OS X on Intel AGAIN (osopinion.com article)

fryke

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17176.html

Read it. Some good points, but the subject is soooooooooooo old by now. Even *if* the G5 is as fast as rumours of late last year on TheRegister and mosr suppose it is, it'll only be out almost a year later than those rumours (while Intel paces the P4 up the GHz ladder).

I personally think that it'd be great to give Windows a competitor, I also think that Apple should *not* release the beast to the general public of 'Wintel'.

BeOS was a great OS on Intel. But who bought it?

OS X on Intel might appeal to some Linux users. Well, Linux isn't the big part of the cake now, is it?

And it will appeal to Mac users. At least to me. I'd love to be able to buy self-made AMD boxes (starting at around 600$ here) instead of G4s (starting at around 2'000$ here in Switzerland).

Well, the article itself says it might be far off, and I think it is.
 
Even if Apple makes OS X for Intel, they won't allow anyone to run it without buying an Apple box. Apple makes their computers easy to use (and insures a good margin on their sales) by controlling the whole shi-bang, from software to hardware. That said, even if they port OS X to Intel, you'll still have to buy an Apple system with its propritery boot ROM. On top of that, the Carbon apps won't even work.

So what's the point?

-B
 
Nope, but it does rely on OpenFirmware, which is far more advanced than anything that the consumer PC world has seen.

Its doubtfull that Apple would let you boot it from just a normal mb BIOS setup, you would have to have something more akin to the SGI NT machines.
 
How many of you (actually probably many, but let me make my point) have actually opened up your Mac and bothered to look and see if the chip is even a Motorolla PowerPC? I'm going to guess very few.

Now how many use OS X daily? I'm going to guess everyone.

Here's the point. Nobody should give a crap about what stinking CPU is in the machine as long as OS X is running swimmingly. You can give me no argument for why it matters other than "I want to support Motorolla." or "AMD makes inferior quality chips." or other such nonsense.

If Apple uses AMD or Intel or IBM or Motorolla I don't give a rat's ass so long as OS X runs everything as well or better than it does now.

fryke's comment about "OS X on Intel might appeal to some Linux users." makes no sense to me ;). If it appeals to Linux users, then it should appeal to everyone since you're implying that OS X on Intel has advantages to OS X on PowerPC.
 
I'm with mindbend...I don't care what chip is used either, just as long as the box is fast. People in general can't get so hung up on this manufacturer or that instead of the true issue. What (objectively here) is the best hardware to use?
 
Of course, if Apple starts to build their own AMD boxes with OpenFirmware and makes sure that no crack whatsoever will enable Mac OS X for Intel to run on any other x86-based computer, this would make some sense. But Apple would also lose something. A difference. Even less people would understand why Apple doesn't just release OS X to the general public.
 
"And it will appeal to Mac users. At least to me. I'd love to be able to buy self-made AMD boxes (starting at around 600$ here) instead of G4s (starting at around 2'000$ here in Switzerland)"

Well that is exactly why you ll never see a wintel version of OSX ...Applewould loose a lot f sales on Apple's branded BOXES... wouldn t be a smart moove.. don t you think? i wouyld rather sell a machine than an OS :)
 
Microsoft have done quite well out of selling operating systems, though they are getting in the hardware side of things more and more (X Box).

Roger.
 
True but then again i would rather sell a machine than an OS ..plus.. Apple is not going to be like M$... they re different .. why would they wanna loose the machine market and settle for only the OS??' they do both.. and they do just Fine :)
 
How much money does Apple make per machine? How many machines are they selling. How much money would Apple make per OS license? How many licenses could they be selling? The answer is *not* as easy. But please keep in mind I find it a bad idea, too. ;)
 
Microsoft have done quite well out of selling operating systems, though they are getting in the hardware side of things more and more (X Box).

Roger.
Click to expand...

this is really scaring the shit out of me!


ooh and wouldn´t it be better if they streamlined the code more in applications and operating systems instead making in some cases bad code run faster with hardware? I mean how often is people willing to buy new hardware?
 
The continued resistance to the OS X on Intel argument defies me. To me, it's simple. You put a better (better=faster in this case) chip in a Mac box made by non-Motorolla company. You sell more boxes ostensibly as well as more software licenses. The only losers are Motorolla in this scenario.

For some reason, people are making the assumption that alternative chip manufactures would mean a much lower price on an Apple box. Wrong. First of all, as pointed out in this month's MacWorld or MacAddict (sorry, can't recall) G4 CPUs cost less than P4s due to yield issues and size. Even with an AMD processor, we are not going to see $500 Macs for a long time for a variety of other reasons.

Again, Apple can technically as well as legally restrict people from simply putting OS X on a stock Gateway or Dell, so that argument doesn't fly either.

What's next, people are going to say that the cooling fan should only be supplied by ACME Cooling Fans? ;) Who cares!

p.s. All my points are based on the assumption that this actually works. I have no empirical evidence to suuport that assumption.
 
I agree that ultimately what chip Apple uses in their machine doesn't really matter, as long as it runs all my applications. However, what bothers me about OS X on Intel proponents is that they seem to believe that Apple would release OS X on Intel the way Microsoft does - namely to the general public so you get to run it on a home built PC. I just want these people to understand, this is VERY VERY unlikely. As people stated before, Apple makes their profit on hardware, and they do control EVERYTHING about the Mac experience (hardware and software).

I don't think the CPU really matters all that much. The Motorola chips are great, so are the AMD ones, even the P4 does certain things very good. In truth all the modern CPUs are great performers. I just don't want people to delude themselves by thinking OS X on Intel would mean cheaper machines.

-B
 
Here's more reasons why we won't see OS X on Intel for a while, even though I'd love to see it if it meant faster machines:

1. Right now Apple controls everything and Motorolla is their whipping boy. Intel or AMD would not tolerate such a relationship, though if anyone could do it, Steve could.

2. Apple has always been about profit margin over market share, which of course was their fabled blunder thanks to the genius known as Gasse (Be) among others. Guess who likes profit margin? Shareholders and board members. OS X on Intel SOLD by Apple could actually mean higher Mac prices if chip yields continue to deliver higher priced PC chips.

3. All Apple needs to do (easier said than done) is move from say 5% to 10% market share for a 100% growth, which would be a huge success story. Maybe they don't want to rock the boat on what is a fairly successful run they have going.

4. They can always leave the Intel thing as their Ace in the hole. If the ship starts sinking, watch for the sudden surprise announcement to hit that OS X now magically runs on Intel.
 
NO WAY in a million years....Apple would never port the whole OS X to x86 machines....that will kill Apple for sure. Believe me. If they run OS X on x86 they will not buy Macs cause they cost more than cheapo PCs....if they dare. That will lose Apple overall sales and can hurt them...if Apple's gone we will go wacko. We can't live without Apple, it's the only macintosh company we have in this Earth.....think again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by mindbend
3. All Apple needs to do (easier said than done) is move from say 5% to 10% market share for a 100% growth…
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be 200% growth? Just bein' nit-picky…
 
Last time I checked 5% was 100% of 5%, but then I remember way back when X came after W and 10 came after 9, and us old farts can't keep up with changing times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top