How Apple+Mac is better than Windows+Intel

[Zombie9920]

Ahh, here we go.

This is updated since the first time I posted it and it throws Linux in there also. Unfortunatley OSX 10.2 isn't in the comparison, but I'm sure that it still has alot of shortcomings. MAcOSX doesn't even support DVD-RW and Floppy drives out of the box. What a joke. Windows has had support for DVD-R AND DVD-RW for a long time..so why does Apple only want to support DVD-R? From the way it appears, Linux is technically superior to MacOS also.    

Once again, I'm not afraid to show that MacOS is not all that and a box of chocolates.

http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002/OS_Shootout-2002.htm

(EDIT)Ahh, I see that there is some OSX 10.2 comparison in there..whats this? FTP uploads are broken in Jaguar, there are 802.11b issues in Jaguar, etc. How interesting.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
It is a legit question. My point is, Apple does the very same shit that Microsoft does but some people tend to overlook that fact. Apple is a monopoly also..and if they were the big guys and MS were the little guys Apple would be a far worse monopoly than what MS is. MS wants control of the software market, Apple wants complete control(of the hardware and software market).

It's not the same thing. Apple has their own hardware to sell their operating system with. Microsoft does not. Same with Sun. Same with IBM (RISC/PPC servers, and mainframes), same with HP (high end PA systems). They are computer system manufacturers that also happen to have developed their own OS. Apple from the beginning created their own hardware and wrote the OS to go along with that hardware.

I can understand hardware manufacturers wanting their own OS to go on their hardware. But for those hardware manufacturers that do not have their own OS, I believe they should have the right to sell that hardware with any OS they want, or no OS at all at no penalty.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:


It is a legit question. My point is, Apple does the very same shit that Microsoft does but some people tend to overlook that fact. Apple is a monopoly also..and if they were the big guys and MS were the little guys Apple would be a far worse monopoly than what MS is. MS wants control of the software market, Apple wants complete control(of the hardware and software market).

You see, maybe some people like the way a Mac box looks but they don't want to run MacOS. Maybe the person doesn't want to pay for MacOS considering he/she won't use it.

At least with a PC you can get a naked box(maybe not the one you particularly want..but there are some naked PC choices). You don't get that option with Macs.

Saying MacOS kicks the shit out of Windows is a personal opinion. Maybe some people like Windows better than MacOS. Maybe some people like Linux better than MacOS and of course some people like Linux better than Windows. It is all personal preference. As a matter of fact, Windows can do more out of the box than MacOS can(I'll dig up the comparison article I posted a long time ago in a few).    

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]

Most of what you say is true except for the out of the box thing where I believe that OS X and XPee offer more or less the same apps. For instance, OS X comes with iTunes, iPhoto, iMovies, AppleWorks, Internet Exploder (yak!) and a shitload of other apps like ichat, Quick Time and not to mention the utilities like Network Utility, Netinfo manager etc. The list is really long.

Opposite of that and on the Windows side you have what? Internet Exploder, MS Paint, Media Player, Movie Maker and? What about an Office suite? You have to pay a shitload of money to buy MS Office. Now if you want to talk about the alternatives like Abiword, openOffice etc they all run in OS X under the X window system and they are all for free.

To correct something that you said in your post, two or more corporations form an oligopoly not a monopoly and M$ was mostly accused for monopolistic practises and not that it is a monopoly. Of course there are alternatives out there but if M$ continues to act like that ie coming out with proprietary file formats etc, then it will tend to be a monopoly, by having eliminated all its rivals. That's what the fuss is all about.

Finally, you certainly have a point in the hardware part of your post and i totally agree there.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by void main:


It's not the same thing. Apple has their own hardware to sell their operating system with. Microsoft does not. Same with Sun. Same with IBM (RISC/PPC servers, and mainframes), same with HP (high end PA systems). They are computer system manufacturers that also happen to have developed their own OS. Apple from the beginning created their own hardware and wrote the OS to go along with that hardware.

I can understand hardware manufacturers wanting their own OS to go on their hardware. But for those hardware manufacturers that do not have their own OS, I believe they should have the right to sell that hardware with any OS they want, or no OS at all at no penalty.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

Oh, so if MS started making thier own PC's to sell there wouldn't be a problem with MS Windows being pre-installed? But If MS started making PC's would'nt you guys start calling them an even bigger monopoly than they are now?

It is a catch 22. LoL

[Pantso]

FTP uploads broken in Jaguar?? Where the hell did they get that from???  :eek:    :eek:

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:


Oh, so if MS started making thier own PC's to sell there wouldn't be a problem with MS Windows being pre-installed? But If MS started making PC's would'nt you guys start calling them an even bigger monopoly than they are now?

It is a catch 22. LoL

Microsoft does make their own PCs. It's called the X-Box. It comes with Win2k. I have no problem with Microsoft selling their own PCs, as long as they don't force other PC manufacturers to sell their PCs with a Microsoft operating system.

[Pantso]

quote:Originally posted by void main:


Microsoft does make their own PCs. It's called the X-Box. It comes with Win2k. I have no problem with Microsoft selling their own PCs, as long as they don't force other PC manufacturers to sell their PCs with a Microsoft operating system.

I totally agree to that! well said void.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by void main:


Microsoft does make their own PCs. It's called the X-Box. It comes with Win2k. I have no problem with Microsoft selling their own PCs, as long as they don't force other PC manufacturers to sell their PCs with a Microsoft operating system.

The Xbox is technically a PC but it is labeled and marketed as a console. To use it as a PC(a multi-function machine that can surf the net, play games, do work, etc.) you have to install a mod chip into it. So technically MS doesn't make thier own PC's(due to how the XBox is marketed).

[voidmain]

Ok, so they should get their own PC, then they have every right to sell only Windows on it and not bully everybody else around.

[xyle_one]

quote: originally posted by Zombie:
Ahh, here we go.

This is updated since the first time I posted it and it throws Linux in there also. Unfortunatley OSX 10.2 isn't in the comparison, but I'm sure that it still has alot of shortcomings. MAcOSX doesn't even support DVD-RW and Floppy drives out of the box. What a joke. Windows has had support for DVD-R AND DVD-RW for a long time..so why does Apple only want to support DVD-R? From the way it appears, Linux is technically superior to MacOS also.

Once again, I'm not afraid to show that MacOS is not all that and a box of chocolates.

http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002/OS_Shootout-2002.htm

(EDIT)Ahh, I see that there is some OSX 10.2 comparison in there..whats this? FTP uploads are broken in Jaguar, there are 802.11b issues in Jaguar, etc. How interesting.

i liked the conclusion in this article.  

quote: Conclusion
The features-oriented chart above does not take into account the ease of use of a particular solution. As Bruce Tognazzini notes in his discussion of Fitts's Law, it is important to look at the user's productivity, not the computer's. Generally, Mac OS X and Windows XP are far easier to configure than Linux-based systems. And, despite its limitations in a few areas, Mac OS X is arguably the most elegantly implemented and fundamentally usable operating system currently available, despite occasional user interface gaffes. See our Mac System Software Section for a closer look at Mac OS X 10.2.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: xyle_one ]

[xyle_one]

there is no amount of bickering and arguing, or even cold hard facts that would make me switch. I switched from windows because i didnt like it. Im using mac osx right now, and i dont see myself switching back to windows anytime soon (at least, not as an everyday machine). Im playing with redhat 8 a little bit, but i dont see myself dropping osx for it. i really dont understand these arguments, unless of course its a childish "im better then you" sorta thing. "my x86 will mop the floor with your whatever", "my mac will kick the shit out of your p2.5", "i'll kick you in the nuts". I dont care what you use, even if your system can kick my computers ass, i might be producing higher caliber work on mine. So what does it prove. I think we get blinded by the "best hardware" and "fastest blah blah", that we forget what it is we are doing with the computer. I use mine as an extension of my artwork. it is another medium to add to my arsenal. I could care less if one system scored .25secs faster than another, or what some bullshit benchmarks prove. I am still producing work i like.
anyways, ill stop now before get too off subject.
ecsyle_one

[cocoamix]

I guess Zombie is never going to answer my question about taking sequential screencaps in Windoze.
How convenient that the subject was changed.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:


Oh, so if MS started making thier own PC's to sell there wouldn't be a problem with MS Windows being pre-installed? But If MS started making PC's would'nt you guys start calling them an even bigger monopoly than they are now?

It is a catch 22. LoL

you reckon, lol?

if M$ started making their own PCs, i suspect that not many people would actually buy them. The reasons would be threefold. Firstly, microsoft probably underedtimates people's identification with the hardware as opposed to the software, secondly the Microsoft PCs would be full of crippled stuff, trying to make sure nobody can actually do anything on their computer, and thirdly they would be crap.

They would sell about as well as a BeBox, or maybe... an XBox.

respect to you zombie, my fine fellow, for not figuring this out yourself!  

[mridul]

I thank everybody for joining this discussion. i joined this forum only a week back and it was the first message i posted. i got an assignment in which we had to specify the choice of computer hardware, os, network, software applications available, etc for a multimedia developement center mainly concerened with video editing.
       
we had to compare and contrast between "microsoft+intel" and "macos on apple systems"  :eek:   . i have never used a mac and none of my friends have any apple pc. iwas tired of google search so i thought to find out solution on yahoo chat.a gentleman(god bless him) gave me this url.
                 within 2 - 3 days i've loads of information. my assignment is almost complete. i thank everybody again.      

xyle_one asked my choice and it is a Macintosh both in the assignments and my next PC i buy.

a question i forgot to ask    . is mac good enough to to be used in a lab of ten networked computer   :confused:  . and who has got better application support from industry Mac or Windows for multimedia development.

(Actually at first i thought i won't get any reply but i was wrong and now i feel this is the best way to find any information on the internet)

---------------Arya------------------

[pepto]

when you face off the two operating systems themselves it's quite a simple choice because of bad interface elements that microsoft uses..  the first example that comes to mind would be in adobe photoshop 5 under mac os 9. it's actually faster to switch between programs and import files between programs because the os prefers to use multiple windows per application program, and not just one window with other shit contained therin.  the best thing i've seen microsoft come up with would be highlighting text and inserting it by dragging that and releasing where desired.  i believe i saw that in 1992's grand release of microsoft word 5?  could be wrong.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: pepto ]

addressing the original topic of the post, for multimedia development, a mac is actually essential.  you don't need many, just a few, but you need them.  for website production, video, or for 2d editing, perhaps in a portable, but i still think you need 'em.  it's possible to work without having to use them, but to me, that's like refusing to use public transportation in hopes that you'll eventually find a faster shortcut.  i can say that i just want to get my shit done and get on with my life. dankes for reading

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: pepto ]