Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,086,242 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastninja500
I learned to program Apple Basic on the Apple II and read something about that back then in one of the boards. Like you said, Apple and Microsoft, along with most of the "hobbyist companies" had a co-dependent relationship. In fact, most hobbyists shared their code freely and built on each others code. The same thing still goes on today for a lot of programmers/hacker. Bill Gates made waves then when he wanted to charge for their code, as that kind of went against the hobbyist ethic.
It also went against the professional ethic in many circles ... mainframe groups like SHARE (IBM) and USE (Sperry/UNIVAC) existed so customers could freely exchange information, and that often included software developed at local sites.
Apple II integer BASIC was the first BASIC I learned.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,086,242 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophialee
I am an Apple user and on a Mac now, but no Windows won that war a long time ago. And not because they are better or more user friendly.
I started using Windows in 1988, OS/2 in 1992, Linux in 1993, and the MacOS in 1993, and I was a participant in the "OS wars" for years in the early and mid 90's.
The ability to convince PC companies to preload your software is a powerful advantage. The story in the case of Windows isn't quite so simple (Microsoft built a developer ecosystem, bundled applications which were competitive in features, and did several other things to make it harder for customers to move away from their platform), but preloads are still a large part of the reason for their success.
These days Windows is far better than in the days of Windows NT 3.1 and Windows 95, but alternatives had a tough time even then. For many people it came down to device drivers and a few heavily used applications, and nothing else mattered. If a platform didn't support Word or have drivers for Joe-and-Freddy's SuperVGA wondercard, that platform was doomed even if it was "better" in the eyes of a subset of users.
Even though I still look back fondly at the days of OS/2 and its WorkPlace Shell, for example, I'm actually fairly happy with Windows XP as a desktop after adding a few things like VirtuaWin and WinRoll to the mix. The only two things I despise these days are (1) an unability to get to a task manager in some cases when a program decides to take over the machine, and (2) filesystem fragmentation issues, which seem to be largely unique to Microsoft filesystems. Most people don't care at all about stuff like that.
In the end, it's great that they both exist. It keeps them both competitive and innovative. If one really won the war, then it would only hurt us as consumers.
Lol, I'm showing my youth when I say that I didn't have an opportunity to learn BASIC on the Apple days. The first BASIC that I learned was GWBASIC on the PC platform.... which is quite a bit more advanced than the original variations of Apple BASIC. The first programming language that I learned was LOGO on an Apple something (I was in first grade) in the 80's
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,086,242 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
In the end, it's great that they both exist. It keeps them both competitive and innovative. If one really won the war, then it would only hurt us as consumers.
I agree. Competition often drives real innovation. I think it's also why Windows changed so much between 1992 and 1996 (Windows 3.1 through Windows NT 4) ... Microsoft had a real competitor in IBM for a few years that drove them to release new versions with new features every year or so.
Most of the mac users I've seen (college kids) never utilize the full potential of their macs! Waste of money if all you do is browse the internet, listen to music, and edit photos. You pretty much have to get a warranty for them too.
Most of the mac users I've seen (college kids) never utilize the full potential of their macs! Waste of money if all you do is browse the internet, listen to music, and edit photos. You pretty much have to get a warranty for them too.
That's the most hilarious aspect of them. They'll INSIST that daddy buy them the $1500 macbook pro when for the same money they could have bought two PCs that each do job equally well. Then they'll tell you how amazing the mac is because they can run itunes on it.
Especially once people realize how notoriously unreliable, slow, virus-prone, and complete pieces of worthless junk that Windows PCs are?
I can understand workplaces purchasing Windows machines for employees, since they are cheaper, but why would anyone choose to buy a Windows PC over an Apple macbook for personal use?
Never, for one reason. The majority of computers buyers will not spend more the $1000 for a computer. Many are not even willing to spend more then $500. And using Steve Jobs own words "There are some customers which we choose not to serve. We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. And our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them. And we've seen great success by focusing on certain segments of the market, and not trying to be everything to everybody. So I think you can expect us to stick with that winning strategy and continue to try to add more and more value to those products in those customer bases we choose to serve."
I have no doubt that Apple would have no problem competing against PCs, if they ever decided to enter the sub-$1000 computer market. But that is not going to happen. Apple will continue to concentrate on their niche computer market, and expand into consumer electronics.
Never, for one reason. The majority of computers buyers will not spend more the $1000 for a computer. Many are not even willing to spend more then $500. And using Steve Jobs own words "There are some customers which we choose not to serve. We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk. And our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them. And we've seen great success by focusing on certain segments of the market, and not trying to be everything to everybody. So I think you can expect us to stick with that winning strategy and continue to try to add more and more value to those products in those customer bases we choose to serve."
I have no doubt that Apple would have no problem competing against PCs, if they ever decided to enter the sub-$1000 computer market. But that is not going to happen. Apple will continue to concentrate on their niche computer market, and expand into consumer electronics.
It's so sad that Apple has walked so far away from it's hacker roots. I am glad that Microsoft and non-proprietary versions of *nix keep that area open.
Wow you really bought the apple party line. Windows is as fast and reliable as the hardware under it. Buy a $299 Compaq on sale at Office Depot and you'll get a crappy computer. Buy a decent computer and you'll have a fine experience and still wind up paying half what apple would charge.
Exaggerate much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia
Something that gets the job done and is cheaper will always sell more units than a more expensive competitor regardless of how loudly the fanbois kick and scream that their choice is better somehow. As long as Windows is the dominant platform with the lions share of apps, I will use it since I like more than a handful of choices from one company when it comes to hardware.
Would you like to try and prove your comment that you can buy a decent computer (with comparable specs) for half what apple would charge?
iMac
27-inch Widescreen LED Backlit IPS Display
3.20GHz Intel Core i3
4GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 5670 512MB GDDR3 SDRAM
$1,699.00
Oops, the display alone is worth more then half the price of the Mac setup. Well maybe you can find it on sale. Good luck with that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
