OS X for Intel rumours...

K

Kazrog

Mac Metalhead
Make it stop!!!!

Anybody with a brain would realize that Apple would never do this and that it would kill them. They would suffer the same ill fate as Be at that point.

Apple is the only company left that still makes "the whole widget," that is the whole point of their existence, to make computers and software that is better in every concievable way from the competition. Take a huge piece from the puzzle (like the OS itself) and you lose the whole purpose.

Open Darwin is different because it is more of a server solution to get Intel machines speaking with Macs better on LANs, etc.
 
This is unbelievable! You open a NEW thread saying people should STOP to talk about something?

Although I'm always saying the same thing as you do (more or less), I am tempted to flame this thread through the roof by saying something different this time.

But I'll leave it at that.
 
But it's NEVER going to happen. Even if hell froze over, or Motorola was taken over by flying monkeys and stopped making CPUs, Apple would either design the CPU themselves and farm out production, or they would go with someone like AMD for the processor, but make it so the hardware could only run the Mac OS, and that the Mac OS would only run on Apple hardware by way of a ROM chip.

Remember, Apple is in the hardware business. They don't make very much money off of their software.

And if enough Wintel users think they would buy an Intel version of the Mac OS, then why wasn't there enough sales of BeOS to keep that company afloat?

Simple.

Because Intel/AMD hardware owners love to romanticize about using another OS other than Windows, but in the end, they are either too lazy, or too cheap to make the switch.

Sorry, but it's true. These people bitch about Microsoft and complain they have no other choice. There has been an alternative choice from the beginning, they just weren't enlightened enough to make it. And now they want the benefits of the Mac OS on their Intel hardware.

Too bad guys. Buy a Mac.
 
Why would making OSX available to AMD/INTEL machines destroy Apple, dont you know MACs are Supercomputers. Are you trying to say there hardware is not competitive with X86 Hardware?
 
I decided it was a good idea for a new post because I wanted to at least attempt to get the awareness out there that this would be the stupidest thing that Apple could possibly do.

There seem to be a lot of people, even on these boards, who still think OS X for Intel would be really cool, and every time I see those posts I am very annoyed. There was even an article over at OSOpinion.com talking about it.

It's scary to me how rampant this rumor is, and after Apple doesn't announce OS X for Intel at Macworld, there will be a lot of these people finding themselves disappointed. Which really sucks that somebody would be disappointed in Apple for not killing themselves.

And FrgMaster - it's a LOT more complex than that. Despite Apple's efforts to squash the "Megahertz Myth," there is still a general perception out there that PCs are faster. And it would make Apple's OS a direct competitor with Windows among the clone makers, which means Microsoft would win since they have way more money to put behind it and the clone makers are all mostly their puppets.
 
Why would making OSX available to AMD/INTEL machines destroy Apple, dont you know MACs are Supercomputers. Are you trying to say there hardware is not competitive with X86 Hardware?
Click to expand...

Simple. Because AMD/Intel hardware is sold as a commodity. You can put together a 2ghz Intel machine with a 40gig 7200 RPM hard drive with a decent video card for around $700.

Apple, on the other hand makes their money by designing/selling the entire widget. Yes, their machines cost more, but when you factor in all the extras you get (Firewire, OS X, iDVD, iTunes, iMovie), it's a competitive deal. Obviously everybody doesn't look at the bottom line. That's why Apple has such a hard time making in roads. Most people look at the upfront price and don't calculate total cost of ownership.

Look, it's real simple. If there was money to be made in providing an alternative OS for AMD/Wintel hardware, the BeOS would have been successful. It wasn't. They couldn't even make inroads GIVING their OS away. How the hell could Apple make a profit selling it for $129 to Wintel users?
 
FrgMstr... Apple makes LITTLE MONEY off it's software... and if INTEL/AMD users had the opportunity to get OS X for their computer, Apple would crumble and die because then, nobody would buy Apple's hardware...

so it's pretty simple.... if Apple would ever release it for x86, they would be killing themselves...
 
guys i know that(whether x86 is a commodity or not, i dont care aslong as its faster and cheaper thats all that matters), i was being sarcastic. My question was non-retorical.

apple could then switch to selling software like M$, it works for M$ surely apple can sell there Software cant they, if its as good as im being told

All i get is Sarcasm around here no matter what, so i thought might aswell be rude and sarcastic like everyone else here, being polite gets you nowhere.
 
Originally posted by Kazrog
And FrgMaster - it's a LOT more complex than that. Despite Apple's efforts to squash the "Megahertz Myth," there is still a general perception out there that PCs are faster.
Click to expand...

They are faster. It's not that close. Hopefully things will change after Monday but my guess is that Apple closes some of the gap but still remains behind them.

It's really too bad that so much of this speed comparison discussion is being done right before the conference. That's when the gap is at it's greatest.
 
Dont worry vanguard im not gonna go away after monday. Im really looking forward to it. I hope we see a G5, that will make for some nice conversation, if people supply good reviews like i have were the G5 beats the Top athlons and P4s ill say damn good job to moto (cos it would be true) its no small task to outperform AMD and INTEL in the CPU market.

If we dont see a G5 apple will slip further and further behind, cos by the time they do bring it out we will have £80 sledgehammers running at 2Ghz+(64bit with hypertransport bus)
 
FrgMstr - Apple's software is good, but software can be pirated. Hardware can't be!! That is a VERY important difference. Also, Be's software was arguably better than Mac OS X and, as was previously stated, couldn't be GIVEN away!!!

vanguard - I don't know where you are getting your "facts" but they are simply untrue. Macs still consistently win every speed test I've seen against PCs.
 
some desktop guys might go with the intel/osx combo if they could, but there is no other laptop in existence which can usurp the rightful throne of the titanium...
 
KazRog what speed tests are these, ive posted loads of up to date tests of out of date AMD/INTEL hardware beating the best APPLE offer TODAY.

Where are these speed tessts ive been asking for links for ages havent been given one.

come on Show me an Athlon XP get beaten by a G4 come on.
All you can come up with is a few PS benches thats it.
 
It's true, current benchmarks clearly show that the G4 is too long in the tooth, it gets more and more behind the AMD and Intel competition. But that was not the start of the thread.

Let's say Apple is disappointed with the development of the PowerPC processor. Why not? The G4 was too little, too late and Motorola couldn't get it up to speed in its entire timeframe. The rumours about the G5 sound great, but they also lack MHz in comparison to Intels P4 and AMDs Athlon XP. And it will cost more.

And let's state that Apple *HAS* developmental builds of Mac OS X for the Intel platform. We know that for sure. There was Rhapsody DR 2 for PC Compatibles, and there's not much reason to believe that this development has ever been stopped. It just never was the time for Apple to release the code to the public (for all the reasons in previous posts in this thread).

And now. Why shouldn't Apple build an iMac with a Duron processor? If they make their own motherboard, they can still control the hardware. And can still make the OS dependable on their hardware. Okay, Carbon and Cocoa apps would need some recompiling. So what? Recompiling, not 'code-a-new'.

But again, I personally don't believe this. And if I said it once... -> Let's wait for 7th.
 
I personally wouldn't like to see the Mac OS be made available to Windows users. I like the fact that we have our own hardware and how PC people will never 'really' enjoy a Mac unless they get the whole package.
 
Apple Announces Plan To Inject Mice With Mac OS X: Mice can now do twice the amount of work in half the amount of time; and they don't crash into walls as much because of protected memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top