set os x free myths to bust and stories to tell part 2

[fleskebille]

I seem to remember Power Computing (think that's what they were called) delivering better performing and cheaper computers. (not an argument against freeing OS X)

[Uncompetative]

Windows is flaky because Microsoft do not have the luxury of controlling the hardware configuration, or the drivers for all of the many peripherals. The best Apple could manage would be to publish a hardware/peripherals compatibility list that they were satisfied worked perfectly with their OS.

There are historical reasons for Windows being a mess that hinge upon backwards-compatibility, but I think most of that has been cleaned up by now. Although they could have done without canning WinFS.

[NZhouldhavewon]

I think it would be way too hard to justify the price difference of a mac if it becomes easy and legal to run OSX on any pc.

[gcrav]

You nailed it.

[MetalJohn3]

get that shit to retail please

[kazoh0lic]

Part 2: I have many family members that I attracted towards Macs as they were safe in the choice or ability to run Windows anyway...and yet a few months on none of them use Windows and with the other Application-makers out there making more stuff for Mac OSX there will be even less reasons to even need to. I think Apple was making a safe bet and I think they'll win. At least, that is my simplistic and generalised reason.

[kazoh0lic]

Part 1: I think the reason Apple made the switch and let their hardware run Windows was simply the choice for going head to head. I think they know their product is better and that even if people buy their computers to run Windows, eventually they'll realise which OS is stronger.

[PDzero]

I agree. i'm just basing this on my own experience. From what I've noticed, most switchers install Windows on their new Mac "just to be safe" but usually completely switch within the following months.

[killer1snoop]

i thought setting it free it would make it unstable

[omegared272]

That is why I think OSX would be set free to help corner the Linux threat and gain ground on M$

[omegared272]

I agree with Mr Bit on this, but the real foe here is being over looked by a lot of people. Linux is on the rise now like never before and with distros like Ubuntu getting a lot of press now days it is close at hand for apple to be caught in another war. I have now made the switch to Linux full time I can play wow and other cool games with no problem at all. If A distro like Ubuntu can make it a bit more pretty to look at and get the game thing full on then apple could be in trouble again.

[hal970fx]

Also MKLinux was a project for an alternative OS, which was the same as the current OS, but with Linux running on top of the Mach microkernel.

[mrbit10]

yep that's right, thanks for the comment

[hal970fx]

I liked it, I had it on one of those Beige G3 PowerMac, though I was retarded and removed the OS 9 partition and poof! no more booting, damn.

[InsaneIyGreat]

mrbit: using browser statistics for marketshare is inconclusive, as far as I can see. I use camino on my macintosh, mainly. camino is not an Apple product but is a mozilla third party browser. where does my marketshare show up in your statistic?

[mrbit10]

No its not browser share, its operating system share. Has nothing to do with what browser you use.

[InsaneIyGreat]

I think they are basing it on browser statistics but i could be wrong: "We use a unique methodology for collecting this data. We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. The data is compiled from approximately 160 million visitors per month. The information published is an aggregate of the data from this network of hosted website statistics. The site unique visitor and referral information is summarized on a monthly basis."

[svtcontour]

Apple needs to get OSX onto as many machines out there... Thats the only way I think apple will really get ahead. Apple needs to reach the majority of people.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Good video and you made a lot of valid points, but I will have to strongly disagree on many others. I'll post a video response later today.

[droadtrip]

I loved the Kitty Cats at the very very end!

Roar!!

[blacksteel25]

I just want Apple to also use AMD processors. Intel has had a piece of the Apple pie for three years shutting out competition on the Mac platform. I'm not saying Apple quit using Intel and switch to AMD, although that would be awesome, but to offer healthy competition.

I say to Apple, Set AMD free.... XD

[bombkangaroo]

The main reason, IIRC, that Apple went with intel, is because intel own large fabrication assets, and can keep up with demand for their products.

Right now AMD are selling off a lot of their fabrication assets in order to free up capital to invest in a new core architecture and the processes necessary for a die shrink.

I don't think Apple would use AMD chips unless/until either AMD or a fabrication partner can provide the required quantities of chips.

[MacOSXrulez]

"The main reason, IIRC, that Apple went with intel, is because intel own large fabrication assets, and can keep up with demand for their products."

Lies. Apple went with Intel because the PPC G5 chips were too hot to put into the PowerBook and because the Intel chips gave more PPW (Performance-per-watt). IBM could keep up with demand just fine, Quit making things up, and get your facts right.

[bombkangaroo]

>Lies

I meant as opposed to AMD.

>Quit making things up, and get your facts right.

You have no business presuming to condescend to anyone, let alone me.

[eddyr78]

Intels a better chip why would they want to go for AMD.

[blacksteel25]

Intels a better chip why would they want to go for AMD. - eddyr78

Higher front side bus, memory controller on the CPU, and latest Phenom quad CPU's are 4 independent processors. The Intel quad cpu's are two dual cores put on one CPU. I'm not saying Apple give up using Intel, but allow people to also use AMD processors. I know of several Mac fans including Kost are a fan of AMD.

[svtcontour]

Problem is, I cannot find one real world application where any current AMD quad core is faster clock for clock than current Intel quad offerings - even though in theory, the AMD should have the edge.

[errod]

Great video...Cant wait to hear some more on this topic!

[big46uk]

Congratulation on a very nice video and getting Emeek all worked up.

[Chr1573r]

Very interesting video mrbit10!

Keep up with the good work :)

[evilgnius]

that is very very interesting mr bit

[DavidsTechShow101]

Mac OS X should be set free but I don't see Apple becoming an OEM manufacturer. If it does become OEM that will be a sad sad day for Apple inc.

[Kalafut42]

i would rather run windows on a mac, and i would rather run os x on mac.

[big46uk]

Its seem to me with all the trends pointing to a much more successful Apple if OS X is set free, there are many Apple Mac users out there still thinks otherwise. In that case I hope Apple keep Mac OS X in their Apple cage forever and let Linux grow ever popular. Right now I don't think Linux is user friendly enough for the average user to compete with OSX and windows but it is closing in. Go go Open Source OS.

[MacOSXrulez]

What's the point of continuing to say that you want OS X free when it's not gonna be free anyways? -.-'

[bombkangaroo]

What's the point in voting for someone if they're not going to win? [rhetorical]

It's not going to be liscenced to other OEMs if there's no demand for it, but its not impossible.

If there is shown to be sufficient demand for OS X on non-apple hardware, then Jobs will do what makes financial sense and serves the interests of sustainable growth for Apple.

[MacOSXrulez]

It's not gonna be licensed to OEM's. Get over it.

Steve Jobs himself said that they want to continue making personal computers.

[big46uk]

what happen when Steve Job leave Apple.

[MacOSXrulez]

Jonathan Ive or Phil Shiller will take over. They want Apple to continue making personal computers too so they won't license it to OEMs. :P

[bombkangaroo]

>It's not gonna be licensed to OEM's. Get over it.

There's nothing to get over, since you can't reliably predict the future.

>Steve Jobs himself said that they want to continue making personal computers.

Selectively licencing OS X to other OEMs would not prevent Apple from producing their own PCs, and handled correctly would have no impact on their hardware sales.

[MacOSXrulez]

"Selectively licencing OS X to other OEMs would not prevent Apple from producing their own PCs, and handled correctly would have no impact on their hardware sales."

*Sigh* I hate repeating myself. Apple licensed the Mac OS to some OEMs on the 90's and it only helped to decline the already declining sales of Apple hardware. Apple doesn't give a shit about having more PC market share--get that into your head.

Again, it's not gonna be licensed to OEM's. GET OVER IT!

[bombkangaroo]

I'm aware of Apple's goals.

As a profit making enterprise they want sustainable increases in profit, selectively licencing OS X to other OEMs is one means that they could potentially achieve that.

Watch MrBit's videos again, the Clones were more of a symptom than a cause.

[eddyr78]

If Apple licensed OSX to other OEM'S it would hurt them. First of all most people would go out and buy cheaper pc's with OSX on it than buy an apple computer thats a little more pricy. Apple makes Most of their revenue of their hardware not their software. Also the os is optimized to run flawlessly with their hardware its not gong to run the same with every pc out their.

[MacOSXrulez]

I still think that it shouldn't be freed and neither will it be freed so whatever.

Quote from Steve Jobs and CNet Reporter:

- Reporter: Is it your goal to overtake the PC in market share?

- Steve: I can tell you what our goal is. Our goal is to make the best personal computers in the world and make products that we are proud to sell and recommend to our family and friends.

That says it all.

[bombkangaroo]

Even assuming that the above quote is taken as gospel at Apple, it doesn't preclude the possibility of Apple liscencing OS X to other hardware vendors, since it wouldn't be Apple making the products that Dell/Compaq/etc are selling.

As such, their products wouldn't interfere with Apple's stated goal.

[MacOSXrulez]

That whole comment doesn't make sense. Apple makes OS X.

[martinitime1975]

MrBit, I'm with you..release OSX and let it truly complete. I think it won't happen because Jobs is a control freak (look at the way the iPhone apps store is handled, he has to approve everything personally) and they make too much profit on their overpriced hardware. I think they can still set minimum standards and force hardware OEM's to go by their standards, and still get OSX to the masses.

[SPTSuperSprinter156]

I think you raise fantastic points but I have to disagree with you when you say Windows is unstable... I find the NT side of the line to be very stable indeed.

[emeek77]

Yes, the hardware is the same as what's available for non-Apple PCs. However, someone within Apple has selected everything from the processor and motherboard/logic board to the speakers. All of these have been selected for compatibility with OS X. This means that Macs are specifically designed to run Apple's operating system. There are a limited number of hardware permutations across Apple's computer product line, therefore limiting the risk on incompatibility and poor performance.

[bijhua]

In my opinion, Apple made the OS run for specific hardware. Not the other way around. My point is, you can control the software to run on specific hardware. In computer history , first there was hardware than software. You code you software to run on specific hardware, any programmer will tell you that. It's not the other way around. Thus, you can always code your software to run on any other hardware.

[martinitime1975]

I'm no Apple expert, but I could swear that NextOS (which is what OSX is heavily based on) was originally written to run on the Intel x86 platform, and Jobs and crew had to mod it heavily to run on the G series procs Apple used at the time. When they made the switch to Intel hardware, the transition was much easier because the underlying NextOS code was already Intel x86 compatible. I could be wrong.

[Zenn3k]

Thats kinda backwards Emeek. What determines if the OS and the hardware will work well together is drivers. Apple creates drivers specifically for the hardware they are choosing, they do not pick hardware based on what will run best, they pick what they want to run, then write drives to make it run as well as possible.

[mrbit10]

To add to everyone else, all OEMS handpick their hardware.

[stealmind]

but none of the OEMs have direct access to the OS unlike Apple.

[mrbit10]

Yes that is true, but the context is only hardware for that argument.

[stealmind]

I bring this up because clones won't have direct access to the OS and thus quality of the clones will be affected.

[mrbit10]

NOw that I disagree with, that has nothing to do with quality. The OS has been written the hardware has been set. Having that relationship is only needed in testing. Too many have the wrong concept of hardware. Moreover, Clones have to be approved and certified to run the OS, no difference would exist.

[stealmind]

what about bugs? since apple manufactures both the OS and HW bugs get squashed quicker

[mrbit10]

nah it is the same speed as it takes the consumer to install the update.

[stealmind]

for example let's say there some kinda garageband update that conflicts with a certain clone's audio drivers.

for people using macs that would slow down there frequency and quality of updates because apple would spend more time on checking to see if there updates work good on the 9659846597483657438 different number of combos of hardware rather than spending there time in making the experience better.

Apple having to support millions of different configs can in no way be good for the platform

[mrbit10]

no, you forget the clones must have certified hardware, this is not Windows its OSX very different philosophies.

[bamdadkhan]

if this tendency continues, it doesn't really matter if there are only a few os x native apps (like video editing and image manipulating software now), the real problem is keeping os x a secure and in some cases _less_ widespread operating system (for which, for example less people make viruses etc.). maybe this is the plan for os x at apple.

of course this is all mere speculation..

[bombkangaroo]

For most applications Virtualisation and Emulation are worthwhile with today's multi-core processors. However, there will always be some things, like high-end video-editing, or modern games, where a VM typically won't give you the performance you'd like.

[bombkangaroo]

I think that as long as there is a performance deficit, created by additional layers of abstraction between the hardware and software, we will be seeing either multi-booting continue, or people will strive towards creating (or having them created) a solution that is native to their preferred OS.

[bamdadkhan]

hi,

while my opinion is that apple should make high quallity hardware with dedicated softeware on the computer market, and use the ipod, iphone etc. to target the consumers, i'd like to bring the case of virtual machines to your attention: virtual machine technology is continuing to emerge from enterprise-level systems towards the consumers. lots of people are running windows for gaming and running win-only apps while using the more secure (and less widespread) os x for a shell.