Why doesn't Apple start making operating systems for x86 PC's 17413
Apple and Sun have both tried to offer systems for Intel. Both were unable to compete effectively against Microsoft. Unlike Linux which is structured to mount a campaign over 10-15 years, Apple would need to get some major OEM contracts very quickly, and these OEM contracts would have to offset profits lost from people purchasing Intel hardware instead of the highly profitable (to Apple) Mac hardware.
One very good candidate would be IBM, who already makes servers and Unix workstations based on the PowerPC. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs has never been able to understand that Microsoft is the compebreastion that stops Apple's growth, not IBM. I don't think Jobs ever forgave IBM for taking the market from his Apple computer. Jobs feels that he was the one responsible for pioneering the technology of the self-contained user-friendly computer, and he felt he was never properly acknowledged.
Keep in mind that prior to the Apple , even Microcomputers based on Intel or Zilog processors, were very complex and expensive machines. To load even simple programs such as a BASIC interpreter, one would have to enter a "loader" program using toggle switches, which could take up to 30 minutes.
Intel Says: Linux Going NOWHERE ON THE DESKTOP
BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You have no evidence, yet take the position that JEDIDIAH is the less accomplished person. I suspect you do this because his opinion differs from...
Apple was the first company to put the BASIC in ROM, along with all of the drivers needed for cbuttette tape, display, and keyboard and then sell the package for less than $2,000 each. In fact, when Jobs first showed the Apple at a computer show (I think it was in Kansas City), Bill Gates took one look and told Paul Allen that if MITS couldn't come up with something like that, or Microsoft couldn't get connected to Apple, that both MITS and Microsoft would be out of business. Jobs rebuffed Gates because he already had BASIC in ROM - and even included the source code.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Jensen wrote on 08 Jun 2005 13:50:24 GMT Hmm...the tricky part of this patent is the "prevented...
Later, Microsoft ported BASIC to the Commodore PET, then the TRS-80, and eventually to the IBM PC. The PET had a silly little "cash register keyboard" and the TRS-80 had much lower resolution and poor graphics. Both did very well in the rapidly growing market, but IBM really bit into Apple's sales.
Ironically, Jobs continued to court Microsoft and continued to rebuff IBM even after Microsoft essentially walked away with the Mac market and IBM adopted the PowerPC for it's AIX machines including Risc-6000, SP-2, and P series machines.
Linux Market share 17412
have You bluster, Ray, but you are defeated on that point, IMO. ERS cast the...
Apple does seem to be backing FreeBSD as the core for OS-X, but they do offer a terminal interface, including the BASH shell, and nearly all of the popular BSD and GNU utilities. For Apple, the main advantage of using BSD is that they don't have to create veneers and modules for all of the functions provided by the ROM, and they don't have to worry about being forced to publish the source code to the ROM under GNU license requirements.
Apple is very posessive about it's ROM technology, and even though Linux has the ability to emulate older Mac machines, anyone wishing to use this emulation must purchase the rights to the ROM from Apple, which appearantly isn't cheap.
Meanwhile, IBM has sold off it's PC division, which means that they will now be functioning as a VAR for the machines sold under the IBM logo. The good thing about being a VAR is that they can do anything they want to the machine before selling it to others. They are not bound by the OEM license agreement.
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups