Mac OS X on a PC?

[Mainyehc]

These are the golden years of apple.

I sure hope they aren't! I'm expecting them to come soon

 

[365]

Over 60% of Apple's profits come from hardware.
Doesn't sound like spare change to me...

That's because they give away the OS, how much would they earn if they suddenly lost their hardware R&D budget, shut down all those manufacturing plants, laid off all the hardware design and support staff and the really big one, the cost of warranty repairs and instead shipped the exact same number of licenses at $75 a license or whatever the figure Dell pays MS. Turnover would drop drastically but I bet the profitability would increase significantly.

That is Eutopia though, they unfortunately have the hardware millstone around their neck now and the only way to shed it would be to split the company and that would be doomed to failure.

I'm happy for Apple to remain as they are, I saw the light many years ago and I've grown tired of preaching to Windows users who unlike me haven't tried both OS's, yet are happy to tell me how Apple are great for designers but not much use for anything else

 

[chaos86]

This is it. I can't believe I missed this.

Apple does not have to license anything to anyone. Simply make their stuff. Who cares if you buy an Mac Mini or HP Mini? If they're both made by Apple and run OSX. Everybody wins!

eh-hemm... that would be mac mini + hp

 

[kasei]

Windows is not capable of taking advantage of the full capability of Intel's chips. It would be interesting too see what OS X could do with an Intel chip.

 

[Paul O'Keefe]

Quality over quantity

Call me an elitist (albeit one that lives in a trailer), but I'd rather have the overall quality controlled computing experience that Apple offers right now. From form to function the mac just works. The same can't be said about the x86 market. Too much diversity... too much conflict for my taste.

I'd rather have a minority computer experience than a compromised one.

 

[artifex]

I used to want OSX to be available for my x86 machines, but no longer.
Now that Apple has shown they're willing to play ball as far as building cheaper intro machines, I'd much rather spend the money on a mac mini to get started, than build a system out of leftover components that might be crashy.

BTW, I'm not sure what to think about the assertion that iTunes was built from scratch in 4 months. Didn't they buy up the SoundJam team and their expertise? That doesn't count as from scratch to me, even if they didn't reuse code.

 

[pubwvj]

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.

Uhmm... you are aware aren't you that the makers of the PC's pay a liscencing fee to Microsoft... That is how the extra revenue is generated. And it is a _lot_ of revenue.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

Why do people immediately associate bigger marketshare with more viruses? This is exactly the kind of FUD that Microsoft likes to spread around.

Apache is the most used web server software in the world, and yet it has the least security holes (unlike MS-IIS).

If everyone has an armor of paper, attackers will get through easily. If a few people have carbon-fiber armors, attackers won't get through with a mere punch. If more people have carbon-fiber armors, attackers won't be somehow more able to punch through it.

In fact, the more people are on OS X, Linux, BSD (anything but Windows, really), the better the internet will become, because there won't be so many zombie boxes out there using up half the planet's bandwidth to spew spams, trojans, viruses and worms.

As for OS X on x86 boxes, I wouldn't count on it because of the release of Mac mini (it allows you to re-use everything you already have except the computer itself).

 

[MeanD3feat]

My personal opinion:

Apple, SHOULD license its OS.

Why?

Because as people are continually pointing out, Apple makes very little cash from software at the moment compared to what it makes from Hardware sales. I Personally don't think that licensing the OS would affect the Apple base, I do think it would increase Apple's market share through their OS.
What PC's should be allowed to run the OS? I personally am all for the idea of CELL based PCs running OS X. I would like to see this because I think it would promote healthy competition between Apple and those Pc manufacturers; think Apple offering more for less and faster PCs and yes before you start I am well aware of the MHz doesn't equal a fast PC argument but I am also aware that Apple simply doesn't offer anything that I would allow me to play Half life 2 at what would be considered playable framerates-more on this later.
In addition the CELL PC manufacturers would be forced to do the same but they would also take a leaf out of Apple's book and begin making a PC that actually looks good! Something you would happily put in your living room or take home to meet your parents etc
However this PC would not be Apple Hardware and so the Apple stalwarts (you know who you are ) would remain.
If anything after experiencing the delights and simplicity of OS X on another PC it is my opinion that users of CELL PCs would actually migrate to Apple hardware-its the next step and frankly anyone who can’t see this happening (assuming the OS is licensed) needs to take a step back, and have a careful think about why they chose Apple in the first place. I’m sure for a few people it was the OS and nothing more, for the vast majority of people it was the OS and the kudos associated with Apple hardware and brand and the rest were taken in by just the hardware and or a hate of Microsoft.
Now assuming that the OS is licensed and OS X sees a greater market share-which given the PC manufacturers involved (eg sony) and their own branding its hard not to-Software for the platform would become more widely available and better supported. You wouldn’t be waiting 2 years for a PC game to come to the market (for example), not only would software manufacturers be unable to avoid OS X but the users would be so many that their voice would have to be heard-Apple we WANT java 5 and we want it NOW :cue Steve Jobs: “okey-dokey then; have it for you by next week”

Oh, Before I forget, in answer to the usual, if Macs had a large market share then they would have more viruses line I offer this

And I know, finally, the argument that says that if the world was using Macs instead of PCs, the hackers would be attacking the Macs. It's a game of numbers, after all. Anti-Mac pundits always mutter the same thing as they install yet another PC bug fix: there just aren't enough Macs out there to warrant a hacker's attention.

Which is, of course, mostly bull. I'm no programmer, but I know what I read, and I know my experience: the Mac OS architecture is much more robust, much more solid, much more difficult to hack into. Apple's software is, by default, more sound and reliable, given its more stable core. (Sometime in the later '90s, a Mac org whose name I forget ran a rather amazing hacker competition: they offered a $13,000 cash prize to anyone in the world who could hack into the company's unprotected Mac server and alter the contest's home page in any way. Needless to say, no one ever could). MARK MORFORD

For the full text go here

This is only one persons opinion, but I second it. In fact whole thread is worth a read if you are one of those people harping on about market share and viruses.

I’m sure some of you will think that my arguments are flawed, and I’m positive that there are those that will wish a pox on me for suggesting such a thing. But my opinion is just that; my opinion, I just thought-after reading yours-I’d take the time to share mine. Besides I'm not saying it IS going to happen, I'm just saying "I" think it should and why.
P.S. I'd still by Apple Hardware

 

[jdawg4324]

mac os on pc

why not allow mac os 9 to be on pc and keep os x for mac os 9 is just as safe but still does not offer what os x can. pc people would buy to get rid of windows fall in love and buy a mac to get the better os and macs with os x will gain more market share.

 

[jared_kipe]

Mac OSX is like the Borg, futile to resist and quick to adapt.

This probably won't happen because anybody is worried about hackers, they are worried about what kind of a nightmare software development and distribution would become. Do we seriously want to start supporting the loads and loads of types of PC hardware out there?

There was a time when I would have supported this. But now we have the mini, they really can't complain about how expensive Macs are anymore. Now good macs... thats another opinion.

 

[pubwvj]

Listen to my theory. I think they found out that Apple was talking about licensing OS X to others, and ASSUMED it was Intel processors. ... at point toward Apple adopting Cell.

I think you're right. This has been mentioned and makes a lot of sense. A future close relationship with IBM and Sony, etc looks win-win.

IBM has divested themselves of their PC business and focuses on the high end and designing chips. Sony gives up on their pathetic iPod imitation and focuses on offering the PlayStation with MacOSX Lite built-in and some other consumer electronics. Perhaps Toshiba offers Mac OSX Lite in a big screen TV. Apple offers it in computers. BMW and Dodge jump on the bandwagon. OSXeverywhere is the new slogan. You have to enter your password before opening your bottle of Pepsi. They all cross sell under their own brand names. Pollen is flying all over the place. The birds and the bees are cavorting. Everybody is happy.

Except for that nerdy guy over in Redmond and his long faced buddies. They retire and spend their billions on charity efforts trying to knock the Rockerfellers out of the history books.

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Here's an idea......
If a company dosnt want to replace all its computers with Macs (this can be VERY exspensive in a big company), then find some way to lease the OS to a company ONLY until the computers running the OS die and need to be replaced with a real Mac. That way it solves 2 problems: OS for PC and Mac wouldnt lose harware sales. Leasing an OS in this way would actually create brand loyalty to Mac. I would suggest only leasing the OS to companies, not the general public. I dont knwo if i would want to buy a Dell computer running OS X. i would much rather just buy a computer directly from Apple. However, if companies neeed a short term fix, then lease OS X to them.

 

[neonart]

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.

What are you talking about? Leave your cubicle now!

Noboby said HP or anybody will "switch" to selling Macs only. They just have to offer it. If your vendor is HP and now they have Minis (or any other mac) for sale and you have a department that can use those machines. Bingo.

PO#332678

200 HP Presario 67352792982-8267258/29982781 (or whatever model #)
38 HP 15" LCD 768-128
38 HP Mini 1.25/512/40
6 HP iBook 1.25/256/40
18 HP LaserJet 4000 Toner cartridges

Why not?

 

[jared_kipe]

My personal opinion:

Apple, SHOULD license its OS.

Why?

Because as people are continually pointing out, Apple makes very little cash from software at the moment compared to what it makes from Hardware sales. I Personally don't think that licensing the OS would affect the Apple base, I do think it would increase Apple's market share through their OS.
What PC's should be allowed to run the OS? I personally am all for the idea of CELL based PCs running OS X. I would like to see this because I think it would promote healthy competition between Apple and those Pc manufacturers; think Apple offering more for less and faster PCs and yes before you start I am well aware of the MHz doesn't equal a fast PC argument but I am also aware that Apple simply doesn't offer anything that I would allow me to play Half life 2 at what would be considered playable framerates-more on this later.

Ok first off we're talking about traditional x86 hardware, if its a CELL PC, then it won't be compatible with any PC software so it can't really be called a PC no more than one can call an imac a PC. Will it run HalfLife 2, don't count on it, Halflife uses windows, and x86 hardware, and the underlying framework of it, since the makers of halflife havn't said anything about porting it to PowerPC why would you ASSUME they would port it to whatever OS CELL "PCs" will be running?

Secondly, making Mac OSX run on some bastard CELL computer (not gonna call it a PC) what makes you think thats going to offer competition to PC manufacturers? Cause people are going to go, man I need a new computer, and I want it to run OSX, but I can't get a mac cause macs suck, so I'll buy a CELL computer even though it can't run any software available today. I don't think so.

 

[Yvan256]

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...

Again, more marketshare doesn't equal more problems.

Also, keep in mind the majority of hackers write viruses, trojans and worms only to piss off Microsoft and at the same time try to make people dump Windows because it's so insecure. For a lot of hackers, getting people to dump Microsoft and go Linux/BSD is their main goal.

Of course, switching to Apple isn't bad either, now that Apple has a BSD core and is playing nice with the OSS community (and so is IBM).

I know it's a bit short-sighted, but IMO here's the current scores (point of view of a lot of people):
Microsoft (overpriced crap), intel (pro-Microsoft, MHz myth) = bad
IBM (Linux, OSS-friendly), AMD (underdog, better CPUs), Apple (BSD OS, OSS-friendly) = good

As I said in an earlier post, saying that a bigger marketshare equals more viruses is pure FUD. Yes, there will be more attacks, but that doesn't imply those attacks will somehow magically become successful.

 

[Mainyehc]

why not allow mac os 9 to be on pc and keep os x for mac os 9 is just as safe but still does not offer what os x can. pc people would buy to get rid of windows fall in love and buy a mac to get the better os and macs with os x will gain more market share.

It's not my intention to flame you, or anything... Anyway, you must be kidding, right? Someone suggested that a few pages ago, but I *guess* he was just being ironic...

Have you ever used Mac OS 9 or seen it running?? I must confess, I haven't used it. But I have seen it running on some old beige G3 PowerMacs at my faculty (Fine-Arts), though, and it *looks* like it sucks big time, at least when compared with Panther, or even Jaguar... Sure, the classic Mac OS was cool, and all. I must tell you, I've already been playing with System 1, 6 and 7 under vMac (don't ask me where I got the ROM, let's just assume I have a Mac Plus lying around ), and yes, I acknowledged that System "n" was very cool for its time, even in B&W...

But everyone knows that Macs used to crash just like Wintel boxes. Why, oh why would you port a version of Mac OS for x86? It would be easier to run it in emulation using Basilisk... duh

It wouldn't make sense to port even older versions of OS X either... No, not even Rhapsody (which, btw, ran on some Intel systems, as seen in some screenshots which I can't recall where I've seen), it would be just plain stupid... No one would "fall in love" with older versions of Mac OS/OS X. I'm using Panther and I already hate having to use Jaguar at school because of the lack of Exposé, and I'm positive I'll hate using Panther there when I'll have Tiger at home.

Check on the latest MacRumors poll; nearly 90% of those who voted are using Panther... That's the way things work in MacLand, pretty much the opposite of the Wintel world. I know a lot of people which are still using Win98SE (and even worse, some are using WinME )!!

 

[mhouse]

Probably not, but...maybe

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."

Of course, I'm sure Apple is loathe to do it but consider...

1. Apple has been working hard to create revenue from sources other than Mac hardware over the past several years.
2. Apple was "never" going to release a headless Mac
3. Apple was "never" going to release a flash music player
4. In Korea Apple has actually entered a price war with other mp3 manufacturers, slashing the price of the iPod to win market share

Now, who among us ever saw Apple doing any of those things ten years ago? So Apple will "never" license OS X?

Hmm...

 

[fatfish]

It actually makes good sense.

Although I beleive it won't happen, because I rather suspect Steve only said it as an off the cuff remark to demonstrate the rising credit given to his OSX. If it was in the pipeline I suspect Steve would have kept quiet about it.

Also I'd rather not see it happen, because I like being part of what is realistically an elite minority.

However it does rather make sense. The main arguments against the idea have been that it would affect hardware sales, it would wreck security, it wouldn't port well to x86 and it would create compatability issues.

I don't beleive for a minute that it would wreck hardware sales, let's start by dispeling a few myths; PC's are not faster and they are not cheaper. It is really only the last few years where there has been a question over speed and for my money there isn't a lot of difference anymore. Yeah I've seen all the benchmarks and the arguments that the G5 only does well in tests apple put it through, which test it with photoshop, wheras it comes 2nd at scrolling down a page of text. Let's be real, where do we want the speed? in hungry apps like photoshop, or can someone actually read 10,000 words a second to make use of ultra fast scrolling etc.

As far as cheaper, no way; Take a Dell rip out everything thats inferior and load it with quality stuff like the mac, and oh yeah put in all those goodies that weren't there in the first place, bundle it with some software that equates to what you get when you buy a mac and it aint so cheap anymore. Let's not even think about the cost of downtime.

I rather think that hardware sales have been held back by the OS, not that it's not good, but just because of it's market share.

Then there is the security argument, sure it's a fair argument that people can't be bothered writting viruses for such a small market, but that only cuts so much ice. Do you not think that your high school kid with only the mac supplied by his school has not tried. Get real, 2% of the market should get 2 % of the viruses if all things were equal, but they are not the basic deal here is for a virus to work it needs root access, your windows box gives that up quite freely and the user has no idea, your mac user has to enter a password to even gain temporary access. This also applies to the silly argument that it is not so much the lack of desire to infect a mac but that its market share prohibits it's spread and that with greater market share macs too would be able to spread infection rampantly. Not so! because every user has to enter a password, even if a user did so and let a virus onto his mac it still couldn't spread unless another user did the same and so on.

I don't beleive the model would work ported to an x86, but with the cell processor the situation couldn't be better. Think about it, 3 quality producers working on a new processor that has no operating system to put it to use in a personal computer. Apple don't want to be left behind, this baby starts out at 4.0Ghz, the G5 seems maxed out nearly at 2.5 Ghz. Microsoft are in a corner they are working on an OS that will come out in 2 years for a chip thats maxed out at 3.0 Ghz. Apple have a new OS on the horizon that is already written for a PPC.

I would think apple would want in on this one. But the 3 producers don't want Windows because they are making quality and don't want it spoilt with a 2 bit OS. So it wouldn't seem inprobable that the 3 producers say to apple, you can have in, but we want your OS. Maybe Steve won't like it, but maybe it's the only way he'll get the cell processor.

So having moved to the cell processor model, this sort of kills off the incompatability theory. Apple won't need to build into their OS all sorts of possibilities for all sorts of hardware, they'll be starting from a clean sheet, just as if they were building their own hardware (which of course they will) Apple would be able to dictate the parameters of the parts used and if they weren't the hardware wouldn't work properly with the OS, the 3 producers wouldn't want that to happen and would have to live with apples specs (hell, they'd probably make most of them themselves and sell them to Apple in the bargain.

As for apps, well any app that runs on a mac would run on any of the 3 companies PC's, sure everyone would need to buy new software and maybe even a few new external devices, same as they would if they switched now, or the same as we all did with the advent of OSX.

Apple would gain a huge income from licensing the OS as well as selling, ilife, FCP, and all it's other software to 50,000,000+ users, that would more than outweigh any losses on the hardware side,(although I do beleive sales would increase anyway). They would maintain there control over hardware used in the PC's, no-one else is likely to get the cell processor for some considerable time, by which time the hardware model would be well established. R & D would increase, everyone would have better apps, security would be a minor issue. And to top it all off M$ would be left with an overdue outdated OS, running on low quality harware with yesterdays processors.

Alas I don't think it will happen, but if it did it would be a winner.

 

[pubwvj]

MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4.

HUH!?! Get real. Get a grip. OSX Runs great on a 500MHz G4. It even runs fine on a 266MHz G3 with only 196MB of RAM. Apple has done a fantastic job of making OSX run on older hardware. Not everyone, not even most people, not even 10% of people need 4GHz G5's. The G4 isn't crippling anything.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

Now that's what I also envision. Especially Sony, because it was kinda weird to have Sony Japan's CEO on stage simply to talk about HD-Video...

Who knows, maybe the PS3 will run OS X somehow... (yes, you read me right).

Imagine Safari + Mail + iLife on the PS3. People will be dumping their Windows boxes at an incredible rate. PS3 with the basics of OS X. Install iLife and iWork. No need for a Windows box anymore. More software sales for Apple. This would also kill the "no games on Mac" problem faster than the speed of light.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, I'm getting a bit too ahead of the Apple/Sony partnership. Perhaps it'll be for the Playstation 4...

 

[d.perel]

THE SOLUTION (proposal)

I'm so conflicted BUT...

I want OSX to enlighten the world of our window-using friends, but I don't want apple hardware to go belly-up. Maybe if apple used PC manufacturers to build specially branded, basic (but still intel based) versions of HP or Dell computers, and market them under the mac mini as larger, yet cheaper mac machines. I'd say for a price of about $330, without screen. Also, Mac OSX will only be usable on these certain computers, not all PC machines. This way,OSX will gain ground, the mac mini can compete, but the high-end mac hardware will not be edged out! If only it were true...

 

[jdawg4324]

os 9 rocks

It's not my intention to flame you, or anything... Anyway, you must be kidding, right? Someone suggested that a few pages ago, but I *guess* he was just being ironic...

Have you ever used Mac OS 9 or seen it running?? I must confess, I haven't used it. But I have seen it running on some old beige G3 PowerMacs at my faculty (Fine-Arts), though, and it *looks* like it sucks big time, at least when compared with Panther, or even Jaguar... Sure, the classic Mac OS was cool, and all. I must tell you, I've already been playing with System 1, 6 and 7 under vMac (don't ask me where I got the ROM, let's just assume I have a Mac Plus lying around ), and yes, I acknowledged that System "n" was very cool for its time, even in B&W...

But everyone knows that Macs used to crash just like Wintel boxes. Why, oh why would you port a version of Mac OS for x86? It would be easier to run it in emulation using Basilisk... duh

It wouldn't make sense to port even older versions of OS X... No, not even Rhapsody, it would be just plain stupid... No one would "fall in love" with older versions of Mac OS/OS X. I'm using Panther and I already hate having to use Jaguar at school because of the lack of Exposé, and I'm positive I'll hate using Panther there when I'll have Tiger at home.

Check on the latest MacRumors poll; nearly 90% of those who voted are using Panther... That's the way things work in MacLand, pretty much the opposite of the Wintel world. I know a lot of people which are still using Win98SE (and even worse, some are using WinME )!!

well your lack of using os 9 is your prob. os 9 was a great os and in many ways better than os x. and its 1000000000x times better then windows

 

[joeboy_45101]

All I have to say about this and the news of the new CELL chip from IBM and Sony, with extreme potential for Apple, is that we Mac users don't even know the half of what's going on at Apple right now.

If you are confident about what you've known about computers and networking then hold on! I think the next wave of computing is upon us, and trust me Steve Jobs is in the driver's seat. From what I've seen and read I believe that "Tiger" will be the last Mac OS for that "traditional" computing platform that we have come to know in the past 25 years.

If we knew just a little of what is about to be unleashed upon the computing world we would all cream in our pants. I think in the next 2-3 years it will be a very good thing to be a Mac owner.

And not to put Microsoft down, but I don't think that they are fully prepared for what's about to happen.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

Indeed, tight control of what machines can run OS X is what helps Apple keeping OS X as stable and reliable as it is (well, that, and the BSD core).

If Apple were to release OS X for the PC, there'd be limited support for various hardware. I would expect it to work with specific chipsets, etc.

Want to run OS X without forking out the dosh? Buy a Mac Mini.

No way I'm getting a Mac mini.

...

No until it ships with Tiger.