Greg A. Woods wrote:

> [ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 14:50:18 (-0800), paul wrote: ]
> 
>>Subject: Re: IP: Wal-Mart PC, Operating System *Not* Included: $399 (fwd)
>>
>>Greg A. Woods wrote:
>>
>>>I think it's somewhat funny for you to say that from "mac.com"!  ;-)
>>>
>>laugh all you like, Mac OS is UNIX now ;-) and I think the average 
>>user will do better installing and maintaining Mac OS than the 
>>Leading Brand.
>>
> 
> No, that's not what I meant -- Apple doesn't even want to make OS X
> available on PC hardware, even though it'll no doubt compile and run
> just fine (even the proprietary bits not in Darwin), because apparently
> they don't want to put a dent in their own hardware market (which
> undoubtably they would if they supported OS X on i386).


As does Sun: that's where the money is . . . . I dunno how well 
Darwin runs on Intel, might have to try it. It is out there, after 
all, just minus the Aqua GUI bits.


> In other words Apple's doing what almost everybody _but_ M$ have done
> all along in this industry!   M$ has effectively had to resort to
> nefrious business practices in order to convince the otherwise
> independent hardware makers to lock buyers into using M$'s software.


Had to resort? That's  a bit strong. No one *has* to cheat to 
play, merely to ensure "winning" however that's defined.


> Maybe if most of the "PC" makers were to do what Wallmart is apparently
> doing then Apple (or some spin-off of its OS group, like Taligent was
> IIRC) and M$ could compete on a much more even playing ground.  Maybe
> then M$ could sue Apple for locking users into OS X on Apple hardware! ;-)


I wouldn't mind seeing more choice.


> (I wonder why Wallmart doesn't just buy M$ in a hostile takeover?
> They're probably one of the few companies that could!  :-)


Ugh, why would they want that?