Should Apple port OSX to work on PC's
I have no reason to believe this would ever happen BUT do you think it should?
I always go back to this argument in my head. The ultimate switching mechanism is OSX. If Apple were to ever make a version of OSX that functioned on an Intel based machine how would it reflect marketshare? I dont mean a Virtual OSX-type version, the real thing. What would be the benefits and the obsticles associated with this and what stops them from doing this?
Any thoughts?
I always go back to this argument in my head. The ultimate switching mechanism is OSX. If Apple were to ever make a version of OSX that functioned on an Intel based machine how would it reflect marketshare? I dont mean a Virtual OSX-type version, the real thing. What would be the benefits and the obsticles associated with this and what stops them from doing this?
Any thoughts?
Comments
Darwin has been available for a long time, and relatively speaking, no one has written drivers for it.
There are tons of drivers that would need to be written for OS X to play well on PCs. Tons. And all programs would have to be recompiled. Altivec doesn't exist on PCs. A lot of optimizations rely on Altivec.
People would hate Mac OS X if these drivers were missing and if it ran dog slow on their PC. And if every possible drivers were written and every peripheral ever made worked perfectly and it ran really fast on a PC, why would someone buy a Mac? There goes Apple's money-maker.
Originally posted by Playmaker
I have no reason to believe this would ever happen BUT do you think it should?
I always go back to this argument in my head. The ultimate switching mechanism is OSX. If Apple were to ever make a version of OSX that functioned on an Intel based machine how would it reflect marketshare? I dont mean a Virtual OSX-type version, the real thing. What would be the benefits and the obsticles associated with this and what stops them from doing this?
Any thoughts?
Linux can compete with Microsoft on Intel hardware because Linux is free. MacOS X cannot be made available free of charge to Intel-compatible hardware users. There is simply no example of a retail operating system succeeding against Microsoft Windows on Intel hardware.
I do think Apple should start selling their harware like PC vendor's do, I dislike the AIO desktops and I dont understand why screen size is so important when determining the price of a laptop. I can buy a PC laptop with a 15" screen (yes widescreen too if I want) for under $1500, reasonably configured (less if unreasonably configured).
Why so cheap ? because it might use a Celeron M or an AMD Mobile chip as opposed to the Pentium M which might be okay for my needs. According to Apple, the G4 is enough for my needs and if I want a larger screen I'll pay a premium for it.
Originally posted by bunge
Hardware will be free soon, or at least sooner or later. When that day comes OS X will have to be ready. So the answer to your question is yes, but Apple needs to find a way to make money off of other software as well as the OS.
In the prospective model of "free" hardware, the software will be available by subscription from Microsoft. This is essentially a sole-source model and Apple wouldn't be the source.
Originally posted by bunge
Hardware will be free soon, or at least sooner or later. When that day comes OS X will have to be ready. So the answer to your question is yes, but Apple needs to find a way to make money off of other software as well as the OS.
Actually, this will be a very interesting development. Not only will hardware soon be nearly free but all parameters we think of as restrictions will recede to the horizon. Cheap computers will be fast enough, with huge hard drives, vast memory, etc. Only specialists will still care about high performance machines.
How will this affect Apple? Perhaps it will be good. If the machine costs $50 or $100 why not pay another $200 or so for a software package from Apple?
MS too will feel some discomfort. How will they get by charging $400 for office and $200 or $300 for windows when the machine costs $100? Get a cheap machine with Linux. Get a quality machine with Apple. If MS cuts their software prices to ~$50 that will cripple their revenue and kill their stock price.
Fifteen years ago I nearly injured myself carrying a 10MB hard drive that cost thousands of dollars. Now I carry a 256MB USB drive that cost $50 in my pocket.
I have seen this in other industries. It can be very disruptive.
On topic: No, Apple should not provide OS X for Intel. It would be horribly expensive and disruptive and there would be little benefit. Especially in a few years. If Apple can hold on for a few more years (no reason they won't) then they will face a whole different set of problems than the issue of OS X for Intel.
it would ruin Apple.
The ease of taking OSX ti X86 is as the ease of Frodo taking the ring to Mordor.
Be prepared to incur the wrath of Sauron from his Redmond perch.
I would rather get a PC which supports all the hardawre I need and run OSX (and Windows)on it.
I use Apple because of their OS and their superior design. But if I could run OSX on a PC I would sacrifice the design for being able to use all Professional Video Cards, SoundCards, and for that matter have the ability to run Windows with all the programs that are not supported on OSX.
It would be the perfect Computer. All the programs and Hardware under OSX....
Someday....
But they don't really care because everyone who runs OS X, pirated or not, has to run it on a Apple-built box, and there is currently no way to pirate hardware. A mac costs 10 times as much as a copy of OS X, and there is no need for copy protection or any of the other problems associated with a software-based business. This is why Apple remains a multi-billion dollar company despite having only 5% market share.
If Apple wanted greater distribution of Mac OS X, or wanted business and education customers to be able to run it on cheap PCs then the obvious solution would be to allow Apple clones again. Dell could make PPC boxes with a lot less hassle and cost overhead than Apple could make a dual-platform OS. But then why do you think Apple cancelled the clones in the first place? Because people buying cheap third-party Macs is not to Apple's advantage.
Frankly it would make more sense for Apple to start making PCs that run Windows from a business standpoint, since there might actually be a substantial market for Windows users who want state-of-the-art hardware that looks cool.
As to this issue of free hardware, I can't see it happening any time soon. If Bill Gates wants to start handing out free PCs then that's his prerogative, but I doubt that Apple is going down that road.
Yes you can buy a shitty spec'd PC for next to nothing its still going to cost you $50+.
Dobby.
Originally posted by dobby
Why do people think hardware will be free at any time.
Yes you can buy a shitty spec'd PC for next to nothing its still going to cost you $50+.
Dobby.
I assume that what people are referring to is Bill Gates proposed future business model for computing, which is that computers will be simplified to be essentially internet terminals. All your documents will be stored online on Microsoft servers, and all software will be "rented" so that you pay per minute rather than buying outright.
Since the computer won't need a hard disk, it will probably be fairly cheap and I expect the idea is Microsoft will subsidise the hardware too since it will create more customers for them. They may simply issue computers free to any customers who subscribe, hence the free hardware idea.
It has benefits of course; Your documents will be stored on reliable, backed up servers, you never have to worry about losing your software installation disks, and your software may be cheaper unless you're a power user. And you'll never have to upgrade - you'll always have the latest version. Your computer will be free, and because you rent it, if it breaks down you'll just be sent a new one. It will also be kept up to date - whenever new software requires faster hardware then it will be issued.
The only downside would be that Microsoft would essentially have complete control of all your documents and software. You would have no privacy, or even any real sense of ownership. It would likely be impossible to download point-to-point software, or hacks, or anything not sanctioned by MS, etc.
Originally posted by AsLan^
I dont think Apple should release OS X for PC...
I do think Apple should start selling their harware like PC vendor's do, I dislike the AIO desktops and I dont understand why screen size is so important when determining the price of a laptop. I can buy a PC laptop with a 15" screen (yes widescreen too if I want) for under $1500, reasonably configured (less if unreasonably configured).
Why so cheap ? because it might use a Celeron M or an AMD Mobile chip as opposed to the Pentium M which might be okay for my needs. According to Apple, the G4 is enough for my needs and if I want a larger screen I'll pay a premium for it.
Quite an easy answer for you. The screen is the most expensive component of any laptop. By far! The larger display the higher the price.
Originally posted by Socrates
I assume that what people are referring to is Bill Gates proposed future business model for computing, which is that computers will be simplified to be essentially internet terminals. All your documents will be stored online on Microsoft servers, and all software will be "rented" so that you pay per minute rather than buying outright.
Since the computer won't need a hard disk, it will probably be fairly cheap and I expect the idea is Microsoft will subsidise the hardware too since it will create more customers for them. They may simply issue computers free to any customers who subscribe, hence the free hardware idea.
It has benefits of course; Your documents will be stored on reliable, backed up servers, you never have to worry about losing your software installation disks, and your software may be cheaper unless you're a power user. And you'll never have to upgrade - you'll always have the latest version. Your computer will be free, and because you rent it, if it breaks down you'll just be sent a new one. It will also be kept up to date - whenever new software requires faster hardware then it will be issued.
The only downside would be that Microsoft would essentially have complete control of all your documents and software. You would have no privacy, or even any real sense of ownership. It would likely be impossible to download point-to-point software, or hacks, or anything not sanctioned by MS, etc.
So what if I have to write a paper but my internet connection is down?? Did MS ever stop to think about that?? What if dont want to rent or access MS servers?? what if i want to keep my stuff private?
That would never hapen, and if it does i really hope it fails. That idea sucks.
But it definitely sucks.
Originally posted by Socrates
I assume that what people are referring to is Bill Gates proposed future business model for computing, which is that computers will be simplified to be essentially internet terminals. All your documents will be stored online on Microsoft servers, and all software will be "rented" so that you pay per minute rather than buying outright.
Since the computer won't need a hard disk, it will probably be fairly cheap and I expect the idea is Microsoft will subsidise the hardware too since it will create more customers for them. They may simply issue computers free to any customers who subscribe, hence the free hardware idea.
It has benefits of course; Your documents will be stored on reliable, backed up servers, you never have to worry about losing your software installation disks, and your software may be cheaper unless you're a power user. And you'll never have to upgrade - you'll always have the latest version. Your computer will be free, and because you rent it, if it breaks down you'll just be sent a new one. It will also be kept up to date - whenever new software requires faster hardware then it will be issued.
The only downside would be that Microsoft would essentially have complete control of all your documents and software. You would have no privacy, or even any real sense of ownership. It would likely be impossible to download point-to-point software, or hacks, or anything not sanctioned by MS, etc.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!
ps - sorry, I get weird whenever someone talks of a future envisioned by Bill Gates