So what is your thought on John C. Dvorak's article?
Will Apple Adopt Windows?
This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing. There's just one fly in the ointment.
"
The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.
"
read more http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923151,00.asp
i think he's biased, Apple to windows, the would lose custemers, like me...
WHAT DO YOU THINK??
This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing. There's just one fly in the ointment.
"
The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.
"
read more http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923151,00.asp
i think he's biased, Apple to windows, the would lose custemers, like me...
WHAT DO YOU THINK??
Comments
(I don't think so.)
Namely
- Advertising campaigns never last forver
- iPod most likely ditched firewire for budgetary reasons
- The numbers seem to indicate that Apple's market share for desktop and laptop computers is growing.
He's looking at a widely scoped pool of evidence and making a pinpoint of a conclusion based eniterly on conjecture. This kind of policy is frowned upon in science, journalism, and philosophy. In fact, the only field where such practices are commonplace is fanaticism. Quoting the professor at the beginning is a well placed alibi, but it still doesn't justify anything.
You need to ad an option to your pool that states: "He's a medicore journalist trying to ride his own, dying practice of writing articles purely to get a rise out of a targeted community."
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I think he knows how to spell better than you.
yeah im sorry
i thought maybe in a forum about which video game console is better but not in here.
does it really matter if there are typos? holy crap.
its like if was talking to someone and they stuttered a word or something
"ha you stuttered! you're stupid! stupid!"
damn bloggers.
Artical is not a word. Articel is not a word. Article is a word.
It isn't a typo. It is an obnoxious spelling error. It isn't even a hard word.
If someone misspelled antidisestablishmentarianism then you would have an argument; actually, I am terrible at spelling words and got that one in one try so perhaps it isn't the best example.
Correct spelling is as much a function of quality of post as it is quality of intent -- you error correct posts you care about, don't you?
Correct spelling is as much a function of quality of post as it is quality of intent
It depends. English may not be his/her first language, so maybe you should cut some slack. Maybe he/she doesn't have an English spell checker (I don't have an Italian one for when I write to my Italian friends).
There are more important things to worry about. If I got irritated about the constant mix-up between their/there, lose/loose and it's/its then I'd never be relaxed enough to write such reasoned and thoughtful posts as this one.
David
Originally posted by backtomac
By the way, does anyone else think Dvorak is an idiot?
To get back on topic ... yeah, he's an idiot. Don't forget, Dvorak is the guy that thought people would never want to use a mouse with their computers. He's been a harsh critic of Apple for a long, long time. He got the Intel switch right, but that's about all he's been able to foresee.
Look at his argument in a nutshell:
Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers.
To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft? It would help the bottom line and put Apple on the fast track to real growth.
What's wrong with the logic?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The logic would be fine if only the premises were correct.
Premises #1 & #3:
The Switch campaign and the iPod's absurd success did not move people to the Mac platform. This is true.
Apple's market share fluctuations are farts in the wind and there is absolutely no sign they will ever recover.
Premise #2:
The iPod going from FW to USB2.0 fully was a very clear sign of #s 1 and 3. Why else? Cost? Sure, but why did the cost hit? Because people weren't buy FW-equipped Macs with their iPods. I remember saying this when the iPod first hit... they better release iTunes for Windows if they want this to take off. It's been obvious for everyone to see.
Premise #4:
Apple did switch to Intel.
Maclots who howled and raged against this idea and swore enternal vengeance and destruction are silent as church mice or talking about it like it was an obvious move anyone would make. Strange, no?
So all of the premises are correct.
Windows is improving. Those Mac loyalists with any kind of objectivity have seen that Microsoft is improving their flagship and has been since Win2k. Steve can tear it down all he likes but it's a great operating system; he tore down Intel as well when it was obvious who controlled the market.
Windows XP SP2 is a damned fine operating system. A lot of security problems are already addressed and Vista looks to be a massive leap in the right direction on that front.
Stability? Check.
Performance? Check.
Application availability? Check.
Does everyone really think that Apple doesn't keep a Windows version of iMovie/iPhoto/iCal/iWhatever ready like they did an x86 version of OSX cooking for years?
It has been foretold since Bill Gates' giant face appeared on screen saving Apple from itself and showing mercy.
Give in, Mac world, embrace your niche.
tonton:
This is a "double or nothing" proposition, and a responsible, healthy company just doesnt take that sort of risk.
iPod and web services (iTMS, forthcoming iTunes video store) will make them some money. And they will still be selling computers. Read the article.
To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive.
Put the Mac UI on top of Windows. Make the exact same x86 Macs they're making now. Let Microsoft take care of the grunt work and focus on making it pretty and making cool software (iMovie, iTunes, etc...).
Think about it.
Dvorak's article does not merit the time it takes to read and he does not deserve the clicks.
Originally posted by groverat
To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive.
You can't polish a turd.
But more seriously, I think that their operating system is the single truly superior thing that Apple makes, and letting go of that would be stupid.
Originally posted by Placebo
None of us have used Vista yet, Xool, so I think it's premature to judge (even if you have used the Vista beta) what the future of Windows holds.
But more seriously, I think that their operating system is the single truly superior thing that Apple makes, and letting go of that would be stupid.
I rely on Mac OS X's Unix underpinnings daily and I have no desire to replace that with Windows. Let alone having some Windows vulnerability hosing my Mac system.
Meanwhile, virtualization technologies are proceeding at an alarming pace. It wouldn't surprise me if in a few years we'll be able to launch various operating systems in parallel, just like we do with applications now. If this is the case, deploying a full version of Mac OS X on a Windows machine is pretty trivial.
Originally posted by groverat
Premises #1 & #3:
The Switch campaign and the iPod's absurd success did not move people to the Mac platform. This is true.
Apple's market share fluctuations are farts in the wind and there is absolutely no sign they will ever recover.
Premise #2:
The iPod going from FW to USB2.0 fully was a very clear sign of #s 1 and 3. Why else? Cost? Sure, but why did the cost hit? Because people weren't buy FW-equipped Macs with their iPods. I remember saying this when the iPod first hit... they better release iTunes for Windows if they want this to take off. It's been obvious for everyone to see.
Premise #4:
Apple did switch to Intel.
Maclots who howled and raged against this idea and swore enternal vengeance and destruction are silent as church mice or talking about it like it was an obvious move anyone would make. Strange, no?
So all of the premises are correct.
Windows is improving. Those Mac loyalists with any kind of objectivity have seen that Microsoft is improving their flagship and has been since Win2k. Steve can tear it down all he likes but it's a great operating system; he tore down Intel as well when it was obvious who controlled the market.
Windows XP SP2 is a damned fine operating system. A lot of security problems are already addressed and Vista looks to be a massive leap in the right direction on that front.
Stability? Check.
Performance? Check.
Application availability? Check.
Does everyone really think that Apple doesn't keep a Windows version of iMovie/iPhoto/iCal/iWhatever ready like they did an x86 version of OSX cooking for years?
It has been foretold since Bill Gates' giant face appeared on screen saving Apple from itself and showing mercy.
Give in, Mac world, embrace your niche.
tonton:
iPod and web services (iTMS, forthcoming iTunes video store) will make them some money. And they will still be selling computers. Read the article.
To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself. From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive.
Put the Mac UI on top of Windows. Make the exact same x86 Macs they're making now. Let Microsoft take care of the grunt work and focus on making it pretty and making cool software (iMovie, iTunes, etc...).
Think about it.
I guess GM should just sell camrys with a chevy logo slapped on the side of it.
The answer is to make your product better. Otherwise get out of the business.
It's possible to make OSX better by basing it off Windows.
Again, Apple doesn't buy its own marketing crap ("Intel sucks" "Windows sucks") like their loyalists do.
There's nothing wrong with eliminating redundancies. And this would open up a giant market for Mac developers.