No, Apple is not the same as Microsoft. Never has been, and hopefully never will be. Very few companies are like Microsoft, and I do not mean this in the obvious characteristics such as size, earnings, or other classic business characteristics.
In the old days of the giants of technology, when Microsoft was just starting up, most people were still working at or had come from universities - or at least from educational or research institutions. These people, such as Gary Kildall, tended to share ideas and information with each other. These things are neat - you should try building / coding like this! Microsoft, however, started with and still uses a very simple business model. In the Microsoft business model, there will only be one software provider in any given area, and that provider will be Microsoft.
This is not in and of itself necessarily a bad philosophy. I will not go into the ethics of their past means of implementing this philosophy, but merely point out that Apple has never set out to be the only supplier of any given technology. Their old motto referenced this quite succinctly - "The computer for the rest of us."
Apple products aren't for everyone, and I for one can live with that. It appears that Apple can live with that, too.
Some topics are guaranteed to raise the temperature of any discussion. Religion... politics... economics... Windows or Mac! But it seems to me that most posters are missing the larger issue, that being the reason(s) for purchasing or using a computer in the first place.
Before I go further, please allow me to identify myself somewhat. I am the Director of Information Systems for a Community Action agency in Northwest Ohio. I started using computers (as opposed to technology) by punching and sorting cards, then submitting batch jobs to the data center operators. I used CP/M (far superior to PC/DOS, IMHO), and still distinctly remember Seattle Computer, Apple II / III / GS / LISA, original PC, Epson QX-10, Windows version 1.0, ad infinitum/. nauseam. I will not claim to be an expert, but am quite comfortable with Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux(es? Linuxi? : ) ), and have made a living consulting, installing, and supporting computers for 25 years.
Strictly speaking, there are only two reasons to use a computer. (1) Because I _want_ to use a computer, or (2) Because I want to _do_ something. I believe those who use a computer because they want to are the ones who will garner the most knowledge about computer and information technology. Conversely, those who use a computer because they want to do something will garner the least of this same knowledge, but will be content as long as they can get their work done. This applies more or less equally to Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, et alia (anthropomorphically speaking).
The only group deserving of criticism is the third and unmentioned group, the group of people who will _not_ under any circumstances use computers or information technology even when it is to their distinct advantage to do so. In a work environment this might get you fired. At home it will just make you appear to be a Ludite.
We all know people, and might even be related to some, who know just enough to turn on the computer and perform a few - in our opinion - trivial tasks. No problem. We can slowly introduce them to additional capabilities, and they may even start asking about what else they can do. But they have reached and hopefully will maintain our ideal goal of being technologically functional. Their VCR may still flash 12:00 but they can answer email.
Judge by an individuals willingness to learn, not what they already know.
"I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter." ~ Blaise Pascal
... on the moon. I know it would take more fuel to get it there and down safely than to drop it on Bush ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H in the ocean, but that would give us another reason to get back to the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Apple is not the same as Microsoft. Never has been, and hopefully never will be. Very few companies are like Microsoft, and I do not mean this in the obvious characteristics such as size, earnings, or other classic business characteristics. In the old days of the giants of technology, when Microsoft was just starting up, most people were still working at or had come from universities - or at least from educational or research institutions. These people, such as Gary Kildall, tended to share ideas and information with each other. These things are neat - you should try building / coding like this! Microsoft, however, started with and still uses a very simple business model. In the Microsoft business model, there will only be one software provider in any given area, and that provider will be Microsoft. This is not in and of itself necessarily a bad philosophy. I will not go into the ethics of their past means of implementing this philosophy, but merely point out that Apple has never set out to be the only supplier of any given technology. Their old motto referenced this quite succinctly - "The computer for the rest of us." Apple products aren't for everyone, and I for one can live with that. It appears that Apple can live with that, too.
Some topics are guaranteed to raise the temperature of any discussion. Religion ... politics ... economics ... Windows or Mac! But it seems to me that most posters are missing the larger issue, that being the reason(s) for purchasing or using a computer in the first place.
/. nauseam. I will not claim to be an expert, but am quite comfortable with Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux(es? Linuxi? : ) ), and have made a living consulting, installing, and supporting computers for 25 years.
Before I go further, please allow me to identify myself somewhat. I am the Director of Information Systems for a Community Action agency in Northwest Ohio. I started using computers (as opposed to technology) by punching and sorting cards, then submitting batch jobs to the data center operators. I used CP/M (far superior to PC/DOS, IMHO), and still distinctly remember Seattle Computer, Apple II / III / GS / LISA, original PC, Epson QX-10, Windows version 1.0, ad infinitum
Strictly speaking, there are only two reasons to use a computer. (1) Because I _want_ to use a computer, or (2) Because I want to _do_ something. I believe those who use a computer because they want to are the ones who will garner the most knowledge about computer and information technology. Conversely, those who use a computer because they want to do something will garner the least of this same knowledge, but will be content as long as they can get their work done. This applies more or less equally to Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, et alia (anthropomorphically speaking).
The only group deserving of criticism is the third and unmentioned group, the group of people who will _not_ under any circumstances use computers or information technology even when it is to their distinct advantage to do so. In a work environment this might get you fired. At home it will just make you appear to be a Ludite.
We all know people, and might even be related to some, who know just enough to turn on the computer and perform a few - in our opinion - trivial tasks. No problem. We can slowly introduce them to additional capabilities, and they may even start asking about what else they can do. But they have reached and hopefully will maintain our ideal goal of being technologically functional. Their VCR may still flash 12:00 but they can answer email.
Judge by an individuals willingness to learn, not what they already know.
"I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter." ~ Blaise Pascal
... on the moon. I know it would take more fuel to get it there and down safely than to drop it on Bush ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H in the ocean, but that would give us another reason to get back to the moon.
What OS does Hubble use, anyway?