OS X + XP: Who will really win?

What will the competition between OS X + XP result in?

  • Mac and Microsoft will both keep the same market share.

  • Mac will gain market share among niche groups.

  • Mac will gain market share from the general public.

  • Mac will lose market share.

Results are only viewable after voting.
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.
 
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.
 
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 :p (and most of them are in their junior year or even senior year when they do this lol:p)


Admiral
 
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
 
coooool down lol :p
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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!!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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....

angelssmall3.jpg
 
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 :p.

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top