“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?
For some weird reason people assume that everyone in the world has a computer and/or is a Windows user and Apple needs to persuade them to switch. Not everyone in the world has a computer, and not everyone is a Windows user. Some Mac users I have successfully got to switch were Linux users (this is on top of some Windows users I got to switch)!
I also propose that BMW make engines that will fit in the Ford Focus. Why shouldn’t I be able to get $40,000USD BMW performance in my $10,000 USD econo-box? So what if I’d have to upgrade the suspension and the brakes and the… I think you can see my point. Apple has built OS X to run on ONE platfrom and to take full advantage of that platform, which is completely standard. They’d have NO interest in going into the morass of incompatibilites that is PeeCee land. Ok, so let’s say they only run on a ‘standardized’ Intel box. Where are the cost savings then?
People who suggest that Apple should run on Intel are not thinking clearly, and seem to be completely ignorant of the Apple platform and what makes it successful.
Hmmm.
Diverse hardware.
Drivers.
Tight integration.
Apple COULD make OS-X for PCs, but it would be 5hit. They’d have to limit it to a subset of motherboards, processors, graphics cards etc, which would then defeat the object because everyone would have to buy a new machine anyway.
I think it’s true that to run stuff like AVID software you have to have a specific tailored machine. It only supports a very limited and well spec’ed supbset of the PC world. Why ? So they know it’ll run. People investing thousands in software don’t care about saving a few hundred bucks on hardware – they just want it to work.
Who says Apple has to increase its market share anyway?
One thing that would ruin OSX and it’s reputation is to have it running on a wild variety of hardware, especially these “integrated graphics” PCs that sell at $300.
Also 54% of all computer sales are now laptops. This trend is going to increase now that laptops have come down in price. What is the point of having a box and monitor that require extra furniture, when you can buy a powerful computer that folds away when you’ve finished using it? Everyone in the world with a laptop will have to buy completely new hardware to update their machine. Apple just need to keep with their current policy of pricing the Powerbooks and iBooks well and they will just keep picking up the customers.
I propose that Mac OS X be installed in coffee cups, that way, we could all have X, at home, work, even in a restaurant……..
Riiiiiiight…….
Haven’t we heard this rubbish before? This idea seems to sprout it’s wings every few months, regardless of what Apple does in forging the future of personal computing……
I would love to buy a Intel hardware based and Apple software based PC. I would also be happy to use any good Unix or Linux based environment. I’m not stupid enough to buy the latest trend, in this case a laptop when I need a extremely well priced desktop (10 times the computer for the price).
Until then it is Intel and Linux for me and still looking forward to Apples demise. Like Microsoft they just don’t get it.
Exaclty…the whole reason Macs are renowned for their reliability is because everything is produced in house…its like a games console, all the games are designed for ONE piece of hardware, which means (with the exception of a few lazy game houses) that you don’t get problems…and as there is such a limited amount of hardware the software can be coded more specifically…this fool should be shot, as he obviously has no clue what he is talking about (and I’m a PC user, and even i can appreciate that!)
All this time I thought the speculation was that if Apple were to seriously consider an Intel version of Mac OS X, that it would only run on Apple hardware (ie: an Apple made motherboard design with Apple ROMs). This article and subsequent comments lean towards the idea that Apple would release X for generic PC boxes. Personally, I would rather see Apple continue on it’s PowerPC path.
Looking at it from a different angle – wouldn’t it be better for Apple – or a third party – to develop a piece of software that would simply enable a Windows version of the MS Office suit directly into OSX? I mean a really trimmed back, fast, emulator dedicated to that programme suite only – NOT the whole package/environment of Virtual PC. My guess is that most PC users have invested in a Windows MS Office suite, spend most computer time using Word/Excel and are reluctant to venture into Mac territory. All their other (lesser used) programmes have (superior) real Mac equivalents and switching to these would be easy. If they know they could bring their own Windows MS Office with them, I bet a lot more would switch… then when they upgrade in a year or so’s time, they would simple get a real Mac version of Office. Is this possible?
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.
You read it here first.
Hey, these people just want OS X to run on the fastest personal computers on earth. It’s no surprise, and you should stop ragging on them for it.
Carlton Lee, “analyists” and nay-sayers been predicting Apple’s demise, incorrectly obviously, for the last 10 years (at least). It ain’t gonna happen any time soon, so don’t hold your breath. You wanna run OS X, buy a Mac.
I want Mac OS X for My Newton 2100… Can we get that too?
Useless. Behind OS/X is hardware created to work with the operating system. I worked for the Byte Shop when the Mac was introduced and one of the key concepts behind it was that the hardware and software were designed for each other.
Bring that forward until today and try to place in on wintel boxes, to me doesn’t take this into account. PC’s in their almost infinite variety would be a monumental task and in my opinion, would be useless. Do you really think Micro$oft/Intel wouldn’t alter the platform, in pursuit of security and DRM for example. Of course not in a monopolistic way, mind you, but the future of our computing experience is being defined now. Apple would be shooting for a moving target, so to speak.
I personally believe the PC platform, still mired in that original design created by IBM/Micro$oft, should have been scrapped long ago. Imagine if Intel had designed a new chip architecture, hardware had been produced and Micro$oft had created an new OS.
What you see his is the true effect of Micro$oft’s monopoly. It has hindered that 95 % market share they have.
Our computing future if you don’t know it is not one where you use your computer, but one where you “use” your computer as you would a watch, perhaps use it from your watch. Sure I will have a keyboard and mouse, but I will interact with my computer in an entirely different manner than I do today. A tablet PC like device will be handy (mounted on the wall in the kitchen) and to start my iTunes I will use it’s touch screen and not through a menu. The dock should be context sensitive.
The day of our liberation will only happen when the Apple Menu and the Micro$oft taskbar are gone. People don’t realize that.
Oscar
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!!
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Anybody who still believes a top of the line Dell is half the price of a top of the line Mac is so fooling themselves. I configure these options every week as I am a computer purchaser at my university.
If you want the Dell to MATCH the specs of a top of the line Mac, good luck. Still no FireWire without third party add on. The only place Dell will save you money is their monitors. They’re lowballing them to get you into their system. Cost difference between two systems I did lately was $130. Does that sound like half?
And yes, I am willing to pay more for what I get. We keep our Macs on average of six years. We have some a lot older than that. Why? Quality.
Dell’s quality is suffering. Our Accountant had to send her Dell monitor back after four days. Our Associate Dean had to have his hard drive replaced twice in 3 years (and he used the thing an hour a day, so it’s not from wearing out). Our Assistant Dean’s Dell is as twitchy as a cat hopped up on caffeine. And those are the only three Wintel machines in our office. The rest we have are Macs. Guess who is getting more work done in our office??
Before the introduction of the G5, and all the architecture that comes with it, this was a somewhat interesting topic. The keyword there being WAS. As other users note below, Apple is a hardware company. The last thing a hardware company should do is the take steps towards commodity hardware. What does commodity mean? It means devaluing your hardware, making it common. That would be the most bonehead move a company such as Apple could make, for both its customers, and investors (both kinda one in the same when you think about it). In summary, I don’t want a Ford engine in my Porsche!
Isn’t this MacDailyNews? Where are all these Wintel trolls coming from? Aren’t there any Microtrolls discussion boards for you to vent your inferiority complexes on?
Oh, wait a second… I guess not. After all, there really is no Wintroll “community”, is there? Well, since you’re so desperate to be a part of the Mac community, how about ponying up $799 for an eMac G4? Then you can spend less than you do on those cheap POS generiboxes and get something that you won’t have to replace in 12 months.
Maybe I will ditch my PC after I finish HL2. Games and my current software investment are the only things that keep in the wintel camp.
The eMac was obsolete before you could buy it.
A PB or G5 makes sense. Even the iBook, but eMac? Come on.