OSX vs. Windows

[128shot]

Originally Posted by nixgeek

Oh, many times! Flaming PB 5300s, the lost cause that was Copland, unstable 52xx/62xx models. No one has said that Apple has been a complete saint in this whole thing. The reason MS caught up was because Apple kept tripping up in the mid-90s. Once Steve Jobs came on, things started taking a turn for the better. And yes, MS did help out Apple, but only to look good in front of the DoJ. Without Apple, they would have been a monopoly and broken apart.

Remember they are a computer company like many others, and many others like Apple have had their fair share of bad decisions and bad hardware/software.

And for the record, Apple DID try to do what MS did, but without being sleazy as MS had been in gaining that 95% market share (the killing off of DR-DOS and other tactics to make MSDOS and Windows take the market). Remember that Apple did decide to license out the Mac OS to clone makers in the mid-90s, and it was great for consumers in the short term. However, from a business standpoint the clone makers were cannibalizing Apple's sales. Had that kept on going, Apple would be history now. As much as people think Apple should be a software compabny like MS, it is inevitably a hardware company. Of course, now that might change since their main focus now is the iPod and now they are switching CPUs.

Another thing about the Mac clone makers was that while their systems might have been cheaper, not all of them were very stable. Some Power Computing Mac clones and other Mac clones had huge stability problems that in a way was good for Apple since people knew that Apple's Macs were from Apple and would work without the instabilities of the clones.

So as much as I hate to say it (because I did love the clones), Steve's killing of the clones was good for Apple, and it definitely shows now. And now with a robust system like Mac OS X, a lot of businesses are considering the Mac for teh corporate space.

Here's some proof from not too long ago...

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/21/osx/index.php

Indeed that is interesting.

Forwarding to pre-2006. I can only see apple doing one route


Giving up on being a hardware company, which would make sense now that they adopted x86, and becoming a more software kind of company and this could become a standpoint to bombard MS's hold, and this would probably include adding extra features that are MS like in a way-but with an apple twist-(MS didn't do EVERYTHING wrong)-to drag in new users. the 2 year switch is-in my humble opinion-a phase out of being a hardware company and into a new software company of apple (with the exception of course of the iPod etc etc etc, those things are still good sellers)


If I owned apple I'd go this route, easily. MS's only weakness is itself. Though, i think apple will have to fight HARD against a billion dollar multi-national.

[nixgeek]

I don't see them giving up the hardware....however, I don't think that the Mac will continue to be their main focus for the time being due to the halo effect with the iPod. However, think of all the cash Apple would come into if the x86 Macs tend to be wildly popular...why would they give this opportunity up to other companies when they could still be making the cash for both the hardware and the software for years to come. This is a bold undertaking, but one that looks like it will bear much fruit. And it looks to benefit both Apple and Intel according to Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5572.html

Considering the new relationship between Apple and Intel, it would be silly of them to let go of the hardware at this point.

[128shot]

Originally Posted by nixgeek

I don't see them giving up the hardware....however, I don't think that the Mac will continue to be their main focus for the time being due to the halo effect with the iPod. However, think of all the cash Apple would come into if the x86 Macs tend to be wildly popular...why would they give this opportunity up to other companies when they could still be making the cash for both the hardware and the software for years to come. This is a bold undertaking, but one that looks like it will bear much fruit. And it looks to benefit both Apple and Intel according to Ars Technica.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051115-5572.html

Considering the new relationship between Apple and Intel, it would be silly of them to let go of the hardware at this point.

I'm under the influence that i can just buy the OS and build the comp 3rd party though..

[lurk]

Then you would be mistaken. Intel and Apple are putting all sorts of DRM doodads into the OS to make it very hard to run on a non-Apple kit. There is a reason the hacked version out now are hacked.

[Viro]

Apple has always favored tight integration between hardware and software. That means that each machine they built, they know the _exact_ specs off, and thus know what drivers are needed. If they were to be like MS and just sell OS X like Windows, you'd lose the tight integration. Mixing and matching hardware though sexy(to the technologically inclined) does have it's drawbacks, especially when you look at how most of the instability on Windows is caused by device drivers.

I do not understand why people think that just because Apple is switching processors, it means that it'll be just like any other PC. As lurk has pointed out, you can bet Intel and Apple will have some sort of DRM on it.

[powermac]

Started out talking about surfin the web with either winblows or MAC. The discussion is now around Mac vs windblow$. I am not, nor never been concerned that Apple does not have a major part of the PC market. Sure, I would like to see there market share increase, and its has recently, and I believe it will when Intel Macs are commonplace.
Overall, I enjoy the Mac for it simplicity, and reliability. I agree with Viro, I would not want an unstable computer because of endless downloading of drivers, updates, security patches, etc. M$ faces so many challenges, whether some of them are created by their own business practices or large responsibility of dominating the PC market.
One thing that bothers me with the PC world is computers advertise "built of windows". What happen to the days when software boxes posted requirements based on hardware (IBM compatible 386, etc)?
I am not sure that a software company should be dictating to hardware companies how to built computers. Conversely, many PC users download so many programs, etc, that their systems become unstable. At work, our network admin has strict control over our usage (School), so our computers are some what stable. Although on daily basis, I struggle with the printer, poorly written Psychology programs that freeze with large amounts of data to crunch. Thankfully, my Powerbook gets me through the day and my productivity remains efficient.

[fryke]

Well, the software boxes _still_ show minimum hardware and software requirements. But Microsoft, at the top, has started to license badges like "built for Windows", and usually, most of the people (that's of course not you and me) will buy something that "sounds more compatible". Actually, device driver problems etc. _help_ here, since people might think that buying a puzzled-together PC might be less compatible.
But of course, Apple computers won't need any such badges.

[Jason]

mac, pc, mac, pc, mac, pc is my current pattern... I guess I really care... I care a lot