iATKOS v1.0i - Leopard native on PC

Discussion in 'Macintosh' started by Petros, Jan 26, 2008.

  1. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
  2. falconguard

    falconguard Carbon based lifeform Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    3,406
    Location:
    SoCal
    Sweet, I can hear the Apple Lawyers shuffling paperwork from here. That is very nice.
     
  3. Grandmaster

    Grandmaster Electronica Addict Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    10,574
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    Sooo dope.
     
  4. Psyborg

    Psyborg google addict Political User

    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Limerick, Ireland
    im just thinking will apple ever release a legal version of an OS for PC? much like the way MS released office for mac or the way macs now use intel processors...

    i only ask because last year, after years of using windows pc's through their various incarnations, i found myself salivating over a mac!

    eventually vista won me over ( kinda like the way you'll never leave your wife for your mistress, lol :nervous:)

    but i always thought about what i missed out on.
     
  5. Petros

    Petros Thief IV

    Messages:
    3,038
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I'm thinking they probably will. They've already got Boot Camp which lets you run Windows on a Mac. The only thing is that if they make an official port of Leopard to the PC (which is almost unnecessary now), they're going to have to start looking into some sort of copy protection. Up until now their sales model was "if you've bought a Mac, you've bought the OS too". This changes the playing field massively.
     
  6. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    I doubt there will ever be a version of Mac OS X that will run on beige PC's.
     
  7. Xie

    Xie - geek - Subscribed User Folding Team

    Messages:
    5,275
    Location:
    NY, USA
    I agree with X, it would be kinda crazy for Apple to give up all the control they got on the hardware to try and get OSX to run the way they want on every oddball computer setup out there.
     
  8. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Apple will not develop OS X for the PC -- that's been officially stated already.
     
  9. Grandmaster

    Grandmaster Electronica Addict Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    10,574
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    It would kinda undermine their entire marketing...
     
  10. Geffy

    Geffy Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    7,805
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    ... and the "Apple Experience" which is quite precious to them as well.
     
  11. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    so they moan about MS being a monopoly but don't mind being one themselves :p
     
  12. falconguard

    falconguard Carbon based lifeform Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    3,406
    Location:
    SoCal
    Shhh....Apple goons or fanboi's under direct direction from Steve Jobs will spirit you away and leave a hole of your existence in the world. Then the Apple Spin machine will go to work.





    We will find you two months later, on an Apple advert, loudly claiming that OS X has made your life so much easier.:ninja:
     
  13. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    Wait, who is moaning about MS being a monopoly? And how is Apple a monopoly itself?
     
  14. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    linux has :p

    Apple have said in many press releases that Microsoft abuses its monopoly in the pc market (don't have a quite to hand, but feel free to shoot me down on it), and although i can see from a sales/marketing stand point why they will never make OS X for PC, are they not saying well to use this OS you need one of our pcs, isn't that monopolistic ?
     
  15. falconguard

    falconguard Carbon based lifeform Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    3,406
    Location:
    SoCal
    Itunes, has moved Apple to it's own monopolistic practice. That, and I-pods or even their venture into phones, which still need to be activated using Itunes. Apple isn't the plucky underdog anymore, and have moved closer to Corporate Nazism ala Sony.
     
  16. Dark Atheist

    Dark Atheist Moderator Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    6,376
    Location:
    In The Void
    its not that im for or against any OS if i thought MS was the mutts nuts i wouldn't be using Linux and FreeBSD, and if i thought OS X was cack i wouldn't be taking out a loan to get a mac book to replace my aging but still useful old P4 1.8 laptop i have :) - no OS will feel everyone's needs, some are just more suited :p
     
  17. Grandmaster

    Grandmaster Electronica Addict Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    10,574
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    Carpo - OS X has like 5% marketshare. It's impossible for them to monopolize.

    But as falconguard said, iTunes is another story.
     
  18. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    Sure, iTunes has, but they are not forcing competitors out of business by undercutting their business in any way shape or form. Customers still have a wide range of choice of products besides Apple's iTunes/iPod. It just so happens to be that Apple makes a product that people love and want because of how it works.

    Apple's devices cost more than any of the competitors, for the same sort of features and price. A monopoly would try to undercut the competitor by making their device cost a lot less so that they get all of the market share.

    Same can be said with the iPhone, I don't see how they are monopolistic at all. They are just introducing another product in their line-up, which people want and love.

    The reason most people seem to think Apple has a monopoly with regards to iTunes, iPod's and now the phone industry is because they believe Apple has no competition, or has squashed the competition unfairly.

    The reason Apple is winning is because they make devices people actually want to buy. There is no other phone on the market that can be sold for $400, like they are hot cakes. No other phone that customers want so badly that on release day they are lining up around the stores to get one of the first ones.

    That is the problem. The competition exists, but they don't yet understand that if they want to sell their products, they need to make it look sexy, make it look hip, make it functional, make it something people REALLY want. Until that happens, Apple will seem to have a monopoly. Apple can't do anything about it's monopoly either, how could they? Stop people from buying their products?

    Microsoft is a whole different ball game. They force OEM's to bundle Windows with their PC's, they forced people out of the market by creating a cheaper product and bundling it with their main OS, which is then automatically installed on all computers. They use underhanded tactics to make sure that software does not run right, thereby forcing users to switch. Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly. Because they truly are a monopoly.
     
    Erbmaster likes this.
  19. Sazar

    Sazar F@H - Is it in you? Staff Member Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    14,905
    Location:
    Between Austin and Tampa
    I think you have an incorrect grasp of what a monopoly is. Pricing does not have to be reduced in a monopoly, heck you can offer a lesser-featured, worse sounding part with worse peripherals for a higher price in a monopoly and get away with it because of said monopoly.

    The issue is the exclusivity agreements and the like that is introduced.

    Look at the iPhone and the proprietary headset port for example. You are REQUIRED to buy additional items instead of using your own, perfectly good, working components.

    Last I checked, Blackberry's weren't exactly going for 10 bucks and they seem to be selling well over 50% of all smart-phones in the market even with the iPhone around. With regards to buying the product, similar lines have been seen for all kinds of products, recall people getting shot over the ps3? Recall the ridiculous lines for kids toys in the late 90's and early 00's? People will line up for products because of demand created for a proprietary item.

    The difference? The iPhone was avaible in stock. The other products were not.

    Interesting. Now read your other bit.

    Really?

    The tactics used by Apple and Microsoft are not so different. They have a market and they are catering to it with that oft-thrown around word. Synergy.

    How many companies out there make billions because of the platform Microsoft provides? Look at Apple, they have complete control from top to bottom of all items going into and being used by their products. There are few 3'rd party companies out there making money off of their Apple line-up of products because Apple controls most essential aspects.

    That is a monopoly.

    Btw, what are you talking about the operating system designed to not work correctly? No other company out there, no other manufacturer has to compromise as much to get their product to market because of the sheer amount of scrutiny. Every decision is a lawsuit waiting to happen and yet, for the same and/or more underhanded tactics, you say Apple is not a monopoly?

    http://ca.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861631067/monopoly.html

    A little refresher on terminology and the meaning of the word.
     
  20. X-Istence

    X-Istence * Political User

    Messages:
    6,498
    Location:
    USA
    If an iPod is a worse featured product with worse peripherals there are other options out there, that may suit your needs. When you buy a new computer an iPod is not forced onto you by the fact that it is there on your PC and there is no way to get a PC without one.

    Ehm, I have a Samsung T809 and it has a proprietary headphone jack as well. I have to buy the one Samsung sells as no others will fit. Same goes for their chargers, the aftermarket chargers can't get the plug to fit properly, so I am forced to buy Samsung.

    The iPhone at least comes with a wired headset I can use with it. There is no need to buy additional components, whereas with my Samsung I definitely had to pay extra to get the extra wire with the right plug.

    I'll agree with you on the game consoles. I don't play games at all, so to me those are null and void, especially since they are not devices that were being brought up. Whereas the iPod and iPhone definitely were.

    Blackberry's are indeed doing very good, and I agree that they are selling but there was never the same kind of waiting outside in line to get one type of deal. The people who seem to own Blackberries the most are business people.

    That is the mistake of the manufacturer. How does this have anything to do with Apple having a monopoly?

    I did, I was referring to iPod and iPhone sales. People want them, they are not being forced down their throats when they buy a PC.

    Not so different? How are they not so different? Where has Apple strong-armed it's music store over any other? Where has it forced users to use their music store? How has it forced people to buy their media players? Do note that songs made with PlayForSure can not even be played on the Microsoft Zune. If I bought any PlayForSure songs, I am stuck with other players. The same thing applies with Apple not licensing Microsoft DRM. If I bought Microsoft DRM songs, it is understandable I can't play them on my iPod.

    There is huge groups of indie developers out there making money on applications they build. Amazon's music store sells DRM free MP3's which can be loaded onto the iPod and played. What are the essential aspects? A lot of money is made by selling extra's for iPod's for iPhones. Laptop cases, extra hard drives, printers and the like. And because Apple controls these essential aspects they are able to provide a better experience.

    I don't agree. You or I were never forced to install iTunes, we were never forced to get an iPod (eventhough I doubt you have one), and we were not forced to download from the iTunes music store.

    The Windows not designed to work correctly was a reference on how they pushed out DR-DOS in the olden days because they wanted everyone to run MS-DOS when in reality it worked perfectly on DR-DOS. There have been other underhanded tactics by Microsoft to push a competitor out of the work space.

    How is Apple chocking off the competition? If a device came along tomorrow that worked better than an iPod, provided the functionality I wanted, and was cheaper than an iPod (and it has to work with iTunes, since I already have all my music loaded into it), I would go out and buy it.

    What market are they the only provider of a service?

    They have an exclusive right to have the iPod, since they made it, but to what do they have the right to exclusive something? Everything Apple provides, has an alternative out there. For the longest time I was unable to get a standard PC without Windows bundled with it. You could say the same thing for Mac's, but one could argue one is paying for the hardware and the software is free. Whereas with Microsoft's OEM licensing I am definitely paying for a copy of the OS.

    Exclusive control over what?

    Products, yes. Off course no-one else is allowed to sell the iPhone. But what service is controlled by just Apple that you can't get elsewhere.

    Cox, my cable provider is a monopoly. I have no choice but to go with them, since I can't even get DSL in my area. They control my TV, my internet and my phone service.

    Hahahaha!