What would they pay Apple for? It's Intel tech and most PC buyers/manufacturers are just such cheapasses they don't want to pay extra for things like that.

Oh and yes, the RAM thing can't be worked around like this yet, but the amount of it grows with each gen until it's "better than enough" for everything but the tiniest niches.

Which is why you have fast external expansion buses in the laptops to replace the need of having internal expansions. The 10Gbps Thunderbolt is enough for that in many areas, especially if you have several of them. This new version is going to broaden that to applications like high-end gaming and such.

7.5 came out a year before Win95 and everyone who used an internet connection warezed MacTCP anyway.

The topic is about all Windows devices.

MacTCP was released in 1988.

Yeah, I second this. It's exactly the solution to the problem the OP is having and I use the same solution.

Conversion between for instance volume and length units would still suck if you stay with the US customary units. Why not just cube miles for volume, if your length unit is a mile?

So what's your opinion on stealth bombers then?

Circa 1993, Apple introduced the Newton MessagePad, which was Apple's first Pad product.

Don't insult double-clawed hammers, they probably have their use somewhere.

No, browsers nowadays are the least incompatible ever, and it becomes better year by year, when outdated IE versions drop off the considerable target lists. Getting rid of IE 6 was one of the greatest milestones of a decade, soon to be followed by IE 7 and IE 8.

I use one of these and I'm happy with it, but there are plenty of different models available for various different uses.

What most of you fail to understand is the TCO. The hardware costs nothing in comparison to how little time they need for setup and maintenance. If one fails, big deal; get a new one and restore it from the backup and it's running with a few minutes of work. Need more capacity or redundancy? Just get another and it's running within minutes. Need more demanding mass storage and/or networking? Plug that into the convenient external PCIe bus (Thunderbolt). Basically lim(0) setup time there too.

I still run my own servers as dedicated co-located generic Linux boxes, but the setup still takes roughly a day; not hours or minutes. That time isn't billable and I schedule it to days I can't do anything productive. If something fails without warning and requires immediate action, it's a day subtracted from writing billable hours of code, which per se costs about the same as a Mac Mini Server. For the customers of mine who need dedicated units for one reason or another, the Mac Minis pay for themselves just in the initial setup work alone, and they can manage them by themselves, just like my mom is able to manage her MacBook with maybe a support call every few years, when she wants an opinion on a hardware upgrade or such.

After the Mac Mini servers got the i7 CPU's, none of my customers chose a Linux option when presented with the cost breakdown. From the software perspective, my code isn't picky about which Unix or unix-like it's running on. Almost anything goes, as long as the system dependencies are installed. OS X Server just happens to have all the system dependencies preinstalled in the shipping configuration as well as everything else they typically might need.

In a small or medium scale setup or a large scale setup of heterogenous systems, Linux is cheap only if time doesn't cost anything, or the comparison baseline is something even worse; Microsoft Windows or such. Linux-based setups may also be feasible for certain large scale installations of homogenous nodes.