Any rumors on PC front???

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Really want to get iTunes for PC...

Would die for Mac OS X on my PC

but:

want flexibility of choosing my own hardware (at much lower prices)





... hmz my question is :



I've read 'bout parts of MOSX being able to run on x86native hardware ... are they working on a port of the other parts of MOSX (an OSX version for PC?)

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Murder By Syntax

    Really want to get iTunes for PC...

    Would die for Mac OS X on my PC

    but:

    want flexibility of choosing my own hardware (at much lower prices)





    ... hmz my question is :



    I've read 'bout parts of MOSX being able to run on x86native hardware ... are they working on a port of the other parts of MOSX (an OSX version for PC?)




    in the immortal words of Steven Tyler..



    "DREAM ON! DREAM ON! DREAM ON!"

  • Reply 2 of 18
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Don't think OS X is compatible with cereal ATA...
  • Reply 3 of 18
    gizzmonicgizzmonic Posts: 511member
    It would kill Apple to go onto x86. So, they won't do it. Anyone who says different does not understand the company.



    Also, remember that Intel and AMD are slowly migrating away from x86 themselves. The architecture should have been dead years ago, and it doesn't have much of a future.



    Macs are expensive, and sticking your neck out to purchase a computer that doesn't have the "Windows Security blanket" might seem risky. But unless you're a hardcore PC gamer or have need of very special software that's Windows only, you should probably be checking out the Mac.



    Besides the motherboard, Macs use off-the-shelf parts, so you should be able to go to Fry's or any computer store and pick up whatever you need in terms of CD-ROM drives, hard drives, RAM, etc.



    A Mac will take a bite out of your wallet, but once you take the plunge, you won't miss Windows. Trust me, I switched in 1999 and I haven't looked back.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Murder By Syntax

    Really want to get iTunes for PC...

    Would die for Mac OS X on my PC

    but:

    want flexibility of choosing my own hardware (at much lower prices)





    ... hmz my question is :



    I've read 'bout parts of MOSX being able to run on x86native hardware ... are they working on a port of the other parts of MOSX (an OSX version for PC?)




    iTunes is coming, between now and Dec 31st. The sooner the better for Apples bottom line, and their position in the market, but it needs to be as solid a program for the PC as it is for the Mac. Apple really needs to silidify their position in the market before Sony, and other labels make moves to replicate Apple model. The only way that they can do this is coming out with a good, solid PC version of iTunes with a rich enough feature set to compete with the other MP3 programs that are already available for the PC.



    As for OS X on Intel, it is technically feasable. And I would be suppriesed if Apple didnt have a working version in-house. The only scenerio that I can see them releasing it is:

    [list=a][*]The Power PC platform regains its dominance in power with the price point that was orignially promised by the adoption of the platform.[*]Apple moves to Intel/AMD.[/list=a]



    I dont think that we will see either become a reality in the next 12 months.
  • Reply 5 of 18
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    iTunes is coming because it's going to be the client for iTMS and sync software for iPods (for windows), so it serves two ends that are serving Apple quite well ATM. I wouldn't expect anything else, there's nothing in for Apple.
  • Reply 6 of 18
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JCG

    As for OS X on Intel, it is technically feasable. And I would be suppriesed if Apple didnt have a working version in-house.



    Many things are technically feasable but are not done because of the prohibitive cost involved. Sending to humans to Mars and maintaining a working build of OS X on Intel are two good examples. I would be shocked beyond belief if Apple was taking up the time of its developers to fix and maintain bugs for a platform that they do not support and do not earn revenue on.



    There is no OS X for Intel build at Apple. If there is, then they are fools. Apple has obviously known for some time that the G5 was coming and that it would put Apple back into the CPU race. As far as Apple is concerned, there has been no need to maintain an Intel build because they knew all along that they were not going to switch from PPC.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Yevgeny

    Many things are technically feasable but are not done because of the prohibitive cost involved. Sending to humans to Mars and maintaining a working build of OS X on Intel are two good examples. I would be shocked beyond belief if Apple was taking up the time of its developers to fix and maintain bugs for a platform that they do not support and do not earn revenue on.



    There is no OS X for Intel build at Apple. If there is, then they are fools. Apple has obviously known for some time that the G5 was coming and that it would put Apple back into the CPU race. As far as Apple is concerned, there has been no need to maintain an Intel build because they knew all along that they were not going to switch from PPC.




    The difference is that we have never built a rocket with a fuel capacity to get a maned mission to Mars. Before OS X was OS X, it was Rhapsody, and Apple did have a version of Rhapsody that worked on Intel. It would make sense to me that Apple would maintain that code base at some level as a contigency plan, even as IBM was working on the 970. 2 years ago there was no garentee that IBM could pull it off at a commercially viable price for Apples market. Also maintaining a code base is not the same as having a commercially viable product.
  • Reply 8 of 18
    blizaineblizaine Posts: 239member
    OSX running on a Dell just doesn't seem right...



    It would be like eating Filet Minion on a paper plate (or off the floor for that matter...)









    I am looking forward to iTunesPC! There is just no good alternative for Windows. MusicMatch sucks, WinAmp 2 and 3 both suck, Windows Media Player REALLY sucks, etc...



    And it's nice to know it will most likely be free (since they are pushing their music service)





  • Reply 9 of 18
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JCG

    The difference is that we have never built a rocket with a fuel capacity to get a maned mission to Mars. Before OS X was OS X, it was Rhapsody, and Apple did have a version of Rhapsody that worked on Intel. It would make sense to me that Apple would maintain that code base at some level as a contigency plan, even as IBM was working on the 970. 2 years ago there was no garentee that IBM could pull it off at a commercially viable price for Apples market. Also maintaining a code base is not the same as having a commercially viable product.



    Rhapsody was more Next Step than anything else and Next Step had been running on x86 for quite some time. It wasn't as if Apple ported Next to intel- they bought it ported.



    Yes, Apple does maintain the code at some level- Darwin compiles for Intel, but Darwin is not OSX (in that OS X is more than just Darwin). I don't know the extent to which OSX has become PPC dependent (Read: Altivec), but my guess is that there is a bit of PPC assembler present. Apple undoubtedly was good in putting such code into libraries, but that is still quite a bit of code that would have to be rewritten.



    Of course IBM could make a chip that would be viable for Apple. They are extremely good at what they do, they were the I in AIM, they were making the iBook's G3's, etc. I don't think that failure was much of a possibility, and that the only question in Apple's mind was when the G5 would be ready, especially since the 970 is a watered down Power4.



    Maintaining a code base means going to bug the original programmer when soemthing he wrote breaks the build. A code base that is not tested is really not that worthwhile- most of the time spend writing code comes from debugging and if nobody is building and testing OS X on x86, then there are bugs just waiting to be found. There is an IMMENSE difference between code that compiles on a different platform and code that actually runs reliably on a different platform.



    And lastly, there are pletny of rockets that could make it to Mars. Nuclear thermal propulsion (NERVA- developed in the 60's), nuclear electric propulsion (ion drive), VASIMR (VAriable Specific Impulse Magnetic Rocket), etc. Shoot, not to mention project Orion (the real e-bomb). The reason why we aren't going to Mars is a lack of funding, not technology.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blizaine

    OSX running on a Dell just doesn't seem right...



    It would be like eating Filet Minion on a paper plate (or off the floor for that matter...)




    Speaking as a Dell user, I would have to say that using a Dell is more like eating out of a trash can. Last month, I noticed that one of my keys was a bit loose on my laptop keyboard. A little nudging and my whole keyboard came off. That would be neat if there was some reason why I needed to get under the keyboard.



    Quote:

    And it's nice to know it will most likely be free (since they are pushing their music servicee.



    Correct. Hopefully Apple gets it out before MS bundles a similar service with their OS. MS sure is sneaky and evil with how it bundles basic software with the OS so that it locks out the competition. Wait a sec... Apple does it too! At least Apple puts out regular updates.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Murder By Syntax

    Really want to get iTunes for PC...

    Would die for Mac OS X on my PC

    but:

    want flexibility of choosing my own hardware (at much lower prices)




    That kind of flexibility is a complete nightmare for systems programmers. A lot of the smoothness and consistency of the Mac experience comes from Apple's control over the hardware. It's also a significant part of what allows them to build a rival to Windows with a much smaller team of engineers: You save yourself a lot of work if you can just assume that the computer has a CD-ROM, and a USB port, and whatever else is useful to you.



    Quote:

    I've read 'bout parts of MOSX being able to run on x86native hardware ... are they working on a port of the other parts of MOSX (an OSX version for PC?)



    Apple offers Darwin for x86, mostly as a hook for x86-based open source developers. A full, polished, OS X for x86 would be such a massive change to all aspects of the Mac - not to mention Apple's business model - that I can't see it happening. They might be keeping an internal build just because writing cross-platform code is good discipline, but if so I doubt it will ever see the light of day.



    As others have pointed out, x86 - or at least, IA-32 - is a dying platform anyway. Intel is gradually trying to phase it out. AMD is trying to extend it, but even if they succeed it remains to be seen if the resulting market is anywhere near its current size, given that Intel is pulling out. There's still abundant contention over what will replace it, which is further muddied by the fact that Apple's current high-end CPU partner, IBM, is aggressively trying to kill the Itanium before it has a chance to take hold.



    Just get a Mac. It hurts a little more initially, but I think you'll find its self-contained simplicity and consistency worth the initial outlay, and you'll be surprised by the machine's useful lifespan with nothing but RAM and HDD upgrades. My 2 1/2 year old Cube is still purring along nicely with its original CPU and a recently upgraded hard drive, and I expect several more years of use from it. I still have a RAM slot left to fill, too, even with 1GB sitting in there now.
  • Reply 12 of 18
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    man I want a cube so bad but I can't find a decent deal on one anywhere
  • Reply 13 of 18
    kabeyunkabeyun Posts: 81member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The General

    in the immortal words of Steven Tyler..



    "DREAM ON! DREAM ON! DREAM ON!"





    Aw, let's be nice to Syntax. He's soooo close. His soul wants a Macintosh so badly his brain can taste it. Dude, shell out the $dough and step into the light.



    Coooome to Butthead.........



    -K
  • Reply 14 of 18
    ~ufo~~ufo~ Posts: 245member
    Yeah!



    I grew up with windows thinking there was no alternative (pc market likes to pretend as much)



    When I started an education in Audio Engineering I learnt to work on macs. I was amazed at howmuch I could do on a 333Mhz G3 compared to my scsi loaded 333MHz PII pc....

    I had to get used to OS9 at first but soon realised I spent far less time shouting at the machine than I used to do on pc.

    Before I knew it (within months) I was navigating around OS9 like I had never done in my (nearly a) decade of experience on windows.

    Hell, I could actually find stuff I needed and understand want the cpu was trying to tell me. For a pro, those qualities are essential.

    Sure a pc these days can do most things a mac can, but you spend living hell to get it to work...

    Wintel machines seem to be made to surf te web, use word/exel and play games... I all fairness that even works on 'em most of the time ;-)

    Try and use 'em for pro things and you have to upgrade them so much that the price gap between pc and a mac becomes slimmer.



    One of my best buds at the course was a machead and he bought a 400MHz G4 at that time, I was awestruck what that thing could do, it was nearly as powerful as a ProTools TDM system (which boasts 6 motorola DSP chips for processing and costs a bundle)

    jebus, try 'n' do that on a 400MHz pc.

    I bought my first macs when I opened my studio in 2002 they were 733MHz Quicksilvers and they still serve me well and are running OS9 (OSX bootable too)

    shortly after I kicked out my 333MHz win2k Server because it just wouldn't move anymore due to virusses (cable company even closed my connection)

    I replaced that with the sweet 450MHz iMac I'm on now, which runs OSX Jaguar, which is the nicest OS I have ever worked with!

    with the added features of Panther coming up (especially expose!) apple will indeed have the sweetest OS out there. In there own words: A kick ass OS ! ! !



    trust me dude, once you make the switch, you'll be laughing at those Wintel users from behind your sweet mac :-)

    There is no way in hell that I'm going back to the dark side ever again !



    ---

    Bill Gates pisses me off on a day to day basis!
  • Reply 15 of 18
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bigc

    Don't think OS X is compatible with cereal ATA...



  • Reply 16 of 18
    It's just a joke you know

    (and as far as I know ... OSX(10.3)works with 'cereal' aka serial ata in new G5's so)



    I already have a mac (actually my dad does)... (iMac (new one with lcd thing-ie))

    but cant afford one myself... (saving though )
  • Reply 17 of 18
    valmadvalmad Posts: 49member
    Good Boy
  • Reply 18 of 18
    kabeyunkabeyun Posts: 81member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Murder By Syntax

    (saving though ) )



    Score! and good for you. There's a reason why this platform has more passionate loyalists than any other technological device in history, intermittent griping notwithstanding (and probably actually indicitave).



    -K
Sign In or Register to comment.