“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 newsobserver.com.
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?
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.
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
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.
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!
“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!
LOL!
You guys are pathetic!
It all comes down to personal satisfaction. Mac owners love their machines while PC owners simply tolerate theirs.
“OS X will be running on the fastest personal computers on earth in just a few months.” Danni, you are in a position to confirm that Apple will run on Athlon64?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Frankly, I think Apple, rather then port OS X to PC’s, should instead port it’s apps to Linux. This way the PC world would have MAC apps, but Apple would not have to port OS X to Intel/AMD hardware. It makes a lot of sense, since Linux is very much related to OS X.
I said the fastest personal computers on earth, not the highest clock speed rated ones. Haven’t you learned anything from AMD yet?
They’re acting just like the Republicans did when they lost the senate majority. The Pee Cee users of the world are in SHOCK. They just can’t accept that Apple has beaten them at their own game. The G5 processor is soooo much faster than the dying x86 architecture. And it’s only in it’s first generation. I love it. Ha haaaaaa.
Don, I think you mean Democrats, not Republicans.
I think everyone is missing one huge point. Wintel users are accustomed to buying expensive new hardware, and buying repeatedly. The OS rots over time and their old hardware works poorly with new OS releases or patches. Most PC people I know budget for replacing their machines every 12-18 months. Most Macs have a far longer practical lifetime. All it takes is a few Wintel users to by 1 Mac and they’ll stop wasting their money on throwaway beige box PCs.
Apple will never port OSX to PC hardware. That’s okay. I’d love a Mac, and hope some day to afford one, but until then, Linux is fine for me. Plus, I’ll, most likely, run some linux distribution on my Mac along with OSX when I get it. Then, I’ll even be able to (gasp!) run Windows software under Wine! And even PC games with Winex! How you like THEM apples?
No, I meant Republicans. You know, the ones that kept getting arrested for all kinds of illegal things during the Reagan and Chimpy Sr. years.
I don’t quite understand what you Mac zealots are so worried about. You like Apple hardware? Fine, OSX will aways run on it and probably run on it better than anything else. If you have the extra cash for less technically advanced hardware, feel free to waste it. As far a OSX on Intel is concerned, Apple would be marketing it to _new_ customers like me that don’t want MS and don’t like the limitations of Linux like the lack commercial software such as games.
It’s a new market that’s ripe for the picking. In no way will it effect your plastic flower box. More than 90% of the world’s computing population are happy with their Intel hardware however, I’d wager a large portion of those people don’t like Microsoft and would be happy to make the switch. Apple could make a fortune, if they could figure out how to make it work which I highly doubt.
The problem is this. Apple _sucks_ and they know it. They know they aren’t smart enough to create a reliable OS on Intel hardware. Intel hardware is too varied for such a small outfit like Apple to be able to handle. They have their minds set on never growing in the computer industry. They are the BetaMax of computers. Their OS is beautiful and I’d buy it if they sold it for my computer. And it is based on Unix and compiled with gcc after all, which should make it easy to port. Still, I don’t think they could do it even if they wanted to. They are a substandard computing company with no vision of growth, well, besides the growth of the RIAA.
What good is a powerful computer if you spend its cycles on this crap? Go compute something big.
Andrew Andrew Andrew. Hasn’t anyone told you? Apple is a HARDWARE company. It’s not a Microsoft making a compromised OS to run on a mish-mash of compromised hardware. Surely now. What are you thinking.
Well personally, I wouldn’t want to see Apple waste it’s resources on making OS X run on x86. I want them to spend their time honing OS X for the Mac to the point that even the most egregious dim witted, Big Mac eating, Chevy VS Ford debating, unwashed galoot owner of the latest, greatest PC will realize what a piece of shit they’re using when they see it compared to the Mac.
Page 128, July 2003 Macworld Magazine. Why this will never happen is all in that article.
To Andrew and all of the other people who call for OS X on Intel/x86 architecture,
I can’t be bothered to read all of the way through the feedback articles so someone may have already made these points.
1) It is doubtful that many ISV’s would bother to recompile their Applications for OS X on Intel. That is the simple and most compelling argument I can make for why we will not see this happen. For Apple to develop Panther or any other version of their OS for Intel they have to be certain that the Application support would be there quickly enough to justify the just the porting cost let alone the additional support headaches that would go with running something so complex on the duct tape and bubble-gum systems most common in the computing world.
2) At present Apple is a Hardware Company that prides itself on the quality of their systems. By creating the whole package, hardware, OS and iApps they can create a very simple easy to maintain solution for the bulk of consumers. They are more concerned with a user experience than raw speed. This philosophy worked in the 70’s when the Japanese car makers almost destroyed the muscle car making behemoths in Detroit. Today most people buy a car that just runs, gets reasonable gas mileage (Yuppie security blankets a.k.a. SUVs aside) and doesn’t need much maintenance. Apple’s hardware is meant to be more of a Lexus/BMW/Benz type of machine. The difference is that the high-tech industry has better marketing and the additional pressure of a child’s tantrum and continuous whine to prod the next upgrade.
3) Most people I know who use computers, businessmen and consumers alike, use it as a glorified typewriter with the added bonus of some web, accounting and communications capabilities. They don’t use a fraction of the capabilities they had when they were using their old P2/200 let alone these $2000 boat anchors they’re buying today. Unfortunately the herd hasn’t figured out this fact yet so they’ll continue to believe the MS Hype and not worry about standards or interoperability. They will simply trudge off the cliff the MS leads them to quite happy to continue their lemming-like existence into oblivion as long as their kids will shut-up and can play the latest game built to force yet another hardware upgrade.
I guess if I were a Windoze or Lin-nuts user I would be wishing that Apple would port OS X to my machine. OS X makes all of the other operating systems out there look like relics from the last century. While Apple is roaring ahead with innovations in their OS, their hardware, and their peripherals, the rest of the industry is stuck in a rut. Take a look at Microsoft… thrashing about in all different directions looking for any way to hook you into subscription deals so that they can get some kind of recurring revenue stream going. Digital watches indeed! Digital satellite radio broadcasters are having trouble signing up large numbers of subscribers and Microsoft believes that people will want to subscribe to their service to get the weather forecast on their watch! Just because it can be done doesn’t mean that people want it. Anyone remember the CueCat readers that Radio Shack was giving out a few years ago? I think that MikeD was right on target. When people realize that you are not only getting the best operating system when you get a Mac, you also get top notch hardware as well. Besides the actual system architecture, take a good look at the physical construction and layout of Apple’s new dual 2GHz G5 machine. Looks like Mil-Spec construction inside. Contrast that with the layout and construction of any Dell, Gateway, Alienware, etc. computer. Besides the cheap uninspired plastic cases you also get the typical PeeCee rat’s nest inside. And why are Microsoft’s operating systems so uninspired? There is absolutely no elegance to them whatsoever. The cartoonish interface is insulting in Windoze XP! Thank God that Apple is opening so many retail stores. Now computer enthusiasts can see firsthand what they are missing by clinging to last century’s platform. It’s time to take a serious look at Apple!
OSX user�s and apple user�s do not want OSX on an intel platform.
MS users are cheap wal-mart people whose only knowledge of programming and real world technical issues is “How to keep their system from crashing”, and making buggy .NET B2B apps.
Why would any apple user in their right mind want that kind of trailer trash moving into our neighborhood? We don�t. Apple has proven to be 40-60% more productive than any client OS on this planet, time and time again. Our machines are better built, and works of art, and if MS users cant afford them, well so much the better. Keep the property value up and the non-professional out.
I want a computer company that builds toward perfection, and excellence. I don�t want cheap half baked software, and hardware that overheats and chant be left on for months with 15 apps open. MS windows is simply not well made, even MS knows this. That�s why they are the 2nd biggest clients of SUN, and the accounting program for MS used to be on a mac platform. I�m saying this because I am a SUN, MS, Novell, and BSD unix engineer, and these constant arguments are useless.
A 500 OSX client network using a sun Solaris server will out perform a 500 client windows 2000/xp client network by 40 � 60% in productivity and 20 �30% in cost. Apples are not games machines, and Apple cannot beat Novell or Sun when it comes to server software. Apple is the best client platform for getting professional work done for any platform. Apples are the best multi-lingual and multi-hybrid platform to date, and that�s what we pay for. We don�t want cheap, and we don�t need tech support.
Will these uninformed Mac sites ever stop their stupid uneducated (zero developer knowledge) rebuttals to issues they know NOTHING about?
Yeah, Apple is as much a hardware as software company. Their strength is the tight integration of both. In fact before OSX, I used to install Linux on mac hardware. Just because Apple is so cool….
Surelly for Apple to make money from digital lifestyle devices and services it needs Windows compatibility. I suppose OS X for x86 would mean everyone having access to iChat, iTunes, etc but another way to do this would be to make Apple applications for Windows. Apple all ready does this with QuickTime and it is rumoured to be doing it with iTunes. Would the release of the iApps for Windows not make the whole OS X for x86 concept redundant?