Mac OS X on a PC?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please No!
Noooooooooooooooooooo!
I couldnt ever think of anything worse happening to the mac community. The very reason macs are so good is that Apple build both the hardware AND the software. Licensing the OS to any old Tom, Dick or Harry would not show the OS well, heck, it might even put people off when "switchers" tried to run Tiger on their intel machine and discovered the processor just couldnt cope with the graphics, then windows users would finally have a real excuse not to run a mac computer. I don't think its a good idea - we might even find ourselves needing virus software
Noooooooooooooooooooo!
I couldnt ever think of anything worse happening to the mac community. The very reason macs are so good is that Apple build both the hardware AND the software. Licensing the OS to any old Tom, Dick or Harry would not show the OS well, heck, it might even put people off when "switchers" tried to run Tiger on their intel machine and discovered the processor just couldnt cope with the graphics, then windows users would finally have a real excuse not to run a mac computer. I don't think its a good idea - we might even find ourselves needing virus software
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
Redpoetsociety said:
Nah cause once its out there everybody is going to get it. Either legally or otherwise.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Intel's sold 2 million 64-bit x86 chips, dual core in a few months
http://news.com.com/Intel+expanding+64-bit+Xeon+family/2100-1006_3-5568100.html
Just a little dose of reality....
assembler said:
http://news.com.com/Intel+expanding+64-bit+Xeon+family/2100-1006_3-5568100.html
Just a little dose of reality....
Mitthrawnuruodo
Moderator emeritus
What would be the point of running OS X on a Intel architecture, if you have to emulate it and end up with a slower running machine? It would not make sense... If you did a full poot, that could utilize the higher clockspeeds of Wintel boxes it makes a bit of a reason, although I'm still strongly opposed to the idea, of other reasons, eg this form page 1.Yvan256 said:
Higher number or higher on the list...???eric_n_dfw said:
To all that think you don't need XP pro and can get away with using XP home: Get real! XP home is not a complete OS...
And what's with the bashing of the Apple Keyboard...? I can understand, a long way agree, with all bad things said about the one-button mouse, but what's wrong with the keyboard...???
What's wrong with serial numbers...? Do you have something to hide...?dccollins said:
I don't really think we need to bring the Bible into this, generally that is a bad idea for any discussion (except teological)...Lacero said:
Bad idea.
This is bad.
If they port OS X to PC then people will no longer have the second main reason to buy Macintosh. Most of the people who do buy Mac is because of the faster and stabler processors, and the second reason is a different and better operating system. Third probably being exquisite designing and architecture of hardware.
If you give away the perfect OS X (even more perfect to be with the Tiger approaching...) to the dirty disgusting dastardly devilish damnening PC boxes...(that previously were spoiled and used by the most cancer-cell inducing OS ever made, Windows) you kill all those potential customers who would've bought $1799 iMacs to buy a $399 OS Xs... Apple loses exclusivity and brand value plummets.
Is that in anyways LOGICAL???????
Why make someone who would've bought hardware and software to just software? STUUUUUUUUUUUPID. Nah. Steve won't do it. He's ain't dumb.
This is bad.
If they port OS X to PC then people will no longer have the second main reason to buy Macintosh. Most of the people who do buy Mac is because of the faster and stabler processors, and the second reason is a different and better operating system. Third probably being exquisite designing and architecture of hardware.
If you give away the perfect OS X (even more perfect to be with the Tiger approaching...) to the dirty disgusting dastardly devilish damnening PC boxes...(that previously were spoiled and used by the most cancer-cell inducing OS ever made, Windows) you kill all those potential customers who would've bought $1799 iMacs to buy a $399 OS Xs... Apple loses exclusivity and brand value plummets.
Is that in anyways LOGICAL???????
Why make someone who would've bought hardware and software to just software? STUUUUUUUUUUUPID. Nah. Steve won't do it. He's ain't dumb.
kiwi_the_iwik
macrumors 65816
Ok - so, after 14 or so pages of posts, there seems to be a clear divide on this issue. However, as I've just joined this post rather late, I'll be damned if I read through ALL of the above posts to see whether anyone else has come up with the answer that it can only do GOOD for Apple...
Apple HAD a very good opportunity YEARS ago (back in 1985) to license its operating system when Bill Gates - of all people - advised the Apple board of John Sculley and Jean Louis Gassée to look into it. (See - Apple Confidential 2.0 by Owen W. Linzmayer, pp245-246 - "The Clone Quandary").
This would NOT have been catastrophic for Apple - in fact, quite the reverse. The software would have continued to improve, and with that, a word to the masses that the HARDWARE was something to speak of.
Apple's reputation for build quality and style eminates from its software interface IN ADDITION to its personal computers. The two are symbiotic, and give the company a rightly-deserved high status amongst computer users.
To license the operating system would give Apple a platform to inject REAL cash into Research & Development, and thus produce ENORMOUSLY powerful systems to compliment its OS - which will be passed back onto the consumer at a competitive price.
That's just ONE scenario, of course...
Apple HAD a very good opportunity YEARS ago (back in 1985) to license its operating system when Bill Gates - of all people - advised the Apple board of John Sculley and Jean Louis Gassée to look into it. (See - Apple Confidential 2.0 by Owen W. Linzmayer, pp245-246 - "The Clone Quandary").
This would NOT have been catastrophic for Apple - in fact, quite the reverse. The software would have continued to improve, and with that, a word to the masses that the HARDWARE was something to speak of.
Apple's reputation for build quality and style eminates from its software interface IN ADDITION to its personal computers. The two are symbiotic, and give the company a rightly-deserved high status amongst computer users.
To license the operating system would give Apple a platform to inject REAL cash into Research & Development, and thus produce ENORMOUSLY powerful systems to compliment its OS - which will be passed back onto the consumer at a competitive price.
That's just ONE scenario, of course...
sinisterdesign
macrumors 6502
chicagdan said:
you're right, the PC market is all about undercutting the next guy. Apple doesn't DO that b/c they're Apple & if you want a slick machine, you pay for it. now w/ the Mini, you don't pay as much, but let's be real, i could still get a whole mess of PC equipment for $500.
not to MENTION hackers would go nuts trying to exploit any holes in OSX. i don't WANT all that junk in my OS!! and can you imagine all the stupid drivers that would need to be written??? "i thought you said my camera/graphics card/trackball/haptic feedback glove was 'plug-n-play'. and why can't i play Doom 3 on OSX? Apple sucks."
BenRoethig
macrumors 68030
sjl said:
Apple's marketshare is fragile because the general public isn't interested in Apple's Machines. Apple excels on making cool niche machines but at lot of the compromises that have to be made to be cool (i.e. slot loading notebook optical drives) clash with the needs of the consumers.
maya
macrumors 68040
Has anyone wonder why we are still stuck with x86 ancient technology that is already pushed to its limits at present.
If x86 companies want the OS and other goodies then start moving they hardware to PPC instead, its is a superior chip anyhow.
The only reason PPC is not far in advance development is because not many companies even develop for it, once x86 companies start moving to PPC it will start taking leaps look at Cell with the combined efforts of SIT (Sony/IBM/Toshiba).
A chip far more advanced than anything else on the market, that is a given though what is surprising is that it breaks a few old aged laws in the process.
Its times for x86 hardware and software companies to UPGRADE to PPC. Either that or cry all they want with the virus ridden OS and the wait for Longhorn. It would seem that Bill Gates is having problems and thus the cry from x86 hardware companies.
It is way too much work to port PPC code that Apple has written to x86, this process will take another ~2-5 years, by which time Longhorn should be released in its crap state and the x86 hardware companies just back out from they deal.
Conclusion: NOT A GOOD IDEA, times have changed from the past.
If x86 companies want the OS and other goodies then start moving they hardware to PPC instead, its is a superior chip anyhow.
The only reason PPC is not far in advance development is because not many companies even develop for it, once x86 companies start moving to PPC it will start taking leaps look at Cell with the combined efforts of SIT (Sony/IBM/Toshiba).
A chip far more advanced than anything else on the market, that is a given though what is surprising is that it breaks a few old aged laws in the process.
Its times for x86 hardware and software companies to UPGRADE to PPC. Either that or cry all they want with the virus ridden OS and the wait for Longhorn. It would seem that Bill Gates is having problems and thus the cry from x86 hardware companies.
It is way too much work to port PPC code that Apple has written to x86, this process will take another ~2-5 years, by which time Longhorn should be released in its crap state and the x86 hardware companies just back out from they deal.
Conclusion: NOT A GOOD IDEA, times have changed from the past.
maya
macrumors 68040
I still wonder why x86 hardware comes with floppies, these discs are more expensive than buy a blank CD-R/RW.
Get with the times people, as of present many Mac users are using an iPod (HDD) or Shuffle (Flash) for transfer or saving files, along with DVD media...CD seems so yesteryear as is.
Seems all x86 users like to do is bitch in regards to, I have a crappy job, car, computer, house, beer, life.
We all know why you are an x86 users after all.
Get with the times people, as of present many Mac users are using an iPod (HDD) or Shuffle (Flash) for transfer or saving files, along with DVD media...CD seems so yesteryear as is.
Seems all x86 users like to do is bitch in regards to, I have a crappy job, car, computer, house, beer, life.
We all know why you are an x86 users after all.
MeanD3feat
macrumors member
Or the iMac = v.v.coolBenRoethig said:
at the expense of upgradability.
gweedo
macrumors member
I like it...
With OS X for PC hardware I might finally have a stable 64-bit OS for one of my home machines. Pretty sad that Microsoft hasn't even released XP Pro 64-bit yet.
I don't see Apple doing this unless there is some serious licensing revenue in it for them. Creating and maintaining all the various drivers is a supreme headache. Just look back to the OPENSTEP for Intel days (SJ has been down that path before). OSX not working on a particular PC hardware configuration makes people complain about Apple, not the wacky setup they have.
Personally I would love OSX for my PC boxes, but I won't hold my breath and I'll continue to save for my dual G5.
With OS X for PC hardware I might finally have a stable 64-bit OS for one of my home machines. Pretty sad that Microsoft hasn't even released XP Pro 64-bit yet.
I don't see Apple doing this unless there is some serious licensing revenue in it for them. Creating and maintaining all the various drivers is a supreme headache. Just look back to the OPENSTEP for Intel days (SJ has been down that path before). OSX not working on a particular PC hardware configuration makes people complain about Apple, not the wacky setup they have.
Personally I would love OSX for my PC boxes, but I won't hold my breath and I'll continue to save for my dual G5.
Matricola72
macrumors newbie
Macrumors said:
I really hope it will never happen! Mac is the perfect union of hardware & software, both cools.
Why I should use a perfect osx on a bad hw????
dicklacara
macrumors 6502a
Here's an interesting article that add some interesting possibilities:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/pf/news_story.jsp?id=2005020908040001479337&dt=20050209080400&w=APO&coview=&TickerSymbols=AAPL
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/pf/news_story.jsp?id=2005020908040001479337&dt=20050209080400&w=APO&coview=&TickerSymbols=AAPL
Belly-laughs
macrumors 6502a
Relax
Steve said "no", that´s why Carly had to go
Steve said "no", that´s why Carly had to go
jared_kipe
macrumors 68030
ClarkeB said:
I suppose there is a thought, but it surprises me to all hell why people would want to buy a rebaged ipod from another company. So why would they rather buy apple hardware (essentially) that is supposedly made by another company? Like HP is going to be able to make the HP equivalent of a powermac for SOOo much cheaper than apple and still have moola lying around to license mac osx?
yes
lets have it. x86 manufractorers are so much more competetive, and the darn procs have so much more power... look at ibm - they are over half a year late with the 3 gig already. I doubt they will ever make it, really. it's macs are such a small market - they cannot comete to the x86 makers since development costs are just too high.
lets have it. x86 manufractorers are so much more competetive, and the darn procs have so much more power... look at ibm - they are over half a year late with the 3 gig already. I doubt they will ever make it, really. it's macs are such a small market - they cannot comete to the x86 makers since development costs are just too high.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
ClarkeB said:
That makes a lot more sense to me. If they're going to offer an alternative, why don't they offer a PowerPC based solution? They'd have to recompile/re-code their applications for OS X weather it be on x86 or not... so why not go with the superior architecture!