I think Slate got it right when it comes to these ads.
Slate got it wrong.
They're kinda funny, but really mean-spirited. They're "Haha...you suck!!"
Why do some people think that it's always about them?
The ads portray two machines talking to each other. It's supposed to be how a PC and a Mac's conversation would go if they were people. The "PC guy" is actually not a guy who uses a PC, instead, think about it as a guy representing a PC.
They also contain alot of stuff that's plain wrong. For instance, Windows runs fine out of the box
I'd say that most of us (if not all) who found it funny recognized the truth in those ads.
Hardware-wise: Try comparing a new PC desktop with an iMac. You'd have at least 2 big boxes for a PC and (depending on the vendor) a separate set of smaller boxes for the mouse and keyboard. iMac comes in one neat box with a handle. (that's not my picture, btw, just found it)
Software-wise: I run an IT shop and the rule of thumb has always been - do not use Windows out of the box.
First thing you do is install anti-virus software, if the PC comes with a bundled AV software then you just download the latest AV patches. It's a guarantee that between the time your PC was packaged in a factory and it was delivered to you, at least one AV patch would have already been released.
Then you remove all those ad-ons from AOL and several other OEM partners. You really don't want those bundled 3rd party OEMs in your desktop, the less "unknown software" you have in your Windows box the less likely you're going to get malware.
Then you download patches for Windows. Then you reboot. If you're lucky, you only have to this download-reboot dance step only once. Average for my staff is 3: download patch-reboot, download patch-reboot, download patch-reboot.
And... if you use MS Office. You'd have to do that download patch thing again.
hmmm... did I forget something?
Oh yeah, In the office, we'd still need to load those drivers for the printers too. At home, I still haven't found the "correct" driver for the USB modem that we use for my son's PC - it still hangs!
Boy, just writing it all down makes me feel tired. Sure, I also run Software Update on a Mac but Apple packages their updates in a lot less intrusive, and less tiring, manner.
As a aside my wife's new MacBook just worked with her HP Laserjet 2550 in the office whereas the rest of her officemates (running Windows) are having a difficult time configuring their machines (and downloading drivers) to make it work with the printer. Surprised me too.
Sorry, life intervened and I was only able read it now.
Anyway, just to touch on a few points (have to go to the office real soon)
Gorden Letwin who was apparently a long-time programmer at Microsoft would disagree with you.
Well, it appears that I'm not the only one that would disagree with Gorden Letwin. Check the entire thread of the quote that you pointed out. Several people there are saying (in 1995) the same things that I am saying now.;-)
With regards to Sybase's SQL Server and Microsoft SQL Server - it was the same banana, though with a different color. I don't know how to write this without sounding self-righteous but I supported both products, wrote apps for both products and I was there when they split.
Using that monopoly to unfairly gain more market share and profits is a crime.
Isn't that what Microsoft is convicted of?;-)
The difference is this:
- Apple bundles apps with their OS and hardware because they want to improve the user experience of their customers. That is what Apple is known for.
- Microsoft bundles apps with their OS because they want to kill their competitor. That is what Microsoft is known for.
And speaking of competitors, Microsoft (being a software-only company) has a lot of competitors. Apple, on the other hand, (being a hardware+software company) have virtually none (I could only tihnk of Sun but that's on the server market only). Hence, any action done by Microsoft can be easily attributed to the work of other software companies. Apple's work however cannot easily be attributed to the work of another company.
"Different rules sometimes apply to organizations of different sizes."
or... they could have been applying different rules from the very beginning.
I guess a scene in the move "Pirates of Silicon Valley" sums it all up. It's just a movie, yes, and the dialogue is almost certainly not a line-by-line quote of the actual conversation that took place. But I think it does portray the fundamental difference in approach between the two.
The scene was when Jobs finally saw proof that Microsoft copied their design and shipped it as part of Windows. Steve: You know our software is better than yours. Bill: You still don't get it, Steve. It doesn't matter!!!
"a lot of third world farming have changed from focusing on foodcrops to crops that are higher income because the industrialised countries aren't subsidising them or aren't growing them, such as coffee, tobacco,..."
How do you wrap your cables around the white brick? Do you do it the way you used to with your old Thinkpad? I have been a Thinkpad owner (several times) and I have also owned several other PC laptops. Now I'm a happy owner of a PB G4.:-)
Got to hand it to IBM, they anticipated people wrapping and unwrapping power cables around the brick, hence they designed the cables to protrude at an angle from the side (at least the ones I owned did). The brick even has a groove on the side for the cable. That's totally different from the way other PC manufacturers (Compaq/HP, Toshiba, Dell) and Apple does it where the cable sticks up at a 90 degree angle from the brick.
One good thing with Apple though is that the brick comes with whats it called? that thing you can flip on the brick... You wrap the cable there and unwrap just enough when you're going to use it in order to prevent straining the connections.
All this is so weird. Talking about how to handle power adapter cables.:-)
By the way, what happened to Galen Zink's adapter also happened to my old Compaq Presario - twice. First was with the original adapter and the next one was with the replacement that HP sent me. A friend's Toshiba had the same problem too.
that apple hasn't quite picked up on that whole oh I don't know compatible cooperate software thing yet.
uh... what's "compatible cooperate software"?
apple still has yet to really gain a good share of the software, why is that you ask, becuase unlike windows their OS isn't meant to bend over backwards to make something work.
Don't confuse market share with the ability of the OS to "bend over backwards".
There's a lot more that contribute to market and that includes (but are not limited to): pricing, distribution, marketing strategy, partnerships, timing and a whole lot of luck.
Microsoft is a successful business and Bill Gates is one heck of a cunning businessman, but gaining market share does not automatically mean they produce better software. Microsoft knows that, so should you.
Apple's emphasis has long been bringing good design and ease-of-use to computer users.
true
Microsoft's emphasis has been on bringing powerful infrastructure down to the user level at an affordable price.
not exactly true.
If you'd examine all events in the IT industry, you'd notice that Microsoft always comes up with something totally similar in concept yet incompatible in implementation to existing technologies that others already have.
Hence, Apple's photocopier jokes.
Let me briefly touch on some of what you mentioned:
COM
COM is basically a CORBA knockoff. CORBA was a result of joint efforts from companies like DEC, HP, NCR, ODI, SunSoft, etc. etc. Microsoft decided they'd go their own way.
Compare that with what Apple did. Apple, together with Lotus and IBM worked on OpenDoc, a language-agnostic, multi-platform object model based on IBM's Systems Object Model (SOM) which is CORBA compliant. IBM's SOM, by the way, is included in OS/2 v2.0 which was shipped in 1992. MS's COM was launched in 1993.
From that alone, you'd start to question if Microsoft's real intention is to "bring powerful infrastructure down to the user level at an affordable price." If it were, why not go along with the rest of the industry players? Obviously, they have their own agenda.
Internet Components
The internet components mentioned are basically COM extensions that is, as previously mentioned, a CORBA copycat. It might also be good to remember that Microsoft was years behind the internet game.
Services, MSMQ
Think IBM. Think OS/2.
Remember that Microsoft was contracted to work on OS/2 by IBM. These actually came from the OS/2 design specs. In other words, it's not Microsoft's.
Come to think of it, if you look at the complete timeline, you'd notice a pattern. Everytime Microsoft partners with another company, that company's technology eventually become's Microsoft's "own" technology.
MS Windows and Office UI was actually Mac's.
VisualBasic was originally intended to be MacBasic.
Windows NT was originally OS/2 v3.0.
MS SQL Server was originally Sybase SQL Server.
Internet Explorer was actually spyglass/mosaic.
hmmm.... do you see the pattern there somewhere?
can you say "embrace, extend, destroy"?;-)
Oh, by the way, ODBC specifications came from the SQL Access Group (SAG). SAG's original members include Oracle, Informic, Ingres, Sun, HP, DEC and Tandem. Ahhh.... yes, Microsoft was not there initially.
Slashdot Mirror
Slate got it wrong.
Why do some people think that it's always about them?
The ads portray two machines talking to each other. It's supposed to be how a PC and a Mac's conversation would go if they were people. The "PC guy" is actually not a guy who uses a PC, instead, think about it as a guy representing a PC.
I'd say that most of us (if not all) who found it funny recognized the truth in those ads.
Hardware-wise: Try comparing a new PC desktop with an iMac. You'd have at least 2 big boxes for a PC and (depending on the vendor) a separate set of smaller boxes for the mouse and keyboard. iMac comes in one neat box with a handle. (that's not my picture, btw, just found it)
Software-wise: I run an IT shop and the rule of thumb has always been - do not use Windows out of the box.
First thing you do is install anti-virus software, if the PC comes with a bundled AV software then you just download the latest AV patches. It's a guarantee that between the time your PC was packaged in a factory and it was delivered to you, at least one AV patch would have already been released.
Then you remove all those ad-ons from AOL and several other OEM partners. You really don't want those bundled 3rd party OEMs in your desktop, the less "unknown software" you have in your Windows box the less likely you're going to get malware.
Then you download patches for Windows. Then you reboot. If you're lucky, you only have to this download-reboot dance step only once. Average for my staff is 3: download patch-reboot, download patch-reboot, download patch-reboot.
And... if you use MS Office. You'd have to do that download patch thing again.
hmmm... did I forget something?
Oh yeah, In the office, we'd still need to load those drivers for the printers too. At home, I still haven't found the "correct" driver for the USB modem that we use for my son's PC - it still hangs!
Boy, just writing it all down makes me feel tired. Sure, I also run Software Update on a Mac but Apple packages their updates in a lot less intrusive, and less tiring, manner.
As a aside my wife's new MacBook just worked with her HP Laserjet 2550 in the office whereas the rest of her officemates (running Windows) are having a difficult time configuring their machines (and downloading drivers) to make it work with the printer. Surprised me too.
woah! that's a long post! :-D
Sorry, life intervened and I was only able read it now.
Anyway, just to touch on a few points (have to go to the office real soon)
Well, it appears that I'm not the only one that would disagree with Gorden Letwin. Check the entire thread of the quote that you pointed out. Several people there are saying (in 1995) the same things that I am saying now. ;-)
With regards to Sybase's SQL Server and Microsoft SQL Server - it was the same banana, though with a different color. I don't know how to write this without sounding self-righteous but I supported both products, wrote apps for both products and I was there when they split.
Later dude.
The difference is this:
- Apple bundles apps with their OS and hardware because they want to improve the user experience of their customers. That is what Apple is known for.
- Microsoft bundles apps with their OS because they want to kill their competitor. That is what Microsoft is known for.
And speaking of competitors, Microsoft (being a software-only company) has a lot of competitors. Apple, on the other hand, (being a hardware+software company) have virtually none (I could only tihnk of Sun but that's on the server market only). Hence, any action done by Microsoft can be easily attributed to the work of other software companies. Apple's work however cannot easily be attributed to the work of another company.
or... they could have been applying different rules from the very beginning.
I guess a scene in the move "Pirates of Silicon Valley" sums it all up. It's just a movie, yes, and the dialogue is almost certainly not a line-by-line quote of the actual conversation that took place. But I think it does portray the fundamental difference in approach between the two.
The scene was when Jobs finally saw proof that Microsoft copied their design and shipped it as part of Windows.
Steve: You know our software is better than yours.
Bill: You still don't get it, Steve. It doesn't matter!!!
marijuana, cocaine....
How do you wrap your cables around the white brick? Do you do it the way you used to with your old Thinkpad? I have been a Thinkpad owner (several times) and I have also owned several other PC laptops. Now I'm a happy owner of a PB G4. :-)
Got to hand it to IBM, they anticipated people wrapping and unwrapping power cables around the brick, hence they designed the cables to protrude at an angle from the side (at least the ones I owned did). The brick even has a groove on the side for the cable. That's totally different from the way other PC manufacturers (Compaq/HP, Toshiba, Dell) and Apple does it where the cable sticks up at a 90 degree angle from the brick.
One good thing with Apple though is that the brick comes with whats it called? that thing you can flip on the brick... You wrap the cable there and unwrap just enough when you're going to use it in order to prevent straining the connections.
All this is so weird. Talking about how to handle power adapter cables. :-)
By the way, what happened to Galen Zink's adapter also happened to my old Compaq Presario - twice. First was with the original adapter and the next one was with the replacement that HP sent me. A friend's Toshiba had the same problem too.
Don't confuse market share with the ability of the OS to "bend over backwards".
There's a lot more that contribute to market and that includes (but are not limited to): pricing, distribution, marketing strategy, partnerships, timing and a whole lot of luck.
Microsoft is a successful business and Bill Gates is one heck of a cunning businessman, but gaining market share does not automatically mean they produce better software. Microsoft knows that, so should you.
If you'd examine all events in the IT industry, you'd notice that Microsoft always comes up with something totally similar in concept yet incompatible in implementation to existing technologies that others already have.
Hence, Apple's photocopier jokes.
Let me briefly touch on some of what you mentioned:
COM
COM is basically a CORBA knockoff. CORBA was a result of joint efforts from companies like DEC, HP, NCR, ODI, SunSoft, etc. etc. Microsoft decided they'd go their own way.
Compare that with what Apple did. Apple, together with Lotus and IBM worked on OpenDoc, a language-agnostic, multi-platform object model based on IBM's Systems Object Model (SOM) which is CORBA compliant. IBM's SOM, by the way, is included in OS/2 v2.0 which was shipped in 1992. MS's COM was launched in 1993.
From that alone, you'd start to question if Microsoft's real intention is to "bring powerful infrastructure down to the user level at an affordable price." If it were, why not go along with the rest of the industry players? Obviously, they have their own agenda.
Internet Components
The internet components mentioned are basically COM extensions that is, as previously mentioned, a CORBA copycat. It might also be good to remember that Microsoft was years behind the internet game.
Services, MSMQ
Think IBM. Think OS/2.
Remember that Microsoft was contracted to work on OS/2 by IBM. These actually came from the OS/2 design specs. In other words, it's not Microsoft's.
Come to think of it, if you look at the complete timeline, you'd notice a pattern. Everytime Microsoft partners with another company, that company's technology eventually become's Microsoft's "own" technology.
MS Windows and Office UI was actually Mac's.
VisualBasic was originally intended to be MacBasic.
Windows NT was originally OS/2 v3.0.
MS SQL Server was originally Sybase SQL Server.
Internet Explorer was actually spyglass/mosaic.
hmmm.... do you see the pattern there somewhere?
can you say "embrace, extend, destroy"?;-)
Oh, by the way, ODBC specifications came from the SQL Access Group (SAG). SAG's original members include Oracle, Informic, Ingres, Sun, HP, DEC and Tandem. Ahhh.... yes, Microsoft was not there initially.