While I can't deny that I hold disdain for Mr. Ballmer (Does any other CEO come across like a schizophrenic without meds?) he does have a point to some degree about market share. Until Apple or anyone else can make a dent in their corporate and enterprise level stranglehold they have nothing to worry about.
Of course they worry about seeing an ocean of Apple laptops but if only the top 10% of consumers can afford them, again not a big threat. (90% of us are too cheap or flat out broke sadly)
The laptop thing kinda blows my mind. I guess I'm not surprised that one might see a lot of expensive macbook and macbook pros if the audience is a lot of investors - especially if they are successful ones. I am surprised however that Apple sells as many laptops as they do.
In the desktop markets - i guess mainly iMacs and minis and maybe even mac pros for high end workstations, the "apple premium" or "apple tax" is small enough that it can at least be argued.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, make the argument that at $1000, a macbook with 2Gig of RAM, a 160Gig HDD, integrated graphics, and, most importantly, a 13" screen is anything other than a luxury item or status symbol. I you can, I'd love to hear it. This is probably why the laptop hunter ads are at all effective.
To most reasonably value-minded people, even those like myself, who prefer MacOS, an Apple laptop is a beautiful but overpriced tool. I own an iMac, iphone, and Apple TV, and love them all, but I own an HP laptop with 5" more screen diagonally, twice the ram, 3X the storage, better graphics, running Win 7.
It's not quite as pretty as a 17" macbook pro for $2500, and it won't run OSX, but it just cost a little more than that 13" white macbook, it's solidly built, and it runs CS4, all my development tools, and my beloved Orange Box, FEAR, UT, on a nice big bright screen. I have to tell ya guys - "I got just what I need"
There was really no danger of Microsoft discontinuing MS Office for Mac because ...
1. It was in the best interest for Microsoft to keep Apple from going out of business. They sited many times in the DOJ hearing that Apple was a viable competitor in the OS market. Microsoft knew that without Apple, there would be greater chance of the DOJ breaking up Microsoft.
2. Microsoft MBU (Mac Business Unit) is very profitable. Always has been.
3. Microsoft has a near monopoly in the office suite market with MS Office. The last thing they would want is to have the DOJ come down on them for abusing that monopoly. By cutting off MS Office for Mac, it would look like the only reason they were doing it was to drive Apple out of business.
I don't think so. If you read the Findings of Fact in U.S. v Microsoft, you will see that Microsoft was completely willing to use Office for the Mac as leverage against Apple. In fact, they did threaten to discontinue it, even though Office 97 was a virtually completed product and on the verge of shipping. One of the salient characteristics of the antitrust trial against Microsoft is that they were throughout the proceedings utterly convinced that they'd done absolutely nothing illegal, and were staggeringly unconcerned about what the government lawyers, or the judge in the case, thought about their conduct either inside or outside the courtroom.
Microsoft was certainly threatening to discontinue Office. Whether they'd have done it or not, we don't know. What we do know is that it was actively discussed and debated within Microsoft's management. Some were in favor of it, others apparently not -- but they absolutely had no qualms about using it as a threat, to extract concessions from Apple.
Edit- Actually Microsoft made over $140 million dollars on their $150 million dollars investment. They actually bought 150,000 of prefer stocks that was converted to 18,000,000 shares of common stocks of AAPL in 2000 and 2001. If they would have held on to them, they would be worth about 6 billion dollars today. (with 1 split).
I have never seen any information indicating when Microsoft sold their AAPL, only assumptions that they sold it immediately after the five year holding window ended. Have you found something else?
I don't think so. If you read the Findings of Fact in U.S. v Microsoft, you will see that Microsoft was completely willing to use Office for the Mac as leverage against Apple. In fact, they did threaten to discontinue it, even though Office 97 was a virtually completed product and on the verge of shipping. One of the salient characteristics of the antitrust trial against Microsoft is that they were throughout the proceedings utterly convinced that they'd done absolutely nothing illegal, and were staggeringly unconcerned about what the government lawyers, or the judge in the case, thought about their conduct either inside or outside the courtroom.
Microsoft was certainly threatening to discontinue Office. Whether they'd have done it or not, we don't know. What we do know is that it was actively discussed and debated within Microsoft's management. Some were in favor of it, others apparently not -- but they absolutely had no qualms about using it as a threat, to extract concessions from Apple.
a lot of good this did. by the time the EU forced them to bundle other browsers the browser is becoming irrelevant
The laptop thing kinda blows my mind. I guess I'm not surprised that one might see a lot of expensive macbook and macbook pros if the audience is a lot of investors - especially if they are successful ones. I am surprised however that Apple sells as many laptops as they do.
In the desktop markets - i guess mainly iMacs and minis and maybe even mac pros for high end workstations, the "apple premium" or "apple tax" is small enough that it can at least be argued.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, make the argument that at $1000, a macbook with 2Gig of RAM, a 160Gig HDD, integrated graphics, and, most importantly, a 13" screen is anything other than a luxury item or status symbol. I you can, I'd love to hear it. This is probably why the laptop hunter ads are at all effective.
To most reasonably value-minded people, even those like myself, who prefer MacOS, an Apple laptop is a beautiful but overpriced tool. I own an iMac, iphone, and Apple TV, and love them all, but I own an HP laptop with 5" more screen diagonally, twice the ram, 3X the storage, better graphics, running Win 7.
It's not quite as pretty as a 17" macbook pro for $2500, and it won't run OSX, but it just cost a little more than that 13" white macbook, it's solidly built, and it runs CS4, all my development tools, and my beloved Orange Box, FEAR, UT, on a nice big bright screen. I have to tell ya guys - "I got just what I need"
HP is solidly built laptops? i support 2 5 year old dell inspirons that keep on going and will probably work for another few years. one has a nice crack and has been dropped a few times and it works like a charm. my $1500 HP business laptop has had a cracked screen and a bad power cord in 18 months of use and that's just going to and from work
if i spend this kind of money on a laptop again it's going to be Dell or Apple. never HP. with dell i'll get faster hardware but with apple i'll get better support
This is the interesting split personality that Mac people have. On one hand they believe that they have a "Premium" product, on the other they believe that they have a better Total Cost of Ownership. Statistics, and real data prove this incorrect. Apples Devices are no more reliable then name brand PCs, In fact, their laptops are noticably worse in reliability. In addition, they definitely have just as many, or more, security holes. Many of which are not exploited because of the insignificant market share that the Macs enjoy. Another great example: The iPhone is like swiss cheese.
If Windows is the epitomy of crap then why would a "Premium" product allow it to be loaded on their system.
In closing: If Macs are the "Premium" product with better TCO, then why does most Mac users also have a PC and/or Windows running on their Macs. Probably because they need to do real work once in a while. I think I would rather buy a machine that needs only one O/S to get my work done.
You are so confused that I don't know where to begin. Apple laptops are the best in business and highest rated in initial quality and user satisfaction. I certainly never had a problem with mine.
There is nothing wrong with allowing other OS to be installed on your hardware. If you knew anything you would know that actually increases the value for Mac owners, hence better TCO. I can run Linux, Windows and OS X on my macs should I want to.
And the major reason for this is to cater to Windows users sitting on the fence considering the switch, but are scared of the unknown windowless world. They can try OS X and if it doesn't work can always move back to Windows on the same hardware. Also, this is a good thing for gamers, who would like to use OS X, but are not willing to give up gaming on Windows. Now they can.
I'm a software developer, so I have to use a variety of operating systems from AIX, HPUX, Solaris, Linux and Windows. But at home I use OS X exclusively. I have not encountered a task I needed to do and could not. If there were such tasks I would not have bought a mac. Yes, my mac pro with 32 GB of RAM is capable enough to run several instances of different versions of Windows and other OS all at once in a virtual machine (Virtual Box is great open source one), so if I need to test my software on those platforms I can, but I would never run them as the primary OS.
iPhone is not any way more insecure than your average phone out there. By the way that SMS bug is not unique to iPhone, if that is what you are referring to.
Actually that wasn't your contention. Your thesis was that it's the popularity making windows less secure, and that if OS X installed base was as high as Windows, that it would be equally insecure.
I never said it would be equally insecure, go back and re-read my first post. What I said in so many words was that the effort put forward to find exploits in OSX is less than the effort put forward on Windows. If you flip the market share you will have more people finding ways to infiltrate OSX/UNIX. I never said there would be the same amount, what I said was it was not impossible.
And the 'outside' means gaining access without having to be sitting at the machine.
a lot of good this did. by the time the EU forced them to bundle other browsers the browser is becoming irrelevant
Poppycock!
The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.
The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.
Since those Macs can also run Windows and don't have to be exclusive MacOS machines.
Those few 10Million users represent the cream that is separating from the curdling milk of the Windows/PC market. Ballmer should be looking at them as a source of learning how to do something truly genius - not a negligible "rounding error".
The only thing he should be talking about is finally making a device or partnering with a manufacturer to make something that fits Windows 7 like a glove and actually does something people desire. Oh yeah - they don't know how to do either of those things well - build or partner!
I never said it would be equally insecure, go back and re-read my first post. What I said in so many words was that the effort put forward to find exploits in OSX is less than the effort put forward on Windows. If you flip the market share you will have more people finding ways to infiltrate OSX/UNIX. I never said there would be the same amount, what I said was it was not impossible.
And the 'outside' means gaining access without having to be sitting at the machine.
Of course the effort to develop OS X exploits is less than is put forth for Windows exploits. None have proved to work so why keep wasting so much time when it's so much easier to do elsewhere?
Of course the effort to develop OS X exploits is less than is put forth for Windows exploits. None have proved to work so why keep wasting so much time when it's so much easier to do elsewhere?
That was my f**king point! If there were more users they would keep up the effort.
HP is solidly built laptops? i support 2 5 year old dell inspirons that keep on going and will probably work for another few years. one has a nice crack and has been dropped a few times and it works like a charm. my $1500 HP business laptop has had a cracked screen and a bad power cord in 18 months of use and that's just going to and from work
if i spend this kind of money on a laptop again it's going to be Dell or Apple. never HP. with dell i'll get faster hardware but with apple i'll get better support
-------
C'mon - now this is about Dell vs. HP? That certainly wasn't my point.
I said this particular HP laptop is solidly built. I haven't owned it long, so we will see. With PC makers that's one of the issues - each manufacturer has a low-end and a high-end and some have several levels in-between. The one i'm talking about is their highest end consumer targeted model, and it feels reasonably solid and well built. As for reliability, like i said - haven't owned it long and we will see. You've had a bad experience with HP that's fine - get a Dell, dude.
My point was that Apple laptops draw a premium or "Apple Tax" that is significant enough to drive reasonably value-minded people to the "dark side", and I'm surprised they sell as many as they do.
Like I said, I own a mac desktop and iPhone, etc. and I'd love to own a 17" macbook pro, but It's just a tool, so I get say 80-90% of what I want and 100% of what I need out of a laptop for 50% of the price with the HP (substitute Dell or whoever else makes decent windows laptops).
I'll pay the apple tax for a desktop, but the premium on Apple laptops is hard to justify, but hey, people buy Porsches to drive to the grocery store - I see them there all the time, so there's a market. \
This is the interesting split personality that Mac people have. On one hand they believe that they have a "Premium" product, on the other they believe that they have a better Total Cost of Ownership. Statistics, and real data prove this incorrect. Apples Devices are no more reliable then name brand PCs, In fact, their laptops are noticably worse in reliability. In addition, they definitely have just as many, or more, security holes. Many of which are not exploited because of the insignificant market share that the Macs enjoy. Another great example: The iPhone is like swiss cheese.
If Windows is the epitomy of crap then why would a "Premium" product allow it to be loaded on their system.
In closing: If Macs are the "Premium" product with better TCO, then why does most Mac users also have a PC and/or Windows running on their Macs. Probably because they need to do real work once in a while. I think I would rather buy a machine that needs only one O/S to get my work done.
Do you honestly think the average Mac user also has Windows installed???
And the customer satisfaction surveys, studies, reports, year after year after year, speak for themselves.
And that SMS bug is most certainly not exclusive to the iPhone. But the iPhone gets all the attention. For obvious reasons.
You're barking up the wrong tree around here. Winsupersite is this way:
Steve Ballmer became Microsoft's CEO in January of the year 2000.
Here is a chart comparing Microsoft's stock price vs Apple from the beginning. Notice how well Microsoft did vs. Apple before Ballmer and then after Ballmer.
Comments
While I can't deny that I hold disdain for Mr. Ballmer (Does any other CEO come across like a schizophrenic without meds?) he does have a point to some degree about market share. Until Apple or anyone else can make a dent in their corporate and enterprise level stranglehold they have nothing to worry about.
Of course they worry about seeing an ocean of Apple laptops but if only the top 10% of consumers can afford them, again not a big threat. (90% of us are too cheap or flat out broke sadly)
The laptop thing kinda blows my mind. I guess I'm not surprised that one might see a lot of expensive macbook and macbook pros if the audience is a lot of investors - especially if they are successful ones. I am surprised however that Apple sells as many laptops as they do.
In the desktop markets - i guess mainly iMacs and minis and maybe even mac pros for high end workstations, the "apple premium" or "apple tax" is small enough that it can at least be argued.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, make the argument that at $1000, a macbook with 2Gig of RAM, a 160Gig HDD, integrated graphics, and, most importantly, a 13" screen is anything other than a luxury item or status symbol. I you can, I'd love to hear it. This is probably why the laptop hunter ads are at all effective.
To most reasonably value-minded people, even those like myself, who prefer MacOS, an Apple laptop is a beautiful but overpriced tool. I own an iMac, iphone, and Apple TV, and love them all, but I own an HP laptop with 5" more screen diagonally, twice the ram, 3X the storage, better graphics, running Win 7.
It's not quite as pretty as a 17" macbook pro for $2500, and it won't run OSX, but it just cost a little more than that 13" white macbook, it's solidly built, and it runs CS4, all my development tools, and my beloved Orange Box, FEAR, UT, on a nice big bright screen. I have to tell ya guys - "I got just what I need"
There was really no danger of Microsoft discontinuing MS Office for Mac because ...
1. It was in the best interest for Microsoft to keep Apple from going out of business. They sited many times in the DOJ hearing that Apple was a viable competitor in the OS market. Microsoft knew that without Apple, there would be greater chance of the DOJ breaking up Microsoft.
2. Microsoft MBU (Mac Business Unit) is very profitable. Always has been.
3. Microsoft has a near monopoly in the office suite market with MS Office. The last thing they would want is to have the DOJ come down on them for abusing that monopoly. By cutting off MS Office for Mac, it would look like the only reason they were doing it was to drive Apple out of business.
I don't think so. If you read the Findings of Fact in U.S. v Microsoft, you will see that Microsoft was completely willing to use Office for the Mac as leverage against Apple. In fact, they did threaten to discontinue it, even though Office 97 was a virtually completed product and on the verge of shipping. One of the salient characteristics of the antitrust trial against Microsoft is that they were throughout the proceedings utterly convinced that they'd done absolutely nothing illegal, and were staggeringly unconcerned about what the government lawyers, or the judge in the case, thought about their conduct either inside or outside the courtroom.
Microsoft was certainly threatening to discontinue Office. Whether they'd have done it or not, we don't know. What we do know is that it was actively discussed and debated within Microsoft's management. Some were in favor of it, others apparently not -- but they absolutely had no qualms about using it as a threat, to extract concessions from Apple.
Edit- Actually Microsoft made over $140 million dollars on their $150 million dollars investment. They actually bought 150,000 of prefer stocks that was converted to 18,000,000 shares of common stocks of AAPL in 2000 and 2001. If they would have held on to them, they would be worth about 6 billion dollars today. (with 1 split).
I have never seen any information indicating when Microsoft sold their AAPL, only assumptions that they sold it immediately after the five year holding window ended. Have you found something else?
I don't think so. If you read the Findings of Fact in U.S. v Microsoft, you will see that Microsoft was completely willing to use Office for the Mac as leverage against Apple. In fact, they did threaten to discontinue it, even though Office 97 was a virtually completed product and on the verge of shipping. One of the salient characteristics of the antitrust trial against Microsoft is that they were throughout the proceedings utterly convinced that they'd done absolutely nothing illegal, and were staggeringly unconcerned about what the government lawyers, or the judge in the case, thought about their conduct either inside or outside the courtroom.
Microsoft was certainly threatening to discontinue Office. Whether they'd have done it or not, we don't know. What we do know is that it was actively discussed and debated within Microsoft's management. Some were in favor of it, others apparently not -- but they absolutely had no qualms about using it as a threat, to extract concessions from Apple.
a lot of good this did. by the time the EU forced them to bundle other browsers the browser is becoming irrelevant
The laptop thing kinda blows my mind. I guess I'm not surprised that one might see a lot of expensive macbook and macbook pros if the audience is a lot of investors - especially if they are successful ones. I am surprised however that Apple sells as many laptops as they do.
In the desktop markets - i guess mainly iMacs and minis and maybe even mac pros for high end workstations, the "apple premium" or "apple tax" is small enough that it can at least be argued.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, make the argument that at $1000, a macbook with 2Gig of RAM, a 160Gig HDD, integrated graphics, and, most importantly, a 13" screen is anything other than a luxury item or status symbol. I you can, I'd love to hear it. This is probably why the laptop hunter ads are at all effective.
To most reasonably value-minded people, even those like myself, who prefer MacOS, an Apple laptop is a beautiful but overpriced tool. I own an iMac, iphone, and Apple TV, and love them all, but I own an HP laptop with 5" more screen diagonally, twice the ram, 3X the storage, better graphics, running Win 7.
It's not quite as pretty as a 17" macbook pro for $2500, and it won't run OSX, but it just cost a little more than that 13" white macbook, it's solidly built, and it runs CS4, all my development tools, and my beloved Orange Box, FEAR, UT, on a nice big bright screen. I have to tell ya guys - "I got just what I need"
HP is solidly built laptops? i support 2 5 year old dell inspirons that keep on going and will probably work for another few years. one has a nice crack and has been dropped a few times and it works like a charm. my $1500 HP business laptop has had a cracked screen and a bad power cord in 18 months of use and that's just going to and from work
if i spend this kind of money on a laptop again it's going to be Dell or Apple. never HP. with dell i'll get faster hardware but with apple i'll get better support
This is the interesting split personality that Mac people have. On one hand they believe that they have a "Premium" product, on the other they believe that they have a better Total Cost of Ownership. Statistics, and real data prove this incorrect. Apples Devices are no more reliable then name brand PCs, In fact, their laptops are noticably worse in reliability. In addition, they definitely have just as many, or more, security holes. Many of which are not exploited because of the insignificant market share that the Macs enjoy. Another great example: The iPhone is like swiss cheese.
If Windows is the epitomy of crap then why would a "Premium" product allow it to be loaded on their system.
In closing: If Macs are the "Premium" product with better TCO, then why does most Mac users also have a PC and/or Windows running on their Macs. Probably because they need to do real work once in a while. I think I would rather buy a machine that needs only one O/S to get my work done.
You are so confused that I don't know where to begin. Apple laptops are the best in business and highest rated in initial quality and user satisfaction. I certainly never had a problem with mine.
There is nothing wrong with allowing other OS to be installed on your hardware. If you knew anything you would know that actually increases the value for Mac owners, hence better TCO. I can run Linux, Windows and OS X on my macs should I want to.
And the major reason for this is to cater to Windows users sitting on the fence considering the switch, but are scared of the unknown windowless world. They can try OS X and if it doesn't work can always move back to Windows on the same hardware. Also, this is a good thing for gamers, who would like to use OS X, but are not willing to give up gaming on Windows. Now they can.
I'm a software developer, so I have to use a variety of operating systems from AIX, HPUX, Solaris, Linux and Windows. But at home I use OS X exclusively. I have not encountered a task I needed to do and could not. If there were such tasks I would not have bought a mac. Yes, my mac pro with 32 GB of RAM is capable enough to run several instances of different versions of Windows and other OS all at once in a virtual machine (Virtual Box is great open source one), so if I need to test my software on those platforms I can, but I would never run them as the primary OS.
iPhone is not any way more insecure than your average phone out there. By the way that SMS bug is not unique to iPhone, if that is what you are referring to.
Actually that wasn't your contention. Your thesis was that it's the popularity making windows less secure, and that if OS X installed base was as high as Windows, that it would be equally insecure.
I never said it would be equally insecure, go back and re-read my first post. What I said in so many words was that the effort put forward to find exploits in OSX is less than the effort put forward on Windows. If you flip the market share you will have more people finding ways to infiltrate OSX/UNIX. I never said there would be the same amount, what I said was it was not impossible.
And the 'outside' means gaining access without having to be sitting at the machine.
a lot of good this did. by the time the EU forced them to bundle other browsers the browser is becoming irrelevant
Poppycock!
The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.
The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.
I think those people might have been wrong.
Since those Macs can also run Windows and don't have to be exclusive MacOS machines.
Those few 10Million users represent the cream that is separating from the curdling milk of the Windows/PC market. Ballmer should be looking at them as a source of learning how to do something truly genius - not a negligible "rounding error".
The only thing he should be talking about is finally making a device or partnering with a manufacturer to make something that fits Windows 7 like a glove and actually does something people desire. Oh yeah - they don't know how to do either of those things well - build or partner!
Bing! You get what you pay for.
Bing/Live aren't all bad. When I bought my Macbook on ebay I got 10% cash rebate from M$ for buying Apple products
I never said it would be equally insecure, go back and re-read my first post. What I said in so many words was that the effort put forward to find exploits in OSX is less than the effort put forward on Windows. If you flip the market share you will have more people finding ways to infiltrate OSX/UNIX. I never said there would be the same amount, what I said was it was not impossible.
And the 'outside' means gaining access without having to be sitting at the machine.
Of course the effort to develop OS X exploits is less than is put forth for Windows exploits. None have proved to work so why keep wasting so much time when it's so much easier to do elsewhere?
Of course the effort to develop OS X exploits is less than is put forth for Windows exploits. None have proved to work so why keep wasting so much time when it's so much easier to do elsewhere?
That was my f**king point! If there were more users they would keep up the effort.
HP is solidly built laptops? i support 2 5 year old dell inspirons that keep on going and will probably work for another few years. one has a nice crack and has been dropped a few times and it works like a charm. my $1500 HP business laptop has had a cracked screen and a bad power cord in 18 months of use and that's just going to and from work
if i spend this kind of money on a laptop again it's going to be Dell or Apple. never HP. with dell i'll get faster hardware but with apple i'll get better support
-------
C'mon - now this is about Dell vs. HP? That certainly wasn't my point.
I said this particular HP laptop is solidly built. I haven't owned it long, so we will see. With PC makers that's one of the issues - each manufacturer has a low-end and a high-end and some have several levels in-between. The one i'm talking about is their highest end consumer targeted model, and it feels reasonably solid and well built. As for reliability, like i said - haven't owned it long and we will see. You've had a bad experience with HP that's fine - get a Dell, dude.
My point was that Apple laptops draw a premium or "Apple Tax" that is significant enough to drive reasonably value-minded people to the "dark side", and I'm surprised they sell as many as they do.
Like I said, I own a mac desktop and iPhone, etc. and I'd love to own a 17" macbook pro, but It's just a tool, so I get say 80-90% of what I want and 100% of what I need out of a laptop for 50% of the price with the HP (substitute Dell or whoever else makes decent windows laptops).
I'll pay the apple tax for a desktop, but the premium on Apple laptops is hard to justify, but hey, people buy Porsches to drive to the grocery store - I see them there all the time, so there's a market.
Can we please stop quoting the Dancing Monkey Boy?
No.
For the love of god haven't we flogged the security horse enough already?
Apparently not. The horse got a virus.
This is the interesting split personality that Mac people have. On one hand they believe that they have a "Premium" product, on the other they believe that they have a better Total Cost of Ownership. Statistics, and real data prove this incorrect. Apples Devices are no more reliable then name brand PCs, In fact, their laptops are noticably worse in reliability. In addition, they definitely have just as many, or more, security holes. Many of which are not exploited because of the insignificant market share that the Macs enjoy. Another great example: The iPhone is like swiss cheese.
If Windows is the epitomy of crap then why would a "Premium" product allow it to be loaded on their system.
In closing: If Macs are the "Premium" product with better TCO, then why does most Mac users also have a PC and/or Windows running on their Macs. Probably because they need to do real work once in a while. I think I would rather buy a machine that needs only one O/S to get my work done.
Do you honestly think the average Mac user also has Windows installed???
And the customer satisfaction surveys, studies, reports, year after year after year, speak for themselves.
And that SMS bug is most certainly not exclusive to the iPhone. But the iPhone gets all the attention. For obvious reasons.
You're barking up the wrong tree around here. Winsupersite is this way:
http://www.winsupersite.com/
Of course, you could always end the suffering and smarten up here:
www.apple.com
Here is a chart comparing Microsoft's stock price vs Apple from the beginning. Notice how well Microsoft did vs. Apple before Ballmer and then after Ballmer.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT...z=l&q=l&c=aapl
Coincidence? I rather doubt it.