Microsoft handicapping Apple

[traxx]

With Microsoft all about curbing pirating their software by only allowing it to be installed in a certain way, a certain amount of times, on certain computers etc. What are the possibilities of MS doing this so Windows can't be installed on Macs? Just a curious thought. It seem to me that this would seriously cripple Apple as I'm sure many people going over to Mac from Windows are doing so because they have the safety blanket of being able to also boot windows on their Mac as well.

Thoughts?

[PUGalicious]

The threat of anti-trust litigation should give Microsoft pause...

[Midtowner]

Why would MS want to not sell licenses to folks with macs? That's just silly.

Microsoft is in the OS business, not the computer hardware business. If folks want to dual boot Leopard and Vista, MS should be more than happy to provide those customers with a copy of the later.

Microsoft's high handed tactics have already cost it big in the internet browser business. Firefox has made some serious inroads and continues to do so.

Microsoft has recently been losing big in the MS Office category as well. OpenOffice has put forth a viable FREE product and IBM has made Lotus free as well. Many users are finding that they can do the same things (and more) on free programs that can be done on $500 programs. Given the price differential, the choice is pretty easy.

[traxx]

Why would MS want to not sell licenses to folks with macs? That's just silly.

Microsoft is in the OS business, not the computer hardware business. If folks want to dual boot Leopard and Vista, MS should be more than happy to provide those customers with a copy of the later.

Microsoft's high handed tactics have already cost it big in the internet browser business. Firefox has made some serious inroads and continues to do so.

Microsoft has recently been losing big in the MS Office category as well. OpenOffice has put forth a viable FREE product and IBM has made Lotus free as well. Many users are finding that they can do the same things (and more) on free programs that can be done on $500 programs. Given the price differential, the choice is pretty easy.

Sorry for being silly. Thought it was a curious idea. Just wanted some discussion on it. Sorry, thought this was a message board. Will go elsewhere to discuss ideas in the future.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

No picking on Microsoft! They (indirectly) pay my salary!

[PUGalicious]

Sorry for being silly. Thought it was a curious idea. Just wanted some discussion on it. Sorry, thought this was a message board. Will go elsewhere to discuss ideas in the future.

You got what you wanted... some discussion on it... so why the panty-wad?

[Midtowner]

You got what you wanted... some discussion on it... so why the panty-wad?

I suppose he should have prefaced his request with a demand that any expressed opinions comport with certain guidelines???

I think he thinks I think he's silly. I think he's silly for thinking that. I think it would be silly for Microsoft (for the above mentioned reasons) to pull out of the Mac market. Instead of saying I'm being silly for certain reasons he'd like do discuss, he says that essentially I'm being silly for saying he's silly.

-- and that's silly.

[PUGalicious]

Silly, indeed.

[Jon27]

I would personally like to see Apple cross over and use the PC formats. I would love to be able to install OSX on my PC and use some other Apple software. People would probably still buy iMacs because they are user friendly and cool looking! I wouldn't mind having an Apple laptop if it was PC based.

[PUGalicious]

That would be like running a BlueRay disc on a standard DVD player... what's the point?

Intel Macs are as close to PC based as it'll ever get.

[Jon27]

I like to build my computers. You can't build a mac.

[PUGalicious]

That's true, but why would I want to when they do an excellent job building them?

I don't complain about not being able to build a Mercedes.

[bwana_bob]

I just got my Mercedes kit. Of course, I'm building it my way. I'm using a bucket seat from a classic '75 Gremlin up-front and putting a Northstar V-8 under the hood for maximum power. In the end, I'll still put my Mercedes hood ornament on the front, fill it up with regular gasoline and drive it on the highway next to all of the other gas fueled cars. Who can say it isn't a Mercedes?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I just got my Mercedes kit. Of course, I'm building it my way. I'm using a bucket seat from a classic '75 Gremlin up-front and putting a Northstar V-8 under the hood for maximum power. In the end, I'll still put my Mercedes hood ornament on the front, fill it up with regular gasoline and drive it on the highway next to all of the other gas fueled cars. Who can say it isn't a Mercedes?

I can...I know what a Northstar sounds like

And the whole Mac/PC debate is a bit silly to me. Most computer people don't really use Macs as a general rule. They just don't. People that play with computers like them. People that work with computers don't. They're perfect for multimedia use, internet, and work wonderfully for most consumer applications. But you can't work on them for sh*t, and can't buy parts for them at any corner store and they're not compatible with most kinds of commercial software. Apple has Microsoft beat hands down in the anti-trust area...But most people don't raise a stink about it because they don't have crap for market share and it's never popular to pick on the underdog.

They do look neat though.

[PUGalicious]

People that play with computers like them. People that work with computers don't. They're perfect for multimedia use, internet, and work wonderfully for most consumer applications. But you can't work on them for sh*t...

That will come as news to a lot of people, including myself. I've worked primarily with Macs for more than 15 years now. We use both Macs and PCs in the two companies I own. The Macs are hands-down less troublesome, more stable and more productive than any of the PCs. Period.

It's true that the software options are more limited on the Mac than on the PC, which is the only reason we tolerate the PCs we do have. But the benefits far outweigh the few challenges we've faced using and working with Macs. And PC users that I personally know are quite impressed with the ease of use and the reliability of the Mac when they have the opportunity to sit down and use one.

So, the computer that "you can't work on... for sh*t" has been very good for my bottom line for as long as I've been using them.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

That will come as news to a lot of people, including myself. I've worked primarily with Macs for more than 15 years now. We use both Macs and PCs in the two companies I own. The Macs are hands-down less troublesome, more stable and more productive than any of the PCs. Period.

It's true that the software options are more limited on the Mac than on the PC, which is the only reason we tolerate the PCs we do have. But the benefits far outweigh the few challenges we've faced using and working with Macs. And PC users that I personally know are quite impressed with the ease of use and the reliability of the Mac when they have the opportunity to sit down and use one.

So, the computer that "you can't work on... for sh*t" has been very good for my bottom line for as long as I've been using them.

I meant that they're not so hot in an enterprise computing environment with thousands of workstations that need to access centralized applications/updates/databases. When you're talking tens of thousands of computers and even more end users that need to be managed and controlled centrally, the word "Mac" isn't even on the table.

I'm not saying they're bad by any means. They're great machines and make great workstations for a lot of people. Stable, reliable, easy to learn and use...All of what you said. But they simply aren't out there in the BIG computing world.

[Martin]

i've gotta agree that ms only stands to gain by allowing their products to be installed on macs. if it wasn't interested in tapping into the mac market, then why port office over to mac in the first place? products like bootcamp and parallels allow ms to sell more licenses of it's os software and there's no reason that it wouldn't want to do that.

as for the never-ending mac/pc debate... i don't think that either one is necessarily 'better.' it all boils down to what the user is accustomed to and what task the user is trying to accomplish. the only place i've found mac to be more stable on a routine basis is in video editing. other than that, my experience has been that the two platforms are equally stable.

as for the economics of the two, i think that pc is the better alternative for most business sectors. the cost to own, operate and maintain the average pc is less than that of the average mac. i see little benefit in an $1100 imac to accomplish mundane day-to-day business tasks; tasks which comprise the bulk of computer use across many sectors. until apple offers cheaper, less integrated options it'll never break into business use... and that's not to say that is their goal or should be their goal. they do pretty well in the creative business/home user niche market they've created for themselves.

-M

[Martin]

as for installing osx (leopard) on pc's, this link might be of interest...

-M

[Midtowner]

bwana, I think you're doing an apples to oranges comparison. Is your post supposed to be facetious?

[CuatrodeMayo]

I don't know of any "local, independent, and urban" computers. Pretty much you have a choice between a Mac and PC.

[bwana_bob]

When you get some free time, read Geoffrey Moore's book, Inside the Tornado. Moore breaks down competition into three classes; Gorillas, Chimps, and Monkeys. Moore believes - and supports his theory - that all markets shake out this way: a Gorilla always emerges (Google, Microsoft, iPod, etc.) and they make the rules. A Chimp like Apple and Yahoo! runs in 2nd place and can do really well too but must play by different rules. The monkey holds down 3rd place in the market and can find a niche but like the chimp, has to work harder and differently. Geico is a good example of a monkey - turning insurance solicitation into a three-prong creative blitz just to get you to do what 48% (State Farm) of the market does without prompting (call for a quote).

Bottom-line: no matter if you are selling a product or service - or planning a city, you are a Gorilla, a chimp, a monkey - or worse yet, out of the running. OKC is becoming a monkey after starving from the dearth of crumbs left by all of the chimps and monkeys. We want to be more like Apple - a city that has a unique identity, passionate supporters and a strong profit margin. We don't need to be NYC - and Apple doesn't need to be Microsoft. You can see apples and oranges here - and there is some intentional humor in my prior posts - but there is an incongruity of thought between the positions advocated for subjects such as development versus the positions advocated here that should make us realize how tough it will be to transform OKC into a city with a unique identity, passionate supporters and high salaries. Ultimately, the things people muse about when it doesn't involve their money (i.e., development) are in sharp contrast to their thinking on things they do control (i.e., the network admin who wants a homogeneous, Windows-based installed base so that he/she can more easily provide support and push updates). How can we blame developers for bulldozing landmarks and clear-cutting mature trees so that they can make a quick buck putting another big box retailer at an intersection where we envision an urban park with lots of benches, a beautiful fountain and other "signature" touches.

[Midtowner]

I think you're really trying to force the analogy when it comes to computer Operating Systems.

Windows is chosen for many different reasons. In my case, I play games on my PC which will only work with Windows. I also have to collaborate with others, so Linux, etc. will simply not do. Your analogy works great in a vacuum, but the world doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sooner or later, you have to consider that the totality of reality has some effect on choices people make.

[bwana_bob]

To make it clear - and I'm sure you will be thankful that is my last post on the subject - my analogy is not about operating systems or computers. My post is an observation about the logic being applied to the argument about computers by many posters in this thread being in opposition to the logic they have argued in discussions on topics elsewhere on this board, particularly as it relates to their comments on OKC urban planning and development. Some people argue on a linear plane, others favor taking all of the exits on a roundabout. It was offered as a slight, abstract observation but given the particular scrutiny, perhaps, one day, it will be seen as the height of Socratic irony.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

To make it clear - and I'm sure you will be thankful that is my last post on the subject - my analogy is not about operating systems or computers. My post is an observation about the logic being applied to the argument about computers by many posters in this thread being in opposition to the logic they have argued in discussions on topics elsewhere on this board, particularly as it relates to their comments on OKC urban planning and development. Some people argue on a linear plane, others favor taking all of the exits on a roundabout. It was offered as a slight, abstract observation but given the particular scrutiny, perhaps, one day, it will be seen as the height of Socratic irony.

I think people will discuss topics as they see them. Not on some grand scheme of primates with the goal of linear posting across topics.

I also think that you're trying too hard.

[Dark Jedi]

Patchlink.
We loved it at the US Forestry division. Pushes out patches to anything. Cisco, linux, HP Procurve, Microsoft, Apple, Novell... you name it. All from a central server (or cluster, in our case)