Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites

tibby.dude

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,018
Wow big deal.

An early unsupported alpha version that is intended for developers to port their apps and probably flaky as hell needing continual patching.

It makes about as much sense (unless you are a developer) to load an early Longhorn builds on your PC today.

Unfortunately the final release of OS X for Intel will not work on non Apple PC's.
 

WitWolf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
141
Mmm...... Now this could really fun. I do alot of support on mac for some of my clients and would luv to own a mac but its to expensive! If it comes available to Intel and would be able to dual boot between OS X and windows, it would great. Prefer OS X over windows.
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
tibby.dude said:
Wow big deal.
Unfortunately the final release of OS X for Intel will not work on non Apple PC's.
Have they actually said that? :(

Now - if I was to find this download :rolleyes:

Me wants - but will have to be a good boy for now with my hard core dialup modem ;)
 

bb_matt

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
5,616
It's possibly a hoax, but what I do find interesting is a how a project like PearPC will benefit from this ?

Surely it's far easy to emulate an x86 Mac OS than a PowerPC one on an x86 platform ! ;)

I can see it being possible to get Vmware speed or faster speeds from PearPC.
 

tibby.dude

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,018
kilps said:
Have they actually said that? :(
Yep although they will allow Windows to run on their hardware.

The last time Apple allowed cloners (PowerMac and Raduis) it ate into their market share instead of building the brand as most savvy consumers chose the cheaper clone models than the real thing.

Apple hardware will always carry a price premuim unlike Dell who just box and ship the latest Intel stuff and do very little of their own R&D.
 

bb_matt

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
5,616
Apple hardware will always carry a price premuim unlike Dell who just box and ship the latest Intel stuff and do very little of their own R&D.
It seems to me that apple is becoming more "generic" and cheap than ever before.

Scsi drives booted out in favour of cheaper IDE drives, the use of the same RAM as is found in PC's - the list goes on.

And now we have Apple moving to x86 ?

I wouldn't be suprised if Apple anounced the support of OSx on generic x86 hardware - after all, why not ?

The iPod has driven the sales of other Apple hardware upward, people are hearing about how fantastic MacOSx is at the same time as how woefully insecure windows is and now Longhorn has dropped half it's features and probably won't be on the shelves until 2007.

Interesting times ahead ...
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
bb_matt said:
I wouldn't be suprised if Apple anounced the support of OSx on generic x86 hardware - after all, why not ?
Because that would mean the end of Apple computer hardware - although the apple stuff is great people would rather just get a very good clone
 

bb_matt

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
5,616
How much money do Apple make on that hardware and how much could they make with their Operating System ?

Perhaps the days of Apple as a "purist" brand is coming to an end, lets face it, aside from their sexy designs, the hardware isn't that impressive - it's the marketing and the full package that is impressive.

You buy a computer off the shelf with an OS ready to install and run that is just so easy to setup, even a 60 year old could do it, plus designs are sexy and the overall quality of that design is usually above that of equivalent PC hardware.

That's changing - look at the Mac Mini - there's a lot of generic stuff in there. The main thing about it is fitting everything into such a small box. There's nothing to stop a PC manufacturer from doing the same thing. Fact is, the Mac Mini is cheap (at least in the USA) - about the same price as an equivalent PC when you consider the Operating system as part of the deal. (unless your using Linux)

Apple are entering the entertainment market in a massive way, with the iPod and Pixar as the vehicles. To gain mass market appeal, throwing their OS into the mix as an additional driver of entertainment, in the form of movies and music, makes sense. If they can tie up all the deals with the entertainment industry before Microsoft, who cares about their hardware.
 

tibby.dude

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,018
bb_matt said:
And now we have Apple moving to x86 ?
They had really no choice in the matter ... what other mainstream architecture has survived ???

MIPS ... dead
SPARC ... dead
HP PA ... dead
Dec Alpha ... dead
Motorola 68000 ... dead
ARM ... Xscale ... PDA's and Gameboys

Only the x86 remains.

Sony even tried to flog the Cell to Jobs but he rightly said it was even more ****tier than the G5.

PowerPC sales on the desktop is about 2% of the total PowerPC shipments (mainly embedded , game consoles and IBM big iron) ... do you think IBM has committed the resources that Apple needed ?.

bb_matt said:
I wouldn't be suprised if Apple anounced the support of OSx on generic x86 hardware - after all, why not ?
It would be suicide for them.
 

tibby.dude

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,018
bb_matt said:
How much money do Apple make on that hardware and how much could they make with their Operating System ?
They make ALL their money on the hardware ... OS X and iLife is bundled with every new machine.

There are still the OS X "upgrades" they flog at $129 but it only amounts to millions and not the billions (5.4) they need.

bb_matt said:
the hardware isn't that impressive - it's the marketing and the full package that is impressive.
Sure their hardware has a lower spec compared to desktop PC's but it is the slick combination and integration of the two ... their tag line "It just works" is well deserved.

The PC world pays a huge price for it's awesome diversity.
 

bb_matt

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
5,616
tibby.dude said:
They make ALL their money on the hardware ... OS X and iLife is bundled with every new machine.

There are still the OS X "upgrades" they flog at $129 but it only amounts to millions and not the billions (5.4) they need.



Sure their hardware has a lower spec compared to desktop PC's but it is the slick combination and integration of the two ... their tag line "It just works" is well deserved.

The PC world pays a huge price for it's awesome diversity.
I indicated how much they could make on their operating system if they sold it - I wasn't too clear.

I meant :-

How much money do Apple make on that hardware and how much could they make with their Operating System if they sold it to run on generic PC's ?
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
bb_matt said:
I indicated how much they could make on their operating system if they sold it - I wasn't too clear.

I meant :-

How much money do Apple make on that hardware and how much could they make with their Operating System if they sold it to run on generic PC's ?
Remember the Piricy thing - as much as I would like to see OS X on any Intel I don't think its going to happen - just as long as I get start to affor an apple then I will be happy ;)
 

tibby.dude

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
6,018
bb_matt said:
I indicated how much they could make on their operating system if they sold it - I wasn't too clear.
And how long have the Linux folks been at it and how much have they dented Windows desktop marketshare (which is increasing yearly) ???.

Sure OS X is far more capable than the putrid cesspool that is KDE/Gnome but unless somebody nukes Redmond it is a Windows world by far.

Also MS makes most of it's XP revenue from OEM sales rather than retail sales so you have convince Dell, HP and IBM to buy into OS X.

Another interesting bit I have read about this whole transition.

Cocoa (Objective C) framework apps just takes a few tweaks and a recompile to convert to Intel but OS 9 based C carbon apps will take far longer and you have to use their compiler (25% of their top 100 developers don't according to Jobs).

So guess what sort of apps are MS Office and Adobe ???.

This could also be a disaster ... it will take about a year for the Intel Macs to show up in retail ... how are they going to get people to buy the old PowerPC models knowing that they are a dead end ???.
 

kilps

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
2,620
By promising continued support for them - the PowerPC's work fine, it will only be high end users if you ask me who will really worry (if they have any sence)

If I could get a mac today I would :)
 

mbs

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
2,247
tibby.dude said:
And how long have the Linux folks been at it and how much have they dented Windows desktop marketshare (which is increasing yearly) ???.

Sure OS X is far more capable than the putrid cesspool that is KDE/Gnome but unless somebody nukes Redmond it is a Windows world by far.
/begin *nux advocacy blurb

... which presupposes that this is the intent of *nux 'folks', which it has never been and will never be, notwithstanding the stated intent of the big commercial corporates who perceived a new bandwagon on which to jump (IBM, Novell, Sun, in the last 2-3 years) - the *nux community actually regards such issues as irrelevant.

The 'cesspool' of display/desktop/window managers provides evidence of the underlying *nux community ethic - freedom of choice, and is a far cry from the rigidity offered by the Redmond offering: direct comparison is in fact misplaced. Of course, corporates prefer such rigidity for their environments through lessening the scope and extent of their helpdesk support requirement (read: cost). I've found the short-sighted approach of corporate IT Managers to be quite laughable, in fact, when one considers that the flexibility of the *nux offerings can in reality provide a far more constrained and restricted environment for end users, than the Redmond offering ever could...

/ends *nux advocacy blurb
 

neio

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
4,888
I was wondering, what is the correct term, *nix or *nux?

*nix is the root from where came *nux
 

mbs

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
2,247
*nix = different flavours of Unix subject to proprietary licenses, e.g. HP-UX, AIX, etc.
*nux = different distros of Linux with the same kernel source, viz. Linux Torvalds, and subject to the GPL, Creative Commons and their various derivatives...

*nix is definitely not the root of *nux
(despite what SCO might think)
 

bwana

B MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
72,736
This article seems to have some insight to the topic - http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20050609.html

As the switch over to intel wont be complete until 2007 I dont see why not to continue to buy PPC Macs - if I had to buy a machine tomorrow it would a Mac - I certainly wouldnt wait for a year to buy a intel chip based one. Apple is known for supporting legacy machines and that wont change.
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,642
tibby.dude said:
how are they going to get people to buy the old PowerPC models knowing that they are a dead end ???.
They aren't really a dead-end, functionally they'll be able to do anything their Intel counterparts will be able to do for a very long time still. Xcode will produce binaries that run on PPC and Intel. The Intel Macs are unlikely to really be able to do anything the PPC Mac can't, and all old and new applications will still run on PPC for a very long time. So if you want/need to buy a Mac, there is really no good reason to put off buying one. Sure the Intel Macs may be a bit faster (and maybe slightly cheaper) when they arrive, but that is always going to be true for any computer hardware purchase if you decide to wait a year.

The change to x86 will be mostly transparent to end-users, unlike e.g. the OS 9 -> OS X change. So to most users this means nothing in fact, as they don't even know or understand what's "inside the box" anyway. I doubt there'll be much of a sales dip in Mac sales. Even if there is, considering their most recent sales growth figures were something like 40%, it should still leave them with more than enough sales to keep turning a profit (plus they have enough cash in the bank to ride out a worst-case-scenario).
 
Top