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

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    TenoBell:

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



    No its not a requirement, but it seems disingenuous to complain when you clearly see that is how Apple has intended the service to be used.







    Quote:

    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.



    I gave plenty of examples. I gave one with mini DP right after the sentence you are addressing.





    Quote:

    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.



    You want to refute my claims. So yes the burden of proof is on you.





    Quote:

    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.)



    This has nothing to do with being open or closed. These are differing business models. MS makes direct profit from Windows. Apple does not make its profit from OS X, it makes profit from selling hardware.





    Quote:

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



    I don't use any open source apps everyday. I use proprietary apps that are based on open source frameworks everyday.
  • Reply 142 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    You do have to keep this in context also. As this has nothing to do with open or closed. These are two different business models.



    At this point Windows installed base is likely near a billion computers. Selling Windows licenses is highly profitable for MS.



    Apple only having an extremely small fraction of that installed base cannot equal Windows. Apple uses OS X to make money from its hardware.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    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 143 of 152
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    solipsism:



    Quote:

    Apple uses open standards to render web based pages. Period.



    Explain what you mean by this.



    Quote:

    Your assertion that Apple does use an open source sync service to gather and update data on Windows machines is foolish.



    I don't remember asserting that, so I guess I'm clear.





    TenoBell:



    Quote:

    No its not a requirement, but it seems disingenuous to complain when you clearly see that is how Apple has intended the service to be used.



    I think it's perfectly rational to criticize Apple for requiring the installation of unnecessary software that wastes resources in the background. Then again, I'm not a fanboy.



    Quote:

    I gave plenty of examples. I gave one with mini DP right after the sentence you are addressing.



    Apple does this kind of thing out of self-interest. They have no ability to push proprietary solutions, and they have done so many times in the past (ADC, for instance, just to stay within the monitor realm).



    It's easy to just go with the most commonly open standards if you have no power to do anything else effectively.



    Apple only behaves as it does because of their business interests, not out of any sense of goodness or altruism.



    Quote:

    This has nothing to do with being open or closed. These are differing business models. MS makes direct profit from Windows. Apple does not make its profit from OS X, it makes profit from selling hardware.



    Right, it's about business models, not about corporate integrity.



    Quote:

    I don't use any open source apps everyday. I use proprietary apps that are based on open source frameworks everyday.



    List some open source frameworks that Microsoft does not support.



    Quote:

    Apple only having an extremely small fraction of that installed base cannot equal Windows. Apple uses OS X to make money from its hardware.



    And to do so they must remain very closed and rely heavily on proprietary software. Nothing wrong with it, but that's how it is.
  • Reply 144 of 152
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    TenoBell:

    I think it's perfectly rational to criticize Apple for requiring the installation of unnecessary software that wastes resources in the background. Then again, I'm not a fanboy.



    Reading and understanding Apple's marketing materials makes one a fanboy?





    Quote:

    Apple does this kind of thing out of self-interest. They have no ability to push proprietary solutions, and they have done so many times in the past (ADC, for instance, just to stay within the monitor realm).



    Its only really been within the past 10 years that the computer industry has collectively agreed to use common standards. Since that point Apple has become consistent about using common or open standards over proprietary.



    ADC wasn't truly proprietary. The ADC combined DVI, USB, and power in one cable. With DVI and USB being open standards, it was possible to use an adaptor to split the signals and use them on any other device.



    Quote:

    It's easy to just go with the most commonly open standards if you have no power to do anything else effectively.



    Apple only behaves as it does because of their business interests, not out of any sense of goodness or altruism.



    I don't think you are totally correct that Apple has no option. Apple has built its own highly successful proprietary platforms. Fairplay is a very proprietary DRM scheme that only Apple uses, but has been very successful.



    It is in Apple's business interests to use open standards because interoperability of standards across the entire electronics industry is good for everyone. As a group the entire electronics industry can counter MS and its desire to control these standards.



    Where it is not in Apple's business interests to use open standards. If people are free to move and view media or documents on any device or service they choose. Apple cannot use media and document formats to lock users into its platforms.



    Which is what people accused Apple of doing with Fairplay and the iPod/iTunes. Now that Fairplay is gone from music no one can accuse Apple of locking people into the iPod or iTunes.







    Quote:

    List some open source frameworks that Microsoft does not support.





    Its not just this simple. Microsoft has not been an major advocate of open software. MS has been forced to support open software because the computer industry at large understands its important for these frameworks to be open and not held by any one company.



    MS still only tentatively supports W3C web standards. The internet is the next big software development platform, which helps loosen the influence of the desktop OS over the computer industry. Is it a coincidence that IE8 has poor support for HTML 5.
  • Reply 145 of 152
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    I have no problem with the MobileMe control panel. Obviously it helps a lot. I mentioned that to counter the dishonest assertion that MobileMe was built on open standards and didn't require proprietary software. It does. I don't have a problem with proprietary software..



    To repeat, the MobileMe website uses only open standards for its pages; HTML, CSS, JavaScript. Whereas Microsoft would choose to use its SilverLight platform on its web pages.



    The difference is that when I direct someone to look at my photo album, or my calendar, they can use any modern browser they'd like. If I used Microsoft's solution for my data, that same person would have to download and install SilverLight, just to view that web page.



    Or if I'm sitting at someone else's computer and I need to add someone to my address book or add an appointment to my calendar, I can log onto MobileMe from their browser and do it. If I had a Microsoft "cloud" account, I would have to install SilverLight on that person's computer in order to log in and make those changes to my account.



    This has nothing to do with what I need to install on my own computer to setup and use my account. This has to do with access to the web applications; nothing to do with setting up the account, or syncing the data. Using an external run-time engine, be it SilverLight, Air, Java, or Flash requires the installation of 'extra' software on every system you plan on accessing those sites from.



    This is not true of Apple's MobileMe website, which uses pure HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to render it's pages.
  • Reply 146 of 152
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    List some open source frameworks that Microsoft does not support.



    Having support for something and actually using it and promoting it, are two different things. Microsoft has to support certain open standards, otherwise they would lose that portion of the market to others that do. Apple actually uses, embraces and contributes to open standards and open source projects in both MacOSX and its software.



    Display and Print Technology -> PDF, GNUPrint

    Graphics -> OpenGL

    Audio -> OpenAL

    QuickTime -> MP3, MP4, AAC, H.264

    System/User Configuration Services -> XML

    WWW Services -> Apache

    WWW Rendering -> WebKit

    Networking -> Bonjour (ZeroConfig)

    Processing -> OpenCL

    Media Streaming -> Darwin Streaming Server
  • Reply 147 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    You do have to keep this in context also. As this has nothing to do with open or closed. These are two different business models.



    At this point Windows installed base is likely near a billion computers. Selling Windows licenses is highly profitable for MS.



    Apple only having an extremely small fraction of that installed base cannot equal Windows. Apple uses OS X to make money from its hardware.



    I don't believe Apple wants os x on non proprietary hardware... knowing what hardware your os runs on is a big advantage in terms of reliability.
  • Reply 148 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.



    So? I'm a .NET developer, I don't want to develop in Objective-C, from what I've seen there's less support and will take longer. Plus why develop in different languages for different products. .NET does web, client, mobile, server controls, silverlight everything. Plus MS probably wouldn't stop Java, Flash and everyone else's languages having a compiler.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    iPhone allows easy set up of several popular email services.

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



    Its just as easy to set up my email account on Apple Mail as it is on Outlook. Plus why wouldn't they promote Hotmail, there one of the oldest free email providers?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    iPhone encourages downloading pictures to Flickr and Facebook.

    MS phone would encourage picture downloads to Windows Live Photos.



    iPhone promotes picture downloading to MobileMe, whats the difference?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    iPhone has integrated google and yahoo search

    MS phone would have integrated Windows Live search.



    I think its more likely MS phone would give you the option to choose any browser like Internet Explorer does. Its only Safari restricting me so Apple can make money from my search's.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    iPhone has encouraged the use of AOL AIM

    MS phone would encouraged the use of MS Messenger.



    So who uses AOL AIM. I live in the UK everyone uses MSN or Skype. Whats wrong with promoting something people actually use?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    iPhone encourages the use of Twitter.

    MS phone would encourage the use of Windows Live Groups.



    Now I have an iPhone and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Twitter on it. Are you trying to say because Twitter have made an iPhone app Apple are promoting it? And why wouldn't there be an app for an MS Phone? Out of the two MS are the one to put less restrictions up.



    For a lot of your other arguments like promoting Facebook, you do get that the companies iPhone promotes are the ones that pay apple to be on there! Apple isn't just going Facebooks popular lets put them in out ad. Every other company that is featured will have paid.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    To repeat, the MobileMe website uses only open standards for its pages; HTML, CSS, JavaScript. Whereas Microsoft would choose to use its SilverLight platform on its web pages.



    The difference is that when I direct someone to look at my photo album, or my calendar, they can use any modern browser they'd like. If I used Microsoft's solution for my data, that same person would have to download and install SilverLight, just to view that web page.



    Your argument is flawed in that photo albums on Microsofts site don't use Silverlight, in fact very little does. On top of that, everywhere Silverlight is used for people that don't have Silverlight an HTML version displays instead.



    Plus the latest version of Microsofts .NET framework supports browser recognition so developers can easily make sites work with different browsers, after all even browsers that follow standards are all at different points. Not to mention there is more than one standard.
  • Reply 149 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    So? I'm a .NET developer, I don't want to develop in Objective-C, from what I've seen there's less support and will take longer. Plus why develop in different languages for different products. .NET does web, client, mobile, server controls, silverlight everything. Plus MS probably wouldn't stop Java, Flash and everyone else's languages having a compiler.





    Its just as easy to set up my email account on Apple Mail as it is on Outlook. Plus why wouldn't they promote Hotmail, there one of the oldest free email providers?





    iPhone promotes picture downloading to MobileMe, whats the difference?





    I think its more likely MS phone would give you the option to choose any browser like Internet Explorer does. Its only Safari restricting me so Apple can make money from my search's.





    So who uses AOL AIM. I live in the UK everyone uses MSN or Skype. Whats wrong with promoting something people actually use?





    Now I have an iPhone and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Twitter on it. Are you trying to say because Twitter have made an iPhone app Apple are promoting it? And why wouldn't there be an app for an MS Phone? Out of the two MS are the one to put less restrictions up.



    For a lot of your other arguments like promoting Facebook, you do get that the companies iPhone promotes are the ones that pay apple to be on there! Apple isn't just going Facebooks popular lets put them in out ad. Every other company that is featured will have paid.





    Your argument is flawed in that photo albums on Microsofts site don't use Silverlight, in fact very little does. On top of that, everywhere Silverlight is used for people that don't have Silverlight an HTML version displays instead.



    Plus the latest version of Microsofts .NET framework supports browser recognition so developers can easily make sites work with different browsers, after all even browsers that follow standards are all at different points. Not to mention there is more than one standard.



    I could give a rusty f*** whether you do or do not want to learn another programming language, just as I don't expect you to have compassion for my dislike to learn C#.



    If you don't want to learn it, then don't develop for a platform you clearly see as a money pit, but with barriers to entry that won't bend for you.
  • Reply 150 of 152
    Yet you argue that Apple is better because an MS phone would be locked into MS development services and languages, despite the fact this is exactly what Apple did with the language its in.



    Also I think its worth pointing out that C# probably the more popular .NET language is in fact an ISO standard and has been since 2003! Plus Silverlight uses the C# and Javascript again another Standard that everyones been going on about.
  • Reply 151 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    Having support for something and actually using it and promoting it, are two different things. Microsoft has to support certain open standards, otherwise they would lose that portion of the market to others that do. Apple actually uses, embraces and contributes to open standards and open source projects in both MacOSX and its software.



    Display and Print Technology -> PDF, GNUPrint



    CUPS



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    So? I'm a .NET developer, I don't want to develop in Objective-C, from what I've seen there's less support and will take longer. Plus why develop in different languages for different products. .NET does web, client, mobile, server controls, silverlight everything.



    A language is a tool for getting things done. The cocoa environment is well capable of getting things done and quickly. If you don't believe this then consult the impressive portfolio of applications Apple has assembled in the 8 years since OS X launched.



    Look at Cappuccino if you think cocoa and Objective-C can't do web. Better yet:280slides.com
  • Reply 152 of 152
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    I don't get what it is you expect Microsoft to do, stop developing new ideas? And if they do develop new things why shouldn't they keep it for themselves, after all they developed it in the first place. It's not that much different with Apple, if you wan't to write an iPhone App you have to use Apples technology (no Java aloud) and have to sell it through the App Store, no independant stores aloud.



    You make me giggle! Microsoft generally doesn't support new ideas. They embrace and extend then give their version a new name and try to rely on market penetration to render moot what an ISO number would do for anyone else. I am having a very difficult time thinking of a unique advanced technology that MS has developed in the past 15 years without using another product as the template. Something has to exist surely, but being as hard to think of as it is means they don't really have that many "new" ideas.



    You also poorly mix your metaphors. Industry standards and distribution pipelines are entirely different beasts that serve entirely different spaces. iPhone uses lots of ISO standards: ECMAscript(Javascript with an ISO number), HTML5, all the associated web graphics and codec formats, OpenGL, and a host of others... Almost all of them developed outside Apple.



    Java isn't a standard, it is an open platform programming language. DirectX isn't as standard, it's a very well executed attempt to kill OpenGL and Open AL that almost worked. C# and J# are continuing attempts to kill Java after MS's first attempt failed in court. .NET isn't a standard, it is a MS API submitted for consideration to become a standard, but will never be one because nobody else will implement it.



    And to keep the grammar police happy:

    1) aloud - uttering a phase audibly

    2) allowed - permitting

    Proofing a post before hitting submit is a priceless habit. You may still make subtle errors, but won't look like you are vocabulary impaired.
Sign In or Register to comment.