InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Google vs Apple? |
|
Answer» Personally I like google cuz they are innovativeEh, your question is rather absurd. You're comparing apples and oranges. Apple is a hardware and software maker and is especially famous for their computers, iPads, iPhones, etc. Google is a tremendously successful Internet search engine and offers many other online services. Surely, you know this, don't you? It's a ridiculous thread and poll, but if that's how glaba wants to spend his time that's fine.I voted..... If your talking about Google's: Android OS vs Apples: IOS, I think Google is better because there are a lot of customizations that you can do with Android and I so love my Android phone.Hmm.. Apple could possibly win because the iPhone is a 'trend' sort of thing, that and Apple fanboys are vicious. I'd like Google to win, but they've got quite a fight on their hands to do this.***sigh*** but they've got quite a fight on their hands to do this. To do what? Who's fighting? What's going on?I like Google better only because they got cool products (most of which the public are not yet aware of), from utterly useful to downright ridiculous (but still cool). Their innovative streak is refreshing.This thread is old, but anways. Well I find google to be better that Apple; Most of Google's products are entirely free, Google is more open-source firendly and everyone is free to use it's products. Apple on the other hand is less innovative, they manufacture awesome devices but they are really expensive too. Quote from: patio on September 20, 2011, 09:29:04 AM ***sigh***Where? I need to get in to that!Google vs. Apple? --- should it be Google vs Yahoo or Apple vs Linux or WINDOWS Why ? ? Neither MS or Linux produce hardware... Quote from: patio on October 28, 2011, 05:37:35 AM Why ? ? Not to mention it implies something of a false dilemma. The thing is, Operating systems are not mutually exclusive, so comparisons are sort of moot. It's like trying to compare the advantages of green and red bell peppers. Just get them both, you can cook them exactly the same, they have pretty much the same nutritional value- they just taste different. Some people don't like the taste. Some people do. No reason to get your hackles up. And with very few exceptions I've not found any everyday task that is better served with an alternate Operating System; aside from Windows (and presumably OSX) being far better for Graphics work in PHOTOSHOP and 3ds max. GIMP is a fine program, but throwing out the established UI of nearly 20 years in favour of some silly drag & drop approach seems- well, kind of silly. On the desktop, it seems that the main reason for most people to use Linux is for political reasons. For me, on the desktop, an Operating system being "Not Windows" isn't enough, and I honestly don't buy any of the psuedo-activist political nonsense and diatribes about freedom. Software should be judged on functional merit, not it's license or Initial cost. Server-side there isn't a whole lot of difference. With Linux and really most *nix systems, you basically set up Apache as the web server, mySQL (or maybe PostgreSQL) as the database, and PHP, Python, Perl, and even ASP.NET by way of mod_mono (using the mono implementation of the CLR, which is of course evil, or something, I've not bothered to ask why, I guess it's part of some evil plot by Mafiasoft). For windows you can either go the Apache/MySQL/PHP etc route, or depending on your needs use IIS, SQL Server, and so forth. There isn't a gigantic difference in functionality; the windows-based tools generally ALLOW more configuration via a GUI, whereas for the OSS tools you'll often need to either install some addon (such as phpmyadmin) or fiddle about with the configuration files yourself. Of course for IIS/SQL Server and so forth there is a price tag for the license, but this doesn't really impact the TCO if the server is going to run for any reasonable length of time. Open Source alternatives have no Initial price point monetarily but if somebody is used to working with IIS/SQL Server/ASP.NET/C# then the money spent on that stack could easily make itself back in terms of increased productivity; after all the company (assuming the person is an employee) that pays for the software also pays the employee, and it will take time for that person to learn how to work with a different stack. It all depends on what is needed. Functionally, there really isn't a huge difference and I truly do not understand the polarization and fanaticism that grows up around software. Software isn't going to reward loyalty. Instead of learning a single operating system and assuming every single idiom it represents is right and everything other Operating Systems do is immediately wrong, look at them objectively. The only way anybody is going to discover useful new ideas for widgets is through experimentation. To be fair I don't want to be the guinea pigs in those experiments and would rather wait until they pan out, but somebody needs to experiment. If it works, other Operating System developers may take note. Take, for example, drop-down menus. While I'm not 100% sure as to the implementation of the menu in the Xerox PARC GUI, I can tell you that the original Mac Implementation did not support heirarchal menus; that is, you only had the top level stuff (the Apple menu,File, Edit,View,Special, or the appropriate menu for the application) but there was no facility with which those menus could have more menus, as we take for granted now. Now, this had trade-offs; for one thing, menus were usually easier to navigate; instead of clustering otherwise complicated choices into submenus, applications would instead defer that functionality to a Dialog Box, which was typically easier to work with. Even the simplest things can be frustrating, and frustration often incites polarization and fanaticism for what a person was familiar with and is no longer exposed to. Macs, for example, seem to only allow you to pull down a menu by holding the button down, navigating through the menu, and releasing the button to select it. Windows (and, indeed, most Linux desktop environments) allow you to do it this way, but they also allow you to press and release the menu title. On a mac (at least as I've seen) this results in the drop-down menu being closed. Windows/Gnome/KDE etc will allow you to navigate the menu with the button up, and then click to select one. This has become the way I'm used to dealing with menus, and to be fair this makes more sense when dealing with the additional complications that a heirarchal menu brings to the table. That said, it's simply a different manner of doing things. I don't think the way Mac OSX does it is stupid- because, let's be fair, it is consistent, and if I had gone the other way (mac OS to Windows/Linux) I probably wouldn't have noticed any difference. And I mean, come on- ranting about how menus work is pretty vain- talk about a first-world problem. (actually, that's any Operating System or software debate in a nutshell). People like to talk about strengths and weaknesses of various operating systems, but that presents something of a false image; those strengths and weaknesses are entirely perceived and not at all objective. For each weakness in one system, there is usually a workaround; for example, the mediocre implementation of security in STANDARD *nix, which came about as a result of necessity for running on the hardware at the time ( basic read, write, and execute permissions for each user) can be amended with SELinux, which adds "proper" Access Control Lists; poor CLI support (relative to Bash)via CMD in Windows is amended by using PowerShell, or installing cygwin and using Bash. The fact that this takes more effort is a sticking point for many people, but it's pointless, because for every 'strength' in a systems implementation there is surely a weakness somewhere, and VICE versa.Another instant classic ! ! Kudos BC... |
|