Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Allan

      Forum Rules   04/13/2018

      Hello folks! As some things are being fixed, we'll keep you updated. Per hour the Forum Rules don't have a dedicated "Tab", so here is the place that we have our Rules back. New Users Lounge > [READ] - InsanelyMac Forum Rules - The InsanelyMac Staff Team. 
Sign in to follow this  
opieum

How much would you pay for MAC OS X86?

4 posts in this topic

Recommended 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Yup that's fine! Oddly, when rebooting several times it is suddenly gone! Only thing I need to fix is getting 'Headphone' output to work, after sleep. Internal Speakers are working after sleep. I assume to fix this in CodecCommander.kext/ EAPDFix.kext? Anyway thanks for your help!   Yup I have a combo output, so there was something wrong I guess.
    • Nice @yapan4 then we can join forces to make this as good as possible.
    • I had a weird situation, after running great for a while: yesterday I did a reboot and got a KP. Turns out the AstekFusion2Adapter kexts were causing the KP, strange thing is I didn't recall applying any update or a like.  I had to boot with the USB installer, mount the EFI partition to delete the old AstekFusion2Adapter kexts and replaced with the patched version contributed by despeinao. I'm glad the system is working again, not having to reinstall OSX.
    • i think the "red light" you are referring to is that you have a optical SPDIF output (3.5 mm) combo jack. it most likely will be "red" when audio is active. 
    • Domanda , ma il tuo configplist lo ha settato cosi Gengik????
      Noto molte cose atipiche , tipo aperto con Clover configurator nella sezione ACPI il nome DSDT.aml NON è selezionato , quindi in teoria NON dovrebbe caricare il DSDT che hai in Clover ACPI Patch , se usi SSDT x la CPU NON dovrebbero servirti quelle personalizzazioni sempre in configplist sezione CPU ...
      Secondo me dovresti partire da un configplist pulito , xche sempre secondo me c'è rimasto delle schifezze di qualche tool x installare facile    EDIT
      Scaricando il configplist di jolly NOTO ha impostato +o- come intendevo fare io , sistemando quello  sopra elencato e bammmmm NON avvia , mi forniresti x favore Hack info che trovi nella mia firma ???
      Grazie   Ho creato un configplist , se vuoi provare , dovrebbe essere pulito da ogni impurità , se funziona dovrai adattarli tutte le tue personalizzazioni x il boot ..... config.plist.zip


×