...then Mac OS X will start to get some real tests when it comes to security. Finally, it will be installed on a computer not made specifically for it by the same company that produces the OS. IF these things start to sell in significant numbers, and the installed base for Mac OS X rises to something substantial, more malicious code will be written for the platform and it will be interesting to see the security provisions put to the test.

IBM, seeking to return itself to relevancy in the desktop market, figures software is the way to do it. Their hardware days are gone. Microsoft is an easy target these days with so many warnings about Vista, Office 2007, and the sudden jack-up of Microsoft's support fees.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the tools in question are more about sharing cross-os productivity & system management tools than about porting OSX to non-mac hardware.

Quote

mahuti wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the tools in question are more about sharing cross-os productivity & system management tools than about porting OSX to non-mac hardware.

You missed this by about ten years.
Apple had licensed its OS at very inexpensive prices to other computer building companies with the intent of those companies building low end (cheap) computers with Apple's OS installed. Very few of these companies built low end machines. They went after the mid and high end range which of course is the price range that Apple builds and sells their computers. Not having the R&D costs for both hardware and software, they were able to undercut Apple's computer prices by $100 -$200 dollars at the high end and still make more profit selling a computer than what Apple was making. This licensing program was one of the first things to go when Mr. Jobs returned to Apple as the then interim CEO.
You might be able to still get those other computers from ebay or wherever.

Quote

Guest wrote:
You missed this by about ten years.
Apple had licensed its OS at very inexpensive prices to other computer building companies with the intent of those companies building low end (cheap) computers with Apple's OS installed. Very few of these companies built low end machines. They went after the mid and high end range which of course is the price range that Apple builds and sells their computers. Not having the R&D costs for both hardware and software, they were able to undercut Apple's computer prices by $100 -$200 dollars at the high end and still make more profit selling a computer than what Apple was making. This licensing program was one of the first things to go when Mr. Jobs returned to Apple as the then interim CEO.
You might be able to still get those other computers from ebay or wherever.

gslusher already pointed out none of the clones can use Mac OS greater than 9.1. But not a single clone has ever run Mac OS X, which is what I wrote. That OS was only released in March of 2001, which isn't even 6 years ago yet.

You are correct that the Apple clones did not ship with OS X, but I never stated such in my post. However, you prove that Apple, at one time, had licensed their operating system to other computer makers.

I was simply trying to answer your nonsensical comment. I thought, what you were asking was for Apple to make OS X compatible on any PC or to license out OS X to computer makers. In my original post I was trying to point out that Apple had already tried it and it did not increase market share of thier operating system but did cause them to lose sales and hurting their bottom line. If they learned this about ten years ago with OS whatever, why should they attempt it now with OS X?
If that is not what you are saying then I really cannot make heads or tails of your statement, " I'm still waiting for the day when Mac OS X competes in the OS market, and isn't just an accessory to an Apple computer."
Apple does compete in the OS market with thier operating system product named Mac OS X. Oh, incidentally, OS X is not "an accessory" as you state; it is the "heart of the Mac" according to Steve Jobs.

In other articles IBM's tools are being developed in an Open Source development tool called Eclipse. Eclipse itself is a cross platform tool written primarily in Java. The applications it creates are also Java based.

My assumption is that without in-depth discussion on what IBM is offering, other than their tools are MS (Windows and???) Office alternatives, cross platform with little or no mods, utilize open client, and are being developed in Eclipse, my guess is that they are simply desktop productivity tools that are to be written in Java.

However, it does not state that it will be written to utilize the Mac JVM, or the Mac X11 environment. Although X11 is a very nice feature on the Mac, in my opinion the JVM has been more thoroughly implemented by Apple, thus is faster and more "Mac like".

Good luck.

Don't make the assumption that just becasue there is more adoption of OS X that all of a sudden it will be a target. Right now, I would say compromising OS X would be quite the feat with significant bragging rights, yet no one has done it. Can you tell me why no one has been successful? Well can you? No -- I didn't think you could -- you are still caught up in 'old think'..

Quote

Guest wrote:
Don't make the assumption that just becasue there is more adoption of OS X that all of a sudden it will be a target. Right now, I would say compromising OS X would be quite the feat with significant bragging rights, yet no one has done it. Can you tell me why no one has been successful? Well can you? No -- I didn't think you could -- you are still caught up in 'old think'..

That's the point dude. I want to see it compete in the OS Market, not the PC market. Jobs can call it whatever he wants, but here's the reason it is an accessory. First, you cannot get it without an Apple computer. And second, you do not have to use it use an Apple computer, it's optional, right? Get rid of it completely and just run Linux.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I was simply trying to answer your nonsensical comment. I thought, what you were asking was for Apple to make OS X compatible on any PC or to license out OS X to computer makers. In my original post I was trying to point out that Apple had already tried it and it did not increase market share of thier operating system but did cause them to lose sales and hurting their bottom line. If they learned this about ten years ago with OS whatever, why should they attempt it now with OS X?
If that is not what you are saying then I really cannot make heads or tails of your statement, " I'm still waiting for the day when Mac OS X competes in the OS market, and isn't just an accessory to an Apple computer."
Apple does compete in the OS market with thier operating system product named Mac OS X. Oh, incidentally, OS X is not "an accessory" as you state; it is the "heart of the Mac" according to Steve Jobs.