Derek Currie
2005-02-12 03:10:29 UTC
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=4361
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/subs/article/0,15114,1025093-1,00.html
[Requires subscription to access]
Fortune magazine reports that 'three top PC makers' want to license OS
X. The companies were not named.
Background: Mac OS X is built at the core from components that were
designed to run on Intel as well as PowerPC hardware. These OS
components include the Mach 3.0 kernel and FreeBSD, commonly known these
days as the open source Darwin OS. In other words, there is nothing
significant keeping Mac OS X from running on x86 hardware but Apple's
internal decision to keep it strictly on Apple built Macintosh hardware.
To quote the article:
"Apple has cast a shadow over Microsoft too. Jobs likes to say that the
upcoming Tiger version of OS X will have everything that Bill Gates and
Microsoft are promising in Longhorn, the often delayed major upgrade of
Windows, now due in mid-2006. "They copied the original Mac with Windows
95," Jobs gloats, '"and now they're going to be copying us again," ...
Mac OS X is so solid that Apple is beginning to sell Macs into markets
that never before would even consider them, like the military and
university supercomputer centers. Most tantalizing of all is scuttlebutt
that three of the biggest PC makers are wooing Jobs to let them license
OS X and adapt it to computers built around standard Intel chips. Why?
They want to offer customers, many of whom are sick of the security
problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn, an
alternative."
History has shown that Apple makes its primary cash on hardware. It
considers the OS to be secondary, albeit integral part of the computer
package. NeXT once sold NeXTStep/OpenStep on the PC, and the original
seeds of Mac OS X, called 'Rhapsody', ran on specific x86 PCs as well.
It is unlikely that Apple would cannibalize its money maker, hardware,
by selling the OS for any kind of OEM hardware. History also shows that
when Apple allowed 3rd party companies to make 'Macs', that Apple lost
money as a result, finding that sales of the OS did not compensate.
Conclusion: No way is Apple going to start selling OS X for x86 PCs.
Microsoft is not what Apple wishes to become.
But it is nice to speculate what the world would be like with PC
computers that had NO VIRUSES, or WORMS, or TROJANS, or SPYWARE or
Microsoft blunder induced SECURITY FLAWS. It could happen. Just not in
this space/time continuum. That is my POV.
Oh well. I guess people who want the multitude of benefits of Apple's OS
will have to stick with Apple hardware. Is that a bad thing? You can't
DIY a Mac, and there are no Mac hardware price wars. So there will
always be complaints.
:-Derek
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/subs/article/0,15114,1025093-1,00.html
[Requires subscription to access]
Fortune magazine reports that 'three top PC makers' want to license OS
X. The companies were not named.
Background: Mac OS X is built at the core from components that were
designed to run on Intel as well as PowerPC hardware. These OS
components include the Mach 3.0 kernel and FreeBSD, commonly known these
days as the open source Darwin OS. In other words, there is nothing
significant keeping Mac OS X from running on x86 hardware but Apple's
internal decision to keep it strictly on Apple built Macintosh hardware.
To quote the article:
"Apple has cast a shadow over Microsoft too. Jobs likes to say that the
upcoming Tiger version of OS X will have everything that Bill Gates and
Microsoft are promising in Longhorn, the often delayed major upgrade of
Windows, now due in mid-2006. "They copied the original Mac with Windows
95," Jobs gloats, '"and now they're going to be copying us again," ...
Mac OS X is so solid that Apple is beginning to sell Macs into markets
that never before would even consider them, like the military and
university supercomputer centers. Most tantalizing of all is scuttlebutt
that three of the biggest PC makers are wooing Jobs to let them license
OS X and adapt it to computers built around standard Intel chips. Why?
They want to offer customers, many of whom are sick of the security
problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn, an
alternative."
History has shown that Apple makes its primary cash on hardware. It
considers the OS to be secondary, albeit integral part of the computer
package. NeXT once sold NeXTStep/OpenStep on the PC, and the original
seeds of Mac OS X, called 'Rhapsody', ran on specific x86 PCs as well.
It is unlikely that Apple would cannibalize its money maker, hardware,
by selling the OS for any kind of OEM hardware. History also shows that
when Apple allowed 3rd party companies to make 'Macs', that Apple lost
money as a result, finding that sales of the OS did not compensate.
Conclusion: No way is Apple going to start selling OS X for x86 PCs.
Microsoft is not what Apple wishes to become.
But it is nice to speculate what the world would be like with PC
computers that had NO VIRUSES, or WORMS, or TROJANS, or SPYWARE or
Microsoft blunder induced SECURITY FLAWS. It could happen. Just not in
this space/time continuum. That is my POV.
Oh well. I guess people who want the multitude of benefits of Apple's OS
will have to stick with Apple hardware. Is that a bad thing? You can't
DIY a Mac, and there are no Mac hardware price wars. So there will
always be complaints.
:-Derek
--
"To create a new standard, it takes something thats not
just a little bit different, it takes something thats
really new and really captures peoples imagination and the
Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only
one that meets that standard." --Bill Gates
"To create a new standard, it takes something thats not
just a little bit different, it takes something thats
really new and really captures peoples imagination and the
Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only
one that meets that standard." --Bill Gates