# OSx86: Are You Serious?



## cfleck (Aug 17, 2005)

First, my stance:

I was very unhappy about the switch to x86 in the beginning.  There were many reasons for this.  For instance, I personally like the fact that the PowerPC chip is somewhat unique in this x86 world.  I makes me feel good to be a bit different.  Also, I see the move to x86 as destroying my mac resale value as the upgrade time for x86 chips seems to move at a much faster pace.  There are other reasons as well, but since this is not the point of this "letter", I'll leave that to, perhaps, a future memo.

In time, I came to terms with the move.  I deemed it as something I had no control over and, hence, must get over.  So I did.  I told myself that this is how it will be and I am crossing my fingers that they don't screw up a great system.  

Well, I've always had my doubts, but my doubts have grown to the point that I must ask this open question to anyone with an educated clue for an answer.  Before I state said question I have to make a plea.  Please do not post a response that you read on Slashdot, or that you heard someone said that you heard you heard.  Only thoughts with some basis in fact need be submitted.  That out of the way, I ask in two parts:

Is it possible for OS X for x86 to be out there and only run on Mac hardware?

What DRM/protection scheme can they possibly implement that won't be broken in relatively short order?


----------



## Mikuro (Aug 17, 2005)

It's conceivable that they could do something wild with proprietary hardware, but I doubt they would, and I don't think they should. I think Apple will be using more or less standard PC motherboards (like in the development kits), and that makes sense. The dev kits are using Intel's TPM (Trusted Platform Module  a name that makes me gag just typing it) to limit what hardware it can run on, and this has already been hacked to allow OS X to run on any ol' PC.

There's no saying Apple won't change the system they use to limit hardware compatibility. That's quite likely, even. But whatever they do, really, it's only a matter of time before it's hacked to run natively on general PCs, or at the very least run in a near-full-speed "virtual machine" à la Virtual PC for Windows. Apple can make it hard, but realistically, they can't make it impossible.

That said, whatever Apple does will be enough to keep 99+% of the PC using world from running OS X on non-Apple hardware, and that's what really matters. Apple needs to keep selling their own hardware. I don't really like that attitude (since it is, after all, a completely artificial limitation), but hey, that's the truth of the matter.

They could, however, start a little cat-and-mouse game with the hackers. Imagine every little security update somehow breaking compatibility with all the hacks. It would make it very impractical to bother running OS X on non-Apple machines. I imagine this kind of thing will happen even without Apple specifically trying to do it. (Actually, this already happens on the Mac side with people installing OS X on older, unsupported Apple hardware, like pre-G3 Macs with processor upgrades. You can do it using something like XPostFacto, but it's rarely easy, and every new version of OS X makes it harder and harder.)

So, there's my answer. If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you feel this is important one way or another? Just wondering.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 17, 2005)

I don't think Apple will use standard PC motherboards.  They don't use standard PowerPC motherboards now, so I don't think they'll do it with Intel motherboards, either.  In addition, the Apple product lines with strange, non-standard form factors far outnumbers the Apple product lines with familiar, standard form factors... Mac mini, iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac, etc.  Look at any of those motherboard and you won't find a single one like them in any other computer.

The processor is changing, and that's it.  The Macs will look the same -- they won't suddenly change into ugly PC boxes.  For all intents and purposes, it should be impossible to tell a PowerPC motherboard from an Intel motherboard without knowing what each processor socket looks like.

Unless Apple decides to drop their prices to match current run-of-the-mill PC boxes, which I don't think they will, I think they'll keep the guts of their computers as proprietary as ever and charge about the same.  This isn't a huge paradigm shift at Apple -- just a simple processor change that only affects programmers... home users will be able to use their applications as they normally would, and if they decide to upgrade their machine to an Intel machine, they'd better be ready to upgrade their software as well -- this is a given.  Don't wanna upgrade your software?  Don't upgrade your hardware, then, as you are asking for incompatibility issues.  The condition your Macintosh is currently in is all you can ask of it -- you can't be assured that your stuff will work with all future machines to come.

I think Apple will use a combination of hardware and software to combat illegal installs of OS X.  Using Intel's TPM chip as well as simple software checks (like they currently do with system-specific Restore CDs and certain applications), as Mikuro said, will combat the majority of tinkerers.  I don't think they'll be successful at keeping OS X Intel off of all generic PCs...

I'm excited.  I want an Intel-based Mac now.  Especially after reading the reports about how fast it runs on Intel hardware.  Sure, I liked the fact that I could brag about differences in endian-ness, RISC vs. CISC, pipeline depth and so forth, but that's not the meat of why I really enjoyed using my Mac.  It's the user experience that really sucked me in and is what's keeping me a faithful member of the platform.  Intel or PowerPC, as long as it's a Mac, it'll suit my needs happily.


----------



## fryke (Aug 18, 2005)

It's an old thing. Say you want to protect your real-world snailmail. You can build a super-duper super-safe mailbox. Won't hinder a thief from getting to the postman before the mail even _enters_ the mailbox. See?

Now... Apple can make use of those DRM chips. They've done so now, someone circumvented that protection (i.e. got to the mail before it was in the protected mailbox...). They can use proprietary chips on the motherboard. But then, too, maybe some mind will find a patch for the OS X code, so it never even checks for those chips for some reason or other.

It breaks down to a basic philosophy thing. Apple has to decide how much energy they want to waste. In my opinion, people are going to find ways around. And it only takes ONE bright mind to find a way around Apple's protection for the many who want to make use of it. It's like with protected music files. I've never understood why music labels copy-protect Audio-CDs. Because it only takes ONE pirate to create a copy. The millions just download copies of that first copy and never have to even CARE about the protection...

In my opinion, Apple should go on as prepared. Light protection. Prevents the casual user from simply using a friend's original DVD on his vanilla PC. So those who want to pirate really have to pirate. They have to know they're doing something illegal, have to visit a site that offers the illegal code and have to illegally install the code on their machine(s). Apple will still make enough money with their Macs.

And if it _really_ becomes a problem, they should be ready to _sell_ OS X licenses to vanilla PC users. Maybe it's time. Who knows... Let's take a look at it...

1.) iPod has generated 'good vibes', generally, for Apple. Soft factor, but a fact.
2.) The transition to X86 has generated quite some interest in the 'X86 community' for OS X. It's a fact, too, although I couldn't put any numbers to it.
3.) Viruses and malware plague Windows users.
4.) Longhorn is always some years off, it seems. It's now called Vista and expected at the end of 2006 _earliest_.

Hey, Apple: Finish your work on a working Tiger version for OS X _now_ until the end of 2005. Release it at the beginning of 2006 - or even before the end of 2005. Sell millions of copies. Make them work on, say, a specific motherboard from intel and only chips that include SSE3, let's say. THEN if someone finds a hack to also make it work on AMD machines and intel machines that only have SSE2, that's THEIR problem. You're selling licenses. Millions of. And if you're ready to also provide the best notebooks and desktop machines, people will actually BUY those Macs. If they run Windows, too, people who like and love their iPods will buy Macs. Even if they're about to install Windows, they still count as "Mac users" in the market-share statistics, because they actually bought a license with the Mac. And if you can get 10 or 15 percent, you've started a revolution. And isn't this almost the wording of EVERY BLOODY Apple press release? Isn't it about starting computer revolutions...?


----------



## powermac (Aug 18, 2005)

I don't understand the Technology behind computers much. Cfleck, does bring up a non tech issue, in that using the PPC chip does give Mac users a different sense. It is too bad that between IBM & Motorola, either could not get the PPC chip competitive enough against intel. 

My only concern with the switch is quality. In my limited understanding of Processors, I am afraid of the quantity over quality issue with intel. (Perhaps my worry is not warranted). Intel is a company that mass produces processors. Recently, an article was published on the internet where they have admitted to pushing a processor out to the market before they should have. The PPC is known for is efficient use, and reliability, although it may not be the fastest. 

A live long Mac user, and a person who enjoys quality products, I am sure Apple will continue to make great, reliable products. I don't believe the demand for Apple computers is high enough that they must depend on the mass produced Intel chip to keep up with demand. It is my believe the switch appears premature, and it is a course that can't be reversed. There is no turning back to the PPC chip. From a programmers stand point, the switch makes sense, and I believe the market will be flooded with software, which will benefit Apple initially. In the long-term I am concerned that consumers will not see the benefit of purchasing an Apple. In the end their computing solutions can be met by either PC or Apple. 
These are just some concerns I have, and perhaps they are not legitimate concerns.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 18, 2005)

Well, consider back in the days of the 680x0 CPUs.  Atari and Amiga also used them, as did NeXT.  However, none of them could have the Mac OS installed unless they had the hardware ROM from Apple, and even then it couldn't install all by itself.  It had to run using an emulator on top of the native OS for that system.  So this definitely didn't hurt Apple's image at all.  Neither will the change to Intel processors.


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 18, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> Is it possible for OS X for x86 to be out there and only run on Mac hardware?
> 
> What DRM/protection scheme can they possibly implement that won't be broken in relatively short order?


Yes, this is a very simple extension of what Apple already does today with various OS installers.

The OS gives all applications access to hardware level identifications. This is some of the very detailed information you see in Apple System Profiler.

Like applications, the OS can simply look at this information and refuse to run unless is sees propritary Apple identifications on various component, not limited to the CPU. 

It would not be difficult for Intel to make otherwise vanilla CPU's that identify themselves as "apple...". Even lacking this cooperation from Intel, Apple makes thier own motherboards, which also have unique id's.


Be clear, this is not a Digital Rights Management (DRM) sort of thing like in iTunes Music Store files. This is simply some logic built into the OS to do a very specific hardware check.

To break this, hackers would need to ge the hardware to "report" the Apple specific info. So this is quite a bit more difficult than hacking sofware. (Although I'm not sure if this can be done at the ROM/BIOS levels... [Hey... Will x86 Mac's have a ROM or BIOS?])

This is why Apple always has to do a x.x.1 point release each time they release new hardware. All they are doing with these releases is giving the OS the info it needs to check and okay the new hardware codes.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 18, 2005)

Why does this concern me?  There are many reasons, but perhaps the most important to me isn't easily explained.

Mac users tend to be a unique breed of individual when it comes to computer use.  By and large, if I go to a mac-related site looking for help/reviews/tips whatever, I can be relatively confident that the site will be well designed and the content helpful.  The same is not true for Windows or Linux sites.

If I go anywhere with my powerbook, it isn't entirely unlikely that a fellow mac user will come up to "shoot the breeze" and just talk mac.  There is sort of an unspoken bond, that mac users all have something in common that gives them a bit more confidence.  

Maybe the real kicker is the relative lack of Toppers (yes I stole that term from a recent Dilbert).  That is, when I owned a Gateway, there was always someone wanting to know what was under the hood so they could rave about how great their own system was, and how I should upgrade to this that or the next so I could get 8E100 frames per second while playing Doom 87.

There are other reasons I have concern as well (technical), but they've all been beaten to death by others so I'll avoid them.

Maybe there is something else at work, but I have a bad feeling that x86 is going to break up this little "club".

For the Dilbert I speak of...
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050816.html
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050817.html
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050818.html


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 18, 2005)

No... It won't!

The club will remain little because Apple will not let the scumbags in... And the scumbags will make up all kinds of BS about why they didn't want in anyway!

Think about it. Apple announced ONLY CPU changes... It's the Toppers and Feature Creeps who keep insiting that this means more. They say this will make them PeeCee's... it wont!

The problem is not Toppers and Feature Creeps invading our club. Instead our club seems becoming converted from this inside out... Don't be a Feature Creep. Don't let the stupid concerns eat at you.


----------



## fjdouse (Aug 18, 2005)

Toppers?  Interesting, sounds like an expression used in sexual contexts which only friends of Dorothy will get... but I digress...

Far be it from me to disagree with my web developer friend above, but only Mac-myopics are saying that Intel Macs will be Macs and not PCs.  You could call anything a Mac, but a simple logic is being overlooked about the PC thing.  Windows runs on generic PCs, if Windows will run on an Intel Mac natively, then logically, an Intel Mac must be a PC (as in an generic IBM PC compatible), even if packaged and sold as something different. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I'm afraid the chances are it's a duck. It's amusing to say the least to read the U-turns and the retractions, I could say some of it is two-faced.  We've HAD to go from a position that the Mac experience is about the unique OS and hardware to it being just the OS, perhaps the same logic would apply if in 10 years Apple abandon Mac OS and use an Apple branded version of a Microsoft OS? We could try and convince ourselves that the Mac experience is all about iLife eh? Again, I rant...

Personally, although I accept the switch, it's only because I have to.  I don't relish the idea of Apple producing x86 machines, I was attracted to a UNIX implementation where I wouldn't have to recompile a kernel to make a screensaver work, on unique PowerPC hardware, but the average Mac user cares little for the technicalities and frankly by what I've read before I humbly do not think many are able to understand the possible ramifications of what the switch could mean for the platform longer term.  I won't even go into the subject about licensing it for chav PCs, quite possibly the most short-sighted and suicidal idea I've ever heard.

I think until Apple actually ANNOUNCE the first Intel Mac, people are quite literally, pi$$ing in the wind, nobody knows what protections and preventions Apple will put in place, I hope they put enough in to stop the majority of Chav-PC users from going through the grief of installing it on their boxes-of-woe.  Hopefully they'll tie it into specific Apple hardware and try to make it run like a sack-o-cack on generic machines. It's all up in the air now, anything you see people doing -or not- in relationship to Tiger on x86 means NOTHING.  Only dev kits have been issued, these cannot EVER tell you much about what the ACTUAL machines will be like, in hardware or software terms, and these idiots ILLEGALLY hacking and installing OS X on other machines could have wasted their time when the actual products start to appear.

Anyone who says or writes in their wee little blogs that they know what's coming, is basically talking out of their @rses and should be ignored on principle - ONLY Apple know what is going on.


----------



## fryke (Aug 19, 2005)

Well, it's not _that_ easy. Apple does and will give _some_ information out before the actual release of the first intel Mac, because third party developers have to be able to make sure that their software as well as hardware (!) runs okay with the products. For example, I don't think that Apple actually writes the graphics drivers all by themselves. nVidia and/or ATi (or even intel, should Apple make some use of board-integrated graphics by intel) will have to be contacted well before the introduction of the first intel Macs. Apple wants developers to be ready for the transition, because if Apple makes the jump, consumers must be able to make the jump, too. If it's a disaster, however, and many third party software and hardware (drivers) don't run well or not at all from the beginning, then the transition will be a VERY hard one.

We've heard a lot of people complain about it already here on the forums, and Apple certainly has to renew the Mac users' trust in the platform - even if it goes intel. And going intel they will, as we know.

Most important are certainly the professional users. Also most difficult, I guess. Apple can try and lure professionals to make the jump by releasing machines that are technically attractive. For example, if the intel PowerBook that will replace the last PPC PowerBook offers more battery life and a big speed improvement, that might work. But should the customer's printer or scanner or (gasp!) Adobe CS not work right from the beginning, the customer either won't make the jump or make it and be very disappointed.

Hence the transition kits. Sure, those machines are not what the final machines will be, but they're out for the sole purpose of enabling third party developers to make the transition. We're probably talking software rather than hardware drivers here, but _those_ must be issued as well. And before the release of the intel Macs.

Hence: Some information _will_ drop out. And much information _has_ dropped out already. "Pi$$ing in the wind", "talking out their @rses", call it what you like, doesn't make it right: It's what the readers of rumour sites _want_ to read and talk about. And so they do... The fact that some people are now able to install 10.4.1 8Bxxx on plain vanilla PCs shows that _currently_, Mac OS X is not so far away from running on them. I agree that we all don't know about the final version of OS X for intel Macs, but opinions and guesswork are allowed. So are thoughts about what Apple should or shouldn't do.


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 19, 2005)

For the record, I am in a quandry regarding the PowerBook.

See, we just refinanced and will have almost everything paid up (the house is the only thing we will still pay for).  My wife is getting a laptop for herself along with a Rebel XT.  She's a Windows user and doesn't like Macs so I'm not going to try that route with her (believe me, I have tried and she has used Macs before and prefers Windows). 

Anyways, I am looking to get something for myself.  I have looked at the PowerBook but I'm undecided.  Should I get the PowerBook or should I get..............a..................nice Alesis QS 8.2 keyboard synth with hammer-weighted 88 keys???  You thought I was going to say "wait and get an Intel Mac" or "get a PC laptop" weren't you??? 

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter what the CPU is inside.  It's still a Mac.  Computers (in all honesty) have gotten to the point where the hardware isn't as critical as it used to be.  It's the software.  Even if Apple DID decide to license to PC vendors, what people will be experiencing is the "Mac OS Experience."  Personally, I think Apple should keep making its own hardware, since they would still have the ability to crank out quality machines.  But to be honest, if you purchase a bunch of components for your Mac, you still might have to download the drivers for it anyways.  So how much different is it really than Windows at this point in that respect?  The difference is that Apple is very particular about quality in their OS, which is what's behind the "Mac OS Experience."  Microsoft still hasn't understood that (still evident in their Vista beta shots).  People are now finally starting to see that the Mac is truly a better system because of Apple's attention to detail.

So big deal.  I'll get a PPC PowerBook now (if I don't go for the synth)....eventually I'll end up buying another Mac, although it would have an Intel chip.  So long as the operating system (and hardware) remains top-notch I'll keep staying on the Mac track.


----------



## cfleck (Aug 19, 2005)

Since I'm pretty happy with my machines (pb and pm) I'd get the synth!  Besides, I've been craving one!

And yes I thought you were going to say "wait and get a ..."


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 19, 2005)

HAhaAhaH

I'm leaning more and more towards the synth at this point.  Who knows...I might change my mind again.   Regardless, it will definitely be a Mac no matter what the CPU.


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 19, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Far be it from me to disagree with my web developer friend above, but only Mac-myopics are saying that Intel Macs will be Macs and not PCs. You could call anything a Mac, but a simple logic is being overlooked about the PC thing. *Windows runs on generic PCs*, if Windows will run on an Intel Mac natively, then logically, an Intel Mac must be a PC (as in an generic IBM PC compatible), even if packaged and sold as something different.


NO No No!

You've got multiple things wrong here. (Maybe it's your glasses that are on upside-down & backwards?)

1) Just sticking an Intel CPU in a Mac does NOT make it a "generic PC"... To be a "generic PC" it must conform to all kinds of specific things that Apple need not concern itself about.

2) So if it a Mac with an Intel CPU there is no guarantee that Windows will boot on it... because it will not be a "generic PC".

3) Besides, the discussion here is NOT about Windows running on it, but instead the exact opposite... being able to run OS X on a "generic PC". This is certainly technically possible, and while Apple might enable this for developer releases, it will never leave this in the final consumer release.

Everyone is making assumptions that a CPU swap = a complete change over to standard "generic" PC motherboards, bios, etc. Neither Apple nor Intel have implied any such thing, and to think the'll do this is a huge ASSumption leap.

The Mac "swan" will never walk like and WinTel "duck". Instead we are simply inserting a gene from this duck into our swan to enable it to make it be able to eat the same food as ducks to. This will be an internal change that will not change the beauty or outward behavior of our swan. It will not suddenly "quack", though it may adopt some ducks as new friends.


----------



## Mikuro (Aug 19, 2005)

TommyWillB said:
			
		

> 2) So if it a Mac with an Intel CPU there is no guarantee that Windows will boot on it... because it will not be a "generic PC".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Everyone is making assumptions that a CPU swap = a complete change over to standard "generic" PC motherboards, bios, etc. Neither Apple nor Intel have implied any such thing, and to think the'll do this is a huge ASSumption leap.


The dev systems _are_ "generic PCs". And Phil Schiller himself said that Apple will "do nothing to preclude" the use of Windows. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean anything about the final products, granted, but as of now, all signs point to the Intel-based Macs being "IBM PC" compatible. It's not just hyper speculation and hand-wringing. There is evidence to support this idea, and there is NO evidence to support the contrary.

And I really don't think a "PC" needs to conform to all that much that Apple doesn't need to concern themselves with. Certainly the Macs will lack things like PS/2 ports, but so what? Right now, what separates Mac hardware from PC hardware _besides_ the processor? (I mean from a technical perspective; style and attention to detail don't count.)


----------



## RacerX (Aug 19, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Right now, what separates Mac hardware from PC hardware _besides_ the processor? (I mean from a technical perspective; style and attention to detail don't count.)


 *Logic Board.*

But if you don't think that makes any difference, why don't you replace the PowerPC processor on a ZIF logic board in a Mac with an Intel processor and see if Windows boots.

If the logic board makes no difference, then Windows _should_ boot just fine... right? 

On the Beige G3 systems you had PC-66 memory, PCI slots, ATA-66 bus and a ZIF processor socket. On the Blue & White G3 systems you had PC-100 memory, PCI slots, ATA-100 bus, a ZIF processor socket, USB and Firewire.

By your definition, putting an Intel processor in the ZIF socket makes those systems _generic PCs_... that _should_ boot Windows just fine.

Best of luck. 



I've said it many times already, but I'll say it once more...

The developer kit systems are generic PCs because Mac OS X for Intel was originally designed for generic PCs. It wasn't kept in development for Intel based Macs, it was designed as a fall back if Apple was to give up their hardware business.

The thing is, Apple isn't giving up their hardware business.. they are just changing processors.

Once the final design of Intel based Apple hardware is finished, porting Mac OS X for Intel over to these systems should be relatively easy... and all the software that worked on the version for generic PCs will still work on the version for Intel based Macs (which was why there was no reason to wait for Apple hardware when they could get developers started right now).

And could we give the Schiller quote a rest.

There is a major difference between taking steps to stop Windows from running on Macs and taking any steps (at all) to make Macs which can even run Windows.


But like I said, if you think that processor makes all the difference, put an Intel processor into those ZIF Macs and boot up Windows. There is no reason to wait for the _new_ Intel based Macs to come out when you can do it right now on existing hardware.

That would end this and prove your point in one easy step.


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 20, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> The dev systems _are_ "generic PCs". And Phil Schiller himself said that Apple will "do nothing to preclude" the use of Windows...


True, but that's the opposite of the question asked when this thread was started:





			
				cfleck said:
			
		

> ...Is it possible for OS X for x86 to be out there and only run on Mac hardware?


That's the question I addressed.

That's the question that you're all (Except RacerX) digressing from...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 21, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> The developer kit systems are generic PCs because Mac OS X for Intel was originally designed for generic PCs. It wasn't kept in development for Intel based Macs, it was designed as a fall back if Apple was to give up their hardware business.
> 
> The thing is, Apple isn't giving up their hardware business.. they are just changing processors.


Slightly off-topic and speculative, but I think Apple developed Mac OS X on Intel simultaneously a Mac OS X on PPC in case of a switch of processors, not in case Apple ever gave up their hardware business.  I don't think Apple ever gave a thought to giving up the hardware business; instead, always kept their options open as to which processors to use... just a thought, though.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 21, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Slightly off-topic and speculative, but I think Apple developed Mac OS X on Intel simultaneously a Mac OS X on PPC in case of a switch of processors, not in case Apple ever gave up their hardware business.  I don't think Apple ever gave a thought to giving up the hardware business...



There should be no mistake... Mac OS X for Intel is a direct descendant of NEXTSTEP 3.1 for Intel which was designed to replace NeXT's hardware business which had been shut down a short time earlier.

It was never designed for _NeXT hardware using Intel processors_... it was design to work on Wintel compatible systems.

When Apple started work on Rhapsody, the idea behind Rhapsody for Intel was to run it on Wintel compatible systems, not _Apple hardware using Intel processors_. The Rhapsody for Intel line was never shut down and it's design was never changed.

Why?

Very simple... Apple didn't make hardware with Intel processors.

How in the world could Apple develop Mac OS X for Intel for nonexistent Intel based Apple hardware? They couldn't. The design of Mac OS X for Intel has been no different (at all) from NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody for Intel. 

It is only now, as we are speaking, that Intel based Apple hardware is coming into existence (and the developer kits are not Apple hardware, they are based on the hardware that Apple's developers where using to keep Mac OS X for Intel current).

The final version of Mac OS X for Intel that will be released is going to be designed for Apple hardware. 

But the current version that has been in development all this time had to be run on something... and as it was originally designed for generic PCs, that is what it currently runs on.

It was a back up plan... Jobs had already been burned (badly) by hardware once. Do you really think he would go without a back up plan after that?

Never put all your eggs in one basket.

I don't think that anyone at Apple ever thought that their hardware business could both be flourishing *and* be forced to change processors at the same time. The fact that Mac OS X for Intel could be used in this way was a great benefit of a back up plan designed around a completely different scenario.

As for _Apple_ not giving the idea of losing their hardware business a _thought_... I'd be willing to bet real money that Jobs has never forgotten the fact that NeXT *Computer* was forced to become NeXT _Software_ (even though he has always been a hardware person).

I don't think that the possibility that Apple's hardware business could be gone is ever far from Jobs' mind.

If you think otherwise, then you are doing so by ignoring one of the single biggest failures in Steve Jobs' life. I highly doubt he has forgotten what you seem to want to overlook (the fact that Jobs had viewed NeXT as a hardware company and was slow to react when it was forced out of that business).


Those who don't learn from history are doom to repeat it. I don't think Jobs plans on repeating any of his mistakes.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 21, 2005)

Good points... maybe that's why Steve is CEO and not me...


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Aug 21, 2005)

RacerX - is Mac OS X a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP 3.1 or OPENSTEP 4.2(even though OS 4.2 is a direct descendet of NS 3.1)?


----------



## MrNivit1 (Aug 22, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Slightly off-topic and speculative, but I think Apple developed Mac OS X on Intel simultaneously a Mac OS X on PPC in case of a switch of processors, not in case Apple ever gave up their hardware business.  I don't think Apple ever gave a thought to giving up the hardware business; instead, always kept their options open as to which processors to use... just a thought, though.




Going on a bit about it being the software, not the hardware; it would be interesting to see, now that the transition to intel is happening, whether Apple will keep developing PPC along with intel once the switch is over (just in case it needs to switch back).  This is a bit of a paradigm shift here; where it does not matter what hardware you run, you will still be able to run OS X on it.  Would this allow Apple to continue selling/buliding PPC hardware along intel hardware should the IBM/frescale relationship improve?  I think so.  This is the genius in OS X, allowing it to be hardware independent.  Maybe we'll even see OS X run on cell processors (don't flame, just an example, pick any other chip if you want).


----------



## RacerX (Aug 22, 2005)

WeeZer51402 said:
			
		

> RacerX - is Mac OS X a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP 3.1 or OPENSTEP 4.2(even though OS 4.2 is a direct descendet of NS 3.1)?


Yes. 

OPENSTEP was the _new_ name that NeXT gave NEXTSTEP 4.0 when it was released because it used the OpenStep APIs (all the beta versions of 4.0 were still called NEXTSTEP). Rhapsody was version 5.x of the _operating system formerly called NEXTSTEP_.

Mac OS X's foundation is based on Rhapsody... with proprietary technologies not owned by Apple removed (to make Darwin). 

The first Darwin based operating system by Apple was Mac OS X Developer Preview. You can take a look at it here and what you'll find is that it is basically Mac OS X Server 1.x (Rhapsody 5.3 and later) from a user point of view (you can look at plenty of shots of Rhapsody on my Rhapsody Resource Page)... but it _isn't_ Rhapsody. Mac OS X DP is using Darwin not Rhapsody even though it is using all of the GUI from Rhapsody.

Note that the first releases of Darwin still had parts that identified it as _Rhapsody 1.0_ which was to be the name of the public release of Rhapsody (version 5.2 of Rhapsody, which Apple never released to the public, version 5.3 was renamed Mac OS X Server 1.0).

Carbon was first implemented in Rhapsody 5.1 (within Apple), and was being integrated into the system (including building a new Finder -not related to the old one- to replace the Workspace Manager) by Mac OS X DP2 (shots on my site are here and other shots can be found here). And Aqua started with DP3.

One of the only part of the original Mac OS that is in Mac OS X is Carbon... well Carbon wasn't even originally part of the Mac OS, it was added in Mac OS 8.5 at the same time Apple started testing Carbon in Rhapsody 5.1 (WWDC 1998). Before that, Carbon was a set of APIs that the Copland team had started developing when third party developers became upset when they found out that they were going to have to rewrite their apps to have them run in Copland. 

Apple thought they had quite a head start with those APIs, which was why Apple made unrealistic release date projections for Mac OS X. The APIs really were not as ready as Apple had originally thought which is why Mac OS X didn't ship until early 2001 (and wasn't truly useful until the summer of 2002).

For the most part, the only thing directly from Mac OS 8/9 that remains in Mac OS X today is HFS+. Otherwise, the Mac OS X that you are using right now is descendent from NEXTSTEP (with some technologies from Copland).



			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Good points... maybe that's why Steve is CEO and not me...


Who knows, maybe you wouldn't have let your love of hardware cloud your business sense the way Jobs did back in the late 80s and early 90s.

But he is a much more cautious person today than he was back then.

Steve Jobs... graduate of the school of hard knocks.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 22, 2005)

MrNivit1 said:
			
		

> This is a bit of a paradigm shift here; where it does not matter what hardware you run, you will still be able to run OS X on it.


Well, NeXT Computer shut down it's hardware division on February 10, 1993 ("Black Tuesday") and continued to support NeXT hardware until 2001* (when Apple closed down _Apple Enterprise_, the OPENSTEP area of Apple).

So I would think that Apple will continue to make Mac OS X for PowerPC system for many years to come.

Further, NEXTSTEP 3.3 and OPENSTEP 4.x ran on Motorola 68k processors (in NeXT hardware), Intel (x86) processors in PC Compatibles, SPARC (microSPARC II, SuperSPARC II and SuperSPARC) processors in Sun hardware, and HP's PA-RISC workstations.

As Mac OS X is based on the same foundations, it could (conceivably) run on as many platforms if Apple wanted. So they are in no way stuck with Intel any more than they were stuck with IBM or Freescale.



* _Note: Black Tuesday was before the release of NEXTSTEP 3.0 as I recall and OPENSTEP 4.2 (released by Apple in early 1997) still ran on NeXT hardware... some four years after the last NeXT system was made._


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 25, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> ...The first Darwin based operating system by Apple was Mac OS X Developer Preview. You can take a look at it here and what you'll find is that it is basically Mac OS X Server 1.x ...


The one thing that I still miss is the OS 9 style Apple Menu that you can add hard drive and folder alises in.

I'm using Fruit Menus to get that back, but it's sort of anoying to see that they actually built that under DR1 and Rhapsody (called Apple Menu Options in your screen shot) but then took it back out before the OS X release.

...I'm sure we all remember that first OS X that had the blue Apple in center of the menubar providing absolutely no functionality. I'm sure this is part of why we lost this in the transition from Rhapsody to OS X.


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 25, 2005)

I remember the first time I saw Preferences Panes in OS X. (See Settings Menu)

After dealing with OS 7-9 (+ Rhapsody) multi-windows Control Panel Applications, this single window/Application UI seemed like a throwback to the pre-OS 7 "CDEV Viewer" Control Panels. (See the General Controls on this page.)

See... Same UI except the CDev Viewer had a vertical list of "CDev's" while the Pref Pane was horizontal. 

Anyone else around here old enough that they made that same connection?


----------



## fryke (Aug 25, 2005)

Yep, and I did make that connection, but decided that Apple probably correctly did it to create more simplicity. Like this, they forced makers of 'control panels' to stay within certain boundaries - although Microsoft for example just didn't want to do this. Ever seen their Mouse Prefs in OS X? (Dunno if they've changed that by now, never really used them...) The preference panel only has one button that starts an external application. I guess they really only felt comfortable with Carbon from the beginning.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 25, 2005)

TommyWillB said:
			
		

> The one thing that I still miss is the OS 9 style Apple Menu that you can add hard drive and folder alises in.


I miss the Apple Menu too (and use Fruit Menu on my systems).

I wrote about the Apple Menu for both Yellow Box and Blue Box here.


----------



## symphonix (Aug 25, 2005)

I guess this thread really got off topic quickly. And who would really be surprised. 

The real question we ended up asking ourselves with the announcement of the Intel transition was "Why?". How would the transition benefit Apple in the future.

A number of reasons were suggested. One is that IBM simply weren't delivering on promised performance and wattage targets. Another was that the "roadmap" for Intel's processors was in some way better.

DRM was cited as another possibility, though based on Apple's past history and privacy conscious customer-base its not a real likelihood. There are many many ways of using DRM technologies that don't require a processor transition and if DRM were a factor there would be easier ways to go about it.

So what else could it be? The "roadmap" that Intel and Apple must have discussed surely offerred Apple a lot of really compelling and worthwhile new possibilities ... possibilities that they have been working on for at least five years.

Intel's newly released VIIV chips are rumoured to contain many media possibilities, including TV, digital radio and cable interfaces. And rumours I've been getting from Apple sources for the past couple of years have all pointed towards an effort to produce full entertainment-centre type appliances. There have been a lot of companies working in this direction recently, but none has really succeeded. Tivo is the best known, though they've been seeing slowing sales. M$'s next XBox was supposed to come into this area as well ... though it looks like it will launch without meeting the requirements for features and price point (the low end 360 does not have a hard drive, none are likely to have a DVD writer at launch, and the price point for a 360 capable of these tasks is likely to be far too high).

So, I'd conclude that the "Entertainment Centre" is one thing on Apples roadmap that just happened to match up with what Intel was offering. But that is just the beginning of the reasons ...


----------



## symphonix (Aug 25, 2005)

The other thing to consider is that Intel also makes other chipsets including networking, wireless and video ... especially when it comes to fully integrated or "on-board" solutions. These are best suited to use in _very small_ devices. Like iPods. 

For years, iPodders have been asking for a video iPod, a BlueTooth and Airport Extreme enabled iPod, an iPod with web-browsing and chat capabilities, digital camera interfaces, and so on. With current hardware, most of these are just outside the realm of possibility. Devices like this can be made, but not cheaply, and there is a cost in terms of power consumption and size.

But with access to a chip-maker who specialises in low-end, integrated versions of these chipsets, Apple will be closer to creating this dream device. 

There's no doubt that Apple see Sony's PSP as a real threat to iPod sales. Not only is it audio and video capable, but Sony have gone out of their way to make it compete with the iPod. The audio controls on the headphone cable show that Sony really intended to steal back some of the market back from Apple. Apple has to counter, therefore they have to work with Intel.


----------



## symphonix (Aug 25, 2005)

The final reason I'd cite for the transition is that its no good being ahead of the game in terms of processor performance, if nobody ever notices. The megahertz myth is a real factor that stop uninformed potential customers from buying Macs. They check out an iMac G5 2.0 ghz, then head down to ma-and-pop computers where he convinces them that a 2.7ghz Celeron will be much faster and better.

When the first PowerMac G5 was released, it was, for about 3 months, the fastest desktop computer on the market. Period. Rendering tests and benchmarks all proved this. However, this news completely failed to reach PC users. It simply went un-noticed.

Finally, putting Mac OS X on a system that can also run Windows will allow people to see for themselves how much slower and more bloated Windows really is.


----------



## fryke (Aug 26, 2005)

First: I've learned we shouldn't make definitive statements about intel Macs running Windows. But more importantly: Don't bet any money on "how much slower and more bloated Windows really is". If the Macs can run Windows natively, this will basically be the first time we shall see Mac OS X and Windows being run optimised on the same hardware. Mac OS X - mostly in the UI - does a _lot_ of things that don't exactly make it fast. Make it good, comfortable, nice - whatever. But not necessarily quick. Also even with Safari, Camino etc., webbrowsing is still lacking in speed compared to IE on Windows. Etc., etc. - But I don't think we should care too much about that.

I agree that Apple will have less problems once they're using the same processors. They can talk about Mac OS X instead of the PowerPC. They can focus. That'd be good. Unless Apple will still not learn to update their machines more quickly, that is. If you go to the computer store and see dual core 4.0 GHz intel machines, but the "current Macs" are using 3.6 GHz chips of the same family, because uncle Steve wants to wait with the announcement for just a month or two longer, then that game is lost again. The situation with IBM and Moto was more comfortable, I guess, because Apple actually had to tell those to produce faster processors. Direct competition is good. But only _for_ Apple if Apple is ready to _be_ competitive.

I also wonder if we'll be able to buy any processor upgrade out there. Because that way, you could buy a first generation intel "PowerMac" (if it'd be called that) and replace the processor(s) with newer ones of the same family later on yourself. Much cheaper than replacing the whole Mac, of course. It'd also mean that people would keep their Macs a little longer, though. We'll see how that plays out.

But back on the topic of the thread (please?): I somehow hope that Apple would do specific licensing. For example, Apple could let Sony sell subnotebooks running Mac OS X, if Apple doesn't care for that market (they didn't create a subnotebook, ever...). And they'd make money from the OS X license sold with those, of course, and should Sony really sell a lot of those subnotebooks, Apple could still rethink after one or two years. I think Apple's in the great situation that other computer makers would actually _love_ to "sell Macs" - at least as an option. I don't think Sony, Toshiba etc. are actually 100% behind Windows.

The fault in letting PowerComputing and others create Mac-Clones in the 90s was that those were allowed to create very similar machines that _directly_ competed with Apple. And after all, a PowerMac 8500 or 9500 wasn't exactly a "work of art" considering its design. They were badly serviceable towers is what they were. PowerComputing offered ugly towers, too, but theirs were a little faster and cheaper at the same time and offered access to the motherboard without having to almost _break_ the motherboard.

Such licensing can have very strict limits and _still_ be interesting for Sony, Toshiba, Dell (gasp!) and others. Apple could tell them very specifically which markets it doesn't intend to work in and let others be guinea-pigs. Apple doesn't want to have their own media center PC (haven't gone there _so_ far...), well: Let Sony create it. And give them a one or two year contract that you can take back, should you decide to cater for that market yourself. Hmm... Interesting times coming up sometime next year (and in the future)...


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 28, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> I miss the Apple Menu too (and use Fruit Menu on my systems).
> 
> I wrote about the Apple Menu for both Yellow Box and Blue Box here.





> [font=Arial, Helvetica]As a service person of Macs, one of the first things I do is clean up the Apple Menu.[/font]


Come to think of it I used to do the same thing. I'd ALWAYS make a folder under the apple called "Misc." and then move all of the odd things into it. I even did this for my Mom, so she assumed "Misc." was the out-of-box experience.


----------



## fryke (Aug 31, 2005)

Veljo posted a pic here: http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584 ...


----------



## Veljo (Aug 31, 2005)

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5

"The impact of the OSx86 hack on Apple's hardware brand could be severe."

And yes, the link Fryke posted (http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242584) is a picture of my friend's PC running Mac OS X.

Apparently its a 6GB image file download, and Mac OS X will only install if it has its own hard disk. It hates using a partition. Strange...


----------



## fryke (Aug 31, 2005)

Well, using a separate partition probably just wasn't important to developers yet. Before the WWDC announcement it was only run on a few PCs inside Apple, and now it's only intended for the devkits. The final version will probably work the same way Mac OS X does now: I.e. no problems with installing into a partition of the right size.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 31, 2005)

Veljo said:
			
		

> (from closed thread)​I mean to me as much as I love Macs, PC towers are more appealing to me because they can be upgraded with more parts. For example, my iMac only supports 802.11b AirPort cards, but my 1999 PC could easily be modified to use a 802.11g card even though it's older.


How does this example have anything to do with the _PC_ verses _Mac_ hardware argument escapes me.  

What you seem to be bemoaning is your choice of hardware... _all in one_ verses _tower_ (which Apple has been making... they are called PowerMacs).

Now if we were to look at my 1998 PowerBook as an example of a system that could be modified, I can put an 802.11g card in it. But I couldn't do the same for an iBook from 1999/2000.

Of course my PowerBook has had the processor replaced, the RAM extended far beyond it's original specs, the CD-ROM drive has been replaced with a CD-RW drive and it has a second internal hard drive... I don't know many PC laptops from 1998 that have had their operational lives extended like this.


So it seems to me that the argument that _PC_s have some sort of advantage over Macs in the way of hardware when it comes to making modifications is deeply flawed. The only advantage that a PC would have over a Mac in the area of hardware is driver support... and that is a _Windows_ verses _Mac OS_ advantage, not a _PC_ verses _Mac_ hardware thing.

Having the Mac OS on PC hardware isn't going to change this.


----------



## Mikuro (Aug 31, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> What you seem to be bemoaning is your choice of hardware... _all in one_ verses _tower_ (which Apple has been making... they are called PowerMacs).


The problem there is that Apple doesn't offer any consumer-level towers, whereas even cheap PCs are usually very upgradeable. You shouldn't need to shell out $2,000+ to be able to upgrade things. So unless you're in the market for a high-end system (most people are not), this IS a PC-vs-Mac-hardware argument.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 31, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> So unless you're in the market for a high-end system (most people are not), this IS a PC-vs-Mac-hardware argument.


Well, if we are going to talk about _most people_... then most people (Mac and PC users) well never install a single piece of hardware in their systems from the time they buy it to the time they replace it. Apple realized this fact back in the mid 90's, which is why there is an iMac to begin with.

The professional models are aimed at people who are professionals... and make these types of changes during the course of their computer's active life. Consumers usually don't need this ability, so Apple doesn't include it (and the consumer doesn't have to pay for it).

And so it may be a price issue... but it is absolutely *not* a hardware issue.

 

Besides, anyone who really needed the expandability of a PowerMac wouldn't have bought an iMac G5 when for about the same price they could have gotten a first generation midrange PowerMac G5 (single processor G5 at 1.8 GHz) for the same price. 

Anyone willing to buy a low end PC should be a perfect candidate for a used or refurbished PowerMac.

A PC comparable to a PowerMac is going to run about the same price... so like I said, no argument.






Oh, for future reference... the _most people_ statement was a mistake on your part. 

_Most people_ don't do anything with their systems, so including the statement in a technical discussion is a bad choice. _Most people_ don't know anything about the computers they own and _most people_ will never see the inside of their own systems. And _most people_ will replace their entire system rather than upgrade even the operating system.

Just FYI.


----------



## Veljo (Aug 31, 2005)

RacerX, I see where you're coming from, but what Mikuro said is more what I was thinking.

The price of the PowerMac G5 is ridiculous. Sure it has great power and expansion capabilities, but it is a high end tower. I wouldn't know one person who had a PowerMac and didn't have a career in video editing or graphics.

Point is, the all-in-one computers are fine, but towers are better for expansion. And at the moment Apple is kidding itself by promoting how powerful the PowerMac G5 is, yet its AU$5000+ price tag is something they don't mention. The funniest part is that price doesn't include a monitor. Shocking.

I hope with the new Intel Macs Apple rethink their strategies. They can offer a super powerful upmarket Mac like the PowerMac G5s at a high price, but lets hope they also release a tower that may not be as powerful but is still good at a reasonable price......*with* a monitor.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 31, 2005)

Veljo said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know one person who had a PowerMac and didn't have a career in video editing or graphics.


Sure, what home user needs two G5 processors, a graphics card with 256MB of RAM, four PCI slots, 8GB of RAM, dual DVI displays and multi-hundreds of gigabytes of storage?



			
				Veljo said:
			
		

> Point is, the all-in-one computers are fine, but towers are better for expansion. And at the moment Apple is kidding itself by promoting how powerful the PowerMac G5 is, yet its AU$5000+ price tag is something they don't mention.


True... but let's take a look at who needs expansion beyond RAM and hard drive:

Professionals who invest a lot in their computer and a lot in their peripherals and need a stable system.  Once configured properly, all their SCSI cards and FireWire cards and audio cards and graphics cards all humming along in rhythm, it's money down the drain to buy a new computer and cross your fingers that everything's compatible.  Apple hits 'em up for a good sum of money in the beginning and it's well worth the investment to the professional. 

Home users, on the other hand, need a card reader, an inkjet printer, a microphone and a place to dock their iPod -- all available as external USB or FireWire devices.

Apple isn't Wal-Mart... they don't have the revenue and cash flow that Wal-Mart has to completely dominate a market and offer "something for everyone."  Yet, Apple does offer the best array of novice-to-pro hardware.  If you're a pro, don't kid yourself with an iMac.  If you're not a pro (you don't make a living with your computer), then having a PowerMac G5 tower is like driving a Ferrari to and from work in rush hour traffic.  Too much horsepower for what you intend to do with it.

And the low-end PowerMac G5 is completely affordable if you intend to really use the computer, not just brag about how fast your computer can go yet never get around to actually _doing_ anything with it other than creating half-ass desktop pics in a pirated version of PhotoShop.

I think Apple has done a damn good job at selling the customer an adequate computer that will last a long time and fit their needs and budget nicely.  Pros spend more, and they get more.  Home users can go anywhere from a G4 at about 1.25GHz up to a 2.0GHz G5 processor and have plenty of expandability in terms of RAM, hard drive and peripherals.

Don't mean to be rude, but everywhere you go some home user is complaining that they don't have enough money to get the absolute fastest Macintosh available.  It's just not realistic... the home user shouldn't and can't afford the latest and greatest and fastest Macintosh available, just like home users shouldn't and can't afford the latest and greatest dual-Zeon-processor 4GB RAM 300GB hard drive 256MB video card 800MHz FSB 5.1 surround in a tower case that sounds like a jet taking off from Dell or Gateway or Alienware or whoever.  They get to choose from crappy, "look like they're expandable on the outside but are really just pieces of crap" mid-size towers that they'll never bother expanding anyway from those companies -- why not give 'em an Apple iMac with a great processor and the perfect amount of expandability instead?


----------



## hawki18 (Sep 1, 2005)

Just to let you know the revision E AMD chips do have SSE3 and would have been a better choice instead of Intel.


----------



## fryke (Sep 1, 2005)

EDCC: Never underestimate gamers and hobbyists. Wether they need it or not: They want more than one HDD inside their computer, they want to add/replace their DVD-RWs on their own, they want to buy a second graphics card and a cheap TV tuner card (non-usb, non-firewire, but PCI). They don't even mind it not having correct drivers, since they then build usergroups and some open source tinkerer might find a way to adapt a different driver etc. And all those are pretty much "home users". Just because Apple doesn't make machines for them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

hawki18: Which of the intel processors that comes out in the 2nd quarter of 2006 have you tested it against?


----------



## RacerX (Sep 1, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> EDCC: Never underestimate gamers and hobbyists. Wether they need it or not: They want more than one HDD inside their computer, they want to add/replace their DVD-RWs on their own, they want to buy a second graphics card and a cheap TV tuner card (non-usb, non-firewire, but PCI). They don't even mind it not having correct drivers, since they then build usergroups and some open source tinkerer might find a way to adapt a different driver etc. And all those are pretty much "home users". Just because Apple doesn't make machines for them, doesn't mean they don't exist.


Which was why I said that anyone willing to buy a low end PC should be a perfect candidate for a used or refurbished PowerMac.

And we should also not exaggerate the market importance of _gamers and hobbyists_ to Apple. These consumers are almost unnoticeable to Apple's bottom line. And more importantly, these consumers tend not to be loyal (the clones showed that). 

I, personally, wouldn't be caught dead buying a _new_ PowerMac... or a _new_ PC tower for that matter. New computers are worse than new cars as an investment. The moment you buy a new computer you've lost a large chunk of your investment. Which in turn is why a used PowerMac is an ideal investment, someone has already paid for the initial cost and usually has already dealt with any _new_ system issues.


But all of this is beyond the point... Apple makes these systems. Period. 

If you don't like the price (which I don't), then buy something else or look for other options (like used or refurbished systems). But don't pretend like Apple doesn't make expandable systems. The last time Apple's product line was without an expandable Mac was back in 1987 (before the release of the Macintosh II).

And I think fantasizing about Apple changing their product structure (which has work very well for them) just because of a change of processor is also a little unrealistic. When Apple did make consumer expandable systems, Apple ended up with inventory that they couldn't move.


----------



## fryke (Sep 1, 2005)

I just thought that EDCC defined the home user according to Apple's products. But the error in this thinking is a large portion why most home users do _not_ currently buy Macs.
I also didn't say this would change with a simple (*cough*) processor change.

Let's say Apple _wants_ to increase their market share. I think we can agree on that. Let's not talk about gamers, primarily, let's talk about home users in general instead. Once Apple is on common ground in that a home user can directly compare the features (finally their MHz and RAM fixation can make some sense again...), Apple has to maybe rethink their product strategy. They have a lot of "pros" they can play out, but expandability in consumer machines certainly isn't one of them.

We all know Steve Jobs is no friend of internal expandability, anyway. And surely, they'd rather sell you a new machine, anyway - perfectly understandable. But if for that reason people move or stay away from Apple...?

I think for a really "cheap" machine like the Mac mini, it's more than acceptable that you can't really expand them (internally). But the iMac is _no_ cheap computer. Its display stays new a lot longer than its processor.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 1, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> I also didn't say this would change with a simple (*cough*) processor change.


That was a general comment on the course of the topic, not aimed at anyone in particular.



> I think for a really "cheap" machine like the Mac mini, it's more than acceptable that you can't really expand them (internally). But the iMac is _no_ cheap computer. Its display stays new a lot longer than its processor.


Apple has had more problems (with market share) because of the expandability of their systems in the past (which was why they dropped the design of the PowerBook G3 series). Market share is more of a measure of how often people buy a new system rather than how many people are using a platform. Expandability slows the rate at which people buy new systems... so Apple has been moving away from that.

I'm a good example of the type of person that doesn't help market share. I haven't bought a new Mac since 2000... so when you read market share numbers, they have nothing to do with anyone who hasn't bought a system within that quarter.

I would have replaced my iMac a couple years ago if it wasn't for the fact that I was able to upgrade my PowerBook to the point of not needing a new system. The expandability of my PowerBook has cost Apple my purchase of a new system.

Besides, with the current state of mind in the Windows world, a lack of expandability isn't going to hurt Apple at all. Right now it is to the point where people are willing to buy a new PC every 9 months to a year rather than deal with the problems on their systems. With a market mentality like that, the iMac, eMac and Mac Mini are perfect products.

Apple is already gaining market share even without the processor change, that won't change with the addition of expandable consumer models. And as I pointed out, the last time Apple had expandable consumer models, they were left with overstock.


----------



## jh2112 (Sep 1, 2005)

IMO, If Apple wished to increase market share all they'd need to do would be:
Update OSX86 by adding Apple hardware only features. (No doubt it would be hacked though.)
Then release OSX86 to run on any pc, not just Apple hardware.  This should surely make a large stack of cash, I think that OSX is superior to Windows, it can't be too hard to convince others. 
Lower cost of ownership, reliability, security and current lack of viruses would encourage business to switch their software at point of licence renewal.
Compatability with current hardware could encourage home users, who dislike Windows and its issues, to try. (Apple could even offer a try before you buy trial.)
Apple hardware would continue to sell as Apple hardware only features would drive sales.


----------



## fryke (Sep 2, 2005)

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 biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig.


----------



## jh2112 (Sep 2, 2005)

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 (Sep 2, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 2, 2005)

"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 (Sep 2, 2005)

jh2112 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 2, 2005)

jh2112 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 2, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> ...
> 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 (Sep 2, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## jh2112 (Sep 2, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

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



No surprise there, having only recently seen the light and bought a powerbook. Maybe Windows is harder to shake off than I thought!
Thanks for the snippet of history, I always thought the first anti trust cases was more to do with bundled software (IE, Media Player et al.)


----------



## fryke (Sep 6, 2005)

It was about a LOT of things. Among them IE, MediaPlayer - or rather the competitors' media players like QuickTime and RealPlayer.


----------



## hawki18 (Sep 14, 2005)

Can't test it against something that has not came  out yet but AMD chips have been beating Intel in all but a few bench marks.  I can't see that changing anytime soon.  I still have my AMD 3200 64 bit desk top and would not get rid of it.  My first Mac is I book 1.2gig still learning the os. Work as tech support and keep up on speed issue and test between intel and amd.


----------

