Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Re: 17" comparison

Originally posted by the_dalex
Wait until a new model comes out, then compare. Unless, of course, you have an agenda.
Whoops! You caught me. I did indeed have an agenda. It was responding to the quote, "Apple's prices are competitive given the hardware you get." Note that this didn't say anything about Apple's next-year hardware being competitive with Dell's last-year hardware. Silly me, I took it to mean as-of-now. I've done comparisons between the lower-end 600M and now the higher-end workstation, and believe me: Apple is falling short.

I'm not saying that they're bad, or that most people would even care -- just trying to refute a statement by doing the unthinkable here on MacRumors: doing research and looking at the facts. Sorry to burst your bubble...

-Richard
 
Re: 17" comparison

Originally posted by the_dalex
I don't think it makes sense to compare Dell's current top-of-the-line with Apple's 8-month-old laptop that is on the verge of an update.
I think that's part of my point -- this is Apple's current top-of-the-line laptop. And the most recent laptop to be released. Besides, considering how long its taken them to do anything with the 15", what makes you think that its due for an update?

If Apple will make a competitive laptop, I will gladly redo the comparison. If its favorable, or at least comparable, I'll probably buy it, too. Assuming that there isn't a six-month waiting list, that is...

-Richard
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Four things:

USB 2 isn't all it is made out to be, and there are PCMCIA USB 2 cards for the Mac. Mix USB 2 and USB 1 devices on the same bus, and you get USB 1 speeds. Firewire on the Powerbook is 2 to 4 times faster than Dell with the new Firewire 800 depending on cable length, has 2 more pins for powering on both ports, while the Dell only offers 4 pin Firewire which requires an extra adapter for the iPod. 1920 x 1024 resolution on the Dell is nowhere near as sharp as the highest resolution on the 17" Powerbook. High resolution means worse refresh rates, and less sharp image quality. Battery life on the Powerbook is 2 to 4 hours longer than any other PC notebook out there, without purchasing an extra battery.

And some may call this an advantage or disadvantage, but many places don't offer three prong power, and Apple's power plug is two prong. Granted, you want grounded power for lightning protection, but in many places you don't have it. Dell's laptop has three prong power only. Also the Apple laptop is lighter in weight.
 
re : 17" comparaison

I'm so disapointed to see that peoples continue to comparing thing that are NOT COMPARABLE. Your a trying to tell me that dell computer( twice the volume of apple 15" ) and a 17" powerbook. are comparable. You dont understand those portable are made for completly defferent people with different needs. I think you are kind of person who buy something only by checking publicity. SPECS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. Why do you think two hard drive with aproximatly same specs can be separate by more than 100$.

And you realy thing pentium M and G5 are comparable processor? Most apps are not optimize for 64bits, you will realy see what G5 are capable when 64bits optimized software come up.

PLEASE. STOP COMPARING APPLE WITH DELL.
 
Can anyone give me historical estimates on times between announcements of laptops and when people who order shortly after the announcements receive them.

If there are more that just a few weeks between announcement (assuming of course this happens if Paris, if not I am giving up) and when I will get it in hand, I won't bother. I can't wait more than 6 weeks or so to have it in hand.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

USB 2 isn't all it is made out to be, and there are PCMCIA USB 2 cards for the Mac. Mix USB 2 and USB 1 devices on the same bus, and you get USB 1 speeds.
Agreed. Its still nice to have though, especially since you're much more likely on a laptop to be using a single USB2 device like an external drive.
Firewire on the Powerbook is 2 to 4 times faster than Dell with the new Firewire 800 depending on cable length, has 2 more pins for powering on both ports, while the Dell only offers 4 pin Firewire which requires an extra adapter for the iPod.
Firewire 800 is only faster when used with Firewire 800 devices. Also, I'm sure that (to use your argument) there's a PCMCIA card for it. As for the iPod, its amazing how many business decisions don't get made based on how easy it is to hook up an iPod to the new laptop - and yes, most $4,000 laptops are going to be business purchases. I can just see it now, "Hmm... do I want something that compiles in half the time, or the ability to leave my iPod power adapter at home and always drain my laptop power instead?"
1920 x 1024 resolution on the Dell is nowhere near as sharp as the highest resolution on the 17" Powerbook. High resolution means worse refresh rates, and less sharp image quality.
WTF? Where did you pull this one from? Fact: the Dell display has a significantly higher DPI than the Apple. Fact: they both use LCDs, making your refresh rate argument creative at best.
Battery life on the Powerbook is 2 to 4 hours longer than any other PC notebook out there, without purchasing an extra battery.
Unashamed FUD at this point. Before intel came out with the Centrino chipset and the Pentium M line of processors, this was indeed the case. These days, even intel's research papers show the P4M getting spanked by the newer chip. This paper shows a 1.7ghz PM outperforming a 2.6ghz P4M by about 10%, while delivering about 35% longer battery life.
And some may call this an advantage or disadvantage, but many places don't offer three prong power, and Apple's power plug is two prong. Granted, you want grounded power for lightning protection, but in many places you don't have it. Dell's laptop has three prong power only.
Er, so cut the extra prong off. Go ahead, it doesn't hurt (other than reducing you to the ungroundedness of the Apple adapter
Also the Apple laptop is lighter in weight.
Which I mentioned. By a whole .2lbs -- wow, that's almost 3%!

-Richard
 
Re: re : 17" comparaison

Originally posted by nalfein
I'm so disapointed to see that peoples continue to comparing thing that are NOT COMPARABLE. Your a trying to tell me that dell computer( twice the volume of apple 15" ) and a 17" powerbook. are comparable. You dont understand those portable are made for completly defferent people with different needs. I think you are kind of person who buy something only by checking publicity. SPECS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. Why do you think two hard drive with aproximatly same specs can be separate by more than 100$.

And you realy thing pentium M and G5 are comparable processor? Most apps are not optimize for 64bits, you will realy see what G5 are capable when 64bits optimized software come up.

PLEASE. STOP COMPARING APPLE WITH DELL.
Well, the initial comparison was of a $1300 Dell against the 15" Apple. That got bashed for being unfairly against older hardware and, oddly, for being a competitor to the iBook (from a price standpoint, even though its faster than the powerBook). Funny, eh?

As for the marketing, I'm almost continually in the market for laptops and other computer hardware. I'd love to be buying Apples. I annoy my friends by telling them how nice they are. I buy Powerbooks (well, one) for my in-laws. And yet I use a Dell to do my work on (software development) and buy Dells for my staff. Why? They're significantly faster and (relatively) dirt cheap, and I while I might sacrifice some (fairly significant) funding for Apples, I won't sacrifice the much more valuable performance aspect. I certainly won't sacrifice both.

I don't like this state of affairs.

What I really dislike though are people going around sticking their heads in the sand declaring that Apple can spank anything that Dell can put out for the same money, when its simply not true.

As for your chip comment, apart from the fact that other than massive graphics processes or database work very few things will benefit from going 64-bit, I think that I showed that, from the SPEC scores (see this post for the details), the Pentium M and the IBM 970 are indeed very comparable chips, clock for clock. At least, nobody's contested it yet... And anyway, its not like Apple is releasing 1.6ghz G5s (in this example, intel scales to 1.7 already) in their laptops...

As for different needs -- isn't it the graphically intensive Mac market who traditionally would want better screen real estate, 2X video RAM, a faster processor, a faster video card, and a significantly faster hard drive? Or are you implying (I hope I'm misunderstanding you) that Apple's are bought purely because they're K3WLer than Dells?

-Richard

ps: I agree that specs aren't everything. If they're within 10%, I call it even. With 25%, and I really don't care. When they're 60-80% off in almost every measurable way, for less money, then we have a problem. OSX is good. Its not that good.

EDIT: Fixed typo (really not my day)
 
Dell vs. Apple

It's the software.
I own both Macs and Windows machines. I spend more time getting the Windows machines to work than the time I actually spend using them. I spent hours trying to get an IBM laptop to accept a new Wireless card. It took me 10 minutes on my Powerbook without reading instructions or help menus. I usually frown when on a Windows machine. I always smile using my Powerbook- what does that tell you? An Apple does what it supposed to do, without installing and configuring 58 .dll's, updates and silly patches.
Step 1: plug card in
Step 2: it works
Try that with Windows eX-P pee...
 
Re: re : 17" comparaison

Originally posted by nalfein
And you realy thing pentium M and G5 are comparable processor? Most apps are not optimize for 64bits, you will realy see what G5 are capable when 64bits optimized software come up.

Unfortunately, there is no PowerBook G5.

That said, speed is overrated. It's most likely not important to you, so why consider it as a factor? The OS is so much more of a factor.
 
Re: Dell vs. Apple

Originally posted by idoru1135
It's the software.
I own both Macs and Windows machines. I spend more time getting the Windows machines to work than the time I actually spend using them. I spent hours trying to get an IBM laptop to accept a new Wireless card. It took me 10 minutes on my Powerbook without reading instructions or help menus. I usually frown when on a Windows machine. I always smile using my Powerbook- what does that tell you? An Apple does what it supposed to do, without installing and configuring 58 .dll's, updates and silly patches.
Step 1: plug card in
Step 2: it works
Try that with Windows eX-P pee...

Umm.. it works for me every time.
The only time it doesn't, is when the company making the product has released shoddy drivers. Which happens on the mac side as well.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by Snowy_River
So, we'd be left with G4 iBooks and no PowerBooks at all!.

Is there something wrong with that? Now we're hearing rumors that Moto can't get the 7457s out, and once again Apple is delayed--and now they are madly rushing the G5 powerbooks for early next year. LOL. Couldn't they have foreseen this? How long has Moto been screwing Apple with the G4? How long has Apple known about the G5, how awesome it is and how little power it uses at low freqs? Why the hell didn't they start the G5 laptop project last year, rather than madly rushing now? Then maybe we'd have a competitive product today.



Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
So Apple is already on a long-term strategy. So why aren't prices lower? Because they realize that they won't gain market share through low prices. They will gain market share through superior technology and integration.

How long has Apple had superior technology and integration? What has been Apple's general marketshare trend over that time?

I don't see any logical basis for your claim that lower prices won't increase marketshare. It might take some time, but it will happen. Even Apple is making the new G5 desktops (relatively) competitive in price. They are doing this in the hope of increasing marketshare. I can only hope that the powerbook lineup will receive the same infusion of common sense.



Originally posted by rjstanford
ps: I agree that specs aren't everything. If they're within 10%, I call it even. With 25%, and I really don't care. When they're 60-80% off in almost every measurable way, for less money, then we have a problem. OSX is good. Its not that good.

Exactly.
 
Re: Re: re : 17" comparaison

Originally posted by rjstanford
Well, the initial comparison was of a $1300 Dell against the 15" Apple. That got bashed for being unfairly against older hardware and, oddly, for being a competitor to the iBook (from a price standpoint, even though its faster than the powerBook). Funny, eh?

...

ps: I agree that specs aren't everything. If they're within 10%, I call it even. With 25%, and I really don't care. When they're 60-80% off in almost every measurable way, for less money, then we have a problem. OSX is good. Its not that good.

And my comment (how many dozens of pages ago? 😛 ) was that, just looking at specs, a Subaru WRX beats an Audi A4 every time.

And yet you will not see Audi and Subaru drivers comparing their cars--at least not if they've driven both (have you driven both?). They are completely different experiences, just as a Dell and an Apple are completely different experiences. Specs just don't tell the entire story.

In short: If you're looking for raw speed available today, go ahead and buy a Dell. And then go away and be happy. Why are you here? Are you thinking maybe Dell isn't everything you want in a computer?
 
Re: Re: Re: re : 17" comparaison

Originally posted by bikertwin
And my comment (how many dozens of pages ago? 😛 ) was that, just looking at specs, a Subaru WRX beats an Audi A4 every time.
You must have missed my response here addressing that post in detail.
And yet you will not see Audi and Subaru drivers comparing their cars--at least not if they've driven both (have you driven both?). They are completely different experiences, just as a Dell and an Apple are completely different experiences. Specs just don't tell the entire story.
You're right, they don't. However, they tell a lot of the story. The comparison isn't really valid though. Take that Subaru, add the STi motor, and dress it out (interior, et cetera) to, say, the level of a new VW. We're still not at Audi quality, but we're 90% of the way there with a much faster powertrain for a lot less money.

As for the Subaru (and friends) -- have you seen the Camaro lately? If you don't innovate, what was impressive a couple of years before becomes moot very quickly, and its much faster in the computer market than the automotive one.

And yes, I've driven both -- I have money down on an '04 S4 right now.
In short: If you're looking for raw speed available today, go ahead and buy a Dell. And then go away and be happy. Why are you here? Are you thinking maybe Dell isn't everything you want in a computer?
First, its hardly raw speed. Have you looked at one of the new Dells yet? Apple hasn't done much lately, in the laptop space, (to extend a metaphor) in much the same way that Audi, et al, didn't innovate nearly as much as they are now before Lexus, et al, started moving in and garnering the praise that they did.

And as for being happy -- I like Macs. I prefer Macs. All I'm asking is that they have a modern level of performance, since I use the machines to earn a living. Apparently, that brands me a Mac-Hater.

Oh, and I did buy a Dell. But I'll buy a PowerBook to replace it as soon as they get rev'd to a decent speed (assuming they're not obscenely price hiked doing it). Which, IMO, is a reasonable position to be in, especially on a powerbook rumor page...

-Richard
 
Ordered one...

I posted this on the other board but these are the short facts...

I ordered a 12" Powerbook with 640/60 and APE.

The ship date is NLT 9/18/03. That is 14 days from the date of order (10 working days). I will let everyone know if there are any delays to that time line.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by soggywulf
How long has Apple had superior technology and integration? What has been Apple's general marketshare trend over that time?

Stayed the same.

Originally posted by soggywulf
I don't see any logical basis for your claim that lower prices won't increase marketshare. It might take some time, but it will happen.

They can't lower price far enough for it to have an effect and still remain a profitable and innovative company.

Originally posted by soggywulf
Even Apple is making the new G5 desktops (relatively) competitive in price. They are doing this in the hope of increasing marketshare.

Ha! Those are even more expensive than their predecessors. No, they're not giving them a better price. They're giving them better technology.

Originally posted by soggywulf
I can only hope that the powerbook lineup will receive the same infusion of common sense.

Yes, I can also only hope that the next PowerBooks have improved technology, even if I must pay more to get them.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Stayed the same.

Where were you when the Mac had 10-15% overall marketshare?

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
They can't lower price far enough for it to have an effect and still remain a profitable and innovative company.

Yes, they can. Wintel does it. Apple can too. I still have not seen any evidence that lowering price/performance will not increase marketshare.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Ha! Those are even more expensive than their predecessors. No, they're not giving them a better price. They're giving them better technology.

There are two parts to price/performance. Price, and performance. Overall, the G5 has a lower price/performance ratio than its predecessors. Or would you disagree with that assessment? Do you really think the top-of-the-line G4 was a better deal price/performance-wise than the dual G5?

The new desktops are a step in the right direction. Yes it would be better if it was even lower to bring it closer to Wintel, but Apple is taking advantage of the fact that its existing userbase is starving for machines with decent power.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by soggywulf
Where were you when the Mac had 10-15% overall marketshare?

That was 10-20 years ago. It fell since then due to the stupid actions of Sculley and Spindler.

In case you haven't noticed, it's easier to lose market share than to gain it.

Originally posted by soggywulf
Yes, they can. Wintel does it. Apple can too. I still have not seen any evidence that lowering price/performance will not increase marketshare.

Wintel does it because they sell so much more volume. And they DON'T innovate!

Originally posted by soggywulf
There are two parts to price/performance. Price, and performance. Overall, the G5 has a lower price/performance ratio than its predecessors. Or would you disagree with that assessment? Do you really think the top-of-the-line G4 was a better deal price/performance-wise than the dual G5?

I'm arguing that Apple should increase quality, instead of decreasing price, because they can't decrease price that much due to their R&D needs.
 
Apple is the Mercedes of the computer industry. Would you really expect Mercedes to start selling cars at Yugo prices? Because that's where the PC industry has gone. Apple has more marketshare in the computer industry than Mercedes does in the auto industry. Anyone who thinks Apple's marketshare is not enough, look at it this way, Apple's usage share is much higher than its marketshare. Of all computers in use, somewhere between 10 to 15% are Macs. The reason is because Macs last 2 to 5 times longer than the average PC before a replacement is purchased. There are still people running off the oldest Macs! While it is true even Macs have defects at times, they are nowhere near as high a ratio as those found in other manufacturers. Apple keeps a tight integration between hardware and software impossible in the rest of the industry. Thus people are willing to spend more because they will get more. A machine that lasts longer, does what they want and need, and doesn't need to be replaced every year.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That was 10-20 years ago. It fell since then due to the stupid actions of Sculley and Spindler.

What were these stupid actions, that were stupid enough to cause decreasing marketshare?

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Wintel does it because they sell so much more volume.

No kidding. More volume, more marketshare. These are good things for the companies involved and good things for their customers. It would be good if Apple and their customers could reap the same benefits. It's no good to just say "we're losing, so let's give up."

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
And they DON'T innovate!

This is evidence of a very limited perspective. Have you used PCs much? I mean, for more than opening Word docs.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I'm arguing that Apple should increase quality, instead of decreasing price, because they can't decrease price that much due to their R&D needs.

The R&D thing again. How many folks here have even been to an R&D lab, or have seen these mythical Apple R&D facilities? But I'm not going to get sidetracked into that again. Suffice it to say that all those Wintel companies have tons of costs also, likely more than Apple. Do you seriously think it costs more to develop OSX than XP? But, as you say, they have a per-unit cost advantage due to volume. The solution to that problem is gaining more marketshare, and the only way they are going to gain marketshare is by improving the price/performance of their machines, to be at least competitive with Wintel.

Now, coming back to where all this started, if they don't have any machines which can compete on a performance basis, they need to lower price. For example, if the fastest laptop they can muster is a 1.25 GHz G4, then they need to lower their price points. If we see fast-bus G5 powerbooks RSN, then keeping the same price points is more reasonable.




Originally posted by gopher
Apple is the Mercedes of the computer industry.

No, they are not. Again, evidence of rose-colored glasses. Most people want a Mercedes. Most people do not want a Mac. In order to change that, Apple has to begin by making their performance value proposition attractive to switchers.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by soggywulf
What were these stupid actions, that were stupid enough to cause decreasing marketshare?

To answer that question, I'd have to write a book. Fortunately, someone's already done that. Read Apple, by Jim Carlton.

Originally posted by soggywulf
No kidding. More volume, more marketshare. These are good things for the companies involved and good things for their customers. It would be good if Apple and their customers could reap the same benefits. It's no good to just say "we're losing, so let's give up."

You're missing the point. They're already selling in such high volume that they can get by with a lower profit margin. For Apple to get away with lowering prices to Wintel levels, Apple would have to deliberately lose money as a company, hoping that market share would pick up. That's too big of a risk for Apple to take.

Originally posted by soggywulf
This is evidence of a very limited perspective. Have you used PCs much? I mean, for more than opening Word docs.

I wouldn't call Windows innovative. I could call Intel processors innovative, but not as much as IBM processors.

Originally posted by soggywulf
The R&D thing again. How many folks here have even been to an R&D lab, or have seen these mythical Apple R&D facilities? But I'm not going to get sidetracked into that again. Suffice it to say that all those Wintel companies have tons of costs also, likely more than Apple. Do you seriously think it costs more to develop OSX than XP? But, as you say, they have a per-unit cost advantage due to volume. The solution to that problem is gaining more marketshare, and the only way they are going to gain marketshare is by improving the price/performance of their machines, to be at least competitive with Wintel.

And what I'm saying is to do that would be to deliberately abandon profitability, hoping to regain it later in with higher market share. Much like multiplying two extremely high prime numbers together, lowering prices like you suggest is far easier done than undone. Apple does NOT need to throw their very existence to the chance that they'd gain market share by a price slashing.

That said, it does cost more to develop Mac OS X. Apple does the development, and Microsoft simply rips them off. Apple creates, Microsoft copies. And it does cost more to create than to copy.

Originally posted by soggywulf
Now, coming back to where all this started, if they don't have any machines which can compete on a performance basis, they need to lower price. For example, if the fastest laptop they can muster is a 1.25 GHz G4, then they need to lower their price points. If we see fast-bus G5 powerbooks RSN, then keeping the same price points is more reasonable.

Performance is not the only factor. In overall quality, even a 1.25 GHz G4 would be worth the cost to me. It would be worth the cost to a lot of people. I enjoy having a portable that actually is portable, and that's really sexy as well. I don't care if I get more fps in UT 2003, a Dell is NOT going to impress the girl I sit next to in my econ class.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
To answer that question, I'd have to write a book. Fortunately, someone's already done that. Read Apple, by Jim Carlton.

Please give us a couple examples of said "stupidity", other than the obvious overpricing of products.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
You're missing the point. They're already selling in such high volume that they can get by with a lower profit margin. For Apple to get away with lowering prices to Wintel levels, Apple would have to deliberately lose money as a company, hoping that market share would pick up. That's too big of a risk for Apple to take.

How do you know that? All we can see is output, and extrapolate from that. Based on that, there is no reason to think that Apple's costs are greater than the Wintel world. Other than per-unit costs, which can only be solved through higher marketshare. They have the 970 now--they can and should starting competing on price/performance.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I wouldn't call Windows innovative. I could call Intel processors innovative, but not as much as IBM processors.

You didn't answer my question. I take it, then, that the answer is "No, I haven't used Windows much." How can you make such confident blanket statements about these companies and products, when you don't even use Windows? How can you say that Mac price/performance is better, or even that the Mac is better in any way? And you are also making claims about Apple's supposed "innovation costs", as if no one else in the PC world innovates? I am starting to get the sense that a lot of your facts and opinions come from expo keynotes--and there's a reason it's called the reality distortion field.

Love the Mac--but do so with your eyes open.

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That said, it does cost more to develop Mac OS X. Apple does the development, and Microsoft simply rips them off. Apple creates, Microsoft copies. And it does cost more to create than to copy.

The standard party line. You don't even use Windows. What basis do you have for making such a ridiculous claim? Have you seen all the features in XP? Do you have any idea what it takes to make an OS that has to be able to run on an enormous variety of 3rd party hardware?

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Performance is not the only factor. In overall quality, even a 1.25 GHz G4 would be worth the cost to me. It would be worth the cost to a lot of people. I enjoy having a portable that actually is portable, and that's really sexy as well. I don't care if I get more fps in UT 2003, a Dell is NOT going to impress the girl I sit next to in my econ class.

Back to this again. No, price/performance is not the only factor, but it is a big factor for anyone who might switch. You seem to be suggesting that games are the only purpose of performance. And wintel laptops are portable too. Use one before making such a comparison.


Once again, the point is this. Apple needs switchers, if it is to become anything more than irrelevant. More switchers and more marketshare would be better for Apple, and better for Mac users. In order to accomplish that, they need to compete on price/performance. Based on what Apple is doing, there is no reason to think that they are unable to compete. Finally, we as consumers can collectively affect their decision to compete--using our purchasing power.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

Originally posted by soggywulf
Once again, the point is this. Apple needs switchers, if it is to become anything more than irrelevant. More switchers and more marketshare would be better for Apple, and better for Mac users. In order to accomplish that, they need to compete on price/performance. Based on what Apple is doing, there is no reason to think that they are unable to compete. Finally, we as consumers can collectively affect their decision to compete--using our purchasing power.

Obviously, more switchers would mean more market share. Some good things could come out of this. But, in your opinion, why does Apple need more market share?

Squire
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i hate steve jobs

You didn't answer my question. I take it, then, that the answer is "No, I haven't used Windows much." How can you make such confident blanket statements about these companies and products, when you don't even use Windows? How can you say that Mac price/performance is better, or even that the Mac is better in any way? And you are also making claims about Apple's supposed "innovation costs", as if no one else in the PC world innovates? I am starting to get the sense that a lot of your facts and opinions come from expo keynotes--and there's a reason it's called the reality distortion field.

I for one definatly have my eyes open (I used Windows, Macs, Linux, Solaris, etc) and I would say that Apple is tremendously more innovative than Microsoft. Apple comes up with innovative, wonderful, easy to use solutions to problems. Microsoft just throws money at problems, trys to solve them first, and if they don't solve them first, they throw more money at the problem in hopes of crushing the competition. I don't want to start a browser war here, but lets look at Internet Explorer (which is interesting from a web programmer perspective). Internet Explorer isn't wonderful, but it is slightly better than the competition. Do I prefer it, yes... because its used by everyone, not because it is particularly innovative at all, and there are plenty of things that I don't like about it, that won't change because of who Microsoft is. FWIW, I would be much, MUCH happier to see a browser that implements W3C standards before it makes the screen flicker and shake. I have not used Safari... will see on that one.

You want a perfect example of innovation? Macromedia. They make great products that solve problems in new and useful ways. Interestingly enough, I can use their products on a PC or a Mac. So this would hardly be an example of PC innovation.

Hmm.. lets think. Do you think that XP is innovative? I don't. I think its much better at what Windows was supposed to do a long time ago... not bloody crash. IMO, that is hardly innovation. On the same token, Mac have just as bad of a history of doing this... however, Apple realized the problem and went for bulletproof stability - BSD.

The standard party line. You don't even use Windows. What basis do you have for making such a ridiculous claim? Have you seen all the features in XP? Do you have any idea what it takes to make an OS that has to be able to run on an enormous variety of 3rd party hardware?

I do give MS some credit for being able to be everything to everyone, but sometimes having the money to throw at a problem like that ends up being something less than acceptable to everyone, i.e. Windows, whether it be 98, 2000, ME, XP. I will also give them credit for NT4 at the time. Protecting users from themselves while still letting them use a nice-at-the-time GUI. That was innovative... about 10 years ago.

For what its worth, our mail server in one of the colleges here at OSU (actually there are several that use it) runs Microsoft Exchange. The funny thing is, it goes down about 2/3 of every weekend!. Hence my previous claim that a Windows machine will crash if you really start to use it. (btw, don't think for a second that this is the only such example in my memory bank).

Back to this again. No, price/performance is not the only factor, but it is a big factor for anyone who might switch.

I very much agree here. However, I am in no place to state how it should be done, and neither are you. This is what the financial analysts at Apple get paid to figure out... and I would gather that they are much better at it than you are unless you have some otherwise unmentioned credentials. I am tired of listening to bickering back and forth about price slashing on this thread.
 
It's so bizarre that these Mac forums have so many peecee lovin' trolls. Are there Mac trolls in the peecee forums? I doubt it.

And I use XP, 2000, and OS X (Dull, Dull, G4 DP) all in the same day. All new hardware or fairly new. These peecee posters saying how "great" or "innovative" or "have you used a peecee lately" all have been smoking something dang strong. Wintel boxes are as buggy and bloaty as they were in 3.1. Sure they look prettier nowadays thanks to some blatent rip-off of Apple GUI, but they're as craptacular as they were from the beginning. My Mac has been up and running without crashes for three and a half weeks now, the peecee, let's see, one is 18 hours and the other 4 now without incident, I guess if you only used peecees that'd seem good, but most here don't, we use Macs. Quality is quality and quality is priceless.

Sure I would wish Apple would pull it's head out of it's arse and get faster chips, hopefully they will, they're working on it and I do blame them as well as Moto. But saying how peecees are now the shihizzle is pure balony... that or peecee lovin' rheotoric by peecee heads who've clearly never used a Mac, don't like Macs, and for some reason, hang out in Mac forums to diss Macs, a word of advice: Go circle jerk in yer own d*mn forums and stay out of ours.
 
Originally posted by Photorun
It's so bizarre that these Mac forums have so many peecee lovin' trolls. Are there Mac trolls in the peecee forums? I doubt it.

I don't think these people are trolls, and i highly doubt they've never used a mac, in fact i am pretty sure they use and like macs. However, they can also accept that computing, as with all walks of life, is a grey area. Apple is not god, microsoft is not satan. I use macs and work, and a PC at home, and once those pesky 15" Al PB's come out, i'm getting one and my PC will be more or less retired save for maybe the odd game i can't play on the Mac, so are you satisfied? I'm not a PC troll.

And I use XP, 2000, and OS X (Dull, Dull, G4 DP) all in the same day. All new hardware or fairly new. These peecee posters saying how "great" or "innovative" or "have you used a peecee lately" all have been smoking something dang strong.

OS X is absolutely the superior OS, without question. However, if you are the average person(i.e. not computer geek, not computer afficionado, don't give a crap about your computer past the fact that you want it to email, surf the web, maybe use office or some business apps) Windows XP really isn't that bad, and most likely will not crash. I can get it to crash, but i do all sorts of stupid crap to it(again, props to OS X, i do stupid stuff to it as well but it doesn't flail). PC's are also cheaper, and maybe you'll bust out the old and tired "with the same feature set it's not much more expensive!" argument. Guess what...a lot of people don't care about firewire, bluetooth, airport, large harddrive, nice video card. I do, but i'm a computer geek. Some business and multi-media professionals do, but these things are useful to their profession.

Wintel boxes are as buggy and bloaty as they were in 3.1. Sure they look prettier nowadays thanks to some blatent rip-off of Apple GUI, but they're as craptacular as they were from the beginning.

People need to get off the "windows ripped apple off" high horse. It's business, microsoft ripped off apple to get ahead. Are you certain Apple didn't rip off anyone over the years? Frankly i don't care who rips off who, if your product is better than you're OK by me(ok i have to draw the line at say, slave labour)

My Mac has been up and running without crashes for three and a half weeks now, the peecee, let's see, one is 18 hours and the other 4 now without incident, I guess if you only used peecees that'd seem good, but most here don't, we use Macs. Quality is quality and quality is priceless.

Again, you probably do a lot of things with it, like me, which, keep in mind, is far more than the average user would. If not, well, you're downright unlucky because i've seen PC's run for as long as your Mac has been up.

Sure I would wish Apple would pull it's head out of it's arse and get faster chips, hopefully they will, they're working on it and I do blame them as well as Moto.

Agreed. But on the other hand, i would take pansy ass dual 400 powermac over the highest speed Pentium whatever Ghz any day, and the dual 1.25 i currently use at work leaves me with no complaints about speed(save compile times, but xcode is purported to speed these up quite a bit, we shall see). So the only reason i'd like to see macs up the speed is to get more converts from the PC world. However, as i said earlier the PC is acceptable and cheap as hell for the general populace so as long as this is true, the apple will remain a small market share, we just need to accept that. And it's a good thing. If apple gained 40-50% of marketshare they'd have to do it through a series of compromises which would compromise the quality of their product. No thanks!

But saying how peecees are now the shihizzle is pure balony... that or peecee lovin' rheotoric by peecee heads who've clearly never used a Mac, don't like Macs, and for some reason, hang out in Mac forums to diss Macs, a word of advice: Go circle jerk in yer own d*mn forums and stay out of ours.

PC's aren't the shizzle, or the nizzle, or the dizzle's gizzle. They do work fine for most purposes though, as long as you don't get too funky with 'em, and if your purposes are basic, you can throw down 6-800 bucks and never feel like your computer isn't good enough.

Anyways, sorry for boring you all with my rambling, flame
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.