MAC OSX on Sale!
 

http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...ct_code=295690

:lol:

it's really a typo, if it's been corrected here's the screenshot of what it was

lol; i wouldnt take it even if it were free

That was just a tad too much. LOL
compguru, do u use linux? If u do MacOS X is unix-based like linux.
If Mac OS X Jag was free, I would have bought it a heart beat.

I actually want to test out OS X. I hear that its a very good operating system. I just wish someone would make a port to the PC platform.

On antoher note, I think microsoft should create and OS based off of Unix/Linix as well. I doubt it will ever happen though.

Apple won't port their OS to the PC cause they want to sell Macs. They did have a port for the old OS, but never sold it. That was when Microsoft was selling Win 3.1. Microsoft won't try to cannabalize what they have right now to make a unix/linux based OS.

Maybe it's a new ingenious idea that the people at Apple's marketing department came up with to try to boost sales. Like it said in the article about "Are Mac Users Smarter?," Apple products are appealing to people with more money, because they're more expensive. They figured that if being somewhat more expensive was working a little bit, being exponentially more expensive would work a lot...

Or maybe it was a typo...

I disagree. Microsoft realizes that there's still problems with their OS...hence they're releasing Windows XP SP1 (and recently released Windows 2000 SP3, if you 2k users didn't know). I don't think there's much debate that Unix is the most stable operating system, but its lack of a user-friendly interface and any real support (ex: software, drivers, hardware) to speak of prevents it from soaring popularity among the masses. If Apple realizes the merit in utilizing the Unix kernel and backbone, there's no way Microsoft is far behind.

I think the problem Microsoft will have with this, is accepting what things in their OS need to change in favor Unix. The NT kernel isn't altogether unstable, so I could also see how there might be a hesitation there to completely abandon that in favor of a new kernel, but rather Microsoft would try to adapt Unix into the NT kernel, and it would lose a fair amount of its unix-ness in the transition (much in the same manner than the NT kernel lost a bit of its NT-ness in the transition to XP, where Microsoft wanted to make it pretty and more user-friendly).


My work is switching their Macs to OS X Jag, I believe, so I'll get some time working on that (hell, I'll probably be the one having to make all the instalations).

I doubt Unix will make a good Windows either way, because it lacks compatibility, and that is what counters an OS'es stability and speed. Take Windows XP and Windows 2000 for instance. MS took Windows 2000 and gave it a new (well, modified) GUI, and much more compatiblity (and called it Windows XP). Windows XP as lost a small portion of its stability, and a more noticeable portion of the speed. So, when you add the compatibility to Unix you are gambling on its ability to remain a performer in terms of stability and speed.

I have heard that MS has a secret project or something similiar that they have going which is to use Unix as a kernel.

If Microsoft is secretly doing that, it will be a few years until they include into a new Windows version. Apple had the same problem with compatilitity, but with apple they just stopped supporting old programs natively. That has improved, both speed and stability.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You give it the compatibility to support more, and there goes everything that they accomplished by moving over to Unix. Once companies start to include Unix as a base for the programs they release, then the OS market will be a better place for everyone.