I think your list is pretty much right on, but let's take "Hold-overs" and "Pros" (and there's a lot of cross-over in this group). This is pretty much the traditional Apple userbase.
These people come from Classic MacOS background, where if they knew the secret command to "rebuild the desktop", they were an expert. OS 9 and before was very simple and not much trouble-shooting knowledge was required. You could quite easily open up the System Folder and know exactly why each file was in there.
However, MacOS X is massively more complex. A handful of system directories is now hundreds. Anything that exploits/attacks the Unix side of the OS is going to be beyond these people's ability to fix.
Let's just take the firewall for example. It's got some pretty buttons in a control panel. However undereneath is the whole Unix configuration environment. If something were to mess it up beyond the point of GUI, probably 99% of Mac users would be lost.
1) OS 9 had hardly any viruses, just like OS X 2) OS 9 had a higher marketshare than OS X
If you see a list of classic MacOS virues (nVir and so on), you have to understand the the vast majority of those date from the 1980s and didn't run under System 7+.
In other words, Apple's mission is to dilute the technical abilities of their user base and turn it into a pool of Windows users.
Turn it into a pool of users that don't get confused by 2 button mice?
OK that's flamebait, but I think you have some very incorrect assumptions about the computer saavyness of Apple's traditional (non-Unix geek) userbase.
In my experience, *most* PC and Mac users are exactly alike -- the Mac guys don't know how to work a PC and don't want to learn; and they PC guys don't know how to work a Mac and don't want to learn. The only difference is the Mac guys are snooty enough to believe that a slight differences in the UI can be justified with reams of mumbo-jumbo pop-psycology bullshit.
Present company on slashdot excepted.
Re:Jealousy is a terrible thing. In the meantime..
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 1
They have exactly the same ho-hum level as an simlar Mac workstation would. Unlike a gamer PC however, they have ECC memory, good disk subsystems and so on.
ARRG -- You got me this time Batman, but I'll be back! (Climbs into the NutscrapeMobile and shoots off behind the moon)
Re:Jealousy is a terrible thing. In the meantime..
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 1
A direct competitor to the PowerMac would be something like the Dell Precision 670 or the IBM Intellistation workstation line. Nobody buys these to play games (except me).
Probably more accurate to say that most users don't care about Windows. They like the available software choices on Windows and the ability to buy hardware from different manufacturers (now including Apple).
Apple differentiates at a point most people simply don't care about (Operating System).
Re:Jealousy is a terrible thing. In the meantime..
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Dell proves my point. Most of their gamer systems are ho-hum Pentium-D machines with the option for a $500 video card. Apple would never sell a machine like this because it would undercut the rest of their desktop lineup.
OK, so you were the 99999th person to say this and PC Magazine was the 100000th. Good for you!
(Also, I've noticed that linking to one of your own posts is Never-Fail Karma Whore tactics.)
Re:Jealousy is a terrible thing. In the meantime..
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 1
"Gamers" don't really buy quad-CPU workstations. They buy low-to-middle end machines with a slot for a nice video card. Apple will never make such a machine.
Re:If Jobs really wanted people to switch...
on
Boot Camp For Suckers?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The margins in the rest of the PC industry are around 5%, so I would imagine that Apple is in about the same place. 5% of $3,000 is $150.
Apple's margins are usually cited to be around 25% -- a lot more than 5%-10% Dell takes in.
Now it's true that Apple's higher-end machines are price-competitive, because they are competiting with the (very small) segment of the PC market that also has high margins.
But average price of a PC is more like $500 than $3000 -- and that's the place where Apple brings in the cash that others don't. You can be sure that Apple is making very fat money with machines like the Mini and iMac.
Yes, but if you had no desire to run MacOS X, would you have purchased the Apple machine? Even if you are primary Windows, you're are still paying the "Apple Tax" for access to OSX. But the vast, vast majority of the PC market really doesn't want OSX nor will pay any sort of premimum to make it an option.
Also, as general comment: Right now, BootCamp is still in the "toy"/"techie only" phase requiring people to obtain a XP SP2 CD and install it. I think it's far too early to start making market analyses until we know if Apple will pre-install Windows for you.
No, while I think you're an insightful guy, you misunderstood my point. Many of the people on this site are functional illiterates and retards. If they see the word "troll" in a post, they will mod it troll. Try using the words "insighful" and "informative" in your posts and check how it gets moderated. Hope that was informative information.
Sorry, I meant to state that it was the "Hairy Guys" advocates pushing this either-or agenda in an attempt to promote OpenOffice, although these people were allies of the MA CTO. Otherwise, why would OpenOffice be in the picture at all?
And it doesn't matter what I believe about MS's XML, it's what the market thinks.
Massachusetts never formulated this as an "either-or" issue
No, that's incorrect. The OOo advocates tried to hijack this thing as soon as it was clear that MS wasn't going to directly support ODF.
Microsoft cares deeply about what office format you use,
They are introducing an XML format themselves. While there's some legal quibbles, it basically eliminates the "lock-in" argument from the equasion. Of course, they would probably rather that you used their format over someone elses, but as long as you are buying MS Office, why would they complain?
I doubt Microsoft really cares what file format you use, so long as you keep buying MS Office.
The whole issue in MA was forumulated as Either-Or debate (by both sides, "Hairy Guys" and MS) in order to force an artificial choice between OpenOffice and MS Office. That's why the political stakes got so explosive.
At least now CTOs can consider the merits of ODF without having OpenOffice brought into the equasion -- because for most shops, a fileformat is not worth switching your office suite over.
The idea that ODF was going to drive people start using OpenOffice was ridiclous -- it's not a goode enough reason and it never would have worked.
But more importantly, this lame office suite advocacy tactic was a hijack of the ideals behind a standard file format. The whole point of ODF to let people choose their software from Microsoft/Corel/Sun/Apple/IBM without discriminating against someone who made a different choice.
I'm glad this plugin is finally here so that people can stop conflating ODF with OpenOffice. OOo is going to have to do better than government mandates to get adopted.
While it may be true that Bush let them off easy, don't kid yourself. When the appeal court threw out the Tying charge, that issue was settled, Microsoft won. Therefore you can't invent remedies on Slashdot while having any intellectual integrity.
Thanks to every who responded.. It seems like there's plenty of evidence that Google is having no problems overriding the IE default search behavior on a large number of systems.
hence Microsoft broke the law when they bundled Windows with IE to obtain a browser monopoly.
I think you missed the point that the US courts stated that MS did not break the law through bundling or 'tying'.
This whole "MS is a Monopoly therefore Slashdotters can make up the rules" runs into the brick wall of reality. The IE thing has been tried, there deciisions are there for you to read them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your list is pretty much right on, but let's take "Hold-overs" and "Pros" (and there's a lot of cross-over in this group). This is pretty much the traditional Apple userbase.
These people come from Classic MacOS background, where if they knew the secret command to "rebuild the desktop", they were an expert. OS 9 and before was very simple and not much trouble-shooting knowledge was required. You could quite easily open up the System Folder and know exactly why each file was in there.
However, MacOS X is massively more complex. A handful of system directories is now hundreds. Anything that exploits/attacks the Unix side of the OS is going to be beyond these people's ability to fix.
Let's just take the firewall for example. It's got some pretty buttons in a control panel. However undereneath is the whole Unix configuration environment. If something were to mess it up beyond the point of GUI, probably 99% of Mac users would be lost.
Your post is almost entirely wrong:
1) OS 9 had hardly any viruses, just like OS X
2) OS 9 had a higher marketshare than OS X
If you see a list of classic MacOS virues (nVir and so on), you have to understand the the vast majority of those date from the 1980s and didn't run under System 7+.
In other words, Apple's mission is to dilute the technical abilities of their user base and turn it into a pool of Windows users.
Turn it into a pool of users that don't get confused by 2 button mice?
OK that's flamebait, but I think you have some very incorrect assumptions about the computer saavyness of Apple's traditional (non-Unix geek) userbase.
In my experience, *most* PC and Mac users are exactly alike -- the Mac guys don't know how to work a PC and don't want to learn; and they PC guys don't know how to work a Mac and don't want to learn. The only difference is the Mac guys are snooty enough to believe that a slight differences in the UI can be justified with reams of mumbo-jumbo pop-psycology bullshit.
Present company on slashdot excepted.
They have exactly the same ho-hum level as an simlar Mac workstation would. Unlike a gamer PC however, they have ECC memory, good disk subsystems and so on.
ARRG -- You got me this time Batman, but I'll be back! (Climbs into the NutscrapeMobile and shoots off behind the moon)
A direct competitor to the PowerMac would be something like the Dell Precision 670 or the IBM Intellistation workstation line. Nobody buys these to play games (except me).
Probably more accurate to say that most users don't care about Windows. They like the available software choices on Windows and the ability to buy hardware from different manufacturers (now including Apple).
Apple differentiates at a point most people simply don't care about (Operating System).
Actually, Dell proves my point. Most of their gamer systems are ho-hum Pentium-D machines with the option for a $500 video card. Apple would never sell a machine like this because it would undercut the rest of their desktop lineup.
OK, so you were the 99999th person to say this and PC Magazine was the 100000th. Good for you!
(Also, I've noticed that linking to one of your own posts is Never-Fail Karma Whore tactics.)
"Gamers" don't really buy quad-CPU workstations. They buy low-to-middle end machines with a slot for a nice video card. Apple will never make such a machine.
The margins in the rest of the PC industry are around 5%, so I would imagine that Apple is in about the same place. 5% of $3,000 is $150.
Apple's margins are usually cited to be around 25% -- a lot more than 5%-10% Dell takes in.
Now it's true that Apple's higher-end machines are price-competitive, because they are competiting with the (very small) segment of the PC market that also has high margins.
But average price of a PC is more like $500 than $3000 -- and that's the place where Apple brings in the cash that others don't. You can be sure that Apple is making very fat money with machines like the Mini and iMac.
Yes, but if you had no desire to run MacOS X, would you have purchased the Apple machine? Even if you are primary Windows, you're are still paying the "Apple Tax" for access to OSX. But the vast, vast majority of the PC market really doesn't want OSX nor will pay any sort of premimum to make it an option.
Also, as general comment: Right now, BootCamp is still in the "toy"/"techie only" phase requiring people to obtain a XP SP2 CD and install it. I think it's far too early to start making market analyses until we know if Apple will pre-install Windows for you.
No, while I think you're an insightful guy, you misunderstood my point. Many of the people on this site are functional illiterates and retards. If they see the word "troll" in a post, they will mod it troll. Try using the words "insighful" and "informative" in your posts and check how it gets moderated. Hope that was informative information.
Sorry, I meant to state that it was the "Hairy Guys" advocates pushing this either-or agenda in an attempt to promote OpenOffice, although these people were allies of the MA CTO. Otherwise, why would OpenOffice be in the picture at all?
And it doesn't matter what I believe about MS's XML, it's what the market thinks.
Just because this guy keeps using the word "trollish" does not mean he is actually trolling.
Massachusetts never formulated this as an "either-or" issue
No, that's incorrect. The OOo advocates tried to hijack this thing as soon as it was clear that MS wasn't going to directly support ODF.
Microsoft cares deeply about what office format you use,
They are introducing an XML format themselves. While there's some legal quibbles, it basically eliminates the "lock-in" argument from the equasion. Of course, they would probably rather that you used their format over someone elses, but as long as you are buying MS Office, why would they complain?
2. It will cause Microsoft to lower the price of MS Office to compete,
This is happening. MS has announced a $100 entry version of Office 2007.
You have confused astroturfing with contrarianism, aka trolling.
I doubt Microsoft really cares what file format you use, so long as you keep buying MS Office.
The whole issue in MA was forumulated as Either-Or debate (by both sides, "Hairy Guys" and MS) in order to force an artificial choice between OpenOffice and MS Office. That's why the political stakes got so explosive.
At least now CTOs can consider the merits of ODF without having OpenOffice brought into the equasion -- because for most shops, a fileformat is not worth switching your office suite over.
The idea that ODF was going to drive people start using OpenOffice was ridiclous -- it's not a goode enough reason and it never would have worked.
/Sun/Apple/IBM without discriminating against someone who made a different choice.
But more importantly, this lame office suite advocacy tactic was a hijack of the ideals behind a standard file format. The whole point of ODF to let people choose their software from Microsoft/Corel
I'm glad this plugin is finally here so that people can stop conflating ODF with OpenOffice. OOo is going to have to do better than government mandates to get adopted.
While it may be true that Bush let them off easy, don't kid yourself. When the appeal court threw out the Tying charge, that issue was settled, Microsoft won. Therefore you can't invent remedies on Slashdot while having any intellectual integrity.
Thanks to every who responded .. It seems like there's plenty of evidence that Google is having no problems overriding the IE default search behavior on a large number of systems.
"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying..."
hence Microsoft broke the law when they bundled Windows with IE to obtain a browser monopoly.
I think you missed the point that the US courts stated that MS did not break the law through bundling or 'tying'.
This whole "MS is a Monopoly therefore Slashdotters can make up the rules" runs into the brick wall of reality. The IE thing has been tried, there deciisions are there for you to read them.