Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

quiklee · Sep 11, 2006, 08:00 PM

Since all Macs are now Intel-based and the current OSX are compatible, how hard would it be for Jobs to tell his engineers to make leopard for both macs and pcs? is it still a hardware issue?

Wouldn't this be a great way to ring in the new year at MacWorld? The new mac ad would be the PC just getting a complete makeover by the Fab 5!

CharlesS · Sep 11, 2006, 08:06 PM

It's not a hardware issue. It's an Apple doesn't want to kill their hardware sales issue.

And it would kill their hardware sales, because potential customers would realize that they would now be able to get an expandable computer to run OS X on without winning the lottery.

mduell · Sep 11, 2006, 08:21 PM

From a technical point of view, the changes are minor.

From a business point of view, the change would be huge.

blackbird_1.0 · Sep 11, 2006, 08:30 PM

besson3c · Sep 11, 2006, 08:33 PM

I can see Apple doing something like this in the future, but I don't think they are ready to yet.

I think the first step would be to provide some sort of Windows app compatability layer, be it Xen or Wine based. If they did that and opened up OS X to run on generic PCs, they could kill off a huge percentage of Microsoft's business in software sales.

porieux · 01:55 AM

...

Chuckit · Sep 11, 2006, 08:43 PM

If it were useful enough to be attractive, there would not be enough incentive to upgrade. If it were crippled enough to require people to upgrade, people wouldn't be impressed.

porieux · 01:55 AM

...

Hi I'm Ben · Sep 11, 2006, 09:08 PM

Nice misleading title. As for Apple supporting Leopard on PC? Highly highly doubtful. Hell already froze over once, i don't think it's going to happen again.

scattered · Sep 11, 2006, 09:13 PM

No, because this way Apple hardware can run everything while PC's have a disadvantage.

kcmac · Sep 11, 2006, 09:34 PM

MS already does this candy wrapper thing with XP Home. Isn't that essentially Windows Lite?

CharlesS · Sep 11, 2006, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by scattered

No, because this way Apple hardware can run everything while PC's have a disadvantage.

While PC's what have a disadvantage?

dimmer · Sep 11, 2006, 09:58 PM

Nope: back when the Xserve was intro'd we had to beg and plead to get support for a DB9 console port. Apple had let all the "Serial Port Engineers" go. Apple can't and won't support your PC XT with it's Hercules graphics card, nor your Dalienware SLI overheating floor ornament: Apple writes pretty much all the drivers for videos, printers, cameras et al: they are not about to extend that out to end up with a fugly PCish crashtastic architecture. Apple has always sold on vertical integration: not gonna change soon.

Or would you rather see the beta of 10.0 in 2008?

porieux · 01:55 AM

...

baw · Sep 11, 2006, 10:47 PM

goMac · Sep 11, 2006, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by porieux

With Mac OSX Lite™ they wouldn't have to worry about such things...

Sooo... loading display drivers so OS X could actually display things on the screen wouldn't be important in this OS X lite of yours? Or sound? Or networking?

I mean, forget that a lot of PC's can't really boot well from an iPod and don't have EFI...

Chuckit · Sep 11, 2006, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by porieux

With Mac OSX Lite™ they wouldn't have to worry about such things...

It's magic.

quiklee · Sep 12, 2006, 04:12 AM

so i guess it's not hard to do . . . . what's stopping someone from making those "minor" changes and releasing it out to the world?

analogika · Sep 12, 2006, 04:20 AM

Not much, since that's exactly what people have been doing.

Of course, that's piracy and a violation of copyrights, so it's quite illegal - which may explain why it's not terribly widespread.

Apart from that, there is the "search" button at the top of this page. Use it. The subject has been covered at least a few dozen times over the past years.

porieux · 01:55 AM

...

Tyre MacAdmin · Sep 12, 2006, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I can see Apple doing something like this in the future, but I don't think they are ready to yet.

I think the first step would be to provide some sort of Windows app compatability layer, be it Xen or Wine based. If they did that and opened up OS X to run on generic PCs, they could kill off a huge percentage of Microsoft's business in software sales.

I agree. There actually is a project out there already:

CodeWeavers - CrossOver Mac

I'm really not sure how much it would cut in to their profits to release OS X to other companies. I think the software sales would pick up considerably. Dell has even expressed interest in using OS X as an OS for their boxen.

Mediaman_12 · Sep 12, 2006, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

I agree. There actually is a project out there already:

CodeWeavers - CrossOver Mac

I'm really not sure how much it would cut in to their profits to release OS X to other companies. I think the software sales would pick up considerably. Dell has even expressed interest in using OS X as an OS for their boxen.

But Apple IS a HARDWARE company, making most of there money selling 'THINGS'. In the same way that the iTMS is used to drive iPod sales (Apples profit directly from the iTMS is fairly marginal) OSX is used to drive sales of Mac's. The OS it the Mac's main USP release it for commodity PC boxes and that USP is gone. Apple would have to shift a huge number of OS's to make up the profit lost from the HW side.

Tyre MacAdmin · Sep 12, 2006, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

But Apple IS a HARDWARE company.

Yes... but thing's are changing. When Apple owned intellectual property in the PowerPC chip that made more sense.

Looking at the long run it might be more profitable to change that. Look at iTunes on the PC... that's a huge chunk of profit that was unreachable before they released it to PC land.

OS X is cool... XP and Vista are not. What would every kid want on their system if they had a choice? OS X!

OreoCookie · Sep 12, 2006, 07:33 AM

I think this discussion should continue in the Lounge …

Big Mac · Sep 12, 2006, 07:36 AM

Should it continue? Anyway, placing this thread in the Lounge at this time - right before the event and with that misleading title - could really give people the false impression that it's news.

analogika · Sep 12, 2006, 07:45 AM

I'm surprised he thinks this discussion should continue at all...

http://forums.macnn.com/90/mac-os-x/...s+x+generic+pc
http://forums.macnn.com/90/mac-os-x/...s+x+generic+pc
http://forums.macnn.com/90/mac-os-x/...s+x+generic+pc
http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...s+x+generic+pc

As well as dozens and dozens of rehashes in just about every hardware product release thread since the announcement of the Intel transition in August 2005, plus probably a dozen around that time that I was just too lazy to search all the way back to...

- - e r i k - - · Sep 12, 2006, 08:07 AM

OK, lay off the noob. It's a common mistake when you have no idea how a business is run, as analogika has pointed out.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Sep 12, 2006, 08:13 AM

In theory you could use OS X 10.5/4 on a PC. But you would be slowly killing Apple and you could get arrested.

Gossamer · Sep 12, 2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by porieux

Yes, it wouldn't be important because those people could just drive a TV/Monitor directly instead.

What do you mean 'drive a monitor directly'? Drive a monitor without a graphics card? Even onboard graphics require drivers (although the GMA900/950 drivers are built into OS X and work well). Like others have said, Apple writes their own drivers to ensure maximum compatibility between their hardware and OS. It would be a freaking massive nightmare if they had to reliably support every possible combination of self-built hardware. Just like going back to a beta.

Mastrap · Sep 12, 2006, 10:27 AM

One of the main reasons why OS X is so stable is that Apple doesn't have to worry about lil Johnny building his own PC from random parts in his basement. MS does.

As others have pointed out, Apple is a HARDWARE company, not a software company.

Chuckit · Sep 12, 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Yes... but thing's are changing. When Apple owned intellectual property in the PowerPC chip that made more sense.

Looking at the long run it might be more profitable to change that. Look at iTunes on the PC... that's a huge chunk of profit that was unreachable before they released it to PC land.

OS X is cool... XP and Vista are not. What would every kid want on their system if they had a choice? OS X!

And would every kid buy a Mac Pro to run it on? Not a chance in hell!

Apple's profits come from hardware. The OS is a selling point for that hardware.

Big Mac · Sep 12, 2006, 11:45 AM

Playing devil's advocate, if Apple could significantly expand the legally installed base of OS X machines, then software margins would compensate for the loss of hardware sales. Conceivable, never going to happen, but conceivable.

mitchell_pgh · Sep 12, 2006, 12:23 PM

This conversation has been debated to death over the years. The basic conclusion is... Apple can't just release the OS for any PC hardware because it would cannibalize their hardware sales... thus hurting the company in general. That position is changing, but it's still as true today as it was a number of years ago.

ALSO, OS X has been able to so rapidly evolve because, unlike XP/Vista, Apple knows exactly what hardware they have to develop for.

Originally Posted by Mediaman_12

But Apple IS a HARDWARE company, making most of there money selling 'THINGS'. In the same way that the iTMS is used to drive iPod sales (Apples profit directly from the iTMS is fairly marginal) OSX is used to drive sales of Mac's. The OS it the Mac's main USP release it for commodity PC boxes and that USP is gone. Apple would have to shift a huge number of OS's to make up the profit lost from the HW side.

It's not an "either or" situation. Apple is a hardware, Operating System AND software company. I don't buy from Apple because they have amazing hardware [they do, but that's just the icing on the cake]. I buy because they have an amazing OS and a number of nifty applications that are wonderfully OPENLY-integrated into the OS. So to say that Apple is ONLY a hardware company is false, because if they ONLY sold hardware, I doubt they would be nearly in the situation they are in today.

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Look at iTunes on the PC... that's a huge chunk of profit that was unreachable before they released it to PC land.

Apple has never made one penny from iTunes. Apple created iTunes it so that Apple could control the whole widget. iPod --> iTunes --> iTunes Music Store. I might agree with you if iTunes worked with any old MP3 player, but it basically only works with an iPod... and the only place you can buy music from is from their store. Apple sells a great product, but they only want to be getting money from Windows, not giving it to them.

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

OS X is cool... XP and Vista are not. What would every kid want on their system if they had a choice? OS X!

This just isn't true. Yes, OS X is cool, but kids love games... Also, many kids don't make the purchasing decision in the family.

Big Mac · Sep 12, 2006, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Apple has never made one penny from iTunes.

I'm pretty sure that's false. The iTunes Store has been profitable on its own. It doesn't add substantially to the bottom line, but it's certainly made far more than a penny.

Gossamer · Sep 12, 2006, 12:55 PM

They've sold over 1 billion songs at $.99 each. Excluding free downloads and such, I'm guessing they've spent less than that on license fees and royalties, I don't know how you'd calculate costs of software development though. I'd bet they've made a couple bucks off of it.

quiklee · Sep 12, 2006, 08:41 PM

did someone refer to me as a noob? =)

Big Mac · Sep 12, 2006, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by quiklee

did someone refer to me as a noob? =)

Indeed.

Angus_D · Sep 16, 2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by blackbird_1.0

Velocity211 · Sep 16, 2006, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by quiklee

Since all Macs are now Intel-based and the current OSX are compatible, how hard would it be for Jobs to tell his engineers to make leopard for both macs and pcs? is it still a hardware issue?

Wouldn't this be a great way to ring in the new year at MacWorld? The new mac ad would be the PC just getting a complete makeover by the Fab 5!

No, just no

andreas_g4 · Sep 16, 2006, 02:24 PM

Did any of you ask if the original poster is serious?

Gossamer · Sep 16, 2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

Did any of you ask if the original poster is serious?

It's been asked enough times that we assume s/he is.

Salty · Sep 16, 2006, 06:26 PM

Oi... vey.

Jobs could put Leopard on PCs.. they could also discontinue all machines but the Mac mini. The problem is such decisions aren't wise.

Oh and the iTunes store is making money. Not tons, but a decent enough chunk.

porieux · 01:54 AM

...

turtle777 · Sep 16, 2006, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by porieux

I think they should release an OSX-Lite™

Brilliant.

Just disable printing, saving and teh intarweb.

-t

besson3c · Sep 16, 2006, 10:50 PM

Let's face it though guys. Apple is a niche/boutique market company. They are targeting a very specific and limited audience.

Some of us would say that we hope things stay this way, but others hope for Apple to grow and someday upset Microsoft. In order to do this, they are going to have to do some things that I guarantee many of us in here will dislike.

Gossamer · Sep 17, 2006, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by porieux

Nice try, but the iPod is ALREADY able to drive a monitor. It's just a question of what it displays on it and how you interface with it.

I don't think you understand what you're talking about. The iPod doesn't drive a monitor, it puts out a low resolution composite video signal. And to do that it has software working in sync with specific hardware.