how my iPod touch has switched me to a mac

[hdood]

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."

[Phantom Helix]

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

[Scratch 'n Sniff]

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.

[Neroscent]

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.

[pdmcmahon]

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

[hdood]

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.

[Miuku.]

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 ;-)

[Neroscent]

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.

[Scratch 'n Sniff]

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?

[Neroscent]

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.

[Brad.]

if I had the money then my 1g iPod Touch would have switched me to an iPhone, Macbook AND iMac.

[hdood]

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.

[PyX]

Well we were already looking for a Mac, but buying an iPod 4G and seeing how the iPod Photos were in the time made us believe that Mac OS was really great, so we decided to give it a shot a few years after when they switched to Intel and I never looked back.