For those who continue to bash Microsoft - A Question

We have all seen the threads about MAC vs PC, the commercials, the debates, blah, blah, blah. While reading a couple of different threads this morning I had what some call an epiphany. First off let me show you the posts that led me to write this thread (I do not have any problems with the people whom wrote these posts, nor with what they wrote, they just contributed to my thoughts):

dpastern wrote in post #3188605
Mike - I'm sure it's a windows thing. On Linux, I can view files from my D60 and 1D without any issues. NO proprietary Canon drivers, no proprietary Canon software. It works, works well, without issues. Why should life be so difficult for those using Microsoft Windows?

I also agree with your comments about registry files etc, and again, I'll hark that that's due to VERY bad design by Microsoft. The Windows registry was one of the worst things they ever did imho. DLL files are another one. If you've ever used a UNIX or UNIX like system, you'll realise that text config files are a blessing, and the file structure is also a blessing (bin, sbin, usr/sbin, /lib etc). Again, Microsoft bollocksed up what UNIX has been doing right for so long...

I'm not a fan of Microsoft Windows, it's a poorly designed system, with poor performance, reliability and security. I've used everything from BEOS (limited experience) to BSD, OS X, OS 9, GNU/Linux and Windows compares poorly to all of them in some many categories. And it's this poor performance that leads to such problems as above imho, causing unneccessary angst from users.

Dave

tim wrote in post #3186660
... I was reading about the apple design philosophy yesterday, one important point was that choose what features to leave out is what keeps it simple and helps keep their products in demand.

This last one caused this next comment:

sando wrote in post #3188030
...and has trouble doing anything unless you pay £14,000 for the accesories. And wont connect to anything that isnt pearl white...



I feel a thread about PC Vs. Mac coming on...

So Sando was somewhat right, another MAC vs PC thread.

I read somewhere the other day that PCs are used by about 90-95 % of the world's population, which means that all of the "other" OSs are used by 5-10% of the world's population. The "other" OS followers consistently bash Microsoft for their design philosophy, the PC world's need for Anti-Virus, and the lack of easy plug-and-play capabilities, among other things. So here comes my thought about MAC vs PC, as well as Canon vs everyone else, or any other "market dominating vendor" vs. "the next best".

Let us change the scenario for a second. Rather than this be about computers let us make it about cars. Microsoft designs and builds "cars" for 90-95% of the world, while all the "other" car manufacturers design and build 5-10%. Microsoft has to design and build these cars that are good at everything but not great at anything, right? They have to be family oriented, economical, sporty, rugged, robust, classy, cheap, hip and cool all at the same time. So how in the hell do you do that? Can anyone think of a way? Microsoft has. For the last however many years they have designed and built "cars" that catered to EVERYONE except that 5-10%. This means that there are compromises to be made in some portions of the "car". All the "other" car manufacturers can build your Ferrari's, Lambos, and such because they don't have to compromise. They can build "cars" specifically designed and built for speed, luxury, and prestige. But what happens if the "other" car manufacturers have to start catering to other parts of the market, like family cars, economy cars, and off-road vehicles? Now they have to "switch gears" (pun intended) and start focusing their efforts on the rest of the market. This most likely means that they will have to make compromises to their flagship models.

So what happens if Apple starts to take over some of Microsoft's large share? Does anyone else think that the "problems" that plague Microsoft will also plague Apple? I certainly do. For instance we all know that anyone today can go out and buy a PC for < $500 (with screen). Is there a MAC available at this price point? If they decide to go for this market where do they skimp. Certainly they can not sell a $1200 machine for < $500, so compromises will be made. Where will they make them, OS, build quality, features? Also, are there not patches and fixes available for MAC OS right now? So they don't get everything right either?

Do you MAC guys want to keep trying to convert us PC users now? Let me end this by saying that I have no problems with any Apple users. I know you chose your system for reasons of your own. Which is why I chose to stick with Microsoft, for reasons of my own. I am just curious if you guys think that Apple will have the same "problems" as Microsoft should they become as big.

Of course they will...and there's a lot of people that continue to bash that don't understand this.

If OS X could run on any machine and had 95% of the market share, do you not think that some one would have developed viruses or other malware and hacks to allow them access to the information they wanted? Do you think Apple would still be a relatively small company compared to the giant in the market and still focusing on keeping their products "hip and cool"?

The thing is, Apple sells things. Microsoft sells software. Windows became the dominant player because it had the right combination of an easy to use GUI and supported many device drivers...and it came preinstalled on many systems.

I want software that will run with my hardware. In terms of proprietary BS crap it goes: Linux < Microsoft < Apple. Microsoft happens to have a nice balance of convience vs. proprietary BS (imho). That's why I use windows. Apple is getting better, and I believe they really want to be more open, but tradition is a tough thing to break...but I don't think as a company that they are really motivated to shed the niche market that they own. They are too good at selling things.

removed

bacchanal wrote in post #3189186
The thing is, Apple sells things. Microsoft sells software.

Xbox, zune, mouse, keyboard, gps, etc.

They do the same as Apple does. Find a manufacturer and put their name on it. Apple just focuses on it. Microsoft does it where it will make money.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #3188808
Of course they will...and there's a lot of people that continue to bash that don't understand this.

We understand quite well. It's this understanding that led many of us to choose Macs in the first place.

Ah, the old "Security via Obscurity" myth. Let's see, there are some 10,000-plus viruses and other malware for Windows. Apple has about 6% of the global market share. That means there should be about 600 viruses for Macs. Yet how many are there? Zero. Zip. Nada. OS X is inherently more secure than Windows.

Microsoft's revenues last year were $44 billion. Apple's was $19 billion. Why isn't Microsoft's 95% larger than Apple?

Tony-S wrote in post #3189510
Microsoft's revenues last year were $44 billion. Apple's was $19 billion. Why isn't Microsoft's 95% larger than Apple?

iTunes and the iPod maybe. Plus the fact that MAC sells hardware, including a $7,000 computer.

In2Photos wrote in post #3188768
Do you MAC guys want to keep trying to convert us PC users now?

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because that'd mean there'd be more games for Macs.

No, because then we wouldn't have those cool "Mac and PC" commercials.

cosworth wrote in post #3189487
Xbox, zune, mouse, keyboard, gps, etc.

They do the same as Apple does. Find a manufacturer and put their name on it. Apple just focuses on it. Microsoft does it where it will make money.

Microsoft isn't making their billions and billions on hardware. The mouse, keyboard stuff is just marketing...a drop in the bucket. The Xbox, Zune etc. are about brand recognition and market control. While the Xbox has been very successful, the video game industry is not about hardware...just look at the PS3.

Apple's business plan doesn't exist without hardware. Microsoft would still be Microsoft.

Tony-S wrote in post #3189510
Zero. Zip. Nada.

Myth. There are security issues with OSX. Minor ones.

I don't think you're getting the gist of this thread.

Tony-S wrote in post #3189510
OS X is inherently more secure than Windows.

If this is true, it is only because of market share. OSX has vulnerabilities (serious ones), as does linux, they are just less well known. It also seems to be Apple's practice to not inform users of vulnerabilities until a patch is available...which could be weeks, months, or never. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes known vulnerabilities public and has a routine patch release cycle. Microsoft has to take this open stance on security issues, because with their massive user base the potential for exploitation of those vulnerabilities is much greater. Apple is free to kind of sweep things under the rug.

cosworth wrote in post #3189531
Myth. There are security issues with OSX. Minor ones.

I don't think you're getting the gist of this thread.

It wouldn't be the first time...

Tony-S wrote in post #3189510
Ah, the old "Security via Obscurity" myth. Let's see, there are some 10,000-plus viruses and other malware for Windows. Apple has about 6% of the global market share. That means there should be about 600 viruses for Macs. Yet how many are there? Zero. Zip. Nada. OS X is inherently more secure than Windows.

Name me 10 companies that run an Apple OS on their servers thats primary function is to store credit card numbers and process credit card transactions.

Tony-S wrote in post #3189510
Ah, the old "Security via Obscurity" myth. Let's see, there are some 10,000-plus viruses and other malware for Windows. Apple has about 6% of the global market share. That means there should be about 600 viruses for Macs. Yet how many are there? Zero. Zip. Nada. OS X is inherently more secure than Windows.

The reason is not security, the reason is that people that produce viruses do it do disrupt business, to cause headaches for users, to feel that they paralized millions of users and business, to get a feather in their caps as to look at what that guy did.

Now where are you going to get that to show, against 95% of the population or against 5% of the population? It then becomes aparent as to why they concentrate on windows rather than Mac. If it was worthwhile, they would have already targeted Mac trust me, it is as basic as Supply and demand ever was.



Microsoft's revenues last year were $44 billion. Apple's was $19 billion. Why isn't Microsoft's 95% larger than Apple?

Simple math tells you that if you are selling at half the price, even though you sell three times as much you will not get 95% profit over the next guy. Again a simple lesson in economics.

I am not necessarily a Mac basher or a Windows proponent, I am just pointing things out so you can compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges and thus come up with the wrong conclusion. Just my Humble Opinion.

I use both systems (I have two systems hooked up to the same monitors and bounce between the two with a button). I use the Windows machine because I do website development and like to test my designs on the type of machine most of the world uses. I use the Mac because I do print design and I like using it. Both machines are pretty good (the Windows one was around $1700 new and the Mac was around $3400 new, so you'd assume the Mac would be better--and it is. In addition, it was purchased a year and a half before the Windows machine and still outperforms it (on most tasks). And man the Windows machine has crashed so many times I'd rather not say--and even had to reinstall on it twice. The Mac has crashed--every few months something will crash on it (maybe about 8 times in the last 3 years). Just my experience. Others have had different ones.