Intel Ports of OS X


working with NT and Novell daily - and Solaris a bit, I know where my bread is buttered (thanks Bill) - but that doesnt mean I dont hate him, Im a Macman from my first days
of enlightment (of course the TRS-80 rates a historic mention, but ...) but man! how kewl (read : easy and generally compatable with dual boots etc )would it be to be able to run an Intel version of OSX!

Unix afterall runs in many flavours and very capably on Intel Arch... and is known for being more 'mould-able' in that sence.

I know they [apple] want to control the 'whole widget' but I recon if people not accustomed to MAC's kewl qualities could taste it with out hardware changes (ie highend P3's) they would fall in love and their NEXT purchase would invariably be MAC gear for both its sexy exterior and undoubtedly faster running gear

I recon this would lead to greater numbers of people crossing over from WinTel boxes ; maybe gaining 50+% market share vs current 6% (that will likely rise to 10% with OS X) - where as if they dont realise the Intel Platforms' potential by way of its dominance, they will sadly remain a niche player. Ironically its a bit like Bill's opportunity when he bundled DOS with an IBM bit of hardware --> their [IBM's] sheer magnitude saw too it that mandatorily, DOS became a defacto standard. This time around you have an OS tech-heads can admire, users USE, and Learners LEARN -> people would bust a gut to get it onto their existing hardware; given half the chance. And otherwise think a bit more about it, if they have to reinvest in hardware (after all, if its only a software decision, they dont 'really' have to think about the software availability issues right away, because they can always go back, but when hundreds and thousands,
'load it up to take a look at it' software development will come in to meet new demand - extinguishing the great myth that software is only available in quantity for Windows.

ANYWAYS - my question is - anyone know of plans to release an intel version (like SUN do with solaris) - or of any hacks in progress to port one over?


Originally posted by A!
I know they [apple] want to control the 'whole widget' but I recon if people not accustomed to MAC's kewl qualities could taste it with out hardware changes (ie highend P3's) they would fall in love and their NEXT purchase would invariably be MAC gear for both its sexy exterior and undoubtedly faster running gear

If Wintel users gave a damn about the sexy exterior, they wouldn't be using Wintels, would they?
This is exactly what would NOT happen. In fact, many Mac users wd probably switch to cheaper Intel boxes, depriving Apple of the hardware sales that make up the bulk of its profits.

This is exactly the step that NeXT took back in the day ('91, was it?), and it didn't help them.

hahaha? :)

notice how I said 'switch to hardware with sexy exteriors and FASTER RUNNING GEAR' -> in other words give them a OS
that runs on what they have now, albeit not as powerfully fast or even missing a few features that the PPC version would have (windows has been doing this for some time between various OS versions of theres -NT - 1 x cpu, NT Server - 2 cpu, Win2KAdvanced Server - 4 cpu's etc)

and Ill correct your assumption about candy-appeal :people on wintel boxs ARE buy Apple Gear (imac) and Very Nearly for the CANDY alone (well assuredly they have been correctly convinced that office98,IE5 have largely removed some cross platform barries etc)- you dont have to look at 4 million imac sales where
35% of those buyers are first time buys (ease plus fashion convinced them) , and est of 10%-15% previous windows users with the rest made up of brand loyalty purchases

People simply wont gamble a 3K spend on a totally new solution easily. You will get SOME that do, but Man if they could only see, that by working out a model of offering a glimpse or even partial functionality to be used on their existing gear they WOULD try it, and once tried THEY WOULD LOVE IT (why are you here? why am I here? we have TRIED it)
after that, power, pizzaz would drive their NEXT purchase.

You can have 6% market share with people buying purely apple gear or offer an alternative platform, maybe you could be partially right, some would sell up their good looking/two-times-as-fast-to-a-p3 G4's and buy a intel version (although why would they bother since , its hardware already invested, to much to bother about, not consistent with a MAC demographic (they pay 'more' for quality, MACOS, and slickdesigns as a throw in - Im sure they arent gonna sell their old stuff, certainly 1% of existing mac owners might buy addittional machines running on P3's (for reception or something, but agian, these are UpperMiddle class spenders and money isnt an option (largely) or they would go buy a PCclone for 1/2the price...

but say your correct and you do lose some existing market share in the hardware stakes, they can release a free beta or trial version of the OS for intel, then charge for the next one, and they could charge $300+US (the price of NT workstation) or something rediculous to protect mac hw sales (intel people would pay because a. they are used to it (lol) b. 300 vs 3000 on a punt for a new OS -well no we arnt talking about gambles now, because they would have already tried the free trial or function limited version -by now, they want it, and they would rather pay 10% of 3000 than $3000 itself, but even if they didnt ... and the difference in lost hw sales due to an intel product would sure be recouped by double digit migrations of windows users -NT Wkstation costs around $350

your talking about a few mac sales that may be lost to intel versions for a license fee of say $400, existing mac owners just arent gonna swap faster gear and snazzier toys for inferior hw (after all thats why they are mac heads) - and a entire new cross over market that will both try it now, buy it shortly after (licence) and still go for power/pretty at the next round of hw purchasing.

and why am I so sure? for the simple reason we are not using 386's anymore - everyone wants faster, that much is certain - hell its damn obvious.

as for NEXT - it failed for a entirely similar reason, but not the one you state. a. it was expensive but more important it was Enterprise level computing. People just werent prepared to invest heavily at the one instant for expensive Hardware combined with great software (THATS THE SAME THING THAT IS HAPPENING WITH APPLE)

The most convincing reply to why your wrong is simply

they make hardware - they sell Solaris (unix) for it
they charge HORRENDOUS PRICES - a ethernet card $1000
a Sun Ultra/10 Sparc -dual cpu $13,000US ! ! ! sik
guess what - they sell/or give away in fact, for personal use plus cd/p&h costs: Solaris for Intel boxes
-but wont their hw sales suffer? hardly big business buys it - they want reliable, the best (bar, the mac lol)
they are year on year double digit growing in profit and their stock reflects that... in short an Intel version has not even dinted their sales, they get intel versions out to education/developer markets, and they are that much better off for it.

Darwin will currently run on an intel processor. If the open source project goes well and drivers are developed for hardware in intel machines Mac os X could run on an intel machine.

whether that is good or bad for apple, i'll let you all speculate on that.
sweet - is there a group or site that you know of where
this concept is being furthered? :cool: