digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

As Apple Gains PC Market Share, Jobs Talks of a Decade of Upgrades

nytimes.com — Two research firms that track the computer market said last week that Apple would move into third place in the United States behind Hewlett-Packard and Dell on Monday, when it reports product shipments in the fiscal fourth quarter as part of its earnings announcement.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • aneconcept, on 10/23/2007, -18/+40"On Friday, Apple will start selling the new Leopard version of its OS X operating system, which has a range of features that in some cases match those in Windows Vista and in others surpass them."

    Ha!
    • eatspie, on 10/22/2007, -15/+7Don't diggers use Gutsy Gibbon?
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/23/2007, -11/+8FTA:

        "With Leopard, Mr. Jobs joked, “everybody gets the Ultimate edition and it sells for 129 bucks, and if you go on Amazon and look at the Ultimate edition of Vista, it sells for 250 bucks.”"

        To be fair, there have been four versions of OS X during the seven years that XP was Microsoft's flagship OS. MS issued Service Packs for free during that time, which contained new features, upgrades, and security patches. The real cost of keeping OS X current over that same time period is $129 x 4 = $516.
        • danielwsmithee, on 10/22/2007, -2/+6That is true but for the last seven years your only choice was running XP. I like having something fresh every few years. In seven year counting Leopard I will have purchased two OSs so that is $258.
    • coloneltcb, on 10/24/2007, -3/+64Isn't it the conensus (not just amongst us fanboys) that TIGER has a range of features that in some cases match those in Windows Vista and in others surpass them?
      • gamelord12, on 10/23/2007, -16/+3No, that's just Apple propaganda. The only innovative things in Leopard are the little things that they're not hyping. Spaces and Time Machine...yawn. Quicklook, I'll give them that one. But the scratched disc recovery that they are giving no publicity is ACTUALLY a new feature of a desktop OS that they should be playing up more.
        • artificialgrey, on 10/22/2007, -2/+0Guess most of the fanboys dugg you down cause of the first sentence. I didn't know about the disc recovery feature and have to agree with you after I checked out that the feature was indeed real. Looks like Mac users tend to be like Linux users, cept with serious ADD.
      • naonao, on 10/23/2007, -5/+9[sarcasm]Yeah, being able to recover files that were accidentally deleted with the click of a mouse and easy ways to space out lots of windows, yeah, yawn [/sarcasm.]
        • BrainInAJar, on 10/22/2007, -4/+3"Spaces" has been a feature in X11 based desktops ( those on UNIX or it's copycats ) for decades.
          "Time Machine" has been a feature in the Veritas suite for a while, and ZFS since it's inception.
          Scratched disk recovery though... that's something I've not heard of before
      • MxM111, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1LOL, I actually looked for "conensus" in dictionary. Could not find it... :)
        • MacParrot, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3I can't be sure, but I think it has something to do with barbarians
    • MidnightRIder77, on 10/22/2007, -4/+1Wait so Leopard has a range of features that match and surpass Tiger's?
  • Gabberwok, on 10/24/2007, -2/+101So can Steve afford to buy another shirt now?
    • cvh™, on 10/24/2007, -1/+29nope, but now he can wash it 5 times a day...
      • MtheoryX, on 10/24/2007, -0/+14I wish I knew how he washed his darks. I've tried everything! No matter what I do, my darks are only good for about 10 washes.
        • LeonardNimrod, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Ritt dye (liquid) available at any American grocery tore. With a cup of salt to open up the fabric fibers and use hot water with a double rinse.

          This will extend your blacks for quite awhile.
          • vulapine, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I think you can use that process with pretty much any color.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11It's called being a billionaire. You buy clothes in large quantities, and your housekeeping staff throws out anything that has even a hint of a permanent stain, fading color, or a fraying edge.

          I haven't tried it yet, myself, but I highly recommend it.
        • lordsandwich, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Have the dry cleaners do it for you. It's expensive, but they'll do the best job and your darks will last for as long as they don't lose them. :D
        • dragon76, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3You use a little bit of vinegar (a capful) the first time you wash your darks and you always wash them in cold, using a mild detergent like one of the "free and clear" types can help, too. The above poster is correct about hot water when dying fabric but to preserve the colour, always wash in cold.
      • TechCF, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2I recolor a lot of stuff
    • TastyLamp, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2Doesn't he get paid 50c a year? Lol.
      • naonao, on 10/24/2007, -1/+12$1 actually.
        • aristotle0dude, on 10/27/2007, -2/+10That would be 97 cents Canadian.
      • Dumbledorito, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6And the stock options are just pieces of paper.
      • Tehrab, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1So, I guess, no, he can't afford another shirt.

        Bizarre, these billionaire economics.
    • Ireland, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Another black one?
  • bremstrong, on 10/24/2007, -17/+94One would think that Microsoft, with all their money and programmers, could put together an OS that solved the problems people want solved, was easy to use and set up, was really fast, had a powerful, easy to use word processor, etc.

    Apple is beating them.

    This must be very frustrating for a lot of people at Microsoft.
    • LemmingJesus, on 10/23/2007, -38/+12Yeah, I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be one of the most successful and richest companies. Apple's market share puts Microsoft to shame.
      • BlueStarr, on 10/22/2007, -3/+13That's not the point you moron. Money does little to change the fact that Vista is a pile of *****. Well its not all *****, I'm sure that there is some corn in there too.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/22/2007, -10/+4Haven't used it, eh?
          • MonkeyFarts, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I've used it myself, and I couldn't agree more with BlueStarr. Vista is the most annoying OS I have ever used. "Are you SURE you want to do xyz?" Yes. "Are you POSITIVE?" Yes. "REALLY? Because, if you change your mind, you know, you may..." Yes, I'm sure. "Well, if you say so. Is that your final answer?" ...YES!
      • cfulp, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2While I appreciate your enthusiasm for Microsoft bashing, in this particular instance it's not necessary. Apple's stock may be a lot higher then Microsoft's, but there's significantly less shares out there. In other words, while apple's stock is higher, Microsoft is worth (as of the time I wrote this) 286.85 Billion, with Apple being worth 150.70 Billion. Damn, seems like everyone's making money but me.
        • iFungus, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1Way to completely not understand a comment.
    • SSUK, on 10/22/2007, -16/+6I won't say anything, but I laughed when I read your comment, bremstrong.
    • Angostura, on 10/24/2007, -4/+60I think a large part of the difference is the way that the companies handled backwards compatibility. In the big move from OS 9 to OS X Jobs made the decision to make a clean brake and run old programs in an emulation layer. It wasn't without problems - some apps broke, performance was degraded. But long term, the policy paid dividends - all the old crufty stuff was isolated to the emulation and the new architecture could be built clean and shiny. Microsoft could have taken a similar approach with NT or XP or Vista, but didn't.

      Partly, I suspect they didn't think they had the luxury; the howls of pain from large enterprises had the old apps gone into emulation would have been too loud. I think they are still going to have to do it one day. They literally tie themselves and their code-base in knots trying to maintain native support for apps from the early 90s. It's no mean feat that they manage it, but it must sap their will to live some times.


      • Tenoq, on 10/22/2007, -4/+11'break', not 'brake'.
        And I thought Vista DID have some serious backward compatibility issues, courtesy of dropping a lot of legacy stuff.
        • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -0/+14Clearly intentional - when you run applications under emulation, they either break, or brake - one or the other.

          /OK, good catch. Never post before your first coffee.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Having run Vista for several months now with loads of legacy apps (mostly for old hardware and graphics programs), I haven't found anything that won't work except for (ironically) Outlook 2000.
      • joshuaer, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4I installed and use a copy of office 97 on vista on my intel mac, now it was nice to be able to install it since all i use it for is writing and i do not have any need to upgrade it. At the same time the software is 10 years old and if you tried that on a mac now it would not work a mac would not know what to do with with it. I think Apple has always done it right.
        Small steps in removing outdated hardware and software support, first they removed ADB and went all USB ( pc makers still use the serial port on computers )
        then they removed the floppy drive from computers and offered the zipp 100mb drive ( new windows computers still come with a floppy drive ) creating a new system and a way to emulate the old and run both at the same time then dropping support slowly for os9 , you can still find software that is 10 years old or older that works on vista, if you do it in small steps people get used to it. Microsoft seems to take things in big jumps
      • da_bradler, on 10/23/2007, -2/+5Vista should have done the same thing, they should have made something entirely new that was completely built on a different frame work then xp. they should have just said the hell with it and made a product that could survive not being 100% adopted.

        they could have released it sooner and just had it running along side XP, so if you wanted to run xp you could boot into xp but if you wanted vista you could boot into that.

        look at the original OSX it was a piece of ***** and touted as such, it really didn't start finding its place until 10.3 and now they are in the place where everybody is on OSX and nobody even remembers that harsh transition. Microsoft maybe felt they couldn't do that.

        I mean OSX only had a low adoption rate. microsoft was unwilling to go down that path, so they pushed to hard and tried to get practically everybody to switch over all at once.

        But who knows maybe vista does have a strong core like OSX maybe over time it will turn into the jewel OSX did, I certainly hope so.
      • digggggggggg, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Come to think of it, you have a great point.
        Indefinite legacy support will just let some companies sit on their laurels and continue to sell software with dated features and interfaces without much improvement. Transitioning forces their hand to at least use the new API's.
        Every day, I have to deal with software that's written for Win 95, or even Win16, just because the vendor will not release any new versions, since their crufty old software still "works".
    • bremstrong, on 10/22/2007, -6/+24LemmingJesus: Legacy market share to lose, Microsoft's got it.

      Regarding Vista vs. Leopard, Vista users are suing to downgrade to XP. I don't doubt the consensus will be that Leopard is better than Vista, despite Microsoft being "one of the most successful and richest companies".

      Marketshare and money don't guarantee quality.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -2/+11True, but they do equal laziness, especially when you're the #1 monopoly in the computer market and your closest competitor is a blip on the screen.
        • pmrx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Not necessarily laziness, but when a company receives more pressure from corporations to support legacy hardware from the late 80's / early 90's, and less pressure from individuals to have an operating system that "just works," I can understand why Microsoft is having problems with Vista. They are trying to please two masters, and apparently four billion dollars wasn't enough to do that. You speak with your dollars, and corporations have bigger voices, as it were. I would not call the team which made Vista lazy - it was a total redesign of an operating system which needed to support just about every piece of hardware on the shelves today, plus every piece that has been on the shelves in the last, oh, 10+ years. If Vista were based more in the reality of the consumer world - that is, supported only recent hardware since the typical consumer isn't going to need legacy support - things would probably be a lot different.
          • vulapine, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4It's all so clear now: Microsoft turned into a government. It's listening to big business instead of catering to the little people who make up the majority and create something that is slow and generally ineffective to many. Vista is Microsoft's version of Bureaucracy.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/22/2007, -4/+3How lazy is it to release new hardware (i.e. iPods, Powerbooks, etc.) with little improvement to justify the new price tag and expect your customer base to huck their year-old stuff and buy new?

          There are "upgrades" that Apple does that resemble those in the womens' shoe industry.
          • vulapine, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3The whole making the devices more compact and efficient while increasing the storage size and adding features really doesn't mean much?
      • cfulp, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Your right bremstrong. But, I think what he's was trying to point out was that "one of the most successful and richest companies" would have a lot of resources at their disposal.
    • seraph582, on 10/22/2007, -17/+4osx isn't an OS as much as it is everything any PC user has already been downloading and using for quite some time, except this is bundled up and called an "operating system."

      Looking through all 300 "improvements," I noticed about 295 of them were things like Email program improvements and other non-operating-system related drivel. What a ***** con.
      • MacParrot, on 10/23/2007, -1/+16Right! How DARE Apple improve existing functionality and put in features that both users and developers can use to make their experience on the computer better. They've got some nerve!
        • Trixrox, on 10/22/2007, -6/+2Right, updates to programs that could have been updates to the already existing tiger OS. People say that Vista is just a re skinned XP...but I'd argue that Leopard is just a re skinned tiger, how much functionality changes have there really been. Apple did list screen savers as part of the 300+ features...I'd have to say the new spotlight, and time machine are great additions, but I couldn't justify the update, maybe for 50 bucks. It reminds me of the "Episode" release schedule for games.
        • mjparme, on 10/22/2007, -2/+9Well since Leopard is Unix certified and Tiger wasn't I would imagine there are A LOT of "under the cover" changes to the core OS. The changes listed in the list of 300 are put together by marketing to sell Leopard. The average user doesn't care and wouldn't understand the changes to the core OS so why would marketing list them? To say Leopard is just an update of bundled software applications is short-sighted.
          • danielwsmithee, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Tiger was Unix certified. Panther was too infact. Leopard was the first to be UNIX 03 certified. I think the others were Unix 98 certified. There was a whole lawsuit thing about Apple using the Unix trademark that went away once they became Unix 98 certified with Panther.
      • rebotfc, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5So every iteration of a operating system you expect a paradigm shift in kernel / code base and UI?

        Vista tried that and filed, OS X Leopard provides a solid incremental improvement, that ultimately moves towarsd the ultimate OS, and not the constant re jigging of everything that Vista is.
    • meshman, on 10/22/2007, -9/+1"put together an OS that solved the problems people want solved"

      You mean one that will let you port your puchased media to other devices?
      • vulapine, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1The word was "people" not "pirates". Easy mistake.
    • TheUngod, on 10/22/2007, -10/+2Apple is beating Microsoft? I dunno, looking at the figures, I think Microsoft is still doing a wee bit better.
      • judgeFire, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7In quality, not sales, silly. Is McDonalds the best restaurant on earth?
        • shark615, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2For $4 burgers and fries? Yes.

          For peppercorn crusted filet mingon? No

          See the problem with your analogy
    • BlueStarr, on 10/22/2007, -3/+5Momentarily but if Apple continues at this pace, Microsoft wont be in the lead for long.
      • WiZZLa, on 10/23/2007, -5/+3Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continues... AAY!
        • dragon76, on 11/09/2007, -2/+6Apple is not a new company, it's OLDER than Microsoft.
  • TheDHC, on 10/23/2007, -56/+4CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE
  • Angostura, on 10/23/2007, -5/+46I'm not entirely surprised. It has been noticeable how many Mac laptops have been popping up amongst co-workers over the last two years - particularly among the geeks. Moreover a friend who was a tremendous Apple sceptic ended up getting a MacBook Pro the other month simply to run ProTools on, since it was having problems with Vista. He was sufficiently impressed with the machine that he got his parents an iMac a few weeks later.

    I was a bit 'meh' about Leopard, but having looked at the list of new features and seen the video guide, I'm pretty sure I'll get it. I just hope that they've managed to keep performance front-and-centre. One of the things that drove my to buy previous upgrades was that from 10.0 -> 10.3 each upgrade actually made your machine faster. 10.4 was the first one that actually demanded more of the system. I see that 10.5 has a G4 800 something as a minimum requirement so, I hope this one isn't going to be a resource hog.
    • zybch, on 10/23/2007, -45/+3Sorry, but a 'true' geek would never use a mac of any description. Not unless it wasn't running OSX. Such a walled garden does not interest geeks at all, not does non-upgradability.
      • Tenoq, on 10/22/2007, -3/+28Wrong. Some geeks like using computers, not fixing them. I fix the ***** all day, and I like my box at home to just work.
        • ZenMojo, on 10/23/2007, -20/+3Then why do you have a Mac? Once you get past software stability thanks to everything being made by Apple, those bitches crash all the time. Don't tell me you've never gotten the sugary peppermint wheel of doom before.
        • DaffyDuck, on 10/22/2007, -1/+15Sorry ZenMojo but you don't know what you are talking about.
          • DaffyDuck, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8In case anyone comes back to this let me elaborate. The spinning wheel in 98% of all cases happens as a result of the active application accessing the swap space (or paging file or whatever you want to call it). So, increasing the amount of RAM in your system reduces the amount of time you will see the wheel. It rarely means the application has frozen. It certainly doesn't mean it has crashed because in that case the window would just dissapear and you would have to restart it. Applications do crash in OS X but they so seldomly take down the system that it's not worth mentioning.

            So, while individual programs do crash on occasion (in my experience usually the result of memory leaks), the system very rarely does.

            You say macs crash all the time and then you start talking about the beachball. It's like you don't understand the difference between system errors and program errors. I thought it was us Mac users that were computer no-nothings.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6They crash all the time? What, are you using ancient Performas running 7.5.5 or something? I've NEVER seen my Intel iMac lock up hard on me in the year and a half I've been using it.
      • antitab, on 10/23/2007, -1/+23Yeah man, ***** that whole Darwin underpinning. No geek would use a real UNIX that incidentally can run any POSIX app and framework ever. What an absurd concept.
      • MtheoryX, on 10/22/2007, -0/+14If you're a 'true' geek, why would you want to waste your time fiddling with cards and drivers?
        Me, I just like to get to work solving problems and writing code.
        I'd really rather not have to worry about upgrading equipment.
        And what upgrades does a 'true' geek need to make all the time? With a Mac, I have UNIX, Developer Tools, plenty of RAM and HD space. It works perfectly for me.
        And if I need a new computer, or an "upgrade" as you call it, I buy one. And then start working with it out of the box.
        I'll leave the tinkering and "upgrading" to the kids in "computer repair" classes down at the local community college.
        But, I guess I must not be a 'true' geek since I'd rather spend my time on what is most valuable and solves the most complex issues.
        • yabos, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9I guess you're not a "true" geek if you haven't spent 4 hrs trying to get your wireless card working under Linux.
      • gropo, on 10/22/2007, -1/+16Yeah... All those guys with thick glasses at NASA and the JPL that I see on PBS in meetings with MacBooks in front of them. Not 'true' geeks.
        'True' geeks fire up Ubuntu to troll on Digg.
      • aristotle0dude, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Ok, geeks with real jobs in tech and science buy macs as opposed to the unemployed basement dwelling variety which go dumpster diving for parts.
      • amadeusdemarzi, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3'True Geek'? LOL
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Thanks for telling me that I'm not a "true geek", at least according to your idiotic and narrow definition. I'm a Mac guy, I fix/sell/train on them for a living, and I've done a helluva lot of hacking/modifying/overclocking and such with them. I have a BS in IT. But yeah, I'm not a true geek because I don't use...what, Linux? Please. Take your arrogant elitism and cram it up your puckered ass.
      • cfulp, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5I had a job during college where I assembled computers for 6-12 hours a day. I'm a giant geek, but now that I have money, I'd rather someone else build it then to deal with that ***** again. Although I'll still do some minor stuff, like upgrade ram or change a hard drive every now and then.
    • Kitsune818, on 10/22/2007, -1/+15I develop software for a living, and among my coworkers Apple machines are showing up like they are reproducing asexually. The iPod effect started it, the failures of Vista have continued it. I have to admit, though, in the right circles Apple made and related machines have always been popular. NeXt boxen were fairly popular years back because they were developer friendly and research-egghead approved. Many people consider OS X just the lastest NeXtStep.
      • AlanYx, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7Part of the geek appeal of OS X for me is the historical connections... OS X is the latest NeXTStep... and NeXTStep was an improved Smalltalk-80, munged to be made practical. And of course the UNIX underpinnings trace all the way back to Kernighan, with a heavy dose of 90s microkernal research mixed in. I love how it has the sense of a development based on experience and tradition, borrowing solid ideas from the past and adding in some new ones. Maybe that only appeals to my geek sense, but I like it. The OLPC has a similar aspect, being ultimately the fullfillment of Alan Kay's Dynabook concept, and with a real Smalltalk no less.
    • tyrione, on 10/22/2007, -0/+0Performance is the first thing you'll notice. New Kernel, New Threading Model, new TCP/IP Stack, fully 64 bit with 32 bit native running apps, etc. The system is much snappier even with the advancements of Quartz. The OpenGL stack is no longer the 1.4 not fully supported spec, but the 2.1 fully optimized and supported spec. The next revision of OpenGL 3.0 will be fully optimized and specd as well.
      The bottlenecks in Network mounts has been resolved. MySQL is 64 and 32 optimized with the treading model to no longer be a bottle neck (of course, PostgeSQL is optmized and is targeted for the Enterprise). Objective C 2.0 and it's advancements in development modeling will shine through with more Apps leveraging Services.
  • macwac, on 10/23/2007, -3/+18I've used leopard for 4 months and i promise you the upgrade is worth it - i'd honestly do it just for the file preview (cover flow), downloads folder (stack) and time machine alone as they are the most noticeable changes - it is equally as fast as tiger. Do note that if you have some questionable programs on your mac (ie. something you haven't bought) those probably won't work on leopard.
    • roweiage, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Did you upgrade or do a fresh install? Have up upgraded any machines from Tiger to Leopard, and if so how have the upgrades gone?
      • macwac, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4I did an upgrade without fresh install - went horribly wrong.. (note that was using leopard beta) quicktime, microsoft office, ichat etc.. didn't work, they just did not want to start - i expect this to be fixed now with the new version.

        After that horrible experience i backed up all my data and then did a fresh installation and things worked fine. A friend of mine had a patched CS3 version that worked on tiger but didn't work on leopard. Upgrades after that went fine.
    • MtheoryX, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5macwac, I think you are wrong. I have yet to find a program that I had on Tiger that doesnt work on my Leopard systems.
      CS3, Final Cut Studio, they all work perfectly.
      I did upgrade install on one machine, archive and install on another, and clean install on my machines at work.
      • macwac, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You may say that i'm wrong however i'm speaking from first hand experience as well as watching 20-30 or so mac developers having the same issue. Seems like dragon76 have had similar issues as well..
    • dragon76, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3I found Coverflow to be useless because it's either on or off for all windows in icon view. You also cannot set how large the Coverflow portion is on a per-window basis. I have had to deal with a fair amount of incompatibilities with third-party applications and I am going to assume it's because so many developers use undocumented tricks or routines that Apple declared deprecated in Tiger. Biggest app that won't work for me: Missing Sync for Windows Mobile.
  • Invalice, on 10/22/2007, -8/+21i just got a mac too because my school required a laptop and they had some sort of deal with Apple. I like it so far because
    Loads faster
    Less Viruses
    There is a ease of use to it, compared to windows.
    - But i installed windows on Bootcamp for them games =)

    • ibookfast, on 10/28/2007, -5/+29you mean zero viruses.
      • MtheoryX, on 10/24/2007, -8/+2Depends on your definition of a virus.
        It would not be too hard to write a virus for a Mac. The only hitch is tricking the user into installing it with an Admin password. You could do this by hiding it inside some freeware app or something.
        • kelly, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9yet there are still no viruses for the OS
          • Macskeeball, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3There have been proof of concepts in the past which exploited vulnerabilities that Apple has since patched. I think I read a while back that MS Office macro viruses are crossplatform. That's about it for Mac malware, though.

            Take a few precautionary steps (router with WPA on and UPnP off, built-in firewall turned on, don't run as admin), educate yourself on safe computing practices, and keep up-to-date with patches and you should be fine.
        • Macskeeball, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5That would be a trojan, not a virus.
        • snyperr2s, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0there is one virus, and its german, and on jaguar,and it only deletes contacts from ur contacts list
      • Okari, on 10/24/2007, -5/+4I never got the whole "Macs have no viruses so it's better" thing. If you know anything about computers or just basic computer safety, you wouldn't get a virus.
    • Trixrox, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Ya know, Microsoft just made some money/marketshare off you too, bootcamp. As apple grows, windows grows.
      • TastyLamp, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Who cares? Let Microsoft do what they want. I like Apple the way they are. Not too big, but large enough to deliver great products.
      • kelly, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2You must be under the assumption that Microsoft still has money invested in Apple
      • cfulp, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1Well maybe if more people bought Cp just for the games, more games would come out =P
    • BlueStarr, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Trixrox, you do you assume it's a legit copy of windows? Bootleg that mofo.

      Invalice, get that VM software that lets you install just the windows applications without Windows! haha.
    • Barb19, on 10/23/2007, -11/+1Macs are actually more susceptible to viruses than Windows. Why? Because Windows has been dealing with viruses for a long long time, since it has had the majority market share for a long long time. If Apple's market share goes up, then the number of viruses will as well (and has done so, thus far, quite dramatically).
      • superkendall, on 10/23/2007, -1/+11Structurally though OS X is built to handle viruses better, with a better security model and people actually used to using non-admin users. Any security improvement Microsoft has put in is either already in place in OS X or being added with Leopard, and as I said Leopard goes a bit farther in which security features people actually use.

        Furthermore OS X has a significant advantage in terms of people actually applying system updates - Apple updates come more frequently, and are smaller so people apply them. This frequency of update also means that viruses have a maximum life of about two weeks before every system is patched against them, which in turn makes it really unappealing to spend a lot of effort crafting a virus for a Mac. With a PC you know that a virus installed could easily go for a month or even longer.
      • SaintStryfe, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Also, history isn't on your side- Apple's Marketshare has just about doubled over the last few years, and there's been no increase in viruses at all. So that theory is kind of out of the water.
  • hongkongjapie, on 10/23/2007, -2/+41Regardless which is the better O.S., Vista or Leopard, I think it's quite amazing that Apple manage to build it with probably only a fraction of the budget that MS had to make Vista and still have something regarded as competitive (or according to some, superior).
    Let's hope Apple can keep up! I.M.H.O. the software industry would greatly benefit if the market O.S. market becomes competitive again.

    • zybch, on 10/22/2007, -17/+4Well you can totally ignore making the OS work on all but a tiny subset of computer components its probably quite easy.
      • Rustymetal, on 10/22/2007, -3/+9Whats that? Intel based chips???
        • Speed, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1And remind me, how do I install OSX onto a non-Apple built Intel computer? Oh right, need to do all sorts of illegal hacks...
      • DaffyDuck, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7zybch, Microsoft doesn't write most of the drivers that add compatibility to the plethora of hardware out there. Anyone who has owned a sound blaster and waited for Creative to get off their fat asses and update their drivers to a new windows version understands this.
        • cfulp, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Amen to that. I had a buggy X-Fi driver forever!
    • pauleric, on 10/22/2007, -9/+2"...it's quite amazing that Apple manage to build it with probably only a fraction of the budget that MS had..." It would be amazing if that is what happened. What they did was use a preexisting OS which has been in development since the 70s by some of the brightest people on the planet. Apple did stick their own GUI on top of it, which is pretty slick, instead of using X and a window manager, but I don't know if I'd describe that as amazing.
      • moisie, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Even if it was quite as simple as that, so what? The point is still the same. Microsoft spend billions more and you can hardly say that the product they've come up with justifies the amount of money they spent on it over and above the alternatives.
    • Gavagai80, on 10/22/2007, -7/+4I wouldn't say it's that amazing that after a decade they've managed to make the BSD distro they started with a little better than BSD.
      • ZooKoo, on 10/22/2007, -0/+11OSX is the latest version of NeXStep, which was created at Steve Jobs previous company, NeXT. It was based on Mach which is/was a research oriented OS (at the time).
        The BSD layer is simply that, a user-land layer for compatibility with all the nice UNIXy goodies.
        In other words, it never was a BSD distro, thats a myth.
        • superkendall, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1It is in terms of OS security features - and that's a very good thing indeed!

          You're right beyond the OS itself that it's really more NeXT than anything... and that too is a good thing.

          You'd think the success of OS X would give Gnustep some wind at the sails for Linux.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Ask the average user if they only just made it a little better than BSD. What are you using as a yardstick here, exactly?
      • Tehrab, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1There is thing called the internet (aka, intertron, intarweb, intertubes, ad nauseum) and in it, you can find much truth, like this nugget:

        "The deployment of Darwin BSD Unix in Mac OS X makes it, according to a statement made by an Apple employee at a USENIX conference, the most widely used Unix-based system in the desktop computer market."

        L2Wiki, novices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
    • aristotle0dude, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3Have you heard of a book called the Mythical Man Month? What about the theory of 10? The theory of 10 suggests that adding more than 10 people to a team will reduce overall team performance rather than increase it. It is suggested that man is hardwired to not work effectively within groups larger than 10 people. Apple is able to churn out code faster because they have smaller teams and a highly modularized OS design which reduces the need for constant communication between team leads.

      MSFT's size is its Achilles heel.
    • Hickeroar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Budget aside, they also release a new OS just about once per year.... I don't even have to mention MS in that regard.
    • zebesian, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Dugg for a somewhat neutral post in the midst of the OS wars.
  • googeling, on 10/22/2007, -14/+4maybe Dell should also offer OS X :)
    • seraph582, on 10/22/2007, -10/+1yeah - they should also have their CEO masquerade around like he's a celebrity and start selling computers that look like shiny hunks of plastic
      • MacParrot, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7Dell would sell a computer with Christmas lights and goat horns in place of an optical drive if people would be willing to buy it. I applaud Dell for at least offering a Linux alternative and I believe they would sell a compatible OS X computer in a heartbeat if Apple let them. Dell is all about moving hardware (and there's nothing wrong with that) and if shiny hunks of plastic worked, they would attempt to corner the shiny hunks of plastic market.
  • tbenathan, on 10/23/2007, -5/+22As a Mac user, I'm excited by Apple's market share expansion. There are two main consequences of this news. First, developers currently sitting on the fence will make more and better Mac applications. Second, despite a name change, Apple will keep in mind that their main business is still the computing business, and future iterations of Mac OS X will benefit.
    • zybch, on 10/23/2007, -21/+4Sorry, but you're a fanboy if you actually get excited about marketshare!
      • roweiage, on 10/22/2007, -2/+11Well, to be fair, higher marketshare has a beneficial effect for all Mac users. It drives the creation of more software and hardware specifically for the mac platform.

        Anyone who uses computers should be happy to hear for marketshare gains for any of the platforms they use.

        For the record, I use Macs on the desktop and Linux (Ubuntu, switching slowly to CentOS for it's stability) on the server.
      • MacParrot, on 10/22/2007, -0/+8If it leads to more developers taking a second (or in some cases a first) look at the Mac, yeah it's something to be excited about. You said earlier about Apple only working with a small subset of computer components. Who's fault is that really? Apple's or the makers of said devices that won't make Mac (or in most cases Linux as well) drivers?
      • cfulp, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Or a stock owner!
    • chris8535, on 10/23/2007, -19/+4Apple's main business is not computers, it is iPods. You may want/wish the Mac is their main business, but in reality it is not.
      • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -0/+543% of Q1 2007 revenues were from Mac products, so you are right - it's not the 'main business' perhaps (though I don't know how the rest was split up) - but the Mac business certainly isn't trifling.
      • inkswamp, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8Wrong. An iPod needs a computer to be useful, not the other way around. Apple started chatting up the whole digital hub concept before the iPod arrived. The iPod is just one part of that idea. The computer is still the heart of it. That's still their core business.
      • unbreakable, on 10/22/2007, -0/+8Apple's "main business" is OSX. Its on everything they sell.
        As long as they continue to develop it, I am happy.
      • kelly, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6Apple's most profitable product is still their Mac
    • aerogant, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Before you get excited about that, consider that the PC Market share gains are not the same as OS market share. Basically, 8.1% of the PC Market is OSX and most of their competitors are Windows based. I do wish cross platform development was so easy that most developers would do it, and applications would end up on Ubuntu, Windows and OSX.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/22/2007, -2/+1Right. Developers are going gaa-gaa about writing software that will work on 7.6% of the computers currently in use.
      Clearly few Apple Fanboys actually work in the real world of business.
      Let's see - if they write software for Windows it will work on nearly 90% of the computers in use plus the 7.6% of Apple computers in use OR they can write software that only works on 7.6% of computers - now that is a really tough business decision.
  • ariez84, on 10/23/2007, -8/+7"took almost seven years between the release of its Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems".

    Uhh NYT, you dissappoint me. Next time do some fact checking.
  • chris8535, on 10/22/2007, -11/+17It clear apple has some real momentum behind it, but I am a little tired of journalists playing cheerleader to the company. I don't care if its vista, osx, linux or commodore 64, I am sick and tired of the NYtimes technology section basically making PR announcements for Apple and other companies. These aren't stories, they are often not even that interesting. Cover new things!

    Intelligent Gaming
    Cloud Computing
    Websites on the upwards swing of hits
    How an OS really does affect productivity
    Creative new gadgets (even if they might fail)
    AI
    the list goes on forever, there are endless things I could write about for a technology section. But no, they stick to trite old stories of apple vs microsoft and how Google is god of the internet.

    • bremstrong, on 10/22/2007, -4/+10Apple is gaining OS market share against the near monopoly Microsoft has--this is news worthy. No one else has done so.

      Plus, the story has this great quote:

      “We all had that Garry Trudeau cartoon that poked fun at the Newton in the back of our minds,” Jobs said, citing Doonesbury comic strips that mocked an Apple handwriting-recognition system in 1993. “This thing had to work.”
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/23/2007, -4/+2Actually they are gaining back market share they lost. Calling Microsoft a monopoly only demonstrates your lack of understanding.
        • madmage, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Microsoft has been a monopoly since Apple faltered in the early nineties, it's only since OS X, Intel, and the iPod has been released that Apple has whitled that away again. So yes, they are gaining market share, which was the whole point.
    • danieleran, on 10/22/2007, -3/+4Maybe the NY Times is trying to make up for 15 years of printing lines from Rob Enderle pretending to be something other than a Microsoft shill. The Times recently had to institute a policy of not interviewing Microsoft shills because it go so out of hand it was embarrassing to their reputation. You can cry over Apple getting attention, but its getting attention for doing a great job. Microsoft isn't.
      • madmage, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1You don't "make up" for lack of journalistic integrity with more lack of journalistic integrity, you gain respectability and irresponsibly.

        Not that I think that reporting on Apple's market share wasn't news-worthy, I'm just making a point.
    • codmate, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Unfortunatly the mainstream press are far more interested in branding and business than technology.
    • Topher06, on 10/22/2007, -5/+2Don't even go there about Apple and gaming. Apple has ignored gaming for the last decade, and now they are using 99% PC components they finally can run games properly with the latest up-to-date video cards. Don't tell me Apple is going to revolutionize gaming when they have ignored it so thoroughly.
    • troymccluresf, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Considering how this same media was tolling the bells for Apple for damn near the entire 90s, the change is welcome, IMO.
  • ibookfast, on 10/23/2007, -4/+4XP release date: oct. 25, 01 Vista release (retail) date: jan. 03 '07 just over 5 yrs between releases.
  • MrSteamTank, on 10/25/2007, -23/+12I simply can't get an Apple computer. They force you to buy hardware through Apple which is completely unacceptable to me. As much as Microsoft abuses there huge market share status Apple is much worse comparatively speaking. I currently use Windows but if one operating system had to increase in market share I really hope it's linux due to mainly it's approach.
    • Angostura, on 10/25/2007, -5/+6You're being a bit ambiguous - when you say: "They force you to buy hardware through Apple which is completely unacceptable to me." do you mean the hardware is unacceptable, or the fact that youhave to get it from Apple is unacceptable? If the latter, well they're a hardware company... soooo .... tough. If the former, never mind there's lots of other hardware out there.
      • over90000, on 10/25/2007, -7/+4If they are a hardware company why don't they make their OS open and sell it seperately? Or are they scared that their hardware is so ridiculously overpriced that everyone will build their own systems?
        • pauleric, on 10/22/2007, -1/+6I wouldn't say 'scared', it is simply a known fact. They tried allowing clones before and it hurt their business. Yes, their hardware is overpriced in general, although some is almost competitive if you're looking for the specific features that Apple builds into its limited lineup. The OS is simply a helpful selling point for their hardware, and they're not a monopoly so you're free to go elsewhere if you don't like it. I don't like it either, but I do like OSX a lot, and so I use Macs for some stuff.
        • Angostura, on 10/25/2007, -1/+10Why don't they sell their OS separately? Let me see.... because they are a hardware company. The software is written to run specifically on their hardware and they would enter a world of Microsoftian pain if they were to try and generalise it to other hardware. Their software is great. It's designed to sell their hardware, as you say.

          Is their hardware ridiculously overpriced? Nope. Is it cheap? Nope. It's decent value - especially when you consider the bundled software. Hope that helps.
        • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -6/+1@Angostura: Does Apple build each and every component in their macs? No. Infact if you were to build a system with the same components it would be cheaper and would still be able to run OSX without any bugs. That's the thing. Apple should sell their OS seperately and give people the choice. I would love to use their OS. But I am sure not paying for an extra set of expensive hardware to do so.
          • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5Would Apple make much money from the hardware if you built it? No they wouldn't. They are a hardware company. They use their software to sell their hardware, that's where the margins are. I know it is annoying, I know. But that really is their business model. I'm lucky, the iMac was specced almost exactly the way I wanted a box specced and I didn't think the price was too bad. But I recognise that other people's mileage varies.
          • MacParrot, on 10/22/2007, -1/+4over90000, what part of "They are a hardware company" do you not understand? If you want to see what almost dragged Apple under the wheels of a bus (besides very poor corporate decisions from 85 to 97), read the history of the Mac clones on Wikipedia. Apple tried to do two things at once, expand their market-share with low-end clones and keep tight control of the hardware set. It was doomed to fail. They needed either to get out of the hardware business (impossible with less than 3% of the market) or charge more than the pittance they were getting from the cloners. They tried to charge more for the license and when that didn't work, they renamed System 7.7 to System 8 and drove the cloners out of business.
            I had great affection for the clones and owned two myself. A Umax C600 and an MPower 200 (603e and 604 respectively).
      • ZenMojo, on 10/22/2007, -9/+2That's a copout. I buy anything by any PC hardware developer and it works on every other PC, period, with or without USB cables. I buy anything from Apple without a USB, and I can only stick it in an Apple.
        If any other company had this stranglehold on hardware compatibility Apple users would whine and complain as much as they do about Microsoft, but it's Apple so it's cool?
        Now, don't treat me like the uninitiated. I've been using Apples since grade school, Macs since I was 11, and these things have always pissed me off to no end and it frustrated me that Apple fans turn a blind eye to glaring exploitation as long as a partially-eaten apple is slapped on the plastic. I have my own anger issues with Microsoft, but don't expect me to cheer for Apple just because they're not Microsoft. Apple's just as corrupt, they're just too weak to make us suffer for not giving in...so I won't.
        • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8Sorry, I have no clue what you are attempting to say here: "I buy anything by any PC hardware developer and it works on every other PC, period, with or without USB cables. I buy anything from Apple without a USB, and I can only stick it in an Apple." what is that supposed to mean?
      • John370, on 10/22/2007, -2/+6Then buy it from Best Buy or CompUSA!! You've been using a PC for so long, your brain has shrunk to the size of a pea!! Stop with the cop outs and start realizing that Microsoft has been ***** you sideways for years!! The only one that can benefit from you using a Mac is YOU, at the end of the day. Quit fighting it, I made the switch and have been smiling ever since.
    • antitab, on 10/22/2007, -5/+9"They force you to buy hardware through Apple"
      I didn't realize that NewEgg, which provided the RAM and hard drive for my MacBook, is a front for Apple.
      • seraph582, on 10/22/2007, -6/+4try anything besides hdd/ram/monitor, Sherlock
        • nicc, on 10/22/2007, -2/+9keyboard, mouse, almost all usb/firewire based peripherals...yep, there is very little 3rd party hardware available for the Mac.
        • MacParrot, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4seraph, get over it. It isn't up to Apple to supply support for third-party hardware, it's up to the third-parties to supply support for Apple. Does Microsoft supply the drivers forATI or Nvidea graphics cards or do they come from the makers themselves? Same thing for any other device you could name. The manufacterers make the drivers for MS and Windows. OS X and Linux now use the same basic hardware set as most Windows PCs. Why does the same periphiral hardware not work? Lack of driver support. Why do games or other software that does work for Windows not work? No support from the makers.
          For that matter it works both ways. Why does iLife 08 not work for Windows? Because Apple didn't supply a version for Windows. When it is profitable for ATI or Nvidea to provide higher end replacement graqphics cards for the Mac or Linux, they'll do so. Since the only machine capable of accepting a different card is the Mac Pro, the market is somewhat limited. In the meantime, the graphics cards as provided by Apple for their consumer machines work very well with any software I've thrown at mine so far. The only ones complaining seem to mostly be people like you who wouldn't buy a Mac anyway.
        • antitab, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Anything being what, exactly? What is there to upgrade other than those? Graphics card? CPU? Sorry, I don't game or solder.
    • MrSteamTank, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Sigh. What I'm trying to say is that this forced software/hardware tie-in is what I have a problem with.

      Imagine if dvr's would not work at all with your cable company unless you bought their speciality higher priced dvr. That practice is frowned upon by the public.

      Well apparantly it's perfectly fine with Apple because they have a small market share and more customer loyalty. I'm sorry but I have no love for Microsoft but Apple is no better.
  • schoate09, on 10/23/2007, -6/+49Leopard surpass Vista? I didn't know Vista even came close to Tiger in the first place...
    • ariez84, on 10/22/2007, -5/+4Well now you do.
    • snyperr2s, on 10/24/2007, -3/+5vista scored lower than tiger on cnet, itll be interesting to see how leopard will do against vista
  • nufoto, on 10/22/2007, -4/+8Now if Apple were to expand the Computer product line they would gain even more Market share.
    • MtheoryX, on 10/22/2007, -3/+5I don't see how that would help them, TBH.
      Their line-up directly reflects their desire for simplicity. Each computer in their line has a defined purpose. Clear strengths and weaknesses. Choosing which one you want is a simple choice.
      Adding new models to the line-up would only complicate things.
      In fact, I remember a digg story on here not too long ago about companies, particularly in the cell phone market, that shoot themselves in the foot by having too many products/choices in their line-up.
      • derkmerkin, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2they need a simple stand alone tower that isnt f'ing expensive, i dont want an intergrated flat screen, and i dont want to get raped paying 2500 for a machine of epic overkill proportions. something in a mid tower with 1 cpu 1 pcie 16x slot 4 dimm slots (ddr not that fbdimm crap).

        But if they did this i would have to get use to the detached menu system that drives me nuts, so f that.
      • DarkDx, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1"I remember a digg story on here not too long ago about companies, particularly in the cell phone market, that shoot themselves in the foot by having too many products/choices in their line-up." Any link to that history please? Because, hell, Nokia makes good phones, sure. But they have way too many choices. I didn't know about their smartphones until some months ago.
  • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -11/+6I have nothing against Leopard. Apple's OS is great but it's their tie in to their hardware that pisss me off. Sometimes I just want to see Apple as the market leader and see them being sued for abusing their OS monopoly by forcing people buy their hardware because that's exactly would have happened if MS forced people to buy MS branded PCs.
    • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -1/+10They are a hardware company, so naturally they 'force' you to buy their hardware. What *actually* pisses you off is not that they don't choose to sell their software separately from their hardware. That's a very different situation to the monopoly argument versus Microsoft. Apple does nothing to stop you running other OSs on their hardware, in fact they positively encourage it.
      • over90000, on 10/22/2007, -10/+2Really? Last I heard Apple were in the process of suing th OSX x86 project which enables people to install OSX on non Apple machines. If Apple is a hardware company why don't they sell the OS seperately as well?
        • antitab, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5Because they're not a hardware company (or a software company, for that matter) and I'm sick of seeing people repeat this misinformation. They're a computer company.
        • MtheoryX, on 10/22/2007, -1/+8That's clearly not what Angostura was saying.
          You: OS X on non-apple hardware.
          Angostura: Other OS's on apple hardware
          See the difference?
          Reading comprehension is fun!
        • Angostura, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Because one of the big incentives for buying their hardware is the software that they bundle with it. Break the link, hurt their margins
        • MacParrot, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2Apple doesn't prevent you buying OS X and putting it on another computer not from Apple. If you want to buy a copy of OS X and put it on whatever machine you've cobbled together, Apple will be delighted to accept your $129. Just don't expect to get support for your FrankenMac.
        • zorlok, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2you ***** ***** over90000, that's because the OSX86 project encourages you to download it instead of paying the $129 for it. I.e. stealing.
      • MtheoryX, on 10/24/2007, -2/+11This is really not so different from other companies.
        Take two examples: Palm and Nintendo.
        Palm sells hardware. The developed their Palm OS to run on their harware. It helps to sell the hardware. Would they want you to take their Palm OS and run it on a sidekick or a blackberry? No, because they sell hardware.
        Nintendo DS. The goal is to sell hardware. The software is designed to run on their hardware alone. Should you force Nintendo to let you run the Nintendo software on a Sony PSP? No. Should you force Nintendo to let you run the PSP software on their DS device? No.
        So, looking at just these two examples of hardware companies, I would say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Apple has been very open and forgiving compared to many others.
        Apple != Microsoft. They are compared quite often, but they are anything but similar. Microsoft sells its OS. So, yes, they want you to pay them for the OS, and, in return, you can run it on whatever you want.
        Apple wants to sell you the hardware. As a bonus, you get a great OS, but the goal is selling the hardware. However, they are quite open with technologies, software, and virtualization methods that you can use on their hardware.
        Very different companies and strategies, indeed.
        • javaroast, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2Palm may not be the best example to use as they have a do license the OS to other companies. In fact the Palm OS company is separate from the Palm Hardware company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_OS
          • thesledman, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2True, it may not compare to the Palm of today, but Palm has had to make many concessions to stay alive. Selling the OS has not helped them as a company no more then when Apple licensed clones. Its a desperate measure to keep the company alive and in the end it hurt them more then helps them.
  • NinjaPig, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2"Mr. Jobs said that Leopard would anchor a schedule of product upgrades that could continue for as long as a decade."

    Is he talking about those new laptops?
    I was going to get one of those.
  • ForbesBingley, on 10/22/2007, -2/+5"'People don’t understand that we’ve invented a new class of interface,' he said." Two words: Jeff Han...
    • danieleran, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3Jeff Han worked on full screen input panels. The iPhone is a different class of device compared to huge demonstration panels. If you were talking about the Big Ass Table, then you might have a point. The iPhone fits in your pocket.
      • hoshizakistar, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Jeff Han said his work wasn't necessarily restricted to giant panels. He made a point of saying that the technology was extremely scalable.
  • theskyman, on 10/24/2007, -2/+14I installed Vista on a 2.8GHz system with a Gig of RAM and it ran like *****. I was shocked by how piss poor the performance was a switched back to XP. As someone who supports multi platforms (XP, OS X & Linux) I can tell you that Vista is a complete joke and pure bloat ware. Fortunately for Apple and Linux, and unfortunately for MS Vista is so far behind other OS's that MS may for the first time never be able to catch up.
    • thesledman, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2From my experience Vista needs at least 2 gigs of ram to run well. I've installed it on my Dell 9400 laptop T2600 2.16Ghz Dual Core and it runs great. Faster than XP ... no, not really but not noticeably slower. Vista has steep hardware requirements to run well. It will install on lesser systems which is misleading because as we know with gaming meeting minimum requirements does not lead to a stellar experience. I've also installed it on my girlfriends Dell 9300 Pentium M machine with 1 gig or ram and its was very slow, virtually unusable, on top of that it reduces the "aero" experience which is basically all the eye candy of vista.
  • deadbaby, on 10/22/2007, -0/+12It's not just Vista -- it's all the crapware that comes on new PC these days. The typical new computer is a dumpster. People don't want to spend $1k+ and feel like they're getting stuck with a computer full of crapware.
  • bjs3171, on 10/22/2007, -6/+3can these upgrades include a decent damn video card so i can run pc games on an imac?
    • ltcol266845, on 10/22/2007, -3/+3Uh, the did. The video card in the iMacs are really not all that bad. I have the same one in my MacBook Pro, it plays recent games, but you have to drop the settings a smidge. Remember, they are not supposed to be high end gaming rigs, or high end rigs period. They play games just as well as a mid-range system with a mid-range GPU
    • knightboat, on 10/22/2007, -2/+4I played Bioshock just fine on the new 24" iMac at 1280x800 at high settings. The Orange Box is a dream at 1920x1200 at high settings.
    • 35263526, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2The Radeon 2600 really isn't all that bad; no, you won't be able to play new games with everything turned up to high, but you'll certainly be able to play new games.
  • Topher06, on 10/22/2007, -12/+3This happened because Mac's became a PC that supports Windows. Lots of PC users suddenly could buy a nice little Mac and run the OS that actually does stuff on it. Its great for Apple because its keeping them making money , but its really a loss when it comes to OS X. I expect in a decade OS X will be gone, and probably not replaced with any other Apple made OS because Apple will be the best Wintel platform out there. Everyone I know that has a Mac these days runs Windows 90% of the time, and dabble in OS X for such applications as iMovie or iPhoto. It would almost make more sense for Apple to make iLife for Windows and sell it for $100 rather then trying to sell OS X. They could make more profit off of a app package like iLife then what profit they could make off of developing an OS.
    OS X is a great operating system but Windows is firmly entrenched and as it gets better, there is less and less reason to switch operating systems. Apple lost out over the past decade in trying to gain OS marketshare against the security hole that was Windows pre-Vista. If effective security is not enough to get Windows users to switch, then what will a GUI makeover and updated system utilities going to do? OS X is as near perfect and OS as you could imagine, and its not enough for people to switch, however nice well made computers that can run Windows are a reason to switch to a Mac. Apple and their fans are deluded into believing that this gain in marketshare means OS X is taking over the industry. Leopard could be the beginning of the end as its first official bootcamp release will give Windows users all the drivers to run properly on a Mac, if people find that Windows runs better on the Mac platform, its game over for OS X.
    • lrdntwnd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+7It will never be the end for OS X. At least not as long as Steve Jobs is running Apple. He has spent the entirety of his career in the computer industry trying to create this product. His ego is far too large to allow OS X to stop development. Not to mention the fact that there are innumerable tasks that OS X can do that Windows can't even dream of. Most of that is due to the fact that Apple builds the hardware that their system runs on and Microsoft doesn't, but there are things that Windows just can't do because Microsoft doesn't want it to. Of course, Apple is not perfect and there are improvements to many system functions that should have happened a long time ago and still haven't happened in Leopard, but nonetheless, OS X is quite probably the best OS being produced today. And I do know a few new Mac users who use Windows most of the time, but I also know a lot more who love the Mac OS so much more than Windows. It takes time to get used to a new environment and a lot of people just don't want to take the time. They feel comfortable with Windows and they want to continue with it. But, they do find that there are things that you just simply can't do in Windows that the Mac does very well.
    • superkendall, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Your comment is true in the same way Windows was a dream to run Netscape. That's all well and good, but people generally run software that comes with a system - so even though they can run Windows on a Mac, after a while they find they don't need to. Just like people found they didn't need Netscape and IE was perfectly fine for them.

      Extending from that lesson, it's only if Apple stagnates and OS X stops moving that it would really start falling in use on systems purchased...
    • dubbleenerd, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3I expect OS X to be gone in a decade too. Only to be replaced by OS XI. :)

      I think Apple is seeing good success in opening up their hardware to run other operating systems, which promotes the possibility of people discovering the refreshing change that OS X brings to the computing user. I'm not talking about users who might be reading this comment, by the way. People whose primary job does not involve bashing computer keyboards, definitely find the minimal interface conducive to use (provided that they give themselves some time with it, instead of adopting opinions off forums such as this one).
    • joshuaer, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2you say that "every one you know " you must hang out with a group of people that are switchers and use windows most of the time, Most of the people i know have at least 2 or 3 intel macs and most of them do not even have windows installed on it I have 3 intel mac and only have windows installed on my macbook and only so i can use the Map software that came with my GPS,

      you keep talking about how apple lost over 10 years ago and there is no reason ever for people to switch, I think you are the one that is deluded a bit, you are speaking about your self, your views and only the people you know.

      I could do the same thing and mac apple seem like the clear winner I work in the Motion graphics industry and every one i know does Film, Video, Graphics, Print or animation . Until four months ago i had never even used the Windows OS, I know more people that use Linux then use windows.

      In your world Windows is the king, In my world Mac OS and Linux is king and no one uses windows.

      There is 100% no reason for me to ever use the Windows OS for work and no reason for me to switch full time at home use to run 1 app that i use 4 times a year.
    • derkmerkin, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2did you just say? "Apple will be the best Wintel platform out there"

      wow, just wow
  • cbartlett, on 10/23/2007, -4/+12"Everyone I know that has a Mac these days runs Windows 90% of the time"? You must know very different people from I. Because I would say the converse.
    • Zorkon, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4While finishing my degree last year, I took a part-time job at a local computer store - we weren't an actual "Apple Store" per se, but we were Apple authorized (the only such place in the city), and therefore saw a lot of switchers come in and buy Macs.
      Almost every single one of them wanted Bootcamp or Parallels installed on their machines, as they felt that they would be more comfortable running Windows instead of OS X. So of course we complied and those machines left the store configured to dual boot WinXP with Tiger.
      Now I'm not exaggerating here: within 2-3 weeks of purchasing their new dual-boot Mac, I would say that 95% of the customers would return to the store and ask how to remove Windows XP. What would typically happen is that they would take their machine home, boot it into OS X, look around, then reboot into Windows. They'd spend a couple days working in Windows until either a) their kids installed a piece of spyware, or b) curiosity got the better of them, and then they'd poke around in OS X a bit more. This would go on day by day for a couple weeks until they noticed that their OS X experience was much more pleasant than their Windows one ...
      and that's when they'd pop back into the store and want Windows removed.
      • alperea, on 10/22/2007, -6/+3Why can't they just remove bootcamp themselves? Oh, because they're idiots (hence using MacOS).
        • lastthingusee, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2So you're saying all idiots use Macs? What a grand general statement.
  • kinerry, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5The only market apple is lacking in is games, once they touch that area nothing can stop them
    • ProfessorFoo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Except logical people that know PCs don't crash any more than macs, get almost no viruses, cost less, and are honestly very easy to use. I haven't gotten a virus or crashed in 5 years and never had problems running any program (with xp). I know mac fan boys like to think macs cost the same but I've looked at their prices and I can find similar PCs for about 3/4 the cost on newegg, not to mention building them yourself.

      I don't even hate macs. They're ok. It's just ignorant, arrogant, smug fan boys that piss me off.
      • rebotfc, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Generally computer literate people don't have issues with viruses, but the fact is most computer users are not computer literate. Most of of family has no clue about updating their OS/ installing windows patches, they just let their computer chug away. They have no clue about SP1 or 2 or whatever, and see no problem in running files called "funny_screensaver.exe".

        You say PC's get no viruses nowadays but just look at the botnets and worm storms around, its an increasing problem not a decreasing one.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/22/2007, -10/+1My Mac is much slower compared to my vista machine. Especially loading firefox and surfing. A web site appears in less than 3 seconds on my PC, takes 7 on my Mac. Both are intel core 2 duos. Wish leoparard fixes the speed issues. Copying files over a network from a Buffalo NAS is also much slower on the mac, and so is displaying files in a folder on a network drive.
  • agreenmacuser, on 10/22/2007, -1/+0Maybe he can afford to rearrange his wardrobe now...
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/23/2007, -8/+3Apple "surges" to 7% market share - golly
    Why did Apple gain market share? Because the Apple hardware runs Windows - OH THE IRONY!
    Comedy writers can't make stuff up that is this funny.
  • kravex, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3I love how Apple fans talk about their market share and 'Apple Stores' they visit, try leaving the USA and finding an 'Apple Store' they're like rocking horse ***** in the rest of the world.
    • OrenWolf, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I've got an apple store about 10 minutes away from me here in Toronto, Canada..
  • digitallysick, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1I would like to see a productivity shoot out, put a linux box against vista, and osx and give them each 1 task and see who can complete it first.
  • DEIx15x8, on 10/22/2007, -2/+3As a mac user i love the constant release of new OSs. They always keeps things new and cool. That math that Apple uses annoys me though. I like the upgrades but dread the price tag that can sometimes feel like a membership fee to use a mac. Leopard + 2 more OSs at $129 = $387. Vista Ultimate + 2 free service packs = $250. If three OSs are going to equal the time period of one then the prices should match. I really wish all Macs came with one free upgrade or something because these releases really add up, especially when you own multiple macs.
    • savannahwolf, on 10/22/2007, -0/+2You could buy the 5 license family version for $199 MSRP (and much less if you shop around.) That's only $40 per computer using chisembop.
  • DarkDx, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Now, if they have putted a 8800 in the new imac, I would buy it. Even a 8800gts 320mb. We already know that the HD2600 is way weaker than any 8800 being even more expensive. In two words: It's *****. I know I'm going to be dugg down by apple fanboys anyway for my last statement. Even if it doesn't has nothing to do with macs...
  • DarkDx, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Now, if they have putted a 8800 in the new imac, I would buy it. Even a 8800gts 320mb. We already know that the HD2600 is way weaker than any 8800 being even more expensive. In two words: It's *****. I know I'm going to be dugg down by apple fanboys anyway for my last statement. Even if it doesn't has nothing to do with macs...
  • DarkDx, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Now, if they have putted a 8800 in the new imac, I would buy it. Even a 8800gts 320mb. We already know that the HD2600 is way weaker than any 8800 being even more expensive. In two words: It's *****. I know I'm going to be dugg down by apple fanboys anyway for my last statement. Even if it doesn't has nothing to do with macs...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.