Microsoft Remains on Offensive with 'Apple Tax' Report and Latest Laptop Ad

[polaris20]

Really? Looks more like 10% Windows zealots, 10% screaming Apple fanboys and 80% people with balanced opinions to me.

That's about right. I'm having a tough time determining which is worse.

[milo]

Not quite true. Windows became dominant because it ran on almost any machine out there. Apple OS became a thing for the chosen wealthy few because it ran on only one kind of machine.

And since it ran on almost any machine, that made it cheaper, which is why it got such dominance. "Apple OS became a thing for the chosen wealthy few" is basically saying it didn't catch on because it was too expensive - you're agreeing with me.

sorry but OSX is WAY less secure than windows, especially when it comes to browsers

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/

I don't buy that. Elsewhere it was reported that windows is just as vulnerable but the only reason it wasn't hacked at the contest was because an update to windows was released just before the contest and the hackers didn't have access to it ahead of time.

Yeah, Mr. Lawyer, you might want to check your specs again. The MacBook Pro (which is just using the REALTEK HD AUDIO CHIPSET, oh sorry, did I pull back the curtain?) is only capable of 192/24 in stereo mode. Which is convenient because IT DOESN'T EVEN OFFER MULTICHANNEL OUTPUT LIKE THE X-FI.

The MBP can output multichannel over the optical, same as any DVD player with optical audio out.

I guarantee you I can.

I'm skeptical you could tell a difference with a double blind listening test set up properly. And no, OWNING a lot of 96k or 192k music doesn't mean you can hear the difference.

[KnightWRX]

Really? Looks more like 10% Windows zealots, 10% screaming Apple fanboys and 80% people with balanced opinions to me.

Looks like the balanced opinions dropped out on page 5 to me. This has been a dance between Macrumors members that are here for Apple rumors, and the "We want a Apple minitower, on the cheap, chop chop" crowd.

[Gasu E.]

I love the MS ads! They are great for Apple! Comparison ads cause the consumer to equate the two brands. They are great for underdogs. It's a wonderful gesture on Microsoft's part that they are willing to promote Apple to this extent. I particularly like the one in which the woman says "I guess I'm just not cool enough for Apple." The message is that dweebs end up with MS, while cool people get Apple. Who wants to be a dweeb?

[rotta]

"Apple OS became a thing for the chosen wealthy few" is basically saying it didn't catch on because it was too expensive - you're agreeing with me.




Not really. The OS'es were built for different processors, it had nothing to do with price. No way you could make a pre-OS X Mac OS run on an Intel machine without some serious tampering (if at all possible).

You would want to run a Mac OS - you buy Apple hardware (+ Apple tax)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Lets get back to the topic. The bottom line is Microsoft is very scared of Apple and thats the truth.

Microsoft has fear in it's heart and thats what the ads are for.

Microsoft is very very scared and thats what the ads are about.


Microsoft is scared of 8-9% market share? Give me a break. There is so much total BS flying in this thread from BOTH sides it's utterly laughable. I mean UTTERLY LAUGHABLE.

Someone points to a browser exploit and tells us how insecure OS X is when hackers are doing REAL damage to Windows every other day in the REAL WORLD. It's a browser exploit...in Safari. By clicking a link no less. Don't use Safari and don't click on untrustworthy sites and links. If you stay away from bad sites (Google marks them for you these days unless you're the unfortunate first person to every visit a hostile site) you won't even get a virus in Windows. In 10 years of using Windows98 to XP, I have YET to get one single virus. What a waste of paying for Norton early on. Now I use a free checker, but it always comes up empty (except for tracking cookies).

I constantly hear this crap about too small a market share to bother writing viruses, but it's a load of utter bologna. The Amiga market was WAY smaller than Apple's current market and we got viruses all the time. Now with the iPhone and iTunes being as popular as they are and Mac sales on the rise, do you seriously think that explains the TOTAL lack of viruses on the Mac? I could easily believe it's a reason we'd see LESS viruses, but come on. There'd have to be at least a few here and there (and I don't mean worms, trojans or spyware, but actual viruses). OS X is based on Unix and that closes a LOT of doors to viruses that Windows has wide open. OS X has a ways to go in the higher level layers of OS X like Safari, but core level viruses would not be easy on OS X. Even so, this idea of invulnerabiity is a definite weakness in the Mac platform. Even ONE good virus could potentially infect most of the Macs out there since almost NO ONE uses a virus checker on a Mac nor is there much support for such in place. It would be comparable to a sneak attack advantage.

Yes, Apple's hardware SUCKS. It just plain SUCKS. There is no other way to put it. The Windows people are 100% right here. It's underpowered and overpriced and no amount of "style" can make up for either one of those. Apple is now using clone hardware and it should sell for clone prices + the OS cost. If the OS is under priced, then let them raise that price and sell reasonably priced hardware. More to the point, if competition were allowed in this country (I guess we're the new Russia now or something gaging by the anti-Psystar people on here), Apple would HAVE to offer reasonable prices. They only have these utterly MASSIVE profit margins because they literally have ZERO competition for hardware for OS X. No, Windows machines *DO NOT* count because they are "not allowed" to run OS X. What makes a Mac a Mac? The OS. PERIOD. Hardware no longer has ANYTHING to do with it. I'm sick and tired of Mac people pretending otherwise and making up EXCUSE AFTER EXCUSE why Macs cost so darn much and offer so little performance compared to a PC that costs 1/2 as much. Apple's ONLY desktop is the Mac Pro (everything else is a laptop in disguise PERIOD and it's easily proven). Yes, it has Xenon processors in it. Big deal. They offer nearly no real world performance gains for most software over a desktop level Core2Quad for 1/2 the price. You can get a quad-core for $1000 now that will BLOW AWAY a $3200 Mac Pro running most software that has any GPU use what-so-ever. That's just plain SICK.

Apple finally updated the Mini and it's STILL overpriced and underpowered, just a little less so in the latter. Minis and Macbooks are still WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to play any real modern games. They're good enough to play games from 2 years ago and only just. Even the Mac Pro with the highest video card offered is a joke compared to an $800 PC with SLI. There is simply NO COMPARISON. Apple has not made ONE BIT of an effort to beef up video card support (SLI in the latest Mac Pro will work in Windows but not OS X for example) or to get retail video cards available so you're not paying Apple 2x as much for the same video card Windows users can get at Best Buy (Apple keeps the extra 100% profit because they're greedy).

People keep saying how Apple is worth it blah blah blah as if that somehow JUSTIFIES 25-50% profit margins due to NO COMPETITION for hardware. 5-15% is normal. In other words, that $3200 Mac Pro should cost more like $2300 and the $2300 one should cost more like $1800. With a few tweaks (using regular quad cores instead of Xeon or even a good higher end core2duo and what not), they could EASILY sell a good mid-range tower for $1200 and STILL make a good profit.

I can virtually GUARANTEE if Mac clones were the norm, prices would be more in lines with PC hardware. And to Apple's advantage, I believe they'd get a LOT more switchers if the prices were similar. I can't tell you how many people I know at work that say they'd like to buy an Apple computer, but they're not paying $1500 for an iMac when they can get a 'good enough' PC for $400-600. You can even get a laptop PC for that much. Apple's cheapest laptop is $1000. That would be a very good mid-range laptop in the PC world these days with many more features than Apple provides (some posts on here provide good lists). Yes, high profit margins make Apple money now, but a larger market share would guarantee a future for Apple whereas a small market share could easily go the other way fast if Windows7 turns out to be all some say it is.


Further, there is a point of diminishing returns. Increasing the sample rate to 96kHz helps increase detail but not "twice as much" as 48kHz. It takes twice as much data to reflect a subtle improvement. I consider myself an audiophile of sorts, and I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless CD; I can hear the difference between 44/48kHz and 96kHz - especially in string instruments such as guitar, and piano. There is a vibrancy and warmth, a depth, that is missing at lower sampling/bitrates. This is what the vinyl fanatics were on about all this time. But a causal listener who can't tell the difference between 128kbps AAC and a CD probably won't spot the difference.


Give me a break. You simply CANNOT hear any such differences you claim. I'd bet money on it. NO "audiophile" has EVER proven ONE CLAIM on bogus pretenses (i.e. what's beyond the levels of human hearing) EVER. Show me one double blind test that statistically PROVES you can hear such a difference and I'll believe you. Just ONE. You can't and won't provide one because you cannot hear those differences because those changes have NO affect on audible sound to humans. You probably painted your CD edges green too.

The TRUTH about Nyquist sampling is that 2x the frequency you want to record contains 100% of the musical data within. There is not "improved detail" by increasing sampling frequency beyond 40kHz and frequency is the *ONLY* thing the sampling rate affects. The word length controls dynamic range. No human can hear more than 21-22kHz when they're children, let alone adults. Any sampling rates beyond 48kHz are only useful for avoiding filtering post-course (but we've had highly effective oversampling since the late '80s that will take care of that nicely; no brick filtering needed anymore). Any word length beyond 20-bit is only useful for headroom while recording. If you honestly believe you can hear more detail from 96kHz recordings, I've got some swamp land in Florida I can sell you too.

There is some validity to the idea that 20-bit word lengths could be useful to extend dynamic range to the limits of human hearing, but if you're listening to material that dynamic over extended periods of time at maximum, you're going to destroy your hearing so it's a limited point at that. 24-bit is overkill on the playback end and once again is only really useful for recording due to headroom (so the recording doesn't hit the rails and distort).


I listen to a lot of high-res audio (SACD, DVD-A, etc.). I have an extensive collection of 96kHz and above music. Do you even know what you're talking about?


Clearly, you do not. The recording industry would do better to focus on better quality recordings so a downmixed CD sounds as good as it can rather than wasting time on formats people won't buy just to sucker people into paying for something they cannot hear a difference from anyway. Multi-channel is nice and it's the only real reason I have any interest in DTS, DVD-Audio or SACD (I do have a DVD-Audio player built into my DVD player), but there are far too few recordings that utilize it and most of the ones I've heard clearly aren't utilizing the dynamic range levels therein. The extra bits wasted on increased sampling rates and word lengths is just space filler, though on the playback end.

I realize you will vehemently deny all this and claim your "golden ears" can hear those differences, but like I said, show me one VALID double blind test that proves you can hear the differences you claim and then I'll believe you. It's simple scientific proof that will show your claims are valid and not just made up in your head (people fool themselves all the time in high-end audio; people make FORTUNES selling snake-oil in this industry. I know because I followed it for over a decade). But quite frankly, your claims are beyond the science of human hearing and so therefore I have no faith in your ability to produce said results. Most "bad" sounding CDs are due to poor mastering techniques used to make music sound "loud" for the radio. This is a well known FACT. Many SACD type recordings are ONLY made with high-end playback in mind so of course they sound better. But if they were mastered to CD and were 2-channels only, they would sound identical in frequency response and almost identical in dynamic range (very few recordings at any recording rates have noise floors below 90dB to begin with).

"LPs" sounded better to some people due to their even-order harmonic distortions that are inherent to the format. Even order distortion sounds "warm" to the ears. All vacuum tube-based distortion pedals for guitars, for example, produce even-order distortion and thus they sound pleasant compared to some ear digital ones that produced both even and odd or just odd harmonic distortion. However, even-order distortion is recordable. If you record your LPs on a good deck to CD, the CD will sound IDENTICAL to the LP played on that gear. This is an easily proven fact in a double blind test. Thus, the CD format is not to blame. The idea that LPs have frequencies beyond CDs is just plain laughable. Most LPs have highly distorted frequencies in the 15kHz range. There is NO usable signal in the 20kHz range at all. 96kHz wouldn't be recording ANYTHING but noise off an LP. So this idea that 96kHz sampling rate somehow produces the "magic" sound of the LP doesn't make any logical sense.

Put simply, good recordings sound good and bad recordings sound bad, whether on SACD or regular CD.

[milo]

Not really. The OS'es were built for different processors, it had nothing to do with price. No way you could make a pre-OS X Mac OS run on an Intel machine without some serious tampering (if at all possible).

You would want to run a Mac OS - you buy Apple hardware (+ Apple tax)

I'm not sure why you keep saying it had nothing to do with price.

"No way you could make a pre-OS X Mac OS run on an Intel machine without some serious tampering (if at all possible)."

Exactly - so your options were a cheaper intel machine running dos/windows or a more expensive mac. The price is the reason windows won out.

"You would want to run a Mac OS - you buy Apple hardware (+ Apple tax)"

Again, exactly - as you say, the apple option is more expensive, which is exactly why it lost out in market share. You're still agreeing with me. You insist that price has nothing to do with it, then you turn around and give reasons that demonstrate that apple was more expensive, which hurt their market share.

[BongoBanger]

Looks like the balanced opinions dropped out on page 5 to me. This has been a dance between Macrumors members that are here for Apple rumors, and the "We want a Apple minitower, on the cheap, chop chop" crowd.

It's more by person than post count. The evengelists tend to post more.

It's a shame it's just the same bloody stuff over and over again.

[dejo]

Microsoft is scared of 8-9% market share? Give me a break.
Well, if they're not scared, how do you explain them targeting Apple directly with these Laptop Hunter ads and the 'Apple Tax' report?

[Eidorian]

Well, if they're not scared, how do you explain them targeting Apple directly with these Laptop Hunter ads and the 'Apple Tax' report?Nowhere to go but down when you're at the top. :D

[-hh]

In these ads, Microsoft is trying to associate real people with PCs, and hoping for some - or many - Apple fanboys - or maybe Apple Inc. - to show their most elitist and ugly faces going after the PC , i.e. "real people".

Looks like they succeed....

Since Apple has to date utterly ignored this MS advertising campaign, there has been no show of 'Ugly Faces'.

And the ugly fanboi face is very much a two way street, particualrly since there's statistically going to be more ugly MS fanbois than ugly OSX fanboies if for no other reason than the 90%-10% (or 97%-3%) marketshare split.

If there is to be any pro-Apple response in the near term, I'd use the "Apple Tax" report as my fodder...and how it shows that MS is willing to lie in order to not lose customers.



Microsoft is scared of 8-9% market share? Give me a break. There is so much total BS flying in this thread from BOTH sides it's utterly laughable. I mean UTTERLY LAUGHABLE.

Perhaps you missed the post that quoted MS's 10 K report. Here's Microsoft's current 10-K filing at the SEC. (http://http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312508162768/d10k.htm)

On page 13:

An important element of our business model has been to create platform-based ecosystems on which many participants can build diverse solutions. A competing vertically-integrated model, in which a single firm controls both the software and hardware elements of a product, has been successful with certain consumer products such as personal computers, mobile phones and digital music players. We also offer vertically-integrated hardware and software products; however, efforts to compete with the vertically integrated model may increase our cost of sales and reduce operating margins.

The key question to ask yourself is that if this threat to MS's business isn't specifically referring to Apple, then who could it be referring to?

I constantly hear this crap about too small a market share to bother writing viruses, but it's a load of utter bologna. The Amiga market was WAY smaller than Apple's current market and we got viruses all the time.

The fact that Vista had malware before it passed OS X in marketshare also illustrates that malware isn't that simple.

Plus since Apple buyers tend to be more affluent, doesn't that also suggest that (famous Bank robber) Willie Sutton's Law applies? (Q: Why do you rob banks? A: "because that's where the money is.")


...do you seriously think that explains the TOTAL lack of viruses on the Mac? I could easily believe it's a reason we'd see LESS viruses, but come on. There'd have to be at least a few here and there...

A straightforward intellectual excercise is to calcuate how much malware should exist, on a "per capita" basis using respective market shares. Now compare that 'expected value' number with reality and try to ascertain why they differ by ~2 full orders of magnitude. Long story short, the 'market share' argument doesn't cut it.

Yes, Apple's hardware SUCKS....They only have these utterly MASSIVE profit margins because they literally have ZERO competition for hardware for OS X.

And IIRC, Microsoft's profit margins are higher than Apple's. Its mostly just the PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc) who are the ones caught in the 'commodity market' price squeeze.

I can virtually GUARANTEE if Mac clones were the norm, prices would be more in lines with PC hardware.

I'll disagree on that one. Microsoft has roughly either a 10:1 advantage (USA) or a 20:1 advantage (worldwide) in OS product sales versus Apple with which to amortize their development costs of Windows.

If we simplistically say that distribution costs are $5 and that MS sells OEM licenses for $30), then if we assume that Apple's OS development costs & profits are to be the same as MS, then w can calculate's Apple's "break equal" selling price for OS X for this cloning scenario.

For 10:1, its (10*$25+$5) = $255 ($225 more)
For 20:1, its (20*$25+$5) = $505 ($475 more).

The current reality is that because Apple limits hardware permutations (no clones), their OS development costs shouldn't be as high as MS's, so reality works out differently. However, on the hardware side, Apple does take a higher profit margin than the likes of Dell or HP, so the loss of this profit center would have to be shifted to the OS.


Yes, high profit margins make Apple money now, but a larger market share would guarantee a future for Apple whereas a small market share could easily go the other way fast if Windows7 turns out to be all some say it is.

Maybe. But the real danger is contained within the old saying: "We lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume".


-hh

[rotta]

And the ugly fanboi face is very much a two way street, particualrly since there's statistically going to be more ugly MS fanbois than ugly OSX fanboies if for no other reason than the 90%-10% (or 97%-3%) marketshare split.



I don't think the average PC user would care at all about what Apple users may think. In the US Apple marketshare maybe can be as high as 7(?) percent; here in Europe it is probably closer to 3.

I don't mean that most Apple fanboys have an inferiority complex regarding marketshares, but the discussion about what / who is the better is pretty irrelevant among PC users who get along reasonably well with their machines and other software.

[D-Jam]

I'm a PC user, and I prefer Windows to Mac OS. Just personal preference, nothing more.

I've always hated when I run into Mac snobs who talk down to me as some "uneducated" person because I won't jump ship. Even had some claim I'm a fake in my work (Interactive Media Designer) because I don't prefer Macs, as well as DJs think I'm insane for wanting my Toshiba over a Macbook.

These ads speak a partial truth. It is way less expensive to buy a PC over a Mac. I also agree that if you want to do gaming, your options on a PC are way more open than on a Mac.

I think of a Mac as a specialty computer. Kind of why you buy an espresso machine as opposed to a normal coffeemaker. I don't see one buying a Mac just because they want to play video games, look at web sites, and type college papers. Granted you can do most of that on there, most users I've met don't buy Macs for that. I see them buy it to do music and multimedia. I see them buy it for personal preference and such. To me it's like deciding if you want to buy a normal power drill, or the industrial-strength one for special needs.

PLUS....and I said this before....the easiest thing Apple can do to counteract these ads would simply be to point out how they include iLife and iWork with their computers (I heard they do). So buy that Sony Vaio PLUS MS Office PLUS software to make movies and graphics...and I'm sure it won't be as inexpensive as they claim.

Lord knows when any friend of mine buys a new computer, they're always asking why MS Word isn't on it.

[milo]

the discussion about what / who is the better is pretty irrelevant among PC users who get along reasonably well with their machines and other software.

I suspect it's also pretty irrelevant among mac users who get along well with their machines and other software.

I'm not sure why anyone brought up the whole "fanboi face" thing, this is mainstream advertising and there's no way they did it with the intention of message board reaction.

[rotta]

I'm not sure why you keep saying it had nothing to do with price.



We agree on that, but I don't think that is the only reason.
Back in the day when I bought my first Mac, upgraded to system 7 and sold my IBM-clone, Apple software was superior compared to most DOS-applications. Later, when Apple declined and lost almost all but their most loyal followers, Windows software showed a lot of possibilities that the Mac had never ever seen. Even today, there are much more versatility in the Windows world than will natively run on a Mac.

Just wondering; how many switchers would there really be out there if a Mac could not run any Windows applications on bootcamp or Parallels? If all Windows software you had previously paid for suddenly became useless if you wanted to switch?

As I see it, recent Mac growth has a lot to do with Windows compatibility. Apple may still hold on to their Mac-hardware-only-policy-for-Mac-OS, but they rely heavily on Windows openness according to hardware. Microsoft tried to deny users of the cheaper Vista versions to run on Parallels, but that was just plain stupid. Today, any Mac user with a modern machine have the security to run windows software that don't exist for the Mac, and even any windows software that is cheaper the the Mac counterpart.

Quite honestly; most of all software I use daily have their windows versions. The only software I would sorely miss if i de-switched back to Windows, is Rapidweaver.

Ok, too much rambling already, but I think it is more complicated than just cost. We will finally see how that works out in todays economy, going from recession to depression??

Having used Macs for more than 20 years (and windows machines as well a few times) I know that all of them could do the job. Different; somewhat, but none a lot better than the other. And the recent price raise on the Mac Pro has really made me think that my next desktop won't run OSX.

[milo]

We agree on that, but I don't think that is the only reason.

I don't think it's the only reason, I just think it's the main reason and I think most of the secondary reasons were caused by the pricing.


Later, when Apple declined and lost almost all but their most loyal followers, Windows software showed a lot of possibilities that the Mac had never ever seen. Even today, there are much more versatility in the Windows world than will natively run on a Mac.

You mean more apps? Of course there are more apps, it's because there is more market share...which happened because of pricing.

If, back in 1984, the mac had been the same price or cheaper than PC's, you really think apple wouldn't be the dominant market share right now?

Heck, if apple suddenly priced all their machines competitively with PC's (as well as actually offering models that were competitive in some of the segments they now ignore, also a pricing factor), don't you think that apple would see their market share grow a lot faster?

[rotta]

Heck, if apple suddenly priced all their machines competitively with PC's (as well as actually offering models that were competitive in some of the segments they now ignore, also a pricing factor), don't you think that apple would see their market share grow a lot faster?

Obviously! But will they listen...

[KnightWRX]

Heck, if apple suddenly priced all their machines competitively with PC's (as well as actually offering models that were competitive in some of the segments they now ignore, also a pricing factor), don't you think that apple would see their market share grow a lot faster?

The problem with growth is that it needs to be managed. Bigger market share entails bigger support costs, bigger sales expenses, more training, more communication channels, bigger organisations, etc...

If Apple upped their market share to Microsoft levels tomorrow morning, Apple would be dead by next week.

[rotta]

The problem with growth is that it needs to be managed. Bigger market share entails bigger support costs, bigger sales expenses, more training, more communication channels, bigger organisations, etc...

If Apple upped their market share to Microsoft levels tomorrow morning, Apple would be dead by next week.

That's probably true. But Microsoft didn't make it that big overnight, either.

[CJRhoades]

Who buys their 11 year old kid a $1500 laptop anyway? Yea I got a PowerBookG4 that was $3000 new but I got it as a 4 year old hand me down.

[KnightWRX]

That's probably true. But Microsoft didn't make it that big overnight, either.

Microsoft has had the leisure of growing with the market. They came in with the first PC sold on day 1, and as such, they have been able to manage their growth right along side the market. They also had the advantage of market analysts that were basically predicting their growth for them by looking at the entirety of the PC market.

[rotta]

Microsoft has had the leisure of growing with the market. They came in with the first PC sold on day 1, and as such, they have been able to manage their growth right along side the market. They also had the advantage of market analysts that were basically predicting their growth for them by looking at the entirety of the PC market.


Then it is quite remarkable how many mistakes they have made over the years.

[Temptations]

Microsoft just twittered about it.

[milo]

The problem with growth is that it needs to be managed. Bigger market share entails bigger support costs, bigger sales expenses, more training, more communication channels, bigger organisations, etc...

If Apple upped their market share to Microsoft levels tomorrow morning, Apple would be dead by next week.

Of course. But who ever said they should try and grow that fast?

Then it is quite remarkable how many mistakes they have made over the years.

And they had a pretty easy time surviving some pretty big screwups from being the cheaper platform and having the vast majority of the market share (which came from being the cheaper platform).

[-hh]

I don't think the average PC user would care at all about what Apple users may think. In the US Apple marketshare maybe can be as high as 7(?) percent; here in Europe it is probably closer to 3.

The interesting part is really that its not really about simple market share, but more that products like the iPod have created a 'Halo' that raises awareness for the rest of their products and more approachable.

I don't mean that most Apple fanboys have an inferiority complex regarding marketshares, but the discussion about what / who is the better is pretty irrelevant among PC users who get along reasonably well with their machines and other software.

An interesting point, because for the consumer segment who is as you say getting along "reasonably well", you're 100% (IMO) correct that this is not a relevant demographic that is being targeted by Apple.

Apple is really targeting the consumer who isn't particularly satisified with the Windows OS, to encourage them to consider trying Apple as something that is "better" (which is then also worth paying more for).

But what is "better"?

Where this gets difficult to analyze is how to characterize the motives: is it simply one which is asperational, like a Mercedes instead of a VW?

Or, as per the English adage, is it one of "The Grass is always greener on the other side" (http://http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side_of_the_fence) where it is clearly different and maybe actually better?

Or if we are more cynical, perhaps its simply a competitive "Keeping up with the Jonses" (http://http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/keeping_up_with_the_Joneses) form of conspicuous consumption?


IMO, most likely, there is no single, simple answer: people decide to buy based upon different (and individualized) factors: 30% this, 40% that, and 30% for the ego...or whatever combination (YMMV!).

My only real point in mentioning the fanbois is that there's always going to be a percentage of people in any group who are going to be arrogant, obnoxious boors ("AOB's"), and AOB's can often have their advoacy backfire.

And statistically, since there's many more Windows OS users, there's going to be vastly more Windows-AOB's (than Mac-AOB's), which means more opportunities for Windows-AOB-advocacy to incur an embarassing misstep.


-hh

[rotta]

My only real point in mentioning the fanbois is that there's always going to be a percentage of people in any group who are going to be arrogant, obnoxious boors ("AOB's"), and AOB's can often have their advoacy backfire.

And statistically, since there's many more Windows OS users, there's going to be vastly more Windows-AOB's (than Mac-AOB's), which means more opportunities for Windows-AOB-advocacy to incur an embarassing misstep.


-hh

That is interesting. My point is that for Apple fanboys, they are very aware of the superiority of their machines and their choice, and the satisfaction of being among the chosen few. And spending time looking upwards - and they see: well, you know;-)

The AOB's among the windows users (and there has to be a lot), have so many more choices than to just look down and maybe spot Apple somewhere.
I simply don't think windows users care to defend Microsoft as hard as Apple users do, PC's don't mean that much as long as they do the job.

[-hh]

I'm a PC user, and I prefer Windows to Mac OS. Just personal preference, nothing more.

I've always hated when I run into Mac snobs who talk down to me as some "uneducated" person because I won't jump ship.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, it is far more likely to run into an "uneducated" than a reasonably informed. Along these very lines, I had an interesting discussion with my Nephew in 2007 at his sister's wedding, where he expressed distain for Macs, because as a Comcast ISP installer, their various internet configuration settings could only be done at the Terminal's Command line.

After I fell out of my chair in shock, I pulled up the System's control panel for Network settings and ran though a bunch of the Ethernet options, showing him that there was an alternative to the Command Line. His revised statement: "Our Employee training at Comcast sucks", and he was going to go tell his coworkers that they had been killing themselves by trying to do it the hard way.


These ads speak a partial truth. It is way less expensive to buy a PC over a Mac.

Agreed...partially ;) The problem is that even if we agree that a PC has a lower initial purchase price, that fact doesn't also guarentee us that it will end up having a lower total lifecycle cost too.

As such, while initial purchase price can't be ignored, its not the only cost factor to consider.


I also agree that if you want to do gaming, your options on a PC are way more open than on a Mac.

No argument there.

I think of a Mac as a specialty computer. Kind of why you buy an espresso machine as opposed to a normal coffeemaker. I don't see one buying a Mac just because they want to play video games, look at web sites, and type college papers. Granted you can do most of that on there, most users I've met don't buy Macs for that. I see them buy it to do music and multimedia. I see them buy it for personal preference and such. To me it's like deciding if you want to buy a normal power drill, or the industrial-strength one for special needs.

Fair enough. Setting aside the factor of respective strengths/weaknesses for applications, I would say that the main appeal that I've seen has been that OS X allows you to avoid the proverbial "Windows headaches".

We can debate the magnitude and significance of these headaches, but that's not really the point: the point is that no matter how insignificant they may be, there's always going to be some percentage of consumers who are simply fed up and thus, are going to jump ship.

My brother and his new iMac are probably a good example. The last Apple he owned was a //e ... circa 1984? So after 20+ years in the DOS/Windows camp, he's left. His son-in-law works in IT and had spent several nights at the house, trying to disinfect, update and protect his XP Machine....but in the end, he didn't want to lose any more photos of his first grandchild, so he jumped OS's and now has peace of mind.

To whatever degree you want to call this an "intangible" ... and I can agree that it is (since that's not the point) ... the point is that this consumer factor isn't something that neatly shows up on a simple price comparison, because it is the basis for product differentiation - - no so much as it is "For Apple" as much as it it is a "Not Microsoft"...at least initially.


Lord knows when any friend of mine buys a new computer, they're always asking why MS Word isn't on it.

Probably that's a product of the corporate 'Enterprise' environment. Historically, that was also where a lot of pirated software for home PCs also came from...which was also a factor in the growth of popularity for Windows.

EDIT: and FWIW, I can also recall hearing about office PCs that had their math co-processors stolen, RAM that had walked, hard drive upgrades, etc, etc. Depending on where you were, it wasn't always limited to just software.

-hh

[milo]

I simply don't think windows users care to defend Microsoft as hard as Apple users do

All the rabid pro MS comments found online seem to show otherwise.

Online, you'll find people being obnoxiously extreme pro AND anti just about any position you can think of.

[DougB541]

All the rabid pro MS comments found online seem to show otherwise.

Online, you'll find people being obnoxiously extreme pro AND anti just about any position you can think of.

I dunno...

There is a documentary coming out about Apple "fanboys."


I don't think the stereotype is too far exaggerated (against the more rabid apple fans compared to PC users).

[niuniu]

All the rabid pro MS comments found online seem to show otherwise.



I agree, MS users are seething and quick on the offensive when Apple is mentioned on every forum I post on. I don't even bother talking about Macs, which I enjoy doing, because you quickly get flamed for being a 'homo' :rolleyes:

[DougB541]

Figured i'd add this in case anyone was interested about the movie:

http://www.macheadsthemovie.com/

[milo]

There is a documentary coming out about Apple "fanboys."

So? That doesn't mean that there aren't fanboys just as rabid on the other side. Covering the apple side probably just makes for a more interesting movie.

Just look at this thread, many of the most rabid posts are from a guy absolutely convinced that no $10000 home theatre system is complete without a $150 soundblaster card.

[DougB541]

So? That doesn't mean that there aren't fanboys just as rabid on the other side. Covering the apple side probably just makes for a more interesting movie.

Just look at this thread, many of the most rabid posts are from a guy absolutely convinced that no $10000 home theatre system is complete without a $150 soundblaster card.

lulz..touche.

[tubbymac]

Figured i'd add this in case anyone was interested about the movie:

http://www.macheadsthemovie.com/

Wow watching the trailer the fanaticism reminded me of the days of Trekkies and their conventions. It's a computer people, not a religion.

[polaris20]

Just look at this thread, many of the most rabid posts are from a guy absolutely convinced that no $10000 home theatre system is complete without a $150 soundblaster card.

That guy ain't comin' round here no more.

[sdbryan]

Can you get a Macbook or Macbook Pro anywhere with Blu-ray, off-the-shelf or not? Didn't think so.
...
Like I said in the other laptop hunter thread, the Vaio FW offers performance and value in a nice package that Apple can't touch.
...


Can you run OSX and develop iPhone apps in XCode with a Sony laptop? I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No". On the other hand I also have XP installed on my MacBook Pro using Parallels so I can run Windows software including games if I choose to do so. There isn't a price differential that makes a Sony useful to me except as a rather expensive entertainment machine.

In any case Blu-ray as a delivery format seems unlikely to ever replace DVD just as CD appears to be the last "universal" audio format for physical delivery. Blu-ray with all its emphasis on DRM crap is just not compelling enough for me to care, especially on my laptop.

[Double J]

Wow watching the trailer the fanaticism reminded me of the days of Trekkies and their conventions. It's a computer people, not a religion.

Yeah, there are a lot fewer Mac users, but I think a higher percentage of them are actually people like that -- just completely unwilling to admit that Macs have any flaws whatsoever, and Steve Jobs is Christ who can do no wrong. That's what makes them so much fun to pick on ;).

[-hh]

That is interesting. My point is that for Apple fanboys, they are very aware of the superiority of their machines and their choice, and the satisfaction of being among the chosen few. And spending time looking upwards - and they see: well, you know;-)

These types also exist in sports car clubs too. And out at the weekend AutoCross, it can be entertaining to watch another member who's test-driving their daughter's Neon blow away the mediocre laptime that the "Gold-Chainer" set in his (very expensive) 911 turbo.

The AOB's among the windows users (and there has to be a lot), have so many more choices than to just look down and maybe spot Apple somewhere.

The automotive analogy would be a 'Riced (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rice%20rocket)' car, complete with a fart can (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fart+can) and racing stickers, because as we all know, a loud exhaust note and a flashy emblems (or paint color) actually does make a car go faster/handle better/etc.

I simply don't think windows users care to defend Microsoft as hard as Apple users do, PC's don't mean that much as long as they do the job.

The rational ones recognize that both are just tools to get a job done. However, what is intriguing are the Win-AOB's that take incredibly strong offense at even the tiniest 'peep' of Mac, since this sort of behavior indicates that for all of the bravado, they're actually quite insecure, despite MS having a ~90% dominance.


-hh

[KnightWRX]

Just look at this thread, many of the most rabid posts are from a guy absolutely convinced that no $10000 home theatre system is complete without a $150 soundblaster card.

Not to be pedantic but the guy was claiming a PC with Windows Media Center (so 300-400$), that 150$ Sound Blaster card and a set of 300$ Logitech Z5500 were a 10,000$ home theater system.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Well, if they're not scared, how do you explain them targeting Apple directly with these Laptop Hunter ads and the 'Apple Tax' report?

Scared implies fear. I would simply say they are countering a growing market. They know Vista is a failure and they're trying to stem the tide a bit until Windows7 comes out. But fear implies they think they're in danger of losing the market or something. You don't lose 90% overnight.

[newwavedave]

Here's what I found interesting. I priced out a comparable 13" Dell Insperion to the white 13" MacBook. Yes it came up cheaper, but if not for the $168 instant savings, it wouldn't. Go do it yourself. Oh yeah, the initial price of the Dell was somewhere in the 500 dollar range, but you have to add the 802.11n and Bluetooth. Anyone who says that Dells extended waranty is cheaper than Apples is on crack, it's $190 for the warranty, but you have to pay 50 for every phone call you make to support. If you want to add on phone support (which you get 3 years with your Apple Care account) it's another 140 dollars. That's a grand total of 330 for Dell and 259 for Apple. Also, the Dell has no firewire support and no internal sound card. Who was complaining that the Apple only comes in white? Guess what, the Dell only comes in Blue.

[DMann]

Here's what I found interesting. I priced out a comparable 13" Dell Insperion to the white 13" MacBook. Yes it came up cheaper, but if not for the $168 instant savings, it wouldn't. Go do it yourself. Oh yeah, the initial price of the Dell was somewhere in the 500 dollar range, but you have to add the 802.11n and Bluetooth. Anyone who says that Dells extended waranty is cheaper than Apples is on crack, it's $190 for the warranty, but you have to pay 50 for every phone call you make to support. If you want to add on phone support (which you get 3 years with your Apple Care account) it's another 140 dollars. That's a grand total of 330 for Dell and 259 for Apple. Also, the Dell has no firewire support and no internal sound card. Who was complaining that the Apple only comes in white? Guess what, the Dell only comes in Blue.

So much for choice - reminds me of how MS marketed the pricing of their 30G Zune against that of the 80G iPod, claiming that the Zune was better priced. Anything to exploit a recovering economy.

[BongoBanger]

Here's what I found interesting. I priced out a comparable 13" Dell Insperion to the white 13" MacBook. Yes it came up cheaper, but if not for the $168 instant savings, it wouldn't. Go do it yourself. Oh yeah, the initial price of the Dell was somewhere in the 500 dollar range, but you have to add the 802.11n and Bluetooth. Anyone who says that Dells extended waranty is cheaper than Apples is on crack, it's $190 for the warranty, but you have to pay 50 for every phone call you make to support. If you want to add on phone support (which you get 3 years with your Apple Care account) it's another 140 dollars. That's a grand total of 330 for Dell and 259 for Apple. Also, the Dell has no firewire support and no internal sound card. Who was complaining that the Apple only comes in white? Guess what, the Dell only comes in Blue.

What's your point? You're comparing an outdated Apple product to an outdated Dell product. Also you appear to be looking at Dell's cheapest three year care package and comparing it to Apple's best one.

Comparing the old Macbook to the Dell XPS - which was it's competitor - gives a better view as does comparing the new Macbook to the XPS Studio. They're both cracking machines for users with different preferences.

Disingenuous comparison is disingenuous.

[basura!]

I simply don't think windows users care to defend Microsoft as hard as Apple users do, PC's don't mean that much as long as they do the job.

They aren't attacked in quite the same way, either, i.e. "I hate those hypnotized iCult zombie morons at the coffeehouse acting all smug and superior with their their expensive Fisher-Price computers"... that sort of drivel.

[basura!]

However, what is intriguing are the Win-AOB's that take incredibly strong offense at even the tiniest 'peep' of Mac, since this sort of behavior indicates that for all of the bravado, they're actually quite insecure, despite MS having a ~90% dominance.

This deep-rooted insecurity almost borders on the Freudian... I wonder if the words 'micro' and 'soft' have anything to do with that :D

[MikeTheC]

Apple is really targeting the consumer who isn't particularly satisified with the Windows OS, to encourage them to consider trying Apple as something that is "better" (which is then also worth paying more for).

But what is "better"?

See, this is where I have to take issue with you. Yes, from purely Apple's "business bottom-line" standpoint, you're correct. However, the problem is that fundamentally this is one part of a much broader argument. Where you have the discord amongst users' opinions on this has largely to do with the fact that Apple's bottom line dovetails very nicely with the proposition that Microsoft is this "evil empire hegemony" which has to be fought and given competition. It can be very, very hard for some people to understand this and see past the purely financial aspect for Apple.

Fact of the matter is, until very recently, many if not most Windows users out there couldn't even conceive of the notion of an OS product not made by Microsoft, let alone whether one would be a viable choice. We've been fighting a war on a very large front, both those in the Mac OS/Mac OS X front and those in the F/OSS (i.e. Linux) front. Those engaged have been fighting for the "hearts and minds" because we want them to be aware that they have a choice, and that the choice includes a range of options which may well prove to be better than their present platform-of-use.

Where this gets difficult to analyze is how to characterize the motives: is it simply one which is asperational, like a Mercedes instead of a VW?

Or, as per the English adage, is it one of "The Grass is always greener on the other side" where it is clearly different and maybe actually better?

Or if we are more cynical, perhaps its simply a competitive "Keeping up with the Jonses" form of conspicuous consumption?See, this is why I term it a "platform-of-use" and not a "platform-of-choice" because, as a practical matter, if you don't think there are any options, then the only "choice" you make is, effectively, whether or not to own a computer. While it's true, in an impirical sense, that one who buys a Windows-based system is "choosing" a Windows-based system, from their perspective, it's not a real "free" choice.

My only real point in mentioning the fanbois is that there's always going to be a percentage of people in any group who are going to be arrogant, obnoxious boors ("AOB's"), and AOB's can often have their advoacy backfire.

And statistically, since there's many more Windows OS users, there's going to be vastly more Windows-AOB's (than Mac-AOB's), which means more opportunities for Windows-AOB-advocacy to incur an embarassing misstep.Absolutely. In any group (particularly of sufficient size) there's going to be offensive or otherwise objectionable members. It's simply a fact of life. I mean, go down to your local retailer (BestBuy, or Home Depot, or OfficeMax, or wherever) and you'll find there are a mix of types of people who work there. There's no getting away from it. Why should the group which corresponds to Mac-owning people be any different than anyone else?

[MikeTheC]

This deep-rooted insecurity almost borders on the Freudian... I wonder if the words 'micro' and 'soft' have anything to do with that :D
Yes, however... Sometimes a cigar ain't nothing but a sandwich. ;)

[dejo]

Scared implies fear. I would simply say they are countering a growing market. They know Vista is a failure and they're trying to stem the tide a bit until Windows7 comes out. But fear implies they think they're in danger of losing the market or something. You don't lose 90% overnight.
Okay, I understand your argument. I don't agree with it but I understand it. I would say these ads do show signs of them fearing losing a significant portion of the market to Apple. I don't think they're gonna wait until they're near equal market share with Apple to start worrying, not that that is going to happen any time soon.

[Digital Skunk]

It does care about its image yes.

Its image is providing good looking, innovative machines, intuitive OS and easy to use software for people who know that the cheapest option isn't always the best option.

In short - its image is built on making machines that people enjoy using.

Its not a fashion house - there is substance behind the style.

Innovation is as much part of apple's image as aesthetics.

Look at the effects the ipod, iphone and imacs have had on the computing market.

I agree, but I am mainly knocking on the head of Apple's Pro market.

I love Apple's consumer lineup, the iMac is still my preferred choice if I were to not need my own workstation. The Macbook is the best looking laptop on the market IMHO.

But when it comes to paying top dollar for professional skid mark leaving hardware Apple leaves us wanting in everything sans the Mac Pro...... fact is the Mac Pro is the only option and not every pro market needs a $4500 server in tower form.

As a photo pro, I only need a machine with RAM and GFX power. As a gamer I only need the GFX power. As a video pro, I only need RAM and processor clock speed. I am glad that my machines look good, but waiting 2 hours for a 10 minute piece to render in HD is a nuisance when PC users with Adobe suites are doing it 45 minutes with comparable PCs that cost half as much.

And let's not mention their ability to author BluRay discs.

[koa]

From the standpoint of a TV commercial I don't think it was that good. My wife barely noticed it when it came on (not good). I rewound it for her and she wasn't that impressed. It doesn't seem to grab your attention to make you look up and see what's going on. My wife uses PC's at work and we have an Apple and a Dell at home. I think the ad works better over the internet and plays better to the people who want to debate the two systems which is not the target audience.

Here's a commercial that I like which has nothing to do with computers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OC5_wJLxZU

[iMacoo7]

NOW this is funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJSuduTrPs

[Rob0711]

very cool :)
and i bet quite a few million dollars cheaper than the original

[-hh]

-hh: (but which is "better"?)
See, this is where I have to take issue with you. Yes, from purely Apple's "business bottom-line" standpoint, you're correct. However, the problem is that fundamentally this is one part of a much broader argument. Where you have the discord amongst users' opinions on this has largely to do with the fact that Apple's bottom line dovetails very nicely with the proposition that Microsoft is this "evil empire hegemony" which has to be fought and given competition.

Agree that there's many factors ... and for this one, I believe that I've simplistically referred to this as the "Not Windows" consumer.

However, my "better?" point was merely to recognize that there isn't any one single "Best OS" for all consumers / all applications, even when we're trying to be purely and dispassionately objective.

It can be very, very hard for some people to understand this and see past the purely financial aspect for Apple.

Yes, its in Apple's financial interests to play the role of underdog and rogue.

Thus said, claims of being different (/better) will play a role of getting the first sale from a customer, but to get the 2nd sale, this differentiation ...and real-or-perceieved product superiority... then has to be delivered upon in order to keep that individual as a consumer.

Fact of the matter is, until very recently, many if not most Windows users out there couldn't even conceive of the notion of an OS product not made by Microsoft, let alone whether one would be a viable choice.

Agreed. The iPod "Halo" was the watershed for opening consumer's eyes, IMO.


We've been fighting a war on a very large front, both those in the Mac OS/Mac OS X front and those in the F/OSS (i.e. Linux) front. Those engaged have been fighting for the "hearts and minds" because we want them to be aware that they have a choice, and that the choice includes a range of options which may well prove to be better than their present platform-of-use.

See, this is why I term it a "platform-of-use" and not a "platform-of-choice" because, as a practical matter, if you don't think there are any options, then the only "choice" you make is, effectively, whether or not to own a computer. While it's true, in an impirical sense, that one who buys a Windows-based system is "choosing" a Windows-based system, from their perspective, it's not a real "free" choice.

Agreed wholeheartedly, on both points. Part of the shortcomings on the former tend to be in communication .. often both ways .. when an Evangelism is rebuffed with a: "thank-you, but I'm not interested, since back when I was 10 years old, we had a then-6-year-old Mac in our classroom". To be fair to Windows, Vista is vastly improved versus when it first came out, but MS is going to continue to have acceptance problems (and IMO with Win7 too) because their business model often relies on their hardware vendors to write the required new drivers rather than doing these in-house themselves. As such, what this really means is that MS has successfully offloaded to others much of their OS development heavy lifting, which means that the true cost of developing Vista was actually a lot more than just the $6B that MS reportedly spent.


-hh

[sn00pie]

It's not a bad advertisement. Not as effective as the Apple campaigns, but atleast they're trying something out.

As much as the reasons for the customers not purchasing Mac notebooks are minimal and absurd in some cases, it's advertising, so it's bound to lean one way.

The one thing the ads are effective in conveying is that price point wise the PC notebooks are significantly cheaper then the Apple counterparts, but they don't really compare the features and show you what you get and what you miss in both.

[parapup]

To be fair to Windows, Vista is vastly improved versus when it first came out, but MS is going to continue to have acceptance problems (and IMO with Win7 too) because their business model often relies on their hardware vendors to write the required new drivers rather than doing these in-house themselves. As such, what this really means is that MS has successfully offloaded to others much of their OS development heavy lifting, which means that the true cost of developing Vista was actually a lot more than just the $6B that MS reportedly spent.


That's the price vendors pay to enable their device to be used by a wider audience. It is not a fair comparison between Windows and Mac - not on the drivers/supported devices front.

If you want to use a fancy device for which no driver exists on the Mac - you are out of luck. Even if there are in some rare cases drivers from third party for the Mac they often are poorly written and there is nothing Apple does to straighten that situation. Microsoft on the other hand goes a long way with WHQL and works very closely with hardware manufacturers to make sure the drivers work well enough.

And with the kind of hardware that Windows supports - you are bound to have bugs that will get corrected - that does not really translate into non-acceptance as the bugs are fixed fairly fast - Microsoft gets a lot of feedback - from enterprise customers, from consumers via the bug reporting / driver crash feedback mechanism that Windows comes bundled with. So if a third party driver is crashing Windows, they are in a position to work with the vendor to get it fixed.

I would also argue that device driver development cost is not a part of developing Windows itself - it is funded by the sales of the device as opposed to sales of Windows - and manufacturers do that to enable people to use their devices, which is the device manufacturer's bread and butter.

[yuppiemacuser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJSuduTrPs

Always good humor!

[D-Love]

*looks at Apple's stock*

Seems these aren't having quite the impact that Microsoft wanted.

I just hate that these obviously staged ads are being shown like they are real. At least the Mac ads were two actors doing a skit that was actually humorous.

[PaperMacWriter]

I groaned when they were sold on Blu-Ray. If you want to watch HD, DONT DO IT ON A LAPTOP!!! It may look cool, but its too small to see a very noticeable difference. And, if its free, why not get the best computer possible for you money(refurbished MacBook 2.4GHz!). At least it's Sony - they make my favorite(least detested) PCs. Oh, and whether "they agree" or not, it's a PC. Good luck spending any leftovers on crappy software, virus protection, and therapy from all those troubles Vista gives you!
SG :apple:

BTW, I know they're just acting, I'm just ranting about what is obviously a skit put on with bad actors from Microsoft.

[janstett]

The MBP can output multichannel over the optical, same as any DVD player with optical audio out.

Not in analog format, it can't. Further, outputting over the optical has to be qualified as

(1) it isn't capable of encoding a 5.1 signal on the fly
(2) it has to be attached to an appropriate receiver over SPDIF
(3) it can only work with pre-packaged 512kbps DD or 768kbps/1.4mbps DTS passed out over SPDIF.

No Mac has multichannel analog out. The X-Fi does.
No Mac can encode DD or DTS on the fly. Some nVidia motherboards can.

How do I listen to multichannel FLAC (or WMA or MP3) files on a Mac? How do I listen to DVD-Audio on a Mac? Simple, the same way you watch Blu-Ray on a Mac -- you don't. But the Mac is the king of multimedia and all that...



I'm skeptical you could tell a difference with a double blind listening test set up properly. And no, OWNING a lot of 96k or 192k music doesn't mean you can hear the difference.

I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. I can tell. Especially with music that I've listened to hundreds or thousands of times in my life. I'm not 18 years old.

And OWNING a lot of 96k or 192k music DOES prove that I at least listen to it and have some basis for my opinion, instead of just spouting off with no actual "seat time"or basis in reality, wink wink. One of us listens to multichannel high-res music, the other doesn't. Take it from there, dear readers.

[basura!]

My wife barely noticed it when it came on (not good). I rewound it for her and she wasn't that impressed. It doesn't seem to grab your attention to make you look up and see what's going on.

That's a good point. I never notice them either until they're well into the spot. The 'Hello I'm a Mac' ads can be pretty lame but they never fail to grab you from the start. Advertisers need to realize that a lot of us have been brought up on a steady diet of violence and punk rock... you might have to yell if you want our attention.

[-hh]

That's the price vendors pay to enable their device to be used by a wider audience. It is not a fair comparison between Windows and Mac - not on the drivers/supported devices front.

Agreed, although it does have to enter into the Win-Mac dialog as soon as we start to talk about things like why there's a price differential.

In simplest form, the fixed development costs for the OS is (using a 95%-5% market share split) roughly a 20:1 advantage for Microsoft when it comes to how that eventually has to get amortized.

If you want to use a fancy device for which no driver exists on the Mac - you are out of luck. Even if there are in some rare cases drivers from third party for the Mac they often are poorly written and there is nothing Apple does to straighten that situation.

Sure, and its merely a question of how the hardware side is provided with an incentives to develop.

Lacking any carrot from Apple, there's a much greater return-on-investment on the Windows side, even when there's no carrot from Windows either. That's simple market share math.


Microsoft on the other hand goes a long way with WHQL and works very closely with hardware manufacturers to make sure the drivers work well enough.

The problem for MS with WHQL remains that a 3rd party vendor can't be forced to participate: its a voluntary choice, and then on his own schedule, nto Microsoft's. This is essentially what contributed to the Vista drivers non-availability blackeye at launch...

...and this was an example of how MS needs to also think about how to provide incentives. See below.

I would also argue that device driver development cost is not a part of developing Windows itself - it is funded by the sales of the device as opposed to sales of Windows - and manufacturers do that to enable people to use their devices, which is the device manufacturer's bread and butter.

I'd say that its open to debate: in simplest form, we can't run a system without having the hardware work, so someone's driver is necessary. Since the cost can't be avoided, it has to be considered/included somehow.

This work is more generally included in Apple's OS development, because they're a vertically integrated hardware developer...

However, for MS, since they don't sell PC hardware, they're able to functionally avoid much more of this expense by basically reminding the hardware producers that if they don't write a new driver for their hardware at their own expense, they'll lose sales to one of their otehr hardware competitors, since they're all in competition with each other.

In any case, my main reason for mentioning this was merely to point out that the more complete cost for Vista development was more than just MS's $6B, but also whatever the hardware vendors had to kick in, to keep their hardware on the playing field. Given how long the MS Longhorn-Vista dragged on, it shouldn't be too surprising that they held their resources back. MS really does need to think about how to provide incentives for their hardware partners, but for Win7, they're functionally dodging that bullet since Win7 is Vista under the skin. It solves the problem for today, but not longer term...a similar form of short-sightedness that's in these Ads, since they only look at "Today's price out the door".



-hh

[Anuba]

An interesting point, because for the consumer segment who is as you say getting along "reasonably well", you're 100% (IMO) correct that this is not a relevant demographic that is being targeted by Apple.
But the target demographic that's the least satisfied with Windows *is* the lower end of the consumer segment, because those are guys like my brother-in-law who can't manage a Windows PC and thus end up with a virus-infested, fragmented POS. People who have to call their "computer nerd friend" to set up WiFi password protection. A professional who buys a PC equivalent to the Mac Pro wasn't born yesterday and has already said no thanks to OS X for whatever reason. The ones who are the most likely, most persuadable candidates for switching are the ones who either can't afford a Mac or aren't willing to spend that kind of money on a computer.

And if they're not targeting that demographic (despite not having any products in their price range), then who are the "I'm a Mac" ads for? They talk about stuff like documenting a family vacation, getting help from a Genius with transferring files from PC to Mac etc... these are n00b ads intended for people like my mom.

[VoR]

I groaned when they were sold on Blu-Ray. If you want to watch HD, DONT DO IT ON A LAPTOP!!! It may look cool, but its too small to see a very noticeable difference. And, if its free, why not get the best computer possible for you money(refurbished MacBook 2.4GHz!). At least it's Sony - they make my favorite(least detested) PCs. Oh, and whether "they agree" or not, it's a PC. Good luck spending any leftovers on crappy software, virus protection, and therapy from all those troubles Vista gives you!
SG :apple:

BTW, I know they're just acting, I'm just ranting about what is obviously a skit put on with bad actors from Microsoft.

How can 'Watching HD look cool' on a laptop, but you can't see a noticeable difference? Buy a laptop with vga/dvi/hdmi out, and you can plug it in a tv, they're portable machines.
Maybe they're you least detested pc, they're my most. Charging extra for the same product without trialware installed is more irritating to me than not having the option. Their hardware is generally pretty expensive compared to the competition and from my experience, some of the worst built. Lots of propiatory features with no open support, often just sonys legendary software engineering... If a company ever warranted abuse from 'tech fans' for bad practice, it's them - and still people buy it because they often look ok and had a reputation for making decent crt screens in the '80s.

[janstett]

In any case Blu-ray as a delivery format seems unlikely to ever replace DVD just as CD appears to be the last "universal" audio format for physical delivery. Blu-ray with all its emphasis on DRM crap is just not compelling enough for me to care, especially on my laptop.

And in 1997 when DVD came out, people said DVD would never replace VHS. When is the last time you saw a VHS cassette in a store?

Blu-Ray may never completely replace DVD (after all DVD is still cheap and "good enough" for the low end). However, I think those of you thinking it will go away and die should take note of how well it is doing some two years into its life -- for the latest crop of hit movies, 1/4 of the home sales were on Blu-Ray and the remaining 3/4 on DVD. Well ahead of DVD's percentage at the same stages in their lives. Blu-Ray is here to stay and it's healthy.

And the benefits (1080p video and lossless 48-24 sound) outweigh the drawbacks of the DRM.

[janstett]

I groaned when they were sold on Blu-Ray. If you want to watch HD, DONT DO IT ON A LAPTOP!!! It may look cool, but its too small to see a very noticeable difference.

At least not on these substandard 1440x900 displays that Apple uses on its 13" and 15" notebooks.

Now on the 17" MacBook Pro's 1920x1080 display, I bet you will see a noticeable difference.

And since you own a Mac and have no capability to play a Blu-Ray, just exactly how would you know it's too small to see a very noticeable difference? Cause, you know, I have a 15" Thinkpad with a 1680x1050 display and a Blu-Ray drive, and I do see a very noticeable difference.

Don't tell me you're offering an opinion based on absolutely nothing but Apple worship...

[janstett]

How can 'Watching HD look cool' on a laptop, but you can't see a noticeable difference? Buy a laptop with vga/dvi/hdmi out, and you can plug it in a tv, they're portable machines..

Very good point -- what about attaching your Mac to a high res display or HDTV, as many do with the Mac Mini? Oops, sorry, no Blu Ray there either.

[PaperMacWriter]

At least not on these substandard 1440x900 displays that Apple uses on its 13" and 15" notebooks.

Now on the 17" MacBook Pro's 1920x1080 display, I bet you will see a noticeable difference.

And since you own a Mac and have no capability to play a Blu-Ray, just exactly how would you know it's too small to see a very noticeable difference? Cause, you know, I have a 15" Thinkpad with a 1680x1050 display and a Blu-Ray drive, and I do see a very noticeable difference.

Don't tell me you're offering an opinion based on absolutely nothing but Apple worship...

FYI, I don't have a laptop, and this is based off of what I have seen of my friends PC. When compared to the DVD I had of the same movie, there was very little difference between them, albeit some, but most definitely not a feature to be sold on for a laptop. On a desktop, I'll still be irked, but its reasonable then when you get a decent size screen. But NEVER BE SOLD ON A LAPTOB BECAUSE OF BLU-RAY!!!! Just isn't that important. Heck, it's painful to watch anything long on a 13" screen... use your t.v. people. Don't get me wrong, I eagerly await the arrival of blu-ray to macs, because I would like to be able to watch full HD on my 24" iMac.
SG :apple:

[Anuba]

FYI, I don't have a laptop, and this is based off of what I have seen of my friends PC. When compared to the DVD I had of the same movie, there was very little difference between them, albeit some, but most definitely not a feature to be sold on for a laptop. On a desktop, I'll still be irked, but its reasonable then when you get a decent size screen. But NEVER BE SOLD ON A LAPTOB BECAUSE OF BLU-RAY!!!! Just isn't that important. Heck, it's painful to watch anything long on a 13" screen... use your t.v. people. Don't get me wrong, I eagerly await the arrival of blu-ray to macs, because I would like to be able to watch full HD on my 24" iMac.
SG :apple:
OK, but don't you notice a considerable difference when you watch QuickTime HD trailers? The difference is huge even on a 13" screen, you can count the pores on an actress' nose no matter how much make-up they tried to cover it up with... not that this is the point of HD. ;)

Isn't this really just one of those things that are deemed unimportant/superfluous/worthless when Macs or other Apple products don't have them, but suddenly become the best thing ever when Apple eventually catches up? I've noticed this pattern many times in the past. As long as the iPhone has a crappy 2 mpixel cam, it's "personally I don't care" and "who needs a camera on a phone anyway?", but I'll guarantee you that the day the iPhone gets a 3 or 5 megapixel camera it's suddenly an essential feature, and phones with no camera or lower resolution than whatever iPhone has are laughable and should be destroyed for having the audacity to be behind the times.

[roski11]

NOW this is funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJSuduTrPs

lol that was good

[PaperMacWriter]

OK, but don't you notice a considerable difference when you watch QuickTime HD trailers? The difference is huge even on a 13" screen, you can count the pores on an actress' nose no matter how much make-up they tried to cover it up with... not that this is the point of HD. ;)I do notice a difference on on a laptop, but not enough to pay more for a blu-ray disc, player, or computer. On a desktop, sure, add the feature, but not worth the $$$ most computer maker charge. BTW my friends laptop was a cheaper product, probably with a low resolution, so it's probably not a fair comparison, just all I've seen:o

Isn't this really just one of those things that are deemed unimportant/superfluous/worthless when Macs or other Apple products don't have them, but suddenly become the best thing ever when Apple eventually catches up? I've noticed this pattern many times in the past. It is, but honestly, I wont care that much seeing as I have an old tube t.v., DVD player, VHS player, game-cube... not the latest video tech...

As long as the iPhone has a crappy 2 mpixel cam, it's "personally I don't care" and "who needs a camera on a phone anyway?", but I'll guarantee you that the day the iPhone gets a 3 or 5 megapixel camera it's suddenly an essential feature, and phones with no camera or lower resolution than whatever iPhone has are laughable and should be destroyed for having the audacity to be behind the times.

I too am irked by the iPhone camera, because it isn't as good as my cheapo Samsung SYNC camera. Same resolution, but with video. What the heck Apple? When it get video capabilities, I won't be that excited by future camera revolutions, but it may make me want one more ; )

[AidenShaw]

but for Win7, they're functionally dodging that bullet since Win7 is Vista under the skin.

I'm sure that you meant this as

"The improvements in Windows 7 are almost completely compatible with the binary APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) of Windows Vista, so that only a very few kernel drivers and even fewer user applications will need to be updated to work with Windows 7."

and not as

"Windows 7 is a new UI theme for Windows Vista."

:)


If you want to watch HD, DONT DO IT ON A LAPTOP!!!

The issue is that I've purchased quite a few BDs for my home theatre, and I'd like to watch them when I'm on the go.

For me, that's the point of a BD drive on a laptop, not any belief that a laptop is the ultimate video display.

(And, I'm surprised that people say that they can't tell the difference between a 640x480 (NTSC) picture upscaled by about a factor of two, and a 1920x1080 picture scaled down.)


Isn't this really just one of those things that are deemed unimportant/superfluous/worthless when Macs or other Apple products don't have them, but suddenly become the best thing ever when Apple eventually catches up? I've noticed this pattern many times in the past.

LOL - I remember the "... who needs a CD writer..." days.

[-hh]

But the target demographic that's the least satisfied with Windows *is* the lower end of the consumer segment, because those are guys like my brother-in-law who can't manage a Windows PC and thus end up with a virus-infested, fragmented POS. People who have to call their "computer nerd friend" to set up WiFi password protection.

That's debatable. While its likely that they would benefit more, that doesn't mean that they're also willing to pay the Mac's price of entry: they're IMO more likely to be the ones that ends up scrapping something major every 2 years, and/or paying someone $100 to do a wipe-and-reinstall.

A professional who buys a PC equivalent to the Mac Pro wasn't born yesterday and has already said no thanks to OS X for whatever reason.

Why should a Pro bother to get a workstation for at home when there's a better workstation...or even a mini-cluster...at work that gets things like his LS-DYNA model run 10x faster?

Similarly, the Pro/E model that's going to go through the slicer for the Stereo Lithography ... the home's internet connection's low bandwidth for the file transfer will be a huge bottleneck.


The ones who are the most likely, most persuadable candidates for switching are the ones who either can't afford a Mac or aren't willing to spend that kind of money on a computer.

Its interesting to see who will "Step Up" to open their wallet. Frankly, I was modestly surprised when my brother dropped the change for a 24" iMac last month. BTW, he is a white collar 'professional' type.

And if they're not targeting that demographic (despite not having any products in their price range), then who are the "I'm a Mac" ads for? They talk about stuff like documenting a family vacation, getting help from a Genius with transferring files from PC to Mac etc... these are n00b ads intended for people like my mom.

They're intended to be icebreakers for those who assume that there's no alternative to Windows...the "platform-of-use" as MikeTheC said.

And talking about vacations instead of work is emphatically intended to emphasize that a PC isn't only about just work. Hence, staire like this:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/tanzania/safari_pie/Activity_files/image001.gif

versus this result from iPhoto (http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/Tanzania_album-2006s.pdf).


-hh

[thunderweb]

NOW this is funny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJSuduTrPs

Lol yes that was very funny.


Apple makes a quality product. I'll never use another PC again and I'm perfectly content with that. If someone else wants to use a PC go right ahead, I know I'm using a much better machine with much better software.

[polaris20]

I would never watch BD movies on my laptop anyway, simply because I don't watch DVDs now. I either watch movies on my iPod Touch, or DVDs encoded to Quicktime on my hard drive (that I own). I just don't see the attraction of carrying a wad of disks on the train or plane, and when I'm home I've got a big plasma screen to watch movies on.

Obviously that's my personal anecdote, but there has to be more people out there than just me that use their computers as.....computers.

[MikeTheC]

Agree that there's many factors ... and for this one, I believe that I've simplistically referred to this as the "Not Windows" consumer.

HH:

No, I agree with the essence of the points you were trying to get across. I merely differ in some of the terminology, and the principle reason for that is, especially in these perilous computer platform times, we need to be precise about what we say. The points you followed on with in response to my post are well received.


If you want to use a fancy device for which no driver exists on the Mac - you are out of luck. Even if there are in some rare cases drivers from third party for the Mac they often are poorly written and there is nothing Apple does to straighten that situation. Microsoft on the other hand goes a long way with WHQL and works very closely with hardware manufacturers to make sure the drivers work well enough.

On balance, though, Parapup, take a look at the Linux community, which has done a highly commendable (not absolutely perfect, but then look at the realities they face) job in getting drivers written, perfected, and distributed for a wide range of devices. Arguably, there's better driver support in Linux than on the Mac, and that's with Apple paying companies to write drivers for them, or paying and signing NDAs and writing the drivers themselves.

I think a far better yardstick for Apple (and the Mac-using community) to use when it comes to driver availability is Linux. I mean, Microsoft is like Walmart. If you make a device, it is automatically assumed you're going to write a Win32/Win64/Win7/etc. driver for it. If you didn't, then who would you be able to sell the device to after all?

Consider that, even right now, every single software and hardware vendor (well, ok, maybe a few exceptions -- but a very few) could just up and walk away from the Mac platform and not have to care that they'd left us high and dry. Regardless of Apple's positioning and influence, this is still not truly Apple's ball that everyone's dancing at. Apple would be very wise, I think, to simply include GPL'd drivers (obviously they'd need to vigorously QA control their picks). It couldn't hurt. Heck, Apple bought up the guy who writes CUPS. I'm not saying Apple should try to buy up every F/OSS developer (and I think they should strongly fight back if Apple tried) but Apple needs to understand it could have a lot more friends out there among its co-Microsoft-combatants.

[tubbymac]

Bluray is a nice option to have, but it's not a deal breaker by any means for the vast majority of consumers. In fact, step into a Best Buy and look at the PC notebooks and nearly all of them don't come with a Bluray drive. Unlike DVD which quickly became the software installation disc of choice, Bluray just isn't really necessary for your typical web browsing user.

Now on a home theater computer it's a different story. If you're attaching it to a high end sound system with a nice HDTV then you're shortchanging yourself without a Bluray drive.

[parapup]

On balance, though, Parapup, take a look at the Linux community, which has done a highly commendable (not absolutely perfect, but then look at the realities they face) job in getting drivers written, perfected, and distributed for a wide range of devices. Arguably, there's better driver support in Linux than on the Mac, and that's with Apple paying companies to write drivers for them, or paying and signing NDAs and writing the drivers themselves.

I think a far better yardstick for Apple (and the Mac-using community) to use when it comes to driver availability is Linux. I mean, Microsoft is like Walmart. If you make a device, it is automatically assumed you're going to write a Win32/Win64/Win7/etc. driver for it. If you didn't, then who would you be able to sell the device to after all?

Apple would be very wise, I think, to simply include GPL'd drivers (obviously they'd need to vigorously QA control their picks). It couldn't hurt. Heck, Apple bought up the guy who writes CUPS. I'm not saying Apple should try to buy up every F/OSS developer (and I think they should strongly fight back if Apple tried) but Apple needs to understand it could have a lot more friends out there among its co-Microsoft-combatants.

Oh absolutely - Linux is doing great on driver front. It even supports the most number of devices out-of-box. I have had to install Windows drivers from Windows Update when Linux supported the same hardware right out of the box.

And I completely agree that Apple needs to do more to improve device/driver compatibility. Including GPL drivers would be an excellent approach after they have sorted out licensing issues if any. Sadly so far they seem to have completely ignored the issue.

[AidenShaw]

Oh absolutely - Linux is doing great on driver front. It even supports the most number of devices out-of-box.

As long as you don't make the slightest change to the kernel version, then you have to rebuild all your Linux drivers from source. (You did select the kernel development packages when you installed, right?)

Linux has the most brain-dead driver development model on the planet today. There's a reason that the drivers have to be in the box - because otherwise they wouldn't work with your 2.6.12.45a-6b.01 kernel.

[Rob0711]

well blueray is a beautiful thing. no sense arguing that. not even apple would do that since they were in the camp making the standard (though as well as dell a late comer in that group but still). their absence in the machines is pretty sure a simple licensing problem which will eventually be resolved. on the other hand there are pretty few people out there who hook their notebook to a high fidelity audio system or a huge surround system. most of them use headphones, integrated speakers or little mobile desktop speakers. so essentially tons of people buy stuff they won´t ever be able to hear or even really use since their monitoring solution just can´t bring it. and i can´t imagine an audiophile who hooks his windows desktop to his high end audio system unless it´s a super custom built extremely low to no noise machine so that´s fracture of the market at best. which leaves us with the gamers. who i guess won´t buy a hifi audio system to play their games either thus muffling the sound at the speaker end of the chain. as well as the guy who takes his blue ray discs on an airplane... i´d always chose to rip my dvd and use a data format for that. and before the flaming starts. i use a mac pro with a blueray writer attached to it since i do work in the audio/video field. still the only place i watch blueray movies in private is on my ps3 ( but actually not often since i prefer the data way on that machine as well). and getting back to the spots a last time, the "mac vs pc" ads are for people with little understanding of computers. just like the laptop farmer spots. they all aim at the huge base of the market. that has little to do with pro work or hardcore gaming use of a computer. (edited out to stop the flamewar). there do are other things out there. you know ?

[ravenvii]

Blu-Ray is certainly nice to have, but to be honest, with the increased price on NetFlix for Blu-Ray, I'll probably stick with DVDs for movies. I don't own any DVDs, and will not own any Blu-Ray movies. So the only way I'd actually watch a Blu-Ray movie is if a friend brings a movie over (and I don't have any friends who actually has Blu-Ray movies) or something.

So even though Blu-Ray is nice to have, in the "up-to-date" sense, I don't really need it.

[Frost1235]

Not that I approve of a gaming laptop but it's a nice all around Sony FW VAIO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qui43P1kztw

I will agree an apple is more expensive price for price with a pc (Something with the same specs)

But come on, hasn't anyone heard of the "sony timer?"

[4D4M]

I haven't been able to keep up with this debate. I had some more important things to tend to. Besides, arguing with an Apple fanboy has about as useful and productive as telling a drunk alcoholic they're drunk and have a problem.

And yet you still persist in doing it.


I do want to touch on a couple of things though.

Oh God.

One, blu-ray. Anyone who says that the difference doesn't exist or is "barely noticeable" on a notebook display is flat out wrong and has never seen a blu-ray movie. I have seen it and its as clear as the Sun in the sky on a clear day. Blu-ray, at 1920x1080 and up to 45Mbps H.264 video will ALWAYS look better than 720x480 ~5Mbps MPEG-2 video on the same display. Down sampling video from 1920x1080 to even 1280x800 will ALWAYS look better than upscaling video from 720x480 to any resolution. With blu-ray you're generally removing pixels to get to lower resolutions. With DVD you have to add pixels and upscale video. With blu-ray you're starting off with slightly over 2 million pixels and generally going down from there. With DVD you're starting off with a little over 345,000 pixels and going UP from there.

In conclusion, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that downscaling an image will always be better than upscaling. Even to 1280x800. When you go to even a "low" resolution of 1280x800 from a DVD source, you have to somehow add nearly 3x the amount of pixels to the picture to get it to fill the screen.

Have I made my point yet?

I've also seen the issue of sound quality brought up in the skimming of the thread I've done.

PCs are MUCH better than Macs for audio playback. Currently, there is no HDMI audio output on a Mac. Theres only a very very small number of multi-channel analog output devices, and none of them have the same capabilities you'd find on a Windows device.

On a Windows PC, you can output 8 channel LPCM over HDMI (good for blu-ray). You can also output higher bitrate Dolby Digital, as well as the 24/96 variants of Dolby Digital and DTS thanks to HDMI, since SPDIF is not capable of such feats.

Theres also a large number of soundcards available for Windows that can encode Dolby Digital AND DTS in real-time. So they can take music, upsample it to 5.1 channel audio, encode it in DTS, and send it over optical to your receiver. Theres even a decent amount of Windows notebook PCs that have this capability built-in.

You can go to newegg right now and buy a system with that capability, blu-ray, and HDMI. With a 15.4 - 16" screen, a 1GB GeForce 9800M GS, the same processor as the MacBook Pro, 4GB of RAM, etc. etc. etc. all for about the same price a the entry UniBody MacBook. This just adds to the fact that PCs are significantly cheaper than Macs and far more capable.

I can go buy a PC thats far more capable than a Mac, cheaper.. and it can be my "work" machine, plus I can hook it up to my HDTV and surround sound and it will be able to take full advantage of the entire system with blu-ray playback and up to 8 channel LCPM, as well as full 5.1 audio for my games.

Anyway, thats about it. These ads are great because they show the fact that PCs are cheaper, more capable, and you get much more for your money.

That's great. Go buy a PC then, and leave those of us who prefer OS X to use our computer of choice.

Thats it for me for now.

We can only hope. But despite having been thoroughly discredited in other threads, you never fail to turn up and spout yet more drivel.

[-hh]

I'm sure that you meant this as

"The improvements in Windows 7 are almost completely compatible with the binary APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) of Windows Vista, so that only a very few kernel drivers and even fewer user applications will need to be updated to work with Windows 7."

and not as

"Windows 7 is a new UI theme for Windows Vista."



Pretty much, but that difference wasn't germane to my point.

My point was that MS is going to continue to have product roll-out problems (such as they had with Vista) for as long as they rely on a business model of "dumping" of part of the work on effectively unpaid 3rd parties for any time that elements such as the APIs undergo change.

And they're dodging this problem ... not fixing it... with Win7, or more accurately, with what's not changing in Win7.


-hh

[KnightWRX]

As long as you don't make the slightest change to the kernel version, then you have to rebuild all your Linux drivers from source. (You did select the kernel development packages when you installed, right?)

Linux has the most brain-dead driver development model on the planet today. There's a reason that the drivers have to be in the box - because otherwise they wouldn't work with your 2.6.12.45a-6b.01 kernel.

You haven't used Linux in a while have you ? Distributions now all do this for you and provide you with a repository. When upgrading kernels, it will do everything for you behind the scenes.

[-hh]

I haven't been able to keep up with this debate. I had some more important things to tend to. Besides, arguing with an Apple fanboy has about as useful and productive as telling a drunk alcoholic they're drunk and have a problem.

Gosh, its a good thing that there aren't any 'Apple fanboys' in this thread then, since name calling is ... well, distasteful and an anathema to your credibility.


One, blu-ray....In conclusion, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that downscaling an image will always be better than upscaling...

Have I made my point yet?

Probably not for those that actually care.

In the semi-disinterested camp, I would wonder how much of your "more accurate pixels" discussion ... whlie true ... is arguably effectively moot because of the lag in hardware response times of LCD screens...what's the difference between 4 pixels of 'true' information that has been blurred versus and 2 true + 2 interpolated that have also been blurred? Nada.

FWIW, I've seen response time specifications listed for desktop LCDs, but I can't ever say that I've noticed these specifications for the screen in a laptop...are current laptop screens really technically good enough for viewing any motion video? Or is it that they're technically not up to the task, but they're adequate to pass the "Good Enough" test?


I've also seen the issue of sound quality brought up in the skimming of the thread I've done.

PCs are MUCH better than Macs for audio playback. Currently, there is no HDMI audio output on a Mac.

Theres only a very very small number of multi-channel analog output devices, and none of them have the same capabilities you'd find on a Windows device.

This is the fallacy where one has confused capacity with capability.

You can go to newegg right now... This just adds to the fact that PCs are significantly cheaper than Macs and far more capable.

If one differentiates based upon Blu-Ray, perhaps.

However if one differentiates products primarily based on the OS and also cares about being a law-abiding citizen who doesn't violate contracts including software EULAs, then every PC that you care to find is irrefutably less capable than any Mac.

The fact that you can do that which is important to you, for what you value (less money), is simply irrelevant to my needs, desires and priorities.

Ditto the reverse, too.

If we make a mistake in our purchasing decisions, as adults, we are responsible for the choices we make, with no one really to blame but ourselves.


-hh

[polaris20]

As long as you don't make the slightest change to the kernel version, then you have to rebuild all your Linux drivers from source. (You did select the kernel development packages when you installed, right?)

Linux has the most brain-dead driver development model on the planet today. There's a reason that the drivers have to be in the box - because otherwise they wouldn't work with your 2.6.12.45a-6b.01 kernel.

You must not use Linux at all. I haven't had to compile anything from source for probably 3 years, and I use it everyday, updating the kernel constantly, drivers constantly.

[BongoBanger]

You haven't used Linux in a while have you ? Distributions now all do this for you and provide you with a repository. When upgrading kernels, it will do everything for you behind the scenes.

Yup. My Intrepid box downloads kernel updates and installs them through package manager. A quick reboot is all that's required.

[AidenShaw]

You haven't used Linux in a while have you ? Distributions now all do this for you and provide you with a repository. When upgrading kernels, it will do everything for you behind the scenes.

Oh, I wish that it were so easy.

I have a lot of Linux servers, and its a royal pain to manage when you need this kernel version for one application, yet your fibre channel card doesn't have a driver for that kernel.

Linux needs to completely overhaul the kernel APIs and use opaque structures. Having the APIs defined in .h files is absurd.

Or has this happened - does Linux have opaque kernel APIs now?

[djellison]

leave those of us who prefer OS X to use our computer of choice.

No - this is the point of epic fail.

OSX is my OS of choice for personal stuff, and presentations. XP 64 is my OS of choice for productivity.

But no Mac would be my computer of choice.

They are all, bar none, over priced and/or under specified.

For many, I would wager, having to purchase a Mac is an unfortunate and expensive side-effect of wanting to use OSX properly.

[Rob0711]

can´t agree with you there. since i do work on a mac and have worked on windows machines before i know both sides. and cost as well as productivity wise the mac is way better than his trying counterparts. and since i´m in one of the industries that actually stress their machines alot your point just doesn´t make any sense. i can only speak for the pro models of the desktop line though since i don´t use a laptop for work related stuff. but from the looks of the people sitting around here using macbook pro´s i doubt they have any of your problems either. but tbh the trolling on macrumors gets a bit absurd these days. seems like half the ms advertising allocation is like 90% forum marketing and 10% for the visual part. that would at least explain the boring ads. else i don´t see the point going to a specialized forum and bashing computers. unless time needs to be killed.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You haven't used Linux in a while have you ? Distributions now all do this for you and provide you with a repository. When upgrading kernels, it will do everything for you behind the scenes.

I've got Mandriva 2009.0 installed on my PC as a second Operating System. Its automatic upgrade feature didn't take 3 major updates before it broke certain parts of the operating system somehow (from the shutdown procedure, which now locks up every time and shows scrambled graphics for the initial picture) to constantly trying to pick the wrong kernel (had to change it to the one that supports more than 1GB of memory since I've got 2) and never including the source code for the NVidia driver automatically (if I forget to manually add it for that kernel, I won't get any graphics on the next boot) to constantly screwing up the LOCATION of where the Linux install is (it keeps automatically rewriting my MBR GRUB boot file to point to the wrong drive and not include my Windows install) even though all of this was set in the initial install that went fine. And Mandriva at least WORKS, which is more than I can say for OpenSUSE, which locks up competely randomly all the time for unknown reasons. Mandriva does NOT like my fairly common Lightscribe DVD-RW drive and doesn't work properly with actual DVDs in it (for Handbrake or even just playing movies). It'll lock up randomly or even refuse to play at all. I updated the drive's firmware and nothing matters. It just doesn't support it properly. It works fine in Windows XP. This largely makes Linux unusable for many things I do. I'm tired of having to throw out or sell hardware to find something that "does" work with Linux because this kind of thing happens all the time. It was even more common 5 years ago, but it still happens with very basic hardware.

Then there is Ubuntu which doesn't support ANYTHING you'd want to use right out of the box (e.g. DVD access, WMA video files, MP4 files, MP3 files, etc. You name it; it doesn't support it since they're not "open" enough for them which makes it a CRAP distribution. You aren't even allowed to DISCUSS where to find that stuff on their boards the last time I looked, which is total BS). Ubuntu also failed to boot from their Live CD using the graphical install and failed to recognize my 7900GS video card (probably because they don't include Nvidia drivers either because they're not "open" which means you can forget about having an 'easy' installation for 99% of most systems that have modern graphcis cards). I can't even IMAGINE how Ubuntu got where it is in Linux market share when they include virtually NOTHING of value/use in their default distribution. Neither they or Mandriva support PPC machines (I think Suse does) in the official distributions.

In short, Linux has a LONG way to go before it's as easy to use as Windows, let alone OS X, which is the ONLY Unix based OS I've ever used that is as good or better than a non-Unix OS like Windows in nearly every area. What no one else has been able to do in 50 years, Apple managed to do just a few short years. They do deserve a lot of credit for that feat and it's one of the things that makes OS X special. I may hate Apple's greed and their anti-competition attitude towards hardware, but they do have a great OS for the most part (lack of gaming support needs a LOT of attention, though as does hardware acceleration for things like video).

[KnightWRX]

Oh, I wish that it were so easy.

I have a lot of Linux servers, and its a royal pain to manage when you need this kernel version for one application, yet your fibre channel card doesn't have a driver for that kernel.

Linux needs to completely overhaul the kernel APIs and use opaque structures. Having the APIs defined in .h files is absurd.

Or has this happened - does Linux have opaque kernel APIs now?

Then you're doing something very wrong (like not checking HALs vs what you want to run) or running your servers off Gentoo. We have a very, very big Linux installation, using Novell SLES, and have 0 issues with upgrading kernels. We push them using ZLM and reboot the machines in the off hours. Even though all this has only been in place 2 months (we're a Solaris shop), we're now down to only very very small issues with this (basically, some of the earlier machines don't have ZLM, so they require manual RPM install).

If your fibrechannel card requires a different kernel version than what your Application allows, 2 things come to mind real quick : You suck at choosing fibrechannel cards, next time check before you click order on ebay or your Application is very poorly written if it is dabling in kernel APIs to begin with.

Having APIs defined in .h files is absurd ? Really ? Because I'm pretty sure I have to do a #include <windows.h> on any Win32 application. Where should APIs be defined ? In your own supplied header files ?

I think what you mean is that APIs are constantly evolving, meaning that your program might not compile against the latest header files. You want feature frozen APIs which are only extended and not changed.

Then there is Ubuntu which doesn't support ANYTHING you'd want to use right out of the box (e.g. DVD access, WMA video files, MP4 files, MP3 files, etc. You name it; it doesn't support it since they're not "open" enough for them which makes it a CRAP distribution.

This right here discredited your entire post (which was pretty trollish to being with, you need to stop thinking your hardware compatibility problems are somehow Linux problems).

Ubuntu is built on Debian and as such is the most Open of all distributions. Of course, you're misguided in what Open actually means in Open Source. Your MP3 files/DVD access are patent encumbered algorithms and as such are not Open at all. You either need a patent license for them or live in a country where the patent is invalid. Ubuntu however allows you through 2 clicks in the GUI to install non-free elements like these (including the nVidia graphics driver which are also non-free, being not Open at all).

This doesn't make it a CRAP distribution, it's a idealogical choice of only supporting Free (as in freedom) software out of the box. The fact that the option is there to easily, using freely provided repositories with a GUI tool to install all these components isn't enough of a compromise on their ideology to you ?

I think your problem is that you probably never really had to use Linux for any lenght of time beyond installing the flavor of the month once in a while.

[parapup]

As long as you don't make the slightest change to the kernel version, then you have to rebuild all your Linux drivers from source. (You did select the kernel development packages when you installed, right?)

Linux has the most brain-dead driver development model on the planet today. There's a reason that the drivers have to be in the box - because otherwise they wouldn't work with your 2.6.12.45a-6b.01 kernel.

And how many times you make a change to your Windows or Mac Kernel Source? :) Point is that if you use a sane distribution like Ubuntu or Fedora or Debian or CentOS - you do not need to do anything out of the ordinary.

About the driver development model - it is an evolving OS and stable APIs are not primary focus as much as adding new features and drivers while avoiding bloat is. The drivers do not have to be in the box strictly speaking - distributions can provide matching drivers and Ubuntu does for 3rd party drivers like Nvidia's.

If you use a long term supported distro like Ubuntu LTS or CentOS - none of what you claim is problematic in any way.

[AidenShaw]

:rolleyes:And how many times you make a change to your Windows or Mac Kernel Source? :)

Potentially every time that I run software update. Fixes frequently involve modifications to kernel components.


About the driver development model - it is an evolving OS and stable APIs are not primary focus...

Good for computer science department labs - but bad for my server room or desktop.


If you use a long term supported distro like Ubuntu LTS or CentOS - none of what you claim is problematic in any way.

Except for my 24-core server with two quad-port 4Gbps FibreChannel cards, a 10GbE card, embedded BBWC and EMC raid controller management software that doesn't run on "toy" desktop distros.

...but works fine with Windows Server 2008 because there's only one Windows driver model and one current Windows OS distribution and one significant downlevel version.
_______

I have racks of server that all have multiple PCIe cards where any one of my PCIe cards costs more than your desktop system.

And you're trying to tell me about Linux driver compability and distro issues....

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Any time you say "which Linux" - I'll respond with "epic FAIL".

[AidenShaw]

Having APIs defined in .h files is absurd ? Really ? Because I'm pretty sure I have to do a #include <windows.h> on any Win32 application. Where should APIs be defined ? In your own supplied header files ?

Do you really believe this?

In "windows.h" (or to be more precise, on the include file for kernel APIs being used, but I won't correct you), it says that routine FooKernelRoutine has a first parameter that is a HANDLE.

On Linux, the "kernel.h" says that routine FooKernelRoutine has a first parameter that is a pointer to a struct FooStruct that consists of

int id;
PROC *Foo
FooParmStruct * bar.


Which is more extensible?

[polaris20]

Except for my 24-core server with two quad-port 4Gbps FibreChannel cards, a 10GbE card, embedded BBWC and EMC raid controller management software that doesn't run on "toy" desktop distros.

...but works fine with Windows Server 2008 because there's only one Windows driver model and one current Windows OS distribution and one significant downlevel version.
_______

I have racks of server that all have multiple PCIe cards where any one of my PCIe cards costs more than your desktop system.

And you're trying to tell me about Linux driver compability and distro issues....

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Any time you say "which Linux" - I'll respond with "epic FAIL".

And I've got several servers with similar hardware with no issues running Debian just fine. So let's start the personal anecdotes a rollin', shall we?

Arguments like this are a slippery slope because everyone has different experiences. So your "epic fail" could very much be a problem somewhere on your end, because others just don't experience those kinds of problems.

You don't really think you're the only one running servers with Linux, do you?

And please don't tell me Debian is a "toy" desktop operating system.

[polaris20]

I've got Mandriva 2009.0 installed on my PC as a second Operating System. Its automatic upgrade feature didn't take 3 major updates before it broke certain parts of the operating system somehow (from the shutdown procedure, which now locks up every time and shows scrambled graphics for the initial picture) to constantly trying to pick the wrong kernel (had to change it to the one that supports more than 1GB of memory since I've got 2) and never including the source code for the NVidia driver automatically (if I forget to manually add it for that kernel, I won't get any graphics on the next boot) to constantly screwing up the LOCATION of where the Linux install is (it keeps automatically rewriting my MBR GRUB boot file to point to the wrong drive and not include my Windows install) even though all of this was set in the initial install that went fine. And Mandriva at least WORKS,

Out of all the rpm-based distros, Mandriva has got to be the worst. Never found it to be anything special, and its updates suck.

which is more than I can say for OpenSUSE, which locks up competely randomly all the time for unknown reasons. Mandriva does NOT like my fairly common Lightscribe DVD-RW drive and doesn't work properly with actual DVDs in it (for Handbrake or even just playing movies). It'll lock up randomly or even refuse to play at all. I updated the drive's firmware and nothing matters. It just doesn't support it properly. It works fine in Windows XP. This largely makes Linux unusable for many things I do. I'm tired of having to throw out or sell hardware to find something that "does" work with Linux because this kind of thing happens all the time. It was even more common 5 years ago, but it still happens with very basic hardware.

That's odd, I've never had that issue with SuSe, from 9.3 to current. It just works, right out of the box, as long as you make sure the hardware is on the HCL.

Then there is Ubuntu which doesn't support ANYTHING you'd want to use right out of the box (e.g. DVD access, WMA video files, MP4 files, MP3 files, etc. You name it; it doesn't support it since they're not "open" enough for them which makes it a CRAP distribution. You aren't even allowed to DISCUSS where to find that stuff on their boards the last time I looked, which is total BS). Ubuntu also failed to boot from their Live CD using the graphical install and failed to recognize my 7900GS video card (probably because they don't include Nvidia drivers either because they're not "open" which means you can forget about having an 'easy' installation for 99% of most systems that have modern graphcis cards). I can't even IMAGINE how Ubuntu got where it is in Linux market share when they include virtually NOTHING of value/use in their default distribution. Neither they or Mandriva support PPC machines (I think Suse does) in the official distributions.

Not quite sure why you had difficulties with Ubuntu. If you want to play nearly any video file, if it doesn't already have the codec, it will say "would you like me to find the codec?" and will download it, and it will play. It plays DVDs, MP4's, MP3's, whatever. If you've got proprietary codecs needed, a quick look on their support site shows a repository to add to get WMA support. Not hard at all.

nVidia graphics cards are actually the easiest. Ubuntu sees that you've got a card with an available restricted driver, and asks if you'd like to install it. You do. It's done. Again, not hard.

In short, Linux has a LONG way to go before it's as easy to use as Windows, let alone OS X, which is the ONLY Unix based OS I've ever used that is as good or better than a non-Unix OS like Windows in nearly every area. What no one else has been able to do in 50 years, Apple managed to do just a few short years. They do deserve a lot of credit for that feat and it's one of the things that makes OS X special. I may hate Apple's greed and their anti-competition attitude towards hardware, but they do have a great OS for the most part (lack of gaming support needs a LOT of attention, though as does hardware acceleration for things like video).

In short, because you've had bad experiences and are clearly lacking Linux experience in general, you're making a broad generalization that Linux has a long way to go, which is, in my opinion, very inaccurate. Ubuntu itself is easier to install than Windows XP is. A few questions, wait 20 minutes, and you're done.

[DMann]

There are lies, dammned lies and then there are statistics! BD disc sales in America in 2008 were 4.5% of the total, i.e 95.5% were DVD's. That's great success? BD's main backer, Sony lost 2.9 billion dollars last year and has never made a cent on any PS3 sale to date.

4.5% is significant! Don't you realize that 4.5% is almost 5%? Never mind that 95.5% of sales were DVDs - this doesn't count, it's nonsense, I tell you!

[AidenShaw]

And I've got several servers with similar hardware with no issues running Debian just fine....

Thank you (and the subsequent posters) for supporting my argument that Linux is a mess of incompatible, randomly supported, mostly downloadable, free buckets of crap.

You have "several servers" running OK - why that's great! I have hundreds running Windows Server - and that's great too.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This right here discredited your entire post (which was pretty trollish to being with, you need to stop thinking your hardware compatibility problems are somehow Linux problems).


Maybe YOU are the troll. Man I'm sick of anyone who has ANYTHING negative to say about ANYTHING being labeled a troll. We're not even talking about OS X here, but Linux on an OS X forum. You don't have a freaking clue what I use based on your absurd response.

The fact my DVD-RW drive does not work in Linux is not a Linux problem? WTF!? Since when? It was stated in this thread about how great driver support is in Linux compared to OS X when you really look at it. Well, it's not great enough to use the hardware I already have. There IS a driver for that DVD-RW drive in Linux. It simply isn't stable. And you can forget about getting a stable driver for it. I've had that drive now for a year and a half and the drive has existed much longer than that. It's still not stable with the latest kernel updates and probably never will be. My Intel web camera has had a driver in Linux for 8 years, but it's never worked "properly" and it NEVER WILL because no one will ever finish the driver (the thing isn't even sold any more so you can be certain there is no incentive for anyone tow ork on it).

Basically, if you're going to use Linux, you had better make DARN CERTAIN that you buy fully compatible hardware FOR it because you can in NO WAY assume that the PC you already own will work with Linux. They've had over a dozen years now to make Linux a competitor with Windows and that's a LONG time. It's still pretty darn rough around the edges, IMO. I've just finally started to see some joystick preference panes that rare GUI instead of CLI. It only took them a decade to get to adding it, even though the basic driver has had good joystick support for most of that time. And if you point these things out on Linux forums you get the standard response of "if you want that then write it yourself or shut up about it". Sorry, but I have no interest in writing drivers, preference panes or anything else of the sort. I'll just use an operating system that has that support already, thank you very much. Linux has always been and seemingly always will be for hackers. There are some dedicated individuals trying very hard to make Linux more than that and even some companies like IBM supporting it for their own server interests, but in the end, it still isn't a great desktop OS. Maybe in another 10 years, it'll be as easy to use as WindowsXP and another 10 after that OS X from today. But where will Windows and OS X be in 10-20 years?



Ubuntu is built on Debian and as such is the most Open of all distributions. Of course, you're misguided in what Open actually means in Open Source.


I already said they are not "open enough" (implying not open source in a sarcastic way), but clearly that flew right over your head.


Your MP3 files/DVD access are patent encumbered algorithms and as such are not Open at all. You either need a patent license for them or live in a country where the patent is invalid.


Yeah right. That's why Mandriva comes with them because I need to live in another country.... It's more like certain distributions cave when it comes to anything that might POSSIBLY give them a problem in the legal department. Most of the time, however, it's simply a choice from Linux purists that seem to think if a program is not GNU then it shouldn't be supported, distributed or even talked about. Most Linux purists are not happy unless NO ONE is making money off any of their work. They try to force this by not allowing any GNU software to be used for anything that is not GNU also. By doing so, they simply alienate developers who might otherwise support Linux.


Ubuntu however allows you through 2 clicks in the GUI to install non-free elements like these (including the nVidia graphics driver which are also non-free, being not Open at all).


I cannot speak for the very latest install, but there was no such functionality when I attempted to install a Ubuntu on either my PPC machine in the past or my PC. Most distributions (even Mandriva) do not offer ANY support for setting up non-free repositories. You have to generally search high and low for support information on where to find them. I did find a very nice site that gives the information for various distributions, though, but it took a lot of searching in years past. That in no way validates things for new users who will wonder why MP3 is a bad word on the Ubuntu forums. Sorry, but Ubuntu's "ideology" simply isn't my own.


This doesn't make it a CRAP distribution, it's a idealogical choice of only supporting Free (as in freedom) software out of the box. The fact that the


You call it an ideological choice. I call it lame. Some of us don't want to hunt high and low for BASIC functionality like the ability to play MP3 files. Any operating system that has no such support out of the box is not ready for prime time. When a $3 MP3 player at Walmart can play them and a Linux distribution cannot, well how does that make Linux look? Sorry, but commercial music is NOT typically distributed/sold in OGG.


option is there to easily, using freely provided repositories with a GUI tool to install all these components isn't enough of a compromise on their ideology to you ?


I don't CARE about THEIR ideology. I care about the ability to play my media libraries and MOST of the world uses MP3/MP4 and DVDs, not OGG and FLAC (there is no alternative to DVDs since they're studio based).


I think your problem is that you probably never really had to use Linux for any lenght of time beyond installing the flavor of the month once in a while.

How the heck would you know how long I've used Linux? I've been trying and using Linux distributions since 2000. I've gone through at LEAST 10 Linux installs and 5 distributions in that time. Back before I discovered OS X, I was still gung-ho to stay away from Microsoft because the way I saw it, they were at least partially responsible for the demise of the Amiga (gross mismanagement by Commodore was the rest). Their business practices are abhorrent, but I've since discovered Apple is no better at all. Both companies are extremely anti-competitive. So yes it would be very NICE if Linux were a good alternative to either one.

But the fact remains that even IF you have fully supported and functional hardware with Linux, you STILL have JACK when it comes to choices for commercial quality software. For example, I don't care how much you want to hype the Gimp, it is NO SUBSTITUTE WHAT-SO-EVER for Photoshop. The inability to get real-time previews for transforms alone KILLS it (sorry but grids are no substitute for seeing the actual image as you manipulate a transform). You can TRY to run WINE to get Photoshop to work in Linux, but the fact is it's glitchy at BEST and downright crashes at worst. I know because I've tried high and low to make Linux an effective environment to use instead of Windows. But it's not even effective if I throw out gaming. Linux is getting better, but it still has a long way to go before it's ready to compete with Windows on a user desktop level. And until the developers are ready to agree on STANDARDS for things like application installation, commercial software will continue to be a joke. At least you can get a decent browser these days (I'm referring to Firefox). Back in 2000, browser support was pretty pathetic in Linux. Do you need to run iTunes? Too bad. Older versions "kind of" worked in Wine, but it's VERY VERY slow (even on very fast hardware) and some features don't work at all.

If you're willing to eschew nearly all commercial software and only have basic word processing, e-mail and browser needs, then Linux might be for you. If you're a programmer or a hacker and are willing to jump through hoops to get everything working that's possible to get working, then Linux might be for you. If you want to do complex commercial work, forget about it. Linux is a joke in those areas and probably always will be since supporting such software or trying to attract such software goes against so many of the Linux community's "ideology".

The fact is I DID jump through those hoops and I did get all those things working (save the hardware drivers that simply aren't very good). I know the shell environment in Linux pretty darn well. That does NOT mean I think any better of Linux because of it. I know full well MOST people have no interest in learning those things and the fact is that operating systems like OS X prove you do not NEED to know those things in order to do your work.

The BEST operating system would be the one you never even notice. You should be able to sit down and get to work. It should be completely intuitive and easy to learn. Currently, OS X is by FAR the closest to that experience. The Mac has a well deserved reputation for being easy to learn and for "non-computer" people to use. The real question is WHY should any operating system be otherwise? Why should you have to sit and read a 500 page book on Linux for dummies to figure out what to do when it dumps you into a shell and X refuses to start because the updater didn't include the Nvidia source for the latest kernel update and therefore X won't start. Just to find out that is the root of the problem online when it's not obvious to you because you are not into the roots of operating systems could take HOURS. And you can FORGET about getting help from most Linux users on IRC chat rooms, etc. Their typical reply is "RTFM" even though most Linux 'manuals' (and I use that term VERY loosely) consist of "man" pages (if ANYTHING which is also very common) and they are pretty darn cryptic at times, often poorly written and force new Linux users to use the CLI right off the bat.

Yeah, some of these newer distributions are fine so long as they work like they're supposed to and you don't look for software it didn't set up repositories for you to use automatically. But the first time something goes awry (and it will), you are staring at a CLI prompt wondering WTF to do to fix it. Odds are you won't be able to fix it as a new user that does not have intensive detail knowledge of the CLI. You'll just delete the whole thing and start over, maybe with Windows instead. Forget about commercial backup software too. Better get used to Rsync on the command line....

Out of all the rpm-based distros, Mandriva has got to be the worst. Never found it to be anything special, and its updates suck.

I've had the least problems *BY FAR* with Mandriva over the years. It has simply WORKED with my hardware where other distributions have had serious issues or required a lot of extra work.


That's odd, I've never had that issue with SuSe, from 9.3 to current. It just works, right out of the box, as long as you make sure the hardware is on the HCL.


That's NICE that YOU have not had problems with Suse, but that in NO WAY means others have not. My hardware is supposedly supported. It works fine for awhile and then the whole system FREEZES with no explanation, no indicators in the logs, etc. I've found a few others that had similar problems before, but for the most part there's no explanations out there and no support to figure out the problem. When Suse 11.x came out, I tried it again and it had the same problem. Everything else seemed much nicer and with a lot of reboots, I have it all set up on an extra partition with all the non-free codecs installed, etc. I'd be using it today instead of Mandriva if it weren't for those freezes, but I'm sick of them.


Not quite sure why you had difficulties with Ubuntu. If you want to play nearly any video file, if it doesn't already have the codec, it will say "would you like me to find the codec?" and will download it, and it will play. It plays DVDs, MP4's, MP3's, whatever. If you've got proprietary codecs needed, a quick look on their support site shows a repository to add to get WMA support. Not hard at all.


Ubuntu's Live CD wouldn't even load on my computer here. The graphical loader craps out (shows unreadable garbage display) every time and despite two releases since the first time, it still didn't work the last time I used it. Bypassing the normal graphical loader does work, but until I got my newer PC last year, Ubuntu ran like CRAP on my old one because it's memory hungry (my last PC only 788MB of ram, which was more than enough for Mandriva and Windows98, but not Ubunut). I also had a less than stellar experience I had when I tried it out on my PowerMac two years ago for similar reasons. Tiger was happy with 512MB of ram, but Ubuntu ran like molasses. I guess I somehow expected it to be faster than OS X, but it was definitely slower.


Bypassing the normal graphical loader, it comes up
nVidia graphics cards are actually the easiest. Ubuntu sees that you've got a card with an available restricted driver, and asks if you'd like to install it. You do. It's done. Again, not hard.


Again, not everything that works for you works for everyone else. I'm sure you won't believe that since like most Linux users, you seem to think it's better than it really is.


In short, because you've had bad experiences and are clearly lacking Linux experience in general, you're making a broad generalization that Linux has a


If you call 10 years of Linux experience "lacking in general" then you CLEARLY must have pretty darn high expectations for what 'experience' is in the Linux world. I mean for goodness sake you're one arrogant elitist. Don't feel bad. 90% of the people I met in the Linux world over the past decade were elitist types that looked down on everyone that wasn't just like them. OS X has similar behaving users, but they're more like fanatics than elitists. Windows has both, but more represents 'average' people than either the Mac or Linux.

[tubbymac]

90% of the people I met in the Linux world over the past decade were elitist types that looked down on everyone that wasn't just like them. OS X has similar behaving users, but they're more like fanatics than elitists. Windows has both, but more represents 'average' people than either the Mac or Linux.

Heh, so true. Honestly I'd love to live in a world where Linux was on top. Philosophically and ideologically, it's a much nicer alternative than having Microsoft or Apple on top. But I keep trying out the latest versions of Ubuntu, or Fedora, or whatever else, and they all just aren't that great for the typical user on the desktop yet. They are quite competitive on the server side, no doubt, but I'm seeing a lot more people switch from either Windows or Linux to Apple these days.

[MikeTheC]

Wow, I had no idea mentioning Linux here would touch off such a firestorm. I want to address a couple things here and then follow up with comments regarding what I was talking about and responded to earlier.

Aiden:

I'm going to start off by saying I haven't done any Linux server management myself, so as of this moment, on a personal basis, I have to plead ignorance. However, if my experience as sort of my own "desktop admin" is any guide, I'm sorry but I can't help but feeling something is not quite right in what your experiences have been. I will look into your comments and, if I can find anything insightful or useful for you, I will relay it to you, either in a public thread or via PM.


Ubuntu OOB Support:

Maybe this has already been bludgeoned to death up-thread, but I think certain things bear repeating, just to ensure they are absolutely crystal clear. GNU/Linux as an OS is an open-source platform. In it's purest form (and purity where the rubber meets the road does vary from distro to distro, depending on their priorities) a GNU/Linux system has nothing on it that's proprietary in nature. This is absolutely the case in Debian and Fedora, for instance, and slightly less so (but not that much less) in Ubuntu, which is based on Debian. This is a mix of philosophical, ethical, legal and practical issues, all of which collectively are beyond the scope of this thread or, arguably, most non-Linux message boards. Therefore, I will not entertain nor will I respond to comments based on the notion of mere personal (dis)agreement. I'm not discussing opinion here, not mine nor anyone elses'.

Some distros allow a relatively few non-free pieces of software into their system where there is absolutely no practical alternative and for those things which are basically mission-critical. That's their deciding factor. Anything else, no matter how critical, will not prevent the install from functioning, and so at that point anything else that's non-free will not be included, period. Mark Shuttleworth's goal, and that of Canonical, and therefore "and that of Ubuntu" is to encourage the common and open development of all software, be they applications, codecs, hardware drivers, or anything else. He and other like-minded members of the F/OSS movement hold the tactical and strategic view (this is generalizing, but reasonably accurate) that just packing their distros (or Linux in general) full of closed-source drivers decreases the incentive for the development of open-source versions, or of open standards-based solutions. What or how much or on what basis gets included is, as I mentioned above, strictly a decision of any given distro.

Looking at this not from a high-and-mighty position but from a more practical standpoint, I totally understand how it can be frustrating for someone who simply doesn't have a clue about such things to toss a distro on their system and become frustrated because all their video and audio files, etc., don't "just work" right out of the box. Absolutely, I "get it". I'll go you one step further and even say I can see how you might feel, could you step out of yourself and step back far enough to look at the whole situation, like you're some kind of pawn caught up in someone elses' war. Again, it's beyond the scope of MacRumors to really discuss and debate this, and as it is I've already hijacked this thread from the original discussion far enough and long enough, I want to conclude what I've started here and get us back on-topic as quickly as possible

All of that being said, the practical resolution to such issues is to go into, in the case of Ubuntu, the Synaptic Package Manager, do a search for "DVD" or "MP3", etc., find the packages marked "non-free" and/or "ugly" and then simply install them. In the case of your video card, Ubuntu will actually let you know there's an available non-free driver to fully support it, and "Would you like to install it anyway even though it's non-free?" Tell it go ahead, then eventually reboot, and you're golden.



Alright, now finally (since I'd rather make this one post and not several successive ones), let me as briefly as possible get to what I was interested in responding to in the first place.

Apple would benefit from incorporating F/OSS drivers (with appropriate GPL compliance, of course!) simply because they are open to inspection, require no fees paid or NDAs signed, and Apple doesn't have to worry that they'll be the only ones who can do anything with them. The whole concept behind F/OSS drivers is that you get massively peer-reviewed code, which should be desireable in any situation. I mean, if you can have a driver that 1000 people have looked at instead of, say, 50, the it's probably likely to be more stable, have better implimentation of features, and so on.

[DMann]

Glad to see the ads have been this effective:

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/04/15/piper-jaffray-sales-count-22-iphones-28-macs-a-day/

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/idc_mac_gains_u.s._market_share_in_march_quarter

[polaris20]

Thank you (and the subsequent posters) for supporting my argument that Linux is a mess of incompatible, randomly supported, mostly downloadable, free buckets of crap.

Yup, it's so incredibly difficult to research hardware and software compatibility with Linux when making a platform decision, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Keep up with broad generalizations though, I find them amusing. Red Hat and Novell are "randomly supported". Yup. ;)

You have "several servers" running OK - why that's great! I have hundreds running Windows Server - and that's great too.

Wow, I'm so impressed. We have Windows Servers too. So?

[Anuba]

4.5% is significant! Don't you realize that 4.5% is almost 5%? Never mind that 95.5% of sales were DVDs - this doesn't count, it's nonsense, I tell you!
Well, 4,5% is more than the Mac's worldwide market share, so... I suppose you're right, Blu-Ray is utterly insignificant. ;)

[AidenShaw]

Red Hat and Novell are "randomly supported". Yup. ;)

Compared to the ease of getting hardware support for Windows, yes. With a maze of kernel versions to navigate, it's a crap shoot.

[polaris20]

I cannot speak for the very latest install, but there was no such functionality when I attempted to install a Ubuntu on either my PPC machine in the past or my PC. Most distributions (even Mandriva) do not offer ANY support for setting up non-free repositories. You have to generally search high and low for support information on where to find them.

I haven't checked with other distros in awhile, but they're clearly listed on at least Ubuntu's and OpenSuse's websites.

I did find a very nice site that gives the information for various distributions, though, but it took a lot of searching in years past. That in no way validates things for new users who will wonder why MP3 is a bad word on the Ubuntu forums. Sorry, but Ubuntu's "ideology" simply isn't my own.

I really don't mean to sound rude, but Ubuntu just works with MP3s. There's no issue. Either you've never used it and are slandering it with no reason, or you had some seriously weird issue.

You call it an ideological choice. I call it lame. Some of us don't want to hunt high and low for BASIC functionality like the ability to play MP3 files. Any operating system that has no such support out of the box is not ready for prime time. When a $3 MP3 player at Walmart can play them and a Linux distribution cannot, well how does that make Linux look? Sorry, but commercial music is NOT typically distributed/sold in OGG.

And by hunting high and low, you mean doubleclicking on it? Because that's all you have to do.

I don't CARE about THEIR ideology. I care about the ability to play my media libraries and MOST of the world uses MP3/MP4 and DVDs, not OGG and FLAC (there is no alternative to DVDs since they're studio based).

I agree. That's why for a desktop distro, Ubuntu is so strong. It just works with all my Quicktime files, MP3's, MP4's, MPEG, whatever.

How the heck would you know how long I've used Linux? I've been trying and using Linux distributions since 2000. I've gone through at LEAST 10 Linux installs and 5 distributions in that time. Back before I discovered OS X, I was still gung-ho to stay away from Microsoft because the way I saw it, they were at least partially responsible for the demise of the Amiga (gross mismanagement by Commodore was the rest). Their business practices are abhorrent, but I've since discovered Apple is no better at all. Both companies are extremely anti-competitive. So yes it would be very NICE if Linux were a good alternative to either one.

We made the assumption you haven't been using it that long based upon your remedial issues with it. Our mistake. To be honest, 10 installs is really not that much at all, in my opinion.

But the fact remains that even IF you have fully supported and functional hardware with Linux, you STILL have JACK when it comes to choices for commercial quality software. For example, I don't care how much you want to hype the Gimp, it is NO SUBSTITUTE WHAT-SO-EVER for Photoshop. The inability to get real-time previews for transforms alone KILLS it (sorry but grids are no substitute for seeing the actual image as you manipulate a transform). You can TRY to run WINE to get Photoshop to work in Linux, but the fact is it's glitchy at BEST and downright crashes at worst. I know because I've tried high and low to make Linux an effective environment to use instead of Windows. But it's not even effective if I throw out gaming. Linux is getting better, but it still has a long way to go before it's ready to compete with Windows on a user desktop level. And until the developers are ready to agree on STANDARDS for things like application installation, commercial software will continue to be a joke. At least you can get a decent browser these days (I'm referring to Firefox). Back in 2000, browser support was pretty pathetic in Linux. Do you need to run iTunes? Too bad. Older versions "kind of" worked in Wine, but it's VERY VERY slow (even on very fast hardware) and some features don't work at all.

If you're willing to eschew nearly all commercial software and only have basic word processing, e-mail and browser needs, then Linux might be for you. If you're a programmer or a hacker and are willing to jump through hoops to get everything working that's possible to get working, then Linux might be for you. If you want to do complex commercial work, forget about it. Linux is a joke in those areas and probably always will be since supporting such software or trying to attract such software goes against so many of the Linux community's "ideology".


Yup, commercial software is tough to come by on Linux, and WINE is not the solution, and is often the problem. Software developers need to port their apps to Linux, if Linux is to gain more ground on the desktop. Who knows if that'll ever happen.

The BEST operating system would be the one you never even notice. You should be able to sit down and get to work. It should be completely intuitive and easy to learn. Currently, OS X is by FAR the closest to that experience. The Mac has a well deserved reputation for being easy to learn and for "non-computer" people to use. The real question is WHY should any operating system be otherwise? Why should you have to sit and read a 500 page book on Linux for dummies to figure out what to do when it dumps you into a shell and X refuses to start because the updater didn't include the Nvidia source for the latest kernel update and therefore X won't start. Just to find out that is the root of the problem online when it's not obvious to you because you are not into the roots of operating systems could take HOURS. And you can FORGET about getting help from most Linux users on IRC chat rooms, etc. Their typical reply is "RTFM" even though most Linux 'manuals' (and I use that term VERY loosely) consist of "man" pages (if ANYTHING which is also very common) and they are pretty darn cryptic at times, often poorly written and force new Linux users to use the CLI right off the bat.

Again, have you tried Ubuntu? it's really not difficult to use at all, and rarely ever forces you to the CLI. Their support forums are excellent, as is their documentation on their website. Something tells me you spent 5 minutes with it, it didn't work immediately, so you gave up.

If you call 10 years of Linux experience "lacking in general" then you CLEARLY must have pretty darn high expectations for what 'experience' is in the Linux world. I mean for goodness sake you're one arrogant elitist. Don't feel bad. 90% of the people I met in the Linux world over the past decade were elitist types that looked down on everyone that wasn't just like them. OS X has similar behaving users, but they're more like fanatics than elitists. Windows has both, but more represents 'average' people than either the Mac or Linux.

I call 10 installs and 5 distributions lacking in experience, yes. I call someone who fails to check hardware compatibility lists lacking in experience, yes. If that makes me "elitist" because I follow guidelines for hardware and software, then I guess I'm elitist.

I also have a problem with blanket statements like you like to make, especially when it's clear many people do just fine with many different distributions of Linux.

Keep spreading the FUD though, keep trolling.

[polaris20]

Compared to the ease of getting hardware support for Windows, yes. With a maze of kernel versions to navigate, it's a crap shoot.

There's nothing random about it. Check the supported hardware lists, then proceed.

I could understand your frustration if you're trying to work with Slack or Gentoo, but the major players? Come on.

I agree, there's not as much support for Linux as Windows. No doubt. But that's the hardware vendor's fault; not Linux.

[DMann]

Well, 4,5% is more than the Mac's worldwide market share, so... I suppose you're right, Blu-Ray is utterly insignificant. ;)

By the same token, MS (representing less market share than DVD purchases) is even less relevant.

[AidenShaw]

There's nothing random about it. Check the supported hardware lists, then proceed.

I could understand your frustration if you're trying to work with Slack or Gentoo, but the major players? Come on.

I agree, there's not as much support for Linux as Windows. No doubt. But that's the hardware vendor's fault; not Linux.

We buy commodity servers by the pallet, based on features and price (latest ones coming ar dual socket Nehalems for EPT testing and evaluation.

We may not know the application/hardware mix when we order the servers. There have been times when we've had to put Linux in a VM because otherwise it couldn't use the hardware.

But, the new servers have slightly different NICs and RAID controllers - so problem. Can't use with the older kernel that runs with the application. Gotta find drivers...

You're acknowledging the issue at least - believe me that it's a headache. If you are one person, buying one desktop for a set of applications/hardware in your workflow - it's reasonable to cross reference the HCLs and application requirements. At the datacenter level - it simply does not scale.

[polaris20]

We buy commodity servers by the pallet, based on features and price (latest ones coming ar dual socket Nehalems for EPT testing and evaluation.

We may not know the application/hardware mix when we order the servers. There have been times when we've had to put Linux in a VM because otherwise it couldn't use the hardware.

But, the new servers have slightly different NICs and RAID controllers - so problem. Can't use with the older kernel that runs with the application. Gotta find drivers...

You're acknowledging the issue at least - believe me that it's a headache. If you are one person, buying one desktop for a set of applications/hardware in your workflow - it's reasonable to cross reference the HCLs and application requirements. At the datacenter level - it simply does not scale.

Yeah, that's a pain in the ass then. I can't imagine dealing with it at that point if there are variances with hardware. We're not the biggest datacenter, but I know of larger ones in Chicago (where I used to be a consultant) that they were able to specify hundreds of servers at a time with specific hardware requirements. Do you guys use a tier 1 vendor (HP, Dell, IBM)? HP has always been pretty darn consistent for us, in terms of hardware spec, especially on the DL300 series and up. I don't know about the others. Only dealt with Dell on a much smaller scale (<100 servers).

[AidenShaw]

HP has always been pretty darn consistent for us, in terms of hardware spec, especially on the DL300 series and up.

All DL360/DL38x/DL58x. Problems come when they change generations. The G5 added the BCM NICs with onboard accelerated iSCSI. It was compatible with the older drivers for IP - but since the hardware ID had been bumped they wouldn't load.

Most of the issues are with SAN and other third party cards, though.

[polaris20]

All DL360/DL38x/DL58x. Problems come when they change generations. The G5 added the BCM NICs with onboard accelerated iSCSI. It was compatible with the older drivers for IP - but since the hardware ID had been bumped they wouldn't load.

Most of the issues are with SAN and other third party cards, though.

Yeah, they definitely change from G4 to G5 to etc.

What distro are you using?

[KnightWRX]

Yeah right. That's why Mandriva comes with them because I need to live in another country.... It's more like certain distributions cave when it comes to anything that might POSSIBLY give them a problem in the legal department.

Mandriva comes with them, in the US, because Mandriva pays for patent licenses (for mp3 files and DVD CSS). Ubuntu does not. And the GUI installer for non-free components has been there since at least 6.04, which is 3 years old now. Continue showing your ignorance.

Your long, pissed tirade just showed one thing, the truth hurts.

We buy commodity servers by the pallet, based on features and price (latest ones coming ar dual socket Nehalems for EPT testing and evaluation.

Wait, are you saying Datacenters use a hoge poge of mixed Hardware as servers ? Reality check : poor small businesses do that. Datacenters with any kind of stability in mind purchase hardware that is compatible with the software they will be running.

The service contracts/maintenance/support costs should outweight any kind of actual hardware cost in the end anyway, who cares that your fiberchannel adapter was 300$ more if it is properly supported and saves you tons of money in downtime and manual recompilations ?

Yeah, that's a pain in the ass then. I can't imagine dealing with it at that point if there are variances with hardware. We're not the biggest datacenter, but I know of larger ones in Chicago (where I used to be a consultant) that they were able to specify hundreds of servers at a time with specific hardware requirements. Do you guys use a tier 1 vendor (HP, Dell, IBM)? HP has always been pretty darn consistent for us, in terms of hardware spec, especially on the DL300 series and up. I don't know about the others. Only dealt with Dell on a much smaller scale (<100 servers).

We buy from HP. Never had a single problem getting machines that passed all the checks for SLES hardware compatibility. The weirdest kernel issue we had was with our SAN tapes (old STK hardware) requiring a SLES kernel patch that worked perfectly with everything we are running on SLES (WebSphere, Oracle, SAP). We had Dells for about 9 months, none of them made it to any kind of mission critical work, only off-site file and print services.

[polaris20]

We buy from HP. Never had a single problem getting machines that passed all the checks for SLES hardware compatibility. The weirdest kernel issue we had was with our SAN tapes (old STK hardware) requiring a SLES kernel patch that worked perfectly with everything we are running on SLES (WebSphere, Oracle, SAP). We had Dells for about 9 months, none of them made it to any kind of mission critical work, only off-site file and print services.

We buy all HP too and haven't had an issue, but I could see hardware variances between model generations being an issue with some hardware. Not completely unheard of.

[AidenShaw]

Yeah, they definitely change from G4 to G5 to etc.

What distro are you using?

Mostly SLES and RHEL, version depends on what the application is certified to use.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Keep spreading the FUD though, keep trolling.


The fact you keep calling me a troll is just downright PATHETIC on your part. I'm simply telling my experience after ten years of playing with Linux. The fact you cannot accept opinions proves you are incredibly arrogant and the fact you are doing it with a Linux spiel on a Mac site in a thread about Microsoft and Apple makes one wonder WTF it has to do with ANYTHING here. You seem to have a crazy idea about what constitutes "experience" in the Linux world (10 years isn't enough, it seems) and heaven forbid someone suggest Linux isn't everything you believe it to be (or blame the distribution I use as terrible instead, despite the fact I've had more problems with other distributions). Hundreds of hours to learn the Linux environment compared to about 10 minutes to adjust to the Mac after using Windows is a big difference. You'll pretend it doesn't exist because you WANT to spend that time learning Linux. I did too at one point in my life but now I just want to get down to the things I want to do WITH the computer, not spending my time fighting the computer. Have fun with Linux. Do it somewhere else, kindly...a Linux forum would be most appropriate. I won't bother sharing anything else because you'll just insult me some more and act like the elitist Linux <insert text here> you so clearly are. If I had ANY doubts about whether Mac "fanatics" or Linux Elitists were more annoying, you've cleared that up for me quite well. Good day.

[vipergts2207]

Wow, talk about a thread derailing. You'd think the thread title was "Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux." :rolleyes:

[Goona]

Microsoft should stick to what they know best stealing ideas:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/aussie-inventor-in-537m-microsoft-damages-win/2009/04/15/1239474914416.html

and price fixing:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10216195-56.html

[polaris20]

The fact you keep calling me a troll is just downright PATHETIC on your part.

It's downright pathetic that you continue to slander an OS you clearly have no idea how to use. I doubt you've even tried Ubuntu, because everything you've said about it is either non-existent or very easy to fix with a 5 second Google search.

I'm simply telling my experience after ten years of playing with Linux. The fact you cannot accept opinions proves you are incredibly arrogant and the fact you are doing it with a Linux spiel on a Mac site in a thread about Microsoft and Apple makes one wonder WTF it has to do with ANYTHING here. You seem to have a crazy idea about what constitutes "experience" in the Linux world (10 years isn't enough, it seems) and heaven forbid someone suggest Linux isn't everything you believe it to be (or blame the distribution I use as terrible instead, despite the fact I've had more problems with other distributions). Hundreds of hours to learn the Linux environment compared to about 10 minutes to adjust to the Mac after using Windows is a big difference. You'll pretend it doesn't exist because you WANT to spend that time learning Linux. I did too at one point in my life but now I just want to get down to the things I want to do WITH the computer, not spending my time fighting the computer. Have fun with Linux. Do it somewhere else, kindly...a Linux forum would be most appropriate. I won't bother sharing anything else because you'll just insult me some more and act like the elitist Linux <insert text here> you so clearly are. If I had ANY doubts about whether Mac "fanatics" or Linux Elitists were more annoying, you've cleared that up for me quite well. Good day.

You're not just telling your experience, you're slandering an OS that you have very little understanding of.

You're not stating your "opinions" as opinions, you state them as fact, and that makes it no better than the MS trolls here. That's what I have a problem with.

I use all 3 OSes, and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm not going to bash something just because it's not right for me.

[KnightWRX]

I'm simply telling my experience after ten years of playing with Linux.

Come back when you have 10 years of experience working with Linux. Anyone cap pop a CD in and follow a few simple steps to install a distribution. Doesn't mean you actually know what you are doing.

[AidenShaw]

Come back when you have 10 years of experience working with Linux. Anyone cap pop a CD in and follow a few simple steps to install a distribution. Doesn't mean you actually know what you are doing.

A can't really think of anything worse to say about Linux. Wow, it seems OK after 10 years of training.

[polaris20]

A can't really think of anything worse to say about Linux. Wow, it seems OK after 10 years of training.

That's the thing though. It doesn't take 10 years of training, especially for use as a desktop.

It may not run the software you need, so it doesn't fit your purpose. And that's fine.

But the stuff he was spouting off about simply hasn't been true for several years. Linux has changed, for the better.

[AidenShaw]

Linux has changed, for the better.

At least, Ubuntu has made a big improvement in support and usability for popular desktop configs.

IMHO, though, it's still a bit of "lipstick on a pig" - it's just that Canonical picks the shade of lipstick, puts it on the pig, and fixes it when it smears. ;)

It makes it suitable for a hobbyist, rather than applealing to a professional geek.

The application support is still an issue. While there's often something "similar" to desktop apps and suites on Windows/OSX - the integration, quality and compatibility limit the appeal of Linux for most users.

[Sehnsucht]

If I had ANY doubts about whether Mac "fanatics" or Linux Elitists were more annoying, you've cleared that up for me quite well. Good day.

I quickly decided not too long ago that, out of the three main fanboy camps, the Linux fanboys tend to be the rudest and most unreasonable when you try to have a simple discussion with them. Just the other day, one says to me, "What the *****'s up with you and your Apples, anyway? Get Linux and quit drinking the Steve Jobs Kool-Aid." I literally took a swing at the guy and then made him stand and watch while I rebooted my Mac and held down the Option key. And what did he see? Not two, not three, but FOUR partitions on my hard drive. Mac OS X, Fedora, Red Hat and Ubuntu. That's right. Three different Linux distros on my evil, closed-source, proprietary Mac. (Currently too lazy to update my sig, by the way.) :D

One thing that many Linux fanboys don't like to admit are the many similarities between Mac OS X and Linux, and how well the two actually compliment each other. Each have their own qualities. I like both, OK? I just don't get the whole "anarchist" mindset that many of them have toward closed-source OS's. It's hard to deny the fact that Mac OS X, a closed-source, vertically integrated OS, has better intrinsic support due to being owned and maintained by a company with tons of cash and is obtaining more and more cash with each passing day, and is in no danger of becoming abandonware. Which is eventually happens to all but a few of the most well-funded Linux distros.

Right now I'm learning Red Hat for a future job, and it doesn't help AT ALL that most of the Linux fanatics I have to deal with are total pricks. Several orders of magnitude more than the Windows gamerboys. :rolleyes:

[Sonicjay]

the last frame of that video is priceless :D

haha, agreed

[polaris20]

At least, Ubuntu has made a big improvement in support and usability for popular desktop configs.

IMHO, though, it's still a bit of "lipstick on a pig" - it's just that Canonical picks the shade of lipstick, puts it on the pig, and fixes it when it smears. ;)

It makes it suitable for a hobbyist, rather than applealing to a professional geek.

The application support is still an issue. While there's often something "similar" to desktop apps and suites on Windows/OSX - the integration, quality and compatibility limit the appeal of Linux for most users.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "lipstick on a pig" thing :D, but the application support is a problem, and probably will be for awhile. I think commercial software houses are scared off by the GPL more so than the lack of marketshare. I know porting an OS X app to Linux isn't too big of a deal in many (not all) cases.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

That's the thing though. It doesn't take 10 years of training, especially for use as a desktop.

It may not run the software you need, so it doesn't fit your purpose. And that's fine.

But the stuff he was spouting off about simply hasn't been true for several years. Linux has changed, for the better.

So now he admits it WAS TRUE several years ago. It doesn't occur to him or others flaming on this forum that if someone has tried and used Linux over a 10 year period their impressions are going to encompass ALL OF IT.

The fact you resort to calling names like "troll" (that would be a flame, BTW) simply because you do not agree with the opinions being presented speaks VERY poorly of your characters. In fact, calling me a troll for such reasons makes YOU look like trolls. Sorry guys, but you need to learn that not everyone in life is going to agree with you. You also need to remember where you are (Mac forums) and what the thread is about (Microsoft and Apple not Linux). If anyone is the troll here, it's YOU.

No, I haven't "installed" Ubuntu *lately.* I already said that I have Suse 11.x and Mandriva 2009.0 installed at the moment. What part of the that can you not comprehend??? Eh? Do you just gloss over everything that is written and assume I've been speaking about Ubuntu the entire time or what?

Everything I've said about Suse 11.0 is true. It DOES freeze for no apparent reason here. I tried 10.x also. It also froze on that same PC. There's something it doesn't like in my hardware configuration, it seems, but I've removed everything I CAN remove (and still operate it) and the freezes continued. Mandriva 2009 has NO SUCH PROBLEMS. Mandriva 2008 had no such problems. Earlier versions of Mandriva/Mandrake ran on my prior PC and they had no hardware problems except with my Intel camera which has had and seemingly will always have a bad driver. Whether that driver is even included with an installation is another matter. Sometimes it is, usually it is not. This is typical with installations over the years. There often IS a driver, but it's just as often not recognized on the initial configure so you then have to hunt for it and often manually install it...sometimes compile it. It's always BEST to include all the development tools beacause sooner or later you WILL need to compile your own software or do without. You can rant and rave that is no longer the case, but not all software is found in a repository and not all software is available in RPM, DEB and/or both. Sometimes one is available and one is not. Sometimes an RPM meant for Red Hat *will* work with Mandriva. Sometimes, it will not and it's not always apparent why (often it simply puts the binary in the wrong place...i.e. a directory not in your normal path).

The fact that some of these people are NEWER Linux users probably means I have more shell experience and know more about the backbone of Linux than they do, yet the accuse me of not having experience. It's utterly LAUGHABLE from where I sit. They have NO IDEA what I've been through and how much I actually know about the workings of Linux. I have spent hundreds of hours learning those things. No, that does not make an expert on the Ubuntu distribution. I'd wager, for example, that a slackware Linux user knows 100x as much these guys, but that doesn't mean he's familiar with the latest Ubuntu setup because he's not using it!

You want to know what I know about Ubuntu's specific distribution...not much. I installed it one time on my PPC PowerMac early on (i.e. two years ago) before I upgraded the hardware to see if the OS would be more responsive and/or useful than the Panther OS X that was included with it. It was NOT. It was definitely much slower than Panther with the same resources (512MB ram with an ATI Rage 128). I tried a few things out with it, but ultimately had no interest in running a resource hungry version of Linux that is far slower than OS X. That is all I can conclude about Ubuntu PPC from two years ago.

What do I know about Ubuntu Intel? I've tried a couple of Live CDs and had problems with getting them to run on my Nvidia 7900GS based PC. I had little interest installing the full distribution when the Live CD doesn't even work with my hardware. You can rant and rave all day long about how great Ubuntu is, but when their stupid Live CD won't even boot without having to degrade to the text level booter, I don't get a good first impression of the distribution. I'm sure that did NOT happen to you or you would have probably done what I did and that was to move to the next distribution (I had 4 ready to test at the time). I moved on to Suse. From Suse I moved to Mandriva 2008, which installed BEAUTIFULLY. I had only a few issues with 2008 (few bugs present), but 2009 solved those. The updater from 2008 to 2009 worked fine. It's in 2009 that the updater started having issues and has somehow screwed up the shutdown sequence. I'm going to have to go in an manually fix it. No "newbie" would have a clue there and it's things like that where I point out how Linux is STILL flawed.

"But I'm using Ubuntu and it's GRRREAT!" Yeah, good for you. Ubuntu wouldn't even BOOT off the Live CD here. "You didn't check the hardware list!" BS! The issue is not the hardware but the Vesa driver they're using INSTEAD of the CORRECT hardware because they do not use the proper driver from the start because it's not "open" (it is FREE, but that's never good enough with GNU worshippers. They have to make life difficult and not include it by default to 'protest' against closed source even though a company has EVERY RIGHT to close their source. They should be thrilled that Nvidia bothers to support them at all. ATI didn't a few years back and let me tell you it SUCKED to own a newer ATI card and try to run Linux with any kind of 3D acceleration). "But that was a few years ago". So? Like I said, I've been using it for 10 freaking years. Linux has been ROUGH AROUND THE EDGES. The ONLY thing that changed since then is that Nvidia and ATI are kind enough to provide their own drivers these days. If that hadn't happened, Linux would still be totally flaky. You cannot reverse engineer all drivers and expect them to run smoothly. You need support from the companies themselves. But when you insult them and harass them for not wanting to go open source on EVERYTHING, no wonder they want nothing to do with your platform.

Like I said, Compiz is pretty cool eye candy (more so than OS X), *but* it has bugs too (whereas OS X is pretty darn stable). I'm talking about things like transparency glitching around the menu bars at seemingly random times or the menu inverting video for no apparent reason. I'm talking about glitches like having two monitors and the interface being SLOW on one of the two monitors due to a bug in Compiz that never gets fixed. You can work around the problem by putting a delay in a script and manually starting the 2nd monitor, but that's not intuitive and gets back to the whole shell thing that they would have you believe is not really needed anymore. They seem to think just because I'm writing this from an ease of use perspective that somehow means I don't know how to use the shell. It's more like I know that I should NOT HAVE TO use it. Anyone that has used OS X knows that perfectly well. OS X is the perfect example of how you can have an OS that is running a Unix back-end and not even know it's Unix.

When Linux reaches that point and doesn't constantly remind me that I'm in a Unix environment, THEN it will have reached a major milestone. The package managers would be a good place to start. Linux needs ONE unified package manager, not 2-3 plus a lot of authors still only releasing source code. That's not a good system. Linux elitists will tell you that CHOICE IS GOOD! Yes, that's why there's dozens of window managers, two MAJOR GUIs that don't like each other (Gnome was created because they were "open" enough at the time for some GNU purists and even though now they are, Gnome plods on with its backwards way of doing things and separate GUI libraries that you better have (or vice versa) if you want to run any software that might use them even if you hate the Gnome environment.) Despite all those "chioces" you cannot get much commercial software, but you have two dozen window managers to pick from! To run what, though? That's the REAL problem beyond any glaring OS issues. If you don't have quality software, you don't have anything. This is where I would get the standard speech about how much free open source software there is out there...yeah and most of it is CRAP or at least inferior to commercial offerings (e.g. Gimp isn't even close to Photoshop; I've used both a LOT. There is no comparison and I can tell you why. But yeah Gimp is free and you "get what you pay for" (I hear that a lot from Linux apologists). Did I say was I poor??? No. Price is not the issue. It's whether it's USEFUL or not. I want quality software!

So between the constant reminders that I'm in a difficult OS environment (instead of an easy one like OS X or at least a relatively easy one like Windows) and the near total lack of commercial software, I've concluded Linux really isn't for me. So I've stopped using it on a daily level. I've stopped using it on a weekly level. I rarely use it at all anymore because there is NOTHING I cannot do from Windows XP instead or better. If free is all that matters, fine. Protest away. But somehow 9 years ago I thought Linux would both mature and attract more software. 9 years is a LONG time. There isn't much more on the commercial desktop user level today than there was 9 years ago! There is a lot of professional server support, etc. but that means jack to the average desktop user.

Things HAVE improved on a usability level, especially in the past few years. Like I said, they DO now have things like a joystick preference pane (just one example) in most distributions where a shell was needed before to configure it. My point is little things like that SHOULD have existed 8 years ago. In fact, I did point that out back then because the driver was really good (all my joysticks worked) an I wanted Linux to succeed because I hated Microsoft. The only answer I ever got back was "write it yourself" and I'm afraid THAT is the biggest problem with Linux. I'm not talking about this idea that people are allowed to do whatever they want (fine), but rather the total lack of centralized organization. Like I said before, only Linus Torvalds could provide that level of leadership because he is likely the only one that could convince competing camps (like KDE versus Gnome) to work together to create a unified system that works for everyone and gets rid of all the inconsistencies and problems associated with having distinctly separate environments and things like differing package managers. A commercial or even a shareware developer is supposed to support RPM, DEB packages and make sure they work with every major distribution out there??? NO WAY. Why should they? There's ONE method with Windows. There's two methods in OS X (either the installer or just drag'n'drop and neither cause issues with the other and both are always there). In Linux you have to choose. Most distributions do not include support for both RPMS and DEB packages and no way are they going to talk to each other if they are both present. The whole distribution is based around them. To get software, you have to use a "repository" made for that EXACT distribution. The repository for Mandriva 2008 will not work properly for the 2009 distribution so that means multiple repositories for the same company have to be maintained by someone.... It's utterly RIDICULOUS! Debian packages might be better than RPM, but what if the software you want to use isn't packaged for you? Have fun with the source code!

You know how the Mac solved this problem right? They include the libraries, etc. needed INSIDE the application package, which is not an application but a package containing everything needed to run it. Yes, it takes up more space, but it works! Hard drive space is CHEAP, anyway. You cannot put a price on getting rid of dependency problems, IMO. Despite all the attempts to make RPM better, it still flakes out sometimes even in a recent distribution like Mandriva 2009 (not ten years ago).

Yes, I'm an inexperienced yahoo that knows NOTHING about Linux. Right. I'd bet I've been using longer than the people calling me trolls. No, I don't use it every day anymore because I decided I'd rather use software than spend all my time playing with the OS. OS X is miles beyond Linux.

There is one thing I DO like about Linux and that is the open and sharing nature of it all. I think open source and sharing are great. *BUT* there is a point where things are taken too far. Some people make a living from writing software and it's pretty hard to make a living from it when everyone is using it for free. Charging for support is another whole ball of wax. Most programmers are too lazy to even write English readable manuals. They do not want to spend their time doing "support" instead of writing programs. The system is flawed. Linux could support commercial software more readily, but they need to provide an environment where it's WELCOMED, not insulted. But when you figure that most Linux users probably won't be willing to pay for a single thing (because they're used to getting everything for free), I'm sure they figure why should they bother. The Linux desktop market may be nearly as large as the Mac one. So why does the Mac get commercial support and Linux usually does not? That's a question Linux users and developers alike should be asking themselves. And if they ever want to attract commercial software, they should be asking themselves what they need to do in order to get there rather than spending their time insulting everyone that doesn't think like they do.

[AidenShaw]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "lipstick on a pig" thing :D

I figured as much ;) ....

The "pig" comment was meant in the sense that the underlying problem (kernel version dependencies) hasn't been fixed, but a dedicated crew with financial backing is doing all the legwork so that it looks good and easy for the end user.

That doesn't help those of us running business and enterprise applications that aren't certified on Ubuntu (it seems that business applications tend to ignore Debian as a base).

[polaris20]

snip

So basically you go on a tirade about how horrible Linux is, and we're all supposed to just swallow that as your opinion? Er, okay, you win.

When someone calls you out on something as remedial as media playback and graphics drivers, we're not accepting your "opinion"? Okay, you win.

BTW, you can download a .deb file called Alien, which automatically will convert an .rpm to a .deb, and it works great. Just an FYI, in case you ever want to try Ubuntu again and can't find a .deb version of the package. ;)

Also, ironically enough I do like OS X better, and agree that it's what an ideal "UNIX OS" should be. It's my main machine at work. So I guess we don't disagree entirely. :D

All 3 OSes have their pluses and minuses, but I strongly believe Linux doesn't deserve the bagging on that it gets here.

[MikeTheC]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the "lipstick on a pig" thing :D, but the application support is a problem, and probably will be for awhile. I think commercial software houses are scared off by the GPL more so than the lack of marketshare. I know porting an OS X app to Linux isn't too big of a deal in many (not all) cases.
I'm not really sure why they should be. If they're that threatened by it, then damn, they sure are insecure. But to be honest, I don't think it's the GPL they're concerned about. If anything, it's been how to implement certain kinds of functionality, or certain ways in which required resources are exposed in Linux, much of which has now, over the course of the last couple years, pretty much crystalized, particularly vis a vis the kernel and the major desktop environments.

I, for one, would potentially buy certain commercial software for Linux.

[polaris20]

I'm not really sure why they should be. If they're that threatened by it, then damn, they sure are insecure. But to be honest, I don't think it's the GPL they're concerned about. If anything, it's been how to implement certain kinds of functionality, or certain ways in which required resources are exposed in Linux, much of which has now, over the course of the last couple years, pretty much crystalized, particularly vis a vis the kernel and the major desktop environments.

I, for one, would potentially buy certain commercial software for Linux.

I'd love to buy commercial software for Linux; I'd probably end up using it more at home too. The problem with the GPL is that any code that touches GPL-licensed code itself becomes GPL, which I think a lot of companies aren't fond of.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's how it works.

[tubbymac]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's how it works.

Yes that's how it works. The GPL is a viral license in that respect, which is why there are other open source licenses like the BSD style ones, which don't have the viral aspect to them.

[polaris20]

Yes that's how it works. The GPL is a viral license in that respect, which is why there are other open source licenses like the BSD style ones, which don't have the viral aspect to them.

It's a shame Free or OpenBSD hasn't caught on more then, because it would probably be more attractive to commercial developers. I've tried PC-BSD, and it's just godawful; very poorly executed for a "desktop" OS.

[nüb]

I wouldn't do a commericial like that for just $1500 :p

That's because you're not a harlot!! ;)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So basically you go on a tirade about how horrible Linux is, and we're all supposed to just swallow that as your opinion? Er, okay, you win.

I never used the word horrible (you did). And maybe instead of calling someone a "troll" you could just present your own opinion. Did you ever think of that?


When someone calls you out on something as remedial as media playback and graphics drivers, we're not accepting your "opinion"? Okay, you win.


What I said is true of the installations I've done. Most don't include support for things like WMA files, MP4 etc. If Ubuntu now makes it easy, good for them. That's not typical, IMO. As for video, if the distribution doesn't recognize your video card, you're going to have a harder time getting it installed than if it DOES recognize it. Clicking a button to install the Nvidia drivers is all well and good as long as it recognizes it. One distribution I used told me I simply had a framebuffer (forget which one as I went through several while testing this new computer; I think it might have been Linux Mint, which I think it based on Ubuntu). I could not get it to see an Nvidia card. I still don't know what went wrong to this day. Maybe it's because the 7900GS I have is an AGP card instead of a PCI Express or maybe it was the particular driver revision it was attempting, but whatever it is, it didn't like it. It's things like that which can cause a "WTF" reaction in Linux. Mandriva recognized it right off the bat and installed the proper driver. So did Suse.

To be fair, Windows often just includes basic SVGA support until a driver is installed also. The difference is the driver installation is often much simpler and often comes with the video card (at least for the basic driver). If your distribution doesn't do it for you, you've got some work ahead of you. You need the source code header files for the kernel you're using in addition to the Nvidia drivers. I've been through all that trying to get the Nvidia drivers to work with that installation where it wouldn't see my card and run into the source header file thing regardless with Mandriva because the automated updater never seems to automatically include them during a kernel upgrade (once added, it'll compile/insert them automatically on a boot, though).

Does any of this sound like things a typical Windows user is going to be familiar with? It used to be if you wanted a kernel update, you had to do it yourself and it wasn't a simple task. Now the updaters attempt these things automatically and as long as it goes smoothly, great. If it screws something simple up like the video driver, you could find yourself staring at a shell prompt instead of your favorite x login manager. I think a typical Windows or Mac user might soil their pants the first time that happened to them. I know I wasn't happy.


BTW, you can download a .deb file called Alien, which automatically will convert an .rpm to a .deb, and it works great. Just an FYI, in case you ever want to try Ubuntu again and can't find a .deb version of the package. ;)


I seem to recall reading about that some time ago, but it seems like I ran into a dependency issue when I tried to convert a package. Whatever happened, it didn't work. I ended up compiling from source, which seemed simpler than trying to figure out what went wrong. As long as you have all the compiling stuff installed, it's usually pretty simple to compile, although sometimes time consuming. It's not so easy to remove everything if you want to delete it all unless you use a program to keep track of where everything went.


All 3 OSes have their pluses and minuses, but I strongly believe Linux doesn't deserve the bagging on that it gets here.

I don't see it as a "bagging". If I didn't like Linux at all, I wouldn't still have it installed on my PC. It's simply more rough around the edges than OS X or Windows and like I said you cannot get much commercial software for it so if that's what you use, your options are extremely limited no matter how much you prefer the "open" or "free" aspects of it.

I used to think it was cool to use because I could customize the living heck out of it...well OK it still is cool in that regard. I have Matrix-style Fluxbox environment with several matching docked apps set up that I use sometimes along with a spiffy Compiz based KDE alternative I use the rest of the time (I used to like Gnome a few years ago, but I don't like where it's gone since then; KDE 4.x is getting better, but I still like the wealth of add-ons available for the 3.x environment; both are available to me, though). Until I got my first Mac, I considered Linux a safer environment for shopping, banking, etc., but now I do all that on my PowerMac that runs my whole house audio system. I did want to do my Handbrake encoding under Linux, but since the driver is flaky for my DVD-RW drive, it just wouldn't work reliably and so I ended up using the XP verison, which is far less "nice" to look at (no previews, etc. since it's just a front-end for the CLI command whereas the Linux version is now up to OS X quality), but I don't want to toss my DVD-RW Litescribe drive just because Linux doesn't like it. I rarely use it otherwise anyway (save games in Windows). I do most of my burning from my PowerMac DVD-RW drive.

I do think Linux could be every bit as good as OS X, but it'll never get there UNLESS there is a unifying movement at some point. Options are great, but not at the expense of hap-hazard here-nor-there issues associated with 80 different distributions doing software packaging a dozen different ways (RPMS aren't even compatible between distributions). If they could solve those sorts of things and maybe offer a unifying theme option between KDE and Gnome apps (looking completely different is not good and even worse than in OS X), it would go a long way to making Linux CONSISTENT. Options don't have to mean inconsistent. It simply means developers should try to communicate and worth together so their programs can at least communicate with each other, even if they don't really use the same underlying tools. And frankly, the GPL or nothing type movement doesn't help anyone, IMO. It certainly doesn't help attract commercial software. Other things like Linux never being able to use the ZDF file system because of licensing issues are also very bad. That's a darn shame there, really. It's the best file system out there. I can't wait until I can use it with my Macs.

[ZebraineZ]

One thing i HONESTLY DO NOT GET IS...why the hell are all these ads saying macs are too expensive, and that they need something in there budget, when freakin microsoft is giving them the money, for gods sake they freakin handed it to them right in front of the camera....now for someone who owns one of the most richest companies, making a commercial about how macs are expensive while they are giving the people in the commercial the money, then its just plain stupid...that is my opinion so yeah :/ not too intense but they would have enough money to afford a mac (aside from it being a PC commercial) so I don't get why they would limit it.

[bobriot]

Apple tax aside I think the advert shows good parenting skills, I wouldn't give a child a £1000 laptop to spill cola over. I would also buy a cheap crap PC because the thing would be worthless anyway in 6 months time so who would care when that cup of cola got chucked over it.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apple tax aside I think the advert shows good parenting skills, I wouldn't give a child a £1000 laptop to spill cola over. I would also buy a cheap crap PC because the thing would be worthless anyway in 6 months time so who would care when that cup of cola got chucked over it.

It's probably why even cheaper netbooks are becoming the norm. I'm scared to take my MBP anywhere *because* it's so expensive. Accidents happen. More to the point, a "cheap crap PC" will *NOT* become "worthless" (in the useful sense) in 6 months these days because hardware advancements in terms of running basic core programs like browers, etc. are not advancing very quickly at all. CPUs have pretty much topped out in terms of single cpu speed and so they're going to multiple cores, which most programs do NOT support. Even if they did, how many cores do you need to surf the internet, check e-mail and run a basic word processor??? GUIs are getting as fancy as they possibly can short of holographic displays and basic programs just don't need 2 terraflops to operate. I know if I'm going to use a portable computer then browsing, e-mail, music and video playback are going to be its main functions....kind of like an iPod Touch or iPhone, only maybe a bigger screen and keyboard would make life easier in a hotel room. Yeah, netbooks sound kind of cool.

Do I REALLY care what OS is on it so long as I can browse, e-mail and chat? No, that's not the point for a travel computer. A laptop might be different because I need a portable studio to record in different rooms, etc. so I do have a use for a Mac there. But just to browse and e-mail on a trip? It could be Linux or NetBSD and it wouldn't matter. As long as Firefox and Thunderbird will run on it, PS/2 would be OK even. I'd just want cheap, portable and usable.

[rotta]

It's probably why even cheaper netbooks are becoming the norm. I'm scared to take my MBP anywhere *because* it's so expensive.

A small and inexpensive netbook, as the MSI u100 can easily have OSX 10.5.6 installed. Apple won't like it, but it's a cheap, versatile Hackintosh. I would not edit HD video on it, but it can do most other tasks. At the price of an iPod.

And for the weird members of this forum; Yes, you can also install Linux on it;-)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

A small and inexpensive netbook, as the MSI u100 can easily have OSX 10.5.6 installed. Apple won't like it, but it's a cheap, versatile Hackintosh. I would not edit HD video on it, but it can do most other tasks. At the price of an iPod.

And for the weird members of this forum; Yes, you can also install Linux on it;-)

I hadn't really thought about doing a Hackintosh on a netbook, but now that you mention it, I remember an article demonstrating it before. Yes, that would make a nice system. I mean if OS X runs fine on an old PowerMac, I'm sure a netbook would do well. I assume you could dual-boot OS X and XP as well using Boot Camp just like the regular notebooks. That would make for a nice setup indeed. I wonder if there are compatible models with firewire that I could use with Logic Pro for a dedicated little recording studio or if it'd be fast enough there for that use. I could just leave it in place instead of having to move my notebook all the time.

[polaris20]

I hadn't really thought about doing a Hackintosh on a netbook, but now that you mention it, I remember an article demonstrating it before. Yes, that would make a nice system. I mean if OS X runs fine on an old PowerMac, I'm sure a netbook would do well. I assume you could dual-boot OS X and XP as well using Boot Camp just like the regular notebooks. That would make for a nice setup indeed. I wonder if there are compatible models with firewire that I could use with Logic Pro for a dedicated little recording studio or if it'd be fast enough there for that use. I could just leave it in place instead of having to move my notebook all the time.

Apparently the MSI Wind works the best.

http://netbooks.modaco.com/content/msi/270099/pauls-complete-guide-to-installing-osx-leopard-on-your-msi-wind-advent-4211/

[cHOCO-pOCKEY,]

Haha. Is still think Macs are better. I mean, I've had a PC all my life, until a year ago. They're so slow compared to Macs. You'd have to have a 10 pound laptop to have a decent gaming PC. That's my opinion.

GO :apple: !

[rotta]

Haha. Is still think Macs are better. I mean, I've had a PC all my life, until a year ago. They're so slow compared to Macs. You'd have to have a 10 pound laptop to have a decent gaming PC. That's my opinion.

GO :apple: !


And if Macs are so much better; how much will a superior Mac gaming laptop weigh?
Is a Mac always much faster than any PC?? Just wondering.

[Synthetickiller]

And if Macs are so much better; how much will a superior Mac gaming laptop weigh?
Is a Mac always much faster than any PC?? Just wondering.

It depends on what game you're running. If you're running a windows only game or a fps, I'd bet a laptop with a higher end video card will win hands down. CPU only takes you so far and you can buy the same intel stuff anyways. I wouldn't emulate a game in osx. You'd lose a lot of cpu power and memory to virtualize xp in the first place.

[rotta]

It depends on what game you're running. If you're running a windows only game or a fps, I'd bet a laptop with a higher end video card will win hands down. CPU only takes you so far and you can buy the same intel stuff anyways. I wouldn't emulate a game in osx. You'd lose a lot of cpu power and memory to virtualize xp in the first place.

'cause gaming on a Mac is just a joke. Any comparison is likewise.

[pdjudd]

One thing i HONESTLY DO NOT GET IS...why the hell are all these ads saying macs are too expensive, and that they need something in there budget, when freakin microsoft is giving them the money, for gods sake they freakin handed it to them right in front of the camera....now for someone who owns one of the most richest companies, making a commercial about how macs are expensive while they are giving the people in the commercial the money, then its just plain stupid...that is my opinion so yeah :/ not too intense but they would have enough money to afford a mac (aside from it being a PC commercial) so I don't get why they would limit it.
The point of the Ads are not necessarily that "Macs are expensive". THats not a new idea - everybody knows that. The message they are emphasizing is that PS are cheaper. Better value!!!! They are exploiting the economy to make people think they are getting a bargain.

[Jack Flash]

And if Macs are so much better; how much will a superior Mac gaming laptop weigh?
Is a Mac always much faster than any PC?? Just wondering.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220488

$1,000 shipped. No tax in most places.

[rotta]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220488

$1,000 shipped. No tax in most places.


Would be real nice to see a Macbook with similar spesifications (At $ 2.500 shipped - with Apple tax??)

[DMann]

We'll just have to wait until Apple's earnings report on 4/22.

In one of Aesop's fables, a fox tries many times to pluck some grapes that dangle invitingly over his head, but he cannot reach them. As he slinks away in disgust, he says, “Those grapes are probably sour anyway.” Those grapes you are referring to sure do seem a heck of a lot sweeter from up here, now that you mention it.

[Goona]

Those grapes you are referring to sure do seem a heck of a lot sweeter from up here, now that you mention it.

Damn where the haters at?

[Wikinerd]

Would be real nice to see a Macbook with similar spesifications (At $ 2.500 shipped - with Apple tax??)

Still nothing compared to some decent desktop/hackint0sh

[cHOCO-pOCKEY,]

And if Macs are so much better; how much will a superior Mac gaming laptop weigh?
Is a Mac always much faster than any PC?? Just wondering.

The best Mac Laptop you can get is... 5.5 pounds. BEAT THAT, PC! And yes, Macs are faster and better, in my eyes. Instead of crashing the whole darned system when Internet Explorer does (PC), only Safari crashes (Mac). Also, there are much less errors because all software made for Macs is reviewed when submitted my Apple itself. So, care to beat that, PC?

[CQd44]

The best Mac Laptop you can get is... 5.5 pounds. BEAT THAT, PC! And yes, Macs are faster and better, in my eyes. Instead of crashing the whole darned system when Internet Explorer does (PC), only Safari crashes (Mac). Also, there are much less errors because all software made for Macs is reviewed when submitted my Apple itself. So, care to beat that, PC?

10/10, would read and laugh again.

[polaris20]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

And if Macs are so much better; how much will a superior Mac gaming laptop weigh?
Is a Mac always much faster than any PC?? Just wondering.

The best Mac Laptop you can get is... 5.5 pounds. BEAT THAT, PC! And yes, Macs are faster and better, in my eyes. Instead of crashing the whole darned system when Internet Explorer does (PC), only Safari crashes (Mac). Also, there are much less errors because all software made for Macs is reviewed when submitted my Apple itself. So, care to beat that, PC?

Er, what? Care to back any of that up with reality? Also, look at the date. Way to bump an ancient thread.

[KeriJane]

Hello.

I was watching some TV last night and got bombarded with several "I'm a PC and Windows Seven Was My Idea" commercials.

I found them to be just as lame as the "Here's a thousand dollars, now go buy a PC", the "Windows Vista Taste Test", the "Flying XP Man" or even for that matter the ancient Windows 386 promos that were capable of inducing projectile vomiting and cerebral hemorrhaging.

Yuk! :eek: How did MS get so big with such awful commercials?

It apparently works for them. They did get to be number one somehow.
Maybe people feel sorry for them?

The whole "I'm a PC" concept appears to be a defensive reaction to Apples "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" series. Isn't that funny... tiny little Apple has got the MS juggernaut on the defensive when they should probably be ignoring Apple's pointed jabs or going on the offensive.

BTW, I love the Apple ads. They point out Apple's strengths and poke fun at MS's weaknesses. Little tiny Apple takes on the biggest, baddest kid on the block and.... Great Big MS responds with "Vista's not bad!", "We're Cheaper" and "Win7 was My Idea" lameness.

Meanwhile companies like HP are forced to carry MS's load with reasonably good commercials like "The Computer is Personal Again".

Geez-O! I'm not going back to PCs anytime soon but I'd sure enjoy some fun commercials.
Even poke fun at my Mac or Steve Jobs... just do SOMETHING unlame please!

Have Fun,
Keri

PS. I did pre-order Seven just to see what it's about but I sure wouldn't have bought it because of the commercials.

[charlituna]

Yuk! :eek: How did MS get so big with such awful commercials?


they didn't. they got big before them.

and now they are trying too hard over some bit player in the game. instead of focusing where they should. making a great product and selling it well. they should continue with this retail project and take even more out of Apple's play book. Because Apple has, for all the flaws and hiccups, really done something great with the in house tech support and the training and such. I mean, I take my busted computer to the Microsoft store and they have to ship it out cause they don't make the hardware. Apple very often can fix it right there. so instead of being out of my computer for a couple of weeks, it's more like just a couple of days. sometimes just a couple of hours.

[DMann]

Hello.

I was watching some TV last night and got bombarded with several "I'm a PC and Windows Seven Was My Idea" commercials.

I found them to be just as lame as the "Here's a thousand dollars, now go buy a PC", the "Windows Vista Taste Test", the "Flying XP Man" or even for that matter the ancient Windows 386 promos that were capable of inducing projectile vomiting and cerebral hemorrhaging.

Yuk! :eek: How did MS get so big with such awful commercials?

It apparently works for them. They did get to be number one somehow.
Maybe people feel sorry for them?

The whole "I'm a PC" concept appears to be a defensive reaction to Apples "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" series. Isn't that funny... tiny little Apple has got the MS juggernaut on the defensive when they should probably be ignoring Apple's pointed jabs or going on the offensive.

BTW, I love the Apple ads. They point out Apple's strengths and poke fun at MS's weaknesses. Little tiny Apple takes on the biggest, baddest kid on the block and.... Great Big MS responds with "Vista's not bad!", "We're Cheaper" and "Win7 was My Idea" lameness.

Meanwhile companies like HP are forced to carry MS's load with reasonably good commercials like "The Computer is Personal Again".

Geez-O! I'm not going back to PCs anytime soon but I'd sure enjoy some fun commercials.
Even poke fun at my Mac or Steve Jobs... just do SOMETHING unlame please!

Have Fun,
Keri

PS. I did pre-order Seven just to see what it's about but I sure wouldn't have bought it because of the commercials.

They've completely surpassed the satirical level of Saturday Night Live skits, lameness which makes the Seinfeld/Gates ads seem more convincing.

MS has been riding on its market share laurels for over 15 years - ads such as these will surely accelerate the erosion process.

[MorphingDragon]

They've completely surpassed the satirical level of Saturday Night Live skits, lameness which makes the Seinfeld/Gates ads seem more convincing.

MS has been riding on its market share laurels for over 15 years - ads such as these will surely accelerate the erosion process.

MS' Secret Plan

http://www.legionsofnephthys.com/j7fiction/images/Cheers.jpg

---

They keyword is offensive. This just shows how prominent Apple is in the market ATM.

[DMann]

MS' Secret Plan

They keyword is offensive. This just shows how prominent Apple is in the market ATM.

Might it have been:



"I'm not above whoring"

[tempusfugit]

that screenshot of the video could easily be from a bangbus scene.