Slashdot Mirror
Mac Users May Be Smarter
micah_lanier writes "Thought I would point out an interesting story from news.com. It seems a NetRatings Study concluded that those owning Macs tend to be more experienced with the internet, as well as educated better in general. However, this simply illustrates the fact that Macs are generally bought by those with little trouble paying higher prices, and therefore those who can more easily gain access to higher education (and so on)." Then how do we explain all the people with less education buying premium computers from Compaq and Dell? I think it's just that people with bigger brains like better computers!
Think different. Think el337ism. Don't forget that not too long ago, your entire grade probably used Macs.
~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
Ahem? Won't run 99% of programs out there?
With an ability to run Mac and Windows software under Virtual PC, I'd have to argue that Mac's are capable of running more software (even if using an emulated OS) than any other platform. Hell, on my Mac I rountinely run Win2K on one monitor, and OS X on the other... simultaneously.
I don't know about the Mac users in general, but this report, which is published by a company that receives money support from Apple is the dumbest report ever. Mac users are smarter, but what about Linux users. They are far more smarter than an average Mac user of course. This report is given credit by News.com which is totally biased against Microsoft, but why is it here?
Macs are generally bought by those with little trouble paying higher prices
Didn't you just say that Macs Are Cheaper than PCs?
Prestige: Saying you own a Mac says something about you that saying you own a Dell or a Compaq doesn't. It conveys an artsy, "I like what computers can do but I don't like computers" image. The people who most want to project this image typically travel in more educated social circles (and thus are more likely to have been educated themselves).
Cost: As mentioned in the summary, Macs cost more. I bet if you did a survey that isolated the price of the system instead of the brand, much of the brain gap would disappear. I suspect that those who buy a premium Dell are more intelligent by the usual tests....
Market: Apple has always sold to education and graphic design markets. The education market is, of course, likely to attract a number of well, educated consumers.
Any other "correlation not causation" explanations?
Make cheese not war 8:)
As I recall, the iMac, which could be considered Apple's flagship line, is not exactly aimed at smart experienced internet users, but rather newcomers looking for a simple computer.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
From lowest to highest intelligence:
And the Mac faithful are 58 percent more likely than the overall online population to build their own Web page
So that's where all the "Hi-my-name-is-Jenny-and-I-like-cats" homepages are coming from.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Macs: If you make a computer STUPID people can use, only STUPID people will use it.
;) oh wait. They're not always the smartest either.
I mean besides the music industry
Seriously
The only people I know who have Macs are people in their early 30's who dropped out of school to persue jobs in web design in the mid to late 90's
Guess what? Most of them aren't doing that anymore.
Snoozer.
I recon apples are easier to use than Windows machines. Apple users aren't very good at accounting tho!
I don't think Mac users are smarter or anything else because they use Macs...I think that they are people who are willing to try something different than what the masses use (Windows). If this theory is true, than any person who uses an alternative to Windows is smarter. I really think that people that follow a "herd" mentality are really going through life with blinders on and might not be flexing their intellectual muscle. This might be true in many aspects of life and not just computing.
Mac users are smarter, but what about Linux users.
Then what do you say about the people that use Linux/Mac/AIX/Win32/etc.?
I'll give you the demographic answer to this.
Go to a major university, and go check out the Chemistry, Math, and Communications departments. Biochemists/Microbiologists seem to have a mac fetish, and so do mathmaticians. Commies (communications) use macs because of the graphic design capabilities. A good number of the liberal arts people use macs for both asthetics and ease of use, and so do a good number of the engineers as well as the IT departments. I suspect, however, that the engineering population will use macs a little more with the development of MATLAB for OSX (yay! excuse to burn money on powerbook!)
~A'Ëq'i4d)^'$ÊSÈòB
Anytime you see a "this platform of users is better than that platform of users"...
You don't need syrup for them troll flap jacks, fer the syrup is spilln off the plate and
floatin dem grits.
This Article is an example of what has got to be the most unoriginal troll. Maybe it's even an
example of the oldest/first troll ever posted "my system is better than yours".
pudge, the caffinated coffee is in the orange pot, not the green one.
Funny how OSX is now of a Unix flavor....huh? Often genuis lack common sence.
And so it seems, its not the people who think difrent, but the computer makes you think difrent, wow..
Where can i buy a mac around here ?
Are people smarter because they don't follow the masses, and buy something that suit's them better, or did they get smarter because they had a look to another OS ?
Same goes for Unix-like OSes,...
In case of Mac, I though that Mac's were easier to use than Windows PCs?
I sure find Win WP easier to use than Linux, but far less configurable.
A mainstream OS (like the Windows series) is easier for people because they can buy software anywhere, and know that it's (probably) going to work (more or less). So dumber people can afford Windows, but couldn't afford the complexity of a configurable OS.
Note: I've never used a Mac, so I'm not saying anything against Macs here.
Ideally, we'd have an OS which can be configured easily and fully, but easy to use anyway. Mandrake for one is going that way, IMHO.
-- No signature yet.
If this item had been a comment it would have been moderated as troll and never seen again.
Sig is taking a break!
Now that OSX, a BSD-based OS has been released, more geeks are willing to use the Mac.
The only reason I always hated them was because they had an OS that was actually more full of eye-candy and dumbed-down than Windows, and it was just irritating. The only good part about them was the graphics capabilities... I'm a programmer, not an artist, so why should I care?
Now that the OS has jumped from lower than Windows to right up there with the Linuxes, (I must say congrats to the Mac people), more geeks are willing to use Macs, and they in turn are teaching the non-geeks how to do "cool stuff" on them.
So why get a Mac and not a Debian box or a RedHat box? Some people have always had a secret desire to own a mac, but no good reason to actually do it. Others are enticed by that display at CompUSA with the G4 Mac and that huge flat-screen cinema display... *drools*
"Software is like sex; it's better when it's free." -Linus Torvalds
I think this has to do a lot with the fact that at many universities, Macs have ruled till now. They used to be easier to use and more software was available for them (Especially in Biology). Most Biology graduates will prefer Macs since that is what they used in Grad School, etc.
This is probably just a matter of the market that the study used...
ON
-- Huh?
cheesy macs costs more than whitebox PC
so income of the buyers becomes a factor..
to make a claim like that at least the
source should consider economic factors
that's involved. Heck, using the criteria
they used, obviously workgroup server owners
are much smarter than PC and Mac owners,
and a Cray owner would be the smartest of all..
that's what happens when you have idiot
tech journalists who has more interest in
pushing an agenda rather than report real
news. I'm sure CNut figures they'll get a
whole bunch of pageviews from trolling.
journalistic integrity has hit a new low.
-- I have enough stupid gadgets to know that I can do without -- http://www.modestneeds.org
On the one hand they othen introduce new, exciting features like Window-based UI, microkernels etc. The technology of Apple systems is often very next-century orientated and not orientated at the past like many other systems like MS Windows, Linux or *BSD. The high technological level makes these systems of course more prone to attract academics. And academics can usually pay the ridiculously overrated prices of Apple computers.
On the other hand their high pricing system makes them only attainable for rich people. This is extremly bad for poorer and less smarter people are blocked from the technological highlights of the coming generations by this way. Apple in fact drives the technological divide between poor and rich further than it already is.
Can you imagine some poor souls from 3rd world countries affording apple gadgeds, which cost amounts of money they don't earn over several years ?
No surprise that the educational levels are much lower in these countries.
I think Apple should take the social dues reponsibly an bring out some cheaper systems for the poor and the less intelligent.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Here's an interesting site (cached) that shows all the famous people that use apple computers and/or endorse them. Apple (I think) once used this as a promotion for their products but has since stopped the page (hence the cached version).
Wasn't there some study (Swedish/German/etc.?) about 6 months ago that showed the average Linux users have an IQ that is 15 points higher than the average 'PC' user? Probably just because really stupid people don't use Linux, but still! =P So this is old news...?
-- Black holes are, where God is dividing by zero.
This is the core of this study. This is what it proves.
Macs tend to be more expensive and less...easy to buy for. I am not at all surprised that mac users are more likely to buy stuff on line, that's probably the easiest way to find software and peripherals for a Macintosh.
Something that this article does not mention is that Macs may get better and longer support from Apple so that the Mac user might still be using a machine when it's x86 counterpart has long since become a paperweight. This happens due to any number of reasons.
Simple fact is that there are fewer Mac owners out there, and those who buy Macs are not likely to do it as an uniformed decision. This in turn would tend to indicate a more educated clientele. Combine this with the price point issue, the availability issue, the manufacturer's support issue, and the study makes sense.
If Mac users ARE more educated it is just a function of money.
Payment plans dude! Payment plans...
LFS. Have you built your system today?
The Biologist Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene, River out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker and more) has been an outspoken fan of macs for That very reason. I think he's writted some software for them himself (ai programs that mutate and evolve). Perhaps someone could find out more on this.
This may hold a grain of truth, but it depends on how you look at it. It has generally been my experience that no matter how big or important the company, the Dept Heads and VPs will always prefer a Mac, while those in cubicle land can't wait to get their hands on the latest PC/Unix box. Yeah, they have more education and obviously make a ton more $$ than those on the floor, but often have no idea what the Apple key or menu is for. If a techie doesn't put them in a point-and-click environment, then they are usually lost.
Side Note: I have nothing against Macs, and think they rule in the music and graphics world.
Judging by the grammar of the original poster, I'd venture he's not a Mac user. But of course he is, witness his website, so I must conclude that the post is a mere ego-stroke.
If Macintosh is so great, why do you need a PC emulator?
Anyway, the whole Windows vs. Mac is an argument that doesn't make sense. Both OS's have things they can do, and limitations as well. It really depends on what tasks you need your computer to do. If you want powerful video/audio use a mac, if you want powerful business apps use windows. If you want your computer to crash every five minutes use Windows 98.
CODITO, ERGO SUM: I Code, therefore I am.
ROFL
You're bragging about the fact that to get other OS'es running you have to emulate a PC? Do you need someone to spell it out for you? Surely you don't need to - after all you mac users are more intelligent than us x86 users.
Go on - Shoot yourself in the foot again - very funny.
so u can emulate win2k on your mac... win users can run vpc as well... whoop de doo.
BSD users are smarter than PC users? Of course, we looked down on the PC using sheep at work (and at school).
;)
Now we have damned statistics to prove it, since Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD
I think This sez it all.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Silly article and this coming from a longtime Mac user who has been on the web for 7 years and has a college degree.
In my opinion, college can make you smarter but you don't have to be smart to get a degree. Anybody that's gone to college knows this.
The reason Windows may not fare as well in a study like this is because of the crushing massess that run Windows. The intelligent ones in the Windows camp become marginalized.
Before the posts braying about how Linux/Unix is harder to use so it's users must be more intelligent start coming out remember that intelligence isn't limited to the ability to process and understand scientific/mathematic problems. There's artistic genius but how do you quanitfy something like that?
Besides, the grammar and spelling around here is so bad it sometimes makes my eyes water ;o)
Why is that funny?
Figure that a Mac can run Unix, Windows, and native Mac programs...quite a feat since to run x86 stuff it needs to emulate the processor real-time, and it does without a sweat.
The point he was trying to make is that the Mac has the *capability* to do so, but not that you necessarily have to.
-brain
Hey, you know what, just because of this kind of stuff, I'd rather stick with PCs than go with a Mac. Macs are overpriced. Those with money or think they have money, or don't have the money and still want to be an elitist snob are many of the people who buy Macs (ok, so I'm generalizing, but so is saying that Mac buyers are more educated. Correlation!=Causation - Just because statistically speaking, Mac users have better education, doesn't mean the more education you have, the more likely you are to buy a Mac)
I prefer to think that lower income families choose PCs because they are more affordable, and in the long-term, a better choice because more people in the world us PCs with Windows, and if they are betting their $1000 investment on a computer for their children, they'd choose one that more people use. Buying a Mac is more of a luxury for many people.
It's like buying a car. Would you rather buy a Mercedes/Lexus/name your luxury car, or would you rather buy a Honda/Hyudai/name your regular car? (Damn, I'm gonna catch hell for mentioning these makes like that). The answer is, of course, it depends on what you can afford. Of course we'd all like a better made, better looking, and possibly safer, but certainly more luxurious car, but can we afford it? How will we use it? Will we use it as a utility vehicle, doing all our errands, etc., or will we drive it around to show off?
So it is with the PC and Mac debate. If you want to show off, can afford it (I know, some models of the Macs are lower in price, but in general, PCs are more affordable), you can get a Mac. But for many, less educated people, the PC is a no-brainer.
Oh, also take a look at this
and while we're at it, what's this "may" business? the article doesn't say anything about "may"! :)
-- james
I love macs, and If I could afford one I would buy one. But apparently the person who wrote this article knows very little about data analysis.
What we are seeing here is a correlation among a small select group. Not a cause and effect.
In psychology this is a common error. You see, a correlation just implies that having one might mean having the other. But it doesn't imply one causes the other, or even the two are related.
For example, you could look at the statistics in poor neighbourhoods and discover that they have lower education. Now, a person could say:\
1. They have lower education because they inherently that way (they are poor).
Another:
2. They are poor because they have lower education
And yet a third could say:
3. In these poor neighbourhoods are contaminates like Mercury, Lead, etc. These have been proved to lower IQ scores. They could have lower education because these affect their ability to learn.
Now just using the statistic that lower education in poor neighbourhoods is common leads to three possible reason.
Applying this to the macintosh and smart people issue also leads to possible explanations:
1. People who buy Apples are inherently smarter then the general populous.
2. Apples are better devices for learnign the web and expanding knowledge, therefore the people who own them would have more opportunity to learn.
3. Since more IBMs are owned then Apples, there is more of a chance of having the mean intelligence lower(or possibly higher) for IBMs then Apples. Therefore, this causes the apparent correlation between intelligence and Apples.
As you can see, all three apply. And there are likely many more explanations. Data Analysis is a confusing field, and this explains why so many myths are perpetrated through the populous. It's easy to believe someones explanation offhand for a correlation. It's hard to find out why the correlation exists.
Some food for thought,
~ kjrose
I dislike studies such as these which paint group A as smarter than group B because they use a particular type of appliance (in this case, a computer).
I shudder to think of some Mac fanatics that will use this study to prop up their sense of superiority.
Hey... *I* use a Mac, but I don't lord it over other people like some Badge of Higher Intelligence.
Get a grip, people!
update Those who drive on roads using a Mercedes tend to be better educated and make more money than their cheap car-using counterparts, according to a report from NonsenseResearch. The study also said Mercedes drivers tend to be more car savvy, with more than half having been on road for at least five years. And the Mercedes faithful are 58 percent more likely than the overall driver population to build their own garage and also slightly more likely to tune, according to the report.
"With above-average household income and education levels, the Mercedes population presents a very attractive target for marketers, both online and offline," the research group said.
TS Kelly, director and principal analyst at NonsenseResearch, said that his company decided to publish the study after noticing the differences between the demographics of Mercedes owners compared with overall car owners. Kelly said Mercedes corporation is a client, but he said Mercedes did not commission the study nor was it made aware of the results prior to the report's publication.
Do we really need to do this. Now that people understand Mac's better and Mac people understand PC's do what they do, do we need to draw that line and have the Mac drinking fountain and the PC drinking fountain all over again?
The story was even posted by a troll: Had someone written that in a comment, it would have been modded down to -1 as Troll and Flamebait.
Anyone that has taken stats would have a field day on this post.
extra factors:
1. pc more available (who buys a mac at best buy?)
2. lowend price
ect.
Personally, I believe smarter people are drawn to pcs. I built my own and I like the ability to upgrade. Further more higher education doesn't say anything about intelegence. So on that note, enjoy poking fun at me Mac users, I'll take your G4 down anyday!
I'd like to know the relative intelligence of people who build their own machines compared to those who buy anything off the shelf. And what about people who build Beowulf clusters in their basements so that they can do weather modeling for fun. Are they smarter than Mac users?
Funny, those apple.com/switch comercials sure don't make those mac user seem either incredibly intelligent or unbiased. If apple really wanted us to switch they should show some of these people that are more intelligent in their avertisements.
DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF (responsibly) DRINK DUFF
An what's with the questions on switching? If you can do things on a Mac that PC users can only dream about, then why are all the questions about things that PC users can already do on their PCs? Maybe these things that PC users can only dream about aren't so important?
I know it's not as simple as I've presented, but it still seems very funny to me.
Damn yuppies with their BMWs and dual G4s :(
I already bitched about it in the Macworld thread.
I'm still slummin' in Quadra-land over here
--- Do you believe in the day?
I got it for free, from people that could not do anything with it, internet wise, and went out and bought a $2,400.00 Dell. I had to go over and get the Dell set up and connected for them
I have a bunch of pc's, many with Redhat Linux and Windows on them, but the Mac can talk, so it is a bunch of fun to play with. I even used it to make a little internet start page for use with the various browsers that are installed on it, iCab, MSIE, and Netscape.
- http://www.geocities.com/rapidweather/mac.html
As you can imagine, with Mac OS 7.5.3 installed, making a web page and getting it uploaded is not nearly as easy as it is on a pc running Redhat 7.1, with gnotepad and Opera! (btw, using Linux for that purpose is way easier than using Windows 98 and notepad, imho). So, in review, money is a big factor in getting a late-model Mac, of course. Getting an older one that you got for next-to-nothing to work for you can be as challenging as working with linux. That's where the fun is.Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
Mac users may be smarter than PC users on average, but I'd wager that the smartest computer users of all do not use Macs.
PCs have the advantage of being cheap and plentiful. This obviously places them square in the hands of the common (and generally less educated) folk as the poster correctly points out. But because PCs are cheap, configurable, and use commodity parts they are also perfect for the hobbiest geek. And some of these guys are extremely bright.
Just do a survey of how many people on the Linux kernel (or Apache, *BSD, etc.) mailing list use PCs vs. Macs and stick that on your front page.
I have to say though, I am a Mac user I enjoy using it quite a bit (there, I admitted my bias
I've made an observation that I think may be relevant since I bought my mac.
- I use my Linux PC when I want to tinker. I've noticed that most PC users I know enjoy "messing" with the computer almost as much as doing things with it. Sort of like that old car in the driveway.
- I use my Mac when I just want to do something, and don't want to tinker. Writing a letter, ripping MP3's, burning CDs, surfing the web, etc.
I've also noticed that ultra-busy people with little free time also seem to enjoy using Macs. Not all of the ultra-busy people I know have them, but those that have tried them enjoy them immensely.I think the argument here of which is "better" really is pointless...it's just a different type of machine geared for a different type of person. Not necessarily smarter or dumber. If you don't want to tinker, and you don't have a lot of time--I'd have to say that most people would want a machine that just works and doesn't make a fuss (which the opposite could be true of Linux or Windows).
In summary though, I think people who use desktop computers long enough may come full-circle. Generally, beginners would want a Mac because its easy to learn, and doesn't mess things up as often as a PC. Intermediately, PC is are more appealing because on the surface, it seems it can do more.
But after a long time of using computers, I can personally argue that the simpliest way is usually the better way and I'm back to using a Mac once again. The software argument that a PC has more software is only really true of games. There's a Mac equivalent for almost any PC application out there. I'm not a big gamer, and those which I do play are available on the Mac (which right now is WarCraft III).
-brain
Hmm ...
micah_lanier writes "Thought I would point out an interesting story from news.com. It seems a NetRatings Study concluded that those owning Crays tend to be more experienced with the internet, as well as educated better in general. However, this simply illustrates the fact that Crays are generally bought by those with little trouble being granted multi-million dollar government contracts, and therefore those who more likely posess multiple post-graduate degrees in technical subjects like physics (and so on)." Then how do we explain all the people with less education building beowulf clusters from cheap Compaqs and Dells? I think it's just that people with bigger budgets like better computers!
Best Slashdot comment ever
Mac users may be more socially refined but they know dick about how computer systems work.
Who would you rather have as your System Administrator? A foul mouthed black T-shirt wearing long haired Linux geek that spends 24 hours at his computer, or a cardigan wearing pedantic Mac user who has his butler check his e-mail and brief him on it out on the golf course.
This stuff sure reminded me of Hitler speeches when he said how the Germans were a superior race and all the others needed to be exterminated.
Since when more education = smarter? I don't think that Einstein had much of an education. Actually most people who changed the world never even went to college.
I think insecure and frustrated.
I am a mac user, but i realy do contend with this elitist garbage.
Slashdot has sunken to a new low by posting this one.
stupid, really really stupid
They lack the trouble shooting skills that one gains from running a PC.
-I fear the easter bunny.
You know, I hate to break out the trusty Slashdot insult, but did anyone read the article? Beyond the headline, which is indeed a troll, the article does not claim that Mac users are smarter. Nielsen/NetRatings did a marketing survey of Mac users and found two things: they have more money and they're better educated (not necessarily smarter).
The Nielsen spokesperson admits that there are other factors which contribute to this effect: "Kelly said the greater affluence and education level of those who surf using a Mac is attributable in part to the company's comparatively pricier machines, as well as to their perception as a status symbol and their greater market share among those in the publishing and design industries."
Now, that doesn't look to me like they're lying through statistics, and in fact they have a pretty solid analysis. However, their goal is a market analysis, not a statistical one. They're not interested in the cause, just the demographic, which appeals to advertisers because high-income, higher educated people tend to buy pricier products (Macs!).
If you want to debate whether or not CNet is justified with its wording on the headline ("Are Mac Users Smarter?"), but honestly, magazines and newspapers use such sensational headlines all the time. For that matter, Slashdot has made it worse, already jumping to a conclusion with "Mac Users May Be Smarter", a statement that is no way supported by the article.
[quote]
Mac users are smarter, but what about Linux users. They are far more smarter than an average Mac user of course.
[/quote]
i am a biologist, and many researchers in my group use macs. they are all very smart people. most of them would be perfectly capable of running a linux system. but: they are just not interested.
you are confusing motivation with intelligence.
the greater affluence and education level of those who surf using a Mac is attributable in part to the company's comparatively pricier machines
The average Mac user appears to be better educated and wealthier than their PC counterparts, judging by this survey. However, by the report's own figures, Mac users constitute less than 5 percent of the overall market. That means the total number of well-educated and well-to-do Mac users, when compared with the size of the US market, is extremely small.
Stated another way -- there are many more wealthy and well-educated users currently using PCs than there are Mac users. Let's assume the US has 200 million people who use computers. 5% of 200 million people is 10m, which means there's a maximum of 10m Mac users in the US. Even if 50% of them are well-educated and affluent, that's a max of 5m people. 90% of 200 million is 160m, which means that if only 8% of PC users fit the same criteria for education / $$, you'll have the same number of smart, rich peeps using each type of computer. And if that number's higher, it means that more intelligent, affluent people use PCs than Macs.
If the study really wanted to back up the conclusions they stated in the article, they'd survey users whose educational background and yearly earnings were comparable. Given a large enough survey sampling group, I'm sure they would reach the same conclusion.
There is also the following AMAZING reports who just reached us now:
:)
1. Somehow the fingers on the right hand
of Mac users are less apart from eachother,
which makes them better for scooping sand
to build sandcastles at the beach!
Now why is that ?!
2. Linux users are allergic to new eXPeriences
3. PC users are better at coding VB.NET than Alpha users ?!
4. People who drink and drive tend to die more often
AMAZING DISCOVERIES
As I recall, the iMac, which could be considered Apple's flagship line, is not exactly aimed at smart experienced internet users, but rather newcomers looking for a simple computer.
;)
And there are so many out there, you have to wonder how many are reading slashdot right now. I bought mine because it was cheaper and more compact than a tower. And it was just so darn cute.
My dingo ate your honor student.
Nielsen/NetRatings said that 70.2 percent of Mac users online have a college degree, compared with 54.2 percent of all Web surfers.
This is one of the default bookmarks on the Macs though.
Live web cams
... think they're better drivers, and more knowledgeable about cars, too.
I'm not quite in that tax bracket (yet), so I drive a new Civic, and I use a new PC. Both do the job effectively at about half the price of their esoteric counterparts.
Quick! Someone get funding to study the correlation between computing platforms and penis/breast sizes... I mean, that's where this stupid comparison is really going, isn't it? In 35 scant years of existence I've rarely encountered anyone really smart in one area who didn't pay for it with failings in another. It seems that nature maintains a certain balance that way.
Beisdes, following the same reasoning of this article, you could also say that 403b investors tend on a whole to be more educated than 401k participants. Well, duh!
I guess I'm obviously not a Mac user -- I screwed up a bunch of the figures. 90% of 200 million is 180m, not 160m. And the 8% figure is wrong anyway.......... the revised figure is ~3%. So if slightly less than 3% of the 180m PC owners out there are affluent and well-educated, they'd outnumber the # of comparably situated Mac users.
:) You'd think of that Calc-III triple integration crap would still have done something for my math skills........
Can you tell I haven't had to do much more than basic algebra since I started programming?
Being well educated has nothing to do with being computer savvy.
Go to almost any college or university, and 90% of the professors will be using Macs. Why? Because they may be geniuses of their own subspecialty of a specific area of a particular division of their field, but otherwise they are mostly morons with all the computer sense of pocket lint. Even then Macs are too complicated for them, and they end up asking their secretary dozens of times a day how to perform the same simple actions that have been explained to them countless times before. Well educated? Yes. Computer savvy? Forget it.
Of course this is just based on anecdotal evidence, not any sort of scientific study. Heh...
Why has noone mentioned building/upgrading Mac systems? If Mac's are so much better, why can't I buy parts from multiple vendors?
Uh, I dunno, because you don't know where to look, perhaps?
Why do I have to use parts only from Apple?
Maybe because you're unaware that the only truly
proprietary pieces of Mac hardware left are the
cases and the Mobos?
Unfortunately, there was a time that this was supposed to be possible: Jobs was approached with an offer from Intel to start producing parts for the Mac:
So Intel was going to make hard drives, video
cards, sound cards and RAM for macs too? Sure...
He turned them down, deciding that people could only use his parts. How's that for a monopoly?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I've got a PowerMac G4 sitting across from me with
three Maxtor hard drives in it, A GeForce 4 Ti, a
Soundblaster card and RAM from about three
different vendors. How's that a monopoly?
I'd also like to mention something people always seem to forget: Bill Gates stole the windows idea from Apple, but Apple stole the idea from Xerox, who had developed a fully functioning GUI back in the 70's
And I'd like to mention something you seem to have
forgotten in that lovely story. Apple licensed
the GUI technology from PARC with their full
blessing, as it was languishing unused somewhere.
Gates and Co. Decided to come up with 'doze after
they saw someone else could make it viable. See
the difference?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Everyone else who pointed to that article and said "See? I told you Mac users were all elitist assholes", please line up against the wall to my right.
And someone get me that gun.
Now intelligence is measured by the computer you can afford...
I work in the Graphics Reproduction business (ie the printing industry). I deal with both the Mac computers and the (ab)users of those machines every day. I went to collage for what I do. I run 4 color process printing presses. I also built and maintain the company web/email/firewall/internet-gateway server (using Slackware linux. a shameless plug). I also maintain the local in house network of Mac's, PC's and some high end printing devices.
The graphics repro business is one of Apple's largest consumer markets. The Mac users where I work beyond being educated for the use of Page Maker, Quark, Freehand, Photoshop and a few other applications are just not computer savy. They still can't grok how Mac TCP/IP networking works even after several explainations from me. Even the slightest networking error brings them running to me for help. If it is not set up for them so it is easy to use they cower in fear just like a Windows user. Are Macintosh users better educated? Doubtful. Are they more computer literate? From what I have seen NO. Do they make more money? Not where I work.
One thing I do know however is that users who use Mac's at work are more inclined to use them at home. This really is not much different that a user who uses a PC at work. They are more inclined to have a PC at home because it's what they know.
sparkeyjames
If Sense were common everyone would have it.
But, but, the Unix community is also trusted with 26 - yes, 26 - addition buttons, known as "keys". They have three whole mouse buttons, compared to the other's two and one, giving them the best redundancy and intelligence, but they also have 26 keys to rely on, if all else fails. How about THAT? ;-)
I don't think anyone would argue that you can be smart and not be computer savvy.
So your post is backing up the article, right?
Powerbook G4/1.5GHz 12", Toshiba Satellite 1135-S1554
I'm not debating that the article doesn't have any solid "proof" or "analysis". The presence of the article just seems to try to make a point (troll) rather than of any journalistic merit. But then I forget I'm talking about journalist these days, whose idea of "journalist integrity" is about equal to the meaning of "ethics" to an Enron exec.
-- I have enough stupid gadgets to know that I can do without -- http://www.modestneeds.org
So everyone who uses Solaris is a fscking genius, right?
Powerbook G4/1.5GHz 12", Toshiba Satellite 1135-S1554
Apple is trying to win over the 'dumber' demographic. Evidence: they gave away a Mac on the Price is Right last night.
word.
Mac: 4000
Dell: 1000 (or less)
bit of a difference there. Now why would be more intelligent for buying a Mac?
>>Often genuis lack common sence.
i hope the above was supposed to be a joke, because if it wasn't, well, that just sucks for you.
And, as my Java-guru brother once thoughtfully opined: Mac vs. PC, Sun vs. M$...they're all Borgs with crap for us to purchase.
Vidi, Vici, Veni: I saw, I conquered, I came
Any population that is signified by having done somthing that requires a conscious desicsion comes out with a higher IQ than average. This is mostly a matter of statistics, though the effect may be real it doesn't have to.
As a Mac-user of course I hope it does.
-- Rolf Lindgren, cand.psychol
an argument I had with fellow nerds when I was like 12 years old.
What the article suggests is that PCs and Macs are not evenly distributed through the population. Clearly, Mac owners are more educated because they'd typically be more wealthy considering the markup on Mac hardware. PC's have dominated the lowest end of the home computer market, thus dumbing the curve. If the article polled computer specialists, engineers, scientists and other techinicians, the results would have been considerably different.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Then how do we explain all the people with less education buying premium computers from Compaq and Dell?
Why should they have to explain something you just made up?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I fully believe that Dell's, "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell." advertising compain brought down the collective intelligence of the PC world.
Kind thoughts do not change the world
"I think it's just that people with bigger brains like better computers!"
  Oh, pleeez.. Just shut the hell up.
ôó
Right there, next to where it says "Posted by pudge?" The one with the Alt text that says "It's funny. Laugh." Maybe you all have Mozilla set to only accept images from the originating server out of some obsessive need to avoid advertisements.
;-)
That can be a post next weekend, Ads Make Your Smarter. A study has found that people who are able to ignore online ads have more developed brains than those who need to use software and settings to remove ads from web pages.
Well, I go to a major university, and the only place I've seen macs is in the General Purpose computer labs (open to everyone, in the computer sciance building) and in the design center. Other then that its W32 and UNIX. Lots of Unix in the math department, I was kind of suprised.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Damn before college I was pretty stinkin' smart! PII 400 Mhz 100 Front Bus 64 Megs of ram. Boy did that put a hole in the ole' wallet. Now, despite 4-years of work and the $100,000 towards tuition I must have a brain the size of a peanut!
Well at least I'm not smart enough to realize what I'm missing!
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Listen here, I use Linux, build my own PC's, I'm a college drop out who works in A/C. I am dumb, dumb dumb. But When I go home I use only a Mac. Why, even though Linux is a wonderful server, and is far, far more advanced then OS X (at least on the surface), I don't want to think at all,Mac OS X always works. Those who are spending time NOT thinking about how to make there PC work, are thinking on the next business deal, maybe?. We are the suckers fellow geeks. A working man is a sucker. Don't pat yourselves on the back because you can write your own Perl script, configure tripwire,httpd or squid from your trusty vim, then defend the granduer of KDE or Gnome. Your not smarter but neither are most Mac users, or Windows users. Isn't being happy more important? The really smart have others use computers, and are laying on a beach in Aruba somewhere cashing in there chips. Make Linux, FreeBsd and other OS's truly as stupid, simple as Mac OS, then you are a true genius, because you understand your craft, and understand the people you serve. But alas, fellow geeks, we must keep are tech-jobs, if we made it to easy, we would be out of work. Though I don't use it often and it's not perfect, Webmin got there stuff together.
I think the most telling stat is that over 50% of Mac users have been online for over 5 years. I think this is indicative of one of the problems Apple has. Your average Mac user has owned Macs forever and likely will continue to own a Mac as long as he can find a working one. However, Apple attracts very few new users. "I want to buy a computer" has come to mean "I want to buy an i386 based system." Joe Six-pack buys a Dell, a Gateway, or a generic clone for his kids when they say they want a computer. While he probably knows that something called a Mac exists, it's unlikely there's ever any serious consideration of buying one.
Although the study identifies Macintosh users as a market for upscale goods, I think it ignores the fact that many people choose a Macintosh because they work hard and want a productivity advantage. When I am on a computer eight or more hours a day, I will pay extra for equipment that is a joy to use. This would not be a factor for a casual PC user who will put up with discomfort if the price is right.
I forego automobile ownership and a lot of other consumer goods rather than work on a junky computer. I am writing this from a G4 computer running OS X 10.1.5, my fifth Macintosh. It is wonderful for writing Perl scripts to run servers, MySQL database management, web design, and producing documentation for my products.
I wonder about the significance of Macintosh users being more highly educated as well. I work at a university and my personal experience is that the majority of highly educated people buy PC's for the same wrong reasons as everyone else because computers are outside their area of expertise. The only difference that I see is that they tend to use a better vocabulary when commiserating with each other about Klez, crashing, etc.
More games are available for Windoze than Macintosh. According to this, the discrepancy between user's intelligence makes perfect sense.
It's just a study, guys.
-braxton
Go to almost any college or university, and 90% of the professors will be using Macs. Why? Because they may be geniuses of their own subspecialty of a specific area of a particular division of their field, but otherwise they are mostly morons with all the computer sense of pocket lint.
Go to any internet site, and 90% of the statistics spouted are idiotic fantasies based on nothing.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Most Mac users I've met fall in the category of superficially computer literate people: to most of their friends and relatives they appear computer savy because they don't seem intimidated by computers and know most of the lingo, when in fact they gravitate to the Mac because it has a reputation of simplicity and because they do tend to be intimidated by most other platforms. I've also noticed that Macs tend to be prefered by the aesthetically inclined: the sort of people that have a spotless home with lots of art on the walls and an inkling for sophisticated personal appearance. A Mac is simply artsier than most other platforms.
If you were to really make any generalizations regarding the intelligence of a certain platform's users, I think traditional Unix in general tends to be the hands down winner. The knowledge and memory required for just average productivity tend to be much higher than for most other platforms, and the arcane nature of accomplishing many tasks requires the sort of tenacity and persistence that only true conviction can provide.
Please, can we put this tired old lie to rest?
Macs do not cost more than other brands for what you get. They actually cost less, and there's good reason for it.
First off, every PC maker, inclduing Apple, uses standardized commodity parts. The only question, or form of differentiation, is quality. You can buy a really cheap power supply and get random BSODs like you get with many PC makers, or you can buy quality power supplies that don't die on you or cause over and under voltage- like you get with IBM (IBM Made) and Apple computers. (And I'm sure *some* dells and compaqs but certainly not the "cheap" PCs that people are always claiming are typical for cost comparisons.
For other parts, such as PCI controller chips, Firewire, USB, memory, etc, they are pretty complicated and you have to buy form only a small number of vendors - you cannot cut cost by buying low quality, but the volumes of them make them not too expensive. Which is why PC motherboards go for $100-$200, while the processor may be more than twice as much. There's a lot of work in the silicon of them otherboard-- it is only volume that makes this disparity possible- the controller chips are commoditized but the processor isn't.
So, other than the Processor, Case and Power Supply Macs use essentially the same components as a PC from a quality vendor.
Now, I addressed the power supplies- lets talk about Cases. Yes, Apple pays probably more on average than most PC vendors for cases. But these cases are plastic. We're talking $5-20 a unit, not $50-$200.
Thirdly, processor. Apple pays FAR LESS for their processors than any PC Vendor for a comperable processor.
First off, lets point out that there are no comperable processors-- a G4 is the fastest processor on the market. Which brings us to another myth- processor clockrate is its speed. The clock rate is not its speed. (I got moderated "1 Overrated +2 insightful -1 flamebait" for pointing this out before.)
A G4 Processor, being a risc chip, has far less complicated instructions to break down. The pentium, which is a combination RISC and CISC processor is extremely complicated in its design.
Instructiosn go to one of two processors on the same die-- a 386 compatibility, and a RISC one. The problem occurs in that this parallelization causes out of order instruction execution... because some instructions take longer to execute than others. CISC instructions take many stages (And thus, many clock cycles) to execute. That's why a 2GHz pentium has, maybe, 250MIPS, while a G4 running at 1GHz (a pure risc processor) will have 1000 mips- an instruction finishes every clock cyle.
Also these processors are super scalar- meaning that they have many execution units. This means that a G4 may well actually produce 4000 MIPS at 1GHz because on average, every clock cycle, 4 instructions are finished. The pentium, may well produce 1000 MIPS in this same way.
But notice that the pentium has to have 8 pipelines for that 4 times increase because its got both the RISC procesor and hte 386 compatibility processor to deal with. The simpler PowerPC just duplicates its execution units.
Then there's the branch prediction issue. Since there are mutliple execution units they may well execute code out of order-- while a slower instruction is being processed, other instructions are executed to keep the processor busy, and when some of those instructions are on the other side of a conditional jump, the processors speculativly executes them. If it turns out that jump wasn't to be made, it has to flush the pipeline and start over.
The G4 has a much shorter pipeline than the Pentium, and thus when this happens it incurs much less overhead and hassle having to refil the pipeline.
So, in the end all these issues (and it really boils down to backwards compatibility for intel keeping it down) mean that the PowerPC is a much simpler, yet much faster processor.
And this means costs-- first in the size of the processors die. If you have a processor with a smaller die you get far more dies to a wafer and exponentially better pricing.
Secondly this addresses cost when comparing computer's prices you have to take performance into a ccount, toherwise, a 286 for $100 is a "Better deal" than a new computer for $1000. And I didn't even go into the vastly superior floating point unit on the PowerPC-- which makes the disparity even worse.
So, Apple gets its processors from Motorola or IBM for a lot less money, its parts from the same suppliers Dell, et. al. do and spends more on cases, but in the end is able to sell computers for LESS MONEY and make MORE PROFIT.
The problem is that its hard to quantify the performance of a computer. So people invariably lie when they compare Apples to Oranges. They pick a really cheap PC from a fly by night company (such as a low end dell) with a crappy power supply, and compare it to a high quality Macintosh with a much faster processor and point out that the mac is overpriced. And to add insult to insult, they claim that the Mac is even a slower computer becuase its clockrate is lower!
If you still buy that myth, look at this quote from: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,361877,00.asp
"Intel claims its 1GHz Itanium 2 offers up to twice the performance of its 800MHz predecessor, which has suffered from poor sales since its release in May 2001."
Do you really think an Itanium is slower than a Pentium??? After all , the Itanium runs at 1GHz and the pentium runs at 2!
Or how about this-- how could a 1Ghz processor be twice as fast as a 800MHz one? Think intel is lying, that this is impossible?
This basic myth (and the bogus comparisons of price that come from it) is at the root of the "Macs are more expensive" myth.
At first I addressed this issue by grabbing comparisons fro mthe most recent dell flyer and the apple vendors, but those were ignored. Here's a quicky, the IBM intellistation ProE with 2GHz P4 is $1639, compare that to a PowerMac at $1599 and you see that you get a better video card (3d vs 2d), the same Hard drive (literally, I bet) same memory, CDRW instead of CD, and a MUCH better case with the Mac for $100 less.
But that's pointless to tell people- they will ignore it, as the PC comes with Windows, for instnace. Is that worth $100? not when the alternative is OS X. Etc. etc. and people will quibble over the tiniest spec differences, such as a faster bus (that is half as wide) and stuff like that. The PC world is clearly optimized for numbers that give the sheen of performance insteaf of actual perfomance-- like Intel processors with twice the clock rate but half the bus size (meaning zero performance improvement but doubled perception.) A great example of this is the fact that Apple uses slower Ram, but has a wider RAM path. People ignore that all the time.
But my point is not to quibble on these things but to make the broader point: MACS ARE NOT MORE EXPENSIVE.
When you have th choice of a much better looking computer, more ergonomic, uses OS X uses a REAL Gui, uses better peripherals, and is more expandible, not to mention better performance, it isn't really a choice at all. If you value those things, the Mac is worth twice the price-- but that doesn't mean it IS twice the price. IF you don't value those things, or detest some of them, the mac isn't worth half the price-- but that doesn't mean you can compare it at half the value with some other machine and call it twice as expensive.
What it really comes down to is what the value is to you. If you enjoy fscking with your hardware, tracking down faulty power supplies, then you get lot more enjoyment out of a machine that you can obsess over for 3 months which motherboard to upgrade it with.
If you'd prefer to go 3 years with a fast machine performing well and not having to mess with the hardware, then you'll value a machine that lets you do that.
But the economics of the situation dictate that there is NO price premium between the two-- and in fact, given the illegal stranglehold over the industry that Microsoft has, Apple has to be better AND cheaper in order to compete. And they are.
You don't value the MAc OS, fine, don't buy it. But STOP telling other people that it is overpriced. Stop spreading your preferences as a bigotry and driving people who would rather have a computer that "just works" away from the platform.
There is such a history of this kind of bullshit bigotry that many first time users get a Windows box and are screwed from then on because tehy got talked out of a mac. If you want Microsoft to go away, talk them into a mac. When they are technically proficient, then maybe talk them into a harder to use but infinitely configurable alternative like Linux on the x86.,
Look at it this way-- every Mac sold is a lost windows sale and another person using open source Unix.
But every one of you who tells a relative or someone who believes you that Macs are more expensive is doing them a disservice, and yourself as well. They are not, they cannot be, and they never will be... After all, when you're fighting a market share battle and you have a magic weapon that lets you sell a better computer for less money and make more money doing so per unit, wouldn't you do it? Apple isn't stupid.
OSX, the PowerPC and good designers are that magic weapon for apple.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
But most people stick with the defaults most of the time
It dosn't tell us for sure that it was designed on a mac or a PC, but just a little evidence for the mac side.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
There are 3 types of lies in the world
Lies, Damned lies and statistics.
Today's Penny Arcade comic pretty much sums up this argument.
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
Computers make most people feel stupid. Most of the advertising that is created for Macintosh says that Macs are easier to use, more powerful, etc. Highly educated people have a particular aversion to feeling (or seeming) dumb. Therefore, when the highly educated person needs a computer, he/she minimizes his/her risk of feeling/seeming dumb by purchasing a mac for its supposed power and ease of use.
As a poster above noted, owning a mac has a certain prestige. It's the same kind of prestige that drives people to brag that they can't program their VCR. It embodies all that is hip and sexy about computers without the nerdy, confusing aspects that so many people (slashdot readers excluded) strive to avoid.
Amazing magic tricks
good argument
The reason they "seem" to be smarter is that they use a no-brainer type computer to save their brain cells.
KOS-MOS
the fastest and most powerful computer in the world is an nec. and is owned by the japanese. therefore the smartest of all is a japanese person.
This is another common myth. People seem to think Apple had never heard of a second button mouse when they invented the macintosh.
IIRC the original Engerbert mouse had two buttons, but certainly the idea of putting mutple buttons on the mouse was evaluated by apple.
What they found in usability testing is that it slows people down-- significantly. It slows everyone down, power user and newbie alike.
But, like the command line, you don't think its slowing you down becuse you're working with subjective time and hte apple tests were using objective time.
Its subjectively faster to right mouse on something and get a popup than go to the menu and select what you wanted. but having to remember which button to use (which you're certain you don't but you actually do) slows you down *all* the time.
I use a three button trackball, but the I only use the second and third buttons in quake. The wheel works great and doesn't break the interface.. but the second button does and while I'll sometimes use it, I recognize that it is a convenience....so conciously its a one button mouse to me.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
For all Macs superiority, why do they not exceed PC's when it comes to accomplishing the same tasks quicker.
Bring the top of the line Mac, keep the reciept. I'll build a PC for the same price that'll outperform it.
I agree with you clock speed means nothing, AMD proved that. Let's go by benchmarks instead. Let me know what you think.
If you were to poll the population of IQ 120 and higher for what computer they use, you'd invariably find that 90% use PCs and 10% use Macs. From which we can then conclude that the PC is the choice of the smart person - 9 out of 10.
And while we're at it, we can postulate that a commonly accepted higher incidence of insanity at higher IQs leads to the somewhat higher purchase ratio of Macs in that segment of the population. :-)
I personally believe Macs would have a much higher purchase rate in the lower IQ segment if they were comparable to PCs in price and performance.
Okay, let's divide people into two classes: smart and dumb. Now, we go out and look and discover that smarter people are statistically more likely to own a Mac than dumber people, or equivalently that Mac owners are generally smarter than PC owners, on the average. Does this mean that owning a Mac is smarter? Certainly not.
In fact, these data give us very little information. Let me explain the scenario I've got in mind and you'll see why:
- Anyone who's dumb will probably buy a PC because that's the easiest choice to make.
- Anyone who's smart has a higher probability of ignoring the "easy choice," and instead selecting a computer which best fits their needs.
- Macs are better for some people's needs, PCs for others.
- Thus, smart people whose needs are better served by Macs will be more likely to realize this and buy a Mac than dumb people whose needs would also be best served by a Mac.
With this reading of the data, it becomes apparent that choosing a Mac is not necessarily the "better, smarter" choice for everyone. It might still be the case that maybe only 25% of people would be best served by a Mac. It's just that the dumb people are more likely to choose a PC, so their Mac-usage statistics are artificially low.I'm not saying this is exactly how it works, but it does sound fairly plausible to me. To be sure, the situation is more complex than what I have described. But it's also more complex than "Mac users are smarter, so using a Mac is smarter."
My deviantArt site
right you are sir. I must have left it out by mistake. I even pronounce it "3d smax"
I think that many *existing* Mac users are less likely to be newbies. Apple's market share has stayed relatively the same in absolute numbers, yet PC usage has increased. That means that the average Mac user will be slightly more experienced than the average PC user.
Thus, it is not some overall brilliance, but a symptom of lack of Apple's growth. That survey is simply finding more "old hats".
At least that is one theory.
Table-ized A.I.
MacOS was designed to allow the computer illiterate to use computers. People that couldn't register in theire brains "don't take the floppy out before the red light goes off" were the types that MacOS was designed for. Hardly a sign of the intellectual elite here.
I work with hundreds of mac users on a daily basis. They're all a bunch of artsy fartsy types, but none appear "smarter". Matter of fact, a good number of the appear to suffer from a personality disorder of some type or need to be tested for signs of brain activity.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
What's a mouse? My keyboard has 104 buttons!
This makes me wonder about Apple's strategy.... Were this story true, it would seem to conflict with the approach to sell Macs to new and inexperienced internet users. The old concept that Macs were best for people who couldn't handle the technical stuff...
Come play Moral Decay!
Well, then how come they can only handle one mouse button?
Look, the argument isn't wether or not Macs cost more to build it's about wether or not they cost more to buy. Apple makes a huge profit off each unit. For example:
Thirdly, processor. Apple pays FAR LESS for their processors than any PC Vendor for a comperable processor.
Right, that's because they are cheap and shitty.
Dispite all your hand waving, when you get right down to it, a Gateway 2ghz PC with a CDRW and all that AND a 19 inch monitor costs just $999. A 800mhz (that's 2.5 times as slow of a clock speed) Mac with no monitor costs $1500. What diffrence does it make how much apple paid for their USB ports or the hard drive? $999 is less money then $1500.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It seems a NetRatings Study concluded that those owning Macs tend to be more experienced with the internet, as well as educated better in general.
Some of thems guys, they reads real good too.
> If you want to debate whether or not CNet is
> justified with its wording on the headline ("Are
> Mac Users Smarter?"), but honestly, magazines
> and newspapers use such sensational headlines
> all the time. For that matter, Slashdot has made
> it worse, already jumping to a conclusion with
> "Mac Users May Be Smarter", a statement that is
> no way supported by the article.
Wow, someone actually read the article. You don't see that very often on Slashdot!
The title is a troll, but the article makes sense. They say that Mac users tend to be more affluent, have higher levels of education, and in general be more attractive marketing targets for premium products/services. This isn't to say Mac users are smarter; as a demographic, they're more attractive if you're trying to sell a premium product.
What this means is, in general, if you're planning on developing a web marketing plan for a product like Mercedes, Krupps, Williams Sonoma, or any other "premium-like product", you are likely to have better success if you target your ads to a web site that has a lot of Mac users. Or, if you work at Nordstrom, it would be a good idea to make sure your web site is friendly to Mac users (take the time to make sure it works for Macintosh browsers). If you're running a web site for Walmart, this might not be as important.
That's all it's saying. It's a sleazy marketing thing, not a Mensa-entry requirement.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Ok, for one, that 800 mhz would blow the pants off that 2 Ghz any day of the week. You obviously A) do not know your RISC vs CISC, and 2) Didn't read the above post, at all, where he explains it quite well. If you wanted a machine that could match a 800Mhz G4, you are looking more at 2.5 or even 3 Ghz on an intel. Then add in a firewire card and try comparing your prices.
Let's start with a base of 1000 users.
5% of them are Apple users.
50 people
Out of that 5%, 70% of them have college degrees.
35 people.
Out of the same 1000 people, 89.4% are PC users
894 people.
Out of that 89.4%, 54.2% of them have college degrees.
484 people.
Let's see.
50 Mac users
894 PC users
35 Mac users with college degrees
484 PC users with college degrees
Higher percentages of college education in a smaller group != a smarter group.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
get a clue, p3 and k7+ shit is all risc.
...we are smarter than the average windoze user.
Now, we're not as smart as *nix people, but we have better skin.
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
The greatest irony of this study is that (I'm pretty sure) Steve Jobs dropped out of college, and only makes $1 per year off Apple...
I guess he'd get tagged as an outlier.
'cause in the seeds of every newbie is an Apple tree with a fine *nix root, you just have to cultivate it as a seedling. Alas it grows into a weed-dows plant similar to kudzu
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Everyone knows the smartest users are still on their Symbolics Lisp machines...
That is all.
The difference is in resale value. In 3 years, the gateway will be worth exactly nil (Except for maybe the monitor), and the mac will be worth $750+.
Cost of the Mac over three years: $750. Cost of the PC: $999. $750 is less money then $999.
Mac users couldn't configure a UNIX or even NT machine if their life depended on it. Macs are for people who don't know how computers work and don't want to know. That has always been their market and it'll continue to be their market.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing how computers work; personally I have no idea how a car engine works and I'm not interested in learning. That's why I drive a Toyota: it's reliable and if it breaks I can have it fixed quicky by people who know how to.
But I'm not going to say I know more about cars than Michael Schumacher or Colin McRae just because their cars break down more often than mine and because they spends a long time tuning and upgrading them.
Macs are like Toyotas. Reliable but bland. People who enjoy using computers (and not just "doing things" with them) will always prefer PCs.
And people who use PCs don't feel so insecure about their choice that they have to keep saying how superior they are. I use a PC because I like to, not because other people do. Most PC users couldn't care less about what Mac users (or even other PC users) think.
So if you think your Mac is great, good for you. Now please shut up and do something useful instead of going on an on about how great your Mac is and how intelligent you are and how stupid everyone else is.
Also, you may be interested in some penis-enlargement pills to add a new dimension (ha-ha) to your life.
I know I'm going to be modded down as a troll, because despite being terribly intelligent and sexy and all that, Mac zealots spend their days sitting in front of their computer karma whoring and modding down posts on Slashdot insted of actually living their lives.
But you know what? You usually get what you deserve.
As for being familiar with tech, there's a profound difference between the MS and Apple help systems.
Apple's help systems are exemplified by Apple Help. You want to do foo? The system will show you how to do bar.1, bar.2, bar.3, and the other steps to accomplish foo. After finishing, you understand what happened and how in the future to accomplish foo, perhaps with custom changes.
OTOH, MS's help systems are based around wizards. You want to do foo? You can have a wizard do foo for you, but you have no idea about how to do bar.1, bar.2, bar.3, etc. You just know how to choose from a list of preselected tasks. If you had to perform a variant of one of these tasks after years of using the wizard, you'd still have no idea what to do.
The Apple/MS dichotomy is something like the "give a man a fish" truism. If you perform a computing task for a user, you help him for the minute. If you *teach* a user how to perform a computing task, you help him for the rest of his life.
May we never see th
Inquiring minds want to know.
May we never see th
If the G4 is such a powerhouse, then why is OS X so fucking slow? Let's get real, Mac hardware and Mac software goes hand in hand. The G4 may be great, but if OS X doesn't use it properly it's all wasted.
You claim that a 800mhz Mac can compete with a 2ghz Intel, but in my experience that is plain not true. The Wintel running Windows 2000 is far faster, while OS X pokes along even on upper-end Mac hardware. Keep in mind that you can buy the 2ghz Wintel for less than the 800mhz Mac and it's a double whammy, slower and more expensive.
One item I'd like to add is that there are many Mac "hobbyists out there that like to tinker and experiment with their systems, and an array of web sites supporting them. I put myself in that category, as in addition to knowing I have reliable Mac system that'll last 3 years or more, I also like to keep them up-to-date without buying a new system. My G3s occurred by purchasing and installing (1 minute) G3 upgrades to surplus 8600 systems I bought for $150 long ago. The upgrade was $200 and I overclocked it to 333 MHz. and if had 1MB cache so the slower disk and bus speeds were hidden. Photoshop on my G3s and G4 runs better than on any of my PCs, and exploiting ALTIVEC for scientific floating point calculations, as per NASA Engineer, Craig Hunter can reach 681 MFLOPS
My 1.6GB G4 cost $700 (eBay helped). I plan to update my Linux/Windows laptop next week to a G4 Powerbook for many of the same reasons you cite. Thus, although I don't consider myself a "guru", I feel confident that anyone with a Mac and the plethora of web info can experiment and "tinker" to upgrade CPUs, CDRW, video, SDRAM, and even run OS/X on 8600s upgraded to G3s, just as I have done.
Thus, even in the 5%, there's a large community of MAC "tinkerers" who can probably hold their own (and find much in common) with their PC comrades who like to "mess with their system" and not just fix power supplies.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Stated another way -- there are many more wealthy and well-educated users currently using PCs than there are Mac users
So what? More email message I get these days come from spammers than friends, but you don't see me associating with those assholes either.
Troll or Funny? You make the call. :-)
And you all are actually fighting about this because....? I am finding it very hard to believe that all of these people are actually commenting about who is smarter based on what sort of computer or OS you have. Who really cares? Any idiot can use a computer, which is evident by many of the posts your read on this site. The truth about who is smarter will come out when the challenge is based on something important, like survival in our current society...not who can use what computer...not which computer is fastest or cutest. Sad sad sad....what a strange thing to get all worked up about.
Mac : $4000 for the top of the line, high-end machine Dell : $1000 or less for a bare bones system. Compare like systems, though, and the gap closes significantly. That being said, Macs cost slightly more initially, pound for pound. No one is arguing that Apple is not a premium brand in the computing world.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
The reason you would want a PC emulator on the Mac has nothing to do with the quality of the operating system, it has to do with the number of software titles avaliable, and that a lot of custom software is designed for Windows. I have used Mac OS X and XP extensively, and I can honestly say I feel that OS X as an operating system is on par or superior in every way. But, I still own an PC with Windows and Linux, and plan to keep it that way, because a lot of software I use is only available for Windows.
slashdot!=valid HTML
Right, but do you really want a computer that causes people to take a sledgehammer to it in public places? In case you've forgotten about this, you might want to refresh your memory.
Patrick
Not sure if this was directed my comment or the parent, but we agree on the point that both are inferior.
I will comment however, that it seems a PPC processer handles x86 emulation smoother than the reverse. My old G3-500 iMac ran Windows 2000 well--not great--but well. On the other hand, using Mac-On-Linux hardly performed the same on my old Athlon 700.
Granted this could be because infinite reasons (better emulation code, etc.) but it seems that PPC--having the more effecient design of the two would do this better, unsurprisingly.
-brain
Every single OS and platform has it's zealots. In my opinion there are three main kinds of users. Users, Proud Users, and Zealots. Users just use the computer and don't really care what it is. Proud users exist for most platforms, and they will promote their favored system, but not care in a real negative fasion what others are using. That cateogory makes up a large portion of Mac, Linux, and other "alternative" platforms. Now, EVERY OS has it's zealots. They will put down everyone. This includes Windows, Mac, and clearly linux. And it's my experience that there are far more zealots then there are proud users among all the platforms. The only OS that I would say has almost no proud users would be Windows. Seriously, when's the last time you met a Windows user that loves to use Windows and doesn't put down Mac/Linux/etc?
$999 is less money then $1500.
Yes, and ten-plus days a year of frustration and lost productivity dealing with a poorly integrated system is more than no days of lost productivity. How much is your time and peace-of-mind worth?
-- thinkyhead software and media
Linux is sort of similar to Mac in that respect. While lacking in wizards, most distributions come with a large collection of manpages and HOWTO files. The problem with Linux, however, is in finding which man page or HOWTO to read, and which part of it to read. I think that in trying to solve linux's user-friendliness problem we should be looking at Apple's help system rather than Microsoft's wizard system. What we need for Linux is a way of indexing and searching the manpages, README, and HOWTO files in a friendly, context-sensitive way.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. I have the aforementioned "upper-end Mac hardware" (dual 800MHz G4) and believe me, OSX doesn't "poke along". I do have basis for comparison; the lone 2GHz Win2k box at work (the rest of the boxes run RedHat) doesn't feel noticeably slower or faster. I may have paid more for mine, but I really do feel that being able to use OS X rather than Windows is totally worth it.
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Peace of mind? I used to work with Macs for years, and I found them to be a hell of a lot less stable, intuitive, and useful for getting things done than a PC. I remember being able to routinely lock up a PowerPC (200MHz, I think?), having problems with their lame version of virtual memory, and the like. I also recall having to put in some silly system disc (you had to insert a bent paperclip into the eject-hole and toss the CD in before it could finish attempting to boot up) which would decide (seemingly at random) whether or not it wanted to actually fix the OS.
This was at school, and we had a Mac lab right across the hall from a PC lab. The Macs managed to get themselves FUBARed more often than the PCs, were harder to fix (if a student physically broke something in a Mac, it had to be sent for repairs. On a PC, you just replaced the damaged part. Yawn.) Network problems were more common on the Macs. All of the work PCs in the staff offices were PCs... and the entire staff consisted of Mac fanatics!
My current box is a 2+ year old Athlon 850 running on the notoriously fickle VIA KX133 chipset. I've got poor quality generic RAM, a Geforce2 GTS, a weak power supply, lackluster cooling, and the ridiculously destructive SB Live! as my sound card. My OS is Win98. Number of system failures in the past 2 years? 0. Number of BSOD(tm)s in the last 2 years? I'd honestly guess that it's under a dozen, and maybe only *2* that weren't overclocking related.
Lockups? Very rare, and almost always the result of the software (i.e. games with known crash bugs). I can't even recall the last time I had a crash requiring a reboot on this machine.
Personally, I find it amusing. We have here a website dedicated to computer nerds... read by computer nerds who can't get their computers to stop crashing. Such delicious irony.
You obviously A) do not know your RISC vs CISC
You don't, either. A RISC CPU, like the PowerPC, usually needs to execute as many or more instructions to perform the same task as a CISC CPU. Given that the Mac in question has an 800 MHz processor, and the PC has a 2 GHz processor, it is extremely unlikely that the Mac would be faster. (at CPU-bound tasks, and almost certainly everything else as well)
Wherever there's a will, there's a motorway.
Just because you have no hand-eye coordination doesn't mean the rest of us are the same. I bet you drive an automatic too, don't you?
In todays market? I don't think the average consumer is going to expect more then a couple hunderd dollar variation for a product. If product A costs $999, product B is slightly better and costs $1100, and product C is perfect but costs $1500, product B will most likely sell the best.
The people who want a cheap computer will go for A, the rest will pay a little extra because they know they are getting somthing extra. But only people with money to waste are going to spend that much extra on the small amount of gain. Such is Apples niche market.
Here's why idiots by expensive Dells:
TV: Dude! You're getting a Dell!
Home viewer: Must...get...Dell...
Mi klopodas varbi por Esperanto.
I don't know any mac users but JUST in case.
- Life is what keeps you occupied while you are waiting to die
Scary shit ... you just described my system exactly. The only different is I've got a 600mhz Athlon, a 400MX, and I'm running Win2K. Otherwise, exactly the same. I've had probably under 5 BSODs in the last 3 three years. The only crashes and reinstalls I've had are because of dodgy programs overwriting stuff like winsock.dll and god knows what else (I got hit with some spyware).
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
...as Lindows machines hit Wal-Mart. ;-)
No really, If Mac's were $300 you'd see those in lower economic classes starting to buy them too.
-twb
As an educate long time Mac fan (go ahead, boo me now), I must say that this article confirms my theory about Mac users. They either know NOTHING about their computer or know A LOT about it. Many Window's users subscribe to the 'just-enough' methodology of computing, meaning that they know 'just-enough' to get by on their machine. Thats fine, whatever. The reasoning behind this post is just to express my disdain for the whole 'rivalry' of us vs. them when it comes to what operating systems people use. Are we not all mature enough to concede that any power-user who chooses an operating system is inteligent enough to understand that every OS has its benefits and its disadvantages? I knew when I bought my new G4 not to expect to play the newest games or be able to buy my software at Wal-Mart; I also knew that I wouldn't be annoyed by anti-virus software (gotta love security through obscurity) and I would rarely worry about the lack of system stability. I knew what and why I purchased; I suspect most highly educated consumers do. So I'll tell my XP using boss that I like their computer and he can tell me that he likes my Mac, and the world can continue to turn. I prefer MacOS over the others, and that is my perogative. Don't worry about my choice, just worry about yours.
Ever thought that maybe it was not because of technical superiority, but perhaps because the BSD license is different from the GNU license?
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
On my mac I set my center button up to open links in a new window (like netscape on Unix). Under windows there is apparently no way to do this....
Under Opera and IE (if you must), control-shift-click on the link will do it.Seriously, I agree entirely that you can't generalise this, but at the moment, most of the smart people I know are either using an alternative -- whether it's Mac, Linux, some other *NIX or whatever -- or seriously thinking about the move.
For quite a while, I would have said that Windows was the best desktop platform for the average user. Linux was in its infancy. Macs had appeal to selective groups, but the hardware was awkward compared to PCs, the OS and desktop had good points and bad and they pretty much cancelled out, and there were some markets where software was sadly lacking (games, for example).
Today, Linux is mature enough for the home enthusiast to play with; even my dad installed it on his new PC, and he's very happy with it and proud of his choice. More recent Mac boxes and MacOS X are both big steps up for Apple, which has successfully moved to a mainstream hardware and OS setup without losing the quality of design and UI they've always had if you looked, and that's quite an impressive feat.
Windows, on the other hand, is going downhill fast. WinXP is (in my experience so far) considerably less stable than Win2K was. It's full of gimmicks that don't quite work (the new UI style isn't uniformly applied, for example, which makes many applications look worse than they did under 2000). And of course there's the ever present concern about Microsoft's efforts to tie you in to their kit, enforce DRM technology, get you to rent their software instead of buying it, etc. None of this is a positive step for the end user.
So, while my first line here was somewhat in jest, remember that there's many a true word thus spoken.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
ummm... comparing a bsod on win2k to a bsod on win98 is like comparing apples and oranges. win2k is the best, most stable os ms has released, win98 is nowhere near as stable (much more stable than win95 and winme). it's much harder to get a bsod on win2k and usually means a bigger problem than reboot and it works.
please me, have no regrets.
"poorly integrated system" is a troll. That's all there is to it. XP is beautiful. I know people are going to flame me for that, but it's true. It's dramatically more stable than any previous version of windows, and WAY more stable than my experiences with ANY MacOS from 6.0.7 up to 9.0, ALL of which I have used (except perhaps a couple of point releases) and most of which I have had to support. MacOS has given me more pain than I care to think about. Windows has too, but MacOS isn't any better, and actually supporting it is frequently more difficult than windows because it likes to do things behind the scenes. I personally find it more difficult to troubleshoot a system like that.
Now, my mom used a IIci for more than half a decade, and only recently upgraded to the original G3 desktop. She had relatively few problems, which were pretty much restricted to the machine occasionally hanging and staying that way. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a hardware issue, because I have had zero problems with netbsd on the same box (well, except for poor driver support.) I threw netbsd on it for nostalgia's sake; My first Unix system was Xenix on a 286, but after that I had a sun 3/260, which had a MC68020. The IIci has a MC68030. Both ran BSD (one called SunOS 4.1.3_u1, the other called netbsd) and so it's a lot of fun to take this little walk down memory lane. Of course I had 512mb disk then, now I have 9gb.
But frankly, my experiences with MacOS have been sour. It's true that MacOS 6 was dramatically more stable than Windows 3.1, and did a better job of multitasking too, but then if you compare systems then to systems now, you could see a price:performance gap even then. It's still true that to get a top end fast mac you have to spend four grand; to build a PC with just as much horsepower if not more you pay about a thousand dollars less. The reason is that Apple wants ultimate control over the hardware the OS runs on. This makes it a lot easier to support, but a lot harder on the consumers' pocketbooks. Note also that when there was an Apple clone market, the clones were just as cheap as PCs for the same approximate level of performance. Of course Apple's business model doesn't really allow a clone market.
Finally, for an individual user, your argument has some merit, especially the kind of user who is too stupid or too stubborn to learn something new. I've had someone put Win98 back on their system because WinXP is too confusing, in spite of the fact that there's about two or three new things to learn which differentiate how things actually work, when you go to WinXP. This is not because they were too dumb to get it, it's because they're too stubborn. Of course, going from MacOS 9 to MacOS X is a pretty profound change in the way things are done, so I don't see how Apple provides anything better there -- But at least there's less systems to choose from, which should make it easier for that kind of person.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Linus Torvalds has written a program called BogoMips to calculate a "MIPS" rating for your computer. He goes on to suggest that performance measurements between two computers can be misleading because not all contributing factors are stated or even understood.
Ahh, I bought WinXP for $90. Get your facts straight before you call someone stupid. You might find out your the one who's stupid. Win 2000 is meant for servers, not home users.
Vote for Pedro
I prefer a Turing machine, myself. The infinite tape takes up a lot of space though.
Vote for Pedro
Sun/solaris. Heck, try any *nix flavor. What happens to your precious "internet use" and "understanding" statistics then? Surprisingly, the people who know what a command line is and can in any limited way use one, have FAR more experience and general computer knowledge. Too bad troll-spawned articles like this never do all their research, or in this case, basically no research at all save to throw some mindless statistics at us and claim they've found something.
True ... the only BSODs I've had on win2k were very strange ... not repeatable, and I was doing a lot at once (running many applications, not all stable). Plus, the KX-133 had AGP problems under Win2k originally, which is where I think they might have come from. It's since been fixed (in SP2). I figure something got probed that didn't like it ...
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
Right, that's because they are cheap and shitty.
No, because they're better engineerd, dipshit.
Calling things names? Gee, that's a real intelligent argument.
I notice that you didn't give the specs for this el cheapo gateway machine. You know I once bought four identical gateways at once for a company, when we got them, there were four different brands of power supply, two different motherboard versions, three different memory vendors. ETc.
And the power supply on one of them went out within the first year, and another had regular BSODs in NT.
Somehow a %50 failure rate does not sound like a good deal to me. I'm sure not all gateways are this bad, maybe they had a bad year.
But those who make these claims always compare a Yugo to a Toyota and claim that they are the same and that the toyota is priced like a mercedes. They aren't.
If you had a legitimate point you'd make a comparison between equal quality machines (And comparable specs... notice you ignored the differences in the specs.)
Gateway is a tier two manufacturer, if not tier three.
Hell, you might as well compare an Xbox to the Xserve-- Microsoft is a tier one manufacturer at least in that comparison. After all, they're both "computers".
Sheesh, what an idiot.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I said nobody gives fair comparisons and now you guys are proving me right.
You pretend that the Macs run OS 9-- two of you now, and that its unstable. Well, os 6-9 were NOT unstable- they were far far more stable than windows. The only thing that made them unstable was runnign buggy system extentions. AS recommended, and set up by a competant person (or average user) rather than a bleeding edge kid who installs any piece of crap that looks interesting, they are extremely stable.
Anyway you want me to make a comparison between Mac OSX ant Windows 3.1? After all, that would be fair, given your comparison.
Sheesh. The lengths people have to go to in ordrer to bash macs. Why expend the energy?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
get a clue, p3 and k7+ shit is all risc.
Why is it people who don't know what they're talking about always say "get a clue" or "everyone knows".
You don't make something a RISC processor without changing the instruction set. x86 has a CISC instruction set. They never changed the instruction set on the x86 side. Tehy have made some isntructions go in one clock cycle, but they have to have a 386 compatibility co-processor there to run the CISC instructions.
You get a clue, dipshit. I already told you this, but you didn't pay attention, or you're just ignorant. Fine.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Given that the Mac in question has an 800 MHz processor, and the PC has a 2 GHz processor, it is extremely unlikely that the Mac would be faster
Except that the CISC instructiosn take ten times as many clock cycles to execute.
This is a fundamental aspect of the difference between risc and cisc and you didn't know this?
When it takes 17 clock cycles to execute an instruction and the other processor does them in one-- how is having 2.5 times the processor speed an advantage? You'd only be 1/5th as fast at 2GHz, that's all.
I explained all this, and any basic microprocessor textbook will as well.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
As a ISP tech support consultant I can assure you that even if Mac users are more intelligent they are almost always the more a difficult customer to deal with even if they have a great deal of experience with the internet.
Except with Apple you get twice the computer for $100 less.
Its just people lie and claim that the Apples aren't really all that much better....
but its a bald faced lie.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Mac users are simply more likely to tell you they are smarter and make more money when polled!
OK, OK, so that was a troll, but the premise remains that correlation does not mean causality. Statistics are a tool for understanding when you don't start making assertions, or a tool for manipulation when you do.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
:)
Hey, as soon as I will be able to buy laptop from Apple that will compete with IBM's Celeron based models for $800, I will agree that Macs can cost same amount as PCs.
Hyperom.com
You are missing one thing in your analogy. Macs aren't like a luxury car. The OS isn't any "easier", and the machine doesn't have more speed. What it DOES have is a more economical outlook. The OS isn't easier, but it gets out of your way and gives you multiple levels of sophistication. The machine doesn't have more raw speed, but it is faster for the things that crawl for most people (hence the development of AltiVec.)
Volvos come with better crash ratings (more likely to walk away from a system failure, so to speak), four wheel drive and four wheel disk brakes (BSD-underneath), and an engine that doesn't have as many CCs but still plenty of get-you-there. Costs you a little more, but not any more than a Ford with the same features.
[Composed on my shiney (and I mean shiney) new G4 that I only paid $2000 and have burned 2 DVDs on.]
Mac: $2999
Dell: $3021
You know, even I thought the premise of the article was bull, but this has me wondering...
Except that the CISC instructiosn take ten times as many clock cycles to execute.
Some of the more esoteric ones, sure. But many common instructions are single-clock ones, just like RISCs. The average CPI is NOT 10 times higher than RISC chips, sorry. Besides, modern CISC chips are as heavily pipelined as RISC chips, and they're pretty much RISC cores anyway (microinstructions)...the PowerPCs in Macs are really not competitive with newish Intel/AMD stuff.
Wherever there's a will, there's a motorway.
Ok, for one, that 800 mhz would blow the pants off that 2 Ghz any day of the week. You obviously A) do not know your RISC vs CISC,
No, YOU obviously don't know the diffrence between RISC and CISC. The orgional idea was to run simpler commands at a higher clock rate, rather then complicated command at a lower clock rate. But the P4 runs more complicated instructions at twice the rate. Aditionaly, the instructions get converted into RISC before being run inside the CPU.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Every x86 chip since the AMD k6 and Pentium pro has been RISC. 386 CISC instructions are translated into RISC before being executed. And yes, most people do know this. Not you, apparently.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Most of you don't know anything about what you're talking about. the p4 IS A RISC CHIP.
Except that the CISC instructions take ten times as many clock cycles to execute.
This isn't true either. Diffrent CISC instructions take different amounts of time. It hasn't taken 17 cycles to run any common CISC instruction since the 286 (I don't know about things like changing into real mode, switching between MMX and FP mode, and that kind of thing, but those kinds of instructions will only be run once or twice per second, if ever). Additionally the p4 and Athlon CPU are pipelined and can run more then one instruction at once.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
My Home built PC gives me lots of trouble. On the other hand, my Sony Vaio laptop has only crashed about twice in the 8 months I've owned it. Companies like Gateway, Sony, and Dell actually do integration testing before selling their products.
Simply assuming a PC is going to cause more problems is moronic. It's also beside the point.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I remember upgrading my mobo the year before last from a 'super'-7 board to an Abit KT7-raid (for athlon chips). Before the swap, win98 would crash every day. After the swap, without reinstalling everything, windows stayed up for a week. I was pretty impressed.
Win2k has BSOD'd on me I think two or 3 times in about a year and a half.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
spending money like that on frilly design and a questionably prettier interface...
cmon.
with $1500 for a new imac, a pc vendor could hand you a 2.4ghz machine with 512kb l2 cache, 133mhz system bus, 512mb ddrram, cdrw, 120gb hd, those precious firewire ports and a 17" LCD monitor running windows or linux (your -choice-)
clock for clock those macs might be pretty peppy. but dollar for dollar they're a joke.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
No, because they're better engineerd, dipshit.
oh, that's not a subjective statement or anything. Why would something 'better engineered' be cheaper and slower?
But those who make these claims always compare a Yugo to a Toyota and claim that they are the same and that the toyota is priced like a Mercedes. They aren't.
Thanks for calling me an idiot. Do you have any real statistics on this or are you just making shit up? Like, the actual rate of failure for Gateways, apple, and other companies?
Aside from a power supply and hard drive, Computers are pretty much either they work or they don't. It's not like a Car where things can ware down if not well made.
Anyway, as I said before, show me some real statistics or STFU
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Please do *not* take my name in vain. Consider this your last warning, larry.
[quote]
;^)
I think most of us who are in academia would be the first to admit that having a degree (even an advanced degree) is no guarantee that the holder doesn't have his head several feet up his ass.
[/quote]
yep, rightfully moderated funny! very insightful & true as well
To start I use bsd,linux,solaris,win32 and at some bad time in my career was forced into supporting the mac "that now is alot mose $$$ if I need to think or touch one" the following is my rant
This article posted on slashdot is very pointed using stupid half witted information collected by mass market sites most TRUE computer Individuals AVOID like anthrax coated envelopes these so called surveys are targeted "to be nice" at people gullible enough to answer them. Do you know there are surveys that show people like surveys? {Think about that before firing back... (Think how stupid you must be the even consider answering a survey like that or how much thought would be given)}
How smart are people who answer erroneous questions? Are they SMARTER than those who Avoid them? If your numbers are based on trivial Surveys produced by sites, which promote questions 90% of true computer users, do not even bother with or those damn surveys to judge your numbers then they are Smarter at getting USED and FEEDING the MASS Market/media.
A Little history here:
Apple made decent gear back in the day "1978 to be exact" but flubbed when splitting their line in 1984; this may have been Way before your time so I can't hold the lack of intelligence in this matter against you even with a college background and all.
If you are saying that the normal person compared to the people who make the operating systems and programs which make things more usable for the technically challenged ergo people who don't know what CLI means or understand editors "text based" are smarter than those who build the world or the tangible existence you users consider the world then I am stupid and realize you are using my tools. (You "smart idiot")
Lastly I may not have a great/stupid college degree, Me, a lowly idiot clearing 120k annually "for my ability to work outside the box all my college educated underlings never do since they were graded on how well they could stay in the box that is why I make 3X what they make and why they report to me" W/O any university paperwork just word of mouth from one corporation to another EMC, IBM, Bluearc, and Network appliance just to name a few. So when you decide to share information realize that not all users "or the majority you are flag waiving about" who are smart or Smarter use/used Mac's.
Most hardware and software people "true computer people" use PC's that is why there is more PC software and LESS MAC software chew on that.
Moreover, So if MAC users are smarter then tell me why they lock themselves into 1 vendor & 1 operating system ALL of which is made by 1 company which has proven over the past 18 years they have 0 loyalty to continuing customers... how smart is that?
Facts to ponder on
1. Mac os upgrades, you are REQUIRED to purchase ALL your software again due to Compatibility ISSUES "this is because of switches in the ENABLER which bootstraps the system folder and loads extensions" "trust me ive had to work with it"
2. System has no CLI to use for running a command if there is a failure "therin using linux core in OSX -- not functioning proplerly anyway"
3. Force quit is a (n) attempt at a "break key" which functions partly and is unreliable at best
4. No stepped loading "or logged I may add" you either have to turn off ALL extensions or CONTINUALLY load the system enableing/disableing 1 extension at a time
5. With all its processing power it still has a slower interface explain please why a faster lower instruction set os is slower than a cisc os running on cisc chips? "Maybe because it is adjustable and capable of being mutated/streamlined" "referencing linux and win32"
I am open to rebuttal on the discussion I know that the computer community or the tech field is not the only judge of knowledge, but to say that only smarter people use Macs is like saying only smart people use butterfly stiches and therefore are smarter than the other people. That would Imply most doctors are idiots this is just the other side of the coin. If you have made it to this I appreciate your time and wish you the best in any and all endeavours
Network Attached Storage
Architect/Developer
"SAN is the way of the past NAS is the future of data warehousing"
I know that there is a key combination, but under windows I haven't been able to assign a key + click to a mouse button.... This is using MS IntelliMouse software. Their software does let you do this on a mac.
i think this whole story should be modded to
"flamebait".... geeze.
With that stupid and ANNOYING spokes, uh, KID that Dell's got doing advertisements for them, it's no WONDER Mac users think they're smarter.
[insert witty comment here]
I've always compared user interface designs to automobile transmissions. Linux and other free *n?x are like a stick shift. The user has a lot of control over what's going on, but it requires a little more expertice to know what to do. Windows and Mac are automatics. Easier to learn and requiring less continuous attention, but less flexible.
In the 50's and 60's, when the automatic transmission was a new invention, it had a (well-deserved) bad reputation among gearheads for not working very well. The idea hadn't been perfected yet, and it usually caused more problems than it solved. Windows and Mac are in the same situation. They try too hard to keep the user from knowing what's going on behind the scenes.
I think, though, that Mac is changing this. I haven't had the chance to use OS X a whole lot, but from what little I've seen, it seems to be a much more mature, modern automatic. Windows, on the other hand, seems to be moving in the other direction, trying to provide not an automatic transmission, but rather permanent training wheels.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
That's kind of where this argument is going, and is probably another assumption you could make about the survey.
eMachines sets the bar for low cost, but only people who are totally focused on cost to the exclusion of quality, productivity, et cetera, would buy such a piece of junk.
Yes, Apple is not low-cost when you put an iMac next to an eMachines. IBM is more comparable to Apple.
How can it be faster to hold down a key on the keyboard (the command key) and the left mouse button to get a menu of things to accomplish with, say a webpage (such as view source, save as etc.), than to just click the right mouse button?
What's this 'remember which button to use' crud? Surely your instinct is to always click the left mouse button for just about everything... then if you want to do something a little other than 'normal', the right mouse button comes into play... surely it's easier and quicker to do that than a keyboard/mouse click combo.
And also, by the same logic, should you be slowed down by the number of clicks too? Having to always think how many times to click should slow you to a crawl surely?
I'm not subscribing to this logic at all.
My first mouse with my 8088 had two buttons, then our next mouse had three... now there were almost no occasions when I had a use for the third button... it didn't slow me down though, I just never used it.
Now I have the scroll wheel... that's sped things up for me again, it's more intuative to scroll pages of text up and down with that than the click-hold-drag method of the scroll bar.
I've also used Macs, and not having a second button slows me down a LOT (Yes, I know it's because it's what I'm used to). Having to have a finger hovering over the command key so I can bring up menus on webpages, or holding down the mouse button for an inordinant amount of time for a menu to appear etc. Does not seem to make a more usuable interface to me.
Higher education, larger expense account, better health et al are correlated to each other.
:-)
Furthermore, a person who makes more money will buy slightly more expensive products, if these products save them time. Walk, go by car or fly private jet. Bake your own bread, cook your own food, zap it in the micro. A faster lifestyle gives you more time to spend on making more money, getting a better education, plan health-increasing activities. And so the circle goes.
Most likely this also goes for Linux, Windoze, MacOS, although the monopolistic situation imho makes Windoze much more expensive than Linux, and much more time-consuming than Mac. Another way to state this is to say that whoever has the larger market share can maintain either the larger profit margins or the worse OS or both. You decide.
Ever heard of a lookup table?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I use a Mac and run linux (triple-boot) on it. So where do I fit in?? Maybe I have too much time on my hands...
And just for the record, I use a 2 button (and chord the middle) trackball.
My name is Zane and I am a Media Manager.
An argument for the tech savvy PC users... We may be able to confirm that the statistics are accurate. We may be able to say that Mac users, in general, are smarter and more educated than PC users, however, I would like to propose a new challenge. What percentages of the computer population were purchased by "Computer Savvy" people? When I say "Computer Savvy" I mean people that can actually name all the components of a PC, what they are used for, and why. I don't mean someone that can open up any web page builder software, and build a web page. By the survey posted by NetRatings I would not qualify building a web page as a highly technical procedure. These days, building a web page is as easy as creating a Power Point presentation. Most applications have built in formatting, graphic manipulation, and even a means of uploading the pages directly to an FTP site. As a former IT tech for Stanford in the department of Education, I found that roughly 30-40% of the users were Mac users. That percentage is significantly higher than that of the general population, as noted in the study commented. In my experience, most of the Mac users were not tech savvy. Many of them could use the tools that Mac provided in their bundled software very well, however when it came down to some of the most basic of computer issues that would arise, they would require a tech to resolve the problem. In no way do I mean that these users were unintelligible. In fact I found them to be quite sharp in many ways, just not computer savvy. As to why the numbers of Mac to PCs are higher in Stanford then the general population? Apple is well known for their equipment donations to educational facilities, as well as a significant educational discount on new purchases. Apple has some very intelligent marketing strategies. If you grew up, and were familiar with Mac in your classrooms, which would you buy? Some would argue that Apple is more reliable, but that is a whole other can of worms that I really don't want to bore you with at the moment. To cover the income side of the argument, let's have a look at my income as an example. I have never completed my college degree, nor have many of the certifications that follow my field. Referencing http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/demography.html the "Median household income in the United States was $42,148" in 2000. I was making roughly 1/3 more than this in 2000, and am now making almost twice this amount. Most IT professionals make significantly more. Most of us know the potential incomes of IT related fields with a degree, certification, and necessary experience can add up to significantly more. I don't remember seeing any household income numbers being displayed in the survey, but there we have it. Let us go back to what counts. What is more versatile? What has more potential? We all know the answers to these questions. If anyone try's to tell me that a PC can't perform in the graphics market, I will personally prove them wrong. I don't ever recall Adobe Photoshop or Quark leaving out a feature in the PC that they have in the Mac. I have worked with Photoshop for more then 9 years now, and I think I know what I'm doing. You want to talk hardware? No comparison. PC has more high-end equipment for video and graphics, and it's faster. I believe we would find that the larger populations of computer savvy users are buying and using PCs.
Having come from a school for those that are (supposedly, anyway) a little brighter than most, I find that comment to be a little unbelievable. Especially seeing as there were about %2 of the school that owned Macintosh's, and every single one of those people were incredibly computer illiterate.