Slashdot Mirror
If Mac OS X Came to x86, Would You Switch?
A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward would like to put this query before you: "I'm not a fan of Windows, and never have been, but I am a fan of the x86 architecture. I really like Linux, but there are still a few issues that are keeping me from switching completely. I really like Mac OS X but I don't want to drop $2000 on a computer that is only as fast as an x86 computer at half the price. Darwin, Mac OS X's unix-ish core, has been ported to x86 and Microsoft's upcoming Longhorn OS seems to be disliked by everyone but Microsoft. If Apple released Mac OS X to compete with Longhorn, would you switch?"
i wouldn't switch to it. the instant they switched to x86, they'd lose what they have going for them, and their product would suck. they have such a tight os cause the environment is so tight. they control all the hardware.
at least thats my understanding of how it works. now what if they could promise that stability on x86 hardware? hrmm. i might switch. i'd venture a guess that the people who use linux and friends who also use windows dont have the typical end user problems that vex most windows computers. i'm no world class guru and i find myself on year 2 of a stable XP install with no firewalls or virus scanners, other than being NATted and knowing where not to step on the web. so i'm pretty happy with what i've got, i'd have to say.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
AS I already own Macs I would not switch, but I would try to make my company switch...
Would software and hardware companies support OS X more consistantly if it were available on an x86 PC?
The only reason I use Windows is that it is the easiest OS to find games, paripherals, and other things that support it. If Linux or OS X had that, I could consider them.
I'm a Windows Admin, and live by Group Policy and remote administration tools under Windows 2000/2003 (NT4 had some stuff, but boy did it suck in comparison). I do not know what equivalent things are available under OS X or even unix/Linux. I've only installed Linux on a hobby basis (shrug).
:)
But if I could manage them at least as well as I can with Group Policy, sure I'd switch.
It would also have to be able to run all the shrink rapped stuff we support.
I used to be a big Mac user, back 12+ years ago. So yeah, I'd love to get back to that. It sure seemed like computers were fun back then. But maybe thats becuase it was just a hobby and not my work
For me, the Mac interface has always been an example of how not to do it. I want my menu's where my program window is, I don't want to drag cd's to the garbage to get them out, I don't want to have programs running after I click to close them.
I seem to be in the minority, but I don't like to work that way. So, unless they port KDE to the x86 OSX port, I won't be using it, no matter how streamlined it all works together.
CC
Furthermore, I regret to say that I don't see much prospect of any of the Linux GUI efforts approaching the ease of use and elegance of OS X any time soon - partially due to a lack of imagination, and partially due to being over-wedded to X which is evolving way too slowly and is over-wedded to a basic design that is simply outdated.
For the past several years I have been buying nothing but Apple products for myself, coworkers and family members. I have been willing to pay a higher price for better (more innovative) physical design, less cabling, and an innovative OS. The downside has been limited hardware choices that are generally a few steps behind the curve of x86 machines. That being said, I would seriously consider 'switching' to OS X on a x86 machine if it was produced and supported by Apple and possibly the hardware vendors. At the same time, however, I really like the ever evolving designs that come from Apple. When was that last compelling design change of the ubiquitous x86 desktop or laptop (maybe from Alienware)? So for me to do a pseudo-switch, I would probably also need to see some changes from the hardware vendors (how many cables run across the desk of a typical workstation?). To sum it all up, I think it would be a great thing for Apple to release OS X to the masses. It would certainly send Balmer on another sweaty spin!
My
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people who use their computers for just basic, simple tasks like office functions act like they have this incredible need for powerful hardware. I bought a Compaq Presario with a Sempron 2800, 256MB DDR Ram and a 80GB hdd for only $445 including S&H, and with SuSE 9.1 it does everything I need. It's not a game machine, so uhhh why exactly when it's just going to run Java and C++ programs for class, would I need the latest Athlon64 or Pentium4?
The reason for owning a Mac has never been about power, but utility. Every convert to MacOS X from Windows that I know switched because Macs are actually much more useful in many areas than Windows PCs. The hardest pill for many of them to swallow is that the "Apple way" really is significantly easier and more productive than the "Microsoft way."
The average computer user who could afford one, would actually be much better off with an iMac or iBook than a typical off the shelf PC. It gets the job done, and done well and it is made much better than the usual PC.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
If I can use all the apps that I like, without missing the old MS platform. That's how MS got me to switch from MacOS7 to WinNT. The key to IT decisions starts with "what do I need to do" (in simple human/business transaction terms). Then I ask "what apps do that?", then "what OS runs those apps?", and finally "which HW runs that OS?", and I've committed a basic platform. If the apps available can do what I need to do on MacOS, including work without a hitch with everyone else who hasn't switched, I'll be right there with Apple's otherwise superior OS.
--
make install -not war
Me too I would switch in a heartbeat. however the days of Windows as the pre eminent gaming OS might be numbered.
Latest rumor out of a major games house (Not sure which one as I got the "tip" at the Linuxshow) is that the game companies are working on using LiveCD technology for games. They can tweak the kernel and the ATI / Nvidia drivers (source code issues goes away since they will be supplying binaries only) and presto you have an almost console type platform for their specific needs.
Help fight continental drift.
If I could install OSX on one of my homebuilt systems I certainly would.
However, one of the reasons Apples are so stable is because the hardware and software is so strictly controlled. Thus, either OSX would be very unstable on the X86 platform or it would not work with most hardware. Either would be a huge disadvantage.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I have a Mac that can run OS X (but runs Linux). If OS X were released for x86, I could start running it on a PC. But I wouldn't. The reason?
I have programmed x86, MIPS, and PowerPC assembly, and studied the instruction formats for these architectures. x86 is a mess.
Ever tried to use ACPI power management under Linux? Chances are it won't work, due to bugs in the BIOS. The USB controller on my old laptop wouldn't work, because the BIOS assigned the wrong IRQ to it (it said it was on 9, but it was hardwired to 11). Ever had PCs crash because of IRQ conflicts? I have.
The PC is so full of kludges it's amazing that it still works. The system starts in real mode (16 bit, 1 MB of addressable RAM). You really want to go to protected mode (32 bit, all RAM addressable). However, certain things need to be done in real mode, because BIOSes don't do protected mode. Does your hard drive use CHS or LBA?
Have you ever compared efficiencies of other architectures with x86? It's amazing how much power goes into supporting the cruft that's in x86. It's too bad the CPUs are so small, or you could use them for cooking.
Anyway, time to quit ranting. x86 is not for me. And oh, I run Linux on my iBook because I know how to customize every part of it, and because it starts applications faster than OS X. It also has more software available (a lot of software uses GNU extensions and thus requires a lot of effort to port to OS X).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
OSX runs like crap on a G3 of less than about 800MHz, and even then there's features you won't get. It doesn't run too well on the slower G4s, either. I can't picture running OSX on an old imac for any purposes, though I can see putting darwin on there. Used macs are about three or four times as expensive as a low-end PC. High end macs are comparable in price to high end PCs, that much is true, but low end PCs are still dramatically cheaper than low end macs. I can get a fairly well-loaded P4 for what it costs to get a base imac. It's not as small or cute, and THAT is where Apple wins, in the "value added" of having a cute little machine, which is a benefit when space is at a premium or when someone just wants a pretty computer. Even your most attractive PC cases are still generally rectangular in shape, and I'm talking attractive to normal people, not gamers who want a case that looks like a demon's head.
You can't "factor in the reduction in neck pain" because it doesn't come with a dollar value and frankly my XP system doesn't give me trouble. This is of course because it's firewalled, updated, and I have a good virus scanner on it (I've seen about two viruses though, and I download from all sorts of shady sources) but these are not things that are out of the question for mere mortals and they're things I'd do with a Mac anyway.
You're spot on about the hardware support, though. It would eliminate much of the advantage of OSX. Besides, Apple is in the business of selling hardware more than software, and it would sharply decrease demand for their computers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Alright! Round two!
Finding software for OS X/x86 will be just as hard, if not HARDER than it is for PPC. I don't own a Mac, actually, I use x86 hardware at home, but admin about 200 Macs at work. We don't have trouble finding software for them at all. There's good software in almost every category for OS X, and I've found that Apple's free development tools and NeXT-derived libraries lead even shareware apps to be of great quality and usability.
I know that EFI BIOS is coming, but it's still not here. I've been enjoying a 32-bit BIOS with a GUI bootloader, network booting, single-image support, and no hassles since the Blue and White G3 came out in 1999.
Most Mac setups have a LOT simpler cabling than their PC counterparts. I set these things up for a living. Macs typically install in about half the time from 'boxed' to 'bootup'. I've got a G4 on my desk at work, and an ADC monitor. My monitor gets signal, power, and USB on ONE cable to the CPU. The powered speakers get power and signal on one Y-cable, as opposed to a stereo cable, a left-to-right cable, and a power cable on the PCs. I've got ONE cable coming from the back of my screen to my keyboard, which has a built-in hub for the mouse and my flash-reader. Macs have a lot less cables when properly purchased and set up.
As for 'screwed when the monitor gives out', there are NO machines that Apple ships without external video. I just bought an iBook for my sister and she hooked it up to her monitor witht he included VGA adapter. My desktop G4 at work has both ADC and DVI out. Even the iMacs have VGA-out.
Where's the HUGE price difference? I don't buy 'low end' hardware, be it Mac or PC. Once you get to the 'good stuff' with name-brand components, quality hard drives and memory, and all the fixin's the price difference on both sides is close to zero. Apple's iBooks actually beat Dell laptops hands-down on price and value. The $300 difference on desktops like the iMac is easily accounted for in power savings (which also carry to lower AC bills), high-quality LCD screens, and time to setup and maintain. Once again, I sound like a fanboy, but I'm out there doing price/performance comparisons for my work all day.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Who *REALLY* is a fan of x86? BIOS should have died a long time ago. x86 is a hideous architecture with an ISA that makes all assembler code look like vomit etc. I think the only thing people like about x86 is the cost. I think the more important question is can we ever replace x86 with another architecture (I like SPARC and with Intel's R&D I'm sure we could get over any problems) but keep it as open and mix-and-match as x86 is now? Write a decent emulator and legacy code is taken care of. I'm sure OSS and it's upward trend would minimize the transition costs. But really when can we get rid of this turd?!?
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Pure x86-64 (long mode) is a lot less of a hack than i686 -- the memory model is flat and is feels a lot RISCier than any prior x86 architecture. Gentoo for amd64 on my 2GHz Athlon 64 (which cost me less than GBP 500 to build) seems around 50% faster than 32-bit gentoo on the same machine.
I would, however, love a PPC64 machine; I've used a fair few of them recently, in the form of pSeries machines running AIX 5.2 and they seem to be about 50% faster clock-for-clock than my Athlon64. As a side note, Unix on PPC seems like a good idea, I wonder if Apple will try it*.
If I were to buy or be given a Mac, I would replace keyboard and mouse with USB PC components and run Linux on it. The OS X GUI seems to me to be an unconscionable waste of a powerful processor.
Phil
PS: Has anyone tried the IBM PPC compiler for OS X? On AIX it can give you some seriously good code (build with -O5 and link with -qipa=level=2).
* I know. But OS X is not Unix, never has been, and probably never will be. I'll believe it's Unix whe the Open Group tell me it is.
I guess today is a passable day to die.
I already dual-boot multiple OSes on my PC and on my Mac, I'd love the flexibility of adding MacOSX to the list on the PC, and MS-Windows to the Mac, without messing w/ emulation environments. Of course, the partition table issue will have to be addressed. Thankfully, PCs can read and write Mac filesystems w/ 3rd-party software, and Macs can read and write FAT. Anyone know if they can read NTFS and FAT32?
Speaking of emulation environments, giving PearPC a whirl is on my to-do list. Anyone have any experience w/ this w/ either OS X or classic MacOS?
The hardware problem w/ the Macs isn't so much the price-performance issue anymore, but the lack of low-end hardware. Cheapest new Mac Apple has is USD$799, and low-end new Intel/Athlon boxes WITH MS-Windows preinstalled start at well under USD$300.
As far as drivers, it'll be not much worse than Windows NT was in the early days. You'll have a lot of things not working at all, but many devices that currently work w/ Mac should work just fine on Intel. For most that don't, it should be just a matter of a little software tweaking by the manufacturer. As far as Apps, I'd hope that Apple would be smart enough to 1) make it relatively painless for software vendors to recompile and work out the inevitable kinks, and 2) include a basic PPC emulation mode for existing apps, similar to the old 68000 emulation mode.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There are, of course, specialized applications that just don't exist for OSX. Many of these run just fine in Virtual PC. Some of them probably don't and yes, that sucks, but how many apps are we really talking about? Go ahead -- reply and list all the things you use regularly that aren't available, or for which good or better substitutes aren't available, for OSX.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
I agree with you on points 1, 2 and 4 (:
Now, what if Apple was to make a commitment to the OpenSource world it already has so much to thank for? What if they decided to publish some (or even all) of their API's (and I'm talking in UI terms here, not just Darwin), free for anyone to port / implement to a completely different platform?
I'm not claiming that this would ever happen, but perhaps they could create a business model where they charge people for support (i.e. AppleCare) along with licences, but only if you were running OS X on their own, supported, hardware.
Perhaps they could produce (or enable someone else to produce) a limited version of OS X as a teaser for the "real" choice of their own software and hardware - sort of like the initial idea of their iLife package, but on a completely different level.
I'd sure buy the concept of converting a bunch of non-OS X users this way (:
Those are my humble thoughts and ideas...
Of course, if it was free, or could be easily pirated, and it worked as well on my computer as Linux currently does, I would switch. But thats not accurate.
First of all, if it ever came to be, it would have to be hideously expensive. Don't think about the $100 cost of OS X upgrades now. Those are for people who have already paid their dues to Apple by buying a Mac. If it was any good, an x86 Mac OS port would wipe out a fair share of Apple's current hardware sales. Even if they could, say, double their current OS market share by running on cheaper commodity hardware, they would still need to make half the profit on each new, non-upgrade copy of x86 Mac OS that they currently make on the average new Macintosh sold. I would be very surprised if they could make this up with a retail price under $400. I definitely wouldn't pay $400 or more for it, as slick as it is, and compared to free Linux and "free" preloaded Windows I doubt many other current PC users would, and it would never be a market success for Apple if only existing Mac users bought it.
And thats all supposing that the product is every bit as good as the current version of Mac OS for Apple hardware. That means that they would have to support seamlessly every possible combination of PC components that could show up on a computer made in the last 3 or 4 years. Darwin x86 certainly can't do that now, and even if they could port over every current FreeBSD driver, plus support every video chipset they support on Macintoshes now, it would be far from universal, although it would be good enough for me. Microsoft spends a lot of money on testing and driver development to ensure Windows works on every wacky system they claim it will run on, and that is even given that most of the device drivers are written by vendors.
Given these constraints, I don't think Apple can bring a viable x86 Mac OS port to market at a price low enough to be successful, so no matter how cool you think it would be to have OS X on your computer, it isn't going to happen.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
But, in any case, I would switch. For one thing, if
MacOS came to x86, I think that a lot of companies
who were abandoning the Mac and are reluctant to embrace Linux, would quickly reconsider.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You know, I've been laptop shopping twice in the last year, once for me and once for my SO. I'm a serious geek -- I spend 90% of my time in a terminal -- and make my living with my hardware, so I spent a lot of time looking. My SO isn't a geek at all, and I'm her computer slave, so whatever she got had to be easy for me to support.
I'd never used a Mac before and was originally planning to get Thinkpad and run Debian on it. Both times, hands down, we got Macs. I have a 15" Powerbook and she has a 14" iBook. Both times I spent days on every major manufacturer's web sites, comparing every model I could find.
What I found was that there is no laptop, period, that matches anything Apple makes feature-for-feature at a comparable price point. Nothing even comes close. The only way to get the features I wanted in a Thinkpad was to pay $3,500 and gain an extra 2 pounds of travel weight. The only sub-optimal feature of the Powerbook is battery life -- after a year of constant use I get about 2 hours.
This comparison was done OS-agnostic, since I expected to run Debian on the Powerbook, too. After a week, though, I swore I'd never go back. OSX is amazing. It's the first time in 15 years of professional computer use that I haven't had to *think* about the operating system.
In short, Macs rule. if you don't believe me, do the research yourself. Anyone trotting out the "Macs are too expensive and slow" line is living in the past.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
I would change for the reasons that i like the interface, and the eyecandy is amazing. Also, in my opinion, mac OSX is everything linux wants to be, but can't be.
:(){
Paluminum.net
That's funny. I have a camera that I can't run on my IMac because there are no OSX drivers (software). I Plug it into my XP box and it "Just works".
I'm one of the comparatively few people here to have extensively used NeXTStep (the direct precursor of OS X - the core OS technology is still the same) on Intel hardware, back in the day when Linux was a freaky pile of small-rodent crud, Macs were "Win3.11 with an attitude" abominations and no other alternative to the evil empire existed.
A lot of postings here have tried to make points like "Steven Jobs hates untidy hardware" or "they couldn't make it work as neatly on x86 machines as they do on PPC rigs they build themselves", or even "they can't make it work on x86".
The first is perhaps be true (good for him if it is), the second might just be the case (but I seriously doubt this), and the third is certainly absolute rubbbish.
Granted, a lot of time has passed since then, and OS X is certainly more than NeXTStep 5 (as some diehards like to call it). But the nasty fact remains that the technological foundation of NeXTStep/OS X is enormously more stable, robust and inherently cross-platform than that of Windows in all its assorted versions of degeneracy. The Intel port of NeXTStep was perfectly useable and delivered all the comfort and useability to this new platform (and two more, actually - Sparc and HP builds also existed). You could not use arbitrary hardware (only that which had NeXTStep drivers), but that hardware was rock-solid, and given the availabilty of the excellent DriverKit the only reason other stuff wasn't supported was the lack of device information from the vendors (which is more readily available nowadays, partly due to Linux).
In short: if Apple wanted to pull this off (BIG if), the technological underpinnings would be there, and if it worked half was well as NeXTStep (which is pretty likely) technological issues would be the least of it. It's just not very likely from a marketing perspective, that's all (a shame, really, but what can one do...).
Just my two euro cents
A. W.
Yes, it is. But rather than having the expectation to match/replace their hardware profits, they could simply hope to increase their profits somewhat, supplementing them by expanding into a new market. Some people would still pay a premium to get the whole "Mac experience" (hardward and software). Selling OS X for x86 would not kill off all their hardware sales. It would reduce it somewhat, but it would also bring in the potential for many more customers (some of whom may switch to the "one true Mac" at a later date).
As a techie, I always get bombarded with "Where can I get a good computer?" questions, and I just tell people either at Best Buy for 500 bucks or a Mac.
A few weeks ago someone answered that they don't like Macs because "they like to have control that Windows gives them".
So, yesterday that person needs help burning pictures off the digital camera to 3 CDs. It took us fourty (40!) minutes to burn 600 megs of data on a well equipped Windows XP machine (3.06GHz P4 HT, 512 MB RAM). This is why:
I drag the first set of files onto the CD, they burn OK (albeit a bit slow).
I drag the second set of files and get an "incorrect function" error. I'm thinking WTF?
I use a new CD and some drag-to-disc program comes up and burns the pictures much faster than the first CD did.
I try to burn the final CD, but get the incorrect function error again. It took me 20 minutes of CD swapping, ctrl-alt-deleteing, and cussing to figure out that I had to right click on the burner icon and enable CD burning for it.
Well, duh, one might say, of course you have to have the CD burning enabled. You might think so, but you'd better not wonder why the first two CDs burned, but the last one required enabling.
What I'm trying to say is that in the time it took me to burn 600 megs of data on a very well stocked Windows XP PC, I could have had the very same pictures sorted into albums, posted on my website (which runs on the same machine), and burned on a cd on a 1.4GHz G4.
Apple way might be more expensive at first, but it doesn't require you to randomly click on things to make them work. (Provided that the PC has a slew of 3rd party applications to keep it working in the first place.)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Maybe I missed it, but not many people seem to have expressed what I feel about the issue.
/. folks on the issue. They, or Steve Jobs, must remember what happend to Apple when it was still called NeXT.
:( Most people do have hard time changing habits, and they think their ways is the right way. So, I think very few people would switch even when OS X became available on x86. Those who will switch should have switched by this time or they will switch at the next computer purchase regardless of which architecture the OS runs on. Actually they don't even have to switch. Why not have two or more OSes running on different computers at the same time?
I don't know if the post was an observation balloon from Apple, but I hope they don't listen to
Everybody was envious and awe-struck by the beauty and ease of use and the power in NeXTSTEP. Everybody who's ever seen it work wanted it on his desk. But the hardware was prohibitively expensive. So, when they figured out that their hardwares were not selling, they stopped selling the hardware and ported the OS (whatever it was called or however it was capitalized at that time). That should have prompted bunch of nerds jumping to the NeXTSTEP, which never happened.
Things may be different these days, PC hardware may be more or less uniform and easier to support. If *BSDs support certain hardware, they may not have to worry about them. The compiler is gcc which is available for ton of architectures. So, softwares available for OS X/ppc should be available for OS X/x86 easily.
On the other hand, the experience you get from Apple hardware in combination with OS X will not be the same as OS X on x86 hardware. Does anybody notice how this brushed metal look in OS X corresponds to their current displays? Do people honestly believe that OS X would look as nice as on a PowerBook when it is on a Dell/Toshiba laptop?
Also, despite the myth, Apple hardware is not much more expensive than those in the x86 world. Still, they are not selling very well.
Considering the above, I highly doubt that those who said they would switch with a heartbeat will actually switch when OS X became available on the x86 hardware. They may as well complain why they have to pay $150 when Windows comes with the hardware or they can get Linux for free. I'm afraid that the momentum that an OS has on people is so much bigger than one would think.
If you listen to the debate about one button mouse or menubar on top of the screen, it's all about which way they learned first
I'm a diehard OS X convert, from many years of Windows/Linux use. I've been using free OSes since 1996 and I've never found any package management/GUI combination that makes installing and running apps as smooth as OS X. Plus...and I swear to God this is true...the Quartz rendering subsystem renders text better than any other window manager on the planet. Linux can't touch it, and neither can Windows. For somebody who writes and reads on screen an awful lot, that's pretty important.
I *would* switch if Apple ported OS X to x86; I would start buying x86 hardware again. Not for my primary machine -- I'm waaay too happy with my PowerBook for that -- but for my home server and for an XServe render farm...especially now that Logic can use a render farm to handle audio production (of which I do a lot as well).
As for the CPU clock speed argument...you're comparing RISC to CISC architecture. It's not comparable. My 867Mhz G4 is as fast as any 2Ghz Pentium 4, easily.
The new iMac ain't the old; many of the components can be replaced by the user.
:-)
Unfortunately, the same can't be said of the eMac.
And for what it's worth, one of the reasons we got an iMac in the first place (the original style, lime-colored, been with us for 5 years) was because my wife wanted a computer that I couldn't take apart and mess with
Gonna get a new iMac real soon. They're worth every penny, IMHO.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
Have both, Mac OS X interface running on Windows.
Click here for screenshot
running on Windows XP SP2
using:
Stardock's ObjectDock Plus on the bottom to replicate Mac OS X's application bar
Starock's WindowBlinds using the OSXP NG skin to replicate the Mac OS X Aqua window interface
Stardock's WindowFX to replicate the shadows and minimize/maximize animations on Mac OS X
Stardock's IconPackager to replicate some of the system icons from Mac OS X, such as the Trash icon and the default blue folder icon.
It'll be a pleausre to consign my last Windows partition to the scrap heap of history.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
On speed: Having used both OS X and Windows, and having read complaints about the sluggishness of OS X before, I think that the issue is not that OS X is sluggish, but simply that it's programmed to be not as snappy. Apple really likes their pretty animations and fade-in-and-outs, and this all means that the system simply takes its time. This can of course be construed as annoying and wrong, but would likely not change one whit if one were to run OS X on x86.
Well, no, that's not true. The actual OS X GUI, frameworks, and libraries are largely NeXTStep, and that stuff is quite portable and even ran on x86 at some point.
The foundation is NeXTStep, but what about Quartz, Quartz Extreme, ColorSync, CoreAudio, I/O Kit, VecLib, developer tools like Shark? These were all built specifically for Mac OS X on PPC, and that's just naming a few.
Of course, OS X also has Carbon and the backwards compatibility stuff in it and that might be harder to port.
Carbon would be tricky, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as trying to port Classic.
I administer about 200 Macs and 300-400 PCs in the various labs at work.
Give me a Visa, a list of what you need to work, and a few days -- and I can make you an XP PC that's rock solid stable doing what you've told me you want to do. The problem comes when you want to do "other" things with it. You need to retool the system to make it stable doing that. It sucks, but it's job protection for me I guess.
Macs are great because even though you are somewhat limited, it does everything it's supposed to do when it's supposed to do it without having to make it do it.
I dream of the day when Microsoft develops a "Performence" version of Windows that follows the Mac ideology -- limited certified hardware, and damn good support of that hardware.
But, alas, it would be shooting themselves in the head. Just like Apple could never change their model now to go back to an "open" system, Windows would never be successful if they changed to a "closed" one.
In the Mac vs. PC debate I like to refer to the example of two first-time computer users I was helping, who each wanted to get a digital camera to use for eBay photos. They both bought the same camera, boasting support of XP and OSX all over the box.
The PowerBook lady took photos of her kids, plugged in the "funny shaped cable into the only hole it would fit in" and voila a few seconds later her pictures were open on her desktop. She dragged them to her mail icon and her entire address book had new kid photos in about 4 minutes from unpacking it from the box.
The XP user required me to come visit, update the USB core drivers, install camera drivers, reboot a few times, patch this and that, work out a bug, and then finally -- she too could just plug it in and voila there were her photos.
In the end, both systems worked flawlessly and easily for the end user -- but getting there wasn't the same.
When you spend all day "fixing" computers to do what they were supposed to do in the first place, sitting down in front of a Mac that does what it's supposed to do without your help is very liberating.
Software:
Jobs did it in the past, supply Fat Binaries of the software, that run on(yup) multiple architectures(Nextstep ran on PPC and x86, a single application could run on either system.) the same idea would happen hear, keep OS X on ppc, while selling hardware, but supply to developers(in droves, give it away like CANDY to anyone who has taken a CS class, try and flood the market for the new sytem) the x86 system for development of fat binaries.
Port all inhouse software to fat binaries, and let longtime developers get free advanced copies of the OS to develop on, etc.
Userbase:
Have a long developer-only release... lots of beta and make sure that the x86 version is superior to longhorn, and release BEFORE longhorn.
While handing out OS X86(clever, ay?) to developers and creating a buzz, turn your back on piracy. LET the piracy nuts get copies, let them be beta testers and buzz spreaders.
Apple could make the OS source code compatible with many, if not most/all software for porting. They have done it before with Next, it CAN be done.
How would it work? Well, Apple would need to merge towards a software company. Buy a few more pro apps and secure a nitch. Then, Apple would have to strike pre-announcement contracts with atleast 1, if not 2+ OEMs to sell the systems on... IBM and Sony would be the most obvious. Get them to be able to sell systems when the 1.0 gets released.
My Opinion:
Would it work? Iffy, I would say the Jobs could do it if he took both of Apple's feet and dove 100% into the plan. He would completely gamble the companies 4+ billion dollar savings, and maybe survive. I own a 12" powerbook and I think that owning the hardware makes the system better. Yes, it could(maybe) be done. No, I don't think Jobs would do it. Yes, I would support apple if they actually were that gutsy.
The eye candy uses the graphics chip...I have a hard time believing that a system which can run modern games acceptably is going to fall short on those window swooshes.
I think the other poster is right, I think it's just a design issue. Might even be tweakable. You can definitely turn some of that stuff off.
if apple released OS X for x86, at anywhere below $200/copy, I'd buy 4 copies the next day. My 2 laptops, and 2 desktops would be running os X from that day forward, and I'd leave linux on my servers...
the people on here saying this would kill apple's hardware division I don't think are right... I'd buy 4 copies of OS X for x86, but the next machine I buy is still going to be a g5 imac, and the next laptop I buy is still going to be a 12" powerbook (I'm waiting til they fit the g5 into one though)
Apple's hardware is sexy and stylish, that is why I would still buy it (I already own a g4 powerbook), it might be a little expensive, but the g5 imac is very reasonably priced for such a nice looking piece of engineering. This fact alone is why releasing OS X for x86 is not the end of the world for their hardware division. They will pick up a bunch of OS market share, and the die hard mac fans (those 1-2% that have always bought their stuff) will still spend the extra ~$500 for the real apple hardware.
if it had the same trouble-free interaction with hardware that Macs have, or at least that Windows have. My wife doesn't like Linux, and I no longer have time to fuss over it every time I get a new piece of hardware. Going back to Windows would be like trading my car in for a tricycle. A Mac seems like the best option so she can have her slick GUI and I can have my unix CLI geek toys, but we can't justify spending the money, which is really tight. But we might be able to spend a little bit for an OS.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
I have a powerbook 12 inch, and have never so loved a computer since the the Mac 512 my dad brough home nearly 20 years ago. There isnt a x86 based laptop on the market, at any pricepoint, that I would prefer except for the purpose of resale. I would be sad indeed were Apple to turn the design and manufacture of OS X based computers to anyone less exacting. Having written assembly for both PPC and x86, I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the latter architecture. Im also a bit confused by sluggishness that is being reported. My laptop is nearly a year old, with a single 1GHz G4 and 768mb or ram, and is hardly sluggish. Perhaps once every 10 minutes a window shows some lag when opening, or the scaling animation jumps when minimizing something, but thats all-even with TexMaker, Photoshop, XEmacs, MatLab, iTunes, and a half dozen smalller xApps and iApps going. None of the PCs (or Suns) I use perform so well. As for software availability, i really dont think its an issue, unless you are a gamer. I dont have much time for games, and prefer a console anyway. I recall the difficulty in finding decent shareware in the OS 8-9 days, but now I cant think of any software category that doesnt have atleast one elegant solution available. Most basic users' needs are met by apps that ship with the computer, the whole world of Unix apps are availible, and many commercial products are better implemented than their windows counterpart. I suspect that most users, if they had the opportunity to run X as their primary OS for a few weeks-long enough to really see all Apple has put into the user experience, customize it, and make it their own, would find themselves quite reluctant to go back to using their current OS.
Is Quartz some unoptimized piece of garbage? All graphics rendering (either 2D or 3D) is done by accelerated graphics cards these days. Are you saying that Quartz is more computationally intensive than video games like Unreal Tournament which are very responsive?
OS X also has a delay associated with some events, like opening up a new window. This can be configured in the Preferences (change it to zero!), and I think the default setting allows for some significant delay. So, if you're browsing in Finder and you think there's a delay, that could be it.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
Let's all face it, the reason us geeks don't, in general, buy Macs, music on-line, software, or manuals is that we feel this sort of entitlement that we know how to get around so many things and it becomes a fun game. There was that 'secret' BBS that had all the copyprotection hacks for Kings Quest and if you are 'smart', you can use Linux for FREE and don't have to pay the 'Microsoft Tax'.
It has been engrained in us that we don't HAVE to pay because we can figure out how not to and sub-contiously, paying, and especailly OVER-paying is analogous to being a non-tech who has no other choice and so we reject it with all out beings.
So get the hell over yourselves. You know what, the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, and Macs are awesome, 'premium prices' be damned. Take a look at teh 64-bit all-in-one iMac G5 that starts at $1,300 including a gorgeous display. If you've never been to the Apple Store, do yourself a favor and go.
So to answer the question, no, I wouldn't switch because the x86 architecture is a thing of the past living in the present. The best computing experience these days is coming out from Apple and that includes both the software and the hardware.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Mac OS X on x86 does not equal Mac OS X on PowerPC.
Am I missing something here? Any of the applications that runs on top of Mac OS X PowerPC would have to be ported, too. This may not be a substantial effort, however, all of the apps would still need to be recompiled at a minimum. How many would be available at availability? For those thinking that MS Office would be available -- doubt it. You would have to switch office products.
So, unless there is a plan to have all of the great apps that help make an Apple an Apple, there's not much incentive to switch.
I, for one, would love to replace my windows apps that I do use, which are the only ones that keep me using Windows: home movie editing and DVD creation s/w, and, Truepoker.
I still would use Linux, still. But, Windows is a pain because even though I seldom use it, I still have to keep it maintained. So, yes, I would switch MS for Apple, but, not to bare OS for the sake of switching.