Idea for OSX on Intel

in macOS edited January 2014
Sorry if this has been tossed out for discussion before.

I was just updating to OSX 10.3 at work to try to move folks from OS 9. We had 10.2 on board, but being an OSX 10.3 user I thought upgrading to Panther was well worth it. I beleive that Exposé and fast user switching are alone worth the upgrade and can't imagine living without them now that I have gotten use to these functions.

My crazy idea that occured to me was this: Why doesn't Apple release Jaguar for intel and keep the Mac one upgrade cycle ahead of the windows world? If they are confidant that they can keep coming up with good reasons to upgrade then their hardware sales should be protected (big if, lots of assumptions-I know). I'm also assuming that they have been keeping a version of OSX up about up to date and have already spent a lot of the R&D needed to make this happen. I'm sure they could make it back with even a small segment of the wintel market. There are many other consideration off course, but you get the idea.

I'll just go tie this blindfold on now and stand next to the wall...


  • Reply 1 of 6
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,279member
    Getting OSX on Intel is the easy part.

    But who's going to write all the drivers necessary?

    Who's going to write the apps?

    Who's going to pay for the huge tech support staff needed?

    There are many logistical problems beyond merely getting OSX on Intel. There would have to be a marketing plan that offered some concrete deliverables and right now OSX Intel is a very hard sell.
  • Reply 2 of 6
    The major technological hurtle is this: If OS X was ported to x86 chips, every single app would need to be recompiled. In the Linux world, this isn't a big deal, since nearly everything is open source. However, there are relatively few open source OS X apps. Many apps have also been abandoned. The result of an OS X port to x86 would be that we would have a strange mix of apps; some that only work on powerPCs, some that only work on x86, and some that would work on both.

    Also, Apple is a hardware company. $129 for an OS barely covers the development costs. They make their money by selling $3000 G5s. Rather than porting to x86, Apple just needs to produce some good ads that highlight the benefits of OS X. The Switch campaign sort of started to do that, but it didn't get deep enough into OS X. There is really no profit to be made by porting OS X to x86 chips.
  • Reply 3 of 6
    I feel like bashing my head in on my desk everytime I read threads like this...
  • Reply 4 of 6

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    I feel like bashing my head in on my desk everytime I read threads like this...

    I know what you mean, sorta... I feel like bashing someone else's head on your desk...
  • Reply 5 of 6
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member

    Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes

    I feel like bashing my head in on my desk everytime I read threads like this...

    As do I...

    Two problems though.

    1. I'm on a desk right now, and therefore nothing to bash my head into.

    2. Your desk is made of glass, be careful, I'd hate to see you break that thing and start hemorrhaging and crap like that...I'll spare ya'll the medical terminology. Not to mention, all your computer equipment would be on the floor broken, and covered in \\/\\/ickes blood and broken glass.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    *shakes head*

    Please, for the love of all things holy, do a search on this. Mac OS X on x86 has long been hashed to death.

    hyperb0le got the basic points down.

    Here's one post recent on the same subject. You'll see it died pretty quickly from lack of interest because we all are familiar with the reasons why it can't happen (as outlined in my post there). There are plenty more threads like this.

    This thread is redundant and has already started to spiral into insanity (re: members bashing their heads). I'm locking it.
Sign In or Register to comment.