Oh NO....OSX on a dell

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Jovian9, Jun 6, 2005.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Jovian9

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Location:
    Planet Zebes
    #1
    So if OSX is able to run on Intel and the x86 architecture.....then we will have people buying dulls and installing OSX on them. Therefore Apple will see a decrease in hardware sales d/t the fact that a lot of people who switch to Mac will no longer have to buy the hardware. We will possibly see an increase in virii(?sp?), adware, and spyware (or at least attempts) d/t this too.
    So Apple might be gaining tens of millions of people spending $100+ on OSX but losing millions of people spending $500-$3000 on Mac Mini's to PowerMacs.

    I like the idea that they are pursuing a reliable chip maker, but I'd still rather not have most people just using home built PC's or dulls with OSX. I'm rather attached to the idea that everyone with a Mac has a great looking, well designed machine.

    Maybe I'm just missing something here.
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    #2
    You're missing something... OSX still will be Mac only.
     
  3. macrumors 68030

    Duff-Man

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    #3
    Duff-Man says....PLEASE...read some of the hundred other threads and you will see that this has been talked about already in many of them. And read the press releases and info from the announcment instead of spreading more FUD....oh yeah!
     
  4. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    BUT, the x86 Macs will run Windows. So much for VirtualPC!
     
  5. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #5
    Where did you get that idea?

    Apple is making Macs, not PC compatibles.

    Just because they are going to use Intel processors doesn't mean that Apple is going to change everything to match the current PC hardware architecture.

    At best, what we could get is a faster VirtualPC.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    #6
    Or we could get Wine running on OS X and run Windows apps at nearly full speed and with 3d support :D.
     
  7. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Because Phil Schiller has said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent the x86 Macs from running Windows along side OSX. Given the choice of emulated or real Windows...
     
  8. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #8
    A special, rewritten version of Windows... but not the same Windows that runs on PC compatibles.

    So that is assuming that Microsoft is going to make this version.

    That is a pretty wild assumption. :eek:
     
  9. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    I'm liking this scenario better the more I think about it. In a couple of years I might be able to dump my BDU (big dumb ugly) Windows box and just reboot my Mac into Windows whenever I want to play a game or some such.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    #10
    The x86 Macs will use a custom bootloader different from Windows' BIOS. OS X will only run on these PCs if they have the proper architecture. Now....Someone may work on a way to get windows running on this bootloader, but it will be a third party doing it. OS X will only run on non-authorized machines if people do it illegally, which will probably be hard to do unless they emulate all windows drivers (or make their own).

    Hopefully WINE will be able to emulate well enough that Windows apps will run fine on OSX itself....including games. It definatly is possible if it's worked on hard enough.
     
  11. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #11
    Apple won't stand in the way if people want to do the work to make Windows run on a Mac, but they aren't offering to help make it run either. Apple won't be writing the necessary device drivers, we can pretty much count on that.
     
  12. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Better get on the horn and tell Phil about that then. He never said anything about a special version. He said there wasn't any reason why you couldn't do it and Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent it.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Rocksaurus

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #13
    So could you extract this bootloader and put it on say... an AMD? :cool:
     
  14. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    I'd think the main issue would be sound subsystem drivers for Windows and a method for identifying and selecting the Windows boot volume. Not even sure you'd need to emulate the PC boot ROMs, but it's not like they're very complex. None of this is brain surgery I shouldn't think.
     
  15. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #15
    He said that Apple wouldn't do anything to prevent it. You're reading in the rest. ;)
     
  16. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    He said more than that. He also said that people probably will run Windows on them, which means Apple knows it can be done.
     
  17. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #17
    I don't know which of these 600 threads I mentioned this in (this place is hopping!), but the current state of Linux on Macs should give a good indication of what this will be like. Hardware support lags behind, because Apple change things from model to model. Airport Extreme still doesn't work there, power management, fan control, modems, sound are all hit or miss even on models that have been around for a while, and goes on and on. And that's with the ability to modify the base OS!

    A hosted Windows is a much saner way to go.
     
  18. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #18
    Solve this for us then... put in the exact quote.

    Don't paraphrase it... the exact quote please.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    well i think we'll still have our miserable 5200-class video cards :rolleyes:

    would we get windows-like 3dfx without DX9 support?
     
  20. Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #20
    Here's the quote I found on CNET:

     
  21. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #21
    Thanks.

    I guess we'll see.

    I was just talking with a friend who is no longer restricted by his NDA who has been working with this (the developer) hardware. He didn't think that plain Windows could be installed and run on it. The hardware is too different.
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #22
    LMFAO!!!
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #23
    What is different about it? An Intel x86 PC is a Intel x86 PC whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not.
     
  24. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #24
    Why won't SunOS boot on a Mac Color Classic? It has the same 68030 as a Sun/3.
     
  25. macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #25
    Well, then a PowerPC 604e system is a PowerPC 604e system whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not... Right?

    Ever try to install AIX on a PowerMacintosh 9600? Or any Mac OS on an IBM workstation... or even an Apple Workgroup Server 500/700 (they only run AIX even though they are carrying a fancy Apple logo and run on the same processors found in the Power Macintoshes of that time)

    And a 68040 system is a 68040 system whether it has a fancy Apple logo on it or not... Right?

    Ever try to install NEXTSTEP on a Quadra 950? Or System 7 on a NeXTstation?

    There is a lot that is needed to make hardware compatible with these operating systems. The fact that IBM didn't lock down what was needed to make PC compatibles is why all these other companies can make them today.


    Like I said, we'll see. I don't know anyone who would have an opportunity to try this currently, but I'm sure once the developer hardware starts showing up we'll start hearing reports one way or another.
     

Share This Page