If OSX came out legally for the PC, would you buy it?

[rogabean]

I second that.

 

 

But you see... Apple doesn't have any reason to do that right now?

 

To them the Mac Mini and iMac fill this gap. It may not to you, but it does to them.

[Bearcat]

My 2 cents

 

Currently there is no package from Apple that I can buy, that will give me a nice dual-core computer, to which I can add an additional hard drive, and have a nice dual monitor setup, without going to the quad xeon monster.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a quad xeon monster, but I don't need it. The new iMacs are nice, but I cannot add a hard drive, or a blu-ray when it becomes available, or add a second monitor that won't look out of place. The secondary issue with the iMacs, is that they use Merom chips which are limited to a 667mhz fsb.

 

While some may think apple doesn't have a hole, I do, and I fully expect apple to plug this hole.

 

Current Lineup:

 

mini, yonah, 2.1ghz max (if you mod yourself or c2d at 2.33), 667 fsb, laptop drive

iMac, merom, 2.33ghz max, 1 hard drive, 667 fsb

Mac Pro, Woodcrest, 3.0ghz max, 4 hard drives, 1333 fsb

 

To me there is a gap that a 3/4 Mac Pro case would fill.

 

Mac, Conroe, 2.66ghz max, 2 hard drives, 1066 fsb

 

 

A secondary issue is dual display. The only machine that I can buy from apple that supports dual display in a nice package is the Mac Pro. Sure I can add a display to the iMac, but that looks kind of odd. There is no iMac display without the machine guts in it, to use as a secondary display, and the frames are kind of big.

 

So, a Mac, with 2 19" or 20" panels is something I would definitely buy. I have no need for a quad, but I need more then the iMac can provide.

[RichardFanning]

I completely agree with the last point. I am currently writing this on a Mac Mini but when choosing a mac I was heartbroken to find no Merom Desktop Mac. I have always loved the upgradability of tower PCs but could not justify the $2k plus for a Mac Pro, the $1200 plus for a used G5, or the very limited upgradability for a $1k plus iMac. If there had been a $1200-1600 Mac Desktop with a Merom or two I would have bought it in a heart beat. Whether Apple believes it or not there is definately a gap in their computer lineup that needs to be filled.

[johnniecarcinogen]

Yes I would.

 

IMHO, Apple could overcome most problems by selling it *only* bundled with motherboards.

 

Maybe they could also make you sign an EULA where you agree to use Apple supported hardware only.

 

I don't think they would have many support problems this way: Jo User doesn't buy a mobo plus an OS.

 

Apple hasn't cared very much about its geek users, IMHO. Maybe "tolerating" this forum is their way of doing that now. After all most of us would buy a Mac if the conditions were right. For me that means a mid-range desktop (and I suppose for a lot of other people too)

 

Another way to overcome support issues would be to sell OS X only for computers that are branded as 'Vista Ready' or 'Vista Capable'. This way they wouldn't have to worry about people thinking it can run on old PC's and they wouldn't have to come up with some new standard for PC specs. Besides, this would be an awesome marketing gimmick.

 

[sheepdog43]

Actually they suspect a Core 2 Duo will run faster in most apps than the Mac Pro.

 

Weather it will or not, this is what is needed to woo the Windows crowd over. Mac guys can say all they want about how what they offer is fine, but Windows guys have been doing the upgrade thing for years. We like to be able to swap a part here or there and upgrade without buying a new system.

 

Windows users look at stuff like the mini and Imac's as being a cheap use-then-throw-away boxes because in the Windows world, systems like that, are exactly that, and I hate to tell you guys, but the Macs are just that. Overpriced disposables, but disposables none-the-less.

 

I love being able to yank a video card or processor and upgrade it. I like being able to have 2 monitors that look alike. I do not buy disposables (unless it is a laptop).

 

 

There is no reason Apple cannot release a product like this.

 

Would I buy it? Probably, I woudl prefer teh ability to just buy a legal copy and use it on a system I build though. Much of the system would be removed and upgraded as soon as I bought it.

 

Another way to overcome support issues would be to sell OS X only for computers that are branded as 'Vista Ready' or 'Vista Capable'. This way they wouldn't have to worry about people thinking it can run on old PC's and they wouldn't have to come up with some new standard for PC specs. Besides, this would be an awesome marketing gimmick.

 

Make vendors handle their own support. Dell, Gateway and others already handle it. This is why Microsoft ships them an early copy for testing.

 

If you have a problem with your Dell do you call Microsoft or Dell?

 

Support is not a big issue. Same for drivers.

Microsoft makes a basic set of drivers. After that, it is up to manufacturers to do it.

 

Done properly, it could reduce the load on Apple, not increase it.

[iDerf2006]

In all honestly - NO. I would not buy it. I would not support Apple at that point. Releasing it to public computers = worse thing they could do ever.

[The Shaun]

I think it would be a good idea for Apple to release a "hobbyist" license for Intel OS X. Make it clear in the license agreement that they don't give any sort of support whatsoever, and that you can't install the OS on any machine you intend to sell. No OEM's. It's more or less just a non-TPM'd DVD of OS X with no documentation, no pretty install diagrams, nothing. Just a disc you get in the mail. Hell, they could charge more for it. Anything to get an upgradable, legal copy of OS X for my computer.

[speakerwizard]

"your a {censored}... im on here, and i voted no, i voted no not because i can pirate it, but because windows does all i want and more, i know how to set up windows in 15 min or less of a fresh format, and all my games are released for it.... if u make assumtions about people you end up making an ass of your self, welcome to the forums btw "

 

i beg to differ, {censored}, i dont really care how long windows takes you to set up, osX comes settup. if you did it for the sake of it fine, but if you use it as a primary OS then you should pay for it, if we all had that attitude, it wouldnt exist! now go back to ya windows and ya kiddy games

[Built Like A Rock]

No I wouldn't. I'm solely a Mac owner now.

[reptile998]

I vote yes. I would use windows but it is so buggy and virus infected that I end up reinstalling every 3 months. I have a 1Ghz G4 DA all tweaked out with a high end video card and I torture the thing. Except for minor lockups I haven't had a problem with it since I bought it. OSX is an amazing OS and so far I wouldn't give it up for anything else. I would love to build my own OSX box cause I don't have the money all at once to pay out for the Mac pro and I game so that is the only system that isn't a laptop or iMac that is descently capable.

[jonz14]

I say no because why would I spend $130 for some software when I already have it running perfectly on my computer just the way I need it to.

 

Who needs updates?

[iDontOSx86]

I voted 'yes', but I doubt Apple will ever do it because they are so big on selling complete systems.

 

I'm a PC builder, so I'm not a big fan of buying complete systems, which is the reason why I don't go for Apple no matter how good people say the OS is.

 

If Apple would come out with some parts for us system builders, and agree to some "user agreement" so one cant "build and sell" a Mac system (but ok to sell the parts), then I'm for it.

[Muziekschuur]

I have invested in a studio setup and have Logic 5. I would love to upgrade using my pc hardware and have the ability to buy Logic and run it as a second boot besides windows and my current sequencer.

 

 

 

Muziekschuur

[Zealot]

i buy it of course but on the "street market" if you know what i mean.(les than 20 dollars)

Or you going to tell me that you bought your Windows?......thats what i thought.

who spends his money on software.

 

i been using pc without paying for software since windows 3.11 Remember that one , good times.....

[4ce A. P.]

I'm using my private PC for music production. If I could legally buy a MacOS X for PC, I would be the first in line. It's not the design, it's the performance. I'll probably buy a MacBookPro next year anyway. For work, I've a Dell Latitude D620 with f***** Intel-chip set (that includes GM 945 Express) and I would be more than happy to have the option of choosing between MacOS and Windows during boot.

[borisbadenov]

Here is what I would tell Mr Jobs

 

I have found that for a novice, it is far easier to work with OSX than Windows; so much easier to install programs, uninstall, and drag and drop makes life so easy for so many. My wife is, I like to think, a typical computer user. She likes to surf the web, simply edit and log her digital photos, do some emailing and create semi monthy newsltters to family (with the help of Pages). She likes to drag and drop and Pages makes it easy to resize photos, text, etc and she finds iTunes so much easier to make playlists, cd, etc. She does not need a high end computer that has a zillion features as well with a high cost. She just likes something that just works. is easy to use and inexpensive. Isn't this why the iPod is so successful? We went out looking for a small portable laptop for her and the price ranges on a Macbook were far more that she wanted to spend and instead we went looking for a laptop with XP.

 

With this in mind, I would think that Apple could offer a lot to consumers. So many average computer users might prefer an Apple over a regular PC for the same reasons my wife does but they are put off by the higher price. The success of osx86 should serve as a lesson to Mr Jobs. I see a great way he could make a larger impact on the market then what he has now as he has with the iPod.

 

Here is what I propose. Release OSX as an OS to run on regular PC's much as one would buy a Windows CD or allow a manufacturer, Dell, Gateway, etc, to offer OSX preinstalled on a computer nstead of Windows at the same or similar price. Yes, Apple is first and foremost a hardware company but they need a way to convert the mainstream and by reaching to thier market level.

 

Then why buy an Apple computer when one can just buy the OS software? Because, as any Windows user knows all to well, some hardware will not work with the OS or there are software conflicts, etc. One cannot make an OS that will work with all possible hardware and software configurations. So with the CD, there is the crevat that there may be the same incompatabilities. An average user like my wife would be happy with a basic OSX and iLife and might not need anthing more and this would not ruin her system but if a person wants a system that "just works", then they would be encouraged to purchase a true Apple system where it has all been configured to work together, no headaches, no incompatabilities.

 

The ability to add and change hardware so easily is why a more advanced user or avid gamer might stay with Windows or even Linux, to keep the computer on the cutting edge. We all know how hard it was to get ATI graphics working with OSX86 not to mention full QE/CI problems with NVIDIA. If I bought a Apple today with a limited 128mb card, how easy will it be for me to install a 512mb card in the near future? I looked at a Apple desktop recently. It came with a puny 60gb drive but for $250, I could upgrade to a 120gb drive. Well, in the real world, for that money, I could get a 500gb drive. I guess Apple likes to see its customers bending over, grabbing ankles.

 

I know Mr Jobs wants to keep the hardware portion of the business going but it would also helpo him out in the long term if he did release OSX86 for use on a regular PC. These are my thoughts. Interested in hearing yours

 

Boris

[tha_toadman]

I share the same view as Boris there.

 

I've been a Windoze user for years and after discovering this community and what it had to offer, I built a 'compatible' pc and it's been pure bliss since! Things 'just work'. Here's a similar story...my wife was a OS 9 user before we were married (2 years ago) and about 3 months before we were married, she wanted a laptop but man, oh man...we priced out a powerbook at the time versus a Compaq X1000 series laptop...4000 versus 2000 - what a no brainer. My wife's laptop had more power than the powerbook and she paid half price! It forced her to come over to the dark side and use Windoze. Things have been OK for her since but oh how she misses OSX. Things are better now thanks to our newer 'compatible' box.

 

Now that I'm running OSX, I mentioned to my mother over the weekend how simple and yet powerful OSX is. I'm honestly a convert now I told her that basically in the future, she needs to run OSX. I preached to her about it over the weekend and now my daydreaming more recently has been how Apple SHOULD be selling the OS as a standalone product. I'd drop $129 USD in a heatbeat now for it!

 

The embarrasing thing for me now is how naive I was before I started using OSX.

 

[borisbadenov]

Thanks Toadman

 

Here is just another thought. How about if Apple released Tiger to boot on any (or most compatable) PC's, with the ability to boot in BIOS, our most troubling stumbling block right now but leave Leopard the way it is. It will allow all those who wish to try out an Apple, for a small fee of the OS, perhaps as Toadman suggested around $125. or so. I am sure this would convert a great number of people. Just think of the people getting hooked on something easy to use like iDVD, Gargae Tunes, etc. buying more Apple software, more money in their coffers.

 

But then why buy Leopard? Simple. All the newer programs will have some need for the newer frameworks that only Leopard will have and maybe the updates to current programs will also have a need for these frameworks. And since Leopard will only boot via EFI and a different kernel, we poor souls will be unable to run Leopard and extract its secrets.

 

So, I say Apple, release Tiger to the masses, get us hooked and then if we want to use Leopard, program updates (for Leopard based apps), etc, we will need to buy a real Apple. And then, in the near future, when Leopard is surpassed by the 10.6 (ocelot???) then release Leopard the same way. This way, Apple can still sell thier hardware for the new computers but not compete against itself yet sell way more software to boot.

 

What say you??

[Infamous]

Do you know why Windows was always a piece of shi_t ? Because it runs on all pieces of shi_tty computers with quadrillion hardware configurations with 200 millions badly written drivers.

 

And that's what makes OS X better. It supports only specific hardware.

 

So NO, let's hope Apple will never release OS X for any PC configurations. It would end up like a piece of Microsoft {censored}.

 

I don't want masses to use it. That would also bring viruses and other problems. It's fine like it is now.

[tha_toadman]

I have a simple answer to you Infamous...they're called 'system requirements'

 

EVERY piece of software has them...why couldn't Apple just release a limited set of .kexts for specific hardware but let the DIY'ers enjoy their OS (or even resell them)? Makes sense to me but I do agree with you too about the masses getting their hands on it..and then the viruses and such could be a problem. But think about it: how many people hold the knowledge that those of us here hold to take it upon themselves and build a PC, get the OS, and install it? Not many. Just because approx. 90% of the world runs Windoze doesn't mean that they are proficient in it or even hardware for that matter. The crowd would still be small.

 

Hell, if we sat in on an Apple meeting, hopefully they'd see that there's another market segment (albeit limited) that would generate even more revenue for the company.

 

...done ranting now.

[borisbadenov]

With the cracking of the real 10.4.8 kernel, all I have said may change. What will happen with 10.5?????

[gikku]

NO, I wouldn't but iy for a PC.

why buy it?

I don't have a PC to put it on, and even if I did, it'd surely be available from some other site as a DL.

[jujubeanie21]

In a heartbeat...

[MightyJD]

I absolutely would!

[sev7en]

Yes, absolutely! Windows is a dead-walking OS and Vista is dead before hitting markets.