Probably. IBM could but they make crazy decisions. It's tough to find great cost analysts and keep things just right. Obviously, Apple has weathered a lot over the past 10 years and the accounting group is responsible for the stability over the really rough spots. They would not have been able to design, create, and market the original iMac without strong financials. The iMac did a lot for the company but they might not have gotten to that point at all, if not for good accountants and procedures.
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
Probably. IBM could but they make crazy decisions. It's tough to find great cost analysts and keep things just right. Obviously, Apple has weathered a lot over the past 10 years and the accounting group is responsible for the stability over the really rough spots. They would not have been able to design, create, and market the original iMac without strong financials. The iMac did a lot for the company but they might not have gotten to that point at all, if not for good accountants and procedures.
this just makes absolutely no sense. os x is just an operating system. it has no feelings whatsoever. you do not degrade os x by putting it on a "regular pc."
by your logic, do you degrade solaris, linux, *bsd, etc by putting it on a "regular pc"?
I don't know where you're getting that from. Apple doesn't sell or support Windows. They provide a free, unsupported, beta product that simplifies the process a bit.
I don't know what "gimmicks" Apple is using with it's hardware they make some of the best hardware on the market IMHO (even if it is buggy sometimes). It looks good and is more functional, and the price is fair for what you get. Apple is a HARDWARE company that happens to have some great software to drive sales.
There would be more issues than people realize with putting OS X on PC hardware. Apple's control over both hardware and software is a big deal. Now, should they offer a mid-range headless Mac, or even more hardware options? Maybe so. Would more people use OS X if it were available for your average cheap PC hardware? Maybe, but I think they'd be disappointed with the incomplete experience.
Just to reiterate, no they are not selling xp. And no apple will certainly not sell the os for a windows based computer. The most i could imagine would be some application related to graphic imagine, but that it one of their sweet spots so I doubt it. More importantly, I don't see why they would want to do so because apple entire marketing and in fact product line is about engaging the comp user in the Mac experience, the hardware is a big part of that for apple. If they sold just the software, they would quickly turn into what apples used to be perceived as, namely the computer and os for the artsy people.
How is this different than when we had clones?
And how would Apple keep from selling a retail version? The retail version is how we get new versions of the OS.
It is just a fact that the people who would most like Mac OS X on PC hardware are the ones who really don't care if Apple is around in the future or not. The reason dedicated Mac users don't want this is that they are (rightly) afraid that this could lead to the end of their platform.
Why would "switchers" care about something like this? They came from some other platform, they can just switch back or to something else.
Life long Mac users are looking out for the long term. When the switchers have switch to whatever catches their eye next month or next year, we long time Mac users will still be Mac users.
Mac OS X on PCs is just about the worst idea you could come up with for the health of the platform.
I would say so. The only good reason I ever saw for running Solaris on PCs was that Sun never made a laptop. The quality of any of those operating systems is effected by the hardware you run them on. And the range of PC hardware is so broad that all of them are at risk of being brought to their knees on a PC. I've seen tons of issues with people running Solaris on PCs that never come up when running Solaris on Sun hardware.
The difference between Apple, Sun and other hardware/software solutions and your standard PC makers is that the companies that make the whole system can't pass off problems to someone else. Dell can say that it is Microsoft's fault something that doesn't work just right while Microsoft can say that the hardware maker didn't implement something the way they should have. When these places get the ability to pass the buck, the consumer is the one who ends up paying the price.
I know first hand the difference between running operating systems on hardware made by the same company verses running them on generic PCs... the difference is noticeable.
You better believe it my friend.
Have a nice day.
Greetings from Ireland
Dave
huuummmm......I always thought the proper response was "Dave's not here" hehehe
Beige boxes...don't dismiss them yet!
Yes, yes, yes. Thousands of people on that site are now running OSX on their intel or amd based boxes. In time, many become switchers because they want the full OSX experience...so they end up buying a real MAC.
So far as the previous comments about "locked hardware", that's hogwash. On the PPC platform (like my Ibook G4), you were really SOL if you wanted to run OSX on a beige box. With the Intel platform, not so. If you take a look at the WIKI for that site, you'll see that there is a ton of hardware actually supported by OSX. For a perfectly running system, an Intel based motherboard and processor (for example 950 series) are all that is required to get up and running almost flawlessly. Other intel and AMD variants are also supported.
So far as performance of the beige box systems...I've taken a look at some OSX beige box systems and seen the benchmarks. Go over to xbench.com and check out the scores for "developer systems". Some of the beige box systems are performing at or above the newest Macs. The price tag for one of these systems is considerably cheaper than a new Mac.
While I'm a long-time advocate of REAL and AUTHENTIC Apple software and hardware, some people aren't, and Apple is going to have to address a growing community of beige boxers. Apple could make A LOT of money if they could figure out a way to "open up" their OS just a bit. I've always found the phenomenon of Window users converting to Mac OSX a lot of fun. Just my two cents though...
If you're reading my post and thinking about trying to set up a beige box, DON'T. I almost went that route when my friend brought his beige box system over to play a few games. At first his dual core system was amazingly fast. Pages, Photoshop, Keynote, and Word opened up way faster than my system. But on most other graphic intensive tasks especially with animation or games, the games did not play as smoothly on his beige box as they did on my system (which he claimed was faster than my Imac C2D 17" 2GHZ). About once a month, I hear him complaining about how Apple updates screw up his system everytime a new update comes out...and he is always rebuilding that system. Seems like an enormous waste of time to me when all you should have to do is just plug it in and turn it on.
Sorry for the long winded post, but I thought there was a bit more to this topic that had not aready been addressed. If you are an Apple stockholder though, I think this is a really nice sign, that OSX is so damn good people will go lengths to get it on their systems.
Imac C2D 17" 2 GHZ 1GB 160GB
Ibook G4 12" 1GHZ 1GB RAM
We've all seen osX86, a project that aims to hack OS X Tiger x86 to run on BIOS-based PCs, but do you think that Apple should officially release OS X for PCs? Many people aren't getting Macs (the OS) because they don't want to buy an entirely new computer (a Mac), or can't afford the price tag, which then, they either stick with Windows, or move to Linux.
I believe that the reason for Microsoft Windows' huge success and Linux's huge growth (and counting), is that they can work on all x86/x64 PCs (and there's a whole lot of them) from all major computer manufacturers (and custom PCs with the x86/x64 architecture), even Macs. Many people switch to Macs mainly because of Apple's super-stable/secure operating system. If Apple releases a PC version of Mac OS X, I believe that they will get a wider sales base. Do you believe Apple should release OS X for PCs? I'd like to hear your say.
Yes, yes, yes. Thousands of people on that site are now running OSX on their intel or amd based boxes. In time, many become switchers because they want the full OSX experience...so they end up buying a real MAC.
So far as the previous comments about "locked hardware", that's hogwash. On the PPC platform (like my Ibook G4), you were really SOL if you wanted to run OSX on a beige box. With the Intel platform, not so. If you take a look at the WIKI for that site, you'll see that there is a ton of hardware actually supported by OSX. For a perfectly running system, an Intel based motherboard and processor (for example 950 series) are all that is required to get up and running almost flawlessly. Other intel and AMD variants are also supported.
So far as performance of the beige box systems...I've taken a look at some OSX beige box systems and seen the benchmarks. Go over to xbench.com and check out the scores for "developer systems". Some of the beige box systems are performing at or above the newest Macs. The price tag for one of these systems is considerably cheaper than a new Mac.
While I'm a long-time advocate of REAL and AUTHENTIC Apple software and hardware, some people aren't, and Apple is going to have to address a growing community of beige boxers. Apple could make A LOT of money if they could figure out a way to "open up" their OS just a bit. I've always found the phenomenon of Window users converting to Mac OSX a lot of fun. Just my two cents though...
If you're reading my post and thinking about trying to set up a beige box, DON'T. I almost went that route when my friend brought his beige box system over to play a few games. At first his dual core system was amazingly fast. Pages, Photoshop, Keynote, and Word opened up way faster than my system. But on most other graphic intensive tasks especially with animation or games, the games did not play as smoothly on his beige box as they did on my system (which he claimed was faster than my Imac C2D 17" 2GHZ). About once a month, I hear him complaining about how Apple updates screw up his system everytime a new update comes out...and he is always rebuilding that system. Seems like an enormous waste of time to me when all you should have to do is just plug it in and turn it on.
Sorry for the long winded post, but I thought there was a bit more to this topic that had not aready been addressed. If you are an Apple stockholder though, I think this is a really nice sign, that OSX is so damn good people will go lengths to get it on their systems.
Imac C2D 17" 2 GHZ 1GB 160GB
Ibook G4 12" 1GHZ 1GB RAM
Apple should open Mac OS X to PC and shake the computer industry. Apple ideas may change from night to day, and this is a reliable option..
- the macs will remain selling because that expected simplicity and integration under the brand;
- IT deps, schools and companies would try OS X potential on any pc
- apple value would raise and more updates, features and corrections would be made on os x and more cool products can become reality.
- and.. it would spread the word...
- the macs will remain selling because that expected simplicity and integration under the brand;
- IT deps, schools and companies would try OS X potential on any pc
- apple value would raise and more updates, features and corrections would be made on os x and more cool products can become reality.
- and.. it would spread the word...
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.
Well said. There is not a single piece of hardware on a Mac, any mac, that can't be found a PC. Software is what makes a mac a mac. iLife is a woderful suite of family-oriented tools. OSX is rock-solid and has become the gold standard which reviewers compare other OSes to. This is a very big deal. I read these comments and can't help but remember the flamewars that raged whenever someone mused about Apple using Intel X86. People here proclaimed that if Apple made such a move it would be finished. There is no reason Apple couldn't change again. And there is nothing to say that it wouldn't work. And please, don't trot out Amelio. Different time, different context, different... everything.
Even if Apple did open up OSX to licensing, I would probably continue to buy from them. I really like the looks of their products. Worth a premium? Yes. But so is a BMW.
