Seems odd to me that Apple can dominate sales in MP3 players, smart phones and tablet computers but when it comes to PC sales, they aren't even close. I think price is the main issue. Most people try to go cheap with their computers for some odd reason. Fear of a new OS is probably another which is odd seeing as how these people are using Apple products daily anyways. Thoughts?
I think it's one of the world greatest ironies. Macs don't sell well because people have brand recognition of Windows. They think they need Windows to run anything they need to run. And, depending on your needs, this may actually be correct, but I'd wager that 80% of the PC owning population would be just as fine on a Mac as they would on a Windows machine.
The ironic part is that this is why iPods and the iPhone are so successful today. People think that anything that isn't an iPod or an iPhone is a cheap knock off and can't do what they need to do. So Apple sells a lot of them.
simple fact is a comparably equipped Windows PC is sometimes only half the cost of a Mac. You're paying a premium for the brand. I'm oversimplifying, of course. But I do believe that cost is a big factor. If cell phone companies didn't subsidize iPhones as much as they do, I don't think they'd sell as well as they have.
__________________
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Help me out: Sign up with Dropbox and we both get 250-500MB extra space. Thanks!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to novox77 For This Useful Post:
simple fact is a comparably equipped Windows PC is sometimes only half the cost of a Mac. You're paying a premium for the brand. I'm oversimplifying, of course. But I do believe that cost is a big factor. If cell phone companies didn't subsidize iPhones as much as they do, I don't think they'd sell as well as they have.
1) Price. When walking though Bestbuy, most people will see Windows laptops that are 2-3 times cheaper than Macbook Pro's.
2) Fear of incompatibility. In a Windows-dominant world, people are uncertain whether their Macs will be able to run the same programs/do the same things as their PC's.
If I need a new gfx card for my win PC, I just go & buy one & put it in.
New hard disk Sir - not a prob, some shiny new faster memory, for sure - how much do you need?
Software - 90% of what is needed most is PC only, you have to "make do" with mac related software choice.
Software licensing for business, it's a no brainer with Win PC will win this one, and so the work user base becomes the home user base - I use a Win PC at work, so I will get what I know for home - a win PC.
__________________
If you like my post and I helped, please click the thanks button
Uh, no you don't. Unless there is a Mac-only app that is a dealbreaker, PC's run the same graphic software just fine. The only thing you need to do is get a decent monitor and calibrate it. Of course there is a long standing industry belief that Mac's are for creative people, but that's simply not true.
Don't get me wrong. Mac's are fine machines and will provide all the tools necessary to get the job done, but you don't "have" to have one to be in the graphic design business.
Device(s): Droid x CM7, droid 1 CM7, Dinc 2, Droid Razr rooted debloated, Galaxy Nexus rooted&unlocked, xoom, d
Thanks: 160
Thanked 286 Times in 209 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunatic59
Uh, no you don't. Unless there is a Mac-only app that is a dealbreaker, PC's run the same graphic software just fine. The only thing you need to do is get a decent monitor and calibrate it. Of course there is a long standing industry belief that Mac's are for creative people, but that's simply not true.
Don't get me wrong. Mac's are fine machines and will provide all the tools necessary to get the job done, but you don't "have" to have one to be in the graphic design business.
didn't it used to be the case that mac's were better for graphics back when they did a lot of in house products and proprietary hardware?
I went Winders because I ain't cool enough for a Mac.
My first laptops were costly and I once bought a new Powerbook because it was cheaper than a Windows machine. Back in the day when a 486 laptop with 4 MB and a 40 MB HDD was really costly compared to today.
I must say the Macbook AIR is a great little machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychotron
Seems odd to me that Apple can dominate sales in MP3 players, smart phones and tablet computers but when it comes to PC sales, they aren't even close. I think price is the main issue. Most people try to go cheap with their computers for some odd reason. Fear of a new OS is probably another which is odd seeing as how these people are using Apple products daily anyways. Thoughts?
Perhaps it is because there are hundreds of PCs arriving every year or next week at 3:00 PM and only a few Apple computers. Windows can be installed on anything, but Apple/iOS cannot be installed on anything but an Apple computer. (forget the Hackintoshs).
If Apple licensed iOS/Leopard/Lancelot/Gerbil/Smurf or whatever their OS is called, you would see lots of Apple-ish computers at Best Buy. I think the same thing if Apple licensed iOS to other phone manufacturers. You would see many more iPhone-ish smartphones.
Cost is likely an issue for some people. When I go to Best Buy, all I see are PCs and a lone table with three or four Apple Computers. Usually, the table is obscured by excessive smugness. Not a Genius in site. Not really sure if BB really cares about selling Apple computers, so perhaps it is in their best interest to push PCs. I was going with a AIR but I bought a silly little Toshiba Satellite. Less cost and in stock.
Apple, apparently, sells about 4,500,000 computers yearly. Not sure what the numbers are for Windows based systems.
I do know that we built our test computers and they ran Windows test programs as well as modem test programs created in Basic and a few DOS batch files. We would have never gone with Apple. Too costly to change everything over and we ran custom test software, so going Apple was out of the question. Perhaps corporate America buys millions of Windows machines because they are already highly invested in Windows and change would be costly. I was a technical trainer and let me tell you, it takes effort to retrain the troops.
At least we tested the Newton products on Windows systems (HA HA HA, Apple). And some UNIX/HP stuff, to be fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallandof
didn't it used to be the case that mac's were better for graphics back when they did a lot of in house products and proprietary hardware?
That is what I always seemed to hear. Only Apple works for publishing, graphics, etc. In thinking about it, perhaps we only (I only) think that, and it was not actually true. I can run all Adobe applications I need and AFAIK, they are available for Windows as well as Apple.
Perception might be why so many Apple users love their systems. No real technical reason, just hype and silly ideas about which is legitimately better.
I am sure there are some Mac only applications, but I am equally certain that there are alternatives in the Winders World.
Last edited by NightAngel79; November 1st, 2011 at 03:50 PM.
Reason: merged triple post
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,609
Thanked 5,148 Times in 3,020 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallandof
didn't it used to be the case that mac's were better for graphics back when they did a lot of in house products and proprietary hardware?
Nope. I cut my teeth in the industry as an ad agency art director in the '80s before art departments went digital. When the spit hit the spam as it were, all the things we take for granted were nonexistent. No networks. The "internet" consisted of usenet, BBS and CompuServe. Laser Printers were $5000 behemoths. with a 300 dpi resolution. A megabyte (yes, MEGAbyte) of ram cost $400... hard disk capacity was approaching 20 MB and removable media was a 3.5" floppy ... you get the picture.
The thing was Mac's cam as a package and PC's of the time had to be put together piecemeal and configured individually. It was much easier for budding IT department to plop down a few grand in capital expenses and less IT work for something they didn't understand in the first place. But in terms of ability, all the major graphic software was released for both platforms within months of each other. In the 90's there were several occasions when PC's got the release first (mostly because of all the changes needed to recode and recompile for OS X). Anyway, all the functionality and ability was there in both platforms from the very beginning, with few exceptions.
Back when I had been promoted to Creative Director for the agency, I used to say that PC's crashed more often but Mac's crashed more fatally. And it never failed that everybody was rebooting at 4:00. Something about the memory management of both systems couldn't hack 8 strait hours of intense use.
Perhaps it is because there are hundreds of PCs arriving every year or next week at 3:00 PM and only a few Apple computers. Windows can be installed on anything, but Apple/iOS cannot be installed on anything but an Apple computer. (forget the Hackintoshs).
If Apple licensed iOS/Leopard/Lancelot/Gerbil/Smurf or whatever their OS is called, you would see lots of Apple-ish computers at Best Buy. I think the same thing if Apple licensed iOS to other phone manufacturers. You would see many more iPhone-ish smartphones.
Cost is likely an issue for some people. When I go to Best Buy, all I see are PCs and a lone table with three or four Apple Computers. Usually, the table is obscured by excessive smugness. Not a Genius in site. Not really sure if BB really cares about selling Apple computers, so perhaps it is in their best interest to push PCs. I was going with a AIR but I bought a silly little Toshiba Satellite. Less cost and in stock.
Apple, apparently, sells about 4,500,000 computers yearly. Not sure what the numbers are for Windows based systems.
I do know that we built our test computers and they ran Windows test programs as well as modem test programs created in Basic and a few DOS batch files. We would have never gone with Apple. Too costly to change everything over and we ran custom test software, so going Apple was out of the question. Perhaps corporate America buys millions of Windows machines because they are already highly invested in Windows and change would be costly. I was a technical trainer and let me tell you, it takes effort to retrain the troops.
At least we tested the Newton products on Windows systems (HA HA HA, Apple). And some UNIX/HP stuff, to be fair.
If Apple licensed their OS I think they'd actually sell fewer computers as fewer people would pay the premium pricing and would buy the cheaper clones. The cheaper clones would not have the quality of hardware that Apple makes and I think the OS's reputation would be severely tarnished. Apple successfully pushes their products as premium products and if you buy one it means you are someone who values premium products. Whether that is accurate or not is another question, but that is their marketing spiel and that's what people buy.
Nope. I cut my teeth in the industry as an ad agency art director in the '80s before art departments went digital. When the spit hit the spam as it were, all the things we take for granted were nonexistent. No networks. The "internet" consisted of usenet, BBS and CompuServe. Laser Printers were $5000 behemoths. with a 300 dpi resolution. A megabyte (yes, MEGAbyte) of ram cost $400... hard disk capacity was approaching 20 MB and removable media was a 3.5" floppy ... you get the picture.
The thing was Mac's cam as a package and PC's of the time had to be put together piecemeal and configured individually. It was much easier for budding IT department to plop down a few grand in capital expenses and less IT work for something they didn't understand in the first place. But in terms of ability, all the major graphic software was released for both platforms within months of each other. In the 90's there were several occasions when PC's got the release first (mostly because of all the changes needed to recode and recompile for OS X). Anyway, all the functionality and ability was there in both platforms from the very beginning, with few exceptions.
Back when I had been promoted to Creative Director for the agency, I used to say that PC's crashed more often but Mac's crashed more fatally. And it never failed that everybody was rebooting at 4:00. Something about the memory management of both systems couldn't hack 8 strait hours of intense use.
Ahh, the good old days.
God, I feel so old. Be lucky you had a computer. Before your day, I had my day, a far more complicated day indeed. What you posted does make sense.
The company I once worked for started building Turbo Switches. A socket, a faster Intel Chip, and a Crystal embedded in polymer. Sold them through ads in Computer Shopper Magazine when it was a great magazine.
Faster meant finding compatible this and that from vendors all over the place.
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,609
Thanked 5,148 Times in 3,020 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey
God, I feel so old. Be lucky you had a computer. Before your day, I had my day, a far more complicated day indeed. What you posted does make sense.
The company I once worked for started building Turbo Switches. A socket, a faster Intel Chip, and a Crystal embedded in polymer. Sold them through ads in Computer Shopper Magazine when it was a great magazine.
Faster meant finding compatible this and that from vendors all over the place.
I could go on, too, but I fear we are straying too far off topic.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Mac's are also a one size fit's all (or more one model) type of device. Right now you have the Mac mini, the iMac and MacPro, a workstation class machine, with very little in between. Granted, most of what people use their PC's for (on a consumer level) can be done with one of those models, but the perception is there that selection is very limited.
If you are talking about the enterprise, however, Apple has never been able to figure it out ... or more like it, they want to redefine the enterprise in their paradigm, which ain't happening.
Uh, no you don't. Unless there is a Mac-only app that is a dealbreaker, PC's run the same graphic software just fine. The only thing you need to do is get a decent monitor and calibrate it. Of course there is a long standing industry belief that Mac's are for creative people, but that's simply not true.
Don't get me wrong. Mac's are fine machines and will provide all the tools necessary to get the job done, but you don't "have" to have one to be in the graphic design business.
The main reason I "have" to buy her a Mac is because both her school and work use them. With illustrator and photoshop it's much easier to use a lot of the key shortcuts, so getting used to two different sets of commands seems like to much of a hassle to her. I would much rather build her a nice PC.
It's better to just listen, and get what she wants in this situation. Then I won't have to deal with the aftermath.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to B2L For This Useful Post:
I was one of the only ones in Photoshop, Freehand and Pagemaker to cross platform.
Managed just fine. Monitor is calibrated. Printer is calibrated.
Kept losing files on the school Macs. I finally started using profanity for file names so I could find the damn files. Macs also crashed more, and when they did ----
Now I prefer Ubuntu, and am keeping 2 XP boxes offline for special software. One is for Adobe products, the other for machine embroidery.
I rarely use keyboard shortcuts. The keyboard is on a tray under the desk and usually shut. I can navigate anything with a tablet anyway. I've had Wacom since the Art ZII.
We once had a client at work who wanted to convert their entire network to Apple. Apparently the guy at the top was an Apple fanboy. They honestly had no other reason to do it than that. They had a standard Windows network with an SBS box doing file/print/email and they used Office on all their workstations to work. They wanted to replace their entire network with an Apple server (which does exist apparently) and all of their workstations with Apple products. Our company owner turned them down. He didn't want the headaches of dealing with all the users who would have no clue how to use a Mac, the headaches of getting an Apple server to work and the headaches of migrating everything from a Windows environment. MS rules enterprise and likely will for a long, long time to come.
As for all of Apple's other stuff - Palm impressed me more. I had wifi. I also would never buy a device that didn't have some kind of memory card. By using the card and the computer, I never had to install crappy software. I have a Sandisk Sansa, which is now replaced by a Coby tablet.
Seems odd to me that Apple can dominate sales in MP3 players, smart phones and tablet computers but when it comes to PC sales, they aren't even close. I think price is the main issue. Most people try to go cheap with their computers for some odd reason. Fear of a new OS is probably another which is odd seeing as how these people are using Apple products daily anyways. Thoughts?
Joe Public can be as cheap as they can on many things, not just computers, e.g. food, clothes.
Sometimes it can be a false economy. Then they wonder why that cheap plastic £300 laptop from PC world falls apart in less than a year, or their cheap clothes from Primark or Walmart disintegrate after a few months.
Sometimes it's availability as well, one can't actually buy Apple computers in this city. They're only available online. On the other hand Lenovo computers are available from many places locally, and so that's what most people tend to have.
I think the biggest single factor that influences all decisions is PRICE.
In terms of regular consumers (excludes school institutions and businesses who always has a ton of PCs), if you give them all $3,000 to spend on a computer, I'm sure the market share would swing wildly towards Mac. Now if you give 50% of those people with a limit of $1,000, PC is the only option. I'm quite sure the vast majority of regular people have a certain limit that they can't go above for a computer and often it excludes a lot of Apple's offerings.
__________________
See a post that makes you go "WTH! "? Report it!
See a post that makes you go "That was helpful! "? Thank it!
Feeling a little on a certain topic or with your device? Ask for help!
Apple, apparently, sells about 4,500,000 computers yearly. Not sure what the numbers are for Windows based systems.
Apple announced their quarterly results today, and they said they sold 4,890,000 Macs in the last three months. That's in addition to 17 million iPhones, and 11 million iPads.
As for the broader question, I think there are lots of reasons ... many based more on perception than anything else. But probably the largest reason is that Apple has chosen not to compete in the low-end market. They're sticking to the higher-end products, where the profit margins are.
Last edited by Pitamakan; October 18th, 2011 at 06:12 PM.
Reason: typo ...
I think the biggest single factor that influences all decisions is PRICE.
In terms of regular consumers (excludes school institutions and businesses who always has a ton of PCs), if you give them all $3,000 to spend on a computer, I'm sure the market share would swing wildly towards Mac. Now if you give 50% of those people with a limit of $1,000, PC is the only option. I'm quite sure the vast majority of regular people have a certain limit that they can't go above for a computer and often it excludes a lot of Apple's offerings.
IME most people balk at spending more than $1k on a computer.
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,609
Thanked 5,148 Times in 3,020 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by B2L
The main reason I "have" to buy her a Mac is because both her school and work use them. With illustrator and photoshop it's much easier to use a lot of the key shortcuts, so getting used to two different sets of commands seems like to much of a hassle to her. I would much rather build her a nice PC.
It's better to just listen, and get what she wants in this situation. Then I won't have to deal with the aftermath.
No argument in keeping the peace at home, but the keyboard shortcuts are virtually identical across platforms. On the PC you have crtl-key, OS X is cmd-key. The biggest issue would be fonts which can track differently. Just saying.
New hard disk Sir - not a prob, some shiny new faster memory, for sure - how much do you need?
Software - 90% of what is needed most is PC only, you have to "make do" with mac related software choice.
You mean I can't upgrade my hard drive on my Macbook? Crap. I wonder how this 500GB 7200 drive got in here and replaced the 320GB 5400 drive then, elves? Every program I need (and there are quite a few) are now Mac compatible. If I can't find a program that is, no problem, I can easily run Windows on my Mac although I dread doing so since it opens it up to all the viruses and crap on Windows. Those two arguments went out the "window" awhile back
I think the biggest single factor that influences all decisions is PRICE.
When I went to buy a laptop almost 4 years ago, price was a consideration but so was the quality and if the thing will last. In the end I bought a 15inch Macbook Pro, so far it's lasting very well, especially with extensive use and travel around China. I've had to replace the battery, upgraded the HDD once, and open it up to clean the fans out. Apart from that I think it's actually done very well, and should go on for another couple of years.
If I had bought a cheap own brand thing or a plastic HP or Acer or something, I'd probably have needed to replace the thing by now.
BTW I do have a Fujitsu Windows 7 UMPC as well, that I bought in Hong Kong earlier this year. This wasn't exactly cheap, but on the other hand it seems to be solidly built and should last.
Last edited by mikedt; October 18th, 2011 at 06:36 PM.
When I went to buy a laptop almost 4 years ago, price was a consideration but so was the quality and if the thing will last. In the end I bought a 15inch Macbook Pro, so far it's lasting very well, especially with extensive use and travel around China. I've had to replace the battery, upgraded the HDD once, and open it up to clean the fans out. Apart from that I think it's actually done very well, and should go on for another couple of years.
If I had bought a cheap own brand thing or a plastic HP or Acer or something, I'd probably have needed to replace the thing by now.
This is true. When I used to buy Windows laptops, I was lucky if one lasted 18 months. Between viruses, cheaply made parts and just overall performance, it was just too much. There is a lot of truth in the old saying "you get what you pay for"
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,609
Thanked 5,148 Times in 3,020 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedt
If I had bought a cheap own brand thing or a plastic HP or Acer or something, I'd probably have needed to replace the thing by now.
That's a bit of an over-generalization. I have a low end budget Compaq laptop from '05 that still runs (Ubuntu) quite nicely. I use it as a media server at outdoor functions mainly because i don't care if it falls in a lake. It hasn't and it continues to chug along.
The Following User Says Thank You to lunatic59 For This Useful Post:
I use a 5 year old Windows laptop at work. It desperately needs to be rebuilt from scratch, but it still works. My brother uses a 7-8 year old laptop. It runs XP beautifully just for surfing the 'net and other basic things.
Personally, it is the price. I'd love a mac to screw around with, but I can't justify pay $2K for a *high* end MBP when for a fraction of that price I could get a killer dell (or any brand, not dell specific ) laptop.
This is true. When I used to buy Windows laptops, I was lucky if one lasted 18 months. Between viruses, cheaply made parts and just overall performance, it was just too much. There is a lot of truth in the old saying "you get what you pay for"
Depends on how rough you are, I suppose. I tend to keep my laptops for at least five or six years and so far, I have never had a serious issue. What makes my laptops "unusable" is the technology changes and the old gals just can't carry their own weight.
simple fact is a comparably equipped Windows PC is sometimes only half the cost of a Mac. You're paying a premium for the brand. I'm oversimplifying, of course. But I do believe that cost is a big factor. If cell phone companies didn't subsidize iPhones as much as they do, I don't think they'd sell as well as they have.
You are right though. Why am I going to pay $1500-2000 for a MBP/iMac when I can get better hardware for half the price elsewhere? In this economy, it only makes sense to go with the cheaper, yet still reliable option.
__________________
"When I wake up in the morning, I piss excellence."
Personally, it is the price. I'd love a mac to screw around with, but I can't justify pay $2K for a *high* end MBP when for a fraction of that price I could get a killer dell (or any brand, not dell specific ) laptop.
I'm the same way. I'm a computer tech by trade. I'd really like to learn OS X so I can support it better. My only option is to cough up several hundred dollars for a another computer that I'll have to find a place for somewhere. I can't justify spending that much money on a computer that I may not be able to grasp how to use and may not end up using. I cannot (legally) run OS X virtually so I'm screwed.
Well I notice a huge difference in my MacBook Pro compared to the high end HP I had right before it. Sure the MB cost double but I took the HP back and gladly paid more, why? Build quality for one. The MB is alluminum and built like a tank, very solid and quality all over it. The HP had tons of plastic, the keyboard bowed and creeked when you applied any pressure while typing, the trackpad was garbage and it just felt cheaply made but cost $800. Everything from the keyboard to the trackpad to the awesome screen on the MB was much higher quality.
Then there is software. Where Apple comes thru is giving you tons of great programs for free. HP gave me a ton of bloatware for free, gee thanks! Zero bloatware to uninstall on the MB and zero time or effort having to install maximum security programs and lock the computer down like a vault before even attempting to go online. iLife runs circles around the free Windows garbage that's loaded on their laptops, much more useful. So yea, I gladly paid double to get twice the laptop.
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,609
Thanked 5,148 Times in 3,020 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychotron
Well I notice a huge difference in my MacBook Pro compared to the high end HP I had right before it. Sure the MB cost double but I took the HP back and gladly paid more, why? Build quality for one. The MB is alluminum and built like a tank, very solid and quality all over it. The HP had tons of plastic, the keyboard bowed and creeked when you applied any pressure while typing, the trackpad was garbage and it just felt cheaply made but cost $800. Everything from the keyboard to the trackpad to the awesome screen on the MB was much higher quality.
Then there is software. Where Apple comes thru is giving you tons of great programs for free. HP gave me a ton of bloatware for free, gee thanks! Zero bloatware to uninstall on the MB and zero time or effort having to install maximum security programs and lock the computer down like a vault before even attempting to go online. iLife runs circles around the free Windows garbage that's loaded on their laptops, much more useful. So yea, I gladly paid double to get twice the laptop.
Not to be argumentative (Okay, maybe a little) but you've got to expand your horizons beyond HP. I agree they make (or made) crappy cheap plasticy notebooks and loaded them with crap, but the nice thing about the PC ecosystem is there are always alternatives. Do a little shopping and you can end up with a gem. Right now my daily traveller is an Acer Aspire Timeline series that dual boots Win7 Pro and Ubuntu Ornery Ogre, or whatever the latest cutsie-poo name is . It's thin, light, powerful, and very attractive, unlike those HP Fischer Price designs. And i still have the first battery (will be 2 years old next month) and still get 7-8 hours per charge. Did I mention it was only $600?
It's a shame when someone writes of a whole category of products due to one dissatisfying experience.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lunatic59 For This Useful Post:
My answer to the original question, I detest OSx. Sure I could boot camp but then I'm buying purely for aesthetics and to me, theyre looks date quickly. Added to the cost
__________________
"I am only responsible for what I say. Not for what you understand"
Not to be argumentative (Okay, maybe a little) but you've got to expand your horizons beyond HP. I agree they make (or made) crappy cheap plasticy notebooks and loaded them with crap, but the nice thing about the PC ecosystem is there are always alternatives. Do a little shopping and you can end up with a gem. Right now my daily traveller is an Acer Aspire Timeline series that dual boots Win7 Pro and Ubuntu Ornery Ogre, or whatever the latest cutsie-poo name is . It's thin, light, powerful, and very attractive, unlike those HP Fischer Price designs. And i still have the first battery (will be 2 years old next month) and still get 7-8 hours per charge. Did I mention it was only $600?
It's a shame when someone writes of a whole category of products due to one dissatisfying experience.
One experience? Nah, not even close. That was just the most recent. I switched to Mac 5 years ago but deciided to give Windows 7 a shot with the HP laptop a few months ago and I regretted it to say the least. I have had tons of bad experiences with non Mac products, mostly poorly made computers and tons of viruses crashing hard drives. Switching to Mac was the easiest and best choice I have made, glad that Acer works for you though and you can't beat the price.
A lot of times, I think alleged Mac-PC price discussions end up being (forgive the expression) apples-and-oranges comparisons, caused in part by the fact that Apple isn't trying to compete in all segments of the personal computer market. When the comparisons are more even, Apple does end up being initially more expensive some of the time, but certainly not always. A good current example of the latter case is the Macbook Air, a machine that PC makers are finding tough to match in specs and price.
I also think that very often, when one looks at TCO (total cost of ownership) the Mac will come out ahead. Macs often last longer than Windows machines, while requiring less management along the way, and that latter point is a strong one for people who assign value to their time. I've done IT and tech support as one component of my job since the early 90s, in a mixed PC/Mac environment, and I've definitely noticed this disparity ... it's one of the reasons I've moved my home computing to the Mac platform.
Any knowledgable computer user knows how to protect their property against acquiring viruses. Complaining that Windows is more vulnerable to them is basically just showing lack of knowledge. In all my years of using Windows, I have yet to experience any kind of virus that couldn't be fixed/removed with a simple scan of some kind.
Everyone knows that Microsoft has a stranglehold on the OS market. It would only make more sense for 'hackers' to target their efforts towards the OS which is used more.
Anywho, as I was saying - it goes a long way to know how to protect your tech. Buying it doesn't do much for you if you don't know how to care for it. The same goes for mostly anything.
I've personally never been a fan of Macs. The only thing I agree with so far is that the build quality is right up there. In terms of hardware or choice there of PC/Laptops are far better. I dislike the Mac OS feel and look, can't say anything more about that.
As far as security goes it's a matter of educating yourself. In almost 15 years of working and home use I think 3, maybe 4 times I've had a virus on the specific computer I was using. Every time it was caught by the AV I was using at the time. You have a very false sense of security if you think Macs don't have exploits. My RSS feeds report of something newly exploited for Mac a few times a week. Since most Mac users have no AV (because of this false sense of security) they have no idea if they are 'infected' or not.
Then there is software. Where Apple comes thru is giving you tons of great programs for free. HP gave me a ton of bloatware for free, gee thanks! Zero bloatware to uninstall on the MB and zero time or effort having to install maximum security programs and lock the computer down like a vault before even attempting to go online. iLife runs circles around the free Windows garbage that's loaded on their laptops, much more useful. So yea, I gladly paid double to get twice the laptop.
You know, it wasn't that long ago that MS was getting sued for including software with the OS. Even IE got them slammed with anti-trust lawsuits. I dare say, that if Apple had a larger share of the market, that software would not be included for the same reasons.
Though, I do agree. Just from the little I've used iLife, I quite enjoyed it over Windows programs included. (Especially GarageBand....)
What idiot is going to actually put their password in and let that install itself on their Mac? First, you have to go to the site its on, then you have to have your Safari set to allow auto downloading, then you have to put in your pass and allow it to download. Have to be pretty dumb to get that one. You can get a virus in Windows just going to a few pages on IE. Hell, my mom got a virus just searching for and looking at pics of Kim Kardashian and Brad Pitt. So yea, the Mac OS is by and large far more secure than Windows, especially while running IE. At least Firefox and Chrome are a bit more secure.
Last edited by psychotron; October 19th, 2011 at 04:13 PM.
Complaining that Windows is more vulnerable to them is basically just showing lack of knowledge. In all my years of using Windows, I have yet to experience any kind of virus that couldn't be fixed/removed with a simple scan of some kind.
Agreed.
Its not even necessarily that its more Vulnerable either. Its because they are targetted more. Governments don't use Macs for running their countries. At most probably to design their campaign posters
Its not even necessarily that its more Vulnerable either. Its because they are targetted more. Governments don't use Macs for running their countries. At most probably to design their campaign posters
Yep! I said the same thing in my previous post. It's only obvious that it being the more popularly used OS, that it will be targeted more by hackers and scammers.
As a long time Windows user (since the IBM DOS days), long time Mac users (since the Apple II days) and seldom dabbler in linux based systems, I have quite enjoyed my 1st MBP I got a few months ago.
( Note: having worked in the creative/advertising industries I had used Macs at work for many (10?) years -- sometimes PCs -- but mostly macs. I did mostly Flash development, some Photoshop, Some Eclipse/Flex/Other programming, etc. Some media encoding, but not much re:video editing. At home I have always used Windows and built my last 3 desktop gaming rigs myself).
So anyways, I decided to go with a 13" MBP for portability and went with no additional upgrades at purchase time. I got it for something like $1400 at the store.
It's a Core i3, 4GB RAM, 500GB 5400RPM drive (I think).
I had planned on upping the RAM and/or switching to an SSD, but I found that it worked fine for what I needed it for, being powerful enough to have a mobile work-capable computer.
That said I still will likely always build my own PC gaming rigs, and may even open the MBP someday and add upgrades myself. But while I spent more, I feel good about having a different OS (helps me learn), having something with a Unix based terminal, and having a very solidly built mobile work-capable computer. Most likely my next project is to start playing with virtualized Linux, and see if I can revive some old desktops I have.
But my needs were specific, I recently recommended a $600 Lenovo PC laptop to a friend with almost as good specs as my MBP. However I am still quite pleased with my purchased. But for here, the Lenovo met the needs better. More an office computer/desktop replacement + can play movies, etc.
Also I think the "Macs are better for creative stuff" was true in the early PowerPC days, partly due to the apps that were available at the very high end. For example, Maya, Lightwave, Protools, etc... They also had a huge stability advantage for electronic musician trying to perform live. Almost every "live" application had to be run in Linux/Unix/Mac environments because Windows had latency and stability problems. This is really not a problem at all anymore, but the legend, as others have said, persists.
But when they made the switch to Intel, I think, at least the Adobe software lagged behind on Macs vs Windows. It was one of the things Apple fans really hated Adobe for (although I believe this was more Apples fault for changing/removing/hiding APIs). But this too, has been fixed.
TL;DR version:
I think it really holds true that "to each their own" in this case
Device(s): Galaxy S II,
Captivate,
Nexus 1 (retired),
Nook Color,
Asus Transformer.
Thanks: 2,609
Thanked 5,148 Times in 3,020 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by alostpacket
As a long time Windows user (since the IBM DOS days), long time Mac users (since the Apple II days) and seldom dabbler in linux based systems...
Cutting your teeth on System 6 with SCSI voodoo and Windows 3.x and the ISA bus was sure fun (I think I just sprained an eyelid, winking so hard.)
Quote:
But when they made the switch to Intel, I think, at least the Adobe software lagged behind on Macs vs Windows. It was one of the things Apple fans really hated Adobe for (although I believe this was more Apples fault for changing/removing/hiding APIs). But this too, has been fixed.
It's more of a philosophical thing that any technical superiority or failing. The things Apple doesn't do that irritated their users, like maintaining long term legacy support and backward compatibility, is also the things Microsoft gets criticized for. Much of the bloat, vulnerability and instability Windows users complain about are because of all the backward compatibility built into Windows. Much of the orphaned software and hardware that Mac users moan about are because Apple chose to go with a different model.
I won't say that one is better than the other, only that it's best consumers have a choice between the two.
Now, as far as I recall there were two times in the (is it 14 now?) versions of Adobe professional products where the Windows platform preceded the Mac in releases was when Apple finally dropped System 9.5 to OS X (I forget what the second release was named and am too lazy to look it up ) and as you mention, when Apple dropped the PowerPC and moved to Intel.
Since Photoshop 5, the releases have been virtually concurrent with the longest disparity being something like three months. The attitude i found irritating from many Mac users was that in those two instances, somehow Adobe had screwed them by giving it Windows users first. As if Windows users didn't need it to do any "real" work and Mac users "deserved" it. Granted it's a gross overgeneralization, but it happened often enough for me to notice.
As with phones, the fact that these companies keep trying to leapfrog each other in terms of power and features ultimately benefits us, the consumers with better products getting into our hands more quickly.
Why don't more people buy Macs?
"? Report it!
"? Thank it!
on a certain topic or with your device? Ask for help!
Every program I need (and there are quite a few) are now Mac compatible. If I can't find a program that is, no problem, I can easily run Windows on my Mac although I dread doing so since it opens it up to all the viruses and crap on Windows. Those two arguments went out the "window" awhile back 
