Mac vs. PC by Gomithrous

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Mac vs. PC

POSTED BY: GOMITHROUS
UPDATED: Friday, November 17, 2006 09:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8065
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, November 10, 2006 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This is rather irritating (though I've never bought anything from iTunes). But, don't they have to open this up for interoperability reasons in Europe (or for some country therein)? This would then translate to openness in general, yes?

Look, seriously, Apple is more closed than MS, about the only thing MS has going for it is it's openness to outside developers.

The Zune WILL have an SDK, Creative MP3's DO have SDKs, along with numerous others, they either have SDKs or work on open standards that have SDKs, all that is save Apple. Which was what I was talking about 'complaining about' if you will, and is still 100% correct.

If however you can prove me wrong go ahead, I'd like a link to the SDK, or information on how to obtain it without becoming an Apple sponsored developer, since I'm currently developing a product that requires interface with MP3 devices it would prove invaluable to me.

Quote:
This has always been the case. In the PC world we get to lego the computer. Not so in the Mac world. It really is a matter of preference (how is this bad in general?). BUT, it must be said that this wasn't always the case. In years past Motorola was allowed to make clones but Apple killed that. This was rather a bad move as then Motorola had a quiet hissy fit by not developing Apples chips with anything resembling speed resulting in the Intel switch.

Again, this is a matter of preference. Do I care about playing with the hardware? Certainly not. Couldn't care less.

The only thing that I want is quality (i.e. It just works). I get that with Apple, and have had stupid amounts of problems with the last PC that I bought.

You ask me why I think Apple is monopolistic, I give you reasons, you say it's all right because you like it that way. I'm curious as to how you liking the bonuses to Apples monopolistic behaviour proves they are not monopolistic.

Additionally both IBM and Motorola produced PowerPC chips, in fact it's an IBM design licensed from IBM not Apple. One of the major reasons for the Switch was not Motorola's 'hissy fit' it was because the PowerPC chips Apple were using are ten year old technology.

Quote:
It's been a while since I've done a fresh install of OS X, so I don't remember if gcc is bundled with the OS. But I think that it's on the install CD's. Even if it isn't, it would come with XCode which is downloadable from there developers website. XCode is a wonderful IDE which is FREE. M$ cannot claim such a thing.

What? MS isn't synonymous with IBM PCs like Apple is synonymous with Macs. By implying it is you are grossly misstating the issue. Also I'm talking about SDKs, not compilers/IDEs. SDK's are software and documentation that allows a developer to develop for a specific platform. The gcc C++ compiler is freely available for the PC, and is not an Apple product, as are many other compilers for C++ and others. And actually the latest Microsoft Visual C++ Optimising Compiler which is supirior to the GCC, perhaps second only to Borland's, is freely available for download:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/default.aspx
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Other-Programming-Files/Micro
soft-Visual-C-Toolkit.shtml

So further on where you 'prove' there are no hoops to jump through for Apple SDK's you are proving that there are no hoops to jump through when getting a compiler that will run on a Mac. My point on SDK's still stands.

Quote:
I'm going to have to say that this is a bunch of crap (yes, you've hit a nerve with me).

Apple never was about just the hardware, or just the OS, or just any one thing. It is about getting a stable computer in the hands of the user that is trivial to setup and use.

An IBM PC is a PC that uses an architecture compatible with the IBM PC standard first laid down in the 1980's but subsequently built on to produce the modern 32 and 64 bit machines. Apple Mac's are now running on IBM compatible architecture, so they are IBM PCs, it can be no clearer than that. Apple's marketing methodology does not change the architecture of their product.

Quote:
This is independent of what particular OS they run and is independent of what particular hardware they run. Both in recent years have been radically changed. Namely with the OS 9 to OS X, and PPC to PC changes respectively.

The Mac being an IBM PC or not depends on the Hardware, so 'Apple' being independent of the Hardware proves nothing.

Quote:
But you have to remember that some of us don't like playing with hardware.

I'm well aware of that, how does people not wanting to play with their hardware prove that Apple isn't monopolistic?

Quote:
And shitting on Apple b/c they don't let you play with the hardware and not bring in companies like Dell as well, is rather irritating to me. It seems to me like a lot of your reasoning for not liking Apple is being done on the PC side of things by several companies as well. Are you just as pissed with them? Or is that ok b/c they give an appearance of "more" choice?

Firstly I don't buy Dell's, I am however Dell certified so know a fair bit about them (interestingly enough the Dell certification is BS, it requires passing a number of on-line exams that could be passed by a Monkey). Yes you're right, Dell decides what hardware and software comprise their product when they sell it. After that they don't. The difference is Apple does.

The further difference is that what Dell or any other company does is not reflective of the entire PC market, what Apple does is reflective of the entire Mac market. All Dells are IBM PC's, but not all IBM PC's are Dells, so your point is null.

The fact that you can say, a number of companies, for PCs and Apple for Macs is the very definition of CHOICE. You can choose to build your own PC, or choose to buy it from a half million different companies. You want a Mac you have to get it from Apple, because Apple is a monopoly of the Mac.

Quote:
*coughbootcampcough*

*cough*so what*cough*

Quote:
Here I will call bullshit.

You haven't made a case that it's Apple's business practices that PC's are more dominant. Furthermore, although Apple does choose hardware/software for people, they do NOT actively destroy innovation. That's M$'s thing, which they were found guilty of in the US and Europe.

Call bullshit all you like, it's a matter of history. The IBM PC was became the dominate architecture because IBM allowed their patent to slip after one year, allowing any company to produce IBM PC's. Opening up competition and innovation on the PC Platform. The Mac was kept closed, an active decision by Apple, despite the sinking of the Lisa for similar reasons.

It's historic record, you can look it up if you wish:

Quote:
The past couple of years, Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs has gotten nothing but roses and kisses from the public and the media.

But a feud between Apple and RealNetworks over music downloads is exposing Jobs' tragic flaw. Amazingly, he seems to be making the same devastating mistakes with the iPod that he made with the Mac 20 years ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-08-03-j
obs_x.htm

An article with a slightly different take:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/9FD12E37-8DC7-4AD1-872F-2021BED
E6D96.html
Or from wikipedia, not the best source but summarise some points nicely:

Quote:
While it did briefly license some of its own designs, Apple did not allow other computer makers to "clone" the Mac until the 1990s, long after Microsoft dominated the marketplace with its broad licensing program. By then, it was too late for Apple to reclaim its lost marketshare and the Macintosh clones achieved limited success before being axed after Steve Jobs returned to Apple Computer in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Computer

I have examined the history of the PC in it's various flavours in minuet detail (a requirement of my degree) and it is painfully apparent to me that it is Apples business practices that allowed the IBM to gain most of the Market and relegated itself to the specialist market.

Quote:
And what have you shown that shows this? Reality even contradicts it!

You're right but for completely opposite reasons to what you think. Fact is even Microsoft and Intel together aren't the monopoly over the IBM PC as Apple is over the Mac. And it's the business monopoly I was talking about, not the specifics of their particular products, I'd thought that would be clear.

Quote:
It's software would be buggy and it's documentation (both for user AND developers) would be incomplete and incorrect.

I call bullshit here, you have failed to prove that any of MS's developer or customer documentation is incorrect.

Quote:
You're taking those quotes out of context and have probably read them as they were NOT intended.

Save for the quotes they responded to I included the entire context they appeared in. You said "why can't people take a joke" then admonished someone for making a joke. I have to wonder whether you'd have had a problem if the joke was aimed at PC's rather than Mac's. Should people accept jokes aimed at the PC but not the Mac?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 10, 2006 12:14 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you've upgraded yourselve to as stable, maybe more so, to (paraphrase) "definitely, Apple doesn't know what it's doing, I'm so much better at choosing hardware then they are."

Well why not, it's exactly what Apple and it's Mac Evangelists have done. But more specifically I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. At best what you've just done is completely misunderstand my statements and assume you know my entire reasoning, at worst you've flat out lied and spun my comments in order to discredit someone you disagree with.

I can build a better more stable PC than any PC manufacturer, and I can build a PC that is better and more stable than a Mac. That doesn't mean I think Apple doesn't know what it's doing, it means that I can build a PC that is faster and more stable than a mass produced factory model.

Quote:
I could ask you what your problem is right now as you've just contradicted yourself i.e. How in the world does two applications, one more stable than the other, make the PC just as good at "it" as the Mac?

I'd ask you what your problem is since you are talking to me like a piece of shit, but I imagine it's because I dare DARE I tell you to suggest that Steve Jobs isn't god and Apple isn't heaven. IBMs and Macs competed side by side and you know what, Macs lost. It's not a Betamax versus VHS issue, IBM's had clear advantages over Macs that more marketable over the advantages of the Mac over the IBM.

And why is the PC just as good as the Mac, fact is the PC could produce the same results just as easily as the Mac, the Mac is more stable which is why the professionals use them for those tasks, doesn't mean the PC can't do things just as well.

What it does mean is that for those professional high end users its a better choice.

Quote:
Honestly, this is a ridiculous statment; completely unsupported. All that we conslusively knwow is that more games run on PC's. This says NOTHING about which one is "better for gaming".

No, the above is a ridiculous statement. PC's have games, Mac's don't and in your mind that means the Mac's might be better? The graphics hardware for games is available for PCs, not so much for Macs. Mac's used to have games, they were of poorer quality than PC games, for a number of reasons, and didn't sell well.

Which reason do you want to take for PC's being better gaming platforms? Marketability, the fact that there's hardware for the PC's to run them that isn't available for the Mac? The fact that there is actually games for the PC? What reason do you want?

I had a 1ltr Nissan Micra once, now I'm sure that could have beaten a TVR in a race, you know if you completely rebuilt the Chassis and put in a more powerful engine, but it *could*.

Quote:
I can't really argue with that; this is a ridiculous statment.

What?

Quote:
You certainly can NOT prove "that PC's are the better choice for most people, which is why most people buy them." People buy what is in front of them and what is in front of them is Windows Windows Windows. It is the same reason why people go to Walmart.

I most certainly can. Mac caters to specialists and high end markets. Most people aren't specialists or in the high end. I've done my homework and I can conclusively say that I can buy a PC for less than £300 pounds, but the cheapest Mac available is £900. Fine they are catering to the high end, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of people who want to surf the net, send the odd email and write a letter every now and then would be better off with a Mac that costs 3 times as much as a the machine that would cater to their needs. I'm not guessing or spreading propeganda about that, it's even stated by Apple in their business plan

And no for the average user Linux can never be considered better, the average user doesn't want a 'better' OS that is more stable, they want an OS that is easy to use and does just about everything for them, and brother, that ain't Linux.

A Windows PC is the best option for most people because it's easy, simple and everything runs off it. Yes they can buy the stuff off the shelf at Walmart or whatever, that's one of the reasons it's better.

At the end of the day it's the better choice for them to go with a Windows PC for £300 that'll do everything they want, has an easy well known interface and can run any easily found application. It's a lot easier to find software that runs on Windows than it is to find Software that runs on a Mac, and that counts for a hell of a lot.

Quote:
People buy things because it is convinient
What people want is something easy.
It doesn't matter that further research may reveal that a Mac (or PC/Mac running Linxu/*BSD/etc) would be vastly supirior to a PC running Windows.
There's also that little thing that people are lazy. That change frightens them. So, if after years of using Windows they find out that Linx/etc would be better, they'll just stick with Windows b/c it's "easier".

All good points that support what I'm saying.

Quote:
I tell them to run Linux and I can set it up so that it'll look and feel pretty much like Windows (KDE) and all the programs that they need are already availible for it. But they refuse.

Linux, even with KDE, is an OS for geeks, by geeks. It's the difference between an automatic and a manual, sure manuals are better, more efficient, better mileage and so on, but in the world of computers most people not only don't know how to change gears on their own, but they can't.

Quote:
My sister recently bought a laptop (she didn't even ask me even when I was able to answer questions). So, instead of getting something she needed/wanted, she got a laptop (when she should have gotten a desktop), and from a crapy company to boot. All b/c some guy at futureshop said that it was good. And after she did this stupid thing, I asked if she even considered a Mac, she said that they sucked (she's never used one).

She's uninformed, she's also sounds like she's not in the demographic that would benefit from a Mac. So she bought a crappy Laptop on bad advice, that doesn't mean a Mac would have been better, I suspect She would have been best of with a simple bargain model bottom of the range desktop IBM pc.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:23 AM

PH4NTMN3SS

yes, well sorry for having an opinion. Notice I didn't mention people who like macs are idiots(not accusing anyone...not at all). Besides, it was a joke. JOKE. Like I said, macs are useful/OK, but not for me.
I edited the other one, happy. I don't see how I was being a troll, 'sniff'.
Anyway off topic so going away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:42 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Look, seriously, Apple is more closed than MS, about the only thing MS has going for it is it's openness to outside developers.

You keep saying that, but keep failing to show this. Furthermore, M$ is NOT open to outside developers. Or do you have access to there source? B/c I certainly don't, nor do I know anyone with that access.

You also keep switching contexts. Are we talking about openness with regards to hardware? B/c if we are then it is a moot point in the discussion comparing Apple and M$ b/c M$ is not in the hardware market to any degree near Apple. As far as I know they only deal with peripheral devices and not computers themselves. And peripherals by there nature cannot be played around with in a hardware fashion (not easily at least).

Or are we talking about source? B/c Apple is quite open in that regards. Hell, they just opened the source for Xnu PPC. So, now outside developers have access to both the Intel AND PPC versions OF THE KERNEL! Apple also worked with the FreeBSD project AND GAVE BACK SOME IMPROVEMENTS! Can we say the same thing about M$?

So, we have M$ not nearly as open as Apple with regards to source, and M$ vs Apple with regards to hardware is rather moot by its very nature. Not if we enter in Intel, etc into the picture and have a big the whole PC world vs the whole Mac world, then you would have a point. BUT, the context of our current discussion is JUST M$ vs Apple. So, lets keep that in mind.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The Zune WILL have an SDK, Creative MP3's DO have SDKs, along with numerous others, they either have SDKs or work on open standards that have SDKs, all that is save Apple. Which was what I was talking about 'complaining about' if you will, and is still 100% correct.

If however you can prove me wrong go ahead, I'd like a link to the SDK, or information on how to obtain it without becoming an Apple sponsored developer, since I'm currently developing a product that requires interface with MP3 devices it would prove invaluable to me.

Google iTunes SDK. I believe it's through applescript. Sure it isn't a direct interface to an iPod, but it still works.

There is also:

GnuPod:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnupod/

GtkPod:
Which contains the wonderful libgpod.so

http://www.gtkpod.org/about.html

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You ask me why I think Apple is monopolistic, I give you reasons, you say it's all right because you like it that way. I'm curious as to how you liking the bonuses to Apples monopolistic behaviour proves they are not monopolistic.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I liked it that way, I said I didn't care. There IS a difference. For that matter, most people don't care either. So, don't try to make it look like it's just me.

Furthermore, how is this a feather in the bonnet of M$ when they don't do computers JUST the OS (basically).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Additionally both IBM and Motorola produced PowerPC chips, in fact it's an IBM design licensed from IBM not Apple. One of the major reasons for the Switch was not Motorola's 'hissy fit' it was because the PowerPC chips Apple were using are ten year old technology.

Link me.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

What? MS isn't synonymous with IBM PCs like Apple is synonymous with Macs. By implying it is you are grossly misstating the issue.

What the hell are you talking about? Re-read my post.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Also I'm talking about SDKs, not compilers/IDEs. SDK's are software and documentation that allows a developer to develop for a specific platform. The gcc C++ compiler is freely available for the PC, and is not an Apple product, as are many other compilers for C++ and others. And actually the latest Microsoft Visual C++ Optimising Compiler which is supirior to the GCC, perhaps second only to Borland's, is freely available for download:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/default.aspx
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Other-Programming-Files/Micro
soft-Visual-C-Toolkit.shtml

LOL, you really don't know what you're talking about do you? The SDK's and Docs COME WITH THE XCode!

Microsoft Visual C++ superior to gcc? On what platform? Is Microsoft Visual C++ superior to gcc on Mac OS X?

Don't compare apples and oranges and expect it to carry weight.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

So further on where you 'prove' there are no hoops to jump through for Apple SDK's you are proving that there are no hoops to jump through when getting a compiler that will run on a Mac. My point on SDK's still stands.

What you were criticizing was that to develop on a Mac, the developer had to jump through hoops.

"""
Compare this to Apple, who if they do bother to release an SDK make you jump through hoops and often be a registered developer to get at it.
"""

I PROVED that that was NOT the case. Now you are telling me that I only proved what I set out to prove, which was to prove you wrong in the case of Apple, which is what you criticized, which is what I responded to, and that makes me wrong? Get you head checked.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

An IBM PC is a PC that uses an architecture compatible with the IBM PC standard first laid down in the 1980's but subsequently built on to produce the modern 32 and 64 bit machines. Apple Mac's are now running on IBM compatible architecture, so they are IBM PCs, it can be no clearer than that. Apple's marketing methodology does not change the architecture of their product.

Go on.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The Mac being an IBM PC or not depends on the Hardware, so 'Apple' being independent of the Hardware proves nothing.

You said, "But nowadays Apples are little more than glorified IBM", so you're going to have to do better than say that Mac OS X is running on IBM compat hardware to make a Mac a "glorified IBM".

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I'm well aware of that, how does people not wanting to play with their hardware prove that Apple isn't monopolistic?

How does not being able to make clones make Apple monopolistic when there really isn't a market for it? Furthermore, what seems to have been the topic all along is that in a PC one can easily go in a change things around. But, one CAN do this with a Mac as well, just not as easily unless you have a Mac Pro. Albeit, with less choice of hardware, but it still can be done.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Firstly I don't buy Dell's, I am however Dell certified so know a fair bit about them (interestingly enough the Dell certification is BS, it requires passing a number of on-line exams that could be passed by a Monkey). Yes you're right, Dell decides what hardware and software comprise their product when they sell it. After that they don't. The difference is Apple does.

Really. So, how am I prevented from running OpenBSD on my mini again?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The further difference is that what Dell or any other company does is not reflective of the entire PC market, what Apple does is reflective of the entire Mac market. All Dells are IBM PC's, but not all IBM PC's are Dells, so your point is null.

Actually it isn't. You see, if we are to enter a discussion of the entire PC world vs the entire Mac world, we must include all companies therein. To exclude a company b/c it is doing something that Apple does that you are arguing against, is dis-ingenuous to the discussion.

Furthermore, if it was just a small number of companies that perform this practice then I'd would have much less of a point. BUT, there ARE a LARGE number of companies that do. Furthermore, M$'s monopolistic practices state that if you sell a computer with M$ on it you can't produce a muli-boot machine. For that matter, M$ has even pressured companies that install windows on there machines to not install anything else, otherwise they'll lose there rights to be a M$ windows re-seller at all. Google that if you want your proof.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

The fact that you can say, a number of companies, for PCs and Apple for Macs is the very definition of CHOICE. You can choose to build your own PC, or choose to buy it from a half million different companies. You want a Mac you have to get it from Apple, because Apple is a monopoly of the Mac.

And if you want windows you have to buy it from M$ or an authorized dealer (same with Apple).

So, you have a point with regards to hardware, BUT NOT software. Let's keep the two separate as context jumping from the whole to part produces sophistry.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

*coughbootcampcough*

*cough*so what*cough*

Again your response removed the context of what I was replying to. You said, "MS is controlling and Monopolistic, Apple is even worse, monopolising and controlling the Mac's hardware and software to the exclusion of all others."

Let me repeat the important part, "to the exclusion of all others.

Bootcamp clearly contradicts this.

Now what does M$ do. They nuke the boot sector on install. They actively try to make it such that other OS's are harder to install and maintain. Apple on the otherhand has made it easier. So, in this regard, how does this make Apple more monopolistic again? Remember, here we're talking about software.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

It's historic record, you can look it up if you wish:

...snip...

You're right but for completely opposite reasons to what you think. Fact is even Microsoft and Intel together aren't the monopoly over the IBM PC as Apple is over the Mac. And it's the business monopoly I was talking about, not the specifics of their particular products, I'd thought that would be clear.

Past history isn't necessarily applicable to current times. Things have changed drastically since then.

And no, that wasn't clear. I'm guilty of such things as well, but we all must understand that our little internal voice isn't speaking to others when they read the post that we make, when we are writing said post.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I call bullshit here, you have failed to prove that any of MS's developer or customer documentation is incorrect.

I remember reading a book called "Game Developing for Dummies" or some such (the book has been in storage for years. The problem when I tried to use it was that there were compiler errors. I looked up the docs and all my parameters were correct and in the correct order. But, according to the compiler they weren't. When I mentioned this to a buddy of mine, he informed me that he had run into the same issues as well as his father and his other buddies as well.

Perhaps this has changed, perhaps not.

Similarly with user docs. It's one of the reasons why, when I was running windows, I never went to M$'s website for help, but chose to find the solution on newsgroups or mailing lists. The responses there were always helpful and never mis-leading.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Save for the quotes they responded to I included the entire context they appeared in. You said "why can't people take a joke" then admonished someone for making a joke. I have to wonder whether you'd have had a problem if the joke was aimed at PC's rather than Mac's. Should people accept jokes aimed at the PC but not the Mac?

Actually the first quote was in reply to the a comment about Apples commercials. Commercials which are clearly there to make fun, in a funny way. Have you seen the PC home movies vs the Mac home movie one? Clearly for humour value.

The second of my statments was not referencing a joke, but someone making malicious comments about naming conventions. He did after all say:

"""
Sorry if I sound aggressive and a bit bitter...I think it's my residual anger towards snooty Mac owners...and the booze.
"""

So, clearly malicious. Try again. You definitely have issues with context.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:06 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

...snip...

and I can build a PC that is better and more stable than a Mac.

...snip...

it means that I can build a PC that is faster and more stable than a mass produced factory model.

And what I'm saying is this is complete crap b/c Apple has a small set of hardware to write drivers for. A small set of hardware that is designed specifically to run there software. Whether it is mass produced is moot. You cannot make a computer that is more stable from lego parts than a computer that was designed specifically for certain parts.

I'll give you the PC vs PC, but the PC vs Mac is BS.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I'd ask you what your problem is since you are talking to me like a piece of shit, but I imagine it's because I dare DARE I tell you to suggest that Steve Jobs isn't god and Apple isn't heaven.

And you complain that I put words in your mouth, eh?

My problem is that people have gross mis-conceptions about Apple computers and I have been working to fix that. You (and others) have said some wildly wrong things.

I NEVER said that Apple was heaven, NOR did I imply it. In fact, the first reply in this thread was by me, and I quote:

"""
For what? Which OS would be run on the Mac or PC?
"""

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

And why is the PC just as good as the Mac, fact is the PC could produce the same results just as easily as the Mac, the Mac is more stable which is why the professionals use them for those tasks, doesn't mean the PC can't do things just as well.

Actually, not being as stable means that they won't do just as well. They keep crashing after all. By what metric does crashing regularly not matter?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

What it does mean is that for those professional high end users its a better choice.

Actually, less crashing == less fustrating for users. So, by the crashing metric, we have Mac is better than PC.

BUT, we exactly are NOT talking about which one is better. Or at least I'm not.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Which reason do you want to take for PC's being better gaming platforms? Marketability, the fact that there's hardware for the PC's to run them that isn't available for the Mac? The fact that there is actually games for the PC? What reason do you want?

Both windows and OS X have good development environments for game development and both have the hardware to do it.

The fact of the matter is that the game companies know that the PC market is a lot larger than the Mac market and thus put out games for PC's and not Mac. The fact of the matter is that now since Apple has moved from PPC to Intel, they have access to all that hardware that you imply Apple doesn't have access too.

The question I was answering was (b/c we were talking about platforms) "Which is the better gaming platform, windows or OS X?" And we don't know the answer to that. The only thing that we do know is that people develop for windows.

Please note that this says NOTHING about which one is better. It just says something about which one has the bigger market.

But, in all honestly, for the games that I play, the best platform for gaming is the PS2 and GameCube.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

I can't really argue with that; this is a ridiculous statment.

What?

B/c you failed to provide context (again), I'll quote what I was responding to:

"""
Your argument boils down subsequently to:
Mac's can do almost everything PC's can do, but those things they can't do don't matter because I don't want to do them, and people who do are wrong. Your personal choice of PC's over Macs are wrong because, I say so that's why.
"""

This reply of yours wasn't to me. But, I can't determine right now who it was to b/c there was no "@someone" or quote in there either.

Now, I'll admit that my response wasn't exactly clear (in my defense, it was 5am). But, your reply was ridiculous.

Basically, he was saying that he was ignoring games (I think) because they didn't matter to him. This is fine, and no problem b/c we all use our computers in different ways; games weren't part of his usage. He then when on to show that games aside, Mac's were the way to go for him (though I think he was going in general as well).

And then you come along and say that his metric is crap b/c his metric isn't yours; a complete contradiction. Basically, you say that the way he is looking at things is complete crap b/c his view isn't yours, all the while doing the exact thing that you are criticizing.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Mac caters to specialists and high end markets.

Um, no they don't. There are Mac's now that are compatible in price the cheapest PC's that I've seen.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I've done my homework and I can conclusively say that I can buy a PC for less than £300 pounds, but the cheapest Mac available is £900.

Oh, you clearly have not:

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore.woa/6464042/wa/PSLID?m
co=6A2AA4B0&nclm=Macmini&wosid=R91LqEQuiGyk2qPaaZL10ti3yca

399 pounds.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I'm not guessing or spreading propeganda about that, it's even stated by Apple in their business plan

And again, no link.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

And no for the average user Linux can never be considered better, the average user doesn't want a 'better' OS that is more stable, they want an OS that is easy to use and does just about everything for them, and brother, that ain't Linux.

Have you used Linux lately? I mean as a desktop OS once everything has been installed? It pretty much runs as easily as windows.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

A Windows PC is the best option for most people because it's easy, simple and everything runs off it. Yes they can buy the stuff off the shelf at Walmart or whatever, that's one of the reasons it's better.

You're completely missing my point (intentionally?).

My point is that M$ windows running on the PC might be the easiest to get access to, but is it really the best option?

What is best for someone is does it meet the following criteria:

- easy
- simple
- WHAT THEY NEED runs on it

For most people, who just send email and run word processors, Linux may indeed be best (though I doubt it). I've used both OS X AND the latest windows, and I've got to say that OS X IS easier to use. You really can just sit in front of it and start using it (my wife did exactly that). Windows, not so much.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

At the end of the day it's the better choice for them to go with a Windows PC for £300 that'll do everything they want, has an easy well known interface and can run any easily found application. It's a lot easier to find software that runs on Windows than it is to find Software that runs on a Mac, and that counts for a hell of a lot.

But ONLY if it is software that they want to run.

For instance, my parents run a couple simple games i.e. solitaire, mai jong, etc. and a word processor.

They could walk into Advance and walk out with everything that they needed AND wanted. This is the same for most people as long as they don't play games. But then again, from what I've seen, most people don't (at least not on PC's).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All good points that support what I'm saying.

It depends on what you think is best.

I'm taking it from a, the user needs to run X, Y and Z (not including games) with maximum stability. What would be the best computer that suites those needs.

Ease of use is superior with OS X from a new user perspective. Also, just because someone is used ot windows, does not mean that OS X wouldn't be easier to use given 10 minutes with the OS (more time for some users).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Linux, even with KDE, is an OS for geeks, by geeks. It's the difference between an automatic and a manual, sure manuals are better, more efficient, better mileage and so on, but in the world of computers most people not only don't know how to change gears on their own, but they can't.

Not really anymore. Sure it takes some time to setup and install things (which is the part that I gather you are refering to), but I would be doing that part. KDE looks and feels like windows and the only difference for my parents would be that they would have to remember different program names e.g. OpenOffice instead of M$ Office. This isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to ask.

There is also the added benefit that if they were having a problem, I could ssh into the box and see what's going on for most things. There is also the added security, lack of viruses, etc. There is also the thing that if/when the user does something stupid (they wouldn't have root), the effects of there mistake would be quite limited.

Basically, there would be a lot of advantages for using Linux for someone like them. Though I would recommend a Mac for them for other reasons (I'm no longer in the same city and thus have some geographic problems doing on site tech support).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

She's uninformed, she's also sounds like she's not in the demographic that would benefit from a Mac. So she bought a crappy Laptop on bad advice, that doesn't mean a Mac would have been better, I suspect She would have been best of with a simple bargain model bottom of the range desktop IBM pc.

I actually said this (perhaps too terse?). Though how would you know what demographic she's in based on the nothing you know about her?

Anyway, she definitely should have gotten a desktop PC as she likes to play Heroes of Might and Magic and may want to play other games as well (Heroes runs on a Mac, others may not/probably won't). Though there is a mini with bootcamp that would solve that problem. Though I don't think that she's in for that.

There's actually a system I would have recommended from a local shop. It was 2-3 times the size of a Mac mini, so still really small and was only about $600-700. It actually was a decent machine.

In closing, because I have no interest in continuing this discussion. Just know that I DON'T think that Mac is heaven. I just think that if you're not a gamer, Mac is probably the best computer for you.

After all, if people don't care about Wal-mart's business practices, they won't care about M$'s nor Apples. If people don't care about having the ability to config there own hardware, then easy access to hardware matter doesn't matter. Most people don't play games, so access to the bleeding edge graphics cards/etc don't matter.

Pretty much, people in general want there geek son/daughter/friend/etc to setup a computer for them and tell them how to use it. So, given that this is the case, how is one better than the other? It's opinion.

My opinion is that in general OS X is easier to use than windows. This makes Mac the option that I'd recommend to most.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:53 PM

DANTE144

Mac lover here.

"Jesus saves, everyone else takes damage" -tee shirt some girl was wearing at Megacon.

http://dantedreams.com <-my webcomic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:53 PM

DANTE144

Mac lover here.

"Jesus saves, everyone else takes damage" -tee shirt some girl was wearing at Megacon.

http://dantedreams.com <-my webcomic

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 9:02 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You keep saying that, but keep failing to show this. Furthermore, M$ is NOT open to outside developers. Or do you have access to there source? B/c I certainly don't, nor do I know anyone with that access.

You also keep switching contexts. Are we talking about openness with regards to hardware? B/c if we are then it is a moot point in the discussion comparing Apple and M$ b/c M$ is not in the hardware market to any degree near Apple. As far as I know they only deal with peripheral devices and not computers themselves. And peripherals by there nature cannot be played around with in a hardware fashion (not easily at least).

Or are we talking about source? B/c Apple is quite open in that regards. Hell, they just opened the source for Xnu PPC. So, now outside developers have access to both the Intel AND PPC versions OF THE KERNEL! Apple also worked with the FreeBSD project AND GAVE BACK SOME IMPROVEMENTS! Can we say the same thing about M$?

I said open to developers, not open source. Though for all the gushing you do for Mac's open source it's not as simple or as 'open' as you like to say:
http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200602/apple.html

Quote:
So, we have M$ not nearly as open as Apple with regards to source, and M$ vs Apple with regards to hardware is rather moot by its very nature. Not if we enter in Intel, etc into the picture and have a big the whole PC world vs the whole Mac world, then you would have a point. BUT, the context of our current discussion is JUST M$ vs Apple. So, lets keep that in mind.

No, the context of you're discussion was Apple vs MS, the original discussion was Mac vs. PC (it's right there on the title of the thread if you wish to check). I merely stated that Apple monopolised the Mac far more than MS monopolises the IBM PC, which by your very desire to make this "Apple vs MS" kinda proves my point. When discussing a charge of monopoly it is absolutly required to take other companies operating in the given field into account, and what their contribution is. There are numerous companies building and working on PCs, not so with the Mac. Even MS doesn't have the centralised authority or control over the IBM PC that Apple does over the Mac, and as you so helpfully point out MS has no control over IBM PC hardware whereas Apple has complete control over the Mac, ergo MS can only ever be half the monopoly Apple is.

This pans out with a simple look at your own words later on. Apple has a small set of drivers to write, because they decide what Hardware their software runs on. MS on the other hand does not have the luxury of deciding what hardware Windows runs on.

Quote:
Google iTunes SDK. I believe it's through applescript. Sure it isn't a direct interface to an iPod, but it still works.

This is operating the tail to wag the dog. I could do this within Windows easily with or without an iTunes SDK by capturing iTunes HWND and sending commands progammically. This doesn't refute my originally assertion that Apple hasn't released an SDK for the iPod.

Quote:
There is also:

GnuPod:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnupod/

GtkPod:
Which contains the wonderful libgpod.so

http://www.gtkpod.org/about.html

Thanks, I'm going to have to take a look at the code in libgpod.so. Though this is not an Apple product, and by the looks of it was created through backwards engineering, so what I said about the SDK still stands.

Quote:
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I liked it that way, I said I didn't care. There IS a difference. For that matter, most people don't care either. So, don't try to make it look like it's just me.

Furthermore, how is this a feather in the bonnet of M$ when they don't do computers JUST the OS (basically).

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Please read what I have written since both your posts are littered with responses that indicate you haven't read my words. I said you liking the BONUSES of an Apple monopoly doesn't mean they aren't a monopoly. Unless you are now saying you don't like Mac's stability, and don't think that's more important than their monopolistic business practices then you're reply has nothing to do with what you are replying too and is completely ridiculous. Please read my posts before replying to them.

Quote:
Furthermore, how is this a feather in the bonnet of M$ when they don't do computers JUST the OS (basically).

I'm comparing PC's to Mac. You're the one who wants to limit the discussion to Apple vs MS, I assume because you think it gives you the best chance of 'proving' the Mac is the best computer ever built.

Quote:
Link me.

You mean do that thing you seem mostly unable or unwilling to do yourself?

Before asking me for proof of my assertions it would be nice to see you back up some of yours (like the one where you said Apple abandoned Motorola's PowerPC chip because Motorola threw a hissy fit, where's the link?) But no matter:

How about Wiki, it summarises well (emphasis added):

Quote:
The history of the PowerPC begins with IBM's 801 prototype chip of John Cocke's RISC ideas in the late '70s. 801-based cores were used in a number of IBM embedded products, eventually becoming the 16-register ROMP processor used in the IBM RT.
...
This was a deliberate design goal on Motorola's part, who used the 603 [[]IBM's PPC designed and built in the early 90's[]] project to build the basic core for all future generations of PPC chips.

Quote:
What the hell are you talking about? Re-read my post.

You're the one making a discussion of Mac vs IBM into Apple vs MS only. So what the hell are you talking about? Can't you remember the words you just typed?

Quote:
LOL, you really don't know what you're talking about do you? The SDK's and Docs COME WITH THE Xcode!

Well well, for someone who can't tell the difference between a Compiler, an IDE and an SDK we do try so very hard to be condescending don't we. As anyone who knew what they were talking about would know Xcode is an IDE (Integrated Development Environment for the uninitiated) NOT an SDK. Nice try but while trying to show me up you've merely managed to prove that it is you who does not know what they are talking about. Well done, saves me the trouble. Maybe you should stop talking about program development because the more you blather on about things you don't understand the stupider you look.

Quote:
Microsoft Visual C++ superior to gcc? On what platform? Is Microsoft Visual C++ superior to gcc on Mac OS X?

The x86. The OS makes little difference to the code the compiler produces. So MSVC++ is superior to GCC on any machine that uses x86 compatible chips, different OS's are handled by the linker. Why didn't you know that?

Quote:
Don't compare apples and oranges and expect it to carry weight.

Don't talk from a position of ignorance and accept it to hold any weight. The GCC has versions for windows so we can compare there, and the compiler is identical save for the final linking process, where the only main difference will be the executable header.

Quote:
I PROVED that that was NOT the case. Now you are telling me that I only proved what I set out to prove, which was to prove you wrong in the case of Apple, which is what you criticized, which is what I responded to, and that makes me wrong? Get you head checked.

Saying “I proved it” doesn't mean you proved it, get you're head checked.

Quote:
Go on.

This the most eloquent rebuttal you could come with is it? The Mac is an IBM PC because the definition of an IBM PC is having IBM PC compatible hardware architecture. Be a man and admit you were wrong.

Quote:
You said, "But nowadays Apples are little more than glorified IBM", so you're going to have to do better than say that Mac OS X is running on IBM compat hardware to make a Mac a "glorified IBM".

I've conclusively proven they ARE IBM PC's. The glorified part comes in when Apple and it's Mac Evangelists act like the Apples hardware is inherently better than that of the IBM PC, which is impossible because it is an IBM PC. Sorry sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating “la la I'm not listening!” won't change that.

Quote:
How does not being able to make clones make Apple monopolistic when there really isn't a market for it?

How does there not being a market for it make Apple less monopolistic? I think you need to learn what monopoly means.

Quote:
Furthermore, what seems to have been the topic all along is that in a PC one can easily go in a change things around. But, one CAN do this with a Mac as well, just not as easily unless you have a Mac Pro. Albeit, with less choice of hardware, but it still can be done.

Doesn't seem like it's as easy as you say:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1886871,00.asp

Furthermore there being less hardware is because you can only use Hardware Apple lets you use, because they are a controlling monopoly. Which was what I've been saying and you've been failing to disprove while claiming victory all along.

Quote:
Actually it isn't. You see, if we are to enter a discussion of the entire PC world vs the entire Mac world, we must include all companies therein. To exclude a company b/c it is doing something that Apple does that you are arguing against, is dis-ingenuous to the discussion.

No you just don't know what a monopoly is. Only Apples make Macs, many companies make PCs, ergo it's impossible for those companies to be monopolies and by definition Apple is. Dell is incapable of doing everything Apple does because it hasn't got one hundred percent control of PC hardware and software that Apple has. Your inability to understand these simple points doesn't make my argument disingenuous.

Quote:
Furthermore, if it was just a small number of companies that perform this practice then I'd would have much less of a point. BUT, there ARE a LARGE number of companies that do.

Which companies. How about you back up word one of what you've said? Which companies show the level of Software and Hardware control stretching into post sale that Apple does? Link me.

Quote:
Furthermore, M$'s monopolistic practices state that if you sell a computer with M$ on it you can't produce a muli-boot machine. For that matter, M$ has even pressured companies that install windows on there machines to not install anything else, otherwise they'll lose there rights to be a M$ windows re-seller at all. Google that if you want your proof.

I'm well aware of MS's practices, which is why I use as little MS software as I can, Apple's are worse (MS presses other companies to use their product, Apple prevents any other companies from competing at all) which is why I don't use Apple products where ever I can.

Funny you demand links and proof of me, then tell me to go away and support your claims for you. Why didn't you go off and find the information you demanded yourself? Lazy or just hypocritical?

Quote:
And if you want windows you have to buy it from M$ or an authorized dealer (same with Apple).

So, you have a point with regards to hardware, BUT NOT software. Let's keep the two separate as context jumping from the whole to part produces sophistry.

My whole argument has taken Hardware and Software into account, by wishing to limit to one or the other you are the one 'context jumping'. Not only that but you are also trying to frame the debate in your favour, and I'm not going to play your silly rhetorical games, sorry.

Quote:
Again your response removed the context of what I was replying to. You said, "MS is controlling and Monopolistic, Apple is even worse, monopolising and controlling the Mac's hardware and software to the exclusion of all others."

Firstly no it doesn't. Secondly I didn't and still don't feel any need to re post the entire thread for every rebuttal. I post the sentence or paragraph I'm replying too, you know what came before and so does anyone reading this thread since they should be reading beginning to end. I feel no need to get unnecessarily verbose to satisfy your anal retentiveness. If you want the full context go read the post, I supply quotes merely to show which part of the post I'm replying to. And no before you say it it's not the same thing as taking quotes out of context within printed media or from off site, because the full context is just above, for all to see and people reading this thread should have read those contexts already.

Blathering on about full context is just pathetic.

Quote:
Past history isn't necessarily applicable to current times. Things have changed drastically since then.

Yes it is. The current situation is directly linked to what happened before. Apple lost market share because of their business practices, and the IBM PC market collectively capitalised on that, producing a better selling brand. Apples subsequent attempts to regain market share largely by copying PC manufactures business practices fell flat, largely because the brand and marketing were already established. A lot of this is in those links you asked for, I provided and you obviously didn't bother to read. Point is by the time Apple changed their business practices the damage had been done, it's a fairly well known phenomenon, changing to late to do much good. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Quote:
And no, that wasn't clear. I'm guilty of such things as well, but we all must understand that our little internal voice isn't speaking to others when they read the post that we make, when we are writing said post.

Now if I were you I'd whine about loss of context, but I'm not so I won't. It was clear because we were talking about the particulars of Apples business practices, not the particulars of the product. It seems it is you that has problems with context.

Quote:
I remember reading a book called "Game Developing for Dummies" or some such (the book has been in storage for years.

Was the book written by MS? If not it only proves you want to blame MS for other peoples bad documentation.

Quote:
So, clearly malicious. Try again. You definitely have issues with context.

No, the comments still read tongue in cheek, that is if you aren't of the opinion that PC is fair game but making jokes about the Mac is off limits. Try again.

Quote:
And what I'm saying is this is complete crap b/c Apple has a small set of hardware to write drivers for. A small set of hardware that is designed specifically to run there software. Whether it is mass produced is moot. You cannot make a computer that is more stable from lego parts than a computer that was designed specifically for certain parts.

I'll give you the PC vs PC, but the PC vs Mac is BS.

You don't understand business practices then. As someone building a PC I can use the best components, where as Apple, in order to make a profit will have to use the most cost effective, that is the components that strike a balance between Performance/Stability and Cost. I can also take the time to make sure the software is optimised and running smoothly and that the best drivers are used.

Whether it's mass produced is at the very heart of the issue, a hand made Bentley is better than a mass produced Ford, and not because Ford don't know what they are doing.

As for the Lego comment now that Apples use off the shelf Intel kit that criticism now extends to them to, try again.

Quote:
And you complain that I put words in your mouth, eh?

Yes, because you have been putting words in my mouth, where as I have merely reiterated what you've actually said and made a comment on how you were talking to me.

Quote:
My problem is that people have gross mis-conceptions about Apple computers and I have been working to fix that. You (and others) have said some wildly wrong things.

It seems the gross misconception for you is that Mac's aren't the best machines for just about everyone it would seem (before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth):

Quote:
I just think that if you're not a gamer, Mac is probably the best computer for you.

And as for wildly wrong the only person so far to have been proven to be saying wildly wrong things is you, your inability to admit it doesn't stop it from being so.

Quote:
Actually, not being as stable means that they won't do just as well. They keep crashing after all. By what metric does crashing regularly not matter?

Can you prove they aren't as stable, since we want to be so anal about everything? What I mean by just as good is that the same result can be produced just as easily.

Quote:
Actually, less crashing == less fustrating for users. So, by the crashing metric, we have Mac is better than PC.

BUT, we exactly are NOT talking about which one is better. Or at least I'm not.

No, I'm not talking about which is better, I said better choice not better machine. Try reading my posts before replying to them, helps things along nicely. In fact so far the only person whose been banging on about Mac's being best is you, so that last sentence is at best a gross distortion.

Quote:
Both windows and OS X have good development environments for game development and both have the hardware to do it.

The fact of the matter is that the game companies know that the PC market is a lot larger than the Mac market and thus put out games for PC's and not Mac. The fact of the matter is that now since Apple has moved from PPC to Intel, they have access to all that hardware that you imply Apple doesn't have access too.

Apple controls the Hardware that can be used in the Mac, that doesn't stop the Mac being an IBM PC, fairly obvious really. And actually no the gaming hardware isn't available for the Mac like it is for the PC, you're entire line of reasoning is still centred around “if this and that then it would be just as good”. You continue to talk if's and I'll continue to talk about reality. Remember if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.

Quote:
The question I was answering was (b/c we were talking about platforms) "Which is the better gaming platform, windows or OS X?" And we don't know the answer to that. The only thing that we do know is that people develop for windows.

The question you were asking was aimed squarely at framing the debate in your favour as you have been attempting to do all along.

Quote:
B/c you failed to provide context (again), I'll quote what I was responding to:

Anal.

Quote:
This reply of yours wasn't to me. But, I can't determine right now who it was to b/c there was no "@someone" or quote in there either.

Because the reply was directly beneath the post I was replying too, so wasn't required, except for people who couldn't be bothered to read the post above mine and then accuse me of laziness. I don't see the necessity to quote the entire post that appears right above mine, but then I'm not Anal Retentive so I wouldn't.

Quote:
Now, I'll admit that my response wasn't exactly clear (in my defense, it was 5am). But, your reply was ridiculous.

No my reply summed things up well, yours on the other hand is ridiculous.

Quote:
Basically, he was saying that he was ignoring games (I think) because they didn't matter to him. This is fine, and no problem b/c we all use our computers in different ways; games weren't part of his usage. He then when on to show that games aside, Mac's were the way to go for him (though I think he was going in general as well).

No, what he said is that “there's more to life than games” and that “games don't matter”. And further that “why do you PC owners like PC's so much, anything the PC can do the Mac can do better” blatantly NOT explaining their decision but rubbishing others.

Quote:
And then you come along and say that his metric is crap b/c his metric isn't yours; a complete contradiction. Basically, you say that the way he is looking at things is complete crap b/c his view isn't yours, all the while doing the exact thing that you are criticizing.

No, if again you bothered to read my post rather than immediately replying with more Mac is great focused attacks you realise that my response was the exact opposite to this. That what I was saying that his argument that our 'metric is crap' because it isn't his metric was crap. Nice try but you're wrong.

Quote:
Um, no they don't. There are Mac's now that are compatible in price the cheapest PC's that I've seen.

Even the Mac Mini is quite a bit more expensive than the cheapest new PC. So wrong again.

Quote:
Oh, you clearly have not:

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore.woa/6464042/wa/PSLID?m
co=6A2AA4B0&nclm=Macmini&wosid=R91LqEQuiGyk2qPaaZL10ti3yca

399 pounds.

Oh clear Mr stick up the arse huh. Actually yeah I missed the Mac Mini, my data is a little out of date, I didn't expect the minimum price to drop so heavily in a couple of months. That's me admitting error by the way, you may have missed it since it's something you are obviously incapable of.

However my general point still stands, the Mini is not ready out of the box, no keyboard mouse or monitor, and if you want to compare cheapest bare bones PC's to the Mac mini you can pick one up for below £200. Less than half the price.

Quote:
And again, no link.

What like the links you didn't provide earlier? Can't you use google like you tell me to, more hypocrisy.

And actually I did, but further up, I realise you have no interest in reading the links I provide but I'll summarise it here and provide a link to the exact page of the article I've already provided anyway:

Quote:
Apple has never directly competed in the market for Windows compatible PCs; in fact, Apple purposely avoided vast segments of the PC market. This includes the low profit, low performance economy box PCs that HP and Dell dump upon unwary consumers as instant eWaste, and the high volume PC boxes ordered in bulk by the Enterprise to serve as simple dumb terminal replacements.

In both of these segments, Apple has little to offer competitively. Other companies can simply ship cheaper components more efficiently. Apple's core, differentiated strengths in offering tight software integration and a richly engineered overall experience matter little to customers who are only interested in a rock bottom price or minimal functionality in a utility PC.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/4BC7D963-7B31-47B7-A6ED-2706BD4
72377.html

Quote:
Have you used Linux lately? I mean as a desktop OS once everything has been installed? It pretty much runs as easily as windows.

Yes I have, no it isn't. Neither does it have the number of self help books or courses aimed at the novice user, who I remind you are the people we are talking about.

Quote:
You're completely missing my point (intentionally?).

My point is that M$ windows running on the PC might be the easiest to get access to, but is it really the best option?

no, I got what you were saying, the person who seems to be missing the point (intentionally?) is you. Something being easy to get access too is a plus in it's favour for a great deal of people, that and they're mate down the pub knows a bit about PCs to help them fix it for the price of a pint. Mac's, not so much. Again you try and frame the debate to remove any strengths PC's have that Mac's don't.

Quote:
For most people, who just send email and run word processors, Linux may indeed be best (though I doubt it). I've used both OS X AND the latest windows, and I've got to say that OS X IS easier to use. You really can just sit in front of it and start using it (my wife did exactly that). Windows, not so much.

In you're opinion, and you have a vested interest to have difficulties with Windows here. Most people don't seem to have a problem in this area nearly at all.

Quote:
But ONLY if it is software that they want to run.

And by the simple fact that just about every bit of software on the Mac is available for the PC but not vice versa this supports my argument, and was one I more or less made earlier.

Quote:
But then again, from what I've seen, most people don't (at least not on PC's).

Actually the PC game market is quite large and profitable, and hardly insignificant.

Quote:
It depends on what you think is best.

I'm taking it from a, the user needs to run X, Y and Z (not including games) with maximum stability. What would be the best computer that suites those needs.

And most users won't be using their PC to the extent where unreliability will become a particular problem. For most users the best option will be the computer that does all those things for the least expense, and with the widest array of support. You don't need the latest Dual Core Pentium Duo to run solitaire.

Quote:
Ease of use is superior with OS X from a new user perspective. Also, just because someone is used ot windows, does not mean that OS X wouldn't be easier to use given 10 minutes with the OS (more time for some users).

Entirely your opinion.

Quote:
KDE looks and feels like windows and the only difference for my parents would be that they would have to remember different program names e.g. OpenOffice instead of M$ Office.

Yeah people say this, “KDE is just like windows” but not really. And I use OpenOffice. Linux is harder than Windows.

Quote:
Though how would you know what demographic she's in based on the nothing you know about her?

Again you don't read my post. I said SOUNDS like, I.e. Based on available evidence which you provided.

Quote:
In closing, because I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

I think that's wise.

Quote:
Most people don't play games, so access to the bleeding edge graphics cards/etc don't matter.

And most people don't need the power present in even the lowest end Macs. Though they do tend to need a monitor, Keyboard and Mouse.

Quote:
So, given that this is the case, how is one better than the other? It's opinion.

It would be if you had successfully framed the debate in your favour. Thankfully you haven't. There is still the issues of cost, availability (courses, books, software, hardware, knowledge) to name but a few that you haven't managed to remove because they don't run toward supporting your argument.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE