PDA

View Full Version : Is Apple all that innovative??


petee
Dec 19, 2002, 09:42 AM
I have been quietly lurking at this website for several months now and have been listening to the "winblows' bashing and the swooning accolades to Apple. The arguments go something like this: Apple is all about innovation. Or, yeah, the Wintel computers are fast but crash every few days (minutes, seconds, etc.). Or, Wintel has no innovation... it steals everything from Apple. And finally, with the rumors of Apple going over to AMD platforms, Apple is a hardware company and would go belly up if it were to switch to a X86 platform.

I'm not sure I buy any of these arguments. Some of them seem very contradictory. Apple's computer (soundcard, vid card, ram, basically all But the processor and monitor is OEM stuff that is available for PC)are better because they are optimized for their software. Not sure where the idea came from that the Microsoft is NOT optimized for the various hardware out there. (Oh yeah they did create a nice interface that Microsoft stole from them but get over it... it was years ago.) As far as innovation. Yes Apple has some nice designs, but they hardly invented the PC, the MP3 player, CD-burning etc. Yes, they made them easier for some people but I really see no true innovation other than nice designs, easier use, and a salesman with a PT Branum-like sales pitch (18 gigaflops!!) Yes, Windows was pretty terrible with 95 and a couple of interations of their software, but Mac NEVER had a bad OS? I thought that X was pretty awful when it first came out. Its is much better now and very nice and stable, but so what... so is Windows XP home and Pro.

I will say that iApps are great. they are very easy to use and functional... but so are a myriad of third party software for Windows.

So my question is: Why Apple? What can I do on my iMac that I can't do on my Compaq? Nothing except work slower on some applications and NOT play games. Even if the games were available, the slow-as-molasses graphics card will make it a lesson in futility. It seems that true innovation is happening in the computer world in general but is made for the PC world because, hey if your going to invest millions of $$$ in research and risk, who are you going to sell to, a company with 3-4% marketshare of 90+% marketshare. I think that Apple really missed the boat by not going to an X86 platform. Marginalization is never a good thing and I would argue that Apple would have ceased being in the news if Steve had not of come back. The only reason its in the news now is that Steve holds these very big, very expensive Conventions to WOW the world with a very cool, very nice design around a product that is hoh hum.

Just my random thoughts about computers. I can't wait for the just-deserved flaming. (I'm getting my marshmellows out now.

zarathustra
Dec 19, 2002, 10:20 AM
Flame bait.

Unless you have valid points to discuss with us, we should ignore you. I personally will not convince you of Apple's innovation, because it's throwing pearls before swine - you seem to have made up your mind about Apple sucking. If it is true that you lurk around macrumors, you should have seen links and discussions about hardware, software and overall computer philosophy being pioneered by Apple and it's engineers.

I hope you enjoy playing in your wast sandbox of windows compatible machines - I have living to do on my personal caribbean island called a Macintosh.

saabmp3
Dec 19, 2002, 10:35 AM
Apple doesn't really innovate hardware. They have said themselves that they are a software company now. A couple of years ago they were making proprietary hardware and software to go with it. Now a days their using much more standard stuff in the industry.

I actualyl switched from my 1.8 GHz PC to my 667 PB (I was using both for 2 months) for the exact opposite reason. I can work faster on my PB than I can on my desktop. This might be because of the fact that the apple is a laptop, but mostly it's due to everything working when I need it it. On old PC's there was a 25% chance that something was going to break on the compute at a key moment and I was going to have to fix it. That just doesn't happen on my mac. I don't have much of a better explination for it than that. That is why I use my mac as my main (and basically only) machine now.

As for the gaming aspect. I don't play games. I have a UT server loaded on it for other people in my dorm to use, but that really it. The games that I would ever want are avaible for it, so I have no complaints there, but you have your right.

Finally, I don't think you should get flamed for this. It is actually a very honnest question. There are alot of people who are very gung-ho on using a mac just for the fact of it. Then there are people like you who question it. If there is a good answer, then I hope you'll do the intelligent thing and atleast consider the mac for what it's good for.

BEN

MacBandit
Dec 19, 2002, 10:45 AM
Talking about real inovations. You can thank Apple for not only windows but the mouse as well. Recent innovations that I can think of off the top of my head include firewire and Rendezvous. Also anyone who doesn't think the case the PowerMacs are in isn't innovative needs to have there head examined. There are more but I don't have time at the moment to list them.

Megaquad
Dec 19, 2002, 10:50 AM
Dude I wish you luck, hope you're gonna survive all that upcoming flaming :D

Just tell me something, do you own a mac?

Here are some things that make OSX better machine then windows.

-i can easy see when is some application launching, when is launching when is working etc. all that with dock, it gets little confusing with that task bar
-all that shareware and freeware software on win are poisoning whole system, slowing it down, making all kinds of stupid ads, and register-me windows pop-up when starting-up computer
-some of those apps can plague the whole system and most people never know how to fix it
-mac software is much cleaner with more intuitive interface

Whole windows eventually get slow and unstable after some time, and then reinstallation of windows is required. Don't tell it's not true, I've seen pc's with win xp that cannot launch IE, and when I installed alternate browser, mozilla, it couldnt launch after a while and it screwed whole system when launched.

-bad multitasking, when having multiple applications and doing stuff between them, you cant touch anything, it gets unresponsive

-all that driver ****e.. on mac everything is plug&play, no configuring million video drivers, searching drivers for every new connected device

-no decent app for listening music, hehe

-almost every single app for windows, is so messed up, you cant understand how is it working, why is it working like that? so many confusing options, not even a one standard application layout
all those menus and "multimedia" application disasters with scattered options.
-many applications have so many unnecessary options and stupid annoying god damn wizards
and windows ask you "do you want to do that, or that, or that?" all the time

-no visible distinctions on windows between desktop and applications, yes you know which app is in front but something more is really needed - mac has application named in menu bar along with menu's, menu bar is one of the best things in mac os

-windows have no true drag and drop, you have to uninstall most stuff and you dont understand where or how did they get installed
it is really really annoying

-no microsoft's dirty tactics, their stupid names
-no disgusting software, like some of them built-in with windows
-no style, everything is ugly, and it goes beyond uglyness - its like somebody throw all those interface elements without thinking how it's going to look and feel

-i dont feel happy in front of pc
i cant check my mail feeling happy, chat with people, especially I cant do something creative with it

DeadlyBreakfast
Dec 19, 2002, 10:52 AM
Ok...I'll chime in on this one a little....

Being a recent switcher and someone who works on / around computers every day as a programmer and IT Manager and also has been fiddlin' with computers since the Vic20 / Sinclair Days. (Yes...I'll admit it...I've seen Tron and watch it every chance I get :) )


Over the past few days I've tried to step out of my own shoes and really see what I do with the computers I use.

Its pretty simple:

I work on and around PC's for the most part all day long. I always have my new , trusty iBook with me to plug in when I need to diagnose a network issue or go to a meeting. I keep the iBook around and use some of the NICE freeware that available for the Mac to record my billable hours. iCal keeps me in check with my schedule and I use the to do list to record all of the changes that I need to make to whatever sofware I am working on , be it a bug fix , user request, etc etc. I use my iBook at home with the AirPort card because it truly is a laptop. Its battery life is awsome. The sleep mode rules. Its like the Commodore 64 days. Open it and its on. I dont shut it down. Ever. Never had to reboot. Ever.
I like to use VPC on it (Currently 5.0 but cant wait to try 6.0 with the speed improvements) to code. If windows crashes I dont have to reboot the whole dam comp...I just restart VPC. That in and of itself in invaulable to me and my customers (since they are footin the bill).

My PC's at home. I play games on them. Surf the web (unless I want to get mobile in my home) A little HTML / Graphic stuff for websites but thats pretty much it any more.

Bottom line : I fiddle with PC's ....I get work done on my Apple.

Mr. Anderson
Dec 19, 2002, 11:06 AM
And the inovation has filtered out across the industries.

Look at the color options for the original iMac. I've seen everything from cell phones to toys to medical equipment start using different colors, semi-opaque plastic, etc.

True this is not necessarilly a 'technical' inovation, but it shows the effect Apple has had. Thinking outside the box and not stick with the status quo. Dell lets all the other companies do the innovation and take the tech and mass produce it to make it cheap.

It would be a much duller world with out Apple around.

D

Chaszmyr
Dec 19, 2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by petee
So my question is: Why Apple? What can I do on my iMac that I can't do on my Compaq?

It's not all about what you can or can't do. The fact is, both PCs and Macs are extremely useful tools. And yes, PCs can technically do more than Macs. So why do I use a Mac now? Because I spend 8-10 hours a day with my computer, and if I am using a Mac I enjoy that time, and if I am using a PC I don't. A big part of it is about OS Stability, but thats not even all. Macs are also just so beautiful it makes them more enjoyable to use; just like most people would rather have art hanging on their office walls than blank walls.

gbojim
Dec 19, 2002, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by petee
...As far as innovation. Yes Apple has some nice designs, but they hardly invented the PC,...

No flames from me. However, Apple did indeed invent the PC assuming you mean "Personal Computer" as opposed to the later arriving IBM system.

electric
Dec 19, 2002, 11:47 AM
For me it's love,

I love my Macís, They have personality, I have names for them, I feel happy when I use them. I have one Windows machine somewhere in the house but it's just a box with components in it. Mac's don't scream but neither do I when I use them.

I really don't think there is much innovation in any industry now.... Music, Film, Tech. The computer and it's gadgets have already been invented, what we need now is a computer that works all the time, is intuitive and is visually appealing and I think Apple is at the top of the list. The bottom line is this: I want a computer that works! I donít want a project!

lmalave
Dec 19, 2002, 11:51 AM
"but they hardly invented the PC"

Ummm...what?!!? Actually, Apple DID invent the PC (you do know PC stands for "Personal Computer", right?) But granted, that was 25 years ago. Maybe you meant to say Apple didn't invent the computer? Apple built the first computer that was truly a home PC and not some built-it-yourself hobby kit. And keep in mind, this was YEARS before IBM introduced its PCs to the business world.

As for more recent advancements: as a longtime Windows user but someone who really learned to use computers at college on Unix machines, I have to say OS X is an amazing achievement. Think about the fact that so many companies over decades have tried but failed miserably to build a Unix with even a good (and forget great) GUI - and I'm including in this group all the miserable new Linux variants. OS X is really a small miracle, and if Apple can get some decent hardware behind it, I really think they can pose a much bigger threat to Microsoft, especially as Linux starts taking over the server side of things (I envision a future with many Linux servers and many Mac OS X desktops).

And look at Windows. MS spent years trying to rid themselves of a bloated, antiquated DOS/Windows OS and XP is is the best they could come up with? On the surface XP is faster, prettier, and has more features than previous Windows, but it's still ugly and bloated on the inside compared to relative simplicity and transparency of Unix.

And I don't think you should so easily dismiss design innovations! At this point the PC market is "mature" meaning that practically everybody already has a PC so now consumers are starting to look at different, specific features rather than basic performance. Kind of like how Ford dominated the auto industry in the 20's and 30's: its cars were boring, but they were cheap and people were just getting used to the idea of driving anyway. Then along came GM with a slew of innovative designs and within a few years had surpassed Ford's seemingly unassailable market share. Did GM make faster cars? No, cars were already as fast as they needed to be, much like computers now. Rather, GM focused on usability and comfort, and providing a broad range of car designs to appeal to the various major segments of the market. Apple is absolutely correct to focus on design - it's an enduring core strength that will ensure its long-term success no matter what happens in the PC marketplace.

Nipsy
Dec 19, 2002, 12:10 PM
Some things Apple invents (or is co inventor, or very early to market):
FireWire (now common everywhere)
PDA/Netwon (now prolific as Palm/PocketPC)
Digital Cameras (Quicktakes were on the market long before other consumer cameras)
AppleTalk (reborn as Rendezvous...networking for granny)
Multiple Monitors (had 'em since the mid 80's, available to Windows in the mid 90's)

Some things Apple perfects:
LCDs (Apple has done much to make the LCD commonplace for other manufacturers)
MP3 players (iPod is undeniably the best MP3 player anywhere)
The computer case (remember beige? I don't)

Some things Apple does better:
Wintel, nothing - Apple, Appletalk
Wintel, 10bt - Apple, 100bt
Wintel, 100bt, - Apple 1000bt
Bootable OS CDs
CDRW introduction
CDRW integration
DVDR introduction
DVDR integration
UNIX on the desktop...Lin(ux/dows) still can't make that one fly
UI, interface design, and usability...there's a reason others copy from Apple
Security (market share be damned, it has always been harder to infiltrate a MacOS system than a Windows installation)

Now, to address some of your points:
Computers are functionally 99% identical. You can edit photos, burn cds, write code, and store files on all modern OSes.

Cars are aslo functionally 99% identical. You can go places, stop, turn left, and put things in the trunk of all modern cars.

With that said, MBZ will always have a place in a market where more Fords are sold. Apple will always have a place in in a primarily Wintel market.

Furthermore, a Mustang may indeed be faster than a S500 coupe, but many would not want the Mustang.

Some of us will always vote with our wallets & our keystrokes in favor of a more expensive elegance.

(Sorry to the regulars for the repeat analogy)

As for OSes, OSX was slow when it came out, but it was bulletproof, and very difficult to break. OS 9 is still much beloved, OS8 was probably a low point, OS 7 was pretty damn good in 7.5+ builds, and OS 6.0.4, and its predecessors were all better than the M$ offerings that they contended with. M$ has made some atrocious OSes (WinME being the worst). Apple has made some lackluster OSes (8).

OSX is a really amazing departure from Apple's history, and a budding work in progress. XP is NT 6. I am thankful that M$ has finally abandoned the 3.1/9* codebase.

I see innovation in a different light than you do. CPUs & GPUs will get faster, hard drives will get bigger, monitors will get slimmer by themselves. This is not innovation, just evolution.

Apple will invent protocols like FireWire, popularize DVD writers so they get cheaper for everyone, perfect the MP3 player, continue to shift the industry to new technologies (like the LCD), make beauty a part of computing, strive to make the network admin obsolete (sorry network admins), and do it with a robust and secure, and fast maturing UNIX OS.

So, in the end, Apple shapes the industry more than everyone except Microsoft, and no one complains about Apple's progresses.

While Microsoft is innovating your privacy straight to marketers and politicians, Apple says no. When Apple innovates, and subsequently refines, the GUI OS, M$ says yes.

When Microsoft innovates new Licensing 6.0, Apple says no. When Apple says LCDs are better, the industry says yes.

When M$ innovates its browser and messenger and email and media player so deeply that they can never be removed, Apple says no. When Apple innovates wireless networking, the industry says yes.

When Microsoft innovates "Plug and Play", Apple chuckles, and makes it WORK!

Whether you like it or not Apple has made uncommon technologies common, you can thank Apple, directly or indirectly for the popularity of:
The Gui
802.11
FireWire
CD/DVD Writers
LCD screens
Stylish computers
Digital Cameras
etc.

Flickta
Dec 19, 2002, 12:18 PM
There are innovations in the PC world. Sticky menus and contextual menus came from W******* and copy paste also... This is about the interface pieces. And, you know, if we are speaking about an interface, we face a problem: Everyone was a "thief". It is just like writing books - you can't come up with truly revolutional ideas. Reading classics, reading the Bible - you learn. And then - just let these ideas change and develop in your mind.

What is truly innovative in Apple, is an ability to make people LOVE and cherish their machines. Macs are not like a disposable consumer goods of our days - they are more like a family ONLY Horses, swords and what not of the past - They are just... Well, enough of that stuff. I think, it is obvious.

Nipsy
Dec 19, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Flickta
There are innovations in the PC world. Sticky menus and contextual menus came from W******* and copy paste also...

It's been a long time since I used my Mac 128, but I think we had Copy, Cut and Paste from the beginning...I could be wrong.

backspinner
Dec 19, 2002, 12:38 PM
* colorsync
* more than 2 hours battery life
* working sleep mode
* industry strength security
* ical, itunes, imovie, idvd, iphoto, isync
* fcp
* firewire
* quicktime
* hassle free airport
* usable system/app scripting applescript
* just working mail, sherlock, addressbook

* newton
* quicktake

* windows gui
* mouse
* popularisation of flat panels, dvd writers, usb

pimentoLoaf
Dec 19, 2002, 12:42 PM
:( System 7.5.3 :(

Practically everything crashed (often for no apparent reason) back in the mid-90's. It was patches atop patches atop patches. Whether MacWrite or FileMaker or HyperCard or various games, my computer wouldn't stay operating for more than a few hours.

os9.2.2's Extension Manager should still be replaced with Conflict Catcher -- if only to figure out all the li'l drivers and other things that clog memory with that os. A certain geneaology program was written on a PC, and the extensions load piles of Windows 95/98 code for generating the MS GUI (graphical user interface). (MS used to make an add-on to Visual C++ to port Windows programs to Mac.)

Apple puts much of the GUI stuff in ROM, whereas Wintel machines must load it from the hard drive. (This is why Linux can't use most built-in modems, as much of the modem code is tied up with Windows.) So, Apple systems are much more flexible -- though programmers with PC experience don't know this.

Used to be a big argument involving memory allocation and deallocation several years ago. PC folk wrote their own code on a program by program basis, whilst Apple people were encouraged to use ROM code. Lots of programs still don't deallocate memory after quitting -- occasionally, IE will tell me (under osX) that I don't have enough system RAM to load webgraphics, though I have 640mb in the laptop (an iBook, and it's maxxed out).

Flickta
Dec 19, 2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy


It's been a long time since I used my Mac 128, but I think we had Copy, Cut and Paste from the beginning...I could be wrong.

I mean copy and paste actually copying and pasting files... Has it been a long time since you used OS X?

Megaquad
Dec 19, 2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy

CDRW introduction
CDRW integration

You are saying Apple popularized CDRW?
Infact, Apple was lagging behind, while every PC out there had CD burner for a long time Apple was advertising iMacs with SLOW (even then) CDRW drives.
Even today, Apple has slowest optical drives availabled on market built into their computers.

zarathustra
Dec 19, 2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy


It's been a long time since I used my Mac 128, but I think we had Copy, Cut and Paste from the beginning...I could be wrong.

I do know that the Lisa had copy paste - not only that, but you could cut a graph, and paste it into the word processor! Also, the GEOS for the Apple II featured to the best of my knowledge a copy/paste command.

zarathustra
Dec 19, 2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Megaquad

You are saying Apple popularized CDRW?
Infact, Apple was lagging behind, while every PC out there had CD burner for a long time Apple was advertising iMacs with SLOW (even then) CDRW drives.
Even today, Apple has slowest optical drives availabled on market built into their computers.

There were Apple branded external SCSI burners way before it became commonplace on the Intel side of the fence. Also, in a broader sense, Steve Jobs' company, NeXT produced a little machine that tried to replace the floppy with a MO drive. Was it 240 MB? I don't remember, but this was back when a 200 MB hard drive was a luxury.

Flickta
Dec 19, 2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
:( System 7.5.3 :(

Practically everything crashed (often for no apparent reason) back in the mid-90's. It was patches atop patches atop patches. Whether MacWrite or FileMaker or HyperCard or various games, my computer wouldn't stay operating for more than a few hours.



I've been using MacOs 7.5.3 till the year 2000, and it was not more unstable than 9.1 or Win ANY... And in Classic system you are more of aking than that of a guest like in X

rainman::|:|
Dec 19, 2002, 01:00 PM
You guys forgot the set-top-box in the list of Apple firsts. The pippin, like the Newton, was way ahead of it's time, but is now everywhere (WebTV). they invented, with the pippin, a video game console that had the physical ability to connect to networks/the internet years before even video game companies did!
Apple also had the first computer with true TV integration (MacTV, only desktop to be released domestically in black), the first computer with built-in high quality speakers (TAM, Bose system) and i might add the first computer with built-in LCD with that same computer. I believe Apple had the first laptops with IR built in, as well as the first battery-powered portable inkjet printer, but i could be wrong on those counts.

You obviously don't know a THING you're talking about, even the one "bone" you threw apple was wrong-- Apple didn't actually create the GUI, they simply brought it to the market first (thank Xerox stupidity for that one). But yes, Apple did invent the first PC, as their press bio used to state "Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 70's"...

:)
pnw

AmbitiousLemon
Dec 19, 2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
You obviously don't know a THING you're talking about, even the one "bone" you threw apple was wrong-- Apple didn't actually create the GUI, they simply brought it to the market first (thank Xerox stupidity for that one). But yes, Apple did invent the first PC, as their press bio used to state "Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 70's"...

i dont care much for the mac vs pc argument, but on a historical note i thought it should be pointed out that although Zerox invented the GUI, Apple invented the metaphor for the modern GUI that has been used since the Lisa until today. Also Apple purchased the conecpt of a GUI from Xerox (Xerox didnt think it was a good marketable idea) with Apple stock. Many people note that Xerox invented the GUI, claiming just as windows stole form Apple, Apple stole from Xerox. The fact that Apple purchased the GUI from Xerox, and indeed used little more than the GUI concept, is actually greater fuel for the fire that MS stole something form Apple (since Apple had to purchase the right to create its own GUI, why could MS copy the entire GUI metaphor without any compensation?). I know this has little to do with the current debate, but the Xerox-Apple connection came up, and I know many people confuse the facts around teh situation. thought it might be a good time t straighten things out a bit.

petee
Dec 19, 2002, 01:36 PM
Ok Sorry: When I said "didn't invent the PC I included the homebuilt (like the one my dad and I built when I was a kid... you can't get anymore "personal" than your own built PC with DOS.)

From this thread, I have heard many "innovations" touted, some dubious (CDRW/DVD writers invented by Apple???) or some thing more evolutionary in nature like Firewire or use of the LCD monitor. Or the "I just turn it on and it works... look if this were really true and Macs never experienced problems than Apple would need no tech support. (And I have had many troubles with past Macs that made my wintel friends pee their pants with laughter.) I can get that on a PC also if I get it from a trusted white box distro. Then there are the "I just feel happy working with it arguments. As a psychologist I find those arguments most interesting, but I can feel happy working on a PC when playing games, surfing the internet, or smoking pot (its not the "thing" I am working on but the content of what I am doing that makes me happy)

My questioning of Mac innovation is thusly: Why are we so quick to defend this company? We (and I do include myself in this despite my heretical linie of questions) bestow God-like attributes to Steve, the software, and hardware. Despite the fact that Steve is a salesman (and a very good one), the software functionally no different than Windows (I know that it is Unix and all the goodnes that it entails but the interface is functionally no different than Windows... Call it a Dock or a Taskbar its semantics), and the hardware is either a slow CPU or parts available to the windows market except more expensive and obsolete.

It seems that Macs are more religion than productivity tool. I believe that this has been covered in other forums. It doesn't matter what the Wintel world comes out with, it somehow rips off Apple, or is inferior, or ugly, or... I am very suspicious of religion in any form, especially one that centers around a "deity" whose bottom line is money and number of units sold per quarter. I can't forget that Apple would probably sell me air if they thought that they could get away with it (remeber the .mac?).

Why I like my iMac (for those who still think I should be burned). Beauty on my desk, easy to use apps, plug 'n play, and complete lack of Palladium or DSM "stuff" on my computer. Is it worth $1900-2000 to me... hmmm tricky. Very Tricky.

I guess I am saying that I don't believe that Apple is as innovative as I would like to believe. Yes, Apple brought to the masses some very useful things but hardly invented them. So what is it about the Apple that makes me love it, hate it, want to defend it to the death?? hmmm must be the blueberry imac flavored kool-aid I drank a couple of years ago.

Thank you all for your responses.. you were most kind and gentle.

Roger1
Dec 19, 2002, 02:01 PM
As a psychologist I find those arguments most interesting,

So what's the name of your thesis??:D

Nipsy
Dec 19, 2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by petee


From this thread, I have heard many "innovations" touted, some dubious (CDRW/DVD writers invented by Apple???)

Popularized, not invented

Originally posted by petee
...or some thing more evolutionary in nature like Firewire or use of the LCD monitor. Or the "I just turn it on and it works... look if this were really true and Macs never experienced problems than Apple would need no tech support.
Everything needs technical support nowadays...even the All Clad pans I bought my mom for Christmas have a support phone number.

Originally posted by petee
(And I have had many troubles with past Macs that made my wintel friends pee their pants with laughter.) I can get that on a PC also if I get it from a trusted white box distro.


The difference is a Mac user will never call and say, 345hjjj.dll isn't working because Interrupt 12 has a offset hex address, and my extended DOS partition can't be seen.

Its more likely to be Joe nobody calling because he didn't RTFM.

Originally posted by petee

Then there are the "I just feel happy working with it arguments. As a psychologist I find those arguments most interesting, but I can feel happy working on a PC when playing games, surfing the internet, or smoking pot (its not the "thing" I am working on but the content of what I am doing that makes me happy)

You just said "feel happy working on a PC when playing games".

a) You're not working (unless you're a game developer/reviewer)
b) You're interacting with the game, not the OS


Originally posted by petee

My questioning of Mac innovation is thusly: Why are we so quick to defend this company? We (and I do include myself in this despite my heretical linie of questions) bestow God-like attributes to Steve, the software, and hardware. Despite the fact that Steve is a salesman (and a very good one), the software functionally no different than Windows (I know that it is Unix and all the goodnes that it entails but the interface is functionally no different than Windows... Call it a Dock or a Taskbar its semantics), and the hardware is either a slow CPU or parts available to the windows market except more expensive and obsolete.


Functionally, nothing is different anymore, but when you account for things like aesthetics, usability, simplicity, etc. OSX is a far more elegant OS. Additionally, Apple is loved because, true or not, they are perceived as caring about their users more than their users $$$. Sure, noone wanted to pay for Jaguar, sure, everyone wants cheaper hardware, but Apple earns respect in customer service, privacy, and support in areas where most manufacturers want to sell your data, screw your warranty, and forget you're name. It is a perception of boutique quality. It is Apple employees in retail outlets, instead of pimply faced high schoolers. It is that little bag included to keep your iPod from being scratched. It is the little things that inspire passion.

Originally posted by petee

It seems that Macs are more religion than productivity tool. I believe that this has been covered in other forums. It doesn't matter what the Wintel world comes out with, it somehow rips off Apple, or is inferior, or ugly, or... I am very suspicious of religion in any form, especially one that centers around a "deity" whose bottom line is money and number of units sold per quarter. I can't forget that Apple would probably sell me air if they thought that they could get away with it (remeber the .mac?).


There are certainly zealots who scream cult of Mac with every breath. I feel strongly because right now I'm sitting between 2 Macs, 2 PCs, and a Solaris box, and I know I'm more productive on the Mac because I have 30 minutes a day to post here.

Additionally, people are Mac missionaries because they want to share something that makes them happy. Word of mouth is only viable when a product justifies it.

There are more Hyundais than Porsches, yet there are more Porsche clubs than Hyundai clubs.

Leicas, Apples, Swiss watches, wooden yachts, etc. all inspire emotion, respect, and sometimes even awe, because they convey their design, engineering, and history, not because they are expensive.

These qualities don't often surround common products

Windows lacks these qualities. Windows is a very passionless product, right down to the soulless animated find dog in XP which is a peice of stock art. No one gets exited about linoleum, they get exited about hardwood, or marble, but all do the same thing. Windows does not evoke any emotion, because it is not special. It is grey and monotonous. Windows is a tool, OSX is a Snap On tool...

Originally posted by petee

Why I like my iMac (for those who still think I should be burned). Beauty on my desk, easy to use apps, plug 'n play, and complete lack of Palladium or DSM "stuff" on my computer. Is it worth $1900-2000 to me... hmmm tricky. Very Tricky.


Just remember what Forrest said, "Hookers are like a box of chocolates, the good ones cost more."

Originally posted by petee

I guess I am saying that I don't believe that Apple is as innovative as I would like to believe. Yes, Apple brought to the masses some very useful things but hardly invented them. So what is it about the Apple that makes me love it, hate it, want to defend it to the death?? hmmm must be the blueberry imac flavored kool-aid I drank a couple of years ago.

Thank you all for your responses.. you were most kind and gentle.

There are many occasions when Apple has taked and existing (but expesive, pro only), product, and brought it to the masses. There's a guy around here with a $50,000 DVD master, which sits on a shelf behind his Dual 1.25 with superdrive. LCDs have existed for a long time, but were affordable only for hospitals, the trading floor, and pricey laptops. There are numerous cases where Apple is innovating by redefining an existing market.

Just ask yourself, what did Dell invent this year, what's cool in Redmond, why is Gateway sizzlin' hot?

What do you wind up with? XP Media Edition, interesting, but I'd already done it with a keyspan remote and EyeTV. USB 2.0, whoopee.

LethalWolfe
Dec 19, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by petee
From this thread, I have heard many "innovations" touted, some dubious (CDRW/DVD writers invented by Apple???) or some thing more evolutionary in nature like Firewire or use of the LCD monitor. [/q]

Firewire, IMO, is revolutionary. How people, both consumers and pros, approach video has completely changed because Firewire and the DV format (which were engineered to work together). Firewire 2, OTOH, is evolutionary.

Then there are the "I just feel happy working with it arguments. As a psychologist I find those arguments most interesting, but I can feel happy working on a PC when playing games, surfing the internet, or smoking pot (its not the "thing" I am working on but the content of what I am doing that makes me happy)

No offesne, but those are usually the words of someone who "uses" a computer, not someone who "works" with a computer. I'm an editor and working w/Premiere (or any sub 80k wnidows based NLE) is not fun. I can do it and get a good product but the proccess is not fun because, IMO, Premiere's interface is poor and windows machines tend to have issues. FCP, OTOH, is fun because the interface is awesome and I spend my timing editing, not wrestling w/the GUI.

If you were a runner would you want shoes that gave you blisters after running 5 miles or shoes that didn't? If you aren't a runner you wouldn't care between the "blister giving shoe" and the "no blister giving shoe" 'cause you wouldn't use the shoes to the point that you'd get blisters anyway.


How something (whether its the computer, the chair, or the office) "feels" is very imporant to any pro that is in a creative field, but many people not in creative fields blow that off because they don't understand. Astheical values mean little if all you do on yer computer is sit in a cube and punch out memo's, e-mail, spreadsheets, and/or powerpoint all day.


Lethal

Computer_Phreak
Dec 19, 2002, 03:37 PM
well we all know (weather or not we admit it) that Mac hardware is far behind the competition, with the exception of design and ease of use.

However, the only reason i have yet to purchase a cheaper, faster window$ machine is because of the quality of software on the Macintosh platform.

From the OS, to the iApps, to the retail and shareware programs... especailly the 'package' way that negates the neccessity of .dll files and such... Everything (software wize) is both more simple and powerful than on Window$.

Padrote
Dec 19, 2002, 03:43 PM
If given a choice would you choose the red pill (Apple) or the blue pill (Windows)?

All your life, you are raised to believe in a world that is run by Windows. A world with infinite crashes and errors. A world so banal and benign of creativity and emotion. A world that is stolen. You have grown to accept this world as the truth, but you know somewhere deep in your heart, "a splinter in your mind," that somehow there is something out there. Something more to the bleak reality that we see everyday when we sit down on our desk and look at our computer.

Then one day you see a man with a vision. A vision unlike any other has seen before. You are told to follow the white apple, all the way down to it's core. You are exposed to brief pictures of the original iMac, Powermac G4, iBook, G4 iMac, iPod, and then the G4 Powerbook. Your tongue drops, and your mind is free.

There are oppositions, software and hardware makers refuse to acknowledge your system. But you fight on, you believe in the cause, the struggle, the battle for freedom.

You are told countlessly that your savior is dead. And each time he comes back stronger and better than before. Each time The Gate claims victory and total domination, the savior fights back to unleash a new weapon.

The world is not what it seems. You are given a choice.

If you take the red pill, you will know the truth. And the truth has a hefty price to pay. Or you can choose the blue pill, and live in anonymity and obscurity in a world of clones, and stale propriety. Perhaps a little happier, perhaps a little secure, happy in their own little corner of the world, swallowing the menuscia that comes their way.

You have a choice.

Moxiemike
Dec 19, 2002, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by petee
I'm not sure I buy any of these arguments. Some of them seem very contradictory. Apple's computer (soundcard, vid card, ram, basically all But the processor and monitor is OEM stuff that is available for PC)are better because they are optimized for their software. Not sure where the idea came from that the Microsoft is NOT optimized for the various hardware out there. (Oh yeah they did create a nice interface that Microsoft stole from them but get over it... it was years ago.)

You know, there's nothing like a moron to make me wanna assume the holy seat of the great AlphaTech (may he rest in peace). So here's a shot:

Ok. Sure, soundcard, vid, ram, etc, is OEM. Monitor? Sorta. There REALLY is nothing like the setup I have on the PC side... my monitor (apple LCD 17") gets its power from the machine. Gorgeous. They innovated Firewire and powered firewire. They were the first to the plate with DVD burning AND they gave us a software app that allows us to edit video AND make a DVD we can play in our home players.

Second of all, My dad bought a $2000 sony. Its Spec? $2.4gnz p4, two measly RAM slots. NO VIDEO CARD. NONE! 256 mb of ram, 60gb hd... that's a 5400 RPM. CD-RW (12x) and a DVD drive.

My mac costed me $3000. I bought my dual ghz after they offered a rebate of $300 or whatever in the summer. I have a dual ghz, 80gb 7200 RPM drive, 120 gb RPM drive, 1.5gb of RAM, DVD-R, CD-RW, CD, DVD Superdrive, 250 MB USB External Zip, 64 MB Video Card and a superior architecture.

He's used my mac, running 10.1 and 10.2 and says the Mac feels faster. And FASTER yet under OS X.2. The man uses Autocad and was only able to put in another 512mb chip in his machine. Pathetic on the PC side for $2000 machine. But he got an eposn c40 for free!

Oh. And he also had to spend some cash to upgrade apps not even a year old to XP.

So yea. Apple may not be innovative hardware wise, what with most stuff being OEM, but as far as integration. Word! I can, without voiding my warranty, put in two hard drives, a second optical or Zip drive internal. I have a higher RAM ceiling. I have A VIDEO CARD (whereas his pulls from the regular RAM). EXPANDABILITY BABY!

And no, MS isn't optimized for the hardware. Dad had to download drivers for the USB zip 250 I have. Whereas I didn't. When he got my Nikon Coolpix 880 as a hand-me-down, he had to install drivers for it. iPhoto and iViewMedia Pro recognized it immediately, as did image capture.

Not to mention Mac Standard firewire ports allowing me to import video. Its an add on for a lot of PC's. A friend had to bring her video cam over to my studio to download some video she took with her Canon Zr45. A low-end consumer Camera. Get with the program Compaq/HP!!! Is she gonna do that every time she shoots some video? Nope. She's switching. :D

Another recent swicther was amazed at how seemless it was to dl photos from his Kodak digicam. he had to install kodak drivers and install a windows service pack on his old PC.

Mac OS 9 (win me version equiv that he had) recognized the Kodak too. Easily. and With no problems!

Integration and making it work is innovative. Just slapping some stickers on a machine and some marketing hyperbole doesn't make it right... ala windows.

Originally posted by petee

As far as innovation. Yes Apple has some nice designs, but they hardly invented the PC, the MP3 player, CD-burning etc. Yes, they made them easier for some people but I really see no true innovation other than nice designs, easier use, and a salesman with a PT Branum-like sales pitch (18 gigaflops!!) Yes, Windows was pretty terrible with 95 and a couple of interations of their software, but Mac NEVER had a bad OS? I thought that X was pretty awful when it first came out. Its is much better now and very nice and stable, but so what... so is Windows XP home and Pro.


Right. But again, the innovation is from integration. Firewire on the iPod made it an easy transition from music on hard drive to music on mp3 player. The use of small hard drives made it easily carried. Not to mention it douibles as an external HD-- one less item to stuff in your laptop bag, and kills the need for external zips, etc. Also keeps me from burning CDs needlessly. I just throw files from my desktop to my ipod, plug it into my laptop, put on my headphones listen to music AND have access to my files. That's SMART. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

Drag and drop burning from the Finder is a GREAT implementation of cd bruning. My mom, an imac owner, was amazed at how easy it was to make a CD from itunes of songs and how easy it was to burn data to a CD.

She hated using Easy CD Creator on her old HP
and my dad curses its existence daily.

You make a valiant case for OS X original VS 95. But you miss something prevalent with Windows ANYTHING vs Macintosh ANYTHING:

Ease of use.
Virus Proof.
Less prone to crashing.
Easier integration of 3rd party hardware.
Security. MUCH more secure that Windows.


Originally posted by petee
I will say that iApps are great. they are very easy to use and functional... but so are a myriad of third party software for Windows.



Find me stuff as elegant as iTunes for the PC. That are FREE.

iTunes. iMovie. iCal. iPhoto. Mail. Sherlock. Disc burn. All free. iDVD. Cheap. Go ahead. I dare you. And do they WORK as seemlessly as they do on the mac? And do they come preinstalled?? NOpe. I have to dig for them, download. Read reviews. And most likely try and crack them (since they probably cost). Or wait 1 minute while the shareware bullocks tells me to buy. No thanks.

Originally posted by petee

So my question is: Why Apple? What can I do on my iMac that I can't do on my Compaq? Nothing except work slower on some applications and NOT play games. Even if the games were available, the slow-as-molasses graphics card will make it a lesson in futility. It seems that true innovation is happening in the computer world in general but is made for the PC world because, hey if your going to invest millions of $$$ in research and risk, who are you going to sell to, a company with 3-4% marketshare of 90+% marketshare. I think that Apple really missed the boat by not going to an X86 platform. Marginalization is never a good thing and I would argue that Apple would have ceased being in the news if Steve had not of come back. The only reason its in the news now is that Steve holds these very big, very expensive Conventions to WOW the world with a very cool, very nice design around a product that is hoh hum.


Slow as molasses vid card? Last i checked, many PCs don't come with graphics cards installed. The HP my mom used to use didn't. My dad's $2000 sony didn't. if you really want a gameplay experience, buy a Gamecube.

Aple developed for a technically superior PowerPC initiative. Motorola hasn't done their part. I'm sure apple has something planned. Until then, DP macs are more than fast enough.

Products that are ho-hum? the iMac made it on the cover of TIME. It put LCDs in the spotlight. It's integrated. It features a quick, stable and secure OS. And A video card. imagine that. Comes with a TON of free iApps all packaged in a design i wouldn't be afraid to keep on my desk. I give them a ton of credit for the design, physically and architecturally of the imac.

PLUS, Apple people are more likely to be "in sync" with how their machines work. more now than ever, what with OSX Unix underpinnings coercing UNIX geeks the world around to switch over.

Keep your YUGO like Compaq. I'll take my volvo-like, utilitarian Mac anyday.

Go play with your windows fool. bye!

Raiden
Dec 19, 2002, 04:51 PM
My reason for using OSX is simple, I prefer my OS not to me made by a evil organization. :)

jefhatfield
Dec 23, 2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Raiden
My reason for using OSX is simple, I prefer my OS not to me made by a evil organization. :)

you must mean microsoft - uncle bill, his bald/fat whipping boy, and his stormtroopers

DeadlyBreakfast
Dec 23, 2002, 09:10 PM
Nice Moxie!!

cubist
Dec 23, 2002, 10:01 PM
Microsoft:
BASIC? (aka Altair BASIC): Clone of Dartmouth Basic (and not a very good clone at that).
DOS? Bought from Seattle Computer. A clone of CP/M.
Windows? A clone of the Mac.
Visual Basic? Bought from somebody, I don't remember who.
Internet Explorer? A clone of Mosaic, based on the Spyglass browser.
MS Word? A poor clone of WordPerfect, with some weirdnesses from other word processors thrown in.

Microsoft is nothing but cloning and bundling -- with one solitary shining example of pure innovation --

Microsoft Bob.
:D

DavidFDM
Dec 23, 2002, 10:59 PM
I think Apple inspires so much loyalty is because they really consider the user and their needs. Their products have an understated elegance about them, essentially a minimalist design. Someone asks "What is the minimum we need for this situation?" This becomes readily apparent when you look at the UI of the iApps. Microsoft, on the other hand, tends to overwhelm you with interface elements. The task bar gets very confusing quickly, while the dock conveys a lot of information very swiftly and thus efficiently. This to me is the height of innovation.

We are starting to reach a point with processors that the average user no longer sees a compelling speed difference. This is the primary reason why computer sales are so flat right now. In the product cycle, we are seeing the final adopters now. Wal-mart is selling a PC running Lindows for $199 and selling bushels of them. The only folks left to buy computers are the ones who weren't going to pay over $200.00. The rest of us are settling in to a rather lengthy upgrade cycle. My last primary computer was a Beige G3 Minitower 266mHz. I decided to take it to its logical conclusion utilizing a upgrades. I added a G4 500 mHz ZIF card, maxed the RAM to 768MB, added a 40GB HD, added a CD-RW, added a second video card, added a USB/FireWire card and finally a 100BaseT card. It was a great workhorse until I could really feel the performance loss in Quark and Photoshop. So I bought a Quicksilver G4/867 and it rocks. My point is that the majority of users are in the same boat as me. Hardware upgrades will continue but at a slower pace than we have seen in the past 18 years much to the chagrin of Intel and the PC assembly companies.

What's left to be done is to start tying all the elements together. This is where Apple shines. Take photo with digital camera, download/process with iPhoto, output to printer (with ColorSync), email to friends, burn to CD/DVD. All of this happens with a just a bit of guidance from the user. Now take this to the next step with Rendevous. Say we have a Philips set-top box with an 802.11 card or some flavor of Ethernet onboard. It could access your computer and run your photos on the your TV as a slide show, negating the need to burn a DVD. Or, your car has an onboard media center which syncs your MP3s while it sits in the driveway.

This is where we are now but Apple is looking at emerging technologies and seeing ways to integrate them without forcing their standards down our throats. Rendevous is an open standard as is Quicktime I believe. The openess of format is going to make the OS irrelevant if it hasn't done so already. I think this is the best way for the computing world to go. Look at the explosion of the WWW because of open standards like HTML. Now look at some of the stuff Microsoft has tried to force upon people. I remember one 3D graphics language they pushed to force people away from OpenGL, something like Crystal Effects. The requirements were huge at the time. Basically it would force everyone to get new boxes, simply because Microsoft believes its way is the best way as opposed to working with others. When companies work together we, as consumers, get some really cool stuff. Look at 802.11. Some stuff came from one place but was made available to all, like Ethernet, FireWire and USB. Apple does a great job at championing technologies that it believes in, even if they didnt invent it.

Innovation takes real work and careful thought. You can't buy it like other companies have tried. It means taking chances, going down roads others wouldn't consider and making mistakes. Apple does this. Some hits like FireWire, ColorSync and QuickTime; some misses like OpenDoc and the Newton but in the end Apple tries and to me that is innovation.

Happy holidays from the great state of Maine,

David

billiam0878
Dec 23, 2002, 11:50 PM
M$ has posted 72 security alerts this year. The most recent is rated "critical" because apparently the OS itself attacks MP3/WMP files. I don't have to worry about that with my Mac. How many security alerts has Apple posted this year? :)

Bill

MacBandit
Dec 24, 2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by billiam0878
M$ has posted 72 security alerts this year. The most recent is rated "critical" because apparently the OS itself attacks MP3/WMP files. I don't have to worry about that with my Mac. How many security alerts has Apple posted this year? :)

Bill

It's not the OS that attack the WMP/MP3 files but hackers that can piggy back a virus on the MP3/WMP file within I think the ID3 tags.

zarathustra
Dec 27, 2002, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by cubist
Microsoft:
Microsoft is nothing but cloning and bundling -- with one solitary shining example of pure innovation --

Microsoft Bob.
:D

Oh yeah! How did that piece of software not survive? ;)

badshark
Jan 5, 2003, 11:08 AM
i have an old mac was giving to me love to play with it but it has no internet it is connected to to net via network but has no browser and i dl stuff on pc and put it on mac but wont let me extract it i got stuff it but with no extraction program on the mac it cant extract it i have the browswer but i cant extract it cuz i cant extract stuff it HELP PLEASE:)

chmorley
Jan 5, 2003, 12:56 PM
Funny that a psychologist would choose one small part of the argument about why people use Macs, then ask others to play by his rules. It's a classic false forced choice.

If the only reason why people used a particular computer was because of innovation, Dell would have NO market share. Instead, people make that choice based on myriad factors. I argue that, as Mac users, we have made our choice based on the ability to work efficiently (due to a well-designed, stable OS that is not intrusive). What I believe Apple has done best is take existing technology and figure out how to make it usable for all users. This helps techies and technophobes alike. You can call this innovation or evolution. I will argue this is the same thing.

Learning theorists argue that there is no such thing as "original thought"--that all inventions are built upon an evolution or combining of old ideas. Evidence for this exists in the dramatic number of "simultaneous" inventions (and discoveries) throughout history (e.g., radio, SCUBA, the airplane). Who has gotten credit for these seems to depend more on who brought them to the public than who made them first or best. Regardless, in all of these cases, they were standing on the shoulders of giants--i.e., they were using old ideas to their own ends.

In short, I think your question is misguided. You chose a narrow slice of the computer user experience, then asked others to explain themselves from that perspective. It's a bullshÓt question.

Sure, Apple has innovated. If innovation is "the act of introducing something new", Apple has done this many times--certainly more than M$. Certainly not as much as the rest of the PC world, but it's unfair to compare one company against the rest of the industry. More importantly, there is a legitimate argument to be made that it is "innovative" to take existing technology and make it usable for all users. In this regard, iPhoto, iMovie, and iTunes all are innovative. Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2k, XP, Word & Excel are not.

Anyway, even if Apple only made the user experience more enjoyable, I would use Macs. Having provided support for computers and networks for about 15 years in a number of different contexts, I always know that Windows networks will require more work. When I come home, the last thing I want to do is support my own home network. Indeed, my wireless network at home has run without a hitch for the last 3+ years. That is why I choose Macs. I don't care if they invented it. They made it usable.

And mentioning that you're a psychologist probably won't win you any friends at parties. ;)

Chris