Some things i would like to see happen to OS X

[mushrooomprince]

Lets face it, os ten is the worlds greatest operating system.  


The only problem is that it only runs on macs ( from what i understand ).  Now not everyone minds shelling out the cash for macs because they are very nice machines and worth every  cent.  But the problem is not every one of us has a grand to blow on a mac.  

Probably the greatest thing about os ten is that it is OSS.  So if it is OSS, who's to say a group of software engineers couldn't write os ten for PC boxes ?

[Doogee]

Yes but only darwin (the core) is open source, what really "makes" OSX is Quartz and Aqua which drive the looks of OSX.

In fact if there was a version of OSX out for PC but it didnt have Quartz/Aqua i really wouldnt bother looking at it.

[cocoamix]

They could and maybe they have. the problem is that Apple is a HARDWARE company more than a software company.

[billy_gates]

Well there is Marklar, a secret Ported OSX for x86 inside Apple.

But at opendarwin.org they have Darwin (osx's core) for x86 already.  But like Doogee said, it has no Aqua or Quartz.

[Laukev7]

Try building your own Mac. You can even keep your PC box and just change your motherboard, processor and power supply (as long as your other stuff is compatible with Mac OS).

http://www.macopz.com/buildamac/

[mushrooomprince]

I have a mac right now.  Building a mac is not really an option because getting the spare parts is so expensive.


There is serious need for os ten on the PC platform.   Apple needs to share the joy with the rest of the world and those who can't afford macs.

[Laukev7]

Unless they get a higher marketshare first, making Mac OS X available for the PC would be suicide. They would forfeit their hardware sales, and Microsoft is holding the OEMs by the balls right now, so they would have a hard time finding anyone willing to sell OS X with their computers.

[sway]

quote:Originally posted by cocoamix:
They could and maybe they have. the problem is that Apple is a HARDWARE company more than a software company.

i don't fully agree with that. apple doesn't really create anything besides firewire. example: they use ibm/motorola processors, logitech in the apple pro mouse, harman kardon speakers, samsung memory, etc.

[Laukev7]

Then, who makes the Powerbook? The iPod? The displays? Who assembles the Powermacs in such a neat way, with no clutter of wires inside? Who designs the iMacs and all the other machines?

The quality of their hardware is not only determined by what they make themselves. It also depends on the CHOICE of parts they put together in their Macs that make them such good computers.

And what determines whether they are a hardware or software company depends on what they centre their business around, not on what they produce. The Mac is made of several chosen parts, an IBM PowerPC processor and an operating system based on UN*X, but the Macintosh brand is the computer running Mac OS, not just the hardware (e.g. Dell) or the system (e.g. Microsoft).

[sway]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
Then, who makes the Powerbook? The iPod? The displays? Who assembles the Powermacs in such a neat way, with no clutter of wires inside? Who designs the iMacs and all the other machines?

The quality of their hardware is not only determined by what they make themselves. It also depends on the CHOICE of parts they put together in their Macs that make them such good computers.

And what determines whether they are a hardware or software company depends on what they centre their business around, not on what they produce. The Mac is made of several chosen parts, an IBM PowerPC processor and an operating system based on UN*X, but the Macintosh brand is the computer running Mac OS, not just the hardware (e.g. Dell) or the system (e.g. Microsoft).

i know all of this. i'm just saying, they make things, not create. some people tend to think they create hardware.

and in my opinion, they can't be called a true hardware company untill they actually create a few more things.

[Laukev7]

Well, they don't actually produce the hard drives and the memory, if that's what you mean. This is no different from Dell or HP, who are also considered hardware companies.

As a matter of fact, 'hardware company' is not the right term to describe Apple or Dell. I'm not sure of the correct term for them, but a hardware manufacturer would be a company like nVIDIA or VIA.

So, in that sense, Apple is not a hardware company, but still relies on the sales of its computers, rather than on their operating system.

[mushrooomprince]

What about motherboards ? Isn't the motherboard a crucial part in a computer who makes the apple motherboards ?


Anyways i tend to think it would be suicide for apple right now.  


Maybe we just need to get quartz and aqua into Linux ?

[suselinux]

quote:Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
 
Maybe we just need to get quartz and aqua into Linux ?[/QB]

yeah not a bad idea

would it be possible to have a cocoa compiler in linux

[choasforages]

then get  hacking on display pdf. display ghostscript has already been done with the gnustep project. and since aqua is based on openstep, it shouldn't be too hard to get a aqua run alike with binary compatiblity running on ppc darwin. besides, that would be the first step to freeing aqua

[Laukev7]

quote: Maybe we just need to get quartz and aqua into Linux ?

Or better yet: just use Mac OS X.

There would be no point in porting quartz, anyway, (not counting the fact that quartz emulation would be as unpractical as WINE) because applications compiled for OS X PPC would still not run on Linux x86. And no one has ever been able to write a good PPC emulator up to now.