You mean like Sony's UMD format and the PSP? Or Sony's proprietary blue memory sticks? Or how if I put a PS game in my Xbox nothing happens?commonpeople said:
Lethal
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.
osx on pc
- Thread starter tedrjr03
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Lethal
generik said:
Why would you need a transferable license? All Macs come with OS X, so when your hardware dies, all you have to do is buy a new Mac. There's no legitimate need for a $400 "full retail" version of OS X. Just like any PC: they all come with Windows (except the ones that come with Linux). You can wipe it and install something else, but you don't get money back for telling Dell, "hold the Windows." The only reason a full retail version of Windows exists is for homebuilt machines.
Frankly, I'd be more than happy to pay for an Apple motherboard (even at double the price) and put together a small form factor "whitebox Mac" rather than have to buy the giant (and heavy) PowerMac. Even if the caveat that hardware compatibility was my own responsibility. But because of the low intelligence of most people (and especially the media), this will never happen. Support and PR at Apple would revolt.
matticus008 said:
But the thing with oem software is you can remove the sticker and post the CD's and the sticker back to your supplyer with some proof like a photo your useing linux and you get 60GBP back or 110GBP if its XP Pro. It's great install linux and get some money back and get a more stable and secure system in return
LethalWolfe said:You mean like Sony's UMD format and the PSP? Or Sony's proprietary blue memory sticks? Or how if I put a PS game in my Xbox nothing happens?
Lethal
If someone worked out a way to modify the Xbox to play PS games, then yes, I would support the idea that customers should be given the choice to cram as many PS games in their Xbox as they like.
Ultimately, the market will decide. In fact, the market has already decided. Most people prefer the inferior technology of Windows, because it doesn't tie them to proprietory hardware, whereas Apple languishes at 5%.
True, iam amazed that the thing Apple does best which is software was never marketed to the world unless tied to a ppc machine. The world went windows and Apple just kept on pushing its inferior hardware though it was their software that was superior. Windows is getting more and more Mac like so its possible apple with its love of hardware will just become another Pc maker. If you aint going to market your software you might as well just throw windblows on the new hardware. It could be coming. Apple wants to sell hardware.commonpeople said:
IMO, both my iMacs are pretty low quality hardware.
1) The G5 is hotter than e.g. current AMDs and I suspect the computers won´t last for long time.
2) The screen is a cheap TN panel.
3) Both are rather noisy.
4) Other had a faulty logic board.
OSX simply rocks, never had any software problems.
1) The G5 is hotter than e.g. current AMDs and I suspect the computers won´t last for long time.
2) The screen is a cheap TN panel.
3) Both are rather noisy.
4) Other had a faulty logic board.
OSX simply rocks, never had any software problems.
LethalWolfe said:
i see your point but i also think, quantity aside, that the quality of what goes wrong with macs is alarming...starting with logic board issues in 2002 up to the mactel problems i am having (but i was the earliest possible adapter to intel)...i didn't hear of any terrible widespread mac issues from steve jobs return in 1997 up until the logic board issue in early 2002
here's one
person A: going to strip shows will make you bald and middle aged
person B: how's that
person A: just look at best and most frequent customers of the strip shows, who are the ones most commonly found in the front row
bring it on.
I like the idea. Simply because there are other companies which make good computers. Its just because they run windows on them, they look ordinary and cheap.
If it ever happens, those companies will defenitely work on better designs to create a select market for apple followers. They know where these people are coming from.
I like the idea. Simply because there are other companies which make good computers. Its just because they run windows on them, they look ordinary and cheap.
If it ever happens, those companies will defenitely work on better designs to create a select market for apple followers. They know where these people are coming from.
Intresting
I've been using PCs with Windows since I started computing. I've used Macs in school and for graphic design. When I left my job at the newspaper which used macs in the layout & design department they were in the process of upgrading their computers. When I seen everything came from Gateway; I asked where they macs were. The owner said they're just too expensive, I can get a faster PC to run Photoshop & InDesign for about ~$500 less.
That's the problem with Macs a lot of people & businesses fail to see why should they pay considerably more a computer they're essentially locked into. Intel has faster processors on the market but you cannot get them prebuilt into a mac. Why cannot we stick an AMD into apple? Why does Apple charge ridicolous prices for RAM? Because Apple isn't much different from a car dealer, they make a hsit load of money off the upsells. I'm sure they get kickbacks for using only Intel, one specific brand of RAM, etc etc.
Apple says PCs are stuck in the 1980's but Apple doesn't support more than half the hardware on the market. Who is really stuck in the dark ages?
On the flip side my ex-girl friend bought and Imac because it looks nice and she can IM and email which is all she cares about.
If you want a secure OS don't use Windows period. That doesn't mean use OS X. Linux distros are fast becoming user friendly. My PC no longer runs Windows, I use Ubuntu. My next PC will be custom built, I orignally wanted a MBP pro but I can build a speced out PC laptop for less and Apple's "fully loaded" MBP and dual boot Ubuntu or Windows.
It would be nice to see OS X on a PC box where I can choose my hardware. Not just the few options Apple lets us choose. I would buy OS X for a PC even if I had to pay considerably more than I would for Windows.
Most anyone with a computer is connected to the net these days, what would be so hard about apple providing an online driver repostitory? When you go to install OS X it gather information about your computer then gets the drivers from a repository. Ubuntu does this "out of the box".
OS X would have a bigger chunk of the market if it could be installed anywhere. Don't get me wrong I'm far from a Windows fan boy, but I think if OS X gains more market share it will be as big a target for viruses & ad/spy/malware.
I've been using PCs with Windows since I started computing. I've used Macs in school and for graphic design. When I left my job at the newspaper which used macs in the layout & design department they were in the process of upgrading their computers. When I seen everything came from Gateway; I asked where they macs were. The owner said they're just too expensive, I can get a faster PC to run Photoshop & InDesign for about ~$500 less.
That's the problem with Macs a lot of people & businesses fail to see why should they pay considerably more a computer they're essentially locked into. Intel has faster processors on the market but you cannot get them prebuilt into a mac. Why cannot we stick an AMD into apple? Why does Apple charge ridicolous prices for RAM? Because Apple isn't much different from a car dealer, they make a hsit load of money off the upsells. I'm sure they get kickbacks for using only Intel, one specific brand of RAM, etc etc.
Apple says PCs are stuck in the 1980's but Apple doesn't support more than half the hardware on the market. Who is really stuck in the dark ages?
On the flip side my ex-girl friend bought and Imac because it looks nice and she can IM and email which is all she cares about.
If you want a secure OS don't use Windows period. That doesn't mean use OS X. Linux distros are fast becoming user friendly. My PC no longer runs Windows, I use Ubuntu. My next PC will be custom built, I orignally wanted a MBP pro but I can build a speced out PC laptop for less and Apple's "fully loaded" MBP and dual boot Ubuntu or Windows.
It would be nice to see OS X on a PC box where I can choose my hardware. Not just the few options Apple lets us choose. I would buy OS X for a PC even if I had to pay considerably more than I would for Windows.
Most anyone with a computer is connected to the net these days, what would be so hard about apple providing an online driver repostitory? When you go to install OS X it gather information about your computer then gets the drivers from a repository. Ubuntu does this "out of the box".
OS X would have a bigger chunk of the market if it could be installed anywhere. Don't get me wrong I'm far from a Windows fan boy, but I think if OS X gains more market share it will be as big a target for viruses & ad/spy/malware.
In my small head I'm thinking... That if someone could do a Windows run on a Mac, the oposite could happen someday.
And then that scaries me, because Apple hardware sales could fall like bomb because of people that don't want to/can't pay more for it's expensive hardwares... When they could have a superior machine for a smaller price and still have OSX in it
Just... thinking... I might be wrong. And I hope so lol
And then that scaries me, because Apple hardware sales could fall like bomb because of people that don't want to/can't pay more for it's expensive hardwares... When they could have a superior machine for a smaller price and still have OSX in it
Just... thinking... I might be wrong. And I hope so lol
But that wasn't the intent of what I quoted and responded too. You were lamenting about how Apple has tied OS X to Apple hardware like companies creating "closed" systems was something new, unique, and dastardly. Which it's not. There are a number of closed systems out there but we've been around them so long we just accept them (hence your not too accurate Sony example).commonpeople said:
Yes, the market is deciding. After bottoming out a few years ago at less than 2% (IIRC) Apple's market share has been rising. Their stock price keeps climbing. IIRC, Apple and Dell are still the only profitable computer companies. The iPod and iTMS dominate their respective fields and Apple's pro apps shook up an industry that had been dominated for years by a single company.
If that's "languishing" then I hope I languish for the rest of my life.
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
Of course Apple isn't the only offender, and I don't think I implied that. However, this is an Apple discussion board, which is why my comments are mostly directed towards Macs- as opposed to Starbucks' use of proprietory cups for instance.
Apple's iPod is a success story I agree, but 5% of machines carrying OS X is still quite low. I believe IBM's stock was doing pretty well at one point- and then MS gave it the big kablooie. We're going to be seeing the battle of the OS's in the next couple of years and Apple can't afford to be complacent.
If it's generally held to be a good thing that Macs can now run Windows, then I think we have to be honest with ourselves and say that PC's running OS X would also be an equally good idea. Again, if Macs are truly the better hardware- then Apple has nothing to be worried about.
babyjenniferLB said:But the thing with oem software is you can remove the sticker and post the CD's and the sticker back to your supplyer with some proof like a photo your useing linux and you get 60GBP back or 110GBP if its XP Pro. It's great install linux and get some money back and get a more stable and secure system in return
Do you have a link to the details of this program? I know it is not possible in the US to get a refund for an OEM disk or an opened retail copy. Maybe it's UK-only.
Maybe I read too much into what you were saying.commonpeople said:
Low, but higher than than it use to be and why does it matter all that much as long as the company is still growing and profiting? In order to be considered successful does a restaurant chain have to rival McDonald's in terms of market share?
Personally, I don't want Apple to "rule the world." I'd like them to keep innovating, and succeeding, but I don't want them to turn into this massive, MS sized corporation that gets huge and inflexible. Just look at all the legacy crap MS and companies like Dell and Gateway have to support.
I haven't seen any signs of Apple getting complacent in terms of it's OS or hardware as of yet. OS X keeps getting better and attracting a bigger fan base, and Apple is seemingly doing the best they can to secure hardware venders that meet their needs.
XP running on Macs still means hardware sales and profit for Apple. OS X running on PCs means no hardware sales and no profit for Apple. "Better" doesn't mean more successful in the mainstream market place. "Good enough" seems to most often win the day. "Good enough" is one reason why Windows has such large market share. "Good enough" is one reason why audio cassettes were more popular than records. "Good enough" is one reason why MP3 players are replacing CD players. "Good enough" is why even though we are "on the verge" of the HD revolution tiny little videos from the iTMS are generating buzz.
And, IMO, it's not that Macs have better hardware, it's that OS X + Mac hardware=a better overall computing experience. Because of the closed system Apple can better optimize the hardware and software to work together. Where as in the Windows world it's a miracle that you can get all those combinations of components to "play nice" together let alone try and optimize them.
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
That's maybe where we differ. Sometimes, I want what's best for me- not what's best for Apple! That may sound callous, but that's exactly how PC consumers make their purchasing decisions- and it's not for the profit of Dell. We all have a love affair for Apple, or we wouldn't be posting on this board, but realistically, Apple can't expect everyone to idolize them.
Of course it's possible that Apple will always remain a niche market and they'll be quite happy to skim off the top 5% of consumers (i.e. us smartest 5%) forever. I'm not sure that Jobs is going to be satisfied with that though- he's more the messianic type- world domination!
commonpeople said:
Yes, we all would like so many things. But saying "Apple should do x" is to make your own gratification more important than the viability of the company. The problem with that is that when you get what you want, it might very well be the last thing you get from Apple.
I'd love OS X on all of my PCs, and I'm smart enough to be able to put together compatible hardware with existing driver support. But if Apple allows that, then it cuts into their hardware sales right away, and less-capable people try to put together whitebox Macs and get poor stability or performance, then the media gets wind of these people with crappy OS X experiences (nevermind the incompatible hardware), and then consumers see the media pieces and assume that OS X is buggy or inferior. Sales decline further, both for OS X and for (completely unaffected) real Macs--Apple no longer has the money to fund OS X development. Suddenly, Apple isn't selling OS X or Macs anymore.
So people may state what they want, but they're going to get a response of why their idea isn't good for Apple. And ultimately, what's best for Apple is critically important for Apple customers. No Apple = no Apple customers. I think music should be 50 cents a track with no DRM--that'd make millions of people very happy for a while, but it would cause the music industry to collapse.
I'm confused about the comments about apple hardware not being that outstanding. Wasn't there a story a little while ago running down the costs of making an Imac, and it turned out that they were only making $100 a pop for a grand machine? Which would make $900 of kit in their? If that's factory price at bulk buy thats got to be some good equipment in their?
I'm not sure thats true, Vinyl, Tape, CD, etc never had any of this rights management stuff on it and the music industry didn't collapse did it? There's nothing new about piracy. It's been around probably since tape has been around and the music industry is still around.
I'm not sure thats true, Vinyl, Tape, CD, etc never had any of this rights management stuff on it and the music industry didn't collapse did it? There's nothing new about piracy. It's been around probably since tape has been around and the music industry is still around.
This idea might sound OK for an end-home-user but it doesn't make sense for Apple in any way.
Leaving the hardware out of the equation would be a huge loss of sales for Apple, as a lot of people would end up going the "cheapo clone" route. Even Mac users (of which there are a lot that come from the Windows and Linux world, where "cheap" is several notches above in their priority lists than "pretty" and brands are something to be avoided in their petty, "cost-conscious" minds -which usually ends up on these same people pirating the hell out of anything they can get their paws on, arguing that corporations "screw the little guy anyway"-)
Apple uses OSX to sells macs. The cash comes from the macs. Hardware can't be pirated.
Selling just the OS for PCs would dillute enormously the Apple brand, would be a huge loss of earnings and would make Apple go the way of BeOS and NeXT, who also though it was a good idea at the end.
Mind you, selling just the hardware is just as boneheaded, as SGI can readily prove.
Leaving the hardware out of the equation would be a huge loss of sales for Apple, as a lot of people would end up going the "cheapo clone" route. Even Mac users (of which there are a lot that come from the Windows and Linux world, where "cheap" is several notches above in their priority lists than "pretty" and brands are something to be avoided in their petty, "cost-conscious" minds -which usually ends up on these same people pirating the hell out of anything they can get their paws on, arguing that corporations "screw the little guy anyway"-)
Apple uses OSX to sells macs. The cash comes from the macs. Hardware can't be pirated.
Selling just the OS for PCs would dillute enormously the Apple brand, would be a huge loss of earnings and would make Apple go the way of BeOS and NeXT, who also though it was a good idea at the end.
Mind you, selling just the hardware is just as boneheaded, as SGI can readily prove.
That's not really the parallel. Vinyl, tapes, and for 15+ years CDs did not have to compete with digital distribution over the Internet. It's not about the piracy itself, it's about the "path of least resistance" for users. DRM was a huge mistake in the first place, and everyone suffers because of it. Taking it away now would inevitably RAISE prices (rather than lower them by half, as I would prefer), and without DRM, there's no way to tell whether the mp3 was legally acquired or not. Thus, one could no longer effectively prosecute for piracy under that hypothetical system. With that in mind, and given no discernable difference between a 'pirated' mp3 and a purchased one, most users would simply download for free, rather than go through the hoops of setting up a payment system, authenticating at an online store, dealing with low bitrates and incomplete catalogs, and so on. Piracy wasn't a big issue in the past because the authentic product was always decidedly superior and/or easier to acquire. With digital music, it's the reverse, and the only things containing it are the asinine RIAA and its lawsuits...and DRM.captainbeefheat said:
The issue at hand is similar. Windows suffered from the media perceptions of poor performance, stability, and compatibility to the point where a big chunk of the population dislikes it immensely. The reason Windows is still around is because it had already gained the market share and momentum, and they had the benefit of the comparatively "immature" computing world to cut them some slack. If the business market looked like the early 90s (but with today's technology market and press opinions; in other words, if OS X and Windows were both contenders in an undominated market), Windows would NEVER hit 90%+ market share. And OS X simply can't cut into the PC/Windows market with enough force to recoup losses from lower hardware sales and damaging blows from media coverage if it opens up the software to the world.
Microsoft's and/or Windows' success is not an example to support 'viability of going OS-only' because the forces at work and extenuating circumstances are very different today. Likewise, the success of music before 1998 or so isn't an indication of its future.
eduo said:
The trouble with this is that while hardware can't be pirated, just looking at all these recent buzzing and whining complaints seem to show that Apple's hardware isn't all that great either.
Let's draw a parallel with a car.
A Mercedes can't be replicated either, but there are cheap alternatives. Why do people still buy a Mercedes? Simply because:
1) That brand name Mercedes still actually stands for something (aka it is a status symbol, aka^2 my dick may be smaller than yours but I drive a flashier car than you!
)2) A Mercedes is *gasp* actually better.
Don't believe? Take a test drive of a Toyota and a Mercedes and see if you can spot the difference! I'm pretty sure there's heaps.
Likewise better a Mac and a correctly speced PeeCee running a version of OSX, will there be a similar difference? Sadly no, in fact the PC may even come out ahead as being more durable/serviceable. What advantage is there in using a Mac then?
MacDonalds suck really. I wouldn't want their market share...
On the other hand, I would love to see OS X open up onto other boxes. It would be awesome to have other machines running OS X. The only negative is that I would hate to see the price go up as it gets more accessible. I like 129 per OS box very ideally.
On the other hand, I would love to see OS X open up onto other boxes. It would be awesome to have other machines running OS X. The only negative is that I would hate to see the price go up as it gets more accessible. I like 129 per OS box very ideally.
princealfie said:MacDonalds suck really. I wouldn't want their market share...
On the other hand, I would love to see OS X open up onto other boxes. It would be awesome to have other machines running OS X. The only negative is that I would hate to see the price go up as it gets more accessible. I like 129 per OS box very ideally.
tiger isn't as bloated as xp and is much cheaper to develop...the 129 dollar price tag should remain and apple should still make double digit profit marigns off the sale of every copy of tiger, whether it's on an apple made machine or a pc
we are 2-10 percent of the market, based on monthly sales averages, and imgine what 129 dollars a pop on the pc market would yield apple inc...apple would lose some hardware sales (which produce single digit profit margins) but os x spreading like wildfire, like its obvious design would do compared to windows, would give more stability to apple inc
it's no fun being a rare machine on a rare platform and it's about time someone gives mr. gates a real challenge on an operating system...linux may be better than windows, but only marginally so...os x, especially tiger, just rocks over and version of windows and we should trust the public to see that
marginally better operating systems vs windows will fail, but a much better and more affordable operating system is unresistable
if we don't spread os x everywhere, it's likely the dual boot mactels will end up being windows machines for many new customers...deferring to windows out of familiarity
we need to get os x out soon or else we may lose it even on our machines...a certain amount of money needs to come from os x sales, in and out of machines, to justify their existence
Have you SEEN OSx86? Its a ***** to use.
Hardly any drivers, buggy as all hell, and a pain to install and patch. o.o
Hardly any drivers, buggy as all hell, and a pain to install and patch. o.o
Simply Apple makes more money on hardware sales. If you take a look, MS doesn't make barely any money from OEM cd sales - MS's money comes from HP, Dell, Sony saying "Hey, we want your software, here's $$$."
I could see Apple licensing OSX to HP, Dell, or Sony etc. purely on the business scheme of things. If Apple released OEM Mac OSX then nothing would happen. Well, we'd see more pirated copies of OSX out there that's for sure. I'm gonna estimate that over 60% of OEM Windows installs are pirated.
Currently Apple only bundles their software with their hardware much like game disks only work with their respectable console as someone pointed out earlier. This is because, when compared to the only other consumer option, Apple is tiny. Releasing OEM OSX would drastically cut into their hardware sales - because even I must admit that with an OEM OSX I'd buy a tablet PC and throw OSX on it. So instead of Apple getting my 1500 for a MacBook in the next month they'd get a measly $129 or whatever. You might think otherwise and that Apple has enough niché brand loyalty for this to happen. I don't see it that way.
I see Apple's current stradgedy as a smart move. "Want OSX and XP on the same machine? Buy from us." Why let HP, Dell, Sony see profits that would otherwise go to Apple?
I could see Apple licensing OSX to HP, Dell, or Sony etc. purely on the business scheme of things. If Apple released OEM Mac OSX then nothing would happen. Well, we'd see more pirated copies of OSX out there that's for sure. I'm gonna estimate that over 60% of OEM Windows installs are pirated.
Currently Apple only bundles their software with their hardware much like game disks only work with their respectable console as someone pointed out earlier. This is because, when compared to the only other consumer option, Apple is tiny. Releasing OEM OSX would drastically cut into their hardware sales - because even I must admit that with an OEM OSX I'd buy a tablet PC and throw OSX on it. So instead of Apple getting my 1500 for a MacBook in the next month they'd get a measly $129 or whatever. You might think otherwise and that Apple has enough niché brand loyalty for this to happen. I don't see it that way.
I see Apple's current stradgedy as a smart move. "Want OSX and XP on the same machine? Buy from us." Why let HP, Dell, Sony see profits that would otherwise go to Apple?