Jump to content

Will Apple ditch OSX for Windows!?!?!?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1
ataxy

ataxy

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
This was written by John C. Dvorak @ http://www.pcmag.com

The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.

Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.

Though these points aren't a slam-dunk for Epstein's thesis, other observations support it. The theory explains several odd occurrences, including Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that ran stories about a musicians' breakout box that has yet to be shipped. Like, who cares?

But if Apple's saber-rattling was done to scare the community into backing off so it wouldn't discover the Windows stratagem, then the incident makes more sense. As does Bill Gates's onscreen appearance during Apple's turnaround when Jobs was taking a pot of money from Microsoft. The Windows stratagem may have been a done deal by then. This may also explain the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." What happens after that?

This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January. At Macworld, most observers said that these new Macs could indeed run Windows now.

Bigger companies than Apple have dropped their proprietary OSs in favor of Windowsthink IBM and OS/2. IBM also jumped on the Linux bandwagon over its own AIX version of Unix. Business eventually trumps sentimentality in any large company.

Another issue for Apple is that the Intel platform is wide open, unlike the closed proprietary system Apple once had full control over. With a proprietary architecture, Apple could tweak the OS for a controlled environment without worrying about the demands of a multitude of hardware add-ons and software subsystems. Windows, as crappy as many believe it to be, actually thrives in this mishmash architecture. Products, old and new, have drivers for Windows above all else. By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work.

As someone who believed that the Apple OS x86 could gravitate toward the PC rather than Windows toward the Mac, I have to be realistic. It boils down to the add-ons. Linux on the desktop never caught on because too many devices don't run on that OS. It takes only one favorite gizmo or program to stop a user from changing. Chat rooms are filled with the likes of "How do I get my DVD burner to run on Linux?" This would get old fast at Apple.

Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers.


To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth.

The only fly in the ointment will be the strategic difficulty of breaking the news to the fanatical users. Most were not initially pleased by the switch to Intel's architecture, and this will make them crazy.

Luckily, Apple has a master showman, Steve Jobs. He'll announce that now everything can run on a Mac. He'll say that the switch to Windows gives Apple the best of both worlds. He'll say this is not your daddy's Windows. He'll cajole and cajole, and still hear a few boos. But those will be the last boos he'll hear, for then the Mac will be mainstream. We will welcome the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally.

#2
chiefsalami

chiefsalami

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
HIGHLY unlikely. The whole selling point behind OS X (and of course the hardware you buy for it) is it's simplicity and usability.

Now what I hope becomes true is an OPTION in what OS you'd like to have on your nice Mac hardware. Perhaps the machines can ship with OS X, but if you'd prefer Windows, then pay Apple for it when the machine is purchased and after that you're on your own. Trying to support all the software and hardware that works with Windows is Microsoft's job, not Apple's. So something like a disclaimer would be great (and I would gladly sign it): Problems with OS X on this hardware, we'll support you; if you're running Windows you're on your own.

#3
Ouch

Ouch

    Weee, what a predicament!

  • Retired
  • 1,190 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland
Well my faith in that prediction is not quite nil - but it is reliant on pigs growing wings :dev: (Although I wouldn't put it past a company like Apple to achieve even that)

#4
mushupork5

mushupork5

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
it is certainly an interesting argument, and highly plausible. yes the mac crowd will be upset, but to be honest the majority of the mac crowd I know doesn't even know what a G4 is (these are college kiddos).

keep i mind that apple has sold 1 billion songs on iTunes, even if their profit margin isn't that high, they are making bank and will be making bank. they can drop their OS development team. even on this forum people get pissed when hacked OSX won't run on their hardware.

#5
ibm-apple

ibm-apple

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
i vote very plausable...

it's all about greenbacks sonny!

p.s. think of all there cool application software they could sell to windows users... and the big buck pro stuff like aperture and final cut!

#6
Ouch

Ouch

    Weee, what a predicament!

  • Retired
  • 1,190 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland
Well i suppose if i was to mention the recent rumors that apple was developing Dharma implementation of it's cocoa framework for windows that would allow Cocoa Apps to run on Windows.

#7
ataxy

ataxy

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
Will Apple Adopt Windows? -- NO! (My Response to Dvorak)
posted by Matthew Russell @ http://www.oreillynet.com


Or perhaps I should say, "Hell No!"

I normally don't comment on articles that are already running rampant on Slashdot, but I can't help myself here. Windows is my nemesis, and there's an article running on PC Magazine that suggests that Apple may actually switch its OS to Windows.

Is it April Fool's day today? No. Is Dvorak insane? Maybe. Will Apple switch to Windows? Not a chance. Let's take a look at a few blurbs and attempt to at least provide a cursory disarmament.


"Bigger companies than Apple have dropped their proprietary OSs in favor of Windowsthink IBM and OS/2. IBM also jumped on the Linux bandwagon over its own AIX version of Unix. Business eventually trumps sentimentality in any large company."

Ok, business is business. I can agree with that -- but examples prove nothing. Nothing at all. Not in mathematics, not in business, not anywhere. Moving on...

"Another issue for Apple is that the Intel platform is wide open, unlike the closed proprietary system Apple once had full control over. With a proprietary architecture, Apple could tweak the OS for a controlled environment without worrying about the demands of a multitude of hardware add-ons and software subsystems. Windows, as crappy as many believe it to be, actually thrives in this mishmash architecture. Products, old and new, have drivers for Windows above all else. By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work."

Ok, Apple has clearly benefited from not having to deal with 1,001 different pieces of hardware. There's no question that having a "controlled environment" releases you from the demands of a multitude of hardware add-ons and the support that comes along with it, but wait a tick, what about that last comment, "Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work"? -- Not true. What would Microsoft tell you if you called them and said, "Hey my non-MS camera doesn't work with Windows"? They'd tell you to call the manufacturer. Not them. Apple would do the same. No OS vendor is required to handle 3rd party hardware issues, and Apple is no different.

"Linux on the desktop never caught on because too many devices don't run on that OS. It takes only one favorite gizmo or program to stop a user from changing. Chat rooms are filled with the likes of "How do I get my DVD burner to run on Linux?" This would get old fast at Apple."

Ditto. This is an absurd point to make. Either the third party manufacturer supplies the drivers or they don't. Heck, if Apple (or Windows) were responsible for such things, then why would manufacturers even bother writing their own drivers?

Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers.

So effectively, you're saying that Apple would simply become an overpriced hardware company? And you claim to have used OS X? The beauty of the software is as much a defining property of Apple as the hardware ever has been, not to mention the beauty and flexibility of the development kits available. So, yeeeaaahh. Let's just ditch Tiger and the upcoming Leopard and just shift over to Vista (if it's ever released) on some overpriced custom hardware. Absurd.

"To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth."

Are you serious? The last thing Windows needs is another software layer slowing it down, and besides, the look and feel of Aqua is just one element to consider. The inherent stability is the other big one you need to consider.

Various tweaks could improve any OS, so that's sort of an irrelevant comment.

"Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft?" Well, because of this thing called software engineering. I don't think we're going to be able to take Quartz and just slap it on top of whatever kernel Windows uses -- not even after a significant amount of effort.

"The only fly in the ointment will be the strategic difficulty of breaking the news to the fanatical users. Most were not initially pleased by the switch to Intel's architecture, and this will make them crazy."

No, your idea makes me crazy. But moving back to your original plan, why would Apple even care about their fanatical users that so define them? If they're willing to go through the utter hell of the software engineering and tarnish to their name after such a move, then honestly, why even care about the users? Effectively, what would happen is that Apple probably would lose a lot of their cult following, AND the would-be Windows users wouldnt want to buy their products either. They'd just stick with their Dell that is running standard hardware. What you're talking about here is a lose-lose situation. Not a win-win by any stretch.

"Luckily, Apple has a master showman, Steve Jobs. He'll announce that now everything can run on a Mac. He'll say that the switch to Windows gives Apple the best of both worlds. He'll say this is not your daddy's Windows. He'll cajole and cajole, and still hear a few boos. But those will be the last boos he'll hear, for then the Mac will be mainstream. We will welcome the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally."

If you're gong to speak for Steve, then so am I -- he would never do that. The thought of it would make him stick to his stomach. He's way to picky and finnicky to ever want a substandard software product to run on his pampered hardware. Remember here -- we're talking about the same guy who had a NeXT building painted with multiple shades of grey until it was just right. The same guy who had the latch of the PowerBook redesigned till he liked the way it snapped shut. The same guy who had the corners of the PowerBook redesigned till they were just right. Or so it's rumored.

"We will welcome the once-isolated Apple mavens, finally." No. Maybe you would, but I would switch to Linux entirely, and you can call me on it when Steve fulfills your prophecy that's never going to happen. I wouldn't buy overpriced hardware, nor would I buy any product that runs Windows.

What about you? Would you buy Apple hardware that runs Windows? Would you feel at all betrayed if OS X development were just abandoned? Could any idea be more absurd?

#8
ibm-apple

ibm-apple

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts
who knows, aplple will be switching to intel nex....

nah, it will never happen

#9
NRG-753

NRG-753

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
Now I use Windows more than OSX, but I know for a fact that OSX is much better than Windows due to it's performance, simplicity, and stablity. I would hate to see this happen, I'd much rather OSX come to PC (we'll PC's without an EFI chip anyways ;) ) I think most buy a Mac for the OS and not the Hardware.

#10
-.-

-.-

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 168 posts
That guy is crazy, nobody likes windows.

ok maybe a few people do but no one can figure out why.

#11
A Nonny Moose

A Nonny Moose

    Proud PPC User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
The short response--Dvorak is a fooking idiot who just wants attention, so disregard everything he says.

#12
Mac OSX Coder

Mac OSX Coder

    Look a bunny!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
haha, I agree with nonny moose, mac will never ever switch to windows...

#13
Takuro

Takuro

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Retired
  • 1,162 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York
Posted Image

You'd be surprised...

Look at the bright side: it could be worse. How much worse, you ask? This much:
Posted Image
Bet'cha Dvorak didn't see that coming.

#14
mac86

mac86

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38 posts
Takuro, that is some funny $hit!

#15
thrunner

thrunner

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts

I know for a fact that OSX is much better than Windows due to it's performance, simplicity, and stablity

OSX is nice but not really faster (see bench comparison chart), simpler (have you used sudo?) or more stable (well, you can't expect a hacked OSX to be very stable. I think it is clear that there are more TPM checks unaccounted for in 10.4.5 that may make it unstable.)
Posted Image

#16
tskguy

tskguy

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
"The only fly in the ointment will be the strategic difficulty of breaking the news to the fanatical users"


Foreseeable or not. Some of the previous posts prove the statement I quoted above!

#17
torncanvas

torncanvas

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Will Apple Adopt Windows? -- NO! (My Response to Dvorak)
posted by Matthew Russell @ http://www.oreillynet.com

Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers.

So effectively, you're saying that Apple would simply become an overpriced hardware company? And you claim to have used OS X? The beauty of the software is as much a defining property of Apple as the hardware ever has been, not to mention the beauty and flexibility of the development kits available. So, yeeeaaahh. Let's just ditch Tiger and the upcoming Leopard and just shift over to Vista (if it's ever released) on some overpriced custom hardware. Absurd.

"To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth."

Are you serious? The last thing Windows needs is another software layer slowing it down, and besides, the look and feel of Aqua is just one element to consider. The inherent stability is the other big one you need to consider.


I agree. This article is ridiculous.

Apple does NOT think of themselves as a hardware company anymore. Coming from Steve himself:

"We're a good hardware company, too, but we're really good at software."

http://www.businessw...8_PG2_db083.htm

Notice the difference between good and really good. Those are carefully chosen words. Steve thinks Apple is better at the software than the hardware, so don't give us that "Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company" {censored}.

And I wish people would stop saying Apple is in the "overpriced" or "luxury" or whatever niche. Stop saying that! Have you people actually compared prices recently? The new Intel Macs are equal with all of the vendors when you actually match up all of the features including software, and they are only a little more expensive when not including software.

Apple wants to give users the whole experience in one easy to use package. Just read that Business Week article. That's what they do. Switching to Windows would destroy all of that.

Don't be idiots - don't listen to Dvorak.

#18
Xander

Xander

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Just Joined
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
I dont think i have ever read so much {censored} in my life!!!!

Many people switch to using the Mac due to the operating system, rather than hardware.

It is quite simply that.

I work for a UK computer retail company, and I specialise in Mac sales and repairs.

I have found that the majority of people buyign a Mac fall into one of the following catagories.

1) Newbies. -

These are people (often students) buying a computer for either work, college, uni, or just for fun, and are often migrating from a shared machine.

Newbies tend to buy a Mac just to be different, or because they like the design. It's common for students to buy them just for the look. Lets face it, there are very few machines on the market that look as funkey as an iBook in the same price range!

2) Casual Users -

Normally Windows veterans, they have become sick of waiting for their old, bloated Micro$ machines to perform simple tasks. They dont know how to clear out their IE cache, or change screen resolutions. They just want to edit their digital photos, email them to friends, listen to some music, and browse the web.

3) Power Users -

These are people who use a computer regularly, and have a fairly good working knowlege of hardeware and software. They are sick of WIndows not taking full advantage of their P4, and dont want to have to buy more ram to upgrade to the new releases of their fave applications.
All they want is a machine that will run applications for them, and does not need to be defragged, virus scanned, or cleaned out once a week.

They are sick of spyware, and quite simply, just want something that they can switch on, and use, without waiting or tweaking.

4) Developers -

Proffesional programmers (I am one myself) who have becom sick to the back teeth of Microsoft's lying attitude. "The bug isnt with COM, its with Borland C++"....

Ok, we call Borland, who reproduce the error, and confirm it is Microsoft's.

We tell Microsoft, they sya that it must be isolated, and to reinstall Windows.

2 months later, A PATCH COMES OUT TO FIX A NON EXISTANT ERROR!!!




That rambling DOES actually have a point!!!

People either switch to the Mac in frustration with windows, or the start on a Mac simply because they think they are cool.

Those people who buy a Mac for the look of the machine, normally prefer the sleak simple lines of MacOS to the plastic blue of windows, so they would mostl likely not want the OS form HELL running on their machine messin the whole thing up!!!


Those people who switch in frustration with an operating system that is as flakey as a leppar colony would not want to pay the extra for the added loss of performance!!!



Another issue. Here are a couple of store price examples from our outlet.

MacOS X Tiger - Intel/PPC Single User Version - 89.00
MacOS X Tiger - Intel/PPC 5 User Family Pack - 129.00

Windows XP Home Edition Single User - 218.95
Windows XP Pro Edition Single User - 259.95


So, pay less than a ton to get the up to date MacOS, or for more than twice the cost, get the 5 year old Windows version.

What would you take?



Oh, one last thing.

" IBM also jumped on the Linux bandwagon over its own AIX version of Unix."

AIX was developed BEFORE Linux. It was a variant of System V Unix that ran on the IBM servers.

VERY stable OS!!!

#19
Ouch

Ouch

    Weee, what a predicament!

  • Retired
  • 1,190 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh, Scotland

1) Newbies. -
...
2) Casual Users -
...
3) Power Users -
...
4) Developers -


:) I think you just described every computer user on the planet.

#20
xenopod

xenopod

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
as pc user can i have my thoughts on apple destination in the future, ok here goes , apple knows its got a good operating system and hareware platform, but this is not good enough for them, they need a bigger market share, so they construct an os x version that runs on intel hardware, why you ask simple because they know people will right drivers for hardware, and a couple of years down the line os x suddenly becomes a real possibility for windows users, we all hate windows but only because the options open to us have been nil as to a operating system to run on wot i concider to be cheap hardware, thats what make pc's attractive the price, now apple are piping into that market and if some hackerscan get it running on generic pc's then hell apple can do it proberbly better or just as well, as for stability ok at present not very good but its getting there, if you would have asked me two years ago would i be running os x on a pc i would have been the first to say wow a pipe dream guys. but its happening and soon i reckon apple with go head to head with windows, lets see if they devolop os x for a palm pc that would be interesting. well my two penny's heard so i will stop wondering about the future.

thumbs up from me if apple want to kill windows , i am all for it lol .





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy