OSDev.org

iansjack wrote:OS X is only designed to run on MacBooks? That'll come as a surprise to my Mac Mini Server!

I think you know what I mean

Blacklight wrote:As soon as you throw an OS X disc into an AMD computer you're gonna get a big fancy "nope" in the shape of kernel panic behaviour (fanciness depending on the stage of booting it's in), thereby disqualifying about a third of all x86 computers.

That is indeed a problem. Though luckily Apple Inc. isn't the big innovator they try to make people believe hence they bought the Mac OS X kernel from NeXT. NeXTSTEP which itself is based on Mach and BSD (FreeBSD) for POSIX APIs ... anyway long story short the sources for the kernel are available: http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/
Then you can either configure it yourself for AMD or rely on one of the helpful members of the OSx86 (Hackintosh) movement.

Anyway Mac OS X is nothing special. Its running on "legacy software" from the '90s - like most other currently use OSs.

@osdog, wow. I did not know about that.

I've witnessed a lot of misconception from all of the replies I've read, including the misconception that there's

only one operating system in the world for pc

, as the OP said.

Let me start simple: there is NOT only one operating system in the world for "pc",
however exactly you are referring to that as(most mean Intel x86-64, AMD, or most importantly
not "Mac" when referring to the "PC").

Here's a small list of operating systems targeted at the "pc" as you put it, but are not Windows:

1.Ubuntu(Linux).
2.Android(modified Linux).
3.MenuetOS(I don't think this one is Linux-derived/forked).
4.Solaris(not much interest to it, but still exists).
5.BSD(as mentioned above, but is strictly only for IA-32).
6.SkyOS(had hope, but it's pretty much unheard of now).
7.Google Chrome OS(another Linux-derived creation).
8.OS/2(Microsoft involved, old, but still not "Windows").
9.Xenix(old and dead).
10.NeXTSTEP(original base of Apple, Inc.).

But it's arguable, since some may debate that Android, Chrome OS, Ubuntu, and all other Linux-distros are Linux-derived they are all technically the same "OS" due to being based off the same kernel.

But I get what you mean ... Windows is pretty much the only thing most think of when they hear "PC", since it's the only most known and used operating system by most consumers of the "PC market" anyways, and you have Gates to thank for that.

LieutenantHacker wrote:5.BSD(as mentioned above, but is strictly only for IA-32)..

No.

Most definitely, no. You really need 64-bit to support enough RAM to run ZFS efficiently and I would imagine that an ever-increasing number of FreeBSD installations use ZFS.

Yes

I meant BSD as in the original '77 Berkeley Unix, not FreeBSD. My bad.

Try this.

It is sad to see so much OS incompetence on OSdev site.

LieutenantHacker wrote: I meant BSD as in the original '77 Berkeley Unix, not FreeBSD. My bad.

I give up. This was a silly thread from the start but, unfortunately, is indicative of the current status of this forum.

Too much trolls for my taste. Heck, we used to have only rdos to nitpick on every meaningless detail, now we have three clones.

LieutenantHacker wrote:I meant BSD as in the original '77 Berkeley Unix, not FreeBSD. My bad.

Who the hell talks about an operating system from 1977 when the same name is used to mean countless of derivatives of it with modern features and ports? And you wiki talk link? It looks like you yourself edited that part in judging by the timestamp.

This is just depressing.

Combuster wrote:Too much trolls for my taste. Heck, we used to have only rdos to nitpick on every meaningless detail, now we have three clones.

And we didn't even use up the original before getting the clones.

Sorry, I am a geeky idiot sometimes.

I think back and study the older OSes, like Unix and DOS, Amiga OS, etc.

Forgive me if I seemed like a troll for my previous posts.