Mac OS X on a PC?
- Thread starter VerzilliD
- Start date
No, you can't!
You can only use on a pentium Darwin, the unix part of mac os x. But you will' have no Aqua interface.
... Someone is recently speakink about a possible new Apple plans about processors ... they should pass to intel tecnologies .... but at the momente these are just voices!
It's no a secret that apple is developing an x86 version of Mac OS X .... but i think you should be a developer to see it running ona common PC ...
You can only use on a pentium Darwin, the unix part of mac os x. But you will' have no Aqua interface.
... Someone is recently speakink about a possible new Apple plans about processors ... they should pass to intel tecnologies .... but at the momente these are just voices!
It's no a secret that apple is developing an x86 version of Mac OS X .... but i think you should be a developer to see it running ona common PC ...
The core of the OS (Darwin) can be run on x86 hardware, however the GUI cannot. Darwin would be the equivilent of DOS, and Aqua would be the Windows that sits on top of DOS. One is x86 compatible, the other is not. It is highly doubtful that Apple will ever release the entire OS for the x86 processor, unless it was custom hardware that would not be Dos/Windows compatible (special chipset and bios).
The only way to experience all that is Mac, is to buy one.. and believe me, you won't regret it.
Boeing777
Progressive Rules!
Apple hasn't yet revealed anything about it's will to release an Intel based OSX in the near future but we know that they are quite capable of doing so since Jobs had done it with NEXTStep few years back and what a success it was.
OSX for Intel shall come when at least 20% of Windows OS user will show real interest for Apple's new OS.
Cheers buddies
OSX for Intel shall come when at least 20% of Windows OS user will show real interest for Apple's new OS.
Cheers buddies
"(Darwin) can be run on x86 hardware, however the GUI cannot. Darwin would be the equivilent of DOS, and Aqua would be the Windows "
TOTALLY NOT TRUE
Darwin is a UNIX system (even though you made an example...it is nothing like dos) and Aqua is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE WINDOWS
Aqua is a GUI as Luna (Windows XP GUI) MAC OS (or finder if you like) is the equivalent of Windows..
NOW
Darwin runs on X86..mac os does not......because darwin is just a subsystem of Mac OSX it is NOT the system.
BSD and Darwin are part of OS X as some of the NeXT component.
Aqua is a GUI and quartz extreme is the graphic engine for that gui.
Hope this explain...
To the original question i should say...Apple has no interest to port X on a PC....why? cause ti would loose the hardware market.
A 1.5 GIG pc with the same features of the last dual 1 gig Apple G4 can be found for 700 dollars..while the dual 1 gig ...is a lot more expensive...you pic the one you prefere.... i would pick the PC.
What keeps users to buy a mac...is the OS not the machine itself...because PC and Mac..are not that different as hardware..they both have DDR memoryu...they both use the same HD the both use the same Videocard... the difference??? the design...the CPU ...and the OS
People that buy a mac...cares about the design...and the OS...
If you take the OS to another platform..people might start getting other machines..even if they re not that stylish...
Students..... home users...would def pass to PC hardware...
So my answer is..NO OS X on PC...get darwin...and have fun...but i do not see OS X on pc...
TOTALLY NOT TRUE
Darwin is a UNIX system (even though you made an example...it is nothing like dos) and Aqua is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE WINDOWS
Aqua is a GUI as Luna (Windows XP GUI) MAC OS (or finder if you like) is the equivalent of Windows..
NOW
Darwin runs on X86..mac os does not......because darwin is just a subsystem of Mac OSX it is NOT the system.
BSD and Darwin are part of OS X as some of the NeXT component.
Aqua is a GUI and quartz extreme is the graphic engine for that gui.
Hope this explain...
To the original question i should say...Apple has no interest to port X on a PC....why? cause ti would loose the hardware market.
A 1.5 GIG pc with the same features of the last dual 1 gig Apple G4 can be found for 700 dollars..while the dual 1 gig ...is a lot more expensive...you pic the one you prefere.... i would pick the PC.
What keeps users to buy a mac...is the OS not the machine itself...because PC and Mac..are not that different as hardware..they both have DDR memoryu...they both use the same HD the both use the same Videocard... the difference??? the design...the CPU ...and the OS
People that buy a mac...cares about the design...and the OS...
If you take the OS to another platform..people might start getting other machines..even if they re not that stylish...
Students..... home users...would def pass to PC hardware...
So my answer is..NO OS X on PC...get darwin...and have fun...but i do not see OS X on pc...
TellarHK
Sarcastic Jerk
From a design point of view, the other poster had it right. It was being put simply so that more people could understand what it meant. However, they were probably referring to the 9X lines of Windows when DOS really still was the basic core of it all. Darwin is not a subsystem - Apple likes to explain it as one because it really makes many Mac fans more comfortable, I guess, but Darwin is really the very core of the OS. This core is available on x86 machines, but then you're stuck with X11 which is a really pathetic, in my opinion, GUI system.
Aqua is only a GUI, very much like Windows 95 was. Aqua just happens to be a lot -better- than any Windows GUI. You can run a different GUI interface if you want to, apparently with and without using Aqua. The reason Aqua isn't being ported to X86 and sold is very simple: Apple would go broke.
Apple survives by providing compelling reasons to purchase Apple hardware. They then hit you up -again- for the software. I wish Apple would make the software free, but continue to charge for the hardware. But, this probably makes almost as poor sense to them financially as selling an x86 version does.
Now why does the idea of selling an x86 platform of Aqua cost Apple money? Because the interest in OS X, even with a 20% market share, wouldn't even come close to being competitive with Microsoft, and the support costs they'd incur by running with your average PC hardware would be absolutely monstrous. What's more likely being considered is that Apple would start building its own hardware based on x86 processors, but continue to only have Apple operating systems that run on Apple hardware. My hope is actually that Apple will be using the new IBM Power 4 chip, and in enough quantity that the prices can come down a bit.
And actually, the machine and hardware itself -is- still a very strong selling point for Apple. Not necessarily because it's faster (it isn't) but because it is a better design and is assembled with higher apparent quality. And time after time, people beat the dead horse that Apple is more expensive but entirely forget the fact they'd probably only be about 10% under the Apple cost -before- having to buy an OS and software applications equivalent to what Apple includes with OS X. Apple makes a quality machine, especially compared to the hundreds of really crappy PC builders out there.
Aqua is only a GUI, very much like Windows 95 was. Aqua just happens to be a lot -better- than any Windows GUI. You can run a different GUI interface if you want to, apparently with and without using Aqua. The reason Aqua isn't being ported to X86 and sold is very simple: Apple would go broke.
Apple survives by providing compelling reasons to purchase Apple hardware. They then hit you up -again- for the software. I wish Apple would make the software free, but continue to charge for the hardware. But, this probably makes almost as poor sense to them financially as selling an x86 version does.
Now why does the idea of selling an x86 platform of Aqua cost Apple money? Because the interest in OS X, even with a 20% market share, wouldn't even come close to being competitive with Microsoft, and the support costs they'd incur by running with your average PC hardware would be absolutely monstrous. What's more likely being considered is that Apple would start building its own hardware based on x86 processors, but continue to only have Apple operating systems that run on Apple hardware. My hope is actually that Apple will be using the new IBM Power 4 chip, and in enough quantity that the prices can come down a bit.
And actually, the machine and hardware itself -is- still a very strong selling point for Apple. Not necessarily because it's faster (it isn't) but because it is a better design and is assembled with higher apparent quality. And time after time, people beat the dead horse that Apple is more expensive but entirely forget the fact they'd probably only be about 10% under the Apple cost -before- having to buy an OS and software applications equivalent to what Apple includes with OS X. Apple makes a quality machine, especially compared to the hundreds of really crappy PC builders out there.
Thank you for the 'correction' however I was replying to the same frame of reference as the question being posed without going into a long drawn out explanation.
The poster asked about the OS, and what he assumed (Aqua) was the GUI.. I simply stated that the OS would run on the x86 platform, but the GUI however would not and made a simple comparison between the differences without further confusing the poster.
For all purposes, Darwin IS the OS because it can run without any GUI, just as DOS can (again, making a simplified reference that most PC users can understand). Aqua & Quartz are the glitzy extension that's layered over the texual base OS (just like Windows). Both together make Mac OS X, but then again, if/when Apple does make a PC version, I doubt it will include the word 'Mac'.
übermac®â¢
You are a litle girlyman
There seems to be much misconception about MacOS X and the PC Platform.
First of all, you can run Darwin on a PC. However, Darwin is not MacOS X. Nor is MacOS X simply a GUI on top of Darwin. Darwin is the bottom layer out of the many layers of OS X. Yes it is the base of the OS, but you are missing Quartz, Quicktime, OpenGL, Aqua, etc., components that are VITAL to making OS X what it is.
Secondly, Apple is not developing OS X for the PC platform, although it doesn't surprise me if they have an inside versions that works on the PC. I mean, MacOS X originally was developed for the Mac platform on Intel based systems (Oh the irony!). However, this system is merely experimental.
Thirdly, the software issues for moving OS X to the PC platform are ENORMOUS. So enormous that Apple would quickly lose strategic software partnerships with Adobe, Macromedia, etc., because these software makers would have to undergo lengthy and costly software re-engineering to reproduce software that would run on OS X for PC. We are talking about years and tens of millions of dollars.
For one thing, Apple is not moving to the PC platform in the next 5-10 years at least, if ever.
I guarantee that you will see some sort of IBM or even Motorola chips in the new Apple computers due out in the sme time frame.
First of all, you can run Darwin on a PC. However, Darwin is not MacOS X. Nor is MacOS X simply a GUI on top of Darwin. Darwin is the bottom layer out of the many layers of OS X. Yes it is the base of the OS, but you are missing Quartz, Quicktime, OpenGL, Aqua, etc., components that are VITAL to making OS X what it is.
Secondly, Apple is not developing OS X for the PC platform, although it doesn't surprise me if they have an inside versions that works on the PC. I mean, MacOS X originally was developed for the Mac platform on Intel based systems (Oh the irony!). However, this system is merely experimental.
Thirdly, the software issues for moving OS X to the PC platform are ENORMOUS. So enormous that Apple would quickly lose strategic software partnerships with Adobe, Macromedia, etc., because these software makers would have to undergo lengthy and costly software re-engineering to reproduce software that would run on OS X for PC. We are talking about years and tens of millions of dollars.
For one thing, Apple is not moving to the PC platform in the next 5-10 years at least, if ever.
I guarantee that you will see some sort of IBM or even Motorola chips in the new Apple computers due out in the sme time frame.
If you wait just a bit longer some one will do a simulator for your to run OS X on a PC. There are a couple simulators out already to run OS 9 and lower.
You can check at http://www.versiontracker.com
and make sure you are in the Windows center, then type in Mac simulator in the search box.
You can check at http://www.versiontracker.com
and make sure you are in the Windows center, then type in Mac simulator in the search box.