Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Coming for the PC?

[asphalt-proof]

This technology sounds interesting. But I would rather see Apple use it the other way around than being suggested here. Apple could use this to build "Virtual PC" into the operating system, allowing x86 apps to be run on PPC hardware. It would allow users to run specific x86 apps that aren't available on PPC natively, or even x86 games. Maybe they could integrate some sort of classic-like mode into the system that runs windows within OS-X.

Yes!! Maybe we could put to rest all the annoying posts about when Half-Life is going to be ported to Macs. I think that this scenario is much more likely than OSX to X86. That would be the last obstacle for some people to 'switch'.

 

[LimeiBook86]

I am sure Apple DOES have OS X for Intel "in the works." But only in a "just in case, someday" sense.

Porting it themselves (Rhapsody did run on Windows), and/or using Transitive, and/or some other method... I'm sure they are keeping the possibility somewhere on a back burner. And rumors of those internal projects are interesting.

At the same time, it makes no sense for Apple to SELL such a product. But if, one day, it DOES make sense, it wouldn't totally surprise me.

Rhaosody never worked for me on Windows...damn StuffIt Expander!

Well err..umm...anyway, we have a few things going on PearPC/CherryOS and now this. As everyone else is saying I think it too, it is a backup plan and I think Apple would surprise most of us if they went and did this lets say when Tiger comes out. This is an alternative plan in my eyes

. Say Apple shifts thier focus to some new product that fails miserebly or some wacky lawsuit (Of course non of us want this to happen but just in case something horrible like that would happen), then the company might be on it's hands and knees, this would probably be it's last plan, it's ...'Death Egg' if you will. (heh Sonic) But I don't think we'd see something like this soon, only if the people making that CherryOS Business get thier act togeather...althought their page just changed and says 'Coming Soon!'

Well only time will tell.

 

[k2k koos]

Mac OSX on PC hardware, not a good idea

While I believe that OS X could be a great OS for the PC platform, it will do damage in the long run. Let me explain:

There are many different PC manufacturers out there, with even more different configurations, hardware, incl processors etc
All of this will need to be supported.
In reality this usually does not work very well, or requiers experts to set it up for you, doing damage to the overal image of the mac OS, plug and play, and great stability.
I think Apple would therefore do better to concentrate developing OSX for the platform it has commited to, with strict control over the used hardware. That is the only guarantee you can have if you want to be able to sell machines, or software, that just works and keeps working straight out of the box.
Even this, sometimes proves even now, not always to work right away, there are still problems to sort out every now and then, imagine the night mare if suddenly hundreds of other harware configurations need to be supported.....

 

[chazmox]

Rumors better than the real thing...

From what I've read of Transitive, this rumor greatly oversells their product capability. If I remember correctly, the product is limited and can't do something as radical as supporting OSX on a x86 architecture. It is promoted that way on the company website - but right now that's just vaporware.

I used to work for Bob Wiederhold ( CEO of Transitive ) when he worked for Tality and Cadence. He's big at self-promotion but not necessarily at anything else.I doubt we'll see a product from them...

Also, while Apple may be looking at this, I doubt that they would release a product that would already have a speed and compatibility disadvantage ( would emulation be as stable as running natively ). This would just sour the taste for potential switchers.

 

[mkwilson68]

Hell will freeze over first

This would destroy Apple's income, because you can't do this half-baked: it's an all or nothing strategy. They would have to license to someone (Sony/HP are the only options imho) to make it viable financially.

At a time when Apple is soaring and getting some traction again, this would be an insane move, and is just not going to happen.

It would be like, to use a familiar analogy here, BMW licensing their engines, interiors and driving experience to Ford.

 

[Chappers]

LOL,
so what are u guys working with? real dos?

Honestly the man hates macs with a passion, he isn't to keen on windows and only likes unix. But unix in macosx is not real unix just some bastardisation (his words not mine) and so he hates it. And he really really hates it.

Not bad considering the huge Mac presence where I work.

 

[hob]

Yes, I realize this is an overdone topic. Transitive is interesting however.

Take it for what it's worth, however... an unconfirmed rumor.

arn

iTunes 4.8 coming...no details

Tiger on the PC


What is with Page 2? Are they just making stuff up?

I mean come on. I don't mean to be harsh, but this is just silly.

Arn, c'mon - what's the point of worrying people unnecessarily? Where did the idea for this story come from? From what I can see there's no new information here... There's always been rumors of an x86 version of OS X, Marklar I seem to remember it was called. Macworld UK has a couple of articles - all with the same phrase "with the G4 maxed out at 1.xGhz, Apple's only option may be the x86 version of OS X, Marklar. Many mac watchers warn this could spell the end of Apple's hardware sales" (1.x depending on date of article)

 

[hob]

Honestly the man hates macs with a passion, he isn't to keen on windows and only likes unix. But unix in macosx is not real unix just some bastardisation (his words not mine) and so he hates it. And he really really hates it.

Not bad considering the huge Mac presence where I work.

The geek who runs the internal Direct Connect network at my uni accommodation similarly refers to OS X as a bastardisation. If he ever says it in earshot of my powerbook, I may have a geek-shaped dent in the lid of my powerbook...

 

[topgunn]

if somebody had had a technology in 2001 that gives you 80% speed in the emulation we should have seen a product by now.

Unless someone didn't want you to see it.

 

[Cappy]

I hope everyone keeps in mind that Apple could very well be interested in this technology for other purposes and markets than simple pc oriented applications. What's to say they don't have other devices in mind that could use inexpensive pc parts and run the Mac OS on them for special purposes? I'm not going to say what because it would be pure speculation but it's worth keeping an open mind about it. Apple is very much about innovation and research thus it makes sense that they would be interested in such technology.

 

[jdawg4324]

apple buyoff

Maybe apple is showing interest in the company to buy them off to prevent such a product. When someone comes close they will buy it a nd hold it. Thgis prevents its release. Legal wise a company can sale software to make os run on pc but you would still have to buy the os. Apple knows this could kill them. So IMO apple is buying the rights to the software or developing and getting a pattent before companys can make it. Apple is in protection mode.

 

[Sonofhaig]

Repent......

The end is near (if this happens).

 

[i_am_a_cow]

Most Intel processors fail to run Windows without being very annoyingly choppy (Windows XP, actually. Older versions are fine). I don't think Mac OS X would be bareable on most x86 processors.

If Apple included an x86 emulator with OS X, people would stop developing native OS X apps.

Mac OS X has drifted away from being compatible with Linux apps. Binutils isn't in OS X! Guess that makes porting stuff a little bit harder. People who say "why would you want linux when mac os x is linux!?" don't know what they're talking about. For one, Darwin is based on BSD if I remember right, and secondly, they have never tried to compile stuff that needs binutils. Also, Apple's X11 is slooooow, especially on my G4/466.

I just bought a Powerbook. Why didn't I buy a PC? OS X is really great. Aqua is very, very, very quick. I find OS X on an average machine much quicker than Windows on an average x86 machine.

My Grandma has a Celeron 1.7 Ghz and it can barely run Windows XP home edition. A window refresh usually takes somewhere around 5 seconds, honestly. Windows sucks, and it's making x86 look terrible, whether it really is or not.

 

[VincentVega]

As someone who only (currently) owns a PC (no Mac yet), I hope that Mac OS X stays well away from x86 architecture. Why? Apple hardware is better, more integrated with the OS and it looks good. PCs have problems with crap drivers, rubbish hardware and so on. IMHO, one of OS X's strengths is that the hardware is closely tied in with the operating system.

If Apple did release OS X for the PC, I'd still buy Apple hardware and get the real experience. Perhaps they could release a emasculated version for PCs with cut down functionality that gives PC owners a taste of what they could have if only they would switch.

 

[Lacero]

Apple would be rolling in profits if they ever decide to port OSX to the Intel/AMD platform. Why not tap into 95% of the computing market? Many businesses and enterprise will benefit from OSX. There's absolutely no reason why this should not be done. Apple can keep making hardware for their loyal user base.

 

[bankshot]

From what I've read of Transitive, this rumor greatly oversells their product capability. If I remember correctly, the product is limited and can't do something as radical as supporting OSX on a x86 architecture. It is promoted that way on the company website - but right now that's just vaporware.

Exactly what I was thinking when the stories came out about this last year. "Hmm, sounds like vaporware." Honestly, it reminded me of that CherryOS scam (the guy that claimed near-realtime emulation of PowerPC on Intel, when he was just repackaging PearPC which is extremely slow) except the Transitive website at least "feels" a bit more professional. Even so, it screamed vaporware to me, loud and clear! It seemed to be a lot of well written hype (to the point of being believable by those who wanted to believe) with no substance to back it up.

I'll believe this when I see it... in about 2015. And even then, I won't believe it!

I used to work for Bob Wiederhold ( CEO of Transitive ) when he worked for Tality and Cadence. He's big at self-promotion but not necessarily at anything else.I doubt we'll see a product from them...

Interesting. Seems to be further evidence that this shouldn't have even been a Page 2 rumor. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

[cgc]

Every day at work I see more and more reasons why I'm happpy I jumped from Amiga to Mac. The network administrators are installing XP on every machine. It takes them a day sometimes for a single machine. Vendor-specific drivers for everything, argh. Funny to watch 'em squirm, but it's ridiculous.

 

[tobyc]

Well I for one would hate to see OSX running on anything other than Mac hardware, but if there ever was a time to port OSX to the x86 platform now would be the time. With so much mindshare due to the success of the iPod and iTunes, OSX would have instant street cred. I'm sure that many home users would instantly ditch windows in favor of OSX if they knew that it would run on their existing hardware.

What Apple doesn't need or want would be the inevitable bad press and swamped call centres due to installation difficulties and incompatabilities which would naturally arise in such a heterogeneous market.

This also begs the question of wether Apple could recoup enough money in sales of OSX that it would inevitably lose in hardware sales. Also this would mean some sort of installation key like the MS activation codes which have become the bane of home computing.

 

[paulypants]

The one real way to KILL Apple hardware for good.

 

[Booga]

Why focus on MacOS X?

Why focus on MacOS X? Apple makes a lot of software these days. What if they shipped some of their iLife stuff on Windows using this product as a quicker way to port code?

And as for MacOS X running on an Intel processor, I don't know why people assume that means "generic PC hardware." A processor is a processor, and unfortuantely x86 processors have consistently stayed ahead of PowerPC over the past few years. If Apple's OS still only ran on Apple hardware, but you had an Intel or AMD processor under the hood, hopefully you'd never know the difference (except your desktop Mac would be faster and your laptop would use less power.) This wouldn't even imply that your new IntelMac could run Windows, or even linux.

 

[swissmann]

Why not do it? However at the same time they would need to beef up their hardware. So PC users would get OS X on their PC and would realize how much it stomps Windows then the next time they are in the market to buy some hardware they already have Mac software and they look at their options. If Apple machines are much more capable and competitive from cheap (mac Mini) to powerhouse (PowerMac) the Apple hardware would be purchased. I don't know if Apple can do this hardware wise but if they could I see no reason why those half way inbetween users wouldn't switch over all the way.

 

[jwhitnah]

Again?

This thread will be a mile long before it is finished!

 

[dotdotdot]

NO!

Apple needs to retain its own strength! lol

They need to be Apple - not a PC software company!

 

[SiliconAddict]

A lovely thought but I don’t see this happening without major revamps to the way Apple handles their sales. As many have stated time and time and time and time and time again Apple first and foremost is a hardware company that also happens to make a good OS. If they start selling OS X on a cheap o PC at best they can only hope for an OS X and iApps sales. Lets see a $100-$300 sale or a $500-$3,000+ sale. Which sounds better to you? Could Apple make a living selling software? Sure. But initially it would be a serious gamble on their part. If they don’t makes enough sales to compensate for that lost hardware purchase Apple would be screwed.
Honestly I just don’t see them doing it. OS X on X86 is a doomsday weapon for Apple. Its intended as a lifeboat in the event of Apple seeing that the boat has not only sprung a leak but has broken in two.

 

[SiliconAddict]

The one real way to KILL Apple hardware for good.

I think Apple has done a wonderful job of doing that themselves. *coughs*powerbook*coughs*