What the heck, I have time... I'll grace your ranting with one more reply...
Software engineers never need to read industry publications to learn about hardware? You just acquire and test yourself every single new device that comes out? Seems pretty inefficient.
So why aren't you still shouting that NetworkWorld and Tom's are Mac publications? That Apple paid them to produce their reports (if you must insist that a thorough examination by an expert on Tom's is not a "study.")
You say: "my measuring stick is PERFORMANCE, PRICE, HARDWARE MAINTAINABILITY and UPGRADE-ABILITY not whether or not the case matches my entertainment center." That is precisely the list of features cited in the reports I listed. I never talked about the color of the case. So you then must think Macs are cheaper, right? Given the clear evidence I provided?
Then you go off saying that add-ons from Apple cost too much. If you had bothered to read the Tom's report, they claim the same thing. That Macs are the same price or cheaper, but that they over-charge on the add-ons. So, like I said, if you don't make stupid purchasing decisions, you don't pay more for the hardware cost of a Mac. You still are not countering the fact, yes fact, that hardware cost is a minor concern in the total cost of ownership. You still have yet to provide one scrap that the average cost of ownership of a PC is lower than the Mac. This is because you cannot find even a raving Windows-fanboy site to say that, because it is not true.
As for Macs in the enterprise, again, I am relying on fact, while are relying solely on your hatred of what you don't understand. Here's the first article I found, though there are plenty recently Survey: 8 in 10 businesses now using Macs - June 26, 2008 (and no, I am not claiming they are using Macs to the exclusion of Windows, but the article details how they are burgeoning in the enterprise.) I suppose now you're going to tell me that InfoWorld is a Mac site too, right?
I modified the WoW search because software changes over time. So judging something only by its 1.0 release isn't very thoughtful for a software engineer.
I said that your people with two computers could run Windows on their Macs, I did not mean to the exclusion of Mac OS. It is called virtualization... ever heard of it? You can run genuine Windows XP or Vista within the Mac OS using VMWare (ever heard of that?) or Parallels. It is a waste of money and a stupid purchasing decision to have a second computer running Windows when for far, far less money your IT department could have just bought VMWare.
It is clueless software engineers who think nobody wants to use a Mac that lead to Windows-only software. When that ignorance is applied to commercial software development, then it just means that you immediately exclude 5-10% of your potential customer base. The number of companies willing to piss off than many customers is rapidly decreasing (see link above, or look around you), which is why Macs are able to penetrate so well into the enterprise recently. I think you need to get over this mindless hatred and see what is going on around you. The fact that Macs look cool and that hey cost what they are worth (again, completely in line with Dells or other big brand PCs) should not mislead you into thinking that somehow they aren't cool for engineers to use. Again, they are certified UNIX 03... something you cannot get from any Windows or Linux box in the world.
I haven't "changed my arguments, I have made additional arguments to counter your outrageous claims. This is called debating. Should I just keep repeating the same thing over and over? I talked about industrial design because (as is clearly indicated in my post) you claimed that you can tell Macs are a "piece of shit" when you see them. I call into question what you are seeing, since people who value industrial design see something worthwhile. Got it now?
No wonder APPLE SPONSORS these "Studies" to convince people not to question their prices.
Well, this certainly explains why you are posting as an anonymous coward. Apple paid Network World and Tom's Hardware to produce these studies? That is so uneducated as to make me seriously wonder how you could possibly be a computer engineer. You seriously have never even visited Tom's Hardware or NetworkWorld? If you did, you would know how preposterous your claim is. I don't think Apple even advertises in Network World as opposed to paying them to compromise their journalistic integrity. It is a publication of IDG. Are you gonna tell me you've never heard of them either?
I have been a software engineer for 16 years and I have NEVER been given a Mac to develop on! EVER!
If you are an engineer, which again seems unlikely given your complete ignorance of major industry publications, then... it's not my problem nobody ever gave you a Mac. Sorry. Do you feel left out?
I have seen graphics designers have them...with a windows box right next to it so they can switch back and forth depending on what they want to do because not all of the software the average business uses is available for the Mac.
Well, those graphic designers must have some awfully stupid IT guys working for them. If what you claim is even true (AC), then they could just run Windows on their Macs, which would be a lot cheaper, easier, and less cluttering than having two whole computers.
I suspect one reason is any CFO authorizing spending 3 times more for a computer that does LESS (won't run lost of the software Windows machines will) would be fired!
That would be a pretty stupid CFO then, since cost of hardware is one of the lowest costs of a corporation owning a computer. The costs of software, support, and maintenance are all major factors, and again... can you show me one scrap of evidence that the total cost of ownership of Windows computers is lower than Macs? No? Right... no. That would be one of the several reasons that Macs are burgeoning in the enterprise.
I just did a head count for the company I work in...we have nearly 1600 PCs running Windows and Linux...only FOUR Macs and they were bought for VPs who requested them and they have to have a PC as well for running most of our software (secure online meeting clients, billing software, time management software, report suite, most of our proprietary software, and the list goes on).
You work for a very stupid company. You should point your IT department to this thread so they can see what poor decisions they are making. As for all that software... first those do run on Macs, second Windows runs on Macs. So what kind of idiotic IT department gives people a second computer when it is unnecessary? Why doesn't your stupid CFO fire them for wasting all that money?
Oh, and unlike you who admits he knows very little about Windows (yet defends claims that Apple is "vastly superior"), I have a version of Mac OS X on a couple of my machines. Hacked of course to run on NON Apple hardware.
I never said I know very little about Windows; I said I am not an Windows expert, just like you are not a Mac expert just because you hacked it a little. You spend so much time hating the Mac, I'm sure you provide wonderful support to your Mac friends. And BTW, as is the point of my very original post,
I was comparing list prices. The list price of Vista Ultimate upgrade is $240. If you're going to compare street prices, then OS X is $110... $100 if you really try.
A large chunk of spam comes from a very small group of spammers. It may just be that you are only targeted by one of them, and he took a break recently.
Hang in there... he'll come back from vacation soon, and you'll be able to mortgage your penis to Nigeria again.
Who is shouting here? All I said was that there is a reason why Macs have closed hardware, and some people (something like 5%, as I said) think that that is a nice way to do computing. If you don't, then don't use a Mac. Whatever.
I think what you are trying to say here is this, right? Is that what you're trying to prove? 'Cause you're not even making a good case for that...
OK, I'm no Windows expert, so I didn't know about this critical home utility provides with Windows Ultimate (it has Poker too, I see). Macs do one-to-one screen-sharing for free, and the ARD client is built into every Mac, but I suppose the high-level admin utility is indeed $500. (Or you can use an OSS tool of course...)
So compare straight-up on price, then. The same-priced version of Windows is the relatively stripped-down Windows Basic. OS X costs as much as this cheapo-Windows and has no hobbling or "missing features."
The point still stands... excuse me for the horrible factual error.
If you don't ever need to pay for technical support (and if you are not a business, where support of computers is an unavoidable cost), then YMMV, and again... nobody's forcing you to buy a Mac. The average (read: large majority) user will pay less to own a Mac than a PC.
And it is simply, well, uneducated of you to call Network World and Tom's Hardware Mac fanboy sites. They are very, very much the opposite. Most of the time, they don't even bother to recognize the existence of Macs. By your definition, I suppose this is a Mac fanboy site too, right?
Nobody ever said Macs don't ever break. They are generally well built, unlike some random whitebox which you are claiming will be cheaper, but Macs do fail too. That's why those studies looked at total cost of ownership for a large number of computers. On average, Macs cost a lot less to support.
I still am not seeing a single scrap of evidence from you to the contrary. And again, Network World is as mainstream, respectable, and non-Mac-fanboy as is humanly possible. Ditto for Tom's Hardware.
As for how much you KNOW computers (which I have to call into suspect if you aren't cognizant of major mainstream PC publications like the above), then you must know that Mac OS X Server is certified UNIX 03, unlike any linux or Windows computer in existence. The consumer version of OS X isn't quite UNIX certified, but contains most of the same technologies as the Server... you can spend all day in the CLI if that is your gold standard for good computing. Everything from grep to Oracle runs on OS X the same as on any other computer.
But saying a Mac is a piece of shit when you look at it just shows that you're looking through your counter-fanboy goggles. Why is it that Macs win practically every industrial design award? That doesn't mean they "look pretty." it means they are built better than any other computer. Now why don't you go ahead and call me a liar about that too... this time, try using this first, and try to show me some sort of proof.
Where in the world would you have to pay $340 for a vista license. Vista is $99 - $219.
The list price (since I quoted list for OS X) of Vista Ultimate is $340. You can pay less, assuming you are OK with getting a hobbled version of Windows. The $130 list price of OS X is completely full-featured. What kind of Windows do you get for that same list price? An "upgrade" all the way to Vista Home Basic, which hardly qualifies as an operating system. In no way does Vista Basic compare with OS X 10.5.
Mac cost of ownership is lower than PC? Bullshit! That is an out and out LIE. PC's are SIGNIFICANTLY lower in price ACROSS THE BOARD!
And your citation for that?
Here is what the real world has to say: Network World: "The results of this TCO astounded me. For my small enterprise, owning a WinTel box for three years costs twice as much as owning a MacTel. When I talked with several of our clients, I found that the burdened cost of ownership per PC - just for support - ranged from $1,300 to $4,000 per year."
Tom's Hardware: (Sorry no simple quote, just seven pages of proof why Macs are a better value if you don't make stupid purchasing choices.)
And so on; bored now. So show me one study saying that the total cost of ownership of a PC is cheaper than owning a Mac. And note that the references above are hardcore PC publications.
And more to the point of the article...Mac hardware is not available for me to build my own which saves me even MORE money by choosing PC.
And so we return to my original post. Apple doesn't let their OS run on any old hardware, and thus they can deliver a better experience. If that's not for you, then the Mac is not for you... you can go spend your days trying to hack cheapass generic hardware together into a sometimes-stable system while I am doing nothing but enjoying the use of my computer.
I love how you, an obvious anything-but-Mac fanboy goes about calling me a fanboy and a liar (with no proof) while hiding behind AC.
I'll just list those in order as I see them now: Red Hat's Window of Opportunity Arises from Slow Vista Adoption Rates Report Finds Dip in Microsoft's Browser Share 180 Million Vista Licenses Mean What? Enterprise Adoption of Vista at 'Single Digits,' Report Says More and More IT Pros are Ignoring Vista. Where's the Wow Now? Vista Adoption Stymied Despite SP1 and so on and so on and so on and so on...
And on what basis do you say that the $130 Mac OS X costs more than the $340 Vista? Are you talking about the price of the PC (despite that not being what I was talking about)? Are you aware that pretty much every study of cost of ownership has shown Macs to cost less than Windows PCs (and usually less than any other PC)? And since Apple has gone to Intel hardware, most breakdowns of the cost of their machines show that they are priced inline with other major manufacturers. So the OS costs less, the cost of ownership is less, and the hardware is average-priced. Macs cost more how?
The Mac is a vastly superior user experience. A lot of people may have different opinions on this, but the majority tends to agree. Read any hardcore PC magazine (eg ComputerWorld, eWeek, etc.) when they review a new model of Mac. The primary reasons for using Windows are always that it has such a high adoption rate, or derivative arguments from that, such as your "more games" concept. I play tons of games on my Mac and haven't noticed anything missing from my life. But if I wanted to, I could shell out the fat chunk of change for Windows, boot my Mac into it, and play the same thousands of indistinguishable, lookalike games that you can.
I'm tired of companies selling me shit and then telling me I'm just licensing it and have no rights to use it.
But you were just defending Windows. Get your story straight. Apple has an EULA, but they don't even require a serial number to install OS X.
P.S. When you say that your computer plays the same songs... what software is it that most people use to play their songs?
Apple has always held a tight grip on their hardware and software standards. If you don't approve, you don't have to buy their stuff. That is what ~95% (though rapidly decreasing) of people choose to do.
But it is precisely that total control that lets Apple deliver such a relatively high quality product. I'll admit that Leopard is not up to Apple standards... but overall, their products are vastly superior to Windows, despite the huge resources and community working on the Windows environment compared to the Mac world.
The control of hardware and software allows Apple to not have to adapt to the whims of a thousand hardware makers, and it lets them produce a computer like the iPhone (which is mostly just a little Mac), which clearly people love as compared to other "smart" phones. Why do people love it? Because the crushing grip Apple keeps on their standards results in a relatively easy experience for the end-user.
Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why? I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't use it. But the facts speak for themselves. People hate Vista, the average Joe can't/won't figure out linux, and people generally enjoy the Apple experience.
The use of computers means that we do not have to use a simple majority to make decisions. And the use of the internet, an open system, means that a majority isn't really even a useful concept.
Instead, imagine an infinite (for practical purposes) number of interconnected communities, each with a governance structure. You as a user can participate in any of them, but obviously not in all of them. Especially so if participation requires more involvement than mere voting. So you will have to make choices about which communities (read, which "governments") you want to participate in. That self-selecting into communities changes the concept of majority and consensus building.
Additionally, a government can be a direct democracy without giving everyone a completely equal say. If there is a community associated with each government, then people may be able to distinguish themselves within that community, either informally or formally through a scoring system.
These concepts are still new, and there are details we are still working out, but we are approaching them as mere engineering problems. If we define the system well enough, the internet will figure out how to use it effectively. You are quite welcome to come join us in figuring out how to make this work.
P.S. I am a member of the Metagovernment... but I hardly think we count as "the government." Not yet anyway.:)
Windows 7 is "scheduled" for maybe something like sometime in 2010, but they're not making any promises. And if you look at the slated "features" It also looks like they're not sure what they have going on there. Updated versions of Paint and WordPad? Is that really what they're going for?
Instead of "Windows 7" the real code name is "Maybe we can come up with something you will want to buy, unlike Vista...?" However, unfortunately, they really have no idea how to accomplish that.
Oh, and just to be a snob... by comparison, OS X 10.5 looks like it will be adding real features and actually be released in about one year from now.
(I know, -3 Troll/Flamebait... But it was too fun not to post.)
Indeed. I don't know how the law is interpreted, but I cannot imagine how anyone who broadcasts an unencrypted radio signal can complain if someone else picks up that signal. It would be like a TV station claiming that you are stealing their content because you tuned into their channel.
You could say that a wifi router is different from TV because the activity is two-way: but the wifi router chooses to respond to me. If the owner of the router never bothered to tell their router not to respond to me, then is it my fault that it does? Am I guilty if my computer merely pings their router because it created a response on that router? They are the one who initiated the communication by broadcasting hello packets.
The bang-for-buck of Apple's hardware plus their software is a little difficult to justify by itself (though it is arguably a better deal than Windows and a lot less setup than linux). But the industrial design should not be overlooked as a value factor.
Compare a "cheap" consumer-grade MacBook to a similar consumer-grade Dell. The MacBook not only looks svelte and (to some) cool, it also is simply more convenient to deal with. If your computer is something that you use a lot, some of these little details can be very important.
I really appreciate the way a MacBook is almost completely silent. That it slips into the lid of a briefcase. That its speakers, microphone, and camera are all accessible but almost invisible. That I can click, right-click, scroll, pan, and more without moving my hand from one place. That it stays out of my way while I use it, instead of calling attention to itself: no blinking lights, no flashy logos in my face, no stupid buttons all over: it is just a screen with easy-to-use input devices.
Slashdot Mirror
What the heck, I have time... I'll grace your ranting with one more reply...
Software engineers never need to read industry publications to learn about hardware? You just acquire and test yourself every single new device that comes out? Seems pretty inefficient.
So why aren't you still shouting that NetworkWorld and Tom's are Mac publications? That Apple paid them to produce their reports (if you must insist that a thorough examination by an expert on Tom's is not a "study.")
You say: "my measuring stick is PERFORMANCE, PRICE, HARDWARE MAINTAINABILITY and UPGRADE-ABILITY not whether or not the case matches my entertainment center." That is precisely the list of features cited in the reports I listed. I never talked about the color of the case. So you then must think Macs are cheaper, right? Given the clear evidence I provided?
Then you go off saying that add-ons from Apple cost too much. If you had bothered to read the Tom's report, they claim the same thing. That Macs are the same price or cheaper, but that they over-charge on the add-ons. So, like I said, if you don't make stupid purchasing decisions, you don't pay more for the hardware cost of a Mac. You still are not countering the fact, yes fact, that hardware cost is a minor concern in the total cost of ownership. You still have yet to provide one scrap that the average cost of ownership of a PC is lower than the Mac. This is because you cannot find even a raving Windows-fanboy site to say that, because it is not true.
As for Macs in the enterprise, again, I am relying on fact, while are relying solely on your hatred of what you don't understand. Here's the first article I found, though there are plenty recently
Survey: 8 in 10 businesses now using Macs - June 26, 2008 (and no, I am not claiming they are using Macs to the exclusion of Windows, but the article details how they are burgeoning in the enterprise.)
I suppose now you're going to tell me that InfoWorld is a Mac site too, right?
I modified the WoW search because software changes over time. So judging something only by its 1.0 release isn't very thoughtful for a software engineer.
I said that your people with two computers could run Windows on their Macs, I did not mean to the exclusion of Mac OS. It is called virtualization... ever heard of it? You can run genuine Windows XP or Vista within the Mac OS using VMWare (ever heard of that?) or Parallels. It is a waste of money and a stupid purchasing decision to have a second computer running Windows when for far, far less money your IT department could have just bought VMWare.
It is clueless software engineers who think nobody wants to use a Mac that lead to Windows-only software. When that ignorance is applied to commercial software development, then it just means that you immediately exclude 5-10% of your potential customer base. The number of companies willing to piss off than many customers is rapidly decreasing (see link above, or look around you), which is why Macs are able to penetrate so well into the enterprise recently. I think you need to get over this mindless hatred and see what is going on around you. The fact that Macs look cool and that hey cost what they are worth (again, completely in line with Dells or other big brand PCs) should not mislead you into thinking that somehow they aren't cool for engineers to use. Again, they are certified UNIX 03... something you cannot get from any Windows or Linux box in the world.
I haven't "changed my arguments, I have made additional arguments to counter your outrageous claims. This is called debating. Should I just keep repeating the same thing over and over? I talked about industrial design because (as is clearly indicated in my post) you claimed that you can tell Macs are a "piece of shit" when you see them. I call into question what you are seeing, since people who value industrial design see something worthwhile. Got it now?
No wonder APPLE SPONSORS these "Studies" to convince people not to question their prices.
Well, this certainly explains why you are posting as an anonymous coward. Apple paid Network World and Tom's Hardware to produce these studies? That is so uneducated as to make me seriously wonder how you could possibly be a computer engineer. You seriously have never even visited Tom's Hardware or NetworkWorld? If you did, you would know how preposterous your claim is. I don't think Apple even advertises in Network World as opposed to paying them to compromise their journalistic integrity. It is a publication of IDG. Are you gonna tell me you've never heard of them either?
I have been a software engineer for 16 years and I have NEVER been given a Mac to develop on! EVER!
If you are an engineer, which again seems unlikely given your complete ignorance of major industry publications, then... it's not my problem nobody ever gave you a Mac. Sorry. Do you feel left out?
I have seen graphics designers have them...with a windows box right next to it so they can switch back and forth depending on what they want to do because not all of the software the average business uses is available for the Mac.
Well, those graphic designers must have some awfully stupid IT guys working for them. If what you claim is even true (AC), then they could just run Windows on their Macs, which would be a lot cheaper, easier, and less cluttering than having two whole computers.
I suspect one reason is any CFO authorizing spending 3 times more for a computer that does LESS (won't run lost of the software Windows machines will) would be fired!
That would be a pretty stupid CFO then, since cost of hardware is one of the lowest costs of a corporation owning a computer. The costs of software, support, and maintenance are all major factors, and again... can you show me one scrap of evidence that the total cost of ownership of Windows computers is lower than Macs? No? Right... no. That would be one of the several reasons that Macs are burgeoning in the enterprise.
I just did a head count for the company I work in...we have nearly 1600 PCs running Windows and Linux...only FOUR Macs and they were bought for VPs who requested them and they have to have a PC as well for running most of our software (secure online meeting clients, billing software, time management software, report suite, most of our proprietary software, and the list goes on).
You work for a very stupid company. You should point your IT department to this thread so they can see what poor decisions they are making. As for all that software... first those do run on Macs, second Windows runs on Macs. So what kind of idiotic IT department gives people a second computer when it is unnecessary? Why doesn't your stupid CFO fire them for wasting all that money?
Oh, and unlike you who admits he knows very little about Windows (yet defends claims that Apple is "vastly superior"), I have a version of Mac OS X on a couple of my machines. Hacked of course to run on NON Apple hardware.
I never said I know very little about Windows; I said I am not an Windows expert, just like you are not a Mac expert just because you hacked it a little. You spend so much time hating the Mac, I'm sure you provide wonderful support to your Mac friends. And BTW, as is the point of my very original post,
I was comparing list prices. The list price of Vista Ultimate upgrade is $240. If you're going to compare street prices, then OS X is $110... $100 if you really try.
$130 is less than $240.
$110 is less than $185.
That was the only point I was trying to make.
The headline is a lie
Right... by "this," I meant the /. article, not the source. :/
No edit button though.
...I mean... who can read this and not think about grey goo?
A large chunk of spam comes from a very small group of spammers. It may just be that you are only targeted by one of them, and he took a break recently.
Hang in there... he'll come back from vacation soon, and you'll be able to mortgage your penis to Nigeria again.
Who is shouting here? All I said was that there is a reason why Macs have closed hardware, and some people (something like 5%, as I said) think that that is a nice way to do computing. If you don't, then don't use a Mac. Whatever.
I think what you are trying to say here is this, right? Is that what you're trying to prove? 'Cause you're not even making a good case for that...
Love the anonymous coward name-calling though.
OK, I'm no Windows expert, so I didn't know about this critical home utility provides with Windows Ultimate (it has Poker too, I see). Macs do one-to-one screen-sharing for free, and the ARD client is built into every Mac, but I suppose the high-level admin utility is indeed $500. (Or you can use an OSS tool of course...)
So compare straight-up on price, then. The same-priced version of Windows is the relatively stripped-down Windows Basic. OS X costs as much as this cheapo-Windows and has no hobbling or "missing features."
The point still stands... excuse me for the horrible factual error.
My bad... I hadn't realized it, but the client also is UNIX certified, when run on Intel-based Macs.
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
P.S. No, the Open Gorup is not a bunch of Mac fanboys.
If you don't ever need to pay for technical support (and if you are not a business, where support of computers is an unavoidable cost), then YMMV, and again... nobody's forcing you to buy a Mac. The average (read: large majority) user will pay less to own a Mac than a PC.
And it is simply, well, uneducated of you to call Network World and Tom's Hardware Mac fanboy sites. They are very, very much the opposite. Most of the time, they don't even bother to recognize the existence of Macs. By your definition, I suppose this is a Mac fanboy site too, right?
Nobody ever said Macs don't ever break. They are generally well built, unlike some random whitebox which you are claiming will be cheaper, but Macs do fail too. That's why those studies looked at total cost of ownership for a large number of computers. On average, Macs cost a lot less to support.
I still am not seeing a single scrap of evidence from you to the contrary. And again, Network World is as mainstream, respectable, and non-Mac-fanboy as is humanly possible. Ditto for Tom's Hardware.
As for how much you KNOW computers (which I have to call into suspect if you aren't cognizant of major mainstream PC publications like the above), then you must know that Mac OS X Server is certified UNIX 03, unlike any linux or Windows computer in existence. The consumer version of OS X isn't quite UNIX certified, but contains most of the same technologies as the Server... you can spend all day in the CLI if that is your gold standard for good computing. Everything from grep to Oracle runs on OS X the same as on any other computer.
But saying a Mac is a piece of shit when you look at it just shows that you're looking through your counter-fanboy goggles. Why is it that Macs win practically every industrial design award? That doesn't mean they "look pretty." it means they are built better than any other computer. Now why don't you go ahead and call me a liar about that too... this time, try using this first, and try to show me some sort of proof.
Where in the world would you have to pay $340 for a vista license. Vista is $99 - $219.
The list price (since I quoted list for OS X) of Vista Ultimate is $340. You can pay less, assuming you are OK with getting a hobbled version of Windows. The $130 list price of OS X is completely full-featured. What kind of Windows do you get for that same list price? An "upgrade" all the way to Vista Home Basic, which hardly qualifies as an operating system. In no way does Vista Basic compare with OS X 10.5.
Mac cost of ownership is lower than PC? Bullshit! That is an out and out LIE.
PC's are SIGNIFICANTLY lower in price ACROSS THE BOARD!
And your citation for that?
Here is what the real world has to say:
Network World:
"The results of this TCO astounded me. For my small enterprise, owning a WinTel box for three years costs twice as much as owning a MacTel. When I talked with several of our clients, I found that the burdened cost of ownership per PC - just for support - ranged from $1,300 to $4,000 per year."
Tom's Hardware:
(Sorry no simple quote, just seven pages of proof why Macs are a better value if you don't make stupid purchasing choices.)
And so on; bored now. So show me one study saying that the total cost of ownership of a PC is cheaper than owning a Mac. And note that the references above are hardcore PC publications.
And more to the point of the article...Mac hardware is not available for me to build my own which saves me even MORE money by choosing PC.
And so we return to my original post. Apple doesn't let their OS run on any old hardware, and thus they can deliver a better experience. If that's not for you, then the Mac is not for you... you can go spend your days trying to hack cheapass generic hardware together into a sometimes-stable system while I am doing nothing but enjoying the use of my computer.
I love how you, an obvious anything-but-Mac fanboy goes about calling me a fanboy and a liar (with no proof) while hiding behind AC.
I guess Mac fanboys just regurgitate anything Mac commercials present to them as "fact".
Are these Mac commercials?
http://news.google.com/news?q=vista%20adoption
I'll just list those in order as I see them now:
Red Hat's Window of Opportunity Arises from Slow Vista Adoption Rates
Report Finds Dip in Microsoft's Browser Share
180 Million Vista Licenses Mean What?
Enterprise Adoption of Vista at 'Single Digits,' Report Says
More and More IT Pros are Ignoring Vista. Where's the Wow Now?
Vista Adoption Stymied Despite SP1
and so on and so on and so on and so on...
And on what basis do you say that the $130 Mac OS X costs more than the $340 Vista? Are you talking about the price of the PC (despite that not being what I was talking about)? Are you aware that pretty much every study of cost of ownership has shown Macs to cost less than Windows PCs (and usually less than any other PC)? And since Apple has gone to Intel hardware, most breakdowns of the cost of their machines show that they are priced inline with other major manufacturers. So the OS costs less, the cost of ownership is less, and the hardware is average-priced. Macs cost more how?
The Mac is a vastly superior user experience. A lot of people may have different opinions on this, but the majority tends to agree. Read any hardcore PC magazine (eg ComputerWorld, eWeek, etc.) when they review a new model of Mac. The primary reasons for using Windows are always that it has such a high adoption rate, or derivative arguments from that, such as your "more games" concept. I play tons of games on my Mac and haven't noticed anything missing from my life. But if I wanted to, I could shell out the fat chunk of change for Windows, boot my Mac into it, and play the same thousands of indistinguishable, lookalike games that you can.
I'm tired of companies selling me shit and then telling me I'm just licensing it and have no rights to use it.
But you were just defending Windows. Get your story straight. Apple has an EULA, but they don't even require a serial number to install OS X.
P.S. When you say that your computer plays the same songs... what software is it that most people use to play their songs?
Apple has always held a tight grip on their hardware and software standards. If you don't approve, you don't have to buy their stuff. That is what ~95% (though rapidly decreasing) of people choose to do.
But it is precisely that total control that lets Apple deliver such a relatively high quality product. I'll admit that Leopard is not up to Apple standards... but overall, their products are vastly superior to Windows, despite the huge resources and community working on the Windows environment compared to the Mac world.
The control of hardware and software allows Apple to not have to adapt to the whims of a thousand hardware makers, and it lets them produce a computer like the iPhone (which is mostly just a little Mac), which clearly people love as compared to other "smart" phones. Why do people love it? Because the crushing grip Apple keeps on their standards results in a relatively easy experience for the end-user.
Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why? I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't use it. But the facts speak for themselves. People hate Vista, the average Joe can't/won't figure out linux, and people generally enjoy the Apple experience.
There's been a submarine exploring the Cayman Trough for years now.
. ;)
.
.
.
The real news I got out of this is: they still make shrinkydinks!?!
Who knew?
I woulda thought they woulda been classified as toxic by now...
So when the airport screeners use their fancy equipment to look at our naked bodies... they can put someone else's face on them?
The mind boggles.
So, since they appear to be emulating Apple... will the entire strategy be centered around the Zune?
I'm still having trouble with the article title. Microsoft invented something? Are you sure?
The use of computers means that we do not have to use a simple majority to make decisions. And the use of the internet, an open system, means that a majority isn't really even a useful concept.
Instead, imagine an infinite (for practical purposes) number of interconnected communities, each with a governance structure. You as a user can participate in any of them, but obviously not in all of them. Especially so if participation requires more involvement than mere voting. So you will have to make choices about which communities (read, which "governments") you want to participate in. That self-selecting into communities changes the concept of majority and consensus building.
Additionally, a government can be a direct democracy without giving everyone a completely equal say. If there is a community associated with each government, then people may be able to distinguish themselves within that community, either informally or formally through a scoring system.
These concepts are still new, and there are details we are still working out, but we are approaching them as mere engineering problems. If we define the system well enough, the internet will figure out how to use it effectively. You are quite welcome to come join us in figuring out how to make this work.
P.S. I am a member of the Metagovernment... but I hardly think we count as "the government." Not yet anyway. :)
Maybe Program X will finally not be so slow.
It's a series of tubes; um cores.
Howabout a beowolf clust... I can't even do that one.
Windows 7 is "scheduled" for maybe something like sometime in 2010, but they're not making any promises. And if you look at the slated "features" It also looks like they're not sure what they have going on there. Updated versions of Paint and WordPad? Is that really what they're going for?
Instead of "Windows 7" the real code name is "Maybe we can come up with something you will want to buy, unlike Vista...?" However, unfortunately, they really have no idea how to accomplish that.
Oh, and just to be a snob... by comparison, OS X 10.5 looks like it will be adding real features and actually be released in about one year from now.
(I know, -3 Troll/Flamebait... But it was too fun not to post.)
Indeed. I don't know how the law is interpreted, but I cannot imagine how anyone who broadcasts an unencrypted radio signal can complain if someone else picks up that signal. It would be like a TV station claiming that you are stealing their content because you tuned into their channel.
You could say that a wifi router is different from TV because the activity is two-way: but the wifi router chooses to respond to me. If the owner of the router never bothered to tell their router not to respond to me, then is it my fault that it does? Am I guilty if my computer merely pings their router because it created a response on that router? They are the one who initiated the communication by broadcasting hello packets.
Good point. HP's are even klunkier. Who wants a six pound laptop?
On any MacBook or MacBook Pro... just tap the touchpad with two fingers: that is a right-click.
If it doesn't work on a MacBook you try it in, it can be changed in System Preferences.
I never use the mouse button. Tapping and two-finger-tapping is vastly more efficient.
OK, I'll take some fanboy bait...
The bang-for-buck of Apple's hardware plus their software is a little difficult to justify by itself (though it is arguably a better deal than Windows and a lot less setup than linux). But the industrial design should not be overlooked as a value factor.
Compare a "cheap" consumer-grade MacBook to a similar consumer-grade Dell. The MacBook not only looks svelte and (to some) cool, it also is simply more convenient to deal with. If your computer is something that you use a lot, some of these little details can be very important.
I really appreciate the way a MacBook is almost completely silent. That it slips into the lid of a briefcase. That its speakers, microphone, and camera are all accessible but almost invisible. That I can click, right-click, scroll, pan, and more without moving my hand from one place. That it stays out of my way while I use it, instead of calling attention to itself: no blinking lights, no flashy logos in my face, no stupid buttons all over: it is just a screen with easy-to-use input devices.