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!
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.
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:)
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.
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.
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 ?
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
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
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.
Payment plans dude! Payment plans...
LFS. Have you built your system today?
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.
the Mac users I know all develop websites and make 80K+ a year...hmm.
-brain
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
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
i_luv_linux writes:
;)
;)
> Mac users are smarter, but what about Linux users.
I think the report was only looking at Mac and Windows PC users. I don't think they even thought to include Linux or the other *BSDs (or Amiga, OS/2, and others that are still going but with tiny marketshare).
> They are far more smarter than an average Mac
> user of course.
For OS 9 and before, I think I might have agreed with that. Not anymore. When OS X first introduced a Unix command line terminal to the Mac, your average Mac users were having great fun trading commands like game cheats or easter eggs. With the development tools included for free, any Mac user can become a programmer that is willing to learn, and many have. Thanks to Unix based OS X, Mac users are rapidly playing catchup to Linux, and some Linux users have switched over.
> This report is given credit by News.com which is
> totally biased against Microsoft, but why is it
> here?
Perhaps Slashdot has joined News.com, and Mac loving Godzilla, in hating Microsoft? Gee, like they are so hard to hate?
Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp!
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
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!
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.
"far more smarter"? Hmm. My guess is you're probably a windows user.
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.
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
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.
Sure, and *BSD users are smarter than Linux users, but don't forget that FreeBSD users are smarter than OpenBSD users who are smarter than NetBSD users. Oh wait, what about RedHat vs Slackware vs Mandrake vs SuSE vs Debian...
That statement is as dumb as the article.
The Final Word
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.
What about people who are both computer-savvy and a Mac user? Like me?
If you must make stereotypes, make sure you don't make them globally applicable.
-brain
[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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
I agree this is dumb. I mean, what makes this even dumber is the fact that we are talking about a SMALL user base vs a LARGE user base. Anytime your sample size gets bigger, it will go more toward the norm than a smaller sample size. Mac users represent about 10% of the computer users out and about right now, that means that if we polled 100 people on brains, only 10 would be Mac users, and compared with the other 90, it would be very easy for them to be "smarter" than the other 90, because their sample size is so small. Maybe the 3 smartest people are in the group of 90, but they will be averaged out by dumber people in that group as well too. As long as the 10 average out to "above average" then they will probably come out on top.
This completely ignores the arguements about more money/more education and who published the report. Take it with a grain of salt.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
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.
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.
1- "trading commands" like "game cheats" and "easter eggs" is a far cry from "intelligence". Intelligence is going out, buying a book, and becoming engrossed in the how's and why'fors of the OS. Granted, the "trading of" things is how people START, but it's also a path that many abandon LONG before they learn a single thing. (BTW- it's dangerous to trade scripts and commands without the recieving party knowing what they're doing. rm -rf / is not ALL that far away.)
2- Linux comes with developers tools. Not all Linux users use developers tools. Not all Mac users are going to use developers tools, in fact I'd say that a significant minority will. In fact, I've had a number of OS X users say "You type stuff into the command line? That's *so* DOS." Pheh. Besides which, there have always been ways to jump into programing on the Mac. Codewarrior is inexpensive, and scripting is free. How many applescripters were there? Not many, I tell you. Most PEOPLE say they can't wrap their head around something like that.We'll get a few more script-kiddies, granted. (That's what the "trading of commands like easter eggs" is called.)
3- We've got Mac users switching over to Windows and to Linux, Windows users switching over to the Mac and Linux, and Linux users fleeing for the land of the Apples and Oranges. Switching, unlike Apple seems to like to believe, is not all that uncommon. It is also not moving in a linear fashion towards OS X. It's more akin to the panic of rats fleeing a sinking ship.
I could say more, but I already have a feeling I'm going to be modded down as flamebait. Although I don't know why. I'm NOT saying Mac users are stupid. I'm saying your "proof of the intelligence of the average Mac user" is unfounded and your reasons are silly.
-Sara
'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.
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
Then, take a look at the Computer Science department.
Give me the ratios you find there. Somehow, I don't think that the numbers are going to favor Macs. The people who most intimately use computers use PCs. What's that tell you?
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. :-)
I don't consider myself elitest at all. I have a Mac and a PC on the same desk.
...as a closing thought...don't you consider most Linux hackers "elitest" as well?
Performing a survey and observing the results mathmatically cannot be considered "generalizing".
Issuing a statement with no researched information can.
-brain
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
$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
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
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...
I'll agree with that. I've got a Powermac 8100 sitting under my desk, with a Kensington Turbo Mouse(best trackball evar!) and an Apple ][gs keyboard (tiny, tiny, tiny!). Even though it's only 100 mhz clocked up to 115, 104 MB of RAM lets OS 8.1 run quite nicely. Onboard Ethernet, pretty fast SCSI for its time, and a slick third party video card make this machine quite nice. I use it as my "forum crapping" computer. :)
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
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.
"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.'"
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
For all Macs superiority, why do they not exceed PC's when it comes to accomplishing the same tasks quicker.
They do. Regular studies have shown this-- any given secretary, programmer, accountant is much much more productive using a mac than a PC.
And lets not forget the regular photoshop or other examples where a top of the line PC takes 3-5 times aas long to accomplish the same task as a mac.
Bring the top of the line Mac, keep the reciept. I'll build a PC for the same price that'll outperform it.
Never happen . Hell all the way back in 1994, Microsoft was having to special code their Excel and Word apps to make the mac run slower because they were embarrassing PCs in the benchmarks.... course now people use photoshop which has been optimized on both platforms.
And in the photoshop test, there's no comparison. (course now you're going to say that the only fair test is Intel designed benchmarks.)
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
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.
How many Mac users do you know?
First you say "I don't know about the Mac users in general" and then go on to generalize that Linux users are smarter.
If this is the case, then why do so many of the Linux users on /. have such poor language skills?
They might know more about computers (or at least the skills needed to run Linux), but as far as average intelligence, I doubt it.
See, I can generalize too! (Of course!)
PS. Some Mac users also run Linux, like me.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
The MathWorks Announces Support for Mac OS X
MATLAB's return to the Mac meets growing demand from scientific and engineering communities
Natick, MA - (5/6/2002) The MathWorks today announced its intention to make MATLAB, the industry's leading technical computing software, available on Mac OS X, Apple's advanced Unix-based operating system, with the next release of the MathWorks product line. With MATLAB on Mac OS X, users will be able to use powerful, sophisticated technical computing tools in a graphical and intuitive environment.
"I'm really pleased to be able to announce The MathWorks renewed support for Apple and particularly Mac OS X," said Cleve Moler, Chairman and Chief Scientist at The MathWorks and the original author of MATLAB. "The Macintosh has a strong following among scientists and educators, and we're glad to be back."
"Having MATLAB back on the Mac is tremendous for Apple's scientific and engineering customers," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "This is a perfect example of how developers are taking advantage of Mac OS X's Unix core combined with industry standards like OpenGL and Java."
Pricing and availability will be announced prior to the first commercial shipment of the next release of The MathWorks product line. The release of the company's full line of MATLAB and Simulink products for computation, programming and embedded systems design is expected later this year.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
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.
Therefore the flagship of Apple's line would be the 1GHz DP PowerMac G4, not the iMac.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
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.
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.
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.
Ever heard of a lookup table?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
No, it is scienfitic fact.
Yeah, all those pro-pc websites have doctored benchmarks.
But macs are faster because they get far more done per clock cycle and have vastly superior floating point units.
I've never seen a legitimate benchmark showing macs to be slower.... its just a shame that there are so many cooked benchmarks out there tha you believe them.
And the truth is most people are apparently too ignorant of procesor design and the innerworkings of computers to recognize when they're being fooled.
And so they keep buying slower processors with a higher clock rate, and slower busses with a higher clock rate, etc.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23