Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Apple primarily bases its apps on open source/standard tools. Is willing to cooperate with partners such as Google and Yahoo in using or supporting their services. What if MS made its own phone. Looking at MS strategy an MS phone would be Windows only and locked into Windows services and development languages.



    The iPhone development platform is Objective-C, HTML5/CSS/javascript.

    MS development platform would be .NET and Silverlight.



    The iPhone uses OpenGL-ES and Open AL for multimedia API.

    MS phone would use its own DirectX as its multimedia API.



    iPhone allows easy set up of several popular email services.

    MS phone would allow easy set up of Outlook and Windows Hotmail.



    iPhone calendar and address book are based on the open source vCard and CalDav/WebDav.

    MS phone calendar and address book would be based on MS Outlook extensions.



    iPhone encourages downloading pictures to Flickr and Facebook.

    MS phone would encourage picture downloads to Windows Live Photos.



    The iPhone has a built in Youtube app.

    MS phone would have a built in Soapbox app and Silverlight streaming.



    iPhone has integrated google and yahoo search

    MS phone would have integrated Windows Live search.



    iPhone has integrated Google Maps app.

    MS phone would have integrated Windows Search Maps.



    iPhone has encouraged the use of AOL AIM

    MS phone would encouraged the use of MS Messenger.



    iPhone encourages the use of Facebook for social networking.

    MS phone would encourage Windows Live Spaces.



    iPhone encourages the use of Twitter.

    MS phone would encourage the use of Windows Live Groups.



    Does Apple allow me to use a different browser on my iPod Touch?

    Does Apple allow me to not use iTunes to sync or download information to my Touch?

    Does Apple allow me to uninstall QT, since I don't use it on either my Mac or PC, without breaking iTunes?



    All I really see are competing standards, which is fine, but if everything was truely 'open', I could do whatever the hell I want, but of which neither Apple or Microsoft will ever allow, as there is money to be had and protection of their interests. Closest to being open is Linux, in it's various forms and flavors, in which you could tweak anything if you had the knowledge, time, and patience.



    MS and Apple both want market domination, but I would never either is particularly better than the other IMO, just wishing to protect their own. Google wants to dominate the market too, but most of the time, I find them better than Apple or MS, but I don't totally trust them either.
  • Reply 122 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.



    Tell me about it - no big deal though.



    Just run REGEDIT go to HKey_localMachine>software>microsoft>windows>curre ntversion?runonce and remove the offending program.



    :-)



    Most of the time it won't run again, except quicktime - quicktime lives to place the run on startup file over and over and over in this location.



    sigh
  • Reply 123 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    Does Apple allow me to use a different browser on my iPod Touch?

    Does Apple allow me to not use iTunes to sync or download information to my Touch?

    Does Apple allow me to uninstall QT, since I don't use it on either my Mac or PC, without breaking iTunes?



    Quicktime framework is required for iTunes to run. That's why.
  • Reply 124 of 152
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    That's one way to dodge the issue, I suppose. A cowardly and insipid way, but a way?



    You forgot to add immoral.



    Really, I expected more.
  • Reply 125 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    Does Apple allow me to use a different browser on my iPod Touch?

    Does Apple allow me to not use iTunes to sync or download information to my Touch?

    Does Apple allow me to uninstall QT, since I don't use it on either my Mac or PC, without breaking iTunes?



    - Yes their are different browsers for you iPod Touch.



    - iTunes and the iPod are vertically integrated, that is what has made them such a popular platform.



    - iTunes and its media are based on the Quicktime framework. All of Apple's applications are based on the Quicktime framework are will not work without it.



    Quote:

    All I really see are competing standards, which is fine, but if everything was truely 'open', I could do whatever the hell I want, but of which neither Apple or Microsoft will ever allow, as there is money to be had and protection of their interests. Closest to being open is Linux, in it's various forms and flavors, in which you could tweak anything if you had the knowledge, time, and patience.



    I am not arguing that everything has to be open. To build a software platform with products and services their needs to be some degree of propriety. I see no problem with that.



    Quote:

    MS and Apple both want market domination, but I would never either is particularly better than the other IMO, just wishing to protect their own. Google wants to dominate the market too, but most of the time, I find them better than Apple or MS, but I don't totally trust them either.



    I disagree with your assertion in the sense that Apple, Google, and MS are using very different business models and practices.



    Apple and Google have mostly picked certain markets to aggressively compete in. Yes the goal is to capture a dominant share of those markets with superior products and services. Outside of their primary markets Apple and Google have shown a willingness to partner with others in sharing their services, products, and use open and widely interoperable software architectures.



    Microsoft has taken a different strategy in they want to dominate most every major product category and service with an MS or Windows branded product or service that forms an ecosystem dedicated to Windows desktop OS. MS generally directly competes against everyone. MS shares its own products and services by licensing them out, but directly promotes someone else's technology. MS does not directly support widely interoperable software architectures developed by others.
  • Reply 126 of 152
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    backtomac:



    Expected more with regards to what? You’re ducking the issue entirely. Apple forces MobileMe users on Windows to install a hell of a lot of proprietary software, most of which has nothing at all to do with the actual MobileMe service itself.



    Those extraneous pieces of proprietary software run background processes, phone home, and bug you to install yet more extraneous pieces of proprietary software.



    Your response that other software developers do it as well is childish and it is an attempt on your part to dodge acknowledging the simple fact that Apple is just as bad as other developers in this regard, if not worse.
  • Reply 127 of 152
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Apple forces MobileMe users on Windows to install a hell of a lot of proprietary software, most of which has nothing at all to do with the actual MobileMe service itself.



    Those extraneous pieces of proprietary software run background processes, phone home, and bug you to install yet more extraneous pieces of proprietary software.



    Your response that other software developers do it as well is childish and it is an attempt on your part to dodge acknowledging the simple fact that Apple is just as bad as other developers in this regard, if not worse.



    But that is to connect to 3rd-party ail clients, address books and browsers to send updates to and from the machine to the cloud. Accessing MobileMe from any PC does not require any installation of Apple software.
  • Reply 128 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    This isn't true. You can access and manually upload information into MobileMe through FireFox and IE without any proprietary Apple software.



    The proprietary software is so that you can automatically sync information directly into MobileMe from 3rd party apps.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    backtomac:

    Apple forces MobileMe users on Windows to install a hell of a lot of proprietary software, most of which has nothing at all to do with the actual MobileMe service itself.



  • Reply 129 of 152
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Your response that other software developers do it as well is childish and it is an attempt on your part to dodge acknowledging the simple fact that Apple is just as bad as other developers in this regard, if not worse.



    Apple are just as bad.



    But don't in anyway insinuate that Apple are the ones sullying up the pristine Windows landscape. Windows was and still is a ghetto of pop up notifications telling users to do this that and the other. If MS condones and promotes such user interaction, I don't see why Apple is obliged to do differently.
  • Reply 130 of 152
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    TenoBell:



    Quote:

    The proprietary software is so that you can automatically sync information directly into MobileMe from 3rd party apps.



    The entire purpose of MobileMe is for all of this data synchronization to happen automatically.



    I find the "well that's only if you actually want to use MobileMe's features!" rebuttal confusing.



    I think Apple's affinity for installing its own proprietary software on alien OSs is much higher than Microsoft's.



    But that's OK, because it's Apple.





    backtomac:



    Quote:

    But don't in anyway insinuate that Apple are the ones sullying up the pristine Windows landscape.



    Well thank god no one said that. Thanks for not contributing anything useful.
  • Reply 131 of 152
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Well thank god no one said that. Thanks for not contributing anything useful.



    Then be honest and admit its common on that platform. Why just blast Apple for doing it?



    Look we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
  • Reply 132 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    TenoBell:

    The entire purpose of MobileMe is for all of this data synchronization to happen automatically.

    I find the "well that's only if you actually want to use MobileMe's features!" rebuttal confusing.



    What do you feel would be an appropriate alternative?



    MobileMe does not directly support Windows file formats. For the process to be automatic their needs to be a central point that manages and connects information from 3rd party apps to MobileMe. MobileMe management is integrated into OS X and has to be added through a control panel to Windows.



    Quote:

    I think Apple's affinity for installing its own proprietary software on alien OSs is much higher than Microsoft's. But that's OK, because it's Apple.



    Sounds as if you are being biased against Apple, most all software installed on Windows is in one way or another proprietary, that is nothing specific to Apple. Consumers voluntarily choose to buy into Apple's vertically integrated platform. If people did not like it they would not use it.



    Microsoft doesn't make very much software for other platforms because they want to build an ecosystem around Windows to maintain its dominance. To grow the iPod/iPhone market Apple has to develop Windows software, because of its dominant position.
  • Reply 133 of 152
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    backtomac:



    Quote:

    Then be honest and admit its common on that platform.



    At no point did I ever say that it was not common.



    Quote:

    Why just blast Apple for doing it?



    This is a thread about Apple.



    If you have some examples of a corollary from another company I'll happily "blast" them for it. I like "blasting" things.





    TenoBell:



    Quote:

    What do you feel would be an appropriate alternative?



    - Not requiring the installation of Quicktime and iTunes to use the MobileMe control panel.

    - Remove "Hey install more unrelated software!!" from the supposed "updater".



    I have zero problem with the MobileMe control panel. It's a fine way of doing its job. However, the issue we have in this thread is a bunch of fanboys bashing the idea of proprietary software and lauding Apple's "openness" when, in reality, Apple does the exact same thing (even more flagrantly, it turns out).



    I think "open" is an overused adjective and one used to simply say "it's good" when, in reality, a lot of "open" software is total shit and proprietary software does the job much much better.



    Quote:

    Sounds as if you are being biased against Apple, most all software installed on Windows is in one way or another proprietary, that is nothing specific to Apple. Consumers voluntarily choose to buy into Apple's vertically integrated platform. If people did not like it they would not use it.



    Of course consumers choose to buy into Apple's platform, just as they choose to buy into Microsoft's. All I intend to point out is the glaring hypocrisy in so many posters here bashing Microsoft for pushing proprietary software and pretending that Apple is any different.



    I like both Microsoft's and Apple's proprietary platforms and solutions. I love my MacBook Pro running OS X 10.5.6 and my Vista/Win7 desktop and my iPhone. And I love my Sony PS3 in all its proprietary goodness.



    Where these discussions go badly wrong is when people try to argue that any of these corporations are fundamentally different from each other. They are not. Some are just better at certain things and some are more successful.



    Quote:

    Microsoft doesn't make very much software for other platforms…







    The best-selling piece of software on OS X is made by Microsoft.
  • Reply 134 of 152
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    backtomac:



    If you have some examples of a corollary from another company I'll happily "blast" them for it. I like "blasting" things.



    How about MS and HP?



    Every time my pc at work is booted up I'm reminded of "updates ready to be installed". Perhaps my biggest gripe is the proprietary crapware OEMS put on their machines. I guess MS can't be responsible for that but bit does negatively affect the Windows platform.



    Anyway it was interesting discussing things with you. I've not changed your mind and you've not changed mine.
  • Reply 135 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    TenoBell:

    - Not requiring the installation of Quicktime and iTunes to use the MobileMe control panel.

    - Remove "Hey install more unrelated software!!" from the supposed "updater".



    I'm sure MobileMe media synchronization requires Quicktime framework. MobileMe is intended to be used with iPhone/iTouch which requires iTunes. Would/do many people use MobileMe on Windows without an iPhone/iTouch?



    Quote:

    I have zero problem with the MobileMe control panel. It's a fine way of doing its job. However, the issue we have in this thread is a bunch of fanboys bashing the idea of proprietary software and lauding Apple's "openness" when, in reality, Apple does the exact same thing (even more flagrantly, it turns out).



    Their are clear differences between Apple and MS. While both do have proprietary software, services, and platforms. Their is nothing wrong with creating a vertically integrated proprietary platform of products and services.



    The difference is that Apple builds its proprietary platform on open and interoperable extensions and gives its development back to the open source community.



    MS largely builds its proprietary platform on Windows-centric proprietary extensions and offers to license its extensions to other for a fee.



    Quote:

    I think "open" is an overused adjective and one used to simply say "it's good" when, in reality, a lot of "open" software is total shit and proprietary software does the job much much better.



    To enable equal and fair competition across various platforms their needs to be some key software that is freely readable and interoperable between all platforms, such as media and documents.



    What makes open software good is the fact that its not beholden to one companies requirements and needs. One company controlling media and document files creates too much of an opportunity of anticompetitive abuse.



    Is their any case where open software is dominant where their is a clearly better proprietary solution? I don't know of proprietary solutions that work a great deal better than H.264, MP3, PDF, or Webkit.





    Quote:

    All I intend to point out is the glaring hypocrisy in so many posters here bashing Microsoft for pushing proprietary software and pretending that Apple is any different.



    No one has said Apple has no proprietary software.





    Quote:

    Where these discussions go badly wrong is when people try to argue that any of these corporations are fundamentally different from each other. They are not. Some are just better at certain things and some are more successful.



    Their are clear examples of how different Apple and MS are in supporting open software or supporting other companies.



    Apple supports other companies software or services directly in OS X: Google, Yahoo, Adobe, AOL, Wikipedia. MS directly competes against all of these companies, does MS support anyone else's software or services directly in Windows in this fashion? None that I can think of.
  • Reply 136 of 152
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    backtomac:



    You'll have to give me something specific with regard to Microsoft, but HP really is terrible about it, as are the OEM builders.





    TenoBell:



    Quote:

    I'm sure MobileMe media synchronization requires Quicktime framework. MobileMe is intended to be used with iPhone/iTouch which requires iTunes.



    MobileMe can be used with iPhones and iPod Touches, but in no way is the MobileMe service dependent upon them.



    All you're doing here is trying to find a justification for the unnecessary bundling of proprietary software.



    Quote:

    The difference is that Apple builds its proprietary platform on open and interoperable extensions and gives its development back to the open source community.



    MS largely builds its proprietary platform on Windows-centric proprietary extensions and offers to license its extensions to other for a fee.



    These are two absolutist statements that are unsupportable. Both companies do both of these things. Do you sincerely think that Apple does not license technology to other companies? Do you sincerely think that Microsoft contributes nothing to the open source community?



    Microsoft is a fairly huge player in open net standards and sponsors a hell of a lot of "open" development.



    Quote:

    Is their any case where open software is dominant where their is a clearly better proprietary solution? I don't know of proprietary solutions that work a great deal better than H.264, MP3, PDF, or Webkit.



    How about Open XML? (The foundation of Office 2007's files)



    The funny thing is, every single one of those open standards is fully supported in Microsoft's products. Microsoft likes to find its own solutions, but it doesn't shut anyone out. Apple relies more on open standards than Microsoft, perhaps, but a "standard" is only a "standard" if someone calls it that.



    The reverence for the term "open standard" is asinine. Look at something like Flash, for Christ's sake. What's the "open standard" equivalent of that extremely powerful and flexible tool?



    Quote:

    Apple supports other companies software or services directly in OS X: Google, Yahoo, Adobe, AOL, Wikipedia. MS directly competes against all of these companies, does MS support anyone else's software or services directly in Windows in this fashion? None that I can think of.



    Your ignorance of what Microsoft's contributions are is not evidence of Microsoft not contributing.



    And we are still stuck on this ridiculous idea that contributing to the open-source/open-standards community is necessarily the best path for the end user.



    I'll say it again: Open-source software generally sucks, and those pieces of open software that don't suck are usually helped a great deal by investment from private industry. There's a reason most of the real, work-oriented apps people run are proprietary pieces of software built by teams of paid engineers. Even Apple's vaunted contributions are extremely limited in scope (they may provide some crumbs to WebKit, but damned if we ever actually see Safari's code).
  • Reply 137 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    backtomac:TenoBell:



    MobileMe can be used with iPhones and iPod Touches, but in no way is the MobileMe service dependent upon them.



    All you're doing here is trying to find a justification for the unnecessary bundling of proprietary software.



    In Apple's marketing materials it clearly shows the intention of using MobileMe with the iPhone and Touch.





    Quote:

    These are two absolutist statements that are unsupportable. Both companies do both of these things. Do you sincerely think that Apple does not license technology to other companies? Do you sincerely think that Microsoft contributes nothing to the open source community?



    How are they unsupportable, its pretty easy to see. No Apple does not generally create software extensions that compete with open extensions to then license them for profit. As a recent example Apple created the mini Display port and offered it as a free license until it will be approved by the official Display port standards board. This is Apple creating a technology and offering it for free.



    In the past few years MS has begun to offer some of its proprietary extensions for open source. Otherwise they would not be widely used.



    Quote:

    Microsoft is a fairly huge player in open net standards and sponsors a hell of a lot of "open" development.



    Such as?





    Quote:

    How about Open XML? (The foundation of Office 2007's files)



    This a good move, but its recent as MS sees the tide turning against its proprietary formats. As well MS is staving off anticompetitive suits in Europe.



    Quote:

    The funny thing is, every single one of those open standards is fully supported in Microsoft's products. Microsoft likes to find its own solutions, but it doesn't shut anyone out. Apple relies more on open standards than Microsoft, perhaps, but a "standard" is only a "standard" if someone calls it that.



    MS has been forced to support open standards, because everyone else is using them. If MS were able to push the industry into using its proprietary standards they would not support the open versions.



    Quote:

    The reverence for the term "open standard" is asinine. Look at something like Flash, for Christ's sake. What's the "open standard" equivalent of that extremely powerful and flexible tool?



    HTML5 is developing to be the open standard competitor to Flash. Its not there yet but its being worked on.







    Quote:

    Your ignorance of what Microsoft's contributions are is not evidence of Microsoft not contributing.



    You are free to enlighten me.



    Quote:

    And we are still stuck on this ridiculous idea that contributing to the open-source/open-standards community is necessarily the best path for the end user.



    It is important. Its important for the end user to have competition and options. To foster competition and options their needs to be basic software formats that are free to all OS's and devices.



    End users need to be able to plug any monitor pr other peripheral into any computer. Open standards insure this.







    Quote:

    I'll say it again: Open-source software generally sucks, and those pieces of open software that don't suck are usually helped a great deal by investment from private industry. There's a reason most of the real, work-oriented apps people run are proprietary pieces of software built by teams of paid engineers. Even Apple's vaunted contributions are extremely limited in scope (they may provide some crumbs to WebKit, but damned if we ever actually see Safari's code).



    As though all proprietary software is gold? Theirs crap software either way you go.



    Dave Hyatt is the head of Webkit development. I saw a blog post were Dave Hyatt said if you want to know the difference between Safari and Webkit, everything below the chrome (url bar, tabs, bookmarks) is all webkit.
  • Reply 138 of 152
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    gee, what an odd debate here.



    both MS and Apple market proprietary products as a key to their core businesses. but comparing the way they each do it and why as directly as many comments here do is comparing apples, er, bananas to oranges.



    as everyone knows, Apple makes $billions selling hardware and finds proprietary ways to tie its software to it toward that goal. the famous Apple "walled garden," of which iPod/iTunes is a pluperfect example - and the foundation for Apple's crucial media hardware products. using open source standards is often amenable to this because non-Apple new customers need to be enticed to enter and stay in that "garden."



    and as everyone knows, MS makes $billions selling software and services instead and seeks proprietary ways to maintain its dominant market position in those fields no matter what brand of hardware. more of a "prison yard" approach, of which Exchange is a pluperfect example - and the foundation for MS' crucial enterprise software/services market. open source standards are often a threat to this because they might help current customers escape to competitors' software products.



    there is no denying that historically MS has sought to undermine or co-opt open standards. it would love to repeat the triumph of Office in the 90's when its file formats became the de facto global standard, effectively killing all their competition (now it does not matter anymore because converting file formats is trivial). it is determined to keep Exchange as the de facto enterprise server standard. it would like TSQL to take over as the most common database standard and leave Oracle and MySQL in the dust. these are all enterprise products, the bread and butter profit machine for MS, its true core business. MS has fared less well in promoting its proprietary versions of all the media products, tho not for lack of trying (Silverlight is the latest). there is just too much competition, and really too large an overall context, for any one company to dominate the media universe.



    Apple's proprietary software are instead mainly instrumental to its hardware, lacking any such grand goal of market monopoly or hegemony. Apple lost any chance at world domination by 1990 ... and so took another path.



    you can tell which approach i prefer, but that is just my own value system.



    one basic outcome of their differing situations is that MS allows you to load its proprietary Windows on your Mac if you want, but Apple does not allow you to load its proprietary OS X on your PC. ah, irony.
  • Reply 139 of 152
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    TenoBell:



    Quote:

    In Apple's marketing materials it clearly shows the intention of using MobileMe with the iPhone and Touch.



    Yet it's not a requirement, so why is software unassociated with the user's needs required?



    Quote:

    No Apple does not generally create software extensions that compete with open extensions to then license them for profit.



    I see you're already backtracking from your absolutist statements, now saying "generally" instead. You keep making huge, sweeping statements without providing evidence, it's ridiculous.



    Quote:

    You are free to enlighten me.



    This is not how logic works. You don't make huge, sweeping claims about something and then say, "The burden of evidence is on you to prove me wrong."

    You are the one making these claims about Apple and Microsoft, so it is your burden to provide evidence. Your efforts have been scant-to-nonexistent.



    Quote:

    End users need to be able to plug any monitor pr other peripheral into any computer. Open standards insure this.



    Sure. So tell me. Which operating system is most flexible with regards to what it will run on and what peripherals/hardware it will support: Windows or Mac OS? (Please answer this question.)



    Quote:

    As though all proprietary software is gold?



    No. Never said that.



    List some fully open-source apps you use every day.





    Alfiejr:



    Quote:

    one basic outcome of their differing situations is that MS allows you to load its proprietary Windows on your Mac if you want, but Apple does not allow you to load its proprietary OS X on your PC. ah, irony.



    Exactly.



    Each company is out to protect its business model and neither one does anything out of altruism or for the overall good of the community without concern to self-interest.
  • Reply 140 of 152
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Yet it's not a requirement, so why is software unassociated with the user's needs required?

    I see you're already backtracking from your absolutist statements, now saying "generally" instead. You keep making huge, sweeping statements without providing evidence, it's ridiculous.

    This is not how logic works. You don't make huge, sweeping claims about something and then say, "The burden of evidence is on you to prove me wrong."

    You are the one making these claims about Apple and Microsoft, so it is your burden to provide evidence. Your efforts have been scant-to-nonexistent.

    Sure. So tell me. Which operating system is most flexible with regards to what it will run on and what peripherals/hardware it will support: Windows or Mac OS? (Please answer this question.)

    No. Never said that.

    List some fully open-source apps you use every day.

    Alfiejr:

    Exactly.

    Each company is out to protect its business model and neither one does anything out of altruism or for the overall good of the community without concern to self-interest.



    Your logic is weak. Apple uses open standards to render web based pages. Period. Your assertion that Apple does use an open source sync service to gather and update data on Windows machines is foolish.
Sign In or Register to comment.