If Mas is candy store, Windows should - at least - be a gym; you have to put an effort to stay fit. But it's worth the effort, and you don't get rotten teeth.
But I don't mind scrapyard analogy as long as I can get my quad cores, graphic cards and all other goodies there. And I like dogs. I really do.
It's no worse than saying that it costs as much to buy a Mac as it does to buy a candy store.
Besides, you know what PC actually stands for, don't you?
Windows users tend to know far less about Macs than Mac users know about Windows.
This is true. Most Mac users use Windows on a daily basis at work, and have been doing so for years, possibly decades, while most Windows users have never even SEEN a Mac outside of ads on Tv.
When I hear about Windows users like you telling us how to burn disks because some mythical friend couldn't figure it out, I laugh. It's usually the other way around.
I've been using PC's since PC DOS 1.0, both professionally and personally, and I can say that PC's have always had more problems, and their users as a group are clueless about their machines.
Most can't even tell you the model number and many don't even remember the name of the manufacturer!
Agreed. About 10% of Windows users I know actually know what they're doing on their platforms. About 80-90% of Mac users I know, know exactly how to use their computers. The majority of Windows users are afraid of new software and new hardware, and are complete idiots. They buy their computers simply because they're "cheap" and don't even know how to defrag. I mean, wow.
I just installed Windows7 RC1 on my MacBook Alu 2.0GHZ. Typing this from it running in VMWare Fusion 2.0.5 ... Quite smooth and stable, I prefer VMWare now to Parallels, I'm not looking back. VMWare seems more stable, intuitive and Unity is somehow a little smoother than Coherence. Unity can really sell PC to Mac switchers, because you've got a real Windows "window" right there next to Macs. I know Unity is not new, but the latest version here...
Like Melgross says, the corporate integration is close. What Apple is doing is unfortunately not directly going after business users as much as using Mac switchers bringing their Macs to work as Apple's "business strategy".
And for Defragging on a PC, Auslogic's Defrag is the only way to fly. I had no idea WTF Vista was doing taking hours and hours to defrag (it was trying to place files at a certain part of the drive or who-knows-what...)
AND TURN OFF SUPERFETCH in Vista. That was killing me. That is one big resource hog.
Anyways, I think Windows7 has potential. Microsoft is going to come out all guns blazing when it launches, and Apple is preparing even more to take it on.
And for Defragging on a PC, Auslogic's Defrag is the only way to fly. I had no idea WTF Vista was doing taking hours and hours to defrag (it was trying to place files at a certain part of the drive or who-knows-what...)
AND TURN OFF SUPERFETCH in Vista. That was killing me. That is one big resource hog.
Anyways, I think Windows7 has potential. Microsoft is going to come out all guns blazing when it launches, and Apple is preparing even more to take it on.
On the contrary, Apple has given us a good idea of their release schdule. At first, they said that they would release about one year apart. Then when they got the OS to the point where it was mostly complete from their standpoint, they said that they would be going releases about two years apart. They've either been on schedule, ahead of schedule, or just a few months behind. Thats a pretty good record.
I'll take your word for it. I am relatively late on the Apple scene - I bought a Mac with 10.4 on it.
Quote:
You can set an artificial timeline, but you have to include XP in that. Add up the real totals.
Actually, my artificial time line started roughly with the introduction of 10.0/XP. The were released with a few months of each other. In that respect, they are real totals. I didn't make the numbers up. At least I don't think I did.
Quote:
The world I've stated is the real world. the one you've set up is what you wish it would be.
As a moderator, I would expect something a little less personal and insulting than "the one you've set up is what you wish it would be". You are the person who can actually decide whether or not my post appears here and that's clearly something that could wind one up.
All I quoted (and I got 10.1 wrong - I accept that) is the price of remaining current with both operating systems. I didn't make any qualitative assessment at all, which is clearly where you want to head. The reality is that as Operating Systems, both do the job and both do it (at least) well enough, despite whatever feelings you have about the 'real world'. The 'real world' numbers I gave are accurate and verifiable (excepting of course 10.1). And to stay at current levels of the respective operating systems, the cost is clearly comparable. I was even gracious and quoted the most expensive version of the Windows offerings. If we chose the Home Premium or whatever it is they like to call it, then the differences are a couple of hundred bucks in favour of Windows.
Quote:
They are charging this for Win 7. And that's just two years after Vista. Surely you've noticed that? I don't see the Ultimate product being offered for even $129, which is all it's worth anyway.
Point taken.
Quote:
Even in the PC sites, blogs and magazines, they were talking about how MS would respond to the $29 Apple will be charging for 10.6. It's not something I made up. If Apple decided to give it away for free, MS would have been in a lot of trouble, because $50 for the pre sale would have had to be dropped, and possibly so would all of their other prices. As MS lives by its software prices and profits, that would hit them much harder that Apple's pricing is hitting them, as they live by hardware sales and profits.
Moot point. Apple will never give something away for free when there's 10% of the PC market prepared to stump up for anything that issues from Cupertino. In fact, no company in general, would.
Quote:
etc, etc, etc.
At least, they changed their tune about requiring people to have upgraded to Vista before allowing them to upgrade to Win 7, which, at first, they said wouldn't be possible. The disgust with Vista, and the lack of acceptance made them change their minds (along with demands made in MS friendly blogs and such).
Look, I couldn't care a whit about whether something was late, or it was crap, or it didn't fit in superman's undies. All I wanted to point out that was keeping current with either operating system had a comparable cost. It's not open to debate. The numbers are out there and even if I did get a dot release wrong it doesn't significantly alter the sums either way. Those are my terms of reference. That's all I wanted to say. And having said that, I leave it at that.
Moot point. Apple will never give something away for free when there's 10% of the PC market prepared to stump up for anything that issues from Cupertino. In fact, no company in general, would.
Look, I couldn't care a whit about whether something was late, or it was crap, or it didn't fit in superman's undies. All I wanted to point out that was keeping current with either operating system had a comparable cost. It's not open to debate. The numbers are out there and even if I did get a dot release wrong it doesn't significantly alter the sums either way. Those are my terms of reference. That's all I wanted to say. And having said that, I leave it at that.
guess you missed my post below. to repeat:
- Apple in fact does give away its software for free - in the real world you say you want to discuss. unlike Microsoft, it makes no effort whatsoever to prevent unlimited installations of OS X, iLife, or iWorks from a single purchased disc. yeah, it ain't legal, but an awful lot of Mac users do it, and Apple knows darn well they do it, and lets it happen. because as everyone notes, Apple really makes its money selling you hardware and the software is the inducement for that. (btw, iTunes - the heart of the Apple cross-platform "ecosystem" - has always been free, along with Safari. and there is no MS equivalent at all.). Interestingly, the only Apple consumer software you really must pay to use with a registration is MobileMe.
- you still are ignoring the steep discounts of the Apple family pack prices for OS X (and iLife/iWork too). $199 for 5 computers vs. $129 for one. i'd guess the majority of Mac owners have at least two Macs in their household, so that would be $99 per Mac. and many have more than 2. likewise, friends can share a family pack, and i bet many students do, those that keep it legal. i don't recall the history of family pack pricing before Tiger, so can't offer a running total. but the undeniable big difference you omit is that MS offers NO multi-computer discount for consumer Windows OS and other MS consumer software.
bottom line is that MS has to milk PC owners repeatedly with excessive prices for Windows, Office, and the rest of its software products and services because, of course, that is all it really has to sell. whereas Apple includes the true price of its software and services (like the Apple retail stores "free" help which of course cannot be actually free) within the up front price of its hardware - hence one good reason Apple computers cost somewhat more than mid/low end PC's.
it's two different business models, so comparisons of isolated parts of each are inherently skewed. what really bugs me about the MS approach is not really the total true costs of the PC/Windows hardware/software package with updating over the years. instead it's the intentionally misleading manipulation of the consumer. that good old Ballmer snake oil where NT 6.1 is branded "Windows 7" and the goal is to "monetize" every aspect of your daily digital life if you have no escape route from Windows. i hate being played for a sucker, that's just me.
Apple on the other hand just arrogantly tells me 'this is what it costs if you want our stuff, take it or leave it.' ok, i can deal with that. a lot of life is like that. but it's still my decision, my value calculation. there's always Linux ...
Apple on the other hand just arrogantly tells me 'this is what it costs if you want our stuff, take it or leave it.' ok, i can deal with that. a lot of life is like that. but it's still my decision, my value calculation. there's always Linux ...
Alright, but I don't see what's "arrogant" about it. HP and Dell and the rest all do that. It's just that Apple products cost more. But it's all relative.
Actually, my artificial time line started roughly with the introduction of 10.0/XP. The were released with a few months of each other. In that respect, they are real totals. I didn't make the numbers up. At least I don't think I did.
Ok, I was looking at your statement in a different light, so I'll back off that one.
Quote:
As a moderator, I would expect something a little less personal and insulting than "the one you've set up is what you wish it would be". You are the person who can actually decide whether or not my post appears here and that's clearly something that could wind one up.
Don't be so thin skinned. When you accused ME of having an "imaginary world", your words:
Quote:
your imaginary world
did you think you were insulting me, or not? So my response simply pointed out that it's your imagination here that's the problem.
If that's too insulting for you, then you've got a problem.
Don't worry about my removing posts. I've never yet removed one pertaining to me, and I've only removed a few to others that REALLY were insulting.
If you're not happy, then post me privately.
Quote:
All I quoted (and I got 10.1 wrong - I accept that) is the price of remaining current with both operating systems. I didn't make any qualitative assessment at all, which is clearly where you want to head. The reality is that as Operating Systems, both do the job and both do it (at least) well enough, despite whatever feelings you have about the 'real world'. The 'real world' numbers I gave are accurate and verifiable (excepting of course 10.1). And to stay at current levels of the respective operating systems, the cost is clearly comparable. I was even gracious and quoted the most expensive version of the Windows offerings. If we chose the Home Premium or whatever it is they like to call it, then the differences are a couple of hundred bucks in favour of Windows.
I wasn't making any qualitative assessments at all. Except that being gracious and thinking that anything other than Ultimate is comparable to OS X, is gratuitous. Apple doesn't sell a stripped down OS with limiting features as MS does. Therefor, only Ultimate is equivalent to OS X.
Quote:
Point taken.
So we agree.
Quote:
Moot point. Apple will never give something away for free when there's 10% of the PC market prepared to stump up for anything that issues from Cupertino. In fact, no company in general, would.
$29 is pretty cheap. So is the $49 family pack that gives three installs. That comes out to $16.33 an install. Cheaper from amazon and others. MS has nothing equal to that. $50 for a pre-purchase is the closest they come. I believe that $119 for Home Basic is the cheapest actual price you'll be able to buy it for retail afterwards before store discounts. Though, to be fair, some computer manufacturers are sucking up the $50 price for computers bought between about now, and the hopefully October release. But you have to buy a new computer to take advantage of that.
Quote:
Look, I couldn't care a whit about whether something was late, or it was crap, or it didn't fit in superman's undies. All I wanted to point out that was keeping current with either operating system had a comparable cost. It's not open to debate. The numbers are out there and even if I did get a dot release wrong it doesn't significantly alter the sums either way. Those are my terms of reference. That's all I wanted to say. And having said that, I leave it at that.
You're a rare person, because almost everyone else does care.
But what you're ignoring is intent. Your whole post is predicated upon OS release dates and the cost. You're talking as though MS's serious failure to deliver product on time is a virtue! It's not. It's a serious failure on their part, and if they were able to do what they were trying to do, we would have seen at least one, and possibly two more upgrades during this time. And people would have had to pay to get them.
But, even so. Apple's OS releases and pricing is still below MS's. And that's a fact.
And for Defragging on a PC, Auslogic's Defrag is the only way to fly. I had no idea WTF Vista was doing taking hours and hours to defrag (it was trying to place files at a certain part of the drive or who-knows-what...)
I like Diskeeper's defragmenter. You should check it out. Basically, it always works in the background, but does it so that you don't see a performance hit across the system. It moves your most used files to the front of the hdd.
I like Diskeeper's defragmenter. You should check it out. Basically, it always works in the background, but does it so that you don't see a performance hit across the system. It moves your most used files to the front of the hdd.
I like HFS+ because it doesn't need a defragmenter. It takes care of defragmenting on the fly. Out of topic, but couldn't resist it.
Microsoft dropped the ball even when it came to games. There really should be no need for a third party company like Valve to provide the digital store and multiplayer back-end for PC games.
Not that I'm complaining, Valve's Steam solution is brilliant and the top reason to install Windows. Steam existed way before Apple's app store. Apple is merely treading in Valve's footprints when it comes to games.
I disagree that Microsoft are overcharging at $49.99 though. That's a great price and should attract a lot of Windows XP users. Don't forget that Apple are charging $10 for yearly iPod touch updates. Against that backdrop, Windows 7 is a bargain.
Because then you would be complaining that MS used their OS dominance to edge out an advantage in game distribution?
I don't understand why everyone thinks everything needs an app store. Apparently if you don't have one I guess your dropping the ball.
I like HFS+ because it doesn't need a defragmenter. It takes care of defragmenting on the fly. Out of topic, but couldn't resist it.
Totally on topic. Why the heck does Windows still just simply dump bits/ bytes/whatever anywhere it pleases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scavanger
I don't understand why everyone thinks everything needs an app store. Apparently if you don't have one I guess your dropping the ball.
Not everything. But the move from physical media to digital distribution to centralised digital distribution has big, big advantages. Not everything needs an App Store. But iTunes and Valve's Steam is good proof it is "a good thing".
I like Diskeeper's defragmenter. You should check it out. Basically, it always works in the background, but does it so that you don't see a performance hit across the system. It moves your most used files to the front of the hdd.
Interesting...
BTW for those running Vista besides turning off Superfetch turn off System Restore points or something like that. Before I turned of that System Restore stuff, I was wondering what happened to like 10GB to 20GB of space. I don't think I'm exaggerating here, it was taking up huge amounts of space, and I think the success of System Restore points in Windows is marginal.
...Apple on the other hand just arrogantly tells me 'this is what it costs if you want our stuff, take it or leave it.' ok, i can deal with that. a lot of life is like that. but it's still my decision, my value calculation. there's always Linux ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Alright, but I don't see what's "arrogant" about it. HP and Dell and the rest all do that. It's just that Apple products cost more. But it's all relative.
Dell's Adamo is beyond arrogant, the price point to me just says, "**** YOU we don't even give a *"
This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.
The problem with you is you believe that Microsoft created the so-called 'PC Revolution', you have no understanding of history and because of that you have a distorted understanding of computers. I suggest you get some experience in the world of computers before passing judgements on other people on mass.
As for the rest, congratulations for stereotyping millions of users based on a couple of experiences - I guess my 10+ years of administrating Windows, UNIX and Mac servers is just all a haze because apparently I am a clueless Mac user.
Btw, assembling computers isn't a skill - computers are like meccano assembly kits; unless you're absolutely clueless, there is very little that can go wrong; follow the instructions, use some grey matter and voila - you've got a 'high end gaming machine'.
Comments
Aww, that is plain nasty.
If Mas is candy store, Windows should - at least - be a gym; you have to put an effort to stay fit. But it's worth the effort, and you don't get rotten teeth.
But I don't mind scrapyard analogy as long as I can get my quad cores, graphic cards and all other goodies there. And I like dogs. I really do.
It's no worse than saying that it costs as much to buy a Mac as it does to buy a candy store.
Besides, you know what PC actually stands for, don't you?
Windows users tend to know far less about Macs than Mac users know about Windows.
This is true. Most Mac users use Windows on a daily basis at work, and have been doing so for years, possibly decades, while most Windows users have never even SEEN a Mac outside of ads on Tv.
When I hear about Windows users like you telling us how to burn disks because some mythical friend couldn't figure it out, I laugh. It's usually the other way around.
I've been using PC's since PC DOS 1.0, both professionally and personally, and I can say that PC's have always had more problems, and their users as a group are clueless about their machines.
Most can't even tell you the model number and many don't even remember the name of the manufacturer!
Agreed. About 10% of Windows users I know actually know what they're doing on their platforms. About 80-90% of Mac users I know, know exactly how to use their computers. The majority of Windows users are afraid of new software and new hardware, and are complete idiots. They buy their computers simply because they're "cheap" and don't even know how to defrag. I mean, wow.
Like Melgross says, the corporate integration is close. What Apple is doing is unfortunately not directly going after business users as much as using Mac switchers bringing their Macs to work as Apple's "business strategy".
AND TURN OFF SUPERFETCH in Vista. That was killing me. That is one big resource hog.
Anyways, I think Windows7 has potential. Microsoft is going to come out all guns blazing when it launches, and Apple is preparing even more to take it on.
And for Defragging on a PC, Auslogic's Defrag is the only way to fly. I had no idea WTF Vista was doing taking hours and hours to defrag (it was trying to place files at a certain part of the drive or who-knows-what...)
AND TURN OFF SUPERFETCH in Vista. That was killing me. That is one big resource hog.
Anyways, I think Windows7 has potential. Microsoft is going to come out all guns blazing when it launches, and Apple is preparing even more to take it on.
Check out the latest build of SL.
Wow. Seriously.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...733684&page=10
On the contrary, Apple has given us a good idea of their release schdule. At first, they said that they would release about one year apart. Then when they got the OS to the point where it was mostly complete from their standpoint, they said that they would be going releases about two years apart. They've either been on schedule, ahead of schedule, or just a few months behind. Thats a pretty good record.
I'll take your word for it. I am relatively late on the Apple scene - I bought a Mac with 10.4 on it.
You can set an artificial timeline, but you have to include XP in that. Add up the real totals.
Actually, my artificial time line started roughly with the introduction of 10.0/XP. The were released with a few months of each other. In that respect, they are real totals. I didn't make the numbers up. At least I don't think I did.
The world I've stated is the real world. the one you've set up is what you wish it would be.
As a moderator, I would expect something a little less personal and insulting than "the one you've set up is what you wish it would be". You are the person who can actually decide whether or not my post appears here and that's clearly something that could wind one up.
All I quoted (and I got 10.1 wrong - I accept that) is the price of remaining current with both operating systems. I didn't make any qualitative assessment at all, which is clearly where you want to head. The reality is that as Operating Systems, both do the job and both do it (at least) well enough, despite whatever feelings you have about the 'real world'. The 'real world' numbers I gave are accurate and verifiable (excepting of course 10.1). And to stay at current levels of the respective operating systems, the cost is clearly comparable. I was even gracious and quoted the most expensive version of the Windows offerings. If we chose the Home Premium or whatever it is they like to call it, then the differences are a couple of hundred bucks in favour of Windows.
They are charging this for Win 7. And that's just two years after Vista. Surely you've noticed that? I don't see the Ultimate product being offered for even $129, which is all it's worth anyway.
Point taken.
Even in the PC sites, blogs and magazines, they were talking about how MS would respond to the $29 Apple will be charging for 10.6. It's not something I made up. If Apple decided to give it away for free, MS would have been in a lot of trouble, because $50 for the pre sale would have had to be dropped, and possibly so would all of their other prices. As MS lives by its software prices and profits, that would hit them much harder that Apple's pricing is hitting them, as they live by hardware sales and profits.
Moot point. Apple will never give something away for free when there's 10% of the PC market prepared to stump up for anything that issues from Cupertino. In fact, no company in general, would.
etc, etc, etc.
At least, they changed their tune about requiring people to have upgraded to Vista before allowing them to upgrade to Win 7, which, at first, they said wouldn't be possible. The disgust with Vista, and the lack of acceptance made them change their minds (along with demands made in MS friendly blogs and such).
Look, I couldn't care a whit about whether something was late, or it was crap, or it didn't fit in superman's undies. All I wanted to point out that was keeping current with either operating system had a comparable cost. It's not open to debate. The numbers are out there and even if I did get a dot release wrong it doesn't significantly alter the sums either way. Those are my terms of reference. That's all I wanted to say. And having said that, I leave it at that.
Moot point. Apple will never give something away for free when there's 10% of the PC market prepared to stump up for anything that issues from Cupertino. In fact, no company in general, would.
Look, I couldn't care a whit about whether something was late, or it was crap, or it didn't fit in superman's undies. All I wanted to point out that was keeping current with either operating system had a comparable cost. It's not open to debate. The numbers are out there and even if I did get a dot release wrong it doesn't significantly alter the sums either way. Those are my terms of reference. That's all I wanted to say. And having said that, I leave it at that.
guess you missed my post below. to repeat:
- Apple in fact does give away its software for free - in the real world you say you want to discuss. unlike Microsoft, it makes no effort whatsoever to prevent unlimited installations of OS X, iLife, or iWorks from a single purchased disc. yeah, it ain't legal, but an awful lot of Mac users do it, and Apple knows darn well they do it, and lets it happen. because as everyone notes, Apple really makes its money selling you hardware and the software is the inducement for that. (btw, iTunes - the heart of the Apple cross-platform "ecosystem" - has always been free, along with Safari. and there is no MS equivalent at all.). Interestingly, the only Apple consumer software you really must pay to use with a registration is MobileMe.
- you still are ignoring the steep discounts of the Apple family pack prices for OS X (and iLife/iWork too). $199 for 5 computers vs. $129 for one. i'd guess the majority of Mac owners have at least two Macs in their household, so that would be $99 per Mac. and many have more than 2. likewise, friends can share a family pack, and i bet many students do, those that keep it legal. i don't recall the history of family pack pricing before Tiger, so can't offer a running total. but the undeniable big difference you omit is that MS offers NO multi-computer discount for consumer Windows OS and other MS consumer software.
bottom line is that MS has to milk PC owners repeatedly with excessive prices for Windows, Office, and the rest of its software products and services because, of course, that is all it really has to sell. whereas Apple includes the true price of its software and services (like the Apple retail stores "free" help which of course cannot be actually free) within the up front price of its hardware - hence one good reason Apple computers cost somewhat more than mid/low end PC's.
it's two different business models, so comparisons of isolated parts of each are inherently skewed. what really bugs me about the MS approach is not really the total true costs of the PC/Windows hardware/software package with updating over the years. instead it's the intentionally misleading manipulation of the consumer. that good old Ballmer snake oil where NT 6.1 is branded "Windows 7" and the goal is to "monetize" every aspect of your daily digital life if you have no escape route from Windows. i hate being played for a sucker, that's just me.
Apple on the other hand just arrogantly tells me 'this is what it costs if you want our stuff, take it or leave it.' ok, i can deal with that. a lot of life is like that. but it's still my decision, my value calculation. there's always Linux ...
Apple on the other hand just arrogantly tells me 'this is what it costs if you want our stuff, take it or leave it.' ok, i can deal with that. a lot of life is like that. but it's still my decision, my value calculation. there's always Linux ...
Alright, but I don't see what's "arrogant" about it. HP and Dell and the rest all do that. It's just that Apple products cost more. But it's all relative.
I
Actually, my artificial time line started roughly with the introduction of 10.0/XP. The were released with a few months of each other. In that respect, they are real totals. I didn't make the numbers up. At least I don't think I did.
Ok, I was looking at your statement in a different light, so I'll back off that one.
As a moderator, I would expect something a little less personal and insulting than "the one you've set up is what you wish it would be". You are the person who can actually decide whether or not my post appears here and that's clearly something that could wind one up.
Don't be so thin skinned. When you accused ME of having an "imaginary world", your words:
your imaginary world
did you think you were insulting me, or not? So my response simply pointed out that it's your imagination here that's the problem.
If that's too insulting for you, then you've got a problem.
Don't worry about my removing posts. I've never yet removed one pertaining to me, and I've only removed a few to others that REALLY were insulting.
If you're not happy, then post me privately.
All I quoted (and I got 10.1 wrong - I accept that) is the price of remaining current with both operating systems. I didn't make any qualitative assessment at all, which is clearly where you want to head. The reality is that as Operating Systems, both do the job and both do it (at least) well enough, despite whatever feelings you have about the 'real world'. The 'real world' numbers I gave are accurate and verifiable (excepting of course 10.1). And to stay at current levels of the respective operating systems, the cost is clearly comparable. I was even gracious and quoted the most expensive version of the Windows offerings. If we chose the Home Premium or whatever it is they like to call it, then the differences are a couple of hundred bucks in favour of Windows.
I wasn't making any qualitative assessments at all. Except that being gracious and thinking that anything other than Ultimate is comparable to OS X, is gratuitous. Apple doesn't sell a stripped down OS with limiting features as MS does. Therefor, only Ultimate is equivalent to OS X.
Point taken.
So we agree.
Moot point. Apple will never give something away for free when there's 10% of the PC market prepared to stump up for anything that issues from Cupertino. In fact, no company in general, would.
$29 is pretty cheap. So is the $49 family pack that gives three installs. That comes out to $16.33 an install. Cheaper from amazon and others. MS has nothing equal to that. $50 for a pre-purchase is the closest they come. I believe that $119 for Home Basic is the cheapest actual price you'll be able to buy it for retail afterwards before store discounts. Though, to be fair, some computer manufacturers are sucking up the $50 price for computers bought between about now, and the hopefully October release. But you have to buy a new computer to take advantage of that.
Look, I couldn't care a whit about whether something was late, or it was crap, or it didn't fit in superman's undies. All I wanted to point out that was keeping current with either operating system had a comparable cost. It's not open to debate. The numbers are out there and even if I did get a dot release wrong it doesn't significantly alter the sums either way. Those are my terms of reference. That's all I wanted to say. And having said that, I leave it at that.
You're a rare person, because almost everyone else does care.
But what you're ignoring is intent. Your whole post is predicated upon OS release dates and the cost. You're talking as though MS's serious failure to deliver product on time is a virtue! It's not. It's a serious failure on their part, and if they were able to do what they were trying to do, we would have seen at least one, and possibly two more upgrades during this time. And people would have had to pay to get them.
But, even so. Apple's OS releases and pricing is still below MS's. And that's a fact.
Now I'm done as well.
And for Defragging on a PC, Auslogic's Defrag is the only way to fly. I had no idea WTF Vista was doing taking hours and hours to defrag (it was trying to place files at a certain part of the drive or who-knows-what...)
I like Diskeeper's defragmenter. You should check it out. Basically, it always works in the background, but does it so that you don't see a performance hit across the system. It moves your most used files to the front of the hdd.
I like Diskeeper's defragmenter. You should check it out. Basically, it always works in the background, but does it so that you don't see a performance hit across the system. It moves your most used files to the front of the hdd.
I like HFS+ because it doesn't need a defragmenter. It takes care of defragmenting on the fly. Out of topic, but couldn't resist it.
Microsoft dropped the ball even when it came to games. There really should be no need for a third party company like Valve to provide the digital store and multiplayer back-end for PC games.
Not that I'm complaining, Valve's Steam solution is brilliant and the top reason to install Windows. Steam existed way before Apple's app store. Apple is merely treading in Valve's footprints when it comes to games.
I disagree that Microsoft are overcharging at $49.99 though. That's a great price and should attract a lot of Windows XP users. Don't forget that Apple are charging $10 for yearly iPod touch updates. Against that backdrop, Windows 7 is a bargain.
Because then you would be complaining that MS used their OS dominance to edge out an advantage in game distribution?
I don't understand why everyone thinks everything needs an app store. Apparently if you don't have one I guess your dropping the ball.
Because then you would be complaining that MS used their OS dominance to edge out an advantage in game distribution?
I don't understand why everyone thinks everything needs an app store. Apparently if you don't have one I guess your dropping the ball.
Easiest and most seamless way to get content out there.
iTunes Store, App Store, etc.
I like HFS+ because it doesn't need a defragmenter. It takes care of defragmenting on the fly. Out of topic, but couldn't resist it.
Totally on topic. Why the heck does Windows still just simply dump bits/ bytes/whatever anywhere it pleases?
I don't understand why everyone thinks everything needs an app store. Apparently if you don't have one I guess your dropping the ball.
Not everything. But the move from physical media to digital distribution to centralised digital distribution has big, big advantages. Not everything needs an App Store. But iTunes and Valve's Steam is good proof it is "a good thing".
I like Diskeeper's defragmenter. You should check it out. Basically, it always works in the background, but does it so that you don't see a performance hit across the system. It moves your most used files to the front of the hdd.
Interesting...
BTW for those running Vista besides turning off Superfetch turn off System Restore points or something like that. Before I turned of that System Restore stuff, I was wondering what happened to like 10GB to 20GB of space. I don't think I'm exaggerating here, it was taking up huge amounts of space, and I think the success of System Restore points in Windows is marginal.
...Apple on the other hand just arrogantly tells me 'this is what it costs if you want our stuff, take it or leave it.' ok, i can deal with that. a lot of life is like that. but it's still my decision, my value calculation. there's always Linux ...
Alright, but I don't see what's "arrogant" about it. HP and Dell and the rest all do that. It's just that Apple products cost more. But it's all relative.
Dell's Adamo is beyond arrogant, the price point to me just says, "**** YOU we don't even give a *"
This is hilarious. From my experiences, Mac users tend to know the least about Windows based computers. Which isn't altogether surprising... knowing nothing about how OS configurations work, nothing about computer hardware interoperability (coming from someone who builds his own high end gaming machines). In fact, most Mac users I know, and by that I mean those who don't work at the Apple Store and don't frequent online communities (i.e. the fanboys), are airheads. Proof is that I had to help my friend burn a CD on his beloved new macbook. Burn a CD? Are you serious? Granted, I don't know my way around OS X very well, as I am one of those PC users, but I did have it done as he wanted it in under 5 minutes. Not bad, but no matter, I guess I'm just a retarded PC user. And by the way, my family and friends don't look to Mac users for fixes.
The problem with you is you believe that Microsoft created the so-called 'PC Revolution', you have no understanding of history and because of that you have a distorted understanding of computers. I suggest you get some experience in the world of computers before passing judgements on other people on mass.
As for the rest, congratulations for stereotyping millions of users based on a couple of experiences - I guess my 10+ years of administrating Windows, UNIX and Mac servers is just all a haze because apparently I am a clueless Mac user.
Btw, assembling computers isn't a skill - computers are like meccano assembly kits; unless you're absolutely clueless, there is very little that can go wrong; follow the instructions, use some grey matter and voila - you've got a 'high end gaming machine'.