Leopard for PC?

The rumors are out there. Does anybody know if Apple plans on eventually releasing Leopard for PC? I realize the you can run some hacked versions of OSX on a PC, so I would prefer not to dwell on that in this thread but address the issue of a possible ace up Apples sleeve for the PC.

For those skeptics out there lets not forget that Safari is now on PC, which feels to me that Apple is testing the waters. A lot of MAC people thought pigs would fly before Safari hit a PC.

 

When pigs fly. Again .

I see absolutely no reason for Apple to release Leopard for PC. With Safari, there can be reasons behind it, such as revenue from the Google search bar and putting pressure on websites to be compatible with Safari as market share grows larger. There is no incentive to release Leopard for Windows except to ruin everything Apple's built in the Mac line. They built the Mac with compatibility in mind, with security in mind. Allowing OS X to run on any PC would ruin that.

 

I could think of a couple reasons. All of them having to do with making money and giving MS a run for their money.

With intel chips in Apple computers, there is a very little difference in the systems from a standard PC. Besides price and Apple is usually more expensive for similar specs or less. I think it would be a very smart business move and very lucrative.

I for one wouldn't mind having OSX on my PC and enjoying its functionality, however I don't want to buy a Mac book to do it.

 

Well, that's what Apple's keeping as an incentive to buy a Mac for. If all Apple was looking for was money they would've licensed OS X out long ago. Now that it has such a faithful following, I cannot see how Apple would destroy its own customers in ruining OS X (by heading the Windows route: driver issues and security issues).

Microsoft is destroying itself , it doesn't need Apple's help . Licensing OS X would make a bundle of money for Apple but after everyone buys it up Apple will just turn into a hated company like Microsoft for incompatibility and security issues.

 

Well, it happened once before. Not "PCs" exactly, and not Leopard, but they licensed their OS to other computer vendors. I think it's possible when both (1) Steve Jobs is no longer running Apple and (2) the Mac loses some market share for whatever reason. Obviously, the first condition will inevitably occur at some point, but no one knows when. The second condition is also highly likely to occur sooner or later. Apple's been kind of on a roll so I don't expect big business model changes while they're still on a roll. But things have a way of changing over time.

 

Wouldn't make much of a difference...as Sam said...hardware/software support would be horrible...And ppl would just get free Unix or Linux.

 

It should be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple years. Apple needs to be careful and not become another Sony. Sony too had quite a following for many years and sadly they think they still do, which is running that company into the ground slowly. Sony had dominance with Walkman for over a decade. Now we have Ipod. Sony has the Vaio, which is ridiculously expensive in comparison to competing notebooks. The Macbook still remains expensive in comparison to other notebooks.

Both companies have gone up and down in the market. I'm not an Mircosoft fanatic, but either way they have remained steady despite criticisms and makes billions of dollars a year.

It would seem obvious to me that Steve Jobs is after Microsoft, the marketing campaigns are evidence to that. I think he wants to steal a large chunk of their market and offering OSX to PC users could really really hurt Microsofts hold on the market. Imagine Dell offering you the choice to install OSX instead of Vista. I think it would rock the industry hard, and Jobs loves confrontation.

 

I can see the software support taking some time to catch up. But why the hardware support. Macbook uses the same video cards and processors as a PC? Its bascially a PC but with one mouse button and a unique design.

 

Yeah, but if Apple decides to license OS X out, it licenses it to everyone. That means Apple will need drivers for all AMD and Intel processors, all ATI and NVIDIA cards, <strike>all hard drives, RAM</strike> and more. Apple will really struggle in writing tons of drivers for all the graphics cards and all the processor types. Microsoft's been doing it for years, they have data and records of them, but Apple is almost starting from scratch if it decides to license out OS X.

Thanks to swarmer for correction.

 

Not really. No need to make it compatible with EVERYTHING. Just some workable subset of... only a few more things than they have now, actually.

Hard drives and RAM don't need drivers. But there are like sound chips and network controllers and stuff.

 

Apple hardware and OSX are pretty much meant to stay together I reckon. If Apple releases it for availability on non-Apple hardware, then the issues of drivers and system requirements etc. will happen. If it's just Apple Software to Apple Hardware, then Apple can keep optimising the software to it's peak without having to worry about it not working on some people's computers.

 

Thanks for the correction, swarmer . The hard drive/RAM thing slipped out by accident; I must be tired .

Well, if OS X isn't compatible with everything, just some, its basically in the same state its in now, isn't it? Limited to the computers Apple wishes to run OS X on. I think its a good thing; compatibility is all taken care of.

I really don't see the advantage of Apple licensing out OS X. One reason why Mac OS X is (IMO) better than Windows because Apple has less things to worry about (drivers and security are the two big ones). I can honestly say, if Microsoft didn't have to worry about drivers and security as much they could make a much better operating system.

 

I doubt Apple's going to do that for the reasons already posted here, but if they do, I would most definitely not buy a Mac again as OS X is the only reason I'm sticking to Apple.

 

I completely agree. I think OSX is a great operating system. But I am at the other side of the spectrum, I won't buy a Mac just to get OSX. I can only hope that it will be released in some way to PC. Maybe they could release Tiger for PC first and that way allow Mac users to feel they are still a step ahead?

 

Extremely unlikely that this will happen and I am afraid a bit of a wishful thinking. Apple is a company that makes money primarily from the hardware and software plays the supporting role to achieve the margins on the hardware (another example is break-even iTunes to drive iPod sales; also refer to annual report in investors relations section in Apple website). Apple licensing Mac OS X to other manufacturers is comparable to Microsoft allowing Halo 3 on other consoles.

If you want OS X you have to buy a mac.

 

completely agree with m1ti.

apple doesn't mind releasing software for other environments, but lets analyze it a little bit:

in the case of itunes, apple had released the ipod. since apple is huge on software-hardware integration, they want their software and hardware to work together perfectly regardless of the operating system being used. the ipod (and itunes) could not have been so hugely successful were it not for the windows version.

in the case of safari, there is no hardware being offered along with it for windows. its unusual that apple would write windows software without offering some hardware along with it. however, in this case, i think its a different motivation. they are trying to increase safari market share so that apple computer safari users will have a better experience browsing the web (more websites will be built with safari in the consideration pool if it has a greater market share)

so they would need some motivation (other than direct sales) to push pc os x. right now its not gonna happen. the thing is- apple doesn't make money with os x. they make money selling hardware.

 

This will never happen, at least not in the near future. You will be able to run a hacked version eventually when hackers release leopard torrents for osx86 but of course this is illegal and if you really want a great experience with os x, buy a mac.

 

and of note- so far, the hackers have been only somewhat successful. its an entire operating system and it takes a lot to really support it. osx86 has problems with drivers and running a lot of important, basic software, last i looked...

 

I don't think you understand what makes OS X so desirable. Many people get this wrong. The reason OS X is so good is because of the closed system it runs on. If you put it on any old gray box, you will end up with another version of Windows, OS X will cease to really be unique and will sacrifice its biggest asset, the closed system.

I think the hardware that they associate with Safari is the iPhone. It is one of the three main features of the iPhone and the only way to develop for the iPhone.

 

ohhh that makes sense.

ok. they gave itunes to windows for ipod success.

they gave safari to windows for iphone success.

unfortunately for apple, at the time of the ipod, there weren't really any stellar music collection organization applications that had any consumer allegiance.

the sleek ipod matched with sleek software took off.

now, we have firefox, which everyone uses, which is very fast and very stable, especially on windows. the best penetrated software for music organization was windows media player back in the ipod release era. it was easy to usurp the throne to windows media player which was decidedly horrible at what it tried to accomplish.

we already have stable software in place, so the iphone will have to merit itself. its obviously not as strong as ipod-itunes was.

still, as a general rule, apple makes and sells hardware and software together. you need itunes for the ipod, so you can use itunes if you buy an ipod. you need safari for the iphone, so they released safari, which is useful if you have an iphone. tada.

leopard won't be released for the pc.

 

Wait wait wait. Why do you need safari on the PC if you are an iphone user who owns a PC? Safari runs native on the iphone right? Why would you need to sync safari from your desktop? Could someone shed a little light?

I'm not saying its going to happen (Leopard on PC) but it is not against the realm of possibility. Think Windows on a Mac, or Microsoft office on a Mac. Think safari on Windows. Think intel chips instead of something a little more "granola" like AMD or any other company. Mac users tend to think like linux users when it comes to avoiding corporate conglomeration and organization. Yet Apple seems to becoming more and more mainstream.

I like Apple, but I think Apple users are kidding themselves if they think Apple is all about pleasing their couple million mac users and won't sell them out. A couple million versus a couple hundred million looks a lot better on the quarterly sales report.

A quick example of this would be that all Mac users (last time I looked) will have to pay for Leopard when it comes out in a couple months. I personally would be a little upset to buy a new Mac today and not get the new OS that is coming out as a free upgrade, I thought Steve Jobs cared about me. Again I am not an MS fanboy, but almost all companies offered a free Vista upgrade to PCs purchased in the Fall of 06.

 

No, the reason Apple pushed out Safari for Windows is so that Windows developers can write online applications for the iPhone and they would be able to test it on Safari for Windows to see how it would work on the iPhone. Also, if Safari market share grows then web designers would be more pressured into making webpages compatible with Safari, which is also a boost to the iPhone.

I'll tell you now, its not going to happen. Even if it does, not in Leopard. Leopard is too soon, the Macs are doing too well. Once Apple releases OS X for PC I could undoubtedly say the sales of Macs would drop dramatically. I'm not saying everyone would run out buying OS X PCs, but a lot of them will buy a OS X PC over a OS X Mac.

Windows on a Mac is just another way for Apple to sell Macs (have the best of both worlds: running OS X and Windows together). Microsoft Office was released on the Mac before Windows existed. I explained why Apple released Safari for Windows. But really, Apple would have no benefit in releasing OS X out. They'd get money but the higher market share comes with compatibility and security issues.

Apple has a larger market capitalization than HP or Dell (currently about $120 billion US). If they were after money they would've sold out long ago. You're the one trying to believe that Mac OS X will be released for PCs, especially by saying Leopard, which is arriving in just 2 months, will be released for all PCs in the world. Absolutely no way! Apple would destroy OS X and its Mac business if it did that, and I see no indication that Apple wants to destroy OS X and the Mac line.

 

Yes, exactly. As has been said, Safari's existence on Windows is primarily related to the fact that it assists with iPhone development for people who don't have OS X. Apple wants web developers to be able to easily develop iPhone web apps, and they would be limiting themselves tremendously if you had to have a Mac just to run Safari.

Also, it was a very low-risk effort for them; Adobe already did most of the work of porting WebKit (the underlying rendering engine) to Windows (they are using WebKit for Apollo), so releasing Safari for Windows didn't have much of an impact. I don't think Apple has any illusions about Safari for Windows taking any sort of significant browser marketshare.

As for OS X for PC's; the logistics of it would be very difficult. Apple would need to sell a LOT of copies of OS X for PC's to make it worthwhile, and to offset the impact on hardware sales it would have. Not to mention that Apple would need to become a very different company to support OS X like Microsoft supports Windows.

Apple really is focused on the combined platform of the Mac hardware and the operating system. There are of course all sorts of points that can be debated about how necessary this is, but the strongest element is Apple's underlying philosophy about the computer platform as a whole.

One of the biggest things Apple would be concerned about would be the issue of supporting OS X on things like the $399 laptops or $299 desktops with Celeron M's, etc. people can buy.

It's not that Steve Jobs in particular has some huge opposition to the idea of supporting an OS on PC hardware. With NeXT, they eventually did support NeXTStep/OpenStep on x86 hardware (although it was fairly limited; you had to have fairly specific PC hardware to run it).

But I think he regards Apple differently than NeXT, so the Apple philosophy is different.

I think it's very comparable in some ways to Nintendo. During the GameCube era, for example, there was a lot of talk about how Nintendo should consider getting out of the console business entirely and focus just on developing their software for other consoles, like Sega.

But Nintendo was and is very adament that they won't do that. People can look at Nintendo and say "Hey, you're nuts; imagine how much money you guys could have been making during the GameCube era if you had been able to release these Mario, Metroid, Zelda, etc. games for the Xbox and PS2 as well".

But Nintendo sees themselves as being intrinsically tied to the concept of making the console and the software at the same time.

Of course, that Nintendo talk has sort of quieted down with the current success of the Wii (and the DS, of course), but the main thing is that the corporate philosophies of Nintendo and Apple have a lot in common.

Nintendo has said that the day they stop making consoles is the day they close down altogether, expressing no interest in pulling a Sega and becoming a developer for other consoles.

I think Apple is fairly similar. They are about selling the complete system; Apple selling just OS X for existing PC's would have trouble turning a profit, and would lose a lot of their identity.

Of course, there are larger questions that some people ask about Apple's commitment to traditional computer platforms anyway, and it's entirely possible that 5 years from now the question of full computer OS's, etc. will be moot anyway.

-Zadillo

 

Some really good points. Honestly I didn't think Leopard would be the first OSX to PC. I meant to talk in generals, as in OSX on PC, and within the next 2 to 3 years. I realize that may be wishful thinking, but stranger things have happened.

I love the Nintendo comparison. I think that is spot on. I hope for Apples success and I hope to see a price drop on their Macbooks soon (like next year even). If they would offer coupons or something competitive, then I would love to own a Mac. But sadly most side by side comparisons show that the Mac is not a good deal for $300 plus more than say a Dell. Not even for OSX.

Vista is becoming a great operating system and if it continues to "mimic" OSX then I suppose in a couple years we will have OSX style operating system on the PC.

I have read lots about PCs without traditional operating systems in the near future, but thats like water powered or electric cars. They exist but the big boys won't let that happen. They have too much money to lose.

 

I don't know, personally I think I would disagree with that point about side by side comparisons.

Usually there are elements that do make a difference, and I think warrant the price differential. Just comparing an Inspiron 1520 to an MBP, for example, there's certainly a price difference, but I think the differences in hardware are not inconsequential; in particular, after trying one out at my local Dell kiosk, I found it to be a very large and heavy laptop, compared to the 1" thick 5.4 pound MBP; and I found the screen to not really be quite as bright as the LED-backlit MBP screens.

I will definitely grant that Apple doesn't have things in the lower price range that would compete head-on with the kinds of things you can get from Dell, like a decently equipped Inspiron 1420 for $700-800.

But generally speaking, Apple hasn't shown a real interest in selling $700-800 laptops.

Certainly they could if they wanted; they could easily do what a lot of PC makers do to get to those price points and offer 1.5 GHz CPU's, etc. for example. But to date at least, it seems like Apple hasn't wanted to do that.

Generally with Apple, they have some specific set price points. With the iBook, that price goal was $999; with the MacBook it has been raised to $1099 for the cheapest model, but the philosophy is generally the same. They have set these fairly defined price points, and then they try and equip the laptops to have some fairly common components, etc.

It would be nice to see more options; a MacBook with a dedicated GPU, perhaps a $1299 MacBook Pro with a basic CPU, integrated graphics and non-LED backlit screen, for example. It would help expand things a bit. But Apple's business model is very much built around keeping a fairly small number of basic configurations, etc.

-Zadillo

 

If they would just offer coupons or deals. I mean a free ipod? Thats a little presumptuous and pompous. You are right. Side by side comparison in price is actually closer than you'd think. Its the constant deals and coupons that push the PC above the Mac in pricing.

I do have a few questions. Which core 2 duo processor is in the macbooks? Is it a T7300 or what? I know its rated at 2.0ghz, but us PC nerds like to know things like cache size and front side bus speeds. Those things are important.

What about fan noise and heat? Is the fan load and does it get hot? Why no 7200 rpm hard drives?

The most appealing thing about a macbook to me is that it is so thin. I which Dell, HP, etc would get on the boat.

 

You are sorta contradicting your own point. You said that coupons and deals push the PC above the Mac in pricing, then you say you wish that Dell and HP would make laptops as nice and thin as the Macbook. See, you just made your own counterpoint. You said earlier that Apple charges more for comparable specs to Dell and then you say Apple's fit and finish is better.

Did you ever think the reason for all those petty PC coupon deals from Windows PC manufacturers is because of poor revenue? Don't misunderstand that just because there are tons more Windows users out there that Dell and HP are selling computers like crazy and making great profits. Absolutely not.
Individual market share from each of these companies are on par or actually lower than Apple's.

You can surf right over to Intel's website if you want to know the model number of the chip inside the Macs. That's not a general knowledge that PC users want to know and Mac users don't, that's for geeks knowledge in general.
It's not pompous to offer a free iPod instead of coupons. If you think about it, it's a better deal. You can sell the iPod on Ebay and the money you get is savings towards your computer. And yes, it's smart for Apple to offer an iPod and not some senseless coupons.
Sounds like you have more of a beef buying Apple's hardware than their software.
Before you accuse Apple of being too expensive, take a look at Sony's Vaio (which most people conveniently forget). Sony is just another plain jane Windows PC but they charge a king's ransom for very low specs.

 

i love sony. i think they sell very sleek laptops, just like apple. apple goes the extra step by releasing all the software you need for their machine, but its the same concept. apple is successful because they push hardware, and most importantly they push people for the high end premium machines. its all very sleek and integrated.

in 3 years, anything can happen. apple might go out of business. apple might open os x to PC users. anything. the world might fall out of orbit, who knows.

 

T7200 (and T7400 for the 2.16 GHz one)

Lenovo Thinkpad T61 is about the same price and thickness. Dell Latitude D630 comes pretty close. Also Dell XPS M1330. You're right though, the budget/consumer machines tend to be thicker.

 

Ummm, no, not in computers anyway. Dell and HP each have several times the computer market share of Apple. Their profits may be closer though, since Apple has higher margins.

Why is it a better deal? I'd rather have the coupon; I don't have to bother with ebay that way.
If I want, I can use the savings to buy the digital audio player of my choice... or whatever else I want.

Sony's stuff does tend to be a bit overpriced... they do tend to look nice though. Actually, I think their prices for the specs are about on par with Apple's... at least for their midsize (CR and FZ) models. You don't get Apple's OS or support though.

 

Well, it depends how much they charge for royalties, doesn't it?

I think their hardware sales would remain brisk anyway... at least where they have compelling hardware, like the MBP... there's nothing else quite like it.

Kind of. Microsoft doesn't really support Windows that much. Mostly the OEMs support it. Except for large companies, where mostly the IT staff support it.

No need to support it on everything... although I think some people are running hacked versions on many machines like this already, so it shouldn't be too difficult if they wanted to.

I agree, but their industries are very different, in that people buying computers go through a very different evaluation process than people buying video game consoles. The dominant business model is different too, with game royalties that subsidize the consoles. Attempts at selling a video game console OS to various manufacturers haven't been very successful (yet). Could they someday? I really don't know.

 

If apple really wants to go global and expand they should release a version of Leopard for PC.

And I am pretty sure one day they will.

 

My apologizes I wrote that kinda fast, there is no contradiction in my mind. PC above the Mac in pricing meant that it beats the Mac in pricing, like first place over second.

Specs have to do (mostly) with the hardware of the machine and less with its frame and body. In which Mac has an attractive frame compared to most laptops but either falls short in the hardware area, or plays on the same field but at a higher price.

Sony is a bad PC example, as briefly talked about in earlier posts. If Apple doesn't change, they will become a bit like Sony in that they are stubborn and won't change their business model to the global consumers needs or better yet to expand their business on a global scale. Sony feels that their several million followers in Japan justify their actions in high priced, less impressive hardware which carries over as very expensive in the United States.

The difference is that in the late 70s, 80s and most of the 90s Sony was the
kings of music media and hardware and they have established themselves as a global company because of that. Vaio was released later in the mid to late 90s, And of course the Playstation which has made them a lot of money. But now Sony has lost its North American hold, and who knows how long it can hold in Japan with companies like Nintendo eating their console sales in Japan with the Wii, Apple eating their digital media sales with Ipod and Dell, HP and others eating their PC sales in North America. I predict Sony files bankruptcy in less than 10 years if they don't get their act together. You can tell they are trying by hiring and firing a new CEO figure head every year.

Apple is and has followed the same trail. The ipod is establishing Apple as a global company (iphone included). The Apple computer wasn't more popular than the IBM PS2 in the 80s, Apple and Mac got lost during most of the 90s and the Mac today has become more popular than they ever have been but still holds only a small market share. I am going to get flamed for this, but Macs would still be obscure if it wasn't for the success of the Ipod. Apple would still be a struggling company. Their market share in computers was a lot less before the Ipod became popular. So what happens when the ipod craze settles down?

The point being that the global market is now taking a hard look at Apple, Inc. and sees a great gadget company, and a possible release from the Microsoft OS dominating world. The computers are nice, but the real appeal is OSX. Consumers want choice and if Apple refuses to release OSX for PC in the future then they are missing out on a huge hungry global market and may lose touch with their customers like Sony of old.

 

The free iPod stuff is just a special deal they do for students - it isn't about replacing coupons or something (if it was, Apple would do the free iPod deals for everyone).

Apple themselves don't offer coupons/discounts but they don't necessarily prevent third parties from doing it; MacMall and Amazon.com, for example, both often offer $150 rebates.

But no, Apple just isn't going to be getting into the Dell model of tons of coupons and instant rebates, etc to lower prices. It's just not the business they're in........ Dell has the sales scale to be able to justify the razor-thin margins that come from selling some of their machines with such steep discounts, and they also make it up by selling their warranty packages, etc.

-Zadillo

 

Will Apple release it? No.
Will someone else? Of course.

 

You guys forget that Apple is doing very, very well with its current business model. Apple sells only a handful of products and still manages to have a very high market value - higher than Dell and HP, almost the same as Intel - and one of the most valuable marks out there. And as someone noted, this is even without having a strong global presence. Why should they change it? I'd love to see an OS X version for beige PCs, but it's not gonna happen, at least not soon.

 

Exactly, Wooky has it right. Apple is having record sales, its iPod line is going great, its iPhone is selling great, its Macs are selling great. There is no reason Apple would want to release OS X for PC suddenly which would kill the Mac business right there.

No they won't. Apple can continue to refuse to release OS X. They won't lose touch with their customers. And you know what? Apple doesn't need to release OS X for PC anyways. They're slowly gaining market share onto Windows. And so is Linux. Microsoft's stronghold is slowly loosening (although I don't see Microsoft ever losing its majority status). They don't really care that they're missing out on a market. They're one company, they don't make models of Macs and iPods to serve every possible market. The same reason why you don't see a Alienware-style gaming Mac nor do you see a $600 Mac laptop.

 

Apple would gain MUCH MUCH more market share by supporting windows on their Computers than releasing Leopard PC version.

 

They do

Well, at least they created Boot Camp to allow people to run Windows on their Mac anyways, didn't they? They don't officially support Microsoft and Windows but Boot Camp is just saying "Yeah, we're fine with you installing Windows on your Mac, and we'll help you out too".

Although I keep telling this to everyone, if you plan to use Windows full-time just get a PC.

 

I see it the other way =P. Even if you plan on using Windows full-time, Apple computers are one of a kind when it comes to design. The only reason I bought a Macbook Pro is because nothing else out there comes close to it in design, size, features, etc. Sony was the closest but their SZ line is extremely over priced and I would have paid a whole lot more for the same specs I got on this 15.4" Macbook Pro. I actually was originally planning to use Windows full-time but the only Windows I've used so far is after installing it to see if it works. I've found OS X to be very intuitive to use and extremely stable compared to Windows XP and Vista (I also run Ubuntu on my home PC which is another great OS).

I think Apple made an extremely smart move by creating Boot Camp. I personally would have never purchased the MBP that I did if there was no native support for Windows. So now I have the best of both worlds, with the benefit of the beautiful Apple design (although the lid warping issue is starting to worry me on the MBP, but that's another story!).

 

I agree with Wooky too. As long as Macs are selling great, they probably won't change the business model. They're selling well now, but in a few years, who knows.

I don't agree that it would kill the Mac business.

I do... but probably not to Apple, unless they start licensing their OS.

 

I don't think apple will ever release their OS outside of the company. As long as Apple exists and, more importantly, OS X exists in a stable and closed platform apple will have its loyal fan base.

It is hard for Apple to stand out nowadays because of their switch to intel. The PowerPC G series processors were no longer giving apple the power per watt that they needed. It was leading to a dead end. So what you end up with is a switch to intel tech with a mac that started to resemble a PC, hardware-wise.

My older brother just recently bought a SR Macbook pro. Like him, I can't wait to get my hands wet in OS X. Its fun to learn a new OS, especially one as pretty as Tiger/Leopard. All of this hinging on if he even lets me get my hands on it or not .

Personally, I like Apples excution of the OS more than Microsofts. I'm not bashing Microsoft either. I've been using Windows from the day my tiny fingers touched a keyboard. Windows has its strengths. It will run on pretty much any hardware out in the wild today. It has great gaming support with Direct X, and pretty much dominates the computer gaming market. But from limited expierence with OS X that I've had I believe general, every day computing in windows just doesn't hold up againsts what OS X has to offer.

 

Robgunn, if you're interested, I have two links for you :

http://www.apple.com/support/switch101
http://www.apple.com/support/mac101

They'll help in the transition from Windows to OS X. You can read it in advance so you'll know OS X right when you get it/use your brother's MBP.

 

Nope, they will NEVER release it to PC. So, either get yourself an apple computer with an intel processor and get bootcamp or parallel software to run windows.

 

I highly doubt it'll happen; Microsoft would take over the company in an instant.

 

Naw, can't happen. Microsoft doesn't have enough cash or assets to take over Apple without seriously harming their company as a whole .

 

Can you imagine that, Microsoft taking over Apple? I'm not a huge bible guy but I bet that happens sometime before the end of the world. It would be a dark day and we'd all be required to fly Windows flags outside our homes.

 

Actually, it's Apple taking over Microsoft that's a sign that the end is nigh. And the entire Earth becomes enveloped in the Cult of Mac. Beware the one who bears the mark of the beast.

 

the apple we know today won't release their operating system. the only software apple releases comes with a hardware purchase.

the only reason windows users get itunes at all is the ipod. the idea is that you buy mac hardware and they give you software that will work immaculately (thats the idea) with it. apple's ipod division doesn't care what operating system you are running. they want you to buy an ipod and use itunes.

the only reason windows users now have safari is so that developers and the *masses* have access to safari for development on the iphone. they want the iphone to be successful and that means giving up software to the masses.

its always about hardware success for apple.

they want the apple laptops and desktops and servers to be successful, so they put their own software on them. that is os x.

apple is primarily a hardware company, with a knack for developing software that works well with their hardware. but they don't make money with software. they make money selling laptops, imacs, ipods, iphones.

the apple we know today doesn't sell software to PC users. something big would have to change for apple to do that. big market change or big hit to apple or some intense pressure for them to do it that just doesn't exist in today's world.

 

Or... or... a new leader.

After all, that's what it took last time Apple licensed their OS to other computer makers.