OSNews

I would have thought apple would train their staff to know the good points of their os anyway - it applies to all shops. staff should know what they are selling!

"Plus, Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does)"

Depends on who's making the argument...I'm sure Apple wants the Windows camp to believe that, but all the numbers I've seen show at least 10% performance degradation.

I did say arguably. For me, Windows only became fun once I could run it optionally on a Mac. In Bootcamp there is no slowdown at all, it's absolutely native. The 10% dent is only when virtualising with Parallels.

"Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does)"

That is simply not true. There are still Driver issues which results in hardware not working or creating some problems at least.

What is true is, that windows partly runs faster on Macs than OS X does. USB performacen, for example, greatly outperforms OS X on Macs.

That does not mean that Windows XP runs better on Macs than on generic x86 hardware.

Another thing is, that the majority of Macs sold have realy weak GPUs (the smallest iMac, the MacBook and the MacMini). That GPU (the GMA 950) does not have any Vertex acceleration at all and thus no Hardware T&L, which places it performance wise on a level with year 1999/2000 GPUs. Unnecessary to say that this is not at all usable for Vista.

What is true is, that windows partly runs faster on Macs than OS X does. USB performacen, for example, greatly outperforms OS X on Macs.

- USB performance ??? hum.... Let's see...

Let's take a simple "real life" example.

You take a USB stick, you plug in it into you mac (running OS X) it takes less than 2 Sec to be fully usable (detected, mounted and "aliased" on your desktop), you copy a single file or folder (a few couple a MBs) and you unplug it using either "command + E" or drag the icon into the trash that turns into a an eject icon (ejection is immediate).

Now let's do the same thing on XP/Vista and I can assure you that by the time XP or Vista will have detected the USB stick (after about 5000 access to the registry) I would have ejected my stick on OS X and continued my work...

That does not mean that Windows XP runs better on Macs than on generic x86 hardware.

- I agree wiht you on that.

Another thing is, that the majority of Macs sold have realy weak GPUs (the smallest iMac, the MacBook and the MacMini). That GPU (the GMA 950) does not have any Vertex acceleration at all and thus no Hardware T&L, which places it performance wise on a level with year 1999/2000 GPUs. Unnecessary to say that this is not at all usable for Vista.

- While the facts are true (weak GPUs in low end macs) I don't agree with your conclusion.
Tiger with GMA950 will give you full-flashy-animated UI (you know Exposé, Dashboard, transparency, rotating cube when switching users...). Using the same hardware XP or Vista give you a very poor UI compared to OS X (performance-wise).

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying OS X is better or worse than its Microsoft's alternatives, but IMO it's too hard to compare OSes because there are way too much parameters to take in account. Too many benchmarks are biaised either intentionaly or not.

But from a general user perspective OS X fills all my need. It also fills most of my needs in computer related stuffs (network, development, and kernel related stuff). More generaly my macbook fits alls my needs (running several OSes). The extraordinary macbook/OS X sales (for a company like apple which was nearly dead a decade ago) tends show that I'm not the only one who thinks so.

You take a USB stick, you plug in it into you mac (running OS X) it takes less than 2 Sec to be fully usable (detected, mounted and "aliased" on your desktop), you copy a single file or folder (a few couple a MBs) and you unplug it using either "command + E" or drag the icon into the trash that turns into a an eject icon (ejection is immediate).

Windows takes no longer to detect and ready the device, and you don't need a key combo or specific action for ejection. Because Windows supports surprise removal, you can just remove the device from the drive.

- While the facts are true (weak GPUs in low end macs) I don't agree with your conclusion.
Tiger with GMA950 will give you full-flashy-animated UI (you know Exposé, Dashboard, transparency, rotating cube when switching users...). Using the same hardware XP or Vista give you a very poor UI compared to OS X (performance-wise).

Performance is driver dependent, and at this juncture, there is limited performance optimization in available drivers for Windows Vista. Also, OS X still does all of it's drawing in software vs. Windows' full hardware rendering when supported. Leopard will be where there is greater parity between what Windows does and what OS X does, and the hardware requirements will be similar.

"Another thing is, that the majority of Macs sold have realy weak GPUs (the smallest iMac, the MacBook and the MacMini). That GPU (the GMA 950) does not have any Vertex acceleration at all and thus no Hardware T&L, which places it performance wise on a level with year 1999/2000 GPUs. Unnecessary to say that this is not at all usable for Vista."

This while Mac OS X runs fine on it.
while being modern, visually appealing and using GPU acceleration

It's business. I don't see what's to be riled up about. Macs are 3% of the market, but a viable choice for a /great/ deal more people. Plus, Macs run Windows (arguably better than a PC does), people are going to be asking lots of questions about Vista and by having trained staff to answer those questions is going to be absolute critical to Apple being heard above the noise Microsoft is making over Vista.

You're right, its up to the two companies to tout the features of their respective platform, and up to the end user to decide what they wish to run.

People make decisions in their lives, but I find it funny when I hear advocates from both sides claiming those people have been 'brainwashed' - to peoples shoc here, some people actually have very valid reason for running Windows or MacOS X - its about time people here respected their reasons for running their chosen operating system rather than claiming that they know best for everyone else.

The thing is, that the linux community wants the companies to reach out the consumers, not themselves. They want Michael Dell to sell Linux, but why is there no Linux-Store™?

If Linux is that ready, then somebody should setup a shop selling Linux computers, Apple-style, with trained staff to provide support, advice and a confusion-free environment. Then, Linux might actually get somewhere, either that or the problems that do exist will actually become obvious, and something will be done about it.

That's actually a decent idea. However, I don't think any companies are willing to make that financial commitment, especially considering they would probably have trouble making a profit for a while since Linux doesn't have the history and branding that a Mac does.

There are a number of places that sell Linux hardware and support, they are just drowned out in the sea of other retailers hawking their computers.
Here are a few of the more successful ones;
www.terrasoftsolutions.com/
http://www.emperorlinux.com/

Please understand that Apple are very, very profitable right now. Their brand is recognised worldwide. They are on top form and innovating out of every orifice.

Apple do not need to 'beat' Microsoft to win, they are already winning very much. Apple's goal is not to suplant Windows, that is why OS X will never be licenced in this current economic environment. Apple only need to ensure that they do /something/ to be noticied above the Vista marketing blitz.

Edited 2007-02-07 22:51

It depends on how you define 'winning'. If by profits, then fine Apple is 'winning'. If you define winning by the amount of market share they command, then no, Apple is not winning. Apple is profitable, but Microsoft is way more profitable.

How profitable your competitors are, should not dictate how profitable you are; you alone dictate how profitable you are. Apple don't need more marketshare than Windows. This is a delusion to think that that is Apple's perogative. Apple's goals are 1) stay profitable, 2) grow that profitability. Part of 1 & 2 is to grow marketshare, by making better products and selling them better, not to beat Microsoft.

Microsft however wake up in the morning and all they do is concern themselves with how to keep hold of the marketshare they have, anyway possible, legal or not.

"Part of 1 & 2 is to grow marketshare, by making better products and selling them better, not to beat Microsoft."

That's interesting...all of their "switch" ads definitely made me think otherwise. Beating Vista seems to be very high (if not number 1) on their list right now.

QUOTE: "It depends on how you define 'winning'."

Take a close look at these numbers (of today):

Apple Market Value: $ 73,484,916,200
Dell Market Value: $ 54,109,845,480

Now take a look at some articles from major publications featuring analysts and columnists predictions from ten years ago:

• Fortune, 2/19/1996: “By the time you read this story, the quirky cult company…will end its wild ride as an independent enterprise.”

• BusinessWeek, 10/16/95: “Having underforecast demand, the company has a $1 billion-plus order backlog….The only alternative: to merge with a company with the marketing and financial clout to help Apple survive the switch to a software-based company. The most likely candidate, many think, is IBM Corp.”

• A Forrester Research analyst, 1/25/96 (quoted in, of all places, The New York Times): “Whether they stand alone or are acquired, Apple as we know it is cooked. It’s so classic. It’s so sad.”

• Nathan Myhrvold (Microsoft’s chief technology officer, 6/97: “The NeXT purchase is too little too late. Apple is already dead.”

• Wired, “101 Ways to Save Apple,” 6/97: “1. Admit it. You’re out of the hardware game.”

• The Economist, 2/23/95: “Apple could hang on for years, gamely trying to slow the decline, but few expect it to make such a mistake. Instead it seems to have two options. The first is to break itself up, selling the hardware side. The second is to sell the company outright.”

• The Financial Times, 7/11/97: “Apple no longer plays a leading role in the $200 billion personal computer industry. ‘The idea that they’re going to go back to the past to hit a big home run…is delusional,’ says Dave Winer, a software developer.”

...bearing in mind what people have said in the past and all the nonsense about Apple's way of business that people still spread everyday (Dvorak, Enderle, Gartner...), I would say Apple is really winning.

With just 3% of the market share, Apple does not have a leading position in the personal computer field.

With just 3% of the market share, Apple does not have a leading position in the personal computer field.

Do you have figures for laptops? I believe that it's much higher.

In any case, the point the other poster was trying to make is that many people forecast doom for Apple 10-12 years ago, and that all these analysts are now forced to eat crow.

Apple once dominated the desktop world... WHAT HAPPENNED??? Why eat crow when there is enough turkey to go around.

What? Apple has never dominated the desktop world.

You're not making much sense.

Before Apple entered the entertainment/music buisness, their stock hovered below $10 and even below $3 in the late nineties.

Its clearly evident that Apple's systems buisness only contributes a tiny bit to their huge revenue stream from iPod and music sales.

I don't have the stats from Q1 2007, but if you look at the published info from Q4 2006, you can estimate that Macs accounted for 45%+ of their revenue for the quarter. In Q1 2007, iTMS and iPod accessories together accounted for less than 10% of their revenue.

I'm not so sure that I agree apple is winning. Actually I wonder why its a matter of win or loose. I like Apple products there are some Microsoft products I like and some I don't.

Really its a personal prefence. I'd honestly like to see apple more main stream and go after the buisness market but I don't see them doing that anytime soon. They are profitable at what they do and they do it very well.

Apple VS Microsoft VS Linux. Its a matter of choice sometimes I prefere linux sometimes i prefer mac and sometimes I prefer Windows simply depends on what I'm working on.

Well there's my two cents for what its worth. :-)

I agree Apple is doing very well which is great. That's why selling themselves in opposition all the time just grows more and more pathetic. It seems designed to preach to the converted and make current mac users feel good and non mac users feel stupid. Winning people over by making them feel stupid is not a winning strategy. It turns off so many people know and comes off as childish. You beat MS? Big Whup. Single guy linux distros also have some features that are better than vista's.

Why not have more confidence? I love the "awesome out of the box" ads from mac but you rarely see those and instead you get the snickering guy in the corner. I like OS X but who really wants to be part of that club? So sad.

edit = spelling mistake

Edited 2007-02-09 03:28

The only way OS X can seriously challenge Windows is it Apple allows it to be installed on computers other than those made by Apple.

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. MS is mostly a software company.

Apple doesn't need to displace Windows to "win"...it only needs to increase its market share a little. Same holds true for Linux, actually. Completely owning the OS market mostly seems to be the obsession of Microsoft and its cheerleaders...

Nonsense and boulderdash. You are not winning the war with a 3% market share.

If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on other computers and digitally signed drivers, The loss, if any from hardware sales would be made up a hundred fold in software sales.

Nonsense and boulderdash.

That's "balderdash."

You are not winning the war with a 3% market share.

In business, "winning" is defined by how much money you make. You could say that Apple's 3% market share for the OS is small, but it's 3% market share for actual machines sold is a lot more significant. Again, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. If Apple was to increase its market share to 5%, that would mean a *lot* more money for them. More money is "winning" in my book, and in Apple's book too, it seems.

Also consider that Apple laptops have a much higher market share than desktops. They are, in fact, very nice machines, and even I am tempted to buy one as my next machine, and put all three OSes (OS X, Ubuntu Linux and Windows XP) on it.

If Apple allowed OS X to be installed on other computers and digitally signed drivers, The loss, if any from hardware sales would be made up a hundred fold in software sales.

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you have no proof of this, and I do believe that you are wrong. In any case I doubt this will ever happen - the last time Apple tried that it was a total fiasco.

'Apple is a hardware company, not a software company....'

Right... They are not a software company, and GM does not produce automoblies either.

Right... They are not a software company, and GM does not produce automoblies either.

Don't be silly. GM is a car company. Apple is a hardware company. Apple *does* produce software (and, with iTunes, servers), but only to add a plus-value to their hardware.

So, yes, Apple is a hardware company. If you want to challenge this assertion, may I suggest using actual arguments instead of an inaccurate reductio ad absurdum?

"You are not winning the war with a 3% market share. "

It's not a war, it's business. As long as you turn a profit you are winning, when you don't you are losing and it is actually not possible to ever "win".

"Apple doesn't need to displace Windows to "win"...it only needs to increase its market share a little. Same holds true for Linux, actually."

OK, but a market share of at least 10% would be useful both for Apple and Linux. The reasons are quite obvious.

OK, but a market share of at least 10% would be useful both for Apple and Linux. The reasons are quite obvious.

Yes, obvioulsy. However, my point was to specify that there is no "winning threshold"...as long as people continue to choose Mac or Linux, it doesn't need to take over the market (in a way approaching Windows' market share) in order to succeed.

World domination is an obsession of Microsoft and its cohorts - you just have to look at the pro-MS posters here, and how the idea that MS should have a lower market share makes them tear up their shirts in outrage (then again, I suspect that quite a few of them, i.e. n4cer, MollyC and a few others, are actually MS employees).

World domination is an obsession of Microsoft and its cohorts - you just have to look at the pro-MS posters here, and how the idea that MS should have a lower market share makes them tear up their shirts in outrage (then again, I suspect that quite a few of them, i.e. n4cer, MollyC and a few others, are actually MS employees).

... a very poor and shabby attempt to distract people from the argument. It's a pity that you're irrational hatred of Microsoft spoiled what was a very good point.

I'm sorry, Rayz, are you mad at me because I forgot to put you on the list? I guess you felt left out...

Joking aside, I don't have an irrational hatred of Microsoft. That's just a weak attempt at an ad hominem attack. I simply happen to believe that there are MS-paid shills polluting Internet forums with their Redmond-supplied talking points. MS has the motive, the means, and the history of doing this sort of things, so the real question is "why wouldn't they do it?"

Honestly, I don't see why *anyone* who doesn't have a personal stake in MS would spend so much energy to defend their monopolistic practices. It just doesn't make sense, unless they're paid to do so. Of course, this is just my opinion and I have no proof that this is the case (if I had, it would be national news...)

Edited 2007-02-08 15:27

Who's paying you? Why do you have an incentive to post?

My answers to these questions: 1) no one is paying me.

2) I often post against anti-Microsoft posters because I'm a fair-minded person. I cannot defend the indefensible actions that Microsoft has taken (like releasing ME upon the world), but I don't think a lot of the criticisms I see from folks like you, twenex, and even the respectable Raynier are accurate or fair.

<rant on why MS is successful>
To be honest, in the technical computing field which Raynier seems to be in, it is hard to beat linux since it's both tunable and highly-tuned for efficiency in ways NT simply cannot be due to its requirement of stable APIs and compatibility. But for many other uses, Windows really isn't the crappy OS it's made out to be.

Sometimes it seems like people forget that Microsoft has many legions of quite competent programmers (and I'm sure a couple of legions of incompetent ones). When they release something crappy, some people are happy because it confirms their worldview that the giant corporation is a bumbling dolt. When they release something good based on their user research and marketing (which involves both selling what you have and deciding what to build because of the market out there), the same people are likely to chalk up their success to "monopolistic practice" without regard for the fact that the product was actually good for its target.

Finally, a lot of linux adherents seem frustrated by their OS's lack of rapid rise to the top despite the fact that it's free and open. I think it will happen eventually, but it may take up to 10 years. You have to remember that Microsoft is a private corporation and Linux is attacking one of its great revenue streams. You really can't expect them to help Linux destroy Windows, especially when they are currently so far on top that their old versions are their primary competitors. Some commenters here expect Microsoft to embrace and help their competitors for no good reason at all.

Microsoft is a juggernaut and they are not going to be beaten trivially, but their position has only limited security on the home-user desktop and the non-specialized corporate desktop, in my opinion. If you have all your stuff on the web or in new-ish .NET LOB apps, porting to linux is pretty trivial. It just takes time and further development. If you expect switches to happen overnight, then you'll only be frustrated and make unfair posts on internet forums.
</end rant>

What I see too much is a lack of curiosity over here. People are so sure of their positions and knowledge of other OSes that they often spout nonsense that is either outdated or was never true to begin with. I've learned a fair amount about Windows mechanisms at the Kernel level, and I've spent some time looking at certain aspects of the linux kernel source. I'd love to talk to someone who knows about Solaris (I'm sorry, "Slowaris" ) I think it would be far more worthwhile to discuss technical topics and learn more in-depth information about our OSes of choice than engage in the endless OS circle-jerk. We'll probably find that more is the same than different.

I don't believe raising suspicions about you, unless you also post under a different name here (which would be rather dishonest).

You also misunderstand my position. I don't want Linux to replace Windows, I want it to stop its anticompetitive practices so we can have a diverse OS ecosystem.

While I'll be the first to admit that MS *has* put out some high-quality products over the years (I'll take the opportunity to remind everyone that I use MS Office regularly, and that I own an Xbox), I don't believe that is the reason it has achieved market dominance. Rather, it has often acted in a predatory manner and basically blackmailed OEMs into offering only its OSes on their PCs for more than a decade (BeOS, anyone?).

What I want is for MS to support Linux, accept that it does not need a 90% share of the OS market to be a successful company, and release MS Office for it (and, why not, DirectX). These are the gestures of goodwill that will reconcile me with MS in the field of personal computing.

Will this ever happen? I doubt it...meanwhile, I'll continue to use their products as I see fit while criticizing its behavior.

Why do you always have to resort to accusing people of being paid by MS (whether employees or shills)?

Your posts are otherwise pretty good, so it's sad that you feel the need to do that.

Why do you always have to resort to accusing people of being paid by MS (whether employees or shills)?

Correction: I don't *always* do it, I *occasionally* do it.

There's a nuance.

Your posts are otherwise pretty good, so it's sad that you feel the need to do that.

Part of my posts are logical arguments, part of them are personal opinions. I know that you don't agree with my assessment, but for the record I do *not* think you are a MS shill. You convinced me last time we talked about it, and I've actually seen you be critical of MS a couple of times since then.

The point I was making is that I see little reason for people to argue that MS having a near-monopoly status is a *good* thing - except if they have a stake in MS dominating the OS landscape, or if they are paid to do it. You may not agree, and I respect your opinion - all I ask in return is that you respect mine.

Edited 2007-02-08 16:28

Correction: I don't *always* do it, I *occasionally* do it.

There's a nuance.

You're right, sorry. I didn't mean to actually say you ALWAYS do it.

The point I was making is that I see little reason for people to argue that MS having a near-monopoly status is a *good* thing - except if they have a stake in MS dominating the OS landscape, or if they are paid to do it. You may not agree, and I respect your opinion - all I ask in return is that you respect mine.

What you need to realize that people *can* form opinions on their own, even if you find them to be (and even if they are) completely ridiculous, without having a monetary reason for doing so. The internet proves that quite well. When you accuse someone of being paid to say what they do, especially when you have absolutely no proof (their opinion is not proof), you are straight up insulting them. You are saying that are unable to form their own indepenent opinion (again, no matter how bad it may be). Making such an accusation services no purpose other than to detract from the issue and insult the person.

Yes, it is your *opinion* that they are paid. However, your opinion here is serving no purpose, as I said, other than to insult. Even further, people *can* call out your opinion, which I am doing.

What you need to realize that people *can* form opinions on their own, even if you find them to be (and even if they are) completely ridiculous, without having a monetary reason for doing so. The internet proves that quite well. When you accuse someone of being paid to say what they do, especially when you have absolutely no proof (their opinion is not proof), you are straight up insulting them.

To be faire, I didn't "accuse" them of being MS shills, I am "suspecting" them. Anyone who's ever played Clue will remember the difference - you don't accuse someone unless you have reasonable proof.

If they find this insulting, perhaps they can themselve explain why they think that MS having a monopoly is a good thing.

By the way, a monopoly as describe in the Sherman Anti-Trust act is *not* required to have 100% of a market; it only needs to have a large enough portion of it to use this position to give it unfair advantage in other markets, which MS was found guilty of doing.

Yes, it is your *opinion* that they are paid. However, your opinion here is serving no purpose, as I said, other than to insult.

I disagree. It's not an insult, it's a challenge. If they can argue that they are *not* paid by MS, but that there is an actual rationale for *always* defending Microsoft's monopolistic practices, then I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Note, however, that neither of those I mentioned even tried to contradict me...

Even further, people *can* call out your opinion, which I am doing.

You can't call someone on their opinion, you can only offer counter-opinions. Let me ask you, what makes you believe that they are *not* shills?

"""Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.""""

wow... i must sould like a broken record! apple is BOTH a software AND a hardware company!!! i can't for the life of me... figure our WHY you people DONT get it! DELL... dell is a hardware company... ADOBE... adobe is a software company... APPLE does BOTH....BOTH!!!


oh... and folks... APPLE has already won! i mean... seriously... it 2007... and they are still here!!! the mac... is STILL here... and OSX rocks! and the iPOD rocks... and FCP, LOGIC, SAFARI, MOTION, ITUNES... IMOVIE....

APPLE IS in it golden age RIGHT NOW.... there has never been a bettertime to be and apple user.... PERIOD!

so for all you cool dudes out there that back in 95 were BRAGGING that "mac is dieing... NT is where its at...you mac guys are idiots... i am better than you cuz i got in IT job and play online games..." BLA BLA BLA


the mac is STILL here!!!!

Apple would do better with a promo that their computers are the best platform to run Vista, AND OS X.

Vista runs with Paralells on my macbook. If you need or wnat both Mac is defintaly the way to go.

"Apple would do better with a promo that their computers are the best platform to run Vista, AND OS X."""


yea... and apple should just forget about OSX and show the world just how good Windows runs on Mac hardware!!!!!!!? what???? are we talking about DELL? or HP? or Compaq? or SGI?

NO.... this is apple... and apple builds to BEST alternative to windows!!! WHY WOULD YOU WANT THEN TO SELL WINDOWS!!!!!

please, people... let apple be apple.... there are plenty of "PC" companies... why do so many of you want apple to turn in to one of those companies? WHYYYYYY? what would be the point!!!!

Why do you think Apple made Bootcamp??? Don't you know that Apple now runs Windows, or are you just ignorant. It would be an excellent marketing paln to boast that your computer is the best hardware platform for running Vista, and you get OS X also!!!

"Apple needs to through there money at something I can use, not negative adds."

How about an ipod?

""So whats a consumer to do, I can't buy OSX to intsall on my x86 computer""

Simple... use an OS that runs on YOUR x86 computer and stop worrying about Apple and OSX.... and be happy!

but... if you still find yourself unhappy.... uping the dosage of your meds aint going to help.....

you may have to break down and visit an apple store!

For that, MS would have to break compatibility...for example, making sure a file is not executable simply because it has an .exe, .bat, .scr, .vbs or .com extension...

If Windows was secure, it would still have the registry, stil require re-installing every six-months/year, still cost too much, still have too many popup-bubbles and prompts, still have abusive, intrusive, unwanted third party software and still be hell bent on not being interoperable with anything else. If Windows was secure, I might not have moved to a Mac so quickly, but Leopard compared to Vista would have sold me straight away.

"stil require re-installing every six-months/year"

Man, must be a long time since you used Windows, you haven't had to do that since Win2k.

"still be hell bent on not being interoperable with anything else"

Are you still living in 1992? Come on, interoperability between platforms have never been higher. You have Services for Unix (Free) which give NFS and standard unix tools, you have Active Directory (LDAP, and comes free with Win2k server and up) MSDSS allows Netware and Windows boxes to synchronise user info and accounts, and supports 2-way synchronization. Samba and CIFS allows other OS's to use Windows file and printer sharing, and even be a NT domain controller. C# is an ECMA standard. Web services on windows can be used by any language, any platform. NetBIOS is dead, long live TCP/IP

Even if MS is not the most well-behaved companies, Windows interoperates with all sorts of different products, on all sorts of hardware, At home, my linux box mounts fileshares from my win2k3 domain controller at bootup, no problems, and didn't take any effort really on either OS. I think anybody beating the interoperbility horse right now had better find another horse

Even if Windows became as secure and stable as Linux, and got rid of the UI brain-damage that is Vista, and got rid of the corporate culture of embracing massive complexity in their APIs, they still could not wash off the fact that they systematically and anti-competitively leveraged their monopoly to drive their competitors out of business in the 1990s.

There used to be a time when you had three major word processors to choose from, and MS Word wasn't the de-facto one. If Microsoft hadn't anti-competitively leveraged their Windows monopoly to gain ground in the productivity software market, you'd still have these choices. And of course, we can't forget all the markets Microsoft demolished as they were emerging, just by subsidizing their entry with profits from their Windows and Office businesses.

One has to keep in mind that most of Microsoft's divisions lose money. Indeed, for a long time, Windows and Office were the only divisions that made a profit. In a competitive market, those poorly-performing divisions would've been excised. But because Microsoft has a strangle-hold on Windows, they can afford to take losses almost indefinitely if it means muscling a smaller competitor out of the market.

But yeah, if they somehow manage to rewrite history, there would be no reason not to change one's mind about MS...

Instead of trying to ridicule Rayiner - a respected and knowledgeable contributor to these forums - you should try actually coming up with counter-arguments.

When people mindless echo the manta that Microsoft is a monopoly, then they get what they deserve.

That Microsoft is a monopoly isn't a mantra, an opinion, or a conjecture. It's a conclusion that has been reached by multiple courts, both in the United States and abroad.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

This is Judge Thomas Jackson's findings of fact on the case "United States versus Microsoft" in 1999. Section III, parts 33 and 34 detail the relevant conclusion, with the remainder of the section offering detailed supporting evidence. In 2004 the European commission imposed penalties against Microsoft for abusing their monopoly position, and a European court of appeals upheld the decision by denying Microsoft's appeal.

The relevant text for that decision is here: http://www.legi-internet.ro/fileadmin/editor_folder/pdf/decizie_mic.... Search for "Conclusion" (capital C) and follow the chain of logic. Section 6.2.1.1.4 is choice.

The two major commercial legal bodies in the world are operating on the assumption that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly. Arguing the point is mere denial.

Edited 2007-02-08 00:28

To say that a monopoly implies having no other choice shows your ignorance of basic economic terms.

Ever heard of Plessy vs Ferguson?
It's not like judges are incapable of being morons.

Plessy vs. Ferguson was consistent with the thinking of the time. The fact that we consider it moronic now doesn't mean that the legal basis wasn't sound, but rather that we've since repudiated the laws on which that decision was based.

If you're going to argue that these rulings are incorrect, then you're either going to have to point out how the decision is at odds with the existing law, or how the law itself is ill-concieved. Since this particular decision has been held up at numerous levels, the former argument is a tough one to make, and since the majority of first-world countries have similar anti-trust legislation, the second argument is also a tough one to make.

I'm perfectly willing to argue this with you, but you're going to have to do it in precise economic and legal terms, not just insinuate that the judge was a moron.

Microsoft is a near-monopoly. For all practical purposes, that is the same thing as a bona fide monopoly.

That said, insulting people only betrays your own lack of arguments. When you've posted as many insightful posts over the years as Rayiner has done here, then we'll talk.

Not so much the security that is the only issue with using Windows. I hate the fact that Windows requires so much user input to keep the system up and running well.

There are File System Defragmentation/truncation problems with NTFS

There is Malware

Registry issues

MS Office apps that leave *.tmp files littering your desktop

The default of Windows Swap file causes lots of File System Fragmentation.

In summary, compared to the alternatives, Windows requires a hell of a lot of user intervention to keep running well. That being said, one doesn't need to re-install the OS every 6 months as others have stated here. I have had Win2K systems up and running for years on end without the need for re-installing but they do need hand holding. Never had to use such effort with Unix/OS-X.

No, because security isn't the only thing people don't like about Microsoft and it's products.

Edited 2007-02-08 11:31

If they were just a hardware company, as some seem to indicate, then that is just what they would do.

You seem to be very much into splitting hairs...when some says that they are a hardware company, that doesn't mean that they are *exclusively* a hardware company.

The fact remains that Apple's revenue comes mostly from their hardware, and that the main purpose of their other products and services is to increase their hardware business.

Yes....because Windows users never buy iPods and will also never buy iPhones so they would have absolutely no reason to be in an Apple store...

Yes....because Windows users never buy iPods and will also never buy iPhones so they would have absolutely no reason to be in an Apple store...

Well there is no iPhone yet, I would imagine this campaign will be over before June. And I would imagine that most iPods sold to Windows users are sold at places like Amazon.com and Best Buy.

Regular people throw out the screen when they get a new computer because they come with a new screen. Sometimes regular people think the computer is the screen.

By "doesn't target the average consumer... mini tower PC", you actually mean, doesn't target you.

@Kroc

Regular people throw out the screen when they get a new computer because they come with a new screen.

Most people keep their monitors when they get a new PC. Other than the big jump, from CRT to LCD, they just buy a new mini-tower because they already have a monitor that works fine.


By "doesn't target the average consumer... mini tower PC", you actually mean, doesn't target you.

Nah. I meant the average consumer has in "the average consumer." You know, the cheap PCs that people buy and eventually upgrade the video card and add other peripherals inside. This is the big gap that Apple has in their PC line up.


Sometimes regular people think the computer is the screen.

Sometimes people invest themselves emotionaly in junk. And will start taking offense at any criticism toward that junk.

I recently heard someone say they wanted a new computer. One of the wide screens.

I just kept silent.

Dido, nicely said

Computers are fashion accessories. I don't know if you've noticed, but in the last several years computer modding has become very popular. Most of the time modding only serves to enhance the look not the functionality of a PC.

There is also a huge market for stylish pre-made cases. You might also notice that laptops have become more stylized. I would also point out that as computers move more and more into the living room they become fashionable decor.

I would also like to point out that not everybody who works in an Apple store or an Apple partner store are 'arrogant dumbasses who think computers are fashion accessories'. I've been into several Apple stores and the sales people were quite nice and very informative. Much more than in most other PC stores. As a matter of fact I've had more bad experiences with arrogance from stores that sell Windows PC's than those that sell Apples.

I say go for it though. You might very well walk out the victor, but more than likely you'll walk out a loser.

I would also like to point out that not everybody who works in an Apple store or an Apple partner store are 'arrogant dumbasses who think computers are fashion accessories'. I've been into several Apple stores and the sales people were quite nice and very informative. Much more than in most other PC stores. As a matter of fact I've had more bad experiences with arrogance from stores that sell Windows PC's than those that sell Apples.

I agree. There is NO WAY the folks at the Apple Store could be more ignorant about computers that the average Best Buy or Circuit City sales person.

You mean... 'um... it comes with a... CD-ROM drive... and... uh... a mouse. Oh, yeah... it uh... comes with Windows and... uh... has 500 GB of memory. It also has the latest... uh... nVidia Radeon video board with 256 bits of RAM.'

Yes it can be as painful to hear as it is to read. And yes I did actually have a sales person at Best Buy tell me that a computer had just such a video card in it. When I pointed out that Radeon was made by ATI he argued with me. He told me that ATI was a motherboard maker. I had lots of fun with that guy before leaving.

Well, I don't know what the final veesion of Leopard will be like, but in my opinion, this kind of negative campaigning makes them look ... desperate.

At best Leopard is a bolt onto Tiger.

See, THIS is why there are so many flames on message boards. There is no question in my mind, I say with 100% certainty, that you are speaking in ignorance. You have NO IDEA what is in store for Leopard. It hasn't been revealed. All you know is that WHAT YOU KNOW is "a bolt into Tiger."

Is there a new UI? Is the Finder updated? What are the other new features? You have no idea.

"Yes, that's true. However, most devices are NOT powerful enough when you want to run XP/Vista with Boot Camp in order to be able to run OSX and still be able to run all your Windows games."

What does that say about Vista?

"I wish Apple would make at least the graphics card more upgradable, with 1 or 2 upgrade options for the graphics card. For example, at this point in time they could put out a 7900GT/7600GT upgrade card or an ATI X1900 upgrade card. Something like that."

I don't know if they do or don't, but if they don't then I agree with you they should.

"Mac apologists claim Apple is not interested in growing market share."

No, like other people have said: It's more about not trying to beat Microsoft. Of course they would want a bifgger market share. But not if it lowers their profit.

"Take a hint people. That strategy is not working and nobody is switching because of those silly adverts. You are stuck at 3% and that will not increase."

I read today that the market share in France went up from 2.6 to 3.3 percent last quarter. That seems to contradict what you're saying. The growth numbers were similar for the US last quarter if my memory serves me.

"Apple needs another strategy: Make OEM partnerships, allow OSX installs on non-apple hardware and stop living in denial."

If Apple thought that they would be making more money that way and that there wouldn't be any long term problems, don't you think they would do just that?

I'm pretty sure they even spent at least as much time as you have, analyzing this. But then again, you might be smarter.

Edited 2007-02-09 17:36