| Before I start talking again, I just want to clarify that I'm not, BY NO MEANS, defending Windows! I hate Windows just as much as anyone that uses it. I just think that the whole "Mac is the best thing in the world" is bs. Mac users are know for that.
Windows XP does have better memory management and multitasking. But it has that stupid interface as default. At least you can change it back. What makes Windows crash so much is what's called "DLL Hell", where a new program updates a library file and old programs crash. They're solving this problem with the new .NET framework. With .NET, different assemblies can co-exist using different "environments".
The core of OS X is open source, but what about the interface? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Apple giving back to the community? I don't think so.
If Enola Technologies buys a truckload of shares from Apple and M$, it'll own BOTH!
On the software issue. You're referring to the interface, but that's not what makes the computer run. Even a stupid user can setup their email using Outlook Express, it's very easy. So if you take a Mac and a PC, running the same (relatively) hardware and software, they should perform the same. If not, then one of them is better than the other. But what caused it to be better? The hardware or software? Actually, I'm confused.
Mac runs one flavor on *nix, PCs run many. And each one of them has it's own cons and pros.
Cocoa is not a platform. It's just an interface. And there are many Windows and *nix programs out there because developers are encouraged to do so. That's not true with Apple. Everybody knows that.
I'm gonna repeat this. Mac OS X IS new software. Even though it runs BSD, it had to be modified somehow. If I take a Linux kernel and modify it, it's considered new software. What if I modified something that made some software crash? You can't assume it's exactly the same thing just because I used a Linux kernel. That's what I mean when I say that Mac OS X is an unproven platform. Besides it's cheaper to go with a free *nix variant. But on a environment where uptime is everything, responsible people will go with what's proven to be secure.
Ease of use does NOT matter on a server environment. We're talking about skilled people. Not end users. They're supposed to know the OS inside out. That's part of the problem with M$ server systems. You control the server using wizards and sometimes you just need complete control over it. That's why *nix uses text files. You can see and modify everything right there. Is it hard? Hell yeah! But that gives you the confidence to know that your system is setup to YOUR specifications, not what stupid M$ thinks is right.
Novell had a huge share of the NOS market. Not anymore! So what makes Apple a good candidate?
Windows is not POSIX compliant by default, but there are emulators. But that doesn't matter because it has it's own API.
I'm not familiar with Apple's licensing system, but does it allow you to take Aqua and modify it?
The reason why Mac doesn't have a good programmer's base is because Apple doesn't want it. They don't like outside developers and everybody knows that.
- Marco Machado  |