toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

Can Apple keep Mac OS X off generic PCs?

updated 09:15 am EDT, Wed June 8, 2005

OS X on PCs

An online column looks at the various methods Apple may use to prevent users from . Hardware-based security of some type is seen as the most likely form of protection. Apple could also block workable drivers for anything but Apple hardware. "Can you imagine a flood of pirated Mac OS X copies, re-compilers or cracks on P2P networks waiting for curiosity seekers to download and install, [...] It�s only a matter of time before Apple�s OS becomes just one of many software titles listed on pirating networks for everyone to distribute at will." According to the article, Apple must make its Mac OS X compatible with non-proprietary PC hardware. "If Apple remains loyal to its hardware business, it will never know the potential revenue to be had from "OS X for PC" sales.

by MacNN Staff

(43)

TAGS :

industry

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

Roehlstation
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 09:42am | report spam | close Reply |
Simply Incompatible

It really is fairly simple how they will keep Mac OS X off of other PCs. It simply won't work on other PCs. There is more to a computer than the processor. Other parts of the computer simply won't work. Until we get an idea on what the real specs on these Intel Macs we can't say for sure, but I am going to assume that the board and other components are still manufactured by Apple and they may not be anything like the MLBs you put into a PC.

Think about it, have you heard of anyone installing Mac OS X on an IBM computer running with a PowerPC chip?

Person Man
Professional Poster

Joined: Jun 2001

0

06/08, 09:57am | report spam | close Reply |
Hardware Company

Apple is still a hardware company. As long as they remain one, we won't see Mac OS X running on "any old PC."

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

06/08, 10:06am | report spam | close Reply |
If an XP Powerbook was...

...available I would have bought one already - just as bmw buyers buy bmw's, premium products attract their own buyers - Apple might sell a lot more compyters if they just opened the platform... But then I get the sense this was a primary reason for the move to a unix based os in the first place...

penfold270
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 10:10am | report spam | close Reply |
OS X on a windows pc

Peeople make too much about this upgrade to OS X on pc. Most user never upgade there os. They only get a new one once there buy a new computer. I don't really think this would change. And it's not like apples os runs windows software so an avereges user would either have to change all there software over or just dual boot, but thats not really an atrative solution. So only a few courios people and New Buyer would get the OS. If apple can sell a mac at a compedative price ,not the cheapest just compedative, then new mac sales should be fine.

tgray
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 10:11am | report spam | close Reply |
Incorrect

This article can be summed up using a quote from and Adam Sandler's "Billy Madison" movie (paraphrased):

"At no time did anything you say make sense. We are all dumber for listening to you and may God have mercy on your soul"

kgretton
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 10:17am | report spam | close Reply |
Intel DRM?

Are people missing something or did we recently hear that all Intel chips have or will have DRM built-into them in future? This forms the basis of the Trusted Computer architecture and would certainly allow Apple to lock MacOS X down to running on either a specific, registered, Intel CPU or on a particular type. Each CPU has a unique signature that goes beyond simply a processor serial number.

I do not have any inside information for this but it appears to me that Apple is interested in many of the developments taking place within Intel at the moment. Who knows exactly what CPU will ship inside the first Apple Intel machines? It probably won't be the 3.6Ghz P4 HT that we have today...

Zang
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2004

0

06/08, 10:26am | report spam | close Reply |
Ugh

The author of this article completely ignored the biggest reason Apple *shouldn't* allow it's OS on non-Apple PC hardware: Support costs. If it opened up OSX, then suddenly Apple starts receiving calls from every PC user trying to figure out why their parallel port printer doesn't work with OSX, and why their 3.5" floppy drive doesn't read disks.

The sheer number of lousy peripherals available for the general PC world is astounding; and Apple�if willing to support OSX on the hardware�would soon find it's support lines clogged with every moron and their brother with legacy or cheap hardware.

rok
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 1999

0

06/08, 10:35am | report spam | close Reply |
Can you imagine...

"...a flood of pirated Mac OS X copies, re-compilers or cracks on P2P networks waiting for curiosity seekers to download and install, [...] It�s only a matter of time before Apple�s OS becomes just one of many software titles listed on pirating networks for everyone to distribute at will."

(sarcasm)my god, i can't even imagine os x being listed on limewire, hotline, and the like. it'll be horror on a Biblical scale. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!(/sarcasm)

gudin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2000

0

06/08, 10:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Ugh

I agree. THIS is why Apple won't sell OS X for any generic PC. This is also one of the reason MS can't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag despite enormous resources. Apple makes the whole widget and can be sure what they sell works on the whole widget they make.

However, this does not mean Apple necessarily has to prevent it. If someone wants to buy a boxed OS X 10.5 for a PC, and install it on their Dell, Apple just won't support it, nor will Dell. Thus, this may/will happen (maybe not on a Dell box) but it will not be mainstream. Perhaps they eventually could make arrangements with specific other manufacturers, but that's not any time soon.

It's all about support.

JeffHarris
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

06/08, 10:49am | report spam | close Reply |
Don't forget the Mac ROM

The Macintosh ROM chip has ALWAYS been necessary for running the Mac OS. Unless something has drastically changed at some point, I would assume any Mac, regardless of the CPU it uses, requires this chip in order to run.

Years ago there were 3d party laptops that relied on a recycled Mac ROM chip in order to function.

rdbemdy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 10:49am | report spam | close Reply |
Intel Chips/Mac OS

As a PC user from the the late 80's until the present, and a recent and very pleased Mac iBook G4 user, I am very concerned about the change. You see, I think the reason for the Mac's superiority lies in the simple fat that hardware and software have been totally controlled by Apple. True, this causes an intial increase in the purchase price over a similarly configured PC-yet the TCO is ultimately lower since many of the software based problems of the PC world simply don't exist.

I am concerned that this might change once Apple goes to an X86 architecture. Will we still be able to say: "it just works?" Will we still have the same kind of security knowing that the total hardware/software package is a truly properly working package? These are my legitimate concerns. I suspect others may very well share them.

ibugv4
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

06/08, 10:50am | report spam | close Reply |
well

I'll be happy to see Windows people buying Apple systems and installing Windows, personally. Why? That's one more Mac sold. Who cares if the OS isn't used, Apple made a hardware profit. They're a hardware company, after all.

jreades
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 1999

0

06/08, 10:53am | report spam | close Reply |
Dell PB? Hardly!

If OS X on off-the-shelf hardware is unsupported then you're automatically limiting the market to some tiny percentage of users simply because of the skills involved. Apple has also never, historically, had a problem telling people to piss off if they've come up with a frankenstein machine that doesn't run the OS properly. I don't see either of these things changing in the near future.

Add to that the fact that Dell's industrial design is complete rubbish and I see no reason for Apple to quake in its boots. Given the choice, if the price difference isn't too steep then most users will pick a shiny PB or iBook over a clunky Dell any day.

One of the big holdups has been that people simply weren't familiar with OS X and were worried about software compatibility. So rampant piracy may actually help Apple sell more boxes -- "Gee, I really like using OS X but I'll bet it runs better on their pretty laptops than this kludgy Dell."

As long as Apple makes the hardware they'll continue to be fairly happy to 'give away' the software if it shifts machines. There's a reason that Apple has never bothered to lock down the OS Installer disks with activation keys or other irritations. They might lose 25% to 45% (wild hand-waving) of their OS income to mulitple installs from a single installer CD/DVD, but that's peanuts compared to the revenue on a $3K dual-processor G5.

jon

IonCable
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

06/08, 10:53am | report spam | close Reply |
Tried in the old days

Many of you may not remember, but back in the day the Amiga and Atari ST both ran 68000 chips just like the Mac did. Many a company tried. to various levels of success, to emulate the Mac on these platforms. The big thing was they ALL needed an Apple ROM to run. There is only one way to get a Legit Apple ROM, buy a Mac. My roommate had an Amiga and a Mac emulator with an "Apple ROM." It worked...OK. I know that tech has advanced and the like, but Apple can still do the samething.

As has been said many times before, "there is more to a computer than the CPU."

webraider
Forum Regular

Joined: Nov 2004

0

06/08, 10:58am | report spam | close Reply |
Wait A minute

I thought that there was more to running an OS than just the processor. Isn't there Bio's and other things that are built specifically onto a motherboard that Apple's OS most sense in order to boot? Besides... even if someone could find a work around (emulation software would have to be the best option)... people having a boot leg version of OS X may not be a bad thing. It may encourage them to buy a macintosh... Could you imagine Apple offering PC users a Trial or Test version of OS X for their machine? It will not work after 30 days... Can't print from it.. no floppy support etc... but something just to get their feet wet. I'm really thinking that Steve Jobs does want to maintain the Apple Computer product line and that he DOES want to compete more aggressively with PC users. Thus I think we will see better prices and performance.

grossph
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

06/08, 10:58am | report spam | close Reply |
Missing a Big Point

Apple is a hardware company first, software company second. Apple will not allow OS X to work on generic PCs (Zanq is right, the support cost increase would be maddening for Apple). They SHOULD allow windows to boot on their machines.

What does this do...why would someone by a Dell/Gateway/IBM etc if they can buy a Mac that runs both mac and PC software. Users begin to play with OS X and see how much better it is then Windows. User when upgrading to the next version of an application decides to by the mac version and eventually they convert all software to OS X versions, switching cost now move in favor of apple. Apple sells more hardware.

It is simple economics 101.

Philip (PS Apple I am availbel for Hire :-)

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

06/08, 11:01am | report spam | close Reply |
Welcome to Open OSX

Lets face it, right now, only the geeks care about whether it is installable on any machine.

However, OSX should be installable on ANY pentium/AMD class machine. This doesn't mean that Apple has to license the software to other manufacturers, they can sell it outright. This will serve many purposes:

1. It will allow experimenters to buy (or even download pirated copies) of OSX to play with. Purpose: exposure of the OS to the mass of hackers that are currently Intel WinXP and Linux ppl will broaden the appeal of the system.

2. Open OSX will allow deployment in special circumstances of OSX on pentium machines where the cost of hardware deployment is cost-prohibititve. Service contracts are very lucrative.

3. Licensing terms of the OS will prohibit manufacturers from bundling it with their machines (DMCA), however, Apple can still sell the software to the end user, making $125 or whatever for each copy while stealthly infiltrating the Win world. PLUS, unless they own an Apple, they can charge unlimited help fee's for tech support of non-Apple hardware.

The average computer user never thinks in these terms. They buy machines from companies READY to GO. No average consumer wants to build one.

So the answer is: Apple will make supurbly designed hardware, and the hacker geeks like us will go bonkers being able to build an OSX box. Its nirvana!!!!!

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

06/08, 11:06am | report spam | close Reply |
By the way. . .

This switch to Intel offers WinXP software a new market. ALL software written for WinXP will have very little difficulty being ported to Mac now. I smell blood in the water. Bwoooohaaaaaaa

jreades
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 1999

0

06/08, 11:12am | report spam | close Reply |
Open OSX

OSX will not be sold for any old PC hardware for the foreseeable for two reasons:

1. Support costs -- Apple will never make enough money selling OSX at $125 a pop and offering *any* support at all. I could vaguely... perhaps... see some kind of stripped-down "OSX Developer Copy" that would be explicitly unsupported (you cannot call Apple at all or you have to register your PC in some way) and would cost a bomb (think $999 developer boxes). This would get others using OSX, but would limit access to the techies (who are the most likely to guide a switch) without undercutting their hardware sales too much. They also need to be careful about going head-to-head with MS.

2. Apple's money comes from hardware sales, so any software sales have to be based solely on whether or not they undermine their software sale. So they give away iTunes for Windows as a way of selling hardware iPods to Windows users. For all the success of the iPod, Apple still makes more money of computer sales. So they'll only give away or sell 'Open OSX' when they can figure out a way to make it shift Mac hardware either directly or indirectly.

jon

Roehlstation
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 11:47am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Mac ROM

The ROM (now called Open Firmware) hasn't been a physical chip for a long time. That is contained in software now. And has been software since Mac OS 8.5.

slffl
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jan 2003

0

06/08, 12:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
money

Why does everyone think everyone is out to make as much money as possible?! Who CARES about how much revenue Apple could make. They make enough as it is. If they turn into a greedy a$$ corp then you will truly see the end of Apple as we know it. Boring, low-quality hardware and software like all the rest of these companies are putting out.

grossph
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

06/08, 12:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
RE: Money

Ok, for all you ultruistic individuals out there. Apple is in the business to make money. All companies are in the business to make money. They come up with products not because they are simply cool, but because they will sell. You can be a profitable company and not be a greedy company.

AGAIN....apple should not and probably will not allow OS X to run on Generic PCs, why would they do that..it would kill there hardware business and increase their support cost. Why would they want to do that.

Come on, lets use our brains a bit. Did anyone study economics?

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 12:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
Dells and the ROM

Apple hasn't put the Mac ROM on board the computer in years. In OS 9 it was mostly in software (on the HD, system folder) and loaded into RAM on boot. OpenFirmware does a little of the bootstrapping to get the computer to start-up, but there's no longer a ROM at all in OS X. (The ROM was basically Apple's way of saving memory, as it allowed the Toolbox to exist without taking up space, but patchable as needed. By taking it out, it allowed them to reduce production costs and headaches. The OS X frameworks are now all software-based).

The reason the old attempts failed (hey, I remember an article in MacWorld, featuring one Ben Chou, who made a compatible that barely worked) was basically they had to re-create the entire API, and code it, since it was in the ROM. That wouldn't have to be done here.

BTW, I would think that the relative ease/difficulty of this task on Intel PCs would be exactly the same for anyone with a PPC machine. Its just no one makes a PPC machine. But if they did, they'd just have to "emulate"/"mimic" the motherboard calls.

As for this comment Add to that the fact that Dell's industrial design is complete rubbish and I see no reason for Apple to quake in its boots. Given the choice, if the price difference isn't too steep then most users will pick a shiny PB or iBook over a clunky Dell any day.

But the price difference is steep, and will most likely stay that way (hey, read yesterday that Apple's cost per PPC was LESS than Intel chip costs, yet the computer still cost more). Apple has margins to maintain, and they like high-priced computers. You won't see a sub-1000 powerbook. And don't start going down the idiot slope of "But if you configure them the same way with same features", because that also misses the point of being able to configure those Dells in a whole lot more ways then Macs".

alex627
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

06/08, 12:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
Why is this posted here??

That cooltech zone site is just 4 hacks reporting non-infomative drivel. Everything in this article is either completely obvious or completely wrong. Why is that website being pimped by MacNN and Slashdot!!!

sglewis
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/08, 12:42pm | report spam | close Reply |
OSX on Clones - So What!

I'm sure Apple with both take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized installs AND understands that it may happen. It won't become an epidemic!

How long is it possible to copy commercial DVDs (and how easy is it?) I know it costs the movie studios money - but doesn't the average Joe continue to rent from BlockBuster and buy from BestBuy? I still do, and can EASILY copy them - I just don't. The ones that do, were not likely to pay full price anyway - they were going to rent and copy, or borrow and copy, or just do nothing.

How many computer users even upgrade RAM themselves? They aren't going to follow a web page instructional document, and hack together an install, hoping that their hardware is 100% supported.

Most average consumers will keep what they have, and/or consider buying a Mac.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 12:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: By the way

This switch to Intel offers WinXP software a new market. ALL software written for WinXP will have very little difficulty being ported to Mac now. I smell blood in the water. Bwoooohaaaaaaa

There is nothing about going to intel that makes converting Windows XP software being ported to the Mac. They use a completely different API, which would require a complete rewrite (well, some internal logic can be saved).

BTW, if you use the other statement of "Its easy to port PPC code to Intel", then you could get that OS X Intel code to PPC no problem. Then there would've been no problem porting Wintel software to my G5 Mac right now. And they don't do that, do they. Nope.

There is NOTHING in this announcement that gets more software written for the Mac. in fact, there's NOTHING in this announcement that will get more hardware to work with the mac. That will only come with marketshare, or if Apple ever releases a YellowBox for Windows, so you could recompile your OS X apps that'll run on windows. That might bring some developers over.

Bryson
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2002

0

06/08, 12:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
Just stupid

People who write articles like this, and call for Apple to put OSX on any old PC, don't get what makes the Mac work so well. It's not having to deal with all the c*** apps, and peripherals and drivers that pollute the PC world.

It will not happen lest Apple just want to become another commodity PC company. They don't. It won't.

This is about processor only. It has nothing to do with the platform as a whole. What's so hard to understand about this? It might be because all the PC weenies who have been predicting Apple's demise unless they move to Intel arent getting what they wanted: to be able to make their own mac with spare garage parts. Sorry junkmasters. That's not what this platform is about.

Souljah
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2002

0

06/08, 01:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
RE: Ugh

nah...all they have to do is force those that want OS X/X86 compatibility to adhere to Apple's strict hardware standards.This would filter the fud. Simple.

Those hardware manufacturers will be proud to wear the "Apple Approved" sticker just like we're gonna wear the " Intel inside" sticker ;-) Why can't we all just get along. lol

ApeInTheShell
Senior User

Joined: Nov 2002

0

06/08, 01:36pm | report spam | close Reply |
This is a big deal

I know normal people that try Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Flash that they got illegally through a P2P service. They say, "well once I start using this full time I will pay the price". About three weeks later you ask them if they picked up Adobe Photoshop CS2 at the store and they reply, "No, but its free online so I can just increase my productivity ten fold without paying". People will do the same thing if Mac OS X Tiger is available for their junk PCs. Why should they pay $129 for Leopard when they can pirate it on the net? Besides, they'll pay Apple back one of these days as soon(if) they buy a Mac.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 01:45pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: this is a big deal

People will do the same thing if Mac OS X Tiger is available for their junk PCs. Why should they pay $129 for Leopard when they can pirate it on the net? Besides, they'll pay Apple back one of these days as soon(if) they buy a Mac.

This is NOT a big deal, because you can do that right now with Tiger and your current Mac. Why should I pay $129 for Tiger for my iBook when I can pirate it? In fact, there are people who buy a copy and use it to update all their household computers, or buy the family pack and update the office with it (not supposed to do that). There's piracy already. Letting it run on PCs isn't magically going to start it.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

06/08, 01:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Ugh

nah...all they have to do is force those that want OS X/X86 compatibility to adhere to Apple's strict hardware standards.This would filter the fud. Simple.

Oh yeah, that was really simple with NT when they did that, huh? Go through a huge list of hardware, try to find out whether your CD-ROM drive is on the list. Make sure the model number matches exactly. And it doesn't filter the fud, because Apple still has to support OS X on these platforms. So its more computers, and more combinations of components, they have to deal with.

Those hardware manufacturers will be proud to wear the "Apple Approved" sticker just like we're gonna wear the " Intel inside" sticker ;-) Why can't we all just get along. lol

No, they won't be 'proud' to wear an apple approved sticker, because it'll probably cost them money to get it. And what are they going to care? Why should they waste their time doing something for OS X?

And what's the value for Apple? To let it run on non-Apple hardware, it sucks out Apple's hardware sales, and that's still where they make their money. If they were going to do this, they'd have to raise the price of OS X to match up to Windows levels, just to cover the added support costs on their side, as well as to cover the missing hardware revenue (unless you think Apple's hardware revenue isn't used to cover all costs, including OS development). There's no win here for Apple if you could easily get a Dell and load it up.

BTW, people who say that this would give the choice of running the OS, then maybe they'd buy Apple hardware: Why would they? If the OS runs crappy on their computer, they're going to think its the OS, not the equipment, and just go back to their old OS. If it runs great, why spend an extra $500-$1000 on an Apple computer (plus whatever you need to get it to a runnable state - memory, video cards, etc) when getting another $1000 Dell will run it just as well? Most computer people have their computers under their desk and really could give a flying leap what it looks like (which is where both my PC and Mac are).

zoetrope
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2004

0

06/08, 02:07pm | report spam | close Reply |
The same fanbois

This article is correct, and obvious to those who choose to see the future of Apple's hardware business because of this move. Comparing pirated copies of DVD movies to OS X, wow talk about apples to oranges (no pun intended)

By the way, its the very same voices who are saying "Apple will still keep their hardware proprietary" that were saying "Apple running on Intel...never!"

Apple would be wise to split their hardware and software divisions into seperate companies.

seanc
Moderator

Joined: Apr 2005

0

06/08, 02:28pm | report spam | close Reply |
Linux

If XP programs could be ported to OS X so easily, then why don't we see them on Linux?

gadgetgav
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2004

0

06/08, 02:50pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not a Pentium

At no time did Jobs say Apple would be releaseing products based on Pentium chips. Sure, the developers TRANSITION system is a Pentium, but he wants those back remember. He said that would never be released as a product. I expect that they will be getting an Intel chip that is Pentium-like and uses a lot of the same code, but is not the same Pentium that will be in a Dell box. That way there will be no way OS X will run on a generic beige box. Who knows what tricks they are building into the Universal Binary - maybe it will run on PPC, Pentium and the future chip, even though there's only two check boxes right now.

eddd
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2001

0

06/08, 02:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
NEVER ever. Probably ;-)

Yes, Apple has been using Open Firmware for years now, but won't on Intel machines. Apple's x86 guidelines state "Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware." Back to hardware EPROM or BIOS or whatever you want to call it. And so forget about running OS X on home-made computers, unless an illegal EPROM ring surfaces (could happen). I'm sad about this, but not that sad.

It's valuable to see how much Apple means to Intel. They've been burned badly by the consoles, seeing their long-time allies move to IBM. They've also been frustrated by PC maker's bottom-line mentality and lack of innovation. Every year they try to inspire PC makers into doing something exciting (thereby helping sell their chips), but to no avail. Now they have a partner that revels in innovation. I think Apple will instantly become the flagship, showcase company that Intel has always wanted. Intel will give them the best they have. And we will finally have a clear distinction between pro machines and consumer machines (single-core on consumer, dual-core extreme editions on the towers). Don't be surprised to see the first Intel Powerbook appear next year sporting dual-core Pentium M chips (called Yonah).

And it'll be fun to watch Michael Dell have a coronary while he watches Apple machines completely annihilate his new, so-called "premium" boxes. Hah!

The more I read, the more I am completely satisfied with this move (then again, I'm no programmer). After we users get over the seven stages of death, I think the excitement will grow rapidly, expecially if the first machines truly kick some tail like they should.

outsourced
Forum Regular

Joined: May 2005

0

06/08, 02:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
HP?

HP + iPod

HP + OS X?

Anything is possible, as we have recently witnessed.

outsourced
Forum Regular

Joined: May 2005

0

06/08, 03:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
HP? revisited

Ummm...sorry. I had a brain f***.

sehix
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2000

0

06/08, 03:35pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: ...the Mac ROM

The "Mac ROM", as a physical entity, went away when then the iMac was introduced.

That's been nearly 7 years now.

Stone Soldier
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2005

0

06/08, 04:01pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: NEVER ever. Probably

Have to agree with ebbb here I think he hit the nail on the head. Especially about what Apple means to Intel. Apple can implement Intel's newest features instantly like it did with USB, way before any box maker like Dell.

I'm more confidant that there will be a hack to allow OS X to be installed on a generic machine. It won't be easy, and driver support will be limited so it won't appeal to the mainstream audience.

There are a lot of people out there who will buy a Mac box to run Windows. Apple typically produces the reliable hardware of any manufacurer and has excellent warrenty and service. I am a Mac user but would love to be able to boot in Win XP from time to time.

ronjamin
Baninated

Joined: May 2002

0

06/08, 04:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
DMCA prevents Clone Wars

The fact is that OSX today can run on several IBM PPC workstations. That doesn't mean people will circumvent Apple just to run the OS on a non-Apple machine.

The DMCA will prevent OSX from being bundled with any non-Apple system. Do you think Dell, Gateway, Sony would risk a lawsuit? I doubt it. There is no need for ROM's, theres no need for hardware dongle chips, theres no need for anything.

The fact is that OSX will work on nearly any Intel PC. Most PC hardware is recognized by OSX. Its an acedemic argument.

However, only an idiot would buy a cheap $300 IBM clone with Linspire and load OSX and end up not get any support AND be in violation of DMCA when they can get a brand new, cool looking, fast, warranty Mac Mini. NO one in the consumer market is going to buy a blank PC and put OSX on it. No one in the corporate market is going to buy blank PC's and install OSX without support. It again is an acedemic argument.

Yes, yes, some hackers, and most likely ME, will build a non-Apple, Intel based mac just to see if we can do it. Its mental masturbation.

Look at the Mini. Its cheap, and will get cheaper as time goes on and it acquires an Intel chip. Apple has to meet or beat the PC worlds cheap PC's. The Intel move opens up a vast supply chain that can adapt to rapidly changing customer demands. PPC, unfortunately, couldn't keep up with that despite it being a more powerful platform.

Bottom line, Im glad they made the move. Psychologically, it removes the chip difference from the table once and for all.

horvatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

06/08, 09:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple sells hardware

For the dumb writer of this column Apple is in the hardware business not the software business. If it were to license OSX it would lose money not make money and then it would go out of business. Apple sells hardware as it is a computer manufacturer and the best one there is in the world. So I don't see it licensing it's OS to anyone period as it would be the dumbest move ever. It is only producing software to enhance it's hardware line and make it more enviting for someone to buy there hardware. I wish writers would stop writing about the OS licensing thing because it's not going to happen.

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

06/09, 02:17pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not so fast, HW vs SW

Steve Jobs has repeatedly state that Apple is a software company first, hardware only because they are forced to provide it for their software. Yeah and M$ is just losing money every day by licensing their software, oh geeez, that's all they do and they support several of the world's richest people. BUT more important, all this talk about competing head to head with Dell etc is absurd. First Qtr. computer sales were 46.1 million units, Apple accounted for a paltry 1.07 million of that total. Dell shipped 8.7 milliion units, HP 7.1 million. does anyone here understand manufacturing on this scale? Apple doesn't actually make many of these units, they are contracted out. It would take years to tool up factories and build the shipping and support infrastructure to ship 8 times as many units (let alone trying to get IBM to ship enough chips). Supporting OS X on a small minority of qualified boxes could do what they can't with their own hardware, double the number of prople using their software nearly overnight. Sell the hardware too but the few they'd lose would be mitigated by the new users. Hmmm which has a highe profit margin? A $500 computer or a $129. DVD?

NukemanMD
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2005

0

06/11, 10:33pm | report spam | close Reply |
And the Winner Is .....

Of more interest than the possibility of successfully porting OSX to Wintel machines, is the the fact that Apple doesn't intend to restrict the use of Windows XP et al on its Intel-based machines. This development may turn out to be a win-win situation for everyone, and a sign that Apple cares about the financial well-being of entities other than Apple.

For instance:

1. Developers of OSX software will should be able to cut development costs for dual platform versions of applications. Mac owners will see more traditionally Intel-only apps available for their machines.

2. Assuming full Win XP functionality is achieved on Macs, MAC sales should increase significantly, particularly to those users who, while intrigued by the Mac's aesthetics and elegance, couldn't justify purchasing a MAC due to Windows dynamics (their investment in X86 software, as well the overwhelming choice of titles.

3. Since Apple will be offering cross-platform conversion tools to developers, X86 applications developers will be able to offer MAC versions without expensive recoding / debugging.

4. Similarly, MAC applications developers will have have the incentive to invest in enhancements with the expanded market.

5. While porting an X86 version of OSX to non-Apple hardware will be an irrestible project for hackers, will it really hurt Apple's bottom ? X86 users have little incentive to use OSX because there simplly aren't any killer applications that aren't available for the X86 platform. (Does anyone remember Microsoft's Softcard product for the Apple II ?)

Besides, not all software piracy damages the developer. Its only those instances where the pirate genuinely needs a product and would have purchased it, that developer suffers a loss. Assuming that a fully compatible hack of OSX becomes available, how many sales of OSX would Apple really lose ? Again, how many killer MAC-only apps exist ?

Unfortunately, in keeping with its past practice, this move will serve to accelerate the obsolescense of PowerPC-based Macs ... but then I'm used to it.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Can Apple keep Mac OS X off generic PCs?

updated 09:15 am EDT, Wed June 8, 2005

OS X on PCs

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Simply Incompatible

Hardware Company

If an XP Powerbook was...

OS X on a windows pc

Incorrect

Intel DRM?

Ugh

Can you imagine...

Re: Ugh

Don't forget the Mac ROM

Intel Chips/Mac OS

well

Dell PB? Hardly!

Tried in the old days

Wait A minute

Missing a Big Point

Welcome to Open OSX

By the way. . .

Open OSX

Re: Mac ROM

money

RE: Money

Dells and the ROM

Why is this posted here??

OSX on Clones - So What!

Re: By the way

Just stupid

RE: Ugh

This is a big deal

Re: this is a big deal

Re: Ugh

The same fanbois

Linux

Not a Pentium

NEVER ever. Probably ;-)

HP?

HP? revisited

Re: ...the Mac ROM

Re: NEVER ever. Probably

DMCA prevents Clone Wars

Apple sells hardware

Not so fast, HW vs SW

And the Winner Is .....

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace