Slashdot Mirror


'Perfect Storm' of Mac Sales on the Horizon?

fkx writes to mention an eWeek article suggesting that, finally, the PC-using public is going to 'get' the Mac. According to the article, the new advertising, increased functionality of OSX, and Intel-based machines are all raising the profile of Apple's machines to new heights. From the article: "However, this cycle isn't your usual processor upgrade cycle that comes every time Intel or Advanced Micro Devices tweaks a process. This is a major shift that affects all parts of the Mac customer-developer-vendor ecology. Longtime Apple watchers can count two earlier events of similar magnitude. The first such transition occurred in March 1994 with the arrival of the PowerPC architecture. The Motorola 680x0 architecture that had served the Mac platform for a decade was quickly supplanted by a set of new, more powerful machines. "

60 of 669 comments (clear)

  1. Its probabbly true. by Sinryc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even I, a long time PC user wanted to get a MacBook, but... I don't have 1100 to drop on one. Damn me not having much money!

    --
    Yay, I have a sig.
    1. Re:Its probabbly true. by fozzy1015 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason I have not bought a Mac is the same reason I have not ever bought a whole system: I don't want to plunk down over a grand for a new computer. For the last two decades I've always upgraded my machine by piece-mail. A new case, a new HD, a new mobo, a new video card.... So at every purchases it's only been a few hundred at most.

    2. Re:Its probabbly true. by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      '' Even I, a long time PC user wanted to get a MacBook, but... I don't have 1100 to drop on one. Damn me not having much money! ''

      A MacBook will last you probably about five years. That is about $18 per month.

      Most porn sites cost more than that.

    3. Re:Its probabbly true. by Shadow+Of+The+Sun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, it's so different that it took me half an hour to figure out how to install Firefox, but that's to be expected I guess. :)

      So, you're telling us that it took you half an hour to learn how to drag and drop? ;-)

    4. Re:Its probabbly true. by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good news for you! There is a quick and low cost case mod you can do to get that aluminum-y goodness on a non-pro macbook.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    5. Re:Its probabbly true. by vhogemann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a former Mac user, I can tell you that you probably did the right thing.

      The first generation of Apple products generaly comes with some issues, so it's wiser to wait for the first revision. It happened with my iBook, first generation Snow, the maiboard fried on the first 2 weeks... and also, it was not "OSX ready", since it came with only 64MB, 8MB of video and a slow 66MHz bus... the first revision fixed all these issues.

      --
      ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
    6. Re:Its probabbly true. by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It took him that long to get over the shock of it not being more complicated than drag and drop.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    7. Re:Its probabbly true. by clifyt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I spent a couple hours helping a friend get acclimated to the mac recently.

      Almost everything he had problems with were trying to not overcomplicate things. He wanted to installs stuff and I told him to drag it to the application folder. Wouldn't belive me. Where is the uninstall control panel??? You throw it away.

      It was a process of unlearning all the bad habits before and having to learn to do things sanely.

      Once you come to believing how complicated something should be, its hard to understand that it is unnecessary. Most Windows users don't believe me when I say its a pain in the ass to keep Windows secure (I develop windows software for a living and manage the geeks that system admin about a hundred desktops...I have a little experience in this area). Once I get folks to move over, its a different story...they realize a good portion of their use of the computer is making certain the computer is working. To me, thats like owning a car that requires constant maintence and thats why when I bought a Saturn, my 1972 Triumph and 1979 Goldwing went into the garage -- it just wasn't fun to work on stuff that required almost as much time to keep them running as I did riding them (which is still the case today...I just don't get either out much any more, much the same way I haven't turned on my home PC in a month or two).

    8. Re:Its probabbly true. by alittlespice · · Score: 5, Informative

      The issues are minor. Apple does fix stuff. And with the retail stores, it's even better. I've been a PC guy forever, but I just switched to Mac. Got a 15.4" MacBook Pro. Then my battery did the expanding thing. More than doubled in size. I took it back to the retail store (Yorkdale in Toronto), and got a whole new machine, no problem at all! Was back up and running in no time. If I had bought a Dell and something went wrong (and lets not kid ourselves, every company has issues occassionally), it would have taken ages to get the part fixed, including likely having to ship the machine somewhere and going without a computer for days. Every manufacturer of anything, computers, cars, and even pens, occassionally makes defective stuff. What's important is how the treat you when it happens. I couldn't be happier than with the staff at the retail store. Oh, and the computers aren't really that much more expensive. Considering you getting the top of the line chips etc, not old out of date Pentium M's or anything. Compareable hardware from Dell, Toshiba, etc has a compareable price.

    9. Re:Its probabbly true. by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've been running OS X on a first gen white iBook for years now. Sure, you don't get all the whizz-bang fancy effects, but it's quite usable. The first gen G4 iBooks had a few logic borad problems, but the first gen G3s were soid wee beasts. All you needed to do was stick in a bit more RAM. Couldn't believe there was a 64MB option, but Low-End Mac confirms it. I started with 384MB and it worked like a charm. The bus did suck though. The next revision ripped CDs almost twice as fast with a CPU boost of only 100 MHz; it was the bus upgrade that made all the difference.

    10. Re:Its probabbly true. by Dasher42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Every desktop computer I've had since my old Tandy 1000 has been a custom-built clone, excepting my stint with an Amiga 500. I've done the piecemeal upgrade thing. Here's my take on it: it's not worth it unless you're really broke, and if you're doing it often, you're probably wasting your time on your tools instead of what you do with them. Hence, two out of my three laptops have been Macs, and I like them a great deal.

      There's another thing. If you want a second machine to your desktop, a laptop doesn't need to be a screamer to be very useful, nor does it need to run the same operating system. In fact, having two different kinds of machines can be pretty darn cool. So, try some old iBook or something; that's my advice if you want to sample the world of OSX. As long as you have over 512MB, even an old 600MHz iBook G3 machine is plenty for the basic browsing and email.

    11. Re:Its probabbly true. by Millenniumman · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Those cases are rare, and I believe Apple covers both of them.
      2. They will fix them for you. If you have a problem, call them. They aren't very public about it, but what good would that do anyone, since they fix them?
      3. I have a MacBook Pro, rather than a MacBook, but it doesn't seem to run very hot to me. I'd think the MBP would running warmer.

      I had one of the first MacBook Pros, and the only issue I had was my battery went bad. They sent me a new one without a problem.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    12. Re:Its probabbly true. by Graff · · Score: 3, Informative
      I've still got three dmg's mounted on my machine that complain whenever I try to unmount them. This is a serious question - I don't know how to get rid of these things.

      If you can't close a disk image it's because of some file on the image that is in-use. You either opened a file on the disk or ran an application from the disk. Try closing open applications that may be the culprit. If that doesn't work then restart the machine.

      Not allowing you to eject a disk that is in-use is safer than allowing you to eject a disk with an open file. This helps to avoid file and disk corruption.

      let's try renaming a file under OSX. How do you do it? Click the file name, then click it *again* (but not too fast, mind you, or you'll open it!) and hold for 2 seconds.

      Select the file, hit the return key, type in the new name. It's pretty simple and quick to do. The problem is under Windows hitting the return key OPENS the file so you probably never thought of trying this.

      had to select about 50 QuickTime files, then un-select about 10 of them peppered throughout the list. I have my command key mapped to control (to stay consistent between my Mac and PC), so I did a shift-select, then a ctrl-select to de-select the files I didn't want. Easy on Windows. Of course, try this on Mac and if you click the wrong place on the filename, you end up trying to simultaneously open 50 different QuickTime files.

      I'm unable to duplicate your problem. I shift-selected a ton of files and then went back and command-clicked on the ones I didn't want selected (I'm using the standard key settings for a Mac here). At no point did my selection changes open any files no matter where I clicked. You say you re-mapped your keyboard, maybe whatever you used to do that messed around with something. The control key on a Mac usually simulates a right-click when used in combination with a left-click, perhaps in remapping things you managed to provoke some sort of odd behavior.

      As both a Mac and a PC user I find the Mac interface to overall be more intuitive to use. However, this can be completely different if you are ingrained in your old PC habits and ideas. Old PC habits are hard to change and that can turn the Mac experience into something you are fighting against daily.
    13. Re:Its probabbly true. by rizzo320 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Mac mini isn't really marketed towards folks like you. Maybe 5-10% of computer owners have ever even built a computer or even replaced a motherboard or processor in their computer, and I'm being generous in that assessment.

      Most folks just want to sit down and use a computer that works- and for those who don't have a large budget and are looking to get away from Windows for most aspects of their computing, then the Mac mini fits in with that.

      Unfortunately, Apple is still stuck doing these marketing campaigns because of computing stigma's left-over from the 1980's. I still have clients who think that they need to do all this special stuff to send a Mac user a word document. This is why they make very obvious and deliberate statements in their advertising, because most folks don't even realize what Macs have to offer.

      I used to enjoy building "winux" boxes, in addition to playing around with my Macs. Now I don't have the time, so I have an 17" iMac with a 3 year warranty and 5 different operating systems on it. I know for the next 3 years I don't have to worry about buying anything other than RAM, because if it breaks, its covered. Sure the marketing is coarse, but man, who cares- look at all the other crappy advertising out there, like for example, (Dude, your getting a Dell!)

    14. Re:Its probabbly true. by JulesLt · · Score: 3, Funny

      >you're probably wasting your time on your tools instead of what you do with them
      I'm not sure it's wholly a waste of time, if it's also your hobby - and of course, once you get a Mac, you spend half your time evangelising them on the Internet, making up for the time saved in not tweaking hardware / Windows.

      --
      'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)
    15. Re:Its probabbly true. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The idea behind the Mac is that you're not supposed to have to worry about that stuff. You're supposed to be too busy actually getting work done with your computing appliance. When it gets long in the tooth, you sell it used (Apple machines have a ridiculously high resale value) and upgrade to a new one.

      Personally, as someone who grew up with PCs in the 90s and has fixed too many computers to count, I find the idea today of dealing with the innards of a PC as archaic and obsolete an idea as having to turn a crank to start your car.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    16. Re:Its probabbly true. by gig · · Score: 3, Informative

      > It's not perfect though. Uninstalling by dragging to trash still leaves little folders and files in the Library folder,
      > including in the Cache folder and Preferences folder in most cases.

      Yeah but they are text files with stored preference settings. Leaving them there is much less harmful than accidentally deleting something you need later. If you want to get rid of them, though, it is easy to identify them either manually or with Spotlight (by searching for the trashed app's name or developer).

      Also when you run an uninstaller in MS Windows it still leaves cruft in the Registry which is more potentially damaging to the system than the left-behind preference files on the Mac. And just the fact that you're not dealing with an installer on the Mac means one less app that can mess with your system.

  2. They're Right by aredubya74 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm waiting with baited breath for the release of the Intel PowerMac. I've never, ever, ever owned a Mac in any form. I've got a ton of Windows workstations and Linux servers, but never a Mac. This will change in August. I'm tired of ridiculous Windows behaviors (disk defrag inadvertantly deletes required system DLLs...nice), and ready for new ridiculous Mac behaviors, knowing I'm not giving dollars direct to Microsoft ever again.

    --

    RW

    1. Re:They're Right by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm tired of ridiculous Windows behaviors (disk defrag inadvertantly deletes required system DLLs...nice)
      I can't find any information on this from my sources. :(
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:They're Right by aredubya74 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No FUD whatsoever. This happened to me 2 months ago. Running Win2K with the latest service pack, I found my system was draggy as hell. I virus-scanned and ad-aware'd to assure I had nothing stealing resources, and yup, no such problem. I used Microsoft's included Disk Defrag utility, and found the C partition (4 GB in size) was 90% fragmented. Assuming this was the culprit, I ran the utility, and went to bed.

      When I came down in the morning. The defrag had apparently failed to complete, and the system was frozen. I powercycled it, and when it came back up, I was no longer able to log in (I'll look up the specific error code from my notes and reply with it). Throwing the disk into another workstation, I was able to mount the partition, and found dozens of DLL files had mysteriously disappeared from my system32 folder, including some of the important ones used to process a login.

      Not knowing what exactly was missing and needed replacing, I bit the bullet and bought a Windows 2K OEM CD, as I'd misplaced my own (yes, I really did misplace it - I've certainly pirated Windows before, but not in this case). I ran through a reinstall, and Win2K was back to normal, minus the dragginess I'd seen prior. Bit Rot Happens, we all know that, but this was a direct correlation to running a defrag and watching system files disappear into the ether.

      --

      RW

    3. Re:They're Right by MBCook · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'll love it, especially if you love the command line environment of Linux. Being able to have both the great GUI and name applications (like Photoshop) as well as a true Unix subsystem and command line you can use were a big factor in switching to the Mac for me.

      You mention defrag, and that is one thing I've never understood. In the time I've been using Windows, it has never run well without 3rd party software. In the 95/98/ME days defrag was probably important, but I found that a little program called MemTurbo make the system feel like it just booted all the time. It would somehow clean up leaked memory, or force specific things to be paged, as well as defragment the memory allocations.

      Then Windows 2000 came along and it no longer needed that program (hooray!). But NTFS just gets SO fragmented SO fast. Without a 3rd party program (Disk Keeper, set to defrag during screen saver) then any system that gets quite a bit of use will slow to a crawl pretty fast in my experience.

      Vista is supposed to have that built in, so I wonder what users will need next to keep the OS running smoothly.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:They're Right by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Informative

      That sounds great! Although I already have both things in kubuntu and it is free can run WINE (so If I want photoshop I can use it) and that's for free. Not saying that Macs are bad or anything just that you can find those features elsewhere so better focus on the other advantages macs have.

      The thing is, he WAS talking about things that are specific to the Mac, it's just that what you're seeing as two functionally separate things are, on a Mac, a single integrated feature. Yes, under a good Linux you can jury-rig a major app to run under Wine, and you can run unix command line tools.

      But on the Mac, you can run that major application, and a command-line tool, and they interact with each other in a completely supported manned. You could script Photoshop using normal Bash commands (via OSAScript) under OSX, and you could write an Applescript to export information from Photoshop directly into four different ImageMagick processes running in separate terminal windows. Of course there's much more mundane stuff, like dragging and dropping between applications and command lines.

      That's the sort of thing Mac users mean when they say how great it is to have a real Unix with great commercial software together on the same box. It isn't just about the convenience of not having to SSH or KVM to another system to run the full variety of apps you may need during a day's work, they become an actual SYSTEM working together in a unified way that no other OS I know of can match with any amount of hacking.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  3. It's too late for the public... by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... It is. Windows XP works pretty well, and there's really no more reason to switch PC platforms than there is to change your heat pump. It works. You'd be an idiot (quite literally) to waste time and money for no reason. That's the public attitude.

    Sorry to upset you. Mod me down.

    1. Re:It's too late for the public... by Eightyford · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ... It is. Windows XP works pretty well, and there's really no more reason to switch PC platforms than there is to change your heat pump. It works. You'd be an idiot (quite literally) to waste time and money for no reason. That's the public attitude. Sorry to upset you. Mod me down.
      A 20 year old Mazda works "pretty well" too. I guess that's why nobody buys new cars.
    2. Re:It's too late for the public... by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Actually, they'll be a bit harder to use, eh, and who needs a complicated, expensive heat pump when it heats your house just as well (as far as you know) as the last model. Get the cheap one and forget about it again until it breaks"

      Aren't you mixing your statements there ?

      The mac will be (slightly) more expensive, a *lot* easier to use, and it'll work a lot better without all those nasty viruses, spyware, trojans, you-name-it.

      The pc will be (slightly) cheaper, just as hard to use as the previous one, and just as vulnerable (Vista notwithstanding)

      A lot of people are going to go for the "upgrade" to the Mac, I think.

      Whether it's a real (I think it is, actually) or a perceived upgrade doesn't make much difference at this point - perception is all. It's interesting that most people "get by" with their PC, but "love" their Macs though - that tells me they're getting more from their Mac than they were getting from their PC. Certainly my non-scientific non-representative anecdote (My mother, sister, and brother :-) tells me they all much prefer their Macs. Three from three, and I no longer have a trans-atlantic support line. Their macs just work.

      Simon.
      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    3. Re:It's too late for the public... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Mac is a LOT more expensive - as in, three times as expensive as a comparable PC. Then you have to repurchase all the software.

      Someone did the math awhile ago, I can't find the link, but you're just plain wrong. The Mac is maybe $50 or $100 more than a comparable PC. And you'll be repurchasing software with Vista anyhow -- or living through the hell of the security dialogs.

      That's assuming you actually have lots of software which can't simply transfer a license to the Mac.

      A lot easier to use? Not if you've been using a PC for twenty years.

      And for twenty years, they've been changing things. You're going to have to retrain about as much to learn to use Vista as you will to use a Mac.

      Then, once past the learning curve, there's a whole slew of brand spanking new problems.

      I admit there are problems, but would you like to tell me which one you think makes a Mac worse than a PC?

      Plus a closed architecture.

      Sorry? It's not as open as I'd like, but as far as I know, you don't get ANY source code with Windows.

      And if by some miracle the Mac ever starts to get a mass audience, it will be a target for all the same viruses the PC currently is.

      Target, yes. But it really is more secure. Prove me wrong, though, if you dare. I'll put my Mac on any network you like and let you hit it with anything you want.

      Vista is just now starting to do some of the things that OS X has had for years, in terms of security.

      But out of all those, the first two - the initial overpricing and the repurchasing of the software you already own - are what will keep the vast majority of computer users from making a useless switch.

      The vast majority of computer users own less than $100 worth of software, and the price difference is also less than $100. Geek Squad charges $129-229 every time you screw up your PC. After just a couple of those, it's already cheaper to make the switch.

      Personally, I don't think it's as useful as, say, a mass exodus to Ubuntu would be. But at least I can easily set up SSH, use Perl, and all that good stuff without hours of hassle, so I'd be happy with people using a Mac.

      Anyway, get back to Digg. Your 12-year-old MS apologist friends miss you.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  4. Very true by p0tat03 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least in my college-age demographic it is. I'm seeing a HUGE desertion of PC's in favor of the MacBooks (the MBPs are a little bit out of the range of the average college student). It's going to be a good year for Apple.

  5. Good. by identity0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as George Clooney dies, I'm all for it. Heck, take Marky Mark too.

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Mac Minis making a giant wave, and the boat... almost... makes it...

  6. makes sense by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    basically getting a mac now means being able to do all the stuff you've always done on your pc - plus all the stuff a mac can do. in the past there was always what you were 'giving up' - now that's gone. it is now the windows machine that runs less software.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  7. Perfect storm of perfect storms by TimMann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't everyone tired of the phrase "perfect storm" yet? Why do people keep using it?

  8. Part of the pie chart represents "just kicking it" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    *Just kicking it does not include gaming.

  9. Again, the public.... by NineNine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... doesn't care. A computer is about as exciting as a heat pump. It's a dusty tan box that sits under their $50 pressboard "computer table" from Wal-Mart that they turn on to check email and surf porn, and every so often, open a pirated copy of Word to update their resumes. A car, on the other hand, is one of the biggest status symbols that Americans have. That, and many people rely on cars to do important stuff, like get to work. Computers aren't used for anything more important that a paperclip for most people.

    1. Re:Again, the public.... by Angostura · · Score: 5, Funny
      It's a dusty tan box that sits under their $50 pressboard "computer table" from Wal-Mart that they turn on to check email and surf porn, and every so often, open a pirated copy of Word to update their resumes.


      That's the issue. My parents (in their late 70s/early 80s) decided to get a Mac when they decided they liked the idea of getting a video camera and doing some video editing and DVD authoring. The bundled software simply sold them on the idea. Dad subsequently got a USB music keyboard just because he enjoyed the idea of playing with Garageband.

      But yes, their old Windows 98 box was fine for e-mail. I'm not sure about their porn-surfing habits.
    2. Re:Again, the public.... by Metrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Computers aren't used for anything more important that a paperclip for most people.

      A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you on this. One aspect that has changed in many people's lives is the entry of a wide variety of digital toys. Digital cameras, video cameras with hard drives, digital music players, and the stack of other goodies flooding the retail chains. Today the computer at home is an important resource for bringing all these things together, as well as the other stuff you mentioned.

      Apple has positioned itself pretty well in this regard, as the company producing the computer that is built to deal with this. I suspect that they'll be better positioned to take advantage of this over the next couple of years than Microsoft will be.

      Please note, I'm anything but an Apple fan boy. What the heck do I know though? I think KDE on FreeBSD is the bestest game around!

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    3. Re:Again, the public.... by jrcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And those old-fangled music player things used to be called walkmans. They worked pretty well. They were old, black, got the job done. People used them with their $5 headphones from Wal-Mart.

      And then there was the iPod.

      I think you're underestimating the market and an entire generation of people. Young, the desire to be hip, and lots of disposable income. It's a marketer's dream. Computing will only continue to be more integrated into everyday life. And if you don't think somebody won't capitalize on making it a status symbol I think you're sorely mistaking. Apple is definitely on the way to capturing it.

    4. Re:Again, the public.... by Shag · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're talking about desktops or towers, then yes, the public couldn't care less. And Apple has woefully small market share in that area - probably around, what, 3 percent?

      When it comes to laptops, though, there are different factors. Suddenly size, weight, battery life, and even appearance (well, for the fashionistas among us) come into consideration. And do I need to point out that a 17" widescreen notebook from Apple weighs about a pound less than one from anyone else?

      This January, Apple's share of the US laptop market stood at 6% - about double its share of the desktop market.

      This July, Apple's share of the US laptop market stood at 12% - double where it was in January.

      Apple has projected that as universal binaries of more applications for "creative pros" become available, that share could go higher.

      Maybe they'll continue to do better in notebooks than desktops.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  10. Competition by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They face stiff competition when an almost identical Compaq laptop is $300 cheaper -- and has a bigger screen. Same CPU, same RAM, same graphics chip, same ports -- except the Compaq also support 802.11a -- same HD, etc.

    With the Compaq you can opt for an AMD Turion 64 w/ATI graphics chipset instead of the Intel and it's CHEAPER. The Mac has the built-in camera but the Compaq has the option of a built-in Lightscribe DVD+-DL burner for $25 more.

    Yes, the Mac is more fashionable but the big point is going to be OS X -- will the general public (i.e. -- not Apple fanboys) be willing the make the switch at a 30% premium?

      -Charles

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Competition by Nicholas+Evans · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, the Mac is more fashionable but the big point is going to be OS X -- will the general public (i.e. -- not Apple fanboys) be willing the make the switch at a 30% premium?

      An interesting question!

      I don't exactly qualify as 'general public' having been using Linux exclusively for the past few years, but I have finally decided to check out what all this talk about OS X is. And I grew up on PCs - I remember when I was like four years old and fucking around at the DOS prompt (like I knew what was going on =P).

      A few of my friends have Apple hardware, and they really like how 'OS X just works'. So after months of seeing my boss' Macbook Pro, I've decided to get one myself (after the conference, of course).

      And I realize I'm paying a *lot* for a Macbook Pro. I could get something almost as nice for 30% cheaper, as you pointed out. But I am willing to pay the premium for OS X, after not spending *any* money on Free software for the past few years.

    2. Re:Competition by dhovis · · Score: 4, Informative

      And I'd be willing to bet that Compaq is at least 30% bigger than the Macbook. Find one with similar specs and dimensions and you'll find the price will go up. You pay for miniturization.

      Odd you picked Compaq. Ususally people find some Dell to compare it to and neglect to point out that the Dell is 70% greater volume.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    3. Re:Competition by horigath · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think I've ever met someone who kept their laptop under their desk.

  11. Maybe you misunderstand? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Windows now has about 95% of the desktop market. Nobody is suggesting that will drop to 5% overnight.

    Yes, the vast majority, of windows users will stay with windows, no question. But there is always that segment of the market which will be shopping for a new PC soon, and may consider a Mac.

    How large could that segment be? 5% would be huge. If Apple could get another 2% - 3% of upcoming PC sale, Apple's sales would double. Clearly that is very significant.

  12. Is this where I get on the bandwagon? by bgfay · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My old laptop is aging and I want something new. The Macbooks look good, feel good, seem to be so much more secure, and, in general, have only one drawback which is price. That's a one-time thing and I'm at the point where I'm ready to suck it up and spend it. This after twenty years of PC use. I can't be the only one drooling over these things.

    More than that, the next iteration of OSX promises to be more efficient while Vista is likely to be far less effecient, need way more resources, and still suffer the same fates as my previous Windows machines.

    Beyond all that, have you seen the Mac stuff? It's so cool looking!

    --
    Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
  13. It's comming... if only Apple would let it by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've got to say, I love my Mac. I used to love 'em, switched to PCs during the late Windows 3.1 timeframe, and then switched back last year.

    Macs are growing, and they are growing fast. Apple's US laptop market-share DOUBLED in the last six months. Now one in eight laptops sold in the US are Macs. For an alternate OS, that is huge. And because the MacBook was released during the middle of that period, there was a disclaimer with those numbers that the trend will very likely continue.

    And why not? Mac laptops are sexy. They look great. They have almost every feature you could want (I still don't understand why for such a media friendly company, they don't have media-card slots). They are light. They are thin. They are quiet. It amazes me that many new Dells and such have to have their fans on all the time and it's quite audible. When they dare to do anything complex, a little jet-plane enters the room. My Mac (admittedly a G4, although I hear the recent Intels aren't bad at all) is dead silent. It took me like 2 weeks to realize there was a fan in the thing (not that I was looking). When going full-tilt with graphics, it's about as loud as most people's Dells and such are at idle.

    Macs have had (and still do) a few issues. Graphics cards is a major one. I hope the switch to Intel helps this more, because my 1 year old laptop has a sorry graphics card compared to what was available on PCs at the time (Radeon 9700 or 9800).

    That said, the stars are converging for Apple. They have HUGE brand trust and are "cool" thanks to the iPod. Their hardware looks and performs excellent. The OS is amazing. I've been running Vista for about 18 months in the form of Tiger. When Vista comes out, I'll get Leopard and be ahead again. I help neighbors and such with computers and I can't tell you how many problems could be solved with a Mac. "I want to edit movies." If you had a Mac, you'd have all you need thanks to the amazing iLife. But they were on a PC so they had to buy a FireWire card, video editing software, DVD burning software, and none of it was as easy to use as the Mac software. I know people who can't find their files. They just don't get the filesystem organization (you've seen 'em: everything in My Documents). Spotlight would save them so many hassles. I've set them up with Google Desktop... but it's no the same. Spotlight is integrated into EVERYTHING. Even the standardized File dialogs.

    Then there is the Intel switch. Biggest complaint from people I've told about Macs in the past? "Then I have to buy all new software." This is people who run everything from just a handful to expensive things like Photoshop. Now with Intel, you can get a Mac and run those programs though Parallels or dual-booting. End up not liking the Mac (I doubt it), you can run Windows FULL TIME. You have very little to lose for what you stand to gain. If this was available when I was looking, I would have bought a Mac about a year earlier.

    Games could use a focus. Apple REALLY needs to advertise the OS. The latest ads were a good start, but I show people my Mac and even little things (the keyboard and screen responding to ambient light) wow them. Apple needs to get people to know about this stuff. Then there is stuff like Exposé that just blows their mind. They have seen NOTHING like it on the Windows side (as opposed to things like Spotlight that have rough equivalents).

    My biggest problem with Apple for the last 4 years or so (both as an observer and now as a user) has been their lack of advertising of OS X. They seem to be stuck with an almost word-of-mouth sales techniques. Maybe with recent moves (more stores, going into Best Buys and using Apple personnel to run the Mac section) will help.

    The Mac market is already exploding. Just wait to see what happens after WWDC. With the real power desktops out, I wonder how much their market share numbers will jump. What will Leopard do (especially if they advertise it). What will happen in Back-To-School season (between the MacBook and their recent free-iPod-with-Mac-purchase programs), and Christmas?

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  14. Doesn't Anyone Know What Proprietary Means? by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 4, Informative
    Along with the CPU came the PCI expansion bus, which replaced a wonderful, but proprietary, bus called NuBus that Apple had used for ages.
    Hint: It isn't a synonym for uncommon.

    NuBus is hardly proprietary. It is the IEEE 1196 standard originally developed at MIT.
    --
    It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

    -James Baldwin
  15. Re:Its probabbly true. HDMI by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Do you want to be able to play high def video on your computer in the future? If you go the Vista route, you will have to buy a new machine anyway. Vista itself will need faster hardware. Then, if you want to play DRM'ed WMV video content, you will need a new HDMI compliant video card and HDMI monitor. There has been no talk of restrictions on viewing content in OS X so far and there has been no talk of HDMI requirements for monitors attached to macs.

    MSFT is strongly pushing DRM for video content whereas Apple so far has been silent on the matter. I do not foresee Apple making a sharp about face and forcing HDMI down our throats at this stage in the game. If you value your freedom of fair use, I would suggest looking at Apple.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  16. I made the switch a couple of weeks ago by Brento · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hi, my name is Brent, and I've got a problem.

    Oh, wait, wrong meeting.

    I made the switch a couple of weeks ago, but the interesting thing I'm noticing is that the tech community, the network admins and programmers, are going to be the last ones to make the switch, and that's why it's going to catch us geeks off-guard.

    In my day job, I'm a SQL Server administrator. I rely on MS tools to get my job done, and I can't do my job on OSX - or at least, I couldn't until Parallels came along. Boot Camp is a nice idea, but since I have to have SQL Server Management Studio running all day, dual-booting would mean I'd have a shiny laptop running Windows. Big flippin' deal.

    Most of the guys around me said, "Why make the 'switch' when all you're doing is running Windows AND Mac OSX all the time? How can that possibly save you time or energy?" Well, it doesn't - it involves more work - but I'm having a great time doing it. As I write this, my keyboard is glowing. That's coolness.

    All of us network admins and infrastructure managers rely on more Windows-centric tools than we'd like, more stuff tying us down to Windows longer than our end users. The end users seem to use more generic applications like Office, and they're able to make the switch even faster than the supposedly high-tech guys.

    Normally, when a Big New Thing comes out, the geeks are the first one to make the jump. Apple's making it so easy to make the switch that the push is coming up from the end users. Attention, Windows network admins: there are probably people right now in your organization thinking about making their next computer an Apple. Be prepared when they start asking support questions like, "Which of our applications don't run on a Mac, and why?"

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
  17. Re:Family by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the one hand I'm VERY tempted to just say "Ah, the classic reaction of a typical Windows IT guy." Not willing to learn anything new, afraid of becoming irrelavent.

    On the other hand, I can understand the reticence since you're not talking about work, and you truly don't have experience with Macs since you don't have one yourself.

    Unfortunately for you, while keeping your family on Windows (presumably) means you won't be caught unawares whenever problems come up, it means you will have a lot more time taken up by it--whether it's simple maintenance or fixing something that's broken. Goodbye personal time.

    I convinced my friend's mom to get an iMac to replace her aging PC, with the promise that I'd be available to help whenever she had problems. She's only called twice with Mac-specific issues, once when she got confused about the password box, and the other about the Mac version of Excel. She's been VERY happy with her Mac, even gave it an nickname based on how quiet it ran.

    In turn, my "support calls" after getting her set up have amounted to just a few hours in the last 8 months, and I don't have to support the steaming pile of garbage that Windows too often is. I already waste too much time in a Windows admin role at work (it's not even my main job), the last thing I needed was to blow any of my personal time on it as well.

  18. Mac is the best platform... by partenon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    for most of the geeks :-) Before being bashed by FOSS gurus, let me show my example.

    I'm a Java and Ruby (on rails) programmer. I've dropped windows about 2 years ago, and used various flavors of linux in this meantime (debian, ubuntu, gentoo and ubuntu again). Less than one year ago I bought my first mac (mac mini).

    Java development in Windows is "standard", in linux is good and in Mac it is great. You have the same tools as Windows or Linux and, since java is "portable", all other tools (frameworks) works fine. The difference between Windows and Linux/Mac is that Windows restricts you *a lot*. Ex.: I put all my libs in just one place, and make sym links to them in the projects I need. In Windows, its not possible (afaik) (yes, a simple example, but try to keep the libs updated on a windows box...) . And the difference between Linux and Mac is performance. *Usually*, a Java application runs faster on Mac than on Linux, because the Java VM in Mac is done by Apple, meaning that its built by the ones who knows the OS. In Linux, as you certainly know, is a certain pain to install Java (you need to follow one or another howto to get things working), and the performance is *usually* worse than in a Mac, because the VM is done by Sun, which is concerned mainly in getting things working. Yes, they care about performance, but not that much :-) (just remember that IBM and BEA's VM's performs better than Sun's)

    When programming with Ruby, Mac is really awesome. Again, Windows looses here. In Windows, you have a set of tools (editors/IDE's) that also exists in other platforms, but its performance is poor (afaik). Also, some Ruby libs requires some sort of compilation (mysql, rmagick, ...), and it can become a pain to get things working. On Linux, things are far better than Windows. You have almost the same tools, but its far easier to get things working: just apt-get / emerge / whatever and you are ready to go. In a Mac, just "port install" what you need, just like linux. The difference between Mac and Linux is in the tools. The same ones + a fantastic editor (and cheap for some, expensive for others). Ok, its not that smart to left an inexpensive OS to go to an "expensive" one just because of an editor. But trust me, it worth.

    Besides these work-related details, you also get an OS that just works, with enough applications to do what you usually do on a PC, a good terminal (I definitely cannot use the "cmd" anymore), a more than nice UI and so on... And for people who asks me "why use a mac", I just ask the same: "why use a Windows". There is no reason to use Windows. I can't find something that Windows does better than Mac (ok, I left an space here for some +5 Funny comments).

    But yes, there *are* reasons to use Linux instead of Mac. Specially if you want "all the freedom you can get", if you don't want to spend a penny in software or simply don't care about the UI.

    Of course, I talked about just the OS itself. The hardware *is* more expensive, specially here in Brazil (macs comes from US, which means they are taxed in *only* 100%). But if you think a bit better, it probably worth. In my case, I spend more than 10 hours/day looking at a computer, so, it certainly worth for me :-)

    And I'm sorry, this would be a single-line comment, but it simply grows :-(

    --
    ilex paraguariensis for all
  19. Re:evidence? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When a mac app is ever-so-slightly needlessly-different in its user-interface, the Mac community gets up in arms. The fact that you have Gnome *and* KDE in that sentence is indicative of competing (and hence different) styles.

    The mac has a long and established history of well-behaved apps, inter-operating via the OS. Nothing else comes close to the level of standardisation for all the commonplace things (cut/paste, print, preferences, user-customisable toolbars, menu layout, window management, etc. etc. etc.) It's a far more stable (as in: unvarying) environment for apps to co-exist.

    Hell, you can run the whole thing with a mouse with only one button.. Twice as easy as anything else [grin]

    I think though, it comes down to the well-behaved nature of the apps/developers, and the level of thought that has gone into how to make apps useful - have you seen the *size* of the Apple human-interface guidelines book ?

    Take the menubar being always at the top of the screen - not everyone likes that (personally it bugs me to have to traverse two wide-screen displays to get to the File menu), but it means it's "infinitely deep". You can slam the mouse as fast as you like to the top of the screen and it'll still hit the menubar on a mac. Now I've seen people do the same thing on a PC (video-editing app), but they made it 1-pixel-in (presumably the border for a full-screen window took 1 pixel or something). Now it's nowhere near as easy to use... There are a myriad of little things like that, where it's been thought about on the Mac, and the lesson doesn't seem to have been transferred to any of the competitors.

    Or hell, I could be wrong.

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  20. Re:Apple picks standards that nobody else picks by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Digital and MS-DOS use CR-LF, UNIX uses LF, and Apple, bless it's heart, uses CR.

    DEC operating systems for the most part use variable-record files with one record per line and either a 1 or 2 byte count plus an optional carriage control word per record.

    CP/M and MS-DOS used CR/LF, but that was kind of an accident caused by the fact that every program was implementing its own I/O.

    Apple and OS/9 and most mainframes that didn't used record-oriented files used CR, because that matched how FORTRAN behaved.

    UNIX uses LF, because that's what the ANSI standard specified, but that was an "obscure standard that nobody else picked". I think they did the right thing because it happens to be very useful for a number of other reasons... but if it wasn't for UNIX gaining popularity it'd have gotten nowhere.

  21. Re:evidence? by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Informative
    Usability is something that can be measured and quantified. Where has anybody ever demonstrated that the Mac is actually easier to use than Windows, KDE, or Gnome?
    I know two sites you might want to check: a really old one, Mac Ki Do , and a more up-to-date one, XvsXP .
  22. Re:Its probabbly true. HDMI by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not meaning to troll, but what the hell are you talking about? For protected HD content from the new formats, you'll eventually require an HDCP-compliant display and output device. Which you can have over DVI or HDMI, and there are a few monitors that already support this. This goes for blu-ray and HD-DVD players just as much as ANY computer system, be it Vista, XP (assuming they actually write playback software) or OS X. Microsoft isn't pushing for content protection any more than Apple is, it's been required of them so people don't complain that their new MCE05 system won't play so much as a DVD. Love them or hate them, Microsoft isn't stupid about this - they know that content protection is a royal pain in the ass for consumers, but either they play along or they don't get the content. And with their digital home push, I'll leave it up to you which one their choice is.

    The content industry said that HDCP will be required for legal full-resolution playback on content with the ICT set (nothing now, but at some point (supposedly 2010 or later), all of the content on the winning HD format). So either support it or you can't play. Blaming Microsoft is either really ignorant or really fanboyish. Apple will require it too, the only difference that Apple controls its hardware so well that it should be fairly transparent to the end-user, unlike PCs where we tend to have a lot more give. Of course, displays are the one area where Apple products tend to have that give, but at least with the notebooks and iMacs, you can be damned sure that the display will be connected by an HDCP-compliant connection when they're packing a next-gen optical drive. I wouldn't be especially surprised to see Apple to be giving the Mac Pro an HDCP-compliant output at WWDC, or upgrading their Cinema displays for the same. Microsoft just writes the software - they have NO control over the hardware it goes on - so they take flak when these inconsistencies occur. If it was all well-done, everything with digital output and/or input would have been compliant for the start, and none of us would have been any the wiser since it's all transparent. But it's not, and Microsoft makes an excellent scapegoat. Blame Sony, they're the ones that actually helped come up with the stupid idea (with many others I'm sure, but they're also an excellet scapegoat) - just like CSS and AACS, but those two (well, we'll wait to see with regards to the latter) are transparent enough that it's usually not much of an issue.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  23. upgrading hardware by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the last two decades I've always upgraded my machine by piece-mail. A new case, a new HD, a new mobo, a new video card.... So at every purchases it's only been a few hundred at most.

    And how do you upgrade just the cpu/mobo without upgrading ram or the hd? I've got an old HP I'd like to upgrade but when I upgrade my cpu/mobo I'll hav to upgrade my ram and more than likely my hd as well as both the bus and the hd interface will be different. As my graphics card may not be compatible with a new mobo I may have to upgrade it as well. I don't see how over a preiod of more than several years you can upgrade a piece at a tyme.

    Falcon
  24. Parent flamebait but I'll bite. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I tried OSx86 10.4 on on my Dell laptop.

    I see.... so tried is a new euphemism for pirated?

    Paradimes in OSX that suck: 1) To eject a CD-ROM, USB-key, or external storage, I drag it to the trash. That seems illogical to me.

    I think the word you were looking for was "paradigms". Drives are dragged to the trash because you are not only ejecting the media but you are writing the file system buffer back to the drive (in the case of read/write media) and deleting its cache. With XP, you are also supposed to eject USB devices before disconnecting them for the same reason.

    2) To install a program, I "click-and-drag" it to my "hard drive". I had to google how to install something in OSX. Double-clicking the downloaded file yielded some puzzling prompt I can't recall.

    First of all, did it occur to you to RTFM? Second, you are not "installing" anything but rather copying the application bundle from the disk image for folder on the desktop to your applications directory. I call FUD on this one since most applications will run from a disk image let alone from the desktop. You should not expect it to behave like windows.

    3) Driver management is a nightmare. Sure, it works great with Mac hardware, but who wants to be locked into one brand? Oh wait, Mac-happy fan-boys do.

    What driver management? Oh wait, you are running a pirated/cracked version on your Dell. Did you expect it to work on your Dell? Locked in? How do you like the WMA ecosystem and being locked into windows?

    4) OSX feels like an OS that is 50 feet thick. And by that I mean it feels like there's layer upon layer of abstraction, as if it were trying to protect me from seeing how a computer really works. So you are saying that you do not like user friendly OS design and Object Oriented systems? If you want to hack away, go to http://developer.apple.com/ and read the documentation. Install the Developer tools and play with Interface builder. The power of the OS is all there for developers to extend. I think you are confusing complicated interfaces with "power". Open up a terminal windows and fill your boots.

    5) OSX is not very business friendly. It doesn't fit business-logic.

    What an absurd statement. Could you quantify that? By business friendly do you mean MIS friendly? Is it too damn easy to use that you are afraid business people might just use their computers are tools without needing so many MSCE's on their payroll?

    6) The bundled applications were inferior. Give me Outlook Express over Apples default mail application any day. That thing was an utter, illogical, painful experience to configure.

    More FUD and bullshit. You have got to be kidding me. Mail in Tiger has features features in common with Outlook 2003 like message grouping by topic threads. What is there to configure beyond email accounts and signatures?

    7) OSX is slow. Seriosuly, it's just not as snappy as winXP. Granted, I was running OSx86 on a Dell laptop, but I've used OSX on a mac before, and it really is a little laggy from all the superflorous garbage it distracts you with. "Ooooh, dancing icon. Thor like!"

    Yeah, having a GUI with a GPU accelerated compositing engine can be a bit slower than a simple bitblitter graphical stack like GDI+. Try out Vista and you will see how it is not as snappy either when running the Aero Glass interface.

    To anyone who is considering buying a Mac: Try using OSX first!

    That is one thing we can agree on. I would also suggest people try out Vista before blindly upgrading to it.

    In my honest opinion, I think Windows Vista will pave over OSX when it's released.

    Right. Do you even know anything about the current state of Vista compared with what was promised at PDC 2003? I use XP more than I use OS X simply because that is what I use at work and I used XP at home until the end of 2002. I'm afraid that your "experience" with a

    pirated

    X86 Tiger install does not qualify you to critique the OS X.
    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  25. Closed architecture? by ttfkam · · Score: 3, Funny
    Plus a closed architecture.

    Hmmm... Let's see. Looking at my "old" five-year-old G4 Powerbook.

    PC Card interface (PCMCIA)
    USB
    Firewire
    Ethernet
    DVI
    S-Video
    ATA (IDE) hard drive interface
    Laptop SDRAM

    Yup. That's a closed architecture if I've ever seen it. Not.

    The new laptops have standard laptop DDR memory as well. As a special bonus, I didn't shell out for the Airport card; I have a Microsoft-brand 802.11g PC Card wireless interface installed instead. (It was lying around and therefore free to me.) No extra drivers to be installed. It just ran under OS X as an airport device. How exactly could this laptop be any more open? Have you changed your Dell or IBM laptop motherboard lately for a 3rd party replacement? How about the CPU?

    And the desktops are even worse! AGP and PCI on the motherboards. What were they thinking? Next thing you know, they'll be moving to PCI-X in the next generation.

    The 1990s called. They want their "Macs are a closed architecture" whines back.
    --

    - I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
  26. Re:Family by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone who already knows how to setup and administer/maintain Windows and its programs is smart enough to easily figure out the equivalent steps on a Mac once sitting in front of one, especially with Google at your disposal.

    Take it from someone who learned Mac administration by myself first, and only started for Windows in 2000. By all rights it should be much harder for a Mac guy to pick up Windows admin skills, but I did, and without any MSCE certification courses either. I picked up most of these skills with no Windows PC of my own, so my situation is like yours, in reverse.

    Your concerns about not being able to walk your grandmother through stuff is valid, but possibly misplaced given your examples. If you're physically at your grandmother's, as I said you'll figure them out fairly fast.

    If you mean *talking* her through stuff over the phone that's different, so here's my suggestion (applies for Mac or Windows); I've set up and used the free (as in beer) and very user-friendly Bosco's Screen Share (http://www.componentx.com/ScreenShare/) with my friend's mom the couple of times she's needed help. It allows me to see or even control her screen (I set it up so she must click OK these requests; I can't just login any time I want). Much more efficient than describing a problem by words alone.

  27. Re:Sorry, not happening by eltonito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suppose when you go car shopping you complain that a fairly reliable Honda costs 20%-30% more than an unreliable, poorly designed GM. Sure, the Honda gets 25% better fuel economy, performs better and doesn't break down as much, but the GM is cheaper and it has a longer warranty than the Honda.

  28. Re:Here's some evidence by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Informative
    I dunno, maybe because all three are bloody obvious ?

    1) "Fitts' law is a model of human movement, predicting the time required to rapidly move from a starting position to a final target area". Unless you never select anything from the menu, it applies. For every GUI-user you show me who has never selected a menu-item, I'd be able to find hundreds who had.

    2) Did you get the bit about "infinite depth" ? That the edges of the screen make it easier to locate the mouse because of no possibility of overshoot ? Seems completely obvious to me, but hey! Actually it seems bloody obvious to others, too

    Question 5

    Explain why a Macintosh pull-down menu can be accessed at least five times faster than a typical Windows pull-down menu. For extra credit, suggest at least two reasons why Microsoft made such an apparently stupid decision.

    Microsoft, Sun, and others have made the decision to mount the menu bar on the window, rather than at the top of the display, as Apple did. They made this decision for at least two reasons:

    Apple claimed copyright and patent rights on the Apple menu bar
    Everyone else assumed that moving the menu bar closer to the user, by putting it at the top of the window, would speed things up.
    Phalanxes of lawyers have discussed point 1. Let's deal with point two. The Apple menu bar is a lot faster than menu bars in windows. Why? Because, since the menu bar lies on a screen edge, it has an infinite height. As a result, Mac users can just throw their mice toward the top of the screen with the assurance that it will never penetrate and disappear.

    Unless, of course, I'm testing them at the time. I did a test at Apple where I mounted one monitor on top of another, with the menu bar at the top of the lower display. The only way the user could get to the top monitor way by passing through the menu bar enroute.

    I then gave users the task of repeatedly accessing menu bar items. When they first started out, they penetrated into the upper screen by around nine inches on average, just because their mouse velocity was so high. Then they learned they had to slow down and really aim for the menu. By the time they adjusted, their menu-access times became so ponderously slow, they took around the same time as the average Windows user.

    The other "advantage" usually ascribed to a menu bar at the top of each window is that they user always knows where to look for the items pertaining to the task they are carrying out. This is silly. Users may do various tasks within a given window, and the menu items may change. Not only that, but a great many perverse applications exist, particularly in the Sun world, where the menu bar you need to access is not even in the window in which you are working! That is truly bizarre and mind-bending.

    Microsoft applications are beginning to offer the possibility, in full-screen mode, of a menu bar at the top of the display. Try this out in Word or Excel. It is much faster. Microsofts general cluelessness has never been so amply displayed, however, as it is in Microsoft Visual Studio, which has a menu bar at the top of the screen with a one-pixel barrier between the screentop and the menu. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


    3) If it's easier to do something, that's a better usability. End of.

    Game, set, and match.
    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  29. Re:Its probabbly true. HDMI by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 3, Interesting
    MSFT is strongly pushing DRM for video content whereas Apple so far has been silent on the matter.

    Out of curiousity, which of the two companies is actively selling DRM encumbered video? I agree, HDMI is a terrible thing, another opportunity to charge people more in exchange for hardware that does less and in the process help stamp out fair use. But Apple's no more our friend in this than Microsoft.

  30. Re:Maybe PILE is the key term? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For work, forget using anything from IBM, forget using the SAP client (SAP GUI) if your work requires it. Forget a *lot* of other essential corporate applications.

    Bzzt. Thanks for playing. [PDF] You're right, though. Lots of IBM software is not available for Mac OS X. Like Lotus Notes and ViaVoice.

    I'm not going to disagree with you about software availability. However, I think what you'll find is that you may have problems finding a "brand" that you're comfortable with. Everyone's favorite example: AutoCAD. Of course, there are plenty of CAD solutions on the Mac. However, if you must use AutoCAD for some reason, you're out of luck. This is true for games--a particular example of branding. If you're the sort of person who has to play the latest hottest game as soon as it comes out, you're out of luck on the Mac. For example, I got Star Wars: Battlefront for Mac OS X this past Christmas. It shipped in July 2005--about 10 months after the Windows release. So it certainly wasn't the hottest game by the time I got to play it. I still like playing it, though.

    Now, how would I convince a consumer to switch to something which is more expensive while lacking both the breadth and width of software and hardware options they currently enjoy? When they ask about upgrades, how would I explain to them that Apple charges rediculous premiums for *any* kind of hardware upgrade? How would I convince my company to switch when just 10% of their essential software even has an equivalent on OSX?

    Well, some of your concerns are just plain wrong.

    Again, in the consumer realm on the software side, I think you're taking about games. Everything else is covered. In that realm, suggest they buy an Xbox 360 or Wii for the kids to play games with. Mom & Dad will be happier about not having to kick the kids off the computer anyway.

    Hardware, I'm a bit lost on. What do you mean "breath of hardware upgrades" for consumers. Are you saying that you can't upgrade memory, hard disks, or video cards on a Mac? Sorry, Macs use industry-standard hard drives. If anything, the problem with Macs are that they tend to be ahead of the curve, so you might have to buy Serial-ATA drives instead of a cheapo ATA/66 hard drive and that will cost you more money. Same with memory--the iMac uses PC2-5300 memory which is more expensive than other types. For example, a 1GB upgrade is about $165. For a Dell XPS200, 1GB of PC2-4200 memory is $120.

    From the business software side, I might agree. But, before I do, I'd point out that Macs are cheaper for a business to support than Windows. So, obviously, the more Macs you have, the cheaper it will be. So suppose we ask this question: What job positions require Windows PCs?

    Receptionist? That job is mostly about e-mail, etc. All available on Mac. Sales? Again, e-mail, etc. Perhaps some database access for looking up inventory and such, which can be done via the web. Macs have web browsers, so that should be fine. So we could switch Sales. Marketing? Ooh...lots of graphics and such. Plenty of room for Macs in marketing. General Management? Show me a software category that is used by general management that is not available on the Mac.

    Engineering? Well, if you're developing Windows software, you need some Windows machines. There are also some great tools for other engineering disciplines which are not available on the Mac. Fair enough. Engineering keeps it Windows machines.

    Accounting? There's accounting software for Macs, believe it or not, but I'll let them keep their Windows machines. There are some great accounting solutions for Windows.