Microsoft's Windows Vista made me steer to Apple but since Windows 7. I was using a 1.4 GHZ netbook and was coping stuff to my USB and it went at impossible speeds for a netbook (5mb/s) I was amazed so definently Microsoft. I still use Apple products (MP3's) because a laptop is too much to carry just for music
Automatically Appended Next Post: The awesomeness of Windows 7 made it fast
Steve Jobs (strange name) should be in the same room as Bill Gates (named my neighbours fence after him). Steve Jobs will throw iPod Shuffles at Bill Gates and Bill re return fire with Windows Vista Home Premium discs
Apple isn't really bad persay, but if look at the prices for a PC and Mac of comparable hardware you typically end up paying a few hundred dollars more for the Mac. If you take the time to build your own PC (the parts for which are much more widely available), the savings are higher.
Vista wasn't really that bad, but yeah, it was definitely one of MS' low points. 7 is great though.
I spend my money on what I want and the company does the same. Everybody should do the same and not get angry when others disagree with their choice of computers.
My next computer might end up being a G5 or something along those lines. I actually like both systems, and I think the only real differences are in the functions; can't really be better when different OS's are best suited for specific purposes.
I have had some very strange problems with vista though, but overall it has been pretty decent. Kinda want to move over to mac when I get the cash, so I can start to kick my designing into overdrive. I know an awful lot of people that use all 3 'mainstream' OS's though, a surprising amount use Linux primarily.
Yeah, I could probably find one for as low as 500, but I don't really have any cash to throw around right now. Has anyone used the Mac Pro? Expensive piece of kit, just wondering if it is 'worth' it. I wouldn't spend money like that unless it really kicked ass... for professional use of course.
Mac Pros used to kick ass. Probably still do. I had a first gen one.
Thing is you can't move past 10.5 on a PPC Mac. Once 10.7 comes out your OS will probably not be supported. Apple tends to support the current and previous OS.
I Use Ubuntu now as I have no major security issues and when an issue does crop up the community acknowledges it and works to fix it rather than hiding it until a critical patch is issued (ala MS).
I've been using computers professionally for over two decades and used a number of operating systems including BBC (which is basically CPM,) Atari ST, Mac system 6 and 7, MS-DOS, Windows from 3.0 up to XP (never touched Vista,) Linux, and Mac OSX 3 onwards.
I prefer Mac to Windows just because of all the little things that make it easier.
An example: taking a USB device off the computer.
On Windows you go to the Task Bar, go to the right hand end, go to the little green arrow in a circle, click that, look through the icons that open out, find the one which is two green arrows, click that which opens dialogue box. You then select which of the various drive letters might be the USB device you want to dismount (Windows assigns new drive letters when you attach new USB devices so if you have half a dozen external drives, a couple of cameras and some USB sticks or memory cards, it becomes a total mess...) You click the one you think is right. Then you unplug the device and the OS gives the same noise to tell you you did that successfully as it gives to tell you that you failed to dismount the device and might have caused data loss. That was a brilliant piece of design there, Gates!
On OSX you click the eject icon next to the device name you want to dismount. You unplug the device. Er, that’s it.
I haven’t seen Windows 7 yet, I doubt we will get it at work until at least Service Pack 2. In the meantime, we are considering changing to Mac for everything because the 32-bit Windows PCs are just not pokey enough to do the work, and the 64-bit Windows doesn’t properly support a lot of software we want to use.
Yeah KK, I don't even do that. Just hot swap them. Sure you can get errors on the key. But Vista and 7 allow pretty quick error checking now. So honestly if I'm in a hurry I just make sure my file transfer is done and pull it. Never really used the taskbar eject you described other than to see if a device is really detected.
Microsoft. Macs would be nearly useless if they couldn't run a version of Windows so Gates wins this one on that factor alone
Apple: I like Itunes and Ipods. Their computers look sleek but are overpriced and while they're bolstered as "easier to use" thats only somewhat true and completely wrong if you want or have the ability to upgrade machines yourself. I think you void your warranty if you try to do routine maintenance or upgrade an Apple whereas with a PC you can open her up to your hearts content; the trade off just doesn't pay off to me. I'm also not a big fan of having to drive or send stuff off to the Apple store for things I could've done myself if it was a PC. If I wanted a sweet looking and overpriced machine I'd rather purchase an Alienware system.
Here's an interesting article, Apple won't honor warranties to smokers which is kinda ironic since the market they're going for are cafe dwelling hipsters:
And here's a not really-related funny pic from the infamous Maddox, its from the Itunes user agreement:
Microsoft: Recently upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 and no problems; didn't really have any issue with Vista either. Outside of OS, Microsoft's Xbox also makes me prefer this brand over its niche counterpart since its been the best overall gaming system of its eras (Xbox and 360). Xbox Live has also been a great experience for me and set the bar for online console systems.
Since Apple sources their components from the exact same manufacturers PC manufacturers use, why do they charge more for the same thing?
I'm still laughing at how they are more 'green' than they used to be because now their laptops use an aluminium shell instead of plastic (so that's less fossil fuels, right?) - except Aluminium requires a crapload of power to smelt, so any net savings on carbon footprint just went up the spout anyway.
Win for me. Former mac (l)user.
As for flash drives and dismounting: Optimise for quick withdrawal. You can yank it as soon as you are done writing to it.
Vista is fine, and Windows 2000 was fine for that matter. ME was something else entirely.
If you found the transition from XP to Vista difficult, then you're going to cry transitioning from XP to Seven. They're both great OSs from a functionality point of view - the only real complaints are from third-party software and support vendors, which automatically amplify into a 'public opinion'. Australian government departments, for example, refuse to step up from XP, or even NT/2K in some places. It makes sense for train-truck operation and other systems that make good use of PCM and similar, though... Neither vista nor seven are really designed with non-media industry use in mind.
Of course, if you couldn't be bothered figuring out how something works, you could just cut a hole in the bottom corner of your bank account and let everything pour out, condense and crystallise into a shiny new Mac. Like a precious stone, it's relatively useless compared to the investment - it's not really for power users outside of the design or production fields, but it is just as capable and generally compatible as a PC if you're doing sound enineering or the like.
Still, if all you want to do is look good...
Apple for everything. I dont even ever use my Mac Book Pro anymore because my G3 iPhone is so powerful. I heard MS came out with a new cell phone... It downloads a virus the first outgoing call. Apple is immune to viruses.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Apple for everything. I dont even ever use my Mac Book Pro anymore because my G3 iPhone is so powerful. I heard MS came out with a new cell phone... It downloads a virus the first outgoing call. Apple is immune to viruses.
Nuff sed.
G
Almost didn't pick up that you were trolling until that last bit.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I wasnt trolling. Apple is far superior. It just cost more.
G
Depends on the uses and platform. They do indeed cost more, but not really outside of the realm of purchase. They are just weaker per dollar spent. There are a few issues with macs though, most notably the closed environment, lack of games, and lack of real industry support. The "I'm a Mac" commercials were made on PC's you know. They like to cultivate an image of multimedia production dominance, but it's just not the case. Businesses needing to buy a couple hundred consoles for workers to do multimedia projects on will often times chose windows simply to cut costs, and maximize compatibility with the business side of their networks, which is quite firmly a windows staple. I use a Mac with a dual booted vista partition, and I work in a graphics field while attending a school for programming and graphic design. I use the mac side for most operations and the windows side sparingly for gaming, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel the very small box that the OS puts me into. Not being able to use FLAC audio in Itunes is just one of a thousand gripes I have about the system.
Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are pretty comparable. Snow Leopard will cost you more per gigahertz but will likely last longer and run better over the timeframe. It's all in how you plan to use it.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I wasnt trolling. Apple is far superior. It just cost more.
G
No, Apple products are fundamentally the same, and each have have strengths and weaknesses which are largely aesthetic. There used to be a big compatibility argument, but that's mostly in the past. The fact that iPods are designed to work flawlessly with Macs and are subpar when syncronising with an alternative OS is not a issue with the alternative OS.
Due to your grammar I still think you are trolling.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I can play any game i want on my Mac as it runs Windows OS better than PCs.
G
You... Are lying.. And I don't even think you realize it. The windows driver support apple gives is so god awful it's almost a crime. They're vista drivers don't even recognize when you've booted with smc fan control at 6000rpm and they never bothered to write a driver for sleep mode, meaning a windows-top when closed will simply run, getting hotter, and hotter, and hotter, as they never bothered to write dynamic fan speed controls. The audio, camera, and video drivers are barely any better.
Yes, because how efficiently you can run the Windows OS is so utterly related to gaming performance...
Actually it's directly related as a game is run ontop of the operating system. When you run windows more efficiently you free up ram, increase read write speeds in the hard drive (mostly for accessing, since the HD doesn't actually go faster) and tend to run things through the processors better. It's why optimizing hardware for an operating system works (though it's a two way street, the software needs to be optimized for the hardware).
Regardless though, windows doesn't run better on a mac. Without the apple OS all a mac is is an intel chipset with an nvidia graphics card and some corsair memory. You can buy all of those stock, and they come in a lot of windows boxes anyway.
I have a friend in Mexico whose business all run a Windows OS on top of the Mac OS. You can buy the software at stores or online. That's how I found out about it and it is a lot easier than using Bootcamp.
Mac OS is generally used in the more artistic businesses as they apparently have better programs. Virtualisation is nice I guess, but the apparent added security is not needed at the level of the workstations. Generally a server will be Linux based and have the workstations running XP or something like that to keep things simple for the workers. If threats can be kept out of the network there is no need to waste resources running Windows virtually through Linux. The only real thing seperating them is that Macs have a special chip on them that the OS looks for (iirc) thats why PCs should have problems trying to run it. But, there are ways around it.
Other than that a Mac is generally sealed meaning that when a part breaks on it, its generally easier to throw it away and get a new one than replacing the part. If I remember right one of the solutions to fixing one of the old ones was to pick it up and drop it onto the desk because the heat created from it would cause parts to become disconnected.
Other than that a Mac is generally sealed meaning that when a part breaks on it, its generally easier to throw it away and get a new one than replacing the part.
I think by mac you mean all computer laptops. Mac desktops and minitops are more modular than the average dell which will solder parts in to prevent upgrading.
I have a friend in Mexico whose business all run a Windows OS on top of the Mac OS. You can buy the software at stores or online. That's how I found out about it and it is a lot easier than using Bootcamp.
You mean virtualized? All bootcamp does is install windows in a separate partition, there's nothing "easier" than that since thats about the only way to do it. Virtualizing causes all sorts of performance and compatibility issues, but it's nice for accessing windows only programs without having to hard restart.
I had to pull a card out of one of my PCs and swap it to one of my Macs the other day.
Opening the Mac was a revelation. It was like a James Bond gadget from a special future in which computers are designed to be super easy to open and fiddle with.
Opening the PC involved mucking around with a multitool and a broken fingernail, to wrestle the side plate off. Opening the Mac involved flipping a latch and a lever.
The card was attached into the PC with a bit of thin steel plate and another screw. In the Mac, it was clipped in place with a swinging bar which slotted in place and had a knurled knob to secure it.
Best of all, once I restarted the Mac, the OS said, "I see you have put in a new piece of hardware. Would you like me to get the drivers and install them for you, while you have a nice cup of tea?"
We can say whatever we wish on the Internet but to be honest I doubt that many people here have any great knowledge of either hardware or software for that matter. I'm an electrical engineer by trade and am very familiar with both. I have been using Macs for years and years now. They suffer none of the problems typically encountered with PCs. In fact the Windows OS was nothing more than a blatant and poorly executed rip of the Mac OS.
Green Blow Fly wrote: In fact the Windows OS was nothing more than a blatant and poorly executed rip of the Mac OS.
Which is a rip of Unix, Amirite?
At least windows doesn't sue people when they steal stuff.
no you are wrong. The Mac OS was based on one developed by Xerox but was never released to the public because the CEO thought the mouse was a stupid idea. MS has gone to court many times and even bought out companies to take their technology such as compression.
Kilkrazy wrote:I had to pull a card out of one of my PCs and swap it to one of my Macs the other day.
Opening the Mac was a revelation. It was like a James Bond gadget from a special future in which computers are designed to be super easy to open and fiddle with.
Opening the PC involved mucking around with a multitool and a broken fingernail, to wrestle the side plate off. Opening the Mac involved flipping a latch and a lever.
The card was attached into the PC with a bit of thin steel plate and another screw. In the Mac, it was clipped in place with a swinging bar which slotted in place and had a knurled knob to secure it.
Best of all, once I restarted the Mac, the OS said, "I see you have put in a new piece of hardware. Would you like me to get the drivers and install them for you, while you have a nice cup of tea?"
Yes, please!
Sounds like they've improved a bit from the last time I paid them any attention. I didn't know the desktop ones weren't sealed anymore. I guess I should pay them more attention more often from now on
Also didn't Microsoft take stuff from Xerox as well? I know they basically get all their ideas from all over the place, IE wasn't even theirs. But, if I remember correctly they basically stole Xerox's GUI right?
Green Blow Fly wrote: In fact the Windows OS was nothing more than a blatant and poorly executed rip of the Mac OS.
Which is a rip of Unix, Amirite?
At least windows doesn't sue people when they steal stuff.
no you are wrong. The Mac OS was based on one developed by Xerox but was never released to the public because the CEO thought the mouse was a stupid idea. MS has gone to court many times and even bought out companies to take their technology such as compression.
G
You realize that was before unix, didn't happen (just the talent flight from xerox after it's early research days), and that the current set of OS' based on tiger are unix based and quite similar to other previously developed operating systems utilized by other companies and users?
Win7 blows all previous OS's out of the water.
As the newest it theoretically should, and is certainly on par with leopard, though snow leopard does beat in in certain forms of performance (though not high level gaming) such as drive search times and multitasking, and is in general a slightly better implemented GUI. Virtually all unbiased reviews of W7 state that it's a massive leap foreward for microsoft, putting it squarely an inch behind current Apple efforts, rather than miles behind like xp or vista were.
At least windows doesn't sue people when they steal stuff.
Actually for a while Microsoft was famous for pulling down startups with lawsuits. It's calmed down since the antitrust lawsuits started hitting them every five minutes, but they are hardly angels.
The Mac OS was based on one developed by Xerox but was never released to the public because the CEO thought the mouse was a stupid idea. MS has gone to court many times and even bought out companies to take their technology such as compression.
G
U are only going by what Steve Jobs says about MACs
Automatically Appended Next Post: microsoft sucks because of Vista. Apple sucks because of MAC. they have problems with computers. to my maths knowelage to negatives make a positive. they should join forces. name the new company microApple
Automatically Appended Next Post: they will make a good computer
Automatically Appended Next Post: my message screwed up
Automatically Appended Next Post: disregard the top
In the one corner people with turtleneck sweaters, in the other "uneducated simpletons".
Oh joy to the world, OS wars.
I'm a Windows simpleton myself. More games, easier to use OS plus the PC can be upgraded more easily, it not being one of those pre-fab things where everything is crammed in just right for the perfect yuppie design.
Sure, I use an iPod, but iTunes is a load of crap.
No one wins in OS wars, ever. As soon as one is done the losing side just goes around the interwebs and knocks some more boyz around the head and tell them to "lissen up gud cuz liek da bestest OS iz gunna win" before they launch another Waaagghh! on the nearest forum.
Green Blow Fly wrote: In fact the Windows OS was nothing more than a blatant and poorly executed rip of the Mac OS.
Which is a rip of Unix, Amirite?
At least windows doesn't sue people when they steal stuff.
OS X is not a "rip of Unix". In fact, 10.5 Leopard received Unix certification. It's a brand of Unix.
I've used a Mac as my home computer for a couple of years now. I love the hardware of iMacs and I think the operating system has a lot more polish than Windows.
Still, I use Windows for a lot of my programming and university work. I use it for gaming, too; have to get my Steam fix somehow.
The Microsoft people are making up tall tales about Apple. Microsoft is indeed a monopoly. It has nothing to do with having other crappy products to sell.
In a recent survey over 90% of the people surveyed said they would never buy a Windows phone.
Windows is slow, gets lots of viruses, locks up and often must be re installed. It is the worst operating system ever.
I wouldn't buy a Windows phone. Vista was extremely bad at handling memory causing it to be heaps slow (Windows 7 imporved this apparently). But, yeah they do lock up a bit but they don't require all that much reinstallation in my experience. They do if you manage to screw it up heaps and that tends to happen seeing as the system files aren't even hidden >_>
The only reason Mac doesn't get viruses is because that the percentage of them is so low compaired to Windows it is simply not worth making a virus for it. Not that they won't exist, just that they'll be fairly rare. In my opinion Windows XP was the best Windows.
I don't work for apple and have to remain unbiased as I'm currently in a Networking course. If I decided one is absolutely crap and ignore it chances are it's going to make problems later
Other than that I don't really care, as long as it works I'm fine with it. Sure I'll put up with trying to fix it to a point though. They make up tales about each other, that's just an old part of marketing I guess. If Apple sells computers/OS Microsoft is technically not a Monopoly, they simply just have a higher percentage of the market share.
More games, easier to use OS plus the PC can be upgraded more easily, it not being one of those pre-fab things where everything is crammed in just right for the perfect yuppie design.
I really wish you guys would stop talking about things you don't ever handle. The macs aren't pre fabricated, and mac towers give a good bit of room for parts swapping. Compare that to any el cheapo dell or acer which solders in parts to prevent you from upgrading and they look even better. As for win7 being easier to use? Not particularly, it's not hard by any stretch, but configuring things like home networks or additional hardware is a bit of a chore by comparison.
No one wins in OS wars, ever.
It's like the console wars. People pick their favorites without having regularly handled the competition.
The Microsoft people are making up tall tales about Apple. Microsoft is indeed a monopoly. It has nothing to do with having other crappy products to sell.
No, thats not what the word monopoly means.
mo⋅nop⋅o⋅ly [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA –noun, plural -lies. 1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
They don't have exclusive control, nor can they control pricing.
Windows is slow, gets lots of viruses, locks up and often must be re installed. It is the worst operating system ever.
No, it's comparably fast, does get a lot of virus' doesn't really lock up often unless you're bad with security tasks, and doesn't often need to be reinstalled. Also the worst operating system ever is linux. Incredibly secure, it's also incomprehensible gak.
The only reason Mac doesn't get viruses is because that the percentage of them is so low compaired to Windows it is simply not worth making a virus for it.
Actually it's because the unix code is simply much more secure. Thats always been the fallback quote of people that don't understand how computer software works. It's just not true.
What percentage of computers in the US use an MS OS? that says it all really. According to wikki.answers.com it's well over 90%. I'm not pulling this out my rump.
Green Blow Fly wrote:What percentage of computers in the US use an MS OS? that says it all really. According to wikki.answers.com it's well over 90%. I'm not pulling this out my rump.
G
Yeah, the 90% market share is a pretty well advertised number. That doesn't make it a monopoly. For something to be one there has to be no realistic alternative, yet there are several. Thus it's not a monopoly it's just a dominant product. The IPod has a nearly 90% market share in the PMP market, but it's not a monopoly either. A monopoly is a shutout, nothing else can feasibly compete with one, the old rail and phone monopolies being good examples. Microsoft is not a monopoly. You're using that word wrong.
Why is that neat? If you look around enough you can probably find a definition that works for you. You do know that the Clinton admin was planning to slap MS with an anti trust suit don't you?
Green Blow Fly wrote:Why is that neat? If you look around enough you can probably find a definition that works for you. You do know that the Clinton admin was planning to slap MS with an anti trust suit don't you?
G
I know, the microsoft antitrust issues happened and are over. Thats why I qualified that they aren't a monopoly "any more". They are very currently mired anti trust suits in europe concerning the IE browser, but thats largely blown over as well. OS Tiger came around and fixed the glaring gak hole that was the mac operating system, and apple has seen continued growth because of it. All of the fifteen billion linux brands are seeing slight but continual growth, and google is about to throw Chrome OS onto the market in an attempt to dominate the netbook sector. It's not a monopoly.
It looks like you are muddying the waters. At one time Bell was definitely a monopoly. There are many carriers to choose from today. It's not the case with computer operating systems, in fact all pcs come pre loaded with Windows OS.
That's the problem with comparing PC's. Not sure what a Mac costs but when you say "cheap" Dell PC's, yeah it's true that they solder stuff in or have proprietary hardware but it's not the way all Dells or Acers are made.
Spend more than $1000 on a Dell or Acer and they are in fact quite flexible as far as upgrades. I bought a middle of the road Dell 6 years ago (spent 1200 on it) and everything was upgradeable.
The only thing I like about the Apple computers is their monitors (the higher end cinema ones) but I'm not going to buy a Mac for the monitor. I have to assume the monitors won't work on a normal PC (although for the price of a 20" cinema monitor I could probably pick up a 40" HDTV LCD and have twice the viewing).
Mac VS PC will be a debate that will rage until the end of time.
Green Blow Fly wrote:It looks like you are muddying the waters. At one time Bell was definitely a monopoly. There are many carriers to choose from today. It's not the case with computer operating systems, in fact all pcs come pre loaded with Windows OS.
G
... Yeah, and all blackberries come with the blackberry OS. That doesn't mean that you can't buy a different phone. All macs come loaded with snow leopard now, and you can have a version of linux installed in most desktops you purchase at best buy and other stores. You really don't have much of an argument here, you're just flat out wrong.
n0t_u wrote:No one wins in OS wars, ever. As soon as one is done the losing side just goes around the interwebs and knocks some more boyz around the head and tell them to "lissen up gud cuz liek da bestest OS iz gunna win" before they launch another Waaagghh! on the nearest forum.
...
You sir, win the internets.
Now, who is going to do a Klan Apple and Klan Microsoft Ork army?
I have to assume the monitors won't work on a normal PC (although for the price of a 20" cinema monitor I could probably pick up a 40" HDTV LCD and have twice the viewing).
They are just LCD displays. They work fine with all hardware that has the appropriate outputs. Also TVs make awful monitors typically, their dot pitch is pretty low and most do a poor duty of maintaining a solid static contrast ratio. They've caught up a lot now that they can be purchased in 1080p at small sizes, but they still have the lingering issues inherent to the different uses of a TV and monitor.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Shurma you can't win a debate by endlessly stating you are correct and the opposition is wrong. It doesn't work like that.
G
It does when every single fact bears out that the opposition is wrong and they are just too stubborn to do anything but state a thoroughly refuted and incorrect statement ad-naseum hoping it will somehow stick.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Shurma you can't win a debate by endlessly stating you are correct and the opposition is wrong. It doesn't work like that.
G
When you misuse a term that is fundamental to your argument that's essentially the only recourse. Microsoft has competitors in the OS market. Therefore Microsoft is not a monopoly. End of story.
And they have 90 percent or more of the marketshare. Those in the 10 percent or less are not competitors. Who do you know seriously that runs a pc with a non MS OS?
Apple is in a niche market.
Green Blow Fly wrote:And they have 90 percent or more of the marketshare. Those in the 10 percent or less are not competitors. Who do you know seriously that runs a pc with a non MS OS?
Apple is in a niche market.
Yea I'm confused about the semantics now. Those saying MS isn't a monopoly - are you trying to argue that they're just monopolistic now? I thought MS was still legally treated as a monopoly across the world.
Green Blow Fly wrote:And they have 90 percent or more of the marketshare. Those in the 10 percent or less are not competitors.
How are you defining this market? Because I know you wouldn't be foolish enough to presume that commercial sales can be thought of as being equivalent to personal sales. You can quote client statistics all you want, but they don't really tell use anything about the underlying economics.
Green Blow Fly wrote:
Who do you know seriously that runs a pc with a non MS OS?
Me, for one. My father, for another. Also several of my friends. None of us work in the tech industry, or do anything particularly serious with respect to our own systems. There are a lot of people that use alternative operating systems on their home computers. What gives Microsoft its dominant statistical lead is a well established, commercial supply chain.
Green Blow Fly wrote:
Apple is in a niche market.
Apple isn't a niche market, its actually Microsoft's biggest competitor for personal sales.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cane wrote:Yea I'm confused about the semantics now. Those saying MS isn't a monopoly - are you trying to argue that they're just monopolistic now? I thought MS was still legally treated as a monopoly across the world.
The problem is that raw market share isn't enough to call a given corporation a monopoly. They also have to behave as one. That's why the lynch pin of the antitrust case against MS was the conflation of IE and the Windows OS; especially in conjunction with the rebates provided to major distributors that agreed to offer Windows exclusively.
Getting this back up, we can't really say what's better for you. What I'd recommend is finding a way to compare them both; perhaps go to some trouble to install Mac OS on your laptop/computer, and try it out against, say, Windows 7.
That being said, they aren't perfect; as I haven't handled Mac OS in that great a scale, I can't point the problems with it. However Windows does get Virus. Or rather, people get virus into Windows. Which can be avoided rather easily using Microsoft Security Essentials, Windows Firewall, regular updates and not clicking on every single "Computer is infected!!1!" ad on the internet. Also mails that offer, erm, size increments on your manhood are to be avoided.
Apart from that, both seem slick, with Windows being slightly less shiny than Mac. It's really up to you and the smaller details.
I for one prefer to have some degree of control and Win has served me fine. I know how to handle most of the problems through online research, I can make most software I need/want to work on it, and mainly watch movies and stuff like that.
On the form, you simply have to recognize that Jonathan Ive has done wonders with the Apple line; I personally love the Macbook Pro line, not only aestetical but also functional-wise. There are other PC makers that have a good design department, but their laptops aren't as solid as the aluminum Macbooks.
I agree with what Cane has put forward. Apple has placed themselves in a niche market. It's obvious because only an Apple machine can run an Apple OS, which is the exact opposite philosophy that Bill Gates took when he negotiated with IBM to develop their OS back in the 1980s. By placing yourself in a niche market you are going for a certain percentage of the market rather than the whole shooting match so to speak.
It does not matter how vast of a market share something has; if there is an alternative the product with the largest control of the market is still not a monopolized product.
Ford has the #1 selling truck in America (and that is fact) but Ford does not have a monopoly on trucks. You are still free to buy a Toyota or Chevy or GMC or Jeep or Hummer or Nissan.
Windows might have the vast majority of the market share but you are still free to buy an Apple and if you want a non-Mac PC you don't have to keep the Windows OS on it. If you buy it pre-made just erase the drives and put your OS of choice on it; if you are building it from scratch you save a step in not having to erase the drive as OEM and Retail drives come blank.
M$ is not a monopoly. There are alternatives to their softwares and OS's. As long as alternatives remain M$ is not a monopoly.
Calling M$ a monopoly because they have a larger market share would be like calling Dairy Queen a monopoly. I'm pretty sure they are the most well known and probably best selling ice cream parlor franchise in the world but there are alternatives like Coldstone or Ben&Jerrys or any other ice cream parlor franchise that exists.
Ah thanks for the heads up dogma and Fateweaver. MS also have been undercutting some of their competitors to secure sales and nowadays I think Dells come with Linux installed; stuff that wouldn't really happen 10 or so years ago.
On the topic of Apple, anyone been following their rumored tablet PC? Its supposed to revolutionize the industry even though Apple hasn't confirmed the project - it'll make relatively new ideas like Kindle seem obsolete . As much as I loathe what the Mac image stands for; Apple still makes awesome and incredibly innovative products like the Ipod, Iphone, and soon the tablet PC. I wonder if they'll ever try a video game console
Green Blow Fly wrote:I agree with what Cane has put forward. Apple has placed themselves in a niche market. It's obvious because only an Apple machine can run an Apple OS, which is the exact opposite philosophy that Bill Gates took when he negotiated with IBM to develop their OS back in the 1980s. By placing yourself in a niche market you are going for a certain percentage of the market rather than the whole shooting match so to speak.
A niche market is a market that is defined by very specific demands. When Alienware was an independent company, they catered to a niche market (high-performance gaming computers). Apple is not targeted in that manner as they offer commercial solutions, as well as robust home support. The fact that they rely on proprietary technology is a a matter of business strategy, not market demand.
On the topic of Apple, anyone been following their rumored tablet PC? Its supposed to revolutionize the industry even though Apple hasn't confirmed the project - it'll make relatively new ideas like Kindle seem obsolete .
As the rumored apple tablet is not an e-ink display and would likely not possess a battery life in the double digits it doesn't compete particularly well with the kindle as an ebook reader. Especially not at 3 times the price as the rumors suggest a thousand dollar price tag. These same rumors have been swirling for years now though. However they are a bit more substantial than they have been in the past and they are rumored to be revealing the device soon.
Green Blow Fly wrote:I agree with what Cane has put forward. Apple has placed themselves in a niche market. It's obvious because only an Apple machine can run an Apple OS, which is the exact opposite philosophy that Bill Gates took when he negotiated with IBM to develop their OS back in the 1980s. By placing yourself in a niche market you are going for a certain percentage of the market rather than the whole shooting match so to speak.
A niche market is a market that is defined by very specific demands. When Alienware was an independent company, they catered to a niche market (high-performance gaming computers). Apple is not targeted in that manner as they offer commercial solutions, as well as robust home support. The fact that they rely on proprietary technology is a a matter of business strategy, not market demand.
if you look at the expense alone for an Apple it's quite apparent they are intended for a specific market not a general market.
Green Blow Fly wrote:
if you look at the expense alone for an Apple it's quite apparent they are intended for a specific market not a general market.
The same is true of any new PC. Businesses don't purchase bleeding edge units, and neither do most users. The fact that Apple products cost more than PC products has no bearing on the fact that they are targeted at the same consumers.
Green Blow Fly wrote:if you look at the expense alone for an Apple it's quite apparent they are intended for a specific market not a general market.
G
Anyone who buys a laptop around here can buy the Macbook. People opt not to because it doesn't serve their needs. They used to be over-priced, but now the premium on the macbook is for the aluminum shell, which is why you can buy the policarbonate one for 800$.
People who claim Apple is "niche-market" because of the price tag are probably compensating for something.
What is the specific market for people who want a Macbook?
Also, since it is clear where this thread is headed, I'll go with Dogma. Monopoly, by it's origins, means "sole seller". Which is obviously not the case. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows, people prefer not to use them because they are comfortable using Windows, which can be a pretty reliable OS for day to day use and abuse for the unsavvy.
Green Blow Fly wrote:The MacBook is their low end pc and does not compete versus notebooks from other companies. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try though.
G
The Mac Book is priced almost exactly in line with other Core 2 Duo products (that are produced by major vendors) that also feature a 13" screen, and comparable amounts of memory.
Green Blow Fly wrote:The MacBook is their low end pc and does not compete versus notebooks from other companies. You are comparing apples to oranges. Nice try though.
G
What do you want to compare then? I thought we were talking about hardware, pure and simple. Your logic throughout the conversations was that they were directing themselves at a market segment, now you tell me I can't apply that logic to the 13" Macbook because it is their "low end pc"? By your logic, once again, if it didn't fit in the "market segment", then I assume they wouldn't sell it. Brand name is all to easy to ruin.
The Macbook range is probably Apple's biggest share in the computer market.
They are focusing on just a segment of hte market. The $800 version of the MacBook is their entry level notebook. I remember my iBook, it was great but my MacBook Pro I have now is a lot more powerful.
I think he's at a loss in expressing is thoughts. I just chimed in on the thread because I disagreed with most of what he said vs. Shuma and Dogma. Also because I think it's interesting to compare the OS, obviously there are advantages/disadvantages, some lighter than others, but each serves it's purpose. Sometimes I just don't understand the hate/fanboyism, etc. (not that I saw much of that in this thread, though).
It is obvious to me that MS has a monopoly on the market, the low end MacBook does not dispell that either. Consider electric utilities as an example. They were deregulated in the 1980s. Still you as a consumer have no choice who you buy from. Of course you do have a choice when it comes to your OS but in reality if you can't afford an Apple you will more than likely go the MS route as it's the easiest route and most accessible. Bill Gates had the vision and drive to create a monopoly while Steve Jobs always intended to focus on a niche market and there is nothing wrong with that either. I prefer Apple because I think they are much more user friendly and much less prone to the myriad of problems that plague Microsoft.
There is a very interesting movie entitled Pirates of the Silicon Valley that tells the story of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I recommend it to anyone interested in comparing the two companies. Supposedly Jobs thought himself an avatar of a God and Gates dropped out of Havard as a freshman because he found it boring. There is also a book by Gates I read that was quite interesting as well. I still remember when you could call and ask for tech support without having to pay. Of course all of that has changed and before we know it there will be another super version of the MS OS available.
It is not so obvious to the anti-trust board as if they felt the same as you MS would not be allowed to do what it does with it's OS. As long as there are alternatives M$ is not considered by those whose opinion on the matter is important, ie the anti-trust board, to be a monopoly.
Again, so long as you have a choice of OS' M$ does not monopolize on the market. IF M$ through dirty dealings and shady buyouts became the sole OS provider than they'd be a monopoly but that will never happen as the anti-trust board will NEVER allow M$ to take over Apple and the dozens of linux distros and Sun systems.
So no, M$ is not a monopoly, not by anti-trust or dictionary definitions.
MS sells it's operating system, Apple bundles it with it's OS, but everyone's free to download and use Linux. And frankly, if you don't want to pay for Windows you don't have to - there are plenty of Linux distros out there. It's not like people don't have a choice, and monopolies are all about lack of choice.
The myriad of problems with Windows has more often to do with user misuse, user abuse, user ignorance, and the variety of systems Windows has to work on. Whereas Apple only has a set number of systems, Microsoft has to work on various different hardware levels and ensuring compatibility is also up to hardware makers (Asus, Nvidia, etc). I've had some problems with Windows running computers because I a) messed with one or other configuration, b) tried to install new hardware onto the MB, c) ignored Windows' warnings and installed software that I shouldn't or d) opened a suspicious email and brainlessly clicked on the link (this one actually never happened, but it's another common happening).
Matter of factly, did you know that most of the Driver problems in Vista were caused by external companies who didn't properly support their product, thus earning Microsoft a bad rep when the ones at fault were actually the 3rd parties?
There are multiple complaints about Mac OS, only there isn't as much a vocal group as in the Windows part because of the sheer difference in users.
BTW, thanks for the heads up on the documentary. I'll probably be getting it.
MacNewsDaily doesn't show up on google. Mac daily news does. This is the closest I could find to what you describe. It's a Nokia Market analyst spin doctoring and being pretty stupid about it.
Louven reports, "'Technically, the Nokia phones were much better than the iPhone,' said Carolina Milanesi, the market researcher Gartner. 'But were too complicated to use.' In the coming years, ease of use will decide success and failure, said Vanjoki."
Louven reports, "Still, Vanjoki expects that, in the end, Apple will amount to little importance in the market. 'The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs,' predicts the chief strategist. 'Even with the Mac, Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well.'"
A niche manufacturer with two of the most successful products in (cell) history and a 50+% market share in the smartphone market (the fastest growing divide of cell phones). At least post links GBF when you demand we listen to experts from a company thats been failing at it's primary market for years and hires idiots to do its "expert" market talk.
Green Blow Fly wrote:
There is an excellent discussion over at MacNewsDaily dated November 2009 by a leading Nokia strategic expert explaining why Apple targets niche markets, "NICHE markets that work!" in his own words.
Apply manufactures several products which target niche markets. Their personal computers are not among that number.
Green Blow Fly wrote:
There is also an excellent article on www.justice.gov that lists out a myriad of reasons why Microsoft enjoys the position of holding a monopoly on the OS market. As pointed out there is no other company that in a short time could fill the role that Microsoft has designed for itself.
As I said, the defining characteristic of a monopoly is its capacity to influence the ability of competitors to enter a given market. In order to have a monopoly, Microsoft must be able to prevent other operating systems from being offered. They have proven unable to do so. If monopoly status were determined by mere market share, then you would be correct.
Green Blow Fly wrote:dogma do you really believe that:
Apple plans or wants to overtake MS in the control of OS sold in the US?
That if they did they are in a position to actually do so?
G
No, but that has nothing to do with catering to a niche market. Simply because you do not plan to dominate a market it does not follow that you do not plan to hold a certain share of it.
dogma wrote:No, but that has nothing to do with catering to a niche market. Simply because you do not plan to dominate a market it does not follow that you do not plan to hold a certain share of it.
youbedead wrote:Linux all the way, I defeat you all with my false sense of superiority.
Which distro? Or are you hard core and using a Linux From Scratch based install?
I like Fedora, but am currently on XP as I need a Windows box at home and don't have a spare HD or system to Linux up, and I'm not dual booting with XP again after the last few attempts mullered my boot sector.
youbedead wrote:Linux all the way, I defeat you all with my false sense of superiority.
Which distro? Or are you hard core and using a Linux From Scratch based install?
I like Fedora, but am currently on XP as I need a Windows box at home and don't have a spare HD or system to Linux up, and I'm not dual booting with XP again after the last few attempts mullered my boot sector.
