When Windows 8 comes out OSX will be retired and iOS will be the single OS that Apple will use across its products from Macs to iDevices. Windows 8 will be a great OS but won't be enough to turn the tide away from Apple. Microsoft may have to embrace Apple as clients to their server offerings where they really shine, but there too is under attack by cloud computing efforts. iCloud anyone?
The emoticon is appropriate, as you must be smoking hallucinogenics to think iOS and the cloud will replace OS X.
When Windows 8 comes out OSX will be retired and iOS will be the single OS that Apple will use across its products from Macs to iDevices.
And exactly what operating system will iOS developers use to develop iOS applications? iOS?
I know what you mean. Maybe the name OS-X will be retired but in truth OS-X and iOS will have to merge (in function if not in codebase) if Apple is to go to a single OS for all its machines and devices.
The Dell example is even more intriguing. Your assertion that Microsoft gets a small license fee for software could not be more false. The most expensive component of a Windows PC is Microsoft Windows. Dell, like just about every other Windows PC manufacturer, loses money on every hardware sale. Windows PC manufacturers earn their money just like The New York Times and Seventeen magazine. It is called advertising. However, it is a special kind of advertising. The crapware that Dell ships preinstalled on your new computer pays for your computer. The last time I read the numbers, it was $70 per Desktop icon. Like any other advertiser-supported business, Dell's crappy computers are not its products. Its crappy computers are a product delivery system. Dell's products are you, the people who use its crappy computers. Dell's customers are the advertisers, the people who produce that crapware.
Not really a fair comparison - profits for an all inclusive system to a software product.
What is more intersting is the increased market share that apple is getting in total sales in pcs and laptops.
24 months ago, the only apple products my friends owned were iPod and iPhone. These days, most of them have at least one macbook. While they mostly also have a couple of windows systems, they seem to use the macbook the most and will probably replace the microsoft systems with apples when they break down.
I am still trying to get them to switch to linux but with not much success.
The Dell example is even more intriguing. Your assertion that Microsoft gets a small license fee for software could not be more false.
What are you smoking, this is actually the case.
Quote:
The most expensive component of a Windows PC is Microsoft Windows. Dell, like just about every other Windows PC manufacturer, loses money on every hardware sale.
Now, I know you're smoking really hard.
Quote:
Windows PC manufacturers earn their money just like The New York Times and Seventeen magazine. It is called advertising. However, it is a special kind of advertising. The crapware that Dell ships preinstalled on your new computer pays for your computer. The last time I read the numbers, it was $70 per Desktop icon.
70 bucks per pc per icon? What kind of nutty business is that? Do you think that every PC buyer is worthy 70 bucks for the advertiser? To (most probably not) buy a software that is priced at 30 bucks? What kind of weed are you fucking smoking man? You're so wrong by orders of magnitude it isn't funny.
Quote:
Like any other advertiser-supported business, Dell's crappy computers are not its products. Its crappy computers are a product delivery system. Dell's products are you, the people who use its crappy computers. Dell's customers are the advertisers, the people who produce that crapware.
... I clearly remember the prevailing sentiment during the 90s was for Apple to license Mac OS 7 to those clone makers. To do it the Microsoft way.
Ah, more John C. Dvorak memories.
Quote:
Power Computing, based in Milpitas, Calif., plans to begin shipping mail-order Macintosh Power PC clone computers for as little as $1,000 each in March or April of next year, far sooner than anyone, including Apple, had expected.
"Apple is not going to know what hit them," said John C. Dvorak, a computer columnist at MacUser magazine.
MSFT is trying to find the Dells and HPs of the mobile world in Nokia and RIM.
Perhaps, since it's consistent with their traditional business model. The fact it's an old, rapidly dying business model is no surprise.
MSFT made ludicrous amounts of money from licensing its OS to anyone who built a PC from the cheapest garbage components available (Dell's business model). As I recall it was on the order of $50 per machine (but might have been as much as $199).
As long as Android is an option no handset maker will ever be able to bear any significant costs for its OS.
There is a huge difference between Google and Dell--at least in my experience. Google does not have a cover price. Also nothing from Google [that I use] falls apart under ordinary use while sitting on a table.
Hmmm...I love the Mac and all things Apple (iMac and Macbook) but I wouldn't call Microsoft's OS shoddy. Windows 7 is pretty good as is their Windows 2008 R2 server offering. OS7 to OS9 were bad as compared to Windows95 through XP. Conflict Catcher anyone? The old Mac OS did not have a modern kernel and suffered for that even though its user interface was more well thought out.
OSX is not superior to Windows 7 nor vice versa. They are both mature operating systems and both have great strengths and weaknesses. The mistake Microsoft made and didn't see coming like the rest of the industry was the flexibility of the kernel underlying OSX. You can be guaranteed to know that Windows 8 will attempt to mimic OSX in that respect. However, by then it will be too late as Android and iOS will be heavily entrenched.
When Windows 8 comes out OSX will be retired and iOS will be the single OS that Apple will use across its products from Macs to iDevices. Windows 8 will be a great OS but won't be enough to turn the tide away from Apple. Microsoft may have to embrace Apple as clients to their server offerings where they really shine, but there too is under attack by cloud computing efforts. iCloud anyone?
While I will support your assertion that Win7 is a well-developed OS, it is still running the embedded NT structures that hamper it. It runs them better than any of it's predecessors, but it is a far cry from the alternative that was Longhorn. Microsoft has a developmental Achille's heel in that it depends so heavily on its corporate market - which slows down its ability to innovate on its OS. So instead of an aggressive rewrite, they must do these incremental updates that slowly pull in the various strengths of Longhorn instead of a major rewrite (that was MacOS X for example). Whether they can switch kernels to use the Longhorn kernel remains to be seen. Longhorn would be the right path and was, more than five years ago when they first introduced it.
Apple will continue to drive as much convergence as they can over time between iOS and MacOS. And I would disagree that MacOS and Win7 are equivalent. The core elements are widely differentiated and the MacOS is an order of magnitude more scalable and flexible than Win7.
While I will support your assertion that Win7 is a well-developed OS, it is still running the embedded NT structures that hamper it. It runs them better than any of it's predecessors, but it is a far cry from the alternative that was Longhorn. Microsoft has a developmental Achille's heel in that it depends so heavily on its corporate market - which slows down its ability to innovate on its OS. So instead of an aggressive rewrite, they must do these incremental updates that slowly pull in the various strengths of Longhorn instead of a major rewrite (that was MacOS X for example). Whether they can switch kernels to use the Longhorn kernel remains to be seen. Longhorn would be the right path and was, more than five years ago when they first introduced it.
Apple will continue to drive as much convergence as they can over time between iOS and MacOS. And I would disagree that MacOS and Win7 are equivalent. The core elements are widely differentiated and the MacOS is an order of magnitude more scalable and flexible than Win7.
Can you quantify by what you mean "hamper it"? The last thing MS would do is rewriting the NT kernel because it makes no sense whatsoever. Rewriting a kernel is an attempt in suicide. They have updated the NT kernel, removed dependences and made it much more modularized with Windows 7 as part of the MinWin efforts. The NT kernel in Longhorn IS part of the updated Windows Vista and Windows 7.
Exactly what makes Mac OS X more scalable and flexible? By what criteria do you make that assertions? Since Windows run on thousands and thousands of whatever PC configurations you can throw at it and including Mac computers, does that not make Windows more scalable and flexible?
Can you quantify by what you mean "hamper it"? The last thing MS would do is rewriting the NT kernel because it makes no sense whatsoever. Rewriting a kernel is an attempt in suicide. They have updated the NT kernel, removed dependences and made it much more modularized with Windows 7 as part of the MinWin efforts. The NT kernel in Longhorn IS part of the updated Windows Vista and Windows 7.
Exactly what makes Mac OS X more scalable and flexible? By what criteria do you make that assertions? Since Windows run on thousands and thousands of whatever PC configurations you can throw at it and including Mac computers, does that not make Windows more scalable and flexible?
I just love it when Microsoft fanboys shout "We have that, too!" whenever the features of MacOS X are pointed out to them. Microsoft should have done what Apple did. Chuck the old and replace it with a Unix-based kernel. Microsoft has had Unix since the 1970's. It has Unix now. Only its fear of admitting the defeat of its current strategy prevents it from doing the restart that it sorely needs. Ditch NT and the Linux and MacOS X/UNIX community will howl in laughter and glee.
What Microsoft does not understand is it still has some goodwill and a huge installed base. If it made the switch to a Unix-based OS, then its ardent supporters would adapt. I can see them shouting down critics with assertions that Microsoft Unix is the best Unix there ever was. However, its insistence on adding modernity to its creaking software only postpones the inevitable. In the meantime, Apple has zoomed past Microsoft in terms of market capitalization. Apple is working from a script that has it watch Microsoft fade in its rearview mirrors. As it loses influence, Microsoft also faces the prospect of direct plays for its bread and butter from the likes of Google with its Chrome OS.
Windows Vista? Windows 7? Windows 8? Nobody but the fanboys care anymore. Judging by the number of fanboys like you on this and other Mac forums, the time is coming when Microsoft will no longer be able to count on even them.
Mr me that didn't really answer any question of how windows's kernal is hampering it. I like Win7 and OS X fairly equally and when I use them on my iMac it would be hard to say that one was better than the other. Neither is faster and neither has any real superior features (although I'm a big fan of snap in win7). So personally I don't understand why they need to change the kernal. Can anyone give an actual serious answer?
Comments
When Windows 8 comes out OSX will be retired and iOS will be the single OS that Apple will use across its products from Macs to iDevices. Windows 8 will be a great OS but won't be enough to turn the tide away from Apple. Microsoft may have to embrace Apple as clients to their server offerings where they really shine, but there too is under attack by cloud computing efforts. iCloud anyone?
The emoticon is appropriate, as you must be smoking hallucinogenics to think iOS and the cloud will replace OS X.
When Windows 8 comes out OSX will be retired and iOS will be the single OS that Apple will use across its products from Macs to iDevices.
And exactly what operating system will iOS developers use to develop iOS applications? iOS?
I know what you mean. Maybe the name OS-X will be retired but in truth OS-X and iOS will have to merge (in function if not in codebase) if Apple is to go to a single OS for all its machines and devices.
The Dell example is even more intriguing. Your assertion that Microsoft gets a small license fee for software could not be more false. The most expensive component of a Windows PC is Microsoft Windows. Dell, like just about every other Windows PC manufacturer, loses money on every hardware sale. Windows PC manufacturers earn their money just like The New York Times and Seventeen magazine. It is called advertising. However, it is a special kind of advertising. The crapware that Dell ships preinstalled on your new computer pays for your computer. The last time I read the numbers, it was $70 per Desktop icon. Like any other advertiser-supported business, Dell's crappy computers are not its products. Its crappy computers are a product delivery system. Dell's products are you, the people who use its crappy computers. Dell's customers are the advertisers, the people who produce that crapware.
Uhm, sounds **cough Google** familiar...
What is more intersting is the increased market share that apple is getting in total sales in pcs and laptops.
24 months ago, the only apple products my friends owned were iPod and iPhone. These days, most of them have at least one macbook. While they mostly also have a couple of windows systems, they seem to use the macbook the most and will probably replace the microsoft systems with apples when they break down.
I am still trying to get them to switch to linux but with not much success.
The Dell example is even more intriguing. Your assertion that Microsoft gets a small license fee for software could not be more false.
What are you smoking, this is actually the case.
The most expensive component of a Windows PC is Microsoft Windows. Dell, like just about every other Windows PC manufacturer, loses money on every hardware sale.
Now, I know you're smoking really hard.
Windows PC manufacturers earn their money just like The New York Times and Seventeen magazine. It is called advertising. However, it is a special kind of advertising. The crapware that Dell ships preinstalled on your new computer pays for your computer. The last time I read the numbers, it was $70 per Desktop icon.
70 bucks per pc per icon? What kind of nutty business is that? Do you think that every PC buyer is worthy 70 bucks for the advertiser? To (most probably not) buy a software that is priced at 30 bucks? What kind of weed are you fucking smoking man? You're so wrong by orders of magnitude it isn't funny.
Like any other advertiser-supported business, Dell's crappy computers are not its products. Its crappy computers are a product delivery system. Dell's products are you, the people who use its crappy computers. Dell's customers are the advertisers, the people who produce that crapware.
Man, you should quit the drugs. Seriously.
... I clearly remember the prevailing sentiment during the 90s was for Apple to license Mac OS 7 to those clone makers. To do it the Microsoft way.
Ah, more John C. Dvorak memories.
Power Computing, based in Milpitas, Calif., plans to begin shipping mail-order Macintosh Power PC clone computers for as little as $1,000 each in March or April of next year, far sooner than anyone, including Apple, had expected.
"Apple is not going to know what hit them," said John C. Dvorak, a computer columnist at MacUser magazine.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/29/bu...mpetition.html
MSFT is trying to find the Dells and HPs of the mobile world in Nokia and RIM.
Perhaps, since it's consistent with their traditional business model. The fact it's an old, rapidly dying business model is no surprise.
MSFT made ludicrous amounts of money from licensing its OS to anyone who built a PC from the cheapest garbage components available (Dell's business model). As I recall it was on the order of $50 per machine (but might have been as much as $199).
As long as Android is an option no handset maker will ever be able to bear any significant costs for its OS.
Uhm, sounds **cough Google** familiar...
There is a huge difference between Google and Dell--at least in my experience. Google does not have a cover price. Also nothing from Google [that I use] falls apart under ordinary use while sitting on a table.
Hmmm...I love the Mac and all things Apple (iMac and Macbook) but I wouldn't call Microsoft's OS shoddy. Windows 7 is pretty good as is their Windows 2008 R2 server offering. OS7 to OS9 were bad as compared to Windows95 through XP. Conflict Catcher anyone? The old Mac OS did not have a modern kernel and suffered for that even though its user interface was more well thought out.
OSX is not superior to Windows 7 nor vice versa. They are both mature operating systems and both have great strengths and weaknesses. The mistake Microsoft made and didn't see coming like the rest of the industry was the flexibility of the kernel underlying OSX. You can be guaranteed to know that Windows 8 will attempt to mimic OSX in that respect. However, by then it will be too late as Android and iOS will be heavily entrenched.
When Windows 8 comes out OSX will be retired and iOS will be the single OS that Apple will use across its products from Macs to iDevices. Windows 8 will be a great OS but won't be enough to turn the tide away from Apple. Microsoft may have to embrace Apple as clients to their server offerings where they really shine, but there too is under attack by cloud computing efforts. iCloud anyone?
While I will support your assertion that Win7 is a well-developed OS, it is still running the embedded NT structures that hamper it. It runs them better than any of it's predecessors, but it is a far cry from the alternative that was Longhorn. Microsoft has a developmental Achille's heel in that it depends so heavily on its corporate market - which slows down its ability to innovate on its OS. So instead of an aggressive rewrite, they must do these incremental updates that slowly pull in the various strengths of Longhorn instead of a major rewrite (that was MacOS X for example). Whether they can switch kernels to use the Longhorn kernel remains to be seen. Longhorn would be the right path and was, more than five years ago when they first introduced it.
Apple will continue to drive as much convergence as they can over time between iOS and MacOS. And I would disagree that MacOS and Win7 are equivalent. The core elements are widely differentiated and the MacOS is an order of magnitude more scalable and flexible than Win7.
While I will support your assertion that Win7 is a well-developed OS, it is still running the embedded NT structures that hamper it. It runs them better than any of it's predecessors, but it is a far cry from the alternative that was Longhorn. Microsoft has a developmental Achille's heel in that it depends so heavily on its corporate market - which slows down its ability to innovate on its OS. So instead of an aggressive rewrite, they must do these incremental updates that slowly pull in the various strengths of Longhorn instead of a major rewrite (that was MacOS X for example). Whether they can switch kernels to use the Longhorn kernel remains to be seen. Longhorn would be the right path and was, more than five years ago when they first introduced it.
Apple will continue to drive as much convergence as they can over time between iOS and MacOS. And I would disagree that MacOS and Win7 are equivalent. The core elements are widely differentiated and the MacOS is an order of magnitude more scalable and flexible than Win7.
Can you quantify by what you mean "hamper it"? The last thing MS would do is rewriting the NT kernel because it makes no sense whatsoever. Rewriting a kernel is an attempt in suicide. They have updated the NT kernel, removed dependences and made it much more modularized with Windows 7 as part of the MinWin efforts. The NT kernel in Longhorn IS part of the updated Windows Vista and Windows 7.
Exactly what makes Mac OS X more scalable and flexible? By what criteria do you make that assertions? Since Windows run on thousands and thousands of whatever PC configurations you can throw at it and including Mac computers, does that not make Windows more scalable and flexible?
Can you quantify by what you mean "hamper it"? The last thing MS would do is rewriting the NT kernel because it makes no sense whatsoever. Rewriting a kernel is an attempt in suicide. They have updated the NT kernel, removed dependences and made it much more modularized with Windows 7 as part of the MinWin efforts. The NT kernel in Longhorn IS part of the updated Windows Vista and Windows 7.
Exactly what makes Mac OS X more scalable and flexible? By what criteria do you make that assertions? Since Windows run on thousands and thousands of whatever PC configurations you can throw at it and including Mac computers, does that not make Windows more scalable and flexible?
I just love it when Microsoft fanboys shout "We have that, too!" whenever the features of MacOS X are pointed out to them. Microsoft should have done what Apple did. Chuck the old and replace it with a Unix-based kernel. Microsoft has had Unix since the 1970's. It has Unix now. Only its fear of admitting the defeat of its current strategy prevents it from doing the restart that it sorely needs. Ditch NT and the Linux and MacOS X/UNIX community will howl in laughter and glee.
What Microsoft does not understand is it still has some goodwill and a huge installed base. If it made the switch to a Unix-based OS, then its ardent supporters would adapt. I can see them shouting down critics with assertions that Microsoft Unix is the best Unix there ever was. However, its insistence on adding modernity to its creaking software only postpones the inevitable. In the meantime, Apple has zoomed past Microsoft in terms of market capitalization. Apple is working from a script that has it watch Microsoft fade in its rearview mirrors. As it loses influence, Microsoft also faces the prospect of direct plays for its bread and butter from the likes of Google with its Chrome OS.
Windows Vista? Windows 7? Windows 8? Nobody but the fanboys care anymore. Judging by the number of fanboys like you on this and other Mac forums, the time is coming when Microsoft will no longer be able to count on even them.
Really i got a lot of information on apple os...
thank u a lot guys