What is Digg?177 Comments
- FrostyFire, on 10/12/2007, -11/+52Many people might think Apple would be "giving up" if they let people run Windows on Mac's.....but the reality is they probably had this same discussion when it came down to MS Office for Mac. You have to give the people what they want. That's why you can use your iPod on your Windows machine...can you imagine if Apple restricted it to Mac users? Apple wouldn't be anywhere near where they are today.
Apple would triple their hardware sales if they let this happen. For the hardcore Mac fans, they won't be happy about it, but let's face reality...Apple is a business and businesses need to make intelligent decisions to grow themselves. - tolbs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28Uhh..like 16 years ago?
- ohsh1rt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26have you been alive for the past 10 years?
-jeffrey - Dog_Paddle, on 10/12/2007, -24/+37Can you not see that this is a good thing?
- 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20This is not about apple letting something happen, or having any difficulties licensing things.
Apple simply doesn't care whether windows works on the new mac hardware or not. It's just not a concern, it's not part of their business model. They don't go out of their way to block it from working, but they also don't take windows into account when making design decisions.
I'm unsure why everyone expected this to work out of the box... apple was quite clear they were making no guarantees about that. - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -16/+27Yeah, really. Nobody takes Dvorak seriously anyway.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"i wish Apple would license iLife for windows.. garage band is an invaluable tool"
In the business world, companies sometimes (on purpose) keep back a valuable feature unless it is bundled with their main product. It's called a lockout spec or a dealbreaker spec. iLife is Apple's dealbreaker spec. It keeps people using Mac's the same way that many MS products keep you using Windows. - ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Negative diggs for Wishing Garageband is on Windows?
I wish FruityLoops was on Mac. *waits for neg diggs* - en3r0, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22Your right. They just need to admin that more people use Windows then Mac OSX. Everyone could use what OS they like.
__________
-en3r0
http://virtenu.com - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Because microsoft used its market clout to illegally forced companies into NOT preinstalling linux or other competiors OS's. It also illegally forced companies to buy a windows license for every box they shipped - even if the system shipped with an unformatted drive, and a copy of Linux or Unix. They also illegally prevented companies from pre-installing Netscape or other competing products on OEM machines. The list of microsoft's illegal tactics goes on and on.
Your market share does not make you a monopoly, as long as you act within the confines of the law, microsoft did not and thats why there were convicted. - tobsterius, on 10/12/2007, -27/+36It was OK for MS to come to Cupertino and bail Apple's ass out in the late 90's... but now they need to stay away?
Funny.. - JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Yeah, well, Apple would have to be pretty stupid to sign a contract that made it difficult for them to sell a non-Microsoft operating system (since Apple makes/sells one) and forces them to pay for a OEM copy of Microsoft Windows for every single computer they sell that contains an Intel processor (since they are switching to using Intel processors in all their computers).
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm
Apple is not stupid. Microsoft's contract forces a computer company to become a PC clone maker that is limited to selling Microsoft Windows computer systems.
Amiga tried that. They went broke. - kilps, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14Apple's strength is their OS, without they are just a hardware company with pretty computers
- adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13mac OS will not be phased out, you can still get your OSX, but windows is and OPTION.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11This is in no way related to "taking OS X away" from Macs. It's about giving Mac users more options. I don't see how anyone could see that as a bad thing.
- Dgen_X, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12wow...a company is OK with making more money
I don't see this as a major development, the gang style war is only between apple fanboys and the rest of the computing world - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"How difficult do you think it would be for Apple to make Macs with bios?"
How difficult would it be for Microsoft to take it's EFI code (which it already wrote for XP Itanium edition) and slap it into XP or Vista's bootloader?
Apple has no need for a BIOS. Microsoft does. It's microsoft's inability, not Apple's. It's Microsoft that will make money off of additional XP licenses, not Apple. Apple won't see another dime. Why should they write a CSM for their EFI implementation? If they did then they would now have to support XP and they DEFINITELY don't want to be supporting XP. It's a pure loss for Apple. It's a pure gain for Microsoft. Who do YOU think should make the change? - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Seeing as Apple's 5% market share is even lower than Gateway's 6%, I don't see how this is surprising.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I would throw up if Apple switched to Windows. It would just mean that the only viable contender against Windows would be Linux, and we all know businessmen and your grandmother will not use Linux. I _really_ don't want Windows to be even more of an OS standard than it is.
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9>You havent used XP, have you? I've had it on this computer for years and i have never had a BSOD or any other
>crash of the whole OS. I
um... mac people often have the opportunity to use windows. thats why we shake our heads... when you say we are the ones that are missing something. its way more likely that a windows user will never use a mac than the other way around. so, take the words from those that actually use both... OS X is hands down better. - ryan.mcmullin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The appeal of the Mac relies in the tight integration of software and hardware. If Apple went to Windows, I would most likely never use a computer again. It is very upsetting to see the Windows/PC crowd try to force themselves into the Apple community. Sometimes I wish the iPod had never been invented. Even still, the Apple faithful don't want Microsoft here, nor does Steve Jobs.
A switcher myself, I switched to the Apple platform in early 2003 because of the aesthetic beauty of the first PowerBook G4. However, what has kept me buying Apple is the sophistication of the software. If this concept is totally lost on you, it's perhaps because maybe the Apple is just not for you.
I say to each his own and this is no exception. But if you look at the moves Steve Jobs has made in the past, he will never offer Windows on a Mac. Jobs has always looked to advance home computing. He would never sit back and allow the medocrity in home computing that the Microsoft's domination of the O/S space has created to continue. - Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No one is at fault. Apple never said you would be able to run Windows.
Microsoft of course would license their OS to Apple. Apple would just become another PC maker and increase the number of Windows users/installs. - speedyrev, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I would never buy it. I prefer stable software.
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Hmmmm. People are beginning to realize that Apple is a monopoly.
The number 1 thing I like about Windows: I can run whatever configuration that I want. I can buy from whatever hardware manufacturer I want and run whatever software I want.
Apple limits the hardware choices and its software library is fairly paltry compared to Windows. - astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6They *have* to say that they would treat Apple just like any other OEM, but of course they're lying. A dual-boot Mac provides an easier path for would be switchers, and it also has the potential to grab those who wouldn't otherwise be interested in switching but simply like Apple hardware.
But Apple probably has no interest supporting Windows on their hardware, too; partly because of the cost, and partly because they still need Office. Therefore, Apple still needs to maintain somewhat of a good relationship with Microsoft.
Bottom line: Apple and Microsoft have an understanding.
- pohl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I ran Debian Linux on my G4 while I was waiting for the OS9--> OS X transition.
Nobody from Apple ever told me that I could not do it.
I ran Yellow Dog Linux on it for a while, too. My wife ran it on her G4 at the same
time. Not one complaint from Apple about her doing so, either. - mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Mr Spontaneous
There is no Premiere on the Mac. When Apple launched Final Cut, Adobe pulled Premiere off the Mac. This was a business decision. Although at the time, only 4% of computers were Mac, most of the Premiere people were Mac-users. When they starting going to Final Cut, Adobe saw no reason to provide support for a second platform (PC being the first).
Apple treaded very lightly with Aperture because it doesn't want Adobe pulling Photoshop off the Mac as well. Apple has maintained that Aperture is not a competitor to Photoshop.
Adobe, meanwhile, has been slow to push out new versions of its software for updated Mac OS' When OSX was released, Adobe didn't release Photoshop for nine months. Once it stops being financially worthwhile for Adobe to put out Photoshop on the Mac, Adobe will pull it. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6> I'm sorry, but people pay extra for Macs because of OS X.
You're one of the few, the proud, who gets it. It never ceases to amaze me when people ask why Mac users are willing to pay more for the same hardware. It's not the hardware (although Apple does make excellent machines.) It's the OS. It's the software that Apple bundles. It's the whole deal. Yeah, it looks dumb to pay Apple's prices for the hardware alone, but if you're into all of what Apple offers, it's the deal of a lifetime. I constantly use the iApps (especially GarageBand) and the freebie stuff bundled with the Mac. For me, a Windows box would be a much worse deal because none of the stuff I need to work comes on the typical PC. I would have to spend more on that. - urbanrant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think Dvorak is wrong. It make sense for Apple to allow people to dual-boot or run MS Windows. But it does not mean that Apple should drop OSX for a crippled OS. A step back.
- TheShrike, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8And if Windows was good software, maybe Apple would care.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"how could Apple guessed that MS wouldn't add EFI to Vist after all? they said they would!"
Apple works closely with MS when they want Office for the Mac. I'm sure someone at Apple has the phone number of someone at MS and this thing could have been worked out well in advance. That being said, Apple doesn't make a single extra penny if you buy a copy of Windows for your Mac. It's Microsoft that's in the position to sell to (and therefore make money on) a previously untapped market that is active, enthusiastic, and is known for spending money. There is surely a sales division within Microsoft that would LOVE to tap a new market the size of the Mac community. MS has in the past catered to groups smaller than that. In the end, if MS wants to sell product, they need make the effort. - shinaku, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why would apple want the insecure, expensive mess that is windows running on their machines?
And Apple ISN'T a monopoly, the definition of one according to Google is ".. the situation in which one producer is the sole provider of goods and can therefore choose what price to charge." How're you being forced to buy from apple? You arn't, if you don't want to buy an iPod buy an Iriver, a Zen, a Walkman, or one of the 50,000 small chinese companies mp3 players. - quazywabbit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8But unlike Gateway, Apple has a profit, has loyal customers, and doesn't have a management that seems to change weekly.
- kRYPT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11You think Apple can compete with Dell? Apple has always had a huge mark-up on their products.. the two manufacturers aren't even in the same class.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"WINDOWS WILL NEVER RUN ON A MAC."
This is probably the dumbest thing that you could have said. Windows will definitely run on a mac. How well and in what form are the only two questions. If it doesn't boot, it will be emulated (in fact, it ALREADY runs via emulation on a G5 mac so you are already wrong) or virtualized via a vmware style virtualized OS. - coffeegeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have been using mac for about 2 years now and prior to that, I have been a PC user for 15 years, That's no big deal, but since I purchased a mac, I find myself just defaulting to the mac. Even though I have a desktop PC with a dual monitor set up and some nice speakers and perks...and my mac is slightly slower than my PC, I am more likely to use the mac for most things.
As a user of both, I simply cannot comprehend why Dvorak would think that Apple would give all that up to develop hardware for a lesser technology. Throwing mac users a bone by giving them a graphical interface and then dropping all their software technology to adopt something else that clearly seems to be less intuitive just seems silly. I am not a hardcore mac fan by any means, I just know that after using PCs for enough years, Mac just makes sense. - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Apple ISN'T doing anything to stop people from installing Windows, they just haven't used any of the legacy stuff that Windows relies on. They've chosen the latest technology, with no concern for backwards compatibility for stuff like BIOS.
- Abyss_908, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Wow what a surprise Microsoft has no problem getting more money.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What, you mean besides the fact that untold numbers of people would pay them money for it?
- Kazaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple is not going out of their way to stop Windows from getting on the Mac, and they're not going to go out of their way to get it there either.
It would just be too hypocritical and a blow to their image, which Apple primarily depends on. - Misos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5>This is in no way related to "taking OS X away" from Macs. It's about giving Mac users more >options. I don't see how anyone could see that as a bad thing.
EFI is a technology with great potential, Apple isn't going to hold itself back on account that Microsoft is lousy at keeping to their design goals (ditched EFI support for initial releases of Vista, WinFS, virtual folders, etc.). Perhaps instead of Apple using dated "industry standards," Microsoft should make a better effort to stick to its design goals. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Apple refuses to license it's DRM scheme to any other company"
Apple hasn't refused licensing to anyone. Apple hasn't been contacted in request to use their licensing from anyone. Real Networks tried to reverse engineer Apple's licensing, but with accordance to the DMCA, they stopped their efforts.
The fact is, if a company wanted to license Apple's FairPlay DRM, they'd end up making no profit on songs using it (without raising their prices and thusly putting them out of competition); the slice of money that they would be taking in as profit would be going to Apple for their DRM system. Microsoft's DRM on the other hand is incredibly cheap due to economies of scale and the fact they're a much larger company and can afford to license their DRM for cheaper (besides, they make more off the Hardware license for the DRM than the software license).
Apple hasn't illegally stopped anyone from competing with iTMS. Microsoft illegally stopped Netscape from competing with Internet Explorer, and that's why they were Convicted in 2001 for it. Yet, 5 years after their conviction, they've still not met the criterion of their punishment, and in 2 years the settlement runs out anyways. Meanwhile, the Europeans are doing backflips to try to make Microsoft comply with the Abuse of Monopoly Powers conviction there, and once again, Microsoft's doing backflips to avoid and brush them off.
However much you want to/don't want to believe it, Microsoft used to be a monopoly (though, their market share is sliding in almost every field of business they're in right now except for gaming systems). Natural Monopolies are not illegal; if a company is naturally doing better than every other company in the same field, all of those other companies are simply doing something wrong and not competing at their fullest.
Monopolism, however, encourages illegal practices, because companies that have been the only one in the market for so long start to feel they control the market. And then you see things like AT&T charging nearly twice the rate to cable providers who want to get on AT&T's network, or Microsoft closing off the sections of their APIs so that only Internet Explorer would run (and deep-integrating Internet Explorer so deeply into the Operating System that it was impossible to remove). Apple hasn't done anything of the such in the iPod market (as of yet). Other clients are still able to read/write to the iPod's file system, other Operating Systems can be installed, the firmware itself can be hacked to bits to support different icons. Frankly, Apple doesn't care what you do with your iPod or how you use iTunes unless you are trying to crack their DRM (which under the provisions of the DMCA, is illegal to do, and should be expected of Apple to prevent). And as long as they maintain that attitude, it's simply sour grapes, Apple's doing well and you don't like it. - CarbonAndroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It would be stupid for apple to sell a windows 'only' machine, but a dual boot machine would be great. How would apple lose any of it's current users with a dual boot machine? They wouldn't. Instead, they would expose some windows users to their OS. Some of those users would be windows developers who would add to apple's software inventory but giving osx a go. Apple might (would probably) significantly increase their sales. I would buy a win/osx/linux multiple boot machine, but not an osx only, as I make a living writing (and maintaining) ms apps as do many others. As it stands now, I am not going to fork over the money for what for me would be an expensive toy as I have no computer uses that only apple can supply.
If on the other hand, apple sold a wintel version of their os, that would probably (would) be a dumb move in terms of their hardware business. Although for my uses that would be the best solution as I couldn't care less about a pretty laptop vs. an ugly one. I mean, it's not something like a gaff rigged schooner or a fresh seafood diet. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6>Apple's strength is their OS, without they are just a hardware company with pretty computers
If that were 100% true, Apple wouldn't have a problem at all with OSX running on any other hardware platform, just like MS is in the Software biz (mostly except for keyboards, and such).... so MS has no problem allow Apple to run their OS on their hardware, why then would Apple not do the same thing if their strength is in their OS as well? I think it's more or less GREED, they don't want to program OSX to be compat with 90% of the world's PC hardware (very hard job to do as you can imagine), nor do they want to loose the ability to make a profit from *BOTH* hardware and software sales of a Mac personal computer. - gobabushka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4personally i havn't got anything against dvorak, but this time i think that hes gone off the deep end. Apple will NEVER switch to WinBlows!!! Long Live OS X!!! (No Digg)
- firefusion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If I could dual boot Windows and OS X on a Mac I'd buy one in a nano second and so would a lot of my friends.
I have to have Windows for my college work but I'd much rather use OS X when doing personal stuff.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8"Also, I think this is just Microsoft pointing fingers at Apple..and rightfully so. The Intel Macs could boot Windows right now if Apple would let them. Apple, as much as I love 'em, really is at fault here. Not Microsoft."
This is turning into a pissing contest.
MS says "Apple needs to make industry standard hardware"
Apple says "MS needs to support EFI since it's the future and they have EFI for XP Itanium"
Neither is right and neither is wrong. MS could add EFI to Vista but chose not to. Apple could have added CSM to EFI but chose not to.
Some will argue that MS has held back EFI in the industry because OS independant drivers are not in it's best interests. There is some truth to that but when it comes to Microsoft, I go by the axiom "don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetance"
The only thing we DO know is that XP (and now Vista) are the only OS's to NOT support EFI. MS will eventually have to support it but it may entail a lot of kicking and screaming on the part of the Redmond folks. Linux already boots EFI. OS/X was the first. Everybody agrees that BIOS sucks and that EFI is the successor. So get on with it MS. - Drewjames, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5OS X is the heart and soul of a mac machine.
if you put windows on mac it would be like ripping out the engine of a ferrari and replacing it with the engine from a yugo. it looks cool but runs like crap! - youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4[quote geminitojanus]"According to Microsoft's own Operating System licensing terms, Apple would have to drop OS X to ship Windows. That's a pretty big "something to lose". Microsoft needs Apple's business more than Apple needs Microsoft's business at this point (which is actually a turning point in history; Office is the only application most Mac users will go out of their way to pay for from Microsoft, and now Apple has an Office competitor that's growing quickly)."
Where did you get that information from? There are plenty of OEM's that sell both windows and linux on their machines. - yonnetti, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I think it would be a bad idea for Apple to allow this. People who buy Mac's do so mostly because of the OS and not so much the hardware design. If Apple sold machines with Windows no one would buy it because it would cost more than any PC box that runs windows.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 177 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is