Yet Another Mac vs PC thread

[Vicious]

I guess I didn't bother to include LED screen as equivalent which ups the price some, but nonetheless prices and overall specs are generally in favor of PCs.

This article (http://www.itworld.com/hardware/69085/reassessing-apple-tax) prices the 13" MBP and the Dell XPS M1330 to just $95 in the Dell's favour and the Dell Adamo ended up several hundred dollars more than the MacBook Air.

Sony Vaio (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834117914) w/ LED screen.

+ Faster GPU
+ Faster HDD
+ $180 less

- DDR2 (doesn't matter IMO)

It depends on the brand. The Dell Studio 17 was more aggressively priced (with a $300 discount) and came out to nearly a grand less but did not have similar specs (less CPU, less screen resolution, only one set of graphics and the backlit keyboard was extra). Were it upgradeable to be on par with specs, we could see a smaller price gap. The Alienware was equal in specs but closed the gap to just $250. I'd say that more than covers the cost of OS X (which is $150 for five copies) and the iLife suite. The Lenovo was a bit more than the MBP for similar specs.

Whoever did this comparison must really have a chip on their shoulder. The Alienware is superior except for lack of LED screen, and in fact shopping at another boutique we can get cheaper and even better.

The dual GPUs on the 17" MBP don't work simultaneously and instead are only used for power savings. The means you're limited to a 9600M GT at best.

An ibuypower with similar specs except for the improvement of a 1GB GTX280 and the loss of LED LCD costs $2130.

Even if we call that a fair trade-off that's a $370 difference (and calling that a fair trade is a joke as the GTX280 costs an arm and a leg).



I think the Apple tax still exists. They've made it closer in the dollar range, but when it comes to hardware they slide down the chain.

* All dollar amounts in USD of course.

[Shorty]

That was certainly the case with the 13" Macs last time I checked too. The equivalent by Sony (who are generally ridiculously expensive!) was $200 cheaper, had more RAM, bigger HDD & a better CPU. Compared to the new 13" MacBooks, there's only about $100 difference between the two (in Sony's favour) based on the same specs, except the Sony boasts a far better graphics card.

In fact, looking at the new 13" MacBook Pros vs a Dell Studio XPS 13", the Dell is over $400 cheaper for the same specs with an extended 3 year warranty.

Oh, Dell & Sony both use 7200 rpm HDDs while Apple use 5400 rpm HDDs, too.

These are all prices & specs based on their Australian online stores, and include all taxes etc. :D

I respectfully disagree with your findings. The cheapest XPS M1330 spec-for-spec with the base 13" MBP is maybe a couple hundred dollars cheaper and that's with Dell's discount of the week. That barely covers the cost of OS X Leopard at the Apple store or the equivalent PC software to the iLife suite.

Sony Vaio (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834117914) w/ LED screen.

+ Faster GPU
+ Faster HDD
+ $180 less

- DDR2 (doesn't matter IMO)

I'd consider $180 a fair price gap, considering, as stated above, the price of OS X and iLife. And I'd consider the VAIO to be closer to the 13" MBP's target market than the bottom-range Dells.

Whoever did this comparison must really have a chip on their shoulder. The Alienware is superior except for lack of LED screen, and in fact shopping at another boutique we can get cheaper and even better.

The dual GPUs on the 17" MBP don't work simultaneously and instead are only used for power savings. The means you're limited to a 9600M GT at best.

An ibuypower with similar specs except for the improvement of a 1GB GTX280 and the loss of LED LCD costs $2130.

Even if we call that a fair trade-off that's a $370 difference (and calling that a fair trade is a joke as the GTX280 costs an arm and a leg).

Except the MBP isn't a "gaming" laptop per se (the dual graphics setup in the MBP is for flexibility and battery usage, not a dual-card SLI setup, although the graphics in the MBP are far from crap), but something more like the "workstation" class Lenovo W700. The point I was making by including it in the comparison was that it was the only Dell model that I could find that was upgradeable to the base 17" MBP's specs. The other models were not and the purpose of this comparison was to match the laptops for spec.

I think the Apple tax still exists. They've made it closer in the dollar range, but when it comes to hardware they slide down the chain.

* All dollar amounts in USD of course.

Even if we were to agree that an "Apple Tax" may exist in the sense that any price difference in favour of a similarly-equipped PC constitutes an "Apple Tax" (in which case, you could argue for a "HP Tax" or a "Lenovo Tax" as well), then what does that mean exactly? If, when you compare Apple's range to other laptops in similar target markets the difference ends up being a couple of hundred dollars, then once again I think that's a fairly reasonable price difference considering what the Apple laptops offer. That Apple does not offer products in other target markets (ie. a "cheap" Apple laptop) is an issue for Apple and possibly a new challenge for them tackle. But that does not constitute a conscious "taxation" based solely on brand, which is what Microsoft IMO erroneously argues.

[Italian Stallion]

I respectfully disagree with your findings. The cheapest XPS M1330 spec-for-spec with the base 13" MBP is maybe a couple hundred dollars cheaper and that's with Dell's discount of the week. That barely covers the cost of OS X Leopard at the Apple store or the equivalent PC software to the iLife suite.
I'm not sure here, but are you getting a price on an XPS M1330 as you stated? Or a Studio XPS 13? The latter are their newer range of laptops, and are of higher build quality, and have all the little extras like backlite keyboard etc.

The cheapest XPS 13 & MBP 13 aren't really comparable for specs, as the XPS 13 has a faster CPU (2.26GHz vs 2.4GHz), more RAM (2GB vs 3GB), a bigger HDD (160GB vs 320GB) & a better gfx chip (9400 vs 9500).. however it's still exactly $100 cheaper with the default configuration on both - that's before the regular 5-10% Dell discount off their goods. Plus, Dell by default charges for their 'Gizmo' service, which is for someone to come around and help you set up your computer, transfer files from old computers, and network if required - this is an additional fee of $117 and removable - given that (afaik) Apple don't offer this, that brings the XPS 13 to almost $350 cheaper than the lesser-specced MBP 13 in total with the discount applied.

If you actually build a system with specs as similar as possible (4GB of RAM & 320GB HDD), the price difference jumps up to $422.22 before the Dell discount - that's still with the same CPU - 2.26GHz vs 2.4GHz. To move up to the same CPU you have to move up to the top-of-the-range MBP 13, and that is what my previous post's figures were based on.

I guess to some these figures may not seem like much of a difference, but when you you include the hardware differences... I think it's pretty sizable.

[Shorty]

I'm not sure here, but are you getting a price on an XPS M1330 as you stated? Or a Studio XPS 13? The latter are their newer range of laptops, and are of higher build quality, and have all the little extras like backlite keyboard etc.

The cheapest XPS 13 & MBP 13 aren't really comparable for specs, as the XPS 13 has a faster CPU (2.26GHz vs 2.4GHz), more RAM (2GB vs 3GB), a bigger HDD (160GB vs 320GB) & a better gfx chip (9400 vs 9500).. however it's still exactly $100 cheaper with the default configuration on both - that's before the regular 5-10% Dell discount off their goods. Plus, Dell by default charges for their 'Gizmo' service, which is for someone to come around and help you set up your computer, transfer files from old computers, and network if required - this is an additional fee of $117 and removable - given that (afaik) Apple don't offer this, that brings the XPS 13 to almost $350 cheaper than the lesser-specced MBP 13 in total with the discount applied.

If you actually build a system with specs as similar as possible (4GB of RAM & 320GB HDD), the price difference jumps up to $422.22 before the Dell discount - that's still with the same CPU - 2.26GHz vs 2.4GHz. To move up to the same CPU you have to move up to the top-of-the-range MBP 13, and that is what my previous post's figures were based on.

I guess to some these figures may not seem like much of a difference, but when you you include the hardware differences... I think it's pretty sizable.

I tried to get the $1799 Dell Studio XPS 13 and the 13" MBP as close as possible, which meant deviating from stock in some cases (320Gb HDD and 4Gb RAM for both systems which, apart from the difference in CPU and GPU, is about as comparable as you're going to get). I will admit that I hadn't thought about deducting the Gizmo service, which I would recommend on principle if you're halfway decent with computers. Also keep in mind that Dell's more aggressive pricing is also more volatile whereas Apple's pricing is relatively consistent. Take away the $100 discount (which ends Thursday) and the difference is $300. Even less if you want Vista Ultimate instead of Home Premium. Then take into account not only OS X and iLife but also the cost of security software if you choose to use commercial solutions (though the argument still stands if you decide to use free AV and firewall) and I would pay the difference just to use OS X on principle. For anything other than gaming, I've found it to be the better operating system.

But that is my personal preference and if the Dell were to suit your needs better, then by all means buy it.

[Vicious]

I respectfully disagree with your findings. The cheapest XPS M1330 spec-for-spec with the base 13" MBP is maybe a couple hundred dollars cheaper and that's with Dell's discount of the week. That barely covers the cost of OS X Leopard at the Apple store or the equivalent PC software to the iLife suite.

Except that's $180 + inferior hardware. So in reality the difference would be about $250 feasible.

Personally there's only about two things I'd like out of iLife which is iMovie and iWeb which MS lacks really equivalence for. On the other hand I hear iMovie 09 hate from numerous Mac users that I've talked to . . . so I'm not sure it's really worth it.

I'd consider $180 a fair price gap, considering, as stated above, the price of OS X and iLife. And I'd consider the VAIO to be closer to the 13" MBP's target market than the bottom-range Dells.

You seem to act as if Vista costs nothing, and let alone most OEMs are including the free upgrades to Windows 7.

Does a current Mac offer a free upgrade to Snow Leopard? I think not.

Except the MBP isn't a "gaming" laptop per se (the dual graphics setup in the MBP is for flexibility and battery usage, not a dual-card SLI setup, although the graphics in the MBP are far from crap)

What does it matter? If a gaming laptop is cheaper and more functional why settle for less?

but something more like the "workstation" class Lenovo W700.

The only people giving these laps their tags are in marketing and people falling for marketing.

Even if we were to agree that an "Apple Tax" may exist in the sense that any price difference in favour of a similarly-equipped PC constitutes an "Apple Tax" (in which case, you could argue for a "HP Tax" or a "Lenovo Tax" as well)

Not really . . . other manufactures hover around similar averages. Apple tends to undercut hardware and be more expensive.

If, when you compare Apple's range to other laptops in similar target markets the difference ends up being a couple of hundred dollars

And inferior performance. I think that's a major point. Why pay more for less? Then there's the question of what person needs a MBP if they aren't using the GPU for anything sufficient?

In a business environment I imagine that the biggest demands are:

1) MS Office
2) Large Screen
3) Speed

Beyond what are normal necessities today (wifi, etc).

If you can get a system for $900 that accomplishes this, why pay $2500? Since you're treating it as a "workstation" there's no purpose to iLife being installed anymore either.

then once again I think that's a fairly reasonable price difference considering what the Apple laptops offer. That Apple does not offer products in other target markets (ie. a "cheap" Apple laptop) is an issue for Apple and possibly a new challenge for them tackle. But that does not constitute a conscious "taxation" based solely on brand, which is what Microsoft IMO erroneously argues.

Really? Apple seems to rely on image 110% when selling their computers. There would be no meaning to the "I'm a PC" campaign without the "I'm a Mac" campaign first.

[Shorty]

Except that's $180 + inferior hardware. So in reality the difference would be about $250 feasible.

Personally there's only about two things I'd like out of iLife which is iMovie and iWeb which MS lacks really equivalence for. On the other hand I hear iMovie 09 hate from numerous Mac users that I've talked to . . . so I'm not sure it's really worth it.

Maybe a few people hate it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it plus iWeb do a good job of making up the $180-250 gap we're talking about here, unless the OEM decides to chuck a video editing suite into the equation. Which, AFAICT, they don't.

You seem to act as if Vista costs nothing, and let alone most OEMs are including the free upgrades to Windows 7.

Does a current Mac offer a free upgrade to Snow Leopard? I think not.

Apple have offered free upgrades to the next OS version if you buy right before they release the new one. It's not as generous as MS, but free upgrades do exist from Apple. Plus, I act as if Windows costs nothing because when you're buying a boxed PC, it practically does. It's a marginal cost to anyone who isn't buying it off the store shelf.

What does it matter? If a gaming laptop is cheaper and more functional why settle for less?

Because you're still comparing products designed for different purposes. I already clearly stated that my inclusion of it in the comparison was for a very limited purpose and only because the the comparable offering from Dell couldn't be completely spec-matched for the purposes of this argument. I'm not suggesting that anyone buy an Alienware for anything other than gaming.

Besides, how much cheaper and more functional are we talking about? The differences we've been talking about, where specs have been unable to be completely matched, have been a handful of Megahertz and a couple of hundred dollars at most. If you want to argue that those differences exist then sure, but I doubt those would transfer into meaningful hardware benchmark gaps.

The only people giving these laps their tags are in marketing and people falling for marketing.

No, these demarcations exist for a reason, however blurred they may be sometimes. They help buyers choose from laptops of similar equipment and price levels, which was the entire goal of my comparisons.

Not really . . . other manufactures hover around similar averages. Apple tends to undercut hardware and be more expensive.

No more than other higher-end brands of PC, which was my original point. Of course a brand-new Apple laptop looks more expensive than a Dell. So does a brand-new Lenovo or Sony VAIO or mid-to-high range HP. They're not selling to the lower end of the market, either. And when you compare those brands to the MBP, they come up pretty much even. Hence my point about "taxes" existing for those brands as well. If you're going to define a price difference in one brand's favour as the other brand's "tax", then Apple isn't the only brand that has one.

And inferior performance. I think that's a major point. Why pay more for less? Then there's the question of what person needs a MBP if they aren't using the GPU for anything sufficient?

In a business environment I imagine that the biggest demands are:

1) MS Office
2) Large Screen
3) Speed

Beyond what are normal necessities today (wifi, etc).

If you can get a system for $900 that accomplishes this, why pay $2500? Since you're treating it as a "workstation" there's no purpose to iLife being installed anymore either.

Because the MBP isn't designed to "just do Office" nor is it that intended for a "business environment". If anything, the normal MacBook is more suited to this purpose. The same reason you wouldn't buy an Alienware to run Excel. It's excessive for the purpose. Although a Mac Mini with cheap monitor, keyboard and mouse could be an interesting proposition for a work setup.

There are markets in which Apple have deliberately not competed, such as the low end dekstop and laptop markets. The trouble is that I don't think you're seeing these gaps in Apple's offerings vs PC as what they are and are instead trying to shoehorn Apple laptops into comparisons where they don't fit and then wondering why they come up short by however much. If you were arguing that maybe Apple should target the office workstation market, then I'd probably agree with you.

Really? Apple seems to rely on image 110% when selling their computers. There would be no meaning to the "I'm a PC" campaign without the "I'm a Mac" campaign first.

Everybody relies on image to a certain extent. That's a lot of what advertising is about. Microsoft plays off image when they release a sponsored "paper" on "the price of cool" or run their "Laptop Hunter" or "I'm a PC" ads (which were a direct response to Apple's). Just look at Microsoft's efforts to convince people that Windows 7 won't be Vista all over again, or the hit their image took with the "Vista Capable" debacle. Microsoft is just as "guilty" of relying on "image" as Apple is.

But more importantly, how is that important when it comes to you buying a computer?

[Vicious]

Maybe a few people hate it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it plus iWeb do a good job of making up the $180-250 gap we're talking about here, unless the OEM decides to chuck a video editing suite into the equation. Which, AFAICT, they don't.

Depends what you do for video editing though too. MS has also release a Live photo management tool that does facial recognition and panoramic imaging like the one found it iLife. We have movie maker (though limited in comparison). We have a tool now that can publish pages to blogs. So while not as functional there is still some retained.

Apple have offered free upgrades to the next OS version if you buy right before they release the new one. It's not as generous as MS, but free upgrades do exist from Apple. Plus, I act as if Windows costs nothing because when you're buying a boxed PC, it practically does. It's a marginal cost to anyone who isn't buying it off the store shelf.

Still, you're saying "with how much OSX costs at $150 it's worth the difference". It's silly as it's obvious it's going to be included with a new Mac too. I could argue "with how much Vista costs" like it's a $240 value already included at retail cost. So in reality we're getting a $420 (-OSX cost) difference!

See how silly that sounds? The OS is "free" regardless so stop slapping a price tag on OSX but not on Windows just because you don't feel it's worth it or dislike it.

Because you're still comparing products designed for different purposes. I already clearly stated that my inclusion of it in the comparison was for a very limited purpose and only because the the comparable offering from Dell couldn't be completely spec-matched for the purposes of this argument. I'm not suggesting that anyone buy an Alienware for anything other than gaming.

Besides, how much cheaper and more functional are we talking about? The differences we've been talking about, where specs have been unable to be completely matched, have been a handful of Megahertz and a couple of hundred dollars at most. If you want to argue that those differences exist then sure, but I doubt those would transfer into meaningful hardware benchmark gaps.

I was comparing to ibuypower (http://www.ibuypower.com/Store/Configurators.aspx?mid=401) actually.

As for your "I doubt those would transfer to meaningful benchmark gaps"

here (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html)

Needless to say the GTX280 runs rings around the 9600M GT. The CPU and RAM is identical.

No, these demarcations exist for a reason

Yeah. Marketing.

however blurred they may be sometimes.

The consequences of marketing and limited product differences.

They help buyers choose from laptops of similar equipment and price levels, which was the entire goal of my comparisons.

They help confuse the customer into buying something they don't need usually, or help rip them off?

No more than other higher-end brands of PC, which was my original point. Of course a brand-new Apple laptop looks more expensive than a Dell. So does a brand-new Lenovo or Sony VAIO or mid-to-high range HP. They're not selling to the lower end of the market, either. And when you compare those brands to the MBP, they come up pretty much even. Hence my point about "taxes" existing for those brands as well. If you're going to define a price difference in one brand's favour as the other brand's "tax", then Apple isn't the only brand that has one.

The higher priced Lenovo, Sony, and HP are all around the same benchmark price though. The Apple goes above them being the most expensive. When you cost more than the rest of the market your product is "expensive" by definition.

Because the MBP isn't designed to "just do Office" nor is it that intended for a "business environment".

Then what is it suited for since you argued it to be a "workstation" which is associated with business.

If anything, the normal MacBook is more suited to this purpose.

At 13" it's hardly worth anything unless used for traveling.

The same reason you wouldn't buy an Alienware to run Excel.

What do you buy a MBP for then? Why bother using multiple GPUs? The purpose of the MBP is convoluted at best if it's not making use of the GPU substantially.

There are markets in which Apple have deliberately not competed, such as the low end dekstop and laptop markets. The trouble is that I don't think you're seeing these gaps in Apple's offerings vs PC as what they are and are instead trying to shoehorn Apple laptops into comparisons where they don't fit and then wondering why they come up short by however much.

So there's better spec laptops that are cheaper than Apple's offerings. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

If you were arguing that maybe Apple should target the office workstation market, then I'd probably agree with you.

You already claimed they were:

Except the MBP isn't a "gaming" laptop per se (the dual graphics setup in the MBP is for flexibility and battery usage, not a dual-card SLI setup, although the graphics in the MBP are far from crap) but something more like the "workstation" class Lenovo W700.

So what is it then? It's meant to compete with a workstation, but it's not a workstation? :confused:

Everybody relies on image to a certain extent.

Just not nearly as much as Apple . . . Macs are hip while PCs are boring :rolleyes:

But more importantly, how is that important when it comes to you buying a computer?

It's not important to me, but I've known quite a few pompous Mac users that wouldn't dare buy a computer that doesn't offer equivalent aesthetics :rolleyes:

[Shorty]

We seem to be arguing along the following principles:

1. That there are situations in which Apple laptops aren't suitable and there's a PC that is. I'd have to agree that there are. Low cost office machines (which I have erroneously labelled as "workstations", which are actually higher-end computers for graphics and other hardware-intensive work, mostly because I couldn't think of a better word for it) and gaming laptops are two key examples, purposes for which the MacBook Pro is not entirely suited (you can play games on a MBP reasonably well, but yeah it's not going to outgun a SLI-equipped Alienware beast and it's not designed to). In those cases, I probably wouldn't recommend getting the Apple. Perhaps Apple would do well to take on these markets as their next challenges, but that's up to them.

2. The definition of an Apple Tax seems to be the Apple being more expensive than a comparable PC laptop (which I argue is overly broad and not solely applicable to Apple, hence the suggestion of a Lenovo or HP "tax"). Even if we were to go along with this definition, where we disagree is in the magnitude of this difference. I argue that this difference is not massive (maybe $300 for a comparable laptop of equal specs) and that most of this difference can be made up by taking into account the value of OS X and the iLife suite. I've seen the ongoing cost of antivirus and security software included in comparisons, but I'd agree that they are optional costs since free alternatives exist for both (and if they didn't, I'd still pay money just not to use Norton :p). If the cost difference is a deal breaker when it comes to choosing between two laptops (and it can be if you're looking at the lower end of laptops, wher $300 is a lot of money), then so be it but you're certainly not paying that extra money because Steve Jobs needs another gold-plated champagne fountain. :p

3. How much Apple relies on its image to sell its products. I can't argue that it doesn't at all (in fact, Apple's boost in Mac sales can be attributed to the popularity of iPods), but I do disagree that it does so more than other manufacturers or it's been cruising by solely on its image. Both companies use image to sell their stuff, so for every "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" there's an equivalent "Laptop Hunter" or "I'm a PC" or a sponsored paper on "the price of cool". But I also believe that we're both people for whom company image isn't exactly high on the list of pressing considerations when it comes to buying a laptop. I also doubt that we think the pompous users in each camp are truly representative of their userbase. :p

Believe it or not, my goal isn't to draw converts. It's to disagree with this notion that this price difference between Macs and PCs is both; a) substantial and b) unnecessary or solely attributed to being "cool". But I have nothing against PCs or PC owners (I still own one, myself), so which ever choice you make is fine as long as you put some decent thought into it. :p

[Vicious]

We seem to be arguing along the following principles:

1. There are situations in which Apple laptops aren't suitable and there's a PC that is. Low cost office machines (which I have erroneously labelled as "workstations", which are actually higher-end computers for graphics and other hardware-intensive work, mostly because I couldn't think of a better word for it) and gaming laptops are two key examples, purposes for which the MacBook Pro is not entirely suited (you can play games on a MBP reasonably well, but yeah it's not going to outgun a SLI-equipped Alienware beast - it's also not designed to). In those cases, I probably wouldn't recommend getting the Apple. Perhaps Apple would do well to take on these markets as their next challenges, but that's up to them.

What market are you arguing it for then? If we're only talking video and graphics the 9400M would have been enough.

2. The definition of an Apple Tax (which I argue is overly broad and not solely applicable to Apple, hence the suggestion of a Lenovo or HP "tax") seems to be the Apple being more expensive than a comparable PC laptop. Even if we were to go along with this definition, where we disagree is in the magnitude of this difference. I argue that this difference is not massive (maybe $300 for a comparable laptop of equal specs) and that most of this difference can be made up by taking into account the value of OS X and the iLife suite.

It's $300 while taking into account those suits, because you're accounting for OSX we should be able to account for the cost of Vista. That's also $300 USD, which translated into a minimum of $357 AUD, not taking into consideration that Australia is a more expensive region for Apple hardware. And that's only on the 13", while the 17" would save approximately $450 USD ($536 AUD) + have better specs.

I'm only adding AUD to put it into perspective of your currency.

I've seen the ongoing cost of antivirus and security software included in comparisons, but I'd agree that they are optional costs since free alternatives exist for both (and if they didn't, I'd still pay money just not to use Norton :p). If the cost difference is a deal breaker when it comes to choosing between two laptops, then so be it but you're not paying that extra money because Steve Jobs needs another gold-plated champagne fountain. :p

Yes, but I'd consider $450 + inferior specs a substantial difference no matter what market it's intended for.

3. How much Apple relies on its image to sell its products. I can't argue that it doesn't at all (in fact, Apple's boost in Mac sales can be attributed to the popularity of iPods), but I do disagree that it does so more than other manufacturers or it's been cruising by solely on its image. Both companies use image to sell their stuff, so for every "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" there's an equivalent "Laptop Hunter" or "I'm a PC" or a sponsored paper on "the price of cool". But I also believe that we're both people for whom company image isn't exactly high on the list of pressing considerations when it comes to buying a laptop. I also doubt that we think the pompous users in each camp are truly representative of their userbase. :p

When you go into a pricey coffee shop and the only brand laptop you see is Apple on a regular basis, even though they have an ant size marketshare, the userbase isn't doing much to help fight the image.

Believe it or not, my goal isn't to draw converts. It's to disagree with this notion that this price difference between Macs and PCs is both; a) substantial and b) unnecessary or solely attributed to being "cool".

I understand, but I too disagree with you.

I guess it depends on what you consider substantial. I don't like throwing $500 away for an inferior system with an iron fist controlled OS. I rather deal with having to run an AV/Firewall in the background and a spyware scan every other month while I have access to a more plentiful source of apps, better performing apps, and better performing hardware obtained at a lower price tag.

Then again I don't even see a UI benefit in OSX even though many do. It feels claustrophobic . . . the only benefit I would really like is drag to install, but the performance cost on Windows would probably be too much to justify it.

Nonetheless, Apple "is" expensive relative to the market . . . even if only by a few hundred or so. ;)

EDIT:

This discussion is probably better suited to the Mac thread guys. Getting a bit off track, yo.

Sorry, I agree. I think taking it to PMs or starting a new thread would be better myself . . .

[Shorty]

What market are you arguing it for then? If we're only talking video and graphics the 9400M would have been enough.

Something between "Web browsing" and X-TREME GAMING POWAH, I'd imagine. :p

The MBP is targeted at the "professional" market, which can include stuff like graphics and video editing. Something that needs require more power than an integrated chipset could provide (although the 9400M is on standby for conserving power) but where a nuclear-powered SLI-based rig might be a little excessive. So it'll game, but it won't make Crysis beg for mercy. That's what an Alienware is for. ;)

It's $300 while taking into account those suits, because you're accounting for OSX we should be able to account for the cost of Vista. That's also $300 USD, which translated into a minimum of $357 AUD, not taking into consideration that Australia is a more expensive region for Apple hardware. And that's only on the 13", while the 17" would save approximately $450 USD ($536 AUD) + have better specs.

I'm only adding AUD to put it into perspective of your currency.

Yes, but I'd consider $450 + inferior specs a substantial difference no matter what market it's intended for.

Funny you should mention that because in your own territory, Apple Insider has a pricing guide (http://www.appleinsider.com/mac_price_guide/) that'll save you $140-280 on a new MacBook Pro. You could put that towards a copy of Vista. ;)

For the record, OS X Leopard is $129 for a five-user pack (http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Version-10-5-6-Leopard-5-User/dp/B000BR0NPO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1249271079&sr=8-3) and $99 for one on Amazon. Windows Vista Home Premium is $119 for one PC from the same place (http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vista-Home-Premium-SP1/dp/B0013O54OE/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1249271615&sr=8-6). Maybe $300 if you buy a boxed copy from Best Buy, but I don't recommend it.

When you go into a pricey coffee shop and the only brand laptop you see is Apple on a regular basis, even though they have an ant size marketshare, the userbase isn't doing much to help fight the image.

Well, then I'm glad you don't base your laptop purchasing decisions on what the people in the coffee shop are or aren't using. And if you do, then I'm not sure if we're going to come to any agreement on this issue because I can't fairly argue against your opinions of "pricey coffee shop" customers.

I understand, but I too disagree with you.

I guess it depends on what you consider substantial. I don't like throwing $500 away for an inferior system with an iron fist controlled OS. I rather deal with having to run an AV/Firewall in the background and a spyware scan every other month while I have access to a more plentiful source of apps, better performing apps, and better performing hardware obtained at a lower price tag.

Then again I don't even see a UI benefit in OSX even though many do. It feels claustrophobic . . . the only benefit I would really like is drag to install, but the performance cost on Windows would probably be too much to justify it.

Nonetheless, Apple "is" expensive relative to the market . . . even if only by a few hundred or so. ;)

If you really want to avoid a "iron fist controlled OS", then I recommend wiping the hard drive and installing Linux. Windows just happens to be a better-supported "iron fisted controlled OS", if their history with the Department of Justice is anything to go by. :p

[Vicious]

If you really want to avoid a "iron fist controlled OS", then you'd be better off installing Linux. Windows just happens to be a better-supported "iron fisted controlled OS", if their history with the Department of Justice is anything to go by. :p

True, but then I have to live with limited software. Not to mention shitty driver support and ported app performance/usability. ;)

I'll admit that the limited control over a laptop isn't as big an issue compared to desktops. There's no way I'd consider an Apple desktop when your hardware selection is a joke . . . not to mention I'd just build my own.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Jesus, you dorks wrote all that today?

[Vicious]

Jesus, you dorks wrote all that today?

As a geek I resent that! :p

[Gemerald]

* All dollar amounts in USD of course.

You would generally have it easier than US because the prices of Apple of hardware seem to soar as the pass through different oceans. It could be worse, we could live in Europe.

[Shorty]

True, but then I have to live with limited software. Not to mention shitty driver support and ported app performance/usability. ;)

Driver support hasn't been too bad, in my experience. Printers and such are fine, since OS X ships with a metric shitload of printer drivers and all but the really cheap or obscure hardware normally have Mac drivers available.

Software has been fine, as well. Web browsers, BitTorrent clients, IMs, CD burning, programming IDEs (other than Xcode, which comes on the disc), office software (OpenOffice if you don't want MS Office for Mac), media players, backup software (Time Machine comes with OS X) and some native games can all be found on the Mac. For everything else, there's Boot Camp and OEM priced (or, for students, free) Windows. :cool:

I'll admit that the limited control over a laptop isn't as big an issue compared to desktops. There's no way I'd consider an Apple desktop when your hardware selection is a joke . . . not to mention I'd just build my own.

Well, if you're not looking for an all-in-one or a graphics/CAD/HD video editing workstation, then I'd definitely recommend building your own. My Windows PC is self-built. :cool:

[Vicious]

Driver support hasn't been too bad, in my experience. Printers and such are fine, since OS X ships with a metric shitload of printer drivers and all but the really cheap or obscure hardware normally have Mac drivers available.

Software has been fine, as well. Web browsers, BitTorrent clients, IMs, CD burning, programming IDEs (other than Xcode, which comes on the disc), office software (OpenOffice if you don't want MS Office for Mac), media players, backup software (Time Machine comes with OS X) and some native games can all be found on the Mac. For everything else, there's Boot Camp and OEM priced (or, for students, free) Windows. :cool:

I was referring to Linux, lol :p

Well, if you're not looking for an all-in-one or a graphics/CAD/HD video editing workstation, then I'd definitely recommend building your own. My Windows PC is self-built. :cool:

Macs definitely win all-in-one. It's hard to find something that could compete with them and more trouble than it's worth.

Graphics is a mixed bag. With Vista MS drastically fixed how Windows handles them. The only real difference between Windows and Mac is whether you want a font to respect a grid or care about website work. Windows tends to be better for webpage graphics editing while Mac is better at print work. Six of one and half a dozen of another really.

As for CAD my dad uses Pro-E all the time and I build his computers. In fact I use gaming graphics cards since they excel at raw geometry while the Quadro line focuses more on texture (the difference between engineering and movie rendering really).

He's never had a hiccup once. I don't see why you'd need to buy a prebuilt CAD system ever. The most popular CAD apps only use a single core too so there's no need for systems more suited to server work. At my dad's job they gave him around a $4K system. He'd have been perfectly fine with $1K, multiple LCDs or a really large one, and a trackball mouse. Probably happier because they didn't even give him a trackball . . .

In terms of HD video editing I'd have to hand it over to Mac. Final Cut is probably the best you can buy though I don't have enough experience with professional video editing myself.

You would generally have it easier than US because the prices of Apple of hardware seem to soar as the pass through different oceans. It could be worse, we could live in Europe.

I've heard it from others, and trust me I already know. Prices over here will never directly translate and are usually more costly.

[SOX]

If it's true that you can get an equivalent VAIO for cheaper then I would definetely get one of those over a MBP. Sure you miss out on OS X, but unless you are a Mac/iPhone developer, you are still going to be able to do the same things anyway.

[Shorty]

I was referring to Linux, lol :p

Ah. Well, in that case, well played. :cool:

Macs definitely win all-in-one. It's hard to find something that could compete with them and more trouble than it's worth.

Graphics is a mixed bag. With Vista MS drastically fixed how Windows handles them. The only real difference between Windows and Mac is whether you want a font to respect a grid or care about website work. Windows tends to be better for webpage graphics editing while Mac is better at print work. Six of one and half a dozen of another really.

As for CAD my dad uses Pro-E all the time and I build his computers. In fact I use gaming graphics cards since they excel at raw geometry while the Quadro line focuses more on texture (the difference between engineering and movie rendering really).

He's never had a hiccup once. I don't see why you'd need to buy a prebuilt CAD system ever. The most popular CAD apps only use a single core too so there's no need for systems more suited to server work. At my dad's job they gave him around a $4K system. He'd have been perfectly fine with $1K, multiple LCDs or a really large one, and a trackball mouse. Probably happier because they didn't even give him a trackball . . .

In terms of HD video editing I'd have to hand it over to Mac. Final Cut is probably the best you can buy though I don't have enough experience with professional video editing myself.

Well, video and DTP have been some of Apple's best markets for years. It was really only after they started making music players that they started becoming popular outside those circles.

[Vicious]

Well, video and DTP have been some of Apple's best markets for years. It was really only after they started making music players that they started becoming popular outside those circles.

Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the acronym DPT as you're using it . . . what does it stand for?

[Shorty]

Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the acronym DPT as you're using it . . . what does it stand for?

Desktop Publishing. What you previously described as "print work".

[Vicious]

Desktop Publishing. What you previously described as "print work".

I see . . . never saw it used that way before. Guess I learned something new :)

[Fenrir]

Hang on, you Mac guys don't run security/AV software at all? Say what you want about "all viruses are on Windows", you guys are sitting ducks.

Something between "Web browsing" and X-TREME GAMING POWAH, I'd imagine. :p

The MBP is targeted at the "professional" market, which can include stuff like graphics and video editing. Something that needs require more power than an integrated chipset could provide (although the 9400M is on standby for conserving power) but where a nuclear-powered SLI-based rig might be a little excessive. So it'll game, but it won't make Crysis beg for mercy. That's what an Alienware is for. ;)
That's hardly a convincing argument, unless you're a visual arts/graphics design type (in which case, what are you doing leaning on bundled software for your graphics work in the first place?). I can see a market for the niche Mac power-user - which itself is wholly unnecessary - and maybe those who blur the line between web/office user and power user by the amount of time they use the machine, some of the more demanding activities they start to partake in, etc, but that makes no argument for moving away from Windows.

I'm not sure how well the MBP range matches your career path, either, Shorty. I know I couldn't do it myself - we're still not taking Mono seriously enough to consider .NET on the Mac, let alone XNA, and most console compilers tend to cross-compile from Windows.

If you really want to avoid a "iron fist controlled OS", then I recommend wiping the hard drive and installing Linux. Windows just happens to be a better-supported "iron fisted controlled OS", if their history with the Department of Justice is anything to go by. :p
The argument seems to be more along the lines of Microsoft not being an OEM, nigh-exclusive servicer and OS developer bundled into one - something I can agree with, strongly.
Instead of the great pain-in-the-arse of not being able to piece together your own system, and having to go to the same guys who made your system for upgrades/servicing, Microsoft aren't really a stakeholder in the hardware beyond implicitly ensuring that hundreds of hardware vendors develop their products to be compatible with one overarching standard - Windows. The [near-]monopolistic OS ties together the capitalist desktop computer world to an extent that no well-intentioned standards committee alone could possibly dream of matching.

[Shorty]

Hang on, you Mac guys don't run security/AV software at all? Say what you want about "all viruses are on Windows", you guys are sitting ducks.

Oh no, that would be silly. But OS X's BSD underpinnings combined with a robust inbuilt firewall and running a non-Administrator account (ie. not being "root" in Linux) have kept me pretty secure against the slings and arrows of the greater Internet.

That's hardly a convincing argument, unless you're a visual arts/graphics design type (in which case, what are you doing leaning on bundled software for your graphics work in the first place?). I can see a market for the niche Mac power-user - which itself is wholly unnecessary - and maybe those who blur the line between web/office user and power user by the amount of time they use the machine, some of the more demanding activities they start to partake in, etc, but that makes no argument for moving away from Windows.

I'm not sure how well the MBP range matches your career path, either, Shorty. I know I couldn't do it myself - we're still not taking Mono seriously enough to consider .NET on the Mac, let alone XNA, and most console compilers tend to cross-compile from Windows.

If I was hardcore into games programming then maybe, although the iPhone development community is pretty strong and there are development tools like FMOD (for sound) or Java that can facilitate cross-platform development on the Mac. Maybe if you worked for a Microsoft-only development studio that might be an issue but that it depends on each individual case. There's other stuff that can also be done on Mac like graphics, sound, video or 3D rendering.

The argument seems to be more along the lines of Microsoft not being an OEM, nigh-exclusive servicer and OS developer bundled into one - something I can agree with, strongly.
Instead of the great pain-in-the-arse of not being able to piece together your own system, and having to go to the same guys who made your system for upgrades/servicing, Microsoft aren't really a stakeholder in the hardware beyond implicitly ensuring that hundreds of hardware vendors develop their products to be compatible with one overarching standard - Windows. The [near-]monopolistic OS ties together the capitalist desktop computer world to an extent that no well-intentioned standards committee alone could possibly dream of matching.

Imagine Microsoft as Apple with the hardware and servicing outsourced to other vendors and you get pretty close.

Personally, I prefer to have all three of them in the marketplace to balance each other out, even if it hasn't completely prevented MS from establishing a worrying amount of control over the desktop computing sphere.

[Italian Stallion]

In terms of HD video editing I'd have to hand it over to Mac. Final Cut is probably the best you can buy though I don't have enough experience with professional video editing myself.
My girlfriend has recently used Final Cut, as well as a few Windows alternatives (mostly Sony Vegas & Adobe Premiere) for University. Based on her experiences, and what she's told me of the 3, the Windows alternatives are just as capable as Final Cut, albeit a little different obviously. Premiere, she said, was somewhat similar to Final Cut, but didn't feel quite as user-friendly, though was definitely usable. Sony Vegas on the other hand, was her preferred of the 3. While Final Cut apparently had lots of templates and so on - which Vegas lacked - lots of things in Final Cut were difficult & convoluted, while in Sony Vegas they were a breeze. It also allowed you to create scripts for frequently used tasks too, which made up for the lack of templates. Apparently Final Cut is very closed when it comes to usable formats too - formats it didn't like had to be rendered before inserting them - while Vegas can basically use anything you throw at it. Vegas was also marginally quicker at pretty much everything than Final Cut - on a lesser-specced machine than the Macs they had.

To me it seems that the excuse of buying a Mac for video editing is becoming tired & worn out. Not only is the hardware for a Windows machine cheaper, but so are the video editing suites of the same quality..

[Shorty]

That's funny you should mention that because Adobe Premiere also runs on Mac, as does Avid Media Composer and the Media 100 suite.

[Vicious]

My girlfriend has recently used Final Cut, as well as a few Windows alternatives (mostly Sony Vegas & Adobe Premiere) for University. Based on her experiences, and what she's told me of the 3, the Windows alternatives are just as capable as Final Cut, albeit a little different obviously. Premiere, she said, was somewhat similar to Final Cut, but didn't feel quite as user-friendly, though was definitely usable. Sony Vegas on the other hand, was her preferred of the 3. While Final Cut apparently had lots of templates and so on - which Vegas lacked - lots of things in Final Cut were difficult & convoluted, while in Sony Vegas they were a breeze. It also allowed you to create scripts for frequently used tasks too, which made up for the lack of templates. Apparently Final Cut is very closed when it comes to usable formats too - formats it didn't like had to be rendered before inserting them - while Vegas can basically use anything you throw at it. Vegas was also marginally quicker at pretty much everything than Final Cut - on a lesser-specced machine than the Macs they had.

To me it seems that the excuse of buying a Mac for video editing is becoming tired & worn out. Not only is the hardware for a Windows machine cheaper, but so are the video editing suites of the same quality..

That's both surprising and extremely good to hear. I remember so many years ago people used to bitch about anything that wasn't FC regularly.

[Fenrir]

Oh no, that would be silly. But OS X's BSD underpinnings combined with a robust inbuilt firewall and running a non-Administrator account (ie. not being "root" in Linux) have kept me pretty secure against the slings and arrows of the greater Internet.
Dear god, I don't want to hear BSD zealots outside of server administration. They might be right, but **** they can get self-righteous. >_>

Come to think of it, though, "BSD underpinnings" is kind-of buzzy without an understanding of the architecture of the operating system as a whole - for all I know, Apple could've totally rooted it. >_>
Also, software firewall alert - not that I know a hell of a lot about firewalls, either.

If I was hardcore into games programming then maybe
See, I thought that's where you started, and assumed you were still into it. My bad.

although the iPhone development community is pretty strong and there are development tools like FMOD (for sound) or Java that can facilitate cross-platform development on the Mac. Maybe if you worked for a Microsoft-only development studio that might be an issue but that it depends on each individual case. There's other stuff that can also be done on Mac like graphics, sound, video or 3D rendering.
Hmm, I'd assumed Sun's support for Mac wasn't nearly as polished as their Solaris/Linux/Windows base. My mistake, I guess.
Either way, Java's not the presence in end-user apps and games I wish it was. It's my preferred language these days, but practically it's primarily an enterprise platform, for no real other reason than that people don't know any better.

Imagine Microsoft as Apple with the hardware and servicing outsourced to other vendors and you get pretty close.
This is exactly what I mean. Not exactly IT utopia, but I imagine it'd be far worse if the monopolist OS developer did hardware and servicing in-house.

[Shorty]

Dear god, I don't want to hear BSD zealots outside of server administration. They might be right, but **** they can get self-righteous. >_>

Come to think of it, though, "BSD underpinnings" is kind-of buzzy without an understanding of the architecture of the operating system as a whole - for all I know, Apple could've totally rooted it. >_>
Also, software firewall alert - not that I know a hell of a lot about firewalls, either.

As of Leopard, OS X is a registered Unix-like system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_03#Registered_Unix-like_systems). The XNU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU) kernel that OS X is built upon apparently uses code from the FreeBSD project, which is where the "BSD underpinnings" come into it. Either way, it's a very different beast from Windows and actually has more in common with Linux.

See, I thought that's where you started, and assumed you were still into it. My bad.

No. Programming has been part of my course, but it's not really my end goal.

Hmm, I'd assumed Sun's support for Mac wasn't nearly as polished as their Solaris/Linux/Windows base. My mistake, I guess.
Either way, Java's not the presence in end-user apps and games I wish it was. It's my preferred language these days, but practically it's primarily an enterprise platform, for no real other reason than that people don't know any better.

It's still being used for non-iPhone mobile games, AFAIK. It's not the most common language used in game development, but it's one that can be developed on Macs.

This is exactly what I mean. Not exactly IT utopia, but I imagine it'd be far worse if the monopolist OS developer did hardware and servicing in-house.

It'd certainly be dangerous if MS did that from their current market position but I don't know if MS would have ended up there if they had started out that way.

[Pauly]

at the end of the day it is personal preference. having better specs doesn't always mean a better product. i was in the PC camp till a few years ago when i decided to jump ship, being a design student. even though i can get all the programs i need (and possibly more) on a PC, i'm never going back.

[Vicious]

at the end of the day it is personal preference. having better specs doesn't always mean a better product. i was in the PC camp till a few years ago when i decided to jump ship, being a design student. even though i can get all the programs i need (and possibly more) on a PC, i'm never going back.

That really wasn't the point of the discussion. If you look at what the discussion was on it's basically whether the Apple tax is a myth, where is Apple's market, and how does these compare to where PC stands.

Sure OS is a matter of preference and I think we all understand that. This conversation took on a much different route IMO.

[Fenrir]

As of Leopard, OS X is a registered Unix-like system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_03#Registered_Unix-like_systems). The XNU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU) kernel that OS X is built upon apparently uses code from the FreeBSD project, which is where the "BSD underpinnings" come into it. Either way, it's a very different beast from Windows and actually has more in common with Linux.
Knew as much as that; the "uses code from FreeBSD" part really doesn't say much about the rest of the product's implementation (code) quality, though.

It's still being used for non-iPhone mobile games, AFAIK. It's not the most common language used in game development, but it's one that can be developed on Macs.
I'm planning on porting something I'm working on now to Java ME (and probably targeting netbooks, too, and getting the two platforms to interoperate if I can), but unfortunately phone games seem more like a Jamster-riddled shitware hell than a serious market.

Consoles aren't a likely target for a JVM - WORA is the last thing the vendors would want - and since most developers are multi-platform these days, the programming language will be decided based on the consoles.

having better specs doesn't always mean a better product.
^This is true. I've been running my Toshiba Satellite on Power Saver almost exclusively for over a year, now, simply because the thing gets too precariously close to overheating on even Balanced.
That, and battery life are on my list of things to research for my next laptop purchase - trouble is, they don't tend to write this shit on the box.

[StorminNorman]

I really love how, when making this argument, PC users forget the #1 reason for using a Mac: It's not Windows.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

But Windows is good and the mac mouse cramps my hand case closed I'll see you in the steam room.

[Fenrir]

I really love how, when making this argument, PC users forget the #1 reason for using a Mac: It's not Windows.
You're on thin ice, power user*. Qualify your remark.


*This, for the uninitiated, is the utmost of insults.

[Shorty]

Knew as much as that; the "uses code from FreeBSD" part really doesn't say much about the rest of the product's implementation (code) quality, though.

Seems fine to me (I figure that getting SUS certification isn't trivial). There's a bunch of Unix-like command line tools you can use in the Terminal but the Mac can be managed just fine without ever leaving the GUI. To be honest, if nobody told you that OS X was Unix-like, you probably wouldn't notice.

^This is true. I've been running my Toshiba Satellite on Power Saver almost exclusively for over a year, now, simply because the thing gets too precariously close to overheating on even Balanced.
That, and battery life are on my list of things to research for my next laptop purchase - trouble is, they don't tend to write this shit on the box.

The new MBPs are boasting up to seven hours of battery life for the 13" and 15" models and up to eight hours for the 17". The downside is that it's non-removeable (technically you can remove it but it'll void whatever warranty you have left - by that point your warranty will probably be long over and you can do it yourself anyway, if you want) but according to Apple the battery will go up to 1,000 cycles while still holding 80% charge, which makes it good for up to five years.

[Gemerald]

See I'm eagerly awaiting this supposed Apple Netbook they've been working on. This would probably be a fair measuring stick (with regards to performance as the market seems very comparable in that sector) on seeing how Apple compares but no doubt it will be at least 50% more than say a similarly spec'd EEE PC or Lenovo S10.

[StorminNorman]

I really hope Apple avoids the Netbook market, tbh. Netbooks are universally terrible computers, and the whole segment needs to die in a fire.

You're on thin ice, power user*. Qualify your remark.

It… really doesn't need qualification. I think Windows is shit, therefore I choose to use something better, and I'm willing to pay whatever premium I have to pay for that superiority.

It's the same reason people buy an S-Class over a Commodore.

[Pauly]

That really wasn't the point of the discussion. If you look at what the discussion was on it's basically whether the Apple tax is a myth, where is Apple's market, and how does these compare to where PC stands.
ah, fair enough, my bad. continue debate.

as a side note though, i think such debates become redundant as at the end of the day it only really boils down to the operating system and (secondly) the price. people are either paying more for the much better (opinion of course) operating system or they don't care enough/don't have the extra money. i'm basing this on the decisions made by about 10 people i know in the past 2 years.

[Vicious]

I think Windows is shit, therefore I choose to use something better, and I'm willing to pay whatever premium I have to pay for that superiority.

Just for shits and giggles . . . how is Windows shit?

I really hope Apple avoids the Netbook market, tbh. Netbooks are universally terrible computers, and the whole segment needs to die in a fire.

Yes, because being able to stream 480P video, check your email, and surf the net on a system that weighs less than two pounds and has a 9" LCD for $150 USD (here, I don't know how much it costs you) is just horrible. Convenience is such a terrible thing to have. :rolleyes:

as a side note though, i think such debates become redundant as at the end of the day it only really boils down to the operating system and (secondly) the price. people are either paying more for the much better (opinion of course) operating system or they don't care enough/don't have the extra money.

Or they could care about:

Universal application performance
Hardware choice
Specific applications (First one to say Bootcamp loses the game!)

i'm basing this on the decisions made by about 10 people i know in the past 2 years.

Ten people in two years. Are you really going to base an entire opinion on such a pathetic sampling size? Just saying . . .



Regardless,

If the only market Apple has is those that want to use a non-MS OS it's a pretty shitty business plan in the long term . . .

[Pauly]

hey, if you want to believe that people are only forking out to buy a mac because they look cool, or are the new "in thing" then that's up to you. the people that are buying them truly believe they are a superior product.

[StorminNorman]

Just for shits and giggles . . . how is Windows shit?

The close box is on the wrong side. :p

Yes, because being able to stream 480P video, check your email, and surf the net on a system that weighs less than two pounds and has a 9" LCD for $150 USD (here, I don't know how much it costs you) is just horrible. Convenience is such a terrible thing to have. :rolleyes:

My phone can do all of those things (the screen size is smaller, obviously) for less than what a Netbook costs.

(As an aside, the cheapest netbooks are $299 here, from memory.)

With regards to price differences between Australia and the US, there's actually a pretty good reason for this (and I'm not just talking about Macs and PCs here, but rather consumer electronics in general). I was talking to a guy in a camera store a couple of weeks back, and he told me that the reason for the large price differentials between the two countries is because, here in Australia, companies are required by law to provide a warranty with their products, and they factor this warranty (which is, in the US, usually sold separately) into the purchase price of the product.

It's obviously not the sole reason for the cost difference, but it explains a large chunk of it. So basically we pay more because we have better consumer protection laws.

[Gemerald]

I really hope Apple avoids the Netbook market, tbh. Netbooks are universally terrible computers, and the whole segment needs to die in a fire.

Actually given the Lenovo S10, I'm a big fan of the portability and ease of the unit. Not too small to type on (comfortably) and surf while not being too large and still having a decent amount of punch to do reasonable tasks and even cope with youtube. Each to their own though :)

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

the people that are buying them truly believe they are a superior product.

It's like Scientology!

[Shorty]

Or they could care about:

Universal application performance

I'm not quite sure what this means. Could you please elaborate?

Hardware choice

Depends on the system. For DIY desktops, maybe. For laptops and all-in-ones, not really because the manufacturer has already chosen what hardware you'll be getting anyway. And the stuff that's generally designed to be user-serviceable like RAM and hard drives is also upgradeable on Macs.

Specific applications (First one to say Bootcamp loses the game!)

Depends on the application. Could you provide an example or two? In terms of general purpose computing, I've yet to find anything other than games that didn't have a Mac equivalent (often Free or Open Source Software).

[Vicious]

My phone can do all of those things (the screen size is smaller, obviously) for less than what a Netbook costs.

Your phone can do 480P video :eek:

(As an aside, the cheapest netbooks are $299 here, from memory.)

True, but everything in Australia is more expensive. The netbook market actually shows promise in its infancy.

With regards to price differences between Australia and the US, there's actually a pretty good reason for this (and I'm not just talking about Macs and PCs here, but rather consumer electronics in general). I was talking to a guy in a camera store a couple of weeks back, and he told me that the reason for the large price differentials between the two countries is because, here in Australia, companies are required by law to provide a warranty with their products, and they factor this warranty (which is, in the US, usually sold separately) into the purchase price of the product.

There's also representation, distribution, taxes, and market condition off the top of my head.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Could you please elaborate?

Multiplatform apps that run better in Windows. Games and Flash immediately come to mind.

Depends on the system. For DIY desktops, maybe. For laptops and all-in-ones, not really because the manufacturer has already chosen what hardware you'll be getting anyway. And the stuff that's generally designed to be user-serviceable like RAM and hard drives is also upgradeable on Macs.


Most laptops still allow you Intel/AMD and nVidia/ATI choice. In terms of desktops I already listed this as a reason I wouldn't buy an Apple.

Depends on the application. Could you provide an example or two? In terms of general purpose computing, I've yet to find anything other than games that didn't have a Mac equivalent (often Free or Open Source Software).

Foobar2000 (closet competitor is Amarra (http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_about.html) . . . at $1500 . . . )
EAC
ffdshow
EncodeHD
dBpoweramp
Virtualdub

You should see where this is going. These may have apps that try to compete on Mac, but when it comes to performance, usability, flexibility, and stability it's like comparing Photoshop to the GIMP.

Of course you could argue these aren't apps for general purpose computing, but considering how often I use them that's irrelevant (I guess I'm not a general purpose user?).

[Shorty]

Multiplatform apps that run better in Windows. Games and Flash immediately come to mind.

Flash is Adobe's problem, since they don't seem to have trouble getting Photoshop to run just as well on both platforms. For games, it depends on the game but I doubt that The Sims 3 would run slower on a Mac with comparable hardware.

Most laptops still allow you Intel/AMD and nVidia/ATI choice. In terms of desktops I already listed this as a reason I wouldn't buy an Apple.

That's still only two choices and in most cases they're still made for you when you purchase the thing. You can usually upgrade your nVidia graphics to better nVidia graphics but rarely can you choose between the two. Same for processors, which are usually Intel and almost always fixed to that brand. This "choice" you're talking about really only exists with DIY desktops like home-built gaming rigs and we already agreed on that point anyway.

Foobar2000 (closet competitor is Amarra (http://www.sonicstudio.com/amarra/amarra_about.html) . . . at $1500 . . . )
EAC
ffdshow
EncodeHD
dBpoweramp
Virtualdub

You should see where this is going. These may have apps that try to compete on Mac, but when it comes to performance, usability, flexibility, and stability it's like comparing Photoshop to the GIMP.

Are you seriously suggesting that a $1500 music player for audiophiles is the only choice or even representative of Mac audio software? Come on, you're better than that. I could find Mac alternatives for every program in that list and a lot of them would be free or open source.

But even if you found a program that you absolutely could not live without that had no Mac alternative, are you really suggesting that the entire platform is a bad choice for anyone other than yourself?

[Vicious]

Flash is Adobe's problem, since they don't seem to have trouble getting Photoshop to run just as well on both platforms. For games, it depends on the game but I doubt that The Sims 3 would run slower on a Mac with comparable hardware.

It doesn't matter if it's Adobe's problem or not. If you're looking for Flash performance it's not found on a Mac, period.

In terms of games I could care less about Sims 3.

I'm thinking more in the line of WoW or FPS games.

That's still only two choices and in most cases they're still made for you when you purchase the thing. You can usually upgrade your nVidia graphics to better nVidia graphics but rarely can you choose between the two. Same for processors, which are usually Intel and almost always fixed to that brand. This "choice" you're talking about really only exists with DIY desktops like home-built gaming rigs and we already agreed on that point anyway.

It's made when I purchase the system, but I can choose what I want when I purchase it. I can't find an AMD or ATI Mac for the love of me . . . see what I'm saying?

Are you seriously suggesting that a $1500 music player for audiophiles is the only choice or even representative of Mac audio software?

No, I'm saying that it's the only thing that compares to Foobar2000 (an audiophile player) on the Mac. If you're happy with iTunes good for you. I on the other hand have over $10K USD worth the audio equipment and value bitperfect playback, avoiding kernel processing, and proper dithering algorithms.

I also think $1500 for the features is a rip-off.

Come on, you're better than that.

Wanting something that has all the features I already get for free . . . ?

I could find Mac alternatives for every program in that list and a lot of them would be free or open source.

I don't believe you could find alternatives that work as well. EAC offers bitperfect secure ripping, ffmpeg is a joke compared to ffdshow, EncodeHD is a batch transcoder that offers multicore support, same for dBpoweramp (that has insane amounts of codec support), and no one can seem to find anything that compares to virtualdub that isn't buggy as hell.

Good luck trying though?

But even if you found a program that you absolutely could not live without that had no Mac alternative, are you really suggesting that the entire platform is a bad choice for anyone other than yourself?

I never suggested this and would hope you're better than putting words in my mouth. After all I believe I said:

Of course you could argue these aren't apps for general purpose computing, but considering how often I use them that's irrelevant (I guess I'm not a general purpose user?).

Nice job selective quoting though.

And let me be clear on this, my original statement was in disagreement with Pauly over why someone may choose PC over Mac besides A) Not having enough money or B) Not caring about the OS.

[Shorty]

It doesn't matter if it's Adobe's problem or not. If you're looking for Flash performance it's not found on a Mac, period.

It does matter if it's Adobe's problem because it removes the possibility of OS X itself being the barrier to better Flash performance, which is why I also mentioned Photoshop. It's proof that Adobe can do better and that they should.

In terms of games I could care less about Sims 3.

I'm thinking more in the line of WoW or FPS games.

WoW seems to be well-supported by Blizzard and runs just fine on Macs (http://www.wowwiki.com/World_of_Warcraft_functionality_on_Macs) (all scripting-based addons will apparently work just fine). I will have to concede the point on other games mostly because there aren't that many games with native Mac versions. EA's been putting some effort into fixing that but Windows is indeed the predominant computer gaming platform.

It's made when I purchase the system, but I can choose what I want when I purchase it. I can't find an AMD or ATI Mac for the love of me . . . see what I'm saying?

If that's important to you then fine, but given that the majority of laptops are Intel/nVidia combos I really don't miss that kind of "choice" when it comes to laptop equipment. To each his own, I guess.

No, I'm saying that it's the only thing that compares to Foobar2000 (an audiophile player) on the Mac. If you're happy with iTunes good for you. I on the other hand have over $10K USD worth the audio equipment and value bitperfect playback, avoiding kernel processing, and proper dithering algorithms.

I also think $1500 for the features is a rip-off.

Wanting something that has all the features I already get for free . . . ?

Turns out you can run foobar2000 on a Mac (http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/simple-way-run-foobar2000-mac-427992/) using a combination of Darwine and CoreAudio. The power of Google, eh? :cool:

I don't believe you could find alternatives that work as well. EAC offers bitperfect secure ripping, ffmpeg is a joke compared to ffdshow, EncodeHD is a batch transcoder that offers multicore support, same for dBpoweramp (that has insane amounts of codec support), and no one can seem to find anything that compares to virtualdub that isn't buggy as hell.

Good luck trying though?

Max, XLD and Firestarter FX are all based on CD Paranoia (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Cdparanoia#Mac_OS.2FX), same as EAC. The Mac versions of VLC (http://www.videolan.org/) and mplayer (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/) are both excellent and will play pretty much anything you throw at them. ffmpeg has its own Mac version (http://www.ffmpegx.com/news.html). Handbrake (http://handbrake.fr/) is a multi-platform, multithreaded video encoder that does batch encoding. dBpoweramp's functionality can be replicated using a combination of the first two. Avidemux has been criticised for its interface (http://www.excelcia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57) but that may have changed since 2007 and in any case it also does a similar job to VirtualDub.

Again, the power of Google. You may have to dig a little deepr, but in the vast majority of cases you can find a perfectly good Mac alternative to a PC program.

I never suggested this and would hope you're better than putting words in my mouth. After all I believe I said:

Nice job selective quoting though.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, so I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy by not accusing me of selective quoting.

And let me be clear on this, my original statement was in disagreement with Pauly over why someone may choose PC over Mac besides A) Not having enough money or B) Not caring about the OS.

I realise that but I also had questions about the criteria you provided. Stuff like "universal application performance" wasn't very clear, so I asked for clarification. The hardware choice we may be able to agree to disagree on, since you prefer having it on principle whereas I don't really care unless I'm specifically building a new gaming rig. For specific applications, Windows has the advantage due to marketshare but I hope I've proven that the Mac development community is vibrant enough to be able to cover all but a handful of cases.

But again, a lot of this stuff comes down to each person's individual situation and personal requirements, so I wouldn't argue against someone's choice if the Mac absolutely couldn't fulfill those requirements.

[Vicious]

It does matter if it's Adobe's problem because it removes the possibility of OS X itself being the barrier to better Flash performance, which is why I also mentioned Photoshop. It's proof that Adobe can do better and that they should.

The problem is we're arguing in practice. Sure it's Adobe, they should do better. If you're goal is performance in a particular application you're going to buy whichever it runs better on regardless of who's fault it is.

Same reason Windows takes so much shit when a buggy apps crashes.

If that's important to you then fine, but given that the majority of laptops are Intel/nVidia combos I really don't miss that kind of "choice" when it comes to laptop equipment. To each his own, I guess.

Currently, but things are constantly changing and ATI does fill in some gaps between nVidia product lines currently.

Turns out you can run foobar2000 on a Mac (http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/simple-way-run-foobar2000-mac-427992/) using a combination of Darwine and CoreAudio. The power of Google, eh? :cool:

That's a VERY recent change that I had no clue about. Thanks for showing me though ;)

Max, XLD and Firestarter FX are all based on CD Paranoia (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.or/index.php?title=Cdparanoia#Mac_OS.2FX), same as EAC.

Err, EAC isn't based on CD Paranoia which is often rated substantially lower than EAC. I suggest you check the list of proggies that use CD Paranoia again . .. and consider reading up on EAC (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC)

CD Paranoia is the next thing best to EAC though.

The Mac versions of VLC (http://www.videolan.org/) and mplayer (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/) are both excellent and will play pretty much anything you throw at them. ffmpeg has its own Mac version (http://www.ffmpegx.com/news.html).

Read what I said ;) . ffmpeg is a joke compared to ffdshow. So it doesn't matter what platform ffmpeg is on.

Handbrake (http://handbrake.fr/) is a multi-platform, multithreaded video encoder that does batch encoding.

I'll give you that. I completely discounted handbrake after they got rid of dvd decryption capability.

dBpoweramp's functionality can be replicated using a combination of the first two.

The first two? Be more specific please . . . either way I dislike the idea of shoehorning it but if it works that good news.

Avidemux has been criticised for its interface (http://www.excelcia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57) but that may have changed since 2007 and in any case it also does a similar job to VirtualDub.

That's not the only criticism it's received. It's had various issues with stability issues in the past too. Whether that's changed with the newer versions I don't know, but the stability, reliability, performance, and UI of virtualdub is already mature and known to work well.

Again, the power of Google. You may have to dig a little deepr, but in the vast majority of cases you can find a perfectly good Mac alternative to a PC program.

It's good to see the development community is trying, but I'd still like them to do a bit better.

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, so I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy by not accusing me of selective quoting.

Fair enough.

I realise that but I also had questions about the criteria you provided. Stuff like "universal application performance" wasn't very clear, so I asked for clarification. The hardware choice we may be able to agree to disagree on, since you prefer having it on principle whereas I don't really care unless I'm specifically building a new gaming rig. For specific applications, Windows has the advantage due to marketshare but I hope I've proven that the Mac development community is vibrant enough to be able to cover all but a handful of cases.

I agree with a lot of this. For most stuff there's a good selection on the Mac . . . that's why a general purpose user probably won't have an issue. The problem is I'm so integrated into using certain apps that are mature it's hard to find stuff that's equal due to the development time the ones on Windows have had.

But again, a lot of this stuff comes down to each person's individual situation and personal requirements, so I wouldn't argue against someone's choice if the Mac absolutely couldn't fulfill those requirements.

This is the point I was trying to make actually. It's like telling an admin that needs Linux 24/7 to run either Vista or OSX when he'll constantly be booting back into Linux to do something else.

For my criteria and usage Mac just isn't close enough. Maybe in a year or two it may. Then again I have little reason to switch due to me having zero issues with Windows in the first place :p

[Shorty]

The problem is we're arguing in practice. Sure it's Adobe, they should do better. If you're goal is performance in a particular application you're going to buy whichever it runs better on regardless of who's fault it is.

Same reason Windows takes so much shit when a buggy apps crashes.

OK, but are the apps we're talking about really the dealbreaker apps if performance isn't as good on Mac? I'm sure people don't choose a computer platform specifically for Flash performance unless they develop in Flash (in which case, if I were Adobe I'd rectify that situation pronto). In any case, unless we're going to examine this problem on a case-by-case basis, I really don't see any merit in the blanket argument of Mac versions of cross-platform software being inferior to the PC version.

Currently, but things are constantly changing and ATI does fill in some gaps between nVidia product lines currently.

Indeed they are. Macbook Pros like mine initially used ATi graphics chipsets until they switched to nVidia, so I wouldn't completely rule out Apple switching back in the future if they felt it were in their interests.

That's a VERY recent change that I had no clue about. Thanks for showing me though ;)

You're welcome.

Err, EAC isn't based on CD Paranoia which is often rated substantially lower than EAC. I suggest you check the list of proggies that use CD Paranoia again . .. and consider reading up on EAC (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=EAC)

CD Paranoia is the next thing best to EAC though.

I'm aware of how EAC works (and that it's not based on CD Paranoia) having used it on PC but my point about there being a Mac equivalent for higher-quality CD ripping still stands, even if performance isn't quite as good. Perhaps if EAC were ported to Mac this would change, but I don't know if the market demand is there yet.

Read what I said ;) . ffmpeg is a joke compared to ffdshow. So it doesn't matter what platform ffmpeg is on.

ffmpegX is a Mac port of ffmpeg, for which ffdshow is the Windows port. Hence, they're comparable because ffmpegX also offers better performance than ffmpeg like ffdshow does.

I'll give you that. I completely discounted handbrake after they got rid of dvd decryption capability.

Fair enough.

The first two? Be more specific please . . . either way I dislike the idea of shoehorning it but if it works that good news.

You actually may not have to, now that I think of it. Max can rip (with CD Paranoia or its own ripper) and convert into a ton of different audio formats so that might also do the job unless you want to convert into something that dBpoweramp covers and Max doesn't. Depends on your needs, though.

That's not the only criticism it's received. It's had various issues with stability issues in the past too. Whether that's changed with the newer versions I don't know, but the stability, reliability, performance, and UI of virtualdub is already mature and known to work well.

And that's great but that doesn't change the fact that a supported Mac equivalent exists and that there is room for it to improve so you can still do what virtualdub does on a Mac.

It's good to see the development community is trying, but I'd still like them to do a bit better.

I would like to think all development communities would be striving towards this goal, too.

I agree with a lot of this. For most stuff there's a good selection on the Mac . . . that's why a general purpose user probably won't have an issue. The problem is I'm so integrated into using certain apps that are mature it's hard to find stuff that's equal due to the development time the ones on Windows have had.

In time, that may change if those apps are ported to the Mac or viable Mac equivalents are created. Until then, this leads into my next point, which I'll explain below:

This is the point I was trying to make actually. It's like telling an admin that needs Linux 24/7 to run either Vista or OSX when he'll constantly be booting back into Linux to do something else.

For my criteria and usage Mac just isn't close enough. Maybe in a year or two it may. Then again I have little reason to switch due to me having zero issues with Windows in the first place :p

If a Mac doesn't suit your needs then you have every right not to buy one. But I do find that a lot of Windows users in discussions like this are dismissive of Macs for reasons that don't really apply anymore and it's kind of annoying for those of us who operate cross-platform. In any case, I hope this discussion has been at least somewhat enlightening in terms of what they can do, these days. :cool:

[Vicious]

ffmpegX is a Mac port of ffmpeg, for which ffdshow is the Windows port. Hence, they're comparable because ffmpegX also offers better performance than ffmpeg like ffdshow does.

Not exactly.

ffdshow has roots in ffmpeg, but serves a largely different purpose. ffmpeg is mostly for encoding and transcoding.

ffdshow is for decoding, post processing, and encoding.

You'll find that a major amount of features found in ffdshow are not found in ffmpeg.

And that's great but that doesn't change the fact that a supported Mac equivalent exists and that there is room for it to improve so you can still do what virtualdub does on a Mac.

Except that virtualdub has features that avidemux doesn't have and vice-versa. But you can also get avidemux on Windows too and hence have the functionality of both at hand.

I would like to think all development communities would be striving towards this goal, too.

I would like to think that, but sometimes I wonder.

If a Mac doesn't suit your needs then you have every right not to buy one. But I do find that a lot of Windows users in discussions like this are dismissive of Macs for reasons that don't really apply anymore and it's kind of annoying for those of us who operate cross-platform. In any case, I hope this discussion has been at least somewhat enlightening in terms of what they can do, these days. :cool:

It has to some extent.

[Fenrir]

Depends on the application. Could you provide an example or two? In terms of general purpose computing, I've yet to find anything other than games that didn't have a Mac equivalent (often Free or Open Source Software).
The PsyQ N64 Compiler. :cool:


(including RSP microcode-based graphics libraries, btw)

Oh, and also AutoCAD. (I'm not sure on the competition, though, but this is just one example of a developer of uber-expensive retail software deciding to drop support for non-Windows platforms)

There are thousands, upon thousands, of obscure apps for specialized purposes, often limited in terms of portability, which exist only on Windows purely because people actually have it. Mac can't really compete with that.
Lots of people have to live with this reality, because it's not just Vicious and his obscure fetish for perfect longitudinal wave replication which qualifies as a special case - we all tend to have professions of some sort, and a lot of them are propped up by unique software. Even if you're lucky enough to have a Mac version of whatever special program you need, getting a Mac is gambling on a stagnant professional future for the next 2 years or so.

That said, hopefully specialized software developers will develop for virtual platforms like the Java SE, or even the .NET Framework when Mono gets big, wherever they can*, in the future, so the OS vendors can stop lauding install base over their competitors. I'm reconsidering whether to refresh my recollection of the Win32 API any time soon, myself, especially I'm developing such a cybercrush for Java.


*Obviously a lot of software systems present with platform- and hardware-dependent problems which can't be solved in a WORA-friendly manner.

It… really doesn't need qualification. I think Windows is shit, therefore I choose to use something better, and I'm willing to pay whatever premium I have to pay for that superiority.
Ah, subjectivity, fair 'nuff. I read this:
I really love how, when making this argument, PC users forget the #1 reason for using a Mac: It's not Windows.
as objective. My bad.

[Vicious]

Oh, and also AutoCAD. (I'm not sure on the competition, though, but this is just one example of a developer of uber-expensive retail software deciding to drop support for non-Windows platforms)


True this.

My dad uses Pro Engineer and Solidworks and they don't have Mac versions either. He uses them both at work and in his free time when thinking up ideas at home.

Other professional apps that come to mind that need Windows are 3dsmax and Softimage (for modeling of course, not cad).

[Shorty]

Not exactly.

ffdshow has roots in ffmpeg, but serves a largely different purpose. ffmpeg is mostly for encoding and transcoding.

ffdshow is for decoding, post processing, and encoding.

You'll find that a major amount of features found in ffdshow are not found in ffmpeg.

I see. In terms of decoding video, apart from the obvious VLC and MPlayer there's also Perian, which has similar function as a "swiss army converter" plugin for QuickTime. But I don't know how deep those settings go. Generally speaking, I'm not inclined to spend much time tweaking settings beyond "OK, it plays? Awesome" so I guess you and I differ in that regard.

Except that virtualdub has features that avidemux doesn't have and vice-versa. But you can also get avidemux on Windows too and hence have the functionality of both at hand.

Sure, but in terms of the original discussion regarding replicating VirtualDub's functionality with Mac software the answer is still yes.

It has to some extent.

Which is encouraging because I would prefer people making a reasoned and informed decision not to purchase a Mac rather to shunning the platform entirely based on half-truths and faulty logic.

There are thousands, upon thousands, of obscure apps for specialized purposes, often limited in terms of portability, which exist only on Windows purely because people actually have it. Mac can't really compete with that.
Lots of people have to live with this reality, because it's not just Vicious and his obscure fetish for perfect longitudinal wave replication which qualifies as a special case - we all tend to have professions of some sort, and a lot of them are propped up by unique software. Even if you're lucky enough to have a Mac version of whatever special program you need, getting a Mac is gambling on a stagnant professional future for the next 2 years or so.

I'm not sure there's really much Apple can do about that, at least in the short term, because a lot of the growth in the Mac userbase from mainstream computer users (ie. people who weren't part of Apple's traditionally strong markets like photo/video editing & DTP) has only come from the last few years when they started making iPods. So they have a massive userbase and a ton of legacy development to compete against and I don't think that'll change overnight. Apple may try to encourage development of equivalent software on the Mac, but that probably won't have much effect until those developers see enough of a market on the Mac to make it worthwhile. Which probably won't happen until there's equivalent software. You get the idea.

[Pauly]

i'd be interested to know if we were talking about the latest version of flash or flash in general? because i haven't used the latest but had to use the previous version for about a year at uni and never had a problem. new version might suck, i dunno.

I agree with a lot of this. For most stuff there's a good selection on the Mac . . . that's why a general purpose user probably won't have an issue. The problem is I'm so integrated into using certain apps that are mature it's hard to find stuff that's equal due to the development time the ones on Windows have had.
to take something you said to me and use it against you (jokingly)...

If the only market Microsoft has is those that want to use a few uncommon, special interest apps, that have mac equivalents (either now or on the horizon), it's a pretty shitty business plan in the long term . . .

now that the tongue in cheek is out of the way, the big thing people like you are missing is that the bridge between windows and mac is much much smaller these days. for 90% of people there really is close to no issue in jumping ship. i was once a windows only person and i refused to use mac computers at uni. but over the span of a couple of years, with os updates and growing developing support, the platform has imo become a much more attractive option for the MAJORITY. yes there are still many who will need or want PC, and that's fine. i honestly don't have a problem with people making that choice. i just think a lot of people don't give apple the credit they are due, and keep arguing what would have been relevant 3-5 years ago.

it's an old debate. it really is only down to preference these days. if you prefer windows, or need it to run a few things that mac just doesn't do at all yet (or well), that's fine. just note that you are in a minority these days. apple following didn't go up for no reason.

[Vicious]

i'd be interested to know if we were talking about the latest version of flash or flash in general? because i haven't used the latest but had to use the previous version for about a year at uni and never had a problem. new version might suck, i dunno.

All versions of Flash suck on OSX. You might have never bothered to check your CPU usage . . . but at a minimum of 45% for a 1.6ghz Core 2 Duo there's some substantial issues. Linux even has it worse.

Vista tends to max out at around 10%, which is quite a difference.

If the only market Microsoft has is those that want to use a few uncommon, special interest apps, that have mac equivalents (either now or on the horizon), it's a pretty shitty business plan in the long term . . .

Swing and . . . miss.

Stormin argued that the primary reason for OSX was to get away from Windows. Windows on the other hand has many markets it can fill thanks to being installable on any OEM machine. The low cost to midrange segment, business segment, the performance segment, etc. Basically any segment that exists MS has a product to fill it. This coupled with consumer choice opens a hell of a lot more doors that Apple could only dream to get in.

To use your own words against you . . . not everyone cares to pay substantially more for something that isn't capable of making the bridge gapless. This combined with the fact that some people value hardware choice are pretty much going to say "no deal".

So just because you "can" switch doesn't mean there is a good reason for you to either.

So in reality, people may skip over OSX due to:

Price
Hardware Selection
Software Necessity
Preference

That's a pretty steep list of requirements to climb don't you think? This doesn't even figure in brand loyalty or FUD about Apple in.

apple following didn't go up for no reason.

True, but there's a reason they haven't taken the market by storm either.

[Pauly]

Swing and . . . miss.
i was echoing your argument on the previous page. it was meant to be as stupid as your comment. i'm glad you agree.

i love these debates though because they really do go in circles for years. it's like religious debates. why can't people just be happy with what they believe in? because we all think we are the bastions of truth and the world should bow down to our opinions.

[Vicious]

i was echoing your argument on the previous page. it was meant to be as stupid as your comment. i'm glad you agree.

*facepalm*

Which comment was stupid and why? I acknowledged that price and preference was a factor, but not the only possible factors which is what you seemed to believe.

On the other hand Stormin believes the "primary" if not only reason to switch to Mac is to get away from Windows. You tell me if that sounds like a remarkably stable business plan for the long term. You know . . . a plan that depends on your competitor never getting any better or gaining capacity to keep and draw customers.

i love these debates though because they really do go in circles for years. it's like religious debates. why can't people just be happy with what they believe in? because we all think we are the bastions of truth and the world should bow down to our opinions.

Yes, because discussing ideas and the current state of the market is just so horrible and completely immeasurable. :rolleyes:

[Pauly]

i never said that price and preference were the only possible factors for every single human being choosing a computer, but rather, the majority. i feel like i have to start putting a disclaimer on every little thing i say now.

If the only market Apple has is those that want to use a non-MS OS it's a pretty shitty business plan in the long term . . .
if i need to explain why this comment is stupid then there isn't much more i can do to help.

in case you still don't understand, this is obviously not the sole business plan for the company. however i think you'll find that it is a good reason to make the switch, especially considering the rather bad reception of vista. hopefully windows 7 can rectify this problem for microsoft.

Yes, because discussing ideas and the current state of the market is just so horrible and completely immeasurable. :rolleyes:
the problem arises in trying to define a clear winner or better product. it's apple and oranges all over.

all things have pros and cons. one man's trash is another man's treasure etc etc. if both companies are still selling machines/software then good on them. who the hell are you to say that people are spending their money the wrong way? (and before you say that you aren't, your elitist attitude comes off like you are)



nothing personal btw vicious, i really like and value your input on this forum. i just don't particularly agree with you here :p

[Vicious]

if i need to explain why this comment is stupid then there isn't much more i can do to help.

in case you still don't understand, this is obviously not the sole business plan for the company.

Do you read?

If the only market Apple has is those that want to use a non-MS OS it's a pretty shitty business plan in the long term . .

There's obviously the ipod and iphone. In the computer market though they are pretty much filling a niche with no particular segment besides "It's not Windows!" which is what this was in reference to.

You're free to list any other segment you think they're targeting though.

however i think you'll find that it is a good reason to make the switch, especially considering the rather bad reception of vista. hopefully windows 7 can rectify this problem for microsoft.

Except Vista wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be and did core improvements that were necessary ages ago.

the problem arises in trying to define a clear winner or better product. it's apple and oranges all over.

No one here is trying to do that.

all things have pros and cons. one man's trash is another man's treasure etc etc. if both companies are still selling machines/software then good on them. who the hell are you to say that people are spending their money the wrong way? (and before you say that you aren't, your elitist attitude comes off like you are)

If you interpret my attitude wrong that's not my fault. I never once said which was superior, but I will say what performs best in certain apps.

nothing personal btw vicious, i really like and value your input on this forum. i just don't particularly agree with you here :p

Nothing personal either, though I admit I can be quite short and blunt. :)

[Shorty]

On the other hand Stormin believes the "primary" if not only reason to switch to Mac is to get away from Windows. You tell me if that sounds like a remarkably stable business plan for the long term. You know . . . a plan that depends on your competitor never getting any better or gaining capacity to keep and draw customers.

I'm not sure that there's even anyone here that genuinely believes that besides Stormin, let alone Apple. I think that Apple has plenty of things on which to sell themselves besides "hey, at least it's not Windows".

[Vindik8or]

My girlfriend has recently used Final Cut, as well as a few Windows alternatives (mostly Sony Vegas & Adobe Premiere) for University. Based on her experiences, and what she's told me of the 3, the Windows alternatives are just as capable as Final Cut, albeit a little different obviously. Premiere, she said, was somewhat similar to Final Cut, but didn't feel quite as user-friendly, though was definitely usable. Sony Vegas on the other hand, was her preferred of the 3. While Final Cut apparently had lots of templates and so on - which Vegas lacked - lots of things in Final Cut were difficult & convoluted, while in Sony Vegas they were a breeze. It also allowed you to create scripts for frequently used tasks too, which made up for the lack of templates. Apparently Final Cut is very closed when it comes to usable formats too - formats it didn't like had to be rendered before inserting them - while Vegas can basically use anything you throw at it. Vegas was also marginally quicker at pretty much everything than Final Cut - on a lesser-specced machine than the Macs they had.

To me it seems that the excuse of buying a Mac for video editing is becoming tired & worn out. Not only is the hardware for a Windows machine cheaper, but so are the video editing suites of the same quality..

Final Cut will always be the better option for the simple fact that Apple own all the Quicktime standards. Everyone else, even Avid, can only approximate them.

[Vicious]

I'm not sure that there's even anyone here that genuinely believes that besides Stormin, let alone Apple. I'm sure that Apple has plenty to sell themselves on besides "hey, at least it's not Windows".

Then what market are they targeting? I have yet to hear anyone but Stormin take a stab at it.

My guess is total system integration . . . which in the long term may open up a new segment. Unfortunately for that to work long term as I see it they would need to stop focusing on closing the gap between Windows and Mac and expand it with true differentiation. The problem is that would take them a step-backwards due to lack of market share . . .

[Pauly]

Do you read?

There's obviously the ipod and iphone.
yes i do read, and i was referring only to their computer market seeing as that is what this thread is about and all.

In the computer market though they are pretty much filling a niche with no particular segment besides "It's not Windows!" which is what this was in reference to.
awesome.

You're free to list any other segment you think they're targeting though.
why should i. you'll always just argue that windows does it better and cheaper, no matter what it is.

Except Vista wasn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be and did core improvements that were necessary ages ago.
really? even my pc using, apple hating friends, think vista is shit. but hey, it is down to preference as i've been saying this whole time.

No one here is trying to do that.
no but you are saying that they are filling no segment in the market. if this is true they must be an inferior product and should be taken off the market immediately for deluding consumers.

If you interpret my attitude wrong that's not my fault. I never once said which was superior, but I will say what performs best in certain apps.
okay well, why aren't we talking about OS stability and security then?

[Shorty]

Then what market are they targeting? I have yet to hear anyone but Stormin take a stab at it.

My guess is total system integration... which in the long term may open up a new segment. Unfortunately for that to work long term as I see it they would need to stop focusing on closing the gap between Windows and Mac and expand it with true differentiation. The problem is that would take them a step-backwards due to lack of market share...

You mean besides their previously-discussed traditionally strong markets?

My guess is home users looking for something that "just works" (yes, I know maintaining security software in Windows is trivial for people like you and I but these aren't people like you and I) and which doesn't have to be the cheapest thing in Best Buy. People who've bought iPods and iPhones and are now going "woah, they make computers too?". These people make up a large portion of Apple's new customers.

They have their work cut out for them simply due to the sheer size of the Windows market but I think they've done a pretty good job in recent years of presenting themselves as a viable alternative to Windows and not just for design professionals. Sure, they do deliberately ignore some markets in favour of others but there's something to be said for playing to your strengths, at least for the time being.

[Vicious]

why should i. you'll always just argue that windows does it better and cheaper, no matter what it is.

Assume much? Do you have a point to make or not?

Also . . . if you read the thread you would note I admitted Mac superiority in film editing and DPT (I'm even the one that brought it up). Apparently some people debate the first fact, but the latter still holds true mostly.

really? even my pc using, apple hating friends, think vista is shit. but hey, it is down to preference as i've been saying this whole time.

I care what your friends think . . . why?

no but you are saying that they are filling no segment in the market. if this is true they must be an inferior product and should be taken off the market immediately for deluding consumers.

They're filling a segment, but the only one that's even been mentioned is the non-Windows one (save DPT). Where is Apple trying to expand beyond this? What are they trying to do to pull users? These are the questions I'm asking.

I also wish you would stop force feeding words down my throat. It's extremely distasteful.

okay well, why aren't we talking about OS stability and security then?

How about "because no one brought it up"? If you're interested in it why not try making it a topic of interest rather than throwing around insults and half-truths?

Since you ask though, I haven't had a BSoD caused by anything but hardware failure in years. As for security they all generally suck as shown by PWN2OWN (http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2009/03/18/pwn2own-2009-day-1---safari-internet-explorer-and-firefox-taken-down-by-four-zero-day-exploits) consistently. Last year none of them could be taken down without using an exploit found in programs . . . not the OS.

Of course there's no helping people that decide to take UAC off, etc.

You mean besides their previously-discussed traditionally strong markets?

Yes. Overall I think we can agree that DPT is relatively small in the grand scheme of who will be Apple's main target long term though.

My guess is home users looking for something that "just works" (yes, I know maintaining security software in Windows is trivial for people like you and I but these aren't people like you and I) and which doesn't have to be the cheapest thing in Best Buy. People who've bought iPods and iPhones and are now going "woah, they make computers too?". These people make up a large portion of Apple's new customers.

See, this is the thing though. The "it just works" movement is spurred by the thought that Windows doesn't. If Windows changes that image it leaves Apple a very interesting challenge. Of course thanks to iPod and iPhone they have brand image and loyalty . . . I would hate to think that marketing is the ultimate decider though. Of course I've seen it happen first hand with other products, so it wouldn't be the first time unfortunately.

It's scary, but I can see how Stormin came to the "it's not Windows" conclusion easily. The sad part is I haven't seen something solid to refute it.

They have their work cut out for them simply due to the sheer size of the Windows market but I think they've done a pretty good job in recent years of presenting themselves as a viable alternative to Windows and not just for design professionals. Sure, they do deliberately ignore some markets in favour of others but there's something to be said for playing to your strengths, at least for the time being.

True, but if it's their strength it's also their greatest weakness to some extent too. Windows is versatile and is found in almost every segment.

[Shorty]

Yes. Overall I think we can agree that DPT is relatively small in the grand scheme of who will be Apple's main target long term though.

Perhaps, but the original point I was making was that Apple have still been rather successful at expanding their user base with people who weren't traditional "Apple customers".

See, this is the thing though. The "it just works" movement is spurred by the thought that Windows doesn't. If Windows changes that image it leaves Apple a very interesting challenge. Of course thanks to iPod and iPhone they have brand image and loyalty... I would hate to think that marketing is the ultimate decider though. Of course I've seen it happen first hand with other products, so it wouldn't be the first time unfortunately.

It's scary, but I can see how Stormin came to the "it's not Windows" conclusion easily. The sad part is I haven't seen something solid to refute it.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. I wouldn't consider "it's not Windows" to be anything other than a pithy one-liner used in lieu of a proper discussion about which operating system best suits a particular user's needs or of which markets Apple would be best in persuing. To take that as a representative argument for why people should consider Mac OS X over Windows greatly misrepresents that side of the argument.

I think we need to be moving this conversation towards the idea that there are two main platforms, one of which is the dominant one (Windows), rather than starting with the assumption that Apple is a deviation from the computing "norm" that is Windows. That is, if the conversation is indeed heading in that direction.

That said, the existence of an entire software industry sector specifically dedicated to alleviating Windows security problems is IMO proof that Windows doesn't "just work" and Apple has been very conscious of that when outlining the strengths of OS X. The phrase "it just works" is meant to represent a combination of OS X's ease of use (which is important for home users, who aren't very computer literate) and relatively better security (much of which is by design rather than the usual argument of "there's not enough users for hackers to be interested"), for which I think there are compelling arguments in Apple's favour. However, I hope that MS are able to fix many of those problems with Windows 7, not just as a Windows user wanting Windows to work better but as competition that will inspire Apple to do better as well.

It depends on how deep you want to go into the discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each OS but the bottom line is that there's a lot more to choosing OS X than "it's not Windows".

True, but if it's their strength it's also their greatest weakness to some extent too. Windows is versatile and is found in almost every segment.

When I talk about Apple "playing to their strengths", I'm talking about the strengths of their own products. Of OS X as an operating system and of their product lines. It was in no way meant to imply that "not being Windows" was a strength for reasons I outlined above.

[Zan]

Final Cut will always be the better option for the simple fact that Apple own all the Quicktime standards. Everyone else, even Avid, can only approximate them.

Can I ask what you mean by this? I've never used Final Cut, but I've been using Vegas regularly for a while now. I'm still fairly new to this, but what do quicktime standards have to do with anything? I've never seen the need to use the file format, nor has it been particularly good when I've tried.

[Vicious]

Perhaps, but the original point I was making was that Apple have still been rather successful at expanding their user base with people who weren't traditional "Apple customers".

True.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. I wouldn't consider "it's not Windows" to be anything other than a pithy one-liner used in lieu of a proper discussion about which operating system best suits a particular user's needs or of which markets Apple would be best in persuing. To take that as a representative argument for why people should consider Mac OS X over Windows greatly misrepresents that side of the argument.

Yet the "it just works" motto is the same. ;)

I think we need to be moving this conversation towards the idea that there are two main platforms, one of which is the dominant one (Windows), rather than starting with the assumption that Apple is a deviation from the computing "norm" that is Windows. That is, if the conversation is indeed heading in that direction.

Okay, we can do that. I'd like to see where you're going with this.

That said, the existence of an entire software industry sector specifically dedicated to alleviating Windows security problems is IMO proof that Windows doesn't "just work" and Apple has been very conscious of that when outlining the strengths of OS X. The phrase "it just works" is meant to represent a combination of OS X's ease of use (which is important for home users, who aren't very computer literate) and relatively better security (much of which is by design rather than the usual argument of "there's not enough users for hackers to be interested"), for which I think there are compelling arguments in Apple's favour.

I agree with that to some extent. You can argue that Apple is more secure by design, but with the inclusion of UAC it's largely irrelevant. A user is pretty much going to have to actively okay the installation of something that's harmful to the computer on either platform without an exploit through another application.

If the PWN2OWN contests are any gauge of security, the security through obscurity remarks still stand. After all in 08' the Mac fell first, while it took days for Vista to finally fall. Considering security is supposed to be Windows biggest flaw for most people the results speak volumes different. Everyone talks about how many holes Windows has, and yet few can actually get to them? I hope you see why I'm a bit skeptical . . .

If we were talking anything pre-Vista I'd agree whole heatedly that security used to be garbage. Arguably the reason we still need security apps is because of FUD, the amount of crap out there that people can DL, and the fact that they download the crap willingly. Beyond this we still need spyware/malware sweeps thanks to security exploits in browsers mostly.

For me the "it just works" motto comes from:

Limited hardware hence better drivers

and

Applications being mostly self-contained (no registry, mucking with the OS folder, adding and removing shared items, etc)

Most crashes of Windows arguably aren't the fault of Windows, agreed? These two explain the biggest deviation between the two when it comes to stability as far as I see.

However, I hope that MS are able to fix many of those problems with Windows 7, not just as a Windows user wanting Windows to work better but as competition that will inspire Apple to do better as well.

W7 is mostly based on Server 2008 though . . . most of the fixes will be minor refinement and UI improvements. I think many people tried Vista the second it came out and since haven't touched it.

It depends on how deep you want to go into the discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each OS but the bottom line is that there's a lot more to choosing OS X than "it's not Windows".

The differences I see are:

UI
*nix based
Closed platform (limited driver crashes and instability)
Program install methodology (programs are self contained)

This of course isn't going into kernel management, performance, apps, etc.

When I talk about Apple "playing to their strengths", I'm talking about the strengths of their own products. Of OS X as an operating system and of their product lines. It was in no way meant to imply that "not being Windows" was a strength for reasons I outlined above.

Some of their strengths though are also cons, for example the closed platform and how programs are installed. The registry is great for Windows performance till it gets screwed from poor installation packages. On the other hand OSX doesn't get a performance boost from self contained packages. The closed platform is great for stability, but bad for choice.



The way I see Apple going about it first is trying to split the market share between the two of them by convincing enough consumers at home that their systems at work are bad in comparison. If enough people change and feel comfortable it'll be less hard to change the systems at a business.

The problem is unless Apple lowers their price and come up with better system leasing agreements expanding into the business segment will be hard if not impossible. MS and OEM manufactures know where the largest amount of profit is to be made and will fight tooth and nail to keep it.

To make an analogy . . . it's like Apple is living on bread and water in hopes of saving up for a feast.

On the other hand it's not surprising that MS fears Linux a lot more. While Apple has a fight thanks to the fact that it actually costs money . . . Linux grows more mainstream by the day. Heaven forbid they settle on a standard kernel, GUI, and allow models for paid software (photoshop for example).

[Pauly]

I care what your friends think . . . why?
oh don't get me wrong, i don't expect you to care much about any opinion but your own, as you have shown so many times here already. i was just trying to add another perspective in saying that there are many windows users that do in fact hate vista (let alone those who don't even use windows). but i understand their opinions aren't as valued as yours.

I also wish you would stop force feeding words down my throat. It's extremely distasteful.
i think i'll use this opportunity to respectfully exit this debate. my participation is just starting to frustrate the both of us and shorty is basically saying everything i want to say anyway. thanks.

[Vindik8or]

Can I ask what you mean by this? I've never used Final Cut, but I've been using Vegas regularly for a while now. I'm still fairly new to this, but what do quicktime standards have to do with anything? I've never seen the need to use the file format, nor has it been particularly good when I've tried.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a proper explanation for this - I've been searching for some info ever since I said what I said. It's been a long time since I've done much of anything with digital video, but it's basically what was told about Final Cut from my lecturers at uni. I will post back if I find something, just come across a promising link now.

EDIT: Alright, as near as I can tell when you're outputting MPEG-2, MPEG-4, or (uncompressed) DV, you are outputting to a Quicktime standard. While any person, program, or company can come up with their own libraries to do access Quicktime, Apple is obviously in a privileged position since it's their own platform.

[StorminNorman]

I've never seen the need to use the file format, nor has it been particularly good when I've tried.

If you've used the MPEG4 container format, then you've used the QuickTime file format. MPEG based the MPEG4 container format on Quicktime, as it is an incredibly well-designed file format.

(Note that I'm just talking about the container format, and not any other aspect of Quicktime here.)

EDIT: Regarding Flash performance, Flash is horrible on any platform it runs on. Even my PC's CPU fan ramps up noticeably when visiting a site with more than one or two flash ads on a single page. *And* it reliably crashes Safari and Firefox every so often, regardless of the OS.

Honestly, if it wasn't for my 200MB/day YouTube addiction, I'd get rid of Flash altogether. (So totally waiting for YouTube to upgrade to HTML5's video tag.)

[Shorty]

(I've again attempted to summarise the various points of this debate into a more cohesive format, so if I miss anything it's not out of any underhanded selective quotation.)

First off, I think "it just works" is a much stronger argument because it's based on an assessment of OS X's strengths (specifically, its ease of use and reliability) compared to Windows rather than simply defining OS X by what it isn't.

On the matter of security (which is an exceedingly complex issue with many variables), I think we can both agree that a sufficiently motivated hacker will be able to break into your system somehow and that either system can present a security risk when improperly configured and improperly used. I find it interesting that you bring up PWN2OWN because it seems that the nature of the exploits were becoming more browser-based rather than direct attempts to gain system access. Which is concerning in general, considering how much services are moving online. While OS X is far less susceptible to things like the RPC attacks on XP that embarrased Microsoft, it seems that both platforms have their own issues when it comes to protecting themselves from browser-based attacks. XP remains the predominant flavour of Windows being used, so I think it's perfectly relevent to bring up the fact that a standard installation of XP ships with quite a few services open (Chad Perrin over at TechRepublic lists 10 services you should turn off in XP (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=354)), whereas OS X ships relatively closed up because it's rightfully considered a Very Bad Idea (OS X disables Remote Login and SSHD access by default).

Perhaps this has changed with Vista and Windows 7, in which case it's good that Microsoft has seemed to have learnt their lesson from the security problems of XP. But until the majority of users have moved on from XP, OS X will retain that security advantage. This doesn't mean Apple can relax, as they really need to work on being more timely with their security updates.

On the matter of expanding into other markets, I think that would be a great idea as long as they could figure out a way to reduce costs without compromising quality. But I also don't think it would be in Apple's best interests to spread themselves too thin and to be honest (like I said, there's something to be said for playing to your strengths), I think they have enough of a battle on their hands trying to make inroads into the home market even with the expansion of mindshare (ie. awareness and popularity) that the iPod, iPhone and iTunes have been able to provide. So we'll see. I think it'll be very interesting to see how it turns out, even if neither of us realistically believe that Apple will ascend to a Microsoft-level of dominance over any market (nor, quite frankly, would we want to).

[Vicious]

First off, I think "it just works" is a much stronger argument because it's based on an assessment of OS X's strengths (specifically, its ease of use and reliability) compared to Windows rather than simply defining OS X by what it isn't.

And yet both are ultimately the same really.

On the matter of security (which is an exceedingly complex issue with many variables), I think we can both agree that a sufficiently motivated hacker will be able to break into your system somehow and that either system can present a security risk when improperly configured and improperly used. I find it interesting that you bring up PWN2OWN because it seems that the nature of the exploits were becoming more browser-based rather than direct attempts to gain system access. Which is concerning in general, considering how much services are moving online.

Exactly. It's silly saying one OS is more secure than the other anymore, because half the time it's no longer the OS that's the issue. The fact is rather than try to break admin credentials the hard way it's just easier to compromise something that's already trusted and go from there.

Perhaps this has changed with Vista and Windows 7, in which case it's good that Microsoft has seemed to have learnt their lesson from the security problems of XP. But until the majority of users have moved on from XP, OS X will retain that security advantage. This doesn't mean Apple can relax, as they really need to work on being more timely with their security updates.

I think it's unfair though discounting Vista and more recent iterations of Windows because some users hug onto FUD. When you go to buy an OEM PC, you're not getting XP anymore. Just like when you go into buy a Mac, you're not getting OSX "Puma" anymore.

So we'll see. I think it'll be very interesting to see how it turns out, even if neither of us realistically believe that Apple will ascend to a Microsoft-level of dominance over any market (nor, quite frankly, would we want to).

Are you suggesting that you want OSX to remain obscure in terms of the larger market, and why?


EDIT: Regarding Flash performance, Flash is horrible on any platform it runs on. Even my PC's CPU fan ramps up noticeably when visiting a site with more than one or two flash ads on a single page. *And* it reliably crashes Safari and Firefox every so often, regardless of the OS.

I agree with this to some extent. The problem is that the performance hit is much more severe on a *nix based platform. I visit crunchyroll (have a paid subscription since they went legal actually), hulu, and a bunch of other sites that require flash for streaming, and offer 480P streams.

My netbook is useless with Linux due to poor flash performance, but with XP I can stream it without an ounce of trouble. Trust me, it's not that I'm happy this difference in performance exists, it just does. I really rather be running eeebuntu, pupeee, or cruncheee. The sooner we get away from Flash or it actually gets fixed the better.

In fact this is probably the largest problem with netbooks. How can they be "net" oriented if they don't work with half of what they're meant to be used for?


---


Also, I'm sorry if anyone felt I was being particularly mean to them. I was running a fever the past few days and didn't notice it which may have led to a shorter temper.

[Pauly]

Are you suggesting that you want OSX to remain obscure in terms of the larger market, and why?
not necessarily OSX but rather Apple in general. the bigger the market share they own, the less competitive they have to be with value for money. and we've already established that it's probably one of their biggest issues. just now there are rumours of upcoming imac price cuts with the next refreshed range. this simply won't happen anymore if apple dominate the market, and everyone wants to save money!

i think we can all agree that competition is always a good thing for the consumer.


edit: in summary, more competition will hopefully see better tech specs, smaller price tags.

[Vicious]

not necessarily OSX but rather Apple in general. the bigger the market share they own, the less competitive they have to be with value for money. and we've already established that it's probably one of their biggest issues. just now there are rumours of upcoming imac price cuts with the next refreshed range. this simply won't happen anymore if apple dominate the market, and everyone wants to save money!

i think we can all agree that competition is always a good thing for the consumer.


edit: in summary, more competition will hopefully see better tech specs, smaller price tags.

Yes, but with larger market prices can also come down as it doesn't take as many high price sales to stay alive. This would also encourage more competition from MS and other OEMs.

I guess it's a circular argument though, because if Apple got a large part of the marketshare at current prices they'd have little incentive to bring them down. On the other hand there's little incentive to bring them down because the current customer base is far to small to sustain them in the computer segment (though ipod line may keep them alive).

This is about the only time I hate economics o_o

[Pauly]

i don't really know much about their revenue but i assumed they were doing fairly well these days (in comparison to say 5+ years ago anyway).

[Vicious]

i don't really know much about their revenue but i assumed they were doing fairly well these days (in comparison to say 5+ years ago anyway).

I think you misunderstood what I said. The problem is their customer base is still only 3.9% worldwide. This means for a price drop to occur they would need the marketshare to increase to sustain the revenue they're currently making. The problem is for the system prices to come down larger quantities need to be ordered, but before that happens they need to ensure these quantities will sell. To ensure they sell they need more customers . . . to get more customers they need to drop the price . . . see where this is going?

Hence it's circular. Arguably if they have enough money they could just buy up the larger quantities, lower the price, and assume they will sell (oh hai Dell! ;) ). However it's not surprising that some companies, especially Apple, would want to be cautious in comparison.

[Pauly]

fair enough. i also thought they had close to 10% market share in computing but i guess i was wrong.

[Vicious]

fair enough. i also thought they had close to 10% market share in computing but i guess i was wrong.

That's true for the US, but for wordwide it's much closer to 4% based off last quarter reports. ;)

[SOX]

Haven't been reading this thread, but I think it's pretty rad that Apple is only charging $29 for an upgrade to Snow Leopard. Sure it doesn't add much new stuff, but $29! Can't complain about that!

[Shorty]

And yet both are ultimately the same really.

Again, not really. If we switch it around and make the argument that you should buy Windows because "it's not Mac OS X", it doesn't make it any less silly.

Exactly. It's silly saying one OS is more secure than the other anymore, because half the time it's no longer the OS that's the issue. The fact is rather than try to break admin credentials the hard way it's just easier to compromise something that's already trusted and go from there.

Possibly, though it does raise the question of exactly how we measure the security of an operating system. It seems like neither of the two have much on the other in terms of their own response to a browser-based security issue, although I think most of that still rests with the browser developers. Again, security's pretty complex when you start getting into it.

I think it's unfair though discounting Vista and more recent iterations of Windows because some users hug onto FUD. When you go to buy an OEM PC, you're not getting XP anymore. Just like when you go into buy a Mac, you're not getting OSX "Puma" anymore.

That's a fair call, I guess. You could argue that OS X vs XP and OS X vs Vista are rather seperate comparisons.

For the record, Apple's user base defintely skews towards the later versions. According to Apple (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/06/16/myths-of-snow-leopard-1-powerpc-support/), it's roughly 37% Leopard, 44% Tiger, which is still supported, and 19% for other versions.

Are you suggesting that you want OSX to remain obscure in terms of the larger market, and why?

Absolutely not, only that I wouldn't want to see Apple become a monopoly in the home market the way Microsoft has. I'd prefer to have them balancing each other out.

[SOX]

Absolutely not, only that I wouldn't want to see Apple become a monopoly in the home market the way Microsoft has. I'd prefer to have them balancing each other out.

Duopoly's work, just look at Coles/Woolworths and Telstra/Optus

[Pai Mel]

Man, the file copy progress bar in Vista/7 is such a cheat. The bar seemingly fills up quickly making you think that it is copying the file at a very quick rate, but then it stays at 99% for a very, very, very long time. I'm thinking the progress bar just indicates the speed in which the file gets buffered to RAM.

[Pai Mel]

Were any of you Mac peeps from the days of OS 9? Imagine having bought quite a collection of games that run in OS 9, and then not being to play them anymore. Luckily for me the only game I ever bought for Mac back then was Deus Ex. I also bought Diablo 2 but the disc is PC/Mac compatible. But I still feel cheated in a way, cause Deux Ex is one classy game and I never got to finish it, nor did it run that well on my then Dual Processor G4 500MHz.

[SOX]

Were any of you Mac peeps from the days of OS 9? Imagine having bought quite a collection of games that run in OS 9, and then not being to play them anymore. Luckily for me the only game I ever bought for Mac back then was Deus Ex. I also bought Diablo 2 but the disc is PC/Mac compatible. But I still feel cheated in a way, cause Deux Ex is one classy game and I never got to finish it, nor did it run that well on my then Dual Processor G4 500MHz.

Yeah I started with the black and white toaster Macs, then got a System 7 Mac, then onto a PowerPC with OS 9 on it, then a PowerPC iMac OS 9.1/10 and am currently on a MacBook Pro with OS X (no 9 cause of Intel processor).
So I like to think I've been through all of the Mac's gaming lifecycle.

From the tennis like game on the toaster
Rebel Assault and Marathon on System 7
the rest of the Marathon Trilogy, Dark Forces, Baldur's Gate 2, Rainbow Six, Future Cop, Diablo 1 and Starcraft on OS 9
Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament on the iMac
and now everything is playable due to dual-boot


Good times (not whenever there was a LAN tho, **** that network incompatibility made me sad :()

EDIT: I'd like to mention I still have most of the games, I especially am proud of the boxed set of Marathon Trilogy.

[StorminNorman]

Were any of you Mac peeps from the days of OS 9?

System 6, actually. My first Mac was a Mac Plus that I bought when my high school was throwing them out for like $50 each. I didn't have a computer at home then, but my teachers kept bugging me to get one because, apparently, it would improve my work. (I later found out that the real reason was that my handwriting was terrible).

I managed to upgrade the Mac Plus so that it had 4MB of RAM and a 20MB (!) HDD. That's pretty much the equivalent of a computer with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB HDD these days.

A friend of mine's Dad ran a DTP business from his home, so their house was full of Macs, from an SE through to several 68040s and PowerPCs. I eventually bought an old Centris 660av off him, which served me through my VCE and early TAFE years. Unfortunately its SCSI controller died on me, so it won't boot of a disc anymore. That computer mostly ran Mac OS 8, because it was a 68040 and couldn't run Mac OS 8.5 or OS9.

Then I got one of the original "icebook" iBooks, and have had a "modern" Mac ever since. I still have a collection of older Macs, including a Quadra 840av (fastest "real" Macintosh ever made), an original beige G3 and an indigo iMac that I bought for $20 with Pro mouse and keyboard from a local op-shop.

As an aside, the beige G3 tower case (Apple called it the "outrigger" case, and used it on the 8600/9600 systems as well) is my favourite computer case of all-time. I have never seen another case that is as easy to get inside.

[Queenie]

Were any of you Mac peeps from the days of OS 9? Imagine having bought quite a collection of games that run in OS 9, and then not being to play them anymore. Luckily for me the only game I ever bought for Mac back then was Deus Ex. I also bought Diablo 2 but the disc is PC/Mac compatible. But I still feel cheated in a way, cause Deux Ex is one classy game and I never got to finish it, nor did it run that well on my then Dual Processor G4 500MHz.

There is one particular game called RUNE. and it is one of the BEST games I have ever played. gore is to the max. It has vikings, and 50 ****ing levels. It's brilliant. If only they would patch it to work on os x.

And on the subject of older macs, my mum's been into macs for ages (apple II) but the oldest one we still have is the one that had dark castle on it (the game, Dark Castle). I'm not going out there and looking though (the shed).

[jons2ann]

Ooooh so much classic Mac talk.

I was an Mac OS7/Macintosh LCII user. I still have it in storage somewhere.
I remember having the Internet using OZemail on the 14.4k modem and using Netscape. 3 hours to down a 3 meg game! :eek:

I started getting back into it a few years back. There's still a community of followers out there. I have been using an emulator called BasiliskII to run OS 6,7,8 whenever I wanted to play games like Test Drive 2, Prince of Persia, Lemmings or Swoop.