# OS X + XP: Who will really win?



## Matrix Agent (Aug 26, 2001)

I wanna know what you guys really think is going to happen, both short term and long term.

I dont want to know which OS is better, I want to know whether Apple will win market share, and if it does, within which groups?

Will Apple's attempt to move into the future fall flat on its face?
Will XP's hurried shove out the door give businesses a crappy outlook on XP?
Do windows users really care enough to upgrade?

Try to stay as unbiased as you can.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 26, 2001)

I think that OS X will take away from people using other unixen in the short term.  In the long term I think more people will migrate to it, but again from macusers,unix users, and artists/educators and people that have used a mac in the past, or a unix in the past.

I think the general public will remain with windows.  I think this because it is my observation that computer users are inherently dumb. People who know better have experienced more OSes and not just windows (that is what I call the learned peoples) but most window users (as quoted from another post) "don't know what another OS is"...but even if they did know they think that it's too difficult and have neither the intellectual curiosity nor the willingness to see something from a different angle and try something else (I mean take a look at the x86 platform, it has tens of free OSes but I dont see the win community experimenting).

With XP this will be even more seen since people will be using the built in browser, media player, IM client and other built in features as default and a lot of new users will not take the time to experiment with other alternatives to what MS has provided for them (a great example is the IE debacle with making it part of the OS).  M$ is going to make their wma wmv format the defacto standard as well as their MSN and MSN messenger services the defacto for win users to use, and win users wont say anything because they are inherently dumb and thus unwilling to challenge and experiment with others.

man I think I said a lot.
I will shut up now and possibly open myself up to flamming.

thanks 

Admiral


----------



## Finch (Aug 26, 2001)

I hate to say it but I'm thinking XP. I'm currently running both and Microsoft hands down tends to be the "slug" 9 time out of 10. Until I loaded OS X 10.0.4 on my Powerbook G4 500MHz with 320MB of Ram, all I can say is dog slow. Meanwhile XP is crusin with only 256MB Ram on my Celeron 500MHz Notebook.

Finch


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 26, 2001)

While I don't know this for a fact, i think OS X got kicked out of the door a bit quick in order to satisfy diehard users. This may have hurt them in the short term, but ultimately they will benefit from the massive amount of feedback they recieved. Microsoft will not do this because, to say it frankly, they dont give a shit what you do or dont like about the OS. So where apple started, microsoft is going to finish. In 10.1 Apple will take everything to the next step, to the true OS X, which includes what real people want in an OS.

Now in XP do you see a noticable change in speed, or is it a general change in GUI? If speed is your concern, i think you will be satisfied, it runs much quicker than OS 9, can XP beat win2000?

I'm not flaming you, im just saying that OS X wasn't built for speed yet, save your decisions for a day when you know what the final score looks like.

OK, if i've been overy harsh here, please tell me, im not trying to come off as pushy or combative.


----------



## Piet Keizer (Aug 28, 2001)

Apple will become an even stronger consumer brand. Apple was a different world, that no Windows user had to know about. But Windows users are going to meet Apple users more and more.

Why will more and more Windows users meet Apple users?

The first reason is that OS X is going to make surviving in a Windows world easier:
- MacLink and Apple Works are provided with every iMac and iBook
- some kind of DAVE is being built into the OS
- you can save every document as a PDF

Second, I have the feeling that iBooks are going to take over the iMacs, because they're getting cheaper and cheaper and they're targeted to the same consumer groups. This means that more and more consumers are going to carry their good looking Macs around.

If more Windows consumers are going to meet Apple consumers, the former will notice the differences. Windows consumer systems are messy, loaded with usesless features fighting eachother. They're going to compare that to Apple's simplicity and style. Lack of that is inherent to the Windows system, which has to take account of everyone's interests, which always leads to terrible compromises, bad taste and a lack of vision.

And Windows users are going to see the pride of Apple users carrying their machines around. I'm very aware of that Apple logo telling people: look, here's a guy happily making his own choices and I work with you just as easily as a Windows user.

This is going to mean an increase of Apple's brand strength and I think this should lead to a bigger market share.


----------



## Crawfish (Aug 28, 2001)

I think XP will win, not because it is a better os but because it already has a good chunk of the market share. As stated before, people in general are not interested in what is available to them but what's planted right in front of their faces. When people become interested in a product they look at what everybody else has and then do a little bit of research, and eventualy buy the most popular product they can afford. The research doesnt go very far. An Apple person, however, is a little different (We "Think Different"!). I, for one,  like unique, stylish, simplistic as well as efficient, things. Ironically, I have to do research to find the simple and efficient things that I like. MS is all over the place offering everything under the sun while Apple is making products that their unique customers like. 

I don't think Apple is in this thing to win but to continue to make high quality products that are affordable and different. OSX is a high quality  OS that is affordable and different. It's just not done yet! 

I use a PC at work and have a Mac at home just like every other mac user. The people at work always argue with  me over what is better, faster, etc. Whatever you could afford and like is what's better!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Ripcord (Aug 29, 2001)

I was talking to someone at work today about OS X (since I'm just learning about it myself), and the conversation turned to Windows XP.  When I mentioned about XP's licensing/registration scheme, and the ability to change hardware in a <b>legally licensed</b> machine only a few times before the license (and therefore your machine) is deactivated, his jaw dropped - he couldn't believe it.

I wasn't trying to convince him that OS X (or Mac in general) is better in any way, but his last comment on the matter was "looks like I'm going to be buying a Mac..."  (My coworker is a die-hard Windows user, btw).

I get the feeling that there's going to be a lot of this kind of sentiment, myself included.  Personally, I'm really happy with Win2k - I think it's a very robust, stable, and usable range of OS products, but if XP is the future of Windows, well...  Count me out.  There's almost nothing that I use my PCs for that I couldn't do on a Mac.


----------



## comgil (Aug 29, 2001)

The fact is today, OSX isn't a seller app. It won't increase the number of Mac by itself.
OSX can be installed on about 2 million machines (if they increase the memory), but XP can be installed on tenth of millions of machine. It could be hard, the problems could be big, but PC users bought win95, win98, SE, ME, 2K and didn't blame M$oft.
I don't know how Apple could reach such a number.

The real problem is the lack of advertising : only mac users and fans care about OSX. It could be better, simplier and faster, no PC user really cares, because for him the Mac doesn't exist.

What Apple should do now to change this ?


----------



## knighthawk (Aug 29, 2001)

My opinion is that OSX will gain marketshare with the general public.  

Let me remind you that XP (although very easy to use) is a variation on Windows 2000 and Windows NT, and is aim at the professional market, not for the general public.  Unless I am misinformed, this means that Microsoft will follow with XP Lite, ME2, or something else for consumers.  While the professional XP may have the hardware licensing issue, the consumer version may not.

With Apple's continued TV campaign, I think that they will continue to increase their Hardware market share.  Especially with the new iBook and some of their other products.  I just saw the new Quicksilver TV commercial the other day (the wedding in hawaii) and although I feel the script could have used more work, the point of burning Video (DVDs) that anyone can watch was clear.

I think a lot of UNIX/LINUX fans will start buying G4s because of OSX (once 10.1 is released).  OSX is the very first user-friendly full-featured UNIX variety that has been released to date.  Corel Linux did a good job in making LINUX easier to use, but OSX blew them out of the water.

It all depends on the outcome of Microsoft's monopoly case, and how much people are upset with Microsoft to turn to Apple (spite is nice if focused correctly).


----------



## knighthawk (Aug 29, 2001)

One of my employees friends (Kris) convienced her grandmother to buy an iMac.  Her grandmother had very little experience with computers, but bought it anyway so that Kris could use it.  This is one of the older iMacs that did not come with OSX, so when OSX was released, Kris convienced her grandmother to upgrade the memory and buy OSX.

Since she installed OSX on the iMac, Kris has not been able to use the iMac because her Grandmother and everyone else wants to use it.  So she asked her grandmother to buy her an iBook.


----------



## Crawfish (Aug 29, 2001)

I have a friend who is the network administrator at his work and is of course a Windows guy. He has been bothering me about being a mac man ever since I got my imac. Recently, I had a problem with my TCP/IP settings. He was over my house with his wife one day and I thought I would ask him to help me correct my problem on OSX. He could not get over how easy it was to use, how cool it looked, and how fast it was! 

Just as eluded to before, he never bothered to ever get on a mac and use it. Once he did he loved it! When he gets the chance to he is going to buy a mac.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Aug 29, 2001)

Apple will definitely gain market share with the release of 10.1 and the opening of Apple Stores. I'm betting that they double it to 10%. There are a few good reasons for this logic:

1) Apple Stores
People's number one reason for not using Mac's is because they are under the misconception that "there is no software for them". This of course, will change when people walk into the Apple Store in their local mall and see 400+ titles sitting on the shelf.

2) BeOS getting dropped
I know of a few people who are so anti-windows that they run BeOS on their PCs. Palm is in the middle of buying out Be. There are no plans to continue the BeOS for the desktop. A lot of these Be users are liking OSX because of it's software support, stability, and overall, "not being windows".

3) XP is going to make it difficult for developers
XP is basically windows 2000 with a ripped-off skin [do you know that it is going to come with windows movie editor?  *cough* iMovie rip-off *cough*]. As CNET put it, the only original thing about windows XP is the "P". But developers are going to have to change their code to make their applications XP compatible. Mostly GUI changes, but changes non the less.

4) Are users really going to upgrade to XP just for a butt ugly color scheme?
5) Everyone who knows anything about computers knows that UNIX is better.
The idea of running UNIX as a desktop OS is mighty intriguing to a lot of power users. A lot of these power users are fed up with M$ and their baggage. Once they try OSX in an Apple store, they will be soooo jealous....

Hang in there folks...I think we are in for a bright future.


----------



## HardyMacia (Aug 30, 2001)

Until the point that OS X can be installed and used on a PC box Micrcosoft will win. If Apple ever releases a version that runs on intel chips then it could be a different story.

Hardy


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 30, 2001)

OS X on Intel would degrade the user experience. Without the user experience, what is apple?


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 30, 2001)

OS X on Intel would degrade the user experience. Without the user experience, what is apple?

While OS X on Intel is in the best interests of the company because it would be able to sell large amounts of a high-margin  product, it is not in the best interests of its uers because it would give problems to many users through drivers, display capabilities, and all other sorts of variables which can only be guarenteed if Apple has control over the computers on which its OS is based.

Not to mention that it would take forever to program....
if it was so easy, someone would have already been working on it.


----------



## Ripcord (Aug 30, 2001)

To Knighthawk's "One More Thing" comment:

Actually, Windows XP IS intended for the home, as well as business.  It is being released in two versions, a "Home", and "Business" version (this will complete the original model for Windows 2000, formerly known as NT5, where there was an Enterprise Server, Advanced Server, Server, Professional, and Home version), and finally put to death the old MS-DOS-derived Windows 95/98/ME line.  To me this is a Good Thing - I'd love to see the general public enjoy the stability and excellent features of 2000.  In fact, XP will probably put to rest many of the most common complaints home users have nowadays - crashes.

However, XP has its faults.  And M$'s licensing technology is a huge one for me.  I've never really been anti-Microsoft, but this just crosses the line for me in M$'s "rule the world" campaign (as opposed to their previous "rule the computer" campaign).

...On another note:

As stated above, too, lack of software really is MUCH less of an excuse.  For the probably 50% of new computer users that use their machine as nothing more than an internet access point (browsing, email, etc), it's tough to justify going with Wintel unless it's simply "cheaper"...

Ian


----------



## knighthawk (Aug 30, 2001)

I was just talking to a very pro Windows person this morning...  He was telling me that if Microsoft does go through with this disabling thing, there will be issues in court.

If Microsoft sues someone for installing a pirated version of XP, they will win, but if Microsoft disables the computer so that it is unusable (needing to reinstall), the courts would be against Microsoft because legally they cannot disable other companies software or prevent the user from accessing his data.  That does not even count the privacy issues involved.

Personally, I believe that this is just going to blow over as an empty threat.

As far as Apple converting OSX to Intel... it would be possible.  Darwin is already Intel ready, but the main problem would be Aqua and all of the current Mac Applications.  Every developer would need to reprogram and recompile their software to work with Intel unless Apple emulated the PPC.

If Apple were to come out with an Intel version, I could see them almost overnight taking over a much larger market share (maybe even 33%), but then Apple would have huge losses in hardware sales and lose its edge in technology advancement.  Then Apple would be dependent on hardware developers to set the standards instead of the other way around.

The problem with Microsoft and it "protecting" its assets from pirates would become the problem of Apple.  Apple does not protect its OS because it doesnt need to.  A few threads back, someone said that they have not purchased an OS since 7.5.  He said it with pride, but he is wrong.  If I remember right, he was working on a Titanium Powerbook.  Unless he stole that, he purchased the OS with computer, and therefore owns the OS.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Aug 30, 2001)

> Unless he stole that, he purchased the OS with computer, and therefore owns the OS



LOL. Good point


----------



## Ricky (Aug 30, 2001)

I think Windows XP will win, not because I like Windows or Mi¢ro$oft in general, but because everything relates to Microsoft now.  Example 1:

::Car won't start::  "DAMN YOU, MI¢RO$OFT!!!"

Seriously though... Tons of people use PC's because they're afraid to switch over to a new OS.  Afraid to dabble in the wide range of operating systems.  "If I switch over to a Mac it would be a huge hassle."

Too bad for you.  You should've gotten a Mac in the first place, you would be much happier with your compter now.

On another note, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to market OS X on PC...  I still beleive they have it running on some PC in a heavily-fortified basement somewhere...  but they would have to market it just right.  If they didn't it could be a big disaster.  For those of you who don't know, Apple makes more money on their hardware.  Remember the clone fiasco?  Almost killed them.  They would have to market OS X perfectly, otherwise they would find themselves turning over all their efforts into PC and not Mac.

Well, there's my two cents... anyone agree with me?


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Aug 30, 2001)

Apple should NEVER port OSX to x86 architecture. It would kill everything that is good about Apple. We don't really have to worry about this happening anyway, Apple is against the idea. Read Star Trek if you want to know what happend last time.
http://macspeedzone.com/articles/appleconfidential/startrek.html


----------



## HardyMacia (Aug 30, 2001)

So, you port OS X to intel (OS Xi) and say you need a xxx chip, firewire, usb, vga and a keybaord. You give firm specs for the hardware you do support. Drop support for the older technology like parallel ports. You could support a generic pc and all of the addons like printers and real plub and play that  Apple customers have come to expect will happen no matter what the chip is. Hardware that supports OS Xi would have a flashy little logo on the box. 

Apple went from the 680x0 series to the PPC developers created two versions of their programs. Apple is now going from classic to OS X and developers are again creating two versions of the programs. Developers would create intel and ppc versions.

Hardy


----------



## Shotokan (Aug 30, 2001)

I get a real kick out of hearing how inherently dumb PC users are and how PC users don't want to open their eyes to other OSes.  Granted, M$ owns a huge chunk of the market share and furthermore, they SUCK.  This, however, has nothing to do with PC users being dumb or not willing to change.  The PC overall is a much more flexible piece of computing machinery than a PPC.  You can run a lot more OSes (even if some choose not to) and you can have a HIGHLY customized hardware configuration.  I read on another thread where someone said how PC users will "take what is given to them" and "don't require variety".  This is crap.  It's like saying that the all Mac users are geraitric because an old lady ordered an iMac.  SERIOUS PC users demand the MOST variety and choice, at least in hardware.  Thats why there are so many comparable pieces of hardware.  Apple is getting better at offering its users more flexibility for hardware configurations.  As for the OS situation, things are still grim.  Don't get me wrong, OS 9 is a GREAT system and OS X shows amazing promise, but two OSes on a Mac (maybe more if you count the few linux flavors) is nothing number wise to the 100s of OSes you can run on the x86 platform. (case in point - www.freeos.org).  I use PPC (OS 9) and x86 (Linux) for all kinds of work, so all the flamers can relax.  I just find it ignorant to say that all PC users are mindless drones.


----------



## kilowatt (Aug 31, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Shotokan _
> *I just find it ignorant to say that all PC users are mindless drones. *



Ok, *most* PC users are ignorant. Maybe its the windows-only users. That sounds better.

You could say that about Mac Users - they all buy from the same company, etc etc. 

But lets face it, Mac people are from the SGI/Sun crowd. Only recently has Apple attracted people from the "I don't know anything about computers, I just like them to work..." crowd. 

I've run other os's on my ppc hardware, too. YellowDogLinux by TerraSoft Solutions comes to mind (and they make G4 hardware, too. Very cool company). 

Most PC users don't know what linux is. Maybe the so-called-power-users do, but the average is like "Oh, you mean KDE?" They are clueless. 

I've talked with some people from OPEN magazine, they seam to think that Mac OS X will become the preferred operating system of the Linux crowd. 

As for XP, it competes with 2000. Its a mistake. Microsoft needs to pick an operating system (kernel, GUI, etc), and stick with it. I think XP will confuse lots of people. My school still sticks with windows 95 because every time they upgrade to anything else, people complain, programs stop working, people can't log on, the blue screen pops up all the time... its kinda funny.

XP is a great idea, and perhaps MS plans to replace 2000 with XP, I don't know.

Here is what I would like to see, and maybe it allready exists:

A Linux distro with the 2.4 kernel (usb support, etc), a finely tuned GUI, graphical instillation, tech support, and a well-tuned version of WINE.

Imagine if windows users could all the sudden run windows and windows apps within linux, *right out of the box*!

All my win32 'friends' are scared to get linux and install wine because, well, they are scared. Using windows has got them to the 'if it blue-screens, re-install it' attitude. 

If someone made a beefed-up-linux, microsoft might really have some competition. 

Apple isn't going to win the fight/war overnight. Maybe never. But lots of people are now looking at te OS in a different light. My windows friends see the new ti book running itunes and OS X and they just drule. My linux friends drule at editing quicktime movies and downloading browser-plugins while running an apache web server. 

Actually, this is funny, my dear old dad who has always purchased Macs for home and work doesn't want to install OS X because its so different that he can't figure anything out. So maybe mac users will have some trouble. But new users, who would be buying +G3 computers (as opposed to old mac users with 8500's) have already decided to learn a new OS. 


So perhaps Apple will market to a larger group of people now. Whatever the case, I imagine that Apple will gain a large amount of 'converts' in the next few years.

hehe, I've spilled my brains out once again at nearly 3am.... bed time for bonzo! 

Later, and I'm keeping the fire extinguisher near by for the flames to come...


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 31, 2001)

I just wanted to add one thing here.
Someone, a couple of posts above, said that apple moved from 680x0 to PPC and compared it from a PPC to intel move... nah ah man!!!!!

The PPC chip has built in emulation of the 680x0 chips THUS apps could be as a FAT binaries but intel chip DO NOT have PPC emulation.  IF they had PPC emulation there would be NO need for all this talk about porting OS X to intel.


----------



## sLimey (Aug 31, 2001)

I'm using Windows XP corporate edition on my PC (basically it's the final) and I had the displeasure of using just about every Linux operating system and MacOS possible. XP is fast.

My old system was a 533mhz with 256 megs ram and XP ran beautifully. With 768 megs ram, the experience is even better. There are no crashes, all the programs work (except the older Norton Systemworks) and I can keep this system on for days at a time without worrying about anything going on.

MacOS X has no such luck. It crashes all the time, it's slow as hell no matter what configuration you have and there are little or no programs on it. When XP released, it remembered that programs were made for the past 6 years on the Win32 platform so they allowed it to continue working and put a compatibility-mode in the event that something doesn't work right. Mac OS x is built on a completely new engine and the classic mode is such a joke that you have to wonder where the hell Apple thinks it's going.

Sure Mac OS X is prettier, but does pretty mean stable/fast/good? Hell no. The OS is a joke so far. It's basically a toy for people who don't know that computers are meant to be USED, not looked at. If Apple could for once look at its PC and stop decorating it and try to focus on making it run properly they'd get a market share. Until then, they have a piece of shit.

Besides, WinXP requires a 233mhz computer with 128 megs ram. To Mac faithfuls, this would be like a PowerPC of around 150 mhz with 128 megs ram. Mac OS X requires a minimum of 128 to work properly but 256 to work beautifully and 500 mhz to run smooth. This would end up being the equivalent of a 700 mhz Athlon. 700 mhz to run an OS properly. You tell me where the problem is.

When people say 'will XP beat 2000?' the answer is yes because of the numerous gaming upgrades and especially the improved plug and play and stability. Will XP beat X? To people who look to their PC as a decorative part of the household or a toy then no, but if people actually want to USE their PC to get something done then XP will indeed beat X. When you have a 700 mhz machine, you want the 700 mhz to go to the processes the OS runs, not the OS itself.

Thank you.

Andre


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 31, 2001)

LOL 
who you gonna call?
Trollbusters 


Considering that a "233Mhz" is just a # of cycles comparison that says nothing to me.  XP requires a PIII I think (maybe a PII)...PIII and PII came in 233 confugurations but G3s did not come in 150 configs.  The lowest one is a 233.  So there you have it.


Admiral


----------



## endian (Aug 31, 2001)

> The PPC chip has built in emulation of the 680x0 chips THUS apps could be as a FAT binaries but intel chip DO NOT have PPC emulation.



nope. the 68k emulator is in ROM, not on the CPU


----------



## sLimey (Aug 31, 2001)

Hey AdmiralAK, learn how to read.

I never said G3 150, i said PowerPC 150. 

Besides, you made no attempt to correct me in my assessment of Windows XP vs MacOSX and then you call yourself a trollbuster.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 31, 2001)

endian: thanks for the correction

sLimey: The point I was making is that OS X REQUIRES a G3 chip to run.  Not all PPC chips are cut from the same cloth you know.  Making the distinction of WHICH PPC chip makes a world of difference.  The PI is not the same as the PII which is not the same as the PIII which is not the same as the PIV, so to categorize ALL PPC chips in one category is just wrong.  That is WHY I said that apple never made a 150 G3.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 31, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sLimey _
> *My old system was a 533mhz with 256 megs ram and XP ran beautifully. With 768 megs ram, the experience is even better. There are no crashes, all the programs work (except the older Norton Systemworks) and I can keep this system on for days at a time without worrying about anything going on.
> 
> MacOS X has no such luck. It crashes all the time, it's slow as hell no matter what configuration you have and there are little or no programs on it.*



Wow, days at a time. May current up time is at 37 days (that is for all my systems including my SGI's and Sun's, as well as my Mac), and I've reached 97 days of trouble free and continuous usage before a power outage shut down all my systems.



> * When XP released, it remembered that programs were made for the past 6 years on the Win32 platform so they allowed it to continue working and put a compatibility-mode in the event that something doesn't work right. Mac OS x is built on a completely new engine and the classic mode is such a joke that you have to wonder where the hell Apple thinks it's going.*



Are you a new computer user? When Microsoft introduced NT (with version 3.1) no one would touch it. Most companies wouldn't write drivers for it until version 4 was released, and even then most software requires at least service pack 3 to run on NT 4.0. It took Microsoft almost three years to reach the same level of acceptance with NT that Apple has gotten with Mac OS X in six months.



> *Sure Mac OS X is prettier, but does pretty mean stable/fast/good? Hell no. The OS is a joke so far. It's basically a toy for people who don't know that computers are meant to be USED, not looked at. If Apple could for once look at its PC and stop decorating it and try to focus on making it run properly they'd get a market share. Until then, they have a piece of shit.*



And we now see that you don't actually use (or seen working) Mac OS X. So far I have bee able to work with Mac OS X and have no problems. The only apps I use Classic for at this point are Photoshop and Image Ready. Everything else I need for work is native.



> *Besides, WinXP requires a 233mhz computer with 128 megs ram. To Mac faithfuls, this would be like a PowerPC of around 150 mhz with 128 megs ram. Mac OS X requires a minimum of 128 to work properly but 256 to work beautifully and 500 mhz to run smooth. This would end up being the equivalent of a 700 mhz Athlon. 700 mhz to run an OS properly. You tell me where the problem is.*



Again, you've never used it so how would you know. I have no problem running Mac OS X on my G3/350, and no problem running native apps at 128MB (though upping to 320MB helped out Classic by a ton). The current requirements for Mac OS X are a G3 at 233 Mhz, and 128MB or RAM. I have seen it run just fine on 266 systems with 128MB, so I don't think that 233 would be that much different. The real need for faster systems with more memory is to run Classic.



> *When people say 'will XP beat 2000?' the answer is yes because of the numerous gaming upgrades and especially the improved plug and play and stability. Will XP beat X? To people who look to their PC as a decorative part of the household or a toy then no, but if people actually want to USE their PC to get something done then XP will indeed beat X. When you have a 700 mhz machine, you want the 700 mhz to go to the processes the OS runs, not the OS itself.*



The family line runs as follows:

NT 3.1 -> NT 3.51 -> NT 4.0 (sp 1-6) -> 2000 -> xp

Microsoft is replacing 2000 (Professional and Server) with xp (Professional and Server), and is dropping the 95/98/Me line and using xp Personal. xp is a new version of an OS that they have been working on for years, it is NOT a totally new OS. Your complete lack of a grasp of the basic facts make most of your argument pointless. It is sad when someone who doesn't know that much about their platform of choice tries to attack another platform of which they know even less.



> *Thank you.
> 
> Andre *



No, no, Andre... thank you.


----------



## Ripcord (Aug 31, 2001)

I don't want to be nit-picky here, but just to be clear, Win XP is being released in Home and Small Business versions - 2000 remains Microsoft's Server and "Professional" (Workstation) platform.

Otherwise, I agree with RacerX 100%!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Aug 31, 2001)

I kinda disagree with 2k being "professional" ... we (where I work) use it for all purposes.  I dont think that professional means anything anymore.  An OS is an OS which can be customized to be a home or pro version.    The only distinction one could make these days is between a desktop and a server version of the OS.

Oh well.... 

back to playing with my newton... anyone know good newton script ?


Admiral


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 31, 2001)

Whats with everyone complaing over the support, or lack thereof, for older applications? If you wanna run old applications, run an old OS. The classic mode is only something to ease the transition, most people wont use the OS anyway until most apps go native.

Why are you praising your self for holding onto the past? Is the ability to use arcane apps the measure of an OS? Sure it helps, but you gotta move into the future sometime. Why do you still think that PC's have legacy ports and disk drives?

You need to grasp the fact that using a new OS is not always going to be a seamless proposition. Think to yourself, if I can run all my old apps on this new OS, how much different is it really? Sounds like more of an upgrade and less of a new OS release to me.

Let's not get into a battle over hardware requirements either. We both know that all software companies label their products with unrealistically low requirements. They want to make sure John Doe, with the low end computer, doesn't put their product back on the shelf because it says his computer is too slow. To truly test requirements you need real computers, descriptions from the side of boxes will not suffice. With RAM prices so low, this has almost become a moot point.

Make a sacrifice, its the price of progress. What is really different in XP? As a non-windows user, i havent been able to tell the user level differences between 2000 and XP. And what kind of challenges will the itanium architecture present to XP? other than the fact that the processor companies will finally shoot themselves in the foot from the megahertz myth.

Slimey, i can sympathize with you, you're in a mac-centric site, bring a few friends, this thread could get even better.


----------



## sLimey (Aug 31, 2001)

> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> *
> 
> Wow, days at a time. May current up time is at 37 days (that is for all my systems including my SGI's and Sun's, as well as my Mac), and I've reached 97 days of trouble free and continuous usage before a power outage shut down all my systems.*




That's because you're not continually using the MAC. I don't see how you can claim that using MAC OS X and i reprint MAC OS X not 9, not 8.5, not 7.6.1, not 7.5.3. With Mac OS X the possibility of using the Mac continually for 97 days is a dream, not a reality. Look at the posts made on this same forum and look at what kind of uptimes the Mac users here were getting. Then go back to your claim. I didn't say anything about the MAC being unstable and low on uptime, I said MAC OS X was low on uptime. Read carefully.



> *Are you a new computer user? When Microsoft introduced NT (with version 3.1) no one would touch it. Most companies wouldn't write drivers for it until version 4 was released, and even then most software requires at least service pack 3 to run on NT 4.0. It took Microsoft almost three years to reach the same level of acceptance with NT that Apple has gotten with Mac OS X in six months.*




That's because at the time of its emergence, people were using DOS and the very idea of a completely graphical interface on a PC was crazy. 3.1 was still alive at the time that NT came out and frankly, people even then were using 3.1 only for specific tasks, not as a main OS (considering it isn't even really an OS). At that time, the thought of a GUI being the main OS, especially considering the lack of software available for it, was insane. Besides, asking people to jump to NT 3.1 from DOS 6.2 was like asking a person using an Altair to use a Windows 2000 machine. It's a HUGE change. The change between Mac OS 7, 8 or 9 to X is small. Even though X is based in BSD, it's like a GUI.



> *And we now see that you don't actually use (or seen working) Mac OS X. So far I have bee able to work with Mac OS X and have no problems. The only apps I use Classic for at this point are Photoshop and Image Ready. Everything else I need for work is native.*




I use a Mac OS X because I have a G4 733 next to me. Frankly Mac OS X on IT is slow, imagine a 233 or even 333 machine.



> *Again, you've never used it so how would you know. I have no problem running Mac OS X on my G3/350, and no problem running native apps at 128MB (though upping to 320MB helped out Classic by a ton). The current requirements for Mac OS X are a G3 at 233 Mhz, and 128MB or RAM. I have seen it run just fine on 266 systems with 128MB, so I don't think that 233 would be that much different. The real need for faster systems with more memory is to run Classic.*




This is all a crock of shit. If a horse took a dump in my mouth, I don't think I'd be spitting it all out on a forum and telling people that the excrement is truth. It appears, however, that you think differently. Again, look to the people here on MacOSX.com. They are Mac users and they themselves will tell you how slow and disgusting MacOSx is.



> *The family line runs as follows:
> 
> NT 3.1 -> NT 3.51 -> NT 4.0 (sp 1-6) -> 2000 -> xp
> 
> Microsoft is replacing 2000 (Professional and Server) with xp (Professional and Server), and is dropping the 95/98/Me line and using xp Personal. xp is a new version of an OS that they have been working on for years, it is NOT a totally new OS. Your complete lack of a grasp of the basic facts make most of your argument pointless. It is sad when someone who doesn't know that much about their platform of choice tries to attack another platform of which they know even less.*



Is this a history lesson or a comparison of MAC OS X and Windows XP? You're completely straying off subject here. What I said is that Windows has always had compatibility in mind. That's why even with a new OS like XP, programs from 95 will run and if they don't seem to run, there are compatibility modes you can use to make sure they run. Try using a program made in 1995 on MacOSX. It just won't happen. As for XP being a totally new operating system, you can look at it in two ways. It's NOT a completely new operating system if you consider that it's based on 2000 and compatible with Win32s. However, home-wise it IS a completely new OS since it is the first Windows OS that isn't based on 9x. This is the first time in history that home users will have a business-quality product for their computers. As Microsoft progressed through the ages, it has learned to adapt to new technology while remaining faithful to its past. When Apple progresses, they ALWAYS want you to throw the past out the window and say hello to something new. It's almost as if every year, Apple wants you to forget about its previous year, like it was shameful or something.



> *No, no, Andre... thank you. *


----------



## Matrix Agent (Aug 31, 2001)

Can  someone please explain to me why there is a need for both home and business editions of XP? Are there real differences in features, or are these just tities to make the business men feel powerful and the home users feel coddled?

I understand that this difference between OS X and OS X Server is the addition of server tools, is the XP difference comparable to this?

I should clairify my point about compatability. While it seems that it is great to have maximum compatibility, it also seems that this doctrine would make progress cumbersome.


----------



## sLimey (Aug 31, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Matrix Agent _
> *Can  someone please explain to me why there is a need for both home and business editions of XP? Are there real differences in features, or are these just tities to make the business men feel powerful and the home users feel coddled?
> 
> I understand that this difference between OS X and OS X Server is the addition of server tools, is the XP difference comparable to this?
> ...



Technically it's the same OS. However, the biggest differences are that Pro supports multiple processors (home doesn't which really sucks I find), Home doesn't have support for NTFS either. Home also runs every one of its users as Administrator which some hackers have complained gives hackers access to the raw sockets to unleash serious attacks (Microsoft responded that hackers would find a way to do the same thing anyway so why block it?). Home also doesn't have the remote desktop access utility (like PC Anywhere) which I think would have been exceptionally useful for tech support agents helping customers. 

Honestly, if you can afford Pro, you should go for it. There's no reason to go to Home since it's technically just as bloated as Pro and pretty much the same OS deep down.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 1, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sLimey _
> *That's because you're not continually using the MAC. I don't see how you can claim that using MAC OS X and i reprint MAC OS X not 9, not 8.5, not 7.6.1, not 7.5.3. With Mac OS X the possibility of using the Mac continually for 97 days is a dream, not a reality. Look at the posts made on this same forum and look at what kind of uptimes the Mac users here were getting. Then go back to your claim. I didn't say anything about the MAC being unstable and low on uptime, I said MAC OS X was low on uptime. Read carefully. *



Strange, I could have sworn I was talking about Mac OS X and not any other version of the Mac OS. This is a Mac OS X posting area isn't it? How do you confuse something like that? I won't assume that you can follow along with the conversation in the future, and I'll be specific so you don't get lost. We should all make an effort to help special needs people such as yourself. I stand by my claims and seeing as I have been working with this OS (in all forms, NEXTSTEP 2.0 through to the latest release) since before you knew what Windows was, it hasn't been that hard not to make mistakes others may have made being new users. As for posts, people aften post problems and don't post the lack of them. I believe that I have yet to post about a problem in any forum (Apple's discussion pages or this one), and I have far more post than you.



> *I use a Mac OS X because I have a G4 733 next to me.*



Any one can SAY they have it sitting next to them (funny how you are not actually a user), but you still don't sound like you've ever even touch such a systems.



> *This is all a crock of shit. If a horse took a dump in my mouth, I don't think I'd be spitting it all out on a forum and telling people that the excrement is truth. It appears, however, that you think differently. Again, look to the people here on MacOSX.com. They are Mac users and they themselves will tell you how slow and disgusting MacOSx is.*



Wow, such language. I see we are unable to mount an intellectual discussion on the subject, but I have to admit I am not suprised that you needed to fall back to such terms.



> *Is this a history lesson or a comparison of MAC OS X and Windows XP? You're completely straying off subject here... As Microsoft progressed through the ages, it has learned to adapt to new technology while remaining faithful to its past. When Apple progresses, they ALWAYS want you to throw the past out the window and say hello to something new. It's almost as if every year, Apple wants you to forget about its previous year, like it was shameful or something.*



For some of us it has been longer than 6 months to a year. Many of us started with Rhapsody or Mac OS X Server as far back as 1998 and have used many of the developer previews before the first public release last year. As for apps of the past, I still use Microsoft Word 5.1a (1992) and Aldus PageMaker 5.0a (1994) in Classic in Mac OS X, what pre 95 software do you still use in xp? And were do you get the "ALWAYS" from? The only old software for Mac that I can't run on new systems is a copy of Macromind Director 2.0 (1989) that was designed for System 6.0.x, I think I can live with that (it wasn't like I've used it much in the last 8 years anyway). The significance of the history of NT is that Microsoft has wanted to get users over to that OS ever since the idea was first born from the work they did with IBM on OS/2. NT 3.1 was something of a slow start, NT 3.51 was a good OS but Linux had more drivers for hardware at the same time (it was very hard to get a system that could actually run it). NT 4.0 was a major GUI brake through, but still had a lack of hardware and software support. All of this is from memory because I was working with these systems as they were released. Being, what, 12 or 13 at the time of the first release of NT, I very much doubt that you have worked with many pre-1995 systems. The reason you need to compare Mac OS X with the NT line as a whole is that it is a good model to work from. Knowing that both Apple and Microsoft wanted their users to work with one OS over the other (Apple would like to see Mac OS X used rather than the Mac OS, and Microsoft wanted users to use NT/2000/xp over 95/98/Me), Apple has a chance to see what made people not switch when Microsoft wanted them to (of course the main reason was gaming and not work/productivity) and to see what finally works (Microsoft got tired of waiting and just dropped the 95/98/Me line, which they should have done at the end of 1999 with the release of 2000). 

It is funny seeing you talk about "Win32" like it is something new and exciting. I have converted most of my friends who have PCs to NT 4.0 or 2000 Pro long ago because they don't play games. Why should home users have unstable systems because other people want to play games? You know gamers, they wouldn't know real computing because they have been stuck living in the 16/32-bit hybrid world. If you are using a computer for a word processor or gaming system, PCs are great, but for real work there is the rest of the computing world.

I'm sure that you are going to come back with some colorful adjectives in place of intellengent responces, but it would be so much more enjoyable if you consulted with someone who knows something about computers before posting a reply.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Sep 1, 2001)

Why would MS cripple itself by not allowing multiple processors in the home version? They KNOW that Apple plans on trying to bring them through its entire line. 

Is the PIV still MP incompatible? If this is still true, is MS just playing politics to show that it doesn't favor the Athlon?

I take this as a representation of how little MS cares about its users needs. Whats stopping them from using MP in the home edition? Its not like it would take more money to get that little extra stamped on the XP CD. Its not like MP is some kind of user dependant system that might confuse newbies. What gives?

While many of the computer-savvy people on these boards are going to buy XP, will buy the business edition, what about everyone else who will think that the business edition will be too hard to use or something? MS is purposly dening users feautures. Look for this to get fixed in patch as soon as MP athlon or intel configurations become popular. Whats the point?

I also think that MS's stance of hacker apathy is the wrong choice to make. What is their long term plan? to wait for hackers to get bored of hacking windows? At some point they're going to have to adress security issues. This makes me worried about this OS because it includes a remote access ability for technicians at Redmond, but who could also be somebody else. OS X has this ability, but you must admit, they've made more steps towards becoming secure, though both are still very succeptable because of their underlying unix.

I've come to the conclusion that none of us on these boards will really be able to decide what will really win, we both have our own camps in the OS battle, and niether side is budging an inch.


----------



## sLimey (Sep 1, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Matrix Agent _
> *While many of the computer-savvy people on these boards are going to buy XP, will buy the business edition, what about everyone else who will think that the business edition will be too hard to use or something? MS is purposly dening users feautures. Look for this to get fixed in patch as soon as MP athlon or intel configurations become popular. Whats the point?*



I can assure you that XP Pro is no harder to use than XP Home. The differences between the two platforms are negligeable. What a lot of people get confused by (and this surprises me) is the user management in NT versus 98/95. In 98/95, a separate user profile will still have access to the same files on a hard drive as every other user profile. In NT, 2000 and XP Pro, a user's profile can be configured to restrict certain drives or directories. XP Home doesn't allow you to restrict those directories. As it seems, certain people get confused over the inability to access certain files and/or control panel options from a different profile in Windows. To be honest actually, when Windows replaced DOS, I was surprised people were still stupid enough not to know how to use the computer. GUI's make the computer experience so damn simple that a lack of understanding deserves a strong slap in the face.



> *I also think that MS's stance of hacker apathy is the wrong choice to make. What is their long term plan? to wait for hackers to get bored of hacking windows? At some point they're going to have to adress security issues. This makes me worried about this OS because it includes a remote access ability for technicians at Redmond, but who could also be somebody else. OS X has this ability, but you must admit, they've made more steps towards becoming secure, though both are still very succeptable because of their underlying unix.*



Well I can kind of understand Microsoft's perspective on this. Whether Microsoft makes XP hard to hack or not, it'll still be everyone's favorite target. Even though Linux and Mac OS X can just as easily be victims to hackers, virus programmers and what not prefer attacking Windows simply because more people use it. I mean, if you're a pimply-faced little kid looking to make a name for yourself by ruining everyone's computer experience, would you attack an OS that only 5% of people in the world use or would you go for an OS that around 80% use? I hate to say this, but people using the Mac OS platform are usually way smarter than Windows users. Even if the OS was exploited, the users would probably find a way to save themselves from misery. In Windows users' case, people never tend to learn that a file called thisisavirus.doc.exe will infect them. I love Windows, but the people using it really embarass me.



> *
> I've come to the conclusion that none of us on these boards will really be able to decide what will really win, we both have our own camps in the OS battle, and niether side is budging an inch. *



I'm a big fan of the Mac. I loved the Mac OS up until Mac OS X took a completely 180 degree turn and decided to base the OS on BSD. Like communism, I think it works in theory but not necessarily in practice. Of course, a lot of people swear by it despite it sluggish performance (improved by 10.1 from what I hear) but I'm very skeptical about its potential ability to take people away from Windows. It IS pretty, but that's not really enough to impress people. Honestly, the best OS I can think of theoretically right now would be an open-source Windows based on 2000 code running on a G4, but that will probably never happen.


----------



## knighthawk (Sep 1, 2001)

The real question here is if Apple will increase it's market share because of OSX, remain at the same level that they have now, or will OSX hurt and cause Apple to fail as a company.

The poll above asks if Apple will increase it's market share in "niche groups".  I would assume that this is referring to the educated computer users that have had experience with multiple OSes.  Most of the other niche markets are already dominated by Apple.  Graphic Design and the Printing Industry, Music MIDI and Hard disk recording, and Education.  While PCs have gained more from these niches in the last five years, Apple still has a lead especially in the printing industry.

When we are talking about experienced computer users... although I believe that there will be some converts, most people will stick with what they are currently using.  An exception to this is if they are planning to buy an iBook for travelling, or an iMac fr their family at home.  The real question for these computer users is will they invest in Apple by buying a G3 or G4 computer?

However, I see the consumer market as a completely different area.  With all of the advertising that Apple is doing from the beginning when the iMac was released, to the new Apple stores, more and more people are becoming aware of Apple.  The original iBook I thought was really dumb looking, but the new iBook looks great and is catching the eyes of so many.

So the big question is can Apple sell more computers.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Sep 1, 2001)

Sorry slimey, sarcasm tends to get lost on the internet. We're actually in agreement. I was also trying to say that the differences between home and business XP are problably neglegable, and both editions problably appear the same to users.


----------



## xphile (Sep 1, 2001)

I pretty much said this elsewhere, but it kinda fits here as well, if not better.

It's no longer an Apple vs. Microsoft kind of thing.


I think that Apple and the various versions of LINUX will gain marketshare as a result of heavy handed and manipulative behavior on the part of Microsoft. Apple is going to have to play up to the LINUX/UNIX world in order to gain more favor with IT people.



I think the industry has a very rude awakening in general with regard to WindowsXP. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. With OS X, Apple has attempted to engineer the basis for the best possible user experience they can provide. With WindowsXP, Microsoft has engineered a system designed to basically hold consumers up by their ankles and shake until nothing is left in their pockets.

Backlash against Microsoft is beginning to pick up steam. People are not going to be happy with the insane licensing issues that MS plans to put them through. 

Everyone, (mostly financial anaysts who have tons of money stuffed into the Microsoft mattress), is predicting that XP and the new 2ghz pentium IV will "save the computer industry and pull it out of its slump." Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing is more stupid. This proves that so called analysts are just a bunch of hot air idiots with little or no practical technology management experience. The entire economy has gone to hell in a handbasket and technology managers are not a) looking to spend great deals of money on new hardware or new software, and b) certainly aren't looking to put themselves into a blackmail situation with Microsoft for the rest of eternity.  Suddenly LINUX looks very attractive.


Large institutions are already beginning to use more and more LINUX, at least on the server side. As  corporations and institutions become more UNIX friendly because they simply don't want to pay MS blood money, I believe the synergy between Macintosh OS X and LINUX will begin to emerge. LINUX is beautiful on servers, but it's just not ready to be handed over to the average CEO, CFO, or even CIO. Imagine these types, or Marketing VPs in a hotel room in the middle of botswana trying to configure their LINUX portable to use a local network or dial in!

Hmmm... what to do. Well what do you now! Here's Apple's OS X with its BSD UNIX roots looking and acting more like LINUX than LINUX is, in some cases, but with a user friendliness and user interface that KDE and GNOME just can match (no matter how many LINUX geeks claim that GNOME is better than Aqua.)  It just isn't.


Don't forget, IBM is spending a billion dollars marketing and developing LINUX.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 1, 2001)

I think xphile has hit it right on the ball when he is talking about analysts.  

I have seen analysts and the "future" analysts go through the doors of my office at my university.  They come and reserve computer equipment for simple presentations that can be done on overhead projectors with transparencies,

they choose to go the high tech route but they don;t know how to use back applications like powerpoint, they refer to a PC rnning windows as a "powerpoint projector", they expect the powerpoint presentation to be read as soon as the floppy is inserted, and they expect the PC to turn on instatly once the power button is pressed and last but not least when you ask them "mac or pc?" when they make the reservation the responce you get is a "huh?!, a whatchamacalit ?! what?!" .... these ladies and gents are the future analysts lol  (and most of them are in their junior year or even senior year when they do this lol)


Admiral


----------



## whitesaint (Sep 2, 2001)

I'm sorry Slimey, but you made me beyond pissed.  Just how much crack are you on?????????????????????  What you and RacerX said, I completely agree with RacerX.  You kept on talking shit about Mac OS X in general and how horrible and slow it is, then when RacerX proves you wrong and you don't know what to say, you completely contradict yourself for all the crap you just said.  Then all of a sudden you're a "die-hard" mac fan with a 733 G4.  10.1 is much much faster by the way.  And just to get to a point made long ago, the G3's started out at 233 Mhz.  Thats a fact and not an opinion, I dont care how much crack you sniffed tonight.  You're a "die-hard" mac fan but you won't even give it a few more weeks til 10.1 comes out?  I don't know why you typed so much crap about Macs on a Mac forum you should've been expecting to be flamed like this alot more by now.  I realize im stupid like you for saying all this and i'm full of rage, but i would beat your fucking ass if i saw you right now.  Am i that attached to my computer that much that it would let me lead myself to violence?  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Window's Users need to give Apple a chance.  Ever since i showed all my friends Mac OS X on my new iBook, all i hear is "mine doesnt do that."  Mac's are faster, easier to use, for pro's and beginners, and Mac OS X does not crash!!  The only times Mac OS X has crashed for me was when Quake 3 froze (full screen app) and i was using 10.1 beta.  Again, I am very sorry about the language, but you are a fucking idiot slimey.  I'm willing for the language I used to be reported the Administrator and have my acccount cancelled.  I just want you to know how I feel about the matter.  Now, go on and nit pick out every little thing you disagree with and say what you hafta.  But RacerX helped me once and I fully agree with him as well as return the favor!!!

 whitesaint


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 2, 2001)

coooool down lol 
Violence solves nothing... (well maybe only land disputes)
Just coool down and think happy thoughts...as my CS teacher in high school used to say "go to your happy place"... let them say whatever they want to say...it is a free country, everyone has the right to say what they want, even if it stupid, idiotic, and unproven.


Admiral


----------



## whitesaint (Sep 2, 2001)




----------



## PoweMACuser (Sep 2, 2001)

I don't know who is the winner.

First, if we say that Apple will win, it is not true. Apple is wonderful in past. At that time, microsoft is just a tiny company. IBM can't defeat Apple. But what is the situation of Apple today? It is marcket share is smaller and smaller. Even though, it seems that Apple begins to gain its marcket share, Adobe has said that more and more design people move to Windows. I think this is true.

Second, although Apple choose OS X, the UNIX kernel as the core of its next generation operating system, it only take people from UNIX, but Windows. Of course some users move from Windows, like me, but more users move to Windows.

Third, Apple has tried to gain its marcket share from Windows. But its resource, Engineers and financial is not so strong as MS.

Fourth, Decision is the key role. Apple makes a lot of mistakes. These mistakes weaker down Apple. OSX has been developed for more than 10 years, and what is it now? Slow and Incompatible. I don't know when its speed is up although a lot of people say that the coming version runs faster than ever. MS only spend 3 years and developed a great product. Even though a lot of people say that OS X is better than XP, but the fact is that, more people choose XP. Saying is not Doing.

Both Apple and MS do it what they want. More on themselves and on custumers. MS give more "CONVENIENT" than we can bear, but Apple try to make it less "CONVENIENT" than we can bear. Let's look at PowerMac Silver, what is missing? No CDROM/DVDROM eject button!!! Apple trys to make it beautifull, but ignore the users' feeling. MS make a lot of AUTOMATICs. We can full customise the destop.

I don't know who is the winner. Commercially, maybe MS, because it develop it is product faster and easy to use. For favorites, I choose Apple. But not all users like me try what he love. But more reason is software support and convenient. Commercial users will choose MS for faster production and faster and wider support.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 2, 2001)

While it is true that OS X has been in developemnt for 10 or so years (well racerX can confirm this since he is more attuned to NeXT history) it's worth while to notice that the more recent versions of OpenSTEP were x86 OSes and NOT PPC or even 680x0 OSes so a lot of conversion had to be done, lots of fine tuning and lots of modernization.


Admiral


----------



## sLimey (Sep 2, 2001)

> _Originally posted by whitesaint _
> *I'm sorry Slimey, but you made me beyond pissed.  Just how much crack are you on?????????????????????  What you and RacerX said, I completely agree with RacerX.  You kept on talking shit about Mac OS X in general and how horrible and slow it is, then when RacerX proves you wrong and you don't know what to say, you completely contradict yourself for all the crap you just said.  Then all of a sudden you're a "die-hard" mac fan with a 733 G4.  10.1 is much much faster by the way.  And just to get to a point made long ago, the G3's started out at 233 Mhz.  Thats a fact and not an opinion, I dont care how much crack you sniffed tonight.  You're a "die-hard" mac fan but you won't even give it a few more weeks til 10.1 comes out?  I don't know why you typed so much crap about Macs on a Mac forum you should've been expecting to be flamed like this alot more by now.  I realize im stupid like you for saying all this and i'm full of rage, but i would beat your fucking ass if i saw you right now.  Am i that attached to my computer that much that it would let me lead myself to violence?  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Window's Users need to give Apple a chance.  Ever since i showed all my friends Mac OS X on my new iBook, all i hear is "mine doesnt do that."  Mac's are faster, easier to use, for pro's and beginners, and Mac OS X does not crash!!  The only times Mac OS X has crashed for me was when Quake 3 froze (full screen app) and i was using 10.1 beta.  Again, I am very sorry about the language, but you are a fucking idiot slimey.  I'm willing for the language I used to be reported the Administrator and have my acccount cancelled.  I just want you to know how I feel about the matter.  Now, go on and nit pick out every little thing you disagree with and say what you hafta.  But RacerX helped me once and I fully agree with him as well as return the favor!!! *



Well for one thing, I'm not a die-hard Mac fan, I'm a Mac fan. That's it. I'm more fascinated with Apple's history than I am with the computer. The Mac is faster, that is true, however it's not as fast as Steve Jobs would have you believe. Yes Photoshop 6 is faster on a G4 than it is on a P4, but the P4 is a piece of shit anyway. Anybody that wants a fast PC gets an Athlon and these are only a tiny bit slower than the G4. Besides, the reason Photoshop 6 is faster on the G4 is because Adobe took advantage of Altivec, which they don't have on the PC. 

Besides, look at the games man. Every since game out there runs faster on an Athlon than it does on a G4. You need a Dual G4 to get speeds as fast as a single Athlon on the Mac. You can say all sorts of stuff about why this is a fact but the point is that it is a FACT, not speculation. 

My biggest argument in the MAC vs PC debate is 'guess what, for the price you would pay for a 533 G4 system, you can get a dual Athlon and 768 megs ram.' That's something noone can really dispute.

Anywars, I knew I'd get into a war here with Mac users and I knew that everybody would disagree with what I have to say but I'm not in any way contradicting myself. The Mac is a great system, there's no denying that. However it's way too expensive and Mac OS X is definitely not efficient enough.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 2, 2001)

I think, personally that is, that the games argument is an idiotic one.  If one wanted to play games he would get a games console, that is its function.

As for photoshop, yet is is altivec enabled and this just shows how you can use a processor to its full potential.  More software developers should use altivec.  Furthermore ALL CPUs have certain uniquenesses, and software developers over time write software to take advantage of those uniquenesses.

As for the price, you CANNOT really do a comparison on price/Mhz or price/system.  The only valid comparison that one could make is the $/performance.  Take a look at the G4 vs SPARC vs P4.  Even though you claim it is "not fair" because photoshop is altivec enabled, lets see what your stance will be when software companies write software to take advantage of the P4's features.

remember MMX ?? When it first came out it was just a catch phrase until people started writing software to take advantage of it and it became mainstream.  Same with altivec


Admiral


----------



## sLimey (Sep 2, 2001)

Don't get me wrong, I play games on my Dreamcast and PS2 more than I do on the PC, but for anyone interested in that, PC get more games and they typically run faster than their Mac counterparts.

Either way, it's a discussion of quality and not really speed. Some would argue that Windows XP is a better quality OS than Mac OS X while others would argue the opposite. I firmly believe Windows XP is better because it brings a new experience without alienating anyone that has been using Microsoft's products for the past six years. On Mac OS X's side, the idea was a good one, but the execution was poor at the time of delivery. Sure people will argue that Mac OS 10.1 is faster, but that isn't the product Apple shipped a few months ago is it? Windows XP has yet to ship to stores and it's already working at its full speed.

The original discussion was 'will OS X or Windows XP win in the end' and while I believe that Microsoft is in a heap of trouble lately, the improved functionality of XP will renew faith in many Windows users especially after the horrible release of Windows ME. On Mac OS X's side, it'll definitely seem very inviting to new users, but the lack of new users is what is killing the PC market right now. People just aren't buying, and especially not at the prices Apple charges, so there's no way Apple can gain any market share.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 2, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sLimey _
> *Besides, look at the games man. Every since game out there runs faster on an Athlon than it does on a G4. You need a Dual G4 to get speeds as fast as a single Athlon on the Mac. You can say all sorts of stuff about why this is a fact but the point is that it is a FACT, not speculation.*



Yes, gaming is better on the PC platform than Mac, SGI, Linux, Sun, etc., but That has been a double edged sward for Microsoft. In their original roadmap, Microsoft wanted to have everyone using NT by the time NT 5.0 (later renamed 2000) was released. What stopped them was gamers. Why do you think they have been working to put together a gaming platform of their own? To get gamers out of computing enough to let everyone else move over to NT technology.  



> *My biggest argument in the MAC vs PC debate is 'guess what, for the price you would pay for a 533 G4 system, you can get a dual Athlon and 768 megs ram.' That's something noone can really dispute. *



News Flash: Apples slowest G4 system is now the 733MHz, and at $1700, I don't see many people complaining about it. So who is selling a "dual Athlon and 768 megs ram" for less than $1500? I could run Solaris 8 on a system like that and have a ton of fun. Just point me in the right direction (before they close their doors for giving their systems away).



> *Don't get me wrong, I play games on my Dreamcast and PS2 more than I do on the PC, but for anyone interested in that, PC get more games and they typically run faster than their Mac counterparts.*



Games again, do you actually work on your systems? And if you rule out games and Photoshop type apps, then why do you need a fast system anyway? Are you going to tell me that I can type more words per minute in the PC version of Word on a Dual Athlon at 1.5GHz+ than I can in the Mac version of Word on an old PowerMac 6100/66? Once you remove games and real work apps that need speed, then you have remove any reason to buy super fast systems. The current low end iMac (G3/500, CD-RW) is more of a system than most average users would ever need (or know what to do with).



> *Either way, it's a discussion of quality and not really speed. Some would argue that Windows XP is a better quality OS than Mac OS X while others would argue the opposite... Sure people will argue that Mac OS 10.1 is faster, but that isn't the product Apple shipped a few months ago is it? Windows XP has yet to ship to stores and it's already working at its full speed.*



Yes, but I would argue that xp isn't the product that Microsoft shipped back on July 17, 1993. When you look at it like that, Apple is doing a great job when compared to Microsoft considering the amount of rewriting that was require to get development firms (like Microsoft, Adobe, and others) to agree to make apps for it. In the form it was in back in 1999, it was faster and more rock solid than anything on the market. Microsoft has never had to please developers, or anyone for that matter. Do you honestly think anyone could get away with the security holes that were part of Windows. Microsoft installed and turned on by default a feature that 99% of users won't use, and the 1% that could would have known how to install it anyways. It is not that Windows is a big target (as you put it earlier) it is just that is the easiest target ever.



> *The original discussion was 'will OS X or Windows XP win in the end' and while I believe that Microsoft is in a heap of trouble lately,... but the lack of new users is what is killing the PC market right now. People just aren't buying, and especially not at the prices Apple charges, so there's no way Apple can gain any market share. *



This shows that you are not up to speed on the Mac part of the market. Apple sold more PowerBooks and iBook than they did before the slowdown. Apple is opening stores at the same time others are laying off thousands of workers and closing down stores. This is a great time to gain market share, though they really won't. The only thing that is going to unseat Microsoft is for the government to say that software can not be pre-installed on any systems. Then let the tides of a free market flow.


----------



## sLimey (Sep 2, 2001)

Nothing would please me more than to see the Mac dominate the computing market. Not because its OS is better (because I don't find that it is) but because Apple doesn't force its users to use some of its products the way Microsoft does. I have to admit Messenger is a better interface than ICQ's (Messenger is forced in XP) and Outlook Express is way better than Messenger (even though I use something else completely), but the fact that it's there whether you like it or not bothers me.

Frankly, OS 9, while a lot of people will not agree with me, is a great OS that doesn't take too much RAM nor too much space. There might be some stability issues, but they're nothing close to the pre-2000 Windows stability issues people have had to deal with. BSD was designed primarily for networking, whereas OS 9 was designed specifically for the Apple audience. Wouldn't it be better to use something that directly takes into consideration what people on a certain platform would need?


----------



## RacerX (Sep 2, 2001)

> _Originally posted by PoweMACuser _
> *Fourth, Decision is the key role. Apple makes a lot of mistakes. These mistakes weaker down Apple. OSX has been developed for more than 10 years, and what is it now? Slow and Incompatible. I don't know when its speed is up although a lot of people say that the coming version runs faster than ever. MS only spend 3 years and developed a great product. Even though a lot of people say that OS X is better than XP, but the fact is that, more people choose XP. Saying is not Doing.*



NeXTStep's first release was in October 12, 1988 (version 0.8) and was design to run on the Motorola 68030 processor. Though there were small advancements over the following years, the deal made with Sun to make the development platform portable (known as OpenStep) was the biggest leap forward (even bigger than moving to Intel, SPARC and HP PA-RISC processors) The foundations of the OS changed very little from OPENSTEP 4.0 to the final release of Mac OS X Server 1.x. Apple had a consumer version ready for release in 1999 when major Mac developers told Apple that they could not and would not spend the money to port their existing apps to the new OS. This forced Apple to create a new application environment based on the Mac Toolbox called Carbon that would let developers move most of their original code to Mac OS X without completely rewriting it. Apple thought it would only take them a few months to a year to create this environment... they were wrong, it took much longer.

Just have this environment wasn't enough. Apple had to prove that it would work and would work as good as Yellow Box (renamed Cocoa). So the original plane of modifying the original Workspace Manager was dropped and the idea of creating a new Finder out of Carbon was put into place. The problem was writing the Finder and developing Carbon at the same time was like shooting a moving target. Much of the problems with the Finder in the original release had to do with Carbon not being optimized as yet, and the need to speed up classic because most users still needed classic to run there apps. When Apple was happy with how the systems was looking (this would have been Developer Preview 4) they decided to let the public in on it. There is nothing that you can do as a beta tester that is going to match what a new user can do. I've worked with most versions of this OS and know where almost all the hole are, so I rarely get tripped up, but Apple needed to find and fix the holes that only a fresh view could see, thus the Public Beta was released. After fixing holes and adding features, Apple released a version that all others would be based on (and all apps could be written to).

The problem is that xp is a facelift to the NT line and not a "new" OS. 2000 was a bigger change over NT 4.0 than xp is over 2000. They only developed new ways of protecting market share, insuring continuous income, and stopping people from pirating their product (scary that they put more time into securing that product license than customer security when using there product). There is nothing "new" here, just more bundling of MS products to make you choose them over other alternatives. And they final got tired of waiting for people to see that NT/2000 was better than 95/98/Me, so they are forcing the change (not a bad idea actually). Considering that Microsoft has actually been working towards xp for ten years, and Apple started with Carbon a little more than two years ago, I think Apple is doing an incredible job!


----------



## RacerX (Sep 2, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sLimey _
> *Frankly, OS 9, while a lot of people will not agree with me, is a great OS that doesn't take too much RAM nor too much space. There might be some stability issues, but they're nothing close to the pre-2000 Windows stability issues people have had to deal with. BSD was designed primarily for networking, whereas OS 9 was designed specifically for the Apple audience. Wouldn't it be better to use something that directly takes into consideration what people on a certain platform would need? *



OS 9 is exactly what it's name implies, the 9th version of an operating systems. Of course it is "was designed specifically for the Apple audience", they pushed for all of the changes with each new version. As for stability, the Mac OS has only partial protected memory that can not be controlled (easily) at the user level. The was the best implementation of technology that Apple developed during the Copland years. Also font management is a problem. 4 out of 5 service calls I respond to have to do with font management issues (and people using either Suitcase or ATM Deluxe). I show them that with those tools set aside you can started up a Photoshop process that can take up to 15 minutes and still work in QuarkXPress or browser the internet or check mail while Photoshop does it's thing. Mac OS X gives users more control over misbehaving apps (along the same lines as NT, even though NEXTSTEP was doing it long before Windows could) and a better way of managing fonts. The implementation of BSD is as an application environment that is utilized to run the filing systems and networking, and as an interface for Darwin. The end user should not have to deal with that interface unless they want to.

Also the amount of RAM that a system uses has been jumping up quite fast of late, 8.1 required about 10MB of the systems total memory, 8.6 jumped to 20MB, 9.0 to 35MB, 9.1 to almost 50MB, and 9.2 to almost 75MB (mostly do to the drop in RAM prices I'm sure). Without Classic, you can run Mac OS X on 64MB of total system memory (that was the system requirements of Mac OS X DP4), but more always helps. The rule of thumb, what ever you needing to run the OS and apps in 9.1, add 64MB and that's what you need for Mac OS X with Classic.


----------



## knighthawk (Sep 2, 2001)

I have been in the printing industry for over 10 years, and I currently work for a service provider of prepress film for printers.  We are basically an in-between for designers and printers.  For years, only Mac documents were brought to us with the exception of T-Shirt designers (silkscreen) who love to use Corel for some reason.

Recently, there have been more and more jobs that are coming from the PC platform, Adobe Pagemaker especially.  I would say that about 20% of the work that we do is on the PC.  This is not a lot, but it is more than 4 years ago when I started working with this company.

The main reason why I see this changing is because more and more of the trade schools are teaching their classes on PCs instead of Macs.  But the main reason I think they are using PCs is because it saves on costs.  Instead of having a Mac lab and a PC lab for the MSCE and A+ certification, they combine them into one.  The network and lab techs do not need to know how to maintain two different OSes.  Designers use what they are trained on.

I would say that the numbers are about 90% for PC web designers, and only 10% for Mac.  When they have a traditional printing design job, they use the tools that they have which are on the PC.

85% of the jobs on the Mac are built using QuarkXPress, 10% Pagemaker, and only 5% for the rest (including InDesign).  For the PC, 45% are created using Pagemaker, 40% using Corel, and 10% with a Microsoft product, and 5% others (including InDesign).

Microsoft is doing all that it can to break into this field.  They even mailed us a FREE copy of Publisher 2002 (XP), and are offering free classes so that we can fully support Publisher.  Well let me tell you that Publisher is about the worst program created, and I would rather they bring me Word files (then I convert them into Quark).

My point in all this is that Apple will benefit more in the long run even if they gave away the machines to schools for their labs.  Once a student is used to working in a particular computer system, there usually is little reason to switch.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 2, 2001)

Why are you not working to get your clients to use postscript or pdf docs rather than the actual application docs? Besides the cost of having copies of all those apps (for both Macs and Windows), there is the problem of system set up and fonts (which all play a factor in the way a page may end up being displayed). I've serviced places like your's and they always seem the happiest when they don't have to open an app specific doc.

For desktop systems I service twice as many Macs as Windows systems, for servers (both print and file) it is about a dead heat between SGI, Apple, and Windows NT (with Windows getting the edge in print servers). For people who are expanding, I usually recommend more of what they already have (if they are happy why try to change them?), and I usually recommend anything over Gateway (though Gateway has made me allot of money on service calls) specially now that they seem ready to close their doors (they already have in Asia and Europe).

Honestly, I believe that everything should be cross-platform. I love pdf, postscript, quicktime and html because there are very few systems that can't work with them. When I heard about a Government site in Europe that used Microsoft servers and was unreadable by anyone not using Windows and Internet Explorer, that has to make you think. The web was a place that was open to everyone, and now Microsoft is working to make it propritary and exclusive.

We should all be afraid of what Microsoft is doing for the sake of "market share".


----------



## Poseidon_Alfa (Sep 3, 2001)

I have a comment about one of you telling me that  PC games are faster on a athlon? ore other pc sytstem, 

The reason is that Games that are ported to the mac platform are orginaly 
pc games and there for developers of pc games try to inport games to the mac is verry difficult you must rewrite the hole game .

Thats why the developers of pc games had invented a small "emulator" 
{ some like virtual pc } into the game.

Thats why some games ore not so fast on a mac because the mac must emulate a smal pc in the game to play .

I think that people are verry stupid to say that mac is verry expensive 
because its not ..!!
its a "A" brand , 

My Specs : Apple G4, 400mhz, 320 mb RAM, ( 3 Hadisks  total 32 GB) 
20GB HD ( video&Audio)
6 GB  OS 9, 6 GB OS X....


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 3, 2001)

I was taking a stroll down my department's main offices to get aquainted with people taht I did not already know since I will probabbly have to interact with them now that I have been promoted.  I had the pleasure of taking with a video production guy.  I was trying to find out if I could borrow a DV camera, test it out and so forth before I bought one, and he told me that people, and training facilities, are replacing their very expensive and space consuming editing workstations with macs with Final Cut and iDVD lol .  

I think PC are in training facilities now due to all the problems prior to steve jobs' return.  Now that he's returned and the company name is starting to once again carry some force behind it I think people will use macs.  Most graphical artists I know, and even in greece which is a PC market, people use macs.


The second thing had to do with M$ proprietary stuff and the internet.  Has ANYONE tried going to asp pages on a browser other than internet exploder ?  The fonts are MINISCULE... you could go blind trying to figure out what the web page says.  Sites not writen in asp or are just hosted on M$ servers or whatnot also suffer from this small font syndrome.... this is stupid!  M$ has added "perks" to javascript so when I scour around for free javascripts it says "only works in IE" ... this is just idiotic.


Admiral


----------



## kilowatt (Sep 3, 2001)

> _Originally posted by AdmiralAK _
> *
> 
> I think PC are in training facilities now due to all the problems prior to steve jobs' return.  Now that he's returned and the company name is starting to once again carry some force behind it I think people will use macs.
> *



Well, at my old high school, the school had some agreement with M$, and because of it, they were not *allowed* to buy a Mac. Infact, it was over the entire district (k-12). I think the agreement had something to do with tech support from M$, but I'm not sure (concidering how nothing ever worked, anyway ;-).

There's another point, driving M$hit into people at a younger age can make people dislike M$, too. (Although most people don't even recognize any platform other than Winblows, and don't even know the differences between the NT-like M$ products and the pre-nt products.)

I'm going over to my friend's house to get wine up on his linux box, later.


----------



## sLimey (Sep 3, 2001)

I have to admit that within most technical circles here in Montreal, the Mac is seen as a toy and not a computer. Even though in many cases a Mac will outperform a PC (especially if the PC has shit 'standard' hardware in it as it the norm). The fact that it has colors, the fact that everything that Apple makes is 'lovely' doesn't impress a lot of people who feel they're supposed to be DOING something with the computer they buy.

On the other hand, I have to admit that Steve Jobs' decision to turn a computer into something you're proud to show off isn't necessarily a bad one. It allows people to feel unique and not just another head in the crowd.


----------



## knighthawk (Sep 4, 2001)

With the schools and the labs, I do not know how things are now, but it used to be (7 to 8 years ago) that Apple was giving really good discounts for students and education.  I think that stopped a couple of years ago before Steve Jobs came back on the scene.  During that time, a number of schools switched over to PCs and haven't looked back.  

From a lab maintenance point of view, Macs have never really offered the system security advantages like NT has.  At Ease was secure enough for about 90% of the people that use it, but the other 10% could cause a great deal of havoc.  Now with OSX, you can equip a lab with iMacs and get the high end security and AppleWorks for FREE.  The only issue with OSX is the ability to put in the install CD and change the Admin password.  Personally, I think that Apple should have a jumper inside the Mac that would disable this feature.  If the person has access to the inside of the mac to change this jumper, then it doesn't matter about the security issue.  (this just came to me and I think it is a VERY good idea -- a new macs to have a security jumper.)

Back to that Postscript PDF thing:

I recently wrote and article to our clients telling them how to setup PDF files for output.  The problem is that we have a lot of hand-holding that needs to be done with our clients, and it is almost easier to let them do it the way they always do it.  Also, PDF is not able to support SPOT colors (instead of CMYK), and we get a lot of jobs with special printing techniques.  If I feel that it would be easier to use PDF instead of sending it straight from the application, I will convert it.  There are a lot of designers that save their image files much too large, and using PDF reduces them down to working size.  Mostly, even with the hassle of the fonts, I prefer to take the files in the traditional way because I will not get a customer complaint if their PDF comes out wrong and they saying, "I did it just like you told me to..."


----------



## RacerX (Sep 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by sLimey _
> *I have to admit that within most technical circles here in Montreal, the Mac is seen as a toy and not a computer.*



Boy, I would hate to hear what they have to say about Silicon Graphics! They have been making beautiful boxes for more than ten years. The again, at 400MHz I'm sure that those same people in those "technical circles" would think they are slow too.


----------



## borparadox (Sep 4, 2001)

> _Originally posted by knighthawk _
> *My opinion is that OSX will gain marketshare with the general public.
> 
> Let me remind you that XP (although very easy to use) is a variation on Windows 2000 and Windows NT, and is aim at the professional market, not for the general public.  Unless I am misinformed, this means that Microsoft will follow with XP Lite, ME2, or something else for consumers.  While the professional XP may have the hardware licensing issue, the consumer version may not.
> *



That isn't true. Windows XP has 3 variations available @ launch and 1 to come shortly thereafter

Windows XP Home Edition - XP for the Consumer

Windows XP Professional Edition - XP for the office / power user

Windows XP Server Edition - XP for servers

The fourth one to either come at launch or shortly thereafter (I'm not sure when it's getting released) is

Windows XP 64-bit Server Edition - Heavy Duty server edition.

~J


----------



## Matrix Agent (Sep 4, 2001)

How do you think the stores will change Apple's market share?

I for one think that it isnt a huge risk, and they will eventaully pick up about 3% because of it.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 4, 2001)

Again, there is no WinXP Server version.  There IS, however, a "Whistler Server", aka "Windows 2002 .NET Server", which is somewhat related to the WinXP roadmap.  Obviously, this product is being planned for release next year.

The only versions of XP planned for launch are "Home" and "Professional" - see www.microsoft.com/windowsxp

As borparadox said, the 64-bit "Professional" version is to be released next year, also.

(Personally I think it would be stupid to release a successor (read:replacement) to Win2000 for the business market so soon after the introduction of a major upgrade to the NT line.  Corporations are just now really starting to buy into active directory, 2000/NT4 migration, etc., and even if the product is "heavily based on" the 2000 core, and even if the product isn't being SOLD as a replacement for Win2k, for Microsoft to continue to develop, market, and sell three generations of server operating system would be both confusing and inefficient.

If nothing else, it makes a lot more sense to begin phasing out NT4 before bringing out Win2002 .NET server.  It's only the fact that Microsoft is so hot to unroll .NET (read:Take Over the World, your Lives, Etc.) that I think they'd make an otherwise poor business decision like that.

Sorry about the OT stuff here.)


----------



## Matrix Agent (Sep 4, 2001)

Does XP have any built-in server capabilities?


----------



## knighthawk (Sep 4, 2001)

I just read in the paper today that HP (number 3 in computer sales) is buying out Compaq (number 2).  (The number one being Dell)  Combined, they estimate that HP-Compaq will control 70% (now beating Dell) of the personal computer market.  I do not believe that this will be the case, and that they will drop down to 50-60%.  I believe this to be the case because there is (my opinion) no way that one company can control the market like that (other than microsoft).  What this means is that other computer manufacturers will make up the difference.  With the rumor of Gateway closing (or maybe this will save them), this would be the perfect opportunity for Apple and Apples stores to make a bigger impact on the market.

We will also see what happens this Fall with school starting up again.  If Apple is able to strengthen their standing in the school bookstores, there may be more Macintoshes sold. 

There are a couple of articles about XP on www.cnet.com, one of which is a review that is pretty good.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 4, 2001)

To Matrix Agent:

Not really.  The closest things to "servers" that XP supports are:

- Windows File Sharing, or CIFS/SMB server...  Though you kinda expect that, don't you?
- The ability to provide remote control (like PCAnywhere) (though the Home version and Pro version do this differently.  Home only allows another XP machine to control your computer).
- Internet Connection Sharing (NAT, DHCP, etc. services), similar to how a cable or DSL router work
- Pro also includes the ability to build a network bridge between network interfaces, which is distinctly (frustratingly!) unavailable in Win2k or OS X...

Of course, Win2k server (and, I presume Win 2002 .Net Server - whew, what a mouthful!) includes native www, ftp, smtp, ras, dhcp, wins, dns, and nat servers, though their ftp and smtp servers are badly lacking and there is no built-in pop3 server.  I was also surprised to find that it includes a built-in, fairly full-featured router (similar to the services that Cisco routers offer)

Even with 3rd party apps (more $$$) XP really can't touch OS X as a server...  Though that's not what the products are being built or marketed as.

Ian


----------



## Piet Keizer (Sep 5, 2001)

The main reason for a computer company to distinguish a pro and a home line is to reach both target groups and make as much money out of each of them as possible.

A home user won't pay that much for pro software, but the company still wants to sell it. So they need to make a special home version which is cheap and unusable for pros. That's why Microsoft excludes some business critical stuff (i.e. multi processor support).
 
If the same counts for Apple, let's see what Apple sees as business critical! We should know by the differences between the i-line and the power-line.
(sorry if i'm incorrect, i'm doing it by head and i'm not an expert)

PowerMac:
- Clock speed
- Velocity engine
- PCI cards
- Option to choose your own screen

Powerbook:
- Clock speed
- Velocity engine (recently)
- Serious looks

Who knows some more?


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2001)

Weird, most of the people consider macs a toy?  The biggest argument for PC's appears to be that it has more games and they run faster.

I have 3 macs, 1 SGI and a brand new 1.7ghz p4 + all the bells and whistles - I am sorry to say that the P4 has ended up being a glorified gaming console - or less politely put, a toy.

With regards to the actual topic, I think that as people are becoming more computer literate, they are looking for alternatives to PC. In the last 2 weeks, 3 good friends and my brother have migrated. I think that M$ licensing policy will tie some people in even deeper, but at the same time it will push people into looking for alternatives. 

I still can not believe that when the PC was delivered, there was no CD based copy of ME, an image was placed on my drive and a little book said something about legal issues around supplying me with a copy of the ME software.

I guess I just bought a very xpensive X-box, without the X...


----------



## AdmiralAK (Sep 10, 2001)

That is what happened to a friend of mine that got a PC in greece and they did not supply him with a CD copy to windows.  They just gave him some stupid "tutorial" as to how to reinstall the software from his HD... that is STUPID!!!  What if you have to format c ?  or have to use some of that 650Mb taken up by the installer ???

M$ blows... just let it suck... oh my god!! "It's been switched from suck to blow!!!!" --> spaceballs


----------



## RacerX (Sep 10, 2001)

Remember that Windows is the BEST word processing platform, second to none! More secretaries and typists use it than any other type of system (that is NOT counting authors of course). And we shouldn't forget all the data-entry that is done on PCs either. 

So yes, they are used as toys, but they are also the systems of "choice" (or burden) of the entry level white collar work force.

"Microsoft: We are making the tools for the sweatshops of the 21st century"


----------



## MacSub (Sep 11, 2001)

Fist off, it has been said that Apple already has an intel compatable version of OSX finished, however debate and M$ threats have held back any discussion on releasing public opinion about OSX on winBoxes.

Also, to a user above that has an IT friend, I too have an IT friend that told ME that he is asking his company to buy him an iBook for work becuse it would improve time becuse he wouldn't have to reboot just to make the TCP/IP settings to work (by the way he is and has been a long time windows user that found the mac on his own!).

I have to say OSX has a great shot at getting more market share of the general public and nich groups, however M$ will remain in controll. 

Here's another sad thing...M$ is (from what I have heard) developing a government/microsoft controlled ballot system for voting.  Now isnt that scarry!?  Talk about controll.  Knowing Bush and MS it sounds like the truth (big business pays off the puppet), so in 4 years guess who wins!  What a joke, no wonder the anti-trust case was tossed.


----------



## foo (Sep 11, 2001)

I would like to see what happens when people truly start to take note of M$'s licensing and payment policies. There is still an air of disbelief at the office with regards to these policies.

One of my mates, a heretic windows users ;P (I can say that), reckons that win XP will be cracked within a few weeks. My question regarding this is, if there are so many free OS's available for x86 architecture, why use it pirated?

With regards to Office use, I would say Word is the premier word processing tool, does it truly matter id they use a mac or a wintel box? I would use Star Office on a PC, afterall, it is free.

Actually, I would kit all the "users" out with a mac, everytime a new virus comes out on windows, my office seems to get infected...can you say downtime?


----------



## eleveneleven (Sep 11, 2001)

I think OSX will bring over many Linux/Unix users but I have been using Windows XP and OSX and OSX is the slowest thing I have seen in since Windows 95 on my old 486. I pray that 10.1 will fix this nightmare. The new tools in XP are far ahead of OSX. I have been With a Mac since system 6 and Windows since 3.0, and Linux since Red Hat 5. I will use OSX in place of Linux but never as my main OS, I love windows 2000, and think XP with the classic windows theme, is a better choice for photo shop and Fireworks, than OSX. Im sorry Im I mad any Mac fans mad, but just for once, just try windows XP. I have always given Mac a chance and have been driven to the point of giving up on it but I ill wait for 10.1 but XP is tops for me for right now.


----------



## MacSub (Sep 11, 2001)

No, I mean really...what planet are you from?

You must be one of the few people that is siding with windows after being with the mac, man that's just strange?  But hey what ever works for you.  Will you please explain why you have come to this conclusion?

I used to use Windows and no longer will I touch one, although I am interested in XP, but Im sure it will still be Windows; so please explain your point-of-view.


----------



## bookem (Sep 11, 2001)

Reading this post is quite amusing.  Even though there's lots of useful and intelligent commments, there's still a number of people who seem dead set on a particular system.  I'm a Windows user mainly, but have interacted with Macs on and off for the past 7 years.  


To the people who think XP is great:

Do any of you actually know about some of the security issues in Windows XP?  Do you really want Microsoft and it's partners tracking your every last move?  If you don't know what I'm talking about, try searching at google.


Fact is in reality, they're probably as good as each other, but in different ways.  The choice is down to the individual.

OSX has my vote, not just of it's lovely interface, but because of it's potential power.  Who can honestly say that any Microsoft OS is better than a unix derivative?  Maybe it'll take another year or two for OSX to be a real solution for everyone, but I'll be there waiting.

And as for Mac hardware being more expensive, the only reason this is true is because the hardware is of a much higher quality than an average off the shelf pc.  A real pc, made of quality components (with a real video, sound and network card) will cost about the same as the equivalent performer in the G4 range.


One last thing:  XP will run on a P2 233/128Mb, but OSX will run on a 604e 200/128Mb.  XP is useless on anything below a 500 Mhz with at least 192Mb.  

Microsoft's attitude even to their beta testers appears to be "Here's the new OS, tell us if it works."  Apples seems to be "This is our idea, how can we improve it to serve you better".  That sums it up for me.


----------



## jiblet (Sep 13, 2001)

As far as I'm concerned Apple has already won.  

As with many here I've used both platforms for years, watched them develop.  I always felt more productive on a Mac (Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, BBEdit, etc.).  But I've watched Windows go from 3.1 to 95, to 98 and in the meantime, Mac OS wasn't upping the ante much in the transition from 7 to 7.5 to 8 to 8.5 to 9.   I was really worried about Apple's future, but I figured the worst thing that could happen would be I would have to switch to Windows.  That wouldn't be all bad, after all, I can get my work done nearly as quickly on Windows.

Now, however, my enthusiasm about Apple is at an all-time high.  Not only is Apple doing better than any other computer manufacturer this year, but Mac OS X finally lets me leave behind my anxiety about investing in a non-Windows platform.  I no longer care if Apple gains market share, because with the transition to a BSD-based OS and other standards like PDF, I no longer sit in the lonely Mac-world where I have to depend on Mac Developers or even Apple to release what I need.  Now I'm sitting in the unix, open-source world, where if I really need something done I can do it myself, and better yet, start an open-source project for all Mac OS X users.

It's mostly a moot point, however, since as a web developer, OS X has already met my needs perfectly.  Running Apache w/ PHP & MySQL next to Photoshop, Dreamweaver & BBEdit has increased my productivity by a solid 10%, not to mention the benefits of being able to test code upgrades without renaming PHP files and such.  

At this point I couldn't care less about XP.  XP could have dozens of cool new features, a great new interface, be easier to use than Mac OS X.  I wouldn't care.  I just sit back and smile at the beauty of Apple's GUI on a true network platform... 10.1 can only be better...


----------



## Crawfish (Sep 13, 2001)

Nicely put!


----------



## danielftl (Oct 17, 2001)

I know this won't be very popular, but it is my story and certainly truthful.  For years I have faithfully stuck behind Apple and Macs, even attempting to convince users that Macs could do anything that Windows can do.  In some ways, this is true.  With some effort, or a lot of effort, one can do things on a Mac that one can easily do with Windows.  I have a very long history of working with several operating systems on different chips, but mostly sticking with Apple and Mac over the years.  However, about one year ago my Powerbook needed to be repaired and I was without it for a few months.   During that time, I started using a Sony Vaio desktop with Windows 2000 Professional and I was impressed with its speed, reliability,  and functionality.  I have read here that some chastize others for not taking the time to try new things or different things and to be honest with you, I now understand why Windows users won't do this.  Things which are cumbersome to do on a Mac are very simple in Windows 2000.  It operates very quickly (my Sony Vaio is 800mhz with 512mb ram) and I have very few problems with it.

Now, my powerbook has been repaired with a faster processor and 512 mb ram and I have just installed OS X 10.1 on it, and I have been spending two days trying to bring it up to the level of functionality I already have with Windows 2000 out of the box.  Spending time tweaking and installing things on my Mac used to be fine, but now I own a business and I don't have time and don't want to read forums to figure out how to access shares, or get something else working for that matter -- I just want it to work when I turn it on -- and Windows 2000, although I LOATHE THAT MONEY SUCKING FREAK IN REDMOND,  does just that.  I am very concerned about Microsoft's carefully planned attempt to dominate the Internet with Passport and Windows XP, but they, and the software written for Intel machines, take care of everything and I just don't have to WORK to get things to work, they just work.  This means that I spend time making money and not experimenting with operating systems or getting things to work.

Now you might say that it is because I am not used to UNIX, but in this assumption, you would be wrong.  In fact, I prefer UNIX over all operating systems (and have used UNIX since the 80s), but OS X 10.1 is quite a bit more than the UNIX underpinnings and Red Hat Linux (on the desktop at least), suffers from the same ease of use and functionality problems as OS X 10.1.   In 1995, I would have been impressed with OS X 10.1, but this is 2001 and I find it slow, cumbersome, and still typical of Apple -- forcing me to work to bring it up to the level of Windows 2000 usability and apologizing for it to others.  

Currently, I lie in my bed with my Powerbook running MAC OS X 10.1 plotting how to get rid of it so that I can buy a  Sony Vaio laptop so I can keep working efficiently even when I am not at my desk.

Sorry Apple, but you still didn't get it right and now I don't have the time to mess with it anymore.


----------



## fryke (Oct 17, 2001)

... this is your personal experience. it might be true for you, it certainly isn't for me.

i'm a sysadmin supporting Dell notebooks running Win2K and Apple notebooks running Mac OS 9.x/10.x. Our design department uses the Macs, our beancounters and consultants use the dells.

from a supporter's point of view, windows has many advantages. one of the most important ones is, that a supporter never loses his job.  but that's a mac-user's joke. no, really: windows HAS advantages. it's far easier to set up a bunch of dell notebooks the same way over a network. no-can-do with the macs right now.

but what really surprised me in all those years is that the problems mac users run into basically are problems that have to do with the work they're doing, while windows users have problems with getting any work done at all!

bad thing about osx: still no nice backup solution. good thing: we don't need any yet, because people back up their machines nicely to our firewire backup harddisks, from where i make snapshots on DVD-Ram from time to time. it's a workaround, of course, but it's an easy one.


----------



## danielftl (Oct 17, 2001)

Yeah, I do have to admit that the Win admins. weren't too thrilled with the Dell machines when I worked for a company.  In fact, I was issued a Dell and chose to use my Powerbook the whole time I was with that company.  With Dave from http://www.thursby.com, it was quite nice, particularly since I spent most of my time working with files on UNIX systems anyway.  In fact, us Mac users had no problems and I was the Mac guru, even getting Outlook for Exchange set up on the Macs at work (because the Win Admins. didn't know that Mac users could run Outlook when Exchange was used).  However, Dave, as you may know is slow and I am completely unimpressed with OS X 10.1 even if Samba is installed (which I am familiar with).  I spent the morning reading the forums and playing with the Mac to get it to connect to the shares on my Vaio desktop, without success I might add.   Also, I do have to admit that my Sony Vaio is very powerful with DVD and CD-RW and 800mhz 512mb, massive hard drives, IEEE, USB, on and on, while my Powerbook is only a 466mhz (upgraded) Wallstreet.  Still, I sit and write this now on my Sony and I do all (now anyway) of my work on this Vaio and my beloved Powerbook has become basically the pariah of all the computers in the house (and we have plenty) ;-).

Daniel


----------



## edlake (Oct 17, 2001)

What do you do on the Sony that you can't do on the Mac? It would be interesting to know.

I'm _not_ a system administrator although I served in that function for a Macintosh typesetting department; as well as software tester, typesetter, designer, supervisor, and last but not least, matchmaker (my 2 former employees got married last year).

Personally, I have no problems with Mac OS X at home and 9.1 at work. Professionally I wouldn't upgrade for at least a year. That's how I've always done it because my users need to be productive and new software bugs don't help there. 

BTW: XP will win. Two reasons: 1. Inertia, 2. Users don't usually pick their OS, the IS department does.


----------



## danielftl (Oct 17, 2001)

**
What do you do on the Sony that you can't do on the Mac? 
**

As I stated in my first post, I spend time earning money rather than making my system easily functional, tweaking software, or searching for software to do what I can easily do on my Sony.  Here's a specific example:

I can install MyODBC from www.mysql.com into the ODBC drivers control panel of the Win machine, add a DSN (that is not a typo), and then subsequently link Microsoft Access to the databases of a MySQL server (where privileges have been granted in MySQL according to the client's IP address for example) in less than five minutes.  You cannot do this with FileMaker.  This means that I can work with an interface to update databases, tables, and fields very easily.

Oh sure, you CAN find tools to connect to MySQL databases for the Mac, such as Macsql which give you a command line interface for $249, but in that case, I might as well telnet directly into the server and use the MySQL command line for free.  Even so, this is a recent phenomenon.  If you know anything about MySQL and client access, you'll know that Macs were sadly lacking in the database connectivity category for years.

Filemaker is as expensive as Access and is less functional -- out of the box (as my original post discussed).

I didn't even touch on the price of Macs versus PCs, and being a long-time Mac user, I don't care what the Mac rags say, Macs are more expensive to buy and buy software for, than are Windows machines.

I am talking about specific examples, such as the one above, and as the saying goes the devil is in the details.  

There is no argument here about how one copies and pastes on a Mac versus Windows or that one can run Photoshop on a Mac and on a PC because everyone knows that.


----------



## simX (Oct 17, 2001)

Wow, you guys.  Great job on reopening a thread that has been inactive for a month now.  Do you guys go searching through archives of Mac forums just searching for a way to get Mac users mad?

In all seriousness, I think this thread has gone on long enough, and it is time to retire it.  There is nothing left to be said besides personal experiences, and everyone has good and bad experiences with both Macs AND PCs, without a doubt.

So please, lets not make any more posts after this.  I could have said SO many things about the last few posts, but I didn't, because if we continue this thread, we'll all just get blue in the face.

Let's concentrate on talking about OS X, now, not about OS X vs. XP.

*** simX says, "Goodbye!" to a long and unending (until now) thread.


----------



## genghiscohen (Oct 17, 2001)

I read an interesting article the other day that predicted that M$ will fall on its collective *ss with XP.  Among other startling facts, the writer pointed out that only 10% of Windoze business users have made the switch to Win2k!  And the percentage among home users is obviously even lower.  So where is the big rush to XP gonna come from?  The folks who were so thrilled by that marvelous WinME?


----------



## simX (Oct 17, 2001)

Holy genghiscohens!  This adds so much perspective to this thread!

END THE MADNESS, PEOPLE!!!!!  (In all seriousness, though, end the madness!)


----------



## Matrix Agent (Oct 17, 2001)

I've created a monster.


----------



## CreativeOne (Oct 17, 2001)

I just heard that XP won't have DVD playback and CD-RW support unless the app pays MS to support it.  Boy - no DVD or CD-RW at release - sound familiar?  I also heard that you only get 4 device upgrades before you are locked out & have to call M$, and also if a program crashes - you have to call M$.  I voted things will stay the same unfortunately - strictly because of the tendencies of the sheep!  I would tend to think that it should swing users that get pissed off.  All I have to say is - thank god OS X doesn't have all that crap.  I have a golden master of XP I was going to try out - forget it now.  Next thing you know old Bill will have a probe up my ass and he will be charging me to shit.  I can't wait to see those hold times at M$.  God forbid if the system crashes.

B


----------



## Shotokan (Oct 18, 2001)

I have been using XP Pro for about 2 weeks now and am glad to report that it does indeed have both DVD playback and CD-RW support.  So blow the dust off that GM release you have and give it a whirl.  XP is nice, but NOTHING like the hype M$ is trying to make for it.  It IS very fast and stable.  I installed it on a 800 AMD Thunderbird with a 3D Prophet II and a SoundBlaster Live!, ASUS A7V133 MB, FireWire card, NIC, the works and I did not need to load drivers for anything, which was SO nice coming from 98 and 2000, where you would be lucky to find a driver and even more lucky if it actually worked.

Laterz


----------



## Powermaster (Jun 19, 2002)

There has to be one in every forum right? Well, I am that one. Apple Rules Hands Down!

Long live Mac os X.

Die you evil copy of Mac os X (Microsoft XP)


----------



## Inline_guy (Jun 20, 2002)

The whole Windows vs. Apple thing is kind of mote anymore.  I mean to be honest the PC world and the Apple world are different.  They really are just about building a better experience for each set of users.  I think on Apple's end there is a desire (and a need) to increase the user base, but not to "take on XP" as it were.  

We live in a different computer world today.  For me it is a better one now (since I switched to Macs).  I have become, to my shock and amazement, some what of a Mac fanboy.  And as per the fanboy code of honer feel the need to tell people about the joy of my new found Mac.  

When a lady I work with said she was getting a new computer I took her to the apple web site and showed her all the different models.  Told her about what they offered, and how easy they were.  She hates computers and I told her this was her answer.  She started to get visible excited about the idea of owning a computer that did not own her.  Then I told her if she really wanted to get one to give me a call and I would go mac  hunting with her.

But to me that is the difference.  Macs really are personal.  As much as a computer can be.  

I think Apple is taking their time and doing it right.  They got me with a three point punch. 

:: One the iPod.  I wanted it so bad (but only had PC's)

:: Two I saw the new iMac.  It was great and I could burn DVD's (beautiful)

:: Three OS X.  After I used it once I had to have it (wonderful).


----------



## profx (Jun 20, 2002)

nice...

who resurrected this thread?


----------



## azosx (Jun 21, 2002)

Well, since this thread is almost a year old and Apple hasn't appeared to gain any more market share, I'd say OS X isn't necessarily losing but it sure isn't winning either.  

I don't know how someone would guage something like this anyway, there are so many factors involved.  

Over the past year, OS X and XP haven't been competing against each other, they have been competing against their predecessor, OS 9 for OS X and Windows98 for Windows XP Home Edition.  

Also, XP is nearing the end of the line for their OS that's based on NT 4 technology.  

Windows "Longhorn" is in development now, expected for a 2003-2004 release and is supposed to be the last Windows release based on NT technology.  

The next major release of Windows, Windows "Blackcomb", is expected somewhere around 2004-2005.  It will be to Windows XP/"Longhorn" what OS X was to OS 9.

By then OS X.* should have all the kinks, any completely new OS would expectedly have, worked out.

On the other had, Windows "Blackcomb" may be what OS X was when if first came out, brandnew and full of bugs.

Only then do I expect OS X.* to have a comparative advantage.   

I'd love to see Mac gain market share against Windows.  I believe the best innovation takes place when competing against another for dominace.

This could explain why Windows to some, especially Mac users has gotten a little stale.  They haven't been competing against anyone but themselves for a decade.  Can you really lose to yourself?

In anycase, I think with the release of OS X, Apple can count on a decade of prosperity whether they "win or lose".


----------



## Edge100 (Jun 21, 2002)

Dont forget, in the last year, Apple has been refining OS X into a proper OS.  XP had the advantage of being built on previously well developed platform.  Even though OS X is built on NeXTStep, it took a great deal of work to make it gel with the (semi-) traditional MacOS look and feel.  Only now is OS X good enough to be considered a real contender. 

Even though OS X is still comparably sluggish, the features more than make up for that.  Give a little bit more speed (10.2), a good ad campaign (Real People), and some improved hardware (MWNY, new PowerMacs), and I think you'll start to see some more users trickle in from the PC side.

I know more that one or two users who have converted or will convert in the near future, and a growing number of Mac users can tell the same story.  This has never happened before.  Apple may only get 7-8% of the market in the end, but that is a whole heck of a lot for one manufacturer to hold.  So long as they keep developing innovative hard/software, people will notice.  Really, they will!


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 22, 2002)

expanding Apple's share! Now, where that share will come from is not easily a thing that anyone can clearly see, let alone guess...

However, I think that Apple has eyes for the professionals more than the average joe and such a thing can be seen in:
-Jaguar co-operates better with Windows when it comes in networking
-Xserver is out
-Apple buys companies that will allow its own apps become champions in music/movies industry
-Jaguar has even more advanced features which account more in a corporate environment

Also, I think that even the new ads are a chameleon tactic which if it works and Apple gets more share with the help of the average customer, in the long run will give them share also on the professional sector. How is that? Because if someone buys a Mac and likes it at home, then most probably will buy one or two for his small office/company or even a dozen or two for his medium to large company 

Take me for example and me alone: I bought a Mac 6 months ago and now most of my friends and family members ENJOY (that's their word not mine) their Mac  How many are they? 8 more Macs and next month another family member buys a PowerBook G4/800


----------



## fryke (Jun 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Powermaster _
> *There has to be one in every forum right? Well, I am that one. Apple Rules Hands Down!
> 
> Long live Mac os X.
> ...



Huh? One of what? A power master? 

You're wrong, too. If Windows XP were a copy of Mac OS X, even a bad singer would be arrested for humming a song (because of the copyright of the song).

The two are different beasts. Windows XP is a better (?) version of Windows 2000. Their plan is to integrate everything from a PDA to the big servers, under something called .net (dumbest name ever, as I feel stupid now having ever reserved a .net domainname).

While this plan may sound a bit fuzzy, I don't see yet one with Mac OS X, other than to have a nice and good operating system for the great hardware Apple is making. Where's the strategy? Oh, yes: "We're the center of the digital lifestyle. We're the digital hub." How long can you say that marketing phrase when you've long been copied by Microsoft and Sony? I really hope Steve will come up with something new, something that sounds like a plan rather than a statement of a politician who wants your vote.

That said: Long live Mac OS X!


----------



## azosx (Jun 28, 2002)

> I really hope Steve will come up with something new, something that sounds like a plan rather than a statement of a politician who wants your vote.



I think Xserve is this begining of this new plan.  Steve is just being very humble because of Apple's previous failures in the server market.  It's nice to see Steve not think he's god for a change.

This time thought it seems Apple really does have a comparable and in many ways, superior product to those currently being offered in the lowend server market.  Perhaps if Steve was more humble more often, he might actually get somewhere with people that "haven't drank the Koolaid."  One reason I never cared for Apple when all they had to offer was OS 9 is that most of their users come off as stuckup a*sholes.  I think OS X humbled them as well because for the first time in 14 years, they couldn't figure out how to setup a printer without Chooser either.

If Xserve does being to take off, I think you'll see Apple toting more of the features of Jaguar like remote administration and better integration into Windows networks.

Hearing Steve go on about the "digital hub" at keynotes always seemed really lame to me, but that's only because I don't understand the experience he's talking about.

MS has talented programers, probably some of the best in the world.  People bitch and whine about security but when you control 95% of the desktop market, and 60% of the server market, who are a*sholes going to write viruses for and try to exploit?  BeOS?

Many of us are to young to remember but *nix had worms, backdoors and viruses plague it throughout the 70's and 80's and early 90's that made MS's security problems seem like a broken HTML link.

Linux today is riddled with insecurites as well, they just don't get the attention because they account for such a small %.  I run RH Linux, I get my list of packages to update due to security holes weekly.

I do worry about Longhorn and Blackcomb because just as Apple starts to steal some of the thunder away from MS with OS X, here comes the next big thing.  And the fire Apple has lit under MS's ass will only make them strive to make these products the best they can be.

Let's face it, XP was only a weak counter to OS X.  The next one might very well be a devistating blow.


----------



## BlingBling 3k12 (Jun 28, 2002)

If OS X is slower than Windows XP, that REALLY makes me reconsider about switching over! My XP is already slow enough! Even with 512 MB RAM, it's still very slow.

I hope OS X gets better, otherwise i'll be stickin with this for awhile!


----------



## Maximus (Jul 3, 2002)

I think my experience is probably more typical of a business and casual user of an OS.  I just recently began using a digital camera on a regular basis.  iPhoto and the ease with which OS X uploaded the pictures was amazing.  The presentation of the photos, with music, blew my friends  and family away.

I can guarantee that there will be numerous new Mac converts out there - who were moved and amazed by the sophistication and ease with which a laptop became such a powerful new medium of communication.

These are people who all have Wintel based machines and are very dissatisfied with their experiences.  So, I'm not going to disregard the Apple Digital Hub strategy.  I think Apple will definitely increase it's market share with this strategy. I have absolutely no doubt on that.

As to Microsoft's .net strategy, or their new tablets - I think that these tools will appeal more to the corporate set.  And that won't be good for Apple.  However, for small businesses - and for medium sized businesses, the .net strategy is still meaningless and without context.  It sounds good - but it's not going to translate as a counterpunch to Apple's digital hub strategy.  The digital hub strategy is clearly a consumer and niche market strategy (advertising/film/media).

Also, with the Jaguar strategy, and the power of Unix, there is no question that Apple will still be making inroads into the corporate space.  People want an alternative that works - that makes their life easier - and that integrates all pieces of their digital life together - professional and personal - conveniently, powerfully and elegantly.  As the platform speeds up - I think the market will warm heartily to Apple's integration of hardware and software into a better platform that connects easily into a system of standards based additional hardware and peripherals.  Microsoft continues to mess with the standards - and that mindset will not make their products better.  Maybe I'm wrong - but I'm confident in my future expectation.


----------



## -JP- (Jul 4, 2002)

I started on this thred today, not realising how old it was, and came over a hefty discussion between Slimey and RazorX (and some others).
Now that this thred has been ressurected anyways it would be cool to hear from these guys again to see if there has been some change in their oppinion, in light of the changes over the past year.

As to who will win the os war... I don't know.
I like OS X and i hope more people will use it so that more apps (and games) will be developed for it (as seems to be the trend now). The thought of sometimes in the future being forced to use any kind of windows francly scares me.

btw, RazorX or Slimey (or whoever wants to reply to this), it might be a good idea to start a new thred insted of countinuing on this one.


----------



## simX (Jul 4, 2002)

Just wanted to point something out:



> _Originally posted by MacCentral_
> *Market research firm International Data Corp.'s (IDC) latest research numbers indicate a small increase in Apple's market share in the United States. For the current quarter (Q1, 2002) IDC shows Apple as the number six computer maker with a 3.48 percent market share. This is an increase of 0.4 points over Q4 2001 and a 0.25 point increase year over year. Worldwide, Apple is in ninth place with a 2.4 percent market share.*


----------



## xoot (Jul 7, 2002)

Hmmm... I better be watching Apple.


----------



## Torz (Jul 12, 2002)

Yeah, no matter what we say theres too many M$ Windows users out there... but in my opinion quality is more important than popularity 

Torz


----------

