Jessterw Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Wow the ignorance just abounds doesn't it. the evn show pretty well summed it up here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...ost&p=587053683 It's readily apparent 99% of the people replying here have no first-hand knowledge of the early years for either platform, nor do they have any experience with the Mac platform prior to OS X or outside of a few hours of use at school. Windows and the IBM-Compatible PC became the dominant platform simply because of the availability of clones (which didn't exist initially on that side either). Once the platform proliferated it was easy for it to remain the dominant one. Of course there are several other circumstances, but none as simple and causative as this. Anything else, especially comments about Mac OS being uglier than Windows, is entirely subjective. Jobs and Apple had a completely different drive behind what they were doing than Gates and Microsoft/IBM/etc did (and no, I'm not talking about money, at all). All these arguments over which platform is better or looks prettier is moot and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the market shares as they exist today (although that is changing). Secondly, anyone who says Mac OS lacks developers is blowing smoke out their arse. Now, there may not be the number of developers that there exists for Windows, but the developers are no less dedicated and are far more cooperative as a community. But I digress. The relative age of people here means they won't know what they're talking about in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Smith Old Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Bring your attention to an apple clone movie thing made back in the 90's :-P http://rickysmith.net/documents/clone.mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevoDS Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I think Windows is and will remain having the biggest market share for that simple reason: After all these years of monopoly, it has a much bigger number of apps, and that means it will take time before it'll change. However, if MS doesn't make some breakthrough changes to its OS, the difference will be much smaller. As of now, I entirely agree OS X has a significant feature advantage over Windows (slightly less significant over Vista), even if I run Windows and that the only Mac I touched in my life ran System 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mnemonicman Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I don't see why I can't say I like windows. It works great IMO. Well atleast the X64 version does. I do get some spyware/adware but so far it hasn't affected performance. Virii hasn't been a problem either. The only time I can recall ever getting a virus was on my college laptop when I was at a not quite trustworthy site for a few minutes. As a windows user for many years I can appreciate the ability to install and run newer versions of windows without buying new hardware just to support it. In fact I had xp running on a k6-2 500. It was still slow but it felt easier to use and crashed less than previous versions. If Apple could provide just OSX without any of the bundled apps for a reasonable price for use on generic x86 machines it could help them steal away some of the marketshare. Just my 2.28 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Wow the ignorance just abounds doesn't it. the evn show pretty well summed it up here: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...ost&p=587053683 It's readily apparent 99% of the people replying here have no first-hand knowledge of the early years for either platform, nor do they have any experience with the Mac platform prior to OS X or outside of a few hours of use at school. Windows and the IBM-Compatible PC became the dominant platform simply because of the availability of clones (which didn't exist initially on that side either). Once the platform proliferated it was easy for it to remain the dominant one. Of course there are several other circumstances, but none as simple and causative as this. Anything else, especially comments about Mac OS being uglier than Windows, is entirely subjective. Jobs and Apple had a completely different drive behind what they were doing than Gates and Microsoft/IBM/etc did (and no, I'm not talking about money, at all). All these arguments over which platform is better or looks prettier is moot and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the market shares as they exist today (although that is changing). Secondly, anyone who says Mac OS lacks developers is blowing smoke out their arse. Now, there may not be the number of developers that there exists for Windows, but the developers are no less dedicated and are far more cooperative as a community. But I digress. The relative age of people here means they won't know what they're talking about in this case. Actually, all OS wars between two mature OSes are subjective. It depends on user's preferences and needs, and their budget. A technically superior OS may not be the best one to use if it's locked to a particular set of hardware, or if it's exorbitantly expensive. Unless, that is, until you bring in statistics. That's where Windows eats Mac OS X for breakfast. Windows has many HUNDRED MILLIONS more users than Mac does, and the support base for Windows is larger. The pool of applications available for Windows is absolutely gigantic and the first thing that comes to mind when someone says "computer", is a Windows PC. Hundreds of millions of users can't be all wrong, can they? There must be a reason why they're using Windows. Even if it's a reason which you Mac users think you have an answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetooth Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 All of you would have nothing to argue about if you just watched the documentary: "Pirates of the Silicon Valley." It makes it very clear what happened to make Microsoft the early leader which caused everyone to buy PCs. I recommend watching it to anyone who cares about computers (99% of the people on this site) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt T Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 (edited) Edit: sorry, wrong thread! Edited February 2, 2006 by Matt T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myst Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 "Pirates of the Silicon Valley" is definitely a must-see. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/ Plot Outline: History of Apple and Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Microsoft needs to include a spyware and antivirus solution if they want their OS functioning correctly for the average user. Spyware is out of control. Every one of my non-computer savvy friends all have spyware on their computer that they don't know how to get rid of. I know what I'm doing, but even "trusted" sources decide to bundle stuff people just don't want. So and so search bar or toolbar, aol explorer... arghh.. Personally I think they should give the user limited read/write ability, but they'll never do that. Microsoft can't include those. "Spyware is out of control" What? You never get that if you don't download and INSTALL it willingly. I don't, - I don't have any. You can have as limited read/write ability as you want, yes, in XP HOME, without add-ons. Just use Google if you are interested. OS X is better and more secure than XP, but all of this virus and spyware talk is just funny. You won't get any if you have patched OS and don't download and EXECUTE everything you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syphonic Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 You never get that if you don't download and INSTALL it willingly. That only applies to OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deron Dantzler Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) I read the first page or so and didn't see what I thought was the correct answer to the question posed. It basically in my opinion boiled down to the idea that Apple in some way underminded the idea that many businesses like giant IBM, HP, and a ton of other players would come into the computer market to try to get a peice of the pie. They tied their operating system to their hardware and MS chose to license their software to vendors. Essentially, B. Gates and MS went to the major players and were like: Do you want to miss the ship and let Apple take all of the profit? You build your own machine and market it and we'll sell you this OS to install on it for $x per license. We retain the license to the software to sell to other vendors. Everybody wanted a peice of the pie so they all bought in. You had one (relatively small at the beginning) company Apple with limited resources that didn't buy into the licensing concept until 96-97 when it was way too late (the market share on OS was already dominated), and you had the pooled resources of the collective business world including giants like IBM selling comparible machines at half the price of the Apple units. It really didn't matter to anybody that the Apple machines and software were better. Clever marketing and a better price tag insured that. It didn't even matter to B. Gates. It only mattered to S. Jobs. S. Jobs is the visionary, B. Gates is the entrepreneur. Edited February 9, 2006 by Deron Dantzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 As a windows user for many years I can appreciate the ability to install and run newer versions of windows without buying new hardware just to support it. In fact I had xp running on a k6-2 500. It was still slow but it felt easier to use and crashed less than previous versions. I take it that you haven't paid attention to the well documented fact that newer versions of OS X actually run FASTER on older Macs than the older versions did. Tiger on a 500Mhz G3 is faster than Panther, and FAR faster than Jaguar ever was. I don't see where people get the idea that you have to buy a new Mac (or at least updated hardware) to run newer MacOS releases. That may have been the case in the OS 8 and OS 9 days, but not anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 That only applies to OS X. And I think that is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuman Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 The point that Apple isn't #1 is because of two reasons. The software. OS X is the most popular version of Mac OS in history making things so much easier than in ugly OS 9 and below. The hardware point of view. Apple wanted everything in-house so when PCs where going for $999 and the same speed macs were going for $1799 people looked at price. Another problem was that people weren't informed that Mac's were built on SCSI devices back then all the way up till G3 Bondi Blue. After that it started slowly using PC hardware like PC memory, PC hard drives etc... Now that OS X is based on BSD the availablity of Open Source software for Mac has increased tremendously whereas pre-OS X was not "open sourced" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 And I think that is a lie. That 0-day WMF security issue was exploited 6 weeks back and if you trust eweek then it was widely known and exploitable among the evil doers even earlier. Does looking at an image on the web now count as installing crap-ware willingly? The closest Mac equivalent I can think of was the launch services mess that effected OS X 10.3 in May 2004. The solution there was to change both Safari's default settings and the way launch services works to prevent a similar thing from happening again. It's also worth nothing that this particular patch was only exploited by proof-of-concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Read carefully "That only applies to OS X." It's possible to use vulnerabilities in OS X the same way so it is a lie. "Does looking at an image on the web now count as installing crap-ware willingly?" Sorry I didn't think that there are still IE6 users, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted February 11, 2006 Veteran Share Posted February 11, 2006 I'm going to say something that sounds rather weird to some, but I don't want Apple to be number one. I want Apple to continue to produce superior, awesome products to a small consumer base in and around 5% and them to kick ass with the iPod so that they don't go broke. Why you may ask? Some of Apple's identity comes from the fact that it is small. If you see another Apple user (as in Mac user) on the street, you have an instant friend! I feel like I'm in a community because of the fact that it is so small. When you are small, you can get away from being weird, quarky, and creative. You can have fun. If Apple got big, some of its cool, creative, and fun atmosphere and I guess you could say ideals, would be crippled, replaced by more of a strive for money. Right now of course Apple wants money, but there is more emphasis on the user experience in the corporate culture and atmosphere rather than what you would encounter with Dell or other manufacturers. Apple isn't big because it is a sub culture. It's users make up a sub culture of people who either stayed with them from the days of the computer for the rest of us or those like me that took a leap, a risk and in a sense, stuck it to the man, lol. If you destroy that, Apple becomes just another computer company, making just another computer instead of something that its users feel is special. Yea yea yea, I can hear the posts now, oh you are just a fanboy, just another Apple zealot or Mac head. Well think about it, besides Linux (which really isn't a company but oh well), what user base has that support and lust for the company that makes its products? Not that many... When you make Apple number one and a big company, you will remove that customer love and zealotry because the sub culture, the alternative ideas and thinking, becomes mainstream. And that will ring the fall of Apple ironically enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Apple is not number one because Bill Gates won't let it. 100Billion vs 2Billion. Bill wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariq Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I'm going to say something that sounds rather weird to some, but I don't want Apple to be number one. I want Apple to continue to produce superior, awesome products to a small consumer base in and around 5% and them to kick ass with the iPod so that they don't go broke. Why you may ask? Some of Apple's identity comes from the fact that it is small. If you see another Apple user (as in Mac user) on the street, you have an instant friend! I feel like I'm in a community because of the fact that it is so small. When you are small, you can get away from being weird, quarky, and creative. You can have fun. If Apple got big, some of its cool, creative, and fun atmosphere and I guess you could say ideals, would be crippled, replaced by more of a strive for money. Right now of course Apple wants money, but there is more emphasis on the user experience in the corporate culture and atmosphere rather than what you would encounter with Dell or other manufacturers. Apple isn't big because it is a sub culture. It's users make up a sub culture of people who either stayed with them from the days of the computer for the rest of us or those like me that took a leap, a risk and in a sense, stuck it to the man, lol. If you destroy that, Apple becomes just another computer company, making just another computer instead of something that its users feel is special. Yea yea yea, I can hear the posts now, oh you are just a fanboy, just another Apple zealot or Mac head. Well think about it, besides Linux (which really isn't a company but oh well), what user base has that support and lust for the company that makes its products? Not that many... When you make Apple number one and a big company, you will remove that customer love and zealotry because the sub culture, the alternative ideas and thinking, becomes mainstream. And that will ring the fall of Apple ironically enough. :woot: thats exactly how i feel, however wrong it may be. i thought i was the only one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Hundreds of millions of users can't be all wrong, can they? Yes, they can, and it wouldn't be the first time something like that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iconboy Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 why isnt apple ontop? in my mind it is quite simple- it comes down to money. if the only option for the average joe is a BMW noone would drive except for people that can really afford it. thats why we have VWs, civics and so forth. I know im over simplfiing, but think about. M$ has majority, because the majority has more options with a PC and different configurations and different pricing. Macs are expensive, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icecaveman Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 By your logic iconboy then OpenSource software would be dominating, not Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderRiver Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I don't understand this thread. Apple is #1, in terms of innovation. Microsoft is #1, in terms of marketing. Each company has its own surpeiority..so it is pointless to discuss any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betasp Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Apple is not #1 because they refused to license their OS years ago. MS did, and therefore they are #1. It is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk8er_boi6000 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Its simple: Windows machines offer better value for money, much better compatibility, and a lot more power (which should change a bit with the advent of the mactels), and apple's licensing policy has crippled them, and finally apple's stuff is overpiced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts