Re:hurray for apple
by
phillymjs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I would tend to believe the numbers, no matter how large.
Many people have been in a holding pattern, using old machines running OS 9 for two reasons:
1) They would need a new machine to really make the most of OS X, and they wanted to wait until the successor to the G4 was available.
2) They didn't want to make the move to OS X until a native QuarkXPress was available for it.
Both of those conditions have now been fulfilled. Apple will not be able to crank out these things fast enough (even moreso than usual) to meet all the pent-up demand.
I bet once the numbers are in, we'll find out that this was Apple's best quarter in a few years, maybe even since the return of Jobs.
~Philly
Re:Apple's Market Share
by
SirSlud
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, its that consumers still don't 'value' OSes at their true value. Just because Ladas were cheaper than Hondas didn't mean Ladas outsold. Why? Cause people knew Ladas sucked shit, and Hondas didn't.
If Microsoft advertising ever stops drowning everybody out and they stop forcing computer distributors to *only* offer their OS, then people still start to gain a little more visibility. It really wasn't all that long ago that people knew Amiga, Commadore, Apple, IBM existed.. and we'll see such a day again. When the average consumer understands that the OS market does offer a few choices, and that actually choosing a better OS is a money-saving decision, Apple will do better.
I know of at least two people recently who bought a whole new computer cause they fucked up their Windows installation and figured it'd be easier to buy a new machine. This is an excellant example of how little choice consumers feel they have in the OS world. Who the hell buys something, watches it break from every day use, and goes out to buy the exact same thing? Obviously, somebody who feels that there isn't much else to buy.
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, and nobody ever felt alone suffering through Windows problems. When more of your friends have Apple, you'll be more likely to see the value of spending more on a computer (and subsequently buying computers/OS upgrades less often).. being a consumer is about being educated to make strong decisions. Ask anybody why they bought Windows today, and 95% of the time, the person will answer along the lines of "What else is there" or "Because of work/school/friend/game/application, I didn't have any other choice". 4% will say something along the lines of "Well, its the most popular OS, so how bad can it be?".. your usual leader-worshippers.. the same folks who equate financial success with product superiority (tho engineers know better.) The last 1% actually like Windows, but they also happen to be the 1% of the population that exhibits a distinct interest in sadomasochism.
And of course I run Windows. Because my neighbours do.. although at the rate I'm being asked to fix peoples computers, its probably worth the extra 1000$ for me to *not* have Windows and be able to feign ignorance when begged for help.
OK. I own PCs and Macs and use both. I've use Macs since System 5, and PCs since DOS. The PC is mainly for working from home when I'm not building actual hardware at work. The Mac is where I do creative things and day to day stuff like email and web browsing.
The Mac is just nicer to use. That's really all there is to it, and yes that's subjective I guess, although even the hardcore Windows fanatics I know admit the GUI is a mess. As for price differences, there really isn't that much of a gap if you compare equivalently equiped machines of comparable quality.
The quality factor is important. I built my own PC, for example, and would never bother with some $500 gray box. There really is no bargain basement Mac, but I don't think I'd want one anyway.
As an aside, I find it weird that there is so much quibbling over a couple bucks in the personal computer world. I know a guy at work who bought a $60,000 car and a $5000 plasma television, and then spent three weeks online to save $100 on a PC (he paid $500 instead of $600). I consider my time to be money, and the time saved using my Mac pays for any price gap easily within a month.
It's very hard not to be biased about whatever you use. But I'll try.
I switched to Mac from Linux because it works. Add Fink to it, and it acts just like a Linux box. I have a PowerBook, and it's by far my favorite laptop (of many laptops I've owned).
What does "it works" mean? It almost never crashes. It almost never needs drivers. It runs MS Office. It's a Unix workstation: bash shell, X, KDE, Gnome, etc. It goes to sleep when the lid closes and comes back within 1 second when the lid opens (I rarely turn it "off"). iPhoto, iTunes, iPod, iMovie are excellent, simple, and easy (not power programs, but excellent for the basics). And most important, it's pretty (titanium or aluminum case).
I still use Debian/Dell on my servers. But for a laptop, OS X is incredibly useful.
It's not about speed anymore. About the PIII, I quit caring about speed. Everything after that is *fast*. My Powerbook 800 is probably about as fast as a PIII 800. For programming, documents, etc., speed isn't the issue anymore. The issue is usability. Personally, I really like KDE. I still use it on my Mac once in a while. I also like OS X. It just works.
Re:hurray for apple
by
Steveftoth
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They're not lying at all though.
Listen, 64-bit is not a hardware issue as much as it is a software issue. Yes, the hardware support needs to be there first, but really it about wether or not the software will actually use the 64-bit modes.
It's not like 64-bit is always a win-win situation. Some programs will always run faster when compiled in a 32-bit addressing mode simply because 32-bit can be more efficient when not addressing large amounts of ram. Just like there are programs that can be written entirely withing the 16-bit addressing modes of the x86 that will outperform the 32-bit version. Though I would guess that today that number is rather small.
I hope that the Mac continues to be a hybrid of 32 and 64 bit programs for awhile. It won't be expensive to maintain compatability from the OS perspective, and it will ensure that all of us that don't want to upgrade will be able to run all the software for awhile.
Apple already has the infistructure in place so that people with G5s will be able to run G5 versions and people with G4s will be able to run a G4 version. Their executable format allows for multiple versions of the same program so that the developers can simple recompile for the G5 ahead of time and package it with the G4 version in the same file. (like the old 'fat' binaries of yore with 68k and ppc code in them)
Besides, you can't 'just recompile' and get benefits of 64 computing. It's not that simple. If you don't program with the intent of being x-platform then you can't recompile and have it work. Also, as you hinted, the G5 has a radically different idea about what kind of code it optimal compared to the G4, thus any code targeted for the G4 will perform sub-standard. We'll just have to wait a month or two until all the software catches up to the hardware. The G5 will only seem to get faster and faster as more software is retargeted for it.
The G5 is more then a step up in clock speed, it's a whole new generation of processor, a bigger step from the G3 to G4. But no matter how you look at it, it's a step up. Maybe not as big as you want it to be and this is something that I think a few people are (still) sore about.
Re:hurray for apple
by
waynelorentz
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That 17% number could be right, if every shop is run like the one I'm in.
The majority of the machines are IBM clones. The ones in the art department are Mac. They all need to talk to each other. It took the Wintel-head IT guys forever to figure it out, and it still doesn't work right all the time.
The IT guys are afriad to upgrade the Macs because they think they'll break what little works of the network now. It doesn't matter how much you tell them that OSX simplifies networking, they are afraid of anything outside their comfort zone, which at this time only includes Windows 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
I would tend to believe the numbers, no matter how large.
Many people have been in a holding pattern, using old machines running OS 9 for two reasons:
1) They would need a new machine to really make the most of OS X, and they wanted to wait until the successor to the G4 was available.
2) They didn't want to make the move to OS X until a native QuarkXPress was available for it.
Both of those conditions have now been fulfilled. Apple will not be able to crank out these things fast enough (even moreso than usual) to meet all the pent-up demand.
I bet once the numbers are in, we'll find out that this was Apple's best quarter in a few years, maybe even since the return of Jobs.
~Philly
No, its that consumers still don't 'value' OSes at their true value. Just because Ladas were cheaper than Hondas didn't mean Ladas outsold. Why? Cause people knew Ladas sucked shit, and Hondas didn't.
.. and we'll see such a day again. When the average consumer understands that the OS market does offer a few choices, and that actually choosing a better OS is a money-saving decision, Apple will do better.
.. being a consumer is about being educated to make strong decisions. Ask anybody why they bought Windows today, and 95% of the time, the person will answer along the lines of "What else is there" or "Because of work/school/friend/game/application, I didn't have any other choice". 4% will say something along the lines of "Well, its the most popular OS, so how bad can it be?" .. your usual leader-worshippers .. the same folks who equate financial success with product superiority (tho engineers know better.) The last 1% actually like Windows, but they also happen to be the 1% of the population that exhibits a distinct interest in sadomasochism.
.. although at the rate I'm being asked to fix peoples computers, its probably worth the extra 1000$ for me to *not* have Windows and be able to feign ignorance when begged for help.
If Microsoft advertising ever stops drowning everybody out and they stop forcing computer distributors to *only* offer their OS, then people still start to gain a little more visibility. It really wasn't all that long ago that people knew Amiga, Commadore, Apple, IBM existed
I know of at least two people recently who bought a whole new computer cause they fucked up their Windows installation and figured it'd be easier to buy a new machine. This is an excellant example of how little choice consumers feel they have in the OS world. Who the hell buys something, watches it break from every day use, and goes out to buy the exact same thing? Obviously, somebody who feels that there isn't much else to buy.
Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, and nobody ever felt alone suffering through Windows problems. When more of your friends have Apple, you'll be more likely to see the value of spending more on a computer (and subsequently buying computers/OS upgrades less often)
And of course I run Windows. Because my neighbours do
"Old man yells at systemd"
The Mac is just nicer to use. That's really all there is to it, and yes that's subjective I guess, although even the hardcore Windows fanatics I know admit the GUI is a mess. As for price differences, there really isn't that much of a gap if you compare equivalently equiped machines of comparable quality.
The quality factor is important. I built my own PC, for example, and would never bother with some $500 gray box. There really is no bargain basement Mac, but I don't think I'd want one anyway.
As an aside, I find it weird that there is so much quibbling over a couple bucks in the personal computer world. I know a guy at work who bought a $60,000 car and a $5000 plasma television, and then spent three weeks online to save $100 on a PC (he paid $500 instead of $600). I consider my time to be money, and the time saved using my Mac pays for any price gap easily within a month.
--- Ban humanity.
It's very hard not to be biased about whatever you use. But I'll try.
I switched to Mac from Linux because it works. Add Fink to it, and it acts just like a Linux box. I have a PowerBook, and it's by far my favorite laptop (of many laptops I've owned).
What does "it works" mean? It almost never crashes. It almost never needs drivers. It runs MS Office. It's a Unix workstation: bash shell, X, KDE, Gnome, etc. It goes to sleep when the lid closes and comes back within 1 second when the lid opens (I rarely turn it "off"). iPhoto, iTunes, iPod, iMovie are excellent, simple, and easy (not power programs, but excellent for the basics). And most important, it's pretty (titanium or aluminum case).
I still use Debian/Dell on my servers. But for a laptop, OS X is incredibly useful.
It's not about speed anymore. About the PIII, I quit caring about speed. Everything after that is *fast*. My Powerbook 800 is probably about as fast as a PIII 800. For programming, documents, etc., speed isn't the issue anymore. The issue is usability. Personally, I really like KDE. I still use it on my Mac once in a while. I also like OS X. It just works.
They're not lying at all though.
Listen, 64-bit is not a hardware issue as much as it is a software issue. Yes, the hardware support needs to be there first, but really it about wether or not the software will actually use the 64-bit modes.
It's not like 64-bit is always a win-win situation. Some programs will always run faster when compiled in a 32-bit addressing mode simply because 32-bit can be more efficient when not addressing large amounts of ram. Just like there are programs that can be written entirely withing the 16-bit addressing modes of the x86 that will outperform the 32-bit version. Though I would guess that today that number is rather small.
I hope that the Mac continues to be a hybrid of 32 and 64 bit programs for awhile. It won't be expensive to maintain compatability from the OS perspective, and it will ensure that all of us that don't want to upgrade will be able to run all the software for awhile.
Apple already has the infistructure in place so that people with G5s will be able to run G5 versions and people with G4s will be able to run a G4 version. Their executable format allows for multiple versions of the same program so that the developers can simple recompile for the G5 ahead of time and package it with the G4 version in the same file. (like the old 'fat' binaries of yore with 68k and ppc code in them)
Besides, you can't 'just recompile' and get benefits of 64 computing. It's not that simple. If you don't program with the intent of being x-platform then you can't recompile and have it work. Also, as you hinted, the G5 has a radically different idea about what kind of code it optimal compared to the G4, thus any code targeted for the G4 will perform sub-standard. We'll just have to wait a month or two until all the software catches up to the hardware. The G5 will only seem to get faster and faster as more software is retargeted for it.
The G5 is more then a step up in clock speed, it's a whole new generation of processor, a bigger step from the G3 to G4. But no matter how you look at it, it's a step up. Maybe not as big as you want it to be and this is something that I think a few people are (still) sore about.
That 17% number could be right, if every shop is run like the one I'm in. The majority of the machines are IBM clones. The ones in the art department are Mac. They all need to talk to each other. It took the Wintel-head IT guys forever to figure it out, and it still doesn't work right all the time. The IT guys are afriad to upgrade the Macs because they think they'll break what little works of the network now. It doesn't matter how much you tell them that OSX simplifies networking, they are afraid of anything outside their comfort zone, which at this time only includes Windows 2000.
World's tallest building rises in the desert