Comments on: How to switch to a Mac and live to tell about it
You will love your Mac even more once you get used to the way things operate.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Software, Interrupted
In "Software, Interrupted," Dave Rosenberg discusses disruption in the software market, as well as the products and services that keep business technology norms in perpetual flux.
With nearly 15 years of technology and marketing experience spanning from Bell Labs to multiple start-up IPOs, Dave co-founded open-source software company MuleSource and now serves as general manager of Hardy Way. He also happens to be a U.S. patent holder and a workaholic. Technology is his best friend and mortal enemy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Software, Interrupted topics
As the saying goes, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".
Actually when I say 'I don't like' what I mean is 'I quite like but they're bugger all use to me'.
Plus 'mind meld'? What the hell?
PC users enjoy $399 PCs with expansion slots since forever. The Mac side you still don't have any machine with slots that doesn't cost $1,600. Some leadership. You still have less than 4.3% of the world-wide market. No leadership there.
Apple does lead in creating an emotional response in their customers though. Amazing how 4.4% of users can cry so much that it's louder than the rest of industry. Apple users are like those annoying people that ring your doorbell on Sunday trying to sell you on their pathetic religion.
I guess you lead in iPod and Browser phones. Of course you also lead in bullsh!t. Gotta hand it to ya there Apple.
Alex Alexzander
$399.00 For what? A box with a chip and a CD player? Ex$pan$ion. Why would I want to screw around with that when I can get everything I need, all at once, for one price, with the assurance that the company stands behind the product.
Your ineffectual rhetoric does little to hide your envy.
You don't need expansion and so no one else does? LOL. HOw short sided can you be. If Apple dared to sell a tower with slots for $599 it would absolutely kill the expensive tower line. If you think it wouldn't you are insane. Apple is too much of a coward to try it, cause they'd lose their 33% margin on the towers which translates to a cool $1,000 of free money on their pockets. But if you Mac users feel all warm and fuzzy after being robbed by Apple, I guess you get what you pay for. Just never heard of anyone paying to be robbed and liking it. JObs must be laughing at you in the board room. Hey guys, Steve Jobs says. I found I way to screw customers and they like it!! Ka Ching!!
Alex Alexzander
I buy a Mac every 3 years. I still have 6 of the 7 I have purchased, and they all run just fine. No add-ons, no maintenance, no down time from crashing or hardware malfunctions...
But really, you just keep buying those cheap PCs. And I will sit here knowing who's really getting the lousy deal.
Product refreshes aside I'm afraid they do. They were the second last major OEM to use the Centrino 2 platform, for example. The fact that you claim Macs introduced Core 2 Duo's is also quite, quite breathtaking. As for your third party applications, if OSX supports Minitab v14, MS Access and Outlook then please let me know.
I suggets you evaluate your own ignorance in future before posting.
As for the point made later about cheap hardware, whilst it's true you can buy cheap hardware I wouldn't recommend it. That said, there is good mid range hardware which is durable, comparably or better specified than a Mac and considerably cheaper.
Alex Alexzander
That is naive to say the least. Generally speaking the PowerPC based machines outperformed Intel-based PCs for upwards of a year after introduction. For multimedia applications they stomped them seriously; Intel's floating point performance sucks. The G4-class machines (everything below the PowerMacs, I believe) were certainly lagging by the time the switch to Intel came, but that's more like 2 years rather than 5 and the PowerMacs didn't lag at all: The G5 Quad outperformed all comers at anything like its price point until just last January when the 8-core systems hit the streets, and even today there are some applications that are still superior on the Quad.
I think Apple's jump to Intel came more from the lack of development of the PowerPC chip makers than anything else; low-power chips were not forthcoming and Apple was seeing the market move to laptops. It probably didn't hurt that Apple got some terrific concessions from Intel for making the switch.
Regardless, I don't think anyone will argue that the switch has been good for Apple. Performance might be debatable but the ability to run Windows applications is surely a boon.
"PC users enjoy $399 PCs with expansion slots since forever."
Well, not really, although I get your point. Apple is playing more like BMW, not trying to compete in the low-margin markets. To be frank about it, though, the lack of expansion slots is less of an issue than you might think because the machines tend to be well-configured out of the box; $399 PCs (I have three of them in my house) are usually stripped to the bone and require additional hardware (particularly memory) to work well.
On top of that the $399 PC isn't even close to software-complete, requiring at least a couple of hundred dollars' worth of add-on software to be useful for anything because the bundled software with Windows is truly awful and viruses and malware require add-on protection. While many people will want add-on software on the Mac too it is often not strictly nessary, and for a lot of creative tasks the bundled software is remarkably capable.
To each his own, but I can tell you why I started buying Macs again after almost a decade of PCs: They are far, far more reliable. I have never, not once in the seven years since we started buying MacOS X machines, have had to reinstall MacOS. I have never had a single virus or malware infection. I have spent a grand total of less than two hours debugging problems across five different machines (and almost all of that was an obscure Leopard upgrade bug).
I couldn't even begin to tell you how many hours I have wasted fixing our Windows systems. It's a /lot/. (Vista is way less trouble-prone than XP, by the way). There are some things that absolutely require Windows, so I keep a couple of those machines around, but I am happy giving Apple "extra" money for machines that I don't have to fix regularly.
YMMV, of course.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
Congratulations on the most sensible comment so far. Indeed, the only reason that Apple switched to Intel was because IBM clearly had no interest in the desktop processor market anymore and the mythical mobile G5 processor never looked like appearing while Intel was going great guns with the Pentium M.
Aside from this sensible comment the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves for just talking rubbish at polar ends of reality. Apple does introduce some new hardware before the rest of the industry but it also lags in other areas. Personally, I'm just annoyed at them for the moment for dropping Firewire 400 without providing a suitable alternative.
Hardware? Are you on drugs? If I want a Blu-Ray (read: niche product) drive that badly for my computer, I'll go buy one and install it; drivers aplenty for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and the hardware architecture is same-enough to not worry about it.
The PPC architecture outperformed Intel's level best (sometimes by orders of magnitude) in its day (yes, this is a former Intel employee saying it). Even now, it still keeps up _very_ nicely.
Meanwhile, your $399 special is going to be a mis-matched under-specc'd grey-market pile of parts flying in loose formation. No thanks, dude - you keep it.
/P
I want a Mac. Not because I hate Windows, but because I try to have as much knowledge about any OSes I can. Macs are coming a little late mainly because the only inexpensive one they have (whether or not the others are worth the price, its not worth it if you don't need it, whereas other PCs, you can easily buy if you have a little disposable income) isn't really worth the cost (mac mini). In any case, the logic used behind that quote doesn't really follow. There are millions of third-party apps for PCs and so many third-party apps for linux... yet you'd never hear someone say its because "apps just work on (insert OS name here)" or that the ecosystem is so great. The Linux system is based on third-party apps. And for people who use a computer for things other than as a desktop version of a pda, most people with Windows PCs use applications that aren't made by Microsoft either.
In all honesty, by saying you use very little apps from Apple makes it sound like they don't make quality apps. The fact that you give credit to Apple for having apps less useful than the third-party apps kinda shows that weird Apple loyalty that people have. I don't understand it. Its an Operating System. I may end up thinking its better than Windows after I get one (i've used it a couple times and there are abnormalities that I found downright weird... like the "home" key not going to the beginning of a line in every app (i know it doesn't do that in safari's web browser, or at least it didn't on a mac thats about 2 years old or so... not sure what version that'd be). The maximize button doesn't actually "maximize" (definition: make as big AS POSSIBLE) but does make it bigger. I guess it really isn't the maximize button, but I forget which color it was and even so, I'm pretty sure you guys know what button I'm talking about. Granted, these are small issues, but they are just weird. Especially that home key thing, I mean, I hope its only on safari or maybe its just gone now, but some people don't really rely on the mouse that much (its slower on input than keyboard, plus it uses visual memory, whereas keyboards use muscle memory which allows instincts and habit to get things done MUCH quicker).
Maybe Macs know better than I do and realize I don't need a Window that big or that I don't have to send my cursor to the beginning of a line that much (I found that problem within 10 minutes of using a Mac, so its not a rarity for me to use it). There are other issues I had with it, but most other problems were more that I just understood things from a Windows perspective so thats all I had to go off of. I'm not going to say that the things I did seemed more intuitive unless its more intuitive for people who don't come from a strong computer background (computers in general, not just PCs). Sometimes what seems completely obvious to a developer and pc enthusiast (build them AND understand all the components that went into it), is *not* the same kind of obvious to someone who's understanding of computers is that the magic box makes things appear on the screen. It seems like Macs *really* appeal to those people. I'm curious if I'll come to the same conclusion.
I've used Macs off and on for a long time. Not saying the s**k. I am saying they are way over priced. And I am saying Mac customers have been swayed by Apple. Swayed by marketing designed to sway children with baby music in the background and ads that do not even speak about Apple. And flat out lie. Mac better at fun stuff. Last I checked, more people play games and have fun on their PCs than there are Mac users. The Mac isn't better at creative stuff. Both platforms have Adobe's suite. In fact Adobe supports the PC with more software than the Mac Flash is faster on the PC. The PC is first to get 64 bit CS4 with GPU support. The PC is always first to get the higher end video cards and actually make use of them. The PC has the only industry standard DVD app, i.e. Scenarist. Just about all the film industry still cuts on Avid, despite the low quality, cheap price of FCP. Apple still dropped their XRAID, leaving their customers up a creek without a paddle. As Apple always does.
When are you Apple fans going to get it over with and just declare Jobs a priest and build a church for the company? I mean seriously, just call it what it is. A religion.
Alex Alexzander
If I had never owned a Windows PC I could be called a "fan". But I have owned both. So I can say TRUTHFULLY that the Mac experience is worth every penny, while Windows was simply a drain on my IT budget. Business apps, games, spreadsheets, graphic design (my business), accounting, mail, 3rd party apps, etc, etc., all work better and with no errors or crashes on my OS X systems.
So blow it out your USB. Apple vs. Windows is simply a matter of choice, based on whether you are looking for "cheap game box" or looking for "uninterrupted business productivity"
Alex Alexzander
On the hardware side, with a Mac you are pretty limited in what you can do to upgrade it. And a lot of the time, when you do upgrade it, you have to buy from Apple at their enormously over inflated prices. They are also pretty much what you get is what you get. This means that unlike a PC where you can specify the exact brand and model hardware goes into it, right down to the CPU and Motherboard; with a Mac, you get whatever Apple wants to put in it. And for the performance, they are very overpriced. I know a few dozen people who eventually gave up spending the apple tax, and switched from Macs to PCs and say they will never go back.
On the software side... Well you have Mac OS which is nothing more than a pretty desktop dropped on top of a Linux clone OS. Additionally, there is a huge difference in the amount of available software between the PC and the Mac. You have very limited selection. Some folks say they run windows on their Macs. Well, to them I say "Why did you spend three times as much for a Windows machine when you could have gotten a better performing and less expensive PC instead...?" Windows is just as cool as Mac OS, if you want the cool factor, and it is a lot more customizable. With a Mac, the OS is dumbed down. It seems like Apple is trying to make a very basic, almost childish machine, which is idiot-proof. Well, they are selling to people who will spend three times as much for something with less functionality and less choices which also happens to look like a very bad piece of sculpture, so I suppose that it needs to be idiot proof.
All in all, my question is who in their right minds would go for a Mac? Not me, thats for sure.
I used to do editing. For which I used Avid Media Composer. I don't edit anymore. I used to author DVDs. I used to use DVD Studio Pro for that. And even wrote a book for DVD Studio Pro published in 2005 by CMPBooks. I am still considered one of the best script-writers for DVD Studio Pro that has contributed to the DVDSP cause.
When I hear Apple Tax, I have to agree. Though I don't like that kind of marketing, I still agree there is a tax. You're always going to have a customer-base that associates quality with price. In technology, it's really dumb in my opinion. The Mac hardware uses Marvel for LAN. The same audio found in cheap PCs. And the same Intel processor. The same PCI architecture. But Apple pulls features like expansion slots. They don't give their customers towers for less than $1,600. And those who call out this point are called ignorant. Called ignorant because Mac customers believe whatever Steve Jobs tells them. It's almost like Star Wars. Where are the slots for expansion, And with a wave of Jobs' hand, "You don't need expansion". And the drone repeats, "I don't need expansion". And Jobs commands, "this machines offers all you need and want", and so too the customer repeats, "I get all I need and want". And so Jobs commands, "buy two, one for each room", and so the customer does.
Look at this latest release. What company holds a press-conference to tell the world that they changed the case and now offer a GPU in their laptop? Does Levono? No. Does Fujitsu? No. Does Dell? No. Does HP? No. Why is it news that Apple made a new case and added a GPU to a $1,299 laptop?
The press will say, it's what people want. Or better yet, the press would say it gets people to the site and gets them talking and that increases ad revenue. It's good business. And perhaps it is good business. But it's also ridiculous. No one should hold a press conference simply to state that they added a GPU to their laptop lineup. Who gives a flying you-know-what. The fact that Mac users and sites can even report this with a straight-face only proves what religious nuts they are. Sorry but anyone calling this news needs to re-consider what their business is about. I'd much rather see some real science or something that truly makes technology better. Like the old BYTE magazine did. It's shameful where this has all gone.
Next Apple will call a press conference to tell us Steve Jobs is switching from white fruit of the loops to the multi color kind of briefs and we will have to have our SMS loaded with the updates and unboxing of the underwear. And we'll all have to buy multi-colored underwear so we can feel special.
Alex Alexzander
thats just silly talk...
apple is a modified version of darwin with stuff added to it, which is a form of unix, linux has always been there, its just been some1's pet project.
And although MacOS is not a linux clone, there are very few original ideas implemented in the look and functionality in the macOS. Steve Jobs is alot of things, creative and original is not one of them, and that attitude has resounded and took foot hold within his company.
The Mac OS is based on Apple's open source Darwin project that uses a monolithic kernel based on Mach, FreeBSD and Apple's own I/O Kit, which is then layered with Apple's various frameworks. It's the frameworks that make the Mac what it is and, frankly, they tend to be a joy to program with.
DVD/CD burning for example - my windows PC, came with XP and a DVD burner and nero, upgrade to XP, hey guess what, the free version of nero I have doesn't work in Vista. Thsi box is now running linus and K3B works just fine thankyou but has some gliteches like it wont burn DVD's unless run as root - My Mac however, just burns disks fine with no extra software required. No coasters yet, every burn has been good.
Patching - I have vista installed on my Mac mini through boot camp, and it is just infuriating how many times in the past 4 weeks I've had to reboot for patches. Only once so far on OS X, and that was immediatly after powering up and using it for the first time. However neither OS X or Windows have the track record of my Linux box, 6 months since install, no reboots for patches until today with a kernel update. Every other service or package on the linux box has updated without requiring a full restart.
What is annoying about Apple is some of the hardware choices I would say are not "premium". Why no powered microphone port in the mac mini? Why not powered USB ports on the keyboard?, why only 3GB memory limit in the mini?
It's NZ$1200 for the 2GHZ mini, with only 1GB RAM. Come on Apple, $1200 for a 2GHz system with only 1GB RAM out of the box. Surely they could have updated the specs to ship fully loaded with RAM or bigger/faster harddrives for that money. Memory is cheap for crying out loud!
I agree.
I do prefer windows and I don't expect everyone will. Competition is good for everyone. Hopefully you also understand that just because you prefer OSX doesn't mean everyone will, nor does it make all competition inferior. We have different tastes, and I can respect that. I'm willing to discuss differences between them, but the moment you say "OSX is better", expect a fight. It may be better for you, but not me.
There is business and there is business kid, not everything is black and white.
The rest of you are just as guilty of "fanaticism" where Windows is concerned. Why is it that Apple "fanboys" can extoll the virtues of Mac and OS X in a few simple sentences, while WIndblows users need pages to compare and trash? Because like the operating system they love so much, they are bloated with useless stuff and they have to have somewhere to put it.
I am not saying that Apple is perfect. But their hardware and software combined are far more stable and reliable than anything else out there. Not to mention the fact that for every copy of Windows out there, there is a hacker waiting to screw it up.
Alex Alexzander
Macs are good for some things, PCs for others.
And in the market areas where Apple does exist, its pretty much only competitive, not superior. Windows PCs *don't* crash as much as you say they do. If they do, its most likely faulty hardware. I'd rather spend the extra week waiting for the replacement instead of spending $500 more with still no guarantee of defects. PCs still have many more third party components that are all cheaper than Apple's hardware and yea, the really cheap ones may not be as good, but the mid-range are usually just as good OR better than Apple's hardware and *still* cheaper. There's still much more in terms of software compatibility. Its becoming less and less of an advantage, but despite whether it means PCs are better or not, a lot of software makers will software for PCs just simply because its a bigger market. That in itself IS an advantage.
Honestly, the only *real* advantage that Macs have are that some people prefer the operating system over Windows and they like having support behind the operating system (unlike with Linux). Its still a high-end market and only people with money will buy Macs. They're simply not cost effective for people who don't *need* a Mac. Anything an average user can do with a Mac, they can do for a fraction of the price on a PC.
Also, Apple users point out longevity. You may have a computer thats running after 7 years, but honestly, thats not a requirement for a LOT of people. We'll upgrade to newer PCs because of more power, not because the old one is broken. PCs can run a long time too if properly taken care of (and I know the same is true for Macs... not every Mac lasts that long if its ignored). But PC users don't *care* about an old pc. The technology upgrades come out so quickly that it seems things are running over twice as fast after a year or two. Why would I want a computer thats a fraction of the power seven years from now? I won't.
If Macs *really* has SOOOOO much to offer, their market share would be greater or at least getting bigger *MUCH* faster than it currently is. it simply doesn't. Most Mac users would rather extol their few advantages, exaggerate the problems of Windows, and usually just talk nonsense because they'd rather think they purchased quality, when in reality, they purchased brand name. Its like Gucci. People buy it. Its respected, but technically, the exact same quality can be had for much cheaper. Though people still love bragging about it and saying how much its worth it.
There are some falacies to their arguments.
1. Macs ARE expandable! Where the idea that they weren't came from, I have no idea.
2. Macs are higher-end computers. I looked at a MacBook Pro and compared it with all the major Windows-machine manufacturers like Dell, Gateway, HP, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc. All of them advertised these wonderful machines for far less. But when I "configured the PC to match the specs of the MacBook Pro, they came out to be within $200 of the Mac. Often $200 MORE than the Mac.
3. PowerPC chips were in fact faster than x86 processors at much higher clock speeds. The PowerPC architecture is a much more elegant design than the x86 is and probably has a future beyond that of the x86. The PowerPC is being used in all three major game consoles and in many, many embedded solutions. Don't be too surprised if you see a Mac from 2018 using a chip from IBM again. The problem is that IBM promised a 3GHz G5 to Jobs and didn't deliver. He lost face. He got mad, and Apple saw that as an opportunity to leverage the economy of scale of Intel. The G5 was also too hot to work in the ultra slim designs of laptops that Apple had planned. But with some of their newest high efficiency chips, that might change. Remember Apple keeps builds of MacOS X for both platforms!
4. The most important thing is: Alex Alexzander and his type are TROLLS. They don't stick to the issue of the article and use every opportunity to start up some imagined crusade to crush people that like to make a switch to something different.
To Alex keep fiddling with your low-cost, inferior product, and we'll keep using something that just works. Okay?
Hmmm, doesn't a multi-billion dollar, global hardware/software/consumer product company that has more cash in the bank than Microsoft run everything on Macs?
Saying that the definition of enterprise is the Microsoft way is the equivalent of Clinton haggling years ago over the definition of sex.
Look, while you spend time upgrading, tweaking, repairing, troubleshooting, and reinstalling your OS and machine on a regular basis, just because you CAN, or in most cases, have to, I have stuff to do. And guess what? I can get it done on a Mac. I can't get it done on a PC when I'm staring down a BSOD or I feel the need to spend time tracking down .1GHz in performance boosts because my OS sucks.
Mac users use Macs because we got tired of playing with the machines and decided we had actual stuff to get done. Wanna play tinkertoys? Buy a piece of crap PC. Want to be productive AND have fun? Get a Mac.
End of story. I'm going back to bed now.
So my Mac Mini sits here, running OS X happliy, with Vista in bootcamp and virtualised with VMware Fusion, running now just for some MS crapware i have to use for work. I have a tiny ubuntu VM suspended I can start if I need it, but I have found OS X is "Unix enough" for my needs - X11 support, SSH support.
I really hope the mini gets the same video chipset as the macbook pros and faster PCU, but I think it is more likely to be killed off as it is not a glamour product like a laptop, and would probably butcher the sales of the 20" iMac. Come on Apple, I just want the specs of the 24" iMac but without the screen. I already have a very nice 24" screen I'd rather keep using.
Also, with OSX you do get a decent computing experience: no malware (and A/V software to suck down CPU cycles), no registry corruption that bogs down a machine over time, no requirement to get on the upgrade treadmill, no scrambling for drivers (or praying that a driver actually works)... and you get something no PC could hope to have: an actual resale value that doesn't drop faster than that of a new car.
Dunno about you, but while buying a Mac isn't absolutely necessary for a decent computing experience (that is, if you carefully matched parts and built your machine to your specs, then tweak your non-OSX OS down 98 ways from Sunday)... it certainly goes a long way towards insuring it.
Ok, show me the stats which demonstrate a Mac has greater durability than a good PC. Actually, don't bother: they don't exist. Even Walt Mossberg - who as we all know is a bit of an Apple cheerleader - acknowledges this.
So that's the first part of your argument nullified. As for 'the benefit of the parts that match' I think you'll find that all decent PCs are well configured.
Your next comment is on malware and Windows rot, again both of which are largely myths. The AV software that 'sucks up CPU cycles' is another one - some packages are pretty bad but the good ones have a negligible impact and I defy you to find any credible organisation that lets networked Macs operate through a portal without securityware in place.
I'm not going to pretend that Windows doesn't have its irritations but then having used Linux and OSX as well I'm not going to pretned they don't either. The point remains that one should use the best tool for the job and for me and the vast majority of others that's Windows.
Longevity? Head over to eBay, and price 'em yourself, PC's vs. Macs of equivalent specs and ages. Dells and HP's of the rough equivalent to my old dual G5 sell for less than 10% or so of their original selling price -- if the seller is lucky. Meanwhile, a $2000 Dual G5 1.8GHz box can still sell for 40-50% of its original price, and likely still has its original OS install on it.
Also, do not try to run and hide behind the skirts of the "decent PC" argument, since that is rather undefined, and would end up being priced near or above (often well above) the equivalent Mac (again, comparing specifications).
If you're going to try and claim that A/V software is not at times bloated and resource-intensive, I doubt that even your fellow MSFT cheeleaders would agree with that. Sure, there are some A/V products that are somewhat merciful on a system, but the point still stands - you, as a Windows user, are wasting resources on a product that only partially protects you from exploitation of the OS vendor's flaws. I, as someone who uses OSX and Linux, do not.
"I defy you to find any credible organisation that lets networked Macs operate through a portal without securityware in place."
Nice try - but during all that handwaving of yours towards the Enterprise (which is often home to a lot of ignorant/stupid policies), and your attempts to muddy up the terminology (we were talking about A/V, not "securityware", which could mean anything)...?
...you forgot to answer an implied question: how many OSX home users would even bother? It's a number that is close enough to zero that you couldn't discern a difference. Also, in the Enterprise at large, most Linux servers (not workstations, --servers) have no such thing as A/V on them (save for the occasional ClamAV install to scan inbound mail for Windows users...)
Your specious strawman aside, here's one that opened his little Mac to the planet, issued a challenge, and watched it hold up just fine in spite of repeated and concerted attempts to break it: http://news.cnet.com/Another-Mac-OS-X-hack-challenge-launched/2100-7349_3-6047038.html
First off - you are currently using a mac with a G5 processor. Are you even using leopard? We're not talking about the macs of yester-year. We're talking about here and now. Here and now, we have the latest hardware out there. For crying out loud, I have a first-generation macbook. My computer is completely baseline except for my harddrive. I opted for the bigger one there. This laptop operates with an external monitor (not dual screen) running video games with EASE. The framerate of my gaming with the monitor installed is equivalent to that of a "higher-end" computer. Do you realize that macs and windows run differently? This is the same argument that you need to look at when Power-PC processors were being compared to Pentium 3 or whatever processors years ago. It may look numerically smaller, but that doesn't mean that it packs less of a punch. So before you try to argue against macs, please have a recent system to compare it too? Jeez.
Second - My parents used a Mac running OS 9 for roughly 10 years perfectly fine. My dad only opted to get a newer computer because he didn't have enough harddrive space. Don't even bring longevity into this debate because macs will crush you.
Third - Macs run windows better than PCs do. If you look at just about any review of Boot Camp, you'll notice that macs keep up with the most high-tech windows computers if not out-performing them. Also notice that many times, the computers have supposedly "higher-end" hardware again. And once again, I say to you: numerically macs may not seem better than PCs, but when it comes to packing a bigger punch, macs come out on top.
Fourth - Market share? Just because a lot of people use something doesn't mean its the best. Take cigarettes for example. On top of that, before macs were able to even compete just a little with PCs, a ridiculous amount of people used windows. To recover any sort of ground, apple would have to have 10s of millions of converts a year. That's just not possible especially with the amount of people there are like you.
When it comes down to it, though, it is a matter of personal preference. Clearly, there is no convincing a windows user such as Alex that there is anything else besides windows. Yes, I've used both. I've programmed on both, I've gamed on both, I've created on both, and I've been productive AND on both of the most recent operating systems and configurations, too. Like I said before: my baseline macbook compares to a "highend" PC. I can't stress this enough. Don't look at the numbers. Try one out. Find a friend that has a mac and try it. Its different, but its extremely intuitive and has an easy learning curve especially if you're using a guide like the one in this article. Even if you don't like it after playing around for several hours, at least you can say that you tried it out unlike most of the people that hate on macs.
-Mike
- by immortlone1188 November 4, 2008 2:48 AM PST
- PS: our population is in the hundreds of millions. Consider that in 2005 1 million people switched to macs. How much did our market share jump? A percent or two? That should give you a scale to go by when talking about market share.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(49 Comments)