osx for intel?

[SPG]

Well here's another take...
"to boldly go where no PC has gone before"
Macworld Expo...Duh. MACworld, get it? MAC-world? It's a show all about Macs, ya know? No PC's there? Get it?
Okay, that might not be it but aaaaaanyway, I have a sneaky suspicion that the next OSX will run PC software like the emulator runs classic. OSX 10.2 Buy a Mac and bring all your old software with you!
One less reason for the other 95% not to buy a mac, but a good reason for the software companies not to write for the Mac.

 

[subgang]

There's something I'm not getting here.

I'm getting the impression that Apple users do not want OS-X to be ported to PC's. I might be (and hope) that I'm wrong, but if that really is the general consensus, then why?

If that's the case, I'll just chalk it up to being a designer's/MP3 fan's operating system to run only on "boutique" hardware.

 

[Durandal7]

The only way this would ever happen is in a last-ditch effort to avert Apple from bankruptcy.

 

[networkman]

re: boutique hardware

for a graphics pro and some others, the mac is the standard tool, not a boutique item

but for the other 95 percent of the masses, unless apple gets over 1 ghz and drops their prices (starting at $599.00), macs will be seen as a specialty item or boutique item

whether the new os x could read pc software via an emulator or mac os ports to pc, apple needs to branch out beyond five percent of the market, even if their ultimate goal is still only 20 percent at the most

it is cool being elite, but not to the point where some posters here and analysts in the financial world are always questioning the survival of apple

 

[Unregistered]

Itel gold mine

Ok folks! If Mac is concerned about losing their hardware market raise the price for the Intel version of the OS. Da! Make it $250.00 vs. the Mac version which is what $125.00 and if that doesn't work raise it some more. Gee, let me think 125.00 additional profits per OS sold sounds like a pretty healthy thing to me. Oh yes don't forget you could charge extra for the support on an Intel cha ching! It is a business after all. Its a field of gold lying before Apple will they jump the fence to rake it up? I doubt it!

Ok, what to do with MS the mother ship. Microsoft won't take it lying down I assure you it will do something. Will they yank the office product? If they thought apple was going to threaten their monopoly oh yes in a min. However there is just too much business software out there for the MS OS to loose any serious ground. Much like Linux most of the sales would go to the curios by stander who would like to see what it was all about. And then when they needed to run the office accounting system or their resource management software they would flip the switch and return to Microsoft’s monopoly.

Still the curious have money!

 

[evildead]

are people still talking about this??

Why? Mac Hardware is the best and Apple OS is the best. Why would you want anything else???? Mabye porting OS X over to a Sun sytem... now that would be nice. (but not going to happen)

 

[dantec]

Yeah...

I agree with evildead...

 

[networkman]

why port?

it's about the money honey

some people ditched apple when microsoft started pushing their mac version of office and apple opened their door to ms letting them make ie and outlook the standard default....they say that steve jobs sold out to microsoft and maybe he did but he really had no choice

apple is not doing as bad as they could be doing, but they are just a step away from needing desperation measures if the new imac fails and if it were up to the posters here, the imac would bomb but the media is nicer to the imac2 than we have been

steve jobs is not a great businessman but he is not 100 percent artist and dreamer either...i would give that title to steve wozniak, but sj would port os x to intel if he knew it would save apple

jobs will not let apple sink because of an "ideal" and competing with a sociopathic bill gates is hard and sometimes steve jobs' own sociopathic side seems justified to compete against a man like gates

sometimes i see steve jobs as our "sadaam hussein" tin horn dictator fighting against "their" ayatollah who is bill gates...the IT field is one dirty war that has brought the unfair to a new level of the absurd

 

[dantec]

I know...

someone who met BG... He said he really had his nose stuck up in the air... like he ruled the world...

If there was any justice in this world... Ben laden would target Bill's home (without hurting anyone else...)... Maybe we can let Bush and his terrorist campaign take care of that...

Osama bin Gates... Murderer of the Mac OS!

 

[spikey]

Well how about instead of porting OSX to intel, why dont you give OSX GUI & extras to linux. That would help destroy microsoft, give PC users a taste of OSX, and persuade them to switch to mac hardware.
You would be surprised how many people want to use Linux, and if it wasnt for being a little un-user friendly then they would.
(Purely theoretical)

As for OSx for intel, it depends how jobs sees apple. If he sees apple as a software company first then he should port it, and concentrate on selling it as software for the Pc (not being bothered about people using PCs).

If he sees apple as both a hardware and software company then he would only port it if it would benefit the sales of mac hardware. (tempting PC users to apple hardware by porting OSX.)

If he sees apple as primarily a hardware company then he probably wouldnt port it over. It would be too big a risk to take. And with the launch of the G5 later this year then he would use the G5 to tempt PC users over to the mac platform, as opposed to taking a big risk of porting OSX to do the same thing.



Personally i think it is to hard to make an OSX for PC, and it would take too much investment. Too big a risk. Which is why i suggested the Linux thing.

 

[Unregistered]

Re: why port?

Originally posted by networkman
(snip)jobs will not let apple sink because of an "ideal" and competing with a sociopathic bill gates is hard and sometimes steve jobs' own sociopathic side seems justified to compete against a man like gates(snip)

Uhm... What field does Apple actually compete with Microsoft in? Design would be my guess. Apple makes em, Microsoft rapes em (poor yellow ducky... some know what I mean by this). There's not really any competition between the two companies though. Windows cant be installed by itself on Macintosh computers (as far as i know) nor MacOS on PCs.

BTW, Gates istn the Ayatollah... I would expect you mac users to know more than anyone else that Microsoft is the 4th reich! Want proof? Go to http://www.wincustomize.org and tell me the logo at the top left DOESNT look like a multicolored swastika.

----------------------
~A perceptive Windozer

 

[Unregistered]

Well, just as an interjection, from a BSD/Linuxhead perspective...

I would so love to run OSX. It is clean and lovely and essentially BSD. Darwin will work on an x86 machine. I want a new mac, but then again I want a beowulf cluster as well. It is lovely (and economical) to buy stipped down PC(x86) parts and turn them into one big 4 node cluster (for under $2000). If you are really slick, get a 2 processer Tyan Athalon board in each, putting 20 1.5GHz x86 processors in the cannon... (for under $3500). A linux hacker would love this.... It would take up a desk, but it would scream... Wine project (http://www.winehq.org) is getting rather slick and runs 90% of all windows programs natively (more if you import genuine windows dlls). With clack about WineX... we are talking about 95% of all Win32 apps... which is everything but a few apps only for NT and a few only for XP. So realisticly OSX/BSD/Linux (basicly Unix in general) has the capablities with a little tweaking to run common windows apps. Wine is pretty speedy too, IMHO.

XDarwin is out... and runs well, by all accounts. So all BSD (even graphical Gnome apps) will run on OSX with a little work. BSD (and I assume Darwin, since is a mildly tweaked FreeBSD kernel) can run most Linux *binaries* without incident.

So a BSD hacker could run on an OSX box:
All OSX apps
All legacy Mac Apps
All BSD Apps (concievably... unless it something specific w/ x86... a ppc version would work nicely).

However if there was a way to put Aqua and Carbon, etc etc on top of an x86 compiled Darwin... then you would have a box that could:
Emulate ppc archieture to run Mac Apps.
Run all BSD Apps
Run most linux Apps
Run many windows Apps
...and still be slick as MacOSX

I think that would be rad.

 

[ilikeiBook]

Mac OS X on Intel would be great for Apple's software department but wouldn't be good for hardware. It might help Apple though... but it could mean doom.