Originally Posted by strommsarnac
Most kids see that Mac's are not that prevelant in the business world.
I dont think that kids either know or care what is prevalent in the business world. It is the nature of kids to want and demand whatever attracts their eye, and if they are attracted to Apple computers and become accustomed to using them, they will want to work for employers who are willing to give them the tools that they prefer.
Originally Posted by strommsarnac
They also see that Macs are too restricted when it comes to software and upgrades.
Huh? Since when are Macs too restricted when it comes to software and upgrades? Wintel computers only run Wintel applications, except for the very few that have been configured for dual boot and that can run Linux and Linux apps in addition to Wintel apps. The OS that Apple ships with their computers comes with a feature known as Boot Camp built in, which allows anyone to purchase a copy of Windows at retail and run it on their Apple computer just the same as it runs on a Wintel computer pre-loaded with Windows. Apple computers are the only computers that you can buy that offer you the practical capability to run either applications written for the Apple OS or applications written for Wintel computers. Everyone who knows anything at all about Apple computers knows this, and it follows that you do not know anything at all about Apple computers. In addition to Boot Camp, there are two third party applications that run Windows in emulation mode, layered over the Apple OS. These applications are widely regarded as robust and very well designed, and they allow you to run Wintel applications without allowing Microsoft's unsafe operating system to actually touch the computer hardware. If you want to run Linux apps you can do that as well, although not many owners of Apple computers are likely to find much reason to run Linux apps.
All in all, your claim that Apple computers are too restricted when it comes to software, is quite the opposite of the truth.
Originally Posted by strommsarnac
Until Apple gets smart and opens their hardware platform to other OEMs, they will never have near the market share that Microsoft has. Those stupid Mac vs. PC point out how dumb Apple can be. What, they can't directly slam Microsoft, so they go after the hardware Windows runs on? Funny that Macs run on the same hardware. Only Apple puts their little chip on it that makes it so only Mac OS runs on it. Funny that Apple isn't willing to sell their OS for non-Mac PCs. People should ask why. The answer is simple. Apple can't compete in a truely open OS market. They can't develop an OS which supports the breadth of hardware that Microsoft covers.
I don't like being rude, but you are seriously confused and mixed up. If you really are a teacher, I feel sorry for your students. Perhaps this explains why people in Ohio don't buy iPhones. What does it even mean to say that Apple should open their hardware platform to other OEMs? That makes no sense at all. Anyone can write applications for Apple computers, and using Boot Camp, you can run any operating system that you like on Apple computers. On the other hand, Apple's OS will only run on Apple hardware, or at least that is what Apple intends, and you attempt to address that as well, but you've also got that wrong.
As for the ads that slam the hardware instead of Microsoft, you have read way too much into that. The reference to "PC" in those ads simply refers to Wintel computers. Wintel computers are universally referred to as "PC", and all that Apple is doing in those ads is calling those computers what they are called. If you think differently and have read more than that into it, you are mentally impaired in some way that prevents you from thinking in a clean and straightforward manner.
Why is it "funny" that Apple uses the same processor that Wintel computers use? I can discern nothing whatsoever "funny" or odd about that, and the fact that you have identified something odd about this only demonstrates again that you have mentally impaired yourself in some way. Your logic is anything but logical. The reason that Apple does not sell their OS for installation on non-Apple hardware is simply that they developed the OS as part of a complete product that includes their hardware. You could argue that if they were to do that, people would just buy the Apple OS and install it on some Dell machine, and there is no question that a whole lot of people would do exactly that. But so what? In what way is it fair to criticize Apple for not being willing to give away a part of their technology that is crucial to the success of their products? People who take the attitude that you have taken with this are terribly naive about the fact that in this country, people are allowed to manufacture and sell just about anything that isn't dangerous. If you really are this naive about free enterprise, you really ought not be teaching school. Rather, you should go back to school to get educated on how the free enterprise system in this country works.
You are also complete wrong about Windows supporting a greater breadth of hardware than does the Apple OS. The reason that you think that is because Windows runs on multiple brands, but those different brands all use the same Intel processors.
What you wrote is truly asinine. You also tried to say that in order for Apple to have near the same market share as Microsoft, they have to open up their hardware to other OEMs. What you were attempting to say is that Apple will have to license their OS to other manufacturers, adopting the Microsoft model, before they have a chance to compete with Microsoft in terms of market share. That isn't what you actually said, but that is what you would have said if you were able to think more clearly. The thought that you had, which you were unable to express, is wrong. If Apple were to license their OS to Dell and Toshiba and HP, the only reason that anyone would choose to buy one of those brands would be if they were cheaper. It follows, manifestly, that if Apple were to lower their prices to the same level at which those other brands would be sold, that as long as Apple has the manufacturing capacity to meet the demand, people will buy genuine Apple brand rather than other brands that run the Apple OS.
Thus, the only way that what you attempted to say makes any sense is if it happens that Apple's manufacturing capacity is not able to keep up with the demand for computers that run the Apple OS. There is no way that you could possibly know whether that is the case. The reason that Microsoft chose the model whereby they license an OS to other companies to install on computers that they manufacture, is that there was an obvious niche for a company to do make a fortune by doing that as opposed to trying to start up another company to manufacture circuit boards and power supplies. That niche is now taken, but another way in which a computer manufacturer can distinguish itself is by selling computers that run a different operating system. Your argument is tautological. It boils down to an unsubstantiated assertion that the Microsoft model is intrinsically superior to the Apple model throughout all time and space. If Apple lowers the prices for their computers to the point where there is no price advantage for buyers to buy Wintel machines, then given that Apple computers are capable of running Wintel applications, as long as Apple is able to keep up with the demand, there is no discernible reason why Apple might not virtually take over the personal computer market. I'm not saying that this will happen, but I am saying that whereas you and others like you manufacture illogical arguments that conclude that this could never happen, there is not in fact anything that is genuine that would preclude it from happening.
All in all, what you wrote is nothing more than a nonsensical, asinine rant. If you really are a schoolteacher, I shudder to think of what sort of ridiculous ideas that you are no doubt instilling in the minds of your students. You should strive to teach them to think clearly and rationally, but I doubt that you have the slightest capacity to do that.