Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
re: disdain

the porting os x to intel site is actually mostly mac users who realize the future is software (like jobs claims), not hardware

with a smaller initial manufacturing cost, the software, apple can make a huge profit margin by selling OS X to intel machines

high profit margins result in an overall strong net profit

remember, apple is a business

go apple, inc.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
re: no comments

think of the pcs out there as the cars with whatever type of standard engine

...os x is the gasoline and apple is the supplier!

go apple, inc.
 

SPG

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2001
1,083
0
In the shadow of the Space Needle.
Just a thought....

What if Apple made a Mac-like OS just for PC's? It would run all the windows compatible applications but in more of a Mac look and feel. PC users would experience some of what we've had, and if they were really hooked they could go out and buy a G5 and the real Mac OS.
Is it possible? Would it work? Is it worth trying?
 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
Its clever
I suppose it could demonstrate the power of OSX without giving them a the real OS.

I wonder how many people would hate apple for luring PC consumers though.


 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
worth a try? yes!

sj said apple is a software company first

os x finally proved that with the attention and press apple gave it and continues to give it

whether a pc os made by apple makes pc users switch over or not hardware-wise is a plus if it happens, but the money made by apple in software profit margin already gains money for apple

the money in IT is increasingly in software, not hardware...or at least not in computers since the tight competition slaughters the profit margin where as software still enjoys a huge profit margin and will hopefully continue to

sure a computer costs more at the store than an os but effortwise and time and materials-wise, software is what really pays off

like someone mentioned on these posts before, bill gates managed to make a fortune without building computers...and all that during the personal computer revolution
 

oldMac

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
543
53
Here's the problem... price = $375

Ignoring the issues of:

1) Porting the OS to run on x86 (not trivial)
2) Providing a PPC emulation environment on x86 for compatibility with PPC-native apps (esp. not trivial)
3) Asking all Mac developers to port their software to OS X on x86 while still supporting PPC hardware, as well (incredibly difficult and expensive)

Then there is the *BIG* issue...

Let's assume that you can buy either:

a) An Apple machine to run OS X
b) An x86-based machine to run OS X

Apple generally makes about 25% profit on their "average" machine that sells for about $1500. That's $375 of profit on each machine.

To maintain profit margins, Apple would have to charge $375 per copy of OS X. How many PC purchasers would be willing to pay $375 for the benefits of OS X (that won't run their existing software)?

Of course this can be made up if the volume is there, but somehow I doubt that PC users would immediately start ditching all their compatibility in a rush to OS X.

Then, consider how many copies of OS X may be pirated? Apple doesn't currently have to consider pirating of the Mac OS, because you can't buy a Macintosh without paying for the OS up-front. That's a whole new potential problem for Apple to deal with.

Personally, I think Apple should eventually move to x86 compatible processors and provide a Windows compatibility layer based upon the open-source WINE project.

However, Apple first needs to:

1) Give the software companies a rest to recover from the OS 9 -> OS X transition.

2) Diversify its revenue stream (so that it's not completely dependent upon number of Apple boxes shipped)

3) Reduce the complexity/costs of making Macs and PCs live in harmony.

4) Increase demand for Apple machines by lowering prices and increasing value.

This transition, if pursued by Apple, would take at least 5 years to execute successfully.

The first area where Apple could pursue this in an experimental fashion, would be in providing an Apple server solution for x86-based servers. (This could happen much faster than desktops.)


[Edited by oldMac on 11-12-2001 at 02:16 PM]
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
let's assume you are right concerning software dev costs

so software development costs money, you would know better than me

...but that does not change the longterm trend of software gaining prominence every day in the high tech field

maybe apple needs to try x86 server based os solutions first, but they have to eventually move forward

pc hardware is getting cheaper by the month and this is constantly driving prices of pc hardware down which, in turn, is bringing down the prices of macs

as prices come down, so will the margin of profit for hardware (it is a continuing trend)...in the earliest days of IT, hardware profit margins were several times what it is now when the competition was not around...it was not long ago when san jose was orchards but those days may have well been a hundred years ago!

os x was probably a very expensive and lengthy process but it probably was at least as important as the imac was a few years ago

microsoft cannot stop apple porting os x to intel because they are standing a thin ice right now with the monopoly actions of their past and by the way...who do you think owns more stock in apple than bill gates and microsoft?

it could only help bill gates if os x, and thus apple, does well in the future and ports to intel

it is no loger apple against big brother and the major corporations of the IT field...we need super giants ibm and motorola (for chips) and hp (for printers)

ibm's via voice is a top rated mac software and office:mac by microsoft is more and more important for us mac users, too

...porting os x to intel and amd may not happen this year, or next, or the next...but apple cannot continue on (very successfully) if they are to ignore the "other 95 percent of the market

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-12-2001 at 03:11 PM]
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
when do i think os x should port?

i don't have an exact timeline when i think os x should port to intel and amd

...but some of the "anti-big guy" thinking that helped make mac a revolution in 1984 colors the thinking of some mac techs i know today

they will say things like, "no one buys office:mac from microsoft", "those sales figures are fake", "bill gates pays off the press", etc...

...or "ibm only partially funded the G3 but motorola only makes the G3 chip and ibm and apple have nothing to do with each other anymore"

...or "bill gates and microsoft only put 150 million into apple as a one time investment in the 90s and apple really was not doing badly"

...or "apple really does not only have 5 or 10 percent of the market" but "they really are the number one selling computer"

now, i am not against wishful thinking for apple, but burying one's head in the sand and thinking that apple is some non-profit for our artistic enjoyment is simply not true

apple has made bigger failures than they have successes and the stock value points that out, so continuing to live in this "i am an island onto myself" thinking, especially in IT, is not what apple needs right now or in their future

am i am not advocating that apple become just another pc maker because apple still makes the best computer with the best operating system
 

davidc2182

macrumors regular
Nov 8, 2001
168
0
Sin City
reply to MACST3R

yes MACST3R this is a country of freedom where everyone can do whatever they damn well please, including steal major ideas from a competitor which is what microcrap did with apple they saw the os, they stole the ideas, and tried to make something of it, yes gates is a marketing genius, which is the only reason why he has become so successful, even with windoze being as crappy as it is popular. I used to use windows as a power user, and i dealt with crashes, formatting, and all that other crap, on my ibook, it will occasionally crash from IE or netscape, but thats the only reason. My pc is a game and music devoted machine right now, which is all pcs are good for anyway. Lets take a look shall we at the history, Apple creates the macintosh, gates competes by BUYING DOS and lying all the way through with IBM that they had it. Next 16 bit windows, crap! incredibly difficult to use. next a bloated 32 bit version called 95 with a task bar and icons on the right hand side, looks familiar. This was the next logical step, then came 98 and 98SE, now with a program called 98lite you could remove the core integration of IE with the os. integration in the first place was a stupid move, gee yeah lets make our shell, which is what windows is, its not an OS, lets make our GUI shell run on top of dos, which they bought, then lets integrate the incredible instability of the internet with it and make everyone crash at least once a day. then ME just a bloated revision of 98 which took forever to load, and still had a basic version of dos underlying it. during this time they had windows nt and 2000 out, which were much more stable but not good for home users. so they merge the 2 and come out with xp, fisher price crappy interface. dos is gone anything doslike you see is the BIOS which is designed to look like dos, however now they emulate dos through XP hence the stability of the OS because XP is actually an OS based on a decent kernel. so now windows is at the point where apple was with their first os, because its their first actual OS. and the underlying portion of this whole thing is that he outright stole the idea, the design, and maybe even some code directly from Apple OS. meanwhile Apple had been inspired by Xerox's division who came up with a GUI originally, but the mac os is more than a gui, its a complete OS whose interface is a GUI and its gonna take 10 years for windoze to get where os X.1 is today. And if their not carefull they may be defunct by their own errors or pulled apart by the courts, because its a frickin monopoly which is illegal, and the money he earned, was from lying, cheating, and stealing, along with marketing. So I wonder , how much is that money worth now, how well does he sleep at night knowing exactly what he's done.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
i don't know about you, but if i had that much money, i would be so worried about losing it or mismanaging it, it would affect MY sleep

i don't think i would like charges thrown against me and my company that sound a tad bit bigger than your regular misdemeanor if you know what i mean and have uncle sam after you on and off for years

i guess that is what makes bill gates chairman and little old me his field techie
 

joey j

macrumors regular
Oct 19, 2001
117
0
davidc2182>100 billion dollar personal net worth,

On paper.


davidc2182>shouldnt there be some kind of law against being that wealthy,

No.


davidc2182>think about all the people that could be helped with just one billion of that money,

... and if there _was_ 'some kind of law against being that wealthy', there'd be no-one wealthy enough to GIVE AWAY one billion dollars, because they'd be legally prohibited from GETTING IT in the first place.

How would Gates realize that much money? By selling his shares. How would he sell them when no-one'd be wealthy enough to BUY THEM from him?


davidc2182>but no i'm gonna live in the woods in a supercool house and be a nerd!

Nothing wrong with being a nerd. I'm a nerd ... narf ... or living in a supercool house ...


spikey> Processors are not like RISC Vs CISC anymore, they borrow parts off each other. macs lean towards RISC more than PCs,

Modern x86s are load/store (read: RISC) processors with an x86 (-> native ISA) instruction translator onboard. PPCs are relatively complex as far as RISC designs go but still preserve most of the aspects we know and love.


spikey> but they do not use a RISC processor.

referring to PPCs or x86s? hardly, either way. the old-fashioned CISC idea is dead. You can do nifty things for backwards compat like intel and amd have, but given that the last pure-cisc x86 was the 386, i think it's safe to say that cisc died a long time ago.



can we kill these moronic os x on x86 threads now?
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
this thread is definitely getting old since there will always be people on both sides of the os x to intel issue but the "isssue" does not look like its going to die among a lot of mac users

it's not really a moronic issue any more than any other issue, posters bring up different ideas and issues and it's not an attempt at approacing a mac lockstep type of pholosophy, but more a diverse set of views by actually thinking differently, to borrow a term

i remember some so-called moronic (or attacked as such) rumors about something called a cube and more recently about something many said was too big to be what the current ipod is right now, but very predictably, people are warming up to the ipod after a blasting of criticism at its introduction

sometimes i get tired of hearing about bluetooth, newton, or the cube, but there are still a lot of people on both sides of those issues, too

i like the idea of os x to intel and think it's worth at least a try but there is certainly a big question mark about if it is possible at a reasonable cost and if pc users will buy it...maybe the cost of bringing os x to intel is more than apple could shoulder right now with the need to at least break 1 GHz on the open market, which has been a magic selling point for consumers (however ridiculous advanced users and techs may say that is)

bill gate's entire worth is not all on paper being that he is incredibly diversified, yet not as much as paul allen, who looked like a financial genius with his ventures into transmeta and WAN technology, but lately that does not look too hot like it did just a few months ago

for bill gates to liquify everything he has would hurt microsoft and to sell his stocks would not make sense...but he doesn't have to sell them all to ONE rich person who is "rich enough" per se, many, many normal people could be rich enough to buy him out piece by piece

and the 100 million amount is not likely a current figure since it may be actually closer to a little more than half that according to fortune magazine, but when one is that rich, it is very hard to know any accurate amount

there should not be laws against bill gates' wealth, but there are some laws against how he got it in the first place and this is what the courts are still duking out

i agree with some stuff and disagree with other stuff i hear every day on macrumors, and it's good no two posters are the same, i am glad that you mentioned and clarified the RISC CISC thing because some people still see things like the 386 and believe the pc world is wallowing there

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-13-2001 at 10:25 AM]
 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
Yes joey, that is what i said. albeit quite badly.

there is no such thing as CISC anymore.
And RISC also doesnt apply to the G4, because cpus have become more complex there is no such thing as Reduced Instruction.
Both PC processors and Mac processors try to get the both of best worlds.

Although yes the G4 still leans towards RISC more than the average Pc cpu does.
 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
I was referring to macs not using RISC processors, and they dont.
No such thing as RISC, i saw somewhere the G4 being described as post-RISC. I think thats a pretty good description.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
the first time i saw anything on a pc processor having something to do with risc was on the amd website and i think they were talking about the k6-2 or k6-2 plus but i am sure the last cisc processor was a while ago

wow, is the G4 post-risc?
 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
Yeah the last CISC processor was a long time ago, a friend told me the 486 was the last. But im not sure whether to believe him because he talks sh*t.

Well, post-RISC is a good description if you ask me.

There isnt such a thing as RISC or CISC anymore really, just some CPUs lean towards either of them.

Although i hear servers are very RISC like, Jef is that true?

I hope this ends the stupid RISC/CISC debate once and for all. I am tired of seeing people not understanding something that is irrelevant and doesnt exist anymore.
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
many pc techs call mac chips risc anyway and many mainframe servers have motorola ppc chips in them so i can see where that comes from

i saw something on motos website...because only a portion of motos chips are for macs...they are a huge company
 

mac15

macrumors 68040
Dec 29, 2001
3,099
0
only on an AMD

sounds O.K

but it has to be written to take advantage of the intel chips and AMD chips

But would PC companys make DP for the new version




NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

subgang

macrumors newbie
Jan 3, 2002
2
0
Gimme OS-X for PC...Please!

I was a devout Mac user for years. Finally I wanted to make the move from design to programming, and my Mac was useless. No way to learn ASP, JSP or Cold Fusion...the Apple MPW is far too massive and intimidating. No equivalent of Visual Studio or other IDE. (Sorry, CodeWarrior doesn't cut it).

So I made the switch, and not only are there zillions of tools available for programming on the PC, many of them are available for free or as shareware. Resources for writing software abound on the PC so much more than Macs it's not even funny.

But now, OS-X! java! Free dev tools and an IDE! J2EE and Apache! If an OS-X port to x86 is not on the bill for Steve Jobs' 2-hour keynote, I'd be seriously let down. OS-X's only MAJOR flaw is available software. This is the only way to get more programmers developing for the OS. And UNIX programmers are among the most intense, devoted, and talented coders you would ever want.
 

networkman

macrumors regular
Jan 1, 2002
247
0
california, usa
unix coders

i couldn't agree more!!!

the unix coders (and also mac coders) have been more dedicated to the joy of bringing their fields forward more than my peers on the pc side who see it more as a way to make money and/or collect a paycheck

did everybody see what apple said today on their website?

this is the biggest hint i have seen so far from apple suggesting a port of os x to intel

i mean, come on, os x is in a "pc" language, so to speak in "general" terms for the benefit of the people not in the IT field, and that does not make it any less mac than before and porting os x to intel could only mean money for apple which is crucial, especially since the wall street journal said this week that apple is ready to hit the skids financially

...come on, we need to see apple inc as a business and not as some non profit small club/cult which could run on enthusiasm and some star wars type of rebellion mythology

we don't need revisionist history of the computer business and always trying to put a good spin on a bad situation like apple is famous for in financial circles and business schools

this period for apple is "do or die" as evidenced by compaq, webvan.com, and the net revolution in the valley

apple had its chances with the g4 but didn't get it off the ground quick enough, and they had their chances with os x, and they had the momentum of the imac, ibook, tibook, and new ibook, but only to lose a huge surge on income to indifference by the general public

apple has no problem dazzling critics with their product, but the follow up business opportunities have always eluded this company time and time again

port to os x already!
 

dantec

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2001
605
0
California
I think...

If they really want to port Mac OS 10 to intel, do it with partner ships... Make it only run on IBM's & Sony's. Who wants that Dell crap?
 

networkman

macrumors regular
Jan 1, 2002
247
0
california, usa
re: dell

just ibm and sony would be a cool start and bring in billions or 100s of millions in gross revenue to apple (resulting in many millions in net profit thus putting apple past the danger zone wall street seems to see the company at)...a rosy forecast though

but after that, of course, the sky would be the limit and maybe apple could start talking about a pre-1981 market share of personal computers
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.