Mac OS: The End is Near?

Actually, Apple representatives have stated that they will not do anything to limit the ability of Windows to run on the new Macs. They have no reason to. They make more money from the hardware than the software. (And if you've bought the Mac, you've already bought the software with it.) For a similar reason, they are doing what they can to restrict the ability to load Mac OS X on a generic PC. Not to say it isn't possible, just can't be done out of the box. I know I wouldn't want to deal with the support calls.

The new Macs use EFI instead of BIOS, which I believe is Intel's replacement for BIOS. They should be able to run Windows Vista with no problem. Earlier versions don't support EFI, but apparently have been hacked to run on the new Intel Macs.

but... mac hardware is pc hardware! same vid card, same memory, same processor, same harddrive... is it a proprietary motherboard?

Good grief, these kinds of round-about discussions are so tired. After all they've been going on for like 20+ years now. Who says there has to be one and only one operating system? Why not only one hamburger chain, one grocery store chain, one this one that...oh hell, let's just all give up to the bigger market share monster....screw new or diff ideas, its so much easier that way.

Whatever you want to use that does the job for you and you like it is the right OS. It really is that simple. Just because a product doesn't have 70% or 80% or more market share doesnt mean its doomed to failure. There are lots of examples I know you can think of. Anyways...my miso soup is getting cold.

We've seen the dangers of corporations running a single version of an operating system. One new virus and the whole thing comes to a screeching halt. If you have a variety of operating systems, the impact is greatly reduced. The interoperability of operating systems today, the portability of document types, and the convergence in hardware standards makes this all the easier to accomplish. John Dvorak has been predicting the death of Apple for a decade or more and you can see how accurate he's been.

Windows has closed the gap with the MacOS over the years. Macs were the first home computers to use a mouse, to use the 3.5 inch floppy, to have networking as a standard feature, to introduce plug-and-play. That's just the hardware, the graphical user interface for the home computer was an Apple first. Apple's strict control over the hardware and software has allowed it to move from the original chip to the powerpc chip and now to intel core duo chips. It has allowed the complete rewriting of the OS from the old MacOS to a unix based OS. And all the while the "experts" were lamenting the fall of Apple.

What those experts don't understand is that Apple is not an Operating System company like Microsoft. Apple is a computer maker like Dell. When an "expert" tells you that Apple's market share is a tiny compared to Microsoft's, stop listening right there and then. Apple's business is selling computers. The operating system is one of the key features of a Mac, but it's not the core business. Compare Apple to Dell or other computer makers; no "expert" laments the fact that Dell only controls a tiny percentage of the whole computer market.

As for the end being near, it's been much, much nearer than this before. Apple is the most successful it's been in decades.

And, yeah, I use a Mac. I know, I know, you can build your own PC for cheaper and it would be a zillion times better, and you could install Linux in all it's varieties. But for me a computer is like a car or a telephone, or even a tv. I want it to work reliably, do what I need it to do well, and be stylish enough to have in the living room. I'm no more liable to build my own computer as I am to build my own car or telephone. I want to use it, not mess with it.

Really? 20+ years of using a Mac (and I've used the internet as long as it's been around, too), I've never gotten a virus. How many have you had on your Wintel, pray tell?



Amazing, Cristiano, how you start off with a nice, non-partisan statement about OSes, then go on to attack not the Mac OS itself in some bizarre way, but the USERS of the OS. Just like the claims that, because we're unwilling to support a corrupt monopoly, we're "elitist" or "egotistical" or have some "superiority complex". Like these labels don't apply as equally to PC users, or OS/2 users, or even BeOS or Linux users. Give me a break. Like George Clooney, I feel that sometimes it's a good thing to be out of touch with the majority.

You try using an OS for 20 years that is always in danger of being overwhelmed by the 95% of the world that uses another operating system. Mac users don't have a "superiority complex" any more than PC users, they're just proud to support a platform that hasn't been the subject of antitrust investigations by both the Justice Department and the European Union.

Notice I said some, not all, but feel free to make a blanket statement. You cannot deny that there is very much a form of Mac zealotry that goes on. Hell, Apple bases entire ad campaigns on bashing Windows. I have used every version of Windows since 3.1 (I preferred OS/2 at the time), along with BeOS, MacOS, and various Linux distros (though admittedly not big on the Linux side at all), I have found that I prefer Windows out of choice. I am glad you like Mac, I don't have a problem with that. I am an avid gamer, and gaming is one area where the Mac cannot begin to remotely touch the PC in terms of available software. I have a problem with the childish bashing that goes on all the time. If you like your computer, great.

BTW, I am proud to support a company that is not only itself the leader in corporate charity donations, is also headed by someone who has done the kind of incredible philathropic work that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done, and that also has strong anti-discrimination policies as a corporation. Where again does Apple fit in - Steve Jobs is not known for any kind of philantrophic work at all.

I know you have warm, fuzzy feelings about Apple, but they are a for profit business and are not saints. Ask the many loyal resellers that have been screwed over by them. Apple has had all kinds of class action lawsuits filed against it. With the market share that it now has of the digital music industry, it would not surprise me if Apple ultimately runs afoul of anti-trust law there, since they don't seem particularly willing to be open at all and are tying hardware, software, and content together. Then what will you do?

I find it also curious that much of the behavior Microsoft practiced that is so "evil" is practiced by Apple all the time. Safari comes to mind - how is it any less anti-competitive that Internet Explorer? It all comes down to a matter of perspective. Zealotry about anything is annoying, and trying to deny that there is an arrogance by some Mac users toward Windows users is just silly.

[no quoting in full due to length]

So you have a "problem" with the "childish bashing", yet you felt the need to comment on the users of an OS, rather than the OS itself? That doesn't quite jive, Cristiano.
I didn't really make a blanket statement - I was disagreeing with your assumption that Mac users were more fanatic about their OS than the users of other minority OSes. If you surf the web enough, you'll find cultish Linux websites as well as cultish Mac websites, and even cultish anti-Apple websites. Why do so many Wintel users (yourself *not* included) feel a need to attack an OS that controls single digits of the market? Isn't that some kind of *inferiority* complex?


And so that erases the antitrust concerns? A monopoly is a monopoly, no matter how much money the CEO gives to worthy causes. I'm glad Bill Gates gives a lot of money to charity, too, but wasn't comparing that - I was comparing their business practices. Those are entirely separate categories. Good deeds don't erase bad ones.



Well, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. I think that Apple will catch up to Microsoft on lawsuits about the same century that the Red Sox catch up to the Yankees on World Series titles. I'm not in denial about Apple's faults - I know them quite well, believe me, and in many ways from personal experience. Again, I was responding to your post. I never said that Apple was perfect, just that overall Microsoft's business practices were worse - if only because they control 90+% of the market, not 5%.

I didn't deny that there was an arrogance by some Mac users. I just denied that it was any worse than any other users of other minority OSes. I think Mac users get the most attention because they're the second-largest OS, not because they are more dedicated to the OS than anyone else. I think if OS/2 were the world's second-largest OS, we'd be having this same discussion about OS/2 users (though I'd still be using a Mac).

Hey, excellent job on Secondcast, btw. Loved the fruit avs story

I've never gotten a virus either. I've certainly seen some zombie box macs though. I've also seen plenty of PCs with the same problem. I'm not going to pretend, though, that viruses don't attack both. I also don't understand this 'wintel' reference when there are at least 3 major cpu manufacturers.

What's your definition of "major"? Intel controls the vast majority of the chip market for personal computers, much in the same way Microsoft controls the vast majority of the OS market. Because PC means "Personal Computer", technically all home computers belong to that label, including Apple's Macintosh line. So, many use the Wintel label to describe Intel-made machines running Windows chips.

For a little more history, the term "personal computer" was originally used to distinguish from both business-oriented machines and the home-built "hobby" machines. For a little more on the term "Wintel":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintel

As for viruses, the fact of the matter is that it's usually not worth a hacker's trouble to write a Mac OS virus, since it is less than 10% of the market. Lately OSX is more vulnerable to viruses because it's based on a variant of BSD Unix. That's also why Apple has fallen prey to the same symptom of constantly offering security updates that Microsoft has.

There still aren't any actual active OS X viruses, even given that. There were far more viruses for previous OSes not based on Unix.

Mind you, some of that is a sign of the times - OS X was developed in a period where people were beginning to get very concerned about viruses and security issues generally.

Mac OS X does in fact run on Dells.
I've used it. It works. And it works VERY well.
It's not a theory, it's a fact.

As long as you don't mind never having any professional tech support.

Sums up exactly why I use a Mac. I want to just get things done with it; it's a tool, not a hobby.

But that's me talking for myself, not you or anyone else. Honestly I have no idea why anyone needs to have these religious arguments. Who cares? Apple isn't going away, Wintel machines don't all suck. Can we all just concede these points please?

/me crusifies Lora. BURN!! (oops, I think i mixed references).