|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shnjb
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2002
Posts: 13320
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well one thing is for sure- with the ability of Macs to run windows, including Vista, (I've seen it running on a Mac) I think buying a Mac to have best of both worlds is the only solution.
That is, having Windows allows you to run a lot more programs, better compatibility with the rest of the world (outside US) and so on, while having the OSX allows simplicity, security and speed for simple everyday tasks (wordprocessing, web browsing, entertainment stuff and so on). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rracer99
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 May 2001
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is not meant as a put down towards those that choose the Mac route, but this false sense of superiority is so un-informed and ignorant.
Windows for quite some time, is not "weak" on security. The users that run Windows do things that put themselves at risk. This is true for any OS.
Security through obscurity is not security.
There are no advantages to using a Mac. If you prefer to use it due to your personal familiarity and preference for that environment, fine, but the arguements of how it excels at a-z are laughable.
I cannot fathom why someone would ever boot Mac OS over Windows, seriously. The Mac universe is like living on a 10ftx10ft island.
Mac zealots fail to asorb the fact that over 95% of the planets' software development, app usage, work, play is done on Windows.
short story:
6 years ago when I was helping a friend setup a Mac system, I need a FTP client real quick and found the commerical program "transmit". This is seriously the only GUI FTP client I could find for him. Meanwhile there was approx. 100+ FTP clients both free and commercial available on Windows. This is representative of nearly every type of application across the board.
I have come to the conclusion that Mac fans have a little masochism buried deep inside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Exick
Site Staff
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 15880
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rracer99 wrote: | Mac zealots fail to asorb the fact that over 95% of the planets' software development, app usage, work, play is done on Windows.
short story:
6 years ago when I was helping a friend setup a Mac system, I need a FTP client real quick and found the commerical program "transmit". This is seriously the only GUI FTP client I could find for him. Meanwhile there was approx. 100+ FTP clients both free and commercial available on Windows. This is representative of nearly every type of application across the board. |
The line about 95% of software being developed for Windows is a gross exaggeration. And it sounds to me like it's been quite some time since you've ventured into the land of Mac OS if Transmit is the only GUI FTP client you were able to find. It's arguably the best, but certainly not the only one. You may or may not know this, but the current OS for Macs is Unix-based, which has opened up a whole other world of applications and a codebase that has 30 years of maturity.
You're right, a Mac is no more inherently secure than a PC, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to use a Mac over a PC.
_________________
Game recognize game, Granddad. - Riley Freeman, The Boondocks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Exick wrote: | | rracer99 wrote: | Mac zealots fail to asorb the fact that over 95% of the planets' software development, app usage, work, play is done on Windows.
short story:
6 years ago when I was helping a friend setup a Mac system, I need a FTP client real quick and found the commerical program "transmit". This is seriously the only GUI FTP client I could find for him. Meanwhile there was approx. 100+ FTP clients both free and commercial available on Windows. This is representative of nearly every type of application across the board. |
The line about 95% of software being developed for Windows is a gross exaggeration. And it sounds to me like it's been quite some time since you've ventured into the land of Mac OS if Transmit is the only GUI FTP client you were able to find. It's arguably the best, but certainly not the only one. You may or may not know this, but the current OS for Macs is Unix-based, which has opened up a whole other world of applications and a codebase that has 30 years of maturity.
You're right, a Mac is no more inherently secure than a PC, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to use a Mac over a PC. |
Plus, on my iMac, I can run 99% of the Windows based software, if need be, so the software argument is moot at this point.
And there must be some advantage, or Vista wouldn't 'look like' OSX. Or you can just take the word of Allchin, who is co-president of Microsoft's Platforms & Services Division:
"I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft. If you run the equivalent of VPC [Virtual PC] on a Mac you get access to basically all Windows application software (although not the hardware)." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Exick
Site Staff
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 15880
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TACH wrote: | Plus, on my iMac, I can run 99% of the Windows based software, if need be, so the software argument is moot at this point.
And there must be some advantage, or Vista wouldn't 'look like' OSX. Or you can just take the word of Allchin, who is co-president of Microsoft's Platforms & Services Division:
"I would buy a Mac today if I was not working at Microsoft. If you run the equivalent of VPC [Virtual PC] on a Mac you get access to basically all Windows application software (although not the hardware)." |
Well, I'm not sure that the fact that Vista has a similar look and feel to OSX is really an argument that OSX has an advantage over Windows. Certainly people like the look and feel of OSX, so it's not a surprise Microsoft has tried to mimic it. Though I personally think that whole thing is overblown. To me, Vista still looks like Windows just with translucent window decoration, which isn't exactly an Apple invention.
And I always find the "I can run Windows software on my Mac" a bit misleading. The fact that you can run Windows on a Mac via virtual PC software, in which case you'd still have to actually buy Windows in order to do it legally anyway, doesn't sound like an argument in favor of Apple. With a little work, I can run OSX on my PC. I don't think that means PCs are superior to Macs.
_________________
Game recognize game, Granddad. - Riley Freeman, The Boondocks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Exick wrote: | Well, I'm not sure that the fact that Vista has a similar look and feel to OSX is really an argument that OSX has an advantage over Windows. Certainly people like the look and feel of OSX, so it's not a surprise Microsoft has tried to mimic it. Though I personally think that whole thing is overblown. To me, Vista still looks like Windows just with translucent window decoration, which isn't exactly an Apple invention.
And I always find the "I can run Windows software on my Mac" a bit misleading. The fact that you can run Windows on a Mac via virtual PC software, in which case you'd still have to actually buy Windows in order to do it legally anyway, doesn't sound like an argument in favor of Apple. With a little work, I can run OSX on my PC. I don't think that means PCs are superior to Macs. |
Didn't say it was an argument to run Apple, just saying it can be done if need be... and since I already have a copy of XP, I can run 99% of Windows software out there... which makes that point moot.
As for Vista itself... it looks and feels like OSX - ARTICLE... looks like MSFT followed the advice of Allchin and 'plan b' the original Longhorn/Vista... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Socks
Franchise Player
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 10761
Location: Bay Area, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^^^ Tach, just curious - are you running a VPC for the windows based stuff? If so, how do you find performance speeds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Socks wrote: | | ^^^ Tach, just curious - are you running a VPC for the windows based stuff? If so, how do you find performance speeds? |
Yes,.. I'm using Parrells, however I only use it for one program, ROVA, which allows me to connect to my office PC. I haven't had or seen any performance issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32762
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Socks wrote: | | TACH wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Socks wrote: | | TACH wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Socks wrote: | | ^^^ It wasn't marketing, it was Bill Gates being the only guy at the time who understood that it was all about owning the interface - the operating system. That single realization and then doing everything to protect it led to everything for Microsoft. |
That's called marketing. |
Give Bill more credit than that.... it's a lot more than marketing.
You guys should watch "Triumph of the Nerds"... in this documentary it explains how Bill and Microsoft got it's start,... also talks about Apple, Steve Jobs, and Xerox (believe it or not, but most of what we see today, in part, was because of Xerox)... |
Yeah, Steve stole from Xerox and Microsoft stole from Apple. Classic. Pirates of the Silicon Valley was also pretty interesting when it wasn't being totally cheesy.
And I wouldn't call it marketing because it was so much more. It was a great idea/realization plus software development, plus business development, plus some thievery and copying. They made the OS the center of the their entire strategy, of which only one component was marketing. |
*sigh*
No, it's called marketing. Trust me, I spent time in the industry as a systems designer, and date back when the machines were called microprocessors, rather than PCs. I'm also an Ivy League MBA.
Bill Gates started a shop that sold a BASIC compiler. He mother sat on a charity board with some senior IBMers. She convinced them to give her son an audience, as they were looking for an operating system that would function on the Intel microprocessor. Gates didn't even own an OS, so he bought the rights to one. He didn't write the code, and he didn't own it outright. "DOS" was still owned by the company that sold him the rights, and was thus allowed to sell it as well.
But Bill out-marketed them, making him the leader in revenues, profits and market share.
Bill Gates 1, Competitors 0 (in marketing)
Next, IBM realized how stupid they were (after the fact). They were stroking themselves in the Harvard Business Review (and elsewhere) as true managerial geniuses, in that they released their IBM PC in one year. Hooray! But they didn't own the rights to the microprocessor CPU (Intel did, oops), nor did they own rights to the OS (MS did, oops). IBM still owned lions-share of the PC market, so they thought they had the market power to drive the standards.
They didn't... Bill did. And he alone knew it. He broke off his "fake" joint development of DOS' successor (OS/2) and simply stole the XEROX PARC interface from Apple. He placed the interface (aka GUI) on top of DOS and called it Windows. And allowed OS/2 to die of natural causes.
Let's see... Bill Gates 2, Competitors 0 (in marketing).
Next, according to Silicon Valley folklore (might be true, might not be), the CEO of Apple (Scully) threatens to sue, under the pretense that he stole Apple's copyrighted GUI (stolen from XEROX PARC). Gates tells Scully that if he does that, the next release of MS Excel and MS Word for Apple might somehow be delayed for.. months.. years.. who knows. As a result, no one would buy MACs, and Apple share price would tank... and Scully fired by the Board of Directors. That is understanding market power.
Let's see... Bill Gates 3, Competitors 0 (in marketing).
Next, in a series of brilliant price bundling moves, MS crushes competition in the productivity software market (MS Office).
Let's see... Bill Gates 4, Competitors 0 (in marketing).
Next, Bill in a similar move strikes marketing agreements with PC makers where they pay the same amount of royalties to Microsoft, whether Windows is installed, or Linux, or SCO Unix.
Let's see... Bill Gates 5, Competitors 0 (in marketing).
He understands marketing and monopoly power. |
I agree with everything you said, however, it sounds like Bill made some 'sound' business decisions versus running a marketing campaign...
Also Apple did sue Microsoft (and HP) over the GUI... but from what I remember, the statue of limitations had ran out. |
Exactly. I'm not arguing the history, what you describe is how it happened (by many published accounts).
I think where we're disagreeing is the term "marketing". I don't disagree that Microsoft didn't start off as some coding powerhouse that invented something completely new. But it doesn't just come down to coding vs. marketing. BillG had the business acumen to recognize that it all started with the OS. He then made some business development moves to acquire what he needed to position himself correctly to take advantage of this recognition. Bill didn't necessarily out-market IBM, he outstrategized them.
What people don't give BillG credit for is the fact that he recognized the fact that owning the OS put him in the position to dictate standards, whereas everyone else thought it was about owning the box. That's understanding strategy. It's not like he did a ton of market research on this, he just inherently understood it. Microsoft's marketing strategies have not traditionally been very good from the day they started. But it didn't matter. To this day Microsoft gets outmarketed - and I'll say that as a guy who was a Microsoft product marketer for 5 years. Owning the OS was the basis for everything and it's amazing that crappy marketing and crappy development haven't been enough to impede that. Combine that with the early biz dev work MS did and that's why they are where they are today.
I think of traditional marketing as things like pricing and licensing, positioning and messaging, field marketing campaigns, packaging, competitive analysis, AR/PR, etc. None of which Microsoft has been an industry leader in - quite contrary they've sucked at a lot of this throughout history. I think of what Microsoft did to succeed as having business acumen and vision as well as shrewd negotiating and business development (as well as a healthy dose of underhandedness).
Kinda sounds like we're just arguing semantics at this point, so I'll get off the soapbox.  |
Yes, we are quibbling over marketing. Marketing is a discipline, and it doesn't require marketing research. It also doesn't require a formal business education; some are gifted with insight (aka acumen). Bill Gates is definitely very gifted in marketing.
Strategy is not really a business discipline, but rather a framework of applying different business disciplines (marketing, finance, accounting, HRM) to a problem on a grand scale. Most commonly it focuses on the marketing discipline, particularly in competitive analysis and competitive response.
| Quote: | | I think of traditional marketing as things like pricing and licensing, positioning and messaging, field marketing campaigns, packaging, competitive analysis, AR/PR, etc. None of which Microsoft has been an industry leader in |
This is our major point of disagreement. Most folks with a background in technology think that marketing is all about ad copy and trade shows, as evidenced by the marcoms (they tend to be fluff). Microsoft is outstanding at marketing, within the definition that you just described: Pricing, Positioning, and (you forgot) Placement. The bundling of MS Office killed their competitors... that was brilliant marketing. The selling of PCs without MS Windows but still getting license fees was also brilliant marketing. They understood the competitive environment, and using pricing, power and positioning power properly (say that 20x fast), and destroyed the competition.
Of course I also find them reprehensible, stealing ideas from "potential" partners... and I'm not a big fan of the MS clones at the Redmond campus... but hey, they get the last laugh. I'm a customer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KB8daDagger
Starting Rotation
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 882
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
quote]
And I always find the "I can run Windows software on my Mac" a bit misleading. The fact that you can run Windows on a Mac via virtual PC software, in which case you'd still have to actually buy Windows in order to do it legally anyway, doesn't sound like an argument in favor of Apple. With a little work, I can run OSX on my PC. I don't think that means PCs are superior to Macs.[/quote]
Well, actually you can run XP native or via a virtual pc. I run XP native on my macbook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TACH
Retired Number
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 28461
Location: Chillin on the Delaware.. from the Jersey Side
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KB8daDagger wrote: | quote]
And I always find the "I can run Windows software on my Mac" a bit misleading. The fact that you can run Windows on a Mac via virtual PC software, in which case you'd still have to actually buy Windows in order to do it legally anyway, doesn't sound like an argument in favor of Apple. With a little work, I can run OSX on my PC. I don't think that means PCs are superior to Macs. |
Well, actually you can run XP native or via a virtual pc. I run XP native on my macbook.[/quote]Bootcamp? How do you like it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rracer99
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 May 2001
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The line about 95% of software being developed for Windows is a gross exaggeration. And it sounds to me like it's been quite some time since you've ventured into the land of Mac OS if Transmit is the only GUI FTP client you were able to find. It's arguably the best, but certainly not the only one. You may or may not know this, but the current OS for Macs is Unix-based, which has opened up a whole other world of applications and a codebase that has 30 years of maturity.
You're right, a Mac is no more inherently secure than a PC, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to use a Mac over a PC. |
Yes I am aware, Mac OSX+ with its Unix roots is a good OS.
Yes the FTP anecdote was from about 6 years ago, I understand the OS has more going for it now than it did then.
But the point I am making that a Mac system that boots Windows/Vista, is using Windows / Vista.
My point is, WHICH OS would someone want to boot at any given time? I don't see a compelling reason to EVER boot Mac OS.
In the Enterprise and corporate worlds, Windows development dominates. Anything not Windows is Linux / Unix flavors, but hardly ever Mac OS server.
In the game world, Windows development dominates. There are no others for an honorable mention.
In the casual-use world, there is nothing someone would need, that is not available in spades on Windows/Vista.
And lastly, convenience. The lionshare of products, services, consumer conversation, industry speak, is heavily slanted towards Windows.
But sincerely, if someone is satisfied with Mac OS, then more power to em. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
