Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game
ttom writes "OSWeekly.com looks at Microsoft's promotional strategy and concludes that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game." From the article: "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they? By the way, please don't take my sarcastic tone as an expression of my dissatisfaction for the product. I think it's great, and I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp. I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
The article's opening line & premise the rest of the article is based on is incorrect:
No. Boot camp made a small stir, but the vast majority of people out their still see Mac PCs as very different from WIndows PCs (and don't understand the dual boot process anyway). Macs are still getting far more ipod splashback publicity than they were five years ago.
A more interesting discussion would be "Why Dell Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game"? After all, two years ago I know I certainly wouldn't have expected to see:
1) Apple rushing to join an Electronics Industry Code of practice founded by Dell after sweatshop scandal rumours.
2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.
Both those items are areas I expect Apple's marketing (if not reality) to shine, but instead it's Dell with all the glory.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
"Apple to drop ad campaign because editor of internet site declares it unsuccessful."
http://mehmeterturk.blogspot.com/2006/09/xgl-on-li nux.html
Wow! Microsoft beating someone over something technically related?! It was from the good old Office time that it didn't happen.
Sure, I love running WinXP on my MacBook Pro using Parallels. The real worry is that once you can easily run Windows on your Mac, there will be less incentive to port apps to the Mac side. Publishers will say "why should I put in all that effort when you can run the PC version?" I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.
Apple Boot Camp Because we have nothing to fear
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp.
If you ask me, the strategy with Boot Camp was an attempt by Apple to go back to the days where they could say, "Look! Our computer is so much more powerful and flexible than a PC, you can even read Windows-formatted floppies on our computer, but you can't read Mac formatted floppies on a Windows machine!"
Not that that was ever much of anything but a flawed argument, based around, I imagine Apple's licensing policy for HFS...but Apple has only a handful of things that they use to prove their superiority over Windows (Less Crashes, More Secure Against Viruses, more "artsy fartsy", etc.), each of which grows less truthful over time. When was the last time your XP box crashed? Mine hasn't in months. And the only reason OSX is more secure is because of its significantly smaller user-base. If OSX had 90% of the market, you can be sure there would be many more OSX-based attacks out there.
'course, I'm typing this right now on my iBook...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I have heard people at my business who never before considered a Mac very excited about getting a Mac because they can run that particular Windows software they have to run and have the Macintosh computing experience all at once. The downstairs computer lab has been switched to all Mac as well because of this. There simply is no reason to own a PC anymore. You can get a Mac and have your PC, too. All in one.
I'd say OSWeekly knows who their biggest advertiser is and are pandering to them.
Is OSWeekly written by 12 year olds now? That's got to be one of the worst article summaries I have ever read, and I've been reading /. for years...
Seriously, you have to be slightly brain damaged to think that MS is better at whole-system integration than Apple.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Apple did not give in to the numerous requests to allow Win XP to run, they simply HAD to be 1st to the door with a dual boot options. Otherwise it would have been only days from the launch of intel based macs before someone else did it. Better the devil you know, than the one you don't!
Take a survey and ask them how many of you paid or for your copy of XP on your Mac (and are not violating MS EULA). Any guesses out there? I will start and say 8%. I think I am high, but figure almost 1/10 users are honest. Most either: 1. Visited there local bay of pirates and downloaded it. 2. Had a copy from a current PC so are in violating the EULA and installing it. 3. Borrowed a copy from the local IT admin and installed it. Most of the legitimate people may have gotten it from work and they have a ELA with MS so maybe they are not violating. I know all of my friends have not paid for a copy of XP running on the Mac or are using a work copy. All of them. They are using it for testing, gaming and occasional software but are not publishing work from it, so MS will not be able to track them down. I bet this over the long term will hurt MS since many people I know used to buy a cheap Dell for testing, which at least had a legitimate OS on it. Now they just need an XP CD, and its different shoving out $200 for a CD vs $400 for an entire computer.
www.IBuyMacs.com
When was it Apple's game to announce groovy new products, then deliver them behind schedule, bereft of compelling new features, in more confusing variations than a cel phone plan, with hardware requirements that will spur the market penetration of GNU/Linux, and at prices that will surely drive ???profit???.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Are people like Dell, HP and so forth.
My next laptop purchase is going to be a Macbook early next year. The reason?
It can run Windows, that simple. There is software for windows that simply isn't available for OS X that I need. Conversely there is software on OS X that I need that I normally run under a VM with Linux. You could say Linux is a loser in this too.
But Microsoft having the beatdown on them? Nope, Apple see Windows as not going away anytime soon and frankly the majority of OS X users will use OS X the majority of the time. Apple are gaining pc users because of bootcamp.
I own a homebuilt pc and a Thinkpad, so i'm currently not a mac user and hadn't considered a Mac until the Macbook.
NB. I haven't read the article as it's not available.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Why not a boot camp designed for Linux layer compatibility on mac hardware. Sure, Yellow Dog covers that ground and so does Ubuntu, but how about the two underdogs banding together coalition style? Call it some thing like Degobah System. A place where 'warriors' can train. See where I'm going with all these neat marketing ideas?
We'd all own piles of dog crap too if some one was smart enough to make us all believe we need it.
-ps: the use of boot camp is cheating, btw, imo. As well, I think Multi-booting is just plain inconvenient. Too much time to take to traverse from OS to OS in time of need. I do it. Done it for years. Linux, Mac, and Windows in many forms on many machines. But it's too time consuimg. A person could be better off owning multiple machines running different platforms. Period. As well have tons less heartaches and oh-shit-this-didn't-work-smacks-to-the-forehead about how much time has been wasted setting it all up only to discover som ething trivial, yet major, like wireless driver failure.
Switching to Intel closed the price, performance and (with BootCamp or Paralells) the application compatability gaps; advantage Cupertino. Apple reported their best hardware sales quarters ever just recently, and I have read some speculation that they sold 50% more MacBooks than they expected this quarter (not sure how true that is but the delays in shipping make it plausible). My local Apple Store is literally jammed all day long, including week days and the wait at the Genius Bar is upwards of an hour most days. I seriously doubt all that bustle is for XP install on BootCamp???
The only category that might truly suffer from BootCamp existing is game development, porting is expensive and this is the kind of easy way out the big game publishers love.
On second thought I might install BootCamp with Leopard... if it will let me run Ubuntu?!
And the summary doesn't make much sense. Anyone got a mirror?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
How many Windows machines can run the Mac operating system? Seems the advantage goes to Apple. A hesitation for trying Mac is that some softwares don't have a Mac version and may never have one. With Boot Camp you can have the stability of Mac and the extra functionality and still be able to use Windows apps without needing a second machine. The one odd issue is the line is getting blurred and it's going to be hard to determine market share. Eventually half of the Mac systems may be dual boot with Windows. Microsoft will still get to sell them operating systems but eventually a lot of people may find they don't need Windows. It's a smart move on Apples part and has no downside. They aren't likely to loose Mac users but they could gain a chunk of market share. Doubling thier market share wouldn't seriously hurt Microsoft especially since the machines will mostly be dual booting for the new users but it'd be huge for Apple. The Intel Macs have been a huge hit and a portion of that success has to be Boot Camp. Leopard ships with it preinstalled so every new system by next spring will be capible of loading Windows. You can already order them that way. I'm curious if it's compatible with Windows 64 bit since the Quad Xeon systems are 64 bit. Definately a win win for Apple.
OSweekly.com is using mambo? I get enough mambo splashscreens at work, now I have to deal with them trying to procrastinate at work?
I have absolutely had it with people saying "Apple is dying" or "Steve Jobs is failing" or "OS X is on its way out." Apple are going to be here for a long time. You'll know that they're dead when you can walk up to ten people on the street, say the name "iPod" and get ten blank looks.
Considering that there are a number of posts suggesting that the Boot camp will promote switching...
After having managed a number of labs (some multi-OS, some OS-specific), I can tell you both from the maintenance and user perspectives, dual-booting will never make anyone a "switcher." If anything it will just end-up being a frustration to those who are partial to one of the OSs involved. As for those who are not very computer savvy, they will end-up frustrating tech support and vice versa. Boot camp is nothing more than a proof-of-concept idea and a marketing ploy targetting the geeky community. Beyond that, adoption will be spotty at best (that is not to say that there won't be adopters, but simply there won't be enough of it to warrant this move as a catalyst for winning over a large market share). Ultimately, the only way you can make multi-platform labs "just work" is to have dedicated machines for each os (parallels et al do not cut it if you need specialized systems since most of the virtualization options usually do not support several important hardware layers)...
I just installed linux a few weeks ago for the first time. I dual boot Windows still and use it from time to time for certain programs I need or tasks I need to do that I haven't figured out on linux yet. However, overall I'm extremely satisfied with linux and probably wouldn't have tried it if I couldn't dual boot. Allowing windows to boot with OSX will get more people to try out Macs.
Well, if you *want* to pay more for the Dell, be able to run less software, and suffer all that Windowshas to "offer", feel free. Personally, I went for the cheaper option and bought a Mac.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
just hasn't made it to the supreme court yet. You can't sell/offer/rent/license to use products in the US without a minimum consumer warranty. MS tries to pull that shit they aren't responsible for the suitability of their product or its functionality and all that other "not my fault" crap in their EULA. Tell ya what, go make a blender and include an EULA like that in the box,"blender blades might fly off, container might leak, not suitable for food prep even though there's a picture of blended food on the box", etc see how long you get away with it.
I'm amazed all the big companies who AREN'T software renting houses put up with it for so long. They need a mass trillion dollar class action suit against the so called software "industry" over that no warranty crap. Charge billions? Better offer a warranty. Yes, ANY license where it says they aren't responsible for the code they write. Bool and sheet-they are SO responsible if they offer it. Keep it to yourself if you can't stand behind it. First time some bogus software I've "licensed" costs me serious money from fucking up, them mofos going to court over it. It hasn't happened yet, but when it does, lawsuit, and I'll make sure it is open for class action involvement. The software "industry" needs a severe kick in the nads over that, they NEVER should have been allowed "caveat emptor" wiggle room. No other "industry" gets that, why are they so special?? Now it is brainwashed into their collective pointy heads it "can't be done". It comes sputtering out with their other drool. More crap, it sure can, they just don't want to because they make hella more cash without it!
1) Does he mean "than ever before", perhaps?
2) Given the ability to do this has been around for all of, well, 8 months, you think maybe some of this discussion is because it's, you know, like a new thing?
#DeleteChrome
I believe OSNews has missed the point.
Apple has always touted OSX as a superior experience to Windows, and is continuing to do so.
However, it is simply reality that many folks have Windows programs they need to run as well. Between Boot Camp and the various VM approaches Apple now has that option covered nicely.
Where does that leave Macs exactly? As:
- The worlds most versatile computers.
- Powered by a superior, more secure OS.
- Able to run legacy Windows applications as need be.
Windows continues to chug along on its own momentum, but I expect Mac sales to do VERY nicely. The vast majority of Mac user time will be spent in MacOS X, I predict. I also predict more and more native MacOS game ports over time, as the userbase swells.Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
to Apple getting out of the PC market.
OK, now that I've got your attention the reality of the situation is that there are some Windows applications that will not be ported to the Mac and emulation was, at best, a poor option. With the change of processors, Apple would be foolish to not provide a method that it controls to allow dual-booting Windows so that their users can have the applications that they need to use for work. I'm not aware of any great cries for commercial apps (outside of games) that most home users need that would be Windows-only. That situation usually occurs when people want to use their Macs at work.
In many ways, Apple is still primarily a hardware company so it should not be surprising to anyone that Bootcamp was released to enable Apple to increase its market share. Of course, with its success in small consumer electronics (yes, I mean the iPod) and the relatively thin margins on personal computers it would not be surprising to see Apple slowly back out of the PC market.
It does make one wonder when/if OS X will be enhanced (?) to work with commodity hardware or if it will ultimately be released as Open Source.
So, who bought this new computer that was only necessary because you could not deal with the VERY well publicized and VERY well documented anti-piracy features of Windows XP? You know, the same things that have been there for FIVE years...
So who go to pay for your "victory" in your personal religious battle?
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I think that Apple's advertising campaign is horrible. 2 guys standing and pretending to be computers really belongs in a junior high acting class. The Microsoft bashing is not really effective, either. People already know what sucks about Windows PC, but use them anyways. Windows users have accepted the "quirks" of Windows. If Windows really sucks as bad as it did 10 years, OS/2 would be the main operating system. Windows XP is a decent enough operating system that really isn't compelling enough to dump. People use Apple PCs because they like them! That is what Apple should be advertising ... what is great about the new Apples. Selling your product because brand X sucks isn't really a good campaign. I buy a car because it has x, y, and z features. Not because the other car's x, y, and z features suck! Come on Apple! You don't sell iPods because the other MP3 players suck! You sell iPods because iPods are a great product.
-b.
The ability to run Windows will sell more Mac hardware, which gives Apple more money, and increases their marketshare.
People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.
Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.
As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.
The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.
Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.
do not and probably will never install bootcamp, at least not for Windows. I have a MacBook, and I CAN install bootcamp, but that does not mean I WILL install one. These stupid arrogant people should realize there will be less and less people dependent on M$'s crappy products, and there will be more and more people realizing there are better choices. It is just at this transition time when Apple wants to give its customers a choice. It's like having Rosetta built in the Intel Mac: having Rosetta on Intel Mac is not saying Intel Mac and PowerPC Mac are "experiences as being completely separate for quite some time"; it's needed for a smooth transition from yesterday's Mac to a today's Mac.
There are many many people, myself being one of them, that would buy an Apple computer IF they ran the software they needed. That software is normally only available for Windows. I now can buy a mac and still use my Windows software that I NEED. My next computer will be a Mac, and I am sure there are many many people out there just like me.
Dear god: PLEASEohPLEASEohPLEASEohPLEASEohPLEASE!
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
The article meanders around without making much of a point, but this seems to be the gist of it:
He goes on to say:
Of course Microsoft is unconcerned, because they make money by selling Windows. They are not a PC OEM. Apple has a different business model. The company makes most of its money selling hardware. The well-integrated OS and hardware are what coax consumers to buy Macs. You can't have one without the other and still call it a Mac. As us old fogies remember, Apple tried letting other companies build Macs, and it was not exactly a rousing success for Apple. Sales of clones ate into Apple's market without building overall market share.
Boot Camp and the various virtualization technologies are giving Windows users the opportunity to buy Apple hardware and compare the Mac experience with the Windows experience on the same machine, with no special technical expertise required. So far the results have been overwhelmingly positive for Apple. There's a reason Apple was confident enough to bring a x86 processor into Macintosh hardware again (it's been done before). Apple knows that if customers compare Windows to OS X head-to-head, OS X will gain users. If even a small percentage of new Mac purchasers make OS X the primary OS on their Mac, OS X will gain marketshare.
So far the strategy appears to be working. The low "green" rating for Apple is unfortunate, but it's not going to keep people from buying Macs. Dell, the company Jobs considers as Apple's biggest rival, isn't exactly kicking ass, and Microsoft's troubles with Vista are well-known.
How is it that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Anyone who is buying a Mac just to run Windows is crazy. Why would you pay a premium for Apple hardware only to handicap it by running windows? The only advantages to running Windows is for getting access to programs that don't run on the Mac, other than I feel the user experience on the Mac far outways having to boot into Windows.
For the average user you have a nice selection of well thought out applications and I system that requires less fighting to get things working. For the developer you have a Unix environment to feel at home in. On the down side is the lack of software like AutoCAD and issues working with Microsoft group ware.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Newer Dell laptops are pretty excellent machines. My Inspiron E1505 is a great machine; it's taken some pretty serious abuse and kept on ticking. Dropped it about three feet onto one of the front corners onto concrete (while the machine was on) and it suffered no damage. It's no Thinkpad, but it's a surprisingly great laptop. It is a bit heavy though.
I wanted a Thinkpad or a Mac for college, but I got the same machine as an MBP, minus OSX and the bells and whistles, for only $830. The Thinkpad would have cost a bit more, too. And the Dell looks pretty good, even though I think a silver-and-white computer is a little odd. I can't complain.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
A person who thinks that they are a Mac user but are really just trying to be. The mistake they make is to try to become a Mac user, when real Mac users are all about not trying to be anything and following your own rules. There is no fashion code to being a Mac user. There are no rules as to what applications you have to run.
Recent converts like you are ruining the old school Mac community because you are posers. Apple releases one OS that popularizes Fitts' law and the Genie effect, and suddenly people assume being a Mac user is all about owning a Mac. But a real Mac user is born, not made. You "switchers" are misrepresenting yourselves and the Mac platform. You're giving people the wrong idea of what Macintosh is.
switcher: shops at hot topic, thinks Firefox is a good Mac app, waiting for OS X port of PayrollPro 2000, follows any hint of a fashion trend (instead of setting them!), wouldn't know Clarus from Carl Sagan.
real Mac user: someone true to who they are, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world.
Apple has included...in their contracts...must respect human rights...is simply a PR strategy for the Apple-hostile media.
Anyone who can use the phrase "Apple-hostile media" in the middle of a serious rant deserves a +5 funny!
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I was much more innocent then, but in 1995 I recall all the Netscape publicity. Then I heard Microsoft was doing something with "Internet Explorer".
Thought: "What kind of junk is that??"
It was indeed junk, but I was too young to understand anti-trust based bully marketing.
Companies you love to hate, and more: http://malfy.org/
Seriously after talking to the mac guy at the apple place.. I've concluded that nothing I would use other than maybe the internet and maybe final cut pro is on osx... But however apple makes a nice comftorable easy to use notebook. So I'd buy it simply to use with windows and set the partition just barely big enough to run on the osx part of the machine. Yeah its nice and pretty but I have no real reasons to use it. Plus, Its just too simple... Windows feels like a mature version of OSX.
Personally, I find OS X to be inelegant and inconsistent.
Well, they did say 'in comparison' : ) There are some things which could be a lot better in OS X - including some of those you mentioned, though I'd disagree about dragging off the dock - those are links to files, not files themselves, and the user wouldn't want to drag them to the desktop. The same principle is used for toolbar icons and icons in the favourites list in the finder - it's not used only in the Dock.
Re separating the functions in the Dock, this would definitely be an improvement - it'd be nice if it had an area for running applications, and an area for documents, and if the trash can where still on the desktop so that it stayed still. As you say, there's plenty of things to improve (perhaps just less than Windows : ) )
Like the crazy file selector dialogs that force you to laboriously click your way through the folder hierarchy, because Apple has decided you shouldn't want to save time by just typing the path in.
If you want to type the path in while in a system dialog, you can press cmd-shift-G; presumably it's not in there because it would confuse users who don't know what a path is. Alternatively you can just drag in the folder you want to go to.
Like iTunes, with its "streamlined" interface that just leaves average users upset because they can't understand why there isn't a "stop" button.
I see, and what would this missing stop button do; exactly the same thing as the pause button? The stop button is a hangover from VCRs where there was actually a mechanical difference between stopping (and moving the head away from the tape) and pausing, it has no place on a non-VCR device.
And the confusing interface that makes no distinction between the fundamental system menus and an individual application's menus.
The only 'fundamental system menu' is the Apple menu on the left, which stays in the same place. Each application has its own menubar which appears when that application is active, seems sensible to me. I prefer this to the approach of replicating the same application menus in each window, but each to their own. There's no need to close applications after use, so why should the system encourage it? I'd prefer them to go the other way and leave all apps running unless you explicitly choose quit.
delightful self-delusion that Windows sucks in every way imaginable... Neither actually has a major advantage in terms of "elegance" or "consistency".
Having struggled through various Windows 'assistants' trying to get a basic thing like an external USB disk to work the other day (worked flawlessly on OS X, and other disks worked with XP), I beg to differ. This was using the built in XP mass storage device drivers, which usually work, but when they don't the Add Hardware dialogs are just a mess of confusing options and properties that the user hardly ever wants to see. Windows isn't so different from OS X, but there are still differences, and they way it handles problems and presents them to the user is one of the most obvious.
Flamebait oblivion, here I come!
On the contrary, on this site your point of view is the received wisdom, the silent majority are still using Windows.
Boot Camp is awesome, beyond awesome, but it's highly reminiscent of OS/2 and why OS/2 died: why bother building OS/2 native apps if OS/2 runs Windows apps? Code for Windows and you run on both; code for OS/2 and you're wasting your time! With the rumored native Windows support in Leopard, this could get even worse... eventually next to nothing will come out for Mac OS, which will appear to be a huge black eye for Apple. OS/2 was technically superior, too, but if all your apps are for Windows, why not just run the real thing?
:(
I miss OS/2.
Since he was born in 1963, that would have been in 2002. See ya!
Fsck...we were going to use Conan O'Brien in the "Save SG-1" campaign.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It is built in. It asks you when you install the OS if you want to transfer your data from a previous install of OS X on another Mac or a different volume, but there is also a program called Migration Assistant that allows you to do it after the fact. It has always been fairly easy to do, but only for an advanced user. This is slick and extremely easy to use. You can choose to copy over applicatons, user data, machine settings, other files, or any combination thereof. You can do it using a FireWire cable or through any drive hooked up internally or externally (i.e. USB2) to your Mac. And it works seamlessly. The only thing it won't get is /usr/local, but you can just drag and drop that if you need it. I use it quite a bit at work and it is a lifesaver when upgrading a user to new hardware.
You're making a huge assumption here. You're assuming that Apple will put that kind of virtualization into leopard. They aren't. As you said, developers will ask the question "why should I port this app to mac os x when I can just run the windows version?". Apple is using the ability to run windows on a mac so that the people who need that one windows app will be able to run it. Don't forget that people aren't buying macs to run windows software, they're buying them to run mac software. Apple knows this and while they'll make it possible to run windows apps on their computers, they aren't going to make it simple. Otherwise, you'd get that developer mentaility of "why should I port this to the mac?" that you just talked about.
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
As an IT consultant whose business is over 95% Mac, I've never encountered a single pirated copy of Windows running on a Boot Camp Mac. In fact, I've had two clients who purchased two copies each - one for Boot Camp and one for Parallels - because it wasn't clear to them that they had every legal right to use the same license in both instances.
Most Mac VARs will now offer OEM licenses of XP at the time of sale for an Intel Mac if you mention that you're interested in dual-boot. Many will even ship the Mac with both OSes installed and ready to go - nothing quite so ugly as a Windows license key sticker marring the otherwise unblemished bottom of a MacBook Pro.
For most employed adults, the time and hassle of pirating a copy or sidestepping Windows Activation more than offsets the cost of an XP license. And since we're talking about Apple customers, we can assume they're not desperate to pinch pennies.
Finally, just to be pedantic: you can get an OEM copy of XP Pro for about $160 (even less if you want XP Home for some misguided reason), but no $400 computer ships with XP Pro. Also, the performance difference between XP running on any Mac hardware versus XP on a $400 box makes the poster's comparison virtually meaningless.
shoving out $200 for a CD vs $400 for an entire computer.
Just so you know, Windows XP Home Edition is currently selling for $89.99 (plus shipping) on NewEgg. You have a point, but the price difference between a copy of Windows and a new PC is a bit more than you've suggested.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I love it how I used to hear nothing but, "you can't run Windows on it except that crappy VirtualPC emulator at 2 mph, and it costs a huge amount more, and OS 9 is extremely limited and out of date."
Now, OS X is decidedly not out of date. You can run Windows apps, in a variety of ways. (I just installed Codeweaver's WINE thing on my Mac mini, and it runs older Windows software like a charm.) You can run Ubuntu on it, live or installed, making it a triple-booting machine. VMWare is on its way. AND it's very low in price, comparable in many niches, in fact, to Dell, the low-price leader. So now what? Now it's time to whine that they won't release OS X to play on Windows machines. That they're lowering quality by lowering price. Yada, yada.
You know, when MS-DOS was king, they used to complain that GUIs were for dummies. That it stole processor cycles and ran too slow. Until MS adopted a workable GUI, then GUIs were just great!
I keep on trying to figure out the psychology of the Windows chauvinists, and I can never figure it out. (Windows, Mac, Linux, Sun -- am I forgetting anybody? -- they all have their good points. I'd like best that you could run anything anywhere, but first the monopolist here would have to stop friggin' around with web and video standards, and the business community, which made Windows King in the first place, would have to get a brain implant.)
Well, maybe you should rethink that. MacBooks don't seem to be that brilliant hardware.
(writing that on an iBook)
Each game is a move in the meta game. The move doesn't have to be succesful (e.g., you win). It just has to improve your position in the meta-game.
Microsoft is a master of meta-game. It starts products and initiatives it intends never to win, or to win and stagnate, all the time.
Boot camp is a perfect example of a meta-game move. There is no way that users running windows on Mac hardware is good for Apple. But being able to is valuable. Ideally, people decide that getting a Mac is less risky, because they can always boot Windows if they need to, or even switch back. The key question is how confident they are their operating system is superior to Windows. If the answer is "very", then it's on balance a good thing that dual booting is possible. If the answer is "on par", then it's a bad thing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Point(s) taken. Still, apples-to-apples (*heh*), I enjoy the flexibility of being able to build a machine to the specs I want, as opposed to simply accepting the price tag to guarantee the functionality I desire. But I'm not building for a business, either. You have a solid point in that we have different priorities, much of my interest lies in media editing (I really need to upgrade to multi-core) but it's a hobby, not an occupation, so I need to be flexible in my requirements. A business machine for $5,000 is not a luxurious expense, it's a logcial one. A home machine for $5,000 is a bit ridiculous, unless it's a Media Center with a nice LCD display, and even then the value is borderline. Still not getting a Mac, though.
If someone buys a Mac, even if not to use OSX, Apple wins.
If Microsoft sells their OS for use on Macs, Microsoft wins.
Nobody's beating anybody. Microsoft gets revenue from software, Apple gets revenue from hardware. Where's the problem?
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
thinks Firefox is a good Mac app...
:-)
I think it's a mediocre app compared to the rest. But I also consider your little post somewhat idiotic. I've used OS 8 and 9 and they sucked. I thought: "Smart move." when Apple/Steve Jobs switched to Unix. And I'm now using Mac because OS X has matured, I've got zero hardware and GUI fuss with full-blown, out-of-the-box OSS integration, zero security problems and I don't have to deal with Idiots. Because either they are very smart and acknowledge that OS X has something going for it and has a special place in everyones heart in the *nix community or they are just plain users who say "I know nothing 'bout computers I just want to use it and Windows crashes too often and generally looks and behaves like crap, Ipod rocks and I-Chat is cute and the Mac Mini looks like a computers supposed to nowadays and not like a trashcan from the early nineties."
All in all very nice people to deal with and the girls quota isn't to bad either. Better than with my second OS, Linux, anyway. And no matter what, they usuall don't have the significant lack of social skills the one or other Linux geek displays.
As for the lack of Idiots in the User Demographics of Mac OS X, you appear to maybe be an exception to the rule.
You sure you don't wanna have a look at WinXP? You might like it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The "stupid" thing about Quicktime is that you need the Pro version to view videos in full-screen. That feature is something that regular users need, not professionals.
2. Had a copy from a current PC so are in violating the EULA and installing it.
You say people who do this are not honest, but I have to disagree with you on that one. Microsoft doesn't want you to, and they have paid a lot of money over the years to get people to believe that it is disonest (for example, look at the BSA). In reality it is just as easy to say, "It is dishonest and greedy for them to expect me to pay twice for the software." I am the one using the software, and I bought it, so I should be able to decide how it is to be used. For an even more extreme position, look at the Free Software Foundation who argues it is immoral to not allow your friend to copy your software.
The point is, you can say "Most people don't pay Microsoft for the windows they install on the Mac" but you are getting into grey territory when you say all but 10% of those are dishonest.
Qxe4
The suits at Apple may try to innocently play this off like you can run Windows and OS X separately and without interference, but you know as well as I do that they're hoping Windows users will begin to spend a little time with OS X, become hooked, and then essentially ditch their former love.
No, I do not share that point of view, at all. No matter how you set it up as a subversive ("take that you suits!") consensus.
To me, the clear market is people who want both, deep down, but go for owning the cheapest of the two. Now they can have both in one box, and Apple sells that box; Apple likes selling boxes.
You can't take the sky from me...
"You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before."
Maybe because Macs now use Intel chips and Windows can actually be installed natively on them now? Maybe because Parallels knocks the socks off of MS Virtual PC for Macs in terms of speed, which is only possible with Intel. Of course there is going to be more talk about Windows being installed on Macs, considering it is now fast with virtualization and doesn't require emulation, and also considering it is now POSSIBLE to do so natively. Like, durrrr....
"some users have shrugged it off and moved on to the Microsoft side of things."
Of course some are. Unless the author presents statistics stating HOW MANY users have done so, the statement has no real meaning.
"Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they?"
I'm pretty sure Apple was kind of expecting talk about Windows running on a Mac to increase when they, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, enabled this to be done easily and practically. I somehow doubt Apple expected talk to decrease when they did this. Again, durrrrr.....
"and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
They still are. It still requires a reboot to switch between them (excluding Parallels). Apple has recognized that some users want to switch to a Mac, but still require Windows for one or two applications. They have made it possible for most of these users to switch. (I think Parallels solution is more elegant personally). Apple also recognizes that very very few Apple purchasers are going to dump OS X and run Windows exclusively.
"Boy, for something that they speak so badly of and accuse of ripping them off, they sure are in a hurry to let you run it side by side with their offering. Why is this? Well, it's all in the numbers."
Because some people need to run one or two Windows applications, but prefer using a Mac for most things. A good example, there is absolutely NO Canadian Tax software for the Mac that I am aware of, but Parallels/Boot Camp make it possible for a Canadian such as myself to do their taxes on their Mac (such as my Mac Mini). Without access to Quicktax and similar pieces of software, I probably would have stuck with a PC. Boot Camp was actually an intelligent move in my opinion.
"Apple knows that those who are envious of the Mac hardware will be more inclined to purchase it if they can run Windows (their relied upon operating system of choice). The suits at Apple may try to innocently play this off like you can run Windows and OS X separately and without interference, but you know as well as I do that they're hoping Windows users will begin to spend a little time with OS X, become hooked, and then essentially ditch their former love. It almost sounds like a soap opera when you put it that way, huh?"
I somehow find it very difficult to believe that Windows users are envious of Mac hardware, which in most cases is over-priced compared to Dell, or even Alienware in the case of laptops. I have yet to meet a single Mac user, including a few Intel owners, who bought a Mac because of the hardware. They all bought it because of OS X. I also was in the Apple store the other day, and they had 3 iMacs, 2 running OS X and 1 running XP Pro. A couple people said "oh cool, they run Windows as well now", and then promptly moved onto the OS X computers to play around with them instead.
"I've enjoyed watching Microsoft's response to all of this, because there really hasn't been much of one."
What did you expect them to do, start reselling Mac computers for Apple? Of course they're going to be happy when more Mac users buy licenses for Windows, but there isn't really much they can respond to. Apple still isn't shipping Windows on Macs, and I asked a person at my local Apple store
XP Home is so crippled as to be nearly useless. Its user-management capabilities are pathetic, and it doesn't play nicely on networks. Not only does it disallow logging into a domain, but sharing your files is pretty much all-or-nothing--either your hard drive is locked down and inaccessible, or it's open wider than Mr. Goatse.cx. Maybe it's OK for your grandparents who only have a dial-up connection so they can read email, but as soon as you try to do anything interesting, you start running up against XP Home's artificial limitations.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Although XP home can't join a domain you can indeed control which users can access which files on an XP Home machine. You just need to disable Simple File Sharing which is on by default on an XP Pro install as well. It is automatically disabled when the Pro machines joins a domain which is why most people don't see it. XP home can still talk to domains however so as far as networking is concerned it will get the job done. You just won't have the remote management capabilities you get with XP Pro. This is fairly reasonable I would think for the majority of HOME users who probably don't have a domain in their house to begin with.
If we discussed which hammer to use to drive in a nail as much as the debate Windows vs. Apple, nothing would ever be built. I care not what operating system, I care that the job is done using the tool in my hand at the time. Both operating systems do it and equally well (though improvement via competitive evolution will occur). I'll get on with my work now on XP at this time.
However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.
If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent.
It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.
Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple.
More generally than "on the Mac", I've lost count of the number of times I've read people post here proudly about how "they never have to worry about activating the computer in their bedroom, because it's running Corp Edition"...
Something that really turns me off about Macs is that they only have 1 mouse button. The Mighty Mouse has 1.5 mouse buttons, unless you count the side squeeze. Apple has yet to release a 2-button mouse. Sure, on a desktop machine, you can just buy any PC mouse you like, but not on a laptop's built-in trackpad.
I tried to play World of Warcraft at my friend's house, a Mac owner, and couldn't. She had a Mighty Mouse, and I couldn't play WoW because I walk using the mouse - which you do by holding both the left and right buttons.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
The biggest problem that Apple is found to face with BootCamp is that Native Intel OSX applications in contrast to Native Windows Versions of the same software run faster under Windows.
This is not something that will sway Mac people, but for technically aware people and 'DEVERLOPERS' it is a telling piece of evidence.
When you have the exact hardware and Native Intel applications and they consistently run faster under Windows than OSX, Apple has a problem.
It has started to become a growing image problem for Apple in some of the on the fence fans, but it is more increasing becoming an issue for developers. Why develop an OSX version if your software will just run faster on Windows and OSX users are 'increasing' becoming dual boot OS users because of Boot Camp.
Gaming is the first blow that will hit Apple on this, but as other companies that Apple has been less than kind to in the past will start to abandon OSX versions and the costs for a low market share. Especially if they can hit a % of the Mac users that are dual booting anyway.
The final hit that could really pop OSX is Vista. Sure it is late, lacking features promised, etc. But it is a rewrite of the NT core and is faster than XP if you have 512mb of RAM, and the Video performance is even a leap beyond XP and a bigger leap beyond anything that OSX can currently provide. Vista is cute, pretty, easier than XP, and could sway a lot of OSX users that are on the fence, especially if their software is running faster under Vista. (A good example of this is in Video Production and handling Graphic Design, where Vista blows XP away in performance and again is far ahead of the performance you find in OSX.)
Our designers are already stepping up to move to Vista just because the handling of large images and even XP applications like CorelDraw/AI/Photoshop have not only a raw handling performance, but the redraw performance is 10x what XP is currently doing. (Test it if you can Grap RC1 of Vista and Corel or AI and notice the speed of complex drawing panning and zooming not only in comparison to XP, but even do comparisons to OSX. It is a big difference and will win a lot of people that deal with high data media. (Even some of our designers that have been in love with OSX are putting in Vista boxes already for graphic design projects.)
The Video Rendering system in Vista is going to hurt Apple hard, as it is isn't just a Bitmap Buffer being used from the GPU, that gave OSX a bit of an edge in some applications over XP.
hmmn, I don't think anyone remembers but me but the Apple //e and //+ got a PC-ON-A-CARD you could buy for $1k from a third party right before the line was discontinued... oh wait...hahah
Err.. the barrier for entry is so high (read: expensive) on the Mac, that at $150 for a copy of Windows XP Pro OEM, Boot Camp converts aren't going to blink an eyelid. The Apple culture is to expect everything to be expensive - and once Apple users are indoctrinated into the cult you'd be suprised how much they spend.
I've done this myself - purchased $30 cables and $100 Mac software packages without blinking, yet I'll obsess over finding hardware deals and free software alternatives for my PC (and I'll just about only spend money on game software for the PC). And the cheapest decent desktop machine Apple sells is $2500 - that's... absolutely ridiculous (coming from a PC background and being used to upgradable hardware, the mini is not "decent"). I'd never own my Powerbook if I hadn't done some contracting work a few years back that required me to have access to a Mac - it's just too expensive compared to the PC alternatives.
To throw this into perspective, Apple sell a $100 iPod case (that fits the $149 iPod). In short, hardcore Apple users are rich and slightly crazy.
Although Ubuntu is the new OS X anyway, at least for desktop PCs. It offers many of the advantages (security, stability) with less of the disadvantages (like the price), at a small cost (troubleshooting: correctly configuring my 3D hardware was not hard but did require me to read a walkthrough).
Have people here not see the OSx86 project? Since Mac was forced to use Intel chips (points at Xbox 360) they had to make an x86 OS that would run on these new chips. Some people got together and hacked the Mac kernel and made a version of OSX that would run on any Intel AND AMD PC system. I've tried it, got all of my hardware to work, and now have a duel boot. Why you might ask? Because for one, I can, two, it runs faster than what I've seen it run on a Mac Book Pro! Apple would make more money if they would officially make their OS run on PC's... I would actually buy this just to have it for testing! I like Mac, but I have a HUGE problem with not being able to build it. If I could build a Mac cheaper than buying a pre-built one (like the PC I'm using now) I would! Also, I would LOVE to see Apple include more game support! I'm an avid gamer and don't understand why there are not as many games on Mac that there are on XP? The only thing I've heard is DirectX and CPU... Has someone besides transgaming thought of making a wine based program for Macs that would allow games to run, and at full speeds? P.S. I love it when anyone says Microsoft or Mac in a news post today... In my mind, when I see either of these two words in a post on /. it means, "Instant Flame War Detected!" ROFL
Apple wins if people buy hardware.
Microsoft wins if people buy software.
So on that footing they are both winning if people buy a Mac to load Windows on.
Yet don't forget how IE came to prominence, by default load on computers purchased. If Macs were really the primary computers sold how many people would really stick to windows on them? That's the question. For many people the possibility of loading windows if OS X does not work out is incentive enough; for others the ability to run one or two key applications is enough.
People buying computers primarily from Apple leaves Microsoft in the position Netscape was in. Possibly good in the short term but it gives Apple a lot of leverage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
OS X is based on BSD, another Unix variant and so it is easy to port applications. So, you can run MS office, open source and Apple software + 3rd party apps on OS X.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Windows XP Home is pretty much just crippled when it comes to networking. Off the top of my head, the only other restriction I can remember is that it doesn't support dual CPU either. While for some people, the crippled networking is certainly a show-stopper, remember that for others it won't matter at all.
If MS really wanted to pretend to be "more compatible", they could always implement even one of the Linux filesystems on their own. The code is out there, people are even attempting to port it by themselves. Hell, Linux already has an HFS implementation, so what's stopping MS from doing one, really?
Same to Apple, really. You support FAT, but you don't support ext2? Or any of the other ones I've thrown up there in the subject line? Really, Linux is currently the most compatible OS on the market -- even though it isn't "on the market", really.
MS has always abused their market share to be able to implement things however the hell they want, and claim everyone else is incompatible for not using their "standard". Every time someone else implements their own version of it, they are made to look less compatible. Take OpenDocument. If I sent an ODT to someone who didn't already know what it is, they'd automatically assume I was sending some weird, non-standard format. They'd continue to think that once I explained it, even though the truth is, ODT is a standard, and DOC is not. They'd be confused as hell if I sent a DOC back to them and said "I can't read this non-standard format."
So of course everyone has to reverse-engineer and re-implement MS "standards", as well as come up with their own, since the MS ones suck so much -- FAT? In 2006? -- so of course, when you've spent more work reverse-engineering a shitty solution than coming up with your own brilliant one, you have a right, nay, a responsibility to stand up and be proud and say "We're more compatible."
Anyone who wonders why we dare to create real standards that aren't the broken MS Way may kindly go fuck themselves.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Well that explains your post.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Frankly, I stopped reading right there. You're comparing Windows and Mac OS X and pointing out the Dock for inconsistent icon usage? Have you ever seen the Windows task bar? Sure, the icons in the Dock are inconsistent with the icons, say, on your Desktop. But at least they're consistent within the Dock. The Windows task bar itself contains at least four different kinds of icons which all look the same, but behave totally different.
Yeah, but Windows and Mac OS X have advantages. But if you're seriously claiming that Windows can be seen as more consistent than the Mac, then you should know that this has got nothing to do with reality. Maybe you're used to Windows. Doesn't make it consistent. Just makes you somebody who is used to Windows' inconsistencies.
I didn't know about the connection to those assholes who were trying to shake Apple down last year. What a pack of sleazy bastards.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Incidentally there's no such thing as "corporate edition", if you don't believe me try to find it on MS' site. It's just XP Pro installed with a VLK, the VLK is what disables the need to activate.
I can go both 5 and 45 mph (Linux) at the same time!
Tech Public Policy stuff
I currently run FC3 and Windows 98SE concurrently via Win4Lin. (I only use dual-boot when I'm testing an OS or need Windoze running in native mode). If I feel like it, I can switch to VMware and run XP or whatever and/or other Linux or even BSD distros (probably Solaris as well, but I haven't looked) After my next hardware upgrade, I can run Xen and run almost anything at close to full speed... and if Apple ever makes OSX available for generic x86, I can run that, too via Xen or VMware.
Parallels is the right answer for a Mac user... Murphy's Law dictates that the next application you need to cut and paste into will be running on the other OS if one is a dual boot user, but it's hardly the only emulator in existence.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This article is dumb. Apple are and always have been a hardware company, this article plainly ignores that fact.
Has anyone considered the lever Apple has with their iPod/iTunes installed base? What IF Apple makes it so iTunes doesn't run in Vista--I'm using a beta copy of Vista right now and it doesn't like iTunes--Apple's official response is no response here... So Apple, at the consumer decision point this back to school and holiday season in particular, pushes iPod users that are buying a NEW PC to look more seriously at Apple on the margin--"don't worry, this Mac will run both Windows and Mac..." I think it's a no-brainer for Apple near term, perhaps longer term they push people away from a Windows ONLY machine with boot camp et al... I welcome anyone's thoughts here please.
... the dumbest article I have read in quite some time.
Please remember Apple is a hardware company, the software is the hook, but's it's a hardware company just like Dell, HP, etc... one of their advantages is that they make the OS that runs the hardware, supported under one roof. Another is genius design of said hardware. Bundle it all with a great OS with unmatched pre-installed software (iLife) and you've got a great package, better than any PC IMO. The reason BootCamp exixts is because when Apple did the market research (gasp!), they found that an overwhelming amount of people "couldn't" buy a Mac due to some proprietary Windows applications that they "had" to use. Virtual PC was too slow, and without OS X drivers for devices, they wouldn't work under VPC anyway. BootCamp was a great solution. Complete hardware support for Windows (yeah, now I can play Half-Life on my Mac).
If you've seen any of the new Mac commercials, you will realize that every bit of them is bashing Windows. It is utter, complete Windows bashing, paid for by Apple, seen by millions.
Believe me, BootCamp was just another "hook", nothing more.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Background - my fiancee needs a new laptop. I have been trying to push her towards a MAc with OSX - but the is a really novie user. She likes what is familliar, and she is familliar with Windows.
She asked me if the could run Windows on a Mac, and I said it can. But when we were looking more into it, she asked why we were thiking about paying much more for a Mac when she is onlyy ever going to run Windows on it.
I did not have an answer. And this is why Boot Camp is a big waste of time - unless you are a hardcore gamer who loves OSX, it is next to useless. Either you are going to be in Windows most of the time, or OSX most of the time. And if it is Windows - why did you buy a Mac *at all*? The hardware and OS integration argument is irrelevant cause it is running Windows. Same for all the great OSX software. So you are basically down to "because it looks pretty".
What Apple needs to work on is the ability to run Windows apps *inside OSX* without rebooting. You would think this would not be that difficult now that mac is X86 based - they should be able to contract codeeavers to work with them in porting Wine over and enhancing it if needed.
Once people can run their Windows apps *inside* OSX, there will be no need to reboot into Windows. Then there is *real reason* to get a Mac for people who want one.
But when we were looking more into it, she asked why we were thiking about paying much more for a Mac when she is onlyy ever going to run Windows on it.
My answer: "What makes you think you're only ever going to run Windows on it?"
What Apple needs to work on is the ability to run Windows apps *inside OSX* without rebooting.
Parallels Desktop is $80 and lets you do exactly that. But that doesn't really change the answer.
When I switched my daughter to a Mac after reinstaling Windows for her for the third time that year, she begged me to let her keep her Windows PC... so I bought and installed a KVM, so she could switch easily between the two.
A month later she hadn't even booted Windows. And she didn't have to take down OS X to do it. The fear of switching to Mac OS is real, but the experience itself is not as traumatic as people seem to think.
Boot Camp is a way to reassure people that they have a way back if they can't deal with Apple's operating system, and to give business users the ability to say "yes, I'll be able to run Windows on it" to the IT Nazis. That's all.
Apple are and always have been a hardware company,
Apple, like Cisco, are a software company that makes their money off hardware sales. It's the software that sells the hardware.
But this is a minor issue here: for this discussion there's not much difference, and while there is some it doesn't really change the point. People aren't going to pay the Mac Tax to get a box running Windows, so they have to make sure running Windows is clearly secondary... not the normal and expected way to use the system. Boot Camp does that in a way that a more transparent virtualization solution wouldn't.
When you have the exact hardware and Native Intel applications and they consistently run faster under Windows than OSX, Apple has a problem.
The extra layers of code between the application and the hardware do extract their toll, yes. Just as they did on Windows NT before Microsoft gave up on the strong separation of components in the system and started running GDI (Microsoft's core graphics code) inside the kernel in NT 4.0.
But the flipside of this is that the stability of NT took a big dive with NT4, and it really hasn't recovered.
I've already posted about my experience with switching my daughter to Mac, and how the same kind of abuse that led to me reinstalling Windows for her multiple times a year didn't produce any obvious problems on the Mac... and where she did do things like removing random "big files" she "wasn't using" they really were files she wasn't using, and I was able to restore them over the network without difficulty.
And security and stability go hand-in-hand. Microsoft has always put performance above security and stability, and the result is that even Apple's less-than-stellar approach to security has produced a system that's far less susceptible to attacks at all levels. Half the security alerts about OS X are problems in internal firewalls that Microsoft doesn't even bother to implement in any usable way, and could only be exploited if the system was already compromised.
No, the minor performance cost of OS X is well worth it to the average user. The big exception is gamers, and of course they won't be considering a Mac in the first place.
Apple had Boot Camp waiting in the wings, and didn't release it until MS announced that Vista would not boot on EFI machines. Apple recognized from the beginning of the Intel switch that the ability to run Windows would add great value to the Mac, in that it gives people one less reason to fear them.
When the Intel switch was announced, Schiller said that Apple would never support users running other operating systems on a Mac, but would not do anything to stop it.
TFA is nothing more than a troll. Everyone knows a Mac is a Mac. I know several Windows users who are now thinking of switching, and they never would have otherwise if not for Boot Camp.
Apple should buy VMware and build the virtual machine into OS X in such a way that any x86 or x86-64 operating system can be run in a window or full-screen. They should also increase the capabilities of Rosetta, so that any G3, G4, or G5 software can be run on the new Intel-based Macs. Finally, they should create virtual machines for all other major platforms out there, such as the ones supported by NetBSD. This will permit darn nearly any software out there to run on a Mac.
Windows Vista is not a threat to Apple. "RC 1" is a mess. Believe me, I'm a beta tester. It isn't even feature-complete according to the Microsoft employee who responded to my bug reports. It has many, many good points. The user interface is great in some areas and horrendous in others. Just try to configure IIS for dynamic content. Microsoft doesn't know the difference between "user friendly" and "patronizing," and the help files are filled with novel-length explanations of what things are instead of instructions about how to do things. Vista has features that parallel Tiger, and it even contains something that does the same thing as Time Machine. However, the user interface for these features is not intuitive. Those features don't do Microsoft any good because most users won't even find them. On top of that, many nice interface features from XP are no longer there.
(Microsoft can't be copying Apple's Time Machine, because Microsoft just isn't good or fast enough to have developed the feature in the short time since Time Machine was announced. Obviously, these were parallel efforts.)
I've always been a fan of Microsoft but Vista just makes me feel disgusted.
Unless Microsoft surprises us all by pulling out from behind, the release of Vista is going to be a corporate pratfall. Apple is not going to take over the world, but it certainly won't suffer one bit at the hands of Microsoft.
Vista addresses this is a very big way. [...]
MS's WinXP firewall DID work, [...]
None of this addresses the design problems... some of them at the application level... that have caused the problem.
I didn't say, for example, that the XP firewall didn't work. What I said was that the XP firewall is a single layer of security between the Internet and the service. In UNIX, a daemon is typically capable of being configured so it's bound to a specific interface... either directly or through tcpwrappers or xinetd... whether you have the firewall running or not. In Windows, the OS API allows this, but the services don't actually give you a way to specify this, so you need the firewall to get the same iind of isolation for services that UNIX has without a firewall.
Similarly, internal application firewalls are an attempt to work around a problem in application design, one created by MS with Internet Explorer, and depended on or emulated by others since. They don't keep an application from being compromised in the first place... they just make it harder for the application to do bad things once it is compromised.
This would be a second layer of protection in other operating systems: the integration between the browser and the shell that makes Windows so susceptible to spyware and web-spread viruses is vanishingly rare outside Windows.
So the problem I'm getting at is not that the Windows XP firewall doesn't work, or that Vista's firewall doesn't work, it's that it may well be the very best solution... to the wrong problem. You're better off using a non-IE-based browser and an external NATting router (which typically costs $20-40 and usually includes a wireless access point) and Windows 2000, than with Vista and Vista's firewall and IE.