Quote :

"Consumers DO NOT THINK APPLE IS THE HARDWARE."

So when I go to an Apple store, that's why they have big banners touting MacOS X in all its glory?

If consumers don't equate Apple with THE MAC (which is more than the hardware per se, but the whole computing experience), then what do they equate Apple with? OS X? Puh-leeze. OS X was, if nothing else, a means to correct the problems with the previous versions of MacOS, which were a negative in consumers' eyes.

Quote :

"Microsoft has to support legacy products because of their Department of Defense contracts. It has absolutely nothing to do with success. They are locked into supporting age old standards until those contracts expire (which isn't for a while yet)."

In other words, they're "successful." I would also count their general support for all manner of x86 devices of all shapes, sizes, colors, and functions "legacy support" as well.

Quote :

"You missed the boat bigtime on that one. It's apparent from your post that you have little to no history with the platform or OS'. Having used Mac's since the IIe on up through classic and now to OSX, I can HONESTLY say that OSX is a BETTER desktop operating system than Windows in absolutely every sense."

Translation: you are OBVIOUSLY not a follower of MY religion, therefore you are unqualified to speak about it.

And this isn't even Slashdot!

My point is that better != marketable. The WORLD is locked into Windows, because practically every desktop application has been developed and sold for the Win32 platform.

And that's to say nothing of their pervasive OEM contracts.

It's all well and good to talk about competition in the abstract, but Microsoft has the market locked in. They own a platform, not a search engine. Switching platforms is very expensive, and it's made even more expensive by their cradle-to-grave OEM distribution channels.

This goes back to that whole Betamax vs. VHS cliche. The technically-better product doesn't always win (I would argue it usually doesn't).

Quote :

"My point is, it's ALREADY BEING DONE, so why shouldn't Apple capitalize on it? The ISV's aren't doing any more port work than they already are, yet now they get a NEW market."

They only get a NEW MARKET if the switch actually brings in NEW CUSTOMERS, versus just cannibalizing the existing market by creating a rocky transition from Mac PPC to Mac x86.

My idea of a new market is Win32, because there's a whole body of customers locked into that platform. A new chipset is just another piece of technology.

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 11:47 PM. Reason : foo]

[Edited on June 6, 2005 at 11:48 PM. Reason : foo]

6/6/2005 11:46:32 PM

Quote :

"So when I go to an Apple store, that's why they have big banners touting MacOS X in all its glory? If consumers don't equate Apple with THE MAC (which is more than the hardware per se, but the whole computing experience)"

Exactly. Apple is about the user EXPERIENCE. That is the interfaces and the visual design. An Apple user could care less if its power by x86, PPC or plum pudding as long as its visually appealing and effortless. The exterior hardware does matter, internal doesn't.

Quote :

"In other words, they're "successful." I would also count their general support for all manner of x86 devices of all shapes, sizes, colors, and functions "legacy support" as well."

Again, it really has no direct correlation to success. And they have attempted to move away from legacy support several times, to no avail. Longhorn *should* be the first truly legacy-free optioned OS.

Quote :

"Translation: you are OBVIOUSLY not a follower of MY religion, therefore you are unqualified to speak about it. And this isn't even Slashdot!"

Hardly, if you followed my posting on this site at all, I have rarely if ever been a fanboy. But my background is in HCI and interface design, along with graphic design. And from that background, OSX is MUCH better designed, much more consistent and is really a triumph of a GUI with the ability to dig in deep via a shell.

Quote :

"My point is that better != marketable. The WORLD is locked into Windows, because practically every desktop application has been developed and sold for the Win32 platform. And that's to say nothing of their pervasive OEM contracts. ... Switching platforms is very expensive, and it's made even more expensive by their cradle-to-grave OEM distribution channels. "

I absolutely agree with you.

That said, I think there is a massive market segment that is just waiting for an excuse to get off windows, but there aren't any financially viable alternatives.

6/7/2005 1:33:53 AM

I dunno why anyone would say that MacOS is better in terms of HCI

The single click in itself is enough to piss me off. You could keep the button pressed longer to enable context menus, but then again, I hardly think that it is any better than having a 2 button mouse. Also, the lack of a scroll wheel is also pretty damn non user-friendly.

Microsoft spends more money on HCI issues than any other conpany out there. I think you're confusing eye candy with HCI. I don't think that visual effects like the flowing down of windows into the little bar down there constitutes HCI.

Nor does the fact that you need to click on more than one area on the screen if you wanna CLOSE an application.

6/7/2005 4:52:17 AM

OS X supports multi button mice, and it supports the scroll wheel. What are you talking about? You COULD use just a one-button mouse (like I do) because the interface is designed so well, it seems to be enough.

As for closing applications, this is not even a problem. First of all, you don't close applications all the time. You certainly don't do it more often than opening them, and I haven't heard you complain about the fact thatin Windows (unlike MAc OS X), it takes 3 clicks to open an application unless it's in the QuickLaunch area which normally has 3-5 icons.

6/7/2005 8:51:52 AM

i have 12 icons in my quicklaunch bar because my taskbar is vertical, so it fits 3 across and easily fits 4 rows while taking up zero otherwise-useful real estate.

6/7/2005 8:54:43 AM

OK, exactly the same place that would be occupied by the task bar in Windows contains 25 Application icons in Mac OS X (because there're no buttons for individual windows).


I mean, I've got no intention to sell you Mac OS X if you like Windows. I just thought of all complaints one could come up with, closing application is the most strange.

Plus the stability of the system allows you not to close applications (virtually ever). That's what I do. I have 12-15 of them running all the time, and it hasn't been a problem. If I need to exit a particular one, Cmd-Q (the analog of Alt-F4) works just fine.

6/7/2005 9:01:45 AM

yeah, i wasn't particularly arguing one way or another - just throwing my 2-cents in.
in fact, I was planning on buying a Mini this summer and trying to transfer all my data and programs and such to OS X, but, as with many people, i'm sure, now i'm not in such a hurry....

6/7/2005 9:05:14 AM

I'm gonna buy a new Mac anyway. The transition isn't gonna be complete for a long time, and I will need a good computer in the meantime anyway. My Powerbook is now 2 years old and I don't consider it such an outdated piece at all.

6/7/2005 9:13:47 AM

well actually, i may be headed to germany for my work in August for 6+ months, and a Mac Mini sure would be nicer to transport than my big fucking tower. so I may still be up for it, then I'll worry about upgrading in a couple years.....

anyway, back to aruging over Excoriator's failed bet.

6/7/2005 9:27:20 AM

Quote :

"So if you want speed, forced Upgrade!!!!!!"

Welcome to the world of computing

6/7/2005 10:04:37 AM

Quote :

"So if you want speed, forced Upgrade!!!!!!"

like that hasn't been the current apple stance on hardware.

You want osx to run on your g3? Only some are supported.

Want a better video card for your g4 cube? shell out made cash for a reflashed gf 2 mx on ebay.

Going to intel will make upgrades possible on the mac in ways they haven't been before.

this is nothing but good news for mac users.

Now wether or not its good for apple we'll find out.

6/7/2005 10:55:56 AM

i wish they'd just sell the god damned operating system for non-apple computers

how the hell do they plan on keeping it restricted to apple-only x86 machines?

6/7/2005 11:18:40 AM

OpenFirmware.

The intel based macs will still boot with an OpenFirmware as opposed to a PC BIOS.

6/7/2005 11:28:33 AM

^ they did say you'd be able to run other OSs (such as windows) on the intel-based macs.... just a guess, but i'm thinking windows won't boot out of openfirmware

edit: nevermind, they didn't say you'd be able to...they just said people probably will

Quote :

""After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.""

but they did say they won't do anything to preclude the possibility

[Edited on June 7, 2005 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2005 11:33:45 AM

Quote :

"I dunno why anyone would say that MacOS is better in terms of HCI The single click in itself is enough to piss me off. You could keep the button pressed longer to enable context menus, but then again, I hardly think that it is any better than having a 2 button mouse. Also, the lack of a scroll wheel is also pretty damn non user-friendly."

of all of the possible arguments you could make, that's gotta be the worst. I use a MS Intellimouse explorer with my Mac. 4 buttons + scroll wheel. Didn't have to download any extra drivers.

Quote :

"Microsoft spends more money on HCI issues than any other conpany out there. I think you're confusing eye candy with HCI. I don't think that visual effects like the flowing down of windows into the little bar down there constitutes HCI."

I really don't think you can argue one has better HCI than another. They both have pros and cons, but I suspect that any perception of MS having superior HCI is mostly due to the pervasiveness of windows more so than anything else.

Quote :

"Nor does the fact that you need to click on more than one area on the screen if you wanna CLOSE an application."

not true at all. If you're asserting that closing a window doesn't close an application, yes that's true, but clicking file-> quit is still "clicking one area" or using Command+Q is even quicker (I've always preferred keyboard shortcuts to pointing and clicking).


--

anyway, on the original thread topic, i think moving to an intel based processor is a good thing for the end user. It's a shame that there'll be even less competition in the CPU market, but IBM just couldn't seem to deliver a product that could keep up with the industry.

6/7/2005 11:35:33 AM

well, I admit I have had negligible experience with macs outside of NCSU, and have never used a scroll mouse.

But I would stand by my post that I find Windows XP overall a much more user friendly experience.

6/7/2005 11:41:31 AM

i think it's less user friendly but much more understandable to somebody with years and years of experience with the windows product line

[Edited on June 7, 2005 at 12:56 PM. Reason : depends on attributes inherited by "user"]

6/7/2005 12:55:58 PM

I think the only way you could really prove that would be to survey a large group of people who have never used either interface and do a series of test cases in performing various actions.

Of course, then you run into the fact that 99.9999% of people who have never used either interface are not computer saavy at all and you'll have the learning curve of initial HCI to contend with as well... unless you can find lifelong unix users or something...

heh

6/7/2005 12:56:31 PM

you could do the survey with a bunch of elementary school kids who learned to type (like i had to) on little machines that weren't anything close to the pcs we were allowed to "move up to" only after we passed 20 wpm

6/7/2005 12:59:36 PM

Quote :

"And from that background, OSX is MUCH better designed, much more consistent and is really a triumph of a GUI with the ability to dig in deep via a shell"

Consistent with what? Part of consistency is being in line with user expectations. Windows has more or less defined how a GUI should look, act, and feel. It may not be the right way according to the _theory_ of HCI, but it's so grounded in day-to-day practice that people are turned off by changing.

Do read: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000061.html ("Consistency and Other Hobgoblins" by Spolsky):

Quote :

"1. Even if it's not right, if Microsoft is doing it in a popular program like Word, Excel, Windows, or Internet Explorer, then millions of people are going to think that it's right, or at least, fairly standard, and they are going to assume that your program works the same way. Even if you think (as the Netscape 6.0 engineers clearly do) that Alt+Left is not a good shortcut key for "Back", there are literally millions of people out there who will try to use Alt+Left to go back, and if you refuse to do it on some general religious principle that Bill Gates is the evil smurf arch-nemesis Gargamel, then you are just gratuitously ruining your program so that you can feel smug and self-satisfied, and your users will not thank you for it. 2. And don't be so sure it's not right. Microsoft spends more money on usability testing than you do, they keep detailed statistics based on millions of tech support phone calls, and there's a darn good chance that they did it that way because more people can figure out how to use it that way."

I think both 1 and 2, in combination (but neither in itself) are good reasons why virtually no UI will EVER be more accepted than the Windows "standard" UIs are now. They simply have too much saturation; they're like the QWERTY keyboard.

Quote :

"how the hell do they plan on keeping it restricted to apple-only x86 machines?"

They probably can't, but they could (in principle) make it difficult to port around to other machines, so that only techies would do it.

6/7/2005 8:54:26 PM

well fuck

as long as somebody can do it

6/7/2005 8:56:35 PM

no interface will EVER be more accepted than Windows??

oh yeah, you want to ask Tom Cruise about that!?!

6/7/2005 8:59:06 PM

This thread is now officially a clusterfuck.

6/7/2005 9:02:18 PM

Regarding UI, being consistent with windows' crappy design is not much of an issue once Apple has your money and you have a mac. You will learn. All apple has to do is hype how much better designed it is and have a few killer features you can demo quickly in a store to the average user.

Secondly, size of UI budget doesn't mean dick, especially in the case of microsoft. They spend millions and still don't get something right until they copy someone else or buy out someone.

6/7/2005 10:18:49 PM

^

OK, so Apple uses its clout and capital to create a cult following of Mac OS X lovers. Gee, that sounds familiar... I'm not denying that Apple can SELL OS X on its merits, but the question is how much. Just having a better product doesn't mean people will buy it en masse and adopt it as a standard, especially when the #1 product has a vice grip on all OEM distribution channels.

Hell, if people cared so much about software quality that it could overcome hurdles like "total market domination," my life would be a lot easier.

Also I think average consumers have a hard time conceptualizing what "software quality" is, especially fuzzy areas like HCI. My feeling is they tend to latch onto graphic design a bit more and, frankly, XP is hardly lacking in that regard. Longhorn certainly won't.

Quote :

"They spend millions and still don't get something right until they copy someone else or buy out someone."

Well according to many die-hard *ix users, the bash shell is the ultimate UI. So I'll humbly suggest that maybe you're just biased in this matter--what's right for granny is perhaps not right for you.

The other conclusion we can reach is "Microsoft is full of dumbasses who can't figure out UI because they're genetically unable!"

6/7/2005 11:33:39 PM

Quote :

"The other conclusion we can reach is "Microsoft is full of dumbasses who can't figure out UI because they're genetically unable!" "

At least we can agree on something.

I suppose you can couple that with fierce internal politics, reluctance to ditch old ways of doing things, proclivity for feature-itis, slothful size, and an institutional lack of taste.

[Edited on June 8, 2005 at 12:04 AM. Reason : sdfs]

6/7/2005 11:52:51 PM

Lets all agree to L O L at all mac fan boys who are still sore from their pwnting.

6/8/2005 1:07:33 AM

L O L

6/8/2005 1:18:21 AM

I feel retarded now from reading this.

6/8/2005 7:10:19 AM

Both of you

Silence.

6/8/2005 9:17:16 AM

wouldn't it be so much easier if everything was the same and it was simple? only one person would sell it, but we would keep the prices low by making the government controll the prices.....




we could call it comuni.....


OH SHIT!

6/8/2005 9:41:50 AM

...funny, even though I wouldn't trade my mac for a pc anyday..

[Edited on June 8, 2005 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2005 10:26:38 AM

Quote :

"Consistent with what? Part of consistency is being in line with user expectations. Windows has more or less defined how a GUI should look, act, and feel. It may not be the right way according to the _theory_ of HCI, but it's so grounded in day-to-day practice that people are turned off by changing. "

Consistent with ITSELF. Windows hasn't had a consistent navigational or structural UI ever. (Although I will admit that 2000->XP->Longhorn is finally establishing *some* consistency)

Apple has maintained the same solid UI since some of the first Iterations of the classic Mac OS.

Quote :

"I think both 1 and 2, in combination (but neither in itself) are good reasons why virtually no UI will EVER be more accepted than the Windows "standard" UIs are now. They simply have too much saturation; they're like the QWERTY keyboard. "

See that is the funny thing. As much money and research as they pour into HCI (and yes, I know they do), they still find ways to systematically borrow each new UI element that Apple brings to their own OS.

I don't want to get in an origins argument, because we all know both GUI's were effectively originated from and stolen from Xerox, but since that time, Microsoft has had a way of magically adopting the same methodologies as the Mac OS.

As for shortcuts, 80+% are exactly the same from Windows to OSX, and unlike windows, in OSX you can customize them to your liking (in my case to make them EXACTLY like windows)

Quote :

"Well according to many die-hard *ix users, the bash shell is the ultimate UI. So I'll humbly suggest that maybe you're just biased in this matter--what's right for granny is perhaps not right for you."

A shell IS the ultimate UI. It has the highest learning curve, but it also the least limited. This is a fact, not any bias. You can talk to ANY interface designer and they will tell you the same.

But in survey after survey of completely non-technical users, the MacOS is found MUCH less intimidating, easier to learn and understand and easier to use.

The problem with Apple has been a two fold stigma, one financial obviously, and the other has been the perception that it just couldn't do what a PC could.

As for OEM distribution channels, times they are a changing. Give it a few years yet. Compaq and Gateway are heading out, leaving Dell as basically the only big kid on the block. And if anyone knows anything about economics in technology, IT monopolies are short lived.

6/8/2005 3:04:37 PM

I think you're confusing User Interface with Computer Interface.

Shell is not practical for say browsing the Internet or editing video.

6/8/2005 3:34:11 PM

Quote :

"But in survey after survey of completely non-technical users, the MacOS is found MUCH less intimidating, easier to learn and understand and easier to use. "

And that comes entirely from not knowing what to do.

The very first time I was dropped into a linux shell I had no idea what to do. All I had was this stupid promt staring me in the face with no clue where to go or what to even try. The thing about the GUI and the reason people find it less intimidating is because the GUI gives you some clues as to where to go. Consider a blank desktop and assume a user at least has basic knowledge of a mouse. You have a picture on the desktop that says "My Computer" or "Macintosh HD" or something and if you're in a mac, you have a menu bar at the top. Even without knowing a thing, it's not unreasonable for a user to start pointing the mouse at things and clicking it.

A few clicks and attemps and a user can find out what is in this "My Computer". In a *nix promt, it would probably take forever for the user to figure out that they need to type ls to see whats there.

6/8/2005 5:59:42 PM

Quote :

"And that comes entirely from not knowing what to do. The very first time I was dropped into a linux shell I had no idea what to do. All I had was this stupid promt staring me in the face with no clue where to go or what to even try. The thing about the GUI and the reason people find it less intimidating is because the GUI gives you some clues as to where to go. Consider a blank desktop and assume a user at least has basic knowledge of a mouse. You have a picture on the desktop that says "My Computer" or "Macintosh HD" or something and if you're in a mac, you have a menu bar at the top. Even without knowing a thing, it's not unreasonable for a user to start pointing the mouse at things and clicking it. "

This is wrong for so many reasons, it's not even worth dissecting. But it's completely wrong.

Quote :

"A few clicks and attemps and a user can find out what is in this "My Computer". In a *nix promt, it would probably take forever for the user to figure out that they need to type ls to see whats there. "

Duh. Doesn't have anything to do with the power of a shell prompt.

Quote :

"I think you're confusing User Interface with Computer Interface. Shell is not practical for say browsing the Internet or editing video."

The GUI for the OS and the GUI for it's applications are not necessarily one in the same. And even in browsing the internet and in editing video, having a command prompt is very useful for advanced features.

6/8/2005 6:47:15 PM

Quote :

"Apple has maintained the same solid UI since some of the first Iterations of the classic Mac OS."

Exactly. The same one that NOBODY USES.

Quote :

"As much money and research as they pour into HCI (and yes, I know they do), they still find ways to systematically borrow each new UI element that Apple brings to their own OS."

Yea, I heard this one already. Mind pointing out the Start Menu in OS X to me?

Or how about, in Windows, the "single, overarching menu bar?"

It's funny how Windows "copies Mac OS" except for all the fundamental ways that users "do things."

Quote :

"As for OEM distribution channels, times they are a changing. Give it a few years yet. Compaq and Gateway are heading out, leaving Dell as basically the only big kid on the block. And if anyone knows anything about economics in technology, IT monopolies are short lived."

Yea, I figure Microsoft's monopoly will be short-lived--Bill Gates has, what, maybe another good 30 years before he retires or dies? That's not so long.

Who cares if Dell is the only big kid on the block? Microsoft has a MONOPOLY. They aren't just the market leader. Being a monopoly means you own the infrastructure that supports a market, and nobody else has a chance of building a competing one.

Just look at Apple itself: its success is more or less buoyed by Microsoft's support of Office for the Mac. Noone wants a PC that won't run Office. Everyone is locked into using Office because its proprietary format is the standard for document data interchange.

So let's assume Mac made a big jump and got over the OEM hurdle--granted, you've not given any hints as to how they could actually do this, but let's assume they did for the sake of argument. Heck, let's even assume Mac OS became SO popular, they started to accrue 10% of the PC OS marketshare.

Then guess what? Microsoft can just pull its support for Office. And the government can't complain because, all of a sudden, Mac OS is a legitimate competitor by virtue of their size, and Microsoft has no obligation to support a direct and immediate threat to their business.

(and even if the government still came down against them--however unjust or improbable--we've seen how REALLY willing they are to actually act upon it)

And that scenario is assuming the BEST CASE where Mac OS improbably overcomes the OEM distribution hurdle to get a decent shot at getting ANY market share whatsoever.

[Edited on June 8, 2005 at 8:17 PM. Reason : foo]

6/8/2005 8:16:24 PM

office is moving to new, "open" file formats anyways

6/8/2005 8:44:40 PM

^^ Which is why Microsoft needs to be split.

6/8/2005 9:29:39 PM

OpenOffice is decent and free.

6/8/2005 9:43:18 PM

Well, personally I don't use Office except for Excel and even that is just because I got it for free. Word is simply a crappy program that produces documents of a very poor quality (and I didn't use Word when I was using nothing but Windows either).

From what I have seen, the majority of people create very simple documents in Word, i.e. they change fonts, inserta tables and pictures. I don't think it's a big deal to read such documents for any other software.

6/8/2005 10:06:25 PM

Quote :

"Who cares if Dell is the only big kid on the block? Microsoft has a MONOPOLY. They aren't just the market leader. Being a monopoly means you own the infrastructure that supports a market, and nobody else has a chance of building a competing one"

Dude, I am not debating whether or not Microsoft has a monopoly. I know they do. I realize full well that they have a death grip on OEM's and crazy fucked up distribution channels.

BUT, you know the funny thing is this is EXACTLY what everyone said about IBM 15 years ago. This is the same thing everyone said about Atari and then Nintendo in the home console markets.

Microsoft is currently the big anomaly in the tech world. And they are still doing a damn good job of staying on top. But it helps that they don't have any real competition.

Apple has a competing product that now is cost viable. It's also has a lot going for it that companies look for.

The move away from MS will start just as the move to windows did. That is the techheads and current Apple owners who just want something different.

From there it moves to small vendors and IT consultants who, at least here in the US, have a BIG impact on small business technology. Not a big impact on market share, but its a HUGE impact on Public Relations. It will definitely be a good 5-7 years before we can even imagine any major corporations making the switch, but I don't see it being out of the realm of possibility.

Really the BIG thing holding this back, is Apple's "promise" that OSX won't run on Vanilla PC's. Until this changes, you can ignore everything I just said. But I have absolute confidence that we will see OSX or OSXI on ordinary PC's in three years or less.

6/8/2005 10:11:43 PM

Lets not forget the opensource roots of OSX

6/9/2005 12:31:19 AM

dual boot here I come

6/9/2005 1:08:35 AM

Quote :

" And if anyone knows anything about economics in technology, IT monopolies are short lived."

Dell is hardly a monopoly.

It is just too good and cost effective at everything it does.

And that means printers, blade servers, networking equipment, VDUs, CPUs, laptops, and other peripherals, not excluding PDAs.

6/9/2005 1:13:58 AM

^ I was referring to MS, not dell.

Though if current trends persist, Dell will be a US monopoly in the next 5-7 years.

6/9/2005 2:43:06 AM

The funny thing is that its not anything that Dell is doing tounlawfully propel them there. Most Americans just aren't computer savvy so they go with a name they know and one someone recommends.

6/9/2005 9:51:47 AM

^^the thing is, neither did Microsoft.

And they still aren't. People just get their fucking panties in a wad anytime someone gets successful. All this anti-trust is a bunch of complete fucking bullshit.

6/9/2005 11:42:47 AM

cmon Neon

you just threw all your credibility out of the window by posting that.

6/9/2005 11:45:44 AM

Quote :

"Dude, I am not debating whether or not Microsoft has a monopoly."

Dude, that was the opening sentence of my post. Did you perhaps bother reading the actual point I was making?

Smoker4:

Quote :

"Just look at Apple itself: its success is more or less buoyed by Microsoft's support of Office for the Mac. Noone wants a PC that won't run Office. Everyone is locked into using Office because its proprietary format is the standard for document data interchange. So let's assume Mac made a big jump and got over the OEM hurdle--granted, you've not given any hints as to how they could actually do this, but let's assume they did for the sake of argument. Heck, let's even assume Mac OS became SO popular, they started to accrue 10% of the PC OS marketshare. Then guess what? Microsoft can just pull its support for Office. And the government can't complain because, all of a sudden, Mac OS is a legitimate competitor by virtue of their size, and Microsoft has no obligation to support a direct and immediate threat to their business. (and even if the government still came down against them--however unjust or improbable--we've seen how REALLY willing they are to actually act upon it) And that scenario is assuming the BEST CASE where Mac OS improbably overcomes the OEM distribution hurdle to get a decent shot at getting ANY market share whatsoever."

Even if Apple has a competing OS, they STILL don't have OFFICE.

6/9/2005 12:08:18 PM