Darwin is dead.

What's with all the comparisons to "homebuilt" and products hardware?

I like the builder's time is WORTHLESS; the time to build, the time necessary to individually install drivers; troubleshoot... Maybe the engineering work that goes into designing the ultimate configuration.

Let alone that homebuilt PC doesn't comes with just about every application you'll ever need. Safari, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDvd, iWeb, iDVD, Mail...That's quite a bit of software engineering to be paid for... For all I know, everyone here is just a big pirate. I'd love to see the prices of a comparably equiped PC (even homebuilt) to the STOCK mac in terms of hardware AND software.

it's apples and oranges... if you aren't willing to fork for the obvious benefits of a Mac, then shut up.

I buy a laptop every year... does that mean I'm just a huge money waster? NO! I understand the concept of getting what I pay for.

If they ever do license OSX... my guess is it would cost between $300-400 or more. <- It's by far more stable than the $200 XP nor does it come as bare.

THe title "Darwin is dead" is not really good. It just means that the x86 open source portion now no more longer be open. Apple does not want to change the low layer in their design. If you look at the design you will see the IOKit is deeply related to the kernel.

Why wouldn't they sell OS X as stand-alone? How much do you think it cost to press a DVD compared to constructing a MB and case and assembling it? I will NOT by Apple's crappy underpowered Intel hardware. Why the HELL would they use 2 year old processors in their NEW computers? I bought my 3Ghz Pentium D almost a year ago. And where are the Intel Power Macs with expansions slots and stuff? What garbage hardware for such an elegantly designed user interface....

Licensing the OS would mean Apple would have to invest quite a bit of time supporting all variations of hardware configuration or hand over the schematics to a lot companies.

Two year old processor? 2.0GHz Dual Core is way more than adequate, why waste money on a better CPU when you don't need one. It keeps the cost down, duh.

What the hell do you need an expansion slot for??? It comes with everything you need!

"I will NOT *buy* Apple's crappy ... hardware" ... Then you shall NOT have Apple's supreme software. No matter how you spin it, you get what you pay for.

{from the original article} Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system.

To my knowledge, OS-X has always been a proprietary operating system, hasn't it?

Why do people, tech writers included, insist on confusing Darwin and OS-X?

That's completely true, why they don't use the newest intel Processor?, that's something anyone can explain...

Core Duo is the newest Intel processor which is available in sufficient volume for manufacturing.

What pray tell would you have rather had them use?

To my knowledge, OS-X has always been a proprietary operating system, hasn't it?

 

Why do people, tech writers included, insist on confusing Darwin and OS-X?

OS X consists of many seperate parts. OS X is basicly, Darwin plus all the cool Apple magic which makes a mac a mac. This "magic" is mostly the user interface and all of the bundeled software, iLife, spot light, automator. Now nearly all the Darwin stuff came from Next and inturn from much older unix routes. Apple ported it to PowerPC and keeps updating it (untill recently). The rest of the stuff is all proprietry and has never been open sourced.

In general if apple conceived the idea and started the code base them selves apple doesn't open source it. You can't get access to the Finders code for instance.

Why the HELL would they use 2 year old processors in their NEW computers? I bought my 3Ghz Pentium D almost a year ago. And where are the Intel Power Macs with expansions slots and stuff? What garbage hardware for such an elegantly designed user interface....

Core Duo is quick but compared to the top spec pentmium D's its not that quick. But look at the heat sink on that Pentium D of yours then look at the one in a Mac Book Pro (arguably too small, but thats another topic). The big difference is power consumption, which is why they can make the iMac and Mac mini so small. They are in effect laptops, without the battery.

Now the place you would possibly see the Pentium D type chips is the Power Mac and X Serves. The only machines yet to switch. The word is apple is waiting for one of the newer chips on the intel road map, like they did for the core duo's. And no "Pro" will buy a new intel Power Mac with out all the pro apps being universal binaries (and that includes the 3rd part Adobe ones). So there is no need for an intel power hungry beast of a workstation that competes with your Pentium D, Yet. That day will come but its propbably a while off.

Core Duo is quick but compared to the top spec pentmium D's its not that quick. But look at the heat sink on that Pentium D of yours then look at the one in a Mac Book Pro (arguably too small, but thats another topic). The big difference is power consumption, which is why they can make the iMac and Mac mini so small. They are in effect laptops, without the battery.

 

Now the place you would possibly see the Pentium D type chips is the Power Mac and X Serves. The only machines yet to switch. The word is apple is waiting for one of the newer chips on the intel road map, like they did for the core duo's. And no "Pro" will buy a new intel Power Mac with out all the pro apps being universal binaries (and that includes the 3rd part Adobe ones). So there is no need for an intel power hungry beast of a workstation that competes with your Pentium D, Yet. That day will come but its propbably a while off.

EDIT: I can't read... ^ not in response to my post... but still relevant

I definitely wasn't implying that a Core Duo would be sufficient for a MacPro. If they use it, there will probably be like 4 of them. And the conversion in many major software companies have been underway since August of '05 (Adobe, etc). So I think it's safe to say that by this time next year if not sooner, most of the major stuff will be done/ready. Besides, I think you've forgotten that the MacPro will be along side of the next release of OSX (XP is incorporated somehow) which would allow those Mac hungry "Pros" to do what they need to get done at native speeds in the meantime.

The Mini and the iMac aren't professional platforms<- that's not their purpose and a Core Duo is plenty sufficient for those who aren't in need of a MacPro.

A Core Duo in the MacBooks (Pro) is definitely about as good as it gets... ?

as far as i understand the messages i´ve read about the closing of darwine, for me it seemes to be not that relevant for the existance of this comunity. i´m reading arround in here for a few monthes but all i´ve seen tells me that the comunity is strong enough to run every os it whant´s to. with or without things like darwine.

that´s why i´m not that concered about the message than otheres may be.

if this message realy means a posibility of apple shutting down theire entraces to prepare an os that can be sold for pcs it could realy be a good news. i hope so, because shutting down or building a wall has never stopped a hacker, it only creats a new target to be hacked. i hope apple understood this problem and is now going to find another more usefull solution against the pirates. the solution can be selling them what they whant to be allowed to buy. it´s a solution where apple is able to earn a lot of money...why the hell shouldn´t they whant to get this money? ;-)

guys, lets face it... this really is our fault... and i don't blame Apple at all for wanting to protect their property.

frankly, I regret ever having installed osx on generic x86.

tuxx

What's with all the comparisons to "homebuilt" and products hardware?

 

I like the builder's time is WORTHLESS; the time to build, the time necessary to individually install drivers; troubleshoot... Maybe the engineering work that goes into designing the ultimate configuration.

Microsoft doesn't write drivers for other companies. NVidia, Creative, ATI, etc write their own drivers using the DDK. They then have the option of paying to have MS certify them to be included with a windows build. Apple could do exactly the same.

As for the ultimate configuration, look at the Intel 945GTP Media Edition board:

4 SATA ports, 1 IDE port, 1 Floppy port, 1 Centronics, 1 Serial, Sigmatel 9223 HD Audio,

at least 3 1394 ports, 5 USB ports, GMA 950 video, 1 PCIE 16x, 3 PCIE 1x, 3 PCI

Mac Mini:

Same exact audio, chipset, video. Extra TPM chip that is only a copy protection key. Less of everything else.

How is that the best configuration?

Let alone that homebuilt PC doesn't comes with just about every application you'll ever need. Safari, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDvd, iWeb, iDVD, Mail...That's quite a bit of software engineering to be paid for... For all I know, everyone here is just a big pirate. I'd love to see the prices of a comparably equiped PC (even homebuilt) to the STOCK mac in terms of hardware AND software.

 

it's apples and oranges... if you aren't willing to fork for the obvious benefits of a Mac, then shut up.

 

I buy a laptop every year... does that mean I'm just a huge money waster? NO! I understand the concept of getting what I pay for.

 

If they ever do license OSX... my guess is it would cost between $300-400 or more. <- It's by far more stable than the $200 XP nor does it come as bare.

Tiger at the store doesn't come with anything besides the OS. iLife only comes with a new Mac, or you must buy it. I hardly think OS X is woth twice as much as Windows XP. And as for stability, my XP installation NEVER crashes, even with a CL sound card and an NVidia video card, neither of which did Microsoft plan on me putting in my computer, let alone TELL me that was what I was going to get.

when i read the topic title all i could think was...

"... of course he is, he died in 1882!"

ahem.

(sorry).

when i read the topic title all i could think was...

 

"... of course he is, he died in 1882!"

 

ahem.

 

(sorry).

Yep those contributions ....

Anyways , Leopard etc.. has to run existing Intel mac's which therefore should have a workaround to work outside of that config.

I don't think the problem is on the cost but the compatibility issues that represent to support all kind of Video cards, sound cards, motherboards and everything else.

The problem isn't the cost of pressing DVD's, supporting multiple platform, etc. The problem is that selling OSX for a generic PC reduces the perceived value of the Mac hardware, and opens the door wide open for clone makers that will cannibalize Apple's relatively high hardware margins. This is something Apple can't afford to do until they feel they've saturated the market with Macs.

If Apple really don't want to allow this forum in the net, haven't they found already a way to ban it?

NO. Apple, unlike the RIAA have learned that once you shut one down, a thousand will pop up and take it's place. People don't like to be bullied, and won't.

Sorry, but Apple is so stupid! I just hope that they read this Forum often.

They would make much more money by selling a unsupported version of OSx to normal computer users, now what will happen?

OSx86 People will start to use XP or Vista on their macs more than OSx86, and someday they will even drop osx from their macs.

Ms just need to start a marketing strategy like "give us osx and get or buy vista cheaper".

Then Apple will be forced to open OSX for all.

Sorry but they are soooo unbelievable stupid.

I would never buy a Hardware because of a Operating System. Most users buy macs just because their hardware looks good or because they have an ipod and think about a apple computer, too.

Anyway, osx is not that nice. (just looks nice)

Most stuff works much better on linux or windows.

The only pro i give osx is that they has Adobe software or other nice graphics software like windows and linux dont. But linux or windows is technicaly in a higher level.

Thats all!

PS: Sorry for my bad english!

Have a nice day

llimaa

There are some hackers still available. If i get a chance to learn, sure i will do it!!

What's with all the comparisons to "homebuilt" and products hardware?

 

I like the builder's time is WORTHLESS; the time to build, the time necessary to individually install drivers; troubleshoot... Maybe the engineering work that goes into designing the ultimate configuration.

 

Let alone that homebuilt PC doesn't comes with just about every application you'll ever need. Safari, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDvd, iWeb, iDVD, Mail...That's quite a bit of software engineering to be paid for... For all I know, everyone here is just a big pirate. I'd love to see the prices of a comparably equiped PC (even homebuilt) to the STOCK mac in terms of hardware AND software.

 

it's apples and oranges... if you aren't willing to fork for the obvious benefits of a Mac, then shut up.

 

I buy a laptop every year... does that mean I'm just a huge money waster? NO! I understand the concept of getting what I pay for.

 

If they ever do license OSX... my guess is it would cost between $300-400 or more. <- It's by far more stable than the $200 XP nor does it come as bare.

Oh, I should just shut up? How mature. Grow up kid. When you want to talk with the adults, let me know.

You don't get it do you? If the Macs were PPC based still (yes I know there are still PPC Macs you can buy, I mean totally PPC based), then I could see the cost. Custom built cpu's and everything. You know what you are getting so "custom"? The f'ing fancy case. Thats it. As proved on this site many times, the hardware to build a hachitosh that runs OSx86 perfectly is out there. The cpu's are not Jobs creation. The motherboard isn't Jobs creation. The ram, drives, and everything isn't Jobs creation. Now Apple is putting PC hardware together with nothing other than the design on the Mac itself being custom. So pray tell, why should I pay or want to pay some egomaniac like Jobs that thinks since he builds PC's in a custom box, puts at little piece of hardware that makes it to where you can only run OSX86 on it? Get real.

You talk about the laptops, that is a different ballfield. Every laptop is custom, thus your arguement is negated. On the desktops, the Macs are just not worth the price.

Oh, I should just shut up? How mature. Grow up kid. When you want to talk with the adults, let me know.

 

You don't get it do you? If the Macs were PPC based still (yes I know there are still PPC Macs you can buy, I mean totally PPC based), then I could see the cost. Custom built cpu's and everything. You know what you are getting so "custom"? The f'ing fancy case. Thats it. As proved on this site many times, the hardware to build a hachitosh that runs OSx86 perfectly is out there. The cpu's are not Jobs creation. The motherboard isn't Jobs creation. The ram, drives, and everything isn't Jobs creation. Now Apple is putting PC hardware together with nothing other than the design on the Mac itself being custom. So pray tell, why should I pay or want to pay some egomaniac like Jobs that thinks since he builds PC's in a custom box, puts at little piece of hardware that makes it to where you can only run OSX86 on it? Get real.

 

You talk about the laptops, that is a different ballfield. Every laptop is custom, thus your arguement is negated. On the desktops, the Macs are just not worth the price.

My apologies for using the term "shut up" ... ... perhaps next time I'll riddle my post with less pedestrian language; here's a clue, GROW UP. Just for you; It's apples and oranges, stop comparing them

Laptops, that's all I own. Click I'm not doubting that the computers can be sold cheaper, I'm sure everything can had for cheaper. Last I checked, Apple makes between 20-30% margins on their hardware. However, they make very little margins on their OS sales, iPods, but you're buying more than hardware... if you've used it you'd know... software, insanely great support (A+), regular updates are released, big ones every 6 months, little one everywhere else. It's inflated price is the cost of a superior OS, customer service, and updates. (it all cost money)

There is no way OSX can be sold as is for $200... (profitably) everyone who buy this already purchased a previous edition OS for Apple and already have a Mac. It's more like 200 for an upgrade... if it comes out, I seriously doubt it's goin to be cheap. I don't forsee OSX becoming licensed EVER. Apple/Jobs have vowed to keep it proprietary. I'm not saying that it wouldn't stimulate some serious growth for the company but it would certain be to their benefit to grow stable holding on to the reins.

Intel; I'm saying the benefits of a fully supported OSX and almost fully supported XP make these machines priceless in my book. Well worth the cost. Mac's dual boot in case you haven't heard.

You wouldn't have any complaints if it was cheaper... if it's not worth your pocketbook go somewhere else. You don't think they're are any highly qualified analysts working for Apple to decide "is this good for the company?" To say Apple is ignorant for not realizing the potential market for licensing their OS... Take a look at Microsoft today; huge, a joke in terms of PLC, and poor quality products overall. I'd say they've had a good decade and a half, but it's future is very shaky.

If everyone agreed with you, didn't buy the computer... it's cost would be forced to come down... but that's not the case is it? Computers are sold @ 1 mil/quarter

Again, get over yourself. Don't act like you made an "intelligent" post. You just didn't like what I and others said, we should just shut up. Uh huh. Don't use the same thing I told you (grow up) it makes your look childish.

Plain and simple, desktop Macs are not so different. You just tell yourself that Steve Jobs' machines are so different and light years ahead of the other x86 market. Newsflash: x86 has been around and had big technology improvements while Macs were PPC machines. If it wasn't for that chip on the motherboard, there is nothing different beside the case. Open your eyes and realize this. Dual boot XP? Makes them priceless? *shakes head* Uh, no. Hachintosh can do that as well.

OSX can be sold for whatever (as long as it wasn't higher than Windozes) and it would sell. If OSX86 came out on the shelves for all to use, it would sell out. Guaranteed. Again you are blinded by the Steve Jobs attitude you must have his hardware.

Also, I don't care if you think I should shut up or I should agree that Steve Jobs is God, I don't. Alot don't. This a forum where we can discuss and not argue and be told to keep our mouths shut. If you want that, then take it somewhere else.

Hey, no name calling.

Maturity is the order of the day. This is a forum where everyone's views are welcome, so go ahead and continue this thread on topic... sans the character attacks.

There is no way OSX can be sold as is for $200... (profitably)

Oh please...

OK, conversation #2158964543 about licensing out the Mac OS.

This was tried before with the clone era. Other boxes were sold by other companies that had the Mac OS preinstalled on them. At this point in time, we were in System 7 (around 7.5 if you really want to know). It did not increase the Macintosh market share. In fact, it cut into Apple's hardware profits and eventually was killed off by Apple.

Now going to the current Mac OS, it still wouldn't work to sell OSX86 for every system. Remember that Apple is first and foremost a HARDWARE COMPANY with software components. The entire point of the software is to get you to buy the hardware. It has nothing to do with you actually enjoying the software or anything like that. It has everything to do with selling more Mac boxes. Yeah, there are people (like me) that get mad because the new iLife won't run on a G3 system, but it was done on purpose. The purpose is to get you onto a new Mac. If you don't believe me, go click on the Apple Store and you'll see Mac boxes at the top of the page (below the ad that's most likely an iPod ad). There isn't any mention of software until the bottom of the page.

So let's say Apple does decide to shoot itself in the foot by selling OSX86. At $129, it will present itself with a significantly smaller profit margin that the cost of buying a new Mac. In order to stay afloat, Apple has to either:

1. Sell a hell of a lot of those disks, which won't happen. People seem to enjoy their Windows insecurity blanket and won't switch no matter how much the minority (that us, guys) say it's better. OR

2. Increase price, which in turn raises supply but lowers demand (holding all other things constant).

So Apple selling OS X for every system won't happen. It's economic suicide for Apple to do it. Now go and buy a Mac.

"Go and buy a Mac".

No. I will look into a buying a G4 Quicksilver PowerMac on ebay before I buy a new Intel Mac. You missed option 3:

3) Apple (Steve Jobs) gets his head out of his ass and realizes his "buddy" Bill Gates is richer than anybody cause he focussed on software and not hardware. Thus Apple goes software.

I mean it is SO STUPID for Jobs to keep on about hardware when he is using hardware that everybody else is using. When it was PPC, then it was different. Now? He is making a fool of himself. If Apple went pure software with OS X, iLife, iWork, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc. they would do well (of Course some hardware like the iPod and iSight) People could go to Walmart (yes Wally World), Target, Bestbuy, etc. and buy OS X. Then after they put it on their machine and see how much better it is, there would be competition! Duh. Another things about OS X going "open": more drivers and apps. When it is available to install on any x86 machine that meets some spec requirements, then a company like say Nvidia could just install it and try to develop for it. Why should companies like Nvidia buy Macs just to devleop for OS X? They shouldn't. OS X going mainstream would be awesome but Jobs is to stupid to see it.

I agree with point 3. In the days of old, back when clone makers were trying to sell both machines AND software (back then it may not have even been software, I don't know, firmware?) they definitely were messing with their own profits. So much else was wrong in the company, this had to go. Jobs killed it off, rightfully so. Apple couldn't compete with the clones because Apple had its own internal issues from the books I've read.

Now, we are talking about software, not clones. Macs remain proprietary as long as they have that cute little piece of fruit on the case, and all the marketing and "cult' that goes with it. I own one, I love it. The experience is different, BTW, but I won't say better. I spend my days implementing pc and server equipment by the truckload for large organizations. I use a PC as often as I do a mac, and I get to play with a lot of different OS.

We aren't talking about PC vs Mac anymore. Macs are PCs with a proprietary, make that different, OS. I will give Apple some credit for innovations (true innovations, not the M$ kind), and they are often imitated or integrated by other hardware & software manufacturers. Yes, margins are important to fund R&D, but the profits of 5% marketshare vs, well, how about 25% overnight, means a lot of capital despite lower per unit markup. Lost opportunity to sell a mac, talk about a weak argument.

I believe the concept of Mac has in fact become the OS. The designer cases will continue, and should. If Apple wants to grow, they have to release the OS to run on what has become a variety of beize boxes. Make that limited variety (say the big 3, HP, Dell, IBM) and only in certain certified configurations. M$ has the better business model. One that Apple is stupid not to mimic. If you want to remain elite, and you want a "real mac", buy your designer case at the local cool apple store complete with working Intel internals. That is cool, and will/should continue. Market the hell out of it apple, you got something going.

But. . .

This will never sell by the truckload to large corporate enterprise. . . a software licensed, likely can and would find its way in. People want an alternative, apple can give it to them. Just like it did back in the Apple II days. This time it doesn't involve other companies building hardware, the hardware is already out there. It means selling the bits and bytes at no real cost. . and the "opportunity cost" of not doing it far outweighs the "opportunity cost" of some lost hardware sales in the consumer market.

Now, trying to stay on topic, having an open kernel is a part of this. People and organizations want options, and closing the kernel limits us. Not now, but in the future, and not just pirates and thieves, but legitimate licensed users. I continue to hope it is only temporary.

"Go and buy a Mac".

No. I will look into a buying a G4 Quicksilver PowerMac on ebay before I buy a new Intel Mac. You missed option 3:

 

3) Apple (Steve Jobs) gets his head out of his ass and realizes his "buddy" Bill Gates is richer than anybody cause he focussed on software and not hardware. Thus Apple goes software.

 

I mean it is SO STUPID for Jobs to keep on about hardware when he is using hardware that everybody else is using. When it was PPC, then it was different. Now? He is making a fool of himself. If Apple went pure software with OS X, iLife, iWork, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc. they would do well (of Course some hardware like the iPod and iSight) People could go to Walmart (yes Wally World), Target, Bestbuy, etc. and buy OS X. Then after they put it on their machine and see how much better it is, there would be competition! Duh. Another things about OS X going "open": more drivers and apps. When it is available to install on any x86 machine that meets some spec requirements, then a company like say Nvidia could just install it and try to develop for it. Why should companies like Nvidia buy Macs just to devleop for OS X? They shouldn't. OS X going mainstream would be awesome but Jobs is to stupid to see it.

I love it when people go overboard based on only the last sentence.

So let's say Apple does decide to shoot itself in the foot by selling OSX86. At $129, it will present itself with a significantly smaller profit margin that the cost of buying a new Mac. In order to stay afloat, Apple has to either:

1. Sell a hell of a lot of those disks, which won't happen. People seem to enjoy their Windows insecurity blanket and won't switch no matter how much the minority (that us, guys) say it's better. OR

2. Increase price, which in turn raises supply but lowers demand (holding all other things constant).