Do you believe Apple should release OS X for PCs?

[topgun072003]

I still can't believe that till this day people still don't get it. The reason OS X is that rock solid is that Apple controls the hardware that OS X runs on. It is the tight integration between the hardware and software that makes OS X appealing.

Thank You! The answer is NO!

 

[dpaanlka]

Yes. I m forced to buy a Mac. I cant stand windows XP(may be vista might improve things a lil bit).

That's still your choice out of preference. Nobody is actually forcing you to do anything.

I love OSX and wont use anything else coz it suits my requirements perfectly. It`s the best option out there(for me).

OS X is not a product you can buy and use alone. If you can't justify (for you personally) the price of a Mac Pro, or the hardware limitations of a Mac mini, keeping in mind that this is the only way to get OS X, then currently OS X is not the best choice for you.

 

[Zwhaler]

It would be a good and bad thing for Apple. Their software would sell like hotcakes, but then no one would have a reason to buy their expensive hardware. So technically it would do more harm than good, but I would personally perfer OSX to run on Apple hardware.

 

[BryanP]

Negative. It defeats the purpose of what they're trying to do right now.

 

[jhu]

most people here keep saying that releasing os x for non-mac hardware would destabilize the operating system. i disagree. the reason is that os x supports a much smaller amount of hardware than windows. what apple could do is just not release any drivers for hardware that is not already found on the mac. that practically solves the stability issue.

another issue that keeps getting mentioned is that this move would eat into apple's hardware sales. not necessarily. instead of selling a retail version os x, apple could license os x to manufacturers at a higher price such that computers with os x preinstalled would not cost less than what apple sells for a mac.

 

[mattster16]

most people here keep saying that releasing os x for non-mac hardware would destabilize the operating system. i disagree. the reason is that os x supports a much smaller amount of hardware than windows. what apple could do is just not release any drivers for hardware that is not already found on the mac. that practically solves the stability issue.

another issue that keeps getting mentioned is that this move would eat into apple's hardware sales. not necessarily. instead of selling a retail version os x, apple could license os x to manufacturers at a higher price such that computers with os x preinstalled would not cost less than what apple sells for a mac.

How would that solve the stability issue? You would then have third party vendors writing drivers that Apple wouldn't approve of. Then everyone would hate Apple because they couldn't use certain hardware and would continue the argument that OSX is less compatible. It would just be a huge mess.

Manufacturers would just buy the retail version of the OS instead of signing a license agreement with Apple. Then you'd have less Apple hardware sales and since that is where they make all their profit they would have to raise the price on their OS (right now it is cheap cheap compared to Windows) in attempt to make a profit in that area.

 

[bearbo]

one thing apple could do is have 2 version of OS X... well, a "full" version for apple hardware, a much less featured, water downed "generic PC" version. and the full version is still apple hardware only... people who want to use os x bad enough will buy apple hardware to use the full version, and ppl who are considering switch can try out the waterdowned version first... i dont know, some implementation of this might work :S😕 😱

 

[dpaanlka]

That's the worst idea I ever heard. I can just imagine all the PC owners complaining now...

 

[bearbo]

That's the worst idea I ever heard. I can just imagine all the PC owners complaining now...

well, complain all they want... it's not supposed to be a productivity system, but a try-out system for those who consider switch... before they do that, they dont get full feature... much like the public beta, with the full version only available on apple hardware...

 

[leekohler]

Agree... NO! If Apple would do that the whole "Mac OS X consistency and stability" would come down in a second because they would have no control about the hardware you're running their OS on and all the pseudo-hackers out there would gladly download an illegal OSX copy just to figure out how to punch holes in it... it's would be a bad move all the way IMO.

You want OSX, save up and buy a Mac (like I did).
And the fact that Mac's are more expensive than PC's is a whole different thread, also discussed too many times, basically, you get what you pay for 🙂

Bingo. These are the reasons OSX runs as well as it does. Hardware/software integration and control. Windows tries to be all things to all manufacturers. Trying to be all things to all people doesn't work well in real life, and it doesn't work well in operating systems either. 😉 Regarding the expense of Macs- you get what you pay for, period. I've owned Macs since 1994- never had one problem I couldn't fix easily. That speaks volumes.

 

[ImNoSuperMan]

OS X is not a product you can buy and use alone. If you can't justify (for you personally) the price of a Mac Pro, or the hardware limitations of a Mac mini, keeping in mind that this is the only way to get OS X, then currently OS X is not the best choice for you.

The pros of OSX far outweighs cons of Mac hardware limitations. So a Mac still turns out to be my best option. But it`s just that if wud have been even better if I had more choice in hardware.

I personally wanted a Mac Tower to go with my monitor but there was no option. Mac Pro is way more powerful than what I need and is almost double my budget. A mini seems very underpowered and nonupgradable for it`s price. So I decided to for a MacBook as it gives me the best value for money. And I never intented to buy a note book in the first place. I couldnt justify 800$ for the mini. For 500 bucks more I get an actual portable complete with a screen battery and everything a mini could have.

So all i wish for is a few more choices. Not from 3rd party manufacturers but from Apple itself. That way Apple will be an attractive option for a lot more buyers as they wont be forced to buy the next best possible Mac for them.

BTW I know everyone has different needs and understand that all of them cant be fulfilled by Apple. But we sure can wish/dream.

 

[bousozoku]

It would be a good and bad thing for Apple. Their software would sell like hotcakes, but then no one would have a reason to buy their expensive hardware. So technically it would do more harm than good, but I would personally perfer OSX to run on Apple hardware.

The expensive hardware helps support the cut rate price of the software. I know it's difficult to believe but Apple puts a whole lot more into the software than $129. They can't sell it for $299 as Microsoft does with WinXP Pro, either. There would be a revolt.

 

[2ndPath]

The expensive hardware helps support the cut rate price of the software. I know it's difficult to believe but Apple puts a whole lot more into the software than $129. They can't sell it for $299 as Microsoft does with WinXP Pro, either. There would be a revolt.

Actually I was wondering regularely about the pricing of Macs. I read several times comparisons of Macs to PC with the same features, where often the PCs turn out to be not cheaper than the Macs (for expample I remember a comparison of the Mac Pro after release to similar PCs and the price of the Mac Pro was very competitive). If that is generally true, how much money from the hardware sales can possibly go into the development of the OS? Not more than the licensing fee of Windows, which is included with these PCs.

 

[MacVault]

Yes - but only for Enterprise hardware.

Because I would love to see OS X get into the enterprise in a BIG way, and because IT Managers will not use an OS that is locked to one hardware vendor, I think Apple should license their OS to run only on Apple certified rack servers, such as dell/HP, etc.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I still can't believe that till this day people still don't get it. The reason OS X is that rock solid is that Apple controls the hardware that OS X runs on. It is the tight integration between the hardware and software that makes OS X appealing.

Please, Apple uses the same componets as others and Apple has many configurations. Apple is selling Xp for new buyers to put on those Macs, No reason Apple shouldnt sell that OSX to go into PCs that meet minumum spec's. Apple not playing their strong card,its OS is why they arent #1 in my view. Bunch of gimmicks with hardware instead of selling what they do which is...software. You either want people to be on your software or you dont. Apple has to figure this out and should have been aggresive marketing OSX for years to the world.....instead of hardware gimmicks & games. OSX is a great product compared to XP/Vista, they should have been selling this while Xp became stale. Now its Vista vs OSX and every PC is going to come with it. OSX requires a Mac Hardware purchase,again the beta of the vcr wars and like beta its better but didnt vhs win? Apple needs to market that OS.....and another morning rant is over.😎

 

[clevin]

i sure hope apple will, but i doubt they can handle it, too many compatibility issue they need to consider, but sure, again, I would suggest apple take this task and release osx for pc.

 

[jhu]

How would that solve the stability issue? You would then have third party vendors writing drivers that Apple wouldn't approve of. Then everyone would hate Apple because they couldn't use certain hardware and would continue the argument that OSX is less compatible. It would just be a huge mess.

there are several options here. apple could require some sort of hardware/driver quality assurance. what exactly do you mean by "drivers that apple wouldn't approve of"? writing drivers is open to anybody. xcode is free. i/o kit is free. besides, what's wrong with manufacturers finally writing drivers for os x? is that not a good thing: having more hardware drivers?

with a license agreement, apple could also mandate only using certain approved hardware.

Manufacturers would just buy the retail version of the OS instead of signing a license agreement with Apple. Then you'd have less Apple hardware sales and since that is where they make all their profit they would have to raise the price on their OS (right now it is cheap cheap compared to Windows) in attempt to make a profit in that area.

what you miss is that i'm suggesting that there be no generic retail version. but, given your suggestion, apple could also have a higher priced retail version as well.

the problem with the mentality here is that if apple has not succssfully accomplished something or is not doing something, then that something is a bad idea. ie, prior to the intel switch, the overwhelming majority opinion was that intel was bad, intel chips were bad, and any sort of switch over would be the certain death for apple. people here even threatened to stop buying apple products if such a thing happened. well, it happened and practically everyone's still happy.

 

[jhu]

Because I would love to see OS X get into the enterprise in a BIG way, and because IT Managers will not use an OS that is locked to one hardware vendor, I think Apple should license their OS to run only on Apple certified rack servers, such as dell/HP, etc.

with that issue, apple will need to make the kernel faster. as it stands, the kernel is pretty slow comared with other linux, other bsd, etc.

 

[bousozoku]

Actually I was wondering regularely about the pricing of Macs. I read several times comparisons of Macs to PC with the same features, where often the PCs turn out to be not cheaper than the Macs (for expample I remember a comparison of the Mac Pro after release to similar PCs and the price of the Mac Pro was very competitive). If that is generally true, how much money from the hardware sales can possibly go into the development of the OS? Not more than the licensing fee of Windows, which is included with these PCs.

The new machines are very competitive and people miss some small things in comparison like Gigabit Ethernet even in the Mac mini. I'd think that they have as much as $400 in the price of the Mac Pro, just for software but much less in the mini where it's not possible. It's likely that they're so efficient financially that they can make the bundles relatively inexpensive, although the Cinema Displays may carry part of the burden.

 

[2ndPath]

The new machines are very competitive and people miss some small things in comparison like Gigabit Ethernet even in the Mac mini. I'd think that they have as much as $400 in the price of the Mac Pro, just for software but much less in the mini where it's not possible. It's likely that they're so efficient financially that they can make the bundles relatively inexpensive, although the Cinema Displays may carry part of the burden.

But this is exactly my qestion: If other companies cannot beat Apples prices significantly at the same specs, how can Apple earn an additional $400 for the development for OSX, when other companies only have to pay the OEM fees for Windows, which are much less than that?

 

[bousozoku]

But this is exactly my qestion: If other companies cannot beat Apples prices significantly at the same specs, how can Apple earn an additional $400 for the development for OSX, when other companies only have to pay the OEM fees for Windows, which are much less than that?

Other companies have sloppy accounting groups.

 

[bob5820]

Here's another reason it would be a bad idea. Opening up OSX to all PC's brings you into direct competition with Microsoft. Competition is something the evil empire has never taken lightly. As lons as Apple is still selling to a niche market, MS does't feel that threatened. If Apple becomes a threat its hostile takeover time.

 

[2ndPath]

Other companies have sloppy accounting groups.

So Apple is the only computer selling company with a proper accounting group?

Here's another reason it would be a bad idea. Opening up OSX to all PC's brings you into direct competition with Microsoft. Competition is something the evil empire has never taken lightly. As lons as Apple is still selling to a niche market, MS does't feel that threatened. If Apple becomes a threat its hostile takeover time.

This is probably one of the big reasons for Apple to not release OSX for generic PCs. Both companies are in good standing with each other. Microsoft provides Office for the Mac, they helped Apple out in the past, when they were in financial trouble. On the other hand Microsoft copies features first introduced by Apple. And then Microsoft loves having Apple as a competing company to avoid getting too much trouble because of anti-trust trials. And there Apple is a really convenient competitor as long as they are not too agressive about increasing their market share.

And Microsoft loves having a competing company, which is not really doing to much to gain a big market share.

 

[zweigand]

Yes. I m forced to buy a Mac. I cant stand windows XP(may be vista might improve things a lil bit). I love OSX and wont use anything else coz it suits my requirements perfectly. It`s the best option out there(for me). But find a gamer and for him OSX is ****. Coz it doesnt suits his needs. He`d be much better with a virus prone, unstable(comparatively) OS which is way better than OSX when it comes to gaming.

So what I meant was Apple should atleast give a few more options which are pretty much industry standard. I`ve already said that I hate my MB coz it`s so stunningly beautiful. I have to wipe clean it every day to keep it from looking ugly or keep it under wraps forever. I`d buy a dell crap laptop without second thoughts if it had OSX(provided OSX works absolutely as good as it does in Macs). I no longer care what my computer looks from the outside, it`s whats inside what really matters.

So I do wish we had more options but definitely not at the cost of stability as that will defeat the purpose of choosing OSX over XP in the first place.



BTW I never said that I was mad at Apple for any reason at all. But these are the biggest drawbacks of Apple`s current system. They`ll be an even better company if they can take care of these things. But still, Apple currently is definitely a really good Hardware/software company, way ahead of most of it`s competetors.

Uh, Boot Camp? This is Apple's solution. You get a PC that can run both ..but they get the hardware sale that they are in the business for.

OS X on regular PCs? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 😡

 

[SkyBell]

I have a PC

Would I buy OS X if it was availible for PC?

NO

Why? Becuase I wouldn't dare degrade OS X by putting it on a lowly PC.

PC'S are for Windows, not OS X.

Macs are for both.