Nickname: AN

Review: "Apple Innovates - Microsoft Assimilates." What innovations? Apple has world-class industrial and interface design, but I don't know that I would call that innovation. They "innovated" the iPod after a whole series of competing MP3 players were already on the market. They "innovated" the Mac GUI by copying Xerox PARC. They "innovated" Dashboard Widgets by replicating Konfabulator. They "innovated" OS X by combining the NeXT framework with BSD Unix. Now they're "innovating" through the revolutionary idea of building computers with Intel processors. All they've really added to most of these things is some really nice industrial design and a lot of cachet. Nice work, but hardly my definition of innovation.

Date reviewed: Jan 27, 2006 11:11 PM

Nickname: Dahlen

Review: The author seems to think you need Windows to run Word and Excel. These "trusty office applications" are in fact available for Mac OS X and run very well indeed, without Windows.

Date reviewed: Jan 25, 2006 3:50 PM

Nickname: Dieter

Review: Rather than installing Windows on a Mac and diluting a Mac's identity, I'd rather see more Apple software migrated to the PC. The iPod was an attractive device nobody really used until Apple made a version of iTunes for Windows. How about a version of iLife for Windows? Microsoft makes more money on Office than anything else. I believe iLife on Windows would become the multi-media "killer app" for the PC. I think Final Cut Pro and Aperature would also do really well if they were coded for Windows. Apple is missing a huge opportunity in not bringing more of its software out for Windows.

Date reviewed: Jan 15, 2006 8:29 PM

Nickname: none

Review: Cloning, did someone say? Anyone talking about clones in this content doesn't get it. All desktops now have the same architecture. There is nothing to clone. Apple is making the same stuff, with the same components, as Dell. They may restrict their OS to their own brand stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that they have become Microsoft in terms of their business model. It is just Microsoft with restrictive licensing to selected original equipment manufacturers.

Date reviewed: Jan 14, 2006 11:51 AM

Nickname: jeffod

Review: Just a little history, some readers have been commenting on how Steve Jobs has been innovating the past 5 years and how Microsoft leveraged Word & Excel to build his empire. What few Wintel users realize is that it was Steve Jobs who asked Microsoft to write a spreadsheet program for the 512K Apple Macintosh in 1985. Windows didn't exist until 1987 so it was on the Mac for 2 years before it was on the PC. My point is that Jobs has been innovating for 30 years. Apple Innovates - Microsoft Assimilates.

Date reviewed: Jan 12, 2006 10:56 PM

Nickname: MacXBox

Review: The 2 platforms have very conflicting interests and priorities. Windows for the office bee and Mac for the well-heeled consumer. I believe in paying for what I get and I certainly don't like seeing any dilution of quality.

Date reviewed: Jan 12, 2006 11:09 AM

Nickname: jaded

Review: Long in the tooth iBooks? I'll admit I was a bit surprised by the iMac update, but the Powerbooks were seriously overdue. I have been waiting for a Powerbook G5 for over 2 years.

Date reviewed: Jan 12, 2006 5:20 AM

Nickname: the dude

Review: Mac OS X is using many open standards. Windows is very closed and mostly proprietary today. Just look at the Web browsers of each company. IE is closed. Safari is using open source. Darwin, the foundation of OS X, is even available as open source. And Apple supports AAC versus Windows Media Format - again a closed system. True, Apple's implementation of AAC employs a proprietary Digital Rights Management, but Apple was forced into that by the record industry.

Date reviewed: Jan 12, 2006 4:31 AM

Nickname: elkriver50

Review: Mac OS X already allows the user to run Mac versions of MS Word. Excel, etc. You do not need to have Windows to do that.

Date reviewed: Jan 12, 2006 2:56 AM

Nickname: Michael Fischer

Review: Apple shares with the companies that build their machines. Their competitors in hardware are hell-bound to maintain a commodity industry. R&D aims to match the competition at lower prices. Period. This has been a successful approach for a few big companies, but doesn't promise Apple any rewards for licensing in the long run. As long as Apple can keep building their distribution channels, why do they need to go further than outsourcing the hardware assembly to the same companies that other players use? If Windows is given free reign over the Macintosh hardware, viruses and worms can enter Microsoft's door easily, and hunt out the Mac OS X system files and modify them. One of Macintosh's selling points is a relatively trouble-free life. Virus troubles are limited to worrying about the first OS X virus. There have been none that can infect other systems. Vulnerabilities, yes, but no one has managed to exploit these to produce a viable virus or worm.

Date reviewed: Jan 12, 2006 2:07 AM