rajeshk4u Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I challenge Apple to release OSX86 for PCs at $9.99! Come on Apple, we want to see someone challenge Windows! Microsoft stole your crown when they copied your darn Mac OS and put you to near bankrupcy! For too long Windows has dominated the PC market. Users want a simple, nice alternative. There are plenty of users who have simple needs eg Internet Surfing, Email, Music, DTP, DVD Playing, Photos, Printing and Word processing and Spreadsheet. And I think many PC manufacterer could offer OSX86 as a cheaper alternative to Windows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user2 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Ah hell, why not $5.99. Or even better they could pay us to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straylight Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Its not really realistic, though it would be nice: I'd do it in a heartbeat if it was as easy as deciding mac or windows and popping in a dvd. Granted I would have to dual boot for games, but the Aesthetics are too pleasing NOT to choose OSX- But i digress. Apple wont ever release their OS as a standalone, its just not how their whole business was built. They would lose WAAAAYY too much money in the transition. Straylight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRP Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 What's with the font? Y'know, a truly awful font made for Microsoft that has drawn the ire of designers everywhere? They could just choose hardware that works with something like Linux (costing FREE) and just run their own distro, but that takes effort they don't want to commit and takes away a lot of compatibility with the applications people currently use and can't be bothered to fiddle with; it's easier to package Windows along with the computer and let Microsoft take care of it as far as they're concerned. It makes it easier for Apple if they use their own hardware, because then they can make sure that everything Just Works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9mmCensor Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Seeing as Apple sells Tiger for Macs for 129, plus they make money off hardware sells, $9.99 is a stupid and insanely unrealistic price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Indeed - 10 bucks wouldn't cover the DVD and box it was shipped in. I'd buy it for $100 easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netzen7 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 $199, download only version for $149? Additional $20 off for turning in any previous version of M$ Windows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabr Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 I'd buy it for $100 easily Yeah, that sounds about the right price I'd pay for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatsfunny Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Any calls for $49.95? According Bob Cringeley, that is what MS should do with their OS, scrap Vista and produce something small and fast and more secure that is compatible with legacy hardware: If Microsoft really wanted to compete -- if they really wanted (or even knew how) to truly defend their turf, here is what they would do. They would throw away Vista and develop a new operating system, one that is simpler, lighter, and more secure -- an OS that would run on any machine now running Windows 2000 or XP. They would price it right, which is to say cheap ($49.95). The associated and trimmed-down version of Office would be priced the same ($49.95). The upgrade market is probably five times bigger than the OEM PC market, so Microsoft needs (but probably doesn't realize it) an OS that will run well on most of the PC installed base. It needs to set the pricing of the OS so that we'll run to the store to get it. Instead of designing products exclusively for new equipment, now it's time for Microsoft to focus on the installed base. Remember, $49.95 is more than Microsoft gets for an OEM Windows license, and OEM sales will continue simply because computers die and need to be replaced. Microsoft COULD win both ways, but probably won't risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odrex Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 I'd probably pay for it if price was anywhere from $80-100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Any calls for $49.95?According Bob Cringeley, that is what MS should do with their OS, scrap Vista and produce something small and fast and more secure that is compatible with legacy hardware: If you make it compatible with legacy {censored}, it will never be secure. Microsoft needs to {censored} everyone off and not include legacy support. It will make people angry, but it will make the OS a lot safer in the end run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muxion Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Since I can get XP Pro for U$D 140 online, I'd pay that for OSX if it were as hardware compatible as XP, and think it was a good deal. "All my life I've been a travelin' man...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRP Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 If you make it compatible with legacy {censored}, it will never be secure. Microsoft needs to {censored} everyone off and not include legacy support. It will make people angry, but it will make the OS a lot safer in the end run. If security's the concern, just do what Apple did: include legacy support, but have it suck so bad that you can pretty much only use the most popular productivity stuff. Then people don't try anything idiotically old with the new OS, they'll just want the new stuff. It'll be safer, with less angry people (even if only a marginal fix). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 I'll sell you OS X for tree-fiddy, and if you give me a bucket of bacon grease, I'll even throw in a complementary software bundle with Final Cut Studio, iLife 2006, iWork 2006, Shake, Cinema4D, Aperture, and a gold-plated Apple 30" Cinema display at no extra charge. BUT WAIT... take my offer within the next 5 minutes and I'll give you moisty-nap so you can whipe off the poorly-written labels from all the DVD-RWs that the aforementioned software is copied onto. Then you can erase each disc and use them for your own purposes. (Offer valid only in the continental U.S. and Puerto Rico. Gold-plated Cinema Display is a cardboard box with gold glitter and an Apple logo sticker slapped on. With taxes, total purchase may be $200 USD in actuality. Customers are subject to lawsuits for the possible piracy of any of the above mentioned items.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajeshk4u Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 Oh man..... People don't get it. There are 330million installed Windows users. Selling at $9.99, that is a potential market of $3.3bn.... Plus Apple has the potential for future OS upgrades. Frankly this is bonus money to Apple. You have to make it cheap to entice Windows user. As lots of people have investment in existing software & hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I'll sell you OS X for tree-fiddy, and if you give me a bucket of bacon grease, I'll even throw in a complementary software bundle with Final Cut Studio, iLife 2006, iWork 2006, Shake, Cinema4D, Aperture, and a gold-plated Apple 30" Cinema display at no extra charge. BUT WAIT... take my offer within the next 5 minutes and I'll give you moisty-nap so you can whipe off the poorly-written labels from all the DVD-RWs that the aforementioned software is copied onto. Then you can erase each disc and use them for your own purposes. (Offer valid only in the continental U.S. and Puerto Rico. Gold-plated Cinema Display is a cardboard box with gold glitter and an Apple logo sticker slapped on. With taxes, total purchase may be $200 USD in actuality. Customers are subject to lawsuits for the possible piracy of any of the above mentioned items.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I think Cringely is right. Why are we all excited about Leopard coming out? It's not because we'll have to buy new machines... it's because it will work better than what we're currently using on the same machines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogabean Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 $299.00 That is the price I would pay for Apple supported OS X for vanilla hardware. However I don't ever see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Ok, I threw a joke out before, but here's my serious opinion: Simply calling Leopard an update to Tiger isn't quite doing it justice. We aren't talking about one of those free Microsoft updates that just fixes one of the countless things that shouldn't have been wrong in the first place. Leopard is a seperate operating system from Tiger, with some dramatic work done to the kernel, spotlight, etc. If anybody thinks it should be free, they're dreaming. I admit that the GUI itself looks similiar in all the 10.x releases, but does anybody else want it to rapidly change from 10.4 to 10.5? Look at all the experimentation Microsoft is doing to make Vista look futuristic and improved, only to get complaints that the new designs are actually worse than those in XP! As for $9.99 per disc, I can't see what possible mathematical method you used to conclude that it'd make Apple an insane amount of money. You're assuming that since there might be a huge user base in the millions, they can afford to sell each unit at cheap prices. But then why aren't you asking Microsoft to sell their OS for $5,99? After all, they already have over 3 million users. Whatever crooked logic you could apply to Apple probably applies to Microsoft quadruplefold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimms Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 In addition, Microsoft didn't *steal* anything from Apple, Steve Jobs sold (for a high price) rights to Apple's IP which included GUI design principles. This was one factor that saved Apple from flopping. Re-read history before making claims that have no substance, simply to add emotive support for your stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBits Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 Its not so simple but i think that with some modifications in osx it is possible to make osx use windows drivers, not kernel mode but still... apple could do it... I would pay 2x windows price for fully working osx... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedragon1971 Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 In addition, Microsoft didn't *steal* anything from Apple, Steve Jobs sold (for a high price) rights to Apple's IP which included GUI design principles. This was one factor that saved Apple from flopping. Re-read history before making claims that have no substance, simply to add emotive support for your stupid idea. Actually, it's you that needs to re-read your history, or at least read an accurate account of it. Microsoft did steal from Apple, but they settled out of court with an agreement that netted Apple a nice chunk of change (although I'd hardly say it saved them, it amounted to maybe 10% of what Apple had in the bank at the time), and gave Microsoft the right to use the technologies they had previously stolen. Microsoft also agreed at the time to continue developing Internet Explorer and Microsoft Office for Mac for at least 5 more years (which has since run out, by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimms Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Er, no. The court case you're talking about (I believe) was Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The case was filed in 1988, by Apple. Apple lost the case. There was no out of court settlement - they didn't need to settle, they LOST. And if there was again any doubt, the decision was upheld in the US Supreme Court in 1994. The case was over, and Apple had lost - the only item that was ruled to be in violation of Apple's IP was the *icons* used by *HP* in their OS NewWave. So, in 1994 a ruling made about a 1988 case was upheld at appeal. Steve Jobs took over from Gil Amelio as the CEO of Apple on July 9th, 1997 - four years after the court case was finally closed by the Supreme Court. Once Steve had been brought back in to Apple as Interim CEO, replacing Gil Amelio, one of the first things he did was ring Bill Gates (who had been negotiating with Gil for eighteen months btw). Steve knew what Microsoft wanted - an agreement that would allow Microsoft to design a user interface like Apple's. Gil thought it would be a giveaway that would deprive Apple of its most significant differentiation from the clumsy Microsoft operating System. Steve signed it away so that he could appear onstage at the MacWorld Expo with Gates, garnering praise from the media for sellting an old dispute. The agreement consisted of; Microsoft investing $150 million in to Apple, continuing to update and sell Microsoft Office for the Mac platform, and for Apple to ship MS IE as its default brwoser on all Macs sold. But if you're talking about another case, please let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TiLT- Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Never heard of Windows95 -> Apple85? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno_S Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I don't know if this is commonly known. But there are rumors, that Steve jobs - very close to washout - asked Gates to lend him some money. Gates gave him the money he wanted - under one condition: Apple should never release an Operating System for the PC platform. That was the deal! Apple could earn far more money by selling its ingenious OS to standard PC users, than selling it only in conjunction with their (actually qualitatively high-value) hardware. Of course stability cannot be guaranteed with third-party hardware and drivers, what would be a reason for people still buying Mac hardware. But considering the user firendlyness of MacOS in comparison to M$-Windoze, the change would be very welcome to mainstream users. If Apple can develop Rosetta which runs PowerPC software on x86 in real-time, it should not be a problem for Apple to integrate Win32-code based programs into MacOS for those who need to use their old Win progs till there is a version that natively runs on OSX. What I mean is Apple is not really in the need of being a niche product (3-4%??). I bet everything I have that if MacOSX came out for normal PC hardware, it would explode like a giant H-bomb and run on at least (!) 50% of all PCs within 5 years. Come on Stevie, get on with it and kick Billyboys ass. He mustn't take this personal - it's just business!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts