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.
Thread beginning with comment 376312
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 1