[Brad]

Originally Posted by futureman MacOS X will never be a windows. Windows is crap, Apple is Quality.

Apple is quality, huh?

I guess you've never seen Mac OS X 10.0.
Or Mac OS X 10.1.
Or PowerBooks with spotted screens.
Or G5s with faulty power supplies.
Or iMacs producing visible arcs of electricity.
Or the current keyboards.
Or the eMac's display's raster shift.
Or the aluminum displays' angled hues.
Or the iBooks with faulty motherboards.
Or the iBooks with faulty reed switches.
Or the iBooks with faulty power supplies.
Or the aluminum PowerBooks with broken latches.
Or the aluminum PowerBooks with corrosion holes.
Or the titanium PowerBooks with peeling paint.
Or the titanium PowerBooks with marked screens.
Or various Macs that refused to wake from sleep.
Or the iTunes 2 installer that would erase your hard drive.
Or iPhoto 1 and 2.
Or iChat.
Or AppleWorks.
Or QuickTime Player.
Or the SAMBA connection issues.
Or the Finder in Mac OS X 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2.
Or...

Yeah. Apple has a spotless track record.

[Moogs]

For my 2000th post, I'd just like to say, once more...

it ain't gonna happen.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by futureman create a new line of Macs that could run windows or Mac OS X on an x86. Either way, Apple doesn't need Sony or Gateway to sell them for them.

Believe or not the average computer user has different tastes than Apple when it comes to hardware. Apple would need Sony or HP to sell them because they know how to make practical computers that people will buy. If Apple made a MicroATX tower with at least two full size optical drive bays and an external 3.5" bay for a card reader it might be a different story. But if Apple did that they wouldn't be Apple.

[thequicksilver]

Originally Posted by Brad Apple is quality, huh?<snip> Or iChat.

I'm so glad someone else has realised that iChat is an absolutely dreadful app. The only saving grace is the video chat, which unfortunately only about three people use. The staple of any IM app - text chatting - is so bad it's untrue.

</off topic>

[Paul]

One of his first moves surprised Apple partisans—he turned for help to his longtime rival Bill Gates. The two struck a deal under which Microsoft bought $150 million of Apple stock and promised to keep supplying Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer for the Mac, programs that made Apple's computers at least somewhat compatible with the PC world. (Microsoft's stake in Apple is now worth well over $1 billion.)

this just highlights one of MANY inaccuracies in the article... He would have done well to say "would be worth" instead. Microsoft sold their non-voting stock some time ago.

This quote is more interesting to me then any crazy OS X on Intel theory:

he declared 2005 to be the year that high-definition video hits the mainstream, and touted the HD editing capabilities of a new version of iMovie. He also notes that a new generation of Wi-Fi networking gear is in the offing next year, which will offer enough bandwidth to finally make it possible to stream high-quality video from Macs to TVs. (In the short term, look for Apple to use its wireless technology to let HDTV owners display slideshows of digital photos stored on their Macs.)

Airport Express v2?

Re: OS X on Intel... I could see apple selling the mobo's of their lines (Mm, iB, iM, eM, PM, PB) along with maybe a barebones ATX style one to the "3 major PC manufacturers" along with Tiger... but the Key would be iLife... this would still be sold separately and once iWork is completed (spreadsheet, database, beefy text edit in an iLife-like suite) the two titles together would more then make up for any loss in margin from selling clones... but there will NOT be OS X on Intel. The biggest limitation may be IBM and their capacity to make G5's... Apple could be waiting for them to be able to output HUGE supply if Apple were to release clone licenses...

[BuonRotto]

Boy, our fearless leader here has had a real falling out recently with the fruit company, eh?

[Jason]

I hope these rumours are not true. I do not ever want to see any Mac OS becoming a market leader. Many Mac fans enjoy the security and immunity to spyware, hackers and virus writers that would become common place if OS X was to one day become like Windows is now.

Speaking for myself, I also enjoy rooting for the 'underdog' and feel cool when I've got hardware and a rock stable OS that many others (relatively speaking) do not posess.

Regards

[jouster]

Originally Posted by Brad Apple is quality, huh? I guess you've never seen...{snippage...}Yeah. Apple has a spotless track record.

Don't forget the PowerBook with the *original* illuminated keyboard.....illuminated by the flames that burst out of the back!!

[Kickaha]

Oh brother. That old bit of FUD again?

Two batteries leaked and caught fire prior to the product ever shipping. One at Apple during testing, one that had been sent to an offsite company for testing. It was a bad batch of batteries from the battery manufacturer, no battery ever shipped to a customer ever leaked or caught fire.

Stupidest Urban Legend Evar.

[jouster]

Four actually... But it was just a joke.....

...and Apple did recall 28,000 of them...

[Kickaha]

Wow, now you're really confused.

The flaming-battery-FUD was regarding the PowerBook 5300, back in '96 or so.

[thegibbon]

Originally Posted by Jason I hope these rumours are not true. I do not ever want to see any Mac OS becoming a market leader. Many Mac fans enjoy the security and immunity to spyware, hackers and virus writers that would become common place if OS X was to one day become like Windows is now. Speaking for myself, I also enjoy rooting for the 'underdog' and feel cool when I've got hardware and a rock stable OS that many others (relatively speaking) do not posess. Regards

windows has viruses because the vulnerabilities are there - it's not just because more people are using them. if the holes aren't there to begin with, you won't have the problem. not unrelated to why osx is more stable, as well. the unix community doesn't want exploits in their os, so they get fixed.

but, i also like having, at least, the relatively outsider computer, or at least something that doesn't look like it was designed solely for cubicles and spreadsheets.

[scratt]

Well that is true in part.. But if Mac OS X was as widespread as and Windows OS then probably an equal number of exploits would be found. We are protected by our exclusiveness at the moment. Don't be mislead.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by thegibbon if the holes aren't there to begin with, you won't have the problem.

I guess you've missed all the security updates for Mac OS X then, huh?

Here's a list of Apple's security-related updates.

Mac OS Runtime for Java (MRJ) 2.2.5
Mac OS X 10.0.1
Mac OS X 10.0.2
Mac OS X 10.0.4 Server Update
Mac OS X Web Sharing Update 1.0
Mac OS X Server 10.1
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.1 Security Update 10-19-01 (2001-10-19)
Mac OS X 10.1.3
Security Update - April 2002 (2002-04)
Mac OS X 10.1.4
Mac OS X 10.1.5
Security Update July 2002 (2002-07)
Security Update 7-12-02 (2002-07-12)
Security Update 7-18-02 (2002-07-18)
Security Update 2002-08-02
Security Update 2002-08-20
Security Update 2002-08-23
Security Update 2002-09-20
Mac OS X Server 10.2.2
Mac OS X 10.2.2
Security Update 2002-11-21
Mac OS X 10.2.3
Mac OS X 10.2.4 Server
Mac OS X 10.2.4 (client)
Security Update 2003-03-03
Security Update 2003-03-24
QuickTime 6.1 for Windows
Mac OS X 10.2.5
Mac OS X 10.2.6
Safari 1.0 Beta 2 (v74)
Security Update 2003-06-09 (version 2.0)
Security Update 2003-06-12 (Mac OS X Server only)
Security Update 2003-07-14
Security Update 2003-07-23
Security Update 2003-08-14
Mac OS X 10.2.8
Mac OS X 10.3 Panther
Security Update 2003-10-28
Security Update 2003-11-04
Security Update 2003-11-19 for Panther 10.3.1
Security update 2003-11-19 for 10.2.8
Security Update 2003-12-05
Security Update 2003-12-19 for Mac OS X 10.3.2 "Panther" and Mac OS X 10.3.2 Server
Security Update 2003-12-19 for Mac OS X 10.2.8 "Jaguar" and Mac OS X 10.2.8 Server
Security Update 2004-01-26 for Mac OS X 10.3.2 "Panther" and Mac OS X Server 10.3.2
Security Update 2004-01-26 for Mac OS X 10.2.8 "Jaguar" and Mac OS X 10.2.8 Server
Security Update 2004-01-26 for Mac OS X 10.1.5 "Puma" and Mac OS X 10.1.5 Server
Security Update 2004-02-23 for Mac OS X 10.2.8 "Jaguar" and Mac OS X 10.2.8 Server
Security Update 2004-02-23 for Mac OS X 10.3.2 "Panther" and Mac OS X 10.3.2 Server
Security Update 2004-04-05 for Mac OS X 10.2.8 "Jaguar" and Mac OS X 10.2.8 Server
Security Update 2004-04-05 for Mac OS X 10.3.3 "Panther" and Mac OS X 10.3.3 Server
QuickTime 6.5.1
Security Update 2004-05-03 for Mac OS X 10.2.8 "Jaguar" and Mac OS X 10.2.8 Server
Security Update 2004-05-03 for Mac OS X 10.3.3 "Panther" and Mac OS X 10.3.3 Server
Security Update 2004-05-24 for Mac OS X 10.2.8 "Jaguar" and Mac OS X 10.2.8 Server
Security Update 2004-05-24 for Mac OS X 10.3.3 "Panther" and Mac OS X 10.3.3 Server
Mac OS X 10.3.4
Security Update 2004-06-07 (Mac OS X 10.3.4 and 10.2.8)
Security Update 2004-08-09 (Mac OS X 10.3.4 and 10.2.8)
Mac OS X 10.3.5
Security Update 2004-09-07
Security Update 2004-09-16
Security Update 2004-09-30 (released 2004-10-04)
QuickTime 6.5.2
Security Update 2004-10-27
iCal 1.5.4
Security Update 2004-12-02
iTunes 4.7.1
Security Update 2005-001
Security Update 2005-002

Yeah. Once again, Apple has a spotless track record!

Some of those security updates were painfully late, released well more than a month after vulnerabilities became known. If Mac OS X was as widely-used as Windows, we'd be attacked pretty badly too.

[oldmacfan]

Thanks Brad,

that is a nice list. But you should really post the list of known vulnerabilities that have no patch yet, with a date as to when they were discovered.

Then yes, do the same for Windows...

No OS is perfect

[BenRoethig]

Over the last ten years or so Apple's marketshare has gone from 20% to 2%. While the computer industry has enjoyed a giantic boom, Apple's user base has remained more or less stagnate. To me, that's just a little too close to the abyss for my tastes. How long would Apple found itself in a position where it had to make all software for the platform because the major software makers found it was not cost effective to make Mac software? We need to get back to 10% to be safe and its going to take some pages out of the wintel playbook to get there.

[ast3r3x]

You are all missing the most important thing. If this ever comes out, will I be able to pirate it?

Because I haven't seen Nebagakid for a while...
:smokey: :smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x You are all missing the most important thing. If this ever comes out, will I be able to pirate it? Because I haven't seen Nebagakid for a while... :smokey: :smokey: :smokey: :smokey:

Your able to pirate OSX now.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig Your able to pirate OSX now.

Are we supposed to talk about piracy?


As to the topic of this thread.... What's wrong with a simple emulation hardware? Maybe Apple can make it a BTO option for iMac and PM lines.....

[defaultmike]

hey Brad, yeah, OSX isn't perfect, it does have holes. But Apple goes about this in a very different matter than Microsoft. As soon as the problem is found they fix it via software update. M$ just waits and puts all the fixes in Service Pack 2 (which doesnt even fix half of those problems.

Also, u can't really compare the vunerabilities of OSX with Windows. I don't care how pissed off at Apple u are, it's just not even in the same league.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by Banana Are we supposed to talk about piracy?

Are we supposed to be total dooshes?

No piracy talk is allowed in the threads, but specifically no details.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by defaultmike M$ just waits and puts all the fixes in Service Pack 2 (which doesnt even fix half of those problems.

Wrong. You've never used Windows Update, then. You'd be familiar with how Microsoft likes to send out security updates on Tuesdays.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig Your able to pirate OSX now.

His point was that a shift to OSX on x86 would mean a shift to dependence on software sales for profits. That means that piracy would hurt Apple's bottom line a whole lot more and that Apple would have to implement stronger copy protection methods.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana What's wrong with a simple emulation hardware?

Ever seen how slow PearPC runs? Emulating PowerPC code on an x86 processor is a much more difficult and slower job than emulating x86 code on a PowerPC processor. The biggest issue here is the number of registers and the endianness of the two architectures.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Brad Ever seen how slow PearPC runs? Emulating PowerPC code on an x86 processor is a much more difficult and slower job than emulating x86 code on a PowerPC processor. The biggest issue here is the number of registers and the endianness of the two architectures.

Brad, so you're agreeing iwth my proposal that Apple should have x86 emulator card as a BTO option? Or did I get it all garfunkled up?

[Brad]

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by an "emulator card". Long ago, Apple used to include an additional card with an x86 processor on it (back in the Performa days) but it didn't exactly offer what you'd think it would. It offered dual-boot capabilities, but you couldn't just double-click an exe and run it from within Mac OS. To run x86 programs, you basically booted up a copy of *shudder* DOS on your Mac.

This, I think, is not the best idea. It could seriously confuse users.

[rasmits]

So what if they did? They'd only be a software company then. They'd loose all their hardware sales to the ones they licensed to, just like what happened with the clones. Then, since they had no control over what kind of hardware their software was being put on, they'd loose that whole "it just works" thing. There are too many things that can go wrong with this...

If they want the increased market share, they'll do it by lowering prices, advertising, and opening the distribution channel not by giving up. I think even if those other guys switched from Intel to PPC, Apple still wouldn't license OS X, because of the same reasons.

[ast3r3x]

I am an idiot, but I don't get the big hardware/software company...or see what it matters.

I don't see why apple couldn't provide support for intel. Most software should be just a compile away from being ported. Hardware specific software would be a problem, but how much is there anyway?

Drivers and Apple supporting all the myriad of different types of hardware is what I don't get. Apple seems to support a lot of generic drivers as it is, just as microsoft does. Most hardware does not require MS to write drivers for it, it's companies that do the programming. I don't know how you do it, or how difficult it is to write drivers, but it would seems that if apple worked on making it easier to write drivers that connect to the OS, it wouldn't be a big problem. Probably easier said than done I know.

Do I think Apple becoming a software company would kill their hardware business? Of course I do. Do I think Apple becoming a software company would bankrupt and kill them? Well probably not, if they could survive past the initial begin of the transition...and their first intel OS X isn't like 10.0...or 10.1, and hopefully slightly better then 10.2.

They would need to try and secure the majority of software titles first. Do I think this will happen? No...at least not in the near future.

[Marcellus Wallace]

Originally Posted by rasmits So what if they did? They'd only be a software company then. They'd loose all their hardware sales to the ones they licensed to, just like what happened with the clones. Then, since they had no control over what kind of hardware their software was being put on, they'd loose that whole "it just works" thing. There are too many things that can go wrong with this... If they want the increased market share, they'll do it by lowering prices, advertising, and opening the distribution channel not by giving up. I think even if those other guys switched from Intel to PPC, Apple still wouldn't license OS X, because of the same reasons.

Am I wrong when I say: the clones were a completely different story?
Although I agree with your arguments completely, licensing Mac OS X to IBM or Sony doens't necessarily mean bad business at all... not even for the Apple hardware business. Look at the iTunes licensing to Motorola (and many others will follow)... I am sure that Steve will play all the cards right this time.

[Costique]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x I don't see why apple couldn't provide support for intel.

Because it would be a direct opposition to MS on the OS front. I'm far from being sure Apple would survive in that war for more than a couple of months.