AT&T Tech Support 360
Mac apps on Windows suck. Here's why.
Yet another browser.
(Credit: CNET Networks)iTunes is a bad Windows app. It's slow and it's a horrible resource hog. On the Mac, though, it's another story. The app taunts Windows users.
And now, Apple is going to bundle a redundant Windows browser, Safari, with iTunes. Who cares? Users won't--or shouldn't. Safari may be faster than IE, but it has no plug-in support, as Firefox (and even IE) does. It does have tabs. Big deal.
Safari is a runtime for iPhone developers, as other writers have covered here and here. If you develop a site for the Safari browser, it will also work on the iPhone, according to Steve Jobs. It's an iPhone app validator. It's not a browser that people need to use.
Yet they will, and some will be smitten by Safari's unobtrusive design, fancy roll-up interface features, and possibly its speed. They'll wonder why their Windows PC doesn't have the same (non-Windows) look and feel. And they'll think, If only I had a Mac, then all my apps would be this nice.
But if Apple was really serious about bringing good apps to the PC, it'd release good PC versions of iLife and Final Cut for Windows. Those are what Windows users need. The current apps do not make Apple a friend of the PC, the recent Jobs/Gates lovefest notwithstanding. iTunes is a store and a (bad) control panel for iPods. And Safari is a platform for developers. Neither are good Windows apps. Both are, though, good marketing platforms for selling more Macs.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe.
- Topics:
-
Browsers and extensions
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Look, it's not that they're crappy apps, Windows is a crappy O/S. The only reason
anyone runs it is mainly for gaming purposes. Most of all commercial apps have
Mac ports (Adobe products for example). Windows is a resource hog, and with
OS X being based upon a UNIX shell it's virtually 'bullet-proof' and resource
efficient.
God, I hate Apple. Well, at least they still have Blizzard games.
with some exceptions like the ipod, the PC requires itunes since its the only efficient way to sync the ipod with the computer. If ever windows gets to produce a similar windows based software, then I bet everyone who owns an ipod and a pc will use that instead of itunes.
talking about browsers now, some browsers are really made for some platforms. we cannot say that safari is better because it looks great. other people base their expections not through looks, but feature or plugins or for other personal reasons.
the mac will always remain a mac and the pc will always be a pc. either one of them creating softwares for the other is caused by the sole reason that they can't do what the other one can and they try to emulate as not to lose their customers. a pure business move in my opinion.
let us just thank those people who make good softwares for both platforms like firefox and the likes.
i am a pc user myself and i will give credit to mac for its looks and functions, while i give credit to pc for its wide selection of program and being up to date.
for those mac users, don't hate the pc, since you use some windows applications yourself.
for the pc users, don't hate mac, you're probably using an ipod yourself.
let's be glad there is a variety when we buy our computers.
As for your gripes about iTunes, give me a frickin' break. Name another program that does that much with music files that is actually worth the bandwidth on Windows. Windows Media Player? No. Winamp? Nice try. Musicmatch Jukebox? See you later. iTunes may be somewhat sluggish at times when you have a large library, but all of it's Windows counterparts are as well. Winamp is arguably the best software mp3 player on the planet (well, until they decided to CHARGE to rip mp3 files) but in terms of library management, it's garbage. WMP is bloated and buggy as hell, and Musicmatch costs money.
Maybe one day fanboys will learn to be able to coexist. I use a Mac at work and own a Windows computer that I built at home. I love both. I'd love to have a Mac at home again but considering that I could build a Mac Pro computer for half the price - I think I'll trudge through Windows a bit longer and enjoy that extra $1500 in the bank. Needless to say, both platforms have something to offer for everyone, and both platforms work well enough for most people at common tasks. Get over all the fanboy BS.