OS X on X86?

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:27 am

This is all very interesting, but I believe analysts and others are missing the big picture: iPod success paves the way for Mac OS X on X86. People have argued for years for and against the release of Mac OS X on Intel (and AMD) commodity hardware, but Apple derives such a large portion of its revenue from hardware that doing so could potentially damage the company beyond repair. But, what if Apple replaces that lost Mac hardware revenue with iPod revenue?

Steve Jobs would then be free to drop what amounts to a hydrogen bomb on Microsoft. Mac OS X that runs on "regular" off-the-shelf x86 hardware. Or partner with a Sony, for example - to insure quality. Years before "Longhorn" even comes close to shipping. Moo.

What do you guys think about OS X running on PC's?

insomica · Post by **insomica** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:34 pm

I would install it.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:04 pm

I think it would suck. I mean, Apple computers are known for their awesome hardware AND operating systems. If they start putting it on PC's, the company has a serious risk of failing.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:23 pm

The interface for the MAC OS is... Well diffrent to say the least (and insane to many people (I would assume) that have never used a MAC OS). That's one major flaw...

However... If it could run any exiting program for Windows I would try it (but I wouldn't install it unless I had a legal copy (for no cost to me).

Timelessblur · Post by **Timelessblur** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:52 am

that would be quite insterting and I for one would install it after it been though it instional stagest because I dont trust apple not to make it exactly like the one they have on the mac. Also I have iTune and in short the thing does not work like it should. Apperently it can not hanld full fleg .net protacal on a computer. I have uninstalled .net protcals since then but not it more or less it bitching about my sound drivers which where messed with a little because of .net. and it still have the processor glitch just not as bad as it used 2

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:56 am

Didn't you rave over iTunes?

harra · Post by **harra** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:18 am

I read an article in one of the more technical-oriented magazines right be OSX was release to the public. In that article it was stated that the developers of OSX wrote it with every intention for the capapblity of the OS to run on both Mac and PC hardware configurations. They just basically flipped a switch to turn off the PC capabilities when they released the OS.

The reason why there is such a good correlation between Apple computers and their operating systems is because Apple development is a closed box. They know exactly what hardware configurations are going to used because they design the hardware. When M$ designs a new version of Windows, they have no way of testing every possible hardware configuration that may be used. That opens up huge gaps for bugs to slip through

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:53 pm

Which is exactly what scares me about the MAC OS on a PC... I think Apple is getting into something much larger then they realize (or anyone could realize).

fuuucckkers · Post by **fuuucckkers** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:18 pm

PhaseDMA wrote:Which is exactly what scares me about the MAC OS on a PC... I think Apple is getting into something much larger then they realize (or anyone could realize).

Sounds to me like their just trying to grab some of the Marketshare from the current dominate OS (M$ Windows).
I just read today in this weeks Business Week magazine that Mac OS X only owns about 26% of the total OS marketshare.

They're probably just trying to expand their user base by allowing anyone to use the OS, by not having to run proprietary hardware.

If the cost of the OS were to decrease, or even become GPL'd (free) since it is basically Unix, I'd definately try it out.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:38 pm

Being free and/or open source is not the answer to everything....

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:15 pm

PhaseDMA wrote:The interface for the MAC OS is... Well diffrent to say the least (and insane to many people (I would assume) that have never used a MAC OS). That's one major flaw...

I don't find it to be a "flaw." I think Windows has quite a horrible user interface compared to the simplicity, organization, and elegance of the Macintosh.

Anthony · Post by **Anthony** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:39 am

I wouldn't call no central place to have programs "simple"...

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:16 am

I think I'd consider the "Applications" folder to be a pretty central place to keep programs.

rjanes01 · Post by **rjanes01** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:33 am

this is the first i hear about OS X being compatible with PC hardware!?> ive always wanted to try it ...just because for the most part, Apple hardware is more expensive than PC hardware, so i would absolutely install that in a heartbeat! any news on thsi, has anyone heard anything else on OS X for pc??

rjanes01 · Post by **rjanes01** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 10:37 am

check this link out!!

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63456,00.html

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/index.html

click on wired.com first, then download the biotch!!

Big-O Software

OS X on X86?

OS X on X86?

Who is online