Windows Vista

[robotskip]

Firstly...im not going to apologize for anything, OK? Secondly, if its your personal opinion, then say IN MY FREAKIN OPINION next time...in that exact form, not in an abstract way which you later say "oh look, but I said all this was my opinion". And thirdly, all this boils down to this:

You prefer to use Windows Vista over OS X, and I prefer to use OS X over Windows There...does that sound like a valid of a conclusion?...or are you going to find a flaw in that as well?

Sure thing.

*BSD > Linux > Windows > Mac OS

 

That's my preference with servers but I would almost -never- bother with Mac OS because it requires me buying Mac(s) which is bad enough for a desktop PC but I could never consider it for a server (For various reasons). I'm sure they're solid servers, just not the right choice for me and probably most others.

 

Thank goodness there is an intelligent discussion for once without the usual people accusing me, track09 and others of being fanboys. Thank you EFI and others.

Done.

 

I never said "oh look, but I said all this was my opinion" - the post which you replied to is quoted just above and clearly shows I was talking about my personal preferences than in the first reply to your attack I emphasize it more by saying "For many people, like myself, Apple hardware isn't a good choice, in fact, it's a ridiculous choice." So, in every post I made it quite clear it was my opinion/personal preference.

 

I could put in big, bold letters saying "WARNING: THIS IS MY OPINION" but I thought keywords like "my preference," "requires me," and "just not the right choice fro me" were quite obvious and in no way abstract or ambiguous.

 

 

For the record, I'm still wildly interested in your claim that many XP viruses work on Vista among the other magnificent claims you made that you failed to clarify.

Its not that I dont want to provide proof, the reason why I'm not, is because there are numerous articels on the internet with about Vista's so-so stability on many hardware, and the fact that many of those viruses that were designed for XP already work flawlessly on Windows Vista. When you ask me to prove such an obvious and widespread fact, it kind of shows your ignorance, and this is why it gives the impression of dare I say it "a Fanboy".

I'd love to read about these obvious, widespread facts which are on numerous sites.

[elviejo]

Something to think about.

http://peterwright.blogspot.com/2006/09/go...s-now-left.html

[pyrates]

Wow, I'm gone for a week and the forums has a flame war? Just goes to show some people can be emotional quite easily.

 

I am though enjoying my newly upgraded PC. Quad core with 4 gigs of ram is quite nice.

[OryHara]

hehe. Nobody has addressed mine.

[lord_muad_dib]

bla bla... always the same "mine is longer than yours" thread...

 

the problem with some of you is that if someone else has an opposite point of view, you "gently"(sarcastic) call him/her stupid.

 

the thing that drives me crazy is that if someone gets angry about your "attitude"...all you do is run to mods and cry

 

i've never seen a normal debate without a flame/troll or whatever yet

 

and that's the only fact i can read on all those threads.

 

i guess that's the common POV of all staff members

 

p.s: "you"/"your/s" are referred to several people, not just one person, don't get offended.

it's all a general speaking

[pyrates]

hehe. Nobody has addressed mine.

 

Your reboot thing that u speak about, if linux never has to be rebooted, why don't we have a linux server with an uptime quoted in the years instead of in the days?

[Colonel Ingus]

Macs are expensive to me when building my own server or desktop.

That's what I used to think

[Soliber]

Seriously, robotskip, do you really have to turn this page into a Japanese candy-site look-a-like? We can all read, there's no reason to put your text in humongous letters and all the colors of the fracking rainbow >_>

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

I'd much rather use OS X over XP (and definately over Vista... which wasn't even in the question)... it just feels much more stable.

 

However, I am an XP guru... and I have a certain grudge against Apple... they're WORSE than Microsoft in terms of Proprietary.

[Colonel Ingus]

they're WORSE than Microsoft in terms of Proprietary.

Many would say that Apple is better than MS for the same reason. Apple can enforce higher standards and quality control than MS because of this.

[Toleman]

In my particular case, i have vista x64 and osx running in my rig, and i'm very happy with both, even without aero, but if we talk about microsoft OS i think XP x64 was better than their counter part vista...and of course...my favourite between vista and osx, is OSX (100%) vs (95% vista).

 

Cheers.

[pyrates]

Many would say that Apple is better than MS for the same reason. Apple can enforce higher standards and quality control than MS because of this.

 

Funny, AT&T said the same thing about not allowing other phones on their network unless they made it. And Apple is saying the same thing about the iphone, it's not about higher standards and quality. It's about control and always has been. At least fess up to it instead of trying to cover it up.

[Colonel Ingus]

AT&T is in no way the same thing as Apple Anyone who thinks they are needs to readjust their meds. As far as control goes well a company needs a certain amount of control over their own products when their reputation is at stake. If you had a company and wanted to control (protect) its reputation, you'd be the first one whining if anyone ever tried to take any control of it away from you. Weird how that works huh?

[EFI]

In my view...if a company was in full control, but was bringing out great products...thats all it matters. I could care less of how closed it is, if the end product is remarkable, and has a certain quality control finish to it.

[apowerr]

In my view...if a company was in full control, but was bringing out great products...thats all it matters. I could care less of how closed it is, if the end product is remarkable, and has a certain quality control finish to it.

Exactly. An example: I use Linux. Linux excites me. But I don't use Linux because its "free" and anyone can change whatever they want and contribute legally.. I use it because its a great alternative to OS X and Windows and is interesting to follow. (My point is that I don't care if its free or not, as long as it works good)

[pyrates]

Exactly. An example: I use Linux. Linux excites me. But I don't use Linux because its "free" and anyone can change whatever they want and contribute legally.. I use it because its a great alternative to OS X and Windows and is interesting to follow. (My point is that I don't care if its free or not, as long as it works good)

I always use linux for any servers if I can.

In my view...if a company was in full control, but was bringing out great products...thats all it matters. I could care less of how closed it is, if the end product is remarkable, and has a certain quality control finish to it.

You don't know though if they squashed any competitors because of their control though do ya? That's why I always support competition in the market and not just being controlled by a few companies. An example is an mp3 player that is fully compatible with the iTunes Music Store not made by Apple. There isn't any out their like the iPod because Apple won't allow it.

[Colonel Ingus]

I always use linux for any servers if I can.You don't know though if they squashed any competitors because of their control though do ya?

That's ridiculous. It's like saying you would murder everyone around you just so that you can keep a good reputation One has nothing to do with the other. Company A wants to make the best product in their field. They do this by first making a superior product (which is where the control comes in) and then by backing it up with the best warranty/service. What companies B and C do in the marketplace has no bearing over company A's product. We're NOT talking about a monopoly here. We're just talking about Apple having control over their own products so that they can proceed in the marketplace according to their forecast. No one here is saying that there shouldn't be any competition. Competition is good, but competition and control are two totally different factors and you can always have both along side one another

[EFI]

I always use linux for any servers if I can.You don't know though if they squashed any competitors because of their control though do ya? That's why I always support competition in the market and not just being controlled by a few companies. An example is an mp3 player that is fully compatible with the iTunes Music Store not made by Apple. There isn't any out their like the iPod because Apple won't allow it.

 

I beg to differ. Apple's way and Microsoft's way are vastly different. Apple's approach is to use other companies as advantages points in securing their own products better. They do not have the sole aim to destroy another company and obliterate it from competiton, so that the road ahead is clear for themselves. If they were like that, then they would have purchased Parallels or VMWare, and would be going after Delicious Library, and AppZapper next. They (from what I gather) believe that you should use everyone's advantage to craft a great product.

 

Microsoft's approach (from history) is the exact opposite. They believe that by entering a new market (nothing wrong btw), and by purchasing the company that looks like it could have a successful future...they are doing themselves an advantage...which they are, but it's not as clean IMO.

 

Using an iPod as a source for iTunes and how that is monopolistic is no different than what Microsoft does with Zune, and the Zune marketplace. It's the exact same thing. Except, that one MP3 player is better than the other (not coming from me...just the internet in general). This might change in the future, but that's how its Outlook (pun intended) is now.

 

Sony, Samsung, Creative, Microsoft, and iRiver still exist today don't they? They might not have the market dominance as the iPod...but they could have, if they got off their playsforsure devices, and truly create "the ipod killer". It's their fault for not competing enough...not Apple's fault for competing well.

 

Competition is healthy only where it is needed.

[pyrates]

That's ridiculous. It's like saying you would murder everyone around you just so that you can keep a good reputation One has nothing to do with the other. Company A wants to make the best product in their field. They do this by first making a superior product (which is where the control comes in) and then by backing it up with the best warranty/service. What companies B and C do in the marketplace has no bearing over company A's product. We're NOT talking about a monopoly here. We're just talking about Apple having control over their own products so that they can proceed in the marketplace according to their forecast. No one here is saying that there shouldn't be any competition. Competition is good, but competition and control are two totally different factors and you can always have both along side one another

Let's go back to when Apple allowed clones of it's Mac's. At that point they had around 15% of the market, now because they don't allow clones, it hovers around 5%. A company can never own a market if it doesn't allow competitors to make competiting products of the same nature. The exception to this is the ipod and I'll get to that in a minute.

I beg to differ. Apple's way and Microsoft's way are vastly different. Apple's approach is to use other companies as advantages points in securing their own products better. They do not have the sole aim to destroy another company and obliterate it from competiton, so that the road ahead is clear for themselves. If they were like that, then they would have purchased Parallels or VMWare, and would be going after Delicious Library, and AppZapper next. They (from what I gather) believe that you should use everyone's advantage to craft a great product. Microsoft's approach (from history) is the exact opposite. They believe that by entering a new market (nothing wrong btw), and by purchasing the company that looks like it could have a successful future...they are doing themselves an advantage...which they are, but it's not as clean IMO. Using an iPod as a source for iTunes and how that is monopolistic is no different than what Microsoft does with Zune, and the Zune marketplace. It's the exact same thing. Except, that one MP3 player is better than the other (not coming from me...just the internet in general). This might change in the future, but that's how its Outlook (pun intended) is now.Sony, Samsung, Creative, Microsoft, and iRiver still exist today don't they? They might not have the market dominance as the iPod...but they could have, if they got off their playsforsure devices, and truly create "the ipod killer". It's their fault for not competing enough...not Apple's fault for competing well. Competition is healthy only where it is needed.

Apple bought the company that created cover flow in order to get it into iTunes, so they did exactly what Microsoft would have done. And Apple instead of buying a company, creates a clone of the product to add into OS X, which is what they did with the widgets idea. Apple looks at third party software and if they can make it themselves, then they just add it to the next release of OS X. Most of the time without buying the company that made the original product, which is why it is dangerous being a software developer on OS X. You never know when Apple will come along and copy your idea and just integrate it into OS X making your product then obselete.And I don't like the idea of the Zune as well. Plus how they're giving a percentage of their sales to the RIAA, makes me know I'll never buy a Zune. You can count on that. But if Apple were smart and allowed competition on the iTunes music store, they would either license their DRM or when all of the music on their is DRM free, then release an api for any third party mp3 player maker out their, to create a driver to sync with iTunes. Finally once the patent runs out on the click wheel, you'll see lots of mp3 players out their using it. This is also what keeps Apple in control, a key piece of technology, only they can use. And the circle is complete. We all know that the codec for aac can easily be implemented on any mp3 player today, so that is not holding it back. Apple is holding it back keeping this tight control not allowing competitors. I don't like it when any company does something like this.Name me one other mp3 player out their that can sync with the iTunes music store. That would at least be a start. And the main reasons why I don't buy an ipod, the non removable battery and no built in fm tuner. That's why I like my iriver.

[Colonel Ingus]

Let's go back to when Apple allowed clones of it's Mac's. At that point they had around 15% of the market, now because they don't allow clones, it hovers around 5%.

 

You'll find that most of your higher end companies don't really care about world domination. When was the last time that you saw a Lamborghini at a red light? Now you may try and say that you don't see them because of their price, but if they were made like a Chevy then they wouldn't be able to charge that high price either. Higher end companies want (need) more control over their products because their cliental demand higher quality. Losing control over a product means that quality automatically goes down because (for example) Microsoft can't "control" how those other companies construct their products. Can you say 'Plug and Pray'? Higher quality gives a company a better reputation, which means they can then charge more for their products, making up for market share loss. When Apple allowed for clones, those clones simply didn't have as good of quality as the Apple products do now. This is no coincidence. Apple is showing that you can have high end products AND gain market share which is exactly what they have been doing for the past 4-5 years, and after this fall you will see Apple gain market share by leaps and bounds once it releases it's new line-up of products. They couldn't have done this if they allowed a smorgasbord of sub-rate companies make cheap clones of their products.

 

Apple looks at third party software and if they can make it themselves, then they just add it to the next release of OS X.

This is no different from what any other software company does. Seems you've forgotten how the whole idea of 'windows' got started

 

a key piece of technology, only they can use.

See above

[EFI]

Let's go back to when Apple allowed clones of it's Mac's. At that point they had around 15% of the market, now because they don't allow clones, it hovers around 5%. A company can never own a market if it doesn't allow competitors to make competiting products of the same nature. The exception to this is the ipod and I'll get to that in a minute.Apple bought the company that created cover flow in order to get it into iTunes, so they did exactly what Microsoft would have done. And Apple instead of buying a company, creates a clone of the product to add into OS X, which is what they did with the widgets idea. Apple looks at third party software and if they can make it themselves, then they just add it to the next release of OS X. Most of the time without buying the company that made the original product, which is why it is dangerous being a software developer on OS X. You never know when Apple will come along and copy your idea and just integrate it into OS X making your product then obselete.And I don't like the idea of the Zune as well. Plus how they're giving a percentage of their sales to the RIAA, makes me know I'll never buy a Zune. You can count on that. But if Apple were smart and allowed competition on the iTunes music store, they would either license their DRM or when all of the music on their is DRM free, then release an api for any third party mp3 player maker out their, to create a driver to sync with iTunes. Finally once the patent runs out on the click wheel, you'll see lots of mp3 players out their using it. This is also what keeps Apple in control, a key piece of technology, only they can use. And the circle is complete. We all know that the codec for aac can easily be implemented on any mp3 player today, so that is not holding it back. Apple is holding it back keeping this tight control not allowing competitors. I don't like it when any company does something like this.Name me one other mp3 player out their that can sync with the iTunes music store. That would at least be a start. And the main reasons why I don't buy an ipod, the non removable battery and no built in fm tuner. That's why I like my iriver.

 

You don't need market share dominance to prove that you are a serious (in some cases superior) competior to the rest of the industry. If that were the case then speaking parallel, Apple would should not have a growth rate faster than any other computer maker out there...which they currently do. Furthermore, the Mac clones were stopped as soon as Jobs returned to Apple was because of the hardware design/quality that they were making the clones in, which were very PC like..albeit with an Apple logo. Apple was/is a hardware company, so it would make sense for them to design their own hardware designs as well. When I mean hardware...I solely mean the case enclosure, and internal arrangement on the laptops and desktops...which vary greatly from the common PC types, even till this day.

 

The CoverFlow purchse, admittedly, was one of the few scenes in which Apple actually went as far as purchasing the company. I belive the most recent one was in relation to the UNIX printer system, which Apple purchsed to incorporate into Leopard. There is a difference here again between Apple and Microsoft. The purchases that Apple made were never major standalone products that were designed to start their own family. This is the case, however...with Microsoft. Hotmail, was purchased. Windows Live One Care...was actually founded by another company, and was purchased by Microsoft. aQuantiative, which is one of the largest ad-revenune agencies, after Google ads, was purchased by Microsoft. Those were few of the majors out of many...and each of them have their own major sector at Microsoft. This is where the difference is between Apple and Microsoft. Apple's purchses have been small components which they integrate into their OS, not a major service.

 

The widgets were already present in NeXT's OS itself from the mid-90's in a more primitive form compared to the modern dashboard (ahead of time for its days though)....long, long before Konfabulator even came along for Windows (and now ofcourse for OS X). The Widgets concept was taken from NeXT when Jobs returned to Apple...and was then later on (several years later) incorporated into OS X. The real question is Sidebar and Gadgets, in Vista. Where did the idea come from for that? , since only the sidebar existed in all versions of Longhorn, and Gadgets were only implemented when the codename was changed to Vista...which was after Tiger was released in 2005.

[Colonel Ingus]

...and let's not forget how in 1996 Microsoft bought Vermeer Technology and then repackaged it as Microsoft FrontPage

[apowerr]

As far as Apple's market strategy goes (for computers), it makes sense for them to purchase things like CoverFlow and the Unix printer system benefit customers. I turn on OS X, I want coverflow, as the end-user I could care less how Apple gets it for me: I just want it.

 

the iPod and iTunes are a different story. I have owned a first gen mini, and currently have a second gen nano. Both are excellent in form factor and function, but iTunes is complete BS. I purchase some songs, I dl them to my PC. I go to my laptop and want to dl them there... I can't. iTunes tells me to back my stuff up. Its BS when DRM hurts the end-user. iTunes, in a lot of ways forces me to pirate music, because that way I have total freedom over what I do with it. Plus, I can't use music I purchase through iTunes on any other device. Sure its smart on Apple's part, if you want the best online music store (selection), you have to purchase their music player... But it still is annoying.

And while im ragging poor iTunes let me add on Windows the software is terrible and I prefer WMP over it on any day. (Since WMP has shell integration, and isn't a resource hog.)

[pyrates]

Well it seems I see everywhere that Mac's will rule the market. And when I point out how small the mac market is, I'm told that Apple then doesn't need to own the PC market. Which one is it? I'd sure like to know. Can't have it both ways.As for Apple not purchasing a software maker of virtualization, they could. The reason why Microsoft did was to run multiple separate OS's on one server because it is the popular thing to do. IBM started it with their main frames, and now x86 servers want to be able to do it. And that is why Microsoft purchased a virtualized software maker, Virtual PC. It's where the market is. But despite how easy it would be for Microsoft to add a feature to their OS that another company has a product for, they choose instead to just buy the company. But if Apple can make the feature themselves quickly enough, they will just copy that companies product instead of buying it, rather then buying the company and rewarding the company for making such a great product.And I myself prefer winamp. I like a file system to browse all my mp3's with using the instant search feature in Windows Vista is all I need.As for Apple having a faster growth rate, of course you are going to have a faster growth rate when you start out with a small market share compared to a competitor who has a much bigger market share. When you have a bigger market share, it is harder to grow, that is a fact.And the widgets idea now I'm being told is that it came from Next, and not the original OS that Apple used. Can we get a straight answer here? How about reading this article? Makes sense to me. Seems to me that some people can't stand it when an idea comes out that Apple didn't create themselves, that Apple later uses, if Apple didn't purchase the company that created it originally. Hence why we get different answers to the same question, all to defend Apple.

...and let's not forget how in 1996 Microsoft bought Vermeer Technology and then repackaged it as Microsoft FrontPage

Yeah that was a terrible product. Glad it's now gone. But they did buy Aloha Bob's PC Relocator, because they do such a great job of transferring pc settings and the installation of pc programs to another pc, which Windows has needed for years as part of the default installation instead of a third party. But at least they bought the company that made it.

[EFI]

Actually, it is possible to have a larger market share AND be able to grow rapidly. Google is the prime and number one example of that very scenario. Furthermore, if company "A" grows, regardless of its size...and another company "B" remains stagnant, or grows slower than "A", then that means that company B is infact losing market control.

 

I checked out the article, and it appears to be neutral. Konfabulator (now owned by Yahoo), was/is actually for the majority of the users used on Windows. The OS X usage is only a fraction (of what already might be small compared to Windows) becuase there is already Dashboard. Supposing (I am not agreeing with you, but speaking from what you said) you were right about Apple screwing its own developers...isn't Microsoft doing the very EXACT thing, only much, much worse? Konfabulator has a larger market share on Windows than it does under OS X, if market share were to mean anything to begin with. So, by creating the sidebar, and the widgets...which look FAR MORE close to Konfabulator, than Dashboard and Widgets do (as they are in their own screen layer)...isn't Microsoft just ripping Konfabulator off piece by piece?

 

Dashboard and Konfabulator...are actually different in the way in which they operate. According to you, the idea might be similar, however Dashboard/Widgets uses HTML/CSS/DOM, while Konfabulator uses XML/JavaScript. Microsoft's Sidebar, and Widgets however, use a combination of both Apple's Dashboard, and Konfabulator's API's, which is DHTML/JavaScript/CSS. Visually, both Konfanbulator (Yahoo Widgets) has a dedicated sidebar, and so does Windows Sidebar. The simiarities are far closer between Microsoft's Sidebar/Widgets, and Konfabulator, as opposed to Apple's Dashboard and Konfabulator.

 

It's like shooting the second stone by not seeing the first one. The gun being "copying Konfabulator", 1st stone being Gadgets, and 2nd stone being Widgets.