The Next Mac - A PC? Boldly going...

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
First, a little disclaimer because there are a few things I am probably going to get flamed for if I don't put it:



1. This IS a thread on MacOS (X?) running on an Intel architecture. I am putting it in the Future Hardware forum because there is no longer a Future Software area that I can see, and because hardware in this case constitutes anything that is 1) made by Apple or 2) running the Mac OS ... and this would be the latter. If a MacOS revision is to run on PC architecture, well that certainly is some new hardware for it



2. You can attack the idea all you want, but please don't flame me personally for bringing up what many believe to be a jackassed idea. I'm starting this thread not because I necessarily think this is a wonderful idea but because something I read kinda gave me chills and I'd like to see a discussion on it. On to the post, I'll explain my stance later:




Apple's web site has, as we all know, been hinting at something *big* on the horizon - the future of the PC industry as a whole it seems, the return of Apple to its glory days perhaps, and something leapfrogging our expectations of Apple's capabilities and guts. Today's slogan under the

<a href="http://www.apple.com"; target="_blank">Countdown to MWSF</a> is "To Go Where No PC Has Gone Before."



The first thing that struck me about this was the use of the term "PC" on the Apple web site. Although Macs are Personal Computers, the two terms normally don't mix ("PC" seems almost like a dirty word to see in big letters on the Apple site). The second was the obvious Star Trek reference. Combined with yesterdays message, or even not, I found it my duty as an AI regular to come up with the most far-reaching, least-likely, controversial meaning possible (as opposed to pure *hype*, which is probably more likely).



For those who are unaware, Star Trek was a secret project at Apple in the early 90's to port the MacOS to run on the x86 architecture. The "Trekkies" eventually brought their secret to the higher-ups at Apple and gained permission to complete their project. But supporters left the company and it was never released. Although this is something a lot of us know, I read the aformentioned article (see disclaimer) <a href="http://www.geektimes.com/michael/techno/computing/hardware/products/apple/macintosh/misc/project-star-trek.html"; target="_blank">here</a> this morning and the last line gave me chills considering the message on Apple's site today.



For those who don't care about the details, it states that on bootup, the screen of the finished machine (after the "happy mac") reads: "Star Trek: Boldly Going Where No Mac Has Gone Before."



Anyone else find this a bit creepy? Consider all the stuff Apple's been posting on its page...



Now for my personal feelings on doing this....basically, I'd give it a cautious go (and then run to the bathroom and puke) if Apple can gain and maintain a hardware edge. And I'm talking about affordable 1GHz iMacs, 1.6GHz G5 towers, and notebooks between 800MHz and 1.2GHz or so. New technologies like AirPort and Gigawire go a long way too. Style and loyalty, along with the advertising the new stores bring, could carry hardware sales IF the hardware is even slightly competitive or even ahead-of-its-time.



At the same time, half of me feels like it's anyone's guess what could happen and hardware sales could reach a plateau rather than rising. They'd have to have a hell of a strategy.



OK, I'm done spewing forth - discuss.



-S



[edit] Like you didn't expect a post this long to need an edit or two [/edit]



[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]



[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</p>
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 62
    notarnotar Posts: 23member
    Apple earns most of its money selling hardware, not selling software.
  • Reply 2 of 62
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Notar:

    <strong>Apple earns most of its money selling hardware, not selling software.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    All the more reason to use a less expensive Athlon CPU.
  • Reply 2 of 62
    tmatma Posts: 76member
    [quote] For those who are unaware, Star Trek was a secret project at Apple in the early 90's to port the MacOS to run on the x86 architecture. <hr></blockquote>



    Now you're really scaring me! :confused:



    I don't understand why Apple would ruin their future hardware sales by porting the Mac OS to PC - But it does fit all the clues you are right.

  • Reply 4 of 62
    sapisapi Posts: 207member
    Notar, you didn't read his post or what?



    [quote] if Apple can gain and maintain a hardware edge. And I'm talking about affordable 1GHz iMacs, 1.6GHz G5 towers, and notebooks between 800MHz and 1.2GHz or so. New technologies like AirPort and Gigawire go a long way too. Style and loyalty, along with the advertising the new stores bring, could carry hardware sales IF the hardware is even slightly competitive or even ahead-of-its-time. <hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 5 of 62
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    PC is a word used to break a/the barrier in that sentence. If it were to say "where no 'Mac' has cone before." it would restrain from reaching all it is intended for. There is a we are no different value. The broader range makes it all that more inviting to all that see it, and not just a segrigated portion of a group. It appeals to all of the PC community. Smart advertising on Apples part. I hope they blow the doors off my brain with this announcment.
  • Reply 6 of 62
    Is a x86 port of the MacOS really a bad idea? I'm sure that some people who are frustrated with their Wintel boxes would switch, and then maybe switch to Apple hardware as well. Even if it doesn't make much money it seems to make sense to further Apple's survival.
  • Reply 7 of 62
    tmatma Posts: 76member
    Maybe a demo version of the Mac OS that you can use for 24 hours or just a large interactive movie?



    Kinda like here's what you guys are missing.



    I seriously don't think Apple would port the OS (X probably) to x86 PC's. Even with kick ass hardware Apple would still lose out I think.
  • Reply 8 of 62
    I'm not all that up on technical stuff... but wouldn't it be relatively easy for apple to build hardware around an AMD or Intel processor but have it work exclusively on their machines so that every joe with a wintel would not be able to bring the OS over? Could this not be achieved with a ROM chip or something on the motherboard? (again... i know next to nothing on the techie side) Apple could get some fast processors but it wouldn't hurt their hardware sales.
  • Reply 8 of 62
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Okay...



    It's true that Apple *IS* a hardware company but that's because they have to be... Apple doesn't make money selling the OS and that's because people tend to STEAL it (okay I know nobody HERE does that but it does happen trust me)



    Just as Apple doesn't make money on it's OS neither does Microsoft... Infact I think I may have read something were it was stated that MS might loose money on the OS but the sales of the Microsoft Office, Server and Game titles etc etc not to mention the books and certifications are where the money is...



    Microsoft was even reported to have said that being #1 in China (where software piracy is like 90%) is very important to them... Why? Well someday they will change their laws (they hope) and when that day does come that means a lot of people will be buying software since they are already hooked and the money will come to MS.



    Does anyone here think Apple has the 'other' software titles to do this? Is Apple works gonna be a HUGE hit? Will corporations around the world start site licensing Final Cut Pro? (Filemaker yes but that already runs on the PC)....



    So what software/service could Apple sell (to make they money it needs to exist and grow) that would replace the lost hardware sales...



    We all know Apple will lose hardware sales... many people here have stated as much... "If I could buy a cheap Dell and run Mac OS (OS X) I'd be happy"



    People are cheap and never wanna spend as much as they do for whatever they buy and no matter what the price is... It's human nature. If it sells for $1 people would love to pay 75 cents if they could.



    This is where just having the ability to do something isn't enough... Apple could have gone intel long ago and I have no doubt they still could with X but the only way they could/would do it is if they were forced to (no more PPC) or if they think they could make MORE money going to intel because of ?????.



    Now if they do go Intel then THAT isn't the major keynote news cause it has to be followed by ????? that will make up for the lost hardware sales...



    So we are back to square one... Trying to figure out what ???? is...



    Dave



    [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 62
    You guys bring up an interesting point that I forgot to mention. What if an announcement coincided with a switchover to AMD-bassed processors in the Apple hardware line, so that technically you could run just about anything you wanted on their machines (but of course MacOS would remain default)....that alone could increase Apple's hardware sales, no? In any case, I think that such a move would make a Star Trek project a *lot* more realistic.



    -S
  • Reply 11 of 62
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    If you rethink that thesis, you'll see that it's crap.



    G-News
  • Reply 12 of 62
    toofeutoofeu Posts: 73member
    huumm.. the OS X for PC exists.... or at least there is some evidences, here is the proof...

    Use HexEdit and go to the ressources files of the DVD player under 10.1 you'll find those very interesting intruction lines

    DisablePIIIsupport..DisableATHLONSupport....Disabl ePIVSupport

    Pretty interesting isn't it

    :eek: <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 62
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    I was talking to a friend about AMD the other day (he used to work for them) and he was saying that it wouldn't be too difficult for AMD to manufacture chips for Macs. This would let Apple maintain it'scurrent hardware sales by not using TRUE x86 chips but ones that have been modified to only work on the Mac but at the same time jumping us into the 1.6 or greater arena with the PC's. It didn't sound all that convincing at first but he still swears by it that AMD has the capabilities to make Apple some chips.



    Hell I'd LOVE to have an Athlon in my Mac if it would STILL be a mac and not just a pretty PC.



    I don't think Apple will ever make a drastic switch overnight like you are suggesting but hey it COULD happen over a period of time.



    I was wondering how long it was going to take for the OS X on x86 talk to start. It always seems to pop up a couple days before a big MW.



    Mac Guru
  • Reply 14 of 62
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by SpiffyGuyC:

    <strong>You guys bring up an interesting point that I forgot to mention. What if an announcement coincided with a switchover to AMD-bassed processors in the Apple hardware line, so that technically you could run just about anything you wanted on their machines (but of course MacOS would remain default)....that alone could increase Apple's hardware sales, no? In any case, I think that such a move would make a Star Trek project a *lot* more realistic.



    -S</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This stuff has been re-hashed too many time... The problem with that is the software developers would leave the Mac OS (9/X) platform in droves... Software developers don't LIKE to develop for two (or more) platforms they do it only if they feel they can make money selling their software to those who couldn't normally use it... Enter any form of MacOS / Windows combo box and guess what the developer will say great... Mac developer team your fired, no need for you guys now since those boxes Apple sells can now run Windows.



    Geezzz I hope that never happens... Damn now that I think about it if VirtualPC were to ever come up with some super secret way to speed up their product and then sell their software on the cheap or just license it to the software developers then this could very well have the same effect... Imagine...



    Hi, I have something that could could license and include with your windows product that would allow you to sell the windows version to Mac OS X users....



    &&$*(# Why did you make me think about that... Now I'm gonna have nightmares for a week! :eek:



    Dave
  • Reply 14 of 62
    mmicistmmicist Posts: 214member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bob Alidilo:

    <strong>Is a x86 port of the MacOS really a bad idea? I'm sure that some people who are frustrated with their Wintel boxes would switch, and then maybe switch to Apple hardware as well. Even if it doesn't make much money it seems to make sense to further Apple's survival.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes, it is a bad idea.



    For a start, Mac users who switch to the new hardware will have to throw away all their old software, and nobody yet has versions for OSX/x86. PC users who switch will have to throw away all their old software, or use windows emulation, which will require a Windows licence, so what's the point. Apple have to try and persuade all the software companies to develop for a new, uncertain, OS, whose users will anyway be able to run the Windows version.

    Apple will be in direct competition with Microsoft, who will eat them alive.

    Apple also do not have the engineering resources to develop drivers and software for the vast number of different PC configurations out there, so you are probably talking about Apple branded x86 hardware, which would just make the price of the machines look even more outrageous.



    There are m ultitude of other reasons as well.



    Michael
  • Reply 16 of 62
    notarnotar Posts: 23member
    @ sapi: this thread is about "the next mac - a pc?" , right? everybody would buy a cheaper hardware and copy MacOS from their friends.



    @ Mac Guru: AMD doesn't mean an Athlon, but they can actually produce a PPC-like CPU afaik.
  • Reply 17 of 62
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Now it you wanna go into a deep dark world, just follow me... :eek:



    Imagine the MWSF keynote stage (music playing) and then the lights dim and someone (who you can't really make out) walks across the stage and the room explodes into applause... When the lights come back up it's Bad Billy Gates... (crickets could be heard) and intoduces Steve Jobs... they go on to explain that due to the anti-trust trial Microsoft has sold the rights to Windows lock stock and barrel to Apple for $1. Apple has been X-izing MS windows and is now an OS that everyone would love to run! PPC hardware gone.. Apple kills all their hardware and Apple will now make their money from OS license deals from the likes of Dell/Gateway etc...



    Hey I told you it was a deep dark place... Now it'll never happen but that is the only way I could come up with for Apple to move to the Intel world...



    Dave



    [ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 62
    What about an x86 server based on OS X? This would be a easy way to test the waters and allow Apple to come out with cheap servers.



    That said, I don't believe Apple will come out with a version of OS X for x86 (yet). Cocoa for x86, maybe. Full Mac OS X on x86, no.



    Cocoa for x86 (which already exists from Next days) would be the best of both worlds. Developers could use a tool that would allow them to develop for Macs and Windoze.
  • Reply 18 of 62
    johndjohnd Posts: 1member
    Something nobody considered and which was a rumor some time ago is the possibility to reveal a thin client for netbooting which can start up from intel based hardware.

    Given the fact that Apple ordered a huge amount of laptop like devices at the Quantas factory could only mean that, maybe the new iMac, this device is some sort of small form factor computer which can do netbooting.

    A thin client which can run stand alone also with the combination of existing LCD panels and a small box.

    To hype netbooting or an Aqua based X window client even more the only logical option is to introduce a client for intel hardware.
  • Reply 20 of 62
    notarnotar Posts: 23member
    DaveGee, you are a devil.

    and if you're right, you shall be dead at once.



    I'm sitting here in front of my notebook belonging to my company running Windows 2000 and it ain't a really bad system (excluding the hacker ports all over the system), but I love MacOS more than my money, so I pay the extra Apple fee for the hardware, but no one is able to build a proper OS for that Intel trash. not even Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.