MacOS ~ Intel..."possible" says Intel Chief
It just wont go away....
But the man does raise an interesting idea about a chip being able to function for two OS's at the same time...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_n...fm?NewsID=7146
But the man does raise an interesting idea about a chip being able to function for two OS's at the same time...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_n...fm?NewsID=7146
Comments
1. One OS X becomes a huge success, that would lead to decline in mac hardware sales (as people who bought Apple hardware would feel cheated and would no longer require Apple hardware as customers would have a choice of building their own home pc or maybe buying a Dell), leading to loses for Apple, second even if Apple puts a Firmware that would only allow Apple branded Intel Machines to run OS X, what about RISC architecture that Apple has been promoting through out. That would lead to major confidence loss, actually that would mean that Apple lied all along about the RISC being superior to the CISC. One more thing Microsoft would squash Apple like a bug if Apple went on to Intel side, don't forget that. Just because an idea sounds good does not mean it's practical.
2. Incase Apple's OS X is a failure on the Intel side, that would give Apple a bad reputation and would lelad to decline in sales of both the Apple sofware and hardware.
Not to forget that Apple is primarily a hardware company and not a software company. The Intel CEO doesn't care about Apple, he wants monopoly, we are not in a communist world, it's good we have variety. Just my 2 cents.
teve Jobs is trying to appeal more to the Intel base.
I think Apple is already doing this with the G5.
When the G5 fully and completly surpasses intel performance six months from now - pehraps a shovel will be driven through the head of this poor suffering beaten horse.
Originally posted by Moogs
The beaten and bloody horse that just would... not.... DIE.
Yep.
Just because Apple makes their money on personal computer hardware today (excluding the ipod), does not mean that's how they'll make their money tommorow. It can even be argued that the margins that Apple makes on their hardware are actually derived from value-added software; namely MacOS X and the iApps.
I can assure you that Apple would be a much bigger company today if it was selling $89 copies of Mac OS X on Intel to 98% of the computing population rather than $3200 G5's to 2%.
OK, flame away.
Personally I think it would be a viable chance to do something like taht. Theres a lot of people who like the choice of their computer manufacturer, and think the OS is just something thats a part of it when in reality they have options they don't know they have.
Originally posted by dogboy
I can assure you that Apple would be a much bigger company today if it was selling $89 copies of Mac OS X on Intel to 98% of the computing population rather than $3200 G5's to 2%.
OK, flame away.
Apple has margins in the 28% range on their hardware. As well, Apple would not be able to achieve the "integration" they have now, which is a big reason things like the iPod are doing so well.
Apple moving to intel is one thing ... but moving from a vertical to horizontal business model would be a retarted move.
Originally posted by dogboy
Ignoring how they attained their position, what company is the most powerful in technology today. What do they sell... that's right folks, software.
Just because Apple makes their money on personal computer hardware today (excluding the ipod), does not mean that's how they'll make their money tommorow. It can even be argued that the margins that Apple makes on their hardware are actually derived from value-added software; namely MacOS X and the iApps.
I can assure you that Apple would be a much bigger company today if it was selling $89 copies of Mac OS X on Intel to 98% of the computing population rather than $3200 G5's to 2%.
OK, flame away.
Ok. Sun tried it and failed with Solaris. The problem is that nobody makes drivers for Solaris. So its still limited in what hardware it can use. Even Microsoft, with its gazillion bazillion dollars of blood-money, cannot keep up with all the hardware coming and going on the PC platform. What makes you think Apple would be able to support enough PC hardware to even make a dent in that PC population.
Then you have all the problems of buggy drivers (put together by a hand full of hacks in asia, no doubt), poorly designed hardware, etc... Who would get blamed? APPLE
die, thread.. die.
Edit: I just read the article. That intel guy is a jerk. This from a guy whos company is currently having its ass fed to them by their competitors. He should just shut up and go help his engineers.
What Apple needs is to expand it's market share to say 10 or 15 % of the PeeCee market while fully controlling the hardware as it presently does.
It could achieve this by providing a "piggy back" chip that offers full 32 & 64 bit functioning with the ability to run both OS-X and ( windows or Linux ) OS systems in native mode without the need of emulator.
The OS-X suite would naturally come as standard, with the Apple customer deciding on their own needs re incorporated OS's via the 32 bit piggy back chip.
This way Apple could control the flow of such chips to those incorporated into their machines...No one else could get them....
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
put together by a hand full of hacks in asia, no doubt
Yeah, just like your Mac and your RAM, no doubt.
Idiot.
I suggest that we merge them
Thanks in advance
Please continue in the thread link in Powerdoc's post.