Apple also announced that Snow Leopard will support 64-bit applications. All the apps built into the operating system are optimised for 64-bit chips and should run faster than previous versions on Leopard.
Once again, Apple hasn’t shocked the world with the 64-bit announcement. That’s been around for decades. Microsoft first started supporting it with Windows XP. And so far, few developers have created applications that capture the power of 64-bit architecture. The OS might be faster, but when it comes to performing daily duties, it probably won’t provide much value.
Price
Where Apple might hold a significant lead is on Snow Leopard’s price. When the operating system is made available in September, current Leopard users will be able to upgrade for $29 (£18). A family five-pack of licenses will be made available for $49 (£30).
Microsoft can’t match that pricing. The software giant is planning on releasing a variety of versions of Windows that will undoubtedly be priced higher than Snow Leopard. There’s even some speculation that a Windows 7 upgrade license will cost more than that five-pack of Snow Leopard licenses. For companies, that might be an issue. Paying less is always preferred and given Snow Leopard will be so much cheaper, it might be more attractive to the business world than ever before.
But isn’t it about the software?
But in the end, we can’t judge these two operating systems on a couple of features. Business cares most about software. Which operating system will provide the most support for mission-critical applications?
That answer is, unequivocally, Windows 7. Along with the fact that more software is developed to work with Windows, we can’t forget that XP Mode will come bundled in the professional editions of Windows 7. That means any app that works with Windows XP will work with Windows 7. It also means companies won’t have to worry about application compatibility as they will with Snow Leopard.
Apple might have done a good job updating its operating system, but it’s still a victim of snubbing business software developers. And even with Exchange support included, it seems Snow Leopard is still designed specifically for home users instead of companies.
Page: 1 2
Workers at unionised Apple store in Maryland vote to authorise first ever strike, after delays…
Elon Musk loses bid to avoid court order to force him to testify in SEC…
Explore how cutting-edge technologies are reshaping decision-making, driving innovation, and propelling businesses into the data-driven…
Anthem used by protesters in Hong Kong is blocked by YouTube, as critics lash out…
'Unexpected behaviour' of Waymo's self-driving vehicles triggers investigation by American safety regulators
Group of TikTok creators in the United States attempt to block recent law that will…
View Comments
I think this article has missed the point entirely. I'm not sure what Exchange support they think that Windows XP has. Webmail from the browser? You only get full Exchange support from Office - that's not a no-cost option.
As for 64bit - with Windows you have to choose 32bit or 64bit and buy the appropriate OS package. OS X has been seamless for a while with a single release for both and this version improves on that with even more of the code optimised for 64bit. Application writers have more incentive to write 64bit for OS X because more Macs are able to utilise the code.
The Windows XP mode in Windows 7 represents a major headache for corporate environments. They now have two Windows OSs to configure, patch, secure and protect from malware.
Having said all that, this isn't Apple's play for the corporate market and I don't expect that they will make much ground in that area. Many large IT firms are so locked into Microsoft, they will not consider anything else. My firm WILL move to Windows 7, but the Wintel guys are dreading the transition.
The only PC that will run OS X, XP and (I assume) W7 out of the box are the computers built by Apple.
Why have two when you can have three?
It's really amazing how clueless 'technical writers' can be. Just a few examples from your story:
1. You claim that Windows supports Exchange. That is incorrect. Windows does not, nor has it ever supported Exchange. It relies on applications to do that. So, by your own logic, OS X is far ahead of Windows since Snow Leopard WILL support Exchange in the OS.
2. You claim that Windows computers have better application support. That is backwards. A Mac can run Windows software and/or OS with a variety of virtual machine solutions. Windows computers can not (legally) run Mac OS X apps. So Macs run 100% of available software while Windows computers run something less than 100%.
3. You claim that Mac OS X is far behind Windows in the OS market. If your measurement is purely in terms of the number of licenses, no one would argue. But that wasn't Apple's point. It was that Windows has been playing catch-up to Mac OS for decades in features, performance, and usability. I've been hearing that the next Windows version would be 'just as good as a Mac' for over 2 decades. Clearly, Microsoft realizes they're playing catch-up.
4. Since your article is about business, there should have been some mention of issues that really concern business. Expose in the dock is not a serious issue. Security, reliability, and usability is. While both platforms can be affected by trojans and there may some day be a Mac OS X virus, as of today, there are no viruses affecting Mac OS X vs hundreds of thousands affecting Windows. Business loses tens of billions of dollars per year due to Windows security problems. Then there's the reliability and support problem. Endless surveys show over and over that Macs work more reliably right out of the box, achieve greater customer satisfaction, and lower support costs. Finally, there's productivity. While there are no recent studies, all the studies done over time show the Mac to have substantially higher productivity - and this is supported by anecdotal reports from switchers.
5. I love the "Microsoft has had 64 bit apps for years" line. The problem is that, even today, most consumers are still using 32 bit Windows - because of compatibility problems. Those problems don't exist with Macs. (Not to mention that the core of OS X has been 64 bit for years. Try installing 8 GB of RAM in a 2006 Mac or 2006 Windows XP machine and see which one recognizes it.
Maybe eWeek should find someone to write its technical articles who actually knows something about Macs and who is capable of rational argument - rather than simply repeating a Microsoft press release.
You may be right, altho' this isn't much analysis. You get paid for being a petunia, you know, simply blowing in the wind?
What's unmentioned at all is the shift to mobile platforms and the cloud platforms. It's NOT software and these two OSes anymore. It's about what Google is doing with online apps and what Apple is doing with mobile apps.
Get with it.
You may be right, altho' this isn't much analysis. You get paid for being a petunia, you know, simply blowing in the wind?
What's unmentioned at all is the shift to mobile platforms and the cloud platforms. It's NOT software and these two OSes anymore. It's about what Google is doing with online apps and what Apple is doing with mobile apps.
Get with it.
Your entire article is a plea for Windows from an obvious zealot. Windows 64 can't run 32 bit apps while Apple has been universally 64/32 compatible for a decade. It ONLY Windows that can't handle both seamlessly and why Microsoft had to mimic Apple as always and use an emulator to try and beg some business users to use Vista 7 update. The lies are repleat throughout this article like "It also means companies won't have to worry about application compatibility as they will with Snow Leopard." This of course is a lie designed to dupe the stupid.
Every comparison of an Apple feature is determined by whether Microsoft has been able to mimic an old Apple feature so it can "look" like it's in the game.
Fundamental structural improvements where Microsoft hasn't any prayer of ever competing are left out because Windows hasn't a prayer of even looking like it's in the game.
The more one ACTUALLY KNOWS the less likely you would tolerate Windows in any environment. This leave the brain dead Windows zealots nothing but delusional misrepresentations and outright lies to justify their ignorant support.
The problem is that the theory posited was already answered by the writer BEFORE any analysis was carried out. For example the 64 bitness was skimmed over without actually considering that Snow Leopard will run 32 bits as well. With Microsoft you have to have Windows XP running in emulation to reach the same effect.
Really, if you want to do an assassination attempt on Snow Leopard, especially in a technical magazine then you really aught to do your research. It is easy to skim the surface and come to the conclusion you had before going in. It is much harder to actually find out how things work and then report - sitting watching an online demo is not reporting.