Replies

I still don't get what Apple is doing. What can they offer that Microsoft can't on the Intel platform? The answer? A snazzy GUI on top of BSD subsystem?

I mean, if you go with Windows you get Microsoft along for the ride. You also get an amazing variety of hardware and software. If you go with Apple you get fewer options all the way down the line.

In my opinion, this is about the stupidest decision Apple could have made. What's laughable is that Jobs actually thinks OSX is so wildly superior to anything out there that it's worth betting the farm on.

I still don't get what Apple is doing. What can they offer that Microsoft can't on the Intel platform? The answer? A snazzy GUI on top of BSD subsystem?

That "snazzy GUI" is the guts of the issue. Try it out, you might see why it's so importtant.

I mean, if you go with Windows you get Microsoft along for the ride. You also get an amazing variety of hardware and software. If you go with Apple you get fewer options all the way down the line.

This is somewhat untrue, it's gotten VASTLY better the last couple of years. There are very few peripherals at CompUSA that won't work with a Mac - many times the box fails to mention it'll work witha Mac, or that Mac drivers are available on their website, or, they don't need drivers for Macs. Software? Outside of engineering and CAD, most of the important titles exist, or there are equivalent titles available. Most of the software issues are games, and stuff nobody really buys anyway - like the 40 different versions of family tree software. The *good* ones were ported to Mac.

And then, on top of that, we've got Final Cut Pro, Motion, Shake...

In my opinion, this is about the stupidest decision Apple could have made. What's laughable is that Jobs actually thinks OSX is so wildly superior to anything out there that it's worth betting the farm on.

Have you tried Mac OS X, especially the current build, Tiger? I somehow think you have'nt, if you say that. The "Mac" has evolved from hardware tightly integrated into an OS, into a platform, and it runs rings around Windows in many, many areas. I doubt it'll ever capture more than 25% of the market, but I think they can reach that goal, now that the Intel factor is in place.

All of the current comments about the Intel migration are identical to the PPC migration Apple made years ago. We've been through this before.

"I mean, if you go with Windows you get Microsoft along for the ride. You also get an amazing variety of hardware and software. If you go with Apple you get fewer options all the way down the line."

1) Your first sentence makes no sense at all.

2) Your second sentence could also be written, "You also get an amazing array of hardware and software crashes due to poorly-written drivers running on top of an insecure system.

3) Your third sentence would more accurately be stated as "If you go with Apple you'll not only partake of beautifully designed, fully-featured and rock-solid hardware but a booming third-party market, including all manner of whiz-bang capabilities churning out of a vibrant and vital open-source community, with stability and security assured by the industrial-strength Unix underpinnings of today's MacOS."

In other words, you're uninformed. Changing to a microprocessor family which has accelerated ahead of all others is good for users and for Apple. The PowerPC had its day, but the latest generation of Intel processors is superb. The "Centrino" (Pentium M) architecture out of Israel is just a stunner, and exactly what Apple needs for the next generation of PowerBooks.

I still don't get what Apple is doing. What can they offer that Microsoft can't on the Intel platform? The answer? A snazzy GUI on top of BSD subsystem?

Rush was talking about this a couple of weeks back. His opinion (which makes perfect sense to me) was that it has to do with music and video licensing. The record companies and movie studios need a standardized operating system to be able to prevent internet piracy.

While I prefer PCs, I think bashing on either side is silly.