Replies

Apple needs to port OSX to Intel/AMD architecture..

They already have it -- without the fanfare. Apple bought NExT. The NExT technology DOES/DID run on Intel. The hub of Mac OS X is called "Darwin". This is open source and can be installed on Intel, now. (Its Mac OS X without the user interface). The user interface of Mac OS X called "Aqua" right now is ONLY available on Macs. However, the Aqua interface is NExT technology, and it can be ported to Intel with little or no bother.

Everytime Steve Jobs is to make a speech at one of these trade shows, I study at the computer rags for speculation - "Apple's going to announce Aqua for Intel" has been a steady theme- but alas, its just proving to be a rumor. It would sure piss M$ off, as M$ is already objecting to PC manufacturers shipping "naked" PCs (a PC with no OS on it) and are trying to stop this practice. M$ claims that if a person wants a naked PC they're really going to put a bootleg copy of Windows on it. A stupid argument, when there's currently Darwin, Linux, BSD, Solaris ... etc that can be put on the PC...

If Apple were to announce their Mac OS X on Intel, they'd mop up. Let's face it, Apple wrote the book on the human interface with the computer - what ever you think of them as a company, their OS work is right out of the cognitive psychology field when they studied the results of people like Miller et al and devised an OS that really took into account how people react to computer as a system as a whole.

"They already have it -- without the fanfare. Apple bought NExT. The NExT technology DOES/DID run on Intel."

Saying NeXTStep "runs" on Intel is generous. It crawls. I loooooved the pizza box machines and the cubes, but Intel boxes just didn't cut it.

I doubt that Apple will switch anytime soon. For reasons, look at the following examples:

1) NeXT. It just never work right or sold well when it was only an OS. NeXTStep was tied to the architecture of the box, and it was great where it belonged. Similarly, Solaris also sucks on intel. It's my favorite OS, running on a sparc, but I won't even use it as an xterm on intel.

2) Apple opened up to clones in the early-mid 90's. Customers were able to buy cheaper boxes running motorola chips. Working in an animation/video house at the time, I can tell you we had nothing but trouble from third party boxes. (Of course we had more trouble than most people do even with Apple boxes, but every machine was pushed to its limits every day. The Apple boxes held up better.)

Apple depends on knowing how everything in the box works and fits together. I don't think I would trust them to write an OS in the rough and tumble commodity world of intel hardware. Apple know more than any OS company out there about UI, but they have a horrible track record for writing software that runs anywhere but on a tightly controlled system.

"If Apple were to announce their Mac OS X on Intel, they'd mop up."

Agreed—within a few years, they might even take over more than 50% of the desktop market, which would be a phenomenal blow to Microsoft. But they're not going to, because Apple is run by idiots. They guard their dwindling hardware market so zealously that they're perfectly willing to pass up vastly more profitable software sales—just ask anyone who worked at Power Computing. Even if Apple decides to switch to x86 CPUs for Macs, there will still never be a version of OS X that competes with Windows, because Apple will never, ever release a Mac OS that doesn't require you to buy hardware from Cupertino.