PC vs MAC

[progressquest]

Ok, it seems a derail has started in a thread devoted to mac products. Consider this my good deed of 2007. Let's continue the debate here, not there. :D

[Bell]

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

:p

[TobiasTheViking]

what debate?

I fail to see the need to debate anything in this regard.

And also, emacs is best.

[Smike]

Prices are prohibitive.

I can upgrade my PC.

I win this debate.

[Rat]

I don't like Macs at all. No particular reason I could put my finger on, but that's how it is. I had no particular notion of what to expect when I first used one, and none of the things I didn't like about them were just because it was different to what I was used to. Neither are any of them (at least that spring to mind) qualitative differences that make one platform 'better' than the other; just that I like one more than the other.

What I do hate, though, is supporting Mac users. If you want to use a system that 'just works', then don't complain when it doesn't. And make no mistake, computer problems are overwhelmingly user problems, and they are just as common on Macs as on PCs.

[phyz]

Here's what I don't get. What is it about PC users that compels them to proclaim their hate of all things Mac whenever the slightest glimmer of an opportunity arises?

If I don't like the kind of shoes you're wearing, I won't buy a pair for myself. But I won't blog abouit how awful your shoes are and why no one should ever buy them. And I surely won't berate you for your selection.

PC folks. Be happy. You rule the world! You've got the marketshare! Celebrate and be happy with your earthly domination.

Some of us don't want to be like you. Please try to be OK with that. We're not going to take away your PCs. You are free to toil away on Windows/Vista to your heart's content.

We're simply not going to join you in that endeavor. We've got our own platform and we're happy with it. Very happy. Don't hate us because we're happy. Doing so leads us to believe that you're not happy. Actually, that you're not happy and can't stand the thought that we are happy. And that rather than joining us in our happiness, you're compelled to force your unhappiness on us.

Surely this impression is in error. But that's how it plays to us. OK, maybe that's just how it plays to me. Nevertheless...

Like I said: I just don't get it.

[Wowbagger]

Nowadays Macs and PCs are almost just as good as each other almost every respect. Your choice of computing platform amounts to personal choice. To "hate" one platform, and think the other vastly superior is "racist". It's like saying "Chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor, therefore everyone must stop eating vanilla!", or something.


I choose Windows, because I am rich enough to afford the expensive upgrades, and patient enough to wait for them. :D

[Darat]

Quick question - what about owners of both Mac and Windows systems? Do we have to only post positive comments regarding Windows form my Windows PC and positive comments regarding Mac OSX from my Mac PC and vice-a-versa for negative ones?

(I do also have the option of booting the Windows PC into a Linux distribution so what about then - only positive comments about Linux...)

[CFLarsen]

Prices are prohibitive.

I wouldn't call them prohibitive, but price is definitely an issue.

I can upgrade my PC.

That's a very important point. Instead of waiting for the Next Big Upgrade, PC users can gradually, when they need it, get exactly the setup they need to solve their problems.

We all know how fast technology moves. Just a few years ago, very few were SMS'ing, now we are facing an evolutionary change: Our thumbs are becoming our pointing finger, because we use those to press the keys on our cell phones with. Can we wait years for each technology upgrade? No.

I win this debate.

It's true! :)

Here's what I don't get. What is it about PC users that compels them to proclaim their hate of all things Mac whenever the slightest glimmer of an opportunity arises?

It's not a hatred of all things Mac. It's a dislike of the smugness of some Mac users.

And I surely won't berate you for your selection.

You are free to toil away on Windows/Vista to your heart's content.

We're simply not going to join you in that endeavor. We've got our own platform and we're happy with it. Very happy. Don't hate us because we're happy. Doing so leads us to believe that you're not happy. Actually, that you're not happy and can't stand the thought that we are happy. And that rather than joining us in our happiness, you're compelled to force your unhappiness on us.

Surely this impression is in error. But that's how it plays to us. OK, maybe that's just how it plays to me. Nevertheless...

Like I said: I just don't get it.

Case in point.

Remember the Apple ad, which portrayed the PC as a sort of 1984-monolithic Big Brother world? Break free with a Mac? That's irony, my friend.

Nowadays Macs and PCs are almost just as good as each other almost every respect. Your choice of computing platform amounts to personal choice. [/B]To "hate" one platform, and think the other vastly superior is "racist". It's like saying "Chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor, therefore everyone must stop eating vanilla!", or something.

I think you'll find it an impossible task to argue that chocolate is anything but the best, on this forum...

I choose Windows, because I am rich enough to afford the expensive upgrades, and patient enough to wait for them. :D

Yet, you don't have to wait as long as you have to wait for Mac Upgrades. ;)

[Darat]

Here's what I don't get. What is it about PC users that compels them to proclaim their hate of all things Mac whenever the slightest glimmer of an opportunity arises?

...snip...

Numbers - and by that it I mean that because there are so many more Windows PC users out there even if a very small minority are quite vocal about their dislike for Mac OSX PCs it will be a lot and seem very noisy.

I'll also trade you anecdotes, when I was looking to buy my Mac I started to read Mac magazines, something I'd not done for years and I was astonished at the vitriol splashed against both Intel and Windows/Microsoft (yes this was before the conversion of the faithful to Intel powered Macs... ;) ) , and I don't just mean in the letters pages but in the editorials, general columns and so on. There is just nothing like that in the magazines aimed at (on the whole) Window PC owners and users.

[Wudang]

For me, it's history of friends. I used to have massive arguments with a friend who was a major mac bigot. What he didn't get was 2 things:
1 - the things that are important to him aren't important to me. I don't need a computer I can "relate to" any more than I need a kitchen knife I can relate to.
2 - and this he finally got when he had to do development work on a Unix system. GUIs are dressing on top of the function. A GUI designer may not have anticipated all my needs and certanly won't have known all the ways I'll use his toy. With a command line I can script common tasks. Sure "ps -eaf | grep -i java" may not be intuitive but I don't give a rats droppings. At that time the Mac had no command line. He refused to accept it needed one. Then he found that instead of everytime he wanted to re-build his app, instead of 8 mouse-clicks, he opened a shell and typed something like "build -o -r". The analogy he borrowed from me was that the (then) Mac GUI was like the ultimate kitchen all-slicing, blending, kneading food processor. But the kitchen didn't have a single knife. Sure you can detach this bit and attach that bit but in my kitchen I prefer to have a few sharp knives close to hand. That's my mindset and I don't mind sharpening those knives by hand (quite relaxing actually).
A number of people I respect say very good things about OS X which meet my interests (yes, it's got a nice knife AND it's got ....).
BTW - I work on z/OS, unix and windows at work, use XP at work, and at home I run XP and 2 linuxes so I'm hardly a bigot. But when people give me the "you just don't get it" argument, it just leaves me cold. And for FSM's sake why the flying (rule 8) do people get upset when someone says "I don't like your computer"? I didn't get upset when people were astonished that I prefered OS/2 for my home PC. It was a tool that let me do stuff. Too many Mac users seem to have too much emotion invested in their kit. Windows fans who have too much emotion invested are .....well, bizarre.
By heck, I've rambled a bit.

[El Greco]

And for FSM's sake why the flying (rule 8) do people get upset when someone says "I don't like your computer"?

For the same reason they get upset when someone says "I don't like your clothes" ?

Um... I'd better not go there again :D

[Darat]

...snip...
I didn't get upset when people were astonished that I prefered OS/2 for my home PC. It was a tool that let me do stuff.

...snip...

Another example that being the "best" (in a technical sense) doesn't ensure the survival in the consumer market.

[Wudang]

Another example that being the "best" (in a technical sense) doesn't ensure the survival in the consumer market.
Was it "the best"? The device driver support was FUBARed. It took them ages to get past or even acknowledge the single message queue issue. There's no such thing IMNVHO, there's only fit for purpose. Lifestyle choices are for people without lives.

[Zygar]

Was it "the best"? The device driver support was FUBARed. It took them ages to get past or even acknowledge the single message queue issue. There's no such thing IMNVHO, there's only fit for purpose. Lifestyle choices are for people without lives.

At the time, I felt that OS/2 Warp was the most reliable and usable platform available. But considering the competition in 1994, that's not saying much.

[Ian Osborne]

It's not a hatred of all things Mac. It's a dislike of the smugness of some Mac users.

Like the Mac user who turned the thread on the WWDC 07 into a Mac Vs PC flame war? No, sorry, that was you...

Yet, you don't have to wait as long as you have to wait for Mac Upgrades. ;)

• Releases since 2001...

Windows XP: October 2001
Windows Vista: January 2007

Mac OS X 10.0: March 2001
Mac OS X 10.1: September 2001 (free upgrade for 10.0 users)
Mac OS X 10.2: August 2002
Mac OS X 10.3: October 2003
Mac OS X 10.4: April 2005
Mac OS X 10.5: Spring 2007

[Darat]

Was it "the best"? The device driver support was FUBARed. It took them ages to get past or even acknowledge the single message queue issue. There's no such thing IMNVHO, there's only fit for purpose. Lifestyle choices are for people without lives.

Whilst I don't think it was perfect I think at the time especially with the arrival of OS/2 Warp it could be fairly accurately described as the "best" mainstream desktop OS for IBM compatible PCs.

[Wudang]

While a big fan myself I knew lots of people who had horrible experiences with OS/2 (inc Warp) and especially Wordperfect users. There are lots of reasons you can claim it was better (eg the IP stack, association wizard, WPS, SOM etc) but if you can't get a driver for it you're stuffed.

[Darat]

While a big fan myself I knew lots of people who had horrible experiences with OS/2 (inc Warp) and especially Wordperfect users. There are lots of reasons you can claim it was better (eg the IP stack, association wizard, WPS, SOM etc) but if you can't get a driver for it you're stuffed.


I Think Zygar sums it up right - given the time we are talking about it's like saying "he was the nicest one of the Kray Twins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Kray)".

[Upchurch]

I grew up on and used Macs all the way through college and into my first job before work and application restraints forced me to move to Windows. I honestly can't say that one is better than the other, overall.

The next time I get ready to do a major upgrade, I will probably get a Mac and put a dual boot with Windows on it so that I can work in either.

[geni]

Like the Mac user who turned the thread on the WWDC 07 into a Mac Vs PC flame war? No, sorry, that was you...



• Releases since 2001...

Windows XP: October 2001
Windows Vista: January 2007

Mac OS X 10.0: March 2001
Mac OS X 10.1: September 2001 (free upgrade for 10.0 users)
Mac OS X 10.2: August 2002
Mac OS X 10.3: October 2003
Mac OS X 10.4: April 2005
Mac OS X 10.5: Spring 2007

Hmm you igno0red SP1 and 2

you also missed
Ubuntu 4.10: oct 2004
Ubuntu 5.04: April 2005
Ubuntu 5.10 Oct 2005
Ubuntu 6.06 LTS June 2006
Ubuntu 6.10 Oct 2006

[Wowbagger]

• Releases since 2001...

Windows XP: October 2001
Windows Vista: January 2007

Mac OS X 10.0: March 2001
Mac OS X 10.1: September 2001 (free upgrade for 10.0 users)
Mac OS X 10.2: August 2002
Mac OS X 10.3: October 2003
Mac OS X 10.4: April 2005
Mac OS X 10.5: Spring 2007
Your list leaves out XP SP1 and XP SP2.
But, your main point still holds.

[jimlintott]

What? A Mac is a PC.

I'm so old I still think of a PC as a personal computer. A Mac is a personal computer. Somewhere along the line the term IBM-PC or IBM-Clone lost the IBM and the clone part to become just PC. Lately the term PC seems to refer to Wintel boxes. I run Linux on an AMD64 but consider it a PC.

The Mac people started the fight. I have encountered many smug Mac users. It seemed to reach its height around the time Windows 95 was current. Win95 was not the best OS I've ever used and it was not very stable. The Mac users really had legitimate criticisms. Crticisms often used, I think, to cover some envy that they couldn't play some of the coolest games. (Gaming is another reason why Wintel did so well in the home.)

I found that running Linux on my PC stopped many MAC arguments. They'd say PCs are not stable like MACs. I'd say that's a Windows issue my PC with Linux is stable as a rock. I had one friend who refused to believe that my brand new PC could encode an MP3 faster than his five year old MAC. I tried to explain that in the last five years PC speeds were way up and I just plain had more processing power. He never really got it. I think he figured a RISC chip was always going to be better than a CISC chip. When Apple adopted the x86 Intel I had a good laugh.

I find now that it seems to be MS Win users that are smug. 'We are the most popular' ergo the best, is what I keep hearing.

Personally I think that technically MS Windows is the worst desktop OS available today. But it is popular and there is lots of software so it is impossible to escape. (Yet :D)

Me. I use WinXP at work. I use WinXP to play games on at home. I use Linux for my own personal computing. I'd buy a MAC in a minute if I thought I really needed one. I'd like one, actually. I really just like computers.

One more thing. If PCs are so easily upgraded why do I have six of them? They are easy to upgrade while still current but when they get a few years old upgrading can be near impossible. The most common PC upgrade is a whole new box.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Numbers - and by that it I mean that because there are so many more Windows PC users out there even if a very small minority are quite vocal about their dislike for Mac OSX PCs it will be a lot and seem very noisy.
I think you nailed it with this point. I don't think there's an overwhelming hatred for Macs by Windows users, but a very small percentage will sure make it look that way. I would imagine that the average Windows user doesn't really think about Macs much at all.

I remember what it was like in the 80's with the Amiga vs. the PC; the Amiga was in the same camp as the Mac is now. We bantered a lot back and forth on BBSs at the time, but we all knew that it came down to a personal preference at the end of the day.

In the end, why do I care whether you have a Mac or a Windows PC?

[jimlintott]

In the end, why do I care whether you have a Mac or a Windows PC?You're right it really shouldn't matter but I would like to see more people running different platforms to MS Windows. MS has always been attempting to leverage their market dominance to a computer world where they are the only game. We have web sites that only work on IE. We have the whole business world somehow thinking they can't function without MS Word. MS would love to be the proprietary software overlords who dictate the personal computing show. Encouraging people to use different platforms will make personal computing better for all.

[phyz]

you also missed
Ubuntu 4.10: oct 2004
Ubuntu 5.04: April 2005
Ubuntu 5.10 Oct 2005
Ubuntu 6.06 LTS June 2006
Ubuntu 6.10 Oct 2006

Wha? I thought Ubuntu was Linux. Linux is not Windows. Clearly I'm missing something and someone will hasten to straighten me out.

[El Greco]

Encouraging people to use different platforms will make personal computing better for all.

Certainly, but those different platforms must be roughly of the same quality, usability, upgradability, price, etc. Otherwise not many people will be happy to be the guinea pigs.

[Smike]

Wha? I thought Ubuntu was Linux. Linux is not Windows. Clearly I'm missing something and someone will hasten to straighten me out.

You are missing the fact (as pointed out by jimlintott) that PC =/= Windows.

[geni]

Wha? I thought Ubuntu was Linux. Linux is not Windows. Clearly I'm missing something and someone will hasten to straighten me out.

There are rather a lot of different OS's that run on PCs

Windows
The linux family
The BSD mob
BeOS
IBM OS/2
SkyOS
etc

[CFLarsen]

Like the Mac user who turned the thread on the WWDC 07 into a Mac Vs PC flame war? No, sorry, that was you...



• Releases since 2001...

Windows XP: October 2001
Windows Vista: January 2007

Mac OS X 10.0: March 2001
Mac OS X 10.1: September 2001 (free upgrade for 10.0 users)
Mac OS X 10.2: August 2002
Mac OS X 10.3: October 2003
Mac OS X 10.4: April 2005
Mac OS X 10.5: Spring 2007

There have been countless upgrades for XP.

[HarryKeogh]

Hmm you igno0red SP1 and 2

Ian Osbornes post was in reply to CFLarsen's post which was in reply to Wowbaggers post which stated "I choose Windows, because I am rich enough to afford the expensive upgrades"

so I'm assuming Wowbagger is talking about the major upgrades that you have to buy... not security patches, bug fixes. (which my Mac seems to automatically download as often as my PC does. I consider these "updates" as in "Windows Update" as opposed to upgrades)

Granted, SP1 and SP2 added plenty of features but there have been twice as many major upgrades (If we want to call SP1 and SP2 major upgrades and yes I know they were free) to OS X in this same time.

So to the criticism "you don't have to wait so long for Windows ugrades as you do Mac upgrades"...That's BS.

[Beleth]

The more similar two things are,
the more persistent and heated the argument over which is better.


And it's been my experience that it's the Mac users who start the Wintel-bashing before the Wintel users start the Mac-bashing.

[HarryKeogh]

And it's been my experience that it's the Mac users who start the Wintel-bashing before the Wintel users start the Mac-bashing.

We're still upset that the Newton never caught on.

[Upchurch]

And it's been my experience that it's the Mac users who start the Wintel-bashing before the Wintel users start the Mac-bashing.
The biggest OS snob I know in real life is a Mac-man. The second biggest is my father, who is on Windows and wishes he had a Mac.

[Beleth]

We're still upset that the Newton never caught on.How many Newton users does it take to change a light bulb?


Farm.

[Upchurch]

I think it boils down to Windows machines provides choice and adaptability where Mac provides stability and ease.

[Almo]

Prices are prohibitive.

I can upgrade my PC.

I win this debate.

You lose. Prices are not prohibitive, if you include maintenance and ease of use. I can upgrade my Mac.

[Almo]

I remember what it was like in the 80's with the Amiga vs. the PC; the Amiga was in the same camp as the Mac is now. We bantered a lot back and forth on BBSs at the time, but we all knew that it came down to a personal preference at the end of the day.

Yup. Whether you preferred EGA with a sound beeper, or loads of colors, with 4-channel stereo sound. ;)

And it's been my experience that it's the Mac users who start the Wintel-bashing before the Wintel users start the Mac-bashing.

Who started it in the MacWorld 2007 thread? PC user.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Yup. Whether you preferred EGA with a sound beeper, or loads of colors, with 4-channel stereo sound. ;)
Yeah, that's right... Go play with your spreadsheets you damn 386'ers!!
:D

[phyz]

There are rather a lot of different OS's that run on PCs

Windows
The linux family
The BSD mob
BeOS
IBM OS/2
SkyOS
etc
Understood. But Ubuntu is Linux. Linux runs on Macs as well. So it's not appropriate to list it as a PC OS upgrade.

Just curious. What percent of PCs out in the world actually do run on a non-Microsoft OS?

[Powa]

At work I use a mac (graphics designing). At home I have a PC with Windows XP, Windows Vista and Mac OS X. Yes, tripple boot. :D

I used to hate macs with passion. When I started my present job, we worked on macs with OS 9.2 *shudders*. Oh the pain... But when we got OS X, it quickly grew on me. Now, I would gladly switch. If... macs could run my favorite Windows programs.

I really like mac's ease of use and practically no viruses or spyware. In contrast, Windows are bloated, buggy, and unsecure. And way too expensive. Oh, and the f***ing Windows Genuine Advantage... :mad: Go after the pirates, don't try your best to piss ME off, the legitimate user.

[jimlintott]

Understood. But Ubuntu is Linux. Linux runs on Macs as well. So it's not appropriate to list it as a PC OS upgrade.

Just curious. What percent of PCs out in the world actually do run on a non-Microsoft OS?

That's a good question and I have no idea. Many Linux desktop installations are also dual boot so that confuses it further.

Linux also runs on damn near anything unlike BSDs which do run on anything. I got FreeBSD booted on an electric toothbrush.:p Linux is also making inroads into the embedded market. Many people have a Linux device in their homes and don't even know it. If you have a router there is a very good chance it runs Linux.

It's interesting that openness and flexibilty is being cited as one of the reasons for the success of the PC and I don't disagree. Heading into the future I keep seeing Microsoft becoming more closed and more proprietary while open source delivers that openness and flexibilty. It may be that what started the IBM-PC road to fame is what will kill MS in the end. (I don't think they will really die but they wll likely have to change course.)

[Cleon]

We're still upset that the Newton never caught on.

Don't be. Newton, despite its many flaws, essentially pioneered the PDA industry. It was one in a long line of Apple innovations that really revolutionized IT.

[tsg]

Here's what I don't get. What is it about PC users that compels them to proclaim their hate of all things Mac whenever the slightest glimmer of an opportunity arises?

If I don't like the kind of shoes you're wearing, I won't buy a pair for myself. But I won't blog abouit how awful your shoes are and why no one should ever buy them. And I surely won't berate you for your selection.

PC folks. Be happy. You rule the world! You've got the marketshare! Celebrate and be happy with your earthly domination.

Some of us don't want to be like you. Please try to be OK with that. We're not going to take away your PCs. You are free to toil away on Windows/Vista to your heart's content.

We're simply not going to join you in that endeavor. We've got our own platform and we're happy with it. Very happy. Don't hate us because we're happy. Doing so leads us to believe that you're not happy. Actually, that you're not happy and can't stand the thought that we are happy. And that rather than joining us in our happiness, you're compelled to force your unhappiness on us.

Surely this impression is in error. But that's how it plays to us. OK, maybe that's just how it plays to me. Nevertheless...

Like I said: I just don't get it.


As long as we're building strawmen....

[Typical PC User] hereby formally agrees to stop bashing Macs when [Typical Mac User] agrees to stop answering "Get A Mac" to PC-based tech support questions.

[CFLarsen]

As long as we're building strawmen....

[Typical PC User] hereby formally agrees to stop bashing Macs when [Typical Mac User] agrees to stop answering "Get A Mac" to PC-based tech support questions.

Hear, hear...

[Darat]

I think the rule should be simple - if someone suggests you get a Mac when you mention you have a non-Mac technical problem it should be treated as a legal contract and they should be forced to provide said Mac! And also if someone suggest when a Mac owner is trying to find some software "get a Windows PC" then the same rule should come into force.

(Anyone who has never had a technical problem with a Mac I suggest you at some point take it out of the box and plug it in! :) And note I am a Mac user.)

[geni]

Understood. But Ubuntu is Linux. Linux runs on Macs as well. So it's not appropriate to list it as a PC OS upgrade.

Do you really want me to list every single update of every single PC OS? It would be rather a long list.

Even the windows list is incorrect the true list being ah rather longer,

# Windows NT 5.1 (Windows XP)
# Windows NT 5.1 SP1
# Windows NT 5.1 SP2
# Windows NT 5.2 (Windows Server 2003)
# Windows NT 6.0 (Windows Vista)
# Windows Fundamentals

There is also (from 2001)

Windows PE Version 1.0
Windows PE Version 1.1
Windows PE Version 1.2
Windows PE Version 1.5 (2004)
Windows PE Version 1.6 (2005)
Windows PE Version 2.0 (2006)

that would be another 6.



Just curious. What percent of PCs out in the world actually do run on a non-Microsoft OS?

10% maybe.

[jimlintott]

I think the rule should be simple - if someone suggests you get a Mac when you mention you have a non-Mac technical problem it should be treated as a legal contract and they should be forced to provide said Mac! And also if someone suggest when a Mac owner is trying to find some software "get a Windows PC" then the same rule should come into force.

(Anyone who has never had a technical problem with a Mac I suggest you at some point take it out of the box and plug it in! :) And note I am a Mac user.)

I think that is perfectly fair.

So the next time someone has Windows trouble I will say "format c: install Linux. Here's a copy. (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/GetUbuntu/download?action=show&redirect=download)"

:D

[Ian Osborne]

[Typical PC User] hereby formally agrees to stop bashing Macs when [Typical Mac User] agrees to stop answering "Get A Mac" to PC-based tech support questions.

I can't say I've never done that, but I don't turn up in a thread in which I have no interest, derail it and start another Macs vs PCs flame war, which is what happened in the MacWorld 2007 thrad.

[Wowbagger]

Ian Osbornes post was in reply to CFLarsen's post which was in reply to Wowbaggers post which stated "I choose Windows, because I am rich enough to afford the expensive upgrades"
When I talked about the expense of upgrading, I did not mean to imply all of the "major" updates were expensive. XP SP1 and SP2 were free updates. But, XP was expensive when it first came out, and Vista is going to be expensive when it comes out. Some of us crazy folk are willing to, and can afford to, burn our money away on these expensive upgrades. Which, I might add, might also require hardware upgrades, if you're gonna use the new system to its fullest. Macs don't usually have to worry as much about hardware upgrades.

As far as the list of upgrades between XP and Mac are concerned, I think the SP1 and SP2 updates constitute a significant enough update to be worthy of comparison to the 10.x upgrades of MacOS. Even if they were free updates.

The other Windows Updates updates are each small potatoes (many of which are rolled up in an SP). I'm sure Mac has their own equivalent of small-potato updates, as well.

I left off XP Media Center Edition, Tablet PC Edition, x64, Windows Server 2003, etc., because those are sold as separate products, not upgrades. Although, some may use them as such.

[Ian Osborne]

As far as the list of upgrades between XP and Mac are concerned, I think the SP1 and SP2 updates constitute a significant enough update to be worthy of comparison to the 10.x upgrades of MacOS. Even if they were free updates.

Fair enough, but that still leaves Macs with 50% more updates than Windows from 2001 to 2007. A copy of Mac OS X costs around 1/3 of the price of a Windows OS, so if the free SP 1 & 2 are considered upgrades, the total cost of ownership of the OS is about the same. The bottom line, of course, remains that Claus' comment about waiting a lot longer for Mac upgrades is BS.

The other Windows Updates updates are each small potatoes (many of which are rolled up in an SP). I'm sure Mac has their own equivalent of small-potato updates, as well.

Yeah, but our small-potato updates do it with more style! :p

Seriously, you're right - trivial fixes and patches are made available as soon as they appear, just like Windows.

[Rat]

And now, of course, I have to hear Apple evangelists telling me all about the new iPhone, which, as far as I can tell, is much like every other PDA/phone/smartphone/etc. that's been released in the last couple of years. Which I wouldn't mind, were it not for the marketing hyperbole being repeated as if it were real. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but it isn't revolutionary, it isn't ahead of its time, it is about right for the price. It has a bog-standard resolution, with a bog-standard camera, and a bog standard capacity. It's fine, but it's not brilliant. That said, I'm sure it will sell like mad anyway, because if there's one thing Mac users have, it's brand loyalty.

[Doc Daneeka]

And now, of course, I have to hear Apple evangelists telling me all about the new iPhone, which, as far as I can tell, is much like every other PDA/phone/smartphone/etc. that's been released in the last couple of years. Which I wouldn't mind, were it not for the marketing hyperbole being repeated as if it were real. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but it isn't revolutionary, it isn't ahead of its time, it is about right for the price. It has a bog-standard resolution, with a bog-standard camera, and a bog standard capacity. It's fine, but it's not brilliant. That said, I'm sure it will sell like mad anyway, because if there's one thing Mac users have, it's brand loyalty.

You probably wouldn't receive this show in the UK, but I'll mention it anyway. There's a show called Frontline that plays on PBS. It's a documentary series. The episode is called "The Persuaders" and is about how marketing people go about their business in the 21st century. There's this priceless scene where they interview the former brand manager for a major corporation who is trying to find a way to forge an emotional attachment to certain phrases. He makes a point of interviewing what he calls 'cultists', such as Hare Krishnas, wrestling fans, Falun Gong members, Mac users, etc.

I run several different os myself. I am partial to some over others of course. It utterly baffles me whenever (and this is quite often) I hear people rant about how this particular os is just plain better, in all possible ways.

[phyz]

Hear, hear...
And can I get a "Hear, hear" for this?

"I will not dive into a MacWorld (or similar) thread designed to speculate and discuss the news/announcements of Apple just to tell the people in that thread that they are foolish/stupid/wrong to like Macs, OS X, or anything related to Apple."

It's really, really simple. Easier than falling off a log. And it will save you some trouble down the road. Good news all around!

[phyz]

Do you really want me to list every single update of every single PC OS?
Truthfully, no.

I was simply amused by the argument that Macs advanced by quantum leaps spaced over great expanses of time. So I mentioned Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard (major upgrades--upgrades you had to pay for) would have occurred while Windows was in the process of advancing to Vista.

Incremental updates were of little interest to me. MS does 'em; Apple does 'em. I don't consider them upgrades. I appears PC folks (or at least those in the forum) do. Semantics at best.

[boooeee]

You probably wouldn't receive this show in the UK, but I'll mention it anyway. There's a show called Frontline that plays on PBS. It's a documentary series. The episode is called "The Persuaders" and is about how marketing people go about their business in the 21st century. There's this priceless scene where they interview the former brand manager for a major corporation who is trying to find a way to forge an emotional attachment to certain phrases. He makes a point of interviewing what he calls 'cultists', such as Hare Krishnas, wrestling fans, Falun Gong members, Mac users, etc.Here's the online version if you want to see it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/

[Beleth]

Don't be. Newton, despite its many flaws, essentially pioneered the PDA industry. It was one in a long line of Apple innovations that really revolutionized IT.
IT? How did the Newton revolutionize Information Technology?

Now, my first real summer college job was taking care of the computer needs of an insurance office whose computer system consisted of about 25 Apple ][e's (shut up) networked together to a Corvus 25 Mb (which I upgraded to 80 Mb [that's right, Mb, not Gb]) hard drive. And I looked at this setup, with one disk drive and 25 CPUs, and I thought to myself "wow, this is so backwards." So I'm not saying that Apple didn't do a lot for IT innovation. I just don't see how the Newton figures into that picture.

[RayG]

I think it boils down to Windows machines provides choice and adaptability where Mac provides stability and ease.

I think it comes down to whatever you're comfortable with. Not sure I understand completely what you mean by 'choice', 'adaptability', 'stability', and 'ease'.

I'm not a PC-gamer so my Linux box provides as many choices as my three XP systems.

All four systems are stable and easy to use.

Adaptable? To what?

You lose. Prices are not prohibitive, if you include maintenance and ease of use. I can upgrade my Mac.

I'd have to disagree. Comparison pricing shows that for the price of an iMac I can purchase TWO generic PCs with the equivalent computing power.

What exactly do you mean by maintenance? I 'maintain' all four of my computers, but they require very little if any actual maintenance. As for ease of use, my six-year-old seems to have no trouble doing what she wants/likes on the XP systems (daddy's computer is NOT for the kiddies to play with).

RayG

[phyz]

Comparison pricing shows that for the price of an iMac I can purchase TWO generic PCs with the equivalent computing power.

OK; I'll bite! In the spirit of education,
1. Show me the $500 PC that matches
Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz
17-inch flat panel LCD
512MB memory
160GB hard drive
24x Combo drive
Intel GMA 950 graphics
Airport Extreme
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$999.00

You said computing power, so I won't hold you to the design esthetic of the iMac.

2. Convince me that it's plug and play, and that it's not a doorstop within six months. For $170, Apple will see to it I get a computer that computes for three years. Surely PC manufacturers will do the same for $85 or less.

I submit to you as a student. Please educate! I certainly haven't priced PCs. Ever. So let it rip...

[PogoPedant]

And now, of course, I have to hear Apple evangelists telling me all about the new iPhone, which, as far as I can tell, is much like every other PDA/phone/smartphone/etc. that's been released in the last couple of years. Which I wouldn't mind, were it not for the marketing hyperbole being repeated as if it were real. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but it isn't revolutionary, it isn't ahead of its time, it is about right for the price. It has a bog-standard resolution, with a bog-standard camera, and a bog standard capacity. It's fine, but it's not brilliant. That said, I'm sure it will sell like mad anyway, because if there's one thing Mac users have, it's brand loyalty.

Except it doesn't have 3G support, which is weird (imagine Sony saying "Look at our shiny new PS3! It has lots of shiny features, but we decided against high definition graphics. Who needs that, anyway?"). Worse, though, is that is appearantly doesn't support 3rd party software. To my mind, that is plain insanity. Why would I want a phone with lots of neat toys if I can't program it?

On the other hand, it has a multi-touch screen, and that rocks. :D

[HarryKeogh]

Except it doesn't have 3G support, which is weird

but Steve Jobs said "it's coming"...whatever that means.

Anyway...I decided against it. I'll wait for the widescreen, touchscreen iPod without the phone. I don't want to waste my phone battery charge while listening to music or watching videos. Plus I need a lot more than 8 GB for my music. The beauty of a large capacity iPod is having the right song for whatever mood your in.

[HarryKeogh]

oh, and somebody has taken this Mac vs PC (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/10/editor.killed.ap/index.html) thing too far.

[Darat]

OK; I'll bite! In the spirit of education,
1. Show me the $500 PC that matches
Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz
17-inch flat panel LCD
512MB memory
160GB hard drive
24x Combo drive
Intel GMA 950 graphics
Airport Extreme
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$999.00

You said computing power, so I won't hold you to the design esthetic of the iMac.

2. Convince me that it's plug and play, and that it's not a doorstop within six months. For $170, Apple will see to it I get a computer that computes for three years. Surely PC manufacturers will do the same for $85 or less.

I submit to you as a student. Please educate! I certainly haven't priced PCs. Ever. So let it rip...

Probably find it hard to find a good deal on a direct equivalent non-Mac PC because that would be a rather strange mix of hardware for a PC. However looking at UK prices for the price of the cheapest iMac (£679.00) you get this type of specification in a non-Mac PC (Mesh) (http://www.meshcomputers.com/Default.aspx?PAGE=PRODCATEGORYVIEWPAGE&USG=APPLICATION&ENT=APPLICATION&KEY=71810):

Key Features:
Unbeatable value Core™ 2 Duo Power PC
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center
Free Upgrade to Genuine Vista Home Premium
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E6300 Processor
(1.86GHz ,2MB L2 Cache, 1066MHz)
ASUS PCIe Mainboard-Intel® G946gz Chipset
1024MB DDR2 Memory
Now with 320GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
512MB nVIDIA Geforce 7300GS Graphics
19" Widescreen TFT LCD Display
Sony 18x Super Format DVD Writer
5.1 Channel Surround Sound Audio
8 USB 2.0 ,GB LAN
Now With Cordless Keyboard & Mouse
Classic Warranty-3 Years parts & lab.



By the way how much would the same Mac you asked for a price comparison cost set up with two 320Gb harddiscs configured as RAID 1? ....... ... ;) :p

[RayG]

OK; I'll bite! In the spirit of education,
1. Show me the $500 PC that matches
Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz
17-inch flat panel LCD
512MB memory
160GB hard drive
24x Combo drive
Intel GMA 950 graphics
Airport Extreme
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$999.00

Yes, I probably spoke too soon. The two comparisons I did were back in October 2005, and September 2004. Back then the iMac prices were $1,599 and $1,749 Canadian. I see the price has dropped to a much more reasonable $1,099.

The comparison I did back in 2004:

Pentium 4 3 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, Windows XP Home, Genuine Intel® Motherboard 865GBFL Chipset up to 6 fast USB 2.0 Ports, Dual Channel DDR400 Memory support, up to 4GB of system memory, Intel Rapid BIOS Boot, 512MB Dual Channel DDR Kingston RAM, Western Digital 160GB 7200 RPM with 8MB cache Hard Drive, 128MB DDR ATI Radeon 9200SE AGP 8X Graphics Card, 19" Perfectly Flat Monitor, 52x24x52 CD-RW w/BurnProof Technology, 16xDVD Drive, (FREE UPGRADE TO DVD Writer-Burner), DLINK PCI 10/100 NIC, SoundMax 3D Sound, SPX & MIC. Pre-Amplifier, Speakers. Microsoft® Software Bundle [ Word, Works, Money, Encarta… ], Standard Warranty 1 year parts 1 year labour for $1366.

If I stick closer to the actual iMac specs, I can pick up a clone for $897 ($917 if you add speakers), a savings of $832. At that price I can almost get TWO clones for the price of the iMac ($1,749).At present, a $549 Dell system has the following:
AMD Sempron 3400+
Windows XP Home (though that only drives the price up)
17 inch E773 CRT monitor
512Meg RAM
160GB HD
48x CD-RW/DVD Combo Drive
NVIDIA GeForece 6150 LE Integrated Graphics GPU
Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio

I save $550.

I can get a generic PC with Dual core Pentium D 805 2.66GHZ 64 Bit processor
512MB RAM
160GB HD
16x DVDRW Superdrive
Intel onboard graphics
17" flat-panel monitor
for $588

I save $511.

You said computing power, so I won't hold you to the design esthetic of the iMac.You got me there, they sure look nice. How much tinkering can I do 'under the hood', so to speak? Can I easily upgrade the video, hard drive, RAM, etc. etc.? What happens if the display dies and you're no longer under warranty?

2. Convince me that it's plug and play, and that it's not a doorstop within six months. For $170, Apple will see to it I get a computer that computes for three years. Surely PC manufacturers will do the same for $85 or less.I presently have four computers running 24/7, one is a HP Pavillion, two are refurbished systems (including my Linux box), and one is a custom build. I can plug my digital camera, my scanner, or my USB data stick into any of them, and all have been running non-stop for at least a year. None of them are doorstops. Why would you think they'd be doorstops within six months? Convince me I should spend hundreds of dollars more for a computer with very similar specifications.

I submit to you as a student. Please educate! I certainly haven't priced PCs. Ever. So let it rip...Not trying to teach you anything, just pointing out some reasons why I haven't run out and purchased an iMac. My wife and my wallet have more sway over me than you do. :D

RayG

[Wudang]

Bear in mind though that it's not just chip speed. If the mobo doesn't match up the chip performance is poor. That's why a lot of cheap PCs look good on paper but actual performance sucks. I don't know about Mac mobos.

[RayG]

Bear in mind though that it's not just chip speed. If the mobo doesn't match up the chip performance is poor. That's why a lot of cheap PCs look good on paper but actual performance sucks. I don't know about Mac mobos.

Good point. One easy way of dropping the price is by dropping the quality.

Getting back to comparisons -- In a pure, head-to-head, toe-to-toe matchup between and iMac and a Dell for example:

$1,848 iMac
# 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
# 250GB Serial ATA drive
# SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X - U.S. English
# AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac - 3 year warranty
# ATI Radeon X1600 128MB SDRAM
# 17-inch widescreen LCD
# AirPort Extreme
# Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

$1,698 Dell
# Intel® Core™2 Duo processor E6400 (2.13GHz)
# Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
# 19 inch E197FP Analog Flat Panel
# 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz- 2DIMMs
# 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
# 8x DVD+/-RW Drive
# Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 3000
# Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio
# 3 year warranty

I save $150 and I get a bigger monitor. (see, size does matter) :p

RayG

[phyz]

Yes, I probably spoke too soon.
That was my point.

I will grant you that for the same price, the PC you get will have better specs than the Mac you get. At least most of the time. Us crazy, deluded, irrational Mac types see something worth paying extra for. PC types don't. And that's OK.

What I wanted to see was the half-priced iMac equivalent. Please remember that Mac prices come down over time, too.

And I don't hope to have any sway with you. You should sway only with your wife.;)

[Ian Osborne]

And I don't hope to have any sway with you. You should sway only with your wife.;)

:D

[Starthinker]

I can see people using whatever they want. You're a Mac person? Great! You're a *nix person? Great! But looking over this thread I see a few people talking about their PC dual booting with XP as the second operating system or having some XP system somewhere for certain apps. And not just here, but I hear about dual booting all the time. If the other OSs give you what you want, why the dual boot? That just tells me that you still need Windows to some extent. If you didn't, the you wouldn't have the dual boot. Until that need is replaced Microsoft is still selling you a copy of their OS so you didn't really save anything. Not trying to be pro-MS or belittle the other OSs, but I just wanted to point out that it's the need that's making them money, and until you can relieve that need you are still supporting old Bill.

My very first computer was a Performa 450 and if I recall Windows 3.1 was just getting entrenched. Years later when Windows 98 came out I can remember thinking that Microsoft finally caught up to what my Mac could do years before. Yes, I think they copied just about everything they did but they just marketed it better for a long time and now we are stuck with it. Personally, I haven't had a PC problem in years, no viruses, no crashes, and 99% of my calls are user errors, and this is on 9 servers and about 200 PCs so I don't see what all the Microsoft hate is about. But I don't push PCs or Microsoft on Mac or *nix users, and I don't understand why other people feel the need to push their favorite.

Mac users who don't know Windows inside-out like I do are sure to have problems, as I'm sure I would if I tried to use Linux or a Mac OS. It's just a matter of taste, skill, and what you actually need.

It's like debating what the best tasting food in the world is. Or the old Chevy-Ford debate. There just isn't a "best".

By the way, whatever happened to Novell? I just turned off a Novell server that was sitting quietly in the corner running a single accounting app for the last 6 years on a 66mhz server (64 MB RAM, 1 GB HD). I don't recall ever touching it except when the power went out and I had to turn it on again. It was set up when I started so I never even learned any Novell commands or anything. What a little trooper that was.

[progressquest]

I keep hearing about Mac aesthetics. Yes, granted, that out of the box, a Mac looks better, but can you do this with a Mac?

http://www.computer-choppers.com/gallery.htm
http://gadgets.fosfor.se/the-top-10-weirdest-case-mods/

[Ian Osborne]

I keep hearing about Mac aesthetics. Yes, granted, that out of the box, a Mac looks better, but can you do this with a Mac?

Sure, if you must - one of your Top Ten mods is in fact a Mac. But why would you want to?

[RayG]

Us crazy, deluded, irrational Mac types see something worth paying extra for.

And that something worth paying for would be....?? I'd make no claims about whether you're crazy, deluded, or irrational, but in my opinion you're a wee bit of a spendthrift. :D

RayG

[progressquest]

Sure, if you must - one of your Top Ten mods is in fact a Mac. But why would you want to?


Dang it! foiled again!
Actually my personal opinion seems to follow what most people have said in this thread. If you like what you have, then don't worry about it.
The reason I posted this was really out of frustration that stemmed from an article that I read a few months back that compared Macs to (Windows based) PC's head to head. I would give a link, but I can't seem to remember where I read it at. Anyway, the article came to the conclusion that there wasn't any significant difference between the two systems. It did, however, have the Mac come out on top, which I wouldn't have minded, except that it was the category aesthetics that put it in the lead. The problem I had with this is that aesthetics was given the same weight as other categories such as speed, reliability, and security. Now, I understand that aesthetics are important to some (for me, my computer is shoved under my desk, so, meh), but if it is that important, there are plenty of examples of computer case mods, which are most prevalent on PC's. It just kinda frustrated me, so you are people are my sounding board for this.

Have a good day, and enjoy your system, whatever that may be.

[RayG]

I would give a link, but I can't seem to remember where I read it at. Anyway, the article came to the conclusion that there wasn't any significant difference between the two systems.

Was it http://www.systemshootouts.org/

RayG

[progressquest]

Was it http://www.systemshootouts.org/

RayG

No, I did a quick Google search to see if I could find it, and I couldn't see anything that looked like it on the first couple pages.

[jimlintott]

I can see people using whatever they want. You're a Mac person? Great! You're a *nix person? Great! But looking over this thread I see a few people talking about their PC dual booting with XP as the second operating system or having some XP system somewhere for certain apps. And not just here, but I hear about dual booting all the time. If the other OSs give you what you want, why the dual boot? That just tells me that you still need Windows to some extent. If you didn't, the you wouldn't have the dual boot. Until that need is replaced Microsoft is still selling you a copy of their OS so you didn't really save anything. Not trying to be pro-MS or belittle the other OSs, but I just wanted to point out that it's the need that's making them money, and until you can relieve that need you are still supporting old Bill.




I dual boot because my kids like Windows and we have a huge library of games. To play games is the only reason I boot XP an that machine. Games are the specific software that ties me to Windows. I suppose you wonder why I don't just use Windows for the regular stuff? Certainly it can do what I want, I just can't stand using it.

When I want to get something done I don't want to boot up and see pop up balloons reminding to update my AV software. I don't want it to do anything other than what I want it to. I honestly don't get that experience in Windows. I use XP at work regularly and frequently find myself pleading with it to just do what I asked it to.

Another reason I don't like using Windows is that it isn't very powerful out of the box. To outfit a Windows box with software similar to what open source I use would cost several thousand dollars. I don't have that kind of money and refuse to bootleg. With Linux I get a system that does what I need, the way I'd like it to and a huge collection of very useful software at a price I can afford.

I also just like playing around with this stuff.

That's my reason for dual booting. I'm sure there are others. Of five PCs in the house three dual boot and two are Linux only.

[tkingdoll]

The only reason I dislike Macs is because they cause me so much hassle. If I get sent files from a Mac user, I invariably have a problem opening them, if I can at all (for example I can almost never open a Mac video file). Same with audio.

And often I can't open graphics files sent by Mac users, which in my business is a complete pain.

A silly thing, but I often chat on Messenger with a Mac user and the latest version he can get is 5.0 which doesn't have any of the features that make Messenger really good fun (custom emoticons, handwriting, nudges, etc).

I don't care if people want to choose a different machine, OS or software but they should at least ensure what they create is compatible with the vast majority of systems out there.

Iron out that problem and then it's just a case of choosing between two different brands. No different than choosing your car, really.

[Ian Osborne]

And often I can't open graphics files sent by Mac users, which in my business is a complete pain.

IIRC, PCs don't like CMYK jpegs. If someone emails you a jpeg, make sure they send it as an RGB.

[jimlintott]

The only reason I dislike Macs is because they cause me so much hassle. If I get sent files from a Mac user, I invariably have a problem opening them, if I can at all (for example I can almost never open a Mac video file). Same with audio.

And often I can't open graphics files sent by Mac users, which in my business is a complete pain.




I find I can open almost anything on my 'non-windows' PC.

Have you tried loading GIMP for Windows? It supports lots of graphic file types and even if you just opened and converted a file it could useful. It's free which makes it cheap to try.

[Ducky]

The only reason I dislike Macs is because they cause me so much hassle. If I get sent files from a Mac user, I invariably have a problem opening them, if I can at all (for example I can almost never open a Mac video file). Same with audio.

And often I can't open graphics files sent by Mac users, which in my business is a complete pain.

A silly thing, but I often chat on Messenger with a Mac user and the latest version he can get is 5.0 which doesn't have any of the features that make Messenger really good fun (custom emoticons, handwriting, nudges, etc).

I don't care if people want to choose a different machine, OS or software but they should at least ensure what they create is compatible with the vast majority of systems out there.

Iron out that problem and then it's just a case of choosing between two different brands. No different than choosing your car, really.


Problem solved with Parallels. The Mac user can now run windows programs on the fly side by side with their OSX stuff.

If your mac user clients have a PPC mac, not an intel one, then there are other solutions (like the suggested GIMP etc. which your mac friend can use to save in a more windows friendly format) and as for the chat program, Adium is a multi-chat-support program that can work for any type of chat system (Messenger, Gtalk, Jabber, AIM etc.) for mac that supports all the functions you describe.

Whenever I hear of someone on a windows platform having trouble with something sent to them by a mac user it is invariably due to the mac user not understanding the abilities they have to save in windows friendly formats.

[Ian Osborne]

Or you could get yourself an Intel Mac and dual boot it! :D

[tkingdoll]

Ahem. My point is that people using minority systems should ensure they are compatible with majority systems. If Photoshop cannot handle the graphics file, then the fault is with the sender. I'm not downloading something else to my PC when I have industry standard software already.

But if they're doing something wrong, the fault is with the Mac user, not the Mac. In which case, I change my original statement to: I dislike Mac users.

*ducks*

[Ducky]

Ahem. My point is that people using minority systems should ensure they are compatible with majority systems. If Photoshop cannot handle the graphics file, then the fault is with the sender. I'm not downloading something else to my PC when I have industry standard software already.

But if they're doing something wrong, the fault is with the Mac user, not the Mac. In which case, I change my original statement to: I dislike Mac users.

*ducks*

I wouldn't call it "wrong" but mostly uninformed.

You dislike me? Well fine. I dislike your boobs.

[Ducky]

Or you could get yourself an Intel Mac and dual boot it! :D

I do this already, however parallels may be easier for some to deal with in regards to user interface. It would seem to me running the windows programs on the desktop of your OSX boot is easier than having to reboot every time you want to do a small task.

That said, I haven't needed to boot into windows in months. I should probably boot into it and get all the pertinent updates.

[Ian Osborne]

I do this already, however parallels may be easier for some to deal with in regards to user interface. It would seem to me running the windows programs on the desktop of your OSX boot is easier than having to reboot every time you want to do a small task.

Absolutely - my reply was intended for Teek, but you beat me to it! :D

[Ducky]

Absolutely - my reply was intended for Teek, but you beat me to it! :D

My bad. :)

Also, if they don't want to pay the 80 bucks for parallels, they can try an opensource development like Fusion. (http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Problem solved with Parallels. The Mac user can now run windows programs on the fly side by side with their OSX stuff.

If your mac user clients have a PPC mac, not an intel one, then there are other solutions (like the suggested GIMP etc. which your mac friend can use to save in a more windows friendly format) and as for the chat program, Adium is a multi-chat-support program that can work for any type of chat system (Messenger, Gtalk, Jabber, AIM etc.) for mac that supports all the functions you describe.

Whenever I hear of someone on a windows platform having trouble with something sent to them by a mac user it is invariably due to the mac user not understanding the abilities they have to save in windows friendly formats.
And certainly a Windows user can save in non Mac-friendly format as well (Such as a Windows Bitmap, or WMV).

[tkingdoll]

I dislike your boobs.

That's the least true thing you have ever said.

[CFLarsen]

Ahem. My point is that people using minority systems should ensure they are compatible with majority systems. If Photoshop cannot handle the graphics file, then the fault is with the sender. I'm not downloading something else to my PC when I have industry standard software already.

But if they're doing something wrong, the fault is with the Mac user, not the Mac. In which case, I change my original statement to: I dislike Mac users.

*ducks*

No need to duck, ducks. You are right on the mark wrt the formats.

Why on Earth is it my problem, if people send me something that is only read by a minuscule part of the computing world? If someone wants to show me something, or deliver a product, it is their bloody responsibility that I can use it.

It is the height of arrogance to demand that you cater to their little world. Oh, the stories I could tell...

I wouldn't call it "wrong" but mostly uninformed.

No, it's not uninformed. Mac users are not stupid. They know all too well.

[Ducky]

No, it's not uninformed. Mac users are not stupid. They know all too well.

There is a huge differnce between "stupid" and "uninformed."

Generalizing mac users they way you have is logically indefensible, and may give computer users too much credit.

There are file formats unique to each of the major OS's. You could save things in a format Mac and Linux users can't use just as easily as they could save a file you can't use. The issue was Teek being a Windows user, and her clients not understanding that they need to save in specific formats. After chatting with teek in IRC about this, I've concluded that the mac users were saving in a mac specific format which is probably the default for the suite of apps. Given the amount of design shops that use macs, it may not be an issue for them to figure out how to save to a windows friendly format, so they may not know.

Lighten up Claus, your rabid anti-mac rhetoric is just as irritating as rabid anti-windows rhetoric. It is also a strawman, just like those stupid mac commercials perpetuating decades old myths that don't apply anymore.

I use macs because quite simply I choose to use Logic 7 as the backbone of my studio. I could use Protools on a PC (though Protools was developed on a mac originally) or Cubase, but Logic 7 fits my needs and external hardware without problems. I've tried using some of my equipment on PCs and it was buggy and a mess. I constantly had to hunt down the latest driver for my equipment and I was sick of it. Since all my equipment is supported in OSX's Core Audio, I no longer have to do that.

That's not to say Windows machines do not have a valid implimentation in sound production. Pipelineaudio uses almost exclusively windows machines. Good for him.

To be honest, if there were an opensource suite as robust as Logic 7 out there, I would be using Linux boxes. I am more comfortable with them. I am comfortable on my mac because I can open a terminal window and it is a unix environment. That is what I am comfortable with. If you are comfortable with windows, then fine use it. If a client of mine asks for something from my machines the first question I have is "What format do you want that in?" This is the question anyone should ask whether they use a mac or windows or linux and once the format is set, you should then know how to use your platform to save files as requested. That's just good customer service.

[Ducky]

And certainly a Windows user can save in non Mac-friendly format as well (Such as a Windows Bitmap, or WMV).

Windows bitmap is an issue, but WMV can be opened by any mac using Flip4mac or Windows Media Player for Mac.

[jimlintott]

Ahem. My point is that people using minority systems should ensure they are compatible with majority systems. If Photoshop cannot handle the graphics file, then the fault is with the sender. I'm not downloading something else to my PC when I have industry standard software already.

But if they're doing something wrong, the fault is with the Mac user, not the Mac. In which case, I change my original statement to: I dislike Mac users.

*ducks*

As a raving, wild eyed, Open Source supporter (I'm no RMS but he is my hero :p) your answer disturbs me.

While many of us are trying desperately to keep your data yours, companies like MS are trying to make your data theirs. Proprietary file formats and so called industry standards can be the slippery slope to having to pay to use your own data.

Instead of blaming the MAC user call MS and ask why the world's most popular and ubiqitous OS can't open every different file format. Surely it would be near trivial for a company like MS to add this support.

Truth is they don't want to. They want you to use their formats on their software. I don't necessarily blame them they are in business to satisfy their stock holders...er, I mean satisfy their customers.

Support open formats don't lose your data to proprietary formats.

[vIQleS]

BTW - I work on z/OS, unix and windows at work, use XP at work, and at home I run XP and 2 linuxes so I'm hardly a bigot.

Linuces?

[Ducky]

As a raving, wild eyed, Open Source supporter (I'm no RMS but he is my hero :p) your answer disturbs me.

While many of us are trying desperately to keep your data yours, companies like MS are trying to make your data theirs. Proprietary file formats and so called industry standards can be the slippery slope to having to pay to use your own data.

Instead of blaming the MAC user call MS and ask why the world's most popular and ubiqitous OS can't open every different file format. Surely it would be near trivial for a company like MS to add this support.

Truth is they don't want to. They want you to use their formats on their software. I don't necessarily blame them they are in business to satisfy their stock holders...er, I mean satisfy their customers.

Support open formats don't lose your data to proprietary formats.

* Ducky cheers!

[CFLarsen]

As a raving, wild eyed, Open Source supporter (I'm no RMS but he is my hero :p) your answer disturbs me.

While many of us are trying desperately to keep your data yours, companies like MS are trying to make your data theirs. Proprietary file formats and so called industry standards can be the slippery slope to having to pay to use your own data.

Instead of blaming the MAC user call MS and ask why the world's most popular and ubiqitous OS can't open every different file format. Surely it would be near trivial for a company like MS to add this support.

Truth is they don't want to. They want you to use their formats on their software. I don't necessarily blame them they are in business to satisfy their stock holders...er, I mean satisfy their customers.

Support open formats don't lose your data to proprietary formats.

Why do you blame MS for wanting us to use their formats, if you don't blame non-MS companies for wanting us to use theirs?

[vIQleS]

All of the people that I know, that I know own a mac, also own a PC.



QED Biatch. :p

[Terry]

Why do you blame MS for wanting us to use their formats, if you don't blame non-MS companies for wanting us to use theirs?

because microsoft like to keep their formats secret and keep changing them to make interoperability hard. To the extent that other companies do that, they also are culpable.

[CFLarsen]

because microsoft like to keep their formats secret and keep changing them to make interoperability hard. To the extent that other companies do that, they also are culpable.

...so, why blame MS, and not the other companies?

[Terry]

which part of "To the extent that other companies do that, they also are culpable." did you not understand?

[tkingdoll]

As a raving, wild eyed, Open Source supporter (I'm no RMS but he is my hero :p) your answer disturbs me.

While many of us are trying desperately to keep your data yours, companies like MS are trying to make your data theirs. Proprietary file formats and so called industry standards can be the slippery slope to having to pay to use your own data.

Instead of blaming the MAC user call MS and ask why the world's most popular and ubiqitous OS can't open every different file format. Surely it would be near trivial for a company like MS to add this support.

Truth is they don't want to. They want you to use their formats on their software. I don't necessarily blame them they are in business to satisfy their stock holders...er, I mean satisfy their customers.

Support open formats don't lose your data to proprietary formats.

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me. I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen, and majority rules.

But Fowl has already confirmed that if the file won't open, the Mac user is at fault because the file would open if he did something different.

[Ducky]

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me. I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen, and majority rules.

I don't know how I feel about the "majority rules part" but personally it is irrelevant what the majority is. If you were in the minority, and they were sending you a file, they should make sure what they send you is readable to your standards. That's just good service.

[Terry]

majority rules.

eep :(

[tkingdoll]

I don't know how I feel about the "majority rules part" but personally it is irrelevant what the majority is. If you were in the minority, and they were sending you a file, they should make sure what they send you is readable to your standards. That's just good service.

Agreed. And it just so happens that my standards are the standards of 90% of the computing world as well - which is what I mean by majority rules.

As fun as it is to Microsoft-bash, the simple fact remains that MOST computer users are not technical people, do not customise their kit, and just want something they can use. My mum, his boss, her daughter, etc. Just regular Joes who will never understand or need to get to the level of knowledge of most of the people in this thread. They just want to write a document or surf the net or make a spreadsheet. And mainstream products allow them to do this satisfactorily. And they have such massive market penetration, it's essential that non-mainstream product users ensure their output is compatible.

[Ducky]

Agreed. And it just so happens that my standards are the standards of 90% of the computing world as well - which is what I mean by majority rules.

As fun as it is to Microsoft-bash, the simple fact remains that MOST computer users are not technical people, do not customise their kit, and just want something they can use. My mum, his boss, her daughter, etc. Just regular Joes who will never understand or need to get to the level of knowledge of most of the people in this thread. They just want to write a document or surf the net or make a spreadsheet. And mainstream products allow them to do this satisfactorily. And they have such massive market penetration, it's essential that non-mainstream product users ensure their output is compatible.

In every instance I see of mac vs. pc bashing it comes down to people not fully educated in the other product (or even their own!) In fact, you are right in that most users are not technically proficient enough to know what they can do with their own machine. Rhetoric like Claus' mac bashing and those stupid mac commercials is nothing but perpetuating myths. OS is nothing more than brand choosing these days. All of the platforms available today have the functionality to do whatever a user needs to do with a computer.

I personally think there needs to be more computer education in schools. Not just how to use one platform, but how to use them all. Like science education I think any graduating 12th grader (or whatever the equivalent is across the world) should not only have been through the sciences and math, but programming and computer basics for all platforms. I programmed pascal on an IBM PS/2 in high school for one semester, and while I went on to do IT work both for microsoft platforms but for unix ones also (the day job that paid for Fowlsound Productions) the schooling I got in computers was crap. Of course in high school I had a Macintosh LC2 at home, and a PC at school. Apples weren't even in my school, which is odd considering how hard apple pushed to the education sector in the 80s.

OS bashing is just as stupid as Ford vs. Chevy arguments.

[progressquest]

Rhetoric like Claus' mac bashing and those stupid mac commercials is nothing but perpetuating myths. OS is nothing more than brand choosing these days.

Oh man, I am so glad that a mac user pointed out the stupidity of those stupid commercials based on stupid stupidness. Man they make me mad. Sometimes I laugh, but mostly I get mad.

I personally think there needs to be more computer education in schools. Not just how to use one platform, but how to use them all.

Perhaps you mean all the major OS's. Mac, Windows, and one or perhaps two distros of Linux. You do realize that there are actually (real time) operating systems that are designed to run on microcontrollers. Without a standard input/output system, this may prove a little beyond the average non-CS major in college, and certainly beyond the average high-schooler. But, the point is still good.

[Ducky]

Oh man, I am so glad that a mac user pointed out the stupidity of those stupid commercials based on stupid stupidness. Man they make me mad. Sometimes I laugh, but mostly I get mad.

Yeah those commercials are just plain irritating.



Perhaps you mean all the major OS's. Mac, Windows, and one or perhaps two distros of Linux. You do realize that there are actually (real time) operating systems that are designed to run on microcontrollers. Without a standard input/output system, this may prove a little beyond the average non-CS major in college, and certainly beyond the average high-schooler. But, the point is still good.


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to user desktop ready OS releases. Including Windows XP (or Vista), OSX, DesktopBSD, FC, Ubuntu etc. For the purpose of this discussion I don't see a need to include microcontroller OS's and server OS's.

[tsg]

I can see people using whatever they want. You're a Mac person? Great! You're a *nix person? Great! But looking over this thread I see a few people talking about their PC dual booting with XP as the second operating system or having some XP system somewhere for certain apps. And not just here, but I hear about dual booting all the time. If the other OSs give you what you want, why the dual boot? That just tells me that you still need Windows to some extent. If you didn't, the you wouldn't have the dual boot. Until that need is replaced Microsoft is still selling you a copy of their OS so you didn't really save anything. Not trying to be pro-MS or belittle the other OSs, but I just wanted to point out that it's the need that's making them money, and until you can relieve that need you are still supporting old Bill.

Not mine. The system I am posting from right now has never had any version of Windows running on it. I bought components, built it myself and threw Slackware on it. Never had any problems with it and it is going on 3 years old now.

There is a point to be made about some software available for Windows not having a useable analog in Linux. However, the list is getting shorter everyday. I can even load my iPod from Linux.

[tsg]

Linuces?

Linuxen.

[tsg]

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me.

What Terry is suggesting is meant to address this very issue. In many cases the problem of incompatible file formats is not because of lack of effort on the minorities' part but a lack of disclosure on the majority's part. While it may not be applicable to your particular case, some Mac (and Linux) software won't write Window's apps formats not because they decided not to do it, but because the information needed to do it isn't available.

Supporting open file formats makes it easier for an application programmer to include those formats, with significantly fewer errors, regardless of what OS the software runs on. If the "industry standard" software used an open file format then your clients could send you files from any OS and you'd be able to read them and we wouldn't be bitching about these damned minority OS users.

I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen,

This I agree with.

and majority rules.

This scares me.

[tkingdoll]

This scares me.

You live in a democracy. Don't be scared. Perhaps you are confusing it with majoritarianism?

[Terry]

You live in a democracy. Don't be scared. Perhaps you are confusing it with majoritarianism?

representative democracy with a constitution is a far cry from "majority rules".

[Starthinker]

I dual boot because my kids like Windows and we have a huge library of games. To play games is the only reason I boot XP an that machine. Games are the specific software that ties me to Windows. I suppose you wonder why I don't just use Windows for the regular stuff? Certainly it can do what I want, I just can't stand using it.

When I want to get something done I don't want to boot up and see pop up balloons reminding to update my AV software. I don't want it to do anything other than what I want it to. I honestly don't get that experience in Windows. I use XP at work regularly and frequently find myself pleading with it to just do what I asked it to.

Another reason I don't like using Windows is that it isn't very powerful out of the box. To outfit a Windows box with software similar to what open source I use would cost several thousand dollars. I don't have that kind of money and refuse to bootleg. With Linux I get a system that does what I need, the way I'd like it to and a huge collection of very useful software at a price I can afford.

I also just like playing around with this stuff.

That's my reason for dual booting. I'm sure there are others. Of five PCs in the house three dual boot and two are Linux only.

I'm not saying anything against dual booting, just so many people say they use linux to save money but then they spend the money on Windows anyway, so they didn't save any money. Once games (and other apps) run on Linux, then the need for Windows will evaporate for many. Gaming and some business apps are the biggest reasons I hear for dual booting. Take away that need then Microsoft will have to compete to sell their OS. They may listen to their users then.

[tkingdoll]

representative democracy with a constitution is a far cry from "majority rules".

I'm pretty sure it's the same. At least, my understanding of it is that, anyway.

[Terry]

if the majority says I have to worship Jeebus... I don't, however much the majority wants me too. What am I missing here?

[geni]

I don't care whose fault it is. I just want whatever the most popular and most used format is to be able to read whatever a client sends me. I don't have any problems with other PC users, but I always get problems with Mac users, and their attitude when I have to go back to them and ask them to do it again is invariably "if you had a Mac this wouldn't happen". Yes, and if they had a PC it wouldn't happen, and majority rules.

But Fowl has already confirmed that if the file won't open, the Mac user is at fault because the file would open if he did something different.

Do PC users send you XCFs?

[tsg]

I'm not saying anything against dual booting, just so many people say they use linux to save money but then they spend the money on Windows anyway, so they didn't save any money.

Of the vast majority of people I know who use linux, "it's cheaper" is the bottom of the list of reasons why they do. Perhaps you are confusing "free" with "cheap"? As they say, free as in speech, not free as in beer (aka libre as apposed to gratis).

[tkingdoll]

if the majority says I have to worship Jeebus... I don't, however much the majority wants me too. What am I missing here?

OK, that's not what 'majority rule' means, politically. I used the phrase 'majority rules' rather flippantly in my Mac/PC post (which is where I think the confusion/alarm has come from when I didn't mean it politically) to illustrate the fact that any minority software user HAS to comply with majority software user's needs (whether they want to or not) IF they want to interact with the majority software users (for example, in business, a graphic designer sending a file to a marketing company). They are welcome to not make their output compatible, but they won't get paid. So in that sense, it's not a choice, no. If 90% of people are using Word, then the 10% who don't need to make sure Word users can open their files, or lose that audience. You could say that the 90% should make sure their software can open the 10%'s files, but in business, as I say, (the) majority rules (the market). What's the business case for catering to that 10%? Microsoft don't care, and neither do most of their users.

But politically, at risk of a total derail, majority rule is a function of equal rights, which you set out before your actual vote. If you don't, and the rights of the minority are trampled, that's majoritarianism. It has nothing to do with this thread, though :D

But I will go back to my Politics books and check. Always allow for the possibility that I am insane.

[Rasmus]

You could say that the 90% should make sure their software can open the 10%'s files, but in business, as I say, (the) majority rules (the market). What's the business case for catering to that 10%?

A 10% niche, and you have to ask what the case is?

This I *really* don't understand. It is easy for a business to cater not only to 10% or to 90% but 99.5% without much effort. So why not just do that?

Also, I think that "industry standard" is a bad argument when a user might just have a very good reason to avoid using that format. (MS Word and footnotes. come to mind, or a ridiculous restriction to just a few thousand rows of data in Excel ...)

[tkingdoll]

A 10% niche, and you have to ask what the case is?

This I *really* don't understand. It is easy for a business to cater not only to 10% or to 90% but 99.5% without much effort. So why not just do that?

Also, I think that "industry standard" is a bad argument when a user might just have a very good reason to avoid using that format. (MS Word and footnotes. come to mind, or a ridiculous restriction to just a few thousand rows of data in Excel ...)

I was simplifying, but in Microsoft's case, what is the benefit for them to do the work? What is the 'much effort' you're talking about? Wouldn't they rather force minority software users into MS products because of a lack of compatibility?

By now, most people buy Office because it's compatible with what everyone else has. I need to buy a new Office suite for my PC and I'll be forking out for the MS product because I'm not about to start sending OpenOffice documents to clients. What's standard is what's expected.

[bigred]

Here's what I don't get. What is it about PC users that compels them to proclaim their hate of all things Mac whenever the slightest glimmer of an opportunity arises?

If I don't like the kind of shoes you're wearing, I won't buy a pair for myself. But I won't blog abouit how awful your shoes are and why no one should ever buy them. And I surely won't berate you for your selection.

PC folks. Be happy. You rule the world! You've got the marketshare! Celebrate and be happy with your earthly domination.

Some of us don't want to be like you. Please try to be OK with that. We're not going to take away your PCs. You are free to toil away on Windows/Vista to your heart's content.

We're simply not going to join you in that endeavor. We've got our own platform and we're happy with it. Very happy. Don't hate us because we're happy. Doing so leads us to believe that you're not happy. Actually, that you're not happy and can't stand the thought that we are happy. And that rather than joining us in our happiness, you're compelled to force your unhappiness on us.

Surely this impression is in error. But that's how it plays to us. OK, maybe that's just how it plays to me. Nevertheless...

Like I said: I just don't get it.

er the pot/kettle thing.

I'm sure they exist but I've rarely seen this. On the contrary, since both existed my experience has been quite the opposite.

I used to prefer PCs because (sick as this is) I liked the command line thing...I felt like I had a lot more control over my computer. Also I never cared for the menus and way Macs worked, even after I used them for awhile (although I could see advantages too). Plus Mac/Apples always seemed so far behind in terms of avail software, "upgradability" - geez they didn't even get into color monitors for a ridiculous amt of time.

Nowdays, I have no idea what the pros/cons of either are, frankly.

[orpheus]

Nowdays, I have no idea what the pros/cons of either are, frankly.


Neither do I. I do know this: I really love using my Macbook. Stunningly easy. Stable. It let's me do what I want to. YMMV. If so, FSM bless you. There's room for us all. :D

Having said that (which I really do believe, btw), I should also say this: when I think about all the tools us earth-dwellers have invented, computers are just so magnificent - really astounding, come to think about it: it's a little box. What does it do? Well, what do you want it to do? Because it can do just a [rule8]ing, jaw-droppingly amazing variety of things.

I'm not trying to be cute here. I can only speak for myself, but when I use a computer, I'm aware that I'm "interfacing" with a world (to be maybe a bit hyperbolic. :) ) And the aesthetics of that interface then begin to matter. (Didn't someone ask about this some posts back?) By aesthetics, I don't mean 'it should look cool'. I mean that my entire sensory experience of using the machine - look (both visual appeal and, for example, low production of eye-strain), sound, tactile feedback - all that should grace the experience of using this most amazing tool.

Perhaps a bad analogy, but it just came to mind: I can write with anything. Pencil stub, ballpoint pen, my niece's crayons - anything. They get the job done. But for preference I use a fountain pen - for the above reasons. The aesthetics keep me in touch with how amazing an achievement writing is. I don't give a about how the pen looks to others. It's not a matter of snobbery - not at all. It matters to me. The aesthetics of it - the look, feel, weight on paper, sound of nib moving on fine paper. With anything else, I'm writing. With a fountain pen, I'm [I]writing.

[CFLarsen]

which part of "To the extent that other companies do that, they also are culpable." did you not understand?

I'm asking jim.

[Zygar]

I'm pretty sure it's the same. At least, my understanding of it is that, anyway.

At least the American form of democracy is meant to prevent majoritarianism. In theory. The whole point is to give all peoples a voice, so that they are not drowned out by a simple majority.

[brodski]

representative democracy with a constitution is a far cry from "majority rules".
[political pedant] Representative democracy is majority rules, all governments have a constitution (whether codified or not) that doesn’t stop theme from being based on "majority rules", what you are talking about is a liberal democracy, where society tries to square the circle of protecting the rights of the individual as well as the rights of the masses. [/political pedant]

Teaks point that "majority rules" wasn't some plea for the oppression of minorities it is a simple stamen of reality. "Majority rules" in economics and the market is very different from "majority rules" in politics.

Using a PC allows Teek to work and communicate more easily with more of her clients than using a Mac would. It is simple economic reality which means that the majority rill rule in this case.

[Ian Osborne]

But it becomes a real problem when the product provider servicing the 'majority' turns this into a monopolistic position by deliberately locking out the minority. This is a clear abuse of power, and it's a situation we find ourselves in with Microsoft.

And Teak, if you'd rather dismiss your clients' efforts to send you files by arrogantly blaming them for compatibility problems rather than working together to solve them, maybe they should find another marketing consultancy? Just a thought...

[CFLarsen]

At least the American form of democracy is meant to prevent majoritarianism. In theory. The whole point is to give all peoples a voice, so that they are not drowned out by a simple majority.

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy... :D

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

...is majoritarianism even a real word?

[Ian Osborne]

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy... :D

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

He made no claims or implications about the state of democracies outside America.

[brodski]

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy... :D

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

...is majoritarianism even a real word?

Look at the first two words of Zygar's post. Try to understand them, in context.
What implications do you think those two words have?
Do you find the answer to the first question in your post in those two words?
If not, go back and read them again.

[Darat]

As Admin:

I suggest folk look up at the title of this section. Take discussions about political matters to... well I'll let you work it out as an exercise in critical thinking... :) :p

[CFLarsen]

He made no claims or implications about the state of democracies outside America.

I asked. I didn't say he claimed.

Look at the first two words of Zygar's post. Try to understand them, in context.
What implications do you think those two words have?
Do you find the answer to the first question in your post in those two words?
If not, go back and read them again.

No, I don't. Which is why I asked. Asked.

As Admin:

I suggest folk look up at the title of this section. Take discussions about political matters to... well I'll let you work it out as an exercise in critical thinking... :) :p

Oh, hush. It doesn't get more political than PC vs. Macs... :p

[Starthinker]

Of the vast majority of people I know who use linux, "it's cheaper" is the bottom of the list of reasons why they do. Perhaps you are confusing "free" with "cheap"? As they say, free as in speech, not free as in beer (aka libre as apposed to gratis).

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the majority of Linux users I know didn't want to make Bill richer. But while they're touting "I'm free from Microsoft" they then say under their breath that they do dual boot because they still need Windows for some things. Is that "free from microsoft"?

I was talking to avid Linux user last summer and he was touting that he's had people use his system and never realized it wasn't Windows. "So they copied Windows, that's a switch," I said. He actually got mad and said just because the GUI was similar doesn't mean a thing and started ranting about all the pros of using Linux. Again it's like cars. All cars basically have 4 wheels and an engine and a place to sit and drive. It's when you get into the details that the "Ford-Chevy" debate starts. Same with OSes. Once you launch your program, are you thinking about the OS or the program? Isn't each OS basically a program launcher? If someone came out with an office suite that ran identically on a Mac, Linux, or Windows machine, and everyone was using it, would you really care what the OS was? Sure, I can hear you guys already launching into the security debate but once Macs and Linux has the numbers to make it profitable I'm sure virus writers and malware will start to show up for them as well.

Again, the point I'm making is that we are entrenched, in the business at least and from what I hear, the gaming world as well, with Microsoft. As soon as vendors have programs that will run on any platform we will no longer need Microsoft and it will just be another choice. Problem is, the biggest vendor out there is trying to prevent this from happening so it may take a while.

At this moment, can any large organization, especially the ones that deal with other large organizations, be completely 100% Linux? Or 100% Mac? No Windows machines in the corner for this task or one that dual boots for that task. Not so much as a single Microsoft product anywhere? Is that possible yet? I don't think so and that is why Bill is rich, not because Windows is the best, but because of the marketing that got us to this point.

[Mercutio]

All of the people that I know, that I know own a mac, also own a PC.



QED Biatch. :p

Just curious--since it is the people that you know, you should eventually be able to find out the answer to this: The people what you know, who own both a mac and a PC, which one did they own first? Your "QED" implies that a mac by itself is insufficient (at least, that was my interpretation; I could easily be wrong); if, however, these folks you know bought their macs because they were dissatisfied with their PCs, your Q is not nearly so ED.

(I honestly have no idea which would be the case; I could see it going either way, or with no clear pattern. I do know that I had access to PC, Mac, and two different mainframes while crunching data for my dissertation too many years ago for it to be relevant to this debate. My advisor wanted me to do all my stats in SPSS on the mainframe--which was a VAX, then upgraded to a UNIX machine, either of which were probably less powerful than home PCs available now--but I found it much easier to use SuperAnova on a Mac. So I did both; I used the Mac first, so that I knew what the numbers would be, then ran what he wanted on the mainframe. Anyway, my point is, the choices of computer are liable to be influenced by any number of variables, and it is perfectly reasonable to think that a given individual with access to Computer X would also find reason to then buy Computer Y. Where X and Y could each be any number of different OS.)

[tsg]

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the majority of Linux users I know didn't want to make Bill richer. But while they're touting "I'm free from Microsoft" they then say under their breath that they do dual boot because they still need Windows for some things. Is that "free from microsoft"?

I can't attest to the motivations of the Linux users you know, but the Linux users I know gravitate towards Linux partly because of Microsoft's business practices but mostly because they want more control over what their computer does. As far as claiming that they're "free from Microsoft", few of us really are (including Mac users), but Linux users are closer.

I was talking to avid Linux user last summer and he was touting that he's had people use his system and never realized it wasn't Windows. "So they copied Windows, that's a switch," I said. He actually got mad and said just because the GUI was similar doesn't mean a thing and started ranting about all the pros of using Linux. Again it's like cars. All cars basically have 4 wheels and an engine and a place to sit and drive. It's when you get into the details that the "Ford-Chevy" debate starts.

If Fords came with their hoods welded shut it might be a closer analogy. Copying Windows "look and feel" while keeping the back end services Linux is a valid strategy to making the switch from Windows to Linux very easy. Few people arguing against Windows systems have the GUI as a significant motivation. While it may not be the best in the world, it is certainly the most well known. One of the benefits of Linux is that you can put any one of a dozen different windowing systems on top of it. Choice is good.

Same with OSes. Once you launch your program, are you thinking about the OS or the program? Isn't each OS basically a program launcher? If someone came out with an office suite that ran identically on a Mac, Linux, or Windows machine, and everyone was using it, would you really care what the OS was?

That is entirely the point. You shouldn't have to care which OS it was. Then you could choose your OS based on what suits you best and not because the applications that everyone else is using don't run on it and don't share data with other apps.

Sure, I can hear you guys already launching into the security debate but once Macs and Linux has the numbers to make it profitable I'm sure virus writers and malware will start to show up for them as well.

The "bigger target" argument. Unfortunately it's not true. Apache and sendmail are very much more popular server applications than either of Microsoft's versions but Microsoft's server apps have more vulnerabilities. Will Linux viruses start showing up when Linux is more popular? Sure they will. But the damage they can do will be very limited compared to what Windows virsuses are capable of.

Again, the point I'm making is that we are entrenched, in the business at least and from what I hear, the gaming world as well, with Microsoft. As soon as vendors have programs that will run on any platform we will no longer need Microsoft and it will just be another choice. Problem is, the biggest vendor out there is trying to prevent this from happening so it may take a while.

I agree with this. But I don't believe it should stay that way. By dual-booting Linux and Windows, the user is able to use Linux for what he can and Windows for what he has to. And everyday the list of reasons for having to boot Windows gets shorter. And while the dual-booter may not be completely free of Microsoft, he is not as beholden to them as other pure Windows users are. The chains may not be completely off, but they are significantly looser then they were yesterday. And tomorrow they will be looser still.

At this moment, can any large organization, especially the ones that deal with other large organizations, be completely 100% Linux? Or 100% Mac? No Windows machines in the corner for this task or one that dual boots for that task. Not so much as a single Microsoft product anywhere? Is that possible yet? I don't think so and that is why Bill is rich, not because Windows is the best, but because of the marketing that got us to this point.

I think you'll find that 100% Windows shops are exceedingly rare as well, but I don't see why being 100% Microsoft free matters. The world I'm aiming for, and it is a view shared by many Linux enthusiasts, is not one that is void of Microsoft, but one where Microsoft doesn't have a stranglehold on the market forcing people to use their particular brand of software. Choice is good for the consumer. And when Windows doesn't have a 90% or 95% share of the market, Microsoft will be forced to write apps for other operating systems or give up that portion of the market. Meanwhile there are a number of free software applications that already run on very many different operating systems, including Windows.

Being free of Microsoft is not about being Microsoft-free. It's about having a choice. And I, personally, don't want that choice to be based largely on what everyone else is using simply because Microsoft doesn't play well with others.

[Ian Osborne]

Being free of Microsoft is not about being Microsoft-free. It's about having a choice. And I, personally, don't want that choice to be based largely on what everyone else is using simply because Microsoft doesn't play well with others.

Very well said.

[tkingdoll]

And Teak, if you'd rather dismiss your clients' efforts to send you files by arrogantly blaming them for compatibility problems rather than working together to solve them, maybe they should find another marketing consultancy? Just a thought...

Sigh. Seeing as you've just made what appears to be a business ad hom, with precisely zero knowledge or understanding of my business or working practices, I can't even be bothered to defend it. I doubt many people won't think what you said here is stupid and ill-informed, personal even, so it's really no big deal to let it stand, although for the sake of my business I will point out, quite simply, that you are utterly mistaken in your assertion about both my working practices and my attitude.

Your attitude, however, is clear from the nature of your nasty little digs, and you just earned yourself a place on my ignore list.

[Zygar]

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy... :D

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

No. I clarified the American form simply because it is what I know. I make no implication that I understand any other form of democracy, nor do I intend to assert that any other form does or does not allow majoritarianism.

...is majoritarianism even a real word?

Majoritarianism. Although I'm as surprised as you are. I suspected I may have invented it on the spot.

[Barrytown]

By now, most people buy Office because it's compatible with what everyone else has. I need to buy a new Office suite for my PC and I'll be forking out for the MS product because I'm not about to start sending OpenOffice documents to clients. What's standard is what's expected.

Just to point this out, because it doesn't look like it's been mentioned yet: with OpenOffice you aren't obligated to save in their format - you can save documents as Word docs or Excel workbooks, etc. Additionally, you can save as PDFs, or as XML files, which I believe is the format that the new version of MS Office will use.

I made sure of this for myself when I decided to ditch MS Office - I checked out the Beta version of MS Office 2007 and loathed it.

[tkingdoll]

Majoritarianism. Although I'm as surprised as you are. I suspected I may have invented it on the spot.

That would be weird, as I used it twice in this thread before you did. Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2250656#post2250656) and Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2250703#post2250703). I even supplied a very basic definition.

This is like that Fast Show sketch...

[russell_morris]

Just to point this out, because it doesn't look like it's been mentioned yet: with OpenOffice you aren't obligated to save in their format - you can save documents as Word docs or Excel workbooks, etc. Additionally, you can save as PDFs, or as XML files, which I believe is the format that the new version of MS Office will use.

I made sure of this for myself when I decided to ditch MS Office - I checked out the Beta version of MS Office 2007 and loathed it.

Office 2007 will be able to save things in XML - but that's not saying much in and of itself. The contents of the XML docs written by Office 2007 will not be auto-magically readable by OpenOffice (or any other office suite). MS has promised to release the format and schema of the XML they use to store Office 2007 docs, but there is uncertainty (at least last time I checked) that they'd be released under a license that made them useless to developers of competing office suites (like OpenOffice). As far as I am aware, the reality of the situation is not known yet.

MS had planned (and mostly implemented) built-in "Save as PDF" in Word 2007 (and perhaps other members of Office), but Adobe (creator of the PDF format, and Acrobat, the canonical PDF creation program) threatened to sue them for it. Adobe was afraid that if people could save to PDF in Word out-of-the-box, then their Acrobat product would take a major hit in sales. I believe MS still plans on having a freely available add-on to save as PDF, but it'll be something you have to download from them, instead of being built-in. The details may have changed since the last time I looked.

OpenOffice can currently open Word, Excel, etc.. files, and can save in that format as well. However, in my usage, I've found that round-tripping documents between Word and OpenOffice's Write is always an excercise in sadism.

[bigred]

Apparently some of you missed this the first time so IMO it bears repeating:

I suggest folk look up at the title of this section. Take discussions about political matters to... well I'll let you work it out as an exercise in critical thinking... :) :p


Still hoping someone has an at least semi-objective and semi-concise recap of pros/cons of one vs the other-? No big if not as it's mostly just curiousity (boredom) than anything. Seems to me PCs still have far more selections of s/w, although I suspect with emulators etc this might not be a big deal anymore? Is it otherwise largely a personal preference/social status thing?

[CFLarsen]

And Teak, if you'd rather dismiss your clients' efforts to send you files by arrogantly blaming them for compatibility problems rather than working together to solve them, maybe they should find another marketing consultancy? Just a thought...

It's not just a question of clients sending you files you can't read. It's very much a question of you sending clients/others files they can't read.

It goes both ways.

Being free of Microsoft is not about being Microsoft-free. It's about having a choice. And I, personally, don't want that choice to be based largely on what everyone else is using simply because Microsoft doesn't play well with others.

If that choice costs you clients, or people who have you as their client, what then?

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

If that choice costs you clients, or people who have you as their client, what then?
Then that is his perogative. I am primarily a .NET consultant, and that choice may cost me potential Linux or Mac-based clients. That is also my perogative.

[Ian Osborne]

It's not just a question of clients sending you files you can't read. It's very much a question of you sending clients/others files they can't read.

It goes both ways.

True enough, but don't you think it's better to work something out than apportion the blame? It's not limited to Mac/Windows exchanges either. I once had a writer send me material which lost all its punctuation when I opened it. We were both on Macs. We never did work out why this happened, but we got around the problem by his zipping the file before emailing.

[CFLarsen]

Then that is his perogative. I am primarily a .NET consultant, and that choice may cost me potential Linux or Mac-based clients. That is also my perogative.

Sure. But if the vast majority uses X, and you choose to use Y which is incompatible with X, then you are not going to get a lot of business.

True enough, but don't you think it's better to work something out than apportion the blame? It's not limited to Mac/Windows exchanges either. I once had a writer send me material which lost all its punctuation when I opened it. We were both on Macs. We never did work out why this happened, but we got around the problem by his zipping the file before emailing.

That is not a discussion I would take with my client, and I would hate to take that discussion if I were someone's client.

It is simply a question of focusing on what is important. Do companies and clients want to exchange documents, or do they want to argue which format is the best?

Do you want to tell your client that he should switch to a format that will narrow his abilities to exchange data with the rest of the world?

If so, you will go to bed hungry.

[Ian Osborne]

Do you want to tell your client that he should switch to a format that will narrow his abilities to exchange data with the rest of the world?

Almost certainly unnecessary. As has been discussed earlier, there's usually a simple fix to get around these problems. And don't forget Macs may only have single-figure market share overall, but they're very popular with those who work in creative industries. If you're in publishing, for example, the Mac is a standard. If you're in that business, you'd better make sure you can open Mac-created files, even if you're not a Mac user yourself.

[kevin]

I use Linux (as home servers, no GUI at all), Windows (I used to be help desk for Windows, now I focus on Windows Servers) and Macs. I have all 3 at home. I've been using Linux since Debian slink (switched to Gentoo after woody). I've been using Windows since DOS 3, including Windows 3.1. I've been using Mac since System 7 (although I used Apple ]['s in high school.)

I know of no peripheral available for Windows that isn't also available for the Mac (there may be manufacturers of specific devices that don't support Macs but there is always someone that makes the same thing that does.) The laptops and Mac mini are as upgradeable as other laptops. I've upgraded drives and memory in iBooks, PowerBooks, Cubes (all these use laptop components). I've replaced the ethernet daughter board on a Cube. On desktops I've replaced video cards, hard drive cards (SCSI, SATA, IDE, all are available.) There are no Mac motherboards available so that would be the only upgrade unavailable to the general public that Windows machines have. I don't know anyone outside of hardcore computerists that bother with this.

I've not done it myself (my mini is PPC instead of Intel based) but the current Mac mini is CPU upgradeable. This was not as easy in the past because Motorola/IBM didn't have PPC chips in stores like intel, but it was somewhat possible.

http://www.macintouch.com/specialreports/minimonster/index.html

For USB, bluetooth and firewire devices Macs are usually easier add-ons/upgrades than PCs. Most drivers are already included and usually pretty much work. The exceptions here are printers and scanners. They can be harder to do on Macs than on Windows. I typically purchase these from companies that have good Mac support. My general rule of thumb is that all printer manufacturers suck. big time. I hate printing problems.

Both Windows and Mac tend to be better than Linux at ease of adding stuff on. But Linux has come a loooong way in the past couple of years.

As far as the base OS goes, I prefer Mac. I like the UNIX underpinnings and security, I prefer the GUI so much more it isn't even close. When I boot into Windows most of the apps that auto-start are to keep the OS running (anti-spyware, anti-virus, etc....) When I boot the mac most of the auto-start programs are things I will be using the whole time. When I use Windows I feel like I'm constantly fighting an OS that was designed by a drunk committee. OS X tends to get out of the way and I'm not arguing with the damn OS all the time.

Apple's OS releases usually run faster on the same hardware and actually add useful useable features. Vista will barely run on hardware that is being sold TODAY. I can't think of any usable new features.

Both Apple Finder and Windows Explorer suck.

Internet Explorer sucks more than Safari, but Firefox is better than both. I prefer Camino on the Mac (it's gecko based.)

Applescript Studio in XCode is way better than Visual Basic .Net Express Edition.

Macs are price competitive with similarly configured Windows machines from large manufacturers (Dell, HP) but not with an el-cheapo built with the cheapest parts available.

[geni]

I use Linux (as home servers, no GUI at all), Windows (I used to be help desk for Windows, now I focus on Windows Servers) and Macs. I have all 3 at home. I've been using Linux since Debian slink (switched to Gentoo after woody). I've been using Windows since DOS 3, including Windows 3.1. I've been using Mac since System 7 (although I used Apple ]['s in high school.)

I know of no peripheral available for Windows that isn't also available for the Mac (there may be manufacturers of specific devices that don't support Macs but there is always someone that makes the same thing that does.)

Physics cards?


Apple's OS releases usually run faster on the same hardware and actually add useful useable features. Vista will barely run on hardware that is being sold TODAY. I can't think of any usable new features.


There is very little being sold new today that won't run vista and when most of the computer useing world is used to useing your current systems messing with what the user can do risks loseing customers.


Macs are price competitive


So more expensive?


with similarly configured Windows machines from large manufacturers (Dell, HP)

Why would I want something configured like a mac?

Still lets compare.

basic iMac £670

* 512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256MB
* Keyboard (English) & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (English)
* 17-inch TFT display
* 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo 2 processor
* 24x Combo drive (DVD-ROM, CD-RW)
* Intel GMA 950 graphics with 64MB of shared memory
* AirPort Extreme

against that is dell's DimensionTM E521 £629

AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 dual-core processor 5000+
1024MB DDR2 RAM
19" Analogue Flat Panel Monitor
320 GB SATA Hard Drive (7200rpm)
16x DVD+/-RW Drive
256MB ATI® RADEON® X1300 Pro graphics card

I think the dell wins on everything except the optical drive (although it appears they both fail by only haveing one).

[tsg]

If that choice costs you clients, or people who have you as their client, what then?

Ideally, it wouldn't. I would hopefully be able to choose an application that saves data in a compatible format with those of my clients regardless of what operating system I or they are running. That is all I hope for out of Linux.

[rustypouch]

Physics cards?



There is very little being sold new today that won't run vista and when most of the computer useing world is used to useing your current systems messing with what the user can do risks loseing customers.



So more expensive?



Why would I want something configured like a mac?

Still lets compare.

basic iMac £670

* 512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256MB
* Keyboard (English) & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (English)
* 17-inch TFT display
* 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo 2 processor
* 24x Combo drive (DVD-ROM, CD-RW)
* Intel GMA 950 graphics with 64MB of shared memory
* AirPort Extreme

against that is dell's DimensionTM E521 £629

AMD AthlonTM 64 X2 dual-core processor 5000+
1024MB DDR2 RAM
19" Analogue Flat Panel Monitor
320 GB SATA Hard Drive (7200rpm)
16x DVD+/-RW Drive
256MB ATI® RADEON® X1300 Pro graphics card

I think the dell wins on everything except the optical drive (although it appears they both fail by only haveing one).


Actually, I would say that Dell wins on this too. Although it is slower, it will burn DVDs, while the Mac will only read them.

[phyz]

Sure. But if the vast majority uses X, and you choose to use Y which is incompatible with X, then you are not going to get a lot of business.
I think you've milked this argument for more than it's worth. Bring me up to speed here. Name me some file formats that get written on a Mac these days that can't be read on a PC.

I think you might be stuck in a moment that you can't get out of. Like 1988.

What electronic file has a Mac user sent you since, say TAM4, that you couldn't open on your PC? I'm just curious.

[CFLarsen]

Almost certainly unnecessary. As has been discussed earlier, there's usually a simple fix to get around these problems. And don't forget Macs may only have single-figure market share overall, but they're very popular with those who work in creative industries. If you're in publishing, for example, the Mac is a standard. If you're in that business, you'd better make sure you can open Mac-created files, even if you're not a Mac user yourself.

We are not talking about a specific industry.

Ideally, it wouldn't. I would hopefully be able to choose an application that saves data in a compatible format with those of my clients regardless of what operating system I or they are running. That is all I hope for out of Linux.

"Ideally", yes. "Hopefully" is not a good business strategy.

I think you've milked this argument for more than it's worth. Bring me up to speed here. Name me some file formats that get written on a Mac these days that can't be read on a PC.

I think you might be stuck in a moment that you can't get out of. Like 1988.

What electronic file has a Mac user sent you since, say TAM4, that you couldn't open on your PC? I'm just curious.

You assume that every Mac user is using the newest OS.

[phyz]

You assume that every Mac user is using the newest OS.
No rush; I'll wait.

Or correctly assume that the answer to my query is "none." And if the answer to my query is "none," then the appropriate response would be "none." Simple enough: straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

And the newsflash for those just joining us in the present is that OS X has been de reguire since 2002.

[CFLarsen]

No rush; I'll wait.

Or correctly assume that the answer to my query is "none." And if the answer to my query is "none," then the appropriate response would be "none." Simple enough: straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

And the newsflash for those just joining us in the present is that OS X has been de reguire since 2002.

There is absolutely nobody out there with an old Mac? Really? That's amazing.

[Ducky]

What electronic file has a Mac user sent you since, say TAM4, that you couldn't open on your PC? I'm just curious.

I can add the anecdote that I have sent Claus files from my macs and he had no problem opening it. In fact he sent me one and I had no problem with it either.

[CFLarsen]

I can add the anecdote that I have sent Claus files from my macs and he had no problem opening it. In fact he sent me one and I had no problem with it either.

I haven't said that it was impossible.

[phyz]

There is absolutely nobody out there with an old Mac? Really? That's amazing.
Nobody looking to do the kind of business that was the context of your Rip Van Winkle argument. There was a point here, I'm kinda hoping you'll stick to it long enough to realize how wrong it is. But the evidence that you've abandoned it indicates that that might have already happened.

[Ducky]

I haven't said that it was impossible.

So how many times in the past year have you had someone with a mac send you something you couldn't access?


ETA:

This was the question you have not answered:

What electronic file has a Mac user sent you since, say TAM4, that you couldn't open on your PC? I'm just curious.

[CFLarsen]

Nobody looking to do the kind of business that was the context of your Rip Van Winkle argument. There was a point here, I'm kinda hoping you'll stick to it long enough to realize how wrong it is. But the evidence that you've abandoned it indicates that that might have already happened.

I haven't abandoned it at all. I am just stunned that there are no users out there with old Macs. Simply stunned.

And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

So how many times in the past year have you had someone with a mac send you something you couldn't access?

ETA:

This was the question you have not answered:

It's not a question of what happens to one person.

[Ian Osborne]

I haven't abandoned it at all. I am just stunned that there are no users out there with old Macs. Simply stunned.

And no users of old PCs who face similar problems? No? Well, probably not - if you haven't updated your computer since 1995, you probably don't spend much time sharing files with other people. But this applies to Macs too, y'know...

It's not a question of what happens to one person.

None, then?

[Ducky]

It's not a question of what happens to one person.

Then answer the question. Do you have any firsthand experience for the strawman argument you are tossing about?

Thing is, there are absolutely NO software suites in any function for either PC or MAC that do not allow you to save in a format openable by the other. Teek's problems are therefore not a problem inherent to having either a mac or a PC, and your argument is nothing but you betraying a very woo-ish anti-mac bias.

So evasion noted. You haven't aswered the question.

[CFLarsen]

And no users of old PCs who face similar problems? No? Well, probably not - if you haven't updated your computer since 1995, you probably don't spend much time sharing files with other people. But this applies to Macs too, y'know...

Naturally.

None, then?

I don't see the importance.

Then answer the question. Do you have any firsthand experience for the strawman argument you are tossing about?

I don't understand why this is important. Please explain.

Thing is, there are absolutely NO software suites in any function for either PC or MAC that do not allow you to save in a format openable by the other.

Did I say otherwise?

[Ducky]

I don't understand why this is important. Please explain.

Answer the question and stop evading Claus.


Did I say otherwise?

Right here:

Sure. But if the vast majority uses X, and you choose to use Y which is incompatible with X, then you are not going to get a lot of business.

So what is incompatible? What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open? What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

Stop evading Claus, and answer the f***ing question.

[Ducky]

THe Larsen list for Claus in this thread is:

1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?



I'll add more as he refuses to answer them.

[CFLarsen]

Right here:

I don't say anything about it being impossible. You are reading way too much into it.

So what is incompatible? What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open? What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

Stop evading Claus, and answer the f***ing question.

I'm not evading. But your questions have nothing to do with what I actually say.

[Ducky]

I don't say anything about it being impossible. You are reading way too much into it.

Excuse me, but did you not say "incompatible"? Did you not use that word?



I'm not evading. But your questions have nothing to do with what I actually say.

Then answer the question.

[CFLarsen]

Excuse me, but did you not say "incompatible"? Did you not use that word?


Obviously. So?

[Ducky]

Obviously. So?

Evasion noted. But ok, I'll explain it for you since you don't seem to understand:

Your argument above regarding compatablity assumes that in some way Macs are incompatible with Microsoft products. I am asking you to name in what way. Therefore my questions are directly relating to your statement.

Here, I'll quote it again to remind you:

Sure. But if the vast majority uses X, and you choose to use Y which is incompatible with X, then you are not going to get a lot of business.

So to reiterate, here is your Larsen list:

1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

[CFLarsen]

Evasion noted. But ok, I'll explain it for you since you don't seem to understand:

Your argument above regarding compatablity assumes that in some way Macs are incompatible with Microsoft products. I am asking you to name in what way. Therefore my questions are directly relating to your statement.

I still don't get you. Since when does "incompatible" mean "impossible"?

[Ducky]

I still don't get you. Since when does "incompatible" mean "impossible"?

Playing word games to avoid answering the question?

in·com·pat·i·ble [in-kuhm-pat-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not compatible; unable to exist together in harmony: She asked for a divorce because they were utterly incompatible.
2. contrary or opposed in character; discordant: incompatible colors.
3. that cannot coexist or be conjoined.
4. Logic. a. (of two or more propositions) unable to be true simultaneously.
b. (of two or more attributes of an object) unable to belong to the object simultaneously; inconsistent.

5. (of positions, functions, ranks, etc.) unable to be held simultaneously by one person.
6. Medicine/Medical. of or pertaining to biological substances that interfere with one another physiologically, as different types of blood in a transfusion.
7. Pharmacology. of or pertaining to drugs that interfere with one another chemically or physiologically and therefore cannot be mixed or prescribed together.

–noun 8. Usually, incompatibles. incompatible persons or things.
9. an incompatible drug or the like.
10. incompatibles, Logic. a. two or more propositions that cannot be true simultaneously.
b. two or more attributes that cannot simultaneously belong to the same object

ETA: I didn't say you said impossible, nor am I asking you impossible. I am addressing your use of the word incompatible.


Once again:

1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

[CFLarsen]

Oh, dear. I think I see the problem: You have a much to rigid understanding of what "incompatible" means in the IT world, especially when it comes to formats.

It doesn't mean impossible to read. It means that you can't get a 100% correct conversion.

Now, you can't run a Mac program on a Windows platform just like that. However, you can move data from one platform from another. But that does not mean that a Windows program can understand a format on a Mac. And it certainly doesn't mean that a Windows program can understand a format on a Mac 100%.

[Ducky]

Oh, dear. I think I see the problem: You have a much to rigid understanding of what "incompatible" means in the IT world, especially when it comes to formats.

Oh dear, I think I see the condescention. I have been an IT professional for over 10 years. Fowlsound productions runs on money garnered from day jobs as an IT professional. ETA: Or is my MCSE not enough of a qualifying factor for me to understand IT?

It doesn't mean impossible to read. It means that you can't get a 100% correct conversion.

So what programs cannot save in a native word document format that translates 100% accurate to a PC? Please show me an example of this.

Now, you can't run a Mac program on a Windows platform just like that. However, you can move data from one platform from another. But that does not mean that a Windows program can understand a format on a Mac. And it certainly doesn't mean that a Windows program can understand a format on a Mac 100%.

But you can run a Windows program on a mac platform using Parallels, or Fusion. And you can dual boot a mac with Windows. I am not talking about a Windows program not understanding a MAC format, I am saying Mac suites natively save in Microsoft format, and if that's not enough, you can run the native microsoft program right there on the mac. (ETA: You do know you can buy Microsoft Office for the Mac, right?)

now, Please answer the questions:

1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

[CFLarsen]

Oh dear, I think I see the condescention. I have been an IT professional for over 10 years. Fowlsound productions runs on money garnered from day jobs as an IT professional. ETA: Or is my MCSE not enough of a qualifying factor for me to understand IT?

How about me having 20 years?

So what programs cannot save in a native word document format that translates 100% accurate to a PC? Please show me an example of this.

Who said anything about it having to be a word document?

But you can run a Windows program on a mac platform using Parallels, or Fusion. And you can dual boot a mac with Windows. I am not talking about a Windows program not understanding a MAC format, I am saying Mac suites natively save in Microsoft format, and if that's not enough, you can run the native microsoft program right there on the mac. (ETA: You do know you can buy Microsoft Office for the Mac, right?)

Again, that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

[Ducky]

How about me having 20 years?

You didn't make this about your 20 years, you condescendingly said I didn't understand the profession in which I work. I don't care if you have 40 years, it has no bearing. Answer the questions.



Who said anything about it having to be a word document?

You did in the Macworld expo thread, I was using it as an example. Answer the questions.



Again, that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

Answer the questions.

[geni]

With the right software there is very little you can't open on a PC.

Sure there is stuff you will have a hard time opening on a windows PC (I only know one way to open .ogg Theora files on a widows system) but MAC stuff there shouldn't be a problem.

[geni]

So what programs cannot save in a native word document format that translates 100% accurate to a PC? Please show me an example of this.


I've seen open office get thrown by tables in word documents

[CFLarsen]

You didn't make this about your 20 years, you condescendingly said I didn't understand the profession in which I work. I don't care if you have 40 years, it has no bearing. Answer the questions.

If you point to your 10 years in the business as a reason for you to understand this, then I can point to my 20 years.

You are the one bringing it up, not me.

You did in the Macworld expo thread, I was using it as an example.

I pointed to it as an example. I didn't say it had to be Word. You are way overinterpreting what I say.

[Ducky]

If you point to your 10 years in the business as a reason for you to understand this, then I can point to my 20 years.

You are the one bringing it up, not me.

Sorry you brought it up with the assumption I didn't understand. Answer the questions.



I pointed to it as an example. I didn't say it had to be Word. You are way overinterpreting what I say.

And I am simply quoting what you said. I am asking you to provide answers to the questions on the Larson list for you in this thread to avoid interpretation. Answer the questions.


1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

[CFLarsen]

You insist on overinterpreting what I say. It is futile and a waste of time to continue.

[Ducky]

I've seen open office get thrown by tables in word documents

Not if you use Office for mac, or format in specific ways. Again that problem as I have ever seen it was simply a matter of using the software in a way different than the user had.


ETA: Also I have been using NeoOffice and Pages (iWork) for quite a long time and never had a problem with tables.

[Ducky]

You insist on overinterpreting what I say. It is futile and a waste of time to continue.

I am asking you these questions to elaborate on what you mean, how can that be overinterpreting? I am asking you these questions on direct quotes from your posts.

I will asume now that you refuse to answer the questions. Since you refuse to answer the questions I will now conclude that you refuse to admit you could possibly have been wrong.

[Jeff Wagg]

I have a Mac and a bunch of PCs. I prefer PCs.

However, I haven't had a "can't open a mac file on a PC" or vice-versa problem in at least a decade. In fact, moving files between to the two systems wasn't a problem when I was working in a Mac-only environment in 1993.

This is not a Mac vs. PC problem. When choosing a Mac over a PC, compatibility is not an issue for the vast majority of document types, and certainly not for anything widely used.

[CFLarsen]

I am asking you these questions to elaborate on what you mean, how can that be overinterpreting? I am asking you these questions on direct quotes from your posts.

I will asume now that you refuse to answer the questions. Since you refuse to answer the questions I will now conclude that you refuse to admit you could possibly have been wrong.


Another example of how you overinterpret.

[Ducky]

Another example of how you overinterpret.

Answer the questions and I will rescind my conclusion. Until you provide the answers I am forced to conclude as I have.

[Ian Osborne]

You insist on overinterpreting what I say. It is futile and a waste of time to continue.

Then clarify your position on incompatibility and explain why the questions are invalid.

[CFLarsen]

Then clarify your position on incompatibility and explain why the questions are invalid.

I already have.

[Ducky]

I already have.

No you have not. Here is the list again:


1)So what is incompatible?

2)What files have you recieved from a mac user you couldn't open?

3)What software suite can you name on the mac that cannot save in a compatible format for pc users?

[Ian Osborne]

I already have.

Evidence?

[Ducky]

Evidence?

CFLarsen has had a Larsen's List started on him in this thread, and now his favorite word used on him.

Good times.


Gonna answer either Claus?

[coalesce]

For what it's worth, I've only used Macs, both at home and at work. I prefer Macs. I like the way they look, not only in terms of the GUI but also the overall design. Had I been brought up using PCs, I might feel different, but for me, the Mac does what I want it to do. I've only had to replace one dead hard drive on my G3/266 (my first computer). Since then I've owned two Macs--a G3/400 (which I would later upgrade with a faster processor, a DVD burner, a faster video card, a larger hard drive, more memory and additional Firewire and USB ports--so much for lack of upgradeability!) and a G5/2.5Ghz PowerMac tower. I have yet to have any trouble with either of them and the G5 is all the computer I could ever think to use for at least the next three or four years.

Insofar as these PC vs Mac discussions, each will do what you want it to do--if you know how to use them properly. A bad mechanic will always blame his tools. If you take care of your computer with regular maintenance (cleaning out old files, etc.), regular updates and not download things that you have no clue what they are, then there's no reason why either platform won't do what you want it to do. The problem, most often, lies on the person on the other end of the screen. When one fanboy starts ridiculing the other because they're using the "wrong" machine, then you're accomplishing nothing. Enjoy the platform you're using, wish the other person the best of luck with theirs, hope they get the same experience out of their machine as you do yours, and go on your merry way.

It's not that hard to stop making fun of someone for using a Mac or PC because you personally don't use it.

Michael

ETA: There's really only one or two people this message is meant for. They probably know who I am referring to, but will still think I'm wrong. So what.

[delphi_ote]

In fact, moving files between to the two systems wasn't a problem when I was working in a Mac-only environment in 1993.
Somewhat tangentially, the same is true for most Unix flavored boxes tranferring files to PC/MAC and vice versa. File interoperability is nearly transparent these days (the whole line feed/carriage return issue pops up once in a while if you're working with raw text... but even that is easy enough to fix.)

Being that Macs can run Windows now (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) and the whole VMWare thing (http://www.vmware.com/) is becoming easier every day, it's really coming down to a choice of which applications you want to run efficiently. Games? You want a PC. A/V editing? You want a mac. Heavy duty tech work? Unix flavor (probably Linux distro or Solaris (if you hate yourself.)) Anything else you can probably do, but it might take a little more work and it'll probably run a little slower.

[Ducky]

Somewhat tangentially, the same is true for most Unix flavored boxes tranferring files to PC/MAC and vice versa. File interoperability is nearly transparent these days (the whole line feed/carriage return issue pops up once in a while if you're working with raw text... but even that is easy enough to fix.)

Points I have repeatedly made.

Being that Macs can run Windows now (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) and the whole VMWare thing (http://www.vmware.com/) is becoming easier every day, it's really coming down to a choice of which applications you want to run efficiently. Games? You want a PC. A/V editing? You want a mac. Heavy duty tech work? Unix flavor (probably Linux distro or Solaris (if you hate yourself.))


Terry is so going to beat you up for that Solaris crack. ;) Generally though, I would agree with that assessment. Which is why I have a windows machine, two macs, and (oddly enough) will be implimenting an OpenSolaris box once I get my hands on the sparc machine over at Rich's house.

[bug_girl]

CFLarsen has had a Larsen's List started on him in this thread, and now his favorite word used on him.

Good times.


Gonna answer either Claus?

Oh, I am soooo glad I peeked back into this thread :D

PS. I still love my mac.

[Starthinker]

I knew this thread would be a roller coaster ride.

[kevin]

Physics cards?

technically yes, but not fully supported yet. If you install one it's usuable via windows. As a gaming add-on Mac OS support will lag for this (you can install one on a Mac and boot into Windows, but that doesn't really count.) I know zero windows users that have one.

There is very little being sold new today that won't run vista
Not in it's full mode. Most of the el-cheapo systems don't have a Direct X 9 supported video or 512MB of memory. If you want to use Aero in the Premium product you need 1GB of memory. The system you priced below won't support Aero.

and when most of the computer useing world is used to useing your current systems messing with what the user can do risks loseing customers.

I have no idea what this means. Apple has been pretty good about allowing users to leverage their existing software as they move forward, and they've done it through much larger changes than Microsoft has ever attempted. The interface of Vista is as large a change as OS X was to Mac OS 9 users. So was XP interface different than Win95/Win2000 interface.

Apple's major changes:
Motoroloa 68xxxx processors to PPC => no loss of software, some loss in old software execution speed.
OS 9 => OS X. No loss of software, no loss in speed. Most software companies charge to upgrade to latest version.
PPC => Intel chips. no loss of software, some loss of execution speed for old software (not as much as expected). Most software companies provide free upgrade to native software.


So more expensive?
Depends on the end you're looking at. As I said, el-cheapo end will be more expensive. I wasn't clear, but the cost competitive side is on the more expensive end.

Apple: $3198

* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
* 1GB (2 x 512MB)
* 250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* One 16x SuperDrive
* Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
* Mac OS X - U.S. English

Dell: $3260

* Intel® Core™2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB)
* Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD * 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM)
* Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW)
* 20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
* 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS

Heck for the price difference throw in Windows XP Home for the Mac and you can use that physics card.

[voidx]

To my mind the most decisive market share factor in this debate hasn't even been touched, and usually is not.

I would argue very strongly that MS market share does not come from the lone abilities of the Windows desktop OS.

It also does not come from home users. It comes from the corporate arena. Microsofts market share comes from the marketing and proliferation of its server platform, and all the Server side applications it has developed, acquired, made standard over the years. Windows is just a nice cookie cutter section of a larger MS marketing platform.

Corporate workgroups and domains, control over those domains, domain policies, SQL server, SharePoint, MS development platforms, Exchange etc etc etc, and the fact that MS attempts to tie it all together into a large enterprise type bundle.

That's MS market share. And I'd argue very strongly that no one else really has a complete platform that comes anywhere close to rivaling it. As much as you may dislike or think there are superior counterparts to the individual components of the entire MS suite of products. Its this entire suite that is an easy sell on the corporate level.

Most large companies do use a hybrid system, Windows on desktop and server side, MS enterprise level / server side apps. Unix Linux for various applications, Oracle, SAP, Apache Sendmail, Exchange. A smart company ties these products together.

The main realization is that while some argue that the little bit of extra cost for a high-end Mac is worth it to them, and I've no doubt it is, from a corporate stand-point, the viewpoint is the exact opposite. Is PC hardware and Windows cheaper when multiplied 200, 1000, 2000 times? Yes, and not by an insignificant amount. Windows ends up being the base system install of domain policy control, cost effectiveness etc etc. How fast does a typical end user really need to be running email and Office? Mac's used where necessary and where they make the most sense...of course. Very common.

Basically most people look at the Mac vs PC debate from a home user or small niche company perspective. I think the debate is pointless anyway as its been mentioned many times that people use PC's for a wide range or reasons and purposes and there is no BEST OS from that perspective. But many people forget to look at the debate from the large enterprise level, and miss that this is where Microsoft wins its battles in the market place.

[Terry]

You insist on overinterpreting what I say. It is futile and a waste of time to continue.

:dl:


darn, no pot/kettle smiley?

[geni]

technically yes, but not fully supported yet. If you install one it's usuable via windows. As a gaming add-on Mac OS support will lag for this (you can install one on a Mac and boot into Windows, but that doesn't really count.) I know zero windows users that have one.

Just the first example that came to mind.


Not in it's full mode. Most of the el-cheapo systems don't have a Direct X 9 supported video or 512MB of memory.

Where are you buying these systems with less than 512 meg of RAM (and the one laptop per child doesn't count)?





Depends on the end you're looking at. As I said, el-cheapo end will be more expensive. I wasn't clear, but the cost competitive side is on the more expensive end.

Apple: $3198

* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
* 1GB (2 x 512MB)
* 250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
* Apple Cinema Display (20" flat panel)
* One 16x SuperDrive
* Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
* Mac OS X - U.S. English


dell $2,894

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6700 (4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
Dual 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD

I will admit that that system has the slight downside that it comes with AOL but other than that it appears to be better value.

[Skeptic]

Am I the only one who sees a computer as simply a machine to do certain things with, and care not at all about what software, exactly, is used to do it? I am using a five- or six-year-old machine.

While I will have to upgrade eventually, I suppose, I find it absurd that people find it necessary to buy a new computer strong enough to run the new operating system... which in effect, simply allows you to do all the stuff you could do with the OLD machine, anyway. What's the point?

Then again, I still listen to LPs and have a 20-year-old television, so perhaps I'm not representative.

[Mongrel]

Just the first example that came to mind.



Where are you buying these systems with less than 512 meg of RAM (and the one laptop per child doesn't count)?






dell $2,894

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6700 (4MB L2 Cache,2.66GHz,1066 FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
Dual Drives: 48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
20 inch UltraSharp™ 2007WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
Dual 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center 2005 Edition with re-installation CD

I will admit that that system has the slight downside that it comes with AOL but other than that it appears to be better value.

I'd also add that as a gaming machine (which is what the Dell appears to be pitched towards) the Mac will suck. The benchmarks over at Toms Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=532&model2=582&chart=199) are scoring the 7900GS at 3 to 4 times the capability of the 7300GT.

Oh, and your point previously about the Physics cards would probably have more validity if they hadn't been pretty much spurned by the gaming community ;) They cost too much for too little noticeable effect

[geni]

I'd also add that as a gaming machine (which is what the Dell appears to be pitched towards) the Mac will suck. The benchmarks over at Toms Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/graphics/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=532&model2=582&chart=199) are scoring the 7900GS at 3 to 4 times the capability of the 7300GT.

No idea I just selected a machine that cost less than the mac and then put in as much stuff that would out perform the mac while staying below the MAC in price. It isn't something I would buy (I'd go for a weaker graphics card but stronger motherboard and CPU).


Oh, and your point previously about the Physics cards would probably have more validity if they hadn't been pretty much spurned by the gaming community ;) They cost too much for too little noticeable effect

Give it time.

[phyz]

it appears to be better value.
The world is large and we all have our own idea of what "value" means.

[Mongrel]

No idea I just selected a machine that cost less than the mac and then put in as much stuff that would out perform the mac while staying below the MAC in price. It isn't something I would buy (I'd go for a weaker graphics card but stronger motherboard and CPU).
I think the problem is for any comparison is what it's used for. I game, a lot, so I require something hefty in the GPU department and as much good RAM as I can cram in there, that makes an expensive computer. Skeptic appears to be your typical "web surfing, email and word processor" type who would be happy with a £400 Dell (apologies if that's a misrepresentation Skeptic). Joe public, in my eyes, just seem to throw as much money as they can to get the biggest numbers that they don't understand so they can boast to their equally bemused mates at the pub.



Give it time.

Well the last time I saw a major bit of news regarding Physics engines (which was a while ago, admittedly), it was Nvidia were going to be using the Havok engine using spare GPU cycles. Since, realistically, only gamers would be interested in this sort of add-on and since they already have the beefy cards it's a win-win situation :)

[geni]

The world is large and we all have our own idea of what "value" means.

In this case hardware with more processing power and more abilities.

[delphi_ote]

Am I the only one who sees a computer as simply a machine to do certain things with, and care not at all about what software, exactly, is used to do it? I am using a five- or six-year-old machine.

While I will have to upgrade eventually, I suppose, I find it absurd that people find it necessary to buy a new computer strong enough to run the new operating system... which in effect, simply allows you to do all the stuff you could do with the OLD machine, anyway. What's the point?

Then again, I still listen to LPs and have a 20-year-old television, so perhaps I'm not representative.
I'm a computer science PhD student, and I feel the same way. My PC is about the same age as yours. Trying to keep up with the tech curve is boring and expensive.

[a_unique_person]

Was it "the best"? The device driver support was FUBARed. It took them ages to get past or even acknowledge the single message queue issue. There's no such thing IMNVHO, there's only fit for purpose. Lifestyle choices are for people without lives.

Purely gossip, but I read that IBM thought it was a bad idea to have that single queue, but Microsoft was adamant it was OK, and stuck with it. It caught me out more than once.

[phyz]

In this case hardware with more processing power and more abilities.
Then go with a no-name product straight from a prison labor camp. People who buy the cheapest model that "meets spec" usually pay their money to learn a lesson in "value."

[Darat]

Then go with a no-name product straight from a prison labor camp. People who buy the cheapest model that "meets spec" usually pay their money to learn a lesson in "value."

So you consider an iPod a a "no-name" product but isn't the iPod a "name" product?

[Ian Osborne]

So you consider an iPod a a "no-name" product but isn't the iPod a "name" product?

How did you get from what Phyz said to this? He's talking about computers, not digital audio players, and as you said, the iPod is anything but a no-name product.

[Darat]

How did you get from what Phyz said to this? He's talking about computers, not digital audio players, and as you said, the iPod is anything but a no-name product.

I thought he was just talking about computer hardware and the terrible conditions and given the terrible conditions of the workers n the regards to the manufacturing of its iPods in my opinion means that Apple has absolutely no credibility in regards to being an ethical company - "Designed in California - built by slaves in China" would be a more honest by line on its products! :(

[Ian Osborne]

I thought he was just talking about computer hardware and the terrible conditions and given the terrible conditions of the workers n the regards to the manufacturing of its iPods in my opinion means that Apple has absolutely no credibility in regards to being an ethical company - "Designed in California - built by slaves in China" would be a more honest by line on its products! :(

Yes, there's definitely a case to answer there, but it doesn't meet Phyz' twin conditions of being a no-name product built in a prison camp. He's talking cheap and nasty. iPods are neither, even if the factories that produce them are...

[Zygar]

Yes, there's definitely a case to answer there, but it doesn't meet Phyz' twin conditions of being a no-name product built in a prison camp. He's talking cheap and nasty. iPods are neither, even if the factories that produce them are...

emphasis mine

I disagree. Ipods are a perfect example of an unexceptional product with intelligent marketing that won out against its competitors. Ipod is more like Windows in that respect.

[Ian Osborne]

The iPod was (IMHO) a product that did what others had done before but got it right, with a decent storage capacity and an interface which made using it a pleasure, not a chore. I disagree that it was 'unremarkable', but even if we accept that it was, there's a country mile between 'unremarkable' and 'cheap and nasty'.

[Pirate_Lad]

I just wanted to pop in and say that I use a mac at work, and have never had any compatibility problems. I could connect to our server in Portland just fine. I could print documents (word, excel, powerpoint, emails, ad nauseum) on our printers just fine. I could send and recieve attachments to hundreds of our customers just fine. And believe me when I say that the transportation industry is not boiling over with tech-savvy individuals.

I've had our sales reps and high-profile customers practically **** their pants when I show them what I can do with this thing. If you're having compatibility issues, then you've got to be a seriously dim bulb, because I'm an idiot and I've managed to use my mac in a very productive fashion.

[delphi_ote]

Ipods are a perfect example of an unexceptional product with intelligent marketing that won out against its competitors.
The user interface on those things is terrible. If a menu is open, you can't control the volume. If you're trying to scroll down a menu, you always reach a point where you're fiddling between three different options, skipping the one in the middle that you actually want (especailly if the touch pad is getting a little old.) There's no simple on/off switch. You have to read through manuals to figure that out.

I'm tired of hearing about how "intuitive" they are. That's a total lie. Intuitive would be a volume knob, two up/down scroll buttons that doubled as FF/RW, and an on/off switch. Apple may have designed a device with a nice aesthetic, but intuitive? Ha!

[tkingdoll]

The user interface on those things is terrible. If a menu is open, you can't control the volume. If you're trying to scroll down a menu, you always reach a point where you're fiddling between three different options, skipping the one in the middle that you actually want (especailly if the touch pad is getting a little old.) There's no simple on/off switch. You have to read through manuals to figure that out.

I'm tired of hearing about how "intuitive" they are. That's a total lie. Intuitive would be a volume knob, two up/down scroll buttons that doubled as FF/RW, and an on/off switch. Apple may have designed a device with a nice aesthetic, but intuitive? Ha!

I'm glad you said that, because I thought I was a total moron for not being able to operate my iPod video the first time I tried it. I was using the 'intuitive' wheel like a laptop or DS touchpad - up for up and down for down. Silly me. Eventually Jeff Wagg explained "it's a wheel, you go round like a dial".

Intuitive my rear end.

[Terry]

there is no such thing as an intuitive interface

[geni]

Then go with a no-name product straight from a prison labor camp. People who buy the cheapest model that "meets spec" usually pay their money to learn a lesson in "value."

Oh I could meet the spec and knock of another few hundred. In my world dell is not "no name". It may not be an ideal name but it is Dell. The claim was that Dell would not have a significant price difference compared to a MAC with the same specs. I think I have firmly debunked this for both ends of the spectrum.

[El Greco]

Ah, the iPod. That wonderful feeling of discovering that my 250 euros Nano doesn't have the gapless playback that my friend's totally unknown 30 euros player has. And that I can't simply drag 'n' drop some files in it to play them, I have to transfer them via the iTunes.

[phyz]

The claim was that Dell would not have a significant price difference compared to a MAC with the same specs.
I musta got lost. I don't recall reading that specific claim. Dell? Kindly point me to it.

[phyz]

The user interface on those things is terrible.
No one who hates iPods should ever get one. Apple will buck up and try to survive without your patronage.

And if you've got a better interface idea, go for it and see how it fares in the marketplace. As far as I can tell, Apple doesn't have a gun at anyone's head.

[phyz]

So you consider an iPod a a "no-name" product but isn't the iPod a "name" product?
Evidence?

Claims about iPod sweatshops were overblown. And Apple corrected the minor management issues involved.

But please, hold up for public praise the MP3 player that you know to be manufactured by well-paid, union workers. I'll wait...

[Zygar]

No one who hates iPods should ever get one. Apple will buck up and try to survive without your patronage.

And if you've got a better interface idea, go for it and see how it fares in the marketplace. As far as I can tell, Apple doesn't have a gun at anyone's head.

I always vote with my dollar. But that doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion.

[geni]

I musta got lost. I don't recall reading that specific claim. Dell? Kindly point me to it.


The original claim I was responding to was on page 4 of the thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2253548#post2253548


Macs are price competitive with similarly configured Windows machines from large manufacturers.

So far I've always been able to get better hardware for less money from dell than from Apple.

Realisticaly there is no way you can claim that dell is not better value in terms of hardware.

[El Greco]

No one who hates iPods should ever get one. Apple will buck up and try to survive without your patronage.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Why would anyone who hates iPods buy one in the first place ? Because he's a masochist maybe ?

[phyz]

Realisticaly there is no way you can claim that dell is not better value in terms of hardware.
I don't recall that I did. Or ever would.

The purchasing decision is a simple matter of personal preference.

A Kia will always be a better value than a BMW, too, in terms of hardware specs. And yet enough people seem eager enough to shell out the extra cash for a BMW. Even if you point out the obvious difference in value. Such is the nature of the marketplace.

[merentha]

there is no such thing as an intuitive interface

My Sony mp3 player comes close to delphi_ote's specs. I was able to operate the basics without referencing the manual the first time. Plus it plays wma and aac formats in addition to mp3 and Sony's own proprietary atrac.

I hate the wheel thing on the iPod. Almost blew my ear drums trying to control the volume on my friend's iPod.

[delphi_ote]

there is no such thing as an intuitive interface
There's a whole field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction) of computer science that would disagree with you. There's a technical term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability), and standards by which experts attempt to measure it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability_testing).

[kevin]

Ah, the iPod. That wonderful feeling of discovering that my 250 euros Nano doesn't have the gapless playback that my friend's totally unknown 30 euros player has.

mine does. apple added it as a feature in iTunes 7 and it carries over to at least all the video models and I believe the shuffle. It attempts to figure out gapless albums on it's own, but you can tag them manually as gapless as well.

[kevin]

There's a whole field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction) of computer science that would disagree with you. There's a technical term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability), and standards by which experts attempt to measure it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability_testing).

There is no such thing as an intuitive interface. By definition intuitive means it can be figured out from intuition, without reasoning or observation. That doesn't exist in computer interfaces (and I doubt it ever will.) All computer interfaces require some training, observation or reasoning to use.

Human-computer interaction studies may develop an interface that is easy to use, perhaps one that requires no training but I'm pretty sure the user will need to observe the results of their actions to learn the interface on their own.

The original ipod was a bit easier to learn because the wheel was a real wheel with buttons around it. When you ran your finger on it you felt the wheel move. The current model doesn't do that (for good reason, the mechanical wheels wear out) so it isn't quite as obvious when first presented with one on how it works. There are limitations to the interface, but to be honest I prefer the simpler, but more limited, 5 buttons and a wheel. Figuring out the buttons on my phone is a nightmare and I still don't have muscle memory on most of the functions to get things right.

Oh, and I've locked the max audio on my ipod to prevent blowing out my eardrums by accident.

[rockoon]

Is it true? Apple puts 5 buttons on an iPod and only 1 button on its mice?

:)

[phyz]

Is it true? Apple puts 5 buttons on an iPod and only 1 button on its mice?
It turns out that quite often, people use the mouse in conjunction with a keyboard. And the keyboard has a whole lot of buttons!

Much less common: people using a keyboard in conjuction with an iPod.

That might have something to do with it. But I'm willing to entertain alternate theories.

In the meantime, we Mac people humbly accept the thanks of the PC Nation for bringing the mouse and GUI to the masses. Keep following us; we'll take you places! (Places you would never go if we didn't take you there.) Someday you'll do something nice for us.

[tsg]

Am I the only one who sees a computer as simply a machine to do certain things with, and care not at all about what software, exactly, is used to do it?

No, but you happen to have wandered into a thread most likely to be populated by people who are passionate about computers. Personally I don't see how people get all worked up about cars. But some people do and my not understanding them doesn't make their passion, or their needs of which I may be blissfully unaware, less real.

While I will have to upgrade eventually, I suppose, I find it absurd that people find it necessary to buy a new computer strong enough to run the new operating system... which in effect, simply allows you to do all the stuff you could do with the OLD machine, anyway. What's the point?

Isn't a car just a means of transportation? I find it absurd that people find it necessary to buy a new car every couple of years when all it does is let you do stuff you could with the OLD car. What's the point?

That you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one.

[a_unique_person]

Ah, the iPod. That wonderful feeling of discovering that my 250 euros Nano doesn't have the gapless playback that my friend's totally unknown 30 euros player has. And that I can't simply drag 'n' drop some files in it to play them, I have to transfer them via the iTunes.

Have the same problem. Not being able to just drag,n,drop is a fascist slap in the face from Sony as well.

[a_unique_person]

It turns out that quite often, people use the mouse in conjunction with a keyboard. And the keyboard has a whole lot of buttons!

Much less common: people using a keyboard in conjuction with an iPod.

That might have something to do with it. But I'm willing to entertain alternate theories.

In the meantime, we Mac people humbly accept the thanks of the PC Nation for bringing the mouse and GUI to the masses. Keep following us; we'll take you places! (Places you would never go if we didn't take you there.) Someday you'll do something nice for us.

Correction, it was Xerox who invented the GUI, and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing with it.

[delphi_ote]

There is no such thing as an intuitive interface. By definition intuitive means it can be figured out from intuition, without reasoning or observation. That doesn't exist in computer interfaces (and I doubt it ever will.) All computer interfaces require some training, observation or reasoning to use.
Some interfaces are more intuitive than others. Maybe they're not perfectly intuitive, but they conform to the user's expectations. Either the interface is like other interfaces they've used before, or the interface behaves like they would expect it to based on some real world phenomenon.

[phyz]

Correction, it was Xerox who invented the GUI, and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing with it.
I was very careful and deliberate in what I wrote. It needed no correction.

[HarryKeogh]

Some interfaces are more intuitive than others. Maybe they're not perfectly intuitive, but they conform to the user's expectations. Either the interface is like other interfaces they've used before, or the interface behaves like they would expect it to based on some real world phenomenon.

I appreciate the fact that some interfaces are more intuitive than others but if some guy can't learn to use an iPod in 3 minutes (there's an instruction manual and a quick reference sheet) time then I have to wonder who he stole the iPod from because he's not smart enough to hold a job so he could buy one for himself.

[Darat]

Learning how to use it and being able to easily use it I find two quite separate matters. I don't have an iPod but the other half does. I know how to use the iPod but it always takes me a minute to remember how to, whilst my cheapo <£50 mp3 player (which had a colour screen OLED screen long before Apple seemingly new anything about colour and was smaller overall then any Nano, but not quite as thin and a battery that lasts for 20 hours of playback) he can just pick up and use.

(Obviously this might just be that I am thick...)

[Powa]

(Obviously this might just be that I am thick...)
As you're an administrator with banning privileges, don't expect an honest answer to that. :boxedin:

[phyz]

my cheapo <£50 mp3 player (which had a colour screen OLED screen long before Apple seemingly new anything about colour and was smaller overall then any Nano, but not quite as thin and a battery that lasts for 20 hours of playback) he can just pick up and use.
Why is it that with the market lousy with better and cheaper MP3 players, nearly everyone seems to want the expensive, inferior iPod? Did Apple put something in the water?

[brodski]

Why is it that with the market lousy with better and cheaper MP3 players, nearly everyone seems to want the expensive, inferior iPod? Did Apple put something in the water?

Marketing, which is the same reason that people who get perfectly good water pumped into their homes for next to nothing will pay £2 for a bottle of "mineral" water.

[merentha]

Why is it that with the market lousy with better and cheaper MP3 players, nearly everyone seems to want the expensive, inferior iPod? Did Apple put something in the water?

It certainly has little to do with quality. Else why would the iPodians want the same device in every new colour?

To a lesser extent I'm seeing this phenomenon with the PSP owners as well. But they at least can make the excuse that they're keeping the older unit with the earlier firmware for homebrews and ISOs, and the new machine with the updated firmware for the new games.

[Darat]

Why is it that with the market lousy with better and cheaper MP3 players, nearly everyone seems to want the expensive, inferior iPod? Did Apple put something in the water?

You must have not have noticed -I didn't want an iPod, I wanted something smaller, with a color screen, easier to use and a longer battery life.

[cyborg]

Why is it that with the market lousy with better and cheaper MP3 players, nearly everyone seems to want the expensive, inferior iPod? Did Apple put something in the water?

I'd be careful arguing down this line of reasoning... arguing that the market leader is the ostensibly best product will lead you to argue PCs are better than Macs.

[Ian Osborne]

I'd be careful arguing down this line of reasoning... arguing that the market leader is the ostensibly best product will lead you to argue PCs are better than Macs.

A lot of people buy PCs because they know no different. I'd say anyone in the market for a new MP3 player will be aware that the iPod isn't the only option.

[coalesce]

One last thing--I promise.

Saying that the most popular product is always the best product, to me, is like saying "Eat S(Rule8)t! Millions of Flies Can't Be Wrong!" Sometimes people like what they like because it fits their needs. There's nothing wrong with that, especially if it's a decision that doesn't include your choice.

Michael

[cyborg]

A lot of people buy PCs because they know no different. I'd say anyone in the market for a new MP3 player will be aware that the iPod isn't the only option.

And I say you're making that up.

[phyz]

You must have not have noticed -I didn't want an iPod.
I did notice. So I wrote the word "nearly" in my comment. The query wasn't about your choice but rather the choice of all those who have made the iPod the far-and-away leader in the market.

Marketing.
Similarly, Apple's marketing genius has made Macintosh the far-and-away leader in its market. Oh, wait...

I'd be careful arguing down this line of reasoning... arguing that the market leader is the ostensibly best product will lead you to argue PCs are better than Macs.
Whoa! I made no such argument! I asked a question. And I am eager for answer to it. Most people who have such things have PCs and iPods, so they can claim majority rules. I was hoping to hear from a PC-Hearter and iPod-Hater on this issue. Entertainment value, you know?

[delphi_ote]

I appreciate the fact that some interfaces are more intuitive than others but if some guy can't learn to use an iPod in 3 minutes (there's an instruction manual and a quick reference sheet) time then I have to wonder who he stole the iPod from because he's not smart enough to hold a job so he could buy one for himself.
There's a lot wrong with that interface, though. I outlined more than a few problems with it in an earlier post. The most glaringly obvious is that you can't control the volume at certain times. That is dangerous.

[brodski]

Similarly, Apple's marketing genius has made Macintosh the far-and-away leader in its market. Oh, wait...


Apple did something very new with it's marketing of the iPod, focusing on its non traditional markets and making mp3 players appeal to people who where otherwise largely uninterested in computers.
They push the ascetics and the alleged "lifestyle" choice of owning an Ipod over technical features, and all in all try to make owning an MP3 player less "geeky". They have seceded to such an extent that the terms iPod and MP3 player are now interchangeable in the minds of many.