Another call for OS X on Intel chips

“I’m not the only one who thinks that Apple Computer’s prime asset is its software. That gorgeous user interface the company has developed for its OS X operating system is more of a selling point than the hip design of its iMacs and PowerBooks. And if Apple would rework its software to run on Intel chips, I suspect quite a few PC users would consider OS X an alternative on their Windows-based PCs,” writes Paul Gilster for

Gilster continues, “Until this happens, getting Apple’s market share to rise means persuading Windows users to buy entirely new hardware. Steve Jobs surely hopes to do just that, announcing new Power Macs at the company’s annual developer conference in San Francisco. Intriguingly, the high-end Power Mac G5s are to be built around an IBM chip called the PowerPC 970. They’re fast , though whether they’re as fast as Jobs says is debatable.”

“…storm clouds unexpectedly gathered with recent projections that Linux would pass Apple in market share for desktop computers in 2004. Wal-Mart is now selling ready-to-use Linux-based computers for $248. Linux will run on Intel-based PCs (and Macs, for that matter). Apple would be smart to counter it with an Intel version of OS X, for all those who don’t want to buy a new computer just now but would welcome the chance to try a less demanding Windows alternative,” Gilster writes. Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We propose that Apple make Mac OS X run on Casio calculators. That way many more people wouldn’t have to buy a new Mac to run OS X. Make it work on Game Boys, too, Apple. We suspect that Gilster most likely thinks the “X” in Mac OS X is pronounced “ex.” Will these uninformed calls for OS X on Intel ever end?


  1. I wish everyone would get off market share!!!!!!! Apple is a successful company period! And besides everyone comes up with this crap that no one will develop anything because of small market share. So here is the question…. i want to know how many users/computers it takes to make it worth it to write a software title? How many people have to buy a software title to make it profitable??? The answer is it varies. It may require a million for one product and 100,000 for another and it may require 2 million for a pc and 500,000 for the mac because of variables. So next time someone comes up with the market share/software deal ask them how many they have to sell to make money!!! Only the people writing it know and as far as i can tell MS still makes money off the mac go figure!!

  2. Does Apple want to change the world or just sell sugar water?

    There is a vast potential market that will never even consider purchasing Apple hardware which would buy Apple OS and other software. In the dark, distant past Apple missed the opportunity to become the standard of the PC industry by failing to license others to manufacture hardware and then selling OSs. The opportunity to sell the OS still exists. Shareholders, if they consider the matter, would be better off if the company made more profit from whatever source. Just as there are many PC users who are buying iPods (and who will probably buy iTunes for the PC and iTunes Music Store downloads who will not change to an Apple computer there are many who would change operating systems. These people are not “lost sales” of hardware. They were never going to buy Apple hardware in the first place. They are instead unrealized software/OS sales at the present time.

    A compatibility certification/licensing arrangement would go a very long way to ensuring a satisfactory result of running the OS on multiple hardware configurations. The vendor would submit everything for certification testing and then would be able to use the Apple “good computing seal of approval” on their product with a specified hardware combination.

    It would turn a profit for Apple. Isn’t that what a business is supposed to do? Perhaps Apple needs to “think differently”.

  3. Apple is a hardware company.

    Yes, the software might be its “prime asset,” but prime asset in WHAT? Selling hardware.

    However, to speak generously of these who misunderstand, at least they’re expressing an enthusiasm for Mac OS X. There’s a BIG sea change going out on there regarding the Mac OS’s feasibility and appeal, and it’s certainly welcome to have transitioned from a fringe OS (for those people) to a highly desirable one.

  4. You know, these guys will never get it. The bottom line is, the Pentium has always been an inefficient processor, and it’s on it’s last legs. The G5 is a new generation chip and it, at the very least, performs right along with the P4, if not surpassing it completely, despite the lower clock rating. I don’t know why these idiot’s think that will help anything, it won’t.

  5. Who cares what chip or Box OS X runs on…

    One thing people forgot is that when Jobs ran NeXT he did port NeXTStep to Intel Boxes and it worked great. There were some very high end equipment required for OpenStep to run on Intel boxes, but it did work well. OpenStep is the basis for OS X. I have some OpenStep apps which were modified and run well under OS X.

    Jobs even ported OpenStep to Windows NT so you can run OpenStep apps under Windows. It is possible and it can work well.

    It is possible and Jobs probably has OS X running on an Intel Box somewhere in the dungeons of Apple.

    If Apple chooses to use Intel chips as well as the 970 chip, fine. What I want to see is faster CPU’s running OS X. Companies like Pixar(even with Jobs as CEO) will not buy Apples because they are too slow for the price.

    If Jobs and Avie could get OpenStep to run under Wintel, what I want to see is Windows running under OS X like classic. It can be done.

    I don’t care about what chip or box they use, just want it cost effective so I can justify the expense and run any app I need to work with.

  6. OSX Client on Intel:
    “Don’t be surprised if you hear about an OS X Client for Intel boxes that will allow the user of such a box to connect to an XServe. This way, the Intel box becomes a thin client while the PPC applications reside and run off the XServe, just as you can now do with any Mac that can connect to an XServe.”

    Brilliant! It will meet a need and could use the slowest Intel boxes in the building. It’s where to go when you are faced with software Assurance 6 or else! Go for it Apple! This is a better solution than Linux on the desktop. These machines can still use their Office applications while in “Windows Mode”.

  7. Having OS X run on an Intel box would be like putting a dress on a pig!….it’s the whole package that makes Apple, OS X AND the hardware CREATED to run OS X so stable and desirable….I think it would be a mistake to create a wintel version.

  8. Apple would be crushed by M$ if it ever dared competed in the OS market. The only reason Linux is growing is because Bill hasn’t figured out how to combat a “guerilla” software movement. Bush will have an easier time controlling the rebels in Iraq than Gates will stopping Linux.

  9. MS needs the Apple OS and Linux also. He would not dare crush them, for it is the only excuse that he can give that MS is not a monopoly. No one need to fear, the other operating systems will not hurt MS and MS dare not hurt them.

  10. The Apple Hardware is huge part of why Apple’s Software is so good. A switch to Intel would mean having to support a huge variation of PC Parts in order to use existing hardware. That would be a tech support nightmare for Apple and OSX Administrators. Not to mention that PCs parts are not built with the same level of quality and aesthetics as Mac parts. I have been using Macs since 1984 and almost never had a hardware failure. On the other hand just about every PC I’ve used or supported has had some kind of hardware failure. CPU fans, CPUs, motherboards, no name it.

  11. More than 50% of the Mac’s appeal to Mac users is the superior hardware.

    The Wintel camp simply can’t grasp this concept since they traded reliability and quality for the “CHEAP COMPUTER model” years ago.

  12. OSX is at its heart a Unix system, in fact the basic kernel (Darwin) already runs on x86, and since it is a Unix, device drivers could easily be included from BSD or Linux, the only thing that is still needed for OSX on x86 is the Desktop which is obviously the reason people want it ported.

    You Mac snobs seem to forget that not everybody can afford a Mac, I stay in a country wMere a Mac is at least twice as expensive as a top line Dell and it has very little software available for it, I have always wanted a Mac but it is simply to expensive

  13. What a load of crap, superior hardware? I don’t think so, you want to talk about superior, how about being able to CUSTOM make your PC with top of the line parts, not wimpyass parts that Apple forces you to use. GeForce4MX anyone?

    Superior software yes. Hardware, laughable. Even with the G5, the heatsinks on that thing are ENORMOUS, no wonder there isn’t any room for extra drive bays. I’d be surprised if that thing doesn’t start fires or be the new office heater.

  14. OS X on PCs is a pie in the sky, wet dream that is never going to occur. However, OS X will be running on the fastest personal computers on earth in just a few months. Start saving your pennies, get that bank loan, whatever you have to do. It’s on it’s way and its gonna be SWEET!

  15. “What a load of crap, superior hardware? I don’t think so, you want to talk about superior, how about being able to CUSTOM make your PC with top of the line parts, not wimpyass parts that Apple forces you to use. GeForce4MX anyone?”

    Give it up!

    How much will that CUSTOM machine cost when you get done? Compare that to an off the shelf Mac that you bozos are always screaming about being too expensive!


    You guys are pathetic!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.