eWeek and ThinkSecret claim that Apple (since the begining of OSX) is developing in parallel to the PPC version of MacOSX, an x86 version called ‘Marklar’ as a fallback option, in case the Motorola CPUs could not deliver. The article also claims that this version is assigned only to a few dozen engineers so far, for maintanance purposes-only, and Apple most probably would switch to the desktop Power4 CPU that IBM is preparing instead. We recently wrote an editorial about the probable switch of Apple to x86.
Apple Keeps Options Open with MacOSX Marklar
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I would venture a guess that if apple switches to anything, it’ll be Power4. I wouldn’t see them changing to an x86 based system in my lifetime
. I think it would be wise for them to stay PPC, because an enormous amount of porting everything to x86 would be very involved, mainly with Aqua (Darwin is already ported). Its nice to have rumors about cheaper harware/different platforms, but in all reality I see apple staying in the PPC side of things.
This isn’t suprising. I bet Microsoft have a PPC version of Windows XP lying around somewhere in their research labs. It is a *fallback* option. Just say IBM says “I had it with PPC processors, I wanna do hard disks again!” and Motorola “We wanna f*ck every profitable business we have so Nokia could buy us” – where would Apple go?
Hardly suprising. Doesn’t mean they are moving to x86 nontheless. While I support that, it issn’t clear whether they are going for the leap or not.
(I can just imagine CattBeMac’s face…..)
Troy: I think it would be wise for them to stay PPC, because an enormous amount of porting everything to x86 would be very involved, mainly with Aqua (Darwin is already ported).
If you read the article, Marktar is a completely compatible version of Jaguar (and internal releases after that) on x86, not just Darwin. It is not like Aqua nor Quartz Extreme is written in assembler, porting would be trivial. The problem is with the third party developers.
Maybe, very remotely, that is one of the reasons Apple decided to launch a new OS.
While the ???BSD as a license that permits a proprietary fork, one of the reasons for a completely new OS for apple computers could be the possibility of the G3/4 CPUs provider suddenly stop to deliver competitive enough processors.
If that happened with OS9 there would be no possibility of changing architecture and keep on bussiness (Apple bussiness is already hard as it is).
According to their sources.., really that could be anyone inside apple, heck it might even be a janitor or something
. Imagine if they did switch, think of all the hardware they would have to support. Sure, maybe they do have have a full version laying around, but it would still take a massive effort to get it running on a variety of different configurations. I still think Aqua/Quartz Extreme is in some ways optimized for their current hardware, if even it doesn’t look like it actually is. Like you said, if they switched, third party developers would be left in the dark. Right now, I don’t think it would make good business sense for them, unless they plan on getting out of the hardware business. Of course this article and everything else is pure speculation, and we probably will never know unless an actual release hits the streets, or somebody leaks a beta 
.
If they start selling it, I’ll be one of the first few buyers
I’m sorry to say it, but to all the naive folks here and on Slashdot; don’t even start hoping! Unfortunately, as much as even I would like to buy OS X for x86 and run it on vanilla hardware, don’t expect it. Apple has been famous for their beautiful hardware and their sales of it, don’t think that even if they move to x86 that they’ll start writing thousands of drivers for all the existing devices.. What Apple would -really- do, would be to move to x86 and ensure that their operating system can’t be used with anything but their own hardware. It’s possible if you have model hardware that they use you might be able to pull it off with some crack to disable protection, but otherwise just save up a few dollars and buy an Apple system. I’m not trying to troll for Apple, I don’t own an Apple system and I would never purchase one; I’m just trying to be down to Earth.
Yes, it would be good. Yes, it would be competition for Microsoft; but no, it will not happen.
QE is written for the GPU – ie. for the CPU on the Nvidia or ATI so it would not really matter if the card was on a x86 or PPC.
I would like to see Apple move to the Dual and Quad core Power4 chips.
Exactly what i was thinking. As the facts stand today, I wouldn’t wait for an x86 version. I don’t own a mac yet, but plan to buy one within the next year, cuz I’m not gonna wait for an x86 version, even if it ever materializes.
For my money, I’d bet that if OS X peeks into the X86 world, MS will back out of OS X on x86 AND PPC. Not smart (but I’d still buy it…).
Naive though it may be, I’d love to see it happen. Adam, I agree with you there. I’m just certain it’s not going to happen the way we’d like. If you see Mac OS X on x86, the only difference for a Mac will be that it has an x86 processor. It will still be a system owned by people with feelings of superiority (and people with more cash!), and it will not run on vanilla, non-Apple hardware.
I’m open to other opinions, but I just don’t see it happening in everyones dream way
. Hey, I’d go out and buy OS X for x86 right now; I might pay $300 for a license, but I’m sure as hell not interested if I need to buy a special PC.. and I’m sorry to say that this is the way it would be.
i don’t believe apple with move to x86, i think power4 will be there next move. however…
if apple moved to x86, i think they would need a _huge_ company shift from hardware to software. no longer would they be able to (reasonably) sell closed hardware and complete system without clones. with purchases in the highend graphics business that apple has done (2 or 3 companies) i think shifting to a “lease macos and complimentary software, and only worry about non ‘major’ hardware” idea would work. they would stop selling (or stupidly try to compete against complete desktop systems (tho that is what apple has been known for) and start focusing on all software and hardware along the lines of the ipod and other accesories that compliment the digital hub.. maybe get back into printers and such.
apple has great software, and could make a complete business plan out of just that. but they are to trenched into the imac and complete desktop systems to ever drop them. to a x86 clone war would put the former ppc clone battle to shame.
You can take the good things about x86 (the processer) and surround it in expensive proprietary goodness and still call it x86.
I would like Apple to switch x86, so that I can try Apple without risking too much money, but I think they will never do, because they are making money from hardware mainly. Also I don’t think that they can compete with Microsoft anymore, Microsoft is way ahead technologically.
Troy: According to their sources.., really that could be anyone inside apple, heck it might even be a janitor or something
. Imagine if they did switch, think of all the hardware they would have to support.
Just their own. If they switch to x86, I doubt they would make OS X available for all PCs. Their cash cow is their hardware. So in other words, all the hardware they need to support is theirs.
Nothing more, hopefully nothing less.
Troy: I still think Aqua/Quartz Extreme is in some ways optimized for their current hardware, if even it doesn’t look like it actually is.
Fresco is optimized for the hardware the same way Quartz Extreme is optimized for the hardware. They aren’t! Quartz Extreme may rely on some AltiVec-only code, but that doesn’t mean porting won’t be trivial. QE depends on OpenGL which in turn depends on the hardware via drivers (yeah, it is more complicated than it sounds…), the same way Fresco relys on SDL which relies on GGI which relies on KGI which relies on the drivers.
Troy: Right now, I don’t think it would make good business sense for them, unless they plan on getting out of the hardware business.
With a switch to x86, they DON’T have to get out the hardware business. Sure, they have to spend some time making a new x86 compatible ROM, but they would be the only Mac maker available, x86 or PPC.
Adam Scheinberg: For my money, I’d bet that if OS X peeks into the X86 world, MS will back out of OS X on x86 AND PPC. Not smart (but I’d still buy it…).
If Apple moves to x86 the way Troy describe it – stop being a hardware maker and start being a software-only business, maybe you are right.
If they swap PPC for x86, without changing their business model, there is no reason why Microsoft would abandon them. In fact, they probably be happy, as they won’t be legally a monopoly anymore. (Yeah, no more problems from the DOJ).
mike burns: if apple moved to x86, i think they would need a _huge_ company shift from hardware to software. no longer would they be able to (reasonably) sell closed hardware and complete system without clones.
I don’t see why this is nessacary. In fact now it would be even more easier for Apple to compete with clone makers, as they have processors that are as fast as clone makers. For sure, they would rebrand the x86 they get from Intel/AMD, and they won’t need to shift from being a hardware company to a software one.
Why? The very people who Apple targets now would still buy it. The very people who buy Macs. probably in the beginning there would be less demand, with the lack of native apps and the slownest of PPC emulation, but I’m sure it would pick up.
If they need to move from being a hardware company to a software company, they could do so without moving to x86 (Heck, that might even save PPC).
Yes, for the time being, I believe Apple would stick to PPC, maybe use Power4. But for the long term, it won’t be viable. They would have to move or open up the hardware business.
In my opinion Apple would divide it hardware in two branch: One using Motorola 32 bits and another (XServe) using the new 64 bits IBM processor.
I say this because two reason: Apple would not like to leave Motorola definitively and put theyself in IBM hands, and because this IBM chip probably be more expensive as they would like.
I say this because two reason: Apple would not like to leave Motorola definitively and put theyself in IBM hands, and because this IBM chip probably be more expensive as they would like.
Uhmmm…. why?
I think than if Motorola disappear of the PowerPC market IBM could set the price than the like
Also I don’t think that they can compete with Microsoft anymore, Microsoft is way ahead technologically.
No, MS is way ahead in monopolistic business practices. You simply cannot compete with them on x86 because they own the OEM’s. See BeOS’s failed adventure on x86:
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/0827_hacker.h…
More likely the reason for the x86 version was that they had it around from the early days of OSX devlopment; and putting a dozen FTEs on the x86 platform makes sure that the OSX isn’t locking them into the motorola chips. This way they can change CPUs easily. Its the same thing that the other versions of the kernal / debian ports do for Linux. Why would you change chips and not go 64 bit?
For that matter for all the talk about the speed difference it really isn’t that extreme. PIII underperforms a G4 at the same speeds by about 20% and a PIV underperforms a PIII by about a 1/3rd at the same speeds (with code not pentium I or Pentium IV optimized). Dualing up is worth a 50% bonus at least.
Dual 1 ghz g4 ~ 1.5 ghz g4 ~ 1.8 ghz PIII ~ 2.7 ghz PIV
Which is what PCs are getting.
The G4 is a 64bit chip and the Power4 is a 64bit chip (with a compatible Altivec structure). That is why Apple may be considering the Power4 processor over a 32bit x86 choice.
64bit is definatley the way to go. I can’t see Apple going for x86 just when everyone is preparing to jump ship. It doesn’t make sense.
It’s a 32 bit chip. Altivec can manipulate data in 64 or 128 bit chunks, but it does’nt make it a 64 or 128-bit chip…otherwise the Pentiums and Athlons would be too
Cheers,
James
Hrm…. I’m pretty sure the PowerPC processors are 64 bit CPU’s i could be very wrong but that’s what i’ve always been told and have assumed.
The G4 is a 64bit chip and the Power4 is a 64bit chip (with a compatible Altivec structure). That is why Apple may be considering the Power4 processor over a 32bit x86 choice.
This is not true, G4 could only execute 32 bits instruction set.
According to Motorola this micro family called (MPC7xxx)
http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MPC…
“The MPC7455 host processor is a high-performance, low-power 32-bit implementation of the PowerPC RISC architecture with a full 128-bit implementation of Motorola’s AltiVec technology.”
You could be confused because it’s presented as a 64 bits bus interface, who is really true.
IBM have really 64 bits processor (which execute 64 bits instruction set) called pSeries who are in:
http://commerce.www.ibm.com/content/home/shop_ShopIBM/en_US/eServer…
IBM also have 32 bits processor here:
http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03M94…
Now i’m confused can somebody please clarify or provide some explanation because I was just reading about PowerPC64 processors that are in some IBM machines.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Aapje: No, MS is way ahead in monopolistic business practices. You simply cannot compete with them on x86 because they own the OEM’s. See BeOS’s failed adventure on x86:
If you are your own OEM, like Apple, that is completely baloney. Microsoft prevents companies from bundling two OS, I doubt Apple wants its OS to be bundled with Windows. Plus, if you create an altenative OS, and manage to convince OEMs to support it, Microsoft can’t do anything.
Microsoft doesn’t own the OEMs, they only decide the terms of the sale of Windows. Their terms is, and has always been, “Either ours only, or their’s only”.
As for Be’s failed adventure on x86, they contracts with OEMs were so shabby, even if Microsoft said “okay” to bundling BeOS, I doubt it would last long. Plus, Gassee failed to realize the OEM deals that were present since the dawn on DOS. They completely ignored Microsoft’s past, and tried to be naive.
I plan to make my own software house, probably make my own OS. But one thing Be never brought into consideration, and something I would always bring into consideration: ‘Would anyone buy this? How much would this benefit them? Would it be enough for them to spend time and money migrating?’
If I truthfully answer “no” to any of the questions, I know the product’s success is limited. (Oh, BTW, this wasn’t my idea, I lifted it out from a marketing book).
“Plus, if you create an altenative OS, and manage to convince OEMs to support it, Microsoft can’t do anything.”
if be convinced dell to ship beos ms can do something…threaten to stop dell’s ability to sell windows, and NO company will turn their back to windows coldturkey, it is far, far too risky, and they would be betting all their chips on the horse with 1 in a million chance of even finishing the race…
“Microsoft doesn’t own the OEMs, they only decide the terms of the sale of Windows. Their terms is, and has always been, “Either ours only, or their’s only”.”
and with that attitude, a company like dell would have to 100% embrace macos, or not touch it with a ten foot pole since ms might get mad.
i agree with you, if apple stays their own oem on x86, they are fine. (other than that large gorilla getting very annoyed)
If anyone says anything that hasnt been said 20 times already in these forae in the last 2 months, will you wake me up please?
2002/10/15 @ 8.30 local time
microprocessor forum, san jose, california
Peter Sandon (IBM) will present their new 64bit Power4 “lite” Processor for Workstations.
So, after his keynote we probably know some more about the possibility that apple could use ibm power processors in their future hardware.
mike burns: if be convinced dell to ship beos ms can do something…threaten to stop dell’s ability to sell windows
What I meant was someone like Dell bundle Be OS only. Not a dual boot. I don’t believe in dual boots, even when I was an anti-MS trool living at http://www.osopinion.com
Microsoft didn’t stop Dell from having models ship with Linux only (only Dell stop offering customer desktops with Linux because of lack of sales). HP makes good money shipping Linux only machines to South Asia.
mike burns: and with that attitude, a company like dell would have to 100% embrace macos, or not touch it with a ten foot pole since ms might get mad.
How would they have embraced Mac OS? the only time there were a possiblity for Dell to embrace Mac OS was with System 7 (read the article), which at that time, Dell didn’t exist.
mike burns: i agree with you, if apple stays their own oem on x86, they are fine. (other than that large gorilla getting very annoyed)
If Apple ever had the idea of opening it’s hardware business ala Palm, they are better off doing it now on PPC. Why? Competitor means lower prices which means higher sales which means lower prices for PPC processors and also faster PPC processors.
Moving to x86 to my opinion is an way by Apple to not open up the hardware market.
Besides, why must this thread turn into a MS bashing thread? there is already one bashing thread (the one about Naked PCs), go there.
df: So, after his keynote we probably know some more about the possibility that apple could use ibm power processors in their future hardware.
If he wanted the Apple deal SO badly, he would have kept this quiet until Apple was ready to use it. Using a Power4-based PPC64 processor could be a possiblity, but I wonder, how long would it hold up with the economics scale of x86.
I think the best news to come out of all this is that they watch South Park over in cupertino! I betcha Bill doesn’t watch South Park…
I can’t believe not one person has made a South Park reference yet. And you call yourselves geeks?!
Why all this talk about “but if <well known manufacturer> ships MacOS, Microsoft will come down on them”? Where is the entrepreneurial spirit? We know that there are people willing to buy an OS other than Windows and would buy something running MacOS if Apple’s hardware prices weren’t so damn high. We know that MacOS has already succeeded on the desktop. And we know that there are mom and pop operations that sell PC’s either without an OS or with something other than Windows for much less than bigger manufacturers. I think that this is a huge opportunity for a small PC manufacturer to really explode into the market by getting a contract with Apple to sell MacOS on x86 machines. Apple has an opportunity to offer less expensive PC’s than Wintels and make a huge profit selling software. Yes, it would bring down their hardware sales, but I think in the end they would come out ahead, with or without MS Office.
I would be interested to know what the speed is of say a 1GHz ppc v 1GHz Athlon running Marklar and once & for all get the speed facts on the table. I know it depends alot more than the cpu but it should be possible for Apple to configure a reference x86 with all the same pci boards, & I wonder what that x86 HW looks like.
MS originally had 4 cpu options at the beginning of NT3.1, x86, ppc, alpha, mips & boy am I glad I didn’t buy the open ppc boards that Moto was showing running NT at the time. The market decided that x86 was the way to go as it could also run the legacy stuff.
Options are good though, it shows how clean the OS design is & Apple can benefit from having this option in the public eye even if they never ship it. It puts lots more pressure on Moto, less so on IBM. If Apple sees their own x86 effort seriously not much ahead of ppc, then they can tell us & we can stop wasting time on the so called x86 speed advantage. If x86 has a huge speed advantage, I would keep mum on that as that keeps the fire burning!
nuff said
>>(I can just imagine CattBeMac’s face…..)<<
!@#$%^&*?
apple will end up buying gateway. it fits with apple’s retail strategy… why build 277 more stores when you can just buy them, and a whole pc maker for a few billion.. seriously.
>>apple will end up buying gateway. it fits with apple’s retail strategy… why build 277 more stores when you can just buy them, and a whole pc maker for a few billion.. seriously.<<
Well they could always keep the stores and sell off (or give away) Gateways assets to Amiga Inc.! Actually what Apple should do is buy both Gateway and Amiga, make a very low cost Amiga, but with style that people can afford and turn all the Gateway Country stores into Amiga stores!
It could work 🙂
( OK so I’ve come back to this thread even though I said I wouldnt )
Just a thought.. would it be possible to make a motherboard with an x86 CPU to run the OS and also a G3 to run PPC apps in semi-emulation – say in a separate environment using a CPU on a bus-mastering PCI card ?
Presumably the APIs the software uses to access the quartz layer would be the same on both platforms…
>>>As for Be’s failed adventure on x86, they contracts with OEMs were so shabby, even if Microsoft said “okay” to bundling BeOS, I doubt it would last long. Plus, Gassee failed to realize the OEM deals that were present since the dawn on DOS. They completely ignored Microsoft’s past, and tried to be naive.
No — it’s the naive BeOS fans and small naive Be Inc. investors that didn’t know how shabby the contracts were and completely ignored reality.
Read Be’s SEC filings, they explicitly stated that the OEM contracts were without minimum orders, and no minimum purchase payments.
>>>I say this because two reason: Apple would not like to leave Motorola definitively and put theyself in IBM hands, and because this IBM chip probably be more expensive as they would like.
>>>I think than if Motorola disappear of the PowerPC market IBM could set the price than the like
75% of all PPC chips produced by IBM/Motorola goes into embedded systems/routers. Just because Apple picking IBM’s PPC chips doesn’t mean that Motorola would disappear from the PPC market.
This question is out of title.. but is it possible run MOL (mac on linux emulator) in x86 linux with microlab powerpc emulator (http://www.microlib.org/G3/ppcemul.php) ?
Excuse me. Who exactly makes all that “high quality” Apple hardware? People with names like Chen, Lee, Wang and Chin. The same people who make all that “crap” x86 hardware. Get a grip people! Some of you really ought to come over here to Taipei for the Computex show. One week of wall to wall hardware. This is the place where hardware is designed and manufactured.
http://www.eb-asia.com/registrd/issues/0203/0203Spot.htm
Apple can use only x86 processor, not the entire PC Hardware architecture. Apple can use AMD Opteron for example and make a 64 and 32 bits version of Mac OS X and it can be totally incompatible with PC hardware and windows software.
It would be a smart move of Apple. Use the same processor of PCs but a different proprietary mainboard.
Steve Jobs wants to continue offering Mac OS X for 15 years, and this is part of how they’ll do it.
Jobs, among others, thinks that RISC is a more powerful and scalable architecture than CISC, and is especially good for multimedia apps; the things that the Pentium 4, with its 20-stage pipeline, is supposedly good at. Therefore, he wants to continue having his high-end computers use RISC as long as possible. This means a switch to IBM’s Power4 as soon as possible. On the high-end, Apple knows that, if they really can achieve the fastest computer, then people will buy it, even if it costs a bit more; after all, these are people who are already paying over $3,000 for a computer, maybe $5,000 with monitor, so what’s another $500?
Jobs knows that, for notebooks and other portable devices, low-power/heat is paramount. And for notebooks, because they’re all proprietary already, Apple laptops don’t cost significantly more; a PBG4 only costs 7% more than an equivalent Gateway laptop, and the same price as an equivalent Dell. And most importantly, most people don’t play games on their notebooks, or if they do they don’t play the same kind of graphics-intensive games they do on desktops; so the fact that Macs run different applications than PCs is fine to the average notebook user.
Jobs also knows that, on the low-end, RISC is better, because it’s simpler and thus lower-power. However, he also knows that, on the low-end, nothing is more important than price. And Jobs knows that Dell offers a computer for $600, Wal-Mart offers one for $300, and Microsoft offers the Xbox – MS could theoretically distribute a CE-based IE/Office CD, take advantage of the Xbox’s hard drive to install a system on there, and then people could plug in any old USB keyboard and mouse and be able to use the Xbox as their sole computer.
And Steve Jobs knows that whoever owns the low-end, whichever platform, owns the high-end – and that’s why Sony’s doing so good.
It’s my understanding that hardware support isn’t the issue here, since the core of the OS is open source. As someone already mentioned, Darwin is already ported to x86.
So, were the rest of the OS released compiled for x86, the part that controls the hardware could easily be patched to support all sorts of hardware (and for once, I think the OSS community would be pretty quick to act in implementing a fairly wide range of support).
It’s pretty simple. If Apple wants “my” business they are going to have to offer OS X that will run on generic X86’s. I want to get away from MS and Windows like many others. But I won’t overpay Apple (aka MS Junior) to do so. I refuse to buy a proprietary computer. Why should I? I can run a slew of OS’s on my current machine and wouldn’t have it any other way.
But, Apple has no balls. They seem content to stay in their tiny little controlled world and keep their mediocre marketshare. They like dealing with their current, small crop of overpaying customers So, since I can’t buy OS X for X86 I will have to wait until Linux is what I want it to be. Amazingly, even though I have been hard on Linux, I am impressed with the newest Beta’s coming out of Redhat and Mandrake. It wouldn’t take much more for me to switch. Apple probably does not realize this. There are millions of people who would love to dump Windows if a really good alternative existed. Linux, as good as it is, is still lacking in some key areas to be able to replace Windows. But OS X for X86 would offer a something better. A nice GUI, ease of use, decent commercial software (slowly but surely) and so on. All with *nix underpinnings. Forgetting hardware, Apple’s share of the desktop market would grow alot faster than it will going the proprietary route. That would mean more software/hardware for OS X in general and in turn yet more OS sales for Apple. At this point, OS X is the “only” OS which has a chance to make headway and put a real scare into MS. If Apple doesn’t wake up and smell the coffee, Linux is going to take off (it already seems like the development pace has accelerated bigtime) in the next year or two and possibly do what Apple and OS X “could” have done.
Satori.
Motorola makes a profitable business in selling embedded PowerPCs. So, if Jobs say “Moto go to hell!”, Moto will say, “Huh?”. Motorola doesn’t need Apple anymore.
This makes Steve Jobs angry, because his whole gameplan is about create exclusivities, make people dependent all-around of Apple – in some ways, it worked with Sun, and he sees that his chip supplier doesn’t giving a f*** if G4s are becoming hopelessly behind the Intel-AMD crazy MHz race.
On the other hand, IBM wants to be a player on the microprocessor market, but needs a posterboy.
Enter Apple. Apple now has even more on his fanboy-creating machine (Mac faithfuls and BSD frustrated people), and looks like the ideal posterboy for IBM.
And for Apple? They’re gaining time. I won’t be surprised if someday Jobs wakes up and shouts, “we need to produce our owh chips!”, because it’s the logical way his gameplan heads.
I think, if they ever switch to x86, they will continue to sell hardware. Without that business they can’t survive. So I would not count on that you can install OS X-x86 on a generic, non Apple machine. They will continue to sell premium Hardware that can run their OS just with an other CPU in it.
Ralf.
I don’t know what Apple’s going to do, but they’re running out of time. I would think that Jobs would stay with RISC if at all feasible. Even if they did go to x86, I would also think that Jobs and Gates would make a deal and, especially because Apple makes money on hardware, it would be closed hardware. Gates likes Apple being around, as it serves to undercut abuse of monopoly charges and Jobs likes Microsoft making apps and even services for Apple. If Apple somehow pushed their market share up over 5% and toward 10%, it would be a stunning development – and Microsoft would make just as much or even more money selling Office, etc. It appears that there have been tensions between Apple and Microsoft since their five year agreement ended. Both have fired shots across the other’s bow. Yet, just a few days ago, Microsoft announced it is going to have MSN for the Mac. That’s something, considering what a proportionally small population a Mac/MSN product would serve – except that it would be a big way to keep Microsoft front and center in the lives of Mac users. I don’t know what Apple will do, but Apple and Microsoft are tied together forever, I do think.
“I think, if they ever switch to x86, they will continue to sell hardware. Without that business they can’t survive. So I would not count on that you can install OS X-x86 on a generic, non Apple machine. They will continue to sell premium Hardware that can run their OS just with an other CPU in it.”
And if they do, they will continue to not do any serious damage. They will continue to have a small share of the desktop marketplace. CG studios and graphics houses will buy them because they are cheaper than SGI’s and OS X is nicer than Linux. And some ordinary people who don’t mind overpaying for Apple hardware will continue to buy the machines. But Apple will have alot of trouble luring “new” customers from the general computing public.
Apple is acting like they want more customers. That’s a good thing. But they are doing it all wrong. The problem is, how can Apple lure customers from the “controlling” MS when they are just as controlling? I mean, you “have” to buy their overpriced hardware to use their OS. That right there is enough for me to tell Apple to take a hike. I’ll run what OS I want, when I want, on the hardware I want.
Satori.
But as it stands, current Macs don’t really have any proprietory hardware. They’re basically PCs with PowerPC chips in them. If they switch the CPU and mother board to x86, it would be a Dell with a snazzier case. At that point, their only option is to do something like embed a proprietory ROM in there that Mac OS looks for to boot. But there would be no advantage in the hardware itself that differentiates a Mac from a regular PC.
“But as it stands, current Macs don’t really have any proprietory hardware. They’re basically PCs with PowerPC chips in them. If they switch the CPU and mother board to x86, it would be a Dell with a snazzier case. At that point, their only option is to do something like embed a proprietory ROM in there that Mac OS looks for to boot. But there would be no advantage in the hardware itself that differentiates a Mac from a regular PC.”
Can you run OS X on ANY other machine? No. So what does that mean? Mac’s are proprietary. It doesn’t matter that simple things like hard drives and cdroms are “generic”. Using SOME off the shelf components does not mean anything if the machines are overpriced and you HAVE to buy an Apple to run their OS at all. And using off the shelf components doesn’t help when you only have one company making the machines. You can’t “build” your own Mac. You have to buy an Apple product and overpay in the process. This fact is part of what has kept Apple’s marketshare small. Even when Mac’s “where” faster or at least as fast as PC’s they represented a small share of the desktop market. Slapping an X86 in a proprietary Mac won’t change that mush. If Apple really wants people to switch, more than a small handfull, they are going to have make it so almost anyone can run OS X on their PC. That means losing hardware business but gaining on the software side. They are not going to get substantially more hardware customers. They haven’t up till now and I can’t see why they will in the future. Money is the bottom line. And with MS dominating the desktop, Apple needs to offer users a compelling reason to switch. OS X on overpriced hardware is NOT the solution.
Satori.
First of all, isn’t this old news? I thought everyone knew that OS X on x86 existed.
“This isn’t suprising. I bet Microsoft have a PPC version of Windows XP lying around somewhere in their research labs. It is a *fallback* option.”
Generally impossible, since Windows 2000 large portions of Windows are written in Visual Bonehead… oops, I mean Visual Basic. When Compaq discovered this they threw in the towel on the Alpha chip thereby committing the lineage of a computer company more important than themselves to the grave.
“Microsoft is way ahead technologically.”
What are you? An idiot? Microsoft is feeding you with “the same old garbage in an all new package”. Microsoft has not developed anything innovative since the mid ’90s. They can’t. The company has never even written an operating system from scratch.
A FreeBSD-based OS can run on x86?! AMAZING!!!
What a fucking waste of conspiracy theories. Apple is slow now. Apple will get fixed later. Apple doesn’t tell you what it does until it’s ready.
“Generally impossible, since Windows 2000 large portions of Windows are written in Visual Bonehead… oops, I mean Visual Basic. When Compaq discovered this they threw in the towel on the Alpha chip thereby committing the lineage of a computer company more important than themselves to the grave.”
BS. The Alpha died as a result of the HP-Compaq merger and the IA64. Compaq sold the Alpha and most of the team to Intel in prep for the merger. It was all planned.
“Can you run OS X on ANY other machine? No. So what does that mean? Mac’s are proprietary.”
Bha. It is an pretty much standard MB from the east with some Mac ROMs a differnet CPU. It is 90% the same as a PC. Dropping a x86 in would not be that hard. Hell, Apple is a member of the HyperTrasnport group. If you really want to see how much the same it is look at the new Amigas. Same thing. PPC and ROMs on a PC.
“First of all, isn’t this old news? I thought everyone knew that OS X on x86 existed.”
It “is” old news. And we all “do” know that OS X for X86 exists somewhere. The thing is, there are a sh*tload of Linux/Windows users who would love the opportunity to run OS X on their PC’s. So, there will always be discussion about it. Those of us who really are not married to MS but see no other viable option can’t imagine why Apple wouldn’t take the opportunity to really grab a larger share of the desktop market. Mac fanatics see hardware sales as the only way Apple can make money. That may be true, when you only hold 3-5% of the market. Apple has a choice. Sell hardware/software to a few or sell software (and some hardware – some people will still buy their computers and many will still buy things like iPods etc…) to many.
Satori.
“Bha. It is an pretty much standard MB from the east with some Mac ROMs a differnet CPU. It is 90% the same as a PC. Dropping a x86 in would not be that hard. Hell, Apple is a member of the HyperTrasnport group. If you really want to see how much the same it is look at the new Amigas. Same thing. PPC and ROMs on a PC. ”
It doesn’t matter that the “parts” are not all proprietary. Don’t you get it? You can only run OS X on a Mac and you can only buy a Mac from Apple. You can’t call your local computer store and have them “build” a Mac for you out of parts. We all know that the majority of components in these Macs are off the shelf PC stuff (slow, dated PC stuff). But that doesn’t matter if you can’t build the machine yourself or buy from a company other than Apple. When I can call my local computer store and say I want this motherboard, that cpu, this memory, that cd-r, this firewire card, that scsi card and so on and “build” a Mac at the price “I” want with the components I want, then you can say Mac’s aren’t proprietary. The “only” reason Apple has made “some” components non-proprietary is to save money. But, they made sure to keep enough of the system proprietary so that nobody could create a Mac clone.
As long as Apple is the only one selling Macs and as long as they are overpriced, there is no chance of the Mac getting a much larger chunk of the desktop market. It hasn’t happended yet and OS X is not enough to make alot of people want to all of a sudden pay a premium for a Mac.
Satori.
As I’ve said before “OPTIONS, kids”.
To strike at the “Heart of Darkness” it (OS X.x) will and should run on everything.
Why would you stop now?
Insane … or Insanely Great?
OPTIONS.
All of them.
See FreeBSD.
It’s not a horserace, it’s capture the flag.
Win32 should also go back to PPC, it is great strategy.
“The Alpha died as a result of the HP-Compaq merger and the IA64. Compaq sold the Alpha and most of the team to Intel in prep for the merger. It was all planned.”
I guess it was not clear that I meant Compaq threw in the towel over running Windows 2000 on the Alpha CPU.
Re: Satori “Old News” This was basically a comment on comments. Some posters seem to be in total denial of the possibility of OS X on x86 to exist. I was trying to point that out in an obtusive manner. I want it too. You can even find my name on the petition at http://osxonintel.xoverzero.com/ .
I would also like to point out to some posters that Microsoft doesn’t write drivers for most hardware. The hardware manufacturers write the drivers and submit (pun intended) them to Microsoft for inclusion on the installation CD. I would speculate that many hardware manufacturers would be eager to support Apple in this area.
Apple has never wanted to be the next, Dell, or Microsoft. Steve Jobs is happy with his niche market – he sells what he wants, how he wants to and thats about all he really needs to be content. In particular, he wants to sell what he thinks is the best Apple Computer he can which includes tight integration with hardware. Not to build a nice affordable Dell knockoff running Mac OS X so that everyone can “try” out his OS on semi-supported hardware. If thats what people want then why bother moving from windows or linux – because thats obviously no longer an Apple OS.
Its also been said that it appears that Apple wants more customers, and yes they do. But they want to get more people to be Apple customers, they dont want to change Apple to into just another clone and get more PC clone customers.
To be honest, there is nothing proprietary about Apple’s hardware. I can run Apple’s OS or I can run Linux, or *BSD Unix, or MorphOS, or an Amiga Emulator. Saying that Apple is proprietary because one can’t run their OS on any hardware they chose it like me saying Windows is proprietary because I can’t run it on MIPS, 68k/G3/G4 or Power4 chips if I wanted to. As for the but I can buy hardware from different vendors angle – I can buy apple hardware from third-party vendors too – and I can even buy a whole system from TerraSoft if I want to.
would also like to point out to some posters that Microsoft doesn’t write drivers for most hardware. The hardware manufacturers write the drivers and submit (pun intended) them to Microsoft for inclusion on the installation CD. I would speculate that many hardware manufacturers would be eager to support Apple in this area.
Don’t get your hopes up, hardware manufacturers
didn’t write drivers for BeOS and even they had a larger marketshare than Apple.
Apple isn’t quick with drivers either, it took forever to get hardware accelerated drivers for their own videocards.
Don’t get me wrong about BeOS. I built a machine off the BeOS hardware compatibility list and dramatically improved the awareness of a local user group over BeOS by helping to arrange a presentation of BeOS and Productive by Gobe. I bought Productive the day I discovered it and upgraded as soon as version 2.0 came out. I bought BeOS 3.0 and 4. I BOUGHT upgrades to 4.5 and 5.0.
That said, I think the root of BeOS’ failure was related to Be’s undercapitalization and Microsoft’s abuse of it’s monopoly position. I think if Be had been more prominent they would have gotten the needed support. Existence of more applications would have helped a bunch too.
BTW: I also built machines from the hardware compatibilty list of x86 NeXTSTEP, x86 Solaris 8 and OS/2 and would gladly do the same if I had a copy of x86 OS X or x86 Rhapsody. If anyone would send me a URL for x86 Rhapsody as they did for Dano, I would be really happy about it. : )
“To be honest, there is nothing proprietary about Apple’s hardware. I can run Apple’s OS or I can run Linux, or *BSD Unix, or MorphOS, or an Amiga Emulator. Saying that Apple is proprietary because one can’t run their OS on any hardware they chose it like me saying Windows is proprietary because I can’t run it on MIPS, 68k/G3/G4 or Power4 chips if I wanted to.”
No, Mac’s are proprietary because you can’t get one from anyone else other than Apple. Again, when I can build a Mac as I do a PC then you can call it non-proprietary.
“As for the but I can buy hardware from different vendors angle – I can buy apple hardware from third-party vendors too”
So what? Your “Mac” is still made by Apple.
“- and I can even buy a whole system from TerraSoft if I want to.”
Ya, but it ain’t a Mac and Apple does not support running OS X on it. It comes with Yellow Dog Linux. Big deal. So, you have ONE unsupported system that “might” run OS X (I have seen few stories either way). And it costs $1500 for a 500Mhz G3 with a 10gig HD (a 2.5″ notebook HD at that) and 512M of PC100 ram. Can you say OUCH. Sure, it’s kind of a horny piece of hardware because of the size and all. But for that kind of cash I can get a pretty nice PC that will run circles around it. And frankly, why would anyone pay for one of these things when you can get real Mac with similar specs for the same or less?
Satori.
Hardware manufacturers didn’t write drivers for BeOS and even they had a larger marketshare than Apple.
No offense, but what planet are you from? BeOS was doing well–and steadily growing–until the Great Unfocusing, but only in context. Before the end of September there will be more copies of Jaguar bought than copies of BeOS were ever bought. By even generous estimates, there were maybe 200,000 copies sold or given away by Be, and I doubt Gobe sold more than a few thousand. (Sure, there were a couple million downloads of “BeOS 5 Personal Edition,” but most of those people didn’t keep using it–and paid customers count a lot more for hardware manufacturers than an indeterminate number of free users of indeterminate seriousness.)
“BS. The Alpha died as a result of the HP-Compaq merger and the IA64. Compaq sold the Alpha and most of the team to Intel in prep for the merger. It was all planned.”
Sorry, that’s bullshit. I think you must have missed the date by at least 4 years! Alpha was dead MUCH earlier. I mean you could see at that time that Alpha wouldn’t survive much longer. Itanium was nothing more than a thought written on a paper back then.
The current powermacs don’t just use SOME off the shelf components, they use almost entirely off the shelf components. The only major difference is the CPU and firmware. If they go x86, they’ll have to switch the firmware to ACPI/PCI-BIOS (there’s no way they can go define their own standard, not enough clout) and when that happens, the only thing stopping you from building a Mac is hacking some ROMS.
Generally impossible, since Windows 2000 large portions of Windows are written in Visual Bonehead… oops, I mean Visual Basic.
>>>>>>>
Oh this is a new one. A Visual Basic runtime in the kernel, hah! Dude, the source to Windows 2000 *is* available, and people *have* seen it, and no, there is no Visual Basic in there!
When Compaq discovered this they threw in the towel on the Alpha chip thereby committing the lineage of a computer company more important than themselves to the grave.
>>>>>>>>>>>
No, the reason Compaq killed Alpha was because Intel wanted them to, and it wasn’t commercially viable anymore. The reason Windows on PPC and whatnot died is because Microsoft wanted to move everyone to Intel. Windows NT was designed from the ground up for portability, and they’ve got some sharp coders at MS. I don’t doubt for one minute that the Windows NT codebase still runs on some other chips.
What are you? An idiot? Microsoft is feeding you with “the same old garbage in an all new package”. Microsoft has not developed anything innovative since the mid ’90s. They can’t. The company has never even written an operating system from scratch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you’re the idiot. New Microsoft technologies:
1) ClearType. I don’t care if Apple had it first, Microsoft was the one who brought it to my LCD screen. Apple has more LCD-based machines (proprotionatly) than the PC market, yet OS X doesn’t have ClearType.
2) Direct3D. The “consumer” API that finally beat OpenGL, and kicked 3DLabs into inventing OpenGL 2.0. I don’t know how much you know about game development, but one thing MS does is mediate between game developers and hardware makers into driving 3D hardware continually forward. Direct3D, and its fast pace of evolution keeps 3D hardware improving. Take, for example, Pixel Shaders. If Microsoft hadn’t mandated fully floating point pixel pipelines in D3D 9.0, then the graphics industry most likely would have stuck with integer-based pixel shaders for several years, because the cost of fully floating-point pixel pipes is quite high. Its a nice balance, though. MS keeps driving 3D hardware forward, and Carmack keeps making sure all the cool stuff is supported in OpenGL
PS> I still hate Microsoft.
“The current powermacs don’t just use SOME off the shelf components, they use almost entirely off the shelf components. The only major difference is the CPU and firmware. If they go x86, they’ll have to switch the firmware to ACPI/PCI-BIOS (there’s no way they can go define their own standard, not enough clout) and when that happens, the only thing stopping you from building a Mac is hacking some ROMS.”
Great, so now we all have to be criminals to run OS X on our self built PC’s. And what happens to the rest of your OS’s when you have hacked your Mobo/CPU/BIOS to run OS X?
I (and many others) want OS X, working on generic PC’s. I want to run OS X and still have the option to run Windows or Linux or BeOS or any other X86 OS I want. I don’t want to “hack” anything. I don’t want to pay for overpriced hardware. I don’t want to buy even fairly priced Mac X86 hardware if it means I can’t run any X86 OS on it that I please.
By limiting the choices one has if they want to use a Mac or a Mac OS Apple is only limiting their potential.
Satori.
>>Ya, but it ain’t a Mac and Apple does not support running OS X on it. It comes with Yellow Dog Linux. Big deal. So, you have ONE unsupported system that “might” run OS X (I have seen few stories either way). And it costs $1500 for a 500Mhz G3 with a 10gig HD (a 2.5″ notebook HD at that) and 512M of PC100 ram. Can you say OUCH. Sure, it’s kind of a horny piece of hardware because of the size and all. But for that kind of cash I can get a pretty nice PC that will run circles around it. And frankly, why would anyone pay for one of these things when you can get real Mac with similar specs for the same or less? <<
Actually it runs OS X, it comes with OS X on it, and its under apple’s warrantee. So i’m not really sure where you are getting this “unsupported” system information from nor why your not calling it a real mac.
>>I (and many others) want OS X, working on generic PC’s. I want to run OS X and still have the option to run Windows or Linux or BeOS or any other X86 OS I want. I don’t want to “hack” anything. I don’t want to pay for overpriced hardware. I don’t want to buy even fairly priced Mac X86 hardware if it means I can’t run any X86 OS on it that I please. <<
Satori you completely missing the point here…. since when has apple stopped you from running any OS you please on their hardware? Everything you listed you can run on Apple Hardware Natively except Windows and thats not due to apple hardware. So why would they all of a sudden do that if they changed to x86? In fact you could probably then also run windows as well. The only thing they would would do is probably a reapeat of now – custom rom chips so OSX only ran on their hardware.
Basically the only thing you’re saying and have been saying is, “I want Apple OS to behave how it does now but on any hardware I see fit so that I can get everything on the cheap.” Well Good Luck. If you want a quality OS that has tight integration with its hardware then your going to have to pay for it. Why do you expect apple give a cheap solution that does this when windows certainly can’t and linux hasn’t been able to do yet ?
“Actually it runs OS X, it comes with OS X on it, and its under apple’s warrantee. So i’m not really sure where you are getting this “unsupported” system information from nor why your not calling it a real mac.”
So, the only point of mentioning Terrasoft was to say that you can buy an Apple built Mac from someone else but with Linux installed? Who cares? It’s still overpriced Mac hardware. I am talking about Mac clones. You can’t buy one. The system of theirs that I mentioned was their little bay sized computer. Who cares about their real Mac systems. Anyone can buy a Mac at any number of Mac stores in every damn city in the world. Tell us something we didn’t know.
“Satori you completely missing the point here….”
No, you are missing the point. I don’t WANT a Mac with an X86. I want any damn PC I care to build. And I want to run any X86 OS I want on it. And I don’t want to have to “hack” anything to make that happen. I want “choice”. With my current PC I have lots of choice. If I buy a Mac (PPC, X86 or otherwise) I won’t. I will be at Apple’s mercy. I want to buy hardware the same way I do today. And apparently so do millions of other people. And that is partly why Apple has a relatively miniscule percentage of the desktop.
This “tight integration with it’s hardware” crap is meaningless. What exactly does that mean? To me, it means Apple is selling people overpriced machines with older, slower hardware and not giving you much of a choice. Really, what’s this “tight integration” you are talking about. My tablet works great. My Geforce card rocks. My inkjet printer prints just fine. My laser printer works like a dream. My network card seems to be communicating with my OS just fine. My mouse seems to move the pointer when I move it. My sound card sounds great. My two hard drives seem to store the data I tell them to. My cdrom is reading cd’s just fine. My burner is buring just fine. I can’t remember the last time I sat there and said “gee, I sure wish my hardware and OS were more tightly integrated”.
Obviously, you and Apple and however many people make up the few percentage points of the desktop market Apple holds are the only ones who know or care what this “tight integration” crap means. The rest of us don’t seem to see the lack of hardware/software integration on our respective PC’s that you are talking about.
Seriously though, I know what hardware/software integration is. I just don’t see this as a real issue. First, Mac’s are less tighly integrated than they ever have been. Secondly, you’ll notice something about tighly integrated systems. They are expensive, and usually overpriced for what you get performance-wise. Thirdly, if tight integration is such an important issue, why does the majority of the world run on computers that aren’t tighly integrated?
My PC is faster than comparably priced (or even more expensive) Macs. My PC is stable (XP is pretty damn stable, Linux simply does not crash on me). I doubt a Mac running OS X would be more stable than my PC running Linux or FreeBSD. My 3d graphics performance is better than what I would get on a Mac. And so on. So, this “tight integration” ain’t helping Mac’s out so much.
Satori.
TerraSoft is an Authorized Apple Reseller. There was a story here on OS News when the story about them selling dual boot Macs came out. I’ve been following it as closely as I can. There is a little outfit in Illonois I think that’s doing the same. It is interesting because I cannot recall Apple “allowing” Authorized Resellers to do anything like that before. I kept expecting Apple to “do something about it”, but it has become obvious they approve of this. Options, options…
“I kept expecting Apple to “do something about it”, but it has become obvious they approve of this. Options, options…”
Wow, so Apple is actually allowing people to sell their overpriced hardware, with the original OS and then preinstall Linux as well. Big deal. Why would they care? They still get to sell their overpriced hardware and their OS. The only difference between this reseller and others is the Linux preinstall.
That’s not what I call options. Options would be the ability to choose all components from a miriad of hardware manufacturers.
Satori.
If Apple’s “tight integration” is so important and so in demand how come few people buy them? How come all of the Linux/BSD and other users who appreciate stability and things just working aren’t buying Macs running OSX? If “tight integration” is so key, why would Apple worry about losing hardware sales if they release OS X for X86? Shouldn’t that just mean more icing on the cake? After all, the Mac machines are just so much better because of the “tight integration” right?
The real deal is, Macs are overpriced and slow and no more stable than a PC running Linux or FreeBSD.
Satori.
Satori, your original comments and arguments in this thread were good, I thought. And I’m glad you have a great computer, but you have edged over into simply anti-Apple trolling now. Your recent comments make you sound like your jealous of Apple or people who use Macs.
My comments about what? Price and performance of Macs? I am only joining the vocal Mac community in saying these things. Where have you been? That’s what this whole thing is about. Expensive but slow Macs.
I don’t hate Mac users or Macs. If I had money to burn I might even buy a Mac. But I don’t have money to burn. When I buy a computer I want value for my money. And I don’t see Macs having the same value/performance ratio of PC’s. I don’t see why Macs have to cost what they do. I am not exactly cheap either. When I last upgraded my machine (I kept my old monitor, sound card, network card, burner, cdrom and a few other small items) I spent $3000. The majority of people I know thought I was completely nuts. Imagine how nuts they would think a salesman is trying to sell them a Mac for way more than they could buy a Dell or a PC from a local shop.
Just because a small percentage of people buy Macs does not mean they are really worth what they cost. People buy Macs for the OS and the looks. And they know they are overpaying for it. They accept that. But, as is easily seen by Apple’s market share, that’s not the popular way of thinking. The majority of people want the biggest bang for their buck.
Satori.
>I spent $3000
Could you please tell us what exactly you did?
Thanks
Perhaps I misjudged your passion on the subject. I agree with you – and I use Macs. And, even aside from style, I know (because I use Macs and know many who do), we also tend to buy them almost as a tradition, even though Steve probably doesn’t care about that <g>. When things like the original iMacs came out and that sort of thing we tend to go ga-ga because Apple has again pulled back from the brink. But, it is true, Macs are whoafully in need of performance gains. And, again, Apple must do something to keep from slipping into the Void.
“Could you please tell us what exactly you did?
Thanks”
You want the gory details?
The machine wasn’t exactly “exotic” or anything. I picked components based on the best bang for the buck (with certain min. requirements of course). For example, the P3 800EB was priced just right. Much cheaper than the next 2 or so higher Mhz cpu’s with 90% of the performance but not much more expensive than the slower cpu’s. The prices are from memory so may be a little off.
Asus CUSL2 $225
P3 800EB $400+
256M Micron/Infineon ram $400
Elsa Gladiac Geforce2 GTS $400+
IBM 75GXP 40gig HD $150+
USR PCI Hardware modem $100
Antec SX-1030B case $180
APC Back-UPS 650 Pro $370
Win2k $200
etc….
That $3000, by the way, was Canadian not US dollars and I bought about 2 years or so ago. Certainly wasn’t the most expensive system I could have bought but (especially when you add in my 19″ Mits monitor, Wacom Graphire, cdrom, burner, soundcard, NIC and so on) was more than the average person spends on their machine (not the average person on this board, I mean the everyday joe user). I also had to buy speakers ($100) and a printer ($200) and also already had one UPS (A Back-UPS 400). I have since added 256M ram (at less than 1/4 the cost of the original 256M, gotta love those fluctuating memory prices), a laser printer printer, a DSL router and more.
Most people I know want their computers to last 6 or 7 years. That’s how the average consumer thinks. Most average users don’t buy a new system every 2 or 3 years. I have customers that are upgrading from P200’s still. They have these old machines and want to run XP, Office XP, Quake3 and so on and wonder if they can squeeze even more time out of their PC’s.
Satori.
Yes I should shutup about Terrasoft I mean who cares if one can run other OS’s on their hardware. Your only interested in running their OS on your hardware. In fact. the other comments that you made about them controling what you can run on their hardware were just a big typo right?
And yes again your absolutely right, if they move to x86 hardware and have to start supporting as many kinds of peripherals that windows does to compete with them there is not going to be any drop in peripheral integration. What was I thinking – I can’t have more than 2 harddrives in my asus motherboard running lycoris because it crashes the kernel due to a ATA100 driver bug, but MacOSX is just going to instantly be compatable with everything.
You know what, I’m unbelievably happy your so content with you non-apple system. In fact it seems so wonderful that I have no idea why you’d want an apple obviously your stuff works just fine by your standards as it is now. So rather than slumming it with us Apple people, why dont you spend less time whineing about how you want MacOSX on your hardware and make your windows or linux, since they are so great, look like aqua?
What good it would do you to have OSX anyway? If its just for looks I’ll buy you stardock’s object desktop or even help you make a kde/gnome theme that looks like aqua. Because obviously what apple’s os offers you in terms of integration, stability, and overall happiness of ownership you already seem to have and for a lot less money.
As for saying apple’s hardware is slow – yes at the moment it is. But its not apple’s fault – you can only beat a dead horse so much. And no giving you their OS to with as you please is not exactlyt the most compatable thing with their business model. Furthermore you keep assuming incorrectly that its apple who is purposly making their hardware slow and that if they switch to x86 that would still run slower than your present “uber hardware.” I don’t see why they wouldn’t use the same “wonderful” hardware that every other vendor uses. In fact I’m willing to bet that if Apple made a proprietary Motherboard that used a new 3ghz P4 chip first – you’d wet your pants trying to get it. (Since as someone else mentioned you can use any third party video card, sound card, etc that the OS has drivers for.)
“Yes I should shutup about Terrasoft I mean who cares if one can run other OS’s on their hardware. Your only interested in running their OS on your hardware. In fact. the other comments that you made about them controling what you can run on their hardware were just a big typo right?”
Well, so goody for you. You can buy a Mac from terrasoft (as you could from any vendor) and run Linux on it (as with other Macs – except it’s preinstalled). And this is a big deal because………..? I was more concerned with Apple controlling the Mac system hardware market. I really don’t care if Apple allows you to tun Linux or anything else on their Macs. Why would you? If you have OS X who needs Linux?
“And yes again your absolutely right, if they move to x86 hardware and have to start supporting as many kinds of peripherals that windows does to compete with them there is not going to be any drop in peripheral integration. What was I thinking – I can’t have more than 2 harddrives in my asus motherboard running lycoris because it crashes the kernel due to a ATA100 driver bug, but MacOSX is just going to instantly be compatable with everything. ”
I never said that it would be perfect or easy. And I understand that Macs have fewer “hardware” problems in general. My point was that Macs are already far less integrated than they every were. And few people (other than the small Mac market) care enough about integration to pay Mac prices.
“You know what, I’m unbelievably happy your so content with you non-apple system. In fact it seems so wonderful that I have no idea why you’d want an apple obviously your stuff works just fine by your standards as it is now. So rather than slumming it with us Apple people, why dont you spend less time whineing about how you want MacOSX on your hardware and make your windows or linux, since they are so great, look like aqua?”
I didn’t say I was perfectly content. I said my system works. And it does. I hate Windows. But guess what? there is no other alternative for me unless I want to overpay for a Mac and I don’t.
“What good it would do you to have OSX anyway? If its just for looks I’ll buy you stardock’s object desktop or even help you make a kde/gnome theme that looks like aqua. Because obviously what apple’s os offers you in terms of integration, stability, and overall happiness of ownership you already seem to have and for a lot less money.”
I would like OS X on X86 for the same reason I would like an improved Linux. I am sick of Windows. I hate Windows multitasking. I don’t like Microsoft. I don’t like the way Window can sometimes have a mind of it’s own and mysteriously change certain settings at will (like folder view settings and so on). And I don’t like having to “activate” software I paid for.
“As for saying apple’s hardware is slow – yes at the moment it is. But its not apple’s fault”
Of course it’s Apple’s fault. They make the machines. And they choose the components.
” – you can only beat a dead horse so much. And no giving you their OS to with as you please is not exactlyt the most compatable thing with their business model.”
I realize this. That’s my point. Apple’s current business model works, if they are content to have a small share of the desktop market. If their model is “sell a little, charge alot”, then they got it right.. But, if they truly want people to “switch” (more than a handfull that is), they are dreaming if they think their current business model is going to do it.
“Furthermore you keep assuming incorrectly that its apple who is purposly making their hardware slow and that if they switch to x86 that would still run slower than your present “uber hardware.””
Apple has all the choice in thw world. They can tell Moto to go f*ck themselves and move to another cpu. And I never said that Apple X86 machines would be slower, I only said they would be more expensive.
“I don’t see why they wouldn’t use the same “wonderful” hardware that every other vendor uses.”
Well, of course they would, if they had the balls to make the switch.
“In fact I’m willing to bet that if Apple made a proprietary Motherboard that used a new 3ghz P4 chip first – you’d wet your pants trying to get it. (Since as someone else mentioned you can use any third party video card, sound card, etc that the OS has drivers for.)”
Ya, that’ll be the day. Apple users can only dream about 3Ghz. At the rate Apple is going, shouldn’t be more than a couple of years or so by which time PC users will have 6Ghz cpu’s at their disposal.
And, as I said before, I won’t buy Apple’s proprietary hardware unless I win the lottery and money is of no concern. But, as long as my budget has anything to say about it, I’ll stick with PC’s.
Satori.
This soap opera is getting out of hand. Eugenia, please close this thread NOW. Nothing useful is being stated.
SAME OLD PC/MAC PISSING WAR GOING ON AGAIN!!!!
What I still so miserably fail to understand is how you expect Apple to do what you want, and stay in business.
Apple still does not have all the choice in the world – not everyone is using OSX yet.
Also, what if they move to the power4 where does that leave your argument about it being necessary for people to switch? Would you still refuse to buy an apple? Do you still think apple would have a problem getting people to switch over if once again they controlled the hardware but it was another non mainstream cpu architecture? If not then why is the x86 market so special that they would have to do things the way you want in order for them to sell?
Vince
>>My comments about what? Price and performance of Macs? I am only joining the vocal Mac community in saying these things. Where have you been? That’s what this whole thing is about. Expensive but slow Macs.<<
Why do you join the vocal Mac community? Do you own a Mac and consider yourself part of the community?! Yes Macs are slower than PCs these days, but that has only been apparent in the last year or so… I mean, would you have switched to Macs 2 years ago when the opposite was true? The last time the PC was faster than Mac was before the birth of PowerPC, so where were you then? And no one in their right mine is going to throw thousands of dollars woth of software away to buy another platform to gain only a few seconds here and there, it just doesn’t make logical (or common) sense. People don’t just buy a machine just for speed (at least I would hope not) they buy for many different things! When I bought my Mac years ago, it wasn’t the speed that sold me, it was the OS, helk I knew 400 MHz 3 years ago was enough for the average joe like me, and that machine is still viable today (even running Mac OS X 10.1, though Mac OS 9 is faster)!
The real question is do people run BeOS on their x86 boxes over Windows just because it’s faster? NO, it isn’t logical because Windows has a bigger selection of software and BeOS can’t fill the needs of everyone, and yes BeOS is way faster than any version of Windows or Linux on the same box!
“What I still so miserably fail to understand is how you expect Apple to do what you want, and stay in business.”
That’s not my problem.
I have no idea. But lots of companies are making money selling products at reasonable prices.
“Apple still does not have all the choice in the world – not everyone is using OSX yet.”
Then who is in control? If the company “making” the hardware can’t control what CPU they use in their systems, who can?
“Also, what if they move to the power4 where does that leave your argument about it being necessary for people to switch? Would you still refuse to buy an apple? Do you still think apple would have a problem getting people to switch over if once again they controlled the hardware but it was another non mainstream cpu architecture?”
I won’t buy a Sun. I won’t buy an SGI. And I won’t buy a Mac. They are all too expensive and too closed. The Mac is the most open but I still think it’s too limited. I simply choose to buy PC’s because the price is right because PC makers actually have to compete with each other. Yes, Sun, SGI and Apple have to compete against PC’s too. But that is really a different thing. If you want to run OS X you have to buy a Mac. And the only people making Macs are Apple (the Terrasoft briQ system “might” run OS X (their website does not say either way) but is overpriced).
“If not then why is the x86 market so special that they would have to do things the way you want in order for them to sell?”
What makes the X86 market so special is it’s shear size, the choice it offers and the ability to buy a system from $200 to over $20,000 to suit ones needs.
What makes you think Apple will all of a sudden start selling a slew of machines if they get a faster CPU? They hold about the same percentage of the desktop market as they did when their machines where as fast or faster than PC’s. It’s so simple. With no clones and high prices, Apple’s share will always be relatively small. And that’s fine if that is how they want to keep things. But, this “switch” compaign would lead one to believe that Apple is interested in converting as many Joe user Windows users as possible. Unfortunately for Apple they won’t be switching in droves. And price has alot to do with it. So, if Apple really wants to convert people and gain a larger share of the desktop then they need to rethink their strategy. If not, their “switch” ad campaign money probably could have been spent better elsewhere.
Satori.
>>They hold about the same percentage of the desktop market as they did when their machines where as fast or faster than PC’s.<<
And what point in time are we talking? Apple had over 10% of the marketshare a decade ago, which is where Dell is at this present moment (13.8% I think). Of course I don’t care about marketshare, and I think other Mac users will say the same thing. If Apple can get us 10% and keep it steady, then Microsoft can keep the rest (of course Steve Jobs might beg to differ)!
I believe Apple should make the switch to x86 but with a price… First off it only supports few hardware (that hardware of the system they are selling). The way it should work is you can do two things one buy a computer from Apple that has OS X x86 installed on it and you get full support from apple, and out of the box OS X only has drivers support of those drivers only thats it. Next you ‘could’ use it on your home computer but first you will have to sign up for a developer tools disk on a new open source web site with apple too of course that cost a price each year to stay on. There you can find the drivers you want but then again you have to have the Developer tools cd to compile the driver. Sure they can make it in the right format already but if that wouldn’t be the users they would want running OS X x86 on none Apple computers. This will give them the extra money and effort on open source people if they want to use OS X x86 on none Apple comptuers. Even if you don’t know anything you would have to join a development site and group which would catch your interest of every part of OS X, then you have to learn to compile, possibly getting you to want to learn programming, help program some open source part of OS X, then of course Apple exchanges that back.
So final word, yes to OS X x86 on Apple computers with only drivers for there hardware. And yes with an additional purchase and sign up for some other part OS X needed to develop drivers even if you are not developing and just want to have drivers. Then the drivers are up on an Apple type of development site. This will also help with warez copies.
Apple doesn’t need to have a MS style license, they dont even have serials since someone just bought an Apple computer they dont have to worry so much about someone putting that copy on nothing more then another Apple computer. But the non-apple computers is the problem with warez copies so thats another reason you have the developer sign up which each person has to be signed up with Apple to get on and get drivers.
“Why do you join the vocal Mac community? Do you own a Mac and consider yourself part of the community?!”
I don’t own a Mac. But unless you are living under a rock there is no way you can have missed the dozens of articles and forum discussions about how Mac’s are seriously lagging behind PC’s in speed and yet the prices are still high.
“Yes Macs are slower than PCs these days, but that has only been apparent in the last year or so… I mean, would you have switched to Macs 2 years ago when the opposite was true?”
No. Why? Because the Mac’s were not twice as fast as the PC’s like the PC’s are about twice as fast as Macs now, they were more expensive than a PC and, as usual, I couldn’t custom build one.
“The last time the PC was faster than Mac was before the birth of PowerPC, so where were you then?”
The same place I am now and will always be.
“And no one in their right mine is going to throw thousands of dollars woth of software away to buy another platform to gain only a few seconds here and there, it just doesn’t make logical (or common) sense.”
Who said anything about tossing thousands in software? If you are a Mac user and have that much Mac software, enjoy. If you are a PC user and have that much PC software, enjoy. But most people don’t have thousands of dollars in software anyhow. I don’t expect every PC user to dump their PC’s and buy a Mac or vice versa. I don’t expect that every PC user would try OS X for X86 either. This is another great reason why OS X for X86 makes sense. It would mean I could keep Windows and Linux installed on my machine and tri-boot the three OS’s. That way, I don’t have to replace every app right away, or at all.
“People don’t just buy a machine just for speed (at least I would hope not) they buy for many different things! When I bought my Mac years ago, it wasn’t the speed that sold me, it was the OS, helk I knew 400 MHz 3 years ago was enough for the average joe like me, and that machine is still viable today (even running Mac OS X 10.1, though Mac OS 9 is faster)! ”
I know speed is not the only issue. If it was, Apple wouldn’t be selling any machines at all. I know why Mac users choose Macs. What you fail to understand is that the vast majority of PC users who have never bought a Mac, never will buy a Mac. So, the priorities of the current Mac userbase don’t necessarily jibe with that of the average PC user. That’s why I say, if Apple wants to convert PC users, they are going about it all wrong.
“The real question is do people run BeOS on their x86 boxes over Windows just because it’s faster? NO, it isn’t logical because Windows has a bigger selection of software and BeOS can’t fill the needs of everyone, and yes BeOS is way faster than any version of Windows or Linux on the same box!”
I seriously hope you are not comparing Beos vs. Windows to OS X vs. Windows. The comparison is ridiculous. BeOS is a beautiful and fast OS. I know because it happens to be one of the OS’s on my hard drive. But it has absolutely no chance of seriously competing for desktop share because of poor driver support and lack of software (not to mention the fact that it really is a dead OS at this point). OS X is the next step for Apple. Apple has “millions” of users who will eventually all be running OS X. Software developers are developing and will continue to develop even more quality “commercial” apps for it. And your arguement seems strange. Why? Because not only are PC’s faster than Macs but PC’s have the larger selection of software. So that’s two compelling reasons to choose PC over Mac. Price makes it three.
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate what Macs and OS9 or OS X offer. I understand why people buy them. I am simply saying that the majority of the people out there will not buy a Mac that is slower and more expensive than a PC no matter how good the OS is.
Satori.
“And what point in time are we talking? Apple had over 10% of the marketshare a decade ago, which is where Dell is at this present moment (13.8% I think). Of course I don’t care about marketshare, and I think other Mac users will say the same thing. If Apple can get us 10% and keep it steady, then Microsoft can keep the rest (of course Steve Jobs might beg to differ)!”
A decade ago? In computer years that’s like a millenium.
Those were the days of 16 and 25Mhz Macs and 486 DX2/66’s and when Win 3.1 was still alive and well.
Satori.
>>I don’t own a Mac. But unless you are living under a rock there is no way you can have missed the dozens of articles and forum discussions about how Mac’s are seriously lagging behind PC’s in speed and yet the prices are still high.<<
No, I keep up with the times here!
>> No. Why? Because the Mac’s were not twice as fast as the PC’s like the PC’s are about twice as fast as Macs now, they were more expensive than a PC and, as usual, I couldn’t custom build one.<<
Are we talking clockspeed or actual performance? You x86 people like to make mountains out of mole hills!
>>The same place I am now and will always be.<<
So why are you even wasting your breath about Macs, and why do you care what us Mac users pay for Macs. Let’s take this scenario. I currently own a 1969 American Motors AMX, I restored it myself (I use to do autobody work for a living), the engine has been rebuilt and etc… now I can wipe the floor with most cars that cost twice of what P put into that AMX, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans because those people bought that particular car (or truck) for many different reasons. I know I can build a car that can beat cars 2 to 3 times the sticker price, but that’s not the point! They’re still going to buy that car for other reasons!
>> I seriously hope you are not comparing Beos vs. Windows to OS X vs. Windows. The comparison is ridiculous. BeOS is a beautiful and fast OS. I know because it happens to be one of the OS’s on my hard drive. But it has absolutely no chance of seriously competing for desktop share because of poor driver support and lack of software (not to mention the fact that it really is a dead OS at this point).<<
BeOS happens to be a favorite of mine and my copy has a machine all to itself! And I agree that BeOS had no future because of what you said above, but the x86 market for BeOS was already won by Microsoft a longtime ago and it’s hard to compete in those conditions. Linux has been able to do so from its business model, which is the no requirement for a single entity to keep it going. It’s a virus (in a goodway) that can’t be sustained, and that is a good thing for innovation because it forces the big players like Microsoft and Apple to be more innovative! So everyone wins 🙂
>>And your arguement seems strange. Why? Because not only are PC’s faster than Macs but PC’s have the larger selection of software. So that’s two compelling reasons to choose PC over Mac. Price makes it three.<<
No my argument is not strange, the point is you’re not going to run BeOS on your PC if all it has on another OS is speed, if there is no software that fits your requirements, you wont be running that OS no matter how fast it is! As for Mac OS, it has enough software out there for the masses, I mean there wouldn’t be millions and millions of Mac users out there still buying Macs if there wasn’t!
>>I am simply saying that the majority of the people out there will not buy a Mac that is slower and more expensive than a PC no matter how good the OS is.<<
No the majority of the people won’t buy a Mac because of price and nothing else. People have come to the conclusion that PCs and Macs are fast enough for normal day to day computing and don’t need a superfast machine for email, web browsing and office productivity. What people want these days is a whole user experience and a solution that fits that void. When I buy my next Mac I expect a complete solution to start with, though I know I’ll have to add to it for my special needs!
>>A decade ago? In computer years that’s like a millenium.
Those were the days of 16 and 25Mhz Macs and 486 DX2/66’s and when Win 3.1 was still alive and well.<<
You would laugh, but I still have my 486 DX PC originally running Win 3.1 (but upgraded it years ago to Win95)!
JJ: I would be interested to know what the speed is of say a 1GHz ppc v 1GHz Athlon running Marklar and once & for all get the speed facts on the table.
That won’t be fair for the Athlon. Why? When Athlon 1GHz came out, Apple was still at sub-500MHz. It is more fair comparing the latest with the latest, like Athlon MP 2200+ with G4 1.2GHz.
Another thing that won’t be fair is that most OS X applications would have to run on PPC emulation. PPC apps like Photoshop, Office etc. Again, won’t be fair.
gtw emp: apple will end up buying gateway. it fits with apple’s retail strategy… why build 277 more stores when you can just buy them, and a whole pc maker for a few billion.. seriously.
If Gateway want to be sold in the first place, it is the most stupid idea I ever heard. Why? When Apple buys Gateway, it has a lot of redundant jobs, a lot of money wasted. It is *much* cheaper building your own store. Plus, Apple doesn’t have that kind of hard cash without risking Apple’s future.
CattBeMac: Actually what Apple should do is buy both Gateway and Amiga, make a very low cost Amiga, but with style that people can afford and turn all the Gateway Country stores into Amiga stores!
And the Macs?
Corey: People with names like Chen, Lee, Wang and Chin.
Lee and Chen families aren’t Taiwanese. They are just a minority.
aleksandr: And Steve Jobs knows that whoever owns the low-end, whichever platform, owns the high-end – and that’s why Sony’s doing so good.
That’s why Sony’s world market share is getting less and less revelant…… x86 is no long CISC, just like PPC is no longer RISC. x86 had adopted A LOT of RISC stuff, and it is only legacy apps that relies only on CISC stuff.
Satori: If Apple wants “my” business they are going to have to offer OS X that will run on generic X86’s.
It is a poor thing they won’t have your business.
You are forgeting. Apple makes around 85% of their money from hardware. Doing a massive change like that could kill Apple. What they should do is open up their hardware business to other OEMs, like Palm did. And then slowly morph into a software company.
Jay: […]as it serves to undercut abuse of monopoly charges and Jobs likes Microsoft making apps and even services for Apple.
Note that Apple is not considered an direct competitor to Windows, so even if Apple gets 90% of the market share, Microsoft would still be a monopoly. Now, if Apple manage to migate to x86, Microsoft can no longer be considered legally as a monopoly.
Satori: CG studios and graphics houses will buy them because they are cheaper than SGI’s and OS X is nicer than Linux.
From Pixar to Lucas, CG artist I buying Intel machines from SGI and HP running *Linux*. Mac OS X on PPC have no extra features to Linux for 3D artists, except eye candy which doesn’t go into the picking process.
If Mac OS X runs on generic x86, they still won’t win Linux, because
a) It is slower than Linux.
b) Linux cost $0, Mac OS X costs $200 for 5 machines.
Christian Bayer: Generally impossible, since Windows 2000 large portions of Windows are written in Visual Bonehead… oops, I mean Visual Basic.
Do you have any proof of this ridiculous lie? Windows NT/2000/XP is very portable. the current Itanium version proves that. (Besides, VB isn’t non-portable, Compaq threw the towel on Alpha not because of MS, but because of Intel).
Christian Bayer: Microsoft has not developed anything innovative since the mid ’90s.
ClearType. WMP 9.0. The taskbar. (I could list on and on, but I don’t feel like I need to).
Satori: As long as Apple is the only one selling Macs and as long as they are overpriced, there is no chance of the Mac getting a much larger chunk of the desktop market.
You aren’t getting this, Satori. Apple’s goal is to be profitable. Not to dominate the market. If they can’t be profitable on this business model, they would jump to another.
Apple tried allowing clones. They failed. They almost died because of it. It requires a lot of time and a lot of money to transition from a hardware company to a software one.
Christian Bayer: I guess it was not clear that I meant Compaq threw in the towel over running Windows 2000 on the Alpha CPU.
Lack of demand. People didn’t want Alpha running Win2k.
Christian Bayer: I would speculate that many hardware manufacturers would be eager to support Apple in this area.
if not many hardware manufacturers are not eager to support Apple *now*, what about when they are a nice open x86 OS company?
Christian Bayer: That said, I think the root of BeOS’ failure was related to Be’s undercapitalization and Microsoft’s abuse of it’s monopoly position.
I would say from the economics point of view, Be died because it wanted to run before it could crawl.
Christian Bayer: If anyone would send me a URL for x86 Rhapsody as they did for Dano, I would be really happy about it. : )
Rhapsody is OpenStep with Mac OS 9’s UI, and practically no apps. You can’t run OS X apps and you can’t run OpenStep apps.
Ya, but it ain’t a Mac and Apple does not support running OS X on it. It comes with Yellow Dog Linux. Big deal.
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/index.php?submit=hardware&s…][apple]=1&PHPSESSID=aebeee5a1e906c0681ef9e51d92cd96b
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/store/index.php?submit=hardware&s…][GVS]=GVS&PHPSESSID=392432d8aa59c29b9a55f9c6ec5845de
Before the end of September there will be more copies of Jaguar bought than copies of BeOS were ever bought.
I think he was talking about pre-Jobs Apple and pre-Jobs’s-Apple Be Inc.
The reason Windows on PPC and whatnot died is because Microsoft wanted to move everyone to Intel.
Wrong. The only PPC workstation manufacturer was Apple. They didn’t move to the standard PPC open hardware before Microosft gave up and killed the PPC version. Apple killed the PPC version of MS OS. Why ever for? Apple wants to dominate what it thought as an x86 killer.
Satori: If I buy a Mac (PPC, X86 or otherwise) I won’t.
If an x86 Mac comes out, you can run possibly all the x86 out there.
“You would laugh, but I still have my 486 DX PC originally running Win 3.1 (but upgraded it years ago to Win95)!”
No, I wouldn’t laugh. No use in letting it go to waste if it has some use or you get a kick out of it. I used a 486 DX33 as a firewall/router up until recently (though it ran Linux).
Satori.
Let’s just leave it all to satori and rajun.
Jeez, this is ridiculi.
The folks who don’t use the platform suck up all the energy on these apple threads.
>>CattBeMac: Actually what Apple should do is buy both Gateway and Amiga, make a very low cost Amiga, but with style that people can afford and turn all the Gateway Country stores into Amiga stores!<<
“And the Macs?”
They’ll just keep selling those at the Apple Stores 🙂
I think you are NOT getting the point here. Apple is a HARDWARE company. It makes software as the means to sell HARDWARE. HARDWARE makes around 85% of their revenue. They DON’T care about x86 users who build their machines. They are a NICHE player, and are very happy with it.
Now, you probably don’t know what tighly integrated is because you build your own machines. If you want to see what integrated is, without leaving the joys of open hardware, check out IBM.
Now, for you and me, integration is nothing. What’s the point? But for a lot of people, it means something. That includes Apple’s, IBM’s, Sony’s etc. customers.
So live with it. Apple bought Mac OS X NOT to kill MS, they bought it to sell their hardware. Selling Mac OS X for generic PC users wouldn’t do justice to it.
So live with it. I don’t see you bashing SGI because they don’t have open hardware to run IRIX….
“The folks who don’t use the platform suck up all the energy on these apple threads.”
I don’t use the platform? Don’t be so quick to assume. I use a G4 on a regular basis. I don’t own it, but I use it several times a week. I know all about the “Mac Experience”.
Satori.
Satori: I don’t use the platform? Don’t be so quick to assume. I use a G4 on a regular basis. I don’t own it, but I use it several times a week. I know all about the “Mac Experience”.
GOOD! Just like me, I’m not pulled by the “Mac experience”. That means, you aren’t in Apple’s niche target audience. If Apple didn’t want to be a niche player, they would have gone the same road as Palm. Their only goal was to be profitable, and they are more profitable than a decade ago with 10% market share.
I think all companies should have profit as their first goal, market share as their next goal.
But why would Apple want to stay a niche player? To avoid being a commodity. Look at the PC market, the only people making money are Microsoft, Dell and Intel. The rest are NOT making money.
They’ll just keep selling those at the Apple Stores 🙂
If all goes well, Apple would have 50 stores?
How would that compete with Gateway?
I doubt Apple would want Amiga to overthrow the Mac.