OS X on Intel! Sign petition!

I'm torn about this issue, because Apple gets to make the first real consumer operating system that makes end users and geeks happy alike; and now there's pressure to throw it on hardware that isn't Apple's and that prospect will seem like its washing out Apple's identity and that can be scary thing.
However, getting with the program would be in order and that would be to port it over. What they should do is probably make a different skin for it that could be yet another gui school of thought for PC users to try. This could allow Apple to make PC OS X and then they could keep their identity with their hardware and please everybody by putting it on PCs.
...or am I just talking crazy talk
-Lister
p.s. Save the penguins
 
Yes, OSX should be ported to intel chips, But not PeeCees.
It would be fine as long as APPLE sells the Hardware!!!
If you want X. Buy a Mac with intel inside!
 
Apple won't port X to Intel because they would have to support to many damn drivers because not every PC has the same motherboard, video card, etc., etc. It would make X slow and unstable, ala Winblows.
 
hey cool,
apple should sell their well designed cases with intel or amd hardware and many pci & agp slots with a cool system which is optimizid on that hardware but not incompatible to a intel pc

then apple is a company like compaq and microsoft in one but better

mahrz
 
someone should do a petition encouraging apple to recommit to yellow box (cocoa) for windows which would let mac and windows developers to write to the same API and compile for both platorms. all OSX for intel would do is destroy Apple's hardware sales and give linux geeks a new toy to play with.
 
I guess I'm for this. It varies...originally, I'd leaned towards the idea that it'd not be good. In order to = the loss of 1 outgoing iMac, for instance ($1,000 give or take, from low-to-high end), 10 versions of OS X'd have to be obtained by Intel users (if going for $100 or so). In other words, it'd only be a good idea if 10-to-1 Intel : OS 8/9 users got it. On the other hand, if iMac/G3, etc. owners = only 10% or so of the Intel users out there, then if only 10% of them (Intel) get OS X it'd be okay. Oh well, I'm on the list if only for the opinion that it'd be interesting... ; )

[Edited by iamnoel on 10-02-2000 at 02:33 AM]
 
<Question> OS X on Intel ??? </question>

< cough > baaarf! </cough>

<Shout> People people people</shout>
<reason> please wake up! Apple Will not do it because it WILL cannibalize PPC sales, people will buy cheaper PeeeCeees, apple will have to commit to OS X on intel, and because it doesnt have so much control over the HW it will be probably as sh*ty as Wintel...bugs and crashes and incompatibilities.... GOD SAVE US ALL.....
And if both platforms survive ??? They wont! Developpers will only compile one version of their program, the INTEL one since that has the bigger market, and PPC users will be out in the cold.
Did you people learn nothing from BeOS ? It too wanted dual compatibility but in the end most programs were made for the intel chip and the PPC version faded out of the picture....
</reason>

<Further shouting>
READ YOUR HISTORY AND LEARN FOR IT..... AND MOST IMPORTANTLY PLEASE INFORM YOURSELVES OF THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE YOU SPEAK
</Further shouting>

<thanks>
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME....!!!!
</thanks>

<End of file>
 
it all comes down to simple capitalistics:

why do you think apple charged for the OSX beta? why do you think they haven't made a deal with intel yet??? the reason for these is all one. apple isn't just a software company. they're small enough as it is. a majority of their revenue is from hardware sales. if you buy an imac for $2000, only about $400 of that is software. a deal with intel will mean apple will become 5 times smaller than it is now, and they will not have the profits to keep on developing great products... if anything, apple needs to get bigger so that can stop charging us $30 for the public beta...
 
Originally posted by bolindilly
it all comes down to simple capitalistics:
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd argue that the "capitalistics" isn't all that simple.

For one, the computer market is clearly changing. There is much talk of digital convergence. Why is the richest man in the world from a software company and not a hardware company? It's because it's not about the box. Apple has done an admirable job developing great hardware, but I'm sure they see that the wave of the future is not hardware. Look at all the companies vying to control the embedded OS market. Sony, transmeta, microshaft, even oracle. Apple, I'm sure would like a piece of this pie as well.

...a majority of their revenue is from hardware sales...
Click to expand...

I'd argue with this. Apple has made a bundle of money on strategic investing, a major part of what has helped turn the company around. They've also done well licensing firewire. Furthermore, it's clear that apple has been trying to move from hardware to be more of a software company: webobjects and quicktime are classic examples.

Simply porting OS X to intel isn't as clear cut as saying
10^8 windows users * $100 a pop, thereby replacing X number of imacs sold. What will the cost of support be? More importantly, what are the aspirations of the company? Could it be that the consumer OS war is over? Jobs himself confessed that apple lost. Why bother going head to head with microsoft when microsoft isn't necessarily the competitor of tomorrow?

I mean, microsoft certainly isn't pushing the technology. I've always believed that Apple *does* push the technology, not settling for just what the market can tolerate. There are a million examples of this: airport, firewire, built in ethernet, Gb ethernet. kewl! It's about being visionary, versus merely making a product.


[Edited by synaptojanin on 10-09-2000 at 11:09 AM]
 
Indeed...
I'm generally very opinionated, only on this issue I go from looking at it one way to the other. I'm not very "into" the idea of looking at it as an issue of 10:1 iMacs vs. the # of outgoing $100 OS X's. Of course not. In fact, I'm very opposed to looking at it like that; only, it's very likely going to be the issue for others. I'm, for the most part, only of the opinion that it'd be interesting...
 
I must say that I agree 100% with synaptojanin, in that, that's what it should be about. I wish to god that that's what it was about. But reality for any company in this day and age suggests otherwise. In today's market a company will 1. Make a profit or 2. Not make a profit. More than likely, Apple is hoping to make a profit... and they will. But, they will not make a profit because they are passionate about technology, they will make a profit because they are supplying a demand. They are selling products that someone needs or that lots of people need. Without the demand (simple economics) there is no sale and no profit. They already have that established.

So if we already have an established product and people like it and our revenue and growth is continuing to increase consistently, why change the focus of our company and passion? Why venture into an unstable marketplace with something that we are not familiar with? Apple is not in the business of selling PCs nor do they have an interest in boosting PC sales. By porting OS X to intel they would be encouraging PC use. Hello! Apple is in direct competition with the PC market. Their entire foundation is based on Apple hardware. Don't think for a second that they are going to even consider an intel version.

I must admit that the thought of using a Mac OS on any hardware configuration is very appetizing, but in my opinion, it's not going to happen. The market could defiantly use a good alternative to winblows but OS X is not the right candidate.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top