Apple, the iPod, the Mac and the Future

[mark88]

So my point is...I miss expose. I miss being able to write the "e" with an accent. and I miss the snazzy "flurry" screen saver that comes with OS X.

Apple makes it sexy, but Windows does what you need to do JUST AS WELL**. Expose may be sexy, but a taskbar does things just as well! XP has the briefcase, which I can't go without, but then OS X has dashboard which I can't go without either. So I guess what I'm trying to say is...A computer is a damn TOOL, don't idolize it!

I still think the taskbar in Windows has many more things going for it than the dock or expose, only though if you have a large screen. One of my biggest niggles with OS X is that switching windows/documents is always a two step process

With the taskbar, you see the window you want and you click it. In OS X, you have more choices, but each one requires more than one action. ie, activate expose>select window, click dock > select document, CMD-TAB> select app > select document.

I also rarely use minimize when using OS X, the genie effect is nice for the first couple times, but to a power user who wants things done fast it becomes annoying. I just want the window minized, the animation I've seen a million times already.

I do tho, find myself trying to activate expose when using XP now aswell. It doesn't work for some reason.

 

[billyboy]

Another thing I seem to have picked up on is that it tends to be IT literate people whom go for Macs. We buy them and we can explain why, and often convince others of forking out a bit more but I wonder how an IT novice would do? That is partly why I want to get my Grandma a Mac, to see if it really is as simple as it claims to be.

Just some thoughts

Dan

I came to the Mac world without too much experience of any computers, so i had a clear mind and to me OS X was intuitive.

If my fiancee is anything to go by, your Gran wont think OS X is intuitive if she is just surfing the web and emailing. My observation watching my future "her indoors" scoot around XP at 100mph is that she has got accustomed to doing a lot of work to get simple things done. The Mac doesnt work like Windows, dare I say it is too simple, for instance with Expose access to lots of windows, therefore it is generally not "obvious"/intuitive?



In the licensing debate, I suppose I dont care if my laptop is a nice Apple or a nice Sony, but I would care if the Sony didnt "just work". I suspect Apple wont risk that chance, because a failure of OS X on a clone means a definite no future sale of an Apple Mac

 

[DaveClarkOne]

Whaaaa?

Why the hell do they need to keep growing? They are making healthy profits ($250 million last time i saw), so why not just make quality and innovative hardware and software and stick with your market share? Is it because the board members are a bunch of greedy bastards? Probably.

Geez, where's the competitive spirit??? Apple can rule the business pc roost if more headway is made to run PC apps on OSX withOUT booting Winblows. More market share supports more R&D, which will be even more critical in the future. Do you think Amazon would still be here if it didn't run hard for market share? Staying at 5% will not, in the long run, be a successful business strategy. This is America man: Think Different never meant Think Small.

 

[seand]

I still think the taskbar in Windows has many more things going for it than the dock or expose...

After using multiple desktops on a *nix desktop environment it's a lot more difficult to say anything positive about the Windows taskbar. I'm not sure which is a better way of doing things (taskbar style or dock/expose), but the Windows implementation is lacking.

 

[yac_moda]

I still think the taskbar in Windows has many more things going for it

Uhhh, the way to select the window you want on MY MAC is, move the mouse to the left (The doch pops automatically without *CLICK ), Click and hold on Safari (In a split second the popup appears !), Release mouse button over the Window I want -- viola ONE CLICK window selection !!!

 

[jbooo]

RE: Cost Comparison

And that almost worked for me. I was all set to get a mini. I didn't care for the form factor i just wanted an economical buy in for a modern day Mac (i currently have aged iMacs). But I knew that we'd be getting Intel chips so I waited. Finally the announcement came and I was ready to pull the trigger despite the fact that a system configured how I wanted would be more than I would like to spend. Then I find out they jacked up the price another $100 which blew my buy in even higher. At that point I was priced out of the market because I just couldn't justify spending that much money for the power when I could easily do it for less. As an exercise I priced out what I could live with in PC parts that are compatible with OS X. I spec'd out a intel board and CPU (celeron but good enough) with a gig of ram, 160gig SATA drive and a DVD burner. All that with case was $300. The minimum buy in on a mini is 600, configured as I want it's around 800 to 850. If I can achieve what I want for 300 then it doesn't make sense to go with the mini. I would LOVE for them to license out OS X and I would support it myself. That would be something nice. Unfortunately until then i'm stuck because Apple priced me out of their hardware. (For the record I didn't even spend that much on my wife's laptop)

Actully "YOU" priced yourself out of the switch... there are plenty of older macs within your budget (used) but you want new so your gonna have to pay for it... ever wonder why an old dell or other pc box is worth less than a hundred bucks just after you bought it and opened the box??? Substandard parts that won't work with the next "update" to the WIN OS. Not true on a macintosh (or APPLE if you prefer)... Titaniums running 10.4??? G-3's running 10.4??? See my point why the mac is actually cheaper in the long run??? What you should be asking yourself is why do I want the latest and greatest when something else would do???

I owned a macintosh G4 Sawtooth desktop that had a measley 500mhz processor for 6 years before I upgraded... how many 300.00 pc's did you build for yourself during that time??? This is the equation that everyone wants to figure out...

 

[qtip919]

Uhhh, the way to select the window you want on MY MAC is, move the mouse to the left (The doch pops automatically without *CLICK ), Click and hold on Safari (In a split second the popup appears !), Release mouse button over the Window I want -- viola ONE CLICK window selection !!!

um, yr method is still lame compared to the taskbar method of INSTANTLY clicking one "button" representing a window and BAM! - there's your app

come on...admit it (I hate to do this, so it's ok for you to do it too)...this one goes to windows

Look, there are advantages to the taskbar's representation of handling alot of windows being open. Just as well, there are other ways to do this kind of thing in mac - but the simple fact is that it's not nearly as efficient. Personally, I make the lower left corner my expose "hot" corner and then switch between windows there. However, this is not the same thing, and it's not the best functionality for all scenarios.

 

[jbooo]

So close

I am one post away from 50... yeah... throw me some kool-aid...


SPLASH
ruined my new laptop...DAMN

 

[jbooo]

Re:

um, yr method is still lame compared to the taskbar method of INSTANTLY clicking one "button" representing a window and BAM! - there's your app

come on...admit it (I hate to do this, so it's ok for you to do it too)...this one goes to windows

Look, there are advantages to the taskbar's representation of handling alot of windows being open. Just as well, there are other ways to do this kind of thing in mac - but the simple fact is that it's not nearly as efficient. Personally, I make the lower left corner my expose "hot" corner and then switch between windows there. However, this is not the same thing, and it's not the best functionality for all scenarios.

OK, now open a hundred windows and then you see why expose is so much better at what you want to do... In windowz it groups them all together so you better know the title or your fishing for worms,,,

 

[Norse Son]

iLife "results", just not the whole striptease...

i think it could be a good idea to give those poor pc people a demo of ilife!! that way they could get a taste of mac and realise that the future is mac!! apple would gain huge marketshare and have more money for further research!!

Yes, it's probably true that in some basement corner of One Infinite Loop - maybe in a chamber deeper & more secret than a '50s-era Cold War nuclear bunker - that Apple has iLife running on bargain-basement PCs... Heck, look how (relatively) easy it was for them to code iTunes for the PC.

However, like a stripper (and, no, I'm not trying to offend anyone - just wait for the analogy) if she shows too much it takes away the mystery. And, personally, I find strippers boring, because there's none of the mystery, allure & desire left there for me.

Same goes for iLife. The PC crowd has had a glimpse of it via iTunes. But I wouldn't want them to see our "proper lady" all laid out on some greasy, cigarette-burned, beer-stained, faded wooden stage for them to just paw & drool over. No, if they like the ankles Apple has shown them (via iTunes), then they may pay to see a bit more. But for Apple to "just bend over & moon the crowd" would shred the mystery, desire & appeal.

So, maybe the way for Apple to "show the crowd some calf" is to do either or both of the following:
• Showcase, via a "new corner" of the iTMS, select music and/or short films that professional artists have created using only the tools in iLife. It can be a new take on the iTunes Originals. Think of Kevin Smith making a Clerks or Mallrats prequel (or a short film noir) using only iMovie HD and iDVD... Or Sheryl Crow or (insert artist name) using GarageBand on a little "personal project"... PC users can then see just how slick an iLife project can be as compared to the flotsam they're used to on their side of the software aisle.
• Another option is to release iLife '05 on the PC, making it clear to them that iLife '06 has major new features over it. But that they can only get those fancy doo-dads by buying a Mac.

However, in all honesty, I really don't want Apple's marketshare to grow past 20%, maybe not even 15%... The reasoning may sound slightly snobbish - to the "unwashed masses" - but I see intelligence not just in the design of Apple's hardware & software, but, also, in its longtime, loyal customers. We've known for years we've had the superior product, have been willing to pay more (up front) for that peace of mind (can you remember the last real Mac virus?), and in general have just scratched our heads raw trying to figure out why so many hundreds of millions "just didn't get it"... And if Apple's marketshare grew past 20%, or they licensed the MacOS X to other PC makers, then it would (logically) signal that millions of those "unwashed masses" who "just didn't get it before" will now demand things of Apple which will just bring down the whole Intelligent Design of both Apple and its longtime, loyal customers...

Now, that didn't come across as "snotty & superior", did it?

 

[Norse Son]

Why dual-boot? All we need is apps-emulator

Apple has learned that lesson - the ITMS is not a revenue generator directly, but it sure helps sell those iPods.
OS X on generic PCs is a bad idea and will eat into hardware sales, re the clone wars of the mid-90s. The other side of the coin, however, running Windows native on Macs WILL sell more boxes. Apple's hardware is no longer appreciably more expensive than PC counterparts, but the quality is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Either current solution will suffice as I see it, running a dual boot with either OS X or XP, or the more elegant option of virtual machines running at or near native.

It's a good day to be among the Mac Faithful...

Z

Why do people think that they need to run WinBLOWS on their Macs in order to convert more Windows users to the Mac? The belief that they'd eventually find themselves using MacOS X more & more, and Windows less & less ignores one salient point. Every dual-boot machine still needs a buggy, bloated & chronically-late copy of Windows on it. That means that Microsoft hasn't lost anything - they've gained an "unofficial OEM" in Apple that they never would have had otherwise.

Also, if they're still using Windows, then it does nothing to increase the number of software developers for the MacOS... Sure, sure, "Apple's selling a ton more of the only dual/tri-boot computers out there"; but how many years will it take for users to (in a perfect world) "wean themselves off their Window-Crack habit"?

No, I think a better solution is for Apple to ask Transitive, the people behind the Rosetta technology in the Intel Macs, to write them a new emulator that allows people to run Windows apps... Let me repeat that... "a new emulator that allows people to run Windows apps"... That's right; why corrupt & overburden your beautiful new Core Duo machine with that bug-infested, bloatedly-behemoth and chronically-late piece of legacy trash that is Windows... Just run the apps that you need (or want).

Heck, Apple could even work with traditional Windows-only developers to make Universal Binaries of their apps, so it could run on a traditional beige box infested with that Microsoft crap,... or... it could be run under the elegance of MacOS X. And we all know that most of the Windows Crapplications out there could stand to learn some uniform interface design lessons from Apple.

But what about longtime Apple developers, or developers that see no need to dedicate extra resources to making an elegant Mac version of their programs "if the Windows version will run just fine"?... Well, if I knew all the answers I would have been running microsoft, and they wouldn't have made all the boneheaded mistakes they have the past 20 years.......

 

[yac_moda]

um, yr method is still lame compared to the taskbar method of INSTANTLY clicking one "button" representing a window and BAM! - there's your app

come on...admit it (I hate to do this, so it's ok for you to do it too)...this one goes to windows

Look, there are advantages to the taskbar's representation of handling alot of windows being open. Just as well, there are other ways to do this kind of thing in mac - but the simple fact is that it's not nearly as efficient. Personally, I make the lower left corner my expose "hot" corner and then switch between windows there. However, this is not the same thing, and it's not the best functionality for all scenarios.

I NEVER do THAT, I have always clicked on windows to move to different windows.

In Windows I have never liked the taskbar, I guess because it is SLOWER.

Since it uses text it takes a moment to focus and figure out which is which, but clicking windows is just a lot easier, or icons or apps in the doc is easy.

And I just walk through them if I have many opened.


If YOU really must have this functionality on the Mac then minimize all the windows to leave them.

I HAVE said in the past that Windows had MORE easy of use, in some areas, I think I was talking about Wissserds and just the general ubiquitousness of Win made it easier for some beginners who had very insecure personalities.

But its NOT true anymore, now ITS GOING THE OTHER WAY !!!

Its FUNNY I have known a LOT of COWARDS in my day who for one reason of another insist that there is a good reason to buy from the BIGGEST companies NO MATTER WHAT

And those people ALWAYS expected me to ORPHANED BY APPLE, MANY YEARS AGO they expected this, NOW MS IMPLODES -- I LOVE IT

 

[blybug]

However, in all honesty, I really don't want Apple's marketshare to grow past 20%, maybe not even 15%... The reasoning may sound slightly snobbish - to the "unwashed masses" - but I see intelligence not just in the design of Apple's hardware & software, but, also, in its longtime, loyal customers. We've known for years we've had the superior product, have been willing to pay more (up front) for that peace of mind (can you remember the last real Mac virus?), and in general have just scratched our heads raw trying to figure out why so many hundreds of millions "just didn't get it"... And if Apple's marketshare grew past 20%, or they licensed the MacOS X to other PC makers, then it would (logically) signal that millions of those "unwashed masses" who "just didn't get it before" will now demand things of Apple which will just bring down the whole Intelligent Design of both Apple and its longtime, loyal customers...

Now, that didn't come across as "snotty & superior", did it?

Yes, actually it did. And I agree with you 100%

 

[cybermiguel]

edited

 

[cybermiguel]

So, do you feel more ripped off waisting $300.00 and countless hours FORCING Windows to work on it, or would you like something you can actually use out of the box to do real computing for 600?
I think it's cute you can tinker all you want, but is that why you built your $300 computer or would you like to actually use it to get something done?
And I am not talking about playing games... what a waste of a perfectly good computer... If it's games you want buy a Playstation or XBox 360 or something...

Ok, that's it. I'm full of all the crap that people speaks here. Is there anyone here that knows something about computers? NO ONE? NOT A SINGLE SOUL??????

First. I've built my family's computer years ago and I've built my own computer myself. It's the coolest thing you will ever learn. Why? because you will know exaclty what components your computer has, what kind of ram, hard drive, dvd-rw, graphic board, etc.....It's just great.

Now, about forcing windows...let's define "force windows". Forcing windows to work with something is installing it in a machine that would not run it at all, and you still want to make ir run. Does that happen with custom built PCs? The answer is a great NO!!.

Installing drivers is forcing windows to do something? Absolutely not. In fact, in every single OS that I have ever installed on my computer, the FIRST thing I do (yes, I have OS X for x86 too) is downloading all the latest drivers for my devices. Why do I do that? to have better stability, better performance and better compatibility with new apps and games.

Yes, I know that some of you will say that you don't need to do that in OS X....well...let me tell you that YOU HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY. For example, If you have an ATi card, I recommend you to go to the ATi site and download the latest drivers, because they fix some problems with some games and some apps.

And yes, I have OS X and windows running on my "crappy" PC as you may call it, but...you know what? I'm 100% sure that each of the carefully hand-picked components that I chose to build it are superior to the ones found in some Macs.

Impressed? You shouldn't be impressed. You just have to know the brands of the components and how they are. That's the reason that sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware exists.


Well...I am sure that there will be stupid people talking crap like any other forum, but I urge you not to take the Mac as the "ultimate platform", because they aren't and that even you can make a fine computer...even much better than the PowerMacs.

Regards ^^


BTW...It would be very nice to see OS X for retail...I'll be paying for it....and It would be VERY nice to see Macs running Windows by dual boot or by virtualization (wich, for my taste, is even better)

 

[(L)]

Countless hours doing what? That $300 price tag was for a box that would run OS X and from what I've read does so without issue.

Lol.

But if I was installing Windows it would work right out of the box as well. Are you suggesting that all Windows installs take hours and forcing to work? I don't know about you but i've NEVER had that type of problem.

For most users, having to build a computer IS a problem. In your case, it may be somewhat more enjoyable, if it's your hobby or whatever.

[/QUOTE]As for getting something done I would have a better box than a mini for half the price and again from what i've read it would run OS X perfectly. These are the things consumers want. Bang for the buck. You don't really get that with Apple hardware.[/QUOTE]

That depends on how you define "better." For most people, building a computer is a daunting task, and part of the prices of real consumer computers is for assembly. Consumers actually don't care about "bang for the buck," as you say, and I'll prove it.

1) More than anything, they want something that will work, which is the Mac's greatest selling point, largely made possible because of the vertical hardware-software design of Apple.

2) For buyers of PC's, most people are capable of looking at 1.5 Ghz and 3.2 Ghz and figuring out which is better, though they could not care less about what "Ghz" or "system bus" or "thingamajinger" mean. They see bigger numbers equating bigger prices, and figure they settle for the highest number they can afford, which doesn't help them get rid of Windows errors, but hey, it's faster, right?

3) Very, very, very rare is the person that would buy a computer you built for 300 bucks. Sorry, but there's no sweet way to put that - you will never sell a built-from-scratch computer and see any success in the business. You'd obviously have to sell for more than 300 bucks. Running OS X by some shady method you have read about? Won't help you. There's only a couple legal and a bunch of illegal ways to do that as a consumer, and no legal way to do that as a retailer. Bottom line is, if you're not an optimistic geek that can get miracle deals on Intel Core S/D chips, you will not be building Mac mini equivalents; you'll buy a real computer, with support and seamless integration (the latter only with Macs, the former to varying degrees depending on the manufacturer).

So, basically, you've told us you're geeky enough to build your own box that will run OS X (rather shadily) for 300 bucks. Great. What does it mean to any of us? If you are running it legally, OS X will leave you with 170 bucks to build your machine, which is, well, pitiful. Good luck with that!

Now honestly, let's just pretend you could get superior hardware for 170 bucks. Then what? Let's say you could assemble it yourself. Maybe you're confident it could last 10 years (which it won't, not without replacing parts). OK. And run OS X mostly legally. Great. And it's good enough for you. OK, fine. Then what? What good is that to any of us? So few people will be "priced out" of the market because they can mash together their own cheapdirt boxes. Rather than hardware, the biggest thing "pricing" people out of the market is a little thing called OPERATING SYSTEM. More people are used to Windows, most people have known nothing but Windows. How can you be expected to switch to something you know very little about, and the very little you know is likely biased or misperception (like Macs being only for artists)? No, it's a lot easier to buy another XP box. Or XP Vista version box. People buying PC's shop around for lower prices and higher numbers. It's when people start seeing OS X as a sort of "higher number," if you will, that they'll switch to Apple, and for that matter, hardware really doesn't matter as much. Are they overpriced? Perhaps...the question is, are you wiling to pay for it? You might not be, because you are capable of building a cheap box that can miraculously or illegally run OS X. Most people are not. And frankly, $600 isn't that difficult to pay for, for most Americans and a great many others. $300 for a machine built by Joe across the street that runs a hacked version of OS X, however, is difficult to justify.

 

[Norse Son]

"But I need my Lotus 1,2,3 spreadsheets from 1852!!!"

I can only assume you've never used Windows XP

I've been using Windows since 95. All of my XP machines have never ever NOT ONCE given me a blue screen or some cryptic error message that I didn't understand.

Windows ME saw MS try to clear up alot of the stupid error messages that were all over 98, XP was another step in the right direction in that regard.

I have just as many apps QUIT on me in 10.4.5 than I do in XP Pro SP2

Here's a couple of links for you. The first is to MacDailyNews (sometimes they pound the drums too loudly, I admit) for a story in the NY Times, which is the second link.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9033/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/technology/27soft.html

And when it talks about how bloated Windows has become with each successive version... Makes me shudder to think if MacOS X on Intel had not only the Rosetta load for PowerPC apps, but what if it had to retain backwards compatibility for Classic, "actual MacOS 9", and pre-PPC/FAT Binaries MacOS 7, 6, 5, 4... I think that's the major problem with Vista being 3 years (and counting) late, as well as 50 million lines of code that now/still needs major work.

 

[(L)]

Ok, that's it. I'm full of all the crap that people speaks here. Is there anyone here that knows something about computers? NO ONE? NOT A SINGLE SOUL??????

First. I've built my family's computer years ago and I've built my own computer myself. It's the coolest thing you will ever learn. Why? because you will know exaclty what components your computer has, what kind of ram, hard drive, dvd-rw, graphic board, etc.....It's just great.And yes, I have OS X and windows running on my "crappy" PC as you may call it, but...you know what? I'm 100% sure that each of the carefully hand-picked components that I chose to build it are superior to the ones found in some Macs.

If geeks that can build their own computers are the only people with souls, I'll be damned. Most people find all that tech linguo to be an unwelcome necessity. A hard drive is just as hard as any other drive, and it doesn't take you around the block. A ram is a sort of goat. And a graphic board is a surf board with too much nudity on it.

Impressed? You shouldn't be impressed. You just have to know the brands of the components and how they are. That's the reason that sites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware exists.

What sites? Never heard of them. Have most people? No? Then are we talking about anything of huge significance? No. Build it yourself is not a popular attitude. (I do think it's helpful to learn about the parts inside the computer...don't get me wrong...but who's gonna do that? 1%? 3%? Not in your dreams.)

Well...I am sure that there will be stupid people talking crap like any other forum, but I urge you not to take the Mac as the "ultimate platform", because they aren't and that even you can make a fine computer...even much better than the PowerMacs.

No, Apple doesn't sell the best hardware. Note that they sell assembled machines, which costs more than you can get at Tom's Hardware Shack or whatever. You could save thousands just on the RAM of a PowerMac. You could build one that is better. But most people would rather not. Seriously though, you could go into business just installing RAM and stuff into people's hardware, for less than Apple but more than DIY. Oh wait. People already have.

BTW...It would be very nice to see OS X for retail...I'll be paying for it....and It would be VERY nice to see Macs running Windows by dual boot or by virtualization (wich, for my taste, is even better)

OS X is for retail. Mac OS X costs 130 bucks. People talk about how that's an upgrade price or whatever, but last I checked, you buy it, make it so you can run it, and you run it, no legal problems. You buy it, you hack it, you redistribute it over the computer Internet, you get problems. In other words, if you can build your own hardware that can run OS X, it's perfectly legal for you to walk down to the Apple store and buy OS X. People do it all the time, practically, with old Macs. It's not impossible to build your own, designed to run Mac OS X.

"I'll be paying for it..." If you run OS X, you should have had to pay for it. If you haven't and Grandma hasn't bought you a Mac for your birthday, you are likely using OS X illegally, which should be booed upon no differently than if someone shoplifts or robs a nun.

 

[(L)]

Yes, it's probably true that in some basement corner of One Infinite Loop - maybe in a chamber deeper & more secret than a '50s-era Cold War nuclear bunker - that Apple has iLife running on bargain-basement PCs... Heck, look how (relatively) easy it was for them to code iTunes for the PC.

However, like a stripper (and, no, I'm not trying to offend anyone - just wait for the analogy) if she shows too much it takes away the mystery. And, personally, I find strippers boring, because there's none of the mystery, allure & desire left there for me.

Same goes for iLife. The PC crowd has had a glimpse of it via iTunes. But I wouldn't want them to see our "proper lady" all laid out on some greasy, cigarette-burned, beer-stained, faded wooden stage for them to just paw & drool over. No, if they like the ankles Apple has shown them (via iTunes), then they may pay to see a bit more. But for Apple to "just bend over & moon the crowd" would shred the mystery, desire & appeal.

So, maybe the way for Apple to "show the crowd some calf" is to do either or both of the following:
• Showcase, via a "new corner" of the iTMS, select music and/or short films that professional artists have created using only the tools in iLife. It can be a new take on the iTunes Originals. Think of Kevin Smith making a Clerks or Mallrats prequel (or a short film noir) using only iMovie HD and iDVD... Or Sheryl Crow or (insert artist name) using GarageBand on a little "personal project"... PC users can then see just how slick an iLife project can be as compared to the flotsam they're used to on their side of the software aisle.
• Another option is to release iLife '05 on the PC, making it clear to them that iLife '06 has major new features over it. But that they can only get those fancy doo-dads by buying a Mac.

However, in all honesty, I really don't want Apple's marketshare to grow past 20%, maybe not even 15%... The reasoning may sound slightly snobbish - to the "unwashed masses" - but I see intelligence not just in the design of Apple's hardware & software, but, also, in its longtime, loyal customers. We've known for years we've had the superior product, have been willing to pay more (up front) for that peace of mind (can you remember the last real Mac virus?), and in general have just scratched our heads raw trying to figure out why so many hundreds of millions "just didn't get it"... And if Apple's marketshare grew past 20%, or they licensed the MacOS X to other PC makers, then it would (logically) signal that millions of those "unwashed masses" who "just didn't get it before" will now demand things of Apple which will just bring down the whole Intelligent Design of both Apple and its longtime, loyal customers...

Now, that didn't come across as "snotty & superior", did it?

Lol. Strippers. Really, Apple could do more to advertise, but demo software is rather extreme.

 

[daysleeper]

I still think the taskbar in Windows has many more things going for it than the dock or expose, only though if you have a large screen. One of my biggest niggles with OS X is that switching windows/documents is always a two step process

With the taskbar, you see the window you want and you click it. In OS X, you have more choices, but each one requires more than one action. ie, activate expose>select window, click dock > select document, CMD-TAB> select app > select document.

I also rarely use minimize when using OS X, the genie effect is nice for the first couple times, but to a power user who wants things done fast it becomes annoying. I just want the window minized, the animation I've seen a million times already.

I do tho, find myself trying to activate expose when using XP now aswell. It doesn't work for some reason.

You have a point for a small number of windows. I don't know how many times, even on a 17" monitor, I've found myself clicking through a dozen squished-up task bar buttons to find what I'm looking for... Mac OS X designers realized this and developed expose, which I think is an elegant solution. I use expose constantly-- I find it to be an efficient way of navigating, especially while multitasking. As a graduate student who regularly has a dozen pdf's open on his 12" powerbook, expose is indespensible.

 

[Norse Son]

Apple's only real design competitor

I've heard the same said of the John Lewis department stores in the UK. People that are after cheap stuff see the prices in John Lewis and say 'rip off'. The truth is that John Lewis sell quality stuff as cheap as anyone else does. If other manufacturers used the same quality components, included all the same range of components, plus spent a little money on getting someone to come up with a tasteful yet practical design, I honestly don't think Apple computers would appear over priced. Obviously someone on a budget could probably come up with a cheaper way of doing it, because they don't have the costs of marketing, aftersales support and other general overheads. Anyone 'building' cheap computers as a business and selling them at this sort of price is never going to make enough profit to stay in business - I know I would rather buy a computer from a company that hopefully isn't going to just disappear overnight.

An besides, it's the experience you're paying for - the whole package: functional, nice looking, trouble free - and that applies to both the software and the hardware.

If Apple started licensing OS X so people could sell piles of cheap junk running it, then Apple's OS X would start to get a bad repuation. Obviously, even on a pile of cheap junk it would still probably look and work better than Windows XP, but that wouldn't be hard would it?

Here, if anybody's interested, this is the only Windows PC maker that I think can come close to matching the elegant design of Apple... And their prices reflect it, too!

http://www.go-l.com/home/index.htm

 

[(L)]

Have just spent the best part of an hour reading all the comments and thinking about them. I am a switcher of about 9 months now and the only crashes I have ever had on my Mac mini have been due to a cheappy cheap USB 2 hub that didn't like dealing with more than a few tracks at a time, Windows XP I cannot say the same.

One thing that really appeals to me is you pay a premium for a Mac, but then I payed a premium for my last bike. I bent the gear mechanism and took it to the shop and the man got a hammer out and fixed it, to date it still works perfectly. The gear mec being bent was my fault but the man fixed it free of charge. When and it does happen you get a bad bit of software on a Win XP machine, how many people have had to wait, 10-15+ minutes before they are able to get on with there computing tasks? You can get dud (or should that be FUD??) on a Mac and I have come across them but the OS holds up, and like the man with the hammer fixes it. Admittedly this is down to the way UNIX is and works but then whom here would think that there Granny could operate UNIX?

I would rather pay a premium for a Mac for it to be on hardware developed next door to the software and the two work in harmony. When people are trying to create something that will run on something else that is when problems creep in. How can you have a bit of software work perfectly on a million+ different combinations of machines? You cant and it is for that reason I do not want to see OS X shipped out.

Going back to the Granny, my Grandma has finally succumbed and decided she wants a PC for email and the web, to which I said no problem get a Mac mini for a little over £300 and I'll sort you out an old monitor and the rest. I wish they had kept the mini at that really low entry price as now a Dell with a flat screen looks (in her eyes with a flat screen) a whole chunk better than a little white box! I feel Apple missed a trick there. Why do I want her to have a Mac and OSX? Simple viruses, she wont remember to keep updating her Anti-virus and why should she have to, especially when there is a credible alternative?

There is though one thing that I feel a Windows machine would do better for an IT novice, installing new software. I know it is simple on a Mac but a guided walkthrough makes it easier for someone whom doesn't know what the Applications folder is or it's purpose. As far as I can see that is its only plus point.

Another thing I seem to have picked up on is that it tends to be IT literate people whom go for Macs. We buy them and we can explain why, and often convince others of forking out a bit more but I wonder how an IT novice would do? That is partly why I want to get my Grandma a Mac, to see if it really is as simple as it claims to be.

Just some thoughts

Dan

My honest guess on this one is that those that are more tech literate (i.e., a major part of the Apple user base, as well as others) can usually tell OS X is superior and simpler, when they take an objective stance. However, my guess is that depending on whether you have Grandma version 1.0 or Grandma version 1.2, OS X and XP can be equally complex fuddle duddle. I have no doubt OS X could and should be simpler - like installing Apps, as you mentioned. (Some freeware I've found have this innovative way of displaying your Applications folder within the download folder, with an arrow saying "Drag here"...that's really smart, but also rare.) There is a lot of stuff OS X can do, and taken together that's already more complex than a phone. Fonts are harder to read as you get older, and Macs don't have the prettiest screens. In short, there is a lot of room for improvement. What is ironic is that except rather extreme measures like making the minimum font size this big, programming for Grandma may easily turn out to be better for all of us.

 

[digitalbiker]

Be honest with yourself!

To be perfectly honest, I don't really think there is that big of difference between the windows XP GUI and the OS X GUI. In fact, I think there is more similarity than there is difference. What differences exist can usually be worked around with only an extra click or drag one way or the other.

OS X definitely wins in eye candy. But windows seems to have a snappier GUI. Every mac I have ever used, owned, or demoed the GUI drags a bit. I am really hoping this improves with a full de-carbonization of Finder in Leopard.

The most serious culprit in OS X is the applications or documents folder in the dock. First time in, right after booting, click and hold either the application or documents folder in the dock. If you are like me and keep a fair number of programs or files in there, it takes a painful pause of time to display all of the available selections. Then when your list is too long to fit on the display, it is even more of a pain to scroll down to view all of the selections. One slip of the mouse and you are back to re-selecting the icon from the dock again.

It is enough of a pain that I just say screw the dock and learn keyboard shortcuts for direct access of menus and use the recent items Apple menu a lot.

 

[ZorPrime]

off topic, I know...

Besides, Apple could take a lesson from M$, which takes a loss on every XBox 360 they sell to expand its market share.

And in the meantime, Apple makes a percentage royalty from the VMX technology the PPC chip powering the 360. Gotta love diversification.

I recall an article back in 1994 from MacWorld mag hypothesizing the one-day-reality of Macs running MacOS alongside Windows in a system that not requiring rebooting... now, if I can only find the mag from my stash...

Apple is a phoenix on the verge of a renaissance, the historiographic meaning.

*old man searches his library to corroborate something from ages ago...*

 

[Norse Son]

Don't know if you're still slogging this argument, but...

ZZZzzzzz ...... Wow that was boring. If you would bother to read I never brought up Windows originally. That was done by others. I did defend it but the original point of all this was to discuss OS X licensing and how do you get non OS X users to make the switch. It was the zealots that made this OS X vs. Windows. Say what you want about it sucking but it still has market share and there are millions of users who disagree. That being said I still like OS X and would LOVE for them to license it. I need the OS not the hardware.

I don't want to get into this whole argument of comparisons between Windows and Mac... Nah, scratch that, what the hay!

I just bought my 6th computer that I've owned. It's an iMac 20" Core Duo, and it makes the tired old Pismo 400 PowerBook sitting next to it look even more tired than it really is (which isn't saying much). And I bought that Pismo back in April of 2001(?), right after the TiBooks first came out. And I bought that laptop to replace my one & only foray into the Windows side.

See, when I went to grad school in '99 I needed a new computer, but (at the time) couldn't find a store that sold Apple, the internet was a lab on campus (Apple had an online store -y/n?), and I couldn't afford a PowerBook at that time. So, I did the next bes-... So, I did the next worst thing, and I bought a Toshiba laptop.

Win98 blew chunks - the XP interface still reminds me of all its ugly quirks. I couldn't truly rearrange where things were like in MacOS 8. And that laptop was like trying to rest a FireNado on my lap - the bottom was a scorcher and the fan never ceased running.

Bottomline: I hated every week I had to slog through with that beast. And once I got that Pismo I never considered going back.

Now, everytime I look at Windows I see how unintuitively the desktop is organised. I see how clunky things still look under that fake veneer XP tried to throw on things. I've read about all the viruses, malware, spyware, botware, underware... By the way, is that where your callsign, Spankware, came from?...

Point is, Microsoft, with its billions & billions of dollars is already 3 years behind schedule on Vista. It's laughable that people refer to it as XP SP3. It's a shadow of everything that MS originally promised it would be waaaaay back in, what, 2002(?). It mimics MacOS X much more closely than flattery (or modesty) would suggest. I've seen rumors on the web this past week that the delay now is because they may have to rewrite up to 60% of the code.....

There's a NY Times story about the delay, but, more revealing, it talks about just how bloated Windows has gotten over the years: Win 95 had 15 million lines of code, Win 98 had 18 million lines of code, XP had 35 million lines of code, and (drumroll, please!) Vista has 50 million lines of code... Hurricane Katrina couldn't have made more of a mess of Windows than it already is.

The only way it could be legitimately compared to MacOS X is if, in addition to Rosetta emulating PowerPC apps, it, also, had to emulate Classic, pre-Carbon MacOS 9, MacOS 8.x, MacOS 7.x, post-PPC-transition Fat Binaries, and so on back through the Lisa OS, all the way to the original Apple II (equivalent to MS-DOS)...

Now, that's the supreme mess that is Windows. That's why Microsoft is so late with Vista. It's why there have been so many security holes in Windows, Explorer, Entourage, Office, et al.

Maybe what Microsoft needs to do - besides firing Steve Ballmer & his close pals, and asking Bill to "quietly sit this one out" - is to "keep XP on the books" as a solution for current foot-dragging customers for at least another 2-3 years. Next, they need to take Vista over to the real window and shake all the legacy dust out of it - no more DOS, Win 3.11, Win95, Win98, WinME, WinNT or W2K support code should be left in that thing. Then they can do some serious work on writing a modern OS, sans bloat and 1980s instructions...

Then, again, I'm a bit surprised today to not see MSFT taking a financial beating after the bad news of the past week: reorginization-go-round and the latest lack-of-details-on-real-reasoning delay in Vista.