“At 6:00 pm tonight, Apple Stores around the country will begin selling Apple’s next generation version of Mac OS X, codenamed Tiger. In case you were off visiting remote areas of Burma for the last year and a half, Tiger offers many of the features that Microsoft promises in Longhorn, but it delivers them today. Sadly, Tiger doesn’t run on standard Intel hardware, but if the rumors we heard at WinHEC are true, it may soon: In addition to the Microsoft evangelist who told us that Apple was moving to Intel, we later heard that an Intel engineer was claiming that Intel-compatible versions of Tiger were now running in the company’s Santa Clara labs. True or bogus, what the heck: Rumors like this are just fun,” Paul Thurrott write for Windows IT Pro. Thurrot also explains “Why Longhorn is a Train Wreck” and “Why Longhorn is Going to Rock” — compared to Windows XP, is how we read it — in his full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Stuck seemingly forever on Windows XP with nothing special to look forward to, Windows patchers dream of Mac OS X on Intel hardware. Just buy a Mac, guys. The future officially arrives today at 6pm. Ever wonder if these continuous “Mac OS X for Intel” rumors are intended not to be “just fun,” but to keep x86 PC owners clinging to their hardware instead of making the logical (and fatal to Wintel) break and switching to Apple Macs running Mac OS X?
Related MacDailyNews articles:
CNET: ‘If you’re tired of Microsoft’s promises, Mac OS X Tiger may be your best incentive to switch’ – April 28, 2005
BusinessWeek: ‘Tiger bolsters Mac OS X’s edge as the best personal-computer operating system around’ – April 28, 2005
Associated Press: Mac OS X Tiger ‘provides another excellent incentive to switch from Windows’ – April 28, 2005
Mossberg: Apple’s Tiger ‘the best, most advanced personal computer operating system on the market’ – April 28, 2005
InformationWeek columnist: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘a compelling upgrade’ – April 28, 2005
NY Times: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger is the most secure, stable and satisfying OS on earth – April 28, 2005
Wired News: Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger ‘full of welcome surprises’ – April 27, 2005
Windows czar Allchin says Apple copying Microsoft’s Windows Longhorn – April 27, 2005
Windows is weak, Longhorn will be cosmetic upgrade; Apple can deliver killer blow to Microsoft – April 27, 2005
Thurrott: ‘Longhorn is in complete disarray and in danger of collapsing under its own weight’ – April 27, 2005
Thurrott: Longhorn ‘has the makings of a train wreck’ – April 26, 2005
Thurrott: Longhorn demos ‘unimpressive, fall short of graphical excellence found today in Mac OS X’ – April 26, 2005
Microsoft employees leaving due to (and blogging about) malaise smothering company – April 25, 2005
iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
Hopefully this happens. I’d love to put OSx on some of my PC’s. Of coarse I can’t on all because of the software that I need to use but it would be nice because then more companies would also come out with Mac versions of their software.
I can see both sides of the argument. Windows proved Apple wrong back in the 80’s and 90’s, just think what might happen (overnight!) if Apple changed their core business philosophy and released Tiger for Intel/AMD boxes. It would be a revolution which might dwarf any debate about Apple holding on to their hardware business.
BTW – respect to Paul.
The only way I think Apple would ever release Mac OS X for Intel is if Apple developed an Intel box of their own and maintained control of the hardware.
To try and make some of 3rd party WinTel hardware junk that proliferates the market to work under OS X would be a nightmare!
they could do it, and do it right
will they? probably not
hell we can’t even get a 2 button mouse
We’ve had this discussion before about running OS X on Intel/AMD machines. My guess is there is a 3gig P4 running OS X in Cupertino right now, and running it well. Now let the flames roar….
Although I am one to live by the saying “Never say never!”, OS X on Intel is ridiculous.
First and foremost, APPLE MAKES COMPUTERS. They make OS X so they can have a stable and user-friendly OS on their computer. Apple’s nearest competitor is Dell NOT Microsoft. If Apple decides to use Intel chips in Apple computers, then OS X on Intel may happen, but I seriously doubt it. IBM’s advancements in 64-bit, multi-core, and cube technologies far surpasses anything soon to be released by Intel.
To install OS X onto a wide array of home-built junk boxes and millions of half-baked Dell and HP boxes introduces an unimaginable chaos to Apple’s customer service department, not to mention the headaches to Apple’s software engineering department.
Apple’s run smooth because they are NOT trying to be everything to everybody. Apple makes the whole widget, and that is why they are so popular.
Thurrot should simply get a Mac with Virtual PC and just shut up.
APPLICATIONS!! What apps would work? Unless they come up with a way, in XCode persay, to compile for different chips etc.
It ain’t gonna happen
If osX is ported to x86, you could pretty much seemlessly run mac software on this despite the difference in architecture, if the Transitive technology was used. Transitive enables software written for one UNIX operating system on one chip to run on another UNIX operating system on another chip. The speed is extremely good (think classic mac environment) from reports.
Maybe there is no need to standardize on one chip anymore. Rumors are that future chips may be able to support operating systems written for both PPC and x86.
Thurrott is progressing nicely. Let’s review, during his acceptance of the death of Windows he will go through Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.
We have all seen denial and anger personified in Thurrott. Now he is at bargaining. We may not hear from him for awhile once he enters depression, but we’ll all enjoy the aftermath of acceptance.
How hard would it be of Intel/AMD OS X to have a ‘Windows Classic’ mode (as an alternative to the OS 9 Classic mode for Mac users)?
People keep harping on about Apple’s hardware profits being put at risk… think of it this way: If Apple sold just 20 COPIES of ‘OS X for Intel’ to the billions of unhappy Windows users it would generate the SAME income as 1 mid-range G5 Power Mac – for a production cost of pennies!
If Apple wants to commit corporate suicide, then they’ll go Intel. Intel has nothing to offer Apple and vice versa.
x86 = the past
PPC = the future
Since Apple has a much brighter outlook for the future with IBM as far as processing horsepower goes (i.e., Pentiums forever vs quad G5s and Cells), I think they would be painting themselves into a corner if they jumped to Intel. Sure, many Windows users would buy OSX but I think OSX has a much better future with IBM. Besides, the Intel architecture is a hodge podge of special purpose registers and bolt-on fixits to support old (really old) code. I’ve coded assembly on older Intel processors and hated it with a passion. It’s illogical, just like Windows.
Could Apple make OS X run on Intel or AMD? Sure, without a problem. Would they? Yes I think Apple might run on an AMD chip in the future. But, its not what most people think. It would still run on Apple hardware only. They reason for this is that there still will be only one platform for Apple software. Apple could release OS X for the x86 platform right now, but I doubt it would do too well. What software would run on it? I doubt Adobe would port Photoshop to it. And I know for sure that Microsoft would never port Office to it.
So yes, we may see an AMD processor inside of an Apple one day, but we won’t see OS X on a Dell.
I could not agree more “If Apple wants to commit corporate suicide, then they’ll go Intel. Intel has nothing to offer Apple and vice versa.” If Apple were to even attempt to move to using the X86 Intel hardware they would ruin their name, reputation, quality, performance, etc. Apple, if you are reading this and even CONSIDERING doing this, you are making a HUGE mistake. Don’t get me wrong, I have several PC’s as well but I’ve also owned 4 Mac’s and they are far better…
It’s a nice dream for PC users but it ain’t going to happen. Apple sells hardware and software and they are not going to lose there hardware business by licensing there OS to PC’s and watch there hardware business go down the tubes. There is still a lot more money in hardware than in licensing and OS. They have just started gaining momentum in there hardware business again so it’s really doubtful that Apple would just suddenly give that gain away by licensing OSX to PC’s. It just doesn’t make sense.
You’re not paying attention John. If Apple could press a button and print off an extra 20 discs containing OS X ‘Intel’ in five minutes and earn as much from that as selling 1 G5 PowerMac – though at a probable 95% profit margin per disc – then it seems to make perfect business sense to me.
Sheesh, all you people who believe Thurrott’s dribble, or just want to, just take a look at Apple’s revenues due to hardware versus software.
*ALL* Apple software make up approximately HALF of what the iMacs ALONE bring in. Now granted, revenue != profit, but still–do the math, and you’ll have your answer of whether Apple will ever ship a Mac OS that runs on standard Dells/Gateways/etc.
Now will Apple ever ship their own Intel/AMD/whatever based box? Who knows, but I think the smart money is on “don’t bet the farm on it”; what would be the point? They’d still have boxes that are more expensive than the commodity Intel/AMD/whatever boxes.
I don’t believe there will ever be a version of OS X that will install on today’s PC’s. Adding support for the tens of thousands of components would be ridiculous.
That said, I could see Intel/AMD systems designed to run OS X but cannibalizing the PowerMac sales for the sake of OS X on Intel/AMD doesn’t make sense.
20 year Mac user..
Uh.. PROFIT is the point, not REVENUE..
OF COURSE REVENUES ARE AWESOME for hardware!! A Mac costsl like 1200 bucks.. pfft..
PROFIT is the point
This is Microsoft FUD to stop people who want to switch from switching. They only need to keep using Windows and wait for MacOS X on Intel to arrive, thus never switching in the end.
If it was ever released: I can imagine – it’ll cost $399 for non PowerPC chipsets, and include a 25 character licence code.
Whilst this rumor surfaces from time to time, the time to pull this product out Apple’s a** was approximately 10 years ago i.e. before Windows 95 came out.
But suppose they turned a version of OSX over to the open source community like Sun have with solaris? This needn’t be the full monty but perhaps Darwin with a crippled Aqua windowing manager. Maintenance/drivers and apps would be the OS community’s problem.
I doubt it will happen – MS would be mightily pissed off for one thing.
Tacitus
Profit is the point, and Apple is making good profit right now. I praise everything holy that you pro OS X on x86 aren’t in charge of Apple. Many seem to think that making as much money as possible should be the new Apple philosophy or something. The moment Apple abandons it’s hardware to become an OS/software company, Apple is dead and Microsoft 2 is born.
Apple, the compnay, is about a lot more than a great OS. It’s about style, inside and outside of the box. Jobs doesn’t want to see OS X running on some ghetto green Alienware lap suitcase or pile of shit Gateway. Luckily, he has his way and some of you are left to silly fantasies.
Everyone keeps saying how Apple would loose their hardware business if they port to the x86. They wouldn’t port it and just put it on sale at best buy for anyone to put on any machine.
They would build the machine, and be the only supplier. Just like they are today. They would control the “whole” experience top to bottom. They would be stupid to just release the OS into the wild and let whoever wants build a “Mac”.
If that’s as broad as “you” can think about going x86, that would explain why you don’t make these decisions for Apple…because you are stupid! Look at the bigger picture; this “could” increase Apples hardware sales. Now everyone that “needs” Windows for something can add a hard drive or partition and have it natively. No reason not to have a Mac now.
And for everyone saying IBM is the only future, are you drunk? Having all your eggs in one basket is not a sound business plan. You talk of future multi-core PPCs, and future performance enhancements and 64bits etc. Both Intel and AMD just released their dual-core chips a couple weeks ago. With multi-core (4) on the horizon. AMD already has an Athlon64, 64bit chip in shipping notebooks, today. With dual-core slated for later this year. The IBM chip is so great that it must use a “giant” water cooling system and leverage the entire case as a heat sink. G5 notebooks, when? The water cooling system alone weighs more than my Powerbook.
Think different people.