Microsoft Digital Hub

[Hawthorne]

The software also includes features for people to host a digital music "party" on the PC. Called Plus Party mode, the technology provides a password-protected environment for people to mix collections of music, add visual effects or create an interactive guest book.

OMG, that sounds like one of the geekiest things I've ever heard of. To me, parties and computers are mutually exclusive. I can just see some poor lonely geek trudging to a party, setting up a 10 lb laptop (or worse yet, his l33t modded-out lan party machine (hey, a party is a party, right?)), and trying to impress the women in the crowd with the abilities of his PC.

But then again, this is the same company that brought us Microsoft Bob. Their idea of a good time is strangely different than the rest of the world...

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by User X
I love my 867 quicksilver, it might not be the fastest one on the block but everytime I use it, I am happy I bought it.

Right on! I have a used beige G3 400 w/firewire & usb and 128 gigs of disk-space tucked away in a closet with a printer on a shelf above. Through the wall runs cables for a black 15" Sony lcd sitting in the corner of a curvy poplar bar, a Logitech cordless mouseman optical and a usb Apple keyboard that slides out from behind a flip-down drawer face. It's hooked up underneath the floor directly to my stereo where iTunes manages 450 cd's worth of mp3's and a phone-line to access the web. Sure, the beige-box is ugly, but it's hidden in the closet. The parts you do see are gorgeous (Jaguar included!) and for what we use it for- surfing/iTunes/educational games and some light design (heavy at times!), you'd never know that it wasn't a contemporary machine. I'm gonna wear this baby into the ground & will probably end up having skipped the entire G4 era of machines before I make my next purchase.

I can't speak for everyone, but my Mac rocks. - j

 

[bignumbers]

Apple the master of the software digital hub, but...

What really annoys me about Apple's Digital Hub" strategy isn't the software (which is wonderful) but the hardware. To be a hub, you need ports.

I just got a crappy $600 Dell PC for occasional use (replacing my 6-year-old clone which I used a few times a year). It has six USB 2.0 ports, four in the back and two in the front.

Apple, with all the Digital Hub talk, puts either two or three on every machine, all in the back. (Keyboard USB ports don't count; they're unpowered and usage limits motion of the keyboard.)

They're tied on firewire; two in the back on both, with the PC taking a slot.

Apple could add more USB and FireWire ports for next to nothing and make the user experience (not to mention cable clutter due to external hubs) quite a bit better.

As for M$'s new software... it'll probably have ten times as many features as the iApps, all so horribly implemented that it'll be useless to those fools who spend the $20.

 

[Bart]

Originally posted by tgrundke
What is so shocking to me is the sheer arrogance on part of the members of this group.

The first dozen thread replies consisted of phrases such as, "MSFT couldn't find an original idea of its own if it **** on its face." Or: "I think it's a nice try by Microsoft but I don't think it will matter much." Or: "blah, blah, blah." Or: "WHO CARES?!"

These comments underscore the very attitude that has gotten Apple into the position it is in today. Trace the Apple snobbishness to 1977 and you will see the root of all today's troubles. If you think that Microsoft's moves are irrelevant, unoriginal, 'blah' or otherwise unimportant, you belong to the Apple of 20 years ago.

Start accepting the massive juggernaut we are up against as a legitimate competitor and deal with it directly, not in some juvenile passive-aggressive way. Who owns 95% of the market?

Grow up.

I agree with tgrundke, if we don't change aditude soon, we could be lost this time. I'm a mac user for more then 12 years now and at the office I've been using PC's al that time too. And there was a time that a Wintel machine was a piece of ****, it could not start from cd, drivers never worked and it was a nightmare to ad new hardware.
Back in 2002 a pc can start as easy from its cd rom as a mac and drivers and new hardware mostly are ok. And that's exactly what they are under OS X,...mostly OK
A few years ago, when the G3 was still rocking fast, Steve Jobs told us that from now on Macintosh computers will always be minimum twice as fast as a pc...bla..bla..bla
Now I'm asking you, is a G4 twice as fast as a P4 3Ghz. Don't start telling me about the megahertz myth, I know all about it.
There was a time, Apple had a comparisation shart on its website P4 vs G4. Where is it now?! It's gone so bad they have to put in 2 G4 CPU's to keep up the competition.
In the 80's Apple had the avantage of having a wonderfull GUI, PC's only had dos or windows 3.x at the most.
Now PC's have a fairly good OS too. I know XP isn't perfect, is OS X perfect?.....NO! Not even Jaguar.
Another issue: I had to buy a G4 to keep al my SCSI hardware running, ok the imac is a beauty, I know and it comes with a lot of ports. But you can not plug in an SCSI card, you never can.
A few years ago Apple adopted the VGA port and everybody was happy, no more funny extra's to connect a non Apple monitor to the mac.
Now once more they've decided to use their own type of alien connector.
Steve Jobs will never learn!

There are many sites like this one, where the MAc is THE computer and pc's are ****. You will not find an opposite site as easy as a Pro Mac site. Do you know why? Because they don't care, to them Apple is a little company that manufactures Alien computers, who are a lot slower than their PC's and twice as expensive, so why talk about them?
A friend of mine once said: A mac is the Rolls Royce of all computers!"

These days Rolls Royce is owned by BMW, it could not exist without.
It's gotten old none competetive.


Bart

 

[tkinney80]

OS 9 vs OS X

What is with you folks. Yes OS X is an awesome operating system with a great feel but nothing was wrong with OS 9. I never had any problems with 9 so why bash on it? Get over it.

 

[tgrundke]

Re: Apple does NOT know what consumers want

The supreme irony, as SonnyCA has alluded to, is that Steve Jobs, the perennial cultural snob, is forced to sell to the whims of the marketplace.

I agree wholeheartedly that Apple has NOT offered what the market wants. Actually, I will amend that to say that Apple HAS produced what a small segment of the market wants, but has NEVER thought of developing for "the market" (which is a dirty term for Steve Jobs). In any other industry this wouldn't be an issue, but in the high tech industry it IS a fundamental issue.

Again: For some, Apple has answered the call. For the majority, Apple is cool albeit out of bounds for the masses.

Originally posted by SonnyCA
I know I may get a lot of grief for saying this, but the market has obviously spoken and shown us that Apple does *NOT* offer the market what it wants.

The market obviously wants inexpensive and powerful computers, and couldn't care less about design and integration -- if this wasn't the case, PCs and Windows would not be as popular as they are. Windows must offer decent enough hardware integration for it to work enough for it to be popular among the masses.

While Apple focuses on industrial design and the integration of its applications, Windows will claim to have even more features on hardware that is even more powerful, and all for a lot less money. This is what the market wants, and this is *NOT* what Apple is focusing on.

I was shopping for a laptop the other day, comparing iBooks to Dells to Compaqs to IBMs. Why would anybody in his right mind buy an iBook?? You get so much more on the PC side, and the difference in software quality and case construction is trivial to consumers.

Apple is running its Switch marketing campaign, but I find it interesting that they offer no real compelling reasons for anyone to actually make the switch. They are telling me that I should switch to a platform that is slower and more expensive -- yah, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder how many switchers they've actually gotten, and how many Mac users have actually switched in the opposite direction.

Apple is marketing to its existing customer base. It's not going to switch anybody, I think it's a big joke. The only advantage Apple has is that MS sees it as a fly and doesn't bother squashing it.

Somebody please tell me what are the compelling advantages to having a Mac, besides slick industrial design that very few people care about? What can I get on the Mac that I can't get on the PC for less money???

 

[Marvenp]

Re: Re: $19.95.

Originally posted by adamcoop


That's a good point

However

HP, Dell and others will probably throw it in for free, and market their machines as the most wonderful home movie making computers in the world.

And the idiots will buy it.

WRONG! I used to be the Creative Director for a software developer so trust me when I say NOTHING is free! Sure they bundle the software with a PC and tell the end user it's free, but what you don't know is the the price of the the software was already figured in when you purchased your new machine. We did deals like this with manufacturers all the time.

 

[tgrundke]

"Good artists create, great artists copy"

It matters not how much of a copier Microsoft is. You say they are "BAD BAD BAD at copying". Stop focusing on how much you disregard Microsoft's tactics and strategy and how it will inevitably collapse. Everything comes to an end at some point.

Instead, focus on Apple, what Apple's unique abilities are and help develop a way to leverage that to improve marketshare. Apple, by the way, is adopting similar tactics in its recent buy-outs of software companies.

The problem that Apple faces is that it is buying out software companies, telling its currently installed base, "you will buy Macs or nothing" if you wish to run our software. The question is: how long will it be before a decent alternative comes about?

Originally posted by Shadowfax
I think i have to say that MS just plain sucks at this. they won't ever come out with something better than apple's. apple will respond, for one, and furthermore, MS is BAD BAD BAD at copying. of course it will get more market and press than apple, but that doesn't make it better, and i for one don't care if they are more popular. i've always said people are stupid, and M$ is my personal best example.

they will screw this up somehow, some way they aren't talking about. it will crash like a lewd man on a voluptuous whore, or perhaps they really will throw the book at you on DRM, or something. XP was just like that with that ßullsh1t activation stuff.

if it makes you feel any better, microsoft has quality agents checking everything they market other than office. just like apple does. the only difference is that MS's agents make sure it sucks completely before they let it pass, because god forbid they give us something good. that wouldn't be profitable!

 

[tgrundke]

This discussion has been an interesting and incredibly civil one, to boot. Bravo to everyone.

I would like to reiterate a few points. Primarily about our hubris and helping Windows users to "see the light". Windows has a phenomenal amount of momentum behind it-people are accustomed to it, understand its quirks, etc. This applies to techies and non-techies alike.

People have invested thousands of dollars in software and hardware; thousands of hours in learning and understanding.

And Windows, fundamentally, ain't THAT bad. Sure, it's not as elegant and well integrated as a Mac, but it works - most of the time. Just like a Mac.

Moving to a Macintosh today means a heavy outlay in hardware, no real independence from Microsoft's way of doing business (you are still most likely going to run Office, or be faced with increasing MS like tactics from Apple). For most people it means learning a new Operating System, new 'colloquialisms', purchasing all new software.

Now, we still haven't even touched on the issue of price and of performance either.

For most people doing the calculations, it just does not add up. Unfortunate to say. Imagine you have teenagers and you tell them, "well, we're getting you a new iMac and most of those games you love-you can't play anymore."

Dad or mom of the year you will not be.

My point here is not to get the flames rolling or to hear howls of "scab!" "troll!" "MS lover!" My point is to ask everyone to understand the fundamentally painful realities we are up against. Stop thinking as an Apple lover and make a decision based on the financial, work, and other constraints most people are up against.

I buy Apple's equipment because I have a fundamental appreciation for the engineering and coherent package they deliver. I find the interface to be very pleasing and I can get my work done appropriately. However, the Wintel world beckons as more and more of my work takes place there, more and more applications and toys are there first, and increasingly Apple's price performance ratio falls off of the map.

Hopefully we'll get our house in order, until then keep the pressure on.

 

[Marvenp]

Originally posted by tgrundke
What is so shocking to me is the sheer arrogance on part of the members of this group.

The first dozen thread replies consisted of phrases such as, "MSFT couldn't find an original idea of its own if it **** on its face." Or: "I think it's a nice try by Microsoft but I don't think it will matter much." Or: "blah, blah, blah." Or: "WHO CARES?!"

These comments underscore the very attitude that has gotten Apple into the position it is in today. Trace the Apple snobbishness to 1977 and you will see the root of all today's troubles. If you think that Microsoft's moves are irrelevant, unoriginal, 'blah' or otherwise unimportant, you belong to the Apple of 20 years ago.

Start accepting the massive juggernaut we are up against as a legitimate competitor and deal with it directly, not in some juvenile passive-aggressive way. Who owns 95% of the market?

Grow up.

You have to admit this is a valid point. I'm sure Apple is taking this announcement seriously. And like a few others have stated, healthy competition is good for the end user. Emphasis on "healthy". Stupid format wars are NOT healthy e.g. the DVD format wars. Those type of competitions only leave the end user confused and frustrated. But Microsoft throwing their hat into the digital hub game should be interesting. I expect Apple will take 'em down. And it will be a chance for Apple to win over more customers when they see how much better Apple products intergrate and work the way they're supposed to. Let's stop seeing this as the glass being half empty. Besides, I always favor the underdog.

 

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by tgrundke

For most people doing the calculations, it just does not add up. Unfortunate to say. Imagine you have teenagers and you tell them, "well, we're getting you a new iMac and most of those games you love-you can't play anymore."

Dad or mom of the year you will not be.

My point here is not to get the flames rolling or to hear howls of "scab!" "troll!" "MS lover!" My point is to ask everyone to understand the fundamentally painful realities we are up against. Stop thinking as an Apple lover and make a decision based on the financial, work, and other constraints most people are up against.

There was an article a while back (don't have link, sorry) making the point that a large number of home users were buying a Mac to compliment, not supplant, a Windows machine. That's my situation, though the PC is gradually gathering more dust as it goes further and further out of date. I think there is plenty of ground to be made in going after the dual-platform market.

Of course it's an uphill battle against MicroSoft. And there's very few ways to beat them, but there are ways. News.com did a good article on the mortality of MicroSoft last month, it's worth a read. MicroSoft is at it's best when it reacts to a given situation, it's track record at "innovation" has been at best spotty. They seem totally unaware of what "ease of use" is. My Windows-only friends could not believe I didn't need to install drivers to use iPhoto. It's like I was speaking Martian to them.

Apple's recent price moves in laptops are a portent of things to come. I expect to see price cuts / performance increases on the iMac/eMac line at MWSF, with cuts on the Powermac line waiting until the 970 arrives. At that point Apple will have innovation, power, and price all on their side. Then the real war will start.

 

[adamcoop]

Originally posted by Dunepilot


I must say that as a full-time OS 9 user I get really hacked off with the fact that it crashes at least twice a day. And yes, I do have it set up correctly.

This is all I was implying.

But I agree that this division amoungst Mac users caused by OS 9 v. OS X isn't a good thing.

 

[deejemon]

*

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by tgrundke
Apple, by the way, is adopting similar tactics in its recent buy-outs of software companies.

Buying them out (Chimera anyone?) is one thing. Completely copying the look and feel of an application like they did with Sherlock 3 (Watson) is Microsoftian in nature.

Can a company compete in a culture of relaxed ethics while maintaining their integrity?

 

[tgrundke]

Don't forget that throughout the mid-late 1980s and early 1990s Microsoft bought out innumerable software makers, such as FoxPro, for example. Their philosophy at the time was: If we don't own it and it will take too much time and money to make it, we'll just buy it.

Microsoft understood the fundamentals of the technology industry far better than Apple did. They exploited their advantages and were damed aggressive at the right time.

All of the moves Apple is making now should have been made in 1989-1991. From price/performance to "switchers", to Final Cut Pro and more recent software acquisitions, we're about 10 years too late.

In fact, you can already see the trade press in digital video, etc. assailing Apple's moves as not 'good for the industry', but as 'signs of a struggling PC manufacturer trying to lock users into a brand with little room for movement.'

Shades of Microsoft?

Originally posted by jayscheuerle


Buying them out (Chimera anyone?) is one thing. Completely copying the look and feel of an application like they did with Sherlock 3 (Watson) is Microsoftian in nature.

Can a company compete in a culture of relaxed ethics while maintaining their integrity?

 

[Marvenp]

Originally posted by Bart


I agree with tgrundke, if we don't change aditude soon, we could be lost this time. I'm a mac user for more then 12 years now and at the office I've been using PC's al that time too. And there was a time that a Wintel machine was a piece of ****, it could not start from cd, drivers never worked and it was a nightmare to ad new hardware.
Back in 2002 a pc can start as easy from its cd rom as a mac and drivers and new hardware mostly are ok. And that's exactly what they are under OS X,...mostly OK
A few years ago, when the G3 was still rocking fast, Steve Jobs told us that from now on Macintosh computers will always be minimum twice as fast as a pc...bla..bla..bla
Now I'm asking you, is a G4 twice as fast as a P4 3Ghz. Don't start telling me about the megahertz myth, I know all about it.
There was a time, Apple had a comparisation shart on its website P4 vs G4. Where is it now?! It's gone so bad they have to put in 2 G4 CPU's to keep up the competition.
In the 80's Apple had the avantage of having a wonderfull GUI, PC's only had dos or windows 3.x at the most.
Now PC's have a fairly good OS too. I know XP isn't perfect, is OS X perfect?.....NO! Not even Jaguar.
Another issue: I had to buy a G4 to keep al my SCSI hardware running, ok the imac is a beauty, I know and it comes with a lot of ports. But you can not plug in an SCSI card, you never can.
A few years ago Apple adopted the VGA port and everybody was happy, no more funny extra's to connect a non Apple monitor to the mac.
Now once more they've decided to use their own type of alien connector.
Steve Jobs will never learn!

There are many sites like this one, where the MAc is THE computer and pc's are ****. You will not find an opposite site as easy as a Pro Mac site. Do you know why? Because they don't care, to them Apple is a little company that manufactures Alien computers, who are a lot slower than their PC's and twice as expensive, so why talk about them?
A friend of mine once said: A mac is the Rolls Royce of all computers!"

These days Rolls Royce is owned by BMW, it could not exist without.
It's gotten old none competetive.


Bart

I really sick of hearing about how the Mac has to catch up to the PC as far as speed goes; about how there are 3Ghz PCs compared to 1.25 Ghz Macs. I ask all of you honestly, how many people (with the exception of designers or 3D animators) know anyone who has a 3Ghz PC on their desk at work? They may exist but the average cheap consumer doesn't go out shopping for a 3Ghz Pentium PC. And for what they do buy (which is usually the cheapest thing they can get their hands on for their budget), the iMac is every bit a better machine (performance included). So stop this crap about how PCs are faster. Besides if you are a true Mac fan you know that those bragging rights will eventually be shattered by something Steve has up his sleeve. Who saw the slotloading superdrives for the PowerBooks coming? Everyone including this rumor site predicted it wouldn't be ready until next year. And bragging rights is exactly what we're talking about because most PC users don't have a need for a 3Ghz machine. Most designers (creative people) use a Mac. So if anyone needs that kind of performance, it's Mac users.

 

[tgrundke]

My friend, I am sorry but the speed issue is *everything* at the moment. Sure, slot-loading superdrives are cool - nobody on the Wintel side could give a hoot. Sure, the iMacs look neat, but the Wintel people ask, "where's the software and games?" The PowerMacs are elegant but people look at the pricetag and say, "are you nuts?"

When you add the speed factor (or lack thereof) into the equation, the case for Macintosh is that much harder to make. I do not disagree with you: Speed ain't everything. Sadly, it is yet another factor that gives people a reason *not* to buy a Macintosh.

I have to be honest, as cool as the iMac is, I will not buy one because I cannot upgrade the video on the machine and I cannot justify spending $2000 on an 800mhz machine, myth aside.

We can talk until we're blue in the face-but again, think like non-Apple enthusiasts think if you want to understand. Suddenly the 'cool' factor drops off. It's like Bang & Oulefsen audio equipment- it's the most beautiful, well engineered audio equipment in the world. Is it the most expensive? Hells yes. Is it the best audio quality, no-not really, you can have equal and sometimes better sound quality from equipment far less expensive. For 99.9% of the populace, their Sony or (shudder) Bose speakers are 'good enough' - B & O is extravagent.

The same image exists of Apple - and the people willing to pay Apple's premiums are falling by the wayside.

The more I investigate the situation, I come to believe that Apple itself *must* understand this fundamental movement in the industry toward 'commodity status'. That is why Apple must move itself into other 'service' markets because they are going to be forced to significantly lower margins on hardware to maintain competitiveness.

And please-the whole "the creative community users Macs" is an argument that is losing staying power. The last six months has witnessed my moving two large local creative organizations with a total of 175 some Macintoshes over to Wintel. When people need to get their work done with less expense they're not interested in waiting for Steve's next "cool thing".

As someone who supports Macs and Wintel machines, the horrible truth that Apple doesn't want you to know is that a competent IS person won't need to spend much more time in the Windows environment than he/she does in the Macintosh. We have a law office of 80 and I spend on average one day per week at the firm doing support work. Same holds true for the Mac offices I support of comparable size.

And finally, this issue of being a 'true Mac fan' is the very one that I am most interested in addressing. Being a true Mac fan should not mean blind loyalty without recognizing the enemy you are against and the very legitimate reasons for going with your competitors' products. Speed matters, Macintoshes are getting clobbered at the moment, and this issue is only exacerbated when you make a price-performance calculation. It's that cold, hard, and simple. And the sad truth is that many many people make their decisions based on those very variables.

Originally posted by Marvenp


I really sick of hearing about how the Mac has to catch up to the PC as far as speed goes; about how there are 3Ghz PCs compared to 1.25 Ghz Macs. I ask all of you honestly, how many people (with the exception of designers or 3D animators) know anyone who has a 3Ghz PC on their desk at work? They may exist but the average cheap consumer doesn't go out shopping for a 3Ghz Pentium PC. And for what they do buy (which is usually the cheapest thing they can get their hands on for their budget), the iMac is every bit a better machine (performance included). So stop this crap about how PCs are faster. Besides if you are a true Mac fan you know that those bragging rights will eventually be shattered by something Steve has up his sleeve. Who saw the slotloading superdrives for the PowerBooks coming? Everyone including this rumor site predicted it wouldn't be ready until next year. And bragging rights is exactly what we're talking about because most PC users don't have a need for a 3Ghz machine. Most designers (creative people) use a Mac. So if anyone needs that kind of performance, it's Mac users.

 

[Nebrie]

Re: Re: Apple does NOT know what consumers want

Originally posted by tgrundke
The supreme irony, as SonnyCA has alluded to, is that Steve Jobs, the perennial cultural snob, is forced to sell to the whims of the marketplace.

I agree wholeheartedly that Apple has NOT offered what the market wants. Actually, I will amend that to say that Apple HAS produced what a small segment of the market wants, but has NEVER thought of developing for "the market" (which is a dirty term for Steve Jobs). In any other industry this wouldn't be an issue, but in the high tech industry it IS a fundamental issue.

Again: For some, Apple has answered the call. For the majority, Apple is cool albeit out of bounds for the masses.

The market wants better/faster Macs than the fastest powermac out there now for less than a Walmart lindows machine.

The market (i.e. you) needs to learn that Apple must obey the laws of physics.

 

[MDA]

Originally posted by tgrundke
And please-the whole "the creative community users Macs" is an argument that is losing staying power. The last six months has witnessed my moving two large local creative organizations with a total of 175 some Macintoshes over to Wintel. When people need to get their work done with less expense they're not interested in waiting for Steve's next "cool thing".

I am the Mac support person for an ad agency of about 270 people, 100 of them are using Mac's, 50 them are designers. There is no way that the agency could switch to PC's without a huge fight on their hands from the designers. It is true that, to my disappointment, a couple of departments have been forced to the dark side but they were not happy about it. I don't get a lot of requests from people to upgrade their machines to the latest and greatest speed demon out there. For the most part they just want to be able to get their work done, and they don't like change. It is going to be interesting when we move to OS X and possibly InDesign, but certainly not as difficult for them as a move to XP. Another issue that will keep us on Macs for the foreseeable future is COLORSYNC, there just isn't an equivalent on the PC side.

MDA

 

[Geetar]

I'm curious about the economics of switching over whole departments from Macs to WinXP or whatever. How do the cost/benefit analyses actually stack up?

 

[tgrundke]

Geetar:

I'm going to give another example here that demonstrates pretty clearly what it is we are up against *especially* when it comes to the cost/benefit analysis of the platforms.

Switching from Macintosh to Windows is an 'emotional' issue for many. However, increasingly the logical needs and supply of applications is overshadowing that emotional tie to Macintosh.

For example, in the legal field there are several great programs such as HotDocs and Time Matters which are not available on Macintosh. These are those 'critical apps' that cannot be lived without and many attorneys swear by them before they would swear on the bible.

In this case, I have a law firm that had older Macs under OS 8.x, were showing their legs, and the partners heard all about this great new software available for Windows.

So I put together a proposal for a new Macintosh network. The partners asked me, "Well, what about Windows? Do the numbers for us there."

(Now let me mention here that many Mac friends of mine have criticized me heavily for not putting a better 'spin' on the Macintosh when I did my comparison for this client. I was shocked by this attitude, as it is the consultants' job to have the best interests of the client in mind: to find the best mix of price/performance/applications to do the job well.)

So when I put together the comparison of cost for the two (getting new Macs versus moving to Windows), Windows won hands down. There were many factors involved in the decision and let me highlight a few here: Dell works very closely with consultants to customize, support, provide throw-ins, discounts, etc. Compare this to Apple, who was nothing but a pain in the ass to deal with and seems oddly obsessed with placing as many obstacles in my way as possible.

Long story short, the move over to a Windows network ended up costing us $7500 less. Hardware aside, here were some of the extra costs had we stuck with Apple:
1) Not being able to customize the Macs *specifically* as we needed them (smaller HD, for example);
2) 1-year warranty, no on-site business support same day;
3) New software purchases.

Built into the price of the new Dells was Office XP Small Business, for example. That saves me $199 per machine. The 3-year warranty was built into the price, that saved me another $149 per machine. Going to smaller hard drives saved me another $50 per unit, no speakers saved me $50, no modem saved me $25...etc., etc., etc.,

Combine that with the slower processor speeds (which negatively impact the deal from a psychological point right from the get-go) and the lack of those two critical-apps and you see where I am headed.

The office staff *LOVED* their Macs. I state that emphatically. THEY LOVED THEIR MACS.

But guess what? They learned to use Windows and accept it and within 3 months were just as content, albeit less passionate, as with their Macs.

This is almost one year on, and my support costs and hourly billings have stayed exactly the same.

Folks: this is what we are up against. Emotional attachment to the platform aside, when push comes to shove, we have a very very hard struggle.

So, what is it that *can* be done to make the Mac a more viable alternative?

Originally posted by Geetar
I'm curious about the economics of switching over whole departments from Macs to WinXP or whatever. How do the cost/benefit analyses actually stack up?

 

[tgrundke]

MDA:

You do highlight a good point here as to why people won't switch to Macs in droves: "For the most part they just want to be able to get their work done, and they don't like change."

You are 100% spot-on correct. Our move from Win98 to XP or 2000-Pro to XP in some offices has been disastrous; Not from the compatibility or "Windows sucks" side, but from the support side. People were simply befuddled, confused, lost, and otherwise scoobied.

Try moving people from WordPerfect to Word XP...a disaster of earth-shattering proportions. My experiences here have demonstrated that unless there is a DIRE need to 'switch', it just ain't gonna happen for most people.

You are correct, in many settings the Macintosh will be the necessary tool for the foreseeable future. But you also highlight well the marginalization of Macintoshes in many environment, relegated to few specific tasks that the Windows machines still cannot properly handle.

Originally posted by MDA


I am the Mac support person for an ad agency of about 270 people, 100 of them are using Mac's, 50 them are designers. There is no way that the agency could switch to PC's without a huge fight on their hands from the designers. It is true that, to my disappointment, a couple of departments have been forced to the dark side but they were not happy about it. I don't get a lot of requests from people to upgrade their machines to the latest and greatest speed demon out there. For the most part they just want to be able to get their work done, and they don't like change. It is going to be interesting when we move to OS X and possibly InDesign, but certainly not as difficult for them as a move to XP. Another issue that will keep us on Macs for the foreseeable future is COLORSYNC, there just isn't an equivalent on the PC side.

MDA

 

[Hawthorne]

Regarding the digital hub strategy (which I have this vague idea was the purpose of this thread...), Wired has an interesting article that presents the idea of Microsoft in the fight of it's life. It's won the desktop war, now what? The article points out that Microsoft has yet to repeat it's success in any non-PC endeavour, making it mortal, perhaps.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Good Article

Apple faces the same problem as do all computer makers. Pretty much everyone who wants a PC has one and for everyday tasks a 4 or 5 year old computer still does the job. How do you convice someone who uses their computer to surf the web, check their email and do their accounting to buy something they don't need? Computers are becoming appliances, and for most intents and purposes can be used until they die. I'm talking about the average user here, not gamers or pros, whom I am happy to take advantage of and buy their 2 year old discards when they are overcome by the "latest and greatest" urge. Apple hasn't sold any hardware to me personally since my 6100 and like cars, computer's resale values plummet the moment you take them home. Buy used.

Apple has the right idea with the iPod. They need to compete with Sony more than Microsoft. - j

 

[tgrundke]

Wired's analysis is spot on.

Microsoft is quite worried about its future pastures. As the saying goes, once you are on top there's nowhere to go but down.

Microsoft is pouring (literally) billions into XBOX, .net, and numerous other ventures in an attempt to broaden its base and protect itself for when the Windows franchise begins to lose its lustre.

Never count MS down and out. They learn fast and adapt quickly. Those of us who must deal with their software have been mildly impressed the last 18 months as Redmond is making their server-client tools better and better at a breakneck pace.

They know what they're about and the strategies that work best.

Originally posted by Hawthorne
Regarding the digital hub strategy (which I have this vague idea was the purpose of this thread...), Wired has an interesting article that presents the idea of Microsoft in the fight of it's life. It's won the desktop war, now what? The article points out that Microsoft has yet to repeat it's success in any non-PC endeavour, making it mortal, perhaps.