• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The future of Mac hardware.

D

darweth

Junior Member
Can someone explain to me whether or not Apple shot themselves in the foot by switching to the Intel platform? I am sure this is explained elsewhere but I'd like some clear answers. If Apple can openly promote and encourage software designed to get XP running natively, then what is to stop MS or anyone else from doing the reverse? It is my understanding that you can already run OSX on a PC by applying a few simple hacks. Won't the process only get easier in the future?

So... a few months/years down the road it will be super duper easy to buy a Dell and run the latest OSX. How does that affect Mac hardware? Will OSX sales shoot up while the hardware market declines? Does Apple lower hardware prices? Does it just continue on like it is now as a "cool," "hip," and "luxury" item? What is the future of software and PC-OSX conversions? I suppose it is easier than ever to port things over now so that might not be much of a problem.
 
Intel most likely gave Apple a deal that they could not refuse in order to promote x86 on the other <4% of the desktop computer market that was using those... things.

Smart move from a money standpoint. People can make software port over to OSX easier since it now has the same hardware (with a few changes). Microsoft is not going to do the reverse, for they do not make desktop computers and Apple has a tool to make Windows run on Macs.

Apple will continue to make it harder to put OSX on non Apple hardware, the profit margins got even better😀
 
But since Apple is so openly promoting the ability to run Windows on a Mac, would it be legal and totally fine for MS or a third-party to develop something to natively run OSX without any hoops regardless of what Apple does?

Apple might continue to try to make it harder, but I only foresee it getting easier overall.
 
Originally posted by: darweth
But since Apple is so openly promoting the ability to run Windows on a Mac, would it be legal and totally fine for MS or a third-party to develop something to natively run OSX without any hoops regardless of what Apple does?

Apple might continue to try to make it harder, but I only foresee it getting easier overall.
Click to expand...


Macs don't run on a BIOS. It's a bit different and probably has something to do with getting OSX to run.
 
Switching to Intel is the smartest thing Steve Jobs ever did. OSX x86 doesn't run over a BIOS, it uses Intel's Extended Firmware Interface. EFI will be arriving soon on all x86 platforms.

Windows running OSX in a sandbox is highly unlikely for several reasons:

1.At no time will Apple release OSX for retail sale. You want a copy of OSX? Buy a Mac.
2.Virtualization is not desktop Windows' forte. WinXP has hard enough a time running WinXP. Windows is well known for it's errors, conflicts, multi-boot drama and piss-poor resource management (Hard drive spinning like a top, while 2GB of RAM is almost untouched? Great job, guys.).
3.MS has no need for OSX.
4.I have no need for OSX. Why would I possibly want to do that? To use Mac-native software? I already have most of it in PC flavor. The reverse is not true: If I was a Mactard, I would benefit from virtualizing, not booting, WinXP for it's many handy apps. Games, unfortunately still suffer. The only Mac that can even accept a vid card is the Mac Pro, and good luck with the mediocre Mac-version vid cards available.
 
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Switching to Intel is the smartest thing Steve Jobs ever did. OSX x86 doesn't run over a BIOS, it uses Intel's Extended Firmware Interface. EFI will be arriving soon on all x86 platforms.

Windows running OSX in a sandbox is highly unlikely for several reasons:

1.At no time will Apple release OSX for retail sale. You want a copy of OSX? Buy a Mac.
2.Virtualization is not desktop Windows' forte. WinXP has hard enough a time running WinXP. Windows is well known for it's errors, conflicts, multi-boot drama and piss-poor resource management (Hard drive spinning like a top, while 2GB of RAM is almost untouched? Great job, guys.).
3.MS has no need for OSX.
4.I have no need for OSX. Why would I possibly want to do that? To use Mac-native software? I already have most of it in PC flavor. The reverse is not true: If I was a Mactard, I would benefit from virtualizing, not booting, WinXP for it's many handy apps. Games, unfortunately still suffer. The only Mac that can even accept a vid card is the Mac Pro, and good luck with the mediocre Mac-version vid cards available.
Click to expand...

1) Smoke crack much? You can buy full version of Apple's OS on retail shelves since forever.
 
Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Switching to Intel is the smartest thing Steve Jobs ever did. OSX x86 doesn't run over a BIOS, it uses Intel's Extended Firmware Interface. EFI will be arriving soon on all x86 platforms.

Windows running OSX in a sandbox is highly unlikely for several reasons:

1.At no time will Apple release OSX for retail sale. You want a copy of OSX? Buy a Mac.
2.Virtualization is not desktop Windows' forte. WinXP has hard enough a time running WinXP. Windows is well known for it's errors, conflicts, multi-boot drama and piss-poor resource management (Hard drive spinning like a top, while 2GB of RAM is almost untouched? Great job, guys.).
3.MS has no need for OSX.
4.I have no need for OSX. Why would I possibly want to do that? To use Mac-native software? I already have most of it in PC flavor. The reverse is not true: If I was a Mactard, I would benefit from virtualizing, not booting, WinXP for it's many handy apps. Games, unfortunately still suffer. The only Mac that can even accept a vid card is the Mac Pro, and good luck with the mediocre Mac-version vid cards available.
Click to expand...

1) Smoke crack much? You can buy full version of Apple's OS on retail shelves since forever.
Click to expand...

Can you install it on anything other than a Mac?
 
Originally posted by: darweth
Can someone explain to me whether or not Apple shot themselves in the foot by switching to the Intel platform? I am sure this is explained elsewhere but I'd like some clear answers. If Apple can openly promote and encourage software designed to get XP running natively, then what is to stop MS or anyone else from doing the reverse? It is my understanding that you can already run OSX on a PC by applying a few simple hacks. Won't the process only get easier in the future?

So... a few months/years down the road it will be super duper easy to buy a Dell and run the latest OSX. How does that affect Mac hardware? Will OSX sales shoot up while the hardware market declines? Does Apple lower hardware prices? Does it just continue on like it is now as a "cool," "hip," and "luxury" item? What is the future of software and PC-OSX conversions? I suppose it is easier than ever to port things over now so that might not be much of a problem.
Click to expand...
Even if they do manage to get it running on Dells, it's not as if Apple would actually support it. If it's unsupported, it's a moot point. The general public doesn't like doing heavy duty OS tinkering. (Hell, Linux runs quite well on both Macs and PCs and it's free, and still nobody runs it.) The people running OS X on PCs will be geeks, and I betcha most of them will have bootlegged OS X, so it's not as if Apple would be making money off them anyways.

As for the switch to Intel, it was very smart. Now Apple has two major chip vendors at its disposal. With PowerPC they essentially only had IBM. IMO Motorola/Freescale doesn't count, because their focus was embedded and their chips were too slow for higher end personal computers. If IBM went down the tubes, Apple would be SOL. If Intel goes down the tubes, Apple can just switch to AMD.

Still, I was surprised Apple switched, cuz I figured it would be a major pain in the ass. It turns out that although it was indeed a pain, it wasn't that bad. I was 100% sure Apple kept an x86 build of the full OS X around, but I was still shocked to see just how well it worked, especially with Rosetta. And the small developers who used Cocoa exclusively literally recompiled their stuff in a day for x86. It's the big developers with stuff heavily using Carbon that are having to do a lot more work, but at least they have the resources to do it. Adobe and Microsoft are on board, and those are the two big software companies that Apple needs to ensure success.
 
Mac don't have their own hardware any more. Not really, anyway.

They're just PCs wrapped in ugly white packaging now (well, except for the blackbooks 😉)
 
The Intel Mac Pro requires special Mac version video cards that can work with their EFI bios. Perhaps 2 or 3 years from now, when all Intel CPU PC's will also be using the EFI type bios,
there won't be a problem running any up to date PCIe video card on an Intel Mac Pro. (AMD CPU motherboards with an EFI bios may take longer to appear on the market.)
Apple may gradually increase their driver support; such as being able to use a Creative sound card on a Mac Pro, while running OS-X.
 
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Switching to Intel is the smartest thing Steve Jobs ever did. OSX x86 doesn't run over a BIOS, it uses Intel's Extended Firmware Interface. EFI will be arriving soon on all x86 platforms.

Windows running OSX in a sandbox is highly unlikely for several reasons:

1.At no time will Apple release OSX for retail sale. You want a copy of OSX? Buy a Mac.
2.Virtualization is not desktop Windows' forte. WinXP has hard enough a time running WinXP. Windows is well known for it's errors, conflicts, multi-boot drama and piss-poor resource management (Hard drive spinning like a top, while 2GB of RAM is almost untouched? Great job, guys.).
3.MS has no need for OSX.
4.I have no need for OSX. Why would I possibly want to do that? To use Mac-native software? I already have most of it in PC flavor. The reverse is not true: If I was a Mactard, I would benefit from virtualizing, not booting, WinXP for it's many handy apps. Games, unfortunately still suffer. The only Mac that can even accept a vid card is the Mac Pro, and good luck with the mediocre Mac-version vid cards available.
Click to expand...

1) Smoke crack much? You can buy full version of Apple's OS on retail shelves since forever.
Click to expand...

Can you install it on anything other than a Mac?
Click to expand...

thankfully no.

edit: well, technically you can, just not legally.

how is an x1900 xt with 512mb mediocre?
 
Well I think it will give them a bust of business over the next 5 years then they will suffer as Intel and MS break them down. 5 years is a long time away and may things can happen. You never know what Apple have hidden away. Of course with MS owning 40% shares now in apple not sure how they would be able to change things down the road!

I was not a huge fan of apple but the more I use it the better it becomes for me. I think that another thing that might happen is that Apple OSX will merge in to a Linux OS
 
I think it had more to do with Apple wanting to get G5 speed in a laptop format and IBM couldn't deliver. Intel could and won the contract.
 
Apple's pricing is kinda murky, the best I can decipher is:

Mac Pro - Base $2499, with 1x 7300GT (given that it's a new comp purchase, this is completely unacceptable for 3D games)

Add 1 7300GT (why?) - Add $150 each, up to 4

NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB - $1650 (unsuitable for games, but sounds nice for high-end rendering)

ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB - $250, and lose the $150 7300GT, making it $400. I believe it was the Anandtech review that stated the ATI card was a detuned version, compared to the normal card.

Newegg is charging about $350 for a x1900xt at full strength, therefore Apple is charging a $50 premium for a weaker card.

That's what I call mediocre.
 
IMO the reason Mac doesn't sell their OS to be run on 'clones' is so they don't have to support the wide variety of hardware out there. With their OS running on only their hardware it's far easier to write and support. And as long as they're profitable as 'the little guy' I don't think they care.

Oh, and OS X will run in VMWare. There's a preconfigured Virtual Machine out there if you look hard enough. I loaded it up but once I got it working and the 'look at OS X running inside Ubuntu on my T-42 factor' was over I shut it off and haven't booted it since. Plus, even though Safari would connect to the 'net it wouldn't allow me to install Firefox. Just going to getfirefox.com hung the browser and the VM stopped responding (just a spinning disc icon). I guess it could be useful for someone trying to learn about the Mac OS without having to buy the hardware and OS.
 
"IMO the reason Mac doesn't sell their OS to be run on 'clones' is so they don't have to support the wide variety of hardware out there. With their OS running on only their hardware it's far easier to write and support. And as long as they're profitable as 'the little guy' I don't think they care."

exactly
 
Originally posted by: jameswhite1979
Well I think it will give them a bust of business over the next 5 years then they will suffer as Intel and MS break them down. 5 years is a long time away and may things can happen. You never know what Apple have hidden away. Of course with MS owning 40% shares now in apple not sure how they would be able to change things down the road!

I was not a huge fan of apple but the more I use it the better it becomes for me. I think that another thing that might happen is that Apple OSX will merge in to a Linux OS
Click to expand...
Uhh, MS doesn't own any of Apple. They haven't for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top