So you're saying that the hardware in the Zune is not capable of doing the same thing the iPod touch can do?
In many ways, it is not. The ARM in the Zune is ARMv6 (ARM11) while the Touch has ARMv7 (Cortex A8). For CPU intensive apps that can be an important factor in processing. But the Zune HD also has HW capabilities that the Touch doesn’t have. In the end, it’s all going to fall to the OS, UI ans services. In other words, the most important thing is hte software. I’d wager that the old 8GB Touch will outsell all the Zune HDs this quarter despite it being older tech.
Quote:
I thouch Macs were all about eye candy. They look gorgeous, but in your eyes that just functional design? Comon.
Are you saying that Macs only look good but doesn’t offer any HW benefits over their competition?
Quote:
/twospoons.
No need to sign your posts, your name is listed to the left.
In many ways, it is not. The ARM in the Zune is ARMv6 (ARM11) while the Touch has ARMv7 (Cortex A8). For CPU intensive apps that can be an important factor in processing. But the Zune HD also has HW capabilities that the Touch doesn?t have. In the end, it?s all going to fall to the OS, UI ans services. In other words, the most important thing is hte software. I?d wager that the old 8GB Touch will outsell all the Zune HDs this quarter despite it being older tech.
So, then I don't understand the original argument. Anyways, you are probably right about the sales argument. As much as I'm right when I say that W7 will sell 10x what SL has. Does that mean that SL sucks?
Quote:
Are you saying that Macs only look good but doesn?t offer any HW benefits over their competition?
I have no clue, I just know that getting an Intel i7 with 3xSLI running on OSX is pretty hard. So, Mac will always be lagging behind PCs when it comes to hardware, since Apple dictates what's supposed to work or not.
Hardware nowdays are fast enough for most people, so that's hardly a selling point anymore. People want smaller and cooler stuff, not bigger and faster. So, Macs look good, and do mainly so from a design perspective, not from a functional perspective. You're starting to sound like a PC guy when you claim that looks has no value.
Quote:
No need to sign your posts, your name is listed to the left.
So you're saying that the hardware in the Zune is not capable of doing the same thing the iPod touch can do?
I'm saying that MS chose to give the Zune HD a PMP level OS.
Quote:
I thouch Macs were all about eye candy. They look gorgeous, but in your eyes that just functional design? Comon.
/twospoons.
Yeah, if you're not following the irony, never mind.
At any rate, harping on the "PCs have more apps so now the shoes on the other foot" or whatever it is you're saying completely misses the point, as I explained in my previous post. The HD is a nice looking piece of hardware with a flashy OS that doesn't do very much, by design. There's no reasonable analogy with the Mac/PC desktop situation.
You can run any application developed for 16bit OS 20+ years ago on a PC plattform (x86 that is), you still think there is about the same amount of apps for the Mac?
I didn?t know that 16-bit apps run on 64-bit versions of Windows, but such a patch-work system is what MS signed up for. They decided on a business model that requires them to license their OS, to not make an OS that is designed around specific HW to support legacy code for an excessively long time since they focus so much on businesses. There is nothing wrong with that or with Apple?s consumer focus, but you can?t compare them as the same thing as their business models are very different.
Quote:
I tried finding some numbers, but OMG, it's probably as close as the 7 to 70.000 zunehd/ipod comparison.
I'm just saying that you cannot use the market share argument against the Zune on one hand, and turn around and say that it doesn't matter when it comes to the Macs.
MS selling few Zunes in comparison to the iPod is not congruent to Apple selling few OS licenses compared to MS, simply because there is a huge difference in the numbers. MS sells the Zune with OS the way Apple sells the iPod with the OS. They are the same business model selling to the same potential markets. The only difference is that since the Zune is only sold in the US we?d have to only consider the US sales to be fair. Though one could argue that MS doesn?t sell the Zune elsewhere because they?d sell even worse, but on that same note Apple doesn?t sell Macs directly because they would sell poorly, while MS sells their OS there at a very reduced price to get marketshare and acceptance.
You can only compare Mac sales to other PC vendors. A unit to unit comparison. Even with the higher than average selling price they still manage to get 10% in the US when the largest US PC vendor, HP, is only at 25%. Even now Apple get 33¢ of every $1 spent on all PCs, and takes in 92% of all PCs over $1000. You can?t say that is impressive.
For Apple to have over 50% marketshare would mean that 1 out of 2 PCs sold in the world would be Macs. Does that sound reasonable? MS makes $25(?) for the average OEM version of Windows sold while Apple makes an average of $1400(?) for each Mac sold. Do you not see how these different business models just can?t be compared that way?
I'm saying that MS chose to give the Zune HD a PMP level OS.
Yeah, if you're not following the irony, never mind.
At any rate, harping on the "PCs have more apps so now the shoes on the other foot" or whatever it is you're saying completely misses the point, as I explained in my previous post. The HD is a nice looking piece of hardware with a flashy OS that doesn't do very much, by design. There's no reasonable analogy with the Mac/PC desktop situation.
So, what are the constraints in the current OS for the Zune HD? What can't the OS do compared to iPod touch?
So, Mac will always be lagging behind PCs when it comes to hardware, since Apple dictates what's supposed to work or not.
You are baffled that you get less options from one vendor (Apple) instead of all vendors including building your own machine since Windows can be licensed for nearly x86 HW? Different business models!
Quote:
Hardware nowdays are fast enough for most people, so that's hardly a selling point anymore. People want smaller and cooler stuff, not bigger and faster. So, Macs look good, and do mainly so from a design perspective, not from a functional perspective. You're starting to sound like a PC guy when you claim that looks has no value.
Huh? It ounds like you are the one stating that. Apple sells machines that fit a certain demographic. The demographic that has money; the one the other vendors wish they had and know they can?t because they still rely on Windows. It?s not a bad OS as it serves an important purpose, but it is a commodity OS for the masses. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with cheap wine and cheap cellphones, either. These will continue to dominate, but they won?t be the gold standard of society.
Ugh. Buy much for your mac on newegg? Like, new graphics cards, mother boards, cpus, memory, tv tuners.. want me to go on?
That's very funny. I'll give you graphics boards. There aren't as many, though most PC graphics boards are the same board designs supplied from different companies.
Mother boards? I don't build crap. I don't need mobo's. All the rest is available for the Mac.
Quote:
You can run any application developed for 16bit OS 20+ years ago on a PC plattform (x86 that is), you still think there is about the same amount of apps for the Mac? I tried finding some numbers, but OMG, it's probably as close as the 7 to 70.000 zunehd/ipod comparison.
Sure you can. You can't even install Vista on a machine made 6 months before it came out.
You don't know what you're looking for.
Quote:
I'm just saying that you cannot use the market share argument against the Zune on one hand, and turn around and say that it doesn't matter when it comes to the Macs.
Because what you're saying about Macs is BS.
Quote:
Saying that the UI is constrained by the power usage of the OLED screen is really strange. Wierdest argument ever. I have charged my Zune once since it got it. I charge my iPhone every night. So, by that argument the iPhone UI must suck really bad.
You don't know much about OLED obviously. Do you know how they work, and why they aren't used with bright interfaces? No?
The Zune doesn't do much with all that hardware. Ty using it.
Quote:
Try the Zune with a Zune Pass. You'll love it. Don't be scared!
/twospoons.
Like 95% of all music buyers, I don't like subscription music services.
I didn?t know that 16-bit apps run on 64-bit versions of Windows, but such a patch-work system is what MS signed up for. They decided on a business model that requires them to license their OS, to not make an OS that is designed around specific HW to support legacy code for an excessively long time since they focus so much on businesses. There is nothing wrong with that or with Apple?s consumer focus, but you can?t compare them as the same thing as their business models are very different.
No, 16bit doesn't work on 64bit, hence the x86 remark. It's part of MS success and also it's decrement that it has backwards compatibility. But the argument was that there was about the same amount of software on Mac as on PC. That is very far from the truth.
Quote:
MS selling few Zunes in comparison to the iPod is not congruent to Apple selling few OS licenses compared to MS, simply because there is a huge difference in the numbers. MS sells the Zune with OS the way Apple sells the iPod with the OS. They are the same business model selling to the same potential markets. The only difference is that since the Zune is only sold in the US we?d have to only consider the US sales to be fair. Though one could argue that MS doesn?t sell the Zune elsewhere because they?d sell even worse, but on that same note Apple doesn?t sell Macs directly because they would sell poorly, while MS sells their OS there at a very reduced price to get marketshare and acceptance.
You can only compare Mac sales to other PC vendors. A unit to unit comparison. Even with the higher than average selling price they still manage to get 10% in the US when the largest US PC vendor, HP, is only at 25%. Even now Apple get 33¢ of every $1 spent on all PCs, and takes in 92% of all PCs over $1000. You can?t say that is impressive.
For Apple to have over 50% marketshare would mean that 1 out of 2 PCs sold in the world would be Macs. Does that sound reasonable? MS makes $25(?) for the average OEM version of Windows sold while Apple makes an average of $1400(?) for each Mac sold. Do you not see how these different business models just can?t be compared that way?
Since their product is overpriced they will never get a substantial market share. Yes, I agree with your statement there. But, that doesn't mean that a product with a lower market share is not a good product, or that competitors shouldn't try launch new products.
This story has repeated it self many times. No-one is king forever, and it only takes sleeping in class for 1 minute for someone to catch up and surpass you. And yes, Mac / iPhone success is mainly limited to the US. But they are still good products.
No, 16bit doesn't work on 64bit, hence the x86 remark. It's part of MS success and also it's decrement that it has backwards compatibility. But the argument was that there was about the same amount of software on Mac as on PC. That is very far from the truth.
Since I use x86 to mean AMD or Intel architecture since there are others out there. x86-16, x86-32 and x86-64 are what I find used across other boards I use, but I understand that AI tends to get a different crowd, so my bad.
Quote:
Since their product is overpriced they will never get a substantial market share.
And that matters because? They dominate the profitable sections of the PC world. They take in more money than any other HW vendor. If there growth continues for another couple years, especially with students, they are looking at taking more than 50% of the entire PC vendor market in sales revenue.
If Apple didn?t license their OS back when they were struggling why would you think they would do it now when they are thriving? To win some dick measuring competition of who has the most OS marketshare? That seems a little pointless.
That's very funny. I'll give you graphics boards. There aren't as many, though most PC graphics boards are the same board designs supplied from different companies.
Mother boards? I don't build crap. I don't need mobo's. All the rest is available for the Mac.
Well, you would be suprised to know that there is quite a variaty in graphics cards. So I can install my PCIx tv tuner card on your mac and get it to work? Next to the PCIx raid controller and Soundblaster xFi?
Quote:
Sure you can. You can't even install Vista on a machine made 6 months before it came out.
You don't know what you're looking for.
Well, I never had a problem installing any Windows OS. User error? Try installing OSX on a random laptop if you want a bigger challenge.
Quote:
Because what you're saying about Macs is BS.
So, they are not beautiful machines?
Quote:
You don't know much about OLED obviously. Do you know how they work, and why they aren't used with bright interfaces? No?
The Zune doesn't do much with all that hardware. Ty using it.
I know the standard wikipedia stuff anyone can look up, but what's different from me and you, is that I actually have both devices and speak from experience. I guess hearsay and guessing is better.
Quote:
Like 95% of all music buyers, I don't like subscription music services.
So, what can't a modded WinCE do vs OSX (FreeBSD)?
/twospoons.
Maybe the question you should be asking is "What can't WinCE do vs. the Windows NT lineage?
If the answer in your mind is "Why, nothing!", then you have to ask yourself why MS isn't using WinCE as their desktop OS. I mean, much smaller memory and CPU overhead, cheaper, runs fine on a netbook, why are they wasting their time with all that big code?
Well, you would be suprised to know that there is quite a variaty in graphics cards. So I can install my PCIx tv tuner card on your mac and get it to work? Next to the PCIx raid controller and Soundblaster xFi?
Well, I never had a problem installing any Windows OS. User error? Try installing OSX on a random laptop if you want a bigger challenge.
So, they are not beautiful machines?
I know the standard wikipedia stuff anyone can look up, but what's different from me and you, is that I actually have both devices and speak from experience. I guess hearsay and guessing is better.
Try not to be like everyone else :P
/twospoons.
You seem really intent on shifting the discussion to old marketshare vs. quality desktop battles. Why is that? We're talking about the Zune HD vs. the Touch.
And again, the argument is not "the Touch is better because it has more apps" or "has more marketshare", the argument is "the Touch is an entirely different class of machine, and it's not clear if there's actually much of a market for such a narrowly focused product as the Zune, in this age of integration and pocket-sized general purpose computing devices."
You seem to be vaguely suggesting that the Zune could be a general purpose computing device, if it wanted to, but the burden of proof for that is on you. Why isn't it? What, historically, suggests to you that WinCE is suitable for general purpose computing? Why is the Zune's UI so utterly unsuited for regular computer duties, if that were MS's plan? Would you want to work with a laptop that had endless zooming and huge fonts as part of the day to day computing experience?
Everything about the "Zune experience" screams "Music! Cool! Dig it! Wheeeee!" and nothing suggests "OK, and now to get some work done." And rightly so: the Zune HD is an entertainment device, first last and always. MS has been explicit in their intention to keep the real app action on the WinMo side of the fence.
Since I use x86 to mean AMD or Intel architecture since there are others out there. x86-16, x86-32 and x86-64 are what I find used across other boards I use, but I understand that AI tends to get a different crowd, so my bad.
x86 is typically used for 32bit x86 builds, vs x64 (or x86-64) for 64 bit. At least in the software world I live in.
Quote:
And that matters because? They dominate the profitable sections of the PC world. They take in more money than any other HW vendor. If there growth continues for another couple years, especially with students, they are looking at taking more than 50% of the entire PC vendor market in sales revenue.
Just one quick bing debunked your "more money than any other HW vendor". Try checking out IBM.
Quote:
If Apple didn?t license their OS back when they were struggling why would you think they would do it now when they are thriving? To win some dick measuring competition of who has the most OS marketshare? That seems a little pointless.
Yep, marketshare is a little pointless. My argument exactly. You see, we can agree.
Maybe the question you should be asking is "What can't WinCE do vs. the Windows NT lineage?
If the answer in your mind is "Why, nothing!", then you have to ask yourself why MS isn't using WinCE as their desktop OS. I mean, much smaller memory and CPU overhead, cheaper, runs fine on a netbook, why are they wasting their time with all that big code?
Somehow I'm pretty sure that Apple didn't cram it's ENTIRE OSX inside the iPod. You know, you strip out stuff you don't need for a simpler hardware arcitecture and you take out functionallity you don't need. Pretty obvious stuff.
Same goes for windows CE which is a pretty good OS. If you look the other way when seeing what windows mobile did to it.
Yep, marketshare is a little pointless. My argument exactly. You see, we can agree.
/twospoons.
Right, you want to make a spurious argument that's irrelevant to the topic, because it's one you feel comfortable with.
The argument you are not and possibly cannot make is why many people would be pleased with a device that is similar to the Touch in cost and size, but forgoes about 75% of the functionality in favor of a couple of limited appeal wins: OLED screen and subscription music (and, I guess, frenetic UI if that floats your boat).
For people for whom those two things are paramount, great, MS has your media player, for sure. But it's pointless to pretend that this somehow constitutes a "competitor" to the Touch, any more than a portable DVD player is a competitor to a laptop, in that they both play DVDs.
You seem really intent on shifting the discussion to old marketshare vs. quality desktop battles. Why is that? We're talking about the Zune HD vs. the Touch.
And again, the argument is not "the Touch is better because it has more apps" or "has more marketshare", the argument is "the Touch is an entirely different class of machine, and it's not clear if there's actually much of a market for such a narrowly focused product as the Zune, in this age of integration and pocket-sized general purpose computing devices."
You seem to be vaguely suggesting that the Zune could be a general purpose computing device, if it wanted to, but the burden of proof for that is on you. Why isn't it? What, historically, suggests to you that WinCE is suitable for general purpose computing? Why is the Zune's UI so utterly unsuited for regular computer duties, if that were MS's plan? Would you want to work with a laptop that had endless zooming and huge fonts as part of the day to day computing experience?
Everything about the "Zune experience" screams "Music! Cool! Dig it! Wheeeee!" and nothing suggests "OK, and now to get some work done." And rightly so: the Zune HD is an entertainment device, first last and always. MS has been explicit in their intention to keep the real app action on the WinMo side of the fence.
Well, MS focused on it being a good music player first. Which I think they did a good job at. But then you have people like you focusing on everything else than that, and that's why I tried to prove to you that market share doesn't mean that much.
I'm not sure why you say the UI us unsuited for general computing tasks. It works for me and the few apps which is on it. Why don't you tape an apple logo on it and try it out for a few days and see what you think?
And yes, the Zune hardware and OS can do a hell of a lot more than what you see when playing music. Just google up the hardware and download the SDK if you want and start building some apps.
Right, you want to make a spurious argument that's irrelevant to the topic, because it's one you feel comfortable with.
The argument you are not and possibly cannot make is why many people would be pleased with a device that is similar to the Touch in cost and size, but forgoes about 75% of the functionality in favor of a couple of limited appeal wins: OLED screen and subscription music (and, I guess, frenetic UI if that floats your boat).
For people for whom those two things are paramount, great, MS has your media player, for sure. But it's pointless to pretend that this somehow constitutes a "competitor" to the Touch, any more than a portable DVD player is a competitor to a laptop, in that they both play DVDs.
There is a good saying "Never underestimate your enemy". Arrogance is the first step towards a total defeat.
You know, I don't care that I blow money on new gadgets. I have a lot of them. It's fun. It's a fun device. It makes me happy. I'm just as happy with this device as I was with my iPhone. Why it has to be either or; and a religious war is beyond me.
Somehow I'm pretty sure that Apple didn't cram it's ENTIRE OSX inside the iPod. You know, you strip out stuff you don't need for a simpler hardware arcitecture and you take out functionallity you don't need. Pretty obvious stuff.
Same goes for windows CE which is a pretty good OS. If you look the other way when seeing what windows mobile did to it.
/twospoons.
Except WinCE is by no means desktop Windows with stuff stripped out to make it fit. It's an embedded OS designed around extremely constrained power, memory and CPU conditions. It's not supposed to do any heavy lifting, it's supposed to be small. And it shares no code whatsoever with Windows.
OS X on the iPhone is indeed truncated to meet the needs of the hardware, with a touch optimized UI on top of that. But that's a very different thing than being limited in scope, and Apple can add and subtract the modular bits depending on form factor and the inevitable improvements in hardware. "Leaving off the parts you don't need" doesn't mean "lobotomizing the OS", it just means matching things like I/O and printer drivers and graphics and file systems to the hardware at hand.
This disparity is only going to get more pronounced as phone sized hardware gets every more powerful, and Apple take advantage of every bit of it with their scaleable OS. MS will be in the unenviable position of attempting to bolt on ever more functionality to an OS that was originally written to run on devices that by today's standards were little more than calculators.
Comments
So you're saying that the hardware in the Zune is not capable of doing the same thing the iPod touch can do?
In many ways, it is not. The ARM in the Zune is ARMv6 (ARM11) while the Touch has ARMv7 (Cortex A8). For CPU intensive apps that can be an important factor in processing. But the Zune HD also has HW capabilities that the Touch doesn’t have. In the end, it’s all going to fall to the OS, UI ans services. In other words, the most important thing is hte software. I’d wager that the old 8GB Touch will outsell all the Zune HDs this quarter despite it being older tech.
I thouch Macs were all about eye candy. They look gorgeous, but in your eyes that just functional design? Comon.
Are you saying that Macs only look good but doesn’t offer any HW benefits over their competition?
/twospoons.
No need to sign your posts, your name is listed to the left.
In many ways, it is not. The ARM in the Zune is ARMv6 (ARM11) while the Touch has ARMv7 (Cortex A8). For CPU intensive apps that can be an important factor in processing. But the Zune HD also has HW capabilities that the Touch doesn?t have. In the end, it?s all going to fall to the OS, UI ans services. In other words, the most important thing is hte software. I?d wager that the old 8GB Touch will outsell all the Zune HDs this quarter despite it being older tech.
So, then I don't understand the original argument. Anyways, you are probably right about the sales argument. As much as I'm right when I say that W7 will sell 10x what SL has. Does that mean that SL sucks?
Are you saying that Macs only look good but doesn?t offer any HW benefits over their competition?
I have no clue, I just know that getting an Intel i7 with 3xSLI running on OSX is pretty hard. So, Mac will always be lagging behind PCs when it comes to hardware, since Apple dictates what's supposed to work or not.
Hardware nowdays are fast enough for most people, so that's hardly a selling point anymore. People want smaller and cooler stuff, not bigger and faster. So, Macs look good, and do mainly so from a design perspective, not from a functional perspective. You're starting to sound like a PC guy when you claim that looks has no value.
No need to sign your posts, your name is listed to the left.
Ok,
/twospoons.
So you're saying that the hardware in the Zune is not capable of doing the same thing the iPod touch can do?
I'm saying that MS chose to give the Zune HD a PMP level OS.
I thouch Macs were all about eye candy. They look gorgeous, but in your eyes that just functional design? Comon.
/twospoons.
Yeah, if you're not following the irony, never mind.
At any rate, harping on the "PCs have more apps so now the shoes on the other foot" or whatever it is you're saying completely misses the point, as I explained in my previous post. The HD is a nice looking piece of hardware with a flashy OS that doesn't do very much, by design. There's no reasonable analogy with the Mac/PC desktop situation.
You can run any application developed for 16bit OS 20+ years ago on a PC plattform (x86 that is), you still think there is about the same amount of apps for the Mac?
I didn?t know that 16-bit apps run on 64-bit versions of Windows, but such a patch-work system is what MS signed up for. They decided on a business model that requires them to license their OS, to not make an OS that is designed around specific HW to support legacy code for an excessively long time since they focus so much on businesses. There is nothing wrong with that or with Apple?s consumer focus, but you can?t compare them as the same thing as their business models are very different.
I tried finding some numbers, but OMG, it's probably as close as the 7 to 70.000 zunehd/ipod comparison.
I'm just saying that you cannot use the market share argument against the Zune on one hand, and turn around and say that it doesn't matter when it comes to the Macs.
MS selling few Zunes in comparison to the iPod is not congruent to Apple selling few OS licenses compared to MS, simply because there is a huge difference in the numbers. MS sells the Zune with OS the way Apple sells the iPod with the OS. They are the same business model selling to the same potential markets. The only difference is that since the Zune is only sold in the US we?d have to only consider the US sales to be fair. Though one could argue that MS doesn?t sell the Zune elsewhere because they?d sell even worse, but on that same note Apple doesn?t sell Macs directly because they would sell poorly, while MS sells their OS there at a very reduced price to get marketshare and acceptance.
You can only compare Mac sales to other PC vendors. A unit to unit comparison. Even with the higher than average selling price they still manage to get 10% in the US when the largest US PC vendor, HP, is only at 25%. Even now Apple get 33¢ of every $1 spent on all PCs, and takes in 92% of all PCs over $1000. You can?t say that is impressive.
For Apple to have over 50% marketshare would mean that 1 out of 2 PCs sold in the world would be Macs. Does that sound reasonable? MS makes $25(?) for the average OEM version of Windows sold while Apple makes an average of $1400(?) for each Mac sold. Do you not see how these different business models just can?t be compared that way?
I'm saying that MS chose to give the Zune HD a PMP level OS.
Yeah, if you're not following the irony, never mind.
At any rate, harping on the "PCs have more apps so now the shoes on the other foot" or whatever it is you're saying completely misses the point, as I explained in my previous post. The HD is a nice looking piece of hardware with a flashy OS that doesn't do very much, by design. There's no reasonable analogy with the Mac/PC desktop situation.
So, what are the constraints in the current OS for the Zune HD? What can't the OS do compared to iPod touch?
/twospoons.
So, Mac will always be lagging behind PCs when it comes to hardware, since Apple dictates what's supposed to work or not.
You are baffled that you get less options from one vendor (Apple) instead of all vendors including building your own machine since Windows can be licensed for nearly x86 HW? Different business models!
Hardware nowdays are fast enough for most people, so that's hardly a selling point anymore. People want smaller and cooler stuff, not bigger and faster. So, Macs look good, and do mainly so from a design perspective, not from a functional perspective. You're starting to sound like a PC guy when you claim that looks has no value.
Huh? It ounds like you are the one stating that. Apple sells machines that fit a certain demographic. The demographic that has money; the one the other vendors wish they had and know they can?t because they still rely on Windows. It?s not a bad OS as it serves an important purpose, but it is a commodity OS for the masses. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with cheap wine and cheap cellphones, either. These will continue to dominate, but they won?t be the gold standard of society.
So, what are the constraints in the current OS for the Zune HD? What can't the OS do compared to iPod touch?
It’s WinCE v. OS X!!! Are you kidding me?
Ugh. Buy much for your mac on newegg? Like, new graphics cards, mother boards, cpus, memory, tv tuners.. want me to go on?
That's very funny. I'll give you graphics boards. There aren't as many, though most PC graphics boards are the same board designs supplied from different companies.
Mother boards? I don't build crap. I don't need mobo's. All the rest is available for the Mac.
You can run any application developed for 16bit OS 20+ years ago on a PC plattform (x86 that is), you still think there is about the same amount of apps for the Mac? I tried finding some numbers, but OMG, it's probably as close as the 7 to 70.000 zunehd/ipod comparison.
Sure you can. You can't even install Vista on a machine made 6 months before it came out.
You don't know what you're looking for.
I'm just saying that you cannot use the market share argument against the Zune on one hand, and turn around and say that it doesn't matter when it comes to the Macs.
Because what you're saying about Macs is BS.
Saying that the UI is constrained by the power usage of the OLED screen is really strange. Wierdest argument ever. I have charged my Zune once since it got it. I charge my iPhone every night. So, by that argument the iPhone UI must suck really bad.
You don't know much about OLED obviously. Do you know how they work, and why they aren't used with bright interfaces? No?
The Zune doesn't do much with all that hardware. Ty using it.
Try the Zune with a Zune Pass. You'll love it. Don't be scared!
/twospoons.
Like 95% of all music buyers, I don't like subscription music services.
I didn?t know that 16-bit apps run on 64-bit versions of Windows, but such a patch-work system is what MS signed up for. They decided on a business model that requires them to license their OS, to not make an OS that is designed around specific HW to support legacy code for an excessively long time since they focus so much on businesses. There is nothing wrong with that or with Apple?s consumer focus, but you can?t compare them as the same thing as their business models are very different.
No, 16bit doesn't work on 64bit, hence the x86 remark. It's part of MS success and also it's decrement that it has backwards compatibility. But the argument was that there was about the same amount of software on Mac as on PC. That is very far from the truth.
MS selling few Zunes in comparison to the iPod is not congruent to Apple selling few OS licenses compared to MS, simply because there is a huge difference in the numbers. MS sells the Zune with OS the way Apple sells the iPod with the OS. They are the same business model selling to the same potential markets. The only difference is that since the Zune is only sold in the US we?d have to only consider the US sales to be fair. Though one could argue that MS doesn?t sell the Zune elsewhere because they?d sell even worse, but on that same note Apple doesn?t sell Macs directly because they would sell poorly, while MS sells their OS there at a very reduced price to get marketshare and acceptance.
You can only compare Mac sales to other PC vendors. A unit to unit comparison. Even with the higher than average selling price they still manage to get 10% in the US when the largest US PC vendor, HP, is only at 25%. Even now Apple get 33¢ of every $1 spent on all PCs, and takes in 92% of all PCs over $1000. You can?t say that is impressive.
For Apple to have over 50% marketshare would mean that 1 out of 2 PCs sold in the world would be Macs. Does that sound reasonable? MS makes $25(?) for the average OEM version of Windows sold while Apple makes an average of $1400(?) for each Mac sold. Do you not see how these different business models just can?t be compared that way?
Since their product is overpriced they will never get a substantial market share. Yes, I agree with your statement there. But, that doesn't mean that a product with a lower market share is not a good product, or that competitors shouldn't try launch new products.
This story has repeated it self many times. No-one is king forever, and it only takes sleeping in class for 1 minute for someone to catch up and surpass you. And yes, Mac / iPhone success is mainly limited to the US. But they are still good products.
/twospoons
It?s WinCE v. OS X!!! Are you kidding me?
So, what can't a modded WinCE do vs OSX (FreeBSD)?
/twospoons.
No, 16bit doesn't work on 64bit, hence the x86 remark. It's part of MS success and also it's decrement that it has backwards compatibility. But the argument was that there was about the same amount of software on Mac as on PC. That is very far from the truth.
Since I use x86 to mean AMD or Intel architecture since there are others out there. x86-16, x86-32 and x86-64 are what I find used across other boards I use, but I understand that AI tends to get a different crowd, so my bad.
Since their product is overpriced they will never get a substantial market share.
And that matters because? They dominate the profitable sections of the PC world. They take in more money than any other HW vendor. If there growth continues for another couple years, especially with students, they are looking at taking more than 50% of the entire PC vendor market in sales revenue.
If Apple didn?t license their OS back when they were struggling why would you think they would do it now when they are thriving? To win some dick measuring competition of who has the most OS marketshare? That seems a little pointless.
That's very funny. I'll give you graphics boards. There aren't as many, though most PC graphics boards are the same board designs supplied from different companies.
Mother boards? I don't build crap. I don't need mobo's. All the rest is available for the Mac.
Well, you would be suprised to know that there is quite a variaty in graphics cards. So I can install my PCIx tv tuner card on your mac and get it to work? Next to the PCIx raid controller and Soundblaster xFi?
Sure you can. You can't even install Vista on a machine made 6 months before it came out.
You don't know what you're looking for.
Well, I never had a problem installing any Windows OS. User error? Try installing OSX on a random laptop if you want a bigger challenge.
Because what you're saying about Macs is BS.
So, they are not beautiful machines?
You don't know much about OLED obviously. Do you know how they work, and why they aren't used with bright interfaces? No?
The Zune doesn't do much with all that hardware. Ty using it.
I know the standard wikipedia stuff anyone can look up, but what's different from me and you, is that I actually have both devices and speak from experience. I guess hearsay and guessing is better.
Like 95% of all music buyers, I don't like subscription music services.
Try not to be like everyone else :P
/twospoons.
So, what can't a modded WinCE do vs OSX (FreeBSD)?
/twospoons.
Maybe the question you should be asking is "What can't WinCE do vs. the Windows NT lineage?
If the answer in your mind is "Why, nothing!", then you have to ask yourself why MS isn't using WinCE as their desktop OS. I mean, much smaller memory and CPU overhead, cheaper, runs fine on a netbook, why are they wasting their time with all that big code?
Well, you would be suprised to know that there is quite a variaty in graphics cards. So I can install my PCIx tv tuner card on your mac and get it to work? Next to the PCIx raid controller and Soundblaster xFi?
Well, I never had a problem installing any Windows OS. User error? Try installing OSX on a random laptop if you want a bigger challenge.
So, they are not beautiful machines?
I know the standard wikipedia stuff anyone can look up, but what's different from me and you, is that I actually have both devices and speak from experience. I guess hearsay and guessing is better.
Try not to be like everyone else :P
/twospoons.
You seem really intent on shifting the discussion to old marketshare vs. quality desktop battles. Why is that? We're talking about the Zune HD vs. the Touch.
And again, the argument is not "the Touch is better because it has more apps" or "has more marketshare", the argument is "the Touch is an entirely different class of machine, and it's not clear if there's actually much of a market for such a narrowly focused product as the Zune, in this age of integration and pocket-sized general purpose computing devices."
You seem to be vaguely suggesting that the Zune could be a general purpose computing device, if it wanted to, but the burden of proof for that is on you. Why isn't it? What, historically, suggests to you that WinCE is suitable for general purpose computing? Why is the Zune's UI so utterly unsuited for regular computer duties, if that were MS's plan? Would you want to work with a laptop that had endless zooming and huge fonts as part of the day to day computing experience?
Everything about the "Zune experience" screams "Music! Cool! Dig it! Wheeeee!" and nothing suggests "OK, and now to get some work done." And rightly so: the Zune HD is an entertainment device, first last and always. MS has been explicit in their intention to keep the real app action on the WinMo side of the fence.
Since I use x86 to mean AMD or Intel architecture since there are others out there. x86-16, x86-32 and x86-64 are what I find used across other boards I use, but I understand that AI tends to get a different crowd, so my bad.
x86 is typically used for 32bit x86 builds, vs x64 (or x86-64) for 64 bit. At least in the software world I live in.
And that matters because? They dominate the profitable sections of the PC world. They take in more money than any other HW vendor. If there growth continues for another couple years, especially with students, they are looking at taking more than 50% of the entire PC vendor market in sales revenue.
Just one quick bing debunked your "more money than any other HW vendor". Try checking out IBM.
If Apple didn?t license their OS back when they were struggling why would you think they would do it now when they are thriving? To win some dick measuring competition of who has the most OS marketshare? That seems a little pointless.
Yep, marketshare is a little pointless. My argument exactly. You see, we can agree.
/twospoons.
Maybe the question you should be asking is "What can't WinCE do vs. the Windows NT lineage?
If the answer in your mind is "Why, nothing!", then you have to ask yourself why MS isn't using WinCE as their desktop OS. I mean, much smaller memory and CPU overhead, cheaper, runs fine on a netbook, why are they wasting their time with all that big code?
Somehow I'm pretty sure that Apple didn't cram it's ENTIRE OSX inside the iPod. You know, you strip out stuff you don't need for a simpler hardware arcitecture and you take out functionallity you don't need. Pretty obvious stuff.
Same goes for windows CE which is a pretty good OS. If you look the other way when seeing what windows mobile did to it.
/twospoons.
Yep, marketshare is a little pointless. My argument exactly. You see, we can agree.
/twospoons.
Right, you want to make a spurious argument that's irrelevant to the topic, because it's one you feel comfortable with.
The argument you are not and possibly cannot make is why many people would be pleased with a device that is similar to the Touch in cost and size, but forgoes about 75% of the functionality in favor of a couple of limited appeal wins: OLED screen and subscription music (and, I guess, frenetic UI if that floats your boat).
For people for whom those two things are paramount, great, MS has your media player, for sure. But it's pointless to pretend that this somehow constitutes a "competitor" to the Touch, any more than a portable DVD player is a competitor to a laptop, in that they both play DVDs.
You seem really intent on shifting the discussion to old marketshare vs. quality desktop battles. Why is that? We're talking about the Zune HD vs. the Touch.
And again, the argument is not "the Touch is better because it has more apps" or "has more marketshare", the argument is "the Touch is an entirely different class of machine, and it's not clear if there's actually much of a market for such a narrowly focused product as the Zune, in this age of integration and pocket-sized general purpose computing devices."
You seem to be vaguely suggesting that the Zune could be a general purpose computing device, if it wanted to, but the burden of proof for that is on you. Why isn't it? What, historically, suggests to you that WinCE is suitable for general purpose computing? Why is the Zune's UI so utterly unsuited for regular computer duties, if that were MS's plan? Would you want to work with a laptop that had endless zooming and huge fonts as part of the day to day computing experience?
Everything about the "Zune experience" screams "Music! Cool! Dig it! Wheeeee!" and nothing suggests "OK, and now to get some work done." And rightly so: the Zune HD is an entertainment device, first last and always. MS has been explicit in their intention to keep the real app action on the WinMo side of the fence.
Well, MS focused on it being a good music player first. Which I think they did a good job at. But then you have people like you focusing on everything else than that, and that's why I tried to prove to you that market share doesn't mean that much.
I'm not sure why you say the UI us unsuited for general computing tasks. It works for me and the few apps which is on it. Why don't you tape an apple logo on it and try it out for a few days and see what you think?
And yes, the Zune hardware and OS can do a hell of a lot more than what you see when playing music. Just google up the hardware and download the SDK if you want and start building some apps.
/twospoons.
Right, you want to make a spurious argument that's irrelevant to the topic, because it's one you feel comfortable with.
The argument you are not and possibly cannot make is why many people would be pleased with a device that is similar to the Touch in cost and size, but forgoes about 75% of the functionality in favor of a couple of limited appeal wins: OLED screen and subscription music (and, I guess, frenetic UI if that floats your boat).
For people for whom those two things are paramount, great, MS has your media player, for sure. But it's pointless to pretend that this somehow constitutes a "competitor" to the Touch, any more than a portable DVD player is a competitor to a laptop, in that they both play DVDs.
There is a good saying "Never underestimate your enemy". Arrogance is the first step towards a total defeat.
You know, I don't care that I blow money on new gadgets. I have a lot of them. It's fun. It's a fun device. It makes me happy. I'm just as happy with this device as I was with my iPhone. Why it has to be either or; and a religious war is beyond me.
/twospoons.
Somehow I'm pretty sure that Apple didn't cram it's ENTIRE OSX inside the iPod. You know, you strip out stuff you don't need for a simpler hardware arcitecture and you take out functionallity you don't need. Pretty obvious stuff.
Same goes for windows CE which is a pretty good OS. If you look the other way when seeing what windows mobile did to it.
/twospoons.
Except WinCE is by no means desktop Windows with stuff stripped out to make it fit. It's an embedded OS designed around extremely constrained power, memory and CPU conditions. It's not supposed to do any heavy lifting, it's supposed to be small. And it shares no code whatsoever with Windows.
OS X on the iPhone is indeed truncated to meet the needs of the hardware, with a touch optimized UI on top of that. But that's a very different thing than being limited in scope, and Apple can add and subtract the modular bits depending on form factor and the inevitable improvements in hardware. "Leaving off the parts you don't need" doesn't mean "lobotomizing the OS", it just means matching things like I/O and printer drivers and graphics and file systems to the hardware at hand.
This disparity is only going to get more pronounced as phone sized hardware gets every more powerful, and Apple take advantage of every bit of it with their scaleable OS. MS will be in the unenviable position of attempting to bolt on ever more functionality to an OS that was originally written to run on devices that by today's standards were little more than calculators.