I was just thinking about this the other day - yes, people mentioned many times that OSX would never run on non Mac hardware... but... could it be that Leopard will see a widespread release with full compatibility for non Mac hw?
How many times... Apple is a HARDWARE company that writes software for its HARDWARE. Because it makes the HARDWARE it can make the software work seamlessly with the HARDWARE that it makes.
How many times... Apple is a HARDWARE company that writes software for it's HARDWARE. Because it makes the HARDWARE it can make the software work seamlessly with the HARDWARE that it makes.
How many times... Apple is a HARDWARE company that writes software for it's HARDWARE. Because it makes the HARDWARE it can make the software work seamlessly with the HARDWARE that it makes.
(iTunes excepted)
j.
This reminds me of the responses we PPC diehards would give when people would ask about Apple switching to Intel chips.
could it be? Leopard delay due to unlocking / generic PC?
No, I don't think so. I think the delay is because it will be bigger than the average OS X release, bigger plans. OS X on non-Mac hardware will IMO happen at some stage, but probably not for at least 3, 5 or more years.
Having worked at NeXT QA Engineering and Apple let me make it clear that the lack of device driver support lays squarely on the shoulders of the OEM vendors.
The lack of desire by Matrox is well known. They weren't interested in the Mac OS X Market.
The sparse efforts of Nvidia and ATI is also well documented.
Contact these video controller vendors and ask why it is they haven't written optimized device drivers for OS X using I/O Kit. If they did we could go get off-the-shelf 3rd party video cards knowing that they have a certified driver to run in OS X.
Regarding Motherboard vendors, it's a nightmare dealing with all the issues that go into this, let alone convince them to test, certify and contractually agree to a long-term vendor to vendor agreement on producing motherboards to Apple's specifications.
This list just goes on and on.
What should be obvious is that the next release of I/O Kit and other additions to it will make it so basic for 3rd party add-on cards to just work and work in an optimized state.
Motherboards are controlled by Intel and Apple. You won't see a clone.
Actually, thats a whole other computer company -- I think this guy is talking about selling it's OS so any computer can have it, not Apple create another computer company to make cheaper computers.
Anyway, Mac OS X hopefully will never go onto other computers, save Linux for that. Really, OS X would have the same trouble as Linux with drivers -- people would buy it, and something wouldn't work. It just shouldn't happen.
What they should do, however, is get their computers in more Best Buys, in more Wal-Marts/Targets. And have running demos, so people can see that Mac OS X is better then Windows.
(back to that eye candy debate...if Leopard has a beautiful shine, people will come over and take a look.)
Actually, thats a whole other computer company -- I think this guy is talking about selling it's OS so any computer can have it, not Apple create another computer company to make cheaper computers.
Apple didn't create Power Computing. They were a company that sold computers running MacOS, in the same way that Dell sells computers running Windows.
"mobile TV's? never - screen's way too small for that"
"Windows? why would we ever mess with that"
perhaps because of all these having somehow magically proven true?
instead of screaming you ought to revisit those areas and look at the evidence in place.
All of these are excellent examples you have listed of HARDWARE inroads that Apple made in order to sell more Macs/iPods.
1. Intel was adopted so that Macs could be more competitive in the market/have more frequent processor updates in higher volume/lower component costs.
2. With the adoption of video by other portable media players and the need to defend its market share in the portable player market as well as define this new market with products like the widescreen iPhone, yes, video was added to the mix (no pun intended).
3. The option to boot Windows sells more Macs. Period.
OEM-ing the Mac OS would not sell more Macs, unless you were to say that Apple would license their OS so that people could buy cheap Dell/HP/etc. computers running Mac OS, get them hooked on the OS, and then stop licensing the OS to these companies so that "addicted/dependent" new pseudo-Mac users had to crawl back to their only source to get their fix - Apple Inc. This would be the only way I can think of that licensing the Mac OS would directly or indirectly sell more Macs and why would anyone want to do this? I barely wanted to type all of this out. Just not worth it.
Apple didn't create Power Computing. They were a company that sold computers running MacOS, in the same way that Dell sells computers running Windows.
Which doesn't mean that at that time someone could buy Mac OS and put it on their Dell -- I am sure they were very picky at what specs they picked. Just like people who hacked Mac OS X (not really "hacking") and got it running on a PC -- they just picked out the right specs, and tried it. And it worked.
What this guy was talking aboiut, however, was making it more like Windows -- more flexible. Problem with this, is that OS X would become like Windows -- it wouldn't work. The reason people have trouble with Windows ie because of driver issues, they might become outdated, they might install a new card incorrectly, some software may not be fully computable and they don't know it, or it could be that Windows should be computable for something, but something just isn't working -- it's made to be flexible, but it's not always going to be.
Which is what makes Mac OS X so dependable -- Apple makes it's OS X for it's hardware -- Windows makes it for almost any hardware. Which is why this shouldn't happen -- it would make people think Mac OS X is the same as Windows....which wouldn't be good.
Which doesn't mean that at that time someone could buy Mac OS and put it on their Dell -- I am sure they were very picky at what specs they picked. Just like people who hacked Mac OS X (not really "hacking") and got it running on a PC -- they just picked out the right specs, and tried it. And it worked.
What this guy was talking aboiut, however, was making it more like Windows -- more flexible. Problem with this, is that OS X would become like Windows -- it wouldn't work. The reason people have trouble with Windows ie because of driver issues, they might become outdated, they might install a new card incorrectly, some software may not be fully computable and they don't know it, or it could be that Windows should be computable for something, but something just isn't working -- it's made to be flexible, but it's not always going to be.
Witch is what makes Mac OS X so dependable -- Apple makes it's OS X for it's hardware -- Windows makes it for almost any hardware. Which is why this shouldn't happen -- it would make people think Mac OS X is the same as Windows....which wouldn't be good.
Apple will only make the best software for its own hardware, except for markets where it makes sense to do otherwise. For example, to reach out to music and video consumers everywhere, Quciktime and iTunes have been available for Windows as well.
The OS is another story. This is the foundation of Macdom. the OS will not be ported to where its fate lies in the hands of HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. Apple makes the best hardware and software and they will keep there perfect little ecosystem so long as it remains closed. Look at the iPhone as an example of Apples business strategy. It will remain closed in terms of licensing.
Apple didn't create Power Computing. They were a company that sold computers running MacOS, in the same way that Dell sells computers running Windows.
Correct. They were licensed to sell Mac OS. They were cannibalizing pre-existing sales and part of the agreement was that they were to "grow" overall Mac market share in order to keep being a 3rd party reseller.
Apple will only make the best software for its own hardware, except for markets where it makes sense to do otherwise. For example, to reach out to music and video consumers everywhere, Quciktime and iTunes have been available for Windows as well.
The OS is another story. This is the foundation of Macdom. the OS will not be ported to where its fate lies in the hands of HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. Apple makes the best hardware and software and they will keep there perfect little ecosystem so long as it remains closed. Look at the iPhone as an example of Apples business strategy. It will remain closed in terms of licensing.
And we are the better off for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macintosh_Next
Anyway, Mac OS X hopefully will never go onto other computers, save Linux for that. Really, OS X would have the same trouble as Linux with drivers -- people would buy it, and something wouldn't work. It just shouldn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macintosh_Next
Which is what makes Mac OS X so dependable -- Apple makes it's OS X for it's hardware -- Windows makes it for almost any hardware. Which is why this shouldn't happen -- it would make people think Mac OS X is the same as Windows....which wouldn't be good.
(i edited my post...i bolded what i changed)
Anyway, I do believe I agree that Apple will only make hardware for itself, and software for itself, and I do believe that it's for the better.
I disagree with most people on this topic. The "generic PC" or "home built PC" market isn't that big for Apple to worry about cannibalizing desktop/notebooks sales. Most people still buy PCs from Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. Only geeks goof around with home built stuff (Apple needs more geeks).
Mac OS X 10.5 will run on generic PCs. Just like Mac OS X 10.4 does. It will not be supported by Apple in any way shape or form nor will the performance be on par with actual Mac computers/notebooks. But it will run. You watch...
I know what's taking so long, I just got off the phone with Steve himself. He told me they are developing something real crazy. When the new OS is released, you will be able to buy this firewire peripheral for 300 bucks that when connected, will open a application that will help you design and actually produce a spaceship, that can travel to planet Apple (I think he said it was like 450 million light years away...not sure it could of been 550). The firewire hardware will transform into the spaceship in your living room (but he also said they are not liable for any broken windows, chairs, TV's, or children that get hurt during the transformation process). It is electric powered, so it's environmentally safe, and charges through the firewire cables in under 4 hours!! They'll be f*ck ups, accidents, people will be flyin these things drunk, high, all kinds of crazy things...im pretty much done here...who cares why it's being delayed. It will come eventually...everyone calm down.
Comments
(iTunes excepted)
j.
How many times... Apple is a HARDWARE company that writes software for it's HARDWARE. Because it makes the HARDWARE it can make the software work seamlessly with the HARDWARE that it makes.
(iTunes excepted)
j.
Let's not start that again...
*screams*. Why do people keep asking questions to which they already know the answer?
ummmmm yeah...
"Mac's will NEVER run intel hw!"
"mobile TV's? never - screen's way too small for that"
"Windows? why would we ever mess with that"
perhaps because of all these having somehow magically proven true?
instead of screaming you ought to revisit those areas and look at the evidence in place.
You have many issues to consider.
1. Beefing up engineering to handle the myriad of drivers needed.
2. Beefing up the support for the inevitable rise in support calls.
3. How many users would purchase OS X?
4. How much would Apple charge?
5. How would Apple secure the OS? They don't like OS serial numbers
6. What partnerships does Apple create to find success.
...and many more. Many of us are just wholly unconvinced that OS X alone could match the profits of selling the hardware and the OS.
ummmmm yeah...
instead of screaming you ought to revisit those areas and look at the evidence in place.
So should you. Ever heard of Power Computing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing
Apple has tried this before. It didn't work.
How many times... Apple is a HARDWARE company that writes software for it's HARDWARE. Because it makes the HARDWARE it can make the software work seamlessly with the HARDWARE that it makes.
(iTunes excepted)
j.
This reminds me of the responses we PPC diehards would give when people would ask about Apple switching to Intel chips.
could it be? Leopard delay due to unlocking / generic PC?
No, I don't think so. I think the delay is because it will be bigger than the average OS X release, bigger plans. OS X on non-Mac hardware will IMO happen at some stage, but probably not for at least 3, 5 or more years.
The lack of desire by Matrox is well known. They weren't interested in the Mac OS X Market.
The sparse efforts of Nvidia and ATI is also well documented.
Contact these video controller vendors and ask why it is they haven't written optimized device drivers for OS X using I/O Kit. If they did we could go get off-the-shelf 3rd party video cards knowing that they have a certified driver to run in OS X.
Regarding Motherboard vendors, it's a nightmare dealing with all the issues that go into this, let alone convince them to test, certify and contractually agree to a long-term vendor to vendor agreement on producing motherboards to Apple's specifications.
This list just goes on and on.
What should be obvious is that the next release of I/O Kit and other additions to it will make it so basic for 3rd party add-on cards to just work and work in an optimized state.
Motherboards are controlled by Intel and Apple. You won't see a clone.
The clone concept died a decade ago.
So should you. Ever heard of Power Computing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing
Apple has tried this before. It didn't work.
Actually, thats a whole other computer company -- I think this guy is talking about selling it's OS so any computer can have it, not Apple create another computer company to make cheaper computers.
Anyway, Mac OS X hopefully will never go onto other computers, save Linux for that. Really, OS X would have the same trouble as Linux with drivers -- people would buy it, and something wouldn't work. It just shouldn't happen.
What they should do, however, is get their computers in more Best Buys, in more Wal-Marts/Targets. And have running demos, so people can see that Mac OS X is better then Windows.
(back to that eye candy debate...if Leopard has a beautiful shine, people will come over and take a look.)
Actually, thats a whole other computer company -- I think this guy is talking about selling it's OS so any computer can have it, not Apple create another computer company to make cheaper computers.
Apple didn't create Power Computing. They were a company that sold computers running MacOS, in the same way that Dell sells computers running Windows.
ummmmm yeah...
"Mac's will NEVER run intel hw!"
"mobile TV's? never - screen's way too small for that"
"Windows? why would we ever mess with that"
perhaps because of all these having somehow magically proven true?
instead of screaming you ought to revisit those areas and look at the evidence in place.
All of these are excellent examples you have listed of HARDWARE inroads that Apple made in order to sell more Macs/iPods.
1. Intel was adopted so that Macs could be more competitive in the market/have more frequent processor updates in higher volume/lower component costs.
2. With the adoption of video by other portable media players and the need to defend its market share in the portable player market as well as define this new market with products like the widescreen iPhone, yes, video was added to the mix (no pun intended).
3. The option to boot Windows sells more Macs. Period.
OEM-ing the Mac OS would not sell more Macs, unless you were to say that Apple would license their OS so that people could buy cheap Dell/HP/etc. computers running Mac OS, get them hooked on the OS, and then stop licensing the OS to these companies so that "addicted/dependent" new pseudo-Mac users had to crawl back to their only source to get their fix - Apple Inc. This would be the only way I can think of that licensing the Mac OS would directly or indirectly sell more Macs and why would anyone want to do this? I barely wanted to type all of this out. Just not worth it.
Apple didn't create Power Computing. They were a company that sold computers running MacOS, in the same way that Dell sells computers running Windows.
Which doesn't mean that at that time someone could buy Mac OS and put it on their Dell -- I am sure they were very picky at what specs they picked. Just like people who hacked Mac OS X (not really "hacking") and got it running on a PC -- they just picked out the right specs, and tried it. And it worked.
What this guy was talking aboiut, however, was making it more like Windows -- more flexible. Problem with this, is that OS X would become like Windows -- it wouldn't work. The reason people have trouble with Windows ie because of driver issues, they might become outdated, they might install a new card incorrectly, some software may not be fully computable and they don't know it, or it could be that Windows should be computable for something, but something just isn't working -- it's made to be flexible, but it's not always going to be.
Which is what makes Mac OS X so dependable -- Apple makes it's OS X for it's hardware -- Windows makes it for almost any hardware. Which is why this shouldn't happen -- it would make people think Mac OS X is the same as Windows....which wouldn't be good.
Which doesn't mean that at that time someone could buy Mac OS and put it on their Dell -- I am sure they were very picky at what specs they picked. Just like people who hacked Mac OS X (not really "hacking") and got it running on a PC -- they just picked out the right specs, and tried it. And it worked.
What this guy was talking aboiut, however, was making it more like Windows -- more flexible. Problem with this, is that OS X would become like Windows -- it wouldn't work. The reason people have trouble with Windows ie because of driver issues, they might become outdated, they might install a new card incorrectly, some software may not be fully computable and they don't know it, or it could be that Windows should be computable for something, but something just isn't working -- it's made to be flexible, but it's not always going to be.
Witch is what makes Mac OS X so dependable -- Apple makes it's OS X for it's hardware -- Windows makes it for almost any hardware. Which is why this shouldn't happen -- it would make people think Mac OS X is the same as Windows....which wouldn't be good.
Apple will only make the best software for its own hardware, except for markets where it makes sense to do otherwise. For example, to reach out to music and video consumers everywhere, Quciktime and iTunes have been available for Windows as well.
The OS is another story. This is the foundation of Macdom. the OS will not be ported to where its fate lies in the hands of HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. Apple makes the best hardware and software and they will keep there perfect little ecosystem so long as it remains closed. Look at the iPhone as an example of Apples business strategy. It will remain closed in terms of licensing.
And we are the better off for it.
*screams*. Why do people keep asking questions to which they already know the answer?
HEY! You already know the answer to that question!
Apple didn't create Power Computing. They were a company that sold computers running MacOS, in the same way that Dell sells computers running Windows.
Correct. They were licensed to sell Mac OS. They were cannibalizing pre-existing sales and part of the agreement was that they were to "grow" overall Mac market share in order to keep being a 3rd party reseller.
They weren't and Steve killed the partnership.
Apple will only make the best software for its own hardware, except for markets where it makes sense to do otherwise. For example, to reach out to music and video consumers everywhere, Quciktime and iTunes have been available for Windows as well.
The OS is another story. This is the foundation of Macdom. the OS will not be ported to where its fate lies in the hands of HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. Apple makes the best hardware and software and they will keep there perfect little ecosystem so long as it remains closed. Look at the iPhone as an example of Apples business strategy. It will remain closed in terms of licensing.
And we are the better off for it.
Anyway, Mac OS X hopefully will never go onto other computers, save Linux for that. Really, OS X would have the same trouble as Linux with drivers -- people would buy it, and something wouldn't work. It just shouldn't happen.
Which is what makes Mac OS X so dependable -- Apple makes it's OS X for it's hardware -- Windows makes it for almost any hardware. Which is why this shouldn't happen -- it would make people think Mac OS X is the same as Windows....which wouldn't be good.
(i edited my post...i bolded what i changed)
Anyway, I do believe I agree that Apple will only make hardware for itself, and software for itself, and I do believe that it's for the better.
Mac OS X 10.5 will run on generic PCs. Just like Mac OS X 10.4 does. It will not be supported by Apple in any way shape or form nor will the performance be on par with actual Mac computers/notebooks. But it will run. You watch...