With Microsoft all about curbing pirating their software by only allowing it to be installed in a certain way, a certain amount of times, on certain computers etc. What are the possibilities of MS doing this so Windows can't be installed on Macs? Just a curious thought. It seem to me that this would seriously cripple Apple as I'm sure many people going over to Mac from Windows are doing so because they have the safety blanket of being able to also boot windows on their Mac as well.

Thoughts?

The threat of anti-trust litigation should give Microsoft pause...

Why would MS want to not sell licenses to folks with macs? That's just silly.

Microsoft is in the OS business, not the computer hardware business. If folks want to dual boot Leopard and Vista, MS should be more than happy to provide those customers with a copy of the later.

Microsoft's high handed tactics have already cost it big in the internet browser business. Firefox has made some serious inroads and continues to do so.

Microsoft has recently been losing big in the MS Office category as well. OpenOffice has put forth a viable FREE product and IBM has made Lotus free as well. Many users are finding that they can do the same things (and more) on free programs that can be done on $500 programs. Given the price differential, the choice is pretty easy.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Sorry for being silly. Thought it was a curious idea. Just wanted some discussion on it. Sorry, thought this was a message board. Will go elsewhere to discuss ideas in the future.

No picking on Microsoft! They (indirectly) pay my salary!

You got what you wanted... some discussion on it... so why the panty-wad?

I suppose he should have prefaced his request with a demand that any expressed opinions comport with certain guidelines???

I think he thinks I think he's silly. I think he's silly for thinking that. I think it would be silly for Microsoft (for the above mentioned reasons) to pull out of the Mac market. Instead of saying I'm being silly for certain reasons he'd like do discuss, he says that essentially I'm being silly for saying he's silly.

-- and that's silly.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Silly, indeed.

I would personally like to see Apple cross over and use the PC formats. I would love to be able to install OSX on my PC and use some other Apple software. People would probably still buy iMacs because they are user friendly and cool looking! I wouldn't mind having an Apple laptop if it was PC based.

That would be like running a BlueRay disc on a standard DVD player... what's the point?

Intel Macs are as close to PC based as it'll ever get.

I like to build my computers. You can't build a mac.

That's true, but why would I want to when they do an excellent job building them?

I don't complain about not being able to build a Mercedes.

I just got my Mercedes kit. Of course, I'm building it my way. I'm using a bucket seat from a classic '75 Gremlin up-front and putting a Northstar V-8 under the hood for maximum power. In the end, I'll still put my Mercedes hood ornament on the front, fill it up with regular gasoline and drive it on the highway next to all of the other gas fueled cars. Who can say it isn't a Mercedes?

I can...I know what a Northstar sounds like

And the whole Mac/PC debate is a bit silly to me. Most computer people don't really use Macs as a general rule. They just don't. People that play with computers like them. People that work with computers don't. They're perfect for multimedia use, internet, and work wonderfully for most consumer applications. But you can't work on them for sh*t, and can't buy parts for them at any corner store and they're not compatible with most kinds of commercial software. Apple has Microsoft beat hands down in the anti-trust area...But most people don't raise a stink about it because they don't have crap for market share and it's never popular to pick on the underdog.

They do look neat though.

That will come as news to a lot of people, including myself. I've worked primarily with Macs for more than 15 years now. We use both Macs and PCs in the two companies I own. The Macs are hands-down less troublesome, more stable and more productive than any of the PCs. Period.

It's true that the software options are more limited on the Mac than on the PC, which is the only reason we tolerate the PCs we do have. But the benefits far outweigh the few challenges we've faced using and working with Macs. And PC users that I personally know are quite impressed with the ease of use and the reliability of the Mac when they have the opportunity to sit down and use one.

So, the computer that "you can't work on... for sh*t" has been very good for my bottom line for as long as I've been using them.

i've gotta agree that ms only stands to gain by allowing their products to be installed on macs. if it wasn't interested in tapping into the mac market, then why port office over to mac in the first place? products like bootcamp and parallels allow ms to sell more licenses of it's os software and there's no reason that it wouldn't want to do that.

as for the never-ending mac/pc debate... i don't think that either one is necessarily 'better.' it all boils down to what the user is accustomed to and what task the user is trying to accomplish. the only place i've found mac to be more stable on a routine basis is in video editing. other than that, my experience has been that the two platforms are equally stable.

as for the economics of the two, i think that pc is the better alternative for most business sectors. the cost to own, operate and maintain the average pc is less than that of the average mac. i see little benefit in an $1100 imac to accomplish mundane day-to-day business tasks; tasks which comprise the bulk of computer use across many sectors. until apple offers cheaper, less integrated options it'll never break into business use... and that's not to say that is their goal or should be their goal. they do pretty well in the creative business/home user niche market they've created for themselves.

-M

as for installing osx (leopard) on pc's, this link might be of interest...

-M

No, I wasn't saying you were silly in a backhanded way, I was just in a silly mood at that moment.

As for the panty wad comment, I'm not the one with with a picture from the puppies and rainbows calendar as my avatar. What next, hello kitty?

I just thought that since it had always been Bill Gates Vs. Steve Jobs, that Bill could really give to it Steve by doing that.

As for Macs not being work machines, it depends on what kind of work you do. I use a mac for Final Cut Pro and it's a pretty powerful program to get done what I need to for work. The rest of the time I use a PC. PCs are better suited (I think) for spread sheet work, and database work like Access (which is also pretty powerful for the price) and just day to day grind. Macs are more suited to electronic media type work. Otherwise you're right, macs are pretty much just pretty toys. And expensive ones at that.

I think now the only ones talking about MS's high handed ways are mostly mac addicts. MS doesn't seem to be the big bad wolf anymore, they're just pretty much happy with their world wide 95% market share and big corporate dollars from their network and server applications. Not to mention that even with all the free and open office stuff there's still plenty of people using MS office.

Apple seems to be the one with the high handed ways now what with bricking peoples iphones and saying that they won't take cash for iphones only credit cards. They're starting to tick all but the most ardent mac addicts off.

I'm not sure what a picture that I took of my pug and used as an avatar has to do with why you seem to have your panties in an ever-growing wad.

You seem to be awfully interested in my underwear. You've made multiple post refering to them. I'll give ya couple of bucks and you can go buy your own and stay out of mine. They're on sale at wal mart.

BTW, I guess you think I'm a chick, but I'm a man and happily married to a beautiful lady. So stop looking at my underwear.

I meant that they're not so hot in an enterprise computing environment with thousands of workstations that need to access centralized applications/updates/databases. When you're talking tens of thousands of computers and even more end users that need to be managed and controlled centrally, the word "Mac" isn't even on the table.

I'm not saying they're bad by any means. They're great machines and make great workstations for a lot of people. Stable, reliable, easy to learn and use...All of what you said. But they simply aren't out there in the BIG computing world.

I made no such assumption.

That's nice to know, but that doesn't necessarily preclude anything.

It's certainly not by choice. You keep putting that wad out there.

I have no argument with that.

However, they do play nicely with both microsoft and Novell networks. As such, when they are needed in an enterprise, they fit in nicely. You can even run a MS or Novell server and all Mac workstations, if you choose.
Their only hangup appears to be a lack of a decent server and Directory/Tree structure.

Exactly...Ever try pushing 3rd party software updates out from a central location to about 1,000 computers? Not so bad if they're all set up the same. Not so much if say...5% of them are Macs. It's more cost effective (from a hardware, a software, AND a labor standpoint) to have them all be PCs.

I'm not attacking Macs...I like them. I'm just speaking from my experience in the field.

However, don't get me started on how far back the iPod has set audio fidelity in the world.

*cries*