OS X on Intel Still Not Complete

............................................

Well , that kind of defeats the purpose, that would mean that mac is going back to what they were doing before.. Proprietary hardware and software..

 

no change

Things are not supposed to change. The only change is in the CPU and its platform. The PPC970 CPU and chipset weren't any more closed than the Intel ones.

Since nobody plays games on Macs, and there aren't likely to be any commercial games on OX X Intel for a good long while,

 

It's really funny to see all these answers here - most of you guys have absolute no idea about the Mac and the people who use Macs - we customers are the spirit of the Macintosh. We buy the stuff. We pay it. We decide if something will be a success or not. You can't think about PC world when you want to look at Apples future.

 

Their is a huge community of mac players - not any bit smaller than PC players when you compare both systems to itself.

 

Sure OSX 10.5 will be NEVER released for intel first - thats nonsense - Also Apple will not let OS X work on any other than their hardware - if they would do it would be apples end within some years - you guys forgot that 139,- for just the system is way to cheap (esp. your pirates $0,-) and Apple is still the inventor of the PC Industry and still lives from selling hardware (last quarter more macs then the last years before esp. G5 towers). No, music and the iPod is NOT Apples major income - it's still the Mac, look at the quarterly reports.

 

They also have no need to use intel chipsets because of their cheaper price, or it would be easier for them or whatever - we users have no problem to pay a little bit more for their own - do they used IBMs motherboards for the G5? No! Also Apple don't have to worry about the "bad quality" of other companies chipsets when they as usual build their own - someone said this really, really illogical thing somewhere in this thread. I want to buy a Mac not something else.

 

When Apple officially said that 10.5 will be out in 2007 then it will be out in 2007 and not in 2006. And you can be sure it will be realeased for PPC and x86 Macs at the same time. The title of this thread is wrong it's normal that apple releases 10.4.2 for x86 too - they did it since years. But this time they had to do something new: Send you guys an answer. And it's good that they show you now that your efforts in OS X are useless and that they will stop you from using the final version and apps that are compiled today. We mac users don't want people to f**k up the fame of our system with their own build drivers and other bad working {censored}. Go home to windows where you came from or BUY A MAC IF YOU WANT ONE!

It's really funny to see all these answers here - most of you guys have absolute no idea about the Mac and the people who use Macs - we customers are the spirit of the Macintosh. We buy the stuff. We pay it. We decide if something will be a success or not. You can't think about PC world when you want to look at Apples future.

 

Their is a huge community of mac players - not any bit smaller than PC players when you compare both systems to itself.

 

Sure OSX 10.5 will be NEVER released for intel first - thats nonsense - Also Apple will not let OS X work on any other than their hardware - if they would do it would be apples end within some years - you guys forgot that 139,- for just the system is way to cheap (esp. your pirates $0,-) and Apple is still the inventor of the PC Industry and still lives from selling hardware (last quarter more macs then the last years before esp. G5 towers). No, music and the iPod is NOT Apples major income - it's still the Mac, look at the quarterly reports.

 

They also have no need to use intel chipsets because of their cheaper price, or it would be easier for them or whatever - we users have no problem to pay a little bit more for their own - do they used IBMs motherboards for the G5? No! Also Apple don't have to worry about the "bad quality" of other companies chipsets when they as usual build their own - someone said this really, really illogical thing somewhere in this thread. I want to buy a Mac not something else.

 

When Apple officially said that 10.5 will be out in 2007 then it will be out in 2007 and not in 2006. And you can be sure it will be realeased for PPC and x86 Macs at the same time. The title of this thread is wrong it's normal that apple releases 10.4.2 for x86 too - they did it since years. But this time they had to do something new: Send you guys an answer. And it's good that they show you now that your efforts in OS X are useless and that they will stop you from using the final version and apps that are compiled today. We mac users don't want people to f**k up the fame of our system with their own build drivers and other bad working {censored}. Go home to windows where you came from or BUY A MAC IF YOU WANT ONE!

Wow. Mac zealot at it's finest!

Also Apple don't have to worry about the "bad quality" of other companies chipsets when they as usual build their own - someone said this really, really illogical thing somewhere in this thread.

I didn't say that Apple worries about the quality of third-party chipsets. They never were interested in them. What I said was that the major reason for Apple to make the shift to Intel was the excellent and promising design of Intel's upcoming processors combined with their platformization approach. And no, Apple will not build their own chipsets (just wait and see), as there is absolutely no need for them to do that. Doing that would be a serious waste of resources.

 

I find it strange that people like you seem to depend on a "gizmo" like custom-made chipsets (as there's isn't the PowerPC-RISC thing any longer) to be able to honour Apple's capability of building nice, interesting and appealing computers that are technologically advanced. It really seems to be true what Hannibal on Ars Technica said about the PPC serving as the "spiritual power center" for the small crowd of hyper-fanatized hardcore Apple afficionados, who will be desperately searching for something new that can fill the void.

 

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars/2

 

I want to buy a Mac not something else.

Please define: what is a "Mac", what is its essence? If it's a computer for the happy few with an Apple Macintosh label on it, powered by a PowerPC processor with an exotic chipset and capable of running OS X, you will have to resort to a Pegasos and adorn it with your own self-made feel-good Apple Mac sticker in the future...

 

http://www.pegasosppc.com/

 

We mac users don't want people to f**k up the fame of our system with their own build drivers and other bad working {censored}. Go home to windows where you came from or BUY A MAC IF YOU WANT ONE!

"We mac users"? There are quite a few of them actively engaged on this forum, actually... Anyway, why would the fact that some geeks are studying the inner workings of Mac OS X inflict damage on Apple's reputation? Funny idea. Besides that, I still doubt that anyone on this forum will succeed in writing a driver that is even at least remotely working.

Wow. Mac zealot at it's finest!

 

RDF!

 

Not all of us are like that!

 

I think that future macs will of course use OTS intel chipsets just like Dell's use: intel chipsets with sometimes oddball only-useable-in-a-Dell mobo/psu/case.

Apple is still the inventor of the PC Industry and still lives from selling hardware (last quarter more macs then the last years before esp. G5 towers). No, music and the iPod is NOT Apples major income - it's still the Mac, look at the quarterly reports.

 

Do you even know how to read a quarterly report? The Ipod line is much more profitable, and their sales are growing much quicker than desktops or portables. Comparing the 3 months ending in june to that of last year, total mac unit sales have increased by 35%. While total Ipod unit sales have increased by 616%.

 

Now which do you think played a larger role in Apple's net income increasing from 61 million to 320 million for the same time period?

Do you even know how to read a quarterly report? The Ipod line is much more profitable, and their sales are growing much quicker than desktops or portables. Comparing the 3 months ending in june to that of last year, total mac unit sales have increased by 35%. While total Ipod unit sales have increased by 616%.

 

Now which do you think played a larger role in Apple's net income increasing from 61 million to 320 million for the same time period?

 

ipod reached saturation of consumption - there will be no increased 616% ipod sales next year.

 

If it's a computer for the happy few with an Apple Macintosh label on it,...

 

yes it is... but "few" is the decission of all these people who use other systems.

 

and you guys can try what you want at the end you will not get what you want. i know it, you know it - why do you still dream of something which will never happen? The final OS X for x86 will run on Macs only.

 

And no, Apple will not build their own chipsets (just wait and see), as there is absolutely no need for them to do that. Doing that would be a serious waste of resources.

 

following your logic the Mac and OS X itself is a serious waste of resources.

 

 

Anyway, why would the fact that some geeks are studying the inner workings of Mac OS X inflict damage on Apple's reputation? Funny idea. Besides that, I still doubt that anyone on this forum will succeed in writing a driver that is even at least remotely working.

 

sure - other people will think macs have problems like your machines.

 

at all you pseudo geek guys are 21 years late

osx is the greatest os for now.

but there is a serious lake of software.

i want to have winfdows and osx runing on the same machine.

and i'm sure it will be possible.

 

you can scream and shout it's too late now.

you can blame microsoft for crappy os and you can blame apple for expensive hardware.

because emac sucks and mac mini too

far way too expensive.

The Dev kits are definately not preproduction or prototype x86 macs, so I believe Apple will make thier own mobo with a proprietary chipset and develope the OS so that FULL functionality is only capable with the x86 macs.

 

Apple stands at a unique place in that they have OS X running on Intel boxes with Rosetta allowing it to run PPC code. At the same time there is the Darwine project, and yeah it does allow you to run Windows applications. Codeweavers, a maker of commercial wine for Linux, has already pledged to write a version of Crossover Office for Mac Intel Based systems. So what do we have here is an operating system that could have the possibility to run:

 

1.- Native OS X applications.

2.- PPC Developed applications through Rosetta

3.- Windows applications through Darwine / Crossover Office

4.- Linux / BSD / Open Source Software which will run under the included X windows

 

This would inspire me to buy an Intel based Mac, I've owned four or five macs in the past, although right now all I have is a Dell, so this isn't a great leap for me to make the switch. However where it falls short is the person who isn't the most computer literate, been using Windows -- doesn't like it very much because of all the crashes, viruses etc, but knows that Start -> Run -> Programs -> Outlook will allow him to read his email.

 

What Apple needs to do is make OS X run on as many computers as possible, make it easy to install side by side with Windows -- because people are interested to try it. The next time these people who tried it and liked it go to buy a PC, they will look seriously at buying a Mac. Why you ask? Because the perception will be that it will run better on a Mac.

 

That's my opinion, but here is the fact, that Apple could have done this a long time ago. Next which OS X was based off of had to be ported off Intel / 68xxx to run on PPC. Darwin / BSD the base OS for OS X also has run on Intel systems for years. I agree with the quote that started this post, despite the fact that Apple stands a chance at seriously increasing it's market share if it does make OS X for everybody.

i want to have winfdows and osx runing on the same machine.

and i'm sure it will be possible.

 

It will be - on a Mac.

 

Let's face it: OSX and the Mac were, are and always will be linked together, just like the iTMS and the iPod are.

Meaning that a reliable and supported OSX will require a Mac.

But it's not that bad: Buy a Mac and you will be able to run OSX and Windows on the same machine.

Of course, this won't be the cheapest solution - but it's the "smoothest".

 

On the other hand I don't see a reason, why one should not try to make OSX singing on an ordinary PC.

It's a challange and for some people OSX on such a machine will be reliable enough.

But IMHO that won't be many. In the end you want to use your computer.

After all it's up to Apple to protect their Software as good as it's neccessary.

In the end you want to use your computer.

After all it's up to Apple to protect their Software as good as it's neccessary.

 

 

In the end what we'll have is little better than what we have now, a propritary Mac, only now it Might run Windows. Right now it runs on the developer's systems, but those systems are not even a prototype of what the end product will be. As I posted above, IMO, Apple would be better off to release a general, limited supported copy. If it runs on your system, it runs on your system, and release specs so that hackers can do things like develop drivers similar to what they do in Linux / BSD. Hackers have even gotten Darwin to run on an X-Box, so I am sure that given the proper resources they can also develop (free to Apple) any needed driver. The perception will always be that yes OS X runs on a Dell, HP, White Box System, but it runs better on Apple hardware with Apple developed drivers.

 

This would be nice, and I hope I am wrong here, but I fully expect Apple to keep the system as closed as possible. In the past 13 years I've owned five macs, so I've watched Apple, and that seems to follow the trend for Apple.

 

Their blunder a while back by allowing clones failed only because it didn't draw people to dump windows for lower cost Apples like they had planned, but stopped Mac users from buying Apple made Macs -- but even then the preception was that the generic Macs were good, but Apple had the better hardware. This is different from the "Clone Wars" era for Apple, this is opening the OS, letting Joe Average install it on his existing PC dual boot with Windows. Right now I believe Windows has 95-98 percent of the market share, lets say half are running PC's that could run OS X, and if ten percent of those buy OS X, OS X has doubled it's market share.

DieselDandy... Rosetta doesn't do any Altivec at all, it just emulates the G3. Perhaps any Altivec to SSE3 translating was too slow to really be useable, so that is why they did this.

 

As for their integrated graphics. I'd be willing to bet that some new Apples do use them so it isn't a total wash. And they are definitely very very fast for non-gaming for sure.

 

Also, I bet we see another ABI change or two on the x86 side of things. Its not all feature-complete. But if you own (err are renting) a devkit, its no big deal anyway. hehe

 

 

Wrong - I was talking of PearPC - PearPC emulates a full G4 processor

Sure OSX 10.5 will be NEVER released for intel first - thats nonsense - Also Apple will not let OS X work on any other than their hardware - if they would do it would be apples end within some years - you guys forgot that 139,- for just the system is way to cheap (esp. your pirates $0,-) and Apple is still the inventor of the PC Industry and still lives from selling hardware (last quarter more macs then the last years before esp. G5 towers). No, music and the iPod is NOT Apples major income - it's still the Mac, look at the quarterly reports.

 

I'm sorry but its blatantly obvious to me that this person is an idiot when it comes to the Apple financial information.

 

Please review the Q2 report from apple and read the provided PDF's to get a feel for how the IPOD is actually the most profitable item in Apples lineup. The G5 may be increasing in sales (the halo effect) but its still no where near the money maker that the IPOD has proven to be.

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/apr/13results.html

IMHO, Apple can increase its market share a little similar to what happened with Firefox browser. However, even 10% for them will be a huge victory. Right now MacOS is not suitable to run in corporate environment because of lack of features (e.g. Group Policy) and software (too many businesses have some kind of proprietary Windows programs.)

 

So some people who are sick of Microsoft will surely switch to Mac, but only time will tell how many.

So some people who are sick of Microsoft will surely switch to Mac, but only time will tell how many.

 

Look at how many people are trying to download it... Searching one torrent site I found that over 5000 have download the x86 Tiger release that worked... Plus there have been a lot of fakes that have drawn a lot of attention. I think that the demand is there, but does Apple realize that people want OS X, just don't want to make a total switch to Mac OS X right now? People have hundreds wrapped up in software purchases, not to mention additional hardware to go along with thier PC that they're not sure will work with OS X. Plus as I stated people may hate Microsoft but at least they are familliar with it. Computer enthusiasts like myself are willing to format their hard drive at the drop of a hat to test out something new and cool, but I know people that won't even install new programs into their Windows systems for fear of mucking things up.

ipod reached saturation of consumption - there will be no increased 616% ipod sales next year.

 

It doesn't matter if sales don't increase by 616% next year. The music player market is growing, and Ipod sales will grow with it. Any way you slice it, you're wrong. The Ipod is Apple's best source of income, not the mac.

It doesn't matter if sales don't increase by 616% next year. The music player market is growing, and Ipod sales will grow with it. Any way you slice it, you're wrong. The Ipod is Apple's best source of income, not the mac.

 

where do you read that apple PDF that the margin of the $250 ipod toy is higher than that of the $1100,- - $2900,- machine? - most dealers sell you the G5 towers $150-$300 cheaper than apple itself - these machines have a much higher margin per piece than ipods - ipod is a lot of apples sales volume but not the major part of the sales volume or income (it's nice for apple to have a little toy that they sold for some years but they know that ipod sales will go down soon). also mac minis are not sold as much as most people thinks. infact you can call it a flop. there is no halo effect.

............................................

I know people that won't even install new programs into their Windows systems for fear of mucking things up.

They're exactly from a target audience for Apple. Way too many people now need only OS, browser, e-mail client and a basic Office-compatible suit.

This would be nice, and I hope I am wrong here, but I fully expect Apple to keep the system as closed as possible. In the past 13 years I've owned five macs, so I've watched Apple, and that seems to follow the trend for Apple.

 

Absolutely. Apple always developed some kind of their own "Ecological system" for their Products. In this regard the Mac does not differ from the iPod. It would surprise me, if Apple would change a thing in that.

 

What I do hope, is that Apple will take the chance to reconsider it's product line-up. People are eager to get OSX so give them hardware, which is affordable and effective! Comparing the tech specs of a 800$ Mac with a 800$ PC nowadays, the PC leaves the Mac (mini) in the dust. It's time for a 700-1000$-Mac: modular, using standard PC components without any of Steves' "integration madnesses" like integrated monitors or keyboards or coffee machines.

Absolutely. Apple always developed some kind of their own "Ecological system" for their Products. In this regard the Mac does not differ from the iPod. It would surprise me, if Apple would change a thing in that.

 

What I do hope, is that Apple will take the chance to reconsider it's product line-up. People are eager to get OSX so give them hardware, which is affordable and effective! Comparing the tech specs of a 800$ Mac with a 800$ PC nowadays, the PC leaves the Mac (mini) in the dust. It's time for a 700-1000$-Mac: modular, using standard PC components without any of Steves' "integration madnesses" like integrated monitors or keyboards or coffee machines.

 

Runs Java but not OSX :

 

Java Pod Coffee Maker

where do you read that apple PDF that the margin of the $250 ipod toy is higher than that of the $1100,- - $2900,- machine? - most dealers sell you the G5 towers $150-$300 cheaper than apple itself - these machines have a much higher margin per piece than ipods - ipod is a lot of apples sales volume but not the major part of the sales volume or income (it's nice for apple to have a little toy that they sold for some years but they know that ipod sales will go down soon). also mac minis are not sold as much as most people thinks. infact you can call it a flop. there is no halo effect.

 

 

It requires some basic analytical skills. But, If you want to belive that an increase of 278 million dollars in desktop sales played a larger role in the 259 million increase of net income than ipod and other music product sales raising by 1,022 million, go right ahead.

Wrong - I was talking of PearPC - PearPC emulates a full G4 processor

I know what you were talking about, it doesn't change my post. I was saying why I think Rosetta only does G3, as it wouldn't really be useable to emulate Altivec (speed-wise).

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jul/13results.html

 

2005: Apple posted a net quarterly profit of $320 million,..... Apple shipped 1,182,000 Macintosh® units and 6,155,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 35 percent growth in Macs and 616 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/14results.html

 

2004: For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $61 million,... Apple shipped 876 thousand Macintosh® units and 860 thousand iPods during the quarter, representing a 14 percent increase in CPU units and a 183 percent increase in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

 

 

 

The easiest way to find out that iPod is important but not that important as most think is this (stupid) calculation:

let's say they made all of the money with the iPod:

 

$320.000.000 / 6.155.000 iPods = $51,99

$61.000.000 / 876.000 iPods = $70,93

 

While iPod sales raising 616% the earnings per Unit decreases 26,48% ???

 

 

so we see we really have to look deeper at the facts:

 

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q305data_sum.pdf

http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q305fin_statements.pdf

 

 

net sales raised by 74,77% (Q3/2004: 2.014.000.000 - Q3/2005: 3.520.000.000)

the cost of sales are raised by 70,17% (Q3/2004: $1.455.000.000 - Q3/2005: $2.476.000.000)

gross margin raised by 86,76% (Q3/2004: $1.044.000.000 - Q3/2005: $559.000.000)

operating expenses raised by 26,69% (Q3/2004: $617.000.000 - Q3/2005: $487.000.000)

 

 

let's look at mixed calculation (apple does not split to exact numbers for each product):

 

iPod

Q3/2004: $249.000.000 / 860.000 iPods = $289,53 rev. / Unit

Q2/2005: $1.014.000.000 / 5.311.000 iPods = $190,92 rev. / Unit

Q3/2005: $1.103.000.000 / 6.155.000 iPods = $179,20 rev. / Unit

 

Mac

Q3/2004: $1.263.000.000 / 876.000 macs = $1441,78 rev. / Unit

Q2/2005: $1.494.000.000 / 1.070.000 macs = $1396,26 rev. / Unit

Q3/2005: $1.565.000.000 / 1.182.000 macs = $1324,02 rev. / Unit

 

so we see revenue per iPod decreased by 48,11% within 12 months

while revenue per Mac just decreased by 8,17% within 12 months

 

 

Let's talk about the "halo effect" and it's switcher product the mac mini:

 

Portable (iBook, PowerBook)

Q3/2004: $696.000.000 / 460.000 macs = 1513,04 rev. / Unit

Q2/2005: $691.000.000 / 462.000 macs = 1495,67 rev. / Unit

Q3/2005: $720.000.000 / 495.000 macs = 1454,54 rev. / Unit

 

Revenue per Portable Mac decreased by 5,76% within 12 months

 

Desktop (PowerMac, iMac, eMac mac mini)

Q3/2004: $567.000.000 / 416.000 desktop macs = 1362,98 rev. / Unit (the quarter before iMac G5 came out)

Q2/2005: $803.000.000 / 608.000 desktop macs = 1320,72 rev. / Unit (the first mac mini quarter)

Q3/2005: $845.000.000 / 687.000 macs = 1229,98 rev. / Unit

 

Apple sold 65% more Desktop Macs within 1 year and the Revenue per Desktop just dropped by 9,76%

 

The mac mini cost between $500,- and $600,- and there is $133,- difference between the 2004 and 2005 Desktop Mac.

There is no halo effect cause by iPod AND mac mini. The iMac G5 seems to be the best seller.

 

 

The iTunes Music Store & other music products, iPod accessoires:

Q3/2004: $73.000.000

Q3/2005:$216.000.000 +195%

(and Apple just sees 3 cent of every dollar made by iTMS - BTW i bought more than 30 titles there and i don't own an iPod)

 

Software:

Q3/2004: $210.000.000

Q3/2005: $239.000.000 +9,52% (looks like software does not increase at same speed with hardware sales - forget OS X for every PC)

 

Periphals and Other Hardware:

Q3/2004: $219.000.000

Q3/2005: $280.000.000 +9,13%

 

 

 

Let's face it:

THE MAC IS STILL APPLES MAJOR PART IN SALES:

 

 

Mac: $1.494.000.000/quarter (46,06% of Apples sales)

 

iPod: $1.014.000.000/quarter (31,26% of Apples sales)

 

 

When you add the additional business Software/Hardware on the Mac side

and Music/iPod Accessoires on the other side you'll see again the mac is more important:

 

Mac: $1.494.000.000

+ Software: $239.000.000

+ Periphals and other Hardware: $280.000.000

TOTAL MAC MARKET: $2.013.000.000/quarter (62,07% of Apples sales)

 

iPod: $1.014.000.000

+iTMS: $216.000.000

TOTAL iPOD / MUSIC MARKET: $1.230.000.000/quarter (37,93% of Apples sales)

 

 

You can also learn from this numbers that selling iPods is VERY expensive compared to selling the mac.

It will be a hard job for Apple to keep the iPod success alive. Anybody knows that saturation

of consumption in the iPod market is near - and you can see it on the numers above

(fallen from $289,53 rev. / Unit to $179,20 rev. / Unit)