When Titans Collide - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 31st May 2006, 14:53

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006...collide/1.html

Ramble · 31st May 2006, 14:58

Someone's been reading Dvorak...

Anyway, it's just not going to happen, and many of the features you mentioned in OS X are going to be in Vista anyway.

If OS X and WIndows merged, I'd move to Linux (again).

GauteHauk · 31st May 2006, 15:24

Personally, I believe that however smart such a decision would be, they won't do it. No, not because they're "enemies", but rather, if the companies did merge, it would create a lot of redundant workers. Or rather, make a lot of workers' jobs redundant and, therefore, unneccesary expenses.

I think a merger would probably put a lot of people out of jobs and create a more powerful mindset of, "OH NOES! MONOPOLY!! KILL IT BEFORE IT GETS TOO BIG!" But that has already come to pass with MS, I guess.

Who would be their major competitor, then?

DarkReaper · 31st May 2006, 15:34

Interesting perspective, although I can't see it happening from my blinkered point of view.

eddtox · 31st May 2006, 16:10

So much potential... I don't know about a merge, but perhaps a colaboration... I wouldn't mind a monopoly if the product was good. eg: I wouldn't mind if all the cars in the world were ferrari.

- ed out

jezmck · 31st May 2006, 16:44

It seems unlikely to me.
I think it would be interesting to hear both side's official arguments why they would and wouldn't do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by naughty naughty Brett Thomas

off of

eddtox · 31st May 2006, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzle

It seems unlikely to me.
I think it would be interesting to hear both side's official arguments why they would and wouldn't do it.

Don't know what the official arguments would be, but the reason is money: there's more money to be made from selling two OSs than from selling one. To make it worthwhile the WinOSX or whatever it will be called should cost as much as Vista+OSX and I'm not sure many people could afford that.

-ed out

Lovah · 31st May 2006, 18:09

I didn't even read the article. The intro spooked me enough!
I love being part of the apple-minority. I don't miss anything about Windows so I don't see how any part of Windows could improve anything about OS X.

But I guess I should just shut up and reat the article already.. maybe at work tomorrow.

L

Lynx · 31st May 2006, 19:02

I think there are two issues here. The first is the ethos which for apple is basically if you have to think about how to do something its not easy enough. The second is the UI and other gubbins. I agree the first should be common bettween the two OS's. However I do not belive the second should be there should be choice and at the moment I prefer the OSX way of doing things but if MS get windows working nicely thier way is just as valid.

On another point you seem to go on about how windows has to run drivers and processes to deal with USB devices. I belive OSX has to do exactly the same thing and handles things like devices being yanked out alot more gratiously than windows. Do not confuse bad programming with the necessity of backwards compatibiltiy.

Can I also say your comment about how cpu power is making code efficiency be "no longer required" is exactly how we get into messes where you need a massive GFX card 15GB and a 1.5Ghz CPU just to RUN THE OS! Let alone get anything done. Is this a situation we should be in?

DXR_13KE · 31st May 2006, 20:31

the article is good, but...... a merger between both would be a catastrophy, a huge f***ing monopoly, even linux would not stand a chance.

but this is a possibility, M$ is making keybords and mice for macs

Kipman725 · 31st May 2006, 23:03

both OS's are pretty pants considering how few features you have in them that can't be replicated in linux.

eddtox · 31st May 2006, 23:08

I'm already using openSUSE on my secondary machine and as soon as comercial games run well on it i'll dump windows.

-ed out

neocleous · 31st May 2006, 23:28

To me what’s more likely then a merger is MS buying Apple if they could sort the legalities of it out. Lets be honest the whole Macs are faster then PC's etc argument is pretty redundant now that there using Intel CPU's and you can easily compare the two.
I mean if you can get XP on a Mac i'm sure it won’t be long before MAC OS is on a PC assuming drivers for hard ware comes out and there is greater software support in general.
Personally I think Apple have made a mistake using Intel CPU’s because their machines look very underpowered compared to a PC of similar price Apples main attraction over a PC is design and to the hardcore fan software.

customh · 31st May 2006, 23:33

Hell, if major software manufacturers would support Linux they would be on an even playing field if MS and Apple were to merge, not?

radziecki · 1st Jun 2006, 00:47

Merging creates monopoly. Monopoly is no good at all. It slows down the evolution, allows the company to dictate higher prices, and so on.

Luckily, I don't think this will happen.

Firehed · 1st Jun 2006, 01:49

Interesting idea, but I think radziecki (welcome to Bit, btw) said everything that needs to be said. We only see change when there's competition, and in theory this applies to pricing too (of course, Microsoft is far too egotistical to see this). If ATI and nVidia merged, we'd either stay with the x17900GTXOCPro eternally or have each new generation that roughly doubles performance also roughly double in price.

Sure, I'd love the best of both worlds, but I don't want a merger either.

exavier412 · 1st Jun 2006, 02:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovah

I didn't even read the article. The intro spooked me enough!
I love being part of the apple-minority. I don't miss anything about Windows so I don't see how any part of Windows could improve anything about OS X.

L

i read the article, but i'm going to be honest. i was a PC user all my life until this past october, and in no way do i ever wish to go back/use a windows machine. no ****

Quote:

Originally Posted by neocleous

To me what’s more likely then a merger is MS buying Apple if they could sort the legalities of it out. Lets be honest the whole Macs are faster then PC's etc argument is pretty redundant now that there using Intel CPU's and you can easily compare the two.
I mean if you can get XP on a Mac i'm sure it won’t be long before MAC OS is on a PC assuming drivers for hard ware comes out and there is greater software support in general.
Personally I think Apple have made a mistake using Intel CPU’s because their machines look very underpowered compared to a PC of similar price Apples main attraction over a PC is design and to the hardcore fan software.

i'm pretty sure we've came to the conclusion that an equally spec'd computer with the same components as a macbook pro (for example) will be quite comparable in price.

oh, and about the article, i dont see a merging coming, but i think the next gen equipment/os (probably after vista) will defiinitely change some things.

Nezuji · 1st Jun 2006, 02:26

If you're happy to throw processor cycles and memory away in the name of compatability, then we really ought to be talking about 100% virtualised operating systems; In theory, completely stable, and almost attack-proof. The thing is, that in theory, they also lead to a destabilisation of existing software monopolies...

On the idea of a merger: That's nonsense, frankly. Monopoly concerns aside, Apple and Microsoft make two different products for two different markets. It's like the difference between a Dremel and a table saw: Although they're both cutting tools, you're not going to cut cleanly through a 3-inch-thick plank with a Dremel, nor are you going to do a good job of engraving with a table saw.

Nezuji

speedfreek · 1st Jun 2006, 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firehed

x17900GTXOCPro

I want one of those.

You have a point but I wouldnt want to see the merger ever happen. It would be an easy excuse to raise prices and eventualy stiffle inovation.

Tulatin · 1st Jun 2006, 03:38

Quote:

While these two companies are fumbling around in the dark to try and imitate what the other side perfected long ago, technology continues to increase at a rapid rate. CPU speed is increasing tremendously, and HDDs are now capable of perpendicular storage (increasing both size and speed). We are moving towards an era where two gigabytes of RAM will be mainstream. That's plenty of RAM for multiple, more specific drivers, and plenty of speed to support a database file structure. Code efficiency is no longer such a requirement due to sheer horsepower, and can finally take a back seat to user efficiency.

While i'm all for more resources in the mainstream too, i'm still a firm believer that bloated code has no place in the computing landscape. When i make the step to add more to my system - more memory, more storage, more speed - i don't want it to be with more overhead. Hell, just keep adding that overhead and what happens? That shiny new video card, or extra gig of ram just slowed your system down... Things need to be more efficient, not just more powerful.

31st May 2006, 14:53	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	When Titans Collide http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006...collide/1.html

31st May 2006, 14:58	#2
Ramble Ginger Nut Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Exeter, Devon/Wantage, Oxfordshire Posts: 5,235	Someone's been reading Dvorak... Anyway, it's just not going to happen, and many of the features you mentioned in OS X are going to be in Vista anyway. If OS X and WIndows merged, I'd move to Linux (again). __________________ Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.

31st May 2006, 15:24	#3
GauteHauk Minimodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Mind yer business. >:\| Posts: 28	Yes, but no!? (OH NOES) Personally, I believe that however smart such a decision would be, they won't do it. No, not because they're "enemies", but rather, if the companies did merge, it would create a lot of redundant workers. Or rather, make a lot of workers' jobs redundant and, therefore, unneccesary expenses. I think a merger would probably put a lot of people out of jobs and create a more powerful mindset of, "OH NOES! MONOPOLY!! KILL IT BEFORE IT GETS TOO BIG!" But that has already come to pass with MS, I guess. Who would be their major competitor, then? __________________ "Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable. If it does not work, you could always hit him with it." - Boris the Blade

31st May 2006, 18:09	#8
Lovah Apple and Canon fanboy Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 3,433	I didn't even read the article. The intro spooked me enough! I love being part of the apple-minority. I don't miss anything about Windows so I don't see how any part of Windows could improve anything about OS X. But I guess I should just shut up and reat the article already.. maybe at work tomorrow. L __________________ MacBook Pro 15" \| 20" Dell 2005FPW \| iPod Touch 16GB Canon 400D + BG-E3 \| RS-60E3 EF-s 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 \| EF 17-40mm F4 L \| EF 50mm F1.4 \| EF 70-200mm F4 L Manfrotto 190ProB + 486RC2 \| LumoPro LP604 \| Canon 430EX + OC-E2 \| Nikon SB-262 \| PocketWizard Plus II3

31st May 2006, 19:02	#9
Lynx Hypermodder Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Cambridge Posts: 858	I think there are two issues here. The first is the ethos which for apple is basically if you have to think about how to do something its not easy enough. The second is the UI and other gubbins. I agree the first should be common bettween the two OS's. However I do not belive the second should be there should be choice and at the moment I prefer the OSX way of doing things but if MS get windows working nicely thier way is just as valid. On another point you seem to go on about how windows has to run drivers and processes to deal with USB devices. I belive OSX has to do exactly the same thing and handles things like devices being yanked out alot more gratiously than windows. Do not confuse bad programming with the necessity of backwards compatibiltiy. Can I also say your comment about how cpu power is making code efficiency be "no longer required" is exactly how we get into messes where you need a massive GFX card 15GB and a 1.5Ghz CPU just to RUN THE OS! Let alone get anything done. Is this a situation we should be in? Last edited by Lynx; 31st May 2006 at 19:08.

31st May 2006, 15:34	#4
DarkReaper Alignment: Sarcastic Good Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Belfast, NI Posts: 1,750	Interesting perspective, although I can't see it happening from my blinkered point of view.

31st May 2006, 16:10	#5
eddtox Supermodder Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Medway Posts: 345	So much potential... I don't know about a merge, but perhaps a colaboration... I wouldn't mind a monopoly if the product was good. eg: I wouldn't mind if all the cars in the world were ferrari. - ed out

31st May 2006, 20:31	#10
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,476	the article is good, but...... a merger between both would be a catastrophy, a huge f*ing monopoly, even linux would not stand a chance. but this is a possibility, M$ is making keybords and mice for macs __________________ Renegade X - 0.40 Release!** <---- CLICK!

31st May 2006, 23:03	#11
Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?! Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,753	both OS's are pretty pants considering how few features you have in them that can't be replicated in linux. __________________ Sn45g game server mod My Electronics Site Hardware: 3400+ Sempr0n, 1GB RAM, 1.28TB local storage, x1950pro,Razer Viper,M$ comfort curve 2000,L70S + 17", Fujitsu 17" CRT Audio: HD-650's, PE congress amp, Sound Blaster AWE64, Soundblaster 24bit

31st May 2006, 23:08	#12
eddtox Supermodder Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Medway Posts: 345	I'm already using openSUSE on my secondary machine and as soon as comercial games run well on it i'll dump windows. -ed out

31st May 2006, 23:28	#13
neocleous Supermodder Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 261	To me what’s more likely then a merger is MS buying Apple if they could sort the legalities of it out. Lets be honest the whole Macs are faster then PC's etc argument is pretty redundant now that there using Intel CPU's and you can easily compare the two. I mean if you can get XP on a Mac i'm sure it won’t be long before MAC OS is on a PC assuming drivers for hard ware comes out and there is greater software support in general. Personally I think Apple have made a mistake using Intel CPU’s because their machines look very underpowered compared to a PC of similar price Apples main attraction over a PC is design and to the hardcore fan software. __________________ Don Dan

31st May 2006, 23:33	#14
customh conflagration. Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 2,590	Hell, if major software manufacturers would support Linux they would be on an even playing field if MS and Apple were to merge, not?

1st Jun 2006, 00:47	#15
radziecki What's a Dremel? Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Warsaw, Poland Posts: 8	Merging creates monopoly. Monopoly is no good at all. It slows down the evolution, allows the company to dictate higher prices, and so on. Luckily, I don't think this will happen.

1st Jun 2006, 01:49	#16
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Interesting idea, but I think radziecki (welcome to Bit, btw) said everything that needs to be said. We only see change when there's competition, and in theory this applies to pricing too (of course, Microsoft is far too egotistical to see this). If ATI and nVidia merged, we'd either stay with the x17900GTXOCPro eternally or have each new generation that roughly doubles performance also roughly double in price. Sure, I'd love the best of both worlds, but I don't want a merger either. __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

1st Jun 2006, 02:26	#18
Nezuji Multimodder Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 247	If you're happy to throw processor cycles and memory away in the name of compatability, then we really ought to be talking about 100% virtualised operating systems; In theory, completely stable, and almost attack-proof. The thing is, that in theory, they also lead to a destabilisation of existing software monopolies... On the idea of a merger: That's nonsense, frankly. Monopoly concerns aside, Apple and Microsoft make two different products for two different markets. It's like the difference between a Dremel and a table saw: Although they're both cutting tools, you're not going to cut cleanly through a 3-inch-thick plank with a Dremel, nor are you going to do a good job of engraving with a table saw. Nezuji Last edited by Nezuji; 1st Jun 2006 at 02:32.