Hell freezing over? Apple in talks with Intel

[Kurt]

Apple doesn't drive the x86 market. MS and Intel do.

I'm for an x86 OS X but I'm not sure Apple would keep on selling hardware if ppl can just assemble a cheap x86 PC and run OS X on it. Why buy a $5000 Mac when you can assemble it for less?

They just can't control the whole "experence" on x86. Their resources are too limited for that.

[az]

Who says they're going to be PC compatible? The XBox was based around an Intel x86 processor, do you see windows running on it?

AZ

[Kurt]

Why do you insist on running Windows on everything?

Did I mention Windows? I think not

[az]

Are you playing dumb? Runs windows == it's a windows compatible PC (as opposed to a mac). What does it matter if you can run Linux or around in circles on it? Only if it is a windows compatible PC will you be able to build one yourself, or do you think you can build an XBox from retail parts, just because it contains an x86 CPU? That's like saying "Macs contain DDR RAM, now everybody can build one from spare PC parts". It only means they can get their own parts cheaper, MAYBE it also means you can get cheaper upgrades. It would be enough that they moved one pin on a RAM stick or a CPU and you couldn't even do that anymore.

AZ

[Jessterw]

Apple doesn't drive the x86 market. MS and Intel do.

I'm for an x86 OS X but I'm not sure Apple would keep on selling hardware if ppl can just assemble a cheap x86 PC and run OS X on it. Why buy a $5000 Mac when you can assemble it for less?

They just can't control the whole "experence" on x86. Their resources are too limited for that.

Of course Apple doesn't drive the x86 market, that's a non-issue.

Again, people do buy Apple hardware and then install another OS (namely Linux) on it. People who buy Macs aren't going to stop buying them just because OS X, theoretically, might become available in an x86 flavour. So assuming that OS X does become available in a form that can be easily run on any x86 hardware, Apple has only increased the market for its OS.

[Kurt]

@Az: chill out, it was a joke

I don't know which course Apple might take.

I still think they should release OS X for the x86 market, so we get a bit of competition and can hope for better OSes for our cheap machines - but it doesn't seem they'll do it (probably because they lack the resources to support it).

If they totally embrace the Wintel platform, they might as well do as you say and lock up the BIOS or change bits/pins here and there (not that it's not easily defeated). If they don't, they'll have to limit the supported hardware (as they do now) and/or use some legal mumbo-jumbo in their OS license to avoid supporting a too big (potentially) user base -given that they might not be the provider for the hardware anymore. I'm thinking about professionals (graphic + video) and educational markets (Apple's core markets), not ppl who buy because it looks good or get confused when they have more than one mouse button. I'm sure the bulk of the pros/schools would be delighted to spend less on their equipment.

@Jesterzwild: the ppl who install sth else than OS X are not exactly representative of Mac users, and can be safely ignored since they're about two

Apple SHOULD releaseOS X for x86. That would be good for their business. Ppl can try their OS on the most available hardware then buy into the whole Mac experience if they like it. As it is, the Mac doesn't have enough public exposure to drive ppl to it en masse. There still is the support problem. Will they have the resources? Definitely...Maybe. If sales are up enough...

[Wombat]

Who says they're going to be PC compatible? The XBox was based around an Intel x86 processor, do you see windows running on it?

AZ

Umm, hell yes you do. First of all, what do you think all those games are running when they boot their CD?

Second, you don't see a full port because there's no Windows code available. There's tons of BSD code available.

[az]

Of course Apple won't ever do that (not in the near future, at least). While Apple's profits lie in the hardware (just looking at PCs and ignoring the iPod for once), but people in general don't buy macs because there's a PPC in there. They buy it for the OS, they buy it because it's one hassle-free package (this is where the hardware comes into play, but you could get the same from Dell... without OSX), and they buy it because of the brand. So Apple needs OSX to be exclusive to their hardware, because OSX is one of the biggest factors why people buy macs. They may switch to x86 hardware, because that's cheaper and faster and easier to get, but you will still have to buy an Apple computer to run OSX, and it will still be more expensive than a Windows PC (Apple is small, they will need specialized (to a point) hardware to run OSX on, to prevent OSX from becoming too Wintel compatible; And, of course, you have to pay for the brand.). Maybe it will be a bit cheaper and faster than PPC macs are, but mainly it will increase Apple's profits (which isn't a bad thing, it will make Apple stronger, which could finally bring some more competition to the PC market).

AZ

[az]

Of course Wombat. How long did the ports take again? Given enough time and access to the code you could probably port WinXP to PPC (or you could have apes type shakespeare's novels..), but my point is: The XBox is an x86 system, fairly close to a Windows PC. You can't run Windows XP on it, or any other retail flavour of Windows. The same will be the case when/if Apple switches to x86 and releases OSX for x86. Maybe it will only be the TPM preventing OSX from running, but they will make damn sure it won't run on a wintel PC. And I don't think they will release their source code, either

AZ

[Jessterw]

@Jesterzwild: the ppl who install sth else than OS X are not exactly representative of Mac users, and can be safely ignored since they're about two

Yes, but the people who are representative of Mac users aren't going to be switching from Apple hardware. They buy Apple because it is a package deal.

Oh and there's far more than just two people running Linux on Apple hardware. True, they are only about 10% of the customer base, but then, look at how much Apple influences the PC world with its own minimal market share.

[az]

It's "its" without the apostrophe

AZ

[Jessterw]

Sorry. Hope I didn't offend anyone

[Kurt]

Yes, but the people who are representative of Mac users aren't going to be switching from Apple hardware. They buy Apple because it is a package deal.

Oh and there's far more than just two people running Linux on Apple hardware. True, they are only about 10% of the customer base, but then, look at how much Apple influences the PC world with its own minimal market share.

Ppl who are representative of the Mac _market_ are schools and image professionals. Go and tell your boss you'd rather have an Alienware PC instead of a white box because it looks cooler and tell me what he thinks about it.

A buck's a buck. You can't argue with accounting.

_End users_ who buy Mac will keep on buying Mac, probably (you can never say never).

[Sasq]

Thats why, while I am programming a rather huge management application for windows, I said to boss, I would prefer to be doing my code on a mac.
ibook to take home, G5 under the desk.
I am more productive on my G5, a bucks a buck, You can't argue with accounting.

[Jessterw]

Wrong Kurt. More and more developers are using Macs and schools are actually becoming more MS-centric. In addition there has already been an influx of normal consumers in into the Mac market (oh how they loved the fruity ones).

Alienware? Can't imagine what that has to do with this discussion. The average consumer may buy a Mac because it's pretty, but those of us who do serious work buy them because they present a solid platform for a wide-range of imaging and programming work... and they look pretty

The only issue I've had with my iBook was a loose airport card causing some lockups; being loose due to my own tinkering. Definitely can't say that about any Windows PC I've ever owned, and I have far fewer problems in that area than any person I know. Not bashing Windows here, but Dan is right, productivity equals money saved.