Apple OSX 10.5 hacked in one day

Hi!

Just wanted to say that it should be SSE3 & SSE2 in the article instead of SS3 & SS2 respectively. Thanks!

Why oh why has Apple not gone with this and published a PC compatible OS ?

Can anyone answer me this using rational financial arguments not related to the strange machinations of Jobs ego, narcissus targeted marketing or secret garden exploitation?

Its just incredibly dumb not to. I just cant believe how dumb they are. Why are they so dumb? Did I mention dumb?

This is one thing I still haven't figured out with Apple or numerous other companies.
Apple could make a lot of profit by selling OSX to the PC market. (Lots of folks are getting REAL tired of Microsoft.) Heck I'd even drop the bucks just to play with it for a bit.
iPhone? What's up with this insanity of tying it to one service provider. Are they not trying to sell a piece of hardware? I'm sure they got a good chunk of change from AT&T for the exclusivity, But does it actually make up for what they could make by letting ALL providers who's networks that can support it's features sell 'em?

Kinda the same question for hardware companies only supplying drivers for MS Windows. Did they forget that they could sell more hardware if they supplied the drivers for other platforms? Mac/Linux.... 

I guess I'm missing something in my thinking on this cause I just fail to understand why a company would purposely Limit sales and loose profits in this manner.

If Apple starts shipping MacOS X on DVD for regular PC users, they're going to make a paltry $129 gross on the sale of the software. Microsoft has already been here and has elected to raise the price of the operating system to compensate for the huge shipping, distribution, development and support costs required to sell software to the generic PC market. 

Mind you, it doesn't make financial sense for consumers to buy most of the ridiculously poor quality computers they typically buy, either. But they're well trained to avoid Apple hardware thinking it's overpriced when in fact its spot on pricing for decent hardware that lasts a long time and gives good return on the investment.

They won't do it because then they would have to support people with crap hardware that wonder why there system crashes with a 5 dollar stick of ram.

release it for generic (or 'certified') PCs. I think part of the issue is that M$ would immediately drop Office from the Mac platform. Until they have a viable competing office suite and mindshare/marketshare, they would be foolish to do this. Especially since Macs can now boot Windows- many developers would just tell Mac users to re-boot in Windows rather than develop for 2 platforms. But, as Apple gets more and more popular (and is seen as a viable and more secure alternative), I think this is going to change.

IMO, if they DON'T they risk losing share once Virtual Desktop OSes REALLY take off (since OSX can't legally be virualized until then)

A long time ago Bill & Steve decided to take over the world, so they would not step on each other's toes they took different aproaches. Steve with the PowerPC and MacOS, and Bill with Intel and Windoze.
Steve is way more dangerous and monopolistic than Bill so Steve broke the pact they had and switched from PowerPC to Intel shifting the entire industry in another direction just because, well Steve wanted it.
So now we use Steve's OS on Bill's original platform but somehow we are not allowed to use MacOS on regular PCs, why? The pact is still in place. Now Windoze can run on a Mac but MacOS is not allowed the opposite. The Xbox360 uses PowerPC, I'm on to something here...
I think Steve molested Bill back when he had his child-molester moustache and Bill looked like an ugly 15 year old girl and that is why Bill loses to Steve all the time. They have a Top/Bottom relationship...

The problem has to do with hardware support. They dont want to have to deal with the same problems that Microsoft are having. As long as they only support their own comptuers, they only need to deal with a handful of drivers. To support the multitude of weird hardware out there, often sold with their own driver-releases that may or may not work / wreak havok with your kernel.

I've been wondering this for a good while. Either they don't want the headache of supporting OSX on who-knows-what-hardware, or else Microsoft has something hanging over Apple's head, the implicit threat of which is what's keeping Apple in line.

Well who would bother buying a mac if you could build your own (much cheaper) PC, and put OSX on it? 

OSX is the only thing that sells Mac's. They don't have any 'special' hardware that makes them any better than a regular PC...and you get lumbered with a mediocre graphics card.

I read somewhere that most of apples money comes from it's hardware sales, so releasing OSX would effectivley kill it's desktop arm.

(In my view their laptops offer pretty good value for money, but again, the only reason I'm drawn to them is because you get OSX to play with too)

...not software. If they sell their OS for PC, who's gonna buy the overpriced Macs?

The fact that OS publishers are completely devoid of rational thinking surprises you? You think the maker of shiny consumer products is any smarter than the Vole itself?

Where have you been for the last century?

The reason Macs runs so well under OS X is because Apple has developed OS X for THEIR hardware. If you throw OS X onto all the PC hardware combinations out there, then stability goes out the door. You want the benefits of OS X, buy a Mac. How hard is this to comprehend? Apple make money on hardware, that's their business model. It's in their best interest to concentrate on making OS X work flawlessly on a Mac and not waste resources trying to support PCs.
As Apple's marketshare keeps increasing all the benefits of using a PC will fade away because the developers and vendors will all be supporting Apple.

All the comments from Microsoft fan boys rave on with mega lies and false or distorted data. So why would they want a 2nd rate OS from Apple, what a bunch of retards.

well who said that apple was better than Microsoft? Microsoft is the lesser of both evils. I don't understand what makes the media think a minute percent is gaining on Microsoft, Linux/Unix has more traction than apple. Microsoft is good at making money, thats never going to change. Apple is not in the business of mass market, if everyone had a mac/iphone/icrap/theyre crap it would loose its novelty, and that has more value than anything apple can make. It makes more money by brain washing a person for life, then getting a customer for a release. Would you really start paying for releases 2x a year? I have had my copies of windows for over 5 years (more than that pirated) and have never paid to update it to sp2. If anything the reason Microsoft is (apparently) loosing ground is not because of superior products (Mac OS 10), but because of they're anti piracy stance are starting to see the reality of why it was so popular. Xp is nothing short of amazing and everyone can agree that it is by far the most successful system operating system. Apple owes too way more to the open source community than Darwin will ever make up for.

Why running a great product on a crappy hardware? I dont get this.

Their laptops are not too bad, but I find the variation a bit restricting. For example I am very interested in a powerful 14" laptop from HP. Only trouble is I !NEED! 4Gb of memory, what WinXP wont support. So Lepard would solve that. But for Leopard I would have to buy a 13.3 or a 15.4" laptop - either to small or to big for me.

So what do I do now? I thought about Linux, but how do I do photoshop with Linux? 
So either way they all anoy me. I liked win 2000 very much, So that's how Microsof got me. Xp is well, yea, O.K. one can live with it. I really hate M$ for VISTA and ignoring the need of a 64 bit OS. I'm done with these people.
M.

...Leotard.

First off, I don't know anyone, except for a few gullible die-hard apple fanbois who buy their software. Only Institutions and Companies, like Pixar, can afford to buy the software which runs on the shiny devices.

Apple makes money on their hardware because they know that's all they control. It's kinda like a "piracy tax", since they know that they aren't going to be raking it in on the bits, they at least need to recoup on the boxes.

As far as why Apple has never released an open Operating System, there is no rational financial argument. You can always claim "increased support costs" but I really don't see that as a problem.

Just fob all the support onto the BSD community. Geez, that's what they're there for, anyway.

No, Apple, along with many other companies, is all about control. Control the hardware, the software, the message, the consumer, and ultimately, "the world".

So far, this model has been a resounding success.

Don't you know why Jobs doesn't want his MacOS to work on PC?Huh, it is simple. Because after that, their sales of iMacs and MacBooks will surely decrease. Cos i can buy a 2x times more effient notebook, or desktop for the money i could have spend on Mac. Ofcourse there are lots of people who are mad about the idea of sophisticated design of Apple computers, but there are millions who would betray that idea for the ideo of more effient PC for the less amount of money.For now, there is almost no need for hackers to pirate distributives of MacOs, cos it's not really supporterted by the majority of PC's.