Mac OS X on x86

Well...

Everyone would be buying PeeCees, and apple would loose sales

 

Re: Mac OS X on x86

Christ, not again...

That's like saying, "apart from its color, green is pretty much the same as red."

Yes, they are, so?

Be tried and failed. NeXT tried and failed. IBM tried and failed. All had the vastly superior OS. Mandrake, Lindows, Red Hat etc. are trying and failing. What makes you think Apple would have any more success?

It wouldn't be able to run .exe files unless it had a Windows compatibility layer, which would require a license and a great amount of effort to develop.

x86 OS X and an x86 Mac would:

1) Require years of intensive development
2) Piss off millions of PPC Mac users - we're talking riots in the streets here
3) SERIOUSLY piss off hundreds of major Mac developers
4) Reduce Apple's profitability to nothing and bankrupt them all because a few geeks want a little more speed.

The customer's thought process:

"I can get an Athlon 2100+ From Dell for $x. Or I can get one from Apple for $x+200 (because Apple can't sell their computers for what Dell does and still make money). The Dell runs more software, is compatible with more hardware, and runs the same OS everybody else's computer does so I know that I won't have any problems switching. It's also more easily upgradeable. The Apple is... uh... it has a pretty case, and one less mouse button. Uh... um... Yes, dude, I'm gettin' a Dell."

Apple needs to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of blurring the line between PCs and Macs. It needs to make the hardware and software is so unique and cool and different that nobody has any problems paying what they do for it. They need to either get their **** together in the CPU performance area, or they need to de-emphasize CPU performance and sell Macs based on their other qualities. PORTING OS X TO X86 WOULD KILL APPLE DEAD. Thank you, good day.

Alex

 

and...

BMW could sell a car with the engine made by Hyndi... but then again... they might think that's a bad idea

-evildead

 

Re: Well...

apple would lose "some" hardware sales but gain a lot of software sales (with giant margins) which would more than make billions for apple in the long run

really, man, who wants to stare at windows 40 hours a week?

have some mercy

 

hmm, peecee users would no longer have to skin hexpee to look like osx..instead they'dd *cough get it illegally cough* and install that instead...so it'dd be alot better not to transport it to x86

 

with that type of thinking, microsoft, adobe, macromedia, oracle, sun, corel, and all software companies would be out of business by next year

 

Re: Re: Well...

No mercy for you spunky...

I look at the Mac OS at work and about 95% of the time at home (5% is when I fire up the game peecee for some killin).

Apple would have to charge at least 2x what they charge for the OS now in order to stay alive. They would also have to increase the price of their software to compensate for the sales/profit loss on hardware.

You would STILL need the software companies to write code for OS X, no matter what hardware it sits on. THAT is the main problem here, while many companies ARE writing the software, many are not.

 

Re: Re: Re: Well...

os x will get more devotees and i think that's where the developers will start coming writing for os x more and more over the next several years

btw, alpha...my butt hurts

sorry, everybody, it's an "inside" joke

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

An inside joke that should NOT be. Serves you right though... shoving foreign objects up it like you do...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

how is my own fist a foreign object? i am going to work it up to the point so i can go to canada and bring across a whole caseload of cuban cigars

how do you think americans get cuban cigars over here?

come to think of it, those cigars do have a strange aroma