Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Full Speed

something else we dont know: Gates not a threat anymore?

"And you know what? If Microsoft perceived OS/X as a threat to even **10%** of their market, they would KILL Office on Mac OS/X for Macs OR PCs, the DOJ be damned. End of Apple in 18 months. No, I don't think Apple is THAT stupid."


That may not be that easy for microsoft... Apple has been, in advertising circle at least, poking small jabs at microsoft. I distinctly remember an OS X ad, 2 pages, in NewsWeek. It had an Apple LCD display, with os x. The slug above read:

The only thing we have a monopoly on is style.

...Now, knowing that Jobs's history with Gates, once the Office deal for the mac was made, he might have had enough and began plans to move to x86 (please pardon my sinister tones, I've been thinkin about this for a while)...

Also, if it looks like the DOJ forces, or already forced, Microsoft to continue providing support for the Mac OS, Jobs may have nothing to worry about as far as MS pulling out of OS X.

Anyway, by the time MS can stop supporting the OS, Jobs could have OS X running on a significant percentage of PC's, with some type of WindowsClassic mode, where Windows 98/2000/XP apps run side by side (no emulation required remember).

If this isn't coming out on Monday, the dude should think about it.... I can see it now, Bill Gates on the 30-foot screen, and Jobs giving him the middle finger.
 
it's possible, i'm telling ya

Free copy of Windoze on every OS X under emulatin or whatever would be STUPID.

No one would write apps for Macs then.. Why should they if every new Mac has windoze emulation!?!

OS X on PCs is doable, trust me. Obviously some of you have never even heard of Rhapsody- let alone use it on a PC.

I DO NOT want to see OS X on PC. I love my Mac and am content to keep using nice Apple hardware.

HOWEVER, if it helps Apple's marketshare, then I'm for it. If Apple did OS X on PCs and made a compiler that would compile Cocoa apps or whatever to intel binary w/o any change in code, then it's all quite doable.
 
Re: All the clues are there.

Originally posted by justin
[B


So how's Stevie gonna do it? By starting a demo of 10.2 beta in the keynote. New hardware announcement-style, he will have a small table on stage with a veiled mini-tower. As the demo commences, the veil will come off the "new" hardware only to reveal a Dell desktop running the demo the whole time.

[/B]
Click to expand...

A well written post... and makes some good conclusion... but here's a few counterpoints

First re hardware announcements... Apple kept the iMac under complete wraps until keynote.

As for the whole OS X on Intel thing...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Apple makes most of it's money on hardware. Apple killed the clones because they cut in on Apple's high end hardware sales.

The _only_ way I could see this happening would be Apple creating OS X for Apple-branded PC hardware. They would use off-the-shelf components etc... but have some prioprietary Apple stuff in it to keep control.

But for what gain?

To run Windows under an "classic"-like mode. Let me tell you about an OS that did this pretty well... OS/2 - are people using it? No, because developers realized they could write for the lowest common denomintor - Windows... and it would work on Windows and OS/2! IBM threw a lot of money into OS/2 and was unable to dent Windows marketshare.

arn


 
startrek...communicator...mac cellphone/pda...wireless everywhere internet access that can network with your powerbook for full on browsing/drive your car/wash your dog/make some mean cinnamon toast/etc.
 
OS/2 adn OS/X

Well, it is true, but OS/2 only supported Win16 apps. And developers did see little point in developing OS/2 apps for OS/x. The one thing you left out was the Windows 95 launch. OS/2 did not support Win32. Once Developers found that out, there was no reason to use OS/2 if it didnt run Windows.

One thing many people need to remember in the coming decade is that hardware/operating system abstraction is at a point where it is a whole lot easier to port from x86 to PowerPC to any other CPU. This is in part thanks to an open source kernel, lowered cost of PC parts, and improvements in integration. Windows NT did run, at one time, on a PowerPC. Rhapsody was x86, as was the 'Star Trek' project. For a pet project by apple to advance so far in that field shows its viability.

I realize the ability isnt questioned here, but it will play an important factor in the future. No longer do we care what CPU runs our desktop. We interact with the desktop, with the interface, not with the kernel nested 3 or 4 levels deep.

Apple's hardware sales would be in question, but not for Mac users who are questioning driver compatilbility. I doubt it would dent the loyal sales.

Also, apple could create, as said before, a PCI card with ROM, PPC, and other required hardware necessary for Mac compatibility (complete with firewire adapter).

And as bad as the clone situation was in the mid 1990's it did help one thing- Mac costs. I mean, macs were on the low end selling for $2000, when PC laptops were heading for the $1000 level. MegaHertz myth hurt too, as macs were beginning to trailin cycle speeds compared to PC. To the average PC buyer, a 60Mhz Mac for $2000 isn't worth it, but a 133Mhz PC for $1199 would be, regardless of actual performance.

Maybe a Dell machine demoing OS X is what Apple would need for price considerations. Motorola is backing away from making and more CPU's (G6, etc), and if IBM cannot create a reasonable replacement from their PowerPC line, it would be wise to take a good hard look and the Intel/AMD option.

Also, a question for any hardware gurus. The PPC had in-chip 688x0 emulation, right? Regardless, how hard would it be to be designing a PPC/x86 hybrid CPU?
 
OSX<-->PC

I agree with arn and similar posts. OSX on cheap PC hardware is much too risky, Apple can't compete with all those crummy palstic PC boxes, and the support issues would be a nightmare. If it didn't run right, the Windoze goons would jump all over it.
The notion of Windows on the Mac is more reasonable, but not exactly earth shattering given how long VPC has been around.
I'm still betting on hardware, and probably not a home entertainment system. Whatever it is will have purposeful connectivity with Macs (wireless and/or Firewire). I don't think they're ready to stray into stand alone consumer electronics.
 
IT IS NOT OXS ON INTEL

This would be the stupidest thing in the world. if Apple won't allow clones, they wont allow pcs! Apple works so good because of it's hardware/software integration! Not to mention the fact that Intel chips SUCK RISC technology is far better... Granted Motorola needs to get FIRED for their lack of production. But if the partnership was just Apple and IBM there would be MOVEMENT. Apple doesn't even ADVERTISE their os in commercials!!!!!! They are NOT going to turn around one day and be a software company! What have you people been smoking!? -get off of it, it's messing up your brain!!! God I hope steve isn't smoking it also! I'm only writing this because I personally think the idea is DUMB and hearing all of you say it repetitively is scaring me into thinking they might do it! please steve if it's true stop smoking that stuff right now... just put it down, remember how bad Evlis's music got.
 
OS X Server on Intel?

As I sit here, thinking that there is no way Apple will ever port OS X to Wintel hardware (for all the reasons discussed previously), a thought occurs to me...

What if Apple ports OS X Server to x86, allowing it to run on IBM / Compaq / HP Server kit? This provides a way for them to sell into the IT datacentre, gives a limited range of hardware options on which they have to test OS X, and provides a high end platform for things like Web Objects. Just a thought...
 
PDA OS

Many people here are talking about an Apple PDA in terms of an updated Newton. Whilst I'm not going to speculate about iWalk etc, I will say that if Apple releases a PDA it will be based on Pixo rather than the Newton OS.

Pixo (http://www.pixo.com) is the OS embedded in the iPod, for which Apple is obviously developing new applications. Newton OS is a legacy John Sculley system, and the bad blood between Jobs and Sculley is still too strong...
 
Just a thought...

Don't you think Apple might port over OSX to the PC market, considering the fact that they have already done so for Quicktime, and (as far as rumours go) apparently the iPod and iTunes2?

It would certainly be in their best interests - considering what the sale of an Operating System did for Microsoft.

Let Apple not fall into the same trap as IBM and other big conglomerates in the 80's, by saying "...the future is in the HARDWARE, not this SOFTWARE stuff..."

Imagine the prospect of whole communities all working with totally STABLE OS's - and with full compatibility to boot.
 
Get Ready

I've read the posts about why it can't be done, but if you read the article posted by pik0 it seems AAPL was ready to do it but the only thing holding them back was the lock Microsoft had on box makers.

If I understand correctly, that lock has been lifted. From someone who recently bought not only jis first Mac but AAPL stock i think its a great idea. AAPL has said many times that they want a bigger market share. The best way to get wintel users to switch is to buid a bridge so that they can come across. As of now, it takes a leap of faith to switch.

By making OS X for intel, AAPL alows PC users to see the benefit of AAPL software with out making that leap of faith. If they like the app., I would think they would be more likely to switch to AAPL hardware. If AAPL makes more devices such as the iPod, this would increase there sales.

AAPL has always had 5% and as far as I can tell will continue to have 5%. The iPod or any other digital device is not going to increase this by much. That 5% may go up just a little and thats it. Unless.....the average PC buyer knows that if they buy an AAPL computer there not going to be in the minority. Must people are followers, not leaders.

As an investor, I hope its OS X on Intel.
 

Apple will never port OS X (Client) to x86 - the availability of cheap AMD / Intel processors and other components will completely cannabilise Apple's hardware sales.

Part of the reason for the elegance and reliability of the Mac OS is that Apple makes all the hardware, and so has a very limited range of configurations on which they have to test everything. Having to write drivers for every flavour of PC hardware increases the complexity exponentially. Also, I seem to recollect Phil Schiller boasting about how Apple is the only vertically integrated hardware manufacturer (apart from Sun, perhaps) on the recent iPod video.

The opposite argument, that Apple will provide Windows emulation on PPC hardware, means that developers will no longer have any reason to write Mac-specific apps. Plus the cost of including a Windows license with every Mac sold...

Comparisons with Microsoft are not really valid either - MS makes most of its money from applications, not operating systems.
 
Most people that buy Intel do it because of Microsoft.

They do it because they like windows, they are ignorant, or they are sheep.

If OS X came out on Intel systems people are NOT going to flock to OS X.

Apple users that want cheap hardware would just stop buying Apple hardware. just like they did when there were clones.
 
Microsoft ORIGINALLY became a big player because of an operating system - DOS. At the time, it was the most user friendly (? yes, I know!) system available - and it was what put them on the map.

Consider the ramifications of OSX on Intel/AMD machines for a moment. I'm talking true networking, a broader spectrum of applications from software houses, and a total ownership of the OS licence by Apple, which means more income => improved hardware research.

And if you're worried, Microsoft really still wouldn't lose out, because:
a: They still get to manufacture programs for OSX, and
b: Bill Gates still owns 10% of Apple's shares.

Anyway - I've heard of tests being done already to port OSX on to Wintel machines, which were quite successful. As far as software drivers go, that wouldn't be a problem for the latest technology (USB, USB2 and Firewire). It would be up to individual hardware companies to update their drivers for older systems on the web.
 
OS X on Intel..

Porting OS X to Windows wouldn't Cannibalize Apple's sales.. most Windows users are using Intel only because bottom line is their bottom line.. they want the cheapest hardware.. period. End of story. That will never be Apple's approach, ever. So why not take some OS sales away from Windows? The same cheapscates will still buy Intel junkware. Mac users who want high quality will still buy Macs.. but OS X can work on both... and no, it wouldn't jeapordize Office for X development.. If Windows sales shrunk, that's all the MORE reason for Microsoft to develop for X.. They don't care where their sales come from as long as they are making sales.. again, bottom line. A sale is a sale, and nomatter what was sold, Office for Windows or Office for X. Truth is, anything that expands sales of OS X is likely to increase development of software for X, not the other way around. Utillisez-vous logique! The only thing that would undermine development for X would be to bundle Virtual PC or other Windows emulation like that with Macs.. same as what happened with IBM's OS/2. I think some of the people who are misrepresenting this argument fail to understand that on modern machines, the development efforts depend largely upon the operating system, not the hardware it resides on. Therefore, programmers developing applications for a Pentium processor based computer running OS X would develop for OS X to make it work.. not "Intel". The question of which processor it works with is simply a matter of recompiling, not really an issue anymore.
 
Interiority



In terms of running the risk destroying AAPL's hardware division......What if AAPL makes it where if you want things like the iPod you have to have AAPL hardware. Intel users can use the OS, but not the cool gadgets. Even as a former wintel user, I knew AAPL made a better product and the product looked alot better. I probably would have bought a Mac many years ago if I had access to its OS on my PC and also knew that the switch to AAPL software was effortless. By providing OS X to Intel, AAPL allows wintel users to see OS X in action, it creates a bigger demand for OS X applications and will create more interest for AAPL hardware (just my opinion).

Now, I know nothing about the technology of building PC's, chips, servers etc.... But if it can be done, I think AAPL would benefit in the long run and so will my shares.
 
Buying Win/intel

Most people buy Intel based PCs because 95% of the country does, not because they think its the best option.

For most people, its the only option.
 
Re: PDA OS

Originally posted by Interiority
Many people here are talking about an Apple PDA in terms of an updated Newton. Whilst I'm not going to speculate about iWalk etc, I will say that if Apple releases a PDA it will be based on Pixo rather than the Newton OS.

Pixo (http://www.pixo.com) is the OS embedded in the iPod, for which Apple is obviously developing new applications. Newton OS is a legacy John Sculley system, and the bad blood between Jobs and Sculley is still too strong...
Click to expand...

Very interesting if correct. Can anyone confirm and/or provide details regarding Apple's ralationship with Pixo? I can't findanything too interesting on their website, certainly no mention of the iPod.
 
Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik

b: Bill Gates still owns 10% of Apple's shares.
[/B]
Click to expand...

LOL

Someone's been smoking crack.. He does NOT own 10%. MSFT own a few shares and that's it.

geeeeeeeeeeez!!!!!!
 
Burger

I have to agree that I would have purchased a Mac sooner if I could have experienced its OS on my PC. But I do think it more likely that Apple will try and increase its sales by allowing Intel users to play with the cool gadgets like iPod, rather than the other way around.
 
Pixo / Apple relationship

This quote comes from the bio of Pixos CEO on their web site.

"Prior to Netscape, Dave held several senior roles at Apple where he developed and implemented the wireless communications strategy for the PowerBook and oversaw PowerBook product management."
 
OS X on Intel

I have been reading this board a lot this week and I feel that I need to comment on the whole OS X on Intel rumors.

First let me say that it has been a long time since I last used a Mac for more than quickly scan a pic at Kinko's. I have yet to use OS X but from what I have read about it, I would love a chance to give it a try.

Now it is safe to assume that I use windows from the above statement. It is my primary OS. But, I also occasionally use Linux (mainly for the GIMP) and I even tried out BeOS 5 when they had that 500 MB demo.

It clear from other posts that OS X on Intel hardware would not be hard to do. Two problems have been raised: 1.) Drivers and 2.) Hardware sales.

Sure OS X would need to come with many drivers to handle all of the hardware used out here in Intel land. I'm sure that a large portion of the basic drivers needed could be taken from FreeBSD for x86. Also I can see the announcement at MacWorld being one saying that come July 4th all PC users will be free of Windows. That could give Apple a window to tell hardware manufacturers to get their drivers in to make it to the gold edition of OS X for x86.

On the topic of hardware sales, yes this will cut in on their hardware sales. Especially the iMac and iBook. But, if done right, it might not be as bad for the TiBooks and PowerMacs. How? Simple, the high end software that takes full advantage of the G4's Velocity engine would not be as fast on the x86 processors. So if you want to use some of the heavy stuff you still need Mac G4 hardware.

Sure Apple hardware will still take a hit with OS X for x86, but the additional revenue from software sales should make up for some of that.
 
Does not compute

Whatever the perceived benefits or disadvantages of porting OSX to Windows machines, I don't see how this would appeal to the MW audience. Surely they will all be Mac owners?
 
OS/X on PCs / WinDoze on Macs ...

As anybody who uses them can attest, applications running under a software emulation of ANY OS (Mac, Win,UNIX,etc...) run ****MUCH**** slower than they do on the real OS they were written for.

Win apps on Mac with ANY current emulation software run about 1/8 the speed they do on Windows, given roughly equal hardware, and Mac apps running on what MacOS emulation there currently is for windows run just as poorly.

OS emulation, is, by definition, very inefficient, and Mac emulation on a PC box (without AltiVec and other G3/G4 hardware goodies) is PATHETIC, even with a 2+GHz P4 or Itanium. An games (a VERY popular part of this, like it or not) will REALLY suffer, since their performance-critical parts tend to be written right down at the machine language (ie. VERY Intel/AMD chip-specific) level.

NOBODY will buy a (relatively expensive) Mac box to run Win software when they can get a MUCH faster real PC for about half the price, although some highly budget-limited people might by a super-cheap PC to run Windows software and Mac software, even with the crappy performance of the Mac software under MacOS emulation on the PC.

The point? Apple may bundle Win emulation on the new Mac OS/X systems, but it will always be an only-if-necessary thing for most Mac users. But to put Mac OS/X on a Win box will ONLY eat into Mac hardware sales, and there are a hell of a lot more people who would buy a cheap PC to run Mac apps than the other way around.

I've said it before -- Max OS/X on a PC box?
No way...Apple is not nearly THAT stupid.

Just wait to see what Steve has in his POCKET on Monday morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back