OS X + XP: Who will really win?

[HardyMacia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.