OSx86: Are You Serious?

[fryke]

That's quite a rosy utopia you're painting in my opinion. Others (NeXT, BeOS) have tried and failed. Sure, Apple's in a better position, but Microsoft is biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig.

[jh2112]

Microsoft are big, yes but I wrote increase not take the majority of market share.

But you're probably right.

The only thing is that I cannot see how Apple are going to keep OSX86 on their hardware only, TPM chips or not. We've seen how quickly the OSX86 software has been hacked and really does run well on generic pc's. Even the SSE3 requirement has been defeated for Rosetta.
What comes to mind is the old adage: if you can't beat them, join them.
Selling OSX86 as a software package is a viable alternative to trying to defeat the hackers. Imagine the millions gained in sales and the millions saved on R&D trying to stay one step ahead.
A rosy picture, maybe but what are the alternatives?
IMO, if Apple do not release OSX86 as a package then I believe they will simply be losing revenue to the hacked (illegal but free,) versions that will be available.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by fryke

That's quite a rosy utopia you're painting in my opinion. Others (NeXT, BeOS) have tried and failed.

Agreed.

And people seem to be glossing over a number of important factors...

First, the idea that Mac OS X would run on any PC is a pipe dream at best. Even if Apple released Mac OS X for Intel, the odds are that it would have very strict requirements. If we look at NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and the BeOS, all of them were limited to a small subset of the PCs being made at the time.

Just because Windows can run on every PC doesn't mean every x86 operating system is going to be able to. People should keep in mind that Windows runs on everything because everything has been designed to run Windows (which is also the same type of mistake that people are making assuming that an Intel Mac is going to run Windows).

Second, Apple releasing Mac OS X for Intel is going to do nothing to increase market share.

That bares repeating... Apple releasing Mac OS X for Intel is going to do nothing (at all) to increase market share.

Why? Because the only time that an operating system is counted in market share is when it is bundled with the computer.

If you buy a Windows PC and put Linux, Solaris or even Mac OS X on it, that only counts as market share for Windows. It doesn't count for any of the operating systems that end up on the system.

So the only way for Mac OS X to possibly gain market share is by having it preinstalled on other venders hardware... which Apple isn't likely to do considering how the clones damaged Apple.

[jh2112]

"That bares repeating... Apple releasing Mac OS X for Intel is going to do nothing (at all) to increase market share.

Why? Because the only time that an operating system is counted in market share is when it is bundled with the computer."

Ok, I didn't know that! I presumed that market share was based on OS licences rather than hardware.
Damn my lack of industry knowledge!

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by jh2112

The only thing is that I cannot see how Apple are going to keep OSX86 on their hardware only, TPM chips or not.

Funny, this issue has been covered (many times by me... including in this thread) in this forum.

The developer kit version of Mac OS X was based on the version Apple has been developing since they acquired NeXT. It was designed for standard PC hardware... which is what the developer kits are, standard PC hardware.

If you can't see how Apple could keep Mac OS X on their own hardware, it isn't because the answer wasn't right in front of you all along.

People just don't seem to be able to think outside Wintel boxes.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by jh2112

Damn my lack of industry knowledge!

The first antitrust case against Microsoft was because they were forcing PC makers to only install their operating system. Microsoft penalized any hardware maker that preinstalled another operating system. They did that to dominate the market (and it worked).

And the antitrust case did nothing to stop the practice. Microsoft did the same thing to stop the BeOS from being preinstalled on PCs as late as 1999.

[cfleck]

Originally Posted by RacerX

...
Why? Because the only time that an operating system is counted in market share is when it is bundled with the computer.

If you buy a Windows PC and put Linux, Solaris or even Mac OS X on it, that only counts as market share for Windows. It doesn't count for any of the operating systems that end up on the system.
...

I have to disagree with this. That just doesn't make sense then that the Linux market share has grown like it does. The only computers that get sold in any real quantity with linux on them are server machines and I can't see linux achieving the numbers that they have with those machines alone.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by cfleck

I have to disagree with this. That just doesn't make sense then that the Linux market share has grown like it does. The only computers that get sold in any real quantity with linux on them are server machines and I can't see linux achieving the numbers that they have with those machines alone.

There are actually a lot of desktop systems being sold with Linux preinstalled by a lot of smaller hardware makers.

But beyond that... what exactly do you think you are disagreeing with?

It can't be me... I don't make this stuff up ya know.

So are you disagreeing with the practice?

I disagree with the practice too. Mac users don't buy new systems as much as PC users do, so the market share is completely skewed towards PCs. The fact that developers use market share to decide on what platform they are going to develop on when those numbers don't represent actual installed users of those platforms is a complete injustice.


But market share is an unfortunate fact of life.