I've always wondered this... (Stupid Question)

[NavyIntel007]

No replies? I guess it is possible for a mac user to have a perfectly good and logical reason why they use the products they do. All the more reason why you need to do your homework before you tell me to "grow up." Maybe you should wise up. 😎 🙄 🙄 🙄

 

[xpormac]

more people starting out on computers would be motivated towards x86 version of OS X, mainly because apple overcharges out the ass for their computers 😉 x86 version would be cheeper.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Actually... I'm a former PC owner, who hated Windows and hated linux. You are so wrong on so many levels it's funny. First off you assume that every program written for OS X would automatically work for this x86 OS X. That is absolutely untrue. The only way they would work is through emulation, which would be slow. That means than every developer would have to redo all their programs to support the new platform. Don't you remember all the problems with going from 9 to X? Multiply that by 50.

Give me a break. Once the OS is in place If Apple wanted to they could provide recompile tools for i386. It’s doable. Not simple but doable. Look at Linux for god sake. They have support for every CPU type on the planet and the software that is on one CPU is usually available on another. Hell I’m running Linux on my old iPaq with an ARM CPU. The problem that you would run into, keeping in mind that I’ve only done some limited programming, is the AltiVecCore optimizations. You’d run into problems with programs that are optimized for this. So any speed advantages found using AltiVec would be flushed.

Second, you automatically assume that everyone is going to jump ship and throw away all their windows software for OS X, which they've never used and buy all new software to support it. WRONG AGAIN! People fear change... they wouldn't understand why Microsoft Office doesn't work on OS X (just like you don't understand that no software you use with your mac will work on x86 OS X).

Reread my post. I didn't say everyone. I didn't say 80%, 50% or even 20%. Fact of the matter is there ARE a lot of people that would use a Mac if it wasn't for one reason. Hardware. They've invested a small fortune on that hardware and going out and spending another small fortune to get a new OS is unacceptable by many. At least that's what I've been told whenever I've discussed the Mac with users. Now think about this. Keeping your existing hardware but moving to a new OS. Also you forget something. These users already own Windows. They have a license for it. Virtual PC is complicated because the software is actually emulating a i386 CPU. This would no longer be necessary and could most likely allow the use of Windows at full speed. All someone would have to do is create a method of running Windows inside OSX. This HAS to be simpler then emulation the CPU itself. Also I would point you to Lindows as a possible method of allowing Windows apps to work in OSX. Lindows resizes a Windows partition and installs itself alongside windows. The OS actually uses the APIs of the installed version of Windows to allow a person to run Windows software on Linux. It’s a good alternative to going cold turkey. There are plenty of options out there.

Third.... Apple is a hardware company.

Sure they are. Does that mean they can't turn into a software company? They already are putting out some killer software everything from Final Cut Pro to iTunes. They could thrive on software alone if necessary.

Name me one OS that has successfully ported itself to x86.... oh... you can't can you? Well I can name two that have failed and one that's failing... BeOS, OS/2... and Sun Solaris. Where is BeOS? Owned by Palm... you must be doing bad if Palm can afford to buy you out. OS/2 was just cancelled. And Sun is selling Linux boxes now so Solaris for x86 wasn't the answer there either.

Be OS failed because they tried going head to head with MS before it was time. I think they were on version 3 of the OS before they went public on their software. It wasn't a mature platform yet and everyone knew it. Simply. They ran out of time and money. A fatal mistake on their part. If you look at Open BOS, something I have on my Latitude as a dual boot system with W2K, it’s a fantastic OS. I'm in it about 40% of the time when I'm laptoping it. The coolest feature I’ve seen yet is that the entire OS fits and boots off of the CD. So if one wants to run BEOS on a system that is totally Windows based simply boot off the CD and more often then not it will find your sound and video card. On my Toshiba laptop it found the GeForce 2 Go card without a problem. Then configure your settings for the NIC or modem that it found and away you go.

OS/2 failed not because it was on the i386 platform but because they got clobbered by the MS marketing department. Windows 95 marketing totally slapped the crap out of OS/2 Warp. Win95 wasn’t better. It was just marketed better.
Look the reason no one has been able to break into the i386 market isn't because of the hardware. It’s because of the MS marketing juggernaut. Apple knows marketing and knows how to play hardball. Am I advocating that they put out an i386 version of OSX tomorrow? Of course not. Something like that would take a massive amount of time and planning. It really is a type of war.

It's not because I'm a zealot or because I'm immature. It's because obviously I have a better view of the industry than you. Porting OS X to anything but PPC would just be stupid business. It would be better to start the Clone wars again than to do that. It's a stupid suggestion, and that's why it makes me mad.

It’s not a stupid suggestion. If you can't see the pros of why it’s a good idea you obviously haven't thought it through enough. As I had said there are pros and cons. The cons aren't insurmountable. They are formidable though.

 

[johnnowak]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
No replies? I guess it is possible for a mac user to have a perfectly good and logical reason why they use the products they do. All the more reason why you need to do your homework before you tell me to "grow up." Maybe you should wise up. 😎 🙄 🙄 🙄

Just because you might know what you're talking about on this one issue doesn't give you the right to act like a total ass.

You have the attitude of a 15 year old arguing that their favorite punk band is soooo much punkier than everyone else's.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Give me a break. Once the OS is in place If Apple wanted to they could provide recompile tools for i386. It’s doable. Not simple but doable. Look at Linux for god sake. They have support for every CPU type on the planet and the software that is on one CPU is usually available on another. Hell I’m running Linux on my old iPaq with an ARM CPU. The problem that you would run into, keeping in mind that I’ve only done some limited programming, is the AltiVecCore optimizations. You’d run into problems with programs that are optimized for this. So any speed advantages found using AltiVec would be flushed.



Reread my post. I didn't say everyone. I didn't say 80%, 50% or even 20%. Fact of the matter is there ARE a lot of people that would use a Mac if it wasn't for one reason. Hardware. They've invested a small fortune on that hardware and going out and spending another small fortune to get a new OS is unacceptable by many. At least that's what I've been told whenever I've discussed the Mac with users. Now think about this. Keeping your existing hardware but moving to a new OS. Also you forget something. These users already own Windows. They have a license for it. Virtual PC is complicated because the software is actually emulating a i386 CPU. This would no longer be necessary and could most likely allow the use of Windows at full speed. All someone would have to do is create a method of running Windows inside OSX. This HAS to be simpler then emulation the CPU itself. Also I would point you to Lindows as a possible method of allowing Windows apps to work in OSX. Lindows resizes a Windows partition and installs itself alongside windows. The OS actually uses the APIs of the installed version of Windows to allow a person to run Windows software on Linux. It’s a good alternative to going cold turkey. There are plenty of options out there.




Sure they are. Does that mean they can't turn into a software company? They already are putting out some killer software everything from Final Cut Pro to iTunes. They could thrive on software alone if necessary.



Be OS failed because they tried going head to head with MS before it was time. I think they were on version 3 of the OS before they went public on their software. It wasn't a mature platform yet and everyone knew it. Simply. They ran out of time and money. A fatal mistake on their part. If you look at Open BOS, something I have on my Latitude as a dual boot system with W2K, it’s a fantastic OS. I'm in it about 40% of the time when I'm laptoping it. The coolest feature I’ve seen yet is that the entire OS fits and boots off of the CD. So if one wants to run BEOS on a system that is totally Windows based simply boot off the CD and more often then not it will find your sound and video card. On my Toshiba laptop it found the GeForce 2 Go card without a problem. Then configure your settings for the NIC or modem that it found and away you go.

OS/2 failed not because it was on the i386 platform but because they got clobbered by the MS marketing department. Windows 95 marketing totally slapped the crap out of OS/2 Warp. Win95 wasn’t better. It was just marketed better.
Look the reason no one has been able to break into the i386 market isn't because of the hardware. It’s because of the MS marketing juggernaut. Apple knows marketing and knows how to play hardball. Am I advocating that they put out an i386 version of OSX tomorrow? Of course not. Something like that would take a massive amount of time and planning. It really is a type of war.




It’s not a stupid suggestion. If you can't see the pros of why it’s a good idea you obviously haven't thought it through enough. As I had said there are pros and cons. The cons aren't insurmountable. They are formidable though.

It's still a stupid suggestion. To reply... does you little ipaq run an x86 linux program? No it does not. It has to be recompiled. That means that EVERY mac developer would have to recompile their code to work on the new system. Recompiling doesn't just work automatically, sometimes you have to alter the libraries and tweak code. Maybe some developers would be willing to do this... but companies like Adobe would not. Why should they when they have a complete and usable product for windows x86. It is not cost effective for them to port at all. Why would Microsoft port Mac office to x86? They have it for windows. Wine is not perfect either.

The OS's that failed. You mentioned they tried to compete with Microsoft head to head. What exactly do you think x86 OS X would do? Microsoft would crush Apple overnight. Microsoft isn't exactly going to just let Apple take marketshare from them especially on their own platform.

There may be some initial successes with people who want to try it out. But when people see there's no software and no drivers to add on to it, it will quickly fade away. Just like BeOS.

Tell me one hardware company that has successfully turned into a software company.

Your suggestion of pros show your ignorance of the industry.

 

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007


Your suggestion of pros show your ignorance of the industry.

OK lay your cards on the table. What makes you such an industry guru? What do you do? My credential are working in the industry you know so well for 10 years. That and common sense. How about yours?

I don't need to get into a flame ware over this. On to another thread.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I don't think Apple would fair very well switching to an open system style running x86 hardware. I could see them switching to x86 if PPC went down the tubes or something, but I still think they would keep their boxes closed. IMO, one of the things that gives Apple a leg up over the Windows/x86 world is that Apple has tighter control over the software and hardware in its machines so it can work on fine-tuning the Mac software and hardware to play nice together where as Windows probably has millions of various hadware combo's it has to deal with. I see windows as kind of a jack of all trades, master of none OS. XP works okay on a variety of hardware where OS X works very well on a limited amount of hardware. I don't think OS X would fair much better in an open hardware environment than XP does.

Apple does make great software but how much money do they really make off of it (seriously, anyone have a clue)? I mean, you get a butt-load of stuff bunlded w/the OS for just $129. The iApps are free. FCP 4 is easily a $3500-$4000 program selling for $999. DVD SP got a 50% price cut as well as, from what I hear, a fantastic overhaul. Shake got a price cut. I really think Apple uses it's killer software as a loss-leader (is that the correct term?) to get people to buy Mac hardware. W/o jacking prices way up from what they are now I don't think Apple could survive as a software only company.

Just my 2 cents.


Lethal

 

[redAPPLE]

after reading the posts on this thread, i kinda forgot, what the original post was about 🙂

i find it amusing, that the os x to i386 issue popped out here.

i guess there are enough threads regarding this issue, no? 😉

i think it is not a good idea even to start discussing this issue. Apple is doing well. of course, it could always do better.

how? contact all your friends and relatives and convince them to get a mac.

oh, now i know what the actual topic of the thread was... virii.

 

[slightly]

Applescript virus

Although there are few Mac viruses now, it only takes a determined Machead with a penchant for trouble to come up with something.

You can compile an Applescript which will get addresses from Address Book and send mail to those addresses. The script can also deliver a nasty payload (eg wipe your hard drive). I don't have the flexibility to test this out on my system, but I believe, if the user is logged in as an admin (which, on most single-user setups, seems pretty likely), I don't think there's anything to stop Applescript doing this.

The key, of course, is to ensure that you're smarter than the computer. I'm not even sure if virus scanners will pick up attachments of the above type.

Panther will make security a little easier by making it simple to switch from an admin to a user with few privileges, but still and all, be careful out there.

Matt

 

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Re: Applescript virus

Originally posted by slightly
Although there are few Mac viruses now, it only takes a determined Machead with a penchant for trouble to come up with something.

You can compile an Applescript which will get addresses from Address Book and send mail to those addresses. The script can also deliver a nasty payload (eg wipe your hard drive). I don't have the flexibility to test this out on my system, but I believe, if the user is logged in as an admin (which, on most single-user setups, seems pretty likely), I don't think there's anything to stop Applescript doing this.

The key, of course, is to ensure that you're smarter than the computer. I'm not even sure if virus scanners will pick up attachments of the above type.

Panther will make security a little easier by making it simple to switch from an admin to a user with few privileges, but still and all, be careful out there.

Matt

This might work if Apple became more mainstream, but the only people you could affect this way are people you know are Mac users.

I believe I may have mentioned the following before. To those who say that Apple would become as vulnerable as Windows XP if it were on more hardware configurations, are the other *nix OSes some that run on both PC and Mac hardware as vulnerable as Windows XP?