I am suprised too, but if you thinking about how all the crazy people here flames anyone which just happen to drop a line against mac, then it's not a surprise. 😀mark88 said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Pros in High Demand, Increased Mac Market Share?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
windmaomao said:
High Prices, No Pro Apps, reported screen Problems, reported noise problems, Rev A....
All those things kept my money from leaving my pocket.
nicksoper said:
Well, I kinda disagree with this sort of info. Right, 44% and it'll stop there? Once it gets to that point, give 1, 2 years max for the Mac OS to be so widespread that people quit having the mental block of Windows compatibility...since schools etc will start becoming Mac-friendly...then the workplace, though perhaps much slower. 44%? Reach that and the Mac will push Windows hard, probably get past 50% easily if Apple can get it to 44%. I mean, that's a perfect side-by-side comparison on equal hardware and everything...people will buy Macs because of OS X being better than Windows, not because it can do both. Then start dropping the price to a point others cannot easily copy as you gain market share....that'd be so neat.
budward said:
hi, sometime, it's not who the best, it's about who did it first. Don't ever call your boss moron just because of him still sticking with windows for no reasons. People don't like to change, if they want, they want to change a bit at a time.
besides, personally I don't understand why so many ppl hate microsoft that much, who used mac from the day one here? I mean count after you born. seriously, no pc, well ... life probably could be better 😉
ErnieFrance4 said:
Funny, back in the day Apple had a near monopoly in the education market, everybody bought Apple II machines lab after lab. In fact, it quite ticked me off because back then there were several major vendors -- PC, TRS-80, Commodore, Atari, etc, and I didn't like that they picked Apple to represent the entire market, which it did not. Apple got quite lazy and complacent thanks in part to this captive market (kind of like the domestic auto makers with the rental car fleets).
I'm curious to know where they got their figures, probably from a campus with an Apple store.
Universal Booting Killer Mactel
Make this and we will place hunderds on our University computing rooms:
- Boots and natively runs Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.
As simple as that! Besides, millions of people around the world will purchase such universal machine. Apple market share will move from 3% to 25% in three years.
And developers will continue to make Mac OS X software because once people use Mac OS X they will never return to the awkward virus-filled and cumbersome Windoze!
Make this and we will place hunderds on our University computing rooms:
- Boots and natively runs Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.
As simple as that! Besides, millions of people around the world will purchase such universal machine. Apple market share will move from 3% to 25% in three years.
And developers will continue to make Mac OS X software because once people use Mac OS X they will never return to the awkward virus-filled and cumbersome Windoze!
sushi
Moderator emeritus
Rossetta is not an issue for me.nicksoper said:
What I suspect, is that there are many long time Mac users who still use Classic apps. For me, that will be the big conversion to only using X apps.
Eventually I need to ween myself off of Classic. Still use it for many things (WordProcessing, E-mail, some games, etc.).
budward said:
he is right though..laptops get hot. And any fool on the planet should assume that the MBP will get nice and toasty.
I'm not interested in dual boot at all.
The prospect of Darwine and VPC8 are far more interesting. I want everything in one place within a couple of clicks of each other. Having to reboot and load windows for me would be alot worse than running a dual setup with mac/pc and a KVM.
The prospect of Darwine and VPC8 are far more interesting. I want everything in one place within a couple of clicks of each other. Having to reboot and load windows for me would be alot worse than running a dual setup with mac/pc and a KVM.
Stridder44 said:
I have to question your definition of "insanely well", since all the Mac has is a beachhead, a toe-hold in the market. Holding on in the face of the Windows juggernaught and surviving is, I suppose, successful. But how long can they hold out? Do you want the 5% stalemate to persist forever? It's like holding your finger in the dyke. As soon as you get tired the floodwaters come.
Don't get me wrong, I own 2 1/2 macs. Apple is prospering in its cubbyhole. But it isn't doing "insanely well".
Back on subject, I'm eagerly awaiting dual-boot. Having been around Macs in the business world, there are just apps they can't run that businesses need. Just in my case, I need MS Project and dozens of other tools that don't exist on the Mac. I'd like to be able to use the Mac the 90% of the time I can and have dual boot for the other 10% -- those times when I'd have to go and get a 2nd laptop or defer to someone with a PC.
brepublican
macrumors 6502a
This debate is getting lame. Dual booting wont be possible on Intel Macs. Not now, not ever. Over Steve's dead body. Live with it. If you need to use Windows apps every single day (like me and almost every other mac user) get a Windows desktop. Period.
Its a stupid excuse to say I use this and that every day so I need to dual boot. Bogus. So does everyone else. Get over it. Gosh. If you love Windows so much get a friggin Windows box. Frick on a stick!
Its a stupid excuse to say I use this and that every day so I need to dual boot. Bogus. So does everyone else. Get over it. Gosh. If you love Windows so much get a friggin Windows box. Frick on a stick!
windmaomao said:
Micrsoft is why we hate microsoft..I used windows for years and switched to mac about 6 years ago..and after using only OS9!! I realized what I'd been missing...but most of all realized that it could have been done better and faster and more secure and Microsoft had either willfully not tried hard enough to create a better system or even worse were too stupid and lazy to do better...F**K Gates!
schatten
macrumors member
I've said it before & I'll say it again...
The KEY reason not to run Windows on a Mac or (even worse) run Windows software in Mac OSX, is because that damages Apple's position with software vendors.
I mean, why should Adobe make Photoshop for Mac OSX if you could just use the Windows version on your Mac (either by booting to Windows, or running it within OSX)? Why would MS continue to make MS Office for Mac OSX if you can run the Windows version on your Mac?
That's what happened to IBM's OS/2. Do you remember OS/2? It could run Windows applications. Nobody developed OS/2 Apps. Now it's gone.
That's what worries me; not this "dirtying the Mac by running Windows on it" nonsense.
The KEY reason not to run Windows on a Mac or (even worse) run Windows software in Mac OSX, is because that damages Apple's position with software vendors.
I mean, why should Adobe make Photoshop for Mac OSX if you could just use the Windows version on your Mac (either by booting to Windows, or running it within OSX)? Why would MS continue to make MS Office for Mac OSX if you can run the Windows version on your Mac?
That's what happened to IBM's OS/2. Do you remember OS/2? It could run Windows applications. Nobody developed OS/2 Apps. Now it's gone.
That's what worries me; not this "dirtying the Mac by running Windows on it" nonsense.
42gb said:
...is one that fails to recognize its endorsement of a commercial product. You have to buy your own computer, but it MUST run the software we chose for the majority, since we don't care that there are other ways or that those who bought computers more viable for other work (that is, Macs) will need to spend more money. I mean, we're a law school, right? We know there's no law against disregarding minorities at our school, so long as it's about something like computers and not race/people.
Rant over
"only works on a true Windows system..." maybe I've always had a fake Windows system, since nothing I have "only works"...each of my software "only works poorly or not at all".... Lol.
This will be the best thing for Apple
This will encourage windows people to buy a MAC. They will use both operating systems for a while, but in the end they will keep using os X more and more and eventually get rid of Windows. Just Imagine a day were Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer do not longer exist !.
This will encourage windows people to buy a MAC. They will use both operating systems for a while, but in the end they will keep using os X more and more and eventually get rid of Windows. Just Imagine a day were Windows and Microsoft Internet Explorer do not longer exist !.
sushi
Moderator emeritus
You might want to dig a little deeper into OS/2 development and Microsofts roll in it.schatten said:
Because you have no choice in that you must run some windows apps.m-dogg said:
Mac is fine for everything else, but some cases you must have a PC to accomplish your job.
By having a dual boot, or a fast VPC, one can carry one laptop vice two...
...or only the PC! Arg!
brepublican said:
Ahem
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Apple has no objection whatsoever to people running Windows on their Macs, so unless we're to interpret your comment as merely being against dual booting, that is, the concept of having multiple operating systems installed on the same hard drive (and I'll be interested in hearing your logic), I don't think the signs suggest Jobs would object at all.
I have to chime in here. Not only was I an avid OS/2 user/fanatic, I worked at IBM as an intern during the OS/2 2.0 release.ewinemiller said:
People were buying OS/2 for OS/2 in the business world, in the 1.x days. Windows 3.x support was added in late in the development cycle, once they saw Windows 3.0 taking off. Much like the case the Mac has been through with the 68k->PPC, OSX, and Intel transitions, it gave the DOS/Windows compatability as an option but it was always preferable to have a native app. Yes, it added value by offering true multitasking and virtual machine protection. But the best way to go was to get a native application.
Where Apple is caught in the same position as OS/2 is this: By making your operating system a superset of another (what IBM tried with OS/2 vis-a-vie DOS/Windows), then yes you do get the benefit of running the other guy's applications PLUS your own applications. However, you get caught in two traps:
(1) You are not in control of the platform you are encapsulating. IBM did not control what Microsoft did with Windows. So MS came out with Windows 3.1 and their applications started "requiring" features in it, breaking OS/2 compatibility; and then Windows 95, which OS/2 could not handle and fizzled out. The problem is the platform you're trying to be compatible with is always moving. You end up reacting to the other guy's changes with significan lag time.
(2) Application vendors will not write native applications. In the case of OS/2, why would software vendor X bother to write an OS/2 native version of their application when the Windows version works on OS/2? The developers look at it like this: I can write one version that services 95% of the market and can run under a virtual machine on the remaining 5%; or I can write TWO versions with the second hitting a very very small portion of the market. What do you think they're going to do?
IMO Apple IS caught in this trap w.r.t. Windows. Let's face it, the fact that applications are missing on the Mac is why those who want to dual boot are interested in it. Even Microsoft doesn't port all of its large applications to the Mac. Many vendors don't.
The idea of having an OS is to get people to write applications for it. This is one of the fronts on which the Mac has lost, it's always going to come 2nd to the larger Windows market. You said so yourself.
But I think Apple does have a trump card that gets them out of these traps. Yellow box. Get developers to write "Mac applications" that also happen to work on Windows. Get 100% of the market with one application build. It also capitalizes on MS's relative complacence in the compiler market as of late, if Apple can offer superior development tools.
sushi said:
Still, the point that developers would have to be encouraged to continue writing software for both OS's makes sense. Ultimately, I think Jobs has it figured out. Don't encourage/discourage it, hope that Windows will be a you'd-if-you-had-to addition to the Mac, possible but out of your way. That way, people that truly want Mac will switch and then get Windows separately, though of course this cuts down the number of switchers based on price. The plus is that you can combat Windows's i-can't-imagine-using-anything-else with the same for Mac, rather than why-not-both? If Apple chose to make Windows readily and totally available, well, that would just kinda reek for the future of Macs. Here's a really stupid analogy - say you have a Canon printer that normally uses Canon ink...well, what if another company makes it possible to use Third Party Ink in all its inkiness, even if Canon despises Third Party Ink Co for being foolish and the Ink is not that great? Canon wouldn't ship advertisements for TP Ink with its printer, but if TP Ink is popular enough to turn some people away from Canon, they might not keep it from getting into the printer. They can hope that the consumer can compare between the two and make a smart choice...if not, a necessary choice.
ctachme
macrumors member
I agree that dual-booting isn't as good as some type of compatibilty layer... but only if that compatiblity layer is a lot better than classic, because, frankly, classic sucks.
If someone can give me a compatibilty layer with 100% functionality and 90%-100% speed... plus 100% native video card support... I'll jump on it in a second. But if they think they can get away with emulating the video card like VPC does now... I'm just going to dual boot.
There is one reason, I want Windows on my Mac: to play my Windows games. If some fancy compatablity layer can't give me virually native performance, than forget it.
If someone can give me a compatibilty layer with 100% functionality and 90%-100% speed... plus 100% native video card support... I'll jump on it in a second. But if they think they can get away with emulating the video card like VPC does now... I'm just going to dual boot.
There is one reason, I want Windows on my Mac: to play my Windows games. If some fancy compatablity layer can't give me virually native performance, than forget it.
I'm glad that the Apple Store I bought mines from didn't have a waiting list. Just kept on calling and finally got a positive response.
This is my first Mac and I didn't switch from PC to Mac, I just work with both of them. I still use the PC for Photoshop and all those other programs that run slow on my Macbook Pro. Though, I use my Macbook over the G5s we have at school... haha! I love this thing!
One reason I would want to have Windows on my Macbook, so I can run Adobe products and Flash. They are workable, but still runs slow. If Adobe were to come out with a universal binary, my PC would turn into a TIVO and gaming machine.
This is my first Mac and I didn't switch from PC to Mac, I just work with both of them. I still use the PC for Photoshop and all those other programs that run slow on my Macbook Pro. Though, I use my Macbook over the G5s we have at school... haha! I love this thing!
One reason I would want to have Windows on my Macbook, so I can run Adobe products and Flash. They are workable, but still runs slow. If Adobe were to come out with a universal binary, my PC would turn into a TIVO and gaming machine.