PDA

View Full Version : Can Apple Usurp Microsoft as OS King?


MacBytes
Oct 19, 2005, 12:30 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Can Apple Usurp Microsoft as OS King? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051019133021)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

ph0rce
Oct 19, 2005, 12:55 PM
Go apple :D lol

mainstreetmark
Oct 19, 2005, 01:48 PM
i hope not. I'm perfectly happy with Apple's marketshare. Seems I can get any program I need. I couldn't give a crap if the corporate world uses it.

liketom
Oct 19, 2005, 01:56 PM
just a thought .


... what if apple has been developing resetta but the other way round? windows apps on mac os ?

i bet thats what they are doing.

SummerBreeze
Oct 19, 2005, 02:28 PM
I'd love to see Apple's market share go up to 15% or 20%, because that would make the world a much happier place, but not at the cost of having a gorgeous operating system running on Dell computers or some equally cheap system.

Stella
Oct 19, 2005, 02:54 PM
i hope not. I'm perfectly happy with Apple's marketshare. Seems I can get any program I need. I couldn't give a crap if the corporate world uses it.

A typical elitist apple snob.

You do know that certain hardware manufacturers have given up / are giving up on the Mac because of its low marketshare.

liketom
Oct 19, 2005, 02:57 PM
A typical elitist apple snob.

You do know that certain hardware manufacturers have given up / are giving up on the Mac because of its low marketshare.
i would think there are arguments for and against that statement

10-12% is what i think to be good

Stella
Oct 19, 2005, 03:21 PM
i would think there are arguments for and against that statement

10-12% is what i think to be good

I was specifically referring to the
"I'm perfectly happy with Apple's marketshare"

As for she / he doesn't care about Apple in the corporate space, this would actually benefit apple. People may buy Apples because they use the hardware / software at work. I know a lot of people who use Word at home as a direct result of using Word at work ( they can work from home etc), which would have the same affect for Apple hardware.

Overall result is more exposure for Apple.

Neerazan
Oct 19, 2005, 03:24 PM
... what if apple has been developing resetta but the other way round? windows apps on mac os ?

Already thought this one through (originally for games on the intel Macs, but same priciple works for all software), and I don't see it happening.

If you could run windows apps 'as native' in OSX there would be less of a reason for developers to produce OSX versions of any software, and this would be a bad thing for all kinds of reasons, not least of all the variable nature of UIs for windows software.

So, I half expect that Steve will explain why it such a great idea come next January at MWSF :)

crazyjoeda
Oct 19, 2005, 03:52 PM
I like Apple not being the dominate OS, it keeps me safe from viruses and I feel like im better then the "Windows" people.

dr_lha
Oct 19, 2005, 03:54 PM
just a thought .


... what if apple has been developing resetta but the other way round? windows apps on mac os ?

i bet thats what they are doing.

Would be the the surest way of killing the Mac if they did that.

aquajet
Oct 19, 2005, 03:59 PM
A typical elitist apple snob.

You do know that certain hardware manufacturers have given up / are giving up on the Mac because of its low marketshare.

Most of them made crappy, unsupported products anyway.
:rolleyes:

moonislune
Oct 19, 2005, 04:37 PM
Already thought this one through (originally for games on the intel Macs, but same priciple works for all software), and I don't see it happening.

If you could run windows apps 'as native' in OSX there would be less of a reason for developers to produce OSX versions of any software, and this would be a bad thing for all kinds of reasons, not least of all the variable nature of UIs for windows software.

So, I half expect that Steve will explain why it such a great idea come next January at MWSF :)

Going to the Intel chip allows Apple to do quite the opposite: It allows them to sell a Mac box perfectly geared toward OSX but also allow a dual boot of Windows and OsX. Seems like a win-win situation for both Apple and MS. I just have a feeling that some Windows users will be booting less in Windows and more into OSX unless Windows Vista (1) Eliminates virus and spyware threats (2) Is more stable than XP.

Stella
Oct 19, 2005, 04:56 PM
Most of them made crappy, unsupported products anyway.
:rolleyes:

Wow, what a statement! :-)

One Example: Cell Phone manufacturers. Very useful and definitely supported.

Only provide syncing, backups etc for windows, no macs support

Yes, Apple already provide syching, in a limited way...

However, you can't back up your phone on your Mac, which can be extremely useful, especially for smartphone owners. The phone I have, if it could Sync to a Mac, would be far surprior to Apple's implementation and make more use of the phone capability

nagromme
Oct 19, 2005, 06:18 PM
"A large company with 10,000 PCs would have 1,000 applications, Silver pointed out."

1000? Typical case? I'd speculate that this would be more accurate: "A large company with 10,000 PCs would have at least 3 applications. Possibly more." :p

It's not like you have to switch the machine that makes the lollipop sticks to Mac OS, just to be able to switch the office staff from Word to Word.


if apple has been developing resetta but the other way round? windows apps on mac os ?
No need. Somebody else--almost certainly Microsoft--will do that. They already have: Virtual PC. And they already have a version of VPC for Intel that runs in Windows. MS is happy to sell more copies of Windows, and I would be amazed if they didn't update VPC to a new Intel Mac version. If they don't, someone else will (there are already alternatives to VPC). I have ZERO doubt, you'll be able to run Windows and Mac apps side by side in the end. Just like you can now--only much faster!

There will also be apps and how-to guides to help you dual-boot to Windows--which Apple has said they won't interfere with. That will likely be cheaper, but much less desirable. It exposes your HD (rather than just a virtual hardfile) to Windows viruses. (No, Windows can't access HFS volumes... but it can still wipe the physical drive.) And it means you can't use your Windows and Mac apps at the SAME time. Re-booting back and forth? What a pain. Compare to an environment like VPC which launches nearly instantly, and lets you share data by simple drag-and-drop or copy-paste.

As for people saying that would kill the Mac... I don't think so. I think it will HELP the Mac, and hurt Microsoft in the long run! I don't think MS will be smart enough to kill off VPC, but they might be smart to do so.

There are two BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app. And with the Mac market growing (especially after the Intel change), developers will be more motivated than ever to sell to us :) (Besides, if they already have Mac experience and Mac apps to leverage, why throw them out?)

1. Cost. You have to BUY Windows. And possibly some helper app, either for installation or to actually host Windows like VPC. (Which also means a whole extra set of setup steps you have to go through before you can run Windows apps--not too difficult I'm sure, but not something your Mac can do out of the box.)

2. Usability. You give up the benefits of OS X, which gets better all the time and is the reason you HAVE a Mac. You either accept the time and effort and inconvenience to dual-boot--in which case you give up OS X entirely for those times, and cannot use those apps in conjunction with your Mac apps... or else you run Windows and Mac simultaneously. Running both at once is cool in a geeky way, but compared to having just ONE OS, it's terrible usability: working back and forth between two GUIs at once! That's not Mac user friendliness. Not to mention a possible performance hit.

When you stop and think about it, can you really imagine most Mac users settling for Windows?

For these reasons, users will continue to DEMAND Mac apps. (Even games, to a lesser extent. The GUI is not always an issue for those, but the other issues remain. I know I'll give my money first for native Mac games.)

But running Windows on Mac WILL be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. Most of them won't USE that comfort zone--it's cheaper and easier just to keep their old PC if they're worried. But knowing that the option EXISTS removes a huge barrier to leaving the herd and trying something better. Fear of the unknown is a powerful thing.

And it's great as a last-resort option for Mac fans who need a certain Windows app for work or whatever. We use VPC for that, and VPC (or something) will soon be full-speed and work even better! But it won't make us LIKE running Windows, and won't make us want to buy Windows apps. We'll do it only when we HAVE to.

And we already do: if we HAVE to--and often by choice for games--we run VPC or simply own a PC. No change there. (And neither option is free!) So the people most likely to accept a Windows app or game on their Mac are the very people ALREADY buying Windows apps--for their PC game systems, or their old PC they keep around, or VPC to run some app from their employer, or whatever.

Conclusion: the new Macs WILL run Windows apps eventually--for a price--and yet the market for native Mac apps is going to grow, not shrink. Developers will deliver for us, and the number of Mac OS X users will grow even faster BECAUSE we have the option of both OS's.

winmacguy
Oct 19, 2005, 06:38 PM
I like Apple not being the dominate OS, it keeps me safe from viruses and I feel like im better then the "Windows" people.
Apple's smaller market share has nothing to do with its lack of viruses :rolleyes: That is the oldest myth in the book.

zap2
Oct 19, 2005, 06:41 PM
A typical elitist apple snob.

You do know that certain hardware manufacturers have given up / are giving up on the Mac because of its low marketshare.
like who? and Mac market share is growing perhaps Apple can find 1 or 2 good hardware people to help the make Mac OSX grow i think apple could gte there market share higher alone

nagromme
Oct 19, 2005, 07:40 PM
Apple's smaller market share has nothing to do with its lack of viruses :rolleyes: That is the oldest myth in the book.
Macs ARE more secure by design, but being a smaller target is ALSO a good thing.

(But even if it were the ONLY thing, I don't get Mac-bashers who act like that makes Macs as vulnerable as Windows. Only if Macs reach 50% market share :D Are those Mac-bashers saying THAT'S about to happen? :p Because I think we'll retain the less-than-50% advantage for a nice long while.)

Stella
Oct 19, 2005, 08:03 PM
like who? and Mac market share is growing perhaps Apple can find 1 or 2 good hardware people to help the make Mac OSX grow i think apple could gte there market share higher alone

Well, under 5 minutes of searching:

* Creative Labs soundcards - internal / external - cheap and *very* good quality - no Mac drivers
* HP Scanjet 4890 photo scanner
* The many cell phones that offer windows only software
*Logitech MX 610 Laser Cordless Mouse - lack of drivers == can't use it to its full potential on a mac
*The above goes for quite a few of recent logitech mice and keyboards - can't use the products to its full potential.
* Hauppauge TV / PVR cards - i would love one of these for Mac


Oh, please don't say about alternatives, you wanted a list of products, and you have them.. some of them are very good.

dadams
Oct 19, 2005, 08:08 PM
Wow, what a statement! :-)

However, you can't back up your phone on your Mac, which can be extremely useful, especially for smartphone owners. The phone I have, if it could Sync to a Mac, would be far surprior to Apple's implementation and make more use of the phone capability

What phone do you have? See Mark/Space at http://markspace.com/ and a solution for you might be there!

:-)

winmacguy
Oct 19, 2005, 09:03 PM
Macs ARE more secure by design, but being a smaller target is ALSO a good thing.

(But even if it were the ONLY thing, I don't get Mac-bashers who act like that makes Macs as vulnerable as Windows. Only if Macs reach 50% market share :D Are those Mac-bashers saying THAT'S about to happen? :p Because I think we'll retain the less-than-50% advantage for a nice long while.)
I would be happy if Apple got up to say 15 to 20% world wide market share. Enough of a market share that caused software developers and web developers to write a "Mac version" and make their sites "Safari compatible" as a standard thing and not just because they have had " 3 people complain" about not being able to browse their site with a Mac rather than a PC. It would also save me from hearing that something is a "Mac problem" and that it wouldn't happen if we all used PCs and all of those other arguments that come out because Apple only has a measly 3% market share worldwide, or, well there is no point doing a Mac version of this because ALL our clients use PC and it wont work on their systems. :rolleyes:

Edit: Bearing in mind that I am talking about the limited ability of 98% of regular office workers rather than the 98% potential of the machine they are using.

Stella
Oct 19, 2005, 09:29 PM
What phone do you have? See Mark/Space at http://markspace.com/ and a solution for you might be there!

:-)

Not there, despite Symbian being #1 smartphone OS, mark/space decide not to support it, instead opting to support minor and irrelevant phone os's instead.

sjk
Oct 19, 2005, 09:43 PM
Just one comment on your thoughtfully prolific post ...

But running Windows on Mac WILL be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. Most of them won't USE that comfort zone--it's cheaper and easier just to keep their old PC if they're worried. But knowing that the option EXISTS removes a huge barrier to leaving the herd and trying something better. Fear of the unknown is a powerful thing.That Intel-based Macs could have the ability to run OS X and Windows might be the only information some people would need to make the choice to buy the Mac instead of a PC that only runs Windows, without realizing potential risks (some which you mentioned) if they happen to happen to run Windows on it.

iPost
Oct 19, 2005, 10:05 PM
"Macs ARE more secure by design."

This is a fallacy.

OS X uses Unix as its core OS. Unix has never been a secure OS. In fact, some of the old IBM, Burroughs, and Sperry mainframe crowd (whose OSes were much more secure than Unix) would be laughing at those words. Unix, like Windows, gets patched all the time to fix security holes.

Are you old enough to remember the first Internet worm that made the headlines around the world? It was the Morris Worm in 1988 and it attacked BSD Unix... the same code that exists in OS X. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm.

For more on the subject, read chapter 12 of The Unix Haters Handbook (written by a Stanford computer science professor) to learn about the Unix legacy of poor security: http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf Quote: "The term 'Unix Security' is, almost by definition, an oxymoron because the Unix operating system was not designed to be secure, except for the vulernable and ill-designed root/rootless distinction. Security measures to thwart attack were an afterthought."

The only reason that the world is not overrun by Mac viruses is that no one has taken the time and effort to write them. The virus writing cult that exists in the Windows world simply does not exist in the Mac world. So, yes, staying small is good.

nagromme
Oct 19, 2005, 10:49 PM
"Macs ARE more secure by design."

This is a fallacy.

OS X uses Unix as its core OS. Unix has never been a secure OS
If by secure, you mean "100% secure" then no. I recommend a pocket calculator for that :p No OS is perfect, OS X included. OS X will one day even get its first real virus.

But I said "more secure by design" than Windows, and that's well-established.

It's actually HARDER to write a virus for OS X capable of the kinds of damage we see with Windows. (In fact, it's never been done--and not just because we're a "small target."

Some links with details on just HOW OS X has a better design for security:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=335882

http://techrepublic.com.com/5102-1009-5799003.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/technology/circuits/18POGUE-EMAIL.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/gilster/story/2948972p-2706278c.html

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20031023.html

http://www.mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//www.mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/press/190204_2.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3492922.stm

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid14_gci968281,00.html

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63805,00.html

http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12100002EAEW

In addition, Macs are NOT THAT small a target! OS X has been around for years. Crackers (of a certain type) have sought challenges and prestige for years--and the first successful Mac virus would offer both! Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years. There's also the jealousy factor: users of other OS's often have a hatred of Macs, and would love to put them down a peg.

And some high-profile targets like universities, media companies, and the US Army use Mac OS X.

There are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." So I am CERTAIN that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses for quite some time.

They've never managed it yet. They WILL... and then we'll have one virus instead of zero... I'll still be safer :)

winmacguy
Oct 19, 2005, 11:36 PM
If by secure, you mean "100% secure" then no. I recommend a pocket calculator for that :p No OS is perfect, OS X included. OS X will one day even get its first real virus.

But I said "more secure by design" than Windows, and that's well-established.

It's actually HARDER to write a virus for OS X capable of the kinds of damage we see with Windows. (In fact, it's never been done--and not just because we're a "small target."



In addition, Macs are NOT THAT small a target! OS X has been around for years. Crackers (of a certain type) have sought challenges and prestige for years--and the first successful Mac virus would offer both! Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years. There's also the jealousy factor: users of other OS's often have a hatred of Macs, and would love to put them down a peg.

And some high-profile targets like universities, media companies, and the US Army use Mac OS X.

There are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." So I am CERTAIN that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses for quite some time.

They've never managed it yet. They WILL... and then we'll have one virus instead of zero... I'll still be safer :)
Very good rebuttal nagromme! :)

winmacguy
Oct 19, 2005, 11:40 PM
"Macs ARE more secure by design."

This is a fallacy.

OS X uses Unix as its core OS. Unix has never been a secure OS. In fact, some of the old IBM, Burroughs, and Sperry mainframe crowd (whose OSes were much more secure than Unix) would be laughing at those words. Unix, like Windows, gets patched all the time to fix security holes.

Are you old enough to remember the first Internet worm that made the headlines around the world? It was the Morris Worm in 1988 and it attacked BSD Unix... the same code that exists in OS X. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm.

For more on the subject, read chapter 12 of The Unix Haters Handbook (written by a Stanford computer science professor) to learn about the Unix legacy of poor security: http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf Quote: "The term 'Unix Security' is, almost by definition, an oxymoron because the Unix operating system was not designed to be secure, except for the vulernable and ill-designed root/rootless distinction. Security measures to thwart attack were an afterthought."

The only reason that the world is not overrun by Mac viruses is that no one has taken the time and effort to write them. The virus writing cult that exists in the Windows world simply does not exist in the Mac world. So, yes, staying small is good.

Yes, I am aware that the first ever computer virus was a Unix one- Windows didn't exist at the time :p
Lets just say that a lot has happened in the world of OSX since then. :)

treblah
Oct 20, 2005, 09:07 AM
Well, under 5 minutes of searching:

* Hauppauge TV / PVR cards - i would love one of these for Mac



Good News! (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000793064195/) While not a card, at the very least Hauppauge is testing the market.

iPost
Oct 20, 2005, 09:54 AM
If by secure, you mean "100% secure" then no. I recommend a pocket calculator for that :p No OS is perfect, OS X included. OS X will one day even get its first real virus.

Yes, that's all I wanted to say. OS X is good in many ways and currently provides more security safeguards out of the box than Windows does. But, people need to realize that it's not 100% foolproof as a quick Google shows: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=apple+patches+security+holes

If you had more people focused on the Mac, these previous security holes would have been exploited. And, you can be sure that there are more undiscovered security holes in OS X that remain unpatched.

nagromme
Oct 20, 2005, 10:27 AM
Understood :)

It helps that OS X's design means that when/if a system IS breached, the damage that's possible is more likely to have limits.

Also, Windows is in general bloated, complex, and bug-ridden (the price of being a big market), making holes harder to fix (and fix without breaking other things!) than on Mac. OS X's open-source components help there as well.

sjk
Oct 20, 2005, 12:27 PM
Good News! (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000793064195/) While not a card, at the very least Hauppauge is testing the market.They've been "testing the market" since before I bought my first iBook ~5 years ago and their Mac products have never been serious competition for EyeTV.

aquajet
Oct 20, 2005, 05:58 PM
"Macs ARE more secure by design."

This is a fallacy.

OS X uses Unix as its core OS. Unix has never been a secure OS. In fact, some of the old IBM, Burroughs, and Sperry mainframe crowd (whose OSes were much more secure than Unix) would be laughing at those words. Unix, like Windows, gets patched all the time to fix security holes.

Are you old enough to remember the first Internet worm that made the headlines around the world? It was the Morris Worm in 1988 and it attacked BSD Unix... the same code that exists in OS X. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_worm.

For more on the subject, read chapter 12 of The Unix Haters Handbook (written by a Stanford computer science professor) to learn about the Unix legacy of poor security: http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf Quote: "The term 'Unix Security' is, almost by definition, an oxymoron because the Unix operating system was not designed to be secure, except for the vulernable and ill-designed root/rootless distinction. Security measures to thwart attack were an afterthought."

The only reason that the world is not overrun by Mac viruses is that no one has taken the time and effort to write them. The virus writing cult that exists in the Windows world simply does not exist in the Mac world. So, yes, staying small is good.

BS
:rolleyes: