OSX for AMD/Intel

[spuncan]

this would fit into all the categories
no pc has had OSX AMD/Intel and its the future cuz everyone knows that once Unix (osx) and linux make a standard gui version it will pretty much crush the windows sector of microsoft and since XP has pretty much failed Apple has to release something big if they ever want to go up to at least 10% again. So in the future (if this happened) this is how it would play out Apple makes Billions on OSX AMD/INTEL. AMD/INTEL computers become the comsumer computer and Business computer but Apple since the are rich with a steady flow of cash can switch to developers only (TiBook, Powermac). Maybe Apple would sell Imacs still but not as much. there this would be cool because apple would still control everything but Microsoft would only make Software not Operating Software.

 

[joey j]

> Apple has to release something big if they ever want to go up
to at least 10% again. So in the future (if this happened) this is how it
would play out Apple makes Billions on OSX AMD/INTEL.

Uh, no, they won't, because no one will buy it, because 1) it has NO apps,
in case you haven't noticed, and 2) Apple will have to charge an unholy
sum for it to sustain the venture, let alone turn a decent profit.

You have now become the umpteenth individual I have asked, in less than a
week, to explain to me precisely _how_ Apple is going to overcome the
applications barrier to entry.

So how, pray tell, will Apple overcome this, oh, minor problem?

 

[dantec]

Did...

Apple ever have a 10% market share?

 

[largon203]

It should be reasonably easy to port!

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
XP has a unix core doesn't it, So does NT??? I think
If this is the case porting xp or nt software, games[...osx uses opengl just like everyone else] Buisiness software...etc. If XP is unix and osx is unix then in theory a simple patch should make xp software compatible with OSX
Largo

can't make a silk purse from a sows ear!!!

 

[dantec]

no...

NT was developed with IBM in M$'s early days. M$ then stole it and continued building it in the shadows while Win 95, 98, & ME premiered... Then it was renamed as win 2000 which is essentially Win NT 4 with a face lift and a logical attempt to things...

Win XP is even trying to make this attempt more logical but they still have unsuceded...

Mac OS 10 is built on neXt which was based on Unix in the early 90's. So if NT somehow stole some stuff from Unix it was probabely more recent code making it different... (but I still firmly believe NT is developed on NT code!)

 

[jstr]

xp doesn't have unix core

XP doesn't have a 'unix core'. Infact the closest thing it has to a unix core is NTFS which is technically posix compliant, however all the posix features are not implemented in XP (Ie NTFS allows you to do store files with the same file name but different caps, however XP flips out if you have to files with the same directory with the same file name, but with different capitalization) Every thing else about XP is completely different the linux.

I don't belive there was anything to underhanded in the spit between IBM and Microsoft on the NTFS developement. IBM and Microsoft were working together to create OS/2 and at some stage Microsoft thought it to be a good idea to change their devolopement to match their already successful windows API designs. IBM continued with OS/2 and eventualy released it.

anyhow thats my 2 cents.

Jesse Chilcott
http://jesse.bur.st

 

[wrldwzrd89]

The UNIX core thing is a myth. The only thing Windows XP and UNIX have in common is the origin of the kernel (both came from a derivative of one of the original UNIXes). However, both have been heavily modified since then, and are hardly the same anymore.

 

[rhoadie]

Win NT was actually built from scratch

"When Microsoft Windows NT® was released to manufacturing on July 27, 1993, Microsoft met an important milestone: the completion of a project begun in the late 1980s to build an advanced new operating system from scratch. "Windows NT represents nothing less than a fundamental change in the way that companies can address their business computing requirements," Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said at its release.

That change is represented in the product's name: "NT" stands for new technology. To maintain consistency with Windows 3.1, a well-established home and business operating system at the time, the new Windows NT operating system began with version 3.1. Unlike Windows 3.1, however, Windows NT 3.1 was a 32-bit operating system."

source:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx

 

[munkees]

XP has and does not have a unix core. Windows NT was not built from scratch, it was built from win 95. the joint project that MS and IBM had left IBM with the code it was called OS/2. If MS developed an OS from scratch it would off not sucked so much.

XP was developed from winsows 2000, which was built on windows nt, which was a rebuild of windows 95, that move more stablility, virtual device drivers, and Preentive Multitasking overhaul. That why MS has always been able to backwards run old software.

PS win 95 was built from 3.1 which was built from notepad which was built from dos edit, which they stole

 

[risc]

Did Apple ever have a 10% market share?

Back in the Apple II days they had a lot more than 10%

 

[Mord]

oh my god, your such a genius for figuring this out NO ONE has thought of this before and their has never been a million threads on it.

 

[edesignuk]

Jesse Chilcott
http://jesse.bur.st

Er, Jesse (and everyone else I suppose), this thread is from 2002!!!!.