Jump to content

How much would you pay for MAC OS X86?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1
opieum

opieum

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
This would be intresting to see. Who would switch to MAC OS X86 if they released it as an OS? This is not a discussion of whter they will or they won't just as discussion of how much and would you be willing to buy it and make the switch to MAC OS X.

Personally I would pay up to 100 bucks for it. Still half as cheap as a full version of windows. What would make it an even more attractive purchase is if apple added some kind of data migration tool. I know there are tools from mac to mac but not from windows to mac. if there was something like that to migrate data over that would really make it so much more worthwhile. They are innivative and they are built on a rock solid foundation in terms of software. I think if they leverage that with Joe Average there is a good chance they will do well considering how MS is doing with viruses and all that other {censored}. When is the last time a critical expoit or virus hit MAC OS X? Anyway things to conisder.

Like I said this is a discussion of who would switch and how much would you pay. If you are going to come on here and be a retard after reading this and say "I wouldnt buy it because...." then start your own thread with that subject.

#2
mikesown

mikesown

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
Personally I'd rather that apple not release it for generic white box PC's, and here's why: Apple has a reputation for building solid computers that do everything very well. For example, I was helping someone with a new powerbook, and he asked me "Will this USB mouse work?" I plug it in and it works. No drivers, no CD's, just plug and play. I fear this would not be the case if apple released OSX for general PC's. First of all, the drivers are NOT even close to complete for PC's. Apple would have to invest millions in making its OS compatible with white box hardware. Even then, not everything would be supported. The reason everyone thinks apples are so stable and elegant is because apple controls the hardware. Imagine if apple just released OSX out to the public for $120. They'd get people calling in saying "WHY WONT THIS WORK? WINDOWS RUNS PERFECTLY AND I SPENT $120 ON THIS !@#!" Yes, some people might appriciate it, like the people on this forum, but it would ruin apple's reputation to the public.

#3
opieum

opieum

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 60 posts
Perhaps. perhaps not. They have the resources to come up with a HCL very similar to MS's Anything on the list is considered supported. Anything not on the list is not. Also if we are given a choice it works out too. If they made the prebuilt systems hey great they sell and will likely sell well. However if they sold the OS independent and for use on SSE2-3 based systems it might gain a bigger market share for them. Also if they gave a clear line of support for the product (MS does not really do that very well in practice) It will set the expectation of what people will get.

also there is one point of your argument I do disagree with. Windows does not always just work out of the box. It does work

Basically put out a version that can be downloaded for a cheaper price to cover costs and maybe turn over a modest profit. If Apple is such a "hardware" company then charging enough to over costs for a piece of software they make should not be a big deal. Especially if they mention well ahead of time that it is unsupported and the purchase is for bandwith and other related buisness costs to providing the software. This would appeal more so to the power users. There are quite a few power users out there beyond these forums. There are alot of people who would love to own a Mac but just don't have the funds. I think I can agree with the PR aspect of your point of view, which is why I suggest a download only version of MacOS for x86. With no support for the download only version ,of course noone can really say anything because Apple warned users ahead of time. No support means no complaints about it you got what you paid for. This idea helps them in the long run. People who have good expereinces with will gravitate towards getting a hardware package as well plus word of mouth advertising will help immensly. And if apple decides to think different them it may suit them to allow the community to support it. I think with the dev kits and all that it will be great to see what will be out there in terms of drivers and such.

In a nutshell macosx with no support. This could be wildly popular for powerusers. And there are enough out there to justify this. Just add 3d drivers for Nvidia and ATI and we are all set. :D

#4
blahsucks

blahsucks

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts
Although it is very unlikely, they can build enough drivers. Most users add maybe a new printer, then buy a new computer a few years later. They ask other people to install non-USB stuff. Apple already has PPC drivers for massive amounts of printers and USB devices; many PCI cards also work inside PowerMacs.

The only problem is system requirements. Tiger won't run on fairly recent Athlon XPs and Northwood chips. You can bet Leopard is going to be another feature leap, meaning that this isn't going to work on $500 PCs with integrated video, a 15in LCD, and a CD-ROM drive. This significantly thins Apple's audience.

I think Apple should continue with their current strategy.





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