Page 1 of 2
Dell Says He’d Sell Apple’s Mac OS
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:25 pm
by saturn
HELL NO. It's like selling your soul to the devil, but it would be a interesting strategy to gnaw on Microsoft's Windows dominance.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforw ... 19,00.html
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:30 pm
by Mat Linnett
Jobs killed the clone market before, I doubt he'd countenance it again.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:31 pm
by rep
Do you read some of the shit you post, Saturn?
Apple's next PCs are going to be Intel based with a motherboard that no doubt will be heavily Intel flavored.
Apples are becoming "IBM Compatible." Unless Apple puts some seriously high end stuff in their new line, they're doomed. (Edit: I'm talking 4.6GHz Dual-Core, Dual CPU with a FSB at 2GHz, because that's the competition Apple will have on the so-called PC side in 2006-2007.)
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:33 pm
by plained
intel on the other hand tho $
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:33 pm
by saturn
Two interesting point brought up by readers in Kirkpatricks column
A number of readers said it made little sense for Apple to license its OS to the PC universe, because one of Apple's advantages is that it has complete control of the specs for both the hardware and software in Macintoshes. "Having to support legacy hardware…would be the worst thing for a company that is forward-looking and not backwards-thinking," wrote one reader. "When a Mac OS can cope with all the random junk [that gets plugged into a PC] then you can have an 'Apples to apples' comparison," wrote another.
However, a reader who ID'd himself merely as "Mark" suggested a solution—Apple should license the next version of its operating system, known as Leopard, but only to PC vendors who agree to put it on systems with certain specifications. He also speculates that Apple would, in such a scenario, insist on a minimum system price. PC vendors, he says, would be pleased to oblige, since making money in that business is so tough. Perhaps Michael Dell is thinking along similar lines. (He wouldn't say.)
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:34 pm
by rep
Apple will never put MacOS on a PC until well after their Intel based Macs are released. It would be suicide if they chose to do otherwise.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:35 pm
by saturn
plained wrote:intel on the other hand tho $
yeah, that's probably the main reason why Apple chose Intel over AMD though AMD is ahead of Intel CPU-wise atm. The transition from PPC to x86 will cost a lot of money and Intel has deep pockets.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:36 pm
by rep
For their image it would have been better to go with AMD, though. AMD is viewed in the PC enthusiast market as the rebel company, and they would fit Apple's false persona well.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:38 pm
by plained
well intel make a whackload more than cpu's
but im sure you know that.
na i meant the push on the stock hehe
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:38 pm
by plained
hey man lif is random
:lol:
those comercials sucked
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:38 pm
by saturn
rep wrote:For their image it would have been better to go with AMD, though. AMD is viewed in the PC enthusiast market as the rebel company, and they would fit Apple's false persona well.
nonsense, AMD nor Apple have a rebel image. They're the smaller players in the PC market, but they're more inovative atm.
Like I said, Intel has the money (and the capacities to deliver enough chips to Apple)
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:44 pm
by SplishSplash
FFS rep stop posting.
Edit:
And stop sending me PMs.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:45 pm
by saturn
Here's another interesting column of Kirkpatrick
Apple's Switch to Intel: The Ultimate Power Move?
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:47 pm
by plained
hehe OS9 FO'EVAH!1!!!
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:18 pm
by MKJ
os9? os8.6 sir. or 7.5.5
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:21 pm
by Canis
7.5.5 rocked, but 8.6 was my favorite out of all pre-OS X versions. It was stable and fast...just didnt have all the multitasking/multithreading capabilities the mac community needed.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:38 pm
by Freakaloin
why does the king of the jews hate amd?
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:02 pm
by Mat Linnett
Canis wrote:7.5.5 rocked, but 8.6 was my favorite out of all pre-OS X versions. It was stable and fast...just didnt have all the multitasking/multithreading capabilities the mac community needed.
I loved OS 7.1 running in a couple of meg on me old IIci
Extension bloat started to creep in with 7.5 upwards...
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:22 pm
by MKJ
Mat Linnett wrote:Canis wrote:7.5.5 rocked, but 8.6 was my favorite out of all pre-OS X versions. It was stable and fast...just didnt have all the multitasking/multithreading capabilities the mac community needed.
I loved OS 7.1 running in a couple of meg on me old IIci
Extension bloat started to creep in with 7.5 upwards...
w3rd
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:56 pm
by HM-PuFFNSTuFF
SplishSplash wrote:FFS rep stop posting.
Edit:
And stop sending me PMs.
he PMs you too?
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:52 pm
by Dave
I'll ban him if he PMs me. Cross your fingers guys
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:47 pm
by Don Carlos
*crosses*
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:48 pm
by plained
yea 8.6 was real nice n snappy.
yea most of the 9.-'s i can get pretty stable , by chuck out some non-neededware.
i cant remember why apple forced me to the 9.whatevers but there was a proggy or sommy
i guess i shouda said
OMA CLASSICS FO'EVERZZ!!
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:55 am
by ajerara
7.5 was fast, I liked 8.6, too as far as rock solid. I'm still running 9.2 on one partition cause it's so much faster than OS X. I like fast. I guess it's all the cool bloatware in OS X.
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 6:15 am
by Dave
Where I work we refuse to support macs, but as a community service I help a couple of emeritus professors who started using Macs before the Dell revolution swept over the building. But if I see they're having a problem with classic or anything less than OS X, they're on their own. OS 9 and below are such terrible operating systems they make Windows ME look professional.