Opinion: Apple -- Here to Stay

MacCentral ^ | March 08, 2005 | Don Tennant

[r5boston]

Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."

That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.

[Bush2000]

Given that it's a smaller company, it makes sense it would be less.

Not just less. Several orders of magnitude less.

So, when was the last time Microsoft quadrupled its quarterly earnings over the previous year?

Irrelevant. That kind of growth is not sustainable. iPod has already saturated the MP3 player market and faces significant competition from lots of other players offering similar capability for less money.

[pageonetoo]

Anyone at mac have a clue why Macs (with their superior software) never topped PC's? No, they probably still dont

Pardon your ignorance and bigotry.

Two guys built a desktop computer in a garage. IBM needed to compete with two guys in a garage.

IBM found Paul Allen and Bill Gates ready to take their money for a disk operating system, which neither wrote. IBM had a very open door with the government.

Surprisingly, the Gum't decided to do business with IBM, for desktop computers, rather than two guys in a garage. IBM offered WordPerpect and uniformity. Of course, if you wanted to do bizness with the gum't, you gotta pay IBM... and Bill Gates.

Bill Gates wanted a graphic interface. Bill Gates couldn't make his Windows emulation, of the Mac interface, work, so he copied Apple's copy of Xerox's graphic interface. He was sued successfully by Apple, for copyright infringement and subsequently bought 20% of Apple.

I have a stable operating system, on a G5 desktop, a G4 desktop, a g4 PowerBook, and a G3 PowerBook (circa 1999). I use a wireless system, and a wireless Airport Extreme system for nework and interent use.

Apple Computers costs more, so friggin' what. It sure gives you a lot more than the Gates-worshipping community seems to get. At least it works right out of the box, and you only need know how to plug it in...

I had a home network, using the Appletalk system, back in the 80's, when most PC folk were still worshipping IBM, and looking a a gren or amber screen with C > staring at them waitng for the magic words. I used my mouse...

I had a Mac computer that hooked to ethernet naturally, and modems intuitively, for the last twenty+ years. My kids have grown up with them, in school, and at home. The DOS guys always brag about their power and speed, like a bunch of 17 yr old football players, and talk about their build-it-yourself stuff. We Mac guys just keep on using our old and introduce new computers with our old and new systems intermingled. It works for me, and most others in the Mac community.

We don't worship Mac or Apple (though I do appreciate the recent stock split, and the rise in stock prices over the last year+. I made a good chunk of retirement money), we just use them everyday, like the rest of our appliances!

iPod anyone?

[Melas]

The Ipod has no real competitor yet. So far all the offerings from other manufacturers are inferior products.

[HAL9000]

Yeah, and I suppose Jobs's selling products in China meets your sniff test because it's "Apple"... Let me guess: No comment, right?

Microsoft and Apple both sell in China, but the only one I see effusively praising Communism is Bill Gates.

[television is just wrong]

We have a G-5, two G-4 powerbooks, and just bought a mac mini the other night.


We have a linux, sgi, and windows'95 also. The windows sucks and is always having problems with spyware and viruses.

[agooga]

"Your rhetoric doesn't meet reality."

"You Mac fanboys are living in some kind of reality distortion field, circa 1995."

Why the hot words? I was merely stating my reasons for owning several Macs-- not attacking your choice not to own one, or you personally.

Grow up.

[Betis70]

>>First person shooters, real time strategy and role playing. None of which consoles do well.

Probably not. The last fps I bought was Quake Arena, which I can still play on my Linux machine if I get the urge. I did like playing RTS games against my co-workers on the LAN after work. I can still hear the little horn from Age of Empires II (followed by cursing and "Who is attacking ME?!?").

[antiRepublicrat]

Linux, which is complete time-quicksand to administer.

For you, maybe. You see, you have to know how to administer the system in order to be able to do it effectively. We were effortlessly administering computer labs with Linux servers back in '98, when Linux wasn't even mature yet.

As for OS X, Windows TCO is much lower, considering basic costs and lack of applications.

How can you even think that with a straight face? If there's a lack of applications for a purpose, then there isn't even a TCO argument since only one system will do the job. But as far as adminsitering Mac desktops and servers, you will save a whole lot of money.

Basic costs? Whenever Linux people bring up Microsoft's cost, we're always told "purchase price is a small part of TCO." But okay, let's buy a fat dual processor 1U server to serve 50 clients. A Dell 1U with Windows Server 2003 25 user license will cost you over $1,000 more than an equivalent Mac XServe, but you still need to buy 25 more Windows client licenses. Then add to that the fact that OS X Server comes with some great administration tools that even an idiot can use and your Mac TCO goes way down.

[1L]

Too bad it was a complete lie. I used Macs extensively from '87 through the '90s. My wife had one she bought in '95 or so, so we had direct comparisons between our PCs and her Macs. 95 wasn't the greatest OS ever written, but it did real work much better than any Mac OS I ever used prior to OSX. Try multi-tasking. Heck, just try running multiple programs on a mid-90s era Performa and see what happens. It took no effort at all for me to crash my wife's machine, which became a problem when one of mine was down and I needed online.

The Mac may or may not be a great platform, but mac lunatics have seriously hurt their own cause by making idiotic statements like the one I referenced.

[savedbygrace]

You're making apples and oranges pricing comparisons. Configure both boxes similarly, with similar software capabilities, and the prices are pretty much even. The Mac will even have the advantage slightly.

Your statement about programming on the two platforms is just wrong. You appear to not know what you're talking about. That might not be the case, but you certainly give that impression.

[antiRepublicrat]

Try multi-tasking. Heck, just try running multiple programs on a mid-90s era Performa and see what happens.

The Win 95 = Mac 88 is about the user interface. I've already well-trashed pre-OS X cooperative multitasking and lack of memory protection, which was the reason for the stability problems.

[cyborg]

Once you go MAC you never go back. I won't trade in my ibook for the best windows run laptop.

[cmsgop]

I've used Macs for 15 years and owned four. I just like a premium product.

Exactly, It's a Chevy/ Mercedes argument.....

[1L]

But even that wasn't true. As someone who liked the taskbar, 95 and descendants was light years ahead of Mac. The Mac interface was no better than Windows 3.0, though I will admit the functionality was better. Apple did a better job tying the interface to the OS than Microsoft did (which really didn't happen until 95). So if you want to say Mac 88 = Windows 90 (3.0), even as far as the interface, be my guest. Anything later than that isn't accurate.

[Semper911]

Grow up.

Don't bother, he's rude to everyone who says anything good about Macs. He works for Microsoft, as I recall. He trolls every Mac thread with name-calling and bitterness. I guess he gets off on it.

It's one thing to prefer one OS over another, but it quite another to blast every Mac-friendly freeper who dares to post.

It is surprising he doesn't get warned or banned.

[Fishrrman]

Melas writes:
You just described me as well. I'd gladly switch if I weren't a gamer

Why not relegate the PC to a dedicated gaming platform, and pick up a Mac to do the rest?

- John

[sittnick]

There are a lot of accounting and CRM packages available for OS X. And that's just OS X. Need server side accounting software? There are high-end BSD UNIX packages available (OS X is BSD at its core). And then there are the WebObjects/Java applications, which will also run on OS X.

While I am sure there are "very high end BSD Unix packages available," (MAS 200 isn't very high end, and we couldn't afford it if it were. Like most accounting software, it is adequate.) there really isn't much worth using for the not-so-very huge corporation. You know, that fat area between Quickbooks and those very high-end applications. In our case, it would have to be MAS 200 because of the headache in redoing so much just to change products. But I notice you didn't even mention by name a single one of the many packages available for the MacOS. At a minimum, the product should be cross-platform.

I am by no means an anti-Mac bigot, either. I spec Filemaker Pro for our miscellaneous databases because I WANT the prepress people and the others to be able to share with each other! I also spec WordPerfect Office for cost control and stability of file formats. (I also resent Microsoft wanting to mke me "phone home" everytime I swap out parts in the computer.)

[MikefromOhio]

I was....as a Windows Admin...

not anymore. I have been back for just short of 2 months now.

[MikefromOhio]

I was.....I have been back for about 2 months now.

They do. A lot of newspaper companies use Macs because you can pretty do anything you want especially with Ads and stuff like that...

Schools use them for worksheets and stuff too...