PDA

View Full Version : Connected: Microsoft finds Apple move hard to swallow


MacBytes
Apr 23, 2006, 09:13 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Connected: Microsoft finds Apple move hard to swallow (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060423101327)
Description:: Posturing is important in the tech world, where "coopertition" -- cooperating with your competition -- is just as important and widely practiced as competition itself.

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

DMann
Apr 23, 2006, 09:24 AM
It seems the Windows OS which lured the masses away
from Apple is the same OS which will bring'em back......

dmw007
Apr 23, 2006, 09:26 AM
Interesting article. I like their notion that the ability to run Windows on a Mac could spell the end for M$'s monopoly power. :)

MacBoobsPro
Apr 23, 2006, 10:56 AM
Interesting read. I personally can see Microsoft trying to soften the blow by created a 'specialised' Windows version for MacOS to try and lure more people, who have just bought a mac, into buying windows.

So thats another fews versions to add to the list :D

Windows MacOSX Special Edition Pro
Windows MacOSX Special Edition Home
Windows MacOSX Special Edition Professional Home
Windows MacOSX Special Edition Professional Home + Free PC

Kingsly
Apr 23, 2006, 11:06 AM
Windows MacOSX Special Media Center Edition
Windows MacOSX Special Tablet Edition
Windows MacOSX Special Portable Edition
Windows iPod Edition
Windows MacOSX If-you-like-this-try-an-xbox Edition

mkrishnan
Apr 23, 2006, 11:12 AM
Heh...and poor MS suffers the awful fate of having to sell loads and loads of copies of its cash cow, MS Office, to Mac users. Yes. What a horrible world we live in. :o

I wonder, parenthetically, if Leopard will allow you to safe sleep / hibernate, your OS X and Windows XP partitions, and then revive the one you want in turn, to simplify the dual booting architecture? Is that possible on systems right now, OS X or otherwise, where two OSes that have a hibernation feature are installed?

Capn_Moho
Apr 23, 2006, 11:24 AM
Ummm, Microsoft wasn't silent (from http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060407075907.shtml):

"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

This article postures crap as insightful analysis. However, coopertition is a good word. I like it.

ahunter3
Apr 23, 2006, 11:24 AM
I wonder, parenthetically, if Leopard will allow you to safe sleep / hibernate, your OS X and Windows XP partitions, and then revive the one you want in turn, to simplify the dual booting architecture? Is that possible on systems right now, OS X or otherwise, where two OSes that have a hibernation feature are installed?

Eons ago (MacOS 8? MacOS 7.6?) there was a 3rd-party utility that would save your entire RAM contents to a file on shutdown that would be read back into RAM instead of booting when you restarted. Not only did you not have to wait for the whole boot sequence, you would get open windows positioned exactly where they had been, right dow the cursor blinking at the right insertion point. (Don't recall what it was named, I never bought it myself but I remember the ads).

OS X would probably have to have a low-level hook-modification to make the boot sequence look for such a file, but aside from that, yeah, it ought to be possible.

danny_w
Apr 23, 2006, 11:54 AM
Eons ago (MacOS 8? MacOS 7.6?) there was a 3rd-party utility that would save your entire RAM contents to a file on shutdown that would be read back into RAM instead of booting when you restarted. Not only did you not have to wait for the whole boot sequence, you would get open windows positioned exactly where they had been, right dow the cursor blinking at the right insertion point. (Don't recall what it was named, I never bought it myself but I remember the ads).

OS X would probably have to have a low-level hook-modification to make the boot sequence look for such a file, but aside from that, yeah, it ought to be possible.
Windows at least used to have a very similar feature built-in, but it never really worked in my experience. I had a Compaq laptop that ran Win98 and tried to do exactly as you describe, but most of the time the machine hung when coming out of sleep. It also took a good deal of time to save the file when going to sleep. Good idea, bad implementation.

mkrishnan
Apr 23, 2006, 12:49 PM
OS X would probably have to have a low-level hook-modification to make the boot sequence look for such a file, but aside from that, yeah, it ought to be possible.

Yeah... true. Ahem, but as of a few months ago, OS X *has* the safe sleep / hibernate feature, and is already capable of making the file. And it is also capable of running the file on startup -- in fact, that's the whole advertised point. If your Mac should somehow lose power, with Safesleep enabled, it will come back up (when *turned on*, because it is off and not asleep at this point) at the point at which it lost power.

I think all it really needs is code (firmware?) that allows the system to prompt the user for an OS to load, instead of going to sleep, and then bootload the other OS.

I think it'd be a big improvement over dual booting, wouldn't it? And it seems very easy to do. I hope Apple has this in mind.

And in my version of the Evil Plan™, Apple released safe sleep, when hibernation has existed in the Windows world for at least five years, NOW, because it rolls into the plan to put this feature in Leopard. :D

As far as this working in Windows, the last time I used it was in Win2k, on a Thinkpad, and my experience was that it was much more reliable than sleep/wake.... *le sigh* :o

IJ Reilly
Apr 23, 2006, 12:53 PM
Microsoft is worrying about losing its monopoly power? Don't make me laugh. Sure, they don't want sacrifice any market share if they can help it, but Apple simply can't cut into Microsoft's share enough to make a significant difference to their ability to drive the PC market in just about any direction they choose.

MacQuest
Apr 23, 2006, 03:12 PM
Ummm, Microsoft wasn't silent (from http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060407075907.shtml):

"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Ummm, their "silence" was in their fear based, propogandist response and [i]not addressing the people who will really be choosing Macs as their primary computers now, aka "switchers". Former winBlows lusers who just couldn't make that jump to Mac either because they actually did have to run winblows or a winBlows based app, or [and A LOT more common] those lusers that thought they had to run winBlows when in actuality it was just because it was what they were used to and/or didn't know until now that Macs are for anyone that demand easy to use, reliable, stable, and secure computers for extended periods of time.

They say "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it [winBlows]" when existing Mac users would maybe just want to use winBlows for very limited use, but mostly just games. :p

Not good for a companies' flagship OS product to be viewed as only good for gaming, which in terms of "mindshare" equates to it being considered a joke, especially in the highly porfitable enterprise market that both Mac OS X and Linux have been chipping away at for years now.

it just gets easier each day for alternative OS's to make in-roads on former winblows territory. I've said it fo years, Apple and Linux's success will double with only half the effort, because miCrapsoft's own incompetence will make it easier for people and companies/industries to move away from it's products.

This article postures crap as insightful analysis.

Actually it's pointing out the facts of what is really going on at the sales level. It is the hardware manufacturers that are sweating bullets now that Macs can do almost everything thir peecees can do, but also provide the "Mac experience" which none of them can do. No, hacking Mac OS X onto a peecee does not give that hacker the "Mac experience".

Make no mistake about it, people are [and have been for 4 years now] "switching". I'd say the momentum has doubled since '02, meaning the effort it takes to switch winBlows lusers has been cut in half as so many have themselves switched and become Mac advocates, consequently helping others switch as well.

"Word of mouth" has always been the best, and cheapest, form of advertising.

Apple simply can't cut into Microsoft's share...

As I posted above, "miCrapsoft's own incompetence will make it easier for people and companies/industries to move away from it's products."

By itself, Apple really would have a tough time cutting into miCrapsoft's share. With their help stemming from their own incompetence though, it is so much easier, and the revenge is so much sweeter. :D

solvs
Apr 23, 2006, 05:41 PM
Microsoft is worrying about losing its monopoly power?
Hey, every little bit helps. :p I doubt they're too worried about the bottom line, but you can't tell me Bill doesn't grate his teeth a little every time Vista is delayed and people start speaking positively of Apple and OS X. When it comes to power and control, even losing a little is too much. ;)

balamw
Apr 23, 2006, 06:21 PM
Microsoft is worrying about losing its monopoly power?
Nah, it's not the monopoly they're afraid of losing, it's the growth potential.

If people can buy a system that has an alternative OS preloaded, and that OS is actually usable (OS X vs. the Wal-Mart Linux boxes), they might not be able to hook new users quite as easily. Particularly if said new machines can already run XP.

Say Apple doubles their 3% market share to 6%. That's 3% of machines that are more likely to buy Leopard than Vista. Still 94% are buying windows, but that 94% might just only make up for what was 97% last year.

I ramble.

B

alamar
Apr 23, 2006, 06:31 PM
Interesting article. I like their notion that the ability to run Windows on a Mac could spell the end for M$'s monopoly power. :)
MS has not had any monopoly power for quite some time in my opinion, They are under seige. :cool:

alamar
Apr 23, 2006, 06:32 PM
Nah, it's not the monopoly they're afraid of losing, it's the growth potential.

If people can buy a system that has an alternative OS preloaded, and that OS is actually usable (OS X vs. the Wal-Mart Linux boxes), they might not be able to hook new users quite as easily. Particularly if said new machines can already run XP.

Say Apple doubles their 3% market share to 6%. That's 3% of machines that are more likely to buy Leopard than Vista. Still 94% are buying windows, but that 94% might just only make up for what was 97% last year.

I ramble.

B

You mention linux and then completely discard it. MS doesn't have 97% of the market share, its much less.

dmw007
Apr 23, 2006, 08:08 PM
MS has not had any monopoly power for quite some time in my opinion, They are under seige. :cool:

And under seige for good reason I think. :) ;)

balamw
Apr 23, 2006, 08:31 PM
You mention linux and then completely discard it. MS doesn't have 97% of the market share, its much less.
As a longtime linux user and advocate, I discard linux, but only as a Desktop OS for the masses. Linux has plenty of uses for which it is the right choice, but those don't (yet?) extend to the desktop. One can hope, but the fact remains that today Windows and OS X are the only two OSes that can be recommended for general use by the masses.

I do believe that for full systems purchased with an installed OS that well over 90% of them will have Windows preloaded, even if it is to be replaced with Linux or some other OS.

B

Photorun
Apr 23, 2006, 09:13 PM
Ummm, Microsoft wasn't silent (from http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060407075907.shtml):

"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

This article postures crap as insightful analysis. However, coopertition is a good word. I like it.

This is why I like Macrumors... more often than not there are great minds and they think alike. Capn_Moho took the words out of my mouth.

Some people can't seem to get it through their heads that Microsuck's money is made in software, they're primarily a software company. Having the ability to run it on a Mac doesn't cost them money or lose them business, in fact for those who take the legal route and buy XPee or whatever it makes Microsoft a LOT more money than bundling it onto say a Dull, Chumpaq, Grateway, etc. The OEM Windoze on those machines nets M$ about $50 depending on the contract. At retail XPee can be $150-$200 of which M$ gets half or more in profit... so basically a Mac user who buys Windoze to run through boot camp actually is making Microsuck more money than had it been bundled on a peecee. If someone buys a Mac who was a peecee luser before because he now can run his (buggy, crummy, virus laden, craptacular) Windoze AND run OS X that's not taking money away from Microsuck, it's taking money away from Dull, Chumpaq, etc. So the real losers are the hardware manufactures, not M$.

IJ Reilly
Apr 23, 2006, 09:31 PM
MS has not had any monopoly power for quite some time in my opinion, They are under seige. :cool:

The use of the word monopoly in this context isn't really appropriate. Technically, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. What they do have is market power, which is the ability to restrain competition -- a power they've used aggressively and often (this being the illegal thing, not the market power itself). Anyway, my point is, nobody needs a 90% market share to restrain competition. A creative company in the right market could do it with half that. So best case scenario, Apple cuts Microsoft's market share by 5-10%. This might cost Microsoft some bottom line, but it's not going to cost them their control over the market.

macnulty
Apr 23, 2006, 09:51 PM
Eons ago (MacOS 8? MacOS 7.6?) there was a 3rd-party utility that would save your entire RAM contents to a file on shutdown that would be read back into RAM instead of booting when you restarted. Not only did you not have to wait for the whole boot sequence, you would get open windows positioned exactly where they had been, right dow the cursor blinking at the right insertion point. (Don't recall what it was named, I never bought it myself but I remember the ads).

OS X would probably have to have a low-level hook-modification to make the boot sequence look for such a file, but aside from that, yeah, it ought to be possible.

Eons ago you used to be able to boot a Mac directly from RAM. Create a RAM disk with a system on it and you could boot the OS directly from RAM, way cool for a PB.

bbyrdhouse
Apr 23, 2006, 09:59 PM
Suffice it to say that the majority of Mac users have a built in tendency to dislike Microsoft....at least a little.

Does it bother anyone to constantly see all the "Winblows, MicroSucks, Micro$oft, MyCrapsoft, and on and on".

I mean this is a pro Mac forum, everybody here already dislikes Microsoft.

Now on to the topic of this thread.

It is interesting to me how many people are "talking" about Macs these days. Just a few years ago it was "You use a Mac???":rolleyes:
Whereas, now its more like "You use a Mac.;)
Next five years OSX will hold 10% marketshare of Desktops.

Spock
Apr 23, 2006, 10:56 PM
Eons ago you used to be able to boot a Mac directly from RAM. Create a RAM disk with a system on it and you could boot the OS directly from RAM, way cool for a PB.

The Macintosh Classic could boot System 6.0 from the ROM by holding command-option-x-o at startup

javierbds
Apr 24, 2006, 02:47 AM
The use of the word monopoly in this context isn't really appropriate. Technically, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. What they do have is market power, which is the ability to restrain competition -- a power they've used aggressively and often (this being the illegal thing, not the market power itself).

Well, I am not an economist myself, and you are right M$ has not a monopoly, in a sense ... But if we review history (and in computing 15 years will do), M$ effectively (with the exception of Linux, and I think it IS a very interesting case for real economists out there to comment on) wiped out ALL competition of Operating Systems sold on PC (the 'open' hw platform). The fact that the USA, by and large, has decided M$ should not be split does say much more about the health (or lack thereof) of the system (probaby just the IT system, but in economy you never know ;) ...), than the true nature of M$ business ...

The nature of the 'system' M$ has built comes to full shape when you realize that now it is only Windows VS old Unix (in different shapes) ... Somebody would think that something more could have been developed in the last 20 years ...

That or either we should think there is not IT development anymore, just plain old business ... Maybe M$ wiped out IT as a market for added-value, guess we will move this part to China, that one to India ... :eek:

Anyway, the next disrupting tech in this game is Virtualization (hw supported, both in the CPU and the GPU, and using multiple CPUs) ... We'll see

IJ Reilly
Apr 24, 2006, 10:21 AM
Well, I am not an economist myself, and you are right M$ has not a monopoly, in a sense ... But if we review history (and in computing 15 years will do), M$ effectively (with the exception of Linux, and I think it IS a very interesting case for real economists out there to comment on) wiped out ALL competition of Operating Systems sold on PC (the 'open' hw platform). The fact that the USA, by and large, has decided M$ should not be split does say much more about the health (or lack thereof) of the system (probaby just the IT system, but in economy you never know ;) ...), than the true nature of M$ business ...

This is it -- by definition they didn't have a monopoly (no competitors), but they were able to leverage their position in the market to marginalize or eliminate their competitors. This is an exercise of "market power," not monopoly. (We call it monopoly for short-hand, but this is not a strictly accurate use of the term.)

shamino
Apr 24, 2006, 04:03 PM
This is it -- by definition they didn't have a monopoly (no competitors), but they were able to leverage their position in the market to marginalize or eliminate their competitors. This is an exercise of "market power," not monopoly. (We call it monopoly for short-hand, but this is not a strictly accurate use of the term.)
Which is why the laws don't prohibit "monopolies". They prohibit "anticompetitive behavior". Even a small company is prohibited from using anticompetitive means to try and control a market. And a large company that doesn't use these means can do what it wants.

Case in point. Microsoft was never sued for having a huge market share. They were sued for leveraging that market share to control unrelated markets. Like refusing to offer standard bulk-purchase prices on Windows to PC vendors that don't also bundle Office.

shamino
Apr 24, 2006, 04:14 PM
Some people can't seem to get it through their heads that Microsuck's money is made in software, they're primarily a software company. Having the ability to run it on a Mac doesn't cost them money or lose them business, in fact for those who take the legal route and buy XPee or whatever it makes Microsoft a LOT more money than bundling it onto say a Dull, Chumpaq, Grateway, etc. The OEM Windoze on those machines nets M$ about $50 depending on the contract. At retail XPee can be $150-$200 of which M$ gets half or more in profit... so basically a Mac user who buys Windoze to run through boot camp actually is making Microsuck more money than had it been bundled on a peecee.
I'm not 100% certain. Retail boxes of Windows cost more than OEM licenses, definitely. But MS has to provide support for retail sales, where they don't for OEM licenses (they tell you to contact your hardware vendor for Windows support.)

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that MS doesn't care about your hardware. Just like they don't care about VPC. If you've bought a Windows license, then they're happy.

The concern (which the original article mentioned) is that once users buy Macs to use as Windows PCs, they will dabble with Mac OS, and many may decide to start using it as their primary OS. If they do, then they may not buy the next release of Windows when it comes out. We're talking about long-term monopoly control, not what will happen next year.

I'm certain that some people will switch in this fashion. I don't know if there will be enough of these switchers to actually impact MS's bottom-line.

IJ Reilly
Apr 24, 2006, 04:59 PM
Which is why the laws don't prohibit "monopolies". They prohibit "anticompetitive behavior". Even a small company is prohibited from using anticompetitive means to try and control a market. And a large company that doesn't use these means can do what it wants.

Case in point. Microsoft was never sued for having a huge market share. They were sued for leveraging that market share to control unrelated markets. Like refusing to offer standard bulk-purchase prices on Windows to PC vendors that don't also bundle Office.

Exactly. During the Microsoft antitrust trial I often got into debates with people who didn't understand that Microsoft wasn't being hauled before the bench because of a "monopoly."

I like what Guy Kawasaki called it years ago: a "hedge-o-money."

1dterbeest
Apr 25, 2006, 12:43 AM
You mention linux and then completely discard it. MS doesn't have 97% of the market share, its much less.

Market share is a term that is based on sales. Linux,
a free distribution, is usually left out if the term
"market" is used.

roach
Apr 25, 2006, 02:35 AM
You mention linux and then completely discard it. MS doesn't have 97% of the market share, its much less.

Considering the number of crack versions of Windows out there, I wouldn't be surprise if its more that 97% market share. There are people out there who used MS software since the beginning of their computing days and probably haven't given MS a dime.

jer2eydevil88
Apr 25, 2006, 05:56 AM
I don't know how legitimate these reports are but google returned the following trends.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5

Apple has gone from 3.5% to 4.2% in the past 11months according to this site. Seems a bit like a small increase but if its right then the information about Windows 2000 machines on the decline scares me. I really like Win 2k and I would hate to see XP be the only OS used (especially on old machines).

danp
Apr 25, 2006, 07:07 AM
Without a substantial change in Apples pricing structure, or the release of a generic x86 version of OSX -- OSX will have minimal impact on MS, and Apple hardware sales will have a minimal impact on PC box makers. Fact.

Apple sell high quality, feature-packed hardware. The market to which this kind of hardware appeals is trivial compared to the home PC market as a whole. Most consumers are happy with whatever bare bones box Dell is punting out at £250 a throw.

Just because the Mac now runs Windows XP doesn't mean Joe Consumer is going to buy one. I doubt most knew that Macs couldn't run Windows before Boot Camp, etc. The thing that stopped them buying was not the lack of Windows, it was the cost of the hardware. And it still is.

If Apple released a cheap, low end, low feature Mac to compete with the Dells of the world, touting the cross-compatilbitity with XP, then maybe we'd see a large uptake.

If Apple released a generic x86 version of Mac OS X for installation on any PC, maybe we'd see a large uptake.

But to be honest, I don't think either of the above scenarios *should* happen, or *will* happen. I'm happy with the status quo.

Apple will attract the curious with money to spend - the rest of the market (read: the lions share) aren't going anywhere.

IJ Reilly
Apr 25, 2006, 10:23 AM
Apple will attract the curious with money to spend - the rest of the market (read: the lions share) aren't going anywhere.

Clearly Apple isn't going after the lion's share. All they really need to do is nibble. I've read that every 1% increase in market share for the Mac translates into $2 billion in annual revenue for Apple. They don't have to go toe-to-toe with Dell to grow the company significantly. I think Boot Camp is a strategy to gain another 1-2 percent market share -- which in Apple's case, translates into serious money.

DeathChill
Apr 25, 2006, 10:52 AM
Ummm, their "silence" was in their fear based, propogandist response and [i]not addressing the people who will really be choosing Macs as their primary computers now, aka "switchers". Former winBlows lusers who just couldn't make that jump to Mac either because they actually did have to run winblows or a winBlows based app, or [and A LOT more common] those lusers that thought they had to run winBlows when in actuality it was just because it was what they were used to and/or didn't know until now that Macs are for anyone that demand easy to use, reliable, stable, and secure computers for extended periods of time.
Did it ever occur to you that some people may just PREFER Windows? I personally don't, but that doesn't mean others can't.


They say "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it [winBlows]" when existing Mac users would maybe just want to use winBlows for very limited use, but mostly just games. :p
Microsoft doesn't give a crap why you're running their OS, as long as you're running it.


Not good for a companies' flagship OS product to be viewed as only good for gaming, which in terms of "mindshare" equates to it being considered a joke, especially in the highly porfitable enterprise market that both Mac OS X and Linux have been chipping away at for years now.
Who said it was only good for gaming? That's what a lot of the people who switched use it for and that's fine with Microsoft.


it just gets easier each day for alternative OS's to make in-roads on former winblows territory. I've said it fo years, Apple and Linux's success will double with only half the effort, because miCrapsoft's own incompetence will make it easier for people and companies/industries to move away from it's products.
OS X and Linux will never have the majority of desktops with their current strategies. OS X requires you to buy their hardware and Linux is not for the average desktop user.



Actually it's pointing out the facts of what is really going on at the sales level. It is the hardware manufacturers that are sweating bullets now that Macs can do almost everything thir peecees can do, but also provide the "Mac experience" which none of them can do. No, hacking Mac OS X onto a peecee does not give that hacker the "Mac experience".
When you buy a Mac there is no doubt that you pay a slight tax, as you can almost always get a Dell (with coupons) cheaper. I don't know what you mean though, my PC actually could run OS X and have all my devices supported.


Make no mistake about it, people are [and have been for 4 years now] "switching". I'd say the momentum has doubled since '02, meaning the effort it takes to switch winBlows lusers has been cut in half as so many have themselves switched and become Mac advocates, consequently helping others switch as well.

"Word of mouth" has always been the best, and cheapest, form of advertising.

Of course, people have always been switching. It's just going to be a bit larger now thanks to the iPod success and the beautiful products Apple's been putting out.


As I posted above, "miCrapsoft's own incompetence will make it easier for people and companies/industries to move away from it's products."

By itself, Apple really would have a tough time cutting into miCrapsoft's share. With their help stemming from their own incompetence though, it is so much easier, and the revenge is so much sweeter. :D
Now this isn't a biased post or anything...

danp
Apr 25, 2006, 11:01 AM
Clearly Apple isn't going after the lion's share. All they really need to do is nibble. I've read that every 1% increase in market share for the Mac translates into $2 billion in annual revenue for Apple. They don't have to go toe-to-toe with Dell to grow the company significantly. I think Boot Camp is a strategy to gain another 1-2 percent market share -- which in Apple's case, translates into serious money.

Clearly. And it's good you see it that way.

However, listening to some of the fanboys on here you'd assume Apple are on the brink of winning a market share crusade against the PC box shifters and Microsoft.

Not going to happen.

jdechko
Apr 25, 2006, 11:44 AM
I discard linux, but only as a Desktop OS for the masses. Linux has plenty of uses for which it is the right choice, but those don't (yet?) extend to the desktop.

Agreed. The biggest barrier to Linux becoming a mainstream desktop OS is the difficulty in installing a program. I sometimes run Fedora Core 4 in a virtual machine and I have issues getting programs installed. Some require you to use YUM and others you can just click on and they'll install. And what's worse is that different distros have different methods. It's confusing to me. I like OS X for it's simple drag and drop installation of most programs. I didn't understand it at first because I'm used to the way that windows does it. But I realize that creates unnecessary clutter and confusion; confusion similar to Linux (for me anyway).

IJ Reilly
Apr 25, 2006, 11:49 AM
Clearly. And it's good you see it that way.

However, listening to some of the fanboys on here you'd assume Apple are on the brink of winning a market share crusade against the PC box shifters and Microsoft.

Not going to happen.

Depends on your definition of winning. If Apple could manage to grow its market share to 10%, that would be a huge victory, not only for Apple, but for Mac users. Even a couple of percent would be great.

Not that either eventuality would change many minds about the "relevance" of the Mac platform. Even when the Mac market share was 15% back in the day, a lot of people, especially in the media, dismissed choice in operating systems as not only unnecessary, but even undesirable. I don't expect that mindset to change much if at all, no matter how much Apple grows its market share.

shamino
Apr 25, 2006, 12:15 PM
DEven when the Mac market share was 15% back in the day, a lot of people, especially in the media, dismissed choice in operating systems as not only unnecessary, but even undesirable.
In one sense, they are right. If everybody runs the same OS, then you no longer have to care about the OS at all. You can buy apps and expect them to run on any computer.

Of course, this is only one facet of reality. It sounds great if you are a fan of the One True OS. If you don't like the way it works, then that situation would be terrible. And if that OS is so full of security holes that you (the owner) become the only person on Earth unable to do what he wants with it, then that scenario would end up with a lot of people giving up on computers altogether.

IJ Reilly
Apr 25, 2006, 12:42 PM
In one sense, they are right. If everybody runs the same OS, then you no longer have to care about the OS at all. You can buy apps and expect them to run on any computer.

Of course, this is only one facet of reality. It sounds great if you are a fan of the One True OS. If you don't like the way it works, then that situation would be terrible. And if that OS is so full of security holes that you (the owner) become the only person on Earth unable to do what he wants with it, then that scenario would end up with a lot of people giving up on computers altogether.

I've spent a lot of time arguing against the "One True OS" theory, not just as a Mac fan, but as a consumer. I can't comprehend why anyone would wish a true monopoly on anyone, let alone themselves. Either you have competition, or you have a public utility. Any other way is to get screwed.

Actually, I've had a bit of fun over the years arguing that Microsoft should be regulated as a public utility. I've never heard an entirely logical response to this idea from the people who claim that competition in the OS market is unnecessary or harmful.

solvs
Apr 25, 2006, 11:19 PM
Did it ever occur to you that some people may just PREFER Windows? I personally don't, but that doesn't mean others can't.
It has it's pluses, but nobody I know likes it. People use it because they have to. I'm sure someone out there likes it though. I mean, there has to be somebody. All those people can't be lining up for new Windows OSs just because their current Windows OS sucks and they hope the new one doesn't.

gman71882
Apr 26, 2006, 03:11 AM
this is a long article but VERY WORTH THE READ.
Its on a very similar Subject: the possiblilty of running Native windows apps on a Mac withouth any emulation software.

PBS: End run for Windows (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html)