Stupid Move on Apple's part
- Thread starter malexgreen
- Start date
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
I did not say that you were hoping for the death of Apple... just that you want to be the to ring in the bad times.
As for .Mac, a company doesn't have to be in trouble to realize that they have a money sink hole which people had figured out how to abuse. People were get 2, 3, as many as 6 accounts under the old system. It had to be shut down as it was running. How would you get rid of people with multiple accounts but at least try and keep people who want the service and use it as Apple originally envisioned? Their solution actually works if you ask me.
Also I have yet to hear that anything is actually changing at Apple with regards to iApps. As Mac-blog so astutely pointed out, some of these are already being charged for by Apple (and have been for a long time). It looks like iDVD is actually only the cost of shipping (which is probably a size issue), iMovie is about $50 and iPhoto is getting to the size (already past it if you ask me) where a download become difficult. Instead of paying $20 for both iDVD and iPhoto and $50 for iMovie (totaling $90), Apple sounds like they are bundling the upgrades into a single $50 package (the current cost of just iMovie). Apple must be in real trouble if the are willing to drop off $40 that they could pocket.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Ah yes, history lessons. I love the history of the computer industry. Lets address both kendall and sirfulcrum posts on the subject together.
and
Talking about people needing to get their facts straight, wow! Lets address the Mac OS 9 is no longer supported by Apple claim. Where in the world are you guys getting that one! That couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Mac OS 9 is still supported by Apple, but they are not going to ship any new versions. For that matter Mac OS 8 is still being supported by Apple. In fact I can find things for pre-Mac OS 8 operating systems on Apple's site (which you would have a hard time doing with Windows 95 information on Microsoft's site). Please learn the difference between support and shipping because all the claims about Mac OS 9 could be applied to Windows ME at this point using your flexible definitions.
On to Windows NT.
As a former Windows NT 4.0 power user (and I was never a "corporation") from 1997 to 2000 where I spend all day working in Photoshop on a Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and managed a Windows NT 4.0 Server used by our office of 5 computers, I have a good deal of experience with that OS and what was going on with it.
Strange as it may sound, Microsoft has worked against the same pressures that it used to its advantage in this industry. Microsoft wanted people to move to Windows NT 3.x from Windows 3.1/3.11, but found that people needed a bridge to get them past their 16-bit code. That bridge was supposed to be Windows 95. Microsoft had planned the movement of their customers from Windows 3.1/3.11 to 95 to NT 4.0 (NT 3.1/5.51 had failed to get enough driver support because companies didn't see that it had a large enough user base... the same thing Mac OS X faced early on).
Plug-n-play was not a Windows 95 feature (it was first pushed as a feature of Windows 98), but because it was based on the same underlying code as the DOS version that came before it, porting drivers wasn't that much of a burden for companies. Windows NT required a substantial investment in developing drivers, and Microsoft was having a hard time showing that they could provide the users needed to get a return on investment. Any new operating system faces this problem, and NT being a Microsoft OS didn't help it in any way. Users always drives development. Gates had from the begin of the NT project thought it was the future of Microsoft and thought that they would be able to get users based on how much better it was (and it was better, I supported Windows 95/98 systems while working on Windows NT 4.0, and it was much better). They didn't think they would need to drop production of the other line to get people to move, they thought quality was enough.
The games issue... games were never high on Microsoft's list of important apps when thinking about their operating systems. Game makers wrote to the masses which were still using Windows 3.1/3.11/95 and Microsoft wasn't seeing games as important in the early to mid 90's. It wasn't until their failure (again) to move people to NT with version 4.0 that they realized that games were important. They didn't think computers should be used for games, and so to push gamers off their computers without losing customers they started development of the X-Box who's only purpose was to give gamers something better to run their games on than their computers so that they could finally rid themselves of the 95/98/ME line and move to NT.
None of the NT line were any harder for home users to use than any other version of Windows, but finding supported hardware and drives sure made it look that way. Once running, a home users would have less problems with an NT OS than any version of 95/98/ME. The problem wasnt Microsoft, it was the makers of hardware that made it difficult.
Yes, I think we now have our fact straight.
and
Talking about people needing to get their facts straight, wow! Lets address the Mac OS 9 is no longer supported by Apple claim. Where in the world are you guys getting that one! That couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Mac OS 9 is still supported by Apple, but they are not going to ship any new versions. For that matter Mac OS 8 is still being supported by Apple. In fact I can find things for pre-Mac OS 8 operating systems on Apple's site (which you would have a hard time doing with Windows 95 information on Microsoft's site). Please learn the difference between support and shipping because all the claims about Mac OS 9 could be applied to Windows ME at this point using your flexible definitions.
On to Windows NT.
As a former Windows NT 4.0 power user (and I was never a "corporation") from 1997 to 2000 where I spend all day working in Photoshop on a Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and managed a Windows NT 4.0 Server used by our office of 5 computers, I have a good deal of experience with that OS and what was going on with it.
Strange as it may sound, Microsoft has worked against the same pressures that it used to its advantage in this industry. Microsoft wanted people to move to Windows NT 3.x from Windows 3.1/3.11, but found that people needed a bridge to get them past their 16-bit code. That bridge was supposed to be Windows 95. Microsoft had planned the movement of their customers from Windows 3.1/3.11 to 95 to NT 4.0 (NT 3.1/5.51 had failed to get enough driver support because companies didn't see that it had a large enough user base... the same thing Mac OS X faced early on).
Plug-n-play was not a Windows 95 feature (it was first pushed as a feature of Windows 98), but because it was based on the same underlying code as the DOS version that came before it, porting drivers wasn't that much of a burden for companies. Windows NT required a substantial investment in developing drivers, and Microsoft was having a hard time showing that they could provide the users needed to get a return on investment. Any new operating system faces this problem, and NT being a Microsoft OS didn't help it in any way. Users always drives development. Gates had from the begin of the NT project thought it was the future of Microsoft and thought that they would be able to get users based on how much better it was (and it was better, I supported Windows 95/98 systems while working on Windows NT 4.0, and it was much better). They didn't think they would need to drop production of the other line to get people to move, they thought quality was enough.
The games issue... games were never high on Microsoft's list of important apps when thinking about their operating systems. Game makers wrote to the masses which were still using Windows 3.1/3.11/95 and Microsoft wasn't seeing games as important in the early to mid 90's. It wasn't until their failure (again) to move people to NT with version 4.0 that they realized that games were important. They didn't think computers should be used for games, and so to push gamers off their computers without losing customers they started development of the X-Box who's only purpose was to give gamers something better to run their games on than their computers so that they could finally rid themselves of the 95/98/ME line and move to NT.
None of the NT line were any harder for home users to use than any other version of Windows, but finding supported hardware and drives sure made it look that way. Once running, a home users would have less problems with an NT OS than any version of 95/98/ME. The problem wasnt Microsoft, it was the makers of hardware that made it difficult.
Yes, I think we now have our fact straight.
sirfulcrum
Registered
Thanks for the revisionist history. Too bad it's false. NT 4 shipped in 1996. The Xbox project started in 1999, and it wasn't because they wanted to move gamers off the PC to a console. Xbox was started because (1.) The Sony Threat of PlayStation 2 and future PlayStations establishing a potential PC replacement in the living room (2.) To get Microsoft into the living room, paving the way for future MS digital devices and (3.) There's a lot of money to be made in video games and for a company looking for new revenue streams now that Windows and Office growth is slowing, it makes sense for Microsoft.
You think I'm making that up? Just read Dean Takahashi's Xbox book. By the way, Dean used to be with the Wall Street Journal, and he's a crack reporter. And I was a very close observer of all this as well, including spending an hour in Japan talking at length with the guy who came up with the Xbox idea. His name is Seamus Blackley.
And you'll notice that Microsoft maintains two gaming lines: PC and Xbox. And most MS PC games are vastly different in style and genre from most MS Xbox games. Microsoft still supports PC gaming 100-percent. It's flight simulators and real-time strategy games versus football and platform games. PC gaming remains a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and MS wants a big slice of that pie. It is already one of the largest publishers of PC games, and the hardware division is on top in terms of joysticks and gaming devices.
As for your other points, yes, Windows 95 was always supposed to be the bridge from DOS to NT. But NT 4.0 had horrible hardware support (the driver issue), it was a mess to use compared to Windows 95. (Just try installing and configuring a modem in NT 4.0 and not ripping your hair out.) And NT 4.0 didn't make a splash, because it sucked in hardware support and application support. Sure it could Office and Photoshop, but most consumers back in 1996 couldn't really care. It was about games and other applications.
Microsoft then set its sights on Windows NT 5.0, but development on NT 5.0 took nearly four whole years. Microsoft was having problems trying to incorporate stuff like Plug&Play, USB, and other new technologies into NT while feature-itis kicked in as they attempted to make an all-encomposing OS that would work for workstations, consumers, and servers.
The delays kept resulting in having to ship out Win 98, which was billed to be the last DOS-based Windows OS, and then having to settle for DOS-based Windows Me when it was clear they couldn't get a consumer version of 2000 ready in time.
But don't just take my word for it...
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2k_gold.asp
MLapointe27
Registered
You can't compare apple and windows NT. Microsoft never tried to upgrade home users to the NT kernal. Windows 9x whas for home users. I never even went to Windows 2000 because I couldn't get much multimedia hardware that supported Windows 2000. The reason why Windows 2000 didn't support much multimedia hardware is because it was a frikin business operating system. I went to the NT kernal when Windows XP came out because that was designed with multimedia in mind and most importantly it was the first NT kernal OS that was designed for home users.
You have two versions of Windows XP.
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional Edition
Did you ever see a Windows NT home edition or a Windows 2000 home edition.
Plus Windows NT and Windows 2000 have always cost more money than Windows 98 & ME because it was for businesses with business features that home users don't use.
You can't compare a business OS with a home OS. It's like compaaring Windows .Net Server with Windows XP Professional. They are both bases on the NT kernal but one is more expensive than the other and one is designed for servers and the other is designed for the clients accessing that server.
As far as I remembered when I went to bestbuy and circuit city I don't remember ever seeing home computers preloaded with Windows NT nor Windows 2000.
Now I didn't want to bring up the past here but I felt I had too. Now when I was talking about the direction Apple was moving in from the present to the future that's when I mentioned the next version of Windows and the direction that Apple was heading in. Then someone has to bring up the past when I was clearing talking about the present to the future. I don't care what Apple or Microsoft has done in the past because it's allready been done and can't be changed and people have to look at the future and not the past. I always gave macs to my employees in the "past" before they starting doing this stuff. I said that I'm not going to be getting macs for my employees for next Christmas (in the future) and I based this on where I see Apple going to in the future not where they have been in the past.
Everybody thought Green Bay Packers could never lose in Green Bay in the playoffs because of their past history. Well Green Bay lost yesterday because as I said people live in the past and never in the present. As this game came to an end we now know that the past means crap and doesn't decide out future. So from now on if you post a message please mention points that relate to the present and/or the future because the past doesn't mean crap as far as what could or will happen in the future. Apple in the past was always more interested in customers while Microsoft wasn't. Since the past means noting and only the present and the future means something we may find out the Microsoft becomes more interested in customers and apple becomes less interested in customers. You never know what could or will happen and that's why we live our lives.
[edited by jason: name calling is a no-no, expect a pm]
You have two versions of Windows XP.
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP Professional Edition
Did you ever see a Windows NT home edition or a Windows 2000 home edition.
Plus Windows NT and Windows 2000 have always cost more money than Windows 98 & ME because it was for businesses with business features that home users don't use.
You can't compare a business OS with a home OS. It's like compaaring Windows .Net Server with Windows XP Professional. They are both bases on the NT kernal but one is more expensive than the other and one is designed for servers and the other is designed for the clients accessing that server.
As far as I remembered when I went to bestbuy and circuit city I don't remember ever seeing home computers preloaded with Windows NT nor Windows 2000.
Now I didn't want to bring up the past here but I felt I had too. Now when I was talking about the direction Apple was moving in from the present to the future that's when I mentioned the next version of Windows and the direction that Apple was heading in. Then someone has to bring up the past when I was clearing talking about the present to the future. I don't care what Apple or Microsoft has done in the past because it's allready been done and can't be changed and people have to look at the future and not the past. I always gave macs to my employees in the "past" before they starting doing this stuff. I said that I'm not going to be getting macs for my employees for next Christmas (in the future) and I based this on where I see Apple going to in the future not where they have been in the past.
Everybody thought Green Bay Packers could never lose in Green Bay in the playoffs because of their past history. Well Green Bay lost yesterday because as I said people live in the past and never in the present. As this game came to an end we now know that the past means crap and doesn't decide out future. So from now on if you post a message please mention points that relate to the present and/or the future because the past doesn't mean crap as far as what could or will happen in the future. Apple in the past was always more interested in customers while Microsoft wasn't. Since the past means noting and only the present and the future means something we may find out the Microsoft becomes more interested in customers and apple becomes less interested in customers. You never know what could or will happen and that's why we live our lives.
[edited by jason: name calling is a no-no, expect a pm]
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
It isn't, but you are welcome for the history lesson. Windows NT 4.0 was release in August 1996, a year after Windows 95. As I have said before, the driver issue wasn't Microsoft's fault (no more than the driver issues with Mac OS X are Apple's fault).
By the way, loved your link:
Thanks for the supporting documentation!
The only way it could have been better would be if your link went to a site that covered NT all the way back to it's beginning as OS/2. Starting at NT 5.0 Beta skips a lot of important information.Feel free to post more support for my arguments, saves me time.
evildan
Super Moderator
This is a general warning to the lot of ya!
Pause. Breath. Be nice to each other.
The true test of a person's character is how they treat their enemies.
Oh and MLapointe27... Thanks for twisting the knife on the Green Bay Packers. I don't think "everyone" expected them to win, but the team does traditionally do well at home. By all accounts, they should have won that game.
But, case in point to those that are in the midst of an argument, it's not always about winning. Sometimes it's about how you treat the person you're playing with.
Pause. Breath. Be nice to each other.
The true test of a person's character is how they treat their enemies.
Oh and MLapointe27... Thanks for twisting the knife on the Green Bay Packers. I don't think "everyone" expected them to win, but the team does traditionally do well at home. By all accounts, they should have won that game.
But, case in point to those that are in the midst of an argument, it's not always about winning. Sometimes it's about how you treat the person you're playing with.
