The fact that Gartner's claims aren't true for the overwhelming majority of companies has a lot of bearing on their credibility.
With YOU, maybe. But, then again, you are not Gartner's target market. Gartner's claims are very specific. You have chosen to apply them in a very general manner that Gartner did not suggest or intend them to be applied. This makes *your* credibility the one that is suspect.
Interesting that this comes to light in a "Macintosh evangelism" site, not from a place devoted to helping business run more efficiently.
Uhm, the "Mac Evangelism" site was merely pointing out the results of the study, how horrible of them. In fact, they pointed out a study by the Gartner Group, which is a business "devoted to helping business run more efficiently." Its their bloody job. Your point was?
...and then learning to use and unfamiliar OS...and new software...and migrating all of my files...and trying to find and install programs that will then deal with those files...
No thanks. My time *is* worth that much. I did try out Linux about a year ago and after the install I was very disappointed with the OS - it does not meet my needs and wants at all. YMMV - I'm just saying.
The same could be said of Arthur Anderson accounting firm... until recently that is.
A thoroughly useless observation which has no bearing on this conversation and no relavance whatsoever.
This boneheaded and obviously biased "study" surely won't help Gartner's reputation.
Your evidence of this is...nothing? I thought so. What are you allegations here, I'd certainly like to hear them.
The real world experience of companies who know what costs more or costs less puts the lie to the studies, and the Macintoshes are few and far between.
Gartner never suggested that this was meant for EVERY company. It depends on what your business is and what your needs are. That you wish to overgeneralize and take their claims out of context has very little bearing on their credibility.
The ones that need special drivers are the ones in the minority, non-standard. What part of this is unclear to you?
None of it. My Kodak DC-5000 works without any additions on my Mac, I had to install drivers on my friends PC because it didn't recognize it. Ditto for my Fuji FinePix 4900. When my other friend bought his Minolta, the results were the same. They worked out of the box on the Mac, they required driver installs on the PC. These are top of the line, name brand cameras, not crappy generic shit. That Windows doesn't support them natively is just tragic (let's not even get into the fact the Linux doesn't support them at all.)
No, if some camera works on 90% of the computers out there but doesn't work on Mac due to Mac differences, the standard-following problem does not lie with the camera owner...
Sorry, ANY piece of USB enabled equipment that I need a driver to use is NON-STANDARD. If it doesn't plug in and work, it is NOT COMPLIANT. End of issue! USB is *the* standard - if the camera needs extra software to work properly, the camera violates the standard. What part of this is unclear to you?
If I said that the Gartner group said that your IQ was less than your shoe size would you take their claim at face value?
If I were a non-Mac user I suppose I'd have to seriously consider the possibility:P
And, for corporate entities, "the Gartner Group says so" DOES carry a huge amount of credibility whether you wish to recognize it or not. This isn't Joe Blow from down the street or some anonymous person on the net saying this, the Gartner Group has a VERY good reputation as a market research company.
You seem to misunderstand that the Gartner Group's reputation IS their selling point. They would not make a statement like this unless they had very solid research on the subject - their entire business is based on their reputation. They also are not talking about the individual user, this report is created based on supporting thousands of installed units - clearly a different issue...
Your statement was that the monitor was for PC's, not for Macs - your implication was that the monitor could NOT be used on a Mac. That is bullshit - I use Princeton Graphics "PC only" monitors on both of my Macs. Your further implication is that it was being marketed as PC only - which, whether you only have one Mac user 18 miles away or not, is bad business. Sorry, I'll call stupidity by it's name when I see it...
If a camera has a removable memory card, and who would want one that doesn't, one can always get a card reader and copy the pics over. OS X even brings up an automatic window when these items are inserted asking WHERE you want the info saved (is it pictures, mp3's, etc.) This occurs without installing drivers or software - it's called conforming to the USB (and digital camera) standards. Novel concept, isn't it?
Any camera that doesn't work with a Mac simply doesn't conform to the STANDARDS which have been established for such devices. I personally think that any company that doesn't follow STANDARDS should rot in hell anyway, so why would I want to give them my money to make my life more difficult?
Uhm, the GeForce board that came with my brand new Mac is compatible with ALL PC monitors - just because the manufacturer is too stupid to check this out and put it on the box to sell more units doesn't mean I'm that stupid...
By the time my older Macs have become "obsolete" for my uses, there is no point in upgrading. Besides, I paid $1,100 for my B&W G3, used it for two years and sold it for $800 - try that with your $400 P.O.S. computers.
And, what exactly CAN'T I upgrade on my system? I've got an AGP graphics slot and three PCI slots - and the processor is in a ZIF socket. What CAN'T I upgrade? The motherboard? The time I would spend screwing around putting in a new motherboard is worth the cost of a new case to me.
please show me where you can build your own mac for 400 bucks or less.
Yeah, I can go out and get a $400 car too - that doesn't make it a good idea. Also, does that include a top of the line (not generic compatible) sound and graphics cards? Firewire? 10/100 NIC? Software - oh yeah, you want me to spend days finding and installing Linux packages, that's great if you're already a Luser (Linux user) with tons of experience. Sorry, my time is worth more than that to me...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, with custom software. Why should I have to install software just to get pictures from my camera? Doesn't make sense to me...
Hee!
With YOU, maybe. But, then again, you are not Gartner's target market. Gartner's claims are very specific. You have chosen to apply them in a very general manner that Gartner did not suggest or intend them to be applied. This makes *your* credibility the one that is suspect.
Interesting that this comes to light in a "Macintosh evangelism" site, not from a place devoted to helping business run more efficiently.
Uhm, the "Mac Evangelism" site was merely pointing out the results of the study, how horrible of them. In fact, they pointed out a study by the Gartner Group, which is a business "devoted to helping business run more efficiently." Its their bloody job. Your point was?
No thanks. My time *is* worth that much. I did try out Linux about a year ago and after the install I was very disappointed with the OS - it does not meet my needs and wants at all. YMMV - I'm just saying.
A thoroughly useless observation which has no bearing on this conversation and no relavance whatsoever.
This boneheaded and obviously biased "study" surely won't help Gartner's reputation.
Your evidence of this is...nothing? I thought so. What are you allegations here, I'd certainly like to hear them.
The real world experience of companies who know what costs more or costs less puts the lie to the studies, and the Macintoshes are few and far between.
Gartner never suggested that this was meant for EVERY company. It depends on what your business is and what your needs are. That you wish to overgeneralize and take their claims out of context has very little bearing on their credibility.
None of it. My Kodak DC-5000 works without any additions on my Mac, I had to install drivers on my friends PC because it didn't recognize it. Ditto for my Fuji FinePix 4900. When my other friend bought his Minolta, the results were the same. They worked out of the box on the Mac, they required driver installs on the PC. These are top of the line, name brand cameras, not crappy generic shit. That Windows doesn't support them natively is just tragic (let's not even get into the fact the Linux doesn't support them at all.)
So, who supports what here?
Sorry, ANY piece of USB enabled equipment that I need a driver to use is NON-STANDARD. If it doesn't plug in and work, it is NOT COMPLIANT. End of issue! USB is *the* standard - if the camera needs extra software to work properly, the camera violates the standard. What part of this is unclear to you?
...would realize that many companies use software on Macs that has never been ported to PC's?
If I were a non-Mac user I suppose I'd have to seriously consider the possibility :P
And, for corporate entities, "the Gartner Group says so" DOES carry a huge amount of credibility whether you wish to recognize it or not. This isn't Joe Blow from down the street or some anonymous person on the net saying this, the Gartner Group has a VERY good reputation as a market research company.
You seem to misunderstand that the Gartner Group's reputation IS their selling point. They would not make a statement like this unless they had very solid research on the subject - their entire business is based on their reputation. They also are not talking about the individual user, this report is created based on supporting thousands of installed units - clearly a different issue...
Your statement was that the monitor was for PC's, not for Macs - your implication was that the monitor could NOT be used on a Mac. That is bullshit - I use Princeton Graphics "PC only" monitors on both of my Macs. Your further implication is that it was being marketed as PC only - which, whether you only have one Mac user 18 miles away or not, is bad business. Sorry, I'll call stupidity by it's name when I see it...
Any camera that doesn't work with a Mac simply doesn't conform to the STANDARDS which have been established for such devices. I personally think that any company that doesn't follow STANDARDS should rot in hell anyway, so why would I want to give them my money to make my life more difficult?
Uhm, the GeForce board that came with my brand new Mac is compatible with ALL PC monitors - just because the manufacturer is too stupid to check this out and put it on the box to sell more units doesn't mean I'm that stupid...
By the time my older Macs have become "obsolete" for my uses, there is no point in upgrading. Besides, I paid $1,100 for my B&W G3, used it for two years and sold it for $800 - try that with your $400 P.O.S. computers. And, what exactly CAN'T I upgrade on my system? I've got an AGP graphics slot and three PCI slots - and the processor is in a ZIF socket. What CAN'T I upgrade? The motherboard? The time I would spend screwing around putting in a new motherboard is worth the cost of a new case to me.
please show me where you can build your own mac for 400 bucks or less.
Yeah, I can go out and get a $400 car too - that doesn't make it a good idea. Also, does that include a top of the line (not generic compatible) sound and graphics cards? Firewire? 10/100 NIC? Software - oh yeah, you want me to spend days finding and installing Linux packages, that's great if you're already a Luser (Linux user) with tons of experience. Sorry, my time is worth more than that to me...