Apple has to fight off three of the biggest PC companies, sick of the security bugs that plague Windows, wanting to license the Mac operating system. My take: Embrace it my child, don’t fight it off.
Steve Jobs: PC makers want to license Mac OS X
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
196 Comments
2005-02-12 2:32 pm
2005-02-12 2:35 pm
2005-02-12 2:59 pm
2005-02-12 3:04 pm
Anonymous
If MacOS X would be available for x86 I’d get a copy. I got a Windows just to be able to play to some games and since most are available for MacOS X, why not 
But they would have to work on hardware support. That could be prohibitive first.
2005-02-12 3:05 pm
2005-02-12 3:28 pm
2005-02-12 3:47 pm
2005-02-12 4:03 pm
2005-02-12 4:16 pm
2005-02-12 4:23 pm
2005-02-12 4:39 pm
2005-02-12 4:59 pm
2005-02-12 5:13 pm
2005-02-12 5:20 pm
“My take: Embrace it my child, don’t fight it off.”
eh ?
Hehe, this isnt star wars you know. ;D
If you steal a copy of OSX it won’t do you much good unless you steal Apple hardware too. I wonder if they could leverage the market share gains from an X86ification enough to compensate for a possible loss of profit from the hardware and piracy.
long term this is would be great but the short term would be very painful and possibly deadly as it would kill revenues from desktops.
so how do you transistion?
Just skimmed it, but its not the most accurate article I’ve ever seen. Apparently, Apple wrote iTunes from scratch in 4 months.
Err, no they didn’t. They bought iTunes, and it’d already undergone a lot of development as SoundJam before then.
If you steal a copy of OSX it won’t do you much good unless you steal Apple hardware too.
How much needs to be ported? BSD and Darwin run on x86. Obviously Aqua, but the truth is that many core pieces of OS X (obviously KHTML, Darwin, Xorg…) are not tied directly to the architecture, right?
I’m sure that there’s a ton of work to be done with hardware support, but I’d imagine that a lot of stuff wouldn’t be that hard using Linux drivers as a base.
>I wonder if
I have written in my editorial 2.5 years ago, IF Apple was to come to x86, Mac-x86 would NOT be “normal” PCs. It would be a closed architecture with a modified BIOS that would make OSX to only work on specific Apple x86 hardware. This would continue the PPC-like business just on a different platform, without losing money and control over the hardware used. Remember, this is a must-do policy, not only because of control and profit, but also because the x86 third party hardware is so immensely vast that no new OS stands any chance of supporting all this hardware, and that would make users unhappy. So, control over hardware is important for *any* OS.
>Hehe, this isnt star wars you know. ;D
Actually, when I wrote this I was mostly thinking a very nice episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”. In that episode a “computer game” makes the player a drone. Wesley Crusher and his girlfriend are the only ones in the ship who haven’t try it and near the end they are forced to play the game to become drones too. His mother says these words I think at some point. Commander Data saves the day at the end.
This would almost kill Apple HW line instantly, I guess. Even if they are quality computers, I could build a decent PC with nice look and sane noise level. Piracy is also a question: here, in Poland, I don’t know anyone who actualy bought copy of Windows. Sure, some have OME versions, but that’s it.
I have wrote in my editorial 2.5 years ago, IF Apple was to come to x86, Mac-x86 would NOT be “normal” PCs. It would be a closed architecture with a modified BIOS that would make OSX to only work on specific Apple x86 hardware.
This is a solution, but, will this PC get to the normal Apple price range? If yes, why leave PowerPC marekt?
yeah i know this is paranoid.
But why would you trust microsoft’s 3 biggest partners? Its not like those guys are free to do whatever they want. Microsoft would retaliate and who would get the shaft? MS or Apple. My guess is apple.
im with eugenia. the macs fabled stability and so on comes from apples strickt hardware and os control. now if dell could embedd itself into the windows update prosess so that you got motherboard bios updates and so on from them at the same time that you got your latest windows security fixes then maybe we would be seeing similar stability. that its as long as you didnt pull to many fancy moves with the insides of the box.
hell, it would be nice if any hardware maker could embedd themselfs into windows update so that you could pull down the latest driver at the same time as you pull down the latest patches. yes i know drivers are available thru windows update but the corps have to deliver the drivers to microsoft first.
one problem i guess is the security aspect. what would happen if some trojan embedded itself into windows update, huh?
> If yes, why leave PowerPC marekt?
Because the G5 doesn’t scale well for laptops or for faster workstation servers. Xeon chips are faster today. Besides, Apple would go directly to x86-64 if it was to come to x86, they wouldn’t bother with plain 32bit x86 so don’t hold your breath for “cheap” Apple PCs.
This is never going to happen, nothing to see here move along…
Why don’t they just put some cash behind linux or bsd? They know it will work on x86, there is a large ammount of software available already, and it won’t need to be recompiled by the companies that make the software. MacOS X on x86 just isn’t going to happen, so they’d have to go PPC.
I really doubt that they will do that. Even if they did Apple will not sell liscenses for MacOS X. The key of apple’s whole business is the integration with the hardware and software.
Apple would go directly to x86-64
Yes, that makes sense. If Apple would like to embrace a powerfull SMP/x86-64 based computer with MacOSX, it would be nice and powerful
don’t hold your breath for “cheap” Apple PCs
Do I look like a insane person? 😉
Intel has really dropped the ball in terms of processor leadership. AMD and especially IBM are looking a lot better these days.
I see no reason to leave the PowerPC. Letting dell or HP offer powerPCs is another matter though i think that would kill apple.
What might be of value is allowing PC makers to make the next mac mini only cheaper say around $399 and after apple makes cash from the current one.
Why don’t they just put some cash behind linux or bsd?
MacOSX is more hip in US of A, I guess. They are sellers, they want to sell more units. MacOSX would asure some cash flow, while a big procent of people would just stay with Windows boxes.
Wow, I remember that star trek epsiode! It was just called “the game”… it was pretty crazy seeing everyone on the ship chase wesley around…
Yup, it was a great episode.
If Enterprise was as good and innovative as TNG was back then, it would have never been canceled.
OK so…we’ve been though this again and again and again…
Project star trek – anyone remember this? System 7 running on an x86
Rhapsody (aka OS X embryo), ran on x86 while in DP1, DP1, DP3, DP4, DR1 and DR2. Did developers write software for it? Yes they did, but PowerPC software outnumbered the x86 software 2-to-1!!!
Even IF apple ported MacOS X, it would still face the software barrier.
Even IF companies made mac clones to run OS X natively, we;ve already been there, clones canibalized apple sales! Not gonna happen again.
If people want MacOS X, then they want a Mac…so go out an get one! This is not rocket science
Man, when will people ever get it, apple will never put OSX out for commodity hardware, you ain’t going to buy a mobo and such as now and install OSX.
If apple ever does put it on x86 hardware, or license to other companies it will be to specialized hardware, so its just like today, you have to have OSX hardware to run OSX. They want to keap hardware control, it’s a large reason OSX just works. Plus pirating goes down a lot.
How many times must this be said, you will never buy OSX and load it on your homemade computer.
Homemade computers are going away as hardware prices have fallen so much. Even hardware companies are going away from bits and more towards systems, like Shuttle did, they got out of the mobo business to DIY’s and went XPC only.
If apple ever gets up to say 50% market, or even linux by some freak chance grows, or basically some force that gets MS below 50% of the market, then MS will be able to go and buy a company like Dell, and become another vertical company like apple, other OEMs will have died off by then anyways, and the remaining ones like Sony will probably have rolled their own OS by that point (at some point a region will want to get their own OS and not be dependent back on the US for Operating systems, and hardware). Linux will be left to what hardware you can get, but at that point the hardware will be harder to get. As security increases, and the drive towards more tightly integrated computers grow, things like ATX standards and so forth will die since it’s just not practical to have a big bulky standard box when a full integrated unit is much cheaper.
I didn’t see anything in the article that said they wanted to licence os x and run it on x86. Is there anything stopping the larger PC companies from selling PPC boxes?
Not that this would happen, but it seems more likely than Apple allowing an x86 os x machine.
I agree – if big PC makers want OS X, why not make PPC boxes (or, I should say, Apple boxes styled and branded for those makers). Apple made a deal with HP to sell HP branded iPods (although I think that got screwed up just recently).
That Star Trek episode – it was Riker who got “infected” with the game while on, naturally, Risa with some babe 😀
>How many times must this be said, you will never buy OSX and >load it on your homemade computer.
Brad,
You can do this now, today.
Go buy a pegasos ppc mainboard from http://www.pegasosppc.com, and install debian linux and then go buy a copy of mac OSX and install Mac on Linux from http://www.maconlinux.com.
Don’t say it can’t be done on a homemade computer. It already -IS- being done.
Also, there is a live-cd that boots directly into mac os 9.2 – AND you can install that copy of OSX on your x86 pc if you go and get the emulator from pearpc.sourceforge.net.
You need to check out your facts before you post blindly.
-Onetrack
I think it be a viable alternative if OS X was ported to an x86 arch., although apple would end up loosing in hardware. I believe Apple should stay the way it is and not license OS X, simply because its a company that innovates and causes other companies to rethink how they should develop their products.
Both IBM and intel have been creating technologies that allow each of their respective chips to emulate the other. No longer will there be really be x86 code or PPC code because the chips will be so fast that any performance loss due to emulation will be inconsequential for any use… even games when you consider the fact that most gamer performance is the result of the GPU not the CPU. So Apple may be licensing the OS to these companies to at least have a semblance of control over hardware specifications and guidelines that would be non existent in Intel’s emulated PPC world. So Apple requires these companies to include a rom into the the hardware that makes it specific to their hardware alone to the exclusion of Dell, Gateway and all the other no-names. This allows them the opportunity to maintain the same level of control over the hardware without allowing the DIY builders to mess things up like they’ve done in the x86 world but does away with the silly stigma that hangs over Apple’s head suggesting that buying a computer manufactured and controlled by a single company is somehow a bad thing.
Just skimmed it, but its not the most accurate article I’ve ever seen. Apparently, Apple wrote iTunes from scratch in 4 months.
Err, no they didn’t. They bought iTunes, and it’d already undergone a lot of development as SoundJam before then.
From the Fortune article:
“Robbin and a couple of other programmers started over from scratch and pounded out the first version of iTunes in less than four months.”
err, why run os x on top of linux when you allready have a working os in linux? that is unless your after so app thats only available on os x or maybe your after the desktop experience?
If OS X were to ever be released on the x86 platform, no software would run. Virtually everything would need to be recompiled.
Why don’t they just support GNUstep and release their applications for Linux?
Enterprise will be discontinued soon. I watched only the first few episodes, and couldn’t continue. The plot’s biggest mistake is going back to the past. People always look forward to the future. It wouldn’t hurt a few time travel to the past. STV was the best. I very much miss Tuvok, Chakotay, Janeway, the half Klingon engineer, the doctor and the rest of the team. Long live and prosper.
For running my old 680×0 programs and games I use the open source Mac emulator called Basilisk II.
For PPC Mac Classic programs and games I use SheepShaver.
For Mac OS X programs I use PearPC (which is a little slow for games).
But if Apple provided a native x86 Mac OS, their hardware sales would plumet IMO.
Now the PC vendors are crying, but it was their own fault for letting the *OS supplier* dictate their PC business. I wonder where we would be today if the Dell’s and Compaqs stood up to Microsoft and fostered the development of OS/2 10-yrs ago? If they are such genius’s then they would know that by allowing a single supplier, you lose control of your business. So they saved a few $ on each computer; looking back, it was very short sighted. Now they want Apple to bail them out… Didn’t Dell have the highest number of PC shipments, yet made almost no money on them? Can’t stay in business long like that.
Apple should license to X86 before someone takes BSD and builds one from scratch, it is not like Apple can do things others can not do since Apple computer is run by the same breed of humanity as anyone else walking around on planet earth…
if Apple sells the license then Apple gets to make something off of it, if they don’t sell the license and somebody else builds a slick BSD based desktop then Apple makes nothing off of it…
I agree we will probably never see OS X “licensed” on the x86. I’m a Mac user and love my Mac but can’t help but feel “boxed in” by the hardware,no matter how well styled it may be. And as people try and port it to their x86s with PearPC and the like I can see Apple finding ways of stopping people from doing it as in the case of the stopping Real player from downloading to the ipod.
wtf.
For Mac OS X programs I use PearPC (which is a little slow for games).
you have got to be joking.. pear pc is to slow for much of anything.
Alot of companies in Taiwan and the US got burned when Jobs killed the clone PPC market back in 1997. A market that existed only…….1 1/2 years?
”
>How many times must this be said, you will never buy OSX and >load it on your homemade computer.
Brad,
You can do this now, today.
Go buy a pegasos ppc mainboard from http://www.pegasosppc.com, and install debian linux and then go buy a copy of mac OSX and install Mac on Linux from http://www.maconlinux.com.
Don’t say it can’t be done on a homemade computer. It already -IS- being done.
Also, there is a live-cd that boots directly into mac os 9.2 – AND you can install that copy of OSX on your x86 pc if you go and get the emulator from pearpc.sourceforge.net.
You need to check out your facts before you post blindly.
-Onetrack”
You clearly need to get a clue. Running and OS on top of another OS is not running it on homemade computer/ standard hardware. Let us all know the day you take a panther CD and load it on a x86 box without any intermediate. or a PPC motherboard for that matter without use of something like linux
OSX does not run on anything but apple hardware. Wacked out hacks are nut running it.
Furthermore no person with any sense is going to buy a Pegusos Board, and go through getting that set up, when they could just by a mac for less then going through that, be a million times easier to buy a mac, and not have a end product that is a pile of junk.
<<Apple should license to X86 before someone takes BSD and builds one from scratch, it is not like Apple can do things others can not do since Apple computer is run by the same breed of humanity as anyone else walking around on planet earth… >>
Let them then… it will never happen. you will get a bunch of haphazard incoherent software, like the most current open-source projects. It has to be a single CEO calling the shots, getting your employed workers to put their personal opionions aside to reach a single uniform design. Won’t happen in the ‘me,me,me’ of the opensource world.
I love Apple, but I honestly think with an alliance with IBM, Sony has the power to develop their own Desktop Environment for either Linux or BSD and leverage OSS the way Apple did. It would be a bold move to drop windows, but with immediate benefits. Sony definitely has a name strong enough to lure new users and with a UI and connectivity with the PSP etc… they can aim for the digital utopia much in the way Apple does. Now is the time to leap on it as M$ is tiring.
MacOS X on x86; nice operating system with no bloody applications; sounds a bit like where Linux is right now; two good desktops, no applications, and crappy hardware support. Why do people think that some how, through divine revelation, that MacOS will be a screaming success on the x86?
Wake up guys and smell the roses; no applications mean bugger all operating system sales. People run Windows because it has the applications they want. Consumers will move once a) The applications they want, are available – no, not replacements but the actual applications and b) when systems are pre-loaded with that alternative operating system, what ever that maybe at the time.
I think this is a topic that is a little bit tired. Apple porting to 86 is never, ever going to happen. Why? To quote Monkey Boy Ballmer “developer, developer, developer…..” They busted their guts out to get their SW ported or built from ground up for Mac OS X and now all a sudden Apple pulls a fast one and tell them to port to 86.? are you crazy, those codes are not going to magically appear. Adding more problems to to the issue, what hardware combination will work on my code? How many HW combination will Apple put out?
And last but not least Apple is a hardware company. Porting to 86 is just as good as Apple committing seipuku. Think about it.
Quote: “but also because the x86 third party hardware is so immensely vast that no new OS stands any chance of supporting all this hardware”
I beg to differ Eugenia. Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system. That Apple cannot, or can’t be bothered to port OS X to proper and full X86 hardware, tells me that they’d face the same problem with hardware development and support from 3rd party hardware developers as Linux currently does. So OS X isn’t that grand in this respect, at least as some Apple fans would like you to believe. The only real reason why OS X is so ‘stable’ on Macs is the very limited and very controlled hardware support. You can if, um, and carry on about it all you damn well like, but it’s the truth.
Dave
Okay, I’m curious about this. OS X apps are Obj-C, right? You’d think the porting effort would be minimal. It’s 2005 people. Porting code should not be an effort in this day and age. Especially to the same OS, just on a different processor! If you need to recompile for that, stop coding now and get a job you can actually do.
Arg. I meant, “if you need more than a recompile for that…” If you can port your code without recompiling, then you’re obviously very, very, good at your job.
Glad to hear you say it Eugenia…you know I have been for a long time:)
We could still dual-boot.
Why do you think apple osx is so great over anything else that’s based on frebsd or linux?, you guys are talking about IBM-Sony and stuff like that, Why wouldn’t you consider IBM-Novel (remember big blue from the first personal computer?, and what about netware? One of the biggest and most succesfull server operating systems?.
I am sure that if apple could make a great os from free bsd (an almost entirely network related os with almost no hardware support in comparisong to linux) that IBM-NOVEL-SUSE-XIMIAN(no screaming just making it stand out). Can and probably will offer more power and financial strengh to create an operating system capable of taking the spot from either Windows or Apple. Also, did you know that Windows xp has port of codebase from freebsd and OS2?, things are not what they used to be. Maybe IBM-Sony will do something, maybe they won’t but I know that IBM-NOVEL-LINUX is doing something just now.
(IBM said once, that money came from hardware and not from software, that’s when they started to licence from Microsoft, (I guess they where wrong then and maybe apple is wrong as well). See Microsoft now a days….
It’s been rumored for a long time that IBM had their own distro in the works but that was a while back and I never heard about it again. So either they’re extremely secretive or it was just that…a rumor. Of course they could always team up with someone too. Who knows. I’d still like OSX on x86 though.
“Apple should license to X86 before someone takes BSD and builds one from scratch, it is not like Apple can do things others can not do since Apple computer is run by the same breed of humanity as anyone else walking around on planet earth… ”
If the above is true? Then why is everyone else trying to browbeat Apple into bringing the Apple experience to the x86? From companies to individuals, over the years. How many chances does the rest of the world need to deliver a like experience?
Second Apple already has delivered an inexpensive computer for the consumer to buy. Why does Apple (from their POV) need to license it’s OS to anyone else? Plus I’m also thinking about the “too many cooks” effect here. It’s the control of hardware AND software that makes the Apple experience. The workstation companies know this as well.
I believe that I read somewhere that Apple creates an x86 version of every OS they release for internal testing, just in case they someday do decide to go that route. It really isn’t a big deal since the core OS already runs on that platform. I really wouldn’t be surprised to see it someday…
Why bother licensing Mac OS X when there’s GNOME and it’s 10,000 “imitation aqua” themes?
“That Apple cannot, or can’t be bothered to port OS X to proper and full X86 hardware, tells me that they’d face the same problem with hardware development and support from 3rd party hardware developers as Linux currently does. ”
1) OpenStep ran on the x86.
2) So they don’t support every piece of hardware ever made. That’s not a bad thing. Sometimes “quality over quantity” is a good thing. And remember they’re selling an “experience”, not just a random collection of parts..
If Apple says no – why can’t these companies leverage their market share and buy out Apple, or at least buy a significant controlling interest – and do everything the can to force the issue? There is simply not enough competition in the commercial OS market. (Indeed unless you count Linux – which is mostly non commercial – there is none). Even the most ardent MS enthusiasts have to admit that a world without competition is not a healthy thing at all.
GJ
“Because OSX makes them feel oh so special ”
And the same can be said for BMW, and Mercedes. Or people who own a Picasso, or… There’s nothing wrong with “feeling special”. People have been doing it ever since there were people. Those who can’t afford either car, or a particular artist might be irritated, but at least with an Apple the entrance fee is $499 (Mac Mini).
“If Apple says no – why can’t these companies leverage their market share and buy out Apple, or at least buy a significant controlling interest – and do everything the can to force the issue?”
I could draw an analogy to a certain four letter country, but I will not. I’ll simply stick with Peoplesoft and Oracle.
“There is simply not enough competition in the commercial OS market. (Indeed unless you count Linux – which is mostly non commercial – there is none).”
And what’s BSD then?
“Even the most ardent MS enthusiasts have to admit that a world without competition is not a healthy thing at all. ”
Doubtful. very doubtful.
“Why do you think apple osx is so great over anything else that’s based on frebsd or linux?, you guys are talking about IBM-Sony and stuff like that, Why wouldn’t you consider IBM-Novel (remember big blue from the first personal computer?, and what about netware?”
So you think we should look to two companies with a track record of dismal OS failure for the next big OS?
I’m surprised you’ve time to share your comments here – with brilliant insight like that you should be off doing high paid consulting work.
IBM is due to release a less power-hungry (aka. less microwavable) G5 chip sometime later and Apple will probably use that for their PB G5.
so 4 years ago apple release OS X forcing all developers to create new applications that were not backwards compatible with OS 9. apple had an application base of 0 (zero, null, notta) and has finally gotten to the point where they have a strong application base.
now 4 years later, you want them to throw that all away, and on top of it add the complexity of forcing users to have to choose which software is right for their architecture (or forcing developers to create x86 and PPC binaries?
i could see apple starting a clone program, but not moving to the x86. why would they move from a fast, elegant, low IPC processor to years of cludge on top of cludge (aka the x86 or x86-64)?
perhaps there is some way for them to coop with a pc manufacturer to pump out PPC boxes at lower prices and higher volumes, but for the consumer’s sake, don’t switch to a different architecture now that things have picked up steam. i didn’t buy my mac because it was another beige box, i bought it because of the awesome hardware inside. if i wanted OS X on x86, i’d have white-boxed it and run darwin.
“I have written in my editorial 2.5 years ago, IF Apple was to come to x86, Mac-x86 would NOT be “normal” PCs. It would be a closed architecture with a modified BIOS that would make OSX to only work on specific Apple x86 hardware.”
Sounds like the idea IBM had before Compaq rendered it useless in 1984.
It’s only a matter of time until such a strategy is reverse engineered.
Unfortunately, poptart, we have the DMCA now…
I would think that would make this a whole different situation….
>I have written in my editorial 2.5 years ago, IF Apple was to come to x86, >Mac-x86 would NOT be “normal” PCs. It would be a closed architecture with >a modified BIOS that would make OSX to only work on specific Apple x86 >hardware. This would continue the PPC-like business just on a different >platform, without losing money and control over the hardware used. >Remember, this is a must-do policy, not only because of control and profit, >but also because the x86 third party hardware is so immensely vast that no >new OS stands any chance of supporting all this hardware, and that would >make users unhappy. So, control over hardware is important for *any* OS.
yeah, that sounds great and all, but it makes no sense. the problem is, while many os x applications are cocoa, many are not. and the carbon programs comprize virtually all of the non-apple programs people actually use (aka: office, photoshop, quark, etc…). it would be extremly non-trivial for these programs to be rewritten in cocoa and it’s not something most of those companies would be willing to do. also, every mac user would have to re-purchase all of their software as none of it would even run on the computer. at least none of the carbon apps, which, btw, includes itunes and the finder.
as such, it makes absolutely no sense for apple to do it.
“I have written in my editorial 2.5 years ago, IF Apple was to come to x86, Mac-x86 would NOT be “normal” PCs. It would be a closed architecture with a modified BIOS that would make OSX to only work on specific Apple x86 hardware.”
This was done by NeXT and Canon……the ObjectStation.
http://www.openstep.se/hardware/canon/canon_objectstation_4.1.pdf
http://www.openstep.se/hardware/canon/3035_objectstation_50.gif
http://www.openstep.se/hardware/canon/objectstation41.jpe
There was no mention of anyone porting anything to x86 in the article. The more likely situation would be other companies making PPC boxes, Maybe sony using thier new CELL processor which is PPC based. Windows won’t run on it anyways, might as well go for OS X while Apple is on people’s minds again.
I’ve been complaining for years that Apple should go x86, even if it has to be using a proprietary mobo. The arguments between Mac Lovers and Mac Haters would only be about the OS, and I think most objective people can identify who the clear winner would be. Another is to take advantage of the x86 processor roadmaps. Come on, Mac users, how much denial can you be in, when there is still no G5 notebook in sight? It’s been practically two years! With x86, you can always get a notebook with the latest chip within a couple of months of the chip’s release.
Many of Mac’s disadvantages would disappear if OS X were to miraculously appear on x86 hardware tomorrow. Think of the possibilities — what if Apple invested serious dollars in companies like Transgaming and Codeweavers? We would have all the benefits of Windows and Mac without the critical security holes.
Apple could make a lot of money if HP/Compaq, Dell, eMachines et al. were to sell PCs with OSX and iLife. Think of all those additional iPods and iTunes songs that would be sold. Apple could still sell their own hardware, because there’s always a market for well designed machines — for example, the thing that still leaves me in awe about my recently acquired McMini is how small it is, and how _quiet_ it is. It makes my Shuttle sound like an airplane engine.
apple has a nice situation going for them by owning the software and hardware…were they to move to x86, they could no longer truly control the hardware side, and i think this would make OSX much less stable than it is on PPC. what does Apple have to gain from this though? PC formatted iPods were a great business move, but would being able to run OSX on x86 be as good a move? Jobs and Co. should probably stick to what they do best.
It’s been rumored for a long time that IBM had their own distro in the works but that was a while back and I never heard about it again. So either they’re extremely secretive or it was just that…a rumor.
Or it was/is for internal use only.
as in not telling the truth! Why can´t any1 see through this lame atempt to imply “My OS is much better than yours and everybody want it”
People, that isnt so hard to see. Just wake up!
Doods
OPEN POWERPC yo.
( http://power.org/ )
Free.
No Intel, No Wintel, add free Linux or License Apple or Amiga OS.
Yeah I know why would you leave X86, it’s so cheap and there is all this software (but it’s on windows), and there are so many periferals (which use mostly compatible standards –USB/IEEE1394/PCI/AGP, etc.
Really there is so little reason apart from the economies of scale that X86 has at the moment.
PPC could be in the same scale category very shortly considering that the 3 most common computing systems (Playstation3, XboxNext, Gamecube revolution) are based on PPC; most cisco routers are PPC based, a lot of non computer devices such as car processors are ppc.
And the main reason for this is:
MUCH MUCH MUCH better processor design.
Flexible, (scales from the smallest devices –PPC embeded– to the largest super computers –Power), clean and extensible system architecture, IP from newer clean roomed design ideas, and concequently more future proofed technology.
Not much Legacy to deal with.
We don’t need any more X86 OSes, what we need is a real alternative to X86.
The problem with that is that IA32/IA32-64 is so entrenched that even Intel is failing at replacing x86 with IA64. (Itanic).
But in the end even the most entrenched tech gets replaced eventually as it has happened in almost every aspect of the tech world. (cassette tapes and 8tracks replaced records, where replaced by CD’s and now replaced by the internet, at a much greater speed then cars replaced horse/carriage combo.
so watch out, Intel.
I don’t know why people keep focusing on the possibility of Apple moving to X86, when it would be much more sensible for the Open Power market to be expended by the top 3 and even Microsoft to break their dependence on the trully single supplier INTEL architecture. (sure AMD is important but the pants are worn by one Chipzilla.
The thing is despite what some might believe (RE: Apple-x86@Jon–>”Because the G5 doesn’t scale well for laptops or for faster workstation servers. Xeon chips are faster today.”) Intel is not in the speed lead when you look at clock for clock processing power neither in the high end where Itanic gets wooped by IBM P5, and in the middle where Opterons woop Intel Xeons.
In the mobile sphere ARM technology seems to be the overwhelming leader, and even though Intel makes Xscale chips based on this IP, Motorolla and others also license this tech to make their own ARM based processors.
Again I think we focus way to much on PPC to X86 migration, when really what needs to happen is an expantion/build up of the OpenPPC market to lower hardware prices and bring the same level of excitement that the x86 market has had in the past.
In the end all of the x86 processors out there are showing their collective age, and it would be nice if we had something to really look forward too.
(which I think is why the cell architecture is getting so much attention)
Even MicroSoft is going PPC.
XBOX NeXT’s OS seems to be based on the PREP/CHRP (IBMs/Motorollas original PPC hardware standard) Windows NT kernel.
This is probalby what runs on the G5 developer machines that microsoft ships to game developpers.
coming full circle.
I know I own both a Motorolla CHRP machine running NT3.5.1 and would you believe this but the original MAC OS server 1.2 and an IBM PREP machine, running BeOS/LinuxPPC/NT3.5.
PPC is the bomb, why oh why go backwards.
It is called Mareting! He wants to imply that Windows sucks.
( That is my point of view. )
you’ re right. ppc is far better. all the next consolle are moving on ppc. windows is moving to ppc. and don’ t forget cell: cell is powerpc. it can run ppc code (without use spe, that need special code)
apple can license os x, but for ppc hw: for example sony, that can license to apple her tecnologies, and not forget toshiba that develop cell too.
and don’ t forget that apple make money selling hardware…
you really dont want OSX on x86, it makes no sense at all. please no hardware conflicts or applications that need to be rewritten, PLEASE THEY JUST DID THAT!!
no we really dont want that
But NOT because Apple makes only money out of their hardware,
for christ!!!! how do you think Microsoft became so rich? did they sell expensive x86 boxes? I dont think so, they licensed their OS and everyone used it and now it is dominant and bill is rich.
If only 20% of all consumer computers were x86 machines running OSX then Apple would already be super rich and they would not have to depend on their hardware sales right? So please dont start with arguments that Apple depends on their hardware sales and stuff.
ANYWAYS….
we really dont want to shift to something like x86, because right now, IBM is the way to go for the future, we all know that.
BUT
still i think the best thing to do for apple IF they want more marketshare or influence, is license two or three big names (for example: IBM, HP, SONY)
To sell PowerPC based machines (G4, G5 or whatever) with about the same specs as powermacs, running OSX. The only difference between the pc-vendor box and the powermac would be the case, the monitor and of course, THE PRICE!!
Trust me, not everyone wants a shiny macintosh on their desk. Apple sells to a certain niche group i think and i don’t think you could really reach the big mass (dont start flaming that they dont want to reach it, they sell ipods to masses as well and mac mini’s too!)
So people could choose whether they like to have a sony, HP or IBM or Apple computer which comes with OSX and iLife apps. It could just run PPC hardware with all the stuff that a normal powerpc also includes. Maybe small differences as long as Apple garantuees that it works. The supplier (ibm, hp..) would have to confirm to all the rules about what hardware and stuff they have to use) In this way, no one would ever had any problems with hardware conflicts (you will if you license to every crappy x86 box!!) And apple can still control a lot of the quality and user experience.
What do you guys think??? sound much better right?
>Jobs tells Schlender that the Tiger version of OS X will have “everything that Bill Gates and Microsoft are promising in Longhorn”. He adds: “They copied the original Mac with Windows 95, and now they’re going to be copying us again.”
Just to remind mister Jobs that:
.When Windows 95 was released MacOS wasn’t (preemptive) multitasking
.Mac users had to wait for Apple to TAKE and FOUND their OS on an Unix kernel to discover multitasking… 5 years after Win95, 15 years after AmigaOS, …
But he’s right: they did not copy anything, no… only “borrowed” a kernel maybe.
Leo.
Yeah Apple clones like Apple with ever make that mistake again. Keep on dreaming. You want to run OS X buy a Mac, the mini is USD$499 do you even have an excuse anymore?
I forget exactly where I read this, and give the original poster full credit.
Once again, plain and simple…
Apple software on lemon hardware!
“Steve Jobs is half mad, in case you didn’t notice.” – mojo
While yes! Yes he is!
”
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
They’re not fond of rules.
And they have no respect for the status quo.
You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,
disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.
Because they change things.
They invent. They imagine. They heal.
They explore. They create. They inspire.
They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written?
Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
We make tools for these kinds of people.
While some see them as the crazy ones,
we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think
they can change the world, are the ones who do.
“
I’d rather see OSX build upon the Solaris Kernel than anything else.
It’s not that I dislike darwin but it’s just not the same.
And now that Sun has open sourced it I _can_ happen!
Intel arch is crappy. period. It is only because of the perenity of the solution that it’s still around.
PPC future is brighter than ever.
And that’s the deal with Microsoft which saved Apple few years back – One Apple employer guessed at slashdot (of course, not very reliable source, but makes sense for me) that Apple and Microsoft also wrote up some kind of anticompetetive deal that Apple won’t step to Microsoft’s market (x86)…
That makes sense to me.
And after all, Hardware+Software integration is THE thing which makes Macs _awesome_. By porting to intel platform, THE thing is gone & driver hell & incompability stuff is there.
And PowerPC is much cooler platform than intel
I think Apple is in a phase now where it wants to proliferate its software, not hardware, the Apple Tax has gone down since the introduction of the Mac Mini. The Apple Tax is the overhead cost for including Mac OS X and other Mac software onto a PowerPC platform. That’s why you see a price difference of x when compared to a Dell with Microsoft tax, it’s the software, not the hardware, even though you might say that you can buy Mac OS X for $129 off the shelf and iLife for $49, but can you run that on your x86? Apple Tax.
I can certainly see Apple move towards commoditization of its software. They’re already getting wide acceptance on the software vendor side of things, so now the transition would be in line with their strategy as of lately–getting the software out to as many people as possible.
I don’t think this would provide any issues with the Virginia Tech and Urbana-Champaigne people because still the lower clocked G5’s would save them lots of money in terms of TCO (power mainly) over say like Intel Xeon’s. I’m not sure if the AMD Opertons would leave some questions looming over those customers.
“I’m sure that there’s a ton of work to be done with hardware support, but I’d imagine that a lot of stuff wouldn’t be that hard using Linux drivers as a base.”
I don’t understand that one, why should it be so obvious whatever os should support all kinds of hardware? Just tell me only nvidia graphic cards, intel nics and canon printers are supported and those is what i’ll buy if i want to run whatever os.
Apparently Apple have a full development tree running for OSX on x86 anyway. Whether this is just Darwin I don’t know. I would imagine even Apple would use x86 architecture for development as it is by far the most cost effective platform.
Microsoft are known to use Linux, so what the hey?!
I’ve got this feeling, that you may see the day, when Apple stops making computers.
And on that day, you will see PPC, and X86 hardware, being controlled by Apple, to run Mac OS.
The manufacturers will have to follow strict guidelines, concerning quality, and compatability, and the boxes will have to be certified by Apple, and branded with the Apple seal of approval.
If you think about it, Apple is the current test platform for IBM and Freescale technologies.
IBM dumped X86, and is pushing PPC.
Promises of 3 plus ghz, dual core, Power 5 (G6), all around the corner.
Freescale is revamping the G4 chip, also promising 3 plus ghz and dual core, which will most likely remain a low end, and laptop processor.
And now three big computer makers want in on the action.
Add the new head of hardware engineering at Apple, the man who founded Umax,
(Apple clones), add the Mac mini, and a whole bunch of other little tidbits of information, and speculation, and what have you got?
There’s something really big about to happen in the computer world, concerning Mac OS, and companies involved with PPC.
I don’t know what it is, but it’s gonna be Big, I tell ya! Really Big!
Anyone got a few dilithium crystals they wanna sell?
Imho they should not embrace the intel platform. Reason has already been mentioned (sort of): Qualtiy Assurance. I don’t think Apple will be able to provide the same quality on a x86(-64) platform as on the PPC platform. I’d rather buy a cheap Mac like the mini than a cheap x86 PC to run OSX on. I think that is the way to go for apple. Market segmentation: Yes. x86: No.
It’s plain stupid for Apple to license OSX for anyone to use on x86, and from a business standpoint it doesn’t make any sense. There are several reasons why this is so.
Apple are a hardware company, but tightly linked to OSX which is the biggest sellingpoint for their hardware. They are the biggest single vendor of PCs, and also have much higher profit margin per unit sold than the competition. By licensing OSX they will loose the biggest selling factor of their hardware, and increased competition will result in lover profit margins. Classic lose-lose scenario.
OSX on x86 will also dramatically increase development and support cost for OSX. Quality support for huge numbers of different hardware does not come for free. Failing to provide this support or not delivering satisfying quality will give OSX a bad reputation, removing one of the biggest sellingpoint of OSX.
And the time when you could become the richest man in the world by pushing operation systems are past. OSS are turning operation systems into commodity. You have firms like IBM pouring money into Linux, not to sell it but to sell hardware and services. And Sun is starting to give away their OS for much the same reasons.
So by doing this, Apple will remove the biggest competitive edge for their main products. Decrease the profitmargin for those same products. Increase cost of development and support for a secondary product, and dramatically increasing the risk of sales inhibiting bad PR. While trying to make money in a market where the competition are getting harder because the emerging of a new business model. Aside from the possibility of some short time profit, how does this make any sense for Apple to do?
(setq it ’emacs)
They won’t do this because they would face MS’s same problems: piracy, worms, virus, etc…
Not to mention the great loss in hardware sales. If they don’t want to loose money, they’d have to sell OS X for maybe US$ 300 (?) Then everybody would just download it from edonkey for free because the price would be too expensive.
Keep OS X for PowerPC.
> Because OSX makes them feel oh so special
>