What separates a Mac from a PC?

[Asher]

That's why MS is so desperate to block off alternatives

Correct me if I'm wrong -- Apple forcefully drove all the clone makers out of business, right?
Wasn't MS the one that invested hundreds of millions into Apple and Corel to save their asses?

And please don't lecture me on NextStep, Agathon.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

MS investment in Corel and Apple was for legal purposes only. It was quickly followed by a number of moves to push both to the side. It's just cheaper to pump a few hundred million into the competition than a few billion into the government.

As for competition...want to tell the story of OS/2 again? C'mon. Apple may be a closed box, but at least they're open and legal about it.

And for the record, yes, I'm in New Media, which is heavily mac dependent, but if I had my choice, I'd stick with PCs. But there's nothing wrong with Jaguar that's any worse than XP. It's considerably better, actually, if you're just comparing software to software. I haven't managed to break my NT4 uptime record with it yet, but then, it hasn't been out for that long either...the only time it's ever crashed for me was once when I intentionally was trying to create a kernel panic, and I don't really think that counts.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the IBM switch actually happens. It might even push Macs ahead of PCs in my mind.

[Asher]

I'm just pointing out the irony behind Agathon saying MS blocks off alternatives.

It is Apple, after all, who forcefully drove clone makers out of business and has total and complete control over the hardware and software, not to mention buying up software themselves whenever they like it, or ripping off open source projects and basing products on it (OS X kernel, Safari, etc).

Apple's far more protective and "blocks off alternatives" than MS.

As for competition...want to tell the story of OS/2 again? C'mon. Apple may be a closed box, but at least they're open and legal about it.

There was nothing illegal about the OS/2 story, it's just business. Of course, the one that's told on the net is recurgitated by Slashdot zealots and the like. You act like IBM is a small company that didn't know what it was doing.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Asher

It is Apple, after all, who forcefully drove clone makers out of business and has total and complete control over the hardware and software,

Frankly, I think their product is better as a result of the control they've exerted. No, it may not be the most friendly thing in the world, but again, at least it was legal.

not to mention buying up software themselves whenever they like it, or ripping off open source projects and basing products on it (OS X kernel, Safari, etc).

As opposed, say, to IIS?

Apple's far more protective and "blocks off alternatives" than MS.

But again, at least they do it above boards.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Agathon
Most of the anti-mac commentary here seems to be complaining about the Classic Mac OS. If you want to compare this OS to it's competitors Windows 95, 98 and ME, I'd take the Mac OS any day. Enough of this misguided rubbish about extension conflicts and the taskbar.

Actually Asher, it is perhaps an accident that you aren't using a version of NextStep since in the late 80s the big PC manufacturers tried to buy it, in order to replace DOS, which they hated. I wish they had - almost everyone would be using what would amount to a version of OS X.

The reason most people run windows is the same reason they use QWERTY keyboards: namely ubiquity. If it wasn't for this no one would use MS crappy bug-ridden spy infested bloatware. That's why MS is so desperate to block off alternatives - because they know if one ever takes off that their rubbishy software can't compete. Anyone who can't admit this is severely deluded as to the public's love of Microsoft.

While that may be so........Microsoft is still on top and, well, Apple ISN'T.

Stop whining and get over it

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Frankly, I think their product is better as a result of the control they've exerted. No, it may not be the most friendly thing in the world, but again, at least it was legal.

I would disagree with it being better, because it's crashed more on me than XP and I've used OS X a small fraction of the time.

The kernel is usually fine, it's Aqua and device drivers that apparently can't handle powerusers very well.

And BTW, the only reason Apple's actions are "legal" is because of their complete ineptitude when it comes to running a business and gaining marketshare. If MS tried half the **** Apple did, they'd have been broken up 10x over by now...

As opposed, say, to IIS?

Are you talking about IE that's based on Mosaic?
I'm not sure if IIS was based on anything, but I also don't see the point. I never said MS never bought-and-improved, lots of their stuff involved around that (hell, even DOS)

But again, at least they do it above boards.

Do you even know how they ran the clone makers out of business?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
I would disagree with it being better, because it's crashed more on me than XP and I've used OS X a small fraction of the time.

Oh, well then........

The kernel is usually fine, it's Aqua and device drivers that apparently can't handle powerusers very well.

Honestly, I've had a good amount of success playing with the internals of OS X. My only major complaint with it has been the netinfo database, which is a pain in the *** to deal with outside the GUI. And the desktop version of it has artifical limitations on the number of shares and users you can create, which I find annoying.

Are you talking about IE that's based on Mosaic?
I'm not sure if IIS was based on anything, but I also don't see the point. I never said MS never bought-and-improved, lots of their stuff involved around that (hell, even DOS)

No. IIS wasn't just based on Apache, it contains Apache code.

Do you even know how they ran the clone makers out of business?

Yeah, I do. I didn't say it was nice. I said it was legal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by dv8ed
Oh, well then........

Certainly just as valid as your opinion.

No. IIS wasn't just based on Apache, it contains Apache code.

I think you're confused.

Are you thinking of BSD sockets in WinNT?

Yeah, I do. I didn't say it was nice. I said it was legal.

Again: the only reason it's legal is because Apple doesn't know how to run a company. If they had any marketshare at all, they'd have been busted many times over.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Asher
Certainly just as valid as your opinion.

Granted.

I think you're confused.

Are you thinking of BSD sockets in WinNT?

No. It came out some time ago...there was a pretty hefty chunk of Apache code build into IIS. I believe they did it legally (memory is fuzzy on that) but it's there. I'll try to dig up a link on it.

Again: the only reason it's legal is because Apple doesn't know how to run a company. If they had any marketshare at all, they'd have been busted many times over.

Perhaps, although both the degree and methods were different than the MS situation. But either way, the legal system sees a difference between a company with an overwhelmingly large share and one with a smaller one.

Honestly, though, I still think that Apple should have been declared a separate market from the PC world. That would have landed both in hot water.

[Q Classic]

Linux or other *nix.

mm. that's quite true. when i say linux, i do mean and *nix based systems: linux, bsd, usw.

besides, after playing a bit with BeOS and remembering NextStep, i have to say BeOS, which was never really availible for the PowerPC architecture (even if it was coded by ex-apple employees), is far superior.

[Urban Ranger]

Before Apple bought out NexT, there had been a lot of speculations of which companies it would buy. A good number of insiders wagered on Be, which, unfortunately, turned out to be wrong.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
While that may be so........Microsoft is still on top and, well, Apple ISN'T.

You want to start on the illegal business practices that MS engaged in?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


While that may be so........Microsoft is still on top and, well, Apple ISN'T.

You misunderstand me. I don't want Apple to become an OS monopoly - that would be just as bad as MS. Monopolies suck.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Macs = 5 Percent
PCs = 95 percent

Were winning BIG TIME

"95 out of 100 people prefer PERSONAL COMPUTER over MACINTOSH"

hi ,

only a chosen few can lead the way , ......

at least we dont have a dozen or so english software versions like windows has , ...

have a nice day

[Whaleboy]

I gotta say that I like both Mac and Windows.

If you want an operating system that takes away much of your power to control the computer, for the sake of useability, the ability to run the majority of games, and no problem with your data ending up in the hands of the American government and Microsoft, then run Windows XP. Its pretty, its childlike interface is very easy to use.

Mac is very well balanced. Lots of software available, looks absolutely stunning, stable, reliable, but still costs money.

It has been shown that proprietery code is inferior in terms of coding errors to open source code. As such, Linux and BSD is also a good choice. Concentrating on Linux, it is still harder to use than the above two, but now no harder to install and configure than windows 98/2000. There are many interfaces available, the big two being KDE and GNOME. Both are good, KDE is more integrated and perhaps easier to use for people coming from windows, but GNOME is less bloated, and is more intuitive for people who have never used a computer before.

Linux and other *nix's are famed for being stable, although OSX, being *BSD based, is also comparable. It gives a rock solid system that blows windows into the ground when it comes to security. Linux distros wont run much office stuff, but an "emulator" for want of a better word, called WINE is in development that already runs many windows apps on linux.

Linux is good, is playing catch up very fast, and to someone with half a brain, it is probably the best choice out of the three. Mac and WinXP require very little mental power, they look better out of the box, although linux DE's are fully configurable. They also run more proprietery software, notwithstanding the huge array of open source alternatives and new software.

I run WinXP for games, and Linux for everything else. I am happy, Im not in love with one over the other, I cant really see the point in this whole OS war. Microsoft is a big, bad company, we all know that, but I dont care, I want the best product for me. At the moment, for my needs, they dont provide that, as I have the mental ability to use all the power that Linux gives me to get stuff done that I could not in Windows..

One thing that is not in doubt, linux is rising, it is rising fast. Its great now, it will be better tomorrow. Microsofts' days as a monopoly power in the operating system market are numbered on desktops, already over on servers. Inertia and games are their only advantage, and the latter will be a Linux advantage within two years.