I agree with the above posters that not only is it a rather silly idea and has been discussed on and off for years (seems to be an old favourite of the Mac Communities to discuss this - I cant count the number of articles floating). I also would like to add that if Apple were too, I dont think wed see them immediately die - but just look at the Clone program, it HURT apple majorly then, as it would now. Simply because whose going to purchase a Mac when a similarly powerful, just as well built system costs half as much - nobody. Pricing always causes Good Design to fail - another example is the G4 Cube fiasco.
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.
Setting OS X Free- Why it's a good idea
- Thread starter nick9191
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Whoa
A topic worth reading at MacRumors...
Do not wait for Apple to do it, you will be waiting a while.
Open up the OS yourself this is what I did with one of the hardware options in my signature it was quite easy in fact. MacBook Air clone < $280...
Do not wait for Apple to do it, you will be waiting a while.
Open up the OS yourself this is what I did with one of the hardware options in my signature it was quite easy in fact. MacBook Air clone < $280...
I'm sorry have you actually used OS 7?
You must have since you bought Macs in that era. The classic Mac OS was a complete disaster, truly awful. At least when an app crashed on 95 it didn't hose the system.
And now, once again Microsoft is approaching (and even overtaken in a few areas) Apple's technology advantage. Macs will still sell well thanks to a combination of marketing, aesthetics, a better GUI (IMO) and all the other features I mentioned earlier (build quality, customer care etc. etc.) But as far as a technology advantage, it's getting to be a level playing field. Look back just 4 years to 2006, Tiger was years ahead of XP.
But a time will come when as far as the Mac OS goes, Apple wont have any selling points left. Security? 7 has got it, but. Speed? 7 has got it. Looks? 7 has got them too.
I want to point out at this point that I love Apple's hardware. I intend to purchase Macs even if OS X is released on non Apple hardware.
You got a 3lb laptop, with a 13" LED screen, 2.13ghz Core 2 Duo, 9400M graphics and 5 hour battery life for $280? Or you picked up a crappy netbook and called it a MBA clone?
Well, now, all you had to do was to look in my signature to see that I got the latter of your two options...I am a dreamer, however.
As are you, with the subject of this thread...Keep the dream alive...
Well, now, all you had to do was to look in my signature to see that I got the latter of your two options...I am a dreamer, however.
As are you, with the subject of this thread...Keep the dream alive...
Sorry I didn't mean any offence.
It just annoys me when people call a product a clone of another product when it shares none of the same feature set.
What?!? Are you mad!?! I have never used classicOS but Windows 95 was trully awful. When a program crashed, you got a BSOD. You'd re-boot and the annoying blue screen would blame YOU for not shutting down correctly.
I downgraded to 3.1 and moved onto 98 when it was released.
And OS X has all them things too. Microsoft have caught up in terms of OS's, and fair play and well done to them. But Apple still have the edge, and I imagine OS X 10.7 will tear our faces of with it's power. I am more than confident that the success of Windows 7 will stop Apple from sitting on it's backside and give them the kick they need.
Attack of the Clones
That's a rather selective year to pick. Taken from lowendmac.com: "Hard numbers are not available, but it's generally estimated that the clones accounted for about 15% of all Mac OS computers sold in 1997, the last year with multiple clone makers. If this is correct, Apple could have sold 3.2 million Macs in 1997 if they'd kept the market its alone. Still beleaguered, but a 20% drop in unit sales is better than a 30% one."
One other point from the same article. "Apple sold 4.5 million Macs in 1995, a level it wouldn't reach again for a decade. With the clone program in place and competition from Windows 95, that dropped to 4.0 million in 1996 and 2.8 million in 1997." Allowing Mac clones didn't work. Q.E.D.
That's a rather selective year to pick. Taken from lowendmac.com: "Hard numbers are not available, but it's generally estimated that the clones accounted for about 15% of all Mac OS computers sold in 1997, the last year with multiple clone makers. If this is correct, Apple could have sold 3.2 million Macs in 1997 if they'd kept the market its alone. Still beleaguered, but a 20% drop in unit sales is better than a 30% one."
One other point from the same article. "Apple sold 4.5 million Macs in 1995, a level it wouldn't reach again for a decade. With the clone program in place and competition from Windows 95, that dropped to 4.0 million in 1996 and 2.8 million in 1997." Allowing Mac clones didn't work. Q.E.D.
It begs a question though, it wouldn't do Apple any harm to give OS X a full DRM treatment and try flogging it to PC users at the same price as Windows 7 Ultimate. Suck it and see. Can always stop again if it doesn't work out.
After all, they're a mobile devices company now.
After all, they're a mobile devices company now.
screw this. I left the windoze world SPECIFICALLY to get more stability and less hassle.
I will GLADLY pay apple twice what it would cost me to buy a PC just to make sure everything JUST WORKS.
I do not want in ANY WAY changes made to give a wider audience of cheapskate tinkering overclocking children which would impair those of us who value stability and performance.
the world is full of options - you want cheap and fun to build your own - buy a PC.
I will GLADLY pay apple twice what it would cost me to buy a PC just to make sure everything JUST WORKS.
I do not want in ANY WAY changes made to give a wider audience of cheapskate tinkering overclocking children which would impair those of us who value stability and performance.
the world is full of options - you want cheap and fun to build your own - buy a PC.
There are two possibilities: A) You are a genius and Apple is run by a bunch of idiots who don't realise that supporting Mac clones would be good for Apple's business. B) Apple is run by some rather clever people who have thought hard about supporting Mac clones and decided correctly that it would be damaging for Apple's business, and you have no idea what you are talking about as far as business is concerned.
Which one is more likely?
Certainly I used System 6.0.3 through MacOS 9.2.2. I have also used various versions of MS-DOS and Windows going back to before I can remember. The one version of System 7 that I never used used was System 7 Pro. At any rate, I find it amusing that our little troll friend nick9191 took it upon himself to characterize my System 7 experience.
The troll sounds like someone who is parroting stuff that he read somewhere rather than reporting personal experience. Was System 7 as stable as MacOS X? Of course not. Nothing is. However, it was a joy to use. Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.1 for Workgroups were not in the same league. For those old enough to remember, Windows allocated "resources" for each running task that were usually not released when the task was terminated. The result was the OS exhausted the number of available "resources" and slowed to a crawl and then to a halt. The only recourse was a reboot. Let's not get into Interrupt Requests (IRQs).
Then there was Windows 95, the Windows "that not need DOS." However, this DOS-based OS needed DOS just as much as Windows 3.1 did. Its major difference was the its command to boot into the GUI was different. Windows 98 was "the OS that Windows 95 should have been." Who can forget Windows Me? I can assure you that it is not for lack of trying.
Then there was Windows NT, the OS/2-based OS with the Windows 3.1 GUI that we "loved." How about Windows 2000 that was supposed to combine the DOS-based and NT-derived forks of Windows? It didn't. Then came Windows XP. Microsoft's new robust OS was the breeding ground of viruses so bad and bold that they reached out and slapped you in the face. Vista, where art thou? Windows customers didn't know that they had it so good with XP until they saw Vista. And now we have Windows 7. It is the third or fourth rerun of the Second Coming. And over the horizon is Windows 8. This time things really will be different. Really! They will be. You just see.
But, I digress. I had two major problems with the classic MacOS. One was a driver for an internal Hayes modem in the form a badly written Control Panel. The other was Microsoft Office 98 and the last version of Outlook Express. The two apps required conflicting versions of the same library file. As for the system being hosed, the worst case scenario required a reboot.
There are two possibilities: A) You are a genius and Apple is run by a bunch of idiots who don't realise that supporting Mac clones would be good for Apple's business. B) Apple is run by some rather clever people who have thought hard about supporting Mac clones and decided correctly that it would be damaging for Apple's business, and you have no idea what you are talking about as far as business is concerned.
Which one is more likely?
LOL, I know which one I've bought share in