MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

as long as macs take over the world, that all I care about.

Stop it with this BS. Apple sells hardware and has Apple stores to sell their hardware.

Whatever SJ shows at Macworld, the theme song for its intro should be The Gap Band's 'You Dropped A Bomb On Me'.

2006 is going a very interesting year.

Running both Apple and Windows applications simultaneously in native speed on an Intel-based OS X Mac would be the single most important development in Apple's history to date.

I would be thrilled if this became a reality.

Steve,

Where's the BS? Apple would sell tons more hardware (and Dell, HP, et al would sell tons less) if Intel-based Macs could run Mac OS X and Windows apps at native speeds! You'd have to be a rabidly anti-Apple moron to buy anything else but a Mac.

Apple wins and Microsoft has no recourse. MS can't tie Windows to specific hardware - as Apple can with Mac OS X and Macs - because the vast majority of Windows boxes are not brand-name PCs, but rather white-box and grey-box PCs.

Performance per watt. I think Apple would have a real support problem trying to use a Darwine-like technology. Let people buy Windows if they want to. There's no reason to throw rocks at Microsoft. MS helped the Mac become successful in the beginning with the Office Apps which were on Mac first.

Apple and MS have a long relationship. We CAN get along. If MS decides to embrace Mac OS X truely, I think MS could be a great supplier of software. The Mac Office suite is fairly Mac-like. I think it could be better if give proper support.

Apple has to think about enterprise customers if it wants to win. They are using MS. Mac will not be compatible without the support of MS. Lets not be assholes to MS. When Apple wins back the desktop, let's hope that the incredible pace of innovation just keeps going.

Maybe in 5 years Apple will have a new chalenge and a new computing platform that will be the next electronic revolution. The desktop as we know it is not the final battle. It's not about Apple vs MS. It's about being able to do great in creative work and enjoy doing it. We all can win. Nobody has to be the loser.

For my job, I will be happy to run Windows or Windows apps at native speeds on my Mac. However, the one thing I don't want to see is software vendors dropping the Mac versions of their apps (or never considering them) and instead saying, "you can run the windows version on your Mac, so why should we develop two versions for two different platforms?"

This would make me sad.

I don't see vendors supporting Windows over Mac because Mac users can buy Windows. I do see more pirated versions of Windows in the future though. Mac users will be loath to purchase Windows. Who wants to buy two $100+ OSes for one computer?

No, this is a transision machine. A switcher machine. A take-over. We all know that once Windows sufferes see the better way, the Apple way, they will stay. Of course Windows will likey run better on the better-engineered Apple hardware as well.

Apple wins either way. Apple is dipping into a developer pool that vastly outnumbers the current pool. The problem will likely be a degradation of the high Mac programming standards. That would be sad. I hope the new Mac developers get a good orientation when writing Mac software. Otherwise Mac will end up being a dumping ground for crappy software that we are not accustomed to. Our new neighbors may not be welcome.

There are many very good Windows programmers we would invite with open arms. I hope Apple gives them every incentive to write for the Mac.

This is the final battle. The defeat of the fell forces of Micro-Sauron is eminent. Elven beauty and innovation by Lord Jobs will bring Micro-Sauron and the Orcs to their knees.

The #1 Mac developer is Apple. Somehow, I don't see them dropping Mac-only apps to write Windows versions.

People buy Macs because they like Mac OS X and Mac apps. Windows-only devs, if anything, would write Mac apps (universal binaries) instead. Especially if more and more people buy Macs.

Do it, Steve! Drop the hydrogen bomb!

A lot of these speculations may be true in the long term. However, for 2006 the priorities are to ensure a complete transition for the full product line from PowerPC to Intel, and continue hammering the Windows users with the rumored insanely great CE products (home server/DVR, a true video iPod, gaming, seamless services etc.). This will weaken their will to stay in the Windows camp. Later, when seamless interoperability happens, it will be a no brainer as to which hardware people will buy.

Intel has been frustrated with Windows and M$' sluggishness in pushing their processors to its limits. The Apple Intel partnership pushes each company to the edge of the excellence envelope and no doubt great performance and features are planned for the future.

^ your gay.

In my opinion, there were several reasons that Steve Jobs decided to make the switch (no G5 Powerbook, the heat issue, slow development cycle at IBM, the 3 GHz. pie in the face, etc.) However, I think that he and the engineers at Apple realized these other potential benefits, too. I think that they will do this in typical step-wise Apple fashion. In other words, initially systems will be dual-boot only if the consumer decides to install another OS. Then, only later will they provide a Windoze-less Darwine-like solution (which will be SWEET!). I can't imagine Apple providing revenue for Microsucks by requiring their customers to purchase a Windoze OS in order to run Windoze apps. At least this is what I hope.

Woo Hoo! Second post! How come no one ever says that?

Well, it was the second post when I started writing it. Oh, well....maybe that's why no one says it.

of COURSE Steve Jobs wants the industry he co-started back! Who wouldn't? There is no better time then now to do this!! (or at least, deliver the first shot)

And clearly, Josh, you need to pay more attention in class when it comes to grammar - 8th grade, is it?

How about a compromise...releasing an older version of osx, like 10.2, for x86 and keeping the newest versions tied to Apple hardware?

 
Hey, Gang, listen up a minute here.

It took Microsoft about a decade to get its users to accept the very idea of a mouse that clicks. Those silly people had exhausted themselves learning their command lines and after so many years of that sort of investment, they didn't want to be told to forget command lines. Some still long for those means of using command lines.

So, no matter what Apple Computer does, Gates' fans will continue to support him and wait faithfully for him to patch up their system in due course (and if it takes forever, no matter for they really don't do anything with their computers besides the simplest tasks that could be supported by an operating system far less exotic than Windows ever hoped to be. Consider this a matter of institutional lethargy. People so disposed wouldn't enjoy a Mac operating system in any event. Thirty years from now you might ask them why they haven't switched and they will admit they never knew they had such an opportunity.

The people switching to the Mac OS will be the few, the proud, those with above average aspirations. They will be sufficient in numbers, too.
 

Me thinks SJ has much bigger plans than just cool running PowerBooks.

There are already a ton of people running Winblows apps (including games) on a 'nix on top of Intel: Wine, Codeweavers, etc. So obviously running Windblows apps on an Intel based OS X Macintosh is possible.

I don't think Jobs with an unbelievably lucky second kick at the can intends to loose out to Gates and crew again. Everyone knows Apple makes superior products (hardware and software). Now the trick is to get the masses lapping up Macintosh like they do iPod.

That's why 2006 won't be like, ah, 2006®

Rock SJ!

Once again, the reality of the Intel switch is easy to evaluate. The biggest objection PC users have to switching is software availability. If Apple can create an environment where running Windows in dual boot or along side the Mac OS, make VPC a better option, or even allow Windows apps to run sans Windows itself, then the objection disappears, and marketshare skyrockets.

All this DRM / punish IBM reasoning may have some small basis, but trust me, this is the real reason. It's a brilliant strategy. it worked once weening people from Os9 to OSX and it will work again.

Cubert and others...

MS makes little or no revenue directly from the Windows OS. Most of their revenue comes from apps than run on Windows, and support contracts. So their cash cows are actually Office and Exchange and all the corporate contracts they have, plus a bit more from the .NET development tools. They guarantee this revenue by having Windows as the OEM OS in all those grey boxes.

Allow me to dream:
Theoretically, it is actually possible for MS to continue to make good revenue if all their apps would run on Apple Macs natively. They may even abandon making Windows (will never happen until Apple has a strong hold on the corporate world). The difficulties they will run into are that their apps will have new competition, and their support contracts will be much slimmer (unless they are willing to support Darwine-related problems--an impossible thought). They will save money though by not placing so much of their resources propping up a broken OS.

So a win-win (Apple wins the OS war, MS continues to dominate through their other apps) hypothetical situation seems to me to be possible, if not very probable.

I think the biggest impact will be to the PC makers ... if someone needs to run Windows on one of the new Macs and is able to ... Apple gets the hardware sale and MS can still get a potential sale as well ... so I am sure MS won't be too upset over this ... at least initially.

MS has already demonstrated a willingness to backstab the PC makers ... ie. the Xbox 360 ... for the short term ... I think Dell is the initial target for SJ ... not MS (they are a later target).

One problem with the Darwine/Cupertino Project concept is that, despite all efforts to get M$ to come clean and offer up their APIs to developers, they do not. Well, they offer some miniscule amount, but not all. For years this has meant that street Windows application developers have been at a disadvantage compared to M$ internal application developers. M$ can pull a fast one on street developers with features in their own software that are unavailable anywhere else. Developers with special deals with M$ are sometimes handed a secret or two.

Obviously this has an impact on what applications can run on a Darwine/Cupertino Project system. We are not talking about running Windows on a hardware emulator here. If we were then all the API support would be available. But with Darwine/Cupertino Project that API support would NOT all be available. Since the D/CP developers would not know anything more than any other street developer, this will limit what Windows applications can run on Mac OS X86.

Is D/CP going to offer complete DirectX support. Nope! So much for running most Windows games natively on MOSX. Is it going to offer complete ActiveX support? Nope! Etc. The result will be clunky compared to paying M$ for the MOSX86 compatible version of Virtual PC (or whatever name it will have seeing as hardware emulation will not be required) running the latest version of Windows. The idea is to make Windows a legacy OS, not prolong its parasitic life.

In other words, I fully expect D/CP will only be of minor use or interest. What a shame.

For now I think Apple have a bigger worry: Getting Rosetta to run at a reasonable speed. All reports I have read indicate that so far it does not. That could be one big ass problem.

MacMania:

I love the Orwelian remark...

If there is a real bomb coming up, do you think we'll see another "Orwellesque" commercial, somthing like the "1984" ad?

Too Hot!,
I don't believe M$ doesn't make money from Windoze. My understanding is that Office and Windoze are their cash cows. Any links/evidence to support your claim?
Thanks!

Freedom at Last, Thank you Apple, Thank you Intel.

Finally I'll be able to Ditch Windows to the Trash Basket of Computer History.

Since Moving to OS X Five Years Ago I have Needed but been Unable
to Open my archived Outlook email .PST files -- thanks to Monopolist MSFT.

Yeah, yeah, I know: You Can Do Anything on a Mac, sure, of course,
unless you work in an actual office that uses Microsoft Outlook to run email;
(like every business in the world that I know of)
because in that case you Need to Run Windows if you ever want to open
and read your archived local copies of your mailboxes
which MSFT stores in proprietary .PST files that Only Outlook can read.

(Entourage cannot open .PST files in a disk or your local drive: it can only
read mailboxes -- .PST files -- that reside in a MSFT Outlook email Server)

Not Anymore and Not a Year Too Soon

(for my business needs to access my old but still valuable .PST files)

Now with an Intel Macintosh we'll be able to Run MSFT Outlook
and finally be able to open local archived .PST files on a Mac.

Freedom at Last, Thank you Apple, Thank you Intel.

Get a Life--Get a Mac

Apple snaps up software format translator
SchemaSoft comes under Jobs' wing
By Ina Fried
Published: Wednesday 23 March 2005
Apple has confirmed that it has scooped up SchemaSoft, a small Canadian company that helps software makers translate rival file formats.
"Apple has acquired assets from SchemaSoft, a developer of software components for facilitating digital information workflow," the Cupertino company said in a statement. The Mac maker added that it plans to use SchemaSoft's technology in future products but did not offer specific details.
SchemaSoft's tools are capable of extracting data found in a variety of formats including those used by Microsoft Office documents, Adobe Systems' Portable Document Format as well as those used by Quark and others, the software maker states on its website. The tools can also output into those formats as well as into HTML and XML.

http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39128936,00.htm

SchemaSoft's patents and technologies figure highly in Apple's efforts in this area. SchemaSoft used to have Microsoft, Corel, Adobe and others among it's clients. They exited the business after selling out to Apple.
Stay Tuned

Odd, the reports I've read indicate Rosetta runs surprisingly fast.

Jake:

The available data is what is released by MS:
e.g:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY05/earn_rel_q4_05.mspx

The problem is learning how to read the data. On the surface, it looks like Windows and Office generate similar revenue. Add the server/enterprise related products, and you're up to 70-80% of the company's revenue.

Deep looking: (I was told about this by a relative that used to work for MS) If you look at their expenses, the bulk of actual funds spent goes to Windows related issues: research, development, upcoming releases, support, litigation, marketing...etc. What these reports do not show is how much each "segment" cost the company to generate revenue. And my relative tells me (and it would make common sense) that these expenses are driven by the OS.

The bottom-line is that it is costs a lot to generate profit from the OS, when compared to Office/Server/Enterprise-support.

I'll look for any available in-depth analysis that support this assumption.

I always like how CIOs think that Apple can just waltz in and challenge Microsoft and Microsoft will blink. They want this to happen, not because they like Apple but because they hope it will force Microsoft to innovate and/or drop prices. (At least the commentator was honest about that.)

But it's not gonna happen, and they're the reason it won't.

You can count the number of Fortune 500 companies that have standardized on non-MS operating systems on one hand.

Dream what you may dream, but all companies are about revenue; those companies that are not cease to exist rather quickly. Apple is pretty much a home computer now, save for a few specialty industries. Microsoft may decry home piracy, but in the end consumer use accounts for at most half of their revenue.

So how do you keep that precious revenue stream alive?

You just can't force revenue from the home user. Look at the bad press surrounding the RIAA and Sony. Suing 94-year-olds is political suicide. Microsoft relies on the sheer volume of their installed base; Apple's solution is to sell the world's most expensive hardware key.

Corporations are a different matter. A BSA raid on a corporate office may make a minor footnote in a Slashdot article, but the rest of the world shrugs it off. Juries are more likely to be sympathetic to a crying 7-year-old than a billion-dollar conglomerate.

Until Apple can secure a good portion of the Fortune 500 as a guaranteed revenue stream, the so-called "software Macintosh" will remain a pipe dream of both cheapskate hobbyists and browbeaten CIOs alike.

It's just a change in chip; nothing more, nothing less.

Rosetta isn't going to run faster than 80% of the speed of a PPC G5 system all translation programs in the past have not and neither will Rosetta, I'm talking about running the OS and a real full size applications doing actual work (not a benchmark), don't look for the first systems to run as fast they won't. Also Apple get ready to a endless battle to keep Asian companies and hackers with cheap PC's from running your software the PPC was a perfect doggle over the years, the grass is't always greener.

"Which operating system is better, Microsoft or Apple? The debate rages on"

There is no debate on which is OS is better, just wether or not it is better to choose quality or what most people are using.

"but what we do know is this: Currently, your organization does not have the ability to dual-boot a Windows and an Apple operating system,"

MY organization has a ton of both Mac and Windows computers. The windows computers that type text or worse, sit there, and the Mac's that do most of the real work.

--On the Cupertino Project.

It is not in Apple's interest to "sell" OS X for other computers, but if it could be hacked it would get the Mac foot in the door of many companies. When it comes time to buy legitimate computers, the Mac will be on the top of the list!

Most successful software programs, such as PhotoShop, were able to be copied without too much effort. Programs that had iron clad copy protections died before enough people knew about them.

--On my other post.
I was caught with my dictionary down and misspelled wether, er, I mean whether. Damn castrated ram!

Can someone explain to me how Microsoft has no recourse? I understand they can't do what Apple is doing and make sure only 'authorized hardware' will run Windows, but why couldn't they do the opposite and make it so Windows locks out any Apple harware from using it? If the Mac OS will presumably look for a chip or something presumably hardwired that will allow it to install, couldn't Vista be written so that it looks for the same thing and instead of it being an authentication it'd be a deathentication?

Or is there a flaw in that thinking?

How much $$$ does Microsoft make from selling and supporting Windows (all flavors)? A whole heckuva lot!

I found this here:
http://www.computergripes.com/microsoft.old.html


<<FYI: How much money does Microsoft make on Windows? In a recent SEC filing, they reported that last quarter, the division of Microsoft that sells Windows had revenue of $2.89 billion and profits of $2.48 billion. That calculates out to a profit margin of 85 per cent. Assuming 91 days in the quarter, Microsoft made a profit of $27,252,747 every day on Windows. Twenty seven million dollars a day. The division that sells Microsoft Office reported profits in the same quarter of $1.8 billion, on revenues of $2.3 billion. In other words, a profit margin of 78% and a daily profit of $19,780,219. >>

Sorry about the mispelled words above.

I was thinking it COULD be a legal matter to do with the anti-trust issues that'd keep MS from blocking Apple hardware, though who would argue when even Apple admits that they won't support Windows on Macs (they simply won't keep anyone from doing that.... because that'll now be Microsoft's job should they decide to).

I sense, something big goin to happen.


When the intel mac reliase, tons of hackers going to hack it, so dat ; Windoze can run on apple, and mac can run on dale, and other peecee's machine. And it would be out of control (like Berlin wall). When the day comes, steve has no choice but to license out its' mac x (code name: Lion) to other pee cee's brand.

----------------------------

THE CLONE WAR, BEGUN HAS.

Be prepared to join the dark side.

I would be concerned if this happened. What motivation would a developer have to write Mac based programs? Especially the gaming indutry.

They could just say, use the Windows version. This would mean that less and less Mac programs would be made available and then what? All that is left is running native Windows programs without Windows? I would much prefer to use my applications with the Mac OS interface and security. Sometimes we don't always get what we wished for.

I am frothing at the mouth with anticipation! I can't wait for the Mac future!

One more note to add...

It amuses me to see people worried that developers will no longer write their applications for the Mac platform. If those applications work equally as well on either platform, and they work great or either platform, who cares? If you can use the program, and use it well, is what matters.

Apple will not suffer the fate of IBM's OS2. Apple has a huge installed user base of highly devoted and loyal Mac fans! Apple and Steve Jobs are crazy enough, and eclectic enough to pull this off. If anyone can, they can!

1. The largest Mac developer is Apple. They're not going anywhere.
2. If market share increases, the Mac platform can only get more attention, not less.
3. Again, even if developers should choose to support only one version of their apps, as long as those apps work well, who cares if it's the same version that the Windows world gets to use? Eventually people will get fed up and switch if they are able to continue to use the same software that they have already invested in, and are already proficient with!
4. Worse case scenario--We are able to run Windows programs natively, and Apple's market share stays the same--Who cares? Does anyone really care if anyone else uses a Mac? I'd like to see the whole world switch, but as long as the user base is strong enough to keep Apple going, I'm happy! (Although people would be bound to switch if this were the case.)

MW: Volume. As in the volume of the Macintosh voice is about to increase by several hundred decibels!

Or maybe he’ll announce Dharma. Could be a most interesting Christmas, Part II, er… MWSF.

2006 around the corner and journalists are about to start talking about a global shifting of the IT industry's tectonic plates...

Apple will choose to license OSX for the boxmakers once its market cap exceeds the combined cap of MSFT, DELL and HP...!

Six years ago we were HOPING for great things from Apple
Five years ago we were THINKING we might get great things from Apple
Two years ago we were EXPECTING great things from Apple
One year ago we started GETTING great things from Apple

..and today we are starting to be AMAZED at what HUGE affects Apple will have on the world, starting in 2006...

Go Apple!

Comment posed as question, or visa-versa.

The operating system (MS-MAC) is simply the interface to access the software, right? Aside from "official" MS software, the plethora of independent software out there that written to be used with Windows is really written to operate on intel/x86 machines who (until 2006) were relegated to Windoze because that was the interface used to access them? Wouldn't a MacIntel machine be able to simply open and operate the software, or would it be as simple as some code-line tweaking from the software developers to offer the software so it will be labeled "Windows, or Mac 10.4.4" Sorry if this question has been addressed or oversimplified, but if someone has the technical understanding to answer it, please do.

and MDN, how the f&$k did you get MS to advertise on this site!? 2-ché... simply brilliant!

That will be the end of both Macs and MacOS X.

Comments above seem to break down along the lines of 'Will Apple decide to take the hardware side of the PC industry, or the OS side?' In other words, trying to keep OSX on their own machines, and thus generating profit from increased machine sales, or taking an M$-like tac and reaping profits from selling more versions of OSX (and all Apple software) to people & companies who want to load their own machines.

Personally, I doubt an 'executive decision' has been made one way or another. It's too tough to tell how that particular wave will break, and setting the company's strategy in stone at this stage would risk missing it altogether. What if they try the M$/OS path to profit, and find it impossible to control the problems of hardware compatibility, hacking and/or piracy? What if they go the 'lock OS down and sell whole box' route, and find that taking on the many (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc ...) vs the One (M$) is in fact too big a job, or that too many people continue to suffer from the Helsinki Effect (and thus don't switch), or that - again - they can't actually lock OSX down and it gets out into the wild anyway, costing them lost sales?

Now, if a choice HAD to be made, I would expect OSX sold to whomever desires it. The costs in scaling hardware production to the levels necessary for best-estimate demand, and risks in that estimate being wrong, are big. Just selling the software makes more economic sense, especially since the hacking and piracy risks are the same no matter which way you go. However, I don't believe a choice is being made yet, b/c I also don't think Jobs has a real stake in this computer 'OS War' anymore.

First, Apple already makes big bucks with small computer OS marketshare, so there's no compelling economic reason to go for broke there. Second, if Jobs was counting on getting share back from Gates in a straight up computer OS-to-OS competition, it could take a decade before he'd even get half of what M$ has now. And that's assuming status quo; that Windows stays 'sucky' forever. Frankly, I don't think Jobs is that patient, OR that the people who depend on Windows for their livelihood will stay that unmotivated forever. For those reasons, I think a computer OS market takeover is, for Jobs, a nice bonus if it happpens, but not the focus.

He's looking at something that he assumes will have a bigger 'Bow Wave Effect' - pushing the industry along, and sucking behind it all other considerations in it's wake. And that is multimedia. More specifically, since we all know he's got the audio portion well in hand, it means video.

There's nothing potentially bigger or more powerful on the landscape. If he can make an Apple-branded Multimedia OS/Machine combo that captures the hearts and minds of the buying public, ala iTunes/iPod in audio, then whatever computer OS is in predominant use is sort of academic. Halo effects being what we now know they are, more people will be willing to buy an Apple OS'd computer (regardless if Apple makes the whole thing) due to their exposure to the overarching A/V multimedia experience he wants to create. Yet if they come or not, for Jobs & Apple the money and market numbers will already be there, from a much higher growth area.

That's why I keep saying the Macintel transistion is clearly NOT about performance. Intel doesn't do well in performance comparisons - whether against IBM/PPC or AMD/x86 - so how can one seriously believe that was the priority for Apple? The thing Intel brings to the party is a huge presence in multimedia - both in hardware solutions (DRM) and in content supply (thanks - again - to their DRM). It's obvious Apple shifted focus to consumer-type hardware; and it's also logical to see that, since traditional computing hardware isn't their main priority anymore, neither is the old OS War that goes along with it.

Again, Jobs will take more market where he can, including computer OS's, but he's not looking at dominating the PC box market in the next few years as 'Job #1', because that's not likely possible. Yet he CAN dominate the multimedia/video box/content market, as it's essentially just starting (like the computer 'glory days' of the early 80s). He can beat M$ to THAT mythical finish line in a straight up contest, and make a butt-load of money in the process. That's what a multimedia centric strategy provides. If he wins big there, everything else will likely be pulled along in due time.

So, insofar as big decisions regarding how best to get computer OS marketshare have to be made, better to wait and see; how well OSX stays locked on Apple-only machines, how much pent-up demand for a (legal & paid for) Windows alternative their really is, and which industry is the more lucrative to fight (hardware or OS).
Until those things become more clear, he'll keep his eye on the REAL prize - the one he's clearly invested in AND has a better-than-even chance of winning - video.

I would hate to run Photoshop et al in their Windows dressing. Wouldn't that include that horrid application window? Don't all those Windows versions come with all of those convoluted dialog box sets? Tab stacks? Unintuitive dialog button labels? Properties\Advanced...\Tab\Select\Edit...\Options\Click.

Would these Windows apps still be AppleScript-able? That'd be a feat. If not, there goes all of my workflow scripting.

I think losing Mac versions of apps would be worse than just having to use the Windows GUI on a Mac.

Lets not forget where we are at in history folks. We are at a drastic point of change for Apple, very true. But you don't build a bomb and let the entire world know you have it, advantage lost. Apple is simply doing this at the moment, switching to intel. We will still have our VirtualPC and I would not expect anything larger than thatat the moment. I personaly don't think it's Steve' stratedgy to throw a neucular weapon into this game and try to wipe the other out. He WANTS people to switch, he wants people to switch on their own though. Think of how we all came to the mac, and what loyalty we all now have to it. The passion that burns inside of us when we hear even the mac name. No, this is not the final battle, the battle is long yet, but Steve' plans are elegant, just like his computers. Ad he wil come through with style and grace, while MS is going to get tied up in the duct tape they been using to repair they're crapy OS for years now.

Licensing would not happen until Apple would reach a critical mass stage in marketshare.
Apple would have to get around 20% of the computer market share before it would consider licensing it´s OS. And then why? If so many are buying Apple why does Apple need to license it or run windows?

And look, Apple has 70+% of the portable music biz and does not license the iPod sytem to others.

Guys, I'd read up on Intel's Proc Virtualization, code named "Vanderpool," and how that technology will greatly benefit Apple. Just imagine switching between operating systems without having to reboot your system, simply by using Apple's user switching technology. Imagine hitting a key, i.e. control-esc or something, and the system switching seamlessly and gracefully between OS X and Windows (or any other flavored OS).

Imagine seeing this technology as early as next year. From what I've gathered and read thus far, all Intel "Yonah" procs will be shipping with this technology. Think of the possibilities. Endless... I'd start writing eulogies for every single PC manufacture because this will be the death knell of the likes of Gateway, Dell, etc.

Yes, indeed, this is just the beginning of greater things to come! Or is it?!?

These discussions always remind me of Mark Twain's quip about science:

"There's something fascinating about science: one gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."