Why Mac OS X is closed. Need help

[thegreatluke]

Okay, one of my friends who's interested in Macs is wondering why Mac OS X is closed to Macs and Macs only.

I know there are a thousand reasons, but I can't think right now. If any of you could give a website that explains them or explain them yourself, it would be much appreciated.

(I seriously can't find anything about it on the forums, so sorry if this is a duplicate thread.)

 

[mmmcheese]

Okay, one of my friends who's interested in Macs is wondering why Mac OS X is closed to Macs and Macs only.

I know there are a thousand reasons, but I can't think right now. If any of you could give a website that explains them or explain them yourself, it would be much appreciated.

(I seriously can't find anything about it on the forums, so sorry if this is a duplicate thread.)

Because Apple said so.

 

[yippy]

Define "why", seriously, there are two ways that question can be taken. From a technical standpoint of what is out now or from an overall marketing view of Apple.

First of all Apple says you can't for two reasons. 1) That way you buy a Macintosh. 2) This way they control the hardware it runs on, allowing them to have fewer drivers and ensure that the OS runs optimally plus they can style the computer to match the OS.

As for why you can't install OS X on a normal computer now is 1) Apple says you can't so it is illegal 2) more importantly, Mac OS X requires special hardware, particularly the EFI and firmware, that other computers don't have. And the firmware you cannot get as it is Apples secret.

There are probably more, especially from the technical standpoint but I can't think of them off the top of my head right now.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

Because Apple said so.

Ditto.
This is just the way it is.

 

[eva01]

It's illegal to use it on non-mac hardware is the only reason you need

 

[thegreatluke]

Thanks for all the help guys.

I was trying to explain to him why Macs are worth their price (which is hard, but not impssible ) and when I said "because of Mac OS X" he asked why it's not open.

He also thinks every video card you can build-to-order on the online Apple store is crap, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with him anymore.

But I was very certain that this has been discussed to death and there are a million reasons why not? Guess not.

 

[whooleytoo]

Once upon a time all machines were like this, with each machine having its own OS. The idea of being able to buy a generic OS from another company to run on a machine from any vendor is more recent.

Since Apple develops both the hardware and OS, it enables them to provide a more integrated solution. They can provide both the hardware, drivers and application support for any new feature, without being dependent on a 3rd party; and can test the entire solution together rather just piecemeal with other companies products.

 

[thegreatluke]

Once upon a time all machines were like this, with each machine having its own OS. The idea of being able to buy a generic OS from another company to run on a machine from any vendor is more recent.

Since Apple develops both the hardware and OS, it enables them to provide a more integrated solution. They can provide both the hardware, drivers and application support for any new feature, without being dependent on a 3rd party; and can test the entire solution together rather just piecemeal with other companies products.

Why thank you.

 

[Eraserhead]

Okay, one of my friends who's interested in Macs is wondering why Mac OS X is closed to Macs and Macs only.

I know there are a thousand reasons, but I can't think right now. If any of you could give a website that explains them or explain them yourself, it would be much appreciated.

(I seriously can't find anything about it on the forums, so sorry if this is a duplicate thread.)

I think it's for a few reasons

#1 they make a lot of money selling new hardware

#2 they don't have to support lots of different hardware manufacturers, so they can reduce the number of drivers, this helps to improve OS speed and reliability

#3 Apple also doesn't get the blame if the PC manufacturers use sub-standard hardware, I'm sure this is one of the reasons Windows has such a bad reputation.

#4 they can implement changes in hardware for the software to be better and vice versa, eg its difficult for MS to make an MP3 player that is better than the iPod as they are working with third parties.

#5 One of the reasons Apple could move to OS X from OS 9, apart from the lower market share was that it could force their new computers to run it, though Windows manufacturers stuck Windows Me on their PC's even though it was a lot worse than Windows 98.

 

[thegreatluke]

Thank you, but I'm really looking for reasons that wouldn't make Apple look bad?

 

[Chaszmyr]

OSX is the main reason that Macs are worth the price, but not the only reason. The whole Apple experience is just (for the most part, there are plenty of exceptions but they form the minority) a good one

 

[Eraserhead]

He also thinks every video card you can build-to-order on the online Apple store is crap, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with him anymore.

What the Geforce 7800 is crap???

But hey they nVidia make the 7900 (for PC's) now!

Even so I assume he's not gaming on a Mac so who really cares about the video card?

OK some more reasons Apple's are good:

#1 Bluetooth works, iSync is amazing and now supports loads of phones (practically every phone with Bluetooth)

#2 No more yearly reinstalls

#3 They can now run Windows too, so they are the only computer that can run UNIX, Windows and OS X.
etc. etc.

But hey if he's happier with Windows then he should get a PC, that Mac's are better is just an opinion, though its widely supported by every major tech site (CNet, Wired, Engadget ArsTechnica etc. etc.), tech magazine and newspaper with a tech section.

 

[yellow]

I was trying to explain to him why Macs are worth their price (which is hard, but not impssible ) and when I said "because of Mac OS X" he asked why it's not open.

Err... is Microsoft Windows "open"? Is Solaris "open"?

 

[direzz]

i think its stupid that its illeagal. if i buy a copy of mac os x ill do whatever the **** i want with it.

and find me a legal document that actually says its illeagl to run it on non mac hardware.

kthx.

 

[yellow]

i think its stupid that its illeagal. if i buy a copy of mac os x ill do whatever the **** i want with it.

Well, that's a violation of the EULA right there. You don't OWN OS X.. You LICENSE it from Apple when you purchase it.
You own the media, but Apple still owns the software. So, legally, what they say goes.

and find me a legal document that actually says its illeagl to run it on non mac hardware.

kthx.

OK..

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

kthx4playing

 

[thegreatluke]

Err... is Microsoft Windows "open"? Is Solaris "open"?

I meant open as in able to be installed on any computer with the right CPU.

Macs aren't "open" in that way.

Bad wording, sorry.

I explained to him about the whole Mac interface and all the little hardware perks (backlit keyboard, eject button + display/volume controls on the keyboard, 667 MHz RAM, remote, slot-loading drive, etc.) but he told me he doesn't care and he just wants to play games.

I told him to just run Windows then, even if he wants to try out Mac OS X. (The story is that earlier he thought he could put it on any Intel computer, and when I explained to him that he has to get a Mac to run Mac OS X all these questions came up.)

Since he's a mega-gamer, I said Windows might be a good option for him. But still, it really troubles me when people don't understand the greatness of Macs and Mac OS X.

I'm not a huge gamer or anything (all I play is Sims 2, Spore when it comes out, Warcraft III, Starcraft, Diablo II, Civ, etc.) but I've never heard of a new Mac not being able to play a game. (In fact, any game.)

Direzz - It's good to read software/terms of use agreements when you read them. According to Apple's Tiger software agreement policy, "2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time..." and "C. Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof." From here; I believe it comes with every Mac/Mac OS X box and you have to agree to it before using it.
And that's not very true. Most software vendors don't want you reverse engineering their software!
It's like buying a car. Just because you bought it doesn't mean you can't do anything you want with it! You can't speed, you can't run over animals or people, you can't hit other cars and you certainly can't park in the middle of the street! It's the same with anything; just because you bought something, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it!

 

[ahunter3]

It is only an accident of 1980's technological development that you can run the Microsoft operating systems on hardware other than an official IBM-branded PC.

IBM didn't rush out and license or publish instructions to enable Compaq and Gateway and Dell and Toshiba and Hewlett-Packard and the rest of them to create clones of the PC, clones that would run the very same operating system.

I repeat, they DID NOT DO THAT.

What they did do was:

• create the original PC with a high percentage of standard off-the-shelf components, mostly cutting corners there to make it easier to develop a personal computer in a hurry and get it out the door; and

• farm out the development of the OS software to a 3rd party (Microsoft), again cutting corners because they didn't take personal computers (microcomputers) seriously enough to put a lot of their own resources into it.

Then, when the architecture was cloned, and folks could buy PCs that weren't from IBM, thereby cutting into IBM revenue, IBM TRIED BUT FAILED TO:

• develop a new architecture that would be closed, full of proprietary components not so easily cloned. It was called the PS/2, if I recall correctly (not the PlayStation known by the same term, obviously). Google "Micro-channel architecture". They succeeded in developing it, but not in pushing the mainstream conventional clone-PC off the market. MCA died out in fairly short order; and

• develop, in conjunction with Microsoft, a new OS that would supplant DOS. As the OS developer, they could more easily swing a combination hardware/software shift that would leave the clones behind. This was OS/2. Microsoft undercut them with Windows and they parted company and the rest, as they say, is history.


Apple came out with the Mac when Compaq and HP boxes were still called "clones" and "IBM-compatibles"; and had been developing the Mac when the PC was very new and the best-selling computer out there was the Commodore 64.

Until earlier this very year, Macs used a totally different processor than the PC. And the entire internal chipset was originally quite different, not just the CPU — and prior to the era of hardware abstraction, that mattered. Apple was not, therefore, intentionally preventing the Mac OS from running on non-Mac hardware, it simply wasn't devoting the development effort into compiling a totally different version of it that would do so. (And they did experiment with the possibility.").

All these years later, Apple is still making Macs and OS X is a respected OS that only officially & easily runs on Apple Macintosh hardware. IBM is not still making PCs, though. Microsoft, which makes no computers, cranks out the Windows operating system to run on the "PC platform" that arose from the IBM-PC and its clones. Microsoft is ubiquitous and is a wealthy and powerful company, but Windows is moribund and losing respect.

Conclude from that what you will.

 

[Cabbit]

Thanks for all the help guys.

I was trying to explain to him why Macs are worth their price (which is hard, but not impssible ) and when I said "because of Mac OS X" he asked why it's not open.

He also thinks every video card you can build-to-order on the online Apple store is crap, so I'm not even going to bother arguing with him anymore.

But I was very certain that this has been discussed to death and there are a million reasons why not? Guess not.

he's right on the build to order video cards. geforce 6600se on a powermac. we have X1300,X1600,X1800/xt/xtx,X1900/xt/xtx and x1700,x1950 due soon, on nvidea we have geforce 7300,7600,7800/gto/gt/gtx/,7900/gto/gt/gtx. And then you have a imac starting with a x1600 mobility, comon a x1800 mobility is more suted, powermacs sould start with at least a mid range card and not the current low end 6600se. a 7600/7800 would be a better start, the powerbook is underpowered with its x1600, there are mobility x1800 and 7800's what are much more suted to a $2000+ notebook.