| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
A New Twist in the Mac-Windows Waltz | |
|
||
| Time: 08:15 EST/13:15 GMT | News Source: Business Week Online | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The scene: Macworld Expo in San Francisco, January, 2001. Apple Computer's devoted audience went wild as CEO Steve Jobs showed off the spiffy new look of its operating system of the future, OS X. One observer was less than thrilled, however. Kevin Browne, then general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit, and his team of developers had rushed to finish a presentable version of the Internet Explorer browser for OS X in time for the show. But Apple had failed to given them a heads-up on the new "Aqua" design. It was only by dumb luck that Microsoft's blue color scheme more or less matched Apple's. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:46:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/21/2003 10:43:38 AM |
| Ok, if Mac users really are upset about Virtual PC then I was write before in my sarcastic remark that the Mac is useless without the ability to run Windows. Which really makes you wonder. |
| #2 By 442 (67.8.155.99) at 2/21/2003 1:00:03 PM |
| I don't think many Mac users really care. I've been using a Mac for five years and have never touched VPC. There are no apps that are Windows only I can think of that I'd ever need. There is a Mac only solution for everything. VPC is mainly for the few folks who must run Access of ACT!. Other than that there's no need. OS X has everything. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2003 1:02:07 PM |
|
Jeez, I'm shocked to say that I can't wait for Haddad to return: "But Apple had failed to given them a heads-up on the new "Aqua" design." Funny, I'm not a developer or the biggest software developer in the world, but I got to see Aqua a year before that. Hmmm...
soda, you'll criticize every news source, but somehow the fact that some Mac users are disgruntled proves there is nothing useful on the Mac? Uh, huh... Spurious and nonsensical up the @ss as usual. You are far from "WRITE." This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, February 21, 2003 at 17:52. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/21/2003 1:12:09 PM |
| I can think of many applications that are Windows only. A friend of mine who has been a Mac user his whole life, just bought a PC because software he needs isn't available for the Mac. Most custom applications are also Windows only, since there are more Windows devs (and Windows boxes) then there are Mac devs (or Mac boxes). |
| #5 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 2/21/2003 2:38:09 PM |
| jerk, do you realize that with each post... you drive more readers toward blue's opinions. your nastiness wins no friends and persuades no one. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2003 2:44:01 PM |
|
Okay, mooresa, I'll bite: anyone who feels that an article that states that some users are disgruntled over the pruchase proves that the Mac is useless without Windows please post a statement of your agreement.
And note, I'm not asking whether or not you think theMac is useless--I am asking if you think soda is right that this article proves his statement. Anyone who feels such an assertion is spurious and nonsensical (oooo, what nastiness), feel free to post as well. |
| #7 By 8589 (65.71.67.246) at 2/21/2003 3:21:05 PM |
| The Mac users shouldn't even worry about running Windows Software. They should stick to Mac only software, and if the Mac stands or falls, it is on its on merits. If Mac users want to run Windows, they can buy a complete AMD system for less than 250.00 delivered (minus monitor of course) |
| #8 By 442 (67.8.155.99) at 2/21/2003 4:20:11 PM |
|
If you want ACID on the Mac get Ableton Live. Its UI is far more refined than ACID's and has more features. I strongly suggest it. I can't speak for 3DS MAX as I don't do animation. From what I understand LightWave, Maya, and Carrara Studio are quite nice.
BobSmith, I can think of a lot of apps that are Windows only, too. But take a look and you'll almost ALWAYS find a Mac solution for that title. All you have to do is be an educated consumer. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/21/2003 4:33:44 PM |
|
sodajerk - Well the last I checked... There is no demand for a Mac emulator under Windows.
Does kind of make you wonder how viable the Macintosh is when one has to rely on the existence of an emulator. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/21/2003 4:49:48 PM |
| We're beyond ex-lax... someone needs an enema. |
| #11 By 2960 (68.100.157.191) at 2/21/2003 5:02:28 PM |
|
"sodajerk - Well the last I checked... There is no demand for a Mac emulator under Windows. "
Useless statement. There is no demand because it basically cannot exist. People don't generally ask for what they know can never be delivered. TL |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2003 5:15:37 PM |
|
The funny thing: it makes you wonder why someone needs a Windows emulator on Windows...
Oh yeah, 35% of the market doesn't want to give up NT. And there are probably just as many who need to run DOS, Win3, and OS/2 apps on Windows through VPC as there are Mac users who need to use a Windows program on the Mac through VPC... Actually there are many, many more. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2003 5:40:25 PM |
|
Well, JWM don't worry--after the enema comment, everyone instantly reversed their views....
aaagh, who gives a sh!t, I prefer to make points based on logic and intelligence rather than @ss kissing. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2003 5:58:49 PM |
|
baarod, when did TL say it doesn't exist because of superiority?
He was refuting a statement because it was utterly baseless and nonsensical. It's not that people don't desire Mac on x86/Wintel (in fact, there is tons and tons of evidence that this is desired so the statement is even more baseless) but that it isn't going to happen so you don't see a product. Apple's a hardware company? No way! On the other hand, did soda make another nonsensical and spurious claim that was refuted yet again? Sure bet! |
| #15 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/21/2003 6:55:22 PM |
|
Jared - I want SQL Server, IIS, .NET Framework, VisualStudio, Office, and full support for COM.
On the high end you can offer me Oracle - no thanks. SQL Server provides far more for far less money. You can offer me Apache - no thanks. I want the flexibility of IIS and ASP.NET which runs under IIS. No I don't want JSP development either, as ASP.NET is far superior. You can offer me Java, but I'm not interested. You can offer me Mono, but it isn't finished yet. You can offer me Mono dev tools, but they are finished. Forte, but I'm not a Java dev. OpenOffice.org (stupid name!) or Microsoft Office v. X, but OO.o doesn't touch the feature set of Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Office v. X doensn't offer the programmatic interfaces or dev tools that Office for Windows does. COM - perhaps you can offer me WINE (as you could for the other as well), but first I want the real deal, not an emulator and second WINE isn't complete. Yes you can find apps that somewhat approximate the apps I have one Windows, but you can't provide them in a fashion that suits me. I don't fall head over heals for apps just because Microsoft makes them. I like apps if they do what I want and behave how I want them too. So far, I've not found such apps for any platform other than Windows. Nice crack about being an educated consumer. I have made very educated decisions since I was spending thousands of dollars on hardware and software. I stick by them. |
| #16 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/21/2003 8:08:17 PM |
|
No, I'm describing pandering to MS @ss kissing. I am calling what soda does @ss kissing. I am not setting up a binary opposition here.
That is: Do you object or agree to my saying that because an article mentions that some users are disgruntled about the purchase of VPC that it proves the Mac is useless to be spurious and nonsensical? So what is offensive? "Up the @ss!"? Why? I'm using slang to say "extremely;" I'm not saying soda takes it up the @ss. Would you be more likely to agree with me if I said "extremely"? That I find pathetic--that people are swayed more by style than substance. Why is it that soda doesn't get harangued for the enema jokes? After all, this was the initial reason I took on my current name. You guys act as if I have huge jumps in logic, but no one faults soda for saying the Mac must be useless because a PC emulator is available, or Open Source is proven to be a failure as a strategy because Apple decides to charge for iLife. Why not? Jump on his silly @ss for a change. By the way, as yet, no one has been willing to say they agree with soda because of the way I speak. Anyone? (after all, baarod, this was mooresa's assertion--you claim most start from soda's views by default, but I find that ridiculous--can you say that you agree with soda in this regard... That's my question. I could care less what you think of me.) This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, February 21, 2003 at 20:22. |
| #17 By 11888 (64.230.61.115) at 2/21/2003 9:39:11 PM |
| Idiots. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/21/2003 11:29:29 PM |
|
As I recall jerky boy took his name because he went off on a rant for some 3 posts about something meaningless, and I simply made the comment that maybe he was constipated.
Since then he's been stalking me. I think it's funny, so I throw out the ex-lax and enema jokes periodically to keep him riled up. I think it's awesome that it works so easily. :) JWM - Why should anybody reading a Windows info site be offended by a comment about the worthlessness of the Macintosh? |
| #19 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/22/2003 12:30:53 AM |
|
No offense taken, here's a classic benchmark off the top of my head :
http://www.middleware-company.com/j2eedotnetbench/ I'll admit straight up, that my comments were based on personal experience and observations. I considered it a forgone conclusion that Windows DNA was as feature rich as JSP. Since ASP.NET is arguably a superset of ASP, the natural conclusion is that it is also at least as feature rich as JSP. I'm interested to know what causes the "feeling" that ASP.NET is "no where near ready or as fully featured enough at this time". I'd like to see any data to support that idea. |
| #20 By 12071 (203.217.17.60) at 2/22/2003 3:08:19 AM |
|
#28 Whilst there hasve been probably literally hundreds of different responses to that study, it's probably worth reading the FAQ on their site as well as severl reposnes to that study from both sides. The FAQ can be found here: http://www.middleware-company.com/j2eedotnetbench/faq.shtml
Was Microsoft involved in this, did they fund this, where were the tests done? Yes, Microsoft was certainly involved, as the paper describes. The Middleware Company approached Microsoft regarding performing such an experiment. Microsoft provided the lab, which was located in Seattle, funded the setup costs, and reimbursed us for expenses, including travel expenses......(continued) Does the fact that Microsoft gave permission for this experiment and provided some support, invalidate the results? That is for you to decide......(continued) The report states that a Microsoft employee was allowed to tune the .NET app. Were vendors of appserver A or appserver B involved, to tune their own appservers? No they were not. We are currently working to conduct a different experiment where all the vendors do participate. If you were to run the app on appservers A and B without using EJBs as many TheServerSide.com members have suggested, would it not run as fast as or a little faster than the .NET app? It very well might have. We don?t know. Some of us think that without EJBs the J2EE app would have clearly beaten .NET, but others who feel that for this particular app, the .NET version would have beaten the J2EE version even without EJBs. We may conduct this experiment in the future. Are you guys saying that this was the best possible application architecture and code to perform such a test? No, as one would expect, it leaves a lot to be desired. It is an extremely challenging task to come up with such an application that everyone can agree on. That is why standard bodies exist, and there are some (e.g., the standards body that came up with ECperf, now called jAppServer ? see question below) that have done an amazing job with this process. Because it is so difficult, it takes years for these evolve, though. Why did you not use jAppServer benchmark (formerly ECperf)? That is absolutely what we would have preferred to do, and wanted to do in the first place. And we would really like to do this eventually. However, jAppServer is not available on .NET.......(continued) The conclusion to all of this is don't blindly believe any one or two results on a .NET vs J2EE comparison... work out what the better platform is based on your (company's) needs and existing systems. i.e. If all or most of your systems are Microsoft then .NET will most likely be the best option for you. If you have a mixture of systems like some companies I've seen that have a mixture of Solaris and Windows Servers as well as SQL Server, Sybase and Oracle Database Servers, then you may find that one is better than the other or most likely you will find that .NET is the better platform for certain functions whilst J2EE will be the better platform for other functions. |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/22/2003 11:41:19 AM |
|
The Middleware company is a respected J2EE consulting firm. They were intimately familiar with J2EE and knew how to tune things themselves.
The point being, don't believe all the anti-Microsoft propaganda that you read. |
| #22 By 442 (67.8.155.99) at 2/22/2003 5:57:19 PM |
|
"BobSmith: Jared - I want SQL Server, IIS, .NET Framework, VisualStudio, Office, and full support for COM."
That's great but those are Windows developing environments mostly. Can you give me Cocoa and Project Builder with Interface Builder on a PC? No because they are Macintosh developing environments. You came up with a pretty poor example and a rather foolish as well. That's like saying you want unleaded gas to power in your diesle (sp?) car. It doesn't work that way. In regards to IIS, no thanks man. I can do without the security hazards. I shouldn't have to spend DAYS making sure things aren't on by default that shouldn't have been in the first place. Like the rest of the world I'll stick with Apache. SQL Server? Try MySQL. That should do the trick. |
| #23 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/22/2003 10:02:12 PM |
|
jared, I'm trying not to be offensive here, so forgive me if I fail in my objective.
First, you didn't answer all of the technologies that I'm interested in, you only chose a few. Office is not a development environment. It has a developer environment and that extendability is one of the reasons why it sells so well, but that is by far not its only or even its primary use. SQL Server is a database server. If you want to construe it as a dev tool, I suppose you can, but I'd argue that is very inaccurrate. I'd like a quality db server, so the only real option you have to offer me for the Mac platform is Oracle. (Don't think DB2 has an OS X implimentation yet.) Still, I haven't seen TPC (or anyone else) showing that Oracle on X Server is comparable to SQL Server on Windows 2000 Server or WIndows Server 2003, so I wouldn't even consider that as a quality substitue anyway. IIS. I think the Fortune 1000 disagree with you (http://www.port80software.com/servermask/top1000webservers/). Aside from that, there is no data to suggest that Apache running on OS X Server is comparable to Apache running on Windows, UNIX, or Linux servers. Yes, OS X is based on a UNIX flavor, but what data suggests that Apple hasn't flubbed up the networking or other features that make Apache work well on other UNIX flavors? Besides, I wasn't trying to sell you on IIS. I was pointing out that you can't offer that to me on OS X. Whether you like it or not really has nothing to do with it. The real question is whether I like and whether there is an equivalent product for OS X that suits my needs. The answer to that is: there is no such product. VisualStudio - Again, I'm answering your argument. The burden of proof - providing equivalent apps on OS X for the apps I name on Windows - is yours. I want to write .NET applications. What app on OS X will help me with that? What app on OS X will help me develop Windows applications using the languages that VisualStudio supports with the quality that I expect? Answer - there is no such app. Support for COM or .NET (or a comparable technology) is not something that the Mac platform offers. Arguably this is a reason that the Mac platform has a pathetic market share. You said "There is a Mac only solution for everything.". You have yet to show that there is a Mac solution that meats my needs and wants as a user. You can make fun of my arguments and use foolish (and inacurrate) ad hominems against the products, but that doesn't aid your argument. I'll reiterate what I stated in my last post on this subject: Yes you can find apps that somewhat approximate the apps I have one Windows, but you can't provide them in a fashion that suits me. I don't fall head over heals for apps just because Microsoft makes them. I like apps if they do what I want and behave how I want them too. So far, I've not found such apps for any platform other than Windows. |
| #24 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/24/2003 12:24:20 AM |
|
I'll stay out of this ASP.NET vs J2EE argument because I've already made my opinions on the subject very clear in the past.
As far as the claim that it's not possible to have a MacOS emulator for Windows... that's funny, because I've run them before. One such emulator was called Fusion... it worked quite well. Here is a link to their newest version: http://www.emulators.com/softmac.htm The claim that MacOS looks for some kind of magical key in the eeprom is silly. MacOS relies on Apple's massive boot loader that lives in ROM, but ROM is just that... read only MEMORY. This means that I can either reverse engineer the ROM, or grab the ROM and stick it in a file somewhere on my PC. This is what SoftMac does. Anyway, I only ran the stuff to see if it would work... it did. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:46:25 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
