Mac OS X on a PC?

[RogerQ]

The soiled wish to be cleansed

MS = monopoly = coercive power = killing = death
Apple = beauty = seductive power = sex = life

MS Longhorn -> You are cattle
OSX Jaguar / Panther / Tiger -> You are sexy cat beast

Words associated with Windows:
malware, spyware, viruses, worms, Blue Screen of Death -- decay & death

OSX: Sounds like "OS Sex"

Of course the PC companies wish they could have OSX. Would you rather be sexy or dead?

The memes are in place. Soon, just thinking of MS will create a feeling of revulsion. Once this happens, (as an earlier poster said) MS go bye bye.

For those who want OSX on 86:
$=food
Bad to save food while feeding the beast that will kill you.
Better to use food to lure a sexy thing to your lair.
Pleasures other than a full belly.

That's Apple's vision.
No place for ugly boxes.

--RogerQ


http://www.sexohol.com/
Music for Hedonists & Shedonists

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes, typical wintel reality: all in the future tense

So you agree that Intel is the future?

 

[pgwalsh]

Hmmm. So, you don't run antivirus or a firewall. What's your secret? 'Cause every Windows user I know has been compromised by viruses at least twice in the last two years (one, my sister, got re-infected five times in a single month, each with a complete wipe-and-reinstall of XP). I'm not even taking all the adware and spyware into account. Do you just avoid the Web and email altogether?

Whatever your secret, you should write it down, put it in a book, and sell it. There are millions of Windows users out there who'd buy it in an instant!

Well I have a secret.. I use IPCOP Firewall and I don't do email on my windows system.. Lovely.. uhg. Actually now that I have my powerbook, I rarely even turn on my windows systems, but at least it's somewhat protected by Linux.. ha!

 

[drewyboy]

i say intel was the future. they slacked, and are choking. All i have to say is good things start small, and they also come in small boxes.

 

[billystlyes]

My vote is that Apple shouldn't do this. From what I can tell from listening and reading Steve Job comments, he values the hardware component too much......which I also think is a good thing.

I agree. It would be a mistake for Apple to ever stop making hardware! The only people I think Apple would work with would be Sony.

 

[BenRoethig]

2) Complete collapse of hardware sales (minus the few zealots who would still by Apple hardware.

The few zealots are the only ones buying Apple hardware now hence the 3% marketshare

 

[drewyboy]

I know this is probably old news, but I just thought I would remind everyone that Universities across the US are not allowing Microsoft Internet Explorer to be used when web surfing. It just prooves the point even more that MS SUCKS! HEHEHE GO MOZILLA!!!

 

[Blue Velvet]

The few zealots are the only ones buying Apple hardware now hence the 3% marketshare

I think amongst home users and educational users it's a bit higher than that... the corporate world is full of PCs.

User base is probably a more realistic figure to look at although I don't have those figures to hand...

 

[BenRoethig]

exactly what I was going to say. some people have this thing about keeping the mac to themselves. Apple offers some great computers, but they don't offer a solution that suits everyone. Give people options.

Regarding the concern about apple going out of business-- people pointing back to the original cloning experiment: Apple has already placed a much larger emphasis on software now. They have final cut, keynote, Mail, pages, ilife. They now have a lot more options in terms of drawing revenue from mac clones.

You couldn't tell a Mac from a PC in those days either. Apple's computers are about styling and that's not going to change no matter what platform is used. If there are clones and a move to x86, Apple will continue to make unique computers and you will continue to buy them.

 

[24C]

I think amongst home users and educational users it's a bit higher than that... the corporate world is full of PCs.

User base is probably a more realistic figure to look at although I don't have those figures to hand...

Huge agree here, marketshare at 3% is just that, a statistic...Apple home usage/placement appears to be higher than this from sales experience in mixed platform retail stores, FWIW.

 

[archer75]

Hmmm. So, you don't run antivirus or a firewall. What's your secret? 'Cause every Windows user I know has been compromised by viruses at least twice in the last two years (one, my sister, got re-infected five times in a single month, each with a complete wipe-and-reinstall of XP). I'm not even taking all the adware and spyware into account. Do you just avoid the Web and email altogether?

Whatever your secret, you should write it down, put it in a book, and sell it. There are millions of Windows users out there who'd buy it in an instant!

Well i'm behind a router for one. Two, don't open email attachments from unrecognized sources.
I surf the web regularly on my desktop and my two laptops, all PC's. It just isn't an issue.

 

[Durendal]

Sigh, people are still ignoring the fundamental reasons as to why this will NEVER happen.

1. It would mean that every single piece of software would have to be not only recompiled for the x86, but also reoptimized for the x86. Altivec instructions wont just magically translate into SSE1/2/3. So that's a truckload of work for the software developers. Apple managed to make the transition from 0x0 to PPC pretty seamlessly, but don't expect to see that happen again.

2. Support nightmare. Can you imagine what would happen when several thousands of computer noobies try installing OS X on their cheap Wintel boxes, all with different hardware configurations? People, we're talking about a HUGE range of devices that will need drivers! Video cards, sound cards, USB/Firewire/SATA/ATA/etc cards, a buttload of motherboard chipsets, and so on. MS has been working support for this stuff as they go as have the vendors, but if Apple just jumped in, OS X would be nearly useless for a long time. What incentive will hardware vendors have to write x86 OS X drivers?

3. Apple's marketing would go down the toilet. They've pushed the PPC for far too long, touting the G5, G4, G3, etc as superior to the x86 in every way. That's a partial truth, but Apple has an ingenious marketing machine. What would it look like if Apple suddenly put their OS out for the enemy? Goodbye Apple hardware. Like it or not, that's where Apple makes their money.

So get it through your heads, people: IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If you want a cheap OS X box, go get a Mac Mini.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Sigh, people are still ignoring the fundamental reasons as to why this will NEVER happen.

1. It would mean that every single piece of software would have to be not only recompiled for the x86, but also reoptimized for the x86. Altivec instructions wont just magically translate into SSE1/2/3. So that's a truckload of work for the software developers. Apple managed to make the transition from 0x0 to PPC pretty seamlessly, but don't expect to see that happen again.

2. Support nightmare. Can you imagine what would happen when several thousands of computer noobies try installing OS X on their cheap Wintel boxes, all with different hardware configurations? People, we're talking about a HUGE range of devices that will need drivers! Video cards, sound cards, USB/Firewire/SATA/ATA/etc cards, a buttload of motherboard chipsets, and so on. MS has been working support for this stuff as they go as have the vendors, but if Apple just jumped in, OS X would be nearly useless for a long time. What incentive will hardware vendors have to write x86 OS X drivers?

3. Apple's marketing would go down the toilet. They've pushed the PPC for far too long, touting the G5, G4, G3, etc as superior to the x86 in every way. That's a partial truth, but Apple has an ingenious marketing machine. What would it look like if Apple suddenly put their OS out for the enemy? Goodbye Apple hardware. Like it or not, that's where Apple makes their money.

So get it through your heads, people: IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If you want a cheap OS X box, go get a Mac Mini.

Listen to the man!

 

[Mainyehc]

The last survey of companies that use the PA-RISC or Alpha processor, over half had no plans to switch to the Itanic in the next ten years if at all.

It's called Itanium, but since that processor seems to be doomed, that's a nice uninteded pun

 

[ReanimationLP]

Aint' gonna happen.

If it does, as a Mac fan and user, I'll be pissed.

As a PC user, I'll be rushing to the store so fast.

 

[matticus008]

So very very wrong. Over 60% of Apples profit comes from hardware... just how many sales of Keynote & Pages is going to make that up?

I've been reading this line over and over in this thread, and I have to say that revenue and profit are not the same. 60% of Apple's REVENUE comes from hardware sales. Software recoups R&D expenses much faster than hardware and has a lower production cost. All the programmers are salaried, so they don't have to worry about unit shipping, because most of Apple's programmers will get paid either way. It's a fixed expense (with some deviation for special projects), just like the hardware engineers are paid regularly and not on commission or based on units sold.

What is different, though, is that Apple must buy the majority of its hardware from other vendors, supply a well-built and attractive design with a more complicated (and expensive) construction than PC manufacturers, and turn around and sell it. They have to make enough money to pay for the non-Apple components they use, the higher inventory/warehouses costs of large hardware boxes, and the expensive shipping costs of moving it around, while not even taking into consideration the expenses of Apple-designed pieces (raw materials and the fabrication process). This makes any given piece of hardware (whether it's an Airport base station or a PowerMac) more expensive to Apple, and thus its sale generates more money.

I'm not saying that the hardware isn't more profitable than the software to Apple (it is), I'm just saying that the disclosed figure of 60% revenue from hardware doesn't equate to 60% profit.

 

[Nermal]

It's called Itanium, but since that processor seems to be doomed, that's a nice uninteded pun

It was actually named Itanic at one stage.

 

[Mainyehc]

So while I would not want to use OS9, or recommend it, and it did crash often, it's near impossible to kill it.

Yep, you're damn right about that one. I made an ironic remark about people using Windows 3.1, and SilliconAddict said there were still boxes running that... er... thing.

So, it wouldn't surprise me that OS 9 will stay alive for just a bit longer. However, how many people still use System 1?? Hey, eventually, OS 9 will also have to die anyway...

 

[fartheststar]

Aint' gonna happen.

If it does, as a Mac fan and user, I'll be pissed.

As a PC user, I'll be rushing to the store so fast.

I don't want it to happen either. Remember OS/2? It was much better than Windows and ran on Intel. No longer there any more.

With Apple, you are getting the choice (as one poster said) of getting the whole widget, an innovative, sexy company who's computers really kick it. If you take out the "controlling the whole widget" out of the equation for Apple, the quality of the OS will suffer. You don't want some hunk-a-junk pc with spaghetti parts inside able to run OSX, I'm sure there would be problems with hardware / software conflicts, etc.

Edit: The only way it would work is if you could run OS/X on a "HP" or a "IBM" but not on any mish mash of clones.

 

[fatbarstard]

It could happen...

This is an easy thing to do if you sell OSX based computers with Virtual PC... it won't satisfy gaming heads but it will cover off most of the normal tasks that people want to do... especially in general business settings.

From a PC manufacturers point of view this is an ideal way of getting above the competition and offering a product where they can get a higher margin. There is presumably a premium to be paid by the punter for a computer that doesn't come with all that MSFT baggage - OSX is ideal for this... and MSFT still gets a slice via Virtual PC... so the hardware manufacturers can get more coin off the punters and Apple gets a slice...

The interesting thins is what get bundled and after, say, six months how much the Virtual PC software is being used compared to the OSX software..

I like the idea, there are compatability probelms with drivers but there is a workaround solution to most of these... including hardware add on manufacturers actually getting around to writing OSX compliant drivers etc...

Sounds like fun...

 

[Lacero]

Apple should license OSX, they'll make more money than trying to always play catch-up with PC speeds. They could still make innovative hardware for anyone still wanting to buy overpriced designer computers from Apple. Otherwise, I'll be happy running OSX on a $200 PC.

 

[Blue Velvet]

I've been reading this line over and over in this thread, and I have to say that revenue and profit are not the same. 60% of Apple's REVENUE comes from hardware sales. Software recoups R&D expenses much faster than hardware and has a lower production cost. All the programmers are salaried, so they don't have to worry about unit shipping, because most of Apple's programmers will get paid either way. It's a fixed expense (with some deviation for special projects), just like the hardware engineers are paid regularly and not on commission or based on units sold.

What is different, though, is that Apple must buy the majority of its hardware from other vendors, supply a well-built and attractive design with a more complicated (and expensive) construction than PC manufacturers, and turn around and sell it. They have to make enough money to pay for the non-Apple components they use, the higher inventory/warehouses costs of large hardware boxes, and the expensive shipping costs of moving it around, while not even taking into consideration the expenses of Apple-designed pieces (raw materials and the fabrication process). This makes any given piece of hardware (whether it's an Airport base station or a PowerMac) more expensive to Apple, and thus its sale generates more money.

I'm not saying that the hardware isn't more profitable than the software to Apple (it is), I'm just saying that the disclosed figure of 60% revenue from hardware doesn't equate to 60% profit.

I stand corrected... ta.

 

[chevyorange]

Even though I don't think Apple would ever license OS X for x86, I would love to see how the performance of OSX is enhanced by an Apple built, fast 64 bit AMD chip with a high end PCI-express bus enabled graphics subsystem.

Its called a G5.

 

[matticus008]

I stand corrected... ta.

Heh, I actually posted that before I finished. I meant to go on to explain why those hardware costs would make it a mistake to license the OS, unless they had a plan to sell it at a more Windows-like price (i.e. $299 for the full version) while keeping it at $129 for the Mac. They could require a PCI card or some hardware component like the Mac ROM from the old days in order to restrict its operation to specific non-Apple machines. With this scheme, Apple could ensure profitability in its licensing campaigns.

I'd love Mac OS on my Athlon 64. It'd be faster than a PowerMac if coded properly, and I'd be more than willing to pay $300 for it and buy a sub-$50 hardware device from Apple to authorize it. I'd still even buy Apple notebooks, because more or less, all notebook PCs are closed systems with artificial pricing, and Apple style can't be beat.

In this plan, Apple could stand to make more than $200 pure profit per copy of OS X it licensed while ensuring its own hardware wasn't too badly undercut.

 

[Durendal]

I'd love Mac OS on my Athlon 64. It'd be faster than a PowerMac if coded properly, and I'd be more than willing to pay $300 for it and buy a sub-$50 hardware device from Apple to authorize it. I'd still even buy Apple notebooks, because more or less, all notebook PCs are closed systems with artificial pricing, and Apple style can't be beat.

Wrong. MAYBE on a top-of-the-line dual Opteron system, but show me a 128-bit, 162 instruction vector unit on an AMD64 chip. Show me an Althon64 board with a 1.25ghz system bus. It wouldn't be faster than a dual G5. Anyway, it's not important, because for reasons stated earlier, we will never see OS X for x86 hardware.