Big Suprise in Leopard?

[PGHammer]

Well they would lose big time on their hardware... and we know they are making much profit on that.

Before buying a Mac, I've tried to install OS X on a PC. I regretted it... maybe it's changed (as it was one year ago), but I had no sound, no graphics acceleration, poor wireless connection support, a poor boot process, etc... I really don't recommend doing that :(

Anyway, the designs of the Macs are so killer nowadays and they have everything included that many people seem forget about (bluetooth, Firewire 2, airport, isight, etc.) I don't see why someone would try building a PC tower and install OS X in it.

Part of the reason that installing OS X on a PC is difficult is because of a small, but extremely vocal, part of Apple's user base. (I call these *acolytes* the Church Of Macintosh.) They have *insisted* that the core of the Macintosh experience is tied to the hardware, and have resisted, with a large amount of success, any attempt to genercize Mac hardware. Note that the only tower Intel Mac, the Mac Pro, is based on ther XEON processor. Why has there *not* been a tower-based Mac based on the Core2Quad, which is the desktop version of the same XEON processor in those same Mac Pros? It need be no threat to the Mac Pro, as it would cost less: it would, instead, be an alternative to the iMac, especially for those Mac fans that *prefer* a tower or more PC-like Mac but don't need the sheer firepower of the Mac Pro. That is no-lose, as Intel sells no quad-core processors, XEON or otherwise, to Apple; yet Apple hasn't jumped on it. Why not? Another part of the difficulties in driver support is Apple's two-part driver: part of it is in the OS, but the remainder is actually in the ROM/firmware that the software half of the driver talks to. This is an utter *nightmare* for internal peripheral vendors (note that there is no such thing as a generic PC/Mac internal upgrade item any more except for storage devices: only USB devices, which connect externally, are spared this agony). Generic PCs have indeed been gotten to work, and they do, in fact, work quite well (in a lot of cases, at least as well as the real Macs they clone running the same software); however, the acolytes of the Church of Macintosh don't like it, and have largely been behind the troops of Apple Legal's attempts to stop it, or at least throw wrenches into the process. (What makes the two-part driver a definite deliberate *tying* attempt by Apple is that the electrical interface for graphical accelerators for the Mac Pro (the most PC-like of all Macs) is the PCIe x16 interface (the same interface used in PCs); however, graphical accelerators intended for Macs require an extra ROM chip to interface with the other half of the device driver; this same ROM also makes the card unusable for PCs. If anyone else did something like that (say, Sun Microsystems), they would, correctly, be accused of monopolistic practices. (I brought up Sun for a reason: like Apple, they make and sell computer hardware; in fact, unlike Apple, they make non-x86 computer hardware, in addition to x86-based computer hardware. Sun has open-sourced Solaris: it is, in fact, the first no-cost true UNIX available for x86 hardware. Sun not only ships non-x86 hardware running Solaris, they ship x86 hardware running Solaris (or even *Windows XP/Vista/Server 2003*). That's right: Sun sells x86 servers (and workstations) running Windows operating systems. In what way is this a threat to Sun's non-x86 computer business (which, by the way, Apple no longer has as an excuse)?

Apple remains a captive of the acolytes; until and unless this is overcome, there will be no generic OS X for generic x86 PCs outside of Apple's labs (in a legal sense).

[Glassed Silver]

ok let me get this corrected:

Apple's latest betas don't feature anything "totall unannounced"+Steve's promise is older than the announcement of all features we know of+Why would they beta test an OS with an important part - note: its the "big surprise" every1 drools when just hearing surprise+apple -> raises EXPECTATIONS - no beta test+high expectation=russian roulette...

i hope ive made stuff clear... ^^

but maybe its a non-feature-wise goodie that will be bundled, but what can it be? HAHA ^^

Glassed Silver:mac

[PGHammer]

Strangely OS's like Linux and FreeBSD don't have any problems regarding drivers and system stability. It comes down to faulty design in Windows when it comes to drivers (most likely the part where drivers and kernel interact). So it really is Microsoft's fault since other OS's don't have that problem.

Graphics drivers in OS X are two-part drivers; while half resides in the operating system, the other half resides in firmware resident on the graphics accelerator itself. It's why ATI's attempt at generic (PC/Mac) internal graphics accelerators was a disaster despite the common interface; the extra firmware resident on these cards severely hobbled functionality in non-Macs (in fact, it required special drivers, as opposed to the common driver suite prevalent for their PC-based relatives). That is also why nVidia has never even remotely considered a common (Mac/PC) family of graphical products in any of their 8 and 7 series lines.

FireWire 2, unlike the original FireWire, is very much an Apple-only specification, and for the same reason. (While Apple has been much more liberal with licensing the original FireWire specification, per their deals with VIA and Creative, they did not repeat those terms with FireWire 2.) Bluetooth is, in fact, very much prevalent on the PC, especially in terms of wireless peripherals (in fact, the same Bluetooth peripherals work on both Macs and PCs today); however, unlike FireWire 2, Apple couldn't lock down Bluetooth. iSight? That is a straightforward application of the USB specification, which is platform-neutral (and operating-system neutral as well). The big issue there is *hardware support*, and that's not an operating system-related issue (iSight works great on MacBooks, but has issues on the Mac Pro, yet both run the same OS). I own a Logitech Communicate STX; works great in Windows XP (with drivers included with the product), with Windows Vista (via drivers included with the operating system, and automagically updated via Windows Update) and even works with iSight in OS X (via the generic Macam driver). It's not similar hardware, but the *same* hardware; however, I will admit that iSight works best with the *included* camera in MacBooks. (That is a hardware-support issue, and can be laid squarely at the feet of Apple.) What's amusing is that *despite* the issues involved with non-Apple Webcam usage in OS X, OS X *still* has better support for third-party cameras than Linux or UNIX.

USB printers: Again, this is not even remotely OS-related. Issues regarding USB printers often boil down to what the hardware manufacturer did that went away from the basic USB printer interface specification. Consider three USB printer manufacturers: HP, Lexmark, and Canon. HP has the best USB printer support in Windows; however, HP also has the best USB printer support *outside* of Windows as well (in fact, every Linux distribution, Solaris, and OS X support most HP USB printers directly, without user intervention). Canon trails HP, but not by much; Lexmark, the former non-network printer division of IBM, falls down badly here, both in and outside of Windows. (In fact, Lexmark's printer driver woes in *Windows* are so bad, I refuse to recommend Lexmark's printers, period.)

So I must humbly refuse to hop on the *blame Microsoft* bandwagon regarding driver issues, as in the vast majority of cases, the issues with hardware support cut across multiple operating systems: in cases like that, the hardware manufacturer, not the OS vendor, is to blame.

A last data point: I have a Microsoft Internet Keyboard and IntelliMouse (both of the PS/2 or USB flavor); yet I have no problems using either in OS X (or Linux, or even Solaris for that matter).

[CPressland]

WOW, I just worked out what it is! The Big Surprise will be, When you restart your Mac you no longer get "recovered files" in the trash :p

[PyX]

Even better... with Time Machine, you'll be able to go back to previous versions of Mac OS with Claris Works installed! :D

.......................

Oh wait... why would we need that?

[theyarecomingforyou]

This whole idea of opening up OS X to every platform should be put to rest once and for all. It's utterly ridiculous, and smacks of business-suicide. Apple hardware + OS X exclusively is a winning combination. it's what keeps the whole experience not only unique, but also stable and by and large worry-free.

Utterly ridiculous? Hardly. You might not like it but the suggestion is completely logical and has many benefits (as well as drawbacks). Last time I checked Microsoft was one of the biggest companies in the world and they made their money primarily through software.

NEway, what's with all this nonsense about driver hell? All they need to do is require drivers to be signed - that way Apple still has control over the OS and it's stability but gives users a lot more flexibility. Microsoft is moving that way with Vista x64 anyway.

The next person who suggests opening up OS X in such a manner deserves a flying leg-drop. Enough already.

Seriously dude, you need to chill out. People here are making suggestions because they like Apple products and want to use them - not because they want to destroy Apple. You sound like you're part of a cult with your refusal to accept anything outside of the current Apple doctrine. Many people said the Mac platform was all about PowerPC and how regular PC processors just weren't up to the job - they were quite shocked to see Apple change tact. I don't see much difference in opening up the platform to regular PC hardware... with signed drivers it's not like they'd be opening up the flood gates to stability hell. We've also seen plenty of security flaws in OSX over the past year or so, some within Apple's own drivers - it's not like the current situation prevents these issues.

It would also be nice is Apple could get their act together and make OSX a decent platform for games, though that doesn't seem likely any time soon (if ever). The problem is that they have a considerable premium over comparable PC parts but do less (gaming is a big factor for many people). OSX running on PC hardware and supporting most gaming releases would makes them a serious player and I would seriously consider them over the aggressive moves Microsoft has made recently - however, OSX is just not an option with their overpriced hardware and limited functionality (gaming).

[zulugod]

Maybe Apple will drop illuminous in over the current semi-unified theme...?

[Galley]

The "super secret feature" has yet to be revealed (except to Apple employees who saw demonstrations of it last week).

[zulugod]

The "super secret feature" has yet to be revealed (except to Apple employees who saw demonstrations of it last week).

LOL :) If only it were true.

[thur1]

I don't see much of a benefit for Apple opening up OS X, except for money, but Apple has plenty. Maybe not as much as Microsoft, but I don't see many of Apple's stockholders too unhappy about that. If OS X does open up, I bet a lot of Apple's developers would quit. Then you wouldn't end up with the same OS X. :D

[CPressland]

Yeah, scary thought, might get a software update one day, restart your mac and the dock has been replaced by a Taskbar!!!!

I know if I worked for Apple i'd quit if they opened up to PCs, you wouldnt have the freedom of coding your software just to work with a specific hardware set, instead you'd have to code it to support all kinds of crappy hardware.

On that note however, I would like to see some AMD Chips in Macs in the future.

[LTD]

Utterly ridiculous? Hardly. You might not like it but the suggestion is completely logical and has many benefits (as well as drawbacks). Last time I checked Microsoft was one of the biggest companies in the world and they made their money primarily through software.

NEway, what's with all this nonsense about driver hell? All they need to do is require drivers to be signed - that way Apple still has control over the OS and it's stability but gives users a lot more flexibility. Microsoft is moving that way with Vista x64 anyway.

Seriously dude, you need to chill out. People here are making suggestions because they like Apple products and want to use them - not because they want to destroy Apple. You sound like you're part of a cult with your refusal to accept anything outside of the current Apple doctrine. Many people said the Mac platform was all about PowerPC and how regular PC processors just weren't up to the job - they were quite shocked to see Apple change tact. I don't see much difference in opening up the platform to regular PC hardware... with signed drivers it's not like they'd be opening up the flood gates to stability hell. We've also seen plenty of security flaws in OSX over the past year or so, some within Apple's own drivers - it's not like the current situation prevents these issues.

It would also be nice is Apple could get their act together and make OSX a decent platform for games, though that doesn't seem likely any time soon (if ever). The problem is that they have a considerable premium over comparable PC parts but do less (gaming is a big factor for many people). OSX running on PC hardware and supporting most gaming releases would makes them a serious player and I would seriously consider them over the aggressive moves Microsoft has made recently - however, OSX is just not an option with their overpriced hardware and limited functionality (gaming).

Here's why you're ignorant.

The idea of Apple releasing Mac OS X to run on industry standard PCs seems to make a lot of sense on the surface. After all, wouldn't Apple be better off selling tens of millions copies of software, rather than around 6 million Macs every year?

The obvious problem is that retail copies of Mac OS X would come at the expense of Mac hardware sales. Apple not only earns a higher manufacturing profit on its Macs compared to most PC makers, but it also makes a retail profit on all Macs sold through its online and retail stores.

In addition, Mac hardware sales are accompanied by software sales, retail accessories, and service plans such as AppleCare and .Mac, all of which generate far more profit than a software box. Why would Apple give up its entire business, which is outpacing the rest of the industry in both growth and profits, to become a software vendor dependent on the whim of other hardware makers?

Converting into a software company was something NeXT already tried. It didn't work back then, and the failure of Linux on the desktop today--a free product--suggests that there isn't money to be made in trying to sell a retail desktop operating system for PCs.

Other failures from OS/2 to BeOS could also be cited. The only reason Microsoft makes money selling Windows is because it has the market locked up; it sells OEM copies of Windows in high volume at very low cost--in the ballpark of $30 a copy.

If Microsoft were selling a large number of retail copies of Windows at around $300, it would not be reporting that 80% of its Windows revenues come from those ultra cheap OEM licenses.

Apple is simply much better off riding its increasing wave of hardware sales. If there were any need to continue arguing the point, it could be pointed out that much of the value in Apple's offerings come from hardware and software integration.

When running Mac OS X on a PC, there is no support for features unique to Apple hardware, such as two finger clicking and scrolling; features such as Firewire Target Mode don't work either. The retail profits on software would be quickly eaten up by increased PC support costs and efforts to support a far wider range of drivers.

Apple is unlikely to ever offer Mac OS X to Dell and HP for the same reason that NeXTSTEP was originally paired with custom hardware: it makes it much easier to ensure things work flawlessly. The failure of NeXT's own attempts to become a software company have been inherited by Apple as a historical warning. Apple itself also took a stab at licensing to cloners, with disastrous results.

Further, recent efforts by Microsoft to duplicate its Windows monopoly in the field of handheld computing, music players, tablet PCs, and related initiatives have all been a failure.

Palm's efforts to license the Palm OS to Sony, for use in the Clie PDAs, did not work out well either. Microsoft's fortunes from Windows were a lucky fluke resulting from the mistakes of IBM and later PC hardware makers.

Apple not only has no window of opportunity to successfully enter the generic PC operating system race, but has no interest in doing so. A unique OS gives Apple a product that is very difficult to copy; this applies not only to the Mac, but now also to the iPhone, an apparently the Apple TV, too.

Are we done now?

[osirisX]

Maybe Apple will drop illuminous in over the current semi-unified theme...?

Must I bring out the Illuminous screenshots again? :p

[fukachu]

gaming is a big factor for many people

people need to wake up and realise gaming is NOT a big factor for the majority of Windows PC/ Mac

OS X users.. I don't even have one friend who cares at all for gaming on their computer.

haha how awesome would it be if Illuminous broke out as a special skin in leopard, sexiest design ever!

[.Kompressor]

By the way.

Macrumors reported that Apple released a new beta test of the ZFS system with Full READ/WRITE capability.

http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/04/apple-...-1-for-leopard/

[Elliott]

october 32nd doesnt exist...

Apple will invent it. :p It'll be a proprietary day only for Mac users, unfortunately. Windows users won't catch on to the revolution for another 10 years.

[Jordan Green]

The "Illuminous" theme wont be dropping down on us, we will get what we see now....

[bobbba]

Part of the reason that installing OS X on a PC is difficult is because of a small, but extremely vocal, part of Apple's user base. (I call these *acolytes* the Church Of Macintosh.) They have *insisted* that the core of the Macintosh experience is tied to the hardware, and have resisted, with a large amount of success, any attempt to genercize Mac hardware.

Mac users have resisted OS X on generic hardware??? Don't you think that the people who wrote OS X (Apple) might have played a part in that and not the end users...

Note that the only tower Intel Mac, the Mac Pro, is based on ther XEON processor. Why has there *not* been a tower-based Mac based on the Core2Quad, which is the desktop version of the same XEON processor in those same Mac Pros? It need be no threat to the Mac Pro, as it would cost less: it would, instead, be an alternative to the iMac, especially for those Mac fans that *prefer* a tower or more PC-like Mac but don't need the sheer firepower of the Mac Pro. That is no-lose, as Intel sells no quad-core processors, XEON or otherwise, to Apple; yet Apple hasn't jumped on it. Why not?

The reason the Mac Pro uses Xeon's is because intel's desktop chips are locked by intel to not support multiple CPU socket's and the Mac Pro has 2x CPU socket support.

Another part of the difficulties in driver support is Apple's two-part driver: part of it is in the OS, but the remainder is actually in the ROM/firmware that the software half of the driver talks to. This is an utter *nightmare* for internal peripheral vendors (note that there is no such thing as a generic PC/Mac internal upgrade item any more except for storage devices: only USB devices, which connect externally, are spared this agony). Generic PCs have indeed been gotten to work, and they do, in fact, work quite well (in a lot of cases, at least as well as the real Macs they clone running the same software); however, the acolytes of the Church of Macintosh don't like it, and have largely been behind the troops of Apple Legal's attempts to stop it, or at least throw wrenches into the process. (What makes the two-part driver a definite deliberate *tying* attempt by Apple is that the electrical interface for graphical accelerators for the Mac Pro (the most PC-like of all Macs) is the PCIe x16 interface (the same interface used in PCs); however, graphical accelerators intended for Macs require an extra ROM chip to interface with the other half of the device driver; this same ROM also makes the card unusable for PCs. If anyone else did something like that (say, Sun Microsystems), they would, correctly, be accused of monopolistic practices. (I brought up Sun for a reason: like Apple, they make and sell computer hardware; in fact, unlike Apple, they make non-x86 computer hardware, in addition to x86-based computer hardware. Sun has open-sourced Solaris: it is, in fact, the first no-cost true UNIX available for x86 hardware. Sun not only ships non-x86 hardware running Solaris, they ship x86 hardware running Solaris (or even *Windows XP/Vista/Server 2003*). That's right: Sun sells x86 servers (and workstations) running Windows operating systems. In what way is this a threat to Sun's non-x86 computer business (which, by the way, Apple no longer has as an excuse)?

Apple remains a captive of the acolytes; until and unless this is overcome, there will be no generic OS X for generic x86 PCs outside of Apple's labs (in a legal sense).

Locking software to hardware by the manufacturer is hardly unique to Apple. It happens with Xboxes, Playstations and Mobile Phones.

[BajiRav]

Locking software to hardware by the manufacturer is hardly unique to Apple. It happens with Xboxes, Playstations and Mobile Phones.

Apple doesn't sell hardware at loss and hence comparison with Xbox and Playstation is not really valid.

[the evn show]

Apple doesn't sell hardware at loss and hence comparison with Xbox and Playstation is not really valid.

Nintendo doesn't sell wiis that way either.

[CPressland]

OMG, You guys are going into so much crap about why it should/shouldn't be on Normal machines, Face the fact guys, it wont be for many years to come, Apple are putting a lot of time and effort into Boot Camp for example and thats a prime example of why they wont port to PCs for a while to come.

It wont happen, get over it, can we please get on topic or start another discussion in another thread?

Mac OS X Leopard is drawing nearer day by day and because of you guys baffling on about this we're no closer to working out the "Big Suprise in Leopard' read the fraking thread title guys!

Rant over

[bobbba]

Apple doesn't sell hardware at loss and hence comparison with Xbox and Playstation is not really valid.

I don't really agree with you there. it's still a hardware platform and the only reason they sell at a loss is because of the competition when their platforms are being established. by the time someone has purchased a few games and accesories the loss is gone and $$ are rolling in. both manufacturers go to extensive lengths to prevent their products being used in ways that they don't approve of just like apple.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Here's why you're ignorant.

By all means make your points but that is completely uncalled for. It is both immature and unhelpful.

Why would Apple give up its entire business, which is outpacing the rest of the industry in both growth and profits, to become a software vendor dependent on the whim of other hardware makers?

Why indeed. Surprisingly enough I wasn't suggesting that. Apple's hardware commands a considerable premium and generates a lot of profit for them - my suggestion is that they shift their business model more towards that of Dell and HP but occupying the top premium end. That would likely lead to a drop in hardware sales in the short-term for combined systems (like the iMac) but wouldn't affect or may benefit other areas like Apple's Cinema Displays.

Converting into a software company was something NeXT already tried. It didn't work back then, and the failure of Linux on the desktop today--a free product--suggests that there isn't money to be made in trying to sell a retail desktop operating system for PCs.

Firstly, as stated, I'm not suggesting a conversion to being a software company but opening up the platform that OSX runs on. Secondly, NeXT was a relatively insignificant company beforehand (and afterwards) and doesn't occupy the top-tier media position that Apple does. Finally, Linux is irrelevant because it is not user friendly and very fractured / undefined.

Further, recent efforts by Microsoft to duplicate its Windows monopoly in the field of handheld computing, music players, tablet PCs, and related initiatives have all been a failure.

It hasn't been trying to dominate in those areas - the Zune is sold in very few territories (namely: America) and hasn't had any serious money invested in it. On the otherhand the Xbox brand has and that has proved to be a success.

Microsoft's fortunes from Windows were a lucky fluke resulting from the mistakes of IBM and later PC hardware makers.

That may be true for how Windows started but Microsoft has had to work to maintain Office and other brands. It may be hard for consumers/businesses to move away from Windows but it is easier to move away from Office. The point is that Microsoft has really worked to maintain that brand and basically removing backwards compatability with file formats / interface with Office 2007 has proved that people are wanting to use it, despite the training costs and pricing. The nature of Microsoft's Windows monopoly is also the more reason for a true rival to appear - Microsoft hasn't had to work to maintain it, as the luke-warm response to Vista has demonstrated - it would be easy for Apple to pick up all the disenfranchised people that are not interested in purchasing premium hardware.

The current situation is that few people are willing to buy a whole new computer at a premium that can do less than their current system (gaming, etc). If people can keep their current hardware / continue to buy cheaper hardware then it opens up a vast OSX to a vast number of new potential customers - it doesn't require Apple to give up their hardware, though it will require them to adjust their business strategy. Potentially it could increase Apple hardware sales in time as the brand builds thanks to OSX being open.

I think it makes sound business sense and many market analysts think so also, so it's not like I'm proposing something radical. If not opening up OSX then at least gaming should be a focus. I think it's telling that it's their laptops that sell best, an area where gaming is much less important.

NEway, it's only my opinion. I don't claim it's better than yours. I just wish they'd do something as I am interested in their products / OSX - the problem is that even if Macs were cheaper than PCs I still wouldn't go for them because they don't do gaming.

[Vice]

The "Big" surprise in Leopard is that every box contains a real life-sized Leopard that after its done clawing your face off, teaches you how to use Time Machine & Spaces.

[andrew_f]

Firstly, as stated, I'm not suggesting a conversion to being a software company but opening up the platform that OSX runs on. Secondly, NeXT was a relatively insignificant company beforehand (and afterwards) and doesn't occupy the top-tier media position that Apple does. Finally, Linux is irrelevant because it is not user friendly and very fractured / undefined.

That would be Darwin then, wouldn't it?