[Feathers]

For starters, remember the way things used to be "I.B.M. Compatible" and then they became "Windows Compatible"? A landmark shift in emphasis within the computer industry, wouldn't you think?

OK, now all the hardware companies are squaling like stuck pigs and frankly, the likes of Dell and Gateway really have nowhere to go....but Apple has OSX, an operating system that CAN and WILL run on X86 processor architectures, period.

Why should Apple deny itself the opportunity to earn BILLIONS of dollars by offering a truly wonderful suite of OS and essential software as follows: OSX with iTunes, iMovie, iDVD and iPhoto for say $179? If (perish the thought), you were trapped in Wintel hell, would you pay that kind of money? You're darned tootin' (As they might say in TS2). Millions are moving to Linux anyway!

But what about the hardware? I hear you say. My answer is "The Cube". THAT computer was an excellent example of Apple testing the water's of how revolutionary a design and/or the degree to which people will tolerate form-over-function. It was a valuable lesson for Apple and probably an essential step in the context of their long term stategy. The lesson, that people are willing to pay and will buy Apple computer's for a number of reason's and although design is very important, there are limits! Establish exactly what those limits are and you will ALWAYS be able to sell SOME hardware!

So what's the future? Picture a situation where an OSX package sold in MASSIVE volume "subsidises" the future cost of unique Apple hardware products for those (the 5%) who will still insist on buying both the best hardware AND software.

Am I crazy, I think not!

[Norm1985]

First of, Mac OS X can not run on any x86 based system and probably never will. Darwin, on the other hand can. Second, Apple can't afford to place their archatecture esspecally in an age of Windows XP and Windows 2000. Operating systems offering many of the same features of OS X with MUCH more software. Apple in some ways does have faster machines, and being a hardware AND software company is part of their blood.

[jeffhot]

Um, that's nice. I'd rather have Apple continue to make the best hardware around too, instead of caving into some lowest common denominator crap licensed sh!t fest.
The software and hardware they make compliment each other beautifully and make each other stronger. There is no need to sell out to hit the mass market when they can grow slowly and stay true to themselves.

[Avenir]

I think Apple should stick to their own hardware, even with an opperating system that can be ported to pc hardware. Sure, there will still be people that will buy Apple hardware for the style, but I promise that as soon as I get get a slim pc laptop that's equivalent to the PowerBooks, I'm out to the other side. I don't think Apple will port to the pc platform. Like it or not now, they are largely recognized for their hardware innovation. Take that away (or make the option of buying a cheaper "apple" on different hardware) and people won't come back. Then Apple becomes an OS only manufacturer, and I dunno if that'd be a good idea.

Besides, now that Apple's supporting that other PCI standard, and the wintel world supports the different one (I'm sorry, i can't remember either name for the interfaces), how could Apple port to the other side. Wouldn't it be like having to develope two different and very large portions of the OS? I dunno, maybe I'm rambling, but bottom line, I think Apple should stick to Apple hardware.

[The Dude]

I think Apple should stick to what it knows best, hardware. It's where all their profit lies. They abandon that, they better have one helluva plan to keep afloat.

[Feathers]

Originally posted by Norm1985:
<STRONG>First of, Mac OS X can not run on any x86 based system and probably never will.</STRONG> - Hmmm, so sure you are, yes? <STRONG> Darwin, on the other hand can. Second, Apple can't afford to place their archatecture(sic) esspecally(sic) in an age of Windows XP and Windows 2000.</STRONG> So whay are Miscosoft so desperate to confuse the market with the "X" in "XP" and the "Luna" slash-Aqua interface if they're not actually going to be competing on the same platform at all!<STRONG> Operating systems offering many of the same features of OS X with MUCH more software.</STRONG> - Duh! I think the point is that the average person basically has pretty humble requirements for a computer, say think PlayStation II - Games, Music, DVD and Internet. <STRONG> Apple in some ways does have faster machines, and being a hardware AND software company is part of their blood.</STRONG>

- Blood isn't much use if it's splashed all over the pavement of Wall Street!

[Feathers]

I forgot to mention, in response to a number of the above replies:

OSX is basically FreeBSD with a "MacOS-Like" window manager as is proven by the fact that people have already replaced the Aqua front-end with good ole' X-Windows, so deal with it! The Microkernel can be recompiled and a lot of the other stuff is just drivers and sytems integration, hell Mac's are already PCI with ATA etc. and AGP x2 graphics. I mean the Radeon that goes into Macs is almost identical to the one that goes into PC's!!!!!!!!!!

Not wanting to believe it doesn't make it any less true!

[Kozmik]

I agree.

[Norm1985]

Originally posted by Feathers:
<STRONG>I forgot to mention, in response to a number of the above replies:

OSX is basically FreeBSD with a "MacOS-Like" window manager as is proven by the fact that people have already replaced the Aqua front-end with good ole' X-Windows, so deal with it! The Microkernel can be recompiled and a lot of the other stuff is just drivers and sytems integration, hell Mac's are already PCI with ATA etc. and AGP x2 graphics. I mean the Radeon that goes into Macs is almost identical to the one that goes into PC's!!!!!!!!!!

Not wanting to believe it doesn't make it any less true!</STRONG>

Feathers, a few facts...

Mac OS X is more than FreeBSD... It has a Mactoolbox-like layer called Carbon, it has a NeXTStep application layer known as Objective C, it has a 2D graphics layer known as Quartz, it has a 3D graphics layer known as OpenGL, it has Java2, it has QuickTime built in, it has an older Mac OS compatability layer, and THEN it has a combined NeXTStep and Mac OS interface known as Aqua which is over all of this. X-Windows can be added to Darwin like any other BSD OS, but Mac OS X has much more than that.

Apple uses the same technology as Wintel (Windows machine based off of Intel ARCHATECTURE (x86) chips, which include AMD chips because they base their chips off of Intel's archatecture guidlines!) companies because they themselves are a PC (PERSONAL COMPUTER, not to be confused with Wintel only company). They use standards like USB, AGP, PCI, FireWire, SCSI, etc. because they want to make technology more compatable with one another. Whether moving to Mac OS X or not. The diffrence with Apple is that they base off their processors currently on 32bit RISC chips as opposed to 32bit CISC (x86) chips. Allowing for a more efficent and speedy throughput. Now many of you may argue about how PowerPC is dying, and is slow... Let me give a few facts on this as well. The G4 is a 32bit chip currently has 7 pipeline stages with a .18 micron process confining to most of the guidlines of RISC archtecture. Not only does it have a 133MHz system bus, but it also has a fantastic vector processing 128bit unit known as AltiVec, which has added multimedia instructions. This allows the G4 to perform appar Wintel systems (not in price, but configuration) greatly at multimedia/creative applications. Same amount of RAM, same HD speed, company, and interface, etc... And with the future introduction of the G5, it will be a 64bit RISC chip with much improved vector processing, .13/.10 micron process, FULL 32bit backwards compatability, DDR, etc. and from what i heard can be scaled more easily and much higher than the G4 suprisingly which will give Apple absolutly no reason to license the Mac OS. People who are not familer with computers and stubborn idiots alike realize that frequency does not matter. Without SS2 accleration in Windows applications, the 1.4GHz Thunderbird Athlon has been able to greatly outpeform the Intel Pentium 4. I'll note on thing, Wintels are faster in games. 80fps for a 867MHz G4 with GeForce3, 170fps for a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4, 140 for a 1.4 GHz Thunderbird Athlon, all turned up... Yet, you have to consider that the G4 was running OS 9 which has an extremly POOR OpenGL layer and a poor way of implimenting graphics accleration. The others from the test I've read were running Windows Me (because it's better for games than 2000) and has a great impliment of DirectX of course and OpenGL and has great drivers considering they have most marketshare. The processors also have instructions more apropriate for games than the G4. Yet, with 10.1, we should see ACTUAL GeForce3 drivers (not GeForce2 MX ones used by the GeForce3) a better OpenGL layer, etc... to get higher frames. Of course, this still means Wintel systems will outperfom the Macs, but not by such a wide margain. This is my philosphy, if you want to do more than just games and internet surfing, get a Mac. Get a Mac esspecally if you want to actually CREATE things with it. If you want a gaming machine, get a Wintel. Apple will not make an idiotic decesion to get rid of their hardware. It's part of the company, it was there before software. As The Dude said it makes them the most money! I mean, CISC processors were originally mainly calculator chips until Intel stumbled upon a proper chip to allow for PCs. RISC processors have been used for mainframes, workstations, etc. by SGI, IBM, and Sun. And the only way it seems Intel and AMD will be able to scale up their processors is by incresing the pipelines which won't help! Finally, even if Macs are EVER slower in ALL tasks, they still have a creative spirit to them. In my Wintel days, I was only interested in a little programing. Now, with Macs, I LOVE to create graphics and web sites. It's FUN! With Wintels, I never felt that way. And I will ALWAYS thank Apple for giving me this oppertunity.

[Norm1985]

Originally posted by Feathers:
<STRONG>I forgot to mention, in response to a number of the above replies:

OSX is basically FreeBSD with a "MacOS-Like" window manager as is proven by the fact that people have already replaced the Aqua front-end with good ole' X-Windows, so deal with it! The Microkernel can be recompiled and a lot of the other stuff is just drivers and sytems integration, hell Mac's are already PCI with ATA etc. and AGP x2 graphics. I mean the Radeon that goes into Macs is almost identical to the one that goes into PC's!!!!!!!!!!

Not wanting to believe it doesn't make it any less true!</STRONG>

Oh yes, and starting with Digital Audio G4s, Macs have 4x AGP, not 2x.

[TNproud2b]

Anyone else agree this is almost total BS? :

Originally posted by Norm1985:
<STRONG>

Feathers, a few facts...

Mac OS X is more than FreeBSD... It has a Mactoolbox-like layer called Carbon, it has a NeXTStep application layer known as Objective C, it has a 2D graphics layer known as Quartz, it has a 3D graphics layer known as OpenGL, it has Java2, it has QuickTime built in, it has an older Mac OS compatability layer, and THEN it has a combined NeXTStep and Mac OS interface known as Aqua which is over all of this. X-Windows can be added to Darwin like any other BSD OS, but Mac OS X has much more than that.

Apple uses the same technology as Wintel (Windows machine based off of Intel ARCHATECTURE (x86) chips, which include AMD chips because they base their chips off of Intel's archatecture guidlines!) companies because they themselves are a PC (PERSONAL COMPUTER, not to be confused with Wintel only company). They use standards like USB, AGP, PCI, FireWire, SCSI, etc. because they want to make technology more compatable with one another. Whether moving to Mac OS X or not. The diffrence with Apple is that they base off their processors currently on 32bit RISC chips as opposed to 32bit CISC (x86) chips. Allowing for a more efficent and speedy throughput. Now many of you may argue about how PowerPC is dying, and is slow... Let me give a few facts on this as well. The G4 is a 32bit chip currently has 7 pipeline stages with a .18 micron process confining to most of the guidlines of RISC archtecture. Not only does it have a 133MHz system bus, but it also has a fantastic vector processing 128bit unit known as AltiVec, which has added multimedia instructions. This allows the G4 to perform appar Wintel systems (not in price, but configuration) greatly at multimedia/creative applications. Same amount of RAM, same HD speed, company, and interface, etc... And with the future introduction of the G5, it will be a 64bit RISC chip with much improved vector processing, .13/.10 micron process, FULL 32bit backwards compatability, DDR, etc. and from what i heard can be scaled more easily and much higher than the G4 suprisingly which will give Apple absolutly no reason to license the Mac OS. People who are not familer with computers and stubborn idiots alike realize that frequency does not matter. Without SS2 accleration in Windows applications, the 1.4GHz Thunderbird Athlon has been able to greatly outpeform the Intel Pentium 4. I'll note on thing, Wintels are faster in games. 80fps for a 867MHz G4 with GeForce3, 170fps for a 1.8 GHz Pentium 4, 140 for a 1.4 GHz Thunderbird Athlon, all turned up... Yet, you have to consider that the G4 was running OS 9 which has an extremly POOR OpenGL layer and a poor way of implimenting graphics accleration. The others from the test I've read were running Windows Me (because it's better for games than 2000) and has a great impliment of DirectX of course and OpenGL and has great drivers considering they have most marketshare. The processors also have instructions more apropriate for games than the G4. Yet, with 10.1, we should see ACTUAL GeForce3 drivers (not GeForce2 MX ones used by the GeForce3) a better OpenGL layer, etc... to get higher frames. Of course, this still means Wintel systems will outperfom the Macs, but not by such a wide margain. This is my philosphy, if you want to do more than just games and internet surfing, get a Mac. Get a Mac esspecally if you want to actually CREATE things with it. If you want a gaming machine, get a Wintel. Apple will not make an idiotic decesion to get rid of their hardware. It's part of the company, it was there before software. As The Dude said it makes them the most money! I mean, CISC processors were originally mainly calculator chips until Intel stumbled upon a proper chip to allow for PCs. RISC processors have been used for mainframes, workstations, etc. by SGI, IBM, and Sun. And the only way it seems Intel and AMD will be able to scale up their processors is by incresing the pipelines which won't help! Finally, even if Macs are EVER slower in ALL tasks, they still have a creative spirit to them. In my Wintel days, I was only interested in a little programing. Now, with Macs, I LOVE to create graphics and web sites. It's FUN! With Wintels, I never felt that way. And I will ALWAYS thank Apple for giving me this oppertunity.</STRONG>

[Cipher13]

OSX for x86 is definately possible, if it doesn't already exist (if Jobs doesn't have the foresight to have created it alongside the PPC version, he's even blinder than I already thought he was).

If Apple were to do this, after OSX had consumed the OS market, people would start to go back to Apple hardware if it was decent!

There would be an initial slump, but in say 8 years (2 hardware generations for most buyers, roughly), Apple hardware would boom.

Could they survive the initial slump? Yeah. Just make less machines and watch the cash roll in.

IF they made decent machines in the first place however, there'd be no problem. But would Apple make "Apple" machines with AMD's, or PPC's? While letting the third parties make things with Pentiums and AMD's?

I think Apple could switch to AMD and so as not to have to worry about developing the same software in two incarnations simultaneously, in which one may be better than the other...

Get what I'm sayin'?

[TNproud2b]

I get what you're saying...

but


The only difference in hardware between Mac & PC is the processor (the pretty case doesn't count).

So, essentially, Apple would be competing directly against the x86 Wintel market. Something they do not wish to do.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>I get what you're saying...

but


The only difference in hardware between Mac & PC is the processor (the pretty case doesn't count).

So, essentially, Apple would be competing directly against the x86 Wintel market. Something they do not wish to do.</STRONG>

True, but only in the strictest terms.

Yeah, the processors different. Different architecture.

BUT - one of the appealing things about Apple is that they make the computers, and ONLY they make the computers. Compatibility is never a problem - all these bios things, different motherboards, and so forth.
Its a limiting factor, yes, but its appealing in many ways.

If Apple were to keep making their machines but stick an AMD in, they'd still be "Apple" machines - just with a different processor.

Jobs is just arrogant enough to think he could take on the Wintel world head on... and y'know what, the way some people are treating OSX, the end result may be more "successful" than most people think is possible...

[Norm1985]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Anyone else agree this is almost total BS? :

</STRONG>

I see no one agreed with you.