fair enough, I like folders it reminds me of playing my vinyl records, I also like to listen to albums for the most part from start to finish.

By tweaking I meant configuring, but point also taken.

I'm sure the absolute numbers are large, but the percentage is small.
Not at bay, just off balance. Keep the enemy guessing.
That's an unfair comparison. What is better, to take longer to implement a good fix, or rush out one that creates as many problems as it solves? You have to look at their track records: who is plagued by successful exploits?

I do think that they "couldn't handle it" either, but then I think that most if not all companies can't handle it in the long run. The enterprise wants to turn the computer into a commodity with low prices on interchangeable boxes. That is antithetical to real innovation and leads to a dead end for companies that focus on it. Dell, for example, has been having trouble with its profitability for a while now because everyone else caught up with their manufacturing/distributing advantages and they have nothing else to give them an edge.

I don't need to back up these claims. Apple was the first machine hacked at the last security conference. The ARD client root escalation bug took them months and months to fix. The DNS issue was a known fix, everyone fixed it with in that first month: Cisco, Novell, Microsoft, anything that can handle DNS fixed it, the problem was with DNS not with the OS, it had to do with BIND. DNS released the information to fix it and Apple took their super sweet time.

However, Apple is innovating on the Enterprise level. Google search Podcast Producer and XSAN w/ XGRID and you will see what they are doing. Even if SJ says they aren't an enterprise company they sure do have a TON of enterprise products that came out in the last few years and they have more to come.

This is digressing a bit though.

Back on topic:

From other polls it seems that the Windows/custom build PC crowd would love to buy it for their PCs. The Linux/Unix crowd says it highly depends on how Apple implements it. They view Apple much like Microsoft in regards to an OS and a company. The casual users I have polled have all pretty much said, if there was a trial OS I didn't have to pay for, and if they liked it they would buy the OS for their PC.

About 25% of those that said yes, said they would consider buying a Mac after they tried it on their PC first.

I have polled only about 60 or so people at the moment so the numbers are pretty low.

Anecdotal evidence can be used to show anything you like, but look at the long term stats. OS X has been around for nearly nine years now, and it's essentially untouched by malware.
I have no problem with them selling products to the enterprise. I just don't think it would be good for them focus on the enterprise and I'm afraid that they would have to if they separated the OS from the hardware.

That IS what I am saying CWT, is that the long term of it, is that Apple sucks worse than anyone else when it comes to implementing updates. Historically and even by today's standards OS X gets patched in a less timely manner.

Huh? Didn't OS X go through 5 major revisions in the time is took MS to go from XP to Vista? :confused:

Revisions is one thing, bug fixing and security patching is another. Just because you can upgrade the OS and add some new features does not mean you have fixed security issues or known bugs.

I have a current known bug that Apple won't be fixing until 10.6 so I am forced to upgrade to fix it.

This is getting off the point yet again.

Be it consumer or enterprise, would people be interested in purchasing OS X for a non mac computer?

You say "won't", reality may be "can't" or "can't reasonably".

I can't possibly see where this fix would require 10.6 as its not a problem with the OS itself, it is with an Apple made app, but that is what it is.

How have you determined the fix (or right fix) is appropriate or possible in 10.5?

Also, as I said, it could be "can't reasonably" and not "can't". It may be the case that the correct fix conflicts with other changes happening in the development/build cycle and/or future changes the team knows about. Sometimes in the midst of all of the things happening, there isn't time or resources to back-port the change to the earlier release and test it thoroughly.

I can't speculate as to what the case is here--especially given I don't even know what bug you're talking about--but these are common scenarios and I would hesitate to jump to conclusions.

I have Apple Enterprise Support (pay for kind) and talked with engineers directly. They said, yeah its a bug, its now put a list to be fixed, probably won't be any time soon probably won't be in 10.5, straight from Apple.

None of this conflicts with what I said, just describes what I was talking about. :)

I would, but only because I'd like to run OS X on a netbook. If Apple released a netbook however...