Steve Jobs Joins the Dark Side!!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=Y3xKhLlhzfM  (Video)


mrC

[Harry Potter]

The software makes the computer not the hardware.

You could write windows for the G4 and it would still suck eggs.

That was funny by the way. 

[Havok]

Apple has been assimilated. I think I would like to buy a powerbook just so I could load Windows on it.. (since it's a full pc now)

That would really piss off the Apple fanboys!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Another thing, with Mac having Intel under the hood...wouldn't you think they'd be cheaper now?


NOT!


mrC

[ChadTower]

It's always amazing to me how many people mock Windows and yet there is nothing better out there.

Sure it has issues, but show me another product of any nature that does EVERYTHING.

[jhanson]

It's always amazing to me how many people mock Windows and yet there is nothing better out there.

Sure it has issues, but show me another product of any nature that does EVERYTHING.

OS X

[ChadTower]

There are thousands of things that Windows does that OS X does not, most of them involved in the corporate/IT part of the equation that 90% of users never know about.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah. I'm neither a Mac guy nor a Windows guy. I use what gets the job done for the most affordable level. And that mean I've been relegated to using a PC w/ Windows. I like Macs, they're beautiful, slick, well built, very intuitive, the software/OS (I think) is a little more practical and certainly more "user friendly", but at the cost of being less "robust" and technically useful.

Windows hate is rampant, because Microsoft makes it so easy to hate them. Big security holes, shoddy programming at times, etc. Apple works hard for the love they get, and as such, is really more a company built on "cult of personality" rather than technical prowess.

As a side note, my favorite quote re: OS fanboys: "Linux is only FREE is your time is WORTHLESS!" For anyone who has ever tried to install and config a Sendmail setup...you know what I'm talking about.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Well, when you try to do EVERYTHING, certainly you're going to have holes.  The modern computer is the ONLY appliance out there expected to be able to do pretty much anything.

[jhanson]

There are thousands of things that Windows does that OS X does not, most of them involved in the corporate/IT part of the equation that 90% of users never know about.

Like what?  If you're talking about specific programs not being developed for OS X, you're right.  If you're talking about the capability of the OS, you are not.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There are thousands of things that Windows does that OS X does not, most of them involved in the corporate/IT part of the equation that 90% of users never know about.

Well, this is what I think makes an apple better for the majority of your "average" computer users. A bunch of my completely computer-illiterate friends just got Apple laptops and they're out their creating fairly amazing DVD shorts with iMovie and studio quality musical compositions with GarageBand. Both of which came with the systems.

They're doing this "out of the box", with no experience. I was certainly impressed over the holidays, visiting with them.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Let's all take a deep breath, too. No APPLE VS. x386-based PC flamewars.

This thread is about unity; the fusion of Mac and Intel. Flowers and candy for everyone!



mrC

[ChadTower]

Agreed.

[jhanson]

I like Macs, they're beautiful, slick, well built, very intuitive, the software/OS (I think) is a little more practical and certainly more "user friendly", but at the cost of being less "robust" and technically useful.

OS X is less robust?  Nah.  That thing is rock solid.  It's built on a BSD core.  Windows XP is a lot more solid than previous versions of Windows, but I have yet to have a crash on OS X.

As for being technically useful, I think both have their merits.  A big advantage of OS X is being able to compile and use lots of open source tools that are developed for linux/bsd (Nessus, nmap, etc).  XP is useful in that there's a lot of free/cheap little apps out there that you can download - a lot more than OS X for sure.

[thebrownshow]

Also, just from a bug-finding standpoint, Windows is one of the only products in the world that has that many people trying to break it on a regular basis.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Also, just from a bug-finding standpoint, Windows is one of the only products in the world that has that many people trying to break it on a regular basis.

Exactly! Major corporate backbones aren't running on OSX, etc. It's the server features of the Windows OS that are always going to be the most vulnerable. Especially is Joe Blow doesn't even know he's running a server (ie: SMTP process, etc)

It's that, combined with the fact that Microsoft rushes out OS's before they're finished.



mrC

[Havok]

They're both great operating systems, but for me it boils to to bang for the buck: My Windows pc has it, Mac don't.

Perhaps if Apple loosens up and sells just a motherboard (since you KNOW they're locking down installs to the hardware), I would build a snazzy little Mac for less - but they'll never do that, so Windows for me...

[ChadTower]

Honestly, I don't care.  I know them both as well as UNIX, Linux, and others because of my profession.  I have had all of them at home (yes, even had a Sun workstation running Solaris at home for a while).

Turns out I use my machine at home to access the net, burn CDs and DVDs, and occasionally do some small time web development.  Any OS can do all those so I chose based on availability of software and my wife's skill level.  We have a Dell server running XP Pro as a result.

[Grasshopper]

People who mock Linux tend to forget that without the competition created by Linux and other open source software Windows would almost certainly be a lot worse and more expensive than it actually is.

I still think that in the long run Linux has the potential to blow everything else out of the water. But if that it to happen the Linux developers need to start focusing on basic things like a foolproof way to install and de-install ALL programs. At the moment there are several installation standards out there and far too many programs will only install from the command line.

[ChadTower]

There isn't nearly as much money in desktops as there is in servers and corporate licensing.  That is where Microsoft makes all of its money and Linux will never penetrate.

Major corporations pay Microsoft for accountability and instant reaction to newly found vulnerabilities.  Linux does not and will never have that by its open source nature, so corporations will not use Linux no matter how much better it could become.

I was hoping BeOS would go further, I liked that.

[thebrownshow]

I still think that in the long run Linux has the potential to blow everything else out of the water. But if that it to happen the Linux developers need to start focusing on basic things like a foolproof way to install and de-install ALL programs. At the moment there are several installation standards out there and far too many programs will only install from the command line.

If you look at the average open source contributor, they're not writing software for their grandmother or wife, they're writing software for themselves.  People who write software don't mind the command lines or README docs or things like that. 

I think that's the real problem with open source.  Without the motivation to bring it to the masses, what motivation do open source contributors have to make things more friendly?  Kinda goes back to the whole "Invisible Hand" thing you learned about in high school economics.

[Zakk]

The modern computer is the ONLY appliance out there expected to be able to do pretty much anything.

I use my dishwasher to babysit my kids, hide my (waterproof) valuables, and wash the pets.

[ChadTower]

Plus, if half the internet ran on Linux, it would fail daily.  You could never, EVER, protect an open source OS if it had even a fraction of the people hacking on it that Windows has.

[thebrownshow]

Plus, if half the internet ran on Linux, it would fail daily.  You could never, EVER, protect an open source OS if it had even a fraction of the people hacking on it that Windows has.

... especially if they have the source code!

[ChadTower]

That is pretty much what I meant.

And going beyond that, people would intentionally program in backdoors and vulnerabilities to be exploited later, nevermind just bugs.

[Grasshopper]

Plus, if half the internet ran on Linux, it would fail daily.  You could never, EVER, protect an open source OS if it had even a fraction of the people hacking on it that Windows has.

I'm not sure about half, but a large percentage of the internet does run on Linux.

[ChadTower]

UNIX, probably, but very unlikely Linux.  The backbone of the net runs via high end routers, mostly Cisco, and they aren't running Linux.

[c64rulez]

They're running away from steve jobs.
It'll get even darker when he'll get a microsoft OS transplant.

[Grasshopper]

I still think that in the long run Linux has the potential to blow everything else out of the water. But if that it to happen the Linux developers need to start focusing on basic things like a foolproof way to install and de-install ALL programs. At the moment there are several installation standards out there and far too many programs will only install from the command line.

If you look at the average open source contributor, they're not writing software for their grandmother or wife, they're writing software for themselves.  People who write software don't mind the command lines or README docs or things like that. 

I think that's the real problem with open source.  Without the motivation to bring it to the masses, what motivation do open source contributors have to make things more friendly?  Kinda goes back to the whole "Invisible Hand" thing you learned about in high school economics.

Well you could ask what motivation do open source developers have for releasing their software at all? Perhaps recognition, maybe pride in their work, or just altruism. It probably varies from person to person. But whatever the reasons, they still release the software.

I think that many Linux developers have simply got used to a command line installation process because that's always been the traditional Unix way of doing things. Most open source software written for Windows installs in the normal way.

In any case many people are actually making money out of Linux. It's in the commercial interest of Red Hat, Mandrake etc. to get together and sort out basic things such as a common installation method.

[ChadTower]

That would actually be bad for either of them.  They are not going to make money by being like the other company, they are going to make money by offering things the other company does not offer.

[ClubNinja]

I was hoping BeOS would go further, I liked that.

BeOS!  Oh, the memories.

[ChadTower]

A friend of mine actually started a business selling boxes preloaded with BeOS and was making money for about a week.

[markrvp]

I have switched platforms from PC to Apple to PC to Apple to PC now.

[ChadTower]

But they're using those as incentives to buy a Mac.  If you could do those things on a PC with that type of ease most Lusers would have no reason to buy a Mac.

[markrvp]

The profit margin on the software has got to be a lot higher.  I would guess you could sell 5 to 10 copies of each title on Windows for every MAC that you could sell.  Final Cut Pro at $800 X 10 = $8000 compared to $3495 for a new MAC G5.

[ChadTower]

Maybe, maybe not, but it's not software they are trying to sell.  Even if they sell many copies, it's not about profit margin, it's about amount of profit in total.

They are not a strict volume company.

Besides, you don't make money on software.  You make money on software support.

[Dartful Dodger]

Isn't Apple just making fancy mp3/video players?

[Havok]

Isn't Apple just making fancy mp3/video players?

Ha - yeah, the new iPods come with a 15" or 17" LCD and a keyboard...

[USSEnterprise]

At this point, I'm strongly considering going for a Mac for the next computer. Not a new one. Definitley not a G5. Probably a dual processor G4. What was so wrong with the Motorola/IBM CPUs that Apple had to convert?

[shmokes]

They're practically made of lava.