Not sure where everyone has been but at osx86, there is now a script that you run and you can install osx in almost any machine with the gpu ofyou choice. No more editing plist and next files with bbedit.
Anyway, the point I want to make is you can throw osx on some cheap parts and it does not feel cheap at all. One time I had a hack on my desk, motherboard on some rubber pads, psu beside it. OSX has no idea what hardware it's in and this system ran with dual dvi monitors, surpassing a lot if benchmarks. I think people confuse cheap with windows dll problems and platic cases. Fir the record, you can build a 8 core system, high end graphic card, raid or esata/sata and place it in a $225 rack mount and it looks awesome oryou can buy a 2.6, $125 graphic card, 4 gigs of ram, have it naked and blow out almost any iMac for $325 dollars or put the os on the new msi mac air rip off or notebook/laptop. The os rocks, hands down the best os, but again, it has no idea what cheap is. You can also buy a $20 backlit keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldernorm
If Apple does not respond, then only one side of an arguement is shown. :-)
My MacBook locks up too occasionally, usually when running Windows Word.... :-( And by the way, Force Quit allows me to dump MS Word and yet keep everything else running. I cannot do that in windows where a crash is a total crash. PERIOD.. Just a thought. :-)
Trolling for hits here??? The Mac vs PC ads actually say very little. They have only made true claims backed by fact. Or funny comments. ie PC hiding in a pizza box trying to capture a college student.. LOL Windows pays someone to buy a computer and yet the keep getting the cheap version. You know, cheap crap is always best. :-)
A little off topic but I had a MacBook pro matte then a glossy. If you know what your doing, you can calorbrate. My home hp color laser cost more than a mac pro. Anyway, I got a HP 24" glossy 1920x1200 fir almost half off due to one stuck, not dead pixel, for $260 and it has hdmi connection too. I have my cable hooked up and can watch he or blue ray and it's beautiful plus the display turns to potrait mode. Not bad for a fraction of the apple display and 1920 to boot. Love, luv, luv it. Work off if that with my MacBook pro, booting to several os mac operating systems on a esata FireWire 400/800 he with blue sky media monitors. Same used in pro Geirge Lucas studios. ( am an audio guy, composer and soon to be fox employee I hope). I love macs but they are still missing the mid range headless or non server mac pro 8 fire i7 machines. When the 16 core come, hack n fish all the way. That system will blaze.
Peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJD2112
Here is my response to such a comment on another forum (copy and pasted so excuse the dialog):
Incorrect. Again, please reread my explanation(s). The glossy display OVER-SATURATES images, making it much more difficult to photoshop or image edit. They may certainly look pretty and bright, but the Apple GLOSSY LED LCD is "pumping up" the image to above normal levels. Therefore, when other displays view the image it is nothing similar to what the Apple glossy display outputs. Secondly, prints from the Apple high gloss LED LCD displays will almost certainly be much darker than what the glossy LED LCD outputs. NO ONE, and I mean, NO SERIOUS photography or graphics PROFESSIONAL EVER uses a high gloss screen. Not if they want to keep their clients happy and producing quality work. The article is merely speaking in terms of consumer use and does not address actual professional quality usage. As such, in order to be certain that the display does not have a reflection, adjusting the brightness of the screen to the brightness of the room is essential. In doing so, actual image quality, consistency and brightness is sacrificed. (calibrating does not take this into effect, especially for image/photoshop editing)
Again,
"... in order to be certain that the display does not have a reflection, adjusting the brightness of the screen to the brightness of the room is essential. In doing so, actual image quality, consistency and brightness is sacrificed." My example of turning the lights on and off was to demonstrate what happens when interior light ambience does not match the brightness/light of the glossy LED LCD. In order to be certain that no reflection is shown on the glossy screen, the high gloss screen and room have to have the same brightness level (basic physics). In doing so, actual image brightness and quality is NOT taken into account, and as such quality of image is sacrificed.
If you need to understand how that matters than there really isn't any way I can explain it better for you. Either you are a professional graphic designer/editor/photographer or you're not, either way, the new Apple LED LCD's are NOT PRO-sumer grade hardware.
Ok, so by this logic if it IS expensive than it must certainly be PRO quality??? No. As such, a true graphics professional (and by this I am referring to the Liebovitz's, Ive's, etc of the world) buy EIZO or higher grade displays that start out at $1500 and go from there.
(NOTE: It is important to realize that the Apple LED LCD's are not simply "glossy" but rather "high gloss" displays)
I think the ads have chosen the right angle though - choice. It's the one advantage that Microsoft-power PCs will never lose.
I love my MacBook Pro and I'd love Apple to produce a mid-range tower. I'm a gamer and for games using a PC is still a no-brainer, even after the introduction of Boot Camp. My £800 self-built PC will outperform a £2000 Mac Pro in any game you throw at it. Apple's support for new graphics cards is simply too slow.
So without the choice on Apple, I'm forced to stick with Microsoft.
I think what he means is msft could buy say a Linux version then nvidia and perhaps hp and mac machines custom ( I would probably buy intel if I were msft LOL and amd to boot) but the govt would say no way. Think about it. Msft if they fought it hard enough could buy any company to compete on hardware. Why they can't figure out an iLife suite and os like the mobile 6.5 to the desktop, which has big candy buttons like mac, astounds me. All this money yet they fumble all the time.
Personally I think win7 will do well, especially since IT are already talking about upgrading from xp and this means all co workers upgrading. The thing that really impressed me though is their touch technology, mobile 6.5, whole new animal and very user friendly. If they could port mobile 6.5 to netbooks, people would love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldernorm
Speaking of growing up.... I think Avidfcp needs to get out of his mothers basement once in a while. :-)
And he makes a great case.... Just look at all the great things M$ is ...... going..... to ...... have.....:
Windows mobile 6.5
Windows mobile 7.0
Windows 7
And behave or M$ will buy you... They are so powerful, they can own the world and be its ruler.... if they wanted to. :-(
PS. I think Steve Ballmer talked to this guy directly. And made many many promises. LOL
He did say, total crash. If he is running XP, like most people are still using then an app crash can bring down the whole system. I know Vista and Win7 have it and I think XP included something like it, but I don't think it was true protected memory.
OT but did eveyine know you can now download a search indexing program from msft for fast searches from msft??? I just found it the other day. Really awesome. A d before the fanboys jump all over msft fir stealing it, they didn't. The had it years before spotlight but never implimented it until vista. And if anyone ever say msft stoke, HAVE THEM GOOGLE project looking glass by sun microsystems. It's there 7 years ago that you see quick look, widgets, 3D os. Just saying.
Geeeeh I would like to get through this thread but I love all the misinformation
The bsod is normally from devices not certified for windows and they did a pretty god job handling win 98, xp, me, vista, server03/08 and this is why win 7 is so stable. Heck it installed my high end FireWire audio inteerface without a hitch and why so many say it's stable.
Now to back to when mobile me launched, apple found out the hard way it's no so easy to have synch and push and that was mostly all apple so in comparison msft does very well and win7 will do better. Again, apple couldn't handle mobile me and some lost 10000 of emails fir ever. Can you imagine what would happen if that we'lre msft??? That's like when a republican does something bad it's all over the news but when a democrat does it, hey no bug deal right?
I vote both so you can pin me fir being biased. I see it both ways and this is just how the media is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Your "Have you ever..." comments are wearing thin. Your anecdotal experience has nothing to do with various versions of Windows being to prevent a systemwide crash.
Have you ever heard of Blue Screen of Death? Do you have any idea why it was named as such and how it often was not caused by a Windows app or directly by the OS but by a 3rd-party app being able to take down the entire machine and why protected memory was needed to begin with?
I find it ironic that a fanboy statement users are labeled moron, especially since most mac users are the clueless bunch. Having worked at the genius bar I have seen mac users say their laptop was dead and it was a non charged battery. The good news is that the present mac base is quickly becoming the old pc tweaked fsb over clocking crowd and why you see more anti apple pricing, spec arguments etcetera. The clueless rainbow jobs can do no wrong silly grinning hairy palm sweat crowd is fading. Bye bye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Well, I usually don't answer anyone who is lame enough to use the "fanboy" statement because it's like wearing one of those "I'm a Moran" T-shirts.
If you actually believe there is such a thing as "fanbois" you're ideas are pretty much intellectually bankrupt to begin with. Also, this thread is overflowing with astroturfers as it always is when the issue at hand is a Microsoft advertisement.
Having already made the exception though ... yeah, I can pretty much state with great authority that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
For starters you're either not clear yourself, or purposely trying to confuse the difference between, "my app locked up," "my app is not responding," "the computer froze" and "I had to restart." These are all different things on windows and/or on a Mac so already, you seem to be just pushing a lot of generalised crap about nothing and trying to sound knowledgeable based on bullsh*tting your way through these issues.
You don't talk like anyone who knows anything about computers. Your arguments are littered with little things that make me believe that your experience is limited to the last couple of years using Windows and a single, abortive, and very recent attempt to get to know OS-X.
Since you might even be an astroturfer yourself, I don't think I'm going to bother to go through your stuff and point out all the errors as I intended. It's a sunny day where I am and I have a hangover so I think sitting outside in the yard is preferable to having an argument with the likes of you.
However, I will tell you that it's pretty obvious (and has been for years), which system is more crash-prone when you are comparing UNIX (Mac) to almost anything else (Windows). So arguing that Macs "crash more" or that Windows is "more stable" or anything like that is again, kind of like putting on that "I'm a Moran" T-Shirt.
Arguing after the fact that you are right about this when multiple knowledgeable individuals tell you otherwise just makes you look even more foolish.
I could get a new PC with all the bells and whisles, but I'm waiting on Win7, and even then I might just stick with Ubuntu x64. With Apple, it doesn't matter, because I can only get a couple different variations, but I'm not sure if I care anymore, as I got a Mac, but I've become disappointed in Apple, as they've become so consumer-centric.
You're a consumer as well.
Be happy that Apple actually gives a damn about the consumer. Because it really seems like no one else does.
If what you mean is the alleged disparity between Apple's conusmer line of Macs vs. their "Pro" line of Macs, this is the way it's always been.
The whole Glossy vs. Matte argument can't be used as a brush to paint the whole situation. The glare off Apple's glossy displays is minimal. Really minimal. They're easier to keep clean, and consumers at large seem not to care about the issue either way (I'll get to "Pro" users in a second.) The gloss on Apple's new 24-inch cinema disaply is hardly noticeable. The glare argument is purely artificial, contrived, fake. There is no noticeable/uncomfortable glar on Apple's glossy displays. I don't know how this argument came about, or who made it up, but it's extremely misleading, to the point of outright lies. But again, no matter, because the bulk of Apple's market (people like me) are just fine with this. A glossy display reproduces richer colours and deeper blacks. You need to be sitting *in front* of the display in order to view it properly. But this is obvious. Hell, I wish my nice Samsung SyncMaster T240 (a beautiful display) was glossy.
As for the "Pro" users, accurate colour reproduction might be an issue. I can't really comment on this, but perhaps there's a colour profile in OS X that addresses or otherwise compensates for the gloss, among other things.
If "Pros" are griping about the lack of choice among Apple's systems, there really wouldn't be much choice anyway by the nature of a Pro's work. If you're a Professional, you've got the money for a top-end system already, or you're going to get it through work, etc. And you'll either spring for a Mac Pro (lots of possiblity there), or a 17-inch Macbook Pro. You really don't need any other options beyond that. And you can always add the dispaly of your choice to either system. There is also the top-end iMac to consider if budgets are tight - but again, if you're a Professional, you're goal from the get-go is the best equipment. I don't see too many Pros running around with a Nikon Coolpix, for example. Do you?
In terms of "Pro" software, Apple updates its Pro line of products regularly. Final Cut Pro is the standard, as is most other software of this kind for OS X - Logic pro, etc.
I find it ironic that a fanboy statement users are labeled moron, especially since most mac users are the clueless bunch. Having worked at the genius bar....
Anyone else beginning to wander if hiimamac is some kind of automated bot?
You do understand that the double negative in the sentence below means essentially "whoever thinks Macs are more expensive is plain stupid." Is that what you are trying to say?
Apple's hardware is more than adequate for Apple's software.
You just want to have something for the sake of having it . . . good for boasting, but probably overkill for a lot of things. What, you can't run iMovie fast enough? Final Cut too slow? Gimme a break. GAMES are really the only thing that leverages most of that high end hardware and this isn't a PC or a console. If you're so hooked on the higher-end hardware then build your own PC. Why even bother looking at Apple then? You want to have it both ways, but the result of even better hardware across the board will simply drive up prices. We already have a premium-end item, anyway. The focus is not on specs but the synergy between the hardware and software. Which is something the competition likes to ignore.
And Apple doesn't license out the OS because it is meant to function as a neat, easy PACKAGE. If Apple were to license out their OS it would turn to shit just like Windows. No control = haphazard user experience. What, trust HP, Acer, and the rest of the junk box makers?? We need OS X/Mac to remain a closed system. The benefits of that over the long term far outweigh any disadvantages.
You can claim Apple makes em cheap. Claim it as much as you want . . . until the next customer satisfaction report/survey/study in favour (by miles) if Apple hits you in the face. Again. Year after year. Whatever Apple is doing, they simply need to keep doing it.
great summation
the pain some window users go thru
its sad just knowing a great portion of computer users will never know mac .
on the other hand most of all those ipods and iphones are really window machines
I agree that MS needs to address the problem of its geriatric OS. NT, as designed by David Cutler of DEC, was a good modern OS that was stable and was a vast improvement over Win95. It seemed the every version after NT 3.51 got progressively more corrupted and bloated, with Win2000 Pro(NT 5.0) as the last decent version.
Replacing the OS from scratch with a modern 64-bit clean system that is inherently multi-processor friendly would be the best solution for long-term viability, but I don't know if MS can realistically do that. With such a large market share to support, I don't know if MS can divorce itself from its problem of legacy support. Apple had such a small market share in the early 2000s that it was not so difficult to bite the bullet and push through the Unix based OS on the Intel hardware that it knew would be the future of the company.
Windows is such a creaking behemoth that I wonder if the engineers at MS really even understand what is going on with their OS. It seems to me that MS is paying the price for neglecting to design and implement a modern-day successor to the NT system, and will continue to layer more bloated code over the mess that currently exists in order to delay having to deal with the issue in a forthright way. Perhaps the best solution for MS would be to open up the NT codebase and let Windows become public domain. Maybe MS could focus on good simple Apps that wouldn't be so costly to maintain. Imagine the revenue stream that MS requires just to keep all of those software engineers working to keep their software products functioning.
You are saying the truth .. A truth that has been told for over 12 yrs . Msft even bought out many small soft ware companies and badly ported over their codes .
10 yrs later with all the original programmers gone .who knows what code was shit from the start . apple OS back then were not so good either , until MAC UNTIL MY FAVORITE ROCK SOLID OS 9.2 came out . fuck man i still run it on a clamshell orange
mMAC OSX PLUS is forwarding looking and backward looking software, written in sparse code . because of the unstable nature of this we will have to wait some more for a great QSX from mac
Its very good now,But wait 4 yrs. and MAC OS XI.0 will scream .
Still OS-9.2 to me was granite .
Well I just bought iwork 09 .I hope I web can help me bulid a web site .
You do understand that the double negative in the sentence below means essentially "whoever thinks Macs are more expensive is plain stupid." Is that what you are trying to say?
Who would have thought that Teckstud's could find a way to make his posts even more negative than they already were.
Well. They are more expensive. It's a fact. And that's 'fine' for a 'superior' product. We know what those reasons are.
The real question...is it excessively expensive.
I felt they were out before the price hike in the UK.
I believe they lost touch with the UK buyer with the last round of price increases.
Sure, a report has their marketshare increasing in the UK. We'll see if that continues in light of the recent price increases. (And see if anyone outside of London can keep paying those prices...)
We can argue about the dollar. But that's the same for other PC makers in the UK. And yup, they can offer quad core choice starting at £400. And include a keyboard and monitor. Apple's biscuit tin mini sums up Apple's problem. £500. And what do you get? Something that is way overpriced.
If Macs truly are the Mackintosh for 'everyone' or the 'rest of us' (whatever that means...) then they could and should be priced accordingly. Good shouldn't be the sole preserve for the few.
There's a price gap of over four hundred pounds between the entry Macbook and pc craptop.
If they halved that gap then my opinion says that would be about right. If they want to continue making the share gains of the last few years...they're going to have to cut prices. Yes...and make some sort of move in the 'netbook' market...whatever that turns out to be.
Apple have shown in the iphone and ipod market that they can compete at the high, mid and low end. And that marketshare and quality can go hand in hand.
They have yet to demonstrate that convincingly in the PC market...which the move to intel and standard components promised...
They've got 90-95% of the world PC market to aim at. I don't think they're going to claw that much of that back with these 'rest of the world' prices. Shame. The last few years were starting to get exciting again with those marketshare gains.
But does it have to start at £700? ie twice as much?
£495-ish would still be a premium of how many %? They'd still be making more money than most PC makers...and it would allow upsale for the rest of the line.
I go to PC world. Sure they're 'craptops'. But M$ is highlighting that PC laptops now come with 3 gigs of ram and a 17 inch screen for far less. Maybe the cases are plastic. But so is Apple's entry level Macbook?
For me, the question is how low can Apple go before they sacrifice the quality of product they are known for? People used to use the same old arguments here for a Mac priced £1000 or under? ie Apple couldn't afford it. Didn't want to do it. They had their image to think about... We superior folk don't want 'our' machine being for the 'rest of us'. PCs are crap...Macs aren't. Apple should charge twice as much for the same PC machine because 'X' is worth it. PPC processors aren't as cheap...bah...bah...bahh...etc..
£349? That low. Maybe we're not ever going to see that. Though I'd argue sans k/b and mmouse and monitor? Mini is a £195-ish computer tops.
But for a Macbook? I'd like to see £495 for the entry plastic Macbook.
I find it ironic that a fanboy statement users are labeled moron, especially since most mac users are the clueless bunch. Having worked at the genius bar I have seen mac users say their laptop was dead and it was a non charged battery. The good news is that the present mac base is quickly becoming the old pc tweaked fsb over clocking crowd and why you see more anti apple pricing, spec arguments etcetera. The clueless rainbow jobs can do no wrong silly grinning hairy palm sweat crowd is fading. Bye bye.
Well, at least I don't have the audacity to post garbled trivia from my phone, while sitting on my toilet!
(I can't believe you actually admitted to that)
There's a word for people like that, can't think of it right now but I think it rhymes with "boozer" or "sillbilly"
I felt they were out before the price hike in the UK.
I forget who did the math on it recently, but it was conclusively shown that while the price did go up with the conversion rate the Brits are paying Apple less than before. I know it sucks to have your monetary unit fall but Apple is an American company and will base its prices off the US dollar.
Apple will not let you run OS X on a PC because they would rather have you pay for their overpriced hardware. They should open the restrictions and see how that goes. The lack of driver support for OS X would be an issue as Windows must work with all hardware while OS X only works with select hardware.
I have not run virus or spyware protection on my PC for years without issues. You just have to be cognizant of what you are doing.
I use Adobe Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements which I find much better then iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and Final Cut Express. The package only costs $99. iPhoto is not a photo editor so you need to buy one anyway for any halfway serious photo editing.
You make good points about Apple hardware, there's no secret it's overpriced, but you are now paying more for software that while it is better than what Apple offers, you are still paying for it.
I looked it up on Adobe's site and Premiere elements and Photoshop elements are both $100 each, so I don't see where you can get both of these applications for $99, but in my book that's $200 spent on software that an Apple already ships with (even if it's not quite as good). Also, Pixelmator (only for Mac) is both cheaper and as useful as Photoshop Elements.
I don't think Premiere can even author DVDs at all so I'm thinking on the PC side you're going to be buying another $50-100 piece of software.
Being smart enough to run a Windows computer without getting a virus is too much to ask of a typical user. I have been running Windows for years without viruses as well, but you and I aren't your typical computer buyer. The fact is that Vista is certainly an improvement on security, but if you are a typical Windows user that means either getting a poor free anti-virus solution or paying upwards of $60/year for anti-virus protection.
OS X's ties to Apple's hardware are the only major disadvantage to owning a Mac. Nobody's forcing anyone to get one, but unfortunately Apple is the only real competitor to Microsoft's OS on a consumer level. The reality is that it doesn't really matter what hardware you get, it's all made by contracted chinese factories no matter which brand you buy.
Some people choose Macs because there is a software value and a lower total cost of ownership that far outweighs the initial hardware cost. Maybe for some the TCO of a PC is lower because of their software needs, but most home consumers the TCO of a Mac is probably lower.
Comments
Not sure where everyone has been but at osx86, there is now a script that you run and you can install osx in almost any machine with the gpu ofyou choice. No more editing plist and next files with bbedit.
Anyway, the point I want to make is you can throw osx on some cheap parts and it does not feel cheap at all. One time I had a hack on my desk, motherboard on some rubber pads, psu beside it. OSX has no idea what hardware it's in and this system ran with dual dvi monitors, surpassing a lot if benchmarks. I think people confuse cheap with windows dll problems and platic cases. Fir the record, you can build a 8 core system, high end graphic card, raid or esata/sata and place it in a $225 rack mount and it looks awesome oryou can buy a 2.6, $125 graphic card, 4 gigs of ram, have it naked and blow out almost any iMac for $325 dollars or put the os on the new msi mac air rip off or notebook/laptop. The os rocks, hands down the best os, but again, it has no idea what cheap is. You can also buy a $20 backlit keyboard.
If Apple does not respond, then only one side of an arguement is shown. :-)
My MacBook locks up too occasionally, usually when running Windows Word.... :-( And by the way, Force Quit allows me to dump MS Word and yet keep everything else running. I cannot do that in windows where a crash is a total crash. PERIOD.. Just a thought. :-)
Trolling for hits here??? The Mac vs PC ads actually say very little. They have only made true claims backed by fact. Or funny comments. ie PC hiding in a pizza box trying to capture a college student.. LOL Windows pays someone to buy a computer and yet the keep getting the cheap version. You know, cheap crap is always best. :-)
Just a thought,
en
Peace.
Here is my response to such a comment on another forum (copy and pasted so excuse the dialog):
Incorrect. Again, please reread my explanation(s). The glossy display OVER-SATURATES images, making it much more difficult to photoshop or image edit. They may certainly look pretty and bright, but the Apple GLOSSY LED LCD is "pumping up" the image to above normal levels. Therefore, when other displays view the image it is nothing similar to what the Apple glossy display outputs. Secondly, prints from the Apple high gloss LED LCD displays will almost certainly be much darker than what the glossy LED LCD outputs. NO ONE, and I mean, NO SERIOUS photography or graphics PROFESSIONAL EVER uses a high gloss screen. Not if they want to keep their clients happy and producing quality work. The article is merely speaking in terms of consumer use and does not address actual professional quality usage. As such, in order to be certain that the display does not have a reflection, adjusting the brightness of the screen to the brightness of the room is essential. In doing so, actual image quality, consistency and brightness is sacrificed. (calibrating does not take this into effect, especially for image/photoshop editing)
Again,
"... in order to be certain that the display does not have a reflection, adjusting the brightness of the screen to the brightness of the room is essential. In doing so, actual image quality, consistency and brightness is sacrificed." My example of turning the lights on and off was to demonstrate what happens when interior light ambience does not match the brightness/light of the glossy LED LCD. In order to be certain that no reflection is shown on the glossy screen, the high gloss screen and room have to have the same brightness level (basic physics). In doing so, actual image brightness and quality is NOT taken into account, and as such quality of image is sacrificed.
If you need to understand how that matters than there really isn't any way I can explain it better for you. Either you are a professional graphic designer/editor/photographer or you're not, either way, the new Apple LED LCD's are NOT PRO-sumer grade hardware.
Ok, so by this logic if it IS expensive than it must certainly be PRO quality??? No. As such, a true graphics professional (and by this I am referring to the Liebovitz's, Ive's, etc of the world) buy EIZO or higher grade displays that start out at $1500 and go from there.
(NOTE: It is important to realize that the Apple LED LCD's are not simply "glossy" but rather "high gloss" displays)
I love my MacBook Pro and I'd love Apple to produce a mid-range tower. I'm a gamer and for games using a PC is still a no-brainer, even after the introduction of Boot Camp. My £800 self-built PC will outperform a £2000 Mac Pro in any game you throw at it. Apple's support for new graphics cards is simply too slow.
So without the choice on Apple, I'm forced to stick with Microsoft.
Personally I think win7 will do well, especially since IT are already talking about upgrading from xp and this means all co workers upgrading. The thing that really impressed me though is their touch technology, mobile 6.5, whole new animal and very user friendly. If they could port mobile 6.5 to netbooks, people would love it.
Speaking of growing up.... I think Avidfcp needs to get out of his mothers basement once in a while. :-)
And he makes a great case.... Just look at all the great things M$ is ...... going..... to ...... have.....:
Windows mobile 6.5
Windows mobile 7.0
Windows 7
And behave or M$ will buy you... They are so powerful, they can own the world and be its ruler.... if they wanted to. :-(
PS. I think Steve Ballmer talked to this guy directly. And made many many promises. LOL
Just a thought.
en
He did say, total crash. If he is running XP, like most people are still using then an app crash can bring down the whole system. I know Vista and Win7 have it and I think XP included something like it, but I don't think it was true protected memory.
OT but did eveyine know you can now download a search indexing program from msft for fast searches from msft??? I just found it the other day. Really awesome. A d before the fanboys jump all over msft fir stealing it, they didn't. The had it years before spotlight but never implimented it until vista. And if anyone ever say msft stoke, HAVE THEM GOOGLE project looking glass by sun microsystems. It's there 7 years ago that you see quick look, widgets, 3D os. Just saying.
The bsod is normally from devices not certified for windows and they did a pretty god job handling win 98, xp, me, vista, server03/08 and this is why win 7 is so stable. Heck it installed my high end FireWire audio inteerface without a hitch and why so many say it's stable.
Now to back to when mobile me launched, apple found out the hard way it's no so easy to have synch and push and that was mostly all apple so in comparison msft does very well and win7 will do better. Again, apple couldn't handle mobile me and some lost 10000 of emails fir ever. Can you imagine what would happen if that we'lre msft??? That's like when a republican does something bad it's all over the news but when a democrat does it, hey no bug deal right?
I vote both so you can pin me fir being biased. I see it both ways and this is just how the media is.
Your "Have you ever..." comments are wearing thin. Your anecdotal experience has nothing to do with various versions of Windows being to prevent a systemwide crash.
Have you ever heard of Blue Screen of Death? Do you have any idea why it was named as such and how it often was not caused by a Windows app or directly by the OS but by a 3rd-party app being able to take down the entire machine and why protected memory was needed to begin with?
Well, I usually don't answer anyone who is lame enough to use the "fanboy" statement because it's like wearing one of those "I'm a Moran" T-shirts.
If you actually believe there is such a thing as "fanbois" you're ideas are pretty much intellectually bankrupt to begin with. Also, this thread is overflowing with astroturfers as it always is when the issue at hand is a Microsoft advertisement.
Having already made the exception though ... yeah, I can pretty much state with great authority that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
For starters you're either not clear yourself, or purposely trying to confuse the difference between, "my app locked up," "my app is not responding," "the computer froze" and "I had to restart." These are all different things on windows and/or on a Mac so already, you seem to be just pushing a lot of generalised crap about nothing and trying to sound knowledgeable based on bullsh*tting your way through these issues.
You don't talk like anyone who knows anything about computers. Your arguments are littered with little things that make me believe that your experience is limited to the last couple of years using Windows and a single, abortive, and very recent attempt to get to know OS-X.
Since you might even be an astroturfer yourself, I don't think I'm going to bother to go through your stuff and point out all the errors as I intended. It's a sunny day where I am and I have a hangover so I think sitting outside in the yard is preferable to having an argument with the likes of you.
However, I will tell you that it's pretty obvious (and has been for years), which system is more crash-prone when you are comparing UNIX (Mac) to almost anything else (Windows). So arguing that Macs "crash more" or that Windows is "more stable" or anything like that is again, kind of like putting on that "I'm a Moran" T-Shirt.
Arguing after the fact that you are right about this when multiple knowledgeable individuals tell you otherwise just makes you look even more foolish.
I could get a new PC with all the bells and whisles, but I'm waiting on Win7, and even then I might just stick with Ubuntu x64. With Apple, it doesn't matter, because I can only get a couple different variations, but I'm not sure if I care anymore, as I got a Mac, but I've become disappointed in Apple, as they've become so consumer-centric.
You're a consumer as well.
Be happy that Apple actually gives a damn about the consumer. Because it really seems like no one else does.
If what you mean is the alleged disparity between Apple's conusmer line of Macs vs. their "Pro" line of Macs, this is the way it's always been.
The whole Glossy vs. Matte argument can't be used as a brush to paint the whole situation. The glare off Apple's glossy displays is minimal. Really minimal. They're easier to keep clean, and consumers at large seem not to care about the issue either way (I'll get to "Pro" users in a second.) The gloss on Apple's new 24-inch cinema disaply is hardly noticeable. The glare argument is purely artificial, contrived, fake. There is no noticeable/uncomfortable glar on Apple's glossy displays. I don't know how this argument came about, or who made it up, but it's extremely misleading, to the point of outright lies. But again, no matter, because the bulk of Apple's market (people like me) are just fine with this. A glossy display reproduces richer colours and deeper blacks. You need to be sitting *in front* of the display in order to view it properly. But this is obvious. Hell, I wish my nice Samsung SyncMaster T240 (a beautiful display) was glossy.
As for the "Pro" users, accurate colour reproduction might be an issue. I can't really comment on this, but perhaps there's a colour profile in OS X that addresses or otherwise compensates for the gloss, among other things.
If "Pros" are griping about the lack of choice among Apple's systems, there really wouldn't be much choice anyway by the nature of a Pro's work. If you're a Professional, you've got the money for a top-end system already, or you're going to get it through work, etc. And you'll either spring for a Mac Pro (lots of possiblity there), or a 17-inch Macbook Pro. You really don't need any other options beyond that. And you can always add the dispaly of your choice to either system. There is also the top-end iMac to consider if budgets are tight - but again, if you're a Professional, you're goal from the get-go is the best equipment. I don't see too many Pros running around with a Nikon Coolpix, for example. Do you?
In terms of "Pro" software, Apple updates its Pro line of products regularly. Final Cut Pro is the standard, as is most other software of this kind for OS X - Logic pro, etc.
I find it ironic that a fanboy statement users are labeled moron, especially since most mac users are the clueless bunch. Having worked at the genius bar....
Anyone else beginning to wander if hiimamac is some kind of automated bot?
You do understand that the double negative in the sentence below means essentially "whoever thinks Macs are more expensive is plain stupid." Is that what you are trying to say?
my brain just frooze
Epic fail. Nice try.
lol no
harm meant
Apple's hardware is more than adequate for Apple's software.
You just want to have something for the sake of having it . . . good for boasting, but probably overkill for a lot of things. What, you can't run iMovie fast enough? Final Cut too slow? Gimme a break. GAMES are really the only thing that leverages most of that high end hardware and this isn't a PC or a console. If you're so hooked on the higher-end hardware then build your own PC. Why even bother looking at Apple then? You want to have it both ways, but the result of even better hardware across the board will simply drive up prices. We already have a premium-end item, anyway. The focus is not on specs but the synergy between the hardware and software. Which is something the competition likes to ignore.
And Apple doesn't license out the OS because it is meant to function as a neat, easy PACKAGE. If Apple were to license out their OS it would turn to shit just like Windows. No control = haphazard user experience. What, trust HP, Acer, and the rest of the junk box makers?? We need OS X/Mac to remain a closed system. The benefits of that over the long term far outweigh any disadvantages.
You can claim Apple makes em cheap. Claim it as much as you want . . . until the next customer satisfaction report/survey/study in favour (by miles) if Apple hits you in the face. Again. Year after year. Whatever Apple is doing, they simply need to keep doing it.
great summation
the pain some window users go thru
its sad just knowing a great portion of computer users will never know mac .
on the other hand most of all those ipods and iphones are really window machines
used by window people
one day maybe apple will turn a switch ??
and darken that 90 percent
hmmmmm
evilbrucep
I agree that MS needs to address the problem of its geriatric OS. NT, as designed by David Cutler of DEC, was a good modern OS that was stable and was a vast improvement over Win95. It seemed the every version after NT 3.51 got progressively more corrupted and bloated, with Win2000 Pro(NT 5.0) as the last decent version.
Replacing the OS from scratch with a modern 64-bit clean system that is inherently multi-processor friendly would be the best solution for long-term viability, but I don't know if MS can realistically do that. With such a large market share to support, I don't know if MS can divorce itself from its problem of legacy support. Apple had such a small market share in the early 2000s that it was not so difficult to bite the bullet and push through the Unix based OS on the Intel hardware that it knew would be the future of the company.
Windows is such a creaking behemoth that I wonder if the engineers at MS really even understand what is going on with their OS. It seems to me that MS is paying the price for neglecting to design and implement a modern-day successor to the NT system, and will continue to layer more bloated code over the mess that currently exists in order to delay having to deal with the issue in a forthright way. Perhaps the best solution for MS would be to open up the NT codebase and let Windows become public domain. Maybe MS could focus on good simple Apps that wouldn't be so costly to maintain. Imagine the revenue stream that MS requires just to keep all of those software engineers working to keep their software products functioning.
You are saying the truth .. A truth that has been told for over 12 yrs . Msft even bought out many small soft ware companies and badly ported over their codes .
10 yrs later with all the original programmers gone .who knows what code was shit from the start . apple OS back then were not so good either , until MAC UNTIL MY FAVORITE ROCK SOLID OS 9.2 came out . fuck man i still run it on a clamshell orange
mMAC OSX PLUS is forwarding looking and backward looking software, written in sparse code . because of the unstable nature of this we will have to wait some more for a great QSX from mac
Its very good now,But wait 4 yrs. and MAC OS XI.0 will scream .
Still OS-9.2 to me was granite .
Well I just bought iwork 09 .I hope I web can help me bulid a web site .
peace
Anyone else beginning to wander if hiimamac is some kind of automated bot?
To automated bots.
To automated bots.
i feed my bots all the times
green pixels do just fine
my yahoo bots just died
google bot and me was sad
i swear there alive and watching over me
they know i like to watch certain ads
and now every where i go those ads appear
maybe i will kill my bot
Originally Posted by TBell
You do understand that the double negative in the sentence below means essentially "whoever thinks Macs are more expensive is plain stupid." Is that what you are trying to say?
Who would have thought that Teckstud's could find a way to make his posts even more negative than they already were.
Well. They are more expensive. It's a fact. And that's 'fine' for a 'superior' product. We know what those reasons are.
The real question...is it excessively expensive.
I felt they were out before the price hike in the UK.
I believe they lost touch with the UK buyer with the last round of price increases.
Sure, a report has their marketshare increasing in the UK. We'll see if that continues in light of the recent price increases. (And see if anyone outside of London can keep paying those prices...)
We can argue about the dollar. But that's the same for other PC makers in the UK. And yup, they can offer quad core choice starting at £400. And include a keyboard and monitor. Apple's biscuit tin mini sums up Apple's problem. £500. And what do you get? Something that is way overpriced.
If Macs truly are the Mackintosh for 'everyone' or the 'rest of us' (whatever that means...) then they could and should be priced accordingly. Good shouldn't be the sole preserve for the few.
There's a price gap of over four hundred pounds between the entry Macbook and pc craptop.
If they halved that gap then my opinion says that would be about right. If they want to continue making the share gains of the last few years...they're going to have to cut prices. Yes...and make some sort of move in the 'netbook' market...whatever that turns out to be.
Apple have shown in the iphone and ipod market that they can compete at the high, mid and low end. And that marketshare and quality can go hand in hand.
They have yet to demonstrate that convincingly in the PC market...which the move to intel and standard components promised...
They've got 90-95% of the world PC market to aim at. I don't think they're going to claw that much of that back with these 'rest of the world' prices. Shame. The last few years were starting to get exciting again with those marketshare gains.
Lemon Bon Bon.
But does it have to start at £700? ie twice as much?
£495-ish would still be a premium of how many %? They'd still be making more money than most PC makers...and it would allow upsale for the rest of the line.
I go to PC world. Sure they're 'craptops'. But M$ is highlighting that PC laptops now come with 3 gigs of ram and a 17 inch screen for far less. Maybe the cases are plastic. But so is Apple's entry level Macbook?
For me, the question is how low can Apple go before they sacrifice the quality of product they are known for? People used to use the same old arguments here for a Mac priced £1000 or under? ie Apple couldn't afford it. Didn't want to do it. They had their image to think about... We superior folk don't want 'our' machine being for the 'rest of us'. PCs are crap...Macs aren't. Apple should charge twice as much for the same PC machine because 'X' is worth it. PPC processors aren't as cheap...bah...bah...bahh...etc..
£349? That low. Maybe we're not ever going to see that. Though I'd argue sans k/b and mmouse and monitor? Mini is a £195-ish computer tops.
But for a Macbook? I'd like to see £495 for the entry plastic Macbook.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I find it ironic that a fanboy statement users are labeled moron, especially since most mac users are the clueless bunch. Having worked at the genius bar I have seen mac users say their laptop was dead and it was a non charged battery. The good news is that the present mac base is quickly becoming the old pc tweaked fsb over clocking crowd and why you see more anti apple pricing, spec arguments etcetera. The clueless rainbow jobs can do no wrong silly grinning hairy palm sweat crowd is fading. Bye bye.
Well, at least I don't have the audacity to post garbled trivia from my phone, while sitting on my toilet!
(I can't believe you actually admitted to that)
There's a word for people like that, can't think of it right now but I think it rhymes with "boozer" or "sillbilly"
I felt they were out before the price hike in the UK.
I forget who did the math on it recently, but it was conclusively shown that while the price did go up with the conversion rate the Brits are paying Apple less than before. I know it sucks to have your monetary unit fall but Apple is an American company and will base its prices off the US dollar.
Apple will not let you run OS X on a PC because they would rather have you pay for their overpriced hardware. They should open the restrictions and see how that goes. The lack of driver support for OS X would be an issue as Windows must work with all hardware while OS X only works with select hardware.
I have not run virus or spyware protection on my PC for years without issues. You just have to be cognizant of what you are doing.
I use Adobe Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements which I find much better then iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and Final Cut Express. The package only costs $99. iPhoto is not a photo editor so you need to buy one anyway for any halfway serious photo editing.
You make good points about Apple hardware, there's no secret it's overpriced, but you are now paying more for software that while it is better than what Apple offers, you are still paying for it.
I looked it up on Adobe's site and Premiere elements and Photoshop elements are both $100 each, so I don't see where you can get both of these applications for $99, but in my book that's $200 spent on software that an Apple already ships with (even if it's not quite as good). Also, Pixelmator (only for Mac) is both cheaper and as useful as Photoshop Elements.
I don't think Premiere can even author DVDs at all so I'm thinking on the PC side you're going to be buying another $50-100 piece of software.
Being smart enough to run a Windows computer without getting a virus is too much to ask of a typical user. I have been running Windows for years without viruses as well, but you and I aren't your typical computer buyer. The fact is that Vista is certainly an improvement on security, but if you are a typical Windows user that means either getting a poor free anti-virus solution or paying upwards of $60/year for anti-virus protection.
OS X's ties to Apple's hardware are the only major disadvantage to owning a Mac. Nobody's forcing anyone to get one, but unfortunately Apple is the only real competitor to Microsoft's OS on a consumer level. The reality is that it doesn't really matter what hardware you get, it's all made by contracted chinese factories no matter which brand you buy.
Some people choose Macs because there is a software value and a lower total cost of ownership that far outweighs the initial hardware cost. Maybe for some the TCO of a PC is lower because of their software needs, but most home consumers the TCO of a Mac is probably lower.