or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple VP says Mac OS X won't run on other PCs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple VP says Mac OS X won't run on other PCs - Page 2

post #41 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right, I know that. Barriers to entry and all of that. But if Apple can get some momentum going...it becomes more realistic me-thinks.

What would be truly interesting would be "Yellow Box" seeing the light of day. Providing something like Xcode for Windows...creating a situation where developers could reate Windows applications using Xcode...and...oh by the way...your applications have a secret "alternate identity"...they could also be built for OS X.

Balmer, for all of his primate-like antics, is right...it is about "Developers! Developers! Developers!"...or at least "Applications! Applications! Applications!"...which are brought to us by "Developers! Developers! Developers!"

But even if you could run your existing software you've got to transfer your settings etc. which you can't do from one windows machine to another very easily (obviously the Mac is slightly better) BUT no-one will want to switch all the time. Unlike switching from a Ford to a Peugeot it's not easy to switch from Windows to Mac (or any other OS for that matter). I am fluent on both and still would be daunted by it.
post #42 of 104
I think it's great that XP will be bootable.
post #43 of 104


I doubt that either Longhorn or Leopard will allow you to hack into the OS's or new appz for that matter. I believe that with hardware DRM the days of piracy will soon be over. I can't imagine a developer NOT utilizing DRM once its available. Ergo end of piracy as we know of it today. I certainly expect old (nee ancient) software to work on these new DRM'ed systems/OS's, but any new software will only run after being given the OK from the DRM logic.

How MIGHT they do this (extremely speculative)?

The standard start is CPU serialization (an old method used on *NIX workstations) combined with some proven state-of-the-art encryption (Can you say quantum mechanics? You can get this technology TODAY). This is followed by the fact that the hardware DRM will execute 1-2 orders of magnitude faster then any software hack (thus your hack can never answer the DRM question fast enough, also the DRM algorithms will be sufficiently complex that you can't throw 100 CPU's at the problem (because the algorithm is woefully inefficient to parallization/vectorization algorithms)). You can also use several other tricks such as inherent (although slight) differences in each CPU's latency coupled with a random number generator (algorithm) implemented in hardware. Or another standard way is communication with an outside source (via the internet, via POTS, cell phone, wire, wireless, or satellite phone) before allowing the software to run.

I'll just a get copy of these algorithms, you say? Do you have the formula for Coke, KFC, or gold from Fort Knox? Didn't think so. But who knows, maybe your better at B&E than I am? It won't be easy like the DVD encryption algorithm (If I remember correctly, this was a matter of public record since that Nordic guy obtained a copy from the appropriate court document, geez even I can do that in 10 seconds with a copying machine).

Geez, how can I use my legally bought/licensed software on my desktop and my laptop? You wont, just read any standard EULA, one concurrent seat. Period (unless you buy multiple licenses (CPU SN specific keys), perhaps at some nominal cost).

I'll just reverse engineer the CPU itself, you say? What if the methods (mechanical/chemical/electrical) you employ destroy the very thing you are trying to observe under your electron microscope/digital capture device? Steal a 300mm wafer (or bare CPU or photograph) from the factory? Good luck (see reference to Fort Knox above). Get your best buds at Intel to leak the algorithm? Geez, I dont know, but since the algorithm is in HARDWARE (see above), you will have to go to the PRC (where I doubt very much that they will have the same state-of-the-art CPU capabilities that Intel has), rent a $6 billion fab and ROLL YOUR OWN (Oops, but what SNs do I use, I dont have access to Intels database of legit SNs, now do I?).

Somehow, I just can't see that methods that have worked in the past will work going forward. The only real reason some of these strategies haven't been employed in the mainstream desktop arena today has been for the sake of backward compatibility. For example, if I recall correctly Longhorn has very specific hardware requirements (which I believe include hardware DRM)? Thus, no more new warez/appz/crackz/etc..

Now lets talk about DARPAnet2, shall we (I can speculate on that too)?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #44 of 104
I've always liked the idea of switching to a Mac, but never actually done it due to several compatibility issues, lack of gaming, and other stuff. But it would be ideal if I could dual-boot Windows and OS X on one machine, whether it be a Mac or a Windows machine. I would probably prefer to just put it on my built PC (for cost reasons), but if that isn't possible, (and assuming Windows runs perfectly) I would definitely make my next computer a Mac.

I think if Apple plays it smart, they'll make sure Windows runs perfectly (and easy to set up) because there are a ton of people just like me. They know their money comes from hardware and they need to give consumers as many reasons as possible to switch over. And I would assume Microsoft wouldn't care either because they would still sell the same number of copies of Windows anyway.
post #45 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by albrad84
I think if Apple plays it smart, they'll make sure Windows runs perfectly (and easy to set up) because there are a ton of people just like me. They know their money comes from hardware and they need to give consumers as many reasons as possible to switch over. And I would assume Microsoft wouldn't care either because they would still sell the same number of copies of Windows anyway.

Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.
post #46 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
But if the potatoes have bad bruises, go off quickly, don't taste good and are difficult to peel they would look for a new supplier when they run out. This is the current switcher market.

True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.\
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #47 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:

Soft Drinks: Coke & Pepsi
Cars: GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler, Nissan, Honda
TV: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox
Newspapers in any big city...2...3 max.
Computers: HP, Dell, Lenevo(IBM), Sony
Airlines: United, American, Delta

Why not OSes?

My examples are probably in need of some tweaks, but you get the point.

But, then, we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.


Okay, but it has to be more than 2. With MS we have found that the short term positive about having only one basic OS - only one code of DNA - is that things can be simpler and implemented more quickly. Just like in Nature though, simplicity creates instability. Unlike cola's that don't get viruses, both living organisms and computers need a diverse DNA to handle both "climate changes" and "viral attacks" to survive as systems in the LONG term.

All of the examples you gave are unstable, short-term situations that eventually create disease and senescence. Also drinking Coke doesn't somehow prevent you from drinking Sprite.

Analogies sometimes don't work so good.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple does not compete against Linux for future IT sales. Apple and Linux compete against Microsoft for future IT sales.

Let's be clear. Linux and BSD based OS X will cooperate much better for the Fortune 100 and 500. They still have to compete against SUN, HP and IBM. This doesn't even include the Federal Markets.

The big question will be if Apple is really serious about helping taking out Microsoft and its Enterprise solutions, and be satisfied with a solid marketshare, but not a leading marketshare.

Microsoft knows Linux is eating heavily into its Enterprise Server Revenues.

Linux isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.

Apple isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.

The content creation and enterprise software development arenas is where Apple wants to grow. Content creation includes more than Artists. It includes all forms of media content, from the News to Hollywood.

Either way Intel has to step up and support both Apple and Linux or see AMD embrace them with future open arms.

I agree, mostly. I think that Apple has slowly been working enterprise at a low level and created good products and a good buzz and with Intel inside maybe IT dept. see one more mental block fade away. I really wonder what the server road map with Intel looks like on Jobs' desk.

This is a perfect example how an undiverse ecosystem has been proven to be inherently risky and unstable. Occasionally some company will dominate for a while but it can't last. With the current threats of crime and terrorism, the web and enterprise systems must be heterogenious. The simple free market can't simply be allowed dictate monopolistic systems or the system will be under threat. Even Linux or Apple shouldn't support it all.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #49 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.\

Well that's been the issue for so long. Do you just jump in and fight it out head to head with M$? Until now, the answer was an easy "NO!" But you are correct that with Tiger now and Longhorn a long way away, this would be the best time to do so.

I hated it when Jobs cancelled the clones. It made Sony and Motorolla both kind of pissed off and that is too bad, though I know the survival of Apple required it at the time. Apple needs to sell you the solution and it HAS had brief times where its hardware and OS could kick Wintel butt. Unfortunately those times only lasted a few months and usually the hardware side would fade.

Apple can still compete on price and performance and hit both hard and give you (with all yer meally potatoes) a reason to switch, but I think Jobs felt that the only way to do so long term is to be with Intel.

So with Intel in 5 years, Apple may be able to double its market share in consumers AND make both s/w and h/w money and still be the coolest computer on the planet. (Dell, even if it comes up with its "Lexus" models will still be running XP.) And Apple thinks it will be better off with 7% of the whole widget market than 20% of the Wintel world just as a software bundle.

At least for now.

To sell Tiger to all Intel boxes now would just force M$ to start giving it away. It would hurt its profits and stock price, but a nearly free XP will still be enough to keep OSX from making many inroads and at the end of the day, what would Apple get?
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #50 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by MacGregor
Well that's been the issue for so long. Do you just jump in and fight it out head to head with M$? Until now, the answer was an easy "NO!" But you are correct that with Tiger now and Longhorn a long way away, this would be the best time to do so.

I hated it when Jobs cancelled the clones. It made Sony and Motorolla both kind of pissed off and that is too bad, though I know the survival of Apple required it at the time. Apple needs to sell you the solution and it HAS had brief times where its hardware and OS could kick Wintel butt. Unfortunately those times only lasted a few months and usually the hardware side would fade.

Apple can still compete on price and performance and hit both hard and give you (with all yer meally potatoes) a reason to switch, but I think Jobs felt that the only way to do so long term is to be with Intel.

So with Intel in 5 years, Apple may be able to double its market share in consumers AND make both s/w and h/w money and still be the coolest computer on the planet. (Dell, even if it comes up with its "Lexus" models will still be running XP.) And Apple thinks it will be better off with 7% of the whole widget market than 20% of the Wintel world just as a software bundle.

At least for now.

To sell Tiger to all Intel boxes now would just force M$ to start giving it away. It would hurt its profits and stock price, but a nearly free XP will still be enough to keep OSX from making many inroads and at the end of the day, what would Apple get?

Interesting argument but are we really sure Microsoft would give away Windows? I dont think they would , they are still seelling xbox for a loss arent they? All Apple needs to kick their arse is a Appleworks7/office thingy. Apple is the Software king in my Book but they want to sell those Chineese Made Macs. My old quicksilver made in California........those were the days though it still had a slow PPC 733. Apples Strength is its Software. what have they been waiting for? Jesus's return???
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #51 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Interesting argument but are we really sure Microsoft would give away Windows? I dont think they would , they are still seelling xbox for a loss arent they? All Apple needs to kick their arse is a Appleworks7/office thingy. Apple is the Software king in my Book but they want to sell those Chineese Made Macs. My old quicksilver made in California........those were the days though it still had a slow PPC 733. Apples Strength is its Software. what have they been waiting for? Jesus's return???

I'm sorry you seem to have such an issue with the Chinese, but you may need to get over it.

The market place is hard to quantify.
Apple sells about 3% of the market, but its installed base is closer to 5% and it has recently been shown to account for over 10% of 3rd party software sales. Interesting!?!? Even with "free" iApps, Mac owners buy more software than PC owners, especially per capita.

The unwashed masses still buy cheap boxes, play some games, have free and unsecure Hotmail accounts, get Diet Pepsi by the barrel at Wal-Marts and download illegal music. How much of that market does Apple need or want. Jobs would say "None, thanks."

He does know that servers are a market worth going for and he knows media is a market worth going for and in that market he doesn't need to sell software to Dell.

I would love to peer into an alternate universe, though, in which Apple sold OSX to Dell. Just see what Microsoft would do, but I don't know yet that I want to live in that universe.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #52 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Why do you want to do this?

I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap. If i'm forced to use an Intel/Mac computer cost will be alot higher.

I have no problem paying for OSX. And I would if they released it for the x86.
post #53 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
So... if you only want PART of a product, ethics don't matter? You're happy to steal that part?

I consider the OS the product. The rest of the Intel/Mac is just a PC with a simple restriction built into the OS preventing me from running it on other PC's.

If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.

If they release OSX with no restriction and I can run it on my PC I will buy it and be very happy to.
post #54 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.

IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED

The Intel Mac developer kits boot XP.
post #55 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.\

Apple won't do this because there'd be no reason to buy a new potatoe, er, umm, I mean new hardware. You'd then be able to run OS X on a crappy clone. Goodbye hardware profit. Lest you forget Apple's heritage: They were born from a hardware company, so they'll never stop making Apple Hardware.
post #56 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED

The Intel Mac developer kits boot XP.

Link please? So far, all I've seen is some one-off comment on another message board by someone I don't recognize.
post #57 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by archer75
If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.

I don't know if I'd go through a fit for anything MS does with windows but the point is... two wrongs don't make a right.

Getting angry at MS is fine. Starting a campaign against them is fine. Boycotting them is fine. But I would NOT steal their software.

If I needed Word and they only sold Office together, I would not pirate Word just because I consider Word "a product" that isn't for sale.

But you apparently find it ethical to pirate OS X, just because you want to. Because don't like how Apple sells it only with Macs.

It is Apple's right to decide if--and when and how--they support other computer makers. It's between their shareholders, their programmers, and their marketers.

Tell Apple what you want, here:
http://apple.com/feedback

But if they don't do what you want, it doesn't give anyone the right to pirate their work.
post #58 of 104
I don't think apple will ever let OS X run any any one else's computer one of there selling points on there website is quote "Only with a Mac do you find absolutely flawless integration of hardware and software. " Steve jobs said he was thinking ahead by making a intel version of OS X for the last 5 years. Wouldn't he be thinking lets not open all these stores if where going to sell the rights to dell to sell much cheaper then we are? and plus they are spending to much money opening new apple stores all over the world. just to give dell the right to make box's 300 dollars cheaper. yes some one may hack OS X and get it running on a windows pc. but not every one will be able to do that so it will not impact anything. I don't think Steve jobs is all about making money or he would not pay him self 1 dollar a year. And would have sold OS X to other company's years ago
post #59 of 104
If I can dualboot into windows when I want to play Halflife and boot back to MAC for 99% of my work. Guess what, I will be a 100% Apple customer even if there is a premium. Right now the Mac Mini is my only Mac and I really like what I get with OSX but I still use my windows PC due to games etc..
post #60 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by jasenj1
Hack? It's called VirtualPC. Microsoft owns and makes it. I predict VirtualPC for Mac Intel will ship the same day as the first Intel based Mac, no hackery involved.

Microsoft sells OS and app software. VPC allows them to sell a Windows licence, the VPC license, and whatever MS written Windows software users (legally) run. From that angle, this is a big win for MS, as they won't need(?) to jump through as many hoops to provide Wintel PC emulation on the Mac. They better just hope Windows under VPC doesn't turn out to be faster than Windows running on a native PC.

- Jasen.

VirtualPC?. You are funny!!!. No, he is right, give it a few days and a real hack will emerge, not some emulator.
post #61 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by TednDi
Um,

I think a_greer is saying give it 6 weeks and you will be able to run OS X on your crappy dell or homebuilt PC.

I disagree. I think there will be a custom mobo with custom chipset(s). An emulator? perhaps but remember the apple legal dogs? I am sure that they have the lawsuit written already and are just waiting to fill in the blank where the name goes.

Why not?. so what if the mac will require a custom chipset?. The mac operating system will have to detect that custom chipset, it will be possible to isolate the code that has to detect the chipset, it would be possible to remove the code or alter it not to need to detect the chipset. This is just one approach, i am sure the hackers will think of many.
post #62 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.

I kinda agree to some sense with you but i am wondering. Are you an employee of apple?. You speak so emphatically about what apple will and will not do. You must be a board member or in some position to influence apple. You don't even say you "think" you say "apple will not". Wow, hey, how is it like working at apple, can you get me a job?
post #63 of 104
For those of you who haven't been around as Mac users for very long, Apple is first and foremost a computer hardware company. That's where they make most of their money. Yes, they also have the iPod, however, it still is not their "bread and butter" so to speak. It may in the near future take over that position, which is probably why Apple feels they can comfortably make the transition to Intel at this time.

Being a computer hardware company, I seriously doubt they would begin to sell OS X for other computer manufacturers given the current state of the company, i.e. doing well. They could however change their minds if the hardware division is not performing as well as they'd like.

I honestly believe they could still thrive as a hardware company even if they did decide to let loose OS X. I would still buy an Apple made computer even if there were cheaper alternatives available. The quality of Apple's systems and their excellent customer service cannot be beat by anyone else in the industry. (The same cannot be said when Apple first licensed it's OS.) True, it will most certainly hurt their computer hardware business, but most of the loss there would be made up by the sales of OS X (especially to corporate sales). I would also think they wouldn't allow any of that to happen unless their consumer electronics (iPod) division *really* takes off and they feel sales here could also cover any loss elsewhere in the company.

Given the history of Steve Jobs and NeXT, I also believe that someday we will see a cross-platform version of Cocoa (I'm sure it's already leading a secret double life in Cupertino). Can you imagine a developer using Xcode (on an OS X system) being able to code and compile their application once and have it run on any system, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, or OS X, regardless of CPU. This portability was one of OpenStep's greatest attributes and it is still in fact built into OS X - there is a reason they kept "bundles" around, which is used to keep resources/data separated from the binaries/code.

I also believe these "Universal binaries" will be a permanent fixture in OS X and enable Apple the extreme flexibility it needs; possibly PowerPC/Altivec based systems for engineering/scientific applications and Intel based systems for the mass consumer market. After all, it's not like they have to retool their own manufacturing facilities, they just need to design the system and contract it out just as they do now.

Anyway, just my two cents on the subject.

-schizzylogic
post #64 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by archer75
I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap.

So you aren't the market Apple is targeting at this time.
post #65 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by archer75
I consider the OS the product.

It isn't the product Apple is selling. Apple is selling a product that consists of hardware and software. This isn't what everyone is looking for (obviously). But it isn't a bad thing altogether either.

Quote:
Originally posted by archer75
If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.

They do...here and here.

Quote:
Originally posted by archer75
If they release OSX with no restriction and I can run it on my PC I will buy it and be very happy to.

Perhaps someday they will.
post #66 of 104
Quote:
So... if you only want PART of a product, ethics don't matter? You're happy to steal that part?

Define "ethics".
post #67 of 104
Apple has designed a great potato peeler that works great with their specially bread potato. It makes sense to sell them together. If they let their peeler work with generic potatoes, you would have a peeler that was either ridiculed because it was extremely slowly on the wrong size potatoes or you would have to change the peeler to work with all potatoes which would make the peeler huge and harder to use. Sure there are some potatoes that it would work great with, such as your home grown potatoes, but there would be even more potatoes that it would not work well with. And in the end what is the purpose? Is it to create a great potato? NO! Is it to create a great generic potato peeler? NO! Its to create a peeler that works with a specific potato so well that your kids will beg for the opportunity to help make dinner.

On a side note, I suppose they wont be selling a boxed version of Tiger for Intel because there are no older MacTel boxes to upgrade. The only legal way to get a copy that you could try to use on your home grown PC would be to buy new MacTel hardware. You would then have you erase it off your Mac and assume that the clause about only using it on Apple hardware was not legal and thus not binding in law or in your conscious.

Alexander the Great
Please ask me to clarify what I have said if it doesn't make sense.
Reply
Please ask me to clarify what I have said if it doesn't make sense.
Reply
post #68 of 104
MacOS X Leopard will start having serial numbers that will be verified by an Apple Verification server and will combine unique ID numbers of certain hardware (motherboard components)..

And we all know how well THAT worked with WinXP...
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #69 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades They do a great job styling their machine but the real value is the OS. why not sell that OS to everyone? Rant over.....


They will do much better than that - they will sell cheap mac's with ability to run MS Windows (i.e for games or some apps that do not exist on mac platform) PLUS extra bonus - the world's famous Mac OS X! Let's say we have Dell and Mac with the same or near price, but Mac also have all that nice stuff like design, iApps, AND MacOS X. So which do you buy? I bet on Mac. I have three machines now - Powerbook, Powermac and a cheap Athlon PC which is for games only, why whould i need this peace of crap if i can run Windows on a Mac as a second OS? Switch to Intel is a great move for Apple and it will increase both hardware and software sales. I was dissapointed at first time but not now. Apple to the masses! and sorry for my english :-)
post #70 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by archer75
I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap. If i'm forced to use an Intel/Mac computer cost will be alot higher.

I have no problem paying for OSX. And I would if they released it for the x86.

It's the integration with the hardware that makes OS X so great. It would be complicated for Apple to support lots of PCs - as well as costly.
post #71 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by ZO
MacOS X Leopard will start having serial numbers that will be verified by an Apple Verification server and will combine unique ID numbers of certain hardware (motherboard components)..

And we all know how well THAT worked with WinXP...

I think this is unlikely -Apple only sells its software to Mac OS X users so doesn't use serial codes on the OS. I think a hardware component will be needed to boot OS X and this will stop PC users using it.
post #72 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by AquaMac
.... Also the R&D for making the OS portable on all combinations of chips and hardware is cost prohibitive. If you can think of a way around these problems I would love to hear it. BTW using stupid with out supporting evidence makes your argument weaker not stronger.


Who knows that they haven't spent the last 5 odd years secretly developing drivers and other stuff that can support loads of systems.....


Perhaps after Stevey has got everybody to buy a new Mac-Tel system and the the transition is finished (paid by us).. Only then will it be reveiled!!!..
post #73 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
VirtualPC?. You are funny!!!. No, he is right, give it a few days and a real hack will emerge, not some emulator.

Yes, I totally missed the idea that a MacIntel could be a "standard" PC able to boot (and fully run) Windows natively, out of the box. I assumed Apple would use a highly proprietary chipset, firmware, etc.

And as to OS X running on beige boxes, I suppose it will be possible that CERTAIN manufacturers or custom boxes will duplicate the hardware Apple chooses to use and thus be usable - if unsupported. (You still have that picky license agreement that says OS X is only to be run on Apple hardware, but that's a minor detail. )

I doubt many people will buy MacIntels to just run Windows on, or will buy PCs to run OS X on. But certainly the tinkerer/hobbiest/hacker community will, license agreements be damned. If Apple keeps the MacIntel "open" with the ability to boot and run Windows, I'm sure places like Tom's Hardware and other hard-core sites will benchmark and compare them to Dells, HPs, etc. And if OS X is runnable on standard PCs, I'm sure we'll see benchmarks of Windows vs OS X on various boxes.

I don't know which would be a better strategy for Apple, leave OS X able to run on any properly configured "generic" box, or put in just enough hardware checking to lock OS X to Apple hardware. As has been mentioned, hackers will certainly try (and likely find) a way to bypass any such locks. Even a full-blown proprietary chipset & firmware won't keep them away.

True hardware parity puts Apple in the tough spot of REALLY having to compete on OS superiority alone. Not that I think they'll lose that comparison, but using not only the same CPU as everyone else, but also very similar system components levels the field a LOT.

Definitely interesting times ahead.

- Jasen.
post #74 of 104
So, I'm just catching up on the tail end of this, and I am really not one to delve into all of the "software/hardware" tweeks like the rest of you, but why would Apple really be so against booting OSX on a wintel machine?

After all, wasn't one of Steve's main deflections away from the "switching to Intel!?" gasp, "It's the OS, not the hardware".

So I guess it really is the OS, at least if you only run it on Apple hardware?
post #75 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
It's the integration with the hardware that makes OS X so great. It would be complicated for Apple to support lots of PCs - as well as costly.

Actually, microsoft doesn't do it now. Dell and other pc makers are tasked with making sure their systems run microsoft well and if you have a problem with windows on a dell, you call dell (i suppose you could call microsoft too). Apple support problem would be easy. They would require the pc manafacturer to provide support. They wouldn't have to worry about making os X for multiple components, rather, the pc manufacturers would have to make sure their hardware is compatible with mac OS X. Apple can institute a program where only hardware that it deems worthy can have an apple logo on the box. So all manufacturers would have to submit to apple a prototype of the box they will build and apple can then certify the box. The manufactures will pay for this privelege (call it membership to apple certification program). If it was that costly, how is microsoft still in business?. Everything i said above shows that appls would not bear any of the cost. Apple can even make the standards for passing certification very stringent. If apple choses not to allow their operating system to run on other boxes, cost will not have been a factor. Their desire to control the entire process is the only reason they wouldn't do it.
post #76 of 104
If apple wanted other companys to be able to run OS X. they could have done this long before they decided to switch to Intel as he said OS X has been running on intel for 5 years. it would have been no problem to keep IBM and sell a copy of OS X intel to dell/hp etc. apple clearly want to make there own computers.
post #77 of 104
I can't see Apple doing a wide license of OS X to all OEM's.

All of these companies don't even have the same business model.

Dell and Gateway are mostly interested in selling the most and the cheapest computers possible. Dell's emphasis is on making more profit with the least over head. Gateway's emphasis is on actually being alive next year. These two would not make a good match at all.

Sony and HP make a closer match for Apple. Sony sells designer computer's just like Apple and would likely adhere to strict design rules. Licensing to HP would more benefit in the enterprise market. HP can more effectively spread OS X in business than Apple by itself.
post #78 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by syno
If apple wanted other companys to be able to run OS X. they could have done this long before they decided to switch to Intel ....

And you know this how?
post #79 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by syno
If apple wanted other companys to be able to run OS X. they could have done this long before they decided to switch to Intel ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you know this how?


He knows this because Mac OSX has always been compiled to run on intel chips. Apple could have licensed it to PC manufacturers had it been so inclined. As to whether apple would have wanted to do this, obviously not!!.
He was observing Apple's capability to have licensed the operating system, not its intention or inclination to license.
post #80 of 104
Quote:
Originally posted by wnurse
He knows this because Mac OSX has always been compiled to run on intel chips. Apple could have licensed it to PC manufacturers had it been so inclined. As to whether apple would have wanted to do this, obviously not!!.
He was observing Apple's capability to have licensed the operating system, not its intention or inclination to license.

However, no software would work on it so it would have been a huge success! Hey developers while switching to OS X can you write two copies of your program. One for OS X on Intel and one for the PPC. Seems likely!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple VP says Mac OS X won't run on other PCs