or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac? - Page 6

post #76 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS

And no, you can't have everything. If you could, I would have a SGI supercomputer running a customized version of Unix at my house with a T-1 connection.

Jon.
jeez, imagine what his post count would be then
post #77 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by m@T
jeez, imagine what his post count would be then
I shudder.

This thread is dumb. (Well not the OP, but Mac vs. PC is so )
post #78 of 151
I will back Slim up here a bit since it seems to be 10 mac lovers vs. 1 pc lover.


People seem to be missing one of the main points of Slim's argument - Apple is a hardware company. This in and of itself is a hugely limiting factor. Everyone here is arguing Mac vs. PC, but this isn't quite an apples to apples comparison.

An equivalent comparison in this case would be Mac vs. Microsoft. Apple makes its own OS and its own hardware (although it contracts third parties like Intel to make the hardware). Microsoft does not manufacture hardware.

Think about this for a second, this whole setup is going to limit innovation, because there is no competition. Microsoft puts out an operating system and then lets hundreds of companies develop hardware that can run its operating system. Apple created its own OS, and contracts out hardware so that you can run their OS on a system you bought directly from Apple.

Someone made the point that Apple has good innovations but bad implementation/commercialization which is why its market share is so low and why there are a lot of programs out there that are PC only. I feel that the above reason is why Apple is struggling with market share.

Think about it from a software developer's perspective - why would you produce programs solely for a platform that maintains total control of its OS and hardware production? PC developers know that there are going to be tons of companies constantly competing with each other to make faster, more flexible hardware, and have a company producing the OS that they are coding for that is separate from the companies that produce the hardware for the system.

Another problem with development for Apple is that they must approve programs developed for their platform. They maintain total control over what is put out for their system, which puts major restrictions on developers. It is such that many don't want to go through the hassle of trying to work with Apple when they can easily develop and put out a program for the PC. It has also been said that many people who try to develop programs for Apple have had their ideas stolen and instead Apple just implements them into the OS themselves.
post #79 of 151
All quotes originally posted by Raley:

Quote:
Think about this for a second, this whole setup is going to limit innovation, because there is no competition. Microsoft puts out an operating system and then lets hundreds of companies develop hardware that can run its operating system. Apple created its own OS, and contracts out hardware so that you can run their OS on a system you bought directly from Apple.
I don't think that sounds right. Apple does not make ALL the software for the Mac, but it does make the OS. How does that limit innovation for software developers? That is the same open playing field as for the PC: Microsoft makes the OS, but does not make ALL the software for the PC. What 'limits' innovation is that software manufacturers may not want to spend much R&D resources developing software for a small market.

Quote:
Think about it from a software developer's perspective - why would you produce programs solely for a platform that maintains total control of its OS and hardware production? PC developers know that there are going to be tons of companies constantly competing with each other to make faster, more flexible hardware, and have a company producing the OS that they are coding for that is separate from the companies that produce the hardware for the system.
I'm a bit lost here: Doesn't Microsoft have COMPLETE control over the Windows OS? How is that different from Apple's control over their OS?
post #80 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by raley
I will back Slim up here a bit since it seems to be 10 mac lovers vs. 1 pc lover.


People seem to be missing one of the main points of Slim's argument - Apple is a hardware company. This in and of itself is a hugely limiting factor. Everyone here is arguing Mac vs. PC, but this isn't quite an apples to apples comparison.

An equivalent comparison in this case would be Mac vs. Microsoft. Apple makes its own OS and its own hardware (although it contracts third parties like Intel to make the hardware). Microsoft does not manufacture hardware.

Think about this for a second, this whole setup is going to limit innovation, because there is no competition. Microsoft puts out an operating system and then lets hundreds of companies develop hardware that can run its operating system. Apple created its own OS, and contracts out hardware so that you can run their OS on a system you bought directly from Apple.

Someone made the point that Apple has good innovations but bad implementation/commercialization which is why its market share is so low and why there are a lot of programs out there that are PC only. I feel that the above reason is why Apple is struggling with market share.

Think about it from a software developer's perspective - why would you produce programs solely for a platform that maintains total control of its OS and hardware production? PC developers know that there are going to be tons of companies constantly competing with each other to make faster, more flexible hardware, and have a company producing the OS that they are coding for that is separate from the companies that produce the hardware for the system.

Another problem with development for Apple is that they must approve programs developed for their platform. They maintain total control over what is put out for their system, which puts major restrictions on developers. It is such that many don't want to go through the hassle of trying to work with Apple when they can easily develop and put out a program for the PC. It has also been said that many people who try to develop programs for Apple have had their ideas stolen and instead Apple just implements them into the OS themselves.

What I do not like about these arguments is they mostly no longer apply to the Apple of today. In fact, now that Apple has shifted to the x86 platform, literally the only proprietary components in its system are the case, power supply, and motherboard. Moreover, this makes Apple no different than the world's most popular PC manufacturer - Dell.

Dell, at least in its mainstream systems, uses a propietary motherboard and power supply design, which means the user does not have the ability to upgrade those components. They are free to upgrade any other component, but so are Apple users. Any PCI/AGP/PCI-Express card that works on a PC will work on a Mac, provided the hardware vendor makes the necessary drivers. Hard drives, RAM, and just about any USB/Firewire (IEEE 1394) are upgradeable and interchangable in both Macs and PCs.

Another interesting point, is that OSX is actually infinitely more open of an Operating System in terms of design than Windows. OSX is built on the BSD variation of Unix, giving it compatibility with a whole world of *nix software. This was a bit of a problem when Apple still ran with Motorola/IBM architecture, but now that their hardware is x86, there is little difference between a retail version of Unix and OSX.

It will perhaps be one of the great ironies in the computer business that once Apple is fully transitioned to the x86 platform, its software will be more open and more compatible than Windows, due to its ability to run the vast majority of Linux/Unix applications.
post #81 of 151
Quote:
The REAL problem here is that Macintosh isn't just a computer for many people, its a lifestyle choice, an "ideal", and one that I happen to vigorously object to.
Quote:
I'm sorry dude, but you don't just voice your complaint about the product. You voice your complaints about the people. If I had the time I could go through and find every quote where you made a sweeping generalization about Mac users and pull them up to you. Oh here's one (one not true), I just bolded it above.
A "sweeping generalization" would be me saying, "Mac users are overly sensitive about percieved criticism, whether real or imagined." What I DID say does not count as a sweeping generalization because I never stated that all Mac user do anything. I said MANY. Which, unless it strikes a nerve, may not even include you. It does not even indicate "most" or "a majority". If you are going to publicly vilify me for doing something, at least select a quote where I actually do it. The one time in THIS thread that I made a sweeping generalization is highlighted below.
Quote:
You people are hopeless. Go ahead and conform.
I agree that was probably out of line, and I apologize, but I felt it was appropriate within the context of the discussin. I tire of being bombarded with the"your computer is ugly and has viruses" argument. Because it is not, and it does not. This is a grossly false and invalid assumption on the part of people who I wouldnt trust to know the difference. Have you ever seen my computer? I happen to like it. I do not like the way Mac computers all share the same look and aesthetic.You can look at a computer from across the room and tell its a Macintosh. Deny it if you want, but they all look the same. They all conform to the same visual aesthetic. People who buy the Mac (at least in part) because of the styling, are conforming to the ideal that Apple designed. I have never met a Mac user who hates the way they look, so my assumption is that there aren't many. Have you ever thought about taking the guts out of your Mac and sticking in a black HTPC case? Why not? Would it even work? I'm not sure. Is it conformity? In my mind, yes it is.
Quote:
I'm sorry dude, but you don't just voice your complaint about the product. You voice your complaints about the people.
Exactly right. Like what happens in the clothing forum all day long. It's the suitmakers fault that it sucks, but its the person's fault for wearing it. Seriously.I feel like I'm having to protect myself against your biased viewpoint here. I can point out numerous times when Apple users have directed snide remarks and veiled insults at PC users,(on this board, its mostly been me) telling us that our computers are ugly, giving our OS cute but ultimately derogatory nicknames like windoze, insinuating that they are poorly built and that I am somehow lacking in taste or brainpower because I would rather own a PC and keep my options than switch to a pre-built closed system shiny peice of fluff who's OS annoys me and doesn't let me do what I want. I don't mind it at all, for the record, because there are many people out there who feel that way. And I recognize that it is their opinion. I can question whether the clever Apple marketing machine has influenced their opinions or not, filling their head with garbage like "Apples don't crash or get virii" But again, it is a discussion that I think is perfectly ok to have. Getting upset when I voice my opinion that Mac's are ugly and the OS sucks, taking it personally when I say something about "many people" that is undoubtably true IMO, vague in number, not directed specifically at you or anyone in particular, and may or may not even apply to you is overreacting. Relax. If anyone non-moderator wise has been offended by anything I've said directly to you, that you percieved as an insult, I apologize. In the future please feel free to PM me with your concerns about the particular post and we can address it like adults. To those of you out there who are offended by my attitude,viewpoint, or stance on politics, religion, or computers... I don't care. I am allowed to have different opinions than you, and we are allowed to disagree. We are also allowed to discuss it, which is sort of the purpose of public boards. If everyone agreed all the time we might as well just talk to ourselves in the mirror all day. If you don't like it or value my opinions and posts, ignore me. But in all honesty I would rather discuss it.
post #82 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by T4phage
All quotes originally posted by Raley:


I don't think that sounds right. Apple does not make ALL the software for the Mac, but it does make the OS. How does that limit innovation for software developers? That is the same open playing field as for the PC: Microsoft makes the OS, but does not make ALL the software for the PC. What 'limits' innovation is that software manufacturers may not want to spend much R&D resources developing software for a small market.

The argument he made was valid for all versions of the Mac OS up until X (10). Prior to that, the OS was entirely proprietary, forcing developers to write two completely different sets of code to make an application multi-platform compatible. OSX, on the other hand, is based on a Unix variant, which means programming for it is identical to programming for a *nix OS. There was still a problem of the Power PC architecture, which did require separate coding from say *nix applications on an x86 architecture, but that problem is gone now with Apple's move to Intel.
post #83 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_economy
OSX, on the other hand, is based on a Unix variant, which means programming for it is identical to programming for a *nix OS.

I think all the Unix vendors would like to think that, but in practice it isn't true. There is some basic API compatibility, and in some cases even binary compatibility, but the one legacy of Unix is that there are many Unixes, and they're all frustratingly incompatible with each other, even after many unification attempts (eg. SVR4). If you look at any open source program that was supported on many Unix platforms, like gcc or emacs, you will see thousands of little hacks everywhere to support a particular Unix platform. Even POSIX compliance today doesn't guarantee straight recompilation compatibility, much less binary compatibility as you imply in your earlier post.

--Andre
post #84 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew
I think all the Unix vendors would like to think that, but in practice it isn't true. There is some basic API compatibility, and in some cases even binary compatibility, but the one legacy of Unix is that there are many Unixes, and they're all frustratingly incompatible with each other, even after many unification attempts (eg. SVR4). If you look at any open source program that was supported on many Unix platforms, like gcc or emacs, you will see thousands of little hacks everywhere to support a particular Unix platform. Even POSIX compliance today doesn't guarantee straight recompilation compatibility, much less binary compatibility as you imply in your earlier post.

--Andre

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of Linux and Unix is fairly limited, though I have experienced what I believe is called "dependency hell" on the occasions I've seen fit to try out a Linux distro or two.

Would OSX's being based on BSD have any impact in terms of compatibility? I think ideally it would mean most software designed for the BSD environment should work on OSX, though there are always issues that seem to come up.
post #85 of 151
i read this entire thread, and i gotta voice my opinion that osx.4 is the most usable OS currently on the market

windows xp doesn't even come close. even ubuntu (the most user-friendly linux build) is a couple steps below osx.

i've seen screens of vista, and i don't like what i see. i haven't heard anything about os10.5 (leopard) or 10.6 (lion), but current builds of ubuntu are probably better than post-release vista will be. it looks to me like windows is a dead end

also - tokyo slim, you're a good guy but c'mon, man, take the heat. how can you say this:

Quote:
I tire of being bombarded with the"your computer is ugly and has viruses" argument."

...and in the same breath, call the mac aesthetic ugly?
post #86 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by oman
also - tokyo slim, you're a good guy but c'mon, man, take the heat. how can you say this: ...and in the same breath, call the mac aesthetic ugly?
I just don't like it. The designs are too bland and minimalist, the colors are ugly, and what little discernable character it has reminds me of a crappy plastic toy. I'm not a big fan of white or silver electronics. Silver cameras for example scream "amature" to me. Silver stereo equipment is about as gauche as you can get. White is almost as bad, I want to punch whoever thought white electronics was a good idea. I also hate Microsoft for buying into it with the X-Box 360. I will be getting a piano black PS3 this fall instead. One peice computers are nigh unto useless, and I hate the entire idea behind them. The brushed G5 aluminum tower I have to use occasionally is the least offensive, but would be 1000 x better with some accents, but then it would look just like my Lian-Li brushed aluminum case with black bezeled drives and carbon fiber accent. I like my black Ahanix D4 HTPC case in my bedroom too, it looks like a piece of stereo equipment and doesn't draw attention to itself sitting at the bottom of my Denon rack system. My computers are NOT ugly. I'm sorry to dissapoint you.
post #87 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by m@T
jeez, imagine what his post count would be then

Less than all the trolls combined.

Jon.
post #88 of 151
Now this is something we can all agree on.

post #89 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_economy
What I do not like about these arguments is they mostly no longer apply to the Apple of today. In fact, now that Apple has shifted to the x86 platform, literally the only proprietary components in its system are the case, power supply, and motherboard. Moreover, this makes Apple no different than the world's most popular PC manufacturer - Dell.

Dell, at least in its mainstream systems, uses a propietary motherboard and power supply design, which means the user does not have the ability to upgrade those components. They are free to upgrade any other component, but so are Apple users. Any PCI/AGP/PCI-Express card that works on a PC will work on a Mac, provided the hardware vendor makes the necessary drivers. Hard drives, RAM, and just about any USB/Firewire (IEEE 1394) are upgradeable and interchangable in both Macs and PCs.



You are sort of making the same point here as I was trying to make. Apple is no different than Dell. The problem is you can buy PC's from Dell, HP/Compaq, Sony, or any of the other hundred PC makers, or build your own. You don't have this kind of versatility with the mac.

Unless I am wrong you can't go out and pick up a MB, CPU, HD, Video Card, PSU and install OSX, or can you?

Again I could be wrong but it seems like the wider variety of manufacturers in the PC side of things would create more competition that would lead to better products/faster computers/better graphics/whatever. But then again I am thinking of things mostly from a gaming perspective.

Honestly, it doesn't quite matter which platform you are using if you are just word processing and browsing forums, since any computer 5 years old or newer can do that just fine as long as you keep it clean and format every year or so.
post #90 of 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by raley
Apple is no different than Dell.

I see Apple as a combination of Dell/HP et al, Microsoft and an assortment of different software and componentry vendors.

Quote:
Again I could be wrong but it seems like the wider variety of manufacturers in the PC side of things would create more competition that would lead to better products/faster computers/better graphics/whatever.
you could make a very strong counter-case by point out that by designing both hardware, OS and software all built from the ground up to work together, you end up with better machines, faster, more stable etc etc etc.

Quote:
But then again I am thinking of things mostly from a gaming perspective.
but hasten to add if gaming is your interest, dont buy a Mac. I dont think there is anything inherently inferior about the Mac's ability to handle games, but the lack of games available for the platform is, understandably, paltry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Now that Apple is Windows-compatible, to switch or not to switch to Mac?