Slashdot Mirror
Cringely: OS X on Intel
sti writes: "Cringely's column this week argues that Apple should port OS X to the Intel platform. He makes an interesting case for it. I would definitely favour this. I've always had this warm spot in my heart for Apple but rarely had the money to pay for their overpriced hardware."
Why the fuck does this retarded shit keep coming up from supposedly intelligent industry writers? Wow Apple could abandon all of their supporters and turn into a software company? I suppose I should pat Cringely on the back for that suggestion? The upside for Apple is a downhill slope. Mac users as it is are faced with smaller numbers of available software titles than Windows users. Some companies refuse to make Mac ports of their software *cough*Sierra*cough*. If Mac had an x86 port little would change because it is still MacOS and said company will refuse to support it. Then you've got the problem of current Mac developers telling Apple to go fuck themselves because they're not going to spend even more money their not making in order to make x86 ports of their Mac software. While ports between ISAs using the same API isn't too terribly difficult it still requires man hours to accomplish, time is money, hence it cuts into your bottom line. Then there is the messy issues of hardware support. Apple shipping MacOS on x86 systems means having to deal with thousands upon thousands of combinations of hardware. Are hardware vendors who already shun support for any OS besides Windows are going to spend much time supporting their hardware on MacOS? Ask IBM and Be what happens when you run on the same ISA as Windows but are the under dog.
This is the nth concurrent Cringely article posted on slashdot in as many weeks, would you people fucking knock it off? Timmah: cut it the fuck out. It is getting ridiculous that the best you can do is post YACA (yet another Cringely article), there has got to be more in the submission bin than just links to pbs.com. Hasn't someone posted a story from ZDNet or Wired you can link to instead?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
>They make software to sell hardware. thats the whole *goal* of the company.
Which is why Apple will always be a marginal player, with marginal finances, selling to a fan club.
IBM used to be the same way, but in the mid-1960s they saw the light. It didn't hurt them one bit. Their hardware and software businesses each had to look out for themselves, without being codependent. Novell used to be a hardware company, but saw the light, and only then became a major player. VA Linux Systems... well, never mind.
But the point is that software is potentially more profitable than hardware, while hardware is a commodity. Even if it's (in Apple's case) a commodity in an odd-shaped box (commoddity? -- this was originally a typo but I like it). Jobs is so hung up on his boxes, and his 1950s view of the computer industry, that he's isolating himself.
Apple is focusing on a niche market. Obviously you know nothing about marketing.
Oh yeah and Steve Jobs is a saint. Steve Wozniak is Apple's create. Jobs only job is borrowing ideas and marketing them just like Gates. Isn't OS X based on BSD?
well hey if you're happy with a tiny 15" screen, tiny keyboard and mouse that's your choice. Many of us like to think big.
Four years as a senior software engineer on Apple's OS teams.
If your claims are true then please send me a copy of the law suit threat you get for breach of contract on this one. C'mon, you really expect us to believe that a long time Apple engineer would stroll up to /. and give away one of the company's biggest secrets without being sued for it?
Sorry to be rude but you're either an incredibly foolish Apple engineer or you're lying.
Internally Apple has a different Darwin source tree than the one that has been released to the community.
This would go against what is being publicly stated by Apple in the Darwin FAQ. To quote:
Most of the projects in the Darwin repository are the same live source trees used by Apple engineers for the Mac OS X product build. This means that as we work on Mac OS X internally, the changes we make are immediately visible on the Darwin source code repository.
Now, granted that does say most, not all, however signs of an Intel port would have to show up in more that just a few of the modules. Also, it is possible that Apple is lying about this however you'd have to question why they'd risk the reputation of the company on this. Finally, if ex-apple engineers like yourself are so open to explaining that OS X works on Intel, why are all the rumour sites saying the exact opposite?
You stupid fuck. I can do all of the shit that you mentioned on my x86/windows box just fine without any 'bazaar [sic] configuration issues.'
-Linux was for the masses, who spoke, and everything was crystal clear.
Good point. A reliable source on MacOSRumors mentioned that Apple ported OS X to at least 3 RISC chips in case Motorola collapses suddenly. They also got an x86 version running, but even on a GHz chip, it was pathetic. The P4 chip has so many wasted cycles to be backwards compatible that a good G4 can run laps around it in efficient programs like photoshop.