In article <SwzTi.224$mg.118@fe093.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> Unless it's an iPod, right?
> You're quick to point out that sales isn't an indicator of quality when
> it's a category that Apple has a small fraction of the market, like PC or
> OS sales, yet the market dominance of the iPod is somehow "proof" of it's
> greatness.

The iPod is an excellent example of a do-dad that was engineered
brilliantly...so much so that even a dummy could use it...and they
captured the market with it.

> Yes, one was sold as an add-on to any compatible device with an open
> architecture, while one was bundled as a value-add only available for or
> with higher-priced computers with a closed architecture from a single
> vendor.

That's pretty much the deal.

> Knock the instability of Windows all you like, but it has a tough task-
> it has to install, and work, on a myriad of essentially untested hardware
> configurations from dozens, if not hundreds of vendors.

Yup, it's a tough gig. But the security model doesn't have to be as
lame as it is.

> Is Mac OS stable? Sure- why shouldn't it be? It's written, tested, and
> sold by the samea vendor who has built every single machine it's capable
> of running on- no "mystery" configurations or "99% compatible" hardware
> is lurking around waiting to trip it up- no incompatible vendor supplied
> drivers or software to conflict with, etc.

Which is why you won't see OS X sold for non-Apple computers.