# More rotten fruit rippng off OS X



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macaholic - I don't see what is wrong with these products. Apple can't sue them, as they aren't violating anything. They just make an emulator.

However, for CherryOS, I am holding judgement as we still don't know if it actually legit and what speed it really is.

PearPC is just slow and is mostly a proof of concept. It was the first time someone could emulate a PPC on a i486 processor.

I think such an opportunity will actually bring more Mac converts. Why? Because just like MP3s, people will try and they will buy. Those who don't buy, weren't going to buy in the first place.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Why? There's absolutely nothing wrong with emulators running another OS. What do you think Virtual PC is?

No one's ripping off anyone here.. in fact, I think it's pretty dam cool people are actually taking the time to develop an emulator that can run OS X.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Folks, the difference is that, with VirtualPC, _Microsoft gets their license _, and Microsoft is BUILT upon _software_ licensing. Nobody's out anything in that scenario.

Now someday, you'll have guys who use PCs (meaning NO MONEY to Apple) paying a pittance of US$129.00 to Apple for Mac OS X (or, more probably grab it off P2P) that Apple surely sells at a loss-leader because they make their money on HARDWARE REVENUES.

And let's not talk about their awesome Mac-only software running on PCs. iLife? FINAL CUT PRO or Logic Pro (there would be a lot of composer dudes glad to see that one someday).

It's hardware revenues that fuels ALL the innovation at Apple. Give people no reason to buy a Macintosh computer because they can run OS X and all the apps on their PCs, and Apple's revenues will get so bad we'll wish for the good old days of Spindler and Amelio -- iPod or not (which will not be a slam-dunk forever).

It's a long way from these emulators being feasible, but if I were jobs, I'd be seeing it as a slippery slope.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Well, I just don't see it happening. I think it'll be too slow to ever use it in that way. It takes a ton of processing to run iPhoto, etc.. and I doubt they can properly emulate the Mac hardware. For the people that would be running it from Windows, are still running it from Windows.. and I think it's safe to assume it'll be as stable as it always is.. (hint, hint). Then there's the Linux version, sure there will be people to use it on the Linux machines.. but those are the same people who prefer PC hardware and Linux anyway, and wouldn't consider buying a Mac.

The average consumer isn't savvy enough, I don't think, to install and run emulators on their computer, certainly not to the point just so that they could run Mac software.. they're probably happy with their PC and Windows configuration.. there are still a ton of people who hate OS X.

Personally, I love the look of Macs anyway, so I wouldn't just be buying the hardware for the OS, the hardware itself is great.

I think it's kinda cool to be able to emulate OS X on an Xbox, and that's where I'd go with it.. the Xbox is already a great platform for multimedia, and emulating OS X would just be for s**ts and giggles.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Some good points -- but I'd still shut them down if there was a leg to do it with.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

fair 'nuf


----------



## ragging dragons (Sep 13, 2004)

after reading most of the above links I actually think it is a good idea.

"I think such an opportunity will actually bring more Mac converts. Why? Because just like MP3s, people will try and they will buy. Those who don't buy, weren't going to buy in the first place."
yeah or put it this way for someone who likes to be clever enough.. winxp pro on a high-end computer for most games/movies then opening into mac osX emulator to check email..go on internet..etc

a nice hybrid computer or what?









raggingdragon...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

VPC emulates PC hardware and comes with a licensed copy of Windows, MS does not make hardware and got paid for the software in years when it didn't own VPC, so no issues there.

Apple makes the hardware and the software. This emulator will have to also emulate the Apple firmware to boot the OS. By doing so, it will infringe on Apple's copyright of said firmware.

Macaholic will probably get his wish or this is hoaxware.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

That's right.

Bewaaaare the bootwaaare.....


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

Damb, I got real excited thinking this was a full install for the PC, meaning no emulation but a full port of OSX.

They are pretty vague about what machines it can run on, I couldn't find a 'minimum spec' anywhere on the cherry site..

I'll keep an eye for it in the meantime.
_F


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

FWIW, in the Apple-X interview, it sounds like a 3Ghz P4 can emulate OS X like a 900Mhz G4. That doesn't sound like 80% at all.

However, it was the whole "80% of what? Bus speed, processor, etc." comment by the inventor that made me think that the 80% number isn't true.

Time will tell however. I'm still thinking that this will be like positive aspect of MP3s at best, but in all likelihood, the program will be too slow.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

First, it was PearPC. Now, it is "CherryOS"!

http://www.cherryos.com/

More news, screenshots and a brief interview:

http://www.apple-x.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1143&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/10/12/cherryos/index.php

http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=3882

http://www.differentdistrict.com/more.php?id=1843_0_25_0_C

Here's hoping Apple legal sues these ****** back into the stone-age. That goes for PearPC as well.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I for one would love to see the day that I`m free to run the beloved Mac OS on Intel hardware. Think about the benefits of running the Mac OS on Intel Hardare you`re free to upgrade you`re hardware whenever you feel like, you don`t have to wait till Apple decides it`s time for an upgrade, you`ll have choice on the upgrade options and path you want to take. I much prefer to thinker with my computers cpu`s, memory, video cards, some things we can upgrade on a Mac some it`s near impossible because the prices on some items just put them out of reach. I love the Mac but I think that some Hardware changes should be a priority for the Mac. Hopefully this Cherry Emulator will become very popular and Apple will take notice for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.

my .2


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I for one would love to see the day that I`m free to run the beloved Mac OS on Intel hardware.


your beloved mac would cease to exist in short order if people did this en masse.....think about it.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i hope apple can come up with some way of controlling this either through hardware detection or through legal means.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> quote:
> I for one would love to see the day that I`m free to run the beloved Mac OS on Intel hardware.
> your beloved mac would cease to exist in short order if people did this en masse.....think about it.


I don`t think the Mac would cease to exist at all, think about all the people that would trully switch over because they already have the hardware at home, even if Apple charged like Microsoft does for Windows I would happilly buy a copy of OS X and be charged $150.00 for upgrades every few years. Remember that what makes the Mac a Mac is the OS not the hardware an as anybody knows that Apple keeps an internal current build of OS X runnning on Intel Hardware just in case the day comes when they have to release it, I hope that day is soon


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Here's a startling idea...why not simply jack up the price of a copy of OS X? I know I know...Apple won't make enough to cover its R&D costs. Ok...let's do some back of the envelope calculations.

We know that Apple has hardware margins of about 26 percent...so on the lowest end G5 (C$2800) they clear about C$728.

What happens if someone builds their own computer? Well, budget about C$1000 for a mid-range machine without the monitor (which the G5 doesn't have anyways) and then you buy OS X. If Apple could get three people to build their own PC and purchase OS X at a higher price then they could make the same amount of revenues while broadening their market share at the same time.

How much higher can they jack up OS X? Well, Windows XP Pro is being sold at around C$360 at Canada Computers. Let's go with that...current OS X price is about $189...bump that up to C$360...Apple's getting an additional C$171...multiply that by 3 machines and their take increases by C$513 more.

Admittedly, it's not the same profit as with the G5 but it is pretty close.  

Sorry if the above is a bit rough but I'm at work right now and will smooth it out when I get home but I'm sure that most of you can get the gist of it.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

ironmac, it's very easy to pirate os x, it's not so easy to pirate a g5.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Apple's 26% margin is overall. Some machines have high margins, some have basically no margin. Also, while the low end G5 is 2800$ CDN, you have to subtract the 10-13% retail margin before you can calculate Apple's wholesale margin.

Also, Windows XP Pro is 500$ at retail, 360$ OEM. Apple does not sell OEM versions of OS X to the best of my knowledge, so that comparison is not really fair. The fact remains, too, that Apple is a hardware company and not a software company, so at the very least their business practices would change dramatically if they shifted to a licensing scheme.

Its worth pointing out, too, that last time I checked Apple's SEC filings they only posted a profit because of short term investment income. 

Sorry, I'm studying so I feel a might pedantic.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Apple's survives on hardware revenues, not software. I see many hazards that would ensue if they released OS X for use on ANY PC -- essentially becoming a software company (and say, spinning the iPod out as a subsidiary):

For starters, ALL SOFTWARE -- not just current Mac OS/PPC compatible software but also any current Windows-only software whose authors wanted to support the Mac OS platform -- would have to be recoded. PPC emulation within OS X/x86 might be able to help (if Apple developed this capability, of course), but it would still be emulation, which equals "SLOWER". Remember that the Alitvec enhancements that OS X and MANY PPC applications benefit from are on-chip; not within the OS. Given that the Mac OS development community just went through a major transition from Mac OS Classic to OS X, there'd be much blood in the streets if Apple threw down yet another migration gauntlet. So, software selection would be sparse at first. That also means that, as a result, user adaptation would be slow.

As Apple survives on hardware revenues, they have pretty well ZERO copy protection or anti-piracy technologies embedded within their OS and apps. The result is that Mac OS/PPC users do not have to go through the crap Windows users do and OS X is not muddled with this curse. If Apple went x86 (for use on ANY x86 system), they would surely have to implement anti-piracy technologies (because P2P would buzz with it being downloaded), thereby poisoning the awesome Mac OS X experience.

Another curse that would befall the OS platform is the one Microsoft -- and its userbase -- struggles with, regularly: hardware and component driver conflicts. This would FURTHER poison the OS X experience, as it would have to account for the varied components of the PC clone base, whereas with Apple-only hardware the variations of hardware components are much less and much more and manageable for Apple. If this happened, OS X would have a far less chance of being able to “just work”, as has been commented many times throughout the web.

And of course, Microsoft would immediately drop ALL support for Mac OS, discontinuing Office (a death-stroke to the platform), Messenger and WMP (a blessing in disguise -- but these standards are prevalent throughout the computing world and cannot be ignored) and anything else they current release for OS X... just like Linux. Gates would have a monumental ****-fit.

And through all this time, early adopters would be using OS X/x86 on PCs (of which every one of those PCs is a Mac not sold), Apple’s revenues would dry up over the years and they would have to undergo a massive — impossibly massive, I’d say — rebalancing and refocusing of their books, layoff tons of employees, hire a bunch of DIFFERENT employees, and be in for the fight of their lives to attain a substantial, _survivable_ marketshare. Imagine it for a minute: The Windows userbase — NOT PC userbase, but Windows userbase -- is what? Maybe 80% of all personal computers, let’s say, with the balance being possessed by Mac OS and Linux. How much of a share would Apple need to actually flourish as a software/OS company? What’s the rosiest of guesses at a share, given how deeply entrenched Microsoft is? 15% perhaps? Now, add in Linux increasing its market share to say... 10% or 15%. That means that WINDOWS would be reduced to around a 60 – 70% marketshare. I can’t see that happening for a VERY long time (given the support needed for OS X/x86 to gain traction) and Apple will have gone bankrupt LONG before they attain even a 10% share.

Here’s another thing I just thought of: everybody would be dual — or triple — booting into Windows and Linux during all this time, only giving the OS X userbase a very hazy definition to developers. I would suspect that x86 users would HAVE TO still use Windows... Which would lesson the priority to port to OS X/x86 for the developers... Which would further hinder OS X/x86’s adoption... Which would further hinder porting by the software makers etc. etc. etc... And Apple would get poorer and poorer.

Now, one may accuse me of being negative or alarmist about this, but I think that the notion of Apple becoming “Applesoft” is far more complicated and FAR MORE RISKY to be successful at than most people think. And, it’s mostly for ALL THE REASONS that have nothing to do with OS X itself and more to do with just how things work out there. This is a classic pipe-dream that will never come true. The closest it would ever come is Apple using x86 processors and STILL have a proprietary boot ROM that made OS X/x86 ONLY run on their hardware... Which is NOT the solution everybody wants. We already have it that way and those who don't see the advantages of what the Mac platform is all about don’t like it anyway.

And besides, Steve Jobs would HATE IT and leave and that would kill Apple, too. ALL of this would kill off the very things OS X users love about the platform. And for what? A $3-500 savings on your hardware? Factor into the Windows user experience the cost of security, data loss and downtime and see how the two platforms tally up.

My $2.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

I'd just like to point out that having OS X on Intel is not giving one the freedom to simply upgrade.

The multitude of hardware availabel on PCs has not been (nor will it really ever be) tested with OS X, even one in emulation.

So if something doesn't work right. Tough.

Personally, I like the ease of use of a Mac. As for the variety, it is never going to be as wide as with the PC, but it's comfortable. And it will only get better.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Macaholic good points one and all, but I'm still not convinced, Apple makes a kick ass OS. The fact that Microsoft makes 100% of there revenues from software and Apple's software is infinetely superior to Microsoft's there should not be a reason why Apple can't make good money on software alone. I don't buy Apple for the hardware I buy it for the OS, I've never been impressed with Apple's hardware I don't know why people are so gung-ho on they're hardware beacuse it's the OS that shines in my opinion.

[ October 13, 2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: K_OS ]


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I'm still not convinced Apple makes a kick ass OS.





> it's the OS that shines in my opinion.


so which is it?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

K_OS said:



> The fact that Microsoft makes 100% of there revenues from software and Apple's software is infinitely superior to Microsoft's there should not be a reason why Apple can't make good money on software alone.


VHS vs BETA

McDonalds vs your favorite local burger joint

Pizza Pizza vs your favorite local pizza joint

Brittany Spears vs Mozart

In all the above examples, the former is more successful, and yet the latter is of better quality. Obviously, there is more to success than quality. You're being way too simplistic in your reasoning. Meanwhile, the masses eat their crap, none the wiser, and the world keeps on turning: http://news.com.com/Microsoft+warns+of+22+new+security+flaws/2100-1002_3-5406550.html

[ October 14, 2004, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

*VHS vs BETA*</p>

Why VHS was better than Betamax</p><blockquote>

The point is that when someone buys and uses a product, the technological aspects are a small and often uninteresting part of the decision. When you choose compact cassette, you are also buying into a vast infrastructure of capabilities, services and support. These include the availability of cheap cassettes on every high street, cheap personal stereos, and the ability to use the same format for a wide range of applications (personal stereo, portable radio/cassette players, in the car, in your hi-fi stack). [...]</p>

"The whole product" model also provided a convincing explanation of why VHS had thrashed Betamax. VHS offered a bigger choice of hardware at lower cost, the tapes were cheaper and more easily available, there were a lot more movies to rent, and so on. All of this matched my own experience. [...]</p>

Later I found out that Betamax had owned the market, but lost it because Sony got one simple decision wrong. It chose to make smaller, neater tapes that lasted for an hour, whereas the VHS manufacturers used basically the same technology with a bulkier tape that lasted two hours. Instead of poring over the sound and picture quality, reviewers could simply have taken the systems home. Their spouses, children, grandparents and everybody else would quickly have told them the truth. "We're going out tonight and I want to record a movie. That Betamax tape is useless: it isn't long enough. Get rid of it."</p></blockquote>


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Re: OS X on x86 hardware

I'd imagine that porting software from OS X/PPC to OS X/x86 would be far easier than porting software from OS 9 to OS X. I'd imagine that a simple recompile for x86 hardware is all that would be needed in most cases, and that endian issues would be the major issue otherwise.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

tmr:



> ironmac, it's very easy to pirate os x, it's not so easy to pirate a g5.


If you think that Apple would lose out because of the ease in pirating OS X then by that same logic Microsoft should have gone out of business LONG ago.

PosterBoy:



> Also, Windows XP Pro is 500$ at retail, 360$ OEM. Apple does not sell OEM versions of OS X to the best of my knowledge, so that comparison is not really fair. The fact remains, too, that Apple is a hardware company and not a software company, so at the very least their business practices would change dramatically if they shifted to a licensing scheme.


Sorry, CanadaComputers was selling XP Pro last year and earlier this year at $365 or so..and it was not the OEM version. Their price has now gone up to $460.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macaholic...your post deserves its very own IronMac counterpost!  

So, let's wade in!




> For starters, ALL SOFTWARE -- not just current Mac OS/PPC compatible software but also any current Windows-only software whose authors wanted to support the Mac OS platform -- would have to be recoded. PPC emulation within OS X/x86 might be able to help (if Apple developed this capability, of course), but it would still be emulation, which equals "SLOWER". Remember that the Alitvec enhancements that OS X and MANY PPC applications benefit from are on-chip; not within the OS. Given that the Mac OS development community just went through a major transition from Mac OS Classic to OS X, there'd be much blood in the streets if Apple threw down yet another migration gauntlet. So, software selection would be sparse at first. That also means that, as a result, user adaptation would be slow.


No argument there that programs would have to be recompiled for OS X but it will be a choice for those developers who want to tap into the market. If that market was actually growing then there'd be an incentive for those developers to recompile. Mais non?
It's a chicken and egg quandry!
And, besides, at least there would be a choice for people to move onto the OS X platform rather than looking at it as something that's much too expensive *and* has too few programs!











> As Apple survives on hardware revenues, they have pretty well ZERO copy protection or anti-piracy technologies embedded within their OS and apps. The result is that Mac OS/PPC users do not have to go through the crap Windows users do and OS X is not muddled with this curse. If Apple went x86 (for use on ANY x86 system), they would surely have to implement anti-piracy technologies (because P2P would buzz with it being downloaded), thereby poisoning the awesome Mac OS X experience.


How badly does anti-piracy technologies poison the Windows experience? Doesn't our machines call in to the mothership every once in a while for something called "Software Update"?
A more important question might be (emphasis on that) what level of piracy can Apple take in return for a higher market share?



> Another curse that would befall the OS platform is the one Microsoft -- and its userbase -- struggles with, regularly: hardware and component driver conflicts. This would FURTHER poison the OS X experience, as it would have to account for the varied components of the PC clone base, whereas with Apple-only hardware the variations of hardware components are much less and much more and manageable for Apple. If this happened, OS X would have a far less chance of being able to “just work”, as has been commented many times throughout the web.


Apple-only hardware? I suggest you look to your own machine and tell me how much of the hardware comes directly from Apple.  

Yes, the Wintel world does have to struggle with driver conflicts but let's look at what an Apple computer really has that makes it an Apple. The list is pretty short...it's only the boot ROM.

I don't see it being an insurmountable task in testing hardware and listing it on the Apple site as "OS X-compatible". Apple does not have to say that ALL hardware is OS X-compatible, it can pick and choose.



> And of course, Microsoft would immediately drop ALL support for Mac OS, discontinuing Office (a death-stroke to the platform), Messenger and WMP (a blessing in disguise -- but these standards are prevalent throughout the computing world and cannot be ignored) and anything else they current release for OS X... just like Linux. Gates would have a monumental ****-fit.


In view of Microsoft's problems with something called "anti-trust" I very much doubt that it will drop all support for the Mac OS. Doing so will not only tick off the lawyers but show consumers everywhere that Windows simply can't compete with OS X.

In any case, an expanding customer base will only lure more developers who can bring forth pseudo-Office, messenger (ICQ anyone?), and video players.



> And through all this time, early adopters would be using OS X/x86 on PCs (of which every one of those PCs is a Mac not sold), Apple’s revenues would dry up over the years and they would have to undergo a massive — impossibly massive, I’d say — rebalancing and refocusing of their books, layoff tons of employees, hire a bunch of DIFFERENT employees, and be in for the fight of their lives to attain a substantial, survivable marketshare. Imagine it for a minute: The Windows userbase — NOT PC userbase, but Windows userbase -- is what? Maybe 80% of all personal computers, let’s say, with the balance being possessed by Mac OS and Linux. How much of a share would Apple need to actually flourish as a software/OS company? What’s the rosiest of guesses at a share, given how deeply entrenched Microsoft is? 15% perhaps? Now, add in Linux increasing its market share to say... 10% or 15%. That means that WINDOWS would be reduced to around a 60 – 70% marketshare. I can’t see that happening for a VERY long time (given the support needed for OS X/x86 to gain traction) and Apple will have gone bankrupt LONG before they attain even a 10% share.


I agree wholeheartedly that it would be a very different world for Apple if it were to go the OS X on X86 route. But your scenario envisions Apple dropping all hardware sales and ignoring the real possiblity of it selling its OS on a price similar to that of XP Pro ($460 at CanadaComputers).

What would happen if Apple still sold its hardware (albeit at a lower price-thank goodness!!!-because it's on X86 processors) and offered its OS to those who want to build their own? Will market share go up or down? From the current trendlines it's only going downhill.



> Here’s another thing I just thought of: everybody would be dual — or triple — booting into Windows and Linux during all this time, only giving the OS X userbase a very hazy definition to developers. I would suspect that x86 users would HAVE TO still use Windows... Which would lesson the priority to port to OS X/x86 for the developers... Which would further hinder OS X/x86’s adoption... Which would further hinder porting by the software makers etc. etc. etc... And Apple would get poorer and poorer.


No no no...how many regular or even hardcore Windows users dual boot? The real point is to give users a choice that will give them real value.

Is Windows real value? Get real! (no pun intended)

Is Apple real value? NO. Apple is not about choice..Apple is about locking yourself into what Jobs believes your computing experience should be while being financially milked so that he can build what your next upgrade will be which you will be paying for again.



> Now, one may accuse me of being negative or alarmist about this, but I think that the notion of Apple becoming “Applesoft” is far more complicated and FAR MORE RISKY to be successful at than most people think. And, it’s mostly for ALL THE REASONS that have nothing to do with OS X itself and more to do with just how things work out there. This is a classic pipe-dream that will never come true. The closest it would ever come is Apple using x86 processors and STILL have a proprietary boot ROM that made OS X/x86 ONLY run on their hardware... Which is NOT the solution everybody wants. We already have it that way and those who don't see the advantages of what the Mac platform is all about don’t like it anyway.


* Who dares wins *




> And besides, Steve Jobs would HATE IT and leave and that would kill Apple, too. ALL of this would kill off the very things OS X users love about the platform. And for what? A $3-500 savings on your hardware? Factor into the Windows user experience the cost of security, data loss and downtime and see how the two platforms tally up.


LOL...if Jobs leaves, then Apple dies? I hope he's immortal then! LOL!

Don't be too quick to poo-poo the hardware savings because for some people $3-500 can make the difference in which computer to go with. I mean, who wouldn't want to throw together a homebrew PC for a grand...buy OS X for $XXX and have a great computer that's fast and "simply works"? As you point out, factor in the cost of security, data loss and downtime and tell me that OS X on X86 does not translate into *real* value for consumers.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> If you think that Apple would lose out because of the ease in pirating OS X then by that same logic Microsoft should have gone out of business LONG ago.


you're conveniently forgetting about OEM sales (i did too until somebody else brought it up)

i think this is where Microsoft makes the bullk of its Windows money.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

OEM sales...yeah, it's a sticky and ugly topic when it comes to licensing and clones. I'm actually an Apple switcher by way of PowerComputing (I was an Apple IIe owner.).

You would not believe how much I saved by purchasing a Powercenter 150 rather than a 7500/100.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

let`s for a minute imagine that you could run OS X on x86 hardware. According to the Apple store the high end Power Mac G5 costs 4200.00 the following is what you could buy at a local PC shop for 4200.00.

150.00=for a very nice ATX case
350.00=for a Asus P5AD2 motherboard
600.00=P4-560 3.6ghz CPU
1125.00=3gb DDR2
306.00= 2x200gb sata drives for level 1 raid array
798.00=Asus EAX800XT video card 256mb DDR
118.00=LiteON 16x DVD-RW dual layer
69.00=Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse combo
460.00= OS X if Apple matched Microsoft`s price
------
3976.00

Just to note that the above system is bleeding edge and it still came in under the G5`s price, again I buy macs for the OS not there hardware.









PS: if you took out 2gb of ram, the EAX800xt replaced it with a EAX600XT, pulled one of the 200GB drives, pulled the 16x dvd burner replaced it with a cheap LG, took out the Logitech and replaced it with a cheap mouse and keyboard then the price would come down enough to even match the cheapest G5 at the Apple Store.

[ October 14, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: K_OS ]


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

> Macaholic...your post deserves its very own IronMac counterpost! So, let's wade in!


I'll shant discuss it much further. I've back-slid enough already











> No argument there that programs would have to be recompiled for OS X but it will be a choice for those developers who want to tap into the market. If that market was actually growing then there'd be an incentive for those developers to recompile. Mais non? It's a chicken and egg quandry!


You got a feasible time schedule on that? How many Win 95-WinXP licenses does Microsoft have out there? 250,000,000 or so? How much of that must Apple claim before the software industry ports ENOUGH over to further adoption of OS X/x86? Who adopts OS X/x86, first? The geeks. The geek user-base is miniscule in comparison to the Masses, and Microsoft OWNS the minds of the masses like no other entity since Adolph Hitler. Perception is reality, and the masses follow perception like a herd of sheep. It would NOT be an easy task for Apple.



> How badly does anti-piracy technologies poison the Windows experience? Doesn't our machines call in to the mothership every once in a while for something called "Software Update"?


Given the fact that there is no anti-piracy -- and that 'Software Update" is completely irrelevant to the argument -- I'd say that NO anti-piracy is better than ANY anti-piracy. I resent being asked "Is this copy of Windows legal?" every time I cruise by XP's Help menu. Registration of the OS is a hassle. The OS is known to make odd, spontaneous connections to the web... or, is that spyware -- another way that the OS X/x86 experience would be poisoned IF it gained enough traction. Finally, antipiracy is going to get more entrenched and intrusive with Longhorn. That is a future I for one DO NOT WANT for Mac OS X.

As for viruses on OS X, the likelihood would definitely increase if it was on a platform as vast as the x86. Another crack in the illusory mirror of OS X/x86.



> A more important question might be (emphasis on that) what level of piracy can Apple take in return for a higher market share?


No one -- not even YOU, Ironmac -- can promise a favourable scenario of that to Apple, and it would be foolish for Apple to try and find out.



> Apple-only hardware? I suggest you look to your own machine and tell me how much of the hardware comes directly from Apple.


I suggest you ask me how carefully I research my upgrade choices. EG: Am I using a flashed Sony DVDRW, or something? NO. Am I using a Pioneer DVDRW that is Apple-endosed? YES. How long has Seagate drives been used in a Mac? Over a decade. And Motorola CPUs? *EVERYTHING WENT IN WITH ZERO CONFIG AND REBOOTED THE FIRST TIME.*'Nuff said.



> Yes, the Wintel world does have to struggle with driver conflicts but let's look at what an Apple computer really has that makes it an Apple. The list is pretty short...it's only the boot ROM.


No it is not. it is also the fact that OS X is TUNED TO the components Apple selects for its hardware: ATI, Invidea (not licensed GPUs of theirs sold by others with altered ROM), a PARTICULAR NIC card onboard, particular drivers throughout the architecture etc. etc. etc.[/quote]



> I don't see it being an insurmountable task in testing hardware and listing it on the Apple site as "OS X-compatible".


It wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be time-consuming and expensive. I would rather Apple spend that money on reducing prices, increasing (good) marketing -- AND on Tiger, iPod v.5, G5 Powermac @ 3.2GHz, and further refinements and bug fixes on iLife, thanks.



> Apple does not have to say that ALL hardware is OS X-compatible, it can pick and choose.


Which would only feed into the belief that Apple is proprietary. Certainly, it would be conceived as being limiting -- and a hassle to the incumbent userbase... *US*.



> In view of Microsoft's problems with something called "anti-trust" I very much doubt that it will drop all support for the Mac OS. Doing so will not only tick off the lawyers but show consumers everywhere that Windows simply can't compete with OS X.


Regardless, I wouldn't trust MS as far as I could toss Ballmer. As it is now, we don't have MS Access; a critical application in the corporate enterprise market, and I'll guarantee you MS wouldn't port THAt to OSX/x86. Just how big an uphill battle do you want Apple to fight, here? Also, someone else mentioned MS's crown jewel: *Windows OEM licences*. Do you see Apple being able to unseat Microsoft in this aspect to sufficiently gain traction? How much can they get? How long will that take? And, how much Apple will there be left by the time they get there?



> I agree wholeheartedly that it would be a very different world for Apple if it were to go the OS X on X86 route. But your scenario envisions Apple dropping all hardware sales and ignoring the real possibility of it selling its OS on a price similar to that of XP Pro ($460 at CanadaComputers). What would happen if Apple still sold its hardware (albeit at a lower price-thank goodness!!!-because it's on X86 processors) and offered its OS to those who want to build their own? Will market share go up or down? From the current trendlines it's only going downhill.


My scenario indeed includes the notion of Apple's critical hardware revenues pouring through the floor. If Apple tried to compete with the bread-and-butter commodity PC market, only further SHOCK AND AWE would be served up to them and it would be painful. As a matter of fact, your suggestion prompts me to point out that, despite Dell selling nothing different than all the other PC makers sell, it is HOW they have done it -- including rock-bottom prices -- that has been their success; NOT that they offer the PC using world anything technologically earth shattering. Dell is the bar, and it would be an extremely difficult one for Apple to attain -- as has been shown by the competition. And Big Blue? Entrenched in the corporate world -- and yet, even there Dell is increasingly winning. Dell wins on volume. It would take YEARS AND YEARS for Apple to get there, if they could get there at all.



> No no no...how many regular or even hardcore Windows users dual boot? The real point is to give users a choice that will give them real value.


Do you think about what you type before you type it? Windows is a continuing success BECAUSE it already has the choice of software and infrastructure support that it has! people will NOT select another "choice" if there's insufficient software for it. Linux has already shown us that. It's a "FREE" OPTION. And yet, in concert with its difficultly to use, it is insufficient to serve a wide userbase on the desktop.



> Is Windows real value? Get real! (no pun intended)


Not in the big picture. It's a bad joke played on millions of hapless ignoramuses, thanks to Apple's mistakes made a LONG time ago. But that's another thread altogether.



> Is Apple real value? NO. Apple is not about choice..Apple is about locking yourself into what Jobs believes your computing experience should be while being financially milked so that he can build what your next upgrade will be which you will be paying for again.


Define "value". Monetary value? IS the quality of the user experience valuable? How about productivity and dependability? How about TWENTY-TWO new security issues announced in Win XP this week? What value is there in NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT?



> Who dares wins


Can you promise that? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.



> LOL...if Jobs leaves, then Apple dies? I hope he's immortal then! LOL!


i knew it was a weak point as I was writing it. Essentially, it's also irrelevant, as Apple will never release OSX/x86 for use on ANY PC, anyways.

As for Jobs, he obviously is not immortal and a successor will have to eventually be (CAREFULLY) selected (I vote Jonathan Ive. he needs work, but he's got the Vision Thing™ down and is surely learning every day about it from Jobs). My point i that, if he was ever out-voted somehow and was forced to go through all of this hell to nurture the OS X/x86 platform... he'd resign. he can afford to do it, and he'd probably have more fun ruling Disneyworld by comparison.



> Don't be too quick to poo-poo the hardware savings because for some people $3-500 can make the difference in which computer to go with. I mean, who wouldn't want to throw together a homebrew PC for a grand


_"Excuse me, all you PC users around the world. How many of you BUILD your own PC, versus buying one pre-assembled and bundled? Hands please? *...crickets...* Thank you. I thought so."_

PC dweebs are the minority. The niche within the gargantuan commodity PC market. There are probably less DIY PC guys in this world than there are all the mac users in the world.



> ...buy OS X for $XXX and have a great computer that's fast and "simply works"? As you point out, factor in the cost of security, data loss and downtime and tell me that OS X on X86 does not translate into real value for consumers.


You don't get it. *IF* Apple survived long enough to gain such matketshare, OS X/x86 WOULD BE TARGETED LIKE WINDOWS IS, and I don't care to find out how robust Apple's security is with hordes of asshole virus writers banging on the doors. Meanwhile, Apple could DOUBLE its installed base over five to seven years, be healthier than ever and STILL not register on the virus author's radar. No, which dream do you people out there prefer: the dream of OS X/x86 being as BIG as Microsoft and targeted like Microsoft, with all the thankless tasks of PC hardware support they have to contend with and all the anti-piracy that must be dealt with... or, the dream of 50,000,000 Mac users? I choose to dream the latter. I would rather Apple sustain multiple quarterly losses by entering a price and marketing war across the hardware divide for two years in order to increase installed base than them give away -- or rather destroy -- their crown jewels and the advantages inherent within their "entire widget" approach. The time now is more right than ever for Apple to PUSH HARD. The iPod is a strong calling card to the masses, and tolerance and confidence in Windows has never been lower. But, Microsoft still OWNS the dominant MIND-SHARE. There is certainly A LOT OF RUST to chip through the minds of the masses to get that saving some money ONE DAY buying a cheapo PC is negated by the hassles of the platform, versus paying a slightly higher price for "QUALITY AND PEACE-OF-MIND COMPUTING" ($3-500.00 was a ballpark. eMacs are cheaper and NOBODY gets out of Dell's doors at $500.00. NOBODY)

That's all I have to say, guys. Time to move on.


----------



## farfisa (Nov 5, 2003)

So Macaholic--I guess the leish is off, eh?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> So Macaholic--I guess the leish is off, eh?


LOL...that reminds me of a dog I once had...he would grab the leash and take off and we would end up chasing him for hours and hours around the neighbourhood.  

I'll come back to this when I have some more time but suffice it to say that I don't believe that a proprietary architecture and OS is the only plausible scenario.


----------



## howing (Nov 14, 2003)

there is absolutely no reason why Apple shouldn't hire you, Macoholic.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

K_OS, with that much to spend, why on earth would you buy a P4?? I would definately go for a 64bit AMD chip.. those machines are blazing fast!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> i knew it was a weak point as I was writing it. Essentially, it's also irrelevant, as Apple will never release OSX/x86 for use on ANY PC, anyways.


So why does Apple keep an internal X86 build of OS X up to par with the current PPC one?



> K_OS, with that much to spend, why on earth would you buy a P4?? I would definately go for a 64bit AMD chip.. those machines are blazing fast!


Just for the fact that was the most expensive CPU that I saw at the moment but since this is about choice you could still get the AMD64 and still come out ahead of the G5.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> So why does Apple keep an internal X86 build of OS X up to par with the current PPC one?


this keeps coming up not just here but on all mac forums. can anyone substantiate this or is it just a rumour?

my apologies if it is rooted in fact.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

There is a freely available x86 build of Darwin available, but can anybody confirm that Aqua is also built for x86?

NeXTSTEP was available for x86, but obviously the bits of Mac OS that Apple carried forward from MacOS 9.x and earlier would not have existed on x86.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Have fun trying to substantiate the two year old rumor, K_OS









http://www.google.com/search?q=OS+X,+marklar&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was maintaining an x86 version of OS X -- but I wouldn't expect they're maintaining driver support, have performed comprehensive hardware testing, nor assume they have any PPC emulation happening (look how "nowhere" pearPC and this CherryPC is). I would suspect that, given the rocky road Apple has experienced with Motorola and you never know what the future holds in terms of the PPC processor scene in general, I;d say that it would be wise of Apple to keep the x86 option open to them. but I STILL believe that it would be restricted to Apple branded hardware via some kind of proprietary boot ROM or something...

which makes me now ponder the unpleasant scenario of Apple having to maintain support for TWO computer platforms throughout an approximate five year userbase migration to x86. Think about it: if they released OS X/x86, there would still be millions of G3/4/5 systems out there requiring continued support and improvements. Now, you guys want to add x86 on top of it??!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

For what it's worth:</p><blockquote>

Bonus with the AMD is that I've actually seen OS X "Marklar" run on it with my own eyes.</p>

Dunno now if Steve will ever let it out into the wild, but hey.</p></blockquote>


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

It definitely would have been in Steve's best interest to have the OS X development be mirrored on x86 in the event that the partnership with Motorola had broken down. I don't think this would be an issue with IBM now, but who knows? Maybe they still are doing development on both platforms.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

jfpoole, i know you offered it with a grain of salt but i don't think that proves anything. i don't know who 'tadster' is or what business he'd have in the inner sanctum of apple computer.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Let's look at Macaholic's points once again:



> You got a feasible time schedule on that? How many Win 95-WinXP licenses does Microsoft have out there? 250,000,000 or so? How much of that must Apple claim before the software industry ports ENOUGH over to further adoption of OS X/x86? Who adopts OS X/x86, first? The geeks. The geek user-base is miniscule in comparison to the Masses, and Microsoft OWNS the minds of the masses like no other entity since Adolph Hitler. Perception is reality, and the masses follow perception like a herd of sheep. It would NOT be an easy task for Apple.


No, I do not have a timetable on how long it would take for Apple to win over Wintel converts but at the moment is it really doing so? How long will it take to gain a substantial share?

The point that we all agree upon is that Apple needs to increase share (or do we?). The question is how.



> I'd say that NO anti-piracy is better than ANY anti-piracy. I resent being asked "Is this copy of Windows legal?" every time I cruise by XP's Help menu. Registration of the OS is a hassle. The OS is known to make odd, spontaneous connections to the web... or, is that spyware -- another way that the OS X/x86 experience would be poisoned IF it gained enough traction.


You're letting your experience with Windows' anti-piracy solutions cloud your judgement here. I'm pretty sure that Apple is capable of a more elegant solution. Or are you saying that the Music Store is a fluke?




> As for viruses on OS X, the likelihood would definitely increase if it was on a platform as vast as the x86. Another crack in the illusory mirror of OS X/x86.


Oh really? So, the very *prospect* of more viruses means that Apple should stay with a smaller market share? That's ludicrous!


As for piracy:



> No one -- not even YOU, Ironmac -- can promise a favourable scenario of that to Apple, and it would be foolish for Apple to try and find out.


That doesn't ask the question. Microsoft has actually gotten a VERY favourable scenario hasn't it?

As for hardware:

You're making it out to be a much more difficult task to ensure that hardware works with OS X/X86. For one thing, Apple does not necessarily have to certify the products as being compatible. The companies themselves can move towards doing so.

As for:



> . it is also the fact that OS X is TUNED TO the components Apple selects for its hardware


Uh no...it's not. The drivers have to account for what the product is not that the OS itself is "tuned" for the hardware.



> It wouldn't be insurmountable, but it would be time-consuming and expensive. I would rather Apple spend that money on reducing prices, increasing (good) marketing -- AND on Tiger, iPod v.5, G5 Powermac @ 3.2GHz, and further refinements and bug fixes on iLife, thanks.


Again, you're thinking that it's Apple that would have to do all of the testing. There's always the possibility that the companies themselves can do...these are not small companies either..Sony, Pioneer, ATI, etc.

And if you think that Apple would divert that money towards lowering prices...that's a laugh.

As for anti-trust and Microsoft:



> As it is now, we don't have MS Access; a critical application in the corporate enterprise market, and I'll guarantee you MS wouldn't port THAt to OSX/x86.


Let me ask you this..will MS EVER port it over? Think on that.

OEM Licenses:



> Also, someone else mentioned MS's crown jewel: Windows OEM licences. Do you see Apple being able to unseat Microsoft in this aspect to sufficiently gain traction? How much can they get? How long will that take? And, how much Apple will there be left by the time they get there?


How much does Apple get now? I don't see it being mentioned (prominently or otherwise) in any press releases or conference calls.

A different world:



> My scenario indeed includes the notion of Apple's critical hardware revenues pouring through the floor. If Apple tried to compete with the bread-and-butter commodity PC market, only further SHOCK AND AWE would be served up to them and it would be painful. As a matter of fact, your suggestion prompts me to point out that, despite Dell selling nothing different than all the other PC makers sell, it is HOW they have done it -- including rock-bottom prices -- that has been their success; NOT that they offer the PC using world anything technologically earth shattering. Dell is the bar, and it would be an extremely difficult one for Apple to attain -- as has been shown by the competition. And Big Blue? Entrenched in the corporate world -- and yet, even there Dell is increasingly winning. Dell wins on volume. It would take YEARS AND YEARS for Apple to get there, if they could get there at all.


I'm only pointing out that your scenario of Apple dropping all hardware sales was not brought up by anybody in this thread. And I am going to point out, once again, that trendlines (supported by the above Dell statement) points to a downhill slope for Macs.

On value:



> Define "value". Monetary value? IS the quality of the user experience valuable? How about productivity and dependability? How about TWENTY-TWO new security issues announced in Win XP this week? What value is there in NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT?


You're exaggerating here. Just because there are security issues does not mean that the average user will be affected. As I and others have pointed out, people can and do have relatively trouble-free Windows computing experiences.

Breaking off onto a tangent and using your logic...let's say that Windows has 20 times the marketshare OS X has...wouldn't that mean that there are about 20x the number of virus writers? So, if MS announces 20 security issues this week...and Apple issues 1...then, it's on par, no?

On homebrew computers:

At $1500, you don't have to be a dweeb and build your own computer.


On viruses and your logic:



> You don't get it. IF Apple survived long enough to gain such matketshare, OS X/x86 WOULD BE TARGETED LIKE WINDOWS IS, and I don't care to find out how robust Apple's security is with hordes of asshole virus writers banging on the doors. Meanwhile, Apple could DOUBLE its installed base over five to seven years, be healthier than ever and STILL not register on the virus author's radar.


Ok, so...if Apple doubled its marketshare (we still haven't decided how much Apple can get if it was OS X/X86) how many virus writers will there be?

I mean, let's say OS X/X86 were to triple Apple's current installed base will there be 150 viruses (currently I think there might be 50 or so...but, I'm probably wrong)? If it's just 150...I'd TAKE that risk anyday!

Or, are you going to tell us that the number will grow exponentially?


From what I can tell, your whole argument is based on nothing more than FUD about piracy and viruses. I think that's badly underestimating a company who has made a success out of selling music online and who has developed an OS that's almost immune to viruses.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

So many points, Ironmac, and I'm trying to wind down my activity, here (partially because i know we'll probably never agree on this). But:



> No, I do not have a timetable on how long it would take for Apple to win over Wintel converts but at the moment is it really doing so? How long will it take to gain a substantial share?


The difference today is that Apple IS making money, and not even counting the iPod and in spite of IBM's screwed up supply efforts, Apple has been reporting quarter-over-quarter-after-quarter increases in computer sales. they're small, but they're heading in the right direction.



> The point that we all agree upon is that Apple needs to increase share (or do we?). The question is how.


Even though you laughed at my thought about them lowering prices, they HAVE been doing so over the years, Ironmac. Regardless, if my proposal to further lower them sounds hilarious, it is no more hilarious than the notion of "Apple Computer" becoming "Applesoft". You have your pipe dream; I have mine.



> You're letting your experience with Windows' anti-piracy solutions cloud your judgement here. I'm pretty sure that Apple is capable of a more elegant solution. Or are you saying that the Music Store is a fluke?


A FLUKE?? Get real. I'm in no way suggesting that. I KNOW that their expertise in application and UI design is _the very thing_ -- or rather, one of many things -- that makes using a Mac more enjoyable. But, it's a biggie. basically, not having anti-piracy technologies of any kind to content with makes the overall user experience better. And, I think we can all agree that, given Microsoft's huge installed base, and given their dependency on their revenues from Windows, Longhorn has MORE to come. Apparently, Microsoft feels that they don't quite have it right yet.



> Oh really? So, the very prospect of more viruses means that Apple should stay with a smaller market share? That's ludicrous!


*NO!* I'm not saying that at all. When I mentioned that this is "Another crack in the illusory mirror of OS X/x86", I meant that people wishing for OS X/x86 don't think of the ramifications of OS X being used on a massive scale. That has NOTHING to do with the notion of Apple not _trying_ to increase marketshare. As you said, it's a matter of HOW. Regardless, the reality is that Apple won't do it, except by maintaining a proprietary control over which hardware it runs on, and that if they are able to increase marketshare while maintaining proprietary control, it would probably never be more than double (or thereabouts... say 12%) of the userbase. That would be A BOON for Apple, a BOON for the platform, and yet Apple would not be giving away the crown jewels and the platform wouldn't be so big as to draw the attention of the evildoers. To me, that is the reality of it. Now, WILL Apple attain such a hold? Who knows? if they did expand, how far could they go? Who knows?



> Microsoft has actually gotten a VERY favourable scenario hasn't it?


To assume that Apple will usurp Microsoft if they went x86 is insane. I'm sorry, but history shows Apple dealt themselves the hand they've been given, thanks to their actions back in the 1980's. I don't see Apple, Linux or anybody else reducing the Windows' share to single digit proportions. The WORST I can imagine MS dropping to is perhaps 60%. And the piece of the remaining 40% that Apple might attain would be insufficient for it to survive a turnaround. They could probably survive AT THAT percentage of say... 25%, but they would not survive GETTING THERE, IM(not so)HO.



> The drivers have to account for what the product is not that the OS itself is "tuned" for the hardware. you're thinking that it's Apple that would have to do all of the testing. There's always the possibility that the companies themselves can do...these are not small companies either..Sony, Pioneer, ATI, etc.


You know what? Whether it's Apple or (more typically) the OEMs, _[SOMEONE_ would have to do all that. How many "makers" or rebranded ATI GPUs code drivers for the Mac platform? Despite ATI-branded Mac cards have Mac-specific ROMs, some PC versions can be flashed. Regardless of this, how many of those ATI rebranders would even bother procuring mac-specific GPUs and rebranding THOSE for sale? Too many open questions, and OEMs won't bother with the OSX/x86 unless it will make them money. if the OS X/x86 market is small, will they bother. If they don't, how can the OS X/x86 market grow. The chicken and than damned egg -- AGAIN!  



> Let me ask you this..will MS EVER port it (Access) over? Think on that.


I'm surprised you missed the point on that one. The point is that, in order for Applesoft to be successful with OS X/x86, they would need a MASSIVE increase in marketshare compared to what they currently hold as Apple Computer. In order for that to occur, they would need WIDESPREAD victories in corporate contracts. That doesn't happen right now for a variety of reasons, and WOULD NOT happen if OS X/x86 didn't have Access.

[quote}How much does Apple get now (OS X OEM licenses)? I don't see it being mentioned (prominently or otherwise) in any press releases or conference calls.


> They sometimes report on after-sale OS and software sales. So far, the report I have read about this week's report only mentioned total software sales at THEIR retail and online stores. it is all basically secondary, however, because -- as I am trying to POINT OUT -- Apple lives on hardware revenues.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> Have fun trying to substantiate the two year old rumor, K_OS


HMMM I`ve seen copies of Darwin running on X86 how difficult would it be to make Aqua run on X86 since it`s partially based on OpenGL?



> Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was maintaining an x86 version of OS X -- but I wouldn't expect they're maintaining driver support


Driver Support I`m sure would not happen overnight but with hardware vendors looking to increase market share I`m sure that the likes of Nvidia and ATI would get something out quickly, also OS X is based on BSD and Unix some of these drivers already exist.



> but I STILL believe that it would be restricted to Apple branded hardware via some kind of proprietary boot ROM or something...


wich brings me to another tought Apple could easily make money on selling Macintosh Boot ROM`s to the motherboard manufacturers, if it ran the Mac OS I would gladly pay an extra 50.00-100.00 more than a motherboard for a Windows PC.

Even tough it`s a pipe dream on my part and others I do hope that one day OSX on X86 happens and in some way we can all stop paying the Apple Hardware Tax just because there OS is different, I`m going to agree that we will probably never agree on this argument but it`s good to know where other people stand on issues like this  

Mac`s Rule!!!!!


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

> HMMM I`ve seen copies of Darwin running on X86 how difficult would it be to make Aqua run on X86 since it`s partially based on OpenGL?


OpenGL is implemented atop the kernel via an interface between the hardware (or hardware abstraction layer) and the windowing subsystem. There would still be x86 driver issues interfacing with the hardware. Even a video card with full hardware OpenGL support needs a driver written so the OS can utilize this.

I think you underestimate the requirements to make Aqua work on a x86 machine with whatever video card of the day is.

As an aside, this has been a very interesting thread. Thanks to all those involved.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

More on Cherry:

http://starbulletin.com/2004/10/15/news/story2.html


----------

