Also, the dropping of PPC support on the second OS release after the PPC chips were dropped? Not very likely in my books.

Although, come back to me in six months before MacWorld and ask me again, I may have changed my mind depending on what happens at WWDC.

As a sidenote, I’m running Safari 3.1.1 on Tiger, and I have no problems whatsoever with things being over on the left, I have a clear 200 ish pixel border down the left hand side.

Peace out.

http://tinyurl.com/56bjde
Thought so.

So, what ‘victory’ is announced with Apple’s pic? One in the near future, where the unfulfilled Vista masses may, by Apple’s grace, switch for cheap to the Snow Leopard? Probably, this will remain a pipe dream, but it might just be true. We’ll know in just two days.

Take this rumor like you take any other: with a large grain of salt.

Apple will sell you a Mac Mini for $599.

Furthermore, it looked to me like most people want Pystar machines specced up to the point of the iMac, not Mac Mini, and when you do that you get to about $750, versus common iMac refurbished prices of $850-950. Since the iMac includes a nice monitor and the Pystar does not, there seems to be very little reason to buy the latter unless you’re into hardcore tinkering, or you really love your junky old monitor.

The tinkerer’s market is a small one that Apple has no interest in, so it’s very possible that Apple is ignoring Pystar since they are indirect competitors at best.

I would say that at current prices very few people who want Macs are going to be Pystar customers.

So it may not be worth the cost of shutting Pystar down, especially since they are selling quasi-legitimate copies of MacOS X, and that revenue goes to Apple.

Apple probably makes more on the $90-odd wholesale price than Pystar makes on the rest of the package.

D

Sorry for being harsh, but I just read an article where a “professional” writer thought that flash memory was memory specifically designed for Adobe Flash Media Player and still trying to recover from that.

This would destroy all their hard work over the last 10 years.

but Apple’s fundamentally a software company and there’s not a lot of us left and Microsoft’s one of them.

Regarding the other debate on here. Apple is first and foremost a software company. Steve Jobs has stated it himself. They just make the hardware to run the software allowing them to ensure the best experience of the software is achieved.

“Okay, so why on Earth would Apple do this? John Gruber of Daring Fireball seems to think that Apple is simply unifying the iPhone OS and Mac OS branding, and this is probably the simplest and most logical explanation.”
[...]
“This is the part where I come up with some absurd speculations.”

And toward the bottom:

“Will this actually happen? I’m not holding my breath”

Mac has, for quite a long time, been a software company. That it only runs on Apple branded hardware is simply a way to diffuse the costs of software development. This allows Apple to sell OSX ‘retail’ for $130 because its always an upgrade. A new copy of OSX might cost $200+, but we’ll never know because new copies are always bundled as part of the whole system, which is inarguably marked up compared to a Windows PC.

First cut dependencies on MSFT (Safari, iWork).
Take development tools in house - allows them to speed changing the platform.
Move to Intel - now hardware is compatible, interchangeable.

Think of it in the same was as Apple removing the word “computer” from their name. No one wants to buy phones, music, films etc from a “computer” company, it’s not cool.

NOW OR NEVER.

Please use our contact form for issues like this so that the comments can stay on topic.

Thanks!

You don’t bother to mention your web browser. I’m using Opera and it looks fine to me.

If Apple has found an profitable answer to that question, OS X might ship on non-Apple computers, but they are in no hurry to get a half OSsed answer.

License OS X for cheap machines by other manufacturers, and Apple would create a whole class of OS X users on cheap machines, who would find it veeerry easy to switch to Apple hardware when they decide to buy more expensive boxes. It wouldn’t cannibalize existing hardware sales because Apple has no existing low-end hardware sales to speak of. And they wouldn’t face the driver issues that Windows faces, because they could limit licensees to a few big reputable companies (Dell etc.) and strictly control the available hardware configurations.

Except… except… Apple already did exactly this, and it hurt the company, and Jobs killed off the clones. So it doesn’t seem likely.

That said, I think this speculation is absurd. Like everyone else has said, this is simply to unify the OS across platforms - which is exactly the motivation for renaming the .Mac service.