What if marklar.......

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by i_wolf, Feb 12, 2003.

  1. i_wolf macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #1
    Out of interest, hypothetically speaking, say apple did release an OS X on x86 (marklar), how many of you would switch over from mac architecture and go the marklar route?
    Personally speaking, i would buy OS X on x86 in second.
    Kind Regards,
    i_wolf
     
  2. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  3. Sol macrumors 68000

    Sol

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    Not Switching

    I would continue to buy Apple hardware unless they use x86 too. I prefer having dual processors in my computer and Apple displays work best on Apple computers.

    Marklar would be a good sister-OS to the current version of OS X. It could potentially attract more developers of Cocoa applications.
     
  4. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #4
    Another good question would be IMHO. What if apple switches solely to Marklar completely dropping the PPC architecture in favor of AMD or Intel. What would you do then. Of course Marklar will still only run on Apple hadware.

    Do you think that it would be a good or bad move?

    I personally think there are some benefits but a lot of negatives. Okay Apple would have similar speed hardware woohoo. The most serious downfall would be not having any software. Also there would be less making Apple unique the only difference being Apple made hardware and OSX all running on the same chips that all the PCs use.
     
  5. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #5
    Assuming that there would be no software issues, I still think it would be a really bad move for Apple (unless PPC development stalls to nothing).

    Apple would now have to compete against Dell and Gateway, etc. when it comes to hardware. Intel (and or AMD) is always increasing speeds with their chips. Apple would now be forced to "keep up", meaning they would have to incrementally update their product lines. That means that the previous top-of-the-line gets bumped down, and so on. This is OK if you have the sales volume of a Dell. But with Apple's market share, excess inventory can kill you.

    Also, Apple would have to compete on price. They'd have to sell their top-of-the-line PowerMac at around $2300 with monitor. The current dual-1.42 goes for $2700 w/o monitor. And the bottom of the line PowerMac would have to be priced at $1000 or so.

    Moving to x86 architecture would have to be a last minute desparation move only. They'll stick with the PPC for the long haul.
     
  6. Sol macrumors 68000

    Sol

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    Marklar's Place

    I do not think Marklar is meant to be the only OS for Apple hardware since there are so many alternatives (especially now that server CPUs are coming to the consumer). When Intel switches to lower GHz CPUs this year the GHz gap will be closed and Apple may even lead it, at least initially. With the IBM 970 Apple could continue its proprietary hardware business offering something the competition does not. Anyone using Marklar then would miss out on Apple's excellent displays as well as Classic compatibility.
     
  7. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #7
    Not necessarily. They would be running a different OS and there own hardware still. You wouldn't be able to run OSX for x86 on anything but Apple hardware. That would give some separation and illiminate some need to compete. The biggest problem would be hands down that all OSX software would have to be ported to Marklar. Also I would never compare Apple against a Dell or Compaq. They're just built better I would compare them against and Area 51 or other custom well built computer. In that arena Apple is very competitive and I'm not talking about highly modified boxes I'm just talking about base computers made by companies that know what they are doing.
     
  8. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #8
    I realize that they'd be running custom hardware, but they'd still be using the same P4's that Dell's using. If you think Apple's having a hard time convincing people that a 2x1.42 G4 is as fast as a 3ghz P4, imagine them trying to sell a PowerMac P4-3ghz at $800 more than an HP.

    Sure, the Apple is built better, but most people will just compare prices.

    I really don't see this happening at all.
     
  9. Jaykay macrumors 6502a

    Jaykay

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Location:
    Ireland
    #9
    i love apple hardware and will stick with it unless it becomes impossible to work with (meaning unbelievebly slow) so i would be one of those who would stick with the apple hardware, its just so nice...
     
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10

    I don't think Apple would be any worse off than it is now. Hypothetically you have a 1ghz iMac and a 3ghz iMac sitting on a store shelf. Both cost $800 more than the HP across the isle. Which one looks more appealing to the average mall going computer shopper? The more expensive machine w/the lower clock speed or the more expensive machine w/the same clock speed?

    If people are willing to pay more for a Mac w/slower hardware (by comparison) I'm sure as sh*t they'd pay more for a Mac w/equal hardware.


    Lethal
     
  11. ftaok macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #11
    Yeah, of course the 3ghz would look better than the 1ghz. But my point is that there would be no differentiation between Macs and PCs if Apple used x86s. Yeah, I can kinda see your point, but I still don't think it would ever happen.

    But my main point is that Apple would have to update their systems every 2 months as Intel releases their newest chips. This would put Apple at a disadvantage as one slip in their forecasting means that a warehouse full of the former top-of-the-line PowerMacs loses 25% of their value.

    Right now, Apple can hold back on releasing new stuff until they clear out their channels. If they went with x86, they wouldn't be able to do that. They'd have to release new stuff along with everyone else.
     
  12. mozez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    #12
    you are all looking at it as if apple was still a hardware company, but what if, just what if, apple moved to marklar with all it's software and dropped hardware completely and was just software, can't be done, just look at sega, sega is now a huge software company making tons more than they did when doing the dreamcast. apple could sell dell boxes running osx, or compaq (hp) running osx, walmart and every store on the planet selling osx boxes.

    apple compared to alienware, now ay,a pple gets crushed by the lowest end alienware out their, it is not at that level, not even close by comparision. but what about an alienware custom build running osx, would that not be the coolest thing, i'd buy one in a second. that would be my dream, an anlienware running osx..mmmmmmmmmm just my opinion
     
  13. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #13
    Why would Apple need to compete on price when they don't do so now.

    Why would they need to keep updating their products when they don't do so now.

    They can switch to x86 and still charge a little more than the likes of DELL or HP.

    Remember, Apple would be selling machines that are not just simple windows boxes, it would be a totally different product with alot of native software that sets it apart from the usual crap you see on windows.

    You don't see IBM or HP competing on price with linux do you?
     
  14. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #14
    I would go and buy Mac OS X on x86 and I know many PC people that would also. About compatibility, Mac OS X on x86 would be fast enough to emulate PPC apps at a good speed. The speed difference would be the same when using classic apps in OS X.
     
  15. Flyers486 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia Area, Jersey Side
    #15
    I'm more interested in Apple releasing Marklar as server only. Even though the xserve is a great concept what if Apple marketed OSX Server to IBM?
     
  16. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #16
    if marklar were on my marklar, we marklar would have no marklar for our marklar to run.

    marklar would not make me switch from my marklar to a different marklar. i like marklar products because they are high quality. other marklar are not as nice or good looking.
     
  17. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    I see yer point (I wasn't looking at it from that angle). But I still don't think Apple would be in as much a bind as you think they would be. Apple can still be on a 6 month product cycle because, as the past year as shown, Apple doesn't need blazing hardware to sell computers.

    With the execption of Mac users and computer enthusiast I think the days of waiting with baited breath for the next chip release are over. Going from a 1.8ghz to a 3.0ghz machine will make word and IE how much faster? ;)

    As day-to-day tasks no longer come close to taxing hardware people are going to start looking at software and usability more than just plain speed. And I don't think many people would disagree that Apple has an advantage in this area. But that's another thread.

    RE: Apple becoming a software only company and providing software to OEM's a'la MS.

    That would kill Apple. OS X running on the millions (billions?) of possible combonations of x86 hardware out there wouldn't fair much better than Windows. Having a closed box helps Apple better tailor their software and hardware to work together and gives Apple a nice leg up over it's Windows using couterparts.


    Lethal
     
  18. gbojim macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2002
    #18
    You're neglecting a key point. Sega was losing money with every Dreamcast sold. Apple makes excellent margins on hardware.
     

Share This Page