Originally Posted by jcsegenmd
Dell may last another few years, but that's because many of the buyers of their products are forced to think short-term for budgetary reasons. Flawed logic tells the average consumer that it's better to shell out $900 every 2 to 3 years for a Dell than to bite the bullet every five years and drop $1800 on a Mac, which is how long MacBooks tend to last.
Totally agree. I would only add that a more "expensive" Mac over a less-expensive PC, also runs [uggh]....Windows 7 and previous via Boot Camp. Two for the price of one. Or, via Parallels or Fusion, all the way back to Windows 3, DOS, Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian 5.0, Suse, Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 11, OpenSUSE Linux 11.x, Mandriva, Solaris, Open Solaris, FreeBSD, OS/2 Warp, eComStation, (probable) Chrome & more...
I'd love to see if there are any statistics on how many people Boot Camped Windows onto their Macs only to wind up using Mac OS X (for all the reasons I don't need to go into) 99% of the time.
Dell is dead; they're already losing market share and have one-tenth the market cap of Apple
Dell mounted its deathbed when the "flawless" Michael Dell succumbed to pressure from all quarters, and played in the low-end.
When Dell was #1, their computers were never
the cheapest; people felt that spending an extra $400 to get a Dell with its (then) sterling reputation for quality assurance & service, was an investment, not an expense. But when Dells dropped below $1,000 (and since, MUCH lower), when the plastic began to audibly creak when you lifted them, when their products were on floor displays of brown cardboard Dell boxes in Wal*Marts right next to floor displays of Ramen noodles for 99 cents a case, their "loftier" brand image tanked, and buying a Dell no longer afforded you the palpable advantages back when you were willing to pay a little more for a Dell, and when their profit margins (that used to be reinvested in Quality Assurance, pricier but sturdier materials and acclaimed customer support) plummeted, Dell went into an uncontrollable death spiral (that has yet to conclude).
Let's see...how much has Apple's absolute refusal to play in the low-end by slashing profit margins and switching to cheaper components, and cutting down on Industrial Design expenses hurt them over the last twelve years or so? Seems to me, the consensus among top financial analysts is that Apple is on a path that will overtake Exxon/Mobile in market cap to become the biggest company in the U.S.
Still completely confident in your decision, Michael?
But HP? You have to wonder about the ethics of a company that sells products designed to fail after you've bought more than 6 ink cartridges. I agree with the other posters who complained about the crap quality of their printers. I so wish that Apple would get back into the printer business, to reduce the waste and the number of lousy HP printers that end up in landfills. If Apple can (and did) design 3 blockbusters in 10 years, then they can design a quality printer made from recyclable material, using re-fillable cartridges.
I ≈ agree, however, with the exception of Apple's LaserWriters, Apple printers were Canon printers in Mac clothing. With two
parties that needed to make profits, I doubt Apple made much off their disguised Canon printers.
Maybe like with graphics cards, it's best to leave printers to the specialists than try to get up to speed and compete with the likes of Epson, who has been refining and refining and perfecting their many highly innovative printing technologies (e.g. their Micro Piezo "vibration" method of deploying ink droplets that are as small as 1.5 picoliters) over decades.
But Epson has ink on their hands as well as HP. Their cartridges are good for about a week. Why don't they just give
the printers away?
Oh, and an open question I have: is it worth it to use Parallels or Fusion to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently with the advantages of integration, coherence, drag-and-drop, the Dock Exposé, not having to reboot to use Windows, etc., etc., etc., over all the Windows security vulnerabilities you would be exposed to in that mixed environment?
Would it be more prudent to format a separate
drive, install Windows via Boot Camp, put up with rebooting, but completely segregate Windows on that drive to "contain" any "infectious" issues from "infecting" your Mac OS X boot volume that runs Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X via Parallels or Fusion? (Classic case of "Lesser of two evils?)