Not always... the fact of the matter is I also have an HP computer that right out of the box was able to run Max OS, and yes updates work, and no problem with drivers... and cost half what I could have paid for a Mac
Now some may say you wont get tec-support... Well that doesn't matter I'm a real PC user that can trouble-shoot: problems myself... If we couldn't we would be on the phone all day with some one that can't suck at English ... ask us dumb question like "is computer plugged in" :D
No, the windows world has a hacked and fail OS that kinda sorta still looks like OS X. Also you have to run it of the same hardware as Macs have to there is no point.
Not to sound harsh, but if you don't want to buy a Mac to get the OS than Apple does not need you as a customer. The PC mentality is: I want to have access to everything for free and make what I want myself. To Apple mentality is more like: go ahead and keep it under tight control, I don't care as long as it works the way it should.
Trying to ask Apple to set OS X free is like asking BMW to put their motors in ford escorts and kias. If you want OS that bad, GET A MAC !
I'm against the notion of setting OSX free. I commented on MrBit's "Set OSX Free Part 4" video a little while ago this evening. I mean, Apple is known for their exclusivity for their operating system. Web apps and other apple programs are a different story. Apple Talk has been available for PC networking for a long time, but Apple will keep (I hope) OSX and their future versions of Apple systems to come!
I understand the exclusivity and maintaining hardware sales, but I really don't think that making Leopard available to other platforms would change that any. Would OSX run as smooth on non Apple hardware? Probably not AS smooth but still a lot smoother than Windows. Would there be issues? Of course, but computers are very complex and even with Apple's tight integration there are still issues. Linux works better than Windows and it's free, unfortunately there is no commercial software for it.
The reason I bring this up is because I am and will probably always be a PC guy. I enjoy building/upgrading/customizing my computers, something that Apple cannot or will not give me. Period, end of story. So for me Windows is my only option. Linux doesn't run the software I need and use for my artwork. Would releasing OSX for PC platform prevent me from buying a Mac? No, cause I never would have bought one in the first place. What it would do is create an additional sale of Leopard...
I don't agree with that logic dragonballjiujitsu. Would YOU put OSX on a $300 Walmart computer if you could legally? I doubt it. The people who buy Macs more than likely would continue to do so regardless if OSX was available on other hardware or not. Releasing it would simply make it available to those who would not normally purchase a Mac. It would increase sales rather than preventing them.
If you would have asked me this a year ago I would have said yes. Maybe not $300 but I would have built a $500-700 PC and used OS X. You may be right about the people who already own Macs, but most first time Mac buyers are after a Windows alternative. The symbol on the case matters little to them.
It would increase sales in the short term and hurt Apple in the long term.
I don't know about that either. Aren't you more inclined to purchase another product from a company that you have had a good experience from in the past rather than a competitor's product? Aren't people who have used and liked Apple products like ipods, iphones etc, more likely to purchase a Mac than a PC? This could be yet another way for people to get their foot in the Apple door, who wouldn't normally. And perhaps with a good experience be more likely to purchase a Mac as their next computer.
Arthur, I can't disagree with you entirely because like MrBit, your arguments on the subject stands to reason to basically ask "Why Not?".
But where I stand on the issue is that Apple has penetrated and owned the Cell Phone and Smart Phone market for quite some time now. Then who can forget the runaway success of the Ipod? These examples are what raised apple from simple company logo recognition to brand loyalty awareness for so many who never thought before they would switch. (continued)....
Apple licensed out many of their services - for example "Apple Talk". But their OS is unique even though its been on an IBM processor before and now Intel. Apple will still gain more customers on all other fronts, but it is my confidence that they will keep OSX locked to the Apple products as they have historically done.
Besides, I was just reading in Laptop Mag today about the Windows 7 beta. It's a spitting image of Vista and OSX combined. If W7 is sucessful, who would want OSX on their PC?
"If W7 is sucessful, who would want OSX on their PC?"
Regardless of if Win7 is successful or not I still believe it would be better if users had a choice. Right now there is no choice for OSes, unless you also buy the hardware to match. If you're on a PC, you're running Windows. On a Mac, it's OSX. There really is no other choice. Bootcamp is not a choice, it's temporary, you can't permanently install Linux instead of OSX. Linux is not an option for most people on PCs due to lack of software.
".....There really is no other choice." Very True. I feel bad for buyers who are close to brands like Sony and Toshiba, but have just 1 choice of OS. Windows. But since we've been fed Windows most of our life, and Windows Stability is improving I might add, then that's just the acceptance factor. I'd like to see more companies like HP branch out and create their own OS. But with only 2 major players out there and all the complexities involved, it's probably just not in their best interest.
No it's not. It would be very difficult if not impossible for someone to jump in with a new OS and actually succeed. Linux has been trying for a long time, yet there is still a major lack of commercial software support. If OSX didn't have as much great software as it does, it would be useless as well despite all it's bells and whistles. An OS is useless without software. Who buys a computer to play with the OS? Very few I imagine.
Got some good points. But in the future if this economy keeps going the way it is Apple might not sell computers anymore. Apple's computer sales have dropped gradually since the economy dive and due to netbooks. I see Apple just selling Ipods and Iphones in the future if things keep going the way they are going right now. You are right though. If they gave out OSX people would just buy cheaper systems and put it on those instead of buying a Macintosh computer.
I don't dispute that the reason a lot of people buy macs is for os x, but if apple did release its operating system, it would have much much more control of the market. They could transition to slightly less computer hardware focused, more device focused. If you could go out and buy os x for like say 300 bucks, and install it on any pc, then os x's market share would probably boom up to atleast about 30%. At that point not writing a version of your software for macs would be marketing suicide.
And honestly the reason os x has such a low market share right now is because people want to be able to run the same apps on there, and much of the time right now they cant do that.
'setting osx free'- the fuuniest thing ever......it is hard to explain in youtubes limited comment space....but apple never gonna do this kind of retardness any soon....if osx is become free, only a few people will buy apple hardware. we compromise configuration for osx.if osx was free, we could make a machine with core i7 and gtx 295....no one will then care about apple's build quality or alluminium enclosure(except a few)......so apple will never do self f***....
Steve Jobs vision was to make great computer hardware available to everybody with the best software available on it. Back in the early years of Steve Jobs, he stated he wouldn't make or allow any junk to come out from his company, and that includes setting Mac OS X free, because Steve Jobs wants people to have great hardware with great software, the whole combo, not just the software like Microsoft has done.
I think back in the 80's Steve Jobs spoke in an interview where he said that he was willing to allow his operating system to be open to other hardware manufacturers but he didn't allow it because they didn't want to pay his asking price.
Glockninja is right, Jobs created NextSoftware which had Nextstep and openstep which ran on many platforms, go figure, that was Job's vision an OS for all kinds of platforms and he got bought out by Apple.
I really liked your video. Youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed i use a site called Tubeviews . Net It has really done wonders for me, Keep in touch
So why don't they just sell OSX and make money off of the operating system? I have no problem with setting OSX free and I personally dont think that it is a stupid idea.
I'm glad you think this way, because you are correct, if OS10 would be set free, I would buy it and build my own computer. On that note, do you work for Apple? What would you care if Apple made the mistake of doing this? Just asking, I agree with your video. OS10 makes Macs wanted.
Mr. Bit has a view. PC has over 90% market share. PC meaning Win, Linux, BSD, Sun, etc.
If OS10 was sold for 250 USD, how much money would Apple make? and the market share are companies, they want the cheapest computer possible. What is the cheapest ? PCs, why ? PC has competition. Dell, HP, Gateway, custom builds, mom and pop shops, every computer but Apple. Apple has no competition with it's OS, and Windows does, that's why M$ is M$
Microsoft is a bigger company than Apple because they sell an OS that is open to anyone who wants it. Apple can stop making hardware completely and just sell OSx and they would actually do better business than now.
Theoretically that may work but thats using MS is a business model - but they grew when there wasn't a dominant competitor like itself that had over 90% market share to fight against. Apple cannot overtake that 90% by just selling the OS without taking a serious hit due to a lack of hardware sales. I prefer the Mac designs to standard OEMs anyhow.
actually Apple was number 1 and dominant and then because of PROTECTIONISM they lost all their market share to a command line interface known as DOS which had no GUI, no security and ran on everything from IBM, to NEC. Microsoft's open software is not the issue, its how they cheaply programmed their OS with single user roles and security as an after thought, do not project Windows issues on other OSs.
I have nothing against you at all, mrbit10, I subscribe to your vids as well and enjoy hearing your take on things. I just don't like the idea of OS X running on any old PC.... it is actually what makes a Mac special and unique. If OS X is to be put on any other computers I feel it should be done in a very controlled way that won't take away from Apple's sale of Macs, but rather add to it.... if that makes sense.
like wise, and i appreciate the sub. the problem though is that you could not put it on any old PC, it requires 64bit signed drivers and EFI, Apple would have full control as to where it would be sold. There will always be the hackintoshes for the older machines but the tech simply would not mesh, windows 32 runs on BIOS, a 16bit startup, go figure and that is why it can run on all x86 machines
that's the only way i'd be "ok" with OS X being allowed on other machines. And possibly if these other machines didn't overtake the areas that apple already has a Mac present in, but fills in the gaps, more or less.
well that is the point, apple does not make boxes, the only desktops are the imac and mni, that is why i always argued "what sales loss?" sure you will lose those that cringe or by lack of selection by an imac just to get os x but most get it because they love it.
mrbit10, is the reason why you want OSX set free because you think it would get rid of Microsoft? If that's the case, your heart is in the right place, but there is compelling evidence that things probably wouldn't play out the way you hope or expect them to. (such as the way the mac clones of the 90s turned out)
not to wipe them out but give us another viable OS like 34% of the market. But again it will play out, your analogy of the clones is misplaced. The clones are hardware, back in the days of PowerPC back then expensive hardware was licensed out, but since it is all intel, clones no longer exist in this case. Moreover, clones is not what killed apple, the fall from grace occurred long, long before, that is why they went through so many CEOs, one word brought Apple to the brink, PROTECTIONISM.
also to close on this comment, I am tired of an MS run world, their software not only dictates our behavior but that of hardware with another OS out there large enough we can change the tide of inefficient computing. See my vid Behind the Bit.
I feel OS X should not be set free. If it were - Sure Apple would sell a great deal of the OS, but maybe not as many as they think. But it will most assuredly cut down the sales of the Mac line of products because anyone will try to put Mac OS X on a cheap $300 POS PC. The level of quality will fall on both the OS X and on the Mac itself. The thought of that is very sad. The only thing that would work is if Apple would get a very high end company to clone the OS with. But thats a "maybe".
If BMW puts their motor into Mini Coopers will that put BMW out of business? If Apple puts their OSx into a Walmart special, will people stop buying Apple computers? I think Apple needs to stop being so insecure and put faith into their products. Ipod out sells a lot of cheaper Mp3 players because people want Apple products. So why not let somebody who can only afford $300.00 have OSx on their $300 computer?
Because then there would be driver problems like Windows has, and everything would take more to make because it would have to be tested on a lot of computers. Even the OS would be slower. So no, thanks.
that is incorrect, you are placing windows problems on other OSs, just because Windows model which is their history of how they evolved their OS of which I explain in detail over many vids is the reason they have issues. What will you say when hypervisor and 64 ibt signed drivers are the norm and windows no longer experiences the same issues?
my only explanation is that you have no idea how to use windows, and that is why you bash it. If Mac OSX is so stable, then why is it not in the top ten servers in Netcraft? Windows is not number #1, but at least it is in the top ten, unlike Mac OSX. That could be telling you something about Window's stability. Nothing against Osx but, why is it not even close to the top? How can you say something is so bad get into the top ten in up times? I think what you say is a load of crap about windows
And what does it have to do with servers? The only reason why OS X is not used under servers is that they usually need a lot of machines and prefer to spend as less as possible (one of the reasons why FreeBSD and Linux is used a lot).
I don't know how to use Windows? FYI, I've used since I was 8 and use it sometimes too now.
You have to be mentally retarded in order to say that Windows is stable. So please, stop insisting on something which is so obviously untrue.
if it can run servers, why is it unstable? maybe not as stable as Bsd, but why is it so horribly unstable, if it can get some of the highest up times on netcraft. makes no sense, unless you are exaggerating beyond proportions to make it look bad. Maybe you don't know how to keep windows stable, experience means nothing if you don't know how to use it right.
People don't need to frequently install programs on servers. And Windows servers do have quite a lot of problems.
I know how to keep Windows stable. I cleaned the trash, manually checked bad registry entries and removed them, ran several malware scans, defragmented and optimized my system etc. and still the system would remain as slow as hell, plus that I don't have time to waste doing those kind of things just to keep my system in a slightly-less-than-shitty state.
The system I mentioned before ran Xp, is running Vista and I also tried Windows 7 on it for some time. No change at all (although Vista was slower than Xp).
That is pretty odd, have you tried mem test, or checking for bad sectors, because windows runs pretty fast on my computer, but linux does run faster. how fast is the hard drive? Windows runs well if the hardware is in working order, and is much more delicate than linux or mac osx.
I have never used vista, but usually the more applications you install the slower it gets, have you tried disabling start up/services in msconfig? another thing is to type in (name of hard drive letter): -b, this is suppose to do a boot time optimization. that is very weird, are you sure you have up to date drivers?
how many applications do people install really. I have 50, and have no problems whatsoever. what the hell is winrot? never heard of these things. if my machine is slowing down I am not noticing it. it still as fast as it was before other than 5 second slower boot time because of startup apps.
Most people don't install many programs maybe, but I don't count myself in that group. The registry won't be bogged down or slow down your computer that much by installing, but removing software will start making it slower and slower (I have first hand experience). You haven't heard of Winrot? The all-mighty Google have the info needed ;)
Me? Not sure, I usually install a lot. I think I have about 20 or so apps right now that I use (There's more that I don't use or seldom use), I also uninstall a lot because I'm too cheap to buy additional disk space ;) But I should invest in it, it's cheap so...
PowerShell is for XP and up to 7. Mmm... About 300G on my Windows laptop. I have plenty of space, I just like to preserve a lot of space; photo's tend to require quite the amount. 70M per photo. Plus my extraordinarily boring class required some video's aswell. I have my share of music and movies.
Don't really know. I'm not exactly an expert in multimedia related things, I'm more interested in networking, servers, operating systems, databases, coding and the like. If I'm not mistaken, the size of the photos are around 3000x2000 and 1500x1000.
how big is your HD? I have about 80 dedicated to windows xp, 50 to windows 7, and the rest is to linux/bsd. the total HD space is about 300 GBs(320GB)
that makes no sense at all, I can run all of those on my core 2 duo in windows 7, and it does not slow down. I think someone is wrong with your installation, what other programs did you install, and how many programs did you uninstall?
I have seen it over and over again here at the shop. Out of many , many dozens of Vista systems I have only seen one or two that even came close to the speed of a mid rang XP machine.
I think windows vista is just slow in general, you can run it with little amount of ram, but it will never be fast no matter how much you put in it, it seems. I am going to wait for windows 7 and snow leopard and buy both. the odd things are that vista RTM runs faster than service pack 1 in some applications. I just hope windows 7 is optimized better than it's predecessor.
I did uninstall a lot of programs. And that's what slowed it down. Though it's not normal for an OS just to get slow because of that. But my main problem is stability, not speed.
Funny. You install too many programs and Vista gets slower. You remove too many and it gets slower. Vista is not stable at all. I have worked on more Vista machines than I can recall and the top to complaints are lack of stability and speed.
There is no need for Vista with XP still going strong and Windows 7 just around the corner. Lets just let it die shall we.
I think the registry although on paper, it seem to be better than just having everything stored in the folder, but the way it was implemented causes havoc with windows. a nice central system seems great and organized but the problem was microsoft did not do it right. I liked the dos way better, because all you had to do was delete the contents, and it worked without to much trouble.
they both have there problems, mac's have an average of more software crashes in my experience, and windows has its registry issues. Pick your poison is all I can say.
I'll agree they both have their problems. Although I have never had a single software problem in OS X. Actually In the past year I have owned a Mac I have yet to have any problems with it at all.
I get e\ the "application unexpectedly quit" kind of crash. they are not like really bad, but like on both sides if you forgot to save you are hopeless most of the time. I think windows although it works well I kind of sway from using it my primary operating system. I mostly use linux which never has slowed down for me which is pretty awesome. I like to reinstall all os's once a year regardless of the operating system because it gives it a fresh start, and is more stable on all sides.
I'm sorry, but I want to try new programs and I sure won't let them in my PC unless I uninstall them. And it's not normal for an OS to get screwed up because of uninstallations.
BTW, I do use registry cleaners, actually I check most of the entries to be sure not to remove wrong ones, you know, those things can be dangerous.
Of course, OS X has problems too. However, it's more stable and pretty much any Mac user I know has had less problems than on Windows, even using the same progs.
it is one of the many things that sucks about windows, that is one reason it is not my primary OS. My primary operating system is linux. I never said it was perfect but when I need a program I use windows.
"Ipod out sells a lot of cheaper Mp3 players" not only because of hardware rather software behind it. ya the itunes & itunes store....and BMW? .....very poor example.......sorry.
Unlike MS Apple sells and manuf the computer too, not just an OS. So they rely on the higher revenue brought in by sales of Macs. The amount of revenue per unit brought in by the iPhone and the iPods is significantly lower. putting OS X on a standard $300 OEM will only make OS X look bad due to the crappy hardware they have. It will end up with more errors and also leave itself open to more viral attacks like Windows. I'm ok with smaller market share - its more secure.
ah and there it is, so many still live in the old days of mac, with the intel switch the powerpc and risc direct hardware control are gone. All that remains is first to market chips which Apple may win or lose against other OEMs but that is always a temporary time period. OSX would not likely ever run on 300 hardware, OSX requires EFI and signed drivers, not always a cheap route. Moreover, if cheap is the way all consumers go, then why is not emachine num 1?
Most people look at it from a consumers point of view, as with MRBIT10 I believe he looks at it from a programmers point of view. As if, Mac OS X is so great so good so secure so reliable, that it should do well on regular PC OEM machines as well not just Mac hardware. I for one could care less if it was free or not. Now thats just my personal view thou.
Linux is designed to run on low power machines though. Heck, isn't there a Linux distro that only uses 50 mb hd space?
OS X is designed around macs, and vice versa. This is why Phystar or whatever is getting 'kernel panics' when they try to install OS X on their computers; it's not an Apple fail-safe, it simply isn't using the right hardware that OS X is set to use.
Revamping OS X to run on multiple hardware platforms would be an effort, and would probably just hurt Apple in the long run.
because true i switch to mac for os x like you said if i could go and buy a cheap 300 dollar pc and put os x on it who wouldnt have macs right now
yeah i agree with you and i know apple woudnt do it because they now they would go down and the company would be junk also it would have problems because its going to be install in god knows how many diferent pc's
TV ALL HELL THE ONE AND ONLY GREAT TV
randomfunnyguy321 1 year ago
Whats the point? You are still stuck using the same hardware you would be using if you had just got a Mac to start with.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
Not always... the fact of the matter is I also have an HP computer that right out of the box was able to run Max OS, and yes updates work, and no problem with drivers... and cost half what I could have paid for a Mac
Now some may say you wont get tec-support... Well that doesn't matter I'm a real PC user that can trouble-shoot: problems myself... If we couldn't we would be on the phone all day with some one that can't suck at English ... ask us dumb question like "is computer plugged in" :D
maw88ify 2 years ago
No, the windows world has a hacked and fail OS that kinda sorta still looks like OS X. Also you have to run it of the same hardware as Macs have to there is no point.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
I agree
kevbro93 2 years ago
I agree with you, except that I don't know if Apple will set OS X free. Maybe they will some day, I hope not.
My problem with setting it free is that I wouldn't like a cheap pc, ugly as they are, with no concept or design running the beautiful OS X.
That's my main problem with it.
tincho81 2 years ago
Not to sound harsh, but if you don't want to buy a Mac to get the OS than Apple does not need you as a customer. The PC mentality is: I want to have access to everything for free and make what I want myself. To Apple mentality is more like: go ahead and keep it under tight control, I don't care as long as it works the way it should.
Trying to ask Apple to set OS X free is like asking BMW to put their motors in ford escorts and kias. If you want OS that bad, GET A MAC !
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
I'm against the notion of setting OSX free. I commented on MrBit's "Set OSX Free Part 4" video a little while ago this evening. I mean, Apple is known for their exclusivity for their operating system. Web apps and other apple programs are a different story. Apple Talk has been available for PC networking for a long time, but Apple will keep (I hope) OSX and their future versions of Apple systems to come!
droadtrip 2 years ago
I understand the exclusivity and maintaining hardware sales, but I really don't think that making Leopard available to other platforms would change that any. Would OSX run as smooth on non Apple hardware? Probably not AS smooth but still a lot smoother than Windows. Would there be issues? Of course, but computers are very complex and even with Apple's tight integration there are still issues. Linux works better than Windows and it's free, unfortunately there is no commercial software for it.
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
The reason I bring this up is because I am and will probably always be a PC guy. I enjoy building/upgrading/customizing my computers, something that Apple cannot or will not give me. Period, end of story. So for me Windows is my only option. Linux doesn't run the software I need and use for my artwork. Would releasing OSX for PC platform prevent me from buying a Mac? No, cause I never would have bought one in the first place. What it would do is create an additional sale of Leopard...
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
I don't agree with that logic dragonballjiujitsu. Would YOU put OSX on a $300 Walmart computer if you could legally? I doubt it. The people who buy Macs more than likely would continue to do so regardless if OSX was available on other hardware or not. Releasing it would simply make it available to those who would not normally purchase a Mac. It would increase sales rather than preventing them.
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
If you would have asked me this a year ago I would have said yes. Maybe not $300 but I would have built a $500-700 PC and used OS X. You may be right about the people who already own Macs, but most first time Mac buyers are after a Windows alternative. The symbol on the case matters little to them.
It would increase sales in the short term and hurt Apple in the long term.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
I don't know about that either. Aren't you more inclined to purchase another product from a company that you have had a good experience from in the past rather than a competitor's product? Aren't people who have used and liked Apple products like ipods, iphones etc, more likely to purchase a Mac than a PC? This could be yet another way for people to get their foot in the Apple door, who wouldn't normally. And perhaps with a good experience be more likely to purchase a Mac as their next computer.
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
See my videos on the subject. I talk about most of these things and explain why I feel about it the way I do.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
Roger that.
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
Arthur, I can't disagree with you entirely because like MrBit, your arguments on the subject stands to reason to basically ask "Why Not?".
But where I stand on the issue is that Apple has penetrated and owned the Cell Phone and Smart Phone market for quite some time now. Then who can forget the runaway success of the Ipod? These examples are what raised apple from simple company logo recognition to brand loyalty awareness for so many who never thought before they would switch. (continued)....
droadtrip 2 years ago
Apple licensed out many of their services - for example "Apple Talk". But their OS is unique even though its been on an IBM processor before and now Intel. Apple will still gain more customers on all other fronts, but it is my confidence that they will keep OSX locked to the Apple products as they have historically done.
Besides, I was just reading in Laptop Mag today about the Windows 7 beta. It's a spitting image of Vista and OSX combined. If W7 is sucessful, who would want OSX on their PC?
droadtrip 2 years ago
"If W7 is sucessful, who would want OSX on their PC?"
Regardless of if Win7 is successful or not I still believe it would be better if users had a choice. Right now there is no choice for OSes, unless you also buy the hardware to match. If you're on a PC, you're running Windows. On a Mac, it's OSX. There really is no other choice. Bootcamp is not a choice, it's temporary, you can't permanently install Linux instead of OSX. Linux is not an option for most people on PCs due to lack of software.
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
".....There really is no other choice." Very True. I feel bad for buyers who are close to brands like Sony and Toshiba, but have just 1 choice of OS. Windows. But since we've been fed Windows most of our life, and Windows Stability is improving I might add, then that's just the acceptance factor. I'd like to see more companies like HP branch out and create their own OS. But with only 2 major players out there and all the complexities involved, it's probably just not in their best interest.
droadtrip 2 years ago
No it's not. It would be very difficult if not impossible for someone to jump in with a new OS and actually succeed. Linux has been trying for a long time, yet there is still a major lack of commercial software support. If OSX didn't have as much great software as it does, it would be useless as well despite all it's bells and whistles. An OS is useless without software. Who buys a computer to play with the OS? Very few I imagine.
TheOnlyKingArthur 2 years ago
Got some good points. But in the future if this economy keeps going the way it is Apple might not sell computers anymore. Apple's computer sales have dropped gradually since the economy dive and due to netbooks. I see Apple just selling Ipods and Iphones in the future if things keep going the way they are going right now. You are right though. If they gave out OSX people would just buy cheaper systems and put it on those instead of buying a Macintosh computer.
SourceZombie 2 years ago
right on, and this might be stupid but are you all ways wearing that cap of yours?
21972069450471 2 years ago
Sometimes I ware a Nike cap.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
You hit the nail on the head with this video. Keep up the good work.
FrugalTech 2 years ago
another reason for not freeing OSX
it would slow down innovation
the fact that Apple keeps on innovating
is because of the fact that it has complete control on everything
Like for example the new multi-touch trackpad with gestures
and many other similar innovations like isight etc etc.
if Apple licensed OSX such things woudn't be easy to implement
it would also lead to a loss in quality
tarunrad 2 years ago
I buy a Macintosh for the full experience, both OS and hardware.
ronknights 2 years ago
Good video Dragon!!
JacobMac01 2 years ago
Great video!! I am trying to say that to everybody that OSX sells Apple. It will never happen. Be Bless!!
PillzBerry27 2 years ago
I don't dispute that the reason a lot of people buy macs is for os x, but if apple did release its operating system, it would have much much more control of the market. They could transition to slightly less computer hardware focused, more device focused. If you could go out and buy os x for like say 300 bucks, and install it on any pc, then os x's market share would probably boom up to atleast about 30%. At that point not writing a version of your software for macs would be marketing suicide.
moniker127 2 years ago
And honestly the reason os x has such a low market share right now is because people want to be able to run the same apps on there, and much of the time right now they cant do that.
moniker127 2 years ago
Actually most of the people dont switch to mac, they switch to OSX......
rossel0203113 2 years ago
'setting osx free'- the fuuniest thing ever......it is hard to explain in youtubes limited comment space....but apple never gonna do this kind of retardness any soon....if osx is become free, only a few people will buy apple hardware. we compromise configuration for osx.if osx was free, we could make a machine with core i7 and gtx 295....no one will then care about apple's build quality or alluminium enclosure(except a few)......so apple will never do self f***....
rossel0203113 2 years ago
please do not set OS 10 FREE!
CCBalla10 2 years ago
Steve Jobs vision was to make great computer hardware available to everybody with the best software available on it. Back in the early years of Steve Jobs, he stated he wouldn't make or allow any junk to come out from his company, and that includes setting Mac OS X free, because Steve Jobs wants people to have great hardware with great software, the whole combo, not just the software like Microsoft has done.
Dark4Vendetta 2 years ago
I think back in the 80's Steve Jobs spoke in an interview where he said that he was willing to allow his operating system to be open to other hardware manufacturers but he didn't allow it because they didn't want to pay his asking price.
GlockNinja 2 years ago 2
Glockninja is right, Jobs created NextSoftware which had Nextstep and openstep which ran on many platforms, go figure, that was Job's vision an OS for all kinds of platforms and he got bought out by Apple.
mrbit10 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I really liked your video. Youtube can be a great asset for you. If you need any help getting your video exposed i use a site called Tubeviews . Net It has really done wonders for me, Keep in touch
i wish you the best
Braidendfgt 2 years ago
Mac users, stop comparing
Jullzzzz 2 years ago
So why don't they just sell OSX and make money off of the operating system? I have no problem with setting OSX free and I personally dont think that it is a stupid idea.
ShockaSlim 2 years ago
I'm glad you think this way, because you are correct, if OS10 would be set free, I would buy it and build my own computer. On that note, do you work for Apple? What would you care if Apple made the mistake of doing this? Just asking, I agree with your video. OS10 makes Macs wanted.
ThingsontheWeb 2 years ago
good vid, os-x is much more than a OS IMO, it is a tool to make great products made by APPLE!!
macward66 2 years ago
mr bit just doesnt fucking get it
killer1snoop 2 years ago
Mr. Bit has a view. PC has over 90% market share. PC meaning Win, Linux, BSD, Sun, etc.
If OS10 was sold for 250 USD, how much money would Apple make? and the market share are companies, they want the cheapest computer possible. What is the cheapest ? PCs, why ? PC has competition. Dell, HP, Gateway, custom builds, mom and pop shops, every computer but Apple. Apple has no competition with it's OS, and Windows does, that's why M$ is M$
ThingsontheWeb 2 years ago
Microsoft is a bigger company than Apple because they sell an OS that is open to anyone who wants it. Apple can stop making hardware completely and just sell OSx and they would actually do better business than now.
GlockNinja 2 years ago
Theoretically that may work but thats using MS is a business model - but they grew when there wasn't a dominant competitor like itself that had over 90% market share to fight against. Apple cannot overtake that 90% by just selling the OS without taking a serious hit due to a lack of hardware sales. I prefer the Mac designs to standard OEMs anyhow.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
actually Apple was number 1 and dominant and then because of PROTECTIONISM they lost all their market share to a command line interface known as DOS which had no GUI, no security and ran on everything from IBM, to NEC. Microsoft's open software is not the issue, its how they cheaply programmed their OS with single user roles and security as an after thought, do not project Windows issues on other OSs.
mrbit10 2 years ago
I have nothing against you at all, mrbit10, I subscribe to your vids as well and enjoy hearing your take on things. I just don't like the idea of OS X running on any old PC.... it is actually what makes a Mac special and unique. If OS X is to be put on any other computers I feel it should be done in a very controlled way that won't take away from Apple's sale of Macs, but rather add to it.... if that makes sense.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
like wise, and i appreciate the sub. the problem though is that you could not put it on any old PC, it requires 64bit signed drivers and EFI, Apple would have full control as to where it would be sold. There will always be the hackintoshes for the older machines but the tech simply would not mesh, windows 32 runs on BIOS, a 16bit startup, go figure and that is why it can run on all x86 machines
mrbit10 2 years ago
that's the only way i'd be "ok" with OS X being allowed on other machines. And possibly if these other machines didn't overtake the areas that apple already has a Mac present in, but fills in the gaps, more or less.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
well that is the point, apple does not make boxes, the only desktops are the imac and mni, that is why i always argued "what sales loss?" sure you will lose those that cringe or by lack of selection by an imac just to get os x but most get it because they love it.
mrbit10 2 years ago
mrbit10, is the reason why you want OSX set free because you think it would get rid of Microsoft? If that's the case, your heart is in the right place, but there is compelling evidence that things probably wouldn't play out the way you hope or expect them to. (such as the way the mac clones of the 90s turned out)
musicalmike235 2 years ago
not to wipe them out but give us another viable OS like 34% of the market. But again it will play out, your analogy of the clones is misplaced. The clones are hardware, back in the days of PowerPC back then expensive hardware was licensed out, but since it is all intel, clones no longer exist in this case. Moreover, clones is not what killed apple, the fall from grace occurred long, long before, that is why they went through so many CEOs, one word brought Apple to the brink, PROTECTIONISM.
mrbit10 2 years ago
also to close on this comment, I am tired of an MS run world, their software not only dictates our behavior but that of hardware with another OS out there large enough we can change the tide of inefficient computing. See my vid Behind the Bit.
mrbit10 2 years ago
I fully agree...OS X is too crucial and important to Apple's marketing plan to be set free.
DLB1752 2 years ago
I feel OS X should not be set free. If it were - Sure Apple would sell a great deal of the OS, but maybe not as many as they think. But it will most assuredly cut down the sales of the Mac line of products because anyone will try to put Mac OS X on a cheap $300 POS PC. The level of quality will fall on both the OS X and on the Mac itself. The thought of that is very sad. The only thing that would work is if Apple would get a very high end company to clone the OS with. But thats a "maybe".
endlessdream94 2 years ago
If BMW puts their motor into Mini Coopers will that put BMW out of business? If Apple puts their OSx into a Walmart special, will people stop buying Apple computers? I think Apple needs to stop being so insecure and put faith into their products. Ipod out sells a lot of cheaper Mp3 players because people want Apple products. So why not let somebody who can only afford $300.00 have OSx on their $300 computer?
GlockNinja 2 years ago
Because then there would be driver problems like Windows has, and everything would take more to make because it would have to be tested on a lot of computers. Even the OS would be slower. So no, thanks.
emperordarius 2 years ago
that is incorrect, you are placing windows problems on other OSs, just because Windows model which is their history of how they evolved their OS of which I explain in detail over many vids is the reason they have issues. What will you say when hypervisor and 64 ibt signed drivers are the norm and windows no longer experiences the same issues?
mrbit10 2 years ago
I'm just saying that OS X would suffer from SOME of Windows' problems if it ran under PCs.
On the other hand, it would never be as unstable and problematic as Windows.
emperordarius 2 years ago
I have never had windows crash on my pc. my mac crashes unpredictably.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Yeah sure. You're very convincing. Please, go tell this to other noobs, don't waste my time.
emperordarius 2 years ago
thanks, I knew you would agree that my mac crashes, and is slow.
thanks for being truthful and admitting macs crash.
ASCII808 2 years ago
"sarcasm "Yeah sure. You're very convincing. "/ sarcasm"
"serious "Please, go tell this (bullshit) to other noobs, don't waste my time. "/ serious"
Understand now, retard?
emperordarius 2 years ago
thanks for admitting my mac crashes, good night.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Are you retarded or is it my impression? No, you're definitely retarded
emperordarius 2 years ago
it could be your condescending attitude.
ASCII808 2 years ago
my only explanation is that you have no idea how to use windows, and that is why you bash it. If Mac OSX is so stable, then why is it not in the top ten servers in Netcraft? Windows is not number #1, but at least it is in the top ten, unlike Mac OSX. That could be telling you something about Window's stability. Nothing against Osx but, why is it not even close to the top? How can you say something is so bad get into the top ten in up times? I think what you say is a load of crap about windows
ASCII808 2 years ago
And what does it have to do with servers? The only reason why OS X is not used under servers is that they usually need a lot of machines and prefer to spend as less as possible (one of the reasons why FreeBSD and Linux is used a lot).
I don't know how to use Windows? FYI, I've used since I was 8 and use it sometimes too now.
You have to be mentally retarded in order to say that Windows is stable. So please, stop insisting on something which is so obviously untrue.
emperordarius 2 years ago
if it can run servers, why is it unstable? maybe not as stable as Bsd, but why is it so horribly unstable, if it can get some of the highest up times on netcraft. makes no sense, unless you are exaggerating beyond proportions to make it look bad. Maybe you don't know how to keep windows stable, experience means nothing if you don't know how to use it right.
ASCII808 2 years ago
People don't need to frequently install programs on servers. And Windows servers do have quite a lot of problems.
I know how to keep Windows stable. I cleaned the trash, manually checked bad registry entries and removed them, ran several malware scans, defragmented and optimized my system etc. and still the system would remain as slow as hell, plus that I don't have time to waste doing those kind of things just to keep my system in a slightly-less-than-shitty state.
emperordarius 2 years ago
what are the specs of the system?
ASCII808 2 years ago
The system? The experience I had was on all the system I used, but, let me say the specs of the one I use most frequently:
Core i7 Extreme (975) 3.33 GHz
Radeon 4870 1GB
8 GB RAM
1 TB HDD
The hardware works perfectly. In fact, Linux distros run very well with it. Only Windows has problems.
emperordarius 2 years ago
I think you are not using windows correctly.
ASCII808 2 years ago
I am. And I'm not the only one experiencing those problems. Pretty much every Windows user I know has them too.
emperordarius 2 years ago
What operating system?
ASCII808 2 years ago
The system I mentioned before ran Xp, is running Vista and I also tried Windows 7 on it for some time. No change at all (although Vista was slower than Xp).
The other people ran Xp or Vista.
emperordarius 2 years ago
That is pretty odd, have you tried mem test, or checking for bad sectors, because windows runs pretty fast on my computer, but linux does run faster. how fast is the hard drive? Windows runs well if the hardware is in working order, and is much more delicate than linux or mac osx.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Just tried it. Fine
The hdd is 7200 rpm.
As I said, the hardware works perfectly.
emperordarius 2 years ago
I have never used vista, but usually the more applications you install the slower it gets, have you tried disabling start up/services in msconfig? another thing is to type in (name of hard drive letter): -b, this is suppose to do a boot time optimization. that is very weird, are you sure you have up to date drivers?
ASCII808 2 years ago
defrag C: -b sorry about that
ASCII808 2 years ago
I think Vista has drastically improved Registry rot (Or Winrot if you prefer). That was the biggest part I didn't like about XP.
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
how many applications do people install really. I have 50, and have no problems whatsoever. what the hell is winrot? never heard of these things. if my machine is slowing down I am not noticing it. it still as fast as it was before other than 5 second slower boot time because of startup apps.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Most people don't install many programs maybe, but I don't count myself in that group. The registry won't be bogged down or slow down your computer that much by installing, but removing software will start making it slower and slower (I have first hand experience). You haven't heard of Winrot? The all-mighty Google have the info needed ;)
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
how many apps do you have?
ASCII808 2 years ago
Me? Not sure, I usually install a lot. I think I have about 20 or so apps right now that I use (There's more that I don't use or seldom use), I also uninstall a lot because I'm too cheap to buy additional disk space ;) But I should invest in it, it's cheap so...
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
I don't uninstall apps to often unless it is needed. here are list
openoffice, folding@home gpu/cpu, starcraft, eclipse, visual studio C++, utorrent (linux isos)
ati CCC, fallout3, powertoys, adobe reader, pcsx2, xboxstat, 7zip, crysis, nvidia control panel, firefox, s4league lineage2, raid software, hamachi, teamviewer, steam(orange box), Nexuiz, asus pc probe, VLC, skype, farcry 2, photoshop trial, Miro, defraggler, spyblaster, and freeavg recently(worm alert), blackbox
ASCII808 2 years ago
not quite 50 but the 50 include programs not in the start menu list.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Most used:
OpenOffice, Eclipse, Jcreator, VIM, Winrar, bunch of browsers (I do some HTML), CS4, VLC, PowerShell, MySQL, PDF, Truecrypt, Team Fortress 2.
Those I can't go without.
Got more stuff I use on my Linux and OBSD machines.
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
Nice list, but I though powershell was only in windows 7?
ASCII808 2 years ago
PowerShell is for XP and up to 7. Mmm... About 300G on my Windows laptop. I have plenty of space, I just like to preserve a lot of space; photo's tend to require quite the amount. 70M per photo. Plus my extraordinarily boring class required some video's aswell. I have my share of music and movies.
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
what dpi do you use for photoshop? I usually use 700. other than that, I should download powershell then.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Don't really know. I'm not exactly an expert in multimedia related things, I'm more interested in networking, servers, operating systems, databases, coding and the like. If I'm not mistaken, the size of the photos are around 3000x2000 and 1500x1000.
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
how big is your HD? I have about 80 dedicated to windows xp, 50 to windows 7, and the rest is to linux/bsd. the total HD space is about 300 GBs(320GB)
ASCII808 2 years ago
give me a list of applications installed on your machine.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Not a lot, Just Firefox, DefenseWall, Photoshop, Sony Vegas. I keep it as light as I can and yet it's slow.
emperordarius 2 years ago
that makes no sense at all, I can run all of those on my core 2 duo in windows 7, and it does not slow down. I think someone is wrong with your installation, what other programs did you install, and how many programs did you uninstall?
ASCII808 2 years ago
I have seen it over and over again here at the shop. Out of many , many dozens of Vista systems I have only seen one or two that even came close to the speed of a mid rang XP machine.
Windows 7 is pretty snappy.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
I think windows vista is just slow in general, you can run it with little amount of ram, but it will never be fast no matter how much you put in it, it seems. I am going to wait for windows 7 and snow leopard and buy both. the odd things are that vista RTM runs faster than service pack 1 in some applications. I just hope windows 7 is optimized better than it's predecessor.
ASCII808 2 years ago
what I mean in speed, is the speed of the UI in general.
ASCII808 2 years ago
I did uninstall a lot of programs. And that's what slowed it down. Though it's not normal for an OS just to get slow because of that. But my main problem is stability, not speed.
emperordarius 2 years ago
That is your problem then, as long as you do not uninstall a crap load of programs, it will stay well, registry cleaners might help.
it is stable, but you have to use it correctly, and not to uninstall many programs or it will slow down.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Funny. You install too many programs and Vista gets slower. You remove too many and it gets slower. Vista is not stable at all. I have worked on more Vista machines than I can recall and the top to complaints are lack of stability and speed.
There is no need for Vista with XP still going strong and Windows 7 just around the corner. Lets just let it die shall we.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
I think the registry although on paper, it seem to be better than just having everything stored in the folder, but the way it was implemented causes havoc with windows. a nice central system seems great and organized but the problem was microsoft did not do it right. I liked the dos way better, because all you had to do was delete the contents, and it worked without to much trouble.
ASCII808 2 years ago
they both have there problems, mac's have an average of more software crashes in my experience, and windows has its registry issues. Pick your poison is all I can say.
ASCII808 2 years ago
I'll agree they both have their problems. Although I have never had a single software problem in OS X. Actually In the past year I have owned a Mac I have yet to have any problems with it at all.
dragonballjiujitsu 2 years ago
I get e\ the "application unexpectedly quit" kind of crash. they are not like really bad, but like on both sides if you forgot to save you are hopeless most of the time. I think windows although it works well I kind of sway from using it my primary operating system. I mostly use linux which never has slowed down for me which is pretty awesome. I like to reinstall all os's once a year regardless of the operating system because it gives it a fresh start, and is more stable on all sides.
ASCII808 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but I want to try new programs and I sure won't let them in my PC unless I uninstall them. And it's not normal for an OS to get screwed up because of uninstallations.
BTW, I do use registry cleaners, actually I check most of the entries to be sure not to remove wrong ones, you know, those things can be dangerous.
Of course, OS X has problems too. However, it's more stable and pretty much any Mac user I know has had less problems than on Windows, even using the same progs.
emperordarius 2 years ago
it is one of the many things that sucks about windows, that is one reason it is not my primary OS. My primary operating system is linux. I never said it was perfect but when I need a program I use windows.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Hmm... How many programs did you uninstall? And do you use 32 or 64 bit OS?
If you got 8G of RAM it's weird, even in Vista's case.
Iminurcomputorz 2 years ago
I tried both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions, currently using the 64 bit version.
I try many programs and I uninstall many.
emperordarius 2 years ago
"Ipod out sells a lot of cheaper Mp3 players" not only because of hardware rather software behind it. ya the itunes & itunes store....and BMW? .....very poor example.......sorry.
rossel0203113 2 years ago
Unlike MS Apple sells and manuf the computer too, not just an OS. So they rely on the higher revenue brought in by sales of Macs. The amount of revenue per unit brought in by the iPhone and the iPods is significantly lower. putting OS X on a standard $300 OEM will only make OS X look bad due to the crappy hardware they have. It will end up with more errors and also leave itself open to more viral attacks like Windows. I'm ok with smaller market share - its more secure.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
ah and there it is, so many still live in the old days of mac, with the intel switch the powerpc and risc direct hardware control are gone. All that remains is first to market chips which Apple may win or lose against other OEMs but that is always a temporary time period. OSX would not likely ever run on 300 hardware, OSX requires EFI and signed drivers, not always a cheap route. Moreover, if cheap is the way all consumers go, then why is not emachine num 1?
mrbit10 2 years ago
i agree....
rossel0203113 2 years ago
Most people look at it from a consumers point of view, as with MRBIT10 I believe he looks at it from a programmers point of view. As if, Mac OS X is so great so good so secure so reliable, that it should do well on regular PC OEM machines as well not just Mac hardware. I for one could care less if it was free or not. Now thats just my personal view thou.
bullboykennels 2 years ago
if linux can run well on my 200$ custom build Amd, Mac osx should be good enough to run on a 300$ pc.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Linux is designed to run on low power machines though. Heck, isn't there a Linux distro that only uses 50 mb hd space?
OS X is designed around macs, and vice versa. This is why Phystar or whatever is getting 'kernel panics' when they try to install OS X on their computers; it's not an Apple fail-safe, it simply isn't using the right hardware that OS X is set to use.
Revamping OS X to run on multiple hardware platforms would be an effort, and would probably just hurt Apple in the long run.
Snaily2 2 years ago
my 200$ pc is pretty powerful, it has amd x2 5000, with a 8600 gt, and 2 GB of ram.
ASCII808 2 years ago
i know setting os x is completely bull shit
apple would loose alot of money
because true i switch to mac for os x like you said if i could go and buy a cheap 300 dollar pc and put os x on it who wouldnt have macs right now
yeah i agree with you and i know apple woudnt do it because they now they would go down and the company would be junk also it would have problems because its going to be install in god knows how many diferent pc's
great vid man
geniousmac 2 years ago
I agree with what you are saying. I think setting OS X free is a bad idea. If it was I would still buy mac computers. But I dont think they should
applefan23 2 years ago
I think the video mrbit10 made is excellent. Great editing and good, simple, clear points.
Personally i think OS X shouldn't be set free. Your points about that topic are very true!
Sven88abc 2 years ago