Marklar - OSX on x86 (AMD/Intel)

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by LVzardoz, May 27, 2003.

  1. LVzardoz macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #1
    I personally have a lot more faith in the quality and utility of OS X more than I do of Apple hardware. Why won't Apple just release Marklar, OSX on x86 and spread its OS to the mass market?

    Yes, I would anticipate that Apple's computer hardware sales might take a hit. Actually, that would be a good thing. If would give them plenty of incentive to make Apple more competitive in that area.

    There are plenty of religiously loyal Apple fanatics that would be wary of jumping to cheaper generic x86 products, thus ensuring that Apple would keep at least half of its core hardware market intact. If Apple's hardware is as good as many here suggest, Apple should remain the "preferred" hardware for OS X and Apple's designer skills would still be a significant selling point.

    The big plus for Apple could be a huge flood of new revenue from x86 OS X and software sales from those who thought about buying a Mac but were put off by inflated costs and underpowered performance.

    For those Mac fanatics who blindly insist that "GHz" doesn't matter, OS X could prove whether that is true or not by competing on the same CPU platform. Furthermore, if the forthcoming PPC970/80 CPUs are supposed to so great for OS X then that CPU platform should still be the preferred high-end platform.

    By putting OS X out there for the x86, Apple could demonstrate its move to greater openness and away from elitist, overpriced pretentiousness, which is how most non-Apple folks currently view the Mac.

    Now that Apple has moved to a highly-respected Unix core with OS X, Apple is given much greater credibility among influential tech-oriented Linux fans. Clearly OS X is a much better user experience for the average person than Linux. If the hardware price came down I have no doubt that many Linux fans would flock to OS X. Linux would likely become a server-only OS.

    The move to OS X on x86 would undoubtedly garners tons of free publicity for Apple and a snowballing public awareness from influential favorable technical reviews. Its a big story when Apple's David seriously takes on Goliath Microsoft. If Apple was viewed as a more egalitarian entity, there would be plenty of writers that couldn't wait to take Microsoft down a peg or two.

    Considering the increasing wariness of Microsoft's monopolistic practices, I would predict that OS X could grab a 25% share of desktop operating systems within three years of introduction of OS X on x86. That's a lot of cash.

    A risk? You bet. But that is what Apple used to be about.
     
  2. mmmdreg macrumors 65816

    mmmdreg

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #2
    Won't all the appz have to be re-written? And they make more money through their hardware than OSX anyhow. It's not really viable right now I don't think
     
  3. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #3
    OMG I can't believe I'm responding to this but I guess I need something to do while I wait for my d/l to complete.

    Long story short OS X on generic x86 hardware would kill apple. OS X on generic x86 hardware wouldn't run any better than Windows. In fact, it would probably run worse because Windows has had years to "perfect" it's required bloating to ensure it supports millions of different hardware and sofware configurations and tons of legacy crap that should have been killed off years ago. The trump card that Apple has is how well it's hardware and software plays together because Apple keeps it a closed system. Is it perfect? No. But, speaking in generalities, Macs are much less conflict/error prone than PCs are.

    I don't want to see OS X "released" to the x86 masses anymore than I want to see my favorite dog get it's hind legs ripped off by a rusty chain and forced to crawl, on bloody stumps, across a field of broken glass towards safety only to bleed to death and die inches from possible salvation.


    Lethal
     
  4. LVzardoz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #4
    Since OS X is based on a Unix core, the amount of rewriting should be much less than rewriting from OS 9 to OS X and probably the same as rewriting for the PPC970 which most presume will be Apple's next preferred processor.

    Developing and selling software should be far less expensive than hardware and I believe, in the longer run, OS X could provide much more revenue than Apple's desktop hardware.

    Who is making more money in the PC area now, hardware oriented IBM or software-oriented Microsoft? It's not even close.
     
  5. mmmdreg macrumors 65816

    mmmdreg

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #5
    IBM is not a monopoly. If Apple entered the market, nor will it be. Microsoft will dominate.
     
  6. LVzardoz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #6
    I don't understand why some Mac fanatics continue to try to mislead people. Bloat is a software issue. Linux or BSD Unix on x86 don't suffer the exagerrated problems you envision.

    OS X does, however, have a big advantage over Linux/BSD due it's origins as a "user-friendly desktop OS" in constast to the "programmer-friendly server OS" origins of Linux/BSD Unix.

    If an Apple OS X x86 solution was truly superior to other vendors, wouldn't that tend to validate Apple's hold on the high-end of its hardware market and enhance its reputation? On the other hand, if Apple's hardware skills are inferior to others, they might have to get more realistic about their pricing strategy. Seems like a Win-Win (no pun) to me.
     
  7. richie macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #7
    Hardware configuration is one of the main things that still bugs me about linux on x86.. esoteric hardware still provides headaches, in my experience at least.

    This whole conversation has been done to death in countless threads. Apple makes its money off hardware margins. Opening up to x86, even in a restricted sense, would require them to push more profit from software. I don't want to have to buy each of the iApps separately from the OS, or anything like that.
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    Yes, and Linux has just taken the consumer market by storm w/it's unmatched easy of use and plug-and-play ablities that make hardware additions so easy the computer practically opens the box and physically intsalls the hardware w/o you. If OS X, or any OS, supported the amount of hardware that Windows does it would be a bloated whale as well.

    And why did Apple kill the clones? Oh, that's right they were making cheaper machines and the lack of hardware sales was leading Apple down the lane to never, never land. But how could that be when all those clones were running Apple software? Should Apple have been raking in the software dough?

    Anyway, my d/l is done so I'm going to bed now. Night all.

    EDIT: Final though. I'm not a fanatic so I'd appriciate it if you didn't call me one. Thank you and good night.

    Lethal
     
  9. X-Baz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    #9
    Part of the convenience of OSX is that it "just works" - if you plug in a new device on OSX it either works or it doesn't. On Linux you have to load the drivers. On windows, it asks you for a driver. Because on OSX (nearly) all the drivers are already loaded on your drive as part of the OS - the system is just waiting for the signal to use it. Shovel that onto generic x86 hardware and you would need thousands of unused drivers just sat there taking up tons of space, and needing to be checked every time a device was plugged in.

    Plus I read that 90% of Apple's revenue comes from hardware sales. So endangering that revenue stream would be suicide.
     
  10. phaeton macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    #10
    Re: Marklar - OSX on x86 (AMD/Intel)

    honestly... that's what it's all about

    a lot of people would buy a ferrari with a volkswagen motor in it if they sold it in a lower pricerange. not that vw is bad but it has no horse on it.
     
  11. LVzardoz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #11
    There is nothing to prevent Apple from having a tiered "certified hardware compatibility list" much as Microsoft did for Windows NT. Microsoft stated that they would not support hardware that had not been certified.

    BTW, having thousands of unused drivers is hardly a problem when 80GB drives are commonplace. Some of the newer distributions of Linux are getting quite good at autodetection of hardware. I suspect that if OS X was made available on x86, there would be lots of Linux and BSD Unix folks willing to port drivers to OS X.
     
  12. mrjamin macrumors 65816

    mrjamin

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Strongbadia
    #12
    a pc will always be a pc, no matter what OS you have on it, yes; some are better than others BUT they're always really really annoyingly susceptible (sp?) to MANY more problems than a mac. I run numerous OS's on my pc and i still prefer my iBook hands down.
     
  13. hugemullens macrumors 6502a

    hugemullens

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #13
    If, and i hope no time soon, apple went to x86 it would be with apple only hardware. Apple sells the wholle pacakage. A tightly intergrated solution thats works because apple has control of every aspect of thier computers. You will never see os X on a dell. That would be the end of Apple. The only way they can survive is hardware sales or insanely high lisnece fee's to major vendors. When apple has to charge 100 dollar to a vendor per lisnce to make money, microsoft will charge 25, and put apple out of bussiness so quick it wouldnt be funny.
     
  14. bokdol macrumors 6502a

    bokdol

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    VA
    #14
    Re: Marklar - OSX on x86 (AMD/Intel)

    please note intel is getting away from the mhz myth too. their centrino line proves that more mhz is not always faster.
     
  15. LVzardoz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #15
    AMD also uses a different rating, but this does NOT mean that the processing power of the Apple G4 is anywhere near comparable to faster P4 and AMD CPUs.

    GHz is not absolute but it is also not irrelevant as some Apple devotees would have you believe.
     
  16. petee macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Location:
    Asheboro, North Carolina
    #16
    a pc will always be a pc, no matter what OS you have on it, yes; some are better than others BUT they're always really really annoyingly susceptible (sp?) to MANY more problems than a mac.

    Umm, you do realize that all the components of an apple are the same as a PC EXCEPT for the crappy G4 chipset. I agree with the above poster... if Linux can do it then so can Apple. Don't forget that linux has MORE market share than Apple right now despite being only 7-8 years old. People are looking for an alternative. THey just don't want to pay an arm and a leg. Imagine going to a PC clone website like Alienware and configuring a nice computer and under the OS option, checking OSX.

    I get tired of hearing over and over how people are stupid or clueless for "prefering" PC's to Macs but in a market system such as ours, people have been trained to look for value. Apple's hardware will be the death of Apple. Since Jobs took over Apple has LOST marketshare, despite a wonderful new OS, easy-to-use tools, and some serious market hype. It seems that something has to change. I don't think that the 970 is going to be Apple's savior. THere was an article on OSnews about some speculation of Apple only gonig to software. I found it interesting. I don't think that Apple is going the x86 route thougg I think that it would be a good idea. Apple won't go under because of it just become more and more irrelevant.
     
  17. LVzardoz thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    #17
    The 1984 commercial video

    Just in case you haven't seen Apple's 1984 commercial, someone sent this link to me:

    http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/1984.html

    BE WARNED: this is broadband-only (13MB *.mov)
     
  18. maraczc macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #18
    What would be the reason to buy Apple if OS X was availible on all systems? Seriously is there one logical reason (apart from design, and to avoid buying from Microsoft)? No. Sales wouldn't just take a hit, they'd drop to nothing. Apple has outdated technology and the hardware for the price sucks. Without the OS and applications, there is absolutly nothing going for Apple.
     
  19. besson3c macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #19
    petee:

    Where did you read that Linux has more market share than Apple?

    What evidence do you have that Apple has lost market share since Steve Jobs took over?

    What is your definition of market share?
     
  20. Jimong5 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    #20
    *sigh*
    I am sooooooooooooo frickin tired of these threads..... I used this in another thread about 1 button mice...
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page