Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you believe Apple should release OS X for PCs?
- Thread starter Sirin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's still your choice out of preference. Nobody is actually forcing you to do anything.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So Apple is the only computer selling company with a proper accounting group?
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.
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
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.
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.