[osxrules]

It gets asked so many times but let's have a poll and see what people think. Recent news says that the newer versions of OS X86 have been hacked to run on a non-Apple PC. So, if the final version does get cracked then it can run on other PCs anyway but because Apple don't sell it, people will have to get it from bittorrent or wherever.

This was exactly the situation with music a while ago. People wanted to get music online without trudging to a store but because the big industry giants didn't offer a solution, people were forced to do it illegally with Napster. Finally Apple offered a solution and look how popular it is. It was a risk but it worked.

The problem now is that a lot of people want a better system than Windows - most Windows users I speak to hate their OS and the vendor supplying it. The reason they stay is because most people have standard PCs and they don't want to buy a whole new machine just to get a better system.

One solution is Linux but it isn't easy to use and the available software is practically all open source and most of it not able to compete with commercial solutions.

There is an article on the front page about it from a Linux guy and I agree. If OS X was available for PCs, it would be the solution. I've heard die hard PC users say the same thing.

Now, the age old problem is that Apple have always been a hardware comapny and who would buy a Mac if OS X ran on a PC? I would, and I'm pretty sure that the majority of current Mac users would too. I like the design mainly.

People don't stop buying designer clothes because you can buy a pair of jeans from the local supermarket for £3.

Also, imagine if just 1/5th of PC users switched to OS X86. That increases Apple's user base by a factor of 5. How many of them will opt to use Apple software solutions that only run on OS X like Logic, Shake or Final Cut Pro?

Logic = Final Cut Pro = £700
Shake = £2000
DVD Studio Pro = £350

One copy of Shake sold will make Apple more money than selling a G5 because they don't have to build anything except the box. They burn a new disc and sell it.

I personally think it would be the best thing Apple could do. It gives Mac users the vendor recognition that only a large user base provides and it opens up Apple software solutions to a vast number of new customers.

As for open sourcing the OS completely I'm not sure about. They would then sell just the ilife package with garageband, imovie etc. separate. It would be easier for people to port it to any system and would certainly win over Linux users but I think Apple would lose money that way so I really think that keeping parts of the OS closed is the best idea there.

[Rob van dam]

Whilst this has been debated so many times.My answer has always been yes.They should give the public what they want.I dont necessarily mean license to dell but im sure apple has weighed the pros and cons of this and have no doubt pondered doing it.

[Goldfinger]

OS X for non-Apple computers = the death of Apple Computer, Inc. And they will be then known as iPod, Inc. End of story.

Just a ridiculously small portion of PC users actually buys their OS and most Windows licenceses are sold along with new computers anyway. Nobody will actually buy OSX (not enough people anyway).

But this subject has been beaten to death.

[analogika]

Every week, when this question comes up again, the answer is ALWAYS the same:

Apple does not make money on software (except *maybe* the Pro applications). Apple makes money ONLY on hardware.

OS X, the iApps, and iTunes function primarily as incentives to spend money on Apple hardware.

This model hasn't changed over the past twenty years.

Both Apple and Steve Jobs' other company, NeXT, tried making their OS available for third-party machines, and both failed. (Apple very nearly died from their clone experiments in the 90s.)

The ONLY reason Microsoft thrives with their software-only model is because they have a quasi-monopoly, and because of Microsoft Office. THAT is what they make their money with. Not Windows. Office.

Also, what good is OS X if it sucks? And believe me, one MAJOR reason OS X doesn't suck as much (and Windows does) is because Apple has a very limited number of machines with KNOWN components that they need to support.

Do we REALLY have to go over this every week?

What's the ****ing point of posting ANOTHER thread on this, other than to let everybody know that - whoop-de-doo - you have an opinion, too?

Sorry.

[Kr0nos]

Should? It's going to, and there is very little Apple will be able to do about it. Driver support might suck in the beginning, but as soon as it's out there you'll see a lot of non-Apple PCs running OS X.

10.4.3 hacked alredy...

[osxrules]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

OS X for non-Apple computers = the death of Apple Computer, Inc. And they will be then known as iPod, Inc. End of story.

Just a ridiculously small portion of PC users actually buys their OS and most Windows licenceses are sold along with new computers anyway. Nobody will actually buy OSX (not enough people anyway).

But this subject has been beaten to death.

I was having second thoughts about posting this as I was editing it to have a poll but it didn't work. I was then searching to see if it had been posted before on MacNN but I couldn't find it. Then I saw people replying to this thread. Doh, sorry! Oh well, we're here now.

The thing you are saying about Windows licenses being sold with the machine is important. Why can't Apple do that and make money too? How do you know how many people would buy OS X? The only reason I could think is because vendors might not offer it just like they don't offer Linux. But because you have to buy OS X, the vendor can get a cut.

Originally Posted by analogika

Both Apple and Steve Jobs' other company, NeXT, tried making their OS available for third-party machines, and both failed. (Apple very nearly died from their clone experiments in the 90s.)

Right, I was adding this in my edited version. Do the clone wars still apply? Back then, Macs were all beige and horrible anyway. Also, the old OS did little to make enough users switch because they would have to buy new hardware and it was still a crap system. If people could install OS X on their current PC, they might buy it just as an alternative. OS X is only the same price as 2 PS2 games. Tiger also has a lot of press. It got into the top 100 list of best software at PCWorld. Now PC users would think that might be nice software and want to try it out but wait, they have to buy new hardware so they don't bother.

Originally Posted by analogika

What's the ****ing point of posting ANOTHER thread on this, other than to let everybody know that - whoop-de-doo - you have an opinion, too?

Kinda like most of the threads in the lounge then? Anyway, I'm sure I'm covering new ground and like I say, I checked for other threads and couldn't find any so maybe you are exaggerating the 'every week' claim and there is a relevant news item on the front page. If you don't like it, let it fade into insignificance by not posting. Actually the main reason I wanted another thread was a poll to see how many users thought one way or the other. I've seen lots of threads on other forums but never any polls. Unfortunatley I messed it up - what is that rule about making a poll within 4 minutes all about? I had to think up titles.

Originally Posted by kr0nos

Should? It's going to, and there is very little Apple will be able to do about it.

Yeah, I referred to that in the first post but I meant should they officially release it?

[VoicesInMyHead]

You could license or sell OS X by itself to non-apple PCs. Then, all the other cool apps (iCal, iDVD, iMovie and stuff) could be included only with Apple computers. Selling them may be an option, that way Apple could get some more revenue. The hardware quality question is also a factor, I mean, half of the reason for me to have a Powerbook and an iMac is because they look ultra-cool.

[SirCastor]

I think the Pro-App argument isn't really solid. Everybody who wants Shake already owns a Mac, and Shake. Other folks likely think it's just 'cool' and would have it, but rarely use it.

[Eriamjh]

I think there WILL come a time when Apple will license OSX. That time is not now. It will be when Apple has determined that it is not worth the hardware developments costs to sell Macs.

I'm guessing that within two weeks of the first major OSX for Intel release (or sooner) that someone will have OSX running on non-Apple machines. Only those who steal it will be running it on non-Apple hardware.

[macroy]

Originally Posted by analogika

The ONLY reason Microsoft thrives with their software-only model is because they have a quasi-monopoly, and because of Microsoft Office. THAT is what they make their money with. Not Windows. Office.

Actually - no. Unless things have changed in the last two years - MS's workstation OS makes up approximately 80% of their profit margins. You can actually see the breakdown in their financial papers as they list their business segments seperately. Although I've not looked at the recent ones, I don't see how their other products can trump that so quickly (but not entirely impossible).

[Dark Helmet]

Not ANY pc but I can see them giving licences to Dell and other big names.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by osxrules

One solution is Linux but it isn't easy to use and the available software is practically all open source and most of it not able to compete with commercial solutions.

No offense, but many Mac users seem to be very hypocritical here. On one hand, they bitch about PC users basing their judgments on the Mac from as they remember it in the 1990s, while they do the exact same thing with Linux/Unix.

I've been using Gnome a fair bit, and it has come very close to matching Windows and even the Mac in some respects in terms of usability. There are still some strange error messages that pop up, although I also received a weird "manifest parse error" while installing Windows the other day, so it isn't immune from strange OS voodoo. There are still some issues with installing new programs, but this is improving too as vendors start to release binaries for popular Linux distributions.

However, I take greater issue with the criticism of open source apps...

Office apps:

- OpenOffice covers the vast majority of Word Pro needs (and possibly spreadsheet and presentation, although I've never used these modules). OOo even has some features that Office doesn't, like Wordperfect file import, and OpenDocument support. Now that Microsoft has announced that they will open up their Office formats, MS Office file support should improve even more.

Internet:

- Thunderbird is far better than Outlook Express, as are probably Evolution and Kontact (haven't used these as much though)
- There are many Exchange competitors available: Groupwise, Zimbra, Hula, Kolab, etc. Several have connectors to work with email clients such as Evolution, Kontact, Thunderbird, and Outlook.
- Obviously web browsers and IM are in fine shape too.
- There is a Flash player for Linux (I believe), but no version of Flash itself for Linux.

in many ways, I think that Linux/Unix does even better than the Mac as far as internet apps.

Graphics:

- Photoshop is definitely better than the Gimp, but people who use Photoshop are specialists, not the general public.

Video:

- Final Cut is definitely king here, this is also specialized software.

There are also many other specialized open source apps that do very well within a specialization. Databases, and many server-side technologies are good examples.


This hardly "practically all"... In fact, many open source solutions are completely superior to proprietary competitors. Look at the stuff you use on your Mac... do you use VLC? Audacity? Cyberduck? Thunderbird? Firefox? Personally, I've come to rely on these apps.

Really, I dislike the holier-than-thou attitude many Mac users take in dismissing open source operating systems and apps. Really, we should be familiarizing ourselves with all of this, not distancing ourselves from it.

[besson3c]

After watching Pirates of Silicon Valley last night, I'm thinking that Jobs would love a chance to stick it to Gates. I think he'll do whatever it takes to take him on, including making OS X available with some caveats.

I have no way of knowing how accurate this movie is, but really there is little stopping Apple from slowly transitioning into competing with Microsoft on their home turf. It will likely happen very incrementally and gradually though, IMHO.

[DeathMan]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Not ANY pc but I can see them giving licences to Dell and other big names.

Dell is unlikely, except under very strict circumstances. Basically Apple would have to define which components get used, taking away Dell's ability to make crappy computers. I don't think this would go over very well with Dell, as making crappy computers is their primary business.

[osxrules]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This hardly "practically all"... In fact, many open source solutions are completely superior to proprietary competitors. Look at the stuff you use on your Mac... do you use VLC? Audacity? Cyberduck? Thunderbird? Firefox? Personally, I've come to rely on these apps.

Really, I dislike the holier-than-thou attitude many Mac users take in dismissing open source operating systems and apps. Really, we should be familiarizing ourselves with all of this, not distancing ourselves from it.

Whoa, I said practically all software for Linux was open source and most of it can't compete - I didn't dismiss it. I also rely on a few open source apps. BUT, the good ones are very few in relation to the vast multitude of available open source projects. There are over 100,000 projects on sourceforge.net. Does anyone use more than 5-10 open source apps who doesn't use Linux? 10/100,000 = 0.01%.

The problem is not with open source but with people. Developers make better products when money is involved because they have to keep pushing the boundaries in order to compete. Open Source developers get lazy and have other things that take up their time where they earn a living so projects get left to rot.

I don't mean to condescending when I say most open source software can't compete because I really wish it could. But the reality is that it generally doesn't or people would use more of it. The open source community is too fragmented. Commercial ventures look for good talent and mash it together to make excellent products. If we take the high-end 3D scene, Autodesk now own Maya and 3ds Max. The best open source alternative is Blender and I use it day in day out. Can it compete with a huge R&D team of professional programmers whose software is being used and modified by the best of the best? Not really.

Open source is good but professional programmers can't all work for nothing.

Originally Posted by sircastor

I think the Pro-App argument isn't really solid. Everybody who wants Shake already owns a Mac, and Shake.

Not the ones who own Combustion, Premiere, Flame on the PC. Some people won't buy a Mac because they don't feel they should have to pay Apple's high markup and go and buy other software as a result so Apple loses both hardware and software sales. At least if pro apps were available to PC users, they'd have more chance of a software sale.

Of course the risk is whether the current Mac base would buy other hardware and would Apple lose more in hardware sales than gain in software sales? Judging the general personality of a Mac user, I'd say the Mac user base is pretty firm and the average PC user base is open to better software solutions.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Not ANY pc but I can see them giving licences to Dell and other big names.

I don't know about Dell because they can seriously undercut Apple in the price dept. Maybe if they gave it to Sony. A Sony will cost about the same price as an Apple machine.

[nredman]

No.

[goMac]

Here's what I think happened:

1997- Steve Jobs is brought back into the company from NeXT. Steve wants Apple to move to Intel and release OS X for all PC's, like NeXT did, the company engineers say they don't want to because they're on PowerPC. The software team compromises and releases Rhapsody DR1 for Macs and all Intel based PC's.
1999- Rhapsody DR2 is released for Macs and all Intel based PC's.
2000- The G4 is released. Steve Jobs is temporarily convinced that the PowerPC is the way to go because of the G4's performance. The hardware engineers are happy, and Mac OS X DP3 is released for PowerPC only, meantime Steve Jobs keeps the Intel builds going on the side as he's not fully convinced his engineers are right about the PowerPC.
2002- The G4 starts to run behind and Steve begins making noise about moving the Intel again. The engineers look to IBM, and IBM works to convince Steve to stick with PowerPC. IBM convinces Steve by telling him they can reach 3 ghz by 2005 and build a low power G5 for Powerbooks. Steve tells IBM this is their last chance, IBM tells the world they saved Apple from Intel, Apple releases G5 Macs, Steve keeps Mac OS X for Intel as his hidden backup plan to keep IBM in line.
2005 - Intel continues putting pressure on Steve to switch, demoing new low power offerings they are working on. Steve goes to IBM and asks them what they're working on, and where the chips are IBM has promised. IBM demos Steve the cell which is nothing like what Steve wanted. Steve gets angry IBM failed to meet what they promised and this is the last straw. Mid-2005 Steve announces to IBM's surprise he is moving to Intel. In an internal Apple compromise, Steve says while Apple will move to Intel, they'll keep Mac OS X Mac only for now, making both the engineers and Steve happy for now. Mac OS X for all PC's is put aside for debate for the 10.5 release.

My guess is Mac OS X for all PC's is the direction we are heading currently. I would guess that Apple's engineers aren't supporting such a move but it's what Steve wants, and we're slowly bit by bit getting pushed in that direction. It would be a huge risk, sure. Apple's gaining ground now, but they'll never take the market from Microsoft unless they release for all PC's. Until then they will be a very very slowly dying niche player, threatened by Linux squeezing them out of the market (Steve Jobs seems to know this as he tried to get the $100 laptop team to use Mac OS X instead of Linux). By moving to Intel, Steve is essentially betting the farm. Apple is either going to lose the Mac in the process, or the Mac is going to become a huge winner in the computer industry.

Here is the way I see it. Big world companies can only be supplied by companies like Dell. Would you rather see a massive Fortune 500 company equipped with Dells running Windows or Dells running Mac OS X? Apple sells well to home users, and they would continue to after releasing for all PC's I think, but there are places that will simply never buy Apple hardware because it is too high end.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by osxrules

Whoa, I said practically all software for Linux was open source and most of it can't compete - I didn't dismiss it. I also rely on a few open source apps. BUT, the good ones are very few in relation to the vast multitude of available open source projects. There are over 100,000 projects on sourceforge.net. Does anyone use more than 5-10 open source apps who doesn't use Linux? 10/100,000 = 0.01%.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. If you think of commercial software as a cathedral and OSS as a bazaar, there will always be more bazaars than cathedrals. There are lots of unsuccessful companies that we never hear about that produce commercial software, and perhaps a lot of them start as bazaars.

The problem is not with open source but with people. Developers make better products when money is involved because they have to keep pushing the boundaries in order to compete. Open Source developers get lazy and have other things that take up their time where they earn a living so projects get left to rot.

I don't think that throwing money at something will always produce a better product. Having the best talent on hand will. You can have the best talent on hand by being a very attractive, established company that can throw a lot of money at people to entice them, or by having a very worthy cause that people believe in, and a community with a spirit that is attractive for the individual to work within.

This leaves a ton of smaller companies that can't afford to hire great developers that end up producing crappy products. There are a *lot* of companies like this.

I think I see what you're saying here, but I would put it this way:

Large, monolithic "things" that don't already exist and require some innovation and risk are best developed by companies. Tools, pieces, and widgets that either exist on their own or are pieced together to form a larger whole are best developed by OSS communities. The best software adapts the interconnecting pieces model (including Apple's). However, for specialized software like Photoshop and Final Cut, these pieces often do not exist, or the pieces don't do what is needed (and it would be easier to start over and develop something new), or there just aren't enough of them. Therefore, it becomes most efficient to develop from the ground up and develop these big, monolithic products that are funded by companies.

In other words, companies produce what OSS communities cannot easily produce, and do so faster since they are assisted by a source of funding to keep them on task. However, as far as coming with something that OSS communities *can* easily produce, or have already produced, it would be suicide to try to compete with solid OSS as a company - who wants to compete with free? For this reason, we'll probably never see a new web browser company start up, for instance.

There are areas where we are starting to have libraries and functions built that can be used to build larger products in well-established areas of computing. There is absolutely no reason why a bloody word processor needs to come from a commercial vendor. We've been typing for decades, this is a well-established area of computing where OSS can compete, and is starting to really do so.

My point: some areas of computing are best served by companies, others OSS. Well-establishing areas of computing will eventually be folded into OSS. MS Office will eventually die off, there is simply no further room for it to grow. What else do people need in a bloody word processor?

Open source is good but professional programmers can't all work for nothing.

There is not necessarily a difference in skill and talent between "professional programmers" and "hobbyists". There are many OSS developers who are also professional, paid developers, and many OSS developers that can easily compete with the calibre of programmer a company would hire. How many companies have the resources to produce an operating system kernel? A web browser? This is not easy!

This is a false dichotomy. Open Source is not necessarily "unprofessional", or weaker than commercial vendors in all areas.

[Link]

no.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by goMac

Here's what I think happened:

1997- Steve Jobs is brought back into the company from NeXT. Steve wants Apple to move to Intel and release OS X for all PC's, like NeXT did, the company engineers say they don't want to because they're on PowerPC. The software team compromises and releases Rhapsody DR1 for Macs and all Intel based PC's.
1999- Rhapsody DR2 is released for Macs and all Intel based PC's.
2000- The G4 is released. Steve Jobs is temporarily convinced that the PowerPC is the way to go because of the G4's performance. The hardware engineers are happy, and Mac OS X DP3 is released for PowerPC only, meantime Steve Jobs keeps the Intel builds going on the side as he's not fully convinced his engineers are right about the PowerPC.
2002- The G4 starts to run behind and Steve begins making noise about moving the Intel again. The engineers look to IBM, and IBM works to convince Steve to stick with PowerPC. IBM convinces Steve by telling him they can reach 3 ghz by 2005 and build a low power G5 for Powerbooks. Steve tells IBM this is their last chance, IBM tells the world they saved Apple from Intel, Apple releases G5 Macs, Steve keeps Mac OS X for Intel as his hidden backup plan to keep IBM in line.
2005 - Intel continues putting pressure on Steve to switch, demoing new low power offerings they are working on. Steve goes to IBM and asks them what they're working on, and where the chips are IBM has promised. IBM demos Steve the cell which is nothing like what Steve wanted. Steve gets angry IBM failed to meet what they promised and this is the last straw. Mid-2005 Steve announces to IBM's surprise he is moving to Intel. In an internal Apple compromise, Steve says while Apple will move to Intel, they'll keep Mac OS X Mac only for now, making both the engineers and Steve happy for now. Mac OS X for all PC's is put aside for debate for the 10.5 release.

My guess is Mac OS X for all PC's is the direction we are heading currently. I would guess that Apple's engineers aren't supporting such a move but it's what Steve wants, and we're slowly bit by bit getting pushed in that direction. It would be a huge risk, sure. Apple's gaining ground now, but they'll never take the market from Microsoft unless they release for all PC's. Until then they will be a very very slowly dying niche player, threatened by Linux squeezing them out of the market (Steve Jobs seems to know this as he tried to get the $100 laptop team to use Mac OS X instead of Linux). By moving to Intel, Steve is essentially betting the farm. Apple is either going to lose the Mac in the process, or the Mac is going to become a huge winner in the computer industry.

Here is the way I see it. Big world companies can only be supplied by companies like Dell. Would you rather see a massive Fortune 500 company equipped with Dells running Windows or Dells running Mac OS X? Apple sells well to home users, and they would continue to after releasing for all PC's I think, but there are places that will simply never buy Apple hardware because it is too high end.

I think we were all convinced of PowerPC for a while (as well we should have been). I think what happened was that Jobs recognized that a modern, hardware independent operating system like OS X (and NeXT) provides many options that a smart business man should not ignore. Closing doors is generally foolish. Modern operating systems are not tied to a particular piece of hardware, and are easy to port to other hardware since they are based on a more modular design.

Therefore, it simply didn't make any sense to forget about the fact that OS X *could* be pretty easily ported to another hardware architecture, so Jobs kept the x86 versions going just to ensure that OS X maintains its sense of modularity and hardware independence. Some new architecture that was neither PPC nor x86 could have came along that Apple would want to support. Having the OS tied to hardware restricts options.

Frankly, I think that the reason it is taking Microsoft so long to ship Vista is because Windows is *not* based on a modern, modular design. Even after Vista ships, it will always take Microsoft longer to patch onto this giant monolithic "thing". Smaller, interconnecting pieces helps Apple produce great results much faster.

Want to improve Safari's page rendering? Grab Webkit, mess around with it, drop these libraries back in place, and Mail and other apps that depend on the Webkit will happily use these new libraries, as will the Safari app itself. I don't know this for sure, but I would assume that this would be far more complicated if you wanted to do the same thing with Internet Explorer. There isn't a IE page rendering library, but just this huge thing called Internet Explorer.

I might be talking completely out of my ass here in saying that Windows is not based on a modular design. If it is, these parts always invent the wheel and rarely, if ever interact with OSS projects. They need to be very carefully documented and/or well written, or else employee turnover leads to having to reverse engineer.

Companies have the disadvantage of needing strong leadership and organization. If some component or part of Windows or OS X starts to suck, somebody near the top of the food chain needs to set aside the resources to take care of this, and needs to tell somebody to specifically pay attention to this task, or else trust the employees to not waste their time and money in being autonomous. In an OSS community, if something needs to get done, somebody can just jump in and do it without having to worry about some political hierarchy.

[kcmac]

NO.

[meelk]

this WILL happen, although its going to take another 4 or 5 years I'd expect. The same people in here saying no it wont are the same people who never believed apple would go x86 either. Look how that turned out.
OSX for everyone is a predictable part of apples long range plans. The x86 shift is only step 1.
A great many people here might not WANT it to happen, but then again, I havent seen Steve call any of you for advice on what he should or shouldnt do lately.

[Link]

But why would it happen? The x86 switch had a reason, this doesn't.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Therefore, it simply didn't make any sense to forget about the fact that OS X *could* be pretty easily ported to another hardware architecture, so Jobs kept the x86 versions going just to ensure that OS X maintains its sense of modularity and hardware independence. Some new architecture that was neither PPC nor x86 could have came along that Apple would want to support. Having the OS tied to hardware restricts options.

I would be convinced of that, but the original plan announced publicly when OS X (Rhapsody) was revealed was to release a version for all PC's, and even a version that ran under Windows. This was all canned around the time of the G4. Not only that, but IBM did publicly announce that Apple was very much considering Intel before the G5.

Steve has a pattern of doing one thing but saying another to keep competitors from knowing what he's about to do.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

In fact, many open source solutions are completely superior to proprietary competitors. Look at the stuff you use on your Mac... do you use VLC? Audacity? Cyberduck? Thunderbird? Firefox? Personally, I've come to rely on these apps.

VLC is the only one of these I use. Safari is better than Firefox, and Thunderbird for Mac is just plain lousy.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Link

But why would it happen? The x86 switch had a reason, this doesn't.

Sure it does. I just explained above. You have big big companies who will only buy the $350 PC bundles from Dell because they are cheap and they don't care about performance. This is a market Apple will never enter, and does not want to enter. But what's better for Apple? If those Dells are running Mac OS X or if those Dells are running Windows?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Link

But why would it happen? The x86 switch had a reason, this doesn't.

They always leave in a huff but inevitably they come back.
Why do you people bother with the tantrums about going? iWrite, Logic, you... what a bunch of tools.

-------------------------------------------

And no, there should not be a OSX generic PC version.

[osxrules]

Originally Posted by besson3c

for specialized software like Photoshop and Final Cut, these pieces often do not exist, or the pieces don't do what is needed (and it would be easier to start over and develop something new), or there just aren't enough of them. Therefore, it becomes most efficient to develop from the ground up and develop these big, monolithic products that are funded by companies.

In other words, companies produce what OSS communities cannot easily produce, and do so faster since they are assisted by a source of funding to keep them on task. However, as far as coming with something that OSS communities *can* easily produce, or have already produced, it would be suicide to try to compete with solid OSS as a company - who wants to compete with free? For this reason, we'll probably never see a new web browser company start up, for instance.

That's basically what I meant.

Originally Posted by besson3c

My point: some areas of computing are best served by companies, others OSS. Well-establishing areas of computing will eventually be folded into OSS. MS Office will eventually die off, there is simply no further room for it to grow. What else do people need in a bloody word processor?

Yes, I agree with you there.

Originally Posted by besson3c

There is not necessarily a difference in skill and talent between "professional programmers" and "hobbyists". There are many OSS developers who are also professional, paid developers, and many OSS developers that can easily compete with the calibre of programmer a company would hire. How many companies have the resources to produce an operating system kernel? A web browser? This is not easy!

This is a false dichotomy. Open Source is not necessarily "unprofessional", or weaker than commercial vendors in all areas.

Well, Microsoft produce their OS and browser but they aren't the best products so I will agree with the point that there are certain things only an open source system could do well.

Originally Posted by goMac

You have big big companies who will only buy the $350 PC bundles from Dell because they are cheap and they don't care about performance. This is a market Apple will never enter, and does not want to enter. But what's better for Apple? If those Dells are running Mac OS X or if those Dells are running Windows?

Exactly.

To the people who don't think there should be a generic version, why do you think that? The opposition just say no as they would have done to Apple making a multi-button mouse but little to no reason as to why it would be a bad thing.

If Microsoft make the majority of their revenue from OS sales and they are worth $30-40 billion, imagine if Apple could wrestle 40% of the market from them. The amount they'd make in OS sales would be enormous.

The point about supporting generic hardware is a major factor though as someone pointed out. Apple are already having driver issues with NVidia under 10.4.3 with current limited hardware. To try and expand that support could be a major task. But to resolve that issue, they could just say that they only support certain hardware configuartions.

There's no reason why Apple couldn't put on the back of the box that they must have an NVidia or ATI GPU and a certain type of processor. Video games manufacturers do it all the time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

VLC is the only one of these I use. Safari is better than Firefox, and Thunderbird for Mac is just plain lousy.

Firefox is actually better if you are a web developer, as Safari still has at least a few rendering bugs that Firefox doesn't. With my own site, for instance, Safari won't render the page properly in XHTML Strict 1.0. There are also a lot of sites that flat out don't work in Safari but will in Firefox.

Firefox has the better rendering engine, Safari has the better interface and OS X integration.

Thunderbird is not lousy, particularly 1.5. I prefer OS X Mail, but I'll take Thunderbird over Entourage any day of the week. I like the Extensions thing, and I like the fact that Thunderbird supports the Kolab Groupware server. I'm not sure if OS X Mail can even be extended by third parties to do stuff like this.

The point remains: we benefit from OSS big time.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by osxrules

The point about supporting generic hardware is a major factor though as someone pointed out. Apple are already having driver issues with NVidia under 10.4.3 with current limited hardware. To try and expand that support could be a major task. But to resolve that issue, they could just say that they only support certain hardware configuartions.

Take a look at the OS X x86 forums sometime. Many people already have their generic PC boxes working perfectly with OS X. Those that have odd AMD boards which Apple isn't directly supporting have written their own drivers, for an OS that isn't even available to most people. I'm betting Apple is watching this to see how hard it would be to support all the different kinds of PC hardware, and they're seeing it's so easy, a small forum of geeks is writing all the myriad OS X Intel drivers.

[besson3c]

I think Apple will slowly move in the direction of opening up OS X to the masses. You guys under-estimate the power of market penetration.

The challenge will be to transition to a sustainable business model. This might be in OS X licenses, creating hardware that everybody would want, software, or something else altogether.

I think Apple will eventually run out of neat things to add to OS X that people will want to buy. When they can no longer get away with selling the operating system, why not make OS X freely available to at least current Mac owners? Really, I have a hard time coming up with a long list of features I would want in OS X that would be worth paying for. I can't help thinking that, like Office, the Mac operating system will eventually reach a point where it becomes difficult to come up with any astounding new innovations.

Of course, OS X will constantly improve, I'm talking about innovative, ground-breaking new features. I also don't think that we'll hit this ceiling in the immediate future.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by DeathMan

Dell is unlikely, except under very strict circumstances. Basically Apple would have to define which components get used, taking away Dell's ability to make crappy computers. I don't think this would go over very well with Dell, as making crappy computers is their primary business.

Mr. Dell already said he would sell machines with OSX if he was allowed.

[besson3c]

I don't understand why everyone is so fearful that people hacking OS X to run on their generic PCs will be the death of Apple. There has always been a small minority of people who like to hack things. This is a contained population that isn't terribly harmful or threatening to Apple as a whole.

Ordinary users are not going to download a hacked up version of OS X from Bittorrent (the bandwidth and patience alone would be a huge deterrent).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Firefox is actually better if you are a web developer, as Safari still has at least a few rendering bugs that Firefox doesn't. With my own site, for instance, Safari won't render the page properly in XHTML Strict 1.0. There are also a lot of sites that flat out don't work in Safari but will in Firefox.

The opposite is also true. Take the Acid2 test, for example.

[Dark Helmet]

Double gayness

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Firefox is actually better if you are a web developer, as Safari still has at least a few rendering bugs that Firefox doesn't. With my own site, for instance, Safari won't render the page properly in XHTML Strict 1.0. There are also a lot of sites that flat out don't work in Safari but will in Firefox.

Hmm... Safari bug or bug in your code? Gotta look at it both ways.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

Hmm... Safari bug or bug in your code? Gotta look at it both ways.

My theory is that it is a Safari bug, since it works fine in all other browsers (even IE 6), and Safari works fine in XHTML transitional.

In any case, since XHTML transitional is a perfectly valid mode, I just left it set accordingly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The opposite is also true. Take the Acid2 test, for example.

True...

I don't really understand why some sites work in Firefox but not Safari. With the exception I've described, there has NEVER been a time that something I developed worked in Firefox didn't work in Safari, or vice versa. When I come across systems that work in Firefox but not Safari, they are often banking sites, various University systems, and some web apps like Zimbra. Both FF and Safari are so dependable as being standards complaint, this is hardly ever a problem. IE 6 on the other hand....

My point is, even though I don't use Firefox primarily either, it is a *very* solid backup browser, and absolutely vital in testing pages.

The fact you don't use more OSS may speak more to your interests or the strengths of OSS, rather than the quality of OSS. OSS is quite strong within internet/network apps, development, and perhaps some research stuff (which I know little about). If you work in media, for instance, you have little reason to delve into OSS on the Mac. I'm just saying, just because you don't personally use these tools doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that they suck.

We are also spoiled because we use the best GUI in existence, IMHO. If the choice was between Windows or OSS, perhaps this would also sway your opinions.

[besson3c]

For anyone that cares, I just thought of a couple of other OSS titles I depend upon on the Mac:

- Lame mp3 encoder
- BitTorrent (okay, maybe I don't absolutely *depend* upon this one =)

Of course, there are several web-based and server-side OSS apps I depend upon too....

[Cubeoid]

I gotta side with besson3c on this issue. His point is valid and sweet.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

I gotta side with besson3c on this issue. His point is valid and sweet.

I would vote for you if you ran for president. I like the cut of your jib.


P.S. what is a jib?

[Cubeoid]

Jib jib jibbidy jibber jab jib jibiddy jibbo jab.

A jibbidy jabber jibby jab comes from an old sailor expression.

jimminy jicket jack jooty john jack jibbity joob job jam jerm.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

Jib jib jibbidy jibber jab jib jibiddy jibbo jab.

A jibbidy jabber jibby jab comes from an old sailor expression.

jimminy jicket jack jooty john jack jibbity joob job jam jerm.

Do you know lots of old sailors?

[Cubeoid]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

That looks like Captain Haddock... my wife dated him in College.