See, there's the problem. An OS runs on a CPU. Not two devices. Sorry. Anything else in this is trivial in comparison.
I've run an OS on an external drive before... everything from a floppy to a zip disk. Its DEFINATELY doable considering that this would run on something with much faster throughput.
No, what you've done is have the external disk hold the files, and the CPU on the motherboard run the OS. Period. That's the way it works.
SO... to run MacOS X on an *x86* machine would require an *x86* version of MacOS X, and it run *would exclusively on the x86 CPU and machine*. The iPod would be just a hard drive.
Which is what we have now.
Sorry.
(This is what I meant by basic information on how the systems work together, okay?)
No, what you've done is have the external disk hold the files, and the CPU on the motherboard run the OS. Period. That's the way it works.
SO... to run MacOS X on an *x86* machine would require an *x86* version of MacOS X, and it run *would exclusively on the x86 CPU and machine*. The iPod would be just a hard drive.
In essence... yes. Think of the ipod as a $300 dongle... One which would allow Apple to get the margins of the Mac albeit without the problems associated with Microsoft being able to mingle on the same drive as Apple's OS.
Exactly... and yet most PC users wont make the transition because there is a $1000+ access/entry cost associated with it. Why not allow them to use their own hardware while still giving Apple the margins they get when one buys a Mac?
My scanario would allow Apple to put OS X on x86 PCs without hurting margins, withought allowing Microsoft to meddle with the OS, and also increase marketshare.
And that was where you were wrong... its not anywhere near impossible.
Would someone please shoot me now?
What you want is what we have now... except for MacOS X/x86.
What you *think* you want, based on how you *think* the system works, is near-impossible.
Capice?
Quote:
Then cut the insults and the rude diatribes...
...
Oh I have not even *begun* on that front.
I'm being gentle. Really. I've got the late-80's alt.kibo.die-die-die scars to prove it. (And I won't even offer to show you the one from alt.tasteless. It's private.)
Exactly... and yet most PC users wont make the transition because there is a $1000+ access/entry cost associated with it. Why not allow them to use their own hardware while still giving Apple the margins they get when one buys a Mac?
My scanario would allow Apple to put OS X on x86 PCs without hurting margins, withought allowing Microsoft to meddle with the OS, and also increase marketshare.
Your scenario, if we had MacOS X/x86, would be doable now.
You don't need a new iPod, you need MacOS X/x86.
That's it. The iPod is ancillary only.
And besides... if the OS is from Apple... care to explain how MS is going to meddle with it?
What you want is what we have now... except for MacOS X/x86.
No, For a PC user to use OS X now, they would need to spend $1,000+ for able to get a decent margin. OS X on x86 would allow apple to get no margins and would be suseptible to Microsoft because the OS is on the same hardware as Windows.
My scanario would allow PC users to use OS X, Apple keep its margins and microsoft to not meddle with the OS... My scanario is VERY differnt than OS X on x86 as you suggest.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
What you *think* you want
I know what I want.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
based on how you *think* the system works, is near-impossible.
Your scenario, if we had MacOS X/x86, would be doable now.
You don't need a new iPod, you need MacOS X/x86.
You would need MacOS X/x86 and something similar to the ipod... (why not use the ipod)
Using OS X on x86 would be a disaster as Microsoft could mingle with the OS the same way Microsoft mingled with Java and Netscape so that they performed less than what they were capable of...
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
And besides... if the OS is from Apple... care to explain how MS is going to meddle with it?
(again) The same reason why they did with BeOS, the same reason why they did with Java, the same reason why they did with Netscape... each of these solutions threatened Microsoft's OS dominance.
No, For a PC user to use OS X now, they would need to spend $1,000+ for able to get a decent margin. OS X on x86 would allow apple to get no margins and would be suseptible to Microsoft because the OS is on the same hardware as Windows.
My scanario would allow PC users to use OS X, Apple keep its margins and microsoft to not meddle with the OS... My scanario is VERY differnt than OS X on x86 as you suggest.
Question:
Why do you insist that someone would have to fork over $1000+ here?
Person A has an x86 PC. Person A has an iPod.
Apple releases an x86 version of Mac OS X for $129, same price as Mac version.
Person A puts the copy of Mac OS X on the iPod.
Person A connects the iPod to a PC and boots it up.
In the last step, the iPod is simply an external hard drive with an operating system installed on it. Nothing more. It's just a hard drive. The CPU that's doing all the work is the x86 CPU inside the PC.
Let's look at this another way, without Mac OS X at all.
Person B has a PC. Person B has an iPod.
Person B puts a copy of Windows on the iPod.
Person B connects the iPod to a PC and boots it up.
Same exact scenario. The exact same thing happens. You could replace the OS with Linux, Windows, Mac OS X x86, ANYTHING. In every single scenario, the iPod is JUST a hard drive. The PC's CPU is what everything runs on.
I don't think there is any possibility of Apple updating the iPod 2 months after the last update. Really. Please. Ain't gonna happen.
But wouldn't it be cool if there was a software update, which routed you're computer's audio through your iPod Dock's Line Out or iPod's headphones? The iPod would have to be connected to the computer of course. It would more than enough grunt to process the audio.
You would need MacOS X/x86 and something similar to the ipod... (why not use the ipod)
That's what I've been saying all along. Why not use the *current* iPod? It fits your bill.
Quote:
Using OS X on x86 would be a disaster as Microsoft could mingle with the OS the same way Microsoft mingled with Java and Netscape so that they performed less than what they were capable of...
COS, I don't even know where to start on this...
MS would have nothing to do with OS X/x86.
MS screwed up Java because it was running on Windows.
MS screwed with Netscape because it was running on Windows.
Now, unless you're planning on having Windows running on the PC (heck, why not, we've got the iPod running part of the OS, the PC running another part, what's another OS to throw into the mix? It's a party!)
There's no Windows in this scenario you're proposing, is there?
(Think about it - if MS could screw around with any OS running on x86 hardware, don't you think they would have with Linux already?)
Quote:
(again) The same reason why they did with BeOS, the same reason why they did with Java, the same reason why they did with Netscape... each of these solutions threatened Microsoft's OS dominance.
Yup, those are the 'why's, I asked for the 'how's. Slightly different interrogative terminology.
This reminds me of when I used to think the part of the computer that did all of the thinking was in the monitor and that the box under the monitor (or as I believed it to be the "computer") was just that, a box under the computer and nothing more. Yeah. I was five years old at that time.
Cos. What you seem to be describing is having the OS "installed" on the iPod; a hard drive... a thing that all OSs are installed on. The hard drive would send the files that make up the OS across some sort of cable (firewire, IDE). The CPU in the x86 box would process those files. Inorder for the CPU to understand the files that make up the OS, the OS would have to be x86 compatible. Apple would have to release an x86 version of Mac OS X inorder to make this possible. Which leaves us... Why does the x86 compatible Mac OS X (Marklar) have to only be installed on the iPod; a hard drive like the one in all computers except with the difference of having a simple CPU to process the playing of music? The x86 compatible OS could be installed on any hard drive. Or are you proposing that Apple limit the installation of their OS to only their hard drives? This forcing the x86 user to have to purchase an Apple branded hard drive (like an iPod) inorder to get the OS.
Comments
Originally posted by COS
You could have done it yourself, but you only offered rebuttal to arguments which you proposed.
Right. Sure. You win. It's not only eminently doable, I'm shocked Apple hasn't already whipped one out, it's so simple.
No need to. I'm pretty savvy myself.
Whatever you say, bud.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Stop. Right. There.
See, there's the problem. An OS runs on a CPU. Not two devices. Sorry. Anything else in this is trivial in comparison.
I've run an OS on an external drive before... everything from a floppy to a zip disk. Its DEFINATELY doable considering that this would run on something with much faster throughput.
SO... to run MacOS X on an *x86* machine would require an *x86* version of MacOS X, and it run *would exclusively on the x86 CPU and machine*. The iPod would be just a hard drive.
Which is what we have now.
Sorry.
(This is what I meant by basic information on how the systems work together, okay?)
Originally posted by Kickaha
Right. Sure. You win. It's not only eminently doable, I'm shocked Apple hasn't already whipped one out
Apple didn't have an ipod up until (somewhat) recently.
Originally posted by Kickaha
it's so simple.
Maybe that's the problem... you think it would so so simple, when actually it would be a relatively advanced undertaking.
I don't know why you're being so rude and taking this so personally....
Originally posted by COS
Maybe that's the problem... you think it would so so simple, when actually it would be a relatively advanced undertaking.
...
Actually, I said it would be near-impossible.
Near-impossible != simple, even for large values of simple.
I don't know why you're being so rude and taking this so personally....
Oh trust me, I'm not.
Originally posted by Kickaha
No, what you've done is have the external disk hold the files, and the CPU on the motherboard run the OS. Period. That's the way it works.
SO... to run MacOS X on an *x86* machine would require an *x86* version of MacOS X, and it run *would exclusively on the x86 CPU and machine*. The iPod would be just a hard drive.
In essence... yes. Think of the ipod as a $300 dongle... One which would allow Apple to get the margins of the Mac albeit without the problems associated with Microsoft being able to mingle on the same drive as Apple's OS.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Originally posted by Kickaha
...
Actually, I said it would be near-impossible.
Near-impossible != simple, even for large values of simple.
And that was where you were wrong... its not anywhere near impossible.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh trust me, I'm not.
Then cut the insults and the rude diatribes...
Originally posted by Kickaha
DUDE!
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW!
Exactly... and yet most PC users wont make the transition because there is a $1000+ access/entry cost associated with it. Why not allow them to use their own hardware while still giving Apple the margins they get when one buys a Mac?
My scanario would allow Apple to put OS X on x86 PCs without hurting margins, withought allowing Microsoft to meddle with the OS, and also increase marketshare.
Originally posted by COS
And that was where you were wrong... its not anywhere near impossible.
Would someone please shoot me now?
What you want is what we have now... except for MacOS X/x86.
What you *think* you want, based on how you *think* the system works, is near-impossible.
Capice?
Then cut the insults and the rude diatribes...
...
Oh I have not even *begun* on that front.
I'm being gentle. Really. I've got the late-80's alt.kibo.die-die-die scars to prove it. (And I won't even offer to show you the one from alt.tasteless. It's private.)
Originally posted by COS
Exactly... and yet most PC users wont make the transition because there is a $1000+ access/entry cost associated with it. Why not allow them to use their own hardware while still giving Apple the margins they get when one buys a Mac?
My scanario would allow Apple to put OS X on x86 PCs without hurting margins, withought allowing Microsoft to meddle with the OS, and also increase marketshare.
Your scenario, if we had MacOS X/x86, would be doable now.
You don't need a new iPod, you need MacOS X/x86.
That's it. The iPod is ancillary only.
And besides... if the OS is from Apple... care to explain how MS is going to meddle with it?
Originally posted by Kickaha
What you want is what we have now... except for MacOS X/x86.
No, For a PC user to use OS X now, they would need to spend $1,000+ for able to get a decent margin. OS X on x86 would allow apple to get no margins and would be suseptible to Microsoft because the OS is on the same hardware as Windows.
My scanario would allow PC users to use OS X, Apple keep its margins and microsoft to not meddle with the OS... My scanario is VERY differnt than OS X on x86 as you suggest.
Originally posted by Kickaha
What you *think* you want
I know what I want.
Originally posted by Kickaha
based on how you *think* the system works, is near-impossible.
Far from impossible
Originally posted by Kickaha
Your scenario, if we had MacOS X/x86, would be doable now.
You don't need a new iPod, you need MacOS X/x86.
You would need MacOS X/x86 and something similar to the ipod... (why not use the ipod)
Using OS X on x86 would be a disaster as Microsoft could mingle with the OS the same way Microsoft mingled with Java and Netscape so that they performed less than what they were capable of...
Originally posted by Kickaha
And besides... if the OS is from Apple... care to explain how MS is going to meddle with it?
(again) The same reason why they did with BeOS, the same reason why they did with Java, the same reason why they did with Netscape... each of these solutions threatened Microsoft's OS dominance.
Originally posted by COS
No, For a PC user to use OS X now, they would need to spend $1,000+ for able to get a decent margin. OS X on x86 would allow apple to get no margins and would be suseptible to Microsoft because the OS is on the same hardware as Windows.
My scanario would allow PC users to use OS X, Apple keep its margins and microsoft to not meddle with the OS... My scanario is VERY differnt than OS X on x86 as you suggest.
Question:
Why do you insist that someone would have to fork over $1000+ here?
Person A has an x86 PC. Person A has an iPod.
Apple releases an x86 version of Mac OS X for $129, same price as Mac version.
Person A puts the copy of Mac OS X on the iPod.
Person A connects the iPod to a PC and boots it up.
In the last step, the iPod is simply an external hard drive with an operating system installed on it. Nothing more. It's just a hard drive. The CPU that's doing all the work is the x86 CPU inside the PC.
Let's look at this another way, without Mac OS X at all.
Person B has a PC. Person B has an iPod.
Person B puts a copy of Windows on the iPod.
Person B connects the iPod to a PC and boots it up.
Same exact scenario. The exact same thing happens. You could replace the OS with Linux, Windows, Mac OS X x86, ANYTHING. In every single scenario, the iPod is JUST a hard drive. The PC's CPU is what everything runs on.
Does this make sense to you?
I don't think there is any possibility of Apple updating the iPod 2 months after the last update. Really. Please. Ain't gonna happen.
But wouldn't it be cool if there was a software update, which routed you're computer's audio through your iPod Dock's Line Out or iPod's headphones? The iPod would have to be connected to the computer of course. It would more than enough grunt to process the audio.
Barto
Originally posted by COS
You would need MacOS X/x86 and something similar to the ipod... (why not use the ipod)
That's what I've been saying all along. Why not use the *current* iPod? It fits your bill.
Using OS X on x86 would be a disaster as Microsoft could mingle with the OS the same way Microsoft mingled with Java and Netscape so that they performed less than what they were capable of...
COS, I don't even know where to start on this...
MS would have nothing to do with OS X/x86.
MS screwed up Java because it was running on Windows.
MS screwed with Netscape because it was running on Windows.
Now, unless you're planning on having Windows running on the PC (heck, why not, we've got the iPod running part of the OS, the PC running another part, what's another OS to throw into the mix? It's a party!)
There's no Windows in this scenario you're proposing, is there?
(Think about it - if MS could screw around with any OS running on x86 hardware, don't you think they would have with Linux already?)
(again) The same reason why they did with BeOS, the same reason why they did with Java, the same reason why they did with Netscape... each of these solutions threatened Microsoft's OS dominance.
Yup, those are the 'why's, I asked for the 'how's. Slightly different interrogative terminology.
Cos. What you seem to be describing is having the OS "installed" on the iPod; a hard drive... a thing that all OSs are installed on. The hard drive would send the files that make up the OS across some sort of cable (firewire, IDE). The CPU in the x86 box would process those files. Inorder for the CPU to understand the files that make up the OS, the OS would have to be x86 compatible. Apple would have to release an x86 version of Mac OS X inorder to make this possible. Which leaves us... Why does the x86 compatible Mac OS X (Marklar) have to only be installed on the iPod; a hard drive like the one in all computers except with the difference of having a simple CPU to process the playing of music? The x86 compatible OS could be installed on any hard drive. Or are you proposing that Apple limit the installation of their OS to only their hard drives? This forcing the x86 user to have to purchase an Apple branded hard drive (like an iPod) inorder to get the OS.