· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums
Welcome to our website
To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.
Apple vs. Microsoft Myths Revisited
Posted by: Jim_ on: 08/10/2004 02:05 PM [ Print | 20 comment(s) ]
Slashdot has linked to an interesting article this morning discussing "what might have been" for Apple had they licensed their operating system all those years ago.
Apple had a 5-10 year lead in terms of UI design; if only they
« XP SP2 is final. Really. · Apple vs. Microsoft Myths Revisited
· Mac OS X 10.3.5 released; Apple releases new security update »
Comment
|
i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19 |
#31103 Posted on: 08/10/2004 07:59 PM
this is a great find jim. Very interesting look at the companys. As the author himself pointed out 'hindsight' is a wonderful thing. Ultimately its funny the way Apple has turned around in the past few years, done a double backflip and openly embraced standards based technologies.... (dumped appletalk -> Rendezvous, closed OS 8.9 -> OS X (darwin), etc... ). I wonder if this will long term do much for their market share. I would doubt it. However they have a niche, but it is a solid niche with growth and in recent times they have cleared all debt and made record profits. Definately interesting times. One problem I can possibly see with MS, is potential OS market saturation in the near future. By virtue that so many people have, own and are happy with Win XP, I would love to know how they are gonna push longhorn when it is released. Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse! |
Comment
|
imposter nope, it's not me Posts: 379 Joined: 2001-12-10 |
#31104 Posted on: 08/10/2004 08:59 PM
They'll push longhorn by making it impossible to run Office 200x on anything older. I can hear it now "only [Longhorn] can provide the power needed for all the advanced functions you'll find in new MS Office [2007]." Just a guess, but I'd be willing to bet on it.  |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31105 Posted on: 08/10/2004 09:06 PM
Also IE will be tied to the version of windows. IE 7.0 (longhorn) will not run on any other version of windows... So if you want a better browser you'll have to upgrade, or switch... |
Comment
|
i_wolf labhair dom as gaelige Posts: 2097 Joined: 2002-11-19 |
#31106 Posted on: 08/10/2004 09:35 PM
thank god for Opera  Hung like a donkey. Go like a horse! |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#31107 Posted on: 08/10/2004 10:48 PM
That article is a very nice read. The author makes a good and well thought out argument. On the topic of Longhorn, the method of forcing everyone to upgrade to Longhorn that concerns me the most is Microsoft building in some sort of digital rights management set up that is required for stuff other than just downloaded WMA and WMV files (since I use iTunes I am not too concerned about those  ). There was some talk about enhanced DRM/security a while back in Longhorn (Palladin?) and I never heard anything after the chatter died down.
I was talking to my mom about the contract with Microsoft that the US Census Bureau (where she works) has for support and so forth on XP, and if I remember correctly it runs through 2007 (I think that is when Microsoft was willing to support XP up through). I would have to double check that, since it was a while ago, so do not quote me on it. But I guess that would make Imposter right on the money with his prediction regarding Office 2007.->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31108 Posted on: 08/10/2004 10:52 PM
I would expect microsoft to support XP beyond 2007, after all Longhorn, (What ever it will be called when its shipped) isnt supposed to be until late 2005/early 2006... So I would expect 3 or 4 years of xp support after the replacement launches...Like they have with windows 98, everytime they announce end of support, they re-announce that they didnt really mean it - this time. |
Comment
|
todder Unregistered User Posts: 2063 Joined: 2002-01-30 |
#31109 Posted on: 08/11/2004 01:02 AM
Awsome read! [COLOR="Blue"]". . . I think a general Government [is] necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this [The Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. " -Benjamin Franklin [/COLOR] |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31110 Posted on: 08/11/2004 02:55 AM
Gotta remember that in the pre-Microsoft days, there where 4 or 5 OS's that had a fair market share, you remember? Atari, Commodore, Timex, ect... Without a common set of standards to allow for some application software portability there wouldnt be a software industry at all... So 2 things could happen, either 1) One company becomes a dominant player in the OS market, and provides a common interface for application builders. (Microsoft) or 2) A industry committee agrees to a set of standards and collectively develop a single OS. (Iam thinking Linux) So which ever model you choose, either is better than what was. |
Comment
|
AssKoala Anti-Zealot @ GATech Posts: 3309 Joined: 2002-01-02 |
#31111 Posted on: 08/11/2004 03:04 AM
#1 is, after all, the goal of .NET. #2 is funny considering that the industry committees did meet and did develop a set of standards. Ever heard of POSIX? Guess what OS fails to comply (hint hint - starts with L ends with nix). That's one example, but its a big one. On an on-topic note, the article is excellent. I absolutely loved reading it because it took things from a purely business and factual standpoint (well, for the most part). There wasn't any fanboy-ism bashing/hugging MS or Apple. Me Webpage | If you always think like an expert, you'll always be a beginner. | "A handful of knowledgeable people is more effective than an army of fools" -Writing Secure Code, 2nd Ed. |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31112 Posted on: 08/11/2004 03:22 AM
Yes, it was a very good article. But I was trying to point out, that microsoft is a nessessary evil. Without which the software industry wouldnt have developed. |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#31113 Posted on: 08/11/2004 06:26 AM
Linux is not POSIX compatible? Hm...I have never had any reason to bother with POSIX (read: I know relatively little about it ), but I am a bit surprised to hear that.->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |
Comment
|
daniel178 Registered User Posts: 359 Joined: 2001-01-10 |
#31114 Posted on: 08/11/2004 10:11 AM
i dunno... it is a good read, and does have some interesting info, but a lot of it seems like cleverly cloaked Apple-gloating. definately not anti-this or anti-that, but definately has a pro-Apple tone to it. just my take |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31115 Posted on: 08/11/2004 09:04 PM
To a certian extent, but he's right, back in 1986-1992ish MacIntosh computer's GUI was far far better than anything on the PC. PC's took gaint leaps forward to catch up with Apple, with both OS/2 2.1, 3.0(warp) and then windows 95. However even at these latter stages its reasonable to consider the MacIntosh platform superior to the PC. |
Comment
|
imposter nope, it's not me Posts: 379 Joined: 2001-12-10 |
#31116 Posted on: 08/12/2004 12:01 AM
A pro-Apple tone is pretty much required to write an article on that topic. I mean, can anyone possibly argue that DOS was a more elegant UI than the MacOS of the time? Don't get me wrong, I was very much against not having a command line to work with, and all the voodoo magic most mac people seemed to have to resort to to get their computer working again whenever it would break down, but from a purely UI standpoint the mac wins hands down...until 95 anyway, at which point the argument becomes more difficult. I would have liked to see the article discuss a little of the instability in MacOS. From my experience it was nowhere near a multitasking OS even well after 95 was released...much like win3.1 you were far better off sticking to one open app at a time. With a couple open apps you were just begging for a bomb. |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31117 Posted on: 08/12/2004 12:21 AM
I think Apple's problem here, is that every few years they change CPU instruction sets, so they have to recompile the kernel and the OS utilities to the new CPU, and thus breed new bugs with each new system... where windows and the x86 architechure was more of an evelutionary process where bugs where eliminated with each generation. |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#31118 Posted on: 08/12/2004 07:58 PM
Er...they have been using PowerPC for a pretty long time now, unless you are talking about early 90's and 80's, in which case I thought they used pretty much the same Motorola family of CPU's, but I could be wrong. ->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |
Comment
|
KimVette Corvette Fanatic Posts: 945 Joined: 2002-07-30 |
#31119 Posted on: 08/12/2004 10:41 PM
. . . except that C= and Atari didn't really have an Operating System to speak of - they had basic file loading services via some CLI utlities, and that's about it. For the purpose of the above statement I am referring to the popular 8-bit systems and not the lesser-known Amiga and ST lines. Ditto for Timex - what OS did that have other than a file loader? My configuration: Many hopelessly outdated SMP boxen. Any system which is shipping is already obsolete!
u r lame if u insist on trying 2 b l337 by abbrev evythng u type when asking ppl 4 hlp. kiddie speak is teh sux. ppl. plz stop teh kiddie speak. thx.
hint: aol kiddie speak is not cool, it just makes people not want to read your post. |
Comment
|
Occupant Registered User Posts: 2421 Joined: 2002-03-04 |
#31120 Posted on: 08/12/2004 11:06 PM
The Bootloaders or Pre-OS OSes of all these machines operated differently, and the Basic interperters that came with them, also worked differently, in this era it was nearly impossible to make a cross platform application, with out re-writing it for each system. Thus making it very expensive to develop a 'name brand' application that could work on a majority of computers. |
Comment
|
Mr. Hahn Unregistered |
#31121 Posted on: 08/13/2004 12:13 PM
Dude, ever heard of Linux threads? Instead of using the standard POSIX thread library like Windows or Unix oses do they wrote their own version. I don't see how that is keeping w/ standards or compatibility. That is just one example I have noticed. |
Comment
|
LRSeriesIII Aspiring Rocket Scientist Posts: 1128 Joined: 2002-08-29 |
#31122 Posted on: 08/14/2004 09:44 PM
I think you misunderstood me. I was not in any way questioning the statement that Linux is not POSIX compatible, I was just surprised to hear it. Like I said, I am not terribly familiar with POSIX, I have only a basic level understanding of it. Hope that clears things up (and no, I have not heard of Linux threads...I am not a programmer/comp scientist, so you will have to go easy on me I know what threads are, and I think I understand what you are saying, but...yeah, you get the point).->Computers ->Folding for team 3074 |