Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs 623
ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation.
However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."
Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legality? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.
Enforcing EULAS does not.
Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.
Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.
What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.
Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.
So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).
As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.
I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.
Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.
Well some us would upgrade if given the chance (Score:5, Insightful)
I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.
Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.
As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.
Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.
When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.
The Problem With Unsupported Hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).
I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.
This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.
In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.
I can has torrent, plz? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, why would I give Apple any more respect than Microsoft in that regard?
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.
Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:1, Insightful)
17" silent-ish HP laptop : Eur 1000
17" PowerBook : Eur 2800
Eur 1800 Just for a working webcam? FUCK YOU, EXTORTIONIST PIECES OF SHIT! Like I haven't paid enough for that ssslllooowww MacMini G4 (Eur 500 at the time, worth 10 on flea market for equivalent perfs), then the over-overpriced MacBook (Eur 1400, worth 700 at Asus - again, for same perfs).
No, I've ponied up way too much more than enough at Apple stores to NEVER have ANY qualm whatsofuckingever to happily tell everyone I'd install OSX on their PC using my Kalyway install DVD if they'd just let me.
Just like I nailed my original WinXPProSP2 CD to the wall the day I discovered slipstreamed installs with VLKs that pass WGA. (Also after said CD, installed and verified, killed itself with the slow-self-destruct-feature that's called Windows Update.)
Apple hardware is NOT worth what it costs. Nowhere near. The higher the class the more exaggerated the price. How MUCH for a MacBook Air? Eur 1700 and it has no optical drive? BWAHAHAHAHA. Who ever bought one? Morons? And what about the MacPros? Eur 10,000 for an eight-core? I can make that for 4000 WITH a pair of 24" monitors AND a studio-class sound card AND wireless speakers. And better hard drives.
And install MacOSX on it.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legality? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, if you happen to have $500 to $1000 to blow away. Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey.
And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.
Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.
iTunes is free because it makes using an iPod and the iTunes store a breeze. Mac OS X client is low in cost and works as it does because Apple spent a lot of time and money to ensure you're getting your bang for the buck in a computer you buy from them.
Microsoft sells software. Others leverage Microsoft to sell their hardware. Microsoft doesn't always make the best hardware, nor do they read consumer needs very well (not to be confused with business customers). Zunes don't sell, for instance.
When Microsoft makes crappy software, the whole PC industry suffers a bit.
And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds. When Apple makes a good product, third parties dive in to complement the experience with accessories and the like. Crappy products in the Apple world today get bad press fast.
Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:3, Insightful)
Many businesses including Apple have recognized the benefits of simplicity. From a manufacturing view, Apple only offers 4 desktop PC models and 4 laptop models. Southwest Airlines only flies 1 kind of airplane, etc. Many of PC issues come from the fact that there are a kajillion variations of hardware. Just recently, Apple seemingly offered sympathy and poked fun at PC for this. [youtube.com]
Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't exactly call AMD mutt-hardware...
Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge). And the support is likely no more than a series of kludges, just like in Microsoft and Linux operating systems. Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?
Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time. But Linux is also free. Apple is proprietary and expensive, and Microsoft is able to support a vast array of hardware and Windows compared to Mac's tiny amount (partially because the vendors are biased towards Microsoft in making drivers, but I don't see Apple encouraging them for the above reasons).
Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.
Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4 (Score:5, Insightful)
The mini is over priced for it's hardware and the older g4 one cost $100 less with a real video card And $599.00 for 1gb of ram and DVD / CDRW what a joke and you have to add $200 to get a
DVD / RW and you still only have 1gb of ram and it's hard to open up next to a real desktop.
The imac are ok but the built in screen is not that good and it's hard to open up and only has room for 1 hd unlike the new dell AIO that can hold 2 and is a lot easier to get in to.
But a system at $1,199.00 with only 1GB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory is not that good of a price.
Apple needs to be more open to ATI and nvdia video cards in the mac pro and a real desktop as a big number of them use the same video chips and they only have 1 driver set for a lot of cards.
The mac pro at $2200 is over kill for a lot of users and the hardware is over the top with alot of higher costs from sever / workstation parts that are not needed.
Most office uses need a desktop with desktop parts and desktop ram not a over priced laptop in a small case with out screen that you need to force open.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:2, Insightful)
the "macs cost more" thing is a load of shit and you all know it. spec out a pc from a COMPANY (none of this home made frankenstein bullshit) and generally the stuff people harp on about (ie the macpro) comes out cheaper when configured the same.
and before you go on about "i want to build my own". fuck you. i don't. my time is precious, and expensive.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:2, Insightful)
Go ahead, I'll wait. You can't even get a dual quad from Dell for the same price as Apple.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, the only time a mac beats an HP or Dell on price is in the edge cases - macbook air, fully loaded 8core workstation and so on. But that's not what most people buy. They want the imac, the regular macbook. That's where the volume is and that's where Apple takes their premium.
Peter.
Environmental case for mid-range Mac tower (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
The price and the product line (Score:5, Insightful)
This low market share is often attributed to the relatively high prices of Apple computers.
They're only about 40% more than comparable PCs, and sometimes less. But if you are looking for a conventional desktop then the "entry level" is over two grand.
Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how an all-in-one provides a better "experience", and how you don't "need" the expansion slots, and for people who like the iMac
People aren't buying Macs because of the hardware "experience", they're buying them because of OS X, and they're often buying them despite the hardware "experience".
The cheapest Mac that really competes head-to-head with the average PC, on a hardware level, is the Mac Pro. For the rest of the line, you have an all-in-one with almost no upgradability, and a crippled desktop with even less than the all-in-one (the putty knife problem). Now I will go along (for the sake of argument) with the claim that mostly don't upgrade their PCs, but even granting that the reason is that you can generally get any combination of stuff you WANT in a PC, because there's so many of them. Apple can't do that, upgrades are the only route to fine-tuning the box, and Apple doesn't even let you upgrade the one thing that's top on people's list of upgrades these days... the video card.
And in the mini, you can't put a full sized hard drive in there, you're limited to low power low performance laptop drives, or higher latency external drives.
The mini, currently, may be the MOST overpriced Mac. For $600 you get a 1.83 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400 RPM hard drive, and Intel integrated graphics... and firewire 400 and wifi. For $300 from HP you get a 1.8 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 RPM hard drive, and nVidia integrated graphics, but no wifi or firewire.
Well, you may say that the small size, the wifi, and the firewire is worth $300.
But you can't upgrade the mini to match the specs of the entry level HP for any amount of money, and adding wifi and firewire to the HP costs you $30 from HP and about $20 from Fry's.
So, setting aside the size, after upgrades, the Mac mini is 70% more expensive, and you have to give up 3/4 of your disk, you get a much slower disk, you get a USB port that can't even charge an iPod Shuffle, you get a far inferior graphics chip, and to get no "comfort headroom".
The size? If that mattered to most people then you can bet HP would have an "a6400z mini" out there. They're not going to leave money lying on the ground. The hardware "experience" doesn't move boxes.
Apple has to sell Macs to people for whom Apple's hardware is a huge stumbling block. Buying a Mac is like buying a car... and finding the only options are a decked out luxury SUV, a souped up Civic, or a motorbike.
They're selling laptops like mad because everyone's laptops have the same kind of limitations that APple imposes on all their computers, but desktops are languishing because they're simply not in the race for most people.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, not only would they be facing the risk of whether their hardware can stand on its own merits, but it'll also require Apple to support additional hardware-- and in some cases, crappy hardware, poorly designed hardware, or hardware where the vendors have done a horrible job writing the drivers.
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but it is true that a fair amount of the instability comes from crappy drivers. Linux overcomes this by using (mostly) open source drivers and not the manufacturer's proprietary drivers. (ironic, right?) Apple overcomes this by controlling most of the hardware/drivers themselves.
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong, just so wrong. If the Cupertino elite were only hardware based then why I am being bombarded with the notion that a Mac is just so much easier to use? When the company is a dictatorship for the controlling interface, then it is the software that the end user sees - not the hardware. Apple only controls what they use for the overlaying structure, which in turn provides some of their much vaunted stability (only due to their stranglehold).
(please don't mod troll - serious response)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
If I want a small form factor and don't care about 3-D graphics, the Mac Mini is great, the best small form factor machine out there (save possibly the AppleTV.) The notebooks also seem more price-competitive.
But they definitely could use Blu-Ray now.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
You lost credibility here. If you're going to add $225 for retail copies of OS/X and iLife to your comparison, then you need to add $250 to your costs on the Apples, to cover the copy of Windows Vista that it doesn't come with. Whether you actually use it or not is irrelevant, it's a question of comparing like for like.
Re:Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a quick note. You have a lot of assertions, but I bet Apple has a lot of formal studies on what the market wants. While you may want a given machine and while a lot of people on Slashdot may want it to, that doesn't mean it is the most profitable hardware niche for Apple to enter next. They've been doing pretty well so far. Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.
As a second note, your assertions about desktops versus laptops is well, not the way the industry is going. For office use and home use, the desktop has been slowly dying for several years now.
Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "Faster and cheaper" wins every time, only when it's also reliable! (EG. Apple moved to Intel because despite every effort, they couldn't get either Motorola or IBM to consistently improve on their product offerings in a timely manner. It was already proven that Intel CPUs are reliable, so that PLUS faster and cheaper made it a good move.) It does a person no good to have something that's "cheaper" and supposedly "faster", but is breaking down constantly.
2. My experience with AppleCare has been FAR superior to anything I ever received from Dell, HP, Gateway, or other PC vendors I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Yes, Apple systems are "proprietary", in the same sense that a Playstation game console is proprietary to Sony, or the XBox 360 is proprietary to Microsoft, or a Sun workstation was proprietary to Sun. That business model has its pros and cons, but it's the de-facto ways computers were ALWAYS sold, up until a bunch of different people decided to build "PC clones" running the same default operating system. I know my hold times calling Apple have averaged around 5-10 minutes, as opposed to 45 mins. to 1 hour with everyone else. I know I've always reached a person who speaks my native language clearly and effectively with Apple. I know that when I have sent in a Mac for warranty work, they've gone over and above what was promised or "covered in writing", replacing any dented or scratched casings, loose hinges, etc. etc. What makes you think Dell or anyone else will give you great support for old, out-of-warranty systems of theirs, anyway? Like Apple, they'd rather just have you buy a new model, too.
3. I'm not going to get into the big, raging "Windows vs. OS X" debate, other than to say one thing. Currently, you can poll Mac users and then poll Windows users on how often spyware has crippled their machines. You tell me who suffered the biggest productivity losses.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
OR, they may be afraid of the truth: that a huge number of consumers buy the Mini because it's the cheapest Mac and given the option would be a slightly larger, louder, but faster tower in a heartbeat?
It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.
The truth is that Apple makes a wonderful OS. Their hardware is stylish, overpriced, and has too many gaps in their lineup. Licensing OS X probably would result in a dramatic drop in Apple hardware sales simply because: Apple's hardware is not market competitive. On equal footing, with the same software, many fewer people would buy their machines.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
The ThinkPad X300 (SSD) > MacBook Air with SSD
I don't even need to back this up because the info that's available everywhere and on several
Yeah, that was too easy, I know..
Besides, before buying my T61, I considered Apple for a sec, but there weren't many options. Either a plastic MacBook with no videocard and expensive upgrades (like the "Superdrive"), or a $2000+ MacBookPro that burns your laps since the whole thing is a huge heatsink heating up at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
I decided to go for the ThinkPad T61 which was about $1500 CAD total.
Did you include OSX ($130) and iLife($80)? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if you're trying to match an iMac, it isn't hard to top the design. The G5 iMac design is a piece of shit, anything can beat that. Admittedly, it's hard to equal the other hardware designs Apple makes for their computers, but the iMacs blow.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:2, Insightful)
You could say that a Porsche is cheaper than a Hundai, as long as you restrict the class of automobiles to those in the Porsche's class...
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
But below, I discuss why it's silly to discuss software for this exercise. If you want to discuss software, please pay attention to what I said above. If you don't want to discuss software, the I'll ignore OS X and its features as a benefit. You aren't allowed to have it both ways.
1. OSX has better battery management than Windows, so "battery capacity" is subjective.
And once we start talking about differences in software, we're throwing the entire argument out of the window, because it's like comparing apples to oranges. I'm a huge fan of OS X. It's great software. I can't use Windows Vista without cursing like a sailor, because it's not just user-unfriendly, it's user-hostile. So if you want to talk about software, we're talking about an argument that can't be resolved with, "Go configure a similarly spec'd Dell." It doesn't even make sense to suggest that one do that if you're including software in the discussion.
The point is not that Apple computers cost more, the point is that Apple hardware costs more. In some cases, it's not a lot more, and in some cases it is.
I put Home Premium on both machines. Upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate is (iirc) around $150 which, incidentally, is close to the retail price for OS X (at $130.)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
techbargains.com "coupon" deal, Inspiron 530. The coupons are frequent enough a savvy shopper can wait for the one they want rather than paying list. (Apple doesn't have this or we could compare to their best deal.) I assembled the machine I wanted online, though I ended up going with an HP notebook machine with Blu-Ray.
Technically to match the MacPro, you need to match Dell's workstations
I don't want to match the Mac Pro, I want to match my needs. For the home user, how much difference does a Xeon make relative to a 6700? Not enough to justify busting the budget.
The iMac might fit a user's needs if we drop the Quad Core requirement, but 30" monitors are coming slowly closer to mainstream. I might be able to afford to upgrade my system unit now and replace my 22" monitor next year. And video cards are still advancing faster than other components, not to mention SLI being an upgrade option with PCs but not iMacs.
It's not the price (a small premium is more than justified), it's the holes in the Mac lineup. They apparently prefer pushing the high end (so anyone wanting more than an iMac has to go to a Power Mac) to enlarging their market share. It's their choice, and perhaps a smart one, but it has consequences.
System API's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly, I think the hardest part of creating a compatibility layer for MacOS apps would probably be re-creating the Cocoa and Carbon API's, though. There may be other API's that also need to be re-created (I think Mac's have something similar in concept to DirectX for accellerated media playback, image manipulation, etc).
Re:Good Advice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be criminal to be a legal issue.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Did anyone hold a gun to your head or a knife to your throat and force you to buy a Mac? No? Well then why do you care if others ARE willing to spend whatever amount of money Apple asks for their goodies? You and others like you just want to have an Apple computer at Dell prices. I'd like a BMW at Honda Civic or Chevy prices. Too bad BMWs sell for so much. So I have to settle for a Honda or Chevy car and you settle for a Dell computer.
Apple makes a WHOLE computer, OS and all, unlike everybody else, which only makes half computers. If I were willing to work VERY hard, it might be possible to turn a Civic into a BMW, no? So, if you work very hard, your time being worth nothing anyway, you will probably, finally, at last, get Apple's OSX to run on your cheap-ass homemade box.
Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:3, Insightful)
When my what I thought was otherwise working, 4 year old ipod needed a new battery, I sent it in to Apple for that. What I got back was a newly re-furbished iPod of that model. With it was an explanation note, that after extensive testing, they determined that my old iPod was not meeting the original factory specs, even with a new battery. Like any other human endeavor, Apple may not be perfect, but they are orders of magnitude above others in the same game. Not all of Apple's profits go into Steve's pocket.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's the whole point. A computer is determined by its software AND it hardware. When the two are integrated, such as in Apples products, the sum is greater than its parts. That's why Apple makes better computers. They make the WHOLE system, not only half of it. If they were foolish enough to one again license out their software, they'd be in the same boat as MS. They'd have to support who knows how many different hardware designs.
Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Technical support anecdotes are generally not indicative of the overall quality of technical support that a company offers. I'm sure others have had horrible experiences with Dell and wonderful experiences with Apple.
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
Nearly every Apple product is *significantly* smaller than the majority of PC competitors (and is usually priced very similarly to the few PC competitors that have the same spec and form factor)
Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they could always go back to the licensing program, which might provide a higher volume of sales, but at lower margins. But why bother? What they're doing now is working, and they're much healthier now as a company than when the PowerPCs were cutting into their hardware sales. I don't mean to say that ending the clone program saved them, but all of their past attempts to be more like MS got them into deeper and deeper trouble.
Re:Mac OS Server (Score:4, Insightful)