On Mon, 12 May 2008 00:33:16 -0400, ZnU <znu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <c4ff24118noq8u1folg89ukigeq1m6e7nq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:03:34 -0400, ZnU <znu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <GHKVj.2487$ah4.231@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > "John Slade" <hhitman86@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >> The reason why OS X market share will remain small is becaue Apple
>> >> only wants to make it for a tiny segment of the computer market.
>> >> That being the Mac. If it was available to every other PC, it
>> >> might catch on and more companies would write software for it. As
>> >> it is now, it's just a niche OS.
>> >
>> >I've asked this question quite a lot previously, but I'll ask it
>> >again:
>> >
>> >Precisely what is supposed to be so much more compelling about OS X
>> >on, for instance, a Dell, vs. OS X on a Mac?
>>
>> The price of the HW...duh!
>
>OK, but as I've also mentioned many times before, it would be far
>easier for Apple to get OS X on cheaper machines by simply offering
>cheaper Macs than by attempting to sup****t a substantial fraction of
>the hardware out there in the generic x86 world.
I think the desire for MacOS X on generic HW largely stems from the
realization that Apple isn't going to do that.
|
