Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Should Fear Apple
jcatcw writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie says that Microsoft should be afraid because Apple has gotten smarter about how it competes. He says that it's the Parallels Desktop software that has been truly transformational for the Mac. Finnie did a simple three-month trial of the Mac last in the fall and realized four months later that he wasn't going back. Since then he's received hundreds of messages from readers who've also made the switch. 'In the end, this is about perception. It isn't about Apple's market share or even its quarterly sales numbers. (Apple's notebook computer sales for the fourth quarter were 4.1% of all portable computer sales, according to DisplaySearch.) What this is about is that Apple is reaching the right people with its product, winning new converts, Windows user by Windows user -- and creating buzz. How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel. And that's the condition Microsoft should fear. Because buzz can turn into something much harder to combat than sheer numbers.'"
It's not going to be experienced people in the industry buying Mac's and then bithching because it does not play games.
Microsoft shouldn't be too worried until Apple begins to sell OS X for installation on hardware besides theirs. When OS X can be put on all kinds of hardware, I will gladly purchase it and I'm sure many others will as well.
How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel.
Sounds like the "reasons" I'm given to believe in Jesus. I really wonder if people believe in this "exists but not quantifiable in any form" business?
Since then he's received hundreds of messages from readers who've also made the switch.
The problem is, he hasn't received millions of emails from people who haven't made the switch. This is why "buzz" is misleading instead of using real data. Maybe the "buzz" leads to more people switching to Apple, but if you don't actually measure it, how would you know??
to run parallels. microsoft could give a flying fark where you run their os, as long as you buy one.
DELL or other pc manufactureres should be scared of macs.
Pure baloney, Scot Finnie.
How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel.
Would you buy stock in a company based on "buzz"? Doubt it. At least these days, in the post dot-bomb world anyways.
What Apple does currently have is momentum. They keep making good decisions and carving out markets. And that's why MS should fear them. MS is already losing in the junior leagues (Zune vs. iPod). Enough of that, and maybe MS will start losing in the big leagues (OS and Office).
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Apples has a much better marketing department and Microsoft has a much better business model for its shareholders. Both make the companies money in different ways and both companies are different in how they approach making money, but Microsoft's model has been proved to work. Apples great image is dependent how the mass market views its marketing campaign. Marketing can get you into the industry as a competitor, but it can only do so much for so long.
This is not to say that Apple does not make quality products though, both companies do. I just feel that Microsoft has something that will outlast the fad Apples marketing department has created. As Apple branches off into new markets where specs are more important, we may see a new take on Apple advertising. If not, then we will see iPod type ads for the iPhone, which will not resonate well at all to people looking for smart phones where, of course, specs are the name of the game.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Yeah i'm talking to you. The wannabe computer programmer who thinks they are good at computers because they can click around the computer enough times and find the reboot button and 'fix' an inherently flawed windows system. You think you're cool because you can pirate photoshop but not know anything about it, get Microsoft Office for free but have the literacy of a 1st grader when writing a paper, and get a copy of Norton Anti-virus because your inherently flawed system is useless without Administrative privileges. Get a clue, you are not smart, you are just a corporate sheep for a company that will bury you if you ever tried to write any software that did anything remotely useful. You are a clickaround and all you know if your ugly gray existence that is Windows.
/dev/random > Windows.com
Want the sourcecode to windows vista?
head -n 1000000
I (and quite a few others) have said it before, and I'll say it again. I have Age of Empires (the first, through AOE3), Rise of Nations (the base game and the add-ons), Rise of Legends, City of Heroes/Villains, etc. Not one of these games (and hundres of others) works in OSX (without emulation -- that doesn't count).
Yes, this is changing, but not fast enough for me or thousands (millions?) of others. Yes, WoW is available, but most games aren't. Until game studios start porting their software to the Apple platform, MS really has little to worry about.
Add to games, the fact that everyone and their sister seems to be glued firmly to MS Office, and MS is sitting in a pretty good position.
As a side note, I'd happily purchase a copy of OSX so I could poke around, try things, run it as a main desktop for a while to see how I like it. But I'm not going to purchase *another* PC (I have too many in my house as it is) just for the "privilage". I'm not the only one. Until such is possible, I'll just have to deal with the limited amount of exposure to OSX that I receive while at work (we have a few iMac "workstations" students can use, but mostly they sit empty (the original ones, before the silly white rounded base with "floating" LCD)).
Man, I'm tired of seeing these "MS should be worried about Apple!" articles. Do everyone a favor. Write one up when MS's quarterly/yearly profits are FLAT or NEGATIVE. Untill then, I won't even read your articles (so that you don't get paid for the ad views).
Bleh.
bork bork bork!
After skimming TFA, it seems like the #1 reason the author claims Microsoft should fear Apple is due to Parallels on OS X. I don't quite get why this should make Microsoft shake in their boots. Parallels does not somehow allow Windows apps to run without a Windows installation (i.e. what WINE is attempting to accomplish). Therefore a license for XP/Vista/whatever is still required. If anything Microsoft should be happy that Mac users still need to own a Windows license to run apps in Parallels. It may mean that more people will buy Macs because they like the hardware and OS X, but simply owning a Mac with Parallels does not remove the user's need to run Windows apps, and therefore pay Microsoft for a license.
In my experience, only elitist techno snobs have the audacity to group all the millions of Mac users into the "too cool for you" market segment.
Were we to have an honest, reasonable discussion, I'd ask you to provide evidence that the majority of those who use Apple products are obsessed with image. I'd present dozens of product reviews in mainstream publications which praised the usability and practicality of various Apple products. But this is Slashdot, so as long as you state something as if it were an objective fact, somebody will mod you up.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
My kids are college students and always prefer Mac laptops to Windows machines every single time.
1) They don't care about the internals at all. Makes zero difference
2) They see Macs as an integrated whole without having to dick around with things
3) They see the hardware itself as being more solid
4) They see the integrated whole as being more compatible with their iPods, cameras and whatnot
5) When or if something breaks they walk it in to the Apple store, where that is the ONLY thing they fix and drop it off for repair or upgrade
6) Most college courses are online not installed so it makes little if any difference what the machine runs on its own
7) They look cooler
Don't argue with me about this. This is what people who look at a PC as an appliance like a microwave or a TV see when they see a Mac.
I am a laggard. When my XP Home machines eventually become worthless I will replace them either with miniMacs or whatever is what those are at the time, and/or Ubuntu or equivalent machines at that time. I expect this to happen in the next 3-4 years if not sooner. I have no intention of moving to Vista. Not for ideological reasons but because there will be cheaper better alternatives by then.
When I worked as a programmer years ago, I had a 3270 terminal emulator I ran on my PC to get some work done. I don't have that emulator anymore...
If people start using the Mac as a primary system, and have to specifically load Windows/parallels on it - there may come a day when they are doing a new OS installation and realize, hey - I don't need to install parallels anymore.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
First, I'll admit that I might be a bit of a Mac "fanboy". I don't think I'm irrational, but I do like Macintoshes quite a lot these days. To put it in perspective, I spent most of my life using Windows and thinks anyone who was a an of Apple in the '90s was an absolute head-case. However, these days they're basically the same hardware as the other guys, a form of Unix, and a nice GUI. They're hands-down the easiest desktop operating system to set up and maintain on a small/medium scale. (I've never managed a huge network by myself, so I won't speak to that)
Anyway, now that I've given a hint of a background, I'll state for the record that I don't think Microsoft needs to die. I hope they don't die. I'm not looking for more software monoculture and fewer choices, so we don't need to get rid of Microsoft. However, Microsoft does need some healthy competition. They need someone to keep them honest. Microsoft needs market pressures to force them to use open standards and open formats. They need to start playing well with others, and they need an economic incentive to put the needs of their customers at the forefront.
Regarding copying, you're right, and I've never understood the complaint. Microsoft copied from Apple, and Apple copied from Microsoft. Gnome and KDE copied both of them, and they both copied Xerox and any other company that came along with a good idea. Is that a problem?
I really don't know why people would complain about this sort of copying. Some implementations might be better than others, but if you think you can use an already-existing interface convention to make your interface better, use it! For the whole of human history, people have been taking the best ideas they could find and trying to put those ideas together in better ways. That's progress. That's what people should be doing.
In the last year I've seen a number of blogs from former Microsofties, as well as the infamous Mini-Microsoft. Many of these talk about top-heavy management, unhappy staff, projects leading nowhere, ladder climbers and bleeding money through some product lines.
In isolation, individual blogs may be just some people blowing off a bit of steam, or may be representative of a few dissatisfied staffers.
Taken together, they paint a picture of a company that's in danger of losing its way.
It's hard to know just how representative the sum of these blogs is. They're all pretty self-selecting, after all. If they paint a relatively accurate picture, then Microsoft is missing some key things Apple's recently gotten right:
* Management who understand their products at every level and pitch them well. Anyone who's presented to a large crowd knows how hard this is, but Steve Jobs is a complete master at it.
* Getting the product's look and feel right first time. Pick up a new Apple product. Touch it. Look at the surfaces. They always look great. People react to this, equating professional finish with professional products.
* Focus on product lines, with no products bleeding more money with every unit sold. There's no Apple product I've heard of where each unit sold is a loss to the company. The units both R&D and then start to generate profit. Even iTunes with its razor thin profit pays for itself. This shows solid business planning, solid budgeting and is very well respected by the investors.
* Staff who keep pretty damn quiet about the internal stuff. Apple have a policy on communication, and very few staff feel they need to start some kind of Mini-Apple in response. Few companies allow staff to communicate, as it's just too easy for staff to send the wrong message. The company I work for is vast beyond the dreams of Apple or Microsoft, and we train all staff about external communications (in normal policy & procedure training). The impression Apple gives is that of a tightly run company.
Apple present as a company focused on a few core lines - home computing, professional media/art computing and entertainment. It's easy to see how just about everything they do fits those lines.
Microsoft are all over the place. Their core is clearly Windows and Office, but they've dipped metaphorical toes into media, gaming, tablet computing, robotics, handhelds, peripherals, mobile phones, web searching and more. Some non-core lines are very successful (XBox-360) but they all seem to be in the red, only able to be pursued due to the huge cash reserves brought in by the core lines. Few businesses would do this, even very rich businesses (such as GE) demand each product or division runs a profit and improves year on year. That's sustainable business practice, but Microsoft seems to believe deep pockets last forever.
Microsoft are looking tired, but they can pull things together. Cut some of the non-core lines loose - sell them off. Get out and understand how people want to use stuff before building a product (Zune wireless sharing is a notable failure here). Savage the management layers to shake out dead wood at *all* levels, review all current projects with a view to killing most of them and refocus the (smaller) company on the smaller range of product lines.
Microsoft can waste energy competing with Apple and Google, but they needn't bother. Neither is a threat and the market's easily big enough for everyone. The biggest enemy they seem to have is themselves and their existing products.
To recap a film metaphor - remember when Luke Skywalker went into that cave near Yoda's house on Dagobar? He met Darth Vader, then fought and killed him. The mask covering the head exploded, revealing Luke's own face. His greatest enemy at that point was his own nature.
Sure, you may run XP in Parallels now, but will you buy new Windows software? Will you buy anything that says 'Vista only' on the box? Or will you just slowly replace your old XP apps with Mac apps, and then forget about your VM? I would guess that the latter is more likely for most switchers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I personally don't think it's the OS that makes you productive, but the software and how you use it.
:)
That, and the amount of time you don't spend on stuff you shouldn't have to spend time on.
If it adds up, then PC is for you. No biggie.
But for most people I know (that are below average technically able), they convert to Macs and rave about them afterwards
Stop the brainwash
All these "Microsoft don't care where you run Windows" comments overlook the fact that a user switching already has a copy of Windows. One of the best parts of Parallels is that a user switching can simply run an application on their old system that will copy everyhing over to their Mac.
The OS
All the applications
All the settings
All the data
Everything.
Running the application to replicate the old environment is trivial. It's much easier than upgrading to Vista--or even another version of Windows XP. Think about it, how much time does it take for you to upgrade from one Windows system to another? How many hours spent re-installing the same crap over again, hoping that it works on the new system, that is, if you can even find the installation media anymore...
Parallels makes it trivial to switch without ever having to buy another Microsoft product.
That's what makes Parallels the killer app it is. That's why Microsoft should be scared of Macs.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
...Microsoft should be afraid of all its competitors. Vista is so bad that they should be very afraid. Too many of its features go against what users want and slow the OS down in the process (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/03 8227&from=rss).
Anyone who claims Vista is faster is either lying or barely using their computer's power. As a developer, I beat the hell out of machines, and Vista is terribly slow compared to XP. On a laptop, it is unbearable (much slower, lower battery life, crashes on suspend or hibernate).
If Microsoft tries to force users to upgrade to Vista, I will switch to anything else. I like XP, but I don't think I'll be switching to Vista (even after a few service packs).
I'm always amazed at how few people "get it". The simple fact is that this article would never have been written 2 years ago. 4 Years ago Apple was doomed. Times are changing. OS X is the clearly superior OS. The gap is only going to widen. The only reason MS doesn't need to be that scared is because so many sheep have been conditioned to think that MS is invincible. I'm sure plenty of people thought similar things about Ford, IBM, etc...
As for the "too cool for you" market segment, you state, "Just about no one else cares at all." Actually, besides ill informed IT writers who just regurgitate drivel, just about no one who uses Macs walks around thinking "I'm too cool using my Mac." They use them because they like them and they work. The cool argument has taken on a life of its own, but I haven't seen one person yet who described their choice of an Apple product as based on how "cool" it made them feel.
And, yes, Apple does sell hardware. It's where they make their money. ALL companies try to sell image as one point of their marketing strategy. Only people with a poor understanding of Mac uers' major reasons for loving their machines would say it was based on image.
I don't think you have an understanding of why Mac users like their Macs. Those same Mac users are walking around proselytizing because they love what they use. Very few products garner this much loyalty and loyalty is not based on "coolness".
Time and time again I hear about how BMW is making record profits, yet their market share never raises. I don't see how BMW is going to compete with the likes of GM. GM is the worlds largest producer of automobiles.
Despite being profitable BMW should try a different tactic.
This is a stupid statement that has little basis in reality, and is not much more than a narcissistic ego stroke with flimsy justification.
I'm curious as to what has changed in the world to bring about "more creative" people? I half suspect you're the dick responsible for the "switcheur" trolls, complete with emo girls who think that self-injury is somehow cool because they do it as an Apple logo rather than "I hate the world".
Come to think of it, the rest of your post is about not much more than the elitism of Apple users. Hint: "elitism" and "ego" don't impart an implicit "better".
I can afford to have the best. I'm kinda curious then as to why my laptop of choice is an Sony VAIO, not an Apple. Maybe I'm ignorant and unwashed, I guess. Granted, I love my nano, much better for me than the 60GB 4G I had before.
But I'm not really sure why I bother, you're basically convinced of your superiority.
Don't argue with me about this.
I'd mod you down, but "arrogant" isn't one of the options.
Your kids are right about a lot of things. Not having to make many decisions before or after purchase makes the Mac much more appealing for many consumers.
And people don't care about internals, as long as the machine does what it's supposed to. Since most consumers don't expect their computer to do anything it couldn't do seven or eight years ago, they don't mind having less muscle than they might with an equivalently priced pc.
(I keep hearing on irc and forums that with equivalent hardware a mac laptop is as cheap as one with Windows. As far as I can tell, this is utterly untrue. If anyone objects to my saying this, please provide a link to back up your claim.)
Mac laptops are certainly not bad in terms of build quality, but I think they enjoy a reputation for sturdiness that they don't entirely deserve. The ibm, dell and hp laptops on the market today are all much more rugged and sturdy than they were in the past. Shock-mounted hard drives are a common feature, for instance, and all-around build-quality is better than before.
As for compatability with peripherals, your kids are flat-out wrong (unless you're going to run Windows on the machine too, of course). Windows is still the compatability king, and while iPods in particular might have slightly better support on OS X than on XP, they're the exception, not the rule.
Finally, If you're savvy enough to run Ubuntu, I don't know what use you would have for a Mac. Aqua is pretty nice, but you'll get a lot more out of your hardware if you run linux. The next 3-4 years will see a lot of improvements to X, as well, so aqua probably won't be so tempting.
Why not just run XP?
I know the deed is done. But why did you spend the money on ANOTHER laptop? You could have just formatted OS X off of the drive and run XP. (Un) Surprisingly Apple writes some awesome drivers for XP (from what I've seen in the few times I've had to dual boot). Everything I've tried works great: camera, two finger scrolling, etc.
I think it's really hard to say why I "switched back" (I never really completely switched, as I use my Macs (I also own a G4 Mini) in parallel with Windows machines and Linux). It's not that OS X is a bad OS IMO, also the hardware is adequately priced, seeing that you only recently got able to buy machines comparable to the MacMini from other vendors that are usually not much cheaper if at all, and that noone has an all-in-one machine comparable to the iMac.
On the contrary, OS X is really nice looking and all, and it still amazes me how Apple manages to make Macs boot as fast as they do, which makes look both Windows and Linux really bad in comparison. Also I think that especially the latest Parallels version with their coherence mode is just great and also performs quite well.
So why ? It is not bad, but it also it is not that much better than anything else that it really makes any sense for me to re-purchase most of the applications I am already owning for Windows for the Mac. The same for Parallels: If I end up booting up OS X just to fire up Parallels and use most of my existing Windows apps, then why not make the most use of my nice hardware and install Windows directly on the Mac ? In the end most things I did on the Mac side were playing with Dashboard and surfing the Web, but I hardly need a 2000 EUR laptop for that. Regarding the iLife suite (touted by many Mac fans as reason no. 1 to switch) I find iPhoto totally irritating and featurewise poor, iTunes I get for Windows anyways, and the rest I have no use for.
In the end the choice of one's OS - as so many things - comes down to ones personal taste and what one is used to. Everyone else's milelage is sure to vary.
Well, you might be attributing too much to the gaming market as well. Don't get me wrong, it's a big market and people who buy gaming rigs tend to push the bleeding edge of hardware. For some of us old folks, gaming on a PC has absolutely no interest whatsoever. A lot of people don't need the bleeding edge of hardware -- they need decent software that's easy to use.
In my opinion, Apples are coming bundled with a lot more software which is relevant to what people want to do. Handling your digital photos, movies, e-mail, and some light productivity software is probably what a lot of people want. I've been waiting got the right time to add a Mac Mini to my network -- it doesn't need to be huge, it can share disk space with the other critters on my network. But, I want the OS and the apps that come with it. I'm willing to pay a premium for that 'underpowered' machine.
I can't even fathom what you're doing with your machine. And, it is certainly not representative of what I and loads of other people do with out home machines.
I think Mac is currently in the midst of breaking into the market in serious quantity. The fact that this thread exists tells me it is.
I think you might also be missing what older people are willing to pay for a machine which doesn't give them troubles. Old ladies routinely seem to buy Cadillacs, because that's what their husband always bought and they like them. If I had an old grandma who wanted a computer and could afford to put up the cash, I'd absolutely steer her towards a Mac -- because it won't contribute to er early demise with all of the frustration.
You are a developer, and probably a gamer. But, you're also not representative of the rest of the consumer market for computers. I'm a developer at work -- but at home, I'm a light casual user who doesn't really tax his machines all that much: my XP box running at equivelant to around 2.8 GHz (AMD CPU) with 1GB of RAM is more than I've ever needed at home. My even slower FreeBSD box with 768 MB of RAM is just as zippy. I would personally never spend $2k on a machine (my last few have been less than $500 CDN), but I might be willing to go up a couple of price points for a Mac.
The whole point of this thread is that for a lot of people, the Mac offers a very attractive alternative to a Windows machine. For the people who really will do some web surfing, mail, a little light word processing, and handling all of this new-fangled digital media they still don't quite understand, the Mac is an exceptionally good choice.
Well, considering the revenues Apple has been pulling down (even if you discount the revenue from iTMS), and considering entire Universities are announcing they're going all Mac, I think you might find yourself wrong on that statement. Apple has been in 'real' businesses for a few decades now.
Apple aren't trying to supplant Microsoft as the dominant operating system. They're trying to make a niche for themselves of people who want something a little different out of their machines. Personally, that hipster marketing campaign makes me really wish I had one. There will always be a market for the big, honking PC rigs. But, there will always be a market for what Apple is selling as well.
You are entitled to your own opinion. Cancel or allow.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And regarding multimedia software and editing - you would not believe the difference! For professionals and amateurs alike working with video, photos and sound the Mac beats everything out there. Do you know anyone in the industry at all?Absolutely not! Even with comparable Intel C2D + 2GB of RAM my MBP boots way faster than any of my Windows PCs! And I keep them mean and lean.
On the other hand the Linux distributions I have tried have been much slow(er) to boot. But then again I never bothered to configure them properly.You mean like installing Linux on a Compaq? Or changing the hardware configuration on a Windows Vista PC? Besides most people on Macs don't need to hack anything - they just work. The hardcore gamers are all on their PCs anyway, let's just agree to disagree.
"No one will use a product at home that is not used in business without good reason. "
That statement is just dumb. I'm not going to even bother to respond to it.
"People forget that one of the biggest buyers of systems in the government, and we are always swapping hardware and shuffling systems around. At home I run a dual core 64 bit laptop, and it's barely up to par, but it's better then my friends MACBook Pro."
That's funny you feel that way. Not sure where you work, but where i am developers are jumping over each other to get Mac laptops or pro stations and a few have even paid for them out of their pocket.
It's funny you bag on Mac hardware (which is fine) but at the end by this statement I can see why you say that: "I run Linux at home and it's a headache going between XP and Ubuntu, but it's worth it because it's free and stable." I don't think you know elegance and design if it walked up to you and gave you a donkey-punch.
"It's just not feasible to use Java to do something when I know it will be slower and require more overhead then C++, Pearl, or
As far as Java and slow, nobody in their right mind would say that Java on Desktop is great, but there is nothing wrong with running it on the server. Web pages will run just as fast w/Java as they do with C# and if your writing web apps in C++ I question the credibility of your opinion. You made comment of your development starting to move web based, our development has been web based since 98 and we have worked with Perl/PHP then moved onto Java about 6 years ago.
Now we're making the same transition again from Java to Ruby on Rails. We've launched our second large scale RoR based project, the productivity of our programmers has more than doubled moving from Java to RoR with the only expense being slightly slower runtime (which for our application and requirements isn't a big deal, we're not Yahoo or Google). Anyone who's actually making decisions based on $ will see really quickly that the real expense is the dumb-ass programmer that's being paid $100k to write web applications in C++ when they can be done in 1/20th the amount of time with the right tools.
As a matter of fact, as a business the level of rapid deployment we can do now having improved our framework has given us new oppurtunity for growth into services we in the past had to leave alone due to lack of developer resources.
I can buy 4 dell 850 rack (XEON's with 2 gigs ram) servers for the LESS than the cost of 4 weeks of one of our engineers, a productive software stack for development so far outweighs the cost of hardware I can't imagine that anyone even brings it up anymore for run of the mill business-solution web-based applications.
Enjoy your C++ web development
You can't hardly blame your unproductivity on Mac then because you never really give it a chance. Even if you extended your trial period to 10 months, you never really give it a chance because you keep booting up Windows via Parallel and most of the time, you are in the Windows environment (albeit on a Mac hardware). To give it a fair chance means you need to realize that despite your efficiency in using Windows, it may not be the best way to do things. It only means that you are trained in dealing with issues in the Microsoft way. From your description, it sounds like you expect Mac OS X to be like Windows. You want to retain and use your old Windows softwares. That is, you don't really need a Mac in the first place. Macs aren't for everyone and if you aren't willing to fully use your Mac, you can't expect to be productive on it.
For me it's not about giving anyone a chance. This is neither a person nor a religion, it's a product. Either I find a product compelling (which apparently more than enough people do with OS X, fine with me, more power to them) or I don't (BTW as I stated above I don't find Apple's main product - its hardware - not uncompelling).
It's people like you that try to turn a choice between several competing products that also doesn't have to be exclusive into some kind of crusade. Do you define yourself through your choice of OS ? If this is the case I really pity you. Oh, and try to get a username. You know, it's free.
I see, so the MBP is this magical thing that resolves your hatred of Microsoft, allowing you to use XP on it and be happy again?
Not at all. I don't have a hatred of MS, nor a love affair with Apple. I was agreeing that the Parallels option on a Mac makes it easy to justify the switch to some people because they can keep their XP programs and have the benefit of whatever drew them to OSX and Apple in the first place.I don't think crushing Microsoft is part the business plan. Let's put aside Apple's consumer electronics push as symbolized by the dropping of "Computer" from the company name for a moment. First, Apple can happily double its market share off the switchers disgruntled with Microsoft woeful security issues or its convoluted and belated Vista solution. Apple would not rule the market but it would show growth and delight investors. Second, Apple has not or does it show any intention of partnering with the other big OEMs to offer OSX with their desktops. Moreover, they show no signs of switching the kernel to Linux to take advantage of the pool of OS drivers necessary for releasing Leopard in the wild. They are not including a win32 compatibilty layer, releasing a fully feature office suite, making a concerted push into enterprise computing, or doing any other action to throw down with Microsoft. Lets not forget that Microsoft can afford to screw up for a long time before there is any appreciable exodus. Thus, I don't the see logic behind any assertion of the end of Microsoft dominance but I understand the sentiment. Microsoft has woefully proven it does not deserve to be the de facto desktop standard and Apple arguably does have a better OS. But, all the posting on slashdot will never change the status quo.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Yawn. Another Slashdot pule about Microsoft. How trite.
Once Apple starts gaining more than a token market share, maybe MS can start worrying.
Once Apple starts putting out something other than consumer-level crap, maybe MS can start worrying.
Once Apple starts selling stuff which isn't horribly marked up, maybe MS can start worrying.
Until then, Microsoft has nothing to fear from a niche market monopolist like Apple.
Perhaps that's how it should be. Certainly, the OS should get out of the way and let you get on with something productive. However, in practice, we're not always very close to that ideal.
I use XP at work every day, and every day it gets in my way in countless little ways, from snatching focus when I'm typing, to making my Explorer windows bigger each time, to taking unnecessarily long to unminimise apps, to getting confused about whether I'm pressing any of the control keys after switching away from Remote Desktop, to freezing the entire window manager when an app is slow responding, to continually popping up windows on the wrong desktop (using MS's own Virtual Desktop Manager), to presenting lots of unnecessary and annoying fake directories while pretending that my desktop is the root of the filesystem, to making it unreasonably hard to enter accented characters, to... to... Well, I could rant on for hours more!
I use Mac OS X at home, and though it's far from perfect, it annoys me far less because it keeps out of my way more. I'm doing different things, of course, so it's hard to compare; but I certainly feel more productive with it.
Now, I obviously have more emotional investment in a machine that I chose and bought than in one I'm expected to use at work. But I've been using Windows regularly for over twice as long (since 3.11) as Mac OS X (since the Public Beta), so it's not that I'm more familiar or more experienced with the Mac.
I haven't used Vista for more than a few minutes. (Not that I'm bothered.) Any Vista users care to mention whether they thing Vista has a better 'gets out of my way and lets me work' score than XP?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.