Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's 10-K Filing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually Microsoft had a Unix OS SCO-Xenix, they didn't write the code of course, too much for them to handle
They dump Unix because they couldn't control it because of the licenses. If Microsoft can't make money off of it or control it 100% They buy something else that they can control and sucker people into believing its superior, then they make there own protocols so your supposed to only use their products with the OS or worse purposely write code into the OS to make their competitor software crash therefore you have to buy M$ crappy software. If it were uo to M$ they would charge for bug fixes, of course then they would purposely write bugs into their own programs.
Evil aren't they
Never except an imitation stick with the original, buy a Mac.
Oh, and drink original, have a nice cold Coca Cola
Last time I checked, they lost $50 million last quarter. I know, $50 million is nothing like what they have in their banks ($4B). But that doesn't matter. They are losing money. It's only in the long run that the $4 B matters. What if they constantly lose $50 million and more per quarter. Apple will be gone quicker than you think if they do continue.
*GASP* Your so-called "artistic" people USE those applications! There are a lot of those people. So with your definition, 3D animation isn't art, Photoshop isn't art. Interesting.
And yes, those people need more power. Millions of other people do care.*sigh*
The best argument here today is the most simple:
The consumer sees 1/2 the speed for 2x the price. End of story. They never even consider the Mac again.
For the more educated person, and let's face it there's an entire generation of computer savy future purchasers growing up as we speak, the specs matter. Years ago mainstream computer writers gave one piece of advice: buy as much speed as you can afford.
Speaking of that new generation of customers, I read a report recently that said that the vast majority of 15-24 year olds don't like the Switch campaign. That's terrible news for Apple.
To those that argue that eventually computers will be fast enough haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. No matter how fast the computer somebody will always be able to come up with a task that needs an even faster one. Think about how fast an Apple ][ booted and that was from an ancient 180k floppy disk. How about the speed at which a Lotus 1-2-3 window was drawn by a 286 with a Hercules monochrome card? How about the promise that Quadra 950 buyers could say goodbye to their progress bars? No, every new computer has been bogged down by hungry software.
I've seen people say that Dell will be killed by even cheaper PCs made in China. What the heck is going to happen to Apple? 1/4 the speed for 4x the price? I love OS X compared to Windows, but that kind of equation will make me switch to the dark side. I work with Windows every day at work. Even cheap PCs run for several years without suffering hardware failures, the OS rarely crashes, and now even P4 based PCs with their enormous heat output are quieter than PowerMacs.
Apple has only one leg left to stand on and it's the OS. If the price and performance gap continues to grow it will soon make no sense for anyone to buy a Mac.
The best argument here today is the most simple:
The consumer sees 1/2 the speed for 2x the price. End of story. They never even consider the Mac again.
For the more educated person, and let's face it there's an entire generation of computer savy future purchasers growing up as we speak, the specs matter. Years ago mainstream computer writers gave one piece of advice: buy as much speed as you can afford.
Speaking of that new generation of customers, I read a report recently that said that the vast majority of 15-24 year olds don't like the Switch campaign. That's terrible news for Apple.
To those that argue that eventually computers will be fast enough haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. No matter how fast the computer somebody will always be able to come up with a task that needs an even faster one. Think about how fast an Apple ][ booted and that was from an ancient 180k floppy disk. How about the speed at which a Lotus 1-2-3 window was drawn by a 286 with a Hercules monochrome card? How about the promise that Quadra 950 buyers could say goodbye to their progress bars? No, every new computer has been bogged down by hungry software.
I've seen people say that Dell will be killed by even cheaper PCs made in China. What the heck is going to happen to Apple? 1/4 the speed for 4x the price? I love OS X compared to Windows, but that kind of equation will make me switch to the dark side. I work with Windows every day at work. Even cheap PCs run for several years without suffering hardware failures, the OS rarely crashes, and now even P4 based PCs with their enormous heat output are quieter than PowerMacs.
Apple has only one leg left to stand on and it's the OS. If the price and performance gap continues to grow it will soon make no sense for anyone to buy a Mac.
Re: *sigh*
That has certainly been true for most of the PC's history, but the trend has been dramatically different in the last few years. My mom is still totally happy with her 450MHz Pentium II, and sees no reason to upgrade now or in the future. I myself was totally happy with my Dell 600 MHz P III laptop and Compaq 466 MHz AMD K6-2 desktop. The fact is, for the vast majority of consumers the web browser and Office are probably the most demanding applications they run.
But when my Dell laptop died and I had to look for a new laptop, I did not even consider the CPU. I mean, it just wasn't a factor at all in and of itself (though of course it affects battery life, which I was concerned with). In fact, the 4 laptops that made my short list had G3, P III, or Transmeta Crusoe processors. I ended up going with the iBook because I thought it was by far the best laptop I could get for $1300.
And granted, I would put myself in the "savvy consumer" category that looks at features as you mentioned. But if you read what I said about my mom above, I think that "unsavvy" consumers are also increasingly starting not to care about speed. For the average consumer price is paramount, though, which is why Apple is a niche player (by choice, *even if* Macs had 3 GHz G5s by now or whatever was in the original Motorola roadmap, though of course Apple was hoping to have 20 or 25 percent market share by now...).
For consumers that are willing to pay more than $500 for a desktop, I think Apple competes better than you might think, because that implies that that consumer is looking for something that the $500 computer doesn't have, and is thus looking at features. And the situation is even better for Apple in laptops, since its consumer iBook line is in the same price range ($1000 to $2000) as the consumer lines of all the major laptop makers. Apple still has the MHz gap, but laptop users are by definition looking at other features like size, battery life, etc.
So I don't think things look all that grim for Apple, even in this tough 2003 year as they wait for 970 salvation from IBM. The PowerPC chip drought has forced Apple to really focus on great design (which has always been the case of course, but the urgency of differentiating their product is definitely greater now), expanding to other products (iPod) and eking out performance from its architechture (like offloading OS graphics to the graphics card with Quartz Extreme), which will all greatly benefit Apple in the long term anyway.
That has certainly been true for most of the PC's history, but the trend has been dramatically different in the last few years. My mom is still totally happy with her 450MHz Pentium II, and sees no reason to upgrade now or in the future. I myself was totally happy with my Dell 600 MHz P III laptop and Compaq 466 MHz AMD K6-2 desktop. The fact is, for the vast majority of consumers the web browser and Office are probably the most demanding applications they run.
But when my Dell laptop died and I had to look for a new laptop, I did not even consider the CPU. I mean, it just wasn't a factor at all in and of itself (though of course it affects battery life, which I was concerned with). In fact, the 4 laptops that made my short list had G3, P III, or Transmeta Crusoe processors. I ended up going with the iBook because I thought it was by far the best laptop I could get for $1300.
And granted, I would put myself in the "savvy consumer" category that looks at features as you mentioned. But if you read what I said about my mom above, I think that "unsavvy" consumers are also increasingly starting not to care about speed. For the average consumer price is paramount, though, which is why Apple is a niche player (by choice, *even if* Macs had 3 GHz G5s by now or whatever was in the original Motorola roadmap, though of course Apple was hoping to have 20 or 25 percent market share by now...).
For consumers that are willing to pay more than $500 for a desktop, I think Apple competes better than you might think, because that implies that that consumer is looking for something that the $500 computer doesn't have, and is thus looking at features. And the situation is even better for Apple in laptops, since its consumer iBook line is in the same price range ($1000 to $2000) as the consumer lines of all the major laptop makers. Apple still has the MHz gap, but laptop users are by definition looking at other features like size, battery life, etc.
So I don't think things look all that grim for Apple, even in this tough 2003 year as they wait for 970 salvation from IBM. The PowerPC chip drought has forced Apple to really focus on great design (which has always been the case of course, but the urgency of differentiating their product is definitely greater now), expanding to other products (iPod) and eking out performance from its architechture (like offloading OS graphics to the graphics card with Quartz Extreme), which will all greatly benefit Apple in the long term anyway.
Re: Re: *sigh*
Glad to see somebody actually reads my posts.
450MHz machines make good web browsing stations. Therefore your mom's computer is enough for her, at least for the immediate future. Heck my parents aren't too upset about having an old PowerMac 6100 with a 33.6 modem because they're not really interested in the web. My mom would rather use a typewriter than a computer.
The issue is this: when 100MHz computers were standard they were already fast enough for everything the average consumer did. Back then, however, there really wasn't much of a web, there weren't digital cameras and there certainly wasn't anything like iMovie. So even though 100MHz was all people needed, most have found a reason since then to upgrade. The explosion of the web and, most significantly, rich content on the web has made those 100MHz machines obsolete even though they still do everything consumers thought they'd ever need to do with a computer.
A few years from now there will be something else that pushes the upgrade cycle because 450MHz machines just won't be enough for whatever the new thing is. Your mom may never want to take advantage of the new content, but many people will, just as millions discovered their old computers weren't good enough for today's photo, Flash and video enabled web.
It's probably sensible for most consumers to wait until they need the speed before they buy a new machine and more and more are doing just that. All computer makers are in a slow sales period at least partly because there is nothing driving the need for more speed. However, those who have chosen to go shopping will without doubt look at numbers before anything else.
1. Price
Apple misses the boat in several markets (notebooks are for the most part an exception)
2. Speed and other "up front" specs
Even if the customer can afford a Mac the raw numbers we throw around (700MHz, 128MB RAM, etc.) are tiny compared to even bargain basement PCs.
Only a knowledgeable person goes beyond #2 by which time Apple has already lost over 90% of potential customers. Add the tendancy for people to act like lemmings and Windows becomes a snowball rolling down a hill. It's already so big that Apple has to mount a major ad campaign just to get people to notice that they exist.
I love Macs and OS X, but I could get a PC with more of everything than a Mac, a consumer DVD player and a 32" television set for the price of the low end G4 tower. Which package offers the most features?
"Why a tower?", you ask. A thousand reasons not the least of which is not wanting to be stuck with old technology. My old Rage128 will soon be replaced by a card that fully supports Quartz Extreme. Try doing that with any other year 2000 model Mac.
Glad to see somebody actually reads my posts.
450MHz machines make good web browsing stations. Therefore your mom's computer is enough for her, at least for the immediate future. Heck my parents aren't too upset about having an old PowerMac 6100 with a 33.6 modem because they're not really interested in the web. My mom would rather use a typewriter than a computer.
The issue is this: when 100MHz computers were standard they were already fast enough for everything the average consumer did. Back then, however, there really wasn't much of a web, there weren't digital cameras and there certainly wasn't anything like iMovie. So even though 100MHz was all people needed, most have found a reason since then to upgrade. The explosion of the web and, most significantly, rich content on the web has made those 100MHz machines obsolete even though they still do everything consumers thought they'd ever need to do with a computer.
A few years from now there will be something else that pushes the upgrade cycle because 450MHz machines just won't be enough for whatever the new thing is. Your mom may never want to take advantage of the new content, but many people will, just as millions discovered their old computers weren't good enough for today's photo, Flash and video enabled web.
It's probably sensible for most consumers to wait until they need the speed before they buy a new machine and more and more are doing just that. All computer makers are in a slow sales period at least partly because there is nothing driving the need for more speed. However, those who have chosen to go shopping will without doubt look at numbers before anything else.
1. Price
Apple misses the boat in several markets (notebooks are for the most part an exception)
2. Speed and other "up front" specs
Even if the customer can afford a Mac the raw numbers we throw around (700MHz, 128MB RAM, etc.) are tiny compared to even bargain basement PCs.
Only a knowledgeable person goes beyond #2 by which time Apple has already lost over 90% of potential customers. Add the tendancy for people to act like lemmings and Windows becomes a snowball rolling down a hill. It's already so big that Apple has to mount a major ad campaign just to get people to notice that they exist.
I love Macs and OS X, but I could get a PC with more of everything than a Mac, a consumer DVD player and a 32" television set for the price of the low end G4 tower. Which package offers the most features?
"Why a tower?", you ask. A thousand reasons not the least of which is not wanting to be stuck with old technology. My old Rage128 will soon be replaced by a card that fully supports Quartz Extreme. Try doing that with any other year 2000 model Mac.
Re: *sigh*
Was that the "best argument"?
If the more educated person chooses a PC, then why are Mac users (according to a recent research you've all probably heard of) richer and have a higher IQ?
As long as Macs do things PC's can't (like some high-end print graphics/audio stuff) Apple will stay in business. Also, as long as there are people who don't want Windows and can't use Linux etc., Apple will be there.
The price issue also requires some thinking ahead; I could still sell my G4/450 dual for half the price I paid for it - and why couldn't I, the best recording studio I've seen (last summer) had a G4/500 running ProTools. A PC bought at the same time would be worth a lot less. I'd consider the resale value when buying something, but for some reason PC people don't see computers as something with a resale value and therefore ignore it when comparing the prices.
As for Apple's laptops, I haven't ever seen anything better suited for making music on the move than TiBooks - and a lot of musicians will agree.
That said, the speed is currently an issue, merely because OS X GUI doesn't run as snappily as it should even on the newest machines - not because I'm making a comparison to Windows, which doesn't meet my needs anyway.
Was that the "best argument"?
If the more educated person chooses a PC, then why are Mac users (according to a recent research you've all probably heard of) richer and have a higher IQ?
As long as Macs do things PC's can't (like some high-end print graphics/audio stuff) Apple will stay in business. Also, as long as there are people who don't want Windows and can't use Linux etc., Apple will be there.
The price issue also requires some thinking ahead; I could still sell my G4/450 dual for half the price I paid for it - and why couldn't I, the best recording studio I've seen (last summer) had a G4/500 running ProTools. A PC bought at the same time would be worth a lot less. I'd consider the resale value when buying something, but for some reason PC people don't see computers as something with a resale value and therefore ignore it when comparing the prices.
As for Apple's laptops, I haven't ever seen anything better suited for making music on the move than TiBooks - and a lot of musicians will agree.
That said, the speed is currently an issue, merely because OS X GUI doesn't run as snappily as it should even on the newest machines - not because I'm making a comparison to Windows, which doesn't meet my needs anyway.
An anology from the world of politics (which isn't that different from sales):
In the election between Clinton and Dole...
Let's say:
* speed and price = "the economy"
* true value and features = "family values"
Apple fans appreciate the "family values" of the Mac, and are willing to pay a bit more, because they realize "the economy" is less important.
But in the real world, who wins? As James Carville said,
"It's the ECONOMY, stupid."
(Not calling anyone stupid, just trying to re-emphasize a point that several others have made...)
In the election between Clinton and Dole...
Let's say:
* speed and price = "the economy"
* true value and features = "family values"
Apple fans appreciate the "family values" of the Mac, and are willing to pay a bit more, because they realize "the economy" is less important.
But in the real world, who wins? As James Carville said,
"It's the ECONOMY, stupid."
(Not calling anyone stupid, just trying to re-emphasize a point that several others have made...)
As I have said before. Who is anyone to say that Mhz does not matter?
The fact is that thousands, hundreds of thousands of computer buyers use Mhz as the benchmark when buying a PC.
To say that it doesn't matter is foolish, maybe it doesn't matter to you, but you are not the only one that uses or is buying or plans to buy a computer.
IF IT MATTERS TO THE CONSUMER THEN IT SHOULD MATTER TO APPLE!!!!
Some of the people that post here are as bad as Microsoft. They take the attitude of you don't need a faster processor so take this one instead, or If you don't like what Apple offers then go get a crummy PC, or If you want a Mac your gonna have to pay hand over fist whethor you like it or not!
Again, Price and Speed are the 2 main things that non-geek, normal people look at when purchasing a computer.
too late ?!
amazing truths revealed. But my conclusion remains the same: Apple committed a strategically hard to believe mistake by relying entirely on a single supplier. This could cost, likely has already cost, Apple immensily in its attempt to regain market share as the company's made incredible advances in other areas. Had the company had the same "success" in upgrading processors coupled with software substantial progress, I do believe Apple would be far ahead at this point, inspite of horrendous market conditions. Damned !!!!!!!!!!
amazing truths revealed. But my conclusion remains the same: Apple committed a strategically hard to believe mistake by relying entirely on a single supplier. This could cost, likely has already cost, Apple immensily in its attempt to regain market share as the company's made incredible advances in other areas. Had the company had the same "success" in upgrading processors coupled with software substantial progress, I do believe Apple would be far ahead at this point, inspite of horrendous market conditions. Damned !!!!!!!!!!
And in THAT order:
#1 - PRICE
#2 - speed
Unless you have a specific need or want, you'll buy based on that. (Maybe the fact that you're familiar with Windows makes a difference, too???)
Somewhere in One Infinite Loop, I bet Apple has a a marketing department that knows all this price/value stuff....
Price is important, that's why the price on iBooks and Powerbooks was dropped to make them more competitive . Look for more of the same at MWSF.
Mac Sterotype?
One thing besides price and speed that I haven't seen brought up here is the sterotype that a Macintosh is a low quality, slow, and unreliable computer. The majority of people I talk to haven't seen a mac since 1995, and when they see their new computers and OS X they are shocked. I find it very amuzing that people think that Apple computers have not changed for 5-7 years. Where Apple's bad name came from, I have no idea. To all of us their name spells Quality, but not to the common uneducated consumer. Especially Teenages, we had a mac lab at our high school, which was horrible run by the way, and the students always said, "These stupid macs!". I would ask why they are stupid, and they had no real answer. Where did this stereotype come from, and why does it still exist? My girlfriend happend to switch 4 people, including her teacher by giving a speech on Apple, with her iMac. When people see a NEW mac they are WOWED. I just wish this would happen more often.
I also enjoy the Pre-Highschool economics, lower prices->More Sales.
One thing besides price and speed that I haven't seen brought up here is the sterotype that a Macintosh is a low quality, slow, and unreliable computer. The majority of people I talk to haven't seen a mac since 1995, and when they see their new computers and OS X they are shocked. I find it very amuzing that people think that Apple computers have not changed for 5-7 years. Where Apple's bad name came from, I have no idea. To all of us their name spells Quality, but not to the common uneducated consumer. Especially Teenages, we had a mac lab at our high school, which was horrible run by the way, and the students always said, "These stupid macs!". I would ask why they are stupid, and they had no real answer. Where did this stereotype come from, and why does it still exist? My girlfriend happend to switch 4 people, including her teacher by giving a speech on Apple, with her iMac. When people see a NEW mac they are WOWED. I just wish this would happen more often.
I also enjoy the Pre-Highschool economics, lower prices->More Sales.
It WOULD be nice to have a "low end" machine (no monitor):
G3, 700MHz, 256M, 20G, CD-RW, 8M Video RAM, 1 FW, 2 USB:
Sounds possible for $699.
After all, the low-end iBook has all that except the CD-RW and only 128M (but it's so cheap now), has more VRAM (16M), portability, and a screen for only $999.
Re: Re: *sigh*
Only rich people can justify paying too much for a computer.
Every one of us obviously has some personal reason for having a Mac. Mine used to be familiarity with the OS and the bad reputation that Windows had. Now that I use Windows every day at work I've found that the gap has narrowed considerably and I own a PC in addition to two Macs.
Macs seem to have extraordinary resale value. Much of this is no doubt based on wealthy people's willingness to pay too much. Another good reason is the slow rate of progress in Apple hardware. Whereas PCs have tripled in clock speed in the last few years, gone from having old RS-232 serial ports to USB 2.0 and FireWire, moved from PC66 to PC2700 and RDRAM, Macs have made very little progress. The blue & white G3 had essentially the same case as today's G4, with the same array of ports and a moderately slower motherboard. There has been good progress on the processor front recently, but we were stalled at 450MHz for a year.
Is the Mac the best platform for music? I've been told it is. What percentage of the general population cares about that? What percentage cares about ColorSync? What percentage even know what Photoshop is? Not many.
The average consumer wants what everybody else has. It creates a warm fuzzy feeling inside that you've made the right choice even if you haven't.
There is one other area that is quite significant and it explains the PC weenies who ridicule Mac users.
20% (or more) of all PCs sold are "white box" models. These aren't brand name computers, they are locally assembled from individual parts. The buyers of these machines (or their children) know what they want in their PC and know all about which brand of motherboard is best suited to their particular needs. This large number of PC buyers has researched every single component in their PC and know all the specs. They can flash BIOS, overclock, and quote performance statistics by the hour.
In stark contrast is the Mac user whose response to "what's the bus speed of your iMac?" is likely to reply with "what's that?" or "who cares?". PC weenies see that as an admission by the Mac user that (s)he's an idiot who barely knows how to use a mouse. We know this is a false conclusion, but you can see where it comes from.
Only rich people can justify paying too much for a computer.
Every one of us obviously has some personal reason for having a Mac. Mine used to be familiarity with the OS and the bad reputation that Windows had. Now that I use Windows every day at work I've found that the gap has narrowed considerably and I own a PC in addition to two Macs.
Macs seem to have extraordinary resale value. Much of this is no doubt based on wealthy people's willingness to pay too much. Another good reason is the slow rate of progress in Apple hardware. Whereas PCs have tripled in clock speed in the last few years, gone from having old RS-232 serial ports to USB 2.0 and FireWire, moved from PC66 to PC2700 and RDRAM, Macs have made very little progress. The blue & white G3 had essentially the same case as today's G4, with the same array of ports and a moderately slower motherboard. There has been good progress on the processor front recently, but we were stalled at 450MHz for a year.
Is the Mac the best platform for music? I've been told it is. What percentage of the general population cares about that? What percentage cares about ColorSync? What percentage even know what Photoshop is? Not many.
The average consumer wants what everybody else has. It creates a warm fuzzy feeling inside that you've made the right choice even if you haven't.
There is one other area that is quite significant and it explains the PC weenies who ridicule Mac users.
20% (or more) of all PCs sold are "white box" models. These aren't brand name computers, they are locally assembled from individual parts. The buyers of these machines (or their children) know what they want in their PC and know all about which brand of motherboard is best suited to their particular needs. This large number of PC buyers has researched every single component in their PC and know all the specs. They can flash BIOS, overclock, and quote performance statistics by the hour.
In stark contrast is the Mac user whose response to "what's the bus speed of your iMac?" is likely to reply with "what's that?" or "who cares?". PC weenies see that as an admission by the Mac user that (s)he's an idiot who barely knows how to use a mouse. We know this is a false conclusion, but you can see where it comes from.
I hate to say it but I'm going to buy a PC. I can't find any advantage in spending more money on a out of date, overpriced machine.
These slight speed bumps don't warrent the prices.
Apple has been adrift for the last two years when it comes to the core system, they have made leaps and bounds on the add-ons but hell by the time I can buy a new tower, I can't afford an Ipod, or digital camera, or software to anti up to OSX.
I use FCP for my editing but I'm going to jump ship and head back to Avid and run it on a PC. I might have few more headaches but I can't wait for Apple to either lower prices or catch up to the competition. My computer usage and purchases are based on productivity, expandability and economics and I can get more for my dollar on a PC with the same amount of productivity.
Somebody please try to sway me back...I don't really want to convert back....
These slight speed bumps don't warrent the prices.
Apple has been adrift for the last two years when it comes to the core system, they have made leaps and bounds on the add-ons but hell by the time I can buy a new tower, I can't afford an Ipod, or digital camera, or software to anti up to OSX.
I use FCP for my editing but I'm going to jump ship and head back to Avid and run it on a PC. I might have few more headaches but I can't wait for Apple to either lower prices or catch up to the competition. My computer usage and purchases are based on productivity, expandability and economics and I can get more for my dollar on a PC with the same amount of productivity.
Somebody please try to sway me back...I don't really want to convert back....
zuffen,
if you were rational in your decision, there is not much I could do to change your mind. Possibly somebody else will try, and I am sure you'll find many around here.
I am an Apple fanatic so I keep buying them yet knowing it is not a smart thing to do. However, note that I only use the Mac at home, for fun so I have no "serious" needs. I shall add to that: no other PC will ever enter my house.
But I do wonder, really, how someone who uses his Mac to make a living can actually do that. I have used over the past decade nothing but PCs at work, where I do make a living, and still today I wonder what is the bs about PC's crashing all the time. My PC at work has crashed may be once over the past 2 years ! And before that, no PC would ever, I mean, EVER, come even remotely close to my Mac at home in terms of number of crashes. My Mac would win with no contest.
But what can you do, first I love my Mac, second, I don't make a living with it
best,
gio
if you were rational in your decision, there is not much I could do to change your mind. Possibly somebody else will try, and I am sure you'll find many around here.
I am an Apple fanatic so I keep buying them yet knowing it is not a smart thing to do. However, note that I only use the Mac at home, for fun so I have no "serious" needs. I shall add to that: no other PC will ever enter my house.
But I do wonder, really, how someone who uses his Mac to make a living can actually do that. I have used over the past decade nothing but PCs at work, where I do make a living, and still today I wonder what is the bs about PC's crashing all the time. My PC at work has crashed may be once over the past 2 years ! And before that, no PC would ever, I mean, EVER, come even remotely close to my Mac at home in terms of number of crashes. My Mac would win with no contest.
But what can you do, first I love my Mac, second, I don't make a living with it
best,
gio
I use a PC at work too, and while using Media encoders I've had crashes and lock ups. But usually it was from the IT manager screwing with the machine and adding cards or software without me knowing it. The video editing software has had problems but not unusual. If I build the machine I gernerally don't have issues.
My dilema is that I want to stay MAC at home but a G3 400 is getting old and unable to perform the tasks the newer software is asking. So I'm thinking of buying a PC for video work and graphics and use the G3 for email and web cruisen. I love that I don't have to worry about viruses.
I'm just trying to stay on the curve so to speak.
The PC will stay off the net except for the web conferencing that I have to do occasionly. Another thing Apple sucks at, they should have been a leader in teleconferencing software and hardware.
I just wish Apple would catch up and offer a competitive product.
I get this feeling that Steve Jobs is just laughing at us.
My dilema is that I want to stay MAC at home but a G3 400 is getting old and unable to perform the tasks the newer software is asking. So I'm thinking of buying a PC for video work and graphics and use the G3 for email and web cruisen. I love that I don't have to worry about viruses.
I'm just trying to stay on the curve so to speak.
The PC will stay off the net except for the web conferencing that I have to do occasionly. Another thing Apple sucks at, they should have been a leader in teleconferencing software and hardware.
I just wish Apple would catch up and offer a competitive product.
I get this feeling that Steve Jobs is just laughing at us.
raw numbers
why doesn't Apple pull the same thing AMD has done recently, put how fast the chip performs compared to the competition in the name instead of the actual clock speed.
1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+
it could work...
why doesn't Apple pull the same thing AMD has done recently, put how fast the chip performs compared to the competition in the name instead of the actual clock speed.
1.39ghz= athlon xp 1600+
dual 1.25ghz G4= G4 3000+
it could work...
thats great, but here's a word of advice: it'll feel even faster with more RAM... i was skeptical myself at first, but the more RAM you give OS X, the faster it'll run.. i recommend adding at least 256 megs, preferably 512.
anway, back on the main topic, i think apple is indeed in a slump (in terms of the performance of their high-end towers compared to PC's), but hopefully 2003 really will be Apple's Year, starting with the 970
zuffen, I am all with you. To tell you more, I was not long ago in a very similar situation: a few months back I had a G3 350 myself (I still have it) but it had been a while that I was realizing I had to upgrade for the reason you mention (keep up with new software basically). The differerence however, is that I never even considered the option of a PC for my home. But you seem rational, while I am not at all when it comes to my home computers.
I also do moderate amounts of video editing and I KNOW it is a lot faster on a PC, like everything else; I know I would save a few bux (even though I think a lot less than a few years ago anyway). So what I did ? I upgraded to a PM dual 867, paying the same amount of money I have paid in the last decade to buy a new machine. I mean, there are reasons, even though not sufficient to make my_behaviour "rational".
In other words on a price/performance basis any Mac is ridiculous: after all shall we debate why Apple has had no more than a 5% market share for how many years now? Let me add a note here: OSX, I am discovering is a truly fabulous operating system. But then, yes, we do have MS Office but it runs like f****g super s**t motherlover c**p - excuse my french - but geeeeee MS Office is almost like the OS of a computer, it has got to run well !!!!
Oh, so what was my point ? get a new Mac, can't be rational all the time - as long as it does indeed make you happy. Sorry, lots of mumbling....
I also do moderate amounts of video editing and I KNOW it is a lot faster on a PC, like everything else; I know I would save a few bux (even though I think a lot less than a few years ago anyway). So what I did ? I upgraded to a PM dual 867, paying the same amount of money I have paid in the last decade to buy a new machine. I mean, there are reasons, even though not sufficient to make my_behaviour "rational".
In other words on a price/performance basis any Mac is ridiculous: after all shall we debate why Apple has had no more than a 5% market share for how many years now? Let me add a note here: OSX, I am discovering is a truly fabulous operating system. But then, yes, we do have MS Office but it runs like f****g super s**t motherlover c**p - excuse my french - but geeeeee MS Office is almost like the OS of a computer, it has got to run well !!!!
Oh, so what was my point ? get a new Mac
, can't be rational all the time - as long as it does indeed make you happy. Sorry, lots of mumbling....
Just wanted to mention, if you are doing video,graphics,digital pics the new Macs are very fast, as fast as pcs if you use apps like fcp or the apple included apps that take advantage of the duals/alticvec which are very good. If you go to avid which isn't as good in my opinion you'll pay $1200 or so just for the software and I think it worth mentioning that there are pcs that cost as much as macs, the better made ones.
But.. My gripe is for audio or other such apps that take no advantage of duals or altivec and that the dual 1250 is grossly overpriced when you consider that you only get to use 1 processor for audio. For what you're doing the dual 867 will rock your world! I don't like the windoz os but if Mac doesn't come through in 2003 I may switch just for Protools, cause you never see the os for an app like that,
daniel
Half the speed, twice the price
Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."
In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.
They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.
Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.
Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."
Keep repeating the mantra: "Half the speed, twice the price."
In general, consumers (read: bulk of computer purchasers) don't know alot about computers. They don't do MHz math or perform careful analysis of included technologies.
They do, however, recognize this: An Apple computer, while it looks cool, costs a whole lot more than a PC. And while some may argue in favor of Firewire and fancy LCD monitors that pivot, Joe Average is happy with his $699 holiday special Dell with non-fancy pivoting 15" LCD monitor.
Apple will NEVER gain marketshare until they beef up their manufacturing and R&D process to compete in the real world.
Real people don't want "Half the speed, twice the price."