I think you're dumb because all you do is bait, and also because you seem to have trouble forming readable sentences. Several posts ago I finished "debating" you, which I wrapped up by dismissing all of your false claims. As we've seen they're all backed up with evidence and fairly basic logic.
The personalization and libel are mostly for my own enjoyment, I'll admit, but no-one likes trolls so I may as well have my fun.
Its not bait its to invoke a decent debate which is what most forums are for in the General Folder. Im not here to argue with you, my points are valid and im sure you dont agree with some of them which is fine. Give me real reasons why you dont agree with them if you want to interact with me and ill be happy to post to you about them and your views.
The sarcasm was a joke because you got a bit defensive. Im not here to troll the forum if I was I wouldnt take the time to type out such long posts to explain why I feel the way I do, which like I said I feel are valid points.
If the forum has been spammed in the past well that happens to every forum its the net unforutunately when something is available to everyone your going to get assholes.
Both of us getting all over each other makes no sense and its not productive and no fun at all. So why dont we just move on and talk about computers something that is interesting to all of us or we wouldnt be here.
I enjoy all forms of technology I feel they all have their strong points and weak points which is why I have no issue voicing my opinion (and that is all it is) which I feel something could be better.
So why dont we just get back on topic or another topic as long as it has nothing to do with attacking each other. Thats wasted energy.
Its not bait its to invoke a decent debate which is what most forums are for in the General Folder. Im not here to argue with you, my points are valid and im sure you dont agree with some of them which is fine. Give me real reasons why you dont agree with them if you want to interact with me and ill be happy to post to you about them and your views.
Well, I think the pretty obvious one is that Apple pretty much barely makes money on OS X due to it's steep development costs, opening it up to the entire market would cost them more in support costs than profits, they make a decent amount of money from they're hardware, and they're market cap is in line with companies like Dell that move a lot more computers.
Bootcamp does nothing more then create a virtural partition so you so you can run both OS systems. Has nothing to do with hardware or motherboards.
Then why were there all those hacker competitions to get windows running on intel macs. After weeks they got a half-a**ed way of running it. Then apple released bootcamp. I can make a FAT partition myself in 30 min or less with no problem if that's all that was involved in getting Window's running.
In fact if that's all BootCamp does, you can go ahead and make a FAT partition using diskutility yourself and try installing Win without using BootCamp.
In fact if that's all BootCamp does, you can go ahead and make a FAT partition using diskutility yourself and try installing Win without using BootCamp.
BootCamp also supplies the drivers necessary to make Windows work.
They are a great computer and most Macs that I have used I can use for alot longer than any pc I by without upgrading. My major point is that all system could be that way because its the OS that makes the computer last. The software is well written and not clogged with a bunch of useless code that in the long run requires more and more systems specs to run the same software. As a gamer its crazy that people need monster systems to run games and gpu cards that cost 500.00 because of poor written code, talking windows versions.
No, it is because they are using all sorts of pixel shaders to draw insainly detailed CG renderings 30+ times per second at 1280.1024 or more resolution...and they use every ounce that they can squeeze out of DX or OGL to drive it. Any moddern game is playable on a 3 year old rig if you turn off anti-aliasing and a few less notable textures...I can play doom3 on a 1.5GHZ proc using an nvidia 5200 and 512 MB ram and it doesnt look half bad.
1) a replacement firmware supporting BIOS emulation
2) a setup assistant for dynamically resizing partitions (using a new DiskArbitration framework feature)
3) a Windows driver disc for sound, graphics (including 3D acceleration), wired and wireless networking, Bluetooth and other extras.
Im not sure what you corrected. Bootcamp creates a logical partition, what did you say that was different, other than cutting an pasting the exact requirements to do that?
The three steps you listed creates a logical partition. Thats all it does. The firmware you have to install yourself if need, WOW it creats a setup assistant and will burn a windows drivers disk for media requirements. '
You then need Windows Xp with SP2. Its a beta program that creates a partition. Thats it. Nothing to correct nothting more too it. Not rocket science.
Then why were there all those hacker competitions to get windows running on intel macs. After weeks they got a half-a**ed way of running it. Then apple released bootcamp. I can make a FAT partition myself in 30 min or less with no problem if that's all that was involved in getting Window's running.
In fact if that's all BootCamp does, you can go ahead and make a FAT partition using diskutility yourself and try installing Win without using BootCamp.
Bootcamp is beta it still has issues. I would hope Apple could create this better then anyone else it is their OS. The biggest thing bootcamp does is provide the drivers needed that would confuse windows xp, things like drivers for graphic adaptors, brightness key and so on.
Well, I think the pretty obvious one is that Apple pretty much barely makes money on OS X due to it's steep development costs, opening it up to the entire market would cost them more in support costs than profits, they make a decent amount of money from they're hardware, and they're market cap is in line with companies like Dell that move a lot more computers.
Which points of yours were valid, again?
Micheal Dell for a long time has expressed interest in selling Dell computers with OSx I dont see how support costs could outweight profits in that case. The intel based OsX has already been cracked. If you can run windows on a Mac now its only a matter of time before someone figures out how to reverse that.
If Mac was running motherboards that had extreme bus speeds, low latancy ram and their own form of gpu then I would agree with you, but they dont its the same stuff that is in every other computer.
Apple has certainly had their share of hardware issues over the years so its not like they are building super hardware, its their software that has been solid.
To the first point, two names: SGI / CRAY.
Apple did the whole "different architecture", and look where it led them: being nailed in the ass by motorola, then IBM.
Proprietary SCSI, VGA, and serial connectors (not to mention NuBus), and video cards that (still) cost $100-200 more than everybody else.
Look what it did for them: they paid the price, (translated to the end-user, of course), and once the iMac had USB, rational apple users everywhere shared in a collective sigh of relief. PCI was a earlier no-brainer, and firewire is still going (fairly) strong.
The era for custom hardware is over. It's been over for a long, long time. Hardware manufacturers develop standards, and they build equipment that follow those standards. A computer company that wants to do "special" things is going to end up paying "special" prices, and eventually end up with sub-par gear because the massive R&D of many other cooperating corporations is going to pass them up.
To the second point:
Good night. This whole prospect of OSX becoming a commodity OS is crazy.
Apple's made it clear that they're selling a whole package. The moment you start writing an OS for every damn whitebox PC that johnny idiot cobbles together out of dodgy online shops, you end up where microsoft is (without the advantage of having a near-monopoly). No thanks. The software is solid, not in spite of, but because of the hardware.
That and oh, about a dozen other reasons posted in this thread and elsewhere would convince any reasonable user that the idea of OSX on beigeboxes is not going to happen.
Unlike microsoft who is almost exclusively software, Apple would like to sell you a $2000 computer with your $100 OS. If they convert more and more users to their side, they can stand to make a great deal more money at it, all the while controlling both ends of the technology.
Apple did the whole "different architecture", and look where it led them: being nailed in the ass by motorola, then IBM.
Proprietary SCSI, VGA, and serial connectors (not to mention NuBus), and video cards that (still) cost $100-200 more than everybody else.
Look what it did for them: they paid the price, (translated to the end-user, of course), and once the iMac had USB, rational apple users everywhere shared in a collective sigh of relief. PCI was a earlier no-brainer, and firewire is still going (fairly) strong.
The era for custom hardware is over. It's been over for a long, long time. Hardware manufacturers develop standards, and they build equipment that follow those standards. A computer company that wants to do "special" things is going to end up paying "special" prices, and eventually end up with sub-par gear because the massive R&D of many other cooperating corporations is going to pass them up.
To the second point:
Good night. This whole prospect of OSX becoming a commodity OS is crazy.
Apple's made it clear that they're selling a whole package. The moment you start writing an OS for every damn whitebox PC that johnny idiot cobbles together out of dodgy online shops, you end up where microsoft is (without the advantage of having a near-monopoly). No thanks. The software is solid, not in spite of, but because of the hardware.
That and oh, about a dozen other reasons posted in this thread and elsewhere would convince any reasonable user that the idea of OSX on beigeboxes is not going to happen.
Unlike microsoft who is almost exclusively software, Apple would like to sell you a $2000 computer with your $100 OS. If they convert more and more users to their side, they can stand to make a great deal more money at it, all the while controlling both ends of the technology.
No one ever thought that Apple would be running intel chips and allow Windows to dual boot on their computers but that has happened and over time the OS will become available to all users. It wont be because Steve Jobs wants it too it will be a matter of keeping the doors at Apple open for business.
Custome hardware was never a part of the PC world it was only the Mac world which is a very small world. PC hardward for the most part was dictated by chip standards Intel had the habbit of changing standards far more often then AMD. Both have finally (thank god) given up on the ghz race and decided to created a well rounded product like increased bus speeds, correct ram setting, rather than putting in a fast processor and trying to push it through a straw.
Going to intel based processors has created a big hole for Apple, they created bootcamp because if they didnt someone else would have made a dual boot program and that would have just looked bad.In time they will have to allow their OS to run on any system because due to the fact that they no longer use custom hardware, bios settings, it makes cracking code far easier.
For anyone to think that you can dual boot on a Mac and that you will never be able to reverse that process are fools. The security has already been cracked. I give it two years at best.
Micheal Dell for a long time has expressed interest in selling Dell computers with OSx I dont see how support costs could outweight profits in that case. The intel based OsX has already been cracked. If you can run windows on a Mac now its only a matter of time before someone figures out how to reverse that.
Alright, let's put it this way. Say there's 1,000 programmers on OS X. And seeing as how Apple's in Silicon Valley, they all get paid an average of $80,000 a year, which is about right for good programmers at a large company in that area.
That means that continuing OS X development costs $80,000,000. How many licenses, at $130, are needed to cover that? Lots. More than copies of OS X sold.
OS X is very likely made at a loss, which is subsidized because of Apple's hardware profits. This is because, at it's core, Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY. I know, what a shock.
If Dell licensed OS X, they wouldn't do it for all their customers. They couldn't-lots of people don't want OS X. It would still be a small percentage that ordered their computers with Macs. Most of those people would already be Mac users, who switched to cheaper Dells, because they really just wanted OS X. They can hide they're ugly noisy computer under their desk.
So all the sudden, Apple is in a position where it can only selling products it makes at a loss, and has to depend on the iPod to stay profitable.
No one ever thought that Apple would be running intel chips and allow Windows to dual boot on their computers but that has happened and over time the OS will become available to all users. It wont be because Steve Jobs wants it too it will be a matter of keeping the doors at Apple open for business.
Hrm. I beg to differ, based upon Job's very statements that OSX has been running on intel hardware since its inception. It's only a very small leap of logic to think about dual booting windows.
I, as well as many other posters in this forum have debated OSX on x86 hardware for a long time.
The three steps you listed creates a logical partition. Thats all it does. The firmware you have to install yourself if need, WOW it creats a setup assistant and will burn a windows drivers disk for media requirements. '
I'm not sure what more I can say; this is just wrong. First of all, the first two sentences are contradicted with the third sentence (quoted here).
I agree the windows drivers and setup assistant are not a big deal at least relevant to this discussion. But as Chucker already mentioned the FIRMWARE.
Again, I reiterate. If all you need is a separate partition to run windows, make a partition using DiskUtility and try it yourself.
No one ever thought that Apple would be running intel chips and allow Windows to dual boot on their computers but that has happened and over time the OS will become available to all users. It wont be because Steve Jobs wants it too it will be a matter of keeping the doors at Apple open for business.
Again, many people have been discussing this for many years, especially since in the early years, Mac os did run on different hardware (clones). The possibility has always existed. The only reason against it has been that the PowerPC architecture was better (or so us Apple guys argued--but I think it was pretty well accepted, too). That and the risk/cost involved in switching over to x86. But remember, this is not the first Apple has shown themselves willing to switch when better hardware becomes available.
Secondly, the OS won't become available to all users, unless the CEO of Apple wants it too. Right now and in the near future that would be senseless. Is it possible the situation might change drastically so it would make sense to do this? Maybe...
I can think of one such theoretical scenario--if they were forced to by the gov.
Why are folks arguing with a IBM mainframe programmer about the direction of Apple's lineup? He doesn't get the iMac and believes that there is no difference between supporting a controlled hardware architecture (even if Intel based) and supporting random white boxes...
The iMac is a general purpose computing console vs a game console. At some point the game console...at least the MS ones, might cross over. Likewise, at some point Macs will cross over at least as a media center console.
The replacement cycle for an intel iMac destined for email, web surfing, MS Office (or equivalent) and iLife is pretty long. 64 bit computing for these purposes is an almost pointless improvement except for a small subset of activities in iLife. The current machines are more than suitable for many if not most users.
Sure, future machines will be better...but that's almost always true. Sure, now is not the optimal time to buy and you are a little less future proof than say a year from now. But heck, the lifecycle difference between a Pentum 60 (stop gap) and a Pentium 90 was pretty much minimal. Likewise between the stopgap P4s and the first of the regular P4s.
The difference between a Yonah and Merom will likewise be minimal in the long run. Neither will be "blazing fast" a couple years from now and in 3 years you'll want to replace either whether you actually do so or not. Both will become "useless" within a year or so of each other despite one being 32 bit and one 64 bit.
The issue that OS/X has been hacked to run on non-Apple hardware misses the point of OS/X. While there are some aspects of the UI that are superior if you are going to have to tweak crap to get your OS to boot at all you might as well just run FreeBSD or Linux. And Vista will likely provide a better overall user experience than trying to keep a hacked OS/X up to date in a whitebox PC...
OS/X just works. A large part of that stability and ease of use is that limited hardware set. Just as game consoles are inherently more stable and easier to use than their PC game machine counterparts.
OS/X as a standalone commodity OS isn't a hands down winner. Solaris has better scalability. Windows is more widespread and has a wider selection of software. Linux is free and has a fanatic following (yeah, even more fanatic than Mac users).
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Is that supposed to be an insult?
I think you're dumb because all you do is bait, and also because you seem to have trouble forming readable sentences. Several posts ago I finished "debating" you, which I wrapped up by dismissing all of your false claims. As we've seen they're all backed up with evidence and fairly basic logic.
The personalization and libel are mostly for my own enjoyment, I'll admit, but no-one likes trolls so I may as well have my fun.
Its not bait its to invoke a decent debate which is what most forums are for in the General Folder. Im not here to argue with you, my points are valid and im sure you dont agree with some of them which is fine. Give me real reasons why you dont agree with them if you want to interact with me and ill be happy to post to you about them and your views.
The sarcasm was a joke because you got a bit defensive. Im not here to troll the forum if I was I wouldnt take the time to type out such long posts to explain why I feel the way I do, which like I said I feel are valid points.
If the forum has been spammed in the past well that happens to every forum its the net unforutunately when something is available to everyone your going to get assholes.
Both of us getting all over each other makes no sense and its not productive and no fun at all. So why dont we just move on and talk about computers something that is interesting to all of us or we wouldnt be here.
I enjoy all forms of technology I feel they all have their strong points and weak points which is why I have no issue voicing my opinion (and that is all it is) which I feel something could be better.
So why dont we just get back on topic or another topic as long as it has nothing to do with attacking each other. Thats wasted energy.
Originally posted by extremeskater
Its not bait its to invoke a decent debate which is what most forums are for in the General Folder. Im not here to argue with you, my points are valid and im sure you dont agree with some of them which is fine. Give me real reasons why you dont agree with them if you want to interact with me and ill be happy to post to you about them and your views.
Well, I think the pretty obvious one is that Apple pretty much barely makes money on OS X due to it's steep development costs, opening it up to the entire market would cost them more in support costs than profits, they make a decent amount of money from they're hardware, and they're market cap is in line with companies like Dell that move a lot more computers.
Which points of yours were valid, again?
Originally posted by extremeskater
Bootcamp does nothing more then create a virtural partition so you so you can run both OS systems. Has nothing to do with hardware or motherboards.
Then why were there all those hacker competitions to get windows running on intel macs. After weeks they got a half-a**ed way of running it. Then apple released bootcamp. I can make a FAT partition myself in 30 min or less with no problem if that's all that was involved in getting Window's running.
In fact if that's all BootCamp does, you can go ahead and make a FAT partition using diskutility yourself and try installing Win without using BootCamp.
Originally posted by meelash
In fact if that's all BootCamp does, you can go ahead and make a FAT partition using diskutility yourself and try installing Win without using BootCamp.
BootCamp also supplies the drivers necessary to make Windows work.
Originally posted by extremeskater
Bootcamp does nothing more then create a virtural partition so you so you can run both OS systems.
Ah, how I love correcting.
Boot Camp includes/entails/provides/requires:
1) a replacement firmware supporting BIOS emulation
2) a setup assistant for dynamically resizing partitions (using a new DiskArbitration framework feature)
3) a Windows driver disc for sound, graphics (including 3D acceleration), wired and wireless networking, Bluetooth and other extras.
Originally posted by Chucker
Ah, how I love correcting.
Boot Camp includes/entails/provides/requires:
1) a replacement firmware supporting BIOS emulation
2) a setup assistant for dynamically resizing partitions (using a new DiskArbitration framework feature)
3) a Windows driver disc for sound, graphics (including 3D acceleration), wired and wireless networking, Bluetooth and other extras.
Exactly!! and number 1) is most important and what is relevant to this discussion.
Originally posted by extremeskater
They are a great computer and most Macs that I have used I can use for alot longer than any pc I by without upgrading. My major point is that all system could be that way because its the OS that makes the computer last. The software is well written and not clogged with a bunch of useless code that in the long run requires more and more systems specs to run the same software. As a gamer its crazy that people need monster systems to run games and gpu cards that cost 500.00 because of poor written code, talking windows versions.
No, it is because they are using all sorts of pixel shaders to draw insainly detailed CG renderings 30+ times per second at 1280.1024 or more resolution...and they use every ounce that they can squeeze out of DX or OGL to drive it. Any moddern game is playable on a 3 year old rig if you turn off anti-aliasing and a few less notable textures...I can play doom3 on a 1.5GHZ proc using an nvidia 5200 and 512 MB ram and it doesnt look half bad.
Originally posted by Chucker
Ah, how I love correcting.
Boot Camp includes/entails/provides/requires:
1) a replacement firmware supporting BIOS emulation
2) a setup assistant for dynamically resizing partitions (using a new DiskArbitration framework feature)
3) a Windows driver disc for sound, graphics (including 3D acceleration), wired and wireless networking, Bluetooth and other extras.
Im not sure what you corrected. Bootcamp creates a logical partition, what did you say that was different, other than cutting an pasting the exact requirements to do that?
The three steps you listed creates a logical partition. Thats all it does. The firmware you have to install yourself if need, WOW it creats a setup assistant and will burn a windows drivers disk for media requirements. '
You then need Windows Xp with SP2. Its a beta program that creates a partition. Thats it. Nothing to correct nothting more too it. Not rocket science.
Originally posted by meelash
Then why were there all those hacker competitions to get windows running on intel macs. After weeks they got a half-a**ed way of running it. Then apple released bootcamp. I can make a FAT partition myself in 30 min or less with no problem if that's all that was involved in getting Window's running.
In fact if that's all BootCamp does, you can go ahead and make a FAT partition using diskutility yourself and try installing Win without using BootCamp.
Bootcamp is beta it still has issues. I would hope Apple could create this better then anyone else it is their OS. The biggest thing bootcamp does is provide the drivers needed that would confuse windows xp, things like drivers for graphic adaptors, brightness key and so on.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
Well, I think the pretty obvious one is that Apple pretty much barely makes money on OS X due to it's steep development costs, opening it up to the entire market would cost them more in support costs than profits, they make a decent amount of money from they're hardware, and they're market cap is in line with companies like Dell that move a lot more computers.
Which points of yours were valid, again?
Micheal Dell for a long time has expressed interest in selling Dell computers with OSx I dont see how support costs could outweight profits in that case. The intel based OsX has already been cracked. If you can run windows on a Mac now its only a matter of time before someone figures out how to reverse that.
http://www.osx86project.org/index.ph...id=67&Itemid=2
Originally posted by extremeskater
If Mac was running motherboards that had extreme bus speeds, low latancy ram and their own form of gpu then I would agree with you, but they dont its the same stuff that is in every other computer.
Apple has certainly had their share of hardware issues over the years so its not like they are building super hardware, its their software that has been solid.
To the first point, two names: SGI / CRAY.
Apple did the whole "different architecture", and look where it led them: being nailed in the ass by motorola, then IBM.
Proprietary SCSI, VGA, and serial connectors (not to mention NuBus), and video cards that (still) cost $100-200 more than everybody else.
Look what it did for them: they paid the price, (translated to the end-user, of course), and once the iMac had USB, rational apple users everywhere shared in a collective sigh of relief. PCI was a earlier no-brainer, and firewire is still going (fairly) strong.
The era for custom hardware is over. It's been over for a long, long time. Hardware manufacturers develop standards, and they build equipment that follow those standards. A computer company that wants to do "special" things is going to end up paying "special" prices, and eventually end up with sub-par gear because the massive R&D of many other cooperating corporations is going to pass them up.
To the second point:
Good night. This whole prospect of OSX becoming a commodity OS is crazy.
Apple's made it clear that they're selling a whole package. The moment you start writing an OS for every damn whitebox PC that johnny idiot cobbles together out of dodgy online shops, you end up where microsoft is (without the advantage of having a near-monopoly). No thanks. The software is solid, not in spite of, but because of the hardware.
That and oh, about a dozen other reasons posted in this thread and elsewhere would convince any reasonable user that the idea of OSX on beigeboxes is not going to happen.
Unlike microsoft who is almost exclusively software, Apple would like to sell you a $2000 computer with your $100 OS. If they convert more and more users to their side, they can stand to make a great deal more money at it, all the while controlling both ends of the technology.
Originally posted by extremeskater
Im not sure what you corrected.
How about your asinine "Has nothing to do with hardware or motherboards." assertion? Firmware has nothing to do with hardware or motherboards?
Bootcamp creates a logical partition,
You should get your mind out of the MBR system, because APM and GPT have no such distinction as "logical partitions".
Originally posted by benzene
To the first point, two names: SGI / CRAY.
Apple did the whole "different architecture", and look where it led them: being nailed in the ass by motorola, then IBM.
Proprietary SCSI, VGA, and serial connectors (not to mention NuBus), and video cards that (still) cost $100-200 more than everybody else.
Look what it did for them: they paid the price, (translated to the end-user, of course), and once the iMac had USB, rational apple users everywhere shared in a collective sigh of relief. PCI was a earlier no-brainer, and firewire is still going (fairly) strong.
The era for custom hardware is over. It's been over for a long, long time. Hardware manufacturers develop standards, and they build equipment that follow those standards. A computer company that wants to do "special" things is going to end up paying "special" prices, and eventually end up with sub-par gear because the massive R&D of many other cooperating corporations is going to pass them up.
To the second point:
Good night. This whole prospect of OSX becoming a commodity OS is crazy.
Apple's made it clear that they're selling a whole package. The moment you start writing an OS for every damn whitebox PC that johnny idiot cobbles together out of dodgy online shops, you end up where microsoft is (without the advantage of having a near-monopoly). No thanks. The software is solid, not in spite of, but because of the hardware.
That and oh, about a dozen other reasons posted in this thread and elsewhere would convince any reasonable user that the idea of OSX on beigeboxes is not going to happen.
Unlike microsoft who is almost exclusively software, Apple would like to sell you a $2000 computer with your $100 OS. If they convert more and more users to their side, they can stand to make a great deal more money at it, all the while controlling both ends of the technology.
No one ever thought that Apple would be running intel chips and allow Windows to dual boot on their computers but that has happened and over time the OS will become available to all users. It wont be because Steve Jobs wants it too it will be a matter of keeping the doors at Apple open for business.
Custome hardware was never a part of the PC world it was only the Mac world which is a very small world. PC hardward for the most part was dictated by chip standards Intel had the habbit of changing standards far more often then AMD. Both have finally (thank god) given up on the ghz race and decided to created a well rounded product like increased bus speeds, correct ram setting, rather than putting in a fast processor and trying to push it through a straw.
Going to intel based processors has created a big hole for Apple, they created bootcamp because if they didnt someone else would have made a dual boot program and that would have just looked bad.In time they will have to allow their OS to run on any system because due to the fact that they no longer use custom hardware, bios settings, it makes cracking code far easier.
For anyone to think that you can dual boot on a Mac and that you will never be able to reverse that process are fools. The security has already been cracked. I give it two years at best.
Originally posted by extremeskater
Micheal Dell for a long time has expressed interest in selling Dell computers with OSx I dont see how support costs could outweight profits in that case. The intel based OsX has already been cracked. If you can run windows on a Mac now its only a matter of time before someone figures out how to reverse that.
http://www.osx86project.org/index.ph...id=67&Itemid=2
Alright, let's put it this way. Say there's 1,000 programmers on OS X. And seeing as how Apple's in Silicon Valley, they all get paid an average of $80,000 a year, which is about right for good programmers at a large company in that area.
That means that continuing OS X development costs $80,000,000. How many licenses, at $130, are needed to cover that? Lots. More than copies of OS X sold.
OS X is very likely made at a loss, which is subsidized because of Apple's hardware profits. This is because, at it's core, Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY. I know, what a shock.
If Dell licensed OS X, they wouldn't do it for all their customers. They couldn't-lots of people don't want OS X. It would still be a small percentage that ordered their computers with Macs. Most of those people would already be Mac users, who switched to cheaper Dells, because they really just wanted OS X. They can hide they're ugly noisy computer under their desk.
So all the sudden, Apple is in a position where it can only selling products it makes at a loss, and has to depend on the iPod to stay profitable.
Not a good outcome.
macs are the sum off their parts not the OS or the Hardwear
Originally posted by extremeskater
No one ever thought that Apple would be running intel chips and allow Windows to dual boot on their computers but that has happened and over time the OS will become available to all users. It wont be because Steve Jobs wants it too it will be a matter of keeping the doors at Apple open for business.
Hrm. I beg to differ, based upon Job's very statements that OSX has been running on intel hardware since its inception. It's only a very small leap of logic to think about dual booting windows.
I, as well as many other posters in this forum have debated OSX on x86 hardware for a long time.
You must not get out much.
Originally posted by extremeskater
The three steps you listed creates a logical partition. Thats all it does. The firmware you have to install yourself if need, WOW it creats a setup assistant and will burn a windows drivers disk for media requirements. '
I'm not sure what more I can say; this is just wrong. First of all, the first two sentences are contradicted with the third sentence (quoted here).
I agree the windows drivers and setup assistant are not a big deal at least relevant to this discussion. But as Chucker already mentioned the FIRMWARE.
Again, I reiterate. If all you need is a separate partition to run windows, make a partition using DiskUtility and try it yourself.
Originally posted by extremeskater
No one ever thought that Apple would be running intel chips and allow Windows to dual boot on their computers but that has happened and over time the OS will become available to all users. It wont be because Steve Jobs wants it too it will be a matter of keeping the doors at Apple open for business.
Again, many people have been discussing this for many years, especially since in the early years, Mac os did run on different hardware (clones). The possibility has always existed. The only reason against it has been that the PowerPC architecture was better (or so us Apple guys argued--but I think it was pretty well accepted, too). That and the risk/cost involved in switching over to x86. But remember, this is not the first Apple has shown themselves willing to switch when better hardware becomes available.
Secondly, the OS won't become available to all users, unless the CEO of Apple wants it too. Right now and in the near future that would be senseless. Is it possible the situation might change drastically so it would make sense to do this? Maybe...
I can think of one such theoretical scenario--if they were forced to by the gov.
Originally posted by furious_
buy your math they would only need to sell 616 000 Copies of OS to cover costs. which i think they could not pull off if they tried.
macs are the sum off their parts not the OS or the Hardwear
Ooh, you're right, you'd think I'd follow my calculations through all the way
My point still holds: they'd lose the majority of their hardware sales.
The iMac is a general purpose computing console vs a game console. At some point the game console...at least the MS ones, might cross over. Likewise, at some point Macs will cross over at least as a media center console.
The replacement cycle for an intel iMac destined for email, web surfing, MS Office (or equivalent) and iLife is pretty long. 64 bit computing for these purposes is an almost pointless improvement except for a small subset of activities in iLife. The current machines are more than suitable for many if not most users.
Sure, future machines will be better...but that's almost always true. Sure, now is not the optimal time to buy and you are a little less future proof than say a year from now. But heck, the lifecycle difference between a Pentum 60 (stop gap) and a Pentium 90 was pretty much minimal. Likewise between the stopgap P4s and the first of the regular P4s.
The difference between a Yonah and Merom will likewise be minimal in the long run. Neither will be "blazing fast" a couple years from now and in 3 years you'll want to replace either whether you actually do so or not. Both will become "useless" within a year or so of each other despite one being 32 bit and one 64 bit.
The issue that OS/X has been hacked to run on non-Apple hardware misses the point of OS/X. While there are some aspects of the UI that are superior if you are going to have to tweak crap to get your OS to boot at all you might as well just run FreeBSD or Linux. And Vista will likely provide a better overall user experience than trying to keep a hacked OS/X up to date in a whitebox PC...
OS/X just works. A large part of that stability and ease of use is that limited hardware set. Just as game consoles are inherently more stable and easier to use than their PC game machine counterparts.
OS/X as a standalone commodity OS isn't a hands down winner. Solaris has better scalability. Windows is more widespread and has a wider selection of software. Linux is free and has a fanatic following (yeah, even more fanatic than Mac users).
Vinea