PDA

View Full Version : Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare?




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jan 22, 2007, 08:43 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

CNN profiles (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/19/technology/fastforward_parallels.fortune/) the growing Mac virtualization market that allows Mac users to run Windows (and other Intel operating systems) on their Macs.

An interesting side effect of this virtualization software is that it suddenly has also become easier for PC users to run Mac OS X on their PCs

VMware's CEO Diane Greene told me last week that her company's existing x86 desktop product is already being used by some to run Mac OS on computers from Dell (Charts), Hewlett-Packard (Charts) and others, though this is not intentional on VMware's part.

Parallels will reportedly be upgrading its software further "in a way that by coincidence will make it easier to run Mac OS on a non-Apple computer." It appears that both VMWare and Parallels have been "crippled" to satisfy demands from Apple that users not be encouraged to install Mac OS X on PCs. VMware's CEO says their initial shipment delay has been, in part, due to Apple's demands:

"We were trying to do it the way they wanted to, but in hindsight we should have just gone ahead, I wonder what Steve Jobs is going to do, because there is so much pressure to run Mac OS on non-Macs. There's no technical reason not to do it. He's so proprietary about everything, yet it could be a very strategic move for him to make"



pbagaindoc
Jan 22, 2007, 08:46 PM
copy cat!!!

darwen
Jan 22, 2007, 08:46 PM
How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware.... :confused:

justflie
Jan 22, 2007, 08:47 PM
I don't know much about programming or anything, but I thought there was something in the OS X code that binds Mac OS X to official Apple hardware. So if this is true, wouldn't it be illegal to run OS X in a virtual environment on a pc?

miketcool
Jan 22, 2007, 08:47 PM
What advantage does that really give you? You still have to have windows up. I guess ARD and server stuff might be cool to run.

mahonmeister
Jan 22, 2007, 08:48 PM
Please let me dual-boot on my PC! I'll always be in the market for a Mac with OSX, but running OSX on a PC would be awesome. Choose the best/most appropriate hardware and choose the best OS!

noone
Jan 22, 2007, 08:48 PM
I can see this subject from both angles. On one hand, this means that you don't have to buy an Apple branded computer which saves us money. However, Apple makes a lot of money off of their hardware so I can see where they want to keep it so it only runs on their hardware. I bet that Apple will put a stop to it. I thought that you couldn't run OS X on non-apple hardware anyways.

lamina
Jan 22, 2007, 08:48 PM
I smell a lawsuit.

I can also see Apple doing some pretty fancy dancy stuff to prevent Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware. I think Mac OS should stay on Macs.

I'm also sure that OS X won't run as well on Dells and HPs because of the difference in hardware (video cards, sound boards, etc)

081440
Jan 22, 2007, 08:51 PM
While I would love to be able to only deal with Mac OSX I will not sacrifice that for the loss Apple :apple: Hardware. I just hope this doesn't result in any loss of Apple sales. Although I doubt 99.9% of potential switchers would even consider doing something like this. It shouldn't affect Apple too much, just so long as it doesn't make a hit news story or something...

TheBobcat
Jan 22, 2007, 08:53 PM
If Apple really wanted to be evil, I bet the EULA of Mac OS X stipulates it can only be run on an actual Apple Computer and they could go out and sue individual users, or sue VMWare for making a product which purpose is to violate an EULA of another product.

Even if the EULA doesn't stipulate that, Apple will still sue someone.

YOU SHALL NOT PASS. :mad: :mad: :apple: :mad: :mad:

Kingsly
Jan 22, 2007, 08:56 PM
Shhhhhhhh.





Do you hear that marching sound?






The squeaky squeak of tank treads?





It's the sound of Apple legal on a blitzkrieg.








Sie kommen...

Macula
Jan 22, 2007, 08:56 PM
Steve Jobs at Macworld 2007:

"If you are serious about software you should make your own hardware"

Does he mean this, or is he bluffing?

This is an interesting story: Technology naturally evolves towards MacOS running on generic PCs. It is only market forces that prevent this from happening openly.

Technology vs. corporate policy: Which one will prevail?

macfan881
Jan 22, 2007, 08:59 PM
hmm would be intresting but wasnt there someting in the macs os code that will not let you run mac on windows

psingh01
Jan 22, 2007, 09:03 PM
Steve Jobs at Macworld 2007:

"If you are serious about software you should make your own hardware"

Does he mean this, or is he bluffing?

This is an interesting story: Technology naturally evolves towards MacOS running on generic PCs. It is only market forces that prevent this from happening openly.

Technology vs. corporate policy: Which one will prevail?



What can Apple sue over? The VMWare is just a virtual machine. When Apple decided to go with the Intel architecture they opened themselves up to this. There is no reason why VMWare or any other virtualization company should have to cripple their software to satisfy Apple. I see this as something good for the consumer, if Apple doesn't want people running OS X on non-Apple hardware then they should provide the consumer with incentives to not "switch back" :apple:

phillipjfry
Jan 22, 2007, 09:08 PM
hmm would be intresting but wasnt there someting in the macs os code that will not let you run mac on windows

That's the purpose of emulation. To emulate the hardware so that the software can run on top of it.
I really do hope that they stop trying to port osx to PC because that's apple's bread and butter, the mac hardware. Windows is hardware independent and runs on millions of configurations of hardware. OSX is coded to work best with one set of hardware configuration. I am so sick of PC and windows combo that I'm settling down with an iMac this week. Is it really worth having such an awesome OS like OSX if you cant run it natively on your PC? I mean the purpose (at least to me!!) of having emulated OS/software is to get teh functionality of some programs on one OS and be able to run it on another (eg. codeweavers, wine, cedega, etc). Not install Windows (and have to deal with its issues), and then run an OS on top of that.
I guess maybe if OSX had something on it that isn't available on windows (or even a "better" alternative), then yea I can see the point. My two cents and I will back Apple on this one. :apple: :apple: :apple:

twoodcc
Jan 22, 2007, 09:09 PM
i think it would help apple to sell os x buy itself.....but i can see also why they don't want to do it.....

bdkennedy1
Jan 22, 2007, 09:10 PM
There's totally technical reasons for not running OS X on any computer. Microsoft Windows driver hell. Microsoft has to keep up with hundreds of thousands of drivers and keep them all backward compatible. OS X is able to be stable as it is because it doesn't have to support a ton of drivers.

Me1000
Jan 22, 2007, 09:17 PM
If apple sold OS X for generic PCs, The price of OS X would go up tremendously! Apple already made a great deal of money off of you for the mac you will be installing it on, People will start buying old crap PCs, apple will loose money, OS X goes up in price, or apple faces the same thing they were in with (what was it) OS 7(?) where they licensed their OS, and apple almost died!

Do you really want to see that?

daneoni
Jan 22, 2007, 09:17 PM
.......and so it begins.

BlueRevolution
Jan 22, 2007, 09:18 PM
I don't know much about programming or anything, but I thought there was something in the OS X code that binds Mac OS X to official Apple hardware. So if this is true, wouldn't it be illegal to run OS X in a virtual environment on a pc?

You're making a rather large leap from talking about technology to legality. While I believe it is illegal in the US to circumvent copy protection, this is not copy protection, nor is everyone in the US. Some of us live in countries with much saner copyright laws.

Whether it is a violation of Apple's EULA remains to be seen, but from my understanding EULAs don't stand up in court anyway.

jaduffy108
Jan 22, 2007, 09:18 PM
How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware.... :confused:

My two cents...

Microsoft has been fairly successful as a purely software company ;)

Apple isn't going to be able to control (stop) this now...so they should change course and make this a positive thing versus fighting a losing battle. They can if they choose to. Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

Yes, Apple makes a lot of money off of hardware, but selling MILLIONS of copies of OS X would be a pretty huge chunk of change. Many times over the profits of hardware. Look at the profits of selling a kazillion iPods! I don't think Apple would lose a high percentage of Mac hardware users...BUT gain millions of OS X users.

Apple is moving out of being a niche company...seems to *me* like this could be THE move into the mainstream.

peace

Sam0r
Jan 22, 2007, 09:20 PM
Currently there is NO WAY (that I can see..) of running OS X in a virtual machine even on a real mac.

Thats a REAL problem, especially if you're coding a driver or something, which is likely to hang the machine during testing.

This is exactly what a virtual machine is for, testing.

I say let apple open up OS X to everyone, yeah they'd lose SOME hardware sales, but only from the people that know how to build their own systems. 90% of the people out there want a 'computer', mac or pc, they don't care. They don't want to piss around building it, they just want a box they can look at and a board they can press keys on.

And.. what, ~95.3% of them bought PC's, and I bet only 70% of them actually care what operating system they run, and I get only 50% of them actually know what an operating system actually is. And even then I bet only 30% of them know the difference between OS X and windows.

And I bet only 10% have heard of linux.

Marlor
Jan 22, 2007, 09:21 PM
I know plenty of people who have built up PCs with similar components to Macs, so that they can run OS X with full driver-support, at a fraction of the price of an Apple desktop machine.

Cracks are available to allow OS X to run without any issues. Its use on beige boxes is pretty widespread among PC-using geeks.

But it is a breach of Apple's licensing conditions to run OS X on a PC, and there is no way I would want to do so, just in case Apple's lawyers decide to go on the offensive.

Umbongo
Jan 22, 2007, 09:22 PM
Parallels will reportedly be upgrading its software further "in a way that by coincidence will make it easier to run Mac OS on a non-Apple computer."

Things have changed from just a couple of weeks ago at CES then, when Benjamin Rudolph stated in this video (http://mirror.video.blip.tv/Bleedingedge-TheBleedingEdgeCES2007VideoParallelsDesktopForMacInter440.mp4) that while it's technically possible it won't be happening due to Apple's licensing policy of only allowing OSX to run in a non-virtual enviroment on Apple hardware.

findpankaj
Jan 22, 2007, 09:24 PM
Whether it is possible or not but one should always have a right to choose best hardware and software. Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.) and Mac OS X is much better OS.

freebooter
Jan 22, 2007, 09:27 PM
I'm all for ways to open up hardware options. It's so tiresome to be a kind of hostage to Apple's limited selection. A more direct competitive situation might force Apple to wake up and build, for example, a mid-range computer without a screen.

Frisco
Jan 22, 2007, 09:27 PM
If Steve is going to make a move on the Windows market, now is the perfect time to do so: iPod's success, all the media hype focused on the Apple iPhone, Vista's lackluster reviews and high system requirements. With all the attention on Apple, perhaps this is Steve's last chance to get a significant percentage of the OS marketshare back.

Sure Apple would lose sales on hardware sales, but wouldn't they make up a large portion of that by increasing the the sale of OS X exponentially?

Either way it's a great time to be an Apple fan and Mac user. It will be very interesting to see the moves made by Apple in the next couple of years. After all life is a chess match!

ChrisA
Jan 22, 2007, 09:35 PM
What advantage does that really give you? You still have to have windows up. I guess ARD and server stuff might be cool to run.

VMware runs under Linux, Windows and the Mac. You can run any OS inside the VM. You don't need Windows. Other combinatins are possable. For example run Linux on the PC then put Mac OS X on that.

Apple could very easily tie Mac OS to some special hardware. I don't know why it is not already this way.

smueboy
Jan 22, 2007, 09:36 PM
I'm of two minds....

I'd like to see more Windows users appreciate how great OS X is......

But at the same time i'd rather see OS X exclusive to Macs......


Still, it stinks a bit trying to prevent virtualisation of OS X on a Windows machine. Please don't make too many enemies Apple.

nagromme
Jan 22, 2007, 09:37 PM
Apple could still sell tons of hardware, while also growing the Mac platform and making tons more by selling OS X for PCs.

They could pick their timing and do it strategically.

They could pick their market: just to selected box assemblers, or just standalone (for DIYers), or whatever way they want to start.

They could offer sidegrade pricing--like $100 off if you buy a Mac after buying OS X for PCs.

This would allow Apple to grow faster and reach more customers than their Mac product line currently can.

All of this has no downside--just as long as Apple does not SUPPORT that other hadware (an endless chaotic sea of widely varied components). And just as long as Apple doesn't add complexity or bloat to OS X to allow this other hardware to work (like extra drivers that all must stay compatible with each OS revision). And just as long as this other hardware doesn't require Apple to spend additional time, staff, or money on development and testing of their OS and related products. (In short... as long as Apple doesn't mind facing many of the same problems that plague Windows as a result of having to support infinite hardware versions.) Also just as long as Apple cares about growing as fast as possible, more than they care about quality and innovation. And just as long as Apple doesn't have future OS X plans that tie in with hardware (like cameras, remote controls, or motion sensors). And just as long as Apple doesn't mind helping pirates out. And just as long as all this doesn't work against unreleased products (like bottom-end Macs or subnotebooks or a mid-range headless) that Apple may have in the labs.

In other words, as long as Apple leaves OS X as is, and sells it to PC owners with no promise that it will actually work, and no support when they have issues, then it's a great idea :) (I suspect OS buyers and the law might take issue, however. Maybe it's best to keep OS X on Mac for now.)

iomar
Jan 22, 2007, 09:37 PM
This is a very bad news. We don't want to see OS x on this ugly boxes.

ChrisA
Jan 22, 2007, 09:39 PM
What a joke:) Who wants to run mac osx on a pc?

Windows on a mac makes sense but not the other way around

Mac OS X on PC hardware makes sense if Apple does not make the hardware you want. For example "mid size tower" something between a Mini and a MP. If Apple made that I'd buy it

mahonmeister
Jan 22, 2007, 09:41 PM
I was just thinking, maybe this would force Apple to expand their line-up of mobile and desktop computers at more competitive prices. You really can't gain a huge market share and not even offer a computer with a desktop processor.:rolleyes:

umijin
Jan 22, 2007, 09:42 PM
I smell a lawsuit.

I can also see Apple doing some pretty fancy dancy stuff to prevent Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware. I think Mac OS should stay on Macs.

I'm also sure that OS X won't run as well on Dells and HPs because of the difference in hardware (video cards, sound boards, etc)

Until Apple can make a laptop that meets my needs, I'm all for running MacOS on non-Apple hardware.

What meets my needs? A portable 4lbs or lighter that can replace my aging 12" G4 PowerBook. Until Apple makes a comparable Intel offering, the hell with their OSX limitations.

In fact the entire MacBook line is overweight compared to laptop offerings from Sony, Panasonic, and even ASUS.

flyinmac
Jan 22, 2007, 09:43 PM
If Apple really wanted to be evil, I bet the EULA of Mac OS X stipulates it can only be run on an actual Apple Computer and they could go out and sue individual users, or sue VMWare for making a product which purpose is to violate an EULA of another product.

Even if the EULA doesn't stipulate that, Apple will still sue someone.

YOU SHALL NOT PASS. :mad: :mad: :apple: :mad: :mad:


It already does say that, and has for many, many years. Here is a direct quote from the first page of the OS X license agreement:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple
Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you
may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding
the Boot ROM code and other Apple firmware that is embedded or otherwise contained in Apple-labeled hardware) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided
that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled
hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.


I just checked, and a similar clause is in the OS 9.x license. And, if I remember right, it was even in the OS 8.x licenses as well.

So, I don't see any way that you could use it on a PC from someone other than Apple without violating the user license (which would open you up to legal prosecution).

Copies of the various license agreements can be found here:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

The one I quoted was for OS 10.4.4. But, the others are similar.

Konradx
Jan 22, 2007, 09:43 PM
Its not Apple "Computer" Inc. anymore. Let us have OSX on the PC. Im not a fan of proprietary at all. If i could use OSX for everything, and then switch to XP for gaming i would be in heaven.

Either allow OSX on the PC or allow people to upgrade there Macs EASILY, no more solidering or non upgradeable systems. If i could put a NICE video card into my iMac i wouldnt need to buy a PC.

Marlor
Jan 22, 2007, 09:43 PM
They could pick their market: just to selected box assemblers, or just standalone (for DIYers), or whatever way they want to start.

They tried that once. It didn't work too well...

Jobs ended the programme as soon as he returned. So I doubt he's likely to allow Mac Clones again any time soon.

But there's nothing they can do to stop determined hobbyists from installing OS X on their beige boxes. It's been happening since the moment the Intel developer machines were released.

digitalbiker
Jan 22, 2007, 09:45 PM
To me this is a win - win situation for Apple. Apple is not going to lose any native mac users to running OS X in a virtual environment. We all know that OS X is much nicer to use than windows.

Soooo, Apple sales more copies of OSX to Pc users experimenting with OS X in a virtual environment. Then once these users find out how nice OS X is, bang, Apple makes a hardware sale because who wants to run OS X full time in a VM when they can buy nice Apple hardware and run it natively.

Remember OS X still is not going to run natively in on that PC. It will only run in a VM. Therefore a PC user will have to buy new Apple hardware if they want to run OS X full time natively.

pascalpp
Jan 22, 2007, 09:47 PM
Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.).

Au contraire: a big reason that Mac OS X works so well is because the hardware environment is very carefully controlled and vetted by Apple. If Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on the countless possible combinations of off-the-shelf PC hardware, it would become the same nightmarish collection of drivers and driver conflicts that plagues Windows XP and its brethren.

Of course, Apple could just wash their hands of the situation and refuse to support any one who chooses to run OS X on non-Apple hardware, but that's not the Apple way. If it has their name on it, they want it to work. Anything less would reflect poorly on them.

Westside guy
Jan 22, 2007, 09:49 PM
I can't see Apple doing this - it would throw a monkey wrench in the seamless "OS X experience". Apple would be moving towards more of a Windows model, where people will start having to worry about finding drivers for their hardware, etc.

I suppose Apple could say "we won't stop you, but we also won't be offering any support..."

Edit: Man, that is eerie, hitting "submit reply" and then seeing what pascalpp wrote at virtually the same time!

Digitalclips
Jan 22, 2007, 09:50 PM
My two cents...

Apple isn't going to be able to control (stop) this now...so they should change course and make this a positive thing versus fighting a losing battle. They can if they choose to. Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.



Where on Earth did you get that story from? Totally re write of history!

typecase
Jan 22, 2007, 09:52 PM
This is really bad news, IMHO. :( If anybody can easily run Mac OS X on generic hardware, Apple's increasing gains in the hardware market will be flattened (or perhaps reversed). I know that OSX86 project offers this, but it's cumbersome and hard to install.

Marlor
Jan 22, 2007, 09:55 PM
This is really bad news, IMHO. :( If anybody can easily run Mac OS X on generic hardware, Apple's increasing gains in the hardware market will be flattened (or perhaps reversed). I know that OSX86 project offers this, but it's cumbersome and hard to install.

If Apple's EULA stays as-is, it will still be a breach of the license to install OS X on anything but genuine Apple hardware.

That won't stop people from running it on PCs, but they won't be able to do it legally anyway.

RichP
Jan 22, 2007, 10:00 PM
Lets not jump to conclusions here that OSX is going to be running on any x86 box ever made.

You would be running OSX on a virtual mac, with virtual drivers for virtual hardware. Its just like running XP under Parallels; its good for an odd-ball program or two, but if you want to use it full time, and/or with full hardware acceleration and resources, it wont do.

Everyone go back to complaining about iPhone..

iJawn108
Jan 22, 2007, 10:05 PM
OMG could you imagin... if this is one of the reasons we didn't see new hardware. The big change in 2007 is that leopard will run on PCs!!!!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

SMM
Jan 22, 2007, 10:05 PM
Whether it is possible or not but one should always have a right to choose best hardware and software. Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.) and Mac OS X is much better OS.

You are assuming facts many others (like me) do not agree with. This is a sign of weak analysis. Please only post your own opinion and do not presume to speak for others.

Bakafish
Jan 22, 2007, 10:08 PM
1) There is absolutely nothing technically stopping running OS X in a VM on fairly standard hardware.

2) The license for OS X specifically prohibits this.

3) Steve most likely will not mind OS X running in a VM hosted on Apple hardware (although he may want them to have the family pack license to do so.)

4) Anyone who makes software that enables users to run OS X on non-Apple hardware will have the Steve to deal with. Even if they themselves don't promote it for that purpose.

How do you think Apple would react if Dell started manufacturing machines that just happened to be able to run OS X if you were so inclined to install it? Do you think that Dell doesn't have that capability? I'd venture to guess that Parallel's made a serious misstep to imply that they would support such a thing. Being isolated from the internal developers at Apple can't be a good thing for developing a stable product.

chubad
Jan 22, 2007, 10:21 PM
The day Apple makes OS X to run on PC's will be the first day of the end of the Mac.:( :mad:

Chef Medeski
Jan 22, 2007, 10:21 PM
Au contraire: a big reason that Mac OS X works so well is because the hardware environment is very carefully controlled and vetted by Apple. If Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on the countless possible combinations of off-the-shelf PC hardware, it would become the same nightmarish collection of drivers and driver conflicts that plagues Windows XP and its brethren.
This is a onjecture, not fact. It has never been proven. And no one said they had to run on everything. Unlike Windows who makes obligations to support everything from 15 yrs back, Apple at this point has none of the baggage and can always get out of it with loose service clauses. No support for non-Apple hardware (im sure it will deter a lot of consumers, but keep the prosumers, which the audience for non supported software is for). So I see it as win-win.

The day Apple makes OS X to run on PC's will be the first day of the end of the Mac.:( :mad:
And the problem with the downfall of overly expensive, outdated, inflexible, and competition free hardware is?

Apple Hardware is only nice when it is new. Then a week later everyone sees that everyone can do the same and better for cheaper. Then a month or two later while everyone unviels this new feature and that, Apple is touting its New MacBook Pros (no updates in months). Yes, I'm so happy Apple has a monopoly on Mac OS X hardware.

Collin973
Jan 22, 2007, 10:26 PM
I met a kid once at a friend's college. Big time programmer or something. He pulls me a side and out of his walmart issue sweatpants, he pulls a 2.5" sata laptop drive. "Check this out" he says "it's an illegal copy of mac OS X for my pc," speaking with a glinting grin.

haha who carries an internal laptop drive around in the pocket...then goes around bragging about it...

whether or not it worked...i don't know. I didn't stick around to find out.

I'm in the keep OS X with apple's camp.

rjwill246
Jan 22, 2007, 10:28 PM
I see this as something good for the consumer, if Apple doesn't want people running OS X on non-Apple hardware then they should provide the consumer with incentives to not "switch back" :apple:

Er-- what???? Apple has no obligation to offer such incentives. The idea of violating Apple's agreement NOT to run MacOS on non-Apple approved devices is questionable in the least!!! I know you do not want to have to buy an "expensive" Mac to run Mac OS but that does not mean you should be able to get around the EULA so that YOU can!!!! What YOU want, and what Apple agrees you should do with their software are two different things.

Further, on Apple's demise as a result of massive loss of harware sales-- what say you to that, matey? Too frickin' bad????

eric_n_dfw
Jan 22, 2007, 10:34 PM
OS X on generic x86 pro's & con's have been beat to death on other discussions here for years so I won't go into my arguements other than: a.) as a shareholder and fan of Apple Inc. I hate it as it will eat into their profits, b.) as a geek I would love it as I could run OS X on cheap hardware.

Back on topic:
For those of you poo-pooing the fact that it would be running under a VM, consider that you can run guest OS's under VMWare at speeds pretty well indistinguishable from native since it's not having to do any CPU emulation. The hardware virtualization support built into modern Intel and AMD processors makes the speed incredibly fast.

Now think about running VMWare under an extremely light-weight Linux distribution that is there simply to boot the machine and host the VM. We do this at my work using the free VMWare Server product to host multiple virtual RedHat servers to various developer groups on single physical hardware servers. i.e. Boot PC, Linux kernel loads with only enough to run VMWare Player which it automatically starts, VMWare Player fires up OS X in full screen mode.

Chef Medeski
Jan 22, 2007, 10:35 PM
Further, on Apple's demise as a result of massive loss of harware sales-- what say you to that, matey? Too frickin' bad????
If Apple loses hardware sales it will be due to a lack of attractive products, a lack of incentive to use those products, or too steep of a price tag. Either way. If hardware sales drop its either due to bad design or stingy pocket books. If its bad design, low hardware sales would force Apple to innovate or die; creating fresh ideas that they wont worry about cannibalizing sales as much since they will be lower. If of course its pocket book and Apple refuses to lower their prices to match what the buyer wants, which is really the key to any buisness (balancing a price with what your buyers want). Well if Apple cant deliver at that price then others will and Apple will evolve into a Software company. Nothing unnatural about the evolutanary ways of a company. Companies re-invent themselves and shift their core values and buisnesses all the time. Isnt a bad thing. Its natural and its what saves the company. They have to adapt to the wants of the customer not the other way around.

I dont see any negative to Apple Hardware's demise. The last time I saw anything in a Mac that really made me want to get one over a regular thing it probably was the hot swapping batteries and cool power adapter. Innovative ideas that few competitors have that were genuinly useful. Those have been around for years. Success causes lagress.

rt_brained
Jan 22, 2007, 10:47 PM
...Choose the best/most appropriate hardware and choose the best OS!
Okay, but that brings you right back to an Apple computer running OS X.

sparkleytone
Jan 22, 2007, 10:51 PM
Things will not change. There has been an underground for OSx86 for as long as the developer machines have been around. There will always be people trying to run OS X on their Dell POS. Apple will always make it just hard enough so that Joe User just buys a Mac instead of buying a PC and strapping a hacked OS X on it that is always effectively a one-off build. This game of cat and mouse is fairly inexpensive to Apple, especially when you consider the cost-benefit. Nothing will change. It has not "begun". It's been over since day one.

briantology
Jan 22, 2007, 11:02 PM
Leopard shall be fool-proof. 'You pop that OS disc in anything but a machine branded with :apple: , then BOOM! Either you blow up or Apple legal breaks through your windows (no pun intended), your choice...

bretm
Jan 22, 2007, 11:02 PM
How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware.... :confused:

I certianly spend more money on Mac software than hardware. Don't you? Seriously. FCP Studio is $1300 bucks. It can only be sold to 5% of the PC market. Open up that market to everyone and bang, you've increased your software market 2000%. Yes, 2000%. No company can compete with that kind of growth potential. Apple would still sell computers and they'd probably sell more. With their OS becoming more commonplace, people would surely buy more of them. They're already the #4 PC manufacturer on the planet, and that's with only 5% of the OS market.

There is no possible way that releasing the OS to the world of PCs could damage the growth of Apple, Inc.

ClimbingTheLog
Jan 22, 2007, 11:04 PM
The day Apple makes OS X to run on PC's will be the first day of the end of the Mac.:( :mad:

I remember when they used to be called Apple Computer....

Seriously, though, PC's are coming along, albeit more slowly than macs. But next year's PC is going to be as good as last year's Mac, if you buy a quality brand.

I'm predicting the "Apple Certified Personal Computer" within three to five years.

This is a onjecture, not fact. It has never been proven.

Au, contraire - Microsoft is disabling Windows users' hardware if it's running a driver that's particularly crappy and sending lots of crash reports to Redmond.

Unlike Windows who makes obligations to support everything from 15 yrs back

And this is over with Vista.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 22, 2007, 11:08 PM
I certianly spend more money on Mac software than hardware. Don't you? Seriously. FCP Studio is $1300 bucks. It can only be sold to 5% of the PC market. Open up that market to everyone and bang, you've increased your software market 2000%. Yes, 2000%. No company can compete with that kind of growth potential. Apple would still sell computers and they'd probably sell more. With their OS becoming more commonplace, people would surely buy more of them. They're already the #4 PC manufacturer on the planet, and that's with only 5% of the OS market.

There is no possible way that releasing the OS to the world of PCs could damage the growth of Apple, Inc.
Yes, but because Final Cut is so good, people are willing to spend $1300 + $2500 on the software + hardware to run it.

davidgrimm
Jan 22, 2007, 11:10 PM
I would not be interested in running OS X on anything but a Mac. Mac's have great design features that few, if any, PCs come close to matching. I feel that part of the enhanced stability of the Mac platform comes from the quality of the hardware. Don't know if its true, but that's how I feel. Also, who would support it. With Dell you void your warranty if you change OSs. Learned that the hard way.

The great thing about Apples is its a end-to-end solution, so you only have one place to go for technical help. That why I have ordered the new Airport extreme router. If I have any problems with it, I can call Apple and get some great support. Sure I could have saved a few bucks buying another router, but the chance I have to deal with any problems makes those savings meaningless. My ex is stuck on the windoze side. She saved a few bucks on someone else's wireless router, but she spends a few hours a month trying to get it to work. Every time something changes on her little network, its more time to try and figure it out. Divide how much you saved by the number of hours it takes to maintain it and you find out fast that you're working cheap. I don't enjoy working cheap. I'm more of a plug it in and it works person. I get no joy in trouble shooting computers.

I can understand someone wanting to get a Mac and run windows on it more than I could understand the opposite.

Marlor
Jan 22, 2007, 11:10 PM
I'm predicting the "Apple Certified Personal Computer" within three to five years.

I really don't see how this plan would work any better than it did back in the mid-1990s.

Steve killed off the Mac Clones by demanding ridiculous licensing fees from the manufacturers. If he decided to allow Mac Clones again, then it would undoubtedly be under the same rigid (and uncompetitive) conditions.

brofski
Jan 22, 2007, 11:20 PM
is the day they will have to stop short of "it just works". the whole corner stone of Apple's ability to keep it simple and "it just works" it because they have the say in both the hardware and software arcitecture.

though windows software has it's own set of problems... they are plauged with additional problems due to the crappy hardware out on the market.

let's also not forget that Apple is a hardware company just as much as a software company. i don't blame them 1 bit for wanting to keep it the way it is.

Spritey
Jan 22, 2007, 11:20 PM
If apple sold OS X for generic PCs, The price of OS X would go up tremendously! Apple already made a great deal of money off of you for the mac you will be installing it on, People will start buying old crap PCs, apple will loose money, OS X goes up in price, or apple faces the same thing they were in with (what was it) OS 7(?) where they licensed their OS, and apple almost died!

Do you really want to see that?

Apparently you haven't taken Econ 101, if not you would have known that increased competition is (in most cases) only going to benefit the consumer in the long run. Increased competition means lower prices and/or better products for the consumer due to the competition. The only way your reasoning would work is if Apple produced hardware that wasn't able to compete with the PC hardware, which I assume everyone would agree is incorrect.

If you can run OS X on any computer, Apple will have to continue to create hardware that people are willing to purchase at a premium.

As for Mac OS, both Windows and Mac OS users will benefit in the long run because Windows and Mac OS will now be direct competitors. Before you could run Mac OS on any computer, a lot of people were not able to afford to pay the premium that you have to pay for an Apple computer (just in terms of looking at the hardware alone) and thus they had to settle for a PC running Windows, where the competition among computer hardware manufacturer is high, thus generally lower prices.

I assumed Mac enthusiasts would be thrilled to see mac os getting into the hands of more people and saving them from the horrors of Windows. But judging by some posts it's the end of the world...

Lastly, I wouldn't worry about Apple not being able to compete with other PC manufacturers. They have the best looking computers, creative solutions and so forth. "Worst" case they'd have to offer more 'customizable' computers.

rt_brained
Jan 22, 2007, 11:21 PM
If its bad design, low hardware sales would force Apple to innovate or die
Apple has been nothing but innovative. It's everyone else who's been dying on the vine.

...Apple refuses to lower their prices to match what the buyer wants, which is really the key to any buisness (balancing a price with what your buyers want).
You get what you pay for. I have no problem paying more for worry-free computing. In fact, I find Macs to be a bargain now, compared to the early 90's.

The last time I saw anything in a Mac that really made me want to get one over a regular thing it probably was the hot swapping batteries and cool power adapter.
Yeah, I was gonna buy a Dull, until I saw the Powerbook's speaker grilles.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 22, 2007, 11:21 PM
I really don't see how this plan would work any better than it did back in the mid-1990s.

Steve killed off the Mac Clones by demanding ridiculous licensing fees from the manufacturers. If he decided to allow Mac Clones again, then it would undoubtedly be under the same rigid (and uncompetitive) conditions.

Unless they got out of the hardware business and turned it all over to them. (not that I think Steve would ever do so)

VanNess
Jan 22, 2007, 11:22 PM
I wonder what Steve Jobs is going to do, because there is so much pressure to run Mac OS on non-Macs.


Leaving aside for a moment the assumption that "there is so much pressure to run Mac OS on non-Macs," I wonder if this guy watched Job's iPhone Macworld keynote. I think Jobs couldn't have been more clear on the issue of why Apple wants control of the hardware and software equation when he displayed the slide quoting Alan Kay:

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

davidgrimm
Jan 22, 2007, 11:25 PM
Someone earlier mentioned that FC could only be sold to 5% of the computers out there. I want to suggest that in certain industries and applications, the Mac enjoys an substantially higher market-share than the 5% that gets mentioned frequently. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it approaches 50% in some aspects of the entertainment industries. Clearly in some industries its use is much less than 5%...

I read the 5% all the time, and in my experience that number seems low for the groups I'm in touch with.

iancapable
Jan 22, 2007, 11:28 PM
I smell a lawsuit.

I can also see Apple doing some pretty fancy dancy stuff to prevent Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware. I think Mac OS should stay on Macs.

I'm also sure that OS X won't run as well on Dells and HPs because of the difference in hardware (video cards, sound boards, etc)

Actually you would find it runs quite well... I had to have a play to start moving my stuff over before buying a new mac (I'm justifying it because I a ctually bought mac and had the intention of doing so, I just needed to see some stuff)...

Although the dell I ran it on is a P4 and it has few glitches... From what I know anything with SSE3 runs it very well.

rt_brained
Jan 22, 2007, 11:33 PM
Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.).
I'm gonna go buy some crack...how much will I have to buy to get as high as your are right now?

I'm all for ways to open up hardware options. It's so tiresome to be a kind of hostage to Apple's limited selection. A more direct competitive situation might force Apple to wake up and build, for example, a mid-range computer without a screen.They already did that.

It was called the Performa line.

Now it's the Mini.

CJD2112
Jan 22, 2007, 11:38 PM
Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.) and Mac OS X is much better OS.

Sorry, but I disagree. As someone who used to custom build PC systems and who has used Windows since 3.1 (and who became a Mac guy after needing to switch to Mac systems while a masters student at Columbia), PC hardware is not better than Apple. Case in point, I'm currently using a Mac Pro 2.66 system that is composed of:

1. 2 Dual-core Intel Xeon Processors
2. 8 gig DDR2 FB-DIMM boards (Null manufacturer)
3. Realtek built-in digital and analog audio card
4. nVidia GeForce 7300 GT 256MB graphics card
5. 3 Western Digital 500 GB S-ATA HD's
6. Sony DVD DL+RW Superdrive 16x

Along with outsourced manufacturing of bluetooth and airport cards, serial controllers and an Intel based motherboard, much of the "Apple" hardware can be bought and used in custom built PC's and is used in Dell's and Gateway systems. Technically, aside from Apple's strict handling and evaluating of the hardware utilized in their Mac line-up, not much is that different from a PC unit with comparable hardware. Apple is very strict about how the machines are manufactured/built, making certain that the hardware used and approved for future additional use works seemlessly with Mac OS. Of course, the design and ergonomics of Apple hardware is unsurpassed, yet when getting down to barebones, Apple hardware isn't exactly "Apple". When I installed Windows Vista, I searched around for the necessary drivers as the driver installation disc made in bootcamp wouldn't work in Windows Vista 64-bit. I loaded the drivers and it works just as well as Mac OS.

synth3tik
Jan 22, 2007, 11:41 PM
About six months ago I got a Toshiba laptop and thought it would be fun to run OS X on it, I had a guy that had successfully ran OS X on his laptop. I soon realized that it was really a waste of my time and effort. My Powerbook just performed better, and even though I think Toshiba is the best PC laptop out there. it just comes nowhere near a Mac.

rt_brained
Jan 22, 2007, 11:43 PM
Apple could still sell tons of hardware, while also growing the Mac platform and making tons more by selling OS X for PCs.

They could pick their timing and do it strategically.

They could pick their market: just to selected box assemblers, or just standalone (for DIYers), or whatever way they want to start.

All of this has no downside--just as long as Apple does not SUPPORT that other hadware (an endless chaotic sea of widely varied components). And just as long as Apple doesn't add complexity or bloat to OS X to allow this other hardware to work (like extra drivers that all must stay compatible with each OS revision). And just as long as this other hardware doesn't require Apple to spend additional time, staff, or money on development and testing of their OS and related products.

In other words, as long as Apple leaves OS X as is, and sells it to PC owners with no promise that it will actually work, and no support when they have issues, then it's a great idea :) (I suspect OS buyers and the law might take issue, however. Maybe it's best to keep OS X on Mac for now.)Some of the same old arguments from the early 90's. It nearly sucked the life out of Apple and I don't care to go through any of it again.

dukebound85
Jan 22, 2007, 11:45 PM
I'm gonna go buy some crack...how much will I have to buy to get as high as your are right now?

wow open your eyes please and tell me getting the same or better performance from a pc at a cheaper price is bad. apart from design, i would gladly go with making my own box for like a third of the cost for the same performance. to disagree with this, you would have to be a fanboy of apple.

what is wrong with simply wanting what you would like or can afford? please do tell me as not all of us can afford a macpro to get that kind of performance for JUST the sake of running osx

synth3tik
Jan 22, 2007, 11:45 PM
Some of the same old arguments from the early 90's. It nearly sucked the life out of Apple and I don't care to go through any of it again.

amen

eric_n_dfw
Jan 22, 2007, 11:47 PM
I'd bet when 10.5 rolls out, since it never had to run the Pentium based dev' machines, that the Intel version will be locked down pretty hard - maybe even using the TPM chip which, from what I understand, would not be emulatable in a non-detectable fashion. People will still probably find ways to crack it, but it won't be anywhere near as east.

In fact, here's what we'll see (insert Job's face): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ugvAhxi9w

puuukeey
Jan 22, 2007, 11:49 PM
I remember when using a computer was about ability and not some sort of social or business statement. when the more features something had, the better it was.

My opinion is that apple should be open to it but not support it. why would you spend time to take away a feature?

If I understand correctly, the reality is that apple is just branding PCs at this point. sooner or later, they are going to have to face up to that.

jedsinger
Jan 22, 2007, 11:51 PM
Nah, even if they sold OS X for any old box... The only new hardware that they'd have to support that they don't now is complex stuff that requires a custom driver (fancy sound cards, etc.) - and that kind of work is on the manufacturer of the complex stuff. But hey, that's the same situation as now! A company that wants to make hardware that can run on OS X, but for which support is not built-in (e.g. Wacom) has to write drivers. And, on the other hand, they can do so and write drivers. None of that changes if Apple opens up the Mac OS. Apple would keep right on supporting cameras, drives, whatever setup they have with printers (who writes those drivers?), etc... Nothing changes!

The only difference I can think of is motherboards. Even there, there aren't very many different reference boards in existence. Apple could say "conform to this spec, your motherboard is supported, otherwise, best of luck!" Not a big deal.

I'm not saying this is definitely the right move for Apple, I don't have a clue. All I'm saying is that all the people whining that hardware lock-in is a good thing for us, the people, are a bit off... The only way it's good for us is if it does turn out to be good for Apple, and the alternative is so much worse that Apple dies. That seems pretty far-fetched.

puuukeey
Jan 22, 2007, 11:53 PM
and how can anyone be against DRM and for apple keeping their software under lock and key?

dukebound85
Jan 22, 2007, 11:56 PM
and how can anyone be against DRM and for apple keeping their software under lock and key?

i know, i hate double standards.

jordo
Jan 23, 2007, 12:09 AM
Boo, PCs suck.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 23, 2007, 12:17 AM
I remember when using a computer was about ability and not some sort of social or business statement. when the more features something had, the better it was.

My opinion is that apple should be open to it but not support it. why would you spend time to take away a feature?

If I understand correctly, the reality is that apple is just branding PCs at this point. sooner or later, they are going to have to face up to that.

If OS X on non-Apple hardware were to cut into their Mac business too badly, Apple Inc. could decide to become iPod / iPhone Inc. some day and OS X would go bye-bye. That would suck.

nagromme
Jan 23, 2007, 12:20 AM
Nah, even if they sold OS X for any old box... The only new hardware that they'd have to support that they don't now is complex stuff that requires a custom driver (fancy sound cards, etc.) - and that kind of work is on the manufacturer of the complex stuff. But hey, that's the same situation as now! A company that wants to make hardware that can run on OS X, but for which support is not built-in (e.g. Wacom) has to write drivers. And, on the other hand, they can do so and write drivers. None of that changes if Apple opens up the Mac OS. Apple would keep right on supporting cameras, drives, whatever setup they have with printers (who writes those drivers?), etc... Nothing changes!

The only difference I can think of is motherboards. Even there, there aren't very many different reference boards in existence. Apple could say "conform to this spec, your motherboard is supported, otherwise, best of luck!" Not a big deal.

I'm not saying this is definitely the right move for Apple, I don't have a clue. All I'm saying is that all the people whining that hardware lock-in is a good thing for us, the people, are a bit off... The only way it's good for us is if it does turn out to be good for Apple, and the alternative is so much worse that Apple dies. That seems pretty far-fetched.

Good point -- Apple-dictated hardware limitations could be a useful middle option.

Also, comparisons to cloning in the 90s are not valid. This situation is VERY different in many ways.

bretm
Jan 23, 2007, 12:27 AM
Some of the same old arguments from the early 90's. It nearly sucked the life out of Apple and I don't care to go through any of it again.

In the 90s they didn't license it to PC manufacturers. They licensed it to Mac Clone manufacturers. Quite a difference there buddy. Not to mention Apple was pretty much a hardware company at the time.

Their software could potentiall surpass hardware if they sold the OS. I mean, iLife, iWork, FCP Studio, Aperture, ... etc. All best of class and their market is pretty much non existant. 4th largest computer manufacturer. Their software runs on 1/20th of computers. They could easily be both a hardware and software company. They would probably be the #2 software company and possibly gain market share, becoming the 2nd or 3rd computer manufacturer.

Marble
Jan 23, 2007, 12:31 AM
Whether it is possible or not but one should always have a right to choose best hardware and software. Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.) and Mac OS X is much better OS.

Maybe you should have said cheaper. Now that Apple is using Intel processors, speed is not an issue with Mac hardware, and the parts Apple uses are generally more durable than the industry standard. For the customers who want OS X on their PC, isn't an issue of "best user experience" anymore, which is what Apple cares about, but about dollar signs.

bretm
Jan 23, 2007, 12:36 AM
Yes, but because Final Cut is so good, people are willing to spend $1300 + $2500 on the software + hardware to run it.

Well I can guarantee the profit on that piece of software is higher than the computer they purchase to run it on.

There's a roadblock here. Companies are running other OS's to the number or 95% of market share. They'd love to run FCP but it doesn't it into the workflow. Let it run on their box and they'll buy it. They're not going to purchase a new system to play with FCP. They will buy a second OS. They have plenty of other software options on XP. FCP may be great, but if it's going to cost $5000, forget it. They'll stick with their Avid's and Premiere's.

I really don't see how this plan would work any better than it did back in the mid-1990s.

Steve killed off the Mac Clones by demanding ridiculous licensing fees from the manufacturers. If he decided to allow Mac Clones again, then it would undoubtedly be under the same rigid (and uncompetitive) conditions.

He did no such thing. He simply didn't renew their contracts. The licensing fees were ridiculously cheap. They had to buy BACK the clones contracts at ridiculously high prices and take over their warranty repairs for a time.

I really don't see how this plan would work any better than it did back in the mid-1990s.

Steve killed off the Mac Clones by demanding ridiculous licensing fees from the manufacturers. If he decided to allow Mac Clones again, then it would undoubtedly be under the same rigid (and uncompetitive) conditions.

Still ???? Apple made $50 for every clone sold. They made $500 average for every Mac sold. One would have ot assume the clone makers actually made more than Apple on their clones, since they were made with cheaper parts and lesser designs.

Where are you getting this stuff? Making clones was an awesome business. That's why there were a good number of manufacturers.

notjims
Jan 23, 2007, 12:51 AM
I think at this point every machine capable of legally running OS-X has an onboard ethernet controller. These should all have MAC addresses in a dozen or so 24 bit prefixes assigned to Apple. There is the identification of the hardware.

If VMware has been asked by Apple to not allow their virtual machine to fraudulently assert a MAC address assigned to Apple because it bypasses the technical means used to protect Apple's copyrighted works, and refused to comply, then that is very close to the definition of "contributory copyright infringement".

The good news for VMware is that they (EMC) have billions in assets and at this point the total number of people running OS X on VMware is relatively small, so the damages won't bankrupt them.

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 12:53 AM
...apart from design, i would gladly go with making my own box for like a third of the cost for the same performance. to disagree with this, you would have to be a fanboy of apple.

You can send all the pictures you want, but I'm still voting for the one on the right.

seashellz2
Jan 23, 2007, 12:57 AM
>>How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware....
------



I dont suppose selling a bajillion more copies of OS X would be so 'un-strategic'

Philberttheduck
Jan 23, 2007, 01:00 AM
Watch the virus count on Mac OS X go up exponentially.. more access to Mac OS X, the more prone it is to hacking. Good bye reliability..

Please, Apple, tell Parallels and VMWare to F off.

Object-X
Jan 23, 2007, 01:09 AM
OS X will be released to OEM for other computer manafacturers. It's only a matter of time, the right time. Apple has never really marketed itself in the enterprise and has no plans on doing so. Their strategy is home / education / research markets.

When Apple releases OS X to OEM the operating system will gain wider acceptance. Large enterprises will have the ability to evaluate it and even deploy it. With greater acceptance will come increased market share. Many software companies who do not develop for OS X will be forced to do so to compete.

There is a huge backlash brewing against Microsoft. Everyone knows Microsoft is falling apart. They are completely lost as a company. They are all over the map just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. They can't deliver. They can't innovate. Their software is sub-standard and over priced. Vista is a joke. The problem is no real alternative has existed -- until now. OS X can do what Linux never will -- make Unix mainstream. As OS X is accepted on a much wider level so will people's interest in Apple and all their other products.

The OEM of OS X will not result in lower Apple hardware sales! Market dynamics are extremely different than the clone days; it will increase Apple hardware sales and exponentially increase OSX market share. Apple makes the best, most beautiful, and most functional computers bar none. That won't change even if the likes of Dell are selling OS X.

Many people buy Windows and PCs because they don't know better. Apple still seems fringe, different, or hard. When OS X starts showing up at their work and is accepted over Windows they will want it for their home computer. When they look at an iMac and compare it to some black and grey Dell, the iMac will be going home. Apple will provide superior computers and a superior computing and computing buying experiance for their target market. Apple's hardware sales will thrive.

Apple's overall market share will jump dramatically into the 30% - 40% range quicly and Microsoft will collapse, open source, break up, or actually innovate for a change.

It's coming. Apple is leading a revolution in computing and no one really believes it yet. OS X is so far superior to Windows in every way that matters -- and everyone knows it. Dell, HP, and others are desperate to sell it. Pressure will force Jobs to capitulate, if he's even the reason it hasn't happened yet. I personally think Steve Jobs has been waiting for the oppertune time to make the move; and I feel it's getting very close. Apple's share holders will start demanding it. The market will be demanding it to keep that astronomically high stock price shooting upward. Pressure is indeed growing.

Apple is changing, growing, diversifying, maturing, but that doesn't mean they will stop selling computers; far from it, they will sell more computers then they ever have and much more. Your precious Mac experiance will not go away; only the crappy Microsoft experiance will.

Apple will become the undisputed leader in technology!

It's going to happen. :apple:

jaduffy108
Jan 23, 2007, 01:30 AM
What a joke:) Who wants to run mac osx on a pc?

### Me! Like freebooter said, it gets old being a hostage to Apple's lack of choice.

Windows on a mac makes sense but not the other way around

### It makes a ton of sense to me. Running OS X on a Alienware spec'd laptop would be EXTREMELY sweet!

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 01:35 AM
Their software runs on 1/20th of computers. They could easily be both a hardware and software company. They would probably be the #2 software company and possibly gain market share, becoming the 2nd or 3rd computer manufacturer.
How about Apple offers OS X to all of the other PC manufacturers and adds a per-computer royalty that feeds Apple's R&D for future software and hardware?

The PC masses who followed Microsoft into the chasm while thumbing their noses at Apple and their user base did so at their own peril. And now they're yelling at Apple to throw them a rope.

Pfft...suckas.

aafuss1
Jan 23, 2007, 01:43 AM
I can't see this happening as Apple legal would probably have a say in this-it's against the license agreement. Plus

mahonmeister
Jan 23, 2007, 01:55 AM
Okay, but that brings you right back to an Apple computer running OS X.

Maybe for you. Apple currently does not offer a Mac with a desktop processor. The 2.33GHz Merom in the iMac is about $650. The 2.4GHz Conroe is about $320. Just to get a Mac with 2.33GHz I need to spend well over $2000. I could have more power for $300 less with just a Conroe processor instead of Merom. This is why I want to run My favorite OS on my choice of hardware.

I personally think this would be a bad move for Apple financially. I just hope and pray that one day Apple will use a freaken' Desktop processor in a Mac. [/rant]

A is jump
Jan 23, 2007, 02:07 AM
If Mac OSX is able to run on any pc, apples hardware business would be crippled. I would hate to see a dell running OSX.

I like apple's business model. I prefer the closed system. I dont want another Microsoft. apple will be able to be successful enough without having to do this.

syriana
Jan 23, 2007, 03:11 AM
Divide how much you saved by the number of hours it takes to maintain it and you find out fast that you're working cheap. I don't enjoy working cheap.



This is exactly what drove me to the mac!
I'm having a hard time to make this understable by every one who ask me "by why a mac, they cost much!!"



Lastly, I wouldn't worry about Apple not being able to compete with other PC manufacturers. They have the best looking computers, creative solutions and so forth. "Worst" case they'd have to offer more 'customizable' computers.

multi touch input on laptops? this would make for a great differenciation, and a valuable, "understandable" (does this word exist?) premium to pay..

Marx55
Jan 23, 2007, 03:17 AM
Mac could win over Windows if Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on any PC-Windows box out there. Apple does not get it. Not only they would sell 1,000 times more copies of Mac OS X, but eventually also more Macs, iPods and iPhones due to halo effects.

Of course this effect would be even larger if apple opened Mac OS X fully as Linux is.

And of course if Mac OS X was free as Linux.

But as least Apple should allow Mac OS X on PC-Windows boxes to gain market share. And that must be done TODAY. Tomorrow may be too late!!!

Phil A.
Jan 23, 2007, 04:15 AM
As a developer, one thing I would love to be able to do is run OSX in a virtual environment on my Mac under parallels. At the moment, I keep a machine dedicated to running the Leopard Dev previews on, which is an awful waste of a good machine: If I could virtualise the installation of leopard under parallels it would be awesome :)
Don't see why we can't have virtualisation support for OSX under the Mac versions of Parallels and / or VMWare: From what I can see that wouldn't cause any problems (except the license would have to be amended to allow you to install OSX on the virtual machine as well as the real host)

Bonte
Jan 23, 2007, 04:19 AM
There's totally technical reasons for not running OS X on any computer. Microsoft Windows driver hell. Microsoft has to keep up with hundreds of thousands of drivers and keep them all backward compatible. OS X is able to be stable as it is because it doesn't have to support a ton of drivers.

The integrated Intel GPU solves the biggest problems, Dell and others already make 99% compatible hardware. They can sticker it "99% osX compatible", some of them just need a ROM update to install the regular Mini osX.

Apple makes about $150 profit on a Mac Mini hard- and software combined so getting $100 on a retail osX isn't that bad and a whole new market opens up to them. My prediction is that 10.5 will just install on lots of new hardware, now is not the time because there is no Intel osX retail version available yet.

Most PC add-on hardware like PCI cards won't be compatible (that is also true for the MacPro) but at first it will be only PC's with the integrated Intel stuff like laptops, its the biggest market and much less driver issues.

mark88
Jan 23, 2007, 04:31 AM
As much as I'd like to put OS X on a custom built machine, I don't want to give up what I like about OS X and macs. That is, I like the small market share, tight community thing.

Windows is a monster because 90% of the world uses it. If OS X had half that market share you can bet we'd be dealing with all the stuff we hate about Windows on a daily basis aswell.

Bonte
Jan 23, 2007, 04:32 AM
If Mac OSX is able to run on any pc, apples hardware business would be crippled. I would hate to see a dell running OSX.


http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/02/ebay_osx_booting_dell/

The hardware only needs a ROM uppdate, no other hacks.

tyr2
Jan 23, 2007, 04:48 AM
To those talking about 'driver hell' or massive hardware diversity. Using virtualisation makes that a moot point. VMWare requires support for only a handful of drivers from the Guest OS (Display, SCSI, IDE etc..). These are the same drivers regardless of the hardware installed in the host.

If Apple really want to move further into the server market they really need to have some form of virtualisation available. Even if this only allows running multiple coppies of OS X on one Apple host, they really need to be thinking about it. The market is moving in that direction, the market for one box / one application is declining and is only likelly to decline even faster.

Solaris has Zones now (and soon Logical Domains on sun4v hardware), Windows can be run in a VM (VMware, Parallels, Xen) as can Linux. If Apple artificially restrict themselves from the virtualisation market then they're only going to find the way ahead even more challenging in the server space than it is already.

a456
Jan 23, 2007, 04:59 AM
Macs are not unfairly priced for their build quality and specs. Running OS X on a cheap PC isn't really going to gain you any advantage in a virtualization situation. You have to run Windows first of all anyway I imagine most people will want to run OSX for the iLife programs and other music and video stuff you can do simply. Why use OS X just to use MS Office, when you have to virtualize it on Windows anyway and so much is being stripped out of it? So if you want to do the processor intensive stuff you are going to have to pay a fair bit for a PC, and you may as well then buy a Mac that comes with OS X and iLife and dual boot or virtualize Windows. Of course some might argue that Vista is dearer than OS X but if it comes down to such a fine line then don't bother with the whole thing at all.

The best thing for Apple is that PCs can run OS X but they don't have to support it. They make the money on their software without having to do any of the work - they leave this to Parallels and VMWare. Sounds like a great solution.

SpaceJello
Jan 23, 2007, 04:59 AM
Mac could win over Windows if Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on any PC-Windows box out there. Apple does not get it. Not only they would sell 1,000 times more copies of Mac OS X, but eventually also more Macs, iPods and iPhones due to halo effects.


I am not sure if this will be the case, I have seen on other boards (with both Mac and Windows users), the misconception of what Mac OS X do is baffling. Common misconception is that mac computers costs a lot more then their PC/Dell counterpart (which we know is not true), that mac are not powerful etc.

There are a LOT of people who see mac and think windows for sheer ignorance and resistance to change. Imagine, those that speed $$ on video professor (those TV informercials learning kits) on windows to get a job in secretary or whatever, will NOT be happy to learn a new skill. :)

If mac is to run on windoze, Apple should be the one doing is and make a huge massive marketing blizt with it.

gregmcqueen
Jan 23, 2007, 05:00 AM
George Lucas developed THX to ensure his [and other] films are shown in optimal conditions. Cinemas have to be at a certain standard before getting the THX certification. What Steve Jobs is doing is exactly the same, except for Mac OS X. Mac is the experience of the hardware in combo with the software. One without the other means the experience isn't optimal. Apple has a right to ensure quality.

kadajawi
Jan 23, 2007, 05:03 AM
How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware.... :confused:

It even runs without virtualisation etc., just like a normal OS. With some effort, clearly, but it does work. And why is that good for Apple? Because of it I bought my Mum a Mac. And want one myself. Eventhough I can run OS X on my PC. And I'm not the only one who's done it, who wouldn't have bought a Mac otherwise.
They shouldn't make it too easy, that everyone can do it. But let the people who want to try OS X. Not everyone has a Apple store nearby (I think my next Apple store is like a thousand km away... there are other places to try Macs, but even those are pretty far away. And I think you need a few days with a Mac to be convinced to buy one).

MacDonaldsd
Jan 23, 2007, 05:05 AM
Apple need to sort this out as soon as possible. Keep Mac OS X on the Mac.

Where would you get a copy of Mac OS X legally in the first place ?

All copies of Mac OS X sold separately are PowerPC only.

a456
Jan 23, 2007, 05:20 AM
Where would you get a copy of Mac OS X legally in the first place ?

All copies of Mac OS X sold separately are PowerPC only.

Developer versions of Leopard for now and of course Leopard when it is released in the spring. And the other option would be an illegal download.

iShak
Jan 23, 2007, 05:21 AM
does this mean that we will start getting pirated mac softs? viruses, malware, spyware and adware done for mac os cuz it will be available to the masses? lose the model apple customer service due to dilution? massive numbers of drivers would have to be done by apple, or re-done by the 3rd parties? mac os will run on ugly machines?


apple turns into another miscrosoft? ...

.. yeah why not.

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 06:18 AM
Steve Jobs at Macworld 2007:

"If you are serious about software you should make your own hardware"

Does he mean this, or is he bluffing?

This is an interesting story: Technology naturally evolves towards MacOS running on generic PCs. It is only market forces that prevent this from happening openly.

Technology vs. corporate policy: Which one will prevail?

When we see on 20-years Jobs-Gates race, definitely Gates is a winner. His formula "open and license" far better than "control and sell" of Jobs. Currently the world is controlled by Windows, and always will be until Apple or any other source will license better operating system to generic PC.
Everything should talk to everything. That is something that we want.

Technology vs. corporate? Corporate will rule. The best answer is an automotive industry. Despite that all needed technologies for clean and cheap transportation exist at least 50 years we still fill petrol into our cars.

Digitalclips
Jan 23, 2007, 06:19 AM
Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.)

"You think?

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 06:32 AM
does this mean that we will start getting pirated mac softs? viruses, malware, spyware and adware done for mac os cuz it will be available to the masses? lose the model apple customer service due to dilution? massive numbers of drivers would have to be done by apple, or re-done by the 3rd parties? mac os will run on ugly machines?


apple turns into another miscrosoft? ...

.. yeah why not.

So, than we will see what is OS X really worth

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 06:36 AM
Its only a matter of time until OSX on generic hardware becomes wide spread.

Apple will be unable to stop it. They may try putting all kinds of stops in, but it won't be enough.

Kind of like microsoft stopping people from running illegal copies of windows. Neither can be prevented.

Apple should adapt to its new environment instead of fighting.

2ndPath
Jan 23, 2007, 06:51 AM
George Lucas developed THX to ensure his [and other] films are shown in optimal conditions. Cinemas have to be at a certain standard before getting the THX certification. What Steve Jobs is doing is exactly the same, except for Mac OS X. Mac is the experience of the hardware in combo with the software. One without the other means the experience isn't optimal. Apple has a right to ensure quality.

So is George Lucas's company the only one producing THX certified sound systems. To my knowledge there are several other which do the same and get THX certification. If it would be the same with Apple, they would certify other manufacturers systems and license the OS to them.

gnasher729
Jan 23, 2007, 07:11 AM
But it is a breach of Apple's licensing conditions to run OS X on a PC, and there is no way I would want to do so, just in case Apple's lawyers decide to go on the offensive.

Remember that completely independent of what the EULA says and whether it is enforcable, you are not allowed to make _copies_ of MacOS X.

So if someone buys a MacBook and a Dell, removes MacOS X from the MacBook and Windows XP from the Dell, then installs Windows XP on the MacBook and MacOS X on the Dell, that _may_ be legal (depends on where you live), but is also completely pointless. If you buy one machine with MacOS X, then run MacOS X on two machines, or run MacOS X anywhere without paying for it, that is definitely illegal.

Its only a matter of time until OSX on generic hardware becomes wide spread.

Apple will be unable to stop it. They may try putting all kinds of stops in, but it won't be enough.

Kind of like microsoft stopping people from running illegal copies of windows. Neither can be prevented.

Apple should adapt to its new environment instead of fighting.

You are making a big mistake here. Apple has a huge advantage: If Windows runs on a machine X, then that copy of Windows could be legal. For example, if I buy ten machines without OS, and one copy of Windows, then _each_ of those ten machines could be running Windows legally (except that only one at a time can do this). So it is really hard for Microsoft to find illegal copies; each copy _could_ be legal.

With Apple, MacOS X only needs to check whether it runs on a genuine Macintosh. If its not a Macintosh, it is illegal. Maybe not illegal, but as long as Apple puts a big sticker on the box: "System requirements: An Apple Macintosh computer.", they can and will prevent you from running it.

If you think hackers can get around that, think again. Apple is just playing with them. They find a hack to install MacOS X on a Dell, Apple fixes it. Every time, any business relying on MacOS X on Dell would go bankrupt when they can't use their machines until a new hack is available.

Don't see why we can't have virtualisation support for OSX under the Mac versions of Parallels and / or VMWare: From what I can see that wouldn't cause any problems (except the license would have to be amended to allow you to install OSX on the virtual machine as well as the real host)

Depends on what exactly the license says. Probably says something like "You are allowed to install this software on one Apple Macintosh computer", and probably some wording for people installing software on a server.

You can have multiple copies of MacOS X on your computer; Apple installers will actually do that when you ask them to create a new copy and make a copy of the old system. If Apple's installer does that, then I would think it is legal. And I would think that a virtual machine doesn't make a difference, as long as it is installed on _one_ Mac.

panzer06
Jan 23, 2007, 07:32 AM
A great deal of time and effort has been expended discussing the merits of allowing the Mac OS to be installed on generic PCs. We already know this has been done and is technically possible, however, the myriad of potential hardware combinations and drivers to support is impractical based on Apple’s current business model.

The real play here, and the thrust of the original comments by VMWare are the applicability of running OS X as a virtual machine. It is important to remember that when running in a virtual environment the virtualizing engine controls all hardware access. The virtual machine is only accessing emulated hardware and therefore the problems of disparate hardware in the PC world are non-existent.

Additionally, Windows is NOT required when hosting virtual environments. While it is true VMWare makes a host-based version of its product that does run under windows, similar to how Parallels runs under OS X or Windows, the real strength lies in VMWare’s Infrastructure product that runs on a thin kernel for the sole purpose of hardware access and serving up robust access to their (hardware components) emulated equivalents.

XenSource also provides a near-bare metal virtualization engine at a fraction of VMWare’s cost.

http://www.xensource.com/products/xen_enterprise/

The point being that Apple’s OS X could be made available as a virtual host where driver issues could be strictly controlled. With Apple’s help (or perhaps w/o) the virtualization engine could present any driver set (say a Mac Pro or iMac) to the OS when installing. This eliminates the main argument against making OS X available (supporting too many hardware combinations to provide an acceptable user experience).

As with any virtual environment, there is a performance penalty, which varies depending on the capabilities (Cpus(s), Ram, Disks, Video, etc) of the host. Also w/o direct access to hardware most games and many applications that rely on direct hardware access will not work. These limitations would certainly keep Apple’s hardware business intact.

So there you have it. We can have OS X on any hardware platform for those who wish to have it, without cannibalizing sales of the superior hardware we all know and love.

Cheers,

2ndPath
Jan 23, 2007, 07:38 AM
Its only a matter of time until OSX on generic hardware becomes wide spread.

Apple will be unable to stop it. They may try putting all kinds of stops in, but it won't be enough.

Kind of like microsoft stopping people from running illegal copies of windows. Neither can be prevented.

For Apple it is easier to prevent people from installing OS X on non Apple machines than it is for Microsoft to prevent copying. In this situation having a well defined hardware environment (which Apple computers are) really can help a lot to determine wether the system is installed on an Apple computer or an other one.

Remember that completely independent of what the EULA says and whether it is enforcable, you are not allowed to make _copies_ of MacOS X.

So if someone buys a MacBook and a Dell, removes MacOS X from the MacBook and Windows XP from the Dell, then installs Windows XP on the MacBook and MacOS X on the Dell, that _may_ be legal (depends on where you live), but is also completely pointless. If you buy one machine with MacOS X, then run MacOS X on two machines, or run MacOS X anywhere without paying for it, that is definitely illegal.

First of all there will be retail boxes of Leopard coming out. Of course Apple could just label them as upgrades for existing versions, which would solve this problem for them and every customer who has a Mac already is not affected, because he also has the Operating system that came with it to satisfy the requirement for the upgrade.

Apart from that it can perfectly make sense to buy a Mac to get OS X to install it on another machine. One could buy a Mac mini (which by the way is not that much more expensive than the retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate Edition), remove the OS from it and install it on a machine which is customized to ones specific needs (something Apple doesn't offer at all).

eric_n_dfw
Jan 23, 2007, 07:50 AM
Additionally, Windows is NOT required when hosting virtual environments. While it is true VMWare makes a host-based version of its product that does run under windows, similar to how Parallels runs under OS X or Windows, the real strength lies in VMWare’s Infrastructure product that runs on a thin kernel for the sole purpose of hardware access and serving up robust access to their (hardware components) emulated equivalents.

XenSource also provides a near-bare metal virtualization engine at a fraction of VMWare’s cost.
Or simply run the free VMWare Player or Server software on top of a stripped down Linux kernel.

As with any virtual environment, there is a performance penalty, which varies depending on the capabilities (Cpus(s), Ram, Disks, Video, etc) of the host. Also w/o direct access to hardware most games and many applications that rely on direct hardware access will not work. These limitations would certainly keep Apple’s hardware business intact.

So there you have it. We can have OS X on any hardware platform for those who wish to have it, without cannibalizing sales of the superior hardware we all know and love.

Cheers,
Somehow I doubt that the penalty would be that great, especially if video card acceleration gets added to the VM (which, as I understand it, is in the works) The majority of people wanting to run OS X on a PC with a decent, desktop CPU and hard drives, would get performance levels that would rival or surpass that of the current Mac Mini's and iMac's IMO.

My take on the whole situation is that it clearly underlines the need for Apple to produce a desktop Mac. They currently have nothing to compete with for the average user that doesn't need Mac Pro speed but wants more than the laptop parts that make up a Mini. (Okay, they have the iMac, but it's still running a laptop CPU and is boat anchored to a monitor that many don't need) If they would just put out something that competes in this space (at a decent price), many of the people currently hacking OS X to run on PC's would buy it.

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 07:54 AM
Businesses shouldn't be stupid enough to do this. Any that do, deserve to suffer. I doubt they'd go bankrupt because of this, anyway.


If you think hackers can get around that, think again. Apple is just playing with them. They find a hack to install MacOS X on a Dell, Apple fixes it. Every time, any business relying on MacOS X on Dell would go bankrupt when they can't use their machines until a new hack is available.

pilotError
Jan 23, 2007, 07:55 AM
I can see Apple pulling a page out of Microsoft's book here.

Allow OS X to run in a virtualized environment, but it has to be OS X Server.

Apple has practically no penetration into the corporate world. Running OS X Server in a VMWare environment on some big Intel hardware may give them the inroads they were looking for.

I could see a need for this if Apple tied in E-Mail push to Apple iPhones (along the lines of Blackberry servers).

The corporate world doesn't need FCP in a big way, but cheaper OS distributions that can run MS Office is a huge consideration. The upgrade to vista pro is what $250? There's going to be a huge backlash and now is the time to strike. I hope the next version of iWork is more MS document format compatible, as its probably the one thing holding them back at some of the most shops.

Once you gain some inroads into the corporate world, you'll definitely see sales in the home side, as folks have a tendancy to buy what they use at work.

I agree with some of the others who have already posted. Those Mac Clone guys were no Dell. A tie in with HP could be even better. It's still a big risk, but at some point, they may not have a choice.

Things like device drivers and such have a way of working themselves out. Combined with the fact that Apple doesn't charge $1500 / year for development software, I don't see this as an issue.

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 08:02 AM
I'm surprised at the amount of misunderstanding around this issue.

Right now, Parallels Desktop and VMWare aren't intentionally "crippled" in any way to prevent Mac OS X from running on them (either on Apple hardware, or not). Both only emulate BIOS, as has been case for the history of both products (and Parallels' Windows and Linux products existed before Apple even announced the Intel transition). In order for Mac OS X to run within either of the products, unmodified, which is the key, they'd have to implement full EFI support, and it's not the case that they've possibly done that and are just "not releasing it" because of Apple; it's a rather large engineering undertaking. VMWare hasn't done any work on this at all, so Diane Greene's statements are somewhat puzzling. Parallels, on the other hand, has been thinking about and working on integrating this into the product since day one.

The primary "legal" thing they want to enable is running Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server within a VM on Apple hardware, because that's a market they want to hit. That would also not be against the EULA in any way, as the Mac OS X EULA does not prohibit virtualization, and only stipulates that it be used on Apple-labeled hardware. However, if a VM vendor were to integrate this functionality into the core of the Linux and Windows products, the side result would ostensibly be a VM product that could run OS X unmodified, without "hacking", on non-Apple hardware. The hardware and driver profiles for non-Apple hardware would be irrelevant, because it's the VM that's presenting all of that to the OS, just like running Windows or any other OS in a VM now.

Apple and VMWare have already been talking at the highest levels in the context of all of VMWare's virtualization products. Apple has made it clear that it is 100% fine with virtualization of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, as long as it's licensed properly and is on Apple hardware. This includes welcoming possible server virtualization products, like VMWare ESX Server, to the Apple platform (e.g., Xserve). (They still do not want Mac OS X Server running on non-Apple hardware, anywhere, as much of a boon as some may think that to be.)

Also, statements that VMWare and/or Parallels are intentionally "crippled" are not accurate. Integrating even the most basic functionality (notably EFI) to properly support Mac OS X in a VM, even on Apple hardware, is a massive engineering undertaking.

So, everything above is the facts. Here's the analysis:

As long as no vendor advertised the capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware with any product, and didn't provide official support mechanisms, list it in product specifications, and so on, I can't see any valid legal complaint Apple could possibly have with a future product that might coincidentally enable Mac OS X to be easily run/installed unmodified on non-Apple hardware. I don't see VMWare doing this, because they've got a whole slew of established products that don't implement EFI, and even if they did, it would probably only be on their Apple products. However, Parallels is working on this for the core of its next products now - including server virtualization products. There is also a misconception that Apple uses TPM to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. They do not. (http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/#EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY) (It is actually done with binary protection (http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/binaryprotection/).)

So, ultimately, as long as a company doesn't present/market/support a VM solution as something that can run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, and it's really merely incidental (but the key is NOT advertising/supporting it as such), there isn't much Apple can do, as abiding by the EULA is the responsibility of the end user in their legal jurisdiction. People are running hacked versions of Mac OS X in VMWare's products on non-Apple hardware now. They're running afoul of Apple's licensing in the same way someone would be if they ran Mac OS X unmodified on non-Apple hardware. The key is non-support of the product: as long as the vendor doesn't advertise, promote, or support Mac OS X compatibility on non-Apple hardware, this again keeps it marginalized in a way that it's only hobbyists and so on who will use it, as it is now. With the lack of official support from any vendor, and the danger that the next update from Apple may "break" something, Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware will always be relegated to the unsupported fringe, where Apple wants it.

If a vendor DID support and advertise a capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, that would be a clear case of actively encouraging end users to violate another vendor's software licensing agreement. No matter what one thinks of software license agreements, or whether one thinks they're inherently invalid, etc., the fact of the matter is that Apple would indeed have a strong legal case in such an instance, and that's when you'd see Apple's legal teams getting involved. But as long as running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is merely incidental, not promoted or advertised, and unsupported, there isn't much Apple can do.

Some other notes:

It would not be "easy" for Apple to just open up Mac OS X to any hardware overnight. Technically, maybe. But that would be an unbridled support nightmare of unprecedented proportions, to say the least. However, the possibility of running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment does raise the interesting technical point that, regardless of anyone's particular position on this, a VM can present a consistent hardware profile to the OSes running within it, regardless of the physical hardware it's on. So running Mac OS X in a VM, as opposed to on real hardware, becomes interesting from a technical perspective for that reason. There are of course a range of arguments for Apple allowing (or not allowing) this in the server space with Mac OS X Server, as opposed to in the general purpose desktop space.

I want to make it clear that I am fully cognizant of the numerous valid reasons for Apple wanting to keep Mac OS X exclusively on Apple hardware. It's their product, and frankly, it's their right. When an entity invests billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of manhours in a product, I do believe that legal frameworks (such as copyright and software licenses) can be reasonably used to stipulate the conditions under which it is used. I'm also aware of the numerous arguments, some of which are also valid, for Apple to start to go down the road of untying Mac OS X from Apple hardware only. Ultimately, it's Apple's decision.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 08:09 AM
Mac could win over Windows if Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on any PC-Windows box out there. Apple does not get it. Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare? Microsoft has been running on all cylinders and they're finally running out of gas. By the number of Windoze users screaming at Apple to release their OS, I'd say the race is already won.

Not only they would sell 1,000 times more copies of Mac OS X, but eventually also more Macs, iPods and iPhones due to halo effects. The majority of people making this argument are Windoze users who don't give a damn about slick Apple hardware. They really just want to see OS X made available on $399 bargain basement computers.

Of course this effect would be even larger if apple opened Mac OS X fully as Linux is.

And of course if Mac OS X was free as Linux. This just bolsters my previous argument.

But as least Apple should allow Mac OS X on PC-Windows boxes to gain market share. And that must be done TODAY. Tomorrow may be too late!!! Too late for what? Windoze Vista is DOA. Windoze users are the ones in panic mode. OS X users are sitting up on the hilltop, enjoying the carnage below.

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 08:15 AM
Too late for what? Windoze Vista is DOA. Windoze users are the ones in panic mode. OS X users are sitting up on the hilltop, enjoying the carnage below.

Doesn't bother microsoft, they'll still sell plenty of Vista copies.

Apple are not ( effective ) competition against microsoft - 2.4% marketshare worldwide? microsoft aren't worried.

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 08:20 AM
Its only a matter of time until OSX on generic hardware becomes wide spread.

Apple will be unable to stop it. They may try putting all kinds of stops in, but it won't be enough.
Widespread...as in the occasional hack. At the enterprise level? Not a chance.

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 08:21 AM
I can predict how will it end.
Apple won't succeed with their phones and company will cease to grow. The only potential new market for apple will to license OS X for generic PC. Board of directors will put heavy pressure on Jobs to do it. If he resists they just fire him.
This way or another we'll get OS X for PC in a year or two

CJD2112
Jan 23, 2007, 08:21 AM
One of the many reasons I dished out over 5 grand on my Mac Pro upgrade from a Power Mac G5 was Apple's commitment to quality, which is primarily obtained through strict hardware control. More importantly, if the mainstream public begins utilizing Mac OS you can absolutely kiss viral security out the window, something I am not willing to allow :mad: (assuming I have a say of course lol). :rolleyes:

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 08:25 AM
Widespread...as in the occasional hack. At the enterprise level? Not a chance.


AT enterprise level - of course not. Businesses aren't going to run illegal software like this.

CJD2112
Jan 23, 2007, 08:31 AM
As long as no vendor advertised the capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware with any product, and didn't provide official support mechanisms, list it in product specifications, and so on, I can't see any valid legal complaint Apple could possibly have with a future product that might coincidentally enable Mac OS X to be easily run/installed unmodified on non-Apple hardware. I don't see VMWare doing this, because they've got a whole slew of established products that don't implement EFI, and even if they did, it would probably only be on their Apple products. However, Parallels is working on this for the core of its next products now - including server virtualization products. There is also a misconception that Apple uses TPM to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. They do not. (http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/#EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY)

Since no one has recognized your well thought out analysis, I thought I'd applaud you. =) It's amusing how everyone went into panic mode at the mention of OS X on a PC, even before the full statement can be made:

"In today's news, hackers may have found a way to make Mac OS X run on a PC but - " "Whaaaattt!?!?!?!?! Arrrghhhhh!!!! This can't be, blah blah blah" LOL

Simmer down kiddies, I don't think the sky is falling or ever will ;)

princealfie
Jan 23, 2007, 08:31 AM
Dude, that would be sweet to run Mac OS X on all of my PC's... that why my apples can live happily ever after with my pc's.

I don't like restrictions and think that Apple moving against this would be illogical and worse, very prohibitive.

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 08:38 AM
Doesn't bother microsoft, they'll still sell plenty of Vista copies.
Dropping a DOA OS on their user base doesn't bother Microsoft? They already scrapped the program once because it was horribly flawed and followed by pulling promised features out, while pushing back the release date over and over and over again.

Apple are not ( effective ) competition against microsoft - 2.4% marketshare worldwide? microsoft aren't worried. You obviously overlooked the recently leaked internal memo; and Vista's remarkable similarity to OS X; and the Zune.

Gasu E.
Jan 23, 2007, 08:41 AM
Apple can jack up the OS X retail price and provide a rebate for anyone with an Apple hardware serial number. Margins preserved. Case closed.

59031
Jan 23, 2007, 08:43 AM
Everybody knows PC hardware is much better

In your opinion.

Not always true.

It doesn't always work completely well together.

I'll take the Mac's fully integrated standardized and tested hardware build model, thanks.

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 08:43 AM
Your twisting my words, sigh.

DOA are your words, which isn't actually the case. Vista may sell initially slow to businesses, but consumers will buy Vista, and businesses will follow suite soon after.

Once again, Apple, with 2.4% marketshare are no threat to microsoft.

Only Apple fanboi's would believe that Apple offer any threat to microsoft consumer desktop domination.

2.4% worldwide markshare. Not a threat at all. Firefox is more of a threat to microsoft.

Dropping a DOA OS on their user base doesn't bother Microsoft? They already scrapped the program once because it was horribly flawed and followed by pulling promised features out, while pushing back the release date over and over and over again.

You obviously overlooked the recently leaked internal memo; and Vista's remarkable similarity to OS X; and the Zune.

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 08:44 AM
I don't like restrictions and think that Apple moving against this would be illogical and worse, very prohibitive.
Restrictions?

Like preventing a large number of Windoze users from upgrading to Vista due to their underpowered machines?

Like the 7-step deletion process incorporated with Vista?

Your hands are far more tied as a Windoze user than an Apple user.

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 08:45 AM
Too late for what? Windoze Vista is DOA. Windoze users are the ones in panic mode. OS X users are sitting up on the hilltop, enjoying the carnage below.
First of all, try to understand that 8 of 10 Win users barely knows what is a Apple and Mac. Even when they are in panic, so may be because of terrorism, global warming, gas prices etc., but definitely not of Mac and Mac OS X existence.
Secondly when I see a man who thinks that only he knows what is best, and others suffer and leave in darkness, that doomsday is coming and that only his way can help to be saved - this is nothing more than religious fanaticism.

jblodgett
Jan 23, 2007, 08:49 AM
Your hands are far more tied as a Windoze user than an Apple user.


Which is all the more reason why it would be nice to be able to install the Mac OS X operating system on a non-mac PC.

I have one apple computer. One. Between work, my wife, my relatives, my friends I am on 10 different PC's.

Personally, I would like to have the opportunity to install OS X onto PC's. I didn't buy my iBook because of its incredible hardware -- its hardware was underpowered and outdated when I bought it brand new over a year ago -- but its OS remains cutting edge and much easier to use the Windows.

RBR2
Jan 23, 2007, 08:50 AM
Where on Earth did you get that story from? Totally re write of history!

I am not sure where the poster got his version of the story or exacty which event (there are reported to have been more than one), but here is one story (http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/history/2006/06/25/).

timber
Jan 23, 2007, 08:50 AM
A lot of users don't want to run Mac OS X on cheap computers

I can build any computer (desktop obviously) that's better and cheaper than whatever Apple sells. With the Core 2 Quad even the Mac Pro is a easy target.

So what I would like is to run Mac OS X on one of my computers. They are perfect for my needs. After all they are my computers...

But I know that won't happen at least in a reasonable time frame. Apple needs its hardware sales, its all in one experience, its controlled environment...

That's why my next laptop will be a Mac probably a MBP. I like decent graphics and a nice box. But not my desktop. Apple desktop range .... not good.

asphalt-proof
Jan 23, 2007, 08:56 AM
OS X will be released to OEM for other computer manafacturers. It's only a matter of time, the right time. Apple has never really marketed itself in the enterprise and has no plans on doing so. Their strategy is home / education / research markets.

When Apple releases OS X to OEM the operating system will gain wider acceptance. Large enterprises will have the ability to evaluate it and even deploy it. With greater acceptance will come increased market share. Many software companies who do not develop for OS X will be forced to do so to compete.

There is a huge backlash brewing against Microsoft. Everyone knows Microsoft is falling apart. They are completely lost as a company. They are all over the map just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. They can't deliver. They can't innovate. Their software is sub-standard and over priced. Vista is a joke. The problem is no real alternative has existed -- until now. OS X can do what Linux never will -- make Unix mainstream. As OS X is accepted on a much wider level so will people's interest in Apple and all their other products.

The OEM of OS X will not result in lower Apple hardware sales! Market dynamics are extremely different than the clone days; it will increase Apple hardware sales and exponentially increase OSX market share. Apple makes the best, most beautiful, and most functional computers bar none. That won't change even if the likes of Dell are selling OS X.

Many people buy Windows and PCs because they don't know better. Apple still seems fringe, different, or hard. When OS X starts showing up at their work and is accepted over Windows they will want it for their home computer. When they look at an iMac and compare it to some black and grey Dell, the iMac will be going home. Apple will provide superior computers and a superior computing and computing buying experiance for their target market. Apple's hardware sales will thrive.

Apple's overall market share will jump dramatically into the 30% - 40% range quicly and Microsoft will collapse, open source, break up, or actually innovate for a change.

It's coming. Apple is leading a revolution in computing and no one really believes it yet. OS X is so far superior to Windows in every way that matters -- and everyone knows it. Dell, HP, and others are desperate to sell it. Pressure will force Jobs to capitulate, if he's even the reason it hasn't happened yet. I personally think Steve Jobs has been waiting for the oppertune time to make the move; and I feel it's getting very close. Apple's share holders will start demanding it. The market will be demanding it to keep that astronomically high stock price shooting upward. Pressure is indeed growing.

Apple is changing, growing, diversifying, maturing, but that doesn't mean they will stop selling computers; far from it, they will sell more computers then they ever have and much more. Your precious Mac experiance will not go away; only the crappy Microsoft experiance will.

Apple will become the undisputed leader in technology!

It's going to happen. :apple:


Sing it Brother!
A lot of people here make the statement thta "Apple makes their money on hardware." I think Steve is making the point in the name change that computer hardware is not where they want to make the majority of their money. They just can't compete in price. However, on iPhone with a reportedly 50% markup, the iPod (not sure the mark up on that) Apple TV... the point it that they have other markets that will soak up any computer hardware money loss. Apple is diversifying. They want to be Sony. Heck, they are better at being Sony than Sony is!
My prediction is that OSX Leopard will be open to all for the very reason outlined by this gentleman (or gentlewoman as the case may be... if neither than don't tell me because it will freak me out.) Another poster made mention of Apple's other software offerings. FCP: $1300, iLife: $79, iWork: $79... By opening up OSX Apple opens up markets for all these other products.
Apple will continue to make hardware. It will be priced competitively and it will still be lickably-liscous. But it will no longer be the focus of Apple. Just like their name change.

phasornc
Jan 23, 2007, 09:13 AM
It just doesnt feel right to run mac os on a pc ,I had once a transformation pack of Mac OS before I switched and it was bad on a PC, with bad I mean it just didnt look right on a PC - its different, and now I have a mac.

. . .

A 'PC', under current normal usage of the term, is simply a collection of hardware that natively supports the x86 ISA. Macs are now PCs, the run x86 and can run any OS designed for x86. Apple is a now a PC manufacturer that also builds a proprietary OS.

FYI Apple's OS is technically bound to Apple hardware through the use of the Intel TPM (Trusted Platform Module). This was the infamous device originally called Palladium. And people were up in arms over the idea that Microsoft was going to bind Longhorn (now Vista), to the TPM. Well able did the same thing that tons of people tried to stop MS from doing.

Anyway having said all this I'm sure Parrallels and VMwares latest moves have much less to do with Apple and much more to do with getting Vista and it's encryption and DRM schemes to work with Parrellels and VMware. As a side effect it probably becomes easier to put MacOS X on VMware.

Anyware, saying this as a person that owns an Macbook Pro, Dual 1.25 Ghz MDD, Emac 1.0 ghz (when dual boot meant OSX and OS 9), Blue&White G3 rev2, Powermac 7500, Power Computing PowerCenter Pro, PowerBook Duo 210 and an Apple IIe (got it new in 4th grade), I'm currently writing this on Pentium D 820, with an Intel motherboard with the 950 graphics set, placed it in a nice ThermalTake Mambo case with 2 DVD-Rs, ESATA, 8 usb2 ports, and a really nice MacOS 10.4.8, and a an internal SD/CF/XD/MS/Floppy drive. Built the box back in March with OS 10.4.3, and it has been smooth sailing every since. System is completely silent and cost about $700. I've never used anything but my own Apple Pro Keyboard, so I guess I'm running Apple hardware:)

I just built the system for fun as an experiment at the same time I bought my MacBook Pro. I think as you can see I've given quite a chunk of change to Apple, but I can tell you this is the best Mac I've ever own. It boots in 20 seconds and runs with fewer problems than the MBP. In short, it's the Mac mid-tower that I always wanted.

rt_brained
Jan 23, 2007, 09:15 AM
2.4% worldwide markshare. Not a threat at all. Firefox is more of a threat to microsoft.Perhaps you also neglected to read the topic of this thread. The reason so many people are pushing for Apple to release OS X in the first place is precisely because they are fed up with Windoze.

To assume that 97.6% market share means that MS has nothing to worry about shows a complete lack of business sense. Besides, if Apple were a non-factor, you wouldn't even waste your time in this forum.

Uragon
Jan 23, 2007, 09:19 AM
Whatever, but I for one, will not buy a pc just to install mac os on it. Nor will I allow any vm on my mac or pc. My mac is married to me and I won't share it with anyone. period.:D

SPUY767
Jan 23, 2007, 09:22 AM
i think it would help apple to sell os x buy itself.....but i can see also why they don't want to do it.....

You mean that it would help 1337 h4X0r5 install pirated copies that they download from [insert torrent site here].

Orge
Jan 23, 2007, 09:23 AM
Steve may not see it this way, but this might actually be a positive situation for Apple:

1. Apple wants to grow and whilst the ipod/iphone etc is gaining "mind share", it hasn't made a substantial difference to overall computer market share.

2. Licensing os x for generic PC's, would almost certainly be a profitable enterprise and generate significant os market share. However, it does come with support headaches, that they may not want to deal with.

3. Piracy of windows/microsoft software during the 90's has almost certainly played a contributing factor to their position as a monopoly - indeed they made very little effort to kerb piracy, until they had reached this status.

So what does this mean for Apple? I see this as an opportunity for Apple to turn a blind-eye to individuals running OS X on their own hardware, whilst gaining mind-share in the PC market. It's still mostly a techy hack, so I don't think there is anything for Apple to fear in terms of lost margins - is there really anything for them to lose anyway??

The "mac faithfull" are not going to be doing this, business's are unikely to be doing this (unless it's officially sanctioned), but exposure to OS X on daily basis may generate future hardware sales and switchers. Admittedly, Apple may not gain financially in the short term, but equally, it's not costing them in support and bad publicity.

Apple could play this very strategically, by presenting official corporate resistance, but without placing to many technical hurdles. This may be what they are doing, although I wouldn't expect it from Steve...

J

feakbeak
Jan 23, 2007, 09:33 AM
I wanted to use OS X and have some of the iApps so I bought a Mac Mini about two years ago. I built an AMD X2 system about a year ago. I am a gamer and I program for Windows professionally so I need (and want) a Windows box. Windows XP is a great OS, IMO. I also want to be able to use OS X and I'd really rather not have to invest into two separate pieces of hardware.

One possible solution would be to buy a Mac Pro now and dual boot it. However, that wasn't an option when I needed to upgrade my computer and even now that it is an option I wouldn't do it because it's not worth the money to buy the top of the line Apple hardware. Their consumer products have become more competitive on pricing, which is good. Their Macbooks and iMacs are good values for all that you get (hardware and software). However, their Pro products are still too pricey for me and I like greater control offered by building my hardware. I can pick the components and set it up how I wish.

I just wish I could dual boot with OS X. If Apple ever offers OS X, even if it is $200-300 dollars, I'd pay the price. I have refrained from trying to hack OS X to get it running on my system so far. I don't want to bother with the hassle and I get by on my Mac Mini. If it ever becomes easy to put OS X on generic x86 hardware, I'd definitely do it.

orbital
Jan 23, 2007, 09:39 AM
First off Apple would never willingly port the MacOS to a PC. Steve has said this and the reasons are logical, it would be a nightmare to support all the PC pereferals that or on all PCs, there are just too many combos. That said a Virtualization software would be best, though you would never be able to boot in OSX. Other than that there has been previous attempts at this, such as Cherry PC, which worked to some extent. So this is nothing new. I don't think apple will make a big deal of it and if anything will allow them to sell more software. The only thing is that they WILL need to start working on is preventing sharing of the macOS. Other that that apples only recourse is making the macOS call a dongle in the mac that PCs will not have and that would be too hard to install, and making a doup of the dongle would be a trademark infringement. That would work.

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 09:48 AM
I'm being realistic - which a lot of people are'nt on these forums.

I think its a case of a vocal minority who are pushing for OSX to be made available to non Apple hardware.

A lot of people are quite happy with windows - does everything they want it to do - so there is no need for them to change.

A lot of people don't realise that Word is available for OSX - and they won't bother finding out any different.

Perhaps you also neglected to read the topic of this thread. The reason so many people are pushing for Apple to release OS X in the first place is precisely because they are fed up with Windoze.

To assume that 97.6% market share means that MS has nothing to worry about shows a complete lack of business sense. Besides, if Apple were a non-factor, you wouldn't even waste your time in this forum.

By having an x86 version - Apple already have made the port.

But, your very correct about the range of pherriarals ( i can't spell it either!) - Apple would need to write them initially because those manufacturers wouldn't themselves. Microsoft don't write the drivers, the manufacturers do - on the whole.

First off Apple would never willingly port the MacOS to a PC. Steve has said this and the reasons are logical, it would be a nightmare to support all the PC pereferals that or on all PCs, there are just too many combos. That said a Virtualization software would be best, though you would never be able to boot in OSX. Other than that there has been previous attempts at this, such as Cherry PC, which worked to some extent. So this is nothing new. I don't think apple will make a big deal of it and if anything will allow them to sell more software. The only thing is that they WILL need to start working on is preventing sharing of the macOS. Other that that apples only recourse is making the macOS call a dongle in the mac that PCs will not have and that would be too hard to install, and making a doup of the dongle would be a trademark infringement. That would work.

R303blue
Jan 23, 2007, 10:11 AM
Apple could still sell tons of hardware, while also growing the Mac platform and making tons more by selling OS X for PCs.

They could pick their timing and do it strategically.

They could pick their market: just to selected box assemblers, or just standalone (for DIYers), or whatever way they want to start.

They could offer sidegrade pricing--like $100 off if you buy a Mac after buying OS X for PCs.

This would allow Apple to grow faster and reach more customers than their Mac product line currently can.

All of this has no downside--just as long as Apple does not SUPPORT that other hadware (an endless chaotic sea of widely varied components). And just as long as Apple doesn't add complexity or bloat to OS X to allow this other hardware to work (like extra drivers that all must stay compatible with each OS revision). And just as long as this other hardware doesn't require Apple to spend additional time, staff, or money on development and testing of their OS and related products…

Good points here.

These are probably the reasons Apple doesn't want this, cost to keep a Software machine humming. If they don't support PC users using OS X, they'll make enemies. If they DO support it, they'll lose money, which will put them more into a support situation than keep them innovating. They're tight right now for that very reason, they have a tight grasp on all their products and can support them. Slowly but surely they are building up, but if they do this, they open a floodgate, bigger than they can handle.

With that, I do think that if they did it, the price tag on OS X for PC needs to be higher (stays the same for Mac), they need to limit the amount of support they do give (i.e. Dell or any other PC company has to make a few choice boxes with options/drivers that Apple supports), and they need to phase it in (control how fast this happens). I wouldn't mind seeing this happen, but I also would only do it if the PC is of high quality parts, the biggest problem isn't necessarily Windows, as much as it is the hardware. :o

SaddY
Jan 23, 2007, 10:31 AM
all of you.. I read these rumors every day.. why ? can't remember.. but still I do.. like to be informed perhaps.. but please for g*d sake stop these nonsense discussions that are going absolutely no where..

Apple is not gonna release OSX for pc users.. simple.. for to many reasons to inmagine.. and Apple does not want to become the new microsoft.. they don't care about that.. Apple is a hardware company.. and has always been.. propably always will be.. the fact you won't be able to install just any third party app on the upcomming iPhone should be proof enough of that.. they don't want people messing around with their software and neither with their hardware.

ethermine
Jan 23, 2007, 10:56 AM
Jobs should just go ahead and OK the development of an OSX to run natively on PCs. Then he can "claim his castle" that gates took away from him. Or at least the castle that he thinks is his. *cough... xerox". Leave Windows in the dust.

jayducharme
Jan 23, 2007, 11:23 AM
I can also see Apple doing some pretty fancy dancy stuff to prevent Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware. I think Mac OS should stay on Macs.

Remember, though, this is talking about <i>virtualized</i> operation. It's not like Boot Camp. Since the OS is virtualized, so are the hardware interfaces. But I'm sure many of OS-X's Mac-specific functions wouldn't work without the correct hardware in the PC.

I struggled for years to get Linux to run efficiently on a PC box, and I found it just wasn't worth the effort to track down (or create) all the drivers I would have needed for the peripherals. This might be why Jobs wants to keep control. Macs are known for their ease of use and their stability. If people begin installing OS-X on any old pile of hardware, stability will most likely vaporize. I switched to Mac so that I wouldn't have to deal with interrupt conflicts and random crashes. So far I've been very happy with my choice. Why would I want to go back to troubleshooting?

akac
Jan 23, 2007, 11:28 AM
For me the only reason to run OS X in a VM is to test new apps/servers before I install them in my main machine. I run OS X Server Panther for my web/email/SVN etc and I'd like to upgrade that machine to Tiger or Leopard running on a new intel machine eventually. But no way am I doing so until I can make a full copy of that install in a VM and make sure it works. My business depends on it working. I do this all the time in Windows. Why not OS X?

SeanMcg
Jan 23, 2007, 11:35 AM
I'm going to quote Dave Schroeder in his entirety here, because he has made the best points in this whole thread. Original post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3280205&postcount=136)

Please read it before posting anything else on this topic.

I'm surprised at the amount of misunderstanding around this issue.

Right now, Parallels Desktop and VMWare aren't intentionally "crippled" in any way to prevent Mac OS X from running on them (either on Apple hardware, or not). Both only emulate BIOS, as has been case for the history of both products (and Parallels' Windows and Linux products existed before Apple even announced the Intel transition). In order for Mac OS X to run within either of the products, unmodified, which is the key, they'd have to implement full EFI support, and it's not the case that they've possibly done that and are just "not releasing it" because of Apple; it's a rather large engineering undertaking. VMWare hasn't done any work on this at all, so Diane Greene's statements are somewhat puzzling. Parallels, on the other hand, has been thinking about and working on integrating this into the product since day one.

The primary "legal" thing they want to enable is running Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server within a VM on Apple hardware, because that's a market they want to hit. That would also not be against the EULA in any way, as the Mac OS X EULA does not prohibit virtualization, and only stipulates that it be used on Apple-labeled hardware. However, if a VM vendor were to integrate this functionality into the core of the Linux and Windows products, the side result would ostensibly be a VM product that could run OS X unmodified, without "hacking", on non-Apple hardware. The hardware and driver profiles for non-Apple hardware would be irrelevant, because it's the VM that's presenting all of that to the OS, just like running Windows or any other OS in a VM now.

Apple and VMWare have already been talking at the highest levels in the context of all of VMWare's virtualization products. Apple has made it clear that it is 100% fine with virtualization of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, as long as it's licensed properly and is on Apple hardware. This includes welcoming possible server virtualization products, like VMWare ESX Server, to the Apple platform (e.g., Xserve). (They still do not want Mac OS X Server running on non-Apple hardware, anywhere, as much of a boon as some may think that to be.)

Also, statements that VMWare and/or Parallels are intentionally "crippled" are not accurate. Integrating even the most basic functionality (notably EFI) to properly support Mac OS X in a VM, even on Apple hardware, is a massive engineering undertaking.

So, everything above is the facts. Here's the analysis:

As long as no vendor advertised the capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware with any product, and didn't provide official support mechanisms, list it in product specifications, and so on, I can't see any valid legal complaint Apple could possibly have with a future product that might coincidentally enable Mac OS X to be easily run/installed unmodified on non-Apple hardware. I don't see VMWare doing this, because they've got a whole slew of established products that don't implement EFI, and even if they did, it would probably only be on their Apple products. However, Parallels is working on this for the core of its next products now - including server virtualization products. There is also a misconception that Apple uses TPM to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. They do not. (http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/#EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY) (It is actually done with binary protection (http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/binaryprotection/).)

So, ultimately, as long as a company doesn't present/market/support a VM solution as something that can run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, and it's really merely incidental (but the key is NOT advertising/supporting it as such), there isn't much Apple can do, as abiding by the EULA is the responsibility of the end user in their legal jurisdiction. People are running hacked versions of Mac OS X in VMWare's products on non-Apple hardware now. They're running afoul of Apple's licensing in the same way someone would be if they ran Mac OS X unmodified on non-Apple hardware. The key is non-support of the product: as long as the vendor doesn't advertise, promote, or support Mac OS X compatibility on non-Apple hardware, this again keeps it marginalized in a way that it's only hobbyists and so on who will use it, as it is now. With the lack of official support from any vendor, and the danger that the next update from Apple may "break" something, Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware will always be relegated to the unsupported fringe, where Apple wants it.

If a vendor DID support and advertise a capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, that would be a clear case of actively encouraging end users to violate another vendor's software licensing agreement. No matter what one thinks of software license agreements, or whether one thinks they're inherently invalid, etc., the fact of the matter is that Apple would indeed have a strong legal case in such an instance, and that's when you'd see Apple's legal teams getting involved. But as long as running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is merely incidental, not promoted or advertised, and unsupported, there isn't much Apple can do.

Some other notes:

It would not be "easy" for Apple to just open up Mac OS X to any hardware overnight. Technically, maybe. But that would be an unbridled support nightmare of unprecedented proportions, to say the least. However, the possibility of running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment does raise the interesting technical point that, regardless of anyone's particular position on this, a VM can present a consistent hardware profile to the OSes running within it, regardless of the physical hardware it's on. So running Mac OS X in a VM, as opposed to on real hardware, becomes interesting from a technical perspective for that reason. There are of course a range of arguments for Apple allowing (or not allowing) this in the server space with Mac OS X Server, as opposed to in the general purpose desktop space.

I want to make it clear that I am fully cognizant of the numerous valid reasons for Apple wanting to keep Mac OS X exclusively on Apple hardware. It's their product, and frankly, it's their right. When an entity invests billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of manhours in a product, I do believe that legal frameworks (such as copyright and software licenses) can be reasonably used to stipulate the conditions under which it is used. I'm also aware of the numerous arguments, some of which are also valid, for Apple to start to go down the road of untying Mac OS X from Apple hardware only. Ultimately, it's Apple's decision.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

JGowan
Jan 23, 2007, 11:45 AM
When something bad happens, who are you going to call? Apple? Dell?

Dell: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our hardware was not designed to run Apple OS X.

Apple: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our software was not designed to run on a Dell.

Apple hardware running Apple software: I will never stray.

I've read that Vista is a MEMORY HOG... try running Vista and OS X together -- probably a very terrible experience.

Run OS X on top of XP -- you're dealing with the day-to-day horrors that have plagued XP from the beginning, starting with viruses all types of malicious acts, attacking from all sides.

You can have Windows,... I'm sticking with OS X.

RBR2
Jan 23, 2007, 11:51 AM
At its core, Apple has always been a consumer company. It is even moreso now that iPods and other consumer products represent such a large proportion of its revenue.

Apple have always struggled with entering the business market, which is where many sales of OS X for other than Apple hardware would also occurr. The Xserve, while a fine piece of hardware in its own right, is not everyone's cup of tea, even those who would run OS X if given the choice.

During Apple's hard times one of the recurring rumors of candidates to buy Apple was Sun Microsystems (http://tools.thestreet.com/tsc/quotes.html?pg=qcn&symb=SUNW) which has been on difficult times itself of late (currently trading at less than $6), but has undergone management changes. SUN is a business oriented company. Interestingly, with Scott McNealy's departure from the scene, Intel CEO Paul Ottelini who had first proposed using Intel CPUs when he was at SUN (but was overruled by McNealy) has finally prevailed, although the deal is non-exclusive. Considering the similarity of Solaris and OS X and with a common architecture to work upon it would seem that Apple and SUN might be at a point where it would make sense for them to merge...or even for Apple to acquire SUN (in a man bites dog story).

The business community simply needs more flexibility in its hardware than Apple currently provides.

Many consumers want this flexibility as well.

Bonte
Jan 23, 2007, 12:00 PM
FYI Apple's OS is technically bound to Apple hardware through the use of the Intel TPM (Trusted Platform Module).

Not so if we can believe this article
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/02/ebay_osx_booting_dell/
According to the seller, the Inspiron "boots strait [sic] into Mac... because this specific Inspiron model has the same configuration as a Mac Mini and so with a bit of tweaking to make the BIOS reed [sic] the same as the Mac this installs".

So no TPM or hacking into osX, just a new BIOS on the machine and the Dell Inspiron 6000 installs osX via the standard system DVD supplied with the Mac Mini. Its seems fair to assume that any PC with the integrated Intel GPU will be compatible with 10.5, this will mark the big turnaround for Apple computers, first the name and now head on with Micro$ for desk(lap)top domination. :cool: :apple:

rktheac
Jan 23, 2007, 12:02 PM
While I understand and appreciate the possibility of running OS X on any "PC" hardware, Apple allowing that is not going to happen.

Let me illustrate.

You may agree or disagree, but there's considerable amount of engineering behind Apple's computers. Each are designed specifically and uniquely; Apple uses their own logic board design. They may use off-the-shelf chipsets, but how they're put together is entirely Apple's own. Take a look inside iMacs and Mac Pros, or even Mac minis to the Macbooks (and Pros). You'll definitely find standard Intel, ATI/Nvidia chips, but how they're packaged is unique. You will not find anything exactly like it with other manufacturers. If I can be even more specific, take a look inside a Mac Pro. See much dangling wires?

Good or bad, this approach adds considerable expense compared to using standard components inside a standard case, like many DIY computers are (and to lesser extent, many inexpensive PCs). And for many of you, when you talk about PCs, you're talking about DIY computers, not the likes of Dell XPS Extreme (dunno the exact name), or you are talking about <$400 computers that one can get from Walmart.

If Apple opened up OS X to generic PCs, it will force Apple to compete in the supercheap PC category, not to mention having to support these users when things go wrong, whether they want to compete or not. Think about it: Who will you call if while using your generic PC with OS X, if there appears to be a problem? One of many hardware manufacturers whose components you bought to build your PC, or Apple? Great Quality (they sell cheap PCs at Fry's) or Apple?

Take a look at mainstream PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Go to their websites (US websites) and configure a comparable (in price and features) computer to Apple's iMac. How many of them give you an option of choosing Linux as your primary OS as part of your build-to -order option? Linux is free, and Windows is not, yet in almost all cases (if not all), you cannot choose to have Linux installed. In most cases, your option is XP Home, XP Pro, and XP with MCE (and soon various flavors of Vista). You can't even choose to have "no OS." It appears Microsoft likes to have control too, doesn't it? There are dozens of freely available Linux distributions, and yet not one mainstream PC manufacturer offers Linux. If a free OS like Linux is not even offered, what makes you think they'll offer OS X? If Michael Dell was serious about offering OS X on his PCs, he would have offered Linux long ago.

If none of the mainstream PC manufacturers would offer Linux or OS X, then OS X would have to be offered as a retail product, which means Apple's computers would have to compete with DIY PCs. And if OS X can run on them, what's the incentive to buy Apple's iMac, or Mac Pro, when one can buy the individual components and build a computer for less?

The answer is Apple does not want to spend resources on this part of the market. It's not a poor reflection on the people in this category, but judging from Apple's computers, their focus is not here. Moreover, if you haven't noticed, Apple likes to be in control of everything. Letting loose OS X on this market means Apple loses control, because it means OS X running on something Apple didn't design. And Apple losing control is not something Apple wants.

Have you considered, that perhaps Apple is actually happy with their niche position with their computers? With <5% of the market share, it's a formidable challenge to tackle Microsoft head-on with OS X, despite its techinical and UI superiority over Windows. If market share were to be judged on these factors alone, then even Linux should have a higher share over Windows. But they don't, do they? Instead of scratching at the 5% share and competing with Microsoft OS to OS, it's far better for Apple to take OS X to other Apple products, to markets where Apple forges in its own direction, and they still maintain control over the widget. They showed us a glimpse of their strategic vision a couple of weeks ago.

Those of you who have been pushing for OS X on any PC so far only showed your selfish reasons, and nothing about strategy that makes sense for Apple. It's ok to have your selfish reasons, I mean, I'd think it's cool to see my old Dell box running OS X, but it doesn't show how Apple will benefit. Apple will compete with Microsoft on Apple's terms, and OS X on generic PCs is not it.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 12:03 PM
I hope it'll be easier to run OS X on a generic PC. I want OS X on a laptop, and since Apple apparently can't manufacture a working MacBook, I'm going to have to find alternative ways. It's your own fault, Apple.

JGowan
Jan 23, 2007, 12:06 PM
My 2˘...

Honestly -- I say Parrallels will soon be getting "konfabulated". That's a term I just made up. :)

Konfabulator was a cool little program that allowed "widgets" (little tiny apps) to run on your computer. They did specific little tasks and they looked good doing it. Apple comes up with Dashboard and makes it even easier to design their version of widgets by using web technology.

The folks at Konfabulator had to do something -- they went to Windows. And they eventually got bought for a lot of money by YaHoo!

I am betting with Leopard and Macintels, we're going to see Windows applications running on mac.

Steve (at next Keynote announcing Leopard): "Today, the world will finally discover the answer to the age-old question 'how did the leopard change its spots. Today, with Leopard and an Apple computer with intel processors, you will be able to run any PC software program without even having to install Windows. It just works."

Parrallels is going to find that the gravy train is over for good. They probably know by now. One way or the other, they're going to either die or try to do what Konfabulator did.

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 12:19 PM
When something bad happens, who are you going to call? Apple? Dell?

Dell: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our hardware was not designed to run Apple OS X.

Apple: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our software was not designed to run on a Dell.

Apple hardware running Apple software: I will never stray.

So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.? I heard that OS X far more advanced than Windows so it won't be a trouble.
Even when you plug some weird China-made hard into PC - it usually works OK. When it doesn't - it's up to manufacturer, not for Microsoft.
Same way, if Dell wants to sell their PC with OS X they should verify that all hardware is compatible.
I seems that that best solutions for this - Dell,Sony,HP,Toshiba,Lenovo acquire 51% of Apple(it's only about 40B - so 8B for everyone) and do what they want. The only pity - we won't see Mr Jobs dancing on Mac World stage every year

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 12:24 PM
My two cents...

Microsoft has been fairly successful as a purely software company ;)

Apple isn't going to be able to control (stop) this now...so they should change course and make this a positive thing versus fighting a losing battle. They can if they choose to. Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

First, of course, MS has been successful because of the massive volume that they sell. Does anyone think Apple could sell enough copies of OS X to be successful solely as a software company?

Aside from that, I think you are distorting history a bit. Bill Gates had told Apple they should license Mac OS to third parties; he didn't say MS would get behind it, beyond how they already were "behind it" in terms of supporting the platform and developing software for it.

What you have said though implies that MS only made Windows because Apple decided not to partner with them or whatever, and that isn't really likely. Windows would have moved forward regardless. But Apple most likely would have been crushed trying to go head to head with MS on the PC operating system front. The history of other companies that tried to do this was not very good, frankly. The closest thing to a successful OS partnership was between IBM and MS for OS/2, and even that ultimately was mainly about giving MS the chance to develop the core technology that became Windows NT.

Apple would have been committing suicide to partner with MS on Mac OS, even if that had been an option.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 23, 2007, 12:24 PM
So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.? I heard that OS X far more advanced than Windows so it won't be a trouble.
Even when you plug some weird China-made hard into PC - it usually works OK. When it doesn't - it's up to manufacturer, not for Microsoft.
Same way, if Dell wants to sell their PC with OS X they should verify that all hardware is compatible.
I seems that that best solutions for this - Dell,Sony,HP,Toshiba,Lenovo acquire 51% of Apple(it's only about 40B - so 8B for everyone) and do what they want. The only pity - we won't see Mr Jobs dancing on Mac World stage every year.

Huh?

Anyway, I'm sure that Apple has no inclination to support OS X on other manufacturers' hardware. I wouldn't if I was running Apple - sales are up and if you keep gaining ground on the big PC OEMS why give up millions of potential hardware sales by licensing OS X? It totally contradicts Apple's business model - make everything, software, hardware, the whole nine yards.

Kirkmedia
Jan 23, 2007, 12:28 PM
So if OSX is can run on a PC, apple will have to compete with Dell, HP, & Gateway for hardware sales. What a shame, apple might have to lower
their prices, or continue to make better hardware than everyone else.
THis is good for the consumer.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 12:32 PM
So if OSX is can run on a PC, apple will have to compete with Dell, HP, & Gateway for hardware sales. What a shame, apple might have to lower
their prices, or continue to make better hardware than everyone else.
THis is good for the consumer.

That isn't good for the consumer if it means lowering the quality to get to the rock bottom prices some people seem to think Apple should sell Macs at.

As it is, Apple's pricing isn't so outrageously expensive. On the laptop line especially, PC equivalent notebooks to the MacBook and MacBook Pro aren't necessarily a whole lot cheaper. What Apple doesn't currently have is a $400 laptop with a Celeron M processor in it.

So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.? I heard that OS X far more advanced than Windows so it won't be a trouble.
Even when you plug some weird China-made hard into PC - it usually works OK. When it doesn't - it's up to manufacturer, not for Microsoft.
Same way, if Dell wants to sell their PC with OS X they should verify that all hardware is compatible.
I seems that that best solutions for this - Dell,Sony,HP,Toshiba,Lenovo acquire 51% of Apple(it's only about 40B - so 8B for everyone) and do what they want. The only pity - we won't see Mr Jobs dancing on Mac World stage every year

Umm, speaking as someone who has owned hardware from Dell, Sony and Toshiba, I can asure you that Windows does not run without any troubles on their hardware.... far from it. Sometimes it does run well, but oftentimes there are numerous problems (some the fault of Windows itself, some the fault of the third party crapware they stick on there).

And the whole "it's up to the manufacturer, not microsoft, to deal with problems" is one of the big differences between the PC/Windows world and the Mac world. It's one reason why the PC ownership experience is so poor for many customers (finding out who is responsible and who will actually support something or other; sometimes it's MS, sometimes its the manufacturer of the PC, unless it is another hardware component that they don't know how to support).

-Zadillo

Lord Blackadder
Jan 23, 2007, 12:39 PM
So if OSX is can run on a PC, apple will have to compete with Dell, HP, & Gateway for hardware sales. What a shame, apple might have to lower
their prices, or continue to make better hardware than everyone else.
THis is good for the consumer.

Apple doesn't want to compete with Dell for hardware sales. They have no interest in the under $500 PC market - the volume is massive and the profit margins are crap. When you need to crank out zillions of boxes a year to make a profit, you get low quality. Apple is content to let Dell et. al fight for those scraps while it concentrates on the mid and high-end market, which is much more profitable and has lower volume allowing for better QC.

Dell makes most of its profit in the mid- and high-end markets too (as well as servers), but uses its el-cheapo models to build brand recognition rather than making heaps of cash. Apple has built its brand recognition in a different way.

Besides, if you want an uber-cheap PC and aren't a beginner, just build the damn thing.

EDIT - as others mentioned above, the markets Apple doesn't compete in use old netburst Pentiums and Celerons - screw that. If Apple starts cranking out Celeron boxes it will be a dark day. Apple's cheapest computer comes with a Core Duo - lets keep it that way.

Who wants Ferrari to start building hatchbacks? That would cheapen the brand and NOT be good for the consumer, as it would be just another crappy econobox. You can't bring the price down without sacrificing quality, and Apple's brand image is built on a certain level of quality.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 12:49 PM
Honestly, nobody actually believe Apple would ever release OS X for generic PCs, right? They would go bankrupt. But I would be happy if they did.

/.../ allowing for better QC.

Haha, Apple quality control is a joke. At least when it comes to their MacBooks, I never had any trouble with my iBook.

MacConvert
Jan 23, 2007, 12:54 PM
Apple is (mostly) a hardware company. It is out of the question for them to allow OS X to be bastardized so it runs on non-Mac hardware. It will never happen. Microsoft would sooner part with Windows than Apple with their hardware platform.

On the flipside, what benefit do you actually get out of running OS X inside a Windows or Linux VMWare host? You certainly do not enjoy the stability of OS X. Ok, so perhaps running it on Linux would prove just as stable, but why? Linux already does 95% of what OS X does, short of having the GUI..... Running OS X on Windows is moot beyond description.

Why do topics like this even get posted and/or commented on?

Rocketman
Jan 23, 2007, 12:58 PM
In reading the linked articles, especially the update, I find it helpful Apple is developing OSX as a hardware/software grouping and I respect Apple's choice to not let OSX out.

What made sense to me about the article on how virtualization can be used is that it does not actually prevent OSX from running on non-Apple hardware. It is a regime of strictly following the EULA to marginalize that activity to non-commercial and hobbiest users (many with alternatives to Finder and Dock anyway), as opposed to large server farms and businesses and schools.

This is simply Apple being true to its stockholders (which they are required by law to do) and preserving their revenue stream. What I find interesting is this series of events and conditions is actually a big boon for the hobbiest users as they now have more and better choices than ever!

That can only be good for future commercial software and hardware development as random testing and development of previously unreleased killer apps is accelerated.

I voted this article positive.

Rocketman

P.S. Be sure to watch the video of Jeff Han demonstrating Multi-Touch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 01:04 PM
Haha, Apple quality control is a joke. At least when it comes to their MacBooks, I never had any trouble with my iBook.

And here of course is the problem with anecdotal evidence. You had problems with your MacBook, but didn't with your iBook, so you conclude, of course, that Apple QC has gone to crap.

But there are of course people who have had the opposite experience as you; various problems with the iBook, and no problems at all with the MacBook. Those people would come to the opposite conclusion; that Apple QC used to be a joke, but is now very good.

Of course, neither of these conclusions are wholly accurate or inaccurate, because they are anecdotal. The reality is that there have been QC issues with iBooks AND MacBooks, and different people have had different issues. It's not like Apple used to have perfect QC and never ship laptops with problems, and it's not like every MacBook they ship now has problems.

MacBucky
Jan 23, 2007, 01:08 PM
Another way if we think Apple should quickly gain market share is to simply give away a previous verison of OS X. Let's say, OS X 10.4, the current version to windows users right before OS X 10.5 ships. Ship out 10.4 to billions of users to load on current window users drives so they too can experience what life is like with Mac OS X is truly like. Once they experience it, they will want to upgrade to the most recent version.

A quick, off the top of my head idea.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 01:10 PM
And here of course is the problem with anecdotal evidence. You had problems with your MacBook, but didn't with your iBook, so you conclude, of course, that Apple QC has gone to crap.

But there are of course people who have had the opposite experience as you; various problems with the iBook, and no problems at all with the MacBook. Those people would come to the opposite conclusion; that Apple QC used to be a joke, but is now very good.

Of course, neither of these conclusions are wholly accurate or inaccurate, because they are anecdotal. The reality is that there have been QC issues with iBooks AND MacBooks, and different people have had different issues. It's not like Apple used to have perfect QC and never ship laptops with problems, and it's not like every MacBook they ship now has problems.

Indeed. However, I've seen too many reports of faulty MacBooks (I'm talking about users who've had 3+ MacBooks) to believe that quality control hasn't gone down the gutter. Or, they just don't care. Because it seems that some people are happy with having a whining MacBook (that is, some don't even hear it due to inferior hearing).

I know the iBook had problems, the only reason I said that was to show that I actually like OS X, and that I'm not pissed for no reason. Oh well, I failed.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 01:13 PM
Indeed. However, I've seen too many reports of faulty MacBooks (I'm talking about users who've had 3+ MacBooks) to believe that quality control hasn't gone down the gutter. Or, they just don't care. Because it seems that some people are happy with having a whining MacBook (that is, some don't even hear it due to inferior hearing).

I know the iBook had problems, the only reason I said that was to show that I actually like OS X, and that I'm not pissed for no reason. Oh well, I failed.

I don't think Apple doesn't care, and I believe they are working to address these issues. I would probably chalk a fair amount of it up to the upheaval with the switch to Intel, frankly.

RBR2
Jan 23, 2007, 01:19 PM
I don't think Apple doesn't care, and I believe they are working to address these issues. I would probably chalk a fair amount of it up to the upheaval with the switch to Intel, frankly.

You're kidding, right? Have you actually dealt with Apple when you had a problem? :eek:

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 01:21 PM
You're kidding, right? Have you actually dealt with Apple when you had a problem? :eek:

Sure, I had to deal with them because of uneven backlighting on the MacBook Pro, and they were nothing but pleasant to deal with. They didn't argue with me, they acknowledged it was a problem, and it was returned without any problems.

Apple has been much more pleasant to deal with than Sony or Toshiba or Dell, the other companies whose computers I have owned.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 01:23 PM
I don't think Apple doesn't care, and I believe they are working to address these issues. I would probably chalk a fair amount of it up to the upheaval with the switch to Intel, frankly.

It still doesn't change the fact that they can't deliver a fully working laptop for a reasonable price to me. I want OS X, but I also want a computer that doesn't make any annoying sounds. Unfortunately they don't seem to go hand in hand, so if I can return my third MacBook (unless it actually turns out to be working, but I doubt it), I will buy a PC laptop instead (no, not Dell).

SiliconAddict
Jan 23, 2007, 01:26 PM
Update: Apparently, Parallels is planning to provide Mac OS X virtualization on Macs, so that users can run additional versions of Mac OS X in a window. The side-effect to this feature would make it easier to run Mac OS X in a similar virtualization environment on non-Apple PCs. Details

Ugh...The thing will run dog slow since it will have to emulate the PPC. Remember kiddies. Tiger is the first version of OS X to run on Intel. If you want to run 10.2-10.3 you are going to have to emulate a PPC.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 01:27 PM
It still doesn't change the fact that they can't deliver a fully working laptop for a reasonable price to me. I want OS X, but I also want a computer that doesn't make any annoying sounds. Unfortunately they don't seem to go hand in hand, so if I can return my third MacBook (unless it actually turns out to be working, but I doubt it), I will buy a PC laptop instead (no, not Dell).

K, fair enough. I don't know what to say (the MacBook I had didn't make any annoying sounds; only reason I returned it was because I decided I wanted the dedicated graphics of the MBP instead). It sucks that you haven't been able to get a working MacBook, especially this far into its lifespan. It does seem odd though, it's not like Apple doesn't make MacBooks that work just fine or something.

Anyway, enjoy the PC laptop. I'd probably say go with an Asus or something; they have there own share of problems, but I think they are better built than a lot of the other stuff out there. Or possibly Sony, although I found Sony's support to be terrible; their hardware is nice (although not in that price range.... the Vaio C series has a terrible screen, IMO). I tried doing this too, but OS X is a big draw for me, and I got tired of dealing with Windows laptop crap.

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 01:33 PM
Ugh...The thing will run dog slow since it will have to emulate the PPC. Remember kiddies. Tiger is the first version of OS X to run on Intel. If you want to run 10.2-10.3 you are going to have to emulate a PPC.

Um, no. They're not going to be making a PowerPC emulator. (Where did you even get that? That's not what this discussion is about...)

Any possible future VM products from Parallels or VMWare that allow virtualization of Mac OS X will enable running Intel versions of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server, not PowerPC.

If you were hoping for a virtualization product to test/qualify things under previous (PowerPC) versions of Mac OS X, it won't be coming from Parallels or VMWare.

(Now, if someone says "But why would I want to run another copy of the same version of Mac OS X in a virtual machine on Apple hardware? There is not reason for that, so obviously the only use is to use Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware," you're obviously not in the target market for such a product. Examples would be having multiple OS images for testing and development, including Mac OS X Server and future versions of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server, that can quickly be deployed and refreshed without fouling up your primary OS installation. Another example, for a potential server virtualization product, would be running multiple instances of Mac OS X Server on a single Xserve, rather than today's 1:1 scenario. Virtualization has a lot more purposes than simply running "other" OSes, and virtualization, both on the desktop and in the datacenter, has been around a LOT longer than Intel-based Macs.)

Lord Blackadder
Jan 23, 2007, 01:38 PM
Haha, Apple quality control is a joke. At least when it comes to their MacBooks, I never had any trouble with my iBook.

I don't know what you mean by joke, but I'm positive that Apple's quality record is better than Dell's for equivalent products. If you are trying to say that Apple's QC on MacBooks is below average, you're flat out wrong. Apple consistently beats Dell on customer satisfaction and percieved quality in polls by industry analysts like Consumer Reports (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/08/12.4.shtml). So if Apple is a joke, Dell is not even worth considering.

Example 1 (http://www.asq.org/quality-report/reports/20060815.html#pc)

Example 2 (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/10/17/lenovo.apple.reliability/)

etc. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1623864,00.asp)

other
Jan 23, 2007, 01:40 PM
K, fair enough. I don't know what to say (the MacBook I had didn't make any annoying sounds; only reason I returned it was because I decided I wanted the dedicated graphics of the MBP instead). It sucks that you haven't been able to get a working MacBook, especially this far into its lifespan. It does seem odd though, it's not like Apple doesn't make MacBooks that work just fine or something.

That's what I figured when I ordered one.

Anyway, enjoy the PC laptop. I'd probably say go with an Asus or something; they have there own share of problems, but I think they are better built than a lot of the other stuff out there. Or possibly Sony, although I found Sony's support to be terrible; their hardware is nice (although not in that price range.... the Vaio C series has a terrible screen, IMO). I tried doing this too, but OS X is a big draw for me, and I got tired of dealing with Windows laptop crap.

I was thinking more of a Thinkpad. The Z61m isn't that expensive, but it's quite heavy unfortunately (~3 kg, or ~6.6 lbs). But it would be great if I could find a cheap used T60 or something similar. I don't trust any other manufacturer.

I don't know what you mean by joke, but I'm positive that Apple's quality record is better than Dell's for equivalent products. If you are trying to say that Apple's QC on MacBooks is below average, you're flat out wrong. Apple consistently beats Dell on customer satisfaction and percieved quality. So if Apple is a joke, Dell is not even worth considering.

Who the hell talked about Dell? Why is it that PC equals Dell around these parts?

But still, I wonder if you're correct. Have any sources?

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 01:46 PM
Who the hell talked about Dell? Why is it that PC equals Dell around these parts?

But still, I wonder if you're correct. Have any sources?

Yes (http://web.archive.org/web/20041127084205/http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv3.jsp?CONTENT%3c%3ecnt_id+=305449) and yes (http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/02/08/apple.no..1.in.support/).

Those are a couple of older examples, but that's how it's been for years, and that's how it is today. (I know some people will say something like, "Well, maybe before the MacBooks," or some similar statement. No. It's like that now, "after the MacBooks," too. Apple has consistently been number one in quality control and lack of need for repairs among ALL vendors.

The reason why people compare against Dell is because Dell is generally the gold standard for quality in the commodity PC space. No one really cares if some extreme fringe vendor, or something you can build yourself, is more reliable. When it comes to reliability, people compare against Dell. And, like it or not, Apple is consistently better than Dell, peoples' own individual anecdotes aside.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 23, 2007, 01:48 PM
Who the hell talked about Dell? Why is it that PC equals Dell around these parts?

But still, I wonder if you're correct. Have any sources?

Some sources - check my previous post above. And you'll find plenty more if you Google.

I'm not trying to be an Apple fanboy - but the fact is that their quality is up there with other industry-leading companies. So the statement that their qualty control is a joke is totally fallacious, and either a careless statement or a malicious one.

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 01:51 PM
Haha, Apple quality control is a joke. At least when it comes to their MacBooks, I never had any trouble with my iBook.

For every post like this, you can find hundreds claiming that Apple's iBook quality control was a "joke". But here's a person who had a trouble free iBook, and apparently has a MacBook with problems. Then he goes online, finds all the discussion forums or stories where people are having "problems" with their MacBooks, and concludes that MacBook quality control must therefore be a "joke".

Ignoring, of course, that in pretty much every reliability survey, Apple blows every other commercial vendor out of the water pretty consistently. Sure, it's statistics, and sure, some products have had more problems and problem areas than other. But statistically, the iBook (depending on which specific model you're talking about) has been far WORSE than the MacBook. Just because YOU had problems and see a bunch of stories on the internet doesn't mean that the MacBook quality control is "junk".

other
Jan 23, 2007, 01:52 PM
Yes (http://web.archive.org/web/20041127084205/http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv3.jsp?CONTENT%3c%3ecnt_id+=305449) and yes (http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/02/08/apple.no..1.in.support/).

Those are a couple of older examples, but that's how it's been for years, and that's how it is today. (I know some people will say something like, "Well, maybe before the MacBooks," or some similar statement. No. It's like that now, "after the MacBooks," too. Apple has consistently been number one in quality control and lack of need for repairs among ALL vendors.

Well thank you.

The reason why people compare against Dell is because Dell is generally the gold standard for quality in the commodity PC space. No one really cares if some extreme fringe vendor, or something you can build yourself, is more reliable. When it comes to reliability, people compare against Dell. And, like it or not, Apple is consistently better than Dell, peoples' own individual anecdotes aside.

Can't say I like Dell. Their keyboards are worthless, I could not see myself purchasing a computer with a crappy keyboard. That's one of the reasons I liked Apple. It's either Lenovo/IBM or Apple, and apparently Apple can't deliver, at least when it comes to me.

For every post like this, you can find hundreds claiming that Apple's iBook quality control was a "joke". But here's a person who had a trouble free iBook, and apparently has a MacBook with problems. Then he goes online, finds all the discussion forums or stories where people are having "problems" with their MacBooks, and concludes that MacBook quality control must therefore be a "joke".

Ignoring, of course, that in pretty much every reliability survey, Apple blows every other commercial vendor out of the water pretty consistently. Sure, it's statistics, and sure, some products have had more problems and problem areas than other. But statistically, the iBook (depending on which specific model you're talking about) has been far WORSE than the MacBook. Just because YOU had problems and see a bunch of stories on the internet doesn't mean that the MacBook quality control is "junk".

Did you read my follow up post? And still, I find it puzzling how I fail to get a good MacBook when so many others have, apparently. Once, okay. Twice, what? I'm getting my third this week (tomorrow?), and we'll see about that. I had the logic board replaced in one though, didn't make a difference. So it's kind of like I've had three MacBooks. ;) Like I said before, I mentioned the iBook for another reason.

I'm not trying to be an Apple fanboy - but the fact is that their quality is up there with other industry-leading companies. So the statement that their qualty control is a joke is totally fallacious, and either a careless statement or a malicious one.

I say that because I'm extremely unhappy about how my experience with the MacBook has been. Ordered November 8th, still haven't got a working one. Thank you Apple.

hoodooz
Jan 23, 2007, 01:58 PM
Apple hardware design can compete on its own merits with the best in the marketplace whether it's a computer or consumer electronic device.

Would anyone argue against that right now?

Apple Inc is in the premium but never-the-less mass market product business these days and licensing OS X would seem to fit nicely with everything else they've done in the past year.

The number of people using OS X would probably triple in it's first year and grow after that - the revenue and profit it would generate for Apple would be stunning. Rather than shrink, Apple will build and innovate more computers and consumer products than ever simply by doing what they do best.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 01:59 PM
That's what I figured when I ordered one.



I was thinking more of a Thinkpad. The Z61m isn't that expensive, but it's quite heavy unfortunately (~3 kg, or ~6.6 lbs). But it would be great if I could find a cheap used T60 or something similar. I don't trust any other manufacturer.

Yeah, the ThinkPads are really nice; the extra weight is worth it considering how solidly built they are. They really are tanks. I don't really care for the screen quality on them, but then again, people aren't buying ThinkPads for beautiful screens. I don't think you could go wrong that way.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 02:01 PM
Apple Inc is in the premium but never-the-less mass market product business these days and licensing OS X would seem to fit nicely with everything else they've done in the past year.

The number of people using OS X would probably triple in it's first year and grow after that - the revenue and profit it would generate for Apple would be stunning. Rather than shrink, Apple will build and innovate more computers and consumer products than ever simply by doing what they do best.

Not really. Apple make most of their money on hardware sales, if they were to release OS X for generic PCs, they would lose a lot of money. Also, they would have to support a lot more hardware, adding developing costs I assume. Or am I wrong?

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 02:02 PM
Apple hardware design can compete on its own merits with the best in the marketplace whether it's a computer or consumer electronic device.

Would anyone argue against that right now?

Apple Inc is in the premium but never-the-less mass market product business these days and licensing OS X would seem to fit nicely with everything else they've done in the past year.

The number of people using OS X would probably triple in it's first year and grow after that - the revenue and profit it would generate for Apple would be stunning. Rather than shrink, Apple will build and innovate more computers and consumer products than ever simply by doing what they do best.

It's certainly possible, but Apple would need much more growth than that. Conceivably it might work if they still continued to sell the same amount of hardware at least, but it's hard to say if that would happen.

I'd be worried about other factors (i.e. MS completely dropping Mac software support; i.e. dropping Office for the Mac).

It would be interesting though, but I'm not sure if Apple could deal with all the issues that would come into play (that isn't even mentioning supporting all of that PC hardware, etc.).

Lord Blackadder
Jan 23, 2007, 02:03 PM
I sympathize with you and others that got bad hardware, but the reality is that disgruntled customers are a fantastically vocal minority on boards like this. For every "I got a broken Mac - now I hate Apple" thread in the internet there are literally tens of thousands of satisfied customers.

Just because you got a bad MacBook does not mean Apple's QC is a joke - unless you are willing to extend that verdict just about every PC OEM. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to have the same experience with Toshiba, HP or Compaq and others.

I sincerely hope you get your laptop sorted out though, I hate getting a lemon.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 02:08 PM
I sympathize with you and others that got bad hardware, but the reality is that disgruntled customers are a fantastically vocal minority on boards like this. For every "I got a broken Mac - now I hate Apple" thread in the internet there are literally tens of thousands of satisfied customers.

Just because you got a bad MacBook does not mean Apple's QC is a joke - unless you are willing to extend that verdict just about every PC OEM. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to have the same experience with Toshiba, HP or Compaq and others.

I sincerely hope you get your laptop sorted out though, I hate getting a lemon.

Well, it's not that I've gotten one broken MacBook. It's that I've gotten several (well, two, but three logic boards).

aristobrat
Jan 23, 2007, 02:15 PM
Who the hell talked about Dell? Why is it that PC equals Dell around these parts?

But still, I wonder if you're correct. Have any sources?
Desktops:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
Look no further than Apple, the leader of the pack, whose overall score holds steady at 9.1. Last year, Apple's score on units needing repair was an impressive 11 percent—well below that of any other company in the survey. But according to readers, the company has managed to cut repair rates even further over the past 12 months. This year, Apple's score on units needing repair drops to 8 percent. Among first-year systems, it's only 5 percent. That's nothing less than astonishing.

Notebooks:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006499,00.asp
Once again, Apple is at the top. Its overall score, 9.1, is significantly better than the average for Windows notebooks—and a full seven-tenths of a point better than Lenovo's overall score, 8.4. Its scores for reliability (9.2), tech support (8.5), and likelihood of recommending (9.4) are also significantly better than average. Yes, its score on percentage needing repair is merely average, but at 16 percent, it's the lowest of the survey (alongside Sony's 16 percent).

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 02:19 PM
Well, it's not that I've gotten one broken MacBook. It's that I've gotten several (well, two, but three logic boards).

Broken as in, not working, or broken, as in, making a slight noise?

morespce54
Jan 23, 2007, 02:25 PM
If apple sold OS X for generic PCs, The price of OS X would go up tremendously! Apple already made a great deal of money off of you for the mac you will be installing it on, People will start buying old crap PCs, apple will loose money, OS X goes up in price, or apple faces the same thing they were in with (what was it) OS 7(?) where they licensed their OS, and apple almost died!

Do you really want to see that?

As a dev guy (and a mac fan), I could see the benefit for one to test a software on a (legitimate) version of OS X installed on a PC... After all, I can do the reverse scheme on my MBP... ;) And we all know that Apple (not-computer-anymore) will now makes tons of money with hardware (read: iPhone)... :D Kidding !

stainlessliquid
Jan 23, 2007, 02:31 PM
Its already very easy to run OSX in vmware, I tested it out last night just to see if it worked and it took like 5 minutes to set up. It runs fast enough to be usable but slow enough to be annoying (I only have an SSE2 processor though), the resolution is also locked at 1024x768. Its useful for testing websites in safari and not much else.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 02:32 PM
Broken as in, not working, or broken, as in, making a slight noise?

The first one was broken as in it made an incredible annoying noise that makes it difficult to work, and the second one has the same issue plus a flickering screen. That's my main issue.

Also, both get so hot that they underclock themselves, which I doubt is good for the CPU. And since Apple only have a lousy one year warranty (unless you purchase more for a lot of money), it's difficult not to be worried. I can always hope European laws makes it better. I think that gives me a little more protection.

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 02:33 PM
Its already very easy to run OSX in vmware, I tested it out last night just to see if it worked and it took like 5 minutes to set up. It runs fast enough to be usable but slow enough to be annoying (I only have an SSE2 processor though), the resolution is also locked at 1024x768. Its useful for testing websites in safari and not much else.

Unfortunately this is a completely hacked version of Mac OS X with several key pieces of the OS (including the kernel) hacked and replaced, totally unsupported by Apple, and un-updateable by Apple's software update mechanism (and also against the license agreement).

janstett
Jan 23, 2007, 02:34 PM
Jesus you guys are so interminably negative. Just for legitimate reasons, think of how great virtualization would be even running OSX on Apple hardware virtually -- keeping a clean copy of OSX for unit testing, as well as older versions of OSX. I do this all the time with Windows. Rather than pollute a real machine, I just use a VM. Rather than have 5 machines, I have VMs.

Now, being able to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, I'd love it (and I already do it with the OSX86 hacks). Now, I own three Macs. But I'd still like to have a VM of OSX on my PCs for those times when I don't have my MacBook with me. Virtualization is a good thing. Don't be such luddites in the name of Apple Vanity.

hoodooz
Jan 23, 2007, 02:34 PM
Not really. Apple make most of their money on hardware sales, if they were to release OS X for generic PCs, they would lose a lot of money. Also, they would have to support a lot more hardware, adding developing costs I assume. Or am I wrong?


There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but no more. I believe Apple software products and hardware products stand on their own merits these days: the convergence is there along with an unprecedented "cool" factor among the general population.

OS X (Tiger) is well ahead of Vista and Leopard will seal the deal no doubt. The iPod gave Apple a new credibility with the public, and the switch to Intel created a clean slate for Apple to try new and unexpected things.

janstett
Jan 23, 2007, 02:39 PM
That's the purpose of emulation. To emulate the hardware so that the software can run on top of it.
I really do hope that they stop trying to port osx to PC because that's apple's bread and butter, the mac hardware. Windows is hardware independent and runs on millions of configurations of hardware. OSX is coded to work best with one set of hardware configuration.

Actually, that's also what happens with virtual machines -- rather than use your real hardware, they virtualize it to mimmick a fixed set of hardware in emulation. So if they emulate something Intel Macs run on, they're fine.

Also, fwiw, Macs aren't "one set of hardware configuration". Just off the top of your head, there are two entirely different processor families (Intel and PPC), Intel GMA 950, ATI, and nVidia graphics cards, etc. Apple has changed parts under the hood and OSX has to support them.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 02:42 PM
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but no more. I believe Apple software products and hardware products stand on their own merits these days: the convergence is there along with an unprecedented "cool" factor among the general population.

OS X (Tiger) is well ahead of Vista and Leopard will seal the deal no doubt. The iPod gave Apple a new credibility with the public, and the switch to Intel created a clean slate for Apple to try new and unexpected things.

OS X is my favorite operating system, but if it would run on any PC (non-hacked, or hacked in a good way), I would never buy a Mac. I believe there are a lot of people like me.

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 02:56 PM
OS X is my favorite operating system, but if it would run on any PC (non-hacked, or hacked in a good way), I would never buy a Mac. I believe there are a lot of people like me.

It will very likely never run on non-Apple hardware unmodified, and any hack won't be a good one, as critical pieces of the OS will always have to me modified, resulting in an unsupported, unupdateable mess.

The only way this MAY be possible (unmodified and unhacked) is via virtualization.

And no, there really aren't a lot of people like you. As long as something like this is unsupported and/or illegal, it will always be relegated to a fringe of hobbyists, hackers, and tinkerers. Sure, some people may say they're using it for "real work", but it will ALWAYS be a fringe if it's against the license agreement, and unsupported by any vendor or OEM (as it always will be as long as Apple's licensing agreement is worded the way it is at present). Even if there are thousands or tens of thousands of people who would run Mac OS X in this way, it's still a ridiculously small drop in the bucket. Not even a blip on the radar of market share.

The way to get Mac OS X legally and in a supported state will continue, for the foreseeable future, to be via Apple hardware.

And finally, the humorous thing is that Apple, statistically, is better than any other major PC vendor in terms of quality control and need for repairs, and that includes Sony, Dell, IBM/Lenovo, Toshiba, Gateway, and others.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 03:04 PM
It will very likely never run on non-Apple hardware unmodified, and any hack won't be a good one, as critical pieces of the OS will always have to me modified, resulting in an unsupported, unupdateable mess.

The only way this MAY be possible (unmodified and unhacked) is via virtualization.

And no, there really aren't a lot of people like you. As long as something like this is unsupported and/or illegal, it will always be relegated to a fringe of hobbyists, hackers, and tinkerers. Sure, some people may say they're using it for "real work", but it will ALWAYS be a fringe if it's against the license agreement, and unsupported by any vendor or OEM (as it always will be as long as Apple's licensing agreement is worded the way it is at present). Even if there are thousands or tens of thousands of people who would run Mac OS X in this way, it's still a ridiculously small drop in the bucket. Not even a blip on the radar of market share.

The way to get Mac OS X legally and in a supported state will continue, for the foreseeable future, to be via Apple hardware.

And finally, the humorous thing is that Apple, statistically, is better than any other major PC vendor in terms of quality control and need for repairs, and that includes Sony, Dell, IBM/Lenovo, Toshiba, Gateway, and others.

What I meant was that, if Apple released OS X for generic PCs, I believe a lot of people (like me), would just buy the OS, and not a Mac. That's one of the reasons Apple would never release it that way.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 03:11 PM
Also, both get so hot that they underclock themselves, which I doubt is good for the CPU. And since Apple only have a lousy one year warranty (unless you purchase more for a lot of money), it's difficult not to be worried. I can always hope European laws makes it better. I think that gives me a little more protection.

Wait, what do you mean exactly about them "underclocking" themselves? Do you just mean that they aren't always running at 2.0 GHz, etc., and that you'll sometimes see the speed drop? If so, that is normal, and all PC laptops with Pentium M's, Core Duos and Core 2 Duos do this.

Regarding the warranty; Apple is hardly the only company to offer a 1 year warranty by default, and their prices for AppleCare are not really any more expensive than what Toshiba, Dell, Sony, HP, etc. charge for their extended warranties.

What I meant was that, if Apple released OS X for generic PCs, I believe a lot of people (like me), would just buy the OS, and not a Mac. That's one of the reasons Apple would never release it that way.

Possibly, although even in that scenario, I would certainly still buy Mac laptops. From the laptops I've owned, the MacBook Pro was much better than my Sony, my Toshiba or my Dell laptop. Even the option of installing OS X on a PC notebook wouldn't specifically make me buy one to do it, generally.

I can understand where you're coming from given your bad experience though; your experiences actually are similar to why I won't buy Toshiba laptops any more (I tried giving them a chance recently too, but had 3 or 4 bad laptops before giving up entirely).

daveschroeder
Jan 23, 2007, 03:16 PM
What I meant was that, if Apple released OS X for generic PCs, I believe a lot of people (like me), would just buy the OS, and not a Mac. That's one of the reasons Apple would never release it that way.

Sure they would. For the same reason that a lot of people buy the cheapest thing they can find online or in stores. And you get what you pay for.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't also a lot of high quality PCs out there. But there are plenty of $400 systems that are worth about, well, $400. And yes, you're right: a lot of people would be getting those if they could get OS X for them (in fact, a lot of people would probably be pirating OS X).

And they'd get what they paid for.

You're right that this is one of the reasons Apple wouldn't do this; not because they're "afraid" people wouldn't buy Macs - they know that. But rather, because the user experience would totally suck, and an unbelievable array of hardware would have to be supported, which is part of the reason Windows compatibility suffered so much over the years.

With control over a finite set of hardware, that's not an issue. And sure, Apple has a wide variety of hardware. But they key is, they still control it all. So just release Mac OS X for specific non-Apple hardware, some would say? No, you'd still get a flood of morons installing it on unsupported hardware, and then judging Mac OS X based on their experiences with it install on their utterly laughable machines, and then posting how much "OS X sucks" all over the internet. Probably right here on this very forum.

It's a lot more complicated than you imagine.

gkarris
Jan 23, 2007, 03:27 PM
I did a search on "PC OS X" and you get plenty of places to go and find out how to install OS X on a generic PC.

The sites "encourage" you to buy OS X, instead of downloading it from BitTorrent (but of course, there's a link to it).

There are lists of components that supposedly work with OS X, motherboards, processors, videocards, etc.

The forums are filled with questions on this or that not working or a certain function in OS X causing the machine to crash. Tons of "patches" and "workarounds"...

Same as Windows....

janstett
Jan 23, 2007, 03:28 PM
What a joke:) Who wants to run mac osx on a pc?


Me, and I already do. Want a 12" 3 pound MacBook? I can make it so by running OSX on my Thinkpad X60.

Just because you are blind to the possibilities, doesn't mean they don't exist.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 03:32 PM
Wait, what do you mean exactly about them "underclocking" themselves? Do you just mean that they aren't always running at 2.0 GHz, etc., and that you'll sometimes see the speed drop? If so, that is normal, and all PC laptops with Pentium M's, Core Duos and Core 2 Duos do this.

Yes, I mean that when you're pushing the CPU it drops down to 1.67 GHz. Why would it do this when I need it the most? Because it gets too hot.

Regarding the warranty; Apple is hardly the only company to offer a 1 year warranty by default, and their prices for AppleCare are not really any more expensive than what Toshiba, Dell, Sony, HP, etc. charge for their extended warranties.

At least Lenovo/IBM offers three years. :)

I did a search on "PC OS X" and you get plenty of places to go and find out how to install OS X on a generic PC.

The sites "encourage" you to buy OS X, instead of downloading it from BitTorrent (but of course, there's a link to it).

There are lists of components that supposedly work with OS X, motherboards, processors, videocards, etc.

The forums are filled with questions on this or that not working or a certain function in OS X causing the machine to crash. Tons of "patches" and "workarounds"...

Same as Windows....

I know, but it seems quite bothersome. :) But yeah, I'm definitely looking into that.

Me, and I already do. Want a 12" 3 pound MacBook? I can make it so by running OSX on my Thinkpad X60.

Just because you are blind to the possibilities, doesn't mean they don't exist.

How well does it run? Do you have any experience with real Macs, if so, is it good enough as a replacement?

matticus008
Jan 23, 2007, 03:49 PM
Whether it is a violation of Apple's EULA remains to be seen, but from my understanding EULAs don't stand up in court anyway.
I have no idea where this Internet meme started, but it is absolutely incorrect. Far and away, any EULA overturnings are the exception to the rule, and there have been close to zero instances where a EULA has been dismissed entirely. There have been a number of provisions in particular EULAs which cannot be enforced, but no judge has ever ruled against a EULA in toto.


Apple Hardware is only nice when it is new. Then a week later everyone sees that everyone can do the same and better for cheaper. Then a month or two later while everyone unviels this new feature and that, Apple is touting its New MacBook Pros (no updates in months).
There have to be customers on the leading edge to keep things moving forward. Someone has to do it first at a premium price before it can be made available to the huddled masses. Look at the first microwaves. They were out of reach to most working families 40 years ago, but today you can find them for $40 at Target. But if you look higher in the line, there are still much more expensive microwaves out there embracing new and improved methods. There's nothing radical about expensive microwaves, except nicer materials and showroom-quality design, and some small touches and evolutionary innovations that will trickle down.

But if no one buys the non-commodity ones, the features don't trickle down.

Apparently you haven't taken Econ 101, if not you would have known that increased competition is (in most cases) only going to benefit the consumer in the long run. Increased competition means lower prices and/or better products for the consumer due to the competition.
And if you'd moved on to the 200-level, you'd see that price subsidization in separate sectors causes companies to collapse when the subsidizing agent fails. If you're using your extra profits to run a charity, when your company goes bankrupt, the charity fails as well, because it isn't self-funding. When you sell a product as a core business and use proceeds to fund all development costs, you can sell satellite products (the odd copy of the OS), for a substantially reduced price. However, if the yields fall in the former product, the latter can no longer be sold at below-market prices.

The full version of Windows retails for $299 (ignoring the stupid Ultimate edition). Because Apple is a smaller company with a substantially smaller development group, its per-unit costs are even higher than Microsoft's, a fact only moderated by the narrower reach of its OS. OS X therefore would also have to be sold at a substantially higher rate very close to Microsoft's in order to compensate for the loss.

If you can run OS X on any computer, Apple will have to continue to create hardware that people are willing to purchase at a premium.
A big part of that premium is OS X. To compare retail prices of computers, you must compare the whole package. People who are simple price tag shoppers will never see the value in an Apple computer, just as they will never see the value in a $6 dish towel when the one next to it is $5. Price tag shoppers don't look at the product, and most companies would do anything for a customer base like Apple's. Apple doesn't have the volume to compensate for razor thin margins, and it has no need to.

People keep insisting that the closed system will kill Apple. Adapt or die, and all that. What they fail to realize is that the future of desktop computing isn't this open, scattered disarray of products--it's commoditization of appliances. "Geek machines" are destined to be a niche product, like build-yourself toaster ovens and telephones. A complete, fully functional, reliable product has far more value and convenience than a pile of PCBs and transistors. Once upon a time, customers picked their network, sound, and video cards, and before that, even more trivial pieces. Today, all of that ships on a single board. The internal expansion card sections of electronics stores are a fraction of what they once were, apart from the graphics card aisle. PCs are slowly consolidating into purpose-driven appliances (HTPCs, media servers, desktops, etc.).

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 04:19 PM
OS X is my favorite operating system, but if it would run on any PC (non-hacked, or hacked in a good way), I would never buy a Mac. I believe there are a lot of people like me.

Of course not. Get any Mac's specs (except notebooks) - you'll find a comparable PC for 20%-50% less cost even with Windows included.
2nd question - what are you doing when you PC is broken? The answer - you open it and replace broken part with a new one - this costs you X money.
What are you doing when your Mac is broken?The answer - you send it to the Apple, they fix it - this costs you 3X money.

gwangung
Jan 23, 2007, 04:20 PM
Not really. Apple make most of their money on hardware sales, if they were to release OS X for generic PCs, they would lose a lot of money. Also, they would have to support a lot more hardware, adding developing costs I assume. Or am I wrong?

No.

Also, consider this. Just to equal their computer sales profit from last quarter, Apple would have to raise their market share from under 5% to over 25%.

Think about that. They would have to quintuple their sales. Not to mention overhauling their distribution system. Their sales model. Retrain their sales and marketing force. And make big inroads in corporate/group sales, an area where Microsoft WILL take notice.

Sorry, folks...ain't gonna happen. Think you can count on one hand the number of companies who've overhauled themselves that way and stayed in business.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 04:20 PM
Of course not. Get any Mac's specs (except notebooks) - you'll find a comparable PC for 20%-50% less cost even with Windows included.
2nd question - what are you doing when you PC is broken? The answer - you open it and replace broken part with a new one - this costs you X money.
What are you doing when your Mac is broken?The answer - you send it to the Apple, they fix it - this costs you 3X money.

I'll give you 20% in some cases, but please find me a $1000 equivalent to Apple's $2000 MacBook Pro (or a $600 equivalent to Apple's $1200 MacBook).

ddubbo
Jan 23, 2007, 04:33 PM
I'll give you 20% in some cases, but please find me a $1000 equivalent to Apple's $2000 MacBook Pro (or a $600 equivalent to Apple's $1200 MacBook).
I noted - "except notebooks". The Apple notebooks really is best choice today for most of the cases you need to work with
But when you get a Mac mini - you can find about 300$ similar PC. When you get an iMac 20" for 1400$ - you can find about 1100$ solution with excellent 20" Samsung screen. Of course it'll be ugly from design point of view, but it'll do the same things as Mac can do - with same performance

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 04:38 PM
I noted - "except notebooks". The Apple notebooks really is best choice today for most of the cases you need to work with
But when you get a Mac mini - you can find about 300$ similar PC. When you get an iMac 20" for 1400$ - you can find about 1100$ solution with excellent 20" Samsung screen. Of course it'll be ugly from design point of view, but it'll do the same things as Mac can do - with same performance

The Mac mini is a special case I think, given the form factor. The only PC's I've seen in sizes even vaguely as small as the Mac mini usually cost at least as much if not more. That's a factor in the cost of the Mac mini compared to a larger $300 PC that would have the same basic hardware inside.

I will give you the iMac, but that isn't 50% cheaper, it's $300 less.... and again, there's something to be said for the simpler integrated form factor. I don't think it is ridiculously overpriced compared to its competition, given the capabilities of the iMac.

And of course there's the Mac Pro, which actually stacks up very well compared to similarly spec'd PC's.

I will definitely grant that you can find PC's with similar specs sometimes for less money, but that doesn't always translate to the form factor, which in the case of the iMac and Mac mini are not insignificant.

So I really just don't buy that Apple's prices for their hardware are so outrageous.

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 04:47 PM
I noted - "except notebooks". The Apple notebooks really is best choice today for most of the cases you need to work with
But when you get a Mac mini - you can find about 300$ similar PC. When you get an iMac 20" for 1400$ - you can find about 1100$ solution with excellent 20" Samsung screen. Of course it'll be ugly from design point of view, but it'll do the same things as Mac can do - with same performance

Not forgetting you can choose your own graphic card too and upgrade whenever ( instead of being unable to upgrade like iMacs ).

* available drivers permitting!

gwangung
Jan 23, 2007, 04:50 PM
Not forgetting you can choose your own graphic card too and upgrade whenever ( instead of being unable to upgrade like iMacs ).

* available drivers permitting!


That ability to choose is a plus for the technically astute and interested; irrelevant for the disinterested and may actually be a minus for the technically unastute.

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 04:56 PM
That ability to choose is a plus for the technically astute and interested; irrelevant for the disinterested and may actually be a minus for the technically unastute.

Such flexibility can extend a life of a machine.

My PC is 3 years old, and started with a crap graphics card. I changed the graphics card and its a fine machine now - that was the bottle neck. Had this not been possible I would have had to change the entire machine at 5 times the price.

The graphics card was OK at the time but became out dated 1 or 2 years later.

Which would I choose? New machine or new graphics card...

... easy choice. Graphics card.


And that is the great thing about PCs - you can easily change components if you like - as they become date - unlike iMacs. And this is one reason why I'd put OSX on non-Apple hardware. Plus its cheaper.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 04:56 PM
Also, if you want to get a new computer when you have an iMac, you have to get a new screen.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 04:57 PM
Not forgetting you can choose your own graphic card too and upgrade whenever ( instead of being unable to upgrade like iMacs ).

* available drivers permitting!

I haven't really seen too many all-in-one PC's (along the same line as the iMac) that have upgradeable graphics.

The iMac form factor doesn't permit anything beyond laptop GPU's.

It certainly would be an argument for some sort of Mac tower or minitower for people who don't need the power of a Mac Pro but might like a bit more upgradeability (and/or don't want the intergrated monitor) than the Mac mini offers.

Such flexibility can extend a life of a machine.

My PC is 3 years old, and started with a crap graphics card. I changed the graphics card and its a fine machine now - that was the bottle neck. Had this not been possible I would have had to change the entire machine at 5 times the price.

The graphics card was OK at the time but became out dated 1 or 2 years later.

Which would I choose? New machine or new graphics card...

... easy choice. Graphics card.

Yes, although there are always caveats. For example, I can't upgrade the GPU in my current PC any more because my motherboard and graphics technology are out of date (AGP and Socket 754). I essentially need to move to a whole new computer.

And the other problem with an older PC is that oftentimes the rest of your hardware becomes a bottleneck.

Either way, most of those issues apply most often to gamers, for which Apple doesn't specifically make a machine. The typical iMac consumer wouldn't be one to do a GPU upgrade even if one were possible.

Also, if you want to get a new computer when you have an iMac, you have to get a new screen.

And this is a surprise to who exactly? This has always been the case with all-in-one computers. Most people who all-in-one computers (from HP, Sony, etc. etc.) know that the computer and monitor are tied together.

This is just a fact of life with that form factor.

I'm not sure what the point of this discussion even is. The iMac has been selling very well for Apple, and for the market it is created for, the people who buy them don't care that the monitor is built in, or that they can't buy new graphics cards.

Certainly there are arguments to be made for other form factors (and I guess this goes back to the issue of putting OS X on PC hardware that doesn't have an equivalent in Apple's lineup), but it doesn't invalidate the stuff Apple currently does offer.

-Zadillo

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 05:02 PM
Yes, although there are always caveats. For example, I can't upgrade the GPU in my current PC any more because my motherboard and graphics technology are out of date (AGP and Socket 754). I essentially need to move to a whole new computer.

And the other problem with an older PC is that oftentimes the rest of your hardware becomes a bottleneck.

Either way, most of those issues apply most often to gamers, for which Apple doesn't specifically make a machine. The typical iMac consumer wouldn't be one to do a GPU upgrade even if one were possible.

I agree with you.

But being able to install OSX on non Apple hardware will be more flexible and cheaper for users to make the tradition. Apple would pick up more marketshare allowing OSX on non Apple hardware than the present situation.

other
Jan 23, 2007, 05:04 PM
And this is a surprise to who exactly? This has always been the case with all-in-one computers. Most people who all-in-one computers (from HP, Sony, etc. etc.) know that the computer and monitor are tied together.

This is just a fact of life with that form factor.

I'm not sure what the point of this discussion even is. The iMac has been selling very well for Apple, and for the market it is created for, the people who buy them don't care that the monitor is built in, or that they can't buy new graphics cards.

Certainly there are arguments to be made for other form factors (and I guess this goes back to the issue of putting OS X on PC hardware that doesn't have an equivalent in Apple's lineup), but it doesn't invalidate the stuff Apple currently does offer.

-Zadillo

Of course this is the case with all in one computers. My point is that Apple aren't offering any "cheap" tower computers. That's why I brought up the screen issue.

kalisphoenix
Jan 23, 2007, 05:05 PM
Of course not. Get any Mac's specs (except notebooks) - you'll find a comparable PC for 20%-50% less cost even with Windows included.

The first thing I always mention when I argue with someone who debates the merit of a Mac, based on price, is that OS X is worth $400 to me. Sure, it's available for less than that, but the cost of OS X is subsidized through hardware sales.

If $400 seems like too much to you, let's say $200. That's less than the cost of a loaded version of Windows. And let's not forget iLife (even though I feel somewhat cheated for not receiving iLife '07 with any of the computers I've bought this month ;)). $80 is what it goes for new. But subtract $280.

So my Mac mini really cost $320, the cost of a similarly-specced tower computer which wouldn't and shouldn't be placed right under my TV.

My MacBook (C2D) really cost $1100, and my wife's (CD) cost $700. Not too shabby.

But these price/performance arguments are inherently moronic because they only consider performance. I might be the only one out there, but I really like OS X a lot more than Windows. I also like my remote controls, iSights, optical audio, and the painful physical beauty of these machines. Call me a girly-man, but I like **** that looks nice.

2nd question - what are you doing when you PC is broken? The answer - you open it and replace broken part with a new one - this costs you X money.
What are you doing when your Mac is broken?The answer - you send it to the Apple, they fix it - this costs you 3X money.

It doesn't (or shouldn't, unless you try to "fix" your Mac) cost you if it's a fault in construction or design, or if it's a result of normal usage occurring in the warranty or AppleCare period. other, while an unlucky bastard, is proof of this because he has not had to pay for three logic boards for each of the computers that has been basically DOA.

As far as machines out of warranty/AppleCare are concerned, that's when taking apart your Mac is perfectly acceptable. A year or two ago I replaced the logic board in an iBook. A harrowing experience, but I got through it okay, and I'm @#$%ing stupid.

rockdog
Jan 23, 2007, 05:14 PM
instead of Apple making OS X run on cheap PCs, why not just produce lower costing Macs. End result, it's still Apple hardware but the complete package is more in line with PC prices. Again, just a crazy idea. :)

psingh01
Jan 23, 2007, 05:23 PM
I like Apple hardware/software just as much as the next guy, but some of you need to open your eyes. Macs ARE PCs now, the only real difference is that you can run OS X on the Apple PC. Oh yeah, Apple can't hide behind a different architecture anymore so it is out in the open when they get behind other manufacturers with the latest/greatest hardware. :apple:

wideblacksky
Jan 23, 2007, 05:27 PM
They already did that.

It was called the Performa line.

Now it's the Mini.

The mac mini is not a mid-level PC, it's a toy. A mid-level PC has expandable graphics, pci slots, memory, hard drives, processors, etc etc etc.

Some mac people are so far removed from the reality of what's going on out there...

It seems to me like Apple is dumping all their r&d into gadgets and toys and forgetting about computers. Instead of a $500 phone how about an affordable midrange tower? There's a good chance that after 10 years of buying mac hardware, my next box will not be an apple. I'm watching the efforts to run OSX on 3rd party hardware with great interest. I do not believe that the premium on Apple computers is justified at this point in time.

gwangung
Jan 23, 2007, 05:29 PM
I like Apple hardware/software just as much as the next guy, but some of you need to open your eyes. Macs ARE PCs now, the only real difference is that you can run OS X on the Apple PC. Oh yeah, Apple can't hide behind a different architecture anymore so it is out in the open when they get behind other manufacturers with the latest/greatest hardware. :apple:

And how often is this happening now?

wmmk
Jan 23, 2007, 05:29 PM
I smell lots and lots of copy protection on 10.5...
Or a Parallels lawsuit...

gwangung
Jan 23, 2007, 05:30 PM
Such flexibility can extend a life of a machine

For the technically astute and interested. Less so for the disinterested and technically unastute.

There was a point to my pointing out these qualifiers.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 05:53 PM
I agree with you.

But being able to install OSX on non Apple hardware will be more flexible and cheaper for users to make the tradition. Apple would pick up more marketshare allowing OSX on non Apple hardware than the present situation.

The problem as others have noted though is that it isn't all about marketshare. Apple could double or triple their marketshare but still find themselves in a much more precarious position if the sales of Mac hardware declined too much.

Aside from that, it could dramatically increase the development costs of OS X, while also interfering with its reliability (one of the things you lose when you don't control the specific hardware that your computers ship with).

There's a lot of issues that would have to be dealt with; and that isn't even counting how Microsoft would react to Apple taking them head on.

-Zadillo

The mac mini is not a mid-level PC, it's a toy. A mid-level PC has expandable graphics, pci slots, memory, hard drives, processors, etc etc etc.

Some mac people are so far removed from the reality of what's going on out there...

It seems to me like Apple is dumping all their r&d into gadgets and toys and forgetting about computers. Instead of a $500 phone how about an affordable midrange tower? There's a good chance that after 10 years of buying mac hardware, my next box will not be an apple. I'm watching the efforts to run OSX on 3rd party hardware with great interest. I do not believe that the premium on Apple computers is justified at this point in time.

What are you waiting for though? Why not make the jump now? But why bother running OS X on it? Just get Vista too, and maybe Linux. Not sure why you'd even worry about jumping through the hoops to run OS X on 3rd party hardware.

It doesn't seem like the midrange tower is going to be coming out anytime soon from Apple, and the Mac Pro is presumably more than you want/need, so I don't see a reason to continue waiting.

-Zadillo

P.S. Re: the Mac mini; Give me a break. Just because it doesn't have those things doesn't make it a "toy", any more than any other super-small factor PC's are. The Mac mini is designed to be the smallest possible PC in a very small enclosure. That doesn't make it a "toy" though.

A lot of the people who do buy those cheapo minitowers from Gateway, HP, etc. though typically aren't doing any sort of upgrades on them. They buy them cheap, use them for a year or two and then move on to the next thing. In the end, the actual "use" by the kinds of people who buy those systems isn't that different.

Chef Medeski
Jan 23, 2007, 06:01 PM
I certianly spend more money on Mac software than hardware. Don't you? Seriously. FCP Studio is $1300 bucks. It can only be sold to 5% of the PC market. Open up that market to everyone and bang, you've increased your software market 2000%. Yes, 2000%. No company can compete with that kind of growth potential. Apple would still sell computers and they'd probably sell more. With their OS becoming more commonplace, people would surely buy more of them. They're already the #4 PC manufacturer on the planet, and that's with only 5% of the OS market.

There is no possible way that releasing the OS to the world of PCs could damage the growth of Apple, Inc.

Well as tot he 2000% growth. FCP Studio's market is not all computer users. Its high end video producers/editors. Which, in this market, probably 80% (lowballing) use Macs. So.... in actuality opening it up would result in a 25% increase in market.

psingh01
Jan 23, 2007, 06:13 PM
And how often is this happening now?

The BIGGEST sticking point is the video card which have often been subpar compared to the pc offerings.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 06:16 PM
The BIGGEST sticking point is the video card which have often been subpar compared to the pc offerings.

Yes, although Apple has gotten better about that since the Intel switch. Better graphics card options on the higher end iMac and the Mac Pro, and the X1600 in the C2D MacBook Pro is one of the better performers in 15" laptops right now (even the latest X1700 and GeForce 7700 cards don't perform all that much better). Granted, the iMac also uses laptop components (hence laptop-class GPU's), but most of the PC's I see in the iMac's price range usually don't use really high-end GPU's, more often than not.

Not sure how relevant graphics card performance is on the Mac side anyway though, as they are still more than adequate for non-gaming tasks, and for gaming tasks, Macs aren't the first choice anyway.

Chef Medeski
Jan 23, 2007, 06:16 PM
Au, contraire - Microsoft is disabling Windows users' hardware if it's running a driver that's particularly crappy and sending lots of crash reports to Redmond.



And this is over with Vista.
Ummm.... some of the support for legacy hardware is gone in Vista but not legacy software. They had originally planned to start from scratch but they went back and used 2003 Server code which was complied from 2000 which used 98 which fell on the back of 95 and was largely based on 3.

And only Aero which is graphically intensive doesnt really work on legacy hardware.

Apple has been nothing but innovative. It's everyone else who's been dying on the vine.


You get what you pay for. I have no problem paying more for worry-free computing. In fact, I find Macs to be a bargain now, compared to the early 90's.


Yeah, I was gonna buy a Dull, until I saw the Powerbook's speaker grilles.
Yeah... cause Apple who innovated such little things as LED charger, hot swapping illuminated keyboards, two finger trackpad. Which are pretty old things.

Unlike companies that are coming and have wi-fi finders built in for when the computer is off. Dual screens for listening/watching media while the computer is off. A simple linux distro to watch DVD more efficiently and faster boot up. Spill proof keyboard. TABLETS.

These are all cool little innovations and there are more that Apple hasnt done in years while Windows computers are churning them out. So you are completely wrong.

I want spill proof I like the linux idea. Love the wi-fi finder. It could be just as simple as the battery meter. A button on the bottom checks for internet signals, gives a bar strength and a icon if its there is an unlocked one or not. That would be VERY NICE.

I see innovation on the other side in computers, Apple is to busy revolutionizing their Ipods... wait now its phones. :rolleyes: Even the iPod are becoming slack and outdated.

iEdd
Jan 23, 2007, 06:31 PM
Tablets? Why on earth would anyone want a tablet? :confused:

And from saying that Apple don't offer one, you want a hackintosh tablet? The OS isn't made for touching so how would it work?

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 07:00 PM
Yes, Apple is a hardware company and that were it makes its profits.

OSX is value added, almost.


The problem as others have noted though is that it isn't all about marketshare. Apple could double or triple their marketshare but still find themselves in a much more precarious position if the sales of Mac hardware declined too much.

Aside from that, it could dramatically increase the development costs of OS X, while also interfering with its reliability (one of the things you lose when you don't control the specific hardware that your computers ship with).

There's a lot of issues that would have to be dealt with; and that isn't even counting how Microsoft would react to Apple taking them head on.

-Zadillo

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 07:03 PM
Yeah... cause Apple who innovated such little things as LED charger, hot swapping illuminated keyboards, two finger trackpad. Which are pretty old things.

Unlike companies that are coming and have wi-fi finders built in for when the computer is off. Dual screens for listening/watching media while the computer is off. A simple linux distro to watch DVD more efficiently and faster boot up. Spill proof keyboard. TABLETS.

These are all cool little innovations and there are more that Apple hasnt done in years while Windows computers are churning them out. So you are completely wrong.

I want spill proof I like the linux idea. Love the wi-fi finder. It could be just as simple as the battery meter. A button on the bottom checks for internet signals, gives a bar strength and a icon if its there is an unlocked one or not. That would be VERY NICE.

I see innovation on the other side in computers, Apple is to busy revolutionizing their Ipods... wait now its phones. :rolleyes: Even the iPod are becoming slack and outdated.

You're bring really selective here. Apple has been doing a lot to push computing forward; who was the first company to actually use trackpads? Who was the first to switch to USB? WHo was the first to actually build wi-fi and wi-fi antennas into their laptops?

And we've already seen the future of the iPod (the iPhone touchscreen interface). Slack and outdated? Give me a break.

The SideShow stuff you mentioned is largely a gimmick; these are tiny little screens; who is going to sit there watching videos on those SideShow displays while the computer is off?

And the future of the Tablet platform remains to be seen; a lot of those "innovations" are things that they have been trying to push on a market that isn't asking for them. Tablet PC sales are still pretty abysmal, and UMPC is another product trying to find a market.

If there is any future in tablets, I think it will be a lot more like the iPhone interface (the phones that you dismissed), and a lot less like just sticking the regular Windows OS on a tablet.

-Zadillo

Stella
Jan 23, 2007, 07:05 PM
Tablets? Why on earth would anyone want a tablet? :confused:

And from saying that Apple don't offer one, you want a hackintosh tablet? The OS isn't made for touching so how would it work?

Err, have you seen iPhone?

Thats probably how any Apple tablet would work - that kind of gesture based interface.

And "why on earth would anyone want a tablet" statement - open your eyes and think a little. People have different needs than YOU!!

The graphics card in the iMacs maybe OK now - but your missing a point - you can't upgrade it in two years time when the games / other graphic intensive software makes the G/C sluggish.

Graphic cards don't out last the life time of a computer. GCs are dated sooner.

This is the freedom you get from non Apple hardware and of course PowerMacs. The freedom to replace hardware - its a great option to have.


Yes, although Apple has gotten better about that since the Intel switch. Better graphics card options on the higher end iMac and the Mac Pro, and the X1600 in the C2D MacBook Pro is one of the better performers in 15" laptops right now (even the latest X1700 and GeForce 7700 cards don't perform all that much better). Granted, the iMac also uses laptop components (hence laptop-class GPU's), but most of the PC's I see in the iMac's price range usually don't use really high-end GPU's, more often than not.

Not sure how relevant graphics card performance is on the Mac side anyway though, as they are still more than adequate for non-gaming tasks, and for gaming tasks, Macs aren't the first choice anyway.

iEdd
Jan 23, 2007, 07:11 PM
Thankyou for that Stella... I was referring to the ones on the market today.

Dimka
Jan 23, 2007, 07:49 PM
Thank you for very good round-up and analysis.

I think Apple does see a lot of pressure to allow virtualization, even if they do not like it. It is a new big popular thing. They can benefit from it a big way if they sell big fat server that costs a lot by itself, plus a dozen OS X server licenses for $1000 each - a profit from it will add up to more than profit from 12 current xserves.

If they end up cooperating with VMWare on something like ESX server (rather than GSX) it would be a very good capable product.

They want us to buy more of their hardware and software and they think that the best way to sell it to have people happy with their products and for that software has to be married to hardware. Virtualization helps to keep software married to vhardware, thus customers will be happy, and software will be sold, but hardware will not. Yet growing use of Mac OS X will prompt more developers to offer more products, thus wider user base will lead to more mac sales. They know that, that is why they will let it go slowly first and see how it goes. So as long as they can keep customers happy with Mac experience they can let some old blocks go. After all they made iPod to work with Windows and made BootCamp.
But a big negative indicator against all this happening is a lack of good remote use of Mac right now. Timbuktu, VNC, ARD, PCAnywhere are ok for some administration but not good for production use. Microsoft's RDC/TS is. So if the idea of people using a mac with out buying a hardware box was ok with Apple we could see more of RDC kind of applications around, yet we don't.
VMWare console provides very good remote control for it's clients and it might be the first thing that allow users to use a Mac OS X without buying a hardware box.

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 08:00 PM
The graphics card in the iMacs maybe OK now - but your missing a point - you can't upgrade it in two years time when the games / other graphic intensive software makes the G/C sluggish.

Graphic cards don't out last the life time of a computer. GCs are dated sooner.

This is the freedom you get from non Apple hardware and of course PowerMacs. The freedom to replace hardware - its a great option to have.

I do understand the point (I should mention that I don't currently own a Mac, I have a PC that I built myself). Of course, upgrading the GPU in my hand-built PC is basically a non-factor now (it has an AGP 6800GT and a socket 754 Athlon 64; at this point it does me no good that I have upgradeable graphics; my only real option is buying a completely new motherboard, RAM, video card, etc. etc.)

But my point is that the kinds of people who buy iMacs don't upgrade components; and most of the people buying those cheap Gateway and HP towers usually don't upgrade them either, even though many of them have PCI Express slots and can take GPU upgrades, etc.).

Seriously, what kind of stuff do people do with iMacs that gets hampered because of the GPU? Heck, what kind of stuff do people do with PC's for that matter? Even PC's shipping with integrated graphics like the GeForce 6100 do most everything the kinds of people buying them need, and aren't even really hampered by something like Vista.

The vast majority of people who actually buy GPU upgrades (as opposed to just buying a newer PC) are usually the enthusiast market, and people who actually need to upgrade their GPU's. But the iMac isn't part of that target market.

The iMac's primary market is not that different from the primary market for those $600-1200 Gateway and HP minitowers; they are people who buy a PC and do home and home office kind of stuff with them, and then usually buy a newer computer in 2-3 years.

gwangung
Jan 23, 2007, 08:05 PM
The BIGGEST sticking point is the video card which have often been subpar compared to the pc offerings.

For WHO?

Gaming is a good, viable segment of the market. BUt it is NOT the entire market.

This is the problem with many posters here. They have no concept of the various components of the market. They think a company HAS to appeal to ALL segments of the market. And that they have to do it with ALL or most products of their line.

They keep on ignoring what the real world is like. And what companies actually do in that real world.

Video cards are a valid thing to worry about---for SOME segments of the market. It's OK for a company to choose to not pursue certain segments.

The graphics card in the iMacs maybe OK now - but your missing a point - you can't upgrade it in two years time when the games / other graphic intensive software makes the G/C sluggish.

No, YOU'RE the one missing the point.

For large segments of the potential market, your points are irrelevant--they don't use graphic intensive software and they don't game. They can retain older technology for longer periods than technically astute people can because their needs are being taken care of by the machine they bought---and by the time it CAN'T take care of their needs, they buy a new machine---and it's at a time where it's quite, quite economically sound.

Your needs are valid...but not for everyone.

gnasher729
Jan 23, 2007, 09:02 PM
Apple doesn't have the volume to compensate for razor thin margins, and it has no need to.

As an example what razor thin margins do to a company, have a look at Gateway. The still sell (slightly) more units than Apple does. They make about one dollar profit per PC sold in a good quarter, and lose three dollars per PC in a bad quarter. Market caps is about $720mil. In other words, Apple could buy Gateway using about six percent of its cash, and double the number of computers sold, if they were mad enough to do this.

iEdd
Jan 23, 2007, 09:05 PM
gwangung, I agree. Also, if someone wants to be upgrading something all the time, shouldn't they buy the best to begin with (ie. Mac Pro), which can be upraded anyway. For everyone else, RAM and HDD upgrades suffice.

Your needs are valid...but not for everyone.
Hehe, seems Stella needs to take his own advice:
open your eyes and think a little. People have different needs than YOU!!
:D

gnasher729
Jan 23, 2007, 09:12 PM
So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.?

Dell spends (apparently) more money on research and development than Apple. Could it be that it is cheaper to develop new versions of MacOS X, plus Mac hardware, plus a few other bits like iPods and phones than to develop PCs and get Windows running on them?

dukebound85
Jan 23, 2007, 09:13 PM
You can send all the pictures you want, but I'm still voting for the one on the right.

Well so would I but you are forgetting the biggest drawback...price. Building your own pc is alot cheaper than buying a Macpro. Looks are secondary to functionality and if the uglier pc could run osx then ill be in that camp with no hesitation

Zadillo
Jan 23, 2007, 09:28 PM
Well so would I but you are forgetting the biggest drawback...price. Building your own pc is alot cheaper than buying a Macpro. Looks are secondary to functionality and if the uglier pc could run osx then ill be in that camp with no hesitation

To be fair, building a PC with the specs of the Mac Pro wouldn't be that much cheaper, given the costs of the components involved. But I would assume your point would be a lower cost custom PC that doesn't have an equivalent in the Mac product line.

Either way, people have already explained why this won't work for Apple; if Apple gets into the realm where people are just buying (or pirating) OS X and not buying Apple hardware, it could be problematic for the Mac product line as a whole (not to mention peripheral issues such as the Apple/MS relationship, how Apple would support all that non-Apple hardware, etc.).

-Zadillo

psingh01
Jan 23, 2007, 09:40 PM
Yes, although Apple has gotten better about that since the Intel switch. Better graphics card options on the higher end iMac and the Mac Pro, and the X1600 in the C2D MacBook Pro is one of the better performers in 15" laptops right now (even the latest X1700 and GeForce 7700 cards don't perform all that much better). Granted, the iMac also uses laptop components (hence laptop-class GPU's), but most of the PC's I see in the iMac's price range usually don't use really high-end GPU's, more often than not.

Not sure how relevant graphics card performance is on the Mac side anyway though, as they are still more than adequate for non-gaming tasks, and for gaming tasks, Macs aren't the first choice anyway.

What customers want are more options. They can keep selling what they have, but they need to allow more options (at realistic prices) for those that want to upgrade. Obviously Mac isn't a real choice for games, but it is a chicken and egg thing. If you don't have the horsepower, you end up with Warcraft 3 and The Sims. When it comes to graphics though, we can't just limit it to games. There is alot of work out there to be done. Some of us want to use these machines in various fields like research. Where having the extra technology will be a benefit to what can be done. The entire market is not just home users who want to use iPhoto and iLife or Final Cut :)

Chef Medeski
Jan 23, 2007, 09:44 PM
gwangung, I agree. Also, if someone wants to be upgrading something all the time, shouldn't they buy the best to begin with (ie. Mac Pro), which can be upraded anyway. For everyone else, RAM and HDD upgrades suffice.


Hehe, seems Stella needs to take his own advice:

:D

Umm..... not everyone has the cash for a Mac Pro of needs 4 cores of destruction. I suggest people buy used G4 (Pre-metal cases). Those go for generally less than $500. Can be VERY fast and have all the expandability you could need. Only problem is no warranty, but generally the PowerMac are the least of your worry with warranties. It either works or it doesnt. They dont break.

Maybe they should sell some Refurbished Sawtooth/Digital Audio computers with Airport Extreme and BT. But drop in a Conroe. That would make for a very interesting computer. Plus everyone would love the nostalgia/speed.

Whistleway
Jan 23, 2007, 09:52 PM
OS X on Thinkpads !! It seems too good to be true.

ReanimationLP
Jan 23, 2007, 09:52 PM
I love how the CEO of VMware bragged about their software being used to run illegal hacked versions of Mac OS X.

I've run it, and boy, is it a pain in the ass. Just to update, you must enter 6,000 damn commands, wait for a hacked patch, and even though the patch is hacked, it doesnt have the actual kernel, I believe they're still using 10.4.4 as the hacked OSX86 kernel. Once you do get it running, and it takes a very long time and certain hardware, it can be as fast as a new Mac, but its still a pain.

I hope :apple: works on the protection in Leopard final more. Because I've seen beta versions running on regular PCs. o.o

Its all been done at www.insanelymac.com.

Though, some people that ran the hacked versions went out and bought a real mac, seeing how great the OS is.

Besides, the hacked versions can be buggy, due to the fact that some drivers for hardware was created by teams of rather smart people, but isnt sactioned offically by Apple. Remember kitties, when you take OSX, open it up for any hardware to work on it, it'll suck just as bad as Windows does when it comes to hardware. Buggy drivers = Crashy compy.

RBR2
Jan 23, 2007, 11:12 PM
Thank you for very good round-up and analysis.

I think Apple does see a lot of pressure to allow virtualization, even if they do not like it. It is a new big popular thing. They can benefit from it a big way if they sell big fat server that costs a lot by itself, plus a dozen OS X server licenses for $1000 each - a profit from it will add up to more than profit from 12 current xserves.

If they end up cooperating with VMWare on something like ESX server (rather than GSX) it would be a very good capable product.

They want us to buy more of their hardware and software and they think that the best way to sell it to have people happy with their products and for that software has to be married to hardware. Virtualization helps to keep software married to vhardware, thus customers will be happy, and software will be sold, but hardware will not. Yet growing use of Mac OS X will prompt more developers to offer more products, thus wider user base will lead to more mac sales. They know that, that is why they will let it go slowly first and see how it goes. So as long as they can keep customers happy with Mac experience they can let some old blocks go. After all they made iPod to work with Windows and made BootCamp.
But a big negative indicator against all this happening is a lack of good remote use of Mac right now. Timbuktu, VNC, ARD, PCAnywhere are ok for some administration but not good for production use. Microsoft's RDC/TS is. So if the idea of people using a mac with out buying a hardware box was ok with Apple we could see more of RDC kind of applications around, yet we don't.
VMWare console provides very good remote control for it's clients and it might be the first thing that allow users to use a Mac OS X without buying a hardware box.

It appears that the server market, and to a lesser extent the workstation market, will be one of the big areas where virtualization is applied in the business world. M$ bought the virtualization technology for that specific reason. With the arrival of commonly available mult-core processors various cores can be assigned various OSes (and applications) to handle whatever the company needs run. As the power (and number of cores) grows I would expect virtualization will become more mainstream. Just imagine a server that could run a finite element analysis program that has not been updated since DOS, but still fills a need, simultaneously with Vista or whatever M$ is then pushing, along with Linux and OS X for those so inclined. Each independent of the other and able to assign additional corese to one or the other depending upon demand.