MS vs. Apple: The epiphany

[SuperShouden]

I just realized that comparing Microsoft with Apple is like comparing Forza with GT5. They're completely different.

Microsoft is a software developer, and has been for ages. The tried their hand at hardware development with the 360 and it really didn't work with poor internal design that caused the graphics card to melt after prolonged use. It doesn't seem like they're going develop their own hardware again, though.

Apple, is mainly a hardware developer that designs software to go with their hardware. This is probably why Steve Jobs comes off as a prick most of the time. He knows what works with his hardware and the OS (which, by the way, is based off of Unix.). From that stand point, I can see why he wouldn't want ANY third party software on his system.

Both are multi-billion dollar companies. Both have still standing record: MS is the most valuable company on them market with over 90 billion dollars to their name and Apple created the most over night millionaires ever when they first made it big.

Both companies stared completely differently as well. Bill Gates saw potential in DOS, bought it and the rest is history. Steve Jobs and his partner, started making computers in Steve's garage.

Making software and making hardware are two completely different things. This would be why Apples are seen as very reliable as everything is developed by a single company and the software and hardware are designed for each other. As MS only develops Software, it's has to rely on third parties for the hardware, which can cause issues.

So, it's apples and oranges, people.

 

[Dracwolley]

You're definitely leaning towards MS here...

But anyway, I think that it is ideal to own both a mac and a PC, or you can go the cheaper (and more reliable) way of installing Windows on a mac via Boot Camp.

I have done that and I also own a dedicated PC.

But! Back on topic. Macs are generally better for creative uses. PCs are almost always better for gaming (I say almost because you could take a 12-core Mac Pro and put windows on it, but Mac OS X still is not for gaming) and the like. I am booted more into OS X, because I like the feeling of not having to worry about viruses, and the programs I use are much more streamlined and easier to use in OS X. But I do have a decent collection of PC games which I have on the other half of my 500GB hard drive.

Basically Mac vs PC should NOT be an argument, because it only depends on what you want to use your computer for.

And you should not have created this thread, in my opinion. It's only going to start a flamewar with a bunch of idiotic fanboys. That's why I felt the need to say what I did above, just to perhaps "soften" the war.

 

[GT3mich]

And you should not have created this thread, in my opinion. It's only going to start a flamewar with a bunch of idiotic fanboys. That's why I felt the need to say what I did above, just to perhaps "soften" the war.

Soften the war?! Its going to get ugly. Just watch. Personally I like the fact that I can add any computer parts I want when I want. So its PC for me. I like saving all that money too

 

[Robin]

I don't necessarily agree that MS and Apple are all that different.

Firstly MS do make lots of hardware, they make many peripherals just like Apple and they are starting to ramp up production of phones and tablets. MS are not going to give up on the 360 any time soon or any other future games console because they have managed to establish themselves in the gaming market very short period of time.

Apple is just as know for software as hardware and most of what makes Apple stuff so easy to use is the OS. iTunes made online music and the iPod a success and the iOS changed smart phones forever. Coverflow, widgets, time machine etc have also brought a lot to the table.

Basically both are computer tech companies so I don't see why they cannot be classed as the same type business and compared too each other, after all the whole world does!

Robin.

 

[nick09]

Soften the war?! Its going to get ugly. Just watch. Personally I like the fact that I can add any computer parts I want when I want. So its PC for me. I like saving all that money too

Same here and I can actually protect my computer from viruses. My laptop still runs at the same speed as new(8 months old). All I want from apple is for my ipod classic to work properly and it seems like it still works fine after 3 years. I don't mean bad against Mac users but I can never buy an Macs because of the price. I'd rather buy or build my own computer so I can save the cash. If I don't want viruses I can run Linux anyways, which is improving even though it is free to use.

 

[irnbrutwinturbo]

Seriously, create a thread with a hint of making a reasoned comparison, then write drivel that's leaning on MS bandwagon.

If you have the money and want the best multimedia/reliable/just works you'll be mad not to buy a Mac.

If your a gamer/more careful with money/like to tinker then buy a Pc.

It's perfectly reasonable to compare the two, they're both computers. I have both, and generally use both for same things.

I also repair both, sell both, remote support both and install suites of both into big business.

The fact that I have to repair windows machines ten times more than Macs, and I also spend twice as long finding suitable software on the Mac platform to replace easy
To find programs on windows says it all.

 

[SuperShouden]

I don't necessarily agree that MS and Apple are all that different.

Firstly MS do make lots of hardware, they make many peripherals just like Apple and they are starting to ramp up production of phones and tablets. MS are not going to give up on the 360 any time soon or any other future games console because they have managed to establish themselves in the gaming market very short period of time.

Apple is just as know for software as hardware and most of what makes Apple stuff so easy to use is the OS. iTunes made online music and the iPod a success and the iOS changed smart phones forever. Coverflow, widgets, time machine etc have also brought a lot to the table.

Basically both are computer tech companies so I don't see why they cannot be classed as the same type business and compared too each other, after all the whole world does!

Robin.

I can garauntee you that 99.99% of all that hardware is made by company hired by MS and then Microsoft just tosses their name on it. Like the original Xbox for example. It was developed by Intel and then Microsoft put their name on it.

 

[Robin]

I can garauntee you that 99.99% of all that hardware is made by company hired by MS and then Microsoft just tosses their name on it.

Just like with Apple and Foxconn.

 

[tlowr4]

As a Microsoft and Macintosh user, I have looked long and hard into tthe back grounds of both. I have discovered that without Apple's icon system( where you click the icon and it brings the application up) Microsoft would have fallen long ago. Without Apple, there would have been no Microsoft. So for me, it's Apple Macintosh aaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way!!!

 

[Dracwolley]

Just like with Apple and Foxconn.

Just like EVERY SINGLE COMPANY TO EVER EXIST.

 

[Joey D]

Macintosh user

What is this, the 90's?

But I have a MacBook Pro and two Windows based PC desktops. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Really for a laptop I couldn't ask for anything better then the MacBook Pro, it's lightweight, has awesome battery life and Keynote works with my iPhone so I can use it during a presentation. And I even have BootCamp on it with Windows Vista (I know) so I run any programme I really need to.

For a desktop though I don't think I would want an Apple, I do so much with my desktops that require software only made for a Window's environment. Plus I like to upgrade my desktops all the time and that's a much easier and cheaper feat with a Windows based PC.

 

[Robin]

Just like EVERY SINGLE COMPANY TO EVER EXIST.

I know, I'm not stupid!

SuperShouden's arguement on that particular point holds no water!

What is this, the 90's?

I've got mac stuff from the 80's!

 

[Jondot]

I wouldn't say that Apple are 'mainly a hardware company'. In fact I think that's rubbish. They don't sell their software to third parties, but that doesn't mean they don't invest as much time and money as Microsoft do in that field.

Other important difference here is 'design' and 'make'. Apple design all of their hardware, but they sub contract a few items away to Foxconn instead of producing them in an Apple owned factory that's probably located just across the road. So in essence it's still their hardware, as they've designed it from the ground up. In that sense, nothing in the iPhone 4 (for example) has had any of Foxconn's design input, unless for whatever reason they're the ones who designed the camera and/or LCD screen.

The difference is companies like Advent, who actually buy up stuff that Foxconn design and produce, then just stick a new shiny label on the front and pretend it's theirs. Microsoft don't do this, as far as I'm aware - I *think* most (if not all) of their keyboards etc are designed by them.

 

[Casio]

Apple don't sell hardware or software. Apple sell the experience. Hence why they are generally more locked down in the software department and almost always (and certainly in recent history) only make software which run own their own hardware. They don't really care how your experience is, but they have a very defined experience in a controlled environment, and market that experience to customers.

Microsoft has always been a software company. They'll licence Windows to a steaming turd if it had the money. They rely on the hardware companies and vendors to make their product a compelling one, and in turn, make Windows a compelling OS. Yes, Microsoft make and design some hardware, but they're really only side projects for the most part.

They're honestly hard and stupid to make a reasonable, and all encompassing comparison on. For example, now we have an iPad, a completely in-house controlled product in both software and hardware, being compared to Windows 7 Tablets, an OS which isn't even designed for tablets, someone has just brought a licence to put it on whatever they want. How can you compare that? On the other hand, Windows is designed to work on millions of pieces of hardware, whereas OSX is designed for a specific specification, so in terms of hardware upgradability it's not really fair to compare that either.

 

[GT3mich]

Other important difference here is 'design' and 'make'. Apple design all of their hardware, but they sub contract a few items away to Foxconn instead of producing them in an Apple owned factory that's probably located just across the road. So in essence it's still their hardware, as they've designed it from the ground up. In that sense, nothing in the iPhone 4 (for example) has had any of Foxconn's design input, unless for whatever reason they're the ones who designed the camera and/or LCD screen.

Then explain this.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC560LL/A?mco=MTg2OTUwMjQ
Looks like PC parts to me. Overpriced PC parts in fact. I love the fast optical drive. 18x write speed.

Oh, I forgot:
Quote from Apple:

All Mac Pro graphics cards support up to three displays: two using Mini DisplayPort and one using DVI. Add a second Apple LED Cinema Display for a wide canvas.


You can run 6 displays with a PC with one video card.

 

[AgusBmxArg]

This reminds me of Canon Vs. Nikon, worthless.

 

[Jondot]

Then explain this.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC560LL/A?mco=MTg2OTUwMjQ
Looks like PC parts to me. Overpriced PC parts in fact.

Well of course there's standardisation of some bits of hardware (as I mentioned briefly with the LCD panel/camera grey area), but that's pretty different to saying 'Apple don't design/produce/whatever their own hardware'. The same is true of any other computer hardware manufacturer. Or indeed of pretty much anything ever - buy a lamp and, no matter who produced it, it'll probably still have a standardised 3 pin plug attached to it. Apple aren't going to attempt to produce a few sticks of RAM, a DVD burner or HDD themselves any moreso than HP, Acer, Dell or whoever would.

I'd be a bit careful before throwing around that 'PC parts' remark, too. A 250GB hard drive isn't going to give a Dane Bowers in Another Level what OS it's being accessed from, so that's less of a logical argument and more of a quick dig at the cost of Apple hardware. Which is now such a dead horse that I feel vaguely depressed. Thanks for that.

 

[Dracwolley]

Then explain this.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC560LL/A?mco=MTg2OTUwMjQ
Looks like PC parts to me. Overpriced PC parts in fact. I love the fast optical drive. 18x write speed.

Oh, I forgot:
Quote from Apple:

All Mac Pro graphics cards support up to three displays: two using Mini DisplayPort and one using DVI. Add a second Apple LED Cinema Display for a wide canvas.


You can run 6 displays with a PC with one video card.

Actually, this quote is true. But it is by FAR not the maximum. A while ago apple had a shot of a mac pro running 16 displays with a huge shark spread across them. It's not been there since the recent update though.

And Robin, I wasn't insulting you, I was supporting you... unfortunately I definitely could've made that clearer

 

[Biggles]

Steve Jobs has had one of the most fascinating business careers of our times, with an extraordinary series of ups & downs. Quite apart from Apple, he has been a pivotal figure in one of the most consistently creative & commercially successful movie studios in the history of cinema.

As I see it, it was not computers that turned Apple into the strongest brand name in tech products, but the remarkable, almost unprecedented, success of the iPod.

Personally, I have always used Macs because they have consistently got the job done with a minimum of fuss & problems (other than the lack of availability of some software titles). Paying a premium of an extra few hundred dollars is meaningless to me, for a product that I use for many hours a day (both personally & for business), every day of my life.

 

[Anghammarad]

I MS is the most valuable company on them market with over 90 billion dollars to their name

MS Market Cap is $219 billion.
AAPL Market Cap is $274 billion

Or did you refer to brand value?

 

[Sureboss]

Apple don't sell hardware or software. Apple sell the experience. Hence why they are generally more locked down in the software department and almost always (and certainly in recent history) only make software which run own their own hardware. They don't really care how your experience is, but they have a very defined experience in a controlled environment, and market that experience to customers.

Microsoft has always been a software company. They'll licence Windows to a steaming turd if it had the money. They rely on the hardware companies and vendors to make their product a compelling one, and in turn, make Windows a compelling OS. Yes, Microsoft make and design some hardware, but they're really only side projects for the most part.

They're honestly hard and stupid to make a reasonable, and all encompassing comparison on. For example, now we have an iPad, a completely in-house controlled product in both software and hardware, being compared to Windows 7 Tablets, an OS which isn't even designed for tablets, someone has just brought a licence to put it on whatever they want. How can you compare that? On the other hand, Windows is designed to work on millions of pieces of hardware, whereas OSX is designed for a specific specification, so in terms of hardware upgradability it's not really fair to compare that either.

Bang on, control is very much what Apple do. I do think their products are over-priced, but they are unique and they are damn good at knowing their market and their business model is exceptional.

 

[Casio]

Today is a day where Apple shows it's true colours.

The uncovering of the new Mac Book Air. $999 for a device that had 64GB non upgradable HDD space, that's just a joke. Steve Job's himself thinks Netbook's are fail. Yet brings out an almost identical sized machine, admittedly one without an Atom processor, but is made completely pointless by a 64GB HDD. And then to try and justify a non-upgradable HDD as a benefit (Unless of course, you pay more money) is just a joke.

 

[Sureboss]

Not surprising, they are incredible control freaks.

 

[Azuremen]

Today is a day where Apple shows it's true colours.

The uncovering of the new Mac Book Air. $999 for a device that had 64GB non upgradable HDD space, that's just a joke. Steve Job's himself thinks Netbook's are fail. Yet brings out an almost identical sized machine, admittedly one without an Atom processor, but is made completely pointless by a 64GB HDD. And then to try and justify a non-upgradable HDD as a benefit (Unless of course, you pay more money) is just a joke.

I'm not going to hold the SSD bit against them too much, given the fact that it likely isn't a 2.5" form factor. But the premium for the Air versus other netbooks and such is just too much. Even for the Apple experience.

 

[Robin]

The Macbook Air originally didnt make sense anyway, now it makes even less sense with the iPad around.

Its a $1000 netbook! and I thought Sony were mad with the Vaio P! Anyone with sense would buy something thin and light from Lenovo for the same price. The Netbook market is dead now anyway as sales have nosedived because everyone wants tablets.

I really dont like the way Apple is going down this non removable or upgradable path. You literally can't change anything now and as a result will have to replace your tech more often. Its been a bad influence as other manufacturers have followed suit. Before the iPod and newer macbooks having a non removable battery was thought to be ludicrous!

Robin.

 

[Dracwolley]

I personally like the new MacBook Airs. All the nonupgradable stuff is somewhat understandable (e.g. they don't need to make room for a 2.5" HDD/SSD), I mean otherwise how are you going to make something like that?

And yes, you're paying a premium, but it's a premium product. No, I wouldn't buy it in its current state, but if it were $600-$700 I would.

 

[boiltheocean]

I'm curious as to how this Mac App Store is going to work out on OSX Lion. I don't quite understand the point of it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Apple... style over substance, liked by people that will seemingly defend their purchase to the death with an argument as solid as helium, to try and mask the fact they are either attracted to shiny things, or simply want to be seen as 'trendy'

I cannot expand on my contempt for apple products, shops, marketing or image enough...

Apple should invent a rectal probe, called the iDisappear... for DIY use.

 

[Robin]

I'm curious as to how this Mac App Store is going to work out on OSX Lion. I don't quite understand the point of it.

I think its quite a genius move and I'm surprised they didn't think of it earlier.

As more people are getting used to the way mobile OS's work its making traditional OS's look archaic in usability and simplicity. By giving a mobile experience on a traditional PC it helps blur the lines between the two and makes it easier for people to transition between them.

Think of it as being able to use your iPhone apps, full screen on your PC. Many netbooks and new slates are choosing to run portable OS's like Andriod rather than Windows for this very reason... peoples habits and tastes are changing plus a lot more is web / cloud based.

It all started with OS Widgets and Windows Gadgets, little pieces of software which would simply give you net based information. Now OS X Lion is going to literally deliver most of its software that way with an apps store. I can see Windows following suit with Mobile 7 and the amazing Metro UI been implemented in Windows 8.

As for the name 'Lion' it sucks in my option, clearly shows they have run out of Cat species! They should have called it Lynx or something.

Robin.

 

[Sureboss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LynxOS

Think of it as being able to use your iPhone apps, full screen on your PC.

That doesn't appeal, the "apps" will still be designed for use on the iPhone. It'll be clumsy and oafish (new word ftw) on anything other than the platform it was designed for.