Mac Marketshare Growth in High End Retail Market

[SodiumBenzoate]

Are you saying the only thing that separates the Windows PC and Mac are the processors, GPUs, and RAM?

No... Those are the things that are the same.

How about the actual bodies (grades of plastic, metals, casing structure, plugs and connectors, and overall integrity?)

Yes, $1200+ Macs have nicer cases and use better materials than $600 Windows PCs. When you buy more expensive Windows PCs, you also get nicer cases and materials.

I would think the entire package, apps running on OSX, on an elegant machine designed to run them fluently, without crashing, would define a user experience more than merely the processors, GPUs and RAM would.

Depends on what you're doing. If you're doing very hardware-intensive activities, the CPU, GPU, RAM, etc are extremely important, and, depending on your budget, Macs may not be a realistic option.

Additionally, Macs don't make a lot of sense for some activities, mainly gaming. If you're playing games, you're running Windows anyway.

FWIW, my 7 month old Vista desktop has never crashed.

People also purchase the marked up BMW for its design, higher grade materials, reliability, responsiveness, and reputation.

Well, certainly not reliability, but that's neither here nor there in this debate.

I'm not pro-Windows or pro-Mac, I like both and both have their place, even in the high-end retail market. When I bought my Dell desktop, I mainly bought it for gaming. At the time, the 8800GT/X was not offered on the Mac Pro, so I never considered it. If I'd been buying it for another purpose, I may have ended up with a Mac. I just think that saying Macs are objectively better or that Windows PCs are objectively better is wrong.

 

[JoeDMD]

It's the same story with the memory. If you compared Apple's RAM prices with those of Orca and Crucial only a month ago, Apple looked like a robber baron. Now, when you consider questions of possible 3rd party issues, it's worth telling Apple to fit the max 4GB when ordering.

For the low end iMac Apple charges $300 for 3 GB Ram $100 for 1 GB
Crucial - $28 a GB

For power mac, Apple charges $1500 for 4 x 2GB
crucial charges $460 and you get to keep the base memory.

its worth $1000 to get it from apple?

to get 4GB total (more realistic) apple charges $500
crucial will sell you an extra 2GB for $180

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'll tell you one thing, I love my Apple computers. But I have to say that if they had a notebook in the $800 range, I'd have been an Apple user a long time ago.

But they don't (and probably never will)

SLC

 

[macidiot]

No, what is tiresome is the same old Mac Fanboys spouting the same old tired routines.

Screen = Purchase a monitor of your CHOICE in the PC World, not take what Apple gives you and oh gee, what do I do if the monitor breaks after the warranty is up and the computer is still working.... (plug in another monitor and watch the giant dead screen as a dongle, I suppose). Cases are $20-100 items in the PC world. You can get any case you want. And you don't have to build them yourself. Dell will build one for you. Any number of small computer shops (try going to a computer show once) will gladly build them for you with the case and hardware items of your choice (I actually DID put mine together; it was very simple to do, but for less than $50, most places will do it for you; some don't even charge to do it. The last PC I bought locally charged the same either way so I let them assemble it).

Testing? Do you think Dells are tested less than Apples? What about the yellow-screen LED problems on the laptops? What about the keyboards that won't type properly or that were missing the first letter of the first word typed (that bug took over 2 years to get a 'fix'). Paleeze. Apple's products are hardly bug or problem-free.

You're comparing connecting up a motherboard and plugging in a few cards to building a house??? And you expect me to take your comments as anything more than ludicrous nonsense? You're talking to someone that owns a PC and a Mac and AppleTV and an iPod Touch and knows how to run and administrate Linux (which I also have installed on the PC) and has two degrees in electronic engineering. You're not going get any BS past me.

So don't. Select what you want and let Dell or any other number of hardware vendors both on the Net and/or locally do it for you. What's the big deal? If you don't want to do that much work (i.e. pick out what YOU *want* in a computer), you can still go to somewhere like Best Buy and pick a price range and/or marquee that suits you and have a fully functional system in your hands as you walk out the door. You can also buy a Mac at Best Buy these days. What's the difference other than with the PC you tend to actually have a CHOICE what hardware you get whereas with Apple's offerings you're more or less stuck with what Steve wants to sell you at a given price point and too bad if the graphics suck on that model. Go buy the $2400+ Mac Pro or the $2200 24" iMac if you want to play games. The problem is that they're competing with $700-1200 systems in the PC world (i.e. you're pay 2x as much to play the SAME game using the SAME graphics card, etc.). And YET, the fanboys will still CLAIM that the current Macs are comparable to the same PCs at the same price range. The problem is that a Mac Pro is touted by Apple as their best game machine, yet it's NOT the kind of hardware a normal PC user would consider gaming hardware. It's complete and total OVERKILL and yet there is *NO* offering from Apple that CAN game that is NOT overkill. You either pay $2200 for a 'custom' 24" iMac or you pay $2400+ for a MacPro. Actually, that MacPro with the same gaming card will be a couple hundred more so more like $2600.

I'll buy that argument IF you'll explain then why the same components in a $800 PC are only found in a $2600 MacPro. That's a bit more than a "couple hundred dollars".

For me, I'd have the computer assembled in less than an hour. It's not rocket science. It's snap'n'screw.

So you're saying you don't have to "shop" for a Mac? You just order the first one you happen to click on at the Apple store online or take the first one they hand you at a physical Apple store or Best Buy????

Driver issues, etc. are venturing into software. I maintain you can run OSX on cloneware PC. See Psycorp. They'll sell you a 2 choice pre-assembled OSX option that can also run Windows and Linux for under $1000 that gaming-wise will run circles around everything but the $2000+ Apple models.

You're making an awful lot out of one little comment that I built MY PC last November. Nowhere did I say you had to build your own. The computer show I went to last year in Allentown PA next to the pinball show I was attending had numerous vendors that begging me to let them build any kind of machine I could want. You CAN still get what you want and NOT have to build it yourself you know. Or maybe you don't know that?

So I'm wrong because YOU think so? I used my last PC for 7 years, upgrading its processor once and its graphics card twice. I had to reinstall Windows98 *ONE* time in 7 years (and not when I upgraded the CPU or graphics cards). I had exactly ZERO viruses during that time too (and no I didn't leave a virus checker running 24/7 and yes it was on the Internet). You see HOW and WHOM uses a PC also factors into the experience. Any moron can get viruses and screw their system up. If you have a little bit of computer knowledge that doesn't have to happen.

The real point here is that the major applications that need ever faster speeds and graphics cards are GAMES. Your argument boils down to the fact that the Mac has very few games of its own that you don't NEED a new computer every few years. Yet if you don't play games on a PC, you don't NEED one every couple of years either (barring video work, etc. in which case you'd probably want a new Mac every couple of years too and invalidates your entire argument).

The CURRENT situation with Macs is that they use the SAME HARDWARE (save EFI versus BIOS) as generic PCs out there. Thus, your argument completely falls flat on its face no matter HOW you look at it. In fact, the Mac that isn't a MacPro isn't upgradeable in terms of graphics cards, etc., so it will need replaced *MORE* often than a PC for the same use.

Honestly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to computer hardware (typical of fanboy types in my experience) and so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your total lack of actual argument points.

Oh, I don't know. I bought a cheap used PowerMac G4 for a song and upgraded its CPU to 1.8GHz, added a Sata card and installed dual 500GB Sata drives, replaced the CDR with a modern DVD-R and added a USB 2.0 card, set up 1.5GB of ram and updated the Operating system, all for less than the cheapest iMac and while it doesn't contain the CPU power of said iMac (and was far less than half what a MacPro costs), it DOES achieve its desired function as a media center server without the freaking MESS of an iMac + *external* typically slower, more expensive hard drives. In fact, my hard drive speed tests faster than a default MacPro. It's connected via Gigabit to my router which then streams its contents all over my house to multiple AppleTV and Airport Express units. Why upgrade? I don't NEED a MacPro at $2400+ to do what I need this to do. I don't want a desk full of external components lying around, etc. Guess what? Not everyone's needs match YOUR needs.

"NO ONE", eh? ROTFLMAO. I wonder why Best Buy sells components to upgrade computers at a retail store where space is a premium if NO ONE is really interested in doing anything with their computer. I find it funny you think they're willing to install ram, yet think installing something like a video card is "more complicated" when it's pretty much the same thing. Plug it in and maybe latch or turn a screw. Big deal. If they dont' want to install anything (computers are scary!), fine. But don't pretend they're scared YET are willing to install ram dimms.

Some games will never work right on a console platform. And please don't speak for ALL Mac users ever again as it makes you look bad (some Mac users do use BootCamp for little more than gaming). Thanks so much.

You really have no idea of what you are talking about do you. If you knew anything about the Macintosh life cycle and pricing, you'd know that when Apple first releases a product, there is a lot of price parity. However, unlike a PC maker, they do not refresh every month and fire sale the old inventory. So depending on where in the product cycle you bought, yes, it could be overpriced.

Apparently, from what I can tell in that rant was that you want good gpu options. The only reason to want those are for gaming. If so, why are you even interested in Macs? Why are you even in this forum, other than to flame? And seriously, you are blaming Apple for aftermarket GPU cards? How is that Apple's problem? Since when did Dell or HP start selling replacement GPUs at Best Buy? Blame 3rd party manufacturers. And nvidia and ati for not making drivers.

And you think all testing and hardware is the same. Then why does everyone invariably say that Dell enterprise computers have superior reliability to consumer Dells? They use the same hardware, according to you. Could it be that they spend more time sorting things out, partly because they have higher margins and can afford to do it? Oh, right, that would be testing... never would happen. Could it be that they use higher quality components? Oh right, you can buy the exact same stuff at Best Buy for half the price...

And again you go on and on about things like computer shows, how you upgraded your ancient mac, custom pcs and such. Yeah, EVERYONE goes to computer shows and buys their pc's there. Whatever.

So Best Buy sells components. Have you seen how much shelf space they allocate to that stuff? They stock a handful of GPUs, some hard drives(usually externals), and ram. Maybe an i/o card or two. They allocate more space to mice and keyboards.

It's quite obvious that you are a geek hobbyist. Which is fine. What you don't realize is that YOUR needs represent a minuscule segment of computing. And fyi, I design networks for a living, and have been working with computers for over 20 years. So, yeah, I don't know jack about hardware. Consumer level cheapass hardware, that is. I couldn't even tell you which home router to get, though I could hook you up with some big Cisco iron. At one point though, I did know about that stuff, but now have something called a job. Which pays me to get things done, not tinker with upgrading gpu so I can play Crysis. And which also pays me enough to not have to bother with that stuff. And takes up enough of my time that I have no desire to waste it on that.

Now of course, if you enjoy that stuff, as a hobby, knock yourself out. Its especially understandable considering you claim you are an EE. But don't pretend that it is anything other than that. Or that everyone should or even want to build their own pc to save a few bucks. I know plenty of EE that enjoy working on circuit boards. Guess what, most people don't.

And if you don't get the house analogy, I'm sorry. But I suppose I can try to explain it in SIMPLE terms. The point is, you can do anything cheaper by doing it yourself. And the point is, for a LOT of people, it isn't worth it. Maybe you have a lot of free time on your hands. If so, you definitely wouldn't get the "time is money" part.

You want another analogy? I could clean my house myself and save money. But I have a housekeeper.

Or how about this? I could take care of my landscaping, but I pay a gardener.

Or how about this? I could change the oil in my car myself and save some money, but why bother?

Or how about this one? I could stock up at the supermarket and make every meal from scratch and save a lot of money, but I usually either don't have the time or don't want to spend the time on it. Which is actually a bummer since I enjoy cooking.

So you can assemble a pc in 1 hour. So how long till it actually is up and running applications? Try 2 hours. And like I said, I hope it all works perfectly the first time, with no conflicts or driver issues.

And finally, regarding gaming, pc gaming is dying. Yes there are some great PC-only games available, mostly in the mmo genre. If that's your thing, then you are fully justified in your rant. Then again, why would you want a mac for gaming? And again, pc gaming is dying. If you want a roadmap of what is going to happen, just look at Mac gaming. In 3 years or less, it will all be delayed ports, if it isn't already.

And finally, I really have to LOL at you thinking I'm some sort of fanboy. I regularly criticize Apple and their products. And I really would never consider buying an iMac, so I really have to LOL at your implications. Actually I wouldn't mind a real headless iMac. In fact, if you search my old posts, there are many where I ask for just this thing. Thing is, I have, like the majority of Americans, moved away from desktops. In case you haven't noticed, more people buy laptops. As in over 50% of sales are laptops. Besides, I don't really pay a lot of attention to consumer level products like the iMac or Macbook, so ultimately I don't really care about those products or their value proposition.

But hey, keep on keepin' on. You already mentioned gaming and building your own pc for less. Feel free to start talking about the lack of right-click mousing on Macs to complete the triumvirate of fanboyism.

 

[G58]

And why are they still regarded as design classics by those with taste?

Old PCs don't just look old. They look ugly. But they looked ugly when they were new. And guess what? The new ones still look ugly - with their multiple surfaces and jarring shapes.

In PC boxes, I see the least competent examples of design anywhere on the planet. a small child with a wax crayon could do better. There's a trend in good design towards clean, simple, pleasing concepts. So what do the PC makers do? They create 17" laptops with black plastic Darth Vader masks melted onto the back of the screen and use that as its selling point!!

And this is a high end computer! The others are experimenting with clip-on plastic colour options in the hope that what turns on nine year old girls when buying a cell phone, will work with laptops. It's utterly laughable - pathetic.

Go to a design museum and spend some time studying what Design means. Then ask yourself if PC boxes even qualify as products of that term.

Scary, that idea is...

Why is it that a 10 year old PC looks old, but a 10 year old Apple looks ridiculous?


Design? Or confusing style for design?

 

[Eidorian]

And why are they still regarded as design classics by those with taste?

Old PCs don't just look old. They look ugly. But they looked ugly when they were new. And guess what? The new ones still look ugly - with their multiple surfaces and jarring shapes.

In PC boxes, I see the least competent examples of design anywhere on the planet. a small child with a wax crayon could do better. There's a trend in good design towards clean, simple, pleasing concepts. So what do the PC makers do? They create 17" laptops with black plastic Darth Vader masks melted onto the back of the screen and use that as its selling point!!

And this is a high end computer! The others are experimenting with clip-on plastic colour options in the hope that what turns on nine year old girls when buying a cell phone, will work with laptops. It's utterly laughable - pathetic.

Go to a design museum and spend some time studying what Design means. Then ask yourself if PC boxes even qualify as products of that term.

What does the exterior case design have to do with the internal hardware?

Is it going to make it a faster computer? Vroom?

 

[G58]

Someone is bound to dispute this, but there are about 30 or 31 Mac 'viruses' out there. None of them seems to be capable of doing anything to your Mac. There are many potentially exploitable opportunities for hackers, but apparently none that we actually need to worry about at the moment.

If you frequent some porn sites, apparently it's believed that there is something nasty you can catch disguised as something else. But that's porn for you. 'Twas ever thus. Stay away and you're not going to catch it.

There are about 440,000 pieces of malware in the wild designed to attack Windows. How many are still effective is academic. Just do the math. Anyone who uses the market share argument to explain the difference between the two, doesn't understand why people create viruses, why operating systems are vulnerable or how to count. There would be more than 40'000 mac viruses if they were right.

Using a PC on the net is like shagging your way though a red light district wearing three condoms. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it's true. You can use all the protection you like and install all the anti virus software on the planet, but sooner or later you're going to get the equivalent of herpes, or AIDS!

I heard that there are absolutely NNNOOO viruses that are made for the Mac. Is this really true. Or is this just what people think because Macs are used by very few people. (which shouldn't be).

 

[G58]

In terms of the subject of this thread? It makes people want to buy an Apple computer.

But in my many years experience, I've discovered that companies with good design as an ethos, tend to pay the same attention to what goes in the box as they do to what it looks like. And the reverse is the case with those who don't.

Interestingly, the same applies to logos. I used to earn my living designing corporate images, so I appreciate a really good one. The ones I really wish I could have designed are: Velocette (British motorcycle company formed in 1905) Apple and Google.

And guess what? I love the products from all these companies too. They built trust in what was inside with the name on the box. Each is also the most respected in their game.

So, you'd have to be a very wealthy, but totally stupid snake oil salesman to spend a fortune on a box that didn't contain a better whatever, because the rule are:

1. You always get caught out

2. And they never come back.

11 years of steady growth for Apple prove they've got both right. Does that answer your question?

What does the exterior case design have to do with the internal hardware?

Is it going to make it a faster computer? Vroom?

 

[Eidorian]

In terms of the subject of this thread? It makes people want to buy an Apple computer.

But in my many years experience, I've discovered that companies with good design as an ethos, tend to pay the same attention to what goes in the box as they do to what it looks like. And the reverse is the case with those who don't.

Interestingly, the same applies to logos. I used to earn my living designing corporate images, so I appreciate a really good one. The ones I really wish I could have designed are: Velocette (British motorcycle company formed in 1905) Apple and Google.

And guess what? I love the products from all these companies too. They built trust in what was inside with the name on the box. Each is also the most respected in their game.

So, you'd have to be a very wealthy, but totally stupid snake oil salesman to spend a fortune on a box that didn't contain a better whatever, because the rule are:

1. You always get caught out

2. And they never come back.

11 years of steady growth for Apple prove they've got both right. Does that answer your question?

I'm sorry that you had to run into a Mac user that isn't an artist or graphic designer. Maybe I can't appreciate such things like you can?

I'm more fond of cheap and efficient hardware in general. I'm willing to settle for my Macbook's limitations since it was the cheapest portable Mac that Apple does offer. I'm not the first or last utilitarian Mac user.

 

[G58]

You haven't got that quite right. You don't fit 3GB of RAM to an iMac and that isn't what Apple are offering. There are only two memory slots btw.

On the 20" iMac the prices are:

2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB [Add $100] which as you say is actually $100 for 1GB, since the first GB was already fitted, and Crucial's price for the one extra module is $28.

4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB [Add $300] which is actually two x 2GB modules at $300. Crucial's price for the same modules is $109.99

My quote was based on the 24" 2.8GHz iMac which comes with 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB, and adding 4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB is only an extra $200! Compared with Crucial's price, this one is still more, but I think we negotiated a deal!

For the low end iMac Apple charges $300 for 3 GB Ram $100 for 1 GB
Crucial - $28 a GB

For power mac, Apple charges $1500 for 4 x 2GB
crucial charges $460 and you get to keep the base memory.

its worth $1000 to get it from apple?

to get 4GB total (more realistic) apple charges $500
crucial will sell you an extra 2GB for $180

 

[DMann]

Trust from the Inside Out

In terms of the subject of this thread? It makes people want to buy an Apple computer.

But in my many years experience, I've discovered that companies with good design as an ethos, tend to pay the same attention to what goes in the box as they do to what it looks like. And the reverse is the case with those who don't.

Interestingly, the same applies to logos. I used to earn my living designing corporate images, so I appreciate a really good one. The ones I really wish I could have designed are: Velocette (British motorcycle company formed in 1905) Apple and Google.

And guess what? I love the products from all these companies too. They built trust in what was inside with the name on the box. Each is also the most respected in their game.

So, you'd have to be a very wealthy, but totally stupid snake oil salesman to spend a fortune on a box that didn't contain a better whatever, because the rule are:

1. You always get caught out

2. And they never come back.

11 years of steady growth for Apple prove they've got both right. Does that answer your question?

Beautifully stated. It does not matter whether or not the meticulous attention to form and detail is appreciated or not - it is that it is congruous with the attention and detail applied to the inner workings, their compatibilities, and how they interact and respond within an environment called an Operating System, which reflects those same high standards. I'll leave the Quick and Dirty Operating System to those who would rather live life vigilantly.

 

[G58]

You don't need to be a graphic designer. You bought a MacBook which is a gorgeous computer. You could have bought a more powerful Lenovo for the same money. You didn't! Only you know why. But my guess is that your brain gave you happy signals when you saw the Mac.

Now you talk about what computer you have. I never met anyone who was happy to talk about their L e n o v o !! It sounds like B o n o b o!!

And here we have another image disaster. IBM [Not a bad logo] sold their laptop business just as the world was going out and buying laptops! Go figga! They gave away a profitable business and a top brand [Thinkpad]! I tell you, these people should get their asses kicked by their shareholders for these mistakes.

I'm sorry that you had to run into a Mac user that isn't an artist or graphic designer. Maybe I can't appreciate such things like you can?

I'm more fond of cheap and efficient hardware in general. I'm willing to settle for my Macbook's limitations since it was the cheapest portable Mac that Apple does offer. I'm not the first or last utilitarian Mac user.

 

[Eidorian]

Beautifully stated. It does not matter whether or not the meticulous attention to form and detail is appreciated or not - it is that it is congruous with the attention and detail applied to the inner workings, their compatibilities, and how they interact and respond within an environment called an Operating System, which reflects those same high standards. I'll leave the Quick and Dirty Operating System to those who would rather live life vigilantly.

I hate to tell you this but I think this applies to operating systems that aren't OS X as well.

You don't need to be a graphic designer. You bought a MacBook which is a gorgeous computer. You could have bought a more powerful Lenovo for the same money. You didn't! Only you know why. But my guess is that your brain gave you happy signals when you saw the Mac.

I bought a Mac to run my OS X software. What's with the rest of your post? The Macbook looks just like every other laptop on the market. What's special about it besides it meets the requirements to run OS X within the binds of the EULA? It's x86/x64 processors and OEM components in a plastic shell wired together to run an operating system. It's a tool.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Why did you choose to spend $300 to upgrade the processor? What was the original speed? For a media server is processor speed that important?

It was originally a dual 553MHz Digital Audio. I use it for more than just a media server. I use it for web surfing, email, banking, word processing, etc. (i.e. for things like banking, I feel safer with MacOSX than Windows due to the extreme amount of spyware, viruses, etc. on that platform). Surfing was "ok" with Safari at the time (I expect Firefox3 would have been ok then too, but I didn't try that until later; Firefox2 was terrible). At 1.8GHz (7448 G4), surfing is plenty fast (Firefox3 is at least as fast as Firefox 2 is on the 2.8GHz PC). As for buying a G5, I had already had the PowerMac, didn't think I'd get much of anything to sell it and a G5 is still a dead end in that kind of thinking anyway.

On a slightly different topic -is it possible to use a NAS as a media server?
It seems they would cost less to run.

It is possible, but I think you'd need to run something like SqueezeCenter (formerly known as Slimserver). I have tried SqueezeCenter out (it's installed on both my Mac and PC) and ran a simulated version of a Squeezebox on both (and even one networking off the other) to get an idea of how it would respond speed wise and if I liked the interface, etc. It was SLOW, even on the 2.8GHz AMD dual-core. I mean slow as in it took a long time bring up searches, activate the songs, etc., through the internet interface and it was fairly unintuitive with the old Squeezebox interface. There is the new one with the LCD screen, but I've heard of problems (it's pretty new) with dropping connections, etc. It looked somewhat slow in the demo videos I saw too and its speed apparently is entirely dependent on the SqueezeCenter serving it (i.e. a NAS device would be MUCH slower than a high-end PC, for example).

I ended up going with iTunes serving two AppleTV units (Airtunes) and I also have a 802.11N Airport Express unit. The whole system is 802.11N (not G). The AppleTV I have downstairs is connected to my home theater running 6.1 sound and a 720P LCD projector onto a 93" screen, so I stream my photo collection to it (I used to be into amateur high-end photography in the '90s so the 93" high-def display looks really nice to show photos while music plays, etc. plus I can rent HD movies from AppleTV).

The upstairs unit is connected to my high-end stereo (6 foot ribbon speakers). I use an iPod Touch running both Remote Buddy and Signal software on the Mac to control iTunes with via the iPod Touch. In the future, I will add a flatscreen TV above my piano in that room as well, but for now it's audio only. At the moment, I use the Airport Express to run a 2nd 802.11N network which I let drop to G compatibility so the iPod Touch can connect without causing my N network (running off a Netgear router which gives me faster performance than the Apple one when talking to the AppleTV units). It might get moved to a 3rd room in the future once I get that room finished (I have an older B/G Netgear router I can use instead at that point if needed).

Overall, the iPod Touch interface is just plain AWESOME for controlling my iTunes collection (over 370 CDs dumped into Apple Lossless). I can't imagine even the new Squeezebox interface coming even close to a touchscreen one and both Remote Buddy and Signal have been improving in functionality and speed lately. Once there's a native app for the iPod Touch and iPhone, I would imagine it will run lightning fast just like the iPod Touch runs for its own stored music (i.e. it can buffer the entire collection easily then). iTunes runs much faster scrolling, searching, etc. with the 1.8GHz 7448 G4 than the dual 553MHz G4. Its interface actually feels comparable to the Windows version of iTunes on the AMD PC. I've got a backup on that computer as well and Signal also runs on the PC so I can run music off it if I need to use the Mac for something else or if there were a problem, etc.

Aesthetically (since so many Mac users on here seem to care so much about cases), I think the Powermac G4 Digital Audio LOOKS better than a G5 or even a new MacPro (that cheese grater look does nothing for me visually). If I get a MacPro at some point in the future, it'll be replacing the Windows box in my den, not the Powermac (as it'll be able to run MacOSX AND Windows) and I'd then move the PC to my future game room where I plan to install it in a gaming cabinet and use it to power a MAME arcade emulated system.

 

[DMann]

Yes, $1200+ Macs have nicer cases and use better materials than $600 Windows PCs. When you buy more expensive Windows PCs, you also get nicer cases and materials.

So then, the whole price/value debate can be settled now - you get what you pay for, and Apple chooses not to make cheap and flimsy machines. Too bad others would prefer to price compare the cheaper the low grade stuff to Macs and state that Apple is gouging its customers by overcharging for higher quality.

Depends on what you're doing. If you're doing very hardware-intensive activities, the CPU, GPU, RAM, etc are extremely important, and, depending on your budget, Macs may not be a realistic option.

Without question, I would never, ever attempt to edit or render HD films, mix and produce music with ProTools, edit high-end graphics, orchestrate musical scores, or create animations on a PC running XP or Vista. Productivity would be too highly compromised.

Additionally, Macs don't make a lot of sense for some activities, mainly gaming. If you're playing games, you're running Windows anyway.

As PC games are gradually phased out, gaming will no longer be an issue.

FWIW, my 7 month old Vista desktop has never crashed.

It all depends on which apps you choose, or not choose, to run, and how many processor intensive you need running at one time.

I'm not pro-Windows or pro-Mac, I like both and both have their place, even in the high-end retail market. When I bought my Dell desktop, I mainly bought it for gaming. At the time, the 8800GT/X was not offered on the Mac Pro, so I never considered it. If I'd been buying it for another purpose, I may have ended up with a Mac. I just think that saying Macs are objectively better or that Windows PCs are objectively better is wrong.

As far as quality, design, integrity of parts, integration among apps, and depth and resilience of OS X, I do believe that Macs have an edge here.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, what is tiresome is hearing the "fanboy" cliche trotted out every time someone admits to appreciating something Apple is doing. Get a new word. Get a new argument.

What else would YOU call someone who simply thinks Apple rules the world without any particular logic, reason or thought put behind those statements? Some of us know there is more to the world than one's iMac and we appreciate those systems in addition to Macs. I get tired of hearing so-called 'arguments' that boil down to "Macs Rule! PCs suck!"

I appreciate MacOSX, Linux and even WindowsXP for what they are and the software they can run. I think MacOSX is best overall, but it doesn't cover everything and not all software is available for it. The new Intel machines offer a cool advantage (i.e. being able to run Windows through BootCamp and/or using something like Fusion), but the graphics hardware STILL gets in the way on all but the top of the line $2200+ Macs.

For one thing, gaming is weak on the Mac and always will be if Apple doesn't offer hardware CAPABLE of playing games to the masses. No market for games = no games for Mac. It's that simple. Some may not care about games, but some of us do. I'm not a hard-core gamer, BTW. I simply want to be able to play today's games once in awhile and given BootCamp, etc., I don't think I should HAVE to buy a 2nd computer just because Steve decided to only put something like Intel GMA motherboard graphics on their lower priced gear and laptop graphics cards on their mid-priced gear, neither of which even comes close to an DirectX9 only $120 7900GS. Apple should have something in the $1200 and under range that can at least handle TODAY's games. Given even something like a 7900GS is more than capable at playing such games and is pretty darn cheap, why is it they have cards that just plain SUCK in their iMacs? And the Intel GMA thing might float on a low-end laptop, but the MacMini should have something better OR they should have a mid-range ($800-1200) Mac that may have a lesser CPU but a "GOOD" graphics card. There are many graphics cards out there. It doesn't have to be top of the line to not be total crap.

 

[DMann]

I hate to tell you this but I think this applies to operating systems that aren't OS X as well.

Linux Ubuntu? Not quite there yet. Amiga OS was tight for the time period it survived. Solaris? Still waiting........ UNIX? potentially yes. My point is that Windows couldn't possibly be streamlined designed to work seamlessly on any one particular machine the way that OS X can because the permutations of computer systems MS must cater to are too vast.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

It all depends on which apps you choose, or not choose, to run, and how many processor intensive you need running at one time.

Sure, and it also depends on how informed the user is.. Macs tend to be more "idiot-proof" than a Windows PC, as there aren't the same malware, virus, etc issues. However, an informed Windows user can easily avoid viruses and quickly dispose of spyware when it's encountered. That's clearly a strength of Mac OS, but I also don't think it's nearly as big of an issue on Windows as it's sometimes made out to be. If you're smart about things, problems are, generally, easy to avoid.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You really have no idea of what you are talking about do you.

All I can say about your pathetic rant is that your screenname REALLY does fit you, IMO. You clearly don't know anything about why someone would want to run Parallels or Fusion with a Mac and yet might still want to play a game or run ray-tracers or other 3D software on their Mac, even if through BootCamp or Fusion. You clearly think people only use Macs for something like iLife, I suppose and seem to think there is no other software out there. You're telling me all Mac users are social computer users and have NO need for GPUs, etc. You don't address any of my points at all, but rant on about disconnected tidbits. Nothing else in your message even bears a reply. You are clearly a 'fanboy' and have no knowledge of computer hardware or the current disconnect in hardware pricing. You don't even seem to realize that Macintosh 'history' has little bearing on Apple's new Intel policy of upgrading vastly more often as a result of not having remotely unique hardware anymore. In the past, you could not upgrade what did not yet exist due to low market volumes for such things as PowerPC processors.

Some of us care more about MacOSX than cutesy cases. Some of us don't care about the "old" Macs because before MacOSX, the MacOS wasn't very good. It was slow, buggy, bloated and had no hooks for power users whereas MacOSX is based on BSD Unix and is vastly more stable, powerful and capable than its predecessor.

If Apple itself could get beyond its own backward thinking, it would realize the time is ripe to take on Microsoft directly (given Vista is an abject failure and a bloated piece of crap) and stop producing product lines to milk a small user base when it SHOULD be trying hard to recruit a new larger user base of PC switchers. And guess what? PC users are used to having hardware choices and good GPUs. So while YOU may not give a crap about gaming or 3D, you do no represent the larger computing market. And THAT market is a gold mine for Apple. YOU are the past. General computing is the future. It's time Apple's product line reflected THAT market, not just the old way of thinking.

 

[DMann]

Firefox, Word, Picasa and gmail.

I suspected so. If you play it safe, (stick with MS for apps on XP) you should be fine, for a while.

And? OSX Tiger has double that of XP according to this:

That's correct. However, since most of the 86+ million lines of code are open source, Apple does not have to maintain and/or rewrite all of it.
Apple would never attempt to do all that maintenance in house - this would be insane.

But one they accomplish quite well considering it'll run on everything - including Apple machines.

For this very reason: run, and stumble when running a large variety of processor intensive apps simultaneously. One misstep by either the OS, app, or processor, and the whole system comes crashing down.

I'm goign to skip the rest because your argument is essentially flawed - firstly you didn't know that XP and Vista are NT based, not DOS based. Secondly OSX actually has a a higher SLOC count that either of them.

Firstly, NT based or not, MS cannot handle the 35 million lines of code in XP, nor the 60 lines of code in Vista with support for multiple platforms by themselves - way too big to do in house. Secondly, the 86+ million lines of code in Leopard are for the most part maintained by open source developers, so this is not such a daunting task for Apple.

I don't mind people criticising OSs but I do expect them to know why their criticising them.

I find it hard to trust a company who's original OS was named Quick and Dirty Operating System. UNIX has been rock solid for over 37 years. During Longhorn's development in 2003-04, the entire thing was scrapped and started over, re-building upon the Windows Server 2003 codebase. Now, MS claims they'll be rewriting the entire OS for Win7 - not at all worthy of confidence. Since S. Ballmer makes it very clear that priorities are to be focused on competing with Google, Advertising, and indulging in other distractions related to Web apps and the mobile phone and MP3 arenas, I feel OS development will sooner than later be phased out by Microsoft.

Let's split the difference at 2011 then?

With S. Ballmer in charge? I don't believe so.

UAC can be disabled and, even if it's not, quickly settles down once you've used the program. It's not that much of an issue.

Viral vigilance is no longer necessary nor desirable in the 21st Century - I'll stay with OS X.

Well, fine. That's why OSX isn't really a lot of use to me just now though.

Well fine, if you choose to run mostly MS apps, you ought to be ok, just watch your a**

 

[G58]

You may well be genetically predisposed to AAD [Aesthetic Appreciation Denial]. It's really your only excuse for making a comment like that and expecting ANYONE to believe you or take your comment seriously.

Apple computers don't look like any other computers. One only has to be shown a small area of any Mac to identify it as a Mac and not a PC.

Next you'll be telling us that daisies are just like roses!

I hate to tell you this but I think this applies to operating systems that aren't OS X as well.

I bought a Mac to run my OS X software. What's with the rest of your post? The Macbook looks just like every other laptop on the market. What's special about it besides it meets the requirements to run OS X within the binds of the EULA? It's x86/x64 processors and OEM components in a plastic shell wired together to run an operating system. It's a tool.

 

[G58]

Another word on malware:

Think of your choice of operating system as you do your own health. You can guard against illness by eating healthily, and most of us do. You can guard against malware by choosing the best OS.

But if you had to take drugs every day, and renew your treatment on a monthly basis - without any guarantee that the new treatment will protect you from new variants of some 440,000 illnesses, you might be a bit upset.

Well, that's what running a PC is like. Sure, you may be used to it. People with long term illness get used to similar routines. But if you're actually healthy, and you have the choice to stay that way, why would you opt for the other way?

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

It's not nearly that bothersome, though. It's mostly automatic. My virus scan is set to scan every other day at 4am, and it updates automatically. That's about the extent of my anti-malware activities, and I've never had a virus in over a decade of using the internet.

 

[Roba]

Laptops that sell for <£600 are budget notebooks and notebooks that retail for £700-£900 are mid range notebooks and there are many competitors that compete in this market. Probably high end in the US starts at around $1,600 plus.
Samsung, Sony, Dell, Acer and Toshiba all compete in the mid range market. I find those results in the US a bit hard to believe. There is no way that the Sony CR model is a high end notebook and this competes with the MB.
The Toshiba U405 can also be bought for $1,149 and this also mid range notebook. I think that they need to look again at what they define as being high end.

The MBP/MBA is a high end computer but Sony, Dell and other companies also compete in this market as well. More PC high end notebooks are also sold to big companies. The Sony SZ and TZ are examples of high end PC notebooks. Dell also have some with the more expensive M1330 models and the Precision range of notebooks. The Panasonic Toughbooks are also high end notebooks. Lenovo and Asus also sell high end notebooks.

 

[Eidorian]

Linux Ubuntu? Not quite there yet. Amiga OS was tight for the time period it survived. Solaris? Still waiting........ UNIX? potentially yes. My point is that Windows couldn't possibly be streamlined designed to work seamlessly on any one particular machine the way that OS X can because the permutations of computer systems MS must cater to are too vast.

You make it sound like no other operating system can interact with its hardware in the most efficient manner besides OS X.

You may well be genetically predisposed to AAD [Aesthetic Appreciation Denial]. It's really your only excuse for making a comment like that and expecting ANYONE to believe you or take your comment seriously.

Apple computers don't look like any other computers. One only has to be shown a small area of any Mac to identify it as a Mac and not a PC.

Next you'll be telling us that daisies are just like roses!

They're both flowers.

The MacBook's design can trace itself back to the PowerBook 100 just like every laptop. There aren't many changes that you can make with the layout of a keyboard, trackpad, and display. Are you trying to tell me that Apple has done something special to make the Macbook something more then just a laptop? What is it then?