Apple CEO Steve Jobs and the company’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller have just ended a frank and open discussion with European media. Jobs said: “We don’t know how having OS X available for PCs would affect Macs”, and promised, “we will have technology in OS X for Intel so that it cannot be installed in other PCs”. Jobs also confirmed Apple’s switch to Intel processors remains on schedule, saying: “We said we’d be shipping by next June and we are on track to have that be a true statement”.
Rhapsody for Intel.
Yellow Box for Windows NT.
Don’t you remember?
There is not a single good reason why you should use OSX on a intel/amd computer.
The amount of software is very small, the amount og games is very very small. The amount of tools is also small.
So why go for OSX ?
I have worked with it for some time, and there isnt a single feature from OSX i miss when working on my Windows XP machine. But there sure was a lot of tools i missed on OSX.
So you don’t have to buy 2 computers – 1 PC for Dual boot, Windows and MacOSX. OSX on Intel is still 10 Months away, plenty of time for some apps to be rewritten. But it will take time to get them all over.
By re-written, you do mean re-compiled right? Beacuse that’s all you ahve to do for most apps.
Tri-boot actually
MacOS X – Linux – Windows
If you throw in a VMWare type of application – you’ve got the whole range of x86 OSes including Solaris, various BSDs, and BeOS
I agree tr-boot or even more if you want. I was just stating Apple is going to Intel to get more Windows Users (aka “The average user”). I personally will have a Tri-boot system.
Eh, what makes you think Solaris, BSDs and BeOS will need an emulator, while Linux and Windows will not?
it is obvious your mental abilities are very small.
wait, is that mean?
Let’s see… I’ve got Live 5.0, Reason 3.0, iLife, Filemaker 7.0, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Toast, Delicious Library and so on and so on and so on…
Oh, and not one single MS product!! But, somehow, I’m managing to survive.
What? No software for OS X? Idiot.
The only idiot is you.
Where is:
Ultraedit
Total Commander
Visual Studio
And a lot of electronics specific software.
And who is talking about MS product.
But okay i don’t suspect a OSX user to be able to read, as 3 dead trolls says in a great song ‘mac’s are for stup*d, oohh parents’
Ultraedit: Try BBEdit.
Total Commander: Finder does most of that.
Visual Studio: Development Tools (free with the OS). Also TrueBasic or PowerBasic if you want a VB replacement.
CAD Tools: see http://www.pure-mac.com/cad.html
ultraedit: don’t need it, there are a plethora of programming editors for OS X.
Total Commander: umm, don’t need a windows explorer replacment, but you can use pathfinder for a better finder.
Visual Studio: HA HA.. you get XCode for your GUI development needs on OS X… FREE. you like VB (heh) then get realbasic. you liek pythin, perl, php, fortran, pascal, LISP, any other programming language out there that is not owned by MS? get the compiler front end for GCC or the interpreter (PHP, Perl and Python come with Tiger) just download it from FINK. to edit, you can use SubEthaEdit, Smultron, Jedit, or for the best web development experience I have ever had, skedit (taco edit if you want a free web dev editor.)
electronics specific software like what?
Where is:
– Ultraedit
BBEdit. Probably the best text editor out there.
– Total Commander
The Finder is usable, this is less needed than on Windows but if you want it: muCommander
– Visual Studio
XCode 2. It’s free.
Do some research before making a fool of yourself…
Ultraedit
<snort> Wow, a shareware text editor, that’s a unique and mission-critical piece of software.
please name the tools.
The one thing I miss on XP that I love on OS X is the UI staying out of my face.
all my tools are there (no, not design tools either). tell me please, what tools are missing. I think you are full of it.
I agree, it’s all about the apps.
I needed a good laugh today:
Spring-loaded folders anyone?
Oh, and Expose
Hmm, how about Spotlight
Applications that are simply applications, not a heaving mass of files strewn around the disk
USB drivers for mouses pre-installed
Applescript
A decent colour scheme for windows and controls that lets you see what is going on clearly
Dashboard
Built-in DIctionary
A computer that I can leave switched on for 20 days or more
Networking that works straight off
Networking that you don’t have to pay for the “Pro” version in order to work
No Start menu
An application centric user experience so you can clearly see what apps are running and which are not, as well as documents clearly belonging to their respective apps
Sheets over windows
I could probably go on, but I’m getting bored
Although I hate to defend Windows, because I’m an avid Linux user,
I’ve run Windows for months or more without it failing. Windows XP isn’t an unstable platform – far from it.
Networking in Mac OS X is a joke. I’ve had horrible experience with it, networking in Windows XP “just works” and works well.
There are so many reasons why Windows XP is better than Mac OS X, and why Mac OS X is better than Windows XP – but Mac OS X is not this fantastic Windows killer and it is not a fantastic Linux killer (other way around, thankyou very much).
TCP/IP, SAMBA, NFS, etc ? how is that a joke?
you have no idea.
Ahem. Our household has 3 computers: a Dell laptop running XP Pro, a Dell tower dualbooting XP Pro/Debian Sarge, and a Mac running Tiger.
The only networking problems we have are consistently XP. Not XP Home’s networking, XP Pro’s superior LAN networking. About once every 45 days, the laptop loses its connection to the Mac and the printer and it has to be deleted, restarted and the connections rebuilt.
The Debian installation –using SMB to connect to Tiger’s “Windows File Sharing,” mind you– has no difficulty finding or mounting the Mac’s volume and using the printer. Even Knoppix CDs automatically find the printer.
I work at a university. Every networking problem we’ve ever had has been directly related to a Microsoft product, and usually because it doesn’t play well with Unix — unless you choose to purchase support for Unix services as an add-on product, despite Microsoft’s minority share in the server market. Funny, all the protocols my box supports came with it.
There are so many conflicting concurrent authentication methods in NT/XP that you have to dig deep to figure out which one is responsible for being unable to mount a remote device as a drive or preventing VPN access. It’s a freaking nightmare.
If you’re in a business with nothing but PCs running Windows, bully for you. In the real world of mixed environments, this isn’t trivial.
Seems to me that the answer then is not to try and use Windows sharing protocol with other OS’s reverse engineered version of the Windows protocol (I forget the name).
If you had to connect the Windows XP machine to the printer on another XP machine would it lose its connection after 45 days? Doubt it.
Mac and Linux are both using Samba to ‘talk’ to each other so it is not surprising that they work well together.
OK, well my friend bought a new laptop a few days ago. He has a desktop system from a couple of years ago. Both run XP. Now in theory, you just plug a cross-over cable between the 2 and share a folder, yes?
No, I plugged them together and they both recognised the connection, but couldn’t assign themselves an IP address. So it didn’t work. In the end I had to give them addresses manually – how stupid is that!
2 Macs on the other hand? Plug them together and turn sharing on. They recognise each other instantly with Bonjour. Heck, I can even use a normal Patch cable if I want, they figure it out!
I admit networking between Windows & Mac can be a little ropey, but I think the root of the problem there is a closed Microsoft networking protocol
Put it all together.
Market share is below 5% – a disaster, and especially so considering where it has fallen from over the last 10 years.
Customer buying motive, according to the company itself: the OS, not the hardware.
Admission: being different for the sake of it, in processors, was a mistake – it was irrelevant to the customer. As Michael Porter would put it, it was difference without differentiation.
So. they conclude that the right thing to do is carry on as before tying the OS to the hardware, basically, refusing to sell their customers what they want, unless they buy something else that they do not want. Hopeless!
Why does no-one ever ask them the two simple questions: what market share are you aiming for? And how does this strategy achieve it?
What makes you think Apple are aiming for a particular market share? As long as they continue to make decent computers and software I don’t really care what market share they have.
When you consider just how many computers are sold in the world 3.5% market share (or whatever it may be) is actually pretty damn good! Have a look at Ferrari’s market share – then complain it
All companies track and target market share. It is not whether you or I want Apple to have any particular market share. The question is, whether they have a strategy of anything other than drift and doing what they have always done.
This is why the answer to the questions would be revealing. If they were to say, we are happy to stay at 4% and we think tying the hardware to the software and keeping a price premium is how to do it, fine. Many would wonder what the rationale is, but it would make sense. It would however be a basically no-growth scenario for PCs. I don’t think that is what they have in mind, or what their investors or customers would like to see.
On the other hand, should they say they have in mind to get to 15% share within 5 years, the question is, do you really think you can do it with tied hardware? What makes you think it, given past recent history?
It matters this stuff. If you are a large corporate buyer, no way are you going to bet your IT on a single source company which has no convincing account of where its going, on parameters which include market share.
OK, is the plan maybe to have no market share aspirations, just carry on and hope, and thereby confine ourselves to the home user market? Again, I doubt that would make people happy if it were stated explicitly.
Are you seeing the problem? The problem is, you can’t avoid having a strategy of some sort on this, and you need one that is achievable, consistent with what you are doing, and avowable. What exactly is theirs?
“If they were to say, we are happy to stay at 4% and we think tying the hardware to the software and keeping a price premium is how to do it, fine.”
In one sentence you made the two biggest mis-states relative to Apple and the Macintosh.
Number one, you equated Apple’s market share as a nuymber that indicates the number of computers they have in place in the market. For your information, Apple’s install base and market share have been continually growing year after year as of late.
Secondly, Apple hardware is not sold at a primium as you insinuated. Apple’s PC hardware typically doesn’t cost any more than a comperably equipped PC. As a matter of fact, it often costs less.
“On the other hand, should they say they have in mind to get to 15% share within 5 years”
Because you’re thinking in terms of install base rather than products sold in a quarter, its important to say that its been measured that Apple computers occupy roughly 15% of the total number of computers in active use. Market share and install-base are two different figures.
Measuring install base is a lot harder than market share. I don’t know where you got 15% install base from but it sounds ridiculously high. Where did you get that figure from, how was it calculated, and would you bet your lively hood on it?
“Apple’s PC hardware typically doesn’t cost any more than a comperably equipped PC. As a matter of fact, it often costs less.”
Alas, it just isn’t true. Go price it. You have to allow some stretch in clock speed to allow for the fact that PPC seems to perform a bit better than equivalently clocked P4s. Do that, then compare two systems with the same memory, disk, opticals, graphics cards. You’ll discover anything from a 30% premium to a 70% premium. But take a look at
http://www.evesham.com/PCs/List.asp?e=D37E7ECA-3616-45FF-B6C2-70E05…
And glance down the list about half way, to see what you get for 700 or so Sterling in the UK, including sales tax and a 17inch screen, 64bit AMD processor. Now, how much does an equivalent Mac cost? Not quite double. Go to John Lewis and see for yourself.
Then add in the price of the dot upgrades to X versus the free Service Packs. By the time you get through, its 50-100% premium.
I am not saying it is not worth it. That’s a separate discussion. But that there is a markup is not arguable.
I don’t know about the installed base, hard to estimate. But I would need hard evidence to believe it’s 15% when sales have been so low for so long. Someone else here claims that Apple share has been rising for ages. Take a look at
http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html
Share declines from around 9% in a straight line for 10 years. In fact, look at the longer term picture, it used to be even higher. It took some doing to manage this! Might have jumped a bit this year? Probably. Makes any difference to the story? No.
The first thing Mac buyers need to do is accept the facts. Only then will they and their company manage to work out a sensible strategy for dealing with their real situation. There is no point trying to find all kinds of reasons why this stuff is not true, or has no implications, and why business as usual will be fine. It won’t be, and it hasn’t been.
Remember, this is not about what we like or what we do. This is about how the company is actually doing, and intends to do, in the market. The other fatal tactic which Mac people usually use when confronted with these facts is to invent some new ground of superiority. Sometimes the cases are better. Sometimes the on screen fonts are better. Sometimes BBEdit is a really superior text editor you can’t get anywhere else. Its all immaterial. The essential point is: twice as much, and falling share.
The question for them is: what are they going to do about it? The question for OS News readers is: is there a viable niche for a premium priced bundle of proprietary hardware and software? And if so, how big is it?
By all means, keep comparing a server-grade Mac (with VAT) to a domestic word processor/WoW PC.
Compare equally tricked out Dell servers and G5 servers and the price point is roughly thirty dollars. This has been done so many times it isn’t funny.
I will be the first to agree that if the Intel Macs are not substantially better than whiteboxes, they’re gambling on the user experience carrying the difference. OTOH, this strategy is responsible for MP3 players generating as much revenue as the computers. Your definition of an important difference and mine aren’t necessarily the same as the public’s.
Yeah, they’re more expensive. So are the Jag-yoo-ars on your island. Neither company is particularly afraid.
“By all means, keep comparing a server-grade Mac (with VAT) to a domestic word processor/WoW PC.”
This is crazy. The G5 is no more “server grade” than the Evesham. This is the whole point. The G5 has a lower spec in terms of graphics card, hard drive, memory, processor speed. It has no better networking or component reliability.
If it had dual scsi drives and multiple ethernet connections, that might be different. It doesn’t.
Evesham is a UK name brand supplier. The AMD 64s they are offering are certainly not domestic word processors. Not white box. Just look at the spec!
Its not my island by the way – its an English speaking board. German department stores or supplier sites would be meaningless to everyone.
“Market share is below 5% – a disaster, and especially so considering where it has fallen from over the last 10 years.”
At roughly 16%, Apple’s install base has never stopped growing. Market share is not a barometer that gauges the growing or shrinking number of computers in use.
Regardless, your statement is still false as Apple’s market share has continually risen over the last 5 years.
..welcome the decision to make it very hard to install OSX on a non-Mac.
Those of us who actually own a Mac would find mac-centric forums swamped with clueless white-box types pleading for help in getting OSX to run properly on their crappy hardware if it were easy to do.
the Mac system works well due to tight hardware control.. long may it continue as such.
Why is it that your dedicated Mac user will take the slightest, or no, excuse to descend into ranting abuse of anyone who thinks or behaves differently?
Just listen to it:-
“Applications that are simply applications, not a heaving mass of files strewn around the disk”
“clueless whitebox types…..their crappy hardware”
And by the time this thread gets through there will be pages and pages of this stuff. What on earth are you all so furious and resentful about? You are just using computers that very few other people choose to use. So what? Some of us live in small villages where a minority of the population live, we don’t abuse everyone living anywhere else. We cycle, doesn’t mean we have to abuse everyone else we see that day who is walking or driving. We sail or row. Doesn’t mean people in motorboats are idiots!
It is really, really weird stuff this.
The applications argument is a valid one.
On OSX, generally you only have to drag an app to the applications folder. If you do have to use an installer, it is generally just 3 clicks or so. One to agree to the EULA, one to select the target device and one to install.
Thats compared to Windows where every app needs an installer. Oh and if you want to move a program to another computer you just have to drap it over. When I worked in a state school, we had to run an app to image the whole system which took ages then install the app, then run the imager again to detect the changes. The whole process took more than an hour to do just so we could transfer apps to a large number of computers.
This isn’t flamebait. This is just the facts.
You don’t have to install an application into the registry unless the app developer decided to, but it is not required at all.
It is nice to have a one stop shop to uninstall your applications though.
umm, yeah it is.. mine is called the apps folder.
In deleting something in the apps folder, you don’t delete things that are nice to have in Windows, like start menu shortcuts, quick launch shortcuts, desktop shortcuts, etc…
Plus, many apps (especially games) will save settings files, or saved games, when you uninstall unless you tell it to delete them
Guess what…. Have a look in your programs folder. all the apps you ever installed are still listed with their own folder. all still have settings files.
the only thing the uninstaller does is remove shared libraries that are not needed, shortcuts, and the program file.
no need for shortcuts in installing a mac app. the apps that are installed by pkg files have shared libraries that can be used by other apps on the system so you want to keep the libraries around, and the program file is dealt with by dumping it in the garbage.
“What on earth are you all so furious and resentful about?”
As the AC who made the “crappy hardware” remark I’d point out that it’s been slightly misinterpreted, possibly due to my own phrasing.
These boards have been awash in recent days with white-box Pc owners whining about Apple’s decision not to supply OSX for their hardware, most of them using the old (and flawed) comparison between the cost of a $199 walmart special and a $1099 Powermac. (Ironically most of them would pirate the OS rather than pay for it judging from most of the comments)
It’s no secret that the majority of crashes under Windows NT variants (XP, 2000, Server 2003) are caused by bad hardware or drivers. Apple users rarely have that problem due to the apple system of limited, fully supported hardware. OSX on Intel commodity hardware would be a driver nightmare for Apple and a support nightmare for mac-community websites due to the crowds of (l)users suddenly demanding our help in fixing OSX to run on hardware it wasn’t designed for.
It would be as bad news for real apple users as it would be for Apple’s accounts.
It’s no secret that the majority of crashes under Windows NT variants (XP, 2000, Server 2003) are caused by bad hardware or driver
this is a myth….
win2000 is the most stable, hardly ever crashing… but the same machines always crash with XP and ME…
win2000 is the most stable, hardly ever crashing… but the same machines always crash with XP and ME…
…and what do you think that indicates? windows2k is more tolerant of bad hardware/drivers. myth my ass
nice spin. it means that XP is not as stable is what it means.
the point he was making was this….
2k is far more stable on the SAME HARDWARE as other versions of windows. so yes, it is more tolerant…
but the myth was that WHITE-BOX x86 machines are all too unstable
it is not the hardware, it is the OS
BTW – I have had more lock-ups with OSx Tiger than I have had with windows XP.
it is most likely your memory.
OS X is not tolerant of cheepo memory. so if you get poor quality stuff (some times you get unlucky with the cheepo stuff) then OS X will have problems. My windows 98 box crashed 5 times a day because of bad memory.
if you’re happy to deal with corrupt memory/audio/video because the os will tolerate it, go ahead, be my guest. I’d rather be aware my shit was dodgy and go about fixing it.
you’re running a goddamn beta on different hardware than was intended and comparing it to xp? thats a laugh
[i]you’re running a goddamn beta on different hardware than was intended and comparing it to xp? thats a laugh/i>
who said that ?
I am running osx tiger on my Apple Mac
I am running xp on my PC
“this is a myth….
win2000 is the most stable, hardly ever crashing… but the same machines always crash with XP and ME…”
Buy good hardware…. haha!
The only systems I dual boot at home are OS X and Ubuntu – I expect this to carry one once I get an Intel based Apple. I don’t see why anyone needs to dual boot OS X and Windows…
Mine is single boo – just OS X
I would highly consider dual-booting windows (or if a VM is just as fast – use the VM). I have been dying to play Splinter Cell 2 and 3 and they aren’t available on the mac yet (and the people that ported the original said they have no plants to port the other two) – so I would install windows just for the games – of times that I need to do windows specific things – example this semester I need to do projects in MS SQL – doesn’t run on OS X and my professor wont accept oracle (free non-commercial edition) or mysql
I don’t see why anyone needs to dual boot OS X and Windows…
Then Open your closed mind and eyes and try to understand that not everyone wants or can run Ubuntu or linux for the matter.
I like the idea of using a linux box, but I have Mac OS X. I need Windows because I make a living out of it and I play games in it. Why would I want to have Linux. I fail to see where one would like to use Linux if there’s OS X.
Same fuzzy Logic.
Dock – Personally I like the Dock WAY more than Windows taskbar. I can count on my apps being in the same place every time which means I save time by knowing I can start and find my application in the same place. In Windows it depends on the load sequence. And then if explorer has to restart who knows which order the apps show on the task bar. With Mac OS X and the Dock I have my applications in the order that -I- want them.
iMovie – Ever tried to make movies with MovieMaker? Try iMovie and you’ll see that MovieMaker is a joke.
The list could go on and on and on and on. Windows gets in your way. Mac OS X doesn’t. Your Intel machine is faster? Then why don’t you get as much work done?
The same people in China who make “crappy white-box hardware” will be making the new flawless Apple X86 machines. The v-e-r-y same people.
Quality manufacturing in China is more varied then practically anywhere else in the world… I work in the audio industry and yes we do some dealing in the orient. Some manufacturers are right on, some are ghastly. When you partner with a manufacturer you have to dictate EXACTLY what you want. They will comply but you have to be extremely explicit with your standards etc. I believe Apple would be one of the most stringent and also choose factories that can supply the acceptable standards without sacrificing quality. So, it’s not the same people, it’s their cousins.
Jb
arg. you have no clue how manufacturing works do you?
Quality Assurance is what makes something more expensive. the tighter the QA, the less likely it is that the device will fail. So, a company who sells super cheap hardware probably bought the rejects from the line that the other companies did not want because their standards are higher.
I work here in Taiwan. Apple hardware is made by Taiwanese factories in Mainland China. Mostly by Asus, Hon-Hai and Quanta. The same companies who make Dell, HP, etc etc.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_45/b3756101.htm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/22/dell_signs_quanta_to_make/
http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=450
“arg. you have no clue how manufacturing works do you?”
I’ve been in IT manufacturing here in Taiwan and in China for 20 years. I probably have a little more experience in what passes for QA here than you.
good for you, but you certainly seem to laps in the the department of common sense. I will guarantee that the silicon that is bought by the high price sellers has tighter QA standards than the silicon bought by the cheap guys. Manufacturers want to sell their stock, and OEMs want to meet their standards. OEMs with high standards do not just buy anything off the line, and OEMs with low standards get deals on the left over junk.
Common sense? Sonny, I’ve had to deal with Apple, IBM, Fujitsu-Siemens……you name it. On this end, price is king. It’s *all* that matters. I suggest you come over here and work for a couple of years in the industry. You’ll learn the hard way. As it is, you’re simply showing your ignorance.
As someone who have just had to reinstall Windows XP because of some weird network adapter registry barf I tell you with all authority: Networking in Windows DOESN’T “JUST” WORK. It’s horrible in fact. It hides your interfaces. It makes one card behave like two cards if you plug it into another slot on your notebook, what’s worse it makes all the ugly shortcuts like “Network Connection #3, Network Connection #6, 7, 10” etc. Compare it with the beauty of UNIX network configuration – all your cards are assigned numbers and names that make sense, so you basically say “configure thiscard1 ipaddress netmask” can it be simpler?! And there’s NO place to screw up – no registry to remember your ‘old’ cards and connections or minutes of waiting for the network properties box to close, or having to reboot to apply an IP address (yes, this does happen in XP with wireless stuff). So basically networking in Mac is a lot like one in FreeBSD, utility- and organisation-wise, and I was just BLOWN AWAY when it has configured my protected wifi network right after install, without getting in my way or offering obscure “descriptions”. A minute – and I was online. Compare that to installing a D-Link adapter in XP – it took 4(!) reboots on one of the machines. Guys, Macs are just better. Try one before spreading misinformation about how beautiful Windows is.
…getting back to the article…I personally would be fine buying OS X and running it on my “Beige Box”. I don’t believe I will “Burn in Hell” for it as Jobs puts it. He gets his money. The rest is my risk. If I have trouble with XP or Linux I won’t be calling MS or Linus about it – never have. If hardware doesn’t work or isn’t supported thats my fault and I won’t log onto any Mac fanatic forums and trouble them with my “crying” as someone mentioned earlier. If my hardware doesn’t work I or someone else will fix it soon enough or write a driver. There are projects springing up everywhere like the one thrying to get Nvidia drivers running on OSX86. We will inevitable build a seperate OSX86-beige-box community and move forward just like we always have (linux/oss). It will happen. It’s good for everyone – even the mac fans. Can you imagine in a couple years one of the most popular apps being a port from linux/bsd by a “beige-box” user and not a Mac purist? Will the purists refuse to use it? Will they be upset that it was developed by an ex Linux user on a beige-box Mac? Outrage!
The world is not populated by clones of you.
“The world is not populated by clones of you.”
And more is the pity. Steve Jobs != Jesus, and no Mac ever built was a Personal Computing equivalent of a Ferrari/Jag/or BMW. Keep in mind that this is coming from a Mac user (admittedly, one who is slowly leaving that camp for what are IMO greener pastures). Maclots are one of the worst parts of running the Mac OS — everyone assumes that you are a card carrying, Koolaid Drinking, RDF befuddled Applehead when you whip out your POWARBook. It gets old.
“Maclots are one of the worst parts of running the Mac OS”
Yes, this is one of the saddest parts of the whole saga. I too have basically left. There was a time when Macs genuinely were superior. The hardware, nubus and scsi, and even the 680x, was way ahead of the competition. The human interface was way ahead. Stability was much better. I can recall Finance borrowing our machine to run a huge Excel spreadsheet on, because it crashed all the time on Windows. Mac users in those days were informed, reasonable, enthusiastic, unfanatical people.
Don’t understand what’s happened. Its all so unnecessary. Look at the Amiga people. That too is a minority taste. But they are pleasant enthusiasts who brighten the world of computing, have a public sense of fun, and don’t spend all their time hysterically knocking everyone else. For me too, it has been a reason for leaving.
and don’t spend all their time hysterically knocking everyone else. For me too, it has been a reason for leaving.
——————————
Why is it acceptable for Linux and Windows users to Bash mac users but when Mac Users defend there platform, the Win/Lin users suddenly start blubbering about not fair, you’re just a zealot, you really need to grow up and look at yourselfs before you start throwing stones around
Oh wait, no thats somehow allowed, morons
“Why is it acceptable for Linux and Windows users to Bash mac users but when Mac Users defend there platform, the Win/Lin users suddenly start blubbering about not fair, you’re just a zealot, you really need to grow up and look at yourselfs before you start throwing stones around ”
This is symptomatic of the problem, when any points which seem to reflect negatively on the platform are considered to be ‘bashing mac users’. Its a sort of hysterical oversensitivity.
What some of us are saying is that an advocacy which consists of the emotional repetition of insults and denials of the obvious is not going to convince anyone outside the cult of the merits of a platform. In fact, it is going to damage the reputation of the platform and lose it customers. This is a minority of Apple buyers, but it is unfortunately a growing minority, and an increasingly vocal one. Please realise guys: to the outside world, you sound like people with a one-track obsession. You sound like Scientologists. Its dreadful stuff to listen to. You are doing your chosen platform more harm than good.
You need to realise that this is not about being a ‘mac user’. All any of us have done is buy computers. It is just a purchase. Its a computer, its not a group of people. Its not a lifestyle, a religion, whatever. Lighten up!
The other problem is that it has come too easy to throw “zealot” at a macuser who makes a sensible point as somehow by throwing that in it suddenly destroys his argument.
If you read the posts before the accusation of ZEALOTERY ACTIVITY you will find no such statements the supports OBESSION.
Its you who need to get off this obession not us.
we might need to lighten up, but the bashers who throw such terms around need to grow up
Oh my! I thought it was. Let me check…yes of course it is. Haha you can’t fool me…”eeep!” “eeeep!” How do I turn this thing off?
I personally would be fine buying OS X and running it on my “Beige Box”. I don’t believe I will “Burn in Hell” for it as Jobs puts it.
The burn in Hell part was about theft, not about bugging Apple with white box problems (if, hypothetically, they allowed running OS X on other hardware).
MAC OS X, great thing but…
up to the kind of user, I have a mac and I use ubuntu-ppc gnu/linux, even when I have dual boot rarely I use mac os x
and… technology to make it only run in “our” computers…
uf! uf! uf! drm?
no thx
t31