PCs soon to be running OSX?

[Kyros]

This would be a bad, bad idea, in my opinion. First of all, mac hardware isn't much better than name brand pc hardware, as far as I know, and as far as my experiences say, although name brand pc hardware isn't much cheaper than apple's stuff either. Anyway, my point is that apple will lose hardware sales, as OSX is really the main reason to get a mac. Also, this will most likely cause an increase of osx viruses, at the very least increase the attempts to make them (which means no matter how secure the system is, eventually something will get through). Personally, I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, I will trust that Jobs put enough thought into it to know what he is doing (most likely if it happens, this will be the case)

If it does happen, I will remain optimistic that Jobs knows what he is doing, but I will be a bit wary about the results.

[Kalli]

I don't see how selling OSX for IBMs would make apple lose money.  They will be *selling* it, which meanse bringing in money for their product.  If it succeeds, people might be more likely to be tempted into buying a mac in the future.  If it doesn't, so what?  They lose a little money, happens all the time.

So, if you've already got OS X running on your x86, you're more likely to buy a Mac? They will be selling it, but there would most probably be a huge initial investment just to bring OS X to a market that is dominated by MS. They would have to port the OS, no small deal when they all of a sudden will need to support all the different hardware Wintel boxes are made of. Then they will need to support this new prooduct, used by people that only buy the OS and no $2000 computers.

They would have to do this all to LOSE hardware sales at a time their sales are increasing nicely. Yeah, I don't think they'll risk losing a little money, they'll be risking the business. Sure, the possible rewards might be huge, but another dark era for Apple is much more likely.

And our primary goal here is to make the world's best PCs -- not to be the biggest or the richest.

We have a second goal, which is to always make a profit -- both to make some money but also so we can keep making those great products. For a time, those goals got flipped at Apple, and that subtle change made all the difference. When I got back, we had to make it a product company again.

[DevNull]

1) Apple makes money on hardware. It's their biggest profit creating device.

Exactly, and let me add to that (although others have also done so):

What I keep seeing people forgeting is;  Apple is not an OS Company like Microsoft.  They are a computer company, one of the few (if not the only) left these days.  Their entire business model is built around selling the computer - the whole computer.  Everything else is secondary to that goal.  OS X isn't awesome because they want OS X to be awesome, it's awesome because it makes the Mac more awesome.  Same with iLife.  They do the same thing with iPods; Apple doesn't put so much work into iTMS to make money off of selling the songs - they're just barely turning a profit on it now.  Rather, iTMS exists to sell iPods, which exist (in part) to draw people towards Apple... and possibly to Macs.  (Mac Mini ties right into this)

It's a very calculated system, and it would virtually fall apart if Apple liscences OS X to be used on PC's.  Jobs knows this.

[James217]

I think all the financial fall out has been listed above.  Now for my personal input.  I would hate it if Apple put OS X out on PC simply cuz it loses its edge.  I like openning up my iBook in public and having people give me that look of "oh, he's not the status quo" "he' using a mac?  I wonder how those are?" and I think that this is a huge selling point of Macs and a reason I've stayed away from iPods, too common for me.  OS X flows with the computer its put on.  As stated above OS X isn't great because of the OS, but because of the package.  My OS flows into the hardware, it just feels right, its a glove fit.  Keep the OS on Macs I say, keep it at home and let us devotee's keep it close.  Also, most of these "wal-mart" computer buyers who some of ya'll consider marketing a mid-way OS to wouldn't know how to install a new OS, why do you think they have a wal-mart grade computer?
-James P.

[Zerachul]

My OS flows into the hardware, it just feels right, its a glove fit.  

I don't think it can be said any better way.  OSX is optimized for the G processor family and the other hardware found in the assorted Apple machines.  Windows has to deal wiith so many different hardware configurations that it will never match up to the Optimization of OSX.  OSX was built for the machine's hardware in particular, nothing else.  Their is actually an emulator (or something of the sort) that you can run on Windows, (never tried it) and I have heard that this emulator is slow, really, really slow.  OSX on hardware that would typically be found running Windows would never be as effecient at its job as OSX in its home.  

Personally, I firmly feel that this will not come to pass as previously stated, this will not help Apple.  Windows has issues with hardware and these issues would likely be passed to OSX as well, degrading its reputation and lessen sales possibly.

1) Apple makes money on hardware. It's their biggest profit creating device.

Exactly.

[Konflict]

I don't think Jobs will agree because if he does, then Apple will be competiting for hardware too, and people would think twice before buying something like a PowerMac.

[Kakaze]

Their is actually an emulator (or something of the sort) that you can run on Windows, (never tried it) and I have heard that this emulator is slow, really, really slow.  

PearPC, the emulator of which you speak—which is actually the reason I switched to Mac—currently runs at 1/15th the speed of the host system.


www.pearpc.net

[Cronax]

2) Everyone who's fought with microsoft for the desktop market has lost, died and withered into obsurity. Yes this includes linux.

You, sir, are talking out of your ass. If you think Linux has allready lost, then you're sadly mistaken, because we aint seen nothin' yet. For your information:

Throughout the history of computing, the operating systems IBM supported have been the dominant ones. Guess what they're currently supporting? Linux.

Also, the SuSE Linux distribution has been bought by Novell. thousands of schools use Novell products, not to mention gazillions of companies.



I don't even have a clue where you're coming from when you state that Linux has lost to windows...it's barely gotten started!

Now, for a more on-topic note:
By all means it should be possible to reprogram OS X or any other mac os to run on PC hardware. However, this would indeed cause the OS to lose all advantages it has in terms of speed and stabilit. Plus, to actually do the programming for this would take longer then it'll take for the next completely new and innovative mac OS (or two) to come out...
Add this up to the fact that Apple may indeed also want to keep up it's brand image of exclusivity(sp?) and that if they do this, they wouldn't sell as many mac's anymore, and it's a no-go for sure...

The only option I can see is Apple allowing PC users a small taste of mac on their PC, only to entice them and make them beg for more, but I fail to see how this would be actually realised...

[Thunderstruck]

Gates ended up backstabbing Jobs with Windows when Jobs insisted on keeping the mac in house.

How is producing a product in a free market economy backstabbing?

Because he didn't come up with the OS himself. He took the prototype Macintosh he was given a preview of and developed a copy which he wasn't meant to do.

[Shmi]

2) Everyone who's fought with microsoft for the desktop market has lost, died and withered into obsurity. Yes this includes linux.

You, sir, are talking out of your ass. If you think Linux has allready lost, then you're sadly mistaken, because we aint seen nothin' yet. For your information:

Throughout the history of computing, the operating systems IBM supported have been the dominant ones. Guess what they're currently supporting? Linux.

Also, the SuSE Linux distribution has been bought by Novell. thousands of schools use Novell products, not to mention gazillions of companies.

I don't even have a clue where you're coming from when you state that Linux has lost to windows...it's barely gotten started!

I'm pretty sure he was reffering to losing the desktop -computer- market, not the desktop OS market. For example, there are stores that were offering PCs loaded with Linux OSes, and those lost to PCs loaded with the Windows OS. In that regard, Linux had no chance of winning. Now, as a standalone product and OS, Linux has high marks and high chances, and has obviously spread widely. But the fact is that PCs loaded with linux will not compete (in terms of sales) with PCs loaded with Windows.

In -that- regard, Linux has lost to Microsoft.

[imyourhuckleberry]

I guess I have a couple different feelings on this topic.  

One... I would love to be able to build my own computer at a cheaper rate and run apples OS on it.  It would be a cheaper alternative to having the stablilty of OSX or 11

Two... I am not certian I would like the feel of OS X on any other computer than an Apple. *edit* I just thought about the people using the mac mini and how thet must feel when they hook it up to a different monitor and keyboard... the weird feeling they must get *end edit* OS X is why I fell in love with apple (bought my first computer in 2001) it just feels like I am going home when I sit in front of any OSx screen... that soft cooing feeling overwhelms me.
I guess I will put trust in Jobs and see what happens. I do think it is funny that BG can't even key note his own product... what a moron.

[dfrag]

I have to say if apple do go down that route of making  theyer OS available on other platforms it will damage what they have built. But i have heard rumors that OSX was developed on intel machines and then ported over to apples own platform (not sure if its still PowerPc processors) so if they did decide to relese OSX on the pc then it shouldn't be to much of a problem if they have already written it to work on a x86 processor. but thats if the ruomor is ture.

[Thunderstruck]

OS X is essentially NeXTSTEP, which was an OS developed by NeXT, Jobs' company in between his times at Apple. NeXTSTEP ran on NeXTstations (PowerPC based computers) and was ported to work on Intel hardware in the early 90's. While OS X is based largely on NeXTSTEP, it was not written on Intel hardware. They took the PowerPC NeXTSTEP and rewrote it to include the Macintosh GUI, compatibility (Classic), and behavior.

[FutureTense]

A couple of oppinions:

One, if I recall Jobs developed the Mac OS off of an OS that Xerox had come up with.  And then Gates took the ideas he had seen when he was working with Jobs and blended them up with DOS which his bought from some poor shumck who didn't know what he had.  Now, I could be mistaken, and if I am, I'm sorry.  Please correct me.  However, no matter how you look at the mess, it's something that happens a lot.  Someone has a good idea, and then a dozen other guys take it and make copies/or varrients of their own.

Two, if you're talking market penetration, ever OS has lost to windows.  Like it or not, there are more computers running Windows than any other.  That may eventually change, but unless something really cool comes along, I kinda doubt it.  Maybe Linux is hiding something up it's sleeve, but I haven't seen it yet.  Nor do I personally know anyone who runs linux as their primary opperating system.  I've known some people who have played around with it every now and again, but don't use it exclusively.

Three, I disagree with the hypothesis that a PC OSX would make PC users want a genuine Mac.  For me, the OS is the one thing I dislike the most about Macs.  I just don't like the interface.  Things don't work like I think they ought to (like programs not ending when I close their window, and multi-button mice not being standard set up).  Now this may be very much a cause of my limited experience opperating a Mac, but the end result is that when I work on a Mac I find myself getting frustrated just doing things.  So, I don't think exposure to the OS would necessarily reform windows users and make them go from hybrid to full out Mac.  For some, it's the hardware that's the most attractive.

Fourthly, the idea of creating a "middle-of-the-road" OS is just vile.  What a horrible thing to do:  deliberatly create a piece of software that isn't the best it can be.  It's one thing to write a program and it wind up being buggy, but it do so with intent ... that's just wrong.  If you create an OS make it as good as it can be.  If it ends up being only so-so, fine; even doing a half-ass job of writing it is better than deliberately creating an "eh, it's ok" program.

[arthur_barnhouse]

Because he didn't come up with the OS himself. He took the prototype Macintosh he was given a preview of and developed a copy which he wasn't meant to do.

So reverse-engineering a product, and then producing a similar product, is backstabbing?  Huh, and all these years I thought it was competition.  So, would you call it backstabbing if Jiff produced brand new "extra chunky" peanut butter, and skippy made the exact same thing with a different name?