OS X for Intel

Are Apple going to release OS X for normal (non Apple) Intel machines? So far they're saying they won't but I'm guessing (and hoping) that the temptation to release it for all Intel machines will simply be to great to resist. IMO they could really clean up in the home OS stakes or at least blow a massive hole in Windows domination. I for one would almost certainly ditch Windows for OS X.

For the early adopters amongst you you can already try it out yourself:

http://www.osx86.theplaceforitall.com/howto/

Michael.

 

They won't want risk affecting their hardware sales, however we all know the future is in software. The real money is in software and I am sure sales of Intel OSX will more than make up for any loss in hardware revenue.

 

I'd be incredibly surprised for three reasons:

a) One key reason OS-X is better than XP (IMHO) is that it does not need to contend with a myriad of obsolete legacy or 3rd party hardware the way XP has to. It is designed to run on a handful of very tightly specified computers designed in house by Apple. A huge advantage.

b) Apple would loose some of their no doubt high profit hardware business (not all as many Mac customers would still buy apple for the aesthetics and reliability, albeit at a premium price).

c) It would piss M$ off hugely and as a result Apple would loose M$ Office which is one of the Mac's most essential apps.

My suspicion is that the Intel Macs will have a very different architecture – Apple would be clinically insane to adopt the PC BIOS for instance (it is there on the early developer machines, but I bet it is long gone by the time a Intel Mac hits the high street). There is no necessity to have any backwards hardware compatibility as it is in effect a brand new product – no one will expect some absurd vintage AS/400 interface card to work on it the way they do with a new PC. I'm sure it will be a Mac with an Intel CPU, not a PC.

Tony.

 

My personal opinion is apple will not support windows machines, neither will they fight to hard if someone hacks the proper version. It would no doubt pull more people over to macs eventually as they get a taste of OSX but still have to contend with the issues this will raise with PC hardware such as no support for that huge connector thingy on the back, and PS2 connections and all the other ancient connections you PC lovers insist on.

 

I think the issue for the customer is that many of us have a large investment in application software, the OS may or may not run on generic hardware, but we then need to run the applications. And it's the cost (in time possibly even more than money) of making that change which would bear heavily on many.

Which leads me on to two rants...

[0] If an individual faithfully follows the Microsoft upgrade path (but application version X, upgrade to version X2, upgrade to version X3 and so forth), why can't we send all of our original and upgrade CDs to Microsoft and have them swapped for a latest-version CD? Because re-installation onto a new PC is such a time-wasting process...

[1] And having just had a look at the Mac Mini, why do PCs (excepting for laptops) have to come in such huge/ugly boxes (unless you go down that semi-DIY bare-bones road)?

 

All valid points. However, Apple could have a tight hardware spec for OSX86 without restricting it to Apple only hardware. There's no reason they'd have to make it work with all kinds of ancient hardware. As for new hardware, the manufacturers would soon make sure their stuff was OSX86 compatible. btw Gary, the connectors on most modern PCs are pretty much the same as those on a Mac.

They might lose some of their hardware business (almost inevitable in the short term) but then again once people had got used to OSX they might be more tempted to make their next purchase an Apple, potentially increasing hardware sales in the long run.

It would piss MS off no doubt but MS would be in a very tricky legal position if they simply stopped making Office for OSX. Anyway, I don't see that they'd really do it. People would still be buying Office wouldn't they?

OSX86 for PCs is going to happen one way or the other. It's up to Apple to decide if they want to have people paying them for it or getting hacked versions for free. IMO it would be madness not to take a historic opportunity to blow a huge hole in Windows' domination of the home computer.

Michael.

 

Mike, the problem as I see it is Apple right now are what they are because of a fiercely loyal base of users (Such as naim I guess)

By hitting the PC market and giving away 'our software' I think apple could see a serious backlash, Virus writing and the like is already going to be heavier with intel based macs, I dread to think how that would pan out with PCs running X

 

You might be right about the loyal base of users but IMO if they play their cards right they can hugely increase that base.

They won't be giving away any software, people would have to buy OSX86. Viruses attack the OS, not the hardware so allowing PCs to run X would only make things worse in as much as there would be more machines to infect.

As I said before, whatever Apple do it will be hacked to run on any PC. Apple would be wise IMO to make a legit version available.

Michael.

 

However just like all the fake swooshes out there, Apple may not officially support the PC version but will not enforce the hackers as it will introduce otherwise loyal PC users to the whole Mac thing. Plus because it will be hacked, it will be free. More incentive for loyal PC users to try it.

Eh?

 

But how far will it be hacked? Ok, some people have got the developer version to boot on a stock PC, but I bet they can't actually do anything with it – it won't recognise that NetGear or whatever network card is plugged in the PCI slot as there is no driver, so you won't be able to get on line, it won't recognise the printer port or serial ports etc. Cracking it to run is one thing, making it of any use to anyone is something totally different!

Now have a look at an Apple laptop

Tony.

 

Has the iPod lead to an increase in the sales of Apple computers, is there any data out yet?

The last figure I saw for their market share of the desktop was 3% possibly growing to 5% if the iPod effect worked. Also Steve Jobs is (in)famous for not liking 'open' systems as it would have to be if the Intel OSX was released as a stand alone product.

Last time they licenced out the OS it nearly killed the company as the cloners brought out faster, better and cheaper 'Power Macs'.
Unfortunately for Apple instead of increasing the market for Mac OS they stole sales from Apple.

I can only see it being officially released if Apple pull out from the desktop Hardware manufacturing business.

 

And then theres the third way,get almost everything you need for free.see signature for more details

 

OSX is built on BSD, you can get the Apple version source code from http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

There are myriad drivers for x86 based BSD, a popular implementation is http://www.freebsd.org and of course they support PPC based Macs, http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ppc.html What goes around etc etc.

Paul

 

Tony - I'm not sure how useable the hacked developer version of OSX86 is but I'm quite confident that any hacked version in the future will be fully functional. I doubt that drivers will be an issue.

Aswell as hacked versions of OSX86 there will of course be Intel Mac clones that use the same hardware. If Apple won't license their BIOS (assuming they have their own) then people will just pirate it or reverse engineer it.

Michael.

 

Not sure how pissed off MS would be considering they own a nice big chunk of Apple. If anything MS would benefit from OSX on Intel as they would be less susceptible to critisim of anti-competitive practices.

TBH I think any Intel based OSX would start to suffer under the weight of trying to support the variety of devices. If they specified too tight a spec then people would be put off IMO - MS might well be a bit of a pain but I'll take the low cost freedom of the PC platform over overpriced average performing Apple hardware any day (looks apart of course).

 

Good points made by both Paul and Michael, but even so I'm sure Apple are very aware of this (especially after the catastrophic failure of their previous cloning attempt) and will have some kind of spanner to fling into the works. There are, to quote the ever logical Mr Rumsfeld, some known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns – the only evidence as to what a Intel Mac will be like is the lashed together P4 developer machines, which the more I think about it the more I suspect will turn out to be a red herring – these machines will I suspect probably turn out to be Intel Mac enough to develop on, but probably bare little resemblance to the final product, i.e. they will do what they were designed to do whilst Jobs keeps the real plan of action contained.

Remember that the Apple / Intel deal is not one sided - Apple have not 'given up' and decided to make PC clones and gone cap in hand to Intel - Intel have desperately wanted to make CPUs for Apple since the year dot, and I'm sure will produce a very attractive package as a result. I strongly suspect Intel will actually pull an Apple specific CPU out of the bag, if not there is still no need at all for a Apple computer to have anything recognisable as a PC architecture at all, i.e. there is no reason it should have anything remotely similar in the way of motherboard architecture etc. As with any software I'm sure there will be cracks to some degree, but I'd be amazed if they were useful enough to spread into the real public domain, i.e. outside a very tight core of uber-geeks who do this kind of thing simply to prove it can be done.

Tony.

 

To be honest I don't think anybody will really notice the difference when they use an intel based macintosh - other than I believe the the intel macs will be faster. If Apple do things true to past form then the Intel based units will probably still run the PowerPC based software via some form of emulation - similar to what they managed with the switch from 680XX to PowerPC. Hell I can still run some old 680XX compiled software in classic mode on tiger.

To most people, me included, it matters little what processor is used. The most visible aspect, and most important IMO, of a computer is the operating system - be it Windows, Mac OS X, Linux etc.

I do wonder if macs will be able to run windows natively as part of a dual boot system. That would be interesting.

 

This emulation definitely exists, it is called Rosetta and Jobs demoed it at the recent developer conference when the Intel switch was announced.

It may be that the Virtual PC application is the way forwards here, i.e. run Windows natively, but within an OS X window.

Tony.

 

I think apple would be much more interested in people wanting to run Windows on a Mac, I think they will insure this can be done.

I have a question,

The Mad Hippy has a little plaque on his post which has told me my addy, browser and ISP. Now I have firewalls running, so how can that happen? Or do I have completely the wrong idea about what a firewall is? Its in stealth mode as well.

 

It's the IP address the router connects to the ISP with, not of your Mac. All is as it should be. A firewall protects everything behind the router, i.e. someone can hack that visible IP until they are blue in the face, if you have everything set correctly they won't get beyond it onto the 'clean' side which is your home network.

Tony.