If I were established in both camps I'd stay there. MS is ever so slightly more developer friendly, MS depends on third party developers, so they have to play nice, or at least a little bit nicer than Apple. I have no clue why these decisions were made (they did not consult me) but I can see strengths and weaknesses in both.Īs a developer, if I were starting out today I would probably focus on Windows. The second part is a little trickier, but it would be difficult to suggest that one is better.
It was a business decision made eons ago, for reasons that probably no longer hold, but it is what it is, and we can only vote with our wallets, and neither company is going to lose any sleep if all the musicians in the world switch to Linux tomorrow.
Neither approach is inherently wrong - or right. If something breaks in Windows it could be anything, if something breaks in Mac OS it probably happened at Apple. That first part means that Apple has a good shot at "it just works" and MS doesn't have a prayer. Apple, on the other hand, prefers newer/faster/better, and will sacrifice old sacred cows in an instant. They even built a "middleware" piece for the niche that is music production, Core Audio is brilliant, probably not finished yet, but even so, MS should follow suit.Ģ) Compatibility - MS goes to ridiculous lengths to insure that you can run old software, and if they had exercised control over hardware that would probably also be the case. If they decide to protect parts of the file system to prevent intrusions they do so and there is no way around it (at least not that I am aware). the void between MS and Apple centered (centers) on two key points:ġ) Control - Apple controls every aspect of both hardware and software, and they require developers to meet a not insignificant hurdle to be included at the party. As a former developer my perspective may be slightly different.
0 kommentar(er)
