Apple helps Microsoft get Windows 7 right
"When you strike at a king, you must kill him," said the great Transcendentalist, Ralph Waldo Emerson. Apple, in toying with but not killing Microsoft in enterprise computing, has unwittingly granted its rival a new lease on life with Windows 7.
At least, that's the position Likewise CEO Barry Crist is taking in a recent blog post. In some ways, Crist depends upon neither Apple nor Microsoft killing off the other, as his company makes audit and authentication solutions that span different operating systems: Mac OS X, Windows, Unix, and Linux.
(Credit:
Likewise.com)
The company also makes awesome T-shirts, as shown at right. The T-shirts highlight the importance of technology that enables heterogeneous operating system environments. Homogeneity is boring and, frankly, impractical. That's where Likewise comes in.
It's also where Apple failed in missing, intentionally or not, the Microsoft jugular, and in giving Microsoft a good model from which to copy a modern operating system, as Crist explains:
Apple significantly helped Microsoft "get it right" with Windows 7. Our technical team has looked at the Windows 7 beta. This is a team that doesn't throw out idle praise and certainly doesn't pull any punches when reviewing Microsoft technology. To say that the early returns from our team on Windows 7 are positive would be an understatement. Microsoft appears to have delivered. And the timing for Microsoft could not be better.
I doubt Apple has much appetite for the enterprise. Not yet, anyway. It's still too much of a boutique brand, albeit one that I love and which is catching the interest of an increasing array of enterprises. Yes, Microsoft has its issues, including a new federal CIO that has a penchant for Macs and Google, but Apple may have missed its chance to mortally wound it. Update 4:10 p.m. PST: Whoops! I meant to say above that I doubt Apple (not Microsoft) has much appetite for the enterprise.
But that's just fine for Crist. His business depends upon multiple-choice exams, not essay-based exams that plumb the depths of why Windows is the only good answer to every question. So long as enterprises want to run more than Windows, Crist's Likewise will sell a lot of software.
And T-shirts.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Talk about being full of themselves.....
Apple makes hardware, HARDWARE, for consumers.
They're consumer devices FIRST and happen to contain computers to execute the functionality.
They're extremely successful at building sexy devices. Not in Microsoft's play ground at all.
Microsoft can do whatever the hell it wants, and has an antitrust trial to prove it, (but, come to think of it, it has never managed to transition off of the INTEL 8080 architecture, while Apple has managed to transition from Motorolla to IBM's Power architecture and now to the Intel platform. Wonder why? ... )
Go away and play with your X-Box...
Apple is an OEM with their own OS.
They do not make their own hardware.
There is a world of difference between putting components together and actually creating hardware.
Windows (NT) used to be available on x86, MIPS and Alpha arcitectures.
Windows (2003, Vista, 7) were/are/will be available on x86, amd64/EM64t, and ia64 achitectures.
Windows Mobile/CE is available on ARM, MIPS, x86 architectures.
With x86 - they just happened to back the right horse at the start, so they've never needed to make as drastic a change as Apple had to. Simple.
@ Matt Asay - this was actually one of your (rare) decent articles, except for the very start where you wrote:
"Apple, in toying with but not killing Microsoft in enterprise computing, has unwittingly granted its rival a new lease on life with Windows 7."
What the hell is wrong with you man? Apple "toy" with MS? And that too in the enterprise space? You need a reality check
Don't get me wrong -- competition is awesome, so I'm all for Apple doing well. And they've completely redefined the mobile game with the iphone - no question. But you wrote that line as if you don't understand the difference between the enterprise (where function matters above all else) and the consumer market, especially the cell phone market (where sexy sells). Apple does sexy, and they do it well. Enterprises don't care.
Wait wait......what are you trying to say?
MS hasn't "managed" to move away from 8080... why would they? You say it like x86 is a red-headded step-child architecture. There is nothing out right now that would be a cost effective alternative to x86(-64). It's too mainstream. Which is one of the reasons Apple started using it.
Apple does not make hardware. They use Intel chips and mainboards, Nvidia video processors, sony CD/DVD/BD. I can build you a PC with the EXACT same internal hardware (only with Vista) as any of your beloved Macs and I gurantee that it out-performs your Mac drastically. Not to mention that there are BILLIONS more software titles and games available (including just about every titile you would find on a Mac). Oh, did I mention that I can upgrade my PC for WAY less then buing a new computer if I feel it needs a boost in a couple years? Your Mac is going to be a petrified pile of **** before you even finish paying it off.
Actually... that machine with the same hardware with not outperform a Mac with the same specs.. because it's running Windows..
Also.. That Mac can run Windows XP, Vista, and 7... and Linux.... natively ... So.. You are dead wrong... The Mac can run more software than a "PC".....
Excuse me, poster... I understand your comment... at least I think I do. You LOVE Apple's hardware offerings (as opposed to Dell, HP, Acer, etc.)... I think that's what you're saying. Becuase what I don't see you say is the Mac is inherently better. I thought that was your point, however you then blast off into how (and I quote) "Mac can run Windows XP, Vista, and 7..." so (and again I quote) "The Mac can run more software than a PC".
What part of licensing are we missing here? Unless you're pirating a copy of WIndows... WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE PAYING TO INSTALL WINDOWS INSIDE OF MAC OSX?
Microsoft doesn't care in the LEAST that you're installing Windows on a piece of Apple supplied hardware. They probably sit in their palatial offices and LAUGH their a$$es off that people think they're 'sticking it to Microsoft' by buying Mac and running Parallels to install XP. You still bought THEIR software, which is how THEY make money. Apply may profit off of their hardware/software package. Microsoft is primarily software.
Am I missing something obvious here?
Robert
First of all, Mac is not hardware. It is all intel stuff that you can buy for any PC which is why you can install Windows. There is no point however to buy a Mac in the first place because the Mac operating system is compatible with 1/10000000000th the amount of software that is available for Windows operating systems. If I am actually bringing my brain with me when I go shopping, I am not going to spend $2,000 on something when I can get something better and more functional for $1000 or less. There is nothing good about Macs when compared to Windows PCs, and the only reason it is an argument still is because Mac users still refuse to admit they made a mistake when switching to Mac. At no point has any Mac user blessed us with any reasoning behind why they use a Mac other than the false claim that "they are better". Get a clue, and a PC, your life will be much easier.
Second to last paragraph Matt, I am sure you meant Apple. Microsoft loves and owns the Enterprise.
The Windows family (servers and non-servers) are the most functional, intuitive, convenient, and easy to use all around operating systems available. HENCE OWNING 95% OF THE MARKET.
I am also curious to know what is wrong with Vista. Again this is one of those stupid Apple fan comments that is thrown about, yet not one of you morons can explain exactly what the problem with Vista is. Mojave Project anyone?
http://www.google.com/
I just wish people would stop with the noise and think for themselves. Maybe that's too much to ask.
Put XP on that laptop and you will understand how bloated Vista is.
MS knows this, hence the very speedy recovery attempt of Windows 7. If you've read any reviews of the 7 beta, you'll see that everyone is finding it much more user-friendly than Vista. Seriously, if you think it's a remarketing of Vista, you are going to be sadly disappointed.
It is no different than people I know that don't think there is anything wrong with McDonalds or Wal Mart. They are too dumb to understand. It is the same with Vista." -pentest
Once again. you have no explaination. You just babble the same crap everyone else who was stupid enough to buy a Mac says. Give one ******* REAL example of what is wrong with Vista....Just one. Can't do it can you?
"Put XP on that laptop and you will understand how bloated Vista is." -pentest
Put XP on a 486 and you will see how bloated XP is. Don't be a retard dude. New operations systems are meant for new computers. In no way shape or form was vista intended for people using older hardware. Try running your beloved OSX on a ******* Apple 2E dumb ****. Your logic is flawed. I have 4 computers, 3 of them run Vista. The other one does not because IT IS OLD. The newer computers run Vista just as well as any computer over the last 5 years ran XP. Don't try to act like you know what your talking about, try learning first so you actually do know what you are talking about.
"Everyone already knows that Vista is slowed than XP. Why? It's more visually appealing.
MS knows this, hence the very speedy recovery attempt of Windows 7. If you've read any reviews of the 7 beta, you'll see that everyone is finding it much more user-friendly than Vista. Seriously, if you think it's a remarketing of Vista, you are going to be sadly disappointed."
first of all Vista is not slower than XP. Vista was designed around Today's (2 years ago) hardware, not for your 10 year old IBM Thinkpad. Vista runs WAY better than XP and the amount of features and capablilities makes the choice a no-brainer. Again, if you have older hardware, stick with older operating systems. If you are getting newer hardware, don't waste your money on a Mac that can do 1/100000th what a PC can do. I will give you dipshits examples if you need, unlike the retarded PC haters.
Do a google search.
Good keywords are 'vista' and 'problems'.
I'll just leave Smokified to ignore MS's history of coercion, bullying and threats against any PC manufacturer that would dare try selling any alternative to Windows because it would call into question whether their products are genuinely better when they resort to such tactics to avoid having to ever actually compete.
You mean MS's history of supporting and constantly bettering their software? Funny thing is, I turned on a Mac that I use from time to time at work (mostly to make instructions with screenshots for the 1% of idiots I run into with Macs) and the first thing it says is "A software update is available, click here to install". Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an OSX update the same thing as a Windows update? Are they not released for the same purpose?
Also, ********, Microsoft is not the one being sued for falsely claiming that their equipment is better and more stable when in reality it is the other way around. Take a gander on your beloved google and search Apple G5 class action lawsuit and when you are done reading, you can kiss my ass.
I personally have more experience with both PCs and Macs than 90% of people in here, and hands down the better comptuers are the Windows PCs'. If Macs were better I would say they are, but from ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, they are not.
I don't need to google **** I already know either. I just want to hear one Mac user give one actual valid problem with Vista, or why Macs are so much better. It is always, "I shouldn't have to say anything, you are retarded if you don't already know", or, "google it". I can google just as many problems with Apple computers too dipshits. I find it so ******* irritating that even when asked you ****** Mac users still refuse to actually give a valid example of these claims you make. Is there not one of you Mac users that is remotely capable of producing AT LEAST 1 VAILD EXAMPLE?
[CNET editors' note: Personal attacks and profanity edited out.]
You should stop trying to write professionally. Whereas you have the ability to spell and grammar check just fine, your brain lacks the ability to think realistically. At what point was Microsoft in any danger of being "killed" by Apple?
At what point do we stop just letting idiots talk and/or think without proper guidence?
Microsoft was never, and probably never will be, in danger of being killed off by Apple and I sincerely doubt that they ever will be. Apple's market is home and education use, and it serves those markets very well.
If Apple has any sort of plans to take over the business PC market, it needs to spend its money getting thousands of business software vendors onboard with training, and also lower its prices by about 80%. I can't see this happening in my lifetime!
You showed your hand with that comment MS shill.
Is there some REAL reason to have that mentality besides the "oh so shiny" factor?
Again, Apple users constatly say the same things yet none of them can actually explain why.... You had plenty of examples why Macs will not work for your business, but what are the reasons you feel like wasting your money on overpriced restricted computing devices at home? I will build you a computer for half the price of a new Mac that will do 500x as much. Not to mention that in a couple of years you CAN UPGRADE IT.
Also... for some reason.. I am having absolutely no problems running Apples latest OS on my 12 inch powerbook.. the one that I bought in 2003... with a 1 ghz G4 processor and only 32 mb of video ram. All of the bells and whistles work fine.
If you knew what you were talking about.. you would know that there are plenty of options for upgrading older Macs... processor/mother board upgrades.. HDs.. Ram.. drives.. The same things you can do to a "PC".
I've upgraded the motherboard and added a DVD burner to my (now my daughter's) old blue iMac DV (the old ones with the handles at the top)... It is also running 10.5x flawlessly....
As for me, I don't have to run osx on my PC for any reason. It'll run all the apps I want or need, I don't have to spend money on a second operating system, I don't have to spend a fortune on a high end computer when I don't need one, and I can easily upgrade it. As for the company, it's the same reasons plus the PC's integrate very well and are much more manageable.
While you find the mac more to your taste, I like the PC's better. That's cool by me.
If you approach OS's like a religion.. you will never get it.. because you will be too close-minded to try different platforms with an open mind. Interestingly, the vast majority of people who "grew up" with windows and decide to try the Apple OS.... stick with the Apple OS for a reason. Windows feels unrefined and thrown together in many people's opinion.. and they liken it to a needy girlfriend. Apple's OS is like a supermodel that likes to work on cars during the day... and cleans up nicely for a formal dinner and movie at night.
It is the same hardware you can buy for a PC, as already explained a million times, stupid. You should also google information about the class action lawsuit against apple for making the very statment "more stable". OSX is actually not near as stable due to the fact that it runs only on specific Apple approved hardware (again the same hardware you can get for a Windows PC) and cannot handle the limitless hardware possibilities that will support Windows.
The only reason anyone buys a Mac is because they are misinformed, not because they are more stable, or because they "increase productivity". Please explain how a Mac increases productivity when they only run 1/1000000000th the software titles. Sounds more like a stime in productivity to me.
"If you approach OS's like a religion.. you will never get it.. because you will be too close-minded to try different platforms with an open mind. Interestingly, the vast majority of people who "grew up" with windows and decide to try the Apple OS.... stick with the Apple OS for a reason. Windows feels unrefined and thrown together in many people's opinion.. and they liken it to a needy girlfriend. Apple's OS is like a supermodel that likes to work on cars during the day... and cleans up nicely for a formal dinner and movie at night."
You really are dillusional. I am not closed minded at all, as a matter of fact it is usually the Mac user that is closed minded because you refuse to hear that you spent twice as much on PC hardware and a barely functional operating system. That is why ONLY 5% of old Windows users made the switch stupid. If Macs were the better choice I would think you would see a little bigger market share than 5%.
The only people who "feel Windows is unrefined and thrown together" are the ones that really know nothing about computers at all, and they base their opinions off of stupid commercials and idiots in forums (even though there are still WAY more people who feel that Windows is the better choice).
Fact, Macs cost twice as much as an equally speced Windows PC.
Fact, OSX runs on .5% of the hardware available whereas Windows runs on whatever hardware combinations that you can dream up.
Fact, OSX is just as open to contractig viruses, however not even hackers give a **** about OSX because it sucks that much.
Fact, OSX is just a bloated version of Unix.
Fact, Windows runs limitless software titles, whereas you have to give Apple a ******* to get your software title licensed. This is how they make it APPEAR that their OS is more stable, which is a completely ******** claim.
Fact, people who buy Macs feel the need to defend their purchases for a couple of years and then when they recover from the financial hit of purchasing an over priced boat anchor, they usually go out and buy a Windows PC.
There's no way Windows 7 would even exist were not Apple cleaning up in the lux end and Linux threatening to eat their lunch from the low-cost and geek and server sides. There's no way Linux would be making the technical leaps and bounds all over the board that it is, without having the MS hegemony to rail against. Apple would never sustain the innovation pace they have without that eternal hunger for more market share.
The absolute best thing that users of any platform ought to hope for is that their competitors come up with brilliant improvements and innovations, 'cause that's the only way that any of us will ever see them in whatever system we use.
Frankly I'd like to see Linux and Apple share both get up above 15 or 20 percent. The pace of innovation at that point would start to really get interesting. The MS hegemony has hurt all of us, not least MS users, for years.
I can do that with my pc too what reason would it shut down on me for? Please inform me.
My wife and I each have one...they work great.
There is a word for me...let me think, what was it? .... on, "Suicide".
Of course, this won't hurt MS that much, if any, but will hurt OEM's if this sort of thing becomes widespread. With this one purchase, Dell stands to lose millions. It will also give people more exposure to OS X, which WILL hurt MS.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10187192-37.html
The average selling price of a Mac desktop in the U.S. over the last six months was $1,503, while the average selling price of a Mac notebook was $1,493. Windows customers paid an average of $545 for their desktops over the last six months, while they paid $637 for their notebooks.
"What pain goes with Windows? You stupid Apple bandwagon jumpers continue to use these phrases, but yet have NOT A SINGLE example to back this **** up with. "
What pain? How about system wide memory leaks and crashing or at least irregular behavior if you get any SKU other than Ultimate? Why is this? Because instead of building the core system and then ADDING features to justify new skus, they build it all as Ultimate and then REMOVE features which have system wide hooks thus leaving gaping memory holes and a less than stable user experience. That's just a starter issue...
"The Windows family (servers and non-servers) are the most functional, intuitive, convenient, and easy to use all around operating systems available. HENCE OWNING 95% OF THE MARKET. "
MS owns 95% of the market as it comes to the corporate/enterprise market because it ripped off Apple and sold cheap knock-offs back at the company's beginning. You do realize MS got it's major start writing for Apple right? Anyhow, from offering cheap, knock-off clones (essentially), they locked in business and government contracts that spanned decades. Once business and government were locked in, MS knew it would be too expensive for them to switch platforms, train users and adapt to anything else. That's not ANY reflection on quality (or lack thereof) it's of smart, cut-throat marketing and NOTHING but... You somehow have fooled yourself into believing that MS and Apple both started on equal footing and MS won because of better products. Nope, they were just cheaper. MS is the Wal-Mart or the Brittany Spears or the 7-11 of the computing industry. Because they sell more in NO way means they develop better products.
If where not for Microsoft, Apple would have folded in 1997 or 1998 (remember the 150M investment from Microsoft? http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1997/08/AppleMicrosoft.html).
There are a lot of things Microsoft is doing that Apple is not... Apple does not have Office (the software that allowed Apple to survive), SQL Server... can you say those are rip-offs? They can't even write applications like these for their own platform.
Thats how business works sometimes.... people bought the product, they made money.
"You somehow have fooled yourself into believing that MS and Apple both started on equal footing and MS won because of better products. Nope, they were just cheaper."
You realize that the 1st Apple computer had a $20 MOS Technology 6502 chip because Wozniak couldnt afford the more expensive $170 Motorola 6800 or Intel 8080 right? And that chip was a knockoff of the Motorola 6800.
Who's the real Wal-Mart of computers? Neither really. Thats how lots of companies get their starts.
"Because they sell more in NO way means they develop better products. "
And a higher price should in NO way mean they develop better products either right. The "better product" is the one that has the benefits that the customer asks needs.
"because it ripped off Apple and sold cheap knock-offs"
Microsoft does not sell computers. They are a software company. They only sell the operating system. Microsoft has never sold a cheap knock-off clone. Take your beef up with the OEM's.
"MS is the Wal-Mart or the Brittany Spears or the 7-11 of the computing industry. Because they sell more in NO way means they develop better products. "
Alot of people shop at Wal-Mart. Alot of people buy microsoft. They're doing something right when they can capture the market like that. Just try and tell me you've never shopped at Wal-Mart, you hypocrit.
First I would like to start off by asking you to describe what a memory leak is. Then when you are done doing that, you can describe to me where you were able to gather this information, because I have first hand experience beyond your pathetic ability to comprehend with Windows Vista. I have disected Windows Vista forwards and backwards (not to mention the certifications) and there is no indication of memory leak (with exception to the very first releases). I have even modified an installation of Windows Vista to run as a high performance file/media server because of it's stability and ability to leave running for an extended period of time without self destructing (like XP and 98). I also manage and support multiple networks in which the workstations are running everything from W2K to Vista (from home basic to ultimate) and post SP1 Vista is the most easily configurable reliable OS on any of these networks. And, lets not forget to mention that I am able to make software that was around since W95 run on Vista. Some of these titles would not even run on XP.
Everything you think you know about Vista is wrong other than how to spell it and who makes it.
Since you already had your second part fed back to you I will keep it breif.
If Apple had the superior product, why would they continue to barely scratch the surface of Microsoft's sucess? I assure you that the iPhone and iPod are the only reasons Apple is still around, because they are wasting money with the whole personal computing conquest.
When was Apple EVER in the position to take the crown?
How true.
Learn how to make fries and you'll be set for the recession.
You know nothing about Apple, and as far as perception and objectivity are concerned- sorry, wrong field.
- by Joe M March 6, 2009 5:27 AM PST
- Windows is a GUI, with bits and pieces (ahem...) "borrowed" from Xerox and IBM, for DOS, which MS bought from Seattle Computing, who based their OS on CP/M. I don't see the difference.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (82 Comments)