OSX on IBM desktops & laptops

[Grimace]

So far as I know - this doesn't exist. But, what if IBM decided to launch an OSX wing of its company. IBM already has a processor/OS combo that works for Apple. Could a manufacturer capitalize on the draw of OSX and make cheaper computers? (I know that the chip making side of IBM is completely different from the computer-making side.)

Maybe IBM could give Apple a run for its money in the eMac and iMac classes. Would there be any good reason for IBM to do this? It would provide choice, and not visible competition for its PC making side. Just a random thought I guess...

 

[saabmp3]

Apple doesn't allow you to run OSX on any non apple branded computers. Of course it's possible to do it, but it would be illegal and a real company like IBM can't do it. This is just a "clone", something which Jobs did away with when he took the helm of apple a while ago.

BEN

 

[Grimace]

Weren't the clones licensing Apple's OS? I wasn't thinking that a new vendor wouldn't pay for the rights to use OSX.

 

[Horrortaxi]

There's more than just the OS to consider. IBM makes PPC processors for other purposes than Macintosh comuters, but that doesn't mean those applications can run the Mac OS. What makes a Mac a Mac is the ROM. You can't copy that and without it you don't have a Mac.

 

[kidA]

Weren't the clones licensing Apple's OS? I wasn't thinking that a new vendor wouldn't pay for the rights to use OSX.

Right, but for a 3rd party to build a clone and license the OS, it's Apple that would have to sell them a license of OS X, which would never happen. they couldn't just write Apple a check and start using the OS if Apple didn't want them to.

 

[Grimace]

Ah, so what I think you're saying is that Steve Jobs closed the door on any vendor beside Apple from using OSX.

Hmmf.

 

[osprey76]

Affirmative. The clone time period for Macs came too late, especially when the company was struggling with direction. Cheaper Macs from Umax, et al. were just competing with Apple's offerings rather than expanding the Mac user base.

There is an interesting open source project called PearPC that aims to emulate a Mac on x86 architecture. Kind of like VirtualPC, but going the other direction. Somehow they've gotten around the ROM (there may be a virtual ROM or something like that).

 

[MisterMe]

Affirmative. The clone time period for Macs came too late, especially when the company was struggling with direction. Cheaper Macs from Umax, et al. were just competing with Apple's offerings rather than expanding the Mac user base.

There is an interesting open source project called PearPC that aims to emulate a Mac on x86 architecture. Kind of like VirtualPC, but going the other direction. Somehow they've gotten around the ROM (there may be a virtual ROM or something like that).

People, people, people, since Apple introduced Open Firmware-based computers, the Macintosh Toolbox ROM has been a file in the MacOS 8/9 System Folder. MacOS X 10.x does not require the Toolbox ROM at all. Today, there are virtually no technical impediments to building a Mac clone. It is, however, a violation of the Macintosh EULA.

There's more than just the OS to consider. IBM makes PPC processors for other purposes than Macintosh comuters, but that doesn't mean those applications can run the Mac OS. What makes a Mac a Mac is the ROM. You can't copy that and without it you don't have a Mac.

As I stated above, this is not true. It has not been true since the original iMac. What makes a Macintosh today is a Cupertino company named for a fruit. It is perfectly possible for any computer manufacturer to build a computer that runs MacOS X, but it is illegal to sell it with the OS installed. It is also illegal for the user to install the OS on the computer. But, the bottomline is that it is possible. PearPC did not copy the Mac ROM, but MacOS X runs on the emulator.

Weren't the clones licensing Apple's OS? I wasn't thinking that a new vendor wouldn't pay for the rights to use OSX.

The clones did much more (or much less, depending on your perspective) than license the MacOS. The "clones" were not really clones at all. The term clone implies copy. Macintosh clones were not copies of the Macintosh. Each box contained a genuine Macintosh Toolbox ROM manufactured by Apple Computer. For all practical purposes, the "clones" were real Macintoshes. The clone makers were Apple customers who used Apple products to undercut Apple prices. Apple had agreed to support them with the understanding that they increase Macintosh marketshare. They chose to compete for Apple's existing customers instead. By supporting the clone makers, Apple was commiting suicide. One way or another, the "cloning" experiment was going to end.

 

[MisterMe]

Oops!

 

[johnnowak]

As I stated above, this is not true. It has not been true since the original iMac. What makes a Macintosh today is a Cupertino company named for a fruit. It is perfectly possible for any computer manufacturer to build a computer that runs MacOS X, but it is illegal to sell it with the OS installed. It is also illegal for the user to install the OS on the computer. But, the bottomline is that it is possible.

Is it -really- possible though? How much would you sacrifice? Could you get DVD burning to work on a self-built system? Would quartz extreme be okay? I'd think the audio might be a bit tricky...? Hm.

I know its not "legal" and all... but has anyone done this? I'm simply curious.

 

[strider42]

People, people, people, since Apple introduced Open Firmware-based computers, the Macintosh Toolbox ROM has been a file in the MacOS 8/9 System Folder. MacOS X 10.x does not require the Toolbox ROM at all. Today, there are virtually no technical impediments to building a Mac clone. It is, however, a violation of the Macintosh EULA.

As I stated above, this is not true. It has not been true since the original iMac. What makes a Macintosh today is a Cupertino company named for a fruit. It is perfectly possible for any computer manufacturer to build a computer that runs MacOS X, but it is illegal to sell it with the OS installed. It is also illegal for the user to install the OS on the computer. But, the bottomline is that it is possible. PearPC did not copy the Mac ROM, but MacOS X runs on the emulator.

I'm almost positive that that there is a boot rom that is still propietary. For instance, you can go buy a PPC motherboard with no problem, there are companies that make them. But you can't run mac os on them.

Also witness processor upgrades ont he original iMacs. The manufacturers had a very hard time doing it because the apple boot rom was located on the processor daughter card, so they had to use used boards to upgrade the processor. They couldn't manufacturer them.

So while the rom the system actually uses is now a software file, there is still a boot rom that makes the apple motherboards proprietary.

 

[MisterMe]

I'm almost positive that that there is a boot rom that is still propietary. For instance, you can go buy a PPC motherboard with no problem, there are companies that make them. But you can't run mac os on them.

Also witness processor upgrades ont he original iMacs. The manufacturers had a very hard time doing it because the apple boot rom was located on the processor daughter card, so they had to use used boards to upgrade the processor. They couldn't manufacturer them.

So while the rom the system actually uses is now a software file, there is still a boot rom that makes the apple motherboards proprietary.

The boot ROM is Open Firmware, a published standard. The problems that processor upgrade vendors had with the original iMac seem to be with proprietary wetware rather than proprietary firmware or hardware. That is, Apple's iMac design may have included some proprietary information rather than proprietary components. However, this issue of moot with respect to a clone manufacturer. A clone manufacturer would be interested only in the design and features of its own machine. There is no technical barrier to building a computer which will boot MacOS X. Since the computer can't be sold as a Mac clone, however, it is simply not worth the trouble.

 

[Celeron]

Personally I think this is route that Apple should go. Their market share is practically nothing and if they were to contract with one of the major PC makers to produce a line of cheaper (comeon, you know they need a more differsified list of offerings) I think Apple would make a ton of money.

If Apple made a copy of OS X that ran on my Intel hardware I would most certainly buy it. OS X is such a more pleasent user experience.

 

[Grimace]

If Apple made a copy of OS X that ran on my Intel hardware I would most certainly buy it. OS X is such a more pleasent user experience.

I think that is what Apple is trying to avoid. That option might prove that the OS is what really makes apple special.

 

[MacBoyX]

Personally I think this is route that Apple should go. Their market share is practically nothing and if they were to contract with one of the major PC makers to produce a line of cheaper (comeon, you know they need a more differsified list of offerings) I think Apple would make a ton of money.

If Apple made a copy of OS X that ran on my Intel hardware I would most certainly buy it. OS X is such a more pleasent user experience.

I could not disagree more. Aside from the techincal issues discussed about what makes a Mac a Mac, I feel it's Apple that makes it that way. The marketshare issue is not that big a deal and to be honest I don't want a Mac from an Apple that has a huge marketshare. I like that there is a smaller user base it makes for an more enjoyable experience and as far as OS X on a PC...this would be HORRIBLE. Being a PC support person who switched to Macs, I can tell you that one of the best things about Macs is there are no driver conflicts. I love that Apple has to approve everything that can be used on a Mac and that they control the base configurations.

Apple stock (of which I own plenty) is doing fantastic and steadily rising so don't give me any of the "OS X on PC = more money" OS X on a PC is a badddd idea that will ruin the Mac user experience and on top of that... I don't want PC users getting my user experience. YOu want the experience buy a freaking Mac. End of story.

Just my 0.02 Cents.

macboyX
(http://www.macboyx.com)

 

[blueflame]

it seems to me

one of the reasons that everything apple works so well, is becuase its from apple. Windows has to deal with like 1million kinds of hardware, and has to e compatible with it all, the Mac OS only has to know its own specific hardware that apple puts out, much loess confusion, and much less bloating. that sounds about right
Andreas

 

[Celeron]

I'm not suggesting releasing a version of OS X for every Intel platform. Instead I think they could make a large chunk of change contracting with someone like Dell or IBM to build a standardized platform, using Intel hardware that can run OS X.

Lets face it, Intel's hardware runs circles around even the G5. Its been tested time and time again and Apple looses almost every time. Don't get me wrong, the hardware looks nice, but it just isn't as fast as whats out on the PC market.

I'm not trying to spark a riot, which I'm sure the above comments will, just stating my opinion and some simple facts.

 

[JFreak]

I'm almost positive that that there is a boot rom that is still propietary. For instance, you can go buy a PPC motherboard with no problem, there are companies that make them. But you can't run mac os on them.

no, there isn't, that was explained very clearly few posts ago. it is only a matter of drivers - all the chipsets used in the motherboard would have to be the same kind apple uses, and the same actually goes to all hardware needed to boot the computer. the osx installer has drivers for only such hardware apple itself has used in its hardware, and some of those are proprietary.

drivers, that's the key. ever tried to install a windows nt on a current pc hardware? pain. the same thing - missing drivers.

 

[maxvamp]

Home Brew?

PegasosPPC

Really not worth it though. About $700 -> $1500 for the board. The hardware is expensive, and this board is more aimed at people who want LINUX on the PPC platform.

The next cheapest I have seen is ref design boards for as much as $4k ea.

Take care.

Max.

 

[Mord]

what i would like is for apple to let companys like gigabyte and asus make ppc compatible motherboards to shut up the amd crowd and for motorola and ibm to make socket prosessors

the rest of the components are standard generic parts

even if apple sold there own parts for you to build a mac that would be great but there is a huge market for self built stuff

i would never buy a pre built mac again if i had the option

clones could be a viable option because this time apple has somthing that they cannot toutch and tha is style back in the clone days a beige box was a beige box but now apple can make stunning peices of kit that would be worth paying that little extra and the clones could be attract the pc crowd.

 

[Mord]

Lets face it, Intel's hardware runs circles around even the G5. Its been tested time and time again and Apple looses almost every time. Don't get me wrong, the hardware looks nice, but it just isn't as fast as whats out on the PC market.

I'm not trying to spark a riot, which I'm sure the above comments will, just stating my opinion and some simple facts.

then why are you saying intel hardware runs circles round a g5 when it clearly dose not?

only in gameing benchmarks do pc's do better and if you want to game get a pc or better yet get a console

 

[Celeron]

Actually it does, and its been proven many times over. The G5 doesn't stand a chance compared to AMD's Athlon64 FX or even a P4.

You are correct in your assessment of gaming on the Mac platform. If the G5 was indeed as quick as a P4 then why does it get totally owned when benchmarked using the same game? All other things being the same, video card, amount of memory, etc..., the G5 gets totally owned in games like UT2004. Why is that exactly?

 

[Mord]

show me a non game benchmark and a fair one

 

[Anarchy99]

with the g5 vs a p4 or other pc's the g5 is better in 98% of things but with the same games or apps it depends whats in the computers and if the developers worked more on the pc version vs the mac version just look at the benches for the g5 on apple.com pc users said the pcs were unfairly tested because the programs used to bench them were not optimised for amd or intel but they also were not optimised for the g5 apple could have made those look lots better but they didnt
you cant say that about the lots of those other benchmarks are not designed to be optimised for amd or intel
but that can work both ways but the point is if you cant test it for your self dont belive benchmarks

 

[Mord]

the only benchmarks i pay attention to are ones that use programs that i use on systems i am interested in getting

i would wait for the 2.5GHz g5 before claiming that and pc will trounce it