I say yes: 90% or more of the computer users out there are on intel boxes, or some variation running winders. If just a small percentage of those people would just try out an intel port of Mac OS X I think some would be willing to switch. As it is now, if someone wants to try it out they have to go buy an apple machine and spend more $$$$$, and nobody wants to spend money on another machine when they already have one.
I think if apple wants more of the coveted market share, they should release it for intel. If they are happy in the current niche, then keep it on apple machines.
I say no, for the simple reason that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. This is evidenced by statements by the Big Steve himself. Apple would shoot themselves in the foot if they ported OS X to the intel platform, why buy Apple if you can have OS X on a cheaper intel?
Also, with the lack of hardware hooks in the CGS, It would be very difficult to have Quartz on intel, and I think that this was deliberate. Lets face it, Quartz only really looks good on a G4 (with Altivec).
Darwin on the other hand, will probably see its day on intel, but this will be done by the Open Source community. Quartz; never.
My original take on this subject was that as OS X was to be more of a main stream operating system, that it would make sense for Apple to port it over to PC machines. However, after hearing some of the things said by posters here and in other places, I would have to say that my original stance was incorrect.
OS X is indeed a mainstream OS, but it's lure to other users in other segments of the personal computing industry will be it's features and it's seamless integration with Apple hardware. And, it will be a viable alternative to people looking to upgrade their existing PC systems or make outright new purchases.
What, in my mind, will enable Apple to capture some marketshare from Windoze is actually two-fold. First, they need to show that X is indeed the modern operating system that everyone has been waiting for. So far, they are off to a good start, IMHO. But, tweaks and enhancements still need to be made. As well, there need to be more mainstream commercial apps available to run natively on the system (based on all the early indicators, by end of year this should not be an issue).
Second, Apple needs to do two primary things in thehardware realm. One, they need to break the 1GHz mark on processor speed. This, of course, is totally dependent on Motorola. And, while it may seem hollow to any of us on G4s (with the Altivec Engine most G4s rival PIIIs running from 600MHz and up), the PC community is highly motivated by that little number. The other thing Apple needs to accomplish is to reduce overall system pricing once again. Since the release of the G3 and subsequently the iMac, Apple has definitely become more price competitive with PC boxes, but Macs are still, by far, the more expensive of the two platforms. I will say, however, that given the current hardware specs for Windows XP, cost may, very shortly, be a moot point.
So, how many of you are going to vehemently disagree with my assessment? Huh? Come on, speak up... hehe
I'm in favor of OSx running on x86-based macs; not on mainstream PCs. Reasons? No performance gap with the PC world, possibility of a classic-style Windows running PC apps full speed and lower costs due to the possibility of using standard Hardware; all this while avoiding having Apple's hardware sales destroyed by clones.
True, might be some problems, like running Classic or devising Cubes with heat-hungry processors like Athlons, but unless Apple manages to get back in the power race (multi G4 anyone?), it might be a good way out.
If the choice is between no Intel or OSX on any Intel, I must vote no.
Totally agree with that. By leveraging the speed push in the Intel world, we could use the core piece of their puzzle (the proc) with Apple designed/controlled boards. There may be a challenge in dealing with AltiVec; however, I'm sure there would be a way to compensate for that.
We are doing a similar thing with video cards, etc.
This is the only way that I can see to keep Mac OS from going the way of the Windows driver hell and keep the standards on ease of use/installation/maintenance high.
I don't need or want a commodity machine (that's what Windows is and wants to be). I need and want premiere machines.
My vote is an emphatic NO. I think the long term effect would be a significant decrease in Apple's (already limited) market share - in other words, the demise of Apple.
Here's why I think so:
1. Many of the Mac faithful would convert to Windows.
Most consumers shop for bargains. If Mac OS X is available for Intel-based machines, many of the Mac faithful will buy cheap PCs. They will buy Intel-based machines not only for the price, but also for the opportunity to run all the wonderful Windows software they've been missing. Once they spend enough time in the Windows environment and outside their "comfort zone" (Mac OS), they will realize that living with the foibles of Windows is a reasonable price to pay for more games, more software, and more compatibility. After all, Mac OS X is also squarely outside the "comfort zone" of the classic Mac user (and has its own foibles). So, if you're a classic Mac user and you buy an Intel machine, the choice of operating systems is no longer black-and-white, it's shades of gray.
One more point: There's a good chance the software situation would get worse if Mac OS X was released for Intel-based machines. Software publishers would be less inclined to port their products to Mac OS if many Mac users have the option of running Windows.
2. Not many Windows users would convert to Mac OS X.
If your comfort zone is Windows (i.e. you've lived with its defects long enough that you no longer view them as defects), why would you switch to a completely foreign environment with less software? You wouldn't. You might buy OS X and install it, but mostly as a curiosity. This is what my Windows friends do with Linux. They call themselves Linux users, but when they want to do real work (or play), they switch back to their comfort zone: Windows.
Well... I think we can break it NOW if we want, but what good is a 1Ghz (e.g. G5 )chip if it can do less work than a 700Mhz G4 ? I think people are mislead by the term Mhz in thinking that more Mhz is better/does more work. I think we need to raise awareness to the fact that it is the work done that counts not the speed, and the work done is better measured by gigaFLOPs rather than Mhz.
Admiral, you are so very right... the second time today I've liked one fo your posts... cool!
But, while you are correct in your assessment the truth be told, the general PC market does not view the situation that way. And, i think if we wer to try and explain it to them they would generally get confused.
To them MHz or GHz means they have a superior machine...
How very true... the general public is too easily confused (and refuses to learn lol) ....
Lets just tell them that a big bad computer virus hit and we cant use the "Mhz" or "Ghz" combo when refering to computers, instead the new measurements will be in GigaFLOPs lol (kinda like going from standard to metric --> bad analogy I know because both metric and standard measre the same thing differently while FLOPs an hz are two different things altogether )
That just might work, the general PC user is fairly sheepish about what they "know" about their machine., but, they can also be very thick. I have a feeling they might actually be willing to accept the Flops story, but then they'd get really confused on why a 1.3GHz machine wasn't processing at 1.3GigaFlops... know what i mean?
And before all of you quasi- or true PC users start flaming me, I am only being half serious... LOL
Sorry this post is not really appropriate for this thread but, have you seen Windows XP? I have known about it for a while, but it still really pisses me off. Go to microsoft.com, and there will be a link. I think this should be one of the main areas of discussion on macosx.com. Here is a picture of Windows XP (I wonder where they got the name?)
People who were NeXT fans/devellopers did buy OPENSTEP, others who did not know much about it didnt even look for it. I was looking for it online and I saw that it's license (at least these days) is $400 !!!!! Who the heck would buy it ?! I looked on ebay and found my copy for $15 he he he (if course its NeXTSTEP 3.1 lol )
NeXTSTEP was a flop (not to be confused with FLOPS ) because it wasnt marketed AFAIAK and because of its cost. IT was mainly a hobbyist and develloper thing (after the demise of the cube)
For an interesting case study, consider Solaris for Intel. I wonder how many people have chosen to use Intel boxes for their Solaris work? I dare say people who had the need for Solaris to begin with probably had the need for the better hardware.
Of course I don't think Apple's hardware is better than the general PC hardware the way Sun's hardware is better than the PC hardware.
BTW, gigaflops don't always matter, so it's a poor substitute for another poor metric--not that you really <em>could</em> summarize the worth of a computer in a single number anyway, I suppose.
I think that we must all be patient and see what happens. Even if OS X was released on Intel it wouildn't come sweeping in, instantly grabbing hold of a huge market share. Look how long it's going to take for OS X to take the majority of mac computers over. Logically, it should take even longer for some win users to switch over. The markets transition to OS X will be discussed in years, not months. In my mind, any mac user who wants OS X on intel must think that the OS will quickly take over x86 boxes. The mac communinty will be switching over the next 3 years. How long would it take for win users to switch over?
OS X on intel would bring a bad short-term and a uncertain long-term.