Certainly much of the Apple brand revolves around being superior to its counterparts. This belief generates a sense of elitism among Mac users, not all of course, but a decent number. The "I'm a Mac" ads have portrayed PC users to be as "uncool" as a dirty sock, and though this may not have originally been the case, due to the propagation of the ad itself, it would seem like this is the case presently.As Apple products have developed a sub-culture it seems that Microsoft was not to be left behind. At PDC2008 an alpha version of Windows 7 was presented and has been met with positive reviews and praise amongst most, such has not been the case with a Windows operating system in quite some time. People are voicing their satisfaction with the new "Superbar" and the refinements to the Aero experience seem to be a welcome addition. Though hard to believe, there have even been posts on web forums in which Mac users have stated they will consider moving to Windows once Windows 7 is launched.
Will Microsoft catch up to Apple with the release of Windows 7? The release of Windows 7 will be met with the release of Apple's new OS, Snow Leopard. Until information on the new features of Snow Leopard are released, it may be too early to make that call.
Many PC users have argued that they don't need to feel "cool", and that's certainly fine. However, if the only thing separating Windows and Mac becomes user experience, then it would seem that whichever offers the best and makes the user "feel" as if they are having fun while computing will be the chosen OS.
Can Microsoft climb to the top of the "coolness" ladder with Windows 7, or is Apple hiding something that will once again throw it over the top? Whatever the answer may be, users of both platforms seem to be in for an exciting future.
In other words, it'll be an uphill battle.
Oh, and good move on the flamebait news post. This should be fun!
In other words, it'll be an uphill battle.
Oh, and good move on the flamebait news post. This should be fun!
So basically lock it down.
No backwards compatibility. Remove the ability to pick and chose your own hardware. How about we take the ability of gaming out of the equation... oh wait, shouldn't I just go buy a Mac?
No thanks.
In other words, it'll be an uphill battle.
Oh, and good move on the flamebait news post. This should be fun!
So basically lock it down.
No backwards compatibility. Remove the ability to pick and chose your own hardware. How about we take the ability of gaming out of the equation... oh wait, shouldn't I just go buy a Mac?
No thanks.
You can still produce games for this "cool" new OS.
It's the choosing of the hardware that really isn't there.
Coolness does come at a price.
Every time you post, it's just MS bashing. You know it. We know it.
It's the choosing of the hardware that really isn't there.
Coolness does come at a price.
It's as if LTD is saying what Apple has been doing for years - locking down hardware compatibility by making OSX to be installed only on Macs, which becomes clear after their move from PPC to x86 architecture that, there's virtually no difference in terms of technology and standards used in hardware for Macs and PCs.
To me, the only difference between Windows Vista/7 and OSX is its way of distributions - I could grab a bunch of top-notch parts and put it together to make a PC, and hey - I can't install OSX on it cuz it wasn't made by Apple! Windows in this case does not have such restrictions.
Oh, and I like being able to choose what hardware I use. It's cheaper that way.
>>"Just get rid of the registry"
Not only did XP create a new set of Registry rules that eliminated many of the complaints for the x86 Windows OSes from the 90s, but if you even 'gazed' at Vista, you would notice the OS virtualizes the registry and restores the power of the features of what the registry brings to the OS.
A central settings repository is NOT a bad idea, and much better than combing a User's folder set.
And just 'one' simple thing the registry does can be seen in corporate environments, where a user can have their desktop on any workstation, automatically by logging in on that computer. To contrast this to OS X, the best you can do is mimic the User folder/preferences but with NO regard for user/application level preferences, that are all automatically handled, and centrally transferred to the workstation via a technology called the 'registry'.
Oh, and BTW, the registry is just one of the reasons Windows outperforms OS X when it comes down to bare OS, as the registry is fast, efficient, and doesn't have to dig through or RELY on File System and has a consistent object based security model.
In theory OS X and all *nixes have the equivalent of a registry; however, they are just scattered through tons of configuration files in tons of folders. The registry was originally designed in NT back in 1992 as a contrast to the hideous configuration file type of model used in *nixes.
You need to be pushing for Linux and OS X to get a real registry concept as well. It is time they consolidated and adapated a technology newer than an ad hoc idea from the 70s.
(PS All the past complaints of the registry, from the Win9x corruption, to the unability to easily access or change from outside the running OS are GONE. In Vista you can boot from the DVD, running a full version of Vista (WinPE) and manage anything in the registry as easily as you would manage tons of configuration files scattered in tons of folders as you do on OS X or Linux.)
The Windows registry also has the problem that it's not very well categorized. Most programs write in many locations in it and those markings are often left there even after the program is removed. There's also lots of redundant bollocks with paths like Microsoft/Windows/Currentversion/blahblahblah, where the Currentversion "folder" in the tree is all there is and all there ever has been, thus making it unnecessary. Lots of registry paths are like this.
Of course, all this wouldn't matter if you never had to access the registry but I've yet to see a single MS operating system that doesn't offer some hidden and handy tweaks via the registry.
What I'd like to see is MS taking a stand and saying "Hey! We've not going to support your 15 year old **** anymore. Deal with it or get out!". If you need compatibility it could be done using some sort of virtualized version of previous Windows or whatever for that old crap. As OSX has shown, most of the better OS9 programs were remade to work with the new system and it wouldn't hurt at all if we finally got away from programs that look as ugly as stock XP.
But even more than that I'd like to see them really put a lot of resources into usability. That is what makes OSX seem so much easier and I like that they are putting thought into it as shown in Win7's improvements. But I hope they really follow through with it to the end - not just giving us a few new features but working on improving everything in the OS so that you can do stuff faster and easier. It'd be nice to see some customizability beyond changing your wallpaper, fonts and colors.
Windows is also long overdue better application management. OSX's image based system is excellent, it encourages people to try new programs because it's so easy. No next-next-next-next-next-next-wait-next-finish bull****, just drag the program somewhere and run it. Want to get rid of it? Throw it in the trashcan. Easy and intuitive. There's absolutely no need for most users to see anything but the program to be launched. If I browse my files it's not that relevant that I see every .dll file in the installation dir.
Likewise Windows really needs a proper automatic updating system for software. Most OSX programs use the same system and it works great, we need that for Windows too so we don't have to rely on "hey there's a new version now go to our website and download it, then unzip it and then install it" updaters or proprietary ones that work like crap (*cough* Adobe CS3 *cough*).
OS X is just as functional as Windows. Not sure what you mean by "functionality."
He probably means the ability to run the software and games the other 95% of the world uses.
so pretty much a mac would be fine functionality wise then, except for the games part.
I could hardly think that's the case, as most games made for PCs also have their own Mac counterparts, so functionality-wise I don't see anything that we have in PC that we're missing in Macs.
OS X also helps run Windows via Bootcamp. Or do you just mean OS X-specific games?
But don't you want to be part of the clique?! Niche marketing is expensive and there's an entry fee attached to joining the clubhouse.
Last edited by excalpius on 07 Nov 2008 - 05:19
Haha well said. The really sad thing that I see all the time is people touting their Macbooks around only to boot into Windows... What's the point??? Someone please explain to me...
thn what does it mean? Game Lovers must have to use windows? hahah
Because some of us own or work for companies that can afford to buy us MacBook Pros which we can then run Vista on.
you mean it looks like windows, feels like windows and is windows.... it looks exactly like vista and that superbar looks superbad! and not functional at all.
See, right there, you've made it clear you are just being antagonistic. EVERYONE's, even (non trollboy) Mac users, expressed their interest and excitement of the recent W7 taskbar enhancements. To say otherwise means you're just taking a contrarian position.
Anything is possible.
Ballmer can hardly be called visionary. This is the same primate that said the iPhone would be a total failure. He seems to be completely out of touch. Hopefully his management team has enough freedom of action to get what needs to get done and Ballmer has enough brain cells to keep out of the process. Perhaps he's good at recongizing talent, though.
agreed. I don't really care if Ballmer is visionary or not. All I care is whether what they're doing to Windows, Office, and Windows Live are in right directions. In turns for these "right directions" are defined by users + customers and not MS themselves.
If you notice, even MS has shoved hard to remove Ballmer from any technology decisions and let him do the business crap only.
There was always a contrast between Gates thinking and Ballmer thinking. And the reflection they both had on teams in the company. Gates thinkers produced great stuff with providing tools for users as their goal. Ballmer thinkers produced ok stuff, but worried about the business and making more money off it before they considered the users.
A good Apple comparison would be Woz and Jobs. Jobs in the later years has appeared to be more Woz like, but is goals are making money and will lock users in as long as he can, even if it hurts them. From iTunes lockin to the continued OS X/Mac lockin.
Jobs has just been better about using PR and marketing to sell his thinking, to hide the make money and screw the users mindset he tends to have, which is a lot like Ballmer.
That being said you don't have to sacrifice 'coolness' for functionality - for instance surface computing, if well executed, is both cool and functional.
- I don't like Mac keyboard layout
- I don't like Apple's overpriced hardware
- I don't like the GUIs in most (if not all) Linux distributions
=> I chose to stay with Windows
Have fun, guys.
You're just leaving because you've been "outed".
And, no, I have never thought that apple was cool.
its not like i feel 'cool' just by using windows, or iphone. these are just the things to get something done.
My thoughts exactly. Apple isn't cool, they're just jerks. And this is just computers.
My thoughts exactly. Apple isn't cool, they're just jerks. And this is just computers.
I feel a cry coming on.
imo when it comes to OSs, Apple loses to no end still.
Could you explain that a bit and can you give me the link to the article, Seems like an interesting read.
I'm a PC! Look what I can do! (Duke Nuke'em busts out and shoots the heck outta the Mac his awesome DIRECTX GLORY!!!!
Sheesh, some people need to walk outside once in awhile.
Not sucking is way different from being cool.
And Apple isn't cool, Apple is a popular brand. Steve Jobs is a cool guy, that's why people follow him.
The keyphrase here being generates a sense. I take my hat off to them, Apple certainly know how to make s*** look good, AND charge a high price for it! The whole Apple is cool thing has just spiralled out of control as the next Joe Bloggs thinks its cool because his next door neighbours got one...
Can Microsoft overtake? Not yet, they are more practical, they deliver at the high end, where Apple is more of a fashion brand and they deliver "fun and cool" things that arent so practical.
Last edited by Cpugeni Ω on 07 Nov 2008 - 09:49
I have used OSX starting like 6 years ago. When I started my job, no one wanted to work on the Macs and I can say that I dont blame them. I find them hard to find what you are looking for, pita to connect to AD, pita to install printer drivers for some model Ricoh printers. Not to mention that hte first Intel Mac we go brought down our network.
I plugged a brand new Mac out of the box to my work's network. The Mac started broadcasting like crazy and brought down a couple floors on the network. We removed the Mac and then like a week later I plugged it back in with no problems. Same port in the switch and patch panel as well. So I am not sure what the hell happened but I NEVER had a PC do this.
There are more things I dont like as well...and there are things I do like. And yes, I would load OSX on to my PC if Apple allowed it. Well, there is documentation on installing OSX on a PC...just takes a lot of steps and configuring.
Reality Distortion Field. The Apple invention.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.