Apple OSX

Why do you think it is that Apple hasn't designed an OS to operate on pc's? Seems like a good idea to me unless I'm missing something. If anyone could compete against Windows it would be Apple.

For the same reason they won't release the damned firmware to let the iPod play WMAs. Jobs is still ****ed at Bill and even more so since Bill had to bail Apple out of filing for bankruptcy a few years back so until IBM totally f'ed up the PPC processor (a lie Jobs would like you to believe (more likely stopped caring about it and Apple, funny how they were able to make a 3.2GHZ tri-core PPC for Microsoft, eh?) they were anti-everything associated with microsoft. This meant Intel, AMD etc.... etc.... Apple wants to be elite and exclusive. They want to be hip and trendy. They want prestige and don't care about the masses. It's been a bad business plan up until their savior aka the iPod and iTunes. They'll open up OSx86 for everybody when they quit making a ton of money off the iPod and iTunes and need more cash flow. Until then if we want it we'll have to go the way of MAXXUS or buy one of their overpriced pretty paperweights errrrrrr I mean dual-core laptop cpu powered desktops errrrrr I mean Duo-Core machines or their single laptop cpu powered mini.

That's one way of looking at it.

I think Apple doesn't open up the OS because; first of all, it would marginalize their hardware business. Even moreso than it already is. Furthermore, it would increase the development time to support a wider array of hardware. Currently, Apple hardware with OSX, "just works." That wouldn't necessarily be so with, Joe Blow's slapped-together rig.

I would imagine that Apple is slowly getting out of the desktop hardware business. They will probably continue in the mobility arena. (That's the future after all.) The OS may very well diverge at some point. Becoming an x86 agnostic OS for the desktop and a streamlined proprietary mobility OS for the laptops and more portable PCs that are sure to come.

That's my guess.

The iMac is not a pretty, overpriced paperweight. It's a *computer*. It's a pretty computer, too. It's simple, and it works.

Apple's OS is kinda closely tied to the hardware, too. That's one of the reasons why it works so well--the developers of the software talk very frequently with those who are designing the hardware, and so there are as few surprises as is possible.

Apple's also moving towards mobile, for reasons that Richard outlined above. After all...desktop computers are kind of difficult to carry around, and one of the founding philosophies of Apple Computer was "Do not trust a computer you can't throw out of a window."[1]

Ignoring Steve Jobs' constant Reality Distortion Field, Apple still has been first to market in many arenas, and does enjoy a significant advantadge through iTMS.

[1]Steven Wozniak

well obviously apple woudnt release software because the people that buy most of there computers (graphic designers and the like) would just build there own custom built high end machines.

My brother for example, he has a windows pc and a mac, his job at work is editing video and whatnot, he says that Apple apps for video are by far the best, kinda like Photoshop is for graphics. The downfall is that simple things like hooking up a webcam are just not easy UNLESS you buy something from Apple, something like Isight.

As for Apple making a OS for PC users, it just seems like it would be good business sense, I would think they would gain more of the market.

/rant

I was pondering this question the other day too. Richard however makes some good points. Because they are keeping much internal and communication is high between divisions it would make sense that thier hardware would work with as few problems as possible. However i agree with cornbread here.

Why not provide those hardware companies with the certain specifics that they need to know to create the drivers/software for their hardware. Microsoft holds such a large part of the market, and those of us that understand how much of a premium apple charges for its accessories for the most part stay away from their computers. Atleast that has been my mentality. I am however happy that apple is moving to intel based CPU's. This will allow for cheaper upgrades in the future. Again though, I feel the OS market is wide open, especially after MS has completely botched their 4th quarter of 2006 release of vista. Personally i would love to see some OS battles driving down the cost of Windows.

/rant

When Apple authorized clones in the mid 1990s it killed their profits. If OS X could run on any machine there would be a lot less reasons to buy Apple hardware. It would also be a monumental task for drivers to be written for all the common hardware on the market, even if the hardware vendors were the ones writing them.

That said, NEXTSTEP, only ran on NEXT boxes (Motorola 68k if I recall) when it came out but was eventually ported to run on regular x86 systems. Whether or not that's any indication of a long term outcome is unknown.

I agree with what was said about a) marginalising the hardware business but mainly b) it 'just works' with their set hardware configurations.

I used to love apple. Now they've ruined everything people who loved them loved about them. Forgive me if I seem bitter.

FudgeNuggets said:

I used to love apple. Now they've ruined everything people who loved them loved about them. Forgive me if I seem bitter.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Is this a complaint about the OS 9 to OS X transition? I know a lot of die hard OS 9 users are still angry about the switch.

No, I like X better than 9. The big deal was the way they've gone downhill since Gates bailed them out/the iPod was introduced. The iPod was a huge success but I think Apple just lucked into it. Everything else they've done has been a disaster. Steve Jobs is a liar. They blame IBM for the PPC chips being too hot and not being able to make enough of them when in fact IBM decided Apple was more of a pain in their butt than they were worth and holding them back so they developed the Cell and the 360PPC cpus and told Apple to go take a hike. Apple begged Motorola but was turned down by them too. Apple ALWAYS claimed that MHZ/GHZ didn't matter and that the PPC architecture was superior to the x86 until they switched and then they started saying that the x86 CPUs were 5x faster blah blah blah blah blah (comparing a 2ghz dual G5 to a 2ghz Core-Duo).... Now they don't have any software to run natively in OSx86 and everything goes through an emulator.

I just can't type all the stuff that Apple has messed up since the dual G5 processor was introduced. I wish they never made the iPod and Bill Gates never bailed them out of bankruptcy because now they'd be gone and not a pretty-paperweight making company. Dual x86 laptop CPUs in an iMac....Humbug!

I would just like to see another successful OS and Apple (to me) seems like it would be the next closest thing. Sure there is Linux and not to bash Linux in anyway, but Linux just isn't user friendly compared to a Window or a Apple OS.

Have you ever thought of what would happen to the world if Windows just "stopped". So many business applications depend on Windows, kinda scary.

cornbread said:

I would just like to see another successful OS and Apple (to me) seems like it would be the next closest thing. Sure there is Linux and not to bash Linux in anyway, but Linux just isn't user friendly compared to a Window or a Apple OS.

Have you ever thought of what would happen to the world if Windows just "stopped". So many business applications depend on Windows, kinda scary.

Click to expand...

Microsoft has a national security obligation to fix every security hole in Windows promptly. But they don't.

Now they don't have any software to run natively in OSx86 and everything goes through an emulator.

I just can't type all the stuff that Apple has messed up since the dual G5 processor was introduced. I wish they never made the iPod and Bill Gates never bailed them out of bankruptcy because now they'd be gone and not a pretty-paperweight making company. Dual x86 laptop CPUs in an iMac....Humbug!

Click to expand...

All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.

Remember the great 68K->PPC transition? Type 11 errors, FPU not present errors, system crashes and hangs on an hourly basis until native software became available? I remember. It happened before, but now all the Apple software is PowerPC native and Life (was) Good. Now they're transitioning again. Great Chaos, etc. and they'll probably wind up with a bunch of x86-native software, just in time to switch to the next one.

Apple has the capability and forward-thinking-ness to do things that Microsoft can't and won't--for instance, up and move to a new architecture.

a) I think iMacs are really ugly things. The only one I liked was the "sunflower" model.
b) From a usability standpoint, I much prefer linux to windows or OS X (both of which have GUIs that annoy me). With linux I can set up everything just how I like it.

And I suspect that the main reason Apple doesn't want OS X running on othercomputers is, as was previously mentioned, their expierence with allowing clones. That did not go well for them at all.

Why do you want to run OSX on a x86 based PC?

If you want to run OSX, do it from a MAC.

If not, then use windows, linux, or whathaveyou.

I don't see how anyone can say that Apple has gone downhill since, Bill Gates bailed the company out of bankruptcy. Seems pretty obvious to me that going from habitually being in the red to being in the black (and setting all-time profit records) should be considered one of the great business turnarounds in recent memory. Lee Iacocca, did wonders for Chrysler. Jobs, did wonders for Apple.

Richard, I chalk Apples being in the black up to getting lucky with iTunes and the iPod.

Chris, you'd want to run OSX on a non-Apple because the Core-Duo is a weak laptop processor and the whole thing would run better with an X2 or Pentium D. You wouldn't run Linux because OSX is 100x simpler.

You just seem like a very bitter person. Since Steve Jobs has returned to Apple they've made a terrific recovery. You can attribute it to whatever you like, but without Jobs the company was circling the drain. Now, it's seeing record profits and a bright future. The move to x86 was a necessary move. The PPC architecture was a performance dead-end. With intel processors Apple is able to build PCs that are not only cheaper and faster, but require less power in doing so.

Not to mention that OSX was only made possible by buying Steve's company. Which is clearly better than OS9. Apple, would be doomed were it not for Jobs' and Gate's contributions. Which, oddly enough, it appears would please you. It's a good thing you're not in charge of a company.

FudgeNuggets said:

Richard, I chalk Apples being in the black up to getting lucky with iTunes and the iPod.

Chris, you'd want to run OSX on a non-Apple because the Core-Duo is a weak laptop processor and the whole thing would run better with an X2 or Pentium D. You wouldn't run Linux because OSX is 100x simpler.

Click to expand...

A few points.

I believe that the purchase of some $100M in Apple stock happened under the reign of Gil Amelio. You do remember how well he "ameliorated", in his own sense (not the SAT sense), Apple, right? If you want to yell at someone, yell at Gil.

It's probably part luck, but it's also innovation. And, in spite of iCon's Reality Distortion Field, Steve Jobs has managed to make his people think differently and innovate since the handover. Their personal desktop computer marketshare may be diminishing (it is, I believe)...but I think Apple is also looking far ahead into the future to where the only computers people will own are laptops, and the only media device people will own are iPods.