http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/02/ebay_osx_booting_dell/
The hardware only needs a ROM uppdate, no other hacks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare? [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/02/ebay_osx_booting_dell/
The hardware only needs a ROM uppdate, no other hacks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Think THX
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.
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.
How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware....
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).
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.
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.
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.
apple turns into another miscrosoft? ...
.. yeah why not.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Apples 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 VMWares 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 VMWares cost.
http://www.xensource.com/products/xen_enterprise/
The point being that Apples OS X could be made available as a virtual host where driver issues could be strictly controlled. With Apples 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 Apples 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,
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 VMWares 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 VMWares cost.
http://www.xensource.com/products/xen_enterprise/
The point being that Apples OS X could be made available as a virtual host where driver issues could be strictly controlled. With Apples 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 Apples 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,
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.
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).
Or simply run the free VMWare Player or Server software on top of a stripped down Linux kernel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. (It is actually done with binary protection.)
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/
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. (It is actually done with binary protection.)
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/
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.
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.
This just bolsters my previous argument.
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.
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
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