Connected: Microsoft finds Apple move hard to swallow

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Apr 23, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 601

    DMann

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    10023
    #2
    MicroMedicine

    It seems the Windows OS which lured the masses away
    from Apple is the same OS which will bring'em back......
     
  3. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #3
    Interesting article. I like their notion that the ability to run Windows on a Mac could spell the end for M$'s monopoly power. :)
     
  4. macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #4
    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
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    Kingsly

    #5
    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
     
  6. Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #6
    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. :eek:

    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?
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    Tempe, AZ
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    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* :eek:
     
  11. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Location:
    You See Dead People...
    #12
    Ummm, their "silence" [if you read between the lines] was in their fear based, propogandist response and 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.

    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.

    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
     
  13. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    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. ;)
     
  14. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #14
    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
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    #15
    what monopoly

    MS has not had any monopoly power for quite some time in my opinion, They are under seige. :cool:
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    #16
    ???

    You mention linux and then completely discard it. MS doesn't have 97% of the market share, its much less.
     
  17. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #17
    And under seige for good reason I think. :) ;)
     
  18. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #18
    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
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Photorun

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    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$.
     
  20. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Location:
    Rehoboth Beach, De
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    bbyrdhouse

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2002
    Location:
    Elm Grove, LA
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    Spock

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Vulcan
    #23
    The Macintosh Classic could boot System 6.0 from the ROM by holding command-option-x-o at startup
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain
    #24
    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
     
  25. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    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.)
     

Share This Page