Intersting that while documented, air port always drops signal, sometime programs stay running after shutting notebook getting very hot, trouble waking system up, trackpad problems, the beach ball that spins and spins. LOL. And I used to do tech work and know how to maintain, run scripts, onyx, st cetera. All computers have problems thing is you wont read about it that much and if you post that on the Pple site, it will get deleted under the so called apple agreement that's says you can't say anything negative. LOL. Just helping out the little guy. Don't worry folks. Apple will be facing times Le never before which means more products better prices for us.
I don't fuss with my MBP at all and I've never had any of those things (or the need to force quit) happen to me. And no virus protection and my kids use it to go all over the web.
But my work PC (Thinkpad) has all of those problems you and he just mentioned (note: replace trackpad with pointer button). For a week, I was force-quitting Outlook everyday until I realized it was Sharepoint causing it to keep running at 50% CPU utilization even when I had quit already. And despite being super-protected, it even got infected with InfoStealer and spent 3 hours getting cleaned. Super-portable but still a piece of crap.
Depends on the specs. But you can build a PC for less money and run OSX on it faster than any mac.
ilife is horrible. Absolutely horrible. I hate using it and was relieved when I finally got picasa in OSX.
Songsmith is not a competitor to garageband. They are different apps.
The new movie maker is actually better than you think. And in some ways superior to imovie. Though I do really like imovie.
I could go on and on about all the things in OSX that really irritate me. Things I wish they would copy from microsoft. But that would be pointless here. I know mac users think that all PC users are infected with viruses but it's just not true. Out of the millions of viruses out there I have never had one. And how do I avoid them? Nothing special. Just smart computing.
Yet it was the mac to fall first, two years in a row, in the hacker challenge. With the hacker stating it was much more difficult to get that exploit to even function in windows. He did say windows was more secure for several reasons. Though apple will fix those in snow leopard.
I can say that on the same machine I have better performance in most things in Vista and Windows 7 RC than I do in OSX.
You have to stop buying into the false apple advertising that just repeats old and long dead cliches. It just isn't the case. If anything the microsoft advertising is far more accurate as you can get alot more machine for the money. That is fact. And if you know how to find deals I can show you where to get a machine more powerful than a macbook pro for $900. Highly rated too.
And with a PC I can upgrade my video card. Which is a requirement in whatever machine I get/build. While mac users throw there machines away and buy new ones I just upgrade as the years go by. Changing out whatever parts I deem necessary.
Security is about technical measures, like the strength of the locks on your doors and windows. Safety is about the likelihood that you’ll actually suffer from some sort of attack. Microsoft has in fact implemented more advanced security measures in Windows than Apple has in Mac OS X, but that’s not surprising, because Windows is where nearly all the malware is. And it looks like that's where it'll be staying for a long, long time. MS software is essentially, bargain-basement, common fluff. Apple deliberately prices itself out of most of the market and in turn offers a different kind of value. OS X will never have the kind of market share Windows has. Nor does it have to. And nor should it. It's considered part of a premium package of products, and like any other premium product, the focus is on quality and margins, not high volume sales.
But it rings untrue to most ears to claim that Apple is doing a bad job with regard to security. The evidence suggests that Mac OS X has been and remains secure enough to be safe, and safety is what real people actually care about.
And "More Machine" for the money?
Why would I care about that when I want to run OS X and its own software? I'm sure I could head out right now and build my own monster gaming rig for a fraction of the cost. But if it's going to run windows, then why would I bother? Why would I need to leverage all that hardware anyway? I need enough to run the OS X software I want. The extra I pay is for the un-Windows-like experience. Having come from a Windows background, I'll do just abot anything NOT to have to run MS garbageware. And even now, knowing that I could get that much more hardware for the money (thnaks to the MS ads) . . . I still wouldn't cheap out. The whole Mac/OS X package and the entire Apple ecosystem is simply too attractive and too usable to leave behind.
When it comes to discriminating Mac users, the intangibles count for as much as anything else. In fact, it's a key part of any premium experience.
MS and others would have you believe (at least from these commercials), is that the OS doesn't matter. That they're all the same thing: e-mail plus surfing plus some word processing. No difference. Hardware performance is the big differentiator. Apple is still in business (and prospering) because it doesn't sbuscribe to this view. And I'm thankful for that.
I had the first generation Macbook and it had it shares of problems. It went back twice for warranty work - bad trackpad, DVD drive scratching the disc. It also had a problem with not shutting down correctly and heating up because the processor was still on. But I got rid of it and got the latest Macbook which is much better. So I would say it is hit or miss with either platform.
Individual mileage may vary. However, if someone has stats on running a campus tech situation where there are both PCs and Macs I would take their experience seriously. The guy didn't say the Mac's were ALL better. Just that as a group the Macs lasted longer on average.
I can build my own PC, even throwing in an OEM copy of Windows, or free ISO of Ubuntu, and build it with better specs than just about any OEM PC, and and Apple (easily). DDR3, quad-core, Lian Li/Cooler Master case, etc.
One thing - After 3.5 years how much would you be able to sell your home brew PC for? I traded my iMac G5 for $500.00 to the local dealer in town for a brand new iMac.
My Mom is still using my 2003 iBook for basic computing.
Whoever doesn't think Macs aren't more expensive is just plain stupid.
Sorry, it's not so simple.
Try to price out a Dell similar to a top-of-the line Mac Pro with 8x 2.93 GHz Xeon 5570, 12 GB Memory:
Apple: $6300
Dell: $9000
The only way to get a PC with specs similar to the Apple is to buy from lesser-known brands (i.e. AVADirect) or build it yourself. The only limitation of the Apple is 8 memory slots versus 12.
Macs certainly can be more expensive because there are fewer models available so Apple cannot (and does not want to) hit every price point. Apple tries not to make crap. There are plenty of crappy PCs available, such as the ones Microsoft points to in their ads. Apple's prices are usually pretty comparable at the high-end. It's the low-end that needs some help.
it's a technique used to distract their audience from the real matter; ... when we discuss these advertisements, ... we trash the other hardware when we compare it to apple's hardware. it's a natural response to their advertisement. in microsoft's view, their advertisement is a success, but i'm afraid at the expense of the other pc makers. if i'm a pc maker, i'd not partner with microsoft to make these sort of advertisements because i'll end up looking ugly or uglier.
When you own 90% of the market, you don't NEED to care.
Microsoft doesn't CARE about PC manufacturers, OR it's "partners". When one goes down, another pops up to take it's place. It's whack-a-prole! How many PC assemblers have come and gone over the years?
As long as MS continues to sell it's product, either directly to the public or through PC sales, they're satisfied. Profit is all that matters in Redmond, certainly not quality.
A few commentators mentioned their surprise to Apple's response to the Microsoft advertisements, in that they are surprised Apple is acknowledging the Microsoft ads at all. My first thought is that it seems Apple is focusing more on the general consumer and less on the PROsumer, evidenced by many of Apple's recent hardware and marketing decisions.
For example, as a graphic/web designer, I was extremely shocked in Apple's decision in releasing high glossy LED LCD displays. Apple's Cinema Display's were a top choice for many photographers and professionals who needed an IPS panel with excellent screen to print capabilities. The high glossy displays in the PRO line (MacBook Pro and 24" LED LCD Cinema Display) are baffling to those who utilize displays as a primary tool in their profession. The Cinema Display's were a good alternative to the high price Eizo display's and were also a good choice for those who are moderate professionals (meaning the non-Annie Leibovitz's of the world). They offered an excellent anti-glare IPS LCD screen with 178 degree viewing. The new LED LCD display's are TERRIBLE for editing as they unnaturally increase display contrast, producing prints that are much darker than on the screen (forget about Photoshopping images on a high gloss LED LCD, I dual mirrored an LED LCD alongside a previous generation 23" Aluminum display and attempted to Photoshop images on the 24" LED LCD, the 23" display showed true output and it was extremely off - both displays were calibrated). As well, the only way to eliminate glare is to increase the display brightness to unrealistic levels, and then balancing the light in the room so that the screen and ambient room lighting are equal. Producing a glossy display in the Pro lineup forces many professionals who depended on Apple's displays to shop elsewhere (MacBook PRO's are now off limits to professionals who rely on their display to convey accurate images). Currently my five year old Aluminum Display needs replacing as the brightness and overall panel consistency are going (it's been used almost daily for 8-10 hours at a time, so it was worth the investment). With the (long overdue) release of a new Cinema Display, I was hoping I could replace my dual display setup with the same setup, two 24" LED LCD displays, and pocket the difference (admittedly the $899 price for a 24" LED LCD with a USB hub, 2.1 speaker system and built-in web cam is a good bargain, especially when compared to other LED LCD display's in the market - which currently there are very few). It appears as though I will have to fork over more than $3,000 USD for two EIZO displays to equal the same quality of my current 23" IPS Apple Aluminum Display's.
My point in this comment is that it seems Apple is becoming more concerned with the general consumer and less concerned with the pro-sumer. This is perhaps the reason Apple is interested in fighting in the general consumer market. In the past Apple has stated that Microsoft competes in the world of "beige boxes", which isn't their market. Yet increasingly each year it seems Apple is expanding into this very market, at the sacrifice of their past pro-sumer market. The introduction of the 24" LED LCD display was initially marketed for their portable lineup (until recently with the release of DisplayPort Mac Mini's and Mac Pro's, but Mac Pro owners have to deal with the extremely short chords of the LED display's as well as the limited choice of high glossy/exuberantly bright displays). Myself as well as a dozen or so other professionals who are in the market for new displays are forking over more cash for EIZO (or even NEC) displays. Even design firms that invested in previous generation white non-glossy iMac's that are looking to upgrade are at a loss with the new high glossy systems. MANY, and I mean MANY, design firms began investing in Intel Mac's as they are able to run Windows and Mac OS X. Offices opted for this as less long term costs were paid out to IT office managers/assistants, as well as other third party applications.
In short, it seems Apple is more concerned with the "dumbing down" of its product lines in order to sell more systems to the general consumer. Instead of low volume/high costs sales for professionals, Apple is more concerned with high volume/lower cost of sales (and by lower cost that is in comparison to the higher cost of Apple's Pro lineup). Producing hardware that limits the con/pro-sumer with regards to available options, and investing more research and development into consumer grade products seems to clash with Apple's previous market history.
When you own 90% of the market, you don't NEED to care.
Microsoft doesn't CARE about PC manufacturers, OR it's "partners". When one goes down, another pops up to take it's place. It's whack-a-prole! How many PC assemblers have come and gone over the years?
As long as MS continues to sell it's product, either directly to the public or through PC sales, they're satisfied. Profit is all that matters in Redmond, certainly not quality.
Licensing killed Windows for the average consumer. But it's great for MS. This is the kind of vicious circle that a lot of us don't want to be a part of.
A lot of Mac users aren't cognizant, just read the forums.
That's absolutely true if you read PC oriented forums.
Ignorance abounds in places like that.
Unfortunately, buying a PC for most is a no-brainer. That's what you're supposed to get, right?
Only those freaky, tie-dye, rich, anti-American, gay MAC cultists don't buy a REAL, SERIOUS computer.
Everyone is exposed to Windows in one form or another. If you aren't exposed to Macs, you may have to seek them out. Maybe even leave your mom's basement and go to an Apple Store.
So, buying a Mac tends to be MORE of a conscious choice. You've got to look at BOTH sides of the Mac/PC divide before making your CHOICE.
Seriously I don't know what planet some of you are on.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple, and release hardware but it's a double edge sword. Really some if you have fan boy glasses that are way to thick.
XP is on more computers than anything else and have you see mobile 6.5?? It's a huge advacement. Windows 7 will be huge too and I like it and I hardly use windows but really boys, stop calling windows cheap, they are not,yes, some hardware is but not all, eg Sony.
One big sale and windows owns any hardware they want but then all the whiners cry foul so grow up. Microsoft can do almost anything and I know many wealthy people that are tech saavy that think apple is like a toy. Really. Some if the posts in here are so juvinile and misinformed. Unbelievable.
I think the ads are hilarious. In my humble opinion, MS should by now realize that it cannot compete with the Mac on quality, reliability and maybe even affordability. I think they should target their ads to show off what Windows can do more effectively than the Mac. I have Windows, Mac, Linux and UNIX at home and each is great for a specific task.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple
Could they snatch up Apple? Does simply being worth more than another company mean you are in a financial position to buy it?
Seriously I don't know what planet some of you are on.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple, and release hardware but it's a double edge sword. Really some if you have fan boy glasses that are way to thick.
XP is on more computers than anything else and have you see mobile 6.5?? It's a huge advacement. Windows 7 will be huge too and I like it and I hardly use windows but really boys, stop calling windows cheap, they are not,yes, some hardware is but not all, eg Sony.
One big sale and windows owns any hardware they want but then all the whiners cry foul so grow up. Microsoft can do almost anything and I know many wealthy people that are tech saavy that think apple is like a toy. Really. Some if the posts in here are so juvinile and misinformed. Unbelievable.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be
That's something along the lines of what we heard when Vista was about to be released. But there's always the NEXT version, right? Everything will be fine in the NEXT version. Wait until Windows 7 is actually released before telling us what it will/won't be.
and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple
No. Companies don't simply go around buying other companies whenever and however they like. They can't just "snap up" Apple (whatever THAT means), LOL. It's no like wandering into a store and buying milk and eggs.
XP is on more computers than anything else and have you see mobile 6.5?? It's a huge advacement.
I'll just leave that the way it is for everyone's enjoyment. It needs no modification.
Microsoft can do almost anything
No, they can't. And they aren't. If they did and are, then:
Apple wouldn't be enjoying the kind of record-breaking success it is today and it wouldn't resonate so strongly with consumers. And Windows wouldn't be poorly written non-sandboxed code with automated systems that run purely for Microsoft's pleasure, and it wouldn't constantly write to itself even when all you do is change your home page. And we'd have at most two, simple versions. And consumers wouldn't keep asking the IT guy at work to "fix" their boxes during his off hours. And Microsoft Updater wouldn't need to update its updater with another update, and another, and another . . . and there wouldn't be 150,000+ viruses for Windows because MS from the start had the foresight (in 2001, no less) to secure its operating systems and not release XP with FIVE open ports. And you'd have OS X-like elegance and ease throughout, and it wouldn't take forever just to download and install drivers, and you wouldn't have UAC headaches, and IE wouldn't suck so hard, and Windows Mobile wouldn't look and function like a device from five years ago, and we'd all actually care about (currently wastes of time and money) Kumo, Silverlight, and an MS/Yahoo deal, and all other Microsoft abortions-to-be.
Lastly . . . why are you here? If that's the way you're going to post, you're in the wrong place. But have fun, in any case.
But how fast do these generic PCs run OS X and its own software?
Oh wait . . .
Fast isn't the issue. You can make your own OS X clone with faster components for the price than what Apple charges you. But you can do the same with any PC you build in relation to a vendor's option. The real issue from these home built systems comes from a million little niggling issues that the DIYer doesn't concern themselves with, at least not until after the fact.
Stability of an OSx86 machine isn't nearly as good as a real Mac. You have to install a lot patches and figure out exactly what HW you are going to use and you'll still get issues. You have to sometimes run 3rd-party apps despite OS X offering a native solution. For instance, I had to use VLC to play a DVD because DVD Player.app didn't work, and that was after i figured out how to get the optical drive to work. EVen then, the cheap drive I used was too loud to be used next to my monitor.
Speaking of loud, the old Dell I was using had noisy fans which made the room sound like a jet engine testing center when doing anything CPU intensive. I could literally keep recalling these issues all day, but I'm going to stop there. The point is, it's technically faster, but it's likely not more efficient even if exclude all the setup and maintenance from the equation, and it's certainly not user friendly to have such a system. Even Psystar states that some apps may not work with their system.
i don't usually wade in on debates such as these, but i think you should look a little into the history of the computer business. it is in fact microsoft that is the black sheep of the pack, developing operating systems for generic hardware. up until they hit the scene the computer business was a hardware business, and hardware manufacturers developed operating systems appropriate and compatible for their hardware. the hardware and the operating system provided by the manufacturer were made to be, and expected to be, a complete and functioning unit, and their merits were evaluated as such.
I think you're right in principle, but perhaps not entirely in the specific reasons why. It's very true that Microsoft is the black sheep of the industry, but they did not start out developing operating systems for generic hardware. They started out developing the OS for IBM's proprietary hardware under contract to IBM. The hardware only became generic when Compaq figured out how to clone the IBM-PC without violating IBM's copyrights. Without that event, Microsoft is little more than an IBM subcontractor, and the industry continues to evolve along the lines it had before. Today a lot of people believe that Microsoft's model was Bill's great stroke of genius, when in reality, it fell into his lap.
Comments
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/015...hunters-jennie
Some good points.
Intersting that while documented, air port always drops signal, sometime programs stay running after shutting notebook getting very hot, trouble waking system up, trackpad problems, the beach ball that spins and spins. LOL. And I used to do tech work and know how to maintain, run scripts, onyx, st cetera. All computers have problems thing is you wont read about it that much and if you post that on the Pple site, it will get deleted under the so called apple agreement that's says you can't say anything negative. LOL. Just helping out the little guy. Don't worry folks. Apple will be facing times Le never before which means more products better prices for us.
I don't fuss with my MBP at all and I've never had any of those things (or the need to force quit) happen to me. And no virus protection and my kids use it to go all over the web.
But my work PC (Thinkpad) has all of those problems you and he just mentioned (note: replace trackpad with pointer button). For a week, I was force-quitting Outlook everyday until I realized it was Sharepoint causing it to keep running at 50% CPU utilization even when I had quit already. And despite being super-protected, it even got infected with InfoStealer and spent 3 hours getting cleaned. Super-portable but still a piece of crap.
Depends on the specs. But you can build a PC for less money and run OSX on it faster than any mac.
ilife is horrible. Absolutely horrible. I hate using it and was relieved when I finally got picasa in OSX.
Songsmith is not a competitor to garageband. They are different apps.
The new movie maker is actually better than you think. And in some ways superior to imovie. Though I do really like imovie.
I could go on and on about all the things in OSX that really irritate me. Things I wish they would copy from microsoft. But that would be pointless here. I know mac users think that all PC users are infected with viruses but it's just not true. Out of the millions of viruses out there I have never had one. And how do I avoid them? Nothing special. Just smart computing.
Yet it was the mac to fall first, two years in a row, in the hacker challenge. With the hacker stating it was much more difficult to get that exploit to even function in windows. He did say windows was more secure for several reasons. Though apple will fix those in snow leopard.
I can say that on the same machine I have better performance in most things in Vista and Windows 7 RC than I do in OSX.
You have to stop buying into the false apple advertising that just repeats old and long dead cliches. It just isn't the case. If anything the microsoft advertising is far more accurate as you can get alot more machine for the money. That is fact. And if you know how to find deals I can show you where to get a machine more powerful than a macbook pro for $900. Highly rated too.
And with a PC I can upgrade my video card. Which is a requirement in whatever machine I get/build. While mac users throw there machines away and buy new ones I just upgrade as the years go by. Changing out whatever parts I deem necessary.
Security is about technical measures, like the strength of the locks on your doors and windows. Safety is about the likelihood that you’ll actually suffer from some sort of attack. Microsoft has in fact implemented more advanced security measures in Windows than Apple has in Mac OS X, but that’s not surprising, because Windows is where nearly all the malware is. And it looks like that's where it'll be staying for a long, long time. MS software is essentially, bargain-basement, common fluff. Apple deliberately prices itself out of most of the market and in turn offers a different kind of value. OS X will never have the kind of market share Windows has. Nor does it have to. And nor should it. It's considered part of a premium package of products, and like any other premium product, the focus is on quality and margins, not high volume sales.
But it rings untrue to most ears to claim that Apple is doing a bad job with regard to security. The evidence suggests that Mac OS X has been and remains secure enough to be safe, and safety is what real people actually care about.
And "More Machine" for the money?
Why would I care about that when I want to run OS X and its own software? I'm sure I could head out right now and build my own monster gaming rig for a fraction of the cost. But if it's going to run windows, then why would I bother? Why would I need to leverage all that hardware anyway? I need enough to run the OS X software I want. The extra I pay is for the un-Windows-like experience. Having come from a Windows background, I'll do just abot anything NOT to have to run MS garbageware. And even now, knowing that I could get that much more hardware for the money (thnaks to the MS ads) . . . I still wouldn't cheap out. The whole Mac/OS X package and the entire Apple ecosystem is simply too attractive and too usable to leave behind.
When it comes to discriminating Mac users, the intangibles count for as much as anything else. In fact, it's a key part of any premium experience.
MS and others would have you believe (at least from these commercials), is that the OS doesn't matter. That they're all the same thing: e-mail plus surfing plus some word processing. No difference. Hardware performance is the big differentiator. Apple is still in business (and prospering) because it doesn't sbuscribe to this view. And I'm thankful for that.
I had the first generation Macbook and it had it shares of problems. It went back twice for warranty work - bad trackpad, DVD drive scratching the disc. It also had a problem with not shutting down correctly and heating up because the processor was still on. But I got rid of it and got the latest Macbook which is much better. So I would say it is hit or miss with either platform.
Individual mileage may vary. However, if someone has stats on running a campus tech situation where there are both PCs and Macs I would take their experience seriously. The guy didn't say the Mac's were ALL better. Just that as a group the Macs lasted longer on average.
Group VS. Individual.. Mileage varies.
I can build my own PC, even throwing in an OEM copy of Windows, or free ISO of Ubuntu, and build it with better specs than just about any OEM PC, and and Apple (easily). DDR3, quad-core, Lian Li/Cooler Master case, etc.
One thing - After 3.5 years how much would you be able to sell your home brew PC for? I traded my iMac G5 for $500.00 to the local dealer in town for a brand new iMac.
My Mom is still using my 2003 iBook for basic computing.
Whoever doesn't think Macs aren't more expensive is just plain stupid.
Sorry, it's not so simple.
Try to price out a Dell similar to a top-of-the line Mac Pro with 8x 2.93 GHz Xeon 5570, 12 GB Memory:
Apple: $6300
Dell: $9000
The only way to get a PC with specs similar to the Apple is to buy from lesser-known brands (i.e. AVADirect) or build it yourself. The only limitation of the Apple is 8 memory slots versus 12.
Macs certainly can be more expensive because there are fewer models available so Apple cannot (and does not want to) hit every price point. Apple tries not to make crap. There are plenty of crappy PCs available, such as the ones Microsoft points to in their ads. Apple's prices are usually pretty comparable at the high-end. It's the low-end that needs some help.
it's a technique used to distract their audience from the real matter; ... when we discuss these advertisements, ... we trash the other hardware when we compare it to apple's hardware. it's a natural response to their advertisement. in microsoft's view, their advertisement is a success, but i'm afraid at the expense of the other pc makers. if i'm a pc maker, i'd not partner with microsoft to make these sort of advertisements because i'll end up looking ugly or uglier.
When you own 90% of the market, you don't NEED to care.
Microsoft doesn't CARE about PC manufacturers, OR it's "partners". When one goes down, another pops up to take it's place. It's whack-a-prole! How many PC assemblers have come and gone over the years?
As long as MS continues to sell it's product, either directly to the public or through PC sales, they're satisfied. Profit is all that matters in Redmond, certainly not quality.
Don't know about others but to me, her voice is so annoying it might as well be a broken record.
Chicks, man!
For example, as a graphic/web designer, I was extremely shocked in Apple's decision in releasing high glossy LED LCD displays. Apple's Cinema Display's were a top choice for many photographers and professionals who needed an IPS panel with excellent screen to print capabilities. The high glossy displays in the PRO line (MacBook Pro and 24" LED LCD Cinema Display) are baffling to those who utilize displays as a primary tool in their profession. The Cinema Display's were a good alternative to the high price Eizo display's and were also a good choice for those who are moderate professionals (meaning the non-Annie Leibovitz's of the world). They offered an excellent anti-glare IPS LCD screen with 178 degree viewing. The new LED LCD display's are TERRIBLE for editing as they unnaturally increase display contrast, producing prints that are much darker than on the screen (forget about Photoshopping images on a high gloss LED LCD, I dual mirrored an LED LCD alongside a previous generation 23" Aluminum display and attempted to Photoshop images on the 24" LED LCD, the 23" display showed true output and it was extremely off - both displays were calibrated). As well, the only way to eliminate glare is to increase the display brightness to unrealistic levels, and then balancing the light in the room so that the screen and ambient room lighting are equal. Producing a glossy display in the Pro lineup forces many professionals who depended on Apple's displays to shop elsewhere (MacBook PRO's are now off limits to professionals who rely on their display to convey accurate images). Currently my five year old Aluminum Display needs replacing as the brightness and overall panel consistency are going (it's been used almost daily for 8-10 hours at a time, so it was worth the investment). With the (long overdue) release of a new Cinema Display, I was hoping I could replace my dual display setup with the same setup, two 24" LED LCD displays, and pocket the difference (admittedly the $899 price for a 24" LED LCD with a USB hub, 2.1 speaker system and built-in web cam is a good bargain, especially when compared to other LED LCD display's in the market - which currently there are very few). It appears as though I will have to fork over more than $3,000 USD for two EIZO displays to equal the same quality of my current 23" IPS Apple Aluminum Display's.
My point in this comment is that it seems Apple is becoming more concerned with the general consumer and less concerned with the pro-sumer. This is perhaps the reason Apple is interested in fighting in the general consumer market. In the past Apple has stated that Microsoft competes in the world of "beige boxes", which isn't their market. Yet increasingly each year it seems Apple is expanding into this very market, at the sacrifice of their past pro-sumer market. The introduction of the 24" LED LCD display was initially marketed for their portable lineup (until recently with the release of DisplayPort Mac Mini's and Mac Pro's, but Mac Pro owners have to deal with the extremely short chords of the LED display's as well as the limited choice of high glossy/exuberantly bright displays). Myself as well as a dozen or so other professionals who are in the market for new displays are forking over more cash for EIZO (or even NEC) displays. Even design firms that invested in previous generation white non-glossy iMac's that are looking to upgrade are at a loss with the new high glossy systems. MANY, and I mean MANY, design firms began investing in Intel Mac's as they are able to run Windows and Mac OS X. Offices opted for this as less long term costs were paid out to IT office managers/assistants, as well as other third party applications.
In short, it seems Apple is more concerned with the "dumbing down" of its product lines in order to sell more systems to the general consumer. Instead of low volume/high costs sales for professionals, Apple is more concerned with high volume/lower cost of sales (and by lower cost that is in comparison to the higher cost of Apple's Pro lineup). Producing hardware that limits the con/pro-sumer with regards to available options, and investing more research and development into consumer grade products seems to clash with Apple's previous market history.
When you own 90% of the market, you don't NEED to care.
Microsoft doesn't CARE about PC manufacturers, OR it's "partners". When one goes down, another pops up to take it's place. It's whack-a-prole! How many PC assemblers have come and gone over the years?
As long as MS continues to sell it's product, either directly to the public or through PC sales, they're satisfied. Profit is all that matters in Redmond, certainly not quality.
Licensing killed Windows for the average consumer. But it's great for MS. This is the kind of vicious circle that a lot of us don't want to be a part of.
It was tried. I'd have paid you to take our UMAX and PowerComputing units off our hands.
I was pretty happy with my Radius box. It's still in a closet somewhere
A lot of Mac users aren't cognizant, just read the forums.
That's absolutely true if you read PC oriented forums.
Ignorance abounds in places like that.
Unfortunately, buying a PC for most is a no-brainer. That's what you're supposed to get, right?
Only those freaky, tie-dye, rich, anti-American, gay MAC cultists don't buy a REAL, SERIOUS computer.
Everyone is exposed to Windows in one form or another. If you aren't exposed to Macs, you may have to seek them out. Maybe even leave your mom's basement and go to an Apple Store.
So, buying a Mac tends to be MORE of a conscious choice. You've got to look at BOTH sides of the Mac/PC divide before making your CHOICE.
.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple, and release hardware but it's a double edge sword. Really some if you have fan boy glasses that are way to thick.
XP is on more computers than anything else and have you see mobile 6.5?? It's a huge advacement. Windows 7 will be huge too and I like it and I hardly use windows but really boys, stop calling windows cheap, they are not,yes, some hardware is but not all, eg Sony.
One big sale and windows owns any hardware they want but then all the whiners cry foul so grow up. Microsoft can do almost anything and I know many wealthy people that are tech saavy that think apple is like a toy. Really. Some if the posts in here are so juvinile and misinformed. Unbelievable.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple
Could they snatch up Apple? Does simply being worth more than another company mean you are in a financial position to buy it?
Seriously I don't know what planet some of you are on.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple, and release hardware but it's a double edge sword. Really some if you have fan boy glasses that are way to thick.
XP is on more computers than anything else and have you see mobile 6.5?? It's a huge advacement. Windows 7 will be huge too and I like it and I hardly use windows but really boys, stop calling windows cheap, they are not,yes, some hardware is but not all, eg Sony.
One big sale and windows owns any hardware they want but then all the whiners cry foul so grow up. Microsoft can do almost anything and I know many wealthy people that are tech saavy that think apple is like a toy. Really. Some if the posts in here are so juvinile and misinformed. Unbelievable.
Vista us not cheap. Yes it's a dud but windows 7 won't be
That's something along the lines of what we heard when Vista was about to be released. But there's always the NEXT version, right? Everything will be fine in the NEXT version. Wait until Windows 7 is actually released before telling us what it will/won't be.
and if it wasn't for the anti trust issues microsoft could snap up any company they wanted to, including Apple
No. Companies don't simply go around buying other companies whenever and however they like. They can't just "snap up" Apple (whatever THAT means), LOL. It's no like wandering into a store and buying milk and eggs.
XP is on more computers than anything else and have you see mobile 6.5?? It's a huge advacement.
I'll just leave that the way it is for everyone's enjoyment. It needs no modification.
Microsoft can do almost anything
No, they can't. And they aren't. If they did and are, then:
Apple wouldn't be enjoying the kind of record-breaking success it is today and it wouldn't resonate so strongly with consumers. And Windows wouldn't be poorly written non-sandboxed code with automated systems that run purely for Microsoft's pleasure, and it wouldn't constantly write to itself even when all you do is change your home page. And we'd have at most two, simple versions. And consumers wouldn't keep asking the IT guy at work to "fix" their boxes during his off hours. And Microsoft Updater wouldn't need to update its updater with another update, and another, and another . . . and there wouldn't be 150,000+ viruses for Windows because MS from the start had the foresight (in 2001, no less) to secure its operating systems and not release XP with FIVE open ports. And you'd have OS X-like elegance and ease throughout, and it wouldn't take forever just to download and install drivers, and you wouldn't have UAC headaches, and IE wouldn't suck so hard, and Windows Mobile wouldn't look and function like a device from five years ago, and we'd all actually care about (currently wastes of time and money) Kumo, Silverlight, and an MS/Yahoo deal, and all other Microsoft abortions-to-be.
Lastly . . . why are you here? If that's the way you're going to post, you're in the wrong place. But have fun, in any case.
Ok.
But how fast do these generic PCs run OS X and its own software?
Oh wait . . .
Fast isn't the issue. You can make your own OS X clone with faster components for the price than what Apple charges you. But you can do the same with any PC you build in relation to a vendor's option. The real issue from these home built systems comes from a million little niggling issues that the DIYer doesn't concern themselves with, at least not until after the fact.
Stability of an OSx86 machine isn't nearly as good as a real Mac. You have to install a lot patches and figure out exactly what HW you are going to use and you'll still get issues. You have to sometimes run 3rd-party apps despite OS X offering a native solution. For instance, I had to use VLC to play a DVD because DVD Player.app didn't work, and that was after i figured out how to get the optical drive to work. EVen then, the cheap drive I used was too loud to be used next to my monitor.
Speaking of loud, the old Dell I was using had noisy fans which made the room sound like a jet engine testing center when doing anything CPU intensive. I could literally keep recalling these issues all day, but I'm going to stop there. The point is, it's technically faster, but it's likely not more efficient even if exclude all the setup and maintenance from the equation, and it's certainly not user friendly to have such a system. Even Psystar states that some apps may not work with their system.
i don't usually wade in on debates such as these, but i think you should look a little into the history of the computer business. it is in fact microsoft that is the black sheep of the pack, developing operating systems for generic hardware. up until they hit the scene the computer business was a hardware business, and hardware manufacturers developed operating systems appropriate and compatible for their hardware. the hardware and the operating system provided by the manufacturer were made to be, and expected to be, a complete and functioning unit, and their merits were evaluated as such.
I think you're right in principle, but perhaps not entirely in the specific reasons why. It's very true that Microsoft is the black sheep of the industry, but they did not start out developing operating systems for generic hardware. They started out developing the OS for IBM's proprietary hardware under contract to IBM. The hardware only became generic when Compaq figured out how to clone the IBM-PC without violating IBM's copyrights. Without that event, Microsoft is little more than an IBM subcontractor, and the industry continues to evolve along the lines it had before. Today a lot of people believe that Microsoft's model was Bill's great stroke of genius, when in reality, it fell into his lap.