Because it would ruin the entire Apple user experience of "it just works" that they can deliver on their own hardware platform. They'd be years behind Windows in driver compatibility, simply because they haven't had the legacy Windows has had in developing it.
Not to mention, hardware is where they really make their money. Everyone would probably just end up pirating the OS, anyway:)
I'm no fan of Apple by an means of the imagination, but $1599's pretty decent and a heck of a lot more affordable than a tablet.
-- "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Re:not bad
by
Steve+Cowan
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You can poo-poo the 1024x768 screen on the 12" PowerBook, but to my knowledge there is no higher resolution 12" display on a notebook anywhere. If you want higher resolution you need a bigger notebook. This is the right trade-off in my opinion, because things would start getting pretty tiny at higher res on a 12".
Also check the Apple PDF Datasheet on the 12", you'll see that the drive is stated to write at 24x, not 2x as you suggest. (I just checked, and interestingly the Apple Store page says the drive writes at 8x. Weird, but still faster than 2x.)
There is more than "just works"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is more than "it just works". How about "It not only works, it creates, it plays, and it does a lot more"
Now, why doesn't Apple make OSX for x86 machines ?
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but everyone, repeat after me:
Because Apple is a hardware company!
Selling OS X for x86 machines would cut into their margins, encourage their competitors, and there's simply no way they could survive as an OS-only vendor (remember BeOS? That was a lot better than Windows, too).
Down From What?
by
nanobug
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Still using my 400 MHz G4 PowerBook & still loving it more than I ever did any of my PC laptops--no matter how fast they were.
It feels so good finally being content with something.
I look back to the foolishness of my former self with pity; I was never satisfied with my laptop. Somehow I thought that new hardware or a new OS would fix my problems. Somehow I kept at this for years, searching for the right laptop. I became a computing nomad--jumping from laptop to laptop, thinking that maybe my issues would be solved with the latest hardware. And jumping from OS to OS--from Windows to Suse to Debian to Mandrake to OpenBSD to FreeBSD... on and on. I couldn't find anything that really fit my needs.
I find that it wasn't really speed I needed all those years I was on the MHz treadmill--it was just a computer that worked the way it was supposed to.
I'm quite happy with what I have, and for the first time, I know I'll be using a computer until it dies its natural death. For the first time I can concentrate on getting things done rather than that gaggle of concerns and problems I had to think about before I could even start a project.
So, I've found out first-hand what people with old PowerBooks do--a lot more than people with old PC laptops.
It won't even matter whether Apple is competitive with the PC world. The mac users will always buy macs, and PC users will never be able to be cconvinced that
OS X is better than windows.
RISC chips outperform CISC chips, even at much slower speeds.
Macs are just way cooler than windows machines.
In the end, it sucks for mac users, b/c if Apple had 20% market share, their prices would be lower, and we could buy more songs from the Apple music store with the money we save.
PowerPC to x86 does not mean PC clone
by
AHumbleOpinion
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Your argument applies to Apple introducing MacOS X on generic PC clones. This has nothing to do with a switch from PowerPC to x86. The realistic scenario is simply Apple replaces the PowerPC at the core of it's proprietary design with an x86, much like the transition from 68K to PPC. This could also be a relatively painless transition. Emulation would not work as well this time around, however MacOS X apps are much more likely to be less CPU dependent than MacOS apps of the mid-90's.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it would ruin the entire Apple user experience of "it just works" that they can deliver on their own hardware platform. They'd be years behind Windows in driver compatibility, simply because they haven't had the legacy Windows has had in developing it.
:)
Not to mention, hardware is where they really make their money. Everyone would probably just end up pirating the OS, anyway
Chris -- http://www.bitter.net/
I'm no fan of Apple by an means of the imagination, but $1599's pretty decent and a heck of a lot more affordable than a tablet.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
There is more than "it just works". How about "It not only works, it creates, it plays, and it does a lot more"
Now, why doesn't Apple make OSX for x86 machines ?
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but everyone, repeat after me:
Because Apple is a hardware company!
Selling OS X for x86 machines would cut into their margins, encourage their competitors, and there's simply no way they could survive as an OS-only vendor (remember BeOS? That was a lot better than Windows, too).
What price were they before?
Still using my 400 MHz G4 PowerBook & still loving it more than I ever did any of my PC laptops--no matter how fast they were.
It feels so good finally being content with something.
I look back to the foolishness of my former self with pity; I was never satisfied with my laptop. Somehow I thought that new hardware or a new OS would fix my problems. Somehow I kept at this for years, searching for the right laptop. I became a computing nomad--jumping from laptop to laptop, thinking that maybe my issues would be solved with the latest hardware. And jumping from OS to OS--from Windows to Suse to Debian to Mandrake to OpenBSD to FreeBSD... on and on. I couldn't find anything that really fit my needs.
I find that it wasn't really speed I needed all those years I was on the MHz treadmill--it was just a computer that worked the way it was supposed to.
I'm quite happy with what I have, and for the first time, I know I'll be using a computer until it dies its natural death. For the first time I can concentrate on getting things done rather than that gaggle of concerns and problems I had to think about before I could even start a project.
So, I've found out first-hand what people with old PowerBooks do--a lot more than people with old PC laptops.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
- OS X is better than windows.
- RISC chips outperform CISC chips, even at much slower speeds.
- Macs are just way cooler than windows machines.
In the end, it sucks for mac users, b/c if Apple had 20% market share, their prices would be lower, and we could buy more songs from the Apple music store with the money we save.Your argument applies to Apple introducing MacOS X on generic PC clones. This has nothing to do with a switch from PowerPC to x86. The realistic scenario is simply Apple replaces the PowerPC at the core of it's proprietary design with an x86, much like the transition from 68K to PPC. This could also be a relatively painless transition. Emulation would not work as well this time around, however MacOS X apps are much more likely to be less CPU dependent than MacOS apps of the mid-90's.