Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by WilHarris, 31 May 2006.
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).
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?
Interesting perspective, although I can't see it happening from my blinkered point of view.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
both OS's are pretty pants considering how few features you have in them that can't be replicated in linux.
I'm already using openSUSE on my secondary machine and as soon as comercial games run well on it i'll dump windows.
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.
Hell, if major software manufacturers would support Linux they would be on an even playing field if MS and Apple were to merge, not?
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.
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.
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 ****
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.
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.
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.