Exclusive Deal

While supplies last, save 40% off over 40 iPhone 5 and iPhone 4/4S cases and chargers as well as Samsung S III cases at Kensington.com. Use coupon code 'SAVE40%' at checkout to receive this exclusive discount.

toggle

AAPL Stock: 442.14 ( 0 )

MacNN News

http://www.macnn.com/articles/02/02/19/cringely.advocating/

Cringely advocating OSX on x86

updated 04:15 pm EST, Tue February 19, 2002

", 0, 0);

Robert Cringely discusses the topic of Mac OS X on non-PowerPC chips -- including Intel processors. This edition of 'I, Cringely: The Pulpit' is subtitled "How the Best Thing for Apple, for Users, and Even for Microsoft, Would Be an Intel Version of OS X," where Mr. Cringely presents the reasons for Apple to make available Mac OS X top x86-compatible hardware.

by MacNN Staff

Post tools:

TAGS :

audio

toggle

Comments

docbrown
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2002

0

02/19, 04:34pm | report spam | close Reply |
With All Do Respect

While I appreciated this guy's zeal for Mac OS X, there is an old Biblical saying about tossing your pearls before swine. I think Apple has better things to do than to make Microsoft a better company. And besides, I think it would take A LOT more than that to get those turds anywhere near the starting line to improvement.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/19, 04:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
but

who makes apple a better company? who improves the quality of the products apple puts out, besides apple?

the concept of attacking "the other 95%" is BS unless apple is willing to "compete" with other companies for that business. how many other markets can apple enter if not OS's, where they already have a fair amount of work done?

lnoble
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2000

0

02/19, 04:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
They can't

Apple is dead if they enter that market. They no longer would be able to sell consumer level hardware and would loose all revenue, being forced into a software/high end work station company. They would be put into a direct battle with Microsoft, who could at a whim stop development of Office and Exploiter, virtually eliminating any value in the relitive ignorant eyes of the majority of the market.

vallette
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2004

0

02/19, 05:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
How about this

I agree that porting the client version of OS X to Intel is losing proposition on a number of fronts, especially in terms of Apple's bottom line, but what about only porting the server version?

To me this makes perfect sense and allows Apple to enter a market that they don't seriously compete in. Although Apple's flirted with the server market in the past they don't currently (or it appears in the future) have plans to market a true server version of OS X compatible hardware. By 'true server version' I mean rack mountable units with hot swappable drives, NIC cards, power supplies, etc. Without the server equipment they'll always suffer in the corporate world. Companies buy Intel based servers, load them with Intel compatible server software (read MS) and then put compatible clients on the desktop.

So lets say Apple ports OS X server to Intel. IT professionals gain a robust, UNIX based server package and an alternative to MS and Apple gains the foot-in-the-door they need to start competing in the corporate world. Porting is simplified since the majority of consumer oriented applications and drivers wouldn't be run in a server setting. And (maybe this is just wishful thing) with OS X based servers in the basement it'd make sense to have OS X based clients on the desktop.

Although this would make an Intel version of Apple's crown jewel available to the general public, the price point of the server version would put it out of reach for the vast majority of home/casual users thereby not threatening Apple's current bread and butter. In fact at 1000 bucks a pop I'd venture that selling the Intel version might actually contribute to the bottom line. Of course this scenario assumes (and this may be the wrong assumption) that Macintosh hardware intended for server applications aren't a significant contributor to Apple's current sales.

DannyMac
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

02/19, 05:27pm | report spam | close Reply |
ummmm.... NOPE

Man that move from 68k to PPC was painless wasn't it? Let's just introduce FAT (PPC & Intel... h***, let's throw in 68k as well!) code again and give Mac's an Intel emulator... yeah we can do this! I cannot wait as it would slowly eat away at Apple's profits--ya know them being a hardware company and all!

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/19, 05:28pm | report spam | close Reply |
OS X Server

I think MacOS X should stay exclusively PowerPC-based but I think making OS X Server might have some merit. It is a far easier platform to setup but has suffered from the weaker performance of Apple's server hardware.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/19, 05:31pm | report spam | close Reply |
This is simple

The only reason anyone wants OS X on Intel is to get CHEAP hardware to run the OS on.

What is so special about OS X that they absolutely MUST have it on Wintel junk hardware (a lot of the cheap stuff is literally cheap components slammed together in Taiwan)?

Isn't having the better Linux platform and 90% Windows world enough (excluding Linux, which is supposedly around the same user levels as the Mac you should actually end up with ~90% Windoze vs everyone else)?

I like Mac hardare, I like Mac OS X (now that its actually useful). Why would I buy a cheap Compaq box that doesn't include FireWire or a SuperDrive or whatever to run OS X on?

Mac OS X on Mac hardware is the advantage, its not simply the OS stupid (Cringley).

automorrow
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2000

0

02/19, 05:32pm | report spam | close Reply |
Mac OS Xindows

...I thought it would be a great idea a while ago.... Just think, you could then finally prove to everyone what a hunk of s#!t a Pentium processor is compaired to a G4 Power PC......and it would never crash. The Pentium owners would have a slower machine, but it would work flawlessly, plus they would get Appleworks, iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, all in the bundle for FREE! Worth the $99.00 bucks.....then boot into Win XP, and compare the garbage....

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/19, 05:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
Bad Idea

The problem with creating an Intel version of OSX is that Apple will be swamped with requests to fix drivers for all the different hardware that attach to PCs. We all know that most PCs are Frankensteins. The reason Apple succeeds is because they make the whole widget, so the OS and the hardware work flawlessly together. Moving into the Intel market will move too much engineering effort to fixing OSX to work on all the different hardware. Just look at how big Microsoft is and they can't even get Windows to work correctly on all the hardware available!

Also, the people who buy Wintels think they're buying a faster computer and when OSX doesn't run as fast on their 2GHz machine than it does on a 800 MHz G4 they'll blame the company who makes the OS, Apple. Also, all the Velocity Engine enhanced applications, such as iPhoto and iDVD won't run, or won't be fast enough on the Intel Architecture.

I agree that Apple should grow in Market Share, but not at the detriment of the company. They won't be able to make a huge jump, they've got to take it nice and easy. Playing it safe isn't a bad thing to do in this economy.

My 2�.

Mark

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/19, 07:14pm | report spam | close Reply |
Yawn

The talented Mr Cringely sounds far better at climbing oak trees to install his high-gain internet antennas than he does predicting Apple's future plans.

Not gonna happen.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/19, 07:43pm | report spam | close Reply |
Silly idea...

NeX^H^H^HApple has already done this.

OPENStep was a wonderful system and environemnt, but was expensive and supported limited hardware.

Now, OS-X is "Free" and/or cheap in comparison. It doesn't have the sign up and anti-piracy "features" that XP must now use.

I'll bet that the OS-X anit-piracy unit consists of one guy writing the licensing agreements versus the massive effort that MS must make.

OS-X has a built in anti-piracy device. It's called a Macintosh. The Macintosh-as-dongle is what make OS-X "piracy" proof.

If you're running OS-X, then you're running on a Mac. If you're running on a Mac, then you bought it from Apple. This is not a problem from Apple's point of view.

Works pretty good for "free" Solaris SPARC as well.

Since Apple is responsible for the entire product, hardware, software and firmware, it is important for them to make each decision very carefully. While users love to have the option to plug this and that into the machine, all of that choice brings overhead to a focus at one point: Apple. The key word here is "overhead". Support is rarely a profit center, and reducing support costs helps the company dedicate resources to improving the product.

The Intel market is a black hole of support. Either Apple signs on a "few key hardware providers" to write Intel drivers, or they write them internally. Either way, you have limited hardware support because of limited resources at Apple or limited vendor participation.

I mean, what's the OS/2 driver situation nowadays like?

If Apple makes a significant enough headway into that "95%", then maybe it will be worth exploring a port OS-X, but until then I think the "Mac as dongle" is going to be with us for some time.

As for OS-X Server on Wintel, I see much the same issue. I think an "Open OS-X" compatability layer (file system layout, proprietary system utilities [OpenNetInfo anyone?], etc) on top of *BSD would be a better path. That would be a nice gift from Apple to the Darwin teams.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/20, 12:12am | report spam | close Reply |
Classic!

Apple could port MacOS 9.2 to Intel and give them a taste of what could befor them if they moved up from the ordinary PC to the Macintosh World. If they learn to like Clasicand want MacOS X, they would need to switch to best combination of hardware and operating system, a Mac!

jtg

Abe L.
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2002

0

02/20, 12:24am | report spam | close Reply |
IMO

Nope, Apple is in a precarious position. Porting to x86 means a death in hardware sales. It would force them to put more r&d into software development and compete directly with MS. And right now, MS is a monopoly with their grubby hands in way too many areas so forget that. The smart way to go IMO is to partner with Sun and promote an end to end server solution using OS X server. If you can penetrate the business environment starting at the backend instead of the front it might be a good way to gain that precious market share. OS X on Sun and Apple hardware servers with tight integration with OS X client hardware (ie: iMacs) means business can make a choice to move to the Mac platform; espically if Apple makes some features that only work with that hardware and software (sun or apple's). Also make Appleworks as powerful as MS Office, name it something different like "Apple Office" and then give it full file sharing compatability for MS Office files. Make a full office suite of products and make them integrate seamlessly with the high end Sun servers as well as Apple's midrange servers to the iMac and Towers. Perhaps that just might work. The people will be saying "Well I want my child to learn on what we use at work" and this time it will be Apple software instead of MS software. So then the schools migrate back to Apple and then people buy Macs for their homes because thats what they use at work...etc.....

crovira
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2002

0

02/20, 12:34am | report spam | close Reply |
Dumb Idea.

Stay off the 32 bit x86 platform. Let Gate's sweat the antitrust. When the x86 dies, Microsoft dies with it.

It would actually be smarter to move OS X to IBMs Z series.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

02/20, 10:52am | report spam | close Reply |
Yep, Apple is a hardware

company. And until it makes more sales on Mac OS X than it does on its hardware, by maybe a 10:1 ratio Apple could not be profitable going all software. But think about it a second, if every single PC user was given the chance to upgrade to Mac OS X for the same cost as Mac OS X on the Mac, Apple could multiply their sales by more than 10 (being there are 10 times as many PC sales as Mac sales). Enough to make as much on sales of Mac OS X as they do on iBooks. The key of course is marketing. But that would require the vast majority of PC users to go to Mac OS X. The advantage of course is, if this happened developers would start developing for Mac OS X, and it wouldn't matter what hardware you had. The question is, could Apple do it? They need better marketing than they have now in order for it to succeed.

Bernard Ducamp
Forum Regular

Joined: Apr 2001

0

02/20, 11:24am | report spam | close Reply |
OX X to Wintel World?

Not going to happen.

The Wintel world is a no-man's/no-woman's land for Apple.

Apple is much better off letting the Wintel world slowly dissolve internally. GO LINUX!!

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

12/07, 11:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not worth it

There are a few reasons why an OSX port to x86 would be unwise.
1. Software
-- When the old BeOS was still in production, there was both a PPC version and an x86 version. Software made for the x86 version would not run on the PPC version, however, because some programs speak directly to the processor.
2. QUARTZ
-- I am not a Mac user, but am quite impressed by the Quartz Graphics layer. However, there is a problem with having Quartz on x86. Quartz, like some programs, speaks directly to the IBM PPC processor, currently running in most Macs (the G4). Intel's x86 line, including the P4, don't have built in calls that relate directly to the G4's graphics calls. AMD's line comes closer with versions of 3d-now!, but it's not exact. Quartz would run MUCH slower and choppier on x86, because it is completely designed for other processors.

And on the issue of OSX Server, no offense, but the PC world does not need it. A nice free version of Linux or even a cheap version of UNIX can prove just as stable. Because PPC versions of *NIX's have been notoriously less stable, OSX Server is a perfect Macintosh solution, but the PC world already has the job done.

MacNN.com Reader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

01/30, 02:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Mac Owners Wake Up!

As a cross platform developer who started in the days of the first Mac plus and 286's I have seen a disturbing trend. It used to be Macs were called the "toy" machine by PC owners who did not know Macs. Now I see Mac people claiming their Macs are superior with no understanding of PC's!

Here's some facts.

1) Apple hardware is no longer proprietary or unique. The only difference is the processor. All controller chips, slots, video, audio, drives and yes even firewire are identical to PC's.

2) Notice the shrinking Mac specialty titles? In bygone eras you could find specialty software for Macs that duplicated anything available for PC's. This is no longer the case. I know of at least a dozen developers who write code on Macs, port to windows and don't even bother releasing a Mac version of their software! The sales are simply not there to cover costs.

3) I recently built a high end PC that runs rings around my G4. It has ports galore on both the front and back (yes, even includes both size firewire ports) common serial ports, slide out racks, thermostatically controlled fans (much quiter then a typical Mac), more power, bigger drives and more then comes on the latest Mac. It even supports 6 channel digital audo! All inclusive for $750. Unfortunatley it does not run the Mac OS.

Apple's future is not as a hardware company. They are already following PC hardware trends and have stopped inovating. (Unless you think a one button hockey puck mouse, lame keyboards, cases without front ports and expansion bays or a button to eject CD's is inovative.)

Don't believe me? What happened to Apple serial, Nubus, and all the goofy processor slots over the years? Switch Mac/PC, modems, drives or PCI cards and they work in either platform! Getting the picture? We like Macs because of the Operating System and software....not the hardware. But the world market will not pay 3 or 4 times as much for hardware that will run OSX!

Apple's real future is as a software company. They cannot continue to grow Apple's business by selling over-priced hardware. Check out some of the better PC hardware 98% of the world is running. Then imagine the $Billions$ Apple could make by offering OSX to run on that hardware, the software that would be available to you and the money you could save.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/23	AT&T GoPhone may get iPhone, LTE/HSPA...
05/23	Brazilian email may back Apple performing...
05/23	iOS 6 Flyover coverage expands to more...
05/23	Google posts Chrome 28 beta, integrates...
05/23	Google in 'holding pattern' with Apple...

Show All

05/23	AT&T GoPhone may get iPhone, LTE/HSPA...
05/23	Google posts Chrome 28 beta, integrates...
05/23	Google in 'holding pattern' with Apple...
05/23	Report claims details of iPhone 5S,...
05/23	iAd gets Media Ratings Council aaccreditation...

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

Cringely advocating OSX on x86

updated 04:15 pm EST, Tue February 19, 2002

With All Do Respect

but

They can't

How about this

ummmm.... NOPE

OS X Server

This is simple

Mac OS Xindows

Bad Idea

Yawn

Silly idea...

Classic!

IMO

Dumb Idea.

Yep, Apple is a hardware

OX X to Wintel World?

Not worth it

Mac Owners Wake Up!

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Cringely advocating OSX on x86

updated 04:15 pm EST, Tue February 19, 2002

Related Articles

Recent Articles

With All Do Respect

but

They can't

How about this

ummmm.... NOPE

OS X Server

This is simple

Mac OS Xindows

Bad Idea

Yawn

Silly idea...

Classic!

IMO

Dumb Idea.

Yep, Apple is a hardware

OX X to Wintel World?

Not worth it

Mac Owners Wake Up!

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace