PDA

View Full Version : Lion vs Windows 8




KPOM
Sep 13, 2011, 01:17 PM
From the previews, Windows 8 is looking very promising.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4771/microsoft-build-windows-8-pre-beta-preview

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-hands-on-preview/

Given how much of a radical departure Windows 8 appears to be from Windows 7, does anyone here wish Apple was more aggressive with Lion? I was skeptical of the single OS for both tablets and PCs, but the early previews seem to indicate that Microsoft could pull it off. We'll see when the betas come out, but it looks promising for now.

(Mods: I wasn't sure if this was more appropriate here, in Windows on Mac, or elsewhere).



GoCubsGo
Sep 13, 2011, 01:21 PM
I just wish Apple had not F'ed up so bad with Lion. It seems there are more problems out of the box with every new OS they're pushing. By the third or fourth update they're usually tolerable, but I miss the days of seamless upgrading without worry.

As for the rest, I don't compare windows to mac because to me it's a moot point.

Eidorian
Sep 13, 2011, 01:21 PM
IDF shares more of my interest right now. What is with this week and conferences?

AAPLaday
Sep 13, 2011, 01:22 PM
Windows 8 looks good. Like really good. Obviously its early days and things can change but it looks like a huge step forward if done right. I have been loving Metro for almost a year now and id love to have it on my computer/tablet. IMO Win 8 will be far ahead of Android on tablets.

I havent been that impressed by Lion. I can well believe the story that was on here months ago about Apple pulling people from OSX to work on iOS instead.

maflynn
Sep 13, 2011, 01:29 PM
I'm excited for win8, I think win7 was a great improvement over windows xp and has been quite stable, plus it added some features that enhance my workflow and use.

I'm not sold on the metro UI and I understand you can disable it. I'm hoping MS will have an open beta on this and I'll get my hands on the OS in the course of time.

r0k
Sep 13, 2011, 01:55 PM
I scoffed at the "backwards scrolling" in Lion and even switched it off. But when I used Lion remotely via iTap on my iPad, I found myself wishing there was a quick way to toggle it back on again without having to go in system preferences looking for it.

I do think there will be an iPad 3 or iPad 3+ running Lion. Now that Windows 8 is looking so good, it's not simply "game over" when Apple puts OS X on a tablet. They have a ways to go to make it seamless. Meanwhile, time will tell if MS manages to deliver what we saw today without cluttering it up by the time it finally hits the streets. Based on past experience, I'm betting on clutter, but that doesn't change the fact that what we are seeing today raises the bar and gives Apple something to think about.

Steve's Barber
Sep 13, 2011, 02:18 PM
Eventually, somebody is going to throw enough money at the Win8/Tablet market resulting in a true competitor for Apple in this arena.

The problem for MS is they are still dependent on hardware makers to match Apple's build quality. Hasn't happened yet.

Hellhammer
Sep 13, 2011, 02:24 PM
Developer Preview today so we all actually get our hands on it. You only need a Live ID. Brian said it's very buggy though.

maflynn
Sep 13, 2011, 02:34 PM
The problem for MS is they are still dependent on hardware makers to match Apple's build quality. Hasn't happened yet.

That has been their greatest weakness. they've tried to create hardware products but fail fairly consistently. The xbox and mouse are probably the only exceptions to that.

Eidorian
Sep 13, 2011, 02:37 PM
Developer Preview today so we all actually get our hands on it. You only need a Live ID. Brian said it's very buggy though.Is a Live ID seriously all you need? I thought you needed to cough up the cash for a full developer account this early in the game.

maflynn
Sep 13, 2011, 02:54 PM
Is a Live ID seriously all you need? I thought you needed to cough up the cash for a full developer account this early in the game.

Looks like I know what I'll be doing tonight :D One thing I hope I can do, provided I can download the developer preview, and thats run it within Vmware.

Eidorian
Sep 13, 2011, 03:04 PM
Looks like I know what I'll be doing tonight :D One thing I hope I can do, provided I can download the developer preview, and thats run it within Vmware.Yeah, I checked the Page 1 thread and it is a free for all tonight. I have a brand new hard drive in shrink wrap that I never used ready for this.

dusk007
Sep 13, 2011, 03:13 PM
Looks like the perfect OS for a convertible. Imagine a 14" Notebook were you can flip the screen make the whole thing a tablet and use it as such for surfing, reading pdfs, checking mail and later you make it a real Notebook again and type a document or do other work stuff.

Lion is just a bloated/buggy SL with worse battery life and no features that make up for it. It is not really comparable to Win8 which is like making iOS and SL one thing with an easy switch between the two.

Hellhammer
Sep 13, 2011, 03:26 PM
That has been their greatest weakness. they've tried to create hardware products but fail fairly consistently. The xbox and mouse are probably the only exceptions to that.

I think he meant that third parties, such as Samsung and other need to match Apple's quality. MS doesn't make tablets or PCs, just the software for them.

maflynn
Sep 13, 2011, 03:50 PM
I think he meant that third parties, such as Samsung and other need to match Apple's quality. MS doesn't make tablets or PCs, just the software for them.

Understood but microsoft has tied to produce hardware for years and they continually fail. Being reliant on third party hardware makers has helped grow the platform from the IBM PC days, but it has caused them all sorts of issues.

They tried to mitigate some of those issues and take a page out of apple's playbook from time to time, but fail. Their turtle phone last year (or the year before I forget) is a great example of how they utterly flopped on the hardware front.

accessoriesguy
Sep 13, 2011, 06:11 PM
well the underlying thing is Apple's Lion is not really complete.

The next update (10.7.2) will remove another batch or errors and will hopefully also make some minor edits to remove other annoyances.

Not to mention that by then iOS5 will be out and we will be syncing in the cloud.

This makes Lion (and iOS5 together) a much more formidable opponent. Not to mention that even after W8 is released, they will still have to remove that first patch of pesky errors.

thejadedmonkey
Sep 13, 2011, 06:18 PM
Understood but microsoft has tied to produce hardware for years and they continually fail. Being reliant on third party hardware makers has helped grow the platform from the IBM PC days, but it has caused them all sorts of issues.

They tried to mitigate some of those issues and take a page out of apple's playbook from time to time, but fail. Their turtle phone last year (or the year before I forget) is a great example of how they utterly flopped on the hardware front.

What are you talking about? The hardware is great. It was how Verizon marketed it (as well as Microsoft killing it) that made it flop. But definitely not the hardware.

maflynn
Sep 13, 2011, 07:02 PM
What are you talking about? The hardware is great. It was how Verizon marketed it (as well as Microsoft killing it) that made it flop. But definitely not the hardware.

You're reaching on that one. Microsoft produced a phone actually both phones and they failed to sell. You can blame verizon, but MS had just as much blame for the failure of the phone.

LIVEFRMNYC
Sep 13, 2011, 07:58 PM
I just skimmed through the vids and articles, but I have a question anyways. :o

Are the tablets to include the FULL VERSION of W8 or just a tablet version? Looking at the first vid, I can't tell if that's a tablet with a keyboard, a touchscreen monitor, or both.

I don't have a iPad and I've been looking into getting the next gen iPad, but if W8 is a FULL OS on tablets then I will not be getting a iPad. Would love to have a full windows OS on a small tablet.

flight
Sep 13, 2011, 08:08 PM
I just skimmed through the vids and articles, but I have a question anyways. :o

Are the tablets to include the FULL VERSION of W8 or just a tablet version? Looking at the first vid, I can't tell if that's a tablet with a keyboard, a touchscreen monitor, or both.

I don't have a iPad and I've been looking into getting the next gen iPad, but if W8 is a FULL OS on tablets then I will not be getting a iPad. Would love to have a full windows OS on a small tablet.

The Windows 8 blog describes the windowed interface as just another app. Maybe the ARM tablets will only have the "Metro" features, while Intel tablets will get both. However, there will likely be even more confusion, if history is anything to go by. We'll probably get Tablet, Home, Professional, Server, Ultimate, etc.

Eidorian
Sep 13, 2011, 08:12 PM
The Windows 8 blog describes the windowed interface as just another app. Maybe the ARM tablets will only have the "Metro" features, while Intel tablets will get both. However, there will likely be even more confusion, if history is anything to go by. We'll probably get Tablet, Home, Professional, Server, Ultimate, etc.I would love to show you the terrifying "this is Microsoft Word running on ARM" picture. Windows 8 is Windows 8.

McGiord
Sep 13, 2011, 08:25 PM
I think is another gimmick.

Windows 7 is now being seriously deployed in large companies, and large companies would not want to spend more money in a short time-frame.
Some companies are still using XP, and just started to migrate to Windows 7.

Apple already moved towards this direction of integrating the mobile OS into the main computers OS X, besides the touch screen there might need to do something else to really change the human-pc interface.
Apple has a head start with the trackpad gestures, but future success might come from something we have not seen yet.

My initial reaction is that I do not want to work on a touch screen all the time, specially for typing long documents, or doing spreadsheets, presentations, etc.

I mean there should be a more ergonomically way to spend a full day working in front of your computer, I personally do not believe the touch screen is the answer for this.

What are the Windows 8 packages: Windows Metro, Windows MiliMetro, Windows Km...

scarred
Sep 13, 2011, 08:47 PM
Windows 8 is targeting tablets, and hoping that desktop users like the changes. Quite a big bet...

Lion simply took some of the warmth of tablets and brought it to the desktop. This was a smaller bet... and considering the outcry with even that, MS is in trouble.

fwiw. I prefer the OSX approach. Reverse scrolling, launchpad, gestures, app store, full screen... all those features make for a really nice experience on a Macbook Air. I don't have to touch the screen to benefit from them. And they are small tweaks that 27inch desktop users can disregard if they want.

Also, MS is missing the hardware, which is a huge hole. Apple had the Macbook Air to show off their OS with. MS gets to hope someone cobbles something interesting together.

Steve's Barber
Sep 13, 2011, 09:18 PM
Windows 8 is targeting tablets, and hoping that desktop users like the changes. Quite a big bet...

In a twisted sort of way... one can say similar things about Lion.

LIVEFRMNYC
Sep 13, 2011, 09:41 PM
Tried this on VirtualBox, so far not really impressed compared to W7 which is already a good OS.


Taskmanger is extremely easier to read. Very much like how everything is broken down to the point you can just glance at it.

VPrime
Sep 13, 2011, 10:33 PM
What I see as a benefit of Windows 8 is their tablet/mobile UI and a full desktop OS in one.
Right now Apple has 2 separate platforms that are very different from each other and at this point don't work together at all (or very little).
What needs to happen for Apple to keep up (in my opinion) is to merge iOS and OSX in one (like Win 8) WITH OUT compromising the desktop OSX experience (like Microsoft seems to be doing).

One thing that could potentially hold back windows 8 is hardware. AS mentioned Microsoft relies on 3rd parties for the hardware and if the hardware offerings are no good then people may not draw to windows 8. The current development hardware for the windows 8 tablet is sort of junky. I mean who wants a tablet with a fan?

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 03:22 AM
That has been their greatest weakness. they've tried to create hardware products but fail fairly consistently. The xbox and mouse are probably the only exceptions to that.
What computer hardware products are you referring to? Their accessory line of products are a great success in terms of keyboards and mice especially with their OEM line. Their sales figures are amazing considering they hardly do any advertising for them.

Understood but microsoft has tied to produce hardware for years and they continually fail. Being reliant on third party hardware makers has helped grow the platform from the IBM PC days, but it has caused them all sorts of issues.

They tried to mitigate some of those issues and take a page out of apple's playbook from time to time, but fail. Their turtle phone last year (or the year before I forget) is a great example of how they utterly flopped on the hardware front.

So you're judging Microsoft's overall failure based on their lack of success with Windows Phone 7? All companies fail with something along the way, even Apple flopped with MobileMe, they failed to convince non-OS X users that Safari is the better browser (this is IMHO the worst product of OS X, any version, worse than IE). How's about other hardware, like networking products. Time Capsule has never really caught on, no Airport router/switch combo product have outsold other 3rd parties like Dlink, Netgear and Cisco/Linksys. What about Final Cut X? It was received so badly by users that Apple issued refunds and in the process provided Adobe with a lot of business with their Premiere Pro software... something quite unthinkable in terms of Final Cut history. Does this make Apple any less of a company due to any of that? Of course not.

Microsoft's main strength and focus has always been their Windows line of software, always have and it's still true today. Over 10 years ago if someone mentioned "Microsoft hardware", I would almost immediately associate it with their Intellimouse and Natural Keyboard products. Now (like someone else mentioned), it's almost entirely about the Xbox which is a commercial success.

MS also had an amazing support infrastructure made over 11 years ago, nearly all issues can be researched online from official Microsoft sources for support for all Windows related matters. Apple on the other hand has a laughable Knowledge Base, almost nothing in terms of an official support source for their only operating system OS X exist. OS X support is provided primarily through user to user, hardly any flow of communication from Apple to users exist even if you're a developer on exisiting issues with OS X. Does this make Apple a subpar software company? Not necessarily. It does however, clearly show the difference in how Apple and Microsoft is setup for operating system support.

As such it makes no sense to ask a fork to be a spoon or vice versa. Each company has their share of strengths and weaknesses. It's natural for these 2 companies to dwell and expand into other areas with varying levels of success.

maflynn
Sep 14, 2011, 06:00 AM
So you're judging Microsoft's overall failure based on their lack of success with Windows Phone 7? All companies fail with something along the way, even Apple flopped with MobileMe, .
No, not overall failure in fact windows 7 is a rousing success and MS is quite successful and popular.

My point is that they have failed on the hardware sector and I was only citing a recent example of Microsoft's foray into the hardware arena and its result they have had other attempts into the hardware sector as well with similar results though not as spectacular (zune & spot watch)

The Phazer
Sep 14, 2011, 08:08 AM
I think it looks pretty good, and certainly the fact it doesn't have mandatory versions is a very big positive. It may well have to replace SL as my main OS eventually for that reason alone.

But the ARM version will only install apps from the Windows store - just as cripped and useless as iOS is on tablets then.

Phazer

maflynn
Sep 14, 2011, 08:15 AM
But the ARM version will only install apps from the Windows store - just as cripped and useless as iOS is on tablets then.

That makes sense because the ARM version is going to be a tablet version or least it was intended for such.

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 08:24 AM
No, not overall failure in fact windows 7 is a rousing success and MS is quite successful and popular.

My point is that they have failed on the hardware sector and I was only citing a recent example of Microsoft's foray into the hardware arena and its result they have had other attempts into the hardware sector as well with similar results though not as spectacular (zune & spot watch)

Fair enough.

I don't really understand how people can continue to compare MS to Apple since their business directions isn't very similar, and that's how I was responding to your comment.

For Microsoft, Windows is their main product, they really don't have to do much to push the product, it pretty much sells itself on its own. The same could be said about the iPhone, Apple's at the point where the can announce "iPhone 5.1" and it'll sell just because it's an iPhone without customers needing to know what makes it different from the vanilla iPhone 5.

In the old days, I could associate Apple and MS to be on par with each other in terms of business models, as such Apple was known as "Apple Computer Inc." and the Macintosh name was their bread and butter, now I'd beg to differ. When someone mentions Apple, yes I know there's Macs but that's not their strong point, I almost immediately associate it with the iPhone first then the iPad. 5 years backward, I'd say they're known mostly for their iPods more than anything. Hence "Apple Computer Inc." no longer exists and now goes under just "Apple Inc." but I know you knew that already.

vitzr
Sep 14, 2011, 08:26 AM
Microsoft is still very much a leader.

As of late, there has been quite a bit of talk surrounding Chrome OS, Google's cloud-based operating system. The operating system, which was launched earlier this year to take on Windows, is being called by some, a future Windows killer.

However, these analysts fail to realize that the only way that can happen is if Microsoft changes its own strategy. See, Windows affects the direction of the operating system market, not the other way around. So, while Google is trying to push customers to the cloud, Microsoft's gravitational pull is keeping them offline and within the traditional PC model.

If Windows stays offline, that won't change. But if Windows heads to the cloud, anything can happen. Like it or not, Windows determines the fate of all its competitors.

roadbloc
Sep 14, 2011, 08:33 AM
But the ARM version will only install apps from the Windows store - just as cripped and useless as iOS is on tablets then.

Phazer

I doubt Microsoft will impose as many controversial and unnecessary rules as Apple has done on their App Store.

BaldiMac
Sep 14, 2011, 09:36 AM
Fair enough.

I don't really understand how people can continue to compare MS to Apple since their business directions isn't very similar, and that's how I was responding to your comment.

For Microsoft, Windows is their main product, they really don't have to do much to push the product, it pretty much sells itself on its own. The same could be said about the iPhone, Apple's at the point where the can announce "iPhone 5.1" and it'll sell just because it's an iPhone without customers needing to know what makes it different from the vanilla iPhone 5.

In the old days, I could associate Apple and MS to be on par with each other in terms of business models, as such Apple was known as "Apple Computer Inc." and the Macintosh name was their bread and butter, now I'd beg to differ. When someone mentions Apple, yes I know there's Macs but that's not their strong point, I almost immediately associate it with the iPhone first then the iPad. 5 years backward, I'd say they're known mostly for their iPods more than anything. Hence "Apple Computer Inc." no longer exists and now goes under just "Apple Inc." but I know you knew that already.

I'm not sure where you are drawing the line here. You say Apple and Microsoft were competing when it was Mac (hardware + software) versus Windows. That still exists. Then we added iPod vs Plays for Sure vs Zune. That's over. Now we are at iPhone (hardware + software) vs Windows Phone 7.

The only difference is that Apple is ahead in the new markets. Why does that make them incomparable?

Steve's Barber
Sep 14, 2011, 11:02 AM
Microsoft is still very much a leader."very much"? That's an understatement. I'd say that 90% market penetration is pretty much ownership of said market.

I don't really understand how people can continue to compare MS to Apple since their business directions isn't very similarNot so disimilar. It's like comparing a grocery store to a full service restaurant. But both are competing for the same food dollar.

mrsir2009
Sep 14, 2011, 01:59 PM
I think is another gimmick.

Windows 7 is now being seriously deployed in large companies, and large companies would not want to spend more money in a short time-frame.
Some companies are still using XP, and just started to migrate to Windows 7.


Yeah, my school migrated from XP to Win7 at the beginning of the year. And the Macs are still on Leopard. No, not Snow Leopard. Leopard (which no one uses anymore).

Hellhammer
Sep 14, 2011, 02:04 PM
Yeah, my school migrated from XP to Win7 at the beginning of the year. And the Macs are still on Leopard. No, not Snow Leopard. Leopard (which no one uses anymore).

Windows XP is still the most popular OS: http://winadvisor.net/news/os-market-share-august-2011/

To be honest, I would be fine with Leopard. There isn't anything really special in SL or Lion.

DReynolds86
Sep 14, 2011, 03:16 PM
I have Windows 7 installed on my Mac Mini via Boot Camp and I use it to run Rosetta Stone and a lot of software left over in the switch from Windows to :apple:. My problem with Windows and where :apple: really shines is that if I wanted to upgrade from Windows 7 to 8, I'd have to shell out what...$130? And then I'd only be able to install it one one machine. When I bought Lion, I could install it on my Mini and my MacBook Pro and it fost $29.99.

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 03:35 PM
I'm not sure where you are drawing the line here. You say Apple and Microsoft were competing when it was Mac (hardware + software) versus Windows. That still exists. Then we added iPod vs Plays for Sure vs Zune. That's over. Now we are at iPhone (hardware + software) vs Windows Phone 7.

The only difference is that Apple is ahead in the new markets. Why does that make them incomparable?

What it means is that in those days Apple's main product was the Macintosh computers, whereas Microsoft's main product was still their OS. MS hasn't changed in that manner whereas Apple has. Macs are no longer Apple's main feature product (thus OS X falls into that same category since OS X is directly associated with a Mac), Apple's mobile products have completely dominated their "computer" market.

Comparing for example just the 2 OS's alone just for official support, with MS you have a very strong backing, it would be like taking your inquiry to a full-staffed IT firm with professionals ready to help you with solutions. Getting official support from Apple for your Mac and you get a guy in a blue tshirt with a lanyard around his neck trying to fix something that Apple has never acknowledged is a problem. You're not that much better off taking your Mac to a Walmart salesperson and asking the guy in the electronics dept for help or your neighbor down the street for support. Not trying to mock Apple but merely trying to illustrate how each company differs in how they're setup for support. A better example of comparing OS-related support would be like comparing MS versus Novell as both are setup with very elaborate and strong support infrastructures.

Many associate Macs with a premium product, I differ in that opinion but for this example let's go with the notion that Macs are premium machines (to include OS X). Let's associate Macs with buying a nice BMW... when you buy a BMW you get a really nice car, you get a very friendly staff and your vehicle is made with top notch quality. If you have a problem, BMW has an array of professional technicians ready to service your car should it have any problems, they have an entire facility to take care of any maintenance or unique support requirements.

Apple on the other hand is quite different, they're not setup that way, most of the support for an "Apple-BMW" relies on the guy standing behind you also in need of support. You get a "Check Engine Light (CEL)", go back to Apple-BMW support and their staff try to help you but there's no procedure in place to deal with how to correct that CEL. You go to a local Starbucks to call your friend about your issue and a customer at that Starbucks overhears your conversion and coincidentally knows how to address your problem.

I disagree with the iPhone vs WP7 comment, WP7 was never meant to compete with the iPhone, in fact it was designed to be an alternative to many mid-tier phones. Independent websites took it upon themselves to compare it to the iPhone not because they were competing products, it's because so many people have iPhones and it offered an easy means to associate the differences between the iPhone and WP7 products. If an iPhone is a BMW, then WP7 would be like a Toyota Corolla. The Toyota's a nice little car, reliable and easy to drive, nothing flashy like an Apple-BMW but still a pretty decent car nonetheless. Neither car was designed to compete against each other but people automatically assume that they do simply because each company has an automobile product.

BaldiMac
Sep 14, 2011, 03:50 PM
What it means is that in those days Apple's main product was the Macintosh computers, whereas Microsoft's main product was still their OS. MS hasn't changed in that manner whereas Apple has. Macs are no longer Apple's main feature product (thus OS X falls into that same category since OS X is directly associated with a Mac), Apple's mobile products have completely dominated their "computer" market.

They have both tried to change. Apple has just done so successfully.

Mac sales are at record numbers and are increasing market share every quarter for the last five years. (21 consecutive quarters)

I disagree with the iPhone vs WP7 comment, WP7 was never meant to compete with the iPhone, in fact it was designed to be an alternative to many mid-tier phones Independent websites took it upon themselves to compare it to the iPhone not because it would make for a good comparison, it's because so many people have iPhones and it offers an easy means to associate the differences between the iPhone and WP7 products.

So, basically, you don't want to compare them in markets where Apple is ahead.

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 04:14 PM
They have both tried to change. Apple has just done so successfully.
Wrong, MS has always been a software company and they still lead in that area. MS has never decided upon moving away from Windows products to venture into other markets. Even with their WP7 product line, it was mostly a continuation of Windows CE which was used in some earlier phones and in PDA's (like the iPaq) when Palm dominated the market. MS has always produced software, there never was a Microsoft phone, Microsoft PDA, Microsoft PC.

Even with the success of their Xbox, they never intended on moving away from software to push forward with the gaming console industry. Microsoft (Windows) has always been associated with computer gaming (compared to Macintosh platforms) and it was a great way to specialize just the gaming aspect of Windows computing and creating a dedicated product to do so.

With Apple, their direction has changed, the proof of this is in the change of their company's name. From Apple Computers Inc. to just Apple Inc. Apple's no longer just a computer company and decided to diversify their attention into other areas, hence Macs and OS X isn't their bread and butter product anymore.

Mac sales are at record numbers and are increasing market share every quarter for the last five years. (21 consecutive quarters)
Even at record numbers, they're clearly not even in position to compete with MS, where's Macs at now, at around 10%~11%? Even that's being very generous, in fact the following link has 10.6 at under 4% that means there are more than twice the amount of (gag) Windows Vista users than they are OS X 10.6.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11

OS X 10.7 Lion is even worse than Linux at 1.03%

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Here's a disconnect I'm finding about the whole Mac-PC, OS X-Windows marketshare deal. According to Macrumors back in July, I got the figure of 10~11% PC marketshare. How is it that there's that much of a discrepancy in figures is what I'm trying to figure out.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/13/apple-soars-to-third-place-in-u-s-pc-market-with-10-7-share/

Even at record numbers, Macs are unable to compete with XP, an ancient release from back in 2003. What you fail to realize is that most of Mac owners also own a PC, those who don't own a PC (machine), often own a copy of Windows (for bootcamp, VM, etc.). If you look at those links, OS X sales are directly associated with Mac sales since OS X is not licensed to be used on non-Apple hardware so you'd have to own a Mac to use it in accordance with its EULA terms.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Apple in any way, in fact I see it as a clear advantage to be able to use both Macs and PCs, OS X and Windows to deal with my computing needs, I don't see anything wrong with having 2 good products to use. However in your mind I guess Apple should just quit out of the OS market because MS is ahead (based on your next quote below).

So, basically, you don't want to compare them in markets where Apple is ahead.
Compare what?

BaldiMac
Sep 14, 2011, 04:28 PM
Wrong, MS has always been a software company and they still lead in that area. MS has never decided upon moving away from Windows products to venture into other markets. Even with their WP7 product line, it was mostly a continuation of Windows CE which was used in some earlier phones and in PDA's (like the iPaq) when Palm dominated the market. MS has always produced software, there never was a Microsoft phone, Microsoft PDA, Microsoft PC.

And Apple has always produced hardware and software. It's amazing that you would say that "MS has never decided upon moving away from Windows products to venture into other markets." They tried the same markets that Apple has succeeded in (digital music, media players, smartphones, tablets). They were just less successful to date.

Even at record numbers, they're clearly not even in position to compete with MS, where's Macs at now, at around 10%~11%? Even that's being very generous, in fact the following link has 10.6 at under 4% that means there are more than twice the amount of (gag) Windows Vista users than they are OS X 10.6.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=11

OS X 10.7 Lion is even worse than Linux at 1.03%

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0


Even at record numbers, Macs are unable to compete with XP, an ancient release from back in 2003. What you fail to realize is that most of Mac owners also own a PC, those who don't own a PC (machine), often own a copy of Windows (for bootcamp, VM, etc.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Apple in any way, in fact I see it as a clear advantage to be able to use both Macs and PCs, OS X and Windows to deal with my computing needs, I don't see anything wrong with having 2 good products to use. However in your mind I guess Apple should just quit out of the OS market because MS is ahead (based on your next quote below).

Except we weren't talking about whether or not they compete. You said they shouldn't even be compared. I have no idea where you got the idea that I think any company should just quit. (And, are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Lion (out for 1.5 months) to all versions of Linux?)

EDIT: You are confusing usage share, global market share, US market share. As a point of comparison, the largest market share ever for Macs was around 12% in the early 90s. Apple has about half of that now after more than tripling their global market share in the last 7 or 8 years.

Compare what?

Evidently, you forgot what this conversation was about. You said "I don't really understand how people can continue to compare MS to Apple since their business directions isn't very similar." I disagreed.

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 04:44 PM
And Apple has always produced hardware and software. It's amazing that you would say that "MS has never decided upon moving away from Windows products to venture into other markets." They tried the same markets that Apple has succeeded in (digital music, media players, smartphones, tablets). They were just less successful to date.
The difference is that MS has never intended to move away from their OS dominance, that is their main product, always has been, and still true today. Apple has never been at any level, in any time in history, to compete with MS in terms of OS market dominance. Even at their best OS X 10.6 which is currently leading 10.7 is only at 3.22% OS marketshare. It would make more sense for Apple to try their hand at other markets than trying to dethrone MS at the OS race.

Both MS and Apple have produced products that didn't succeed in both hardware and software, so what's your point?

Except we weren't talking about whether or not they compete. You said they shouldn't even be compared. I have no idea where you got the idea that I think any company should just quit. (And, are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Lion (out for 1.5 months) to all versions of Linux?)

Evidently, you forgot what this conversation was about. You said "I don't really understand how people can continue to compare MS to Apple since their business directions isn't very similar." I disagreed.

Read the bolded area. Apple and MS's business directions aren't the same, I stand by that comment and I'm certain if you look at both companies objectively, you'd understand. Yes Apple has OS X, and MS has Windows, both are software and both are operating systems, it doesn't mean each product's designed to target the same goal. Let's take a different product, Lion server versus Windows 2008 Server. Both are server products but both are designed with completely different goals and both companies differ in the ability to support their products. MS clearly has the edge in this area but that doesn't mean OS X Lion Server is bad, they were never meant to compete against each other however some might associate competition between both simply because they are both server products.

BaldiMac
Sep 14, 2011, 04:54 PM
The difference is that MS has never intended to move away from their OS dominance, that is their main product, always has been, and still true today. Apple has never been at any level, in any time in history, to compete with MS in terms of OS market dominance. Even at their best OS X 10.6 which is currently leading 10.7 is only at 3.22% OS marketshare. It would make more sense for Apple to try their hand at other markets than trying to dethrone MS at the OS race.

I have no idea what that means other than MS hasn't had a more successful product than Windows/ Office.

Both MS and Apple have produced products that didn't succeed in both hardware and software, so what's your point?

My point is that it's perfectly reasonable to compare the two companies. They compete in many of the same markets.

Read the bolded area. Apple and MS's business directions aren't the same, I standby that comment and I'm certain if you look at both companies objectively, you'd understand. Yes Apple has OS X, and MS has Windows, both are software and both are operating systems, it doesn't mean each product's designed to target the same goal. Let's take a different product, Lion server versus Windows 2008 Server. Both are server products but both are designed with completely different goals and both companies differ in the ability to support their products. MS clearly has the edge in this area but that doesn't mean OS X Lion Server is bad, they were never meant to compete against each other however some might associate competition between both simply because they are both server products.

I read the bolded text. The fact that they have different strategies in the same market does not mean that they should not be compared. To me, it actually makes the comparison more interesting.

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 05:50 PM
I have no idea what that means other than MS hasn't had a more successful product than Windows/ Office.
Apple has never been in any position to challenge MS's dominance in the OS product race. If you use current sales figures of today which clearly shows OS X (and thus Mac sales) are at the highest in history, it's still unable to compete with MS's weakest product, Windows Vista. In other words it makes no sense for MS to deviate from their success with their OS products. Apple on the other hand has never experienced anywhere near that level of success despite breaking all Apple sales figures so it made more sense for them to diversify their attention into other areas.

My point is that it's perfectly reasonable to compare the two companies. They compete in many of the same markets.
You can technically compare anything, that doesn't mean it'll be a good comparison.

I read the bolded text. The fact that they have different strategies in the same market does not mean that they should not be compared. To me, it actually makes the comparison more interesting.
So you're saying comparing a Toyota Corolla to a BMW 5 series makes for an interesting comparison? The direction and intended purpose for each product is different, what's similar is that they're both automobiles but that's pretty much where those similarities end. Both cars are very good for their respective target markets. Your viewpoint appears to value how one superior product, regardless of the circumstances is clearly the better overall product, as to pad your ego into justifying your support for the better overall car.

My argument is that what makes for a better comparison is when you compare apples to apples, products that are intended to compete in the same market with the intent of competing with each other.

miknos
Sep 14, 2011, 05:55 PM
Just saw the 90 min developer preview video (link (http://channel9.msdn.com/events/BUILD/BUILD2011/BPS-1004)).

It looks like Microsoft is doing a pretty good job at UI. Seems like they realized the importance of good typography and UI.
They highlighted many times Fast and Fluid and less chrome (bunch of menus and other distracting stuff).

I guess they're in the right path in improving Windows. I think it's great to see many stuff in the desktop screen (weather, calendar, contacts, etc) but the examples I saw in the video, looks a little "polluted", with changing pictures and RSS.

Anyways, I don't think I'll be going back to Windows so soon but I congratulate Microsoft for doing a good job creating a unique UI (contrary to the Google guys). And don't forget competition means better products for us users :)

Hyper-X
Sep 14, 2011, 06:19 PM
Google IMHO has a lot of interesting ideas but some of them leave me scratching my head. For example the Chromebook idea is a fantastic idea with 1 major issue, it requires you to be connected to the internet. It would be awesome if I lived on a small island where WiFi coverage could be had everywhere, but that's not the case. Since nothing is really stored locally on the machine, if I'm unable to establish an internet connection, I'm unable to work on anything offline.

Google's biggest problem right now I think is Apple's upcoming iCloud.

flight
Sep 14, 2011, 11:45 PM
Just saw the 90 min developer preview video (link (http://channel9.msdn.com/events/BUILD/BUILD2011/BPS-1004)).

It was a well done presentation and adds to the excitement for Windows 8. I'm glad they're avoiding bookshelves and leather, going with a chromeless interface instead. I just hope manufacturers provide good hardware when it's released.

mark28
Sep 15, 2011, 02:04 AM
No, not overall failure in fact windows 7 is a rousing success and MS is quite successful and popular.

My point is that they have failed on the hardware sector and I was only citing a recent example of Microsoft's foray into the hardware arena and its result they have had other attempts into the hardware sector as well with similar results though not as spectacular (zune & spot watch)

Microsoft has failed on the hardware sector?

Ever heard of the Xbox 360? Sony has to sell their Playstation 3 at a loss in order to compete with the Xbox 360.

vitzr
Sep 15, 2011, 05:23 AM
Google's biggest problem right now I think is Apple's upcoming iCloud.
I'm curious why you feel this way?

blackburn
Sep 15, 2011, 05:55 AM
Windows 8 makes me touch the lcd in hopes of working with it. So it looks that it will be good for tablets or touch computers. But for regular desktop usage the metro ui is just a fancy wallpaper.

The new explorer also is confusing but manageable to use. I still haven't messed up much with it since windows update is already giving me trouble. Another thing that I noticed is that the windows folder is still a mess.

Windows is still on development so they can change things, lion well I don't even want to talk about it:mad: all the troubles plus versions and auto save made me give up on it.

maflynn
Sep 15, 2011, 06:24 AM
I disabled the Metro UI. While it may be ok for a tablet or phone, its absolutely horrendous on a desktop. I can't believe the folks over at redmond actually believe Metro on the PC is a good thing :confused:

Hyper-X
Sep 15, 2011, 08:51 AM
I'm curious why you feel this way?

The most dominant company right now for cloud services is Google's cloud. In Google's mind their vision is to move the traditional desktop experience to the cloud, where all of your needs are done pretty much in a browser. That includes stuff like email, apps like spreadsheets and such.

Apple and believe it or not Microsoft share the same idea that the best use for cloud computing isn't to move the experience to the web, rather use it to augment and enhance the current desktop experience. In other words the web augments the software (service).

I believe in the latter concept, iCloud appears at least on the surface as the way to go about things. Issues like how Google's vision requires you to be actively online to do anything bothers me as I do a lot of offline computing. The web's advantage is that I can have access to a lot of traditional data which normally resides on my computer in the cloud so I can access it without having to lug an external hard drive all the time for example.

If you looked at a Chromebook and fired up their spreadsheet app, you'll clearly see that it's not even a match for Microsoft's Excel... I'm not really an Excel power-user and even I found the web-spreadsheet app very lacking.

I haven't had any chance to try iCloud but at least the concept seems to be a lot better than Google's current implementation.

BaldiMac
Sep 15, 2011, 09:13 AM
Apple has never been in any position to challenge MS's dominance in the OS product race. If you use current sales figures of today which clearly shows OS X (and thus Mac sales) are at the highest in history, it's still unable to compete with MS's weakest product, Windows Vista. In other words it makes no sense for MS to deviate from their success with their OS products. Apple on the other hand has never experienced anywhere near that level of success despite breaking all Apple sales figures so it made more sense for them to diversify their attention into other areas.

Of course it makes sense for Microsoft to diversify. That's why they've been trying to diversify for more than a decade. They just haven't had much success.

So you're saying comparing a Toyota Corolla to a BMW 5 series makes for an interesting comparison? The direction and intended purpose for each product is different, what's similar is that they're both automobiles but that's pretty much where those similarities end. Both cars are very good for their respective target markets. Your viewpoint appears to value how one superior product, regardless of the circumstances is clearly the better overall product, as to pad your ego into justifying your support for the better overall car.

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish in making the comparison.

My argument is that what makes for a better comparison is when you compare apples to apples, products that are intended to compete in the same market with the intent of competing with each other.

And we are back to the fact that Microsoft and Apple do compete in the same markets with the intent of competing with each other.

PC Market
Digital Music Market
Digital Music Player Market
Tablet Market
Smartphone Market

Hyper-X
Sep 15, 2011, 10:33 AM
Of course it makes sense for Microsoft to diversify. That's why they've been trying to diversify for more than a decade. They just haven't had much success.

It doesn't make sense for MS to diversify away from their OS, they need to sustain that product as it's their strong point. Apple has never had an OS in their entire history, therefore it made more sense for them to look for success elsewhere.

Like I said Apple has not had much success with networking products, MobileMe, OS X Lion (or Snow Leopard), even at Apple's current peak with Mac sales it's still no better than 10~11% overall marketshare. Their OS use accounts for less than 5% total (combined Lion + Snow Leopard). Does this mean Apple should opt out of the race for these products? No.

Apple's track record hasn't been 100% either, so again what's your point?

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish in making the comparison.
As I stated before, anyone can make a comparison with anything, it just doesn't mean it'll be a good comparison. It seems you're the type that has no problem comparing a BMW 5-series to a Corolla and consider that "interesting". Comparing Apples to Oranges doesn't make for any worthwhile comparison just because they're both fruits.

And we are back to the fact that Microsoft and Apple do compete in the same markets with the intent of competing with each other.

PC Market - Apple is only in the consumer market and they hardly have anything worthwhile to offer medium-large-enterprise-datacenter markets. MS is almost entirely in the software development area, Apple offers complete machines to include OS X. MS doesn't offer MS-branded computers so to compare Apples to Apples, Windows vs OS X, the marketshare statistics, despite Apple's highest numbers of operating system sales, still fails to add up to more than 5% of the OS's being used via marketshare. Again if you think about a Ferrari and a Kia, there's an overlap where they're both cars, operated on the roads but it doesn't change the fact that both products are not in competing markets. Win Microsoft.

Digital Music Market - See below
Digital Music Player Market - These 2 go hand in hand, you simply separated them to make it seem like there's more to your list. You can't use an iPod without iTunes so both the player and its software application (as you call the DMPM) go hand in hand. The Zune is surprisingly more successful than Sony's MiniDisc which existed much earlier but Apple has already convinced the world that the iPod offers the product to which all else are compared. This area is by far the only area where MS and Apple do directly compete as both offer products with similar features with nearly identical price ranges targeting the same audiences. Win for Apple by a large margin.

Tablet Market - MS has never put forth much effort into putting out tablets, rather they demo'd how tablets could offer a glimpse into what computing could offer today, over 10 years ago with Windows XP. Not sure why you put them down as a competitor as the chief competitor is...

Google with Android. First with Froyo (2.2.x) on the Galaxy Tab then a huge leap into Honeycomb (3.x.x), this is by far the most serious push into the tablet market than anything Microsoft has ever been involved with. Google is the primary competitor in the tablet market.

Apple struck it big with the iPad, working off the success of the iPhone and iPod Touch, Apple took great measures into changing some people's opinion of how it's merely a "big iPod Touch" by showcasing the advantages of using a larger unit. It took iOS which worked really well for the iPhone/iPod Touch and applied it to their tablet, good move on their part. Win Apple.

Smartphone Market - The iPhone was intended to be a full-feature smartphone which combined the best parts of a mobile player to support a variety of apps, through a well-supported development model with a phone. The price point of an iPhone is a premium, I don't believe any current/new model of iPhone is ever considered "cheap". Apple has about half of the lead at the moment shared with...

Google, how surprising. Android is currently the king of smartphones with enough variety to make anyone confused. The lead isn't a large one but Android currently leads Apple's iPhone. Google wins by a small margin.

Microsoft offers Windows Phone 7, it offered a completely different look from any touch-based phone. Like Windows 8 it uses a very unique tile-UI which many people who've reviewed them found using it a very good experience. The problem MS didn't anticipate was that there's not much of a market in the mid-tier. When people shop for a new phone, the attention is mostly at the ends of the price ranges. Either they want a super-phone with everything plus more, or they want something simple and cheap.

If you ask me, Apple isn't a good comparison to do with Microsoft, it did in the past but times have changed. A good comparison would be Google vs Microsoft as both are primarily software companies. Google, like Microsoft, provides mostly the operating systems for devices other manufacturers provide. When you compare professional business-level support, Apple's not even in the game, rather Microsoft would still be better compared to Novell who's pretty much synonymous with business computing for as long as I can remember.

BaldiMac
Sep 15, 2011, 11:01 AM
It doesn't make sense for MS to diversify away from their OS, they need to sustain that product as it's their strong point. Apple has never had an OS in their entire history, therefore it made more sense for them to look for success elsewhere.

Diversifying wouldn't necessarily involve moving away from current products, so I have no idea what point you are making here. It's clear as a bell that Microsoft has been attempting to diversify for over a decade. I'm not sure why you are arguing otherwise.

Like I said Apple has not had much success with networking products, MobileMe, OS X Lion (or Snow Leopard), even at Apple's current peak with Mac sales it's still no better than 10~11% overall marketshare. Their OS use accounts for less than 5% total (combined Lion + Snow Leopard). Does this mean Apple should opt out of the race for these products? No.

I agree. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?

Apple's track record hasn't been 100% either, so again what's your point?

I'll repeat my point again. "My point is that it's perfectly reasonable to compare the two companies. They compete in many of the same markets."

As I stated before, anyone can make a comparison with anything, it just doesn't mean it'll be a good comparison. It seems you're the type that has no problem comparing a BMW 5-series to a Corolla and consider that "interesting". Comparing Apples to Oranges doesn't make for any worthwhile comparison just because they're both fruits.

There are many reasons to compare a BMW and to a Corolla. The obvious reason to compare them would be to illustrate why the BMW is a better car. Are you trying to use the word "compare" to mean something different? Are you talking about a specific kind of comparison?

(And, despite the idiom, apples and oranges are compared all the time. The idiom is meant to refer to specific types of illogical comparisons.)

PC Market - Apple is only in the consumer market and they hardly have anything worthwhile to offer medium-large-enterprise-datacenter markets. MS is almost entirely in the software development area, Apple offers complete machines to include OS X. MS doesn't offer MS-branded computers so to compare Apples to Apples, Windows vs OS X, the marketshare statistics, despite Apple's highest numbers of operating system sales, still fails to add up to more than 5% of the OS's being used via marketshare. Again if you think about a Ferrari and a Kia, there's an overlap where they're both cars, operated on the roads but it doesn't change the fact that both products are not in competing markets. Win Microsoft.

Digital Music Market - See below
Digital Music Player Market - These 2 go hand in hand, you simply separated them to make it seem like there's more to your list. You can't use an iPod without iTunes so both the player and its software application (as you call the DMPM) go hand in hand. The Zune is surprisingly more successful than Sony's MiniDisc which existed much earlier but Apple has already convinced the world that the iPod offers the product to which all else are compared. Win for Apple by a large margin.

Tablet Market - MS has never put forth much effort to putting out tablets, rather they demo'd how tablets could offer a glimpse into what computing could offer today, over 10 years ago with Windows XP. Not sure why you put them down as a competitor as the chief competitor is...

Google with Android. First with Froyo (2.2.x) on the Galaxy Tab then a huge leap into Honeycomb (3.x.x), this is by far the most serious push into the tablet market than anything Microsoft has ever been involved with. Google is the primary competitor in the tablet market.

Apple struck it big with the iPad, working off the success of the iPhone and iPod Touch, Apple took great measures into changing some people's opinion of how it's merely a "big iPod Touch" by showcasing the advantages of using a larger unit. It took iOS which worked really well for the iPhone/iPod Touch and applied it to their tablet, good move on their part. Win Apple.

Smartphone Market - The iPhone was intended to be a full-feature smartphone which combined the best parts of a mobile player to support a variety of apps, through a well-supported development model with a phone. The price point of an iPhone is a premium, I don't believe any current/new model of iPhone is ever considered "cheap". Apple has about half of the lead at the moment shared with...

Google, how surprising. Android is currently the king of smartphones with enough variety to make anyone confused. The lead isn't a large one but Android currently leads Apple's iPhone. Google wins by a small margin.

Microsoft offers Windows Phone 7, it offered a completely different look from any touch-based phone. Like Windows 8 it uses a very unique tile-UI which many people who've reviewed them found using it a very good experience. The problem MS didn't anticipate was that there's not much of a market in the mid-tier. When people shop for a new phone, the attention as mostly at the ends of the price ranges. Either they want a super-phone with everything plus more, or they want something simple and cheap.

Are you just trying to throw out as many words as possible to confuse the point that we are discussing? Apple and Microsoft have both competed in the markets I listed. I'm not sure why you find that controversial.

As far as digital music (iTunes Store) vs digital music players (iPods), these are obviously different markets. You don't need to purchase music from the iTunes Store to use an iPod, and you don't need an iPod to play music from the iTunes Store.

With tablets, Microsoft has been trying for over a decade. In 2001, Bill Gates predicted it would be the most popular form of computing by 2006.

The Phazer
Sep 15, 2011, 11:31 AM
I doubt Microsoft will impose as many controversial and unnecessary rules as Apple has done on their App Store.

I can't see the rules being any different to the Windows Phone 7 store, which imposes mandatory content censorship in much the same was as Apple.

Phazer

Hyper-X
Sep 15, 2011, 11:32 AM
Diversifying wouldn't necessarily involve moving away from current products, so I have no idea what point you are making here. It's clear as a bell that Microsoft has been attempting to diversify for over a decade. I'm not sure why you are arguing otherwise.
Other than with the Zune and Windows Phone 7, show me other examples that they've been doing so.


I agree. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?This is really a continuation of the above comment, both companies have had their share of really big successes and not, it's just that you're taking a clear bias towards Apple and that's where I'm challenging your claims.

I'll repeat my point again. "My point is that it's perfectly reasonable to compare the two companies. They compete in many of the same markets."

There are many reasons to compare a BMW and to a Corolla. The obvious reason to compare them would be to illustrate why the BMW is a better car. Are you trying to use the word "compare" to mean something different? Are you talking about a specific kind of comparison?
The term "better" is subjective. You don't see any magazine, tv show or online e-article pitting a Kia Sedona, Toyota Corolla, to a BMW 5-series because it makes no sense to do so. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to do such a comparison, a driver only needs to sit in a BMW 5 series to really know what's different. Each person's unique needs and wants in combination of their budget determines what is better.

And, despite the idiom, apples and oranges are compared all the time. The idiom is meant to refer to specific types of illogical comparisons.)
Just because it happens, it doesn't make the comparisons meaningful.

Are you just trying to throw out as many words as possible to confuse the point that we are discussing? Apple and Microsoft have both competed in the markets I listed. I'm not sure why you find that controversial.
Nope, being very specific with regards to the invalidity of your comments on how each on that list has to do with how MS and Apple directly compete with each other.

As far as digital music (iTunes Store) vs digital music players (iPods), these are obviously different markets. You don't need to purchase music from the iTunes Store to use an iPod, and you don't need an iPod to play music from the iTunes Store.
I fail to see your point. It's not like you have to acquire iTunes separately from any iPod product. I've already stated that this is by far the best example of how MS and Apple does compete directly.

With tablets, Microsoft has been trying for over a decade. In 2001, Bill Gates predicted it would be the most popular form of computing by 2006.
What do you mean trying for over a decade? I saw no news that they were actively involved with tablet development past the period when Microsoft offered the public the notion that tablets are very much in the future of computing, thus it was a "tablet concept". MS's first real push into the tablet scene is with Windows 8 which isn't out yet. I think you're confusing Microsoft with HP which did come up with a very early tablet device with rich features that didn't sell.

BaldiMac
Sep 15, 2011, 12:11 PM
Other than with the Zune and Windows Phone 7, show me other examples that they've been doing so.

Not sure why those don't count, but okay.

Windows media
Plays for Sure
Surface
Xbox
Web services
MSNBC
Ford Sync

That's off the top of my head.

This is really a continuation of the above comment, both companies have had their share of really big successes and not, it's just that you're taking a clear bias towards Apple and that's where I'm challenging your claims.

I haven't said anything biased towards Apple. I simply said that it is perfectly reasonable to compare Microsoft and Apple.

The term "better" is subjective. You don't see any magazine, tv show or online e-article pitting a Kia Sedona, Toyota Corolla, to a BMW 5-series because it makes no sense to do so. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to do such a comparison, a driver only needs to sit in a BMW 5 series to really know what's different. Each person's unique needs and wants in combination of their budget determines what is better.

And here he get to the root of the problem. You don't seem to have an understanding of what it means to compare two things. To "really know what's different" is a comparison.

Just because it happens, it doesn't make the comparisons meaningful.

It's not meaningful to compare the price of an Apple and an Orange? It's not meaningful to compare their flavors? Are you willfully ignoring these things?

Nope, being very specific with regards to the invalidity of your comments on how each on that list has to do with how MS and Apple directly compete with each other.

I said they "compete in many of the same markets." How does anything you said contradict that?

I fail to see your point. It's not like you have to acquire iTunes separately from any iPod product. I've already stated that this is by far the best example of how MS and Apple does compete directly.

You misunderstood the two separate markets that I referenced. Digital music (selling songs in digital formats) and digital music players (iPods and Zunes). I tried to clarify. You still don't understand.

What do you mean trying for over a decade? I saw no news that they were actively involved with tablet development past the period when Microsoft offered the public the notion that tablets are very much in the future of computing, thus it was a "tablet concept". MS's first real push into the tablet scene is with Windows 8 which isn't out yet. I think you're confusing Microsoft with HP which did come up with a very early tablet device with rich features that didn't sell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC

LIVEFRMNYC
Sep 15, 2011, 07:56 PM
Wonder how this is going to turn out?

Metro-style Internet Explorer 10 ditches Flash, plugins (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/09/metro-style-internet-explorer-10-ditches-flash-plugins.ars)

applefan289
Sep 15, 2011, 08:02 PM
From the previews, Windows 8 is looking very promising.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4771/microsoft-build-windows-8-pre-beta-preview

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/13/windows-8-for-tablets-hands-on-preview/

Given how much of a radical departure Windows 8 appears to be from Windows 7, does anyone here wish Apple was more aggressive with Lion? I was skeptical of the single OS for both tablets and PCs, but the early previews seem to indicate that Microsoft could pull it off. We'll see when the betas come out, but it looks promising for now.

(Mods: I wasn't sure if this was more appropriate here, in Windows on Mac, or elsewhere).

I think Lion is a nice update from Snow Leopard. I would rather be stuck on Snow Leopard than Windows 8.

I do like the idea though of a single OS for both devices. I can see Apple going in this direction pretty soon.

Hyper-X
Sep 15, 2011, 09:19 PM
Not sure why those don't count, but okay.
Windows media - vs what, Quicktime? Both support mostly proprietary formats (.AVI, .MOV, WMV, etc.)
Plays for Sure - not a competing product rather a certification
Surface - Fair enough
Xbox - Apple has no current gaming console product as it flopped badly back in the 90's.
Web services - This comment is very broad, MS offers way more products and services in relation to this area. For example Apple has no knowledge base that compares to Microsoft's, Apple does not have anything along the lines of Intune, no direct channel with other developers and live engineers (like Technet) exist for Apple. If you're hinting that both have web pages...
MSNBC - Is a broadcast network. Apple's is...
Ford Sync - Open to support non-MS products to include Android. Apple's venture into this area is still completely proprietary to its iPod/dock interface. Support for non-Apple devices have not been developed to compete directly with SYNC. A better comparison would be to compare Bose to SYNC.

I haven't said anything biased towards Apple. I simply said that it is perfectly reasonable to compare Microsoft and Apple.
So, basically, you don't want to compare them in markets where Apple is ahead.

And here he get to the root of the problem. You don't seem to have an understanding of what it means to compare two things. To "really know what's different" is a comparison.
I could say the same thing about your thinking. You could compare anything, like I said many times, it doesn't mean it'll make for a good comparison. How many times do I need to say this?

It's not meaningful to compare the price of an Apple and an Orange? It's not meaningful to compare their flavors? Are you willfully ignoring these things?
Ignoring what? Are you saying that I should look for meaningful information by reading about a Veyron in a mini-truck magazine? Again you seem to pick and choose what you want to read instead of reading everything I posted. I said earlier...

Again if you think about a Ferrari and a Kia, there's an overlap where they're both cars, operated on the roads but it doesn't change the fact that both products are not in competing markets.

What this means is there's nothing wrong with looking and comparing flavors but that doesn't mean they're in competing markets. Fuji Apples are not competing against Florida oranges for their share in the apple market. Dole pineapple isn't competing against Sunkist oranges over pineapple dominance. Fuji Apples would be much better compared against Gala Apples, Dole pineapples against Del Monte and Minute Maid orange juice with Tropicana juice, etc. I don't need to know how a Fuji Apple tastes to know how good a Flordia orange is. It makes better sense for me to try another orange from a different vendor to see what makes the Florida orange different.

I said they "compete in many of the same markets." How does anything you said contradict that?
Oh brother, have you been reading anything? I've conceded that there are only a few, but most of the major topics (in this thread specifically to Windows 8 and Lion), I've proven you wrong. The comment you had an issue with was my response to maflynn where I was responding to how MS and Apple differ in their directions for their OS products.

You misunderstood the two separate markets that I referenced. Digital music (selling songs in digital formats) and digital music players (iPods and Zunes). I tried to clarify. You still don't understand.
Read up, I already gave you the portable music player area which includes all associate software that comes with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC
I knew you were going to use this, read that page carefully and you'll see that you're mistaken. Microsoft has not released any tablet device on their own. The tablet PC was the natural progression to the Palm PDAs and a necessary step towards the tablets we see today.

However if you insist that the Microsoft Tablet PC specification is a valid example to support your claim, then you can't deny it when I mention the Newton. If you can't see by now how stupid you're making things, I don't know what else I can say because obviously you don't understand.

mountains
Sep 16, 2011, 02:11 AM
I disabled the Metro UI. While it may be ok for a tablet or phone, its absolutely horrendous on a desktop. I can't believe the folks over at redmond actually believe Metro on the PC is a good thing :confused:

Consider it another option. One that could potentially redefine the tablet/mobile computing market if tech catches up with Microsoft's ambitions.

Anyhow, it's not a big issue as you can use the legacy desktop for everything. The legacy desktop is actually considerably improved, in my opinion; support for virtual desktops, virtual machines, and the like is long overdue. And it's nice to see a shift away from the old Start menu.

BaldiMac
Sep 16, 2011, 08:34 AM
Windows media - vs what, Quicktime? Both support mostly proprietary formats (.AVI, .MOV, WMV, etc.)
Plays for Sure - not a competing product rather a certification
Surface - Fair enough
Xbox - Apple has no current gaming console product as it flopped badly back in the 90's.
Web services - This comment is very broad, MS offers way more products and services in relation to this area. For example Apple has no knowledge base that compares to Microsoft's, Apple does not have anything along the lines of Intune, no direct channel with other developers and live engineers (like Technet) exist for Apple. If you're hinting that both have web pages...
MSNBC - Is a broadcast network. Apple's is...
Ford Sync - Open to support non-MS products to include Android. Apple's venture into this area is still completely proprietary to its iPod/dock interface. Support for non-Apple devices have not been developed to compete directly with SYNC. A better comparison would be to compare Bose to SYNC..

You have no idea what we are discussing. You asked for examples of Microsoft attempting to diversify. I gave you examples. This had nothing to do with Apple.

Oh brother, have you been reading anything? I've conceded that there are only a few, but most of the major topics (in this thread specifically to Windows 8 and Lion), I've proven you wrong. The comment you had an issue with was my response to maflynn where I was responding to how MS and Apple differ in their directions for their OS products.

No, that was not the comment that I had an issue with. You are just making stuff up.

Read up, I already gave you the portable music player area which includes all associate software that comes with it.

Seriously? Music is not "associate software". It is a completely different market than iPods and other media players.

I knew you were going to use this, read that page carefully and you'll see that you're mistaken. Microsoft has not released any tablet device on their own. The tablet PC was the natural progression to the Palm PDAs and a necessary step towards the tablets we see today.

However if you insist that the Microsoft Tablet PC specification is a valid example to support your claim, then you can't deny it when I mention the Newton. If you can't see by now how stupid you're making things, I don't know what else I can say because obviously you don't understand

You are just making up my argument on your own. What do you think I am trying to show?

scottsjack
Sep 16, 2011, 03:39 PM
I have one Mac set aside for self torture and frustration. My mini is dual booting Lion and Windows 8. It will be interesting to see if Apple (or developers) can restore some of SL's missed smooth desktop experience.

Equally interesting will be to see how Windows 8 develops. So far it's messy but promising. It's a developers preview and acts like one. Unfortunately Lion has shipped when it should be going though beta tests, not that Apple really cares if others don't share their vision of the future.

regwiztr
Sep 18, 2011, 07:51 AM
Hi,

As a "Microsoft Office beta tester", "Power User" and newbie to Mac Os X, I wish to tell my opinion about Microsoft and its major products despite my poorest English. Windows 8 media previews encouraged me to write this post.

So, I have spent more than a decade while playing with Windows, Microsoft Office plus tons of software and hardware tools. By the way, I am not in IT business. Just I am using the computer to do more in less time for my job. My occupation is about keeping business records, reporting, communication, productivity and data re-use with pc in our small office.

Here goes;

1-) Microsoft doesn't give enough:

I remember that earliest "Multitouch Device" prototype was a microsoft one. Surface, right? But they didn't implement that multitouch tech to their mobile os earlier (Windows Phone). Because they thought that multitouch was a "sooo big feature" to give easily to customers. Customers could wait for a while and beg for new minor updates from Gods of Redmond.

Microsoft was always eager to follow that "give it less and slow" way. But something happened. Iphone is released and been sold nearly half billion pieces worldwide. Probably Iphone 5 will be sold more than 200 million pieces. I think Iphone was a big revolution and the best answer to Microsoft's business mentality. However Microsoft have learnt great lessons from Iphone.

Another example: Did you ever use "Windows Live Mail 2011" as supplied in "Live Essentials" package?
It is a cute organizer software nearly keeping all basic daily communications data. Mail, Contacts, Calendar, Rss and News Groups. An Outlook competitor? No sir, it's like a bird without wings. You cannot follow your daily tasks in this organizer software. Events and appointments are ok but no tasks. Otherwise you might not purchase big Brother Outlook. If there is no tasks, there is no any reason include a calendar feature in such software. Total confusion.

2-) Microsoft is not good even on basics:

Everbody is social today. Individuals, small businesses even enterprises effort to be social more. Facebook, Google+, Twitter and others battle to have some big share from market.

So, what is the center of Social Live? My answer is the "Address Book". Yes, your computer, your mobile phone, your web mail system, facebook, skype, messenger have Address Books.

Wait, Microsoft offers you some crappy Address Books. I assume you have Win 7.

a-) Windows Contacts: Comes from ages without any evolution. Totally scrap. Pardon me, contact portraits added yet.
- No categories.
- Just one mobile number.
- Only two postal adresses.
- No fields for social communication tools and profile pages.
- No usable for businesses and inviduals. Only basic demands.

?! Interestingly Mozilla Thunderbird Team originated this "Windows Address Book" probably to be compatible, but felt in to same gap. Huh!

b-) Windows Live Mail Contacts:
- No categories.
- Limited phone number fields
- Two messenger fields.
- Two emails.
- There are no any fields for Skype, FB, twitter or so on.
- Not sufficient for personal or business use.

c-) Hotmail Contacts:
- Very similar to above.
- Not efficient for people or businesses.

d-) Microsoft Outlook Contacts: Most closer to business use. But it has unacceptable major lacks for a paid software in my opinion.
- Just one IM field.
- Only three email fields.(This can be enough for someone)
- One mobile phone number doesn't fit me. Here in my country most people has two mobile phones. One for business, second for personal use.
- No fields for skype, aol, yahoo, facebook, twitter etc. messenger and social services.
- Thus no sync those social information with other devices.
+ Outlook Social Connector Add-on shows status messages from subscribtions. It is just ok for viewing or writing status updates.
? There are some add-ons like Xobni but no one can repair Outlook. Add-ons have their limitations too.

All sofware listed above don't do any decent job for me. How can I call Microsoft as innovative company from this view?

3-) Why Windows is not a productive Platform for (smart) business use?

When you compare with Mac Os X, Windows doesn't offer any sytem-wide scripting for "programs" to interact each others like AppleScript does. Windows PowerShell has some limited application and system command support.
Also you can nearly automate everthing in Mac Os even with Automator GUI. It offers easy automation without any line of script. Mac Os' unix kernel makes it unbeatable in all the way.

Still there is no any Windows equivalent available Blacktree's Quicksilver for Mac Os X. Quicksilver is a great tool allows users to do more in very less time with a few keystrokes. There are something for Windows, mimic like Quicksilver but none of them capable like Quicksilver because of Unix architecture.

Windows Search is far behind of Mac Os' Spotligt too. Spotlight indexes and searches everyhing within system. Windows Search needs you to buy some Ifilters to search some specific file types.


4-) Some Microsoft Apps are Really Dull:

Have you ever used that One Note? You can save Web Page contents, excel tables, Pictures, Videos etc. into One Note. I don't like save web bookmarks (or whole messy html pages) then visit again to read the webpage. Just you select web page part and click to send to One Note. This also makes "clipped" web content available for offline reading. Imagine, the website may be down when you visit again. So One Note helps.

But, One Note GUI is worst in the universe. Dullest GUI I have ever seen. Multiple database files, obscure file sections make it unuseful. What a loss? Someone may say how great is but it isn't. Some product managers and lead developers in Redmond, may live in their own box. But they cannot pack all of us in the same box.

Have you ever heard Evernote? A OneNote equivalent. But with very sleek and tidy interface, simply database, continual development. They say, they have built very big market share, happy customers and strategic partnerships in a short time. Evernote shines like a success story of little smart team gained against some software giants. www.evernote.com


5-) If Apple opens Mac Os to Oem Partners?:

Yes, if Apple opens Mac Os to system developers no one goes to Windows. Mac-borns may not understand what I am saying. Even they don't know what the hell we are dealing with.

So, I can tell a lot about Microsoft and its approach. Just here I summarized my opinions with some example cases. Finally I don't believe that Windows 8 will bring some solutions to users because of it's defective legacy kernel.

Thank you for reading,
RegWizTr