second, I understand the Intel/AMD argument – and I’m strongly considering an AMD X2 4800+ as the processor of my next computer (and I’m considering going with a not-very-cheap Falcon Northwest). Lockergnomie Clif Holcomb understands how quality comes into play:

“You mentioned [that] machines from all the big makers suck. Of course they do. Cheapest parts, put together en masse. I’ve been building my own since 1985. I research the best components for what I’m going to be using it for and then research the best price. Not the other way around – like most people. I don’t get components or software that I will never use to their full ability. Sure, I may end up spending a bit more to do that, but I have reliability on my side. I practice ‘Safe Computing’ and haven’t had a virus, trojan or worm since the ‘Red Monkey Mountain’ in the 80s. I haven’t had a crash since converting to Windows XP Professional.”

No platform is perfect – every OS sucks. To save a few bucks, PC users can purchase the cheapest box around, but I’m with Clif – quality counts when it comes to hardware. Does that mean you should always pay top dollar? Not according to Bill Szczytko:

“You briefly glazed over price but I think that is much more of a factor here. $1300 for a barebones PowerPC G5… I can build a fast PC machine for $500 – $600. You can’t build a Mac. You have to rely on Apple for parts, service, and support. Let’s not even discuss upgradeability with an Apple. Is it even possible (besides memory, and hard drives)? What about gaming? Most gaming titles are NOT available for the Mac platform (which is a bit ironic when you think about the Apple’s reputation for heavy video editing). For the majority of people who barely even know XP, learning OS X seems even more daunting. Running XP on a Mac is a great idea for Apple – I wonder, apples for apples (no pun intended), how stable it will be.”

Indeed.

[tags]os x,apple,intel,microsoft,amd,pc,computer,windows xp,personal computing,64-bit,p4[/tags]

[tags]windows,mac,apple,microsoft,os preference,zealot,opinion[/tags]