2.
Nov 21, 2008 4:54 PM
in response to:
PCWorld
Re: Psystar Deserves a Chance to Compete
The history of personal computing is littered with hardware makers who created operating systems specifically to run on their respective hardware platforms. Then came IBM and their PC. IBM didn't believe personal computers (that means anything that's not a mainframe or mini computer) would ever be an important enough marketing segment to warrant creating their own OS or BIOS. It was that fatal, flawed logic that allowed the PC to become the defacto standard in personal computers. It was the "outsourcing" of the OS and BIOS that allowed for the "clone" market to become the current crop of x86 compatable computers. Because IBM didn't control the OS or BIOS, they ultimately didn't get to control the terms of their use.
Apple remains the only real survivor of those early days in computing. Their OS was written and designed specifically for the purpose of pushing their hardware platform. There was a brief time, during the early days of the PowerPC processor when Apple licensed other computer makers to make PowerPC compatable hardware. Their OS was also licensed to run on those PowerPC devices. Unfortunately, it proved too little too late to really compete against the already entrenched PC compatables. As a result the experiment was ended and again, Apple was the only hardware platform for which their OS was licensed.
Now because they have adopted an Intel processor platform, with "hacks" their OS will function on pretty much any PC compatable. However, it remains the OS is still only licensed to run on Apple hardware. Until that changes, Psystar has no legal standing for their claims. To be certain, I'd love to be able to run OS X on a less expensive platform. However, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge it's unlikely that will ever become a legal option until such time as Apple decides to license the OS for other hardware.
Oh well... of the six people in our family, three of us (myself included) own Macs. I also own an HP. I have to say, my Mac pushes both its own OS and Windows better than the HP--this in spite of the fact that the HP has more memory, a bigger HDD, and higher-end video card. The Mac hardware simply runs better and the drive work better than their HP counter parts. If I had to guess, I'd say that's reason enough to warrant the higher cost--just to get a better, more sound hardware platform.
I'm sure there are those who will argue my point. Still, I'm very happy with my Apple hardware and since I've owned more than twenty computers in the same number of years, I think I've gained a little experience with them (I've also been building and servicing them for a living in that same time period).
