If OS X ran on PCs...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
...what do you think would happen?



How would the world respond?



In other words, if people didn't have to upgrade their hardware and could simply go buy Mac OS X for, say, $99 (Jaguar and whatever comes after) and stick it on their Gateways, Dells, etc. do you think some people would?



A lot of people?



Curious types? Those frustrated with Windows?



Do you think it would change anything?



Hurt Apple or help Apple?



I know that in the past several months, any and all PC users I've shown my iMac to and have shown them iTunes, iPhoto, Address Book, the whole look and feel of OS X, Software Update, iChat, etc. REALLY get excited and exclaim some sort of variation of "Ohmigosh...that's so COOL! I had no idea..." or whatever.



Usually followed immediately with "I JUST bought this new [PC of whatever brand], but I wish I could use that!"



I don't know...was just thinking. I don't know all the technical reasons why it can or can't, so I'm not really talking about that. Of course there would have to be a separate "tweaked" version, I'm sure.



Let's talk beyond the tech stuff of "how" and so forth and just think of it in terms of Apple's presence in the world, the impact it would (or could) have on the computer-using population, etc.



I don't know enough to know if it would be a good, positive thing...or a horrible experiment that would dilute the uniqueness of the whole Mac vibe.







Your take?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Wasn't there a lot of talk about this very subject earlier this year and last year too?



    Does anyone think there's the slightest remote possibility that this could happen anytime soon? Like, for instance, next week?







    Just kidding.



    But what happened to all that talk about it?



    And does anyone know, for sure, what Woz is doing at the thing next week? Is he going to be at the keynote? Talking? Telling old garage stories to the crowd?



    :confused:



    Does his presence there point to something pretty major?



    I don't know...I'm asking.



  • Reply 2 of 33
    odds are, you have all these people with different computers, and different hardware inside. throw OSX on there and you'll have all sorts of problems. no drivers, conflicts left and right.



    to keep osx clean, the hardware control is necessary. they have enough trouble with 3rd party members as is. last thing they need is 100 times as many vendors. they're better off keeping this clean and tight, IMO.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Apple is not prepared for it. Apple is a hardware company. Apple can't just sell OS X for x86 as well, as that would make too many people just use OS X on x86 instead of PPC computers. Apple can't sell x86 computers either as there are too many people capable of cloning them.



    What will rather happen is that some Darwin / PPC enthusiasts will be able to make Darwin work on AmigaOne or similar PPC platforms, essentially porting OS X to them. At the same time, Darwin / x86 enthusiasts (if they exist at all) could build a cool window server and all that, use some GNUStep stuff, and perhaps could be able to create a free operating system that is very superior to Linux in terms of Desktop / end-user usability, runs on the same machines that Walmart is selling for $199 or something, and look (perhaps) just as cool as OS X. *That* would be a real threat to Microsoft, and they can't do *any*thing about it.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Interesting. Yeah, that's probably about right. I wasn't really thinking from a hardcore, "real world" scenario of economics and business issues. More of a cool "what if..." perspective.



    But everything you two say is probably right. Apple couldn't just survive selling an OS and a few PPC machines.



    So all my PC-using buddies are going to have to simply buy a Mac if they're THAT impressed with the OS, huh?







    That would, indeed, be the far easier solution.



  • Reply 5 of 33
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I know if we could do that then my next computer would be a PC
  • Reply 6 of 33
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I think the Mac OS would be as successful as the BeOS on PCs.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    Mac OS X on PC's?



    Linux would get fücked. People can disagree here, but as a linux user myself and as a member of a fairly high-brow linux group, I'll tell you now and remind you later that just about everyone in the group wishes OS X ran on PC's.



    But the bottom line is that this switch doesn't really bring in a whole lot of new users, and may not be worth the added cost of getting X to work on PC's seamlessly.



    And it gets back to my point about the top 5 reasons why the average person buys a PC and not a Mac.



    5) Status quo

    4) Status quo

    3) Status quo

    2) Status quo

    1) Status quo
  • Reply 8 of 33
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    here is what i would like to see (but won't)



    Apple Press Release:

    As of today, Apple Computer will begin selling, with a partnership with "Dell" (any respectable PC company will do) the first of a new generation of PC's that are faster, and more stable then ever before. Today Apple and Dell have announced the first PC running Mac OS 10.x. Now PC users can still purchase a PC and have the option of running the best Operating System on the market. To thank early adopters and enthusiasts, Apple and Dell will be selling any iPod at half price with a purchase of "(whatever they call it)".



    It would still be more expensive then other PC's but apple would get a cut of the sales, and that is would be the way to start



    my only question is, where would they put the turbo?
  • Reply 9 of 33
    It would hurt apple, lots of people who potentially would have bought macs would just pirate osx, YES they would just pirate it, seen as i dont know a single pc user who has bought windows(which is basically every person i actually know) seen as they all just pass round copies of 98/2000/xp over the years. Also i think alot of osx app development would stop, i mean why make an osx version when most of your audience can just boot into windows to use it?



    Besides I've managed to get 3 of my creative friends (1 sound chap and 2 designers) to switch to mac for their next machines which they should have by summer, and my dad wants one but probably best he doesnt seen as all he uses is office and email and can do that on the old comp with no problems.



    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: sushiism ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 33
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by sushiism:

    <strong>It would hurt apple, lots of people who potentially would have bought macs would just pirate osx

    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: sushiism ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, see it would be computer specific, OS X would only run on that PC until apple slowly increased the software and drivers for it to go to 2 models, and then slowly up until it had a strong enough software base to carry it. Meanwhile keeping up the main (PPC) part of Apple Computer. You can't pirate software that has only drivers for one computer.
  • Reply 11 of 33
    well, I for one won't be buying a mac again (last mac bought was in April 2000, but it's still up and running). For the 4 PC's I've bought since, however, I'd love to get Mac OS X. Heck, I would have absolutely no problem paying the $199 for the 5-license version.



    I'd probably keep XP Pro on my laptop, Win2k Server as the default on my server, 2nd boot to SuSE linux (as currently set up), and 3rd to Mac OS X.



    But, for the 2 workstation machines that my g/f and I use a lot, I'd dual boot those OS X first, Win2k second (mostly for games, she and I love games!).



    But, I don't think it's economically feasible for apple to do this, so I'll just stick to windows, and let my g/f use the iMac for school planning in OS 9, and running [email protected] when booted into Jag the rest of the time.



    neye
  • Reply 12 of 33
    If they can make it a sustainable business model- then I'm all for it.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    To me it would be fantastic if OSX was available for the PC platform. I assume the Name would possibly be different.



    Unfortunatly I dont think that Apple would ever make such a move. I think the development costs would be too much for them and upon the release of it sales of macs would presumably drop, well eventually I guess (I think :confused: ). My rational behind that was if it was on PC and work almost flawlesly many wouldnt bother with the High price of Apples.



    As I sit here and ponder this topic it excites me but at the Same time it would be odd if OSX was for PC. Would it be the demise of Apple, from the hardware perspective. (I would still buy a mac..... I think)
  • Reply 14 of 33
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    The purity must be maintained! The purity must be maintained!!!



    Barto



    PS Nooooo... I'm melting!!!
  • Reply 15 of 33
    <insert very important point about Apple being a hardware company>

    <insert point about piracy, refer to first point about profit>

    <insert point about incompatibilies with 3rd party PC hardware>

    <insert point about still not running Windows binaries>

    <insert very important point about developers having to completely abandon and rewrite any PPC-optimized or AltiVec code>

    <insert very important point about clones canibalizing Apple sales>



    Really, do we have to rehash this story every other month? \
  • Reply 16 of 33
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    If it is really possible, Apple is doomed.



    OS X is the reason why I use a Mac and become oblivious to its poor price-performance ratio.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    This has only been discussed a million times before. But whatever. I don't think it'll happen. Apple makes much more money on hardware than software. And if they DID have to make much more money on software (hardware sales would dwindle if OS X were available for PCs that cost less than a CRT iMac and outperform the top-of-the-line PowerMacs), they would have to resort to draconian measures to prevent piracy, just like MS. I hope it doesn't happen, even though I'd love to run OS X on a homebuilt $400 Athlon XP system with a Radeon 8500.
  • Reply 18 of 33
    On Topic: It would be a problem, maybe, because Developers would have to write whole new code for Cocoa and other system parts and the way Programs deal with the Systems they are on. Seems like too much of a hassle unless Apple could make a way that any Cocoa program could run on both the same way.. otherwise, you just get a really good, stable, state of the art operating system with no Watson <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    OFF Topic: Apple is also a hardware company and they would be damned if they allowed one half to destory the other half. That is like the left side of the body cutting open its side of the brain...it will still affect the right side... With the iPod, it was different because there was no threat to any part of Apple if they started to sell Windows ones... So, i dont see it happening <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 19 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by Brad:

    <strong>&lt;insert very important point about Apple being a hardware company&gt;

    &lt;insert point about piracy, refer to first point about profit&gt;

    &lt;insert point about incompatibilies with 3rd party PC hardware&gt;

    &lt;insert point about still not running Windows binaries&gt;

    &lt;insert very important point about developers having to completely abandon and rewrite any PPC-optimized or AltiVec code&gt;

    &lt;insert very important point about clones canibalizing Apple sales&gt;



    Really, do we have to rehash this story every other month? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    [ 12-31-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Should have locked this thread after your post. It seems there is nothing to talk about here.



    I think I forgot every single point you made when I made my post. And to think they are all so obvious.
  • Reply 20 of 33
    [quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:

    <strong>On Topic: It would be a problem, maybe, because Developers would have to write whole new code for Cocoa and other system parts and the way Programs deal with the Systems they are on. Seems like too much of a hassle unless Apple could make a way that any Cocoa program could run on both the same way.. otherwise, you just get a really good, stable, state of the art operating system with no Watson</strong><hr></blockquote>Cocoa apps would be the easiest to get running since Cocoa is a direct descendent from the once-x86 NeXTSTEP system. Carbon is questionable and Classic is just out of the question. Making "fat" binaries is already quite possible thanks to Mac OS X's .app package structure. Rather than use the Contents/MacOS directory, a separate binary would conceivably go in Contents/x86 or similar. All the nibs and other resources would be shared. In fact, the early DP releases of Mac OS X's developer tools had options for x86 builds and fat binaries.
Sign In or Register to comment.