why did i have to vote 3 times, Gizmodo, WHY

i would install osx as a secondary install cause i could say that i have xp, vista,linux, and osx installed.

I wouldn't drop windows for osx, but I would be glad for the option.

I have been investigating how to put OS X on an Eee pc so yes i would will not switch because i am already using a mac but will love to have an ultra portable with an OS X and to have to pay through the NOSE for it.

I am sensing some strong comments to follow this poll... especially from the fanboys

Thanks to OSX86 you can have your cake and eat it too. Though if there was a more "legal, unaltered" way to do it. Yes I would switch to OS X, and through the magic of software run windows in emulation like parallel.

OSX would not gain as much market share as you think. Business is on Windows and its not cost effective to make a move to a new OS for no obvious gain not to mention the client server relationships that would have to be worked on. Ill take XP SP3. Thanks.

If my MacBook Pro lasts as long as my Titanium Powerbook, I won't be addressing this question for another five years...

Gotta go with a big "NO" on this one.

Why cut the amount of available software to 1/10th (20th? 100th?) of what I currently have access to?

Apple sucks, everything they do sucks. They have no idea what they're doing. They'll be out of business in 3 years. Overpriced crap for slackers with trust funds.

I would never ditch my macs, I bought them for more than OSX. There will always be a niche market for apples styled products even if more companies start pumping out osx on non-propriety hardware.

Most people who use OSX are producers (graphic design, music, software developers, etc) that need the OS or fashion-conscious individuals who care more about the pretty 'puter than the operating system on it. I wouldn't ditch Windows for OSX.

"Apple sucks, everything they do sucks. They have no idea what they're doing. They'll be out of business in 3 years. Overpriced crap for slackers with trust funds."

Ha ha, you any idea how much they are worth now? Apple isn't going anywhere.

Would I ditch the current hardware? Hells no, I just spent like $4,000 on new Apple computers... Would i consider not getting Apple brand computers next time I update? Perhaps, but not for a laptop I love my Macbook Pro. But I do know quite a few people who wouldn't mind NOT paying Apple's hardware price but would love to have OSX.

But I suppose if that ever happened apple would have to lower prices, and there for quality, on their own hardware which would suck.

build it yourself + gamez for the win. that being said, all the OS's suck.

@ILikeMacsWhatAboutIT:

lol, thats what the nay sayers were saying over over
and over.

Given some hardware issues I've had with Apple, yes, I'd run OSX on other hardware. In the meantime, I'll settle for Ubuntu.

I would most certainly buy a sub 800 dell with OSX if the oppty presented itself.

<---Macbook owner.

Instead of "other" the last choice should be "You guys are apple fanboys!" (I miss that last option :( )

Knopix anyone?

I wouldn't "ditch" my Macs - I like the laptops way too much, regardless of OS. I would strongly consider building a monster video editing/archiving rig though.

Then again, if apple brings a $700 quad core mini or $1200 quad core iMac to me this summer, I would be just as happy to pay for it rather than build it.

For me it used to be the other way around. I liked the look of the mac book pros, but I did not want to use osx. Now, however, I just don't want to pay that much money.

I've never had any issues with my Mac, so there's no reason why I would want to replace it with some shady guy's "open computer"...

See, one of the biggest reasons why I love the whole Apple Only Hardware is that I know that no matter what Mac I buy it will run OS X the way Apple wants you to run OS X. With Windows you buy some e-machine that has trouble running Ubuntu and they slap Vista on it.

So to sum it all up I'd love for there to be Non Proprietary Hardware as long as Apple controls the system stats. (RAM, CPU, Graphics Card, ect)

apple vs windows, apple vs windows,apple vs windows,apple vs windows,apple vs windows,apple vs windows,apple vs windows, over over over again
the battle goes on, good vs evil, things never change.

Wouldn't ditch my MacBook, but I would put OS X on my desktop, which I built. Of course, I'd still use Windows (which I do on my MacBook occasionally) on the desktop, too. But each OS has its good stuff, and I use both a lot. Windows for work and gaming, OS X for everything else

I would buy a copy so I cold dual boot it. However, as Windows has far more useful and widespread applications than OSX I wouldn't run it by itself.

You should have an option for "Yes, as a secondary OS".

@tomaartist:

Actually it's evil vs evil.

3d studio max requires a windows environment for stability and support.

...maybe if i switched to hOOndini

@Bauer22:

Nobody in their right mind buys a cheap PC. As long as its made clear what OSX needs to run on then what's the problem?

I've used both extensively. (PC at home, Mac at work) No I wouldn't switch. The option would be cool, but I think having OSX on a non proprietary unit would really defeat most advantages Macs have over PC's, being the software is optimized for specific hardware. Plus you will also have a bigger target for malware and viruses. Apple isn't really equipped to handle security issues as fast as MS atm and neither are it's users.

Flaw in the poll is that an earlier poll revealed that a disproportionate number of Gizmodo readers have Macs. Was it like 60% or something? You need to pose this question to a more general audience (Mac ownership = 5% or less) if you really want to know what people will do.

Given that one of the major reasons for Apple's much vaunted stability (is that even a selling point anymore) is that they don't have to worry about thousands of device drivers, I'd respond with an empathetic no. I see the Pope wearing a burkha before Steve Jobs spends any effort accomodating people who won't play by his rules, on his hardware, or with his software. Given Apple's rather significant decades long track record following that philosophy, which doesn't show any sign of changing soon, any hardware switch would have to be a user-driven affair. And if I wanted the hassle of finding crowd-sourced drivers and living at the mercy of bored programmers, I'd be running Linux anyway.

I use Linux? Mac > Windows, but Linux > Mac. So I chose other. Hey, Giz, Linux users exist. Is it so hard to say Linux vs. Mac (in this case)?

Daniel

I'd keep my MacBook Pro but I'd probably also get a made-to-order higher performance/upgradeable machine to use at home. I might even run Windows on it out of curiosity.

@Sean Harrington: Quality not quantity. Think about it.

I would keep using my Mac but install OSX on other machines.

It is two things though, the design and the software. It wouldn't feel the same not using Mac OSX on a pure white machine with a glowing Apple logo on the back.

@zincrox: Me too.

Apple's move to Intel was the main reason I switched to Macs. It didn't make sense upgrading my laptop to another PC when I could run both OS's on a Mac. Ironically, Vista and XP run brilliantly on a Macbook Pro.

If I could do all of that on 3rd party hardware, I don't see the problem (as long as the hardware is reliable).

Apple would increase their revenue (and stock price) ten-fold if they sold OSX in a box for $200. Heck, they'd probably increase their revenue twenty-fold if they sold it for $100. Apple is riding a wave of popularity right now, and with OSX running on Intel architecture it would a very easy and appealing for a lot of people to install the OS at home just to try it out. And once they did, I have no doubt that a large number of them would "switch." All of that would lead to a heavy push for software makers to get mac-happy and then there would be a lot more reason to switch. Apple should seriously consider it, and stockholders should demand it. It's good for Apple in the short term and long. And unless they do it, there's a good chance that their core audience will start moving more in the direction of Linux.

If OSX was distributed on other hardware than Macs, then it would just be another Unix distro.

Let it stay on Macs.

I would love to run both on the same machine--a non Mac based machine, that is.

@ripfire4: So then if it was distributed on other hardware than a Macintosh, it would be just another distro and you wouldn't have bragging rights.

Or is that putting it just a little too bluntly?

First, I would need to see if Apple is capable to make MacOS X to run in million different combinations of hardware and provide the drivers for it.

Then, I'll consider it as a serious alternative.

This is a tough question to ask.

The way I see it, Apple sells Macintosh Computers as a whole package, the operating system and the hardware together. That's how they've been marketing Macs, not selling each one seperately (buying OSX at retail doesn't count since it is assumed that it is going to be installed on Mac hardware).

The consumer has no choice but to buy OSX and Mac hardware together. Correct me if I'm wrong but Steve Jobs wanted Apple to be a closed-system rather than to be an open-system like Microsoft and licence the operating systems to hardware manufacturers such as IBM. From a business perspective, Apple gains from the business of selling Mac hardware and to turn a profit from it.

Apple is seen as a brand, not solely based on the OSX operating system. It wouldn't be suprising if you asked an average consumer of the street what would be the first thing to come to mind when Apple is said: iPod. This decision was made when Steve Jobs announced that Apple wasn't recognized for their computers as much as the popularity of the growing iPod, thus changing the company's name to Apple Computers to simply Apple.

There are two markets that seperate Windows from Macs. Windows is considered to be the choice by all businesses and corperations where as Macs are "fun" and trendy as demonstrated in the "Mac and PC" commercials by Apple. It's neat to see how Apple uses Windows Vista as an advantage to move customers over to Macs by showing it flaws. Although, the "Mac" guy (Justin Long) doesn't point this out, it's the PC guy who pities himself representing Windows Vista.

My vote was to stick with Windows. I would like to have an iMac in near future, but that doens't mean that I would like to have OSX on any other hardware than Macs. Honestly, Macs sure are beautiful pieces of hardware but it comes at the steepest prices, and not at the best hardware configurations I might add. Dear Gizmodo, buy me an iMac please!

No, I wouldn't ditch my Mac(s), but I will buy a PC to run OSX for some special use machines, e.g., media center, my kid's main machine, etc.

I am running both a Mac Pro and a Hackintosh Dell 8400. The Dell is a nice box for mail and web - never any "real" work. I shoehorned MocOS onto it because I found it technically challenging, and I am past-sick of M$ WinBlows and the crufty UIs for Unix and Linux. The Dell, like my Mac Pro, does just what I want it to do - it runs (with minimal intervention on my part), it does not crash, and it is FUN. If I could only have a single machine, it would be the Mac Pro without quesiton. But as a secondary box it just works...

@weatherman: Imagine Vista being released with worse driver support than it had originally. That's pretty much how I envision an open OSX release. In my mind OSX is strictly a Mac hardware OS and that's the way it should remain.