yet another OS X on PC hardware thread
i know, i know, but stick with me here folks...
read this: http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4950/
so three major PC companies are chasing steve for OS X. the whole thing could be steve'd if he does not fancy the idea. but if he does?
i reckon it has to be IBM (very obvious), HP and maybe Sony.
don't shoot the messenger people
read this: http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/4950/
so three major PC companies are chasing steve for OS X. the whole thing could be steve'd if he does not fancy the idea. but if he does?
i reckon it has to be IBM (very obvious), HP and maybe Sony.
don't shoot the messenger people
Comments
Apple's first foray into cloning was done so shoddily they all but prevented themselves from turning a profit.
OSX on Intel is fine as long as a pool is setup to defray the immense costs of programming and testing for so many X86 configuration and hardware.
If they feel they can make money with this then by all means give it a go.
what if the rumors of dual os's on the cell chip include OS x and windows?
Sony may be chasing apple and IBM also.
Stranger things have happened this last year or two.
1. - itunes for windows
a. voted best pc program by pc mag
2. a small affordable mac
3. a mini shuffle after steve said no repeatedly
"Apple" == "Just works"
Multivendor PC == OS nightmare and shit user experience.
Just on a marketing / branding level, this would be detrimental to Apple. And then there's the financials. They don't work.
Licensing the OS will not lead to domination of Mac OS X. That battle is over, and Steve is, I'm sure, fighting the next battle not the last one.
The Intel/AMD platform has way to many variables to ensure a consistant end-user experience...
PC fanboys will not be happy until they could throw OS X on any kludged together collection of dirt cheap bargain bin PC parts, and then would whine how this and that didn't work; laying the blame on Mac OS X...
Part of the reason that Macs just work is the controlled hardware environment...
Think about it, an OS designed to work with any assortment from a few thousand parts, or one trying to make sense of a collection of cheap-ass parts culled from a selection of millions...?!?
I will stick with my Apple-branded PowerPC choices, thank you very much...!
Originally posted by hmurchison
OSX on Intel is fine as long as a pool is setup to defray the immense costs of programming and testing for so many X86 configuration and hardware.
Couldn't Apple simply make sure that OSX works on certain (not all) configurations/hardware?
PC makers could manufacture certain products that use (exclusively) equipment from this list of Apple-approved parts. These particular products could be certified by Apple as being "OSX Ready".
Am I missing something?
Originally posted by MacRonin
I don't like the idea of OSX on x86...
* * * cereal filler * * *
I will stick with my Apple-branded PowerPC choices, thank you very much...!
From the speculative three listed above, I could see HP as one, they have been selling Unix boxes forever...
Sony, duh! Refer back to Steve's keynote comment of "maybe someday computers and music"...
IBM, not likely... They have sold off their PC divisions...
Besides, they are going to make their scratch selling IBM branded Mac minis (front-end) & IBM/PowerPC blade servers (back-end) to the enterprise market...
But; imagine the sweet, sweet irony if Dell was one of the PC makers "wooing" Apple...
If it doesn't meet apple's requirements then it will not be certified and will not run. Also, Apple can require certification on any hardware platform or chipset which can be software checked when installing the OS.
fanboy's can't get that kind of certification without a ton of hoops.
Originally posted by Harald
YOU IDIOT!!11!!! sorry, you said don't shoot the messenger
LOL! trust you harald...
Originally posted by Existence
I hope this is true. Apple's hardware is terribly underpowered and overpriced. If Apple licenses OS X for x86, say at <$200 a pop as a linux distro, has windows compatibility (a la Wine), I would be all over it.
Then who in there right mind would buy an Apple branded desktop, if I can get the SAME user experience, more power, for cheaper? No one. Soon enough, Apple would become a software only company (not nearly enough hardware sales to sustain that segment). R&D would suffer, and I don't think that Apple can do it as a just a software company...
Application developers would then start balking at the idea of supporting 2 binaries when everyone could run x86 binaries. Since there is no longer PPC hardware, and everyone is running x86 machine. If you were a developer, and you could write/support/maintain one binary and source tree wouldn't you?. Eventually no one would be writing new software for OS X (developers would say just run it in Wine), and soon the point of booting OS X at all would be null. Then everyone would be running Windows.
Man, everytime I hear this idea it sounds just so great
Edit: It could still be a Power-achitecture-only thing, too.
Originally posted by TednDi
why not just OS X certified?
If it doesn't meet apple's requirements then it will not be certified and will not run. ...
Here's a story for you. I once had a client with a bunch of machines running NextStep for Intel. I think it was version 4.5. In order to support them, I tried to assemble a PC to run NextStep.
Well... NextStep supported exactly TWO types of video cards and ONE type of SCSI card. Out of the dozens of video cards I had in stock, I did not have either of the video cards; but the SCSI card was the Adaptec 1542B, and I did have one of those. The base machine was a standard Dell.
To make a long story short, I could not get the installation to complete.
The client had PCs from DEC that were NextStep-Certified, for which they had paid about three times the going rate for PCs at the time.
As you may know, Mac OS X is basically the same as NextStep, so if Mac OS X did come out for Intel, it would be precisely as popular and widespread as NextStep for Intel was... which is to say, very unpopular, difficult to support, and expensive.
Originally posted by onlooker
Well the speed, and power graphics is on the side of x86, but the second Apple ports OS X to x86 All Mac sales will be slowly, but steadily wiped out.
Yes I know I'm replying to my own post, but I just read the article after the initial post. I don't think there is any need for concern here. They (PC, x86 side) have been asking for OS X on intel for ever. At least 3 years since its introduction. Apple is winning customers slowly, but surely, and the release of Tiger is going to blow the doors off of the PC world.
I hope Apple has been brainstorming, and planning to release some new products for "new to Apple" markets upon it's introduction as well...
I'd like the large Pro Version PowerMac chassis, a home media center, and a box of crispy creams please. To Go....
My take is:
They already have ways to 0wN once Tiger hits. They just need to do it. A Home Media Center / with an integrated iTunes music store would be a great start. While using this Media Appliance people could also use the menu to view demonstrations on how to use other Apple products in their day to day lives. Like iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, Big list continues. Considering that so many retail electronics houses are carrying the iPod, and now there are even more carrying the Mac Mini. - Apple could have demo's running, and playing in the middle of the media areas of Best Buy's, and other major electronics stores. If you do the demo movies right people will flock. (word of mouth will make them flock to Apple "gadgets" anyway) If they buy an Apple Media Center when they get home they should still have opportunities to view these movie demo's from the menu, - Add an internet connection, and they can update the demos, and add new ones.
\\
Apple created, and coined the phrase digital Lifestyle (I think) For once in their history they should be able to pull off a big win for all they have done for superior computing experience, electronics, and design in general. Their software, and "most" products are so completely superior to the rest that they deserve something more than merely winning with the iPod.
The imitators never get it right. Apple Computer is constantly copied, or emulated, but the product experience is only truely realized, and able to be appreciated using real Apple products.
Originally posted by onlooker
Well the speed, and power graphics is on the side of x86 (...)
No offense, but I hope you were not thinking of nVidia's SLI crap again... I read a story/real world test on it today:
- performance gains are fairly small relative to the price of the second card (two 6600 GTs could not match one 6800 Ultra),
- all current chipsets devide a full PEG slot (16 PCIe lanes) into two "half" PEG slots (8 lanes),
- the drivers are unstable and bug ridden (load balancing does not work properly),
- perfomance gains are extremely CPU dependant as it has to do the load balancing calculations.
There is still a lot of work left to be done (they should integrate the load balancing into the GPUs).
On the other hand, there are a lot of advancements on the hardware side (SATA 2, faster RAM, PCIe for I/O purposes, 802.11n etc., well, ok, Quadros as well) that are promising but need to be either refined (DDR2 or XDR memory) or fully utilized (especially PCIe, hardly any hardware besides non-native GPUs available yet). But I expect to see those in the next PowerMac coming around WWDC at the latest.
Originally posted by RolandG
No offense, but I hope you were not thinking of nVidia's SLI crap again... I read a story/real world test on it today:
- performance gains are fairly small relative to the price of the second card (two 6600 GTs could not match one 6800 Ultra),
- all current chipsets devide a full PEG slot (16 PCIe lanes) into two "half" PEG slots (8 lanes),
- the drivers are unstable and bug ridden (load balancing does not work properly),
- perfomance gains are extremely CPU dependant as it has to do the load balancing calculations.
There is still a lot of work left to be done (they should integrate the load balancing into the GPUs).
On the other hand, there are a lot of advancements on the hardware side (SATA 2, faster RAM, PCIe for I/O purposes, 802.11n etc., well, ok, Quadros as well) that are promising but need to be either refined (DDR2 or XDR memory) or fully utilized (especially PCIe, hardly any hardware besides non-native GPUs available yet). But I expect to see those in the next PowerMac coming around WWDC at the latest.
Cute, but you got nothing.
Of course 2x 6600 GTs could not match one 6800 Ultra. What ever gave you the idea that 2 cards that are less than half the speed of one card would magically add up to more when put together?
Post a link to your real world test. I recently dissected a test in here that showed SLI performing at almost 2x the speed as as a 6800 ULtra on a Mac in these very forums.
(16 PCIe lanes) into two "half" PEG slots (8 lanes),
That is the older design for intels processors. Nvidia's nForce4 for AMD Opteron is 16 lanes both ways.
Originally posted by onlooker
Well the speed, and power graphics is on the side of x86, but the second Apple ports OS X to x86 All Mac sales will be slowly, but steadily wiped out.
not true entirely - device drivers would still need to be written for OSX on intel - if NVidia and ATI won't write drivers for their workstation cards on OS X ppc, what chance on a completely unestablished platform? And as for technologies like PCI express and SLI, well there's no reason why Apple couldn't implement these if they so desired.