That's funny, because I just got a new MBP and I have had absolutely no issues sharing printers connected to other computers. All the computers are on the same wireless network. I have an HP Deskjet connected to an iMac via USB, and all I did was click the little checkbox on the iMac. Go to the MBP, open the Printer Setup Utility. Printer shows up in a couple seconds, over the air via the iMac. Select the printer, click add. Open document, click print. Document prints, over the air.
The printer will even print if the iMac is totally asleep, and the printer is off. Its simply amazing to me how easy it is, I don't know what you did wrong.
--mAc
Your setup is different as your sharing a printer between other Macs. The computers that are all trying to print to the OSX machine in my example run Windows, but OSX just won't let them print . As soon as we boot into Windows XP on the Mac the printer is shared and works fine, so there's something in OSX that is causing a problem.
Your setup is different as your sharing a printer between other Macs. The computers that are all trying to print to the OSX machine in my example run Windows, but OSX just won't let them print . As soon as we boot into Windows XP on the Mac the printer is shared and works fine, so there's something in OSX that is causing a problem.
My point was that the Macs work together perfectly. Your point is that Windows machines work together perfectly. Yet, you claim that the Mac is somehow the problem. I submit that your Windows PCs are the problem, not the Mac. Your claim that it is harder to get printer sharing to work under OS X is incorrect. If the printer was connected to the PC and you couldn't get the PC to share the printer, would you blame the PC?
In any case, it really doesn't matter. Have you read this link?
My point was that the Macs work together perfectly. Your point is that Windows machines work together perfectly. Yet, you claim that the Mac is somehow the problem. I submit that your Windows PCs are the problem, not the Mac. Your claim that it is harder to get printer sharing to work under OS X is incorrect. If the printer was connected to the PC and you couldn't get the PC to share the printer, would you blame the PC?
In any case, it really doesn't matter. Have you read this link?
It seems to spell out the process quite clearly. I have a feeling downloading Bonjour for Windows will solve this issue pretty quickly.
--mAc
Sadly, Bonjour for Windows didn't work either. And the reason I say the Mac is the problem is that one of the Windows PCs also has a printer attached, and once shared the Mac and other PCs can pick up and use that printer no problem. It's just the one attached to the Mac that won't work.
Macs aren't without their problems, but I do concur with the above statements, while in general, they are much less prone to debilitating issues than Windows-based PCs.
This is from my experience in giant corporations with both biases, medium-sized agencies, dotcom startups, and my own business. Of course, you'll find pro-Apple sentiment here, but if you wander off to other forums and online communities, you'll find a lot of detractors-- most without real merit. So there you go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevowski
Most macs, (from an everyday user perspective),have a much longer life over PC's.
A PC machine must be updated every 2-3 years, macs 4-6 years.
MUUUUCH less upkeep, and a smoother OS
Oh, I don't know... I'm a long-time PC user trying to return to Mac. Things are better than when I started out using toggle switches and punch cards, but...
I just wrote Apple a feedback comment about how disappointed I am by the number of nag screens (frequent software updates and "important" notices) and a miserable carryover from PC-land where programs take focus on their own when you are in the middle of working in another program. In my opinion, neither Mac nor PC has mastered the trick of letting the human do the work they want to do, when they want to do it. Why can't the software just leave us alone if it's not an emergency?
Stability? I find myself using "Force quit" about as often as I use the three-finger salute on a PC, and I'm running Leopard with full updates (oh, yes, all those updates... what was that about every 4-6 YEARS?)
Both mac and pc try to outsmart the human user and it's always a failure.
A friend asked me to put together a list of reasons to buy a Mac that he can use to convince his parents to get him a MacBook instead of a PC. I put together these seven already, but I'm sure there're some missing and would appreciate the help.
There are zero viruses on the Mac
Comes pre-installed with industry-leading applications like iPhoto, iMovie and Time Machine for automated backups.
If necessary, it's possible to run Windows on a Mac
Apple Stores offer free technical support
Macs have the highest customer satisfaction ratings and are more reliable
Macs are widely considered easier to use?not just from a user interface point of view, but also when it comes to common tasks like networking
It's easier to instal and uninstall applications
Also, while I think that style is a responsible consideration, my friends will only be swayed by objective facts. Thanks.
if your friend was to pay the same amount of money for a Windows PC that they are planning to do on a Mac then they would have very little problem, greater compatibillity and far superior performance.
problems in the windows world stem from cheap hardware, on the right hardware Windows is just as stable as OSx
Please do us a favor and stop posting nonsense, because apparently you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about! Sharing on Mac OS is a "very long winded task"? Oh really?? If you call going to System Preferences-> Sharing and choosing whatever you need to share (including a printer) a "very long winded task" then... No comment.
You like to build your own machine from scratch, swap out a part or two? That's cool. But you see, there's no need to do that with the Mac! One can easily run Leopard on a 4 year old machine without any problem. Is it the case with Vista?? That sorry excuse for an OS (Vista) will consume 2 Gigs of RAM just to run itself.
Running a free anti-virus software will keep your PC free of viruses, adware and spyware? Yeah right!
I agree with you on OSX being far superior to Vista on its efficiency and ease of use, but he is correct on the virus side of things. I run Avast! Anti-Virus on my old Tosh and I have been to every sketchy torrent-keygen-serial site out there and never gotten a virus on my PC. Granted I know my way around a computer pretty well, but it still speaks a world of good about a well equipped PC. Also, the Finder system in OSX has a lot of things to learn from the way Windows Explorer works. Not so much on the internal architecture of it, that is excellent, but the way the user is able to organize files leaves a lot to be desired.
Do you remember the movie Matrix? There is a scene where Neo was offered two pills. It's something like that.
mrochester
1 GB of RAM is MINIMUM requirement to run Vista. Ideally you would need 4GB to feel more or less comfortably. Actually, if I'm not mistaking, 4GB of RAM is maximum that a 32bit version of Windoze can use.
IIRC on Windows XP 32bit or Vista 32bit, the *actual* maximum RAM available is actually less, like 3 point something GB. So even 4GB on a 32bit Windoze system is wasting your money!
So people say, yeah, I'll run 4GB RAM on my Vista 64-bit. I say to them, good luck with that mess.
What puzzles me is why Mac users think Windows users are eternally struggling with viruses. It's such a tired, old argument. I've got a free anti-virus package installed with minimal footprint and I don't download dodgey files, clicks dodgey links or accept dodgey attachments. And lo and behold, the Windows experience is as equally virus free as any Mac experience...
It's because people either don't install any antivirus on Windows, or it gets so loaded up with all sorts of garbage anti-this, anti-that, the average user has no idea what is going on.
The most common reason, is probably they installed some outdated/ pirated antivirus that didn't update and so got infected by newer viruses.
Like one of the posters mention, for my gaming PC for a good two years, I just had Avast! Home FREE Edition, just let it update when it needed to, and that's all I needed. End of story.
I have no idea why a lot of PC users I have come across personally have no clue about how awesome Avast! is.
In my office of 30 people or so, I set up about 5 to 10 Windows XP boxes, put Avast on it as soon as installed. Ticked along for at least a few months without any issues. Once the new "IT guy" was in charge, most of his Windows installs were showing "Activation needed" and "Your Antivirus is Expired!" messages after a few weeks.
Simply put, Norton is one of the main reasons that PC's suck. It destroys them. When you couple that with all of the terrible trial software, the low knowledge base of the average consumer, and the inherently bad structure of Windows, it is a wonder that any average person can make a PC function; everything is working against them.
I feel like with a Mac it is the exact opposite and that is why they are so superior. Whats even more amazing is that I was able to summarize every downfall of the modern PC in 30 seconds, but Microsoft hasn't been able to figure it out for the past 10 years.
Simply put, Norton is one of the main reasons that PC's suck. It destroys them. When you couple that with all of the terrible trial software, the low knowledge base of the average consumer, and the inherently bad structure of Windows, it is a wonder that any average person can make a PC function; everything is working against them.
I feel like with a Mac it is the exact opposite and that is why they are so superior. Whats even more amazing is that I was able to summarize every downfall of the modern PC in 30 seconds, but Microsoft hasn't been able to figure it out for the past 10 years.
errr don't install norton then?!?! I'd be interested to hear what you think works against a windows user?
Kind of off topic but, (I'm going to send this to M$, who knows maybe I'll get an advisory job out of it, I can dreamm, right?)
If I were the head of Microsoft I would immediately do this:
LONG TERM
-Start from scratch. Spend my money on developing a new and fresh OS that is entirely different internally than that of Windows. I would offer different versions of it, for business give them a version that has a UI very similar to Windows, but with a revamped internal architecture. This would ensure an experience that is familiar enough as not to loose your base in the transition, but still give them the benefits of a new experience. For the consumers offer a version that stretches the boundaries of change a little more. People are bored with Windows, many change to OSX just because they are curious (It wasn't my main reason of course, but I was curious.) I know many don't like the idea of different versions, but I think it is essential. Consumers and businesses use computers for incredibly different purposes and the functionality of their operating systems should reflect that. I'm not saying get "version happy" so to speak, like Microsoft is right now, but be accommodating to both worlds. THIS IS LONG TERM. Microsoft has the cash flow to fund this and in the long term the ends WILL outweigh the means.
-Develop a low cost software suite that is similar to iLife 08. One-Up Apple by making an optional add-on. Apple always claims that the amazing software is a reason that their computers may cost a little more. Give consumers the option to take on this cost. If they want it, great, if they don't then they will have to buy other software anyways. What this does is make the initial buy-in cost lower for the PC. With the new OS Microsoft will be giving consumers the great, fluid functionality that has made OSX such a success but, offering them a lower buy in and the OPTION to buy great software, an option that they don't have with OSX.
SHORT TERM
-Break the deal with the devil that Microsoft has gotten itself into with Norton. Their program is too bulky and slow and most of the time it is more vulnerable than the FREE anti-virus Avast!. I think it is essential that Microsoft supports the competition of multiple anti-virus programs so that viruses cannot be written just to go around one. This step alone would greatly increase the functionality and security of the Windows platform that would be used until the new operating system is unveiled.
-Remove trial software. I know this is a manufacturer thing, they do it to subsidize the cost of computers, but it hurts Microsoft in the end. It is taxing on systems and it serves no functional purpose. The installation of trial software is just another red mark on Windows' rap sheet. People say, "It comes with all of this junk loaded on that slows it down." This tag is not applied to a Toshiba or a Sony, it is applied to Microsoft and Windows. Send out a mandate that requires manufacturers to keep their machines free of dead-weight software. Initially, prices will go up, sales will go down, but it is a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.
-I think offering workshops and such is a waste. If people want to learn more they will go out and research on their own. For the most part, the problem of under-educated users will work itself out by removing the other kinks. If the people don't have any problems to fix then there is no real issue with them being under-educated on how to fix them. This line of thinking goes hand in hand with remedying the cause rather than the effect.
If Microsoft did this, they would be able to completely change the bad perception that people currently have of Windows and ensure a successful future for their business. Of course, developing a fresh OS is not an easy or cheap task, but I believe that they have the ability to do so, and have just been lead in the wrong direction.
I'm sure that after they've burned their $300 million on the Mojave Project, they will realize that damage control alone is not going to save MS.
(I'm sorry, I wrote this pretty quick as I'm working on my finals right now. Grammar may not be 100%)
errr don't install norton then?!?! I'd be interested to hear what you think works against a windows user?
Did you not read? I just went through it.
Most PC's come with a version of Norton on it. Most people keep and pay for this because they don't know any different. Most PC's come with junk dead weight software that takes up space and slows down the computer. Most people don't delete this off. And thus, their system's performance suffers. Windows has a bad architecture and the OS itself requires the use of a large portion of a system's resources just to run properly. This makes the need for more technically advanced systems necessary, and thus, increases the cost of hardware.
None of this would matter if you had users that were as savvy as we are. We know better, we know to remove all the junk, find a good anti-virus, and optimize our system settings, but the overall point is that most people don't. Educating people further in not answer, this only solves the effect and not the inherent cause of the problems.
This scenario leaves Microsoft is in a position where its users are unhappy with their experience and itching to find any better alternative that presents itself. That is why there has been a relatively large consumer movement to macs despite the increased cost of their products.
Most PC's come with a version of Norton on it. Most people keep and pay for this because they don't know any different. Most PC's come with junk dead weight software that takes up space and slows down the computer. Most people don't delete this off. And thus, their system's performance suffers. Windows has a bad architecture and the OS itself requires the use of a large portion of a system's resources just to run properly. This makes the need for more technically advanced systems necessary, and thus, increases the cost of hardware.
None of this would matter if you had users that were as savvy as we are. We know better, we know to remove all the junk, find a good anti-virus, and optimize our system settings, but the overall point is that most people don't. Educating people further in not answer, this only solves the effect and not the inherent cause of the problems.
This scenario leaves Microsoft is in a position where its users are unhappy with their experience and itching to find any better alternative that presents itself. That is why there has been a relatively large consumer movement to macs despite the increased cost of their products.
Get it?
Pray tell, how could I have possibly read and responded to a post you made AFTER me? Says a lot I think!
What software is on the computer is entirely the responsibility of the computer manufacturers, not Microsoft. Microsoft can lay down guidelines and state that NO trial software can be pre-installed, but that will have the effect of pushing up the cost of the hardware. Most people are probably quite happy to live with the useless trial software than having to pay more. In fact a very average friend at work is currently looking for a laptop. She would never in a million years consider spending double what she intends just to get a MacBook... she would rather live with Vista and all the trial software, and that'll be the mentality of a lot of people. They see computers as tools to getting a job done and can't see any benefit to spending considerably more money on an Apple computer.
Quote:
This makes the need for more technically advanced systems necessary, and thus, increases the cost of hardware
You pay more and get more for your money. With Apple you pay more, but get less for your money. For the same price as an Apple computer, you can get a considerably more high-spec desktop PC. And this extra powerful hardware means it runs just as well, if not better, than the Mac. So again, there's not really any technical temptation towards Apple. It's all in the 'illusion' of being a premium brand.
Pray tell, how could I have possibly read and responded to a post you made AFTER me? Says a lot I think!
Don't be an asshole. I was talking about the post before yours, the one YOU QUOTED. All I did in my last post was go more in dept on the things I originally said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
What software is on the computer is entirely the responsibility of the computer manufacturers, not Microsoft. Microsoft can lay down guidelines and state that NO trial software can be pre-installed, but that will have the effect of pushing up the cost of the hardware. Most people are probably quite happy to live with the useless trial software than having to pay more. In fact a very average friend at work is currently looking for a laptop. She would never in a million years consider spending double what she intends just to get a MacBook... she would rather live with Vista and all the trial software, and that'll be the mentality of a lot of people. They see computers as tools to getting a job done and can't see any benefit to spending considerably more money on an Apple computer.
You pay more and get more for your money. With Apple you pay more, but get less for your money. For the same price as an Apple computer, you can get a considerably more high-spec desktop PC. And this extra powerful hardware means it runs just as well, if not better, than the Mac. So again, there's not really any technical temptation towards Apple. It's all in the 'illusion' of being a premium brand.
It is your friend's choice to do so. That is the way she is choosing to spend her money and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I do like how someone such as yourself, who champions the way of Vista and the PC, talks about it as if it is a massive compromise that she will have to endure.
Why are you on an Apple -driven site? You clearly do not like their products or the philosophy on how they develop them.
And let me make it clear right now. I am not an Apple fanboy. I actually hate Apple. I hate the whole culture of superiority and smugness the follows in it's trails. Every time I go to an Apple store I get incredibly pissed off at how stupid all of the employees are. They all think that the cool factor alone should be enough to sell computers. After they go through their, "it just works, there are no viruses" scheme, they are all out of further selling techniques. It's like a thoughtless mantra that they repeat over and over, leaving out some of the best reasons to actually get a mac in the process. I just completely despise the entire culture of Apple. That said, they make wonderful computers and an amazing OS. This is the only reason I put up with the BS and bought one.
I'm rooting for Microsoft to follow their lead and blow them out of the water with something even better. In the end it just means a better product for everyone.
if your friend was to pay the same amount of money for a Windows PC that they are planning to do on a Mac then they would have very little problem, greater compatibillity and far superior performance.
problems in the windows world stem from cheap hardware, on the right hardware Windows is just as stable as OSx
Well people are always touting the price advantage of windows systems, but now you need to spend more to get it to be stable, right, so where is the big price advantage in that, unless people don't want stable systems.
Umm...wasn't this a thread about what should he say to convince his parents to buy him a Mac and not what sucks on a Mac, or a PC? Lets stay on topic folks. If I was a moderator, I'd delete about half the posts in here because they have nothing to do with the actual thread itself. The whole idea is, he wants a Mac. I doubt wants to hear crap about flaws in the Mac OS, or Windows OS.
Most of the important reasons have already been stated. iLife, looks, durability, resale value, able to run the Mac OS for years down the road without any issues (pending you get an Intel Mac and not a used PPC Mac).
IIRC on Windows XP 32bit or Vista 32bit, the *actual* maximum RAM available is actually less, like 3 point something GB. So even 4GB on a 32bit Windoze system is wasting your money!
So people say, yeah, I'll run 4GB RAM on my Vista 64-bit. I say to them, good luck with that mess.
You know, I hear that about Vista64 a lot. Either that's a myth or I'm really lucky. I have been running Vista64 since it came out and it's been solid as a rock... and I have yet to run into any kind of driver issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to work with OSX, but I've not found Vista64 to be any kind of mess.
Comments
That's funny, because I just got a new MBP and I have had absolutely no issues sharing printers connected to other computers. All the computers are on the same wireless network. I have an HP Deskjet connected to an iMac via USB, and all I did was click the little checkbox on the iMac. Go to the MBP, open the Printer Setup Utility. Printer shows up in a couple seconds, over the air via the iMac. Select the printer, click add. Open document, click print. Document prints, over the air.
The printer will even print if the iMac is totally asleep, and the printer is off. Its simply amazing to me how easy it is, I don't know what you did wrong.
--mAc
Your setup is different as your sharing a printer between other Macs. The computers that are all trying to print to the OSX machine in my example run Windows, but OSX just won't let them print
how often do you hear of someone complaining about their mac?
For those who have a Mac that fits their needs not often.
Your setup is different as your sharing a printer between other Macs. The computers that are all trying to print to the OSX machine in my example run Windows, but OSX just won't let them print
My point was that the Macs work together perfectly. Your point is that Windows machines work together perfectly. Yet, you claim that the Mac is somehow the problem. I submit that your Windows PCs are the problem, not the Mac. Your claim that it is harder to get printer sharing to work under OS X is incorrect. If the printer was connected to the PC and you couldn't get the PC to share the printer, would you blame the PC?
In any case, it really doesn't matter. Have you read this link?
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...5/en/8666.html
It seems to spell out the process quite clearly. I have a feeling downloading Bonjour for Windows will solve this issue pretty quickly.
--mAc
My point was that the Macs work together perfectly. Your point is that Windows machines work together perfectly. Yet, you claim that the Mac is somehow the problem. I submit that your Windows PCs are the problem, not the Mac. Your claim that it is harder to get printer sharing to work under OS X is incorrect. If the printer was connected to the PC and you couldn't get the PC to share the printer, would you blame the PC?
In any case, it really doesn't matter. Have you read this link?
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...5/en/8666.html
It seems to spell out the process quite clearly. I have a feeling downloading Bonjour for Windows will solve this issue pretty quickly.
--mAc
Sadly, Bonjour for Windows didn't work either. And the reason I say the Mac is the problem is that one of the Windows PCs also has a printer attached, and once shared the Mac and other PCs can pick up and use that printer no problem. It's just the one attached to the Mac that won't work.
Macs aren't without their problems, but I do concur with the above statements, while in general, they are much less prone to debilitating issues than Windows-based PCs.
This is from my experience in giant corporations with both biases, medium-sized agencies, dotcom startups, and my own business. Of course, you'll find pro-Apple sentiment here, but if you wander off to other forums and online communities, you'll find a lot of detractors-- most without real merit. So there you go.
Most macs, (from an everyday user perspective),have a much longer life over PC's.
A PC machine must be updated every 2-3 years, macs 4-6 years.
MUUUUCH less upkeep, and a smoother OS
Oh, I don't know... I'm a long-time PC user trying to return to Mac. Things are better than when I started out using toggle switches and punch cards, but...
I just wrote Apple a feedback comment about how disappointed I am by the number of nag screens (frequent software updates and "important" notices) and a miserable carryover from PC-land where programs take focus on their own when you are in the middle of working in another program. In my opinion, neither Mac nor PC has mastered the trick of letting the human do the work they want to do, when they want to do it. Why can't the software just leave us alone if it's not an emergency?
Stability? I find myself using "Force quit" about as often as I use the three-finger salute on a PC, and I'm running Leopard with full updates (oh, yes, all those updates... what was that about every 4-6 YEARS?)
Both mac and pc try to outsmart the human user and it's always a failure.
A friend asked me to put together a list of reasons to buy a Mac that he can use to convince his parents to get him a MacBook instead of a PC. I put together these seven already, but I'm sure there're some missing and would appreciate the help.
- There are zero viruses on the Mac
- Comes pre-installed with industry-leading applications like iPhoto, iMovie and Time Machine for automated backups.
- If necessary, it's possible to run Windows on a Mac
- Apple Stores offer free technical support
- Macs have the highest customer satisfaction ratings and are more reliable
- Macs are widely considered easier to use?not just from a user interface point of view, but also when it comes to common tasks like networking
- It's easier to instal and uninstall applications
Also, while I think that style is a responsible consideration, my friends will only be swayed by objective facts. Thanks.if your friend was to pay the same amount of money for a Windows PC that they are planning to do on a Mac then they would have very little problem, greater compatibillity and far superior performance.
problems in the windows world stem from cheap hardware, on the right hardware Windows is just as stable as OSx
mrochester
Please do us a favor and stop posting nonsense, because apparently you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about! Sharing on Mac OS is a "very long winded task"? Oh really?? If you call going to System Preferences-> Sharing and choosing whatever you need to share (including a printer) a "very long winded task" then... No comment.
You like to build your own machine from scratch, swap out a part or two? That's cool. But you see, there's no need to do that with the Mac! One can easily run Leopard on a 4 year old machine without any problem. Is it the case with Vista?? That sorry excuse for an OS (Vista) will consume 2 Gigs of RAM just to run itself.
Running a free anti-virus software will keep your PC free of viruses, adware and spyware? Yeah right!
I agree with you on OSX being far superior to Vista on its efficiency and ease of use, but he is correct on the virus side of things. I run Avast! Anti-Virus on my old Tosh and I have been to every sketchy torrent-keygen-serial site out there and never gotten a virus on my PC. Granted I know my way around a computer pretty well, but it still speaks a world of good about a well equipped PC. Also, the Finder system in OSX has a lot of things to learn from the way Windows Explorer works. Not so much on the internal architecture of it, that is excellent, but the way the user is able to organize files leaves a lot to be desired.
Do you remember the movie Matrix? There is a scene where Neo was offered two pills. It's something like that.
mrochester
1 GB of RAM is MINIMUM requirement to run Vista. Ideally you would need 4GB to feel more or less comfortably. Actually, if I'm not mistaking, 4GB of RAM is maximum that a 32bit version of Windoze can use.
IIRC on Windows XP 32bit or Vista 32bit, the *actual* maximum RAM available is actually less, like 3 point something GB. So even 4GB on a 32bit Windoze system is wasting your money!
So people say, yeah, I'll run 4GB RAM on my Vista 64-bit. I say to them, good luck with that mess.
What puzzles me is why Mac users think Windows users are eternally struggling with viruses. It's such a tired, old argument. I've got a free anti-virus package installed with minimal footprint and I don't download dodgey files, clicks dodgey links or accept dodgey attachments. And lo and behold, the Windows experience is as equally virus free as any Mac experience...
It's because people either don't install any antivirus on Windows, or it gets so loaded up with all sorts of garbage anti-this, anti-that, the average user has no idea what is going on.
The most common reason, is probably they installed some outdated/ pirated antivirus that didn't update and so got infected by newer viruses.
Like one of the posters mention, for my gaming PC for a good two years, I just had Avast! Home FREE Edition, just let it update when it needed to, and that's all I needed. End of story.
I have no idea why a lot of PC users I have come across personally have no clue about how awesome Avast! is.
In my office of 30 people or so, I set up about 5 to 10 Windows XP boxes, put Avast on it as soon as installed. Ticked along for at least a few months without any issues. Once the new "IT guy" was in charge, most of his Windows installs were showing "Activation needed" and "Your Antivirus is Expired!" messages after a few weeks.
I feel like with a Mac it is the exact opposite and that is why they are so superior. Whats even more amazing is that I was able to summarize every downfall of the modern PC in 30 seconds, but Microsoft hasn't been able to figure it out for the past 10 years.
Simply put, Norton is one of the main reasons that PC's suck. It destroys them. When you couple that with all of the terrible trial software, the low knowledge base of the average consumer, and the inherently bad structure of Windows, it is a wonder that any average person can make a PC function; everything is working against them.
I feel like with a Mac it is the exact opposite and that is why they are so superior. Whats even more amazing is that I was able to summarize every downfall of the modern PC in 30 seconds, but Microsoft hasn't been able to figure it out for the past 10 years.
errr don't install norton then?!?! I'd be interested to hear what you think works against a windows user?
If I were the head of Microsoft I would immediately do this:
LONG TERM
-Start from scratch. Spend my money on developing a new and fresh OS that is entirely different internally than that of Windows. I would offer different versions of it, for business give them a version that has a UI very similar to Windows, but with a revamped internal architecture. This would ensure an experience that is familiar enough as not to loose your base in the transition, but still give them the benefits of a new experience. For the consumers offer a version that stretches the boundaries of change a little more. People are bored with Windows, many change to OSX just because they are curious (It wasn't my main reason of course, but I was curious.) I know many don't like the idea of different versions, but I think it is essential. Consumers and businesses use computers for incredibly different purposes and the functionality of their operating systems should reflect that. I'm not saying get "version happy" so to speak, like Microsoft is right now, but be accommodating to both worlds. THIS IS LONG TERM. Microsoft has the cash flow to fund this and in the long term the ends WILL outweigh the means.
-Develop a low cost software suite that is similar to iLife 08. One-Up Apple by making an optional add-on. Apple always claims that the amazing software is a reason that their computers may cost a little more. Give consumers the option to take on this cost. If they want it, great, if they don't then they will have to buy other software anyways. What this does is make the initial buy-in cost lower for the PC. With the new OS Microsoft will be giving consumers the great, fluid functionality that has made OSX such a success but, offering them a lower buy in and the OPTION to buy great software, an option that they don't have with OSX.
SHORT TERM
-Break the deal with the devil that Microsoft has gotten itself into with Norton. Their program is too bulky and slow and most of the time it is more vulnerable than the FREE anti-virus Avast!. I think it is essential that Microsoft supports the competition of multiple anti-virus programs so that viruses cannot be written just to go around one. This step alone would greatly increase the functionality and security of the Windows platform that would be used until the new operating system is unveiled.
-Remove trial software. I know this is a manufacturer thing, they do it to subsidize the cost of computers, but it hurts Microsoft in the end. It is taxing on systems and it serves no functional purpose. The installation of trial software is just another red mark on Windows' rap sheet. People say, "It comes with all of this junk loaded on that slows it down." This tag is not applied to a Toshiba or a Sony, it is applied to Microsoft and Windows. Send out a mandate that requires manufacturers to keep their machines free of dead-weight software. Initially, prices will go up, sales will go down, but it is a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.
-I think offering workshops and such is a waste. If people want to learn more they will go out and research on their own. For the most part, the problem of under-educated users will work itself out by removing the other kinks. If the people don't have any problems to fix then there is no real issue with them being under-educated on how to fix them. This line of thinking goes hand in hand with remedying the cause rather than the effect.
If Microsoft did this, they would be able to completely change the bad perception that people currently have of Windows and ensure a successful future for their business. Of course, developing a fresh OS is not an easy or cheap task, but I believe that they have the ability to do so, and have just been lead in the wrong direction.
I'm sure that after they've burned their $300 million on the Mojave Project, they will realize that damage control alone is not going to save MS.
(I'm sorry, I wrote this pretty quick as I'm working on my finals right now. Grammar may not be 100%)
errr don't install norton then?!?! I'd be interested to hear what you think works against a windows user?
Did you not read? I just went through it.
Most PC's come with a version of Norton on it. Most people keep and pay for this because they don't know any different. Most PC's come with junk dead weight software that takes up space and slows down the computer. Most people don't delete this off. And thus, their system's performance suffers. Windows has a bad architecture and the OS itself requires the use of a large portion of a system's resources just to run properly. This makes the need for more technically advanced systems necessary, and thus, increases the cost of hardware.
None of this would matter if you had users that were as savvy as we are. We know better, we know to remove all the junk, find a good anti-virus, and optimize our system settings, but the overall point is that most people don't. Educating people further in not answer, this only solves the effect and not the inherent cause of the problems.
This scenario leaves Microsoft is in a position where its users are unhappy with their experience and itching to find any better alternative that presents itself. That is why there has been a relatively large consumer movement to macs despite the increased cost of their products.
Get it?
Did you not read? I just went through it.
Most PC's come with a version of Norton on it. Most people keep and pay for this because they don't know any different. Most PC's come with junk dead weight software that takes up space and slows down the computer. Most people don't delete this off. And thus, their system's performance suffers. Windows has a bad architecture and the OS itself requires the use of a large portion of a system's resources just to run properly. This makes the need for more technically advanced systems necessary, and thus, increases the cost of hardware.
None of this would matter if you had users that were as savvy as we are. We know better, we know to remove all the junk, find a good anti-virus, and optimize our system settings, but the overall point is that most people don't. Educating people further in not answer, this only solves the effect and not the inherent cause of the problems.
This scenario leaves Microsoft is in a position where its users are unhappy with their experience and itching to find any better alternative that presents itself. That is why there has been a relatively large consumer movement to macs despite the increased cost of their products.
Get it?
Pray tell, how could I have possibly read and responded to a post you made AFTER me? Says a lot I think!
What software is on the computer is entirely the responsibility of the computer manufacturers, not Microsoft. Microsoft can lay down guidelines and state that NO trial software can be pre-installed, but that will have the effect of pushing up the cost of the hardware. Most people are probably quite happy to live with the useless trial software than having to pay more. In fact a very average friend at work is currently looking for a laptop. She would never in a million years consider spending double what she intends just to get a MacBook... she would rather live with Vista and all the trial software, and that'll be the mentality of a lot of people. They see computers as tools to getting a job done and can't see any benefit to spending considerably more money on an Apple computer.
This makes the need for more technically advanced systems necessary, and thus, increases the cost of hardware
You pay more and get more for your money. With Apple you pay more, but get less for your money. For the same price as an Apple computer, you can get a considerably more high-spec desktop PC. And this extra powerful hardware means it runs just as well, if not better, than the Mac. So again, there's not really any technical temptation towards Apple. It's all in the 'illusion' of being a premium brand.
Pray tell, how could I have possibly read and responded to a post you made AFTER me? Says a lot I think!
Don't be an asshole. I was talking about the post before yours, the one YOU QUOTED. All I did in my last post was go more in dept on the things I originally said.
What software is on the computer is entirely the responsibility of the computer manufacturers, not Microsoft. Microsoft can lay down guidelines and state that NO trial software can be pre-installed, but that will have the effect of pushing up the cost of the hardware. Most people are probably quite happy to live with the useless trial software than having to pay more. In fact a very average friend at work is currently looking for a laptop. She would never in a million years consider spending double what she intends just to get a MacBook... she would rather live with Vista and all the trial software, and that'll be the mentality of a lot of people. They see computers as tools to getting a job done and can't see any benefit to spending considerably more money on an Apple computer.
You pay more and get more for your money. With Apple you pay more, but get less for your money. For the same price as an Apple computer, you can get a considerably more high-spec desktop PC. And this extra powerful hardware means it runs just as well, if not better, than the Mac. So again, there's not really any technical temptation towards Apple. It's all in the 'illusion' of being a premium brand.
It is your friend's choice to do so. That is the way she is choosing to spend her money and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I do like how someone such as yourself, who champions the way of Vista and the PC, talks about it as if it is a massive compromise that she will have to endure.
Why are you on an Apple -driven site? You clearly do not like their products or the philosophy on how they develop them.
And let me make it clear right now. I am not an Apple fanboy. I actually hate Apple. I hate the whole culture of superiority and smugness the follows in it's trails. Every time I go to an Apple store I get incredibly pissed off at how stupid all of the employees are. They all think that the cool factor alone should be enough to sell computers. After they go through their, "it just works, there are no viruses" scheme, they are all out of further selling techniques. It's like a thoughtless mantra that they repeat over and over, leaving out some of the best reasons to actually get a mac in the process. I just completely despise the entire culture of Apple. That said, they make wonderful computers and an amazing OS. This is the only reason I put up with the BS and bought one.
I'm rooting for Microsoft to follow their lead and blow them out of the water with something even better. In the end it just means a better product for everyone.
if your friend was to pay the same amount of money for a Windows PC that they are planning to do on a Mac then they would have very little problem, greater compatibillity and far superior performance.
problems in the windows world stem from cheap hardware, on the right hardware Windows is just as stable as OSx
Well people are always touting the price advantage of windows systems, but now you need to spend more to get it to be stable, right, so where is the big price advantage in that, unless people don't want stable systems.
Most of the important reasons have already been stated. iLife, looks, durability, resale value, able to run the Mac OS for years down the road without any issues (pending you get an Intel Mac and not a used PPC Mac).
IIRC on Windows XP 32bit or Vista 32bit, the *actual* maximum RAM available is actually less, like 3 point something GB. So even 4GB on a 32bit Windoze system is wasting your money!
So people say, yeah, I'll run 4GB RAM on my Vista 64-bit. I say to them, good luck with that mess.
You know, I hear that about Vista64 a lot. Either that's a myth or I'm really lucky. I have been running Vista64 since it came out and it's been solid as a rock... and I have yet to run into any kind of driver issue.
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer to work with OSX, but I've not found Vista64 to be any kind of mess.