Exactly what I have been saying all over these boards since this whole mess broke. People need to relax. Moving to Intel is not a magic bullet that means we can take on Windows now. Give them some time to analyze the situation and prepare for it. I think if Apple's marketshare jumps up to like 20% they may start seriously considering this move, but there are still too many variables to declare it a stupid decision to not do it RIGHT NOW. I think it would be very stupid to do it right now, in the not too distant future, maybe not.
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.
OS X on a regular PC
- Thread starter Nermal
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple said:
I agree, not only will no-one buy apple hardware any more, it will also require Apple to write drivers for lots of devices they don't use themselves. This will cost a tremendous amount of develoment work, with little or no ROI. Not a good idea. As I mentioned in another topic: a hacked OSX will be nothing but a geek toy and apart from needing a hardware mod of the motherboard (probably) will also require drivers that are now not supplied with OSX.
It's not impossible and it WILL happen, but it's not interesting to the common user since a) he/she risks damaging his motherboard b) he/she needs to find "homemade" drivers (which in the beginning may still need a lot of debugging and may destabilize the entire system) c) he/she needs the knowledge and ability or access to someone with this knwowledge or ability to do all the modifications and take care of the driver-hassle.
In my experience (I'm in IT support) most people 1) will never be able to do this, 2) will not understand how to do this 3) will not know this is possible and 4) will not care, cause they don't even know what OSX is (if they do, they already have a mac and the problem is non-existent anyway)
There are many ways to prevent OS X, from being installed on a regular peecee.
One of the best ways would be if Intel and Apple made a seperate chipset/motherboard for apple, which couldn't be bought seperately. If this is not done there can be protocols run from an OS X install disc, which checks the required hardware.
I used to have a Sony Vaio, which had its own hardware configuration on the windows install disc so i couldn't install it on another peecee (kinda like the OS X disc for specific computers i.e. Powerbook and iMac etc). This could be applied to the next version of OS X (Leopard and updated to Tiger etc). But this could be hard, cuz it would have to included configurations from the G3 and upwards.
i could be wrong tho lol,
One of the best ways would be if Intel and Apple made a seperate chipset/motherboard for apple, which couldn't be bought seperately. If this is not done there can be protocols run from an OS X install disc, which checks the required hardware.
I used to have a Sony Vaio, which had its own hardware configuration on the windows install disc so i couldn't install it on another peecee (kinda like the OS X disc for specific computers i.e. Powerbook and iMac etc). This could be applied to the next version of OS X (Leopard and updated to Tiger etc). But this could be hard, cuz it would have to included configurations from the G3 and upwards.
i could be wrong tho lol,
Patch^ said:One of the best ways would be if Intel and Apple made a seperate chipset/motherboard for apple, which couldn't be bought seperately. If this is not done there can be protocols run from an OS X install disc, which checks the required hardware.
I used to have a Sony Vaio, which had its own hardware configuration on the windows install disc so i couldn't install it on another peecee (kinda like the OS X disc for specific computers i.e. Powerbook and iMac etc). This could be applied to the next version of OS X (Leopard and updated to Tiger etc). But this could be hard, cuz it would have to included configurations from the G3 and upwards.
i could be wrong tho lol,
You're not wrong. In fact the hardware specific installation disk method has been used in Mac OS X.3 and above (resulting in some nasty lawsuits).
I think it'll be both of the approaches you mention, as this has historically been Apple's methodology.
The 9600 was an Old World Mac. Beginning with the first iMac, PPC Macs have been New World computers based on Open Firmware. The ToolBox ROM of the Old World computers became a ROM file in the MacOS 8/9/Classic System Folder. MacOS X does not use a ToolBox ROM, ROM file, or anything like it. The ToolBox ROM was a 1984 solution to a 1984 problem. Steve Jobs made it clear in his presentation that Apple is looking forward, not backward. Does a forward-looking company devote considerable resources trying develop an scheme to lock-in its OS, which nearly everyone believes will ultimately fail? Or does it look for ways to embrace the inevitable? And would this forward-looking company announce its plans to switch without having developed a strategy to survive and even prosper through the inevitable?mischief said:
No, they probably don't. But a SMART forward looking company doesn't open up half of its bread and butter based on a handful of forum posts by younger geeks creaming themselves to get OS X on their rockin' gaming machines (Not meaning you specifically MisterMe, unless you are. In that case, go change your pants before continuing). I think if we all step back and look, we might suddenly think that tech forum posters are NOT a major consumer demographic in this case. Sure, I'd like to build my own high quality box and run OS X on it, but I'm by far one of the privileged minority who could, or would want, to do that. Just because a handful of people say they would, doesn't translate to anything that might turn a profit.MisterMe said:
Half the people I work with couldn't care less whether they were using Windows or OSX. How will they switch from the mainstream? An Advertising campaign against a >70% install base is going to be suicide for a medium sized company like Apple. They won't recoup losses from it, plus they have to have extra programmers and support just to bring it to fruition. I think some of the business models being presented in this thread are: 1) Not thought through or even researched or 2) Made with little to no comprehension of cost-benefit or 3) Both of the above.
I think we need to look at this outside of the MR geek glasses.
Jim
mischief said:
Yeah it is kind of funny that so many people claim Apple can't prevent OS X from being installed on any old PC, when they already do a perfectly fine job of keeping it (well, the versions bundled with hardware) from being installed on any old Mac. I think their current method uses Open Firmware, which won't be on Intel Macs, but that doesn't mean whatever they do use can't provide a similar feature.
MisterMe said:
The developers have to give them back to Apple once the commerical models are released.
I like the XboX analogy. The Xbox is what? a P3 with an nVidia first gen card? And noone has even gotten that to bood on a standard PC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface
That is what I think Apple will use. Think about it, it is Intel technology that Intel wants to replace BIOS but Windows is too tied into BIOS for them to convince the other companies to use it in their HPs, Dells, and Sonys. Then comes along Apple with their own OS and wanting Intel chips. In the same way that Apple adopted USB first this may be a way Intel can get their technology out the door (not to mention BIOS is an IBM product and with Steve enjoying revenge as much as he does, he might partake in some EFI). With EFI the computer manufacturer writes the drivers into the ROM so in theory Apple could make in quite similar to OF with keystrokes and all.
The big selling point is "non reverse-engineerable." So what Apple puts on there stays on there. And since the Macintels won't ship till next year, I'm assume it'll be a new "not out there now" processor from Intel that will be used. Intel could simply put "Do Not Boot Mac" on all their chips not sold to Apple and Apple could write their OS to only boot Intels (thus nullifying an AMD ran Mac-hack).
As you can see, this venture to keep OSX from running on any generic Intel could also have a hand from Intel themselves.
But then again PearPC could be used - but if this EFI is truly "non reverse-engineerable" then we don't have to worry about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface
That is what I think Apple will use. Think about it, it is Intel technology that Intel wants to replace BIOS but Windows is too tied into BIOS for them to convince the other companies to use it in their HPs, Dells, and Sonys. Then comes along Apple with their own OS and wanting Intel chips. In the same way that Apple adopted USB first this may be a way Intel can get their technology out the door (not to mention BIOS is an IBM product and with Steve enjoying revenge as much as he does, he might partake in some EFI). With EFI the computer manufacturer writes the drivers into the ROM so in theory Apple could make in quite similar to OF with keystrokes and all.
The big selling point is "non reverse-engineerable." So what Apple puts on there stays on there. And since the Macintels won't ship till next year, I'm assume it'll be a new "not out there now" processor from Intel that will be used. Intel could simply put "Do Not Boot Mac" on all their chips not sold to Apple and Apple could write their OS to only boot Intels (thus nullifying an AMD ran Mac-hack).
As you can see, this venture to keep OSX from running on any generic Intel could also have a hand from Intel themselves.
But then again PearPC could be used - but if this EFI is truly "non reverse-engineerable" then we don't have to worry about them.
MisterMe said:
I knew all of that and stated half of that shorthand for the non-uubergeeks in the crowd. I am not impressed by your depth of rhetorical knowledge. The point was that just because a customized version of a particular machine has a certain spec, it doesn't mean that that spec will be compliant for the finished product software. If programming for a new hardware platform required the precise machine being developped nothing would get done in this industry because we'd all be perpetually waiting on tomorrow's mobos.
MisterMe said:
Yes. Most companies with proprietary and expensive software do lock their products. Everything from CAD to Longhorn can be found locked. Mac OS is, in fact currently locked such that OS 9.2 will not install on Old World Macs and such that OS X.3 will not install on first generation G3 products.
Just because a scheme of propriety can be circumvented does not mean that it will be in any significant quantity nor that it will be done well enough to warrant concern.
MisterMe said:
* two deep breaths*
What you see as inevitable (meaning mass-hacking and adoption) I see as a minor threat. In fact I see the threat of hacking a very effectively closed OS to the mass market as significantly less dangerous to Apple as a company than unzipping their fly to the mass market at the first oppertunity by attempting to release a "Standard" PC version with Leopard. I put "standard" in quotes because there really is no such thing as a "standard PC", which is precisely why attempting to release a mass-market version right out of the gate would be suicide.
This foreward looking company is looking far more carefully than you seem to believe. NOT releasing OS X to the mass market right now is a very effective strategy. It allows TIME TO DEVELOP OS X on the Intel chipset. I believe there will eventually be a convergence release, but not yet. I don't even consider the current PPC version of OS X finished, let alone a version for new architecture.
Just because the developer prototypes, built in very short order have a common market BIOS structure and underlying mobo doesn't mean that this will be the model for the production prototypes. In fact, I find the idea of handing actual redboard prototypes to software developers when the production of the first real prototype machines is several months out so ludicrous I have to really work to avoid banging my head on this counter until I can no longer see straight.
Apple has historically been so damn tight with their redboards that if the few Pics and posts regarding the developer machines reflected the actual production designs there would be serious legal backlash and result in those developers responsible getting booted off the OS. The fact that we all know the developer machine specs, and have likely seen the pics inside the case by now is evidence that these machines will bear very little resemblance to the ones being designed for Yonah and Montecito.
Apple will prolly do this http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.p...pple.txt&sortOrder=Sort by Date&detail=medium
First off, no one is talking about releasing MacOS X-86 to the mass market now. Second off, nobody is talking about releasing developer prototype computers to the mass market.mischief said:
It is laughable the notion that Apple's developer prototypes were released in their current form because they were built on short order. Apple has been running Intel-based versions of MacOS X since it was called OpenSTEP. It continued to do so through Rhapsody and every shipping version of MacOS X 10.x. It was no spur-of-the-moment decision to switch to Intel. Yet, in the eight years or so that Apple has run various versions of its OS on Intel hardware, it never chose to develop an Intel-based platform that was incompatible with whitebox PCs. The only logical conclusion is that no such platform is necessary.mischief said:
MisterMe said:
That's because the osx "secret-life" was all about maintaining OSX on x86 - not developing hardware. Apple never planned the move to intel with OSX 10.0, they kept it as a backup - remember Motorola and their supply problems? IBM it seems was Apple's "last PPC hoorah." And IBM failed to keep up with the rest of the industry - and the rest of the industry is Intel.
Intel will do their best to keep Apple happy, because without Apple Intel's USB technology might have never taken off. No telling what Intel has behind closed doors that they want Apple to "introduce to the computing world."
It'd be more costly to develop DRM Intel hardware alongside OSX x86 when hardware changes so rapidly. Intel could also be handling all the "preventing of OSX running on generic procs."
The Xbox theory...
The question with why hasn't someone hacked a PC to play xbox games on? Well there is no real need or desire to. Many of the xbox games are also released for PC, so why bother hacking into the xbox to figure out how it works, build an xbox emulator for the PC just to play a game that you could either already play on your xbox or buy for your PC?
However hacking the xbox to run Linux makes sense, considering that when the xbox came out it was a VERY cheap PC, with fairly decent specs for its time. That was the drive that lead the hackers to turn a $300 gaming machine into a 'normal' PC.
With OS X, i figure people will try to hack the Intel version, as i figure people have been trying to hack the PPC versions we currently have, but no one has accomplished this task. Personally I believe that Apple should protect OS X, and keep it specific to Apple hardware. Maybe the intel chips and OS X.5 will have some type of way of doing "hardware profiling" (by this i mean that if the motherboard doesn't see a certain chip, OS wont load, if it doesn't see a certain HD, or DVD-rom or RAM, etc that he OS wont boot). Thats just an guess, and there are probably ways around it. The point is that Apple has programmers and hardware engineers that are smarter than me (Can someone give me an Amen???) and they will find a way to lock down the OS.
If some looser hacks OS x to run on his PC, good for him. I will continue to run OS X on my Apple, where i will have a great user experience and where i wont have to worry about peecee problems, and Apple tracking me down to press criminal charges!
Ok, this may be an odd analogy, but stick with me...
Lets say Apple does have an OS X version that will run on Billy G's Dell.
Does Apple have to release that version? NO
The CDC does studies on various deadly diseases/viruses that are not common to the public.
Does the CDC have to release these diseases/viruses to the public? NO
The US Govt. has nuclear weapons that could end the world as we know it.
Does the US Govt. have to release the nuclear weapons on the world? NO
The CDC wont release those diseases/viruses ever. Why? It would cause mass havoc/kill many people.
The US Govt. wont release those nuclear weapons ever. (less nuclear war/the end of the world, but i digress...) Why? It would cause mass havoc/kill many people.
So why should Apple release a version of OS X that is compatible with current peecee's? It may not kill many people if Apple does release this supposed "PC friendly" OS X, but it would do harm to Apple itself. Thats why.</rant>
Feel free to beat me over the head profusely if you disagree
Edit to add extended rant
The question with why hasn't someone hacked a PC to play xbox games on? Well there is no real need or desire to. Many of the xbox games are also released for PC, so why bother hacking into the xbox to figure out how it works, build an xbox emulator for the PC just to play a game that you could either already play on your xbox or buy for your PC?
However hacking the xbox to run Linux makes sense, considering that when the xbox came out it was a VERY cheap PC, with fairly decent specs for its time. That was the drive that lead the hackers to turn a $300 gaming machine into a 'normal' PC.
With OS X, i figure people will try to hack the Intel version, as i figure people have been trying to hack the PPC versions we currently have, but no one has accomplished this task. Personally I believe that Apple should protect OS X, and keep it specific to Apple hardware. Maybe the intel chips and OS X.5 will have some type of way of doing "hardware profiling" (by this i mean that if the motherboard doesn't see a certain chip, OS wont load, if it doesn't see a certain HD, or DVD-rom or RAM, etc that he OS wont boot). Thats just an guess, and there are probably ways around it. The point is that Apple has programmers and hardware engineers that are smarter than me (Can someone give me an Amen???) and they will find a way to lock down the OS.
If some looser hacks OS x to run on his PC, good for him. I will continue to run OS X on my Apple, where i will have a great user experience and where i wont have to worry about peecee problems, and Apple tracking me down to press criminal charges!
MisterMe said:
Ok, this may be an odd analogy, but stick with me...
Lets say Apple does have an OS X version that will run on Billy G's Dell.
Does Apple have to release that version? NO
The CDC does studies on various deadly diseases/viruses that are not common to the public.
Does the CDC have to release these diseases/viruses to the public? NO
The US Govt. has nuclear weapons that could end the world as we know it.
Does the US Govt. have to release the nuclear weapons on the world? NO
The CDC wont release those diseases/viruses ever. Why? It would cause mass havoc/kill many people.
The US Govt. wont release those nuclear weapons ever. (less nuclear war/the end of the world, but i digress...) Why? It would cause mass havoc/kill many people.
So why should Apple release a version of OS X that is compatible with current peecee's? It may not kill many people if Apple does release this supposed "PC friendly" OS X, but it would do harm to Apple itself. Thats why.</rant>
Feel free to beat me over the head profusely if you disagree
Edit to add extended rant
then WHY not focus on what people want?
All these commercials about how great quality Apple's hardware always is...yet they use normal graphics cards, RAM, hard drives, and soon, processors. If the apple methodology is really valid, then people will be willing to pay more for the high quality. But I guess you guys are saying that putting 500 dollars worth of hardware into a 200 dollar case and charging 2500 dollars for it isn't going to work? Guess whatin the real world, a company can't get away with a 70% markup on a consumer electronic commodity with a 2-5 year life cycle. Would you pay 8,000 dollars for a DLP that is the same as another DLP that costs 2000 dollars, just because it has a prettier case and a nicer OSD?
Since when did a company remain successful (long term) by denying customers what they most want (in this case, OS X)?
(other than in adult bars, that is...which isn't the kind of analog Apple should be looking to make)
All of these claims that the lack of drivers will make everything buggy and unreliable confuses me. I thought that with an Apple, you plug it in and, I quote "it just works." Are you saying that people won't be able to "just plug it in" anymore?
That would imply that instead of being truly exemplary, apple has all this time simply been truly selfish and inward-thinking.
I don't see that as being the case. PC graphics drivers are unified. There aren't really THAT many different USB and PCI devices that have their own, non-generic drivers. Most things work in XP without loading any drivers. Are you guys saying that Windows has better native driver support than OS X? What a shame. Try putting that in your "switch" campaign.
No, I think that an open OS X would, with a few months of work, be compatible with as much 3rd party hardware as windows currently is...If OS X on x86 is allowed to be open and installed on any x86 machine, then it will thrive. People will pay 100 bucks to get rid of windows, you bet your butt.
But if they try and lock it up so that you have to hack a solution, people WILL figure it out. People figure everything out. They'll end up with hundreds of thousands of potential customers going and downloading a hacked DVD iso file because there is no legal way to get what they want...
Apple is a hardware company. How can a hardware company's back-up plan not include hardware?7on said:
What do you mean? The PPC is an IBM product. Motorola/Freescale is licensed to manufacture PPCs. However, the very first PPC-based Macs used processors manufactured by IBM.7on said:
Now you are going way off the beam. Don't forget that Intel tried to position USB against Apple's own FireWire.7on said:
You seem to forget that Intel has other OEM customers besides Apple. Several of those customers want licenses to MacOS X. Of these, several sell a lot more Intel processors than will Apple for several years.7on said:
benpatient said:
**Takes a long drink off his Newcastle Brown Ale**
Apple computers will continue to "just work".
I believe that the "lack of drivers" discussion is that Apple will not include drivers to support non-Apple or Apple certified motherboards/drives/sound cards/video cards.
So a printer for a Macintel would still have to have OS X drivers to work.
Why would Apple release drivers for components that they do not want to work with their systems?
**Takes another sip**
No, just foward thinking by protecting their products from being diluted by what they see as inferior products.
Sure they will, after they spend the money to buy the Apple Hardware.
**Takes another large sip and lights a cig**
People figure everything out, eh?
Then why hasn't Windows ever worked well? (ohhh, low blow!!)
And those "hundreds of thousands of potential customers" all live in their mothers basements, or are Comp Science majors (no offense intended
), that actually know what a iso is and know how to use an iso to install a OS on hardware that it is not meant to support. Your "hundreds of thousands" has shrank to thousands, even if it is possible to do (which it isnt )If Apple do it right, only a small minority of the market will ever be able to do this - and I would imagine would be precluded from upgrades, drivers etc.
Imagine everytime Apple release a new OS patch or upgrade and OS X stops working because of a new hardware query they implement. It would be a losing game that any ordinary user would not be interested in playing.
Someone may do this, but it wont be the Mac OS X experience everyone here enjoys, it will be buggy, without drivers for a lot of hardware and of course have no official support from Apple. Apple knows this - would have contingency plans and are obviously not worried.
I personally don't have any problem with Mac users running Windows on their Macs. They do it already with Virtual PC, and I don't think it will discourage Mac development because it's still a pain to reboot or run virtualization software. As for running WINE, well, WINE still sucks and probably always will in terms of 100% correctness and stability. If it seems compatible now, all it will take is a new version of Windows to set it behind again. If you buy the Mac, you should be able to do what you want with it.
As for going the other way - I have a feeling that unlocking an x86 OS X would be like the quest for the Holy Grail to a lot of PC hackers. Literally we would see a mass exodus of unwashed longhaired greasy fellows from their jobs at Taco Bell and into their dirty bedrooms, curtains closed, working sweatily 24/7 to make OS X-on-a-PC happen. They will probably eventually succeed, and where does that leave me, a Mac user.
I am an elitist about using a Mac. It's not enough that I get to use my Mac and be happy with it - I specifically DON'T want to see anyone using my OS who shouldn't be. This may be an entirely immature response to something that doesn't really affect me, but I can't help it. I paid so much for such a slow computer, it really pains me to see some hairy jerk take my prized OS and illegitimately run it on his Taiwan chop shop special. I want to stop him. Now, if it turns out that this copy protection is a massive pain in the ass to get around, and that only 4 geeks in the world have managed it, then... OK. But if these geeks manage to develop replicable procedures that proficient nerds can follow over a weekend to achieve success, and illegitimate installs start entering the thousands... then that would really start to piss me off. I would take offense at that as a Mac user and I hope that Apple Legal would go after these people with lawsuit phasers set to kill... and frankly, **** what the slashdot free-this free-that crowd thinks about it.
Again I may be being juvenile, but I can't help it. I hope Apple takes very aggressive steps to lock the Mac OS to the Mac, and will not be afraid to assert its rights over its own property in court.
As for going the other way - I have a feeling that unlocking an x86 OS X would be like the quest for the Holy Grail to a lot of PC hackers. Literally we would see a mass exodus of unwashed longhaired greasy fellows from their jobs at Taco Bell and into their dirty bedrooms, curtains closed, working sweatily 24/7 to make OS X-on-a-PC happen. They will probably eventually succeed, and where does that leave me, a Mac user.
I am an elitist about using a Mac. It's not enough that I get to use my Mac and be happy with it - I specifically DON'T want to see anyone using my OS who shouldn't be. This may be an entirely immature response to something that doesn't really affect me, but I can't help it. I paid so much for such a slow computer, it really pains me to see some hairy jerk take my prized OS and illegitimately run it on his Taiwan chop shop special. I want to stop him. Now, if it turns out that this copy protection is a massive pain in the ass to get around, and that only 4 geeks in the world have managed it, then... OK. But if these geeks manage to develop replicable procedures that proficient nerds can follow over a weekend to achieve success, and illegitimate installs start entering the thousands... then that would really start to piss me off. I would take offense at that as a Mac user and I hope that Apple Legal would go after these people with lawsuit phasers set to kill... and frankly, **** what the slashdot free-this free-that crowd thinks about it.
Again I may be being juvenile, but I can't help it. I hope Apple takes very aggressive steps to lock the Mac OS to the Mac, and will not be afraid to assert its rights over its own property in court.
alex_ant said:
Plus buying XP increases the cost of the system by like another 25%
It's quite shocking really. When XP was released, 1 NZD ~ 0.50 USD, and XP cost 799 NZD. These days it's actually more expensive! 1 NZD ~ 0.70 USD, yet XP now sells for 680 NZD!
Meanwhile, in just the last few months, OS X has decreased from 289 NZD to 235
Bad projector analogy aside...benpatient said:
Apple is doing just fine. They are not dominating the market, but they are turning profits and are financially healthy. There are other companies who "give customers what they most want." Wal-Mart gives the customers what they want - cheap goods from China that are priced unbelievably low but so totally ****** you learn immediately after you get them home WHY they were so inexpensive. Dell gives the customers what they want - much of the same. McDonald's gives the customers what they want - food engineered by chemists and designed by accountants, marketers, logisticians, and managers to be as biologically, psychologically, and financially pleasing as possible. These are mass-market companies that do what they have to to remain relevant in the mass market, and considering examples like these, I personally would rather Apple NOT become mass-market.
Apple HAS always been selfish and inward-thinking. And I personally love them for it. Selfishness and inward thinking has produced a great computing platform. If it were up to people like you, Gil Amelio would be in the CEO hall of fame for "thinking big" by licensing the Mac OS... something that almost killed the company but that you strangely want to see happen again. Be also tried exactly what you are proposing - releasing their OS for x86 PCs - and they couldn't even GIVE it away even though it was spectacular and far ahead of Windows at the time. Except unlike Amelio-led Apple, Be actually DID later go bankrupt despite its revolutionary, forward-thinking, "exemplary" business model of discontinuing its hardware and focusing on competing head-on with Microsoft on Microsoft's home turf.
As a software+hardware platform, the Mac is insular, but not as much as you might like to believe. Apple welcomes switchers, they've been working (and succeeding) to build market share, and I'm sure they will only intensify these efforts whatever their future strategy is. But they will do it on their own terms, which, I would hope, include hardware as a key component.
People already pay 1000 or 2000 or even 3000 bucks to get rid of windows and buy a Mac. I'm sure the financial analysts and market demographers and whatnot are constantly working to maximise profits and as a publicly held company accountable to shareholders, I'm sure they would consider an option like yours if it made better financial sense.
Hopefully they will make it much more difficult than this and will be aggressive in protecting their copyright.
weg said:
It was always my understanding that the XBox runs a version of Windows CE (which has undergone about a dozen name changes since 1999) -- the "palmtop" version of Windows. XBox has no need for full-blown Win32 APIs, driver support, NTFS, support for multiple NICs or multiple user accounts. All it needs is a simple, fast-loading Windows-like OS to get it up and running for the games and provide support for the limited set of built-in hardware. Windows CE fits that description perfectly; that's what it was designed to do.
I highly doubt Apple's Intel powered Macs will be generic PCs just as their PowerPC powered Macs were not IBM mainframes. Someone might eventually find a way to make OSX run on a generic PC, but they'll need to supply device drivers that Apple won't be supporting and there's probably something that OSX on Intel will require, which may or may not interfere with Windows running on the same hardware (might be something that Windows simply will ignore as an un-supported peripheral).
Would I like to be able to run OSX on a generic PC? #@!! yes! Would I (as a fairly competent PC builder from generic parts) accept running OSX with drivers provided by 3rd parties (nVidia, ATI, Creative Labs, etc)? Sure I would. But past experience tells me Apple would have a tough time getting peripheral makers to develop quality drivers for OSX and to keep them up-to-date with their Windows counterparts, so I definitely do not expect Apple will "open up" OSX to run on generic PCs.
Another logical conclusion would be that they are shipping out systems stuffed with generic parts so as not to have to waste millions of engineering dollars on developing a tiny-volume (few thousand units?) developer-only product. Since there was no decision until recently that the switch actually *would* be made, why spend massive cash on developing a whole new x86 system architecture of your own if you don't even know for sure you'll be switching, especially since you know that if you do decide to switch, the lead time you'll give to developers will provide you with plenty of time of your own to finalize the exact system specifications. I think you're dreaming if you think the x86 Mac will be a whitebox PC under the hood.MisterMe said:
Because it's costly and takes more time to develop? Not only that OSX running on Intel can be extremely internal (we only knew about Rhapsdy when OSX started and barely anymore since then) while developing hardware would mean communicating with several companies - which is how we found out about Intel before WWDCMisterMe said:
Think before you type. The last PPC Apple will use is the G5 - Manufactured by IBM. So yes they went from IBM-Motorola-IBM so was still a last hoorah coming from Motorola's G4
This is why the first Mac with Firewire was also the first Mac with USB? Sounded like they coexisted right from the get-go.
You seem to forget that Intel is in no position to give their other OEM customers licenses to OSX. It'd be like an OEM asking to license the Xbox (Number One) OS from Intel. Intel did provide the chips for the first Xbox so that scenario is just as likely. I was just saying that Intel themselves could aid in the prevention of running of OSX on non Macs. I know they support the non-stealing of code because Intel themselves have developed the Extensible Firmware Interface which is Intel's replacement to the IBM developed BIOS. One of the number 1 features listed for EFI is that is non-reverse engineerable. The original idea was for OEM's to include all the system's drivers - maybe their own proprietary GUI on it, or in the case of Apple a DRM of sorts. Don't forget Apple still has that 5 billion in cash reserves (give or take) and even if they couldn't promise to Intel similar success to what happened with USB there's always money. It wouldn't be too difficult to encode some sort of header onto the Mac chips that is unique to the ones boughten by Apple. And Apple could just not allow OSX to boot without this proc information.
I still maintain that
this could be an option as well.