“Welcome to today’s multiple-choice quiz. Apple Computer is: (a) the top design shop in the computer industry; (b) the manufacturer of the best PC on the market; or (c) destined to forever remain a prisoner of its own success. Actually, the answer is all of the above.” Editorial at News.com regarding the failure of Apple to attract the corporate market. OSOpinion features an editorial called “Apple Bidding To Regain Speed Throne“. On ZDNews you will also find the editorial by Stephan Somogyi “Why Apple should support Microsoft’s .Net“.
Several Apple-Related Editorials on the Web
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
People who believe that Mac OS will always command <= 4% have no vision. I bet they said the same thing about cars versus horses. The fact is that I see NO indications that MSFT is prepared to upgrade Win2000/XP to a UNIX core. They prefer to stick their heads in the sand and hope to tweak what they have got– a strategy that Apple tried and FAILED at big time with their “Copland Project” of the early nineties.
when dos ruled, windows did not exist, and mac os was introduced, mac offered a clear advantage over dos.
now, mac os x offers no clear advantage of win xp, but win xp offers most of the ease of use as mac.
it’s too bad apple/steve jobs killed the clones. the clones
could have helped mac os grow
“now, mac os x offers no clear advantage of win xp, but win xp offers most of the ease of use as mac.”
Mac OS X offers plenty of advantages over XP. A few major ones come to mind.
1. Stability: Mac OS X has over 20 years of refinement behind it in the BSD operating system. BSD is probably one of the most stable operating systems in the world.
2. Community development: BSD is open source. But Apple went even further than that. Darwin (the core of OS X) is also open source. There is even a workable port of Darwin for x86.
3. Ability to run UNIX applications. Most of the popular open source UNIX applications will run find under Mac OS X with a simple recompile. Why? Because Mac OS X is UNIX of course. Try that with Windows XP.
Mac OS X has many advantages over Windows XP. Those three are the ones that came to mind in only about 30 seconds. I’m sure I could think of many more if I thought about it for a couple of minutes.
There are many, many advantages:
1. faster networking — people keep commenting that Apple needs to improve the ease of this, but if you got it going network transfer are much quicker than with Windows 2000–I find our network at work gets slower each day…
2. far superior multimedia capabilities — Aqua may drag on basic system operations but encoding DVDs 300% faster than a PC (this isn’t typical Jobs’ BS either that is real); realtime video editing (requires expensive hardware and more complex workflows on the PC); native support for QuickTime
3. Native Java
4. the PowerPC — a megahertz lag is really nothing to be concerned about here, the PPC is a great chip, and it’s next gen should be fantastic.
5. Hyperthreading that’s not interpreted by the BigBotherOS as separate procs and hence additional costs for more licenses
6. A company and platform actually committed to FireWire and HyperTransport and many other cutting edge technologies
7. No invasive DRM, copy protection, and product activation
8. Instead of pushing ease-of-use tasks into the shell; Apple supports iApps — I like media apps and I like ease, but I hate seeing crap designed for stupid people or people who don’t know what they are doing all over the file manager if I don’t need to see it.
9. Windows still just doesn’t make sense–the window metaphor is the most inconsistent PoS: some apps contain doc windows, some docs are apps themselves, some apps are multi app windowed, the app window serves no purpose but to teach you what the color grey is.
Well, I was going to go to 10, but I’ll stick with Simba and contain myself to just a little bit of thinking.
Mac OS X offers plenty of advantages over XP. A few major ones come to mind.
1. Stability: Mac OS X has over 20 years of refinement behind it in the BSD operating system. BSD is probably one of the most stable operating systems in the world.
Windows has 17 years of refinement. Win2000 is very stable (and fast). Maybe not the best, but pretty darn good. I know your comparison is to XP, but I haven’t tried that yet and can’t comment on that version.
2. Community development: BSD is open source. But Apple went even further than that. Darwin (the core of OS X) is also open source. There is even a workable port of Darwin for x86.
Advantage to whom? Outside the realm of geekdom, who cares if the apps or OS they use are open source? When I boot to Linux, my computer doesn’t suddenly run better because of the license used by the programmers.
3. Ability to run UNIX applications. Most of the popular open source UNIX applications will run find under Mac OS X with a simple recompile. Why? Because Mac OS X is UNIX of course. Try that with Windows XP.
Another true point, but once again, to the general public, so what? What UNIX apps could most Mac users possibly want to run?
Mac OS X has many advantages over Windows XP. Those three are the ones that came to mind in only about 30 seconds. I’m sure I could think of many more if I thought about it for a couple of minutes.
A lot of people just don’t like how the Mac operates and never will. Too much mousing required for those of us who like to use the keyboard (same problem with BeOS). Too different from what we use on the job. Higher price tags. Closed hardware architecture; at least the PC running Windows doesn’t have that!
9. Windows still just doesn’t make sense–the window metaphor is the most inconsistent PoS: some apps contain doc windows, some docs are apps themselves, some apps are multi app windowed, the app window serves no purpose but to teach you what the color grey is.
This depends on how your brain works. To me, Windows has always made more sense than the Mac, which occasionally leaves me wondering where I am. It is personal preference and aptitude. Some people can’t deal with a GUI at all.
If the Mac is that great, then more poeple would own one. The choice has been out there for a long time.
“Windows has 17 years of refinement. Win2000 is very stable (and fast).” Your experience may be different, but I have not found that to be true. Whe I am in W2000, I save every 5 minutes. I hard-crash about once an hour.
“What UNIX apps could most Mac users possibly want to run? ”
Off the top of my head: GIMP, Brickhouse, Fire.
“Windows has always made more sense than the Mac,”
Then you might like terminal.app.
“If the Mac is that great, then more poeple would own one”
A lot of people buy wwhat they have at work. Unless you are an artist or a scientist, that is likely to be a PC.
Last time I looked at a Mac (Ibook 500 128MB) OS-X took 18 bounces
in the dock to open a simple terminal Window.
On my BeOS PC it opens in 1 sec…
“Windows has 17 years of refinement. Win2000 is very stable (and fast).”
17 years? Since when? If you count DOS it has 17 years. But that is hardly fair. The NT kernel is less than 10 years old.
And no, Windows 2000 is NOT stable compared to BSD UNIX. I’ve seen up times on busy BSD servers of over 1000 days. Find me any Windows 2000/NT system that can claim that.
“Advantage to whom? Outside the realm of geekdom, who cares if the apps or OS they use are open source? ”
Advantages to everyone. Here are just a few ways that open source benefits you:
1. Peer review of source code: In otherwords, if the system sucks, someone is going to say something. That doesn’t happen with closed source. Even if you are not a programmer, it benefits you if thousands of programmers all over the world can look at the source code determine its quality.
2. Faster bug fixes: When source code is available, bugs get fixed faster because so many people have access to the code.
3. Faster security patches: Don’t you get a little sick of known security problems in Windows that go for weeks or even months without getting fixed? With open source, these problems are fixed in days, and sometimes even in hours.
“A lot of people just don’t like how the Mac operates and never will. Too much mousing required for those of us who like to use the keyboard (same problem with BeOS).”
You haven’t worked with OS X have you? OS X IS UNIX. You can do a lot more on OS X without using a mouse these days that you can on Windows thanks to the underlying UNIX core.
“Another true point, but once again, to the general public, so what? What UNIX apps could most Mac users possibly want to run?”
GIMP, Apache, XFree86, PostgreSQL. I could think of many more if I spent a couple of minutes on this.
“Too different from what we use on the job.”
Granted, this tends to be a problem with Mac. People don’t want to learn a new system and the Mac is what they use at work (unless they work in graphic design, desktop publishing, or video editing / digital video production where Macs are very common).
“Higher price tags.”
This isn’t really true when you look at how much more you get with a Mac. For example, the G4’s come equipped for video capture and digital video production. The add ons that you would need to make your PC do this would bring the cost of the PC to well above the cost of the Mac. And even then, the performance would be inferior. As others have pointed out, the 300% faster at encoding DVD is not just Apple propeganda.
“If the Mac is that great, then more poeple would own one. The choice has been out there for a long time.”
It just doesn’t work that way. Especially when you competing with a company that uses illegal tactics to establish and maintain a monopoly.
OS/2 was superior to Windows for many years. Yet OS/2 is virtually dead. That doesn’t mean it was inferior to Windows. It was much better. It’s mostly that IBM made the same mistake that Apple made. They targeted niche markets and left out a very large number of users.
Your experience may be different, but I have not found that to be true. Whe I am in W2000, I save every 5 minutes. I hard-crash about once an hour.
Ouch. Are you using SP2? It runs great on my cheap junk hardware. After about 3 months of constant use I have not had that happen once (NT4 did several times, and so has RedHat). There must be some other issue.
Off the top of my head: GIMP, Brickhouse, Fire.
Considering the quality and sophistication of graphics apps available for the Mac, I can’t imagine many people choosing GIMP. Don’t know what those others are.
Then you might like terminal.app.
Huh? What does that have to do with the Win GUI?
A lot of people buy wwhat they have at work. Unless you are an artist or a scientist, that is likely to be a PC.
True. It is easier to stick with the familiar, but I would think that if the Mac was so much more intuitive, then the Mac could overcome that to some degree. That hasn’t happened. Didn’t the Mac once have a market share around 10%?
17 years? Since when? If you count DOS it has 17 years. But that is hardly fair. The NT kernel is less than 10 years old.
If you want to limit this to the NT kernel, it is much less, but Windows in any form has been around since 1986 (’85?). Remember Win 1.0? Loaded in less than 1 second on an 8088. Also, remember that NT was based on OS/2. Before MS and IBM parted ways, MS’s project was called OS/2 3.0 (just after that really stupid “Windows is for PCs with 2MB RAM or less” speech).
Advantages to everyone. Here are just a few ways that open source benefits you:
1. Peer review of source code: In otherwords, if the system sucks, someone is going to say something.
Theory. Sometimes it happens, and sometimes it doesn’t. Let’s be realistic; if a closed source app sucks, its customer base will say something. A really good example is GobeProductive for Win (and soon for Linux). Their listserv is pretty busy!
That doesn’t happen with closed source.
True, but users do provide feedback to the programmers on how their apps operate, features, bugs, etc. Closed souce does not mean closed-ears, especially if the developers stand to lose customers, $$, or even goodwill if they don’t respond. Since most users of PC software are not programmers (shocking, I know, but true), this is often a meaningless argument. About 99% of desktop PC users have Wintel PCs and Macs. Most of them don’t give a flip about oss; they just want software that works. I’m not saying peer review and oss is a bad idea (it is a darn good one), but it isn’t that widepread in general personal computing.
Even if you are not a programmer, it benefits you if thousands of programmers all over the world can look at the source code determine its quality.
But how often does this REALLY happen? Most people who are qualified to do this are probably engrossed in their own projects! Someday I would love to see the list of names of the thousands of people who reviewed a typical oss app.
2. Faster bug fixes: When source code is available, bugs get fixed faster because so many people have access to the code.
I can’t accept this as a blanket truth. It depends on the developers. Depends on commitment to quality. Depends on the size of the programmer’s ego. Depends on available resources the programmers have. I’ll bet lots of oss apps don’t have 3 sets of eyes reviewing them, much less thousands. Where did that number come from, anyway?
3. Faster security patches: Don’t you get a little sick of known security problems in Windows that go for weeks or even months without getting fixed? With open source, these problems are fixed in days, and sometimes even in hours.
How can I *know* that? Anyhow, your comparison is apples to oranges. OSS is NOT the opposite of Microsoft. Closed source is much larger than MS. Yes, the MS attitude tics me off at times (many times), but they are not the only company making closed-source software. Some are better than others, whether closed or open source.
“A lot of people just don’t like how the Mac operates and never will. Too much mousing required for those of us who like to use the keyboard (same problem with BeOS).”
You haven’t worked with OS X have you?
Please don’t assume ignorance on my part just because I prefer another way of operating. I stand by my comment; a lot of people just plain don’t like the Mac. I have had enough “hands-on” with it to know if I like it or not. I’m not saying I totally dislike it; I don’t! And I did say it is a matter of personal preference. Heck, if you attach a touchpad instead of a mouse, I might like it more! In my case, my wrist complains badly when I use a mouse. I just can’t use one for extended periods.
used OS/X OS X IS UNIX. You can do a lot more on OS X without using a mouse these days that you can on Windows thanks to the underlying UNIX core.
The kernel is not the GUI. Are you claiming that the OS/X GUI is less mouse-centric than Windows?
“Another true point, but once again, to the general public, so what? What UNIX apps could most Mac users possibly want to run?”
GIMP, Apache, XFree86, PostgreSQL. I could think of many more if I spent a couple of minutes on this.
Do you think that most of the Mac clientele is even slightly interested in any of these? First of all, a Mac user is probably using PhotoShop or other very sophisticated graphics tools. GIMP? Why? It isn’t even a Mac app! Secondly, Apache and PostgreSQL are server apps that can run just fine on cheaper x86 PCs or good x86 servers. People don’t buy Macs to run them. XFree86? Once again, why? Why spend money on premium hardware and the OS/X GUI to run another GUI that you could run on cheap hardware with a free OS? Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense.
“Too different from what we use on the job.”
Granted, this tends to be a problem with Mac. People don’t want to learn a new system and the Mac is what they use at work (unless they work in graphic design, desktop publishing, or video editing / digital video production where Macs are very common).[i]
This is a big barrier, but not the only one.
“Higher price tags.”
[i]This isn’t really true when you look at how much more you get with a Mac. For example, the G4’s come equipped for video capture and digital video production. The add ons that you would need to make your PC do this would bring the cost of the PC to well above the cost of the Mac.
This has been debated for a long time. Assuming it is true (and probably is), I suspect that it includes a lot of features that most general public buyers didn’t ask for and don’t want to pay for.
A feature is not a benefit unless your customers care about it. The stability of UNIX is a feature and a benefit (less bombs). The ability to run GIMP is a feature, but is not a benefit to an artist (who probably uses Photoshop now anyway) who needs powerful graphics apps that operate in a manner consistent with the other apps he has installed. The ability to run Apache is a feature, but will only benefit web developers, not artists. Why pay for a bunch of features you don’t care about?
And even then, the performance would be inferior.
Another debatable point that has been going on for years. Sounds like the longest golf ball; everybody makes it.
As others have pointed out, the 300% faster at encoding DVD is not just Apple propeganda.
Great, but how many people really do that?
“If the Mac is that great, then more poeple would own one. The choice has been out there for a long time.”
It just doesn’t work that way. Especially when you competing with a company that uses illegal tactics to establish and maintain a monopoly.
Please think about what you just said. What illegal MS tactics have kept computer shoppers from buying Macs instead of Wintel boxes?? Macs have been available on retail shelves since 1984!! I mean, in itself your point about MS is very true, and I will have no sympathy for MS if they get broken into a thousand tiny pieces, but MS tactics have only kept competing OSs from being installed on x86 boxes, and no Mac OS was ever made for x86. I don’t believe the Windows EULA has ever prevented a retailer from selling Macs or prevented a customer from buying one. Mac dealers have been around for a long time. PCs and Macs are displayed side-by-side at CompUSA, and I have never seen a MS gestapo agent block access to the Macs and push people to the PCs. Sorry, but the responsibility for the Macs’ lack of popularity rests squarely with Apple. Can OS/X and new Macs overcome that? We’ll see.
OS/2 was superior to Windows for many years. Yet OS/2 is virtually dead. That doesn’t mean it was inferior to Windows. It was much better.
A thousand amens. IBM made me so mad with their lame marketing. I used OS/2 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and loved it, even on my 386/40!
[i]It’s mostly that IBM made the same mistake that Apple made. They targeted niche markets and left out a very large number of users.<i/>
Like I said, Apple is responsible for their low market share, not MS. That was one of IBM’s mistakes. Their idea of marketing is to sit by the phone and wait for requests for bids.
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate the Mac (I used to own one), and I certainly don’t love MS (though I have to know and use Win2k for teaching). In fact, I have to buy a laptop soon and it may be an iBook! I can’t stomach the thought of XP.
I’m being a devil’s advocate here for a reason. There are so many assumptions and legends presented here about Macs (and OS/X’s superiority) that are presented as gospel truth, and this doesn’t do Apple any good. I believe they once had a 10% market share and sold more personal computers than any other company. Now it is 3% – 5%. Why? Apple and its advocates must deal honestly with this somehow; they can’t just say, “We’re better.” Having an easy-to-use UI on a solid UNIX foundation is the right move. Will Apple drop the ball again? I hope not.
“Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate the Mac (I used to own one),”
I appreciate your comments. you are not a “troll” and are well-informed. And may be right. I hope not.
I think one thing OS X brings to the table is a new set of users. Many people USE Windows, but every comp. sci. type I know LEARNED on UNIX. X gives Apple POTENTIAL cred. in a whole
new market– the server space. Of course, to realize that, they need to build a workgroup server again, without hot-swappable drives again….
DrP, do get an iBook. I’m posting this using one and love it. I think you’d really like OS X, assuming it runs the apps you need (and there’s always Virtual PC). Although I’m Apple to the core, I’ve read enough about XP to see that it’s a solid OS. So it really comes down to style and aesthetics, and that’s where X really shines. It simply makes it a joy to use a computer and has tremendous “Gee whiz!” appeal. That, at the end of the day, is worth something, in some ways more than gigabytes and megahertz. And it is nice to be able to say you get along perfectly well, thank you, without MS (though Office X for Mac, I must admit, is a nice piece of software).
As for Apple’s marketshare, seems to me they just need to hang onto what they’ve got. They’ve got $5 billion (I think) in the bank and the highest profit margins of any computer manufacturer. Sure, it’d be great if they picked up a percentage point or two (maybe you’ll help with an iBook!), but I’m confident that with OS X and their new hardware, their niche — at least — will not erode.
Your experience may be different, but I have not found that to be true. Whe I am in W2000, I save every 5 minutes. I hard-crash about once an hour.
———–
You have another issue causing this prob. I’ve run Windows 2000 for weeks without incident with some pretty heavy duty stuff going; others I hear have run it for months. Usually I keep it on 3-4 days in a row without turning it off, all without probs. I only reboot for new software/defragging, etc.
What sort of error/crash are u getting?
“2. Faster bug fixes: When source code is available, bugs get fixed faster because so many people have access to the code.
“I can’t accept this as a blanket truth. It depends on the developers.”
I’m talking mostly about the OS here. And it doesn’t really depend on the developers. It simply depends on how many people using it are familar with the system. If the bug is annoying enough, a user will fix it if they have the source available and have some programming skill.
“Do you think that most of the Mac clientele is even slightly interested in any of these? First of all, a Mac user is probably using PhotoShop or other very sophisticated graphics tools. GIMP? Why?”
There are a couple of reasons. The primary one of course is cost. Photoshop costs a hefty amount of pocket change. GIMP is free. I do a fair amount of graphic design and image editing for lecture presentations and such. And there are actually several things that I think GIMP does better than Photoshop. And it also supports the vast majority of Photoshop features that most people need these days. Also, the typical web designer can do quite well with GIMP and doesn’t need Photoshop.
“Apache and PostgreSQL are server apps that can run just fine on cheaper x86 PCs or good x86 servers. People don’t buy Macs to run them.”
The problem with running them on x86 is that they won’t run under Windows. (Apache has a beta version for Windows. But PostgreSQL will not run under Windows).
I would disagree that Mac users don’t have a use for these apps. Once again, it has to do with Web design. And Web design is a very common use for Macs. The days of being able to test static HTML content in a web browser are history. These days, most Web sites have dynamic content from embedded scripting languages, and also database driven content. To test a Web site of any complexity these days, you need to have access to a Web server and also to a database. It’s a lot easier to test these on the local development box than to have to upload them to a Web server everytime you need to test something. Debugging is also a lot easier if you don’t have to upload the new code every single time you make a change.
“As others have pointed out, the 300% faster at encoding DVD is not just Apple propeganda.
Great, but how many people really do that?”
I think this is one of those features that a lot of people would use if they had it and knew that it was available. After all, the VHS videotape is rapidly becoming a dinosaur. If people could encode their home videos and such onto DVD, they would probably do it.
“If you want to limit this to the NT kernel, it is much less, but Windows in any form has been around since 1986 (’85?). Remember Win 1.0?”
To be fair, we have to limit it to the NT kernel. OS X is actually using a code base that has over 20 years of decvelopment behind it. This isn’t true with Windows 2000.
DrP, when you were checking out OS X, did you notice that you can turn on “full keyboard access”? It let’s you control the mac virtually without a mouse, by using just the keyboard, arrow keys etc. To me this in implemented better than the equivalent function in Windows.
DrP, when you were checking out OS X, did you notice that you can turn on “full keyboard access”?
(Insert look of shock and horror here) Nope, didn’t see that. One point for OS/X.
Scott – Can VirtualPC handle Win2k, or just 98? What RAM and CPU speed is really needed to make it acceptable? What happens if I try to run a Win game that expects to find DirectX? The idea of a single computer that can run apps for 3 environments at the same time (X apps, MacOS apps, Win apps) is VERY appealing, especially for cross-platform programming.
Tom –
I think one thing OS X brings to the table is a new set of users.
Hope so. I may be one. My last experience was with an SE/30 12 years ago, so it doesn’t really count.
you are not a “troll”
Never trolled in my life. I always drop anchor (or drift) to fish.
Simba – You find GIMP that useful? I still haven’t figured out how to resample a file. Do you find it, and X apps in general, to run well under OS/X (compared to Linux with a good GUI)?
“Simba – You find GIMP that useful? I still haven’t figured out how to resample a file. Do you find it, and X apps in general, to run well under OS/X (compared to Linux with a good GUI)?”
I can’t comment on the performance of GIMP under OS/X because I have never actually tried running it on OS/X. Nor have I ever tried runnng XFree86 under OS/X. I just know that both will run under OX/X. When I work with GIMP, I am usually doing it in FreeBSD. I would guess that since OS/X is based on FreeBSD, that performance would be similar.
As far as X apps, they are pretty much limited by X-Windows performance, which is pretty lousy by comparision to the native OS/X interface, or even the Windows interface.
But as far as finding GIMP that useful, yes, I do find it very useful, especially considering the cost. As far as resampling an image, I believe GIMP does that automatically when you resize. This is just a guess, but I think it is probably correct based on image quality of GIMP resized images compared to image quality of images resized in other programs with both resampling and not. The image quality of GIMP is much better than the other programs when they do not resample, and comparable to the other programs when they do resample.
DrP — Yes, Virtual PC runs Win2000 and XP, too, plus several others. Not sure how it does with games. Truth be told, I don’t use it, simply because as a longtime Mac-only user I’ve never invested in Windows software and am happy with what’s available for Macs. But I hear VPC is solid. Check out the Wired review at:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,48964,00.html
I’d think an iBook could handle it just fine (I’d recommend at least 256 MB of RAM for OS X — MacWarehouse is offering a free upgrade right now).
Good luck!
W2000 comments: someone asked what caused ‘2000 to go down for me: just regular surfing, typically, with “Internet Exploder”. I’ve seen this on several machines, so I dont think it’s a hardware issue. Can’t give details on the Dell’s cause they were configured by my company, not me. I don’t know what SP they were up to.
GIMP: As an AMATEUR digital photographer, the price of GIMP makes it WAY more appealling than Photoshop. I think I’ll hold off on trying it, though, till it gets more polish.