Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Missed Opportunity With Leopard Delay
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests. 'It's not uncommon for Windows users and technology consumers in general to say that Microsoft missed out on making the most of Vista both before and after its launch. Longtime fans of Windows have changed their tone due to Vista's inadequacies, and regular users are in many cases stuck with trying to figure out why they still can't get certain things to work within the operating system. Granted, it's not a completely horrific OS, but is that even a compliment worth accepting?'"
Windows users will stick with XP, there's no evidence to say that they would give up on Windows and get a Mac. Firstly they would need to buy new hardware, the obvious choice is to go to Linux since you can keep your hardware.
Define "completely horrific."
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
I'm not sure how you can say they missed an opportunity until after some initial sales figures and responses come out. It took a while before the non-desire for Vista became apparent. It will take some time before people have a chance to respond (with their wallets) to Leopard.
The should have released it 'on time' regardless if that made it feature-poor and buggy.
These comentators don't understand Apple customers. Apple customers value quality. You try to sell them crap and they will eat you alive.
Apple's prime value is in the intangible goodwill of it's customers. Destroying that by releasing buggy crap wouldn't be a good idea.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Vista came out after last Christmas, and Leopard is coming out before this Christmas, so they didn't miss the big pre-Christmas cycle. My next computer will be a Mac Pro once they refresh them.
Apple had a choice, release the new OS X later, and the iPhone when they did, or, delay the iPhone.
I think it should be obvious with the hype that still surrounds that device that Apple made the right choice. Yes, they could have gained some more marketshare, but probably not by much. After all, OS X is already here, just not the latest version.
Apple is entering a market (handhelds) that is likely to be a much larger market than laptops/desktops over the next few years. The iPhone stands a good chance of becoming the market leader in a particular segment. OS X will still be (mostly) a niche player. I hope to see adoption of mac's increase - after all, I own one.
But given the choice, I would opt for the iPhone over OS X just like they did.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon.
Apple is releasing Leopard soon, unless six days now qualifies as a long wait. Perhaps the author of the summary meant "earlier."
But it wasn't Vista who won, it was Ubuntu. While I was waiting for Leopard to come out to make my first Mac purchase in 10 years, I tried Ubuntu and stuck with it. Ubuntu somehow became a buzzword at exactly the right time.
However, I did get my wife a Macbook this summer and honestly Tiger is still a big upgrade from XP. It works great! I'm going to upgrade to Leopard just to see the new goodies, even though she might not even notice I did it.
The lesson from Vista is that releasing a broken and incomplete OS so you can fix it in the field is no longer acceptable. Ignoring your testers complaints on usability and performance issues will no longer get it done. I suspect that the disaster that was Vista's release is one of the things that caused Apple to reassess their Leopard release date.
With that said, it's obvious that the Vista release cycle was a death march from the get go. There's little chance you can jettison that many major features during the development cycle and still end up with a quality release in the end. Killing cool features also kills developer morale and poor morale causes poor quality.
Well, the one half will complain about delays when a new version is about to be released and the other half will complain afterwards if it was to soon... business as usual.
Instead, Leopard wasn't set to be released right near the time of Vista's release, and Apple wasn't going to hurry the process along more than they had to. In fact, we're all now waiting for Leopard's release in October, and this is largely due in part to the need for key members of the OS X team to finish up work on the iPhone so that it could hit store shelves on June 29th.
That's what Apple said, but people who were on the beta were saying that Leopard wasn't likely to be ready on time already, that it was way less stable and mature than Tiger and Panther had been at a similar point. And Apple has been known to dissemble, perhaps not outright fibbing but certainly exaggerating minor issues and not even mentioning major ones... so I still think this explanation should be taken with a pinch of salt.
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so."
This seems mostly a case of a poorly punctuated column headline. Given the author himself concludes Apple made the right choice in the face of limited resources, a more clear headline would have been "Leopard's Release Date a Serious Mistake?"
I'm sure Apple knew that Microsoft execs were passing around the developer preview of tiger. Realistically, how could Apple have possibly known how bad W i n tiger was going to be? And after previous Windows releases, how could they know that Microsoft could fail so spectacularly in marketing their latest turd?
I only have to ditch my PC and get a MAC when my XP/2003 is working just fine. I doubt it.
The problem with Vista is it offers no compelling features for Windows users. XP/2003 run reliably and offer the widest range of applications. The ONLY thing MS has with Vista is exclusive DX10 games. And there are no compelling upgrade reasons even for most gamers.
His piece is titled: "Leopard's Release Date a Serious Mistake" But it closes with the line: "did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so." So what does it all mean? To me, it means that "OS Weakly" has nothing of substance to say.
Most windows users have never even used a Mac and have no idea why it's ment to be better.
So if you say Leopard has dashboard, Quarts Extreme and Quarts Extreme, that's just totally meanless to a Windows user
IF Apple could have gotten Leopard out six months sooner it would have been a coup, but it's better that they miss that target than they release the system in the state that beta-testers were reporting it would likely be in if they released on time.
The author poses a hypothetical question that he knows will get the fanboys riled up: "Did make a mistake?". And the disputes his own question saying "No they didn't". This whole "article" is a troll and should be ignored.
...which has been re-written ad nauseum for the past six months.
The average mac enthusiast doesn't give a rat's ass about strategic timing of OS releases. If OS 10.5 wasn't ready until now, that's certainly good enough for me.
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Uh, you probably use Windows. Moreover, you've most likely *never* used Mac OS X. I'll give you a run for your money - most Windows users are pretentious drooling fan boys who think they're so 1337 because of their "pwnage" and think that messing with school computers makes them a "1337 haxx0r".
Apple needs to come out with 10.5 of all systems or at least have a MID-RANGE mac with DESKTOP PARTS.
If anything, Apple scored a coup with the delay, since the amount of pissed-off discouraged Vista users has hit a critical mass.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
One of the main reasons Vista has been so maligned is because it was ridiculously late and Microsoft was desperate to save face... so they started stripping out promised features and shipped it before it was truly ready. The bad reviews were legion. Word of mouth has spread. Even non-technical people have heard of Vista's bad reputation... I've lost count of the posts I've seen on here where someone mentions their surprise that their mom or whoever remarked something on the order of, "Vista? Isn't that the bad one?"
By holding Leopard back until they were sure it was ready, Apple has laid the groundwork for an even bigger opportunity. There are a lot of people out there who flat out don't like or don't want Vista. Delayed or not, if Leopard gets good reviews in the media and the word of mouth is positive, that's going to give a nice boost to Mac sales.
~Philly
Instead of just the headline.
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so."
How cool would it be if they pushed back the release in order to make it an x86 wide release?
Not hat I have heard anything like that, but still!
The reality distortion field is strong in this one....
But even stronger in the article. Come on... Joe Average hears about problems in Vista - he's going to look at the Mac, perhaps. Will he understand the differences between Tiger and Leopord - or Jaguar or Krazy Kitten (oops, that's the next Ubuntu release, sorry)?
And who is really not moving towards Vista? It's large corporate systems with millions of dollars invested in a stable XP and little desire to mess with that. That move will be slow but steady. But really slow - probably slower than the 98 to XP move. Witness all of the systems still on 2000.
I may be more of a poster child for a switcher - having used Windows in all flavors and sizes since 3.0. I finally got fed up with the cheapass hardware that laptop manufacturers have tossed out on the market and looked to find something that might, perhaps, get hardware support for more than a year. I've also used Unix since the 1980's and have two Linux boxes at home (well, Ubuntu anyway) - so I'm not adverse to learning another OS. It's still a royal pain to switch if you do anything more complicated than Letters / Browsing / Music.
(Start flames about Apple using cheapass hardware - they do - I just hope they use the SAME cheapass hardware so I can replace it down the line).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I agree with most other comments, the date itself is not that important. Leopard (seems to) offers much more than visual improvements and seems like a worthy successor to Tiger.
Even if there are plenty of new features, many that I'm sure I'll love since it will help me be more efficient (Time Machine, the new Spotlight, etc), there is no "killer feature" that I can say it's groundbreaking. Am I asking for too much? Maybe. But XGrid has been around for a few years and it is not yet the killer feature I hope it will become: easy grid computing for anyone. Might not be that important in home (though many homes have more than one computer, but there's not a lot of number crunching in there), but for small and medium enterprises, that really could be a significant money and time saver.
Animoog.org
What do you think? I know it is an oversimplification.
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
Aren't analysts supposed to focus on the future? Any fool can analyse past events with the benefit of hindsight, but that's pretty worthless unless the analysis is razor-sharp with the sort of brilliance that can be folded into future work.
So this article boils down to "someone thinks Apple should have done something different, but doesn't adequately explore ramifications or really prove their case." Excellent. Does this guy have a pamphlet I can subscribe to?
I have a Mac Mini and several PCs. The current Mac OS is better than Vista so I'm not sure why this opinion piece is notable.
Apple is in the hardware business. If a new version of the operating system is going to move boxes it will do so regardless of the software's actual release date.
Regards, Lex
If anything, Apple has decided that 5% of the computer market is all it will have, and little it does will displace the PC from corporate, the only way it can get much more than 10%. However, with good consumer toys, it can be the home electronics supplier for those with disposable incomes.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Macs are not replacing Windows PCs, they have become Windows PCs. Buyers no longer have to choose Mac OS X or Windows, they can have both. That is the catalyst that is driving the increased sales.
There is little point in running Linux on the Mac. Mac OS X is a capable *nix box, most FOSS software is not Linux specific and targets Mac OS X as well. Plus Mac OS X has a superior user interface. If someone is running Parallels they are doing so to use Windows XP. Exceptions are rarities such as a developer who needs to do compatibility testing under Linux.
First of all, it's impossible for Apple to time their releases to coincide with Microsoft's release, since MS was stuck in a cycle of delays that ran about six years. Secondly, Tiger is already more than a match for Vista, and finally, just by sheer luck, Leopard arrives on the scene as people are realizing just how utterly mediocre Vista really is.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Well of course Apple did the right thing when they decided to release Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard when it was good and ready, and not in beta form as that other software house which will not be mentioned sometimes do with its operating systems.
I don't see why Apple should act in any other way but to keep pumping out super-solid software and hardware. (The iPhone was a particularly impressive release, but most Apple products nowadays are very carefully tested. A notable exception being the very first generation MacBook Pros some years ago which were very buggy, and in many cases treated as DOAs and promptly replaced by Apple.)
A thorougly scatterbrained and rambling article in other words.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Sounds like a fanboy was pissed he couldn't get Leopard back in July. Apple made the right decision by delaying the release of Leopard. Several people on boards I frequent were beta testers and were very vocal in letting everyone know that Leopard was not a "finished" product back then. They would've released something incomplete just like M$; not a good idea. I would say that the only thing Apple lost out on was orders for the new imac/macbooks since many of us were waiting until we were sure that we'd either get Leopard installed or qualify for the updater at a reduced price. I'm definitely happy I bought my new imac at the beginning of October. And yes, it really is that much better than Windows..
What does that mean? They need to come out with 10.5 OF all systems?
MS didn't release Vista on-time but feature-poor and buggy. It was late as hell!
My guess is that Apple, at all costs, wanted to avoid doing what Microsoft did and completely disenchanting their user base by releasing a half-finished OS.
That's what I think the real reason was. If Leopard had been on track for the expected 18-month release cycle in mid-2006 it would have been pretty solid by the time they started on the iPhone, with a late 2006 or early 2007 release. The mid-2007 "non-slipped" date was already 2 years after Tiger.
Maybe the iPhone made the slip worse, but if it wasn't already slipping it wouldn't have needed the resources they pulled out for the iPhone.
And I don't think this slip cost them much of an "opportunity". If they'd had it out around the same time as Vista, 18 months after Tiger, then sure... but I don't think they could have pulled that off no matter what resources they threw into the pot. Brooks' Law always trumps Moore's Law.
I've been running dual boot XP and Ubutnu (Edgy) on my ADM64. One of these has a future, the other does not. I'm giving the newly released Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon a run through and I'm impressed. I'm weening myself off Microsoft and have no intention of looking back. The freedom is refreshing.
...isn't a troll?
Until Apple opens up its OS to be at least on the level that Windows is (you don't get much more closed source then hardware pre-requisite) it is not a competition.
Or even a valid comparison.
Apple fanboys will buy and use Apple if it required them to install a rectal probe so it would work. For them there is no choice.
And most of the "switchers" will not switch to Macs - they will switch to Linux. Unless they are rich, arrogant and stupid enough to throw away a working computer because they are not satisfied with the OS installed.
Or if we are talking just about dissatisfaction with Vista - they will switch back to XP.
Saying something-something about the new OSX influences Windows users in any way is like saying that the increasing number of sharks in the oceans influences the world's mice population.
Two completely different ecosystems with no direct influence from one to another.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yeah, they shoulda released it around 1989, before Windows 3.0 shipped...
Think of all the misery they'd have saved everyone!
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
1) Did apple wait too long to release Leopard?
2) Bunch of inane B.S.
3) Conclusion: Hmmmmmm... no, never mind.
Stupid article.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Quoth the article:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so." (emphasis added)
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
...who read that as "Apple's Missed Opportunity with Leonard Nimoy"?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
then early. That alone one ups Vista.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
I'm not sure about that. Apple recently released an upgrade that shoud work against the regular crashing of new Al iMacs when doing graphics-intensive tasks. From the forums I gather that that upgrade caused MORE crashing...
-- Cheers!
I agree completely, at least with the last part of your comment. Right now Apple has a product for every part of the market *except* the market that most home consumers are in. Consider that Dell sells a number of machines aimed at a home market that run for between $400 and $1000 for a complete system. Apple has absolutely nothing in that price rance except the Mac Mini, which is hardly a capable machine with its slow hard drive. Apple badly needs a small tour unit that can come to between $800 and $1000 with a monitor! Until then they are missing out on a huge market that thinks the iMac is too expensive for them, and the Mac Mini isn't enough computer. And actually the Mac Mini is really expensive too, for what it is. No keybard, no mouse, no monitor, all for about $500-$600. I'm the first to say that when you compare laptops, or even iMacs to business workstations, Apple is the same price or cheaper. But not so for the home market, one dominated by cheap whitebox PCs and Dells. I'm not going to suggest that Apple sell OS X for non-Apple harware. Just that Apple needs to start addressing the needs of this market in terms of hardware. I know of half a dozen close friends and relatives who would have bought Apple had Apple actually had something available.
The should have released it 'on time' regardless if that made it feature-poor and buggy. These comentators don't understand Apple customers. Apple customers value quality. You try to sell them crap and they will eat you alive.
I'll join in with the chorus of "Bullshit" as to the position on Apple Customers. Apple Customers value Shiny, and will continue to swarm accordingly. Steve Jobs would have to release at least two and probably three gold-plated turds in a row before this would change noticably.
On the other hand, I'll agree with your assessment that Apple made the right call to keep to their development timetable. In the long run, I believe the continued evolutionary approach Apple is using, where users can be confident that the new features will still be bolted to solid and reliable underpinnings, will net them more customers. Reliability issues don't affect short term sales as much as long-term. If your OS is unreliable, unstable, buggy, and riddled with usability and security nuisances, it is more likely to get a reputation that way and users are more likely to look at something without such a reputation.
The discussion on the local Mac mailing list isn't about whether to switch from Mac to PC, but whether users of X.4 really want to pay for X.5, or see what comes out in X.6. A minority of starving budget-strained starving students with X.3 are waiting for X.6 also, but remaining users of X.2 through X.3 versions seem to be generally for upgrading. In contrast, if even half of current Windows 2000 users had switched to Vista when it came out, Vista would have almost double its present market share.
It's not that Apple makes such wonderful products; it's that the dominant alternative is so bad, it's market position is threatened by a collective of hobbyists. All Apple needs to do to win is try and continue making sure their products contain as little obvious SUCK as possible. Solid, certain, evolutionary baby steps. Even when making the giant leap from OS 9 to OS X, Steve sold dual-boot systems for about three years. If Bill required every Vista system include a license to dual boot to XP, he'd have much happier users. (Not happy, perhaps, but not rioting.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Vista sells in boxes, sure. Now, what percentage is that compared to bundled Vistas in computers?
The same goes for OS X. Even more so that the vast majority of people who want to delve into the Mac world of computing will do it for the first time won't care whether their OS is called Tiger, Leopard of whatever feline species they can think of...
Really, it may only be a mistake for long time Mac users out there - and they probably won't even regard it as a mistake anyway.
Two points, both of which are extremely real-world true, and both of which will get me modded down.
1. I've been helping people with their computers for over a decade. I have yet to see one problem with Vista: driver problems aren't Microsoft's fault, since they don't make the hardware. Application problems aren't Microsoft's fault, since their applications run perfectly under Vista, and so do the applications of people who know how to program. For example, both Norton and MacAfee (aren't both owned by Symantec now?) where whining and crying about how their Vista versions weren't Vista compatible... and trying to blame it on Microsoft, whining about how they didn't have access to the Vista source code, boo hoo blah blah wah wah. Well, Kaspersky works perfectly with Vista, and has since when Vista was in beta.
So claiming there is anything wrong with Vista is just Apple and Teh Lunix spreading anti-MS FUD... which is of course gobbled up by all the Slashdotters. This place is the technological equivalent of the FOX Noise Channel.
2. I know people who are STILL using Windows 98. Are you honestly sitting there, telling me consumers are so chomping at the bit to get their hands on a shiny new operating system, that they are going to ditch an operating they actually know how to use in order to go with the arcane garbage that is teh Lunix? Another thing: your average consumer wants to know they can walk into the local computer store, and the software they purchase will run. That's not going to happen with Teh Lunix... and that's the reason consumers avoid both Apple and Teh Lunix.
The short article is mere speculation, and certainly not driven by any scientific polling data.
Opinion, speculation, heresay and whatever, but not much worthy of the pixels to paint on my screen.
Simple fact: Apple are great at design and marketing, but terrible at technology. Their engineers are, quite frankly, hopeless. They've only made great strides in the iPhone because of Chinese engineers, and these guys can't help them with an OS. Nobody in the industry would have ever expected them to release Leopord(sic!) with Vista.
Why *needs*? Looks like they're doing quite well even without it.
Longtime fans of Windows...
The amazing thing is that such a creature still exists in the wild.
...are not like you and me. They'll never try out an OS just to "check it out" like we might when there's a new distro that's supposedly better. The very last thing that Apple wants are Windows users that are finally convinced to switch, then find out that this sucks and has almost as many issues as Windows, only to move back. Not only have you probably lost them for the next 5-10 years, you'll probably get a lot of anti-marketing "Yeah, I tried a Mac a few years ago, it was all overhyped so don't believe them" that'll mean others won't bother at all.
IT geeks haven't got as much marketing power as we think. Oh, I can go on about the advantages of Linux all day but most of them people will think "sure, for him it might work". Vanity works much better, like "Hey Bill could do it, and I'm at *least* as good with computers as him". Same goes the other way around, if you hear someone "like you" giving something a bad review, you'll pay attention. That's just the way it works in all markets, and makes plain old sense. If you want to do print work, you don't read a webdesigner's review of GIMP you read a print worker's review. And with that perspective it makes perfect sense for Apple to wait until it's ready.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests.
OSWeekly sounds as if Leopard is the first OS Apple is about to release. Tiger is for most practical purposes just as good OS as Leopard. Leopard is a gradual improvement.
Plus it only is starting to become obvious in the recent 2-3 months how many problems Vista (still) has. The announcement of XP SP3, the oddly early Vista SP1 in Q1 2008, the extended OEM XP support period, the Vista-to-XP downgrade new policy.
And Leopard is here right for the holidays. I'd say, timing is as good as it could be. Perfect-storm-like good.
OSWeekly is just trolling for visits, and we're suckers for it.
What? Look at the MacBook. It starts at $1099, only $99 over the top of your bracket, and includes all of the stuff most home users could possibly want--and it's portable! It's right there in the home market sweet spot along side the iMac. I know a few families that use the MacBook as the household computer, and the kids can take it wherever in the house the need it. Should it be a surprise that Apple caters to the upper middle class market with these products?
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Now I'm not saying I have, because that would violate an NDA. But whether I have or not, I know that the beta is buggy as hell. And I've been told the same by more than one Apple employee, in person. They can't release it any sooner because it's not ready! It's not like Apple is sitting on this amazingly polished finished product, waiting for the release date. They are busting ass trying to make it ready for prime time.
I'm an "old style" Linux hard-core user/developer, pretty happy with simple window managers over XWindows. But, I have to say that for a less-technical user, Apple well-built (noone in the PC world have the level of manufacturing of Apple when it comes to hardware) hardware coupled with the new Leopard, kicks asses. As a global solution, with nice looking and awesomely built HW, and smooth and flawless GUI, Apple is going to gain some serious market share. And the fact that you can run at full speed Windows binaries using VMWare or Parallels inside OSX, is just another element that adds to the equation.
Vista has been a HUGE flop, everybody knows that. Microsoft in the first place.
Vista / Longhorn was supposed to come out in late 2002, and Apple released Jaguar in time to catch that. And then they released Panther and then Tiger, and this guy complains that they didn't release Leopard earlier?
And before somebody complains about those being "point releases", that's pretty much what Longhorn was supposed to be.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Actually, I have a MacBook Pro and I use Ubuntu on it.
Mac OS X is nice, but Ubuntu is easier to manage.
To be fair, Apple has been snakebit a number of times by lappie power supply/battery issues. Let's see, there was the PowerBook 5300 a la flambe incident, the PB G3 power supply that tended to have sparking issues, the full-of-lose "UFO" PB/iBook power supply that tends to die after a while thanks to power cord shorting issues, the expanding LiPoly batteries in the later iBooks, the MacBook and the MacBook Pro, and now the Mag Safe adapter issue.
However, they are not alone. How many lappies were recalled over Sony LiIon/LiPoly cell issues? How many other lappie manufacturers have recalled their power supplies? How about that ThinkPad 600-series charging circuit that kills batteries?
I fully expect to have an in-warranty replacement of the MagSafe power supply. This is the reason why nobody should buy an Apple lappie without AppleCare. I would give the same advice to anyone who buys anyone's lappie. Go for the extended warranty, go for the manufacturer's extended warranty if it is offered but the store's extended warranty if the manufacturer doesn't offer one. This is one time when it's smart to do so.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I started out as a pre-judged Vista hater. When I got my new laptop (XPS 1330) I decided to give it a go anyway rather than just downgrading to XP. I'm glad - it's actually quite nice, and IMO a real step up from XP unless you have incompatible apps.
Vista's honestly not that bad. Quite nice in some areas. I've had no serious app compat issues - but then I only really use OSS apps, and those tend to be well behaved anyway since they're usually portable, and tend to be quickly updated for new platforms.
I find the UI a small but significant improvement, and I'm already in love with the indexing service's integration with the rest of the OS. Yes, mac users, I know about spotlight - I admin macs at work.
I'd also say that fears about battery life _on_ _new_ _hardware_ with the latest generation of mobile GPUs are somewhat overblown. I don't see a huge difference between Aero on and off - much as I see relatively little difference (1/2 an hour out of this laptops 4 1/2 at most) from activating Compiz on Ubuntu. I'm not even sure there's any effect at all, since whatever difference there is is well within the measurement inaccuracy of any battery testing.
It's not some huge leap forward - it's more like what Apple does between two Mac OS X releases (including the breakage of apps with rather hacky innards that people yell about - try admining a DTP lab with Adobe and Quark products and tell me how much you love Mac OS X updates). What it is, though, is a _lot_ of small and medium improvements rolled up into what I'd call an overall much better OS.
I'd feel pretty ripped off if I'd paid to upgrade from XP - but as a new OS it's quite nice. I don't find the UAC stuff annoying (though it was a HORROR in prereleases apparently) though I do think it's a waste of time that'll just get people clicking the dialogs without even thinking.
As it is, I find Vista much more usable than XP already. It took me a few hours to get used to some of the differences (and I still hate the control panel UI in "new mode" - though I'm sure it's OK for non-technical users) but it's now quite nice to use. I tend to switch between it and Ubuntu on my new laptop, depending on task.
The problem is that OSX wont run on generic PC hardware, so we are talking more then just an OS, but a total pc upgrade. That will turn off a lot of people for some of the same reasons Vista does ( 'what? you mean i have to buy a totally new comptuer, when mine is working just fine?' "none of my current software will work after i do' "tell me again why i want to do this' )
"Better" is relative when what you have works. ( and yes, im a mac user )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
By my count:
Apple:
1) first practical PC
2) first practical GUI
3) Slam-dunk success with iTunes
4) Slam-dunk success with iPhone
Msft, by contrast, has long been know for sub-standard technology. Vista is a dissaster.
Please give me an example of Apple's "bad technology."
The Mac mini is capable enough for Granny or Aunt Ethel or Junior and Missy, which is the market that it is largely pitched to. It's intended as a "second computer" for the kids or as a first computer for "seasoned citizens."
As it turns out, the MacBook is the Mac most people are buying. It is a competitive laptop to all but the bargain-basement craptops that Dell, Lenovo and HP sell. Get beyond the loss-leader "hacked by Chinese" craptops and you will find that MacBook is pretty damn competitive with the competition's lappies.
And also, Mac OS X Tiger tends to run better on less RAM than Vista. So people go to, say, Fried Electronics, mess with a midrange lappie or desktop hobbled by Vista, then go check out the MacBook and feel the difference. If the track record is any indication, Leopard will be faster than Tiger on new and 1-2 year old hardware. It might suck on G4s but that's the outside realm of the machines that can run Leopard.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Parallels may the motivation.
This is what is tempting me to update from a Quad G5 in what would be a little early in my normal upgrade cycle. Then again if Leopard doesn't do it for me, I'm going away from the Mac and just living with multiple computers for multiple tasks.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
quality like first generation apple hardware?
you value the shiny shiny, just like everyone else.
When people quote penetration of Mac vs Windows (estimated at about 8%), they often don't realize how limiting this number is. Until Mac OS X runs on standard wintel hardware, this 8% is the amount of hardware available capable of running Mac OS. Even if every Mac on the planet instantly sold through to a disgruntled Vista user, it wouldn't make a dent in Windows marketshare. The only way for Apple to make a dent is to start the long road of releasing Mac OS for standard wintel hardware. The driver support and QA required for this is a huge task, and one which Steve has tried in the past and backed away from with NeXTStep for Intel.
They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft
Apple can not one up Microsoft. With parallels and boot camp Windows runs very well on Apple hardware. Apple users are now buying Windows, so called "switchers" are replacing their hardware vendor and still buying Windows. Microsoft is not losing sales. Apple is only hurting Dell, HP, etc.
Oh and I avoid Windows like the plague it is.
Did anyone else notice that the article was written before the iPhone came out? I think somebody just re-posted it this month.
Please explain. 10.5 will be available on everything ranging from the Mac mini to the Mac Pro in their current model line and will be available for machines dating back to the G4 era. And do explain what you mean by "Desktop Parts". The iMac (which is mid-range) has USB, SATA, Intel, NVidia graphics, ethernet, etc.
"I'm glad I'm going to die because, when I do, the world's gonna go to the dogs." -Me on aging and the next generation.
Look at the MacBook. It starts at $1099, only $99 over the top of your bracket
Well I think that was his point - only those looking to spend at the very highest end of $400-$1000 would consider stretching to something outside of that bracket.
If they were to do this there would be mass conversions on a scale that would have Ballmer throwing Chair's out the top of Microsoft Tower and Bill Gates hair turning white. After a few years when the tide has shifted and the majority of home users were on OSX, Apple could then make inroads to the corporate world where execs, admins and users alike would welcome them with open arms. Game over.
Don't worry, it's not as if Vista is going to stop sucking anytime soon...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What a load of bullshit.
I have not touched a Windows machine since January of 2007; it still sits idol by my desk and I just hook up my Mac laptop to my monitor now.
As to the argument that they are more expensive... when pricing something comparable from Dell, Dell sometimes comes across more expensive (when you take into consideration all peripherals and monitor and such) otherwise Macs are the same price. But in the long run you pay less; built in firewall and the unix based backend make all the added security software you need to buy for Windows ($300+) unnecessary.
I don't want to come across as a Mac zealot as I consider myself more of a Linux zealot but the Mac has been the best computing experience I have so far. However I DO think that Apple would quickly turn into Microsoft if it weren't for Microsoft.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
That's exactly what happened to Copeland back in the nineties. Apple delayed and delayed Copeland, the developers were arguing with each other, and no work was getting done. When Copeland came out as a Beta, it was almost as bad as Windows Me. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that, instead of being satisfied with Copeland Beta or trying to save face after the delay (like Microsoft with Me and Vista), they began to search for a way to salvage the OS. They did so by buying NeXT and bringing back Steve Jobs. The end result was, of course, OS X.
"I'm glad I'm going to die because, when I do, the world's gonna go to the dogs." -Me on aging and the next generation.
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
But given the choice, I would opt for the iPhone over OS X just like they did.
The iPhone is OSX Leopard.
Netcraft - er, Steve Jobs - confirms it.
they release a product that is similiar to a standard PC. Many people / buisinesses are not interested in an all-in-one like the iMac. They want or require some level of internal customization.
Apple needs to sell the current mini at rock bottom sub $400 prices and then offer a very nicely designed PC at $600.
However I believe the "style masters" at Apple (or Jobs himself) find this too bitter a reality to accept.
I had a G5 iMac for awhile - but I dumped that for one of the last models of the G4 PowerMacs (PC like design) ---- this dual 1GHz CPU unit has all the zip I need for GarageBand - Photoshop - etc. and allows me to have mulitple HDs etc inside the case
Its not the years, its the mileage
>>Apple's market share is over 8% now. Those customers are coming from somewhere.
Exactly! But there's more to the number than the statistics would indicate.
In the past three years most of my family switched to a Mac. I switched (desktop and laptop), my college-aged daughter bought a mac, I switched my parents and inlaws, and two of my colleagues switched off their PCs and are now using Macs for everyday work. So that's seven Macs in my immediate circle of family and friends. But only two of them were new machines, the rest were used G4s. The statistics in this review are only counting sales of new computers, so these switchers are "invisible."
However, that brings up a question I've had for some time. It's quite common to hear about people switching from PCs to Macs. What about the other direction?What percentage of people switch from Macs to PCs. I would wager that figure is extremely low.
(And yes, Parallels desktop is awesome!)
The CEO and company seem neurotic. Not in my experience. I have never heard that Steve Jobs has been throwing any chairs around, or threatened to cut off someone's air supply, or similar.
Most of the users are self-indulgent, arty, smug, pretentious types. In my experience (and I know quite a few of them) that is utter bullshit.
The average person wants nothing to do with this. Don't take your average pimpled PC sales person or IT man with a hate for end users as "average person".
The real question is, if Apple got all of these people to start running a desktop UNIX, what can Linux do to follow that lead? The usual answer is: Don't follow the lead. Change the rules. No idea how Linux should go about this vs. Apple, but then there are ten times more Windows users, and they are ten times more unhappy with their OS than Mac users, so maybe Linux should concentrate on beating Windows.
Or I could run the installer, do some basic set-up steps, and be on my way. And this is the PC version (OSx86). No, I don't have MagSafe, so that's one less thing to worry about.
OSx86 FTW
I went to install Ubuntu 7.10 on Parallels and there is a problem.
http://forum.parallels.com/showthread.php?t=17069
I just bought Parallels yesterday and this isn't encouraging. Some forum members seem to feel that support is not forthcoming for this bug, but since this is only a few days old, I'm assuming Parallels is working on a fix.
Still, it is disappointing.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
OSX86 is all I have to say about the "throw away a working computer" bit. It may even breathe new life into an aging computer.
OSx86 FTW
The volume needs to go up. As it does, Apple can build cheap enough to make the price difference negligable. They are already pretty close to a Dell Premium machine (Mac book plus VS equivalent or better Dell).
The mini has a small and slow laptop HD, low end laptop cpu, laptop ram, and the real old GMA 950 video.
the Macbook could use a better video card as other laptops with the same price have better video and a bigger screen.
The imac has a LAPTOP CPU, LAPTOP Video card that was better in the older imac, and higher cost / slower laptop ram.
Apple, as a company, has been busy. They released an entirely new product in the AppleTV, another completely new product in the iPhone, overhauled their line of iPods, revamped one of their most popular computers in the iMac, updated their web browser software (in addition to creating a windows version) and shortly they are going to launch a new version of their OS. Something that many people overlook is that Apple now has to support all of these products. Obviously they have had a lot on their plate in Cupertino. They have to pick and choose the battles they will fight. I think that Apple has finally come to the conclusion that the computer buying public will either see the value in their hardware and software or they won't. They have been fighting this battle for a long time, and frankly I don't think they are that worried about "converting" Windows users as much as they used to. They have so many other revenue streams to where it not as critical to the future of the company as it once was. Apple doesn't want the average Windows customer--well not until they change their thinking. A Windows PC purchase decision for most people is dictated by price for features. I mean you see it all the time on /. for example. A consumer is looking to get the most features that suit their needs for the best price--and their is nothing wrong with that. A Mac doesn't follow that paradigm. You pay a premium. Its not until you see the true value in their hardware and software will someone change their mind. I myself last year made the switch, and I couldn't be happier. I was a long time Windows user (3.x. DOS before that) and will probably never buy a new version of Windows again. I still have a Windows partition, but rarely use it. I tell every one I know that is thinking about buying a computer, when they ask for advice, to spend the extra couple hundred dollars and buy a Mac if they can afford it. If they are interested in saving money and don't need a lot of specialized software like Adobe's CS3 doing mostly word and web surfing, I tell them to buy a computer off of eBay and load Ubuntu. The more people like myself that are converting and not looking back, the more Microsoft will lose market share.
Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
"From hot dock Video to the revised audio and video subsystems that 'DO' increase application and even gaming performance "
I've been using Vista for about 6 months and the reality is that sound is awful. Scrolling windows causes sound to crackle. Heavy CPU activity will make sound glitch.
It's remarkable that Vista could suck the life out of a 2 core CPU just to scroll a window and play an MP3 at the same time. That took a special kind of skill to do that.
...he created with the iPhone. If not for that, Leopard would have been out in June, and Apple could have blitzed the back-to-school computer sales rush, and the holiday rush.
I disagree about the Mac Mini. By the time you add the keyboard, mouse, LCD monitor, printer, etc, it's going to be clsoe to $1000. And it will have it's clock cleaned by a Dell that's shipping for $700 including a 17" LCD monitor and printer!
The current Mac Mini is basically a MacBook without a screen, keyboard, or battery power, for half the price. They have the same processor, the same FSB speed, and actually the same HD speed. ( http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html , http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html ). The only real issue with the Mini is the same issue with the MacBook; they both have lackluster Intel GMA950 integrated graphics. But apart from gaming and a few hardware-accelerated creativity apps, why would a professional need anything more?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Here's the thing, we've seen the rise and fall of Dell, and the company is certainly suffering right now. The low-end hardware market has razor thin margins, and one misstep can spell serious financial disaster for the company. I think Apple has been wise to avoid this minefield of a market, potentially lucrative as it may be. It also gives them an air of quality that building el-cheapo low-end machines will compromise. You get what you pay for - and the fact that they only do higher end machines helps maintain their image that Apple = quality.
Seriously speaking though, I'd hate to see a Mac built to sell for $500 (monitor included). Nice, machined aluminum chassis? Nope, say hello to cheap flimsy plastic. Slot-loading drive? Nope, say hello to a behemoth 5.25" tray. I'm betting the Apple Keyboard costs several times to make than the average keyboard Dell ships with their machines. Yadi yada, so on and so forth, until you're looking at a machine that doesn't even resemble what we've come to expect from Macs - elegant, simple, quality.
way to get the most posts on /. post something about apple and vista ... but seriously if apple released it then it would of been as buggy as vista if not worse... they waited worked out bugs and didn't implement drastic programming changes at the last second. on the other hand vista was in beta for years then the last second they did drastic and dramatic changes.
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
I should have made the bracket more like $600-$1000. Prices outside the bracket need not apply, at least in the minds of many people.
And in fairness, the take-home price of the macbook is probably going to be closer to $1200, or even $1400 if you add in warranty and RAM. Still a great deal for what it is. But hardly something that competes with the $700 dell system. To me the price jump isn't that big of a deal. But to friends and family, saving even $100 dollars, is worth it to them. Vista notwithstanding.
I understand that Apple caters to the luxury goods market (home or whatever). I'm just saying they are missing out on a huge opportunity to capture a much greater share of the market. Everybody I know that bought a new machine with vista hates vista, so had Apple had something to offer them, they'd probably be Apple customers. If they are not important to Apple, so be it. More opportunity for Linux.
Apple hasn't missed any opportunities. Vista made a negative splash for MS. Vista continues to get more negative than positive press. If Leopard had been release as "not quite ready for prime time," then Apple would have missed an opportunity by making a similar negative splash. It isn't likely that Leopard will suffer the beating in the press that Vista has. Also, as with all Apple OS versions, if you don't like the new OS, you can painlessly do a clean install with your original discs. What better time for Apple to ship a new OS than at the very beginning of a Holiday shopping season where they're almost completely drowning out Microsoft?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
It's hard for me to recommend Macs to anyone except for fairly well off people. They just cost too much compared with ordinary PCs. If they could bring overall prices down to what you see for mid-performance Windows based computers at CompUSA, etc they might actually gain market share. I realize they make money just fine with this business model but I wish they had more market share so they could inspire more fear into Microsoft who probably isn't sweating things with 90% of the market.
Right now Macs are marketed to the Viking range and Subzero fridge crowd, not my Grandma. And that's too bad.
From what I understand, Apple is going to kill the Mac Mini. Apple doesn't want the sub $1000 market. There isn't enough profit margin in doing that. Look at Dell, they have just about bottomed out because there is not enough profit in selling hardware. Dell and others make money off of selling Windows and other bloatware (anti virus, ISPs, trial software, etc.). Consequently this is why you will never see many of the PC manufacturers pimping Linux distros because if they are making little profit on the hardware and little or nothing on the OS then where do they make their money? It's also the reason you just can't buy a computer sans OS from Dell and other big box stores. Apple wants no part of this game. Either you pony up or you get stuck with inferior hardware and a buggy OS.
Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
NeXTstep 1.0 was released in 1989. Max OS X is a descendant of NeXTstep and is still missing a few features that NeXTstep had in 1989. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEXTSTEP
Arguably, the only features Mac OS X has added prior to 10.5 have been dubious compatibility with ancient Mac applications and lots of eye candy. OK. To be fair, Apple has evolved OS X to be more than NeXTstep (particularly for programmers) and to use the current hardware that is at least 64x faster than the old NeXT hardware. Sadly NeXTstep was dormant and even regressed substantially in Apple's hands from 1997 to 2005. Think what we would have now if Apple hadn't wasted those years.
Just for fun, name a feature in OS X that didn't have an adequate or superior alternative in NeXTstep ? I'll start: Spotlight vs. Digital Librarian
Linux and Mac systems are better than XP and a lot better than Vista. They don't need any more advancement. All they need are users.
The big question is when will Vista be ready for desktop use?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
They display over 4 years of trends by month, and from everything I've read, those numbers accurately mirror the internet/world as a whole for usage (the trends are identical for my company's website). If you take a look at the latest numbers, the amount of Apple users are actually decline statistically. An article I read this week from the AP says that the PC manufactures are now selling more PC's than anytime in the past two years. While the Apple decline is a .2% overall change, and only for a two month trend, when you only max out at 4% of users, it's fairly large number.
Also take a look at the numbers of Vista use has increased by nearly 20% in one month (all while minimally affecting XP usage). It appears that people are switching to Vista from Linux and OSX and not the otherway around. I'm beginning to tire of all this pro-apple BS/studies being pushed by Slashdot & Gizmodo, when the actual numbers don't add up.
I knew that the general consensus that Vista sucked was not just a "anti-MS" sentiment when I received an advertisement from CompUSA touting their back-to-school specials and leading off with, "We've got Windows XP Pro computers in-stock and ready to take you back to school". That said, OS X Leopard's delay is bad, no doubt, but a buggy, featured-reduced release would have been worse. And if Apple had to choose between getting the new iPhone out on time and the latest update to their stellar OS X, choosing the iPhone's debut to focus on was the better choice. Lastly, Leopard isn't out yet; when it is, Vista will still suck and people can begin being Wow'ed for real.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"waiting for Vista with baited breath" Ugh, if you live at the coast and know the smell fish bait, then this is probably a very fitting allusion.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I checked, but TFA really is from this quarter. Has anyone told these guys that Leopard is, in fact, on its way to the stores?
And for the delays - one, they are much less than anything we're used to from MS (six months instead of a year or more) and two, I'd rather have them ship a good product then one that requires the first patch as soon as you come home (as has become standard with most games nowadays).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
First, Apple doesn't need to release Leopard to stay ahead of Microsoft or one-up them. OS X 10.2 was already better than Vista, and was better than Windows XP for that matter.
Second, until Apple starts selling OS X for generic x86 hardware, they're not competing directly with microsoft; they're selling a competing platform. That OS X now runs on Intel isn't relevant; it's still locked down to run only on approved, official Apple-branded Intel hardware. They're not competing with Microsoft for a share of the desktop/notebook *OS* market; they're competing with Dell, HP, Asus, eMachines, etc. for the desktop/notebook *platform* market.
Apple sells complete solutions, not operating systems. The day Apple decides to go toe-to-toe against Microsoft and releases an OS X that you can install on any OEM or homebuilt x86 box, then we'll see how they compete against Microsoft. My guess is, provided they have the driver support, they'll beat Microsoft silly, no contest. The driver support is, however, a major issue, and a non-trivial one.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Let's say you're dismayed with Windows development, have had enough of Windows insecurity and 100K+ virii and malwares, but you still got legacy Win software you wanna run and you don't wanna be bothered with the hassles of Linux and its lack of drivers. The solution is to buy a Mac: The new intel-macs can run Windows either Apple BootCamp dual boot or in Parallels' or VMWare's vertualization on Mac. Of cause it is great with a new improved mac-system such as Leopard, but even Tiger is a very attractive system and still more (former) Windows-users learn about it. Apple makes very good computers. The MacBook Pro is one of the fastest PCs you can run Windows Vista on, so Leopard is really only the icing on the cake.
A tablet wouldn't hurt, either. They already have virtually all the software support needed, just no tablet hardware. Where is it, Apple!?
Comment of the year
This is typical MS-style logic: rush garbage out to market just to capitalize on the marketing value.
Bah! I'd much rather have an OS delayed to ensure it's up to par than something rushed to market just to satisfy the short-term goals of "one-upping Microsoft".
'Tis much better long-term to actually do the right thing: a good job, make a good product, and let the market forces work themselves out.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Nobody thinks it would have been smart to release Leopard prematurely. Where Apple went wrong was announcing a release date that they couldn't meet. It certainly caused some problems for me - I delayed an upgrade last Fall (including a new server), in anticipation of a Spring release. Then when the delay came it seemed reasonable to wait again. Of course the server died in the meantime. Slight pain which would have been avoided if they hadn't announced early.
When you title your article "Leopard's Release Date a Serious Mistake" it's a bit weak to say in the last paragraph of the article:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so."
This isn't even an opinion, it's just a sensationalist, uninformed headline we've already read, with nothing backing it up, not even the author. What a waste of time.
-
The Great Google gPhone Myth - Pundits have seized upon rumors of a new mobile phone product from Google as their golden ticket for bashing the iPhone. The "gPhone" is the perfect foil for fear-based rumormongers because it's a secret Google han't said much about publicly. That lets the wags blow it out of proportion and stretch it into an iPhone Killer. They're wrong, here's why.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
In the teaser CowboyNeal says:
""According to an article on OSWeekly.com, Apple missed a big opportunity by not releasing Leopard soon. They could've taken advantage of Vista's losing streak and one upped Microsoft, the author suggests."
But in the conclusion to the article, the author says:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so. By allowing more time to work on it, Apple has shown that they want to make sure that Leopard is as good as it can be, and if people really want the next version of OS X, then they're going to buy it regardless of when it comes out. In addition, instead of having to try to steal some of Microsoft's thunder, Apple will have the public's complete attention when Leopard drops in October. Apple is confident about the release, and they should be. Why should they try to fit in with Microsoft's schedule?"
The author comes to a completely different conclusions than the teaser suggests.
In the future, please read the article!
Jordan
Apple understands that quality has a price. Really, the iMac is very competitively priced. There are very few comparable systems and they are all in the same price range (and no, comparing the iMac with a desktop or mini tower doesn't count).
Offering a cheap, crap machine would be the worst move imaginable.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I think that they, and others, recognize that one of the things facing the computer industry is the death of the home, whitebox PC.
Right now, many home users use their computers for email, pr0n, surfing the web and not a whole lot more. As handheld web devices become more prevalent, the general home desktop has become obsolete.
Others use desktops for games, but there are really two camps here. The first group is happy to game for the sake of gaming, and likely will move to consoles. I used to be a PC gamer, but got tired of the endless upgrade cycle, the driver support, etc. The bleeding edge gamers with $600 video cards will continue to buy high-end desktops to play, but then, they're already not buying El Cheapo $499 Dell whiteboxes now.
Business users will continue to consume business class desktops and handheld internet appliances.
Media professionals will, as their job demands, buy the fastest most expensive thing they can get their hands on once every 3-4 years.
But as for the traditional concept of the home PC? I think it's dying.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Yeah, but those are the stats of the W3Schools site. As such I'd EXPECT them to be Windows-heavy, since a rather large portion of their client base would come from web developers working from the company office.
Which tends to own just what brand of computer OS?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Hi, I have a degree in computer science and I'm a few months from finishing a PhD in medical imaging with a focus on image processing. As part of that I was building and programming clusters. Of Macs. I use exclusively Macs at home now. The lab is 95% Macs. I assure you, I am "technical" enough to assess Leopard's new features. I don't use Macs because they're cute, although I've heard a Powerbook or MBP in a coffee shop can help you pick up.
Every time people discuss Apple making a normal desktop computer, someone comes out with this strawman that they're askng Apple to lower their quality somehow. That isn't the case in any way, shape or form.
Quality has a price, and it's less than what Apple charges. Using laptop parts, and paying design firms to fit it all together into super-miniature cases doesn't equal quality, it just means the computer is smaller. Some people might want to pay hundreds of dollars extra to have a small computer, but many people don't and the size of the computer has nothing to do with its quality.
Simply building a normal desktop computer would reduce costs, improve performance, or both. It would further raise the cost-effectiveness by making it easier to upgrade components such as RAM, hard drives and maybe more. If a regular desktop computer is "cheap crap", then I take it you consider the Mac Pro to be cheap crap because it isn't a miniature novelty design?
Apple badly needs a small tour unit that can come to between $800 and $1000 with a monitor!
Apple doesn't need to do this any more than BMW needs to cover the sub-$20000 price range for cars. Apple doesn't try to be all things to everyone, but target the premium market.
That said, the iMac starts at the high end of this price range, and comes with goodies that are often missing on cheaper computers - e.g. web cam, bluetooth, DVD burner. And it comes with the full version of the OS, which is often extra on Windows these days.
I'm pretty sure they have thousands of systems in their inventory and distribution channel. The ten full Macs would sell out pretty quickly, and having half a Mac left over accomplishes nothing.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
It's just a troll account that's been used to astroturf for billy boy and pread FUD about Apple and Linux for months. Virtually its entire posting is the same.
It's more than powerful enough for that it does. Aside from winning your arbitrary pissing contest, what advantage would there be in using a Conroe or Wolfdale chip instead of a Merom or Penryn?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
You know, putting out every conceivable product possible is how Apple almost went broke in the 90's. Apple can't, and shouldn't, try to capture every segment of the PC market possible. And yes, that sucks for people whose needs aren't met by the products Apple does release.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I still keep trying to see what good there is to Vista - I've gone through 3 install-try-remove cycles already, two on a desktop, one on my laptop. It still sucks, sorry. Even with all the most recent updates.
For one, it is slower, no mistake about that. An OS which advertises 3D-accelerated desktop has no excuse for being jittery (yes, that was with Aero enabled) on Athlon 64 3500, GeForce 8800, and 1.5Gb RAM. DreamScape, if enabled, uses 25-35% of CPU, and doesn't seem to shut down even when a window is maximized. More importantly, right-clicking in Explorer results in a delay of 1-2 seconds before the drop-down menu is displayed. Then there's the infamous slow file operations problem (it's not just copy - it's anything done via Explorer on a large number of files: move, delete etc). UAC tends to double-ask too much ("You are trying to run a downloaded program. You need to confirm that you want this. Press Yes to proceed to the confirmation." - "Yes." - "This program needs your permission to run. Allow or deny?" - "I've already said, Yes!"), and sometimes it can ask you three times and still outright refuse to do what you want (try to copy an .exe file from an SMB share to Program Files, an you'll see what I mean). It also takes half a second or more for that secure confirmation dialog to appear.
I could go on and on, but I don't see the point. So far my Vista experience has been, for the most part, matching the negative feedback I've seen on Slashdot and elsewhere on the web, and heard from my friends and colleagues. I have very little hope left that it will be a decent OS anytime soon, there's just too much breakage. I remember the 2000->XP transition, and it was not like that at all.
One thing that came out of it, though, is that I'm seriously considering Apple now for my next laptop. This despite the fact that I don't own any Apple computer or gadget now, nor have I ever had any before.
You could see the pace of Leopard seeds and the progress you saw in those seeds really slow down while the iPhone was in development and then see the pace pick up as the iPhone was getting ready to hit the shelves.
Mmmm.. Donuts
To me, it looks like MS is declining and apple is growing, not like I prefer apple over MS, for what I know they would make a worse market dictator.
The best for the costumers would be an environment in which MS, apple and Linux all got over 20% and none more than 40% that would be great for the costumers (us?) since no hardware or software company will be able to focus on a single platform...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
But that Mac mini has something the Dell doesn't: an easy to use, largely exploit-free operating system. (note I didn't say completely exploit-free: there are holes in the default install of Mac OS X, and there no doubt will still be some in X.5) Compare that to Vista, which although improved is still a security nightmare. Consider also that chances are that Dell will not have enough RAM to run Vista properly, so it will be a usability nightmare.
Seriously. The Dell can't compete with a Mac.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
The hardware is flaky but pretty, and very expensive.
Good design, good quality at a price point which gives good value for money for those who appreciate that.
The real question is, if Apple got all of these people to start running a desktop UNIX, what can Linux do to follow that lead?
Here are a couple of issues that are important to me:
first they give 'em a left with the iPhone (take that zune!),
and then they give 'em a right (let all the clatter from the iphone
build a bit first tho) -- and before microsoft can say vista SP1...
there comes apple uppin the ante with its cat -- leopard.
microsoft botched vista, and they botched the zune;
while on their own, they are 'upgrades' to the mediocrity
that is microsoft -- they pale when compared to leopard
and the iphone.
two in one year -- i don't see how that's missing any opportunities.
Have you seen the rumour that Fake Steve is stirring up?
Leading PC maker (HP?) begging to become OS X licensee because of anger with Vista.
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
Desktop parts cost less are faster, also apple is lacking a mid-rage desktop as well.
Does VSS change anything at all about what I said? Does it add any value over existing backup solutions? Is it any more visible to end users?
No, Barely, and No. The VSC client isn't even included in the client OS. VSS is kind of/sort of complementary to existing backup software, and the only VSS Writer that would be worth a damn are the Exchange or SQL ones, and you STILL have to verify Exchange VSS backups with eseutil.
Please, VSS is nothing to brag about, it's just a Windows native version of third party software that still does a better job. It's a good compromise for shops wanting to keep as many things as possible under one vendor. *shudder*
I JUST told you (in the post you replied to but didn't read) the problem with existing backup solutions is awareness and trust of end users. Do you disagree with that, or are you going to keep throwing Microsoft solutions that don't fix that problem at me? you are using a redundant network drive, aren't you... What a very naive question. I said "enterprise backup admin" son. I've worked with more SAN devices than you can shake a stick at.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/macos/
buyers of an OS base their decision on many things, Vista being bad and MacOSX being good is not one of them. People have a hardware and software investment to consider. If MacOSX ran on standard PC hardware, then it would be a different matter.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
As a user, this is my perspective.
I can say that I have heard more positive things about Vista during launch than I heard about XP during its launch. The architecture change is bigger and better than in 2K->XP. In this regard MS should not be worried...
What's different is what MS has at stake. They _need_ Vista to succeed much more than they needed XP to succeed. And the market perception about MS has changed too. In XP times MS was an OK company. Now they are simply EVIL. Using XP instead of Vista is the only way people has to hurt MS.
Another difference is the huge amount of time it passed since the last release. MS made lots of companies to subscribe to any SO updates that would have happened in the last 6 years.
Then they released nothing during that years. They got the money and provided nothing in exchange of that money. That's a (very valid) reason for a lot of companies to dismiss Vista, as in 'this is payback time'.
So the initial opinion of Vista is in fact better than the initial public opinion of XP. But, public opinion of XP changed slowly but surely towards positive, specially with service pack 2. All its problems were technical and nothing else. Vista has already fixed most of the technical problems and public opinion is still bad. I see no signs of the public opinion of Vista getting better.
Seems like people finally understood that DRM sucks and should be repeled with full force.
I for one will upgrade to OSX instead of upgrading to Vista when the time comes.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
They'd have one more customer, me, if their OS actually was a viable alternative to windows. One of my main requirements is that it must work on my existing hardware. Linux and Vista (Say it isn't so! Someone who actually LIKES vista!? *GASP*) are able to do this. OSX can't, so it's a non-starter.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Man I don't get this. If there is one thing I truely hate about having to use Windows XP at work it is that I DONT have the dock and expose. The taskbar is a cluttered mess. Windows get arranged in a pretty random sequence, and when you got a lot of apps running its nearly impossible to quickly switch to the right window fast. I much prefer the Dock and expose: I click the app I want to use and then I flick the mouse in the upper left corner to use expose to select the correct window to work with, unless that is already in front (if I don't have that many windows). If an IM needs my attention the app jumps up and down. I just click the app icon and all the IM windows are brough to front and I quickly see where the messages are comming. I don't see why think that is a problem. I hate how there is no way to switch to all windows in an application in Windows because the concept of a running app does not exist in the taskbar, only the concept of open windows. Actually I don't know why windows have a window manager at all, because working with anything but fullsized windows in Windows is just a pain in the neck. The GUI doesn't seem to have been designed to deal with multiple open windows on the screen at the same time. And it shows when you see a windows user on Mac. The first thing he/she tries to do is to cover up the whole screen with one window. I don't really know why, coz usually they sit there with a word document taking up a quarter of the with of the screen and the rest is just blank white. So it is not like all that window space is used for anything. Only thing I concede is the directory thing. I really wish folders were at the top. It is perhaps my main annoyance with Mac.
>>I ended up picking up a macbook and its been great so far! ... ... will never be one of the idiots who rant about how great they are
>>
>>I
[sound of phonograph needle dragged across record]
Um, I hate to break the bad news to you...
Microsoft has more software engineers than Apple has employees. Apple is not the problem here. Leopard is not the disappointment.
Tiger is already much better than Vista, nobody who is running Tiger is suffering. People who bought a new Mac after Tiger shipped and have been running it since were never bothered by Vista, their productivity and satisfaction are high. Mac sales are already up on the strength of the hardware, Tiger, and Intel-compatibility which gives a switcher a way to back out of Mac OS X if they want to return to Windows or Linux on the same hardware. If you have a Mac you are not switching to Vista. If you have Windows, Leopard is not preventing you from switching.
The only part this theory gets right is that Leopard will be huge. It has improvements for everyone in the community. It has more graphical sophistication, it's a better Unix, it has built-in automatic backup and versioning, it's fully 32/64-bit compatible and inherently multiprocessor. It's one DVD for the whole world that installs and runs full-featured on all Apple computers with a 1 GHz or faster processor and 512 MB or better of RAM, so it will be easy to upgrade from a previous Mac OS X and a lot of people will do that. It will be the only OS available on new Macs right away and many people will take that as a good opportunity to get either their first Mac or their first Intel Mac. Leopard also has a matching pocket version which starts at $299 and comes on a touchscreen iPod instead of a DVD. It's going to be popular.
Compare the $399 Vista Ultimate DVD with the $399 iPod touch 16GB for both technical merit and consumer excitement. Which of these should a Windows XP user spend their money on? Which will they get more value from. It's laugh out loud.
Apple already has a Mac and iPod version of OS X, what if they made a generic PC version of OS X and licensed it to Intel and it shipped with every compatible 64-bit Intel EFI motherboard for $50 extra? Then PC manufacturers would get the boom in sales that they wanted from Vista, and people would finally have a good reason to buy a new Sony or HP computer, to go instantly into next-generation processor, firmware, core OS, Web and audio/video standards, 3D interface, and enjoy the real Photoshop finally. What if Apple licensed it to Google? What if they offered it for sale to people who already have a PC? These are the opportunities for Leopard, not beating Vista to market.
Finally I have to say that delaying a PC operating system by a few months because you shipped the pocket version is about the best excuse ever. Hard to see the cloud for the silver lining with that one. This article was trying, though.
...they want their Apple FUD back.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Sure it would have been great to release Leopard in June and catch the back to school buying season, but releasing in October positions Apple to ride the Christmas buying season with a hot product line and shiny new OS. Contrast this with Vista--Microsoft is promising SP1 AFTER Christmas. Ouch. It's also worth noting that Leopard 10.5.1 will be out well before Christmas based historic release patterns.
Face it. Apple has been hitting on all cylinders for several years now, which would explain why their market cap is now higher than HP's and double Dell's. Hard to believe, but true.
Hey, it's true though. Can you imagine how different the press would be if it was Apple and not Microsoft that came up with the "ribbon" interface present in Office 2007?
Seriously speaking though, I'd hate to see a Mac built to sell for $500 (monitor included). Nice, machined aluminum chassis? Nope, say hello to cheap flimsy plastic.
You mean like what iMacs were made of before the current generation?
Slot-loading drive? Nope, say hello to a behemoth 5.25" tray.
You mean the same ones as seen in the Mac Pro?
Apple understands that quality has a price. Really, the iMac is very competitively priced. There are very few comparable systems and they are all in the same price range (and no, comparing the iMac with a desktop or mini tower doesn't count).
Well, there is a reason why those "comparable" all-in-one PC systems sell poorly - they aren't competitive with the PC desktop/towers either. Once you expand out your options like the typical buyer will, the iMac starts becoming more and more expensive.
And as I've said in other posts, Expose is not an ideal solution. With the taskbar I have an immediate view of all open windows,
Not if you've enabled icon rollup (enabled by default). Or if you have more than fiteen or so windows open, in which case you get multiple rows of icons you have to scroll through (I generally have three or four lines).
In either case Expose makes it much easier to see windows open for any given application because I can see just those windws. I can also see all of them if I like, for all applications but I find the app specific expose handier and I use it all them time. I use a Windows XP desktop daily and the taskbar is far inferior for seeing what is open and running and where it is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This site has nothign but google ads and keyword laden reviews. I'd take the opinion of a homeless bum more seriously than this article.
Don't you think Steve Jobs would love to have dropped Leopard on the world right at the height of the Vista disappointment? Of course he and Apple would have loved to do that!! But clearly Apple made the right (and only good) choice in the matter because a half assed Leopard would only have hurt Apple and helped Microsoft (i.e. "see, they suck too!").
If Steve Jobs hadn't made the choice to announce the iPhone so early, I think everything would have been different. Leopard would not have suffered the delays that it did while Apple geared up for the massive iPhone push. However, he was sort of had to show his cards in the summer of 2006, and promise iPhone within a year. I truly *think* that iPhone was not intended to come out until right after Leopard. I have NOTHING to back up that claim, except that it seems counter-intuitive to announce-finalize-release a major new device when the company was only a few months from its next OS scheduled release. Also the announcement of iPhone was at a strange time (wasn't it?) and probably due to the massive amount of speculation and threatening competition on the horizon. Further consider that Apple really never announces their products so far in advance...
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
Hey, I like you, but to echo the other AC, stop saying, "lappie." If you must say "lappy," at least spell it lappy so you're saving a byte. Lappie offers no efficiency over laptop and comes off at-least as infantile as puter.
Normally, a post like yours would have been modded down just like any that dared to be laced with puter (six occurrences in three paragraphs!); We know you're a lady and don't want to drive you off.
I apologize if I've been too frank! Really though, re-read that post and s/lappie/puter, you'd mock it too!
funny they are now with hardware and design--the sharp edges on Macbooks, the lack of a tablet format, and the lack of external keyboards for iPhones.
But OS wise, Apple doesn't need Leopard to run rings around Vista, and Vista's problems can't be fixed any time soon.
Vista suffers from fundamental flaws (for instance my new dual 2.1 ghz core, 2 GB tablet is slower than my old 1.5 ghz, 1 gb tablet - with the hardware folks more than doubling the system resources, Vista frequently goes to 50% resource use when idle--no programs (that I started:-() running.
And this is with all the transparency stuff and 3D UI cr*p turned off 8-0. I don't think this can be fixed with a patch -- it would take a complete re-write...an MS has a bad history with that.
MS OS quality has been on a consistent downward path since Win 2k, without fundamental change in Redmond it's likely that Vista's patches and successors will be even worse - Vista feels like a pre-quel, with Jar-Jar, when dubbing him out won't really take care of the underlying decline...
When the country falls into chaos, politicians talk about 'patriotism'. Lao-Tzu
I'm a long time Linux user but at work we have to run Windows Apps and VMWare wouldn't cut it on the hardware we have.
My boss bought a Mac for his house, and the other day asked me if I'd be interested in getting one for work as my regularly scheduled upgrade. It will end up costing the company an extra thousand dollars since we'll have to pay the full price for software that we could have gotten practically free with MS PCs, but we're getting two Macs, one for my use (probably in the developer category, in other words, I'll probably break it a couple times) and one for regular use and we'll be paying for VMWare Fusion, Windows XP and Outlook on top of the already fairly high price of getting the two machines. It adds up to costing more than an extra machine, but we're going to try it. We're getting to try it because Vista has been a pain on the half dozen machines we've put it on and the higher ups are starting to realize something is wrong when most of the major software partners we rely on don't support Vista yet.
So, with Linux still seen as too complex for the masses, we're looking for alternatives and Mac fits the bill. If we can test it sufficiently and get it proven to be usable, the possibility of having Macs in a corporate environment open up. It's far from a done deal, but it is possible where it wasn't just two years ago.
I respectfully disagree with the parent, laffer1; it is not games but corporate adoption that will decide whether Vista is the first step in losing the stranglehold that Windows has had on the OS market. People will become familiar with what they have to use at work and will buy the same thing. Macs are finally becoming competitive in features and pricing and once they are adopted in the corporate world, the home user market can follow. If you ask me, Microsoft got their advertising right by targeting the environment that controls the user experience while Mac has been aiming at the home user when that same user will use whatever they are familiar with from work and school. I wish that I could say Linux is ready, and it would do as well or better for me, but it isn't ready for the average worker. Mac, just maybe, might be.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
All I have to say is that Tiger, let alone Leopard, is a better OS than Vista will ever be.
My other sig is a Porsche.
Most of the studies online put apple's market share at around 6%. I could find only one article putting apple in the 8% range http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/17/apples_u_s_mac_market_share_rises_to_8_1_percent_in_q3.html
and even that article mentions that the study contradicts another study for the same time period.
Apple is a good solid well run company and their market share has been slowly climbing, but the 8 percent number is likely an error as it represents quite a jump over historical values. I suspect they might be at that number in a year or so, but it just seems off for now.
Ha, ha, ha. Thanks for the laugh. It's clear you're some sort of funny bot operated by the badvista.org zealots, because really, there's no way a human being could be so dense.
Fink works so poorly that I have given up on it on all my Macs.
People should stop trying to pretend that the Mac is a replacement for UNIX or Linux machines; it is not.
There is little point in running Linux on the Mac. Mac OS X is a capable *nix box, most FOSS software is not Linux specific and targets Mac OS X as well. Plus Mac OS X has a superior user interface.
I don't find OS X to be a "capable *nix box", I find most FOSS software is a pain to port to the Mac and even if you get it running, doesn't work well in the Macn environment. And I find the OS X user interface to be a PITA, starting with the menu bar.
All I see is pontification and avarice. Cupertino and Redmond hear this-next month at this time I will be using both OSX 10.5 & VISTA Ultimate on my fifth Apple Computer (my plan B MacBook with iEveryThing Ø8) and Loving it. (Just like I used Applesoft Basic and Floating Point Basic on my 1980 Apple ][+) while all you are doubting yourselves and/or others over this OS or that GUI. A Beautiful Forest is Made Up of Many Paths to Nowhere With Everything About Them - that is known as Diversity. It's Not Because It is Good-It's Not Because It is Bad; It's Just Because It is There. Steve Jobs owes to no one his second sightedness that's the essential you can't or won't fathom ;and if he would let me I would SWITCH THE WORLD-- one vignette-- one customer at a time.
If you're not cheating you're not trying.
Missed opportunity? WTF???
Apple delayed 10.5 to make sure it will not flop as Vista did. And obviously to fix in 10.5 all problems reported in Vista(!).
Do not forget, Mac fanboys (like me) are long-term fans.
Delays were always OK.
Paying double for new quickly delivered feature - OK too.
Poorly implemented features - *NOT OK*.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
TFA asks if Apple missed an opportunity and then concludes that it did not:
With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so. By allowing more time to work on it, Apple has shown that they want to make sure that Leopard is as good as it can be, and if people really want the next version of OS X, then they're going to buy it regardless of when it comes out. In addition, instead of having to try to steal some of Microsoft's thunder, Apple will have the public's complete attention when Leopard drops in October. Apple is confident about the release, and they should be. Why should they try to fit in with Microsoft's schedule?
Jeremy Butler
www.ScreenSite.org
www.TVCrit.com
We bought 3 Mac Minis, 2 with 512MB and 1 with 256MB which was very slow
compared to the others. After buying an inexpensive memory upgrade from
http://www.macsales.com/
I installed it per their online video, and presto,
Mac OSX has sufficient memory to run fast..
Anyone out there with MacMinis with 512MB should upgrade
ASAP as you don't have sufficient memory for OSX to be effective,
We also bought a faster, larger disk for the (former 256MB) MacMini,
and easily installed it per online video for another speed boost,
although not as dramatic as the memory upgrade. It helps
to haver more than one Mac Mini to compare. Some who don't,
just may not realize why their Mac Mini seems so slow....The answer
may be insufficient memory. BTW some thinks it violates Apple's
warranty to upgrade memory, disk etc, on your own. NOT TRUE.
They even info on their own site how to make such upgrades.
However, you're still responsible if you do something dumb like
dropping it or hitting it wirth a hammer.
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
Somehow Slashdot missed the LESS THAN sign before 512MB above.
It was meant to say (and typed with a LESS THAN sign) as:
Anyone out there with MacMinis with LESS THAN 512MB
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
From the article: ...Apple knew in advance that Vista was going to disappoint a large number of users, and this would have been a great time to launch Leopard alongside Vista and let the public decide what the next generation of operating systems should be like...
That is just wrong. You can't compare XP or Vista with Mac OS X because they requires different hardware to run!!! If Apple or Leopkard in this case runs in a PC, fine.... the comparision will be valid. But Apple missed the point long time agoby not releasing a Pc version. Shame on them. I'll not change my several PC workstations just to buy Apple... I choose a platform that brings flexibility, and at this time it's PC with Windows XP.
Vista's massive failure is all the more reason for Apple to make sure they release Leopard when it's ready, not to meet a dead or to take advantage of MS's misstep. With a much smaller market share, Apple cannot really afford a "Vista Blunder".
Apple has made a huge mistake by not releasing Leopard yet. Yeah, because Tiger is so bad, and Vista totally owns Tiger. Oh wait. I forgot my psychiatrist told me to lay of the sarcasm.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Until Apple gets it through their stupid heads that the need to sell OSX on the shelf and to OEMs, OSX will be a minor player. When you compare hardware prices for like systems - PC and MAC, it's insane to spend the extra money because of the little apple logo on the plastic.
Now, if I could buy a Dell, or HP, or whatever, with OSX, or build my own machine, and put OSX on it, THEN OSX would matter.
Since Apple to too fucking blind....welp, they are useless outside of the portable media market.
"As it turns out, the MacBook is the Mac most people are buying. It is a competitive laptop to all but the bargain-basement craptops that Dell, Lenovo and HP sell. Get beyond the loss-leader "hacked by Chinese" craptops and you will find that MacBook is pretty damn competitive with the competition's lappies."
Query: IYO, are you suggesting that mid- and high-range laptops from Dell, Lenovo and HP are (or at least may be) reasonable values, or are you saying that their entire range is junk, and that you'd recommend another vendor for non-Apple laptops?
Reason I'm asking is that I'll probably be buying a new laptop (dual-booting CentOS and Fedora, possibly OpenBSD as well, though that wouldn't need a GUI) around Christmas, I've at least some reason for avoiding all of the above vendors, and it's not too soon to start asking around about others.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
When most everyone is who is looking to buy a new computer and is debating the Mac vs. the PC thing, they generally are looking at the cheapest option ("best value") on both sides. For the PC, it's going to be some kind of tower/desktop. Sure, the iMac is not the same thing, but the comparison in is made because it's all that's available. Hence the reason why people want the desktop iMac (or whatever you want to call it).
I would go as far as saying that a lot of Mac users don't want the iMac either. Hence one of the reasons why the desktop iMac won't happen - it would totally gut sales of the all-in-one iMac.
"Windows Me" isn't an operating system, it's an epithet.
"Yeah, bite me"
"Yeah, Windows Me."
Notice how similar the terms are?
No, it is just paying more. You can argue quality differences all you want, but a price difference is not FUD. It's simply a price difference.
And that's why the Dells of the world keep people buying their crap -- it's cheap as hell. If Apple does care about market share, lowering the price would, in fact, increase their share. I suspect they just don't care about market share for their PCs as much as they do about market share for their consumer devices.
and I'm GLAD TO.
/. ... that just too fuckin bad...
Unlike Windows (my wife's PC is stuck behind a firewall on XPsp2) which is not worth updating to Vista.
Unlike Linux, which just isn't quite there yet in terms of media usability (producing, not consuming [and that's still got a little ways to go.])
OS X has always been worth it since 10.1 and its only getting better faster.
And if Apple just ignores the OS segment of
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Price is one of many variables people consider when buying something. Most people who even consider an iMac know well that there are considerable differences between it and the Dell next door. Sure they consider both options and compare them - just like you would when you decide whether the next family car is going to be a limousine or a SUV. But you'd never forget that comparing them on price alone, or any other single variable, doesn't give you the whole picture.
And the "desktop iMac" alreay happened. It's called the Mac Pro. Yes, again a different target audience. You might have noticed Apple doesn't target the "low-cost consumer mainstream". I think that's ok. Not everyone is microsoft and absolutely has to own every corner of every market.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Quit your carping.
Its not like they had a worthy opponent in their hardware design space.
Customer service 101 dude.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I preordered OSX 10.5 the day it was announced last week. My company has already switched our file servers over to OSX on X Servers and our mail and calendering will follow as soon as we have tested OSX Server 10.5. We now only support Macs for all but our 5 consultants who use Thinkpads for the simple reason that many of our customers are very conservative and look at anything else but Windows with suspicion and so the consultants who visit them take along Windows laptops for purely image reasons. Our CAD users run Windows and Solidworks on Mac Pro towers and the Samba server on OSX is rock solid.
Supporting our users is a part of my job and it is FAR less hassle than supporting Windows. OSX is extremely solid, and has, as far as I can only one major OS design error: The fact that designers can, and do, often switch off system fonts unknowingly, thereby crashing some apps that need them.
As far as Windows support goes, supporting XP is a pain, but far less of a pain than Vista. We have one (1) Vista user (the boss), who is less than enthusiatic about the awful slowness of Vista and the constant irriation of teh UACs (yes, I know you can turn it off, but the boss doesn't want it turned off. He just uses Office and Explorer and is happy that at least that runs ok, even if nothing else does).
Vista has already aquired an awful reputation. It will, of course, eventually totally replace XP when drivers, apps and support for XP dries out, but only then. Not only that, but Microsoft will have a tough time fixing the broken trust that major buyers have placed in them.
Of course, Microsoft, as big as it is, will not be going away any time soon. We'll just have to live with that.
... Why isn't everyone in the world using that instead of windows?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
To whom it may concern:
I get ALL my bad karma posting what I really think about Apple's hardware and software.
Yeah, it gets me bad slashdot karma, but being honest to myself and others saves me thousands of pointless reincarnations.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A 4 month delay on rolling out their new OS? KDE has been delayed more than that. Let's not even talk about Vista - wow they really nailed that. Missed what opportunity - it's not like the competition is expected to hit any home runs over the next year. There's more important stories around Apple that people should be concerned about - supply chain management, native Intel support for Office coming late, or the potential competition from a open gPhone. Time weighing heavy on the subbies hands?
Of course the iMac is different from the Dell or whatever, that's obvious. You're assuming that people actually care about a lot of these differences. I don't see this, people buy the iMac because it's an Apple machine, not because it's an all-in-one form-factor. Since these people don't care about having an all-in-one (and many consider it a downside), a comparison of the iMac and a tower is perfectly valid. Sure, comparing as-indentical-as-possible machines can be interesting, but it's like those benchmarks that compare the $100 3.0Ghz dual core AMD chip to the $500 3.0Ghz dual core Intel chip - they don't reflect reality in the sense of what people actually buy.
And yes, I know about the Mac Pro. Most people don't consider that in their options for a home computer, as it is simply too high end and expensive.
I was recently looking for a new laptop myself, and was facing a similar situation. I was tempted by all of Dell's fancy offers, which did look very nice. However, I ended up going with a MBP, as I found the build quality of Dells to be quite lacking. Even a midrange business-class Dell laptop which I used at work seemed flimsy in comparison to my old G4 Powerbook. Other than a Mac, I am not sure what I would get... I was basically down to between a custom built laptop (a local computer store has some nice ones for a decent price) and an HP. My inlaws have some HP machines, and from a build quality point of view, HP does seem to be better than Dell. That being said, I do know people who swear by their Dells, so they must be doing something right... I personally find them too flimsy for my liking. YMMV. Cheers
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Im tired of all these people crying about how vista runs slower than XP. Orly? maybe if you ran it on a system that meets the req you would notice the difference. On my home machine which used to have XP (Amd 4400+, 2gb ram, 512mb vid card) now runs vista, and Vista runs faster. Maybe if you try running it on a machine that is the suggested req for xp but only the min for vista you would see the difference.
Macs are finally becoming competitive in features and pricing and once they are adopted in the corporate world, the home user market can follow
First of all Macs have been competitive in features and pricing for a long while, but they've always deliberately tried to compete in the mid to upper segment of the market. Sure I can't get a Mac for $400, but if I drop $1000 on a Mac versus $1000 on a Dell, I'm probably getting a nicer product from Apple.
Also, now that Mac hardware can run Windows software, there's a bridge that allows people to try a mac without totally jumping on board. I was interested in OSX and Apple hardware, but it was a difficult choice to leap to that and have no way to go back. But now with Bootcamp, parallels, etc, a moderately savvy user can run both with relative ease. So it's a far more reasonable choice for somebody that runs windows at the office.
But I think my statement and yours go hand in hand. Now that it's easier to go back, a corporate environment that favors the Apple hardware, can be secure in the knowledge that, if they try an Apple roll out and it's a problem, they can always go back to Windows. IT departments are naturally risk adverse, but given that flexibility, in time, there's definitely going to be growth there.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Thanks. Of the three Wintel-type systems, I was leaning toward HP, if I had to go with one of The Big Three. It's hard to judge by my previous experience. For desktops and budget departmental (whitebox) servers, I build. When I've spec'ed rackable systems, I've had far better reliability results with HP than Dell. As a couple of people I occasionally contract with, and speak to (beers at the local) on a regular basis have had similar results, and they tend to think that Lenovo (whom I have no personal experience with) bites, I tend to listen to them. At least as far as ruling Lenovo out.
So far, and based partially upon your advice (thanks again) I'm leaning toward HP or Apple hardware. Possibly more toward Apple. It would be interesting to kick Leopard's tires. Perhaps a fat hard drive, and possibly quad booting CentOS, Fedora, Leopard, and still possibly OpenBSD. I usually opt for spending a bit more up front for an extra year or two of useful life. But somehow I've never taken that approach with laptops--perhaps because I'm so hard on them that I've come to regard them as disposable.
It will be interesting to see what results I get from spending a bit extra for nice hardware. One possibility is that if I know I've just spent top-dollar, I might actually take care of the bloody thing, vice tossing it onto the couch when I come home, etc.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
Glad to be of help. If you can afford the bit of a premium, I would definitely recommend the Apple choice. OS X aside, I have not found anything short of a Toughbook as durable and sturdy as their laptops. I took my 12" Powerbook to school every day in my backpack for two years, and today (almost five years after purchase) the only thing about it which gives away its age is the loss of some of the painted on letters on the keyboard.
Add the benefits of OS X to the mix, with Boot Camp if you need Windows for high performance work (although I use Windows / Linux on VMWare Fusion for software testing, and that is more than enough power for me) and you're good to go.
(Believe it or not, I am not a raging Apple fanboy... I am a Unix fanboy, and Apple just currently has the best Unix system available. As long as it stays there, I will continue to support them, but my support is based on the quality, not the company.)
Cheers
OK, unless I get compelling reasons to opt for other choices, I'm leaning toward the Apple hardware. Though I have destroyed one Toughbook...
I'm rather a Unix fan (vastly too old to pass myself off as a boy of any sort) myself. I have to take a minor exception to claiming that any Unixy OS is the best available. It all depends upon what you need to *do* with it. I've called at least four variants 'best'. But that was about 'best for very specific purposes'. Sometimes it's come down to whether you can do non-blocking operations against a PRNG. So that experience may not apply for anyone needing a general purpose machine, though it has for me.
I haven't run into a case where I 'need Windows for high performance work'. For what I do, I've *almost* always found Windows at the low end of the performance scale. But that's just me, and I am a definite corner case. For instance, I rarely use an office suite, whether that be MS Office, OO, etc. Maybe once a day.
KDE apps meet my communications and calendar needs, as does KDE Kile (LATEX) for writing, as most of my writing involves math. KDE Kate can suck for text editing, as it supports only CVS, and I'm sensitive about sources, but there are easy workarounds. Most things I do that involve number-crunching and databases, I've written my own code to automate much of the drudgery away, where things are repetitive. I don't have to put up with spreadsheet charting limitations, in the sense that there are things you can't do with spreadsheet charting that are easy with http://www.graphviz.org/ and other specialized tools.
It will be interesting to see how my old-fart, laptops-are-lame attitude might change with nice hardware. Though some things that seem important to some people, I won't care about at all. DVD playback comes to mind. I have living-room electronics for that. If I get on a plane, I always have a couple of dozen papers to read. I never seem to get caught up on the journals.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
"The hardware is flaky but pretty, and very expensive.
Not in my experience, except for the "pretty". "
Well it is in mine, so what does that mean? (pretty is subjective anyway)
"The CEO and company seem neurotic.
Not in my experience. I have never heard that Steve Jobs has been throwing any chairs around, or threatened to cut off someone's air supply, or similar."
It is in mine, again what does that mean.. neurotic is also pretty subjective depending on your mental state.
"Most of the users are self-indulgent, arty, smug, pretentious types.
In my experience (and I know quite a few of them) that is utter bullshit. "
In my experience it is mostly true, of at least one of the traits.. but i guess you could say that for most of the population.
"The average person wants nothing to do with this.
Don't take your average pimpled PC sales person or IT man with a hate for end users as "average person". "
their system's current market share would seem to dictate otherwise.
my 2cents (since we all seem to be throwing that around)