Why are there more PC users?

[TheDance511]

Hey all... I love macs and i always will..they all hold a special place in my heart that no woman can rip out....(for those of you that read my previous thread if not dont worry about it) My question is Howcome there are more PC users..I thought Apple came before Microsoft... Is it the applications...what put Pc's at the top..I personally think the Mac OS is better..but why don't they? Any ideas? i dont know... i was kinda wondering so ithought id ask.. thankyou all

 

[nitynate]

The simple fact that Microsoft OS's could run on any machine.
Macs were slow, and overpriced back than compared to PC's.

 

[zap2]

Its a long, complex story...its basicly Apple's history up until the mid-late 90s, when it was clear MS has won, and starting there it was more about Apple trying to survive, not take down MS.

But IMO it comes down to a few things.

1)MS copying Apple, if the hadn't done this Windows would have sucked (even more so then it currently does)

2) Apple's price, they were expensive and with Windows 3 the pros weren't as big as the pros were for Windows 1 and 2.

3) Apple really had bad Mac computer, the G4 was getting killed by Intel stuff before the G5 came(which didn't do much for laptops)

4) Apple unwillingness to share Mac OS until it was to late. This move might have help Apple be so good for us, but it why MS has more marketshare.

 

[flyinmac]

Hey all... I love macs and i always will..they all hold a special place in my heart that no woman can rip out....(for those of you that read my previous thread if not dont worry about it) My question is Howcome there are more PC users..I thought Apple came before Microsoft... Is it the applications...what put Pc's at the top..I personally think the Mac OS is better..but why don't they? Any ideas? i dont know... i was kinda wondering so ithought id ask.. thankyou all

Well, from my perspective, they shot themselves.

They had a dominant educational market share with the Apple II series. And, that would have eventually lead to people moving up the line to better machines.

But, Apple chose to force people to switch to the Macs prematurely.

They couldn't stop sales of the Apple II series. It was a machine that would sell no matter how much you wanted it to stop. Apple just couldn't get people to buy the Mac. They all wanted the Apple II.

So, Apple decided it knew better than the customers. So, they assumed that if they stopped producing the Apple II that people would just buy the Mac.

Well, they guessed wrong. They discontinued the Apple II, and people like me bought a PC.

Why? Well, I (and many others) had just spent nearly $3000 on a brand-new Apple II machine. And, within a month received the bad news. Apple was discontinuing all support for the Apple II series. Not just discontinuing production. Discontinuing all support.

So, that leaves a bit of a bad taste in your mouth. I spend $3000 on a computer. And, Apple abandons it. And, then they had the nerve to assume I'd buy a Mac to replace the machine that they just abandoned. Well, instead, I vowed never to own or use another Apple product again. I purchased a PC.

So, what am I doing with a Mac now? Well approx. 10 years later, I ran a computer service company. I started getting calls from Mac users who couldn't get Apple to help them. They had Mac computers, and for one reason or another Apple was denying them service or support.

So, I purchased a Mac to get a handle on the way they worked and learn about them. I decided that if Apple wouldn't support the local people, that I would. So, I got a machine and set about learning all I could to assist them, and provide them with my own support to replace Apple (since Apple wasn't helping them).

When I closed-up shop sometime later, I had grown tired of Windows (from years and years of working with it). I just wanted to look at something different. At the time, the Mac OS was in shameful condition, but I didn't need much at the time.

When OS X was released, my opinion was vastly improved. I've stuck with them since. Though, my opinion of their support hasn't changed. If it wasn't for the new local shop here in town, I'd be stuck with some dead machines (Apple denied service on the phone, but the local shop fixed them under warranty anyway since the defect was a manufacturing defect and I was within the first few months of the warranty).

If it wasn't for the local support, I'd be terrified of being stuck with a defective machine from Apple (unless it was a defect I could fix myself).

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

It seems Apple has worked harder then anyone to make its marketshare as little as it could. I still wonder if Apple would even be here without pods. They really have made so many errors in the computer market. Another one thats worth mention in my view is the All in ones and how they ran off all so many people and even today All in ones chase away PC users that have nice displays. Say for example you have $1000-$1500 to burn but own a big TV or nice LCD display. Apple has ......0........Nothing Stuff like this.

 

[flyinmac]

It seems Apple has worked harder then anyone to make its marketshare as little as it could. I still wonder if Apple would even be here without pods. They really have made so many errors in the computer market. Another one thats worth mention in my view is the All in ones and how they ran off all so many people and even today All in ones chase away PC users that have nice displays. Say for example you have $1000-$1500 to burn but own a big TV or nice LCD display. Apple has ......0........Nothing Stuff like this.

Yes, their insistence that you either buy an all-in-one or spend $1000 more to get a decent powered system is a major issue with me.

I am looking to buy another Mac. I need one with more power than my current systems offer. But, they don't offer anything that fits my needs.

The mini is over-priced, and too weak of a system for my needs.

The iMac line fits my power needs, but I will not buy another all-in-one from Apple (been down that road twice, very bad).

And, the Mac Pro is not only much more than I need, but also priced well above what's justifiable for my needs.

Right now, I have a PC sitting next to my current Mac. I'm bouncing between the two systems while I wait for Apple to release something that actually fits my needs.

Apple would have had money from me quite a while ago if they would release something other than an all-in-one as their mid-range computer.

I don't want an all-in-one. When one part breaks, the whole system is gone. I've been through this more than once with the iMac G5 systems. The screen failed, so I was without a computer. The computer failed, so I was without a computer and a screen (if I still had a screen, I could have used a loaner from someone). I went through that several times with each machine. It taught me to never buy an all-in-one again.

At least with a separate monitor, if the LCD screen dies, I just put another screen on it and keep working. I went through 3 LCD screens in one year (between two iMac G5 systems), and found that I was out my entire system each time while I awaited the return of the system with a new LCD screen.

That taught me well.

It's the same complaint I've always thought of when I've considered an all-in-one television. Suppose the VCR or DVD player dies. Now you don't have a television at all while you are waiting for the shop to repair your VCR or DVD player.

 

[YS2003]

MS is the power house for marketing. They can sell anything regardless of the quality of the products/services they sell. Bill Gates created the business model that software would be very important in PC industry. He teamed up with IBM and others to start out the PC industry and Windows became the de-facto OS of the world. Through MS's "take no prisoner" business plan, they have achieved the market saturation point. Once you reach that point, you can sell anything. You can even sell your dog as a cat. MS is very good at marketing. Product quality does not matter. I know their products are very shoddy at best. If MS started as a new internet newbie, it won't survive even for a year.

 

[Leareth]

Mostly its because people don't know any better.
and no I don't mean that sarcastically. I have switched a number of people to macs or linux just by showing them there is another choice out there that just works.
People look at prices before they look at anything else.
a $500 PC looks better than a $1,500 iMac but when you add the subscription prices to anti-virus SW, RAM upgrades, video cards, wireless cards etc to the $500 it suddenly is more than the iMac.

Plus there are just more games for PC's , I bought a PC just before the intel macs were announced for one work project, the only thing I use it for is game play and occasional double check for PPT's.

 

[0007776]

I think that it is because you can get PCs for much less than a Mac, and if you want to play games you almost have to get a PC.

 

[flyinmac]

MS is the power house for marketing. They can sell anything regardless of the quality of the products/services they sell. Bill Gates created the business model that software would be very important in PC industry. He teamed up with IBM and others to start out the PC industry and Windows became the de-facto OS of the world. Through MS's "take no prisoner" business plan, they have achieved the market saturation point. Once you reach that point, you can sell anything. You can even sell your dog as a cat. MS is very good at marketing. Product quality does not matter. I know their products are very shoddy at best. If MS started as a new internet newbie, it won't survive even for a year.

I'm no Microsoft lover. But, I think you'd find Mac OS X equally unstable or inferior if it had to deal with as many drivers and potential hardware combinations as Windows does.

The problem, is that Microsoft has to account for everything. Apple's OS X only has to worry about the system builds and configurations that it has personally supplied. Everytime they they alter the system configuration and introduce a model that uses different hardware, they release a new build or customized version of OS X to ship with that computer.

Microsoft has to build one product that will work with everything that any company might combine to build a system. They don't have the luxury of dealing with only certain system configurations.

While I don't like them, I will give Microsoft credit for doing an amazing job of getting Windows to run at all considering what they have to work with. Consider how many billions of computers ship with Windows on them every year. And, then how many of those configurations are completely dissimilar (almost as many as there are systems shipping).

Now, on the other hand, Apple only has a few hundred configurations in it's entire history (a little under 500 total according to the MacTracker database that describes every system in the Mac line - including Mac Clones).

Then, consider that the current version of OS X only has to worry about the machines with a higher-end G3 or later at the moment, and that drops it down a only around 100 or so unique configurations that OS 10.4.x has to support.

So, considering that OS X 10.4.x only has to support about 100 +/- unique configurations of sound cards, CPU's, video cards, logic boards, ethernet interfaces, etc, you can see that OS X has quite an advantage.

Windows XP and Vista, on the other hand, have to run and be reasonably stable on literally millions if not billions of potential hardware combinations of CPU's, main boards, graphics chips / video cards, sound cards, ethernet interfaces, etc.

So, that Microsoft can make it work at all with that many variables is actually impressive by comparison.

Of course, it's painful to say anything nice about Microsoft. But, I do have to give them credit for what they have done well.

 

[YS2003]

I'm no Microsoft lover. But, I think you'd find Mac OS X equally unstable if it had to deal with as many drivers and potential hardware combinations as Windows does.

The problem, is that Microsoft has to account for everything. Apple's OS X only has to worry about the system builds and configurations that it has personally supplied. Everytime they they alter the system configuration and introduce a model that uses different hardware, they release a new build or customized version of OS X to ship with that computer.

Microsoft has to build one product that will work with everything that any company might combine to build a system. They don't have the luxury of dealing with only certain system configurations.

While I don't like them, I will give Microsoft credit for doing an amazing job of getting Windows to run at all considering what they have to work with. Consider how many billions of computers ship with Windows on them every year. And, then how many of those configurations are completely dissimilar (almost as many as there are systems shipping).

Now, on the other hand, Apple only has a few hundred configurations in it's entire history (a little under 500 total according to the MacTracker database that describes every system in the Mac line - including Mac Clones).

Then, consider that the current version of OS X only has to worry about the machines with a higher-end G3 or later at the moment, and that drops it down a only around 100 or so unique configurations that OS 10.4.x has to support.

So, considering that OS X 10.4.x only has to support about 100 +/- unique configurations of sound cards, CPU's, video cards, logic boards, ethernet interfaces, etc, you can see that OS X has quite an advantage.

Windows XP and Vista, on the other hand, have to run and be reasonably stable on literally millions if not billions of potential hardware combinations of CPU's, main boards, graphics chips / video cards, sound cards, ethernet interfaces, etc.

So, that Microsoft can make it work at all with that many variables is actually impressive by comparison.

Of course, it's painful to say anything nice about Microsoft. But, I do have to give them credit for what they have done well.

Even though your points are very good, it is important to note MS's business model is to sell its software. MS has to create the software on which other hardware/software made by other companies can work. MS's business model calls for "compatibility" for 3rd party makers. So, it is no surprise there are more parts compatabile for Windows.
Apple has a different business model, which is to sell the entire package. Bill Gate's recent infamous (depending on your position on this issue) confirmed that point when he was ridiculing Apple is copying MS's so called inventions."

 

[flyinmac]

Even though your points are very good, it is important to note MS's business model is to sell its software. MS has to create the software on which other hardware/software made by other companies can work. MS's business model calls for "compatibility" for 3rd party makers. So, it is no surprise there are more parts compatabile for Windows.
Apple has a different business model, which is to sell the entire package. Bill Gate's recent infamous (depending on your position on this issue) confirmed that point when he was ridiculing Apple is copying MS's so called inventions."

Quite true. The business model does present a different set of requirements. It's just that most people tend to bash Windows based on it being poorly coded and an inferior product. But, I've found that it is actually written very skillfully and an excellent product if you use it on the right hardware (oh no, I'm sounding like a Windows lover).

By that, I mean that if you put Windows on the right hardware, it will not crash. I did operate as a System Builder and a licensed OEM of Microsoft products and sold PC's and other hardware for several years. While the version of Windows was different then, the level of complaints about stability was about the same.

But, I chose the hardware that went into my machines very carefully, and as a result, my customers (who called frequently just to talk about their machines - had a close relationship with my customer base) always praised my machines telling me that they never had them crash.

Because of the confidence I had in my systems, I gave them a very generous onsite and in-home warranty that covered everything (which was unheard of at the time) because I knew I'd never have to service them. And, that was almost the case. I did have one system come back in about five years later for a replacement CMOS battery. Popped a new one in there, and sent him on the way. He was pleased, and told me he hadn't ever had a single problem in that time (other than the CMOS battery finally dying).

I got a lot of referrals when their friends were discussing system crashes. And, it was nice to know that my machines were so stable that they couldn't crash them. I loved having conversations instead of support calls with people who purchased my machines. Of course, I really liked support calls from people who bought machines from someone else because that paid the bills.

But, when it came to building machines for my customers, I would only use a components that I had personally checked, and verified would produce a reliable system. I turned-away customers who wanted something that I knew was trouble. I'd offer them an alternative, or send them to someone else. If they bought elsewhere, then they usually came back seeking support and repairs.

But, the point being, that the Windows environment can be stable. It just needs the right hardware.

But, yes, you are correct. It's their business model that dictates the need to be compatible with so many machines and account for so many millions of variables.

They do have a hardware compatibility list that they publish annually. And, if you adhere to that list, then you really increase the odds of getting a rock-solid system. Of course, the standards I used were even more stringent than that list was at the time. But, the list is a good place to start. Their hardware compatibility list generally provides you with a list of the components that they find have a greater chance of success when use in combination with each-other.

Oh no, it's all coming back. I think I'll shut-up now before I remember too much of my past life