 | | 
07-01-2003, 03:51 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Petersburg, Va
Posts: 1,791
| » 
is it possible to install an OS??
is it possible to install Mac X on a regualar windows Base PC?. and if so is it worth it
| 
|  | |
07-01-2003, 04:02 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,595
|
No, I forget the exact technical reason but it is because the architecture is completely different and Mac wont allow anyone to emulate the bios so you cant even use something like VMWare. You could try BSD, it has alot in common with OS X. www.freebsd.org | |
| | |
07-01-2003, 04:05 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Petersburg, Va
Posts: 1,791
|
o well does anyone know the next windows to come out, i know its gonna be 64bit while xp is 32bit
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 04:09 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Banned
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,595
|
Not sure that it is going to be exclusively 64 bit. The betas of it have been 32 bit. XP is available in 32 bit or 64 bit as well.
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 04:10 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Petersburg, Va
Posts: 1,791
|
o, well maybe the next os will be even gayier, meaning it will be more & more easier like xp.
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 06:03 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 2,946
|
An more spying, bloating, and crashing as well probably.
__________________
_____
NuKeS
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 06:04 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Petersburg, Va
Posts: 1,791
|
yes, but i never been crashing in XP pro. but damn well alot in ME & 2000. atleast they had got smart to make XP but had made a mistake on ME
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 06:07 AM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 2,946
|
ME was better than 98 in many ways. Better for games at least. I found it at least as stable as 98. 2k and XP are ok, but they are severly bloated and the registry will still grind to a halt after a bit. The problem they've had is that they needed to continue supporting older programs and so they couldn't fix broken parts of the system without cutting off some older functionality.
__________________
_____
NuKeS
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 06:09 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Petersburg, Va
Posts: 1,791
|
95 was the enter of windows and ofcourse it wasn't stable, but look how 95 transfored into XP. a big transformation
| |
| | |
07-01-2003, 07:24 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,260
|
Actually Windows 95 wasn't the first Windows at all...
| |
| | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | | Most Active Discussions  | | | | |
Recent Discussions | | | | | |
