OS X coming to PCs...What the hell?

Well, I remember when IBM created the BIOS. A little while later, others reverse engineered it and "functionally duplicated" the BIOS. IBM took these guys to court and lost their ass.

What it comes down to is that people will always want what they cant have, It's human nature. Take this for an example, I have a turbo chargered car that was never imported into the united states as a standard. So being as i want what i cant have i took the time and money to switch the car to a 5spd. People will do what it takes to get what they want so in due time OS X will be in some way on non-apple computers in the main stream(it might be 5-6 years but it will happen). Its why almost everyone is on here, yeah it might be fun to mess with computers and hack them but what it comes to is that OS X on non-apple hardware is what you cant have and you want it so you take that time to have it.... correct?

Ditto (err... um, OSx86?)

got me there! :censored2:

My dream is still that 10.5 will work unmodified on standard PC hardware- Apple changes TPM protection from preventing "unauthorised" installation to very strongly reminding users on non-Apple hardware that they're "unsupported" and should expect _no_ help from Apple should anything go wrong. But I'm just dreaming...

if that's true, it would be a milestone if computer history an apple would take back the top!

apple will make it

and vista sucks

Huh Great milestone you can already run osx under vmware

if that's true, it would be a milestone if computer history an apple would take back the top!

apple will make it

 

and vista sucks

Nah. Yet again people are being swept up by their fantasies. People are basically just saying what they wish would happen. Read the dang article carefully.

If Apple does ever permit wide distribution of OS X to PCs, it won't be for a few years. They'd have to be in a loooot of financial trouble before they resort to that. As I see it, business is booming for them.

Takuro is right again. Apple is not releasing OS X for pcs. I wished it would, but after I got my iBook, I am kind of glad they didn't. With controlling the hardware, the OS just runs great. Now I think the pricing of macs is kind of high, but now with the dual cores and quad cores, most are priced reasonably. If you truely want the most advanced OS on the planet and want a computer that will run, then a Mac is the way to go. If you want a box to tinker with, keep one with OSX86.

If you want a box to tinker with, keep one with OSX86.

couldnt agree more with you sandman, and i sure love to tinker

anyway parallels will bet on virtualisation of OSX...and it will be slow and wont get any Hardware acceleration.

OSX86 is the best it works native hehe

If Apple does ever permit wide distribution of OS X to PCs, it won't be for a few years.

The right time is *now*, when so many people have doubts about Vista.

If Apple forgoes this chance, it might be taken over by Linux:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,20860...VEMNL012207EOAD

If Apple forgoes this chance, it might be taken over by Linux:

 

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,20860...VEMNL012207EOAD

I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks.

Let me tell you something. My grandmother does not call me on the weekend to ask how much swap space she should allocate, nor does my dad, who is fairly competent with computers, recompile his kernel to get his wireless card working. Linux on the desktop is a complete failure. A re-org and structure to the Linux core might help a bit, but it's late in the game and still has yet to yield any actual results yet. Is it hopeful? Yeah, but I'm not going to inflict it on my dad quite yet. In 2 or 3 years we'll see what this grows into.

As a server, Linux rocks. As a desktop OS for the masses... it's {censored} right now.

-John

 

I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks.

 

Let me tell you something. My grandmother does not call me on the weekend to ask how much swap space she should allocate, nor does my dad, who is fairly competent with computers, recompile his kernel to get his wireless card working. Linux on the desktop is a complete failure. A re-org and structure to the Linux core might help a bit, but it's late in the game and still has yet to yield any actual results yet. Is it hopeful? Yeah, but I'm not going to inflict it on my dad quite yet. In 2 or 3 years we'll see what this grows into.

 

As a server, Linux rocks. As a desktop OS for the masses... it's {censored} right now.

 

-John

The usual {censored}. Your grandmother can't install an operating system anyway.

As to ease of use have you tried Linspire or Xandros of late? Or even Mandriva or SUSE (of course they need to be installed and configured by somebody knowledgeable)

Mac OS legal on a beige box could destroy Apple! Even more with the Intel Chips!

Not if Apple plays it's cards right. Which it did with the iPod. However I doubt if Jobs is smart enough to pull the same stunt twice.

Look. In the end, Apple must adhere to market demands to get OSX running on generic PC's. One way or another.

IF Apple was smart (which they weren't in this case) they'd invest in PC-hardware companies NOW. They should have bought ATI instead of let AMD run with it, and closely bind Apple PC's to ATi videocards for instance. That way that no matter whether you buy an Apple PC or non-Apple PC, you'd still need that ATI-card and they win. If Jobs is smart they'd go for AMD now and get ATI in the bargain. And then bind ATI- and AMDproducts for Apple PC's. That way he can still secure his grip as a "hardware"-vendor while opening up OSX for generic PC's (albeit folowing strict hardware specifications). If I was Jobs I would also see if there isn't an investment opportunity with Intel (since Apple PC's dominantly uses Intel cpu's NOW and Apple doesn't own Intel yet)

I deliberatly use the term Apple PC's since that's what they basicly are. The Apple Mac is dead so IMHO the proper term is Apple PC.

Ofcourse if Apple doesn't see this then they'd just be selling the OS and loose a fortune in hardware sales indeed. Especially as they haven't got a very good reputation regarding their notebook quality.

Unfortunatly all I see is Apple making mistakes instead of persuing good business decisions. They are lucky now (and resting on their iPod fame) but for how long?

However I'm not gonna discuss this again. I already mentioned in these forums what I believe Apple should have done with their computer products (which they didn't). The future will show how lang Apple will (still) last.

My bet... in the end Parallels can be the big winner. Selling Parallels+OSX+Windows+"a by Parallels designed PC specifically suited for these products".

Ofcourse this scenario could be used by other parties as well. What if Parallels buy Apple or AMD/ATI and starts building/selling computers including virtualisation. Or what if Intel buys Apple and bind Apple PC's exclusivly on Intel cpu's and chipsets. Then they can sell OSX as a standalone product knowing that you'd need an Intel CPU and intel chipsets exclusivly to use OSX. Then they'd be the big winner here.

Oh man... I'm giving clues away for everyone. They oughta hire ME as CEO :-)

Regards,

EPDM

The usual {censored}. Your grandmother can't install an operating system anyway.

As to ease of use have you tried Linspire or Xandros of late? Or even Mandriva or SUSE (of course they need to be installed and configured by somebody knowledgeable)

But why is that? My grandmother can, and has, installed Mac OS X. Insert disc, hold C. It's not hard, and there are no difficult choices. Point. click. easy. I made her set it up herself to get over the fear of it being hard. Also, why does my dad need a computer science major to install his computer for him?

You're right, some distros are better than others. But there are so many Linuxes that it's a guess which ones are best unless you try them all and who has time for that? And I admit to not going much further than SUSE and Fedora/RedHat lately. There are more Linuxes than editions of Windows... And that's bad for the average user looking to get their feet wet.

-John

 

I needed a good laugh this morning. Thanks.

 

Let me tell you something. My grandmother does not call me on the weekend to ask how much swap space she should allocate, nor does my dad, who is fairly competent with computers, recompile his kernel to get his wireless card working. Linux on the desktop is a complete failure. A re-org and structure to the Linux core might help a bit, but it's late in the game and still has yet to yield any actual results yet. Is it hopeful? Yeah, but I'm not going to inflict it on my dad quite yet. In 2 or 3 years we'll see what this grows into.

 

As a server, Linux rocks. As a desktop OS for the masses... it's {censored} right now.

 

-John

I agree. I've tried linux a couple of times i the past.

and both times it relly was a waste of timr, IMO. And very frustrating to set-up. And I'm pretty good at this stuff too.

But why is that? My grandmother can, and has, installed Mac OS X. Insert disc, hold C. It's not hard, and there are no difficult choices. Point. click. easy. I made her set it up herself to get over the fear of it being hard. Also, why does my dad need a computer science major to install his computer for him?

 

You're right, some distros are better than others. But there are so many Linuxes that it's a guess which ones are best unless you try them all and who has time for that? And I admit to not going much further than SUSE and Fedora/RedHat lately. There are more Linuxes than editions of Windows... And that's bad for the average user looking to get their feet wet.

 

-John

It doesn't surprise me that your grandmother can install OS X. As you rightly point out, there is nothing difficult about it. But I'd like to see her installing Windows XP, plus drivers, plus applications, downloading updates...

Installing Linspire or Xandros, on the other hand, is even easier than installing OS X, unless you have a more complicated setup, like dual booting.

There are too many Linux distros? Yes, that is true, but that shouldn't be a concern at all for a granny or every other newbie, because a knowledgeable person should choose a distro for them, install and set it up.

I agree. I've tried linux a couple of times i the past.

and both times it relly was a waste of timr, IMO. And very frustrating to set-up. And I'm pretty good at this stuff too.

I don't know what is wrong with you, people. I had been using computers only for one year when I decided to try Linux. The first day I tried Red Hat. The second Mandrake. I downloaded the isos, burnt them to CDs, partioned my hard drive and installed with (almost) zero problems. I have been a Linux user ever since. I have hardly ever needed help. I don't believe I am a genius.

okay guys...i will try to get back to the topic since you're fighting whether linux is as easy to install and use as OS X.

however I think Apple should hurry up and use the weakness of MS on Vista to release an OS X for the beige boxes.

It should be somehow less expensive than Vista and Apple would rock the market.

Cheers.

okay guys...i will try to get back to the topic since you're fighting whether linux is as easy to install and use as OS X.

 

however I think Apple should hurry up and use the weakness of MS on Vista to release an OS X for the beige boxes.

It should be somehow less expensive than Vista and Apple would rock the market.

 

Cheers.

How many times must this be bashed... OS X will never be an official operating system on generic PCs. Think about the driver support, the technical support, and the amount of money that would have to be spent in order to have every single piece of basic hardware to be supported. It's just not economically smart.

however I think Apple should hurry up and use the weakness of MS on Vista to release an OS X for the beige boxes.

That is what I have been trying to say all along. The Linux issue was an aside. I meant that if Apple is so fool not to exploit this unique moment, it could be overtaken even by Linux (which after all is free in both meanings of the word and runs on almost every beige hardware)

How many times must this be bashed... OS X will never be an official operating system on generic PCs. Think about the driver support, the technical support, and the amount of money that would have to be spent in order to have every single piece of basic hardware to be supported. It's just not economically smart.

Sorry but I don't agree with you on this topic.

1. I don't think Apple have to support all the possible platforms.
   
2. Didn't we get a lot of platforms to work!? (OSx86)
   
3. Apple won't have to invest that amount of money you talking about.
   
4. Last but not least Apple would benefit from the weakness of MS.
   

Cheers.

That is what I have been trying to say all along. The Linux issue was an aside. I meant that if Apple is so fool not to exploit this unique moment, it could be overtaken even by Linux (which after all is free in both meanings of the word and runs on almost every beige hardware)

Sorry but I don't agree with you too.

Apple might miss an opportunity but they won't overtaken by Linux.

Linux is often used by geeks who like to have something to play with.

The average Linux user isn't interested in an OS that simply runs out of the box.

Cheers.

Linux is often used by geeks who like to have something to play with.

The average Linux user isn't interested in an OS that simply runs out of the box.

Cheers.

Maybe. But that doesn't contradict the fact that there are distros designed with extreme ease of use in mind.

My dream is still that 10.5 will work unmodified on standard PC hardware- Apple changes TPM protection from preventing "unauthorised" installation to very strongly reminding users on non-Apple hardware that they're "unsupported" and should expect _no_ help from Apple should anything go wrong. But I'm just dreaming...

Dreamer... you're nothing but a dreamer...