Apple VP says Mac OS X won't run on other PCs

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 104
    wnursewnurse Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.



    I kinda agree to some sense with you but i am wondering. Are you an employee of apple?. You speak so emphatically about what apple will and will not do. You must be a board member or in some position to influence apple. You don't even say you "think" you say "apple will not". Wow, hey, how is it like working at apple, can you get me a job?
  • Reply 62 of 104
    For those of you who haven't been around as Mac users for very long, Apple is first and foremost a computer hardware company. That's where they make most of their money. Yes, they also have the iPod, however, it still is not their "bread and butter" so to speak. It may in the near future take over that position, which is probably why Apple feels they can comfortably make the transition to Intel at this time.



    Being a computer hardware company, I seriously doubt they would begin to sell OS X for other computer manufacturers given the current state of the company, i.e. doing well. They could however change their minds if the hardware division is not performing as well as they'd like.



    I honestly believe they could still thrive as a hardware company even if they did decide to let loose OS X. I would still buy an Apple made computer even if there were cheaper alternatives available. The quality of Apple's systems and their excellent customer service cannot be beat by anyone else in the industry. (The same cannot be said when Apple first licensed it's OS.) True, it will most certainly hurt their computer hardware business, but most of the loss there would be made up by the sales of OS X (especially to corporate sales). I would also think they wouldn't allow any of that to happen unless their consumer electronics (iPod) division *really* takes off and they feel sales here could also cover any loss elsewhere in the company.



    Given the history of Steve Jobs and NeXT, I also believe that someday we will see a cross-platform version of Cocoa (I'm sure it's already leading a secret double life in Cupertino). Can you imagine a developer using Xcode (on an OS X system) being able to code and compile their application once and have it run on any system, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, or OS X, regardless of CPU. This portability was one of OpenStep's greatest attributes and it is still in fact built into OS X - there is a reason they kept "bundles" around, which is used to keep resources/data separated from the binaries/code.



    I also believe these "Universal binaries" will be a permanent fixture in OS X and enable Apple the extreme flexibility it needs; possibly PowerPC/Altivec based systems for engineering/scientific applications and Intel based systems for the mass consumer market. After all, it's not like they have to retool their own manufacturing facilities, they just need to design the system and contract it out just as they do now.



    Anyway, just my two cents on the subject.



    -schizzylogic
  • Reply 63 of 104
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by archer75

    I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap.



    So you aren't the market Apple is targeting at this time.
  • Reply 64 of 104
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by archer75

    I consider the OS the product.



    It isn't the product Apple is selling. Apple is selling a product that consists of hardware and software. This isn't what everyone is looking for (obviously). But it isn't a bad thing altogether either.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by archer75

    If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.



    They do...here and here.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by archer75

    If they release OSX with no restriction and I can run it on my PC I will buy it and be very happy to.



    Perhaps someday they will.
  • Reply 65 of 104
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    Quote:

    So... if you only want PART of a product, ethics don't matter? You're happy to steal that part?



    Define "ethics".
  • Reply 66 of 104
    Apple has designed a great potato peeler that works great with their specially bread potato. It makes sense to sell them together. If they let their peeler work with generic potatoes, you would have a peeler that was either ridiculed because it was extremely slowly on the wrong size potatoes or you would have to change the peeler to work with all potatoes which would make the peeler huge and harder to use. Sure there are some potatoes that it would work great with, such as your home grown potatoes, but there would be even more potatoes that it would not work well with. And in the end what is the purpose? Is it to create a great potato? NO! Is it to create a great generic potato peeler? NO! It?s to create a peeler that works with a specific potato so well that your kids will beg for the opportunity to help make dinner.



    On a side note, I suppose they won?t be selling a boxed version of Tiger for Intel because there are no older MacTel boxes to upgrade. The only legal way to get a copy that you could try to use on your home grown PC would be to buy new MacTel hardware. You would then have you erase it off your Mac and assume that the clause about only using it on Apple hardware was not legal and thus not binding in law or in your conscious.



    Alexander the Great
  • Reply 67 of 104
    zozo Posts: 3,117member
    MacOS X Leopard will start having serial numbers that will be verified by an Apple Verification server and will combine unique ID numbers of certain hardware (motherboard components)..



    And we all know how well THAT worked with WinXP...
  • Reply 68 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades They do a great job styling their machine but the real value is the OS. why not sell that OS to everyone? Rant over.....





    They will do much better than that - they will sell cheap mac's with ability to run MS Windows (i.e for games or some apps that do not exist on mac platform) PLUS extra bonus - the world's famous Mac OS X! Let's say we have Dell and Mac with the same or near price, but Mac also have all that nice stuff like design, iApps, AND MacOS X. So which do you buy? I bet on Mac. I have three machines now - Powerbook, Powermac and a cheap Athlon PC which is for games only, why whould i need this peace of crap if i can run Windows on a Mac as a second OS? Switch to Intel is a great move for Apple and it will increase both hardware and software sales. I was dissapointed at first time but not now. Apple to the masses! and sorry for my english :-)
  • Reply 69 of 104
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by archer75

    I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap. If i'm forced to use an Intel/Mac computer cost will be alot higher.



    I have no problem paying for OSX. And I would if they released it for the x86.




    It's the integration with the hardware that makes OS X so great. It would be complicated for Apple to support lots of PCs - as well as costly.
  • Reply 70 of 104
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZO

    MacOS X Leopard will start having serial numbers that will be verified by an Apple Verification server and will combine unique ID numbers of certain hardware (motherboard components)..



    And we all know how well THAT worked with WinXP...




    I think this is unlikely -Apple only sells its software to Mac OS X users so doesn't use serial codes on the OS. I think a hardware component will be needed to boot OS X and this will stop PC users using it.
  • Reply 71 of 104
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AquaMac

    .... Also the R&D for making the OS portable on all combinations of chips and hardware is cost prohibitive. If you can think of a way around these problems I would love to hear it. BTW using stupid with out supporting evidence makes your argument weaker not stronger.





    Who knows that they haven't spent the last 5 odd years secretly developing drivers and other stuff that can support loads of systems.....





    Perhaps after Stevey has got everybody to buy a new Mac-Tel system and the the transition is finished (paid by us).. Only then will it be reveiled!!!..
  • Reply 72 of 104
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 923member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wnurse

    VirtualPC?. You are funny!!!. No, he is right, give it a few days and a real hack will emerge, not some emulator.



    Yes, I totally missed the idea that a MacIntel could be a "standard" PC able to boot (and fully run) Windows natively, out of the box. I assumed Apple would use a highly proprietary chipset, firmware, etc.



    And as to OS X running on beige boxes, I suppose it will be possible that CERTAIN manufacturers or custom boxes will duplicate the hardware Apple chooses to use and thus be usable - if unsupported. (You still have that picky license agreement that says OS X is only to be run on Apple hardware, but that's a minor detail. )



    I doubt many people will buy MacIntels to just run Windows on, or will buy PCs to run OS X on. But certainly the tinkerer/hobbiest/hacker community will, license agreements be damned. If Apple keeps the MacIntel "open" with the ability to boot and run Windows, I'm sure places like Tom's Hardware and other hard-core sites will benchmark and compare them to Dells, HPs, etc. And if OS X is runnable on standard PCs, I'm sure we'll see benchmarks of Windows vs OS X on various boxes.



    I don't know which would be a better strategy for Apple, leave OS X able to run on any properly configured "generic" box, or put in just enough hardware checking to lock OS X to Apple hardware. As has been mentioned, hackers will certainly try (and likely find) a way to bypass any such locks. Even a full-blown proprietary chipset & firmware won't keep them away.



    True hardware parity puts Apple in the tough spot of REALLY having to compete on OS superiority alone. Not that I think they'll lose that comparison, but using not only the same CPU as everyone else, but also very similar system components levels the field a LOT.



    Definitely interesting times ahead.



    - Jasen.
  • Reply 73 of 104
    So, I'm just catching up on the tail end of this, and I am really not one to delve into all of the "software/hardware" tweeks like the rest of you, but why would Apple really be so against booting OSX on a wintel machine?



    After all, wasn't one of Steve's main deflections away from the "switching to Intel!?" gasp, "It's the OS, not the hardware".



    So I guess it really is the OS, at least if you only run it on Apple hardware?
  • Reply 74 of 104
    wnursewnurse Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    It's the integration with the hardware that makes OS X so great. It would be complicated for Apple to support lots of PCs - as well as costly.



    Actually, microsoft doesn't do it now. Dell and other pc makers are tasked with making sure their systems run microsoft well and if you have a problem with windows on a dell, you call dell (i suppose you could call microsoft too). Apple support problem would be easy. They would require the pc manafacturer to provide support. They wouldn't have to worry about making os X for multiple components, rather, the pc manufacturers would have to make sure their hardware is compatible with mac OS X. Apple can institute a program where only hardware that it deems worthy can have an apple logo on the box. So all manufacturers would have to submit to apple a prototype of the box they will build and apple can then certify the box. The manufactures will pay for this privelege (call it membership to apple certification program). If it was that costly, how is microsoft still in business?. Everything i said above shows that appls would not bear any of the cost. Apple can even make the standards for passing certification very stringent. If apple choses not to allow their operating system to run on other boxes, cost will not have been a factor. Their desire to control the entire process is the only reason they wouldn't do it.
  • Reply 75 of 104
    synosyno Posts: 33member
    If apple wanted other companys to be able to run OS X. they could have done this long before they decided to switch to Intel as he said OS X has been running on intel for 5 years. it would have been no problem to keep IBM and sell a copy of OS X intel to dell/hp etc. apple clearly want to make there own computers.
  • Reply 76 of 104
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I can't see Apple doing a wide license of OS X to all OEM's.



    All of these companies don't even have the same business model.



    Dell and Gateway are mostly interested in selling the most and the cheapest computers possible. Dell's emphasis is on making more profit with the least over head. Gateway's emphasis is on actually being alive next year. These two would not make a good match at all.



    Sony and HP make a closer match for Apple. Sony sells designer computer's just like Apple and would likely adhere to strict design rules. Licensing to HP would more benefit in the enterprise market. HP can more effectively spread OS X in business than Apple by itself.
  • Reply 77 of 104
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by syno

    If apple wanted other companys to be able to run OS X. they could have done this long before they decided to switch to Intel ....



    And you know this how?
  • Reply 78 of 104
    wnursewnurse Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me





    quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Originally posted by syno

    If apple wanted other companys to be able to run OS X. they could have done this long before they decided to switch to Intel ....

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    And you know this how?







    He knows this because Mac OSX has always been compiled to run on intel chips. Apple could have licensed it to PC manufacturers had it been so inclined. As to whether apple would have wanted to do this, obviously not!!.

    He was observing Apple's capability to have licensed the operating system, not its intention or inclination to license.
  • Reply 79 of 104
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by wnurse

    He knows this because Mac OSX has always been compiled to run on intel chips. Apple could have licensed it to PC manufacturers had it been so inclined. As to whether apple would have wanted to do this, obviously not!!.

    He was observing Apple's capability to have licensed the operating system, not its intention or inclination to license.




    However, no software would work on it so it would have been a huge success! Hey developers while switching to OS X can you write two copies of your program. One for OS X on Intel and one for the PPC. Seems likely!
  • Reply 80 of 104
    wnursewnurse Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    However, no software would work on it so it would have been a huge success! Hey developers while switching to OS X can you write two copies of your program. One for OS X on Intel and one for the PPC. Seems likely!



    If apple really wanted to license the operating system to PC manufacturers, they would have developed the universal binaries before and rosetta would have been in existence before. Remember, necessity is the mother of invention. Whatever tools were needed would have been available (be it rosetta, universal binaries, etc). Does it not fascinate anyone that apple suddenly have these tools?. I'm inclined (and i don't have any more info than anyone in this forum) to believe that apple had these tools a while back, just like MacOS X has always been compiled for intel chips. Kinda like a rainy day insurance policy.
Sign In or Register to comment.