General discussion



By david ·
With all the issues relating to Vista, why doesn't Apple release the MAC operating systems for PC? Okay I might get a swag of reasons why not but does it have any merit?

As it it stands many companies have substantial investments in PC hardware, however the sickening thought of upgrading to Vista and dealing with the issues, you would probably rather be in ****.

I haven't used the MAC OS, but I cannot see why Apple could not make it available on other hardware. Okay you could argue that you cannot run OS/400 (IBM) on a PC and must run it on an iSeries so why should Apple allow it's OS to run on a PC.

I just think Apple might have a window of opportunity (excuse the pun) to take over the PC market, while MS just continue to create $$$ for fashionable rubbish.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by UserDeletedByRequest In reply to MAC OS for PC

Its all about the money! they would loose sales on the iMacs, Mac Books, Mac Pro etc

Collapse -

Yes and no

by david In reply to Money

There are a lot of MAC faithful out there that will continue to buy their hw.

I suppose that it may reduce sales of their hardware initially but then again the opportunity to increase sales of the OS substantially e.g. $10M per day or 20% share of MS market! Not bad hey? While sales of their hardware may be reduced.

However over time hw sales may increase as consumers upgrade their hw, they may be more attracted to a single supplier solution of hw and sw.

food for thought!

Collapse -

Hardware drivers?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Yes and no

Where are you getting those $10 million / 20% figures? I suspect those Mac "faithful" are less faithful to the hardware than to the OS and would jump at the opportunity to get it on a cheaper box. Why would they pay a substantial premium to get a single source when they can run the OS a cheaper box?

I'm not a Mac expert, but I'm guessing that most peripherals don't come with drivers for OS X. Before they could release OS X for Intel platforms, they'd have to get the peripheral manufacturers to develop drivers for the OS. Who's going to pay for that?

For those who aren't current Mac users, there's also the issue of software incompatibility. People have a lot of money sunk in Windows applications. These wouldn't run under the Mac OS, so in addition to having to pop for the OS, they'd have to buy new apps.

Besides, if people won't replace Vista with Linux when they can get it free, what makes you think they'll pay for OS X? Home users run what came on the box when they bought it.

Collapse -

osX has the multimedia

by Neon Samurai In reply to Hardware drivers?

"Besides, if people won't replace Vista with Linux when they can get it free, what makes you think they'll pay for OS X?"

One of the big stumbling blocks for Linux is mutlimeda support. Some proprietary codec are blatantly illegal in countries, some are questionable. Companies don't like the legal implecations if they use the codecs while home users expect those functions to exist by default. If a distrobution company can't include the mutlimedia codecs then the end user won't be able to jump on utube and won't accept the OS regardless of the long list of advantages.

osX would have a chance because it already includes all the proprietary codecs through Apple licensing deals. Installation wouldn't include; "now add this repository from half way around the world, then install these odd files, then edit this config file and presto.. DVD's play in Linux"

osX is already 64bit completely too as I understand so it's finished the conversion from 32bit along with hardware platforms.

Vista's core is 64bit but much of the software still functions only in the 32bit world.

*nix was first to support 64bit and driver conversion to 64bit usually just means recompiling the source but it may be stuck in the alternative OS world for another hardware generation as long as it lacks true driver support from the big GPU vendors and restrictions beyond the average users abuility for multimedia support.

Collapse -

20 Percent Figures come from...

by david In reply to Hardware drivers?

MS reportedly make on average $49mil US a day, so I projected Apple could strive for 20% of this or approx $10mil per day.

Apple are already using Intel processors within some hw, so hence the next step might be running OS X on a PC.

You can buy MS Office for Mac now, so in some ways the technogloies are merging or converging!

The need for additional drivers to meet the broad spectrum of peripherals may not be prudent however some effort towards adding drivers (technology) to accommodate other hw has already occurred and therefore including extra drivers is feasible or a fait accompli anyway!

Linux appears to some as an OS that requires development or configuration to install and establish, most users want it "Out of the Box" or preinstalled and nothing more to do. Fine for the techos who want more control and access!

Collapse -

Vista Os: Bad Idea

by bolroth In reply to MAC OS for PC

I Agree that Vista is the newst crazy when it came out, but they released it to soon in my own opinion. There are thing that I dont agree on that MS did, like copying the Mac's OS. Why should we buy Vista when we could just buy a Mac, with less problems and headaches. Having to buy a new system or have major upgrades is a pain, to play Vista, then there are all the downloads from the website taking so much time. Well im not changing to Mac (I have no problems with Macs) ill just go back to the XP OS.

Collapse -

Simple really

by p.j.hutchison In reply to MAC OS for PC

The reason why Apple does not release OS X on other PCs is because Apple has complete control over the hardware and software. It has control on what motherboards, gfx cards, network cards, CD/DVD drives etc and it does not have to support the millions of different components that Windows has to support, otherwise it will have to write drivers for all sorts of stuff and keep the quality good, it just is too much work.
Keeping it simple and a little restricted shows why MacOS works from the outset and people do not want it morphing into Windows via back door...

Collapse -

I've heard a few reasons

by Neon Samurai In reply to MAC OS for PC

From what I've heard and read, there seem to be a few reasons.

- Apple designes the whole unit both hardware and software. If they unbundle the the software, they can not control the user's experience across all hardware configurations. Admittidly, hardware veriety is one reason why Microsoft qualitiy control is lacking.

- If they unbundle the software, they have to then employ extensive helpdesk centres. Every OS is going to need halpdesk support but Apple is not currently prepared to scale up helpdesks that quickly.

- Drivers. They have drivers for the pieces chosen for the Apple system but they don't have drivers for everything and I'm willing to guess that the BSD kernel is a constom build without all the non-Apple hardware support modules. The FOSS community would love nothing more than to get full specs to all possible hardware so they can start writting solid drivers for Linux/BSD and by extension, Apple but that's yet to happen.

Now, they are using commodity parts so they are a step closer to a hardware production that can be scaled up to demand. Software would just mean removing the DRM (a valid use of DRM even) effectively unlocking the OS then stamping more install disks.

Collapse -

FOSS wars

by Dr Dij In reply to I've heard a few reasons

others have probably seen this, but I was poking around and came on a reference to this:

hilarious depiction; and intereting to see the equivalents

Related Discussions

Related Forums