Apple orders Mac sites to remove OS X on x86 videos - Page 3

I completely agree. Viruses and spyware have NEVER been an issue with me. And I've used mac since 84. Some attribute that to our measily 3% market share.

I was at a CyberSecurity conference for school and the guy that was speaking worked for microsoft in security. He said that everybody that works with him uses either Mac or Linux, none of them use Windows. That's because they of all people know the risks involved with using it! He said that Apple's low market share doesn't make them an appealing target, but that's only one factor. Microsoft has made some very very bad decisions concerning security. Microsoft's ActiveX technology was an example he used.

I think that unless microsoft makes leaps and bounds improvement in security with Vista/Longhorn people will get fed up and ditch windows for Apple. Obviously, not overnight, but I think that Apple is gaining a lot of momentum. And I don't think that Vista will be significantly more secure. From what I hear, the update will be backwards compatible. How can you move on if you're desperate to hang on to all your old virus ridden technology.

I'm anxious to see how Apple will grow in the next few years! I don't think they'll need to license OS X to do that either. If I'm Joe Schmo, and I need a new computer, which one am I going to buy? Virus ridden crap, or pretty, sleak, and innovative hardware and software in one complete package? Remember, Apple will grow by luring new computer buyers to their hardware not by luring existing computer owners to their operating system. Because eventually those existing computer owners are going to need to buy a new computer!

From what I understand. Intel would like to advance and move on from its standard x86 architecture. Which from what I understand Itanium was supposed to do.

The reason Intel is stuck with its current architecture is because the PC world wants to maintain legacy compatibility.

Apple on the other hand has no connection with PC legacy and has no need to support the current x86 architecture.

This frees the Apple/Intel collaboration to come up with interesting new chips and designs.

Apple is a maverick, and has never had a history of just falling into place with what the industry standards.

I believe the collaboration will yield interesting surprises.

You can edit anything with less than 3 ghz, the problem comes with rendering...The thought of rendering HD on a 1.6 GHz laptop (PC OR MAC) makes me laugh so hard that I nearly piss myself...SD mprg2 rendering takes about 1.5x the length of the clip to render on an AMD 3000+/1gb ram/80gb/100gb/NV 6800 under premere or Vagas...I have seen it done nearly as fast on a 3.2GHZ/1gb laptop, but a 1.6 for HD??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



I gotta wonder what inside track you have on what the requierments for 10.5 or Vista will be at ship time. It WIL:L run, the gui may be a little differant but it will certinly run...in both cases

If a comparison is what you want, try this, my MINI cant fucking run TIGER to its potential...a 9200...what a fucking joke that is...I cant wait to see what I can't do in 10.5

I really love Mac OSX, but for the ~$700 that I paid for the mini and tiger was well spent, but, I would have much rather spent 200$ on the OS, then $500 on PC upgrades, like a 6800, 2gb ram, 200 GB hdd and a DVD burner...which is better I ask...

You do have a choice.

Buy into the Mac platform or don't.

No one forced you.

Just because you can't afford to buy a good model, doesn't mean you can dis all apple hardware

I've been seeing this alot recently. People buy a Mac Mini and expect great things from it! What is the deal with that? Mac Mini was designed for the average consumer who will do email, internet, word processing, etc. not power users.

Windows sucks. What's your point?

Ding, ding, ding!!!

We have a winner, you are correct my friend and there are soooooo many others just like you. My only problem is not with what you are wanting to do, I fully agree. My only problem is that I think that Apple should have a narrow line of machines that they support for this, and the only reason that I have that problem is because of the idea that, if they took this approach, Apple would be way behind in drivers, and not be able the end customer something remotely close to the Mac experiance. I still think that Apple could clean-up here and be better for it. The other reason that I weary of trying to support all things PC, is that it could hamper security, and that would be very bad.

[EDIT] The very best situation would be for Apple to license the OS for OEMs like Dell, Sony, etc, and to have them only put it on a curtain line of computers, that all include the copyright chip, which Apple would utilize fully. [/EDIT]

You sure about that? Because I can install FreeBSD 5.0 on the PC and turn off 'virus protection' and all the other stuff, and leave it for 2 years running and it will not have any virii.

Don't make the mistake common folk make. Windows != PC.

Yea genius, I was referring to Windows.

I don't see the need to refer to Windows as 'a PC', because Macs are PCs too.

And be kind enough to acknowledge the fact that you used the wrong term instead of replying in a knee-jerk manner. Don't worry. Nobody is switching to the 'dark side' - and you can continue drinking your Kool-Aid.

Don't make the same mistake. FreeBSD ain't very personal, install that and you either have a server or a workstation. No PC in sight. Split the semantics and ignore common usage at your own peril.

Contrary to what you say, there are people who are not scared of playing around with FreeBSD and can install and use it as a personal desktop.

The point, though, was that PC does not equal Windows and that there are equal, if not more, secure OSs than OS X. The example could have easily been Linux, or something totally different.

I think that most, if not all of us, can understand the difference between PC/Windows and PC/BSD or PC/Linux, but thank you for clearing that up. Time to return to the thread topic, which by the way you appear to be a big backer of the security benefits that the MacOSX has. I too see that security should be something that Apple should exploit to its full advantage.

Windows dominates the PC platform! What is it, like 95% or so?

Therefore, most people, when referring to PCs are referring to Windows. So if a distinction needs to be made, it will.

I don't think much new will come out of this. Apple doesn't represent big sales to Intel. Apple came to intel to get cheap chips from a company that cared about desktop CPUs. Diving into another expensive niche platform negates those benefits. Apple most certainly is tied to the x86 ISA now. Going to a new platform would break compatibility with what they're trying to develop now. Sure they could do some more emulation but that has drawbacks. This platform shuffle every year keeps businesses away when they can buy windows and know they will be supported for a minimum of 5 years.

The problem is that people have it back-asswords...PC is NOT a subtype of windows, in the same way Cola is not a subtype of Coke, Coke is in fact a subtype of cola and Windows is a subtype of PC, there are others, BSD, Linux, OS/2 Be-OS Mac (yes, Macs are Personal Computers)

The Mac will remain a niche until it can be installed on any x86 computer. Think of it this way: for everybody who hacks Mac OS X to run on their PC, Apple is losing $129. Why not offer it as a supported solution instead?

The ones that hack OS X to run on their PCs are unlikely to buy OS X even if it were offered as a supported solution.

That's patently false. First because it assumes (yes, assumes) that these hackers would actually buy Mac OS X instead of, oh well, download it for free from torrent sites, and second because it assumes (yet again) that they would buy a new (or upgrade an existing) computer just to make this run.

Remember, it requires at least SSE3 which many PCs don't have, and while it's possible to install it in PCs that have SSE2 (my Sony Vaio Pentium M 2.0 Ghz from 1.5 year ago has only SSE2 for example) it is not easy, and it involves extra hacking and patching.

This is the same argument that RIAA and MPAA use: they are losing money because of P2P, yet numerous studies have shown that they are actually making billions of dollars more because of P2P and people that have the chance to try the music before they buy it.

Plus, Apple is actually gaining a lot of stuff; free publicity being one of them. Can you count how many times you have seen this posted on different news sites? That's all marketing, but a very subtle one. People will think: if others are going through all these hoops just to get OS X run on their PCs, then OS X must be very good. And they will most likely want to try it, and what is the most natural way of trying OS X if you're not a geek and have no clue where to get patched versions of OS X? Why an Apple Store, of course!

Apple will sell an x86 copy of OS X, you'll be able to pick it up at Best Buy right next to Windows XP, and at $129 it will be a steal. Millions will buy it. Sales of Macs will increase - selling overpriced PC hardware is something Apple has expertise in, and Alienware has proven its possible on the Windows side - but revenue from hardware sales will fall far behind revenue from OS X, and the iPod/iTunes Music Store.

Apple's marketshare will be measured in 'OS X' marketshare, conservatively I believe OS X will creep up near 10% OS marketshare.

These are just my predictions, but for what it's worth I've put my own money on it.

My current Mac is an AMD64 Venice core, the iBook still pulls up the rear.

I agree. And I haven't heard any convincing reason how Apple could offer OS X as a supported solution for third party Intel-based systems if they intend to remain profitable selling their own systems ...

Attempting to emphasize that point with a comparison, Sun Microsystems comes to mind when thinking of companies doing something similar. Yes, Solaris x86 runs on systems Sun doesn't produce, but also on SPARC-based systems they do (still) produce whereas Apple has announced a complete transition (AFAWK) from their PPC-based products by the end of 2007. Although there's some overlap, the markets that Apple and Sun compete in also have significant differences. With OS X opened to third party hardware, I have serious doubts whether Apple's Intel-only-based hardware business could lucratively survive in its market as Sun is somehow managing to do it (barely?) with Solaris and its hardware.

Wouldn't the time to officially support OS X on other hardware be if sales of Apple's own systems weren't profitable enough? Otherwise, they may be risking killing hardware sales by doing it sooner. Heck, this all becomes quickly overspeculative without any actual products and sales numbers.

Well, I'm currently researching a PC to replace my G5, and if it ends up with Mac OS X on it, all the better.

So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.

Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.

If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.

Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.

Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.

Expanding a bit on kim kap sol's last post, here's brief speculation on Apple's strategy for its Intel-based computer business ...

Being able to run OS X and other operating systems on Intel-based Macs could be one reason some people will consider a Mac when they're buying a new computer, if pricing is competitive enough.

For now I see Apple remaining uninterested in licensing/supporting OS X on non-Apple computers, giving them the distinct advantage of running it on their own hardware while also not doing anything to prevent other OSs from running on it. Apple may figure enough people buying new computers will be interested in the capability of running every major OS (OS X, Windows, Linux), especially business customers. And "switcher" gamers, I guess. Enough that Apple wouldn't be concerned with making OS X available for older, non-Apple computers. And would it really be unlike Apple to behave that way.

Until now buying a Mac has always excluded most people from running anything but OS X on it. Looking forward with the scenario I've described, buying a computer other than a Mac could become a less desirable alternative in enough situations for Apple to take advantage of.

I would like to take this one step further. I wold like to see Apple license the OS to curtain vendors that will use curtain Intel chip sets. One of the reasons that I would like to see this is for one thing. WARNING FUD: MS has said that they will no longer support OpenGL in their OS, instead opting for their own solution DirectX9 or something like that. If this is the case then I could see the video card vendors asking themselves why support OpenGL when it is only 5% of the market. This is a play by MS to consolidate an advantage and force the others, Apple et all, to respond. This transition could take some time like a few years to play out, but if Apple could show serious gains then it would lessen the affect of the MS play. END FUD I do think that this is the way to go to get to those people that would like to try the Mac, key word try. If I were trying a Mac and I found that if I did not like it I could sell it or use it to serve music or prop a door open, the answer would be no way, too risky for the money. I might do that for small dollars but for me to pluck down $500 or more I would like to know that if things did not work out I could still walk down to the Comp Store and buy a copy of Windows, (the devil I know), load it on to my computer and I'm back to a windows way of computing. I see the Intel hardware as a big step in this direction but I see being able to buy the whole thing from Dell, or Sony, or etc., to be an extension of removing the fear barrier that may confront some customers.

So, Apple is going to risk cannibalizing its own computer sales by licensing OS X to other vendors?

I'm not convinced that Apple is as interested in having OS X run on as many different computers as possible as they are in selling as many of their own computers as possible with OS X (and even other OSs) running on them. Of course no one knows what'll happen after the first Intel Macs are released. If profits are too low then licensing OS X might be a worthwhile strategy. Otherwise, the benefits for them (not us ) of doing it any sooner elude me.

Actually Intel has been pursuing Apple for the past few years. Its just now recently Apple decided to buy what they are selling.

The most important question really is why does Intel want Apple's business? Its true Apple would not represent big sales for Intel.

Lets look at the dynamics.

Apple and PowerPC have worked well in integration. For most of the past five years PowerPC even at intermittent times has kept par with Pentium mathematics even at slower clock speeds.

For the past five years Intel has been in a creative funk and and somewhat void of innovation. AMD has much better processors. Intel at this point needs to be challenged and needs a focus. Apple can help provide that focus.


Apple has shown in the past that being an expensive niche player is not necessarily the worst place to be. Many people assume that Apple's transitioning to x86 will now join the rank and file of other x86 OEM's. This is not true to Apple's history at all.

One thing we do know Apple being such a small company when they make choices and decisions they have to do so with respect to years down the line.

So I believe Apple already knows what its going to do next year and even the year after that. All of this lays the groundwork for five years from now.

It seems the current developer OSX x86 is a preview. A base from which developers can begin the transition. This may not point the way Apple is headed when Tiger for x86 is released.

The current developer OS does not even address EM64T. And by late '06 Leopard should certainly be based on that extension.

At this point its difficult to say if Apple is completely irreversibly tying itself to x86. But what I do believe is that Apple will continue to deliver what it believes as a superior computing experience. And often that does not follow what everyone else is doing.

Brendon you are saying the same thing over and over.

And what you are saying is exactly what Apple has said they won't do.

Why Apple will not and should not do that has been expressed in this thread many times.

If you want to continue your current arguement, you will need to show how Apple could possibly survive if it did open OS X to the wider x86 world.

Apple would then compete with Microsoft directly on Microsoft's terms. Apple would also kill its extremely profitable hardware business.

Explain how Apple could survive this.

Over all the argument for Apple opening OS X is being made by those who want to build their own boxes. Those who are willing to buy expensive components and tweek for their own needs.

This is also a very small niche.

I have a Mac because I do believe the Mac to be a superior platform. I am not interested in building my own computer. I just want to buy one that works. I want to install applications, plug in peripherals, and all of this to work with little effort from me.

And that is what the Mac provides.

For example:

I live in New York. At the Jet Blue terminal in JFK airport they have free WiFi.

My last trip I sat with my PowerBook surfing the web.

During the time I wait for my flight, I have three people come to me asking if I were able to get online.

I tell them yes I was online.

They tell me they are having trouble connecting wirelessly to the internet. They are all using PC laptops and Windows.

Two of the people I offer to look at their connection software. I'm not sure if this was the connection software that comes with XP or a third party app, but both were very confusing. One I figured out, but the other was beyond my knowledge.

I showed them both how simple it is to connect using a Mac. How using the Air Traffic Control widget in Dashboard makes it even more simple.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper. After all, the only thing that Intel is making is the motherboard and the CPU. If the motherboard became $0.00, that would only be a $70 price drop. And the Intel CPUs are marginally less expensive than the PPC970, and they'll only get more expensive when they become dual-core across the line.

Right now, I'm seeing $1200 as the maximum price for a computer with a sizzling AMD 3800+ and a 7800 Ultra. Do you think a Powermac is going to be cheaper than that? Ever? Didn't think so.

So the lesson of the story is... you were using Mac OS X. You can do that on a PC too, you know!

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! Any further discussions of "open OS X to the wider x86 world" advocacy that ignores those specific points is a futile waste of my time. Thanks for expressing them more clearer than I was able to.

... stated as you conveniently avoid responding to the first part of his post:

It runs on standard Dells as well.

I knows its conjecture at this point.

But I doubt OSx86 will run on a Dell as well as it will run on a Macintel.

What would be the point of buying a Mac, if OS X were not optimized for Mac hardware.

Once Mac OS X Intel is released, it will run better.

Ok, I'm curious, how many people here are PC users that are simply desperate for OS X on their boxes?

Let's step back a minute here. Why did Apple switch to Intel processors? Well because they want to be more like PCs so that they can start marketing their Operating System to the masses of course! The reason Apple has moved to Intel is because the PPC processor isn't keeping up with what they want to do. They want to be able to update their ibook and powerbook line with faster processors! They need Intel for the new products they've envisioned! They want better processors! Steve made all of the reasons for the switch very clear at the WWDC. It has nothing to do with opening up Mac OS X to the public. People should know by now that Steve, by all indications, would never do that. He's never even implied that he would ever do such a thing, why do you all of the sudden think he will? It just doesn't make any sense at all. Think like a vulcan ! It'd be horribly illogical.

In addition to all that, supposing for a second they do, (just SUPPOSING). I would be very upset because then I wouldn't be able to wow all of my friends with my awesome computer. If everybody owned a Rolls Royce, it wouldn't be a novelty.

And your point is ...? Would you like us to condone that pirated, hacked, pre-release versions of x86 OS X are running on computers other than a Mac?

I'm not going to reboot that topic.

Better than or on what? Than it is right now? Or on non-Macintel boxes? It wasn't clear which you meant.

Better than a similarly clocked/equipped PPC.