how my iPod touch has switched me to a mac


Recommended Posts

One of his points, and the one you chose to criticize is that the MAC OS X is not as proprietary as many may think and that is correct up to some extent. Whether or not Windows is more or less proprietary is something very debatable and certainly not the main point of his argument.

All the parts that truly make OS X, OS X are completely proprietary and not available, as is the hardware platform which is also completely closed.

Calling Windows itself less proprietary is probably a bit silly (although more people have access to the Windows source code than have access to the OS X one), but the fact that the OS X kernel itself is open source is a bit of a "who cares" thing and not much of a selling point for the Mac.

The Mac is a more limited platform for the users because it has less hardware support and less software. It offers less choice. This is a better way to describe it than "proprietary."

Speaking from experience, any current Windows user out there that has literally said Out-Loud "to themselves" DAMN THIS MACHINE, will enjoy a Mac.

And with Boot-camp they will be Very happy, long as they can afford it all lol

I know I am

He never even mentioned Windows or its proprietary status.

As for OS X, Darwin (the underlying system) and XNU (the kernel) are open source, but neither the underlying code (Open Firmware) or the overlaying system (Aqua) are.

It is possible for something to be proprietary (closed source) and yet conforming to open standards. It is also possible for something to be open source and conforming to either little or none of the respective open standards in the given area of the piece of software.

Open Firmware is an IEEE 1275 specification that is free available for anyone to implement, along with the Forth programming language. Apple Mac's now use EFI which is an open specification that is managed by the UEFI Forum.

To say that Apple limits choice by locking Mac OS X to Apple computers - you must also criticise Microsoft whose agreement locks OEM installations to a given OEM's motherboard which inhibit one from moving an OEM version of Windows from, for example, a Dell computer to a HP one.

All the parts that truly make OS X, OS X are completely proprietary and not available, as is the hardware platform which is also completely closed.

Calling Windows itself less proprietary is probably a bit silly (although more people have access to the Windows source code than have access to the OS X one), but the fact that the OS X kernel itself is open source is a bit of a "who cares" thing and not much of a selling point for the Mac.

The Mac is a more limited platform for the users because it has less hardware support and less software. It offers less choice. This is a better way to describe it than "proprietary."

I agree with you on the first part.

Microsoft and Apple have different kind of strategy models. Microsoft believes in creating software and letting OEM's add the hardware. Apple believes in putting the hardware and software together, they don't believe in letting other people make it. That is one of the reasons why Apple can't rapidly increase their market share, their closed model.

the very first computer i purchased new Was a Dell Dimension 8250 paid $1300 for it and Lexmark AIO,came with XP, later upgraded to Vista.

upgraded Power supply to install a new nvidia GT 6800 OC and a X-fi extreme Pro (before the Fatal1ty series) i loved this computer but it rapidly became obsolete mostly because it had a very short lived type of memory wich became impossible to upgrade.

RDRAM / RamBUS? That was truly the betamax of the computing world.

FAIL

I agree with you on the first part.

Microsoft and Apple have different kind of strategy models. Microsoft believes in creating software and letting OEM's add the hardware. Apple believes in putting the hardware and software together, they don't believe in letting other people make it. That is one of the reasons why Apple can't rapidly increase their market share, their closed model.

I don't have any problems with Apple's strategy, and I don't think they should be like Microsoft. That the users have less choice with a Mac is a fact, but if they don't intend to use that choice (and it really isn't that important for most) then it makes no difference. If you've tried a Mac and it suits your needs, buy it. It might not meet my needs, but so? I'm not the one buying it.

I don't think he mentioned his operating system either. He could be using a GNU/Linux distribution or even one of the *BSD systems for all we know. Although his comment about games hints towards Windows, I don't believe he intended to push Windows as less proprietary.

Seeing as his posting history related to various Steam applications and DirectX, I doubt he's using Linux unless they've ported Steam, DX and everything else to it in the last 12 hours ;-)

To say that Apple limits choice by locking Mac OS X to Apple computers - you must also criticise Microsoft whose agreement locks OEM installations to a given OEM's motherboard which inhibit one from moving an OEM version of Windows from, for example, a Dell computer to a HP one.

Hold on, moving an installed version of Windows from one hardware setup to another is something impossible without errors. You can't just remove the hard disk and install on whatever motherboard you may please. As for OEM's limiting that, is it anything but the natural choice? Why would you want to allow your "own", customized system that sometimes is a selling point, to be freely moved to any rival configuration?

Microsoft Windows has no hardware limitations if that's what you were implying, you can install it on pretty much any hardware setup so long as it is supported by the current version of Windows. Moving it around to a totally different setup on the other hand is something that no operating system can do without producing errors.

I agree with you on the first part.

Microsoft and Apple have different kind of strategy models. Microsoft believes in creating software and letting OEM's add the hardware. Apple believes in putting the hardware and software together, they don't believe in letting other people make it. That is one of the reasons why Apple can't rapidly increase their market share, their closed model.

Not that there is anything wrong with the vertically integrated model. Nothing has ever stopped any of the other OEM's from creating their own software stack and integrate their hardware and software together.

Look at some of the greatest triumphs when it comes to reliability, functionality and speed - it has been from the vertically integrated business model. VAX with OpenVMS, Tandem with its NonStop operating system, POWER with AIX and so forth.

For me, I'd sooner see multiple operating systems vying for positions in the marketplace than having a large monoculture where a single security scare can result in major problems world wide. Mac OS X has its place, Windows having its own place, and maybe Linux, OpenSolaris and a BSD of some description filling in some of the other areas.

Hold on, moving an installed version of Windows from one hardware setup to another is something impossible without errors. You can't just remove the hard disk and install on whatever motherboard you may please. As for OEM's limiting that, is it anything but the natural choice? Why would you want to allow your "own", customized system that sometimes is a selling point, to be freely moved to any rival configuration?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding of the term move when used in the context of the post but it was in reference to moving the licence from one machine to another; reinstalling, if need be, the operating system on the new computer and using the licence key provided with the old computer.

I find it interesting in the final line you talk about customisation, differentiation and OEM wishing to protect that customisation. How is that any different to Apples own justification to differentiate their product from another and protecting that differentiation?

I don't have any problems with Apple's strategy, and I don't think they should be like Microsoft. That the users have less choice with a Mac is a fact, but if they don't intend to use that choice (and it really isn't that important for most) then it makes no difference. If you've tried a Mac and it suits your needs, buy it. It might not meet my needs, but so? I'm not the one buying it.

I then pray to ask, if you're not concerned with what people purchase for their own needs then why are you posting in the Mac section of Neowin? It seems rather silly to talk about personal freedom and choice when it comes to computer purchase but you seemed to be compelled to enter into a debate over something that you have stated you have no interest in.

Am I the only one who see's the apparent contradiction?

Maybe there is a misunderstanding of the term move when used in the context of the post but it was in reference to moving the licence from one machine to another; reinstalling, if need be, the operating system on the new computer and using the licence key provided with the old computer.

I find it interesting in the final line you talk about customisation, differentiation and OEM wishing to protect that customisation. How is that any different to Apples own justification to differentiate their product from another and protecting that differentiation?

Ah, you were talking about licenses. I really fail to see the problem here. If you purchase a copy of Windows, OEM or not, you can install it on any kind of hardware that you so wish, including other OEM's that you may have purchased. The hardware does not limit the software here.

As for the OEM customization part, the difference here is that Windows is not limited on that specific hardware or any hardware configuration from that manufacturer.

I then pray to ask, if you're not concerned with what people purchase for their own needs then why are you posting in the Mac section of Neowin? It seems rather silly to talk about personal freedom and choice when it comes to computer purchase but you seemed to be compelled to enter into a debate over something that you have stated you have no interest in.

Am I the only one who see's the apparent contradiction?

If you go back to my first post, I was trying to make the point that it's important to make an informed decision. You shouldn't buy a Mac just because you like the iPhone, but if you try it and it meets your needs, then go ahead. If you strip out the irrelevancies, that is what I wanted to say.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!