Operating systems may not be sleek and sexy to Steve, since he realizes he can make more recurring revenue off of music at a dollar a pop than selling decent hardware.

However, Vista is being beaten like a dead horse by the mass media - most of them already are enthralled to the God of Jobs if you read between the lines, so Microsoft could make nuclear fusion work tomorrow and they'd give it a lukewarm review at best. The consensus view out of the babbling punditry is "Don't buy Vista today, unless you have to buy a new computer tomorrow."

It doesn't help corporate buyers that Microsoft is already talking about issuing a service pack for Vista in the second half of 2007 and I've seen one bloke describe the release of Vista as "Hacker's Christmas." There's a lot of nattering that a SP doesn't mean what it used to because the Internet gets its workout every month with the regular Microsoft Patch Day, er update cycle and even a suggestion that the announcement of an SP is merely a clever marketing move by the Vole to trick, er win over corporate buyers on the theory that an SP hitting the streets represents a mature and stable version of the OS. (Yes, if you are going "Huh?" on that one, so am I).

If Apple was serious, and I mean really serious, about gaining more PC market share, they'd realize they need to license/sell their operating system to another hardware manufacturer or two. Sure, Apple's tried the license route before with mixed results, but it's about time to bite the bullet, look into the mirror, and realize they should try something bold.

Apple should license their operating system to Dell.

Why Dell? Dell is one of the few companies that could actually make the marriage work. They make quality hardware, know how to squeeze every last penny out of manufacturing, and wouldn't/shouldn't break a sweat supporting Mac OS. If anything, Mac OS should actually CUT their support costs because they won't get so many odd-ball calls about Windows XP/Vista issues.

HP could do it, but they are more likely focused on seeing how much extra they can squeeze out of Voodoo before they start dabbling into new territory. HP also tends to high-ball new hardware and concepts, so I couldn't see them making a Mac-clone that didn't cost at least 25 to 35 percent more than Apple's boxes (of course, Apple wouldn't mind that either, except for the fact they wouldn't make more than the one-time licensing agreement since HP couldn't move any boxes on a price premium).

Sony? C'mon. Sony has enough trouble getting rid of in-house proprietary schemes like MemoryStick out of their hardware. They also might actually come up with a case that looked almost as cool as Apple's various incarnations.

On the other side of the coin, eMachines could be trusted to make a very cheap Mac clone, but it would end up being too cheap and Sir Steve and his men just couldn't have that. Must keep up some standards.

Apple could position the move as "Dell is so cool, we had to do a deal with them." Underlying that is "Let's face facts, with the exception of a pretty case, and a couple of hardware features, we're an Intel box all the same." (I know I'm going to get foaming rabid Mac owners that say the bits under the hood of their machines are especially selected by Zen Master Craftsmen and assembled by virgins in a far off land with blessed incense burning on a 24x7 basis, but it just ain't so).

What has Apple got to lose? Zero.

What does Apple have to gain? More market share, shaking/breaking the monopoly of Microsoft on the desktop for "The Rest of Us" (Enough with the Linux already, too many steps to make it work for The Rest of Us), and a good diversion away from Steve's issues with the SEC. µ