Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Perhaps the guy worked at apple.
Actually, I want to find out if it can be done. Telling me that it can't be done is superfluous; I've already heard enough of that from my fellow real-world geeks. I guess I'll give up, though, considering I can't find anybody who's done it before. I honestly don't have the time to devote to learn these systems to the extent required for this task.
I am pretty sure that it could be done pretty easily(relatively speaking).
(following stuff is educated guess)
If someone could get the source code 80%-90% of it could be simply recompiled using GCC in Darwin on a x86. Of course the remaining parts would be a pain, but I doubt it's beyond being practicle.
Unfortunatly for OS X to be sold commercially by Apple as a completely seperate OS from the hardware would cost concidurably more then just 150 bucks.. probably somewhere between 500 and a thousand dollars or so.
Ther are only 2 OSes being sold as seperate entities from hardware.. most other OS's such as OS/2 or BeOS failed pretty well.
#1 is of course Microsoft. They are able to do this due to almost complete domination of the market. They provide a cut-rate (IMO) OS with gobs and gobs of marketing. Not only they sell the OS itself, but they probably make a good profit on providing tech support. They can sell $100 operating systems thru shear ecomony of scale.
#2 is of course Linux, which is sold by a veriaty of vendors who also make money off of support and a few are actually beginning to show a profit.
Think about it. Compare this to other bits of commercial software that equal a OS in complexety. The only things I think to compare it to is graphical applications, like Photoshop, or Quark Express, or Maya. These are specialised complex peices of software sold to a limited market, similar to what OS X would be, at least in the beginning.
Unfortuanatly I don't think Apple can pull something like making another X86 competetor off.
One example of a big hurdle is the developement costs for such a wide veriety and quality of hardware is just too expensive.
Windows enjoys free developement and troubleshooting for hardware support from companies that are forced to do this in order to compete in PC land. If some company doesn't make windows drivers for it's hardware means that that "some company" can seek quick bankruptcy. Windows also has conditioned it's customers to beleive that it's the vendor's fault that their hardware doesn't work properly with windows. While with stuff like Linux or OS X this is used in a reverse aurgument that they don't work well, because of the lack of drivers.
So if a company makes a vid card they aren't going to give a crap less if it works well with OS X IF supporting OS X means that the product costs would increase for the windows segments(vast majority) of the market. The business is just to competative right now for that.
This would leave Apple holding the bag for the developement costs for hardware, while windows enjoys free developement from vendors. This increases the cost of the OS again, plus it looks like apple is a chump for having a OS that only works with certain hardware. Traditional Mac users used to ease of use is going to evaporate and Apple will have a harder time protecting it's image.
People would ask why would they want a more expensive OS that is crappy because it's hard to use and not compatable with lots of hardware they already own, when Windows does want they want for cheaper and better. The OS X Gui would be reduced to the status of "eye candy" in most peoples minds that care enough to know a little bit and then consumer magazines with simply say that OS X is to be avioded due to expensive and lack of hardware support and limited games and other software. (at least *BSD's and Linux have free (beer) costs going for them in peoples eyes)
Then apple will be reduced to just another Dell competator, just one that's more expensive and not popular, kinda like were compaq was heading before the merger with HP.
Better for Apple to keep tight control on hardware then have pissy customers, not to mention that hardware is Apple's bread and butter and they probably "sell" OS X at a considurable loss.(if not for the hardware)
And that's why I don't think that Apple will be going x86 anytime soon. Of course it's all just conjecture and guess work, but I don't think I am to far off.