Rant about Apple - What to da about next computer

adouglasmhor

Bill Gates wants everyone to use his software, Steve Jobs wants everyone to use his software on his hardware. Linus Torvalds just wants to rule the world.

Idiophreak

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Linus Torvalds just wants to rule the world.

From what I've read, LT just wants to have fun

Leopard

Marty_J wrote: »

I think it's a bit much to wish Bill Gates was never born; Apple certainly wouldn't exist in its present form, neither would OS X or for that matter operating systems in general.

Apple "borrow" just as many ideas from Microsoft as Microsoft do from Apple. The world would be a poorer place without either of them.

And I'd rather go for a drink with Bill Gates than Steve Jobs any day of the week.

A degree of light-hearted banter (including a temporary change of signature) took place on this thread this afternoon.

Perhaps, however, the real testimony to Jobs and Apple is that those who use Macs have the time and freedom to indulge in such things because their computers work properly, so they can use them for purposes other than simply trying to make them work.

Whereas the testimony to Gates and Microsoft is that the rest of this forum is full of people who either can't get their computers to work because it's running Windows :mad: or saying that this is because the majority of people want to buy computers with an operating system that needs geeks to get it to work :grouphug: .

If you want to use your computer to achieve things, you buy a Mac. Because it works

If you want to use your computer to find out how to make your computer work properly, you buy a Winbox and bless :A Martin Lewis :A for providing you with a forum to trawl through a zillion postings from geeks on how to do it.

What I despise about Gates is his ruthless determination to inflict, for his own personal benefit, a succession of rotten, buggy, inferior computer operating systems upon the entire world, instead of (or perhaps despite) recognising that other people could write better software.

The victims of Gates' greed, obstinacy and lack of creative ability are the poor folk on here - and thousands of other forums - who spend hundreds of pounds of their hard-earned (and frequently limited) funds on a computer and then find they can't get it to work.

Of course there are weirdos who live at 127.0.0.0 and come out of the woodwork, salivating at the prospect of sorting out the convoluted mess and anguish Gates has created and blessing Gates for creating it.

But the people who buy the computers just want them to work, out of the box, and to get on and do things with their computer without first having to post three hundred lines of diagnostic code on a forum and ask a semi-literate guru who doesn't get out enough what it means.

It is most grossly stupid for anyone to pontificate about what necessarily would have happened if the two executives of IBM who went to sign up the authors of CP/M and were kept waiting because they were playing golf hadn't returned to base in a huff of miffed pride and reluctantly, and disastrously, agreed to commit the company to the inferior operating system being relentlessly pressed upon them by a pushy nerd.

The world, IBM and the poor consumer has paid a horrendous price for that mistake.

No, I don't know exactly what would have happened in computing if Bill Gates' parents had never met - and nor do you, nor anyone else - but I do know that it wouldn't have resulted in most of the world having to engage in hand-to-hand combat with their computer every day just to send an email using Windows.

I'm surprised by your posting, Marty, and disappointed; I've read many of your other postings and had thought better of you than that. Clearly, I was wrong.

By all means have your drink with Bill Gates instead of with Steve Jobs if that is what you would wish. But what those who glibly talk of having a drink with any high-flyer forget is that what they would glean from it would largely depend upon what their chosen drinking companion thinks of them.

Perhaps, therefore, and if ever given the choice, you would indeed be wiser to opt for the inferiority of Bill Gates. For, if Steve Jobs were impatient with your intellect and vision, the question you would rightly have to ask yourself is what that would say about you.

Marty_J

Leopard wrote: »

A degree of light-hearted banter (including a temporary change of signature) took place on this thread this afternoon.

Perhaps, however, the real testimony to Jobs and Apple is that those who use Macs have the time and freedom to indulge in such things because their computers work properly, so they can use them for purposes other than simply trying to make them work.

Whereas the testimony to Gates and Microsoft is that the rest of this forum is full of people who either can't get their computers to work because it's running Windows :mad: or saying that this is because the majority of people want to buy computers with an operating system that needs geeks to get it to work :grouphug: .

If you want to use your computer to achieve things, you buy a Mac. Because it works

If you want to use your computer to find out how to make your computer work properly, you buy a Winbox and bless :A Martin Lewis :A for providing you with a forum to trawl through a zillion postings from geeks on how to do it.

What I despise about Gates is his ruthless determination to inflict, for his own personal benefit, a succession of rotten, buggy, inferior computer operating systems upon the entire world, instead of (or perhaps despite) recognising that other people could write better software.

The victims of Gates' greed, obstinacy and lack of creative ability are the poor folk on here - and thousands of other forums - who spend hundreds of pounds of their hard-earned (and frequently limited) funds on a computer and then find they can't get it to work.

Of course there are weirdos who live at 127.0.0.0 and come out of the woodwork, salivating at the prospect of sorting out the convoluted mess and anguish Gates has created and blessing Gates for creating it.

But the people who buy the computers just want them to work, out of the box, and to get on and do things with their computer without first having to post three hundred lines of diagnostic code on a forum and ask a semi-literate guru who doesn't get out enough what it means.

It is most grossly stupid for anyone to pontificate about what necessarily would have happened if the two executives of IBM who went to sign up the authors of CP/M and were kept waiting because they were playing golf hadn't returned to base in a huff of miffed pride and reluctantly, and disastrously, agreed to commit the company to the inferior operating system being relentlessly pressed upon them by a pushy nerd.

The world, IBM and the poor consumer has paid a horrendous price for that mistake.No, I don't know exactly what would have happened in computing if Bill Gates' parents had never met - and nor do you, nor anyone else - but I do know that it wouldn't have resulted in most of the world having to engage in hand-to-hand combat with their computer every day just to send an email using Windows.

I think Windows sucks, you don't need to convince me of that. But we wouldn't have operating systems as we know them today were it not for Microsoft. I've been accused of being an Apple fan-boy plenty of times, but I have no problem acknowledging the fact that many of the things we take for granted were Microsoft innovations. I'm just glad Apple pick them up and run with them.

I'm surprised by your posting, Marty, and disappointed; I've read many of your other postings and had thought better of you than that. Clearly, I was wrong.

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you. I'll just have to take solace in the fact that Steve Wozniak agrees with me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7464704.stm

There would be no Apple were it not for Bill Gates. Or at least, Apple wouldn't exist in the form we know it, and neither would personal computers in general. If you prefer this hypothetical Apple that's still trying to figure out how to do decimal points, that's up to you. But the idea that Microsoft haven't made positive contributions to computing is ludicrous in the extreme.

By all means have your drink with Bill Gates instead of with Steve Jobs if that is what you would wish. But what those who glibly talk of having a drink with any high-flyer forget is that what they would glean from it would largely depend upon what their chosen drinking companion thinks of them.

Perhaps, therefore, and if ever given the choice, you would indeed be wiser to opt for the inferiority of Bill Gates. For, if Steve Jobs were impatient with your intellect and vision, the question you would rightly have to ask yourself is what that would say about you.

Wow, a night of having my intellect and vision probed. Sounds like fun.

Will there be curry afterwards?

James_N

thescouselander wrote: »

My qustion is: Are Apples products so good that you can ignore their dodgy practises?

In a word - YES.

Apple are the only products to get this kind of loyalty from me. I am typing this on a brand new imac. Everything was imported from the old Mac Mini automatically - EVERYTHING - I carry on working on this as if nothing happened. It's been in the house two days, and I have converted both my hard core PC sons. The only thing that will not be as good is high-end gaming. For the rest - creative, productive, routine, entertainment - the Mac is a high-class monster machine purring effortlessly at 100 mph past the donkey and cart that is the PC.

And I don't (and won't) have an iphone because it's not as versatile as my Nokia - so I am not a blind Mac evengelical now either.

M4RKM

James_N wrote: »

Everything was imported from the old Mac Mini automatically - EVERYTHING - I carry on working on this as if nothing happened.

oh yeah.. i loved that feature when i got my iMac.. just plugged in my Time Machine disk, and bam.. everything was on my brand new computer, from all the files, to the icons on the desktop, to the way my dock was layed out...

so just easy....

iviv

11 years ago, apple was failing, but they didn't die. How come? Was it through bringing out a superior machine that everyone rushed out to buy? Or was it the $150 million that Gates gave to apple to stop it dieing?

Which obviously Gates didn't have much of a choice, Apple was his only competitor, and if they went down then he'd have a monopoly which would be frowned upon, but no matter how you look at it, Microsoft is the only reason Apple is still here today.

So, who was wishing that Gates was never born? As you just created a paradox

asininity

I've never used a mac before except in the store because of the price I don't see the point of paying extortionate prices for some that can be done just as well on a pc for a least half the price.

PC hardware is much better than mac hardware, mac hardware is just given arguably a nicer look. The original mac hardware was going nowhere fast thats why they use intel etc now, you can customise a pc to you needs.

Sure you can say apple are innovators but then as mentioned above they wouldn't be here if it wasn't for m$. They make each other "better".

Apple get away with a lot that microsoft can't which I find hypercritical.

wolfman

Leopard wrote: »

Whereas the testimony to Gates and Microsoft is that the rest of this forum is full of people who either can't get their computers to work because it's running Windows :mad: or saying that this is because the majority of people want to buy computers with an operating system that needs geeks to get it to work :grouphug: .

If you want to use your computer to achieve things, you buy a Mac. Because it works

If you want to use your computer to find out how to make your computer work properly, you buy a Winbox and bless :A Martin Lewis :A for providing you with a forum to trawl through a zillion postings from geeks on how to do it.

What I despise about Gates is his ruthless determination to inflict, for his own personal benefit, a succession of rotten, buggy, inferior computer operating systems upon the entire world, instead of (or perhaps despite) recognising that other people could write better software.

I'm sorry but you do spout some absolute rubbish, and really do come across as a stereo typical know-it-all (but in reality don't) mac user (or at least how they're often seen).

I admit Windows isn't perfect, but it's still an amazing landmark in the technological world, and a behemoth piece of software.

Being able to run it on all sorts of PC's, architecture, along with all the consumer hardware available is no easy task. Having a hugely open and easy to use development platform too. And keeping it as backward compatible as possible without introducing to much bloat/legacy code. That's more than Apple have achieved with their UNIX based OS.

The problems on the forums are largely because Windows covers just about everything you can imagine, and has by far the largest user base.

It does have flaws. They're not Bill Gate's fault though. And I don't think he "inflicts" it on us "for his own personal benefit". If you've ever watched presentations by Jobs and Gates you'll notice they're opposite they are.

Jobs performs a well oiled presentation, slick, business like to bring in the money. Gates is quite the opposite. A very intelligent man, that still gets excited in a geeky way about the technology they are releasing. Notorious for getting a blue screen during presentation. He 's a geek at heart and just enjoys seeing new technology regardless.

Microsoft have arguably the best programming platform in .Net available at the moment. Office 2007 is very good too. I personally like Vista although I don't use it (Debian and Ubuntu for me). XP has been a long and trustworthy OS too. They have plenty of good products out there, although the industry is now changing, shifting. The take up of Vista, or lack of is an example. People are starting to adopt open source more and more.

Mac's for me, are lifestyle products. You buy into Apple, it costs more, there are more restrictions.

I prefer the Windows approach but I use Linux. A more open world, I choose what I want, in terms of hardware, hardware support, applications, the way it works etc...

Leopard

iviv wrote: »

11 years ago, apple was failing, but they didn't die. How come? Was it through bringing out a superior machine that everyone rushed out to buy? Or was it the $150 million that Gates gave to apple to stop it dieing?

Which obviously Gates didn't have much of a choice, Apple was his only competitor, and if they went down then he'd have a monopoly which would be frowned upon, but no matter how you look at it, Microsoft is the only reason Apple is still here today.

So, who was wishing that Gates was never born? As you just created a paradox

Thanks for taking an intelligent interest in this argument.

But although the consequential reasoning is intrinsically somewhat enigmatic, I don't think it is paradoxical.

Because, if Apple's problems arose from increasingly widespread adoption of Gates' software, had Gates not been born this would not have occurred. If.

The point is - as I have already asserted - nobody knows what course computing would have taken had Gates not been born. (The same is true of Jobs and of Woz. And of Alan Turing, for example.)

What we do know is that Windows would not have been perpetrated.

It's Windows, and all the grief it's created, that irks me. I use both Word and, particularly, Excel in their Mac versions and I appreciate them. (Although there are viable alternatives.)

Which, usefully, leads me into the rebuttal of your first point.

Jobs could well have afforded $150m personally, to rescue Apple.

But he realised that to do so, at least at that stage, he needed to get Microsoft to commit to continuing to produce a Mac version of Office.

By persuading Microsoft to invest $150m in Apple, Jobs created a situation in which Microsoft would then be shooting itself in the foot if it stopped making Office available for the Mac.

And this gave others (e.g. Adobe) the confidence to stick with Apple, too.

It was a very shrewd move. :money:

And it certainly proved to be a very wise investment for Gates. Think what $150m invested in Apple eleven years ago is worth now. Marty could buy an awful lot of curries with the multifold return on that! :beer:


PS. Don'tcha just love people who know Macs aren't better because they've never used one. :rotfl: