Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spock said:
Dell doesn't use a single set of hardware components. They change all the time, and further, Dell doesn't really do very much in the way of programming, and certainly doesn't have a team that could tackle an OS port. Apple might not even have the spare resources for that venture. Dell isn't running OS X in any lab, anywhere, unless it's on a Mac. Apple has had a program for a while that developed an x86 version of their OS, but it was intended primarily for the days before the 970 series, when the PowerPC platform was in danger of disappearing and Apple needed to be able to respond more quickly.
If anything, Apple's engineers have scrapped that x86 version and are now turning their attention to a Cell recompile. Why bother with x86? Intel doesn't like it, AMD is trying to shift away from it, and if Cell delivers to its high potential, both of them are going to have to reevaluate their processor designs in order to keep up. AMD has some room to run with its 64-bit technologies (which Intel has licensed for their own processors in the future and renamed EM64T), and Intel's only saving grace at this point is speed. Raw speed. That can only hold out so long, and if they have problems with dual core transitions, and AMD succeeds, they stand to lose some significant market share. Either way, if the 64-bit evolution takes off, AMD's next generation of processors is probably going to do its best to de-x86. And Intel might finally move on to new technologies. The Cell with its Power core, blazing clock speeds, and integrated performance is the non-PowerPC (as we know it) path for Apple, and NOT x86.
Frisco said:
Marketshare of what? MS has switched to a subscription model to keep revenue flowing. How would OS X on x86 help Apple? It won't bring new software to the Mac side. It won't help sell Macs either. Most companies don't even support linsux on x86, why would they support OS X? If there's no software, then the user will not follow. You have quite a few people that don't know how to use a computer, if the icon is not on the desktop, they don't know how to run it. They don't adapt to change at all.
Controlling the hardware and the software...
Control is the key word.
Apple could very well introduce new features all the time in the OS to keep the x86 platform off-balance (let's say every 18 months or so) and keep a steady stream of revenues from that while at the same time ensuring that the PowerPC remains a premium platform in terms of quality and user experience. And they have the marketing know-how to spin that so they look good on both counts.
Control is the key word.
Apple could very well introduce new features all the time in the OS to keep the x86 platform off-balance (let's say every 18 months or so) and keep a steady stream of revenues from that while at the same time ensuring that the PowerPC remains a premium platform in terms of quality and user experience. And they have the marketing know-how to spin that so they look good on both counts.
Mac OS on the x86 platform just isnt going to happen. I originally was all for it as well but after reading enough threads on the topic. *shakes head* Apples best feature is its all in one solution. No take that and dump it on another platform and you have multiple solutions spread over two platforms and god know how much hardware not controlled by Apple. The only thing I could possibly see Apple doing is select an OEM to produce and distribute low end PPC Mac Minis. Leave the low end to someone else and focus on your high end PowerMac/iMac/PowerBook solution.
Getting back to OS X on x86. It will only happen as a last ditch effort on Apples part. An x86 release is like Apple's doomsday weapon against Windows.
Jobs probably has a big red Apple logo button with a locked cover on it on his desk. If he presses the button it launches the purchase page of the x86 version of OS X on Apple's front page and starts up the DVD presses deep in the core of the Earth managed by the Mole People.
Getting back to OS X on x86. It will only happen as a last ditch effort on Apples part. An x86 release is like Apple's doomsday weapon against Windows.
Jobs probably has a big red Apple logo button with a locked cover on it on his desk. If he presses the button it launches the purchase page of the x86 version of OS X on Apple's front page and starts up the DVD presses deep in the core of the Earth managed by the Mole People.
radio893fm said:
A couple points
1. Spyware (and viruses) are caused by poorly written software, not hardware. OS X will not become Windows just because of running on x86 hardware. If WinXP was running on PPC it'd have the exact same virus problems.
2. Apple's marketshare isn't likey to change much if x86 clones happen. A good 95% of the user base are die hard Apple fans who want something different from the average PC tower.
3. It gives Apple a cushion if IBM wants to turn its attention to production of Cell and game console chips. Freescale's focus on the embedded market so they are not a very good option.
4. We're not talking Power Computing, Daystar, and Umax here, we're talking major PC makers with large advertising budgets and established distribution chains.
5. It's about time we declared open war on Windows.
This won't happen
You know why this won't happen? IBM, Toshiba, and Sony all partnered up to make the new CELL processor, and this thing will blow others out of the water. IBM and Apple have a great relationship, and from what I've read CELL actually incorporates AltiVec into it. This means that IBM and Apple probably already have plans on putting CELL chips in Apple computers.
Imagine, if you will, if Apple introduced a PowerMac 4.6GHz machine this July. Sound far-fetched? Well it is... using current chip architecture, but its very realistic and attainable with CELL. IBM plans to have these things rolling off the assembly lines before the end of Q2.
Now, If Apple did have a 4.6GHz PowerMac, they would undoubtably have the fastest prosumer PC on the market today, and wouldn't need to license their software to x86 PC manufacturers!
These are the golden years of apple.
You know why this won't happen? IBM, Toshiba, and Sony all partnered up to make the new CELL processor, and this thing will blow others out of the water. IBM and Apple have a great relationship, and from what I've read CELL actually incorporates AltiVec into it. This means that IBM and Apple probably already have plans on putting CELL chips in Apple computers.
Imagine, if you will, if Apple introduced a PowerMac 4.6GHz machine this July. Sound far-fetched? Well it is... using current chip architecture, but its very realistic and attainable with CELL. IBM plans to have these things rolling off the assembly lines before the end of Q2.
Now, If Apple did have a 4.6GHz PowerMac, they would undoubtably have the fastest prosumer PC on the market today, and wouldn't need to license their software to x86 PC manufacturers!
These are the golden years of apple.
narco said:
Well, if MacOSX would run on x86 processors, Apple could concentrate on producing the best hardware/processor computers again. I still think people would pay a premium for the Apple name.
A PowerBook with the Pentium-M would be magnificent. Currently, the Pentium-M is a great chip crippled by WinXP, and MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4.
Blue Velvet said:
Clones let competition come after Apple's already low market share, OSX on x86 is Apple going after the competitions market share. It would mean a change in startegy Apple would have to split into a hardware and software divison. But look at Microsoft, license that garbage they call an OS hasn't done a whole lot wrong for their bottom line has it.
Apple always have been a software company that make hardware.
this is a very old history... it's a typo, didn't they say PPC? 
Gotta sleep, nothing to see here, but it won't happen ...
Gotta sleep, nothing to see here, but it won't happen ...
neonart said:
Missed what? You have HP/Compaq, Dell and IBM. They all sell desktops, laptops and servers. if you bring up IBM selling the PeeCee side, first it's not finalized and two, it's still in their hands right now. The servers is where the money is, you sell the computers to get companies to buy the servers. Quite a few companies buy servers and computers from the same company. They like having on vendor for both; they also get a better discount. So if HP decided to resell a Mac, what about the companies that have current desktop systems and servers? If you change the platform on a company, they will LEAVE and go to a competitor. Most of the money is in the business side of the house, not the consumer. In order for a company to want to switch, they would have to look at servers and user machines. That is a big undertaking and one that is not just about hardware costs. The biggest factor is training, both for the support staff as well as the users. You have to rewrite programs and verify a lot of applications. That is a monumental task by itself, and one that is not cheap. Many companies have a staff onsite that looks at linsux as a replacement. Do you know why? When the MS rep shows up to see how things are doing and see linsux on some machines and they are told that this group is looking at replacing Windows on the desktop, the company gets a better price from MS. That group alone pays for itself. So what would HP end up doing by dropping the x86-based computers? First, their stock price would drop like a rock, companies would drop them just as fast and go to Dell, they (Dell) would also gain quite a few servers orders as well. So HP would have a smaller percentage of desktop machines, smaller server market and their stock price would be in the gutter. Also, whoever was running HP at the time that decision was made, would be quickly removed.
I would not read too much into this.
Yes, there might be enquiries from other companies about licensing out MacOS X, but I doubt anyone at Apple cares at all. Jobs mentions it to make Apple seem more interesting, but that's about it.
I am pretty sure that the real big guys on the PC side (like Dell) don't care jack **** about licensing OS X - they earn money by selling wintel boxes.
Yes, there might be enquiries from other companies about licensing out MacOS X, but I doubt anyone at Apple cares at all. Jobs mentions it to make Apple seem more interesting, but that's about it.
I am pretty sure that the real big guys on the PC side (like Dell) don't care jack **** about licensing OS X - they earn money by selling wintel boxes.
BenRoethig said:
1. Not true. MS had NT on multiple platforms. Just because you had Office, that didn’t mean you could install it. If you had NT running on Alpha, you couldn’t install Office that was for x86. The service packs were different as well. So a virus for one would not infect that same OS on a different platform. There was also a virus targeted towards the AMD64 processor. It didn’t infect 32-bit x86 systems as it wouldn’t run.
3. You do know that IBM will be producing Cell processors in NY and Sony will at their plant in Japan, right? IBM is allowing companies to use their fabs for a fee. This helps pay for the facilities and helps IBM improve their designs at the same time. Just because IBM will be producing another chip, doesn’t mean that they are not focused.
plinden said:
I disagree with you here, I don't think the G4 cripples Mac OS X at all. If FreeScale can get things together then I think we'll have some very nice performance coming out of the iBook G4, PowerBook G4, and MacMini lines. I don't know what Apple is going to do with the eMac right now. And I don't think we will see a G5 notebook product for quite some time since IBM built the G5 for serious speed. That type of performance doesn't come easy on the power and heat issues. I certainly don't want to see a 2-in. thick, 10-lb, 30-min. battery life PowerBook G5. But I would like see a 2Ghz. dual-core G4 PowerBook.
365 said:
Over 60% of Apple's profits come from hardware.
Doesn't sound like spare change to me...
Once over I was all for porting OSX to x86 but the Mac Mini changed my mind. Not that I've ever bought the argument that it is but if price is the only reason for not switiching then this machine addresses that issue. Personally I think that Apple actually competes well on price with HP and IBM, they only start to lose out to the self build brigade at the high end.
To think that people would suddenly become enlightened users and switch to OSX is blind arrogance. It assumes that everyone wants OSX on their PC and the truth is that most [ordinary] people don't care what OS they use and would more than likely continue using Windows. All that porting the OS would achieve would be to make Apple the target of mass piracy by the people that build their own x86 machines.
To think that people would suddenly become enlightened users and switch to OSX is blind arrogance. It assumes that everyone wants OSX on their PC and the truth is that most [ordinary] people don't care what OS they use and would more than likely continue using Windows. All that porting the OS would achieve would be to make Apple the target of mass piracy by the people that build their own x86 machines.
kidA said:
Umm.... news flash: SJ is retired. He just does this for the jollies. There comes a day when you're no longer doing it for the pay check. SJ passed that a long, long time ago. There is still a world to finish conquoring.
How would it work?
IMHO, I think one of the reasons that the Mac is such a great platform is that
the OS and application software take advantage of a stable/known
platform (i.e., video card and superdrive, for example). Attempting to port
to a crappy machine with one of a variety of different drives and video
card would start to make OS X look crappy.
Macrumors said:
IMHO, I think one of the reasons that the Mac is such a great platform is that
the OS and application software take advantage of a stable/known
platform (i.e., video card and superdrive, for example). Attempting to port
to a crappy machine with one of a variety of different drives and video
card would start to make OS X look crappy.
narco said:
Not really. Virtually every problem with viruses, spyware, worms, trojans, etc on Windows is caused by Microsoft failing to lock the doors, even after the cows get out. Security is a four letter word at Microsoft - maybe they'll leran hooh to speel sum dai butt donut cuonut onn eet.
The rest of the problems are caused by poor user (re)actions in an already bad situation.This ignores the issues with the whole Intel architecture which will rot your brain so we won't even go there. Be glad you're free of the dark forces.
However, there are other reasons I doubt we'll see it. They tried clones before and the project was assassinated from within. I actually have one, a SuperMac Tower. Okay machine for it's time. But I doubt we'll see SJ roll out the clones. More likely it would be a much more tightly controlled program. Part of the beauty of the Mac is the tight integration between the hardware and software. OSX on x86 would lose that.
GFLPraxis said:
How about this, Sony and Toshiba sell computers. Companies use said computers, companies use windows. If they wanted to switch, they would. If they wanted to get away from windows, then why are they still using it? Next, Toshiba plans to use Cell in their consumer devices, like TV’s and such. Sony will do the same, as well as the PS3. Lastly, IBM has AIX as well as linsux. There is little reason why IBM would want a third, it just doesn’t mesh with their strategy.
The articles you speak of are based solely on speculation.
LaMerVipere said:
Someone with an old G3?? lol, jk
Anyways, UGH, hell no!!! If this happens...Apple will lose so much respect in my mind...and their hardware sales will go down the tube. This cannot happen...(please?) I like apple as a software/hardware company. This could take them down the scary road of being a software only biz.
Imagine buying a Dell with os X sometime down the line.....NO THANKS.
Granted, at the rate Microsoft is moving with Longhorn, it could be a long time before Wintel users are able to get the current OS monkey off their backs (assuming Longhorn isn't a bigger monkey). But even if Jobs were to green light this idea, I doubt we'd see the first machines until long after Longhorn's release. Besides, with so many die-hard peecee users whose primary "need" for a blazing Wintel-based machine is for gaming, and those top 3 manufacturers who have gone out of their way to build their most powerful machines for them, could you imagine the backlash that would follow? 98 percent of the most fanatical peecee users are not screaming for faster machines to help them plow through their word processing documents more quickly. The top 3 computer manufacturers are so far up the gamers' collective rear-ends that they've completely lost sight of the market.blasto333 said:
Thank god Adobe poo-poo'd Steve Jobs' idea of developing consumer-based photo and video software, because we're learning that the general public is eager to accept computers less as a home accessory and more as the nucleus of their growing digital lifestyle. And as we know, Apple is the only company positioned for this "coming of age". So I believe this wave of Switchers/Adders is only beginning to gain momentum and that it's far too early yet for Apple to allow the curious or the soon-to-be-convinced to leave so soon.
Leave the pole alone for now. The fish are still just nibbling.
HELL. NO.
How can there be so many positive ratings for this article? A huge portion of what makes a Mac a Mac (stability, elegance, stability, ease-of-use, stability, and coolness) is the fact that one (awesome) company makes damn near everything.
Pricewise/businesswise, that may not be the best way to be a consumer/businessperson, but I don't want to see Apple reduced to a struggling software/OS company because they were severely undersold by their licensees. (Haven't we seen this before?!)
How can there be so many positive ratings for this article? A huge portion of what makes a Mac a Mac (stability, elegance, stability, ease-of-use, stability, and coolness) is the fact that one (awesome) company makes damn near everything.
Pricewise/businesswise, that may not be the best way to be a consumer/businessperson, but I don't want to see Apple reduced to a struggling software/OS company because they were severely undersold by their licensees. (Haven't we seen this before?!)