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.
This thread is about the next generation of vaporware from MS. We've been through this over and over again-- because of their size, market share, resources, and brutal business practices, MS has learned that they can kill competition just by feigning entry into a market. Many here have simply been disillusioned with Redmond and react strongly to the same techniques over and over.
If you look at all the things Longhorn and Vista were meant to be, and then you look at what it is, there's a huge disparity. Some of that is lack of execution, some of that is seeding the market with "dare not oppose us" rhetoric. When a thread like this comes up, I'm not surprised in the least to see all those chickens come home to roost. They deserve it.
To the extent that their tactics work-- and they do-- the backlash needs to be big enough for them to stop. I don't understand why people always act so shocked that a Mac oriented site would be a hotbed for radical anti-Windowsism.
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.
If curing cancer is the benchmark, then "destructive" must mean that the so-called fanboys are causing cancer, which I also don't see...
I actually do think the loss of momentum that Vista has resulted in, and the gaining momentum by competitors, is as significant as was stated. Curing cancer? Don't know about that, but I will tell you my greatest fear is waking up in a hospital plugged into a machine with a 4 color logo and a start bar.
I do know that because so much of the world is running on Windows, that operating system has a huge impact on global productivity and quality of life. To the extent that Windows is insecure, ineffective, inefficient, and unpleasant, everything that depends on it takes on those characteristics to some extent.
thats a narrow minded view. What if they released something ground breaking that left os x in the dust
Then they'd have to wait for the next generation. For me, it would take a good 10-15 years of Windows products leaving their competitors in the dust for me to really trust it again, and a major top-to-bottom shake up in management to convince me that the changes were here to stay.
You reap what you sow-- and in Redmond's case they've sown a couple decades of mediocre products and "it doesn't matter because the world needs us" attitude.
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.
I think you're giving credit to MS for the work of 3rd party devs. There's nothing in OS X that precludes it from meeting the needs of the highest or lowest end of users. You might see more Windows machines meeting those needs, but it's almost always because they're using applications written by others-- not because there's some unique feature of the OS.
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?"
The breadth of the product line is a direct result of market size. If Apple were selling 10 times as many machines, they could afford a few additional models, but as it stands they maximize their economies of scale and reduce their configuration headaches to best serve the parts of the market they think they can most aggressively move into.
Same goes with the iPhone. They broke into the market by putting out a single phone they could sell world wide. With success, you can expect to see it's product matrix look more like the iPods where you've got half a dozen different models targeted at different user profiles.
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.
I need to program custom software and leave ports open to servers, and I find OS X a far better tool for what I'm doing. It's not about openness-- so much of OS X is based on open standards that actually make it easier to integrate with and modify. If anything, MS is much more closed... Try to integrate a non-MS application with Exchange email and calendaring, for example.
This is the principle place where OS X's Unix heritage enters in-- Unix was built to be open, adaptable, and connectable. OS X has inherited that, as evidenced by the fact that almost all open source apps for Linux are easily ported to OS X. You don't see many of them in use by average users for the same reason average users don't use Linux-- the UI is typically garbage.
The differences you're describing are again about applications. People like using Macs for photos because there are some very easy-to-use applications for handling photos. I don't know why we don't see these develop for Windows-- some of it has to do with culture, I suspect.
