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.
Windows, because its a huge ecosystem that's bigger than Microsoft. Apple, on the other hand, is toast the minute Steve Jobs kicks the bucket because he's a micromanaging dictator that won't let anything happen without his personal approval and direction.
Lost in the market panic last week were some critical details on Microsoft's conference call. These offered tangible evidence that the Windows monopoly that has carried the company since its inception is beginning to erode.
Lost in the market panic last week were some critical details on Microsoft's conference call. These offered tangible evidence that the Windows monopoly that has carried the company since its inception is beginning to erode.
Interesting article, except that I disagree with their assumption that Linux is a bad thing. There are currently around 300 different distributions of Linux and Linux is becoming more popular everyday (probably because the popular versions of Linux are free, as well as most programs - why pay a couple of hundred dollars for MS Office or Photoshop when you can get Gimp and Open Office for free? And Open Office is compatible with both the Windows and Mac version of MS Office).
I think you're referring to the following paragraph. In it, I don't think the author meant to slight Linux. I think what he meant was "at best" or "at worst" for Microsoft.
Quote:
What is a "net book"? A cheap, low-end laptop that doesn't need a full-featured Windows operating system. At best, these net books carry a cheap version of Windows. At worst, they run Linux. (In the future, we expect they will run a version of Google Gears, which will come preloaded for free).
Mac is better; always has been; probably always will be. Doesn't matter.
Of course it's much easier to make a "better" OS when you can control all the variables. Windows has to support an endless number of 3rd party hardware configurations, and does it pretty well. Mac only has to support the closed world of Mac. People accuse MSFT of being "proprietary" and "closed" but Apple is by far and wide many times more closed and proprietary than MSFT.
Maybe if the cost of a Mac was in line with that of a PC and they didn't force Apple's style down your throat, they would be more popular and that popularity would translate into a higher market share.
Ever wonder why, despite huge efforts and legal challenges, Apple and their Mac only has a small and even declining market share?
Of course it's much easier to make a "better" OS when you can control all the variables. Windows has to support an endless number of 3rd party hardware configurations, and does it pretty well. Mac only has to support the closed world of Mac. People accuse MSFT of being "proprietary" and "closed" but Apple is by far and wide many times more closed and proprietary than MSFT.
Maybe if the cost of a Mac was in line with that of a PC and they didn't force Apple's style down your throat, they would be more popular and that popularity would translate into a higher market share.
Ever wonder why, despite huge efforts and legal challenges, Apple and their Mac only has a small and even declining market share?
Sorry dude, but you got it wrong; Microsoft makes the OS, it is up to those third party software and hardware companies to make their products compatable, not the other way around.
Apple is not shoving their style down anyone's throat, what kind of moronic statement is that? Granted their options are limited, but hey, if you don't like them then don't buy one.
Apple is only one company out of many, which is why they have a small share. But hey slick, so does Toshiba, and Dell, and Sony, and Acer, and .........take your pick. And not everyone who uses these computers uses Windows anyways, there are other OS's out there you know.
Of course it's much easier to make a "better" OS when you can control all the variables. Windows has to support an endless number of 3rd party hardware configurations, and does it pretty well. Mac only has to support the closed world of Mac. People accuse MSFT of being "proprietary" and "closed" but Apple is by far and wide many times more closed and proprietary than MSFT.
Maybe if the cost of a Mac was in line with that of a PC and they didn't force Apple's style down your throat, they would be more popular and that popularity would translate into a higher market share.
Ever wonder why, despite huge efforts and legal challenges, Apple and their Mac only has a small and even declining market share?
Think I'll have to agree with K-Luv on this one. And, not only do you have Microsoft miss figured, you've got the rest wrong too. Apple's OSX is based on Unix and actually runs Unix programs, hundreds of thousands of Unix programs. Calling that "proprietary" is just erroneous.
When Macs are compared to Windows based PCs of the same performance and with similar software, the Mac turns out to be cheaper. It just comes with a full load of everything, so there's no bait and switch.
Style? That's a personal preference issue. If you like ugly, you wont like a Mac. I doubt that the lack of ugly is eating into their market share.
If you think Mac market share is declining, then you obviously haven't checked within the last few years. Apple's market share is growing very fast. See if you can Google up any recent articles to disprove that.
Sorry dude, but you got it wrong; Microsoft makes the OS, it is up to those third party software and hardware companies to make their products compatable, not the other way around.
Microsoft writes many of the drivers that ship in the box, but of course many hardware manufacturers make drivers for their own products, based on the SDKs written by Microsoft. Again, trying to keep an OS stable with such a variable list of thousands of combinations of CPU, chipset, graphics, IO, and other peripherals is a much harder job than what Apple does. To argue otherwise is just ignoring fact.
Apple is not shoving their style down anyone's throat, what kind of moronic statement is that? Granted their options are limited, but hey, if you don't like them then don't buy one.
You know, you can disagree without being an A-hole. My point is that, in line with my comments about the variables in the configuration, you can only purchase a Mac from Apple, with very little choice in the cases and styles. They want to control every aspect of the production and design.
To me, Macs try to appeal to the pseudo-artiste crowd, and those people who think that by jumping on a bandwagon they can prove how much they hate to be like everyone else.
And BTW....I would NEVER buy a Mac, so thanks for the tip.
I think you got that backwards. Mac is way too trendy and to me, quite unappealing. They try way to hard to win over the trendy teen and college crowd.
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.
