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

[Cooknn]

So would Apple really make enough money off of the software, which would be freely floating around every P2P network in like 3 hours, to justify cutting into the switcher margin? That's not even counting Mac hardware users who might switch to x86 hardware because they were just too broke to afford a PowerMac... There's just no way to make it a good move, financially, for Apple.

My thought is that it won't come out for x86 but on IBM and possibly Sony hardware running a PowerPC based chip. License OS X to other manufacturers willing to build around the PPC and they pump out tons of boxes which translates into tons of money for Apple. Just ask Bill Gates if software makes money for him 😉

 

[~loserman~]

My thought is that it won't come out for x86 but on IBM and possibly Sony hardware running a PowerPC based chip. License OS X to other manufacturers willing to build around the PPC and they pump out tons of boxes which translates into tons of money for Apple. Just ask Bill Gates if software makes money for him 😉

Apple definately wont do that. They tried the clones before and it was a disaster for Apple. The reason that a OS X on X86 is superior to the clone idea is simply because of the 500 million potential OS customers who already have X86 machines currently running windows.

Will Apple do it probably not.

 

[Cooknn]

Apple definately wont do that. They tried the clones before and it was a disaster for Apple. The reason that a OS X on X86 is superior to the clone idea is simply because of the 500 million potential OS customers who already have X86 machines currently running windows.

Will Apple do it probably not.

I just find it curious that IBM pulls out of the x86 market completely and from what I've read they have a massive facility under construction and shrouded by secrecy (I can't find the thread). But I did find . The thread is from 2003 and comes from an someone who knew IBM insiders.

Here's a quote:

And, now to the real kicker. Remember how I said that Apple had to make concessions to IBM? Well, one of them would allow IBM to manufacture and sell machines that ran Mac OS X - and would allow them sell it for servers, if a customer wanted it. This would not allow them to build laptops that ran the Mac OS, only desktop machines or servers.

 

[~loserman~]

I just find it curious that IBM pulls out of the x86 market completely and from what I've read they have a massive facility under construction and shrouded by secrecy (I can't find the thread). But I did find . The thread is from 2003 and comes from an someone who knew IBM insiders.

Here's a quote:

I hate to disillusion you but IBM has no desire to sell OS X for its servers.
OS X is a very poor performer for HPC which is where IBM sells all its servers to. It has a terrible memory manager and little to no thread affinity. Even its TCP/IP stack is substandard. IBM is banking all its OS hopes on Migrating AIX to LINUX.
The reason IBM has abandoned it's PC business is not to start selling low end PowerPC/Apple like clones but so that it can concentrate on what it does best which is produce big iron.
It's only niche market in the PowerPC market is for JS20 blade servers running Linux.

 

[arribadia]

Doesn't this imply that the only thing holding people back at the moment is the cost of the hardware? I would have thought that the main reason people won't switch in droves is the fact it's different. Whether it runs on PPC or x86, it will ALWAYS be different to Windows thankfully! 🙂

No.. i do believe it is lack of driver/games support.

With Office and Adobe CS on Mac, I can imagine most people's needs are satisfied as far as work is concerned, but the trouble really kicks in when say 80% of hardware in the market won't work on a mac.

People just want it to work(tm). It is that simple.

If Windows were to be designed for a single computer, with fixed hardware and drivers, it'd be a very crap OS indeed.

 

[arribadia]

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.

Please repeat after me, x86 is NOT windows. x86 runs a lot of other OSes too! An x86 emulator already exists, that is Virtual PC.

I believe what you meant is a "Windows emulator". That is probably never gonna happen since the Windows API is copyrighted by Microsoft...

Hell will freeze over before they license it to Apple...

 

[Demoman]

The software is everything!

I was writing COBOL on a Sytem 38 when the micros began to arrive. I remember the first article on the Macintosh. I was blown away by this totally revolutionary machine. It was clearly miles ahead of the IBM/Microsoft offering.

I was re-assigned to PC's, where I have pretty much worked for 20 years. In the mid 80's, any purchase was considered suspect unless it was IBM/MSDOS. I remember how difficult it was trying to sell the idea of buying a clone computer named Compaq, even though it was clearly superior to the IBM. Even today, you will occassionally see a '100% IBM compatible' tag on a computer. But, back then the reason for ensuring the machine WAS IBM compatible had nothing to do with the hardware. It was a guarantee the business software of that era would run on it.

And there were precious few SW choices available. There were four major apps back then; Lotus 123, Dbase III/IV, Samba and Wordperfect. Many more were actually becomming available, and would soon gain great popularity. But, these were the main players. It is my belief, if Apple had struck a deal with Lotus Development, Ashton-Tate (Dbase) and Samba, Bill Gates would NOT be the world's richest man.

Apple had their own proprietary apps, but they were out of the business mainstream. And the business market was VERY conservative. Most corporations saw micros as a means to keep users from bothering the DP Department with requests for data and technology (how dare they!). And when they were willing to actually make micro purchases, they only bought hardware that would run what everyone else was using. That has not changed a heck of a lot.

I believe that Apple is poised to really make a run at the business market place. Corporations are absolutely sick of dealing with viruses and hacking. But, they are growing even more shocked by the cost of MS's outragous pricing. Compare the price of Windows 2003 Enterprise Server Unlimited to OSX 10.4 XServer unlimited. Have any of you done the math? I do not have the numbers in front of me, but OSX is $999 and Windows is over $20000! Add the cost of MS SQL Server 2003 Enterprise and MySQL Enterprise. The same thing.

If Apple can establish OSX within the business world, many things are going to fall into place for them. I think Wintel is vulnerable right now. Apple has the best hardware, the best network solutions, the best operating system and the best apps. It is now time to storm the bastille. Getting OSX on the desktop, regardless of who's box it is in, is what is important.

 

[Cooknn]

It is now time to storm the bastille. Getting OSX on the desktop, regardless of who's box it is in, is what is important.

I am totally with you on that! The stars are aligned for Apple to make a run at Wintel NOW. Imagine if this were true 😱

 

[iGary]

Not.Ever.Happening.

 

[Cooknn]

Not.Ever.Happening.

Thanks for getting this thread back on topic iGary. I sort of drifted there... OS X on x86, doesn't look like it. Especially if Apple/IBM can pull off Dual Core 3Ghz G5's 😱

 

[jayscheuerle]

Tiger IS coming to the PC.

It will cost $499 and include a special hardware adapter called a mini.

😉

 

[BenRoethig]

Not.Ever.Happening.

I wouldn't be so sure of sure of that. With IBM's recent financial woes, I have some doubt about the future of consumer desktop PowerPCs. I'd have to say production of Cell chips and custom processors for the Xbox 360 and Nintendo's revolution would have to be a bit higher on the list of priorities. With Freescale not producing anything close to a suitable desktop chip, Apple would be really dumb if it didn't have a viable backup plan in place and ready to impliment.

 

[jayscheuerle]

I wouldn't be so sure of sure of that. With IBM's recent financial woes, I have some doubt about the future of consumer desktop PowerPCs. I'd have to say production of Cell chips and custom processors for the Xbox 360 and Nintendo's revolution would have to be a bit higher on the list of priorities. With Freescale not producing anything close to a suitable desktop chip, Apple would be really dumb if it didn't have a viable backup plan in place and ready to impliment.

Apple might end up using another chip, but they would integrate it into the machines in a way (ROM chips?) that you couldn't build your own box to run OSX on. They're a hardware company.

 

[ericjb]

A Great Idea

I must tell you all right up front that I am not currently a Mac user, I have been a PC person since the late 80's, but I think this would be a great idea for Apple, to release a i386 version of their OS.

I do agree that they should not OEM license this to anyone, and there should be a disclaimer on the PC version that there is a limited HCL (hardware Compatibility List) that this OS works on, but it may never work as well as it does on their proprietary hardware. Even Microsoft has a HCL and there is some hardware that they won't support.

Reality is that today the PC hardware is much better than it has been in the years past, and for Apple to pick a dozen VGA cards, a dozen network cards, Motherboards and such to support well, wouldn't be that big of a deal. I admit you can still buy a lot of crappy cheap hardware, but those of us that would like the option of trying the Mac OS could buy hardware off this list and try the Mac OS on an i386 processor, that way if someone didn't like it (Yeah right!) they could always go back to their measly windows or their favorite Linux flavor.

I think this would get a LOT of people out there that really don't like the adware and spyware and viruses to switch to the MAC OS and then after they like it they probably would buy the complete MAC machine. I personally have no problems with viruses, adware, or spyware because I am a savvy user I know what to avoid and I use Firefox, but I would LOVE to try a MAC but I'm not ready to make that purchase since I have 13 PCs in the house already. I would love a $149 OS I could try. And face it, that $149 they would get from me is $149 more than they are getting from me now, and could lead to a few new computer purchases. 🙂

 

[0098386]

it'd be useful for people who cant afford another machine but who want to use an alternative OS with customer support and popular commercial companies (ie, Adobe, Macromedia etc.). might be very bad for Linux lovers if it goes ahead too.

 

[Sunrunner]

hmmmm

it'd be useful for people who cant afford another machine but who want to use an alternative OS with customer support and popular commercial companies (ie, Adobe, Macromedia etc.). might be very bad for Linux lovers if it goes ahead too.

Dont forget, Apple is primarily a hardware company... they make the software as a means of getting people to buy the hardware. Putting OS X on x86 would ruin them from that standpoint... and atleast 80% of the OS X systems running on x86 boxes would just run pirated copies anyway...

 

[BenRoethig]

Dont forget, Apple is primarily a hardware company... they make the software as a means of getting people to buy the hardware. Putting OS X on x86 would ruin them from that standpoint... and atleast 80% of the OS X systems running on x86 boxes would just run pirated copies anyway...

1. If Apple were to offer competitive hardware, they'd probably gain users.

2. OSX x86 would probably use open firmware like OSX PPC. Windows/Linux x86 motherboards use Bios. Motherboards would have to be Apple approved. On the flip side, the only difference between the Mac version and the PC version would be the ROM chip.

3. You're assuming that the majority of Mac users are here only for the OS. What about the people who buy Apple because their hardware isn't an ATX tower. The iMac and Mini offer an elegance that is not found in the average wintel box. An HP isn't going to morph into in iMac if it runs OSX.

4. A good portion of the computer market is corporate and they don't pirate. Plus do I need not mention that Mac users are not exempt from this practice.

 

[jayscheuerle]

1. If Apple were to offer competitive hardware, they'd probably gain users.

Why do you think that if Apple made hardware with X86 chips that it would be any cheaper than their PowerPC boxes? It would still be a proprietary system and it's not like any Windows-only programs would run on it. It would just have a different heart. There would be little difference from a user's perspective.

What you hear people clamoring for is the ability to run OSX on their various, current X86 hardware, assuming they could run all their games and dog-show score-card printing software on it (or whatever esoteric niche product that's PC only).

Not only do they not get it, but they're never going to get it...

 

[BenRoethig]

Why do you think that if Apple made hardware with X86 chips that it would be any cheaper than their PowerPC boxes? It would still be a proprietary system and it's not like any Windows-only programs would run on it. It would just have a different heart. There would be little difference from a user's perspective.

What you hear people clamoring for is the ability to run OSX on their various, current X86 hardware, assuming they could run all their games and dog-show score-card printing software on it (or whatever esoteric niche product that's PC only).

Not only do they not get it, but they're never going to get it...

I didn't say cheaper, I said competitive.

 

[ericjb]

I would just like to say, I wasn't talking about using any windows programs or anything if the MAC OS could run on an x86 platform. I'm talking about people being able to see what a MAC is all about without having to purchase a whole new machine. Being able to try it on hardware and feeling secure that if they wanted to dump it and go back to Linux or MS they could without having to sell hardware.

Why not go after some of the PC market and give them a taste. And as far as "there being no difference to the user" BULL! What about all you MAC people that are telling everyone "no viruses", "no adware", "no spyware", "no keyloggers" I'd say those are differences the user would love.

I've been a PC user for 20 years, and I'd love to see what a MAC is all about. I use Linux quite a bit and have all the apps to do all the day to day stuff, but where I need a PC is for the utilities to troubleshoot network issues and network sniffers for problem solving in the field. There are just no utils for a MAC to do what I need when it comes to troubleshooting. I did find some for Linux though.

All in all, I'd be first in line to buy the MAC OS for x86 if it does come true!! 🙂

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I would just like to say, I wasn't talking about using any windows programs or anything if the MAC OS could run on an x86 platform. I'm talking about people being able to see what a MAC is all about without having to purchase a whole new machine. Being able to try it on hardware and feeling secure that if they wanted to dump it and go back to Linux or MS they could without having to sell hardware.

Why not go after some of the PC market and give them a taste. And as far as "there being no difference to the user" BULL! What about all you MAC people that are telling everyone "no viruses", "no adware", "no spyware", "no keyloggers" I'd say those are differences the user would love.

I've been a PC user for 20 years, and I'd love to see what a MAC is all about. I use Linux quite a bit and have all the apps to do all the day to day stuff, but where I need a PC is for the utilities to troubleshoot network issues and network sniffers for problem solving in the field. There are just no utils for a MAC to do what I need when it comes to troubleshooting. I did find some for Linux though.

All in all, I'd be first in line to buy the MAC OS for x86 if it does come true!! 🙂

Keep in mind, though, that no existing Mac programs would run on such a beast without either a recompile or emulation - neither of which is an ideal solution. You'd be limited to what Apple provides with Mac OS X and has helpfully recompiled for x86 for you.

 

[James Philp]

I wish this thread would die! It's so bloated I have no idea what's going on anymore!
Suffice to say i think apple have had enough pain converting iTunes for XP - I don't think they wouold want to succum anymore!

 

[jayscheuerle]

I didn't say cheaper, I said competitive.

Okay then. What about the X86 chips would make them "competitive"?

 

[jayscheuerle]

Why not go after some of the PC market and give them a taste. And as far as "there being no difference to the user" BULL! What about all you MAC people that are telling everyone "no viruses", "no adware", "no spyware", "no keyloggers" I'd say those are differences the user would love.

You misinterpret. What I was trying to say was that from a user's perspective, running OSX on a X86 or a PowerPC would make little difference with the same programs. The user would not know if the machine that they were buying from Apple was X86 or PowerPC from a performance angle. It would just be another OSX machine.

If Apple released OSX for X86, there would be no programs to run on it! That's what running 10.0 was like for me. It was "Okay... now what?" If you want to get the feel for the OS, visit an Apple Store.

 

[BenRoethig]

Okay then. What about the X86 chips would make them "competitive"?

1. Access to the latest technology. USB 2.0, AGP, DDR memory, Apple was way late to the table with all of these and they're way late to the table with PCI-E. It's not good when your top of the line PowerMac is at the same technology level as a bargin basement HP.

2. Availability of chips. With both the G4 and G5 Apple was offered something that neither Motorolla or IBM could not deliver. When you can't sell computers because you can't get enough chips or the evolutionary updates underwhelm the consumers you have a problem.