Apple's Problem No. 1

[krohde]

Apple's main customers are and have been for a time now the professional market. In order for apple to gain those extra 5% market share they need obviously to focus more on the consumer market. Thatk, they have done but are still far away from an even small victory. If apple would just try and continue with those speed bumbs so that their clock speeds get closer to those of Intel and AMD they would start to gain A LOT of new customers. Seriusly ask yourself one simple question that you might know the answer to but an average consumer wouldnt - then we have located the problem (e.g. why is it important that the clockspeed matches the CPU speed, isnt the fastest the best?). The computer consumer market goes for three things: 1. Speed 2. Price 3. Design. As we all know apple is definetly the winner in design but their desire for the other two are only available if they get those speeds up! so apple if you are reading this lower your prices (on a standard PM G4 you are about $600-900 over the market prices) and give us those G5's, IBM already has them ready for us!

[Macmaniac]

People choose computers on speed quite often, they need to be faster.

[crassusad44]

70% of the computer market consists of "stupid" (in terms of technology) people who have heard about something called a computer, which is really cool, and you can be on this big thing called the internet. Many of these people are lured into beliving that higher MHz and bigger screens are all that matter. Apple makes the difference here, creating a solution where normal people can achieve great things (produce home movies, make CDs, burn video DVDs, create their own photo book). I belive Apple is doing the right thing here. Of course, we always need bigger and better machines, but the solution Apple is creating with their iApps, is far, far better than anything else on the market today, and people are strating to realize exactly that.

[crassusad44]

Sorry for the double post, but I have to comment on the poll as well. I will not vote, because I don't see any of the four issues as a problem for Apple to gain market share among the consumer space.

Speed: The G4 in the iMac is more than fast enough!
Price: The iMac price is just right! You get a whole solution that works, for your money. Not just another crappy PC with high clock speed.
Design: 'nuff said
Software: iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, AppleWorks and 18.000 other software titles available for the Mac platform. If you need more, well, then **** off.

Sorry, but I'm pissed on all you single post guys who always complain and bitch!

[britboy]

Apples problem doesn't lie in any of the options listed, so i'm not going to vote. You can always wish for a faster computer, but look at the requirements for running any of the software anyone's likely to buy. Does the mac fall short on any of the specs? No. It will run what you need, and run it well.

What apple needs to change is the public perception of what a 'good' computer is, and should be. Most people get hung up on the clock speed of the processor, and don't worry about any of the many other important factors in overall performance. These people need 'educating'. Ok, most people don't care to know more, but if you were spending 2k+ on something, wouldn't you want to do a damn lot of research first, to know what you were getting yourself into?

[mmmdreg]

most people buy PC because that's all they know and they're afraid to swap...

[ftaok]

Originally posted by krohde
... and give us those G5's, IBM already has them ready for us! What are you talking about???

IBM doesn't even have a PowerPC chip shipping above 700mhz and you're talking about a G5. That's ridiculous.

BTW, Apple's biggest problem is that the "on-the-fence" consumer buys PCs because that's what their friends have. They think the Mac isn't compatible with the PC, so they go with PCs.

Apple needs to convince people that PCs and Macs can work together. The proliferation of the Internet has nearly made the OS a moot point, but there are many sites that don't work properly on a Mac, for whatever reason. Sites that use DirectX (or is it ActiveX) won't work at all. This is a huge problem. Another problem is that a lot of videos on the 'net don't work "easily" on a Mac. Avi's and mpeg's that work fine on a PC take a few more steps on a Mac.

That's what I think Apple needs to work on.

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by ftaok
Avi's and mpeg's that work fine on a PC take a few more steps on a Mac.

That's what I think Apple needs to work on.

Say with me now: Q-u-i-c-k-T-i-m-e S-i-x

[ftaok]

Originally posted by crassusad44
Say with me now: Q-u-i-c-k-T-i-m-e S-i-x Can you say: W-h-e-n ???

I've been hearing about QT6 and all, but it ain't ready (for whatever reason).

QT6 isn't helping Apple win market share NOW, and that's what this topic is about.

[kenkooler]

I still think software is the major problem... most PC drones prefer to use the same software everyone else is using, complaining when they have different versions. Office for Mac may be better (and looks better too) but that´s not what most people (specially when they don't know about computers) want.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Can you say: W-h-e-n ???

I've been hearing about QT6 and all, but it ain't ready (for whatever reason).

QT6 isn't helping Apple win market share NOW, and that's what this topic is about.

Um, actually, yes, QE6 is ready for launch. The problem is MPEG-4 Licensing. As far as Apple Market share, I am not voting on this either, because I think they have 100% market share. You see they are a niche' player in the business of computing. They really don't compete with PC's anymore. X is going to seperate and remove users from the PC world over to the Mac world. Sure we all know that Apple has a 5% market share, although this last quarter it was at 8.1%. This was a huge jump for one quarter.

Anyway, with over 4 billion in cash reserve, and a dedicate base of users, Apple is in good shape. Besides, I would rather have 5% of the users and have them be an informed user base that stay with the product. Than a bunch of uneducated clones that don't know the difference between 10/100 ethernet and a 56k modem.

ID10T errors are the most common problems on a PC.

[Hemingray]

I say speed is a problem. Yes, they're fast. A little less than three years ago the G4 wiped the competition. But not anymore, and that's a problem. Hopefully the speed issue will be a moot point in July... Apple seems to always be playing catch up. But when they do, it is so sweet.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Hemingray
I say speed is a problem. Yes, they're fast. A little less than three years ago the G4 wiped the competition. But not anymore, and that's a problem. Hopefully the speed issue will be a moot point in July... Apple seems to always be playing catch up. But when they do, it is so sweet.

I can agree with you here, but part of the problem with the perceived speed issue is not from Mac users, but because of the PC world. Just imagine if there was no Intel and AMD. Would you be happy with the speed of your Mac? Having Intel there to compare to makes you feel inferior sometimes. Now we all know that a dual 1GHZ will perform on level with any Intel CPU, but does it matter? Inside each of us is the little voice going, "man, if they can hit 2.5 GHZ, why can't we. Imagine a G4 at 2.5GHZ. I want one. Damn Apple for not forcing Moto to do their jobs..."

That is the quagmire that we are in. It is not an actual speed problem, but a perceived problem.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, actually, yes, QE6 is ready for launch. The problem is MPEG-4 Licensing.Yeah, I know this already. But the fact remains that there is no easy way to play many of the avi's and mpeg's that are out on the Internet. The issues with QT6 shouldn't have any impact on the ability of a Mac to play avi files. I could care less about QT6 if they had a plug-in to play avi's, mpeg's and divx files for QT4.

[billiam0878]

Hey Backtothemac,

Where did you hear thier market share hit 8.1%? Just curious...;)

Bill

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by billiam0878
Hey Backtothemac,

Where did you hear thier market share hit 8.1%? Just curious...;)

Bill

Well, I should say that they accounted for 8.1% of the PC's sold during the quarter. 816,000 of them actually. Dell was the leader at around 36%, but hey, we passed Gateway. They were posted on ZDnet, and look at Apples quarterly earning statement.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Yeah, I know this already. But the fact remains that there is no easy way to play many of the avi's and mpeg's that are out on the Internet. The issues with QT6 shouldn't have any impact on the ability of a Mac to play avi files. I could care less about QT6 if they had a plug-in to play avi's, mpeg's and divx files for QT4.

You can download and install the Divx codecs for Quicktime and it is just as easy as it is in Windoze. Look, to play divx files on PC, you have to install Divx, Mpeg4, and others. It is difficult on both, because there is no Standard. QE 6 is moving towards making MPEG-4 a standard in teh community.

[atomwork]

Hi folks,

think about it like in the car market. Does Ferrari has more then a 5 % share. I guess not. People they own the red diva know what the difference is between it and a plain Ford. I think we have to see the great product like it is. The harddrives are not as loung and bad as on the PC and the whole product seems to be better designed and constructed. Also lets face it. Ever put two machines next to each other and see the difference between Mac OS X and Windows XP.

For this advantage i like to pay 600 bucks more. I think thats what we have to advertise in the conusmers minde.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by atomwork
Hi folks,

think about it like in the car market. Does Ferrari has more then a 5 % share. I guess not. People they own the red diva know what the difference is between it and a plain Ford. I think we have to see the great product like it is. The harddrives are not as loung and bad as on the PC and the whole product seems to be better designed and constructed. Also lets face it. Ever put two machines next to each other and see the difference between Mac OS X and Windows XP.

For this advantage i like to pay 600 bucks more. I think thats what we have to advertise in the conusmers minde.

Agreed. Apple needs to spend time getting X into the consumers mind. The only way to do that is by advertising the strengths of X. Now I know that I would pay more to have a system that would run X. Imagine a Flash demo CD going out on every copy of AOL's CD's that auto run. It would be a nice little flash demo showing OS X. Nothing long mind you, just a collection of images, and small flash movies showind the dock in motion or something with pics flashing, and words like Unix Based, and Powerful, Beautiful, etc popping up.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
You can download and install the Divx codecs for Quicktime and it is just as easy as it is in Windoze. Look, to play divx files on PC, you have to install Divx, Mpeg4, and others. It is difficult on both, because there is no Standard. QE 6 is moving towards making MPEG-4 a standard in teh community. OK, so maybe Divx was a bad example, but avi's is still a valid example.

If I want to play an avi on my PC (not that I'd want to - 120mhz Pentium I with no cache), I open up Media Player and viola! On my iBook, I have to convert it to a QT file and mess with the soundtrack and all. It's a hassle and a half.

But the other half of my point was about websites that don't run properly because Apple doesn't have DirectX (or is it ActiveX) support. I think Yahoo Media doesn't work on Mac, not to mention MSN Money Portfolio.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
OK, so maybe Divx was a bad example, but avi's is still a valid example.

If I want to play an avi on my PC (not that I'd want to - 120mhz Pentium I with no cache), I open up Media Player and viola! On my iBook, I have to convert it to a QT file and mess with the soundtrack and all. It's a hassle and a half.

But the other half of my point was about websites that don't run properly because Apple doesn't have DirectX (or is it ActiveX) support. I think Yahoo Media doesn't work on Mac, not to mention MSN Money Portfolio.

I understand the frustration on that front. That is a feature set. In other words DirectX is like OpenGL. Windows XP doesn't support it fully, and neither does it support MP3 fully any longer either. It would be like saying that Mac's have terminal, and Windows doesn't. See what I mean. Oh, and ActiveX will work on a Mac won't it?

[hobie]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

I can agree with you here, but part of the problem with the perceived speed issue is not from Mac users, but because of the PC world. Just imagine if there was no Intel and AMD. Would you be happy with the speed of your Mac? Having Intel there to compare to makes you feel inferior sometimes. Now we all know that a dual 1GHZ will perform on level with any Intel CPU, but does it matter? Inside each of us is the little voice going, "man, if they can hit 2.5 GHZ, why can't we. Imagine a G4 at 2.5GHZ. I want one. Damn Apple for not forcing Moto to do their jobs..."

That is the quagmire that we are in. It is not an actual speed problem, but a perceived problem.

Well, I am an ex-PeeCee user, and though it was a rather slow 700mhz duron I could work with all apps I wanted SIMULTANEOUSLY (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop, Outlook/Entourage, iTunes/Winamp, IE, and some other stuff). It virtually never felt sluggish! Try this with 10.1.4 on an iBook 500 and you'll see the difference.

And to subtend your thread: Even without comparing PC and Apple performances I'm not happy at all with the current iBook speeds! I want a snappy system even with 15+ apps opened at once. At least when some of them are hidden! And this is what Apple doesn't give to me now. If it's possible with 1ghz, then let it be so. But if they need 5ghz for that, then they should quickly go there!

I mean, single tasking was OS9 and thus G4s may have burned wintels, but they definitely don't in OS X's multitasking environment.

However, workflow is still far better on my tiny icebook than on every windos system. Even with a bit sluggishment :-)

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I understand the frustration on that front. That is a feature set. In other words DirectX is like OpenGL. Windows XP doesn't support it fully, and neither does it support MP3 fully any longer either. It would be like saying that Mac's have terminal, and Windows doesn't. See what I mean. Oh, and ActiveX will work on a Mac won't it? I think that I may be confusing DirectX with ActiveX. The websites that I used to use on my PC had these applets that could track your investments and such. MSN Money had a great portfolio program.

Since moving back to the Mac, I've found that ActiveX (I'm pretty sure it's ActiveX) isn't supported on the Mac. That's a little frustrating.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by crassusad44
Sorry for the double post, but I have to comment on the poll as well. I will not vote, because I don't see any of the four issues as a problem for Apple to gain market share among the consumer space.

Speed: The G4 in the iMac is more than fast enough!
Price: The iMac price is just right! You get a whole solution that works, for your money. Not just another crappy PC with high clock speed.
Design: 'nuff said
Software: iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, AppleWorks and 18.000 other software titles available for the Mac platform. If you need more, well, then **** off.

Sorry, but I'm pissed on all you single post guys who always complain and bitch!

Good spread on the pissing pattern :D... I was going to blast the newbie but you did pretty much that for me.

As for the speed issue... it's NOT all about the MHz. AMD also subscribes to the Megahertz Mythology being bunk (just like Apple)... they put it in a way that most people (with brains at least) can understand...

Picture this: A Blue Car with a 6-cylinder endinge is racing a Green Car with a more powerful, 8-cylinder engine. The Blue Car's engine works hard by running at high RPMs. The Green Car, on the other hand, runs at lower RPMs but can blow the doors off the Blue Car. Why? Because the Green Car is designed for a more efficient, faster driving experience.

The same goes for processors. Some processors have to rev their engines to high RPMs (measure in Megahertz or Gigahertz) just to achieve similar levels of performance.

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by hobie
Well, I am an ex-PeeCee user, and though it was a rather slow 700mhz duron I could work with all apps I wanted SIMULTANEOUSLY (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop, Outlook/Entourage, iTunes/Winamp, IE, and some other stuff). It virtually never felt sluggish! Try this with 10.1.4 on an iBook 500 and you'll see the difference.

That is partially due to the hardware, but the OS is an even bigger chunk of that performance. We're all anxiously awaiting Jaguar, that should turn the tables a bit!

Re: Backtothemac's reply about perceived problems, you're right. But we are competing. Not simply because we know we have the better platform, but we also want to convert Windows/PC users. And their "perceived" speed difference compared to the Mac platform is enough to keep a lot of them away. So whether Macs are fast or not, they're not as fast as the PC competition and that's enough to keep a lot of the PC users from converting.

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by ftaok
not to mention MSN Money Portfolio.

Don't tell me you trust M$ to handle your money :p

Actually, the problem lies on bad web-designers who don't do their job, and don't use open standards. This IS a real problem, and also one of the reasons why M$ is in court.

Personally I'm willing to sacrefice MSN Money Portfolio for the ease of use of my totally cool Apple Macintosh!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by hobie


Well, I am an ex-PeeCee user, and though it was a rather slow 700mhz duron I could work with all apps I wanted SIMULTANEOUSLY (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop, Outlook/Entourage, iTunes/Winamp, IE, and some other stuff). It virtually never felt sluggish! Try this with 10.1.4 on an iBook 500 and you'll see the difference.

And to subtend your thread: Even without comparing PC and Apple performances I'm not happy at all with the current iBook speeds! I want a snappy system even with 15+ apps opened at once. At least when some of them are hidden! And this is what Apple doesn't give to me now. If it's possible with 1ghz, then let it be so. But if they need 5ghz for that, then they should quickly go there!

I mean, single tasking was OS9 and thus G4s may have burned wintels, but they definitely don't in OS X's multitasking environment.

However, workflow is still far better on my tiny icebook than on every windos system. Even with a bit sluggishment :-)

OK, first there is nothing slow about a Duron 700. That is actually zippy little Proc. Now, what OS were you running? How much memory? Throw winxp on there and have 128 MB and you will see a system crawl. The iBook 500 is an older machine with a sub-par bus system. Get the iBook 600, or even better the new 700, and you will see a difference. Right now, just for fun, I have word, excel, powerpoint, IE, Mozilla, OmniWeb, System Prefs, Terminal, Net Info, Quicken, and MSN messenger open, and I can go back and forth with almost no wait.

Also, was your Duron a notebook, or desktop? And no offense, but to have 15+ apps open at one time is just a system resource waste. Open what you need. As far as going to 5Ghz, wake up dude. You know that isn't happening anytime soon. Go to CompUSA and play with a new iBook, or better yet, get a PowerBook.

[ftaok]

I think that if you asked a regular joe (who's about to purchase a computer) if he'd consider buying a Mac, he'd say no. He would say this because (in order of probability):

a. Macs aren't compatible (not completely true, but that's the perception).

b. Macs are just toys.

c. Macs cost too much.

d. Macs are slow.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by crassusad44
Don't tell me you trust M$ to handle your money :p

Actually, the problem lies on bad web-designers who don't do their job, and don't use open standards. This IS a real problem, and also one of the reasons why M$ is in court.

Personally I'm willing to sacrefice MSN Money Portfolio for the ease of use of my totally cool Apple Macintosh! I've since switched to Quicken, but the Investor portfolio was free (and I'm cheap).

But the compatibility issue goes deeper than MSN Portfolio. Even Yahoo Media content won't run on a Mac. I'm not sure why, but Apple should be looking into it and integrating it into the OS.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
I think that if you asked a regular joe (who's about to purchase a computer) if he'd consider buying a Mac, he'd say no. He would say this because (in order of probability):

a. Macs aren't compatible (not completely true, but that's the perception).

b. Macs are just toys.

c. Macs cost too much.

d. Macs are slow.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Yes, that is true, and so are these.

A. The average person in the US is overweight.
B. They have what is it 2.5 children.
C. They have high school educations.
D. They don't vote in elections.

Do we really want the average joe? I hate to be an elitest, but I like having users who are intelligent, and who know enough about life to understand the difference in being a clone, and being original.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

or better yet, get a PowerBook.

The NEW TiBooks ROCK! The L3 (1MB DDR) makes a huge difference in system performance. Granted, I did pump up the memory to 768MB, but still. :D With 768 I can have just about all my OS X native apps open at one time and not have the system bog down. That's a LOT of software to have running at a single time too.

I do practice smart running though, having only to applications I need running at one time. If I don't need to have Illustrator running, I don't launch it. Oh, and I DON'T use m$ orfice... AppleWorks 6.x does everything I need it to, plus it has compatibility with enough of the orfice apps for my needs.

[eyelikeart]

I don't think it's any of the options in the poll...

basically...Apple's market share is mainly the fact that people don't understand Macs enough to buy them...

but we've been seeing much more of this turning around lately...

I honestly don't think this is going to fly much...but whatever...

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


The NEW TiBooks ROCK!

Oh, no doubt man. The thing that just pi$$es me off is when people bitch about the Mac, and what Apple needs to do to make the Mac a success. Look, it is a success. The company has survied some of the worst economic times in the country, and made it through when Microsoft was stealing everything from everyone. They have 4 billion in the bank and almost no debt, a great user base, and an awsome future with X.

The thing that I find funny is most of the average joes that complain about the Mac have never even seen one in person. I bet most of the people here that Bi*ch about them have never played with a current model.

Sick, really friggin sick.

[hobie]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

OK, first there is nothing slow about a Duron 700. That is actually zippy little Proc. Now, what OS were you running? How much memory? Throw winxp on there and have 128 MB and you will see a system crawl. The iBook 500 is an older machine with a sub-par bus system. Get the iBook 600, or even better the new 700, and you will see a difference. Right now, just for fun, I have word, excel, powerpoint, IE, Mozilla, OmniWeb, System Prefs, Terminal, Net Info, Quicken, and MSN messenger open, and I can go back and forth with almost no wait.

Also, was your Duron a notebook, or desktop? And no offense, but to have 15+ apps open at one time is just a system resource waste. Open what you need. As far as going to 5Ghz, wake up dude. You know that isn't happening anytime soon. Go to CompUSA and play with a new iBook, or better yet, get a PowerBook.

You're right, a 700 duron isn't that bad, but compared to a 1.667 Athlon it is! My configuration was win2k, 256meg ram and a 32meg geforce1 desktop. And it was fast.
Now I have my iBook 500 (tweaked system bus to 100), 384 megs of ram and an 8meg ati rage. It is fast as well, but NOT when hardcore multitasking.
Compare this: playing mp3s on the duron took about 5% proc time, doing it on the ibook takes about 30-40 proc time! thats frustrating cuz when i want to work AND play mp3s it's rather impossible (at least it was before i tweaked the system bus).
I also tried Jaguar and though it was better it still didn't excite me.

Hey, if you have some bucks left then go on and get me a tibook. Guess this will be real fast!

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Yes, that is true, and so are these.

A. The average person in the US is overweight.
B. They have what is it 2.5 children.
C. They have high school educations.
D. They don't vote in elections.

Do we really want the average joe? I hate to be an elitest, but I like having users who are intelligent, and who know enough about life to understand the difference in being a clone, and being original. Do I want the average joe to be a Mac user?? Hmmm, if it means more software choices, lower prices, more peripherals, etc, then HELL YES.

I don't care what kinda of idiot users use Macs, as long as the market share grows. As long as there's a steady supply of software and hardware that I can use, then I'm happy.

I think this goes back to the Apple is to computers as BMW is cars analogy. There's one big flaw in that analogy. If you equate gas with software and roads with hardware, then the analogy fails. Since BMW use the same gas (make sure it's premium) and drive on the same roads. Macs don't use the same software (although they're compatible for the most part) and they don't support all of the same hardware.

But, I digress, if more "joe" users pick Mac, then I'll be happy.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by hobie


You're right, a 700 duron isn't that bad, but compared to a 1.667 Athlon it is! My configuration was win2k, 256meg ram and a 32meg geforce1 desktop. And it was fast.
Now I have my iBook 500 (tweaked system bus to 100), 384 megs of ram and an 8meg ati rage. It is fast as well, but NOT when hardcore multitasking.
Compare this: playing mp3s on the duron took about 5% proc time, doing it on the ibook takes about 30-40 proc time! thats frustrating cuz when i want to work AND play mp3s it's rather impossible (at least it was before i tweaked the system bus).
I also tried Jaguar and though it was better it still didn't excite me.

Hey, if you have some bucks left then go on and get me a tibook. Guess this will be real fast!

Ok. I understand what you are saying about the iBook 500, but here is the problem. Compare Apples to Apples when possible. Now I know that we are really comparing Apples and Cowpies, but here goes.

Your system was a desktop. That means ATA 100, and probably a 7,200 RPM drive. The iBook is ATA 66, and 4,800 RPM. Much difference here. Also, 8 meg rage and 32 meg G-force is a huge difference. Just trying to point that out.

[AlphaTech]

Backtothemac, it was brought up in a discussion I had with a die-hard peecee owner (guy at work) about how all those people that have been claiming Apple was about to go under. They have one of the few business models that shouldn't work... but for some odd reason does, and does really well. With all their oopsies, they should have gone under, but instead, they thrive. Yes, they are not as large as m$ is, but then again, who would want to be that bloated?? Apple is doing a great job at keeping the Mac faithful, and even making some converts from the peecee world that are tired of m$'s practices.

Apple has survived bad times both in the country and within their own company. Some of remember the years where there were all those numbered Mac systems, with so many models and speeds and such it was tough to pick the right one for you. Then Jobs came back, and made things better. He cut the dead-wood and came out with the iMac... the rest is history.

I look forward to the expo's to see what Apple releases in the way of both hardware and software. I have a perfectly good system with my TiBook, but I will be wanting to get a new tower by MWSF. I don't NEED one, but I will probably want, and get, one anyway. If they alter the enclosure design, or slip a G5 in, that will make the decision all that much easier.

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by ftaok
a. Macs aren't compatible (not completely true, but that's the perception).

b. Macs are just toys.

c. Macs cost too much.

d. Macs are slow.

This is exactly the kinds of myths Apple are trying to eliminate. Look at these pages, and you'll see. Don't bash them for not trying!

http://www.apple.com/easier
http://www.apple.com/myth

We all now the Mac is a better platform. Now go tell the world!

[dunnr]

YO, can you say M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G :D
Apple needs some slick commercials, people will buy
anything that is presented properly.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
Do I want the average joe to be a Mac user?? Hmmm, if it means more software choices, lower prices, more peripherals, etc, then HELL YES.


You are kidding yourself if you think higher sales numbers will drive down the end cost of a Mac system. Don't expect them to drop, unless Apple is coming out with something major and wants to clear out inventory. When the new one gets announce, the prices will be back where they were before the announcement. DON'T expect the tower prices to go lower (or much lower ie $100-$200) then where they are now.

Consider this... when the iMac's really started to fly off the shelves, did Apple drop the prices the next year??? Ummmm.. noooooo. What they DID do, though, was offer better performance and other innovations/improvements in the line at the SAME price. I would expect the same thing to happen for the current G4 iMac, yes, they MIGHT go back down to what they were before the LCD prices went up, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. I would imagine that they will see speed bumps at MWNY, as will almost all of the Mac systems.

What those bumps will be, is anyone's guess (and it is just a guess until the keynote is over).

[hobie]

Hey Backtothemac,

why should i stick with comparing macs with themselves? You don't compare BMWs to Porsches, don't you? I think in case of power it is always best to compare with the best (at least in similar price regions).

And as I told you, my desktop wasn't really fast. It was ATA66 and a 5400 RPM disk. So not real much faster then my current system. The geforce was faster of course, but then again everybody here says any G3 burns a P3. So I think there's a balance now.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by crassusad44


This is exactly the kinds of myths Apple are trying to eliminate. Look at these pages, and you'll see. Don't bash them for not trying!

http://www.apple.com/easier
http://www.apple.com/myth

We all now the Mac is a better platform. Now go tell the world! I'm not bashing Apple at all. I've seen those pages on the web site and out in real life. They're trying, I know.

But the point of this topic was about Apple's Market Share and what the main problem was. I think that my point about what the average joe know about the Mac is completely valid. And that's what Apple has to hurdle to get the converts on our side.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Ok. I understand what you are saying about the iBook 500, but here is the problem. Compare Apples to Apples when possible. Now I know that we are really comparing Apples and Cowpies, but here goes.

Your system was a desktop. That means ATA 100, and probably a 7,200 RPM drive. The iBook is ATA 66, and 4,800 RPM. Much difference here. Also, 8 meg rage and 32 meg G-force is a huge difference. Just trying to point that out.

Don't you really mean ATA66, 4200 rpm?? There are only two spindle speeds in 2.5" hard drives... 4200rpm and 5400rpm.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by hobie
And as I told you, my desktop wasn't really fast. It was ATA66 and a 5400 RPM disk. So not real much faster then my current system. The geforce was faster of course, but then again everybody here says any G3 burns a P3. So I think there's a balance now.

And AMD beats intel senseless...

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
You are kidding yourself if you think higher sales numbers will drive down the end cost of a Mac system. Don't expect them to drop, unless Apple is coming out with something major and wants to clear out inventory. When the new one gets announce, the prices will be back where they were before the announcement. DON'T expect the tower prices to go lower (or much lower ie $100-$200) then where they are now. But if the Mac had a 25 to 30% market share, Apple could (conceivably) upgrade the lines more often. It's all about supply and demand. Or are you suggesting that Apple doesn't follow the rules of economics. If you have more buyers, then you can move more product. More product allows you to buy components in bulk. Motorola/IBM would have more money to devote to R&D so that faster chips would be more available. It's a complete circle.

Now, if you're suggesting that Apple would just pocket the extra margin, that's a possiblity. But I think that you'd start to lose your market base in that scenario.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
But if the Mac had a 25 to 30% market share, Apple could (conceivably) upgrade the lines more often. It's all about supply and demand. Or are you suggesting that Apple doesn't follow the rules of economics. If you have more buyers, then you can move more product. More product allows you to buy components in bulk. Motorola/IBM would have more money to devote to R&D so that faster chips would be more available. It's a complete circle.


I guess you haven't been keeping up... Motorola supplies Apple with the G4 processors, which is the bottleneck for speed bumps. IF Moto would get off their thumbs and develop/produce faster G4's and get the G5's out already it wouldn't even matter. IF motorola could increase the chip speeds more often, and do so reliably, THEN Apple would be increasing the speeds more often.

The main flaw I see with your statement, is how is Apple to get to the high market share??? People think that high MHz/GHz numbers matter. We are rappidly reaching a point where more speed will not really matter. The user becomes the slow down on the computer, the human interface will become the bottleneck soon (if not already).

As for supply and demand... motorola supplies the G4 chips, but doesn't listen to Apple's demands for faster (stable) chips. I don't see Apple as the reason, but motorola and them being unwilling to license the Altivec technology to IBM. I would wager that IBM could pump out faster chips at closer intervals, if they were allowed to. Considering how IBM's relationship with Apple recently got a boost. ALL new TiBooks have IBM hard drives in them. I wonder what the new iBooks have inside.

[SilvorX]

i would have to say price because many of the macs i want (g4 imac for example) are way out of my price range and 2 expensive for me, but then again the normal imac has a perfect price but lacks the stuff i wanted for a computer (internal dvd drive, lcd monitor (not that big for me tho) or 17" screen)

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I guess you haven't been keeping up... Motorola supplies Apple with the G4 processors, which is the bottleneck for speed bumps. IF Moto would get off their thumbs and develop/produce faster G4's and get the G5's out already it wouldn't even matter. IF motorola could increase the chip speeds more often, and do so reliably, THEN Apple would be increasing the speeds more often.

The main flaw I see with your statement, is how is Apple to get to the high market share??? People think that high MHz/GHz numbers matter. We are rappidly reaching a point where more speed will not really matter. The user becomes the slow down on the computer, the human interface will become the bottleneck soon (if not already).

As for supply and demand... motorola supplies the G4 chips, but doesn't listen to Apple's demands for faster (stable) chips. I don't see Apple as the reason, but motorola and them being unwilling to license the Altivec technology to IBM. I would wager that IBM could pump out faster chips at closer intervals, if they were allowed to. Considering how IBM's relationship with Apple recently got a boost. ALL new TiBooks have IBM hard drives in them. I wonder what the new iBooks have inside. Alpha, you're mixing up arguements here. This post was about what was the main problem causing Apple's low market share. If you had seen any of my previous posts, you'd see that I feel that the speed issue is very low on my "reasons list".

Then someone else mentioned that they'd rather keep the market share low than have a bunch of idiots using Macs.

I replied by saying that if Apple had more users, it would result in more software and hardware for Macs as well as lower prices.

YOU said that I "was kidding myself" if I thought that more market share would result in lower prices.

I rebuttaled that "if" the Mac had a 25% share, then they would be able to produce faster machines on a more rapid pace. This is because Apple would be buying more PPC chips from MOT/IBM. MOT/IBM could then use the extra money to dump into R&D to produce faster chips.

You say that the main flaw in my arguement is how Apple can get 25% share. That was never my point at all.

And yes, I have been keeping up. I know that MOT has been going slowly at MOT. But how do you know that MOT is unwilling to license Altivec to IBM? Perhaps IBM is unwilling to agree not to selling chips to people like Cisco.

One last thing. Where are IBM's superfast chips? Last I checked, they were still at 700mhz.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


I guess you haven't been keeping up... Motorola supplies Apple with the G4 processors, which is the bottleneck for speed bumps. IF Moto would get off their thumbs and develop/produce faster G4's and get the G5's out already it wouldn't even matter. IF motorola could increase the chip speeds more often, and do so reliably, THEN Apple would be increasing the speeds more often.


I don't disagree that if Motorola would release chips faster Apple would incorporate them into macs faster. However there is a point to the "market share" arguement in the fact that R & D budget is a percentage of total sales. So greater market share = more chips purchased from moto = more money in moto's pockets = more R & D money = chips released faster.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by wrylachlan


I don't disagree that if Motorola would release chips faster Apple would incorporate them into macs faster. However there is a point to the "market share" arguement in the fact that R & D budget is a percentage of total sales. So greater market share = more chips purchased from moto = more money in moto's pockets = more R & D money = chips released faster. That's what I said.

[Backtothemac]

Few things.....

Alpha, dead friggin on the money.

SilvorX, I thought that you were not going to post anymore ;)

Hobie, Actually, yes, I do compare BMW's to BMW's. To compare them to Porsche's would be stupid. They are totally differnet vehicles with totally different existances. BMW, luxary sedans, Porsche, sports cars....

Apples to Apples friend not Apples to Cowpies.

Ftoak. No, you miss the point. If Apple had 25 -30% of the market share, then they would do it the same way now. Keep you machine lasting longer, keep you happier, and thus a repeat customer. That is one of the things about Intel that pi$$es people off is they by a system in January, and by March it is 400 MHZ behind. Bad buisness model = Intel. Good buisness model = Apple.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
And yes, I have been keeping up. I know that MOT has been going slowly at MOT. But how do you know that MOT is unwilling to license Altivec to IBM? Perhaps IBM is unwilling to agree not to selling chips to people like Cisco.

One last thing. Where are IBM's superfast chips? Last I checked, they were still at 700mhz.

Moto refused to license the Altivec tech to IBM... IBM wanted it, but moto made it impossible. That was posted before, as well as in news articles. If you dig enough, you can find them.

IBM has been listed as having G3 chips at 1GHz (also in news articles online)... Just because Apple is only using the 700MHz doesn't mean that IBM can't give them faster ones at the dop of a hat.

Moto would NOT be able to dictate to IBM that they would have to sell chips to any company. IBM would sell them to Apple, since they would want them. If moto wants to sell chips to cisco, let them. Moto telling IBM that they 'have to' sell chips to a third company would be like Ford telling an engine maker that they HAVE TO sell this model engine to these companies (not divisions of Ford but other car companies). Not gonna happen.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Few things.....

Alpha, dead friggin on the money.

SilvorX, I thought that you were not going to post anymore ;)

Hobie, Actually, yes, I do compare BMW's to BMW's. To compare them to Porsche's would be stupid. They are totally differnet vehicles with totally different existances. BMW, luxary sedans, Porsche, sports cars....

Apples to Apples friend not Apples to Cowpies.

Ftoak. No, you miss the point. If Apple had 25 -30% of the market share, then they would do it the same way now. Keep you machine lasting longer, keep you happier, and thus a repeat customer. That is one of the things about Intel that pi$$es people off is they by a system in January, and by March it is 400 MHZ behind. Bad buisness model = Intel. Good buisness model = Apple. B2TM,

I don't think I missed the point at all. If Apple had a 25-30% share, do you think they would let users sit on their machines for 6 years? Hell no. They would want users to upgrade every 2-3 years so that they could maintain their market share. There's a finite number of computer users out there and the trick is to keep them coming back for more. You have to keep coming out with faster and better computers to maintain your share.

And if you think that Apple has a superior business model than Intel, you're sadly mistaken. Apple has a great model for a niche player. It's proven. They're debt free and have tons of cash. But Intel is a giant. They can keep coming out with faster (not necessarily better) chips that PC manufacturers gobble up. That's why they are the dominant player in the PC market. AMD is good, but Intel has the resources to crush them over time.

Besides Apple isn't competing against Intel. They have different markets.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Moto refused to license the Altivec tech to IBM... IBM wanted it, but moto made it impossible. That was posted before, as well as in news articles. If you dig enough, you can find them.

IBM has been listed as having G3 chips at 1GHz (also in news articles online)... Just because Apple is only using the 700MHz doesn't mean that IBM can't give them faster ones at the dop of a hat.

Moto would NOT be able to dictate to IBM that they would have to sell chips to any company. IBM would sell them to Apple, since they would want them. If moto wants to sell chips to cisco, let them. Moto telling IBM that they 'have to' sell chips to a third company would be like Ford telling an engine maker that they HAVE TO sell this model engine to these companies (not divisions of Ford but other car companies). Not gonna happen. I'm not gonna ask you to find those articles, I can dig around after work.

About IBM's Sahara chip. If you look in IBM's press releases, you'll see that a 1ghz chip (G3) won't be ready to ship until later this year. They said that they would start at 700mhz in early 2002 and eventually hit 1ghz. Certainly not at "a drop of the hat".

About MOT dictating who IBM could sell to. I was saying that if MOT were to license Altivec to IBM, MOT would want assurances that IBM would not sell Altivec enhanced chips to anyone but Apple. To allow IBM to sell Altivec chips to MOT's main customer would be unadvisable.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
If Apple had a 25-30% share, do you think they would let users sit on their machines for 6 years?

Actually, Apple would let you sit on the system you have for as long as you want. They will try and entice you to buy a newer one, but will not bully you into it. How many blue and white, and beige G3 systems are still out there and in active use??? Answer: Most, if not all, of them. How about peecee's of the same age???


And if you think that Apple has a superior business model than Intel, you're sadly mistaken. Apple has a great model for a niche player. It's proven. They're debt free and have tons of cash. But Intel is a giant. They can keep coming out with faster (not necessarily better) chips that PC manufacturers gobble up. That's why they are the dominant player in the PC market. AMD is good, but Intel has the resources to crush them over time.

Apple has extreme customer loyalty. Apple also has a very good customer support model, which accounts for why so many people are repeat customers.

Intel will only be able to 'crush' AMD through unfair business practices, which they have already started doing. I hope that the DOJ jumps on them for this, so that AMD isn't stiffled due to a giant company wanting all of the pie. Yes, AMD may not have the same market share as intel, but as most people that make their own peecee's will tell you, they offer a better product for less money.

[AlphaTech]

ftaok, here (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/15.ibm.php) is the article dated from October 15, 2001 announcing the 1GHz G3 from IBM.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Actually, Apple would let you sit on the system you have for as long as you want. They will try and entice you to buy a newer one, but will not bully you into it. How many blue and white, and beige G3 systems are still out there and in active use??? Answer: Most, if not all, of them. How about peecee's of the same age???I agree. But the best way to keep market share is to get your users to upgrade more frequently.

Apple has extreme customer loyalty. Apple also has a very good customer support model, which accounts for why so many people are repeat customers.I also agree. If only they could get this loyal base to upgrade more often. That'll help out tremendously.

Intel will only be able to 'crush' AMD through unfair business practices, which they have already started doing. I hope that the DOJ jumps on them for this, so that AMD isn't stiffled due to a giant company wanting all of the pie. Yes, AMD may not have the same market share as intel, but as most people that make their own peecee's will tell you, they offer a better product for less money. I agree again. But I wasn't talking about unfair business practices. I was just talking about Intel's business model. They can stay clean and continue to grab back AMD's share just by using their tremendous marketing saavy. Whether they do or not, is anyone's guess.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
ftaok, here (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0110/15.ibm.php) is the article dated from October 15, 2001 announcing the 1GHz G3 from IBM. Alpha,

Here's IBM's own press release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html) concerning the Sahara G3. Note the part about "select customers" getting stuff in January 2002. Also, note the line aobut "speeds up to 1ghz later [this] year".

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
B2TM,

I don't think I missed the point at all. If Apple had a 25-30% share, do you think they would let users sit on their machines for 6 years? Hell no. They would want users to upgrade every 2-3 years so that they could maintain their market share. There's a finite number of computer users out there and the trick is to keep them coming back for more. You have to keep coming out with faster and better computers to maintain your share.

And if you think that Apple has a superior business model than Intel, you're sadly mistaken. Apple has a great model for a niche player. It's proven. They're debt free and have tons of cash. But Intel is a giant. They can keep coming out with faster (not necessarily better) chips that PC manufacturers gobble up. That's why they are the dominant player in the PC market. AMD is good, but Intel has the resources to crush them over time.

Besides Apple isn't competing against Intel. They have different markets.

Dude, WTF? Who waits 6 years to update their system. As it is now, the average Mac user upgrades every 2 to 3 years, that is actually the average computer user, Macs may stretch to 4. The point is that is the actual problem with the PC industry now is that people are soft to upgrade because they have been flooded with upgrades over the years. Their PIII 500 does everything they need so they don't upgrade. Go with slower processor upgrades like Apple is. My mistake, they are actually presenting a better buisness model to the consumer. Now if they would just present OS X to them as well.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by ftaok
Alpha,

Here's IBM's own press release (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2001/1017_750fx.html) concerning the Sahara G3. Note the part about "select customers" getting stuff in January 2002. Also, note the line aobut "speeds up to 1ghz later [this] year".

At least IBM gives real info about what is coming. Unlike what moto is doing. Another reason I would like to see IBM either make the G4/G5 processors, or take it over. IBM is large enough to be able to devote more then enough resources to the project to get fast chips out quicker. Moto is just dragging their feet and tossing a few bones our way.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dude, WTF? Who waits 6 years to update their system. As it is now, the average Mac user upgrades every 2 to 3 years, that is actually the average computer user, Macs may stretch to 4. The point is that is the actual problem with the PC industry now is that people are soft to upgrade because they have been flooded with upgrades over the years. Their PIII 500 does everything they need so they don't upgrade. Go with slower processor upgrades like Apple is. My mistake, they are actually presenting a better buisness model to the consumer. Now if they would just present OS X to them as well. Dude, lots of Mac users hold onto them for 6 years. Hell, most of them post here. They're holding onto their Wallstreets, Pismos, and 9600s now and even into the future.

But the key to maintaining market share is to keep people upgrading. Sure, it sucks for the comsumer, but we're talking about what Apple can do to increase their market share.

There's 2 distinct camps here. There's the "we need more speed" camp here that's blaming Motorola for not producing faster chips. And there's the "things are fast enough" camp that's blaming Motorola for not producing faster chip. Yes, it's all Motorola's fault that Apple has a low market share.

Anyways, the point is how Apple can gain market share. They can gain market share by getting the word out that Macs are compatible to the average joe. Speed isn't that important.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
IBM is large enough to be able to devote more then enough resources to the project to get fast chips out quicker. Moto is just dragging their feet and tossing a few bones our way.

So? With IBM just supplying the G3 to only 2 model lines and Moto with the rest of them, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got for now. It sucks and I hope change happens soon, but I'm not optimistic here.

'Thankyou sir, may I have another......'

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
At least IBM gives real info about what is coming. Unlike what moto is doing. Another reason I would like to see IBM either make the G4/G5 processors, or take it over. IBM is large enough to be able to devote more then enough resources to the project to get fast chips out quicker. Moto is just dragging their feet and tossing a few bones our way. If IBM were to take over G5 development for Apple, I would be happy. I see no problems with this. But the bottom line is would IBM be able to provide Apple with speed bumps in a timely manner? Sure, they wouldn't run into manufacturing problems like Motorola has, but the market share isn't there to justify spending a lot of money on R&D. At least not for Apple chips.

The Nintendo chips are an entirely different matter.

One of the biggest problems for Apple is that their two suppliers of CPUs don't consider Apple as their primary customer for PPC chips (i.e. Cisco & Nintendo).

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
If IBM were to take over G5 development for Apple, I would be happy. I see no problems with this. But the bottom line is would IBM be able to provide Apple with speed bumps in a timely manner? Sure, they wouldn't run into manufacturing problems like Motorola has, but the market share isn't there to justify spending a lot of money on R&D. At least not for Apple chips.

The Nintendo chips are an entirely different matter.

One of the biggest problems for Apple is that their two suppliers of CPUs don't consider Apple as their primary customer for PPC chips (i.e. Cisco & Nintendo).

Screw MOTO and IBM. Let AMD take over the PPC development. Now that would rock. Remember the old CEO of MOTO is now with AMD. Could it be.....

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Screw MOTO and IBM. Let AMD take over the PPC development. Now that would rock. Remember the old CEO of MOTO is now with AMD. Could it be.....

Oh no! its not turning into this topic again.....

Almost as bad as saying 'iWalk' in my book!

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Screw MOTO and IBM. Let AMD take over the PPC development. Now that would rock. Remember the old CEO of MOTO is now with AMD. Could it be..... C'mon, you know that won't happen any time soon. Neither IBM nor MOT is ready to give AMD access to the PPC architecture.

And just to be nit-picky, the CEO of AMD wasn't the CEO of MOT. I think he was the head of the Semiconductors Sector. At MOT, it's been Galvin, followed by Galvin, followed by Galvin.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
C'mon, you know that won't happen any time soon. Neither IBM nor MOT is ready to give AMD access to the PPC architecture.

And just to be nit-picky, the CEO of AMD wasn't the CEO of MOT. I think he was the head of the Semiconductors Sector. At MOT, it's been Galvin, followed by Galvin, followed by Galvin.

Yea, you are right. He was the head of Semiconductors my bad. I know it won't happen, but it would be nice. I just wanted to see how fast Duke could come out of the shadows and get in on this. ;)

[wrylachlan]

I'm sorry, but this idea that upgrading more often will piss off customers just doesn't make sense to me. If you are purchasing the computer to do work on, why would you be pissed off about a faster upgrade cycle?

The decision to buy is based on -
"How much will the increased productivity be worth in dollars/day?"
"How many days will it take to pay off the cost of the purchase at that rate?"

If apple upped the speeds more often, then when you did upgrade, you would see a greater productivity increase, so it would take a shorter amount of time to pay off the purchase - which would allow you to make the next upgrade sooner.

I totally fail to see why this would piss people off. Faster processor upgrades from apple would allow you to buy new hardware more often and still justify the expense since your productivity would improve. How is this a bad thing?

My sense is that the people who are advocating a slower upgrade cycle are those who want their bragging rights to last longer when they get a new system. But bragging rights plays little to no role in corporate buying decisions or real professional freelance buying decisions.

As a side note, IMHO the thing that pisses off PC users about upgrading is not the hardware, but the software. Watching a secretary loose productivity trying to figure out even the minor differences between Word 97 and 2000 is immensely frustrating to the corporate IT world. But put a faster system with exactly the same software on the corporate desk, and the productivity goes up.

[jamesbhai]

This is quite a circuitous debate. Yes, some people do base their opinion of a system's system on the MHZ. Calling them stupid and deciding they shouldn't own a mac is not what apple is about. If you contend the mac is still faster, show them, don't just tell them. Illustrate benchmarks with a mac user and a 'leading brand' user doing the same tasks. In that, ADVERTISE that the mac has a slower clock cycle. People will get the picture. They don't care about the MHZ, but in absence of another measure of speed, that is all they have to rely on for their decisions. Clarify, don't just dismiss potential customers.

As for upgrade cycles, I am proud that I am using a pism fairly well on OS X with a pismo. I am also proud that my new iBook is very snappy, MHZ be damned. (That 512 L2 cache sure makes a world of difference: see above) Sure, Wintel machines can be cheaper and require quicker upgrades, because they have so many problems. If apple continues to make higher quality products (which they should), owners will upgrade less often. However, those people will still purchase a Mac. The trick is not speeding up the hardware upgrades, but getting PC users to try a mac, buy one mac, just get the foot in the door. This is probably apple's philosophy with the retail stores. 10% market share would be double and I'd be happy with that, as long as they introduce great new software, new hardware such as the iPod and don't degrade the quality to make me have to upgrade quicker. If I truly like the product enough, i'll be trying to purchase a new one even when my old one suffices. That's satisfaction, not desperation.

and that's my 2 cents worth...

[AmbitiousLemon]

just wanted to say thanks to all of you b2tm alpha, etc for fighting the good fight. its been interesting reading through the threa and watching as the pc users slowly retreat as you counter everything they say.

i didnt vote in the poll either, because apple has no "problem" at least none in that list.

but i think the problem if there is any one is misinformation. and this threa is a testament to it. its taken numerous posts by alpha and others to slowly set th record straight. and they are explaining these things to proactive intelligient people. imagine how difficult it could be to do the same thing with the average consumer.

apple is completely on the right track. they are attacking the misinformation problem, but its a long uphill battle.

but apple is doing better than any other computer company. the others are going [gone] under or hemoraging money. apple has caught the attention and respect of the media. customers are coming around. osx alone has ton tremendous work, just by bringing the linux and open source crowd over.

as for the speed issue that has consumed the last few posts on the thread. not a 'problem.' sure id like a faster machine. doesnt matter how fast it gets ill always want more. problem with benchmarks is it doesnt measure how long it takes a user to do certain tasks on the machine. the mac is far more efficient than any pc. even my 4 year old mac can out perform any pc simply because its easier to do everything. its all about apple's excellent HIG. its what makes using a mac easy and pleasant to use. pc users waste so much time because of the poor inconsistant gui.

o and everybody go back and read alpha's quote about the two different colored cars (page one i think) its very accurate, even when just comparing the p3 to the p4.

[ericb88]

It's a combination of 3 out of those 4 problems. First, apple's are very overpriced. About 20% of PC owners do some gaming and they don't want to spend 1600$, just to get a computer with an upgradeable graphics card. The reason why i didn't buy a mac last computer purchase was price, i'm sure alot of people feel that way.
Speed is also a problem, ever since apple was stuck at 500mhz they've been in a hole there only begining to dig themselves out of. Intel has 2.53ghz with 533mhz bus, we've been at 133mhz bus for how long now? The imac is an amazing machine, but that like most other things apple is making should have been realesed a year ago. IN most applications a 2.53gz computer i can get for 2000 with a monitor can completely destroy the 800mhz mac i can get for 1600 without a monitor.
Software is also an issue, stevey made a huge mistake when he thought gaming wasn't going to be a big deal, it is. And why apple is doing a good job of getting games on apple platforms tehy should work with developers to optomize games for macs and get a mac-exclusive game(waht halo should have been) there is mroe but im sick and tired so...

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ericb88
It's a combination of 3 out of those 4 problems.

these are exactly the misconceptions im referring to. but i think apple is doing a job breaking down these misconceptions.

there are a lot of ericbs out there who just adopt this type of dogma they have been fed for so long. apple's problem is breaking down the barriors of misconceptions built up over the years and finally getting to these people. its a long process. its hard to get people to be good consumers. strange as it sounds even intelligient peope like eric here, are not willing to put forth the effort to check to see if these misconceptions are true. they accept them without thought or research. apple ignored this for a long time and is only now begining to take this issue on. barriors are being broken, but it will be awhile before we get through them all and finally get consumers like ericb. its going to be a long hard job, but i think apple's proven more than once that they are in this for the long haul.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
just wanted to say thanks to all of you b2tm alpha, etc for fighting the good fight. its been interesting reading through the threa and watching as the pc users slowly retreat as you counter everything they say.I don't know if you're talking about me, but I don't consider myself a PC user (except at work - no choice). And who's retreating? I don't sit in front of a computer all day to read and post to various forums. Besides, some of you "experts" only counter a single point and ignore the ones that you can't counter (i.e. the not-as-of-yet-existing 1Ghz G3).

i didnt vote in the poll either, because apple has no "problem" at least none in that list.

but i think the problem if there is any one is misinformation. and this threa is a testament to it. its taken numerous posts by alpha and others to slowly set th record straight. and they are explaining these things to proactive intelligient people. imagine how difficult it could be to do the same thing with the average consumer.There's quite a bit of misinformation out there. That's true, but Apple still needs to get the compatibility issue straightened out. With the advent of the Internet, the OS should be virtually invisible. You should be able to view any website regardless of the OS. And don't say that the web designers are lazy.

I'm too lazy to check, but the guy who commented that QT6 will be able to view avi's and such is ready, but it's being held up for blah blah blah... Well, he glossed over the fact that you can't view most of the avi's on the Internet right now.

I think that some of you "anti-zealot" guys have been getting a little over-zealous on your defense of Apple lately.

Flame me if you want, but Apple isn't without problems, and they all don't stem from Motorola.

PS, I'm not a PC user. Just wanted to re-iterate.

[gopher]

so your speed arguments are moot.

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm

Secondly, ease of setup makes Macs that much faster to work with. How many countless days do you spend reinstalling systems, when all you have to do on a Mac is drag and drop a program to the trash if it doesn't work properly?

Thirdly, Macs are much better integrated machines in terms of software and hardware, and you can even get a Flat Panal iMac for $1399 with 32MB of DDR VRAM, 2 Firewire, 3 USB ports, an CD burner and 15" digital LCD, and VGA port, and NIC card, and 56k modem. Perfect gaming machine IMHO.

Fourthly, if you are starving for a higher powered videocard, you can find used a 733 Mhz G4 tower for $1099 now.

Get your facts straight before quoting prices and speeds. You'll be surprised. Macs are faster because of RISC processing, Altivec processing, level 3 cache, and on board better video and audio support.
Originally posted by ericb88
It's a combination of 3 out of those 4 problems. First, apple's are very overpriced. About 20% of PC owners do some gaming and they don't want to spend 1600$, just to get a computer with an upgradeable graphics card. The reason why i didn't buy a mac last computer purchase was price, i'm sure alot of people feel that way.
Speed is also a problem, ever since apple was stuck at 500mhz they've been in a hole there only begining to dig themselves out of. Intel has 2.53ghz with 533mhz bus, we've been at 133mhz bus for how long now? The imac is an amazing machine, but that like most other things apple is making should have been realesed a year ago. IN most applications a 2.53gz computer i can get for 2000 with a monitor can completely destroy the 800mhz mac i can get for 1600 without a monitor.
Software is also an issue, stevey made a huge mistake when he thought gaming wasn't going to be a big deal, it is. And why apple is doing a good job of getting games on apple platforms tehy should work with developers to optomize games for macs and get a mac-exclusive game(waht halo should have been) there is mroe but im sick and tired so...

[gopher]

Start writing your webmasters to use standards on their webpage that are server side. Server side standards yield nothing but HTML pages that any web browser can render. Unfortunately too many try to add things that are Microsoft Java based, or Microsoft Jscript or ActiveX based. Webmasters who do this should be told that Windows isn't the only world out there, and they are promoting the Microsoft monopoly by using so many client based standards. Meanwhile you can get Connectix VirtualPC for the Mac to support those PC only webpages.

Originally posted by ftaok
I don't know if you're talking about me, but I don't consider myself a PC user (except at work - no choice). And who's retreating? I don't sit in front of a computer all day to read and post to various forums. Besides, some of you "experts" only counter a single point and ignore the ones that you can't counter (i.e. the not-as-of-yet-existing 1Ghz G3).

There's quite a bit of misinformation out there. That's true, but Apple still needs to get the compatibility issue straightened out. With the advent of the Internet, the OS should be virtually invisible. You should be able to view any website regardless of the OS. And don't say that the web designers are lazy.

I'm too lazy to check, but the guy who commented that QT6 will be able to view avi's and such is ready, but it's being held up for blah blah blah... Well, he glossed over the fact that you can't view most of the avi's on the Internet right now.

I think that some of you "anti-zealot" guys have been getting a little over-zealous on your defense of Apple lately.

Flame me if you want, but Apple isn't without problems, and they all don't stem from Motorola.

PS, I'm not a PC user. Just wanted to re-iterate.

[AlphaTech]

gopher, good post.

Most Mac users also know what to look for when they want to remove software. A lot of the applications can be removed by dumping the folder that contains it and the prefernce file with it's name on it. Sometimes there are extensions that also can be removed, but typically, they won't do harm (unless you are experiencing software conflicts). Those are also easy to remove. Some Mac software installers come with uninstall/remove features, but not all.

On windblows, if you remove just one of the files that the software installer placed on your system, and then try to remove it through the uninstall/remove feature, forgedaboutit. Windblows basically tells you to go ***** yourself.

[SilvorX]

SilvorX, I thought that you were not going to post anymore ;)
well i'm back from the dead :P lol
i just dont like getting flamed thats all :P lol
n i'm still planning on getting meself a mac this fall (hoping it will be after the release of jaguar) n talked to my dad bout it (since i'm gonna be working for him this summer) n he said if i dont have enough money, he'll chip in some $$$

n i totally agree with alpha's last post, i try to remove something off ekz-pee, i have a hard time after i uninstall that app, for instance, i'm having LOTTTTS of winbloze problems right now just cuz of some lame ass kernel32.dll errors are causing ie/outlook express/aol messenger to not work n tried removing n everything n no luck so far, cant wait to get my mac :D

[Rajj]

Apple Number One problem is Motorola and there slow ass chips!!!!
Apple would increase there sales by a subtanual amount if they would switch to AMD's Hammer series!!! I thought Apple is supposed to be ahead of everybody??? Don't get me wrong, I love OS X, but I hate the internet on OS X, because it is Dog slow!! My AMD XP 1700 BLows it rocks off!!! Only one problem..... Windows XP!!! AAHHHHH!!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by xrhajj
Apple Number One problem is Motorola and there slow ass chips!!!!
Apple would increase there sales by a subtanual amount if they would switch to AMD's Hammer series!!! I thought Apple is supposed to be ahead of everybody??? Don't get me wrong, I love OS X, but I hate the internet on OS X, because it is Dog slow!! My AMD XP 1700 BLows it rocks off!!! Only one problem..... Windows XP!!! AAHHHHH!!

Couple of questions.

1) What kind of Mac do you have that is slow under X on the net.
2) Have you optimized your internet connection.
3) What type of connection do you have.

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Couple of questions.

1) What kind of Mac do you have that is slow under X on the net.
2) Have you optimized your internet connection.
3) What type of connection do you have.

Yeah... I have used dial-up on OS X before (those rare times when I need to get email on my home accounts while I am at work) and the slowdown is from the connection speed, NOT the computer.

Go high speed and then the speed blazes. Granted, if your high speed ISP is only giving you 650Kbps downloads (max) and you have a cable modem in a populated area your speed during peak times is going to suck. Ever since my DSL connection was fixed up, I have seen download speeds of at least 180KBps (yes, Bytes) with burst giving me almost 2MBps (high 1900's Kbps).

Don't blame the Mac because you have a crappy ISP with questionable Mac support, or low connection speeds.

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Yeah... I have used dial-up on OS X before (those rare times when I need to get email on my home accounts while I am at work) and the slowdown is from the connection speed, NOT the computer.

Go high speed and then the speed blazes. Granted, if your high speed ISP is only giving you 650Kbps downloads (max) and you have a cable modem in a populated area your speed during peak times is going to suck. Ever since my DSL connection was fixed up, I have seen download speeds of at least 180KBps (yes, Bytes) with burst giving me almost 2MBps (high 1900's Kbps).

Don't blame the Mac because you have a crappy ISP with questionable Mac support, or low connection speeds.


1. I have a Tibook 400
2. Yes
3. Cable Modem


And I will blame OS X, becxause it has a fetch and retrieve problem!!!
And the reason why I know this because my Tibook Is slaughtered by my celeron 750 notebook via airport via ethernet, and not to mention my Athlon XP 1700!!!... that's whole new story!!!!

Stats: NBA. com
Celeron 750 notebook < 1 sec
Tibook 400 7 sec
1700 XP <.20

You do the math!!!
I hope Jaguar takes care of this problem!! Cause I really Like OS X

[Rajj]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Couple of questions.

1) What kind of Mac do you have that is slow under X on the net.
2) Have you optimized your internet connection.
3) What type of connection do you have.

On my cable Modem I get 1.8 to 2.5 mps on my Athlon XP
On my Tibook 400 I only get 1 mps to 1.5 mps

[AlphaTech]

xrhajj, I don't know what you did to ***** up your TiBook, but I NEVER had any kind of fetching issues with my TiBook. Maybe you should optimize your drive, and UPDATE to the latest versions of your software. If you have never run utilities (such as NUM) they YOU are the reason for the slowdown, NOT the computer...

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
xrhajj, I don't know what you did to ***** up your TiBook, but I NEVER had any kind of fetching issues with my TiBook. Maybe you should optimize your drive, and UPDATE to the latest versions of your software. If you have never run utilities (such as NUM) they YOU are the reason for the slowdown, NOT the computer...


Umm Let's see.... I changed my hard drive to a 40 gig, I added 512mb of ram, and I always run utilites, and what do I get in return.... That spinning rainbow wheel when I luanch IE or Mozilla!!! And then 10 seconds later I'm on line, with a cable modem!! But with my XP 1700... it's click and a nanosecond later, I'm on line!!! You do the math!!! I really like OS X, but I get sick of waiting. I spent all this money to be in 3rd place!!!!

[Rajj]

Alpha Tech, go to CompUSA, engage IE on the TiBook, and start tapping your fingers, and then go to the toshiba S607 or one with a wireless card installed and compare the times.

[AlphaTech]

which utilities, how often, which drive did you install (brand, spindle speed...). Only 512MB???? :rolleyes: What memory, brand, spec... Did you follow any ESD procedures when you installed the drive and such???

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by xrhajj
Alpha Tech, go to CompUSA, engage IE on the TiBook, and start tapping your fingers, and then go to the toshiba S607 or one with a wireless card installed and compare the times.

Hey Bubba.. I AM on a TiBook right this very second... so stop blowing smoke. Read my signature ya mook. :rolleyes:

btw, I AM using Airport to go online ALL THE TIME!

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Hey Bubba.. I AM on a TiBook right this very second... so stop blowing smoke. Read my signature ya mook. :rolleyes:

Hey Tranquillo!!!
I use Disk Warrior every friday
Toshiba 5400 rpm
And I am on my Tibook as we speak also!! and it is still slow on the web!!

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Hey Bubba.. I AM on a TiBook right this very second... so stop blowing smoke. Read my signature ya mook. :rolleyes:

btw, I AM using Airport to go online ALL THE TIME!


I use airport all the time also!!! if you have a cable or DSL, go to Nba.com and see how long it takes!!

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by xrhajj


Hey Tranquillo!!!
I use Disk Warrior every friday
Toshiba 5400 rpm
And I am on my Tibook as we speak also!! and it is still slow on the web!!

go to speed411.com and run the test... Anyone that knows anything knows that IBM drives beat toshiba drives in their sleep.

Is that the only utility you have??? which version??? Get NUM (at the very least) and/or TechTool Pro 3.x.

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


go to speed411.com and run the test... Anyone that knows anything knows that IBM drives beat toshiba drives in their sleep.

Is that the only utility you have??? which version??? Get NUM (at the very least) and/or TechTool Pro 3.x.
did you go to nba.com? And I went to speed411.com, it said 1.8mps, but OSX and Motorola Has a fetch and retrieve problem, you are an apple tech right?


How long did it take to get to nba.com?

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by xrhajj

did you go to nba.com? And I went to speed411.com, it said 1.8mps, but OSX and Motorola Has a fetch and retrieve problem, you are an apple tech right?


How long did it take to get to nba.com?

You ever stop to think it was m$ making you it's b*tch and NOT Apple???? Try going to the same site with the latest version of Netscape. I did... Netscape 6.2.3 loaded the page in about 1-1.5 seconds, where ie took a few longer. Considering how I have my disk cache set to 0, I don't retain pages. How is ie on your peecee set?? If you go there all the time, it will cache the information which will give the appearance of faster load time.

Test things a bit more before you blame the computer maker for your 'speed issues' which really don't exist.

This was the FIRST time I have EVER gone to the nba site, and most likely the LAST time. I have a hell of a lot better things to do with my time then track b-ball teams and such. Actually the sports that are televised are of almost 0 interest to me. It's hard to find the ones I really care about, so I don't bother to watch any of them. I EASILY live without such things.

[SilvorX]

Don't blame the Mac because you have a crappy ISP with questionable Mac support, or low connection speeds.
i doubt i'dd blame the mac, back when i was basically puter illiterate, i was blaming the slow speeds on the modem cuz i thought it could do better (but then found out that the fastest we can get is 28.8 even tho half an hr away theres dsl) n i'm pretty sure my isp has mac support since their software works both on winbloze (not xp tho ;)) n most macs (up to and including os9 since i doubt u would want to use netscape 4.05 on osx)

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


You ever stop to think it was m$ making you it's b*tch and NOT Apple???? Try going to the same site with the latest version of Netscape. I did... Netscape 6.2.3 loaded the page in about 1-1.5 seconds, where ie took a few longer. Considering how I have my disk cache set to 0, I don't retain pages. How is ie on your peecee set?? If you go there all the time, it will cache the information which will give the appearance of faster load time.

Test things a bit more before you blame the computer maker for your 'speed issues' which really don't exist.

This was the FIRST time I have EVER gone to the nba site, and most likely the LAST time. I have a hell of a lot better things to do with my time then track b-ball teams and such. Actually the sports that are televised are of almost 0 interest to me. It's hard to find the ones I really care about, so I don't bother to watch any of them. I EASILY live without such things.


Ok, get your panties out of your ass!!!! it's pretty conspicuous (get a dictionary) you can't read!!! I like Apple, I won't have bought one if I didn't!!! this is my first Apple Computer, and I was under the impresion that Apple's OSX was world class material, and I think it is, but Every ASC has told me that OS X has a problem with IE and any other Browser, and Jaguar was the solution to this problem!!! But My point still stands, I spent over $3600 for my Tibook and software to convert to Apple, and it is still not paying for itself!!!
And as far as Basketball, Your just mad Boston Blows!!!

[ftaok]

Originally posted by gopher
Start writing your webmasters to use standards on their webpage that are server side. Server side standards yield nothing but HTML pages that any web browser can render. Unfortunately too many try to add things that are Microsoft Java based, or Microsoft Jscript or ActiveX based. Webmasters who do this should be told that Windows isn't the only world out there, and they are promoting the Microsoft monopoly by using so many client based standards. Meanwhile you can get Connectix VirtualPC for the Mac to support those PC only webpages.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. On the Internet, the OS should be invisible. Everything should work regardless of platform. If Apple wants to get a larger market share (that was the point of this thread), they will have to convince people that Macs are compatible. And they are, for the most part.

And who's gonna take the time to write to webmasters? If Apple wanted to correct this, they should be encouraging them to use the standards, not the end user.

As far as Microsoft Java and Jscript, I don't know enough about it. ActiveX, on the other hand, does allow for some neat little applets. Maybe Apple should support ActiveX.

And while they're at it, they should release some plug-ins for QT so that I can play avi's without going through a whole rig-a-more-roll.

And don't give me the whole "buy VPC" argument. Why would I want to pay $200 to view webpages that I should be able to view on my Mac?

[AmbitiousLemon]

the whole "you cant do certain things on the mac you can do on the pc" is a comment that is so inherently flawed it always shocks me. but like the other misconceptions it continues to be things people like ftaok use to make their rather poor arguments. you seem to loose track of the things that you can do on a mac that you cant do on a pc, which far outnumber the things you can do on a pc you cant do on a mac.

activex? damn, who cares. ive been using mozilla on osx and ie on osx before it since dp3 and have never run into a website i couldnt view on the mac. im not saying they dont exist, im saying the are insignificant and obscure. so some weird webmaster in some podunk site uses some obsolete technology to code his site, id say this is his problem not apple's. you can never stop some weirdo from using some weird code, but the overwhelming majority of sites work perfectly well. if you want to find obscure sites the mac cant render we can match them with obscure sites peecees cant render. so get over it.

macs are far more compatible than peecees, so dont even go there, hell peecees have trouble talking to other peecees let alone another platform. im not even going to get into this more because i think we are all familiar with apple's dominance in this area.

and as far as QT. again get over it. i can play any media file on my mac that i can play on a peecee and its actually much easier on the mac. if you figured out how to play divx files on a pc then let me tell you it never gets even that complicated on the mac.

and as far as vpc. it is relevant. because its yet one more thing macs can do that pcs cant (or cant well). lets see you run osx on your wintel pos. so in those few instances you find you need a pc you can just run vpc instead, whereas on the pc if you run into one of the many limitations of windows there is no running a mac app short of buying a mac.

if you want to keep the blinders while covering your ears screaming i dont want to learn, then fine, but please dont come around here and tell people who have actually explored the possibility that you know better. its insulting to us, and it doesnt reflect well on you. if you have problems on your mac, ask questions dont just assume you cant do something or that there is a 'problem' with apple.

[gopher]

Apple won't support ActiveX because it opens you to a whole lot of possible viruses. Apple supports Java which is a much more open standard. Use VirtualPC if there is a webpage you can't browse otherwise.

Originally posted by ftaok
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. On the Internet, the OS should be invisible. Everything should work regardless of platform. If Apple wants to get a larger market share (that was the point of this thread), they will have to convince people that Macs are compatible. And they are, for the most part.

And who's gonna take the time to write to webmasters? If Apple wanted to correct this, they should be encouraging them to use the standards, not the end user.

As far as Microsoft Java and Jscript, I don't know enough about it. ActiveX, on the other hand, does allow for some neat little applets. Maybe Apple should support ActiveX.

And while they're at it, they should release some plug-ins for QT so that I can play avi's without going through a whole rig-a-more-roll.

And don't give me the whole "buy VPC" argument. Why would I want to pay $200 to view webpages that I should be able to view on my Mac?

[Backtothemac]

Rant, Rant, Rant, Blah, Blah, Blah. Look the reason that your TiBook is slower is simple, and it has nothing to do with X and Moto. Now, your Celeron, Athlon, whatever you have, has the page in cache. That is the reason that it is coming up so fast. Another thing that is the problem is IE. It really does suck. Get Mozilla and tell me that it is taking that long. If so, then my iBook 600 will blow the friggin doors off your Ti. Have you bothered to think that there may be something wrong with it. Is it jus the internet, or all apps. If it is all Apps, then it is probably a memory problem or a hard drive problem.

Look, PC's are good at some things *cough* like crashing, but there are things that Macs can do that PC's can't. So, choose a platform, and live with it. Bi@ching about it will not do anyone any good. Something you want to do with a PC, but you only have a Mac. Get VPC. It is a viable alternative. And don't say not to say get VPC. If you own a PC and want to do something Mac only, then you have to get a Mac. At least this is a viable use for Mac users.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
the whole "you cant do certain things on the mac you can do on the pc" is a comment that is so inherently flawed it always shocks me. but like the other misconceptions it continues to be things people like ftaok use to make their rather poor arguments. you seem to loose track of the things that you can do on a mac that you cant do on a pc, which far outnumber the things you can do on a pc you cant do on a mac.

activex? damn, who cares. ive been using mozilla on osx and ie on osx before it since dp3 and have never run into a website i couldnt view on the mac. im not saying they dont exist, im saying the are insignificant and obscure. so some weird webmaster in some podunk site uses some obsolete technology to code his site, id say this is his problem not apple's. you can never stop some weirdo from using some weird code, but the overwhelming majority of sites work perfectly well. if you want to find obscure sites the mac cant render we can match them with obscure sites peecees cant render. so get over it.

macs are far more compatible than peecees, so dont even go there, hell peecees have trouble talking to other peecees let alone another platform. im not even going to get into this more because i think we are all familiar with apple's dominance in this area.

and as far as QT. again get over it. i can play any media file on my mac that i can play on a peecee and its actually much easier on the mac. if you figured out how to play divx files on a pc then let me tell you it never gets even that complicated on the mac.

and as far as vpc. it is relevant. because its yet one more thing macs can do that pcs cant (or cant well). lets see you run osx on your wintel pos. so in those few instances you find you need a pc you can just run vpc instead, whereas on the pc if you run into one of the many limitations of windows there is no running a mac app short of buying a mac.

if you want to keep the blinders while covering your ears screaming i dont want to learn, then fine, but please dont come around here and tell people who have actually explored the possibility that you know better. its insulting to us, and it doesnt reflect well on you. if you have problems on your mac, ask questions dont just assume you cant do something or that there is a 'problem' with apple. I know there are a lot of things that you can do with a Mac that you can't do with a PC. Hell, I use a Mac. The whole point of this thread is "What is Apple's biggest problem" in regards to market share. I stated that the "average joe" would respond that Macs aren't compatible. I know that they are compatible (for the most part), but the general perception out there is that they're not.

And to dismiss the non-use of ActiveX (and other web standards) as being the work of po-dunk webmasters is very short sighted. I doubt very much that you think that Microsoft is a po-dunk company.

And the QT thing. There are a lot of avi files that I got from the Internet (directly and indirectly) that I can't play on my Mac. These play fine on my PC, with no effort. To get them to work with my Mac, I'd need to convert them to a .mov file and then mess with the sound. Does that sound "easy" to you?

Look, I have no blinders on. I'm trying to keep with the topic at hand. You are the one that keeps taking the arguments off-topic. I know that Macs are superior to PCs (for my needs). The topic at hand is about getting the Mac market share up higher.

[jamesbhai]

as glad as i am to know that AlphaTech is uninterested in sports (not the eurosports, i'm guessing), i don't think flaming everything around accomplishes much. go to the site, run the test and report. geez, reading this is maddening.

my roommate has a tibook 400 and it is indeed slower surfing the web than it was under 9. so is my pismo 400. i just bought a new iBook and will be interested to see how that responds. some pages are snappy, but others are iffy that are not iffy under 9. one way to test is to try the same sites in classic and in X.

it doesn't matter if it's the browser, if it's the OS, if it's someone who doesn't run utilities weekly (you shouldn't HAVE to do that to get basic performance, tho it's nice for long-term maintenance), if the software that apple bundles with OS X for the internet is slower than a pc, it is a problem. sure, an experienced user can install other programs and run utilities and check apple support, but you can't expect that from most people, particularly if you are talking about convincincing PC users to try the mac. they shouldn't have to do that either. either apple could bundle netscape with X (tho i have speed issues with netscape as well as some pages not showing up properly) or hopefully jaguar will solve the problem.

it doesn't matter if it's apple, if it's IE, if it's support or whatever, what matters is the bottom line of speed. i am guessing that from what i have heard of jaguar, many of these 'known issues' will be resolved in 2 months.

so, just hang in there and see if jaguar fixes the problem. OS X is still a work in progress. i'm being patient and giving apple all the leeway it needs (read: jaguar) for the time being. if jaguar on the iBook is slow, THEN i'll be pissed.

:rolleyes:

[ftaok]

Originally posted by gopher
Apple won't support ActiveX because it opens you to a whole lot of possible viruses. Apple supports Java which is a much more open standard. Use VirtualPC if there is a webpage you can't browse otherwise.
Are viruses the only reason that Apple won't support ActiveX? Java is fine, but from what I've seen, the ActiveX applets seem so much more robust.

And I'm not gonna spend $200 on VPC to get ActiveX support. It's not worth it.

Hey, maybe Apple will support ActiveX in the future. Maybe not. It would be nice if they did, so that I can access my portfolio on my Mac, but there are other alternatives, I guess.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
The whole point of this thread is "What is Apple's biggest problem" in regards to market share. I stated that the "average joe" would respond that Macs aren't compatible. I know that they are compatible (for the most part), but the general perception out there is that they're not.


The reason for that has nothing to do with Apple. Here is the reason that the average Joe doesn't know.

Because the average person in this country doesn't take the time to educate themselves with products, and the companies that make them. Period that is it. That and the 2 billion a year that Intel spends in advertising. Apple doesn't have a problem. This is what I have said from jump in this thread. The problem lies with perceived problems. To say that everything doesn't work as easy as it should is just ********** stupid. Does everything work as easy as it should in Windoze? No. How about a 747. Is everything as easy as it should be there?

Look, there is no such thing as a perfect computer. There never has been, and there never will be. The reason is that some software company will choose not to support a certain platform, or a printer driver won't work. The fact is that you can't keep everyone happy.

Stop the B*tching. Stop the crying. Everyone has roaches.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Are viruses the only reason that Apple won't support ActiveX? Java is fine, but from what I've seen, the ActiveX applets seem so much more robust.

And I'm not gonna spend $200 on VPC to get ActiveX support. It's not worth it.

Hey, maybe Apple will support ActiveX in the future. Maybe not. It would be nice if they did, so that I can access my portfolio on my Mac, but there are other alternatives, I guess.

Man, please understand this. It is not up to Apple to support ActiveX, DirectX, or any other "standard" out there. Is it Apple's responsibility to support Cannon printers? No. It is the people that program the browsers and the people at ActiveX to support OS X, not the other way around. If you want to fire shots at someone, fire it at the people making the browsers.

Now when Apple starts making a browser that doesn't support ActiveX, then you have a legit gripe. Oh, and VPC. You can do a lot more than ActiveX. It is so worth the money.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


The reason for that has nothing to do with Apple. Here is the reason that the average Joe doesn't know.

Because the average person in this country doesn't take the time to educate themselves with products, and the companies that make them. Period that is it. That and the 2 billion a year that Intel spends in advertising. Apple doesn't have a problem. This is what I have said from jump in this thread. The problem lies with perceived problems. To say that everything doesn't work as easy as it should is just ********** stupid. Does everything work as easy as it should in Windoze? No. How about a 747. Is everything as easy as it should be there?

Look, there is no such thing as a perfect computer. There never has been, and there never will be. The reason is that some software company will choose not to support a certain platform, or a printer driver won't work. The fact is that you can't keep everyone happy.

Stop the B*tching. Stop the crying. Everyone has roaches. Hey, I totally agree with you. The average joe is stupid and uninformed. It's all about marketing.

But one of Apple's slogans is "Everything is easier on a Mac". For the most part, that's true. If they're saying that "everthing" is easier, then it should be.

BTW, how do you expect someone to get educated about Macs if you all (mostly the super-high-post-count guys) attack every time some newbie asks a legitimate question?

I'm sticking with my story here. And the topic is relevant. Apple does have a problem with their market share. Will they go out of business because of it? Probably not. Will a bigger share be better? Probably.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Man, please understand this. It is not up to Apple to support ActiveX, DirectX, or any other "standard" out there. Is it Apple's responsibility to support Cannon printers? No. It is the people that program the browsers and the people at ActiveX to support OS X, not the other way around. If you want to fire shots at someone, fire it at the people making the browsers.

Now when Apple starts making a browser that doesn't support ActiveX, then you have a legit gripe. Oh, and VPC. You can do a lot more than ActiveX. It is so worth the money. OK, about the printers. No, it's not Apple's responsibility to support Canon's printers.

About ActiveX. I did some research about this back when I got my iBook (last July). For ActiveX to work, it needs to be supported on the OS level, not the browser. For whatever reason, it's not like Java, etc. in this manner.

And for the record, I was thinking about getting VPC. Maybe just the DOS version. I have a legitimate copy of Win95 that I could put on it.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Hey, I totally agree with you. The average joe is stupid and uninformed. It's all about marketing.

But one of Apple's slogans is "Everything is easier on a Mac". For the most part, that's true. If they're saying that "everthing" is easier, then it should be.

BTW, how do you expect someone to get educated about Macs if you all (mostly the super-high-post-count guys) attack every time some newbie asks a legitimate question?

I'm sticking with my story here. And the topic is relevant. Apple does have a problem with their market share. Will they go out of business because of it? Probably not. Will a bigger share be better? Probably.

1st, I am not attacking you. If I were, it would be a lot harsher than it has been so far. ;) Second. If Apple has a better market share, who does that help? You? Apple? The only thing that it could possibly do is bring some more software over to the good side of the force :D

Now, truthfully, everything is easier on a Mac. Put a Mac and XP box next to each other, and burn mp3's (oh, sorry can't do it on XP without spending xtra). Create a home movie, do those types of things. You will see, that everything is easier on a mac.

Will Apple go out of buisness. No, now friggin way. Not unless they revamp the whole line next year with the cube replacing everything and price it at 4,000 bucks. Apple is where they want to be. Steve doesn't want to be Bill. He doesn't want Apple to be Microsoft. He want's Apple to be a very successful company, and give plent back to the investors. That is what they are doing, and will continue to do. If they get a 50% market share, hey great, but it won't friggin happen. They are the 4th largest seller of personal computers in the world, and they don't sell PC's. See my point.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
OK, about the printers. No, it's not Apple's responsibility to support Canon's printers.

About ActiveX. I did some research about this back when I got my iBook (last July). For ActiveX to work, it needs to be supported on the OS level, not the browser. For whatever reason, it's not like Java, etc. in this manner.

And for the record, I was thinking about getting VPC. Maybe just the DOS version. I have a legitimate copy of Win95 that I could put on it.

If that is the case, then Apple should add the support at the OS level. Now, as far as VPC. Go for it, it is worth if anything for when a friend says, "man, you have a Mac, they don't do anything well, they don't even run Windoze." BOOM, fireup VPC, oh, really.

As far as your copy being legit? Who cares, steal them all, rape microsoft for all that you can.. ;)

Arn, tounge firmly in cheek on this ok...:(

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
1st, I am not attacking you. If I were, it would be a lot harsher than it has been so far. ;) Second. If Apple has a better market share, who does that help? You? Apple? The only thing that it could possibly do is bring some more software over to the good side of the force :D

Now, truthfully, everything is easier on a Mac. Put a Mac and XP box next to each other, and burn mp3's (oh, sorry can't do it on XP without spending xtra). Create a home movie, do those types of things. You will see, that everything is easier on a mac.

Will Apple go out of buisness. No, now friggin way. Not unless they revamp the whole line next year with the cube replacing everything and price it at 4,000 bucks. Apple is where they want to be. Steve doesn't want to be Bill. He doesn't want Apple to be Microsoft. He want's Apple to be a very successful company, and give plent back to the investors. That is what they are doing, and will continue to do. If they get a 50% market share, hey great, but it won't friggin happen. They are the 4th largest seller of personal computers in the world, and they don't sell PC's. See my point. Thanks for not attacking.

As for the market share. A bigger market share would definately help out. The Mac would be a more compelling platform to develop software for. Plus, the hardware manufacturers would have more incentive to support the Mac platform. A larger share would be good for everyone involved with the Mac.

And I know that Apple is very successful. Plus, they're one of the few computer companies actually making money. That's all well and good, but to continue to succeed, you need to grow. Investors will dump the stock in a heartbeat if they didn't think that Apple will continue to grow the bottom line.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
Thanks for not attacking.

As for the market share. A bigger market share would definately help out. The Mac would be a more compelling platform to develop software for. Plus, the hardware manufacturers would have more incentive to support the Mac platform. A larger share would be good for everyone involved with the Mac.

And I know that Apple is very successful. Plus, they're one of the few computer companies actually making money. That's all well and good, but to continue to succeed, you need to grow. Investors will dump the stock in a heartbeat if they didn't think that Apple will continue to grow the bottom line.

Well, you are right and not right at the same time. Yes, increased market share could bring more software development, but the systems, and the roll out of them would not change. Apple prides itself on people being able to use a system for longer than you can a PC. The biggest problem that Apple has is lack of reaction to preceived problems by Joe Public. That is what they have to counter, and they have to do with ads. Period. Dump some of that money, and get the word out.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, you are right and not right at the same time. Yes, increased market share could bring more software development, but the systems, and the roll out of them would not change. Apple prides itself on people being able to use a system for longer than you can a PC. The biggest problem that Apple has is lack of reaction to preceived problems by Joe Public. That is what they have to counter, and they have to do with ads. Period. Dump some of that money, and get the word out. I'll buy that. I agree that the biggest problem is how Macs are perceived by the regular public. The "Myths" page is helpful, but they need to put that stuff in magazines and TV spots.

I try to convince people to get Macs whenever I can. Even went into a Gateway store and put the Apple Store up on every computer. But Apple has to meet me halfway on this and change the perception that the average guy holds.

<sigh> Maybe you're right. Maybe Apple doesn't really want to get at the average user. I don't know, I'll just continue to tow the line.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by ftaok
I'll buy that. I agree that the biggest problem is how Macs are perceived by the regular public. The "Myths" page is helpful, but they need to put that stuff in magazines and TV spots.

u just said it right there....people are afraid of things they do not understand or that they simply just do not know...and this is a big problem Apple's been facing up to date...

they got really burned on the Mhz-Myth...they honestly shouldn't have thought that they could win over the public with selling 400-500 Mhz rated processors but claiming that they perform better than 800-1000 Mhz processors....in general...Americans just don't buy into it...

I think the problem is with people in general...not Apple....everyone wants instant gratification...and is too god damned worried about labels and what looks or sounds good instead of what really matters... :rolleyes:

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by xrhajj
Ok, get your panties out of your ass!!!! it's pretty conspicuous (get a dictionary) you can't read!!! I like Apple, I won't have bought one if I didn't!!! this is my first Apple Computer, and I was under the impresion that Apple's OSX was world class material, and I think it is, but Every ASC has told me that OS X has a problem with IE and any other Browser, and Jaguar was the solution to this problem!!! But My point still stands, I spent over $3600 for my Tibook and software to convert to Apple, and it is still not paying for itself!!!
And as far as Basketball, Your just mad Boston Blows!!!

[moderator's note: lets try to remain civil] I haven't cared about sports in many, many years, long before I moved back to MA. There are MANY finer things in life then siting in front of the tube turning your few remaining brain cells to mush.

Hmmmm $3600 for a 400MHz rev. a TiBook... I have a word that describes you... 'sucker', maybe you should watch less sports since you can't live with many less brain cells.

Have you even TRIED using netscape??? From the sound of it, you wouldn't even know how to install it, never mind use it. As for taking other people's word for things... I almost feel sorry for you, then again, I don't.

You still blame Apple for ie's code. OS X IS a world class OS, take off the blinders. IT's not ALL about web surfing. If that is all you really need to do, then you should have spent less money and gone for an iBook. [moderator's note: lets try to remain civil]. :rolleyes:

[Rajj]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Rant, Rant, Rant, Blah, Blah, Blah. Look the reason that your TiBook is slower is simple, and it has nothing to do with X and Moto. Now, your Celeron, Athlon, whatever you have, has the page in cache. That is the reason that it is coming up so fast. Another thing that is the problem is IE. It really does suck. Get Mozilla and tell me that it is taking that long. If so, then my iBook 600 will blow the friggin doors off your Ti. Have you bothered to think that there may be something wrong with it. Is it jus the internet, or all apps. If it is all Apps, then it is probably a memory problem or a hard drive problem.

Look, PC's are good at some things *cough* like crashing, but there are things that Macs can do that PC's can't. So, choose a platform, and live with it. Bi@ching about it will not do anyone any good. Something you want to do with a PC, but you only have a Mac. Get VPC. It is a viable alternative. And don't say not to say get VPC. If you own a PC and want to do something Mac only, then you have to get a Mac. At least this is a viable use for Mac users.

VPC 5 blows, I have it and I would rather use my compaq notebook P2 with MMX... UMMM that's what VPC5 emulates!!!and it s still slow!! And you are just as stupid as Mr Beantown (Alpha Suck)!!!, I took My Tibook to the apple store in Newport beach,CA and Glendale, CA and they both said the same thing, that OSX has a browser problem with IE and any other!!! [moderator's note: lets try to remain civil]!

[Rajj]

Originally posted by AlphaTech


Get your head out of you ass... I haven't cared about sports in many, many years, long before I moved back to MA. There are MANY finer things in life then siting in front of the tube turning your few remaining brain cells to mush.

Hmmmm $3600 for a 400MHz rev. a TiBook... I have a word that describes you... 'sucker', maybe you should watch less sports since you can't live with many less brain cells.

Have you even TRIED using netscape??? From the sound of it, you wouldn't even know how to install it, never mind use it. As for taking other people's word for things... I almost feel sorry for you, then again, I don't.

You still blame Apple for ie's code. OS X IS a world class OS, take off the blinders. IT's not ALL about web surfing. If that is all you really need to do, then you should have spent less money and gone for an iBook. Dumb ass. :rolleyes:

[moderator's note: lets try to remain civil]! I said I spent $3600 on my Tibook and software dumbass!!! And as far as Netscape, I tried it and blows just like you Alpha punk!!!! I also put my Tibook to work everyday editing picx and quicktime movies.

You need to watch sports or do something, besides jacking off with your mac obe-won

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by xrhajj


VPC 5 blows, I have it and I would rather use my compaq notebook P2 with MMX... UMMM that's what VPC5 emulates!!!and it s still slow!! And you are just as stupid as Mr Beantown (Alpha Suck)!!!, I took My Tibook to the apple store in Newport beach,CA and Glendale, CA and they both said the same thing, that OSX has a browser problem with IE and any other!!! So go chew on some bricks or something before you start runnin' your fingers!!!

Ok, well you know what. Two words for you and they are not merry Christmas. VPC is slow, but it emulates at 400 mHZ on my uber iBook. It is stable, doesn't crash, and gets the job done. I gave you valid points to consider with your Ti, and all you can do is act like a 12 year old. Grow up. Oh, and check you spelling also. :p

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by xrhajj
You need to watch sports or do something, besides jacking off with your mac obe-won

Oh, God GoCyrus is back!!!! Well, better enjoy this before Arn closes the thread. Look. I was trying to give you valid points to consider, and explain the problem to you, and possible solutions. Alpha, well, he is being Alpha, if you post inaccurate data or stuff, then you will get slamed. Now I will retire to another thread while the bombs go off in here.

[Rajj]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Ok, well you know what. Two words for you and they are not merry Christmas. VPC is slow, but it emulates at 400 mHZ on my uber iBook. It is stable, doesn't crash, and gets the job done. I gave you valid points to consider with your Ti, and all you can do is act like a 12 year old. Grow up. Oh, and check you spelling also. :p


[moderator's note: lets TRY to remain civil]

Second, You points are inconsequential to me you vile truckstop boy!!

[britboy]

Originally posted by xrhajj

You need to watch sports or do something, besides jacking off with your mac obe-won


Nice to see that we can have good, adult, mature conversations here.... :rolleyes:

Try being a little more constructive with your pie-slinging.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by xrhajj



First off Country boy, I wasn't talking to you!!! so go pick some cotton or eat some red sand or something.

Second, You points are inconsequential to me you vile truckstop boy!!

Ha! This is so entertaining. Yes, you were talking to me, as I was the one that suggested that you get VPC. So, I take it that you were talking to me. As for Country boy, you damn right I am. 6'6 275 lbs of country boy that would lay the heart of dixie down on you in a second if you were here. :D

Dude, grow up. This is thread on an internet site. Your original thoughts were valid, but now, you are just a child.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by xrhajj



First off Country boy, I wasn't talking to you!!! so go pick some cotton or eat some red sand or something.

Second, You points are inconsequential to me you vile truckstop boy!!

dude u need to chill out a bit...

if u start kicking it on everyone in here...no one is going to like u...:rolleyes:

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by eyelikeart


dude u need to chill out a bit...

if u start kicking it on everyone in here...no one is going to like u...:rolleyes:

True. Maybe we could talk him into coming to NOLA for the fest, and then I could teach him a thing or two about country boys. Sorry for being inmature on this, but I cannot tollerate ignorance out of people.

[ChilliMac]

I have been evaluating Quicktime 6 for a few weeks now and here is what I've observed:

1) Streaming is much smoother and roughly 25% faster (on a Sawtooth 400Mhz)

2) Does not play many AVIs or Divx any better than Quicktime 5!

That's it!

Don't expect a revolution when r's are in short supply!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ChilliMac
I have been evaluating Quicktime 6 for a few weeks now and here is what I've observed:

1) Streaming is much smoother and roughly 25% faster (on a Sawtooth 400Mhz)

2) Does not play many AVIs or Divx any better than Quicktime 5!

That's it!

Don't expect a revolution when r's are in short supply!

Actually, it is the future of QE 6 that is promising. If they can get MPEG 4 as a standard for streaming video, as well as other forms then then it will be a massive revolution. Had some extra r's so I though I would use them.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ftaok
And the QT thing. There are a lot of avi files that I got from the Internet (directly and indirectly) that I can't play on my Mac. These play fine on my PC, with no effort. To get them to work with my Mac, I'd need to convert them to a .mov file and then mess with the sound. Does that sound "easy" to you?

NOT TRUE. as i said before just because you are not willing to figure things out doesnt mean it doesnt work.

my point that ive stated,is not the 'problem' you claaim exist, as these are all rong. the problem as i stated, is misconceptions. and its hard to say its a problem in the first place because apple knows about it and is addressing it. its not like apple is blind to it.

im sorry my last post was so long as it seems clear you didnt read it.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


NOT TRUE. as i said before just because you are not willing to figure things out doesnt mean it doesnt work.

my point that ive stated,is not the 'problem' you claaim exist, as these are all rong. the problem as i stated, is misconceptions. and its hard to say its a problem in the first place because apple knows about it and is addressing it. its not like apple is blind to it.

im sorry my last post was so long as it seems clear you didnt read it.

Hey, glad to see you get back in the fun Lemon ;)
Be careful though there have been a few pies going around in here as I am sure you can see by the crusts all over the floor.

You are dead solid on perfect. The perceived problems with Macs are not real problems at all, but are usually ID ten T errors. You know what those are right.

ID10T errors

Not saying that people who can't figure stuff out are idiots, that is not true. We all have not been able to figure out something. But the fact is that when people don't take the time to figure out the problems then......

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
NOT TRUE. as i said before just because you are not willing to figure things out doesnt mean it doesnt work.

my point that ive stated,is not the 'problem' you claaim exist, as these are all rong. the problem as i stated, is misconceptions. and its hard to say its a problem in the first place because apple knows about it and is addressing it. its not like apple is blind to it.

im sorry my last post was so long as it seems clear you didnt read it. OK, let's clear this QT/avi thing.

I have a whole bunch of avi's that I can play on my PC without any trouble. No messing around with codecs or converters. Just open up Media Player and viola!

When I try them on my Mac, the same exact avi's will not play on QT Player. Hell, they won't even play on Media Player for Mac. I've downloaded and installed various codecs and plug-ins, without any success. The only way that seems to work is to convert them to a mov file and futz with the sound track.

In this scenario, doesn't it seem easier on the PC? How is my stated problem "all wrong"?

I'm sure that Apple is working on the problem, but the claim that "everything is easier" on a Mac is out there. In this case, it clearly is not easier on a Mac.

And to completely dismiss my point as me not trying to figure out a problem is quite short-sighted. Why don't you go back and read what I wrote back on the 2nd page.

I wrote that Apple's biggest problem is what the average joe thinks about the platform. Ask anyone unfamiliar with Macs why they won't buy one and it's likely that they'd answer, "because they aren't compatible". I never said that it was true (with the exception of ActiveX and many avi's).

It's not like I didn't look into these problems and just gave up. I tried to get ActiveX to work. I've tried to get an easy way to view avi's. I've looked into it.

You're just being stubborn.

[gopher]

And anyone supporting it should think twice about it.

AVI quality is very poor compared to Quicktime.
Quicktime is crossplatform and works crossplatform.
Quicktime is free as well. Write the webmasters who use AVI and ask them to use Quicktime instead. It isn't that difficult.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime

Older versions of AVI are easily converted to Quicktime with a free software called Video For Windows:

http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3000-2200-892955.html?tag=lst-0-1

Quicktime 4 and 5 support the AVI found on digital cameras anyway. Many digital cameras include a copy of Quicktime with their software.

[AmbitiousLemon]

ftaok: my problem with you is you come in here acting like you have all the answers and half of what you say is not even true. if you need help, the people here are very helpful. ask questions before you condemn. i dont "attack" newbies. and few here woudl ever be rude to someone for asking a question, but thats not what you have done here. you are assuming much and thinking little. and you better believe im being stbborn — im right.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
ftaok: my problem with you is you come in here acting like you have all the answers and half of what you say is not even true. if you need help, the people here are very helpful. ask questions before you condemn. i dont "attack" newbies. and few here woudl ever be rude to someone for asking a question, but thats not what you have done here. you are assuming much and thinking little. and you better believe im being stbborn — im right. I don't have any answers, just opinions.

What have I said (in this thread) that isn't true? Please, tell me, because I believe every word that I've typed.

And I've never said that you attack newbies. That's the other guy. You know who I'm talking about.

BTW, I don't have a problem with you at all.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by ftaok
I don't have any answers, just opinions.

What have I said (in this thread) that isn't true? Please, tell me, because I believe every word that I've typed.

And I've never said that you attack newbies. That's the other guy. You know who I'm talking about.

BTW, I don't have a problem with you at all.

He could be talking about me, but I am pretty sure that he is talking about Alpha.
:D

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by ftaok
I don't have any answers, just opinions.

What have I said (in this thread) that isn't true? Please, tell me, because I believe every word that I've typed.

And I've never said that you attack newbies. That's the other guy. You know who I'm talking about.

BTW, I don't have a problem with you at all.

:) np. you know it seems one of the big problems with the boards here (getting off topic i know) is that often we write things casually and then when people read it it sounds very harsh. and then people respond purposely harsh because they think someone is attacking them and it just escalates. sorry if some of my posts seem rude, and sorry if ive responded in a hasrh manner at times.


the biggest wrong thing i was seeing is the continued use of 'i cant play avi on apple' qt plays the majority of avi files. what it doesnt play you can always download a player for. i woudlnt consider this harder than the pc, because there are files on the pc you need different apps or codecs for. quicktime for example. on the pc you have to go download it. just doesnt seem like a fair critisism. (im also guessing the avi files you are trying to view are not 'legal' in the strictist use of the word, which could be why it takes a lil more effort --ie downloading a player)

and in general i think thats the biggest problem with all of the above (yours and others) mac versus pc (thats what this has turned into) debate. people look at the peecee then look at the mac and want it to work the same way. but they are different. if they were the same there would be no reason to use one over the other. you mentionw ebsites that macs cant view. i believe these are few and far between because mac browsers do recognise web standards just as well as pc browsers. sure you can find a site or two that uses some nonstandard codethat wont work on mac, but as i said before im know of a few sites that ie on pc cant rendre either. but the overwhleming majority of sites will be viewable on both. and the few sites that use obscure code most likely arent worth yor time (if they are i would seriously consider writing the webmaster).

its a two way street and people sometimes get lost in the pc does this can the mac match that same behavior exactly. becasue usually the answer is no, the mac does it differently. but most of the differences are positive ones. sure there are a few negatives, but they are rare, and often being addressed actively by apple.

if you really have usability issues (like avi problems) start another thread in the help section and ask people for help. some people here live to answer people's questions. but when you start off by saying "this is the problem with apple..." people often get hostile because we are tired of hearing it. many of us get attacked daily at work or by 'friends' for using amc, and we come here and see pc users or mac newbies saying the same things and it gets unnerving. i apologise for that, but its the way things are. you are in a great mac community here, try to sue the knnowledge base rather than attack it.

and guyus lets try to take it down a notch, some of the posts here are really enough to make me consider closing the thread, but im holding off because i guess im hoping some good can come of it.

[Rajj]

Most of the information listed on this web site is speculation.

All of the **** I say is what I have been thru!!!!

Since some of the people on this web site only have macs, they think that Apple have no flaws, but all technology has flaws!!!

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by xrhajj
Most of the information listed on this web site is speculation.

All of the **** I say is what I have been thru!!!!

Since some of the people on this web site only have macs, they think that Apple have no flaws, but all technology has flaws!!!

Well, this is a rumors site, thus the speculation. You are relaying experiences that do not speak for ALL Mac users, thus you may have a problem with your system as earlier stated. Most of us either work on PC's at the office, or own one. There is not such thing as a perfect computer, you are right there, but I would much prefer OS X to anything Microsoft can create.

Oh, an I do know what I am talking about. I am a Network administrator and an MCP. We have over 400 Macs on the network and 200 PC's.