[rgreen4]

No, what I'm saying is that if you were going to write a spyware application to steal data, would you target an OS that has 90% of the market or one that has 5% of the market?
It a known fact that any OS CAN BE compromised, whether they are or not depends on how serious the malware writers are, and the protection installed by the user. Case in point, we know that the browser is the major conduit. When it was Firefox 1 vs IE5.5 &6, it was no contest. When the word began to spread (FF does not advertise), and Firefox 2 came out, things started to change. Now that Firefox 3 has been released with great fanfare and had 8 million downloads (mine is one of those) on the first day, a new report comes out touting a vunerability of Firefox 3, then at the end it says oh! by the way it's in FF2 also.

[bobob]

oh I thought I should add the fact that I am fully aware the chances of Apple making their software non-proprietary will never happen, which means I will never buy a Mac.
Also by calling them rude I mostly was referring to the OS X commercials in which they make fun of Windows, and all of the Windows users as a result. (I was ranting about the Bill/Bob thing but I had to go so I didn't have time to put the ad debate in.)
They are not promoting their own computers, they are making fun of Windows. Yes other companies have done the same, but not to the same extent as Apple (have you seen many other commercials for a MAC lately other than these comparison ads). Apple and all the other companies that have done this, it is very unprofessional. It reminds me of little kids "My toy is bigger than yours, haha, you must be dumb to like that toy". Multinational cooporations should not resort to making fun of another cooporations products to sell thier own, it is rather childish.

[brucel]

Just a bit off topic, but I sure wish < br > 's were allowed here. Run on sentences drive me nuts especiallly when they weren't written that way to begin with. Amazing. This system won't even accept bracket br bracket.

[cb3431]

I would have to agree with bobob about the advertising model used by Apple. Companies should spend their ad dollars telling me why I should chose their product. I really enjoyed it when Apple said they make all the hardware in their computers. Is there a special Mac that doesn't have an Intel chip or an ATI graphics card or a Western Digital hard drive or a Sony CD/DVD drive in it? I looked on Apple.com after the commercial aired and I couldn't find any such Mac with all Apple parts. If Macs are so great shouldn't that be enough to draw people to them? If Apple's primary focus is hardware and not software (as claimed by an earlier post) then shouldn't their commercials be aimed at Dell, HP, Sony or Toshiba? I am really glad that MIcrosoft didn't come back with its own ad campaign against the Apple commercials.

Correct me if I am wrong, didn't apple buy the company that actually developed OS X? Doesn't Apple pay another company for the technology behind the buttons on the iPod? If both are true then what does that say about Apple? Didn't Apple just become really good at marketing and then doing everything in their power to lock down the market in their favor?

I guess we will never know the minimum hardware requirements to run OS X because we aren't allowed to install it on our own hardware. I guess we will never how many of the different pieces of hardware out there will work with OS X because we are only allowed to use the hardware chosen for us by Apple.

I am just glad that I have other choices besides Apple for my technology needs.

[publicmenace]

Where does it say that tags are allowed on this forum? From the looks of all the curly braces in some of these posts, some posters are even trying to use Wiki tags on here.

[smax013]

cb3431 said:

I would have to agree with bobob about the advertising model used by Apple. Companies should spend their ad dollars telling me why I should chose their product.

One could argue that is what they are doing with those adds. They are pointing out why the Mac OS (which is only available on a Mac) is better (in their eyes) than Windows. The commercials are meant to show how some of the Mac OS' features, abilities, and performance compare to Windows. Yes, they are doing it in a funny or insulting (depending on your perspective way), but that is common for marketing. Face it...if Apple just has some boring commercial that listed how they thought the Mac OS running on a Mac was better than some computer running Windows, then a lot of people would tune it out. Instead, how many people specifically watch those Apple commecials to see what they come up with next, even if they might have the downside of turning some off? And I would say that it appears rather likely that even if Apple changed their commercials, you would not be too likely to change your opinion...you seem set in your opinion and your dislike of the commecials is kind of a reflection of that.

cb3431 said:

I really enjoyed it when Apple said they make all the hardware in their computers. Is there a special Mac that doesn't have an Intel chip or an ATI graphics card or a Western Digital hard drive or a Sony CD/DVD drive in it? I looked on Apple.com after the commercial aired and I couldn't find any such Mac with all Apple parts.

Macs have NEVER (to my knowledge) been solely comprise of Apple only hardware. Even before the move to Intel processors, Apple NEVER made their own processors...Macs were powered by processors made by Motorola or IBM. They have always used hard drives and optical drives manufactured by others. They do tend to put their own design in to the motherboard design and some of the chipsets and the overall design, but a lot of the things like hard drives, optical drives, memory, processors, etc are more "standard" stuff.

cb3431 said:

If Apple's primary focus is hardware and not software (as claimed by an earlier post) then shouldn't their commercials be aimed at Dell, HP, Sony or Toshiba? I am really glad that MIcrosoft didn't come back with its own ad campaign against the Apple commercials.

Yes...but while Apple is a hardware manufacturer first and foremost, their unique OS and how it differs from the OS that the likes of Dell, HP, Sony, or Toshiba use that is a major thing that sets them apart. The point of the hardware comment post is that they don't produce the OS just to sell the OS like Microsoft does...they produce the OS as a means to help set their hardware apart from the likes of Dell, HP, etc and thus sell their hardware. Thus, per typical marketing 101, you point out why your product is differnet and supposedly better than someone elses...and in the case of the Mac, a major reasoning is the Mac OS (whether it is really better or not...it is the major difference). Thus, the Mac vs. PC commercials ARE really also aimed at Dell, HP, Sony, etc. I will note that those commecials are Macs vs. PC not Mac vs. Windows. While many of those commercials focus on the fact that a PC runs Windows, there are some of the commercials that deal other aspects of a PC and why Apple feels the Mac is better.

cb3431 said:

I am just glad that I have other choices besides Apple for my technology needs.

By all means, that is good. Choice is good. No one solution works for everyone...and that includes Apple and their Macs. There are things that I need a computer to do that a Mac does not do as well as a PC running Windows...and so I also use a PC running Windows...and I doubt that will ever change. I prefer my Mac, but I fully realize that what works for me may not always work for everyone...including myself at times. While I like to see Apple do well and I will "defend" Apple when people say untrue things about them or Macs, I also don't want them to become the only choice. Part of my issue with Windows is that Microsoft in many ways got too powerful and as a result stopped caring what their customers might want and only focused on how to maintain their control and power. I have seen signs of such behaviour on occasion from Apple and it worries me...but they have yet to go over the deep end just yet.

[bobob]

thanks cb3431, you said it in a way that I could not

[bobob]

smax013 I noticed that you never had anything to say about [quote name='cb3431'] > Correct me if I am wrong, didn't apple buy the company that actually developed OS X? Doesn't Apple pay another company for the technology behind the buttons on the iPod? If both are true then what does that say about Apple? Didn't Apple just become really good at marketing and then doing everything in their power to lock down the market in their favor? Why is that? Are you agreeing with this, becuase you said that you will "defend" Apple when people say unture true things about them. It is exactly that that prevents me buying a mac or an iPod. Sure Microsoft has stolen ideas from Apple, but at least people complain about that. Do you realize that the Dock was first used in the AmigaOS developed by Amiga. The trusty FileEdit bar in Mac, hmm seen that before in Windows. No one complains about these things though; Apple are geniuses and developes everything from scratch by themselves

[rgreen4]

I disagree. Initally the "comparison" ads did talk about Mac features, but for the last year, it's been all negative about Vista. Not a single ad has mentioned or shown a Mac feature. The ad consists totally about PC and his problems with Vista, and Mac just rolling his eyes. It tells the prospective customer absolutely NOTHING about a Mac. Of course the whole irony is that Microsoft owns part of Apple - don't forget the bailout a few years back, when Bill even appeared on stage with Steve at an Apple meeting.

[shunt]

In my opinion, independent articles by proponents of each OS doesn't qualify as a smackdown. Each proponent doesn't answer convincingly the hard questions about why the limitations of their particular OS but rather extols their virtues. Even these are provided without any "cross-examination" by the others.

[smax013]

bobob said:

smax013 I noticed that you never had anything to say about > {quote:title=cb3431 wrote:}{quote} > Correct me if I am wrong, didn't apple buy the company that actually developed OS X? Doesn't Apple pay another company for the technology behind the buttons on the iPod? If both are true then what does that say about Apple? Didn't Apple just become really good at marketing and then doing everything in their power to lock down the market in their favor? Why is that? Are you agreeing with this, becuase you said that you will "defend" Apple when people say unture true things about them. It is exactly that that prevents me buying a mac or an iPod. Sure Microsoft has stolen ideas from Apple, but at least people complain about that. Do you realize that the Dock was first used in the AmigaOS developed by Amiga. The trusty FileEdit bar in Mac, hmm seen that before in Windows. No one complains about these things though; Apple are geniuses and developes everything from scratch by themselves

People complain about Microsoft because they feel that Microsoft STOLE stuff from Apple. They believe Microsoft took ideas from the Mac OS (way back in the day...and even today) and NEVER compensated Apple for things that was Apple's first. They don't complain about Apple BUYING the rights to the basic ideas of SOME of the key features of the original Mac OS (which Apple did do...part of the Mac OS was due to work done by folks at Xerox...but Xerox did not see what they had and they were willing to sell the rights to those ideas...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac[uOS[/u]history]) which they then combined with their own ideas. And people don't complain that Apple BOUGHT NeXT whose OS was a major part of what eventually became OS X (but NeXT did not actually develop OS X). Personally, I don't know if Apple pays someone for licensing the technology behind part of the iPod...it would not suprise me...there is a LOT of stuff that gets patented right away that does not make it on its own "big time" that then results in other companies paying licensing rights.



The point is that there is a BIG difference between buying idea and stealing ideas. Microsoft has bought LOTS of companies which has resulted in new products and ideas for them. That does not bother me at all. What bothers me is that Microsoft's GUI interface in Windows when it first came out took (stole, if you will) a lot of direct cues from the Mac GUI interface. While you can claim that neither Apple nor Microsoft might have come up with some (Apple DID come up with some on their own) of those items...at least Apple paid Xerox when they took them from Xerox...Microsoft did not such thing. And THAT is why some people complain about Microsoft but not Apple.



And I did not answer at first because while note completely factual accurate (i.e. NeXT did not develop Mac OS X as stated but rather had developed the NeXT OS which was heavily used by Apple as the basis for the Mac OS...AND I will note that NeXT was a company founded by Steve Jobs...so one could argue that since Mac OS X was developed under Steve Jobs using as a basis technology the Steve Job's previous company had developed that the forces that current run Apple were directly involved in developing it before it became Mac OS X...and thus it is merely another company in name only), but was more or less accurate. It was only when that thought was expanded upon with further blurring of the fact that I felt it worth rebutting.

[eMJay]

I like to use an apples and oranges scenario when i illustrate why i don't own a Mac but used everything else. Lets say you go to the grocery to buy an apple (to represent OSX) and some grapefruits (PC hardware). But at checkout, you're told you can buy the apple (OSX) but you won't be allowed to eat (install) it - you have to buy some really expensive oranges (overpriced PC hardware masquerading as Apple's proprietary hardware) to go with it - and it's only sold there...but you're allergic to oranges (you're neither rich nor stupid). You really want to buy the grapefruits (PC hardware) so you change your mind about the apples (OSX) and buy grapes (alternative OS). You get your vitamins either way but one way will make you bankrupt. Another scenario - Apple's market share rises from 7% to 80%. Only a select few hardware manufacturers able to do business with Apple the PC market nosedives - AMD, Asus and other board manufacturers, and memory module makers wiped out! Not with my money!

[rberzins]

i have to agree with brucel. I think the most sensible discussion of OSes will highlight the fact that some of them are good at some things, some are good at something else, and all have their place.

My 2c .. my experience with Macs is still tainted by the Macs of 10 years ago which had some of the most god awful stupid ideas i've come across in computers (e.g. a CD drive with no eject button at all.. Mac's DO crash). I will admit that large issues with the way Microsoft tests (doesn't seem to test) their software has finally made me consider Macs despite Steve Jobs irritating demeanour, itunes monopolizing music downloads (in the process making it a miserable experience if you don't have a Mac). I very much like the look of Vista though, but it IS hard to run. Having tried Ubuntu, Suse-Linux, and KDE (admittedely on an old machine with miniscule 128Mb RAM), I can say that Linux DOES crash and is NOT easy to understand at all even for an experienced user.

[smax013]

eMJay said:

(you're neither rich nor stupid).

No need to insult others. I don't see the need to resort to calling other people stupid just because you don't agree with them.



Beyond that, I am neither rich nor stupid and I have owned Macs all my life. There are plenty of people out there who are not rich (nor stupid) who spend more on a Windows PC than one would on a Mac. And the reality is (contrary to false claims by many) Macs are realistcally rather price competitive when you actually compare Apples to apple (pun intended and much more appropriate than your analogy). Macs are deliberately aimed at the higher end of the computer market. You can get a less expensive Windows computer because there are companies that choose to compete in the low end of the computer market...a market that by and large Apple chooses to go after (likely due to much smaller profit margins). Comparing something like a MacBook Pro laptop to a $500 Windows laptop is kind of like comparing a Ford Explorer to a Ford Focus. In both case, the two items are aimed at two ENTIRELY different market and thus two completely different levels of features.

eMJay said:

Another scenario - Apple's market share rises from 7% to 80%. Only a select few hardware manufacturers able to do business with Apple the PC market nosedives - AMD, Asus and other board manufacturers, and memory module makers wiped out! Not with my money!

As to this scenario, for that to play out, first of all Apple will have to expand upon the market sectors that they go after and likely change their business model (such as selling the Mac OS for use on non-Apple hardware). And as a result, you scenario will likely never happen. First of all, it will be a LONG time before Apple likely chooses to enter the low end market and its accompanying lower profits. But, beyond that it is virtually impossible for Apple to attain an 80% market share in computers (as in 80% of the computers are actually Apple computers). Not even any current hardware manufacturer is even remotely close to that level. Thus, one would assume you meant OS market share. Thus, by the previous statement (that Apple has no real hope of getting 80% of the computer market), Apple would HAVE to license the Mac OS to other computer companies to use to get anywhere close to 80% OS market share. And thus, if that happens, then all those PC market companies that you just worried about would be doing just fine producing part and hardware for Mac "clones".



But, the reality is 80% is a pipe dream. Just ain't gonna happen. Certainly not anytime soon. While Apple is doing extremely well (which annoys the crap out of all the Windows zealots and thus the attacks) recently and has dramatically improved the sales of Macs in recent years, they are still only in single digits of market share in the OS market. Unless Microsoft does some REALLY bonehead things with Windows, Apple's market share will NOT dramatically increase. While Microsoft has kind of bungled Vista and annoyed a lot of their users by force feeding Vista, it is no where near that "bonehead" move that Apple would need to see a dramatic shift in the OS market.

[smax013]

rberzins said:

Steve Jobs irritating demeanour

Why let that bother you? The fact that I find Bill Gates to be greedy (my opinion...although he is starting to redeem himself with his charitable work) and annoying and smug has never stopped me from buying Microsoft products when they were right for the job that I needed to do.

rberzins said:

itunes monopolizing music downloads (in the process making it a miserable experience if you don't have a Mac).

iTunes runs just fine on my various Windows computers. Music downloads purchased from iTunes using the iTunes software for Windows on my Windows computers download the music just fine and plays the music just fine on my Windows computers. The point is that iTunes has never been a miserable experience for me whether on my Mac or on my Windows computers.



And iTunes got to where it is at least partly due to the fact that Apple was one of the first companies to believe in the online music world and instituting a model that consumers liked. And that is a major reason why they have such a huge market share...much like Microsoft grabbed a huge market share in the word processor and spreadsheet market when Windows first came...Microsoft believe in Windows and thus has a word processor and spreadsheet for Windows long before WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 "bought" into the Windows concept and thus gained a HUGE headstart that cause Microsoft to take the market share lead in word processing and spreadsheets from those two previous leaders. Now, I will admit that it helped that Apple also had the wildly successful iPod that was the only MP3 player that could play iTunes music (kind of...there are ways to get iTunes songs to play on other devices that are not hard, but are cumbersome). But, then much like the Mac OS is there to sell Mac computers, in reality the iTunes music store was there to sell iPods (and to a much lesser degree Macs). And in reality, that days of Apple dominating the online music industry are over. There are now lots of players that believe in the market and some real competitors have stepped in...Amazon being the biggest. With the music industry actively trying to dilute Apple's influence by deliberately not choosing to allow Apple to sell unprotected music like they have done with Amazon, the market will shift.

[pfletcher]

interesting that some people read the wikipedia article and get that Apple bought the ideas from Xerox - even that somewhat Apple-twisted version of events only says Apple shares were promised in exchange for 'seeing' the work. Apple STOLE the concepts they saw and incorporated them in their own work. MS STOLE (by hiring away) the brains that worked at Xerox and using them to build their version of a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) system.

MS and Apple have gone back and forth utilising ideas from each other as long as WIMP OSes have existed - Windows had pre-emptive mutlitasking first and support for a built-in TCP-IP stack.

In the end it comes down to personal preference you need to think what is best for you - and by the way NeXT did not become OSX.

[smax013]

pfletcher said:

interesting that some people read the wikipedia article and get that Apple bought the ideas from Xerox - even that somewhat Apple-twisted version of events only says Apple shares were promised in exchange for 'seeing' the work. Apple STOLE the concepts they saw and incorporated them in their own work. MS STOLE (by hiring away) the brains that worked at Xerox and using them to build their version of a WIMP (Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer) system.

I will admit that I don't know what really happened...I was not there after all. :) I do know that Apple did "compensate" Xerox for their access and their use and from what has been presented as commonly accepted knowledge, Xerox permitted it since they did not "see" the value of what they had. This has been commonly accepted to my knowledge.



I know of no such similar "permission" on Microsoft's part.



In the end, it does not matter. Apple has sued Microsoft and got nothing from it. Thus, it is all claims by people that is more hot air than anything else. The fact that some people believe that there is some merit to Apple's claims does not change the end result.

pfletcher said:

and by the way NeXT did not become OSX.

True...but parts of NeXT technology were used by Apple as a basis for the Mac OS. Grains of truth.

[rhrh1997]

Well almost everyone has a windows but the same almost everyone dreams of having a apple mac as there computer but people dont get to it windows mabey sells more but apple is more expensive and makes millions more than windows each year lots of ppl cant afford apple or dont know all the features apple has

[rberzins]

smax013 said:

rberzins said:

Steve Jobs irritating demeanour
Why let that bother you? The fact that I find Bill Gates to be greedy (my opinion...although he is starting to redeem himself with his charitable work) and annoying and smug has never stopped me from buying Microsoft products when they were right for the job that I needed to do.

I'm not saying that's a good reason of it's own. And actually, I should probably blame the media for turning each Jobs appearance into such a huge deal. I would like to think that if the product is so good, it would sell itself without needing all the fireworks - but i think that probaly just wishful thinking on my part. I'm sure lots of great ideas were missed because of poor marketing. But no, it's not a good reason, more a pet peev i like to bring up when i have the opportunity.. ;)


> And iTunes got to where it is at least partly due to the fact that Apple was one of the first companies to believe in the online music world

I certainly can't argue with that. I'm just hoping that consumers will start to come around to the fact that now there are better and easier methods - and I think you are correct that it is shifting. Just still bugs me when the only place i can find the track i want is on iTunes. I would rather not buy than support iTunes, but that's just a sign of my frustration with the following:
> Now, I will admit that it helped that Apple also had the wildly successful iPod that was the only MP3 player that could play iTunes music (kind of...there are ways to get iTunes songs to play on other devices that are not hard, but are cumbersome).
[/quote]
That's exactly what has driven me up the wall to point that i mentioned above. I'd rather not have it than deal with iTunes, it's just not worth the irritation to me.

I would like to think (whether or not it's actually true) is that i can admit that Apple has done some things extremely well - the iPhone, yes there's really nothing to match it as far as i have seen. I try and keep an open mind on it, or at least be aware that i have my silly prejudices.

[pfletcher]

As someone who was around at the time I still find it amusing that the Apple crew blindly repeat until they are reminded that in reality the ideas were lifted. The only real difference was that MS hired the people to come work for them...

The whole thing is hilarious to me