Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

phoenix78 · Feb 20, 2006, 02:05 AM

Hi all!

i read on one of the macnn news articles that some dude thinks that he saw enough 'hints' to belive that apple would quit developing any kind of OS and simply switch to M$ vista. This would enable apple to stop expending so much effort into OS and just concentrate on nifty hardware. (read the article for yourself first for a much more detailed description).

I sort of wonder if this could be true... i mean... they did switch to intel after such a long time of rejecting that platform. Who knows if apple may simpy become a hadware provider to compete directly with dell and HP etc... since their hardware innovation is very much higher in standard than others. and many people still fear dropping windows because of less software availability on the OSX platform (i think this has changed much but many people still believe this to be the case).

At the same time i dont believe that they would do this move since apple seems to pride itself on its OS as well as its hardware innovation... and i also prefer it to windows (although vista looks rather nice from what ive seen).

I believe that apple wont dump their OS but may allow windows to be installed on their hardware in future. i just cant see them turning down the opportunity to sell more systems and generate more revenue from this kind of 'best of both worlds' approach.

what do you guys think of this??

regards,
robM

SirCastor · Feb 20, 2006, 02:10 AM

There's a long discussion about this going on in the Lounge. It's one of Dvorak's ridiculous articles again.
See here: http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=286015

I'll inject my opinion here anyway. Apple is as much a Software company as they are a hardware company. One belongs with the other. I see it much more likely that in ten years OS X will be running on different manufacturers of machines than to have Windows be the packaged OS with Macs.

Chuckit · Feb 20, 2006, 02:26 AM

Apple has switched chip providers several times over its history. The OS provider has always been the same. There's no reason to believe this will change.

phoenix78 · Feb 20, 2006, 02:54 AM

thanks for that link sircastor... i wasnt aware of it or of that dvorak bloke... i consider myself educated now lol...

cheers,
robM

chris_h · Feb 20, 2006, 05:50 AM

nope

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 10:04 AM

While I agree that Apple will not change to Vista from OS X, it is certainly a possibility. When the G5 Macs were released I don't think anything could have been further from reality than Apple switching to Intel two years later.

I can imagine Apple as being sellers of hardware only. They could sell their hardware at the same price as they do today but without needing to spend money on OS development. This could be tempting for many.

SGI and Sun chose just that path. Didn't do them much good, but since when do corporations learn?

So bottom line, while I think the idea of Apple switching to Windows is absurd today, Apple showed with the change to Intel that they have no commitment in the platform. They'd rather have us suffer yet another transistion than building on what is stable.

There is available today a PPC G5 suitable for laptops as it happens.

cheers

W-Y

stew · Feb 20, 2006, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

SGI and Sun chose just that path. Didn't do them much good, but since when do corporations learn?Y

What did Sun do?

Big Mac · Feb 20, 2006, 11:03 AM

I agree with Weyland's view - it's not out of the realm of possibility. It's still highly improbable, however. Apple would become an entertainment device/content company and dump computers entirely before switching to Windows.

Chuckit · Feb 20, 2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I can imagine Apple as being sellers of hardware only. They could sell their hardware at the same price as they do today but without needing to spend money on OS development. This could be tempting for many.

Like who? They can only get 5% of the market selling a better product. Selling an identical product at a higher price would not work well.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

So bottom line, while I think the idea of Apple switching to Windows is absurd today, Apple showed with the change to Intel that they have no commitment in the platform.

No, IBM showed a lack of commitment to the platform.

Also, did you feel the same way with their last two switches? If not, how is this seriously different?

turbopants · Feb 20, 2006, 11:32 AM

Apple will never dump OS X as long as Steve Jobs is in charge. The quality of this OS means too much to him, irregardless of market share. (Which is slowly growing!)

betasp · Feb 20, 2006, 12:33 PM

The bottom line is no. If Apple dumped OSX, they would have to compete on price. Hardware makers like Dell and HP both have lower margins than Apple.

TETENAL · Feb 20, 2006, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

There is available today a PPC G5 suitable for laptops as it happens.

No, there isn't.

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

No, there isn't.

Ah, you are correct in a very binary way. It has been announced and if Apple would have wanted it, then it could have had it.

@stew

Sun started selling their workstations with Linux. While Solaris still exists, well.. that won't last forever. SGI sell Linux workstations and slowing IRIX dev. They also sell/sold Windows platforms. Perhaps Apple will do something similar. OS development is such a costly venture.

I still think it is an absurd idea *today*, but I remember last spring I though an Intel switch was an absurd idea. So did many others. It still happened.

cheers

W-Y

TETENAL · Feb 20, 2006, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Ah, you are correct in a very binary way. It has been announced and if Apple would have wanted it, then it could have had it.

"Announced" is not the same as "available today". We don't know when this would have been actually available and we don't know how much IBM would have charged Apple for this. The CoreDuo is shipping in Macs and it is about as fast as an equally clocked G5 per core and there are two cores inside. Go over to the Cinebench benchmark thread in the Applications forum. The MacBook Pros are going to be 4 times faster than the current PowerBooks. Doesn't sound like the switch is a mistake.

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Like who? They can only get 5% of the market selling a better product. Selling an identical product at a higher price would not work well.

It's all in the marketing. The iPod is a good example of this. A damn fine industrial design, good hardware, good marketing. The OS isn't really interesting. Everyone uses Windows anyway. It is the standard and people don't even realize there are alternatives. Even today.

The price isn't that much higher anyway if you want the best hardware designed PC. It may not have the ultimate cutting edge tech, but it will look the best and be an absolute joy to use. Windows will be so much more bareable and Apple is such a status symbol.

It is all in the marketing. I'd say that it *can* be done. Apple could survive and even *grow* if it were to abandon OS X and move to Windows.

So many said the iPod was over-priced and under-powered. Apple showed it can market such a thing. I think Apple could make, market and sell an under-powered and over-priced Windows PC.

I hope they never will, but I'm sure they can.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, IBM showed a lack of commitment to the platform.

Perhaps. Still, they make fine processors and have technology and roadmap for years to come. I doubt that they had any particular lack of commitment to the platform. Compared to the Motorola G4 development, then IBM was positively zealous in their commitment to the platform and Apple didn't abandon Moto back in the 500MHz era.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Also, did you feel the same way with their last two switches? If not, how is this seriously different?

The 68k to PPC was the first switch and whatever annoyance one felt it was eclipsed by the feeling that this was a way better processor architecture than the 68k - which it was - and the emulation of 68k was amazing in the PPC machines.
I don't think you were much annoyed unless you had a 68k machine at the arrival of PPC-only apps etc. Other than that, the transistion was pretty much transparent and as I said, the first ever transition.

The second transition.. I assume you mean OS 9 to OS X. Whether that one is actually over yet ot not is up for debate. While OS X has managed to replace OS 9 and OS 9 apps completely OS X has not yet replaced OS 9 in UI design and the OS X Finder still leaves a lot to be desired.
The OS transition was damn irritating, especially since the benefits were almost oblitterated by confusing and stupid UI development at Apple. Mac users had to *relearn* what a Mac was. That in and of itself is a clear indication that the OS transition was going to be rough.

I'm one of those who think that the OS transition is complete - more or less - with Tiger. And then the processor transition to Intel happens. Again it will be much like the first processor change. Those with PPCs will be far more annoyed than those with Intels. The difference is that the benefits of changing from PPC to Intel is very dubious. There are some gains and some lossess but all in all I'd say the cost/benefit ratio is 1, in addition to the annoyance for the PPC users.

Intel has already brought dual core 2 GHz iMacs and 2 GHz laptops, but the dual core G5 could have been used in a iMac while the laptop processor would have had to be a 1.67 GHz G4 - single core. A dual core mobile G5 could have happened. The mobile G5 could have happened. IBM has the schematics for one. Cost vs benefit.. fuzzy IMO.

cheers

W-Y

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

"Announced" is not the same as "available today". We don't know when this would have been actually available and we don't know how much IBM would have charged Apple for this.

Quite, announced is not the same as available, but it's been more than half a year since it was announced and that's about the time it takes to start production if everything goes well. But you're right - we don't know. Either way.

The MacBookPros started shipping in last week. In what quantities, we don't know.

IBM G5s are far cheaper than equivalent Intel processors. That was why I was surprised when Apple said they went with Intel because of price. Perhaps they save money by not designing the chipset?

As for benchmarks, well. In some things the Intel is faster and in others the G5 is faster.

cheers

W-Y

TETENAL · Feb 20, 2006, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Quite, announced is not the same as available, but it's been more than half a year since it was announced

Link?

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Link?

It was announced at the same time as the PPC 970 MP.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121754,00.asp

This was in July 2005 and the MPs are already here. If Apple had been interested, they could have had a mobile G5. They wanted Intel, not PPC.

Regardless, to try and get on topic again: there is no particular reason why Apple wouldn't drop OS X if it suits them - if they think they can profit more from such a thing. Steve Jobs said in 1998 that the war between Apple and MS was over. This isn't about Macs vs PCs anymore in the eyes of Steve Jobs and Apple, I think.

cheers

W-Y

Chuckit · Feb 20, 2006, 02:52 PM

Yeah, and I can't believe Apple passed up those 3 GHz G5s they could have had a year ago.

Sometimes too late is just too late.

CharlesS · Feb 20, 2006, 03:01 PM

The day Apple dumps the Mac OS is the day that I dump Apple.

Fortunately, I don't see any chance at all of this happening.

kcmac · Feb 20, 2006, 03:13 PM

I don't know why this is even a discussion.

Partisan01 · Feb 20, 2006, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Sun started selling their workstations with Linux. While Solaris still exists, well.. that won't last forever. SGI sell Linux workstations and slowing IRIX dev. They also sell/sold Windows platforms. Perhaps Apple will do something similar. OS development is such a costly venture.

I'm not sure what Sun you're following but Solaris is their flagship. Solaris is the only product that can take advantage of their hardware the SPARC chip. With the new Niagra chip out there's no way they'd abandom Solaris. Hoping that Linux would take advantage of all the chip features is hopeful at best. In most cases Linux is a murky reflection of the native OS for the hardware. Where this differs is on the x86 platform where I would say Linux is superior to Windows.

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Partisan01

I'm not sure what Sun you're following but Solaris is their flagship. Solaris is the only product that can take advantage of their hardware the SPARC chip. With the new Niagra chip out there's no way they'd abandom Solaris. Hoping that Linux would take advantage of all the chip features is hopeful at best. In most cases Linux is a murky reflection of the native OS for the hardware. Where this differs is on the x86 platform where I would say Linux is superior to Windows.

The point I was making is that asides from Apple (so far) no company has been 100% "loyal" to their home-grown OS.

I'm not follwing what Sun is doing most of the time. I know they don't make Java for Macs. Good to hear they are still holding on to Solaris. I like Sun.

cheers

W-Y

ghporter · Feb 20, 2006, 07:14 PM

John Dvorak has a lot of interesting ideas. But they are NOT "what will happen" let alone "what must happen." They're his opinions.

I've been reading John's column in PC Magazine for years, (he's always entertaining, but not always on purpose), and he's gotten things horribly wrong about as often as he's gotten them somewhat right. Better to trust chicken guts and the way your tea leaves settle for prognostication than to hang on Dvorak's words.

ShotgunEd · Feb 20, 2006, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The point I was making is that asides from Apple (so far) no company has been 100% "loyal" to their home-grown OS.

I'm not follwing what Sun is doing most of the time. I know they don't make Java for Macs. Good to hear they are still holding on to Solaris. I like Sun.

cheers

W-Y

What the fudge are you talking about?

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 20, 2006, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by ShotgunEd

What the fudge are you talking about?

AFAIK it is Apple that makes Java for Macs. They essentially port it from Sun. Much like Mac games are ported to the Mac, so is Java ported to the Mac and Apple does the porting.

cheers

W-Y

mania · Feb 20, 2006, 08:18 PM

Emporer Palpatine voice:

no, no - unlimited power!!!!

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Feb 20, 2006, 09:04 PM

For the record they also called Dvorak nuts when he predicted that Apple would switch to intel within a year.

SirCastor · Feb 20, 2006, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

For the record they also called Dvorak nuts when he predicted that Apple would switch to intel within a year.

Yeah, but he's been saying that for years. And how often did he predict that Apple's death was imminent?

msuper69 · Feb 20, 2006, 10:24 PM

w-y:

If you had any concept of what Steve Jobs is all about, you would realize that he would NEVER put Windows on a Mac. He probably cringes when he thinks about Windows users buying Macs and then installing Windows.

With his sense of style and elegance, as long as Steve is at Apple, Windows will never be the Mac's Apple-installed and approved OS. Never.

Millennium · Feb 20, 2006, 10:26 PM

That article was written by John Dvorak, who is something of a prodigal village idiot in Mac circles. He was once an editor for Macworld magazine, but they fired him, and he has held a personal vendetta against Macs ever since (he has openly admitted this, by the way). His biased, unprofessional journalism couldn't be more yellow if he ran it through a sepia-tone filter in Photoshop. Only once have his predictions ever been correct, though that one was a big scoop: he correctly predicted the Intel switch.

That said, it's worth remembering that Apple has always considered itself a hardware company, first and foremost. To them, the Mac OS is little more than something to attract people to their computers. Most of the userbase, myself included, considers this view to be nothing short of delusional, but every Apple CEO, including Jobs, has held fast to it, and they've all -again, including Jobs- said it many times.

My point: If Apple were ever to decide that OSX was no longer necessary in order to attract people to their computers, they would drop it. However, contrary to Dvorak's ranting, there is no significant evidence that they've come to that conclusion.

Millennium · Feb 20, 2006, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by msuper69

If you had any concept of what Steve Jobs is all about, you would realize that he would NEVER put Windows on a Mac. He probably cringes when he thinks about Windows users buying Macs and then installing Windows.

With his sense of style and elegance, as long as Steve is at Apple, Windows will never be the Mac's Apple-installed and approved OS. Never.

Jobs, just as his predecessors, considers Apple to be a hardware company. You can bet your life that Jobs would put Windows on Apple computers, if he thought it would sell them. Fortunately, he currently does not.

Chuckit · Feb 20, 2006, 11:56 PM

Jobs doesn't have predecessors. He founded the company.

Weyland-Yutani · Feb 21, 2006, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Jobs, just as his predecessors, considers Apple to be a hardware company. You can bet your life that Jobs would put Windows on Apple computers, if he thought it would sell them. Fortunately, he currently does not.

I am in concurrance with Millennium.

I also think that Apple will not go Windows for a long time to come. I just don't think it is against the Apple/Jobs alignment to go there if it suited them. I may be pragmatic, but I think when Steve declared the war with MS to be over, I suspect he meant it. I still don't see a change to Windows happening. I'm just saying, that I don't think it is an impossibility either. The Intel switch makes it a possibility. Were we still with PPC only, then a Windows switch would simply never happen.

@Chuckit

Steve Jobs had predecessors as CEOs. He was never CEO until after Apple bought NeXT. Of course he founded the company along with Woz and a third guy.

cheers

W-Y

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Feb 21, 2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by SirCastor

Yeah, but he's been saying that for years. And how often did he predict that Apple's death was imminent?

Um, Apple was. Luckily they pulled though many times.

SirCastor · Feb 21, 2006, 01:51 AM

I don't doubt that Apple was in Bad Straits for a while. My point is, Dvorak is wrong more often than not.

Chuckit · Feb 21, 2006, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Steve Jobs had predecessors as CEOs. He was never CEO until after Apple bought NeXT. Of course he founded the company along with Woz and a third guy.

Yeah. What I was kind of getting at in a roundabout way is that it seems the original vision of Apple — to control the whole package and create a seamless experience — is still what Steve has in mind. Hardware is where Apple gets its money, but it is not a hardware company. It's an experience company. I don't think he's any more likely to discontinue the Mac OS in favor of Windows than he is to discontinue Macs altogether.

As further evidence that, while the war is over, Steve isn't ceding his territory: The Macintels still can't run Windows even though it would probably not have been a very major consideration to include a compatibility layer in EFI. That doesn't sound like a company that's on the fence.

dharknes · Feb 21, 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

IBM G5s are far cheaper than equivalent Intel processors. That was why I was surprised when Apple said they went with Intel because of price. Perhaps they save money by not designing the chipset?

As for benchmarks, well. In some things the Intel is faster and in others the G5 is faster.

cheers

W-Y

There are couple reasons for the Intel switch. Like Apple, Intel has started focusing on the complete platform not just the chip. IBM and AMD are still very focused on the chip. The platform that Intel sells includes the chipset with a list of configuration options such as wireless, ethernet, USB, SATA, memory controller, etc. Apple no longer has to design all the hardware they can focus on what they do really well which is industrial design. Apple can take the Intel platform put it in a nice pretty package. The other price saving is the performance per watt thing, Intel has provided a dual-core 2.16 Ghz processor which is suppose to deliver the same run time as my 1 ghz G4. Now that cool!

Later!

dharknes · Feb 21, 2006, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

That article was written by John Dvorak, who is something of a prodigal village idiot in Mac circles. He was once an editor for Macworld magazine, but they fired him, and he has held a personal vendetta against Macs ever since (he has openly admitted this, by the way). His biased, unprofessional journalism couldn't be more yellow if he ran it through a sepia-tone filter in Photoshop. Only once have his predictions ever been correct, though that one was a big scoop: he correctly predicted the Intel switch.

That said, it's worth remembering that Apple has always considered itself a hardware company, first and foremost. To them, the Mac OS is little more than something to attract people to their computers. Most of the userbase, myself included, considers this view to be nothing short of delusional, but every Apple CEO, including Jobs, has held fast to it, and they've all -again, including Jobs- said it many times.

My point: If Apple were ever to decide that OSX was no longer necessary in order to attract people to their computers, they would drop it. However, contrary to Dvorak's ranting, there is no significant evidence that they've come to that conclusion.

I agree they Dvorak is a flake. But at this point I think everyone has to realize that Apple is no longer a hardware company, nor are they a software company. Apple has transitioned from classic hardware vendor to a software and service company. They sell hardware in the form of iPods, Macs, keyboards, and mice. But they also sell software iLife, iWork, and pro apps and they also sell services .Mac and the iTunes music store. To call Apple a hardware vendor really doesn't do them justice.

All of these areas do one thing build on the Mac experience. If Apple dumps that in favor of Windows then where is the Mac experience? The CPU (PPC vs Intel) doesn't add to the experience Apple has proved that. But OS X and the software and services built around it do. In my opinion Apple is not ready to give up the Mac experience. Since that's what they really sell.

axlepin · Feb 21, 2006, 11:19 AM

I don't know who started the idea that Apple is or has to be either one or the other; hardware OR software.

It' really an idiotic contention, if you think. Hardware without software is a doorstop; software without hardware is a pipe dream.

I believe the "they're a _____ company" is designed to attack the Apple way of doing things. yeah, they make the whole widget, but beyond that simplistic explanation, they make the whole EXPERIENCE.

Failure to understand this, and why it's such a cool thing is why Mac haters keep banging their skulls against the wall..

Can't figure out why Apple and their customers don't willingly submit to the windoz/pc/commodity hardware model.

But hey! Lots of people think McDonald's hamburgers are food....

A

Zeeb · Feb 21, 2006, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Jobs, just as his predecessors, considers Apple to be a hardware company. You can bet your life that Jobs would put Windows on Apple computers, if he thought it would sell them. Fortunately, he currently does not.

I've read that article and one of the things it suggested was that it could be possible for a mac to run a windows operating system with a unique GUI. I've noticed that the rumor mills seem to point to Leopard being released about or around the same time as Vista. Do you think it could be possible that Leopard or another future OS will simply consist of a windows operating system with icons and menus that are designed to look like an apple OS?

I agree that if Jobs thought windows would sell more computers then that OS would be on macs. However, he is probably also mindful of how much that would piss off current users. Look at all these posts! Just the thought angers people. But what if he ran a version of windows on macs that looked like a mac OS but would run commonly available PC games and applications as well. That would be more attractive than having a mac OS and a windows OS on one computer, which many are looking forward to with the release of the intel macs.

phoenix78 · Feb 21, 2006, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I've read that article and one of the things it suggested was that it could be possible for a mac to run a windows operating system with a unique GUI. I've noticed that the rumor mills seem to point to Leopard being released about or around the same time as Vista. Do you think it could be possible that Leopard or another future OS will simply consist of a windows operating system with icons and menus that are designed to look like an apple OS?

I agree that if Jobs thought windows would sell more computers then that OS would be on macs. However, he is probably also mindful of how much that would piss off current users. Look at all these posts! Just the thought angers people. But what if he ran a version of windows on macs that looked like a mac OS but would run commonly available PC games and applications as well. That would be more attractive than having a mac OS and a windows OS on one computer, which many are looking forward to with the release of the intel macs.

i reckon steve would have to do a mighty good deal with bill to allow apple to copy windows. but who knows... maybe bill will like itg since he gets his monopoly back.... possibly a union of the two companies?? lol... now that would twist a few nickers make no mistake.

i suppose a strong indication that apple wil be contining development of an OS is the fact that they were after a new 'interface designer'. Windows vista is an attempt to immitate what apple has already done in an OS. it seems now that apple is looking to widen the gap between osx and windows by comming up with a fresh way of interacting with the pc that is currently not done but wouldbe highly desireable in future if it were available. like the ipod took off instantly and remains a big hit... just needs the OS equivalent of it.

cheers,
robM

ghporter · Feb 21, 2006, 11:09 PM

Why change OSs toward one that even its designers feel is in need of work? Windows is still based in part on "legacy code" which has not been rewritten for the modern (read that "everything networked") age, and so is subject to attacks that the code's designers could never have anticipated. OS X is based on tested, modern, and most important, well-crafted code that is NOT beholden to any specific "backward compatibility" goal, so it is much more reliable, much more secure and much more maintainable. It would be like saying "my two year old Rolls has a few miles on it, so I'm going to trade it in for a new Ford because I like those tail lights."

And Windows will NOT sell more computers for ANYONE. APPLICATIONS sell computers, not the OS. Apps that are useful, and most importantly easy to use are what make people decide what machines they want; the OS is just the way to get those apps running.

leperkuhn · Feb 23, 2006, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by phoenix78

i reckon steve would have to do a mighty good deal with bill to allow apple to copy windows. but who knows... maybe bill will like itg since he gets his monopoly back.... possibly a union of the two companies?? lol... now that would twist a few nickers make no mistake.

cheers,
robM

Uh.. to get something back it had to be taken away from you. last time I checked the monopoly was still there. apple did not sell half a billion macs this year.

sushiism · Feb 24, 2006, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The day Apple dumps the Mac OS is the day that I dump Apple.

Fortunately, I don't see any chance at all of this happening.

Same here really, they make lovely hardware but without the OS that is the best mix of power and usability it amounts to nothing.

I would probably just stick to using macs that could run osx if that ever happened because I'm not going back to using that abortion with "operating system" written on in crayon that is Windows

Millennium · Feb 24, 2006, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I've read that article and one of the things it suggested was that it could be possible for a mac to run a windows operating system with a unique GUI.

Back in the late 1990s, Apple did consider NT as one of the candidates for the kernel that their next-generation OS would be based on. Microsoft even had a port of Windows NT running on PowerPC machines, though it didn't Macs as-is (as-was?) BeOS was another candidate, and for a long time people thought it was going to be the one chosen. In the end, though, Apple went with NeXT's kernel, and they don't seem to have any intention of changing that.

I agree that if Jobs thought windows would sell more computers then that OS would be on macs.

Jobs has proven time and again that he can't anger the userbase, no matter how hard he tries. If he wanted to sell us Windows, he'd find a way to have us begging for it.

production_coordinator · Feb 24, 2006, 03:33 PM

My connection to Apple is through the OS.

Remove the OS, and I would reconsider everything Apple.

production_coordinator · Feb 24, 2006, 03:35 PM

My connection to Apple is through the OS.

Remove the OS, and I would reconsider everything Apple.

chris v · Feb 24, 2006, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by chris_h

nope

QFT.

Chuckit · Feb 24, 2006, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Jobs has proven time and again that he can't anger the userbase, no matter how hard he tries. If he wanted to sell us Windows, he'd find a way to have us begging for it.

Aside from the iTools thing (which did piss me off), I can't think of much he's done that seemed like an attempt to anger me.