03-07-2008, 10:59 AM

If you can run Mac OS X on a PC, what's the difference between owning a Mac and a PC? I'm not talking about design, looks, support, brand recognition, etc., I'm talking about performance.

Does Mac OS X runs on a PC the same as it runs on a Mac? (on every level, i.e. copying files, memory allocation, etc.)

Macs are no longer exclusive about internal parts as before (hardware). The memory I have on my iMac can be used on many laptops PC. My iMac has an Intel processor, the same as many PC's.

So, if they use theoretically "the same hardware" and "the same software" (a PC with Mac OS X installed), is it just about the looks then?

People keep telling me that once Mac OS X is installed on a PC, why bother buying a Mac. "It's the same", they say.

Is there any benchmarks comparing Mac OS X installed on a Mac vs. a PC?

Even if a PC is running Mac OS X, does my Mac process information different than a PC that makes running Mac OS X on a Mac unique? And most important, better in terms of perfomance and the way the system handles things.

03-07-2008, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Jacobson17

So, if they use theoretically "the same hardware" and "the same software" (a PC with Mac OS X installed), is it just about the looks then?

No, it's about the legality of it. Mac OS X is not licensed for use on any hardware not supplied by Apple Computers, Inc.
Doing so and/or attempting to do so violates the EULA.
It's that simple.

03-07-2008, 11:39 AM

Well, if you're speaking theoretically, which is all you can speak of on this subject since actually installing OS X on anything other than a Mac is against the EULA and, therefore, forum rules to discuss, then I guess there wouldn't be any difference. Hardware is hardware. The design of the enclosure doesn't change that fact.

But like you said, there's no difference, so what's the point of not just buying a Mac? I suppose one could argue having the choice of most desirable components and the ability to upgrade those components in your home-built box. I think OS X would grow in use a lot faster if they licensed their software rather than only putting it in their hardware. That was MS's model and it worked quite well. But MS is a software company and Apple is a hardware company. They pay their bills on computer sales, not operating system sales. One look at the price difference between OS X and Vista reveals that. But I guess that's off subject.

The truth is I don't think there is any difference at all. If Apple did license it's OS to be run on any computer, I probably would go back to a home-built box to use at home, but I would still prefer my MBP to any other notebook computer on the market.