Apple on x86?

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Original story.

This sounds great to me--win-win for everyone. First, Macs should be get cheaper if this goes through. Second, there's more of a possibility of having OSX on PC platforms. Cool stuff.

[Sarien]

They already use Intel chips in the Xserve and the Airport Basestation. With the only recent release of Tiger, I can't imagine them moving away from PowerPC anytime really soon.

But there is already an x86 version of Darwin, though admittedly I don't know much about that, least of all how easy it would be to get your hands on it.

[ZeUs!!]

I was waiting for this guy to post

[Saturn V]

But there is already an x86 version of Darwin, though admittedly I don't know much about that, least of all how easy it would be to get your hands on it.

Darwin ISO for x86:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/proj...x86-602.iso.gz

[Sarien]

Two words: Bloody Depressing.

First, Macs should be get cheaper if this goes through. Second, there's more of a possibility of having OSX on PC platforms. Cool stuff.

They won't get cheaper, because of the hundreds of dollars worth of iApps. The only one that might would be the mini. The rest of the line isn't about being cheap, but being good.

Also you won't see X on a PC. Phil Schiller stated flat out: "We will not allow that."

Though they don't much care if you run Windows on what will be the new Intel based Mac. Disgusting.

[Fit of Rage]

OSX on PC - Godlike

Windows on PC - Doable

OSX on Mac - I don't like Macs, but this is also doable

Windows on Mac - The Anti-Christ

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Two words: Bloody Depressing.

Please. The only reason Mac purists say that is because they want to have their own little Boys Club that is exclusive because they bought an overpriced piece of machinery. Don't refute me, you know it's true.

They won't get cheaper, because of the hundreds of dollars worth of iApps. The only one that might would be the mini. The rest of the line isn't about being cheap, but being good.

They won't get cheaper because Apple won't drop the bottom line or give up any of their precious proprietary bullness. And cheap and good CAN go hand-in-hand, Apple just refuses to see how much of a market share they could grab if they dropped the "we're just too good" schtick.

Also you won't see X on a PC. Phil Schiller stated flat out: "We will not allow that."

This is just Apple playing to their fanboys--the same people that think Windows sucks because more people write viruses for it than they do for Mac. The financial crux of the matter is that they could easily grab a huge market share if they wanted to. They've got a great OS, why not diversify? Oh yeah, they want to sell their overpriced hardware.

[Sarien]

Please. The only reason Mac purists say that is because they want to have their own little Boys Club that is exclusive because they bought an overpriced piece of machinery. Don't refute me, you know it's true.

I like my boy's club just fine, thank you.
Actually to me, it's pretty depressing because it's rekindling what it felt like with the move from 68k to PPC. Granted this is somewhat different and most of X itself is platform independent. (During Today's Keynote, Jobs was running X on a P4). But that isn't the case for the -other- software out there.

They won't get cheaper because Apple won't drop the bottom line or give up any of their precious proprietary bullness. And cheap and good CAN go hand-in-hand, Apple just refuses to see how much of a market share they could grab if they dropped the "we're just too good" schtick.

Apple hasn't ever wanted much to do with the low end, build it yourself, put our stuff on it, market. It's not so much a we're just too good, it's that their entire system is built around "It just works." When you have people putting machines together and throwing your OS and stuff on it, it's a support nightmare, in comparison. It becomes "It might just about always work, unless you're using something weird." Which isn't what they're about. Their whole business model is about making the best stuff they can, and making it as troublefree as possible.

This is just Apple playing to their fanboys--the same people that think Windows sucks because more people write viruses for it than they do for Mac. The financial crux of the matter is that they could easily grab a huge market share if they wanted to. They've got a great OS, why not diversify? Oh yeah, they want to sell their overpriced hardware.

Their hardware sales account for half of their revenue.
It might be about fanboys, but the fact is:
Do you keep your business model, or do you go for larger market share, and scrap it? They can easily really hamper the ability for people to put X on homebuilt non apple machines. They might not be able to completely stop it, given the fact that it would be their developers vs the rest of the world, basically, but they could hamper it quite effectively.

There are lots of reasons why I find it depressing, not the least of which is the thought of dealing with idiotic key codes and copy protection schemes that Windows users have to deal with for just about everything they use. As it is, it's somewhat more laid back because for lots of software it's felt that if you're running the right kind of system to run it then it really don't matter. With the notable exception being online games that the mac versions require keycode to be able to play it online (but not always offline). I like my computer being free of aggravation. That is my tip top number one reason for liking X above Windows. Windows seems to find new and interesting ways to bug the shit out of me every time I use it. I'm simply worried that my X experience might end up going down that road, and I don't like that at all.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Apple hasn't ever wanted much to do with the low end, build it yourself, put our stuff on it, market.

Which is hilarious, because that's what Apple fucking STARTED OUT AS. The Woz is furious (or he should be).

EDIT: Hi Sleepy Weasel. I see you in this thread. What's shakin?

[Sleepy Weasel]

nerds

[Jason]

rhymes with turds

[Sarien]

Which is hilarious, because that's what Apple fucking STARTED OUT AS. The Woz is furious (or he should be).

Ahh, Busted, Conc. You got me, I didn't take into account the Apple I, 29 years ago. Nevermind that they haven't done it since. It just hasn't been their business model since Dec. 1977 forward.

Woz is too easygoing and nice to be furious.
He's too much the consummate hippie-geek.
Hell, the dude even answered an email from me.

A friend of mine mentioned something that could make me very happy and you happy at the same time. Steve didn't actually say PPC is out. Personally I would think it super great awesome wonderful, if they simply did both. In two years order your mac with either the best PPC processor they can design, or the best Intel design they can get. Since X has been declared platform independent, then it could really be super cool. It could make everybody happy.

[geekbot]

Everything I've been reading has been saying that this is supposed to be much better than 86k to PPC- mostly because this has been anticipated. Apple has been building OS X on x86 for years as a "just-in-case". Now that just-in-case is here. It's a recompile for most applications. A translator is also available.

I do think Macs will get cheaper. The only drawback I see is that Apples take a slight step back in the "it just works" category....if there are multiple binaries depending on your hardware. But knowing Apple they will probably make this as seamless as possible and it will be a non-issue for the most part.

[DoCk>]

The fact that they chose Intel chips over AMD says a lot as well. They're partnering with the marketing giant rather than the smaller one with the best technology.

[LaG KiLLeR]

The fact that they chose Intel chips over AMD says a lot as well. They're partnering with the marketing giant rather than the smaller one with the best technology.

What the fuck