Alternative to Clones

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I got tired of reading so much wild speculation on the new G4 or G5 Macs, so why not a diversion? Very few seem to think that clones is a good idea, and have pretty much convinced me they are right. So here is an alternative. Apple should produce a low performance G3 motherboard with at least 2 PCI slots. The footprint should be exactly what others build for the Intel PC, so it would fit such hardware. Each motherboard would be sold with an OS X only license, no license for OS 9 or before. Lastly these boards would be sold OEM only, for dedicated processing, not a stand-alone computer. That means these OS X boards could be used in equipment to control things like telephone systems or typesetting machines, but not as an office or home computer.



So why such a motherboard? Right now, companies buy Intel base boards for such tasks, and mostly use Windows. Needless to say, when such equipment communicates with other computers, Windows is the preferred platform today. OS X could have a reliability advantage in these markets, and possibly ease of doing custom applications in Cocoa. It would do much to make OS X ubiquitous, meaning found everywhere, in all applications. It is the kind of thing that would help the OS X platform grow, and give developers greater confidence.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    I think that now that Apple has the strenght of MacOS X they are at least making plans to make inroads in many markets where OS9 simply didn't cut it before. I think with the G3 there is still plenty of room left for real low cost products . _If_ Apple wants to make cheap network/file servers or internet routers (to take over the whole corporate market where NT/2000 servers are kings right now) G3 hardware would still cut it for most tasks. So if companies would be buying new computers instead of buying a quicksilver "server" they could go with a cube-shaped box (similiar to Sun's Cobalt appliances) that'd be less than 600$ on G3.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>I think that now that Apple has the strenght of MacOS X they are at least making plans to make inroads in many markets where OS9 simply didn't cut it before. I think with the G3 there is still plenty of room left for real low cost products . _If_ Apple wants to make cheap network/file servers or internet routers (to take over the whole corporate market where NT/2000 servers are kings right now) G3 hardware would still cut it for most tasks. So if companies would be buying new computers instead of buying a quicksilver "server" they could go with a cube-shaped box (similiar to Sun's Cobalt appliances) that'd be less than 600$ on G3.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not that I agree with you on the 'taking on NT' thing, but as an interesting tidbit, about 50% of Cisco's equipment uses newer versions of MOT 68K series processors. So, aside from true xSP level equipment (which Apple could never get away with) even a 'lowly' G3 would be overkill.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    Well, Apple could do a G3 email/proxy/firewall or file server easily, now that OSX would run it. If they make it remotely managable from withing the network it's be great for mid size agencies to use as a server solution and even home users could use one to distribute their cable internet acces between their 2 or 3 home machines easily.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    I don't think many G3 boxes running X would sell. X is too slow, and copple that with the fact that a G3 doesn't have altivec and you have a snail.
  • Reply 5 of 18
    Yeah, use a G3 to run an OS optimized for Altivec. Now you're thinkin'!
  • Reply 6 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Yeah, use a G3 to run an OS optimized for Altivec. Now you're thinkin'!<hr></blockquote>



    You still think this is true?



    DVD playback

    iTunes encoding

    iMovie encoding

    er...



    The idea is still dumb, but your reasoning is dumber.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Yeah, use a G3 to run an OS optimized for Altivec. Now you're thinkin'!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Duh! I was talking about server appliances - what does serving files and websites and routing net access have to do with AltiVec? Moron.
  • Reply 8 of 18
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    [quote]Apple should produce a low performance G3 motherboard with at least 2 PCI slots. The footprint should be exactly what others build for the Intel PC, so it would fit such hardware. Each motherboard would be sold with an OS X only license, no license for OS 9 or before. Lastly these boards would be sold OEM only, for dedicated processing, not a stand-alone computer.<hr></blockquote>

    [quote]I don't think many G3 boxes running X would sell. X is too slow, and copple that with the fact that a G3 doesn't have altivec and you have a snail. and all other too slow replies<hr></blockquote>

    Operative term--not stand alone. With a remote access you would be running the interface on the local box. No hit on the remote processor. Bundle some OSXS admin apps and you have an small office server setup, or home server. Apple would never do it, but think QUBE before Sun got them.
  • Reply 9 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>Well, Apple could do a G3 email/proxy/firewall or file server easily, now that OSX would run it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I guess plain Darwin would be the more appropriate choice in this case.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 10 of 18
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:

    <strong>



    I guess plain Darwin would be the more appropriate choice in this case.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I take OSX and Darwin as one - of course one doesn't need all the UI mumbojumbo on a server machine, nor does ist all the OpengL/media software layers.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:

    <strong>



    I take OSX and Darwin as one - of course one doesn't need all the UI mumbojumbo on a server machine, nor does ist all the OpengL/media software layers.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh, OK, thought you were thinking along the lines of Max OS X Server...



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 12 of 18
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    In the original posting for this topic, I was not proposing a stand-alone computer, but just the motherboard and OS X license. It would not be available to the general public, but to to OEM, companies that build equipment for sale. These motherboards would be used when a company wants to incorporate a computer for dedicated processing or control of some system they sell. The OEM would provide the power supplies, disk drives and other parts needed. I have a friend whose company makes telephone messaging systems. At the heart of this equipment is a PC motherboard with an Intel type processor. It runs some version of Windows with custom software. Users of this system control it by interacting with a Windows program.



    There are many such needs in the world for built in controllers, and as far as I know, most uses the typical PC motherboard, which is readily available. It means people are locked into Windows for their most basic needs, and it flows over into everything that is associated with this equipment. With the great stability of OS X, it should be a natural for such markets. Yes, people could use Linux, but they often need to develop customs application, which is easier to do with something MS Visual Basic. Mostly, these applications could be run on a G3 motherboard. Sure, OS X may be optimized for a G4, but these folks only access the computer for setup and maintenance tasks typically. Performance there is not an issue. The BSD Unix of OS X provides the system stability that people really need in such applications.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>In the original posting for this topic, I was not proposing a stand-alone computer, but just the motherboard and OS X license. It would not be available to the general public, but to to OEM, companies that build equipment for sale. These motherboards would be used when a company wants to incorporate a computer for dedicated processing or control of some system they sell. The OEM would provide the power supplies, disk drives and other parts needed. I have a friend whose company makes telephone messaging systems. At the heart of this equipment is a PC motherboard with an Intel type processor. It runs some version of Windows with custom software. Users of this system control it by interacting with a Windows program.



    There are many such needs in the world for built in controllers, and as far as I know, most uses the typical PC motherboard, which is readily available. It means people are locked into Windows for their most basic needs, and it flows over into everything that is associated with this equipment. With the great stability of OS X, it should be a natural for such markets. Yes, people could use Linux, but they often need to develop customs application, which is easier to do with something MS Visual Basic. Mostly, these applications could be run on a G3 motherboard. Sure, OS X may be optimized for a G4, but these folks only access the computer for setup and maintenance tasks typically. Performance there is not an issue. The BSD Unix of OS X provides the system stability that people really need in such applications.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not to mention the fact that some people will certainly be buying them on eBay... screwing apple out of sales...
  • Reply 14 of 18
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    psantora wrote: "Not to mention the fact that some people will certainly be buying them on eBay... screwing apple out of sales..."



    What are you talking about? These boards would be sold by Apple to OEM customers only. Apple can control that pretty well. Sure, a few may end up in private hands and a few people will build a Mac like box with PC parts, but that will be insignificant. Apple does not have to sell to just any OEM either, just highly reputable firms. Apple would set the rules about what these board can and cannot be used for. Someday, such equipment will reach end-of-life, and sure, at that time someone may use the board to build a computer, but that would be years from now and the technology would be far advanced by then.



    The Mac OS X platform desperately needs to grow. Sure, a company such as Apple can get by quite well in limited markets, as long as the computer platform they are using has wide acceptance. There is the rub. The OS is what cannot stand to serve just a limited audience. That is the beauty, I shudder to use that word here, of the MS strategy. There can be many companies, many serving niche markets, but they all use the same OS. Windows is ubiquitous. OS X also needs to be much more ubiquitous to survive. Apple should use everything in their power to get OS X used in all kinds of applications, even where Apple does not make all the hardware. Selling motherboards to the OEM market is one way to do it without the negative impact of clones.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>What are you talking about? These boards would be sold by Apple to OEM customers only. Apple can control that pretty well. Sure, a few may end up in private hands and a few people will build a Mac like box with PC parts, but that will be insignificant.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think you underestimate the demand for something like this with the linux people. They would be able to get the boards from ONE of the companies and mod the crap out of it so they would be happy with the speed... They WANT osX but they dont want to pony up the dough for Apple Hardware... a cheap OSX PC is right up their alley..
  • Reply 16 of 18
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    I guess we disagree on the difficulty of people getting their hand on such a board. I don't believe a company would jepordize their supply of manufacturing material just to sell some of these boards on the side. Selling the boards separately would violate a purchase contract with Apple. No, I believe the way some people would get these boards is by minipulating the system within the company. These would be employees who want a board for their personal use, and fake an order for a field replacement or something like that. They couldn't do it on a large scale without being detected, however. So I think it would be insignificant.



    Also, Apple could use the board to make a lower cost Mac, without monitor. However, that opens up the discussion that went on before, which I was trying to avoid.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    I guess we disagree on the difficulty of people getting their hand on such a board. I don't believe a company would jepordize their supply of manufacturing material just to sell some of these boards on the side. Selling the boards separately would violate a purchase contract with Apple. No, I believe the way some people would get these boards is by minipulating the system within the company. These would be employees who want a board for their personal use, and fake an order for a field replacement or something like that. They couldn't do it on a large scale without being detected, however. So I think it would be insignificant.



    Also, Apple could use the board to make a lower cost Mac, without monitor. However, that opens up the discussion that went on before, which I was trying to avoid.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by psantora:

    <strong>



    I think you underestimate the demand for something like this with the linux people. They would be able to get the boards from ONE of the companies and mod the crap out of it so they would be happy with the speed... They WANT osX but they dont want to pony up the dough for Apple Hardware... a cheap OSX PC is right up their alley..</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think the number of people who would do this is rather small. Further, the number of people who would forego purchase of an Apple system (iMac, iBook,...) in order to build something out of a board would be really small.
Sign In or Register to comment.