Mac OSX

[angryrobot]

There's one thing I could never stand about Apple (and nobody from the Mac camp ever brings up this fact) is that to run MacOS, you have to buy Mac hardware. Now, I'm not saying that's bad, because the hardware is very well designed and high quality, but let's face it... Macs are expensive. There's no such thing as a brand new, cheap Mac. There was the whole "clone wars" many years ago, but there's no sign of that changing.

With an Intel PC, you can put together a machine for pennies and have a great system with plenty of OSs to choose from. I say this to all the Mac users (I sometimes use one at work but I'm not a "Mac user" per se): I think if Apple made OSX cross platform, and sold it for a price comparable to WindowsXP, they'd have people converting over left and right. I mean, here you have an OS that has everything everyone wants, a UNIX core with all the command line and developement tools a UNIX guy (or gal) could want, with a fabulous, easy to use GUI for folks who like to point and click. Add to that MS Office (de facto standard whether we like it or not), and all the great multimedia tools, and you please everyone. Darwin already runs on Intel. If Apple could make that happen, they'd really, really bite Microsoft's ass. I know a lot of their core business is hardware, but I think that people who buy Macs would still buy the hardware, and the people who don't mind beige could get their cheap computer. I don't think that business would change much. What does everyone think of that? Am I insane? I know there's plenty of issues in doing this (drivers for instance), but hypothetically speaking...

[voidmain]

I like it.  I for one would probably buy a copy or two.  I do like cheap hardware. I don't like MS.  It would certainly fill in the gaps until Linux gets up to speed in the few areas that it lags...

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[gump420]

From a business perspective there are some potential pitfalls to such a plan. The major one is the possibility of losing more in hardware sales than they would gain in software sales; remember, the reason Apple killed the clones was for the same reason. The clone makers provided cheap alternative hardware and licensed the OS from Apple, but the only thing that happened was that Apple lost money because the MacOS market wasn't growing at all. Now, as you pointed out, OS X does change things, but it'd still be a dangerous move for Apple.

In any case, I'm using financial aid to buy one of the new iMacs, so it wouldn't affect me much whether it did or didn't happen . . . (-;

[bcortens]

It might interest you to learn that Mac OS X is cheaper than Windows XP.

[radagast]

This song gets played on forums like Ars Tech about a dozen times a day, but let me give it a shot.

Apple was/is in the hardware business.  They have, since 1977, been concerned primarily with selling Apple computers.  They have at various times over the years provided free, then later charged, for an OS and for applications software.

The Mac OS, for example, was free until System 7.0.1.  In the bad old days we'd stay up late, late downloading a new update from CompuServe at 300 or 1200 baud for hours to get the free updates.  CompuServe, of course, collected their regular $12.00 per hour.

Mac OS X, no more, no less, is designed to sell Apple computers.  They give away certain applications software which is really quite superior when compared to similar software on the market called iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes which, over time, have become rather sophisticated and powerful applications software.

At various times they have created and sold certain software, FileMaker Pro (actually sold by a spin off co.), Final Cut Pro, etc.  But the sale of applications software accounts for well under 1% of Apple's gross and OS software for little more than that.

An Apple computer to the CEO of Apple has always meant an Apple Computer running Apple proprietary software.  It is not especially easy, if you have the parts, to even build a Mac.   In some cases you can't get the right OEM CDR/RW drive or whatever even if you have a mother board, the "right" monitor, and all the "right" cables and such.

Apple has only shown interest in promoting  clones (officially) and the company very nearly went bankrupt.  The year was 1977 and that's when Steve Jobs returned to Apple.  The clones were built in many cases with parts purchased from Apple and in all cases with parts built to Apple specifications.

All Compaq had to do circa 1986 was reverse engineer the simple and limited function IBM PC ROM and they were in the clone business selling the same OS that was written for IBM originally for sale in 1981.

The Mac OS is now far less dependent on the code in ROM but it has never been reverse engineered and the OS X GUI is just as proprietary as OS 9 or earlier system software was.  Apple wants to sell you a computer.  If you want to run OS X buy a Mac.  If not, you're out of luck and should best pursue some form of KDE and Linux.

(Anything but Micro$loth.)    

[Calum]

BUt! But!
They could still make a lot of money with a version of OSX for the pc!
it could be radically different from the Mac version, (and would need to be since when yr writing for a Mac you know exactly what hardware will be available) but they could charge tons for it because
* it would still be (much) better than windows
* it would be FULLY compatible with a Mac computer! the first time proper PC and Mac integration will have been done.
It's business mentality vs down home mentality, Sure, the average MacOS user will be putting less money per head into Apple's coffers than if they actually buy a Mac machine as well, but think of the thousands upon thousands of people who will be rushing to snap up a copy of MacOS for the pc! It all adds up!
All yr reasons are valid, but i really think so are mine! Apple did have a scare or 2 in their time though, so maybe they will stick to 'tried and tested' methods for a while now.     Still, they'll lose their edge as an innovator if they do.......

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[gump420]

It would not be "fully" compatible, albeit it would be close. You wouldn't be able to run the "Classic" environment on OS X for x86, so you wouldn't be able to use any older Mac OS applications. However, Apple is sure trying hard to push everybody to using OS X only applications, so . . .

Still, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to port OS X at this point.

[angryrobot]

Yes, yes.. Apple has, and from what you're saying, will always be, in the hardware business. Bummer. I just think that Linux will never lose the stigma of being a geek's OS for the average Joe no matter how easy to use it becomes. Of course, this is (and has been forever) a topic for another forum...

BTW, my next box will *definitely* be a Mac, even if it does set me back a bit more  

[gump420]

I'm currently waiting for my new iMac to ship . . . (-;