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?

enter the cell pc......

if apple licenses the mac os, they could make billions and still sell loads of macs as there will be no more cpu wars so apple can compete in speed and charge a premium for cool looking hardware, an edge they did not have in the clone days
 
Too many people are talking about x86/Intel, which is a dead horse in the Mac world. There is also an assumption (concern) of a $399 computer. Not going to happen.

What "may" happen would be something like Sony coming out with a huge new TV that includes Cell chips and Apple's support in the processing (OS) areas. Not cheap and available with either the Apple or Sony logo.

On the IBM side - they did sell their PC division. That leaves them open to work with Apple on a lot of projects - some that we cannot even wrap our minds around.

HP? Only something that would allow them to work nice with new Apple servers being installed in a HP client's site.
 
Apple's 1st quarter revenue for 2005:

CPUs: $1,605,000,000
iPod: $1,211,000,000
Peripherals: $ 284,000,000
Hardware total: $3,100,000,000

Software: $ 213,000,000

In other words, the revenue from all software sales (not only OS X, but Final Cut, Keynote, iLife, etc.) were 10% of hardware sales.

Given these figures, why would Apple want to license the OS? It simply makes no business sense. Sure, lots of companies are now interested in Apple's operating system, but that's also an indication of Apple's general buzz now. Why shouldn't it capitalize on that directly?

Licensing just makes no business sense.
 
Cloning/licensing the OS are antithetical to Apple's product philosophy.

In order to focus on the software (as Jobs states) you must try as much as possible to make the hardware invisible to the user, and without total control over hardware design it can't be done. That is one reason why the Mac is great:
the computer is designed and configured by the the same company that wrote the OS and the major applications. It just works better that way.

It's flattering to hear that other companies are (allegedly) recognizing how great OS X is, but porting it is bad for Apple.

This thread seems set to have long life... :rolleyes:
 
Fantastic idea. I bought my iMac both because of OSX and because of what I got for the price. Apple hardware lasts a lot longer than PC hardware which quickly become obsolete.

People do not simply go by price alone, otherwise everyone would be driving a Kia or something like that. Considering that OSX is designed for Apple primarily and then for PCs afterwards, it would be like a reverse of the current situation that exists with the game market. People may switch on that basis that if the software is good the software and the hardware combined is better. Which is true.

Maybe it will be something involving Sony, Apple lets them use OSX and Apple gets to use Cell ship technology.

Just cause IBM and Sony developed the cell doesn't mean that just anybody has access to cell technology. I am sure that Sony invested a significant sum of money in developing the cell chip and have considerable interest in preventing possible competitors from being able to use that technology.
 
BlackLilyNinja said:
and I mean never. The closest we may get is he may allow PC makers to create PPC systems capable of running osx. but I doubt that too.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No point or benefit of an Intel version...
 
EJBasile said:
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?
Click to expand...


I dislike this arguement for two reasons - one is that it implies low market share will ensure no viruses/spyware - and as such you can "compute stupid". Any OS, regardless of market share, will at some point have a virus/spyware/trojan horse or other problem. Today, there is an exploit that effects almost every browser out there but one - IE. Sure not a virus but a sign no matter what OS your are on, you have to be careful.

Second, it implies that writting a virus that would only infect a small percentage of the popluation is not worthwhile. Remeber, many virus writters like the attention their viri gets! It is largely about ego, ego and more ego. Windows has tons of security holes any script kiddie can exploit them. A secure OS, like OSX presents a challenge.

How much media play would one virus writter get for infecting less than 1000 windows machines? At 10,000 they might get noticed. Write one virus that could even POTENTIALLY infect 1 mac OSX machine and I bet you will not hear the end of it! I can almost promise the first virus that DOES infect at least one mac OSX machine will be on your local evening news. So low market share doesn't play as big a part as some windows fans would like you to believe. Matter of fact, the lack of a virus could actually attract MORE virus writters.

This really has nothing to do with porting to X86, or shouldn't IMHO.
 
geoffism said:
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.
Click to expand...

i tottally agree who wants apple to turn into microsoft aand its not like apple needs the money they would get from sellin out their software theyre already making billions of dollars
 
here's one thing to think about kids:

steve jobs has a lot of years left, but what happens when he quits or retires. i don't think he wants apple to die with him. he's got to set it up for the long run. i'm not saying this is the way and i don't think it is. but he's got to do something. last time he left apple... well, we saw what happened.

steve jobs is, by now, widely considered the one of the best businessmen in the US if not the world (seriously, i'm not exaggerating, read some year end business lists). it'll be a complete crapshoot to replace him when the time comes, even if that is in 25 years.
 
Okay, OS X on x86 does NOT have to mean OS X running on ANY x86 machine a'la Windows.

OS X on x86 most likely means that Apple will use Intel procs in their computers. You'd still have to buy a Mac to get OS X, but it would be "Intel Inside" instead of IBM or Moto/Freescale.

*IF* Apple decided to become a software company it would require a complete retooling of their software development and marketing. Not only would they have to add a butt load of code to "ensure compatibility" w/all the x86 variants out there, they would also have to really jack up software prices. Currently, Apple software is to Apple hardware want iTMS is to the iPod.

Do you honestly think FCP HD would cost $999 if you didn't have to buy Apple's hardware to run it?


Lethal
 
Wow.. what a bunch of elitists. I'm all for the porting to different hardware. Bring it on.

I certainly don't buy into the idea that additional hardware support will increase virus activity. :rolleyes:
 
no more powermac

I guess when Apple is licensing OS X for PC hardware...that mean they will be out of hardware business...no more powermac...no more powerbook...no more imac...I will never use computer again....PC sucks!
 
kidA said:
here's one thing to think about kids:

steve jobs has a lot of years left, but what happens when he quits or retires. i don't think he wants apple to die with him. he's got to set it up for the long run. i'm not saying this is the way and i don't think it is. but he's got to do something. last time he left apple... well, we saw what happened.

steve jobs is, by now, widely considered the one of the best businessmen in the US if not the world (seriously, i'm not exaggerating, read some year end business lists). it'll be a complete crapshoot to replace him when the time comes, even if that is in 25 years.
Click to expand...

Well, papa, that has nothing to do with anything being discussed in the thread, now does it?

(And Amnesiac was better.)
 
NFW

Before IBM came out with G5 chips and before Apple released the highly affordable Mac mini, I might believe it. But now that they've got compelling offerings for high-end workstations (PowerMacs and Xserves) and budget-minded consumers, aka cheapskates (Mac mini), Apple has no reason to port OS X to x86.

In fact, with this CELL chip coming out, Sony could probably be the PC maker that wants to use OS X on a CELL-based system.
 
macnews said:
I dislike this arguement for two reasons - one is that it implies low market share will ensure no viruses/spyware - and as such you can "compute stupid". Any OS, regardless of market share, will at some point have a virus/spyware/trojan horse or other problem. Today, there is an exploit that effects almost every browser out there but one - IE. Sure not a virus but a sign no matter what OS your are on, you have to be careful.

Second, it implies that writting a virus that would only infect a small percentage of the popluation is not worthwhile. Remeber, many virus writters like the attention their viri gets! It is largely about ego, ego and more ego. Windows has tons of security holes any script kiddie can exploit them. A secure OS, like OSX presents a challenge.

How much media play would one virus writter get for infecting less than 1000 windows machines? At 10,000 they might get noticed. Write one virus that could even POTENTIALLY infect 1 mac OSX machine and I bet you will not hear the end of it! I can almost promise the first virus that DOES infect at least one mac OSX machine will be on your local evening news. So low market share doesn't play as big a part as some windows fans would like you to believe. Matter of fact, the lack of a virus could actually attract MORE virus writters.

This really has nothing to do with porting to X86, or shouldn't IMHO.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with you, but you're not considering one element that makes market share objectively relevant: you need "like" machines for the virus to spread, by its own very nature.
unless a virus is dual-platform, it will only spread from one OS to another iteration of the same OS.
therefore OSX viruses (if/when they exist) would be intrinsecally less dangerous in an OSX-rarefied world than in an OSX-dense world.

the explosive spreading of viruses requires that a large majority of the machines can act as "carrier". If windows' share was to instantly drop by 50%, with exactly the same load of viruses, the negative effect of virus would drop by significantly more than 50%.
 
Why more viruses?

Can someone explain to me why some of you think that providing OS X for Intel hardware would result in viruses targeting OS X?

I happen to think of a virally infected computer as "user's fault", and as I understand it, viruses depend on the OS of the machine -- not on the hardware istelf. If OS X is made to run on Intel hardware, the vulnerabilities will be the same as they are running on your Mac -- extremely difficult due to the security of the system.

I think the bigger issue would be the way that OS X "JUST WORKS". The big reason that OS X works so well is that they don't have to support miscellaneous hardware. They can focus on fully supporting a limited number of devices that compose a Mac instead of trying to make everything work for everyone and all hardware. This is/was(?) a major issue for Linux that, I think, would also be a major issue for Apple. The initial releases would appear buggy with lots of hardware, and Apple would be stuck with its foot in its mouth.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me (even though I think it's a bad idea) at all if Apple released in Intel version of OS X. I'd still opt to buy the fully supported Mac hardware so that my system can continue to "just work" with the hardware -- yeah, so it continues to look pretty, too. ;)

-K
 
I wonder what this would mean for Linux too if Mac OS X went to the PC? I could see OS X becoming the platform of choice for open-source development - but as people have been saying, OS X programs would be more likely to become a watered-down mish-mash of buggy code rather than mainly quality Apple s/w like we see now ... think I'd rather just see it stay for Mac h/w.
 
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).
 
GFLPraxis said:
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).
Click to expand...

i was thinking the same. this would make a lot more sense.

edit: ironically, wasn't this the strategy (limited licensing to a few selected, high quality manufacturers) initially proposed for the Mac in the early 80s.
and who had proposed it?
 
I vote no for a lot of the reason everyone else is saying. PC makers would undercut Apple so why would anyone want to pay the premium for the Apple hardware. How about something like VOSX. Like a VPC type thing where they could use it and get a feel for it but it would run like crap giving them no reason to use it as a primary desktop.

I just don't want to see OSX on a bunch of crappy looking boxes. Call me elitist but i like my 1inch thick AlBook and how silent it is compared to PC laptops that sound like jet engines ready for takeoff.
 
Wonder Boy said:
marketshare of the the OS world, yes, but what will come of apple hardware? why buy a 3300 powermac when you can have the same OS experience for much less? i'd still buy the powermac, but plenty of people won't. apple hardware will become even more "BMW" in the computer world. i hope apple knows what its doing...
Click to expand...

i am not quite sure, if Apple has more money, it can lower the hardware price too and compete with the Winblows world.
 
B-52 Macer said:
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:
Click to expand...

OS X PC's this Tuesday!!!!!!!111 :(

This would be the end of everything Apple means to so many...
 
Thats what seperates PCs from macs...

if a PC has a problem, Microsoft tech support sucks because they have no idea what your setup is! If an Apple has a problem, its easy to fix because its all the same hardware
 
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