Mac OS X on a PC?

[MacRumors]

MacDailyNews posts (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4950/) more information from the subscription Fortune article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208020246.shtml) which talks to Steve Jobs about the state of Apple... which also drops this tidbit from the original article:

Most tantalizing of all is scuttlebutt that three of the biggest PC makers are wooing Jobs to let them license OS X and adapt it to computers built around standard Intel chips. Why? They want to offer customers, many of whom are sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn, an alternative

Mac OS X on Intel has been a long-debated topic, and an area that Apple has considered (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) prior to the adoption of the PowerPC 970 from IBM.

[blasto333]

I would be all for it. It is perfect timing. Windows is terrible, insecure and I think people are really getting sick of it. If apple waits too long, Longhorn will be out and people might give that a chance and not think about apple.

[Frisco]

Maybe Steve is getting a second chance to license his OS.

This is really the only way I see Apple getting a significant marketshare.

[narco]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

[Celeron]

I'm all for this. If I could run OS X on my PC I would certainly do it. The hardware in my PC is much faster than the hardware in my 12'' PB.

[LaMerVipere]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

My thoughts exactly.

And who wants some crappy $300 beige box running OS X? Ew.

[CubaTBird]

No No NO! this cannot happen, if it does, sure for the first few years everybody will be fine and dandy but then BAM reality sets in and the hackers will have another field day with os x... gnaw... plus os x makes the mac what a mac is... like steve says "we combine the HARDWARE (keyword) with the software"

[sjpetry]

It will show people the greatness of OS X on the PC Box. :cool:

[AirUncleP]

Don't think it'll happen but I'd like to see it.

[Minkintosh]

I don't know about this... :rolleyes: . Viruses would be following this move.

[mkjellman]

While I think Apple may have issues with their hardware, I don't think it would hurt them that much. I buy Apple products because they look great and preform for the most part excellent. I also don't know if many Windows Users would be very happy with a transition to OS X on X86 processors. I assume the applications could just be recompiled but think of how many applications would be incompatible even though they have X86 as the architecture. Apple could have to find a way to launch exe files in OS X I assume for OS X on X86 to be successful.

[Minkintosh]

I would be all for it. It is perfect timing. Windows is terrible, insecure and I think people are really getting sick of it. If apple waits too long, Longhorn will be out and people might give that a chance and not think about apple.

Then they need a mac mini :D

[Wonder Boy]

Maybe Steve is getting a second chance to license his OS.

This is really the only way I see Apple getting a significant marketshare.

marketshare of the the OS world, yes, but what will come of apple hardware? why buy a 3300 powermac when you can have the same OS experience for much less? i'd still buy the powermac, but plenty of people won't. apple hardware will become even more "BMW" in the computer world. i hope apple knows what its doing...

[BlackLilyNinja]

and I mean never. The closest we may get is he may allow PC makers to create PPC systems capable of running osx. but I doubt that too.

[september29th]

I don't see any harm in putting out the OS. If they would... i'm sure it would be a very heafty charge. $399 or so... only to offset the money lost in hardware. Also, giving people the option to get a Mac (the mini) for a 100 dollars more.

.mCr.

[homeshire]

early on responses seem 50-50. let me add my weight to those who say "Oh hell no!"

it would be a paradigm shift. you don't do that casually, as this article is implying. overnight osx becomes commodity.

on the other hand, great money might be had, so who knows.

[iJaz]

I am sceptical about this :cool:
However, I don't know if Longhorn will be so revolutionary, even Dvorak calls it SP3 since so much is being removed compared with the original statements! :eek:
So, there may be a big market for Mac Os X86!

[intrepkid21]

i hate topics like this...

PLEASE DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blue Velvet]

Clones


Did nothing for Apple in the end...

[pjkelnhofer]

Haven't there been rumors around for some time that Apple already has a version of OS X ready to run on x86 systems?

I always thought Apple makes it money on hardware by having better software. This would really change Apple into an OS/software company. They would take a huge hit on PowerMac sales especially. I think the iMac, iBook, and PowerBooks can stand on their own, but a lot of people video people would by high-end P4's and Athlon 64's instead of PowerMacs if the could run Final Cut on them.

[brap]

Can not, should not, must not, will not happen.

End of debate. Seriously.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

No, no, no. :mad: A fairly homogeneous hardware platform is one of Apple's greatest advantages. And one of the reasons why OS X is rock solid. If it should be adjusted to fit a wide variety of architectures it would probably degenerate quickly...

[KindredMAC]

Unless Apple can make OS X crippled in some way on an Intel chip, they are setting themselves up for the disaster of the 90's again....

But Steve is here and he won't let that happen.... no way......

Even though Power Computing had a sweet-ass tower on their hands that even to this day, if you put an upgrade card in it, rivales all G4 based Macs.

[PlaceofDis]

the only way, and the only way this would work, is if the licensing scheme forced the PC developers to change enough code so that it was essentially OS X - like, but not fully up to par with the Mac version, simply this would help give an advantage to the Mac platform as a whole, while at the same time offering an alternative to Windows, however i dont know if such programing would be possible, i do not want OS X on X86 because then it would be way to popular, stolen, and filled with spyware/malware/viruses

[chicagdan]

I don't understand why H-P, for example, would want OS-X on Intel when they can have the same market presence by licensing and rebranding the actual Apple box, just like they currently do with the iPod. No way would Jobs allow Apple clones, but I'm sure he'd have no problem sharing the marketing and branding with a partner.

Who wants to be in the PC business anyway -- the margins suck and Dell will always undercut you on price. But if you just want a presence in the marketplace, sell the H-P (or Toshiba or Samsung) Mac mini and focus your corporate R&D on the high margin servers.

[markrich]

If Apple decides to licence OS X for Intel boxes, then where does that leave Apple's hardware? Sure it's nice, certainly it's eye catching and well designed, but when I can pick up a Dell PC witih flat monitor for 400 GBP, why should I spend more on a Apple machine if OSX is available on both?

iMac Mini aside, I may want a bigger machine with internal expansion options.

Where is the incentive for Apple computers if the OS is not unique for it? It may help their bottom line, but could damage their market share. Apple would be better served trying to increase this share by lowering their computer prices, advertising more - especially to those without a computer, and allowing more retailers to sell the hardware.

Marky

[aswitcher]

If they do this is going to potentially kill their current business model unless they can assure themselves those that get OSX then buy a Mac when their PC is dead...BUT, Dell etc machines will still be cheaper...so they gotta figure that most of the market wont switch hardware, and that OSX piracy will go absolutely rampant - both of which damage their sales.

Ultimately Apple are a hardware company - see iPod/ITMS business model, their cheap software versus high quality but more expensive hardware, them opening up a hundred stores in less than 3 years. Licence OSX and it could really hurt. Sure Apple may make huge corporate sales but software is a hard beast to control and piracy makes it a tricky market.

I think they would be better off getting a few new corporate/homeuser/small business switcher boxes out there at competative rates...an LCD eMac for example, looking much like a iMac...looking at miminal spec increases (512ram excepted) but using economies of scale to decrease the cost of their lower end G5 PowerMacs...bringing back a 17" screen in the new form factor, maybe with a verison without the expensive FW/USB hub...maybe an LCD TV with digital TV Tuner....two button/wheel mouse ;)...improved keyboards...a mac mini cube, being about twice the size of the mac mini but using less expensive desktop parts with a bigger faster HDD (250 top), two ram slots (too 2 gig), faster cd/dvd, much bigger graphics card options...

[russed]

i think it is a terrible idea and should never happen.

[macnews]

I can see both good and bad and we could (most will I'm sure) debate why yes or why not to. I think the reality of the situation would prevent this from happening and have nothing to do with any pros/cons of moving to x86.

What I mean is, the cost and time it would take could prove to be too much to handle. So it becomes more of an issue of CAN (given cost and time) Apple do this rather than WILL they do this. Two or three years ago when Apple announced they were going with IBM and the 970 I think any and all effort was dumped out the window. I also think, based on articles written at the time, by going with IBM it meant future versions of OSX would be limited to the PPC architechture. I may be wrong on this so those who know more would have to speak up.

This is a business decision which means Apple will look at can they take advantage of the security problems and delay due to longhorn while maintaining recapturable costs? If they can't even get a product to market BEFORE longhorn then it would be loss and why waste hours discussing the pros and cons of marketing OSX?

[iPlm]

This would be awful! Damn, it's 'Mac' OS, not PC OS.

[iJaz]

quote: tired of waiting for Longhorn

Does that mean that they have a version of Mac OS X86 already completed? I mean, wouldn't it take quite some time to port it otherwise? Longhorn is due for next year, so they would have to port it faster than that! If they haven't already done it... :eek:

[ollie]

prays......








PLEASE NO APPLE. PLEASE

:D

[SteveC]

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrr. Please, no....

If PC users want to run OS X, they can buy a Mac.

[radio893fm]

It will show people the greatness of OS X on the PC Box. :cool:

Or it will show that OS X is not as great as we thought... incompatibility issues, spyware, viruses will just prove that it has always been in the same level as XP. Right now, the 'bad-hacker' community do not pay attention to OS X because who wants to bother the minority (3%)...

Hopefully, it never happens...

[LEgregius]

We would be better off if apple just let PC makers build PPC machines. Then more software would be ported to PPC/MAC if more people would use it. I really wish the x86 architechture would start to go away. PPC's are around the same speed as x86 CPU's and much less money as been thrown at them to get them there. That tells me that the architechture is much better. As for worms and spyware, the security holes are fixed quickly by apple, and the OS isn't insecure by design, so that's not SO much of a problem as it is with Windows.

[EJBasile]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

I TOTALLY agree. I've been wondering lastely, if apple becomes more popluar in terms of computers, will viruses and spyware be errupting for OS X?

[varmit]

The X86 is dead to Apple. Only the PPC line is worth it to them and this might include giving out OS X for Cell desktops made by Sony, Toshiba and IBM in the future.

[Laslo Panaflex]

I am sorry, anyone who thinks Apple will license their OS insane, Apple would go belly up in no time.

To quote a famous philosopher

"Worst. Idea. Ever."

[johnnyjibbs]

It all depends on whether the Macintosh hardware or Mac OS X (and Apple brand) are more important to Apple. If PCs could run Mac OS X, kiss goodbye to Macintosh (most of its sales). But, of course, such a move good be more crushing to Microsoft in the long run, and (assuming Macs survive), mean better software in the long run. (Provided Intel and PPC versions were kept the same of course).

Personally, I'd rather see the Mac stay.

[jiv3turkey748]

osx on an ugly ****** pc ......i hope not i would be pissed off if that were to happen osx and a dell just dont mix

[hsvguy]

Bottom line, Apple WILL NOT do this. The reason why OS X works so well is because Apple has control over what it does with both hardware and software components.

Giving PC users the chance to run OS X on some crappy third party hardware will obviously change that, as no one can determine the suitability of every PC users' hardware that would buy this so called PC based OS X.

PC users love to dream that one day they will be able to run our OS at native speeds. It will happen, but only if they decide to ditch their beige boxes and buy Apple computers.

Want to run OS X without forking out the dosh? Buy a Mac Mini.

[Hlau]

Steve should have lisensed Nextstep back then, when it could have stopped MS's monopoly, but lisensing OS X now is too late to change anything and won't do Apple any good.

[sparkleytone]

If the OEMs want to get Apple in bed to offer their consumers an alternative...they shouldn't try to get OS X on Intel. They should just produce PPC machines.

Still...I don't see it happening.

[stealthboy]

Apple prides itself on its entire image. The whole package - the shiny, white, well-designed boxes running the well-designed OS. It all comes together to make for a great user experience, from opening the box to using the machine.

Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.

[paulypants]

I hope that NEVER happens. No reason to, just buy a mac. OS X on a generic pc would ruin the whole apple experience.

[GFLPraxis]

MacDailyNews posts (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4950/) more information from the subscription Fortune article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208020246.shtml) which talks to Steve Jobs about the state of Apple... which also drops this tidbit from the original article:



Mac OS X on Intel has been a long-debated topic, and an area that Apple has considered (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) prior to the adoption of the PowerPC 970 from IBM.


The question is, are they sure it's on INTEL?
It would make complete sense for Apple to license it out for CELL, since Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (three big PC manufacturers) are the ones working on the Cell processor (which is PowerPC based, as well).

[keysersoze]

Apple prides itself on its entire image. The whole package - the shiny, white, well-designed boxes running the well-designed OS. It all comes together to make for a great user experience, from opening the box to using the machine.

Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.

Hay, PC's come in all sorts of colors of plastic these days.

:D

[Windowlicker]

Last time Apple let other manufacturers make Mac clones, the results weren't too good: the clones didn't work as well as the Apple computers. They had all kinds of glitches and incompatibilities on them. Not good. I really don't see this happening.

[nagromme]

The risks and rewards are both obvious--but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to do it right. It could be worth pursuing, carefully, if and when the time is right.

But I'm very skeptical--partly because if Steve casually drops mention of it, then that probably means it was discussed... and rejected! Just because those companies were interested doesn't mean Apple said "yes." If Apple had agreed, I'd expect the fruits of the partnership to be revealed with more fanfare at a later date, not mentioned as an aside.

[geoffism]

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrr. Please, no....

If PC users want to run OS X, they can buy a Mac.
Eggzzzactleee! :D
I don't see the upside. Macs are Macs for a reason. PC people should stick to windows. The PC user buys a PC for the reason it was invented, cool screen savers, email, and surfing the web.
Wanna switch, get a mini.

[Mord]

enter the cell pc......

if apple licenses the mac os, they could make billions and still sell loads of macs as there will be no more cpu wars so apple can compete in speed and charge a premium for cool looking hardware, an edge they did not have in the clone days

[kenaustus]

Too many people are talking about x86/Intel, which is a dead horse in the Mac world. There is also an assumption (concern) of a $399 computer. Not going to happen.

What "may" happen would be something like Sony coming out with a huge new TV that includes Cell chips and Apple's support in the processing (OS) areas. Not cheap and available with either the Apple or Sony logo.

On the IBM side - they did sell their PC division. That leaves them open to work with Apple on a lot of projects - some that we cannot even wrap our minds around.

HP? Only something that would allow them to work nice with new Apple servers being installed in a HP client's site.

[Tulse]

Apple's 1st quarter revenue for 2005: (images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q105data_sum.pdf)

CPUs: $1,605,000,000
iPod: $1,211,000,000
Peripherals: $ 284,000,000
Hardware total: $3,100,000,000

Software: $ 213,000,000

In other words, the revenue from all software sales (not only OS X, but Final Cut, Keynote, iLife, etc.) were 10% of hardware sales.

Given these figures, why would Apple want to license the OS? It simply makes no business sense. Sure, lots of companies are now interested in Apple's operating system, but that's also an indication of Apple's general buzz now. Why shouldn't it capitalize on that directly?

Licensing just makes no business sense.

[Lord Blackadder]

Cloning/licensing the OS are antithetical to Apple's product philosophy.

In order to focus on the software (as Jobs states) you must try as much as possible to make the hardware invisible to the user, and without total control over hardware design it can't be done. That is one reason why the Mac is great:
the computer is designed and configured by the the same company that wrote the OS and the major applications. It just works better that way.

It's flattering to hear that other companies are (allegedly) recognizing how great OS X is, but porting it is bad for Apple.

This thread seems set to have long life... :rolleyes:

[nhkader]

How about OS X Tiger ported to the new Sony/IBM/Toshiba CELL processor. This chip looks very interesting and would already be halfway in the Apple/IBM camp.

If I were Jobs, I would look to getting this into the newer Macs.

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4242447.stm

[Xtremehkr]

Fantastic idea. I bought my iMac both because of OSX and because of what I got for the price. Apple hardware lasts a lot longer than PC hardware which quickly become obsolete.

People do not simply go by price alone, otherwise everyone would be driving a Kia or something like that. Considering that OSX is designed for Apple primarily and then for PCs afterwards, it would be like a reverse of the current situation that exists with the game market. People may switch on that basis that if the software is good the software and the hardware combined is better. Which is true.

Maybe it will be something involving Sony, Apple lets them use OSX and Apple gets to use Cell ship technology.

Just cause IBM and Sony developed the cell doesn't mean that just anybody has access to cell technology. I am sure that Sony invested a significant sum of money in developing the cell chip and have considerable interest in preventing possible competitors from being able to use that technology.

[cgc]

and I mean never. The closest we may get is he may allow PC makers to create PPC systems capable of running osx. but I doubt that too.

Exactly. No point or benefit of an Intel version...

[macnews]

I TOTALLY agree. I've been wondering lastely, if apple becomes more popluar in terms of computers, will viruses and spyware be errupting for OS X?


I dislike this arguement for two reasons - one is that it implies low market share will ensure no viruses/spyware - and as such you can "compute stupid". Any OS, regardless of market share, will at some point have a virus/spyware/trojan horse or other problem. Today, there is an exploit that effects almost every browser out there but one - IE. Sure not a virus but a sign no matter what OS your are on, you have to be careful.

Second, it implies that writting a virus that would only infect a small percentage of the popluation is not worthwhile. Remeber, many virus writters like the attention their viri gets! It is largely about ego, ego and more ego. Windows has tons of security holes any script kiddie can exploit them. A secure OS, like OSX presents a challenge.

How much media play would one virus writter get for infecting less than 1000 windows machines? At 10,000 they might get noticed. Write one virus that could even POTENTIALLY infect 1 mac OSX machine and I bet you will not hear the end of it! I can almost promise the first virus that DOES infect at least one mac OSX machine will be on your local evening news. So low market share doesn't play as big a part as some windows fans would like you to believe. Matter of fact, the lack of a virus could actually attract MORE virus writters.

This really has nothing to do with porting to X86, or shouldn't IMHO.

[jiv3turkey748]

I don't see the upside. Macs are Macs for a reason. PC people should stick to windows. The PC user buys a PC for the reason it was invented, cool screen savers, email, and surfing the web.
Wanna switch, get a mini.

i tottally agree who wants apple to turn into microsoft aand its not like apple needs the money they would get from sellin out their software theyre already making billions of dollars

[kidA]

here's one thing to think about kids:

steve jobs has a lot of years left, but what happens when he quits or retires. i don't think he wants apple to die with him. he's got to set it up for the long run. i'm not saying this is the way and i don't think it is. but he's got to do something. last time he left apple... well, we saw what happened.

steve jobs is, by now, widely considered the one of the best businessmen in the US if not the world (seriously, i'm not exaggerating, read some year end business lists). it'll be a complete crapshoot to replace him when the time comes, even if that is in 25 years.

[LethalWolfe]

Okay, OS X on x86 does NOT have to mean OS X running on ANY x86 machine a'la Windows.

OS X on x86 most likely means that Apple will use Intel procs in their computers. You'd still have to buy a Mac to get OS X, but it would be "Intel Inside" instead of IBM or Moto/Freescale.

*IF* Apple decided to become a software company it would require a complete retooling of their software development and marketing. Not only would they have to add a butt load of code to "ensure compatibility" w/all the x86 variants out there, they would also have to really jack up software prices. Currently, Apple software is to Apple hardware want iTMS is to the iPod.

Do you honestly think FCP HD would cost $999 if you didn't have to buy Apple's hardware to run it?


Lethal

[cr2sh]

Wow.. what a bunch of elitists. I'm all for the porting to different hardware. Bring it on.

I certainly don't buy into the idea that additional hardware support will increase virus activity. :rolleyes:

[Windowlicker]

improved keyboards...

what's wrong with the current ones? I love this keyboard (the one that ships with the new computers) because it doesn't take much space on my desk.

[kaneda]

I guess when Apple is licensing OS X for PC hardware...that mean they will be out of hardware business...no more powermac...no more powerbook...no more imac...I will never use computer again....PC sucks!

[BillyShears]

here's one thing to think about kids:

steve jobs has a lot of years left, but what happens when he quits or retires. i don't think he wants apple to die with him. he's got to set it up for the long run. i'm not saying this is the way and i don't think it is. but he's got to do something. last time he left apple... well, we saw what happened.

steve jobs is, by now, widely considered the one of the best businessmen in the US if not the world (seriously, i'm not exaggerating, read some year end business lists). it'll be a complete crapshoot to replace him when the time comes, even if that is in 25 years.

Well, papa, that has nothing to do with anything being discussed in the thread, now does it?

(And Amnesiac was better.)

[macFanDave]

NFW

Before IBM came out with G5 chips and before Apple released the highly affordable Mac mini, I might believe it. But now that they've got compelling offerings for high-end workstations (PowerMacs and Xserves) and budget-minded consumers, aka cheapskates (Mac mini), Apple has no reason to port OS X to x86.

In fact, with this CELL chip coming out, Sony could probably be the PC maker that wants to use OS X on a CELL-based system.

[Don't panic]

I dislike this arguement for two reasons - one is that it implies low market share will ensure no viruses/spyware - and as such you can "compute stupid". Any OS, regardless of market share, will at some point have a virus/spyware/trojan horse or other problem. Today, there is an exploit that effects almost every browser out there but one - IE. Sure not a virus but a sign no matter what OS your are on, you have to be careful.

Second, it implies that writting a virus that would only infect a small percentage of the popluation is not worthwhile. Remeber, many virus writters like the attention their viri gets! It is largely about ego, ego and more ego. Windows has tons of security holes any script kiddie can exploit them. A secure OS, like OSX presents a challenge.

How much media play would one virus writter get for infecting less than 1000 windows machines? At 10,000 they might get noticed. Write one virus that could even POTENTIALLY infect 1 mac OSX machine and I bet you will not hear the end of it! I can almost promise the first virus that DOES infect at least one mac OSX machine will be on your local evening news. So low market share doesn't play as big a part as some windows fans would like you to believe. Matter of fact, the lack of a virus could actually attract MORE virus writters.

This really has nothing to do with porting to X86, or shouldn't IMHO.

I largely agree with you, but you're not considering one element that makes market share objectively relevant: you need "like" machines for the virus to spread, by its own very nature.
unless a virus is dual-platform, it will only spread from one OS to another iteration of the same OS.
therefore OSX viruses (if/when they exist) would be intrinsecally less dangerous in an OSX-rarefied world than in an OSX-dense world.

the explosive spreading of viruses requires that a large majority of the machines can act as "carrier". If windows' share was to instantly drop by 50%, with exactly the same load of viruses, the negative effect of virus would drop by significantly more than 50%.

[k_splay]

Can someone explain to me why some of you think that providing OS X for Intel hardware would result in viruses targeting OS X?

I happen to think of a virally infected computer as "user's fault", and as I understand it, viruses depend on the OS of the machine -- not on the hardware istelf. If OS X is made to run on Intel hardware, the vulnerabilities will be the same as they are running on your Mac -- extremely difficult due to the security of the system.

I think the bigger issue would be the way that OS X "JUST WORKS". The big reason that OS X works so well is that they don't have to support miscellaneous hardware. They can focus on fully supporting a limited number of devices that compose a Mac instead of trying to make everything work for everyone and all hardware. This is/was(?) a major issue for Linux that, I think, would also be a major issue for Apple. The initial releases would appear buggy with lots of hardware, and Apple would be stuck with its foot in its mouth.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me (even though I think it's a bad idea) at all if Apple released in Intel version of OS X. I'd still opt to buy the fully supported Mac hardware so that my system can continue to "just work" with the hardware -- yeah, so it continues to look pretty, too. ;)

-K

[tizza]

I wonder what this would mean for Linux too if Mac OS X went to the PC? I could see OS X becoming the platform of choice for open-source development - but as people have been saying, OS X programs would be more likely to become a watered-down mish-mash of buggy code rather than mainly quality Apple s/w like we see now ... think I'd rather just see it stay for Mac h/w.

[GFLPraxis]

MacDailyNews posts (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4950/) more information from the subscription Fortune article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208020246.shtml) which talks to Steve Jobs about the state of Apple... which also drops this tidbit from the original article:



Mac OS X on Intel has been a long-debated topic, and an area that Apple has considered (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) prior to the adoption of the PowerPC 970 from IBM.


The question is, are they sure it's on INTEL?
It would make complete sense for Apple to license it out for CELL, since Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (three big PC manufacturers) are the ones working on the Cell processor (which is PowerPC based, as well).

[Don't panic]

The question is, are they sure it's on INTEL?
It would make complete sense for Apple to license it out for CELL, since Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (three big PC manufacturers) are the ones working on the Cell processor (which is PowerPC based, as well).

i was thinking the same. this would make a lot more sense.

edit: ironically, wasn't this the strategy (limited licensing to a few selected, high quality manufacturers) initially proposed for the Mac in the early 80s.
and who had proposed it?

[jmsait19]

I vote no for a lot of the reason everyone else is saying. PC makers would undercut Apple so why would anyone want to pay the premium for the Apple hardware. How about something like VOSX. Like a VPC type thing where they could use it and get a feel for it but it would run like crap giving them no reason to use it as a primary desktop.

I just don't want to see OSX on a bunch of crappy looking boxes. Call me elitist but i like my 1inch thick AlBook and how silent it is compared to PC laptops that sound like jet engines ready for takeoff.

[macmax77]

marketshare of the the OS world, yes, but what will come of apple hardware? why buy a 3300 powermac when you can have the same OS experience for much less? i'd still buy the powermac, but plenty of people won't. apple hardware will become even more "BMW" in the computer world. i hope apple knows what its doing...

i am not quite sure, if Apple has more money, it can lower the hardware price too and compete with the Winblows world.

[intrepkid21]

quote: tired of waiting for Longhorn

Does that mean that they have a version of Mac OS X86 already completed? I mean, wouldn't it take quite some time to port it otherwise? Longhorn is due for next year, so they would have to port it faster than that! If they haven't already done it... :eek:

OS X PC's this Tuesday!!!!!!!111 :(

This would be the end of everything Apple means to so many...

[dotdotdot]

Thats what seperates PCs from macs...

if a PC has a problem, Microsoft tech support sucks because they have no idea what your setup is! If an Apple has a problem, its easy to fix because its all the same hardware

[stickmedia]

IMHO, I think it would be an interesting idea if they shipped a 'low-fi' version of OSX for the wintel-ers. Something like XP Home. Just a really dumbed down version that would whet their appetites for the real thing. SJ has been going out of his way to make the 'Mac experience' more accessible to potential switchers. A really lo-fi version of OSX that they could run on their wintel hardware would be a great way to push them over to the Mac and it wouldn't cannibalize sales either…

[Little Endian]

OSX or the Mac OS in general is a Decade old rumor that will never come to fruition. It is a Dumb idea that would not work and those who don't understand why don't really understand the Macintosh concept. Once upon a time it could have worked but that time has come and gone there is no second chance. The main reason for the macintosh experience is that close intergration of Hardware and Software that Only a company that controls all aspects can provide. The main reason OSX for X86 would not work anytime in the near future is that it really is'nt that simple to port OSX and all of it's software to run on X86. If anyone has used any flavor of PowerPC Linux they would know that say Linux Mandrake PPC won't run alot of X86 Linux software without some extensive recompliling and vice versa. It would be bad if OSX had anything more than 10-15% marketshare as we would become a viable target for malware and virii as mentioned before. Also I think X86 is overated compared to PPC. Sure overall it's faster and cheaper but PPC is more promising right now.

[Stella]

I can't be arsed to look through the forum posts.

IF apple license out OSX on Intel then Apple will lose hardware sales, and thus they will be more reliant on iPod sales. Putting eggs into one basket.

Furthermore, once Longhorn is released, unless OSX on Intel has been a big success, these PC companies will probably drop OSX for Intel.

One last thing: It is worth Apple's while to do the port? ( I have heard the rumours that apple have already done this.. but probably not with the latest version of OSX).

[TheMasin9]

hasnt happened, wont happen, isnt going to happen cuz OSX is too good for pc and would require a massive revamping of the OS to be able to run on the wide range of pcs. from a crappy dell to a high end voodoo or alienware. It aint gonna happen.

15.2 in 1.5 ghz alum pb
20gb g4 ipod

[hjhhjh]

unless using os x for an intel based computer would have a disadvantage over using it with an apple computer, it would crush apple

[macnews]

I largely agree with you, but you're not considering one element that makes market share objectively relevant: you need "like" machines for the virus to spread, by its own very nature.
unless a virus is dual-platform, it will only spread from one OS to another iteration of the same OS.
therefore OSX viruses (if/when they exist) would be intrinsecally less dangerous in an OSX-rarefied world than in an OSX-dense world.

the explosive spreading of viruses requires that a large majority of the machines can act as "carrier". If windows' share was to instantly drop by 50%, with exactly the same load of viruses, the negative effect of virus would drop by significantly more than 50%.

I agree, if Apple has a larger market share it could be in the same situation as windows. However, a virus can exist with little to no market share. When making a business decision like porting to X86, I don't think you should NOT do something because you are worried about a virus.

[MyLeftNut]

Its not about being elitist. Its about bringing a higher standard in terms of design and quality to the world at large. Near enough is not good enough. My saying has always been 'People always want more. Why can't they want better?'

Steve Jobs has vision and its not one of compromise (thats why I sound like a fanboi). If Apple let other players in on the game those players will drop the ball. I would suspect only Sony or IBM might do the right thing. To do what they're suggesting is to be mediocre. I don't want that. Not after having come from the PC world.

Anyway, can you imagine Steve on stage and up comes through the stage floor
a crappy new beige box with the 'all new Mac OSX for Wintel'...ooh whoopee.

Sorry guys I just hate to see a good thing like Apple go down the tubes. :(

[zwida]

Before IBM came out with G5 chips and before Apple released the highly affordable Mac mini, I might believe it. But now that they've got compelling offerings for high-end workstations (PowerMacs and Xserves) and budget-minded consumers, aka cheapskates (Mac mini), Apple has no reason to port OS X to x86.
But isn't that exactly the logic to suggest that Apple COULD do this? I mean, for the first time, they have a computer that can be decribed as "highly affordable." Until 2-months ago, if Apple had licensed their OS, they would have been blown out of the water on price. If they're really talking about a license, why not write a restrictive agreement that prohibits sales below $500 (or some number that the market research folks tell them makes sense)?

Frankly, I don't think that they SHOULD do it. I happen to agree that the overall Apple user experience is more valuable to Apple than the dollars they'd make on the license. That said, the potential market created by licensing (if done correctly) may be too rich to pass up.

[Bonsaichop]

You're all missing the point! Why does windows (and I am a heavy windows user so no jabs) suck so incredibly?

Its not the operating system. It is as different (in its own rights) as any *nix interface, or other gui or non gui interface. It has its own pros and cons but this is not why it sucks.

No... its not even the fact that Microsoft have released more updates than I will have birthdays in my lifetime.

Software
Windows has a much larger software base, developers are slack, everyone likes to cut corners. We see it all the time with any operating system, its just that with Apple software interfaces we do not see it as often. Soo many software applications (not including the major corporation applications) are written by one or 2 people working in thier home. Hell, most of the software I use was written by a good friend of mine and its buggy as hell!
Apple has such a small share (no offence) of the market. Windows towers all over it. Think of a windshield on a car. Now imagine the windows car is the size of a semi-trailer (i dont know what you *points :P* Americans call it.. 18 wheeler?) and think of Mac OSX as a remote controlled Nitro car. They both travel at the same speed hitting bugs on thier windshield.. how many will hit the semi compared to teh nitro car? If mac OS was alot more popular then assholes would make adaware for it, they WOULD make viruses for it. But because the base is so small noone really (no offence) cares to do anything about it.


Hardware
Apple. Hardware designed by apple. Hardware tested by apple or affiliates of apple. Software programmed by apple. Software programmed for the specific use on Apple hardware.
Windows. Made by microsoft. Supports CPUS by Intel, AMD, VIA, Cursoe(sorry i cant remmeber the manufactuer). Supports motherboards by (insert god only knows how many motherboard manufactuers). Supports video cards (insert motherboard manufactuers and multiply by a factor of 100), Supports other add-on cards, optical drives, hdds, periferhals (insert video cards here and multiply by infinity).
The fact is that Windows supports an infinitly larger amount of hardware, OF COURSE ITS NOT GOING TO WORK 100% My god! I love apple and all but its like turning lead into Gold when you try to explain to an apple user that Windows doesn't work beacuse it has too much to support and if things are done half assed by hardware/softare manufactuers of course its going to fail
Have you ever seen one of those people that take a stock Toyota Corolla, put 20" rims, add a turbo, add catback exhaust, put better extractors, put a scoop, add a body kit, add a spoiler that could outrun a F/A18 Hornet, dye the interior, new seats, illegal silver windows, scisor doors, etc etc etc. Thats what windows is. A stock car with so many shithouse addons that it works for maybe 1/100th of the time.

Who's going to Test OSX so that it works with every hardware accessory and doesnt crash like windows does?
Who's going to enforce making software that doesnt crash with everything?
How long will it take for adaware apps to start popping up on OSX for x86
How long till the idiots, script kiddies, plain assholes to make viruses for OSX?
Who are you going to blame when OSX becomes the runaway train like windows does?

[jiv3turkey748]

the more i think about it this forum is a waste of time bcuz theres no way apple would ever do this it really wouldnt make any sense all it does is cheapen the apple name

[macmax77]

but you know what, even if Apple could do what i said before, why give the windows world , which attacks us so much our OS, No way!!!

[dlfitch]

HP and Sony, those two are easy. But who's the third? Couldn't be Dell... Gateway? That would be funny. eMachines? That would be hilarious...

I think Apple should give companies permission to build specific OS X machines that fill niche markets which Apple doesn't target. Sony can build a Cell- based HDTV that runs OS X. HP can build high- end servers and workstations. Gateway or Toshiba could build mid- range desktops that aren't cheap but maybe $200 less than a PowerMac. Even Dell could make one of their two- inch thick laptops for the 'mobile gamers' out there.

Obviously nobody is gonna stop making windows machines, so I don't think the PC manufactures would care if Apple came in and said, "OK we have the badass software so everyone do as we say..." and then told the companies what they could and could not make. They wouldn't be 'clones', so to speak, but rather compliments to the OS X universe.

[themacman]

then what would be the point in buying a peice of apple hardware?

[obeygiant]

read my lips:
N_E_V_E_R_H_A_P_P_E_N

If Jobs licenses his OS then why would anyone buy a apple computer? Just buy a stinky Dell and slap tiger on it.

[surfjim]

They chose Microsoft, so let them deal with the pitfalls of their decision...don't compromise OS X just for money. Let them deal with Longhorn, the latest ripoff...

[ph0rk]

Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.


Oh for crying out loud, who cares what a desktop looks like? (and also, how many pc manufacturers are cranking out beige machines anymore? the 90's are over.)


In order to focus on the software (as Jobs states) you must try as much as possible to make the hardware invisible to the user, and without total control over hardware design it can't be done. That is one reason why the Mac is great:
the computer is designed and configured by the the same company that wrote the OS and the major applications. It just works better that way.


This seems the best argument against it, imo. The virus and spyware thing is a straw man: if you're too stupid to avoid them on a windows box, that's your own problem.


I wouldn't mind 3rd party ppc boxen; that actually might lead to some real development cpu-wise.

[freechris]

COME ON GUYS

you really dont want OSX on x86, it makes no sense at all. please no hardware conflicts or applications that need to be rewritten, PLEASE THEY JUST DID THAT!!

no we really dont want that

But NOT because Apple makes only money out of their hardware,
for christ!!!! how do you think Microsoft became so rich? did they sell expensive x86 boxes? I dont think so, they licensed their OS and everyone used it and now it is dominant and bill is rich.

If only 20% of all consumer computers were x86 machines running OSX then Apple would already be super rich and they would not have to depend on their hardware sales right? So please dont start with arguments that Apple depends on their hardware sales and stuff.

ANYWAYS....

we really dont want to shift to something like x86, because right now, IBM is the way to go for the future, we all know that.

BUT

still i think the best thing to do for apple IF they want more marketshare or influence, is license two or three big names (for example: IBM, HP, SONY)
To sell PowerPC based machines (G4, G5 or whatever) with about the same specs as powermacs, running OSX. The only difference between the pc-vendor box and the powermac would be the case, the monitor and of course, THE PRICE!!

Trust me, not everyone wants a shiny macintosh on their desk. Apple sells to a certain niche group i think and i don't think you could really reach the big mass (dont start flaming that they dont want to reach it, they sell ipods to masses as well and mac mini's too!)

So people could choose whether they like to have a sony, HP or IBM or Apple computer which comes with OSX and iLife apps. It could just run PPC hardware with all the stuff that a normal powerpc also includes. Maybe small differences as long as Apple garantuees that it works. The supplier (ibm, hp..) would have to confirm to all the rules about what hardware and stuff they have to use) In this way, no one would ever had any problems with hardware conflicts (you will if you license to every crappy x86 box!!) And apple can still control a lot of the quality and user experience.

What do you guys think??? sound much better right?

[ruud]

Releasing OS X for x86 means that it would probably be copied illegally a whole lot more than currently happens. Currently, someone who copies a friend's version of Panther (or Tiger, etc.) must have already bought a Mac. So yes, Apple loses out on the $129 sale, but this same person has already bought a Mac (revenue for Apple) in the past and will probably buy another Mac in the future (more revenue for Apple).

On the other hand, a PC user who copies the hypothetical x86 OS X does not bring any revenue to Apple. The only thing they can hope for is some sort of halo effect where the user gets hooked onto OS X and will buy a Mac as his next computer. But why should he have to, since he can just buy a cheap PC and copy OS X again.

Another thing: if Apple were to release OS X for x86, you can be sure that Microsoft would immediately retaliate by making Windows a lot cheaper. They can afford to run a loss for a while.

All in all, I don't think releasing OS X for x86 is in Apple's interest at all. But I do believe they have a version in-house.

[swissmann]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

I agree. Let Apple be huge in something like the iPod but right where they are at with something like the Macintosh. iPod funds the company. The Mac Users remain an elite group too small to attack.

[Maxiseller]

This is he chance for Apple to principally make a bunch of money on it's new prize software - tiger. More money than it would probably make if it sold just to Macs, but they shouldn't ever do this.

The mac is about an experience. I have only had one for a year, and now Ive got three. Not because I'm obsessed - but becasue they actually work. If I'm looking for somthing, it's there, and the truly astounding features that Apple has introduced are mind blowing. Just the other day I was thinking : How do I get a truly great Valantines gift? Then the answer : Get a bunch of shots of me and the girlfriend, and get them printed in the book design on iPhoto. Not only did it arrive in a gorgeous Apple box, it had the customary shrink wrapping, perfectly pressed and folded and looked fantastic. Worth every penny.

Whats the point of this thread? You give somone half the mac experience and it's useless. You take them into one of the mac stores, you let them send an email off yours, you order a book for them or burn a CD from your desktop and they want one. They want that simplicity, stability, they want the design - and thats the way it should be. It's not the OS alone that makes the platform great. It's the attention to detail, painstaking design of interface, hardware, software, services and packaging. THAT is the experience. And thats why I use a desktop, a laptop and I got one for my mom to use too. Thats why friends have converted. Please Apple, see the logic...

[zv470]

Point 1:
Even if they Port OS X... software would still have to be recompiled to run on Intel/AMD processors.

Point 2:
It might increase Apple's market share in the OS sector... but it would generate little extra revenue. I know very few people that actually bought Windows. The people I know who own Windows had it shipped with their new PCs.

[jettredmont]

OS X for people with Wintel boxes. Great idea! Except ...

Apple already sells this. It comes in a box just slightly larger than the regular OS X Panther box, and with compatible hardware and iLife included! Only $499!

Having read the original article, this seemed a throwaway line, talking about an unrequited advance by a few Windows cloners, somewhat akin to Real's proposal to get together for an iTunes/iPod/RealONE hegemony.

I won't even start in on the myriad reasons why this would be a bad business move ... List the possible scenarios, from Apple-controlled Intel hardware to put-it-on-any-pile-of-crap-that-sticks-together-with-a-power-supply. They all come up lacking, either from an Apple business standpoint or from a consumer satisfaction viewpoint. Costs go up, or no legacy hardware is supported, or no legacy software is supported, or Apple kisses its entire hardware business goodbye. Compare that to what we already have right now, and the choice is obvious.

[neoelectronaut]

what's wrong with the current ones? I love this keyboard (the one that ships with the new computers) because it doesn't take much space on my desk.

Quote from a stupid Windows fanboy:

Me: And uh...is there something wrong with a Mac?

"YES! I like my applications, games, and crappy word processors with free software! And my *Windows* key and my Ctrl + Alt commands and my ability to make my own computer and use the latest stuff out so it isn't slow and can run the games I want which is the reason to have a computer! Hahaha!"

Feel free to back me up:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nattosoup/84363.html

[phillymjs]

I wrote this a few months ago in reply to a post on Slashdot bemoaning the lack of Mac OS X for x86 hardware. This comes up so often, I saved it for future use:

----------
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel hardware ran on a tiny subset of the available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.

That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.

Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price, or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.

~Philly

[vouder17]

You're all missing the point! Why does windows (and I am a heavy windows user so no jabs) suck so incredibly?

Its not the operating system. It is as different (in its own rights) as any *nix interface, or other gui or non gui interface. It has its own pros and cons but this is not why it sucks.

No... its not even the fact that Microsoft have released more updates than I will have birthdays in my lifetime.

Software
Windows has a much larger software base, developers are slack, everyone likes to cut corners. We see it all the time with any operating system, its just that with Apple software interfaces we do not see it as often. Soo many software applications (not including the major corporation applications) are written by one or 2 people working in thier home. Hell, most of the software I use was written by a good friend of mine and its buggy as hell!
Apple has such a small share (no offence) of the market. Windows towers all over it. Think of a windshield on a car. Now imagine the windows car is the size of a semi-trailer (i dont know what you *points :P* Americans call it.. 18 wheeler?) and think of Mac OSX as a remote controlled Nitro car. They both travel at the same speed hitting bugs on thier windshield.. how many will hit the semi compared to teh nitro car? If mac OS was alot more popular then ********** would make adaware for it, they WOULD make viruses for it. But because the base is so small noone really (no offence) cares to do anything about it.


Hardware
Apple. Hardware designed by apple. Hardware tested by apple or affiliates of apple. Software programmed by apple. Software programmed for the specific use on Apple hardware.
Windows. Made by microsoft. Supports CPUS by Intel, AMD, VIA, Cursoe(sorry i cant remmeber the manufactuer). Supports motherboards by (insert god only knows how many motherboard manufactuers). Supports video cards (insert motherboard manufactuers and multiply by a factor of 100), Supports other add-on cards, optical drives, hdds, periferhals (insert video cards here and multiply by infinity).
The fact is that Windows supports an infinitly larger amount of hardware, OF COURSE ITS NOT GOING TO WORK 100% My god! I love apple and all but its like turning lead into Gold when you try to explain to an apple user that Windows doesn't work beacuse it has too much to support and if things are done half assed by hardware/softare manufactuers of course its going to fail
Have you ever seen one of those people that take a stock Toyota Corolla, put 20" rims, add a turbo, add catback exhaust, put better extractors, put a scoop, add a body kit, add a spoiler that could outrun a F/A18 Hornet, dye the interior, new seats, illegal silver windows, scisor doors, etc etc etc. Thats what windows is. A stock car with so many shithouse addons that it works for maybe 1/100th of the time.

Who's going to Test OSX so that it works with every hardware accessory and doesnt crash like windows does?
Who's going to enforce making software that doesnt crash with everything?
How long will it take for adaware apps to start popping up on OSX for x86
How long till the idiots, script kiddies, plain ********** to make viruses for OSX?
Who are you going to blame when OSX becomes the runaway train like windows does?


You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!! and welcome to Macrumors

[GregA]

marketshare of the the OS world, yes, but what will come of apple hardware? why buy a 3300 powermac when you can have the same OS experience for much less? i'd still buy the powermac, but plenty of people won't. apple hardware will become even more "BMW" in the computer world. i hope apple knows what its doing...Exactly - you wouldn't buy Apple hardware with Mac OS unless it was cost effective. If it's not cost effective, then what's REALLY going on? Is some part of the total Mac experience costing too much? We would be better off if apple just let PC makers build PPC machines. Then more software would be ported to PPC/MAC if more people would use it. <snip> As for worms and spyware, the security holes are fixed quickly by apple, and the OS isn't insecure by design, so that's not SO much of a problem as it is with Windows.The only advantages I can see for clone PPCs (instead of OSX on x86) is that there's no recompile, and it will decrease the number of platforms OSX has to support (not ALL x86s). Then again, Openstep was created (from NextStep) specifically for cross platform capabilities. And Apple could still restrict which x86 machines OSX runs on (if PC manufacturers are approaching Apple, maybe there would be certain very specific hardware requirements? 64bit only? etc).

Really, I don't think HP (for instance) would consider making PPC machines unless Windows XP ran on them also (with x86 emulation).

I like the idea of Apple software and hardware working with as many other competitors as possible, while making Apple hardware+Apple software the 'Premier" place to run it all. They have to price their software realistically to their costs of writing and supporting it. These days at least they could sell iLife to all the clone buyers - but they could do that on Windows if they wanted too.

I also hate it when people say OSX is good only because it has so few supporters that virus software isn't written, and no bugs because it only runs on a couple of machines. That said, there is a lot of x86 crap out there, and even dangling their toes in that water may be dangerous!

[jadam]

Why would apple even bother with OS X on x86? The way I see it, is maybe they would license OS X for Sony, IBM, Toshiba, and maybe HP.... Then they could of course require that those machines are certified by apple's hardware quality labs in order to get a Certified by Apple Sticker on their machines.

[JW Pepper]

Apple has learned that they make products that are in real demand, the iPod didn't really take off until they made it PC compatible and had they not done so it would not be the market leader it is today.

the launch of the Mac Mini represents a huge change in strategy, but as such I think it is an experiment. To spell it out, by selling the Mac Mini Apple has signalled they they are starting to make more money out of their installed base then from new hardware sales. If they had full confidence in this strategy then we will see a G5 Mac Mini in time, they won't be worried about compromising PowerMac sales because they will be aiming at the largest number of users.

Revenue per-user is an important element regarding the subject of this thread. If we accept that the business model is changing then there is no barrier to making an x86 version of OSX available for licensing. It would be a numbers game. 100 million users of OSX on X86 would generate far more revenue than Apple achieves currently.

personally I don't think Apple is ready to do this but I would not go so far as to rule it out.

[TorbX]

The X86 is dead to Apple. Only the PPC line is worth it to them and this might include giving out OS X for Cell desktops made by Sony, Toshiba and IBM in the future.

YES!

My thoughts exactly! :D

[BWhaler]

Never, ever going to happen. Well, at least for at least 10 years.

[dlfitch]

Another thing: if Apple were to release OS X for x86, you can be sure that Microsoft would immediately retaliate by making Windows a lot cheaper. They can afford to run a loss for a while.

I don't know about that, M$ makes almost all their dough from windows and office. They stop making money on either of those and they will be running into the red very quickly.

[brentonbrenton]

imagine trying to support the myriad of hardware. what was the point of the mac mini - so you could waste money because you have too much?

[Sun Baked]

A Cocoa-only version of it might work, it was Apple's original OS strategy, but it would become an alternative to Linux not Windows.

Darwin, Mac GUI, Cocoa + stuff that Apple has already moved to Cocoa wouldn't be OS X -- because we depend too much on Carbon apps right now.

Without Carbon, there is no VPC, Office, Adobe, Quark, etc. -- so the OS would arrive in a application vacuum -- which would take years to fill.

And Linux has a headstart, but it is an alternative -- and one with a couple decades of history.

Something that "may" get a bunch of developers to jump on-board and give Apple several years to transition to a Software company.

Add Carbon to the x86 version of the OS and the Apple Hardware sales suddenly vanish... putting Apple into clone wars financial hardship instantly.

---

Still don't see it happening, because Apple at some point would shift to directly competing with Micrsoft -- which is usually fatal for most commercial OSs.

It would probably be safer for Apple to give Amiga OS 4.0 a boost and get the PPC side of the equation on more stable ground, and help reduce the PPC hardware costs.

Heck, allow them to ship the Mini with Amiga OS 4.0 for a year or two, until they develop their own HW.

[~loserman~]

Clones


Did nothing for Apple in the end...

While the clones did nothing ....
This is different.
The clones were just crappy MAC nockoffs...(WITH A CRAPPY OS)and the only people who were interested in them was people who were MAC users already and wanted a cheap MAC.

OS X is a good OS and would sell like hotcakes.

[Lynxpoint]

I say it would be a bad idea.

There is one excpetion though: if a company like Toshiba worked with Apple to deliver a new product derivied from both, like an Apple Tablet, that would be awsome! (and Apple could benefit by testing new products without absorbing all the costs)

[Spock]

----------


That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.





Well, if You read the post it said PC makers i.e Dell,HP, Lets say Apple agrees to let Dell put Mac OS X on their computers, I think Dell knows what componets go inside and could rewrite Mac OS X to run on the components. And upgrades would have to be Mac OS X Ready. Who says they dont have a PC in Dells labs running Mac OS?

[jwhitnah]

You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!! and welcome to Macrumors
He really did. Even though it means apple will always be relativly small, I'll take quality over quantity. Think of it as an acura or infiniti.

[sonicbaz]

Ohhh I really hope this is true, would be so cool, OS X would rule the world, if they can do this it will allow Apple to sell their hardware at a cheaper price, it would be the greatest thing ever. :D

sonicbaz

[jwhitnah]

Apple has learned that they make products that are in real demand, the iPod didn't really take off until they made it PC compatible and had they not done so it would not be the market leader it is today.

the launch of the Mac Mini represents a huge change in strategy, but as such I think it is an experiment. To spell it out, by selling the Mac Mini Apple has signalled they they are starting to make more money out of their installed base then from new hardware sales. If they had full confidence in this strategy then we will see a G5 Mac Mini in time, they won't be worried about compromising PowerMac sales because they will be aiming at the largest number of users.

Revenue per-user is an important element regarding the subject of this thread. If we accept that the business model is changing then there is no barrier to making an x86 version of OSX available for licensing. It would be a numbers game. 100 million users of OSX on X86 would generate far more revenue than Apple achieves currently.

personally I don't think Apple is ready to do this but I would not go so far as to rule it out.

I think we need to give the iPod and Mac mini time sway PC users. I predict our market share will significantly increase, largely due to the efforts. I just takes time before their impact can be detected.

[Yonizzle]

OS X for people with Wintel boxes. Great idea! Except ...

Apple already sells this. It comes in a box just slightly larger than the regular OS X Panther box, and with compatible hardware and iLife included! Only $499!

Having read the original article, this seemed a throwaway line, talking about an unrequited advance by a few Windows cloners, somewhat akin to Real's proposal to get together for an iTunes/iPod/RealONE hegemony.

..


Well, I was gonna (finally) register to reply to this thread, but then I finally read the post that said what I would've.

What's that? I did register to reply to this thread? Well I guess it bears repeating: opinions regarding the potential quality of Mac OS for Intel systems notwithstanding, it seems as though the release of the Mac mini was Apple's answer to that lingering question. People were saying, "you should make the Mac experience more accessible by porting the OS to commodity hardware," and Apple responded with, "Instead, we'll just do it by making the whole package available at less cost."

The other good point is that the article quote doesn't lend any support to the presumption that Apple is about to do this. It just says other companies want them to. The fact that folks who make money from the Wintel empire are looking to Apple for help just suggests that Apple's doing something right, meaning it's not the time for Apple to make such a drastic change..

[Blue Velvet]

While the clones did nothing ....
This is different.
The clones were just crappy MAC nockoffs...(WITH A CRAPPY OS)and the only people who were interested in them was people who were MAC users already and wanted a cheap MAC.

OS X is a good OS and would sell like hotcakes.


You don't think we'd see crappy PCs running OS X?

It wouldn't sell like hotcakes because it would be torrented like hot cakes...
Besides, what software would run on OSX on an x.86? None...

Pure nonsense.

[Mainyehc]

and I mean never. The closest we may get is he may allow PC makers to create PPC systems capable of running osx. but I doubt that too.

Why not? And as for Apple risking its hardware business... I don't think so. Don't forget, if OS X is the crown, Apple's applications ARE the jewels!! Apple would still be bundling iLife with every new Mac. I could easily see Apple bundling *both* iLife and iWork with every new Mac, and selling stripped-down OEM copies of Mac OS X to its hardware competitors. Apple couldn't be accused of monopolistic practices, like M$ was, or could it be??...

This would be sweet for Apple, *and* for their customers, IMHO. Some people would buy "PowerPC PCs" (weird terminology, I know), with OS X only, and then they could buy Apple software as desired. Macs, OTOH, would come with lots of freebies, so, they would be better value... For Apple, it would be a win-win situation, since they would still sell Macs (as they are so gorgeous and well designed), OS X copies, and Apple apps. And in the eventuality of Apple gaining a marketshare like that of Dell (if Dell can dominate the open x86 market, why couldn't Apple dominate a free PPC market?), thanks to the economies of scale, us Mac users wouldn't have to put up with insufficient RAM or crappy GPUs...

And what would this mean? Microsoft and Intel's demise! I don't know if to become 21st century's Microsoft would do Apple (or us, for that matter) any good, but anyway, it could be fun to watch :rolleyes:

[GFLPraxis]

I HAVE AN IDEA

HP and Sony, those two are easy. But who's the third? Couldn't be Dell... Gateway? That would be funny. eMachines? That would be hilarious...

I think Apple should give companies permission to build specific OS X machines that fill niche markets which Apple doesn't target. Sony can build a Cell- based HDTV that runs OS X. HP can build high- end servers and workstations. Gateway or Toshiba could build mid- range desktops that aren't cheap but maybe $200 less than a PowerMac. Even Dell could make one of their two- inch thick laptops for the 'mobile gamers' out there.

Obviously nobody is gonna stop making windows machines, so I don't think the PC manufactures would care if Apple came in and said, "OK we have the badass software so everyone do as we say..." and then told the companies what they could and could not make. They wouldn't be 'clones', so to speak, but rather compliments to the OS X universe.

Listen to my theory.

I think they found out that Apple was talking about licensing OS X to others, and ASSUMED it was Intel processors.

Think about it. There have been HUGE amounts of hints from Stevie about an alliance with Sony. There already is an alliance with IBM. We also have seen a lot of hints that point toward Apple adopting Cell.

Let's put two and two together, shall we?

Who is making the Cell processor?

Three big PC companies:
IBM, Sony, and Toshiba.

I think Apple is switching to CELL processors and licensing Mac OS X to Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (the three companies in the Cell alliance), for use on Cell computers (after all, there will be no OS that runs on Cell- why not get Apple to write one for the new processor? It's already PowerPC based, anyway. You don't want to get under M$'s thumb, and Linux is too difficult for the average user...so go Mac), and the writers of the article heard 'porting to another processor' and assumed Intel.

I can pull up some articles written on the subject if necessary.

It makes perfect sense though.

[dontmatter]

First....

Please, for the sake of your blood pressure, relax.

That PC makers would make OS X based machines if apple let them isn't even news.

Trust me, apple has thought this out, MAJORLY. Open vs. closed platform defines apple more than any single other element, perhaps more than all other elements, as a buisness. Relax.

Apple has leaned two lessons the hard way, and it's not going to repeat the same mistakes twice-

Lesson one-Software costs a fixed ammount to produce, and therefore, with a successful open platform, it can be IMMENSELY more profitable than hardware. See microsoft. Opening up would have been far better for apple.

Two-Opening up WOULD have been far better. But, profitibility of software depends entierly on the volume you sell it in. If you aren't at the top, or have very, very good reasons to believe that when open, you would dominate the market, then... all you do is canablize your own very profitable hardware sales. Apple learned this with the clones, and steve remedied.

The ipod is evidence of both, in a way. Apple opened it up to PC makers, but, according to the second lesson, DOES NOT OPEN FURTHER. Why? Because the second lesson really goes like this-opening is only good with large market share, IN SOFTWARE. As sales increase in music, prices go up, and same with ipods. (prices per unit go down, by economies of scale, but in software, prices TOTAL stay the same, no matter how much is distributed).

Anyway, apple knows how to play the game now, and I guarentee the aren't going to do anything foolish in this realm. Closed, closed, closed, until they're at the limit of hardware market share, and then-OPEN!

Which, will probably never happen.

[pilotgi]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Bill Gates talks to Michael Dell about his decision to begin selling pcs with OS X.

"Dell recommends Windows XP Professional.... or Mac OS X for X86!

[j33pd0g]

How about a simple version of OS X that can do your basic stuff - you know - just enough to make you want Apple Hardware for the full version.

Ha, how about they release OS 9.2 for the PC...

[Blue Velvet]

Somebody please tell me what applications would run on this fantasy?

[GFLPraxis]

Yeah, OS X for Intel is ridiculous.

Remember, BINARIES, people! All current software would NOT RUN on an intel processor. You'd have OS X and nothing to run on it.

[bigandy]

nonononononononono

i hope so much this never happens. it will destroy apple. competing with the "bottomless financial pit" that is microsoft is asking to be destroyed. or worse, bought out. eeeewwwwwww microsoft osx. what a sobering thought

[neonart]

I don't understand why H-P, for example, would want OS-X on Intel when they can have the same market presence by licensing and rebranding the actual Apple box, just like they currently do with the iPod. No way would Jobs allow Apple clones, but I'm sure he'd have no problem sharing the marketing and branding with a partner.

Who wants to be in the PC business anyway -- the margins suck and Dell will always undercut you on price. But if you just want a presence in the marketplace, sell the H-P (or Toshiba or Samsung) Mac mini and focus your corporate R&D on the high margin servers.


This is it. I can't believe I missed this.

Apple does not have to license anything to anyone. Simply make their stuff. Who cares if you buy an Mac Mini or HP Mini? If they're both made by Apple and run OSX. Everybody wins!
Apple sells CPU's by the bucketload. HP gets some nice margins. The customers gets a solid OS. And Apple hardware is available all over the place. I can see this happening. It's worked just fine with the iPod. It can work with CPU's too.
Most companies that make PC hardware could care less if they sold it or not. It's why IBM gave up on boxes, hard drives, and soon laptops too. There will always be some cheap-as-free Dell giving stuff away.

Good insight chicagdan.

[s10]

but what if only ONE maker would (be allowed to) switch to OsX, say SONY?

[matticus008]

Well, if You read the post it said PC makers i.e Dell,HP, Lets say Apple agrees to let Dell put Mac OS X on their computers, I think Dell knows what componets go inside and could rewrite Mac OS X to run on the components. And upgrades would have to be Mac OS X Ready. Who says they dont have a PC in Dells labs running Mac OS?

Dell doesn't use a single set of hardware components. They change all the time, and further, Dell doesn't really do very much in the way of programming, and certainly doesn't have a team that could tackle an OS port. Apple might not even have the spare resources for that venture. Dell isn't running OS X in any lab, anywhere, unless it's on a Mac. Apple has had a program for a while that developed an x86 version of their OS, but it was intended primarily for the days before the 970 series, when the PowerPC platform was in danger of disappearing and Apple needed to be able to respond more quickly.

If anything, Apple's engineers have scrapped that x86 version and are now turning their attention to a Cell recompile. Why bother with x86? Intel doesn't like it, AMD is trying to shift away from it, and if Cell delivers to its high potential, both of them are going to have to reevaluate their processor designs in order to keep up. AMD has some room to run with its 64-bit technologies (which Intel has licensed for their own processors in the future and renamed EM64T), and Intel's only saving grace at this point is speed. Raw speed. That can only hold out so long, and if they have problems with dual core transitions, and AMD succeeds, they stand to lose some significant market share. Either way, if the 64-bit evolution takes off, AMD's next generation of processors is probably going to do its best to de-x86. And Intel might finally move on to new technologies. The Cell with its Power core, blazing clock speeds, and integrated performance is the non-PowerPC (as we know it) path for Apple, and NOT x86.

[Lanbrown]

Maybe Steve is getting a second chance to license his OS.

This is really the only way I see Apple getting a significant marketshare.

Marketshare of what? MS has switched to a subscription model to keep revenue flowing. How would OS X on x86 help Apple? It won't bring new software to the Mac side. It won't help sell Macs either. Most companies don't even support linsux on x86, why would they support OS X? If there's no software, then the user will not follow. You have quite a few people that don't know how to use a computer, if the icon is not on the desktop, they don't know how to run it. They don't adapt to change at all.

[ChapterHouse]

Control is the key word.

Apple could very well introduce new features all the time in the OS to keep the x86 platform off-balance (let's say every 18 months or so) and keep a steady stream of revenues from that while at the same time ensuring that the PowerPC remains a premium platform in terms of quality and user experience. And they have the marketing know-how to spin that so they look good on both counts.

[SiliconAddict]

Mac OS on the x86 platform just isn’t going to happen. I originally was all for it as well but after reading enough threads on the topic. *shakes head* Apple’s best feature is its all in one solution. No take that and dump it on another platform and you have multiple solutions spread over two platforms and god know how much hardware not controlled by Apple. The only thing I could possibly see Apple doing is select an OEM to produce and distribute low end PPC Mac Minis. Leave the low end to someone else and focus on your high end PowerMac/iMac/PowerBook solution.

Getting back to OS X on x86. It will only happen as a last ditch effort on Apple’s part. An x86 release is like Apple's doomsday weapon against Windows.
Jobs probably has a big red Apple logo button with a locked cover on it on his desk. If he presses the button it launches the purchase page of the x86 version of OS X on Apple's front page and starts up the DVD presses deep in the core of the Earth managed by the Mole People.

[BenRoethig]

Or it will show that OS X is not as great as we thought... incompatibility issues, spyware, viruses will just prove that it has always been in the same level as XP. Right now, the 'bad-hacker' community do not pay attention to OS X because who wants to bother the minority (3%)...

Hopefully, it never happens...

A couple points

1. Spyware (and viruses) are caused by poorly written software, not hardware. OS X will not become Windows just because of running on x86 hardware. If WinXP was running on PPC it'd have the exact same virus problems.

2. Apple's marketshare isn't likey to change much if x86 clones happen. A good 95% of the user base are die hard Apple fans who want something different from the average PC tower.

3. It gives Apple a cushion if IBM wants to turn its attention to production of Cell and game console chips. Freescale's focus on the embedded market so they are not a very good option.

4. We're not talking Power Computing, Daystar, and Umax here, we're talking major PC makers with large advertising budgets and established distribution chains.

5. It's about time we declared open war on Windows.

[outerspaceapple]

You know why this won't happen? IBM, Toshiba, and Sony all partnered up to make the new CELL processor, and this thing will blow others out of the water. IBM and Apple have a great relationship, and from what I've read CELL actually incorporates AltiVec into it. This means that IBM and Apple probably already have plans on putting CELL chips in Apple computers.

Imagine, if you will, if Apple introduced a PowerMac 4.6GHz machine this July. Sound far-fetched? Well it is... using current chip architecture, but its very realistic and attainable with CELL. IBM plans to have these things rolling off the assembly lines before the end of Q2.

Now, If Apple did have a 4.6GHz PowerMac, they would undoubtably have the fastest prosumer PC on the market today, and wouldn't need to license their software to x86 PC manufacturers!



These are the golden years of apple.

[plinden]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

Well, if MacOSX would run on x86 processors, Apple could concentrate on producing the best hardware/processor computers again. I still think people would pay a premium for the Apple name.

A PowerBook with the Pentium-M would be magnificent. Currently, the Pentium-M is a great chip crippled by WinXP, and MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4.

[365]

Clones


Did nothing for Apple in the end...

Clones let competition come after Apple's already low market share, OSX on x86 is Apple going after the competitions market share. It would mean a change in startegy Apple would have to split into a hardware and software divison. But look at Microsoft, license that garbage they call an OS hasn't done a whole lot wrong for their bottom line has it.

Apple always have been a software company that make hardware.

[AmigoMac]

this is a very old history... it's a typo, didn't they say PPC? :)

Gotta sleep, nothing to see here, but it won't happen ...

[Lanbrown]

This is it. I can't believe I missed this.

Apple does not have to license anything to anyone. Simply make their stuff. Who cares if you buy an Mac Mini or HP Mini? If they're both made by Apple and run OSX. Everybody wins!
Apple sells CPU's by the bucketload. HP gets some nice margins. The customers gets a solid OS. And Apple hardware is available all over the place. I can see this happening. It's worked just fine with the iPod. It can work with CPU's too.
Most companies that make PC hardware could care less if they sold it or not. It's why IBM gave up on boxes, hard drives, and soon laptops too. There will always be some cheap-as-free Dell giving stuff away.

Good insight chicagdan.

Missed what? You have HP/Compaq, Dell and IBM. They all sell desktops, laptops and servers. if you bring up IBM selling the PeeCee side, first it's not finalized and two, it's still in their hands right now. The servers is where the money is, you sell the computers to get companies to buy the servers. Quite a few companies buy servers and computers from the same company. They like having on vendor for both; they also get a better discount. So if HP decided to resell a Mac, what about the companies that have current desktop systems and servers? If you change the platform on a company, they will LEAVE and go to a competitor. Most of the money is in the business side of the house, not the consumer. In order for a company to want to switch, they would have to look at servers and user machines. That is a big undertaking and one that is not just about hardware costs. The biggest factor is training, both for the support staff as well as the users. You have to rewrite programs and verify a lot of applications. That is a monumental task by itself, and one that is not cheap. Many companies have a staff onsite that looks at linsux as a replacement. Do you know why? When the MS rep shows up to see how things are doing and see linsux on some machines and they are told that this group is looking at replacing Windows on the desktop, the company gets a better price from MS. That group alone pays for itself. So what would HP end up doing by dropping the x86-based computers? First, their stock price would drop like a rock, companies would drop them just as fast and go to Dell, they (Dell) would also gain quite a few servers orders as well. So HP would have a smaller percentage of desktop machines, smaller server market and their stock price would be in the gutter. Also, whoever was running HP at the time that decision was made, would be quickly removed.

[eSnow]

I would not read too much into this.
Yes, there might be enquiries from other companies about licensing out MacOS X, but I doubt anyone at Apple cares at all. Jobs mentions it to make Apple seem more interesting, but that's about it.

I am pretty sure that the real big guys on the PC side (like Dell) don't care jack **** about licensing OS X - they earn money by selling wintel boxes.

[Lanbrown]

A couple points

1. Spyware (and viruses) are caused by poorly written software, not hardware. OS X will not become Windows just because of running on x86 hardware. If WinXP was running on PPC it'd have the exact same virus problems.

3. It gives Apple a cushion if IBM wants to turn its attention to production of Cell and game console chips. Freescale's focus on the embedded market so they are not a very good option.



1. Not true. MS had NT on multiple platforms. Just because you had Office, that didn’t mean you could install it. If you had NT running on Alpha, you couldn’t install Office that was for x86. The service packs were different as well. So a virus for one would not infect that same OS on a different platform. There was also a virus targeted towards the AMD64 processor. It didn’t infect 32-bit x86 systems as it wouldn’t run.

3. You do know that IBM will be producing Cell processors in NY and Sony will at their plant in Japan, right? IBM is allowing companies to use their fabs for a fee. This helps pay for the facilities and helps IBM improve their designs at the same time. Just because IBM will be producing another chip, doesn’t mean that they are not focused.

[joeboy_45101]

Well, if MacOSX would run on x86 processors, Apple could concentrate on producing the best hardware/processor computers again. I still think people would pay a premium for the Apple name.

A PowerBook with the Pentium-M would be magnificent. Currently, the Pentium-M is a great chip crippled by WinXP, and MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4.

I disagree with you here, I don't think the G4 cripples Mac OS X at all. If FreeScale can get things together then I think we'll have some very nice performance coming out of the iBook G4, PowerBook G4, and MacMini lines. I don't know what Apple is going to do with the eMac right now. And I don't think we will see a G5 notebook product for quite some time since IBM built the G5 for serious speed. That type of performance doesn't come easy on the power and heat issues. I certainly don't want to see a 2-in. thick, 10-lb, 30-min. battery life PowerBook G5. But I would like see a 2Ghz. dual-core G4 PowerBook.

[eSnow]

Well, if MacOSX would run on x86 processors, Apple could concentrate on producing the best hardware/processor computers again. I still think people would pay a premium for the Apple name.

Not I, I'd buy some Asus PentiumM notebook for half the price. And millions would do the same.

[Blue Velvet]

Apple always have been a software company that make hardware.

Over 60% of Apple's profits come from hardware.
Doesn't sound like spare change to me... :rolleyes:

[365]

Once over I was all for porting OSX to x86 but the Mac Mini changed my mind. Not that I've ever bought the argument that it is but if price is the only reason for not switiching then this machine addresses that issue. Personally I think that Apple actually competes well on price with HP and IBM, they only start to lose out to the self build brigade at the high end.

To think that people would suddenly become enlightened users and switch to OSX is blind arrogance. It assumes that everyone wants OSX on their PC and the truth is that most [ordinary] people don't care what OS they use and would more than likely continue using Windows. All that porting the OS would achieve would be to make Apple the target of mass piracy by the people that build their own x86 machines.

[pubwvj]

steve jobs has a lot of years left, but what happens when he quits or retires.

Umm.... news flash: SJ is retired. He just does this for the jollies. There comes a day when you're no longer doing it for the pay check. SJ passed that a long, long time ago. There is still a world to finish conquoring.

[danr_97070]

MacDailyNews posts (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4950/) more information from the subscription Fortune article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/02/20050208020246.shtml) which talks to Steve Jobs about the state of Apple... which also drops this tidbit from the original article:



Mac OS X on Intel has been a long-debated topic, and an area that Apple has considered (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml) prior to the adoption of the PowerPC 970 from IBM.

IMHO, I think one of the reasons that the Mac is such a great platform is that
the OS and application software take advantage of a stable/known
platform (i.e., video card and superdrive, for example). Attempting to port
to a crappy machine with one of a variety of different drives and video
card would start to make OS X look crappy.

[pubwvj]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X.

Not really. Virtually every problem with viruses, spyware, worms, trojans, etc on Windows is caused by Microsoft failing to lock the doors, even after the cows get out. Security is a four letter word at Microsoft - maybe they'll leran hooh to speel sum dai butt donut cuonut onn eet. :) The rest of the problems are caused by poor user (re)actions in an already bad situation.

This ignores the issues with the whole Intel architecture which will rot your brain so we won't even go there. Be glad you're free of the dark forces.

However, there are other reasons I doubt we'll see it. They tried clones before and the project was assassinated from within. I actually have one, a SuperMac Tower. Okay machine for it's time. But I doubt we'll see SJ roll out the clones. More likely it would be a much more tightly controlled program. Part of the beauty of the Mac is the tight integration between the hardware and software. OSX on x86 would lose that.

[Mainyehc]

You have quite a few people that don't know how to use a computer, if the icon is not on the desktop, they don't know how to run it. They don't adapt to change at all.

You mean, people who are still using Windows 3.1?? :D LOL

[Lanbrown]

I think Apple is switching to CELL processors and licensing Mac OS X to Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (the three companies in the Cell alliance), for use on Cell computers (after all, there will be no OS that runs on Cell- why not get Apple to write one for the new processor? It's already PowerPC based, anyway. You don't want to get under M$'s thumb, and Linux is too difficult for the average user...so go Mac), and the writers of the article heard 'porting to another processor' and assumed Intel.

I can pull up some articles written on the subject if necessary.

It makes perfect sense though.

How about this, Sony and Toshiba sell computers. Companies use said computers, companies use windows. If they wanted to switch, they would. If they wanted to get away from windows, then why are they still using it? Next, Toshiba plans to use Cell in their consumer devices, like TV’s and such. Sony will do the same, as well as the PS3. Lastly, IBM has AIX as well as linsux. There is little reason why IBM would want a third, it just doesn’t mesh with their strategy.

The articles you speak of are based solely on speculation.

[ScottDodson]

My thoughts exactly.

And who wants some crappy $300 beige box running OS X? Ew.

Someone with an old G3?? lol, jk

Anyways, UGH, hell no!!! If this happens...Apple will lose so much respect in my mind...and their hardware sales will go down the tube. This cannot happen...(please?) I like apple as a software/hardware company. This could take them down the scary road of being a software only biz.

Imagine buying a Dell with os X sometime down the line.....NO THANKS.

[rt_brained]

I would be all for it. It is perfect timing. Windows is terrible, insecure and I think people are really getting sick of it. If apple waits too long, Longhorn will be out and people might give that a chance and not think about apple.Granted, at the rate Microsoft is moving with Longhorn, it could be a long time before Wintel users are able to get the current OS monkey off their backs (assuming Longhorn isn't a bigger monkey). But even if Jobs were to green light this idea, I doubt we'd see the first machines until long after Longhorn's release. Besides, with so many die-hard peecee users whose primary "need" for a blazing Wintel-based machine is for gaming, and those top 3 manufacturers who have gone out of their way to build their most powerful machines for them, could you imagine the backlash that would follow? 98 percent of the most fanatical peecee users are not screaming for faster machines to help them plow through their word processing documents more quickly. The top 3 computer manufacturers are so far up the gamers' collective rear-ends that they've completely lost sight of the market.

Thank god Adobe poo-poo'd Steve Jobs' idea of developing consumer-based photo and video software, because we're learning that the general public is eager to accept computers less as a home accessory and more as the nucleus of their growing digital lifestyle. And as we know, Apple is the only company positioned for this "coming of age". So I believe this wave of Switchers/Adders is only beginning to gain momentum and that it's far too early yet for Apple to allow the curious or the soon-to-be-convinced to leave so soon.

Leave the pole alone for now. The fish are still just nibbling.

[azdude]

HELL. NO.

How can there be so many positive ratings for this article? A huge portion of what makes a Mac a Mac (stability, elegance, stability, ease-of-use, stability, and coolness) is the fact that one (awesome) company makes damn near everything.

Pricewise/businesswise, that may not be the best way to be a consumer/businessperson, but I don't want to see Apple reduced to a struggling software/OS company because they were severely undersold by their licensees. (Haven't we seen this before?!)

[Mainyehc]

These are the golden years of apple.

I sure hope they aren't! I'm expecting them to come soon ;)

[365]

Over 60% of Apple's profits come from hardware.
Doesn't sound like spare change to me... :rolleyes:




That's because they give away the OS, how much would they earn if they suddenly lost their hardware R&D budget, shut down all those manufacturing plants, laid off all the hardware design and support staff and the really big one, the cost of warranty repairs and instead shipped the exact same number of licenses at $75 a license or whatever the figure Dell pays MS. Turnover would drop drastically but I bet the profitability would increase significantly.

That is Eutopia though, they unfortunately have the hardware millstone around their neck now and the only way to shed it would be to split the company and that would be doomed to failure.

I'm happy for Apple to remain as they are, I saw the light many years ago and I've grown tired of preaching to Windows users who unlike me haven't tried both OS's, yet are happy to tell me how Apple are great for designers but not much use for anything else :rolleyes:

[chaos86]

This is it. I can't believe I missed this.

Apple does not have to license anything to anyone. Simply make their stuff. Who cares if you buy an Mac Mini or HP Mini? If they're both made by Apple and run OSX. Everybody wins!



eh-hemm... that would be mac mini + hp

[kasei]

Windows is not capable of taking advantage of the full capability of Intel's chips. It would be interesting too see what OS X could do with an Intel chip.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Call me an elitist (albeit one that lives in a trailer), but I'd rather have the overall quality controlled computing experience that Apple offers right now. From form to function the mac just works. The same can't be said about the x86 market. Too much diversity... too much conflict for my taste.

I'd rather have a minority computer experience than a compromised one.

[artifex]

I used to want OSX to be available for my x86 machines, but no longer.
Now that Apple has shown they're willing to play ball as far as building cheaper intro machines, I'd much rather spend the money on a mac mini to get started, than build a system out of leftover components that might be crashy.

BTW, I'm not sure what to think about the assertion that iTunes was built from scratch in 4 months. Didn't they buy up the SoundJam team and their expertise? That doesn't count as from scratch to me, even if they didn't reuse code.

[pubwvj]

It might increase Apple's market share in the OS sector... but it would generate little extra revenue. I know very few people that actually bought Windows. The people I know who own Windows had it shipped with their new PCs.

Uhmm... you are aware aren't you that the makers of the PC's pay a liscencing fee to Microsoft... That is how the extra revenue is generated. And it is a _lot_ of revenue.

[Yvan256]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

Why do people immediately associate bigger marketshare with more viruses? This is exactly the kind of FUD that Microsoft likes to spread around.

Apache is the most used web server software in the world, and yet it has the least security holes (unlike MS-IIS).

If everyone has an armor of paper, attackers will get through easily. If a few people have carbon-fiber armors, attackers won't get through with a mere punch. If more people have carbon-fiber armors, attackers won't be somehow more able to punch through it.

In fact, the more people are on OS X, Linux, BSD (anything but Windows, really), the better the internet will become, because there won't be so many zombie boxes out there using up half the planet's bandwidth to spew spams, trojans, viruses and worms.

As for OS X on x86 boxes, I wouldn't count on it because of the release of Mac mini (it allows you to re-use everything you already have except the computer itself).

[MeanD3feat]

My personal opinion:

Apple, SHOULD license its OS.

Why?

Because as people are continually pointing out, Apple makes very little cash from software at the moment compared to what it makes from Hardware sales. I Personally don't think that licensing the OS would affect the Apple base, I do think it would increase Apple's market share through their OS.
What PC's should be allowed to run the OS? I personally am all for the idea of CELL based PCs running OS X. I would like to see this because I think it would promote healthy competition between Apple and those Pc manufacturers; think Apple offering more for less and faster PCs and yes before you start I am well aware of the MHz doesn't equal a fast PC argument but I am also aware that Apple simply doesn't offer anything that I would allow me to play Half life 2 at what would be considered playable framerates-more on this later.
In addition the CELL PC manufacturers would be forced to do the same but they would also take a leaf out of Apple's book and begin making a PC that actually looks good! Something you would happily put in your living room or take home to meet your parents etc :p
However this PC would not be Apple Hardware and so the Apple stalwarts (you know who you are ;) ) would remain.
If anything after experiencing the delights and simplicity of OS X on another PC it is my opinion that users of CELL PCs would actually migrate to Apple hardware-its the next step and frankly anyone who can’t see this happening (assuming the OS is licensed) needs to take a step back, and have a careful think about why they chose Apple in the first place. I’m sure for a few people it was the OS and nothing more, for the vast majority of people it was the OS and the kudos associated with Apple hardware and brand and the rest were taken in by just the hardware and or a hate of Microsoft.
Now assuming that the OS is licensed and OS X sees a greater market share-which given the PC manufacturers involved (eg sony) and their own branding its hard not to-Software for the platform would become more widely available and better supported. You wouldn’t be waiting 2 years for a PC game to come to the market (for example), not only would software manufacturers be unable to avoid OS X but the users would be so many that their voice would have to be heard-Apple we WANT java 5 and we want it NOW :cue Steve Jobs: “okey-dokey then; have it for you by next week” :D

Oh, Before I forget, in answer to the usual, if Macs had a large market share then they would have more viruses line I offer this
And I know, finally, the argument that says that if the world was using Macs instead of PCs, the hackers would be attacking the Macs. It's a game of numbers, after all. Anti-Mac pundits always mutter the same thing as they install yet another PC bug fix: there just aren't enough Macs out there to warrant a hacker's attention.

Which is, of course, mostly bull. I'm no programmer, but I know what I read, and I know my experience: the Mac OS architecture is much more robust, much more solid, much more difficult to hack into. Apple's software is, by default, more sound and reliable, given its more stable core. (Sometime in the later '90s, a Mac org whose name I forget ran a rather amazing hacker competition: they offered a $13,000 cash prize to anyone in the world who could hack into the company's unprotected Mac server and alter the contest's home page in any way. Needless to say, no one ever could). MARK MORFORD
For the full text go here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/02/04/notes020405.DTL&nl=fix)

This is only one persons opinion, but I second it. In fact this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=108794&highlight=screw) whole thread is worth a read if you are one of those people harping on about market share and viruses. :p

I’m sure some of you will think that my arguments are flawed, and I’m positive that there are those that will wish a pox on me for suggesting such a thing. :eek: But my opinion is just that; my opinion, I just thought-after reading yours-I’d take the time to share mine. Besides I'm not saying it IS going to happen, I'm just saying "I" think it should and why.
P.S. I'd still by Apple Hardware :D :D :D

[jdawg4324]

why not allow mac os 9 to be on pc and keep os x for mac os 9 is just as safe but still does not offer what os x can. pc people would buy to get rid of windows fall in love and buy a mac to get the better os and macs with os x will gain more market share.

[jared_kipe]

Mac OSX is like the Borg, futile to resist and quick to adapt.

This probably won't happen because anybody is worried about hackers, they are worried about what kind of a nightmare software development and distribution would become. Do we seriously want to start supporting the loads and loads of types of PC hardware out there?

There was a time when I would have supported this. But now we have the mini, they really can't complain about how expensive Macs are anymore. Now good macs... thats another opinion.

[pubwvj]

Listen to my theory. I think they found out that Apple was talking about licensing OS X to others, and ASSUMED it was Intel processors. ... at point toward Apple adopting Cell.

I think you're right. This has been mentioned and makes a lot of sense. A future close relationship with IBM and Sony, etc looks win-win.

IBM has divested themselves of their PC business and focuses on the high end and designing chips. Sony gives up on their pathetic iPod imitation and focuses on offering the PlayStation with MacOSX Lite built-in and some other consumer electronics. Perhaps Toshiba offers Mac OSX Lite in a big screen TV. Apple offers it in computers. BMW and Dodge jump on the bandwagon. OSXeverywhere is the new slogan. You have to enter your password before opening your bottle of Pepsi. They all cross sell under their own brand names. Pollen is flying all over the place. The birds and the bees are cavorting. Everybody is happy.

Except for that nerdy guy over in Redmond and his long faced buddies. They retire and spend their billions on charity efforts trying to knock the Rockerfellers out of the history books.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Here's an idea......
If a company dosnt want to replace all its computers with Macs (this can be VERY exspensive in a big company), then find some way to lease the OS to a company ONLY until the computers running the OS die and need to be replaced with a real Mac. That way it solves 2 problems: OS for PC and Mac wouldnt lose harware sales. Leasing an OS in this way would actually create brand loyalty to Mac. I would suggest only leasing the OS to companies, not the general public. I dont knwo if i would want to buy a Dell computer running OS X. i would much rather just buy a computer directly from Apple. However, if companies neeed a short term fix, then lease OS X to them.

[neonart]

Missed what? You have HP/Compaq, Dell and IBM. They all sell desktops, laptops and servers. if you bring up IBM selling the PeeCee side, first it's not finalized and two, it's still in their hands right now. The servers is where the money is, you sell the computers to get companies to buy the servers. Quite a few companies buy servers and computers from the same company. They like having on vendor for both; they also get a better discount. So if HP decided to resell a Mac, what about the companies that have current desktop systems and servers? If you change the platform on a company, they will LEAVE and go to a competitor. Most of the money is in the business side of the house, not the consumer. In order for a company to want to switch, they would have to look at servers and user machines. That is a big undertaking and one that is not just about hardware costs. The biggest factor is training, both for the support staff as well as the users. You have to rewrite programs and verify a lot of applications. That is a monumental task by itself, and one that is not cheap. Many companies have a staff onsite that looks at linsux as a replacement. Do you know why? When the MS rep shows up to see how things are doing and see linsux on some machines and they are told that this group is looking at replacing Windows on the desktop, the company gets a better price from MS. That group alone pays for itself. So what would HP end up doing by dropping the x86-based computers? First, their stock price would drop like a rock, companies would drop them just as fast and go to Dell, they (Dell) would also gain quite a few servers orders as well. So HP would have a smaller percentage of desktop machines, smaller server market and their stock price would be in the gutter. Also, whoever was running HP at the time that decision was made, would be quickly removed.

What are you talking about? Leave your cubicle now!

Noboby said HP or anybody will "switch" to selling Macs only. They just have to offer it. If your vendor is HP and now they have Minis (or any other mac) for sale and you have a department that can use those machines. Bingo.

PO#332678

200 HP Presario 67352792982-8267258/29982781 (or whatever model #)
38 HP 15" LCD 768-128
38 HP Mini 1.25/512/40
6 HP iBook 1.25/256/40
18 HP LaserJet 4000 Toner cartridges

Why not?

[jared_kipe]

My personal opinion:

Apple, SHOULD license its OS.

Why?

Because as people are continually pointing out, Apple makes very little cash from software at the moment compared to what it makes from Hardware sales. I Personally don't think that licensing the OS would affect the Apple base, I do think it would increase Apple's market share through their OS.
What PC's should be allowed to run the OS? I personally am all for the idea of CELL based PCs running OS X. I would like to see this because I think it would promote healthy competition between Apple and those Pc manufacturers; think Apple offering more for less and faster PCs and yes before you start I am well aware of the MHz doesn't equal a fast PC argument but I am also aware that Apple simply doesn't offer anything that I would allow me to play Half life 2 at what would be considered playable framerates-more on this later.

Ok first off we're talking about traditional x86 hardware, if its a CELL PC, then it won't be compatible with any PC software so it can't really be called a PC no more than one can call an imac a PC. Will it run HalfLife 2, don't count on it, Halflife uses windows, and x86 hardware, and the underlying framework of it, since the makers of halflife havn't said anything about porting it to PowerPC why would you ASSUME they would port it to whatever OS CELL "PCs" will be running?

Secondly, making Mac OSX run on some bastard CELL computer (not gonna call it a PC) what makes you think thats going to offer competition to PC manufacturers? Cause people are going to go, man I need a new computer, and I want it to run OSX, but I can't get a mac cause macs suck, so I'll buy a CELL computer even though it can't run any software available today. I don't think so.

[Yvan256]

Or it will show that OS X is not as great as we thought... incompatibility issues, spyware, viruses will just prove that it has always been in the same level as XP. Right now, the 'bad-hacker' community do not pay attention to OS X because who wants to bother the minority (3%)...

Hopefully, it never happens...

Again, more marketshare doesn't equal more problems.

Also, keep in mind the majority of hackers write viruses, trojans and worms only to piss off Microsoft and at the same time try to make people dump Windows because it's so insecure. For a lot of hackers, getting people to dump Microsoft and go Linux/BSD is their main goal.

Of course, switching to Apple isn't bad either, now that Apple has a BSD core and is playing nice with the OSS community (and so is IBM).

I know it's a bit short-sighted, but IMO here's the current scores (point of view of a lot of people):
Microsoft (overpriced crap), intel (pro-Microsoft, MHz myth) = bad
IBM (Linux, OSS-friendly), AMD (underdog, better CPUs), Apple (BSD OS, OSS-friendly) = good

As I said in an earlier post, saying that a bigger marketshare equals more viruses is pure FUD. Yes, there will be more attacks, but that doesn't imply those attacks will somehow magically become successful.

[Mainyehc]

why not allow mac os 9 to be on pc and keep os x for mac os 9 is just as safe but still does not offer what os x can. pc people would buy to get rid of windows fall in love and buy a mac to get the better os and macs with os x will gain more market share.

It's not my intention to flame you, or anything... Anyway, you must be kidding, right? Someone suggested that a few pages ago, but I *guess* he was just being ironic... :rolleyes:

Have you ever used Mac OS 9 or seen it running?? I must confess, I haven't used it. But I have seen it running on some old beige G3 PowerMacs at my faculty (Fine-Arts), though, and it *looks* like it sucks big time, at least when compared with Panther, or even Jaguar... Sure, the classic Mac OS was cool, and all. I must tell you, I've already been playing with System 1, 6 and 7 under vMac (don't ask me where I got the ROM, let's just assume I have a Mac Plus lying around ;) ), and yes, I acknowledged that System "n" was very cool for its time, even in B&W...

But everyone knows that Macs used to crash just like Wintel boxes. Why, oh why would you port a version of Mac OS for x86? It would be easier to run it in emulation using Basilisk... duh

It wouldn't make sense to port even older versions of OS X either... No, not even Rhapsody (which, btw, ran on some Intel systems, as seen in some screenshots which I can't recall where I've seen), it would be just plain stupid... :p No one would "fall in love" with older versions of Mac OS/OS X. I'm using Panther and I already hate having to use Jaguar at school because of the lack of Exposé, and I'm positive I'll hate using Panther there when I'll have Tiger at home. :cool:

Check on the latest MacRumors poll; nearly 90% of those who voted are using Panther... That's the way things work in MacLand, pretty much the opposite of the Wintel world. I know a lot of people which are still using Win98SE :eek: (and even worse, some are using WinME :eek: :D )!!

[mhouse]

I am sorry, anyone who thinks Apple will license their OS insane, Apple would go belly up in no time.

To quote a famous philosopher

"Worst. Idea. Ever."

Of course, I'm sure Apple is loathe to do it but consider...

1. Apple has been working hard to create revenue from sources other than Mac hardware over the past several years.
2. Apple was "never" going to release a headless Mac
3. Apple was "never" going to release a flash music player
4. In Korea Apple has actually entered a price war with other mp3 manufacturers, slashing the price of the iPod to win market share

Now, who among us ever saw Apple doing any of those things ten years ago? So Apple will "never" license OS X?

Hmm...

[fatfish]

Although I beleive it won't happen, because I rather suspect Steve only said it as an off the cuff remark to demonstrate the rising credit given to his OSX. If it was in the pipeline I suspect Steve would have kept quiet about it.

Also I'd rather not see it happen, because I like being part of what is realistically an elite minority.

However it does rather make sense. The main arguments against the idea have been that it would affect hardware sales, it would wreck security, it wouldn't port well to x86 and it would create compatability issues.

I don't beleive for a minute that it would wreck hardware sales, let's start by dispeling a few myths; PC's are not faster and they are not cheaper. It is really only the last few years where there has been a question over speed and for my money there isn't a lot of difference anymore. Yeah I've seen all the benchmarks and the arguments that the G5 only does well in tests apple put it through, which test it with photoshop, wheras it comes 2nd at scrolling down a page of text. Let's be real, where do we want the speed? in hungry apps like photoshop, or can someone actually read 10,000 words a second to make use of ultra fast scrolling etc.

As far as cheaper, no way; Take a Dell rip out everything thats inferior and load it with quality stuff like the mac, and oh yeah put in all those goodies that weren't there in the first place, bundle it with some software that equates to what you get when you buy a mac and it aint so cheap anymore. Let's not even think about the cost of downtime.

I rather think that hardware sales have been held back by the OS, not that it's not good, but just because of it's market share.

Then there is the security argument, sure it's a fair argument that people can't be bothered writting viruses for such a small market, but that only cuts so much ice. Do you not think that your high school kid with only the mac supplied by his school has not tried. Get real, 2% of the market should get 2 % of the viruses if all things were equal, but they are not the basic deal here is for a virus to work it needs root access, your windows box gives that up quite freely and the user has no idea, your mac user has to enter a password to even gain temporary access. This also applies to the silly argument that it is not so much the lack of desire to infect a mac but that its market share prohibits it's spread and that with greater market share macs too would be able to spread infection rampantly. Not so! because every user has to enter a password, even if a user did so and let a virus onto his mac it still couldn't spread unless another user did the same and so on.

I don't beleive the model would work ported to an x86, but with the cell processor the situation couldn't be better. Think about it, 3 quality producers working on a new processor that has no operating system to put it to use in a personal computer. Apple don't want to be left behind, this baby starts out at 4.0Ghz, the G5 seems maxed out nearly at 2.5 Ghz. Microsoft are in a corner they are working on an OS that will come out in 2 years for a chip thats maxed out at 3.0 Ghz. Apple have a new OS on the horizon that is already written for a PPC.

I would think apple would want in on this one. But the 3 producers don't want Windows because they are making quality and don't want it spoilt with a 2 bit OS. So it wouldn't seem inprobable that the 3 producers say to apple, you can have in, but we want your OS. Maybe Steve won't like it, but maybe it's the only way he'll get the cell processor.

So having moved to the cell processor model, this sort of kills off the incompatability theory. Apple won't need to build into their OS all sorts of possibilities for all sorts of hardware, they'll be starting from a clean sheet, just as if they were building their own hardware (which of course they will) Apple would be able to dictate the parameters of the parts used and if they weren't the hardware wouldn't work properly with the OS, the 3 producers wouldn't want that to happen and would have to live with apples specs (hell, they'd probably make most of them themselves and sell them to Apple in the bargain.

As for apps, well any app that runs on a mac would run on any of the 3 companies PC's, sure everyone would need to buy new software and maybe even a few new external devices, same as they would if they switched now, or the same as we all did with the advent of OSX.

Apple would gain a huge income from licensing the OS as well as selling, ilife, FCP, and all it's other software to 50,000,000+ users, that would more than outweigh any losses on the hardware side,(although I do beleive sales would increase anyway). They would maintain there control over hardware used in the PC's, no-one else is likely to get the cell processor for some considerable time, by which time the hardware model would be well established. R & D would increase, everyone would have better apps, security would be a minor issue. And to top it all off M$ would be left with an overdue outdated OS, running on low quality harware with yesterdays processors.

Alas I don't think it will happen, but if it did it would be a winner.

[pubwvj]

MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4.

HUH!?! Get real. Get a grip. OSX Runs great on a 500MHz G4. It even runs fine on a 266MHz G3 with only 196MB of RAM. Apple has done a fantastic job of making OSX run on older hardware. Not everyone, not even most people, not even 10% of people need 4GHz G5's. The G4 isn't crippling anything.

[Yvan256]

The X86 is dead to Apple. Only the PPC line is worth it to them and this might include giving out OS X for Cell desktops made by Sony, Toshiba and IBM in the future.

Now that's what I also envision. Especially Sony, because it was kinda weird to have Sony Japan's CEO on stage simply to talk about HD-Video...

Who knows, maybe the PS3 will run OS X somehow... (yes, you read me right). :D

Imagine Safari + Mail + iLife on the PS3. People will be dumping their Windows boxes at an incredible rate. PS3 with the basics of OS X. Install iLife and iWork. No need for a Windows box anymore. More software sales for Apple. This would also kill the "no games on Mac" problem faster than the speed of light.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, I'm getting a bit too ahead of the Apple/Sony partnership. Perhaps it'll be for the Playstation 4...

[d.perel]

I'm so conflicted :confused: BUT...

I want OSX to enlighten the world of our window-using friends, but I don't want apple hardware to go belly-up. Maybe if apple used PC manufacturers to build specially branded, basic (but still intel based) versions of HP or Dell computers, and market them under the mac mini as larger, yet cheaper mac machines. I'd say for a price of about $330, without screen. Also, Mac OSX will only be usable on these certain computers, not all PC machines. This way,OSX will gain ground, the mac mini can compete, but the high-end mac hardware will not be edged out! If only it were true... :rolleyes:

[jdawg4324]

It's not my intention to flame you, or anything... Anyway, you must be kidding, right? Someone suggested that a few pages ago, but I *guess* he was just being ironic... :rolleyes:

Have you ever used Mac OS 9 or seen it running?? I must confess, I haven't used it. But I have seen it running on some old beige G3 PowerMacs at my faculty (Fine-Arts), though, and it *looks* like it sucks big time, at least when compared with Panther, or even Jaguar... Sure, the classic Mac OS was cool, and all. I must tell you, I've already been playing with System 1, 6 and 7 under vMac (don't ask me where I got the ROM, let's just assume I have a Mac Plus lying around ;) ), and yes, I acknowledged that System "n" was very cool for its time, even in B&W...

But everyone knows that Macs used to crash just like Wintel boxes. Why, oh why would you port a version of Mac OS for x86? It would be easier to run it in emulation using Basilisk... duh

It wouldn't make sense to port even older versions of OS X... No, not even Rhapsody, it would be just plain stupid... :p No one would "fall in love" with older versions of Mac OS/OS X. I'm using Panther and I already hate having to use Jaguar at school because of the lack of Exposé, and I'm positive I'll hate using Panther there when I'll have Tiger at home. :cool:

Check on the latest MacRumors poll; nearly 90% of those who voted are using Panther... That's the way things work in MacLand, pretty much the opposite of the Wintel world. I know a lot of people which are still using Win98SE :eek: (and even worse, some are using WinME :eek: :D )!!

well your lack of using os 9 is your prob. os 9 was a great os and in many ways better than os x. and its 1000000000x times better then windows

[joeboy_45101]

All I have to say about this and the news of the new CELL chip from IBM and Sony, with extreme potential for Apple, is that we Mac users don't even know the half of what's going on at Apple right now.

If you are confident about what you've known about computers and networking then hold on! I think the next wave of computing is upon us, and trust me Steve Jobs is in the driver's seat. From what I've seen and read I believe that "Tiger" will be the last Mac OS for that "traditional" computing platform that we have come to know in the past 25 years.

If we knew just a little of what is about to be unleashed upon the computing world we would all cream in our pants. I think in the next 2-3 years it will be a very good thing to be a Mac owner.

And not to put Microsoft down, but I don't think that they are fully prepared for what's about to happen.

[Yvan256]

Bottom line, Apple WILL NOT do this. The reason why OS X works so well is because Apple has control over what it does with both hardware and software components.

Giving PC users the chance to run OS X on some crappy third party hardware will obviously change that, as no one can determine the suitability of every PC users' hardware that would buy this so called PC based OS X.

Indeed, tight control of what machines can run OS X is what helps Apple keeping OS X as stable and reliable as it is (well, that, and the BSD core).

If Apple were to release OS X for the PC, there'd be limited support for various hardware. I would expect it to work with specific chipsets, etc.

Want to run OS X without forking out the dosh? Buy a Mac Mini.

No way I'm getting a Mac mini.

...

No until it ships with Tiger. :D

[sord]

This simply won't happen, at least not without something like PearPC.

Apple wants to make money off of their software, but they make most of their money from their hardware.
Now tell me, does any business man offer one product to be licensed to someone else to make a little more money for it, even if it will end the sales of the more profitable products? NO

When OS X runs on non-Apple hardware such as x86, people (remember the majority go for price over quality) will buy OS X for their x86 and spend very little on hardware that Apple won't profit on.

This "rumor" shouldn't have even made Page 2

EDIT: Also, why spend all of the R&D to get OS X working with the amazingly large amounts of hardware that x86 (PC=Personal Computer, my iMac is a PC, my mom's Windows machine is a PC, please don't claim PC = Windows compatible computer) supports.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Apple wants to make money off of their software, but they make most of their money from their hardware.
Now tell me, does any business man offer one product to be licensed to someone else to make a little more money for it, even if it will end the sales of the more profitable products? NO

Please read my post at the very bottom of page 7. I think it may solve that problem.

[BenRoethig]

Clones let competition come after Apple's already low market share, OSX on x86 is Apple going after the competitions market share. It would mean a change in startegy Apple would have to split into a hardware and software divison. But look at Microsoft, license that garbage they call an OS hasn't done a whole lot wrong for their bottom line has it.

Apple always have been a software company that make hardware.

Microsoft's as vunerable as they're going to get. I hope Apple recognizes this before another company such as google takes advantage of the situation.

[Baron58]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X.


How so? Do you have any qualified basis for that statement, or do you just "think" it?

There are viruses and spyware rampant on Windows because of the *design* of the product. Not because of popularity/market share. Please restrain your hysteria.

[Object-X]

All you nay sayers...get over it! This is going to happen. Apple would be foolish not to do it. The significant thing here is that computer manafacturers are asking for it; this means there is intense interest and demand. I have always believed that once someone seriously uses OS X they will not want to go back to Windows.

Why do you think they had the president of Sony on stage at the keynote? To sell camcorders? Please. You heard Jobs, "we're in!" OS X is Apple's best kept secret and it is much better than Windows. With 6 billion in projected revenue from iPod sales alone, why not add another 6 billion in software sales?

And don't give me that crap about a $3000 dollar mac vrs a cheap pc and the end of Apple hardware BS. Apple will sell even more hardware if they do this. Their superior desigs will insure that.

Show me the money!!!

[Yvan256]

Apple prides itself on its entire image. The whole package - the shiny, white, well-designed boxes running the well-designed OS. It all comes together to make for a great user experience, from opening the box to using the machine.

True, the whole package is Apple's pride.

Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.

Nope, you're wrong on that. Every time there's the "Mac OS for x86" topic, about half the replies are "yes I'd like that very much".

Windows is insecure, Linux isn't ready, people don't want to ditch their hardware. Not everyone cares as much as Apple about their shiny computers. Most just want to use their computers easily and OS X would allow just that, no matter what the computer actually looks like (it's completely irrelevant).

"Mac" OS X for x86 would make millions of switchers in less than a week.

Will it happen? Not after Apple has opened hundreds of stores in the USA and is slowly opening stores in other countries. And especially not after the introduction of the Mac mini which allows a switcher to keep everything but the actual computer box.

As far as style is concerned... I mean, what do you think about a Dell switcher's setup?! A Dell monitor, keyboard and mouse, hooked up to a Mac mini. Is it uglier than a "100% pure" Apple computer? Yes. Does it removes something from the OS X experience? Not if you actually use the computer instead of looking at it.

Most people don't buy a computer for how it looks. If that were true, you wouldn't mind running Windows on your Apple computer.

[GFLPraxis]

How about this, Sony and Toshiba sell computers. Companies use said computers, companies use windows. If they wanted to switch, they would. If they wanted to get away from windows, then why are they still using it? Next, Toshiba plans to use Cell in their consumer devices, like TV’s and such. Sony will do the same, as well as the PS3. Lastly, IBM has AIX as well as linsux. There is little reason why IBM would want a third, it just doesn’t mesh with their strategy.

The articles you speak of are based solely on speculation.

Actually, those companies have been using Linux more and more, but can't replace Windows because there are no other consumer OSes that work. "If they wanted to switch, they would"? That makes no sense- Apple doesn't license OS X, how could they switch?

[ValiumLolliPoP]

I think what most people are saying about security issues is rather hypocritical. Most here are the "mac-faithful" and you would only wish good things to happen to Apple. However, here some of you are saying it is a bad thing to license the OS because then mass amounts of people would have it and it would become crippled like Windows.

One positive is if big computer manufacturers use OS X it would most likely encourage software companies to make more Apple compatible software (not just a Virtual PC fix anymore).

We all know however, that Apple would need to be prepared to either cut prices of their computer line or discontinue selling the hardware. I doubt Apple is ready to submit to big PC makers after coming this far.

[GFLPraxis]

Ok first off we're talking about traditional x86 hardware, if its a CELL PC, then it won't be compatible with any PC software so it can't really be called a PC no more than one can call an imac a PC. Will it run HalfLife 2, don't count on it, Halflife uses windows, and x86 hardware, and the underlying framework of it, since the makers of halflife havn't said anything about porting it to PowerPC why would you ASSUME they would port it to whatever OS CELL "PCs" will be running?

Secondly, making Mac OSX run on some bastard CELL computer (not gonna call it a PC) what makes you think thats going to offer competition to PC manufacturers? Cause people are going to go, man I need a new computer, and I want it to run OSX, but I can't get a mac cause macs suck, so I'll buy a CELL computer even though it can't run any software available today. I don't think so.

The Cell processor includes a PowerPC core, so it should be able to run all software today.

[GFLPraxis]

I'm so conflicted :confused: BUT...

I want OSX to enlighten the world of our window-using friends, but I don't want apple hardware to go belly-up. Maybe if apple used PC manufacturers to build specially branded, basic (but still intel based) versions of HP or Dell computers, and market them under the mac mini as larger, yet cheaper mac machines. I'd say for a price of about $330, without screen. Also, Mac OSX will only be usable on these certain computers, not all PC machines. This way,OSX will gain ground, the mac mini can compete, but the high-end mac hardware will not be edged out! If only it were true... :rolleyes:

Would not work. The Intel based computers running Mac OS X would be unable to run Mac software.

[GFLPraxis]

True, the whole package is Apple's pride.



Nope, you're wrong on that. Every time there's the "Mac OS for x86" topic, about half the replies are "yes I'd like that very much".

Windows is insecure, Linux isn't ready, people don't want to ditch their hardware. Not everyone cares as much as Apple about their shiny computers. Most just want to use their computers easily and OS X would allow just that, no matter what the computer actually looks like (it's completely irrelevant).

"Mac" OS X for x86 would make millions of switchers in less than a week.

Will it happen? Not after Apple has opened hundreds of stores in the USA and is slowly opening stores in other countries. And especially not after the introduction of the Mac mini which allows a switcher to keep everything but the actual computer box.

As far as style is concerned... I mean, what do you think about a Dell switcher's setup?! A Dell monitor, keyboard and mouse, hooked up to a Mac mini. Is it uglier than a "100% pure" Apple computer? Yes. Does it removes something from the OS X experience? Not if you actually use the computer instead of looking at it.

Most people don't buy a computer for how it looks. If that were true, you wouldn't mind running Windows on your Apple computer.


Millions of switchers in a week? There would be NO SOFTWARE for it. Remember, EVERY SINGLE PEICE OF MAC SOFTWARE is PowerPC compiled, and would therefore be unable to run on a computer with an x86 processor. It's physically impossible without emulation (which would essentially cut the x86 PC's speed to about 1/10th).

[jiv3turkey748]

All you nay sayers...get over it! This is going to happen. Apple would be foolish not to do it. The significant thing here is that computer manafacturers are asking for it; this means there is intense interest and demand. I have always believed that once someone seriously uses OS X they will not want to go back to Windows.

Why do you think they had the president of Sony on stage at the keynote? To sell camcorders? Please. You heard Jobs, "we're in!" OS X is Apple's best kept secret and it is much better than Windows. With 6 billion in projected revenue from iPod sales alone, why not add another 6 billion in software sales?

And don't give me that crap about a $3000 dollar mac vrs a cheap pc and the end of Apple hardware BS. Apple will sell even more hardware if they do this. Their superior desigs will insure that.


Show me the money!!!

apple would be foolish to sell out their os what they need to do is advertise the mac mini and advertise panther and with the mac mini selling in best buy that will give people a chance to see and use a mac everyones sick of windows and wants to find somthing new so if apple would just let more people know about their products im sure many windows users would be happy to make the switch

[ASP272]

Steve is way too proud of OS X to let it into the Personal Confuser market. He wants the credibility lended by the manufacturers that are persuing him for it. Plus, "clones" as many have called them would hurt Apples sale of Powermac hardware, which is beat out in every aspect by PC hardware except the processor. I'm not as processor savvy as some of you guys on here, but doesn't the x86 processor still use CISC based processing and the PowerPC use RISC?

[deanbo]

Doesn't anyone remember "clones" and what they did to Apple. It nearly bankrupted the company, simply because customers weren't buying PowerMacs, they were buying clone machines.

Licenscing OS X is probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard, and my god, I hear it over and over.

Like many other posters said, why would you spend X amount of dollars on a PowerMac, when you can have the OS X experience on a cheap, crap Dell machine? (Sorry Mike!)

I don't think anyone in Apple management will be dumb enough to let history repeat itself, of course there's always someone who thinks he/she knows better...

[tpjunkie]

The point which many people have seemed to miss is that Apple Computer started and continues to be a HARDWARE company, that just happens to make insanely great software to go along with their hardware. What makes your mac different from a generic PPC Linux box put together by say, IBM is the Mac ROM. If you haven't noticed, its been quite some time since Apple has allowed anyone to license that from them (And to all you Basilisk II/vMac users, you haven't exactly seen any old versions floating around Apple's site for download, have you? ;) ) By releasing the oft-cited Marklar x86 OS X, Apple would be for all intents and purposes giving up the hardware game, because while aesthetics still matter to some people, the bottom line will be price, and there will always be someone out there doing it cheaper, if not better. What it boils down to is that in end; its not going to happen.

[Mainyehc]

well your lack of using os 9 is your prob. os 9 was a great os and in many ways better than os x. and its 1000000000x times better then windows

Ok, I only have a few gripes with OS X... The GUI, for example; I love the eye-candy, yes, but overall, the GUI is blatantly inconsistent, and on purpose. To engage in an "Aqua vs. Brushed Metal" argument would be a bit off-topic, IMHO, but still, I must point out that Apple is bringing yet another interface look ("dashboards", which are those translucent dialogs, not to be confused with Dashboard, which, by the way, introduces some "fun" and inconsistent widget skins, but since they are on a layer of its own, they don't pose a big problem).

I have some other gripes with both Mac OS and OS X, like the status bar in the Finder not displaying info on the *active* directory, or the inability to manually erase/safely erase files one by one without having to empty the trash, the fact the the "close" button is next to the other two as opposed to the OS 9's layout, which was smarter, the fact you can't easily uninstall applications unless you know what .plist files and Application Support stuff are, just to name a few. But don't forget, Tiger will be the 4th major OS X release... All new Macs (except maybe for the eMac) can't boot OS 9 anymore. I don't care how great it was.

I see it this way: Windows 3.1 was much more stable than Windows 95, but it was less powerful and much more cumbersome. As such, Microsoft sacrificed stability over some stupid multimedia functionality. Apple, OTOH, developed a new, rock solid OS almost from scratch, and adopted some UI stuff from NextSTEP, which some Mac traditionalists may never get used to, like the Dock or the Unix*ish multiple user environment... But you can't argue, however, that it wasn't worth it! What about Quartz Extreme? Exposé? And what about CoreImage? Spotlight...? (ok, now you're going to say that the Apple's Spotlight patent depicts a Mac OS 9 menu, or that Copland would kick a**, or something like that...).

You must understand that I wasn't bashing OS 9 (even though, anyway, from what I've read from everywhere around the Net is that OS X is much more stable than the classic Mac OS). I was just saying that OS 9 looks like it sucks when compared to Panther, in the same way I would say that Windows 95 sucks when compared with Windows 98SE (I'm using these two examples because those were the two Windows OSes, apart from 3.1, which I used the most. My PC box now has Windows 2000, but I barely touch it these days, and I hate XP with a passion even though I don't use it much frequently). The Windows Explorer from 98SE sucks big time because it is "integrated" with IE, while the Windows 95 Explorer was a paradigm of simplicity, the perfect Finder rip-off! However, 98SE was much more stable and useful than 95, so I didn't care much about Explorer anyway.

That being said, unless I got some serious issues by installing, say, 98SE (which wouldn't be very surprising :rolleyes: ), I wouldn't think twice about getting the latest and "greatest" "big thing". But that's just me, I'm about to shell out €150 for Tiger because of that.

But one thing is skipping an OS iteration, or downgrading to the previous version. Porting a six-year-old, four-version-old, one-generation-old OS would be an absurdity ;) What software would run on it? Photoshop 7 (or 6, I'm not sure)? QuarkXPress 5 (or was it 4? I don't know either)? Microsoft Office 98???

Some people don't like the 4G iPod's clickwheel; Is Apple still producing 3G iPods to satisfy those red-LED-lovers? (hey, I have a 3G iPod and I love it ;) )

Progress is just like that. Sometimes something you like better than anybody else likes has to go away, for the sake of progress. Sad? Maybe. :o Necessary? Absolutely :cool:.

[JeffTL]

So what if it runs OS X if it's still a junky Dell. At that point it's not Mac OS X, it's OPENSTEP 5 and can't run much software.

For the customer, it's better to get a mini.

For HP if that's who's involved, make a good printer, that's where your money is.

Gateway? Go out of business already. eMachines computers can only be made tolerable by stopping before the H and most everyone knows that and gets a Dell, and nobody buys Gateways anymore.

Dell has no reason to do this, they'd be better off with GNU/Linux which they can get for free.

And I see no real advantage for Apple -- I buy my Macs as much for the iBook or the iMac as for OS X; the hardware is good value.

[virus1]

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrr. Please, no....

If PC users want to run OS X, they can buy a Mac.

the problem is, most of them don't know about it. As apple has been finding out, they have to go fetch the customers, the customers don't come to them. Also, it would invite pleanty of new developers to the platform, so people cant say they use windows because there are more games and other apps etc..

That is just a point, but i still don't think apple should do it. it would hurt the income for apple hardware, and the apple name. Apple needs to find some sort of compromise. A way to get other companies on apples side, but use them to get more people to the mac, while still helping the other company. Much like what apple did with HP.

Also, forgive me if im wrong, but for thoes of you who is saying that all sorts of applications will have to be recompiled, i believe you are wrong and that the operating system runs the applications. Yes the computer runs the operating system, but doesn't run the applications directly, so they wouldn't have to be recompiled, just the OS rewritten. (a hell of a lot of work btw. too riskey for apple to put that much money in somthing like this)

[aliasfox]

I imagine:

WWDC 2005

Apple introduces the Power Mac G6, running off a Cell at something in the ballpark of 3.4, 4, and 4.6 GHz, with OSX Tiger 10.4.1 (Cell enabled) installed. Apple quietly discontinues the xServe shortly after IBM lisences OSX to use in its own Cell based servers. Come fall, Sony uses the Cell in the PS3 and in Media Center style boxes- running a variant of OSX and iLife. Toshiba does the same thing, but mainly in international and developing markets (such as China) where Apple has a relatively minimal presence.

Soon, we'll have OSX in our computers, our PVRs, our Servers. Our cell phones will run iTunes. Our game consoles will be Apple's vanguard in the gaming department.

As for people saying Apple should neuter OSX- never. That is worse than anything. Not only will it be running on an ugly box, but it won't run quite right- giving PC users an even worse impression of the OS, which justifies their opinion that their next computer should run Windows. No neutering.

[jiv3turkey748]

i dont mind the idea of os 9 on pcs but not osx

[BarfBag]

First of all, simmer down guys! OS X is better programmed than Windows. If in the future, it does get ported to Intel, you'll still have less risk of getting hacked. Viruses, sure. There's already a few Mac viruses. And yes, the number of them would probably increase if Mac got ported to the PC. Why? Because it would take over the planet! I wouldn't worry too much about it, though. Apple isn't stupid. They'd figured out something.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just trying to prevent a riot. ;)

I'd say the solution would be Apple allowing "Build it Yourself Macs." Or even better, not only allowing them, but selling the parts THEMSELVES! It would still keep Mac rock-solid and secure, because it would still be PPC + Apple wouldn't lose any money. If they'd allow this, I'd be one of the first people building them.

[inkswamp]

Seriously, why would Apple ever do such a thing? If they were ever going to do it, it would have been a few years back when Motorola had them stuck at 500Mhz and hurting pretty bad (remember that?) They aren't hurting now. So what would Apple gain by letting other hardware manufacturers undercut their own hardware? Yes, they would get a market share increase, but what would that matter? The world is pretty much stuck in Windows and there's only so much Apple can gain back at this point, no matter how good OS X is and no matter how good the hardware is. I love Apple's products, but let's be realistic. I think they're doing it right--slow and steady. They've solidified a user base that was rapidly eroding 8-10 years ago and have built on it. What more could you ask for?

Frankly, this desire to see Apple dominate the world is a little puzzling. I don't understand the purpose of it.

[fsck3r]

As being new to Mac OSX I hope that it does get licensed to run on PC hardware. Im not new to the computer fied and I think that it would change the Mac community at large and really turn the mac community into an ugly one. Point being mac users ARE VERY different from PC users.

[greenmeanie]

i think they should go for it.

it would put apple back on the map because people are sick of all this spyware crap and security issue's.

[MeanD3feat]

Ok first off we're talking about traditional x86 hardware
You're talking about x86 hardware-I'm not.

if its a CELL PC, then it won't be compatible with any PC software so it can't really be called a PC no more than one can call an imac a PC.

PC = Personal Computer. My iMac is my personal computer iMac = PC its not a Windows PC thats why Windows PCs are called 'windows PCs' but it is still a Personal Computer, likewise a computer based on this CELL chip, assuming it is targeted at consumers, will also be a PC. Unfortunately the term PC has been hijacked to represent windows PCs alone and that's why software says PC/MAC on it, it doesn't make it right, but I see your point, although it does seem like you are arguing for arguments sake.

Will it run HalfLife 2, don't count on it, Halflife uses windows, and x86 hardware, and the underlying framework of it, since the makers of halflife havn't said anything about porting it to PowerPC why would you ASSUME they would port it to whatever OS CELL "PCs" will be running?

Did you even read my post?

Now assuming that the OS is licensed and OS X sees a greater market share-which given the PC manufacturers involved (eg sony) and their own branding its hard not to-Software for the platform would become more widely available and better supported. You wouldn’t be waiting 2 years for a PC game to come to the market (for example), not only would software manufacturers be unable to avoid OS X but the users would be so many that their voice would have to be heard-Apple we WANT java 5 and we want it NOW :cue Steve Jobs: “okey-dokey then; have it for you by next week”
If OS X gains a greater market share then software producers would be fools to ignore it, software in general would come to the platform quicker and with more support. HalfLife 2 was picked as an example of a game that hasn't made it to OS X for whatever reason. All of this was in my last post, its about software in general. Perhaps you should read it? :rolleyes:

Secondly, making Mac OSX run on some bastard CELL computer (not gonna call it a PC) what makes you think thats going to offer competition to PC manufacturers? Cause people are going to go, man I need a new computer, and I want it to run OSX, but I can't get a mac cause macs suck, so I'll buy a CELL computer even though it can't run any software available today. I don't think so.

Apple offers competition and so does linux, why wouldn't an IBM/Toshiba/Sony offering be competition? If I had the opportunity to by a machine by Toshiba IBM or Sony that wasn't crippled by Windows, for less than the price of a Power Mac, but with upgradeablity, I would and I suspect after seeing what OS X could do I would then move on to Apple Hardware, if I could a) afford a powermac or b) wasn't bothered about upgradeability.
The point you dont get is about software for OS X, if OS X had Apple Toshiba IBM and Sony behind it, which software manufacturers would ignore it? Its not about buying a particular brand of OS X pc it is about gaining increased overall market share for the OS which can only be a good thing for us. It goes back to the HalfLife 2 thing. No it isn't on the Mac and probably wont be in the near future but with enough people using OS X you can be damn sure that it would be ported if the makers of the game thought there was sufficient profit to be made.
Its all about supply and demand. At the moment people look at the Mac and think is there enough demand to make porting 'software x' profitable, at the moment the answer may be no, but with several other manufacturers using OS X and with the extra users they bring in the future the answer will likely be yes-no matter what 'software x' happens to be, as this happens more user will turn to the platform and it will have a snowball effect.
I also realise that software designed for CELL may not work with PPC but if Apple licenses OS X then I am sure they will have the good sense to ensure all software released for CELL is PPC compatible, if only to avoid confusion with the consumer.

FINALLY LIKE I SAID THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION. I don't mind if you disagree with me but at least READ THE POST.

EDIT: The Cell processor includes a PowerPC core, so it should be able to run all software today.

[MeanD3feat]

I don't beleive the model would work ported to an x86, but with the cell processor the situation couldn't be better. Think about it, 3 quality producers working on a new processor that has no operating system to put it to use in a personal computer. Apple don't want to be left behind, this baby starts out at 4.0Ghz, the G5 seems maxed out nearly at 2.5 Ghz. Microsoft are in a corner they are working on an OS that will come out in 2 years for a chip thats maxed out at 3.0 Ghz. Apple have a new OS on the horizon that is already written for a PPC.

I would think apple would want in on this one. But the 3 producers don't want Windows because they are making quality and don't want it spoilt with a 2 bit OS. So it wouldn't seem inprobable that the 3 producers say to apple, you can have in, but we want your OS. Maybe Steve won't like it, but maybe it's the only way he'll get the cell processor.

So having moved to the cell processor model, this sort of kills off the incompatability theory. Apple won't need to build into their OS all sorts of possibilities for all sorts of hardware, they'll be starting from a clean sheet, just as if they were building their own hardware (which of course they will) Apple would be able to dictate the parameters of the parts used and if they weren't the hardware wouldn't work properly with the OS, the 3 producers wouldn't want that to happen and would have to live with apples specs (hell, they'd probably make most of them themselves and sell them to Apple in the bargain.

As for apps, well any app that runs on a mac would run on any of the 3 companies PC's, sure everyone would need to buy new software and maybe even a few new external devices, same as they would if they switched now, or the same as we all did with the advent of OSX.

Apple would gain a huge income from licensing the OS as well as selling, ilife, FCP, and all it's other software to 50,000,000+ users, that would more than outweigh any losses on the hardware side,(although I do beleive sales would increase anyway). They would maintain there control over hardware used in the PC's, no-one else is likely to get the cell processor for some considerable time, by which time the hardware model would be well established. R & D would increase, everyone would have better apps, security would be a minor issue. And to top it all off M$ would be left with an overdue outdated OS, running on low quality harware with yesterdays processors.

Agreed, it would just make sense.

[Mainyehc]

True, the whole package is Apple's pride.

Hmmm... I DO recall seeing the iPod Photo's OS running on a Motorola cellphone, what do you guys think about that? Apple controlling the whole package? BYODKM? The whole package? Excuse me, BYODKM ≠ AIO, so, Apple is shifting away from that paradigm already. There are much more chances that a crappy CRT connected to the mini's VGA adapter will give the user some issues to deal with, than a 20'' Cinema Display connected to the DVI port, right? What about people using old PS/2 keyboards and mice connected via crappy KVM switches? Puh-leeze, if these aren't the first signs that Apple is willing to lose some control (if not all of it) over the whole experience, I don't know what they are. And what about "Made for iPod"? HA, they are actually managing to somewhat control the iPod accessory market, just a little, to keep things running smooth ;). However, again, they aren't designing the accessories themselves...

I tend to believe, however, that it would be very hard for Apple to support OS X in multiple configurations from multiple vendors. But, then again, the iTunes-enabled Motorola phones are just that, *Motorola phones*. Not Nokia or Samsung phones, or whatever. And this brings back to the recurrent Cell speculation... :rolleyes: We have Toshiba, Sony and IBM. IBM's PC brand will go bye bye, so that leaves us Toshiba and Sony as possible contenders in a Cell consumer PC/Mac market. IBM would obviosly compete in the server market. And Apple could supply... the OS! In turn, they would get the Cell ;) Hmm, Apple is making inroads in the server market, I wonder what IBM thinks about that... Oh well...

Think about it... :cool:

[daveL]

As soon as OS X starts being sold on commodity PC HW the Apple brand will be diminished. It's impossible for Apple to support all PC hardware variants; M$, with all their money, can't do it properly. Apple would risk being just another piece of crap, like Windows.

As far as Moto cell phones goes: It's just an iTunes client, not a complete OS with all the apps.

[MacG]

Apple could have done this years ago - in fact NeXT (http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.htmld/) did. If you want OS X on a PC - find an old copy of NeXTStep X86 or OpenStep. NeXTStep is the heart of OS X - Mach Kernel, Objective-C language, object-oritented development.

So Mac OS X's roots ran on a PC - infact they were running on a PC before they ran on Mac hardware.

I can't ever see Steve-O licensing the crown jewels. It was the first thing he canned when he came back to Apple.

[vassillios]

"Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think. "


BS, virus's are an OS issue, not a chip issue

I think this is great, but it won't happen because apple wants to make money by selling their expensive ass hardware to go along with the OS...example...apple bought Emagic and dropped support for Logic windows in order to sell their hardware so that windows Logic users could keep using Logic.

[emcourtney]

Apple could be as big as Microsoft and the product to do it would be Aqua for Linux. Licensing OS X for use on PC hardware would kill the Macintosh, but licensing only part of OS X would work. If Apple would port the Aqua interface, Quicktime and Cocoa API to run over Linux, then throw in the standard Cocoa apps like Safari, Mail, Addressbook etc. The results could be huge, even bigger if they threw in iTunes too. Think of it, finally a consistent, easy to program for desktop environment for Linux and at $129 a copy Apple would be bigger than Microsoft in a few short years.

[Mainyehc]

As far as Moto cell phones goes: It's just an iTunes client, not a complete OS with all the apps.

Oh, thanks for the insight on that one. So, it's nice that the iPod still has a lot of advantages over those cellphones, apart from storage ;)

Anyway, you probably didn't bother to read this thread's 9 pages... I can't blame you! :D

But I wrote something along these lines: If OS X is the crown, then, Apple applications are the jewels ;)

There's a post above mine that, due to some strange coincidence, uses the same analogy, ehe...

What I was thinking was, what if Apple licensed *only* the crown, and not the jewels? If Apple's Cell-enabled Macs came with a bundled copy of iLife, and perhaps even iWork, while Toshiba's or Sony's Cell-enabled PCs came ONLY with an OEM copy of Mac OS X, Apple would still retain its advantage in the market. Macs would still be better value because of the same reason we know today. And Apple could make some money in selling iLife or iWork, or even both, to the "other guys", to their installed base from other manufacturers.

And don't forget about the economies of scale... Macs could still be less expandable, but just imagine if, out of the box, there was LESS need for upgrades? Like, what if we had decent GPUs and enough memory? If Apple sold bucketloads of Macs, it could be possible. And isn't the Cell supposed to be dirt cheap because it can and will be embedded into nearly every possible consumer electronics product??...

Think about it, again, and... dreeeam, dream with an even better year for Apple, and of course, its loyal fan base. ;)

[Les Kern]

Now listen to some of you. Lots of us complain that Mac's would own the world if they had just licensed their OS years ago. Now they have a chance to pick up some serious marketshare, and it flops to "I don't want to share this awesome OS" or "virus writers will kill it", or whatever.
Can't have it both ways, and in many ways are no better than out PC cousins who trash the Mac, and when proved wrong make something else up to justify their miserable life.
Get the Mac OS licensed, and let the rest of the world pick up about 100 extra hours each of productivity a year.

[guylafleur]

Half of them are Mac users with a grudge against PCs. ;)

I just wonder about how well it would run on the x86.

Hmmmm.... :confused:

[puuukeey]

maybe if the OS was liscenced, OSX would get some developers writing pieces of software that don't just leach off iLife. apple is getting too communist. everything is built in, no one writes anything of any use anymore its all dockmods and itunes rip offs. I WANT KAI KROUSE BACK DAMN IT!

sorry. I know I'm a baby, but I'm starting to feel like I'm buying one of these: http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/3376359/ctid/17

-matt

[narco]

Why do people immediately associate bigger marketshare with more viruses? This is exactly the kind of FUD that Microsoft likes to spread around.

Apache is the most used web server software in the world, and yet it has the least security holes (unlike MS-IIS).

If everyone has an armor of paper, attackers will get through easily. If a few people have carbon-fiber armors, attackers won't get through with a mere punch. If more people have carbon-fiber armors, attackers won't be somehow more able to punch through it.

In fact, the more people are on OS X, Linux, BSD (anything but Windows, really), the better the internet will become, because there won't be so many zombie boxes out there using up half the planet's bandwidth to spew spams, trojans, viruses and worms.

As for OS X on x86 boxes, I wouldn't count on it because of the release of Mac mini (it allows you to re-use everything you already have except the computer itself).

I wasn't associating bigger market share with more viruses. I don't know too much about the technical sides of things, but I would assume that Apple would have to first make OS X compatible with an x86 machine. This would (I think) kind of "dumb down" the OS X since it's not designed for an x86, it's specifically designed for a Mac. It'll still probably be hard to make a virus for an x86 running OS X, but it would (I think) be easier than on a Mac.

And again, this is not my field, but it makes sense in my head.

Either way you swing it, It'll still hurt hardware sales, which was my main point. PC's will always be cheaper, and if Apple really does make a good port of OS X, then what would be the reason for buying a Mac other than style?

Someone said earlier that Apple should make OS 9 on a PC. Revamp the GUI and that would be awesome.

Someone earlier also made an excellent point:
"Currently, the Pentium-M is a great chip crippled by WinXP, and MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4."

Well said.

Apple is a business and they're out to make money. They'll do whatever they think is necessary.

Fishes,
narco.

[archer75]

I think this would be the smartest move Apple has ever done. Does anyone really care about the apple hardware? It's all about OSX and the software! Sure apple makes good looking hardware but PC's are so much cheaper and perform better(from a hardware standpoint).

Apple software could make a killing on the PC. And yes, noone would buy mac hardware anymore. But Dell makes a buttload just on making PC's and Microsoft obviously makes a fair profit on software. Apple can do both. High quality pc's in an attractive package with a great OS and software.

[Mainyehc]

Someone said earlier that Apple should make OS 9 on a PC. Revamp the GUI and that would be awesome.

Hey, I haven't something against OS 9 or anything, but how exactly do you expect them to do that? Just throw in an Aqua Kaleidoscope theme? Ha... 3G iPods don't even work with OS 9!

No, really... That Apple releases a screenless iPod, I can still understand (in fact, I'm thinking of getting a Shuffle, and I'm already a 3G 20GB iPod owner myself). But... No, you people must be really insane. That would be such a nice thing for Apple to do to poor PeeCee users... "Here, we have this 6-year-old OS lying around, and we don't have a better use for it... Your iPod won't work with it, but hey, it's better than Windows 98!!"... Give me break... It would be a waste of R&D money! And Apple would be severely bashed by the press, IMHO. And all those Mac haters wouldn't bee too kind, either. And a LOT of Apple users wouldn't find it a great idea anyway, so...

[narco]

Hey, I haven't something against OS 9 or anything, but how exactly do you expect them to do that? Just throw in an Aqua Kaleidoscope theme? Ha... 3G iPods don't even work with OS 9!

No, really... That Apple releases a screenless iPod, I can still understand (in fact, I'm thinking of getting a Shuffle, and I'm already a 3G 20GB iPod owner myself). But... No, you people must be really insane. That would be such a nice thing for Apple to do to poor PeeCee users... "Here, we have this 6-year-old OS lying around, and we don't have a better use for it... Your iPod won't work with it, but hey, it's better than Windows 98!!"... Give me break... It would be a waste of R&D money! And Apple would be severely bashed by the press, IMHO. And all those Mac haters wouldn't bee too kind, either. And a LOT of Apple users wouldn't find it a great idea anyway, so...

It was meant to be sarcastic. :)

Fishes,
narco.

[Yvan256]

I vote no for a lot of the reason everyone else is saying. PC makers would undercut Apple so why would anyone want to pay the premium for the Apple hardware. How about something like VOSX. Like a VPC type thing where they could use it and get a feel for it but it would run like crap giving them no reason to use it as a primary desktop.

Well, given that Apple was able to give me iTunes for Windows (though I had to install this POS called Windows XP to run it), they could as well bring iLife to Windows. Which would kill any need to buy a Mac. And a "slower, emulated" OS X would be pointless since being slower you wouldn't use iLife (hence not being able to "get it", like what happened with me and iTunes... then iPod... and Mac mini in a few months).

I just don't want to see OSX on a bunch of crappy looking boxes. Call me elitist but i like my 1inch thick AlBook and how silent it is compared to PC laptops that sound like jet engines ready for takeoff.

I call you not only elitist, but snob. I suppose you'd choke at the sight of BMW seat covers in a Kia, too? ;)

And BTW, Apple makes the noisiest computer I've ever heard: the PowerMac G4 (and yes, I've seen and heard a lot of computers in 20 years).

Perhaps a Knoppix-like OS X/x86 CD-only demo version would do the job... You can boot in OS X and play around, but it's limited in what it can do (iPhoto with a 100 photos limit, iMovie with 2 minutes clips limit, iDVD with a 200MB limit, etc).

Then again, someone would probably hack the distro and remove the limitations. :D

Anyway, Apple coming out with the Mac mini kinda kills any theory about OS X for the x86 platform. I can't wait for the mini to ship with Tiger, though... And perhaps 5400 RPM HDs as standard?

[puuukeey]

lets face it. PCs set the standards and apple has to pander to them. thats why I'm typing this message on a UNIX laptop.

dare I ask:
does microsoft make computers?

If apple dropped its bulky, costly production line (see naomi kleins nologo) and released OSX on PC, microsoft would D E D DEAD!!!! CAPUT! BLAMO. whose going to buy windows when you actually have a choice? it might take 6 years or so for businesses to switch over but certainly not the consumer market.

-matt

[Surreal]

sure...people would buy it.

yeah
a lot of people

*i won't bother saying what that would lead to...it has been covered time and time again*

but where would the money be for apple? how much does windows cost? what would apple develop? it would involve such a cange that it isnt feasible if apple plans on remaining apple.

[Mainyehc]

It was meant to be sarcastic. :)

Fishes,
narco.

Oh, ok... :o

You know, I already had a loooong argument a while ago about "OS 9 vs. Panther" and... Damn it, it's 4:07 AM here, I must get some sleep ;)

[digitalbiker]

Even though I don't think Apple would ever license OS X for x86, I would love to see how the performance of OSX is enhanced by an Apple built, fast 64 bit AMD chip with a high end PCI-express bus enabled graphics subsystem.

I would also love to see an Apple branded, Xbrite LCD, PowerBook using Pentium-M. It would be a G4 killer.

Although Apple hung their future on an incredibly slow-developing IBM roadmap, I think it is too late to change course now. The x86 architecture is approaching true obselessence. Hopefully the PPC will soon pick up steam and Apple once again will have some performance bragging rights.

I have a three year old PB and the latest and greatest PB is only marginally better performance-wise. In that same time frame the x86 laptop market went from lame to incredible.

I also don't think that Cell processors are a choice for Apple. Not unless they once again force all of their applications developers to move away from PPC compiled software and generate new Cell binaries.

Nope, we are all stuck with IBM. I only hope IBM solves their manufacturing issues soon.

My new motto: 3 GHZ G5 PPC before 2020! woo-hoo

[BWhaler]

How in God's name are there 200+ posts on this?

Just because people ask for it in no way means Steve will do it.

In fact, this was just Steve's way of bragging and slapping MS. Can't people tell the difference?

Don't believe me? Here's your proof:

1. Do you think in a million years Super Secret Apple® would pre-announce this? Have you ever seen them pre-announce anything? Ever? Didn't think so.

2. Do you think Apple's Mac line can exist without MS Office? What do you think MS will do in retaliation for Apple going after their most core business?

3. What was the first thing Steve did when returning to Apple? Killed the clones and licensing deals. All of them.

Sigh...

And seriously, what the hell is with Macrumors posting such an inflamatory title and silly, silly article to send this into spin? Just moronic if you ask me. And sadly, as all the rumors sites feed off one another, this fabrication will be around for weeks.

Macrumors, I fear you've jumped the shark.

[digitalbiker]

Do any of you think that Apple leaks this stuff on purpose, just to monitor sites such as Macrumors and get rapid user feedback on out-of-the-box ideas?

[Yvan256]

IMHO, I think it would be an interesting idea if they shipped a 'low-fi' version of OSX for the wintel-ers. Something like XP Home. Just a really dumbed down version that would whet their appetites for the real thing. SJ has been going out of his way to make the 'Mac experience' more accessible to potential switchers. A really lo-fi version of OSX that they could run on their wintel hardware would be a great way to push them over to the Mac and it wouldn't cannibalize sales either…

IMO we really do have a taste of the Mac experience... It's called iTunes. You Mac users always seem to take such nice programs for granted. But for us on Windows, iTunes is like nothing else we've seen before (IMO anyway). It just works!(tm) And it's a free download, too!

Also, considering that Windows XP Pro is supposed to cost 300$US by itself (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00022PTI4/qid=1107921953/br=1-6/ref=br_lf_sw_6//104-7978583-2851929?v=glance&s=software&n=538514), this means the Mac mini only costs 200$US more than Windows XP.

That's the full version, BTW. The upgrade isn't cheap either, at 200$US.

Windows XP Pro, full version: 300$US
Mac mini: 500$US (which means it's only 200$US more than Windows XP Pro by itself)

But wait, the Mac mini comes with iLife'05, priced at 80$US. Which means the real difference between the WinXP Pro OS and the whole Mac setup is only 120$US. Oh wait, the Mac mini also comes with OS X 10.3, which is priced at 130$US for a single user license. Putting the price difference at... erm... minus 10$US.

Windows XP Pro, full version, no computer: 300$US
Mac OS X 10.3, full version: 130$US +
iLife '05: 80$US +
G4/1.25GHz, 40GB, USB2, Firewire, DVI/VGA, ComboDrive: 290$US.

Once you count everything, the computer costs LESS than a full license for WinXP Pro, and only 90$US more than the upgrade license.

As the other idiots have pointed out (Napster), "Do the math". :D

[BWhaler]

Do any of you think that Apple leaks this stuff on purpose, just to monitor sites such as Macrumors and get rapid user feedback on out-of-the-box ideas?

The only people from Apple who officially read these sites is a couple of flunkies from Apple legal.

[Lepton]

Absolutely not. There are many technical reasons not to do this. It's the hardware/software combination that is one of Macs strengths. And the resources it would take to support all the PC combinations would tax the company severely and stifle real progress.

But! This is a very clear indication that even the PC manufacturers know that OSX is the better operating system, and they wish their customers could have it. It shows that the PC monopoly is cracking. It means people, regular people, are going to see the light and go to Mac.

Apple knows this. They won't even consider it, but they have big smiles over there, I'm sure, since they know the true meaning of this turn.

[SiliconAddict]

You mean, people who are still using Windows 3.1?? :D LOL

Um actually...... :o But in our case its for a DAMN old reel to reel take drive that only has 3.11 drivers. Northwest Airlines is a tad out of date.

[Yvan256]

Point 1: Even if they Port OS X... software would still have to be recompiled to run on Intel/AMD processors.

Not if their x86 OS X version is a Mac emulator at the same time... Think "Virtual Mac", same as "Virtual PC" but the other way around. Sure it wouldn't be as nice (especially since it'd run on top of Windows) but it would allow Windows users to try the "Mac experience" (although in a slowish way).

Point 2: It might increase Apple's market share in the OS sector... but it would generate little extra revenue. I know very few people that actually bought Windows. The people I know who own Windows had it shipped with their new PCs.

Or got it "somewhere else". ;)

Which is a problem, because when people purchase/upgrade their PC, they don't count the cost of their Windows license... Which can only make Macs seem to cost even more.

[MadMacs44]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

Here comes a RANT!!!!! No Apolgies:)

I have to agree here! Maybe the folks voting for this are former PC Users who want to go back to a cheap "slamufactured" box, but not me! Its all about the quality of whole unit/ brand here! I mean if everyone drove a Porche, they just wouldnt be cool anymore!!

2 Thumbs way down! I me really, think about it...Ever since I bought my first Apple (Not Mac) people have said...What did you buy that for? They are gone, that company will never last, they will be defeated, crushed bla bla bla..Apple really does not need more money. They really dont need more market share, they really dont even need people to switch in my opinion. Apple has mad it through far worse times. I mean really look at what happened during the Scully era??? And Amilioooooooooppps!

Some people will think I am being nearsited on this one, but when your a true believer in the product and have been forever, you throw comments like that on the pile and move along.

Look, some may say I am being elitist. Not really the case here folks. I have to work and earn every penny to buy my computers, just like the rest. But, once again, thrown on the pile.

The way I see it here, is now I finally get the last laugh:) I will never buy any computer other than an APPLE! Beisides if everyone is like Apple, who the heck would all the PC Companys copy:)

[jnasato]

No, no, no. :mad: A fairly homogeneous hardware platform is one of Apple's greatest advantages. And one of the reasons why OS X is rock solid. If it should be adjusted to fit a wide variety of architectures it would probably degenerate quickly...

WORD. Forget OS X on non-Apple computers... I would rather be forced into quality, than having the choice of being tempted by a cheaper and faster computer. Sacrificing stability for speed is horrible, but I might do it if a computer is cheap enough!!! Again, I don't want that choice... :)

[Yvan256]

Yeah, OS X for Intel is ridiculous.

Remember, BINARIES, people! All current software would NOT RUN on an intel processor. You'd have OS X and nothing to run on it.

Remember, EMULATORS, people! All current software WOULD RUN on an emulated PPC processor. You'd have a slower OS X and everything would run on it.

Think more along the lines of "Virtual OS X" instead of "OS X for x86".

Then again, IMO the gateway drug is iTunes, and it's a nice show-off for "the Apple experience". I even had a friend (who's not really pro-Apple nor anti-Microsoft) tell me "wow, it just works!". :D

[Yvan256]

but what if only ONE maker would (be allowed to) switch to OsX, say SONY?

Introducing: the Sonyos X

:D

[archer75]

I don't see why people equate poor quality with PC's.

Yes, there are some poor quality parts but there are also many high quality parts. The beauty is you can pick out exactly the components you want.

A company like apple simply picked out those components for you. There are many companies on the PC side that do the same. It really is no different.

That said, my PC with Windows XP is by far more stable than this G4 I just got.

[Ups85]

Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.

I see the total opposite happening. Many people don't buy apple products because they don't understand them, and are scared to branch out to a new operating system. If more pc makers adopted OS X, people would become more familiar with the OS. Also, having more pc makers adopt the OS will result in more niche PC software ported over to OS X. Once people begin to understand it, they will flock to apple, who makes the highest quality and best looking hardware.

I still don't know if this is the best route. Apple needs to reach a marketshare of 7-10%, which is a happy medium between having enough popularity to attract developers and preventing hackers from being attracted to the OS. If they make the right decisions, they can achieve this without adapting the OS to x86

[Lepton]

It's a bit off topic but many people are mentioning it. You safely can bet your life that Apple will make Macs based on Cell. They will hint that they are looking at it at WWDC 2005, announce it before WWDC 2006, and release it January 2007.

[Yvan256]

A couple points

[...]

5. It's about time we declared open war on Windows.

Too late for that, Microsoft already declared war on its own users when they released Windows XP (more stable, but oh so open to attacks). :D

[Spock]

This would be like putting a Harley V-Twin on a Honda Shadow.

[archer75]

Too late for that, Microsoft already declared war on its own users when they released Windows XP (more stable, but oh so open to attacks). :D

You make it sound like this happens all the time. Out of the box it is more insecure, i'll give you that.
But if you know what you're doing there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I've never been hacked and never had a virus. And it takes so very little effort on my part to prevent this.
I don't run an antivirus program. And I don't run a software firewall either. Just behind a router.
I know what apps have spyware and I don't install them.

[digitalbiker]

That said, my PC with Windows XP is by far more stable than this G4 I just got.

Why do you say this? Are you having troubles with a G4?

I think by and large both Windows XP and OS X are very stable. If you are having an issue you might have faulty hardware in need of repair.

[trtam]

Why don't we offer Mac OS 6, or Mac OS 7 to them?
:p

[digitalbiker]

This would be like putting a Harley V-Twin on a Honda Shadow.

Yeah! Why would you want to cripple a great bike like the Honda with a noisey, vibrating Harley V-Twin.

[archer75]

Why do you say this? Are you having troubles with a G4?

I think by and large both Windows XP and OS X are very stable. If you are having an issue you might have faulty hardware in need of repair.

I have had an app crash at least once a day. Various apps. And they lockup so hard I cannot close them, I have to reboot.
Once it was iTunes, another time it was disk utility. I had some other wierd anomolies.
Today it's running fine though.
Was playing around with some apps and must say I am very dissapointed by iMovieHD. Would like to try Final Cut to see what that's all about. But so far I prefer Pinnacle Studio for windows.

My windows xp box runs solid for a week, never turning it off. It runs Folding@Home 24/7 and sometimes some P2P apps as well. During the day I do all my normal stuff on it. Runs great.

[adamjay]

just think about it. if this happened tomorrow, you could have OSX on a 64bit notebook.

about ***** time!!!

[digitalbiker]

Seems odd to me that your applications are actually locking up OSX. I very rarely if ever have had an application lock up OSX since OS X 10.1.

Did you try just force quiting the apps? opt-apple-esc key sequence.

If this is truly the case, I would suspect faulty memory.

The iLife apps such as iMovieHD are nice general apps for the average user. Anything more requires pro apps and G5 processor. 1GB ram doesn't hurt either.

[hob]

This would be the worst move apple could make. I think everyone who's opinion I respect on this board has said pretty much the same thing. I don't think there should be any more discussion on the point! It's a bad idea, it shouldn't happen. The reasons are numerous and all totally valid.

Hob

[Lanbrown]

What are you talking about? Leave your cubicle now!

Noboby said HP or anybody will "switch" to selling Macs only. They just have to offer it. If your vendor is HP and now they have Minis (or any other mac) for sale and you have a department that can use those machines. Bingo.

PO#332678

200 HP Presario 67352792982-8267258/29982781 (or whatever model #)
38 HP 15" LCD 768-128
38 HP Mini 1.25/512/40
6 HP iBook 1.25/256/40
18 HP LaserJet 4000 Toner cartridges

Why not?

For one, it doesn't help HP or Apple. There are companies that use Macs you know, and they go to Apple to get them. Nothing is stopping anybody from going to Apple. Also, the discount that Apple gives is quite pathetic; something that doesn't really help them either.

What would Apple get from HP? A better distribution channel? Seems to me that Apple is doing that on their own, in fact companies are coming to them. BestBuy, Walmart, etc. The Mac Mini will be found in stores. If Apple could get Walmart (as much as I hate them) to offer the Mac Mini, that would be a big outlet.

You still miss the issue that companies just cannot just one day say they're going to switch. Training is the biggest reason as is software and testing. Want proof of this? Itanic. HP is pushing that hard as a replacement to its PA-RISC processor. Applications need to be recompiled, guess how HP is doing? Yep, customers are leaving. If you have to change, which they do as the chip is no longer being progressed, you might as well as look to see what the competition offers. After all, it's the same amount of work no matter how you look at it. The competition might even be willing to assist you more then HP is. The last survey of companies that use the PA-RISC or Alpha processor, over half had no plans to switch to the Itanic in the next ten years if at all. A good majority of them are in the not at all category. Very little high-end kit stays installed for that long. It's big money and support lasts for three to five years after EOS and then it moves to EOL status. Companies start looking around the EOS date. Switching costs a lot of money, it's not cut and dry as you seem to believe it is.

[Yvan256]

IMHO, I think one of the reasons that the Mac is such a great platform is that
the OS and application software take advantage of a stable/known
platform (i.e., video card and superdrive, for example). Attempting to port
to a crappy machine with one of a variety of different drives and video
card would start to make OS X look crappy.

I was thinking the same, but then it hit me: iTunes for Windows hasn't seen much problems on the hardware side, really... (or did it?)

I still say that "Virtual Mac for Windows" is the way to go (if the plan is to offer a glimpse of OS X to Windows users). Then again iTunes itself is taste enough (IMO).

[sjl]

First comment. OS X on x86. It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out that Apple is actively maintaining a port of OS X to the x86 architecture. Why? Because there are certain classes of bugs that will show up when you port to different architectures which won't appear if you code on the one arch. Endian issues, for example, can be good to get rid of; it also helps to make the code that much cleaner (often, cute hacks which work on one platform won't work on another.)

Having said that, though, I'd be extremely surprised if Apple ever released it for public consumption. Darwin, yes -- Darwin is out and available for x86, but the Aqua layer is not, and probably never will be.

Second comment. Application support. NeXTStep has, right from the word go, supported so-called "fat binaries": binaries with support compiled in for multiple architectures. This is still present in OS X, and is likely to be put to good use once apps start fully supporting the G5, so that G4 support doesn't have to be completely thrown out the window. The same setup can be used for x86 support, but for that to happen, Apple would have to release x86 cross compilation suites to application vendors. They wouldn't release OS X on x86 until those suites had been seeded for some time, to allow the application marketplace to get ready; I can't see anything of the sort happening any time in the foreseeable future.

Third comment. Apple's likely future paths would almost certainly include Cell (as other posters have said, the core CPU in Cell is a PowerPC derivative; the ancillary CPUs aren't, and would be used for other purposes), as well as whatever IBM will call the cut-down POWER5 (the 980?) and later CPUs. It's a question of what they can engineer into the case without compromising the stability and reliability of the system as a whole. Cell is actually an interesting one; it would likely be used in a "G6" line, because of the ancillary CPUs, unless IBM or others release a cut-down Cell. Too early to tell yet.

Finally: licensees of OS X on other PPC-based systems. I could see Apple doing this down the road; just not yet. Apple's marketshare is too fragile right now. If it jumped to 10%, I'd not be surprised to see a limited clone market be permitted, with appropriate QA advice from Apple to try to maintain the stability of the platform, in an attempt to broaden the appeal of the market; but it's not something Apple would let slip until it actually happened. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if this didn't happen either. Long term (five to ten years), I'd call it a fifty fifty shot; I wouldn't be placing any bets at this stage, either way.

[Lanbrown]

Now that's what I also envision. Especially Sony, because it was kinda weird to have Sony Japan's CEO on stage simply to talk about HD-Video...

Who knows, maybe the PS3 will run OS X somehow... (yes, you read me right). :D

Companies can compete in one-arena and form partnerships in others. MS was pushing Passport, others were pushing Liberty. I would say that Sun competes with IBM and HP. HP competes with IBM and Sun. IBM competes with HP and Sun. Sun and IBM compete with Intel. But yet all of the companies are involved in the Liberty Alliance project.

You had someone from Sony showing their product with a Mac, so what. Sony does sell camcorders you know. Sony does use Firewire. Yet Sony sells PeeCees, MP3 players and a music service. Apple competes with MS, but MS offers software for the Mac. It’s all about money.

The PS3 would never run OS X, yeah you heard me right. Why? OS X is more then just an OS, it’s a collection of software. The basis of OS X is BSD. The kernel is all that Sony would want, not the GUI and the rest of the apps. They don't need Apple to get the kernel.

[maya]

I don't think Apple or Steve Jobs is that stupid to let companies license the OS from Apple.

This will be bad on so many grounds, first people will go why are there no drives, patches, keys, etc... for this and that hardware that is over 5 years old, and software included.

Second people always have some reason to complain, sure the OS is now on x86 however people will gripe that they have to buy new version of they software.

Third hardware companies will place pressure on Apple to lower the price of licensing to sell more machines and gain more market share.

Forth we will see a whole new dawn of viruses, trojans, etc....there is no way Apple can keep up patching all this, at present OS X's presence is small enough that it can take a week for a security update, this will make it worse.

Fifth hardware companies will give they customers a choice, Windows, Linux, OS X.....what do you think people will choose? People will look at the software available for Windows OS and Mac OS, look at cost and say I will live with Windows until the application that I use on it is fully supported on the Mac.

One of the reason why people do not switch is because Mac software titles that are also available on Windows are stripped down. If it is on par with the Windows version and also pricing this will be a no brainer.

Sixth, Apple makes way more money on hardware then software. Even if they license iLife and OS X to x86 companies nothing much will happen. It will only ruin it for Apple in the long run.

Once OS X and all the other apps go x86, I will not be upgrading from that point. ;) :)

Not going to happen, its an x86 geeks wet dream at best? :p ;) :)

[Lanbrown]

I'm so conflicted :confused: BUT...

I want OSX to enlighten the world of our window-using friends, but I don't want apple hardware to go belly-up. Maybe if apple used PC manufacturers to build specially branded, basic (but still intel based) versions of HP or Dell computers, and market them under the mac mini as larger, yet cheaper mac machines.

And how would they only allow it to be installed on those machines? You would still have the same basic hardware. Unless you wanted to make major to the hardware, which would no longer offer economies of scale and thus, no longer cheap.

[Lanbrown]

All I have to say about this and the news of the new CELL chip from IBM and Sony, with extreme potential for Apple, is that we Mac users don't even know the half of what's going on at Apple right now.

If you are confident about what you've known about computers and networking then hold on! I think the next wave of computing is upon us, and trust me Steve Jobs is in the driver's seat. From what I've seen and read I believe that "Tiger" will be the last Mac OS for that "traditional" computing platform that we have come to know in the past 25 years.

If we knew just a little of what is about to be unleashed upon the computing world we would all cream in our pants. I think in the next 2-3 years it will be a very good thing to be a Mac owner.

And not to put Microsoft down, but I don't think that they are fully prepared for what's about to happen.

Two companies are offering radical chips, both to be released in volume next year. The traditional CPU designs will have a hard time keeping up. There are two companies that do a lot in the processor design realm, IBM and Sun. AMD for the longest time followed Intel and Intel just lives off their customer base. Both Cell, Niagara and Rock will change computing, as we know it.