MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

And maybe Apple could use the profits from the iSight to write NewtonOS X!

Gimme a break. Why do pundits keep contemplating Apple dropping the hardware part of their business? Part of the reason why people like Macs is because Apple makes the whole widget - you don't have to worry about getting a kernel panic because you're using an ASUS mobo with the wrong chipset.

Yes, this seems like a sound concept. Especially since MS is stuck between crap and vapor for a long period of time right now. Use iPod profits to fill the hole lost on hardware after releasing Mac OS X on X86. After enough adoption, Apple will be printing money at will again. And Mac OS X will command enough marketshare to wake up every software developer on the planet.

quit usin' meh term "moo."

moo.

Who said anything about Apple dropping their hardware business, besides you, Pope?

It would make a lot of sense. Opening up the world of Mac to those who can't afford to drop $2k - $3k on a new machine, but hate MS and want a good, user friendly alternative. It would also help make major inroads into the server market. A lot of companies would be more willing to use OS X Server if they could load it on existing server hardware. Not to mention you could pickup a dual 2 or 3gig Xeon for a fair amount less than you can a dual 2gig G5, so for those in the business arena, it would make more sense.

All said and done, it would be a very smart overall move. It could take Apple to the point of holding a major piece of the marketshare again. I hate having to work on a Windoze box from time to time and would much rather always be on OS X, and if I could pop it on a few work boxes, even in a dual boot configuration, I would almost never have to see Windoze.

And while I don't think we're likely to see NewtonOS X, I would like to see Apple go PDA now that the consumers are ready for it, even if it's just a new iPod with full PDA functionality. It would be a nice way to wrap up the who digital hub experience, not to mention giving business persons another viable reason to use, or consider using, Apple.

One problem I see with this idea is MS Office. MS will never port MS Office to OSX on X86, unless OSX86 has significant market share. OSX86 will never take off without MS Office running (look at linux for desktop). In order for this to work, someone must come up with an office suite, which is competitive with MS Office first. At which point, linux will probably replace the Windows on X86, not OSX.

"It would make a lot of sense. Opening up the world of Mac to those who can't afford to drop $2k - $3k on a new machine, but hate MS and want a good, user friendly alternative"

It is called eMac. The entry level iBook is also in range of laptop PC that have at least a minimal chance of lasting more than 11 months.
Price issue is now an has been. What prevents doubting Wintel users from switching is fear (from FUDs about Mac limitations) and sheer ignorance: it is so deep that some believe even email is incompatible, or chatting is limited to Macs only (as was told recently a PC user: "all my chat friends online are on PC: I do not want to lose them".

The fact is PC is a sort of commodity for many Wintel users, no different from a toaster or a µwave oven, and they know their internals with the same degree of understanding. For some MS Office IS the operating system (again, real PC user understanding of his machine).

The ones they knew about computing - that I personally know - HAVE switched already: 18 so far in my field.
The others are almost unattainable.

I used to think this made a lot of sense, then figured they would never do it because it would change apple too much, and Steve Jobs et al are happy as things are.

For sure it would be earthshattering. And you don't have to factor iPod income into it necessarily. They aren't going to be giving osX for windows away. It should retail for as much as an iPod mini.

What might be the answer is releasing a USB Dongle protected version of OS X for x86 hardware. Here's the scenario: If a company signs a contract to switch over to the Macintosh Platform, Apple supplies them with x86 copies of OS X to use until the normal replacement cycle for their hardware. The software and dongle then revert to Apple when PPC Macs are purchased.
This answers those who object to the cost of replacing hardware and software at the same time. Instead of throwing away the PC, commercial users can run out the normal life-cycle for their hardware.
As an alternative, they could not require the purchase of Mac hardware and just charge an annual fee per seat, similar to the Java Desktop from SUN.

Same old sh*t.
Yes they could do it. Yes, "shaking things up" is an understatement. But this would change Apple from a successful hardware company, to a software company competing directly with M$. Choose your battles wisely. Even with iPod revenue, this seems like a risky, and may I say, stupid move.

NoPCZone...Interesting concept.

Interesting idea NoPCZone. Kinda sneaky I like it.

Joe Mc. osX for windows???? You mean OS X for Intel right? Either you are making stupid mistakes or that was a trollish statement.

It's time for another ridiculous translation into metaphysical terms:

iPod's halo effect, together with Window's pitchfork effect, causes much envy in Hell. (iPods are available in Hell, but only on the upper levels).

So why doesn't God move Heaven into Hell? Now is the time to drop a hydrogen bomb on Satan. Just get used to the fire and brimstone, and you've got it made.

It'll never happen. Steve won't like the current PC platform because most of the vendors don't make hardware that will work well with OS X. Approving a few new configurations for OS X use won't cut it -- it would take a very wide selection to appease the Intel customer base. Steve would never allow OS X to be installed on the cheapest POS available on the market (no Firewire, no Bluetooth, no DVD, no nothing).

Truly, it would be like leaving Heaven for Hell. Why would Steve wanna do that? For market share? Ha!

OS X on Intel bomb: it would bomb. Why move to Intel just as Microsoft is moving to PPC? Let Microsoft bring the unholy masses to PPC, and just make OS X run on whatever PPC machines IBM vendors make.

The only reason for switching to Intel would be to sell OS X to those who have Intel equipment that they don't want to part with, but would be willing to part with Windows. What kind of people are we talking about? People who have no stake in windows, but can't buy a new Mac? Are they gonna buy OS X and be happy with the way it runs on their old Intel equipment? How is Apple gonna support all that old equipment?

The corporate crowd, which is what Apple and Steve Jack are really drooling over, are shunning Apple for several reasons; Intel hardware is only one of them (or none of them in some cases). The biggest reason is that they are locked into Windows. Moving OS X to Intel won't attract these people at all.

The only people such a move would attract are those who feel that Apple is too proprietary and restricted. They want to build their own custom hardware, or at least have many vendors to choose from. Apple could satisfy these people without switching to Intel: like I said above, wait for the PPC vendors to appear. Their coming. Wait for them.

Yes seahawk...an eMac is affordable...but it's non upgradable (well, it's upgradable in the way that the iPod's battery is replacable).

Amd and Intel, despite what Apple marketing would have you believe, perform pretty well. And since intel is adopting AMD's 64 bit instructions, OSX could enable 64 bit extentions out of the box.

Although my AMD OS X system wouldn't have a super purty case and 11 cooling zones, it wouldn't need cooling zones, and I'm not going to be staring at the case under my desk all day (although I'm proud to say mine has a kick ass window).

Price is an issue, and I'm not talking 'total cost of ownership' which, by the way, is different for different people. for example, Since I build my own systems, and do all of the repairs (assuming I had to repair something), my total cost of ownership is roughly the same as when I first built the thing. If I want some uber-monster apple, I've got to shell out $3000...the baseline g5 is $2000 (1.6ghz, nothing really fancy, 'cept maybe more ram.) for that I could build my own AMD system (newegg $1711.40...Athlon 64 3400+, 2GB Ram, 250GB SATA Hdd,8X DVD+/-R, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb, firewire card). This machine outperforms the Dual 1.8, and Comes mighty close (and sometimes beats) the Dual 2GHZ. If I could run OS X on that machine, I'd be set.

If they release OS X on x86, I'll be the first in line to buy 3 copies.

Move to x86? Why not back to 68xxx? I just ask. Mooo
You must seek medical attention. Nobody is moving to x86 or 68xxx any more they will move to PPC. And I would say that it was about time. Moo!
It is BBQ time! Big Time! Party Time! Moo!

They can't go OS X for X86 causethen you would have to multiple versionsof the software, on compile for PPC, the other for X86, you would have to deal with the shitty x86 hardware design. as well as drivers for that hardware as well

Kenny: You talk about microsofts 'move to ppc' like it's some great exodus. It's only for thier console gaming machine. That's like saying "apple is making a move to windows" just because they offer iTunes and Quicktime. That's hardly even a small percentage of thier offerings. If they start to offer Final Cut, Keynote, iPhoto, or DVD studio Pro, then we'll talk.

"Are they gonna buy OS X and be happy with the way it runs on their old Intel equipment? How is Apple gonna support all that old equipment?"

First off, my "old intel equipment" is AMD and could beat the pants off of any G4 you could throw at me, and even a 1.6 G5. And how is apple gonna support all that old equipment...there is such a thing as minimum system requirements.

OS X 'plays very well with others' and can access windows shares just fine. They have an office for OSX..using a low level form of emulation, you could run office for OSX apple on an OSX x86. They can already do it somewhat on Linux, and it's not much of a stretch. Also, if you could have classic mode, it's not that much harder to have 'windows mode.'

In any case it can be done with minimal effort. Microsoft's only proffitable products are Windows and Office, everthing else makes thier name bigger, but loses them money. If Apple took over even 1/3 of the OS market, they could more than double their revinues. Lord knows they could trounce MS, as they have become lazy, complacent, and shittier (you didn't think it was possible).

I don't think I understand why OSX for x86 would be a good idea. I imagine that OSX would be received very much like this:
"It looks the same, it works the same, but I can't get software for it, so why bother?" Whether any of that is true is beside the point. Perception is reality. (And please, before bombarding me on the "getting software" issue, go into a Wal-Mart or Circuit City and try to find a copy of anything for OSX)

The better idea was posted on a thread yesterday: Apple produces a line of "corporate" machines a la the eMac; cheaper cases coupled with low-end video and sound cards. The only way Apple will ever break into corporate America is by appealing to the "bottom line."

"They can't go OS X for X86 causethen you would have to multiple versionsof the software, on compile for PPC, the other for X86, you would have to deal with the shitty x86 hardware design. as well as drivers for that hardware as well"

So you've never heard of linux, or even unix for that matter?...you need to get out more.

And shitty x86 hardware design? Apple, in their G5 is using DDR memory (an x86 first),PCI-X (develped by a consortium including AMD and Intel), Hypertransport (an AMD invention)and SATA (an x86 first). Other than the PPC processor design, things are pretty much the same. USB, Firewire, SATA, 802.11g, Hypertransport, PCI-X, DDR, Various drives, they're all industry standard. The only thing different is processor instructions, and to say that they are 'shitty' is both dissmissive and unqualified. Sure IBM's POWER architecture is like a Ferarri, but AMD x86-64 is like a BMW 7 series. PPC may be better, but not by much.

Apple should create a special "Windows" Mac which is just like a regular Mac except that it includes Virtual PC & Windows, has no monitor ( apple could sell an econo el cheapo monitor if they want), uses cheaper parts, and is a "bare bones" system comparable to the Wintel market. Display the Windows system in the Apple store (shock) on these computers. The mass market wants a cheap Mac that is compatible out of the box with their Windows software they don't care about Intel.

this whole idea of OsX on Intel is so stupid it is not even worth discussing....

Beatsme:
The reason why you don't get much software in walmart, circuit city is that the Macintosh hardware isn't as prevalent or cheap as Intel/Amd in those stores. If you had sony, or, hey, HP! selling a system with preinstalled OSX in that store, the shelves would reflect that, case in point, compusa. They sell OS X systems, and therefore people go back to where they bought the hardware to also find software.

In circuit city you find Playstation 2, Xbox, Gamecube, Gameboy advace in the same section. They sell the Consoles, and the games.

All that you need is a recompile for the software, and some testing. Not as easy as it sounds, yes, but easier than most would think.

And think. if you saw a poster in a store advertising, for $199, an OS that's easier than windows, virus free, better performing, automatically transfers old files and settings (because they're on the same harddrive) and you can see that software is available (right there on the same shelf). Don't you think people would bite?

"this whole idea of OsX on Intel is so stupid it is not even worth discussing...."


Ah, yes stickdoctor, but you just did.

I think if apple would do something like this it should approach it the same as they did with HP. Apple would make the system place another name on the product and sell it. Sony would be a good choice since they are quickly moving up in the windows market. I would definitely go for Apple to place a different name on there equipment but to move osx to intel platform would not be a good thing.

Jack, I can either be stupid or a troll I guess, but since you understood my meaning, what does that make you?

Seahawk, imac and emac sales are decreasing (the only part of apple that is shrinking), and would be doing worse if Apple were not still throwing emacs at educators. Take a grand and figure out what you can get in a pc vs. an emac and it is easy to figure out why. osX does not make up the difference in most people's minds.

SteveJack your smoking crack!

If Apple were truly interested in cracking the wintel market it should take an evolutionary path and not the revolutionary concept of porting OS X to X86. This OS X to X86 path is too full of risk and a minefield of dangers for a niche player like Apple to take. It is fraught with too many variables that could swallow Apple as it tries to support a potential massive market that could open the gates (no pun intended), to massive support issues as it tries to support OS X ported to X86.

Also, how does one solve the conundrum of porting OS X to x86 and protect the hardware( PPC) and software for the Mac from being marginalized? If Apple were to port OS X to X86 then why would anyone develop apps for the Mac side of OS X since you get essentially the same thing with X86! The Mac software developers will eventually stop developing for the Mac. The PPC and software will quickly wither away in a relative short amount of time.

A better route would be for Apple to take an evolutionary and less riskier approach. Apple should support the Darwine Project. Grab it by the horns and fully develop it into a true product that would allow windows apps to run on Mac OS X WITHOUT windows OS!
It is the best of both worlds is how I see. It's a safer strategy, it's an evolutionary natural step. You get the best of both worlds, you keep the PPC, Mac OS X and software intact and you get the benefit of windows apps without a windows OS in the way. But, having said that, I have not seen a shred of evidence that Apple is helping with even this effort.

The concept of porting to x86 is revolutionary but albeit too radical for Apple to undertake at this time. It would be in Apple's best interest to take the evolutionary step that the Darwine Project offers but even that idea doesn't even show up on Apple's radar. Without Apple's help, I think, the Darwine Project is for all intents and purposes DOA and therefore so is the radical idea of porting Mac OS X to X86.


Ron

I hope they do this then all the mac pukes would be sitting on their overpriced weirdware wondering how apple could sell them out. It would be classic. Apple stores would be giving prizes to the guy who buys the Last mac.

Headless iMac! Headless iMac! That's all we need right now.

Shabaz: X-Box is Windows. M$ is porting Windows to PPC. Do you think that port won't be available on other PPC boxes? Might not, but I think it will.

You totally didn't get my old equipment comment. Apple would have to make OS X run on older equipment in order to get those customers who won't buy a Mac because they already have equipment that they don't want to scrap. I wasn't saying PCs are slow. Try not to be so sensitive.

You would buy OS X for your PC, but the real demographic that Apple wants is corporate. They wouldn't buy OS X because they care nothing about Intel chips--it's Windows they're locked into.

"It's not that much harder to have Windows mode"? You're dreaming. VPC from M$, maybe.

"Minimal effort"? Dreaming again. There are many thousands of configurations out there. Microsoft does an outstanding job of supporting everything, and they still look bad. It's just too much to take on all at once. Just think of the video cards alone, most of which are no longer in production. What a waste of time. Apple would have to start out supporting only a few configurations, all the new Dells for example. Hardly a hydrogen bomb--more like a slow blade.

Shabaz:
no I don't think so. Every product is advertised as being better than the competition, and every consumer knows that. The fact that OSX actually IS better than Windows is irrelevant. Most people only know Windows (because it's what they use at work) and would much rather have that than risk buying something unfamiliar which, for all they know, may not work at all.

Then there's the issue of software. "Will I be able to run all of my Windows apps in OSX?" Maybe, but that would require some kind of VirtualPC app built into OSX, which would be slower than molasses and just as buggy and crash happy as Windows itself. To put it in "our" terms, if all you have are OS9 applications, what is the point of running OSX?

Also, I don't think "alternatives" to Windows have been very well received. You can get Linux, for example, at Best Buy, but how many people do you know that actually have a copy?

This, of course, is only my opinion...

From what I've seen, most people don't want to switch to Macs because they have invested in software for their Windows boxes, and would have to re-purchase it all, and in the corporate world, some proprietary software is written only for Windows. Porting OS X to x86 would not change this.

What's needed is some sort of "software exchange," that switchers could use to swap their pricey Windows-version software for Mac software at minimal expense. The software companies don't do this for the most part.

I agree there are downsides, and there must be a devils advocate, but Linux is difficult to administer, and has a reputation for being 'nerdy,' whereas you see apple, you think, cool computers/iPod. and Linux has been basically the only comercial OS available for x86 since IBM's OS/2 warp (to have any kind of advertising or recognition).

I think apple could do it, because the market is ripe for it. Virus are always in the news, and Microsoft is no champion of good corporate politics, either. And lets face it, nobody trusts microsoft (why should they). I want to buy an OS from somebody I trust.

So there are good arguements on both sides, but I want OS X (and I know they can do it).

As to the question of graphics drivers...You don't have to have quartz xtreme on every machine. if it's ati or nvidia, they already have unix teams, and so do many other graphics manufacturers. if Apple has trouble making drivers themselves, there are plenty to borrow from linux under the GPL.

One thing I think that some of you guys are missing is that BSD, NeXT, Unix and Linux have deep x86 roots, therefore a port would be alot easier as opposed to say, something like OS 9, which is made specifically for Apple hardware.

In any event, it's not that bad of an idea.

Personally, I like Ron Silvers's idea of Darwine. However, I believe Softwindows and Superdrive(floppy) were two of reasons Mac lost the market share in the first place. In early days, by becoming more Windows compatible, Mac users became more comfortible with Windows thus more willing to switch to Windows and many developers used it as an execuse to dropped the Mac version of their software. Darwine or Virtual PC may look like a good way for Windows users to try Mac, but users will only walk away with bad experience. Better approach may be WinMac or Virtual Mac. Mac applications will run slow on X86 (and Apple needs to make sure it does), but Windows users will get a taste of MacOS. Then Apple needs a killer apps, which everyone has to run on MacOSX or MacOSX emulator (e.g., iTune v6 or FileMaker?).

Shabaz: I agree that the port would be easy. I don't think it would produce a product that Apple (and Steve) would consider "worthy" of their time. You are correct that the drivers available for Unix could be used, but that would really hurt. There are also many various add-ons that would not be supported. I just don't think Apple would want to put their name on something that may or may not work with your computer.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to have a "geek-release"--sold as-is with no guarantees. That would create a lot of talk, wouldn't it?

I'd like to see a viable Office replacement before Apple flies in the face of the Beast, though.

Joe reread my post (I'll explain why). Shabaz: you are an exception: the great bulk of Wintel market is not made of users like you. Most use the computer as an electronic typewriter where they can surf the web, chat online and email.
For these users an eMac is even too much and the reason they are not buying it has nothing to do with price. It has more to do with the crazy certitudes Macs can't do this or that, or it is incompatible with tasks so trivial it is even silly to discuss about. eMac is the answer to the "Macs cost too much" and did not work because the target for that market is amazingly ignorant about computers. The sale person tells them "Mac do not do email with Windows" and they believe that. eMac poor sales are a proof that price was never the real issue and do please compare an eMac with same price PC: if a $800 PC is all you need you cannot *not* be satisfied with a $800 eMac. Unless you enjoy fighting viruses and spend most of your time with OS updates and removing maleware the hour you connect the first time.

Corporate users do not count for switchers: their company should and it will take time and disruptive viruses by the load for that to happen. Businesses will switch when the loss of money becomes unbearable.

Power users in academic and scientific world, usually working in a Unix/Windows environment: they ARE switching a lot and I witness that daily. For these users money have never been that much of an issue: I can change puter every 2 years and $4000 is within budget for that. Now with OS X there is no show stoppers to switch and it shows!

Others not in these categories may or not may switch, too many factors involved. iPod for them is indeed a trojan horse. We'll see...

Apple has done well with buying other peoples software, making it thier own (like Final Cut, Logic, Shake, OSX) I wonder if they bought something such as Corell's office suite and made it kick ass, and called it something like MacOffice, (or SuckItMicrosoft) would it be good? I wager it would work, and work well.

But I suppose that's more of a 'come to mac, my darlings' sortof move.

So, Microsoft is going to drop x86 and switch to PPC (see recent stories about the next gen XBox and game developers being seeded G5 systems running a version of Windows), and Apple is supposed to drop PPC and go x86?

Colour me Whatthefuckever.

i think a windows version for mac is more likely then
a mac os on x86. if apple fails with that move, then
they will die. microsoft on the other side could afford
as many experimental moves as they want (see x-box).
another point is the potential market for windows on a mac.
you buy this fancy hardware and you are able to run all
the latest software on it.

Seahawk, I guess you are saying that inexpensive Macs are not selling because of fud, while I am saying that they are not price competative with pc's.

mac os X on intel sure has taken on a life of its own. This rumor keeps coming back up again and again with little different varations. However I don't think it will ever happen. Why? What was the first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple? He ended the mac clone program on the power-pc. He never ever wanted other companies to build Macs, that why there were no Mac clones in the 1980's. And no Mac clones now, it was a bridge that Apple crossed (and burned) a long time ago. Microsoft makes lots of money selling their os because there is no other major choice so that what goes today. Microsoft has spent the last twenty years building that business, (remember they started out as with Office and as a contractor to IBM when they were to lazy to make their own os). When Apple tried the clones in the 1990's it was designed to increase the Mac part of the os pie, it didn't work largely because the clones ended up competing with Apple not Dell, Gateway etc. It was already too late to try that business model, and intel would be cloning just the same. Getting back to Intel, Power-pc mac apps don't run on intel, even with os X, all third party companies would have to rework there apps to run on it, its not that long ago that they had to do so to work with osx on power-pc. Its hard enough to keep some third party software on the mac to have to change it again. I think it would be cool to be on both platforms, to have super cheap intel macs, but the economics of it happening just don't work for Apple. Apple will make the best computers in the world forever but they will have to make other great things (like the ipod) to stay in the game. They will become more like Sony, but in an Apple way.

When will these mentally inept fools stop prodding Apple to bring OS X to a PC platform? Did you not pay attention to the last 20 years of the computer industry? The iPod should be an example of the amazing software and hardware engineering Apple employs. Why SHOULD they sign up with other manufacturers or port their product to the x86 platform? What's wrong with their product right now? Nothing. Except a manufactured and clueless public who are oblivious to the benefits of the complete package Apple offers. The PC platform is a barren landscape of screwups, shotty protocols, a lack of Q&A;, greed and god awful software and hardware engineering. It's an utter joke. If you want OS X, stop wasting all that money on customer support calls and buy a Mac. Period, end of story. Get over it.

The article's title is ridiculous. Apple Computer has been in business for over two decades, and has one of the strongest brands in the world. That brand, and the company, was not built on a fantastic MP3 player. And it will never reduce itself to the level the author suggests.

One more thought:

This idea of Steve Jack's presupposes that OS X is a Microsoft (ie Longhorn) killer. If true, then what makes the author believe customers will flee from M$'s OS and flock to OS X? OS X has been on shelves and drawing rave reviews for quite a while now. Yet the Switcher campaign is largely viewed as ineffective at best.

So what's with Apple's shrinking market share? "More expensive hardware" doesn't cut a sharp argument, imo.

What would you rather sell, 100,000 G5's or a billion copies of Panther?

"The PC platform is a barren landscape of screwups, shotty protocols, a lack of Q&A;, greed and god awful software and hardware engineering. It's an utter joke."

Obvioulsy yuo have no idea what is inside a mac and a PC.
Macs use the same hardware as a pc. The only real difference is the CPU.
My G5 has a Ati Radeon 9600, my PC a Radeon 7500
My G5 uses a crystal audio chip for it's built in audio, lo and behold my PC is using the exact same chip!
My G5 is using Serial ATA for the hard drive, My PC is too!
My G5 is using 400mhz DDR Ram, so is my PC!
My G5 is using a superdrive which is a Pioneer A06 DVD-+ R/RW drive with the + removed in firmware, Oh surprise! My PC is using the same drive except it has the +R/RW functionality!
Ever since Apple stopped putting SCSI as the built in sub system for drives there has been almost no difference in the hardware between Macs and PCs so stop pretending there is a big difference! Ther just isn't.

Joe: of course YMMV. The Wintel users I crossed gave me no reasons to think differently. To that respect I respect infinitely more a Wintel user telling me
s/he is a hard-core gamer hence sticks to the PC than a Wintel user describing me tasks a eMac at 100MHz (not a typo) would do perfectly well and that he needs Windows because he uses PowerPoint.

As a knowledgeable Wintel user - which I have no reasons to believe you are not - you have probably never challenged another Wintel user why sticking to Windows, hence you have never be exposed to the degree of stupidity I have witnessed.

Trust me: it is a an experience in the twilight world of FUD to the highest degree.

Matthew, read the news. Apple market share is raising as from last reports - source BusinessWeek - .

Apple will NOT break into corporate America. Don't waste your time waiting...

the article is completely backwards. The vast majority of consumers out there don’t know or care what x86 or PPC are. It was hard enough for them to learn windows and the their windows software and there is no interest in starting over from scratch no matter how many techie fiends tell them OS X is easy and much better. The OS Wars are over but Apple could kickass as a PC maker running Windows. Who wouldn’t buy and IMac over blaned stuff put out there by HP and even Sony, if they did not have to learn anything new to use it. As for price, martman pointed out the hardware is very similar so cost becomes a largely function of volume. BTW I am not suggesting they dump OS X just let the consumers decided for themselves OS X vs Windows. The Ipod proves their core strength is as a consumer design firm and marketing firm.

Two words: support nightmare

Oh, I forgot, they'd just outsource to India.