Other platforms?



I am all new to this OS X discussion and would like to know if Apple have any plans on porting is new killer OS to the intel platforms. Have Apple learn from their mistakes or?

I am a x86 /Windows person, and netwoking tech, I really think that this OS could threaten Windows BUT only if is gets accepted by the public. The "public" today own a "PC" because of its price and software availability. The software part I am not afraid of since it is a BSD and Open source but the HW price....

A unix with a userfriendly interface, it has GREAT potensial!

Apple is predominantly a hardware company. If it ported its OS over to Intel, it would be taking a huge bite out of its profits -- and the gains in OS sales are certainly not guaranteed to make up for a revenue hit like that.

Anyhow, Apple innovation has always been spurred by the fact that they control both hardware and OS, something that no other company can do. This gives Apple a lot of interesting options, which they have exploited well in the past.

Finally, for an example of a "superior" OS that really should compete with Windows but just can't, look to BeOS. It is great, it runs on Intel, and it is pretty much doomed as a consumer OS -- Windows is just too powerful. Porting over to Intel is not in Apple's best interest.

Apple has learned from their mistakes, by the way. Liscensing clones was a big one, because it diluted their hardware/software control that allowed such great innovation, and took away a big source of their revenue. So if they learned anything from that mistake, Apple would never port OS X to Intel.

Apple is predominantly a hardware company.

haven't you heard about Apples new emphasis on value-added *applications*?

OSX for intel is coming within a few years.

Yes, the new applications are "value-add" to the hardware. I do not understand your point.

Well apple may very well be predominantly a hardware company, but peeking around tells you that they might be trying to win people from the other side as well.

Check out

and you'll find this

/* Button title in alert to confirm restarting the computer into DOS/Windows (Intel computers only). */
"Restart in DOS" = "Restart in DOS";

makes you wonder doesn't it.
Here are my 2 cents:
I don't think that it is in apple's best interest to port OS X to intel.
Why ?
Well for one thing it is going to face the same problems with windows.
driver conflicts & such, since the hardware base that it has to support will be
much much much greater and more diverese.
The second reason is software. OS X will fare well with current mac users because
they can use their classic apps until new OS X savvy apps come out, but intel users
wont really have this lucury and this might leave them with a sour taste.
Third it;s all about the developers. Will they make a biplatform or will they only
compile X intel programs thus dooming the PPC platform ?
ANd finally, MS has the greatest part of the PC OS market, and it will continue to
be that way. Only a few "enlightened" and adventurous people make the change (or partial change) so apple will face fierce competition.

If apple were to enter the intel market they would have to make a HUGE impact from day one.
They would have to sell OS X, with A LOT of ported software bundled with it, and they would have to have some backward compatibility with win apps because I know that people dont like to throw money in the trash (and that is what they will be doing if they move to X because all their previous apps wont work). Also, in addition, there have to be a hoarde of apps for X intel ready to sell.
In the end this would kinda, in my mind, mean the end of PPC, sadly.

As for the login window, I believe that it is a remnamt of rhapsody, which I had the opportunity to use once.

c;est tout

so you think they left in the part about booting into DOS after they added the part about the beta being expired?

hmmm. . .
It might be that apple wants it there for some future purpose, or it just might be that apple wanted the beta out the door for people to evaluate and did not remove that part because *most* people (that I know of) dont reach into the bowels of their OS to see what linger in there :)
It might be that apple wants it there for some future purpose, or it just might be that apple wanted the beta out the door for people to evaluate and did not remove that part

Or it could be that some senior programmer at Apple put that in to mess with our heads. ;)
Or could it possibly be simply left over from when NEXT was available on Intel? Nah, that's too simple an explanation ... think about it - if it's new, why would there be an option to boot to DOS - nobody needs that nowadays.

And on the OS X on Intel front, please keep hoping for it only if you want Apple to fail. Simple math will prove the economics don't work...

If Apple sells one copy of OS X for $100, let's say they keep $80 (too high, but it doesn't matter). If Apple sells on hardware box for $2500, let's say they keep $500 (20% margin, which is lower than actual). Put another way, they need to move 6.25 copies of OS X to equal what they get from one hardware purchase.

If there are 10,000,000 Macs out there that could run OS X, and every single one of them buys the new system, Apple makes $800 million - not too shabby. If you take the OTHER 10,000,000 Macs (that can't run OS X) and assume that they all buy a new machine for OS X, Apple makes $5 billion - now THAT"S success! I realize that using 100% on either side is an extreme example, but try it even with 5% ... it's stilll suicide to give up hardware sales.

The other problem is that the biggest purchaser of OS X on Intel hardware would not be PC users; it would be Mac users looking for cheaper, faster hardware. So instead of getting $500 from us every two or three years, they get $80 from us every one to two years. Those are not good economics.

YOur economic factors look nice and they are agreeable... I dont like the concept of OS X on intel... great OS for inferior hardware :p

On the NeXT part of the issue I have to disagree. I have NeXTSTEP 3.3 and OpenSTEP 4.2 from intel (installed). OS X is supposedly a product of Rhapsody which is a child of OpenStep 4.2.

Nowhere in Openstep have I seen a reboot in DOS mode (althought it might exist) so I am assuming that it is a remnant of Rhapsody because that is the logical conclusion, since rhapsody was going to be biplatform, but OS X is not.

OSX on intel-bad idea

I dont see it happening. Look at it from this perspective. One of the reasons that apple has more reliable systems is that they have standard hardware. Almost every platform outside of the PC has standard hardware. SGI/Irix Sun/Solaris IBM/AIX(?). If apple tried to release osx for PC the first problem would be the enormous amount of driver development that would need to be done. (osx and winmodems?). Next would be the loss of hardware as mentioned in previous posts. The only reason I would ever like to see OSX on PC would be so that I dont have to pay the price tag on a g4. Combine the development time with losses of hardware sales, and I think we all see OSX staying were it is, and where it belongs :)
What IBM ought to do is license OS X instead of fiddling with that heap of hackware known as Linux.

SGI should license OS X too.

At least make Apple an offer
IBM can gain two benefits by using linux over licensing os x or any other Unix.
1. Its free. If they were to try to license os x from apple, right there is one cost inherent to os x that is not inherent to linux.
2. Fully open source. os x has an open source backend a.k.a. Darwin, but quartz, aqua, and all other GUI tools are proprietary. If IBM were to get anything from apple, it would be Darwin, and if they were going to go that route, they might as well go with an established *nix such as linux.

I personally am not a big fan of linux. It is a good free os, but I think allot of it is hype. FreeBSD is more stable, more established, and more centralized as far as its path forward. It also has the same price tag(free). Of course this is exactly why apple went with freebsd as the basis for Darwin/OS X.
Uuh, it's not like Linux has anything Darwin doesn't. Anything they are currently planning to run on Linux they can run on Darwin.

So pardon me if I think your post made no sense whatsoever.
You're pardoned. And I think your posts are getting increasingly combative and sneering--settle down some? There are plenty of forums out there already where I automatically ignore posts by certain people, I don't want this to become another one.

And in answer to the <i>content</i> of your post, as opposed to its attitude, it is certainly the case that Linux has things that Darwin doesn't, at the very least in terms of hardware drivers, and I suspect also in terms of utility software. More importantly, Linux has mind-share in IT departments around the corporate world, which is an advantage if you're trying to sell computers to them (this is why people use Linux rather than one of the BSDs).

Of course, if Torvalds keeps rejecting PPC-oriented patches for the kernel, then they may *have* to shift to Darwin, but that's neither here nor there.
BenW's point about hardware drivers is exactly what will keep darwin/os x off of i386 platforms. Even apple admits in the FAQ about Darwin that major hardware develpment is needed to get darwin functional on an i386 platform. So why then would ANY major vendor like IBM whos main base is in i386 hardware spend the development time/money to get darwin working on their platform when they have numerous other options that have the nessisary software already developed?
Darwin is open-source so it is not implausible that a few "darwin on x86" afficionados will develop drivers but this wont be anytime in the near future (if it is going to happen), plus not many in the computer community can develop drivers for equipment that tehy might not have :p

I dont see darwin on any commercial machine in the near future but on person machines it might happen an a few years if the OS conjures up support in the x86 community.