Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

You-Are-Pwned

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 5, 2010
22
0
Thanks for your replies. So that's mainly because of the clones, OK.

@boss.king,
I use iTunes on Lion and it works fast and suits me perfectly. It's not really good on Windows, where I use Windows Media Player, but still I do like iTunes more.
 

adnbek

macrumors 68000
Oct 22, 2011
1,584
551
Montreal, Quebec
No to mention that Apple insists, everytime you install iTunes, that it must boot along with Windows. The installation doesn't even ask. It just happily adds "Apple Application Support", "Itunes" and "QTTask" to your startup items.

Hate that.

And sorry to burst any fanboy's bubble but Windows 7 is a very good OS. I use it and OSX regularly and in certain respects 7 is superior. To dismiss any version of Windows as "crap" is just pure ignorance.
 

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Clearly lots of consumer satisfaction else surely they would have chosen the next worthy alternative.

Anti-competitive bullying and monopolistic practices made sure that as soon as IBM gave Microsoft the monopoly over the PC OS market, they never let it go.

There were several cases, even going back to the DOS days, where Microsoft made sure that MS-DOS was the only viable DOS (thus making sure that PC-DOS, DR-DOS and others never quite mattered). MS-DOS compatibility carried over and made adoption of Windows 95 (the only way to get DOS 7.0) a breeze.

Microsoft didn't win the market by consumer satisfaction or innovation. They got it handed to them on a silver platter and conspired against any who tried to take it from them using their monopoly as leverage.
 

zarusoba

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2006
321
0
Australia
Seems MS has finally started to get its shiz together, but Win 7 is still too much of an eyesore for me: they took the translucency too far IMHO.

That Metro UI is the first innovative thing I've ever seen MS do so it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

And sorry to burst any fanboy's bubble but Windows 7 is a very good OS. I use it and OSX regularly and in certain respects 7 is superior. To dismiss any version of Windows as "crap" is just pure ignorance.
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
No to mention that Apple insists, everytime you install iTunes, that it must boot along with Windows. The installation doesn't even ask. It just happily adds "Apple Application Support", "Itunes" and "QTTask" to your startup items.

Hate that.

It is annoying. But easily fixable with msconfig.exe

And sorry to burst any fanboy's bubble but Windows 7 is a very good OS. I use it and OSX regularly and in certain respects 7 is superior. To dismiss any version of Windows as "crap" is just pure ignorance.

I dunno, ME was totally crap. As was Vista. As is Lion (by OS X standards).
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
As opposed to "regular standards"?
Well, it isn't as bad as ME or Vista. You come to expect a duff OS off Microsoft every now and then. I had come accustomed to a decent OS from Apple every release (at least since 10.3). Its more the GUI changes and the new features I don't like with Lion rather than trouble with bugs and stability (with the exception of the dropping WiFi bug until 10.7.2).

To compare Lion with the likes of Vista and ME is pointless since most of people's beef with Lion is the addition of iOS features which can intrude on workflow, are pointless or are downright annoying, rather than it being buggy.

So yeah, for OS X standards, Lion is poor for me.

Oh, I forgot about ME - yeah, that was worse than Vista.
I don't think there was a single day where I didn't see this with ME.

bsod-preview.jpg
 

LorenK

macrumors 6502
Dec 26, 2007
391
153
Illinois
It's not popular, it's a necessary evil. I have been using desktop computers since the early eighties, and had to use Microsoft because that's what the office used. It doesn't mean I liked it. I got my first Apple computer in the early nineties and have been a fan ever since. Why? It's simple. That's it, easier to use than Windows.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,376
13,412
Midlife, Midwest
Windows ultimate "popularity" (I use that word more to describe its marketshare, rather than actual affection for it among users..) has more to do with network effects than anything else.

In simplest terms, once the sheer number of personal computers running Windows reached a critical point, the relationship between the number of programs that were available for it and the potential market for developers of those programs resulted in a virtuous-circle. Virtually every program written could run on Windows because Windows was on 90%+ of the computers out there. Programmers who wanted to develop for competing platforms (ie. Macintosh, Amiga, Atari) were faced with the reality that they were serving but a tiny fraction of the market - so they didn't write for them. And because there weren't many programs for those platforms, they were never going to be as "popular" as Windows.

As I alluded to earlier, its important to keep in mind the size of the overall market for computers and software. In 1977 less than 50,000 "personal computers" were sold. By 1984 (the year the Mac came out, and Windows 1.0 appeared) the market had grown to about 6 million. A huge growth rate in percentage terms - but still tiny. The leading personal computer then, the Commodore 64, sold about 3 million units, the IBM PC about 2 million.

The difference, of course, is that because people writing software for businesses were writing for the IBM PC, they could charge a lot more for their product than could people writing for Commodore 64s or the Macintosh. Businesses were used to paying several hundred dollars for a spreadsheet, word processing, or accounting package. Consumers, however, weren't so thrilled about paying $80 or $100 for game or paint program for the Commodore.

The Macintosh was able to survive, if not actually thrive, during this period because its (then revolutionary) graphical user interface was well suited to specialized niche applications such as graphic design and page layout. Software packages such as Aldus (later Abode) Pagemaker took advantage of the high-resolution Postscript typefaces on the Mac and Laserwriter printer, and gave printshops and designers true "What You See is What You Get" control over the way documents printed. Aldus could sell Pagemaker for a high enough retail price that the Mac's relatively tiny marketshare didn't matter so much.

The first versions of Windows were market and technical failures. It wasn't until 1992, with the introduction of Windows 3.1, that it was a product "good enough" that most people buying computers would use it. The period from 1992 to 2000 saw PC-compatible sales skyrocket: from about 17 million annually, to 137 million. When Windows 3.1 first came out, Microsoft actually saw IBM's PS/2 as a greater competitor than the Mac. IBM had little success selling PS/2 to clone makers, so they ultimately failed - leaving the personal computer OS business to Microsoft.

The overall personal computer business (and by default Windows) finally got an unintended boost as a result of an odd hangover from the earliest days of computing: The so-called Millennium, or Y2K, problem. Because the earliest computer systems had data and processing capacities that are unimaginably tiny by today's standards, engineers had written a lot of code that only used the last two digits in the year. This problem was first reported as early as 1985 - but didn't become widely known till the late 1990s. This set off a worldwide buying binge among businesses, institutions, and consumers - with periodic warnings from computer industry professionals warning of the dire consequences if every computer and software package ever sold wasn't replaced with something that was "Y2K Compliant." People literally were worried that power stations would shut down and airplanes fall out of the sky. As it turned out, actual problems resulting from it were generally minor (ie. some slot machines stopped working, or weather maps had a wrong date on them.)

But by then the personal computer business had become the monster it is today, and Microsoft Windows was the unstoppable juggernaut that was going to rule the world. Meanwhile more and more people were starting to use the "Internet" and out in California Apple Computer was starting work on a portable music player called the "iPod."

The rest - as they say - is history.
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,393
7,642
Anti-competitive bullying and monopolistic practices made sure that as soon as IBM gave Microsoft the monopoly over the PC OS market, they never let it go.

There were several cases, even going back to the DOS days, where Microsoft made sure that MS-DOS was the only viable DOS (thus making sure that PC-DOS, DR-DOS and others never quite mattered). MS-DOS compatibility carried over and made adoption of Windows 95 (the only way to get DOS 7.0) a breeze.

Microsoft didn't win the market by consumer satisfaction or innovation. They got it handed to them on a silver platter and conspired against any who tried to take it from them using their monopoly as leverage.

Then how come they still have it? If Windows is that terrible an OS surely the world would have switched to OSX. But no, Windows still massacres Apple in terms of userbase.
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,393
7,642
Yeah. And it shows.

What does that even mean?

The fact of the matter is that Windows is a very solid platform, and that a lot of people are very content with it's offerings. That is why it is still a massive player in the desktop OS market.
 

adnbek

macrumors 68000
Oct 22, 2011
1,584
551
Montreal, Quebec
I disagree. Vista is pure crap. I have to use it daily at work.

I said *any* version, as in not all of them. Vista sucked at first yes Did get better with updates but I wouldn't know because I hopped on 7 immediately when it came out.

And 7 is great.

Seems MS has finally started to get its shiz together, but Win 7 is still too much of an eyesore for me: they took the translucency too far IMHO.

You can adjust that (make it more or less translucent) or turn if off completely.

It is annoying. But easily fixable with msconfig.exe

I realize that. I just hate having to fix it after *every* itunes update. It should ask just by principle or at least give us the ability to turn it off after the fact in the iTunes preferences. A sort-of software "etiquette" I guess. Every other legitimate program does that. I don't know why Apple feels that iTunes should not even offer the option to turn those startup items off.
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
Because Windows and OS X aren't the only options. I mean, OS X isn't exactly winning in the computer segregation. Thank god for that anyway.

It is. Just not the way you think. Macs set the standard in consumer tech.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/2...isfaction-survey-for-eighth-consecutive-time/

Why even bother to mention Linux in the first place?

The Desktop Linux "user experience" is great . . . if your standards are low enough.

Let's leave the 3rd world operating systems to their respective "developing" markets and get with the times.

I used Linux for about 2 years, between 2004 and 2006. It became readily apparent why it's free. A fun experiment and a learning process. That's about it.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.