I feel the assertion that every copy of MacOS X for Intel sold would directly translate into less money for Apple is patently false. I would like to know what the logic is behind this idea. I see it everywhere, from magazines to technical articles, but no one ever explains why this is so &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;obvious&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;.
MacOS X for Intel would not have the &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;Classic&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; MacOS 9 compatibility environment (it requires a PowerPC processer to run). People who currently run MacOS 9 on Apple hardware could not switch to Intel based PC's unless they tossed all of their OS9 software. Current MacOS 9 users would probably stay on Apple hardware.
The main market for MacOS X for Intel would, and always has been, old NeXT users. Of course, most of them are probably abandoning Apple because it looks like the Cocoa libraries for Intel are disappearing as well.
Which brings up an interesting point: does this petition include begging for Cocoa on Intel? Has anyone actually seen the text of the petition? I spent about five minutes looking at the site, but to no avail. In any case. Cocoa on Intel is just as important, if not more so. OmniWeb from the OmniGroup is a Cocoa application.
In any case, an Intel version of OS X would not eat into Apple's hardware sales until the bulk of MacOS 9 applications are ported to OS X, and even then I feel the point is arguable. People who buy Apple hardware do not want to buy PC hardware, and the people who buy Apple hardware now will probably want to buy Apple hardware in the future.
All the Macintosh core application software already runs on Windows.
[ Parent ]