Neowin.net

LOL I like this part:

They did test it properly. You can't expect them to go out and test every single app and every single unsupported hack for OS X on Leopard. I'm sure it had been tested at one point, but there's a lot of apps for OS X that they'd have to test; this may have only come about in the last build. They've been testing Leopard publicly since June of 2006, and even delayed it 4 months so that it could come out and be a solid operating system. Sure, it has its bugs, but I'm more than happy with its stability.

Apple specifically tells all developers not to use that section of the OS, as it is restricted to Apple use only. Unsanity continue to disregard this. Also, the APE is notorious for causing problems since it was first created.

well then people can't expect Microsoft to go out and test every single device driver for every single piece of hardware configuration which causes Windows BSOD... but people still bitch about that.

Isn't that the truth, don't worry though - everyone will ignore your comment since Microsoft are a big bad company!

This is the best comment ever. Apple says "this is ours" so you shouldn't do this, only we should do this.

Microsoft says "this is OUR API, not yours, only we can use this" and they get a $330m lawsuit in the EU.

1. This is not about Microsoft.
2. The section of OS X that the Application Enhancer modifies is not to be used by 3rd party developers as it can cause major instabilities.
3. Point 2 has been shown many times in the past.
4. The Application Enhancer is not an API created by Apple. It is a framework created by Unsanity that modifies applications via a Daemon.

it amazes me how apple users can be "happy with stability" when they get bluescreens, i hate bluescreens, although i never get them on windows XP, in fact can't even remember the last time i had one, and yeah everyone seesm to be real keen to blame MS if they get a bluescreen on windwos, but when it's mac then hey it's the third party developers .

2. The section of OS X that the Application Enhancer modifies is not to be used by 3rd party developers as it can cause major instabilities.

and if MS did this a law suit would very quickly follow, but it's ok for apple, hell MS WAS REQUIRED to release a whole bunch of their API's by the government, they wanted to have as MS only API's,

al this sounds like to me is, this bit is buggy as hell so don't use it please. common think about what you woudl say if this was MS

1. The APIs Microsoft were required to release by the EU are completely different to the part of OS X that the Application Enhancer shouldn't be using.
2. Microsoft were required to release those APIs for interoperability with other platforms.
3. The section of OS X that the Application Enhancer uses has nothing to do with interoperability with other platforms. It's a Cocoa only thing.
4. If I was a Windows developer and Microsoft told me to stay the **** out of a section of Windows, then I would stay the **** out of there.
5. How is something that was not intended for developers to use "buggy as hell"? It's the same thing as when the iPhone update broke 3rd party apps and bricked some iPhones.

why would apple not want developers writing code that uses a certian 'part' of the OS, why write part of an OS to never get used (or only get used by apple). Most windwos developers that get told by MS to stay 'out' of something will most likley go straight in there to see what MS doesn't want them playing with did you not forget about the AV companies complaints when vista was released about them not having access to certain things MS didn't think they needed access to.

Well look at what has happened because Unsanity played in the part of the sandbox they were told not to.

This explains it much better: http://rixstep.com/2/20071028,00.shtml



If you don't get it after reading that article, then you're never going to get it :/

Microsoft has in the past had undocumented APIs that they told developers to not use. Why? Because they were more than likely going to be deprecated or change frequently. Did everyone listen? No. Plenty of developers used these APIs and ended up getting broken software later.

If a company says, "Don't use these APIs.", don't use them. They usually have very good reasons to tell you to not do so. If any developer values the stability of his or her code, they won't use it.

Quoted for truth. (unfortunately)

One only needs to recall the whole viruses getting into iPods incident to see why.

Sorry, I must have missed your submission.
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=submit_news

it's called neoWIN for a reason.

not neoMAC

what ? you mean the release of the Leopard version of the Apple Mac OSX wasn't automatically posted on the front page of NeoWin? :p

Errm. It wasn't on the Apple section of the Front Page either.

So if this is NeoWIN as you emphasise so much, why was the blue-screening posted. We shouldn't really talk about Linux or UNIX either then.

I agree, what's this news doing here anyway, on the front page? It's a third party hack applied to OS X that breaks things when applying a major upgrade? So? If the system files have been tampered with, what is to be expected?

And obviously Neowin cares for OS X. They did in this case.

Pretty much. Everyone at MacRumors who had BSOD's reported they have APE. I knew I hated their apps for some reason.

I tested the BSOD problem out on a spare Mac Mini. It's 100% true. When I first updated the box to 10.5, I didn't have a problem.

After hearing about all the ruckus, I formated it, installed tiger, loaded up APE and upgraded to leopard, and was hit with the BSOD.

Seems pretty clean cut to me.

actually quite a lot of sites didn't, i never saw anythign on google.com i think your reffering to tech news sites.

Yawn! Change the script will you already. Your OS of choice is not flawless, it also has flaws like others. You may love it and it may make you more productive than you are on any other platform. Using an OS from the competition may make you more susceptible to malware and such nastiness but please don't speak for the rest of us who think your platform of choice really isn't that great otherwise we'd be using it too. If the OS is really so great, we wouldn't be reading about this right now - would we?

Last edited by .fahim on 28 Oct 2007 - 22:59

Very, very well said LTD. I'm still sorry about that time I got you mixed up with a Microsoft fanboy

.fahim: We never said it was flawless. Microsoft has, on occasion, said that Windows was perfect, but that doesn't mean its users say the same thing. The bottom line is that the users of a certain OS don't all spread the FUD that the company that makes the OS do.

"If we didn't know any better, we'd buy into Windows like everyone else, not knowing that there are alternatives out there, some of them far, far better. "

Ever though to yourself that there are many that make the educated decision to not choose the same platform that you seem to adore so much? So hence the whole buying "into Windows like everyone else, not knowing there are blah blah blah some far better" comment doesn't really hold, because I for one chose not to buy Apple knowing what their USPs are. I don't have a single problem with Apple products (in fact I think they are great) other than the fact that their users make complete asses out of themselves making blanket statement like the one I quoted.


Last edited by .fahim on 28 Oct 2007 - 23:55

Oh my. "Constitutional right". If I lived in America, I would probably have a constitutional right to be a smartass. "Freedom of speech." However, no doubt if I was a smartass, I wouldn't be liked anywhere, not even in America.

[quote=LTD said,#8]Very simply, this is still a vastly Windows-centric site.[/quote]

It always has been and it most likely will always be. The fact it did not end up on front page news means nothing. I don't see Mac sites dedicating pages and pages of space on their portals for MS related news, unless it's the usual Zero-day flaw news.

[quote=LTD said,#8]Apple is hated.[/quote]

If Apple is hated none of the Windows users would use any of the Apple products, which is not the case. *iPod pershaps, iTunes, QuickTime*

[quote=LTD said,#8]OS X is hated. The former is hated because of its marketing strategy[/quote]

I'd say it's not hated, it's just you'd beg to differ and simply don't believe everything Apple says.

[quote=LTD said,#8]because it actually has the guts (that is, the constitutional, legal right) to stand up and say "we're better than they are, and here's why.[/quote]

Claiming your product is the best on the market is not having guts. It's called marketing. You emphasize your strengths and your competitions' weaknesses, and downplay your shortcomings. Everyone does it. It's not the issue, it's just how it's done. Others also have right to point out what they lack as well. Or noone's allowed to because everyone should simply shut up and take Apple's word for it?

[quote=LTD said,#8]Apparently, this is regarded around these parts as some form of tasteless mud-slinging. Maybe it's not the norm for tech companies to attack the competition.[/quote]

Well it is. It's not norm in any industry if you care for your reputation. You point out what you do better than competition and why and don't ridicule your competition. It's very unprofessional. I can say a lot of negative things about Microsoft, but one thing I can't is that they never use "Ultimate edition for only $129", "Mac just works", "The most advanced OS, "Windows is hard to use"...and so on type of slogans. While I don't care, you can't expect people not to react to these and see it as something positive. It has nothing to do with Apple or MS. You probably don't remember but when there was an article a year or so ago when Firefox 1.5 was released, there was article on Neowin (written by 3rd party) about how it's the best thing that happened to Internet users unbelievably bashing IE. I, as Firefox user since 0.8, have replied to it very negative. There wasn't a single positive comment on article (not the software). Because, even though I use software and love, I, and most people, can distinguish objective claims vs subjective ones. Reviewer only said he couldn't believe such negativity towards the review. It wasn't done by IE fanboys but rather than actual Firefox users who use it but also know that IE does not suck as much and is not as non-functional as reviewer wanted it to appear. Same applies to any software. While noone is arguing OSX is bad. On contrary, but there is other side of coin than believing what Apple's marketing department says.

[quote=LTD said,#8]Business is war, however, and some are simply too squeamish to get involved.[/quote]

There is also business etiquette. Noone forbids you to use whatever tactics you want. It is not about that. If you want to give a punch also be able to receive it as well.

[quote=LTD said,#8]The latter is hated because of its closed architecture...[/quote]

Why would it be hated? Everyone knows, or at least should know, differences between PCs and Mac machines when purchasing one. You accept all good things and bad things that come along with either. It's non issue.

[quote=LTD said,#8]and as a result, the unmatched stability and ease of use that brings.[/quote]

While it plays role in system stability it doesn't unnecessarily have to imply ease of use. Both platforms have its issues. How to do you measure "unmatched"? Says who? Any empirical evidence to support this or just another slogan that Apple uses?

I've some very old machines still useful never reinstalled, never crashed, running Win 95. My laptop still runs on fresh install of XP SP2 done when it came out. Of course, I use another machine for testing purpose, install a lot of crap and simply reimage when needed. It's no different with OSX. If you set it up, don't mess with it much (install, reinstall trials and god knows what) it will run stable. If you install latest bleeding edge drivers for every piece of software and install 20 applications which you uninstall afterwards, you will most likely end up with not so stable computer. Prove me OSX is any different? Apple as Microsoft can only guarantee for software they release and not 3rd party stuff we all install. As Apple itself proves with this same press release we're commenting on.

Ease of use is pretty subjective. I find Windows piece of cake. Linux, besides Ubuntu and more or less SuSe to be quite hard to use even though I consider myself to know Windows quite well. Others will find and won't use anything than CLI to do things and laugh at people using GUI. It depends what you're introduced to and learned on. One prefers one workflow, others other. Saying either is easier or better is subjective.

[quote=LTD said,#8]What's even more irritating to supporters of the competition is that no one has made any concerted, palpable attempt to circumvent OS X's security.[/quote]

Apple never patched a single flaw in its application? Safari on its first day of launch had more holes than swiss cheese. QuickTime flaws as well. Saying all those 10.4.xx releases are simply to add new features or to improve functionality? It only differs from it that, unlike Apple, Microsoft documents its vulnerabilities much extensively. Even OSX users have to admit that Apple (almost never?) discloses what exactly has been patched. What you don't know can't hurt you. Thus, unlike OSX, Windows is vulnerable and poor when it comes to security.


[quote=LTD said,#8]After all this time, still nothing in the wild.[/quote]

What is not disclosed or not found doesn't mean it does not exist. Who would you target 100s of millions of users (or 1 billion as far as I know), compared to 20 million? (do correct if you know correct data). It's logical, more used software would be targeted more. The only difference is MS does not hide it under obscure wording in it's security bulletins.

[quote=LTD said,#8]If Windows users have to suffer with all this and install 3rd party software to prevent it, why should Apple users get a free ride??[/quote]

The problem with Windows is that huge majority doesn't ever visit Windows Update and/or track vulnerabilities 3rd party software might have. Unfortunately, AVs, Firewalls, HIPS...won't help much. Even if it would, those who are hit probably use neither (great majority) or use outdated software in case they do. Patch your installation and neither is needed. If you are careless, at least use something...most don't and hence you have problems.

Apple users don't get free ride. Otherwise you wouldn't upgrade your software or worry about it. It's a fact Mac users deal with flaws in both 3rd party software and OSX itself.

[quote=LTD said,#8]Who are we to refuse to live with Windows' flaws?[/quote]

You are a user who chose to use something else than majority. Windows has flaws, as does any software. Remember that. We would talk about OSX flaws not Windows flaws. I would care about OSX flaw affecting me as much as I would care about breeding of African lions in December.

[quote=LTD said,#8]Who are we to refuse to put up with driver issues, viruses, and the dangers that come with maintaining backwards-compatibility year after year? [/quote]

You don't have to refuse anything. Apple has changed platform more than once and had is share of difficulties in the process. So while OSX users might not have to deal with viruses or drivers, all is not rosy in Mac land either.


[quote=LTD said,#8]So we're called elitists, snobs, members of a cult.[/quote]


Buying a product that is intended and aimed at niche market = elitist. It's no different with Macs than it is with any company that produces good which aim at richer clientèle. Noone has issues with that. The "issue" arises when you are put down for using "inferior platform" and simply saying "we're superior" without having, usually, valid reasons. It is normal that when you buy something that costs a lot of money (or anything in general regardless or price) you'll WANT to justify yourself the purchase and tell yourself you made right decision and justify your action. It has nothing to do with Apple/OSX. It's psychology 101. When you do something, you will want to find reasons and will want to find other people who made same decision to explain your choice. You won't go through 6 years of med school + 4 years of internship and 10 years later tell yourself, I suck as a doctor and should have went to school X instead of XY.


[quote=LTD said,#8]People have said that Apple offers no choice, that the consumer is "locked in" with Apple products, and that we've allowed Steve and Co. to "control" our decisions without thinking.[/quote]

Which of that is wrong? Isn't architecture locked? Isn't software available greatly limited to what is available on Windows platform? What impact do you have over what you're going to use? On PCs, in Windows, you've too many software to choose from. Too many developers coding for it. Not because it's the best, but because it's most widely used OS. You're not locked to one OS. This is nothing bad. You make that choice when you choose platform. Hence, as I said in the beginning, every choice has it's good and bad sides, and you yourself confirm and clarify your own words further.

[quote=LTD said,#8]If we didn't know any better, we'd buy into Windows like everyone else, not knowing that there are alternatives out there, some of them far, far better.[/quote]

Again subjective. Better for what? You honestly can't say people who use computers are so illeterate not to know at least Linux exists if nothing else. Far better if subjective. There are things Mac excels at at, and there are things Windows excel at. You can't really say, anything besides Windows is far better. Can you explain John Doe that their 7 year old can't play Counterstrike on Mac...and yet they paid fortune for "the thing"? It all depends what you will use computer for. Personally, I'd use console for gaming and let PCs be. Other things you should consider regarding "far better" is compatibility. A lot of things between operating system is not interchangeable. The gap might be less now, but still exists. So when you buy, you also have to ask yourself if compatibility with other users matters. File formats usually are not compatible, unless you use cross platform application (usually professional ones). Even then, there are issues. So if you are not concerned about interoperability between OSes and don't need to think about it. Use what you like. If it's not the case, then you have to think twice. Far better is subjective. It depends what you need from your computer, what software you're going to use and if you're only exchange files between Macs and/or Windows users/software.

[quote=LTD said,#8]So we've made our choice to throw in with Apple.[/quote]

Good for you. Do also respect other people choices as well.

[quote=LTD said,#8]Some people just don't like the choice we've made.[/quote]

Noone has problem with the choice you made. They have problem being threated as inferior.

Last edited by richter on 29 Oct 2007 - 01:01

OSX has problems, apple has problems, ADMIT IT, i admit windows has issues, i understand them and work around them, living in a world of denail does you NO good, it is clear OSX has had security issues, hence security updates have been released, you DO NOT release an update to fix somethign unless there is a problem with it, now as for this blue screen, how many times have i heard you say, i DON'T get blue screens on my mac, and how many times have i heard it from other fanboys. Hell i have no problem with you liking MAC, just admit when they do somethign worng, admit when they F&*K up, it can only make your apple life better if you hold MAC responsible for these issues rather than making the excuses for them.

The main difference between a MAC and Windwos user is, windows users will admit MS isn't perfect, MAC users will neve admit bad about apple

hahah LTD a MS fanboy, that woudl be funny. and i have to disagree, LTD has quite often on here said it is FLAWLESS, i quote "it just works".

i just want the fanboys to admit when apple does somethign wrong or bad simple as that, and stop defending the undefendable

You can't even compare the severity and frequency of flaws between the two.

OS X is not Windows. Right off the bat, you don't need any sort of antivirus protection on OS X when surfing the net. That's money saved, that's less code, that's fewer cpu cycles wasted. There are as yet, ZERO viruses for OS X. Perhaps the time will come when there will be. Until then, it's fact. On average, when it comes to security - factoring in the number of existing viruses/malware, you're (to date, at least) better off using Unix. That's undisputed.

And it's "indefensible", not "undefendable."

I wasn't comparing anything, you seem to be the one alwasy comparing the two. i was just saying they DO exist. Something you always claim is NOT true.

for once i agree OSX is not windows.
next - can't wait till that virus does get aout in the wild, one day someone will just get ****ed off with fanboys and instead of making a proof of concept virus, just release the ****** to the wild so you all get hit, cause you will get slammed not running any AV. I am not going to get into the zero flaws in the wild argument yet again, as we all know noone cares, everyone except you understadns the reasons why and you will not change your views. but windows used to be the same, i myself remember not caring about AV software and never installed it because it was a waste of processor, then all the script kiddies adn virus writers got let loose on the world.

and no i meant http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undefendable but your word fits too

It's in our human nature to find flaw in something/someone we perceive better than us to make ourselves feel better. We've all done it, and it usually starts with "Well [something bad happened], but at least..." Scroll through these comments to see it in action.

If you upgraded your PC and it stopped working I think you'd be just as ****ed.

The same could be said for many OEMs. For most OEM computers, you can't really upgrade them a whole lot or do much with them past after purchase.

The ONLY time you have ANY control over ANY computer is if you build it yourself. So if by "locked in", you mean "can't build myself", then yes. Your point is valid including Apple and any other OEM company.

Like? PCs are generic. You're not locked in if you buy brand name computer. If you buy HP branded computer what you basically are paying for is support and warranty, you've choice of every possible component you want to include in your computer. What stops you from changing either of those later? You can't add a new HDD, you can't replace part X? You only have limited options with laptops after you purchase it, on desktops why would it not be possible for you to alter configuration if you wish? It's not exactly sealed in an invisible forcefield preventing you from opening it. It doesn't use special parts you can't buy in computer store.

Last edited by richter on 29 Oct 2007 - 01:20

Have you ever owned an OEM PC? Most of them give you the bare minimum amount of room in the case, and most use the cheapest parts available. You can't choose which motherboard you want, which brand of ram, which brand of hard drives, etc. You're "locked in" to what they offer when you purchase it. How is buying an Apple any different?

There really isn't any distinguishable difference from buying a computer from Apple and buying from another company. At the time of purchase, you can only pick which components they offer. If you want to change out hard drives, ram, cpu, graphics card, cd drives, processor (now that they are Intel), etc., you can do this on both Apple and other OEM computers. Granted graphics cards for Macs might be a bit hard to find, but you can change them none the less. The only problem with Macs is driver support for some off the wall hardware.

Just because it's a Mac doesn't mean they automatically use standards and components that are different from PCs. They support USB2, DDR2, Firewire, SATA, PCI Express. Pretty much standard that you see in a PC. If there are drivers for it, you can use any device that support one of these interfaces. Though this is really the only thing they lack and that is the massive driver base that Windows has (which also causes a good handful of Window's problems).

If you want to find something to bash Apple about, do your homework. At least try to sound intelligent.

By the way, I'm not a fanboy to either platform. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. I own both a PC I built and an Apple notebook and use both equally for different purposes.

Yes I have. Writing this reply from my IBM laptop.



Yes, the ones you buy in Walmart for $300 do, but most don't. We've 50 computers at school which I worked on and are the same as my custom made desktop I owned. Standard sized case, components at same places and you can replace all parts, as long as they're compatible, of course.

You put all PC makers under same umbrella. There are high end makers, there are also lines of computer aimed at lower-end market to high-end. I'd beg to differ components are trash. My ThinkPad is top notch. It might not have the fastest graphics card on the market, but every single component is HQ. You get what you pay for. It's understandable that even though you can't choose manufacturer per component, they will be from either of well known suppliers.



You can't choose brand, but you have wider selection of components when building your custom made OEM computer. If brand is really important with every part, you'd wouldn't be buying brand name computer in the first place. As far as I am aware, people choose their parts on specifications. OEM meets those needs by offering you all components in different capacity, speed, amount... Will Seagate HDD perform better than WD one with same specifications? It might, it might not. It might produce more heat or be more silent...or not. Less risky then when doing it yourself and specifications are written down next to every component when I purchased my comp. Of course, we all have preferences regarding that, but OEMs test compatibility of components they offer so selection is limited. But not because of just that. Just imagine how much stock they would have to keep to be able to actually offer whole gamma from every manufacturer? It's simple. If you want HQ stuff, go with high-end manufacturers if you're not comfortable with selecting right components and insuring they work well together. I don't know about "every" OEM, but HP used to offer a couple of options between vendors when choosing certain components (graphics card, HDD...), though not motherboard or memory manufacturer.



Amount of components is different and of course you're limited to number of manufacturers. It wouldn't be profitable for them to keep large stock of computer parts. I wasn't saying every single part from every single vendor is available. It's not.



What I referred to might be thing of past though now that Apple uses Intel architecture. Of course parts are replaceable. It's not you buy new Mac if something goes wrong. Not being familiar with new Macs, but I just pointed out in my previous post that changing anything in PC OEM is possible on your own, if space is available. But haven't seen any desktop that has that issue.



I never said it didn't. Of course they support any device long as driver for it is provided. Nor did I say they communicate with components using non-standard interface.



Well, intelligence is something you either have or don't. I guess I'm out of luck.

Last edited by richter on 29 Oct 2007 - 02:49

like compaq/hp evos. small form factor cases that can't handle full height cards, cases with so much crap crammed in to a tiny spot, there really is no rooom for anything elese, i remember a dell that needed a dell drive cause they did some wierd assed crap to the drive cable. yes OEms have the same problems, howerver you have such a bigger choice of OEM's and also the choice to buy your own.

I'm not saying all OEM computers are trash. There are some very good ones, infact. The majority, however, are pretty crappy. HP, Sony, Dell desktop PCs are crap. Their notebooks aren't bad, but the desktop computers aren't as good.

Look at any custom OEM computer you can buy. You usually have a few hard drive selections, graphic card selections, processor speed, ram, and optical drives. Hmm, the same holds true when buying from Apple. None of them have this whole wide range of components offered like you're claiming they are. Go to any website. Dell, HP, etc. None of them have this "much wider selection" in components.

You also say they have a limited selection to ensure compatibility. The same holds true for Apple.

All in all, you just helped argue my point. You are arguing about something that WAS not something that IS. Yes, Mac's were pretty much locked down in the past. That is not the case now.

Hence the reason why you purchase brand name laptop and build your desktop. I know you won't believe me when I say I don't know anyone here who owns brand name desktop. Primarily, retailers build their own configurations and stick their logo on it. Idon't consider that brand name. Those who know what they want build their own configurations.

Notebooks are great. Worked on HPs Media computer and been using ThinkPads for 10 years. No issues with hardware whatsoever.



They do have wider selection. Please, use some logic. There are at least 10 well known vendors on PC market. Every one offers wide range of computer lines, and within lines offer some to total customization of selecting your own components. How is me selecting every part of computer with a mouse different than buying those in the store and gluing them together myself? You've wider selection because you can choose if you wish AMD processor (various kinds), Intel (Core, Core Duo, Core 2) all at various clockspeeds, memory speed, ATI/NVidia Card, Various HDDs...you don't have such extensive options with Mac. That's my whole point. You can get MacBook Pro with 1-2-4GB or memory and fastest mobile chip. MacBook comes with two same processor only at different clock speeds. Same goes for HDD (different capacity). While this is a choice, it's nowhere near extensive as PC OEMs. Do note, I am talking about laptops, but same should apply to desktops as there you can choose every component yourself when purchasing from OEM.



You've limited from single manufacturer. All OEMs don't offer same components, have different look and feel, hence...if you compare Apple vs HP, then it's true...but comparing HP vs PC OEMs because single OEM is limited, you can choose from wide selection of manufacturers and lines that each one has.



Touche.

What exactly is getting "worse and worse each week"?

Leopard is fine. There is an issue with this "bluescreen" thing - but only with upgrades, and only under certain circumstances. Seems to be happening to only a minority of users.

All in all, Leopard has been praised as a fine OS. No major complaints. Most upgrades have been incredibly smooth and easy. There really isn't any uproar of any kind. Most apps work fine under Leopard.

Leopard isn't the kind of OS that has users running back to the previous (and supposedly inferior) OS. I really don't know of anyone who wants to go back to Tiger, or who doesn't want to upgrade to Leopard.

It's worthy to note, however, that you're happy on the rare occasion that something goes seriously wrong with OS X. It's like you drive a GM or Ford and you celebrate when you see a Lexus on the roadside with its hood open.

If Windows is improving, how come there is still a very high demand for Windows XP compared to Windows Vista?

Because when you buy computer retailer advise you to stick with XP. Will work on 3rd laptop this week and they all got XP from the shop because they told them to use it instead of Vista.

XP is mature and works well with current software/hardware. It's more of bugs and performance issues that are highly hyped that makes everyone hesitatant to upgrade.

As i said wait for the excuses.

Apple couldn't even come up with their own colour for a critical error, hell as long as i can remember mac people have complained that windows stole everything from MAC, well heres one thing MAC STOLE from windows. BSOD's

i know of a lot of vista users that upgraded without issue, good luck to them i say, yet there are a lot of people not happy with vitsa and rightly so, it has problems. all the windows users i know understand this and are waiting for SP1. and upgrading from osx to osx is nothgin like redesigning the entire OS from XP to vista so of course there arent goign to be as many issues. the fact there was one is bad enough for apple, as 'it just works' is real hard to say when you haev a bluescreen of any sort, as i said before, most MS bluescreens arent actually MS fault either but mac users seem to think it is all MS fault.

it seems from all the news lately those rare occasions are getting more and more frequent. and i am an aussie so it's holden (GM) vs ford and i wouldn't care if i saw a lexus with it's hood open, however if i see a ford with it's hood open i'd laugh my ass off adn probably yell somethign like "get a holden" out the window, especially if it is someone i know like my dad in his crappy old ford (but thats the aussie way)


Last edited by whocares78 on 29 Oct 2007 - 07:03

This parent post didn't deserve this many replies.

He/She even thinks we're talking about something akin to the Windows BSOD, when this isn't about kernel panics at all.

It's common for most communities to get their panties in a bunch when something like this is posted.

What you describing is building your own computer. Why take an OEM machine and gut it? Why not build your own PC then?

He was arguing Apple "locks you in". I argued they are the same as buying from any OEM company (which MOST people who own a PC do). You're trying to compare something completely different. No, you cannot build your own Apple computer, but that would be comparing apples to oranges. It just doesn't fly. Apple is an OEM company and therefore should be compared to OEM PCs. You can't just argue you can get an OEM PC and transform it into your homebuilt machine. That be the same as building your own computer.

However, comparing similar hardware of an Apple computer to an OEM PC computer does give you prices that are quite similar. Often times, Apple coming out slightly cheaper.

You don't do it, but noone is stopping you from doing it.



You're totally missing the point. Mac, as a platform is closed. PC as platform is not. You're comparing producers while I'm comparing platforms. Hence, you're not locked in any way when purchasing OEM computer. You can replace parts with what you like afterwards.



Apple produces Macintosh computer which is different platform than PCs and should be compared with PCs and not OEMs. If that is the case, none of the custom made PCs should be compared to Macs, because they're not the same as OEM.



But you can argue you can do it if you wish without any restrictions on components you want to replace which is not possible with Mac.



Maybe in the US. Prices here are substantially higher for Mac than brand name PC computers. You forget the US is not the only market. iPods don't cost $149 everywhere.

sorry but i have to comment, 'thousands americans have died in the war', just wanted to make sure you realise people from other countries also died in that war that "america" started in the first place.

The answer to stop the wars is to stop starting them. (George - hope your listening)

Sorry, my mistake, edit.