Mac does not run on PC hardware. Although you can use some virtual computer (like VMware).

Maybe this dream can come true now when Apple is working with Intel instead of AMD, but according to Jobs this will not happen, though.

Regards.

This recent story has a little more info on the Apple / Intel partnership. As it stands today though Mac hardware and Mac software are designed to work together, you can't mix and match them like you can with other operating systems. Consequently, trying to dual boot Windows and Mac (at least from a practical prespective) isn't really an option today. In terms of the future, according to the following quote from the above linked story,
so unfortunately I would not be too optimistic about being able to put OS X on your Linux box. Who knows though, there are some seriously smart people out there and someone may come up with a workaround -- J.W.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/index.html

addresses the issue of Microsoft's involvement in the US political process. How does that apply in Asia? Have they bought off the government?

Posted in wrong topic and carn't delete this.

Now ask essentially the same question of various governments (including your own), and some of the world's problems might start to make a bit more sense all of a sudden.......

But anyway - on topic - it's for the same reason, as it so happens. Money. Of course.

These "Asian nations" are no-doubt laughing their asses off. (Or rather, laughing at the "asses...")

"Who knows who builds open-source software?" Well... IBM, just for starters.

I sincerely wish that Microsoft would have a change of management, because they sorely need one. No one is really arguing that the Windows operating-systems aren't good ... even "very" good or "very, very" good ... it's just that they're not "good for everything, everyone, everywhere, every time." And instead of accepting this undeniable aspect of the marketplace, and working with the literally thousands of developers who are using "other" systems, they (or at least, their lawyers) endlessly fight and quarrel.

The community of Microsoft's customers does not benefit from this; nor do the shareholders and stakeholders. (They're just pouring money into lawyer pockets.) What customers want is for the synergy that exists within the open-source market to spill over into Microsoft's own products. Money is always available to buy "better products." Trying to "build a legal fence around a slight-innovation and to defend it against all comers" does not make a product better; it only makes a lawyer richer. (And the lawyers retained by Microsoft are positively fleecing that company, knowing that it considers itself "too rich to care.")

When IBM Corporation, a vastly older, richer and larger company, not only accepts the open-source community but actively promotes it, then maybe .. just maybe .. they know something that Microsoft doesn't. Maybe Microsoft should rein-in those lawyers, pay closer attention to what they're telling other people in Microsoft's name, and start listening...

There was, after all, a time when Wang Corporation had "80% market share!" (Does anybody out there even remember Wang? Hmmm....)