Lion vs Windows 8

[VPrime]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 similar

Not so disimilar. It's like comparing a grocery store to a full service restaurant. But both are competing for the same food dollar.

 

[mrsir2009]

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]

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]

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 . My problem with Windows and where 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]

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]

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]

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.

https://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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Just saw the 90 min developer preview video (link).

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]

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]

Just saw the 90 min developer preview video (link).

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]

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]

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

I'm curious why you feel this way?