I've heard nothing but good things about OS X, from colleagues, from Open Source publications and advocates, the list goes on. I'd love to give it a try, I really would. And I would give it a try (and might even become an instant convert), if I could use it on the hardware platform of my choice.
What is it about these people, the Suns and Apples of this world, that makes then insist we buy their boxes as well as their software? Why can't we have the choice (yes, I know about Solaris for the PC - wasn't that discontinued this year?)?
The single greatest factor in bring the power and flexibility of computers to the home and desktop has been the commoditization of the PC hardware platform - kudos to IBM for that, and grudging acknowledgement to MS for riding he wave. But make no mistake about it: the principal reason behind MS's success as a business is down to the affordability of the hardware.
What are the obstacles to OS X on Intel? Darwin runs on Intel, right? Might it not be possible for OS X to become platform-independent (given the will of Jobs), in the same way Linux has? I don't know - I'd like to know, though...
IMHO, OS X could be a real contender on the Intel platform, if only it were given a chance. Why isn't it being given that chance? Or maybe that's the next step in it's progression?
Does anyone out there have any insight?