Mac OS X on a PC?

[MeanD3feat]

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 And to top it all off M$ would be left with an overdue outdated OS, running on low quality harware with yesterdays processors.

Agreed, it would just make sense.

 

[Mainyehc]

True, the whole package is Apple's pride.

Hmmm... I DO recall seeing the iPod Photo's OS running on a Motorola cellphone, what do you guys think about that? Apple controlling the whole package? BYODKM? The whole package? Excuse me, BYODKM ≠ AIO, so, Apple is shifting away from that paradigm already. There are much more chances that a crappy CRT connected to the mini's VGA adapter will give the user some issues to deal with, than a 20'' Cinema Display connected to the DVI port, right? What about people using old PS/2 keyboards and mice connected via crappy KVM switches? Puh-leeze, if these aren't the first signs that Apple is willing to lose some control (if not all of it) over the whole experience, I don't know what they are. And what about "Made for iPod"? HA, they are actually managing to somewhat control the iPod accessory market, just a little, to keep things running smooth . However, again, they aren't designing the accessories themselves...

I tend to believe, however, that it would be very hard for Apple to support OS X in multiple configurations from multiple vendors. But, then again, the iTunes-enabled Motorola phones are just that, *Motorola phones*. Not Nokia or Samsung phones, or whatever. And this brings back to the recurrent Cell speculation... We have Toshiba, Sony and IBM. IBM's PC brand will go bye bye, so that leaves us Toshiba and Sony as possible contenders in a Cell consumer PC/Mac market. IBM would obviosly compete in the server market. And Apple could supply... the OS! In turn, they would get the Cell Hmm, Apple is making inroads in the server market, I wonder what IBM thinks about that... Oh well...

Think about it...

 

[daveL]

As soon as OS X starts being sold on commodity PC HW the Apple brand will be diminished. It's impossible for Apple to support all PC hardware variants; M$, with all their money, can't do it properly. Apple would risk being just another piece of crap, like Windows.

As far as Moto cell phones goes: It's just an iTunes client, not a complete OS with all the apps.

 

[MacG]

Will never happen

Apple could have done this years ago - in fact NeXT did. If you want OS X on a PC - find an old copy of NeXTStep X86 or OpenStep. NeXTStep is the heart of OS X - Mach Kernel, Objective-C language, object-oritented development.

So Mac OS X's roots ran on a PC - infact they were running on a PC before they ran on Mac hardware.

I can't ever see Steve-O licensing the crown jewels. It was the first thing he canned when he came back to Apple.

 

[vassillios]

"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. "


BS, virus's are an OS issue, not a chip issue

I think this is great, but it won't happen because apple wants to make money by selling their expensive ass hardware to go along with the OS...example...apple bought Emagic and dropped support for Logic windows in order to sell their hardware so that windows Logic users could keep using Logic.

 

[emcourtney]

Apple could be as big as Microsoft and the product to do it would be Aqua for Linux. Licensing OS X for use on PC hardware would kill the Macintosh, but licensing only part of OS X would work. If Apple would port the Aqua interface, Quicktime and Cocoa API to run over Linux, then throw in the standard Cocoa apps like Safari, Mail, Addressbook etc. The results could be huge, even bigger if they threw in iTunes too. Think of it, finally a consistent, easy to program for desktop environment for Linux and at $129 a copy Apple would be bigger than Microsoft in a few short years.

 

[Mainyehc]

As far as Moto cell phones goes: It's just an iTunes client, not a complete OS with all the apps.

Oh, thanks for the insight on that one. So, it's nice that the iPod still has a lot of advantages over those cellphones, apart from storage

Anyway, you probably didn't bother to read this thread's 9 pages... I can't blame you!

But I wrote something along these lines: If OS X is the crown, then, Apple applications are the jewels

There's a post above mine that, due to some strange coincidence, uses the same analogy, ehe...

What I was thinking was, what if Apple licensed *only* the crown, and not the jewels? If Apple's Cell-enabled Macs came with a bundled copy of iLife, and perhaps even iWork, while Toshiba's or Sony's Cell-enabled PCs came ONLY with an OEM copy of Mac OS X, Apple would still retain its advantage in the market. Macs would still be better value because of the same reason we know today. And Apple could make some money in selling iLife or iWork, or even both, to the "other guys", to their installed base from other manufacturers.

And don't forget about the economies of scale... Macs could still be less expandable, but just imagine if, out of the box, there was LESS need for upgrades? Like, what if we had decent GPUs and enough memory? If Apple sold bucketloads of Macs, it could be possible. And isn't the Cell supposed to be dirt cheap because it can and will be embedded into nearly every possible consumer electronics product??...

Think about it, again, and... dreeeam, dream with an even better year for Apple, and of course, its loyal fan base.

 

[Les Kern]

Now listen to some of you. Lots of us complain that Mac's would own the world if they had just licensed their OS years ago. Now they have a chance to pick up some serious marketshare, and it flops to "I don't want to share this awesome OS" or "virus writers will kill it", or whatever.
Can't have it both ways, and in many ways are no better than out PC cousins who trash the Mac, and when proved wrong make something else up to justify their miserable life.
Get the Mac OS licensed, and let the rest of the world pick up about 100 extra hours each of productivity a year.

 

[guylafleur]

Hackers and Virus writers???

Half of them are Mac users with a grudge against PCs.

I just wonder about how well it would run on the x86.

Hmmmm....

 

[puuukeey]

maybe if the OS was liscenced, OSX would get some developers writing pieces of software that don't just leach off iLife. apple is getting too communist. everything is built in, no one writes anything of any use anymore its all dockmods and itunes rip offs. I WANT KAI KROUSE BACK DAMN IT!

sorry. I know I'm a baby, but I'm starting to feel like I'm buying one of these: http://www.kbtoys.com/genProduct.html/PID/3376359/ctid/17

-matt

 

[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).

I wasn't associating bigger market share with more viruses. I don't know too much about the technical sides of things, but I would assume that Apple would have to first make OS X compatible with an x86 machine. This would (I think) kind of "dumb down" the OS X since it's not designed for an x86, it's specifically designed for a Mac. It'll still probably be hard to make a virus for an x86 running OS X, but it would (I think) be easier than on a Mac.

And again, this is not my field, but it makes sense in my head.

Either way you swing it, It'll still hurt hardware sales, which was my main point. PC's will always be cheaper, and if Apple really does make a good port of OS X, then what would be the reason for buying a Mac other than style?

Someone said earlier that Apple should make OS 9 on a PC. Revamp the GUI and that would be awesome.

Someone earlier also made an excellent point:
"Currently, the Pentium-M is a great chip crippled by WinXP, and MacOSX is a great OS crippled by G4."

Well said.

Apple is a business and they're out to make money. They'll do whatever they think is necessary.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[archer75]

I think this would be the smartest move Apple has ever done. Does anyone really care about the apple hardware? It's all about OSX and the software! Sure apple makes good looking hardware but PC's are so much cheaper and perform better(from a hardware standpoint).

Apple software could make a killing on the PC. And yes, noone would buy mac hardware anymore. But Dell makes a buttload just on making PC's and Microsoft obviously makes a fair profit on software. Apple can do both. High quality pc's in an attractive package with a great OS and software.

 

[Mainyehc]

Someone said earlier that Apple should make OS 9 on a PC. Revamp the GUI and that would be awesome.

Hey, I haven't something against OS 9 or anything, but how exactly do you expect them to do that? Just throw in an Aqua Kaleidoscope theme? Ha... 3G iPods don't even work with OS 9!

No, really... That Apple releases a screenless iPod, I can still understand (in fact, I'm thinking of getting a Shuffle, and I'm already a 3G 20GB iPod owner myself). But... No, you people must be really insane. That would be such a nice thing for Apple to do to poor PeeCee users... "Here, we have this 6-year-old OS lying around, and we don't have a better use for it... Your iPod won't work with it, but hey, it's better than Windows 98!!"... Give me break... It would be a waste of R&D money! And Apple would be severely bashed by the press, IMHO. And all those Mac haters wouldn't bee too kind, either. And a LOT of Apple users wouldn't find it a great idea anyway, so...

 

[narco]

Hey, I haven't something against OS 9 or anything, but how exactly do you expect them to do that? Just throw in an Aqua Kaleidoscope theme? Ha... 3G iPods don't even work with OS 9!

No, really... That Apple releases a screenless iPod, I can still understand (in fact, I'm thinking of getting a Shuffle, and I'm already a 3G 20GB iPod owner myself). But... No, you people must be really insane. That would be such a nice thing for Apple to do to poor PeeCee users... "Here, we have this 6-year-old OS lying around, and we don't have a better use for it... Your iPod won't work with it, but hey, it's better than Windows 98!!"... Give me break... It would be a waste of R&D money! And Apple would be severely bashed by the press, IMHO. And all those Mac haters wouldn't bee too kind, either. And a LOT of Apple users wouldn't find it a great idea anyway, so...

It was meant to be sarcastic.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

Well, given that Apple was able to give me iTunes for Windows (though I had to install this POS called Windows XP to run it), they could as well bring iLife to Windows. Which would kill any need to buy a Mac. And a "slower, emulated" OS X would be pointless since being slower you wouldn't use iLife (hence not being able to "get it", like what happened with me and iTunes... then iPod... and Mac mini in a few months).

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.

I call you not only elitist, but snob. I suppose you'd choke at the sight of BMW seat covers in a Kia, too?

And BTW, Apple makes the noisiest computer I've ever heard: the PowerMac G4 (and yes, I've seen and heard a lot of computers in 20 years).

Perhaps a Knoppix-like OS X/x86 CD-only demo version would do the job... You can boot in OS X and play around, but it's limited in what it can do (iPhoto with a 100 photos limit, iMovie with 2 minutes clips limit, iDVD with a 200MB limit, etc).

Then again, someone would probably hack the distro and remove the limitations.

Anyway, Apple coming out with the Mac mini kinda kills any theory about OS X for the x86 platform. I can't wait for the mini to ship with Tiger, though... And perhaps 5400 RPM HDs as standard?

 

[puuukeey]

lets face it. PCs set the standards and apple has to pander to them. thats why I'm typing this message on a UNIX laptop.

dare I ask:
does microsoft make computers?

If apple dropped its bulky, costly production line (see naomi kleins nologo) and released OSX on PC, microsoft would D E D DEAD!!!! CAPUT! BLAMO. whose going to buy windows when you actually have a choice? it might take 6 years or so for businesses to switch over but certainly not the consumer market.

-matt

 

[Surreal]

Gnaws on arm

sure...people would buy it.

yeah
a lot of people

*i won't bother saying what that would lead to...it has been covered time and time again*

but where would the money be for apple? how much does windows cost? what would apple develop? it would involve such a cange that it isnt feasible if apple plans on remaining apple.

 

[Mainyehc]

It was meant to be sarcastic.

Fishes,
narco.

Oh, ok...

You know, I already had a loooong argument a while ago about "OS 9 vs. Panther" and... Damn it, it's 4:07 AM here, I must get some sleep

 

[digitalbiker]

Boy I would like to see the performance of OSX

Even though I don't think Apple would ever license OS X for x86, I would love to see how the performance of OSX is enhanced by an Apple built, fast 64 bit AMD chip with a high end PCI-express bus enabled graphics subsystem.

I would also love to see an Apple branded, Xbrite LCD, PowerBook using Pentium-M. It would be a G4 killer.

Although Apple hung their future on an incredibly slow-developing IBM roadmap, I think it is too late to change course now. The x86 architecture is approaching true obselessence. Hopefully the PPC will soon pick up steam and Apple once again will have some performance bragging rights.

I have a three year old PB and the latest and greatest PB is only marginally better performance-wise. In that same time frame the x86 laptop market went from lame to incredible.

I also don't think that Cell processors are a choice for Apple. Not unless they once again force all of their applications developers to move away from PPC compiled software and generate new Cell binaries.

Nope, we are all stuck with IBM. I only hope IBM solves their manufacturing issues soon.

My new motto: 3 GHZ G5 PPC before 2020! woo-hoo

 

[BWhaler]

How in God's name are there 200+ posts on this?

Just because people ask for it in no way means Steve will do it.

In fact, this was just Steve's way of bragging and slapping MS. Can't people tell the difference?

Don't believe me? Here's your proof:

1. Do you think in a million years Super Secret Apple® would pre-announce this? Have you ever seen them pre-announce anything? Ever? Didn't think so.

2. Do you think Apple's Mac line can exist without MS Office? What do you think MS will do in retaliation for Apple going after their most core business?

3. What was the first thing Steve did when returning to Apple? Killed the clones and licensing deals. All of them.

Sigh...

And seriously, what the hell is with Macrumors posting such an inflamatory title and silly, silly article to send this into spin? Just moronic if you ask me. And sadly, as all the rumors sites feed off one another, this fabrication will be around for weeks.

Macrumors, I fear you've jumped the shark.

 

[digitalbiker]

Free Apple Feedback

Do any of you think that Apple leaks this stuff on purpose, just to monitor sites such as Macrumors and get rapid user feedback on out-of-the-box ideas?

 

[Yvan256]

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…

IMO we really do have a taste of the Mac experience... It's called iTunes. You Mac users always seem to take such nice programs for granted. But for us on Windows, iTunes is like nothing else we've seen before (IMO anyway). It just works!(tm) And it's a free download, too!

Also, considering that Windows XP Pro is supposed to cost 300$US by itself (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...-7978583-2851929?v=glance&s=software&n=538514), this means the Mac mini only costs 200$US more than Windows XP.

That's the full version, BTW. The upgrade isn't cheap either, at 200$US.

Windows XP Pro, full version: 300$US
Mac mini: 500$US (which means it's only 200$US more than Windows XP Pro by itself)

But wait, the Mac mini comes with iLife'05, priced at 80$US. Which means the real difference between the WinXP Pro OS and the whole Mac setup is only 120$US. Oh wait, the Mac mini also comes with OS X 10.3, which is priced at 130$US for a single user license. Putting the price difference at... erm... minus 10$US.

Windows XP Pro, full version, no computer: 300$US
Mac OS X 10.3, full version: 130$US +
iLife '05: 80$US +
G4/1.25GHz, 40GB, USB2, Firewire, DVI/VGA, ComboDrive: 290$US.

Once you count everything, the computer costs LESS than a full license for WinXP Pro, and only 90$US more than the upgrade license.

As the other idiots have pointed out (Napster), "Do the math".

 

[BWhaler]

Do any of you think that Apple leaks this stuff on purpose, just to monitor sites such as Macrumors and get rapid user feedback on out-of-the-box ideas?

The only people from Apple who officially read these sites is a couple of flunkies from Apple legal.

 

[Lepton]

NO! But this is a very good sign

Absolutely not. There are many technical reasons not to do this. It's the hardware/software combination that is one of Macs strengths. And the resources it would take to support all the PC combinations would tax the company severely and stifle real progress.

But! This is a very clear indication that even the PC manufacturers know that OSX is the better operating system, and they wish their customers could have it. It shows that the PC monopoly is cracking. It means people, regular people, are going to see the light and go to Mac.

Apple knows this. They won't even consider it, but they have big smiles over there, I'm sure, since they know the true meaning of this turn.

 

[SiliconAddict]

You mean, people who are still using Windows 3.1?? LOL

Um actually...... But in our case its for a DAMN old reel to reel take drive that only has 3.11 drivers. Northwest Airlines is a tad out of date.