Vista versus Leopard

They both stink in the sense that they are usable within limits but this
many years after the GUI revolution they both still have a cheese like reek
that disguises feature bloat as usability improvements, and a one way user
interface (my way or the highway).
Linux distros are even worse, unless you were born with a propeller
implanted in your skull.
The Apple OS basks in the myth of usability (it is no less arbitrary in its
design choices than Microsoft products), stability and security (count the
patches issued last year for Apple versus Microsoft).
Despite its mythci caches it is jaw dropping how Apple's marketing and
product design concentrates on just sweeping off the crumbs from Microsoft's
banquet table: individual users, maybe a teensy home network, people who
unitask with limited needs. Apple is selling record numbers of computers in
a teensy percentage niche that is not growing.
Apple does not compete, has no real product or presence, in the enterprise
sector where the real computer market is. There is not even an Office
product that comptes with Office, the Mac version being woefully second tier
(but a new version promised for the second half of some year to come).
A few small businesses may be able to run on Apple software but it is
difficult and much more costly than Wintel options. I am in a common
business and there is not a single viable Apple OS product available for
managing that business.
(My vendor explicity warns not to use Vista and has no stated plans to
upgrade to Vista).
I wonder what software really runs the networks inside Apple itself. I doubt
there own product is capable.
Apple does not market the OS to all comers although it now runs on x86
hardware. This is not rational. It may be the least rational business
decision in the history of capitalism
One has to wonder how much the cash infusion Microsoft made into Apple a few
years ago has to do with it . . . .

Apple sucks ass.

I switched from OS X to Vista in October and have never been happier. Apple
is very successful at brainwashing its customers with the "Windows is
inferior" mantra, but when you compare the two objectively, it just doesn't
hold water. Apple and Steve Jobs want to control how you use your computer.
They are anti-competitive, and what passes for innovation in Leopard is just
Tiger warmed over with some new eye candy. What is innovative about Spaces
or Time Machine? Windows and Linux have had both for ages, but when Apple
slaps a flashy UI on it, the fanboys come in their pants. I resent all the
money I wasted on Apple products over the years. They're never going to get
another dollar from me.

Still thinking along the lines of RISC based chipsets?
Apple sux.
The most proprietary, user unfriendly, over priced doorstops on the
planet.
Take the iPhone for example, every update ruins the possibility of actually
using it as a worthwhile gadget.
They went out of their way to make this device work with nothing but their
proprietary lame iTunes.
That interface looks like the same old tired Apple OS and is just about as
intuitive.
Says it should do something but unless you pay their toll trolls won't
really do
jack.
Another expensive doorstop.
One of these days I am going to duct tape it to a bat and go to a batting
cage with it.
Likely the one upgrade that finally fixes it.
And talk about a really lame text dictionary, my Razor was 10x better and
more
useful.
I got my iPhone as a gift and I use its features rarely simply because it is
blocked from being PC friendly.
Apple is the seriously dark side in electronic design.


"flambe" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsjdgj.86373$YL5.26179@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
> They both stink in the sense that they are usable within limits but this
> many years after the GUI revolution they both still have a cheese like
> reek that disguises feature bloat as usability improvements, and a one way
> user interface (my way or the highway).
> Linux distros are even worse, unless you were born with a propeller
> implanted in your skull.
> The Apple OS basks in the myth of usability (it is no less arbitrary in
> its design choices than Microsoft products), stability and security (count
> the patches issued last year for Apple versus Microsoft).
> Despite its mythci caches it is jaw dropping how Apple's marketing and
> product design concentrates on just sweeping off the crumbs from
> Microsoft's banquet table: individual users, maybe a teensy home network,
> people who unitask with limited needs. Apple is selling record numbers of
> computers in a teensy percentage niche that is not growing.
> Apple does not compete, has no real product or presence, in the enterprise
> sector where the real computer market is. There is not even an Office
> product that comptes with Office, the Mac version being woefully second
> tier (but a new version promised for the second half of some year to
> come).
> A few small businesses may be able to run on Apple software but it is
> difficult and much more costly than Wintel options. I am in a common
> business and there is not a single viable Apple OS product available for
> managing that business.
> (My vendor explicity warns not to use Vista and has no stated plans to
> upgrade to Vista).
> I wonder what software really runs the networks inside Apple itself. I
> doubt there own product is capable.
> Apple does not market the OS to all comers although it now runs on x86
> hardware. This is not rational. It may be the least rational business
> decision in the history of capitalism
> One has to wonder how much the cash infusion Microsoft made into Apple a
> few years ago has to do with it . . . .
>
>
>

[vmguru007]

Hi,

I have to disagree that Mac sux, as it has its own good and bad. Vista as well has its own good and bads. You can see a lot of this by looking at full details comparisons like the one found at Mac OSX Tiger/Leopard VS Microsoft Windows Vista

Enjoy,
VMguru007