Will Apple ever allow OS X to be installed on a PC

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by HardBall, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. HardBall macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #1
    Hello, I'm new to the world of macintosh,

    Since Apple has announced the move to x86, I've been very interested to see whether I can dual boot OS X in some form on my one of my PCs. Does anyone here have some kind of inside scoop as to Apple's future plans regarding allowing other PC's to join the Mac OS fun?
     
  2. Malfoy macrumors 6502a

    Malfoy

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    #2
    Some will say no.
    Some will quote an Apple employee saying they have done nothing to prevent you from installing it.
    Everyone will attack you for calling Apple "Mac" in the subject.:cool:
     
  3. SteveC macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    #3
    No. ;)



    But in the spirit of forming a reply that consists of more than one word, I will add: A move by Apple to sell Mac OS X for PCs would make me throw up. Twice.

    ;)
     
  4. fluidinclusion macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2003
    Location:
    Green Bay, Wisconsin USA
    #4
    Yes on April 1

    Yes, on April 1. Didn't you see the keynote ;)

    Just kidding.
     
  5. HardBall thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #5
    Whoops, I guess that just shows you how new I'm at this mac business.

    I have used mac in middle/high school about 10 years ago; but I have always built PC's myself; I guess that's the reason why I have never been interested in Macs until now.
     
  6. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #6
    I think they will, someday. Not this decade though. When Apple recovers enough marketshare that Microsoft desperately wants to get Mac users to install Windows (they'd have to rival Dell's 15% marketshare- this means a 10-20% marketshare for Apple), then Apple will take on Microsoft by releasing OS X for regular PC's

    IMHO of course.

    Maybe in 2012.


    You actually can install OS X on a PC, with some hackwork, but this violates the license agreement and is thus technically illegal, so don't ask how :p
     
  7. Sathos macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    #7
    Now I'm not entirely sure, but when I went in to Voodoo with my brother (who is a PC fan), I think I recall the guy working there saying that in the (near) future their computers would be able to run both Mac OS X and Windows (Vista, by that time). I could be wrong though.
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    I doubt the guy knew anything, he was probably just speculating. For now, Apple will not do this. But who knows in the future. Anything could happen. But I doubt it.
     
  9. kretzy macrumors 604

    kretzy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
  10. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #10
    Allow? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it won't happen... ;) :cool:
     
  11. FadeToBlack macrumors 68000

    FadeToBlack

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    Accoville, WV
    #11
    This topic has been beaten to death, but it's all good since you're new. ;)

    Honestly, I don't see this happening anytime soon. It might eventually, though. I wouldn't really mind if it did happen (I used to be against it, but I guess I warmed up to the idea a bit) If it happens, I will still keep buying Macs. Apple makes the best hardware AND software out there, IMO.
     
  12. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #12
    Apple is a computer company--they want to sell hardware, so allowing it is a big no until they stop designing and selling their own hardware.

    Of course, allowing Windows to run on Macintosh hardware is another matter.

    Some will say that you're confusing installing Mac OS X and Windows.
     
  13. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    What bousozoku said. W/o a complete and fundamental shift of the goals and business model of the company Apple will never allow OS X to run on non-Apple machines. Apple is a hardware company that happens to create their own software. Apple is not a software company that happens to create their own hardware.


    Lethal
     
  14. HardBall thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #14
    Thanks for all the replies, it really enlightened me quite a bit, but I guess there is a quite bit of disagreement even in this forum. All your imputs, and educated speculations are helpful; since I know nothing of the politics (by that I mean the decision making machinery of Apple's corporate governance) of Apple corp.


    I really hope that's not permanently the case.

    I use Linux and Solaris for the most part for research and software development, and I usually dual boot Windows on my machines, simply because a lot of software are not available in their unix/linux incarnations. If Apple were to allow other x86 users to intall some version of OS X, I would be the first to get that and replace the Windows partitions on my machines (or just keep Windows as a backup).

    While I have long been an admirer of Apple software; having a much more stable OS than windows, yet having much more extensive drivers support and such than Linux distros ordinarily would have. I have never been much of a fan of Apple hardware, both in price/performance ratio, or in aesthetics (just my personal preference, iMac is downright hideous looking); and most importantly, I usually build my own hardware with specific components to serve specific needs at the time, service, repair, maintain everything myself; and in my line of research in grad school, that's usually a profitable thing to do.

    I thought that it would have been really neat if Apple had gone to a more elegant architecture such as IBM cell in the future, with much more room to grow. Since now Apple has adopted Yonah, there is even less reason, IMHO, for someone like me to shell out extra bucks for the outdated P6+, that are available on PCs costing much less. I just thought that there was a good chance that Mac OS might be available for general PC users in the near future, now that Apple has gone x86, but I guess that may not be the case after all.
     
  15. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #15
    Er, wasn't Yonah released just last week? How could it be outdated already?
     
  16. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #16
    Like I said, Apple makes their money selling hardware, not software. And because Apple controls "both sides" that's one reason for the typically better stability of the Mac platform. There are fewer variables so Apple (as well as other developers) can spend more time making their products work very well on a limited number of machines (Macs) as opposed to developers spending most of their time making sure their products work at all on an almost unlimited variety of machines (PCs).

    If Apple just made software to run on any old PC out there then I think many advantages of Apple software would disintegrate because they wouldn't be able to tailor or optimize their software for a specific machine (like they can now).

    Everything is a tradeoff and a Mac just might not be the best option for you. But I've found the tradeoff (better software, but limited hardware selections) to be well worth it.


    Lethal
     
  17. HardBall thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #17
    Oh, sorry, forgot to explain.

    Intel Yonah is the DC version of the Dothan core; with shared L2 with on-die cache snoop, slightly lower latency cache, common interface BUS similar to SRQ, SSE3 enabled, a bump in the FSB to 667, a slightly more agreesive C3 and C4 states, Vanderpool, Lagrande on higher end chips, and a few other minor improvements. Dual core is by far the improvement that will yield the most performance increase.

    Dothan in turn is a 90nm die shrink from the Banias core; with 2MB L2, addition of NX bit, modified register-access and prefetch, larger TLB to improve branch predict , and a few other minor improvements.

    Banias is basically an improved version of P-III, with lengthening of the pipeline by 3-4 stages, SSE2, dedicated on-chip register stack management, added global history to BP, micro-ops fusion (lessen the need for branch prediction, by resolving dependency before hand), quadrant selector mediated C-states for L2, EIST, an L2 increased to 1MB, and quad pumped FSB, and a few other very small differences.

    And P-III was in turn the latest development of a line of processors based on the architecture named P6, dating all the way back to Pentium Pro in the mid-nineties, with the processing core largely unchanges. Most of the improvments in P6 from Pentium Pro to P-II to early versions of P-III, all the way to coppermine and Tualatin (the last versions of P-III before Pentium4, which is termed P7 architecture); all this mostly involved improvements in Bus, cache, vector units and other technologies.

    So at its core, Yonah is still retains much of the characteristics of the original P6 (pentium pro); so most ECEs will still call the cores of the Pentium M's P6+, and Yonah DC P6+.
     
  18. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #18
    Apple are a public company and public companies have no mission other than to make more profit than the year before, which means that one day Apple probably will try to take on Microsoft by releasing OS X for the clone PC market. When will this happen? Your guess is as good as the next one.
     
  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    Funny, making more profit than the year before and taking on MS head on sound like conflicting idea. ;)


    Lethal
     
  20. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #20
    I doubt it will happen with Steve Jobs in charge of the company, but he can't run it forever... can he?
     
  21. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #21
    Yes, that's quite right - at some point, he will indeed need to name his successor - however I think he will always have some involvement in Apple no matter what. I think it will end up being a similar situation to Microsoft, where Gates handed over CEO duties to Balmer yet still remains an active individual with the company.
     
  22. kwajaln macrumors 6502

    kwajaln

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Location:
    CHICAGO!
  23. Le Big Mac macrumors 68020

    Le Big Mac

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    Agree with that. Apple might one day change their business model, but right now it's a company that designs tightly integrated hardware and software systems. If they sold OS X stand-alone, they would have no assurance the PCs it was installed on would work properly, and that would harm the company's overall rep.

    Where they've developed software that can be used on PCs they've sold it. I don't see OS X being in that category any time soon.
     
  24. adamb100 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    #24
    I prefer to think that the only way Apple would license OS X to be installed on the pc is if Apple was seriously going in debt and had no other means to get rid of it.
     
  25. HardBall thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #25
    I'm just curious,

    So why does everyone here think that Apple will be better off in the future basing their revenue solely on hardware sales. Apple's most distinguishing feature now is no longer hardware, but its OS and everything that OS X brings.

    It would be more difficult if not impossible for Apple to tout its architectural superiority; now that they sell the exact same hardware as Dell, HP, etc. And by releasing OS X to be able to run on other than solely Apple hardware, I would venture to say that it could capture a significant share of the current market for PC; I'm sure many average users would salivate at the idea of being able to dual boot Mac OS on their PC.

    There is the issue of HW driver support, most of those difficulties would lie in the numerous PCI/AGP/PCIE/PCMCIA/etc devices that a typical PC chipset and OS drivers must be compatible to, but Apple can simply retail compatible parts with supported BIOS, or certify certain part for use in building PCs fit to run Mac OS. I know people who have been flashing PC Video cards with Apple BIOS for years to save money in upgrading components; and it never seems to be problematic, nor with any compatibility issues later on.

    It would be pretty sweet to be able to run Apple software on more powerful PC systems than Core Duo, which is nice but certainly not top of the line; nor is Yonah really suitable for high end scientific or engineering applications at this time.
     

Share This Page