if computers were a new thing?

[crunchiespg]

deleted becuase people here obviously are so used to arguing with each other they cant have a decent discussion.

 

[nukemm]

I do agree, things should just work. And to add to your point, when compared to Vista - even in PC magazines - OS X wins.

 

[B&O]

Yeah I agree, I have had few big problems with windows, but even less with OSX.

 

[nukemm]

I personally haven't had many problems with Windows since SP2 for WinXP, in fact quite the opposite. Last night, for instance, my wife's laptop wouldn't resume from sleep and was by all accounts dead, but 10 minutes later I was able to recover it without anything, just by going and restoring to the last known good configuration. It only took that long because I had her iPod plugged in and it kept trying to boot from that, lol.

 

[MikeYMS]

I do agree, things should just work. And to add to your point, when compared to Vista - even in PC magazines - OS X wins.

When compared to Vista, my Commodore 64 wins.

 

[fleurya]

I think Apple would definitely have a bigger share of the PC market if they both started fresh, but Microsoft would still have a few major advantages.

1. They license their software, so it would spread faster, just like the first time around. One company making software and hardware can't keep up in terms of production with one company making software and 20 companies making hardware.

2. Computer makers that use Windows can make more affordable computers/laptops than Apple, so people who are very price-sensitive would still go with Windows.

3. Since this seems to be assuming both would have the same products, Microsoft would still dominate the business would because they have the business solutions software that Apple hasn't tried to produce.

I also agree that Windows' System Restore is a great feature concept that Apple is just attempting with Time Machine.

 

[Village Idiot]

If computers were a "new thing" no home user would be using them. They'd be in labs and specialized places that had some obscure need for them. There would be no interfaces, just punch cards based of the language of ones and zeros, ons and offs.

I think the OP's post is a thinly veiled attempt of "which OS is better?"

And if you say you want to start fresh as in "new thing" being computers first developed as a home machine, why only include OS X and Windows? There's a million different versions of linux out there and probably even some other obscure operating systems.

I think if you're going to just try and compare OS X and Windows, fleurya has the right answer. Until Apple makes their OS legally available to run on any machine, besides the ones that they put together, then they'll be behind in the market as far as installed user base.

 

[crunchiespg]

If computers were a "new thing" no home user would be using them. They'd be in labs and specialized places that had some obscure need for them. There would be no interfaces, just punch cards based of the language of ones and zeros, ons and offs.

I think the OP's post is a thinly veiled attempt of "which OS is better?"

And if you say you want to start fresh as in "new thing" being computers first developed as a home machine, why only include OS X and Windows? There's a million different versions of linux out there and probably even some other obscure operating systems.

I think if you're going to just try and compare OS X and Windows, fleurya has the right answer. Until Apple makes their OS legally available to run on any machine, besides the ones that they put together, then they'll be behind in the market as far as installed user base.

no it isnt an attempt to say which is better. and i mean if we had all of todays technology, but for some reason no one had ever thought of computers. but suddeny they did, and had the same specs as today.
it was just a threory to see if people agreed, like i said if you bought a phone and it had a file system like windows you wouldnt accept it.

and the reason why i just said those 2 OS' is cos i know nothing about the others.
yes i agree apple would need to open the market, but are we only saying that becuase thats as things are. if they werent then perhaps we wouldnt say that. like we dont expect playstation games to work on other consoles. so if the whole market was like that maybe we wouldnt mind. i think its only cos we can that we think thats what would hold apple back.

 

[Miffle]

Yeah, i'm not really a fan of the question

Its vey hard to say because if they started up now who knows what would happen? We wouldn't launch in with Vista/XP or OS X

The companies could go a different way, diffeent people working for them and so on

Just a thread trying to push an opinon of which OS is best

 

[crunchiespg]

Yeah, i'm not really a fan of the question

Its vey hard to say because if they started up now who knows what would happen? We wouldn't launch in with Vista/XP or OS X

The companies could go a different way, diffeent people working for them and so on

Just a thread trying to push an opinon of which OS is best

NO IM NOT trying to say which os is best. i know we wouldnt start as we are. but im jsut saying "what if" i dont care what OS is best. i have my own opinion on that, and i couldnt care if the rest of the world disagreed. the one i use does what i want.

i was just trying to say if computers were new would we accept the hassle they cause us? other electronic systems dont have problems like computers. like a playstation just works, with no user interface in the system of it. you dont have a problem of things not working. it either works perfectly, or its broken. computers can be messed up just cos of silly systems inside the software.

and modernt phones etc are the same, they jsut work. and yes OS X has a lot of these problems, just not as many as windows.

it was meant to be a interesting topic of discussion. but dont bother then.

 

[Village Idiot]

NO IM NOT trying to say which os is best. i know we wouldnt start as we are. but im jsut saying "what if" i dont care what OS is best. i have my own opinion on that, and i couldnt care if the rest of the world disagreed. the one i use does what i want.

i was just trying to say if computers were new would we accept the hassle they cause us? other electronic systems dont have problems like computers. like a playstation just works, with no user interface in the system of it. you dont have a problem of things not working. it either works perfectly, or its broken. computers can be messed up just cos of silly systems inside the software.

and modernt phones etc are the same, they jsut work. and yes OS X has a lot of these problems, just not as many as windows.

it was meant to be a interesting topic of discussion. but dont bother then.

Playstations and cell phones don't allow you to set which users can access them and what hardware that they have installed or let you make programs for them to do anything you wanted.

You can't honestly try and compare a device that made to do one thing, be it play a game or accept a phone call, to a device that has limitless possibilities and hardware choices.

If I could decided which diodes and recievers and transmitters were in my phone and how it routed the calls and whether it not it it's ringer's attitude adjusted to mine based on who was calling, or what printers it could print to or what video card was installed, then it would be a fair comparison.

I wouldn't want a cell phone if it had OS X installed on it either. I have a cell phone that makes and receives phone calls. I could care less about trying to organize files on a phone with a screen that's less than 2"x2".

 

[crunchiespg]

im gona close this thread.
obviously people here are incapable of a bit of light hearted discussion without it turning to "i dont like what your saying"

and my phone can do most of what you said.

 

[baggss]

I
I also agree that Windows' System Restore is a great feature concept that Apple is just attempting with Time Machine.

What I can't figure is why they are bothering. The nature of software on the MacOS is so radically different that you really have to try to mess your system up. Windows had this first, but it needed it. After 12 years of using a Mac I can think of maybe once where this would have come in handy.

 

[D3v1L80Y]

but for some reason no one had ever thought of computers. but suddeny they did, and had the same specs as today.

So its the "Intelligent Design" theory... only for computers.

 

[D3v1L80Y]

After 12 years of using a Mac I can think of maybe once where this would have come in handy.

It is only "needed" because of the high influx of ex-Windows users now using Macs.
They haven't been able to shut down the Windows side of their brains, and Apple is simply caving in to those users and their inablilty to shake off Windows when coming to Mac. By including these "security blankets", Apple is trying to make the transition easier for them to cope with.
I can say from experience that it only makes things more convoluted and difficult in the end.

 

[Brown Study]

What I can't figure is why they are bothering.

Probably because of switchers who don't or won't believe that it's superfluous.

Tons of money are being made off switchers who think running Norton is a requirement, and that doing so is as normal as the sun rising in the east. Many won't be swayed — they'd rather throw their money away on the peace of mind, ironic as it is, that they get by running Norton's junk.

Spring Cleaning (everything it sells is available free) also comes to mind, as do other apps that remove apps. (Didn't Spring Cleaning once bill itself as an anti-spyware killer?) They all sell to the Windows state of mind.

Maybe Apple discovered that without something like Time Machine, some potential switchers would stay away. So, like Norton and Spring Cleaning, give 'em what they want. If all it takes to keep them happy is to accept their money, why not?

Edit: Shouldda checked the thread before posting. D3v1L80Y beat me to it.

 

[eric]

deleted becuase people here obviously are so used to arguing with each other they cant have a decent discussion.

that may be the funniest edit i've ever read on this forum.

us, argue? not that we would really, and we're barely even allowed to.

i read the whole thing... just because people disagree with you doesn't mean a discussion is now an arguement. grow a set and move on, don't take your ball and go home.

 

[MacHeadCase]

I kinda liked his auto-shutdown thread move. Maybe he wants to be named as mod.

 

[fleurya]

It is only "needed" because of the high influx of ex-Windows users now using Macs.
They haven't been able to shut down the Windows side of their brains, and Apple is simply caving in to those users and their inablilty to shake off Windows when coming to Mac. By including these "security blankets", Apple is trying to make the transition easier for them to cope with.
I can say from experience that it only makes things more convoluted and difficult in the end.

So what you're saying is that it's a function only to attract Windows users, but will never actually be used? I think I'll have to disagree here, if Time Machine does what I think it does.

Have you ever accidentally deleted something you wish you hadn't, or made a change to a file you didn't mean? I'll admit I've done this more than a few times. From my understanding, Time Machine will allow you to bring files, programs, etc. back to the way they were at a certain point. I think you're supposed to be able to make changes to individual files and not the entire system. I could see myself benefiting from this.

I also think as Macs become more popular and attract more people, it will soon attract the wrong kind of people and security software can be beneficial. No system made is completely safe from malicious software and viruses. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Personally, after several years of Windows use, I only had to use System Restore a couple times when I was doing some very funky stuff with my system I shouldn't have been or desperately needed something back I had deleted.