Are you really saying that the GIMP and Photoshop cannot be compared?
I'm saying they're designed for different purposes. GIMP is designed to be an image manipulation program, nothing else - Hence why it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program.
Photoshop is a multi-tool, designed for doing print work, image manipulation and paint software too.
lol... so why's everybody touting it as the alternative to Photoshop?
Not everyone. A lot of people who are in the know aren't stupid enough to go around screaming, "USE GIMP INSTEAD OF PHOTOSHOP TO MAKE YOUR PRINT WORK AND ARTISTIC ARTZ!". Infact, most of the time, what I see on Slashdot is people recommending using the GIMP over the Photoshop for doing image manipulation (which it does quite well), not because it is so superior, but because it's free, multiplatform and because the advanced super features that somewhat rely on Photoshop's painting abilities among other things aren't going to be that useful for the majority (thus not worth pirating, being locked into a certain OS or spending huge cash on).
But for niche developers like me, it wouldn't impact us too much because we control access to our product more easily, that is, if you want my program you need to pay me, there's no other way you can get it, and copyright law or not if ever I caught anyone distributing his copy I'd deactivate his license.
For niche developers, they often cannot hope to ever compete against any bigger products because no matter how good you make it, how close you make it to some larger proprietary suite, it will prove to be extremely difficult to generate any interest in your product.. Why?
Take a look at the photo manipulation and paint software out there. Photoshop sits right at the top and so many other products that close in feature set and quality are not really that known or ever considered. If people can't afford photoshop, they won't look at the next second best offer, they won't even consider anything else. They'll just get Photoshop for free. This piracy hurts the software industry as because of the pirating it just reinforces people to stay with this single piece of software and other software never gets enough following to generate interest or get developers the resources needed (money) to continue working on the product and thus after a few years they die out.
If you look closer at the photo manipulation and paint software, right now the only proprietary software that seems to have a chance are those funded by large corporations that can spend money on it as a side project (without making much of an income at all on it) or have been in the software industry for so long, they had a foot in the door before photoshop became king.
Piracy has a negative impact on competition, doesn't matter if it's opensource or proprietary. Why would you go with opensource or other proprietary solutions that has a few features less when you can get something you are completely used to, trained to use in school and fully functional which everyone else uses for free (piracy)?
The majority of people who own computers wouldn't go with anything else simply.
like GIMP or Blender and would never again see anything like Photoshop or 3DS Max.
That's a great comparision! A image manipulation program to painting and manipulation program and then a 3d modeling, skinning and rendering application to a modeling, animation, surface generator and rendering package.
I see what you did there! You compared opensource utilities to none-equivalent proprietary ones to prove a point! I applaud your tact at discrediting Opensource.
Seriously...winzip sucks use 7zip instead, its free, opensource and provides alot more options and imho better compression then winzip
This reminds me of reviews I used to read on download.com, they would be everything from "brilliant" to "DON'T USE THIS PROGRAM, I INSTALLED IT AND NOW MY COMPUTER DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE!!!!!!!!"
Just wondering, what part of Minnesota did you grow-up in? I'm curious, because you must like have 1 store to buy all your electronics and your choice is shit. Do you pick between the Electric Toaster Oven with the Easy-Cleaning tray or buy the Wii next to it on the same shelf?
Neither, I didn't like either. You have that choice too and for some reason you're not getting my point.
With regards to stability, we've probably all seen problems with the Operating System we use. Both with code and just generally.
True, but Apple are the ones that claim that because they control the hardware and software it's more stable than other operating systems - Except, it's not. Infact, my biggest problem is that the same code that executes beautifully on every other OS is capable of causing kernel panics as a userland application or lock up the system completely. I find it difficult to do such things intentionally on Windows, never mind accidentally and yet I am supposed to believe OS X has superior stability? Best thing, I won't get this under Linux or Windows on the same hardware.
Myself, I have seen code not work on one of Linux/Windows because of forward slash/backslash differences, "pause" and other basic features not working quite the same in C code, threading not working as intended because of different compilers doing different things, etc.
Except, this wasn't a compiler issue, it is the system kernel not working to specifications. Now, if you're going to claim that you're Unix, have a Unix certification - I'm going to expect you to work properly in that regard instead of giving me an unbelievable amount of compatibility issues.
I've seen the video card driver lock Linux systems so bad that unplugging was the only option when rendering too much data at once
I've seen this too, but funny enough, every instance I can think of this happening was by using not fully supported hardware or proprietary software that was not considered 'correct', not that I'm saying it doesn't exist in opensource, supported platforms. But when it's considered supported, it's not having the insane issues you get on OS X is what I am trying to get at - while Apple is claiming their support is superior.
I think most people have had problems with whatever Operating System they run.
Oh, I agree. I just get annoyed being told that it works so well because of X,Y,Z and that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Additionally X, Y, Z being completely broken in so many ways.
I fail to understand how it's a copy of OpenGL. They're not even similar in how they approach things. OpenGL was also deemed at the time something for uber high end systems, not low end which Windows was often running on. Not to mention at the time, everyone had their own magical graphical standard, Microsoft just happened to completely standardize that down to direct x and opengl on Windows.
Legacy Plug and play was an ugly try to add what all other system beside PC has no problem with.
It was a great workaround technology due to the limitations of PC hardware, I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be recognized for working around some of the more majorly difficult problems we've had in PCs.
The first Video for Windows player was a total rip off of the Quicktime player and the cinepak codec (Microsoft gave 150m$ to apple in a off court reglement).
I didn't say video for windows, nor did I say player. The technologies I mentioned take some dramatic shift in other directions than other existing systems do, thus a different technology all together.
It's like saying LCD means nothing because CRT was created first - That's ridiculous. The majority of technology we have out there, from any company was based on other things done by man. Apple didn't invent the GUI, Xerox got the credit, even though the concept of an GUI had been floating around for years in scifi books etc.
I don't know what's your issue with POSIX in OS X?
I explained the behavior already with doing forks. I don't just compile applications, I use them extensively for work and if they crash I debug them extensively usually.
We at MKS make a port of all standard UNIX utilities for Windows (including the shells korn, bash, csh etc). But still porting UNIX POSIX apps to windows is way harder than for OS X (where it's mostly a breeze), and for you to say that POSIX support or compliance in Windows is better than in OS X is just silly.
But here is the thing, I don't have the mentioned a fork() problem on Windows. Nor do I have to deal with the screwy events posix threads issue etc.
Once I have a build environment in Unix Services for Windows, it's dead simple for me, there is rarely any kind of modifications I need to do to the code to get it to work right. I get a build environment on OS X working, the application compiles, but then suffers problems because OS X is not behaving to POSIX specifications.
You seem to be one of those people who don't get it.
I'm going to nerrrrrrd raaagge for the hell of it.
It's not any one individual feature, or lots of them that makes OS X polished. It's how they work together, and how usable they are (usability is all about hiding complexity or exposing the absolute minimum necessary to get something accomplished in an as intuitive way as possible).
Drop shadows worked just fine on the start menu since it was first introduced in windows chicago. When windows search came out, it also 'just worked' fine with those other features.
Sorry, but if you're not going to provide examples, I'll use the examples that I was provided and in those cases, it's random non-sense.
When I first switched to it from years of mental abuse from Redmond
I'm not a "switcher". I'm platform agnostic, I have a tendency to hate all OSes. Now, the problem is - You're talking to someone who knows OS X very well and I know all of OS X's little nooks and crannies. From the broken UNIX support in the BSD subsystem which is inferior to Windows' POSIX subsystem (which is also unix certified mind you) to the broken OpenGL implementation with poorly polished graphics drivers.
I felt naked without complexity (where is my regedit
Why, it's the billion xml files included with OS X, where if you screw up the formatting can prevent OS X from even letting you boot in because there is no GUI tools for letting you modify most settings (compared to other OSes) since they're completely hidden from the user.
computer icons on desktop to right click on and choose manage
Use the control panel like on OS X if you don't want to hit that.
Christ, you should see the popups I get on OS X whenever I try to do anything with Safari and downloads.
things steeling focus
You've never worked with fullscreen applications on OS X extensively, obviously
where are the problems for me to tinker with instead of you know doing things that I turned the computer on for).
Yes, I just want my computer to work - And that involves it working the way I want, not the way Apple deemed I should jump through a billion hoops to do. I don't care for editing secret files, googling settings when I can get it all in GUI settings - amazingly, Windows and Linux is far better at that than OS X.
Now, maybe for your tasks (webbrowsing with Safari, Mail.app (provided it's not using imap), iphoto) it's fine, and I congratulate you, great, marvelous. However, the moment you need to do something with OS X out of it's tiny little box, you're going to have problems and this is where most other OSes can go beyond.
IT just all seemed too simple, and I was wondering, what the hell, how can you do anything with so little.
Yes, I needed the Unix/POSIX support that was claimed for OS X, that OS X was promoted to be so awesome at. A standard fork() without exec() (this is POSIX specifications compliant - Works on real Unix just fine), however OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and crashes the thread and thus the entire application.
Wonderful, that POSIX/Unix stuff 'just works' with the system, doesn't it? Works all pretty with those drop shadows with the crash mes.. Oh wait, there is no crash messages, it just, disappears. Yes, no popups there, very helpful. What would I have done with these popups I get on windows, they weren't useful at all for debugging anything after all, I'm going to skip the bit about how posix threading is broken because I don't feel like writing a huge piece of documentation to explain the problem.
If you want to control what the menu hot keys are, you can add/change them in the Keyboard Preferences, by app or globally across all apps.
Note: There are 3rd party applications on OS X that replicate the default hot keys but ignore settings set on OS X for hotkeys. This is especially common to cross-platform applications that have to deal with some horrible x11, java, Qt workarounds.
Apple's development model, for years, has been to perpetually tweak and improve on their existing operating system code.
Is that why over the years why I had to disable numerous things from features in userland java applications to stop kernel panics. Forced to remove opengl features in 3d applications to stop the system from locking up the system.
Note: The code works fine on Windows, Linux, BSD etc. just fine.
Not to mention it's Unix, which has been around since the dinosaurs.
Which explains why standard unix compliant applications are crashing because OS X decided it will crash applications trying to do a standard fork() without exec() (this is POSIX specifications compliant - Works on real Unix just fine), however OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and crashes the thread.
Note: The code works fine on Windows (seriously, I have more luck getting it working via cygwin on Windows than on OS X), Linux, BSD etc. just fine.
The hilarious thing is that software like Finf, darwinports, macports etc. 3rd party software which is supposed to make it easier for doing POSIX/Unix type stuff on OS X has constant random segfaulting issues on the provided precompiled binaries and such.
Seriously, don't bullshit me. I bought into the whole OS X is so superior, it's Unix, blah-de-da at one point and I found out it's a pile of shit when I tried it.
It's people like you who end up causing good people who value their time greatly to waste their time and money on absolute shit.
If you like your OS, fine, I have no problem with that. But, I have a problem when people like you start spouting lies and half truths. Don't bother with the excuse "I didn't know", if you don't know - why the hell are you claiming this is fact to begin with?
Besides the EULA that Microsoft actually invented. Serious question, not trolling. What new technology, not just old tech with a new name, has Microsoft actually invented?
Direct X, remote desktop protocol (the new features go beyond any other system out there atm), Legacy Plug and Play, AGLP/AGGDLP/AGUDLP, Windows Media Audio (with a tonne of codecs), Windows Media Video (with a tonne of codecs) and that's just from the top of my head.
Taksbar now looks like dock did in Tiger 4 years ago.
Doesn't look like it to me. Where is the programs menu in the dock? Why isn't it centered on the screen like the dock? Why isn't resizable in the same scalable method OS X does etc.
Windows have drop shadow, like they do in OS X for a long time now.
I've had drop shadows in win3.11 (and in other earlier OSes), it was using a trick with 1 bit black, 1 bit transparent shading. Then in win2k, check "appearance settings" in desktop preferences, uses an alpha trick. In WinVista, still uses an alpha trick, but done in a completely different way.
Windows search is still not as fast, extensive and as Spotlight is in OS X.
Seems pretty instant to me (and I even chose a video you would like) and with my own testing on the same hardware, Windows Search often beats spotlight. Nevermind the fact that this was already planned back in win2k with the indexing service project that was never finished and on Unix/BSD/Linux systems predate that with GUI interfaces to 'locate'.
So, yes, they have tried to re-implement OS X features, but as as all things Microsoft, they lack polish and taste:D
Oh Christ, window drop shadows, big feature. Programs without their titles - Oh nos, OS X is being stolen!!!!
Oh this is so innovative and only Apple could come up with such ideas!
Fine. And the Consumerist OP who hadn't touched or opened the box in the slightest, who had not violated any warranty or agreement, and was still banned?
Either: 1) A liar. or 2) Agreed that xbox live may ban him for any reason or no reason.
If it is found that he was telling the truth, then he was banned for no real reason and that is still fine under the xbox live ToS.
A xbox 360 is not an industry standard, no matter how much you like xbox games.
but then you aren't left with many (or any in most cases) alternative.
Fortunately consoles out there exist without restrictions on hardware modifications for accessing a given service. I haven't looked into the ToS for Wii and PS3's online services, but I know the Evo game console, GP2X have no such restrictions in place.
Personally, I prefer the PC platform for games, I don't approve of the majority of mess the console platforms create.
You're allowed to mod your hardware. You're just not allowed to use modded hardware on their service, it says so in the contract you agreed to while using their service.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying they're designed for different purposes. GIMP is designed to be an image manipulation program, nothing else - Hence why it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program.
Photoshop is a multi-tool, designed for doing print work, image manipulation and paint software too.
Not everyone. A lot of people who are in the know aren't stupid enough to go around screaming, "USE GIMP INSTEAD OF PHOTOSHOP TO MAKE YOUR PRINT WORK AND ARTISTIC ARTZ!". Infact, most of the time, what I see on Slashdot is people recommending using the GIMP over the Photoshop for doing image manipulation (which it does quite well), not because it is so superior, but because it's free, multiplatform and because the advanced super features that somewhat rely on Photoshop's painting abilities among other things aren't going to be that useful for the majority (thus not worth pirating, being locked into a certain OS or spending huge cash on).
For niche developers, they often cannot hope to ever compete against any bigger products because no matter how good you make it, how close you make it to some larger proprietary suite, it will prove to be extremely difficult to generate any interest in your product.. Why?
Take a look at the photo manipulation and paint software out there. Photoshop sits right at the top and so many other products that close in feature set and quality are not really that known or ever considered. If people can't afford photoshop, they won't look at the next second best offer, they won't even consider anything else. They'll just get Photoshop for free. This piracy hurts the software industry as because of the pirating it just reinforces people to stay with this single piece of software and other software never gets enough following to generate interest or get developers the resources needed (money) to continue working on the product and thus after a few years they die out.
If you look closer at the photo manipulation and paint software, right now the only proprietary software that seems to have a chance are those funded by large corporations that can spend money on it as a side project (without making much of an income at all on it) or have been in the software industry for so long, they had a foot in the door before photoshop became king.
Piracy has a negative impact on competition, doesn't matter if it's opensource or proprietary. Why would you go with opensource or other proprietary solutions that has a few features less when you can get something you are completely used to, trained to use in school and fully functional which everyone else uses for free (piracy)?
The majority of people who own computers wouldn't go with anything else simply.
That's a great comparision! A image manipulation program to painting and manipulation program and then a 3d modeling, skinning and rendering application to a modeling, animation, surface generator and rendering package.
I see what you did there! You compared opensource utilities to none-equivalent proprietary ones to prove a point! I applaud your tact at discrediting Opensource.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk
This reminds me of reviews I used to read on download.com, they would be everything from "brilliant" to "DON'T USE THIS PROGRAM, I INSTALLED IT AND NOW MY COMPUTER DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE!!!!!!!!"
Neither, I didn't like either. You have that choice too and for some reason you're not getting my point.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Because spammers also exploit legit mail servers.
You just answered your own question.
Same exploit can be done with XSS javascript, it's not new. I don't see how HTML5 will help.
True, but Apple are the ones that claim that because they control the hardware and software it's more stable than other operating systems - Except, it's not. Infact, my biggest problem is that the same code that executes beautifully on every other OS is capable of causing kernel panics as a userland application or lock up the system completely. I find it difficult to do such things intentionally on Windows, never mind accidentally and yet I am supposed to believe OS X has superior stability? Best thing, I won't get this under Linux or Windows on the same hardware.
Except, this wasn't a compiler issue, it is the system kernel not working to specifications. Now, if you're going to claim that you're Unix, have a Unix certification - I'm going to expect you to work properly in that regard instead of giving me an unbelievable amount of compatibility issues.
I've seen this too, but funny enough, every instance I can think of this happening was by using not fully supported hardware or proprietary software that was not considered 'correct', not that I'm saying it doesn't exist in opensource, supported platforms. But when it's considered supported, it's not having the insane issues you get on OS X is what I am trying to get at - while Apple is claiming their support is superior.
Oh, I agree. I just get annoyed being told that it works so well because of X,Y,Z and that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Additionally X, Y, Z being completely broken in so many ways.
I fail to understand how it's a copy of OpenGL. They're not even similar in how they approach things. OpenGL was also deemed at the time something for uber high end systems, not low end which Windows was often running on. Not to mention at the time, everyone had their own magical graphical standard, Microsoft just happened to completely standardize that down to direct x and opengl on Windows.
It was a great workaround technology due to the limitations of PC hardware, I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't be recognized for working around some of the more majorly difficult problems we've had in PCs.
I didn't say video for windows, nor did I say player. The technologies I mentioned take some dramatic shift in other directions than other existing systems do, thus a different technology all together.
It's like saying LCD means nothing because CRT was created first - That's ridiculous. The majority of technology we have out there, from any company was based on other things done by man. Apple didn't invent the GUI, Xerox got the credit, even though the concept of an GUI had been floating around for years in scifi books etc.
I explained the behavior already with doing forks. I don't just compile applications, I use them extensively for work and if they crash I debug them extensively usually.
But here is the thing, I don't have the mentioned a fork() problem on Windows. Nor do I have to deal with the screwy events posix threads issue etc.
Once I have a build environment in Unix Services for Windows, it's dead simple for me, there is rarely any kind of modifications I need to do to the code to get it to work right. I get a build environment on OS X working, the application compiles, but then suffers problems because OS X is not behaving to POSIX specifications.
I'm going to nerrrrrrd raaagge for the hell of it.
Drop shadows worked just fine on the start menu since it was first introduced in windows chicago. When windows search came out, it also 'just worked' fine with those other features.
Sorry, but if you're not going to provide examples, I'll use the examples that I was provided and in those cases, it's random non-sense.
I'm not a "switcher". I'm platform agnostic, I have a tendency to hate all OSes. Now, the problem is - You're talking to someone who knows OS X very well and I know all of OS X's little nooks and crannies. From the broken UNIX support in the BSD subsystem which is inferior to Windows' POSIX subsystem (which is also unix certified mind you) to the broken OpenGL implementation with poorly polished graphics drivers.
Why, it's the billion xml files included with OS X, where if you screw up the formatting can prevent OS X from even letting you boot in because there is no GUI tools for letting you modify most settings (compared to other OSes) since they're completely hidden from the user.
Use the control panel like on OS X if you don't want to hit that.
Christ, you should see the popups I get on OS X whenever I try to do anything with Safari and downloads.
You've never worked with fullscreen applications on OS X extensively, obviously
Yes, I just want my computer to work - And that involves it working the way I want, not the way Apple deemed I should jump through a billion hoops to do. I don't care for editing secret files, googling settings when I can get it all in GUI settings - amazingly, Windows and Linux is far better at that than OS X.
Now, maybe for your tasks (webbrowsing with Safari, Mail.app (provided it's not using imap), iphoto) it's fine, and I congratulate you, great, marvelous. However, the moment you need to do something with OS X out of it's tiny little box, you're going to have problems and this is where most other OSes can go beyond.
Yes, I needed the Unix/POSIX support that was claimed for OS X, that OS X was promoted to be so awesome at. A standard fork() without exec() (this is POSIX specifications compliant - Works on real Unix just fine), however OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and crashes the thread and thus the entire application.
Wonderful, that POSIX/Unix stuff 'just works' with the system, doesn't it? Works all pretty with those drop shadows with the crash mes.. Oh wait, there is no crash messages, it just, disappears. Yes, no popups there, very helpful. What would I have done with these popups I get on windows, they weren't useful at all for debugging anything after all, I'm going to skip the bit about how posix threading is broken because I don't feel like writing a huge piece of documentation to explain the problem.
Note: There are 3rd party applications on OS X that replicate the default hot keys but ignore settings set on OS X for hotkeys. This is especially common to cross-platform applications that have to deal with some horrible x11, java, Qt workarounds.
Is that why over the years why I had to disable numerous things from features in userland java applications to stop kernel panics. Forced to remove opengl features in 3d applications to stop the system from locking up the system.
Note: The code works fine on Windows, Linux, BSD etc. just fine.
Which explains why standard unix compliant applications are crashing because OS X decided it will crash applications trying to do a standard fork() without exec() (this is POSIX specifications compliant - Works on real Unix just fine), however OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe' and crashes the thread.
Note: The code works fine on Windows (seriously, I have more luck getting it working via cygwin on Windows than on OS X), Linux, BSD etc. just fine.
The hilarious thing is that software like Finf, darwinports, macports etc. 3rd party software which is supposed to make it easier for doing POSIX/Unix type stuff on OS X has constant random segfaulting issues on the provided precompiled binaries and such.
Seriously, don't bullshit me. I bought into the whole OS X is so superior, it's Unix, blah-de-da at one point and I found out it's a pile of shit when I tried it.
It's people like you who end up causing good people who value their time greatly to waste their time and money on absolute shit.
If you like your OS, fine, I have no problem with that. But, I have a problem when people like you start spouting lies and half truths. Don't bother with the excuse "I didn't know", if you don't know - why the hell are you claiming this is fact to begin with?
Direct X, remote desktop protocol (the new features go beyond any other system out there atm), Legacy Plug and Play, AGLP/AGGDLP/AGUDLP, Windows Media Audio (with a tonne of codecs), Windows Media Video (with a tonne of codecs) and that's just from the top of my head.
Hope this was helpful.
Doesn't look like it to me. Where is the programs menu in the dock? Why isn't it centered on the screen like the dock? Why isn't resizable in the same scalable method OS X does etc.
I've had drop shadows in win3.11 (and in other earlier OSes), it was using a trick with 1 bit black, 1 bit transparent shading. Then in win2k, check "appearance settings" in desktop preferences, uses an alpha trick. In WinVista, still uses an alpha trick, but done in a completely different way.
Seems pretty instant to me (and I even chose a video you would like) and with my own testing on the same hardware, Windows Search often beats spotlight. Nevermind the fact that this was already planned back in win2k with the indexing service project that was never finished and on Unix/BSD/Linux systems predate that with GUI interfaces to 'locate'.
Oh Christ, window drop shadows, big feature. Programs without their titles - Oh nos, OS X is being stolen!!!!
Oh this is so innovative and only Apple could come up with such ideas!
Either:
1) A liar.
or
2) Agreed that xbox live may ban him for any reason or no reason.
If it is found that he was telling the truth, then he was banned for no real reason and that is still fine under the xbox live ToS.
Don't like it, don't buy it.
Since when were the small and poor forced to buy an xbox and get xbox live? Since when the poor and the small limited to only the xbox and xbox live?
I don't see the problem.
So you made an informed decision, am I supposed to congratulate you or feel sorry?
If it isn't an authorized modification, he isn't.
Non-sense. ToS clearly states clearly they don't allow unauthorized modifications. You're not allowed to mod your xbox, period.
A xbox 360 is not an industry standard, no matter how much you like xbox games.
Fortunately consoles out there exist without restrictions on hardware modifications for accessing a given service. I haven't looked into the ToS for Wii and PS3's online services, but I know the Evo game console, GP2X have no such restrictions in place.
Personally, I prefer the PC platform for games, I don't approve of the majority of mess the console platforms create.
I think you missed out how Linux, BSD in the links in the summary which existed before OS X were doing it.
You're allowed to mod your hardware. You're just not allowed to use modded hardware on their service, it says so in the contract you agreed to while using their service.
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Have a nice day.
If it needs to repaired, it should be send to a Microsoft approved service center.
Anything else is unapproved tampering with the equipment which is against the agreement with xbox live.
Which market was it lost in though? Microsoft does far more than just PCs.
Which market did Apple make the majority of their money on? Apple does far more than just PCs.