A few years ago when Steve Jobs intoduced iTunes for Windows, he claimed "Hell has frozen over". Little did any of us realize it was just the beginning. iPods later came out formatted for Windows only and the HP iPod was announced. Earlier this summer Apple told us that they were switching to Intel chips in all their computers. Not only that, but Mac OSX had been build to run on x86 processors from the beginning. Now this past week or so, news all over the net and torrent sites is booming with people installing Mac OS on their PCs. Tech-Recipes gives directions so anyone with a moderate computer knowledge can do this at home. Apparently even AMD processors run OSX quite nicely. So what has Apple done? Have they just killed themselves? Now that this copy of OS is on just about every torrent site there is no way they can stop it. Why pay big bucks for an Apple Macintosh when just about any cheap PC can run your OS just as well?
UPDATE: The instructions on Tech-Recipes has dissapeared.
The instrucions are still there, I had a bad link. For some reason, I can't edit the original post.
Oh, Hazel, look. The field! It's covered in blood
It's far from easily installed, but the fact still is that it's possible.
I dunno, It doesn't look too hard to me. http://www.tech-recipes.com/apple_mac_tips964.html
...after the 'untar' part...;)
It's a wonderful development, but I'm not finding it easy.
It supposedly won't work anyway on my older Athlon processor, so I'm not finding the novelty worth the effort of trying further.
BTW, for anyone following the instructions, note that the Ubuntu Live CD does not read from NTFS partitions, so you'll need to store the image file on a fat32 or ext2 filesystem.
BTW#2, www.hackaday.com posted a link to this jpeg of OS X running on an intel proccy. Could that be our exparrot???
Heh heh heh
It won't run on an Athlon as they lack the SSE2 instruction set... as for the Ubuntu live CD, it does read NTFS fine, just make sure you're using mount -t ntfs...
Check out the list of Generic PC's running Intel OSX
As I see it the only major thing that is different from a generic PC and an Intel mac is how the mac looks.
Most of the hardware is the same.
If the release version of OSX Intel runs on Generic PC's (even if it needs hacks)
the only reason to buy a mac would be because of the visual appeal of the macs design.
I came across from the wintel dark side years ago and I don't really like the idea of going back to using Intel chips.
So howza 'bout stuffing a supported-chipset Intel mainboard into a B&W formfactor chassis?
Lessee what I'll need . . . 915G (?) mainboard . . . CPU . . . RAM . . . GPU? . . . already gotz everything else. Be nice if graphics acceleration was supported, but I hate to rely on a built-in Intel GPU. I haven't seen any 915 boards with AGP (all seem to use PCI-E), but then I didn't look too hard. PCI-E GPUs are a bit spendy, aren't they?
Lately I'd already been thinking to replace my current pretty-decent win2k gaming box (1.5 P4, 768MB o' RIMMs, GF4 Ti4600.) Dual boot between X and win2k donchya see?!? So this is a great excuse, yes?!?
I'm glad that MacTO is not on the Applefritter, I wouldn't dare post this message if he were.
Anyway, I don't think Apple has anything to worry about with Intel capable versions of Mac OS X floating around the net. Why? Because it sets Apple up for licensing the Mac OS to vendors such as Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, Etc. How? It demonstrates that there is demand for the coding wizardry released by Apple.
If people are buying Intel based machines to run Mac OS X, it is in the best interest of not only Apple, but the vendors of PC hardware to support and offer the Mac OS as an alternative. Licencing the OS will ensure that Apple receives payment for the copies of the OS that are distributed and will help Apple gain a foot in the door in their battle against Microsoft's Windows.
A lot of people will offer many different reasons for the success of Microsoft's Windows on the PC platform, but many will overlook probably the most significant factor: Licensing. There was competition in the PC OS wars at the beginning and Microsoft won out through their very aggressive licensing tactics. Any vendor that sold PC hardware was required, by virtue of the license, to ship Windows with their hardware. As a result, consumers received Windows whether they wanted it or not, and Microsoft got paid.
Fortunately, semi-recent anti-trust actions taken against Microsoft has made it impossible for Microsoft to be as aggressive with their licensing as that have been in the past. The result of these anti-trust actions are that machines now ship with *and* without Windows software. Many PC vendors now have the choice of whether they want to ship Windows with their machines.
By my rather amateur analysis, short-term piracy of Intel based Mac OS software is a good thing. Mind you, it's not something that Apple or anybody would want to encourage, but it's definitely something that can be tolerated. At least for now.
Okay, I've opened the floodgates with my opinion... Send the hatemail to this address: email@example.com
The only problem is that Apple makes too much money off of hardware. If they switched to a software buisness model that would have to lay off alot of apple people.
A thought occurred to me: Apple designs and manufactures their own computer motherboards. Would Apple continue to design their own motherboards when they complete the transition to the Intel processor or will they take the savings associated with using third party motherboards?
This is actually quite interesting; Apple could realize significant R&D savings by using third party motherboards as opposed to designing and building their own. Of course, if Apple were to go with third party motherboards, the entire PC industry would be capable of running Mac OS X. Interesting thought, though.
No such luck for trying to run anything except the integrated Intel video-- that's the only kind of video that's accelerated by Core Image and Quartz Extreme.
Boy, people just love to go off half-cocked. Hey everyone, you're overlooking one very important point about all this - the OS X for Intel Developer version is *MEANT* to be an easy install. Make it as simple as possible for developers to prepare the code of their apps for new hardware architecture. You can bet your booties that when the retail release is ready there will be all kinds of hardware restrictions, and that hacking OS X to run on non-Apple hardware will be nowhere near as easy as it seems to be now. Take a chill pill, y'all - we're still several months away from even the earliest versions of Intel Macs...and at least a year away from when Apple's true designs for Intel hardware will begin to become apparent.
That was the whole point of my previous post. There are several realities that people tend to overlook. I'll list a few of them briefly:
a) Aside from purchasing a developer kit from Apple, there is no way to legally get your hands on a copy of OS X for Intel.
b) There are currently no applications available for OS X for Intel.
c) Apple is currently working on the next version of OS X. The next version of OS X will probably be ready by the time the first Intel-based Macs ship.
d) Pirated copies of the current OS X for Intel are pretty much useless. Even if you are successful in installing them.
e) Pirated copies of the current OS X for Intel serves at least two purposes: i) They allow small shareware and public domain developers to create or port their wares, ii) They allow PC users to play with and experience the Mac OS on their PC machines.
Aside from protecting their legal interests, I can see no reason why Apple would get terribly peaved about pirated copies of OS X for Intel floating around the Internet. The long term benefits probably far exceed the costs.
Chill pill taken. Gulp.
Pirated versions of Windows have never hurt microsofts sales that much
and the same goes for ppc osx but the sales of intel macs directly depend on
intel osx and if intel osx runs on generic PC's then that could be a problem.
If Apple wanted to, they could trace the developer version that's been leaked back to the developer
but maybe they think it's good underground advertising.
If the intel osx release version gets hacked to run on generic PC's then the intel mac
is just a PC clone that can run OSX the same as a generic PC running OSX and it might hurt mac sales but OSX could survive.
So down the track a bit there might be OSX but no mac and apple would concentrate on doing mobile phone and ipod and handheld devices or whatever.
Who knows for sure.
Time will tell.
If apple was going to do this, they might as well not have released the idea of an Intel Mac. What's the point of developing the Hardware, if it's not going to exist in the future. It would seem kinda pointless for doing that. Also, people like the design of Apple's machines. What wouldn't you love? I mean, smooth design, easy on the eyes, Reliabiltiy, and it is always ahead of the competition as far as trend. Even if you have an older mac, it is still stylish. Unlike older junker PC's, Mac's last longer, and still look cool no matter how old they are. Look at the CC , and the TAM, those look freakin' awesome. And they are still in demand. How many people keep beige boxes around.
The thing I am trying to emphasize, is that Apple has too much going for them on the computers they make. It would be stupid of them to abandon something that has worked so well for almost 30yrs.
All-in-all, I imagine that OS X won't run on ordinary PC's in the future. So, people will be forced to go back to the Mac computers
If you want to read my whole opion on this, go here
You're absolutely right! However, we're talking about a platform that does not yet officially exist. At least not in the sense of viability as far as applications go. So pirated versions of pre-release Intel OS X could only spur interest and development. Besides, there's absolutely nothing to stop Apple from making Mac OS X dependent on Apple hardware when the official stuff is released.
Apple could easily make future versions of the Mac OS dependent on Apple hardware. So their loss, I think, would be minimal in the long run.
Again, you're absolutely right! Apple could very well trace the leaked OS to the developer that leaked it. Assuming, of course, it was actually a developer that leaked it and not Apple themselves.
As for the underground advertising thing, Apple could really make Mac OS X "the" OS to use. The demand for the pre-release Intel OS X could really demonstrate the future demand for the official stuff and really get developers on board.
It's almost like a clean slate in a very real sense. There is no software available for Intel OS X at the present. Unlike other OS's like Linux or BSD, Mac OS X is a legitimate mainstream operating system with enorormous upside potential for anyone with the skills and talent to create great software.
Is that really that important at this stage of the game? What's important is what Apple does when they officially release the Mac Intel platform. Apple knows what they're doing and I'm sure that they have a plan in place for the official release.
In the meantime, Intel OS X could very well be the first computer platform in history to be launched with a huge array of available software and huge demand.
I was thinking earlier about how PC users tout the sales figures of companies like Dell, HP, etc. and attempt to use those numbers to illustrate Apple's insignificance. However, if you're a person that buys generic PC's, there's two terms that you don't hear very often: Backorder and Waiting List. I know that people who buy Apple computers tend to hear those terms quite frequently.
Down the road, a lot of things could happen. It's entirely possible that Apple's Intel Macs are so successful that Apple abandons the iPods and Cell Phones in order to concentrate on their core business: Computers.
Again, I cannot disagree with you; you're entirely correct.
Apple is in the business of satisfying its shareholders, not being beholden to the Macintosh religion.
If Apple feels that they can make more money by becoming a predominatly software company, the so be it. If it helps their bottom line, then thats great. They won't stop making hardware, I can picture about 75-85 percent of current mac users still buying higher end mac hardware. If they are willing to pay a premimum for it now, then why would they not pay for a premimum in the future.
I really think this is Apple's way of slowly letting the world know that they will eventually license the software for all to use, not just the elite.
And you know, this may go down in history as the straw that finally breaks microsoft's back. Maybe steve could win over bill in the end...
You just inspired a vision of role reversal: Steve Jobs appealing to the computer community to stop stealing Apple's software. You know, just like Mr. Gates did in the beginning.
or - I respectfully beg to disagree
Apple will not license the Mac OS to use on other x86 hardware because Apple is a hardware company (ie: makes the bulk of their profits from hardware sales) and has no wish to turn away paying customers. The Mac OS is what makes Apple hardware so compelling, if the OS is available any-old-where that would kill their hardware sales.
Apple is a hardware company.
Oh yeah, here's another thought to put into your pipes to smoke - think about how many possible configs there are for x86-compatibles, can you imagine Apple having any interest at all in trying to support the bewildering variety of hardware out there?
All that said, it's just a matter of time after the first production MacIntels are released before the production MacIntel OS is kraked and usable on generic hardware. There's no bigger, juicier target for the hack/krak community. And Apple ain't gonna be happy about that!
ps: Apple is a hardware company.
So what you're saying is:
Hmmm, interesting. I think it would be more accurate if you removed the word "hardware" from your declaration and simply said, Apple is a company.
As a company, Apple is driven by the desire to make profit. Yes, the millions are screaming their name. It's the American dream, make your fortune and screw the competition. Apple is happy about that.
Besides, Apple is under no obligation to support anything or anyone that they don't want to. If you can get Mac OS X to run on generic PC hardware, Apple has no obligation to support you if the thing doesn't work. All Apple has to do is say, "Buy a Mac."
While the thought of Apple changing horses in midstream is appealing, I remain unconvinced Apple will decide their fortunes can be improved by doing a complete business-model about-face. Hardware sales have driven Apple this far, I can't see that changing any time in the near or middle future.
Respectfully - this makes no sense. If Apple sells it, they've got to support it. Otherwise, noone would buy it. (I'm presuming you are supporting the notion that Apple may unbundle the OS from the hardware. If I've misread, never mind the above.)
What I meant was that Apple is under no obligation to support a user that runs a hacked version of Mac OS X on hardware that is not specifically built to run Mac OS X.
Example: I can't call Microsoft and expect them to support Windows XP on my hacked Commodore 64. Microsoft is under no obligation to support hardware for which their software was no specifically designed. It makes no difference if the Commodore 64 user purchased XP with the expectation of running it on his/her 64.
What I said makes sense. There are PCs that run classic Mac OS under emulation and through various forms of hackery and Apple has no obligation to support those users. Apple sells the Macintosh OS for specific uses, anything that you do or attempt to do with the OS outside of Apple's intended use, is not Apple's problem.
As for Apple doing a complete about face, see my other post, When did Apple cease being a computer company?
I dunno what we're arguing about, or even if we disagree (I think we agree, actually.) I now realize I was sleepy and dopey when I wrote my first 'smoking' post and now I don't even know to what I was responding. And I'm now waay too sleepy to figure it out.
It's pretty obvious by reading this link
that Apple didn't want the developers version leaked and that to run it
on generic pc's it had to be hacked because it contained some sort of hardware protection
to only let it run on the developer kits.
It means that future versions of OSX have a very good chance of being hacked to run on generic PC's and that can't be good news for the Macintosh.
Actually, you never know what Apple wants; they'll tell you one thing and do something entirely different. Case in point: Not too long ago, Apple said that Mac OS would never run on Intel processors.
As for the hackability of future versions of Mac OS, there are many ways in which Apple could prevent people from installing Mac OS X on unauthorized machines. At the most extreme end of the spectrum, they could tie each copy of the Mac OS to a specific machine. More mundane approaches would be to install key portions of the OS in ROM. There's probably hundreds of ways for Apple to prevent people from installing OS X on clone PCs.
Just as a curious sidenote: I read a book a while back that was authored by Guy Kawasaki. The name of the book escapes my recollection at the moment... I'm sure it'll come to me in time; I've been up all night and my mind is on other things. Anyway, I read this book by Mr. Kawasaki in which he relayed a story about Steve Jobs. He said that Steve would routinely bad mouth an Apple employee to another Apple employee just to see how the employee would respond.
Example: Steve would approach Bob and tell him that he thought Jim was an idiot. Steve would then ask Bob what he thought of Jim. Apparently, Steve preferred when people disagreed with him and said that Jim was a smart guy.
Anyway, don't know why I'm mentioning this... I'm tired!
Software that ties itself to a particular computer is pretty easy to crack and so is part of the os in rom.
Software that ties itself to a particular computer can be cracked in a similar way to a keygen crack and then patched.
For part of the os in rom just find the code that calls the rom code and redirect the address it calls to another address that contains a pre loaded copy of the rom code from a file that is a copy of the genuine rom code.
Apple is using advanced protection for osx86 and it's now obvious why the leak took so long to appear.
It took a while to crack the developers version protection scheme.
"It is now confirmed that Apple has indeed used TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chips on the test systems they have delivered to the members of its Apple Developer Connection. These systems are powered by Intel processors which the company plan to use in the near future as part of their platform shift from IBM PowerPC Processors.
These TPM chips enable Apple to restrict their Mac OS application to their own delivered hardware component. As a result the software application will not run on non-Apple hardware like the routine Personal Computers powered by Intel Processors. The PowerMac shipped includes a TPM chip that contains a digital signature necessary in order to install the Mac OS X operating system onto the box."
From what I've read about Steve Jobb's he can be hard to deal with sometimes.
He might like to test people and might admire someone who disagrees with him.
If so he would probably like me because I disagree with his Intel move.
Not really, not if you got really creative with how you did things. You could use encryption and have the processor serial number be the key. Putting the key pieces of the OS in ROM wouldn't be very easy to crack either, if the ROM code weren't one contiguous block.
I really think that a creative engineer could find many ways to prevent unauthorized use of software.
When I read that in Guy Kawasaki's book, I wondered why Steve Jobs would do that. I thought, "Does he like people that think for themselves, even if it could cost them their jobs?" Then I thought, "Is this Steve's way of 'leaking' his intent of firing someone or letting someone know that they're on thin ice?" Then I thought, "Is this Steve's way of navigating and plotting his own course?"
I don't know.
I still don't know why Mac users get their panties in a bunch over the possiblity of Apple turning into a software/hardware company rather than a hardware company that creates the os for their own hardware.
It really isn't a huge deal. So what if they release a 100 dollar version of OS X that runs on late model pentiums, its not going to affect you buying Mac hardware. They will still be selling the hardware, they just are giving the "dark side" the option of runnig the best operating system out there.
I just really fail to see why people like dankephoto get so uptight over apple changing their business model, if it helps the comnpany and potentially knocks good ole Bill off his high horse, then so be it!
Well, the thing is that (as I previously mentioned) Apple makes their daily bread on hardware sales. Unbundling the OS seriously undermines that lucrative cash stream. I've yet to read of any plausable business model for that approach.
Ohh, not uptight, just don't think it's gonna happen! The idea Apple might make any serious inroads into M$'s market share is laughable. Nobody in the biz considers that even remotely possible (though the fantasy is certainly appealing!)
I'm not against change BTW, Apple has done a tremendous job expanding their markets in ways that have changed the entire computing world. And of course there'll be more changes ahead, to which I look forward with considerable enthusiasm.
I agree with you bobotech. I agree with you 200%. I don't know what the Microsoft commercials are like in the USA, but here in Canada, Microsoft is harping about the volume of applications that are available for XP. It's almost a dramatic about face for the monolithic giant; they've gone from wanting to be the only software company to a company that boasts of the variety of software available for their OS.
Microsoft is a lot like Blackburn Radio Inc. in a very real sense. They monopolize markets and protect their flank by monopolizing the markets that are in a position to threaten their marketshare. I guess the essential difference between Microsoft and Blackburn Radio Inc. is the fact that Microsoft actually produces some good products.
It's amazing what can happen when you put a twit in charge of a company. The twit will say and do just about anything to conceal the fact that he's an incompetent boob. You should take note that I'm not talking about Microsoft here... figure it out!
EDIT: Ooops, just so no one takes that out of context, I'm not talking about Steve Jobs. Read: Steve Jobs is not the incompetent boob that I am talking about. The incompetent boob that I am talking about is a hack that placed me under surveillance because he's a two-bit dweeb that no one really gives a crap about and he feels threatened by my realization that I have rights and my choice to exercize said rights. The moron that I'm talking about sits in a chair all day and counts the ways in which he can flatter himself. The twit that I am talking about speaks from his rectum, thinks from the sewer, and believes himself a God. Yeah, I'm talking about a true freaking dork. I'm talking about a moron that thinks gay men compete for girls. Anyway, I'm gonna stop now before I get myself in trouble. PS. That okay with you Sarg?
I always expected OSX to run on Intel systems at some stage but what I thought Apple might do is release an OSX version for generic PC's and also keep manufacturing PPC based mac hardware running PPC OSX.
I think there are a lot of problems with going totally Intel.
"Not really, not if you got really creative with how you did things. You could use encryption and have the processor serial number be the key."
That's what got cracked in the Intel developer OSX version (TPM chip).
The TPM is an open industry standard governed by the Trusted Computing Group, a non-profit organisation which develops security standards.
The chip is used to securely store and encrypt information. Because each chip has a unique identifier code, it could also be used to distinguish a Mac computer from a model made by Dell or any other Windows vendor.
I completely agree with msc4gman. I agree because the MAC OS that runs on Intel is only for developers in fact it doesn't even have a software update or so I heard.
This makes the system become rather outdated once 10.5 or even 10.4.3 hits the market. Point is, it's a hack and a hack is a hack.
Finally, I do believe, as John C. Dvorak has mentioned that Apple is not too nervous about the hack as it's such an easy way for people to fall in love with a mac, even if it's running on a PC because they may switch. So it's a teaser if you will.
Way to go Apple!
OK that is generally a truism but Apple and Steve Jobs are an exception and I'll tell you why I think so. Firstly, Steve Jobs was very unhappy that while at NeXT, they had to stop developing hardware. Steve Jobs is a products guy and he is very much into hardware. Hardware is a very hard core fundamental aspect of Apple, it is one of it's cornerstones. For Apple to abandon hardware for the sake of software is in my mind as far away as Apple can get from it's core. The OS and hardware are a well knit core of their business, they know it, and as can be seen, they take pride and recognition for the integration of their hardware and software design. It's easy for me to see Apple switching to Intel but a switch to a software only company would be Apple's last resort, at least as long as Steve Jobs is there. But of course this is not even relevant, Apple has a bunch of exciting new product down the pipeline.
To finish off, the clearest indication that Apple is staying in the hardware business is the simple fact that they are switching to Intel. In fact this tells us that hardware as a method of delivery is very much alive and one of their key efforts. Apple hardware is here to stay.
The notion of Apple going software only is absolutely absurd. The notion of Apple revisiting licensing to key vendors seems to be an active topic of conversation amongst various forums and podcasts simply due to the hacked OSX running already on Intel hardware but there is no official word on those developments.
It's a wait and see scenario.
The bulk of Apple's profits currently derive from hardware sales - how will these shareholders react if management were to devalue and undercut that currently lucrative business line by allowing PCs (other than Apple's) to run the Mac OS?
Puhleeze!! Where, oh where, has anyone seen any credible reports even remotely suggesting Apple might even consider "becoming a predominatly(sic) software company"? Hmmm???!?!? Well????!?! Eh??!?!
What about a situation I read about on /. not long ago. The new Intel processor platform is supposed to be micro-coded x86 translators to a VLIW multi-core-per-chip setup. If Apple designs a mobo that can save back the translated x86 code as VLIW code, and run that natively (a-la Transmeta) they effectively block all non-Intel chips that don't support that VLIW instruction set. Intel wouldn't need to modify the chips much to make them VLIW-only, which would make them much more simple, less power hungry (those x86 translators eat transistors and wattage) and MUCH faster. Fancy that Apple might be forward looking enough to drop the x86 instruction set al together, since they are already throwing away the PPC instructions, and Rosetta takes care of this setup on the MacIntels anyway... How much of a logical leap is it that the next-gen OS X might be VLIW based, and NOT x86 based. It seems Apple keeps specifiying Intel chips, but not x86 chips.
[/tinfoil anti-Apple-legal-team Tempest sheilding]
If Apple has to use Intel chips then Apple should try to use an Intel chip not based on the x86 instruction.
That way OSX would only run on Generic PC's with slow emulation.
The translator idea sounds good if only Apple has access to it.
The TPM chip or whatever protection won't stop OSX being hacked and if they use TPM or DRM to enforce higher security to stop hacking then it will be a pain to use for the normal user.
Intel is moving away from x86, but none of their non-x86 chips will be shipping in the transition window that Apple has stated. There will at least be a period of normal x86 chips in Macs.
I personally think Apple is going to try pretty hard to keep the Intel version of Mac OS X proprietary to their own hardware, and they're going to keep trying for the foreseable future. Given their current marketshare becoming a "software company" gives them roughly the same prospects as a Linux company in terms of footing against Microsoft, and frankly, their engineers cost more then a Linux company's do.
And on Apple doing *both*, continuing to sell hardware while offering a "generic PC" version of OS... well, really, think about it. Apple almost died during the cloning era because their pricing margins on the most profitable high-end systems were undercut by the Daystars and Powercomputings of the world, and that happened when Apple was getting an extra kickback licensing the hardware designs in addition to the OS. People might admire Apple's designs, but do you *really* think they could keep selling $2000 Powerbooks when their OS runs on a perfectly usable if less stylish Compaq for $1100 that's a feature-for-feature match for it?
(Seriously, go to a CompuUSA sometime. Commentators love comparing Apple's prices with Dell's overinflated list prices when attempting to show how "reasonable" Apple's prices are, but in the real world a nice laptop computer with a 15" widescreen LCD, a powerful CPU, and a DVD burner is about $1000 even, not $2299.99. Apple *so* doesn't want to compete with that, and certainly doesn't want to sacrifice the $1000 profit they'd lose by selling the person who buys that computer a $129 OS instead of a $2000 Powerbook.)
However, as much as I think that Apple's going to try to keep their OS proprietary, I think people are getting carried away when they starting talking about Apple "working with Intel" to make proprietary instruction set CPUs or similar things. There's one dirty little secret to this Intel transition that Apple doesn't want people to think much about: Going Intel make it easier for Apple to stay a Proprietary Company, for the very reason that doing so allows Apple to to avoid having to waste money on proprietary engineering.
Apple has been using a "DRM" system to protect their hardware sales for years. It's called the "PowerPC CPU", and it's been a pain for both users and Apple's engineers. Apple's been able to keep their OS proprietary through the simple fact that they're the only company that makes desktop-packaged PowerPC systems powerful enough to run it. However, at this point their market share has shrunk enough and their focus has changed enough that investing the engineering work to keep their hardware platform "up to date" is just too formidable. And frankly, it's been so for a while. Apple goes *years* between motherboard chipset upgrades, while the x86 world has something newer and faster on much shorter cycles. (As an example... where's the PCI-Express G5, hmmmm? They've been selling essentially the same motherboard in those systems since 2003. Or why hasn't Apple gone to true DDR bus memory controllers on the G4 line? Think it might be because developing a motherboard for the DDR G4 varients Freescale has in the catalog might be expensive? *Really* expensive, when you factor in how few machines Apple sells, and thus gets to spread the development cost over?)
Apple's going to use whatever Intel has on the shelf paired with a fairly draconian TPM system to keep their OS locked to their hardware. Yes, it's going to be breakable, but rest assured that the broken versions will lag the current version by several months and the hassles of trying to run broken versions are going to restrict it to hard-core hackers and Warez D00ds. Don't delude yourself that a few thousand people doing illegal things is going to cause some dam to burst in Steve Jobs' mind causing him to give in and release a "generic version". It's just not happening. The money lost through such limited piracy is *nothing* compared to that lost in attempting to sell and support an OS that runs on "any" computer. (Keep in mind that a "generic" version of the OS would by definition be much more easily pirated, so selling it certainly doesn't help anything.)
The only *remote* possibility I could see for Mac OS getting outside Apple hardware legitimately would be if Apple were to license it on strict terms to partners who'd package it on similarly locked down (and similarly priced) hardware, but I don't see the point of it. It'd be like Apple selling iPods through HP (which obviously didn't work). Why would anyone buy a "DellMac" when it'd be contractually obligated to sell for the same price as the Apple equivilent?
Anyway. Frankly, if there's any "market expansion" goal in this transition it's probably in Apple hoping that people who refuse to run their proprietary OS for various reasons might consider buying their hardware if it also runs Windows. It won't make Steve very happy when someone does it, I'm sure, but there's no downside in selling their premiumly priced hardware/OS bundle to someone only to have someone throw the OS away. One less element of customer support you need to worry about.
You kind of remind me of a local radio station; you tell only half the story and spin your story to support your own bias.
The truth of the matter is that Apple was a company that was practically dead before they even attempted their previous licensing experiment. No one was speaking highly of Apple at the time; they didn't have any leading edge hardware, and their operating system at the time, Mac OS 7.6, was years behind Microsoft's Windows.
Let's put this into perspective:
- Apple was losing billions of dollars annually.
- Apple's product line was hugely varied; they had too many models.
- The Mac OS at the time, 7.5 and 7.6, were hopelessly outdated.
- Licensee's were still tied to proprietary hardware.
- Apple had a bad reputation at the time.
It's a whole different ball game now... Apple is making money and has been making money consistently. Apple has turned things around by reducing their product line and hedging their bet with the iPod and iTunes. Apple is hugely popular and has become a part of popular culture. Apple is moving away from their dependency on proprietary hardware and for the first time in a really long time, Apple has an operating system that is truly better than the competition.
Sorry, but if you're gonna tell the story, you gotta tell the whole story...
Intel already has the basics of the design in newer CPUs anyway. Itanium for one. Just add the x86 translator component, and the CPU is essentially x86 compatible (there's more, but for simplicity...) what is so far fetched about pulling a Transmeta and going one step beyond? The talks pointed out the power-per-watt issue, and if they drop the x86 instrustions and move to full native VLIW, thy can drop a significant chunk of silicon and consume much less power. The "Intel Processor Roadmap" I believe it was called.
So would I, so would I... Actually, I'd use 7.6 over Windows XP anyday... I genuinely dislike the "Windows Atmosphere" or, as Mac users would say, the "look & feel" of Windows.
I took a quick browse through Apple's third-quarter results last night and noticed that iPods outsell Macintosh computers on a magnitude of approximately 5 to 1.
Interestingly enough, the iPod outpaces the Macintosh by a magnitude of 5 to 1, even while the Macintosh is enjoying sales growth of more than 40%.
The question then is: If Apple is a hardware company, which hardware is it that is providing their bread & butter?
yeah, but apple can not live on iPods alone. If they did, there would be no Apple left to distribute the ipods. Let's just call the iPods that fall back $
Why not? There are many reasons why Apple would not want to live on iPods alone, but there is absolutely no reason why they could not live on iPods alone.
The iPod does give them the insurance they need moving forward, but one wonders how long the iPod phenomenon will last.
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
Doesn't that quote describe Apple to a t?
so what if the operating system is seperate. yeah, pc parts are cheaper, but they sure are ugly. macs have the best aesthetic appeal over any computer in the world. go to any pc case supplier and all you find are ugly boxes. yeah the are creative and 'cool'. but would a real artist or someone without a pen15 buy one? i dont think so.
if someone just wants the os but not the pretty box, that is their decission. apple still thrives on the fact that they have the prettiest boxes. and too many people want a pretty box. so what if the best hardware comes in that box. so what if that box is 10 times more expensive. you know what you get? the best looking box with the best os.
peace and love
ps. i did this late in the game- i know, but i had to say it. i dont know if someone else has already, but i dont like to read so much and there was too much to read in this thread - so i jumped to my two cents.
Yet again, not paying attention, I read through a dead thread.
Perhaps some consideration to others would be in order, then: If it's too much effort for you to read through the thread, maybe you shouldn't post, and save other readers here from potentially reading something they've already read.
Oooh, lookie here, Intel drops x86 core on Itanium to save space and poewr: /. story I guess I was partially right. The new Macintels aren't going VLIW (yet), but Intel is going down the path of simplifying the chip.