Item the first:
Apple is not staffed entirely by idiots. This is self-evident, and it’s important to what follows. Keep this in mind as we proceed.
Item the second:
The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours. (Comments I made to the contrary yesterday and on Monday were erroneous. The source who fed me that information has been sent to bed without any supper, and says to tell you he’s very sorry and that it won’t happen again.)
Item the third:
It’s safe to assume, given the timeframe, that the developer transition kits that Apple will ship within a couple of weeks will be fundamentally similar to, if not outright identical to, the Power Macs on display at the conference.
Item the fourth:
The Power Macs on display at the show run a one-off build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 that incorporates the few necessary changes that were required to get the operating system running on the Intel hardware. This build includes Apple’s bundled iLife ’05 suite of applications.
Item the fifth:
Because Intel’s LaGrande security technology is not yet incorporated into any shipping products, it’s safe to assume that it’s not present in these transition-kit computers.
Item the sixth:
Given items two through five, apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.
Item the seventh:
Because the Intel version of Mac OS X that’s being distributed to developers is a one-off build, future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it, making it totally useless to anybody who’s not a developer of Mac software.
Item the eighth:
Given items two through seven, I estimate that we’re down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.)
Item the ninth:
If I can think through this stuff, Apple’s management can think through this stuff. See item one.
Item the tenth:
This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I’ve ever seen.
Think about it. Apple releases a developers-only preview release of Mac OS X for Intel. It’s a fully functional release of the operating system, not a beta or prerelease copy. It will work reliably, and it will run the vast majority of existing Mac applications unmodified via the Rosetta translation technology. But because this is a one-off developer release, it’s of very little value to computer owners. Future software updates, like the soon-to-be-released 10.4.2 update, won’t install. Existing Mac software will run, but it will run in translation, which means it will be frustratingly slow. But according to reports, Apple’s bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed.
Given Apple’s experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple’s management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife ’05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation.
As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs.
Apple’s giving their potential future customers a free taste, that’s what they’re doing. It’s a try-before-you-buy deal.
It’s possible that any one of the ten items above — well, except number one — is wrong either in detail or completely. It’s possible that I’m totally off-base here. But I don’t think so. I think there’s a possibility, a very real possibility, that I’m right about this. And that thought gives me the chills. In a good way.

Comments
All comments are the property of their owners and do not reflect the opinions of this Web site or, well, basically anybody at all. The author of this Web site reserves the right to edit the hell out of any and all comments. Participate at your own risk.
Hi, i have a question and it seems you guys know this stuff: I’m getting a Toshiba Tecra M4 and it runs an Intel Pentium M. I’m a Mac user, never used a PC and i was wondering if the new Mac OS would run on this PC, is it as simple as buying the OS and installing it on the Toshiba or do i have to do something else to get the Mac OS on there. I mean the reason they made the intel OS was to win over PC users, right?
noel Taylor
Sunday, July 8th, 2007, 7:16 pm
sorry. wrong word. i mean, mac is hardware dependent. mac is built for specific hardware. in contrary with windows which is built to support most hardware.
for example, it is built only for the latest intel chips, like core duo and later. it uses specific instruction that only the latest intel chip has it.
hohoman
Saturday, July 28th, 2007, 10:57 pm
Hi,
could you please tell me if i can instal mac OS on my pentium 4 1.5 ghz,256 mb ram,80 gb hardisk.
anees
anees
Wednesday, August 15th, 2007, 7:05 am
hi anees, yes in fact you can install and run perfectly the software in your machine, you only have to check if your harware brands are compatible with the software, if you specify me what brands are you using i can tell you if they work for you.
bye
pd if you can upgrade to 512 mb of ram it will be better
master
Thursday, August 16th, 2007, 1:16 pm
the information was very helpful to me i have been searching for it for a longtime if you dont mind will you please send your articles to my e-mail address vinu4umax@yahoo.com.please
vineeth
Saturday, December 29th, 2007, 5:24 am