Mac OS X on a PC?

[Azmordean]

I think this is very possibly Apple's future, like it or not. They make excellent software, and DESIGN excellent hardware, but in terms of raw power, they are falling behind the curveball. Granted, the G5 is a powerful development, but there are cheaper x86 solutions on par with it. And the G4, while workable, is becoming rapidly outclassed by newer chips like the Pentium M (ie, Centrino, which is reaching 2Ghz).

I do not think this would mean Apple would have to stop selling hardware - but if it wants a big market share, the only way is to at least have the ability to run on x86 hardware at this point. The vast majority of users, and especially corporations, aren't going to pay the price for Apple hardware. Lets face it, a PM is a great machine, but I can build a pretty top of the line PC myself (from quality components) for under a grand.

Basically what I see Apple eventually doing is licensing OS X for PCs, but also continuing to make its own hardware. The hardware side would just become another "option" albeit a top-of-the-line option.

Of course there are problems (drivers for the billions of PC components anyone?) but in the end, this is the way Apple expands its marketshare. If it stays its current course, I expect marketshare to stay the same, or perhaps slowly grow - but never top 10%. Pulling in an agitated PC user here and an iPod lover there is not going to cause wholesale growth in marketshare. That said, this may never happen, as Apple may decide it is completely happy being a niche provider, and that might be OK too. Licensing OS X would certainly be risky - but it also has potential for great reward. OS X has the name recognition and ease of use (unlike Linux) to have a chance to compete with Microsoft.

 

[Yvan256]

BRILLIANT.
You can not run any Mac programs, since they are PowerPC compiled. But if they sold a demo disk with iLife '05 (no limits) so that people could get used to using OS X without actually purchasing a Mac, but would still be required to buy an actual Mac to run Mac programs (like Final Cut)...that'd be awesome.

Considering that most people would only buy a Mac for iLife, you'd still need to put (serious) limits on it... IMO anyway.

Make it use the Fat32/NTFS partitions of the PC using a huge disk image file and work within that (so the user can't screw up his OS X install besides deleting it all).

 

[Yvan256]

It exists, but x86 processors SUCK at emulation. You get at best 1/10th speed (remember, at best, it can go as low as 1/40th), so a 3 GHz P4 becomes a 300 mhz G3 (no AltiVec), with half the RAM, and no graphics card (no Quartz Extreme + slow proc = unresponsive GUI).

It's called PearPC.

I have it on my 2.6 GHz P4. Slow as heck, almost unusable.

x86 processors don't suck at emulation. I can run console and arcade games perfectly, thank you very much.

PearPC is nowhere near finished, is still a work in progress, and they're not even using the GPU.

In this case it's "PearPC sucks", not "x86 sucks".

Granted, a PPC is not a good thing to emulate on an x86 if only for the difference in the number of CPU registers (we won't even get at how limited the x86 is when it comes to use the registers when compared to PPC).

 

[rjwill246]

It might not be THAT bad

Let me say that I am no expert in the world of computer intrigue but I have been fascinated by the happenings of the last few months and especially the last few days by so many significant announcements. First off, the fact that Steve brought this up at all is NOT inconsequential. He may well be setting the stage and preparing us for this. The major risk in doing this, as previously espoused, is that there would be no reason for software vendors to ever develop a PPC version of the software. But !!!! that is only true if there were not some strings attached to the licensing with the BIG 3 of OS X on x86. Imagine if a deal were struck with, let's say Adobe, for Photoshop to be included on all G5 towers, and with MS... oops, forget that... for Intuit to have QuickBOOKS on same, or two of the hottest games... in other words, have Apple offer a very competitive edge for staying or buying the PPC platform, but offering a taste of the Apple on the x86 platform. Given the fact that the BIG 3 want to play ball, Apple would have the best of both worlds; the BIG 3 would be able to sell new computers with OS X on x86 installed, possibly share in the revenues of OS on x86 sales (Apple not being greedy) and Apple still able to churn out enough hardware to keep them and their loyal (and hopefully expanding) base of PPC happy. There is a point in here when the BIG 3 and other manufacturers could market PPC derived as well as Intel/AMD derived computers without hurting Apple- the overall world market is enormous, unlike the small competitive dog-eat-dog PPC market of a few years ago.
The PPC series and the Cell could soon dominate the market so there is room for Apple and the conventional manufacturers to grow while letting the PC manufacturers still churn out the el cheapos for the less wealthy based on the x86ers so that these existing PC manufacturers could still profit from these simpler and cheaper designs for some time to come. Eventually it would be time to restock with new computers and with funds available to the public and enterprise a choice would be either to stick with x86 or switch. Here the software people could make it easy for all of us by having special prices for the same software on the new platform. It would be in their interests to do so since it means selling new software, the costs of development likely having been already recouped.
Also, it is easier for the software companies to do OS X on PPC and OS X on x86 ports than OS X and Windows ports, making the dual software not such a hastle and lowering costs.
Apple could never satisfy world demands for all computers of the PPC/Cell type, if that becomes THE platform of choice, thus leaving plenty of room for computer manufacturers of the x86 type to keep producing their PCs, but THIS time, the cannibalising of Apple's market share would not happen since OS X would be on a platform that is HUGE - there would be no hit on Apple's hardware sales so long as Apple was still seen as the preferred platform for OS X and PPC/Cell software!!!! This presupposes that the other manufacturers are desperate enough to get off Windows and see PPC/Cell as a threat to their well-being and see the switch to OSX being in their favor, even if it means they will not be seen as the best system- after all, that certainly hasn't hurt their exisitng sales and modus operandi;-)
They would have to understand that, unless and until they could get licensing for PPC/ Cell, they would likely be making an inferior product to Apple's, at least for a while, but such a scenario has not fazed them before and in any case, they may see this scene a better one than sticking with MS/Intel and going into oblivion. Apple and co-companies would still have years of advantage with the PPC/Cell hardware while selling OS X on both platforms to 1) an exisiting base of x86, 2) to a new base of growing x86s and eventually 3) to an even newer base of switchers to the PPC/Cell platforms. There is room for all comers in this scenario.
Two major processors, possibly more, with only two variants of software makes for great efficiency yet stimulates competition.

While I cannot forsee all the minutiae in this, I do know that the scenario facing SJ this time is different and the opportunity is so huge for Apple that it is almost mind-bogling. To be a reality, cooperation from all parties concerned is the key- and that is based on how much all of them would like to kiss good-bye to M$ and the dead-end x86 platform. It is no simpler than that!
For those of you still wringing hands over the possible viruses, worms etc to inflict OS X- get a grip, the aim is for Apple to be as popular as it can be, not cowering with its tail between its legs because of some future threat. Give them some credit for being able to deal with the foe. Good heavens, they have more than shown themselves to be capable of staring down adversity before, so give the company credit for being able to do what the 'exspurts' say they can't. After all, they are doing it now!

In any case I have no crystal ball to see where this is going but there is no doubt that a massive opportunity is staring Apple in the face. Can the company figure out how to use this to an advantage for all of us?

 

[aswitcher]

what's wrong with the current ones? I love this keyboard (the one that ships with the new computers) because it doesn't take much space on my desk.

Sorry, to me Apple's keyboard and mice are the most disappointing thing about Apple hardware. Lots of room for improvement imnsho...

 

[JFreak]

couple of tech points:

#1: binary compatibility.
#2: binary compatibility.
#3: binary compatibility.

apple needs to support PPC and nothing more, as long as PPC is alive and performs well. if there were two architechtures, that would be death to PPC, because...

DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS !!!!!!!

if developers would have to make two versions of their osx software, they would either abandon the platfrom competely or probably only support one cpu architechture and make a wrong decision. that is, in killing PPC. this would mean that compatibility is lost, as not all software would run on any osx system. apple cannot let developers rule, but instead must control developers.

if only one version were made and used with two different architechtures, that would mean emulation, which would mean a drastic performance hit, as PPC would have to be emulated on X86 or vice versa. currently PPC does not have performance crown, so performance cannot be sacrificed, effectively ruling out all kinds of emulations.

so...

apple needs to retain BINARY COMPATIBILITY and only possible computer hardware that can run osx in the near future MUST be of PPC architechture. if other manufacturers so much want to sell osx that they are willing to make and market PPC systems, then apple may want to think about it, but even then they should make osx price point so high that most of the interest goes down the drain.

just think about it. software brings 10% money in, so it's not good to risk the other 90% because someone else wants to compete with the 90% revenue.

steve jobs is a wise man. he knows that if people so much want to use osx, people will simply buy osx no matter who makes the hardware. and steve wants apple to be that company

 

[LethalWolfe]

Yes.

FWIW, Fox used 2 G5's in a truck to edit together all of the highlight videos and whatnot they used during the superbowl. (in HD no less) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._mc/appleg5skona2poweredproductionofsuperbowl I doubt they cared what platform FCP runs on. This is the kind of customer that Apple is courting with FCP. I am just glad it's cheap enough for amature videographers like me to buy.

Look at Avid software solutions (the only real competition IMO), they START in the same price range as FCP.

I do wish they'd put batch capture into FC Express though, to compete better against Premier Pro. (but that might start to canabilize FCP sales to people like me)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying 'cause yer reply is nonsensical. If Apple stopped selling hardware they would have to crank up their software prices 'cause they make their money selling computers, not programs (hence my iTMS/iPod comparison).

People would keep buying FCP, but Apple wouldn't keep selling it dirt cheap. FCP HD is, roughly, a $2000+ software bundle being sold for $999.

Apple chooses to price its software so attractively to entice people to buy their computers, and Apple can price its software so attractively 'cause computer sales are what puts money in the bank.

I doubt they cared what platform FCP runs on.

I'm not so sure 'bout that. Avid tried to dump Apple a few years ago (when Moto's stagnation really started to hurt Apple) and Mac-based Avid users got into such an uproar that Avid back-peddled and kept developing for the Mac.


Lethal

 

[Durendal]

IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Get used to that idea. Apple is dedicated to the PPC processor. Any porting to x86 would kill their marketing strategy and annihilate their hardware sales. Not to mention that ALL software would have to be recompiled and reoptimized for the new hardware, and that Apple would have the total tech support nightmare of support a bajillion different configurations, none of which they will have control over. One of the reasons OS X works so well is that Apple controls the hardware and the software. Porting to x86 would utterly kill that integration. Apple would only do this as an absolute last-ditch effort. Who wants OS X running on a goddamn CISC chip, anyway?

 

[Belly-laughs]

It may have been mentionead earlier…

…but what if Apple offered re-branded Mac minis to other companies like they did with the HP iPod? That would secure hardware and software integrity.

It´s not gonna happen, is it?

 

[Durendal]

…but what if Apple offered re-branded Mac minis to other companies like they did with the HP iPod? That would secure hardware and software integrity.

It´s not gonna happen, is it?

That's not porting OS X to Intel hardware, that's simply letting another company sell the same thing with a different logo. Big difference.

 

[Lacero]

Yes I agree

If apple becomes a big company such as MS then there will be all of these viruses and spyware
And the apple computers sold today have components that are optimized for each other, so they work better than a PC

You obviously not a stock holder of Apple.

 

[munkle]

I think we have a basis for a good poll here.

I vote NO! For all the points already raised in this thread, the relationship between Apple hardware and Apple software is too fundamental to dismiss.

 

[TorbX]

The New World Order

IBM will be the new Intel, pumping out Cells (cool name, btw).

Apple OS X-division will be the new MS.

Apple, Toshiba and Sony will do the boxes.

And there will be some sort of council that ensures compatability before things are released. Like, an external disk needs to have an OS X-sticker. Pretty much the same "Designed for MS" mumble-humble we see today on peecees.

 

[JFreak]

Who wants OS X running on a goddamn CISC chip, anyway?

the one who has that goddamn cisc chip already purchased?

 

[Bonte]

Of course there are problems (drivers for the billions of PC components anyone?)

And every single app has to be rewritten for the PC osX and vice versa. Never going to happen, it would kill Apple.

 

[ceytl]

I LOVE IT

There are many mac users that don't like this idea; however, Apple is a corporation with shareholders that only care about the bottom line. If you think about how many PC's are out there and what kind of margins Microsoft is making, it might be better for Apple to change its business model and focus on software more. Were talking billions.

 

[SoGood]

I vote YES!

As much as we want to keep it to ourselves and keep the OS virus free. But increasing the market penetration is only a good thing for Apple overall. Even if there's an OS X for PC boxes, I'd still buy Apple hardwares. And the balance of income from licensing of the OS would sure make up for the loss in HW sales. And I am not even convinced that HW sales would suffer. I strongly suspect it'll trend up instead.

 

[dhaen]

On balance, I'm for it

For:
The bad years of Apple are often blamed on their failure to license their systems; hardware or software. Why should things be any different now?
Steve's main job is to deliver profits. Licensing to hungry box shifters would certainly deliver on that front. But what he doesn't want to do is to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg".
Of course he won't want to run .exe's! Much stability and profit is to be made by selling Apple apps to replace those tacky PC ones.
As for the virus writers, I'm surprised they haven't come after OSx yet. Perhaps it's because Steve is perceived as God, while Bill is the Devil. Of course OSx is more robust, but all systems fail under persistent attack.

Against:
I moved from PC to Mac nearly 2 years ago via every flavour of Linux. My motive was simplicity, reliability and stability. The style factor was a bonus. I love it now, but if a version had been available then, I might not have moved platforms - well not immediately. Most of us have to use the minimum cost option in any decision.

So perhaps they'll come over later like I might have, having tasted a good flavour, we desire more.

 

[iBunny]

I think that if Apple does release a OSX for x86 and its performance is great. I think about 50% of people would switch. And there finally would be good competition in the OS buisness so microsoft would have to develop a better product

so we both win

 

[Zaty]

OS X on x86? Not going to happen.
OS X on Cell based computers? That's a much more complex story. First, as has been pointed out, at this stage none of the three partners in the *Cell alliance" has an OS. However, IBM owns Novell which owns Suse. It's not that they don't have alternatives to OS X. Also, at this time we have no indication that Apple is involved with the Cell alliance. That doesn't mean they're not but one thing's for sure, if IBM, Toshiba and Sony don't want another company to get involved, there's nothing that could make them change their mind. All of those companies are bigger than Apple.

Let's hope Apple is involved (or will be involved). Why did the president of Sony get onstage during the keynote? Just because SJ loves Sony's camcorders? I don't think so, what ever the reason was, I think Apple and Sony might cooperate in area they haven't worked together so far. Also Apple uses IBM's CPUs and Toshiba's HDDs. So there's reason to hope the party of three will become a party of four (if it isn't already)

 

[0098386]

at first i thought this was bad, but now im thinking it could be a good thing. but then you would have 2 types of users; OSX on ugly PC hardware, and OSX on beautiful elegant hardware.

as for viruses. now im not an expert in this field but during a chat with my lecturer on monday he said that UNIX cant get viruses because systemwide changes need an admins password.

meh, whatever gets my family off using windows is good in my books (and NOT Linux, my dad uses photoshop and other apps for PC/Mac)

 

[BillHarrison]

Definitely not gonna happen in the commodity pc market. The closest that would be POSSIBLE would be for apple to produce its own boxes based on x86 processors, but still apple proprietary logic boards / components.

Of course, this would not only require a complete rewrite of the os, but also recompiling / rewriting parts of EVERY os x app in existance.

Also, what is this with everyone feeling the cell processor is the "holy Grail"

From what I have read, it has tremendous speed, and good power, but in a very specified way. It does not have the same "power" as a powerpc or x86 processor, but it reminds me more of a high speed gpu or signal processor - very powerful, but very specified in its capabilities, IE more suited for a gaming machine - which is mainly what its designed for.

I mean, if "IBM" is easily getting 4ghz out of these,, and they are as advanced or moreso than the powerpc, then what sense does that make? They cant hit 3ghz reliably on something they have no doubt been working on for several years. There must be something about the cell that reduces the complexity involved for this to be possible.

Bill

 

[bgarnett]

Recognising the future

Mac OS X86 is the way forward! Why deny PC users the benefit of using a fantastic operating system merely because they aren't using a Power processor. Who cares if you have a beige box or a highly styled Apple box, so long as the experience is the same.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Mac OS X86 is the way forward! Why deny PC users the benefit of using a fantastic operating system merely because they aren't using a Power processor. Who cares if you have a beige box or a highly styled Apple box, so long as the experience is the same.

Because:
• No existing commercially important application would be able to run on it
• It would destroy Apples' hardware sales (responsible for 60% of profits)
• Apparently, there's not much future in x86 chips (according to many posters on this thread)

It's not going to happen.

 

[assembler]

Doesn't make any sense

This is a completely insane idea.

Intel's line of processors is DEAD! At the end of their massively-heat-producing lives! And they can't even make multiprocessing or 64 bit work.

If Apple can't get a G5 into a Powerbook, do you think they would even try with one of Intel's huge, overheating monstrosities? Do you want to carry around a separate refrigeration unit with your laptop? Get real!

By comparison, the PPC is still in its infancy. It's still evolving.

This would be a major step BACKWARDS. Why don't we go back to tape drives and punched cards while we're at it?