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?

Ship a hobbled version…

IMHO, I think it would be an interesting idea if they shipped a 'low-fi' version of OSX for the wintel-ers. Something like XP Home. Just a really dumbed down version that would whet their appetites for the real thing. SJ has been going out of his way to make the 'Mac experience' more accessible to potential switchers. A really lo-fi version of OSX that they could run on their wintel hardware would be a great way to push them over to the Mac and it wouldn't cannibalize sales either…
 
OSX or the Mac OS in general is a Decade old rumor that will never come to fruition. It is a Dumb idea that would not work and those who don't understand why don't really understand the Macintosh concept. Once upon a time it could have worked but that time has come and gone there is no second chance. The main reason for the macintosh experience is that close intergration of Hardware and Software that Only a company that controls all aspects can provide. The main reason OSX for X86 would not work anytime in the near future is that it really is'nt that simple to port OSX and all of it's software to run on X86. If anyone has used any flavor of PowerPC Linux they would know that say Linux Mandrake PPC won't run alot of X86 Linux software without some extensive recompliling and vice versa. It would be bad if OSX had anything more than 10-15% marketshare as we would become a viable target for malware and virii as mentioned before. Also I think X86 is overated compared to PPC. Sure overall it's faster and cheaper but PPC is more promising right now.
 
I can't be arsed to look through the forum posts.

IF apple license out OSX on Intel then Apple will lose hardware sales, and thus they will be more reliant on iPod sales. Putting eggs into one basket.

Furthermore, once Longhorn is released, unless OSX on Intel has been a big success, these PC companies will probably drop OSX for Intel.

One last thing: It is worth Apple's while to do the port? ( I have heard the rumours that apple have already done this.. but probably not with the latest version of OSX).
 
NO

hasnt happened, wont happen, isnt going to happen cuz OSX is too good for pc and would require a massive revamping of the OS to be able to run on the wide range of pcs. from a crappy dell to a high end voodoo or alienware. It aint gonna happen.

15.2 in 1.5 ghz alum pb
20gb g4 ipod
 
unless using os x for an intel based computer would have a disadvantage over using it with an apple computer, it would crush apple
 
Don't panic said:
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%.
Click to expand...

I agree, if Apple has a larger market share it could be in the same situation as windows. However, a virus can exist with little to no market share. When making a business decision like porting to X86, I don't think you should NOT do something because you are worried about a virus.
 
Its not about being elitist. Its about bringing a higher standard in terms of design and quality to the world at large. Near enough is not good enough. My saying has always been 'People always want more. Why can't they want better?'

Steve Jobs has vision and its not one of compromise (thats why I sound like a fanboi). If Apple let other players in on the game those players will drop the ball. I would suspect only Sony or IBM might do the right thing. To do what they're suggesting is to be mediocre. I don't want that. Not after having come from the PC world.

Anyway, can you imagine Steve on stage and up comes through the stage floor
a crappy new beige box with the 'all new Mac OSX for Wintel'...ooh whoopee.

Sorry guys I just hate to see a good thing like Apple go down the tubes. :(
 
macFanDave said:
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.
Click to expand...
But isn't that exactly the logic to suggest that Apple COULD do this? I mean, for the first time, they have a computer that can be decribed as "highly affordable." Until 2-months ago, if Apple had licensed their OS, they would have been blown out of the water on price. If they're really talking about a license, why not write a restrictive agreement that prohibits sales below $500 (or some number that the market research folks tell them makes sense)?

Frankly, I don't think that they SHOULD do it. I happen to agree that the overall Apple user experience is more valuable to Apple than the dollars they'd make on the license. That said, the potential market created by licensing (if done correctly) may be too rich to pass up.
 
You're all missing the point!

You're all missing the point! Why does windows (and I am a heavy windows user so no jabs) suck so incredibly?

Its not the operating system. It is as different (in its own rights) as any *nix interface, or other gui or non gui interface. It has its own pros and cons but this is not why it sucks.

No... its not even the fact that Microsoft have released more updates than I will have birthdays in my lifetime.

Software
  • Windows has a much larger software base, developers are slack, everyone likes to cut corners. We see it all the time with any operating system, its just that with Apple software interfaces we do not see it as often. Soo many software applications (not including the major corporation applications) are written by one or 2 people working in thier home. Hell, most of the software I use was written by a good friend of mine and its buggy as hell!
  • Apple has such a small share (no offence) of the market. Windows towers all over it. Think of a windshield on a car. Now imagine the windows car is the size of a semi-trailer (i dont know what you *points :p* Americans call it.. 18 wheeler?) and think of Mac OSX as a remote controlled Nitro car. They both travel at the same speed hitting bugs on thier windshield.. how many will hit the semi compared to teh nitro car? If mac OS was alot more popular then *******s would make adaware for it, they WOULD make viruses for it. But because the base is so small noone really (no offence) cares to do anything about it.

Hardware
  • Apple. Hardware designed by apple. Hardware tested by apple or affiliates of apple. Software programmed by apple. Software programmed for the specific use on Apple hardware.
  • Windows. Made by microsoft. Supports CPUS by Intel, AMD, VIA, Cursoe(sorry i cant remmeber the manufactuer). Supports motherboards by (insert god only knows how many motherboard manufactuers). Supports video cards (insert motherboard manufactuers and multiply by a factor of 100), Supports other add-on cards, optical drives, hdds, periferhals (insert video cards here and multiply by infinity).
  • The fact is that Windows supports an infinitly larger amount of hardware, OF COURSE ITS NOT GOING TO WORK 100% My god! I love apple and all but its like turning lead into Gold when you try to explain to an apple user that Windows doesn't work beacuse it has too much to support and if things are done half assed by hardware/softare manufactuers of course its going to fail
  • Have you ever seen one of those people that take a stock Toyota Corolla, put 20" rims, add a turbo, add catback exhaust, put better extractors, put a scoop, add a body kit, add a spoiler that could outrun a F/A18 Hornet, dye the interior, new seats, illegal silver windows, scisor doors, etc etc etc. Thats what windows is. A stock car with so many shithouse addons that it works for maybe 1/100th of the time.
  • Who's going to Test OSX so that it works with every hardware accessory and doesnt crash like windows does?
  • Who's going to enforce making software that doesnt crash with everything?
  • How long will it take for adaware apps to start popping up on OSX for x86
  • How long till the idiots, script kiddies, plain *******s to make viruses for OSX?
  • Who are you going to blame when OSX becomes the runaway train like windows does?
 
the more i think about it this forum is a waste of time bcuz theres no way apple would ever do this it really wouldnt make any sense all it does is cheapen the apple name
 
but you know what, even if Apple could do what i said before, why give the windows world , which attacks us so much our OS, No way!!!
 
So who are the three?

HP and Sony, those two are easy. But who's the third? Couldn't be Dell... Gateway? That would be funny. eMachines? That would be hilarious...

I think Apple should give companies permission to build specific OS X machines that fill niche markets which Apple doesn't target. Sony can build a Cell- based HDTV that runs OS X. HP can build high- end servers and workstations. Gateway or Toshiba could build mid- range desktops that aren't cheap but maybe $200 less than a PowerMac. Even Dell could make one of their two- inch thick laptops for the 'mobile gamers' out there.

Obviously nobody is gonna stop making windows machines, so I don't think the PC manufactures would care if Apple came in and said, "OK we have the badass software so everyone do as we say..." and then told the companies what they could and could not make. They wouldn't be 'clones', so to speak, but rather compliments to the OS X universe.
 
read my lips:
N_E_V_E_R_H_A_P_P_E_N

If Jobs licenses his OS then why would anyone buy a apple computer? Just buy a stinky Dell and slap tiger on it.
 
To hell with all of them...

They chose Microsoft, so let them deal with the pitfalls of their decision...don't compromise OS X just for money. Let them deal with Longhorn, the latest ripoff...
 
stealthboy said:
Who wants OS X on a boring, bland, beige PC? Nobody.
Click to expand...


Oh for crying out loud, who cares what a desktop looks like? (and also, how many pc manufacturers are cranking out beige machines anymore? the 90's are over.)

Lord Blackadder said:
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.
Click to expand...

This seems the best argument against it, imo. The virus and spyware thing is a straw man: if you're too stupid to avoid them on a windows box, that's your own problem.


I wouldn't mind 3rd party ppc boxen; that actually might lead to some real development cpu-wise.
 
COME ON!

COME ON GUYS

you really dont want OSX on x86, it makes no sense at all. please no hardware conflicts or applications that need to be rewritten, PLEASE THEY JUST DID THAT!!

no we really dont want that

But NOT because Apple makes only money out of their hardware,
for christ!!!! how do you think Microsoft became so rich? did they sell expensive x86 boxes? I dont think so, they licensed their OS and everyone used it and now it is dominant and bill is rich.

If only 20% of all consumer computers were x86 machines running OSX then Apple would already be super rich and they would not have to depend on their hardware sales right? So please dont start with arguments that Apple depends on their hardware sales and stuff.

ANYWAYS....

we really dont want to shift to something like x86, because right now, IBM is the way to go for the future, we all know that.

BUT

still i think the best thing to do for apple IF they want more marketshare or influence, is license two or three big names (for example: IBM, HP, SONY)
To sell PowerPC based machines (G4, G5 or whatever) with about the same specs as powermacs, running OSX. The only difference between the pc-vendor box and the powermac would be the case, the monitor and of course, THE PRICE!!

Trust me, not everyone wants a shiny macintosh on their desk. Apple sells to a certain niche group i think and i don't think you could really reach the big mass (dont start flaming that they dont want to reach it, they sell ipods to masses as well and mac mini's too!)

So people could choose whether they like to have a sony, HP or IBM or Apple computer which comes with OSX and iLife apps. It could just run PPC hardware with all the stuff that a normal powerpc also includes. Maybe small differences as long as Apple garantuees that it works. The supplier (ibm, hp..) would have to confirm to all the rules about what hardware and stuff they have to use) In this way, no one would ever had any problems with hardware conflicts (you will if you license to every crappy x86 box!!) And apple can still control a lot of the quality and user experience.

What do you guys think??? sound much better right?
 
Releasing OS X for x86 means that it would probably be copied illegally a whole lot more than currently happens. Currently, someone who copies a friend's version of Panther (or Tiger, etc.) must have already bought a Mac. So yes, Apple loses out on the $129 sale, but this same person has already bought a Mac (revenue for Apple) in the past and will probably buy another Mac in the future (more revenue for Apple).

On the other hand, a PC user who copies the hypothetical x86 OS X does not bring any revenue to Apple. The only thing they can hope for is some sort of halo effect where the user gets hooked onto OS X and will buy a Mac as his next computer. But why should he have to, since he can just buy a cheap PC and copy OS X again.

Another thing: if Apple were to release OS X for x86, you can be sure that Microsoft would immediately retaliate by making Windows a lot cheaper. They can afford to run a loss for a while.

All in all, I don't think releasing OS X for x86 is in Apple's interest at all. But I do believe they have a version in-house.
 
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 agree. Let Apple be huge in something like the iPod but right where they are at with something like the Macintosh. iPod funds the company. The Mac Users remain an elite group too small to attack.
 
*ahem* Steve, hope you're watching!

This is he chance for Apple to principally make a bunch of money on it's new prize software - tiger. More money than it would probably make if it sold just to Macs, but they shouldn't ever do this.

The mac is about an experience. I have only had one for a year, and now Ive got three. Not because I'm obsessed - but becasue they actually work. If I'm looking for somthing, it's there, and the truly astounding features that Apple has introduced are mind blowing. Just the other day I was thinking : How do I get a truly great Valantines gift? Then the answer : Get a bunch of shots of me and the girlfriend, and get them printed in the book design on iPhoto. Not only did it arrive in a gorgeous Apple box, it had the customary shrink wrapping, perfectly pressed and folded and looked fantastic. Worth every penny.

Whats the point of this thread? You give somone half the mac experience and it's useless. You take them into one of the mac stores, you let them send an email off yours, you order a book for them or burn a CD from your desktop and they want one. They want that simplicity, stability, they want the design - and thats the way it should be. It's not the OS alone that makes the platform great. It's the attention to detail, painstaking design of interface, hardware, software, services and packaging. THAT is the experience. And thats why I use a desktop, a laptop and I got one for my mom to use too. Thats why friends have converted. Please Apple, see the logic...
 
Point 1:
Even if they Port OS X... software would still have to be recompiled to run on Intel/AMD processors.

Point 2:
It might increase Apple's market share in the OS sector... but it would generate little extra revenue. I know very few people that actually bought Windows. The people I know who own Windows had it shipped with their new PCs.
 
OS X for people with Wintel boxes. Great idea! Except ...

Apple already sells this. It comes in a box just slightly larger than the regular OS X Panther box, and with compatible hardware and iLife included! Only $499!

Having read the original article, this seemed a throwaway line, talking about an unrequited advance by a few Windows cloners, somewhat akin to Real's proposal to get together for an iTunes/iPod/RealONE hegemony.

I won't even start in on the myriad reasons why this would be a bad business move ... List the possible scenarios, from Apple-controlled Intel hardware to put-it-on-any-pile-of-crap-that-sticks-together-with-a-power-supply. They all come up lacking, either from an Apple business standpoint or from a consumer satisfaction viewpoint. Costs go up, or no legacy hardware is supported, or no legacy software is supported, or Apple kisses its entire hardware business goodbye. Compare that to what we already have right now, and the choice is obvious.
 
Windowlicker said:
what's wrong with the current ones? I love this keyboard (the one that ships with the new computers) because it doesn't take much space on my desk.
Click to expand...

Quote from a stupid Windows fanboy:

Me: And uh...is there something wrong with a Mac?

"YES! I like my applications, games, and crappy word processors with free software! And my *Windows* key and my Ctrl + Alt commands and my ability to make my own computer and use the latest stuff out so it isn't slow and can run the games I want which is the reason to have a computer! Hahaha!"

Feel free to back me up:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nattosoup/84363.html
 
My stock reply to OS X-on-x86

I wrote this a few months ago in reply to a post on Slashdot bemoaning the lack of Mac OS X for x86 hardware. This comes up so often, I saved it for future use:

----------
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel hardware ran on a tiny subset of the available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.

That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.

Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price, or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.

~Philly
 
Bonsaichop said:
You're all missing the point! Why does windows (and I am a heavy windows user so no jabs) suck so incredibly?

Its not the operating system. It is as different (in its own rights) as any *nix interface, or other gui or non gui interface. It has its own pros and cons but this is not why it sucks.

No... its not even the fact that Microsoft have released more updates than I will have birthdays in my lifetime.

Software
  • Windows has a much larger software base, developers are slack, everyone likes to cut corners. We see it all the time with any operating system, its just that with Apple software interfaces we do not see it as often. Soo many software applications (not including the major corporation applications) are written by one or 2 people working in thier home. Hell, most of the software I use was written by a good friend of mine and its buggy as hell!
  • Apple has such a small share (no offence) of the market. Windows towers all over it. Think of a windshield on a car. Now imagine the windows car is the size of a semi-trailer (i dont know what you *points :p* Americans call it.. 18 wheeler?) and think of Mac OSX as a remote controlled Nitro car. They both travel at the same speed hitting bugs on thier windshield.. how many will hit the semi compared to teh nitro car? If mac OS was alot more popular then a**holes would make adaware for it, they WOULD make viruses for it. But because the base is so small noone really (no offence) cares to do anything about it.

Hardware
  • Apple. Hardware designed by apple. Hardware tested by apple or affiliates of apple. Software programmed by apple. Software programmed for the specific use on Apple hardware.
  • Windows. Made by microsoft. Supports CPUS by Intel, AMD, VIA, Cursoe(sorry i cant remmeber the manufactuer). Supports motherboards by (insert god only knows how many motherboard manufactuers). Supports video cards (insert motherboard manufactuers and multiply by a factor of 100), Supports other add-on cards, optical drives, hdds, periferhals (insert video cards here and multiply by infinity).
  • The fact is that Windows supports an infinitly larger amount of hardware, OF COURSE ITS NOT GOING TO WORK 100% My god! I love apple and all but its like turning lead into Gold when you try to explain to an apple user that Windows doesn't work beacuse it has too much to support and if things are done half assed by hardware/softare manufactuers of course its going to fail
  • Have you ever seen one of those people that take a stock Toyota Corolla, put 20" rims, add a turbo, add catback exhaust, put better extractors, put a scoop, add a body kit, add a spoiler that could outrun a F/A18 Hornet, dye the interior, new seats, illegal silver windows, scisor doors, etc etc etc. Thats what windows is. A stock car with so many shithouse addons that it works for maybe 1/100th of the time.
  • Who's going to Test OSX so that it works with every hardware accessory and doesnt crash like windows does?
  • Who's going to enforce making software that doesnt crash with everything?
  • How long will it take for adaware apps to start popping up on OSX for x86
  • How long till the idiots, script kiddies, plain a**holes to make viruses for OSX?
  • Who are you going to blame when OSX becomes the runaway train like windows does?
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!! and welcome to Macrumors
 
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