I want to move away from my G5 and into the MacBook Pro. Now that the new Santa Rosa one will have 200 Gig 7200 RPM drives (desktop speed), the change will make sense.
Apple is doing a lot of things right, and it is the best out there, but the system is not simple and I like the lessons in the Apple stores. It is no good to go and get a lesson and then go home and be unable to duplicate what one learned.
For example: I keep some 20,000 emails in Mail. Mail is meant to do this. That is why it has sorting, find, flagging abilities. I use it as a database. If a customer from 2 years ago leaves a message I just type Mr. Wilson and I see his information from before. Now moving those 20,000 emails into a "copy" in another Apple system is not simple. I placed a post and got several conflicting ways and utilities to do this.
Another example, to copy a DVD one needs this or that. Backups and versions in different computers do not work easily.
The solution is to live in 1 system. And back that 1 system up.
So for the first time the MacBook Pro has gotten to 7200 RPM 200 Gigs, 4 G ram, faster processors. It finally has true desktop features.
Yes if you are working video you need G5s. But if not here is your home. Expect sales of MacBook Pros to skyrocket.
I had a 15" Powerbook, then a 12" iBook. The 15" was far too big to use on some of the tiny desks of my school's auditoriums. It was far too big to use on a bus. It was far too big to use on an airplane (well, you could watch movies or something but the screen didn't fit open once you had it in your lap in a good position for typing). It didn't fit on the small tables on trains either.
Anyone who says 15" does it all has never tried to really use their laptops on the go for work. That, or they fly business class. I think 15" is about the upper limit even if your "mobile spaces" are on the large side.
Something like a 1.5kg 12" widescreen at 1280x800 (slightly smaller and lighter than the iBook) would be perfect for me.
Agree. I'd still take the extra weight for an optical drive, but otherwise this is exactly what I've found with my 15" as well. I dragged one right the way around the world (backpacking!), and although I coped, a 12" would have made all the difference.
Actually Image Capture is the one that opens up iPhoto, iPhoto does the importing though.
EDIT: I guess I should explain more...
The reason I made a bigger deal out of Image Capture than say, iLife is because it's the Applications and Utilities like Image Capture, Printer Setup Utility, and the Network Preference Pane that provide more OS level functionality making things stupidly easy. When I plug in my Camera, Image Capture opens up iPhoto for me and Importing is just a click away.
Sebastian
Thanks, I was wondering where the hell that setting was.
It's not actually Image Capture that opens iPhoto, though. The OS does that - Image Capture's Preferences window is just the place where Apple bizarrely decided to put the controls to change that OS-wide setting. Similarly, the setting for the default e-mail client is in Mail's preferences, the default web browser setting is in Safari's, but you could set the default apps to something else and delete Image Capture, Safari, and Mail off of your system, and the default apps would still launch when they were supposed to.
Those settings all used to be in System Preferences. Why on earth they were moved is a mystery to me.
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kukito
But if Apple doesn't want to offer computers "for the rest of us" then it should stop trying to convince us to switch without offering viable alternatives.
I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
because apple offers more. plus they have a catchy slogan. think different.
I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
No, the G4 CPU was much cheaper than the Core Duo.
As to why the MacBook isn't $800, why not ask Lenovo why their laptops aren't $800 either, or any number of the top end brand name manufacturers....
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
Well then what other operating system is a serious competitor to Windows in the home market? Apple is a competitor if people seriously consider buying Macs over Windows. And if you know a major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with Windows optional, please send them my way. They just bundle Windows on there and charge you for it. *
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money?
No, Apple switched to Intel to get access to chips that didn't suck. Freescale was having problems making faster G4s, and IBM wasn't interested in improving the G5 enough.
* = Dell is finally shaping up, but that's far from across-the-line, and isn't even shipping yet.
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
They all would all fall over themselves to get OS X if Apple allowed it. There is at least one major OEM, that I'm aware of, that has tried unsuccessfully to get OS X.
Like many, you fail to see that marketshare means very little. By your argument, Rolls Royce should sell cheaper cars to compete with Ford, Hyundai, etc.
Apple has the high end market of consumer and prosumer machines. Their main concern is selling more hardware, not trying to beat out Microsoft for the valueless title of 'most common OS.'
If you wnat to make a comparison, compare Apple's hardware sales to other vendors. Just reported here on AI this week, Apple snagged 10% of all domestic notebook sales from retail outlets. That includes all those sub-$1000 HP, Dell and Toshiba notebook. If we had the total number of $1000+ or Core (2) Duo notebooks we'd see a tremendous gain here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
I implore you, link me to one of these identically spec'd $800 notebooks.
Like many, you fail to see that marketshare means very little. By your argument, Rolls Royce should sell cheaper cars to compete with Ford, Hyundai, etc.
Rolls Royces run on the same roads and on the same gas. Not so with OS X and Windows software and compatibility. The likes of Lenovo and Sony are free to push highest of the high end hardware only, and Acer is free to push low end crap only, and that is because they don't have to worry about the OS marketshare. They reinforce one another through Windows.
Quote:
Apple has the high end market of consumer and prosumer machines. Their main concern is selling more hardware, not trying to beat out Microsoft for the valueless title of 'most common OS.'
Valueless, as shown by Microsoft's profits?
I'm astounded by how bad the majority of computer design is, but they're going to catch up. That means hardware will eventually be commodified to the point where Apple can't make a difference with it. The long term profits, as well as the biggest profits, are and will always remain on software side.
Quote:
I implore you, link me to one of these identically spec'd $800 notebooks.
It used to be that when people were defending a piece of overpriced Apple hardware, they used the "identical" ploy to tip comparisons. When you compare two computers, set one as the benchmark to strive for and add costly extras to the other to make it "identical" (total feature matching to same or better), you pretty much always guarantee win for the first computer. In actual buy decisions the benchmark is based on a set of wants and means, not a particular product. Funnily, Apple with its tiny lineup of products is far easier to abuse with the same trick.
Example: Show me an Apple equal of the cheapest tower Dell sells with better than 7600GT graphics? (I'm guessing this is in the $600 range...)
Answer: An upgraded Mac Pro at around $2500. (Overpriced!!1!1! Boooooo!)
But Macbook doesn't need dishonest defense. Its hardware is quite competetive at the price - anything roughly comparable costs more. Still, I feel 1150EUR is too much for the low end. I'd like to see the next Macbook upgrade with low end model at 900EUR. It can even have the same specs it does now - no tech they could upgrade on the inside will show to the average user, anyway.
Workable Windows laptops are about 600EUR. It's not a big stretch for folks to shell out 200-300EUR more to get OS X, even if the only thing they knew about it was that it will remove the possibility of viruses and whole-computer "gunk-ups". But 500EUR more? That makes for a hard sell.
^LOL@12 hour battery life. I'd love to see that link.
I don't make stuff like that up, but maybe my memory was slightly stretched or there is a different, older model, or maybe I have the brand wrong.
The manufacturer might fudge things, but here is one that is close at least specwise. Panasonic Toughbook W5 gets 11 hours according to their specs, and it runs 2.7lb and still has an integrated (though weird) optical drive:
I have no idea, but these new LED displays may not need much of a bezel around them. I've always thought the border around the MacBook screen was a bit too much. But I always guessed it was cheaper to make that way.
Maybe. Maybe it's easier to pack stuff in the base when it's a little larger. The previous 12" models were pretty thick, relatively speaking, compared to the current 13" model.
Rolls Royces run on the same roads and on the same gas. Not so with OS X and Windows software and compatibility.
I really hate that comparison. OSX and Windows aren't 'roads and gas' and for a long time now it really doesn't matter if you're running on alternate 'roads and gas' if you're still getting from A to B. Different roads? Come on, we're on identical hardware, networks and protocols now. Different gas? When was the last time you had a software compatibility issue?
And if you really insist on pushing car analogies the counter example would be a Prius which runs on 'roads and gas' that a Rolls Royce can't. I can't remember ever seeing a diesel roller either. It's not like I can nip down to my local motor factors and buy Rolls Royce parts either.
[QUOTE=Gon;1081179]
The likes of Lenovo and Sony are free to push highest of the high end hardware only, and Acer is free to push low end crap only, and that is because they don't have to worry about the OS marketshare. They reinforce one another through Windows.Valueless, as shown by Microsoft's profits?{/quote]
Apple are free to do whatever they want as they own both the hardware and the software. They obviously choose not to spread themselves too thinly or participate in low margin products which would damage their image in the high end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
I'm astounded by how bad the majority of computer design is, but they're going to catch up. That means hardware will eventually be commodified to the point where Apple can't make a difference with it.
Already happened. Apple can't compete with commodity low end hardware and still be Apple, not in the way people here cry out for (ie. cheap laptops with Celerons in or econobox plastic towers with cheesy 6bit screens).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
The long term profits, as well as the biggest profits, are and will always remain on software side.It used to be that when people were defending a piece of overpriced Apple hardware, they used the "identical" ploy to tip comparisons. When you compare two computers, set one as the benchmark to strive for and add costly extras to the other to make it "identical" (total feature matching to same or better), you pretty much always guarantee win for the first computer. In actual buy decisions the benchmark is based on a set of wants and means, not a particular product. Funnily, Apple with its tiny lineup of products is far easier to abuse with the same trick.
Example: Show me an Apple equal of the cheapest tower Dell sells with better than 7600GT graphics? (I'm guessing this is in the $600 range...)
Answer: An upgraded Mac Pro at around $2500. (Overpriced!!1!1! Boooooo!)
But you're comparing 'Apples and Oranges' there. Apple doesn't do a cheap tower so you've got nothing to compare to. It's like making carbon brakes pads a buying prerequisite and lambasting Aston Martin they don't make a car as cheap as a Honda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
But Macbook doesn't need dishonest defense. Its hardware is quite competetive at the price - anything roughly comparable costs more. Still, I feel 1150EUR is too much for the low end. I'd like to see the next Macbook upgrade with low end model at 900EUR. It can even have the same specs it does now - no tech they could upgrade on the inside will show to the average user, anyway.
It's a little high now I reckon. It wasn't when it came out but the competitors have moved on. But here of course you're comparing Apples and Apples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
Workable Windows laptops are about 600EUR. It's not a big stretch for folks to shell out 200-300EUR more to get OS X, even if the only thing they knew about it was that it will remove the possibility of viruses and whole-computer "gunk-ups". But 500EUR more? That makes for a hard sell.
And yet they seem to be selling like hotcakes - go figure!
Apple needs to get it's European pricing in line with reality though.
Well then what other operating system is a serious competitor to Windows in the home market? Apple is a competitor if people seriously consider buying Macs over Windows. And if you know a major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with Windows optional, please send them my way. They just bundle Windows on there and charge you for it.
My point exactly. "If blah blah blah, and then something else, this and that, then Apple would take over the world."
Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.
Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.
In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.
For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.
I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?
BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.
Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.
Good for you. Most Mac users aren't bothered if OSX sells more than windows or vice versa. As long as OSX is good, Macs are good then why the fudge would any sane person care what the other guys are doing.
In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.
For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.
I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?
BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.
Apple has to step up its game as well or at least keep it at a high level. They have to realize that many of its new found users aren't as tied to Apple has the hardcore users. If they feel that Apple doesn't fit their needs or take their concerns seriously, they could switch back. I've seen it before. Apple had a big jump with the original iMac. They treated them like they were long time mac users and as a result many switched back.
In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.
For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.
I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?
BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.
Ok, there's no need to insinuate that I am a thieving bastard simply because I use Windows on my Mac.
I agree that in the short term Microsoft does lose very little, and has the potential to lose more market share to Apple. All I'm saying is that if you can run Windows on every piece of hardware and you can run OS X on only 1 manufacturer's hardware, there is the more than probable conclusion that Windows would be more widespread than OS X. Opinions aside, this is reality.
Maybe when Leopard comes out, we can run it on a Sony Vaio for $1300 with close to the specs of the new MBP's for $2499. That, in my opinion, would be the answer for OS X to truly compete with Windows. Let us decide what hardware we need, and what OS we want. What a blasphemous thing that is to say, but it would be sweet.
Apple has to step up its game as well or at least keep it at a high level. They have to realize that many of its new found users aren't as tied to Apple has the hardcore users. If they feel that Apple doesn't fit their needs or take their concerns seriously, they could switch back. I've seen it before. Apple had a big jump with the original iMac. They treated them like they were long time mac users and as a result many switched back.
OS marketshare has nothing to do with the quality of the OS, except that Apple has a potential to invest more as the increased user-base for Macs, iPhones, and AppleTVs will lower the R&D costs for developing OS X.
But marketshare itself clearly means nothing to the quality of the product. We need only look at Intel and Microsoft's track record to see this.
Apple sold 2x as many machines as it did 3 years prior. IOW, Apple's user-base is growing and Apple's profits are growing. That is enough for me to be happy. If the rest of the world grow by a 100 fold it wouldn't make a lick a difference to Apple's bottom line.
I have seen no evidence of switchers going back to Windows. If anything, I've seen/read of longtime OS X users moving to Linux.
Ok, there's no need to insinuate that I am a thieving bastard simply because I use Windows on my Mac.
I agree that in the short term Microsoft does lose very little, and has the potential to lose more market share to Apple. All I'm saying is that if you can run Windows on every piece of hardware and you can run OS X on only 1 manufacturer's hardware, there is the more than probable conclusion that Windows would be more widespread than OS X. Opinions aside, this is reality.
Maybe when Leopard comes out, we can run it on a Sony Vaio for $1300 with close to the specs of the new MBP's for $2499. That, in my opinion, would be the answer for OS X to truly compete with Windows. Let us decide what hardware we need, and what OS we want. What a blasphemous thing that is to say, but it would be sweet.
i agree. apple would make so much more money if other companies used their os on their systems. especially if the systems were cheaper. but i think stevey wants to be unique, and be in total control of his company and be the lone seller of his os.
Comments
Apple is doing a lot of things right, and it is the best out there, but the system is not simple and I like the lessons in the Apple stores. It is no good to go and get a lesson and then go home and be unable to duplicate what one learned.
For example: I keep some 20,000 emails in Mail. Mail is meant to do this. That is why it has sorting, find, flagging abilities. I use it as a database. If a customer from 2 years ago leaves a message I just type Mr. Wilson and I see his information from before. Now moving those 20,000 emails into a "copy" in another Apple system is not simple. I placed a post and got several conflicting ways and utilities to do this.
Another example, to copy a DVD one needs this or that. Backups and versions in different computers do not work easily.
The solution is to live in 1 system. And back that 1 system up.
So for the first time the MacBook Pro has gotten to 7200 RPM 200 Gigs, 4 G ram, faster processors. It finally has true desktop features.
Yes if you are working video you need G5s. But if not here is your home. Expect sales of MacBook Pros to skyrocket.
I had a 15" Powerbook, then a 12" iBook. The 15" was far too big to use on some of the tiny desks of my school's auditoriums. It was far too big to use on a bus. It was far too big to use on an airplane (well, you could watch movies or something but the screen didn't fit open once you had it in your lap in a good position for typing). It didn't fit on the small tables on trains either.
Anyone who says 15" does it all has never tried to really use their laptops on the go for work. That, or they fly business class. I think 15" is about the upper limit even if your "mobile spaces" are on the large side.
Something like a 1.5kg 12" widescreen at 1280x800 (slightly smaller and lighter than the iBook) would be perfect for me.
Agree. I'd still take the extra weight for an optical drive, but otherwise this is exactly what I've found with my 15" as well. I dragged one right the way around the world (backpacking!), and although I coped, a 12" would have made all the difference.
Actually Image Capture is the one that opens up iPhoto, iPhoto does the importing though.
EDIT: I guess I should explain more...
The reason I made a bigger deal out of Image Capture than say, iLife is because it's the Applications and Utilities like Image Capture, Printer Setup Utility, and the Network Preference Pane that provide more OS level functionality making things stupidly easy. When I plug in my Camera, Image Capture opens up iPhoto for me and Importing is just a click away.
Sebastian
Thanks, I was wondering where the hell that setting was.
It's not actually Image Capture that opens iPhoto, though. The OS does that - Image Capture's Preferences window is just the place where Apple bizarrely decided to put the controls to change that OS-wide setting. Similarly, the setting for the default e-mail client is in Mail's preferences, the default web browser setting is in Safari's, but you could set the default apps to something else and delete Image Capture, Safari, and Mail off of your system, and the default apps would still launch when they were supposed to.
Those settings all used to be in System Preferences. Why on earth they were moved is a mystery to me.
It is one of Microsoft's few true competitors.
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
But if Apple doesn't want to offer computers "for the rest of us" then it should stop trying to convince us to switch without offering viable alternatives.
I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
because apple offers more. plus they have a catchy slogan. think different.
I agree here, though. The MacBook should be around $800. Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money? Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
No, the G4 CPU was much cheaper than the Core Duo.
As to why the MacBook isn't $800, why not ask Lenovo why their laptops aren't $800 either, or any number of the top end brand name manufacturers....
Apple aren't Acer, Packard Bell or eMachines.
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
Well then what other operating system is a serious competitor to Windows in the home market? Apple is a competitor if people seriously consider buying Macs over Windows. And if you know a major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with Windows optional, please send them my way. They just bundle Windows on there and charge you for it. *
Didn't Apple switch to Intel to save money?
No, Apple switched to Intel to get access to chips that didn't suck. Freescale was having problems making faster G4s, and IBM wasn't interested in improving the G5 enough.
* = Dell is finally shaping up, but that's far from across-the-line, and isn't even shipping yet.
I think because they have a popular media player they are regaining some recognition, but they are not a serious competitor to Windows. Their hardware is still much too expensive (also way, way, way less distributed) to compete seriously with Windows. Every single major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with an OS distributes it with the option to have Windows on it.
They all would all fall over themselves to get OS X if Apple allowed it. There is at least one major OEM, that I'm aware of, that has tried unsuccessfully to get OS X.
Like many, you fail to see that marketshare means very little. By your argument, Rolls Royce should sell cheaper cars to compete with Ford, Hyundai, etc.
Apple has the high end market of consumer and prosumer machines. Their main concern is selling more hardware, not trying to beat out Microsoft for the valueless title of 'most common OS.'
If you wnat to make a comparison, compare Apple's hardware sales to other vendors. Just reported here on AI this week, Apple snagged 10% of all domestic notebook sales from retail outlets. That includes all those sub-$1000 HP, Dell and Toshiba notebook. If we had the total number of $1000+ or Core (2) Duo notebooks we'd see a tremendous gain here.
Why can everyone else do it for hundreds cheaper per notebook? Just seems strange.....
I implore you, link me to one of these identically spec'd $800 notebooks.
Like many, you fail to see that marketshare means very little. By your argument, Rolls Royce should sell cheaper cars to compete with Ford, Hyundai, etc.
Rolls Royces run on the same roads and on the same gas. Not so with OS X and Windows software and compatibility. The likes of Lenovo and Sony are free to push highest of the high end hardware only, and Acer is free to push low end crap only, and that is because they don't have to worry about the OS marketshare. They reinforce one another through Windows.
Apple has the high end market of consumer and prosumer machines. Their main concern is selling more hardware, not trying to beat out Microsoft for the valueless title of 'most common OS.'
Valueless, as shown by Microsoft's profits?
I'm astounded by how bad the majority of computer design is, but they're going to catch up. That means hardware will eventually be commodified to the point where Apple can't make a difference with it. The long term profits, as well as the biggest profits, are and will always remain on software side.
I implore you, link me to one of these identically spec'd $800 notebooks.
It used to be that when people were defending a piece of overpriced Apple hardware, they used the "identical" ploy to tip comparisons. When you compare two computers, set one as the benchmark to strive for and add costly extras to the other to make it "identical" (total feature matching to same or better), you pretty much always guarantee win for the first computer. In actual buy decisions the benchmark is based on a set of wants and means, not a particular product. Funnily, Apple with its tiny lineup of products is far easier to abuse with the same trick.
Example: Show me an Apple equal of the cheapest tower Dell sells with better than 7600GT graphics? (I'm guessing this is in the $600 range...)
Answer: An upgraded Mac Pro at around $2500. (Overpriced!!1!1! Boooooo!)
But Macbook doesn't need dishonest defense. Its hardware is quite competetive at the price - anything roughly comparable costs more. Still, I feel 1150EUR is too much for the low end. I'd like to see the next Macbook upgrade with low end model at 900EUR. It can even have the same specs it does now - no tech they could upgrade on the inside will show to the average user, anyway.
Workable Windows laptops are about 600EUR. It's not a big stretch for folks to shell out 200-300EUR more to get OS X, even if the only thing they knew about it was that it will remove the possibility of viruses and whole-computer "gunk-ups". But 500EUR more? That makes for a hard sell.
^LOL@12 hour battery life. I'd love to see that link.
I don't make stuff like that up, but maybe my memory was slightly stretched or there is a different, older model, or maybe I have the brand wrong.
The manufacturer might fudge things, but here is one that is close at least specwise. Panasonic Toughbook W5 gets 11 hours according to their specs, and it runs 2.7lb and still has an integrated (though weird) optical drive:
http://www.toughbook-europe.com/medi...t_CF-W5_en.pdf
I have no idea, but these new LED displays may not need much of a bezel around them. I've always thought the border around the MacBook screen was a bit too much. But I always guessed it was cheaper to make that way.
Maybe. Maybe it's easier to pack stuff in the base when it's a little larger. The previous 12" models were pretty thick, relatively speaking, compared to the current 13" model.
I would have prefer a MacBook Pro 13"....a real pro laptop....not a iphone/ipod on steroids
oh! do I second that.
seems like a upgrade from the macbook tho. still holding out for it to be atleast "pro-ish"
Rolls Royces run on the same roads and on the same gas. Not so with OS X and Windows software and compatibility.
I really hate that comparison. OSX and Windows aren't 'roads and gas' and for a long time now it really doesn't matter if you're running on alternate 'roads and gas' if you're still getting from A to B. Different roads? Come on, we're on identical hardware, networks and protocols now. Different gas? When was the last time you had a software compatibility issue?
And if you really insist on pushing car analogies the counter example would be a Prius which runs on 'roads and gas' that a Rolls Royce can't. I can't remember ever seeing a diesel roller either. It's not like I can nip down to my local motor factors and buy Rolls Royce parts either.
[QUOTE=Gon;1081179]
The likes of Lenovo and Sony are free to push highest of the high end hardware only, and Acer is free to push low end crap only, and that is because they don't have to worry about the OS marketshare. They reinforce one another through Windows.Valueless, as shown by Microsoft's profits?{/quote]
Apple are free to do whatever they want as they own both the hardware and the software. They obviously choose not to spread themselves too thinly or participate in low margin products which would damage their image in the high end.
I'm astounded by how bad the majority of computer design is, but they're going to catch up. That means hardware will eventually be commodified to the point where Apple can't make a difference with it.
Already happened. Apple can't compete with commodity low end hardware and still be Apple, not in the way people here cry out for (ie. cheap laptops with Celerons in or econobox plastic towers with cheesy 6bit screens).
The long term profits, as well as the biggest profits, are and will always remain on software side.It used to be that when people were defending a piece of overpriced Apple hardware, they used the "identical" ploy to tip comparisons. When you compare two computers, set one as the benchmark to strive for and add costly extras to the other to make it "identical" (total feature matching to same or better), you pretty much always guarantee win for the first computer. In actual buy decisions the benchmark is based on a set of wants and means, not a particular product. Funnily, Apple with its tiny lineup of products is far easier to abuse with the same trick.
Example: Show me an Apple equal of the cheapest tower Dell sells with better than 7600GT graphics? (I'm guessing this is in the $600 range...)
Answer: An upgraded Mac Pro at around $2500. (Overpriced!!1!1! Boooooo!)
But you're comparing 'Apples and Oranges' there. Apple doesn't do a cheap tower so you've got nothing to compare to. It's like making carbon brakes pads a buying prerequisite and lambasting Aston Martin they don't make a car as cheap as a Honda.
But Macbook doesn't need dishonest defense. Its hardware is quite competetive at the price - anything roughly comparable costs more. Still, I feel 1150EUR is too much for the low end. I'd like to see the next Macbook upgrade with low end model at 900EUR. It can even have the same specs it does now - no tech they could upgrade on the inside will show to the average user, anyway.
It's a little high now I reckon. It wasn't when it came out but the competitors have moved on. But here of course you're comparing Apples and Apples.
Workable Windows laptops are about 600EUR. It's not a big stretch for folks to shell out 200-300EUR more to get OS X, even if the only thing they knew about it was that it will remove the possibility of viruses and whole-computer "gunk-ups". But 500EUR more? That makes for a hard sell.
And yet they seem to be selling like hotcakes - go figure!
Apple needs to get it's European pricing in line with reality though.
Well then what other operating system is a serious competitor to Windows in the home market? Apple is a competitor if people seriously consider buying Macs over Windows. And if you know a major hardware manufacturer that distributes computers with Windows optional, please send them my way. They just bundle Windows on there and charge you for it.
My point exactly. "If blah blah blah, and then something else, this and that, then Apple would take over the world."
Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.
Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.
In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.
For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.
I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?
BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.
Every major manufacturer bundles Windows. 1 manufacturer bundles OS X. Competition for Windows? Hardly. Especially now, when you consider people, including myself, are running Windows and OS X on my MBP.
Good for you. Most Mac users aren't bothered if OSX sells more than windows or vice versa. As long as OSX is good, Macs are good then why the fudge would any sane person care what the other guys are doing.
In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.
For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.
I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?
BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.
Apple has to step up its game as well or at least keep it at a high level. They have to realize that many of its new found users aren't as tied to Apple has the hardcore users. If they feel that Apple doesn't fit their needs or take their concerns seriously, they could switch back. I've seen it before. Apple had a big jump with the original iMac. They treated them like they were long time mac users and as a result many switched back.
In the short term, Windows loses very little marketshare to Mac switchers. It's the long term that can really hinder Microsoft. I know of several switchers that either used Bootcamp and/or Parallels at first, but found that OS X offered an "as good or better" solution.
For many years Apple had no retail stores. Many people who are now Mac users knew nothing of Macs because they got a chance to get a hold of one. The retail stores, iPods, Best Buys and the increasing ubiquitousness of Mac notebooks has made it easy for the public to form a well rounded opinion about Apple and Macs.
I wonder how many people using BootCamp, Parallels or VMWare purchased a new, retail copy of XP or Vista, or simple reused an existed OEM copy? Did you buy a retail copy of Windows for your MBP?
BTW, there are at least a few manufacturers that allow you to get Linux builds with select OEM hardware. I believe Dell is one of them.
Ok, there's no need to insinuate that I am a thieving bastard simply because I use Windows on my Mac.
I agree that in the short term Microsoft does lose very little, and has the potential to lose more market share to Apple. All I'm saying is that if you can run Windows on every piece of hardware and you can run OS X on only 1 manufacturer's hardware, there is the more than probable conclusion that Windows would be more widespread than OS X. Opinions aside, this is reality.
Maybe when Leopard comes out, we can run it on a Sony Vaio for $1300 with close to the specs of the new MBP's for $2499. That, in my opinion, would be the answer for OS X to truly compete with Windows. Let us decide what hardware we need, and what OS we want. What a blasphemous thing that is to say, but it would be sweet.
Apple has to step up its game as well or at least keep it at a high level. They have to realize that many of its new found users aren't as tied to Apple has the hardcore users. If they feel that Apple doesn't fit their needs or take their concerns seriously, they could switch back. I've seen it before. Apple had a big jump with the original iMac. They treated them like they were long time mac users and as a result many switched back.
OS marketshare has nothing to do with the quality of the OS, except that Apple has a potential to invest more as the increased user-base for Macs, iPhones, and AppleTVs will lower the R&D costs for developing OS X.
But marketshare itself clearly means nothing to the quality of the product. We need only look at Intel and Microsoft's track record to see this.
Apple sold 2x as many machines as it did 3 years prior. IOW, Apple's user-base is growing and Apple's profits are growing. That is enough for me to be happy. If the rest of the world grow by a 100 fold it wouldn't make a lick a difference to Apple's bottom line.
I have seen no evidence of switchers going back to Windows. If anything, I've seen/read of longtime OS X users moving to Linux.
Ok, there's no need to insinuate that I am a thieving bastard simply because I use Windows on my Mac.
I agree that in the short term Microsoft does lose very little, and has the potential to lose more market share to Apple. All I'm saying is that if you can run Windows on every piece of hardware and you can run OS X on only 1 manufacturer's hardware, there is the more than probable conclusion that Windows would be more widespread than OS X. Opinions aside, this is reality.
Maybe when Leopard comes out, we can run it on a Sony Vaio for $1300 with close to the specs of the new MBP's for $2499. That, in my opinion, would be the answer for OS X to truly compete with Windows. Let us decide what hardware we need, and what OS we want. What a blasphemous thing that is to say, but it would be sweet.
i agree. apple would make so much more money if other companies used their os on their systems. especially if the systems were cheaper. but i think stevey wants to be unique, and be in total control of his company and be the lone seller of his os.