Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th May 2010 18:35 UTC
Humor Every now and then, you come across things that make the internet worthwhile. So yeah, there's this whole genitalia length comparing competition going on between Adobe and Apple, where both companies are actually arguing, with straight faces, which of the two is more open (which to me comes across as Mario and Zelda arguing over who's less of a sell-out). Luckily, though, there's the internet to make us laugh.
Thread beginning with comment 424794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

My timing is on because: OS X was launched in 2001 and Steve Jobs was in Apple from 1997 and was showing Mac OS 9 "Revolutionary OS" like here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBiYsMIn32E . The single reason that Mac OS was more responsive, was that was running on faster hardware (PowerPC chips and later the G3 were even twice as fast as Pentium II at their times, but not because of their underlying OS). Please look on youtube on both presentations on Mac OS 9 with it's great Sherlock application and with a PowerPC demo in Photoshop against a PC version. Till 2001, Mac OS have a technology that was less advanced than anything out-there (OS2, BeOS, Windows 9x or NT, or Linux).
The point of my comment was just hypocrisy. As of today, ALL(most) features of OS X are in Linux are in 2006 (like 2D vector graphic, buggy composite display) and of course in Vista. But Windows 2000 has for first time the kernel thread pools (which are GCD in Snow Leopard) and there are benchmarks showing that OS X were not performing well on G5 in multithreaded benchmarks (write in a search engine: anandtech g5 tiger.
OS X, "the most advanced OS"? Probably not. A pretty and expensive case, most probably.
Even today when we compare Vista (or 7) with Snow Leopard we have the same capabilities (like: Java vs .NET, PDF display, color profiles, etc.) but only that you can buy an full featured laptop at 1000 dollars (or euro) which if was named Apple you will pay at least 1700, and Windows license is not included.
This is why I'm glad at the end I have Flash on Android: is about the ecosystem, an open one, informed one, with all your options in one place. Not one carrier, not one phone model (with it's upgrades), not software.
Edit: added youtube link


In the case of Apple, what they do is focus on what it can do well and then trumpet such features to the heavens. That is no different than Microsoft who avoid the issue of user interface consistency, installation consistency, consistent driver quality and so on in favour of focus on what Windows does do well - it can work on a variety of systems. There is nothing dishonest or underhanded, that is how the world operates when marketing - focus on the strengths you bring to the market. When someone states that their operating system is 'the most advanced' then it is pretty subjective. Microsoft states theirs is the most secure release ever, Apple claims theirs is the most advanced ever, Linux distributors will claim theirs is the most feature rich ever. Hyperbole in marketing is the name of the game - it is up to you as an educated consumer to see beyond the marketing buzz and look at the specifications and whether they line up with your requirements.

As for the reason for going with Mac OS X - I went with Mac OS X because I wanted a UNIX core that taps into my geekiness and at the same time gives me access to mainstream applications such as Microsoft Office, Creative Suite and so on. So far Apple has delivered on what I want. To claim that people purchase Apple products simply off the back of the fact they're named Apple may describe a very small number that I'm not going to deny exist. There was a women who was interviewed waiting in line for the iPad, when asked what she would use it for and whether she knew what it was all her response was, "I don't know what it is but I'm going to buy it because it is from Apple". Are there people who behave like that? sure, that is no different than the 'true believers' of Zune and the chap who got a Zune tattoo. For those of us who aren't pulled into the vortex of marketing, we choose our computer based on what our needs are and whether a certain company meets those needs. Does a Mac cost more in terms of direct hardware alone? sure but one weighs up the cost with better battery life, an operating system that is enjoyable to use, the ascetics of the device and so on. Just because you can't see the obvious reasons why an individual chooses to buy an Apple doesn't mean that Apple users equal consumerist drones marching to the drum beat of Apple's marketing.

Where Apple did go wrong was back in 2002 with the release of 10.2 which allowed the mixing of Carbon and Cocoa. In 2002 they should have stopped development of Carbon, announced all future focus will be on Cocoa and then sent a clear message that any future enhancements one does to their applications should be written in Cocoa (given you can mix Carbon and Cocoa). That would have sent a clear path to developers which wouldn't have resulted in the Photoshop fiasco that resulted in Mac users left out i the cold. I wonder, though, whether there was a hope that Carbon and Cocoa could be kept as equals as so far as frameworks available for developers but they realised later on that such a programme wasn't feasible. I can only speculate on the reasons. I guess at that stage the ideas such as iPhone and iPad weren't even considered thus maintaining both wasn't considered an unreasonable goal.

Edited 2010-05-16 02:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2