4 ms·

Two totally separate arguments that have no reason to be used for comparison in this context at all. The OS has nothing to do with applications you run on it. S

Two totally separate arguments that have no reason to be used for comparison in this context at all. The OS has nothing to do with applications you run on it. Saying Apple isn't trying hard on their OS and then stating that the applications you use on your Macbook aren't even from Apple is like saying I drive a Prius but my music CD isn't from Toyota. As if any of that matters or even correlates (it makes no sense whatsoever). I'm really scratching my head on this one... The OS is separate from the applications in which it runs. Who cares if Apple makes any of the software you choose to install on OS X or not (as a measure of evaluating the OS itself). It doesn't change the fact that you're able to install those applications and they run fine on OS X nor does it in any way actually measure how good or bad OS X is. Arguably Ubuntu probably doesn't make any of the software you choose to install on it either by that very same argument. I use both Ubuntu and OS X and I'm all for fair evaluation of good and bad of anything (not just OS or software), but when you make a statement like Apple isn't trying very hard and your best argument is completely irrelevant to the argument itself, I can't see the merit.

mhd 15y ago
"The OS has nothing to do with applications you run on it." That's a rather technical view of the situation. The fact is that a lot of applications are only available on one platform, and basically none is available on all. So quite often your choice of OS is determined by the applications you want to run, whether they're games, a certain office suite or nifty productivity apps. This in turn then ties you to hardware, from a very restricted set (Apple) to a little more relaxed one (Windows) to almost anything with transistors (NetBSD). In addition almost every platform creates its own culture and environment. Linux and the BSDs embody open source software. Microsoft basically is synonymous with office and enterprise. Apple caters to designers and has a pretty thriving shareware culture, with a lot of small utilities due to its history and the fact that it somewhat dominates the laptop space. So yes, I'd argue that OS, hardware and third-party software are very hard to separate and you have to consider the whole situation when you think about switching. (In my opinion this got quite a bit better within the last decade, though) In my specific case, while I feel that Apple is neglecting both its OS and its desktop offers, and I think that its competitors are catching up a bit in the OS space, the whole culture/3rd party thing still would play a major role and could prevent me from switching altogether. Just like someone would like to switch to Linux, but if you're working with high-end CAD software all day, that's a bit hard to do. That's probably the far end of the "switching" spectrum, basically prohibiting it, while reliance on neat productivity tools like Alfred, TextExpander and OmniFocus just makes it harder. (And for a lot of people it's not even just the specific apps, but common general qualities, whether that's clean, simple, good looking apps on Macs or being able to configure everything in text on Unices) I might have stated it a bit awkwardly, and I hope this clears things up.
- steventruong 15y ago
  I think the issue I took with your original statement wasn't the fact that applications are tied to the OS (that certainly wasn't how it came off). In that regard, I do and certainly agree. It was the fact that you claimed most of your applications on OS X were not developed by Apple (which clearly indicates they do run on OS X contrary to any arguments you listed above) and using that as an argument to measure the value of the OS itself (and by association, Apple's work on it). If you re-read what you wrote, you'll clearly see how I came to that conclusion. By that measure, Ubuntu, which you used as an argument for a hopeful OS suffers more than OS X regarding availability of software altogether or the simple fact that they too, like Apple, are not the developers of the software you use outside of the OS (another argument you presented). I certainly can agree that the OS dictates what is available but certainly there are many ways around this albeit to an extent (virtualization comes to mind) and up until recently with Lion, you couldn't argue it was legal to install OS X on any other OS/VM or even bootcamp-like solutions, but arguably you could with any other OS out there. In this context, OS X actually is more appealing if you weigh the options of availability. Sure, its not perfect that you still have to run multiple OSes but certainly its an option nonetheless, one that weren't genuinely available in any other environment as far as I am aware of even if you could hack your way to make it work illegally. That said, Apple and OS X are far from perfect and certainly there are a lot more improvements that can be made but I'm not quite sure I agree with you that they're "neglecting" their desktop OS. A lot of changes that came with Lion left people with mix feelings but I find it difficult to believe that that, or any other argument (perhaps I'm missing some) indicates that OS X is being neglected. On the contrary, I think they're striving to continue to innovate on this part. Again, far from perfect but I also personally believe far from being neglected as well.

mhd 15y ago

"The OS has nothing to do with applications you run on it." That's a rather technical view of the situation. The fact is that a lot of applications are only available on one platform, and basically none is available on all. So quite often your choice of OS is determined by the applications you want to run, whether they're games, a certain office suite or nifty productivity apps. This in turn then ties you to hardware, from a very restricted set (Apple) to a little more relaxed one (Windows) to almost anything with transistors (NetBSD). In addition almost every platform creates its own culture and environment. Linux and the BSDs embody open source software. Microsoft basically is synonymous with office and enterprise. Apple caters to designers and has a pretty thriving shareware culture, with a lot of small utilities due to its history and the fact that it somewhat dominates the laptop space. So yes, I'd argue that OS, hardware and third-party software are very hard to separate and you have to consider the whole situation when you think about switching. (In my opinion this got quite a bit better within the last decade, though) In my specific case, while I feel that Apple is neglecting both its OS and its desktop offers, and I think that its competitors are catching up a bit in the OS space, the whole culture/3rd party thing still would play a major role and could prevent me from switching altogether. Just like someone would like to switch to Linux, but if you're working with high-end CAD software all day, that's a bit hard to do. That's probably the far end of the "switching" spectrum, basically prohibiting it, while reliance on neat productivity tools like Alfred, TextExpander and OmniFocus just makes it harder. (And for a lot of people it's not even just the specific apps, but common general qualities, whether that's clean, simple, good looking apps on Macs or being able to configure everything in text on Unices) I might have stated it a bit awkwardly, and I hope this clears things up.

steventruong 15y ago
I think the issue I took with your original statement wasn't the fact that applications are tied to the OS (that certainly wasn't how it came off). In that regard, I do and certainly agree. It was the fact that you claimed most of your applications on OS X were not developed by Apple (which clearly indicates they do run on OS X contrary to any arguments you listed above) and using that as an argument to measure the value of the OS itself (and by association, Apple's work on it). If you re-read what you wrote, you'll clearly see how I came to that conclusion. By that measure, Ubuntu, which you used as an argument for a hopeful OS suffers more than OS X regarding availability of software altogether or the simple fact that they too, like Apple, are not the developers of the software you use outside of the OS (another argument you presented). I certainly can agree that the OS dictates what is available but certainly there are many ways around this albeit to an extent (virtualization comes to mind) and up until recently with Lion, you couldn't argue it was legal to install OS X on any other OS/VM or even bootcamp-like solutions, but arguably you could with any other OS out there. In this context, OS X actually is more appealing if you weigh the options of availability. Sure, its not perfect that you still have to run multiple OSes but certainly its an option nonetheless, one that weren't genuinely available in any other environment as far as I am aware of even if you could hack your way to make it work illegally. That said, Apple and OS X are far from perfect and certainly there are a lot more improvements that can be made but I'm not quite sure I agree with you that they're "neglecting" their desktop OS. A lot of changes that came with Lion left people with mix feelings but I find it difficult to believe that that, or any other argument (perhaps I'm missing some) indicates that OS X is being neglected. On the contrary, I think they're striving to continue to innovate on this part. Again, far from perfect but I also personally believe far from being neglected as well.