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.
More Details on Apple's Intel Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Regarding selling OSX on non-Apple computers...
Yeah, before they consider doing that they want to consider how their hardware REALLY stacks up against the competition, what it costs them to support other vendors hardware, how much other Apple software they'll sell to "other" vendor's customers, and finally what they need to charge per OSX for it to all be viable.Sun Baked said:Because as soon as they do that, they nuke their own hardware sales like they did during the clone wars.
rlreif said:
Never said I was perfect, however I am most definitely not a thief. I work for what I have, try it sometime...
The thing is, I think they will do it at a point where their own hardware will be priced competitively. Why buy a Dell with OS X when you can get a Macintosh with a similar configuration at the same price? Some people loves specific hardware companies... for their own reasons! A lot of them could support the Dell version not because it's cheaper, but because they have a brother who works for Dell or they know how their customer service works and prefer not to risk it with somebody new...
Apple will want to get the majority of users one day or another. It doesn't necessarly means that they will say goodbye to their hardware sales; if they plan their move wisely...
Apple will want to get the majority of users one day or another. It doesn't necessarly means that they will say goodbye to their hardware sales; if they plan their move wisely...
tdar said:
Yes just like the G5 is a G3. Just a newer G3....
A name is a name is a name. The fact of the matter is what Intel has planned for 2007 is NOT what they have now. Something EVERYONE needs to understand. The development box is probably the result of the following:
Ummm we need something for our developers to code on
*Steve and co rummages though the junk drawer*
OK we can use mostly stock parts from current stock. Same case. Same hard drive. Intel can you cut us a deal on a few thousand Pentium 4s for the kit?
Sure Steve
*rummages*
I think I found a motherboard we can get for cheap. How about this?
Can we get em in bulk for cheap?
Yep
Cool
Then lets get to building these suckers
This was probably a scrap job. Why do you think Apple wants them back at the end of the day? Why do you think its all NDAed? Because it doesnt have Apples polish to the system? Honestly I have to imagine to a certain extent its an embarrassment to them. The OS was shoehorned into the system. Yes it runs but anyone care to wager if it has a black BIOS boot screen?
ncoday said:
What? That OEM's do this today or that he is assuming that it's going to be locked to one system?
If its the former. Ummm they sure as heck DO, do this. I know because I've tried installing a Dell XP /w SP2 CD that came with my Optiplex on my Tosh Satellite laptop. Doesn't work. The CD reads the BIOS and ID's if its an Optiplex or not. If not it spits it back out at you.
If its the latter. Sure as heck they are going to do their dangedest to lock it to the system.
SiliconAddict said:Yes just like the G5 is a G3. Just a newer G3....
Intel can you cut us a deal on a few thousand Pentium 4s for the kit?
Sure Steve
I think they also went with an Intel motherboard with integrated video (and ethernet, and sound, etc) because that way they would only have to work with Intel (who are highly motivated) to get reliable drivers ready.
They basically needed a cheap but reliable configuration that they know really well, in order to simplify the process of debugging things if a developer reports a problem. By using Intel's stuff, they make the most of their connection there, which will no doubt help them if anything hairy comes up.
The integrated board also reduced the amount of labor required to put together one of these boxes, as compared to what it would take if there were several AGP and PCI boards to install.
not suprised that everyone is worried about this switch, but in the long run, we all know it's still going to be a mac. i don't care if they put 4 gnomes in a box with little treadmills and a couple of desks with pads of paper, you know it's still going to be a mac. there will still be a beautiful interface and startup and applications... who cares if it runs on a home built system or windows can be loaded onto the same machine? we're all still going to run Mac OS 'whatever'. Nah-i-mean?
jaykk said:
The hardware-based copy protection (USB dongles) for Logic 7 Pro and Cubase SX 3 have never been cracked. Cubase SX 2's protection was so good that the crackers who did it congratulated the developers in the included text file for the crack, and SX 3 was improved so greatly that it's NEVER been cracked. Unbreakable copy protection is doable.
Apple will have all kinds of ways to tie OS X to Mac hardware, using any kind of proven copy protection they feel they need to. I don't think this will be as easy as all the PC guys are saying it will be.
wakedog10201 said:
ex-freakin'-actly! I think we can probably still expect mac's to "just work" (tm).
First of all that's not quite what he is saying - unless you consider microsoft a third party. Now Apple will make sure their OS doesn't work on generic PC's we agree on that. However this "driver" stuff is overblown.
If Apple uses one of intel's chipsets Windows will likely just work. For example I made my computer using an intel 865BGF board. Windows just recognizes the board and my other components. Windows is good deal smarter then your giving it credit for.
There is a decent chance that Apple will use one of intel's chipsets, IMHO. I think it will be relatively trivial to get Windows to run on your Mac. But it might quite hard to get OSX to run on a Dell.
Pete
I think the motivation to get OSX to work with a regular PC will be much greater though. I put my money on the hacker community. Thing is Apple doesn't need to worry. The could give their OSX away and Microsoft would still dominate the market. And the remaining Mac community will still want to buy Macs to get the seamless experience and the pretty Mac boxes with things like nice liquid cooling and no wires just hanging out.
Pete
osx will have a license just like window$
OSX, because it will run on any PC (despite what some say, I think its likely), will have a license just like Windows. Ugh.
One of the sad things about Jobs is that he eventually behaves like Gates (see Animal Farm, last page) because he wants to be as powerful as Gates.
I think this whole mac on pc thing stinks. It buys into quantity instead of quality, and it changes what Macs essentially are.
I have always believed that the Mac is really a product of its inspired users rather than anything Jobs does.
The inspired users drive the need for innovation and Apple is stimulated to supply it. We (the inspired users) may not wish to go to Intel chips, so what will Apple then become?
Is it possible that Jobs has got so angry with IBM and they have decided to tell him to f**k off? No patience in Mr Jobs. All that talk about 'the Megahertz myth' seems like lies now.
I wish Steve would use honey not vinegar, but I guess its too late.
BTW, illnesses of the pancreas/liver area are connected to anger......and one of the recommended natural cures is.....good vinegar.
OSX, because it will run on any PC (despite what some say, I think its likely), will have a license just like Windows. Ugh.
One of the sad things about Jobs is that he eventually behaves like Gates (see Animal Farm, last page) because he wants to be as powerful as Gates.
I think this whole mac on pc thing stinks. It buys into quantity instead of quality, and it changes what Macs essentially are.
I have always believed that the Mac is really a product of its inspired users rather than anything Jobs does.
The inspired users drive the need for innovation and Apple is stimulated to supply it. We (the inspired users) may not wish to go to Intel chips, so what will Apple then become?
Is it possible that Jobs has got so angry with IBM and they have decided to tell him to f**k off? No patience in Mr Jobs. All that talk about 'the Megahertz myth' seems like lies now.
I wish Steve would use honey not vinegar, but I guess its too late.
BTW, illnesses of the pancreas/liver area are connected to anger......and one of the recommended natural cures is.....good vinegar.
"The tested Cell as well. That processor is NOT intended for PC applications. (it was designed for game systems, not as a general use CPU) The lack of out of order execution and ILP control logic creates very poor performance with existing software."
If this is true, then why would IBM be bringing out a high-end Cell workstation?
If this is true, then why would IBM be bringing out a high-end Cell workstation?
steeldrivingjon said:
Cuts down on security risks that way, doesn't it?
Hm. That's kinda important, isn't it?
Well, three damn good reasons to do it cheaply, quickly and securely.
Which, I'm afraid, will be totally ignored by the more paranoid members of the online community.
Obviously Microsoft is a third party. They aren't Apple, and they're not the consumer. That's what "third party" means.GuyClinch said:
An incompatible bootstrap system would be a very, very big deal. If the standard install CD won't even boot, there has to be some sort of "special edition" BS even to install.
If MS offer something, it will be Virtual PC. To offer a direct booting version of Windows on Mac would be too much hassle for them, because stuff will break with each new Mac model and they'll be behind in getting hardware support. By letting OS X do that work, they save effort and have a product they can support.
No, the software flashed into the firmware has to support it.
The boot loader and hal.dll need to be able to query the BIOS to do those magical things. it's all in the firmware.
No secret that there is no OpenFirmware on x86 Macs
http://developer.apple.com/document...l#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002217-CH239-283936
Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands.
mj_1903 said:
http://developer.apple.com/document...l#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002217-CH239-283936
Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands.
hah
wow, not too bright eh? OS X is what makes a mac a mac. most of the people I know who run macs don't know or care what a CPU is really or the difference between PowerPC & x86.
You are confusing Windows with x86. Linux on x86 does not have spyware, virus, or hacker problems - this is because of market share. OS X will not have these problems unless they gain market share & become more of a target for virus writers. Hopefully when it does, the viruses will be fat binaries so the PPC folks aren't left out.
swansonma said:
wow, not too bright eh? OS X is what makes a mac a mac. most of the people I know who run macs don't know or care what a CPU is really or the difference between PowerPC & x86.
You are confusing Windows with x86. Linux on x86 does not have spyware, virus, or hacker problems - this is because of market share. OS X will not have these problems unless they gain market share & become more of a target for virus writers. Hopefully when it does, the viruses will be fat binaries so the PPC folks aren't left out.
NeXTSTEP on Intel, which ran on quite a range of generic hardware, didn't have a license.elgruga said:
And it cost $795 a pop!
(The developer tools disk didn't have a license either, and they sold that for, I think, $4995 a pop. Now its descendents are free with OS X, which costs $129.)
