[X4U] Couple questions on Apples move to Intel

[Michael Gmail]

Sure, and I agree that Apple is right not to promote OSX as a  
solution for generic PCs. I'd even strongly support them in  
emphasizing the benefits of Genuine Mac on a marketing level. But  
there's a continuum between not-supporting and actively blocking, and  
I'll still be disappointed if they put serious engineering resources  
into preventing unsupported installs. (Not that I expect them to care  
much about my opinions, except maybe when I'm ready to pull out the  
checkbook....)

Michael


On Jun 7, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Scott McCulloch wrote:

> Except that there is an argument that by controlling the whole  
> thing, Apple is ensuring that their software is very much MORE  
> useful, because of less likelihood of the nightmare of hardware/ 
> driver incompatibilities that I hear my Windows using friends  
> complaining about. While it might seem less useful to those who are  
> knowledgeable enough to make good choices, I'd really hate to see  
> OS X running on an eMachine, followed closely by a myriad  
> complaints of crashes, incompatibilities, etc. One of the reasons  
> Macs "just work" is that Apple does have a much greater degree of  
> control over the hardware it works on than Microsoft does (yes,  
> there are many other reasons too, but let's not ignore this one  
> because you either want a cheap knockoff, or to be able to "build  
> your own" with more power or more whatever than what Apple will  
> offer). Just because the processor is changing doesn't mean the  
> whole game should change. OS X only on Apple hardware? It's nothing  
> new. For the *average* user, this is probably a good thing - and  
> there are usually a lot more average users than power users.
>

-- 
<http://globalocal.blogspot.com/>

"I speak Spanish to God, French to women, English to men, and  
Japanese to my horse."
- Buckaroo Banzai