Apple won't be taking anything over, you won't get more than Nokia is getting in cell phones and as good as your OS is, wont be taking over PC's. The only thing it will, and pretty much already ahs, is the handheld music devices with the iPod.

Just my opinion.

Pete_Beast said: Apple won't be taking anything over, you won't get more than Nokia is getting in cell phones and as good as your OS is, wont be taking over PC's. The only thing it will, and pretty much already ahs, is the handheld music devices with the iPod. Just my opinion.

At one time, Apple wasn't even in the handheld music device business. Now they dominate it with authority. Shit, now they're even the fourth largest music retailer in the United States. That's impressive.

We have a similar (though slightly different) market emerging with video delivery. For those of you dismissing Apple, I have to ask:

Why?

There is no clear leader in this market right now and Apple has just a good a chance as any of breaking through first and setting the market alight with some dumb-as-a-brick-friendly product. If anything, they have a better chance than anyone else, though the entire system is so cloudy right now that it's hard to choose anyone as the "leader".

@rocketpig

I'm talking about presentation not integral functionality; I probably could of been more specific.

That's where I set my values, not in what I can do with it in the end but what I can do with it right now.

As I explained; in my case XMB was easier to pick up and go with over Mac OS, as far as accessing what I wanted to right then and there.

However I’ll use your analogy: you can’t compare the engine power of a scooter and a truck but both engines are probably combustion. In that analogies case, it’s about the function you intend to derive.

I’m certain some believe Mac OSX are much easier to pick up and use when compared to Windows or XMB. I just believe XMB is the most direct of the 3, I see your point, but what would happen if they tree branched XMB and gave it similar accessibilities comparable to any standard OS. With it’s simplistic design I don’t see that as being too far off.

My point was that you're not given a choice between OS X and XMB... They do entirely different things.

If you want to compare multimedia interfaces, you'll want to use Front Row for a bit and then compare that to the XMB. OS X is not a multimedia interface. It's an operating system made to be used in full-scale computing. It's not as if you can design a website, encode video, organize a spreadsheet, or use Photoshop from the XMB.

i dont understand why ipods sell so good theres way better products with alot more features for the same price i bought my zune and i have radio and wireless update. i think all the ipod has is and apple

@rocketpig

Cross Media Bar

verus

Macintosh Operating System.

Choice?

Last time I checked Mac OSX interface covered multimedia functions as well, unless suddenly one can only access xml or MYSQL type documentation on MOSX. In comparing tha... oh wait darn ok this debate is over I'm getting that feeling, if you want we can continue over the mailing system, I refuse to go any further on this note.

For your information I have nothing against Mac Os or Windows and I just personally in my opinion as a result of my experiences find XMB to be much friendlier to deal with as far as interfaces go and simple pick up and go functions.

Also I could compare my plastic calculator with a great oak tree and depending on the context it could help find the cure for cancer or waste our times, it depends on what were looking for.

In other words apples and oranges only applies when the context is a waste of time.

rocketpig said: selnor said: Apple. I forgot they existed. lol. If Apple had the majority of the OS market over Windows, then all the viruses would be written for macs. After all why write a virus that will only affect 3% of the internet users out there? Apple take over the living room. LOL They have as good a chance as any to impact the living room area. They already have the largest infrastructure set up to deliver content. As for viruses... LOL. There's more to it than 3% of the market. Being Unix-based has a HUGE impact on how virus-prone an operating system is. Combine that with the giant holes in XP, the registry, admin authentication, etc. and you have your reason why XP was so consistently attacked by viruses. MS originally put in no safeguards against them (a simple authentication screen, native to all *nix systems already, would have done wonders) to ease use of the system. Terrible idea. Simply put, MS really screwed up. That's why there are so many viruses, adware, spyware, etc. out in the wild. Good programmers can always find exploits in a system but with XP, they didn't even have to try. Microsoft left the door wide open for them.

Sorry. If Mac OS was market leader then there would be hundreds of thousands of viruses for it. It doesnt matter what is in place. The virus writers would do it easily. Be serious why write a virus that will affect maybe 6 million computers, when you can write one that will affect hundreds of millions. Seriously thats why they Mac systems are clean. Before XP came along Microsoft staff have had a far harder job knowing their systems are targeted by the virus writers. If Virus writers targeted Macs, you would see there faults to. In simple nothing can escape someone who wants to virus you.

 

 

dib8rman, you're still missing my point. Apple makes software that directly competes with the XMB... It's called Front Row. Not OS X. Front Row is used in a few of their product lines and handles music, movies, photos, etc. just like the XMB.

selnor said: rocketpig said: selnor said: Apple. I forgot they existed. lol. If Apple had the majority of the OS market over Windows, then all the viruses would be written for macs. After all why write a virus that will only affect 3% of the internet users out there? Apple take over the living room. LOL They have as good a chance as any to impact the living room area. They already have the largest infrastructure set up to deliver content. As for viruses... LOL. There's more to it than 3% of the market. Being Unix-based has a HUGE impact on how virus-prone an operating system is. Combine that with the giant holes in XP, the registry, admin authentication, etc. and you have your reason why XP was so consistently attacked by viruses. MS originally put in no safeguards against them (a simple authentication screen, native to all *nix systems already, would have done wonders) to ease use of the system. Terrible idea. Simply put, MS really screwed up. That's why there are so many viruses, adware, spyware, etc. out in the wild. Good programmers can always find exploits in a system but with XP, they didn't even have to try. Microsoft left the door wide open for them.   Sorry. If Mac OS was market leader then there would be hundreds of thousands of viruses for it. It doesnt matter what is in place. The virus writers would do it easily. Be serious why write a virus that will affect maybe 6 million computers, when you can write one that will affect hundreds of millions. Seriously thats why they Mac systems are clean. Before XP came along Microsoft staff have had a far harder job knowing their systems are targeted by the virus writers. If Virus writers targeted Macs, you would see there faults to. In simple nothing can escape someone who wants to virus you.

Like I said, all systems have exploits. The problem is that MS didn't even try to close any of them when they released XP. That was a mistake, which led to disastrous results from 2001-2005 or so. They also have several loopholes still open, their registry system being a main culprit, which is still a huge spyware/adware problem.

If you honestly believe that XP's early virus protection was on par with a *nix system, I don't know what to say other than you're living in denial.