[James_Rolevink]

Dear Steve,

I REALLY love the work the OS X team have done so far! Please keep it up!

I am sure that you are aware of how many new markets will open up for Apple the instant that you have multi-pre-emptive-symmetric everything, Java, BSD commands, terminals etc. etc.??? The
academics / students at my Uni are going nutso already...

My thinking is, well okay, multiply that number by a really big number which would represent Apple�s new market / developer share if it were to release OS X to run on Intel. SO MANY people that will
NEVER buy Apple hardware under ANY circumstances would then use Mac OS X anyway, catapulting Apple back to numero uno over night!

If SOME current Apple people then buy Intel hardware to run OS X, well, I think that would be proof that there is still WAY too much room for improvement on the Apple hardware front, or that they
are just plain stupid. Who cares, because either way they would be running OS X, and so would the other Intel hordes, as would the regular Apple users.

Coercing people to buy stuff they wouldn�t otherwise buy is ethically tenuous in the least (just look at Microsoft!), but in any event, I don�t think it can ever be sustainable as a business proposition in
the long run; as soon as people find a viable alternative to something they don�t really like / want, they will take it (again, just look at the tenuous position MS is in right now)!

I am absolutely convinced � based on all of the customers / friends / colleagues / educators / developers / students etc. etc. I speak to � that Apple would be on an earth-changing winner if it released
OS X on Intel as well as Mac. And what excuse would people have to NOT buy Apple hardware, if it truly is better than the generic crap that currently dominates the market, especially if X was to run on
both? Why should Apple be scared if its hardware truly is so good? Won�t it sell itself?

Much more to the point, finally, if it was only ever going to be the OS that forced people to buy Apple hardware in the first place, then how much more money would Apple make if they could sell OS X
to 500 million Intel users, and STILL sell 50 million Apple boxes over the next few years? But how many MORE people would then want to buy Apple boxes if 500 million people used OS X on Intel?

I think this is the only way to win the chicken and the egg argument and for Apple to get back to its glory days and more!

Think of the support�

Think of the numbers�

Think of the money�

Just think of doing it, please?

Cheers,

James

I'm glad you OS X. I made it my self.
As for releasing it for Intel hardware, impossible.
When Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple three years ago, we signed a contract stating that the MacOS whould never be seen on an Intel box.
He's a clever chap, that Bill Gates, a wish I'd thought of something like that 15 years ago.
Oh well, never mind. I'm extremly rich, so there.

Ahhh, the comedy of it all, life's rich pagent. This is better than Big Brother. Keep it up. Anyone want to write Bill Gates reply?

[strobe]

Get 2 million pre-orders for OS X Intel at $300 a pop. Until then please shut up, or advise me how to shut you OS X Intel meatheads up.

[Spheric Harlot]

James,

How much would you be willing to spend for OS X on Intel? $50? Or maybe more Microsoftian $250?

Apple makes its money off hardware sales.

They tried opening up the market to other machines with the cloning idea - and lost out badly. Apple hardware sales plummeted, simply because the Mac OS ran on other hardware that was cheaper.

The computer market is mostly price-driven. Offer OS X for a market with cheaper alternatives, and Apple won't sell any more hardware.

Solution: Make the OS pricy to cover for hardware losses.

Who's gonna buy at $200 a pop? My guess is not enough.

-chris.

[James_Rolevink]

Re: �Apple makes its money off hardware sales. They tried opening up the market to other machines with the cloning idea - and lost out badly. Apple hardware sales plummeted, simply because the Mac OS ran on other hardware that was cheaper. The computer market is mostly price-driven. Offer OS X for a market with cheaper alternatives, and Apple won�t sell any more hardware.�

You have hung yourself with your own reply; if what you say is true, then maybe Apple should give up now and spare us all the agony.

If they can�t compete on even ground, why do they bother at all? If it is the superior OS that people buy [othwerwise] incompatible and overly expensive Apple hardware for, then why not just make the money on the OS?

If the OS is SO GOOD that people will fork out the moula for [otherwise] incompatible and expensive hardware, then why not sell it to more people???

If the hardware is SO BAD that it can�t hold its own, why bother?

�As for running on Intel... that's another story for another time. ;-)� Sal - this forum.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by James_Rolevink:
If they can�t compete on even ground, why do they bother at all? If it is the superior OS that people buy [othwerwise] incompatible and overly expensive Apple hardware for, then why not just make the money on the OS?

If the OS is SO GOOD that people will fork out the moula for [otherwise] incompatible and expensive hardware, then why not sell it to more people???

If the hardware is SO BAD that it can�t hold its own, why bother?

Because the Macintosh has always been more than just Hardware or just Software. Remember "Welcome to Macintosh"? Could you have imagined seeing that on a PCjr clone rather than on that lovely litle machine?

Apple sells the Macintosh experience. With OS X more than ever, the Interface and the looks mesh perfectly with the hardware - Apple's goal has always been to make the Software and the hardware indistinguishable from one another - to make the computer an appliance.

When was the last time you thought of the digital controller chip in your stereo amplifier as an OS?

Apple sells because of the complete package. Putting Aqua on a Compaq Presario is not the same thing as having it run on a Cube or an iMac.

That's why.

-chris.

No. What makes the Mac great is the integration of hardware and software. Apple can easily make bold moves like
Airport and Firewire, etc., without having to wait for computer and hardware vendors to catch up.

Not to mention that Apple has determined that they cannot make money with software, only with hardware. Microsoft
does NOT make its billions through selling copies of Windows 98 and Office, but rather through forcing companies to
pay through the nose for server software, support, consultation, training, etc. And we do NOT want Apple to become the
new Micro$oft.

And then, of course, all Mac apps would have to be ported to x86 too. And they would have to support all kinds of PC
hardware (ISA slots, and funky serial ports, UDMA IDE, etc.).

This would destroy the Mac and the Mac experience. x86 users can ALWAYS spring for a good Linux distribution (OS X
is BSD-Unix based anyway), and if someone wants to write an awesome Mac-like GUI for it, I'll be the first to stand up
and cheer. But OS X for Intel is NOT the answer.

If Apple releases OS X for Intel, Apple would be shooting it's self in the foot.

1. People will not pay the premium price for Apple hardware.

2. OS X while more advanced than OS 9 will have tough competition from Solaris (which is free for Intel PCs will 8 or less processors), Windows 2000 not free but rules the market, Linux free and very popular, BeOS wicked fast and slick, BSD which is what OS X is based on very popular on the West coast!

3. I think Apple is in trouble with OS X as it is. (the OS lacks native Apps and Classic app performance is abysmal) Apple should focus on protecting its current turf by speeding up OS X and getting Native Apps (i.e. MS Office 2001 Native).

ciao
yc

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hmmm....I wouldn't say Classic performance is abysmal. In fact, for a beta, I think it's quite good. Certainly not up to standard MacOS, but very good nevertheless........

MicroSchlong won't commit to a timeframe regarding the Carbon port of Office for Mac. I find this sort of disturbing, since even a simple "next year" would relieve many...but they aren't budging.......


greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

[Brad Nelson]

[This message was forwarded to me by Mr. Jobs. It is his policy to not be involved in any direct feedback concerning OS X Public Beta on public forums such as this.]

James,

You're fired!!! Did you hear me? Fired!! What? You don't work at Apple? Well you're fired anyway!

[After calming down a bit, Steve forwarded this second message for me to post.]

OS X on Intel? Hell, we can hardly get the thing to work on PowerPC. Gut our hardware sales? Are you nuts? You're fired James. I'm going to find out who you work for and have your own boss fire you.

[An additional message was sent to me by Mr. Jobs concerning this subject.]

James: Thank you for the feedback on OS X Public Beta. We appreciate your help in making the best operating system in the world even better.

[James_Rolevink]

Re: �Because the Macintosh has always been more than just Hardware or just Software. Remember �Welcome to Macintosh�? Could you have imagined seeing that on a PCjr clone rather than on that lovely litle machine? Apple sells the Macintosh experience. With OS X more than ever, the Interface and the looks mesh perfectly with the hardware - Apple�s goal has always been to make the Software and the hardware indistinguishable from one another - to make the computer an appliance.�

But this is WHY people will STILL want to buy genuine Apple hardware over cheap PC crap to run OS X.

Imagine if Apple made reliable Intel based hardware (if that isn�t too big of an oxymoron to swallow). It would sell like hot cakes. I personally know dozens of Windows users who would buy Apple boxes right away if they could run Windows on it, EVEN IF IT RUNS CRAPPILY; let�s never forget what PC users are prepared to put up with when it comes to wrestling with their OS.

Why would they want to run an inferior OS, you might ask? Because 95% of the world does so and 95% of the world supports it and 95% of the world writes software for it etc. etc..

Let�s never forget that 95% of people chose inferior Wintel solutions. This bugs the HELL out of me, but the market speaks louder than any words.

Moreover, if 5% of the world buy Apple�s hardware and OS as they do now, even in the face of the Wintel onslaught, how many MORE would buy Apple hardware if 500 million other people used the same OS, albeit on Intel boxes? The amount of software that would then run on OS X would be staggering and would comprise a compelling argument for more people to buy Apple.

Oh, and let�s never forget what Steve uses to run NeXT � the basis of OS X � on; is it Mac or is it Wintel?

Steve aint no fool! I love this guys�s work!

You see, I am really am much the same as the next Apple guy in one important way, i.e.: I don�t want to have to care about what�s under the hood at all. I just want it to look cool, run anything I can pick up at any computer store anywhere in the world, and run it quickly, easily, realibly and unobtrusively. That is what computers should always have been able to do, but thanks to MS�s illegally obtained market share, 95% of the world�s computers do not, and the remaining 5% don�t seem to be able to get the resources, or the talent or the bollocks to do so.

Indeed, I don�t see Apple�s market share growing at the moment. Isn]t it true that the situation is so bad that Apple is even beginning to cannabalise its own resellers out of the market with its online store?

Yet I want Apple back on top. It�s just that it will never get there if it sticks to making merely the coolest, but nevertheless incompatible hardware / OS.

Let�s face facts, this problem needs a bold solution which requires tackling the bull by the horns! With OS X, Apple is poised for greateness again, and making OS X run on Intel would be a FANTASTIC first step to downing the bully of Redmond and putting Apple and its loyal users back into their proper place.

Hi Steve,

Long time no see.

Bendover!

Regards

Bill.

[graphixmaker]

Personally, I like the fact that I'm in the minority. When I buy something that says it's for the Macintosh, I know it will work with my machine. I don't have to worry about which motherboard I have, or if it's optimized for MMX, 3DNow, AMD, Intel etc. I think it would be a nightmare to make OSX run on intel machines. They might be cheaper, but after dealing with pc users, I'm happy that my machine has more quality. "You get what you pay for." I think that apple can make the best operating system in existence with OSX. And when they do, people will be drawn to it no matter what it runs on. I would rather people be compelled to buy a macintosh for the ability to use the best OS in the world, than to appease intel users who want to get away from windows but still want to have cheap pc's. If you don't want to run windows, buy something else.

Jim

[James_Rolevink]

Re: �Personally, I like the fact that I�m in the minority. When I buy something that says it�s for the Macintosh, I know it will work with my machine. I don�t have to worry about which motherboard I have, or if it�s optimized for MMX, 3DNow, AMD, Intel etc. I think it would be a nightmare to make OSX run on intel machines. They might be cheaper, but after dealing with pc users, I�m happy that my machine has more quality. �You get what you pay for.��

This is PRECISELY what I have contended all along: I for one will always prefer to buy quality, COOL gear from Apple, and whether Apple releases OS X for Intel or not, others will always buy Apple hardware too. You and I will always agree on this point. End of story here.

But in regard to the rest of the world and the other types of people out there who are more lacking in common sense and aesthetics etc., i.e.: the other 95%, they will NEVER buy Apple hardware AS IT STANDS. End of story here.

So why doesn�t Apple just recompile OS X for Intel, which it was designed for originally via NeXT anyway, let those �cheap-PCs-at-any-cost� twits knock themsleves out with cheap PC crud, let the myriads of new developers write for OS X on Intel, then sit back and reap the rewards / dollars???

What is the point of making Darwin open source otherwise?

What is the point of that Apple engineer porting Darwin to Intel otherwise?

What is the point of making the underlying architecture hardware independent otherwise?

Apple�s own selling point for the Core Services speaks volumes: �Among the benefits of using Core Foundation is the increased capability for sharing code and data among frameworks, libraries, and applications in different environments and layers. *****Core Foundation also enables easy internationalization through Unicode strings and provides abstractions that contribute to operating-system independence.�*****

On a related point, there ARE good � if tasteless � PC boxes out there; it�s just the OS that most people use on them that sucks / is unreliable etc.. Just ask Unix / Linux / BeOS / NeXT / OS/2 etc. users. Not ALL uses for a computer require the coolest looking G4. I mean to say, COME ON! Do you REALLY think that Apple is even capable of making a computer for EVERY possible situation, let alone the perfect one (what servers do they use to run their own web sites, for heaven�s sake?)? Are you suggesting that all of the other PC makers should just give up and go home in the face of the mighty Apple onslaught (the fruit that roared?)??? I think the current state of the PC market suggests otherwise�

On the other hand, one COULD make a case for OS X being the perfect OS for any computing situation, what with the power of BSD combined with the ease of use of Apple.

Why expect Wintel users to have to cough up for new hardware as well as a new OS??? Why not wean them on the OS to start with. At least then they will count towards Apple�s OS share and not MS�s.

So when you say, �I think that apple can make the best operating system in existence with OSX.�, I would ask, well, why doesn�t Apple give ALL computer users the chance to pay to use the best OS on the planet, no matter what platfrom they choose to run it on? I will ask again, isn�t Apple�s hardware good enough to sell itself in that event? If not, why not?

Moreover, what is the likelihood that Apple will survive if something like Linux REALLY takes off (i.e.; gets a GUI as good as OS X)?

I ask you to be REALLY honest in answering the following: if a Linux development team somehow produced an as-good-as-Aqua GUI making Linux as cool to look at / use as OS X, but it ran on Intel only, and it ran Windows software and Wintel developers went nuts developing for it instead of Windows,
� how long would you give Windows?
� wouldn�t you be tempted?

It is only a matter of time before something like this happens; look at the original Apple GUI engineers developing for Linux as but one example. I want Apple to be there again at the centre of the next great paradigm shift in the computing model (which is long overdue).

And I for one will always want to buy a box as good as Apple�s are to look at, but BLIMEY it would be good to be able to go to any store and buy any software I wanted and then run it on my Apple box.

Releasing OS X for Intel is one way for Apple to begin to achieve this goal. They have released key software like QuickTime and FileMaker Pro for Windows because they know that no computer manufacturer can exist in a vacuum, let alone win the battle against a VASTLY, HUGELY, MIND-BOGGLINGLY BIG majority by platform naval-gazing.

The same argument applies to an OS when it only accounts for @5% of the entire market. Apple is a niche player right now. There is nothing wrong with this. But equally, there is nothing wrong with seeking to increase that niche. In fact, I think it is very right to increase that niche. How much more successful could Apple be if its OS ran on 10% of all the boxes out there? What about 20%? 30%? 50%? If it ran on Intel, well� you get the point!

The other way would be for Apple to make Intel / AMD / Transmeta based hardware for PC users to run Windows on, should they insist upon doing so (at their own peril, as ALL Wintel users already do). They could then upgrade to using the OS X that came bundled with their box if / when they wanted. Now if only Apple would make a Windows environment like they have with Classic�

To keep ahead of the pack, you should at least be better than the pack, but how can Apple continue do that single handedly when, for example, it relies on a company like Motorola to make its chips which have been stuck at 500 MHz for over a year?

Don�t get me wrong; I desperately want Apple to succeed. I wouldn�t trust my computing to anyone else.

But the fact remains that it would be in Apple�s best interests to release OS X for Intel, thereby increasing its markets explosively. End of story here.

When you state, ��people will be drawn to it no matter what it runs on�, I would ask, do you really think that the hundreds of millions of Intel users will risk throwing out their PCs and buy Macs JUST to try OS X??? PUH-LEASE!!! Walter Mossberg is STILL whinging that Apple doesn�t make iMacs with floppies, for goodness� sake. There are hundreds of MILLIONS of anally-retentive, stinge-meister PC users out there who Apple will be able to sell OS X to, if only it ran on Intel.

In relation to your claim that, �I would rather people be compelled to buy a macintosh for the ability to use the best OS in the world, than to appease intel users who want to get away from windows but still want to have cheap pc�s. If you don�t want to run windows, buy something else�, I would ask, what exactly do you suggest they try? If you had your shot at the helm of Apple, it wouldn�t be OS X, now would it?

As for the chap who asks: �How much would you be willing to spend for OS X on Intel? $50? Or maybe more Microsoftian $250?�, I would ask, how much does Apple charge for the beta? And they weren�t even prepared for the demand for that! If selling OSs is such a lousy thing to do, why is Microsoft so rich? Can�t Apple make bundling deals or expect to sell a great OS? Are you suggesting that they are going to give it away for free to us Apple users? Why, then, don�t they charge Intel users what they are going to charge us Mac users? What is the point of your question? I don�t get it.

Sheesh guys, take a walk on the wild side and Think, �Different�!

Apple may very well make OSX to run on INTEL chips, but that would be it. INTEL or better yet X86 is a "chip" . Apple isn�t stupid. They may decide one day that Motorola/IBM ppc chips aren�t for them, they may go with a X86 chip from Transmeta, or AMD. And they could Make OSX run on that.

BUT that does not mean that OSX would run on my wife�s PC hardware!!!

Apple is a "product" vender. They don�t just sell software or hardware, they sell the complete product. Having control of the hardware has given Apple the ability to move very quickly in the last 3 years.

Look at the Cube! it is the first truly legacy free computer.

Steve knows that, and thank God he came back to Apple and is taking advantage of it.

If Apple had been moving at this speed since 1984, this would be a different world.

Remember, Apple killed the clones. They did that because they want to be in control of the hardware.

Microsoft (and Linux) have a tough job to support a ton of hardware that is built by companies that don�t give a rats ass if its hardware conflicts with someone else�s. They leave that problem for MS to try to deal with.

Apple on the other hand sets the rules. Hardware manufacturers have to play by those rules. This is best for everyone. when was the last time you had to set an IRQ on your Mac!!

My scsi card NEVER conflicts with my modem. A new video card does not disable my sound card (sound card???)

The X86 hardware world is an anarchy that Apple is best to avoid.

There are some great things coming out of this world that Apple can and have taken advantage of, like AGP.

Maybe Apple will Run on an X86 chip one day, I dont realy care.

As long as its a mac Im happy.

-----------------------------------------------------
I belive in using the best OS for the job. Therefore I use Both Mac and Unix.
------------------------------------------------------
.....Hey!....... Mac is Unix!!!!!! ; )

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I'm still not impressed with your argument.

You obviously haven't thought about what it would mean for all the current MacOS programs out there now, plus the hardware that has been developed. That would destroy an entire industry.....

I'd say the only way would be if Apple waits until Classic MacOS is completely dead, and then ports MacOS X over. Perhaps then maximum functionality could be achieved.....

As well, it's in my opinion that such a move would be bigger than the OS9/OS X transition. I doubt Apple is up to that as of yet............

greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

Apple may very well make OSX to run on INTEL chips, but that would be it. INTEL or better yet X86 is a "chip" . Apple isn�t stupid. They may decide one day that Motorola/IBM ppc chips aren�t for them, they may go with a X86 chip from Transmeta, or AMD. And they could Make OSX run on that.

BUT that does not mean that OSX would run on my wife�s PC hardware!!!

Apple is a "product" vender. They don�t just sell software or hardware, they sell the complete product. Having control of the hardware has given Apple the ability to move very quickly in the last 3 years.

Look at the Cube! it is the first truly legacy free computer.

Steve knows that, and thank God he came back to Apple and is taking advantage of it.

If Apple had been moving at this speed since 1984, this would be a different world.

Remember, Apple killed the clones. They did that because they want to be in control of the hardware.

Microsoft (and Linux) have a tough job to support a ton of hardware that is built by companies that don�t give a rats ass if its hardware conflicts with someone else�s. They leave that problem for MS to try to deal with.

Apple on the other hand sets the rules. Hardware manufacturers have to play by those rules. This is best for everyone. when was the last time you had to set an IRQ on your Mac!!

My scsi card NEVER conflicts with my modem. A new video card does not disable my sound card (sound card???)

The X86 hardware world is an anarchy that Apple is best to avoid.

There are some great things coming out of this world that Apple can and have taken advantage of, like AGP.

Maybe Apple will Run on an X86 chip one day, I dont realy care.

As long as its a mac Im happy.

-----------------------------------------------------
I belive in using the best OS for the job. Therefore I use Both Mac and Unix.
------------------------------------------------------
.....Hey!....... Mac is Unix!!!!!! ; )

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Alex Duffield:
My scsi card NEVER conflicts with my modem. A new video card does not disable my sound card (sound card???)

The X86 hardware world is an anarchy that Apple is best to avoid.

On the other hand, a quasi-open-source architecture, and that being a unix to boot, is probably the best way to deal with that kind of anarchy. Linux already fares better with various hardware than any Windows for this reason.
There's always some geek out there ready to compile a new kernel extension to deal with new hardware solutions...

I do believe that allowing the Mac OS to run on anything other than Apple hardware (regardless if Intel-based or whatever) would likely mean the end of Apple as a hardware manufacturer. People simply do not by the "cool" hardware if it's two hundred dollars more expensive. It just don't happen.

They might still survive as a software-only company, but why should they fare any better than NeXT did? Their OS was kick-ass compared to anything else on the Intel platform at the time, but if they hadn't been bought by Apple, they'd be all but gone now.

At least for the foreseeable future, Apple needs to keep selling the whole experience, making the OS proprietary.

-c.

[Lapeyre]

What's happening here ? Steve Jobs, Bill Gates ? What are they doing in here ? Why are you talking about them ? Isn't Apple actually managed by Steve Wosniak ???

[Geobunny]

Woz quit when Jobs came back, didn't he?

[michaelb]

Originally posted by Geobunny:
Woz quit when Jobs came back, didn't he?

As far as I know, Woz has never quit from Apple. He is employee number "0" and always has been.

I remember a talk he gave a few years back at a User Group where he is said he made sure he was kept on the payroll for mostly sentimental reasons, but he still pops up now and again - I last saw him on the cover of an APDA catalog for a photo shoot, grinning and carrying a whole stack of developer tool boxes.

He also says on his web site that he offers feedback to Apple from time to time, from an educator's perspective.

As to the "ripped off by Jobs" affair: these days Woz seems quite diplomatic about the incident, and says that it may be the result of memory lapses by the parties concerned.

I don't know if the Wozniaks and Jobses actually invite each other to dinner these days, but I don't think they are the bitter enemies some people make out (no doubt that "hatchet-job" book for one).

Check out the Woz's web site: http://www.woz.org/

[pfwilson]

I think Woz was employee 1 and Steve was emp 2 until he thru a fit and got re-numbered emp 0

the problem with OSX for Intel is the *applications* - what do the likes of Adobe, M$ et cetera decide to write for? OSX-PPC or OSX-X86? i doubt both CPUs would surive... we have a similiar problem with Linux atm... lots of stuff is Linux-X86 and not PPC... which is a shame!

[NicB]

There's a small parallel here (I know the analogy isn't too watertight!) with another company with a big household "premium" name: Sony.

Sony realised they had lost the Betamax/VHS war, largely due to poor marketing and an insistence on keeping Betamax Sony proprietary. It had NOTHING to do with quality - nowadays even employees of JVC and Panasonic will freely admit that Betamax was better than VHS.

Sony's response was to get a licence from JVC and start making VHS machines. But not any old VHS machines - *SONY* VHS machines. Sony sell their products at a premium price over the other brands, because they have an image of being a great company with innovative products, whether true or not. Ditto Apple.

Of course, for Apple to follow this example, they'd have to build PCs rather than just release OS X for Intel hardware. And while I won't currently give a PC house or office room, an Apple PC would of course be different somehow. There is however a real chicken-and-egg issue here - most consumers (and your average corporate PC buyer) buy a machine "that runs Windows" despite Intel's huge "Intel inside" branding. So to really sell, Apple PCs would have to come with Windows installed and offer the average user something the no-name brands don't - even before trying to tempt them with OS X.

Another option would be for an Apple OS to run Windows applications - not via Windows itself, but by trapping all the OS calls made by the app and converting them to native code (I'm not sufficiently techie to know the detail of this, but I know it's possible...)

Sooner or later the things which make an Apple box different from an Intel box will be insignificant. It's always what you run on it that counts. Therefore, my theory is that an Apple-manufactured Intel box will still be nearly a Mac - and if it runs both OS X and Windows at full speed, it may just be the killer product we've been waiting for. Can anybody say CHRP?

[jblakeh1]

>what do the likes of Adobe, M$ et cetera decide to write for? OSX-PPC or OSX-X86?

Does anyone here remember OS/2? This whole Mac OS X on Intel, Windows apps on Mac OS, yadda yadda... it's all been tried before.

Anyone crazy enough to think Apple isn't laughing at the thought of running OS X on crappy PC hardware should repeat the following line until it makes sense:

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.

[jcarr]

Originally posted by Steven Jobs:
I'm glad you OS X. I made it my self.

Steve,

I would have thought you could spell your name (Stephen P. Jobs) by now.

------------------
I'm cookoo for Cocoa Apps!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NicB:
Sooner or later the things which make an Apple box different from an Intel box will be insignificant. It's always what you run on it that counts. Therefore, my theory is that an Apple-manufactured Intel box will still be nearly a Mac - and if it runs both OS X and Windows at full speed, it may just be the killer product we've been waiting for. Can anybody say CHRP?

That's a complete contradiction.

If the differences will become insignificant because the Mac runs Windows software - and 95% of the software market are Windows applications - it will be because the Mac will be Windows - by your own argument, "it's what you run on it that counts."

How is that still "nearly a Mac?"

Definitely *not* the machine we've been waiting for.


And to jblakeh1:

Some people should go back to using pencil and paper.

-chris.

[Lapeyre]

Originally posted by jcarr:
Steve,

I would have thought you could spell your name (Stephen P. Jobs) by now.

No he isn't the Stephen P. Jobs from the Bible but the one who did BUGZ with StePhen Spielberg I guess... Just look at the beginning of his first movie, a great western with great actors : then he signed SteVen Jobs. I really do love your film Steven. A real piece of art but I can't remember its title and so, I can't find the corresponding video or DVD... I already made a mistake : following my description, the vendor sold me something called The Quiet Man. Great too, but so different. And in black and white. And far from being what I call a "western". The main character could have been a great cow-boy but no more... And I have look everywhere, this Quiet Man seems to don't have any link with you. To buy it I have already spent more than I did for OS X PB ! So Steven, if you are still around, please, help ! Give me this title. Thanks. And why wouldn't you join Apple anew ? We need your help ! We need your art to save OS X and Apple as you saved the ants. Thanks for your reply Steve. I really do love all your movies.

[eep!]

If apple ported osx to intel hardware it would kill apple hardware, and they would become a software only company and then they would get bought completely by MS.
When I started at university I needed a new computer, at the time it looked as though Apple were just about dead, so like my friends i bought a peecee with win95, because i (thought) i'd be playing games most of the time...
Later I decided to install a WinTV card, i went to my local hardware shop and checked out the requirements on the side of the box, i had the correct amount of Ram the correct level of cpu, available harddrive space, compatible gfx card. so i bought one...
didn't work... swapped slots, updated bios, downloaded new drivers, still didn't work... rechecked the support pages online and the card is NOT garaunteed to work with non-intel motherboards... i've chaintech with an SiS chipset.

I WANNA MAC!!!

Really, would you want to have to worry about all that crap?
Do you buy a car or build your own and hope it works?
Pay upfront or pay in the end.

<SNIP>Rants on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...

[jblakeh1]

Back in the 7.5 days, when I was looking for options other than Mac, I became interested in Be, and actually bought a BeBox.

JL Gassee used to write a column each week that was very insightful in regards to the errors of past platforms, whether hardware, software, or both. At the time, it appeared he had really done his homework, although now it seems the BeOS is repackaged for any fad that comes along.


I think, had he stuck to his original idea, building the hardware and software, he would have been more successful. All his original thinking was based on the successes and failures of IBM, M$, Apple, Next...

...Mac OS X on any hardware but it's own would be a disaster, just like licensing the hardware.

X, airport, firewire, iMovie... they're all incentives to ditch old hardware and buy new boxes. You have to have an airport equipped Mac to run airport... you have to have firewire to run iMovie. And I imagine a lot of people will be incited to ditch their old 601/604 machines to run X.

It's been a successful model, thus far, for Apple.

[sordid]

OS X on Intel = not going to happen.


As if Apple want more competition from Microsoft. Maybe later on they might, but at the moment its suicide, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past with operating systems such as IBM's OS/2 Warp.

[sordid]

The only thing you can really port to Intel is the kernel. The NeXT part of OS X (Aqua) would be a pain in the butt to port, and as far as classic goes, well, its not going to be the same operating system now is it? Thats PROBABLY why they have ported the kernel to Intel only.

[mrpuny]

Originally posted by jblakeh1:
>what do the likes of Adobe, M$ et cetera decide to write for? OSX-PPC or OSX-X86?

Does anyone here remember OS/2? This whole Mac OS X on Intel, Windows apps on Mac OS, yadda yadda... it's all been tried before.

In fact, I do remember OS/2. I ran it on my PCs starting with v2.0 and continuing through v3.0 (Warp). And having experienced OS/2 personally, I'm tired of people using that OS as a justifaction for why competing with Microsoft on x86 hardware is inevitably doomed to failure. The fact is, despite all the issues involved (press bias, market inertia, etc.) OS/2 ultimately failed because it was a sh***y (think "itt" or "odd" depending on your sensitivity to such language) operating system put out by a company with absolutely no clue about PCs or PC users. Sure, it was "buzzword compliant" - it was a preemptive multitasking, multithreading OS with an OO UI, but it was so riddled with flaws that it was laughable for most users.

OS/2 v2.0 required, as a practical minimum, 8 MB of memory, when most computers were struggling to run Windows 3.0 in 4MB or less. Real world requirements tended to stay in this ratio as both the consumer version of Windows and OS/2 progressed. Drivers were often late/nonexistant, even for IBM's own aftermarket offerings. (Why would the rest of the market supply drivers for OS/2 when even IBM wouldn't for their own hardware?) The UI, though extremely powerful was never refined, and suffered from numerous flaws. I'm not going to bother to list them here, though I'd be happy to if someone was really interested. :-) Ultimately, OS/2 was a half-hearted offering from a company with incredible resources but no real desire to achieve any major change in computing.

>Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.

Your point is taken, and I agree that for Apple, releasing OS X for x86 hardware is questionable, and a significant risk at best. However, the simple fact is that Apple is a niche computer maker right now, and for them to become anything else is going to require a fundamental change to their business model. I don't know if that means OS X should be ported to other hardware platforms, or Apple should start licensing clones again, but something along these lines is going to have to happen. Seriously, does anyone expect that the Mac OS will ever reach, say, 20% of the market if it's only available on Apple branded hardware? How about 30%? 40%?....

The only way for Apple to grow is to offer compelling reasons for a) the current computer market to switch to the Mac OS and/or b) new users to start using the Mac OS rather than Windows (or Solaris, Linux, *BSD, etc). Apple has been playing their aesthetic card, but it will only get them so far. From a price/performance standpoint, Apple hasn't made much progress over the last year or so, and it gets worse every month G4 speeds remain stagnant. Also, does anybody really think companies want to give up the competitive pricing in the Wintel world for single sourcing their computers, especially from a company with as flaky a past as Apple? So, why would most current users switch platforms? And why would most new users (particularly from poorer regions) invest in a platform that locks them into a single vendor situation, especially when there is a commodity platform, both in terms of hardware and software?

It's late, and I'm probably rambling.......

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by sordid:
The only thing you can really port to Intel is the kernel. The NeXT part of OS X (Aqua) would be a pain in the butt to port, and as far as classic goes, well, its not going to be the same operating system now is it? Thats PROBABLY why they have ported the kernel to Intel only.

Errm...NeXTSTEP ran on the Intel platform until Apple ported it *to* the PowerPC.

-chris.

[sordid]

I don't know much about the history of NeXT, sorry for saying that.

Umm, I guess what I meant by that "its probably going to be a whole new operating system" is...

remember how Windows NT was released on both Intel, Alpha and PPC architectures? How did that fair?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hmmm...maccentral has an article about Carbom and Cocoa, and it says that purely native Cocoa apps WILL STILL RUN if OS X is ported to another platform. That's very...interesting...and if true, it means that Apple is being very smart about hedging its bets - something I'm relieved to see.

greg

------------------
Though the day's been
really long
I still feel I'm close to
nowhere....

[jblakeh1]

>However, the simple fact is that Apple is a niche computer maker right now, and for them to become anything else is going to require a fundamental change to their business model.

Apple has proven being a niche computer maker can be very profitable... and if Apple could gain 40% market share, M$ wouldn't be in an anti-trust battle right now.

It's an M$, M$, M$ world. Apple became a niche, OS/2 died, BeOS is an internet appliance...this week, anyway.

Hopefully, with StarOffice (don't think Sun didn't release this to weaken Windows market share), Linux, and the entire open source movement, which Apple has solidy aligned itself with, M$ will lose it's grip. It looks more and more likely all the time.