Why should apple produce Marklar?

[austincpy]

I believe it's Marklar, the version of OS X that runs on x86 (?, i ain't that fluent in windows, and not trying to be arrogant or anything, but it doesn't matter to me that much) processors. Why would apple want to do this? Sure, people will want to buy Marklar if they can run it on their current computer, but that would about kill their hardware sector (who would want to buy apple's except for looks and a little bit more compatibility if they can get a cheap windows machine that runs OS X?). If any of you see it the same way, thank you, but please tell me why apple would want to do this. I just don't get it!

 

[strider42]

there is absolutely no indication that apple intends on selling this. no one has ever said that they would. rather, everyone seems to agree that apple keeps it around for one reason: a possible exist strategy from the powerPC. That way apple can migrate to x86 if they decided they had to. This does not mean that OS X would run on any PC. Apple uses a boot rom now, they'll use a boot rom in the future to keep the hardware proprietary.

 

[FattyMembrane]

i don't think apple has any real plans for releasing marklar, but if they do, it will not be as an os that will run on any pc (although i may be proved wrong one day). in the event that the mhz gap widens to a point at which apple can no longer sustain a viable computer system, it could build apple computers with x86 processors. osx would only be able to run on these apple branded x86 machines through the requirement of some kind of rom or similar tactic.

 

[austincpy]

Ohhh...

thank you, i thought that there was a possibility that they would produce this, but your explanations make sense. Thanks!

 

[jaykk]

i think its a strong possiblity with the latest developments

otherwise, why would Intel call Steve Jobs as one of their best friend. Ofcourse, pixar deal is just few servers for their rendering. IF Steve really attended an Intel Conference, there is more to it than just few servers Pixar bought

 

[menoinjun]

I don't think that this even provides a good exit strategy for Apple for one specific reason.

Apple has a hard enough time getting third-party software developers to make software for their current ppc-based OS. Yes there is more out there than before, but it still pales in comparison to the x86 side of the world. If Apple released "Marklar" (where did that name come from anyhow? I keep thinking of that South Park episode!!) they would have to convince software developers to make software for the Mac OS on the pc platform! Who are we kidding? Why would software companies do this? Apple would have to have some very serious software-emulation for this to run windows based software, and that would (imho) fail miserably. Yes we already have classic mode, but classic mode for windows? It would basically be virtual pc, and that software program would have to be used for ALL software except Apple-released software made for the x86 Mac OS. It just really isn't possible.

 

[Catfish_Man]

Re: i think its a strong possiblity with the latest developments

Originally posted by jaykk
otherwise, why would Intel call Steve Jobs as one of their best friend. Ofcourse, pixar deal is just few servers for their rendering. IF Steve really attended an Intel Conference, there is more to it than just few servers Pixar bought

eh... 1024 processors? A major animation studio? Also, Intel didn't call Steve their best friend, a guy at Intel did.

 

[gopher]

Nothing's stopping Apple from giving Intel the design for the PPC chip and asking it be made into a faster design with the same specifications. Of course the G4 already is faster in altivec functions. What Apple reallly needs is to communicate more clearly to developers that it is essential they add altivec functions to their program in areas that could speed things up. If you read http://www.macvspc.info/ you'll learn that Macs are capable of as many as 4 times as many floating point calculations a second as all PC processors. If developers paid more attention to processor functions, Apple could easily drop the Mhz rating altogether as it could show that many programs are as fast or faster than PCs. RC5, Blast, and Photoshop are right now the kings where it comes to processor speed on the Mac. Final Cut Pro there is no equivalent on the PC.

 

[kiwi_the_iwik]

There are a few good reasons as to why it might be a good idea for Apple to market Marklar.

1. With the advent of the Dept. of Homeland Security, Microsoft has openly supported the new division of the government, working hand-in-hand with them to make it easier to spy on the publics' computers. Since 85-90% of computer users in the US are on PC's, that's a large percentage. With Microsoft's help, the DHS can access networks through backdoors, and, whether you like it or not, pry into your private life. Because Apple has no such agreement with the government on this issue, security cannot be compromised. Therefore, with OSX - based on a Unix shell - consumers can safely use their computers without fear of invasion of their privacy. More and more PC users are showing their concern about this - it seems that Marklar may be their answer.

2. More software companies will be able to write for OSX - giving Mac users a boost in applications (and, dare I say, games).

3. OSX is far more stable than its XP counterpart.

4. Apple can truly make a fortune from this - look at Microsoft. If Mr. Gates can become a multi-billionaire from an operating system, then Apple is bound to profit from it - of course, getting more money for its R&D division to make lots more yummy products...

5. Apple is already a well-respected hardware and software manufacturer in their own right. If they released Marklar, they would be in a win-win situation - if it failed, they wouldn't have lost out on the large market share they already have. If it suceeded, then you would more than likely see the demise of Microsoft's dominance in the market.

6. Because of the Megahertz gap (a bit of a myth anyway, but extremely psychological to the company, and influential to the masses), Apple will recapture its dominance in the market by using Marklar, thanks to faster Intel & AMD processors.


I'm sure there are other reasons. But the ones mentioned here are definitely food-for-thought...

 

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by kiwi_the_iwik

3. OSX is far more stable than its XP counterpart.

There is a lot I agree with on your post, but I am not sure about this one. One thing that makes Windows unstable is hardware. Apple has total control over hardware and software engineering, making a tight package. When you start to run OSX on any old Intel or AMD beige box with a million combinations of everything, who knows how stable it would be....

 

[benixau]

heres something:

windows is unstable because it has to support millions of hardware combinations. sure, have a driver for each piece yada-yada. but where is QE? where is an OS optimized for a certain processor (i know - mandrake).

apple relies on fixed hardware to integrate its OS better with its hardware.

ms relies on the stupidity of its customers to accept anything they dish out (WPA, PA, 256 character serial keys, windows XP) and to buy the latest version of windows because it is the latest version.

man, apple only forced upgrades with jag.