# Apple is better then Microsoft



## Guest (May 17, 2003)

I have useed a Mac and instantly fell in love with it. The OS is greatly compiled whereas Windows is sloppily compiled and can't even compare with Mac anymore. I think macs will dominate windows in the future! What do u think???

HexStar


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

Long live Windows!!! Although Mac has a great OS, Windows will continue to have control over the market. Why? Because Apple isn't compatible with anything off the shelf, and Apple can do anything they want to with the price. Another thing the computers are $2400, compared to a build your own pc which is about $500.


----------



## NiteHawk (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by HexStar:_
> *I have useed a Mac and instantly fell in love with it. The OS is greatly compiled whereas Windows is sloppily compiled and can't even compare with Mac anymore. I think macs will dominate windows in the future! What do u think???
> 
> HexStar *


Hmmm, let's see, macs have actually been around longer than windows. Macs currently have a 3-6% market share. What do you think?


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2003)

Well, anything is possible right?

HexStar


----------



## NiteHawk (Mar 9, 2003)

Perhaps. but possible and probable are two different things.
Yugo "might have" dominated General Motors and Ford......but they didn't.


----------



## gws226 (Feb 9, 2003)

Once again Apple is bad shape...
The 3.06s smoked the dual 1.4 macs in almost ever test that was MACs claim to fame.... graphics and video rendering at a 1/3 of the price.

Am I mac fan? No
Am I a windows fan? No
Am I a linux fan? No

I'm just like most every consumer out there, I want what is best... but my loyalities do not lie deep enough to keep me comming back to Windows if Windows was no longer the premier OS (god I can't I just said that...but I guess its true)

EDIT: With more thought... I would to say it isn't so much the fact that windows OS is better than MAC OS. Its the whole package that makes Windows (ie: PC based machines) more desirable over the MAC machines. 

MACs have a very loyal fan base...but all the numbers are against. If they could develop something that wasn't only unique but could compete either pricewise, or speed wise (preferably both) you will probably see their market share begin to increase again. But common sense does not dictate purchasing a PC for twice the price of something else AND under perform against it. 

I believe in healthly competition. I would love to see Linux, MAC, and Windows all having a 33% market share. With that level of competition the odds are best that the end consumer will get better prices and a better product. For now... we (PC users) can only really watch that same competitiveness exist in the Hardware markets...and find out whats comming next.


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

"Pirates of Silicon Valley" - if I remember right Bill Gates stole Windows from Steve Jobs and got away with it in the court system. So Windows really is Apple! Therefore I am...


----------



## NiteHawk (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by CouchMaster:_
> *"Pirates of Silicon Valley" - if I remember right Bill Gates stole Windows from Steve Jobs and got away with it in the court system. So Windows really is Apple! Therefore I am... *


Well, yes and no. Bill Gates stole the GUI idea from Steve Jobs, yes. BUT, Steve Jobs did not "invent" the GUI.
A Xerox think tank based in Palo Alto, CA first came up with the GUI, had several work stations networked together and had a pointing divice (mouse). They took the whole package back east to demo it to the "suits" at Xerox who weren't impressed and said that "Xerox will never be associated with something called a mouse" and scraped the project. Many of the people on the project went on to distinguished careers, the person responsible for the networking went on to be the founder of 3Com, for one.

As the project was being dismantled, someone on the project knew Steve Jobs and showed it to him since Mother Xerox was no longer interested. Steve Jobs saw the potential in it and as they say, the rest is history.

This bad business decision ranks right up there with when Bill Gates presented IBM with DOS (which he actually bought from someone else and developed farther. It was called CDOS then (Cheap and Dirty Operating System)) and in the negations insisted on keeping the licensing rights to the software. IBM said, let him keep it, the money is in the hardware, not the software anyway.

Things have a way of changing over time.


----------



## gws226 (Feb 9, 2003)

Wow... that was a real interesting history lesson. Keep em comming!


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2003)

Cool, I just think that if everyone realises the power of macs and how good they really are, how much power they have and how you can emulate a PC and run WindowsXP on them that'll beat every other system.

HexStar


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

If mac every gets as much software as windows, or as much power as a pc, then it is worth it. The gui is much nicer in mac, and it is great for video editing. But mac just isn't good where the money is now, high quality games, such as UT2003. Most home users have strong computers just to run these games, apple doesn't come closse to the power of a pc. But I heard rumors that apple is secretly working on a windows version of mac, if that comes through, and apple lowers their prices, the market could turn even.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2003)

Yeah. I'd sure buy that PC compatible MacOS. 

HexStar


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

I would dual boot with XP faster than a cheetah runs a mile


----------



## wedor (Nov 7, 1999)

I've worked on Macs and I hated them, you may think they are great but not everyone else does.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2003)

Yeah, I know.

HexStar


----------



## cammi (Jan 9, 2003)

i prefer windows to a mac for normal things, but macs are better for graphics imo.

so for me, overall, i prefer using windows to anything else. also there are more programmes that are windows compatible!

as for linux and other OS', i really cant be bothered re-changing my OS


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2003)

True, but I think that once if this happens, Mac gets more compatible with PC apps and gets more affordable they will eventually beat Microsoft in the end.

HexStar


----------



## brushmaster1 (Jun 15, 2002)

Macs will beat PCs when Betamax beats VHS...and for the same reason.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2003)

Yeah, I guess.

HexStar


----------



## NiteHawk (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by HexStar:_
> *Yeah, I guess.
> 
> HexStar *


Hexstar, stop beating a dead horse!!

Since you asked Tech Guy to greatly increase your number of posts to make you look better and he wouldn't (I wonder why) is this the way you build your numbers, with meaningless drivel and posts about adding crazy sequential characters to a continuing series of posts? Are you really that concerned about numbers?

If you are the technical savvy person you claim to be, get into the forums and help some people with their problems. After all THAT is what TSG is really all about.


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

When are you going to get paid for your Apple endorsement? I would be demanding big bucks.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2003)

Look NightHawk...
No more post numbers 
<<<<<<<<<<<< 
I'll say this for the new format... It might reduce post piling.


----------



## Mariusz (Mar 16, 2003)

i like granny smith apples better then oranges...

this apple/ms debate makes as much sense as my statement above


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2003)

NiteHawk, OK so I'm not the best computer helper. I don't know as much as most computer techies do and I just do the threads I can. I'm sorry, I really try to participate as much as I can. 

HexStar


----------



## Rast (May 30, 2003)

More history...

Mac had the best computer on the market, bar none, when it released the original Mac. However, by that point, everyone working with a computer was using an IBM compatible computer because IBM's name--when IBM entered the computer market--finally brought a legit name to computers. Pre-IBM PCs, people were making computers and debating whether a TI, Commodore, Apple, or whatever was the best, but nothing took off until the business-world respected IBM entered the market.

IBM waited a long time to enter the market, but when they finally realized they needed to get in, they were in grave danger of missing the boat entirely. They had been the major business information hardware supplier for a long time, and they were slow to see the PC potential. They were going to build an "IBM" computer from scratch, but realizing the time involved and the potential for never earning the market share they were quickly losing back, the put together a pc with totally off the shelf parts. This strategy got IBM into the computer market quickly and cheaply, but within a short time, people reverse engineered IBM's computer. The techies of the day just took IBM's machine apart and put one just like it together on their own.

Compaq and other pc makers were quick to make "IBM" compatible computers and sell them cheaper than IBM. To run an IBM compatible computer, however, required having IBM's software. Enter Bill Gates. He owned the software, Microsoft became the dominant player in software...

Apple, meanwhile, believed IBM was the enemy and believed making a superior computer would give them the market they wanted. The produced a few mistakes, then came out with the Mac...a beauty for its time. Apple, however, wasn't IBM compatible. IBM compatible was the business standard, and Apple wasn't widely adopted.

Now, IBM computers sucked. You needed to be a pseudoprogrammer to use them. Apple, however, had GUIs, mice, sweet programs--in short, Apple was faaaaarrrrr superior to anything IBM compatible. A number of PC makers went to Apple and tried to license Apple's software and OS. Here is where Apple blew it...

Apple thought if they kept their software to Apple, they could dominate BOTH the hardware and software market. Software, however, wasn't their focus. Like IBM, they missed the boat for a bit and believed hardware was the focus. Apple didn't license squat, stuck to their guns, and was all but ruined. Steve Jobs left, sold his Apple shares, and the company nearly plummeted.

Bill Gates, in typical fashion, saw the value in someone else's idea and ran with it. Suddenly Windows was GUI based...suddenly PCs were easier to use...suddenly all the PC people had a lot of what made Apple great. Why switch to Apple when you've already got and are familiar with a PC? Apple never got software makers to adopt it's brand, IBM faded away as the dominant PC maker, and has changed it's focus. IBM has done O.K. by concentrating on other markets, Bill Gates can buy most small countries, and the rest is history. Apple would have been history, too, if Steve Jobs, some nice-looking new products, and an out-of-control-fanatical user base hadn't saved them.

Wow...that was long...


----------



## NiteHawk (Mar 9, 2003)

Right on the mark!! Steve Jobs in many cases was his own worst enemy.

There are times when the better technology doesn't always win.

Going back about 7 or 8 years in the area of portable storage there were basicly two players. The 100Mb Zip disk and the 135Mb SyQuest disk. The difference between 100 and 135 wasn't that great. The big difference was in the seek/scan times. Zip was 29.5 ms while SyQuest was 11.5ms.

While SyQuest may have had the better technology, Zip (Iomega) had the better marketing.


----------



## cammi (Jan 9, 2003)

to each his or her own! please dont start to say, "this product is better" when you're comparing granny smiths to jonathans ok?

its up to an individual's preference. i have grown up on both mac and ibm compatibles. now, i personally prefer macs to for graphics, and ibm compatibles for everything else.

for the issue of cheapness in price - yes currently macs are more expensive (or so my friend found out yesterday anyway). in my experience macs stall more on me than ibms! that really does irritate me some what.

oh and as for software - it doesnt really matter. the necessary things are usually usable on both computers.

you would be what marketers call Brand Loyal. Macintosh loves you.


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

In my experience, I like PC's better than Macs. However, this might be because the only Mac's I've ever used are in the elementary school, and they had security stuff blocking many features, and they were running OS 9....so maybe if I had my own Mac, I would like it more. But PC's are perfect for me, I think, they allow for more expandability, more games, and better performance.


----------



## Rast (May 30, 2003)

I've never heard anything but great things about macs...I've only tried to use a few on a few occasions. My biggest problem is I'm very used to windows and certain shortcuts, ways of doing things, etc. I use a lot of keyboard shortcuts and other junk that of course only works in windows. I don't really feel like learning another os, especially when 95% of the current software is for the os I know well...

I'm sure apples kick butt, but I'll likely never find out...until something better comes out, I'm a windows man. Not because I like windows...unfortunately, it's because I know windows...


----------



## cammi (Jan 9, 2003)

Ahh well for someone who grew up with both computers I can say there are many things I hate about Macs. (I can also say things I hate about IBM Compatibles too). eg, I am all in for speed.. particularly when chatting to my friends. And I chat to lots (and I mean lots) of them at a time. Macs weren't good for that unfortunately. I don't have a particular preference to any OS... I'll just use whatever I've got! I'm adaptable.


----------



## GoJoAGoGo (Dec 26, 2002)

I suppose this is like comparing the Sony Beta to VCR's


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2003)

Ummm... I could be wrong... But at this point isn't the preference between Mac and PC based mostly on operating system preferences?

It's too bad that one common operating system couldn't be put put into both Mac and PC. Maybe Linux?

I heard a rumor about Windows making their operating system compatible with a Mac computer. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

If you were in Bill Gate's shoes back then, would you have taken the chance to get ahead. Even if you stole an idea? Computer world is not the only place to steal ideas. So, the one who invinted the walkman, they dhould have all the market, and it wouldn't be right for them to be surpassed. Wrong. I would take every chance I had to make my product better than the others. What I don't get, is all these Mac fanatics on the internet that claim to hate Microsoft. Most of them use IE, even though they claim they will never use Microsoft products. Face it, Microsoft has an advantage, Apple has, and still is, screwed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2003)

Yes true true. I also heard that Apple's making MacOS for IBMs. I'd like to see that happen. What I really think would be a great idea is since both of the companies have great ideas and interfaces (OSs), why don't they just merge and then you'll have the best computer in the world (in my opinion anyways). Don't you think so?

HexStar


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree. But, if they merge, then they can make the price as high as they wish due to no competition. You might end up paying $3000 for a normal Windows PC. I did hear rumors on TechTV about Apple and 12 secret engineers that are working on a Mac OS to be compatible with IBM. I can't wait to see if the rumors are true, if they are, then I will go and buy me a copy of mac, and dual boot with the next Windows. It will be a while before the new Mac OS comes out for the PC, if it does. I believe if this new OS comes out for the PC, the market will be as follows:

Microsoft - 50%
Apple - 47%
Linix/Unix - 3%

But that is my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2003)

Yeah. If that rumor's true, then Apple may actually have a chance to beat Microsoft. Yay!!!:eel:

HexStar


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

But Mac hardware is so slow....their processors are pitiful compared to PC's. Apple only stays alive because it has a very loyal fanbase. Read this article for more.

Websurfer, I think that linux will continue to grow. If you think about it, file protection techniques re getting more and more advanced. Right now, there are tons of illegal copies of Windows XP on the internet, and that is part of the reason why it is so popular. But what happens when Microsoft develops something that can't be copied? Who wants to pay $200 for an operating system? But oh, look at this... Linux is free, and has all the stability that Windows has!

Oh, and I just can't respect Apple at all, because of their subliminal advertising in things. Sure other companies, like Dell do it, but you can get something better than a Dell without buying from them--with Apple, they're the only ones who make them.


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

Very well said Tim. It's true about XP's popularity. If Windows does come out with smoething that can't be copied, I WILL switch to Linux. Unless, of course, Apple lowers prices, and otehr companies start to sell their hardware. As I am typing, I have Red Hat downloading, I am willing to try it. I will admit right now that my copy of XP was borrowed from a friend. She doesn't like it, so she gave me a copy. My version is registered though


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2003)

True, true.

HexStar


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

Heh...I tried linux....but it was on my comp with like a 500MB hard drive, so i couldn't install the visual interface. So I was kinda stuck, as I had no references at all, and there wasn't really much I could do on that computer anyway except type some stuff... maybe one day I'll get around to dual booting this computer with linux.

Hey HexStar...why do you always put your name at the end of your posts? You do realize that it's right above your message, right?


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2003)

Doh! Oops, just use to sending messages with a signature. Guess I'll stop since it is kinda stupid.


----------



## buddhafabio (Aug 5, 2002)

right now as it stands, those 12 engineers are rumored to be working on an os X based operating system that will run off of amds. Why amds you ask? Because they share similar transistor pathway structor with the motorolas apple uses. which are smaller and more effecent than Pentium4s. that is why amds have lower mhz but can beat the pentiums in benchmarks. all this is from my Uncle who is DIE HARD mac fan. he buys a new computer almost every year.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2003)

K, thanks. If this OS really comes out, I'm going to change to AMDs.


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

I heard they were shipping for Intel Oh well, I hope it is AMD, because that's what I have


----------



## buddhafabio (Aug 5, 2002)

i thought it was pentiums also but he said it was amds because there wasnt much to change in the kernel because the archtecture was very similar.


----------



## Fyzbo (Feb 6, 2002)

Linux seems to do a good job at running applications, but I truly feel that it won't become any more popular with the average user until it works on it's graphics support. I've noticed that most versions of linux only support 24bit graphics and have NO dvd support. These are things people want. It's also very difficult to get favorite programs to run on linux flavours. I know I couldn't live without adobe photoshop and no an alternative just isnt' the same. This however is just my opinion. As far as apple goes I really think they should let others produce their hardware, it would drive the prices down and they may grow in popularity. Microsoft, well sometimes I really do feel like they want to rule the world, the security measures are way to extreme.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2003)

Yes, Fizbo that's true. Although, for Linux, there does seem to be some hope, check out knoppix.org for more details.


----------



## Yankee Rose (Jul 14, 1999)

I have yet to meet anyone who has switched to a Mac and regretted it. 

Anyone here? I know I haven't regretted it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2003)

Yeah, I haven't met anyone who's regretted it either.


----------



## Lurker1 (Jan 30, 2001)

That's because they can never get on-line again to complain.


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

I'll stick with lurker on this one I remember a while back, they had the uncut switch commercials on apple.com. They were nothign but, 'I lost all my files' 'I couldn't do___anymore' and so on.

I've never met anyone who has *not* regreted switching


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

I've never met anyone who switched.. usually Apple fans are loyal to apple, and most PC users just stick with whatever Dell sells them, so...


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2003)

Yeah, I understand.


----------



## brushmaster1 (Jun 15, 2002)

Apples are for people who don't know the difference between "then" and "than".


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2003)

Okayyy...


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

> Apples are for people who don't know the difference between "then" and "than".


Heh, heh, heh...


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2003)

I don't think that's true.


----------



## Yankee Rose (Jul 14, 1999)

I have found that most folks who bash the Macs have never tried one. They tend to be afraid of something they don't understand.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2003)

Yeah, I used to do that/ But once I got to know them, I instantly fell in love with them.


----------



## McTimson (Aug 16, 2002)

If I had access to a Mac that wasn't loaded with stuff blocking me from doing anything useful (like my school's), then maybe I would 'understand' it more. Around here, there aren't any Mac dealerships that I know of, so it's not like I can try one out or anything, and I'm not interested in spending a ton of money on something that I don't know I will like or not. I mean, sure, Macs have some good features, but so do PC's. And PC's are easier to tear apart and rebuild, you can build your own, buying new parts, utilizing old parts, I just think there's more room to expand with a PC. I mean, there's tons of places you can get PC parts, with Macs, there's basically only one place...Apple. And whatever they say, goes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2003)

But, hey that makes it harder for vandalizim.


----------



## brushmaster1 (Jun 15, 2002)

I've had plenty of Mac experience (see my signature...Insignis Solutions publishes Soft Windows for Mac), and I still prefer PCs to Macs for several reasons. My PC is customized in ways that no Mac could be customized; Hardware and upgrades are readily available; I run my computer...with a Mac, you just follow along as IT runs!


----------



## Yankee Rose (Jul 14, 1999)

Have you used Jaguar Brushmaster1? I'm just curious. 

To each his own.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2003)

I love MacOS X, does anyone else???


----------



## Paquadez (Jun 9, 2003)

Interesting post.

As part of the history, which is very useful, I will throw in my two cents worth.

Has everyone forgotten the court case between Uncle Bill and Steve Jobs (Mac)?

On the earlier IBM history, Big Blue has a track record of totally misunderstanding the market!

Ross Perrot, the billionaire who ran for Pres. some time back, was an IBM Sales Exec and sought Big Blue's permission to start a software house, which would create bespoke software specially to run on IBM Heavy Metal. (Mainframes).

IBM tried to disaude him, on the basis that in those days of yore, the cost-mix was 80% Box - 20% Software.

However, Ross was convinced and Big Blue gave him their blessing and assured him he had a job when he failed. Within three years the cost-mix was....................................80% Software- 20% Box.

Having "Cut my teeth" on IBM System 360 Mainframes back in the 60s, you rented (couldn't buy!) the box + IBM One Size Fits All software. Not much good!

In terms of the AT, IBM, begrudgingly created an hybrid PC from bits of this and bits of that and put in in a plastic box.

Once cloners (like Compaq) produced their product offerings, IBM sued, on the grounds that cloners were infringing IBM's patents and Design Rights.

Luckily for the World, Big Blue lost that one, too.

The basic modern PC architecture, which is clunky and arcane, owes its parentage to the earliest AT, which is why it is still really, a bag of bolts!

Compaq made the first breakthrough, with their 386, by re-designing the databus. Everyone of course copied them.

The Mac OS is in fact superior to PC in many ways. But then so was the BBC micro and its later iterations, particularly the RISC CPU.

However, MS and Intel have simply continued re-inventing the basic design, by virtue of creating hugely ineficient programmes which are hugely memory hungry and solving this by throwing higher clock speeds, bigger RAM and ever larger HDDs at the problem.

Macs are the de facto standard for newspapers and graphics, worldwide.

Problem in the commercial world, is that no one, much, has created applications suites, other than for esoteric gamers and DTP.

I played a bit, with an ITT clone (licensed from Apple), oh, back in about 1981. Then there were various OS like CPM, CPMDOS and so on. And PCs like Commodore PET and other "Small Office" computers that we have all forgotten.

IBM made their biggest mistake in allowing Gates and Allen to own the IPR of DOS. Great track record Big Blue has!

Funnier still, a few years ago, a guy did a search through the US Trademark Registry, and found that Big Blue was unregistered!

He registered it. When he read an IBM ad or press statement, which used the term "Big Blue" he promptly sued them and they settled out of court and apparently paid him circa $10 million for the trademark.

Smart management at IBM, eh??

Mac .v. PC? A no brainer, the PC architecture is now so established, it will dominate the world, until some bright guy comes up with a superior design.

Linux? The way of the future. Stable, easy and cheap! Open Source will be the one factor that breaks the Microsoft hegemony.
:up: :up: :up:


----------



## brushmaster1 (Jun 15, 2002)

Jody:

No, I have not used Jaguar


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2003)

Neat info Paquadez. Guys take a look here. I think they're selling mainframes, are they???


----------



## NiteHawk (Mar 9, 2003)

Perhaps that's why IBM has always meant, IT'S BETTER MANUALLY!!!


----------



## Paquadez (Jun 9, 2003)

Yes Hexstar.

Lots of old legacy systems still used by banks, insurance corps and so on.

What is frightening, is that in 1966, the System 360 required a huge ROOM, which had to be air conditioned and humidity controlled. Programs were run on wide magnetic tape - which frequently broke!

Temporary memory storage was achieved using what were called "Core Stores". These were Ferrox cubes which could be left magnetically "On" or "Off" to give binary "1" or "0".

Data input was by punch cards. There were no keyboards, and no VDUs.

Data output was on wide lined "Opera" paper, fanfold and the printers were high speed Golfballs (in fact the IBM Gofball typwriter was developed from the computer printers).

My latest Dell laptop (Top End) is probably 10,000 to the 10 times more powerful and I can carry it about!

That, gentlemen, is progress!

Nice day.

:up:


----------



## Paquadez (Jun 9, 2003)

Yes NiteHawk I agree totally!

In 1967, I was one of a crash project team, trying to sort out problems with a huge and complex system, which ran all Ford UK's New Car Warranty.

I was at that time one grade beneath Junior Management, which was lucky, 'cos I was doubling my salary on overtime! Ans turning into a Zombie, too!

After six months where a team of guys finished up processing dealer warranty claims by hand, 'cos the system was flawed and kept rejecting them, we came to call it "It's Better Manually"!

All mainly caused by the System Analyst trying to be far too clever and not actually understanding the business.

So not much has changed with big ticket projects!

All the best.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2003)

Kewl!


----------

