So why won't MAC allow its OS on a non-MAC computer?

I mean, Windows can run on a MAC computer. So what's the problem?

What if I LIKE mac software but hate MAC hardware?

What does one do in a situation like that?

I don't want to hear about hackintosh. I just want to know why in the EULA it is not allowed for the OS to be installed on non-mac computers?

 

It's a business decision. Apple can make Mac users pay premium for the OS.

Think about it, if Apple made OSx available for PC users. Then what reason would people have to buy an Apple over a $1000 cheaper, equally spec'd PC equivalent? Poor people shouldn't share the mac experience!!!

 

In before close !

Apple wouldn't be able to keep the same hardware efficiency if they let people install Mac on any comupter that they wanted. Plus, they want the hardware that people run Mac on to live up to their standards.

 

Apple used to license out its OS in the 80's or 90's (i cant remember) this was done to help apple out of a soon to be bankruptcy, but it turned into a real fiasco. Apple eventually got itself out of its rut with a little help from microsoft. From then on it never licensed out its OS again. For fear of deja vu.

 

Technically it isn't illegal to put OS X on a non MAC computer you just need an apple logo on it.

 

Actually it's more about their bottom-line than keeping their standard. Apple is a hardware company, and one of the thing that help them sell is the OS. You pay a premium to get a mac to enjoy the osx experience. Now guess what would happen if they made it available to all the other manufacturers? Drop in sales as the consumer would think why would I pay
$1000 for a macbook of I can get a $500 that work just as well and has better specs?
And secondly have you seen the problems with linux and windows when it comes to drivers? Hard to keep a system 100% stable if you have to take into account 1000s of different possible combinations of hardawa components.
Thirdly, they woulnd't be able to make fun of PCs anymore... Where would the fanboys go then?

 

They want better control over their products. For an easy example lets take video cards. Apple software is made to run on maybe 10 given cards, although there are 100 or more cards out there the user can use. So that would mean that they would have more things their software would be running on, which would create more problems. We may not all like it, but it is a really great idea.

 

I must say that among computer companies Apple is the most predatory and proprietary.

IBM years ago learned that it was good for everyone (themselves included) to have a more open market.
Microsoft continuously gets slammed (and rightly so) on these forums, yet Apple is the most closed sourced company out there. They have cultivated this 'cool' personna that masks an uber capitalist approach to business.
Apple is just plain monopolistic and we should all be happy that they were never as big as IBM because with Apple's attitude the computer age would never be so advanced as it has become.

my $0.02 worth

 

Good discussion, remember to keep it clean guys.

 

Not true. IBM drove out competition, priced PC-DOS (stolen from Digital Research by the way) 6 times cheaper than CP/M-86 (By Digital Research, made in my town) to marginalize the competition. Really a fake open market. Only reason there were any alternatives was because Digital Research released IBM and MS of liability for product infringement if they even made CP-M available for use on IBM computers.

But back on topic +rep for the rest of your post, so true.

 

I don't know much but I don't think it's accurate to call Apple a closed source company (as far as software). Don't they have events where developers gather and do stuff? Developing for the OS isn't closed, it's as open as Windows is. They're stricter on their OS because they also make hardware, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Good responses so far. Very logical.

So basically it would be suicide for Apple to allow their OS on a non-Mac computer.

So does Microsoft know this? And is this why they allow things like Bootcamp?

 

Microsoft is a software house. The more versions of Windows they can sell, the better. Therefore, Boot Camp benefits Microsoft, since people will still be paying for a Windows license.
Furthermore, Microsoft doesn't really see Apple as a threat.

 

The only way I could ever see this happening would be if they could profit more from opening OS X than from closed hardware. If Apple could survive just by selling and developing OS X, they would phase out the hardware portion for the most part and become another Microsoft. Of course that is a gamble because they wouldn't know how many people would actually but OS X, and at the same time be losing hardware sales.

The only way they could safely extend OS X sales is license it to one specific company; Have Dell or Sony or some other company make a machine that complies with their standards, they install an EFI thing so that OS X can work, bla bla bla. One or to competing machines wouldn't hurt sales, and Apple makes money off of licensing.

 

I have to agree with that. I think they're far more afraid of Linux than they are of Apple.

 

You are teh FAIL

 

I don't know if you're joking or not, but this is the most elitist thing I've heard in a while.

To the OP, I believe it is a business decision. They do, in fact, want to be able to sell their OS and hardware for the ridiculous prices that they charge. I guess they could sell copies of their OS for PC's at a steep price, but they probably don't think that would make up the difference. Whatever. Eventually, I think we will see a move made to allow OS X and later to run on PC's. Please, just don't go expecting that to happen any day soon.

I don't think they fear either right now. Just curious, but why do you think they fear Linux? Why would they fear Linux more than Apple?

 

Because if they allowed it, they couldn't go ripping us off so badly for their computers.

Microsoft say open source software is a bigger threat than Google.

 

I can't seem to find it, I've been searching for that leaked Microsoft internal memo from several years ago, in which a senior manager I believe, said Linux is a viable threat against their closed licensing policy, and they should actively compete against Linux at every turn. Something like that, I'm paraphrasing, it's been a long time since I've read it.

 

I have to admit that Apple is a very proprietary company. However, I don't think they are unique due to the nature of what they are selling. What you are buying when you buy a Mac is a complete platform built-up from the hardware with the software layered on top. This is the same as the XBox or a Gameboy. Apple's OS is coupled to the hardware the same way that the XBox OS is coupled with it's hardware. It's not like Microsoft or Nintendo support installing other OS on their devices or support emulating their device OS on competing devices. Apple OS are not sold as separate software but are sold to upgrade the existing OS on their hardware.

The iPod restrictions to iTunes can be viewed the same way. You are buying a device like a Gameboy and iTunes is the method to add content to the device just like a game cartridge is to a Gameboy.

Granted other company's don't use these methods on their OS or mp3 devices, but I think that's more due to their inability to make a viable business model out of it rather than it being illegal.

 

If you ever do find it, Talin, would you mind sending the link my way? I would love to read up about it.

 

Apple isn't in the business of ripping people off. If the price is a turn off to you, then you should definitely not buy their products. There ARE alternatives, like windows, linux, and standard PC hardware. there are other mp3 players that are great, and media players and stores other than itunes.

People have generally covered the reasons why Apple doesn't sell their OS separately. Partly it has to do with money... the fact that the increased software sales would also bring a decrease in hardware sales.

Then you have to figure that suddenly their OS would have to support EVERYTHING, or at least as much hardware as they can. or else, whats the point?

But see, if they do that, the allure of osx goes away. The little touches that are only possible on a closed system would no longer be possible.

I'll give you one example:

in osx, there is a software update button. the nifty software update button updates all the apple software on your machine, iwork, ilife, your SYSTEM DRIVERS... operating system updates... everything apple gets updated in one click. its not finicky at all (windows update cough). its very simple, straightforward, streamlined.

if it was an openly sold operating system, they couldn't do that. if they can't keep tabs on what exactly is in each person's machine, they can't auto-update all of your drivers. it would have to be up to you to do each one individually (think windows and driver updates...) in windows, the responsibility falls onto you to know when driver updates are released and then go update them. windows can't auto update your drivers, because windows can't keep tabs on your hardware config and guarantee that each driver will play nicely with each other driver. the potential for driver conflicts is pretty high, because drivers are almost exclusively made 3rd party. the system works, but it obviously has some flaws. the potential exists for system instability every time you update a driver. thats why windows tries to make a restore point any time you upgrade.

no such thing needed in osx. drivers are not 3rd party in most cases (some are, but are still monitored, there aren't that many) so they are ensured to work together.

thats ONE of the great things about OSX that exists ONLY because of the closed platform.

chew on that

 

I was joking bro, I thought the mac experience comment would've made it obvious, i'll throw in a smiley face though.

Windows can update your drivers, check the picture. Windows update is as streamlined as it can be, especially if you set the updates to automatic. Like you said, its slightly more complicated because there are so many options, but that's just the PC platform showing its versatility.

Windows also updates all other Microsoft software that they have control over like Office, Streets & Trips, etc.

But other than that little attack on Windows, that is a good breakdown of what makes OSX special otherwise. Some people like the high degree of simplification and some don't. And I think that should answer the OP's question.

 

just trying to show one reason why apple doesn't open up their system. i should have made that more clear. the whole windows drivers thing is NOT microsoft's fault and its NOT a problem with windows. its just an inherent problem with any widely compatible software. if you want your software to work on basically everything, that is the hurdle you face. its the same with linux, and if apple ever opens up OSX, it will be the same with them, too. it's just an example of how opening up OSX will take away a lot of what makes it special.

also- if you actually use windows update to update your drivers, there is a good chance your hardware will stop working. in my experience, there is about a 50/50 chance whatever windows driver update i do makes that component stop working. i have a lot better luck hand picking driver updates. the drivers windows offers are generally generic and are not in line with the manufacturer suggested drivers, nor are they usually the most recent or stable...

 

I was actually pretty sure that Lysander had a MacBook for quite some time, so the answer would be a yes on that.

And I must say I have to agree with him - if they opened it up, Apple would lose a ton of money for their hardware, thus weakening their company core, since they cannot make as much money from the insane profit margins of their hardware. Plus, His Jobsness is a controlling, maniacal freak.

As for Microsoft's position, well yes, they are losing marketshare, but when you own over 95% of it, as MS did at one point, the only place to really go is down. Apple has increased its marketshare by what, 100%, from 3% to now a total of 6% of the OS market? Good for them, they might have a shot at taking over the market in another 20 years or so. Plus, Windows 7 is looking pretty promising at the moment, especially so since it supposedly has the same system requirements as Vista. Yes, Vista sucks, yes we already know that, and yes, OS X is better. Tell someone who can actually run all of their apps on OS X. People talk about compatibility issues with Vista - usually, I end up wondering if they've ever tried to switch to OS X. Also, OS X is far, far too oversimplified, but I'll save my rant on that for another day.

And your last line - no, you're wrong. Apple is a marketing machine exists to overhype what amount to otherwise mediocre products and make money off people who buy into the hype. Undoubtedly, they are good at it, but all of this "enriching people's lives" business is bogus.

(Before you accuse me of being an anti-Apple fanboy, I have an iMac, have seriously considered the iBook, PowerBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook pretty much every time I've gone to buy a laptop, own three iPods, will be purchasing an iPhone shortly, etc, etc etc. Not an anti-Apple person in the slightest.)

 

so let me ask you something.

if you are absolutely positive that apple just sells overhyped, overpriced, mediocre products...

then WHY do you keep buying them?!?!

again and again and again!?!

and you even PLAN on CONTINUING to buy their products- the iphone.. and etc!

explain that one to me.

are you just being a complete moron every time you buy one? and then 4 seconds later you say to yourself "aww crap- good job apple, suckered me again! im so dumb..." and then you completely forget about the whole thing?

you obviously must associate some value with the products you buy from them. there has to be something that keeps bringing you back.

please enlighten me.

 

I'll give you another example: www.ubuntu.com - Completely open, and has a software update feature that updates third party tools along with OS integrated ones. Chew on that.

Already covered above, and I believe I've spammed my thoughts on the MacBook enough.

 

I have a Vista desktop. I just got it about two weeks ago, because my previous desktop just wasn't cutting it anymore and my MacBook isn't powerful enough for some of the tasks I do. Its quite powerful (check sig). I have Vista Business SP1, I like the GUI of Vista, it is very nice.

But I ran into tons of driver issues. I tracked down most of them to NVIDIA drivers. Whenever I run anything graphics intensive, from Command & Conquer 3 to Age of Empires III to something as ridiculous as the Bubbles screensaver, the screen flickers and the driver fails (causing the display to get all fuzzy and ugly). I know its not the display, its perfectly fine. Its NVIDIA drivers on Vista. Now, I don't care who it is to blame for the issue. All I know is, the desktop I paid for isn't working as it should be. Now, I have this quite powerful computer, highly limited in the tasks I want it to do, for the money I paid it to do. Until NVIDIA and Microsoft fix the problem.

Now, I consider myself a pretty techie guy, so I can trace down these things to whatever issues they are, and diagnose it properly and try to fix it with methods in my control (trying other graphics drivers, etc.). What about those less techie than me? That is the majority of the population. For them, these issues are frustrating and they have even less of a clue on how to fix it. I'm a student, its the summer, I can handle these issues without too much of a hassle. How about those using computers in their everyday work, or a student using their computer to write a final report? These are issues that should not be there over a year and a half after the general release of "the greatest operating system Microsoft ever shipped", they are frustrating and I'm stuck here waiting until NVIDIA & Microsoft pick up their game. Or I can downgrade to XP.

With a Mac, I don't have to worry about all that. I know that getting my Mac, there won't be such issues, because Apple controls the hardware. Yes, it is monopolistic in a sense, but for me, its a better user experience. Apple knows all the components in its Macs, it knows what its going to have in its hardware, so they can write Mac OS X to best utilize all that.

The closed system of Mac OS X, in my opinion, helps the Mac OS X experience. Because Apple has to worry less about driver issues, like Microsoft does with Windows running on any and everything, they can focus on other things to refine the user experience.

 

I have to agree with you on that, but just for the sake of an interesting discussion, what about Linux, like Lysander brought up. All the drivers are in the kernel, allowing it to have amazing hard compatibility while being portable. Excuse me if what I'm saying here makes no sense or is quite irrelevant, I'm not very experienced with Mac but i know Windows and Linux quite well.

 

I think Linux, as soon as its accessible to the majority of consumers (such as Firefox has), can become very big, and easily eclipse Mac OS X market share and take over a significant chunk of Windows'. The open source community is very powerful, very strong and devoted and as long as the word gets out and there are Linux-versions or equivalents to everyday software, it can be huge.

 

I think those documents I was talking about are the "Halloween" documents, a search on google brings up TONS of pages of results.
Here's just one in particular.
It's really not relevant to this thread or subforum, but I was just trying to say, that I think Microsoft is more afraid of linux than they are of Apple.

EDIT: One more document.

 

I feel that because of the way Mac works, Apple doesn't have much to fear. People who want the hardware coupled with a nice OS can buy Mac and people who want a different OS can use Linux. Although it may not go much higher than it is now i would feel a lot better if people started using an OS that they wanted and liked instead of being forced by monopoly into something they don't want.

 

Ok, I can try. First, I think you've misconstrued my meaning of mediocre - they aren't that much better or different from what is offered by other companies. I meant mediocre in the sense that they don't excel at anything other than being hyped quite a bit.

I haven't paid near full retail price for an Apple product ever ($50 iPod shuffle excepted). I don't plan to in future either, I think. Most of their new products are relatively mediocre - you should agree, looking at the Air, the iPod classic, the stagnating MacBook Pro line, the Mac mini if it isn't dead yet, etc. The hypage is actually kinda cool, I mean, a MacBook will attract more attention than an identically specced Dell (it used to, at least, not now that everybody on college campuses has one). The iPhone is arguably the most hyped gadget of all time, as a tech geek, how could I not get one, late as I might be to the bandwagon?

Actually, I've done that once, when I bought my iPod shuffle. *shrug* $50 for looking cool. Not a complete moron every time I buy one, no, I don't think so. Or rather, I'd like to think not. See reasons above, please.

 

With this statement, I think you just reinforced masterchef's point. There are lots of other smartphones out there that are just as functional as the iPhone. The iPhone fits your definition of mediocrity to a T.

My take on Linux is two-pronged. First, Microsoft might say otherwise, but I don't believe Linux will ever be a threat to Windows, or even Apple for that matter. In order to truly get the most out of Linux, it takes time and effort that a lot of folks neither have nor want to invest, particularly in this microwave burrito, instant gratification universe we are living at the present. While familiarity breeds contempt, it also breeds a bunch of people who have become happy in the ruts in which they've dug themselves. Pull their MS Office and iTunes rugs out from under them and replace them with AbiWord and xmms, and the masses will whine like a baby that needs changing.

Second, Linux users like to think of themselves as being among the elite in the computing universe. Should the marketplace decide that they've had enough of MS and Apple and flock to Linux in droves, the initial wave will be welcomed into the new world order, but soon, the faithful will realize they have lost that which they believe has made them special in sticking it to "the man" for as long as they have. They were the computing rebels but lost their identity when everyone started doing it.

 

People in this thread have put a lot of effort into knocking people who use products and systems not to their liking or meeting their standards. Most Mac users i know, also use Windows machines. Likewise, most Linux users of whom I'm aware, also use other systems; the reason for using Linux in most cases, IMO, is simply because it's different and fun to learn something new. As a matter of fact, that's exactly the reason I bought my first Mac, and for trying Linux.

Too many judgemental opinions being posted here, IMHO. Use the systems and machines which suit you, and that you happen to enjoy. To each his own.

 

So people like the OP, come to the Mac section and ask lame questions

Getting a good answer from a notebook forum full of geeks is not going to harvest any really good answers.

You need to look at the average Joe computer user.

He/She now sees computers, like they see microwave ovens, DVD players, iPods, Cell Phones, etc. Its a electronic device that has a purpose (email, web browsing, document creation, picture management, movie creation if your advanced), and just like those other devices they want ease of use and as few problems as possible.

Apple knows this better than MS, plain and simple. So you get a totally controlled environment with a Mac. Its a selling point, not a negative.

 

For the Linux side of things, I know my way around computers, windows and osx, and in the past whenever i tried to install and use linux on my pc, I've only had problems.

Albeit, now that I look back, they weren't driver issues, but more software issues. I could never install what I wanted to, I was always missing one compiler. And then to install that compiler, I was missing another thing. So it pretty much got into a game of research, download, then find out im missing something else, then repeat.
Now I tried linux a couple of times, and each time I had the same problem. Maybe now with big distros like ubuntu, but when I was trying it never worked out for me.
I think thats one flaw of linux, is that it does require a lot of research, and I was willing to do it, but it got to the point were I just stopped caring and went back to windows.

I know my case is a specific one, but thats all I can comment from first hand experience on on linux.

Redline, I gotta agree with saturnotaku, you seem to be falling into apples marketing, just because as he said, theres lots of other alternatives out there. The HTC diamond looks like a really good phone if you were to be in windows, and theres also the new blackberry bold. I'd consider both of them if I wern't on OSX. But yea, years ago when I didn't want to jump on the ipod bandwagon, I had the self control not to, and got a Sony MP3 player instead. Great decision, and I'd still be using it till today if I hadn't of gotten a free ipod and a MBP.

Also it's obvious, if apple either lowered their prices, or introduced different models, we wouldn't have as many complaints against apple pcs or osx. Guess they're sticking to what works right now for them, as it is working.

 

For me Linux was an incredibly easy experience. The installer was simple, and once it was installed nearly all of the components worked without having to install drivers. The display driver was the one that I had to install, and it was as easy as checking a box to do the entire installation. Everything I needed to get on my feet was already installed. It ran good, looked pretty good, and was stable. Because of my computer background I am able to tweak things pretty easy.

Ubuntu is headed in the right direction with ease of use. It still has it's issues, such as DVD playback is disabled unless you type a command in the terminal. Windows based programs are hit and miss with Wine. Most "must have" windows and Mac programs such as Itunes and Office aren't supported and need alternatives. No games. Want to make it look good or install more than basics and you need to get your hands dirty. If Linux gets over these obstacles, then it will be a serious threat to Microsoft and Apple.

 

Steve explained apple's philosophy behind their products in Macworld 08, people who are serious about software build their own hardware.

As long as apple's products are competitive with what's on the market, what's the problem? People always groan about a lack of features in their hardware or software, but apple's approach is to build a solid foundation and build features on top of that. Why should they be like everybody else if they are gaining market share?

 

Apple is a multi-national corporation, not your best friend or anyone else's. They make product for profit and if you haven't realised that a large world exists they charge inflated prices for the majority of non-Americans, which is for both hardware and software. They are like any other company looking to make a buck. They are certainly 'enriching' something, but that is only there own bank balance and shareholders and is not even fractionally altruistic, discrimination seldom is. I didn't come to NBR to listen to consistent delusional propaganda. If you enjoy the Apple experience buy Apple, if you do not or it does not suit your intended purpose do not purchase it. But don’t tell me or anyone else here who gets discriminated with every purchase of Apple product that they are doing it for my benefit.

Open and closed source computing is as SGT Lindy so eloquently put it only a matter of importance to those interested in computing, in the business of computing and its related arenas and not the general Joe public computer user who wishes to engage in a task and complete it with the least amount of issues. That is the consumer computing world. That is all. Which if these 2 statements is more likely to flow from a shop-floor salesperson talking to the average wanderer in order to sell a unit in a computer shop:

1) You should buy Apple because they have a more advanced kernel and self-controlled hardware and software architecture using a closed source model but fully compliant with UNIX.
2) You should buy Apple because they don't get viruses and are easier to use than a PC.

If you picked No.2 give yourself a sweetie. If No.1 you need to get out in the real world of the average computer user. Apple’s consumer success is not completely due to their successes, it’s also down to others failures, like MS with Vista among others.

This really only applies to consumers, not business. To business the fact that Apple's platform is closed and publicly vaunted to be less vulnerable is not accepted or at least does not outweigh the requirements of absolute compatibility with MS's platform (although I wish it would). Apple has chosen their model of OS distribution in order to maximize potential hardware sales (as stated by masterchef341) and create a controlled environment. MS have chosen the other route in order to entice ODM’s, OEM's, and developers into a model that, dependant upon the sector in question, offers opportunities for greater profit.

As much as I hate MS they have done a relatively good job considering the potential pitfalls of basically allowing almost anyone access to Windows development and hardware production and evolution (while maintaining closed-source control). Apple have done a good job in their closed environment but it is plain to see that if they were to let OSX out in the wild they it is would be unable to handle the effects. They can't even get their Airports in a €1700 MBP to function half as well regards reception as a €500 laptop. Imagine Apple trying to deal with compatibility of hundreds of GPU's or different wifi cards when they can't get the 1 right.

They may be gaining market share but they are facing a battle to keep OSX under their control and their EULA restricting installation on non-Apple hardware may no longer be either impenetrable or possibly legal to enforce.

 

Jurisprudence, I see what youre getting at with the whole, theyre doing it for profit, but atleast they're doing it.

I'm not trying to take their side, but apple has been the one to introduce new things in these current years, and then pretty much everyone else copies/uses them.

I'm just going from stuff recently, ipod (and accessibility of mp3 players), friendly ui touchscreen device, now theres lots of new devices using touchscreens and similiar interfaces, multitouch trackpad, and the whole "big icon, glossy-ness" user interfaces that lots of devices are using now.

Though they may not have come up with a lot of new features, but it seems that the ones that they do, really do help the user, and other companies tend to latch on to.

(They're not the only ones though, LG with the heat-sensitve buttons on the chocolate, HP with touch multimedia buttons on laptops, etc)

 

Free country and it's about profit. It's what the private sector is all about and it's working out pretty good for them.

I wouldn't allow it either. They make hardware and software that run on it. Microsoft makes software only so they make more money by having people run it on other machines.

 

I wonder when Psystar will start making laptops...

 

Don't get me wrong Sulkorp. I'm typing this on an MBP, I got an email telling me about your post on my iPhone which vibrated to tell me to pause my iPod to read it. In 2 months i'll be geting a Growl notification on my new iMac 24" . I love Apple gear but the iMac is coming from the US where they don't financially rape their customers. To me they offer the best interfaces in the business but the evangelical bull**** of some Apple fanboys can really make me wanna vomit.

I am not a citizen of your country. I am Irish and a European, not American. We have Apple trying to discriminate against Europeans as a whole and member-states as individuals (we have 27 BTW). Thats not supposed to happen over here in the EU but Apple keep making excuses and trying to defend themselves (each time the EU Commission keeps beating them, it just takes years). If you had a different price for each Apple product in each of the states of the United States you probably wouldn't feel the same way about the freedom of private profiteering. Hey, come visit some time, bring a healthy credit card if you want to buy a Euro-Apple thats made in China

Apple's profiteering is actually driving a perception that OSX should be hacked and released as open-source, whether for malicious purposes(not good for anyone) or for the benefit of those who can't/are unable to overpay/refuse to be discriminated against to get to use it. If Apple keep going this way they risk the OS getting pulled into little pieces by hackers, white or black. Heaven help the average non-expert OSX user if that happens. You only have to go to the torrent sites to see how many versions of Leopard are around and the Apple sect demanding OSX on fruit-only hardware can start the suicide pacts.

 

To be fair, even companies that are based in the EU do the exact same thing. Case and point - Rolls Royce will charge US$350,000 (give or take) for a Phantom Coupe and EUR 338,000 for the exact same vehicle.

The EU gets the shaft for everything.

 

Not to nitpick or anything, but multitouch wasn't developed by Apple. Bell developed it back in the 80s. Also, Microsoft Surface, which is a multitouch system, has been in the works since 2001. Basically Apple, like everyone else, copy each others ideas. Apple just beat everyone to the punch this time around.

OT:Microsoft Surface looks really cool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface

 

Yeah look at Voodoo's new offering LOL If you stand far enough you'll see a Black Macbook and a MacPro rofl

 

It does have aspects of MB, MBA and MBP all in 1. Perhaps a perfect cross between all 3 for some. Perhaps Apple can now sort out somethings with its line, like

1) Stop the MB weighing so much and give it an LED screen and illuminating keyboard.
2) Produce a smaller version of the MBP for those who find it a bit too wide but can't go MB.
3) Make an MBA that has enough ports to be useful and a removable battery as a real laptop should.

Oh wait, wouldn't that mean they would be copyng Voodoo/HP. Ahh well, at least Voodoo didn't copy the Apple seperate keyboard layout. Oh I forgot again, they stole that from Sony.

Drool time,
http://s291.photobucket.com/albums/ll304/voodoo_roz/delish_envy133/

Now it just needs OSX 'legally' installed on it, yummy.

 

Linux will never have a huge market share until the linux experience is fine-tuned and super-slick like windows or, even better, os x. Thats the bottom line. In day to day usability linux falls short big time. There is still way to much reliance on the command line. Yes, you can install the latest and greatest super-slick distro and run with it and it will work great, but if average joe/jane wants to do a little more than the basics he/she isn't going to fire up the command line to build and make a new package for some snazzy new camera app or whatever.

It will take a highly integrated and tight linux distro to be able to crack the market. Something that acts a lot like os x, with integrated and mature core apps a lot like iLife and iWork. And most importantly no command line reliance! (think system preferences in os x) Most people want their technology to be simple, reliable, and workable without knowing all the details or specifics. Linux isn't there yet.

Apple (not MAC) is a hardware company that writes software for their hardware. Yes, there is a kind of "cult" fanboyism surrounding Apple. And yes, I paid extra for my iMac but its a good machine with excellent software (closed, open, and donationware) on a great platform. The integration is awesome. I still love my linux box and still play games on my windows box