Why does Apple, a hardware company, have a more well liked OS than microsoft (a software company?)

[corrado33]

MacOS, in my opinion (and many others) is a really good OS. It's fast, secure, has good features, etc etc. Where as windows 10 is... Ok I guess. The whole "spying" thing wasn't cool, but I understand why they did it. And the possibility of ads in their stock programs in the future is terrifying. 

 

So how on earth does apple, a company that makes money selling hardware, have a nicer (or at least equally nice) OS to microsoft, which makes money selling software? 

[bleedblue]

Well, that's entirely subjective.

 

Do you intend to start a flame war?

[TheSLSAMG]

Just now, corrado33 said:

MacOS, in my opinion (and many others) is a really good OS. It's fast, secure, has good features, etc etc. Where as windows 10 is... Ok I guess. The whole "spying" thing wasn't cool, but I understand why they did it. And the possibility of ads in their stock programs in the future is terrifying. 

 

So how on earth does apple, a company that makes money selling hardware, have a nicer (or at least equally nice) OS to microsoft, which makes money selling software? 

I mean that classification of Apple is only semi-accurate. They're just as much a software company as Microsoft is. I guess the contention is that Apple doesn't charge for their operating system in the traditional sense whereas Microsoft does, but Apple is still a large software developer.

 

As for the question, I don't know. I think Apple ultimately does a good job at creating a cohesive ecosystem, though I could never replace Windows with it since I'm a xXxG4M3R4LYF3xXx

[corrado33]

3 minutes ago, bleedblue said:

Well, that's entirely subjective.

 

Do you intend to start a flame war?

No, not at all. I think the question is relevant. By all means microsoft SHOULD have the superior OS, but I don't think many people would classify it as such. (If you exclude software compatibility/gaming of course.) And MacOS is known for it's usability. That's pretty much it's calling card. 

 

Not to mention microsoft has been in the news a lot lately for possibly shitty things they'll be doing to their OS soon...

[Arika]

because creating an OS for so many different vendors and effectively limitless hardware options is much harder than making an OS for specific sets of hardware options that Apple can chose themselves

[corrado33]

 

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

because creating an OS for so many different vendors and effectively limitless hardware options is much harder than making an OS for specific sets of hardware options that Apple can chose themselves

I mean... is it? The processors are the same, it's only drivers that differ, and those are written by the vendors/companies themselves....Right? Hell, even the motherboards windows is usually installed only have so many different chipsets. 

[Arika]

Just now, corrado33 said:

I mean... is it?

Yes.

 

given a list of 100,000 hardware configurations and another list of 10 hardware configurations and you're told to make an OS for one of these, it would be much easier to make it for the 10 configurations than the 100,000 configurations, much less variables that you have to worry about. And then each update to the OS, you need to ensure will still run on all configurations.

[Grizzley2112]

In my opinion, Apple does a very good job of making user friendly software as they always have, but Windows is very different as an operating system than MacOS. As being a Windows user for the majority of my time with computers, I have found it in tune with being more widely accepted and supported without having to run anything in a shell or emulator as MacOS. Although things are changing, it has been the only option for me for support.

[corrado33]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Yes.

 

given a list of 100,000 hardware configurations and another list of 10 hardware configurations and you're told to make an OS for one of these, it would be much easier to make it for the 10 configurations than the 100,000 configurations, much less variables that you have to worry about. And then each update to the OS, you need to ensure will still run on all configurations.

But, I mean... microsoft could easily make it easier on themselves. Tell vendors (Dell, HP, etc) to all install 1 type of NIC. Then they only have to write for that one NIC. All other NICS will require their own drivers written by the manufacturer. 

 

Right? Microsoft definitely has the clout to do something like this, why don't they? 

 

I mean hell, when I install windows 10 I have to download gigabytes of drivers just to get everything working on my computer, so what exactly did they write? 

[Arika]

Just now, corrado33 said:

But, I mean... microsoft could easily make it easier on themselves. Tell vendors (Dell, HP, etc) to all install 1 type of NIC. Then they only have to write for that one NIC. All other NICS will require their own drivers written by the manufacturer. 

 

Right? Microsoft definitely has the clout to do something like this, why don't they? 

Because Microsoft doesn't have that kind of stranglehold on vendors, they don't get to dictate how they do business. and even if they did, what about for people that want to build their own PCs and chose their own hardware? they would still have to accommodate for all those variables. Apple makes their own devices so they know what to take into account, this is why Hackintoshes are a crapshoot as to whether or not it will work correctly if at all. 

[corrado33]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Because Microsoft doesn't have that kind of stranglehold on vendors, they don't get to dictate how they do business. and even if they did, what about for people that want to build their own PCs and chose their own hardware? they would still have to accommodate for all those variables. Apple makes their own devices so they know what to take into account, this is why Hackintoshes are a crapshoot as to whether or not it will work correctly if at all. 

Really? They don't? Why not? They're the freaking 30th largest company in the world. 

 

As for custom PCs, again, not a big deal. The drivers would just be written by the MOBO vendor (like they are anyway.) 

 

I guess the question is this.

 

Why does microsoft spend so much time writing drivers for all different types of systems when you have to install a shit ton of drivers (from the vendor itself, not microsoft) after you install windows anyway? Surely microsoft could make it more simple and depend on vendor drivers more often? 

 

Windows is often useless before the motherboard drivers are installed, so what exactly is microsoft writing for? 

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

But, I mean... microsoft could easily make it easier on themselves. Tell vendors (Dell, HP, etc) to all install 1 type of NIC. Then they only have to write for that one NIC. All other NICS will require their own drivers written by the manufacturer. 

 

Right? Microsoft definitely has the clout to do something like this, why don't they? 

 

I mean hell, when I install windows 10 I have to download gigabytes of drivers just to get everything working on my computer, so what exactly did they write? 

I doubt Microsoft could control what vendors use with NICs or chipsets, OEMs are going to choose the cheapest thing they can get a certain quantity of. But having to grab drivers from the manufacturers site for everything would be kind of backwards if you build your own. I guess it really depends if you have some OEM hardware that needs certain drivers, but Windows 10 installs most of the drivers on my PC's, except for the GPU and audio.

[corrado33]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

I doubt Microsoft could control what vendors use with NICs or chipsets, OEMs are going to choose the cheapest thing they can get a certain quantity of. But having to grab drivers from the manufacturers site for everything would be kind of backwards if you build your own. I guess it really depends if you have some OEM hardware that needs certain drivers, but Windows 10 installs most of the drivers on my PC's, except for the GPU and audio.

But WHY? Why does microsoft think it needs to provide drivers for everything? For a dell PC you already have to go to dell's site and install everything from chipset to NIC to GPU to freaking everything driver. With a custom built PC you get the drivers on a DVD in the box. So why does microsoft think it needs to have drivers for these things when they can so easily be found elsewhere? 

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Really? They don't? Why not? They're the freaking 30th largest company in the world. 

No, because microsoft doesn't tell a company like Asus

"Hey make a laptop for us"

 

Asus make the laptop,use one of the thousands of licenses they bought from MS and then install windows on it. Asus make Asus devices, not Microsoft devices. they use Windows because it's the largest OS that most people are familiar with. if they made a Linux device, they are narrowing the amount of people that would buy it because they dont know what Linux is.

 

Quote

As for custom PCs, again, not a big deal. The drivers would just be written by the MOBO vendor (like they are anyway.) 

Microsoft still needs to have provisions in their OS to be able to read the drivers the vendors write

 

6 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Why does microsoft spend so much time writing drivers for all different types of systems when you have to install a shit ton of drivers (from the vendor itself, not microsoft) after you install windows anyway? Surely microsoft could make it more simple and depend on vendor drivers more often? 

???

 

the only driver's you're required to download is generally just the GPU driver. W10 installs generic drivers to get you going then gets the best, up-to-date drivers for your hardware during windows update but again, they still need to have the protocols in place to read all the drivers that third parties create.

[Cereal5]

30 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

in my opinion

The entire premise of this post is flawed, because you can't put an objective statement like "more liked", which implies that you have evidence supporting that claim, and then base it off a subjective point. You liking Apple products, or your idea that more people like MacOS, has nothing to do with which is objectively better, because both are inherently different. Even if you did take a worldwide poll on which is "more liked", it doesn't mean one it better, it just means people like it more.

[corrado33]

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

No, because microsoft doesn't tell a company like Asus

"Hey make a laptop for us"

 

Asus make the laptop,use one of the thousands of licenses they bought from MS and then install windows on it. Asus make Asus devices, not Microsoft devices.

 

Microsoft still needs to have provisions in their OS to be able to read the drivers the vendors write

 

???

 

the only driver's you're required to download is generally just the GPU driver. W10 installs generic drivers to get you going then gets the best, up-to-date drivers for your hardware during windows update but again, they still need to have the protocols in place to read all the drivers that third parties create.

Again, I'm confused. Why are all the drivers from different third parties not using the same set of protocols? I'm assuming apple ALSO has these protocols. 

 

As for not making an ASUS laptop, that's not what I was saying. If Microsoft drops support for certain NICs, manufacturers would stop using them. They would HAVE to. Microsoft could FORCE standardization to make their life easier.

[Arika]

11 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

As for not making an ASUS laptop, that's not what I was saying. If Microsoft drops support for certain NICs, manufacturers would stop using them. They would HAVE to. Microsoft could FORCE standardization to make their life easier.

which would in turn make a whole bunch of devices (except for the new ones and old ones using that specific NIC) lose the ability to connect to a network. that's a lot of angry customers and vendors who you've just pissed off for trying to force something you have no right in forcing and basically putting a lot of companies out of business, thousands of people lose their jobs, since their hardware can no longer be used on the most widely used OS.

 

Quote

Again, I'm confused. Why are all the drivers from different third parties not using the same set of protocols? I'm assuming apple ALSO has these protocols. 

because it's not standardized. they are not making something specific to windows, they are making hardware that needs to work on what ever OS the user wants to use it with, the way they build the hardware changes how they need to make the driver talk to each OS. Since Apple chose what hardware goes in their devices, they are able to manage it much easier.

 

hell, there was a story not too long ago about how the october update of windows 10 was bricking computers with certain intel drivers. they changed something that made that driver fail, it was working before the update, but they needed to change the OS to respond correctly to that driver again so it's not just up to the vendor to provide drivers, it's also up to MS to make sure that the driver's work correctly within their OS

[corrado33]

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

because it's not standardized. they are not making something specific to windows, they are making hardware that needs to work on what ever OS the user wants to use it with, the way they build the hardware changes how they need to make the driver talk to each OS. Since Apple chose what hardware goes in their devices, they are able to manage it much easier.

 

hell, there was a story not too long ago about how the october update of windows 10 was bricking computers with certain intel drivers. they changed something that made that driver fail, it was working before the update, but they needed to change the OS to respond correctly to that driver again so it's not just up to the vendor to provide drivers, it's also up to MS to make sure that the driver's work correctly within their OS

Ok then why are internal components NOT standardized when external components ARE standardized? Every single flash drive works with macos. External GPUs work on mac and PC. 

[corrado33]

It just seems so back-ass-wards to me.

 

If I'm developing a piece of hardware that's destined to run on windows, I'm going to make damn sure that it runs on windows well. I'm not just going to assume that microsoft will make it run well. 

[Arika]

Just now, corrado33 said:

Ok then why are internal components NOT standardized when external components ARE standardized? Every single flash drive works with macos. External GPUs work on mac and PC. 

because they are designed that way? that was the whole point of USB (universal serial bus) it would be nice if everything was standardized and ran perfectly on everything, but that's just not reality

 

to put it in the simplest way i can before i bow out.

 

you need to learn to fly a plane, you're given two options

 

the skyhawk (taking the place of Apple) has a specific purpose and designed for ease of use

 

or a Boeing 777 (taking the place of Windows) Designed for multiple purposes and to be able to go anywhere

 

which one is going to be the easiest to learn?

 

 

[corrado33]

8 minutes ago, Arika S said:

because they are designed that way? that was the whole point of USB (universal serial bus) it would be nice if everything was standardized and ran perfectly on everything, but that's just not reality

 

to put it in the simplest way i can before i bow out.

 

you need to learn to fly a plane, you're given two options

 

the skyhawk (taking the place of Apple) has a specific purpose and designed for ease of use

 

 

or a Boeing 777 (taking the place of Windows) Designed for multiple purposes and to be able to go anywhere

 

 

which one is going to be the easiest to learn?

 

 

Ok but that example makes the assumption that macos is less sophisticated or advanced than windows, which it really isn't. Other than supporting more hardware, the features between the two are comparable. 

 

I'd argue that the internal connections are also standardized. IDE, SATA, PCIe, PCI. I mean... even chipsets are standardized right? Every board with a certain chipset will be using the same commands right? 

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm really just curious. 

[MandoPanda]

'nicer' is subjective. According to market share, Windows is the more liked system. But that is partly due to the fact that Apple does not license out its OS to other vendors like Microsoft does. Calling one of them a 'software company' and the other a 'hardware company' doesn't really make sense. They both make software and they both make hardware. If you want to compare something between the two, you would have to stick to Microsoft's Surface lineup because that is the hardware that is directly controlled by Microsoft. This gives the two device UX's the best one to one comparison because it removes third party vendors and OEMs that like to add their own stuff that has separate drivers that may not have been verified by Microsoft to be the most optimal experience.

 

Mac OS sure is simple to use, but there is not much that it can do that Windows cannot. In fact, both of them do virtually the same stuff, just a little differently. I use both of them every day, and the one thing that I don't like about Mac is the lack of control over individual and specific drivers. Instead, Apple simplifies the process by dealing with that through the app store (not a great experience for power users, but a hassle free time for grandma).

 

54 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Why not?

They aren't looking to tell people how to do business, they just want money.

 

46 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Why are all the drivers from different third parties not using the same set of protocols?

Variety of different hardware requires different drivers. Not a 'one size fits all' case when there are that many different SKUs of PCs that run the same OS.

 

33 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

internal components NOT standardized when external components ARE standardized?

Not sure what you mean by this one. Internal components use drivers, external components use drivers. Drivers need to be built to allow anything to work on anything. For that USB drive to work, a driver must be made for both Windows and OSX.

 

33 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

I'm going to make damn sure that it runs on windows well.

Companies do this. That's why they publish updated drivers. I don't think any OEM relies on Microsoft entierly. If that were the case, then there would be no driver developed by Nvidia to run a 1080. You would be stuck with the shitty built in display drivers that would not take full advantage of the card. Requiring one company to make sure every piece of hardware under the sun runs perfectly on Windows is impossible to ask. Not to mention it would require companies like Nvidia to give up important, possibly secret, information about their hardware so that Microsoft could make a driver for it. It just makes more sense for the company to come up with their own driver. In this way, Nvidia make damn sure that their card runs on Windows well.

18 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

I'd argue that the internal connections are also standardized. IDE, SATA, PCIe, PCI. I mean... even chipsets are standardized right? Every board with a certain chipset will be using the same commands right? 

Not sure what you mean here. Keep in mind that Windows and OSX are build on different kernels. They can't share drivers.

[Guest]

1) Apple isn't a hardware company

2) Microsoft isn't a software company

 

They are both information technology companies, and are pretty diverse. 

 

32 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Ok but that example makes the assumption that macos is less sophisticated or advanced than windows, which it really isn't. Other than supporting more hardware, the features between the two are comparable. 

MacOS is more advanced in several ways, and Windows is advanced in others. Both have their benefits. 

32 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

I'd argue that the internal connections are also standardized. IDE, SATA, PCIe, PCI. I mean... even chipsets are standardized right? Every board with a certain chipset will be using the same commands right? 

It might, but not in the sense you are thinking. 

32 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Sorry, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm really just curious. 

WIndows and MacOS are built on differnet kernels, a driver is installing a patch in the kernel to allow the operating system to control the devices. 

 

[corrado33]

26 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

WIndows and MacOS are built on differnet kernels, a driver is installing a patch in the kernel to allow the operating system to control the devices. 

 

Exactly. This is the point I'm trying to get at. If the driver allows the hardware to communicate with windows, then why does windows need to be so much more complicated than mac? The drivers are provided by the hardware manufacturer. Even chipset drivers are provided by the motherboard manufacturer. 

 

I guess the absolute best way I can phrase the question is this:

 

If drivers modify the kernel to work with certain hardware, then why does the windows kernel need to be more complicated than mac when the drivers are made by the component manufacturer? Why is windows not just super stripped down to provide the absolute BASE system, waiting for you to install drivers for your hardware (like you usually have to do anyway.) 

 

I can understand how a windows INSTALLATION ISO would have to be bigger than a macOS iso, but once installed, I have no idea why windows and mac would be any different on the "supporting hardware" front when in reality it's the hardware manufacturer's drivers that allow the hardware to work. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Exactly. This is the point I'm trying to get at. If the driver allows the hardware to communicate with windows, then why does windows need to be so much more complicated than mac? The drivers are provided by the hardware manufacturer. Even chipset drivers are provided by the motherboard manufacturer. 

 

I guess the absolute best way I can phrase the question is this:

 

If drivers modify the kernel to work with certain hardware, then why does the windows kernel need to be more complicated than mac when the drivers are made by the component manufacturer? Why is windows not just super stripped down to provide the absolute BASE system, waiting for you to install drivers for your hardware (like you usually have to do anyway.) 

 

I can understand how a windows INSTALLATION ISO would have to be bigger than a macOS iso, but once installed, I have no idea why windows and mac would be any different on the "supporting hardware" front when in reality it's the hardware manufacturer's drivers that allow the hardware to work. 

They way the Macs are supported, either someone makes a kext (kernel extension) or it is included in MacOS. You hardly go and install drivers. MacOS supports a certain number of models to ensure this works. Windows on the other hand relies on companies to create the drivers to work with windows, and as it supports a large range of computers essentially with 1GB RAM and a 1GHz processor with a WDDM graphics card, it would have to include so many drivers to achieve the same result as MacOS. It is a stripped down version essentially, however people still want that plug and play experience, and so they include the basic drivers, such as for an intel NICs, they usually work oob etc, this takes up more than you'd think.