![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Leopard Looks Like Vista
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
First post I've read in the thread which had my head nodding in agreement. Only thing I'd add is that the 'headline' is often not the work of the article writer. It can be a mistake to assume that it is, even if the writer concerned is one with a long career like Foley.
It's a simple article which makes a simple and pertinent point. It takes up a bit of page space and earns her some income. It's admittedly written from the point of view of a non-Mac user, so it's rather hard to argue that it isn't 'honest'.
Damned if I understand why some people carry on as if every utterance made has to be world-shaking! She hasn't claimed that 'Leopard' is copied from 'Vista'. She's merely pointed out that the new inclusions looked similar to Vista to her, and that she couldn't understand why people were gushing and going into orgasms about it!
What's the big deal?
QFT!!!
Ok, let's assume that MS copied Apple and that Apple copied nobody. In other words, let's all allow our brains to seep out of our asses every morning.
To counterpoint that argument:
1. The desktop really is a negligible thing coming down to preference. Apple's desktop has looked like a glorified Windows 3.1 for ages. Windows versions have all been pretty much identical since Windows 95. As for who started the Windows 3.1 look, neither company so the point is effectively moot. However, Windows at least innovated with Windows 95, which looked drastically different.
2. Search functionality is going to differ no matter what. Both are expected to be able to search. This is not really a significantly different thing between the two because the refinement at this point is going to make the time differences negligible.
3. I don't know enough about this one. I'll take a shot in the dark, though, and say that someone else thought of it before either Apple or MS got their hands on it.
4. Apple did it in one big leap because they can ensure that the systems capable of running 64-bit is all they will be producing in the future. This is what happens when dickheads close off their O/S to other companies for distribution. Windows was ahead of the pack with XP 64-bit, considering how many hardware vendors, rather the lack thereof, had drivers ready for it. Windows could have, without a doubt, forced the market to switch to 64-bit, but what is the point in fucking people out of cheaper computers / forcing people to upgrade to 64-bit processors? There is no point, the point is to give the choice and not force people into buying more hardware if they want a new OS.
5. I don't know anything about this one.
6. No, you can't run OSX on your PC. Why? Because Apple is run by a bunch of ignorant douchebags. Do you think that Apple is allowed to distribute Bootcamp without the permission of MS? Fuck no. Further, this also just goes to show how shitty Apple coders are; Windows can handle just about every god damn piece of hardware known to man, OSX/Tiger/etc. can handle very few, limited amounts of hardware specifically selected to be run on the Apple OS. Why? Because Apple is run by a bunch of ignorant douchebags and nobody wants to code drivers for an operating system that has no chance at penetrating the market because they won't let others distribute the OS. It's really a circular effect Apple has created for themselves.
7. Changing something from All Users > xxxxnamehere in Windows or simply the difference in start menu/desktop. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that both OSes have had this for a bit and it's pretty much a demanded and logical functional device for either to have cooked up. Let's give this one to the constitutional right to privacy and say it stems from that.
8. Longhorn, active desktop, windows mobile (cell phones).
9. OMG first time Apple and MS people have reached a consensus?
10. They're both pretty equal, depending on preference. Functionality-wise, both do what they should do and you can't really have a 'more powerful' backup tool; it either works or you're hosed. If you're restoring something, do you typically restore something that's 6+ months old or something? No. You restore files that just got fucked up right then usually so I don't really see how it being "simplistic" would even apply since 99.9999999% of the time you're selected the most recent backup and getting files from it. Also, elegance is subjective and it doesn't really matter with this tool anyways--unless you're restoring files you accidentally deleted every day or something, in which case the stupidity would indicate Mac user.
Care to elaborate? Several have intimated I'm crazy or off-base for saying Vista is garbage, but none have pointed out why.
I'm quite curious how the average user is better off spending $200-500 upgrading to Vista? For that matter, I'm curious is an average user is better off not avoiding Vista when purchasing a new PC??
Now, I don't actively recommend clients actively avoid purchasing a new computer preloaded with Vista, simply on the basis that it's only a matter of time before new software/hardware/drivers (of course, more immediately games) are developed with Vista in mind. Just the same, it will be a long time before XP is not supported by MS or the industry at large.
I'll tell ya, when I see my techs struggling to trouble-shoot a fairly standard peripheral on Vista -- the printer window crashes every time a printer setting is changed (built in Vista Brother laser printer driver)... one example (in many) of the compatibility/instability of Vista in my experience -- I wonder why/how they (anyone) can think it's necessary to have the "latest and greatest" OS, when it's really <b>neither at this time</b>?
While I think the article is bunk and not really worth reading I will say that coming from a few conferences and speaking with friends and what not, Apple seems to carry with it this notion that things are better even when the same or close to the same functions and programs are found on a PC.
The 2 companies could combine efforts and make an OS together that was exactly the same maybe with some GUI changes and we would have the same thread talking about how one is better than the other, or one copied the other or how Apple can go to hell etc etc...
I enjoy both camps. I just happen to be able to do far more of what I want to do on a PC.
The 2 companies could combine efforts and make an OS together that was exactly the same maybe with some GUI changes and we would have the same thread talking about how one is better than the other, or one copied the other or how Apple can go to hell etc etc...
I enjoy both camps. I just happen to be able to do far more of what I want to do on a PC.
Personally I don't care much either way... The OS is just a tool, and while I may like one hammer better than another, at the end of the day they are both hammers that do pretty much the same thing. As a windows user myself, I somewhat grudgingly have to concede one point to Jobs/Apple that was (curiously) not mentioned in the comparison article, and that is the price/versions of OSX. $120 for one version that does everything (vs $350 for Windows Vista Ultimate - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116140)... We used to have that in the windows world, but sadly those days are gone ("Thanks Micro$haft"). True Mac users do have to pay more for somewhat "over-valued" hardware, but at least they don't have to spend as much on the OS. I can understand the author's dismay that the people were "ohhing" and "ahhhing" as if they'd never seen it before, but on the other hand if I saw a Kia sports car that looked looked a Ferrari, drove like a Ferrari, and cost as much as a Kia, I'd probably be Ohhing and Ahhing a little myself.
This makes more sense than anything else I've read / heard regarding Vista. I couldn't agree regarding Vista's half-baked status.
The possibility of "Vienna" being the <b>real</b> next gen M$ OS reminds me of 95 to 98, but then Vista doesn't seem like nearly the innovation 95 was over 3.1. I've said it once, and I'll say it again... Vista adds nothing over XP (other than a shaky stepping stone to what the next OS _should_ be).
Thanks for sharing. Good info, even more so if it is accurate. : )
DoubleAught
n00b
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10
Apple is a... marketing company? That's why they hire a marketing firm?
Be clear here, Apple makes software in order to sell hardware. They're doing this better than anyone else. In terms of "at the end of the day" marketshare really means little. Look at Q4 of 06, Dell had 5 times the marketshare but less profit. Before you respond, I highly recommend reading this bit:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/gartner_jackasses
Or look at other end-of-the-day figures, like money. In whatever form you like, Apple is making damn good money.
Stock price points
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AAPL&a=08&b=7&c=2002&d=05&e=13&f=2007&g=m
Net worth
"Apple Inc.'s market capitalization broke the $100 billion barrier for the first time on Wednesday, as shares of the company surged above $116 following a bullish research report from investment bank Morgan Stanley.
That puts the Cupertino-based company's perceived market value at nearly twice that of long-time rival Dell, which was valued at $59.8 billion as of noon eastern time, and approximately a third of that of Microsoft, which has been teetering around $295 billion."
You can hate apple, you can love them, you can be a fanboy, or be ignorant. Or whatever. But you can't deny them fellas are makin' good coin.
who really cares who copied who? for me even if apple had the greatest os known to man and could do everything for me twice as fast as windows i would still not use it. every apple user ive ever seen has been a douche bag poser. no offense to you douche bag posers btw. what i think is really weird is that microsoft came out with that surface thing and apple didnt. surface looks like something apple would be pimping not ms. if apple comes out with iSurface i will laugh my ass off.
DoubleAught when did I say they were not making good money? Oh wait, I didn't. To be simple they make a ton of money from areas other than computers. Ever hear of the iPod? Thought so. Ever hear of iTunes? Thought so as well. Look at recent moves Apple has continued to make in order to push into the Windows market in order to make money. Its a clear indication to me that Apple has continued to make money from other areas besides their own computers and OS and instead in areas outside those. As a company Apple is doing great and though I personally dislike Steve Jobs (he's a dick) but he can lead a company and knows the market better than nearly anyone. I just simply see them moving away from their computer business and focusing more and more on the media business.
Nasty_Savage
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Messages
- 37,837