Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 12:13 UTC
Microsoft With Apple doing really, really well, and with Microsoft having its first sets of negative figures since the company's founding, Microsoft CEO points his arrows towards Cupertino. In a talk to members of the press and analyst community, Ballmer talked about Microsoft vs. Apple.
Order by: Score:
A case of Pot calling the Kettle Black?
by shotsman on Fri 31st Jul 2009 12:35 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

I guess that 5 (or even less) years ago, the numbers of Mac's vs PC's would have been very different. I'd guess 90/10 in favour of the PC.
Perhaps the message to Mr Balmer the numbers of Mac's is saying.
"Microsoft, you are not delivering the product we want. We are prepared even to pay the higher prices to get something that works for us and makes our job easier"

I'm moving in the same direction myself. At the moment, I'll probably never buy another PC with Windows on it. There is really nothing the even Windows 7 gives me that my Macbook Pro with OS/X or my MSI-Wind running Linux can't do. The same goes for many of my non PC Literate friends.
I think Microsoft is at a Crossroads. Make the wrong turn and you will do go downhill.
GM & Chrysler were at the same crossroads a decade or so ago. They made the wrong turn and look where they are now.
I think that trying to out Apple Apple is the wrong thing. I think they need to be radical and do something that will make them the coolest gig in town. Windows 7 and the rest is not going to do it.
They did it with Windows 95. That was a step change that rocked the industry. Where is the next one coming from then Mr Balmer.

Reply Score: 8

jweinraub Member since:
2009-06-22

That is exactly what I am thinking. If you looked at Mr Balmber's description of Apple, he included high quality in his list of negatives from the high price point.

This is exactly the reason why Apple products are more expensive, not just because of their pretty looks, but their decisions not to cut corners as many of their Windows "partners" often do.

Microsoft should change their labelling requirements so that it meets a higher quality of product to be Windows 7 approved. Perhaps if their partners are making better, more Apple like hardware, it really doesn't matter about the O/S.

I have been using Windows 7, and find it to be a very nice operating system. However, it still isn't intuitive. I find it requires too many clicks just to get a static IP address on my laptop. They changed too much from 2000 and XP that they are trying to make it easier for new customers but they alienated the old ones in the process. Which is a very unMicrosoft thing to do. They touted when 95 first came out, they went to a local computer store and bought every software they had to make sure it would work properly. The fact that MS can support old, archaic software in an advanced operating system (compared to MS-DOS or Windows 3.1), is an amazing feat on its own. While that is MS's biggest strength is supporting legacy code, it is also their weakest link. Refusing to let go. Apple never did that, got rid of Carbon in favour of Cocoa, and after the moaning died down, people went back to work to make more great stuff. That is why OS X is so good, they trimmed that fat by removing old, crappy code.

On a side note, Microsoft already does make hardware (mice, keyboards, etc)., would it really be far fetched if they started making their own, or would Dell call foul? Imagine that!

Reply Score: 3

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

This is exactly the reason why Apple products are more expensive, not just because of their pretty looks, but their decisions not to cut corners as many of their Windows "partners" often do.


I and my family have owned several HP machines, some of which have vastly out-lived our Apple machines. My brother has a six-year-old H.P. lap-top that's still going strong. My titanium powerbook had two motherboards die in 18 months. My Mom's (much newer) iBook had an HD death in about the same time-frame (12 to 18 months). I do not buy, and have never bought, that Apple's hardware is "so incredibly much betters." It's an idea that Apple has worked hard to embed in people's minds, "one of the reasons you're paying so much more for our product, is that our hardware is better," but it has no correlation to reality.

Reply Score: 3

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

i have a mac lc from 1992 that still works without problems

Edited 2009-07-31 21:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

i have a mac lc from 1992 that still works without problems

That's great, but I'm afraid it means nothing with respect to what the OP said. In an age where Macs use standard, cheap PC hardware, and in many cases really cheap, inferior and slower hardware than you'll find elsewhere, the whole 'Mac quality' thing is a total myth. Open any Mac desktop and you will find the slowest Western Digital they could lay their hands on.

Edited 2009-08-01 00:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

jason_ff Member since:
2006-06-29


Refusing to let go. Apple never did that, got rid of Carbon in favour of Cocoa, and after the moaning died down, people went back to work to make more great stuff. That is why OS X is so good, they trimmed that fat by removing old, crappy code.


Just to be pedantic, Apple hasn't gotten rid of Carbon yet. It's not even deprecated. But it's essentially on its way out. Most of Apple's apps are now Cocoa (with the exception of iTunes and maybe Quicktime) as of Snow Leopard.

But I fully agree, they do like to cut the cruft and it makes for a very lean and tight system.

Reply Score: 1

diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

I feel the same, I dont have a need for Windows anymore, I do all my work and everything on Linux, and for games, etc, I have my PS3.

Reply Score: 3

kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

Because they will come with lots of crapware to compensate for the price OEMs have to pay to MS.

And the security defaults are totally ridiculous.

And the hardware will be violated with Windows/Intel/etc stickers.

Reply Score: 6

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Yeah, stickers are impossible to remove!

Apple's premium prices would be easier to swallow if they used premium components, aside from the case. What they charge for RAM and HDD upgrades is highway robbery.

Reply Score: 3

Windows 7
by OSGuy on Fri 31st Jul 2009 12:52 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Well MS is playing smart. It's the same logic as a little computer shop when they sell the same product half the price as the one at a big computer store because they have too many off them. If I want to get market share I'd rather sell more at a cheaper price than less at more expensive so I agree with Ballmer.

Something else: I believe the Windows 7 taskbar is actually based on the Windows 1.0's taskbar. See for yourself: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd942846.aspx

Don't get me wrong, by no means I am implying anything negative about Windows 7. It is just something that I found...

(Note that the 1.0 taskbar bears more resemblance to the Windows 7 taskbar than to the Windows Vista taskbar.)

This makes me think, did Apple copy Windows 1.0 when they created the dock or was there a dock on NeXT even before Windows 1.0?

Edited 2009-07-31 13:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows 7
by Anim8me2 on Fri 31st Jul 2009 16:40 UTC in reply to "Windows 7"
Anim8me2 Member since:
2006-02-10

Market share is the wrong approach if your margins are too tight.

This is the problem with the current PC "race to the bottom"
90% of the market is worthless if your margins are 1% or less.

Reply Score: 1

Suggestion : Get rid of Ballmer
by Lo_Phat on Fri 31st Jul 2009 12:54 UTC
Lo_Phat
Member since:
2009-07-08

The lame attempt to portray Macs as overpriced is falling on deaf ears.

Even Joe sixpack is tiring of the hollow marketing spin for godsakes. The market is maturing & people are making choices other than the incumbent monopoly. The sales figures confirm it.

Honestly how can anyone take seriously the same old 'if in doubt ,copy' cliches from this company.

Ballmer is leading his monopoly down the road to oblivion.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The lame attempt to portray Macs as overpriced is falling on deaf ears.

I'm far from a Microsoft supporter, but that "lame attempt" you speak of is simply pointing out the cold hard truth about Macs. The PC market benefits from actual *competition* between vendors. The MacOSX market is desperately in need of competition in the form of clones. And if Apple, Inc. were no so afraid of actual competition, they would not be fighting so hard.

---
I'm with David. I've had enough of Apple, Inc.'s crap. And I'm getting in my "one a day" early today. Expect more.

-Steve Bergman
Oklahoma City, OK USA

Reply Score: 8

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

There is no such thing as "OS X market". If you look backward, the degree how Apple lock down users by OS X is much less how Sun locked down users by Solaris. And what would happen? Solaris is replaced by Linux. It is nonsense to let Sun open its Solaris market because 1) it is not a market by single product, 2) no one was actually locked down and people move to Linux easily. To defeat Solaris or to defeat OS X, you just choose another product or make a better alternative. If there is still no better alternative, that's it! If there is still no better alternative and you can't prove it is Apple's any conspiracy to prevent it from appearing, that's it! Nothing to complain. You can't ask for a product to be open or invite competition by simple say "oh, there still no better alternative".

If Apple one day make Mac poor in user experience, user will be just ten times easier to move to other OS than how easy Solaris users moved to Linux. People just choose their product by quality and no one have right to enforce a good product to be open, though I think a product is both open and good is really attractive.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I think you're wrong.

I think sbergman27 meant competitors to Apple who can build OSX systems when he said the OSX market.

Also, how did Sun lock down Solaris customers more than Apple? By limiting their choice in hardware?
There are still a number of system vendors that ship Sparc-based systems. Fujitsu has made servers for a while. Tadpole still makes laptops. Other companies sell competing hardware (though, many use Sun's own chips). Solaris has also run on x86 for a while. That means several different vendors to choose from to run Solaris.

Or, did you mean tying customers to Solaris by making it hard for software to be ported to competing architectures? It's no different from any other Unix, with variations on mostly standard APIs.

This type of lock-in seems less so with Apple, but mostly because it's easy to build generic Unix stuff on OSX. Apple does use a lot of popular free software instead of rolling their own (Which the Unix vendors were already doing before the free versions were good). That does make porting easier. However, OSX lock-in is nearly at the Windows level if you don't want to use X-Windows to provide GUI.

Reply Score: 1

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

I think sbergman27 meant competitors to Apple who can build OSX systems when he said the OSX market.


I knew what sbergman27 meant and I just think it is an unnecessary requirement for competition. As long as a vendor does not prevent other vendor's shipping better alternative to its product, it should not be forced to split its product apart and invite its competitor to replace any part freely.

If AutoDesk ships a great 3D rendering software, and you think its UI is not-so-good, do you think AutoDesk must release its interface between the 3D engine and the UI and invite other competitor to build UI on top of it?

Also, how did Sun lock down Solaris customers more than Apple? By limiting their choice in hardware?
There are still a number of system vendors that ship Sparc-based systems. Fujitsu has made servers for a while. Tadpole still makes laptops. Other companies sell competing hardware (though, many use Sun's own chips). Solaris has also run on x86 for a while. That means several different vendors to choose from to run Solaris.


The support to x86 is a result from its user moving to Linux. I didn't find using Solaris on any non-Sun platform. Maybe using a non-Sun Sparc system is legal only nominally, according to my experience in Telecom for 6 years.

Or, did you mean tying customers to Solaris by making it hard for software to be ported to competing architectures? It's no different from any other Unix, with variations on mostly standard APIs.

This type of lock-in seems less so with Apple, but mostly because it's easy to build generic Unix stuff on OSX. Apple does use a lot of popular free software instead of rolling their own (Which the Unix vendors were already doing before the free versions were good). That does make porting easier. However, OSX lock-in is nearly at the Windows level if you don't want to use X-Windows to provide GUI.


Maybe it's easy to porting from Solaris. But, 1) it's as easy to port non-UI product on Mac as other UNIX system. 2) Many Mac applications have already been cross-platform. So at this point, the degree of how porting is easy or difficult is irrelevant to how easy user can migrate to or away from OS X.

Actually, I have been lock-in to using Windows, but never by Windows itself. I was locked by .doc file format, and IE-only Web site, and Windows-only Active Directory protocol. If there was not those things, the binding of IE to Windows would have been a non-problem because people could replace the whole at any time instead of cry and shout Microsoft to cut off the binding. And the reason why it is much easier people nowadays to move away from Windows than it was 3 years before is the use of more open standard (HTML, PDF, .doc support become better on OS X). I see nothing on OS X similar to that by which people be locked on Windows. I can move away from OS X at any time I want, and I don't want now because it still the best to me.

Reply Score: 1

macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

The MacOSX market is desperately in need of competition in the form of clones.


So Apple is not in competition with Windows and every other PC manufacturer on the market? If that's the case, then why is everyone always talking about their small market share. They have 100% of the market by your argument.

So, Apple makes a computer that runs Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, etc and they have zero competition. If that's the case, why does Microsoft target them in their Laptop Shopper ads? No competition indeed... Simply amazing, the low depths of analysis.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

So Apple is not in competition with Windows and every other PC manufacturer on the market?

Not really. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that that is a battle which they clearly lost back in the 1980s. With 3% market share or whatever, it's hard to really call them a competitor in the greater desktop market.

The Mac-owning community is a rather insular group. And thus the MacOSX market is a rather insular market. And that is where there is a burning need for competition in the hardware space.

That said, Apple knows that there's a sucker born every minute, and their Mac vs PC ads are intended to lure a few more suckers into their fold. To an extent, I supose that is "being in competition with windows". But the volume of converts is quite low. And it would be equally valid to consider it canvassing the crowd for well heeled patsies.

Edited 2009-07-31 16:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


That said, Apple knows that there's a sucker born every minute, and their Mac vs PC ads are intended to lure a few more suckers into their fold. To an extent, I supose that is "being in competition with windows". But the volume of converts is quite low. And it would be equally valid to consider it canvassing the crowd for well heeled patsies.


Wow, did some Apple user beat you up and steal your girlfriend back in college or something? Why so much bile towards Apple users?

As a company, Apple are doing tremendously well. They are in direct competition with Windows because people who buy Macs tend not to use Windows computers. So every "convert" is a loss for the PC side. Anecdotally, I know quite a number of such switchers.

I've used Macs but these days I'm using a Linux laptop and I code for Windows to put food on the table, so I'm hardly a Mac apologist. That doesn't stop me from acknowledging that Macs are good value to a lot of people.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Wow, did some Apple user beat you up and steal your girlfriend back in college or something?

That'll be the day.

Why so much bile towards Apple users?

What bile?

I have, however, noted a fair amount of bile, directed at other user communities, coming out of the Apple camp.

Reply Score: 2

macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

"So Apple is not in competition with Windows and every other PC manufacturer on the market?

Not really. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that that is a battle which they clearly lost back in the 1980s. With 3% market share or whatever, it's hard to really call them a competitor in the greater desktop market.

The Mac-owning community is a rather insular group. And thus the MacOSX market is a rather insular market. And that is where there is a burning need for competition in the hardware space.

That said, Apple knows that there's a sucker born every minute, and their Mac vs PC ads are intended to lure a few more suckers into their fold. To an extent, I supose that is "being in competition with windows". But the volume of converts is quite low. And it would be equally valid to consider it canvassing the crowd for well heeled patsies.
"

Your argument is ridiculous and your ad hominem attacks against Mac users only reaffirms that fact. Whether you like to believe it or not, Apple competes against the "greater desktop market."

Reply Score: 2

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

Your claim of "single-product market" has been dismissed by judge's order.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/18/judge_grants_apples_m...

You "fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple’s operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

Or if you still disagree this, you must think that Windows must release its kernel because there is a "Windows kernel market," or Intel must release its hyper-thread unit because there is a "hyper-thread unit market," and any video card vendor must not sale their card as a whole but must open its "graphics acceleration chip market." And all manufacture must split their product into piece and piece and eventually we will have a "pieces market."

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Your claim of "single-product market" has been dismissed by judge's order.

Was this supposed to be in response to my post or some other? It doesn't seem to have much to do with what I said.

If it *is* supposed to be a response to mine, you should have been looking for a judge's declaration asserting that Apple, Inc hasn't made a business out of selling snake oil to the gullible at premium prices. An insular market is a different thing from a monopoly market. Nice try though. Let me know if you find anything.

Edited 2009-08-01 13:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Lo_Phat Member since:
2009-07-08

Steve my point simply is that an increasing number of people are accepting the value proposition of Macs over windows. Ballmer's comment is same old same old IMHO..

Edited 2009-07-31 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Its about time
by vikramsharma on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:09 UTC
vikramsharma
Member since:
2005-07-06

The strategy behind the switch ads of Apple was to make people switch from Windows but from Windows based Computers to Mac Platform. Apple is a hardware company, they are not selling Operating System that can run on any other hardware other than an Apple branded computer, also Apple provides drive partitioning tool (Bootcamp), drivers; 32 as well as 64 bit so that the users of Intel based Apple computers can use Windows. Apple is in no competition with Microsoft here, Apple is competing with HP, Lenovo, SONY but not Microsoft. Apple switching to Intel was a good thing for Microsoft as it lead to increase of their user base. Steve Ballmer should see Apple as a potential partner in business rather than a rival. Vista ran best on the Mac when it was introduced, doesn't that say something. Plus even if Apple gained market share, lets say Apple's market share becomes 10%, the number one application sold/sought after on the mac is Microsoft Office.
People should just get over their personal

Reply Score: 2

RE: Its about time
by mabhatter on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 01:32 UTC in reply to "Its about time"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

The strategy behind the switch ads of Apple was to make people switch from Windows but from Windows based Computers to Mac Platform. Apple is a hardware company, they are not selling Operating System that can run on any other hardware other than an Apple branded computer, also Apple provides drive partitioning tool (Bootcamp), drivers; 32 as well as 64 bit so that the users of Intel based Apple computers can use Windows. Apple is in no competition with Microsoft here, Apple is competing with HP, Lenovo, SONY but not Microsoft. Apple switching to Intel was a good thing for Microsoft as it lead to increase of their user base. Steve Ballmer should see Apple as a potential partner in business rather than a rival. Vista ran best on the Mac when it was introduced, doesn't that say something. Plus even if Apple gained market share, lets say Apple's market share becomes 10%, the number one application sold/sought after on the mac is Microsoft Office.
People should just get over their personal


the problem is that Microsoft needs to own the whole pie rather than being a team player. They made the play for OEMs and Businesses to have total dependency on them in the 1990s and now they have to deliver the 20% growth they "promise" to the OEM customers or Linux starts to look really good. Microsoft just shot it's foot with the buy a PC ads that computers are supposed to be cheap as possible... while Apple laughs all the way to the bank.

The real problem accomplishing that goal is that news last week that Apple gets 91% of retail dollars in $1000+ computers. So in the real world if they hand people on camera $1100+ 90% of those dollars will go to Apple. Realize how top-heavy Apple's market is when they're the size of a company like Acer at retail... and Apple is selling ALL computers over $1000. The question is why are "Microsoft's" OEMs are so badly represented.... because that's the "honey pot" where profits are made, not the bottom feeding, cut-throat sales. Even MS Office on Mac is sad product for Microsoft OEMs because while OEMS are selling Office for $149 bundled with computers for small business, Microsoft is making $400 from Apple business/pro users every time... meaning again the Apple store selling it is getting a bigger cut per copy than companies like Dell or HP.

Apple has a good gig going selling the "full experience" and they're doing well rolling their own platform. Obviously it's working because everybody is wanting to run their software on other platforms and doing all sorts of hocus pokus to get it to work.... again it's just advertising for businesses and professionals to just buy a mac. I see Dell or HP or Acer really wanting to go "off the MS island" because it's not bringing in the dollars in PC sales... Dell is already venturing out to Ubuntu, Acer and HP dabble in Linux support too. in some ways MS is starting to find its way back to its "place" as a "parts" supplier for PC makers.. it's a good thing when OEMs feel the need to reach out for a "third choice" there's something ready to go.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:12 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

"Is this plastic?"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Is this plastic?"


"Is that an extra 600 EUR in my pocket?"

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 31st Jul 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Money burns a hole in your pocket;—oh wait iPods do that too!

Reply Score: 3

MICE and Keyboards
by Milo_Hoffman on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:21 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, Microsoft does make pretty decent Mice and Keyboards...heck their joysticks are pretty good too.




Maybe they should stop trying so hard to make poor quality software and go with what they do well.....Make mice and keyboards.

Reply Score: 2

hehe
by broken_symlink on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:29 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple is a great company. Does a fine job. But their model says high margin, high quality, high price. That's kind of how they come to market. We say we want big market share but with big market share you take a lower price."

I was expecting him to say we want big market share, low quality, and high price.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:41 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

If Microsoft seems to dislike Apple, why do they develop software for them, such as MS Office for Mac?

Particularly when Apple just openly mocks Microsoft anyway, such as the "Get A Mac" ads.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by Glynser on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

To make money?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by sbergman27 on Fri 31st Jul 2009 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

To make money?

To prop up a strawman desktop OS competitor in an attempt to ward off more antitrust action.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by boldingd on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Because establishing and maintaining a huge user-base is critical to Microsoft's strategy? Because they can't afford to neglect a large pool of users, and thus create a market segment where a competitor could take root?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by sbergman27 on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Because they can't afford to neglect a large pool of users, and thus create a market segment where a competitor could take root?

I could agree with that. Such a motive is certainly not mutually exclusive with the one I suggest.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by middleware on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

I heard two versions of stories, or perhaps just different aspects of the same story.

1) MS has agreement with Apple to provide Office on Mac.
2) In MS, the Office team is the one possessing the most independency from the Windows team, because, as a killer application, it is mutual dependent between the OS and the Office, rather than the one-way dependent relied on by other products. So the Office team makes some independent decision not to put all eggs in the basket of Windows. Some rumor says SQL Server or other killer products may plan for the same.

Reply Score: 0

Personal productivity
by orfanum on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:42 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Microsoft will have a difficult time; Windows 7 ain't bad, and it gets in the way less than Vista did for me, and yet I am just no longer prepared to put up with the quirkiness of the Windows environment all round. I switched to a Mac for work recently because I'd had enough of having to ring in to IT support on almost daily basis. I had my doubts about the Mac, as I have posted before, it can end up feeling like a toy. When I switched, I was told I would get no other support than a connection to the network. Full of trepidation, I made the move. Result; a few teething troubles with the network on the supplier side *and that's it*.

What we have in a way is 'The end of OS", in a similar way to our having "The End of History" with the fall of communism in the late 1980s, early 1990s. All I mean by that is that we have long had a process of convergence, with computer hardware and OS combinations essentially furnishing us with the same functionality. It's how all these different companies approach the delivery of that same functionality that will make a difference: call it The Senate, call it The House of Lords, call it the Federation Council of Russia, an OS by any other name will smell as sweet, if it performs.

Apple the company does sometimes p*ss me off but Apple the product does what it says on the tin. Microsoft the company can also p*ss me off, but Windows on the ground is often the spilled contents of the tin, and you are trying to use the last drying pools of it just to get anything out of the experience. I try not to confuse these two aspects, and certainly consumers in the market do not seem to confuse them. Microsoft has to keep the lid on its product and make sure it has the ability to influence the experience its users have much, much more. With the current situation, it cannot. How it gets to that place will determine its future.

Reply Score: 3

Apple and high qualtiy
by makkus on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:57 UTC
makkus
Member since:
2006-01-11

Apple and high qualtity, I allways wonder where they get that from.

A year ago I bought for my work 4 24 inch iMacs 4Gb (€2400 with apple-care), purely for Osirix, a open-source medical viewer which only runs on OSX and which I can modify to our liking being a Radiology research department.

But having always to few machines to do my job, I was thinking that I could divert some of my batch tasks which I normally perform on my two HP 2xquadro's, also 24 inch 16Gb memory, 24 inch wide-screen running Linux (€1800 with 5 year hardware-care), Afterall they're Unix under the hood. Bad idea! They just can't handle intensive tasks, failing within weeks on, I think, heat related problems.

So now they stand there, shining and all and to do their viewing tasks and I don't dare to touch them for something intensive because the prima donnas are to fragile to do regular grunt work. I despise them. Wish that somebody had the sense to make a wonderful application like Osirix a little more portable (GNUstep).

Before somebody says I should've bought a PowerMAC, That would've meant just two machine max and I could've bought 4 of my HP workstations with more power.

Quality my ***. But true is true, they are the envy of many other department.

Edited 2009-07-31 14:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple and high qualtiy
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 14:01 UTC in reply to "Apple and high qualtiy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple and high qualtity, I allways wonder were they get that from.


Same bewilderment here. I've not had a single Apple machine that wasn't broken in one way of the other.

Only had one normal PC fail, a Dell laptop where a screen hinge broke. The machine itself still works.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy
by boldingd on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple and high qualtiy"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I've owned several Macs, several HP PC's, and a lot of AMD/ATI/ASUS self-assembled machines. Guess where, by far, the highest failure rate is?

The bloody Macs. And God help you if you don't get Apple Care.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apple and high qualtiy
by KingRocky on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy"
KingRocky Member since:
2009-07-30

And God help you if you don't get Apple Care.


Aah, but if you DO get AppleCare, they will practically bend over backwards to fix whatever problem you may be having (most of the time, anyway).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy
by jakesdad on Fri 31st Jul 2009 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple and high qualtiy"
jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

I have yet to have any of the macs I support die on tasks or hardware. I have on the other hand replaced more hp memory and system boards than I care to count.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apple and high qualtiy
by makkus on Sat 1st Aug 2009 05:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy"
makkus Member since:
2006-01-11

>I have yet to have any of the macs I support die on
>tasks or hardware. I have on the other hand replaced >
>more hp memory and system boards than I care to count

Fine for you and I'm sure the 4 iMac will do fine with the task they now do, viewing stations running Osirix. But they are no workhorses, 6 fails within a week or two after I start using them doing heavy processing jobs in batch mode, processing MR images for DTI and FMRI, is not just accidently, it is symptomatic.

All I was saying is, for the same money I could have five HP workstations with 24 inch monitors who could do the viewing AND do the heavy processing AND had a longer hardware plan (five years), if only Osirix was more portable, it isn't like it does things only OSX can do, it just locked in by Cacoa and in lesser extend Objective C. The really important libraries ITk, VTK, DCMTK, OpenGL, MySQL Osirix is build on are cross platform.

But if you like your iMAC fine by me. Like I said they are real attention getters on my department, but I really like my equipment more versatile then shiny.

Edited 2009-08-01 05:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy
by binarycrusader on Fri 31st Jul 2009 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple and high qualtiy"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the thing about anecdotal evidence. People are more likely to express negative feedback then positive feedback.

If you look at the overall statistics and customer satisfaction surveys, Apple is ranked pretty darn high.

For my own personal, anecdotal evidence, I've owned and built many PCs over my lifetime. I've only ever owned two apple systems, one which I just bought recently.

I've also helped maintain many labs of computers at a school for a few years, and the Apple computer labs generally had significantly fewer hardware failures.

But I'm not willing to say that one type of hardware is generally better than another. Every company has their "stinkers" -- products with design flaws that affect the reliability of the hardware.

For me, I'm happy with both. My answer when someone asks me which one they should get is, "The right tool for the right job. It depends on what you want to use it for."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apple and high qualtiy
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 31st Jul 2009 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

For me, I'm happy with both. My answer when someone asks me which one they should get is, "The right tool for the right job. It depends on what you want to use it for."


Exactly. I find the iMac the best desktop computer money can buy, so when my father wanted to replace his Windows desktop with a new machine, I bought an iMac for them (with their money, though ;) ).

He's very happy with it, which was exactly my intention. It is not my job to tell others how to feel about Apple - I don't like the company, and have announced I will no longer buy and use their products. However, my politics will not stop me from suggesting the right tool for the job to my family and friends.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple and high qualtiy
by REM2000 on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:18 UTC in reply to "Apple and high qualtiy"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

the apple store in london use imac's as point of sale computers. These things run day and night, as do the demo machines.

Ive yet to see one of them go down, i asked (admittedly a bias view) one of the sales clerks what the failure rate and he said that the imac tills have yet to break down.

I personally own three mac computers, 1 desktop pc and 1 windows laptop. The windows pc's are good work horses as are the mac's however i find that i am more productive on the mac. This of course is my personal opinon, ive yet to have any of the mac's fail.

Microsoft and many of it's partners make their money through bulk get em in and then shove em out quick. If you want a premium pc then prices are usually the same if not more than the mac. Of course no mac is going to compete with the bottom end market, which with the race in technology can perform mostly 90% of tasks users require.

Edited 2009-07-31 17:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple and high qualtiy
by segedunum on Sat 1st Aug 2009 00:40 UTC in reply to "Apple and high qualtiy"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It gets even funnier when you realise that Macs are PCs, and they use very bog standard parts that would only amount to a few hundred dollars if you built a standard PC with them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple and high qualtiy
by Johann Chua on Sat 1st Aug 2009 05:04 UTC in reply to "Apple and high qualtiy"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Mac-only open-source app. Why? No one can figure out how to port it to Windows/Linux/*BSD? HandBrake started out as a BeOS app, now it's on OS X and Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple and high qualtiy
by makkus on Sat 1st Aug 2009 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple and high qualtiy"
makkus Member since:
2006-01-11

Mac-only open-source app. Why?

Exactly, what were they thinking!

>No one can figure out how to port it to Windows/Linux
>/*BSD? HandBrake started out as a BeOS app, now it's
>on OS X and Windows.

Osirix is quit a big project, we are just with two and our main task is facilitating a research group, so I can not direct the time to do it. But it really pains me, because we like to do things on a budget an more then €10.000 for equipment I can only use for one thing means something has to stay on the shelve.

Maybe when one of these projects:
Cocotron, http://www.cocotron.org
or
GNUstep, http://gnustep.org

are complete enough it will be simpler to do. Time will tell....

Reply Score: 1

I like Windows 7. I really do. But.....
by polaris20 on Fri 31st Jul 2009 13:59 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

MS (Ballmer in particular) needs to stop worrying about what Apple's doing and come out with solid products. If they're worried about what hardware their OS is going onto in relation to how it compares to Apple hardware, they've got some tough issues, because they're a software company.

The only hardware that comes close to Apple on the PC side (in my opinion) are Thinkpads, and those just aren't "sexy". Incredibly functional and durable, yes. But not attractive.

MS's big problem now is they're having a tough time innovating anything. Lately they're stuck copying everyone else.

iPod --> Zune.
iPod Touch --> Zune HD
Google --> Bing
Genius Bar --> Guru Bar

Come on guys, hire some fresh talent, and do something original. And stop worrying so much about a company with 9% share.

IMO, in the coming years they're going to have a bigger problem with OSS than Apple, should enterprises and SMB catch on in a bigger way.

Reply Score: 5

Glynser Member since:
2007-11-29

[quote]Thinkpads, and those just aren't "sexy".[/quote]
I know what you're trying to say, but it depends on the eye of the beholder and also on marketing. For me personally, Thinkpads are overly sexy, I truly love their looks. Macbooks (and also Mac Desktops) look 'gay' to me, but not sexy (not meant to offend anyone here, I think even gay people understand what I mean).

I'm quite sure, though, that it would be even possible to market the Thinkpad-look as the 'cool style', it just isn't done (and it's not necessary (I'm actually glad nobody does it)). Most people don't buy what they like, instead they like what they're being sold. If marketing was done differently, most people might actually enjoy the "rough industrial look" and mock the "ballerina look". It's just a matter of what is considered being modern.

Reply Score: 3

Get some self-respect
by Jack Matier on Fri 31st Jul 2009 14:00 UTC
Jack Matier
Member since:
2005-07-17

Just as I was thinking getting in on the "let's be negative towards apple" bandwagon, this article really put things in perspective for me and got me writing a Pro's and Cons list that comes from recent conversations with co-workers and friends who either run PC's or Mac's or both. Please note that there's a lot of generalities and perceptions in what lays ahead.

PC Pro's:
- You can get a whole setup for much cheaper.
- Certain pieces of software do a better job at things.
- You can get better hardware.
- Games, while some will work on Mac, you're going to need a PC if you're serious about it.

PC Con's:
- It comes riddled with trials and stuff from your OEM
- It's not reliable enough.
- If your/a child gets on it things tend to go downhill from there. Costing you more time or money down the road.


Mac Pro's:
- It actually comes with the full fledged operating system disk.
- You know, disks not riddled with crap you need to remove that's put in there by OEM's.
- The software that you can get for the Mac, while costing more than the windows counterpart, tends to be more effective at doing its job.
- The hardware is pretty stable.
- Application handling actually makes sense.
- It's cool for me and mom.

Mac Con's:
- It's expensive. Really expensive.
- The hardware is often very limiting for the price, for $3000 how does one not end up getting a blu-ray burner and coffee maker installed?
- Printer support seems to be about on par with Linux.

I know that if I want to get things done in a business setting, the mac is going to allow me to do it and the price is a moot point, even in these economic times when compared to the cost of an employee.

On the other hand if I want something to play on it's going to be a PC, despite it's coming with crap and self-respect issues. Isn't self value and respect an important tool for selling one's self? Is that not what a product is trying to do?

Computers that have Windows need to brush their teeth from OEM's and be proud of themselves. Put out a guide of great software rather than allowing frustrating trials and (in general), crap. Clean up the product line, don't be afraid to give something that's not crippleware to try and squeeze more bucks. It wouldn't cost much more for the sort of polish I'm talking about. Something to make it not seem like a sellout. I'm sure perspective would change then. But maybe not.

(Update) Note: I'm basing a lot of this from what I see of Windows 7, which is looking pretty solid in its RC stages.

Edited 2009-07-31 14:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Get some self-respect
by boldingd on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:19 UTC in reply to "Get some self-respect"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I know that if I want to get things done in a business setting, the mac is going to allow me to do it and the price is a moot point, even in these economic times when compared to the cost of an employee.


I don't know what business you're in, so for you it could easily be different, but for me, GNU/Linux systems are far and away the most productivity-accomodating OS's available. There are just so many "power tools" immediately available in a GNU/Linux environment (sed, grep, robust shell scripts, Unix pipelines, Perl, gcc, Vim -- oh, how I adore Vim). Granted, they're not as friendly, but I'll trade a little friendliness for a lot of power any day. And yes, I know that Cygwin exists, and a lot of those tools have Windows builds/ports/equivalents: it's kindof an "it just works" thing: "apt-get gcc g++ gnat vim gtk-dev" and you're good to go.

On the other hand if I want something to play on it's going to be a PC, despite it's coming with crap and self-respect issues.


Agreed completely. Steam games are the main reason I have a Vista install.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Get some self-respect
by dagw on Fri 31st Jul 2009 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Get some self-respect"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

it's kindof an "it just works" thing: "apt-get gcc g++ gnat vim gtk-dev" and you're good to go.

Unless you're one of the few people in the world who's job doesn't involve developing gtk apps for Unix ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Get some self-respect
by Jack Matier on Fri 31st Jul 2009 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Get some self-respect"
Jack Matier Member since:
2005-07-17

It used to be the case for me as well until I started doing designing, accounting and project management alongside development.

Things tend to work that much more reliably when run in it's native environment and intensive applications happen to be more snappy in a non-virtualized environment.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Get some self-respect
by Mellin on Fri 31st Jul 2009 22:52 UTC in reply to "Get some self-respect"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

"- Printer support seems to be about on par with Linux."

i've never had problems finding printer drivers

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Get some self-respect
by darknexus on Sat 1st Aug 2009 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Get some self-respect"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"- Printer support seems to be about on par with Linux."

i've never had problems finding printer drivers


Actually, Linux and OS X are almost equal in out of the box printer support, for the simple reason that OS X utilizes cups as well as having gutenprint preinstalled just like Linux does. The differences come into play when manufacturer-supported drivers are shipped with OS X as well, as is the case with HP and Epson devices for example. In Epson's case, these drivers are quite good, in HP's case it's not always such an improvement especially if your device is a few years old. Fortunately it's easy enough to use the gutenprint drivers if need be, and if you do need to download a driver, most OS X printer drivers seem to be free of the crapware that plagues the majority of Windows drivers (HP, I'm looking at you).
I actually don't find device support to be much of an issue in OS X, many are supported right away and those that aren't usually have decent quality drivers. These days it's pretty easy to find Mac-compatible devices.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Get some self-respect
by Mellin on Sun 2nd Aug 2009 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Get some self-respect"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

There's even drivers for printers that windows vista doesn't support at all

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft's Problem
by spiderman on Fri 31st Jul 2009 14:11 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Their EEE is getting back at them. They've killed the whole industry and now they have nothing to extend.
Back in the days, there was several other great OSes (AmigaOS was the best). They could copy from them and extinguish them. 95 was a hit because it finally got multitasking like the AmigaOS had for a decade. Nowadays, they can't copy much. They've killed all competition. They can't copy from the Free Software world because their business model is too far away to adapt to something like that. They just have Apple to copy, but Apple doesn't have much inovation to offer. 3D desktop, pretty windows and that's all there is.

Reply Score: 2

Gah
by deathshadow on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:00 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

EVERY time I hear people touting Apple for 'high quality' I end up knee-jerking into the same reaction...

WHAT ****** QUALITY?!?!? Lands sake do we live on different planets or something?

Ooh look it's shiny, but it's the same damned parts inside everyone else uses... and frankly shiny only gets you so damned far. Razor thin metal that provides little or no REAL protection to the display or boards? (I'd rather have the plastic!) Power connectors that won't even stay plugged in and have the habit of fraying and catching fire, selling 256K color displays as truecolor, and frankly they wouldn't know proper cooling if it stripped naked, painted itself purple and hopped up on a table singing "Oh look at what proper ventilation I am"

Foxconn motherboards, Samsung memory and drives, yeah, I'm so impressed...

... and the real kicker is the BALLS they have in upcharging for the SAME parts - parts you can even look up the price of. It takes balls of thunder for the upgrade markup that makes other vendors price-gouging look outright conservative. $100 over the price of a 160 gig drive to go from 160 to 320, when the products have a street price of $45 and $70 respectively.... 100 bucks to go from a 640 gig hard drive to 1tb, street price of a 1tb as SLOW as theirs being under $80... or worse really giant brass monkey balls to charge a grand for 4 gigs of DDR3/1066.

Back on the subject of quality, remember we're talking about the company that put full PCMCIA hardware in place, hid it under the keyboard and disabled power to half the bus so they could make it 'proprietary' - the company that underclocked G3's and G4's 50% or more so they could run them without ANY form of cooling worth mention in the iBooks - always loved that hole the G3/266's would burn clear through the dialup adapter... How about using cermet capacitors instead of fuses so you had to replace a whole board when the power connector shorted since the external hockey pucks didn't even provide regulated power? Swapping the cable select line with master so you could only use their optical drives (unless you had hands steady enough to short the two lines together), touting itself as a multimedia company then putting glorified piezo buzzers into their craptops? How about having to issue warnings because the macbooks are not laptops and should never be used on your lap? (yeah, that's quality engineering) How about their flat out ignoring MBP's that come from the factory with display striping issues and in many cases refusing replacement? (which under the hood is they didn't plug the damned ribbon cable into the display properly!)

Because when I think quality - I think Apple - NOT. Their track record is rubbish, their current line is even bigger rubbish - Where the bloody blue HELL do people get this impression of quality?!?

Reply Score: 10

RE: Gah
by dagw on Fri 31st Jul 2009 16:59 UTC in reply to "Gah"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Their track record is rubbish, their current line is even bigger rubbish - Where the bloody blue HELL do people get this impression of quality?!?

Packaging and presentation. Everything about Apple computers just says quality. The sleek stores, the design of the packaging, the case and layout of the components. It just feels like a high quality luxury product.

The fact that this is all smoke and mirrors and that their actual hardware is as mediocre as most others is neither here nor there. It's all in presentation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Gah
by deathshadow on Fri 31st Jul 2009 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Gah"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Packaging and presentation.

Which has NOTHING to blow my skirt up.

The sleek stores

50 cent a yard wall to wall carpeting with white laminate furniture that looks like it came from walmart and goes together with a hex wrench does NOT impress me, much less feel like 'luxury'. The apple stores have all the 'luxury' of your average Hospital waiting room.

the design of the packaging, the case and layout of the components. It just feels like a high quality luxury product.

Funny, to me it feels like all the aesthetic sense of a hospital ward. Bland glossy whites and aluminum/brushed steel finishes, I'm looking around for the doctor with the giant needle.

So I don't understand that aspect of it either... They want to make me feel like luxury how about some dark mahoganies and cherries, plush Victorian loungers, green marble counter-tops.

I shouldn't go into the place and feel like some creepy guy is slapping on a rubber glove and asking if my movements are normal... which oddly is exactly what happens when they tell you the price.

But what do I know, I consider Kobe beef to be rancid swill and will take a good domestic T-bone instead any day... I consider Ikea furniture to be rinky overpriced crap, I'll take stuff from the natural wood furniture store around the corner any day... and I'm actually smart enough to know the Prius actually does more environmental damage than a Hummer.

Edited 2009-07-31 18:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Gah
by FishB8 on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:24 UTC in reply to "Gah"
FishB8 Member since:
2006-01-16

Ditto. I don't get the whole "hardware quality" bit.

Some of the crappiest hardware I've come across has Apple's logo on it.

Apple does a good job of ensuring that their hardware integrates well with each other and their OS, but try to interconnect their hardware outside of the apple bubble and it just falls apart. (Their support for EDID in their display devices is TERRIBLE)

Reply Score: 1

Ballmer is on the right track.
by KingRocky on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:05 UTC
KingRocky
Member since:
2009-07-30

If Steve can pull it off, it will represent a real challenge to Apple in the over-$1,000 price segment. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been in the first place. I've been trying it out and it is very impressive. Those Microsoft boys have been doing their homework on this one.

What Microsoft needs to do is put the foot down on the PC vendors and get them to stop making CRAP. A $299 PC is a throwaway computer, and everyone knows it. They should also disallow the PC companies from installing "crapware," trial software, and the like. When I start up a new HP laptop, I'm BOMBARDED by all the JUNK all over the desktop and little pop-up messages. When I start up a new Apple laptop, I'm presented with a clean desktop, ready for work.

If I were to purchase a new PC, my FIRST choice would be a ThinkPad. They are solid, reliable, rugged machines. They don't suffer from weak hinges, cracked plastic and bits of stuff falling off like other machines do. Combine that with Windows 7, and you've got a winner in my book.

Will I ever go back to Windows as my primary OS? Probably not, but I view competition as a GOOD thing.

Reply Score: 2

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Unfortunately doing such a thing by force may be impossible due to the antitrust scrutiny which Microsoft is under. Maybe PC manufacturers will start doing it on their own though.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Unfortunately doing such a thing by force may be impossible due to the antitrust scrutiny which Microsoft is under.

Good thing, too, since it is not Microsoft's place to dictate what hardware their customers are allowed to sell.

One of the strengths of the PC world is that you can buy something on the cheap, knowing that you are not getting top quality, or spend more on hardware that puts Apple's to shame. It's called choice, and I not only like it, I make great use of it in my personal and professional lives. There is no "unfortunately" about Microsoft's hand being stayed on that count.

BTW, $199 PC's make great thin clients. And the ones I've used over the years have been pretty reliable. I don't want anyone taking that option away out of some twisted sense of competing with Apple by ruining the PC market.

Edited 2009-08-01 02:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Ballmer cracks me up....
by Deh Bigguy on Fri 31st Jul 2009 15:08 UTC
Deh Bigguy
Member since:
2009-07-31

All I could think of while reading the article was "Zune". Geez, MS better get a grip on reality and come up with a new vision and operating model or its going the way of the DeSoto.

Mr Ballmer, get real. You really are a laugh every time you open your mouth.

Reply Score: 1

Market Share
by LobalSurgery on Fri 31st Jul 2009 16:12 UTC
LobalSurgery
Member since:
2006-09-07

Ballmer: "We say we want big market share but with big market share you take a lower price"

Market share should be a result, not a goal. Build the best product you possibly can, and sell it at a price people are willing to pay. That's it.

I don't believe Ballmer is really that afraid of Apple's market share. Sure, it bugs the hell out of him to see more Macs being used, but I think he knows that Apple's current business model isn't going to land them a majority of the market (and Apple clearly doesn't want any significant portion of the bottom 80-90%).

Microsoft's biggest problem is that once they had over 90% of the OS market, what real motivation did they have to make better products? It didn't (and doesn't) come from other OS manufacturers. Not really. It comes from a fear of people hanging onto their old PC's running XP, and simply holding out on buying a new computer. They have been their own #1 competitor for years. Maybe that's a good definition of a monopoly.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by bonedance
by bonedance on Fri 31st Jul 2009 17:12 UTC
bonedance
Member since:
2009-07-30

Microsoft never made an operating system that people wanted aside from Windows 95. They've made OS's that the world has tolerated. With Vista, they tried something new, and the one time they decide not to rip off Apple is the one time they needed to. They took the old Windows and severely screwed it up by trying to make it "attractive". Windows Vista and Windows 7 are nothing more than software versions of Joan Rivers. Now Microsoft is churning out operating systems that people cannot tolerate and customers are going elsewhere. (Note that I'm not saying compatibility for legacy programs should have been discarded, but they could have worked that support into a newfangled virtual console)

The modern Macs are a fad. Nothing can look like that and not be a fad.

Microsoft is showing a decline in profits? Color me unsurprised. I sometimes wonder how these people are able to put their pants on in the morning. If you make 1,000 foozles and sell one to every person in your town with a population of 1,000, then your future revenue only comes from the occasional passerby and any new arrivals. You better have saved up, little Stevie, because you over-saturated the market with your monopolistic practices.

Anyways, I don't even see how you can compare the two companies since Microsoft doesn't make computers. Well, you can compare them, but you can also compare McDonald's to The Four Seasons if you really like misleading statistics.

That lovable nutcase Dan Dilger said it best. Microsoft is only hurting themselves with this defensive crusade.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Fri 31st Jul 2009 18:48 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

I don't see this as anything more than a brief stab at talking up Microsoft's allegedly forthcoming bricks and mortar stores. Or maybe it isn't even that, just a vague promotional statement as the result of having seen some forthcoming stuff from Lenovo/Asus/HP et al.

Microsoft have always made their money from software, not from hardware, and it would be pretty risky for them to start sinking big big bucks into hardware (more, that is, than they do already with the XBox and PC peripherals). It is an entirely different business. Besides, if Microsoft do much more than dabble in hardware they risk enraging just about every large hardware maker out there, from Intel and HP to Dell to Asus, Lenovo and the Far East outfits. How many enemies does Microsoft plan to make?

So I think this comment was off-the-cuff stuff and has been overblown.

Reply Score: 2

Simply post an Apple item every day
by Googol on Fri 31st Jul 2009 19:24 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

and find +1984 unique reasons while Apple sucks in the comment section that comes with it - every day!! ;)

Reply Score: 2

Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

ups... that was supposed to be funny in the Apple-"movement" news forum.

Reply Score: 2

"Pirates of Silicon Valley 2"
by Eddyspeeder on Sat 1st Aug 2009 02:27 UTC
Eddyspeeder
Member since:
2006-05-10

Microsoft: "Now that Apple in the public eye has attained almost the same status we have, we like them better."

I'm glad Microsoft finally chooses to make Windows more compatible with other OSes. But I won't return to it.

Reply Score: 1

HW quality
by Johann Chua on Sat 1st Aug 2009 05:12 UTC
Johann Chua
Member since:
2005-07-22

Pre-"Clone Wars" Apple hardware is solid. Intel-era and latter-day G4/5...it depends. Mag"safe" connector, anyone?

(Still holding on to an Apple Extended II keyboard. Need to find a Griffin iMate to make it usable on USB-equipped Macs and PCs. Also trying to get a Mac SE/30, plus a PDS Ethernet card, as a home office writing machine.)

Reply Score: 2

The Apple Switch
by blitze on Sat 1st Aug 2009 06:37 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Funny thing in Apple Mac Switches from Windows by Apple Marketing Swallowing Lemmings. They still Run Microsoft Office for thier productivity suit and they require, usually to run Parallels Desktop so they can run their Windows only proprietory software.

What's the fn point of switching if that is what you are going to do?

Most of them have no idea how to migrate their work across and they have made a purchase decision based purely on hype without realising the headach they are embarking on. I mean - if you are not tied down to the Windows environment and can run OS-X software for your business - great for you but many cant and they have to jump through hoops and still run Windows on their Macs to do their work.

Fn stupid.

Reply Score: 3

branding issue
by Thuf on Sat 1st Aug 2009 10:21 UTC
Thuf
Member since:
2009-07-16

Microsoft want to close the hardware gap to Apple?

It is like to read that Ford or Renault or Fiat wants to close the mechanic gap with Porsche or BMW.

Don't get me wrong Ford or Renault or Fiat are not bad car, they have a market because not everybody can or even want to afford a luxury car.

And even when those brands are making so called "luxury" car, nobody's fooled they are just pale and are not playing the same league.

If you buy a luxury car, you don't just buy a car, you buy the brand, the history and somehow feel you are in some "inner circle".

So firstly, it is a branding issue.
Yes, Microsoft brand represent cheap crap but affordable and able to perform correctly.

In extensa, when one wants to buy a thing of luxury, one is not even looking for cheap brand otherwise he'll miss at least one important point.
-> "The real thing" not the cheap COPY.
No brand entered the luxury market by copying.
(There is exceptions but those are what they are, exceptions, not rules)
This is embedded within the luxury deal.
I am buying an original work; therefore I support the effort of creative people.
My money will go to people able to create something and not lazy just able to copy people.

Secondly and to be fair, luxury things are often (yes, often this is not a rule) better manufactured.
In the case of BMW and Porsche, this is most obvious. You know where the money is going!

Have you seen the video advertising about the conception of the Unibody MacBook Pro?
Do you see any correlation?

Do you want to see the same video with the Zune/Xbox/Dell products?
Excepts if they blatantly lie about it, we all know what shall be inside to some extend.

And I thought Ballmer was a vendor...
He speaks nonsense.

Reply Score: 1

RE: branding issue
by Vinegar Joe on Sat 1st Aug 2009 22:19 UTC in reply to "branding issue"
Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

It is like to read that Ford or Renault or Fiat wants to close the mechanic gap with Porsche or BMW.


Fords, Renaults, Fiats, Porsches and BMWs are made in different factories by different workers under different management systems. Computers (whether with an Apple logo on the top or running Windows) are made in the same factories by the same Chinese workers employed by the same Taiwanese manufacturers.

Reply Score: 1

Real nice Ballmer
by Vinegar Joe on Sat 1st Aug 2009 22:09 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

Last nite I made the mistake of installing SP2 on my Vista Ultimate machine......it promptly killed my sound. Looking at the Mircosoft forums, it seems this problem concerning SP2 and Realtek High Definition Audio has known since at least the end of April. And Microsoft's suggestion to email Realtek isn't very useful. This is just f*cking lame. If you can't do any better than this, I suggest you switch occupations......maybe start flipping burgers at McD's.......on second thought, don't! You'd probably end up poisoning several million people thru your sheer incompetence.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Real nice Ballmer
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 1st Aug 2009 23:43 UTC in reply to "Real nice Ballmer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So you're blaming Microsoft for RealTek not making a decent driver.

Okiedook.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Real nice Ballmer
by Jack Matier on Mon 3rd Aug 2009 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Real nice Ballmer"
Jack Matier Member since:
2005-07-17

While I agree with that sentiment, if it's a known issue wouldn't it make sense for there to be a list of known issues with the release of an update or product upgrade? This is assuming it was actually a known issue to microsoft and not just a forum.

Reply Score: 1