Apple vs Microsoft [vent]

[Converted2Truth]

From birth to 2001: Never even saw a Mac. Microsoft was awesome. They brought some really 'pretty' changes, which brought about some really cool games. I did always prefer DOS tho. Guess that's why i love the terminal so much.

2001 I saw some old-school PowerPC 33mhz running all sorts of newschool programs, games, etc. Not only that, but i saw features that were somewhat different, yet familiar. Lo and behold! Microsoft had copied the idea of Mac OS and it's functionality! I had been betrayed. Never again would i buy an OS from them. Bastages! they hadn't come up with the idea! they just copied it.

Well, now it's 2005 and i have kept my word. I don't like Microsoft, in fact i hate thier OS. But lately i've been thinking (please hold off on throughing rocks just for a bit)....

Apple made a superior computer with a superior OS. Microsoft made an inferior OS for all the other computers (most of them anyway [MS-DOS]). What did apple think was going to happen?! I mean... they implement this great idea encapsulating functionality and ease of use only on one computer type?! All those IBM and IBM-compatibles just sitting out there with no good OS (good as in user friendly)... OF COURSE SOMEONE WAS BOUND TO COPY THE IDEA. WHAT ELSE WERE THEY GONNA DO? Hand over their company to apple and say, "Yep, you did it right"? NOT

According to Copyright law and stuff: You cannot own an idea, only it's implementation.

While i think Microsoft Windows is inferior, uninventive, and really just a copy... I cannot say that they were in the wrong. I think apple made a big mistake. They should have marketed their OS on alternative hardware. Initially, perhaps it would have cut into hardware sales in the beginning, but they would have kept their idea and dominated the OS market. Look at microsoft! they don't even make computers! Apple would have been king. Apple would still be king (i'm talking about market share too).

Now i prefer Apple computers running the Mac OS. But i no longer feel bitter toward Microsoft. They did what was bound to happen. There was such a void in the PC market! microsoft stepped up and filled it with the 'idea' of windows -like Macs had. If anything, i'm starting to think how Apple totally got what they deserved. They shot themselves in the foot. I guess it's not what they DID, but what they DIDN'T do... that's what got them in a tight spot.

Can they market their OS for windows now? Perhaps in the long run, it would be the greatest thing they ever do. Sure there are many drawbacks initially, but they'd all go away once all their apps (and other people's apps) were re-compiled for x86 CPUs.

From what i've heard and read, many Mac users think they are elitists... they don't want apple to become the next microsoft because they think they'll lose their measure of uniqueness (sp).

I hope that's not what's holding back Apple computers. Pride is a killer. It's not about being the rare and best. It's about being the innovators that dominate! Apple should not only have a big gun, but let every holster carry it. right now, apple's gun can only be carried by a pretty aluminum (or white plasic) holster. These holsters arre damn good holsters, but how's that gonna dominate? it's not what's unique.

Realize people: Apple didn't invent the computer, they invented a GUI OS for personal computers. That should be their first priority... mastering that which they invented for ALL personal computers.

/rant

 

[risc]

You don't think the Mac OS X experience is better because they hold such tight control over the hardware? In my years of experience using Linux I've noticed that hardware made for (supported by) Linux works great with Linux, but not all hardware is the same, so the experience can differ from machine to machine. Some times things work, some times they kind of work, other times they don't at all.

I think of the current Mac line up as UNIX workstations just like Sun, SGI, etc and with such control over the hardware and a limited amount of hardware to support you end up with a great user experience - of everything just working.

IMHO OS X for x86 would end up a mess like Linux because who knows what Apple are meant to support? Or do they try to support everything?

Oh well that's my 2c I like Apple just the way they are.

-Edit: I've just read your post again, and I'm not really sure what you are saying/complaining about here. Might read it again.

 

[Converted2Truth]

They'd have to start out supporting limited hardware, just like linux OSs have.

I love apple just the way they are too. Even if they did come out with x86 OS, i'd still buy an apple - for reasons you pointed out.

Really all i'm saying is that they missed the market. perhaps it's not too late though.

 

[TIGERmac]

Apple made a superior computer with a superior OS. Microsoft made an inferior OS for all the other computers (most of them anyway [MS-DOS]). What did apple think was going to happen?! I mean... they implement this great idea encapsulating functionality and ease of use only on one computer type?! All those IBM and IBM-compatibles just sitting out there with no good OS (good as in user friendly)... OF COURSE SOMEONE WAS BOUND TO COPY THE IDEA. WHAT ELSE WERE THEY GONNA DO? Hand over their company to apple and say, "Yep, you did it right"? NOT

According to Copyright law and stuff: You cannot own an idea, only it's implementation.

While i think Microsoft Windows is inferior, uninventive, and really just a copy... I cannot say that they were in the wrong. I think apple made a big mistake. They should have marketed their OS on alternative hardware. Initially, perhaps it would have cut into hardware sales in the beginning, but they would have kept their idea and dominated the OS market. Look at microsoft! they don't even make computers! Apple would have been king. Apple would still be king (i'm talking about market share too).

Now i prefer Apple computers running the Mac OS. But i no longer feel bitter toward Microsoft. They did what was bound to happen. There was such a void in the PC market! microsoft stepped up and filled it with the 'idea' of windows -like Macs had. If anything, i'm starting to think how Apple totally got what they deserved. They shot themselves in the foot. I guess it's not what they DID, but what they DIDN'T do... that's what got them in a tight spot.

First of all, the GUI was originally invented by Xerox. Some say Apple and Microsoft both copied, and I've read many variations of the story. Bottom line, the Lisa team visited PARC and studied the Xerox GUI, not the Macintosh team. We all know it was the Macintosh team that won the competition. I don't think they "copied" off of Xerox. Truth be told, the Xerox implementation was superior. Microsoft, on the other hand, just copied whatever they saw (and did a horrible job at it).

Regardless, the Mac OS was the first mass market implementation of the GUI. Microsoft Windows wasn't even a player at that point. The first PC maker was IBM, and due to their unusual (read: lazy, bad) decision to outsource the OS to save time, Microsoft got its first (of many to come) big break.

Microsoft has never been an innovator. They have always taken others ideas and used their power to crush the competition...many times doing so in illegal/unethical ways.

Microsoft's success has been largely due to luck. Check out the following link for more details: The Six Serendipities of Microsoft

As others have said, the whole one OS fits all model just doesn't work. The tight hardware/software integration is what makes the Mac user experience what it is. I used Windows (and still use it sometimes) for many years, and the nightmares of trying to figure out what's devices were causing conflicts with everything else, etc. are not something I want to return to.

 

[clayj]

There's a good example that I suspect many of you have forgotten about... the Xbox. Although Microsoft doesn't actually manufacture them (they're outsourced to a hardware fabricator), Microsoft does spec them, and they write the OS for them.

My point: The Xbox doesn't crash (at least, not any more frequently than Mac OS X). Why? Because writing an OS for a hardware platform that you ABSOLUTELY control is EASY compared to writing an OS that could find itself running on a virtually-infinite number of different systems, with different CPUs, video adapters, motherboards, BIOSes, network adapters, etc.

If for no other reason, this is why the Mac is more stable than Windows. Apple absolutely controls the hardware spec, so they have a lot less to worry about. What Apple should fear is if Microsoft ever does decide to get into the PC business... if they controlled the MicrosoftPC in the same way that Apple controls the Mac, they could produce Windows boxes that don't ever crash.

 

[TIGERmac]

If for no other reason, this is why the Mac is more stable than Windows. Apple absolutely controls the hardware spec, so they have a lot less to worry about. What Apple should fear is if Microsoft ever does decide to get into the PC business... if they controlled the MicrosoftPC in the same way that Apple controls the Mac, they could produce Windows boxes that don't ever crash.

Maybe if they completely re-wrote the Windows OS. As it stands, I don't think XP could be as stable/low maintenance as OS X even if Microsoft had complete control over the hardware specs. Too many issues with legacy support, registry rot, etc. with XP that even such control would still not eliminate several problems, in my opinion.

 

[Maedus]

What Apple should fear is if Microsoft ever does decide to get into the PC business... if they controlled the MicrosoftPC in the same way that Apple controls the Mac, they could produce Windows boxes that don't ever crash.

That is very unlikely. It used to be a lot more common for computer manufacturers to create their own OS (I remember DeskMate for Tandy). It was a few years back, but I remember reading articles in I think Wired about how it was amazing that Apple was able to develop both hardware and software since in the PC world, the industry separated into hardware manufactuers and software manufacturers.

I could see Apple becoming a software only company but I don't see Microsoft ever becoming a hardware company. It would be too costly for minimal revenue. Easier to just stick it to HP, Dell, Gateway, etc with high licensing fees.

 

[clayj]

I could see Apple becoming a software only company but I don't see Microsoft ever becoming a hardware company.

No, it'll never happen. In fact, that was one of the original schisms between Bill Gates and Paul Allen; Paul wanted Microsoft to get into hardware (e.g., PCs), and Bill vehemently disagreed. Paul's departure from Microsoft, precipitated by Hodgkin's Disease, pretty much ended any possibility that Microsoft would ever get into the PC business.

 

[clayj]

Maybe if they completely re-wrote the Windows OS.

They've already done this, more than once... there's a version of Windows XP that runs on things like ATMs. It never crashes, and it's rock solid.

But the question is basically moot, since Microsoft is never going to get into the computer business... there's too much potential to lose your shirt making computers.

 

[MisterMe]

First of all, the GUI was originally invented by Xerox. Some say Apple and Microsoft both copied, and I've read many variations of the story. Bottom line, the Lisa team visited PARC and studied the Xerox GUI, not the Macintosh team. We all know it was the Macintosh team that won the competition. I don't think they "copied" off of Xerox. Truth be told, the Xerox implementation was superior. Microsoft, on the other hand, just copied whatever they saw (and did a horrible job at it).

Regardless, the Mac OS was the first mass market implementation of the GUI. Microsoft Windows wasn't even a player at that point. The first PC maker was IBM, and due to their unusual (read: lazy, bad) decision to outsource the OS to save time, Microsoft got its first (of many to come) big break.

Microsoft has never been an innovator. They have always taken others ideas and used their power to crush the competition...many times doing so in illegal/unethical ways.

Microsoft's success has been largely due to luck. Check out the following link for more details: The Six Serendipities of Microsoft

As others have said, the whole one OS fits all model just doesn't work. The tight hardware/software integration is what makes the Mac user experience what it is. I used Windows (and still use it sometimes) for many years, and the nightmares of trying to figure out what's devices were causing conflicts with everything else, etc. are not something I want to return to.

Microsoft's success has very little to do with "luck." If you honestly believe that it does, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that you can have--cheap! You really need to learn some history and a few other things.

 

[Maedus]

Microsoft's success has very little to do with "luck." If you honestly believe that it does, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that you can have--cheap! You really need to learn some history and a few other things.

I think it was pretty lucky that the original intended buyers for DOS weren't able to make the meeting so the manufactuerers of DOS sold it to Bill Gates for cheap instead was pretty lucky.

But a lot of Microsoft's success has come from very effective laywers.

 

[MisterMe]

I think it was pretty lucky that the original intended buyers for DOS weren't able to make the meeting so the manufactuerers of DOS sold it to Bill Gates for cheap instead was pretty lucky.

....

It would be lucky if true. My favorite source has quite a different story to tell.

 

[5300cs]

Gates is/was a pretty good business man, though. Maybe "shrewd" would be a better term.

 

[Maedus]

It would be lucky if true. My favorite source has quite a different story to tell.

I stand corrected, MisterMe.

Bill Gates and Microsoft had to come up with something fast - their prior claim to fame was a mediocre implementation of an old language (called Basic) -- they did not have an OS. Gates had convinced IBM that their DOS was a work nearly complete and almost ready for delivery -- so it was time to start work on the system. Instead of doing the OS themselves (as they had said), they went to a neighboring company who was working on a direct rip-off of CP/M (that wasn't that good a rip-off either). This company was Seattle Computing and the product was QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System). MS bought all the rights for $50,000 (or $40K - $100K depending on who you talk to), and with a few changes the work was complete.

It was his good lawyers then.

So Microsoft got a chance to create the operating system for the IBM PC. The other company in the running was Digital Research, but Digital Research didn't know how to handle the legal aspects of nondisclosure agreements and was scared of IBM. Gates had good lawyers and was a good liar, and so got the deal.(1) Gates also got IBM to underestimate Bill's lawyers, and so Gates not only sold the OS to IBM and got paid, but he also got to keep the OS for himself and sell it separately. This non-exclusive ownership is a cushy deal -- getting a some other company to pay for your R&D on a product you get to sell (and you get to compete with the company that is paying your bills).

 

[LethalWolfe]

I could see Apple becoming a software only company but I don't see Microsoft ever becoming a hardware company.

Apple couldn't survive as a software company. They are a hardware company that, out of necessity, makes software for their hardware.


Lethal