It would also seriously undermine its usefulness in third world countries where Apple Geniuses are in short supply.

 Reply

Because you know OS X is completely 100% scalable. Has been since the Kernal was part of next.

And there WAS no licensing requirements, it was completely free and was going to be a donation from Jobs to him, but he turned it down. Many considered it one of the signs that Negroponte was not playing with a full deck in REALLY making a usable laptop as opposed to playing a game. Considering the bullshit he pulled with Intel, it because beyond obvious after a while a game was exactly what he was playing.

If you stripped the gui down to bare basics and stripped out all the uneeded software for a netbook of that type, you could run OS X on just about anything. I have gotten OS X tiger to run on a 233 mhz 11 year old iMac G3, and running good enough to do everything the OLPC was designed for. Word processing, converted Edubuntu learning games, and web browsing.

And well saying that geniuses are needed to run the os when Negroponte put a complete asinine fork of linux on it?

You have to be snarking, please tell me you are.

 Reply

Honestly, I have a massive hate-on for Apple; more specifically, for Steve Jobs. The guy is a lying, egotistcal, sadistic rat fuck, and I'm surprised anybody would do business with him. (Is it good business? Maybe, but then Apple is nowhere near the top, so how good is it? And Steve Jobs himself has called Apple and Microsoft's products absolute shit, depending on who was giving him money at the time.)

Negroponte might be a retard, but at least he backs away from a company who talks with honeyed words but performs transactions with daggers.

 Reply

I take issue, specifically, with the Apple ethos; the notion that they are, somehow, intrinsically better. The concept is rampant in their marketing, and, not surprisingly, spoken bluntly by Jobs himself. For close to a decade Apple has consistently slandered its competition. They do it not with vague implications or allegory (as many companies do), but by specifcally calling them out by name and stating falsehoods, making cowardly accusations based on assumption, misinterpretation, or that reinforce the misconceptions of a potentially uninformed consumer base.

They have spent more commercial time and money specifically undermining Windows Vista than they have in actively promoting any one of their products by name. Microsoft, in contrast, hasn't said a single negative word about Apple's products or strategies, but rather tried to put a positive spin the "I'm a PC" tagline; in essence, trying to say, yes I'm a PC, why should I consider that an insult just because you assume it is?

Microsoft may be a large corporate machine, but at the very least, it isn't acting like an insecure bully, name-calling in the schoolyard with impotent rage.

Would I use a Mac? Sure. Would I buy one? Never. Do I engage in flame wars over which platform is better? No, but I'll surely weigh in if I feel that I have something relevant to offer.

 Reply