• 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.

Why does'nt Apple write Os X for the x86 platform?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Apple was propositioned by Bill Gates in the early 80's to write a GUI for the x86 platform but Jobs rebufffed the offer and..well the rest is history. Bills worth billions and Jobs millions. MS rules the desktop with no real contender in sight.

Linux scared M$ for awile and got some users excited but it's seems without a commercial incentive it will always remain difficult and convoluted even for easy things. It's great for some, it's open source, it's free blah blah blah but it's simply to damn geeky. And I'm a geek.

I would really like to try out Os X. It looks really cool and would make getting songs in my Ipod that much quicker using the lastest hardware (i have an old performa running 7.5). But I'll be damed if I'm going to shell out 3 grand for a new Macintosh just to play with this "superior OS" when I just built a faster Athlon for less than $1000. And it plays all my games and runs lagacy workware. So anyone know why they won't even try and port it to the PC. I mean even Microsoft suuported PPC with NT. I think Apple should do the same in reverse to give users more choice and perhaps even increase thier dismal market share.
 
If Apple released OSX for x86, what reason would you have for buying Apple hardware?

OSX for x86 would kill off Apple systems completely.
 
But I'll be damed if I'm going to shell out 3 grand for a new Macintosh just to play with this "superior OS" when I just built a faster Athlon for less than $1000

Buy an iMac, you get OS X and a cool flat screen LCD =)

So anyone know why they won't even try and port it to the PC

Everything but the UI runs already, of course the UI is the only part you can't get on the other free unixes. And like the others said, Apple sells hardware, porting OS X to x86 would end their hardware sales and kill them.

I mean even Microsoft suuported PPC with NT

Have you ever seen NT run on a PPC machine? I thnk only a few people have, and even then it wasn't running on Mac hardware.

I think Apple should do the same in reverse to give users more choice and perhaps even increase thier dismal market share.

So they can make $100 per person instead of $2K per person?

And they'd have to work on driver support a lot, right now OS X driver support is bad even on Mac hardware, imagine if they wanted to support all the hardware available. Basically they'd be in the same position Be was in, and look where it got them.
 
like the others said, i think that a port of OS X would put a big nail in apple's coffin. i haven't used it myself, but i'd like to try it out. like you said, CarbonylXP, i'm not willing to blow the kind of $ it would take to get started 🙂
 
Personally, I think that Apple should get out of the hardware business and just make software. It's obvious that the software they've made recently is very high quality, and things like Final Cut and iPhoto are supposed to be awesome. OS X looks to be great too. However, the machines are just average.
 
The Apples are great if you have software that takes advantage of the AltiVec engine. There's some MONSTER crunching power in the G4 processor.
 
Personally, I think that Apple should get out of the hardware business and just make software.

Maybe they should have before, but now all the CompUSA shops around here can't keep their stuff in stock, it's selling like hot cakes.
 
OS X is meant to take advantage of the Motorola processor design specifically. I wouldn't want to see a crappy x86 version come out. Apple is a hardware company. They make great hardware. There are a lot of misconceptions about Apple that need to be removed. When I look at an Apple I don't see a computer that can't do the stuff I want to do on a computer, but I see it like any other distributor of personal computers like Dell or Compaq. Right now it seems Apple is a little out-powered, which I would agree with, but by no means are they out of the market. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone out there that can compete with Dell's pricing lately. That's ridiculous to sell a powerful machine for a couple hundred dollars.
 
Hey all

I don't think Apple will port OS X for x86 boxes. I agree, their hardware is too important. Not to mention all of their software has been built to take advantage of every piece of hardware in those machines. Things like FireWire ports, DVD-R drives, and...well...especially the CPU architecture. I've got 2 Apples on 1 PC. The PC is an Athlon XP system, so it's pretty strong and is running XP Pro. I've been running XP pro for about 2 months and I've seen more "crash reports" and even freezing at times than I have in the entire lifetime of my 2 Apples. I'm not knocking the PC, its quite zippy, but as it was my 867MHz Apple was destroying my 1.2GHz Athlon.....that's why I upgraded. People that came through here were kinda shocked to see the 2 machines perform side by side. It's a matter of comfort. When I sit down at my Apples, I'm confident that its going to be very stable and reliable. Over the years of owning them, and especially my time running OS X (from Beta through 10.1.3), the platform has just earned my trust to perform. I rarely see odd errors on those machines, which I can't say the same with the PC's I've owned.

Also, this is just my personal preference, but I like being able to just simply slip a CD into my machines and have it take care of all the software installations at one time. No boot disks, no reboots, just do it! 😉 But that's just my gripe, especially having to reformat this drive a week ago.

Mike D

BTW: I am happy that Apple is supposed to release the new 10GB iPod with full PC support. That I think is a smart move. I love my iPod, so lets share that love of music with the PC community! 😀
 
NT ran on PPC? I thougt the MIPS and Alpha archs were the only non x86...

Yup, the 4 arches NT 4 ran on were PPC, MIPS, Alpha and x86 although I think x86 and Alpha were the only two anyone actually used.
 


<< Buy an iMac, you get OS X and a cool flat screen LCD =) >>


Hehe. They as is most apple stuff are very cool looking, I would if
a) I could find one to actually look at
b) When the price comes down to the ~$1300 level



<< . And like the others said, Apple sells hardware, porting OS X to x86 would end their hardware sales and kill them. >>



Yes. I hear you all saying this but have we learned anything perdictable about operating systems over the years other than they get bigger(Mb). I think no.

Who says Apple can't be the new M$ in 5 years assumming they port thier unix based OS "OS X" to the x86, sparc, alpha etc and it takes hold everyone loves it and sudenly becomes a standard. Allow everything open source and allow the community to write the drivers. I know this concept is so opposite of Apple history since they love thier tight control over all things but at least try something other than claiming a PPC is 2X faster than P IV which no one really believes. But tell me How would this "kill" them even if no one buys the x86 version??? So what if Apple has to pay 20 programers and 100 marking poeple say 25 million in salary and bennys. No big loss for a company who posted 700 million loss in a quarter. Apple will still have the Mac people and people like me who absolutley insanly love their industrail design and other things about the Mac and will continue to shell out the cash for thier over-priced under-performing hardware. I just don't usderstand what could they really lose but I can see gaining some respectablity and sales from releasing a X86 port.



<< Have you ever seen NT run on a PPC machine? I thnk only a few people have, and even then it wasn't running on Mac hardware. >>



Come to think of it no. But they did say it on the NT install disk"PCC". Perhaps they tried and could'nt make it work or it was just for IBM main frames. It's really not the point. The point is Microsoft tried something in order to *increase* their market share. Which is why I have a love hate relationship with Microsoft. They tried it, decided it was'nt viable (profitable) , and discontinued the support. I just would like to see other companies (apple) take some risks like MS does (Xbox). Rather than relying on the continued sales to the die hard Macfans.



I think Apple should do the same in reverse to give users more choice and perhaps even increase thier dismal market share.



<< So they can make $100 per person instead of $2K per person? >>


Lets be realistic here.
No apple hardware makes them 2K profit. Margins of around 10-30% are much more believable to me. But the software is basically pure profit after a certain number of sales simply stamp more out and ship em. Which is why I think Apple should at least try another platform. One used by 100's of millions some wanting something other than what MS produces every two years, without product activation, .Net, spyware, dll's, registry abominations. etc.



<< Be was in, and look where it got them. >>

🙁
 




<< NT ran on PPC? >>



It ran on the PowerPC processor, but only in the IBM RISC boxes. It never ran on Apple hardware.

 
Hehe. They as is most apple stuff are very cool looking, I would if
a) I could find one to actually look at
b) When the price comes down to the ~$1300 level


Do you realize how much the LCD alone costs? Without that it would probably be a $800 machine.

But tell me How would this "kill" them even if no one buys the x86 version???

The point is it will kill them because people will buy it, instead of buying a whole Mac for $2K they'll get the OS for $100 and Apple just lost out on $1900. The problem is that the current hardware is selling, if it wasn't I'm sure they'd consider it, but like I said CompUSA can't keep the iMac, G4, etc stuff in stock.

But they did say it on the NT install disk"PCC". Perhaps they tried and could'nt make it work or it was just for IBM main frames

I think you needed a special made PPC box for it, like you needed an Alpha with specific hardware for NT on Alpha, and I know MS never made anything that would run on a mainframe =) And it was probably the easiest port (although I vaguely remember hearing that NT was developed on either PPC or MIPS then ported to x86) because OS/2 was IBM and MS' joint baby which then became OS/2 NT, then NT, then Win2K, then WinXP. Who says MS doesn't know how to do product versioning =)

They tried it, decided it was'nt viable (profitable) , and discontinued the support.

They did the same with their Alpha support, even though people were using that one.

One used by 100's of millions some wanting something other than what MS produces every two years, without product activation, .Net, spyware, dll's, registry abominations. etc.

Do you really think they could sustain the sudden loss in revenue to pull through to when it might get profitable?

And frankly, .NET isn't a bad thing (yet), there's only no activation because you need a Mac to run it, it has shared libs via unix which are dlls by another name (and a better versioning system) and the NetInfo crap is just as annoying as the registry.
 
Apple is selling the iMac 2 for $1800 and your saying without the LCD it would probably be $800.. I just did a search at pricewatch.com for a 15" LCD and most are around $300. So at most this would add is $300. So really the Imac 2 should go for around $1,100 using your price of $800 base system + a $300 LCD panel at wholsale. Regardless We can get a simarly equiped PC with an 15" LCD for around $900 not $1800 which I think is way overpriced which is why I won't buy an iMac even though I believe they are entitled to some profitablity.





<< The point is it will kill them because people will buy it, instead of buying a whole Mac for $2K they'll get the OS for $100 and Apple just lost out on $1900. The problem is that the current hardware is selling, if it wasn't I'm sure they'd consider it, but like I said CompUSA can't keep the iMac, G4, etc stuff in stock. >>



Here is where I think you guys are being short sighted much like Apple (and more specifically Jobs) was in the early 80's when Bill wanted a partner. Sure they might lose some hardware sales but the software sales *could* easily replace and surpass those losses over the long haul. Which would you raher sell 35 million units at $100 profit or 5 million units at $300 profit? So I think this is the real oppsosing view point here. I think they could recoupe the hardware loss through sofware sales on other platforms (mainly x86 and sparc) and you think it would'nt be enough to offset the loss on hardware? Well maybe but at least try something else other than those stupid lies about superior performance and usablity and watch that stock price continue it's slow but noticable decline.
 


nt ran on older ibm rs/6000 machines. nt will also run on alphas that have the correct palcode (and it basically limits the alpha to being a 32-bit cpu).

also, are the systems made by unisys considered mainframes? if so, then windows 2000 can run on a mainframe
 
CarbonylXP,

The funny thing that many people overlook is that Apple w/ its 4% PC market share has been profitable selling pricey machines, whereas every major PC OEM besides Dell has been losing money on desktops for the past 2-3 years.

Also, as far as the cool media software that comes bundled w/ OS X, Apple didn't develop most of these in-house, but licensed them from third parties. Repeat after us: Apple is a hardware company. 🙂
 


<< CarbonylXP,
. Repeat after us: Apple is a hardware company. 🙂 >>



LOL Fair enough I get your point. To bad for us really.
 
The new iMac tops out at $1800...that's for the one with the SuperDrive (DVD burner).....they start at $1200 or $1300. I think it's a pretty reasonable price. They must be selling well, all of them appear to be decently back-ordered on Apple's website. Everyone who even owns a computer should be hoping that Apple continues producing products and making money, they do provide some great technologies, such as FireWire etc. Also, any competition to M$ is a good thing! 😉

Mike D
 
They're backordered because LCDs are in high demand. iMac's one-piece design makes Apple very dependent on its parts suppliers.
 


<< They're backordered because LCDs are in high demand. iMac's one-piece design makes Apple very dependent on its parts suppliers. >>



Demand is the other part of that equation.
 
Here is where I think you guys are being short sighted much like Apple (and more specifically Jobs) was in the early 80's when Bill wanted a partner. Sure they might lose some hardware sales but the software sales *could* easily replace and surpass those losses over the long haul. Which would you raher sell 35 million units at $100 profit or 5 million units at $300 profit?

Assuming they sell any. All the 'cool' Mac software would need ported and the fact that it's a PC but can't run Windows programs turns a lot of people off. I mean look at how much trouble Linux has and it's free, just because it doesn't run win32 apps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top