Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS X on a PC?

Software or hardware company

If Apple decides to licence OS X for Intel boxes, then where does that leave Apple's hardware? Sure it's nice, certainly it's eye catching and well designed, but when I can pick up a Dell PC witih flat monitor for 400 GBP, why should I spend more on a Apple machine if OSX is available on both?

iMac Mini aside, I may want a bigger machine with internal expansion options.

Where is the incentive for Apple computers if the OS is not unique for it? It may help their bottom line, but could damage their market share. Apple would be better served trying to increase this share by lowering their computer prices, advertising more - especially to those without a computer, and allowing more retailers to sell the hardware.

Marky
 
If they do this is going to potentially kill their current business model unless they can assure themselves those that get OSX then buy a Mac when their PC is dead...BUT, Dell etc machines will still be cheaper...so they gotta figure that most of the market wont switch hardware, and that OSX piracy will go absolutely rampant - both of which damage their sales.

Ultimately Apple are a hardware company - see iPod/ITMS business model, their cheap software versus high quality but more expensive hardware, them opening up a hundred stores in less than 3 years. Licence OSX and it could really hurt. Sure Apple may make huge corporate sales but software is a hard beast to control and piracy makes it a tricky market.

I think they would be better off getting a few new corporate/homeuser/small business switcher boxes out there at competative rates...an LCD eMac for example, looking much like a iMac...looking at miminal spec increases (512ram excepted) but using economies of scale to decrease the cost of their lower end G5 PowerMacs...bringing back a 17" screen in the new form factor, maybe with a verison without the expensive FW/USB hub...maybe an LCD TV with digital TV Tuner....two button/wheel mouse ;)...improved keyboards...a mac mini cube, being about twice the size of the mac mini but using less expensive desktop parts with a bigger faster HDD (250 top), two ram slots (too 2 gig), faster cd/dvd, much bigger graphics card options...
 
I can see both good and bad and we could (most will I'm sure) debate why yes or why not to. I think the reality of the situation would prevent this from happening and have nothing to do with any pros/cons of moving to x86.

What I mean is, the cost and time it would take could prove to be too much to handle. So it becomes more of an issue of CAN (given cost and time) Apple do this rather than WILL they do this. Two or three years ago when Apple announced they were going with IBM and the 970 I think any and all effort was dumped out the window. I also think, based on articles written at the time, by going with IBM it meant future versions of OSX would be limited to the PPC architechture. I may be wrong on this so those who know more would have to speak up.

This is a business decision which means Apple will look at can they take advantage of the security problems and delay due to longhorn while maintaining recapturable costs? If they can't even get a product to market BEFORE longhorn then it would be loss and why waste hours discussing the pros and cons of marketing OSX?
 
quote: tired of waiting for Longhorn

Does that mean that they have a version of Mac OS X86 already completed? I mean, wouldn't it take quite some time to port it otherwise? Longhorn is due for next year, so they would have to port it faster than that! If they haven't already done it... :eek:
 
Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrr. Please, no....

If PC users want to run OS X, they can buy a Mac.
 
sjpetry said:
It will show people the greatness of OS X on the PC Box. :cool:
Click to expand...

Or it will show that OS X is not as great as we thought... incompatibility issues, spyware, viruses will just prove that it has always been in the same level as XP. Right now, the 'bad-hacker' community do not pay attention to OS X because who wants to bother the minority (3%)...

Hopefully, it never happens...
 
PPC

We would be better off if apple just let PC makers build PPC machines. Then more software would be ported to PPC/MAC if more people would use it. I really wish the x86 architechture would start to go away. PPC's are around the same speed as x86 CPU's and much less money as been thrown at them to get them there. That tells me that the architechture is much better. As for worms and spyware, the security holes are fixed quickly by apple, and the OS isn't insecure by design, so that's not SO much of a problem as it is with Windows.
 
narco said:
Oh God no. I think if this were to happen, that would be the start of viruses and spyware on OS X. This would make Apple rich, but it'd really hit hard on Apple's Hardware I think.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

Fishes,
narco.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY agree. I've been wondering lastely, if apple becomes more popluar in terms of computers, will viruses and spyware be errupting for OS X?
 
The X86 is dead to Apple. Only the PPC line is worth it to them and this might include giving out OS X for Cell desktops made by Sony, Toshiba and IBM in the future.
 
I am sorry, anyone who thinks Apple will license their OS insane, Apple would go belly up in no time.

To quote a famous philosopher

"Worst. Idea. Ever."
 
It all depends on whether the Macintosh hardware or Mac OS X (and Apple brand) are more important to Apple. If PCs could run Mac OS X, kiss goodbye to Macintosh (most of its sales). But, of course, such a move good be more crushing to Microsoft in the long run, and (assuming Macs survive), mean better software in the long run. (Provided Intel and PPC versions were kept the same of course).

Personally, I'd rather see the Mac stay.
 
Bottom line, Apple WILL NOT do this. The reason why OS X works so well is because Apple has control over what it does with both hardware and software components.

Giving PC users the chance to run OS X on some crappy third party hardware will obviously change that, as no one can determine the suitability of every PC users' hardware that would buy this so called PC based OS X.

PC users love to dream that one day they will be able to run our OS at native speeds. It will happen, but only if they decide to ditch their beige boxes and buy Apple computers.

Want to run OS X without forking out the dosh? Buy a Mac Mini.
 
Steve should have lisensed Nextstep back then, when it could have stopped MS's monopoly, but lisensing OS X now is too late to change anything and won't do Apple any good.
 
If the OEMs want to get Apple in bed to offer their consumers an alternative...they shouldn't try to get OS X on Intel. They should just produce PPC machines.

Still...I don't see it happening.
 
Never gonna happen

Apple prides itself on its entire image. The whole package - the shiny, white, well-designed boxes running the well-designed OS. It all comes together to make for a great user experience, from opening the box to using the machine.

Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.
 
Macrumors said:
MacDailyNews posts more information from the subscription Fortune article which talks to Steve Jobs about the state of Apple... which also drops this tidbit from the original article:



Mac OS X on Intel has been a long-debated topic, and an area that Apple has considered prior to the adoption of the PowerPC 970 from IBM.
Click to expand...


The question is, are they sure it's on INTEL?
It would make complete sense for Apple to license it out for CELL, since Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (three big PC manufacturers) are the ones working on the Cell processor (which is PowerPC based, as well).
 
stealthboy said:
Apple prides itself on its entire image. The whole package - the shiny, white, well-designed boxes running the well-designed OS. It all comes together to make for a great user experience, from opening the box to using the machine.

Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.
Click to expand...

Hay, PC's come in all sorts of colors of plastic these days.

:D
 
Last time Apple let other manufacturers make Mac clones, the results weren't too good: the clones didn't work as well as the Apple computers. They had all kinds of glitches and incompatibilities on them. Not good. I really don't see this happening.
 
The risks and rewards are both obvious--but that doesn't mean there isn't a way to do it right. It could be worth pursuing, carefully, if and when the time is right.

But I'm very skeptical--partly because if Steve casually drops mention of it, then that probably means it was discussed... and rejected! Just because those companies were interested doesn't mean Apple said "yes." If Apple had agreed, I'd expect the fruits of the partnership to be revealed with more fanfare at a later date, not mentioned as an aside.
 
SteveC said:
Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverrrrrrrrrrr. Please, no....

If PC users want to run OS X, they can buy a Mac.
Click to expand...
Eggzzzactleee! :D
I don't see the upside. Macs are Macs for a reason. PC people should stick to windows. The PC user buys a PC for the reason it was invented, cool screen savers, email, and surfing the web.
Wanna switch, get a mini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back