Mac OS X on a PC?

[Yvan256]

Absolutely they will. Once people (with money) use OS X and experiance how much better it is, they won't feel uncomfortable about spending it on a Mac. [...] OS X is Apple's best kept secret. People just don't know about it....yet! An x86 port is the stone in David's slingshot.

If we can have OS X on x86 (if it has binary compatibility), we'll keep our x86 boxes and/or developpers will start making x86-only versions of their OS X software.

I mean, if we can have OS X and run all OS X apps (no x86/PPC difference), why would we buy another (Apple or whatever) box when we already have one that run OS X? There wouldn't be any benefit from dumping a perfectly running box to purchase another one that does the same job.

This is the same strategy with the Mac mini, except the box is the only thing you replace (software aside).

Sorry, but what you said is just wishful thinking.

 

[Yvan256]

Wow, you can emulate a 2 MHz SNES, so you can definitely emulate a 1 GHz+ Mac Seriously, I remember that it is MUCH harder to emulate a PPC on an x86 than an x86 on a PPC. It would make much more sense for MS to port Windows to Mac with background emulation than for Apple to port OS X to Windows, because of the register barrier.

The parent's comment was "x86 sucks at emulation", I just wanted to point out his statement was too broad.

And BTW the SNES is faster than 2MHz.

And yes, I'm aware of the registers difference (that's the main reason why x86 sucks, we won't talk about the legacy hardware on all current motherboards).

What I'm saying is, computers are much faster than they used to be. So even if an emulated Mac ran at about 50% speed, that'd still be fast enough to try out OS X (the minimum OS X/iLife specs would be the target).

http://www.apple.com/ilife/
See "iLife ’05 System Requirements" at the bottom of the page.

If Apple could come out with "Virtual Mac" and be able to emulate at least a 600MHz G3, it should be enough for a "demo/preview" version of what OS X and Macs are capable of.

If you keep the marketing correct, it could work. After all, a "preview" is only about giving you a general idea about something (think movie previews, etc), not show you the whole/complete thing.

How about a free download for "Virtual Mac" that includes a small OS X base install (just enough for the demo), an unlimited version of iTunes (since it's already available for both platforms) and limited versions of the rest of iLife (and no HD for iMovie/iDVD)? Also include demo versions of the iWork suite as well, to make the whole thing even more of a show-off.

And to be sure people don't go and say "Macs are slow" after trying it, make the demo test the system and give a relative speed mark compared to the current selling systems.

"Your AMD Athlon XP+ 2400 system will be able to approximately emulate a G3/600MHz system. The basic Mac mini is a G4/1.25GHz, or about 5 times faster than what you will experience with the iLife suite. The G4 has a multimedia-ready CPU (Altivec, similar to MMX/SSE)."

(I say 5 as an exemple, given the difference in G3 vs G4/Altivec and the fact that iLife should be using Altivec extensively, making for a huge speed boost when compared to a similar G3 system, not even couting the other G3/G4 differences).

In my case, iTunes was more than enough to help me finally "get it". Also, once Apple can finally sell Mac mini's when you walk into a store, we'll see if the Mac mini is enough for the "halo effect". Being able to buy the Mac mini where iPods are sold would be a nice boost for sales (remember, Apple is very hard to buy outside of the USA if you don't live in a big city).

How about this? If you sell iPods, you have to sell the Mac mini as well. Add that tidbit to the contract, Apple.

 

[Yvan256]

The fastest AMD processor runs at 2.6ghz yet it performs better than than a 3.6ghz P4.

A lof of things are happening in the computing world right now, and it seems all cards are in favor of Apple:

- Microsoft is having lots of problems with their software (bad security, XP, IE, MSN, IIS, viruses, etc)

- Apple is now embracing standards instead of trying to force them (dumping ADC for DVI, BSD core for their OS, using Dolby for their audio format, adding H.264, etc).

- The MHz myth is falling apart. AMD CPUs are clocked at lower speeds and yet beat higher-clocked intel CPUs.

And now Apple has released a low-cost computer, Mac mini.

Being a friend to Open Source is a big deal, especially now that some people are waking up to the fact they're locked in Microsoft solutions, can't get out and need to keep paying Microsoft whatever price they ask. A Mac mini can be, if anything, the easiest way to have an Apache web server at home.

Add to that the fact that most people use a computer for web, email, chat and digital media (where iLife seems to shine, if iTunes is any indication), and you can see the potential for having a massive wave of switchers. It'll happen when either Apple starts showing ads (like they did with the iPod) and/or when more and more people get their Mac minis and show it to their friends. Who'll in turn want one, then show it off, etc.

Apple only needs to have the Mac mini on shelves everywhere it can. If it's supposed to be used as any audio/video component (as the box suggests), it needs to be everywhere DVD players and televisions are sold (Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Future Shop, The Brick, [insert your local electronics chains here], etc).

 

[Yvan256]

Why couldn't Apple license OS X to a vendor on a per platform basis, meaning that the vendor would be able to sell OS X on a specific combination of motherboard, CPU architecture, video cards, hard drive, etc? Apple could then enforce the same strict quality requirements that they have for their own hardware and drivers. As long as the number of vendors receiving this type of license is kept very small - no more than a handful - I don't see any significant drawbacks to such a plan. Anyone see any negatives I'm not seeing?

The negative is that you'd still have to buy another box instead of just re-using the one you have (which is, IMO, the whole point in "x86-OS X").

The only negative is that Apple-approved boxes would be more expensive than "regular" x86 boxes, making the choice even less likely. People would either stay with their current x86 + Windows/Linux boxes or pay the extra to get the Mac. Most likely the first choice.

 

[Yvan256]

I think Apple's main concern right know is the development of new hardware for the pros which is in what they've fallen a little behind for already focusing too much on the average consumer and PC users. (iPod, Mac mini, iPod shuffle).

They need to get back in line with what they know how to do best and that is photo and video for the pros.

But they do have pro-grade stuff (PowerMacs, XServe, FPC HD, etc).

The thing is, they haven't stopped making things for the pros at all but the quality of what used to be Pro is now available to the average user.

 

[Yvan256]

Again, they can still make and sell hardware. Dell does it and they are doing very well. So why not apple? They have the added benefit of selling Software AND hardware.

Dell doesn't really do anything. They put a bunch of parts together (from various manufacturers) and put Microsoft software on it.

The only thing "made" by real is the cases (PC, keyboard, mouse, etc).

 

[Yvan256]

I hereby posit that a 1.25GHz G4 running OS X on a notebook drive is faster than the best possible PPC emulator running on a Pentium 4 3.8GHz processor.

Yep, can't argue with that (especially if you use a P4 for the PC).

Which then begs the question: Why pay $2000 more for a top-of-the-line emulating machine when you can spend $500 on a low-end native machine?

Because you already have the 2500$+ system? You wouln't spend anything except the price of x86-OS X.

You can compare specs and prices all you want, but to always assume the user has nothing to start with and needs to buy everything just messes up the comparisons.

Which is why Apple ended up selling the Mac mini without a keyboard or mouse. I think they did their homework.

 

[dicklacara]

O.k. lets sum this one up:

2. If Toshiba and Sony release Cell-based computer systems with OS-X running on it while Apple sticks with the current PPC 970's they would be able to offer more performance for possible less money than Apple can. This will hurt Apple hardware sales.

It's not going to happen....

What if Apple releases cell-based Macs running OS X that can use several of the CPUs, when required to do an acceptable win enulation

Dick

 

[Yvan256]

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!

You mean:
- Don't ever connect your PC directly to the internet
- Don't ever use Outlook
- Don't ever use Microsoft Office
- Don't ever use Microsoft Internet Explorer
- Don't ever use Microsoft Messenger
- Don't open file attachments you receive, even if they're from people you know
- Always connect your PC to the internet via a firewall-equipped router
- Only use Eudora
- Only use OpenOffice.org
- Only use Firefox or Opera
- Only use Trillian (MSN, ICQ, Yahoo, IRC compatible)

I can sell this and make money?

 

[Bhennies]

Holy ****! An Athlon 64 custom PC in a 3u rack enclosure running digital performer, logic and pro tools on OS X for 1/3 the cost of a dual 2.5 that it smokes easily! Sign me up!

p.s. this probably wouldn't be possible, but I can dream...

 

[Coca-Cola]

Sony, HP branded mac mini from apple

I think Sony should be allowed to run Mac OS X on Apple built computers. Apple should take the same route that it took with the HPod. It should be an apple computer with OS X, but have a Sony or HP brand along with "made by apple computer" stamp on it. Sony and HP will just be distributors, nothing more. This would be a solid win for Apple.

 

[Yvan256]

Listen to the man!

But I can't! Upgrading the OS will be 25% of the cost of the computer! I have to wait for Tiger! (and perhaps, hopefully, a small upgrade to the Mac mini... such as 512MB and 5400RPM as default configuration... and perhaps a tiny upgrade to the Radeon 9200/32MB VRAM... How about Radeon 9600SE with 64MB?).

 

[Yvan256]

Does running iTunes on a PC ruin iTunes?

Nope, but it does put to shame almost everything else on that PC.

 

[Yvan256]

Apple should lisence for Alienware computers only. Apple and Alienware can invest in creating thier own Mac/PC compatible Hardware but of course they patent the hell out of it. so only Alienware can use os X and mac's can have alienware manufacturing parts to apples standards for apple computers.

Alienware = over-priced PC for Windows gaming.

A PPC Alienware box running OS X would be absolutely pointless.

 

[Yvan256]

iTunes working with with other MP3 players would not kill the ipod. People don't buy ipods just for itunes.

The fact that you need an iPod to use with iTunes is half the reason I bought an iPod. The interface is the other.

Can you tell me which players work with iTunes, besides the iPod? I keep reading that "fact" yet nobody says anything. Also, is this a Mac-only thing?

Doesn't the player need to use iTunes' database to be compatible? I'm talking actually using iTunes with something else than an iPod, not simply doing a drag'n drop to a drive mapped onto the player.

 

[~loserman~]

You found a compiler that does quality assurance, beta testing, product kitting, manufacturing, distribution and end-user support? Great!

Seriously, these "non-porting" costs are a huge part of the overall lifecycle cost of a software product.

Even if the engineering cost of the port were to be zero, it would still be quite expensive to produce a variant of a commercial product for OS X on x64. Many of the non-porting costs are more or less additive - producing 3 variants costs 50% more than producing 2 variants, which costs 100% more than producing a single variant.

(I assume that it would be absurd to make a product for x86 at this point in time. Targeting x64 would also have the benefit of eliminating a lot of older legacy systems from consideration.)

Im not disagreeing but... My contention is the technical work of porting OS X to X86 is not that difficult. Most of the work is already done in Darwin.
I agree with the ancillary costs of support/product testing etc... But thats what companies in this business arena do already. It isnt like they wouldnt be making money enough to cover these added expenses. IMO I believe the positives far outway the negatives in porting OS X to x86. especially if done right and Sold to OEM's first. Heck if the OEM DEALS WERE DONE CORRECTLY Apple could basically mandate what types of hardware configurations could be used.

 

[ollie]

I think many of the lameasses who code virii and spyware would not be able to get past OS X's security.

you good sir, are ignorant. hackers/crackers would find away around it. thats what they do. thats what drives us.

 

[Yvan256]

Not quite. OS X's kernel and virtual memory manager are actually optimized for the G3.... yes you read that right.. the G3. Not a G4.. Not a G5.
If you dont believe me look at the Darwin Kernel Source.

Cool!

Now, where's my ultra-low power, 20+ hours battery life "iBook mini" sub-notebook?

 

[trose]

Wow, Yvan, you've been busy.

 

[Applespider]

Yikes! I have MR set to 40 posts a page and this is still a scary thread!

I can understand PC manufacturers wanting to use OS X. I understand the 'clone' problems of the past where Apple lost control of the hardware.

But I wonder if there is room for Apple to allow rebadging of Apple systems by Sony/IBM etc while using Apple specs but building them in Sony et al's factories. It might be a way of improving the product availability for us all!

Who knows how much longer a PC will stay in its current form? We're looking at single boxes (perhaps of CELL processors) running households and let's face it, if Sony/Toshiba/IBM are looking at these aspects, would you want to trust your household security to a Windows box, given their past record?

 

[archer75]

Dell doesn't really do anything. They put a bunch of parts together (from various manufacturers) and put Microsoft software on it.

The only thing "made" by real is the cases (PC, keyboard, mouse, etc).

Yes, same with apple. Other companies make the parts to apples specifications and they assemble it with thier own software.

They can still do the same thing with PC's that Dell and other companies do and still make a ton of money.

 

[archer75]

The fact that you need an iPod to use with iTunes is half the reason I bought an iPod. The interface is the other.

Can you tell me which players work with iTunes, besides the iPod? I keep reading that "fact" yet nobody says anything. Also, is this a Mac-only thing?

Doesn't the player need to use iTunes' database to be compatible? I'm talking actually using iTunes with something else than an iPod, not simply doing a drag'n drop to a drive mapped onto the player.

I use iTunes, just not to sync with a portable player. I don't like being limited to one player. I just drag and drop them on it.

 

[maxvamp]

I don't think rebadging is a bad idea.....

Sony is probably the most notorious of doing this, especially in electronics ( think zenith Betamax ), but other manufacturers have done this throught the history of electronics.


If I were Apple, I would at least try it to try to gain market share in either the consumer realm, or in the enterprise.

Max.

 

[ijimk]

If there is a God they will keep OS X on macs where it belongs. Period. I rest my case. nuff said.

 

[Artanmotion]

Stepping stones..! or... How to loose your shirt by standing still now.

I dont see why anyone here should be against porting OS X to a PC.
It would only make Apple money. It would bring more apps to the MAC.
Its not difficult to port an App to a diferent processor when the OS is the same. We do it continually where I work. I port my apps to Linux on Intel, PPC, Itaniums all the time. I can usually do it in a day or 2. Very easy stuff. But the ports between Windows OS X and Linux are a bear and take months.
The only reason I can see is people seem to think it would hurt Apple's hardware sale... To that I Say hogwash. Some of the core technologies that make OS X work well on Apple hardware have to do with them utilizing the altivec engine in the PPC. There is no x86 equivelent, so OS X will always perform a little better on Apple's hardware. But Apple could make some nice cash off the OS sales and use the money to better the OS and improve their product line.

So, why would Apple like to sell more operating systems? Hmmm... tricky!
Did MicroSoft ever make any money with a half baked OS on the biggest platform?

Apple are about to bring out Mac iX, promoted as "...the best uniX on x86"
Yes, that's right! Mac OS iX... say it... Mac OS 9..! or even Mac Nine sounds fast!

Trailing a year, to a year and a half, behind Mac OS X, it will start life as a well designed and rationalised OS with at least some of its well seasoned and tested code... (you think Longhorn will be better?) more of which will become open source, to attract the unix cognoscenti to the best system and allow them to feed through development to OS X... and for testing, bug fixes and writing drivers... This will assist and push Apple with OS X which will still, firmly, lead the way and appear as a markedly "...better on the Mac" experience.

Apple will be clever and position Mac iX bellow OS X, but better than Windows Longhorn and any other Unix OS. It will retail for $80 or £50, for it's not OS X and is positioned accordingly making the cost of a Windows license apper very high and suggesting that, while MicroSoft had a monopoly, they milked the public. A so much cheaper license than Windows that the OEMs will be keen, as well as the public.

For many who want their own configuration, because its cheap or they want to have the best graphics card for games, it will be all they want. Others will come to appreciate the OS so much, they will hunger for the latest features in OS X and, when the next time to upgrade comes along, they will get a Mac with it's own, unique, OS. This will be when the masses will start to see the ease of use, becoming highly aware and focused on the features of OS X. Of course stability on the Mac has become legend. (...in ten years I have never had to recover a Mac!)

But Wait! There will be no software available for this new OS on x86, you say. Wrong! Apple will obviously create a virtual Mac OS X engine into Mac iX to run all the current apps seamlessly under emulation, slower, but they will work! Drivers for printers and other hardware can run under emulation if that is necessary, before native drivers are written. Likewise, when people upgrade from Mac iX, to OS X, their old apps will work, though slower, within the seamless Virtual Mac iX (x86) engine within OS X.

It isn't just those unix guys and those who are fleeing Windows that Apple want to target, but a contained, easy and functional OS will attract the corperate and goverment sectors who have already made huge investments in hardware. This is huge money.

Now, if Steve Jobs had explained this to me, why should it baffle you lot?

Has Steve Jobs been an expert in marketing? Think back now! He failed to license the Mac OS in the past, when it had everything going for it, which pointed Apple in a direction that almost brought it to its knees, though, as he was no longer with Apple, he had no control to see through his own grand plans. Like playing the game RISK he has learnt to be cautious and to move slowly, but this is not Risk this is a war for market share and survival. Steve's character is marked by caution, this is a good way to stay in business for a time, but not the way to ultimately win. See how slowly the iPod is developed. You still can't load pictures from your camera, record your voice or from other sources... Apple have very conscientiously developed a rock solid digital hub, integrating and rationalising for ease of use, but as yet we don't have the most prevalent form of digital entertainment. It's not even hinted at by Apple. When will they add the TV part... You know very well this is coming and when it does it will be done so well that here will be another compelling product for the masses along side the iPod.

Apple have a fantastic OS now. The best in the world, but in five years will that be the case? Will apple become even more marginalised as the Windows OS improves and more people are satisfied to stay with what they know? This is an opportunity to leverage a Mac OS into the mainstream at the height of disillusionment. The opportunity may not be there ever again, for when Longhorn comes out it will be better than the offering already put up with by so many. It will never again be easy to take market share, dragging away the generally conservative users of Windows.

How much market share can Mac iX take from OS X and the Mac? Well would you switch to Mac iX from being a current Mac users? How much market share can Mac iX take from Windows and all the other x86 OS's?

Mac iX would do the same Job as the iPod. Think stepping stone.


Think... Haute Couture - Designer Ready to Wear - High Street

Think... Porsche 911 - Boxter - Ford

Think... Mac OS X on Mac - Mac iX on x86 - Windows

Think... Different..! At last! A computer for the rest of them...


Remember, Steve has aligned Apple with BMW in the mind of the people, to show there should be pride in a sizeable market share. Well, how do BMW do things? What products do they offer and put out to market?

Rolls Royce (owned by BMW)! - BMW - Range Rover (owned by BMW)! - the new MINI (owned by BMW)! Note that these don't compete with each other.

In our world of computer OS's all we have in the market are Ford / MicroSoft - BMW / Apple and a few good kit car companies / read Linux. There's room to position new products...

Have you ever played RISK? Have MicroSoft spread themselves to thin, left themselves vulnerable to attack? A solid, but not over extending move into the mainstream, by Apple, must be done in the next year or Apple will let MicroSoft gather forces again and if they are kind, they will let us survive in our own little world.

If Apple were to move now, OS X could take a 12% market share, maybe, with OS iX taking between 50% - 80% market share... into the future on other processors. Ask your self... Does anyone do it better? MicroSoft are a long way back in second place in terms of quality OS, but for how long? What should that mean? What should it mean to Steve Jobs? Open your eyes Steve, and see clearly...You have a very cautious approach and I see you don't want to over extend Apple...yet.

When the public are satisfied with what they have from MicroSoft, two years, Apple will never again have another chance.



What do you think?

I think Steve is playing this with so much skill and vision that he will make a move into the mainstream within one year. He has to. It's the only way to guaranty the future of Apple.