Windows vs. Mac

Speaking of commercials, this is the guy Microsoft chose for their CEO

Microsoft has brilliant minds, no doubt but ever heard of the "Microsoft Model?" Through licensing and vendor history its primarily the only reason why they are still in business. As of late they haven't been innovating much, I'd like to see that change, because MS has lots of potential.

OpenGL is superior because of portability. Yeah DirectX is good for high-end gaming but in a world where technology is pacing so rapidly, we are beginning to shift gears. Notice the trend in mobility? There were more laptop sales in the past two years than desktop. Cell phones are becoming more and more ubiquitous worldwide and already surpass the PC market. One thing I'm looking forward to is the adoption of Google Android. It uses an OpenGL engine to render graphics and its pretty damn good, all on a cellphone that fits in your pocket. Direct X was not designed for this kind of portability.

I think its a sham to have to require 2GB of RAM, and hardware acceleration, whether it be through a videocard, or in the chipset just to run an operating system. DirectX is the only reason why these requirements are necessary. Again it was a business move. By getting users to run Vista you are forced to run Direct X 10. This forces developers to write DX10 games, and since writing a game is time consuming nobody is going to write a DX9 port. Once you've got your game in DX10 you have a pretty good chance of writing it for the XBOX. Its a very smart thing to do, but it short changes the common customer who is only in it to go online and chat.

Apple does charge a premium for their hardware, however they also extensively test their machines to perform optimally. I haven't had any trouble with my MacBook, but if we want to get into a debate over PC vs. MAC, the moment Apple switched to Intel architecture, Mac's became PC's dressed in a sexy skirt. I think the real debate here is Windows vs OS X. The power of the Mac relies heavily on the user experience of OS X. Every app works with each other, and all hardware I've used synced/connected on the first time around. The only place where OS X lacks is in the gaming arena, since MS pretty much set the graphics standard with Direct X.

Have you seen the difference in DX9 to DX10? It's extraordinary, I'll post some screens later and you'll see that DX10 is less a business tactic and more of a quality piece of technology that needs to be unleashed.

Yeah it annoys me that Microsoft has such a monopoly on the gaming market, that's one of the things holding me back from switching out my PC for only a MAC. I wish Apple would make it so OS X was sold as an open OS, rather than limiting it to just Macs, the only place I wish Apple would take a hint from Microsoft.

DX10 is quality technology, however you have to put everything into perspective. Microsoft is selling an ecosystem. Its not a bad thing to have an ecosystem of hardware/software/technologies, everyone does it, Intel, Google etc. Its a means of being profitable, and at the end of the day the only way to stay in business is to satisfy your stockholders. Capitalism at its finest.

DX10 is a step in the right direction when it comes to pushing graphics, but there is always a business value associated with any cost. I feel that you shouldn't be locked into a vendor's technology. An example is the ongoing battle with Office 2007's DOCX format trying to become an ISO standard. There is a reason why national governments are rejecting proprietary formats - you rely solely on the vendor.

Linux also has the same problem with gaming. Both Linux and OS X use OpenGL for graphics. Back in the day OpenGL was in the running with DX, but Microsoft made smart business moves and was able to get vendors to use their technology. Though OpenGL is superior as a graphic library, it doesn't win the hearts of game developers because its not a standard. Take Compiz for example, you can run insanely awesome graphics with minimal hardware, but to run Vista's Aero interface you need a graphics card and some hefty RAM.

Windows is a very mature platform yes, and has the largest user-base due to the Microsoft monopoly, however saying they have the richest set of development API's and tools is an over statement.

Visual Studio is one of the best IDE's I've ever used, I'll admit it, but it lacks extendability. This is where Eclipse, owned by IBM shines. You can develop for any platform, free. Visual Studio locks you solely into Microsoft technologies, can you execute Java in Visual Studio? Nope, it will only run under Microsofts Virtual Machine which is not even Java compliant. With Eclipse not only can you develop under ISO defined programming standards, you can even develop for Windows technologies such as .NET. There are no limits.

I see Windows as just a more mature platform. As a developer, I look for the platform with the richest set of development APIs and tools to work with (I think it's pretty much accepted Visual Studio takes the cake)

From a user perspective, Apple does a lot of things correctly. They ship an end-to-end out of the box experience that's unrivaled by todays OEMs who ship buggy, bloated crapware along side Windows installations.

I think, without going too in depth that both sides can learn from each other. They both have their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Nothing is perfect and therefore, Macs are imperfect as well are Windows. However, the entire world runs on programs created by Windows and not on Mac. All the businesses in the world use windows and if they use Macs then they specialize in media/art. The compatability between Macs and Windows is almost nonexistant.

In short, the world should buy Windows computers. Artists and music mixing people, can use macs. That's it, the end.