The big question here is what kind of product the boxed version of Mac OS X really is.
- Upgrade -
Given that one may officially only install the product on "an Apple-labeled computer", and every Mac comes preinstalled with OS X, a case could be made that the boxed version is really an upgrade. This is however hard to defend as the AppleTV is an Apple-labeled computer and runs a version of OS X, but it would be illegal to run Mac OS X on an AppleTV.
- OEM -
When you buy a boxed Mac OS X, you can only install it on Macs that meet the requirements. Support through Apple is minimal, you're expected to have bought AppleCare for your computer, which then gets you OS support as well. This could pass for some form of OEM deal.
- Retail -
Retail, ie. "buy the product, and do with it as you please" seems like the least plausible option. There is only one Mac OS X Leopard Client, and for most customers it costs $129. This is way less from what Microsoft charges for their full featured 64-bits Vista retail version. Has Apple ever been known for their bargains?
I think Psystar might be mistaking the boxed version for a retail version. In the unlikely case that the win the case however, I can see Apple creating a full retail version and an upgrade version, with the full retail version being > $1000, so that it won't make any sense for Psystar to sell the systems anymore.
First off, thanks for taking a look and responding.
As was already clear before, you have different needs from mine, and that means that you'll likely end up with a different solution. You prefer a little blending without it getting in the way of your reading, while my uses require accurate display of type for print.
Sub-pixel rendering isn't turned on by default in my Linux distro. The screenshots I took were from a clean install, no extra fonts installed, no settings changed, the way an average computer user would see it. Same with the OSX screenshots. I only gave XP a little push, since XP's font smoothing is completely turned off by default.
"Quality free fonts" are always a problem, since they don't exist. Fonts from Adobe, Bitstream, etc don't come cheap, and for good reason. The Microsoft fonts aren't the greatest, but if you want to use them, they do have to be licensed. While one can buy the Microsoft fonts for $30 a piece, it's cheaper to just buy Vista. Apple licenses the core fonts from Microsoft. Aside from the MS fonts, MacOS X comes with thousands of dollars worth of fonts, the Japanese fonts alone cost a fortune if bought separately.
The rendering of fonts on Linux must be tricky anyways, having to be careful not to run into technologies patented by Apple and Adobe. IANAL, but from what I've read, there's legal implications to using TrueType hinting on Linux, since obviously no licensing fees are being paid.
I still find it shocking that XP and Linux failed to show me a proper Arial Bold, it just displayed it as a Regular, which means you can't trust anything you see on the screen. It means that even if Linux would have the apps I use, multiple monitor support, and some kind of color accuracy, the lack of a good preview would mean I couldn't use Linux for work.
With OSX's Quartz, everything is calculated by the GPU. The interface, the animations, the anti-aliasing. I like that all the eye candy isn't eating away from my CPU time. I like how everything scales, and how everything can be saved to PDF from anywhere. But earlier in the thread someone asked why Apple didn't just use X.org instead of Quartz; apparently, one of Apple's software engineers reads/. as well: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75257&cid=6734612
Apart from the fact that just because one window stalls it shouldn't take all of Windows Explorer along with it, I am very interested in knowing over about relaunching Windows Explorer.
If I understand correctly, the way this would work is:
- CTRL+ALT+DEL into task manager, click 'processes', kill explorer.exe(s)
- Select 'New Task' from 'File'-menu, type 'cmd'
- type 'net use */delete' (enter)
From what I could find on Microsoft Technet, it seems this cancels all connections with network servers. Most of the times when this happens to me however, it's because Windows Explorer tries to load a local folder that has lots of files in it. Anywho, thanks, when it happens again, I'll be sure to try it.
Funny how without proofreading properly, you can end up saying the opposite of what you meant to say.
Second paragraph was meant to read:
"For the kind of work I do [..] The search function in OSX, Spotlight, I have found to be more effective than the search function in Vista -- I don't know whether Linux has anything comparable."
My bad, I don't work with Linux on the desktop, and haven't worked with the X Window system since the IRIX days. I had to do a little reading as to how X Window relates to the components of OSX. I really appreciate how you said "for my uses", that is what it all boils down to.
For the kind of work I do the Finder is great, but I'm sure that Konqueror is the best for you. Dealing with a lot of images and PDFs, there are tools in the Finder that I haven't seen anywhere. CoverFlow and QuickLook are huge time-savers for me. The search function in OSX, Spotlight, I have found to be nowhere as effective as the search function in Vista -- I don't know whether Linux has anything comparable.
Maybe the most invaluable feature added to the Finder in recent years has been Smart Folders, Apple's implementation of BeOS's Virtual Folders (they even hired the same guy to build it). Smart Folders is great because it works dynamically, searches inside documents, and you can add any number of criteria. (I know Vista and Gnome nowadays have similar 'saved searches' implementations)
I took the time to put up a page with screenshots of how the different systems render the same wikipedia page. I even made the font size +1 larger, as XP, even with smooth type turned on, won't anti-alias below a certain font size.
The experience of what is easier on the eyes is a subjective one, but that's not what we're testing. What determines the quality of anti-aliasing is how well the onscreen rendition matches a printed version (the whole idea being that this is not 1993 and not everything should need proofing.)
I didn't take the screenshots to judge the way Linux and XP handle spacing and kerning. I picked a page that contained no serifs, as on the Mac that would've shown ligatures, another unfair advantage. It should be taken into account that Linux comes with no high-quality fonts, and that the font shown on the Linux rendition of the Wikipedia is nowhere close to the ones on the Mac and PC. Quality fonts can be installed of course, but this demo is about what the average user will experience.
Looking at the results, it is particularly interesting to see that XP and Linux don't render the sans-serif headings as bold, but rather thicken the regular font a bit. Furthermore, on XP as well as on Linux straight areas of the characters aren't anti-aliased at all, the drawback of which is very noticeable looking at the capital 'L' in the cutouts.
In order to judge how well your own system renders fonts, you can browse to the Linux article on Wikipedia, print the page, and then hold it next to your screen.
NB: Anti-aliasing settings were used for flat panel displays with a gamma of 2.2.
Linux would fail certification because of the differences between the Single UNIX Specification and Linux Standard Base. These incompatibilities are documented on the website of The Open Group:
Aqua is the name of a skin, just like Platinum was the look of MacOS 8 and 9. The presentation layer we're talking about is Quartz, and the desktop environment is the Finder. One of the nice thing about the Finder is that it's just a program, which can be relaunched at any time -- this is where Windows XP fails; when XP finds displaying the contents of a volume too difficult, it just freezes, and takes everything along with it, requiring a restart of the entire system.
As for anti-aliasing being better on XP than on the Mac, let alone on any Linux, I wouldn't know what to tell you without being rude. Let's just say we have different standards. (my standards have something to do with working in publishing for the last 15 years.)
Well, that was about as big as we could expect: the Canadian public broadcasting system. It's nice to know that at least the press that isn't owned by Vivendi, Viacom, Newscorp or Disney dares to publish something other than MPAA sensationalism.
The problem is that (unlike bread) someone invented UNIX (at AT&T), someone owns the intellectual property to UNIX (Novell), and someone owns the UNIX trademark (The Open Group). It's fine to create open source software that is compatible with UNIX - but you can't call it UNIX and you can't use its IP-protected code.
The Open Group holds the UNIX trademark, and anyone who wants to license the trademark must have a proper UNIX, as outlined in the Single UNIX Specification (SUS). Linux is not the only one who can't use the UNIX trademark, even FreeBSD doesn't comply with the SUS. Novell owns the intellectual property to UNIX, and has said that they believe there is no UNIX in Linux, and therefore won't sue. So be glad Linux is not an UNIX.
I'm not so sure. There's no X Window manager out there right now that doesn't have serious shortcomings. None of them do anti-aliasing right, something MacOS has had for decades. The OSX graphical layer, Quartz, is based on Adobe's PDF technology which makes everything smooth and scaleable, and integrates great with OpenGL, Core Image, Core Animation and QuickTime.
The look of Aqua is something we could debate about (even though it is clear where Beryl got the inspiration for its effects), but the Quartz window server and Finder file manager are lightyears ahead of anything X Window can come up with.
Let's put it this way: if Linux is an UNIX, someone ought to get paid for the licensing. Even Apple and Microsoft made a deal so that Microsoft can sell Windows, why should Linux projects be allowed to copy everything under the sun without having to pay for it?
Somehow it always happens to this kind of outfits. Conveniently, the press will jump on the story of those ugly meanies who steal from musicians, but when it's rectification time, that isn't news.
I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs didn't code OSX in his basement, Linus Torvalds might have done some on Linux. The reason why I mentioned Aqua is because 'modern UNIX' was mentioned in combination with the Linux window manager. That made me chuckle. Anywho, anyone wanting to run X Window can simply opt to install X11 with Mac OSX (it's on the install DVD), or forgo Aqua altogether by running Darwin.
Broadening the term to 'modern UNIX' as to include Linux isn't going to cut it. Linus did a good job at looking at UNIX for inspiration and he did aim to make an UNIX-compatible OS, but that doesn't make it anymore of an UNIX than Vista is a version of MacOS. And you surely couldn't be suggesting that Linux's filesystem layout(s) and graphical environment(s) are more modern than OSX's. Making your OS look like 80s X Window and using archaic filesystems don't make it a more hardcore or 'modern UNIX'.
Not really. OSX, as opposed to Linux, is a real UNIX. Apple bought NEXT and borrowed all that was good about NEXTSTEP. NEXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel, with code from BSD. Soon after Apple purchased NEXT, Jobs was hired as a consultant. In the 10 years that followed, Apple changed the OS so that it is now a certified UNIX. http://www.theopengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
don't forget how many educational programs are only windows capable (99% perhaps). I don't know where you live, but here in the US, Apple has traditionally been the number one supplier to education. Since a couple of years, it's the number one supplier for education in Western Europe as well. In Switzerland, 55% of all computers in education are Macs. Given the amount of Macs in education, I seriously doubt that 99% percent of all educational programs only run on Windows.
I'm purposely leaving OSX out of this discussion since they would cost even more as a desktop implementation. That's curious, because it has been shown time and again that Apple computers have a lower total cost of ownership. Sources: http://www.networkworld.com/best/2006/022706bestbreaker-schwartau.html, http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=22738, http://www.cio.com/article/127050/Eight_Financial_Reasons_Why_You_Should_Use_Mac_OS.
"The schools do benefit some."
How is that? It just means that they'll likely forego decent comparison of operating systems and their total cost of ownership. Remember, the Windows license is just the start, they'll also have to factor in the cost of managing the systems, troubleshooting, and eventually, the cost to upgrade all their Microsoft applications because of security issues and vulnerabilities. This stunt just delays the inevitable.
"as a company we welcome choice" [Orlando Ayala]...and that's why we give them the choice to use any OS as long as it's Windows.
It might have to do with the fact that if you give a child a Mac or Linux box, it's empowering, while if you force them to use Windows, it's borderline child abuse.
That for one would at least make it seem like they're not just doing it out of self-interest. This way it just looks bad, like a cheap method of conversion, in the style of Gilette razor blades.
I wasn't aware one could run Win 3.1 apps on Vista.
As for the Mac, the switch from 68k to PowerPC took forever, mainly because all the new apps still worked fine on 68k. Software was released as 'Fat Binaries' for the longest time, so that it could still be run on the older 68k machines.
The switch from PowerPC to Intel has been great as well, and is an on-going process. The vast majority of Mac software being released now is still compatible with PowerPC, so-called 'Universal' apps. Apple purchased technology that allows Mac Intel users to run PowerPC apps and has included it in the last few versions of OSX as the 'Rosetta' layer. All work seamless, with no user intervention whatsoever. Just double-click the app, like you've always done.
You kid, but that's actually a decent point. A while back, Apple invited Andrea Jung, Chairman and CEO of Avon Inc. to take place in Apple's Board of Directors. It is expected that she'll bring a certain focus on women's wants and needs and how to target that particular market. As has become clear with the iPod, women will spend insane amounts for something that looks pretty and works well. The general populace of men is more interested in whether it is 'cool', or more to the point: whether it makes *them* look cool. How many women do you know who will bring a new gadget to a party to try and make their friends envious of them?
Apple won't mind if you buy a Mac, but you're probably not the kind of consumer they want.
Slashdot Mirror
The big question here is what kind of product the boxed version of Mac OS X really is.
- Upgrade -
Given that one may officially only install the product on "an Apple-labeled computer", and every Mac comes preinstalled with OS X, a case could be made that the boxed version is really an upgrade. This is however hard to defend as the AppleTV is an Apple-labeled computer and runs a version of OS X, but it would be illegal to run Mac OS X on an AppleTV.
- OEM -
When you buy a boxed Mac OS X, you can only install it on Macs that meet the requirements. Support through Apple is minimal, you're expected to have bought AppleCare for your computer, which then gets you OS support as well. This could pass for some form of OEM deal.
- Retail -
Retail, ie. "buy the product, and do with it as you please" seems like the least plausible option. There is only one Mac OS X Leopard Client, and for most customers it costs $129. This is way less from what Microsoft charges for their full featured 64-bits Vista retail version. Has Apple ever been known for their bargains?
I think Psystar might be mistaking the boxed version for a retail version. In the unlikely case that the win the case however, I can see Apple creating a full retail version and an upgrade version, with the full retail version being > $1000, so that it won't make any sense for Psystar to sell the systems anymore.
According to the Stevenote, there will still be a 2G radio in the new iPhone, so where there's no 3G, it should revert to Edge.
No FM radio. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
First off, thanks for taking a look and responding.
/. as well:
As was already clear before, you have different needs from mine, and that means that you'll likely end up with a different solution. You prefer a little blending without it getting in the way of your reading, while my uses require accurate display of type for print.
Sub-pixel rendering isn't turned on by default in my Linux distro. The screenshots I took were from a clean install, no extra fonts installed, no settings changed, the way an average computer user would see it. Same with the OSX screenshots. I only gave XP a little push, since XP's font smoothing is completely turned off by default.
"Quality free fonts" are always a problem, since they don't exist. Fonts from Adobe, Bitstream, etc don't come cheap, and for good reason. The Microsoft fonts aren't the greatest, but if you want to use them, they do have to be licensed. While one can buy the Microsoft fonts for $30 a piece, it's cheaper to just buy Vista. Apple licenses the core fonts from Microsoft. Aside from the MS fonts, MacOS X comes with thousands of dollars worth of fonts, the Japanese fonts alone cost a fortune if bought separately.
The rendering of fonts on Linux must be tricky anyways, having to be careful not to run into technologies patented by Apple and Adobe. IANAL, but from what I've read, there's legal implications to using TrueType hinting on Linux, since obviously no licensing fees are being paid.
I still find it shocking that XP and Linux failed to show me a proper Arial Bold, it just displayed it as a Regular, which means you can't trust anything you see on the screen. It means that even if Linux would have the apps I use, multiple monitor support, and some kind of color accuracy, the lack of a good preview would mean I couldn't use Linux for work.
With OSX's Quartz, everything is calculated by the GPU. The interface, the animations, the anti-aliasing. I like that all the eye candy isn't eating away from my CPU time. I like how everything scales, and how everything can be saved to PDF from anywhere. But earlier in the thread someone asked why Apple didn't just use X.org instead of Quartz; apparently, one of Apple's software engineers reads
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75257&cid=6734612
Apart from the fact that just because one window stalls it shouldn't take all of Windows Explorer along with it, I am very interested in knowing over about relaunching Windows Explorer.
/delete' (enter)
If I understand correctly, the way this would work is:
- CTRL+ALT+DEL into task manager, click 'processes', kill explorer.exe(s)
- Select 'New Task' from 'File'-menu, type 'cmd'
- type 'net use *
From what I could find on Microsoft Technet, it seems this cancels all connections with network servers. Most of the times when this happens to me however, it's because Windows Explorer tries to load a local folder that has lots of files in it. Anywho, thanks, when it happens again, I'll be sure to try it.
Funny how without proofreading properly, you can end up saying the opposite of what you meant to say.
Second paragraph was meant to read: "For the kind of work I do [..] The search function in OSX, Spotlight, I have found to be more effective than the search function in Vista -- I don't know whether Linux has anything comparable."
My bad, I don't work with Linux on the desktop, and haven't worked with the X Window system since the IRIX days. I had to do a little reading as to how X Window relates to the components of OSX. I really appreciate how you said "for my uses", that is what it all boils down to.
For the kind of work I do the Finder is great, but I'm sure that Konqueror is the best for you. Dealing with a lot of images and PDFs, there are tools in the Finder that I haven't seen anywhere. CoverFlow and QuickLook are huge time-savers for me. The search function in OSX, Spotlight, I have found to be nowhere as effective as the search function in Vista -- I don't know whether Linux has anything comparable.
Maybe the most invaluable feature added to the Finder in recent years has been Smart Folders, Apple's implementation of BeOS's Virtual Folders (they even hired the same guy to build it). Smart Folders is great because it works dynamically, searches inside documents, and you can add any number of criteria. (I know Vista and Gnome nowadays have similar 'saved searches' implementations)
I took the time to put up a page with screenshots of how the different systems render the same wikipedia page. I even made the font size +1 larger, as XP, even with smooth type turned on, won't anti-alias below a certain font size.
http://homepage.mac.com/sumpuran/antialiasing/
The experience of what is easier on the eyes is a subjective one, but that's not what we're testing. What determines the quality of anti-aliasing is how well the onscreen rendition matches a printed version (the whole idea being that this is not 1993 and not everything should need proofing.)
I didn't take the screenshots to judge the way Linux and XP handle spacing and kerning. I picked a page that contained no serifs, as on the Mac that would've shown ligatures, another unfair advantage. It should be taken into account that Linux comes with no high-quality fonts, and that the font shown on the Linux rendition of the Wikipedia is nowhere close to the ones on the Mac and PC. Quality fonts can be installed of course, but this demo is about what the average user will experience.
Looking at the results, it is particularly interesting to see that XP and Linux don't render the sans-serif headings as bold, but rather thicken the regular font a bit. Furthermore, on XP as well as on Linux straight areas of the characters aren't anti-aliased at all, the drawback of which is very noticeable looking at the capital 'L' in the cutouts.
In order to judge how well your own system renders fonts, you can browse to the Linux article on Wikipedia, print the page, and then hold it next to your screen.
NB: Anti-aliasing settings were used for flat panel displays with a gamma of 2.2.
Linux would fail certification because of the differences between the Single UNIX Specification and Linux Standard Base. These incompatibilities are documented on the website of The Open Group:
http://www.opengroup.org/platform/single_unix_specification/doc.tpl?gdid=6075
http://www.opengroup.org/platform/single_unix_specification/doc.tpl?gdid=5992
Aqua is the name of a skin, just like Platinum was the look of MacOS 8 and 9. The presentation layer we're talking about is Quartz, and the desktop environment is the Finder. One of the nice thing about the Finder is that it's just a program, which can be relaunched at any time -- this is where Windows XP fails; when XP finds displaying the contents of a volume too difficult, it just freezes, and takes everything along with it, requiring a restart of the entire system.
As for anti-aliasing being better on XP than on the Mac, let alone on any Linux, I wouldn't know what to tell you without being rude. Let's just say we have different standards. (my standards have something to do with working in publishing for the last 15 years.)
Well, that was about as big as we could expect: the Canadian public broadcasting system. It's nice to know that at least the press that isn't owned by Vivendi, Viacom, Newscorp or Disney dares to publish something other than MPAA sensationalism.
The problem is that (unlike bread) someone invented UNIX (at AT&T), someone owns the intellectual property to UNIX (Novell), and someone owns the UNIX trademark (The Open Group). It's fine to create open source software that is compatible with UNIX - but you can't call it UNIX and you can't use its IP-protected code.
The Open Group holds the UNIX trademark, and anyone who wants to license the trademark must have a proper UNIX, as outlined in the Single UNIX Specification (SUS). Linux is not the only one who can't use the UNIX trademark, even FreeBSD doesn't comply with the SUS. Novell owns the intellectual property to UNIX, and has said that they believe there is no UNIX in Linux, and therefore won't sue. So be glad Linux is not an UNIX.
I'm not so sure. There's no X Window manager out there right now that doesn't have serious shortcomings. None of them do anti-aliasing right, something MacOS has had for decades. The OSX graphical layer, Quartz, is based on Adobe's PDF technology which makes everything smooth and scaleable, and integrates great with OpenGL, Core Image, Core Animation and QuickTime.
The look of Aqua is something we could debate about (even though it is clear where Beryl got the inspiration for its effects), but the Quartz window server and Finder file manager are lightyears ahead of anything X Window can come up with.
Let's put it this way: if Linux is an UNIX, someone ought to get paid for the licensing. Even Apple and Microsoft made a deal so that Microsoft can sell Windows, why should Linux projects be allowed to copy everything under the sun without having to pay for it?
Somehow it always happens to this kind of outfits. Conveniently, the press will jump on the story of those ugly meanies who steal from musicians, but when it's rectification time, that isn't news.
I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs didn't code OSX in his basement, Linus Torvalds might have done some on Linux. The reason why I mentioned Aqua is because 'modern UNIX' was mentioned in combination with the Linux window manager. That made me chuckle. Anywho, anyone wanting to run X Window can simply opt to install X11 with Mac OSX (it's on the install DVD), or forgo Aqua altogether by running Darwin.
"Because we believe in choices"
I never said OSX is a microkernel. OSX has XNU, a cozy blend of Mach, GNU and I/O Kit. To quote Apple:
"It is not technically a microkernel implementation, but still has many of the benefits of a microkernel, such as Mach interprocess communication mechanisms and a relatively clean API separation between various parts of the kernel."
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/additionalfeatures/chapter_10_section_8.html
This one has pickshurez!!11!1!: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/Architecture/chapter_3_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000905-CH1g-TPXREF101
Broadening the term to 'modern UNIX' as to include Linux isn't going to cut it. Linus did a good job at looking at UNIX for inspiration and he did aim to make an UNIX-compatible OS, but that doesn't make it anymore of an UNIX than Vista is a version of MacOS. And you surely couldn't be suggesting that Linux's filesystem layout(s) and graphical environment(s) are more modern than OSX's. Making your OS look like 80s X Window and using archaic filesystems don't make it a more hardcore or 'modern UNIX'.
Not really. OSX, as opposed to Linux, is a real UNIX. Apple bought NEXT and borrowed all that was good about NEXTSTEP. NEXTSTEP was based on the Mach kernel, with code from BSD. Soon after Apple purchased NEXT, Jobs was hired as a consultant. In the 10 years that followed, Apple changed the OS so that it is now a certified UNIX. http://www.theopengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
I'm purposely leaving OSX out of this discussion since they would cost even more as a desktop implementation. That's curious, because it has been shown time and again that Apple computers have a lower total cost of ownership. Sources: http://www.networkworld.com/best/2006/022706bestbreaker-schwartau.html, http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=22738, http://www.cio.com/article/127050/Eight_Financial_Reasons_Why_You_Should_Use_Mac_OS.
"The schools do benefit some." How is that? It just means that they'll likely forego decent comparison of operating systems and their total cost of ownership. Remember, the Windows license is just the start, they'll also have to factor in the cost of managing the systems, troubleshooting, and eventually, the cost to upgrade all their Microsoft applications because of security issues and vulnerabilities. This stunt just delays the inevitable. "as a company we welcome choice" [Orlando Ayala] ...and that's why we give them the choice to use any OS as long as it's Windows.
It might have to do with the fact that if you give a child a Mac or Linux box, it's empowering, while if you force them to use Windows, it's borderline child abuse.
That for one would at least make it seem like they're not just doing it out of self-interest. This way it just looks bad, like a cheap method of conversion, in the style of Gilette razor blades.
I wasn't aware one could run Win 3.1 apps on Vista.
As for the Mac, the switch from 68k to PowerPC took forever, mainly because all the new apps still worked fine on 68k. Software was released as 'Fat Binaries' for the longest time, so that it could still be run on the older 68k machines.
The switch from PowerPC to Intel has been great as well, and is an on-going process. The vast majority of Mac software being released now is still compatible with PowerPC, so-called 'Universal' apps. Apple purchased technology that allows Mac Intel users to run PowerPC apps and has included it in the last few versions of OSX as the 'Rosetta' layer. All work seamless, with no user intervention whatsoever. Just double-click the app, like you've always done.
You kid, but that's actually a decent point. A while back, Apple invited Andrea Jung, Chairman and CEO of Avon Inc. to take place in Apple's Board of Directors. It is expected that she'll bring a certain focus on women's wants and needs and how to target that particular market. As has become clear with the iPod, women will spend insane amounts for something that looks pretty and works well. The general populace of men is more interested in whether it is 'cool', or more to the point: whether it makes *them* look cool. How many women do you know who will bring a new gadget to a party to try and make their friends envious of them?
Apple won't mind if you buy a Mac, but you're probably not the kind of consumer they want.