rumors of Mac OSX on x86

[Timepass]

Another reason is that OS X is compiled for Intel x86 arch. They would have to recompile for AMD and other CPU makers as well.

While the code may run on an AMD it will not run efficiently. Not to mention all motherboard manufactuers they would have to rally support from, or write the drivers themselves.

Umm no they dont have to recompile the code to run on AMD CPUs. Most software is only compiled one time for all X86 cpus. Both Intel and AMD are X86-64 chips. It would not require much if any rework to do it from. As for the mobo manufactuers again not much work to really do. All it is getting the chip set drivers and there really are not that many chip set out there.

It like ATI card are made by a lot of differnt companies but all run of the ATI chip sets so the same drivers work. Only thing Mobo makers would have to do is take the OSX chipset drivers and put them alone side with the XP ones. They dont have to spend the money or the time making the drivers.

 

[Cooknn]

They didnt market it to the people,just a couple of odd companys was it. Consumer is King. Sell to the consumer and he will reward you. Look at at Pods. Play games then be happy with 4% new Pc sales.

I'm in your camp Dont Hurt Me. The argument about Apple being a hardware company is short sighted, IMHO. Microsoft didn't do so bad selling Windows now did they? I'm not complaining though. I dig my Mac and how well OS X runs on it. If it was released to other manufacturers though, compatibility issues could be avoided. Companies like Dell and HP would create specific lines that were perfect for OS X, just like Apple does now. Buy a box that's not on the HCL and deal with your own issues. In the mean time, Apple's software revenue would take it to the stratosphere.

Too bad it will probably never happen though

 

[kevin.rivers]

Umm no they dont have to recompile the code to run on AMD CPUs. Most software is only compiled one time for all X86 cpus. Both Intel and AMD are X86-64 chips. It would not require much if any rework to do it from. As for the mobo manufactuers again not much work to really do. All it is getting the chip set drivers and there really are not that many chip set out there.

It like ATI card are made by a lot of differnt companies but all run of the ATI chip sets so the same drivers work. Only thing Mobo makers would have to do is take the OSX chipset drivers and put them alone side with the XP ones. They dont have to spend the money or the time making the drivers.

Um. They would have to recompile. To take advantage of AMD extensions. Since it would be a general release they would have to make the kernel as general as possible.

BOth AMD and Intel have their own extensions, if Apple took the current build and marketed it, there would be a high slant toward Intel in benchmarks. Thus, they would have to add optimizations for AMD.

I disagree with the amount of work that would need to be done. To make sure it works in the same way it does on Macs. THere are heaps of driver issues in XP. And I built PC's for many years before switching to Mac so I know how it goes.

Anyhow, keeping the Mac platform as it is. Is how it is going to stay. THis is evident with the push for people to run Windows on Macs.

That alone is evidence that Apple views themselves as a hardware company. If it was all about the software, I am sure they would want to keep Windows off of their machines.

 

[matticus008]

I'm in your camp Dont Hurt Me. The argument about Apple being a hardware company is short sighted, IMHO. Microsoft didn't do so bad selling Windows now did they?

How is it short-sighted? They are a hardware company. There's no creative vision involved. Yes, they make great software and that helps them sell their computers. But if you had to put your finger on what brings in the money, it's hardware.

Apple is not Microsoft. It's not like hardware is where the money is for the whole industry--plenty of software firms do just fine without selling hardware. But they have the advantage of not having a history of hardware-based revenue models. Hardware is where the money is for Apple, and that can't magically change on a whim.

They could start selling TVs and DVRs exclusively and phase out Macs, and if that worked, they could then sell OS X generically, but they have to disassociate Mac and Mac OS (and introduce a lineup of products to replace Mac sales) before they make any such move to avoid an implosion. Hardware to software isn't the same as PPC to Intel, not by the longest of long shots.

 

[Scarlet Fever]

i heard someone say that OS X running on an generic computer would be like buying a ferrari, pulling the engine out and tugging it behind a horse.

If you can't afford a Mac, get a job! Mac Minis starting at 1000, cheaper from refurb or ebay! I dont know about their desktops, but Apples portables are priced very competitively with other PC makers.

Apart from the driver issues, running Mac OS X on a generic PC would make you feel saddened, wouldn't it? Part of the Mac OS experience is the hardware.

 

[Timepass]

i heard someone say that OS X running on an generic computer would be like buying a ferrari, pulling the engine out and tugging it behind a horse.

If you can't afford a Mac, get a job! Mac Minis starting at 1000, cheaper from refurb or ebay! I dont know about their desktops, but Apples portables are priced very competitively with other PC makers.

Apart from the driver issues, running Mac OS X on a generic PC would make you feel saddened, wouldn't it? Part of the Mac OS experience is the hardware.

umm would bother me. The APple experince to me is in the software not the hardware. To me apple hardware is all flash and I really dont care about it. but then again I am not an apple worshipper or care about the looks. I care about only the software so the entire hardware part means little to noughting to me.

And btw I just going to say I have an issue with a lot of people acting snobish when it comes to apple it an aura that people hate and dont want to touch apple because to many apple users are snobs.

 

[Cooknn]

How is it short-sighted? They are a hardware company. There's no creative vision involved. Yes, they make great software and that helps them sell their computers. But if you had to put your finger on what brings in the money, it's hardware.

Short sighted because they fail to look beyond the hardware sales to see what would be possible if they cut OS X loose to other manufacturers. It would be a huge risk, I admit. But the payoff would be phenominal, IMHO.

 

[kevin.rivers]

umm would bother me. The APple experince to me is in the software not the hardware. To me apple hardware is all flash and I really dont care about it. but then again I am not an apple worshipper or care about the looks. I care about only the software so the entire hardware part means little to noughting to me.

And btw I just going to say I have an issue with a lot of people acting snobish when it comes to apple it an aura that people hate and dont want to touch apple because to many apple users are snobs.

Quick news flash SOME PC people are snobs as well. You can't lump everyone into one category(Apple users) and give them a characteristic(snobish). That is called stereotyping, and that is bad.

Also, If people don't want to touch Apple because of this false stereotype. I feel sorry for them, for being so petty.

Also, please work on your writing. It is very hard to understand what you are saying sometimes. Not trying to be mean here, but you try to prove someone wrong, yet your points rarely make sense.

 

[Timepass]

Quick news flash SOME PC people are snobs as well. You can't lump everyone into one category(Apple users) and give them a characteristic(snobish). That is called stereotyping, and that is bad.

Also, If people don't want to touch Apple because of this false stereotype. I feel sorry for them, for being so petty.

Also, please work on your writing. It is very hard to understand what you are saying sometimes. Not trying to be mean here, but you try to prove someone wrong, yet your points rarely make sense.

never said all apple users are that way but it no point argueing that they are not worse than everyone else.

The new Apple add only add to this illision. I hate that because it only add to the veiw a lot of the world have of apple users. The better than thou attude and very snobish about it.

And yeah it is called steriotyping and I just pointed out the apple steriotype. A sterotype that needs to change but to change it that would require a lot of people to stop attacking that way. There no argue that apple users have that sterotype to them. A lot of people add to it and it true for much larger % than PC users. So it is the image that apple gained. A bad one that should be sheaded but it takes apple users CHANGING.

I point it out because it makes me sick that people add to it so much.

 

[funkychunkz]

And besides, they'd have to offer support, drivers maybe. I don't think they could handle the real PC market and that would ruin the whole hardware-software philosophy of having things very integrated and whatnot.

 

[axel2078]

umm would bother me. The APple experince to me is in the software not the hardware. To me apple hardware is all flash and I really dont care about it. but then again I am not an apple worshipper or care about the looks. I care about only the software so the entire hardware part means little to noughting to me.

And btw I just going to say I have an issue with a lot of people acting snobish when it comes to apple it an aura that people hate and dont want to touch apple because to many apple users are snobs.

I agree with you here. If Mac OS X could run fine on standard (generic) hardware, then what's wrong with that? All you pocket protector-wearing, bean counters put down the calculators for a second and drop the "it wouldn't be economically feasable....it's all about the hardware...it isn't technologically possible" whinefest for a second. Imagine a world where it was feasable and it worked. (Intel chips are a nice start) Now.....does it matter which hardware its on if it works? To me, it's about the software. That's why I run Linux at home. It works great and I don't have to buy a proprietary machine to use it.

 

[Chundles]

I agree with you here. If Mac OS X could run fine on standard (generic) hardware, then what's wrong with that? All you pocket protector-wearing, bean counters put down the calculators for a second and drop the "it wouldn't be economically feasable....it's all about the hardware...it isn't technologically possible" whinefest for a second. Imagine a world where it was feasable and it worked. (Intel chips are a nice start) Now.....does it matter which hardware its on if it works? To me, it's about the software. That's why I run Linux at home. It works great and I don't have to buy a proprietary machine to use it.

It is all about the software, but for Mac OSX to work as seamlessly as it does there needs to be some control over the hardware it runs on. I don't want to have to deal with bloat and conflicts as all sorts of configurations are created and must be supported, I want an OS that does exactly what I want without any fart-arsing about.

Apple aren't going to sink millions into a programme to make OSX generic-friendly on the chance that a tiny, tiiiiiny fraction of the PC-using community will buy their OS at the low, low price of US$129. They're going to sink millions into creating decent hardware configurations within magnificently designed enclosures to entice a slightly higher fraction of the PC community over (the ones that go "oooh, shiny...") and spend upwards of US$599.

Yes we can all dream of a day when Windows is no more and Windows users no longer put up with a crap OS but that day is a long, long way away.

As they say, wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

 

[Coheebuzz]

First of all, transforming Apple from a hard/soft company to a software company requires a complete business model change. This is not something that could be done from a one day to another, nor something that could be kept secret since investors come to play with these kind of changes. Also one thing that hasn't changed since the beginning is Apple's goal in the tech field and that is make technology transparent for the user - and the only way to do this is, is by controlling the hardware.

The decision of Apple to switch to Intel has nothing in common with this case. They did it out of necessity and everyone knows they held until the last minute to switch. And i don't see any reason with the current financial state of Apple to sell out OS X.

Am kinda bothered when people say that the reason they don't release it for generic x86 machines, is to force you to buy their overpriced hardware. Just because Bill Gates decided to license Windows to every single monkey vendor out there, what makes his business strategy the de-jure standard??

To bring up the car analogy again, it's like demanding from AcmeAuto to release their super 1000bhp zero-fuel engine to all other car manufactures just because <insert your own reason here>. Really, any reason would sound stupid since they worked hard for it and they should be allowed the prize. You want that tech? Buy a car from them.

my 2 grand

 

[Shadow]

I am with Coheebuzz on this one. There's no way Apple should release OS X to PC-manufactures-if people want the more secure, easy to use OS they should simply buy from Apple. Apple have worked extremley hard to get where they are ATM (with regards to software), why should they give that up (which is what they would be doing)?

 

[SheriffParker]

In my opinion, I see nothing wrong with Apple releasing a generic version of osx and continuing to make computers. I think they would do very well. Apple computers are not more expensive than a similarly equipped PC. Apple computers are a higher quality, and I think people realize that.

You also want support from Apple. Despite the horror stories that are rampant on this forum, I have always had a great experience dealing with Apple support. Any problem I have, they fix. Now, to get Applecare, a better design, better quality hardware, and a more integrated experience between the OS and the hardware, a lot of people are going to buy Apple computers.

If osx is available to the public, people will be more inclined to use it. Once you get used to it, most windows users won't go back. Windows is a terrible OS. Most people are afraid to try Apple because they don't want to sink thousands of dollars into something they are unsure about. However, I'm sure they would try it if it were as simple as buying the CDs at Best-Buy or whatever. Vista is going to be a disaster, so people are going to need an alternative.

One more thing. If people are claiming that the only reason people buy apple computers is because of osx, then that must mean they aren't very good computers.

Given that they are roughly the same price, and if I got my choice of OS, I would buy an Apple computer over an HP or a Dell. I think they are better, higher quality, and better looking than other computers. There is something great about the Apple hardware, and I think people would continue to buy it even if they can run osx on a PC.

The new converts would all start buying Apple hardware to get the fullest user experience, and Apple could be sitting pretty.