comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Daniel Johnson wrote:

> "Maverick" wrote in message
> news:9PudnYKwaOL6NGjanZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@bresnan.com...
>
>>> This shows how Windows is doing better at its 64-bit transition: it's
>>> got a complete set of 64-bit APIs, which will enable Adobe to make
>>> this transition without a rewrite. Apple hasn't gotten this far;
>>> they've got a 32-bit OS with limited 64-bit extensions, and will hold
>>> Mac users back.
>>
>>
>> It all seems like it is, but then MS isn't really getting many bites
>> on Vista-64. All of their sales figures are to vendors, not users.
>> I'm sure these vendors would just love to dump, er sell, all of these
>> on new PCs. :D
>
>
> Well, that's the pattern for all of Windows, not just the 64-bit kind.
> Most users do not care about OSes at all, any more than they care about
> graphics cards or serial ports. They buy the system that the OEM builds.
>

Only your assumption that people do not care.

> Microsoft would love to see end-users buys tons of OS upgrades- they'd
> make a lot more money if users would do that. But I think that won't
> happen until MS gets better marketing (if then). Their Vista marketing
> has been pathetic, and they've let their competitors control the discourse.
>
> But in the end, reality trumps PR, and the reality is that OEMs pick the
> OS for their systems, and they aren't fooled by ad campaigns with two
> guys on white backgrounds.

No, OEMs pick the o/s as MS only because they don't have to make their
own. HP got pretty much out of that business. Some lady from Avon did
that. Besides, MS gave the OEMs a pretty good deal and the OEMs just
pass the costs to the consumer. If Apple were to make OS X generic and
run on any PC then we'd see which OEMs would choose. As PCMag has
reported, OS X is the most polished o/s out there and gave it their
number 1 pick.