rumors of Mac OSX on x86

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by axel2078, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. axel2078 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    #1
    I apologize if this isn't in the right thread. Mods, please move if it isn't. I was wondering if any of you guys have heard anything about Apple releasing a version of Mac OS X for x-86 based machines? In last month's edition of Maximum PC, they reviewed one of the new Mac machines and there was a snippet in the article where the editors said they would bet that Apple releases an x-86 version of Mac OS X before Microsoft can get Vista rolled out for sale. This really caught my attention because I would really love to run Mac OS X on my home computers. The only caveat is that I can't afford to buy the actual Apple machines. To me, it would be terrific if this is true because my wife prefers Apple and I'm sure many Windows users would switch over.
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    If Apple had half a brain they would market what is their best product. Its software OSX not hardware. Not marketing OSX or a lite version for PCs is just more brain dead stuff from the PPC boys.:D
     
  3. DavidLeblond macrumors 68020

    DavidLeblond

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #3
    We've done this one to death. Apple is a computer company, not a software company. They make their money off of selling the hardware. They won't be releasing OS X for the PC.
     
  4. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #4
    Not going to happen.

    Apple makes its money selling computers, not software. Without OSX there would be no incentive to buy a Mac and Apple could never hope to recoup the losses due to what would be a total collapse in Macintosh sales by directly competing with Microsoft in selling an Operating System. Remember, the vast, vast majority of PC users don't know about any other operating system besides Windows and are unwilling to attempt something different. This is why MS is going to stay the juggernaut for a very long time.

    Another problem would be that Apple would have to give up its total hardware/software control, making the OS bloated as it had to cope with many more configurations and components. OSX would no longer be as user friendly as it is now.

    Apple makes way more money now by charging US$599 and up for OSX and throwing in a free Mac and then charging US$129 for an OS upgrade than it could by selling OSX to all PC users, 99% of whom won't buy it, for a flat US$129.

    It just wouldn't be a great business plan.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    We use to hear the same stuff about Hardware and PPC and now Apple is using Intel. LOL. You make a great product then sell it. Mac OSX is a great product.
     
  6. Heb1228 macrumors 68020

    Heb1228

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #6
    No you don't. The two arguments are nowhere near the same.

    Argument:
    Apple makes its money selling hardware SO they won't allow their software to run on others' machines SINCE that would allow people to use their OS without purchasing Apple hardware.

    How do PPC processors have anything whatsoever to do with that argument?
     
  7. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #7

    The only way I could think of how it is being related is everyone use to be saying that apple would never go over to intel and use x86 chips.

    And now look at what they are using. Intel and to a lot of the people it was like hell freezing over.
    If for example Jobs stated at MWSF OSX is going to be released to all PC (not giong to happen this year) I can promise you that a lot of people saying never going to happen and ones calling it a stupid idea would be saying it a great idea and following there blind apple worship.
     
  8. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #8

    ummm... apple has x86 machines therefore they have x86 os x... Darwin (the kernel) has always compiled on x86 and ppc.
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    Its like Apple saying here Microsoft, we want you to continue to dominate the world. We want to sell PCs with the Mac OS. Macs are PCs now. If there ever was a time to grab back market now is it. The OS is made, for less then a buck they can get back over $100.00 those are great margins and is what has helped microstink take over the world while Apple wants to sell......rebranded hardware:eek:
     
  10. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #10
    The difference here is, it was mostly us not feeling right leaving PowerPC, hoping and praying IBM and Apple had something clever to show the world how powerful our beloved PowerPC chips were, when in actuality neither IBM nor Motorola had the capacity, technology, or financial backing to continue developing chips for essentially one or two customers...

    Selling OS X doesn't "not feel right" - it just doesn't make any business sense. It won't happen.

    There has to be hundreds of threads in dozens of forums on the internet clearly explaining how what you just said doesn't make any sense. Do a google search.
     
  11. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #11
    And you know so much about the exact internal costs of Apple's OS development how?... :confused:
     
  12. wmmk macrumors 68020

    wmmk

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Location:
    The Library.
    #12
    im so confused! OSx is on x86! last time i checked, it ran on some very nice x86 machines called macbook, macbook pro, iMac, and mac mini:rolleyes:

    did you mean "generic x86 hardware"?
     
  13. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13

    Why did you post that twice, 13 minutes apart?

    And really, if you think Intel Macs are "rebranded hardware", you CLEARLY have not seen any in real life. I have yet to see any PC that had anything even close to the same level of refinement, class, and style as any Macintosh. The best they seem to be able to come up with is cutting giant holes in the sides of beige boxes that have been spray-painted black, and installing plexiglass windows so you can see a really ugly motherboard with lots of blue and red LEDs placed randomly that serve no purpose.
     
  14. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #14
    I don't think Apple should sell out to the general market of computers, nor do I believe Apple should have ditched the PPC processors unless they had no other choice. Seeing how far behind the PPC's were lagging, they had no choice and I really don't can't complain because it's faster, but I would have rathered a G5 laptop a few years ago, and a G6 for WWDC
     
  15. MacDonaldsd macrumors 65816

    MacDonaldsd

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Location:
    London , UK
    #15
    Mac OS X on apple hardware only.

    Reason mac os x works so great is that apple knows all its hardware inside out which is not the case for windows. I don't see any reason for apple to make genric os for PCs
     
  16. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #16
    Apple will never do that.

    Mac OS X will become as bloated and as unstable as Windows due to bad drivers at that point.

    Plus then the rampant piracy.
     
  17. Rare macrumors member

    Rare

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #17
    I believe this is a large amount of the reasons why OS X runs so well - because it is engineered specially to run on specific hardware, not the £20 motherboard that belongs to Joe Bloggs.

    The hardware for Macs is quite overpriced compared to if you built a same spec machine yourself, but because it comes with OS X it makes it worth it, one must argue though, macBooks are very very reasonably priced - I couldn't find a dual core of the same spec for the same price anywhere.
     
  18. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #18

    never say never.

    I just point to the intel chips.
    Apple will never go over to intel. (well that was a load of crap. Just go look up that rumor thread and read earily on people screaming never)

    It is unlikely yeah it is. but never say never.

    Also windows drivers are there to get the comuter up and running and it ment to have correct drivers installed later on. But also Apple loads a lot of bloat in useless drivers onto there computers (tons of printer drivers all the laungage packs. Really put on a few basic ones and be done with it and leave verythind else on the CD to be installed later)

    Just never say never. Apple may do it one day and that day people screaming never will be saying how great it is.

    I think it a bad idea to that for apple because it means going head to head with M$ on M$ own turf and Apple can not win going head to head with M$. M$ has to much money to do that and could easy push Apple out. Right now Apple not going head to head with them. They are fighting M$ in a different way by staying on there own hardware. But they dont want to fight M$ head to head. M$ can easily pull some things that would really hurt apple. Plus Office support and delevpoment, well there goes Apple in the bussiness world cannt compete there with out office. things like that.

    But can I see apple doing that one day. Yeah but not any time soon.
     
  19. Kidman13 macrumors regular

    Kidman13

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #19
    Well that's a bad move on Apple's part I think. I mean sure a hardware company like Dell is real big but then again it does not even compare to Microsoft. A SOFTWARE company.

    I believe that the money lies in software, not hardware.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    Some kind of mistake, sorry about the double post. Look Macs are now 99.999% Pc parts. Thats the facts. Apple makes nice cases and a great OS but they are PCs now. Fancy cases but its the OS. Apple has turned into a great software company, just market last years OSX edition for pc users to buy. $119:) yeah baby yeah!
     
  21. dpaanlka macrumors 601

    dpaanlka

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    As much as you might not believe it or see justifcation for it, many people buy Macs also because of how thin, ergenomic, stylish, or lightweight they are. It's not just the OS.
     
  22. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #22
    Apple did this in the 90s and it failed miserably. Why would they make the same mistake twice?
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    They didnt market it to the people,just a couple of odd companys was it. Consumer is King. Sell to the consumer and he will reward you. Look at at Pods. Play games then be happy with 4% new Pc sales.:rolleyes:
     
  24. matticus008 macrumors 68040

    matticus008

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #24
    Not for Apple. If Apple were a startup company entering the market today, you'd be correct. But there are far too many large, deeply entrenched wheels that would have to switch directions for Apple to become a profitable software vendor--one which would only work if they continued to have strong hardware sales during the transition. The release of OS X to any other manufacturer immediately curbs Mac sales while increasing development costs substantially. The Intel transition alone is taxing on their finances--but they expected and planned for that. The Intel transition should probably be the last transition for some time--the company needs a few years of stability.

    No, they haven't. They're more of a hardware company than ever before--every bit of their success, financially, is from hardware sales. Software revenues don't even come close to paying the bills. Whatever features and capabilities are used to sell that hardware are, from a financial assets standpoint, completely irrelevant. Without ongoing strong hardware sales, OS X development can't continue, and the potential benefits have suddenly become a liability. It's tricky semantics, but almost no one buys OS X, even if OS X is the only reason they choose a Mac. It's an important distinction because of how Apple pays for its ongoing existence.

    They'd also have to introduce a retail full license into the mix (at an appropriate market price to compete with Windows), along with exploring activation/copy protection. You'd then need to count on enough people buying OS X and installing it to make it all worthwhile. It's too much of a gamble because they've got too much invested to switch cold turkey in the near future and too much instability to transition over several years unless they're prepared to operate at a deep loss for a while.
     
  25. kevin.rivers macrumors 6502a

    kevin.rivers

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    #25
    Macs have always been PC parts... this isn't new.

    Hard Drives, Ports, Optical... even down to the capacitor level. It is the same silicon just made custom for Apple.

    And they have always been Personal Computers.

    Apple is not going to want to support those not running a Mac that decide they want to run OS X. Nor should they. Just as they don't support running Windows on your Mac through BootCamp.

    Another reason is that OS X is compiled for Intel x86 arch. They would have to recompile for AMD and other CPU makers as well.

    While the code may run on an AMD it will not run efficiently. Not to mention all motherboard manufactuers they would have to rally support from, or write the drivers themselves.

    Keeping OS X closed to Mac hardware is how it should stay. There is too much work involved in trying to support everyone. And would all that work pay off? Probably not. People are afraid to change, leaving Windows is not something most would do. And most wouldn't even pay for it, they would pirate it. Simply because they can't justify paying for something they won't use and just want to experiment with.

    Also, you are right. It is the OS. But not independently. How the OS interacts with the hardware (backlit keyboard and display ambient adjustments etc.).

    A Mac is an experience, an experience that is felt when the OS and the hardware function in harmony. I don't think OS X for me would feel the same if it was on a Dell or some bargain basement scrap box thrown together with parts from Newegg.
     

Share This Page