You can't swing a dead cat without hitting 4 Microsoft Certified Professionals. Certification is beautiful because for most participants it creates mindless drones who push the product they're Certified in and act like nothing else exists.
Um, almost everyone here pushes Macs like nothing else exists. :-P And you aren't even certified for Macs, imagine if you all were certified for Macs...
Quote:
Apple has a Certification Process now but it's on Training Wheels. They need to beef it up if they plan to make any moves into IT/Enterprise.
I think part of it too is that the interface isn't something that look 'professional'. The plain old windows theme ( not the XP Fischer-Price theme ) looks more 'professional' than OSX even with graphite. I think that maybe Apple should add some 'themeing' ability to OSX even if it's only for corporate customers...
I was in a huge corporate meeting/WebEx/Conference call thing today regarding corporate spam and virus protection. The host was a engineer from Trends Micro. They talked for 6 hours about Windows 2k, Linux and Solaris servers, and Win 2k desktop protection. I asked if they will ever make any Mac OS X Server and OS X desktop protection solutions and they paused, and then said "No." I could hear the engineers in the background whispering "Hey, doesn't Apple make some kind of Linux dirivative now?".
It's frustrating...
Real IT professionals should at least know the basic details of what OSX is or at least that it exists. I would not consider those engineers real IT Pros even if I was their co-worker. IT Pros know what is going on in their field, even if it is just a general overview. Even if all they do is real the summaries on slashdot.org they at least have an overview of what is going on with other things...
I think part of it too is that the interface isn't something that look 'professional'. The plain old windows theme ( not the XP Fischer-Price theme ) looks more 'professional' than OSX even with graphite. I think that maybe Apple should add some 'themeing' ability to OSX even if it's only for corporate customers...
So Apple's corprate strategy should be make OS X look ugly in order to sell it?
Windows looks pathetic, not "professional". It is cumbersome, sloppy, ill-conceived, complex, boring and unfriendly.
OS X (for its faults) is (generally) well thought out, simpler, elegant and well organized. Not perfect, but an order of magnitude better than Windows (IMHO).
I think it is just fine that Apple does not get into the Corporate IT jungle.
Think about it.
If Apple had become the software juggernaut of the world instead of Microsoft then Apple would probably have become just as corrupted. They'd try to cut corners to get out product and the product would suffer. Anyone buying Apple would be getting second-rate no-quality product.
Once you get that big, the business analysts don't care about the quality of the product. They only focus on HOW much "revenue" and "profits" the company is going to make by selling their junk. This totally destroys the integrity of the product.
I bet you if you surveyed every windows user out in the world today 99.8% would say they've had a problem with windows and weren't totally happy with it but since "everyone" uses it you just have to live with it.
And if you surveyed every Mac OS user out there you'd hear 99.9% say how happy they were with the OS and how friendly it is to work with.
If Apple got too big then I think their quality would suffer.
Let Microsoft take the heat for low-quality product. It's their own fault anyway for caring more about "revenue stream" instead of "top quality for the customer"
I have been a windows user since 1991 (in computer years that's about 4 centuries) and I purchased this Powerbook i'm typing on two months ago and I was convinced after the first week that this was a superior product. In fact, I practically haven't turned this thing off since I got it and I STILL haven't experienced any problems with it!!
When we purchased our Dell mini-tower a year and a half ago it took me 3 days to get it running perfectly and I fix PC's for a living!! (Oh God, get me out of the PC world! If I couldfind a way out, I'd do it in a second)
O-Mac has some good points. I think a monopolistic Apple (and Apple is a monopoly...of sorts) could be as bad as a monopolistic Microsoft. That said, I think what I would LOVE to see emerge in the computer industry (and this is possible folks) is perhaps a "duopoloy" or a "triopoly" much like the old "Big 3" auto makers, or "Big 3" TV networks, or "Coke vs. Pepsi".
This arrangement would clearly be better than a Monopoly (assuming no direct collusion among the competitors). It would keep each one honest and competitive.
I could see something like this:
Microsoft (OS)/Intel (chip)/Dell & HP-Compaq (machines)
Apple (OS & machines)/IBM-Motorola (chips)
And, oh, I don't know:
Sun?
Red Hat (and some hardware vendor)?
Perhaps a three way split of the market among platforms?
This would be the best solution for customers. Enough competition to keep things honest and innovative. Few enough standards that chaos and incompatibility would not reign.
The truth is that the Microsoft monoply is a historical anomolly, even in the computer industry. I believe it will not last...unless the government gives it a legal monopoly (which they almost did with that lame settlement).
So Apple's corprate strategy should be make OS X look ugly in order to sell it?
Windows looks pathetic, not "professional". It is cumbersome, sloppy, ill-conceived, complex, boring and unfriendly.
All true. However, it's amazing how shalow people are, and IT fok I know have looked at OS X (and XP) and dismissed it just by looking at it. Dumb? Yes. But they do it. So does Apple cater to that? Maybe.
Something that I have noticed is that everyone that walks into my office is INSTANTLY taken by my iBook. They don't know what it is at first. They stop, stammer, "Is that yours? That's cool." Then we move on.
What I also find humorous is the historical perspective here. When the Mac first came out. It was a toy. Real me used command line interfaces like DOS (when everyone knows that REAL mean use UNIX ;-)). Mouse was for sissies.
Now...
Everyone thinks Microsoft invented the GUI and that Apple copied THEM.
Wait until Longhorn is doing many of things that Aqua does today. Then it won't be dismissed.
O-Mac has some good points. I think a monopolistic Apple (and Apple is a monopoly...of sorts) could be as bad as a monopolistic Microsoft. That said, I think what I would LOVE to see emerge in the computer industry (and this is possible folks) is perhaps a "duopoloy" or a "triopoly" much like the old "Big 3" auto makers, or "Big 3" TV networks, or "Coke vs. Pepsi".
Platforms are naturally monopolies. Instead of comparisons with cars, tv networks or soda, something like the NTSC vs PAL, or maybe the battle between AC & DC in the old days, is more accurate. Nobody needs to buy different cups to drink coke or pepsi. Almost all the cars the big 3 produce drive on the same roads and use the same fuel. A platform is worthless if 3rd parties don't develop for it. Supporting multiple platforms takes time and money. Maybe you weren't around before microsoft & x86 was the standard, but it was more expensive and a hassle to get supported software and hardware on your particular platform.
I'd also say that it's likely that Apple would be worse with monopoly control. Back when they had 15% of the market, it seemed anything that could be made proprietary was. They embrace open standards now because it's necessary to compete with a giant.
Platforms are naturally monopolies. Instead of comparisons with cars, tv networks or soda, something like the NTSC vs PAL, or maybe the battle between AC & DC in the old days, is more accurate.
These are interesting analogies. Though not necesarily 100% applicable either. The interesting thing is that with open standards for data formats and protocols and hardware connectivity, there can be more than one platform, but still be reasonably "compatible" and interoperable. Apple is proving this today.
Perhaps the telephone system works as a better model. In the past there were hundred (thousands?) of small to medium sized telecom companies. All, perhaps, with different, incompatible networks. Eventually Ma Bell consolidated all of this, stitching all it together into one unified (?) system. Today there are (again) hundreds of network providers (well...okay fewer now than a couple of years ago). They each have their own networks, but interoperate at the interface points.
I'm not sure how to think about the computer industry. None of the (past) models fits exactly. And this makes sense. This is a different industry. Also, Apple continues to exist. Why? How?
Then there are other questions too. How does all of this affect Apple's decision to (or not to) provide a version of OS X for the ISA (Intel) hardware platform? This is not a technical issue, but a business or political one. In fact, there are three very interesting things that also complicate this question:
1. As you pointed out, Apple has embraced standards (particularly in the hardware area) to compete. Most of these hardware is pretty stock stuff (except the CPU really). So the only thing in the box that is different is the CPU...and that's a basic rebuild of the OS (Yes it is. OS X, in the form of NEXTSTEP, has been ported and sold for Intel, SPARC and HP-PA-RISC. It is probably even more portable now than then.) So what gives? Why cling to this CPU?
2. Microsoft it getting into the (closed) hardware business. I have felt for a long time that the XBox is a "trojan horse" and that if I were Dell, I might be a little worried. The XBox is a PC (minus the display and keyboard)! But its proprietary to Microsoft. Interesting.
3. What of iPod, iTunes (for Windows), etc.? Is iPod the "trojan horse" for Apple? Is Apple trying to (slowly) redfine what the personal computer is? Will iPod gain more CPU power and software capabilities? Will it becoms something you could plug a monitor and keyboard into and boom! you have a computer? I don't know. Pure speculation. Could iTunes be the first of (possibly) many Apples applications to come to Windows? Could Apple slowly replace Microsoft in some key application areas? Who knows.
What I do think is that the game is not over yet. Maybe not even close. We'll see.
So Apple's corprate strategy should be make OS X look ugly in order to sell it?
Windows looks pathetic, not "professional". It is cumbersome, sloppy, ill-conceived, complex, boring and unfriendly.
OS X (for its faults) is (generally) well thought out, simpler, elegant and well organized. Not perfect, but an order of magnitude better than Windows (IMHO).
First, don't trip over yourself in your attempt to 'bash anything with the word MicroSoft attached to it'. Stop being a zealot for a minute, mmmmkay? The classic Windows theme wasn't even something that is completely MicroSoft. They got bits and pieces from the UNIX(X11) world. Of course you would know some of this if you bothered to learn something instead of using the mentality of 'he said microsoft, let us all stone him to death'.
Second, you're taking my comment totally out of context. I'm talking the THEME, not the entire operating system. You know? The way that the windows are drawn? The window borders? Now that we're on the same page, I personally think that the plain old windows theme looks more professional than the OSX and XP themes. I'm talking about this from a stand point of office work / software development. I'm a minimalist as far as window managing goes. Maybe that has something to do with it. I sorta like CDE and TWM. The way I see it, when I'm relaxing at home a nice pleasant theme is cool, but when I'm are work the computer I use isn't something 'nice and fluffy', it's a machine that I use to get my job done. Things may be different as to what 'professional' means for another industry or something, but this is the way I see things. Even if Apple had an option to use the old OS 9 theme... Sorta like how you can use the Luna theme or the classic windows theme in XP. Don't get me wrong. I love OSX, but I think that a less 'nice and fluffy' theme is needed.
First, don't trip over yourself in your attempt to 'bash anything with the word MicroSoft attached to it'. Stop being a zealot for a minute, mmmmkay? The classic Windows theme wasn't even something that is completely MicroSoft. They got bits and pieces from the UNIX(X11) world. Of course you would know some of this if you bothered to learn something instead of using the mentality of 'he said microsoft, let us all stone him to death'.
First of all...don't trip all over yourself assuming I am doing this. I am speaking from direct, day to day experience working with both platforms. I was NOT bashing Microsoft just because it was Microsoft. I was bashing the relative experiences of the products. I don't care if its from "Acme" and "Amalgamated". In my experience, one simply works better. Period.
Quote:
I personally think that the plain old windows theme looks more professional than the OSX and XP themes.
Okay. Fine. My comment intended to go deeper than skin, but we can discuss it this way too. First of all, this is your opinion. It may, in fact be an opinion shared by many in the business world. Then again, maybe not.
It is my opinion that Windows (the "classic" theme...which I use also to avoid the blindingly garrish "Luna" theme) is drab and boring.
Perhaps you are suggesting (and this is fine) that only the computer in the "gray flannel suit" should be considered "professional". I disagree. In my view "professionalism" is not merely about looks, but a host of things, including how well (or not) thought out something is. It is about how something behaves as much as how it looks.
Quote:
I'm talking about this from a stand point of office work / software development.
So am I. I do office work. I develop software. I am a professional. I don't think Mac OS X looks unprofessional. At all.
Quote:
but when I'm are work the computer I use isn't something 'nice and fluffy', it's a machine that I use to get my job done.
Here again, you are using adjectives to describe your opinion. This is fine. Nothing wrong with that. However you seem to be suggesting the "professionally looking" vs. "un-professional looking" is something of objective fact.
Second, you're taking my comment totally out of context. I'm talking the THEME, not the entire operating system. You know? The way that the windows are drawn? The window borders? Now that we're on the same page, I personally think that the plain old windows theme looks more professional than the OSX and XP themes. I'm talking about this from a stand point of office work / software development. I'm a minimalist as far as window managing goes. Maybe that has something to do with it. I sorta like CDE and TWM.
The problem with Aqua is that it calls a little too much attention to itself...however, the solution isn't the drab and ass-backwards Windows type style.
Themeable interfaces are the sign of an imperfect product. Although they flirted with themes in OS 9, Apple won't come out with themes for OS X, because in their eyes it would be admitting fault with their carefully chosen (for looks, not function) style of Window borders.
Platinum (the OS 9 style) is far superior to OS X or Windows windows...the Aqua window buttons are too flashy and distracting when looking at Photoshop files. The "Close" and "resize" buttons are right next to each other, just like in windows, so that a misclick will get rid of a window. Very bad choice...
Maybe we'll see Apple laying off some of the glitz now that OS X has a firm foothold...they've taken some steps in the right direction with Jaguar.
The problem with Aqua is that it calls a little too much attention to itself...however, the solution isn't the drab and ass-backwards Windows type style.
This is my whole point. I actually don't think Apple needs to go too far to get it "right" on this front.
Quote:
Themeable interfaces are the sign of an imperfect product.
I agree.
Quote:
Maybe we'll see Apple laying off some of the glitz now that OS X has a firm foothold...they've taken some steps in the right direction with Jaguar.
I think this is probably true. Probably not ditching the Aqua look altogether, but toning it down a bit. The button issue could get fixed too, though not likely until the "stop light" colors go away.
Themeable interfaces are the sign of an imperfect product.
So wrong... as if dictating an uniform taste and preference is a good thing?
If everything looks exactly the same way as dictated by one individual or company, sooner or later there will be an upstart company featuring a commercial with a blond throwing the hammer at the 'Aqua' interface.
The fact that you have 'Chris Cuilla' nodding his head in agreement is but the first proof of this.
That said, I think what I would LOVE to see emerge in the computer industry (and this is possible folks) is perhaps a "duopoloy" or a "triopoly" much like the old "Big 3" auto makers, or "Big 3" TV networks, or "Coke vs. Pepsi".
Uh, you mean oligopoly? No thanks.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The truth is that the Microsoft monoply is a historical anomolly [sic]
One can always find something different in each of the major monopolies but I fail to see how Microsoft is a historical anomaly. Before you say it is the truth, I think you should back it up.
I meant a specific sub-form of an "oligopoly"...with only two or three main market players.
Quote:
No thanks.
You prefer a monopoly? Where only one company (possibly one person) dictates what you can buy (and at what prices) over (at least) a "duo" or "tri"-opoloy, where at least some competition for customers exists?
Quote:
One can always find something different in each of the major monopolies but I fail to see how Microsoft is a historical anomaly. Before you say it is the truth, I think you should back it up.
What I meant by this is that historically monopolies tend to not last forever...unless legally provided (or allowed). The world tends to be too dynamic. Some local monopolies (utilities) do exist more out of economic necessity (they're better) but they also tend to be tightly regulated.
Typical. Not sure I care right now. Apple's done little to grow it's corporate share.
XServer. OS X. Xserver RAID. OS X Server. They are starting a certification program. File Maker. This was in 5 seconds off the top of my head. I disagree. I think it's an issue of overcoming the initial M$ drones resistance. In the next few years with the help of Panther and improved SMB I hope this will change.
OSX is more compatible with linux than windows, and linux is the future of the corporate desktop. So that's good news.
However, corporate desktops are all about bang for buck. Apple is targeted at consumers w/ proprietary hardware and multimedia OS. No IT dept is going to buy new, overpriced shiny hardware w/ a different OS and the associated learning curve, when they can keep installing Windows on commodity PCs and/or migrating those existing commodity PCs over to linux, saving even more money.
Linux is stable, secure, free AND RUNS ON CHEAP COMMODITY HARDWARE. OSX only has the first two qualities.
So of course, IT people don't know about OSX. It is irrelevant to them.
i don't know who told you linux was the future but they lied to you.
Linux is a joke. i work for a fortune 100 company. We laugh at linux. It belongs in the server room.
There isn't a damn person who has bothered to design a stardized GUI or a decent one, they all remind me of that stupid winamp mp3 player. Linux is a hack. The software is a hack. Open source is usually just an excuse to ship broken software, after all you'll just add if yourself if you need something.
Most free software has horrible GUI. Even openoffice is just a nasty.
Our office would rather spend $500 on each computer installing the software that connects with the rest of the world and that our customers are running, rather than "beta" test and hack around linux.
Mostly likely microsoft will introduce a windows down the road with unix core for business and pro users.
Linux is a passing fad for the server room and nerds in closets. I can do anything better on Windows and OS X, and if it involves hosting we use something good like freebsd.
linux is the halfass of everything. Half as good as most desktop systems and half as good as server enviroment freebsd or other *nix
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
Of course no one knows about OSX
You can't swing a dead cat without hitting 4 Microsoft Certified Professionals. Certification is beautiful because for most participants it creates mindless drones who push the product they're Certified in and act like nothing else exists.
Um, almost everyone here pushes Macs like nothing else exists. :-P And you aren't even certified for Macs, imagine if you all were certified for Macs...
Apple has a Certification Process now but it's on Training Wheels. They need to beef it up if they plan to make any moves into IT/Enterprise.
I think part of it too is that the interface isn't something that look 'professional'. The plain old windows theme ( not the XP Fischer-Price theme ) looks more 'professional' than OSX even with graphite. I think that maybe Apple should add some 'themeing' ability to OSX even if it's only for corporate customers...
Originally posted by dstranathan
I was in a huge corporate meeting/WebEx/Conference call thing today regarding corporate spam and virus protection. The host was a engineer from Trends Micro. They talked for 6 hours about Windows 2k, Linux and Solaris servers, and Win 2k desktop protection. I asked if they will ever make any Mac OS X Server and OS X desktop protection solutions and they paused, and then said "No." I could hear the engineers in the background whispering "Hey, doesn't Apple make some kind of Linux dirivative now?".
It's frustrating...
Real IT professionals should at least know the basic details of what OSX is or at least that it exists. I would not consider those engineers real IT Pros even if I was their co-worker. IT Pros know what is going on in their field, even if it is just a general overview. Even if all they do is real the summaries on slashdot.org they at least have an overview of what is going on with other things...
Originally posted by pyr3
I think part of it too is that the interface isn't something that look 'professional'. The plain old windows theme ( not the XP Fischer-Price theme ) looks more 'professional' than OSX even with graphite. I think that maybe Apple should add some 'themeing' ability to OSX even if it's only for corporate customers...
So Apple's corprate strategy should be make OS X look ugly in order to sell it?
Windows looks pathetic, not "professional". It is cumbersome, sloppy, ill-conceived, complex, boring and unfriendly.
OS X (for its faults) is (generally) well thought out, simpler, elegant and well organized. Not perfect, but an order of magnitude better than Windows (IMHO).
Think about it.
If Apple had become the software juggernaut of the world instead of Microsoft then Apple would probably have become just as corrupted. They'd try to cut corners to get out product and the product would suffer. Anyone buying Apple would be getting second-rate no-quality product.
Once you get that big, the business analysts don't care about the quality of the product. They only focus on HOW much "revenue" and "profits" the company is going to make by selling their junk. This totally destroys the integrity of the product.
I bet you if you surveyed every windows user out in the world today 99.8% would say they've had a problem with windows and weren't totally happy with it but since "everyone" uses it you just have to live with it.
And if you surveyed every Mac OS user out there you'd hear 99.9% say how happy they were with the OS and how friendly it is to work with.
If Apple got too big then I think their quality would suffer.
Let Microsoft take the heat for low-quality product. It's their own fault anyway for caring more about "revenue stream" instead of "top quality for the customer"
I have been a windows user since 1991 (in computer years that's about 4 centuries) and I purchased this Powerbook i'm typing on two months ago and I was convinced after the first week that this was a superior product. In fact, I practically haven't turned this thing off since I got it and I STILL haven't experienced any problems with it!!
When we purchased our Dell mini-tower a year and a half ago it took me 3 days to get it running perfectly and I fix PC's for a living!! (Oh God, get me out of the PC world! If I couldfind a way out, I'd do it in a second)
So there's my 2 cents worth.
Thank you verry much.
You're really a fantastic audience...
{exit music}
This arrangement would clearly be better than a Monopoly (assuming no direct collusion among the competitors). It would keep each one honest and competitive.
I could see something like this:
Microsoft (OS)/Intel (chip)/Dell & HP-Compaq (machines)
Apple (OS & machines)/IBM-Motorola (chips)
And, oh, I don't know:
Sun?
Red Hat (and some hardware vendor)?
Perhaps a three way split of the market among platforms?
This would be the best solution for customers. Enough competition to keep things honest and innovative. Few enough standards that chaos and incompatibility would not reign.
The truth is that the Microsoft monoply is a historical anomolly, even in the computer industry. I believe it will not last...unless the government gives it a legal monopoly (which they almost did with that lame settlement).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So Apple's corprate strategy should be make OS X look ugly in order to sell it?
Windows looks pathetic, not "professional". It is cumbersome, sloppy, ill-conceived, complex, boring and unfriendly.
All true. However, it's amazing how shalow people are, and IT fok I know have looked at OS X (and XP) and dismissed it just by looking at it. Dumb? Yes. But they do it. So does Apple cater to that? Maybe.
What I also find humorous is the historical perspective here. When the Mac first came out. It was a toy. Real me used command line interfaces like DOS (when everyone knows that REAL mean use UNIX ;-)). Mouse was for sissies.
Now...
Everyone thinks Microsoft invented the GUI and that Apple copied THEM.
Wait until Longhorn is doing many of things that Aqua does today. Then it won't be dismissed.
No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
O-Mac has some good points. I think a monopolistic Apple (and Apple is a monopoly...of sorts) could be as bad as a monopolistic Microsoft. That said, I think what I would LOVE to see emerge in the computer industry (and this is possible folks) is perhaps a "duopoloy" or a "triopoly" much like the old "Big 3" auto makers, or "Big 3" TV networks, or "Coke vs. Pepsi".
Platforms are naturally monopolies. Instead of comparisons with cars, tv networks or soda, something like the NTSC vs PAL, or maybe the battle between AC & DC in the old days, is more accurate. Nobody needs to buy different cups to drink coke or pepsi. Almost all the cars the big 3 produce drive on the same roads and use the same fuel. A platform is worthless if 3rd parties don't develop for it. Supporting multiple platforms takes time and money. Maybe you weren't around before microsoft & x86 was the standard, but it was more expensive and a hassle to get supported software and hardware on your particular platform.
I'd also say that it's likely that Apple would be worse with monopoly control. Back when they had 15% of the market, it seemed anything that could be made proprietary was. They embrace open standards now because it's necessary to compete with a giant.
Originally posted by xmoger
Platforms are naturally monopolies. Instead of comparisons with cars, tv networks or soda, something like the NTSC vs PAL, or maybe the battle between AC & DC in the old days, is more accurate.
These are interesting analogies. Though not necesarily 100% applicable either. The interesting thing is that with open standards for data formats and protocols and hardware connectivity, there can be more than one platform, but still be reasonably "compatible" and interoperable. Apple is proving this today.
Perhaps the telephone system works as a better model. In the past there were hundred (thousands?) of small to medium sized telecom companies. All, perhaps, with different, incompatible networks. Eventually Ma Bell consolidated all of this, stitching all it together into one unified (?) system. Today there are (again) hundreds of network providers (well...okay fewer now than a couple of years ago). They each have their own networks, but interoperate at the interface points.
I'm not sure how to think about the computer industry. None of the (past) models fits exactly. And this makes sense. This is a different industry. Also, Apple continues to exist. Why? How?
Then there are other questions too. How does all of this affect Apple's decision to (or not to) provide a version of OS X for the ISA (Intel) hardware platform? This is not a technical issue, but a business or political one. In fact, there are three very interesting things that also complicate this question:
1. As you pointed out, Apple has embraced standards (particularly in the hardware area) to compete. Most of these hardware is pretty stock stuff (except the CPU really). So the only thing in the box that is different is the CPU...and that's a basic rebuild of the OS (Yes it is. OS X, in the form of NEXTSTEP, has been ported and sold for Intel, SPARC and HP-PA-RISC. It is probably even more portable now than then.) So what gives? Why cling to this CPU?
2. Microsoft it getting into the (closed) hardware business. I have felt for a long time that the XBox is a "trojan horse" and that if I were Dell, I might be a little worried. The XBox is a PC (minus the display and keyboard)! But its proprietary to Microsoft. Interesting.
3. What of iPod, iTunes (for Windows), etc.? Is iPod the "trojan horse" for Apple? Is Apple trying to (slowly) redfine what the personal computer is? Will iPod gain more CPU power and software capabilities? Will it becoms something you could plug a monitor and keyboard into and boom! you have a computer? I don't know. Pure speculation. Could iTunes be the first of (possibly) many Apples applications to come to Windows? Could Apple slowly replace Microsoft in some key application areas? Who knows.
What I do think is that the game is not over yet. Maybe not even close. We'll see.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So Apple's corprate strategy should be make OS X look ugly in order to sell it?
Windows looks pathetic, not "professional". It is cumbersome, sloppy, ill-conceived, complex, boring and unfriendly.
OS X (for its faults) is (generally) well thought out, simpler, elegant and well organized. Not perfect, but an order of magnitude better than Windows (IMHO).
First, don't trip over yourself in your attempt to 'bash anything with the word MicroSoft attached to it'. Stop being a zealot for a minute, mmmmkay? The classic Windows theme wasn't even something that is completely MicroSoft. They got bits and pieces from the UNIX(X11) world. Of course you would know some of this if you bothered to learn something instead of using the mentality of 'he said microsoft, let us all stone him to death'.
Second, you're taking my comment totally out of context. I'm talking the THEME, not the entire operating system. You know? The way that the windows are drawn? The window borders? Now that we're on the same page, I personally think that the plain old windows theme looks more professional than the OSX and XP themes. I'm talking about this from a stand point of office work / software development. I'm a minimalist as far as window managing goes. Maybe that has something to do with it. I sorta like CDE and TWM. The way I see it, when I'm relaxing at home a nice pleasant theme is cool, but when I'm are work the computer I use isn't something 'nice and fluffy', it's a machine that I use to get my job done. Things may be different as to what 'professional' means for another industry or something, but this is the way I see things. Even if Apple had an option to use the old OS 9 theme... Sorta like how you can use the Luna theme or the classic windows theme in XP. Don't get me wrong. I love OSX, but I think that a less 'nice and fluffy' theme is needed.
Originally posted by pyr3
First, don't trip over yourself in your attempt to 'bash anything with the word MicroSoft attached to it'. Stop being a zealot for a minute, mmmmkay? The classic Windows theme wasn't even something that is completely MicroSoft. They got bits and pieces from the UNIX(X11) world. Of course you would know some of this if you bothered to learn something instead of using the mentality of 'he said microsoft, let us all stone him to death'.
First of all...don't trip all over yourself assuming I am doing this. I am speaking from direct, day to day experience working with both platforms. I was NOT bashing Microsoft just because it was Microsoft. I was bashing the relative experiences of the products. I don't care if its from "Acme" and "Amalgamated". In my experience, one simply works better. Period.
I personally think that the plain old windows theme looks more professional than the OSX and XP themes.
Okay. Fine. My comment intended to go deeper than skin, but we can discuss it this way too. First of all, this is your opinion. It may, in fact be an opinion shared by many in the business world. Then again, maybe not.
It is my opinion that Windows (the "classic" theme...which I use also to avoid the blindingly garrish "Luna" theme) is drab and boring.
Perhaps you are suggesting (and this is fine) that only the computer in the "gray flannel suit" should be considered "professional". I disagree. In my view "professionalism" is not merely about looks, but a host of things, including how well (or not) thought out something is. It is about how something behaves as much as how it looks.
I'm talking about this from a stand point of office work / software development.
So am I. I do office work. I develop software. I am a professional. I don't think Mac OS X looks unprofessional. At all.
but when I'm are work the computer I use isn't something 'nice and fluffy', it's a machine that I use to get my job done.
Here again, you are using adjectives to describe your opinion. This is fine. Nothing wrong with that. However you seem to be suggesting the "professionally looking" vs. "un-professional looking" is something of objective fact.
Originally posted by pyr3
Second, you're taking my comment totally out of context. I'm talking the THEME, not the entire operating system. You know? The way that the windows are drawn? The window borders? Now that we're on the same page, I personally think that the plain old windows theme looks more professional than the OSX and XP themes. I'm talking about this from a stand point of office work / software development. I'm a minimalist as far as window managing goes. Maybe that has something to do with it. I sorta like CDE and TWM.
The problem with Aqua is that it calls a little too much attention to itself...however, the solution isn't the drab and ass-backwards Windows type style.
Themeable interfaces are the sign of an imperfect product. Although they flirted with themes in OS 9, Apple won't come out with themes for OS X, because in their eyes it would be admitting fault with their carefully chosen (for looks, not function) style of Window borders.
Platinum (the OS 9 style) is far superior to OS X or Windows windows...the Aqua window buttons are too flashy and distracting when looking at Photoshop files. The "Close" and "resize" buttons are right next to each other, just like in windows, so that a misclick will get rid of a window. Very bad choice...
Maybe we'll see Apple laying off some of the glitz now that OS X has a firm foothold...they've taken some steps in the right direction with Jaguar.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
The problem with Aqua is that it calls a little too much attention to itself...however, the solution isn't the drab and ass-backwards Windows type style.
This is my whole point. I actually don't think Apple needs to go too far to get it "right" on this front.
Themeable interfaces are the sign of an imperfect product.
I agree.
Maybe we'll see Apple laying off some of the glitz now that OS X has a firm foothold...they've taken some steps in the right direction with Jaguar.
I think this is probably true. Probably not ditching the Aqua look altogether, but toning it down a bit. The button issue could get fixed too, though not likely until the "stop light" colors go away.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Themeable interfaces are the sign of an imperfect product.
So wrong... as if dictating an uniform taste and preference is a good thing?
If everything looks exactly the same way as dictated by one individual or company, sooner or later there will be an upstart company featuring a commercial with a blond throwing the hammer at the 'Aqua' interface.
The fact that you have 'Chris Cuilla' nodding his head in agreement is but the first proof of this.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That said, I think what I would LOVE to see emerge in the computer industry (and this is possible folks) is perhaps a "duopoloy" or a "triopoly" much like the old "Big 3" auto makers, or "Big 3" TV networks, or "Coke vs. Pepsi".
Uh, you mean oligopoly? No thanks.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The truth is that the Microsoft monoply is a historical anomolly [sic]
One can always find something different in each of the major monopolies but I fail to see how Microsoft is a historical anomaly. Before you say it is the truth, I think you should back it up.
Originally posted by klinux
The fact that you have 'Chris Cuilla' nodding his head in agreement is but the first proof of this.
Be nice now. Let's not go ad hominem here.
Originally posted by klinux
Uh, you mean oligopoly?
I meant a specific sub-form of an "oligopoly"...with only two or three main market players.
No thanks.
You prefer a monopoly? Where only one company (possibly one person) dictates what you can buy (and at what prices) over (at least) a "duo" or "tri"-opoloy, where at least some competition for customers exists?
One can always find something different in each of the major monopolies but I fail to see how Microsoft is a historical anomaly. Before you say it is the truth, I think you should back it up.
What I meant by this is that historically monopolies tend to not last forever...unless legally provided (or allowed). The world tends to be too dynamic. Some local monopolies (utilities) do exist more out of economic necessity (they're better) but they also tend to be tightly regulated.
Typical. Not sure I care right now. Apple's done little to grow it's corporate share.
XServer. OS X. Xserver RAID. OS X Server. They are starting a certification program. File Maker. This was in 5 seconds off the top of my head. I disagree. I think it's an issue of overcoming the initial M$ drones resistance. In the next few years with the help of Panther and improved SMB I hope this will change.
However, corporate desktops are all about bang for buck. Apple is targeted at consumers w/ proprietary hardware and multimedia OS. No IT dept is going to buy new, overpriced shiny hardware w/ a different OS and the associated learning curve, when they can keep installing Windows on commodity PCs and/or migrating those existing commodity PCs over to linux, saving even more money.
Linux is stable, secure, free AND RUNS ON CHEAP COMMODITY HARDWARE. OSX only has the first two qualities.
So of course, IT people don't know about OSX. It is irrelevant to them.
Linux is a joke. i work for a fortune 100 company. We laugh at linux. It belongs in the server room.
There isn't a damn person who has bothered to design a stardized GUI or a decent one, they all remind me of that stupid winamp mp3 player. Linux is a hack. The software is a hack. Open source is usually just an excuse to ship broken software, after all you'll just add if yourself if you need something.
Most free software has horrible GUI. Even openoffice is just a nasty.
Our office would rather spend $500 on each computer installing the software that connects with the rest of the world and that our customers are running, rather than "beta" test and hack around linux.
Mostly likely microsoft will introduce a windows down the road with unix core for business and pro users.
Linux is a passing fad for the server room and nerds in closets. I can do anything better on Windows and OS X, and if it involves hosting we use something good like freebsd.
linux is the halfass of everything. Half as good as most desktop systems and half as good as server enviroment freebsd or other *nix