I don't know about you but ... I try like hell to not touch my screen on either my laptop or desktop because it leaves greasy finger marks... Especially when I am eating a juicy orange or grapes .. LOL
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next Version of Windows to Incorporate Advanced Touch Features
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's nothing wrong with loving Macs or other Apple products. But what IS stupid is the BS disparaging of products that did not come from Apple. In this thread we have had loads of negative comments about Windows that are, quite frankly, utter BS. Do we have to come up BS excuses to justify our Mac-usage? Do we have to come up with 100% wrong claims about Windows suckiness?
Like I said before: There are plenty of negative stuff we could say about Windows and/or Microsoft. So do we need to invent new things that are quite frankly not true? When someone whines about Microsoft increasing system-specs of Vista when compared to XP, and five seconds later he's telling everyone how there's nothing wrong with Apple increasing specs of Leopard when compared to Tiger, it becomes quite obvious that we are dealing with people who are quite simply incapable of objective thinking when it comes to Windows and OS X. And the question is that do we need that kind of bias when we talk about Windows and OS X? No we do not.
If we let the discussion about Windows and OS X to revert to double-standards ("It's wrong for MS to increase system-specs for Vista, but it's not wrong for Apple to do the same with OS X") and pure BS ("You can't run Vista on a 2 year old PC!"), then what's the point of having any kind of discussion? It's like having a discussion with the Iraqi Information Minister: No real INFORMATION is being passed, just utter BS.
Um, no. Feel free o be passionate about Macs. But that does not mean that it's somehow OK to make BS comments about other platforms. Stick to facts and objectivity, please.
I can sum it up really quick - and perhaps this is why I really resent attempts to 'shutdown opposite opinion with the label of 'fanboy' ;
What we are witnessing is the natural order of things righting itself.
In 2007 a weaker, inferior product controls 93% of the global market in terms of productivity, creative satisfaction and security of PC user's.
This is a bad thing for the long term progress of the human race. Controlling 93% of the market is fine only as long as your the best - the best for the long term success of the human species.
MS acquired it's lead during the 90's when they were both economically and operationally more effective than Apple - so the natural order of things was correct.
However,
A challenger has come along and through superiority in nearly all regards is changing things.
The bloat-wolf and the leopard are engaged in a fierce battle for the future of humanity (like it or not it is that significant).
Why do expect that the users would not get drawn into this at some level ?
No, it really isn't that significant. If Apple was selling the cure to cancer, then it would be significant. But as it is, we are talking about software. Honestly not worth getting sucked into destructive fanboyism.
Who is to say that it's "inferior"? It might be to you and me, but it might not be to someone else. If (for example) OS X (or Linux for that matter) does not run the app(s) that the user wants to use, are those platforms really "superior"? If there's no Mac-computer that is suitable for the user, is the platform still "superior"?
We all have different needs and wants. It's not possible to universally say "this thing here is better than this thing here". If some user hates the universal menubar in OS X for some reason, what should we do? Try to tell him how it really is better than the Windows-menubar, and how he's wrong with hating the MacOS-menubar? Well, who is to say what is better and what is not? We can't. These things often boils down to personal preferences, and some people just might prefer Windows. Some things could be measured objectively, but we would still have personal preferences to deal with. Manual gearboxes have better mileage and better performance, why do so many people still drive cars with automatic gearboxes?
I do believe that you are making the situation a bit more dramatic than it really is....
I'm all for users getting involved! But that does NOT mean that those users should resort to fabricated lies and BS. If we start arguing against Windows with utter BS, how exactly are we any better than Microsoft?
If we are to have a rational discussion about merits of various OS'es, we really should stick to objectivity and fact, as opposed to foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism (from either side). Unfortunately, that is what I see way too often from Mac-users. Windows doesn't really have "Windows-fanatics", Windows-users are a lot less attached to their OS or computer than Mac-users are.
Why do I get the feeling that you do not understand what I have been talking about? I have NOT sad that "we should not discuss merits of various OS'es" like you seem to be claiming). What I HAVE said is "we should not resort to lies and BS when talking about these things".
What opposite opinion? This is a Mac forum. But I like your Darwinian approach. Following you reasoning about the 'natural order of things' (a very disturbing sentence), in about 10 years time the roles must be reversed. And will OS X control 93% of the global market. This must be inevitable, don't you think? In this world there is hardly a place for weaker and inferior products.
thats a narrow minded view. What if they released something ground breaking that left os x in the dust
Because apple is awesome and will always be on top and botched and twisted semi Darwinian principles say so, duh /sarcasm/.
I have vista and tiger(gaming comp and music and photo comp) and both have good and bad about them. The mac will never have the games or programming I like while the pc doesn't have the photo and music programs on the mac that I like. And who knows windows new system may blow us away, or maybe not. Calling it this early like the elections isn't that effective.
I have vista and tiger(gaming comp and music and photo comp) and both have good and bad about them. The mac will never have the games or programming I like while the pc doesn't have the photo and music programs on the mac that I like. And who knows windows new system may blow us away, or maybe not. Calling it this early like the elections isn't that effective.
They already did. They called it "Vista". The little guy in the business suit on TV told me all about it. The he visited me in a dream and whispered that the last "groundbreaking" thing that Microsoft ever created by itself, was the BASIC Interpreter for the Commodore PET in 1977. All MS products since have resulted from them simply buying-up smaller companies with groundbreaking ideas and then assimilating them, Borg -style, into their MS Collective. Their next-generation Operating System will be called "Windows Locutus", you'll see.
soo.....
i thought this thread was about something that microsoft was doing in the future.. that could be a great debate about whether or not people think they are copying apple, or if they will be able to pull it off as well s apple did. Or we could even discuss what apple will do next to 1 up microsoft.
i come to this thread only to find a bunch of bull crap about fanboys and silly arguments.
i thought this thread was about something that microsoft was doing in the future.. that could be a great debate about whether or not people think they are copying apple, or if they will be able to pull it off as well s apple did. Or we could even discuss what apple will do next to 1 up microsoft.
i come to this thread only to find a bunch of bull crap about fanboys and silly arguments.
In an ideal world this would be true. However there are lots of external factors at work, outside the bounds of the quality of the actual computer / OS. Microsoft's many problems provide gainful employment for millions and millions of people. Support workers, troubleshooters, IT departments, network techs, etc. The reality is, if Microsoft was all it could (should?) be, most of these jobs, and the people who do them, would not be needed anymore. It's almost like a Military/Industrial Complex. It's a self-supporting cycle of problem and solutions driven by Microsoft's poor products. So there's an awful lot of people whose mortgages depend on servicing Microsoft's many flawed products that drive 93% of the world's PC's. Can you honestly seen an IT head recommending that his company switch to Apple, knowing full-well it will put him and his friends out of a job? Of course not -- "We need Vista!" It sounds like a conspiracy, and it is.
In an ideal world this would be true. However there are lots of external factors at work, outside the bounds of the quality of the actual computer / OS. Microsoft's many problems provide gainful employment for millions and millions of people. Support workers, troubleshooters, IT departments, network techs, etc. The reality is, if Microsoft was all it could (should?) be, most of these jobs, and the people who do them, would not be needed anymore. It's almost like a Military/Industrial Complex. It's a self-supporting cycle of problem and solutions driven by Microsoft's poor products. So there's an awful lot of people whose mortgages depend on servicing Microsoft's many flawed products that drive 93% of the world's PC's. Can you honestly seen an IT head recommending that his company switch to Apple, knowing full-well it will put him and his friends out of a job? Of course not -- "We need Vista!" It sounds like a conspiracy, and it is.
Against so much well documented logic it's hard to argue. You have won! (If it was a contest, that is).
In an ideal world this would be true. However there are lots of external factors at work, outside the bounds of the quality of the actual computer / OS. Microsoft's many problems provide gainful employment for millions and millions of people. Support workers, troubleshooters, IT departments, network techs, etc. The reality is, if Microsoft was all it could (should?) be, most of these jobs, and the people who do them, would not be needed anymore. It's almost like a Military/Industrial Complex. It's a self-supporting cycle of problem and solutions driven by Microsoft's poor products. So there's an awful lot of people whose mortgages depend on servicing Microsoft's many flawed products that drive 93% of the world's PC's. Can you honestly seen an IT head recommending that his company switch to Apple, knowing full-well it will put him and his friends out of a job? Of course not -- "We need Vista!" It sounds like a conspiracy, and it is.
ok... thats one way of looking at it.
Or maybe apple doesn't deliver what some people want. Maybe Microsoft has something that apple lacks and wont have, and thus they buy the Windows. Maybe some of them don't buy into the hype that windows gets a billion viruses (I had used it for 12 years and got none, the only people I know who get them are looking up hard core porn or downloading pirated software) and Apple is amazing. I mean I didn't buy my mac on the premise of what apple said, I bought it because it served my needs. It is a tool and it solves the problem I need it to. And my windows comp solves the problems I need that it can do.
The way I see it, Apple provides equipment for a small number of average and slightly above average users. While Microsoft is challenged with delivering products for the masses. That 93% varies widely as to their needs and jobs that need a computer with just as diverse as their needs and jobs. Apple caters to the average Jane and Joe graphic designer and consumer, which is fine, and a lot of the appeal of a Mac IMHO. The pro models do a wonderful job at giving pro users what they need and the same goes for the consumer stuff.
Microsoft and PC makers have to cater to that same group and everyone else, every other niche market out there, hence the larger market share. If Apple wanted to capture the world with Mac OS X they won't do it on 3 desktops and 2 laptop, most of which are just a variation on the other model. The iPhone is a good example of Apple catering to the average user, not the power user or the guy/gal that needs a certain feature. They just gave us what they thought was acceptable and millions drank the cool-aid and bought one. While the others sat back and thought, "Is this really all they could do?"
Microsoft has problems because it's open to everyone, and is the same reason why a lot of people are jumping ship to the Mac. They don't need to program custom software and leave ports open for servers, they just want to organize photos, edit family videos and what not. The Mac works for the same reason, it's closed off to everyone sans Apple techs and some 3rd party devos. That's the same reason why the iPhone sucks for businesses, and why there is much more hardware that can run Windows.
Both companies have their pros and cons because they both have different philosophies and honestly, I am starting to think that the Windows one may be slightly better, albeit the smoothness and security of Mac OS X.
In an ideal world this would be true. However there are lots of external factors at work, outside the bounds of the quality of the actual computer / OS. Microsoft's many problems provide gainful employment for millions and millions of people. Support workers, troubleshooters, IT departments, network techs, etc. The reality is, if Microsoft was all it could (should?) be, most of these jobs, and the people who do them, would not be needed anymore. It's almost like a Military/Industrial Complex. It's a self-supporting cycle of problem and solutions driven by Microsoft's poor products. So there's an awful lot of people whose mortgages depend on servicing Microsoft's many flawed products that drive 93% of the world's PC's. Can you honestly seen an IT head recommending that his company switch to Apple, knowing full-well it will put him and his friends out of a job? Of course not -- "We need Vista!" It sounds like a conspiracy, and it is.
Now, with all due respect: That's a load of crap. I work in that business that, according to you, "would be out of work" if Windows worked better.
Yes, we spend some time troubleshooting problems related to Windows. But if those problems disappeared due to us moving to a different platform, would I be out of work? No. Why? Because the time I DON'T spend on troubleshooting, is being spent on making things work better for our users. We spend our time coming up with cool systems that make our users lives easier. I also spend time training users (and moving from Windows to something else would involve A LOT of training) and writing documentation. All that would not disappear if we dropped Windows.
And like it or not, OS X and Macs have their share of problems as well. Ever since I upgraded to Leopard, Aperture has been acting up. Sometimes it loads just fine, other times it just shows the splash-screen and nothing happens. Only way to make it work again is to reboot the machine (sounds familiar?). Software Update is similar story: it just hangs and does nothing. Luckily I can quit it easily (killing Aperture requires using Activity Monitor), but in order to get it working again requires a reboot.
If we moved to OS X (or Linux, or whatever) I do not think for a second that problems would vanish like fart in the wind. They would not. They might be replaced with some other problems, but there would still be problems.
We (a company of around 10.000 employees) are constantly thinking of ways of making the work of our users easier and more enjoyable. Switching to a platform that would eliminate all our problems would be perfect solution for us. But the thing is that no such platform exists. And there are other things to consider as well. For example, does Apple offer 24h on-site support for their hardware? To my knowledge, no. If we wanted to REALLY take advantage of Mac-platform, we would have to switch to Xserves as well. Compared to some competing rack-servers out there, those might not be all that ideal. And what about hardware? Compared to PC-manufacturers, the selection of Macs is quite limited: three desktops and two laptops. What if none of those are suitable for us? With HP, Dell, Lenovo etc. we have A LOT to choose from, we can select the hardware that is suitable for our needs, as opposed to adjusting our needs to fit the hardware.
Also, would it be possible for us to standardize on certain hardware/software -combo with Apple? With PC's, we can select certain hardware and certain version of Windows, and it would ship straight from the OEM with that setup. How about Apple? Would Apple still supply us with older version of their laptop, once they decide to upgrade it? What about OS itself? What if we had standardized on Panther and had few months ago upgraded to Tiger? How would that work in current Leopard-universe? Is Apple prepared for the possibility that someone might buy their brand-new hardware (that has been released after Leopard was released) and then DOWNGRADE the OS?
Related to this: No, we are not even planning to deploy Vista any time soon. It seems like too much of a hassle and too much problems. Although some might say that those problems would bring us job-security or something....
And the other thing is that switch of that magnitude would be a HUGE job that would cost A LOT of money. So switches like that are not done unless absolutely necessary.
A Microsoft blogger revealed yesterday that the next version of Windows ("Windows 7") will contain touch features with specific claims that the new features will 'blow away' the current touch features on the iPhone:
The blogger, Hilton Locke, is a Windows test engineer for the Tablet PC which explains his involvement with touch technologies. Microsoft has already integrated some touch features into Vista with support for current Tablet PCs as well as HP's TouchSmart PC, but it appears more advanced features will come with Windows 7. This successor to Windows Vista, however, is not expected to be released until 2010 at the earliest.
Even then, touch features would only be available to manufacturers who take advantage of the new features. Locke suggests that convincing manufacturers to adopt Windows Touch Technology has been difficult.
In May, Microsoft announced their Surface Computing initiative with the introduction of commercial multi-touch tables due in 2008.
Multitouch technologies have been a hot topic since the introduction of the Apple iPhone, with several patent applications indicating that Apple is heavily researching its use. The current incarnation of the iPhone supports two points of contact, allowing the user to zoom in and out using "pinch" and "reverse pinch" motions with two fingers. More advanced multi-touch possibilities include gestures and multi-purpose surfaces.
Article Link
Remember all the awesome features they promised with vista but then cut out? I'm not holding my breath on this one...
Remember all the awesome features they promised with vista but then cut out? I'm not holding my breath on this one...
Exactly, what ever happened to that file system that was supposed to save souls? I half expect MS to come out with a version of Linux then migrate to that. Time will tell.
I wish I could use the heat in this thread to warm my house.
We've heard all this before.
Sometime the world will get tired of Microsoft's endless promises which distract from the poor quality of products they currently ship.
Longhorn promised X, Y and Z, it was going to be all things to all people and what did we get? Vista.
So excuse me if I say I'll believe it when I see it.
Sometime the world will get tired of Microsoft's endless promises which distract from the poor quality of products they currently ship.
Longhorn promised X, Y and Z, it was going to be all things to all people and what did we get? Vista.
So excuse me if I say I'll believe it when I see it.
If people disparaged products simply because they didn't come from Apple, you'd be right, Artie McStrawman. But, in reality, Mac users typically disparage inferior products wherever they come from.
It just happens that Microsoft is best at supplying inferior products.
Well, I remembered how Apple preached how Intel was such an inferior CPU in their Ads compared to G# CPU and they had the whole Apple community echoing their statement--forums like Mac Forum was filled with this stuff. And this was happening right until they switched to Intel. Now you guys are eating crow!
It doesn't need to be MS...Sony, NBC, Bungie, anybody who goes against the Apple's movement is enemy number one.
