OSx86: Are You Serious?

cfleck

tired
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

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
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

U.S.D.A. Prime
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

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
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

iMac Dual 2.0 17'
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

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
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

Registered
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

tired
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

Registered
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

UNIX - Live Free or Die
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

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
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

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
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). :p

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

tired
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

Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
HAhaAhaH

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

TommyWillB

Registered
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

Crotchety UI Nitpicker
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

Old Rhapsody User
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. :D



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. :D
 

TommyWillB

Registered
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

U.S.D.A. Prime
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

Old Rhapsody User
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.
 
Top