OSNews

You can't win the OS market if your software only works with your own hardware brand, period.

But there's nothing wrong with apple doing their own hardware and OS X working only with their hardware. Nothing. It's their bussines model and they're free to do what they do, but they can't - and they know they can't - take all the microsoft's market share.

Apple doesn't want to kill Microsoft. If they'd want to kill Microsoft, Mac OS X would work with any PC and could possibily be released for free and could work under linux (I bet porting the userspace layer built on top of BSD won't take a lot of time to port to linux, most of it it's POSIX after all). But Apple doesn't want to kill Microsoft - they just want to make great products, and they do it damn well. They wouldn't be able to do what they do if they focused in killing Microsoft.

IOW: The only Microsoft real competitor in desktop is linux, not Apple

Edited 2005-11-20 23:42

Don't think Steve Jobs and the Apple bosses haven't gone over this scenario a million times. What I think will happen is that Apple will switch to Intel but continue with the same business model for at least a year or two. The, while Vista is only starting to gain tracktion in the marketplace, Apple will announce a retail-copy OS X product but no OEM deals. In other words, they aren't going to sell OS X to Dell, but if Joe Blow computer geek wants OS X, he can have it. I imagine the geeks alone will bump OS X's marketshare up a few points, and Apple might up-sell actual Macs to those people down the line.

The big question here is OEM deals. I really, really doubt Apple wants OS X on HP, Dell, and Gateway boxes. It just doesn't make sense, IMHO, in terms of $$$. And that, my friends, IS the top priority for any business.

apple can. the vast majoriy of users don't care about tweaking and hacking. really they dont - as long as they can do the usual set of tasks like witin letters, managing photos, browsing the web, etc..)

and the vast majority of users don't know why windows breaks- viruses, worms, instability, and so on .. i known so many people buy a brand new computer months after thir old one - simply because of windows problems- they thought it was their "computer" or their "vendor".

if news gets about that an Apple home computer on "cheaper" hardware "just works" - then microsft is in trouble.

people don't care about who makes the harwdare. all they care about is (1) does it work, (2) does it cost, (3) will it interoperate

To compete head to head they would need to blow Vista out of the water, just being better is not enough. So they're probably looking a range of strategies around the Intel release, from a supposedly more cost-effective Mac at the conservative end to hand-to-hand combat with Microsoft on the aggressive side. A lot may depend on how well MS executes the Vista release.

I'll bet the metaphor of a huge enemy warship caught in irons has been mentioned inside Apple once or twice.

Paul G

There's still the issue of MS Office. It wasn't that long ago that Office wasn't supported on Apple. I remember Microsoft buying some Apple stock and then striking deals to port IE and Office to it. OS X is nice and does everything people need it t odo because you can install MS Office and a lot of the other major software companies also support it (adobe/macromedia). They obviously don't need IS as a browser anymore but Ms Office has lockin issues.

MS might get a call from the Justice Department if they pull MS Office support as soon as OS X becomes a competitive threat... but probably not under this administration.

OpenDoc format is still a signifigant leverage point.

I think if the Mac can do it. Linux distros can do it too!

> I think if the Mac can do it. Linux distros can do it
> too!

Not only that, Linux is doing it right now, step by step, however small this steps might be, while Apple seems in the first place busy protecting their elitist image and DRMing and bundling their hard and software to death, instead unleashing it onto the masses.

Bundling a system to hardware and expecting "casual users" to buy completely new and overpriced hardware just to try it out (!) won't work. It just wont work. The casual user needs time to adapt and to learn, and he will not have a chance to come so far if hes expected to retire his entire current hardware, just to come to the priviledge to enjoy the apple "experience".

What is here being tried to do is to replace an restrictive and proprietary system line windows with a even more propriatery, restrictive and litigative one, now where even the hardware isn't free any more. This in fact would be a step backwards, so i suppose that in the longer run it is more probbable for microsoft, even if it is the more hated company right now, to catch on again, and adapt, then for apple to give up their stalinistic total control of everything.

Apple is a consumer company. Selling their OS may gain them some market share but it won't be huge. Microsoft still have a lock on a host of back-end products that Apple is not going to get into - exchange, sql server, lots of Office stuff, the whole shebang. And if Apple start to play dirty by selling their OS as a stand-alone then so will Microsoft. They're not going to sit there and allow themselves just to provide servers for thousands of Mac desktops.

Apple's strong suit lies in the fast-growing notebook sector where hardware has long been proprietory. They will do very nicely if they concentrate on producing far and away the world's most desirable Intel notebooks at a range of price points. And they can concentrate on getting the move to Intel right for their traditional bases in desktop machines, like the graphics market. It seems that Apple are also intent on becoming the streaming video company (aka iMovies, etc.) and that will also affect their strategy, not least because they will need to satisfy Hollywood about their drm plans.

Only after that do they need to worry about what to do next. It's an nice position for Apple to be in and they will have to make huge mistakes to blow it.

GNU/Linux is free. You don't even have to download it; Canonical will send you their Ubuntu distro on a CD free of charge. So why hasn't GNU/Linux become dominant, and why won't Apple's OS-X become dominant? Because neither comes pre-loaded on a Dell or HP or Compaq or Toshiba or any of the other PC's for sale on line or at the big box retailers. Until these OS's come pre-loaded and are sold at the big box retailers, they will be relegated to also-ran status. Sure, you can buy an Apple at some retailers, but it's by & large a niche product.

Could WINE work on OS X so that any Windows application could then run on OS X? Is WINE legal to use?

"In spite of Apple's proprietary stand, many Linux developers including Linus, have empathy for the Mac"

My understanding is Linus is using apple hardware RUNNING LINUX. The machine was donated to him becuase a company wanted to see PPC linux support advance. Linus has said he likes this hardware, but I have never heard him say he likes OS X.

Everyone seems to be forgetting one thing: Software. Sure there may be some really great software for Macs, but the first question people will ask before they ditch Windows is if their favorite games are going to work. Even on Intel, people would have to keep Windows around, just like they do with Linux.

it appears to me most of you are blathering idiots. it's not all about the eye candy. Does this make sense to you?

"I will buy it since this operating system has cool swoosh effect when you move windows around...and I am willing to upgrade or buy a new computer with the graphic card that can handle it. By the way...I only check email or surf for porn".

Bundling a system to hardware and expecting "casual users" to buy completely new and overpriced hardware just to try it out (!) won't work. It just wont work.

Are you a complete idiot or what? Have you even checked how many macs are sold year over year? They are more than twice the shippment from the year before. Have you checked apple's stock lately? Look at it from day to day or year to year... you will see nothing but upwards movement. For you to say 'it just wont work' you are simply blind. It happend today, it will happen tomorrow.

talk as much is you want. MS and windows are not going anywhere

1. Is to run on a variety of cheap hardware.
2. Outlook/Exchange.
3. More 3rd party application support.

It's easier said than done.

Author points out Vista is going for the look and feel of OSX so why not run OSX? Because with Vista you will get the look and feel of OSX and still be able to run your old Windows applications on a wider range of hardware.

"Look, If and I say If Apple took over the OS market all those viruses etc. someone mentioned would appear on Mac OS X. And that's the truth. There are viruses for Mac OS, but they are outdated and you can count them on the fingers of your hand."

Anyone with a bit of knowledge can code a virus for a system that isn't built from the ground up with security in mind.

Saying that all viruses would appear on macs if everyone switched is like saying that there is no use locking your door as anyone who wants to enter will anyway.

Nextstep was ported to x86. I don't recall it becoming the dominant operating system at a time when Windows was not even that powerfull. Market wise, NextStep x86 can even be considered a failure.
NextStep was saved being bought by a desperate Apple and became OS X. I am sure Steve Job learned his lesson trying to conquer the x86 world!

A lot of people seem to be assuming that Steve Jobs wants Apple to displace Microsoft. Smart business people will tell you that sometimes it's better, safer and more profitable to be a successful number 2.

What gain would there be for Apple to dilute their market brand by letting people run OS X on white box? What happens when the OEM peripheral providers start flooding the market with cheap "OS X" compatible crap with lousy drivers? Why is Joe Average really going to be interested in paying $200 to install OS X over Windows for web browsing or light office work, which is all the majority of Windows home users do? Games? They Macbots love to crow about how Apple doesn't charge "more" for their hardware, so how in the hell will they compete against better, more efficient competitors? Or will they just hope their shareholders allow them to kiss that profitable revenue stream goodbye?

And corporation would jump on OS X from the iPod company? Are you kidding? Companies would still be running NT 4.0 if they could. They need one hell of a compelling reason to switch platforms. Forget Office. Where are the management, auditing and compliance tools? Where are the support engineers? What is it about switching to Intel that will make OS X any more viable now? Think about everything holding linux back as a corporate desktop, and then apply most of it to OS X. Corporate customers don't bring up multimedia or limited hardware support as obstacles, they're looking at existing infrastructure, applications and business processes. And existing resources. Even IBM delayed their desktop migration to linux when the beancounters realized they had too much of an investment in Windows-centric resources and applications to justify writing off ahead of standard accounting schedules.

And watch, just watch, how fast MS support for Office on OS X dries up if OS X actually becomes a viable competitor.

Last thing worth mentioning is that Steve Jobs career, for better or for worse, is about control. He's still bitter about losing control of the market when Apple II clones far outweighed actual Apple II's. Remember what happened the last time they OEM'd Mac? How fast did they shut that down when the OEMs produced faster, better products?

Seriously, don't assume every company in the world is out for world domination. Apple may be nowhere near Microsoft's market share, but they have remained successful and profitable by doing what they do. Besides, Apple's battlefront with Microsoft will take place in your living room, it's about digital content and media. It won't be about desktop PC's.

Let's be a little realistic here, maybe?

I think Apple's more interested in competing with the TV than the PC. And in that, they're likely to succeed.

Linux is kicking ass in servers and embedded. In desktops, Linux does best in thin client or fixed-function (like cash register) uses. If you're interested in where "desktop Linux" is going, it's not towards the MS-style PC, it's more in line with things like Xen, stateless Linux, and FreeNX -- the so-called "network computer" that Sun and Oracle like to yap about, but which Google will probably pull off.

Microsoft will and always will be the king of the PC. The real question to ask is, when will the PC be obsolete? When will the ol' "general purpose personal computer" be replaced by networked appliances, media centers, etc.?

Microsoft will probably lose control of computing once the PC gets phased out ... but I doubt they'll take too bad a hit, if they're able to successfully migrate Office and Exchange to the next paradigm.

If Apple does release OS? for Intel... What will happen? you're just trading one proprietary OS for another. Seems as though Steve Jobs has more of a tighter reign on that OS than MS. Software that runs well on OSX are mostly proprietary and will cost you $$. Just try to find a decent CD burning software for free. And an Office Suite... You have only one choice.. The Outdated NeoOffice/J. The only saving grace is that I'll have somewhat of a choice in a Desktop OS.

Mac OS X's ancestor, Nextstep/Openstep, was available on generic x86 hardware and hardly anyone bought it, which was why Next was available for purchase. I don't think the generic PC market deserves Mac OS X.

Perhaps OSX would have serious initial compatibility issues if Apple wanted to unleash it on any old x86 PC from the shelves.

I guess they can make OSX rock solid on their own hardware as they know it and control it inside out. Throw the myriad of configurations in normal white box PCs into the equation and Apple may have a headache in the works.

But if they want to do it, Apple has already proven that when they put their mind to things, they are clearly a cut above the rest in usability and on eye-candy alone. That makes a big difference to the masses of :computer illiterate" people in the world.

just my $0.02

>> "It wasn't that long ago that Office wasn't supported on Apple. "

> WTF you talking about? Word was one of the first non-Apple software packages available for the Mac - in 1984 - 21 years ago. Excel was right after. Office has ALWAYS been available for the Mac OS.

Not only was Word available for Mac way back in 1984, but Word for Macintosh was the first WYSIWYG version of the product. Its predecessor was written for DOS, a poor also-ran to WordPerfect.

What we now think of as Microsoft Word was derived from Word for Mac. So Office and Apple go way back.

I think Apple will *eventually* license OS X to select vendors. Dell, for instance, has indicated an interest in a premium line, and Apple will be more willing to risk its computer hardware sales as it diversifies its business. Apple could exact some rather particular component requirements from its licensees, keeping the OS X user experience consistent.

But having Office run on OS X is terribly important to Apple until .doc and .xls are no longer the dominant document formats. I doubt Jobs storms Redmond's walls anytime soon.

"Apple should open-source their operating system"

LMAO
Sorry, but that will never happen!!!

I think people tend to get carried away in predicting Apple crushing MS, or even Linux rising up.

Apple will never want to be number one in market share. That would be very bad for them. Soon as that happens. They become MS. The justice department would basically have to proceed on the same kind of deal they did to MS, otherwise what they did to MS would be ruled an injustice. Apple would then be forced to stop making so much stuff integral to the OS, and including so many apps and so forth. MS has been forced to make a bad product by the government. If they released something just like OS X and had tons of great things and apps built in. Everyone would go after them calling them a monopoly and abusing it. Apple doesn't want that.

I think apple would be more then content getting to about 25% market share. And doing it buy sticking to just their own hardware. I think after the intel switch they will ramp up production of things like mini's and such to be able to flood the market and grow. No point and doing that now when the G4 will be legacy in a few months. With the intel swap they will keep making their own hardware but be able to grow now that they have a stable supply chain for CPUS which they have never had before and thus limited them on how many units they could sell.

The other thing is the moment someone surpasses MS windows in market share, MS gets the green light to turn of the "lame" flag in the compiler when building Windows and they can start building something like mac OS. The won't have to live in fear of governments going after them. And soon as that happens MS surges back, takes the top spot again and everything begins again.


Its almost always best to be number 2 at things. Then the focus is off you and you can learn from the mistakes of number 1

While you want to combine the technical with the marketing of Apple, they're two different things. Any decision that Jobs and company make (and of course they are listening) have to do with protecting the shareholder's equity. Being the hot stock they are now, they are wall street's bitch. But that doesn't mean they won't make bold decsions - it just means they're not going to open source anything if the shareholders don't like it. But every laptop in the world these days comes with 1394 slots - that's an apple innovation, but nobody really cares. The shareholders do though - and that's why Apple will open source OSX, because when they do, it puts them in gear with Redhat as the lastest and greatest "hot company stocks" Not that they need that right now, since they're already there, but they'll open source OSX when it looks like a confident, bold, modern move before it looks like a desperate move. Which would be the case if Microsoft open sourced windows NT 5.0 or whatever it's called now. And they don't have to call it OSX, they'll spin it out as something that all the OSS apps can be recompiled for, as a kind of staging ground for the Apple software infrastructure. all of a sudden, the Linux that was "on it's way" that was "really getting there" is here. that distributes the risk that the shareholders feel, standing on that iPod pillar. and it's only that Apple has had this big success, become a real household brand, that they've gathered the statesman-like approach to realize what they need to do. And it's going to be ok.

when apple released the intel ibook/powerbook, people have 1 less reason not to buy one, namely "can i run my office applications and games"

still, even if OSX is so nice and productive, people still need Windows for office works and games.

microsoft won't die, osx get more users. the pie get bigger. market share remains the same.

i read once apple has a greater market of the pc than ford does of cars. and looks how much $ they both make. and thats at 2% share of market. and look at how ms burns that cash....

The only people who want macs on cheap beige boxes are those too cheap/poor to get a mac.

I hate to tell you, but apple doesn't care if you cant afford their pretty boxes.

All you guys whining for cheap/free Mac OS X will not get it.

Buisnesses and corporations in general won't deploy fancy Mac's.

Apple isn't interested in OS marketshare.

Apple is interested in selling profitable HARDWARE.

Apple isn't interested in a OS price war with MS.

Apple 's main buisness is staying in buisness.

Linux is free, just needs to get it's act together with a single desktop and plenty of free apps.

That's what will make MS take a dump in their pants.

All you drooling over Mac OS X and whining is supposed to make you feel that way so you BUY A MAC.

Get it now?

http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/PhotoAlbum2.html

Port it to intel, price it competitively and let the cream rise.

Here are a number of reasons why Apple won't release OS X or any other OS variant into free competition with Microsoft:-

1. At the moment Apple is more than profitable enough
2. Under the current scheme, Apple bundles obsolescent parts with its OS and gets a premium price for them- making Apple very profitable with a secure base of consumers
3. Apple doesn't have the developer links or software to match it with Microsoft
4. Apple WAS the dominant player in the early 1980s until Wintel crushed them by a combination of better hardware and a faster growing OS, and Apple will remember that
5.If Mac OS was distributed like Windows it would ultimately became as buggy, virus ridden and bloated as Windows as it would have to run on ALL hardware and work with hundreds of programmes
6. Mac OS X a gamer's OS ?
7. Apple doesn't have the software to attract current Word and business users away from Microsoft


Ok Macophiles admit it you want everyone to use Macs not out of consideration for your fellow users but to be vindicated in your opinion that Apple is better and you are, by implication, smarter or better than anyone else.

A bit late, but I'll say this anyway:

No dominant force stays "well liked" for any extended period of time. No government, no company, no sports team, no person. Nothing that wields the greatest power, wields it with complete benevolence.

Google won't be all nice-nice for long, and if apple gets big, neither will they.

Mac OSX could destroy Microsoft if Apple would sell the OS to consumers so as to be used on both current and new systems. The reality is that this is an important factor that consumers favor both Windows and Linux because of their open ability to be installed on a variety of systems not sold by the software developer.

One thing that's good about Windows is that you can pretty much lock down the GUI through Active Directory. Although, the method is different in Linux, you can acheive the same thing editing some files and distributing/sharing these files to all the clients. Now I am completely unfamiliar with the Mac so I wont pretend to have any knowledge. So is it possible to centrally lock down MacOS desktops and if so, how?

"Mac OSX Could Destroy Microsoft"...that's a bit apples to oranges. Apples to apples would be "Apple could destroy Microsoft" or "Mac OSX could destroy Windows", but one operating system bringing down and entire software company? I think not, and Apple simply doesn't have the portfolio of software to bring down Microsoft as a whole, though OSX could indeed make *some* inroads into Windows, depending on what happens with the whole Vista scenario.

Apple really only sells one piece of software...their OS, which happens to only run on Apple hardware. Where is Apple's enterprise level RBDMS? Mail server? Content management system? EDI solution? Ad nauseam. Until they can provide an equivalent software portfolio that covers the entire enterprise's realm of needs, they will never compete with MS on a software level, which is why I'm so sick of seeing articles like this. Apple needs to stick to what they do best, which is designing and selling great hardware that happens to come with an exceptional OS...they have no need to displace Microsoft, and nor should they, they are doing just fine as is.

This article might have been news... 5 years ago... Now try telling us something we didn't already think about when Apple first announced that OS X would be based on FreeBSD, an x86 OS.

1. Back in the day it used to be PowerPC hardware (and quality control that goes into a single vendor hardware design) that would make non-fanboys buy Macs. Now Apple are ditching that and using standard Intel motherboards and processors that they have no experience of, they are unlikely to be any better than Dell hardware.

So I can see LESS people buying Macs, as the hardware is going to be no better than what's running your Windows/Linux box, but Apple will still charge a premium.

So allow people to build their own MacOS x86 boxes (or at least OEMs) you can still make your own Apple branded boxes in brilliant white with laser etching for the fanboys, but if you're going to compete with Microsoft, then concentrate on your software (or FreeBSD's software should I say!) as they do.

2. The alternative that's never going to happen would be the opposite - opensource the non-BSD parts of MacOS x86 and concentrate on your closed hardware, can you make a PC better than those who have been doing it for years? Can your legendary Marketing Department convince people that it's worth paying more for Apple PCs than Dell PC's, they did it with the iPod (everybody knows the iPod hardware is a joke compared to iRiver/Rio stuff, but it still sells).

A closed OS tied to single-vendor hardware that's no better (and already more out-of-date) than the competition is going to go the way of Acorn and Commodore.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; PPC; 240x320)

bullshits

That would be really really scary.

Windows might not be very good, but OSX is even worse.

And the amount of software for OSX, is very tiny compared to Windows.

Offtopic, but has to be said nonetheless... People have always complained to me about lack of software on Mac or Linux or FreeBSD. Well, I asked them - what software do you need if all you do is check your email and browse a webpage and watch a video/listen to some internet radio occasionally? It's just this fear of anything new that doesn't let them try out better operating systems. Sure, Windows has billions of software titles, but sure everyone can live without 10 notepad clones or 500 image previewers, right? It's all so redundant in Windows platform...

Apple and Linux are NOT easy operating systems to use.
I know this is upsetting for the Apple-fan-boys.
And the Linux fan-boys (of which I am one).

Now I have access to an Apple Mac G4 laptop. Running the latest Tiger OS X.
There is a lot of exagerations about the "useability" and ease of Apple. Remember these people are migrating from Windows. How to install Plugins on Safari? Or watch Windows Media Files? Now while these are possible - they are not automatic or obvious. And people stuck on Windows are not the intellectually the brightest of species. The first thing they will notice is that double-clicking will NOT maximize your window but make it dance all over the place. Safari is slow to launch. I even wonder if the learning curve on Mac OS is greater than say KDE Mepis Linux or Linspire. Because Mac OS is not a hacking OS (like Linux) - where to eventually click - which combinations of shortcut keys to press will get a windows floating on top. How to get Logitech Webcam Express working? - out of the box. And the unintuitive add "0x" for hex generated keys on WEP wireless - stuff like this is obvious for programmers but the average Jane housewives will despair.

There is a lot of denial from the Apple fan boys (and equally Linux fanboys too). But whilst I believe Linux fanboys should encourage the strict admin/user separation (the person who install should not be the person who uses). Apple sells itself as the epitome of plugin-readiness and user-friendliness. It is not sold as a server-oriented enviroment (which can be the Linux "excuse": difficult to install - easy to use).

The owner of the Mac G4 (living here) is hardly using the machine. He leaves it in the lounge; and is still using his bedroom PC for games, email and novel writing. But he is getting problems with spyware again (and concerned about security = reason he bought Mac in the first place). He asked me to install Linux on his machine. What??? He has a Mac why does he want Linux now?

It's difficult to dismiss that there is much hype in Mac OS. I say that because for years I had to hear what a divine infallible product it is - that us mere mortals are not blessed enough to use.
Having said that - I respect Mac what was intended to be. A DTP and Media Studio machine. Get more from Photoshop, Pagemaker, Macromedia Flash, Cubase with a Korg Keyboard. That is it's niche. Not games and the average family home & entertainment why? Because the world is still saturated by Windows proprietory media, hardware and software (and viruses/trojans/worms).

Nice pipe dream Tom.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with my Linux and let Steve do his own thing.
And those 17000+ GPLed packages? How do you intend to sale them?
And how many people you figure will go for the overpriced Mac box when they can get the exact same box from Dell for $500 less?
Lay off the weed pipe Tom.

I feel that this page often features headlines that include something like "crush Microsoft" or "destroy Microsoft"

Let me just point out a few things:

1) If you do not like the fact that Windows (or Mac) is not free, then don't use it. And for goodness sake: don't care so much.

2) Commercial software is not evil just because you have to pay for it. If it were free, those companies could not have all those programmers on payroll.

3) The way I see it Linux and opensource is all about choise. Therefore it should not be the goal to destroy all the competitors. (or should I say "challenge")

Well, CNN.com is the prime example of incompatibility. It doesn't even work on Windows because I refused to install the newer version of WMP and it won't show anything at all - just sound. But it's just wrong. If everyone stays on Windows because he or she can watch CNN videos, the world is doomed, figuratively speaking.

Apple took a similar, smaller risk with the clone market and persisted with it till it started to work. Jobs' return put the kaibosh on that.

Had they persisted with it, they still could've sold high-margin highly-desirable hardware, but would not rely on it to stay in business. That's the downside of Steve Jobs. There are of course many upsides.

The OS itself is fantastic. It's a shame that the trolls who scream "eye-candy" haven't had an opportunity to learn anything about the OS, let alone actually have the pleasure of owning it.

"Same thing we do every night Pinky!"

Pardon me a little digression into history
Gaddaffi once said of Anwar Sadat's Egypt: Egypt is a country without a leader and Libya's Gaddaffi is a leader without a country. Let us merge the 2 countries and let the country find it's leader.

That Union did not work out because Gaddaffi insisted on being the sole proprietor but there is no end to the speculation of what may have become of this Union of oil rich Libya (population then <=2 million) with manpower rich Egypt.

Linux (especially on the desktop) has no serious OEM/hardware backer while Apple is a hardware company with vision but a limited market. Not even Microsoft can stand before a symbiotic realationship of Apple and Linux but Mr. Jobs needs to give up being such a control freak.

[i]
Author points out Vista is going for the look and feel of OSX so why not run OSX? Because with Vista you will get the look and feel of OSX and still be able to run your old Windows applications on a wider range of hardware."
[i]

That is the biggest lie that the Windows people tell us. 90% of my Win98 software will not run on my XP even with expert tweaking. I had to upgrade or give them up.

Why should you guys bother? Try something a bit more impartial (and professional) BBC.com springs to mind.

ROFL

hehhe - that guy doesn't have other argument but his own opinion base on his own religious view of software