OSeseses

[mrtristan]

Mac OSX is based on Unix. PCs can run Unix.

Macs can run Linux. PCs can run Linux.

If both of them can run fundamentally the same types of OSes, what prevents apple from creating and OS for the PC, or vice-versa? I don't understand computer code and I'm just curious if it's a processor thing or a money thing.

[tgpo]

ITs both. Yes PCs and Macs can run Linux, but different flavers of it. The PC runs a version of Linux built for the x86 chip family, while the Mac version is written for the PPC chipset. The processor commands are different, and if Apple wrote OS X, or if Microcrap wrote Winblows for the Mac, then they would have to do extensive re writting of the OS to compensate for the processor change. And that's where money comes into it.

[zodiac]

i heard someone say that apple once thought about making a pc os,but it never happend.

[EddyH]

bah, they should both go back to GEM

[Faustus]

Well nothing stops them. Way back when they had a reason not to, if they did all MS had to do is pull Office support for their OS and it would have killed them. Now at least there are alternatives to the MS products. Apple works/Keynote and Safari for a web browser.

So I guess nothing is stopping them from writing a PC OS, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it. My personal theory has been that at any given time apple has a version of its OS that runs on PCs, over the years I've seen at least one internal build of their OSes leak that did so. Of course there were no programs for it, and the hardware supported was very specific, but I be darned if it didn't run on my 400mhz box fine.

Personally I'd love to see apple completely switch to being a software focused company and switch to the PC format, but I doubt that without major problems with IBM/Motorolla it ever will. Still fun to think about though. 8)

[mrtristan]

Edit - Nevermind. I had a question that was already answered.

[pacmania_2001]

I think that if Apple did switch to making a PC compatible OS it would take away most of the advantages that it enjoys on the MAC platform.

For one, the new OS would have to cater for the broad range of PC hardware (like Windows) and therefore it would lose alot in terms of stability/security.

Anyway, I remember reading somewhere (ages ago) that Microsoft owned a stake in Apple. So technically any profit for Apple would be profit for Microsoft. Anyone confirm about the MS ownership stake in Apple (might have been before the anti-trust case)?

[WeedVender]

M$ owns 10% of Apple in shares i think..

[The village idiot]

Apple's OSX is based on the underlying Darwin substructure. Darwin is simply freeBSD with some custom touches for the Mac. Darwin IS available for FREE download from the Apple Developers area of their website. The only thing that really separates Mac OSX from Darwin is this Aqua windowing system and the Cocoa compiler and tools. Apple is now also backing the X windowing system.

Now if all of us x86 people were fortunate enough, Apple would release a full binary compatible OSX for us too.

[tgpo]

M$ owns 10% of Apple in shares i think..

i think they sold them off already.

[The village idiot]

here is a link:

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html

[Faustus]

Actually they would not have to support everything. They could make a program much like MS has to put the Windows logo on hardware, but make it more strict. You can use these 3 brand mobos, you can use these CPUs, your ram must be approved. Same for your drives and video card, all that takes is a lab with a few guys to test for compatibility. Failure to use approved hardware means no tech support with the naughty hardware installed. Plain and simple.

They could do it if they wanted to, and I think it would be quite sweet if they did.