Microsoft store to face off against Apple iPhone 4 launch

167891012»

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 234
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    Most of us don't care about gaming . Mac users just want things to work and be productive so if they wanted to use a machine for gaming they could always buy or build a cheap Windows machine, or buy one of many game consoles available.



    Yeah, I see a lot of productive Mac users around here...
  • Reply 222 of 234
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    If Microsoft wants to get the message across that they don't care what Apple does, that Apple are insignificant, they have no choice but to continue with the opening.



    That's the message they want to get across, no matter how removed from reality that perception is.
  • Reply 223 of 234
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucep View Post




    and why does a san diego mall need 4 ms stores ??






    The inline storefronts are too small to fit?
  • Reply 224 of 234
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    These idiots opened four stores in the same mall?



    No. They didn't.
  • Reply 225 of 234
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    For example, Steam found that Windows systems crashed 5 times as much as Macs (in terms of crashes per minutes used).






    What are the stats when using Adobe Flash?
  • Reply 226 of 234
    steviestevie Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by troy.banther View Post


    "Why should they? They sell 7 copies of Windows 7 every second. It's the best selling OS in history."



    Microsoft's Windows 7 numbers are closely associated with the number of copies placed, nee, purchased, by manufacturers to place on their PCs.



    ...



    Something I learned in graduate-level statistics are you can twist 'questionable' data to fit your hypothesis. In this case, 7 copies of Win 7 every 7 seconds.








    So how many copies of Win7 are sold every second if the number is not 7?



    .
  • Reply 227 of 234
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


    I am surprised even you can't resist to join this flood of shallow, desperately-trying-to-be-funny (and failing miserably) comments of people not having anything better to do with their shiny computers.



    When in Rome, I guess. I actually quite like Windows 7 for what it is, it's just not the OS I choose to use on a daily basis, but I contend it's the best OS for most of the business world as well as MS' licensing business model. See, no ill will against MS at all, even though I think their idea for retail stores is flawed at the core.



    Note that I am always desperately trying to be funny. Even my sig is taking a crack at Apple.
  • Reply 228 of 234
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    When in Rome, I guess. I actually quite like Windows 7 for what it is, it's just not the OS I choose to use on a daily basis, but I contend it's the best OS for most of the business world as well as MS' licensing business model.



    Based on what? I'm curious how you reached such a conclusion.



    The MS licensing model stinks. Look at the Mac Mini server. $999 for a hardware solution with RAID 1 AND UNLIMITED CLIENT LICENSES. What would it cost just for unlimited WIndows client licenses alone?



    Or look at upgrade costs. WIndows upgrade costs are always vastly higher than Mac OS X upgrade costs.



    MOST Of the business world would get by just fine with a Mac Mini server and Mac Mini or iMac clients - with a fraction of the headaches of using Windows.



    The only advantage that Windows has is that it runs on cheap hardware. If most of that cheap hardware weren't so crappy, it might be OK.
  • Reply 229 of 234
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Based on what? I'm curious how you reached such a conclusion.



    The MS licensing model stinks. Look at the Mac Mini server. $999 for a hardware solution with RAID 1 AND UNLIMITED CLIENT LICENSES. What would it cost just for unlimited WIndows client licenses alone?



    Or look at upgrade costs. WIndows upgrade costs are always vastly higher than Mac OS X upgrade costs.



    MOST Of the business world would get by just fine with a Mac Mini server and Mac Mini or iMac clients - with a fraction of the headaches of using Windows.



    The only advantage that Windows has is that it runs on cheap hardware. If most of that cheap hardware weren't so crappy, it might be OK.



    1) They don't have rapid OS updates which means any SW investments are going to work for a much longer period of time without increased costs or training employees on the new SW.



    2) When they do update their OS they support legacy code for an unbelievably long period of time which makes supporting legacy apps easier which can bring down costs of upgrading SW and training employees on the new SW.



    3) They license their OS so there is pretty much every configuration possible to choose from, not just a "boutique" selection.



    4) They license their OS to HW vendors can bid lower prices than having one HW vendor be the sole distributor of an OS.



    5) The aforementioned bidding can lead to iron clad deals that vendors will support a specific HW for a set duration, thus making the effort on IT much more limited thereby reducing costs.



    Those are the major ones off the top of my head. I can get much more nuanced about the pros and cons of Apple and MS' "PC" business models, but I think you get the jist. I understand your point and as a consumer I would not choose Windows or the other PC vendors over Macs at this time and I agree that the TCO is lower with Macs but most companies tend to think quarter-to-quarter so the "long run" is a bit alien to them, especially when it comes to electronics.
  • Reply 230 of 234
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    No. They didn't.



    yesa theya dida

    and denver mall will get 6 ms stores

    and steve spelled backwards is ....
  • Reply 231 of 234
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) They don't have rapid OS updates which means any SW investments are going to work for a much longer period of time without increased costs or training employees on the new SW.



    2) When they do update their OS they support legacy code for an unbelievably long period of time which makes supporting legacy apps easier which can bring down costs of upgrading SW and training employees on the new SW.



    3) They license their OS so there is pretty much every configuration possible to choose from, not just a "boutique" selection.



    4) They license their OS to HW vendors can bid lower prices than having one HW vendor be the sole distributor of an OS.



    5) The aforementioned bidding can lead to iron clad deals that vendors will support a specific HW for a set duration, thus making the effort on IT much more limited thereby reducing costs.



    Those are the major ones off the top of my head. I can get much more nuanced about the pros and cons of Apple and MS' "PC" business models, but I think you get the jist. I understand your point and as a consumer I would not choose Windows or the other PC vendors over Macs at this time and I agree that the TCO is lower with Macs but most companies tend to think quarter-to-quarter so the "long run" is a bit alien to them, especially when it comes to electronics.



    the stupidest post from the smartest dude here

    even your lover techstud would cream you on this one



    apple buisness clients don't even hire it guys anymore

    apple does not crash

    apple does not get viruses or malware

    apple is 7 times over cheaper to run





    i know of 12 nyc conerns that run apple



    all of them

    including a large bakery still run G5's



    all of them feel os 9.2 was the peak of granite



    when their macs reach 50 percent fail rate they will leap to 10.6



    i sent this post to all of them







    i guess this is a joke post and i missed it



    9
  • Reply 232 of 234
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) They don't have rapid OS updates which means any SW investments are going to work for a much longer period of time without increased costs or training employees on the new SW.



    2) When they do update their OS they support legacy code for an unbelievably long period of time which makes supporting legacy apps easier which can bring down costs of upgrading SW and training employees on the new SW.



    3) They license their OS so there is pretty much every configuration possible to choose from, not just a "boutique" selection.



    4) They license their OS to HW vendors can bid lower prices than having one HW vendor be the sole distributor of an OS.



    5) The aforementioned bidding can lead to iron clad deals that vendors will support a specific HW for a set duration, thus making the effort on IT much more limited thereby reducing costs.



    Those are the major ones off the top of my head. I can get much more nuanced about the pros and cons of Apple and MS' "PC" business models, but I think you get the jist. I understand your point and as a consumer I would not choose Windows or the other PC vendors over Macs at this time and I agree that the TCO is lower with Macs but most companies tend to think quarter-to-quarter so the "long run" is a bit alien to them, especially when it comes to electronics.



    1&2. You mis-spelled "Microsoft takes many, many years to fix buggy software". Besides, the premise is flawed. Other than the single switch from Mac OS Classic to OS X, Apple has a huge history of supporting legacy apps. Since OS X isn't going to be dropped any time soon, that's no longer an issue.



    3. While Microsoft licenses their OS, OEMs are not allowed to modify it (other than trivial things like loading junkware on the computer), so your 'every configuration possible' is wrong.



    4. As I said, there are some cheap Windows boxes out there, but that doesn't justify your argument that Windows is the only OS suited for businesses. If it was all about cost, Linux wins hands down. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, Windows licensing costs can exceed the cost of the hardware in some cases.



    5. Completely arbitrary and irrelevant. The cost of maintaining and supporting Macs has repeatedly been shown to be lower than the cost of supporting Windows - even with your 'great deals'.



    None of your arguments justifies your position that WIndows is the only suitable OS for business. While it might be better in some cases (particularly where the customer just wants the cheapest hardware regardless of quality or where they need to run some legacy apps that won't run under Parallels or Fusion), there's certainly nothing to support your position that Windows is ALWAYS better for business.
  • Reply 233 of 234
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    None of your arguments justifies your position that WIndows is the only suitable OS for business. While it might be better in some cases (particularly where the customer just wants the cheapest hardware regardless of quality or where they need to run some legacy apps that won't run under Parallels or Fusion), there's certainly nothing to support your position that Windows is ALWAYS better for business.



    I never said it was always better for business. I never said it was better for business. I gave clear and concise reasons why businesses have stuck with and continue to stick with Windows.



    The fact that you brought Parallels and Fusion into the conversation as an alternative option to an argument that is based on low cost vendor options tells me that you have understood what companies look at when making large corporate purchases. Whether you or I like it or not is not the issue here, it's about why companies are sticking with Windows and why they will stick with Windows despite your assertion that they shouldn't.
  • Reply 234 of 234
    kurt737kurt737 Posts: 8member
    This is my first post to the forum. I guess I should first say that the only reason I even started reading this forum is because I pre-ordered the new iPhone 4 and wanted to get some info on it. I've always used PCs other than the occasional use of a friend's iMac. Anyway...



    It's funny to me how the whole Mac/ PC thing is like the American Indians. They still say we stole their land and aren't letting it go. I'm so tired of hearing that stuff. I'm tired of hearing all this Mac is better than PC stuff, apples are better than oranges... yawn





    I think you all sound like a bunch of teenagers laughing at Microsoft... \



    BTW, I can't wait for the new iPhone!
Sign In or Register to comment.