Another big, quite important reason for OS X being bade to only run on Apple hardward is just that... Apple enjoys have the profit of their Software and Hardware. If everyone was able to purchase ONLY OS X for X86, then they would loose money that they would otherwise make on their hardware. It's brilliant, if you ask me... Apple would go under if not for their hardware sales. They are not yet large enough an entity to maintain a stamina in this world by only selling iPods and OS X. Another big problem with the OS X for X86 is the problems that people would run into. Think briefly of a Dell. If Dell were to begin putting OS X on their already CHEAP PCs, then OS X would run quite poorly. Apple would be forced to take a lot of help desk calls from those people that are having problems with their Dell OS X PCs. Apple Hardware, Apple Software... all one division that they can easily work with and make money on.

lol when will they learn...
Monday: "were gnna add a code so u cnt install it
on pc"

Monday (night) : "hehe im gnna get it to run on
pc"
tuesday (mornin) : "a patch has been made to make
it run on pc.. our efforts
were useless"

For me a Mac isn't a Mac without its unique hardware. I wish I had the money to buy one of those Power Mac G5 machines . . .

So for me the idea to run a MacOS on Intel machines produces nothing but lacrimonial liquid, running down my cheeks . . .

So it is - laugh or cry at that kind of idea...

Wrong topic, man.

Actually, if you look at his instructions, his 10.4.5 patch just includes the entire kernel from 10.4.4 and installs that instead. So this isn't really a full 10.4.5 version of MacOS X, just the high-level 10.4.5 stuff. The kernel will have none of the updates regarding power saving, Intel fixes, etc.

I've never tried any of his hacks, but it looks like he's quickly falling behind the curve here anyway.

i HAVE A QUESTION? DOES THIS CRACK MEAN THAT I CAN INSTALL MAC ON A WINDOWS PC

Looking at the Maxxuss site, it's not as simple as obtaining a copy of 10.4.5, running a couple of his fixes and away you go.
Think I'll wait a while. Like I'm waiting for Linux to be as simple to use as Windows. Guess I'll be waiting for a few years yet!

I'm not interested in unpacking this and expanding that and messing with this extension or that. Clicking an install file and clicking a couple of boxes is what I'm interested in. Windows (W2K/XP/Vista) will rule for the forseable future.

Linux is as simple of windows... Noob.

And I suggest trying out Mac on VMware, not your PC :P

"Linux is as simple of windows"
Linux is free and windows is expensive,
then why is that Linux's market share is sooooooooo small ?

Linux is simple....but not for the user.
It hasn't conquered the desktop (and never will) because every Linux "user" will call you a 'noob' if you haven't memorised all command line options you need to do a simple task like copy a file.
You want a usable and easy Unix on your desktop? Buy a Mac. OSX is good, windows is bad. Now, go away!

NO, IT WILL JUST UNLOCK YOUR CAPSLOCK

just say you hate windows/M$.
it is simple that way.
yes mac osx is good and very easy to use (but i was talking about Linux).
most of the stuff on this site is for windows then why should I go away ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I had an idea, why doesn't Apple create a standard for hardware which OSX would run on, in order to sell the OS as a standalone product, much like the IBM PC compatible standard, Apple could set a Mac PC compatible standard.

Then I realized, IBM no longer makes PC's as the likes of Dell, Compaq / HP, Gateway, even home builds made IBM's PC operation unprofitable, forcing the sale of their PC division to the Chinese company Lenovo, Apple would go the way of IBM, more realistically, SEGA, transitioning from a Hardware company to software

Steve jobs is a genius and he can come up with a new architecture "terranaut u have a very good idea". PC architecture is showing its age and limits, apple don't need to manufacture it it can licence it(like gsm and cdma WiFi/max),
but in the back of my mind i think it is a far-fetched dream.

Pear PC Doesn't Work with me. Can anyone help? I have trouble starting it.

Simple = Don't pirate.

I have a "brilliant" idea. E = mAc(core duo) aka Einstein's Theory of MAC relativity.

Since "a lot" of folks want to set OS X free on their x86 boxes (some willing to pay for it while more would just prefer to get anything they can for free), Apple should just get it over with and Think (really) Different. Forget about making it difficult for hackers and wasting all that development effort of trying to secure the operating system to the hardware. Forget about trying to sell a complete experience to a demographic of bozos who cannot grok such an abstract idea. Forget about the damn shareholders.

Instead, Apple should take that $4billion or so they have in the bank and build as much Mac Mini's as possible and give one free to every friggin family on this planet along with a universal binary version of Mac OS X with an EULA that says you can do damn well as you please with the software. The only string that will be attached is to expect no support nor further hardware or software upgrades because Apple will pretty much be dead after this stunt. Eh, but who cares as we all get a real Mac for FREE along with a FREE copy of OS X to do with as we please.

Hackers can go ahead and now legally run Mac OS X wherever the hell they want to (lets get this baby running on that Cisco 6500 Layer 3 switch). Since that FREE Mini would be such a suckage box compared to their homebrewed boxes, they'll have a pretty bookend/doorstop/headrest/ottoman/square frisby.

but they can have the same strategy as Sony's ps1/2/3 and M$ xbox/360, there is a big difference between cost price and selling price of the product(apple don't need to give expensive hardware like they do, what people like is not their HW but their OS) still in the long run they(Sony ps2)have made a lot of money.

this thing is bit too risky, still in biz you have to take risks.

at the same time PC tool said (and i like that point)

"Why fix what isn't broke"

Apple ported osx to a new architecture in a very short span of time, and the new OS has a very very good emulator that can run old applications without much trouble and new applications are going to be compatible with both architectures, when news came about their plan to switch over to Intel i thought this will piss off their very loyal costumers and i thought how are they going to be able to satisfy both x86 and ppc users need, but now it looks like that things are going as smooth as possible for the new osx and it has also got great reviews,

apple is lot smaller company when we compare it to M$ but still the big player is taking longer than expected time to launch new version of their flagship product, some might say that apple just "ported" then compare that to windows x86-64, it also took long time and it has not been able to impress me(while porting they took the easy way out, just too many things are still in 32bit and lots of hardware is still without x86-64 drivers.

BAD ENGLISH . I ADMIT

apple can do another thing, they can make it legal to use older versions on a x86pc, and they can continue to sell new versions

still day dreaming,and also bad English.

anmol.2k4

I guess the major point people are trying to push...

If you keep something in a contained enviroment it will run the way you want it to run

Windows and Linux can become unstable at time... and they are large, because they have to cater for tons of CPU, memory, CDRom, Floppy, network, etc, combos... where Mac only has ONE (or near enough) set, so MacOS is stable ^_^

You are 100 % right, but don't you like to have control over what goes into your PC, don't you like the low prices of PC hardware, and because of this im not able to use a very good OS. and this is the reason why windows has so much user base. I just want osx on my "PC" easily & legally, don't you want all that too, or the fact that there is so much cool hardware for PC but not for mac.

May not like it, but it is...the way it is.

Apple has no desire to do this. Why would they, when there's no real incentive? They have their business going now the way they want it. It's working the way they want it to work.

Why fix what isn't broke?

macOS 9 already works on x86 ....
is just that most people are unaware of it ...
even OSX has been working on x86 machines for quite a while ....
search for PEARpc .... or Cherry OS ....

my friend can you do that "legally" ?
apple still sell their OS bundled with their hardware, and they are trying to stop people use their x86 OS on a normal PC with a normal bios.

Why fix what isn't broke?

that is a very good point

and PEARpc or Cherry OS and other emulators are to slow and complicated for me , but still thank you for pointing that out, i will try out cherry os

Um ya, if you like your OX10 to run at 1/50th the speed of an actual Mac.

And its sooooo stable too. (sarcasim)

"WHAT APPLE CAN DO IS TO SELL THEIR OS FOR FREE"

Your'e on to something there. Keep focusing, it might come to you in a dream SCREAMING IN CAPS!

i was day dreaming my friend,rather than criticising successful companies, i was thinking of good ideas.

CAPS JUST STANDS OUT, U DONT LIKE SO I WILL TRY LOWER CASE my friend

Yep, stands out perfectly but also gives the reader the impression you are a 13 year old AOL user (which means your comments wont be taken seriously)

Well im new to beta news, and with your indirect advice i have changed to lower case

thank you for that.

My looks of your previous posts, you don't seem to be english as a native language... but usually on places like these, you would do well to use SPELLING and GRAMMA exactly the same as if your writing an English book...

Granted, not everyone is perfect... so we won't have a go at you over minor mistakes :)

yes english is not my native language. but i don't get what u are trying to say, can u explain it more ?

he meant grammar ....
not GRAMMA .... :P

but am i writing an English book ?

dont take it too personal....

some guys in here use the "typo" agressions
when they run out of "creative" comebacks
... so pointing out other people's mistakes is their last resource ....

irony

It's funny when these typing and "GRAMMA" nazis can't even spell themselves though.

last resort, dude...resort.

Heh....

I win.

*mutters something about spelling mistake and points to the last line of his post*

Sell their OS for free? How do you Sell something thats Free?

What Apple should do is Sell their OS for Money! I know Millions of people who would BUY OS10 right now for their PC's, including me. More proof that (IPod aside)) Appple is full of incredibly short sighted business people, especially if they think that OS10 will Not be cracked and dual booted on every PC anyways...

Why not sell it to people and save them the trouble of cracking it, and at the same time they might even take desktop dominance away from Microcrap!!

we all have brain to understand why they do what they do and most of the time it makes sense. but i think there is a way they can make a lot more money.

what apple can do is to sell their os for free !. they can make their hardware division as a niche products maker(with ipod it is going to make lots of profits)

and they can make money the way sony ps2 does or xbox does. by charging "software makers" all the money.(xbox and ps2 maker sony and m$ makes money by charging game titles maker) and another source for money can be the after sales services (this is the way big pro-open source companies are making money , they sell their software for free but charge for costumer service/help).

this way u get osx for free and have to pay little bit more for software from other companies and they are going to share their profit with apple. apple can charge for updates and costumer support.

anmol (im day dreaming)
my english is not good either.:-)

....and your cpas lock is stuck on.

I only read about 3 lines of your post and skipped to the end.

Sorry, but it hurts reading all caps.

Might want to not do that in the future.

Just a suggestion.

Thank you.

I skipped the entire post...

I really don't like having things SHOUTED at me, if you get the point...

Linux is better than MacOSX.

and why is that ?
i don't know programming so just explain to me how to install an application in Linux?

i don't need as much knowledge in order to install an application in osx and windows

double click the RPM file (.deb in Debian distros), enter your password, and its installed...

Through... I admit, there is a BIT more mucking around, as Linux is just the kernal... it's whats on top of it that counts, where Windows and MacOSX are the entire DISTRO.. they come with everything... Linux, it depends on your distro...

Hope that helps :)

yah it helps

No, it isn't.

That's an unfair comparison: OSX is an operating system, Linux is not.

I think Apple is on the right track. They see Microsoft succeeding in 'trying it out before you buy' and feel that after more than just a handful of people try OSX out, then it would invariably be much easier to convert them to being a Mac user.

It's the same way that Bell and their ExpressVu did their marketing; give it to people who are savvy and able to crack the system. Either they will be squeezed to pay from continually having to crack the system or just realizing that it actually is a good product and is worth paying for :)

Any business that gains market share is a good thing for the company.

Once a theif, always a theif...

People that steal, never usually pay for anything if they can avoid it.

when you are 18 or below you "can" take risks and and people steal stuff like windows and office but when one grows up he or she cannot take as much risks so they "BUY" all those software they stole because they are comfortable with that. and people like these are a major reason big corporation go for such softwares.

I dunno how things are where you live, but here... you do the crime, you do the time.

Children usually get public service or something... but they still 'do the time'

so there is no problem of piracy in your country. ?
if there is , then who do that, and what is their age group like. ?
and does kids in your country buy everything & they don't use any type of p2p(excluding bittorrent used for legal stuff). ?

I can understand your glass half empty mantra; however, it is much easier to see things from above the glass :)

Sadly piracy is a real problem

There are some people I've met that say they'll never buy another CD (Data or Audio) again...

If a family member wants a CD, they'll go onto Kazaa or Shareaza or something and download the entire disk, then burn it and pretend their allowed to use it. They think it's okay, they think they won't get caught. They.Are.Wrong.

"They.Are.Wrong. "

Well now... That depends on a lot of things.

While they may not be "allowed" to use it, they are very likely, not going to get caught. The odds are int heir favor. ;)

Especially if they are using something *other* than P2P.

Here, in Russia, you can buy a dvd with OSX 10.4 with all patches included and run it on your PC for 4$...
IMHO, this transition to Intel cpus was a bad idea... I'm afraid, it could be a beginning of end for Apple

p.s. grrr, my english is terrible

umm ur english is better than mine.. i was raised here in usa :-( lol

The idea of running Mac OS on generic hardware appeals to me ... so why dont Mac just sell the OS for any hardware?!

In forcing people to also buy their hardware they are loosing sales.

They must be making loads on the hardware.

and yet they are making oodles of money. why screw with the good thing they've got going?

You are partially right. BUT MACOSX is so stable because it's intended to run only on mac hardware. It's very easy to make OS run stable if You have one of a kind hardware, but it will be very difficult to make so stable OS for PC market! There are so many differentconfigs in PC world.

The idea of running Mac OS on generic hardware appeals to me

So...you like the idea of an OS that constantly crashes, slows down at apparently random times, for no apparent reason, has limited app availability, and basicilly only has the one saving grace of being "pretty"?

MacOSX was designed to run on the "Apple-Approved" hardware. This is the reason for it's rock-solid reliability, performance, and stability. Take away the hardware, and it will run like absolute sh*t.

"So...you like the idea of an OS that constantly crashes, slows down at apparently random times, for no apparent reason, has limited app availability, and basicilly only has the one saving grace of being "pretty"?"

You just perfectly described my copy of Windows...

lmao...

Funny, but dead wrong.

Windows, running on supported hardware, is quite stable.

Crap hardware and crap software will bring any OS to it's knees.

yeah, what the heck is this guy talking about ...
windows limited app availability .... O RLY ???
you know of another OS with more app availability than windows ????

i agree with you on that bro.

The thing is, exluding the Power PC processor, the hardware that consisting an Apple Mac can be found running in a PC. Even under x86 the sound card, graphics card & motherboard are PC compatible, the only real difference is the Intel board that Apple are using has an EFI boot chip instead of a BIOS.

I think that the main bone of contention is that we could possibly purchase all the hardware to make a 100% OSXx86 compatible PC including OSX 10.4.5 from an online retailer cheaper than purchasing the ready built unit from an Apple Store.

Do people really want mac osx on their pcs? It's pretty difficult to configure things, and you have all the old problems with a lack of available applications, etc. Besides, having it running on nonmac hardware is likely to lead to stability issues. Nevertheless I agree that ms could use the competition. What I don't get is if Mac can write a gui over top of unix that's decent, why aren't more folks doing that? Seems obvious. Surely there's nothing magical about mac, except that they probably have some talented engineers working on this sort of thing.

Are you serious? Do people really want the OS that is largely touted as the most stable, most user-friendly for home users installed on their Intel/AMD-based PC? Of course!

I too share the stability concerns though... it's one of the main advantages of owning a Mac, but might be lost if you tried to use OSX on a non-standard system.

Good point. OSX is really quirky in so many different ways. Try upgrading it sometime and I'll bet you'd rather visit the proctologist with big hands.

Mod: +1 (Insightful)

Exactly.

Apple could license the specs for the Mac to OEMs for the same price that they make in profit now. If they got their ducks in a row, by getting HP, Dell, Sony, etc. willing to start with as many units as they sell now, they could transition without a loss. Then they could all fight to sell the best built Mac for the price.

.... which would ultimately end up costing as much as mac hardware .... doh !!

Thank you.

Someone finally gave a decent business reason.

Now... The question is why would Dell, HP, or Sony risk their OEM rebates from MS for an unproven (in the PC market) PC OS?

Every other OS has tanked when brought against Windows. Even when they were "better". Why would MacOSX be any different?

Mac OS didn't tank. ;-)

"Every other OS has tanked when brought against Windows. Even when they were "better". Why would MacOSX be any different?"

Doesn't hurt to try. =)

He never said the Mac OS tanked ;-) Just the ones put up against Windows

Even though other operating systems may have been better in terms of speed, stability and security than Windows they have not been as easy to use for the average desktop PC user. This is why these "better" operating systems have tanked against Windows.

With Windows, all you have to do to install an application is run an installer. In Linux and Unix (not Mac OS X) you usually have to download source code, compile and then install the application. How many non technical computer users are going to know how to do this? Hardware support is also a big problem in Unix-like operating systems compared to Windows.

The Mac OS X operating system is just as easy to use as Windows (if not easier) and brings the much more robust Unix operating system to the PC.

Unless you're running a multi-billion dollar business, just had a record-breaking quarter, and badly need to show your shareholders some consistancy.

They don't need to. It could hurt them. Why bother?

In Linux and Unix (not Mac OS X) you usually have to download source code, compile and then install the application.

It's been a while since you've used either, hasn't it?


The Mac OS X operating system is just as easy to use as Windows (if not easier) and brings the much more robust Unix operating system to the PC.

You're speaking from the perspective of a Mac user. I just recently started using Macs, and from the perspective of a Windows user, 90% of the OS is counter-intuitive.

There is a major learning curve.

This would severely hamper it's widespread adoption.

I think he's implying that MacOSX is up against Windows now...

In which case I'd argue the definition of "tanked"....

I have been using SUSE Linux since version 9.2 and the only non commercial software I've been able to find that is precompiled is the software included with the distribution. The same is especially true of FreeBSD and all versions of Fedora Core Linux.

I actually use a PC running Windows XP as my primary computer but if Mac OS X were available on any PC hardware I would give Windows the boot immediately. What is it that you find so difficult about using the Mac OS X?

Er...

Look up apt-get, or rpm, or grab ubuntu and use synaptic.

I have not had to compile *anything* for linux since my MUDding days.

There are binaries available for just about every popular software you could imagine out there. And you don't really even have to look all that hard to find it.

What is it that you find so difficult about using the Mac OS X?

Well, off the top of my head, the finder is a PITA. And why the hell do I have to go through 8 different steps to burn a frigging CD?

In Windows (or Linux, FTM) All I have to do is drag the file to the drive, right click the drive, and write.

Mac? oh no, you have to put the CD in, create a "burn folder", copy the files to the folder, click burn, take the CD out because MAC just doesn't like you putting the CD in first (???), put the CD back in, select "burn", click OK...

How the hell is that intuitive? (MacOS Tiger, BTW)

Have you actually ever USED a Mac? The process you describe to burn a CD is ONE way to make a CD. Another much easier way is this... step 1, put blank CD in computer. Step 2, copy files to the blank CD icon that is now on your desktop. Step 3, drag CD icon to the dock where trash icon is located, the trash icon changes to a burn icon. This will burn your CD. You might try using a Mac before you trash features you don't like...

The biggest problem in Linux is hardware support. I have a D-Link DWL-AG660 dual band wireless network adapter which uses an Atheros chipset.

When I try to install the madwifi driver under the XEN kernel with Fedora Core 5 Test 3 or SUSE Linux 10.1 Beta 3 the driver compiles just fine but when I try to load the module (after copying the madwifi modules to the kernel modules directory and running "depmod -a") I get a message stating "invalid module format". The same thing happens with nVidia's graphics driver version 1.0-8178.

What good is an operating system with crappy networking support and no 3D graphics acceleration?

Have you actually ever USED a Mac?

I think my above post answers that question, genius. I gave you the steps *and* the version of the OS I was using. Take a wild friggin' guess.

Another much easier way is this... step 1, put blank CD in computer. Step 2, copy files to the blank CD icon that is now on your desktop. Step 3, drag CD icon to the dock where trash icon is located, the trash icon changes to a burn icon. This will burn your CD.

1.) Never seen this happen, is this the default behavior of MacOSX Tiger?

2.) Even so..how is this easier, or more intuitive than dragging the files to the drive and clicking "write to CD"?

I mean, come on.... dragging the CD icon to the trash burns it? Yeah...I can't believe I didn't think of *that*....

Just gotta wonder what drugs the guy who wrote *that* was on.

Not much, I'm afraid....not much.

:)

Then again, you're trying to run an OS on hardware it does not support. Obviously, your going to be in for some fun.

Then, I've also never tried to install linux on a system or hardware less than a year old...

i wonder how mr. steve feels about this :P ....

*nelson's voice*- ha haaa !!

Can I be a formatting Nazi now?

"Ha! Haa!"
Nelson: The Simpsons

See? Doesn't that look much better?

And yes, I need something better to do with my spare time.

originally posted by

PC_Tool
And yes, I need something better to do with my spare time.

... if you find that "something" .... let me know ... :P
too much free time on my hands

i just hope betanews is looking for closing elements.

hate to see everything turn bold.

http://supertux.berlios.de/

Play a game then :P

great game :) ..... thank you

To crack or not to crack
there is no question about it,
just, please dont, hack
its wack,
its time for you to pack,
and leave this sourcecode in the sack,

they should pay me BIG $$$ to write poetry for their sourcecode:)

even though i suck,

might scare the hackers away with bad poetry,

Or they'd do us all a favor and remove it whilst patching.

if they would get as far as patching with that in the sourcecode, id be amazed, most sane people just hang themselves after reading my poetry (if it can be called that)

the last english teacher i had, that asked me to write some poetry swallowed a granade, since then im not too welcome ammongst the sane

You have far too much free time on your hands :P

I kinda like that poetry BTW:P

"You have far too much free time on your hands :P"

i know-_-

i need to get a job or workout more, currently im just finishing off school(nothin to do), but the french forign legion will provide me with plenty of activities:D

You know, if OSX was free, imagine how much Apple software would be purchased...

Not enough to make up for lost hardware sales?

precisely what PC_Tool said

if they made OSX more widely available, the company wouldnt be able to overcharge for their hardware as they do now

Which isn't a bad thing as long as folks are willing to pay forit.

A lot of folks say they'd be willing to pay more for OSX than they'd be willing to pay for XP...prove it by buying a Mac. Put yer money where yer mouth is.

That is all.

Replace hardware sales? No need for that... Microsoft did not make their (evil) empire selling hardware. They did it selling pretty lame software and built the giant that they are now. I think Apple could do it better because their software is MUCH better? And they could continue selling hardware because of their nice design. Good design is expensive not only in computers... A Mercedes Benz worth every cent it cost, to give only one example.

I think Apple could do it better because their software is MUCH better?

Never said they couldn't. Plain and simple, the market wouldn't allow it.

Any OS put up against Windows, even ones with larger initial market shares, never made it. What makes MacOSX any different? Because it's MacOSX?

If MacOSX could take over the desktop world, we'd all be using FreeBSD right now. We're not.

End of story.

Modified Apple prose: (from the source code of the 10.4.5 update)

"Your idiot check for today:
There once was a company that whined
their CPU was so far behind
they'd do better to lock
an Intel™ that did rock
but then found their software maligned.
Please don't mock hackers!
Really, that's just stupid."

Hahahahaha!

Apple should just release OS X to the public to install on their computers. I bet tons of people would go buy it to install on their own home computers instead of Windows.

I would!

I'd rather build my own PC anyway and put the MacOS on it.

Apple......you big dummy.

Give 'em one good business reaon.

Keep in mind, they make their money on Hardware, not software. The software is just a vehicle to sell more hardware.

Because they will make more money due to the fact that their hardware stinks.

Don't you think the MacOS would be installed on more computers if people weren't forced to buy Apple hardware?

I can tell you that if I could go to Staples and buy either Windows or MacOS for my home computer I would buy the MacOS. It's cheaper too. Plus then Windows would have to be "that much" better because people would have a choice.

What if you could call Dell and order a new PC and you had a choice of either MacOS or Windows? I bet more people would choose Mac than you think. ;)

Instead of being on like 5% of the computer market they could at least have their OS be on 20% or more computers.

To me it's a no-brainer......but then I have no brain :)

They tried this in the past. You may not remember (I have no idea how old you are).

They failed miserably. Got their assess handed to them by the clone market and were in grave danger of loosing their s***s.

Again, the OS and apps are merely a vehicle to add value to their hardware sales. They are a hardware company, not a software company.

MS is far to entrenched in the PC world for Mac to make a significant inroad among the non-techie users out there. (And there are far more of hem than there are of us)

I agree w/ SM. Then Apple OS could have more leverage for the business segment. What they shoulda done is continue working w/ IBM & its various partners(Sun,Sony,et al) & recompiled the OS for the PowerPC sucessors Cell & Niagara, which run circles around anything in mainstream-- instead, they've now ceded that opportunity to Linux & all other OS now being ported to that. None of that's too apparent now, but in a year, when that Sony console finally comes out, those processors will have doubled to 16 cores X 8 multithreads(from today's 8 core/quad thread)-- someone will rig one to run like a pc: with linux, dozens gb of ram, flash hard drive...Anyhow, that tech will be in all portables & cellulars(not to mention high-end business servers & possibly mainstream graphics adapters)-- JOBS is going to look VERY stupid for his timely jumping off that consortium's wagon.
At best, MS & Mac will be playing a long catch-up game: the processors are fast because they dispense w/ a large part of their microcode; it takes years to compile an OS to that. Just when MS finally limps to the finish line with the relatively-infantile dual core & thread offering......

I think the Cell wil remain relegated to consoles and the like. I do not see it entering the PC or server market with anything more than a minor ripple.

Just as they can add cores to the Cell, they are doing so with the current X86 CPUs.

Even though IBM has already said that it will be releasing it for the server market?

But Apple has iPods now to keep them afloat...They could accept 0% profits on software if their iPods continue strong.

I think many would still buy Apple computers just for the look; and by "many", I mean the same number as today, though OSX would have vastly more exposure in the common household

I agree w/ PCTool that there's a minuscule chance of Cell/Niagara/whatever entering mainstream-- esp. since the 'owners' have no such plans + plenty of defficiencies of their own in the desktop consumer arena... I'm counting on modders to hit PS3 like w/ the XBox.
You're right about servers-- those are already being sold with Cell & Niagara...at least 6 OS port on them: IBM's OS, Solaris, BeOs, Red Hat, Ubuntu6, etc.

Exactly. Remember, IBM thought "hey, we make our money on Hardware" If Apple sold OSX as an alternative, they would immediately open themselves up to a few HUNDRED MILLION potential buyers. And software has a lower threshold of cost.. ie, once development is done, shipping the OS is a few bucks, vs. a PC that has a serious cost.

Microsoft figured this out, and they ran with the software.. and so far, it appears to have worked out for them financially. This very old idea "money is made on hardware" is utter crap.

Apple would have much better profit potential with far less overhead as a company that sold both their "special PCs" as well as an open OS.

Not at all what happened.

Apple allowed FOUR companies to make their own Macs (Radius as one, etc.) and Apple supervised them and took a major cut out of the clones, which made sure the clones were more expensive then Apple's. They could ship with different features, but Apple had total control.

When Jobs returned, his first move was to end the clone attempt. But the Clone attempt was something that made sense, and it was the first time anyone tried to make real server type units on a MacOS platform.

Here's what I remember:

IBM thought they were a hardware company, and let MS go.

Steve Jobs thought it was all about the hardware, and NeXT, which really was the starting platform for future MacOS, died because while the hardware was great, it couldn't penetrate fast enough.

Amiga had an OS that was far ahead of many, but because they refused to allow it to go anywhere but there hardware, they died.

Linux, which has distros that will run on Mac hardware, continues to do just fine.

Microsoft, which doesn't make hardware does fine.

Novell, which doesn't make hardware directly does fine.

What do you mean "Linux runs fine"? No profits are made, volunteers doing the hard work, and the desktop sucks.

He said it's still alround. :P

:P Claiming a CPU can be used in a server because a linux distro was ported to it would make numerous cell-phones (no pun intended), pdas, ancient consoles, blackberries, toasters, etc all possible servers.

I really don't wantr to run my web-server on my toaster. ;P

Where's the incentive then?

If they allowed MacOS to be installed on any hardware I'd bet anything the price for OSX would raise since they would no longer be making money off of the hardware.

OSX would have vastly more exposure in the common household.

They've got that with the iPod and iTunes. no, the OS isn't going to get them more exposure. Besides, for it to make it in the market at all, they'd have to support it. Which would cost them a fortune, Ma and Pa, and definately businesses, are not about to venture to an unsupported OS.

No profits made? Well, from the freely downloadable, but several companies are banking on it.. from Novell (SuSe) to Mandriva to LinSpire, etc.

But the fact that it hasn't been demolished or run out of the market was really my point.

so much for Apple and their poetry

I'd forgotten about that.

One can only hope the patch writer included some poetic verse in his code as a reply.

Was only a metter of time :)

...and from the heavens came a resounding,

"Duh!?"

...what is this 'metter' you speak of?

matter, sorry

I'm amazed AMD CPUs work at all. iTunes will be no great loss to a great majority of people.

Main question is how well it runs on non-apple hardware.

Anyone thrown together a "minimum system requirements" NFO for this thing?

I've got no problems wth folks trying to run this on their non-Apple machines to see how it looks/feels/etc... It's just the folks who b*tch about Apple making it hard for 'em that get to me.

"I'm amazed AMD CPUs work at all."

Why? It's all x86.

1 word: (well, acronym, really...kinda...)

CPUID