MALsPa wrote:I feel kinda lucky because I never got very interested in any gaming. But when it comes to Mac vs Windows vs Linux, the biggest things for me are money and freedom. Using Linux costs me little or nothing; and, just as importantly, it gives me the freedom to do what I want with the operating system. It's mine, not Microsoft's or Apple's. I don't think I could ever be happy with a Mac or with Windows because they make me feel tied down.
I also don't like that "Ubuntu" and "Linux" are becoming interchangeable.
Ubuntu is one of the last distros I'd give to a beginner. I'd start with Mint, PCLOS, or MEPIS. From there, I can name off another 2 dozen I'd recommend before Ubuntu. It's buggy, their bug-fixing policy is absurd, and it often times just doesn't work. There are *so* many other distros that are so much more beginner freindly, easier to set up and maintain, more intuitive to navigate and use, it just goes to show what a few billion dollars to throw at marketing can do for you
belovedmonster wrote:Anyone who thinks that Apple withhold their software from generic hardware just as a marketing ploy "don't get it". Apple are a hardware company not a software company!! The difference is Apple's design philosophy is that if you care about your hardware then you will care about the software it runs, and this is why they go out of their way to have really great software in a way another hardware manufacturer like Sony wouldn't. This hybrid approach of caring about the software that your hardware comes with confuses people, but all you gotta realise is that Microsoft and Apple are two completely different sorts of company.
JAK wrote: Then again, after second thought on this; Apple deserves a bit of applause as well for making their OS (essentially a *nix flavor) run on nothing but their hardware (without hacks and patches). It's a bit of a self-fish business philosophy if you ask me. Imagine if Microsoft or even the Mint developers decided one day that you have to buy a certain computer from a certain manufacturer if you want their OS to run properly, and there will be no support for anything other than that. You wouldn't like that, would you?
BlahBlah_X wrote:I would have to agree with the above post.
There are two main reasons OSX is mac only:
1) Apple wants to sell hardware! I mean, if they sold OSX for PCs, they would get some sales, but it wouldn't be enough. Thats like saying they should make iTunes compatible with every mp3 player, and have the ipod or iphone GUI available for the other mp3 players too! Then, their iPod sales would drop, and they would lose money. Also, selling software is much less of a goldmine than hardware. Hardware needs to be repaired and updated, while OSX is only upgraded once every 2 or 3 years.
2) Support. If OSX was to be available on PCs too, then how could apple possibly make sure it worked? How could they guarantee it would even boot? Windows doesn't even work that well on the large range of computers it can be installed on, and it was built to do that! Every piece of apple hardware is customized to integrate perfectly with the OS.
So for now, Apple is leaving the questionably legal hackers to play with OSX on the PC.
belovedmonster wrote:Microsoft are a software company ala Adobe, the difference between them and Adobe is MS also make an OS as well as software than runs on top of that OS. Aside from recent times with MS getting into the mp3 and gaming markets Microsoft has never been about hardware. Apple on the other hand have always been a hardware company which has always sold hardware (which can run software by companies like Adobe and Microsoft) Back in the early days Microsoft was one of the biggest software makers for Apples hardware. I cant stress this enough, Apple make hardware.
If you still dont understand the difference between Apple (hardware) and Microsoft (software) watch this entertaining video...
Mattd4AX3 wrote:Your still not getting my point
belovedmonster wrote:Mattd4AX3 wrote:Your still not getting my point
I get your point, I just don't agree with it. Just because Apple have switched to Intel chips for their macs doesn't mean they are now becoming a software company. For one thing Apple make a lot more than just Macs, they make mp3 players, tv media players, phones, servers, keyboards etc. Yeah I agree with you that their hardware for Macs is essentially the same as regular "PC" hardware but this doesn't mean they are suddenly going to give up on hardware and just sell software.
Imagine if Nintendo just decided that from now on they will release Mario games for the Playstation as well as continue to sell their own Nintendo hardware. Not going to happen, everyone would tell them that is the dumbest thing ever. Same with the Apple situation. So long as they are still making hardware, regardless how good or bad that hardware is they are going to keep OSX exclusive.
That is reason number 1; the business reason.
Reason number 2 is that opening up the platform would tarnish it's perfection... sundayrefugee got it right when he said that Apple doesn't really care about being the dominant player. All they care about is creating the best computer experience humanly possible and selling that to people who appreciate that attention to detail. This is why Apple has this cult of fanboys that follow them around. It's not because they are all brainless sheep who love the glossy advertising, it's because a lot of people tap into that philosophy that "we are going to make the best experience ever whatever it takes".
This is why people don't get Apple, they think it's just a trandy brand and people buy into it because of that, but it's far deeper than that, it's a whole design philosophy, maybe even a whole philosophy of life. This is why Apple go to stupid lengths like having fake wall sockets in Apple stores just so the walls look symmetrical.
My point being, regardless of the hardware/software argument Apple are never going to open up this beautiful creation to just any hardware. To use another analogy that would be like Ferrari spending years designing the ultimate sports car and then letting Ford mass produce it. It's not going to happen.
belovedmonster wrote:What I find interesting is that in my mind Apple has an ethos, a philosophy behind its products, you might not agree with it but its there. That whole "we are zen designers and we want to make the best designed experience possible". And obviously Linux also has an ethos and a philosophy behind it, the idea of shared knowledge and absolute freedom.
But what is Microsofts philosophy? What sort of a person do you have to be to become a Microsoft fanboy? I really cant think of what Microsoft stands for or evokes except capitalism and big business. Maybe the MS mantra is the famous Gordon Geko line "Greed is good".
Also, Fiat owns Ferrari, and Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen.
Users browsing this forum: Cobber and 7 guests