Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

In an Apple Dominated World

Oct 1, 2006 2:04AM PDT

Hey everyone I'm writing a paper, and I have a question that I'm aiming at Apple users, I would like to hear your opinion. If Apple was ever to dominate the computer world again, where would that put the majority of us who enjoy putting machines together and supping up our machines. From my point of view the only computer developement position would be in software, unless of course you work for Apple. I see this is many other areas in computing as well, years ago the computing field was huge, and now I believe it is getting very narrow. Anybody have any thoughts.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I think that I would be out there with...
Oct 1, 2006 2:35AM PDT

Richard Stallman at the gun range.

Domination only occurs when we agree to this.

Bob

- Collapse -
A member from the other side.
Oct 5, 2006 11:14PM PDT

I was going to reply in with a cute and quirky comment like, "With roles reversed I'd be playing an I-Box and listening to an X-Pod."

But as I was reading the posts I see a growing misunderstanding of Windows machines.

I think the main reason why Win "dominates" (I use the term loosely) isn't because of their upgradeability, access to more software, or familiarity. Its really a combination of alot of factors. A 16 year old can make a killer gameing rig, but his mother can still jump on it and use it like her work PC. When it comes to Windows/Mac debates, I constantly hear Mac guys say there is just as much software out there for Macs. Unfortunatly this really isn't true.

With the internet, yes the Mac world is continuely gaining strength because finding software and help is much much easier. But, it still doesn't mean there is an abudance of software out there like there is for Win. Yes in the big picture, you can basicly find something that will work for whatever you need with a Mac, but with a Win machine you can find 5 programs that will do what you need, giving you a choice.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Macs. The Macs are up there as some of the best looking computers you can buy. But a big problem is Mac is the only major company that makes Macs, while there are many companies in the Win/PC buisness.

But back to the roles reversed discussion. The original poster seems to believe that Macs don't fail, which isn't true either. There would be the same amount of jobs in this world, Hardware, Software, Programing, Servers, Networking, etc...

In a roles reversed world, the roles would litterally be reversed, Mac would get all the new programs first, the company would look like Microsoft, and Microsoft would look alot like Macintosh company, in the world's eyes.

But something tells me that even if the roles would be reversed, they really wouldn't be. People like to tune their Pcs, and tinker with its settings, and completely build new Pcs, and put Linux on them Dual-booting, and all the other little hacker things people like to do. People would get tired of feeling like they had to buy an entirely new Mac to play the latest game, when a small upgrade would do just fine for a Pc.

I think no matter how it gets twisted, Mac will always control the multi-media and editing side of the game, and Pc will always control the Buisness, Gaming, and casual use side of the game.

Both systems really lend themselves to their specific catagory and both system can cross into the catagories they don't control, but neither of them are solid in catagories they don't specialize in.

- Collapse -
I used to have a MAC until...
Oct 6, 2006 2:14AM PDT

I went into the local, but largest, software store in our area and found rack after rack of Windows software. I asked for the Mac software and was directed to a small bookcase of software. I am not kidding, it was a small bookcase that you might have in your home! My next PC had windows...

- Collapse -
I hear ya...
Oct 6, 2006 4:15AM PDT

But I disagree.

Certainly, there is more software available for PC's, but with that comes more problems. I've been using a Mac since 1998, and to this day, there is only one piece of software I need a PC for. The choices of software I have for my Mac are equal to or better than comparable PC equivalents. My PC friends are always jealous of the software I use.

The only software need I have, that my Mac can't take care of, are the software updates for my Garmin GPS. Garmin only releases their updates on PC software. Fortunately, I have Virtual PC on my G4, so I can update my GPS on that Mac, but still, there is one piece of software that became more work because I choose to use a Mac.

"But something tells me that even if the roles would be reversed, they really wouldn't be. People like to tune their Pcs, and tinker with its settings, and completely build new Pcs, and put Linux on them Dual-booting, and all the other little hacker things people like to do. People would get tired of feeling like they had to buy an entirely new Mac to play the latest game, when a small upgrade would do just fine for a Pc."

That's where you are mistaken. People aren't required to buy a new Mac very often at all. In fact, my G3 from 1998 still works flawlessly, even with todays software. I bought my other two Macs because I wanted to, not because I had to. The same can't be said for PC's, not to mention the much higher hardware failure rate with PC's. That's why Macs are a much better deal, financially; After 3 years, you will have spent more replacing or updating hardware on your PC than I will have on my Mac. Happy

Besides, it's fun always knowing what the neat new features will be on the next version of Windows, since I'm probably already using them on my old version of OS X.

- Collapse -
I don't disagree with you, just think we have our signals
Oct 8, 2006 9:59PM PDT

mixed up...

For a general user, a Mac would be better, even though Pc will always control the casual side of the market. Your example with your Garmin GPS is a perfect example of Pc dominance in the marketplace. There are tons of examples of Pc only software retailers/patchers/etc...

I don't remember if I said it in my original message, but Macs and Pcs own their own section of the marketplace. The good thing about Pcs is even in areas they don't own, software is still developed and implemented greatly, making them almost comparable in their lost sectors. With Macs, not so much. Yes they get their games and their buisness applications, but never a soon, or as good as the Pcs equivilant.

With your G3 example, thats not exactly what I meant. I have Pcs from 96 and earlier that still work. At my job we have old 95 Pcs we still use. So yeah, an old computer will work just fine just like and old Mac will work fine. But I mean 2003 Mac might not be able to run the latest game because of X and Y, and unfortunatly those 2 components are non swappable, so a new Pc purchase is unfortunatly warranted.

I really do like Macs, I love the OS, love the design, but for my needs, I can't warrant a purchase of one. I might consider a laptop in the next few years, I have my Win laptp now, but I use that for games, I'm hoping Team Fortress 2 pull sme back into gaming s thats the only game I want to play. I will then build a Pc for that and possibly look to get a Mac laptop for ***** and giggles mostly.

- Collapse -
Mac controlling Multimedia?
Oct 8, 2006 4:00AM PDT

QUOTE: I think no matter how it gets twisted, Mac will always control the multi-media and editing side of the game, and Pc will always control the Buisness, Gaming, and casual use side of the game.

If that's true, why does every little thing I do related to Multimedia entirely PC-based?
Macs are crap. They are just as prone to crashes and viruses as any other platform. The only reason they're aren't more virus attacks on that platform is because hackers like to do lots of damage. You can't hurt society by attacking a platform with 5% of the market.

As for being dominant in movie-editing... not for long, dude. I've used both platforms for movie editing and Final Cut was almost exactly like Adobe Premiere in every way. Even the User Interfaces looked the same!
Also, when I made a movie with a PowerMacG5, it crashed on me at least a dozen times. Premiere never did that to me on a PC.

Topic creator, A few interesting talking points came to mind. You may find these useful for your qualitative research:

- *GASP* Mac OSX crashes too! (So much it reminded me of WinME!) I want some of the Mac faithful to explain this to me. How can something based on the so-called perfect operating platform known as Free-BSD crash so much?

Well I have an answer for that. This Achilles' heel for all computers is called 'the von Neumann architecture.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_architecture)

All computers use that architecture and crashes are normally the result of too much data trying to get through the system's databus. That's how most viruses work, too.

- The Apple Hardware is proprietary with few 3rd party vendors for Hardware or Software.
Not cool. I don't want to pay Apple an exhorbitant amount of cash for an extra stick of RAM.

- It just works? LOL. They're making stuff on the cheap in China just like anyone else. It's all bound to be crap just like ALMOST everything else made in that backward socialist economy. (NOTE: Nintendo made the U.S. Game Cube and DS consoles in China. Somehow, they haven't been crappy, either. I'm at a loss to explain this one.)

- Price for a MacPro: $2,499.00. Price for a Multimedia machine of similar capability from Dell (XPS): $999 - $1,999. Price if I build the PC on my own: Somewhere between $1,000 & $1,500. Building it on my own also means I can minimize the chance of getting stuck with cheap crap from China.

- Upgradability: Anything can be upgraded on PC with relative ease. Macs? Just throw away that 2 year-old box and buy a new one. This year's new version of OSX won't run on that 'old' PowerMac G5, anyway. Who cares if you spent almost $3,000 to buy it, it's an antique!

- Software options: No contest. PC easily wins, regardless of what kind of software you need/want.

- Games: PC - Millions. Apple - A few dozen, usually PC ports. The ports to Mac are also at least 2 years old and have sold millions on the PC (and a few consoles) before coming to Mac. Since I'm studying to be a Game Designer (and very fond of making money), it doesn't look like I'm going to need a Macintosh very much. It has virtually no marketshare. I'd probably make more cash asking people to pay for the full version of a Flash Game.

- Apple more innovative than MS? Old Wive's tale.
They both stole the GUI from Xerox Star'78. The Mouse was stolen from Xerox, too. Neither of them have really been that innovative at all. They're just bringing the ideas of computer scientists from the 60's to fruition.
If they really want to innovate, they should make Voice Command as common as a GUI. That would be innovative and REALLY helpful.

I'm no MS fanboy but, I really hope Apple takes a dirtnap. They're arrogance and cult status makes me wretch.

- Collapse -
Here, Apple, there PC?
Oct 8, 2006 4:03AM PDT

On this coast the local media colleges are Apple through and through. Over on the other coast (LaLa land) my kid's college is Avid on PCs.

I wonder if such depends on grants and donations from the companies involved and not a best in breed comparison.

Bob

- Collapse -
Quite right, don't buy RAM from Apple
Oct 8, 2006 6:07AM PDT

"I don't want to pay Apple an exhorbitant amount of cash for an extra stick of RAM."

Or Dell, Gateway, IBM, Leveno and all the other major box manufacturers. Nobody buys memory from them and you are not forced to. Memory for all the above, including Appe, can be had for much cheaper, elsewhere.

I do have to draw the line at your comparison of the Dell XPS with the MacPo.
I may have missed something, but I don't recall the Dell XPS (any model) being powered by 2 2.66Ghz Intel Dual Core Xeon processors. Firewire 400 and 800 is also missing. Oh yes, you also need a special OS to run the 16GB of RAM that the MacPro can utilise out of the box.
By all means compare the prices, but make sure you are comparing the same things. The Dell equivalent of the MacPro, with the Xeon processors is almost $700 more that the Mac.

Would you be so kind as to tell us all just what virus's the Mac is "as prone to as any other platform"? Believe me, we would all be interested.

BTW, that "backwards socialist economy", it's growing at a much faster pace than any other country in the world, including this one.

P

- Collapse -
Why would anything change?
Oct 1, 2006 3:16AM PDT

Your choice of the term "Apple Dominated World" and your question, seems to imply that you believe that if the MS/Apple roles were reversed, there would be no more MS and Apple would be the only choice. That is not going to happen, just like it has not happened in the current role positions.

If the roles of Apple and MS were reversed, I think you would find that those that enjoy putting machines together and souping them up, would continue to do so, just like they do now. The PC world would still exist and nobody would force you to buy a Mac and Mac would not be the only choice. Just like now.

Just like in the current MS dominated world, there are some Mac users who like to soup up their machines by adding more memory, faster processors, bigger hard drives and better graphics cards. If the roles were reversed, those people would still exist and still mess with their machines so why would it be any different for the PC tweaker?

I agree that there a lot of PC uses who like to build and mess with their machines but I doubt very much that they are anywhere near a majority. They are probably in the same percentile as Mac users currently are!

Oh yes, in a roles reversed world, might it be that the users of the dominant system, would not care one iota for the problems of the small numbers of other minority OS users?

Just like it is now. Happy

P

- Collapse -
Not Reversed
Oct 1, 2006 8:00AM PDT

I'm just trying to get some insight from Apple users. Although I am a Windows user I respect Apple, and feel that they will continue to get popular and their currently small market share will continue to grow larger. I am just giving a hypethetical situation where Apple surpasses MS. I'm not saying in reality, I mean it could happen it could not. I just trying to get feedback from inside that scenario.

- Collapse -
Not reversed?
Oct 1, 2006 8:45AM PDT

If, in your hypothetical situation, Apple surpassed MS, then surely the current situation would be reversed.

Are you trying to find out if Mac users would be excited that they are now in the majority? Probably not.
Would Apple become the lazy, idea stealing, technology squashing megalith that is Microsoft. Hopefully not, but possible.
Would some other minority OS emerge to take the place that Apple previously held. Almost certainly.

If that is not what you are asking, then I guess I don't understand the question.

P

- Collapse -
I don't mean to confuse you
Oct 1, 2006 12:06PM PDT

I am offering a scenario, just think of it as in one year Apple surpasses MS. Microsoft sales are down, Apple now dominates the market share. What will happen then. Sorry for the confusion.

- Collapse -
I agree. You'll see the same as you do today.
Oct 1, 2006 12:12PM PDT

PC builders will carry on. They'll still have Windows and other than windows (Linux, SUN OS, etc.)

We also have that big world of embedded PC that will be tough to dislodge since Apple is a non-player in that area.

Bob

- Collapse -
And do you guys agree on my other point?
Oct 1, 2006 12:27PM PDT

Thanks guys your opinions are really helping out, I felt my opinions weren't going to be enough for this paper. How do you guys feel on my scond point in my first thread, I stated that the computing market in the job sector is much more narrow today then it was years ago. I feel that years ago 90's-2000 people were hired to do a wide variety of jobs, now with companies pushing automation into their software I feel that they are all trying to do one thing, eliminate jobs. Whether it be IT, or system maintance, or many more fields. And people are starting to get to a point were they feel they are being slowly pushed out of a job, by the machines that they built, installed, and maintain. Do you agree? Again thanks.

- Collapse -
Good point. Why it seems smaller but is not.
Oct 1, 2006 12:40PM PDT

If I look at what I do today, when I first started it took a team of dozens of people. Productivity is 'fantastic' for those that embraced the tools.

Sadly I'm unsure if today's schools embrace those ideas. I think we still see them teach much the same old stuff. This is fine since you still need the basics but it may not prepare you for today's realities.

Bob

- Collapse -
Much has changed...
Oct 5, 2006 8:52PM PDT

In response to your question about how things have changed in the past 8-10 years, there is one thing you must keep in mind; in 1997, less than half of the homes in this country had a PC of their own. Computers were still very much "tomorrow's technology" for most people. Anyone who made a living using a computer had to be specially trained to do so. Today, everyone knows how to use a PC. They say that the Class of 2006 was the first generation to have computer access throughout their entire scholastic career. They didn't know what life was like without a computer.

When you take that into consideration, I think it's clear that there are many times more jobs that involve computers today than ever before. The difference is that people don't need specialized training as much as they did in the past.

And FWIW, I've built up all of my Macs, from my 233 G3 to my dual 2.7 G5. But then, I work on racecars for a living, so it's in my nature to try and make things faster and more efficient, even when they are damn near perfect right out of the box. Happy

- Collapse -
Possibly, but newer jobs will be created
Oct 6, 2006 3:02AM PDT

The whole point of computers is to alow a company to become more productive and to allow less resorces (one of wich is employees). However, all this does is create a willing workforce that may need to find a diffent niche, or worse may need to be retrained for another job. The current tech positions of today become less and less, however, there will always be a need for more creators and innovators; computer engeneers and so forth. Maybe companies will actually hire real IT guys to do customer service for computer related products, instead of zombies that read scripts that live over seas with Indian accents. This is not just a factor for techies, but in general, your education will pay less and less, or you will have a need to obtain more and more of an education to compete. However in the technology world this is a much more accelerated pace. There are few IT jobs left and that number will only get smaller quickly, and companies will only hire the best, unlike the late 90's when they hired anyone that even knew anything at all regarding HTML editing. Again, from a consumer, or company point of view, being able to hire cheap IT guys to do customer service would be great. That may be the future of the over extended IT workforce of today. All of this is I believe is good for the economy and society, however really stinks for those in this field. It will be a great day as a consumer, that when I have a problem and call customer support, they actually can help me. They never have in the past, I usually relied on my IT friend. Basically, my point is, someday you may need to be certified just to do some crappy customer service job, where today (like the 90's of the past) companies hire any joke to fill the shoes of these positions.

- Collapse -
Player Piano
Oct 11, 2006 12:09AM PDT

The future as predicted by Kurt Vonnegut. A book that should be required reading for any and all who wonder about this topic. All will be revealed.

G H

- Collapse -
i think there is a flaw in your scenario
Oct 2, 2006 3:47PM PDT

Your assuming that the hardware itself influences the way people work with a computer. I would suggest the opposite... that people pick out the equipment that best suits their temperament.. I like working on motorcycles so I go out and buy old Triumphs that are literally basket cases - the bike comes in baskets full of parts! If I liked putting together computer hardware then I would buy parts for a winbox.

But when it comes to computers... I am looking for the least amount of maintenance time. When I got my mac, almost 2 years ago, I found myself fidgeting and constantly asking what I had to do to keep the machine running properly. I always said I wanted a star trek computer where I could simply say "computer on" and cruise from there. Apple macs are the closest thing I've found so far to the easy, trouble free machine.

People stay with what they are comfortable with... PC users will agonize forever when they are considering switching to macs. They will come up with the usual excuses like cost of hardware, hardware scaleability, different software, etc. etc. etc. I personally believe that is because they buy into what the market tells them. That win machines are cheaper in cost and have more available software... all of which is true on the surface... but you get what you pay for. You spend less time upgrading a mac. You spend less time tweaking and securing a mac. You spend less money on buying software because the iLife suite already fills most users needs. I think if more folks were actually exposed to apples when it comes time to by a new computer... if they totaled up all the add-ons, upgrades, and software they would need over the course of a computers lifetime... more people would buy a mac.

However, human nature will remain constant. If the world switched over to apple, you would still have the gear heads who constantly change and upgrade hardware. It's just the parts suppliers who would be stocking different parts. Bottom line is that it's not the hardware shaping peoples behavior when it comes to the specifics of your question. Lots of people love spending all their spare time tinkering. I like tinkering with old bikes... other folks love tweaking a PC to get that extra over-clocking speed. Why? Because then they can spend all their time installing that cool liquid cooling system they so sorely need to control all that heat. Of course then there's the lights, the cut outs on the case, the custom paint jobs. Don't forget this all feeds the competitive edge we all have as well!

Course all that sounds like my latest motorcycle project! Wink

grim

- Collapse -
There's a lot of misperceptions...
Oct 6, 2006 4:06AM PDT

I find that a lot of the PC users that I talk to often have the wrong ideas about Mac hardware and how much it can be "souped up". I support over 300 Macs and about 75 Windows PCs and most of the internals like memory, HDs, and some graphics cards are interchangeable.

Another misperception is that there isn't enough software for Macs. If I based my view on the selection at my local Walmart or CompUSA, I'd have to agree but if you search online it's a different story. In fact I find that there's a lot more quality shareware and freeware for Macs. My theory is that authors can't get Mac titles published in shrinkwrap for mass consumption so they turn to the more economical online distribution channel. Now in overall software, I don't think that I would claim that there is the same amount but let's remember, quantity doesn't equal quality. I've been a Mac user since the '86 or so and I've never once felt deprived. (one exception was when I saw Google Earth on a PC 1st, but that's now been corrected.)

Now as far as what would it be like if the roles were reversed? I think that it would probably be much like it is now except Apple would be more like MS and vice versa. Part of the fun of being a Mac user is the fact that we are the minority and even though we might complain and try to convince people to try a Mac, I don't think we would ever want to be the "big guys". Oh, and it wouldn't be a case of Apple dominating "again", Apple never dominated the computing world.

Oh and for you guys who hate the one button mouse, try teaching a class of first graders all using a five button mouse with scroll wheel. You will cherish the one button mouse in that setting. BTW in case you didn't know, any USB mouse will work with Macs. Even the ones that don't say anything about being Mac compatible.

- Collapse -
Market Driven Industry
Oct 2, 2006 1:26AM PDT

Assuming there are major changes in market share on PC vs Mac:
Software and Hardware Mfgrs would start releasing components and software that would be built to support OS X.

If you visit the Apple Support Site you will find that there are many Mac users out there "tinkering" with vintage machines and replacing components. They are also using software that cures compatibility issues and enables the use of newer versions of OS X on machines that originally were not designed to run on newer versions of OS X.

The Old 80 / 20 curve still applies in the marketplace. The major focus is on the 80% of the market. Should there be a major shift in the marketplace the suppliers will follow the money.

- Collapse -
Nothing wrong with an Apple landscape...
Oct 5, 2006 9:57PM PDT

I think the nature of your post suggests that there is something wrong with an Apple dominated landscape where the hardware and software platforms are somewhat tied and you have a cohesive end-to-end solution. Years ago I would have thought this wrong -- when I was a WinTel/DOS user on a cobbled together homebuilt CPU that served me fine at the time and when the entry point for Apple was a much higher hurdle.

Today, much older and presumably wiser, I'd argue the opposite side after having food-chained my last WinTel box for 2 iMac's. Perhaps I've just grown beyond wanting to do the "pimp-my-CPU" act with a WinTel box and then deal with the varying support tiers of Windows and dissimilar hardware, hours of troubleshooting, various instabilities and other issues that have impacted the platform. While I had fun building several PC's over the years, I eventually realized that it was less and less cost effective to build what I wanted versus an off-the-shelf solution and I'd be scrounging for support. When the vendor solutions ended up providing very spotty support (or off-shoring their model so that quality suffered greatly), I was at the point where I also started viewing the computer as a tool much less than as a hobby. I switched to an Apple, found the stability much improved (partly because owning the end-to-end makes this a one-stop shop) and the support model far superior. I use my iMac where needed, don't worry about constantly preening and pruning, and...frankly it just works.

It matters less to me that one vendor controls the entire solution. Microsoft does that with software now. I still see the landscape as one with choices driven by market factors, and there are still options out there (Linux, BSD, etc.) if you don't want to live in a largely Microsoft space. There's also Apple. But given time, experience, and lots and lots of prior heartaches, I'm now just happy to have something workable and productive (and as or more powerful than what I'd get in a PC for about the same price).

- Collapse -
Your reason to own a Mac will dissipate.
Oct 6, 2006 2:06AM PDT

If Apple now became the leader, it would become the major attention for the hacker community. The larger the company the more susceptible they are to security issues. So actually, in a Mac dominated world, you personnaly would probably end up selling off your Mac for the smaller company that may exist.
A second point, wich is alot more speculation than anything, (but this whole question is based in fiction), smaller companies usually offer better support than larger companies. This is just a general trend I've noticed. So chances are when Mac grows large, there services and support will weaken.
The things you appreciate about the company and the product would dissipate.

- Collapse -
Different focus
Oct 5, 2006 11:13PM PDT

I think that any company dominating any industry only serves to stifle innovation in that industry. However surprisingly Apple, while having the biggest slice of the mp3 player market with the iPod, still keeps ahead of the game by producing great products.

One thing is for sure, if OSX was the dominant OS on the market then developers would be able to concentrate more on improving their products instead of plugging security holes.

As for modifying machines, I've customized my G5 Powermac with a Logitech keyboard, a Microsoft mouse, Crucial RAM, Maxtor hard drives, an M-Audio sound card and Sony DVD writer.

- Collapse -
In order for Mac to dominate, they need to become like PC
Oct 6, 2006 1:24AM PDT

It's a free market. The the Win/PC market dominates, not because they are #2 with alot of money, but because they truely offer the best product for the masses. So, in order for your 'if' to even happen, Mac would have to become less user-unfreindly. Now I haven't been on a Mac in a while, I believe they fixed some of the old issues I had. (The last time I used a Mac, I wanted to throw that one button crappy mouse thru the monitor so that maybe my floppy would eject, because there's no eject button??? Why didn't they just put an eject button!!) Anyway, as you see, I've been discouraged with Macs a long time ago. However, assuming they make no changes and somehow dominate, what you would see, is a large sell off of Mac computers on Ebay, while the population educates itself, and realizes once again, the Win/PC are the better way to go. And would then turn back to a Win/PC dominated world. Mac's serve a purpose, but not to the general population. Mac's will never dominate as they are today, it's not even close. Linix has a better chance of beating out Windows, before Mac's beat out PC.

- Collapse -
I got to laugh at the "who is better" arguement...
Oct 7, 2006 4:47PM PDT

The simple answer is that a business mistake lead to MS dominance!Microsoft teamed up with IBM and managed to bamboozle the biggest business machine manufacturer in the world to showcase Microsoft's' OS on their equipment... but IBM neglected to ask for ownership of the very thing that made the whole machine work. If IBM had held all rights to DOS/Windows then Compaq would never have been able to reverse engineer the equipment without having to invest in an OS as well.

In short... IBM would have been just like Apple. One company using one OS that worked on just their hardware. There is no inherent superiority to windows over mac os as far as that they both offer a computer os that processes information digitally. It's just that they do the job with a different flair, a different process style. What allowed Microsoft to leverage their way into OS dominance is they could license their OS to run on machines built on the cheap. Compaq, later Gateway, and later still Dell, pushed their way into hardware dominance by doing one thing... They offered cheaper, more affordable equipment then the company before them. Even if you needed to get into the world of personal computers you look for the least expensive deal! MS windows were on those cheap machines.

What I find remarkable is the fact that apple managed to take back the license deals they had made with the mac clone builders of the 1990's and stay in business with their one manufacturer/one OS business model. People simply keep buying the machines... how do you explain this? I have my opinions but I will keep them to myself. The pro MS camp would claim I'm brainwashed or silly and the pro mac people (who can be just as bull headed) don't need my explanation why they prefer apple.

grim Happy