Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

OS/X available for Intel

Well no OS/X is not available for Intel...so my question is

Why isn't OS/X available for Intel?


Before you jump to hit reply let's lay a few ground rules for the replies to this thread so that we achieve some constructive debate to move us toward some sort of answer and avoid degenerating to Usenet level

i) Please try to answer the question based on FACTS, or at least decent rumours, rather than your own speculation (since I speculate we can all speculate)
ii) Answer the question directly or provide constructive criticism of a posting, again based on facts not speculation
iii) Consider that any posting you make will reveal your level of insight so if you've no real insight then don't post
iv) Note that the question is not about
  a) whether you would buy OS/X for Intel,
  b) why OS/X (or XP etc) is "best"
  c) about the fact that Aunty Fanny likes her iMac
Permalink AndyUK 
March 23rd, 2005
Because "Intel" is a vast, nebulous cloud of non-standard hardware and the Apple architecture isn't. OSX is rock solid because it has a very small base of hardware that it has to run on.

So suck my dick.
Permalink muppet 
March 23rd, 2005
OSX is a Mac-trademarked GUI over FreeBSD. FreeBSD is very much available for x86.
Permalink Flasher T 
March 23rd, 2005
OS X's kernel IS available for Intel - you can download it right now.

The full OS X is available for OS X, but not publically and not the most recent version. Unfortunately, the port to Intel is unacceptably slow due to the limitations of the pentium architecture, which is unable to support a modern operating system.
Permalink Apple Insider 
March 23rd, 2005
From analysis I've heard:

* Greater (more stable?) revenue.

* Historically somewhat irrational. Google guy probably mentioned here:
http://murl.microsoft.com/LectureDetails.asp?895
Steve Jobs willing to sell stock for $1, etc.

* Can leverage strength of hardware like ipods
* Greater Autonomy
* Design: "whole widget"
* Personal bias of Steve Jobs; apparently more interested in hardware than software.
* Potential user benefit: choice reduction.

Um... personally, I've observed that the Apple strategy is "correct" in that there should be sources where you can buy tasteful PCs configured by someone "expert." Having its own platform insulates Apple from all sorts of pricewars and whatnot from the likes of Dell, and monopoly practices by MSFT.

The technical press is almost always untrustworthy for producing analysis. They carry ideological notions such as winner-takes-all beliefs.

As a counterpoint, note that Apple is notoriously against free speech, and willing to abuse the judicial system. One result of this is one should not assume that its actions are necessarily rational, since similar secretive Silicon Valley companies aren't once you're actually privy to their decisionmaking process.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 23rd, 2005
Oh yeah, it will likely require a far greater testing burden.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 23rd, 2005
Cos the instant Apple ships it, they're dead.

Everyone ooohs and aaahs over Macs. But when the cards are on the table they will pick cheap far eastern PCs. Every. Single. Time.

If OSX runs on them, it'll be pirated beyond imagining and then Apple will have no products at all. C'mon -- even Microsoft is having trouble getting each of its users to have an actual licence...
Permalink Katie Lucas 
March 23rd, 2005
What do y'all think Darwin is?

Admittedly I've never got Darwin to build entirely successfully but I'm sure that's my lack of effort rather than anything else.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 23rd, 2005
Personally I think that if OSX is ever released, GUI and all, for Intel, that'll be the end of Apple. The ensuing price wars will destroy the brand, and you'll end up with cheap-ass e*machines running OSX being the standard by which the rest of the industry is steered, just like Windows.

Yuck.
Permalink muppet 
March 23rd, 2005
Apple isn't a software company, Apple is a hardware company.
Permalink MarkTAW 
March 23rd, 2005
Oh yeah, ever notice that notebooks and iPods are extremely good advertisements for Apple? In particular, they're for conspicuous consumption. I suspect this is why their notebooks are so competitively priced. In the language of the Nagle/Holden pricing book Joel recommends, they're skimming the people who aren't purchasing on pure price. Some newspapers actually LOWER circulation to target more affluent audiences, if they expect this will raise ad revenue. And there are benefits to having a smaller userbase to support.

Beige boxes are destructive to the Apple brand.

Probably less piracy, with their more affluent userbase.

What will their stores sell otherwise?

Network effects suggest that the real problem is Microsoft's lock-in, not hardware freedom. In Apple's eyes, what problem does MacOS X for Intel solve?
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
March 23rd, 2005
"Unfortunately, the port to Intel is unacceptably slow due to the limitations of the pentium architecture, which is unable to support a modern operating system."

You're kidding, right?

To the folks who say OSX for x86 is the death of Apple - I've suggested before that usability-wise XP is as good as Apple, it's only a matter of which concept you learn first. Most people agreed.
Permalink Flasher T 
March 23rd, 2005
Clearly Apple is a hardware company, and OS/X gives them their 'proprietary' OS base.

As pointed out, if you are running Open BSD on Intel, in effect you ARE running OS/X. I assume OS/X for Apple has some Apple GUI extensions -- surely they are not running X-windows.

I don't dislike their position, they are clearly not the market leader, and they have to do something to keep their brand alive. In this case Microsoft and the open PC architecture are the odd-balls. Once upon a time (before the IBM-PC) all proprietary hardware was tied to proprietary software.

And yes, if you could easily build an Intel-based Apple clone, without violating Apple's Patents and Copyrights, Apple might have a hard time surviving.

IBM doesn't make PC's anymore, for instance.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 23rd, 2005
>> Why isn't OS/X available for Intel? <<

Because Steve says so.

End of story.
Permalink example 
March 23rd, 2005
Oops, and before people rise up ranting, I forgot that CP/M pre-dated the IBM-PC, and it also ran on lots of hardware.

And the argument could be made that the original Microsoft Basic contained its own run-time, and also ran on lots of hardware (including Apple).

Interestingly, it was the CP/M crowd that first had the 'open system' concept with the S100 bus, followed closely by the Apple II. It was IBM's jumping on the 'open system' concept that got us where we are today. Wonderful for society. It was OK for IBM -- they made some money out of it.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 23rd, 2005
You call it the S-100 bus, I call it the ripped off from the Altair bus. It's the PC clone story done 5 years earlier.

And of course when you bought your original IBM PC 5150, you could order it CPM/86 to come with it. None of your software would run without a recompile, but the OS existed.
Permalink Miles Archer 
March 23rd, 2005
Roger that on the Altair bus.
Permalink AllanL5 
March 23rd, 2005
"I don't dislike their position, they are clearly not the market leader, and they have to do something to keep their brand alive."

Yes, they are.

If you are talking about the PC market, that's just a side business to their digital music business, where they are easily the market leader.

Although, I'm very curious to see how Mac-mini sales turn out for their first quarter of availability. And I'm shocked no one has mentioned Mac-mini's price competitiveness. You might be able to find a cheaper PC, but you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to do it.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 23rd, 2005
We already have two Mac minis in our house. I love mine.
Permalink muppet 
March 23rd, 2005
Now that this thread is a week old I'll confess that I only posted it to see whether anyone would take any notice at all of the ground rules I set out along with the question.
Permalink AndyUK 
March 28th, 2005
Why should they? Who the hell are you?
Permalink muppet 
March 29th, 2005
I was interested to see whether or not there would be a constructive debate which would involve some objective facts and discussions about them to build toward a concensus opinion.

Some people tried to have a focussed discussion. You're last posting was about the fact that you have two mac minis. I cannot see how this actually answers the question about why OS/X isn't available for intel so perhaps you'd care to explain either a) how it does or b) why anyone else should care?
Permalink AndyUK 
March 29th, 2005
"I was interested to see whether or not there would be a constructive debate which would involve some objective facts and discussions about them to build toward a concensus opinion."

I could have answered that question: No.

New to the internet? :)
Permalink ronk! 
March 29th, 2005
Yes - I've just got out of prison after being locked up for 15 years for a gruesome murder.
Permalink AndyUK 
March 29th, 2005
Because, Andy, it's a subject peripherally related to the subject matter, and thus is a valid topic of conversation. Someone commented on the price point of minis and speculated on their popularity. The fact that I've got two chugging away in my living room within a month of release is significant.

Sadly, once you release a topic "into the wild", you really can't then exert control over the flow of conversation, ESPECIALLY not on an internet forum like this one. This isn't a debate club.

You shouldn't walk into a coffee house and start laying down ground rules by which conversations will be governed and you sure as heck can't do it here, either.

Get over yourself, that's my advice.
Permalink muppet 
March 31st, 2005
Your coffee house argument is built on the false premise that you concluded I wanted to control the conversation.

I said "I wanted to see..."
Permalink AndyUK 
April 3rd, 2005
Your piddling semantics still don't help you to avoid the fact that you're an asshole.
Permalink muppet 
April 5th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics