Apple's 10 year comeback

@Dimebag

I couldn't agree with you more on that. There really is no price difference in my opinion between a mac and a pc. I think you get a better deal when you buy a mac. Look at how much longer they last compared to a pc. You have to buy a new pc every 2-3 years. Mac's last 10years and up. You will pay an initial higher price of course. Even that initial price has been coming down with apple increasing hardware specs without increasing the price. Even look at all the software you get with your mac. iLife Is a great set of programs that work flawless together. So in the long run, a mac is a better deal altogether.

@ something

Having more users makes the Windows OS "superior"? What a very short sighted way of thinking. Sure Windows dominates in numbers, but that's due to the fact that average users want a cheap PC to browse the web, send email, and look up porn… Let's not fool ourselves, very few windows users are what I would consider to be "productive". If you buy a Mac (with the supposed outrageous cost) you have every intention of being productive in some sense. The only Windows user that defies this stereotype is "the gamer" and they are a different breed all together.

@someone

> I think many would agree that a 80% effective OSX on a PC is better than nothing. Much like running Windows on a Mac.

I don't think the argument works at all. Why does an OS have to be decoupled from the hardware it's designed to work with in order to compete? You're mistaking the OS as purely software, when by definition it needs to have hardware. As for Windows on a Mac being 80%, I'm repeatedly told by Mac owners that their machine is the best Windows one they've ever had. Then again, I'm sure they're just all fanboys to you, even the women.

Anybody know if there was ever a poster-size version of the "Pray" cover?

I think that Parallels/Bootcamp/VMWare Fusion makes it more evident than ever that the two system can co-exist on the same hardware.

For more proof go here: http://www.osx86project.org/

By all accounts it appears to run smoothly. The biggest problem this group has to overcome is the TPM chip. Imagine how much better this would be if the chip didn't exist and Apple's developers got involced.

@TH - If every new user that buys a Mac for the first time does so because they can also put Windows on it, how much ground does Apple actually gain?

Another important factor that wasn't really touched on was the shift to Intel processors and Bootcamp/Parallels. Incompatibility with the Windows computers at work or at home was always a perceived drawback of purchasing an Apple computer. IMHO, this is the main factor in the apparent surge in Macs on college campuses. Many iPod fans wanted a Mac, but didn't buy one because they still had a real or perceived need for Windows. That is no longer a factor.

@KerryB

Don't be an idiot. When I said that hardware is not that different anymore I was obviously comparing that of a mac to a PC with similar specs, not a high end PC to one bought from WalMart. I'm trying to compare 2 OS's here. If OSX would have the same issues that Windows has if it were more open, doesn't that make the Windows the unfair scapegoat to a unchangeable pre-existing situation? In other words, if Microsoft started making hardware that worked exclusively with Windows, after all the Apple fanboy hypocrites whined about how Microsoft was being unfair and was a monopoly, wouldn't Windows be just as secure and offer "the best possible experience" with the same guaranteed backwards compatibility? We'll never know because Apple is afraid to make the leap and the government would never let Microsoft play Apple's game. As far as Windows running like crap on lesser hardware, isn't that what minimum system requirements are for? Even OSX has that.

As far as the hardware issue, this isn't "back in the day". Hardware is more interchangeable than ever. I can't remember the last time I tried to use a hardware component that I had the minimum system requirements for that didn't work. And yes, the hardware compatibility problem would "go away". If Apple opened it's software to the masses, the hardware manufacturers would be forced to make it compatible or they would be left behind. That's just common business sense.

BTW, my metric for a OS's superiority is its availability and useability for the COMMON USER. OSX lacks in availabiliy while Linux lacks in useability (though this is changing). I'm not some Microsoft fanboy, I like OSX and would like to see it used by more people. But wake up, as long as the conditions are as they are, Windows will always be used by far more people and therefore "superior".

@KerryB - I couldn't agree more

I think there's some confusion in the article and comments regarding the dates of iTunes. iTunes was released in 2001, where-as the iTunes Music Store was added in v4, released in 2003. While the initial software was a very nice feature, I think that it was the iTMS that was game-changing for the industry and for Apple, making 2003 the more significant release.

@something

This is a tired old saw. You simply cannot claim that the user experience of the MacOS would be equivalent on a commodity PC. Or rather, you can claim it, but it's not sensible.

I'm not a zealot, I've run every OS under the sun (no pun intended) on hardware ranging from generic WalMart cheapies to high end DEC Alphas and SGI boxes, including MacOS on a licensed PowerComputing clone. At the end of the day "superiority" is measured by the ability of the user to accomplish what they want to accomplish.

Your claim that "the hardware's not that different these days" makes no sense. If there's little to differentiate a Dell XPS from that $300 machine down at WalMart, why the price difference? Why do people buy the Dell? I don't mean to pile on, but the notion that hardware issues would be "left to the manufacturers" and "resolved quickly" is laughable. I could recite a litany of customer "service" experiences dating well back into the days of wonky TNT video cards that put that assertion to rest.

Windows can -- and does -- run great on a machine with good parts and good integration, and runs like shit with inexplicable instabilities, slowdowns and malfunctions on lesser hardware. OSX would likely suffer likewise.

Apple simply does not wish to contend with the enormous support burden of trying to run on everything from a good, well-built, well-tested machine to a cheap piece of crap that you KNOW people would try to install OSX on. If your metric for OS superiority is "runs on everything", then fine, OSX sucks, but that's not a good metric.

I consider OSX a superior desktop OS in major part because it runs on hardware that's well made and stable, on top of offering features that I like and a vibrant developer community. In other words, it lets me do what I want to do.

Now, if you wish to argue that the gap is diminishing because Apple's attention to detail and QA department has been slipping in the past year or so, I'll happily (well, not so happily, in truth) agree with you, but that's a different argument.