This discussion is starting to remind me of the debate around the UMAX S900 and other Mac clones that were prevented from an authorized upgrade path to OS X. I think the discussion is as relevant now as it was then. I have never accepted the logic that Apple must of necessity be the only hardware producer licensed to use the Mac OS. The "clone wars" drove me over to Microsoft for a while, but after only two years my motherboard quit on me and I got tired of the crappy hardware that often follows with Windows. That is not to say that there shouldn't be a middle road.
My .02 €. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:58 PM, PeterH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: > > > > >> The average buyer is not aware, and, more importantly, DOES NOT CARE > >> that MacOS X can be run on an Intel. > >> > > > > Apple does not WANT the public to be aware of this. Thus the > > alternative legal negotiation of this case. Keep it on the QT. > > Meanwhile, I have a bunch of MacPro-equivalents which cost me a > couple of hundred apiece (not a couple of thousand apiece). > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
