Industry watchers have noticed a “halo” surrounding Apple’s iPod: The popular music player is helping to bring new users to the company’s Macintosh line of computers. However, could the uncertainty surrounding the Mac’s upcoming switch from PowerPC to Intel processors take the shine off that halo?
Apple’s Halo Stays on Despite Switch to Intel
180 Comments
2005-07-31 8:03 pm
KellyMcNeill
Usually you don’t get access to the hard data unless you pay for it. Until then, you only get references to the hard data in the news articles.
2005-07-31 8:13 pm
2005-07-31 9:35 pm
Ronald Vos
I find it striking that none of those 3 articles provide the methods of research, even if it’s supposedly done by credible research-agencies. Nowhere is mentioned how the conclusions were reaches; no ‘x of the y people asked said they switched after buying an ipod’.
Furthermore the third article states: “Although there is no solid evidence to back up the belief that the iPod has had any effect on the sales of Macintosh CPUs, IDC believes there is a renewed interest in Apple as a company.”
2005-07-31 10:37 pm
KellyMcNeill
“I find it striking that none of those 3 articles provide the methods of research, even if it’s supposedly done by credible research-agencies. Nowhere is mentioned how the conclusions were reaches; no ‘x of the y people asked said they switched after buying an ipod’.”
The reasons why most news articles don’t supply that is because it requires purchasing the data from the research company. Many of the research companies will be happy to provide the results to news agencies such as those which I supplied you link to, but the data can run into several thousand dollars.
“no solid evidence to back up the belief that the iPod has had any effect on the sales of Macintosh CPUs.”
Thats odd. I know I’ve seen several research organizations touting data which concluded that the iPod did in fact have some affect.
2005-07-31 7:37 pm
Ronald Vos
“Did any journalist ever cared to check if this “halo” exists, with hard data?”
Yes. Its actually try. Both Apple’s US and worldwide sales have increased significantly as of late. Not only have they increased (Apple’s PC sales have alwayse increased… but they’ve been increasing at a faster PC than that of x86 PCs as of late.
Increased sales does NOT mean those sales are due to ipod. You’re mixing up cause and effect.
2005-07-31 5:46 pm
Anonymous
I read all this and I still will buy a PPC Mac before the Intel switch. Who cares anyways, and when Intel is inside I will get one.
Yeah you can duel boot into Windows, but people won’t after experiencing Apple and iApps.
Boot into something second rate like XP?? Come on, people are buying macs to ESCAPE WINDOWS and all the comes with it,,,,,viruses, etc, blue screens and to experience Apple.
sp29
-
2005-07-31 6:11 pm
LumberghYeah you can duel boot into Windows, but people won’t after experiencing Apple and iApps.
Wrong. Many people need windows for work. Most people that know what they’re doing don’t have blue screens or viruses. And then you have games and other stuff that linux or mac doesn’t have. Also, you probably won’t be booting into XP, you’ll be booting into Vista.
-
KellyMcNeill
“Wrong. Many people need windows for work.”
The reason why they need it for work is simply because that’s what their work uses. Once more and more people realize that there wasn’t any reason to standardize solely on Windows, more and more of IT admins will develope the Windows-exclosive software that precluded Macs from being used to now be used when the realize how good of any option it is
“Most people that know what they’re doing don’t have blue screens or viruses.”
Unfortunately, Blue screens can come about despite how knowledgable you are. These are problems resulting from Windows code… not necesserally because their lack of skill. As far as viruses are concerned… if you lock down a Windows box enough.. its possible that it can indeed be as secure as a Mac which ofcourse doesn’t require any additional effort.
-
Lumbergh
The reason why they need it for work is simply because that’s what their work uses. Once more and more people realize that there wasn’t any reason to standardize solely on Windows, more and more of IT admins will develope the Windows-exclosive software that precluded Macs from being used to now be used when the realize how good of any option it is
Of course there was a reason to standardize on windows at the office. Because windows is the standard in an office environment. And if Macs are going to cost as much as they do now, then Macs will be as rare in the office as they are now.
Unfortunately, Blue screens can come about despite how knowledgable you are. These are problems resulting from Windows code… not necesserally because their lack of skill.
To say that XP isn’t relatively stable is a lie. I’ve had probably 2 crashes of XP in at least 3 years. I’ve had just as many kernel panics and have had the linux desktop go down on me more times than that.
As far as viruses are concerned… if you lock down a Windows box enough.. its possible that it can indeed be as secure as a Mac which ofcourse doesn’t require any additional effort.
It’s called having a router that blocks ports and a firewall, which most linux people have too. There’s no magic involved. The only problem is IE (which I don’t use) which Microsoft should had put a high-security level as default.
-
Anonymous
“Of course there was a reason to standardize on windows at the office. Because windows is the standard in an office environment. And if Macs are going to cost as much as they do now, then Macs will be as rare in the office as they are now.”
Why would they be more rare if they cost the same or less than a comperably equipped PC?
“To say that XP isn’t relatively stable is a lie. I’ve had probably 2 crashes of XP in at least 3 years. I’ve had just as many kernel panics and have had the linux desktop go down on me more times than that.”
I’m not saying that its not stable. I’m saying that many people have more crashes when using WIndows than using other OSes.
-
Lumbergh
How come you’re not logged in anymore?
Why would they be more rare if they cost the same or less than a comperably equipped PC?
Why should they switch? There’s tons of training involved and software considerations to be dealt with.
I’m not saying that its not stable. I’m saying that many people have more crashes when using WIndows than using other OSes.
Oh, so you did a poll, or is this just a couple random people you talked to? If XP was as unstable as every troll child around here claimed it was, you would have a lot more Macs in the office.
-
KellyMcNeill
“How come you’re not logged in anymore? “
Making changes to my browser… forgot to re-log in.
“Why should they switch? There’s tons of training involved and software considerations to be dealt with.”
The re-training argument is over exagerated in my opinion. The two OSes work similarly enough as far as basic navigation and application launching that its really not the factor that many make it out to be. As long as the applications are the same, people would barely know a difference.
That still begs the question, “why switch.” Some people may prefer Macintosh. It wouldn’t even need to be all all or none situation. There’s little reason why Macs couldn’t be just as easily considered alongside Windows PCs if the same applications are available on both systems. I think its the “only one platform” mentality that gets people so screwey.
“OSes. Oh, so you did a poll, or is this just a couple random people you talked to?”
Actually, I have done a poll. I don’t mean to sound like a smart ass, but yes, I actually did conduct a poll.
“If XP was as unstable as every troll child around here claimed it was, you would have a lot more Macs in the office.”
Please don’t automatically equate me with the troll group because I find something negative about Windows. It may not be as crashy as some around here may lead you to believe, but OS X is still less crashy than XP.
-
Lumbergh
The re-training argument is over exagerated in my opinion.
You don’t understand how it works in the typical corporate office environment. It’s huge amounts of paper work and retraining for admins, informations workers, and other IT staff. You don’t just go about this willy nilly.
That still begs the question, “why switch.” Some people may prefer Macintosh. It wouldn’t even need to be all all or none situation. There’s little reason why Macs couldn’t be just as easily considered alongside Windows PCs if the same applications are available on both systems.
In most office situations someone isn’t given their choice of computer because they “prefer” it. Having a homogeneous environment obviously has lots of advantage. Bringing in Macs doesn’t offer much advantage.
-
KellyMcNeill
“You don’t understand how it works in the typical corporate office environment. It’s huge amounts of paper work and retraining for admins, informations workers, and other IT staff. You don’t just go about this willy nilly.”
That’s typical for when new software is used because it would be a large departure from what they were previously using. Assuming the applications are the same, the retraining argument is still relatively negligable.
“In most office situations someone isn’t given their choice of computer because they “prefer” it.”
And that was because there was only one operating system that was considered by these companies suitable for desktop use. Now there are a few.
“Having a homogeneous environment obviously has lots of advantage”
And also has disadvantages as well such as its easier to explain a network of similar computing setups.
“Bringing in Macs doesn’t offer much advantage.”
Increased productiveity for those that prefer it.
-
Lumbergh
That’s typical for when new software is used because it would be a large departure from what they were previously using. Assuming the applications are the same, the retraining argument is still relatively negligable.
You still don’t get it. It’s a huge cost that a corporate office would rather avoid.
“In most office situations someone isn’t given their choice of computer because they “prefer” it.”
And that was because there was only one operating system that was considered by these companies suitable for desktop use. Now there are a few.
No, people don’t get to choose their workstation just because there might be something else that might be able to do the job.
“Having a homogeneous environment obviously has lots of advantage”
And also has disadvantages as well such as its easier to explain a network of similar computing setups.
Hehe, you say its a disadvantage, then go ahead and reaffirm my argument. Do you know the definition of homogeneous?
“Bringing in Macs doesn’t offer much advantage.”
Increased productiveity for those that prefer it.
It doesn’t fly like that in a corporate environment. You don’t go to the IT guys and say I’ll be more productive using a Mac because that’s what I prefer.
Once again, your only argument why people would bring in Mac is people might prefer it. It just doesn’t work that way in a corporate office environment.
-
KellyMcNeill
“You still don’t get it. It’s a huge cost that a corporate office would rather avoid.”
Its a huge cost when its dealing with changeing software because thats the paint at which productivity is judged. The way people use computers in companies makes the switching of OSes negligable (as far as training cvosts are concerned) because basic navigations is very similar.
“No, people don’t get to choose their workstation just because there might be something else that might be able to do the job.”
The reason for that really only have to do with IS/IT people’s biases than anything else. They know Windows, so thats what they recommend. More and more of them are using Linux… so it would be natural to think that it would increase in desktop use too, but Linux is still not quite as refined as Windows and OS X is so it has a way to receive the same benefit that Windows did. Now that more IS/IT people are considering Macs… its only natural to see a increase in corporate Mac migration because it, like WIndows is appropriate for desktop use. Watch and see, in the coming months there will be more reports of Mac moving into corporate enviornments.
“Hehe, you say its a disadvantage, then go ahead and reaffirm my argument. Do you know the definition of homogeneous? “
There are advantages for keeping platforms different as well as keeping them diverse. You were making it sound as if keeping them same offered the only advantage. I was simply countering that argument.
“It doesn’t fly like that in a corporate environment. You don’t go to the IT guys and say I’ll be more productive using a Mac because that’s what I prefer. “
Of course not. They need to be familiar with it first. As more IS/IT people become familiar with it, you will see increased acceptance of OS X in corporate enviornments.
“your only argument why people would bring in Mac is people might prefer it”
No, I said that the advantage is that they would be more productive in it.
-
Lumbergh
Kelly, you still have not made a sound argument for the corporate office to switch. Your argument seems to lie with “Well, I like Macs and so do others so offices should switch”.
No, I said that the advantage is that they would be more productive in it.
No they wouldn’t. Leave your emotional attachment to the Mac out of your posts and use logic to give reasons why an office should switch. You haven’t given one reason so far.
-
KellyMcNeill
“Kelly, you still have not made a sound argument for the corporate office to switch.”
You haven’t made a sound argument why there is need to stay with only using Windows. If a person is more productive at using OS X instead of Windows and IS/IT people are capeable of servicing them, there’s absolutely no reason why they ought not have mixed enviornments.
“Your argument seems to lie with “Well, I like Macs and so do others so offices should switch”.”
No, I never said that. I said, A person may be more productive with OS X. Why not switch.
“You haven’t given one reason so far.”
I’ve given you a few so far. The fact that you don’t like them doesn’t negate them.
-
2005-08-01 2:49 am
japailLumbergh’s position is fairly simple. If there is no financial incentive to transition to the Mac, then companies will not engage in any widespread adoption. If the costs associated with retraining and retooling appear or are greater than any benefits gained through avoiding exploits aimed at Windows or any productivity improvements that might be gained by some staff, then they aren’t going to transition. His argument isn’t about necessity, though there are areas where using Windows is necessary in some capacity for doing work. CAD, for instance, is not the forte of the Macintosh.
-
Lumbergh
Kelly, by the number and content of your posts on this thread its completely clear that you have a fanboy, emotional attachment to Mac. That’s fine – you’re not alone around here.
It’s obvious you don’t understand the corporate environment at all. You don’t just go around giving people macs because they claim that they’re more productive. Get that through your head. And you completely miss the point of all the in-house VB apps that are out there, and all the other programs that just don’t run on Macs. And the fact that having a hetergeneous environment is a pain in the ass for a multitude of reasons, and the fact that retraining and re-deployment is very costly, and that XP is stable, and that in a corporate environment you’ll find much less crap on the system…
So once again, all you’ve given is fanboy arguments that are based on emotion and not reason.
-
Anonymous
Lumbergh,
I work for a fairly large company and we allow people to use whatever platform they want. If the IS/IT staff is unfamiliar with it, they must service it themselves, but before we must see that the computer can access all the network services and see if the person is even skilled enough to service their computer. Recently Macs running OS X become one of the computers (other than Windows) that we support. We chose to do this after discovering that in the past Macs required less support anyways. Now we supply support, but its not really required much sot really a no brainer. If a person feels more productive in a certain environment, we figure… why not let them use whatever setup that allows them to do more work and be happier. Its a win/win situation for everybody.
We’ve talked about when Apple comes out with their x86 computers that we may opt to switch to an all-Mac office, or at least upgrade computers to Macs as new computers are needed because they will be able to run Windows and for those that want to run OS X, they can too. If Apple can maintain their current pricing when they make the switch, I don’t see why more companies won’t do the same.
After all, its It’s about productivity.
-
japail
Windows is largely as stable as the drivers used. A bad chipset driver and you’ll find a lot of bluescreens. A well-debugged driver and you’ll have far fewer problems. I’m sure that no small part of the stability issues people have with NT era kernels stems from the plethora of hardware with many drivers of variable quality. There are cases where being a technically-competent individual will prevent such problems because you aren’t needlessly changing your stable platform with the latest beta drivers.
-
KellyMcNeill
“Windows is largely as stable as the drivers used. A bad chipset driver and you’ll find a lot of bluescreens.”
I agree with you 100% One thing to keep in mind though is that a bad driver in Windows is far more likely to bring down the whole system than it is in OS X. At least in my experience.
Since running OS X, I’ve only had two crashes that brought down the entire system… and that was early on in OS X’s initial release cycle. For the record, I’ve had several crashes which have brought down applications.
-
japail
There’s nothing about OS X’s design that makes it more robust in handling undefined behavior in kernel space. There are just many more, much crappier drivers available under Windows for everyone to enjoy.
-
2005-08-01 6:07 am
-
Anonymous
> Please inform me, what office applications are available for Windows but not MacOS X?
MS Access? Outlook? Visio? Project?
-
-
Anonymous
“Please inform me, what office applications are available for Windows but not MacOS X?”
Peachtree, Solmon, Sap, All big name accounting programs, I have not found anything on osx that can do these..
You also run into alot of the microsoft programs,
like project, visio, and such.
-
kaiwai
Have you tried using MYOB for the accounting software? sure, it isn’t ultra-ultra-ultra high end, but it does do a pretty good job.
2005-07-31 5:57 pm
Anonymous
OSX for Intel platforms has been leaked in .iso form. Just thought I’d mention this as somehow it didn’t get posted on what pretends to be a site about OS news. Check your torrents skiddies.
-
KellyMcNeill
“OSX for Intel platforms has been leaked in .iso form. Just thought I’d mention this as somehow it didn’t get posted on what pretends to be a site about OS news. Check your torrents skiddies.”
I’ve checked and haven’t found one legit torrent yet. I’ve found a few good fakes that were set up, but none yet is legit.
2005-07-31 6:10 pm
Anonymous
iBooks cases are made with polycarbonate plastic, which, according to Apple’s website, is what is used to make bulletproof glass. If you can’t tell the difference between an iBook’s case and a Dell case by flicking them, you should see the doctor.
2005-07-31 6:12 pm
pauls101
Part of the “halo” all these years has been bragging about PPC vs Intel. Ten years ago we joked about Intel Inside being like the Surgeon General’s Warning and expected the Pentium to be gone by now. It survived, as a testimonial to what unlimited resources can do to prop up a bad design that was obsolete 10 years ago.
Guess what? Intel is still 2nd rate junk, but now it’s wonderful, it’s the answer to all of Apple’s problems, it’s the shape of modern computing, etc. Kinda confusing!
2005-07-31 6:16 pm
raver31
it dont matter what architecture the mac runs on, it does not matter how much more a mac costs than a pc…..
the thing that stopped the mac fropm being adopted as “THE COMPUTER” for everyone, was image…
Apple played up the image of the mac being the computer all yuppies wanted to own, and the yuppies wanted to own one because it was simple to use….
now the problem is that the majority of people veiw the mac a something simple for simple people, ie, not a REAL computer.
and I do not see Apple or even mac users changing everyones mind.
-
KellyMcNeill
“it dont matter what architecture the mac runs on, it does not matter how much more a mac costs than a pc.”
I think I lost you. A Mac doesn’t cost more than a comperably equipped PC.
“the thing that stopped the mac fropm being adopted as “THE COMPUTER” for everyone, was image”
Exactly. People had so many misconceptions aboutthe Mac.
“Apple played up the image of the mac being the computer all yuppies wanted to own”
No, I think that image came about after so many people misappropriated the Mac as being more expensive than a comperably equipped PC. Ofcourse thats not true.
“now the problem is that the majority of people veiw the mac a something simple for simple people, ie, not a REAL computer. “
I don’t think this is it at all. Maybe that may be the case for you… but your mal-informaed mind certinly doesn’t represent the majority. Its simply because people haven’t been exposed to it as an option. People never even weighed Apple into the equation when buying a Mac because it was out of sight and hence out of mind. With the iPod gaining ground people are suddenly saying… “wow, theres this whole other platform that offers a totally better computing enviornment than what I’m familiar with” and as you might expect, the Macintosh demographic is now growing fast than PCs.
“and I do not see Apple or even mac users changing everyones mind.”
Thankfully, you don’t think for everybody.
-
raver31
I don’t think this is it at all. Maybe that may be the case for you… but your mal-informaed mind certinly doesn’t represent the majority
what makes you think I am not a mac user ?
did I mention anywhere what I use ?
“and I do not see Apple or even mac users changing everyones mind.”
Thankfully, you don’t think for everybody.
Luckily I do not think for everyone, or there would have never have been any mac sold, period.
BUT, you have proved my point.
Yuppies always thought they were right and everyone else was stupid, can I ask you a question ? what job do you work at ? and more importantly… did you buy the original Mac, like I did ?
Have you kept up to date with buying a new mac every time a new one was released, like I did ?
Do you have experience on all other architectures of computers, from the humble DOS PC to the mainframe, like I do ?
If your answer is no, then I suggest you go back to /. and sprout your crap…. or stay here but be RESPECTFUL to people who actually know what they are talking about.
BTW – I did not mean that last paragraph to sound cheeky, it is just that I do not want another troll on this site, there is enough already.
-
KellyMcNeill
“what makes you think I am not a mac user ? “
Huh? Did I say you weren’t?
“Yuppies always thought they were right and everyone else was stupid”
You mean like non yuppies think they’re always right?
“What job do you work at ?
I’m a web developer.
“id you buy the original Mac, like I did”
Yes, and even pretated the Mac a bit too. I owned an Apple IIc.
“Do you have experience on all other architectures of computers, from the humble DOS PC to the mainframe, like I do ?”
Absolutely. I actually run a moderately large OS-centric web site.
-
2005-07-31 7:20 pm
Adurbe
Any PC/Mac you buy is a compramise on performance/cost
I may WANT a top of the line dual G5 but I cant justify the cost as my ibook fulfils all my need….
I think the ‘halo effect’ is best described as linking Apple as a brand with quality and value (only recently has it dropped the image of being VERY expensive and more importantly, incompatible computer)
2005-07-31 7:36 pm
Anonymous
If you were waiting for a faster processor, maybe your argument would have some weight. After all, faster processors come out all of the time. But this is not a simple matter of a faster processor, and it will only happen at one predefined point of time.
For example: if you were to buy the fastest Mac today, you would be about 18 to 24 months short of the release date of the fastest PPC Macs. Yeah, it is a long wait. On the other hand, it isn’t quite long enough to justify upgrading the machine both now and then. This is, of course, going to be of greater concern to existing Mac users with a large investment in Mac software because many legacy Macintosh applications simply will not run on the x86 platform: any “Classic” application, any AltiVec application, and (IIRC) any G5 application will fail to function in Rosetta (in addition to several other limitations). Then there is the performance hit by using emulated software. It probably won’t be as bad as running PearPC, but it you definitely will have an “incentive to upgrade” the more demanding PPC applications.
Another example: you are a switcher. You have no prior investment in Mac software, so buying in now would not make much sense. While people regularly upgrade most their software, they usually have a few applications where the cost does not justify an upgrade. You may continue using these application even though you replaced your computer once or twice or more. If you buy a PPC Mac now, that investment would be down the drain after your first hardware upgrade. This is particularly true for the more demanding PPC applications (if it doesn’t hit the CPU very hard, you would probably continue to use it in Rosetta).
So if you think buying now makes sense, you have serious money management issues. This is, after all, a fixed target. It is not a progressive one, as you suggest.
2005-07-31 7:37 pm
-
2005-07-31 11:10 pm
KellyMcNeill
Hmmm… It appears Apple is indeed making inroads into business:
Apple making big inroads in business with OS X
http://p143.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/mc/20050721/tc_mc/applemakingbigin…
-
2005-08-01 1:48 am
-
2005-08-01 1:53 am
pravdaThere are not even 10 million OS X machines worldwide according to Apple.
The market share for Mac is next to nothing. It is easy to get these huge percentage increases because the base percentage is so low.
What Apple has succeeded at is offering the *perception* of a choice to a lot of people.
After people discover they are trading one big mean Microsoft for a small petty Microsoft, no doubt the “halo” will be gone — and this time forever — as enough people will then know the truth about Apple vs. the Reality Distortion Field.
-
KellyMcNeill
“There are not even 10 million OS X machines worldwide according to Apple.”
If memory servers, Apple said that there are 13 million OS X installations across the globe. I could be wrong about that though… that number stuck in my head and I don’t have anything to back it up at the moment.
“The market share for Mac is next to nothing.”
The mistake you’re making is that you’re assuming market share has anything to do with the total number of Mac installations. To help you understand the problem with your logic, here’s an example:
Market share dynamics are measured in products *SOLD* in a 3 month time period…. not the number of products in use. As a result, if market share were gauged in 2-day time spans and you and I represented 100% of all computer users out there, and I purchased 1 million Macs and you purchased no PCs and on the second day you purchased 1 PC and I purchased no Macs, as of the second day, market share dynamics indicate that PCs have 100% market share.
The problem with market share dynamics is that it doesn’t account for products that have a longer lifespan.
When you are referring to market share, you’re thinking of install base. Unfortunately, market research companies don’t make thus data publicly available. There is however reason to believe that Apple’s install base is roughly 7% of all computers. (Its not the 3.5% that is commonly understood as a result of people misunderstanding the market share demographic).
“After people discover they are trading one big mean Microsoft for a small petty Microsoft”
If that isn’t a troll statement I don’t know what is.
“and this time forever — as enough people will then know the truth about Apple vs. the Reality Distortion Field.”
You make it sound as if you’re hoping for it to happen because Apple’s increased usage somehoe does you a personal disservice.
-
KellyMcNeill
“Oh, please. Marketing surveys are rarely statistically relevant”
Oh that’s rich. You just negated the means by which you could be proven wrong. You’re amazing.
“there’s nothing to back up the context that those numbers were produced in.”
You mean you’ll only believe it when you get to see the research data that costs thousands of dollars to gain access to and until then there’s reason to doubt it?
-
elsewhere
Oh, please. Marketing surveys are rarely statistically relevant”
Oh that’s rich. You just negated the means by which you could be proven wrong. You’re amazing.
there’s nothing to back up the context that those numbers were produced in.”
You mean you’ll only believe it when you get to see the research data that costs thousands of dollars to gain access to and until then there’s reason to doubt it?
Are you kidding me? Familiar with the old adage, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics? Companies throw around statistics all the time. They’re worthless without a context and knowing the methodology by which they were obtained.
For instance, I could say that I polled everyone in my office and discovered that everyone is using Windows XP as their primary desktop OS. Even better, since my company is global, I can poll all of our employees worldwide and discover that they’re all using Windows XP as their primary desktop OS. From my survey, I extrapolate and surmise that 100% of corporate desktops worldwide are running Windows XP, based on those results. After all, I’ve got the numbers to back it up, right?
But then, to be extremely generous, I suppose if our marketing department and maybe some of our sales and IT guys were using OS X, amounting to maybe 20% of our corporate desktops, I could adjust my survey to claim that OS X had reached 20% penetration in the global market. At that point you would jump in the air and point at my announcement as strengthening your own assertions, right?
Or how about we take a fact like, maybe 30% of the desktops in NA are running Windows XP. That would mean that the rest are running Windows 2000 or older, or non-MS Operating Systems. We could report that as being that 70% of corporate desktops are using alternative OSes to Windows XP. Statistically and factually true, and to the naive reader could sound grim for Microsoft’s market share. Maybe change that to 70% of corporate desktops are using alternative OSes to Windows XP, such as OS X… and things are certainly looking up for Apple. The numbers are accurate but their presentation can be misleading.
As ridiculous as my examples above are, my point is “statistical” results are only as relevant as the sample on which they’re based and have to be taken in context.
You don’t need to “spend thousands” purchasing the full Jupiter report in order to use common sense. If Apple had reached that level of penetration in the enterprise space, I would expect to see it as a headline in every trade rag I read. It would be huge news. And if you even do some rough math, it amounts to millions upon millions of corporate OS X deployments in the US. Considering Apple acknowledges, what, 10 million OS X users or something like that, that would represent a huge chunk of their sales making it into corporate use. I just don’t buy that, not on the basis of a single report. That is why I question the methodology and the context and want to know exactly how these conclusions were reached.
So, no, I’m not going to believe it just because I read it on the web or just because you believe it to be unquestionably and categorically true.
Sorry.
-
japail
This is the second time Kelly has pulled the I have statistics, and you just can’t see them or how they’re produced game. It’s fun for the whole family.
2005-08-01 12:03 am
Anonymous
what are you guys trying to archieve with this useless flamewar? try to get someone admit that “my computer is better than yours!” ? 
-
KellyMcNeill
who’s flame warring?
People are simply stating their opinion. Sometimes that includes making false statements and others are correcting them. That’s what a discusson board is for.
2005-08-01 1:25 am
Anonymous
While your steadfastness is commendable, some of your facts are incorrect. Rosetta will not run on applications that have low level Altivec optimizations. This is explicitly stated in the porting guide. Most applications will not have such optimizations but some of the big ones will and have to rewrite or otherwise adapt the alitvec optimizations before the application wil work on x86.
Further there are a number of issues mitigating acceptance of OS X in the workplace and they are significant. Support for one, Warranty and service is another, and finally there is aplication compatibility. It is more work to support both Macs and Windows then just one or the other. Next AppleCare is atrocious from a business warranty standpoint. And whether we like it or not there is a large chunk of software not available on OS X yet.
I too like OS X and Macs in general but your blind faith in Apple is a little disturbing,
You keep repeating that we are getting more value for the money with Apple. I won’t debate this in either direction. It is a fact though that you can do most common business and personal tasks on an Intel based Windows system for less. In the long run, taking into account viruses, malware, etc. maybe it evens out but the initial outlay of cash is higher for the Mac.
Kokopelli
-
-
KellyMcNeill
“Rosetta will not run on applications that have low level Altivec optimizations.”
Perhaps you should give me an example of what you’re talking about because you and I could theoretically be referring to two different things. I have read repeatedly that the altivec enabled applications will run in rosetta but that the altivec functions wont execute. That in itself could theoretically cause some applications to not do their intended purpose, but something like that can be alleviated with a minor-medium update. But the application will indeed run from my understanding.
“This is explicitly stated in the porting guide. Most applications will not have such optimizations but some of the big ones will and have to rewrite or otherwise adapt the alitvec optimizations before the application wil work on x86.”
What you’re referring to is that the applications that benefit from altivec instructions will not longer be able to benefit from them. That may simply mean that the rendering of data (for example) may have do be done by the processor rather than what was previously done by altivec.
“Support for one”
Agreed, but as I mentioned earlier, this is rapidly changing.
“Warranty and service is another”
Apple has extremely good warranty support. Their service channels could be increased however. Currently Apple’s system consists of one of two options. Either go to a local apple authorized reseller/support center (they’re scattered all around, though certainly not as elaborate as PC support centers. Regardless, finding one near you should be relatively trivial if you live in a medium-large sized city. The other is that Apple will send you a next-day delivery box, they’ll pick it up, ship it to Apple and then ship it back to you in a relatively timely fashion. I’ve had experience with both options and both left me with a positive outcome. I was satisfied with the time of completion too.
“and finally there is aplication compatibility”
For most offices, this isn’t the issue people make it out to be. OS X is compatible with most productivity applications, though there are certain applications for specialized areas of business where you would certainly have a point. However, as Apple’s install base continues to rise, there will be greater reason to create these applications to support both OSes. Only time will tell.
“Next AppleCare is atrocious from a business warranty standpoint.”
I don’t see how. Applecare works the same way that the support (mentioned above) works. Its very acceptable.
” And whether we like it or not there is a large chunk of software not available on OS X yet. “
You mean “aplication compatibility” AND non available software are BOTH working against Apple. Yikes!
“I too like OS X and Macs in general but your blind faith in Apple is a little disturbing”
Huh? I’m a realist. I’m simply chiming in where I see people making mistakes. How does this give me any sort of blind faith. You’re trying to put me into a slot which simply doesn’t fit.
“You keep repeating that we are getting more value for the money with Apple.”
Value is a misleading term because it sounds like I’m trying to say that Apple computers are more productive thus justifying the supposedly inflated price. Yes, Macs often are regarded as having increased value, but what I was referring to is not value per-say, but actual quantifiable benefits. For example, when a PC is equipped with the same hardware and software and operating system which come standard on a Mac, the two are either typically priced the same or the Mac is priced less.
“It is a fact though that you can do most common business and personal tasks on an Intel based Windows system for less.”
If thats is a quantifiable fact it would only be so in businesses that use specialized applications that aren’t already available for the Macintosh.
“In the long run, taking into account viruses, malware, etc. maybe it evens out but the initial outlay of cash is higher for the Mac.
The viruses and malware etc are an added benefit but assuming both systems have the desired software, increased productivity is just as likely to occur in OS X as it is Windows. It depends on which the person feels most comfortable with.
-
Ronald Vos
“Rosetta will not run on applications that have low level Altivec optimizations.”
Perhaps you should give me an example of what you’re talking about because you and I could theoretically be referring to two different things. I have read repeatedly that the altivec enabled applications will run in rosetta but that the altivec functions wont execute. That in itself could theoretically cause some applications to not do their intended purpose, but something like that can be alleviated with a minor-medium update. But the application will indeed run from my understanding.
Rosetta can’t handle Altivec instructions. I don’t know, but that either means that Rosetta chokes, or some instructions won’t be carried out. And you do understand what it means if some instructions won’t be carried out, don’t you? Imagine someone performing the following calculation and not knowing what squaring is, and so skips those calculations: 2 + 3^2 = ?
Do you really think programs will still function?
-
Anonymous
I have read repeatedly that the altivec enabled applications will run in rosetta but that the altivec functions wont execute.
Don’t know where you’re reading this (or the source material for a lot of the claims you like to make), but it certainly wasn’t in Apple’s Universal Binary technical documentation. Altivec code will choke on Rosetta, unless it’s been abstracted through something like veclib (rare) or the vector framework (rare, just introduced with 10.3). IF the developer wrote the program with a “soft” dependency on Altivec, that is, if the program will also run on a G3, it will run on Rosetta without choking. An example of a program that won’t run is the current version of iDVD (sure to be updated).
2005-08-01 1:25 am
Anonymous
Internal IT support staff AND knowledge is limited so most companies only support a limited configuration and in 99% of corporations this is Windows and even in this scenario do you really think a tech wants to support everything between 98 and 2000? Get real.
Its not just PCs. They will also limited their support on browsers and handheld devices.
Its not really about productivity. That comes second to the ability of the IT department to fulfill their mission first which is to support. Thats why you see places that can benefit from having a Mac switch to PCs for no reason other than the IT department being clueless about Macs.
-
KellyMcNeill
“Internal IT support staff AND knowledge is limited so most companies only support a limited configuration and in 99% of corporations this is Windows and even in this scenario do you really think a tech wants to support everything between 98 and 2000? Get real.”
I didn’t contradict that statement. I said that IS/IT personel are becoming increasingly more aware and savvy of OS X. As this awareness increases so to will its increased use in busineses. You would have seen this with Linux as many of these same individuals became familair with it, but it is not yet as refined as Windows and OS X, so its acceptance ahsen’t yet progressed to the desktop level.
“Its not really about productivity.”
As the other posted said… its ALL about productivity.
“That comes second to the ability of the IT department to fulfill their mission first which is to support.”
OS X certinly doesn’t preclude that. As mentioned in my other response, it does depend upon increased awareness of OS X amongst this groupo though. And that is certinly happening actually so you can expect OS X machine to be supported as well in the coming years.
-
Anonymous
Kelly I really disagree with you. For IT departments it is about user productivity as long as they can support the app, otherwise you are on your own like a lot of Mac shops in large PC centric corporations. So it is about support first and productivity second.
A good example of this is the state of corporate VOIP software for the Mac that will work with Cisco phones. ITS NOT THERE!
IT departments are also paranoid over things like MacOSX. Its as good or better than any variant of Windows minus the spyware, malware and viruses. How are IT departments suppose to grow and how can you justify massive IT budgets if MacOSX eliminates a lot of bad PC issues and still runs a decent office app?
Lets face it, IT departments are not open to MacOSX as you would like to think. A lot of them are hardcore PC techies that no nothing else than Windows centric mentality.
2005-08-01 1:36 am
Anonymous
No they will not. I am posting using my phone but I will post an exact reference when I get into the office and a real computer tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it. This is not really a debate as it is explicitly stated in the porting guide put out by Apple.
Kokopelli
-
Anonymous
Forgive me for not adopting your way of thinking, but I’m an active OS X developer and know that the altivec enabled applications WILL run. They simply wont be able to benefit from the altivec code. I know that’s what you’re referring to.
Something tells me that you’re going to post whatever information you have, which will say that altivec instructions wont work in rosetta and then claim to have been right.
For the record, I know that altivec is not supported. I said this in my earlier post.
2005-08-01 2:23 am
Anonymous
There’s a wee bit of uninformed hysteria regarding the fact that Rosetta effectively emulates only a G3 processor; the Rosetta documentation states it won’t run “code written specifically for AltiVec” or “applications that require a G4 or G5 processor”.
But in most cases, apps that are capable of taking advantage of AltiVec, fall back to non-AltiVec code branches when running on G3 processors. Exhibit A: Photoshop; if you have a machine with AltiVec, it uses it, if you don’t it continues to work just fine.
2005-08-01 2:25 am
KellyMcNeill
“Rosetta must run the entire process when it translates. This has implications for applications that use third-party plug-ins or any other component that must be loaded at the time your application launches. All parts (application, plug-ins, or other components needed at launch time) must run either non-natively or natively. For example, if your application has both an x86 binary and a PowerPC binary, but it uses a plug-in that has only a PowerPC binary, then your application needs to run non-natively on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor in order to use the non-native plug in.”
2005-08-01 2:25 am
Anonymous
I was merely expounding upon the points of IT load, warranty, and applications.
Let me reiterate though AppleCare is not an acceptable warranty in many, if not the majority, of business situations. My office is a fairly IBM oriented shop. If we have a problem with a ThinkPad we call it in and a tech comes to our site to repair it within 24 hours. It does not matter whether it is a failure due to normal use or some other circumstance, it is covered. There is no equivalent coverage available for Macs. The two times I had to get service service on a Mac it needed to be taken to an Apple store, burning my time. In my case it was covered by warranty but many things, such as accidental damage, are not covered by any version of AppleCare. This is not acceptable in many situations. Basically I do not need to dicker with some support person as to whether a repair is covered under warranty. I call, they come, it is fixed, no extra cost and no wasted time.
Applications: Common apps are available but many of the niche products are not. Business oriented financial applications as an example. Another is support software for some security systems as well as my company’s current and future phone systems. These are a few examples I have rub across recently, but there are more.
Rosetta: I will post references tomorrow. If I had my docs with me I would have been specific in my first post. I have however read the porting documentation and have an OS X x86 development machine so can speak with some confidence on its abilities as well as limitations.
Kokopelli
-
KellyMcNeill
“If we have a problem with a ThinkPad we call it in and a tech comes to our site to repair it within 24 hours. It does not matter whether it is a failure due to normal use or some other circumstance, it is covered. There is no equivalent coverage available for Macs.”
Tell that to the Mac technitians that come to our company within a 24 hour period to support Mac issues and do so under the Applecare warrenty.
2005-08-01 2:38 am
Anonymous
Yes, if an application has a “fallback” path without altivec optimizations the fallback will likely work, though this is not a gaurantee. But if the altivec code is required for operation then the application will not run “except the Altivec code.” As I said earlier it won’t be an issue for many, but it is an issue. If there is no fallback path in the existing code rosetta can not make one, it will need to be written by the developers.
2005-08-01 2:50 am
Anonymous
Tell that to the Mac technitians that come to our company within a 24 hour period to support Mac issues and do so under the Applecare warrenty.
Unless something has changed onsite service is not available for laptops under AppleCare. Further unless something has changed, accidental damage is not covered.
Kokopelli
2005-08-01 3:00 am
Anonymous
“You keep repeating that we are getting more value for the money with Apple.”
It’s true
A large installation of Mac’s and PC’s at many colleges have show that the PC’s cost about $253 a year per machine to support and the Mac’s are $53 a year.
Of course this is not counting the lost productivity when the machines were being serviced, with the PC’s the breakdown rate is higher, thus this figure is higher.
Mac’s on average last 5-7 years for desktop models, 2-3 years for laptops. Dells have been rated 2 years for all their computers. Naturally a PC might last longer if it wasn’t hooked to the internet requiring OS slowing Windows upgrades, anti-malware to be running and the like.
FreeBSD is Mac OS X’s root OS we all know. It and all the BSD family have remarkable server uptime’s measured in years, not days according to Netcraft. So with Mac OS X we are even better off than before.
http://138.202.192.14/~trembath/smon/tco.html
” And whether we like it or not there is a large chunk of software not available on OS X yet. ”
We have more than enough software, there are tens of thousands of software titles for Mac OS X. How many do we need to own anyway?
We have OfficeMac (which many report is better on the Mac than the PC), we have CAD software, we have 3D animation and finance software, we have 3D games etc. What we don’t have is a large selection of garbage which still can make a buck on windows because of their larger volume of available suckers. Mac software has to be good to sell and we more than likely pay for it than windows users on average. There is so much windows software that the Mac platform cannot be ignored as a source of revenue.
Plus with the coming Intel processors, it really isn’t much more to be able to run all x86 branded software either, how that intends to pan out remains to be seen. It certainly got M$ to start cleaning up their act.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Theres-No-Software-for-the-Ma…
This is Mark Seidon, he’s a top hacker (aka “Sniffer”) listen at the end where he say’s all the security people he knows uses Mac’s.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/audio/business/Seiden.mp3
Even the top brass at the FBI use Mac’s, heck this guy has a whole list of useful links about Mac’s and why they are better.
http://macosg.com/group/viewtopic.php?t=195
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/PhotoAlbum2.html
Apple is a niche market, and will mostly remain so as long as M$ just plays catchup by a few years with their OS. Apple’s profits are hardware related, so selling the OS is out of the question if M$ could (and would) dump theirs at cost).
Apple won’t die, can’t die. M$ needs Apple for innovation and a object to prove that they are not a monopoly. M$ keeps producing OfficeMac and VPC, Apple stays out of the business market and focuses on it’s markets. Apple doesn’t have the sources to build all of the worlds computers, they are only interested in producing the best.
BMW survives on a tiny market share as well, and as long as a company is profitable, it will survive. It’s the smart people who make Apple their choice who come out winners in most cases. Last time I checked Apple is building many stores, must be good because they are all turning a nice profit.
-
japail
> FreeBSD is Mac OS X’s root OS we all know. It and all
> the BSD family have remarkable server uptime’s measured
> in years, not days according to Netcraft. So with Mac
> OS X we are even better off than before.
I will give you a quarter if you will never oversimplify XNU like this again in an attempt to suggest that because people view FreeBSD as stable that they should view XNU as stable.
2005-08-01 4:16 am
Anonymous
We can all talk about premium pricing of Macs versus Intel PCs. But there are two points to be made/considered.
1) You cannot compare home built PCs with a brand name factory-built computer. Yes, Dell and the others sell budget priced machines, but higher end dual processor Dells with high end components are more expensive.
2) Alienware machines consistently cost more than any other home computer out there. I’ve seen them as high as $5,000 for a single processor machine.
In most cases you do get what you pay for.
-
Ronald Vos
“We can all talk about premium pricing of Macs versus Intel PCs. But there are two points to be made/considered.
1) You cannot compare home built PCs with a brand name factory-built computer. Yes, Dell and the others sell budget priced machines, but higher end dual processor Dells with high end components are more expensive.
Funny, I gave an example of a high-end dual-core machine that’s better and $200 cheaper than a high-end Mac machine, and you just ignore it.
2) Alienware machines consistently cost more than any other home computer out there. I’ve seen them as high as $5,000 for a single processor machine.
In most cases you do get what you pay for.”
Yes, Alienware, the most overpriced computers in the buisness. They have ONE Desktop-for-games at the ridiculous price of $4828, while the rest of their high-end machines go from $789 to $2349. If you disregard the systems with a measly 256 MB, you start at $999. Compare it with the eMac Superdrive. In the Alienware comp you get half the diskspace (with SATA vs ATA), but twice the videomemory, and twice the processor. But alas, it isn’t all integrated into the monitor, and it doesn’t run OSX. And those are the only advantages Apple has.
-
2005-08-01 2:53 pm
ArunFunny, I gave an example of a high-end dual-core machine that’s better and $200 cheaper than a high-end Mac machine, and you just ignore it.
One bug disadvantage of the Sony you mentioned is that it can only have 2GB of RAM MAX…. That really isn’t high-end….
Also the advantage of the dual core pentium is incorrect, the cache coherency is done over the shared 800mhz bus just like a SMP system.
Performance wise the difference is debateble unless you have numbers. The mac is still the better machine technically… The sony is if you are anal about counting the default memory configuration and hard disk. The $200 difference is more than covered by the default software bundle of the Mac.
-
Arun
one more thing… by virtue of having a dual-core cpu the sony would have to be cheaper… the motherboard is simpler and there is one less part to pay for…
-
Ronald Vos
One bug disadvantage of the Sony you mentioned is that it can only have 2GB of RAM MAX…. That really isn’t high-end….
Ok, but we were talking about comparable hardware for incomparable prices. If you need more than 2 GB memory…wow, what are you using your computer for? You probably wouldn’t want to get the dual 2 GHz then, but the $1000 more expensive dual 2.7 GHz.
And with 4 GB, that makes $3850. Compare with:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/configvidedit.php?parts=4641,3138,2300,…
Hey! Waddaya know? The 64-bits dual-processor PC system is $3300 compared to the $3850 of the Mac system (and has a higher-end graphics card as far as I can tell….ok so a slower FSB, sigh). So you pay $550 to have Win XP without much software to be replaced with OSX with bundled software. Still worth it? Everyone decides for themselves. But the fact remains that you pay more for comparable Mac hardware.
-
Arun
Ok, but we were talking about comparable hardware for incomparable prices. If you need more than 2 GB memory…wow, what are you using your computer for? You probably wouldn’t want to get the dual 2 GHz then, but the $1000 more expensive dual 2.7 GHz.
Huh??? you really don’t know what you are talking about do you?
No if I want a machine with 4GB because my dataset is that large your Sony Viao wouldn’t suffice but the PowerMac would. Video and Graphics editing usually requires lots of disk and memory. For examplem, 10 minutes of uncompressed HDTV is 1 GB to 1.4 GB of data. An hours worth would be 6-9GB depending on the framerate. 2.5 hours of it would be 20GB+. Now to compress or edit it you would need a lot of memory not just for the video but for the filesystem cache.
You won’t need a faster machine it might just take a 15-40 minutes longer to do what you need to do.
And with 4 GB, that makes $3850. Compare with:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/configvidedit.php?parts=4641,3138,2300,…]
I have never heard of puget systems before this… After this long thread about comparable build quality and name brand you give me a nonname example….
[i]Hey! Waddaya know? The 64-bits dual-processor PC system is $3300 compared to the $3850 of the Mac system (and has a higher-end graphics card as far as I can tell….ok so a slower FSB, sigh). So you pay $550 to have Win XP without much software to be replaced with OSX with bundled software. Still worth it? Everyone decides for themselves. But the fact remains that you pay more for comparable Mac hardware.
[i]
Yeah with a PNY card and onboard sound… please…. Where is your Sony or IBM or Alienware even… You would have to be pretty blind to campre a G5 Tower’s build quality to a custom assembled machine. The slower FSB means loss of Bandwidth serious bandwidth when moving large Data sets.
Sorry bud your example won’t fly…
-
Ronald Vos
Huh??? you really don’t know what you are talking about do you?
Apparently not. I don’t do much video-editing. But I did go to extremes to find a system that’s comparable, because there’s just so much out there.
I could of course redo the whole thing and compare a PC to the dual-2GHz G5 with 4 GB memory (at $3049), but you know what? I’m getting really frikkin tired of re-proving my point. Because if I remove the second hardrive (bringing the total HD space to 160 GB like the 2x2GHz Mac) and downgrade the processors to dual 2.8 GHz, I’m below at price of the Mac again, but with twice the videocard. I could bring down the videocard to have ‘ATI Fire GL Radeon 9600 128MB AGP’ (which sounds pretty much like what the Mac has) and that would take $445 off the price.
I have never heard of puget systems before this… After this long thread about comparable build quality and name brand you give me a nonname example….
Well you’re forgiven for not having heard of them, but if http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1537.html is to be believed: they have the highest approval ratings in the buisness perhaps…they are judged worst in regards to their PRICING even. They are a known reliable moderately big company, and the components that use are all brandnames that are instantly recognizable (saves perhaps PNY). I took them because I needed to quickly find a system with firewire and dual-processors, because otherwise you will always somehow find fault.
Yeah with a PNY card and onboard sound… please….
For crying out loud! A better soundcard fits WELL within the budget, wether you want that $85 Sound Blaster Live Audigy 2 ZS, or the $270 variant!
You know what? If you downgrade the PNY card (apparently you don’t like expensive cards) to an ‘ATI Fire GL Radeon 9600 128MB AGP’ your soundcard budget suddenly becomes $995. That’s $840 if you throw in the most expensive metallic casing available on the Puget PC. Hey you know what? Let’s take the SB AL2ZS + metallic casing + upgrade the processors to dual 3.6GHz. Then there will be some compensation for the FSB too, right? Still $180 short of the price of a dual 2 GHz G5 with 4 GB memory.
-
Arun
I could of course redo the whole thing and compare a PC to the dual-2GHz G5 with 4 GB memory (at $3049), but you know what? I’m getting really frikkin tired of re-proving my point.
You still haven’t proven your point… and you are already tired of reproving it, WTF????
You know what? If you downgrade the PNY card (apparently you don’t like expensive cards) to an ‘ATI Fire GL Radeon 9600 128MB AGP’ your soundcard budget suddenly becomes $995. That’s $840 if you throw in the most expensive metallic casing available on the Puget PC. Hey you know what? Let’s take the SB AL2ZS + metallic casing + upgrade the processors to dual 3.6GHz. Then there will be some compensation for the FSB too, right? Still $180 short of the price of a dual 2 GHz G5 with 4 GB memory.
I don’t give a rats ass about nitpicking component costs… but apparently you have a problem understanding this thread. we were talking about name brand vendors no assembled machines. THe bottom line is Apple’s G5 line is on par with most vendors of equal caliber like dell, Sony, Lenovo… I wouldn’t buy that puget system even if it was cheaper.
-
Ronald Vos
I don’t give a rats ass about nitpicking component costs… but apparently you have a problem understanding this thread. we were talking about name brand vendors no assembled machines. The bottom line is Apple’s G5 line is on par with most vendors of equal caliber like dell, Sony, Lenovo… I wouldn’t buy that puget system even if it was cheaper.
If you don’t give a rat’s arse about component costs, why are you arguing with me about wether Macs are overpriced or not? I’ve given you 3 systems that were better-equipped yet cheaper than Macs, even if not for the FSB. Each time you’ve blown it off on some trivial reason. That you value Dell higher than Puget is telling.
I don’t feel you have disproven my points anyway, but let’s turn this around since you don’t like custom built systems from a company that has a 9.8 for customer satisfaction: how about YOU point out a PC system with dual processors and firewire that is more expensive than a Mac.
Really curious how you want to pull that off.
2005-08-01 4:22 am
Anonymous
You may initially pay more for quality, but you will pay much more later for crap.
And the whole time, you’re stuck with Windows and its plethora of malware.
Seriously. I just spent a few hours fixing my wife’s computer. It blue screened every time she logs in… only on her profile though. Turns out it’s some ActiveX introduced malware. For the longest time she was not using IE. Once she started using it again the @#$% hit the fan. 
2005-08-01 3:08 pm
Anonymous
People buy macs because they want one.
I like Apple’s style, they don’t advertise on tv like Dell, HP, etc, but they are selling more Macs than ever.
All these comments by a handfull of people on here, doesn’t reflect the computer industry at all.
Look at the numbers they don’t lie. Macs keep selling in record numbers.
2005-08-01 3:15 pm
gdanko
It’s obvious you don’t understand the corporate environment at all. You don’t just go around giving people macs because they claim that they’re more productive. Get that through your head. And you completely miss the point of all the in-house VB apps that are out there, and all the other programs that just don’t run on Macs. And the fact that having a hetergeneous environment is a pain in the ass for a multitude of reasons, and the fact that retraining and re-deployment is very costly, and that XP is stable, and that in a corporate environment you’ll find much less crap on the system…
Finding flaw in Microsoft Windows and preferring the Mac (or any other non-MS product) does not make you a fanboy. I worked for a large company of about 500 people and we used Macs quite nicely. They integrated with Active Directory and Exchange. When the user logged into their Mac they used their domain credentials and had all the correct permissions to the file shares. They were able to print off the network printers. Granted it took me about half an hour to figure out how to do it, it was a one time learning experience. Now I add Macs left and right.. And guess what, the maintenance is MUCH lower on the Macs. No bouts with spyware, no virii to worry about, no Outlook worms, no typical Windows nonsense. The Mac users are absolutely more productive than their Windows using counterparts because the help desk folks are not always at their desks installing the latest Windows patch or un-hosing some malware that snuck in via ActiveX.
You can preach the downside to using Macs all you like, but I speak from practical experience. If you know what you’re doing, it works and it works well.
Your message is little more than FUD.
-
Anonymous
So tell me How do you set up a mac system to do all that with adsi? I have not found any way to do it and would like to know.
-
Lumbergh
You, like Kelly don’t understand the reality of the situation.
Anecdoctes of using Macs in the office are irrlevant. It has nothing to do with if the Macs may or may not work. It has to do with if its worth the switchover, and the vast majority of IT departments have decided its not.
It’s just so funny seeing people say stuff like “Well, we’ve got some vic 20s in the office and they work great, and people are productive, and there are no viruses….therefore everybody should move over to Vic 20s.”
Next time you post, stay off the anecdotes because they are meaningless.
-
Anonymous
Anecdoctes of using Macs in the office are irrlevant…
Yes, if you won’t learn then nothing helps.
A Powerbook with 3000 Unix utilities on the network Really comes in handy. Course, Linux on the network would help also. It’s just easier with a Powerbook.
2005-08-01 5:02 pm
Anonymous
It’s obvious you don’t understand the corporate environment at all. You don’t just go around giving people macs because they claim that they’re more productive. Get that through your head. And you completely miss the point of all the in-house VB apps that are out there, and all the other programs that just don’t run on Macs. And the fact that having a hetergeneous environment is a pain in the ass for a multitude of reasons, and the fact that retraining and re-deployment is very costly, and that XP is stable, and that in a corporate environment you’ll find much less crap on the system…
So once again, all you’ve given is fanboy arguments that are based on emotion and not reason.
gdanko mirrors exactly what I wanted to say.
Apple has a nice little fault that us Mac users have been exploiting for years. Their hardware LASTS.
A good example of this is the state of corporate VOIP software for the Mac that will work with Cisco phones. ITS NOT THERE!
Well what I read about the guy who reversed engineered Cisco software and found big brothers backdoor I wouldn’t be trusting anything from Cisco anymore.
IT departments are also paranoid over things like MacOSX. Its as good or better than any variant of Windows minus the spyware, malware and viruses. How are IT departments suppose to grow and how can you justify massive IT budgets if MacOSX eliminates a lot of bad PC issues and still runs a decent office app?
Oh IT’s are growing alright, in outsourcing.
Lets face it, IT departments are not open to MacOSX as you would like to think. A lot of them are hardcore PC techies that no nothing else than Windows centric mentality.
And they will go the way of the TV Repairman in favor of cheaper, more reliable, plug and play computers like the Mac.
Oh there are still TV Repairmen around, just not as much as before.
I’m afraid it has to go this way, the malware, the insecurities, the complexities are too much. Billions of dollars are being lost just to support a overinflated IT workforce.
The squeaky wheel can no longer use the grease, it’s broken beyond repair. A new better wheel is needed.
-
Lumbergh
And they will go the way of the TV Repairman in favor of cheaper, more reliable, plug and play computers like the Mac.
Oh there are still TV Repairmen around, just not as much as before.
I’m afraid it has to go this way, the malware, the insecurities, the complexities are too much. Billions of dollars are being lost just to support a overinflated IT workforce.
The squeaky wheel can no longer use the grease, it’s broken beyond repair. A new better wheel is needed.
Once again we get fanboy emotionalism that “wishes” such was the case, but then reality smacks you in the face and things aren’t like that. But go ahead and live in your little fantasy world where things will turn out the way you wish them to.
2005-08-01 5:23 pm
gdanko
So tell me How do you set up a mac system to do all that with adsi? I have not found any way to do it and would like to know.
I do not set it up via ADSI. When I join a Windows computer to the domain I have to perform a set of manual tasks that takes about 2 minutes. When I join a Mac to the domain I have to perform a set of manual tasks that takes about 3 minutes. A little longer, yes. But in the end I almost never have to touch the Macs because the spyware/malware/ActiveX/virus issues are not there.
The steps to join a Mac to the domain are simple. Once it’s a member of the domain I launch Entourage 2004 and configure it to use the Exchange server. Since AD/Exchange use LDAP the Mac has full access to the GAL and Calendars. Sadly, Windows uses a proprietary calendar format instead of the open ICAL standard everyone else chooses, so Exchange calendaring on Macintosh (or any non-MS platform) is accessed via WebDav.
My last director tried to tell me we were replacing the web designers Macs with PCs because he wanted to standardize on them. I stood up to him and put and end to that nonsense right away. These people were hired as Mac users, no need to force them to use Windows.
On my desk I have a Windows machine, a Mac, and a Linux machine. The Windows machine is used only for Visual Source Safe. I can access Exchange with my Mac. I can manage the network with the Mac or the Linux machine.
2005-08-01 6:21 pm
Anonymous
I built my computer. Use Windows and Linux. Im fine with that and dont really need to go on any biased crusade saying my hardware is simply “better” for who knows what reason.
It makes no sense saying that Mac hardware is better than PC hardware. Whoever says that has NO clue what they are saying. The least they could say is that Mac mobos are better than all pc mobos weather they msi or whatever…but that still dont make sense. There isnt 1 type of PC out there. And lo and behold, apples are using 3rd party hardware for there parts like everyone else. They do the same thing as Dell. Special case, special mobo, standard harddrive, standard video card, standard processor, standard ide or sata cords, standard cd drive, special case.
Im pretty sure I can get a pc that is much better than a mac or dell standard pc for half the price with better specs, which is just as reliable, easily upgradable, and looks better =).
-
Anonymous
It makes no sense saying that Mac hardware is better than PC hardware.
Until you look at the cooling system.
Apple’s are bigger and better.
I’ve got a dead HP laptop to prove it.
2005-08-01 6:33 pm
gdanko
You, like Kelly don’t understand the reality of the situation.
Anecdoctes of using Macs in the office are irrlevant. It has nothing to do with if the Macs may or may not work. It has to do with if its worth the switchover, and the vast majority of IT departments have decided its not.
It’s just so funny seeing people say stuff like “Well, we’ve got some vic 20s in the office and they work great, and people are productive, and there are no viruses….therefore everybody should move over to Vic 20s.”
Next time you post, stay off the anecdotes because they are meaningless.
This isn’t an anecdote. It’s a reality. Windows is not the only solution for corporate networks. I gave you a solid example of Macs working flawlessly in a Windows AD domain. Not only that, it’s a company with roughly 500 users. I was well able to manage the network’s 300+ Windows servers using a Powerbook.
Again, the PCs were more of a hassle than anything else. For the everage user who needs to use Office and email, the Mac is a better choice from an IT perspective because then the help desk guys are not chasing down all the crap that comes with Windows.
For accounting apps and such, we can use Windows machines because the application is there. For graphics and web design we let the designers use what they want to use. Some chose Windows, some chose Macs. Again, the Windows users were more of a pain because Windows is more of a pain.
This is not a fanboy rant or anecdote. It’s the reality of my experience using Windows and Macs on the same network. It DOES work if you know what you’re doing. You do not have to standardize on one platform to have a usable solution. I wouldn’t advocate having 10 different platforms, but allowing people to use either Windows PCs or Macs is completely acceptable. If your IT staff isn’t bright enough to manage both, find a better staff.
-
Lumbergh
This isn’t an anecdote. It’s a reality. Windows is not the only solution for corporate networks. I gave you a solid example of Macs working flawlessly in a Windows AD domain. Not only that, it’s a company with roughly 500 users. I was well able to manage the network’s 300+ Windows servers using a Powerbook.
We have to go over this again and again. It’s not a question of whether the Mac is usable in certain situations in a corporate office, it’s a question if it’s worth it to migrate over to a more expensive platform, expensive re-training, expensive deployment, expensive re-writing of internal apps…
Again, the PCs were more of a hassle than anything else. For the everage user who needs to use Office and email, the Mac is a better choice from an IT perspective because then the help desk guys are not chasing down all the crap that comes with Windows.
And the vast majority of IT personell have decided that windows is not so much of a hassle to switch over. Once again, anecdotes are meaningless, its all about the numbers and if windows was so unstable and virus ridden as the trollboys claimed then the Mac would have a meaningful presence in the corporate office. But they don’t.
This is not a fanboy rant or anecdote. It’s the reality of my experience using Windows and Macs on the same network. It DOES work if you know what you’re doing. You do not have to standardize on one platform to have a usable solution. I wouldn’t advocate having 10 different platforms, but allowing people to use either Windows PCs or Macs is completely acceptable. If your IT staff isn’t bright enough to manage both, find a better staff.
Yes, your experience is an anecdote that it worked for you. Nobody is questioning that Macs or Linux or a Vic20 might be able to do some office jobs. This whole subthread has been about reasons for some mass migration. Macs are not going to magically make people more productive just because they have some hatred towards Microsoft or have a Mac at home. And no having heterogenous environments is not acceptable. It’s more expensive, and its more of a pain, so there better some very compelling reason to migrate, and just because some people “prefer” Macs is not one of them.
2005-08-01 6:37 pm
gdanko
It makes no sense saying that Mac hardware is better than PC hardware. Whoever says that has NO clue what they are saying. The least they could say is that Mac mobos are better than all pc mobos weather they msi or whatever…but that still dont make sense. There isnt 1 type of PC out there. And lo and behold, apples are using 3rd party hardware for there parts like everyone else. They do the same thing as Dell. Special case, special mobo, standard harddrive, standard video card, standard processor, standard ide or sata cords, standard cd drive, special case.
Precisely. There is no “better”. Better is relative and subjective. But what sense is there in trying to force designed who’ve used Macs for 10 years to switch to something they’re completely unfamiliar with? That makes no logical sense whatsover and that is why I prevented my director from making that idiotic move. The Macs ran just fine and never gave anyone a problem. This knucklehead just wanted an all Windows environment but could not justify it with any logic. If Windows works for you.. great, use it and enjoy doing so. Same goes with OS X. If you’re able to do your job using OS X and you can get a good deal on the hardware, go for it. These heavy handed IT managers like the one I had to deal with make life difficult for others in some ways.
2005-08-01 9:39 pm
gdanko
Yes, your experience is an anecdote that it worked for you. Nobody is questioning that Macs or Linux or a Vic20 might be able to do some office jobs. This whole subthread has been about reasons for some mass migration. Macs are not going to magically make people more productive just because they have some hatred towards Microsoft or have a Mac at home. And no having heterogenous environments is not acceptable. It’s more expensive, and its more of a pain, so there better some very compelling reason to migrate, and just because some people “prefer” Macs is not one of them.
I don’t understand where you say the cost is more. We paid roughly the same dollar amount to purchase the Powerbooks as we did to purchase the high end ThinkPads we bought for everyone. The ThinkPads were in the shop regularly for a myriad of reasons while the PowerBooks never caused any problems. Subtract the countless man hours spent fixing Windows software issues, the TCO on the Windows side was higher.
As a result, more Windows boxes were replaced with Macs as the upper management realized the cost savings. This is happening more and more as people realize Windows is a mess and always has been.
Do you think it is a bad move to replace Windows servers with non-Windows alternatives like FreeBSD and Linux?
-
Lumbergh
Yes, powerbooks cost way more for what you get and comparing them to thinkpads is a joke since they are notoriously overpriced as well.
This is happening more and more as people realize Windows is a mess and always has been.
No, it’s only happening in your made up fantasy world where your wishes become reality. Macs are about as commonplace in the corporate office as Linux is.
Do you think it is a bad move to replace Windows servers with non-Windows alternatives like FreeBSD and Linux?
I only use linux on the servers, but it wouldn’t be a bad move to go from linux to windows on the server if your analysis called for it.
-
Arun
Yes, powerbooks cost way more for what you get and comparing them to thinkpads is a joke since they are notoriously overpriced as well.
IMO Thinkpads are some of the better built laptops on the market… care to shed some light on a few appropriately price laptops??
2005-08-01 9:59 pm
Anonymous
We have to go over this again and again. It’s not a question of whether the Mac is usable in certain situations in a corporate office, it’s a question if it’s worth it to migrate over to a more expensive platform, expensive re-training, expensive deployment, expensive re-writing of internal apps…
PURE FUD. Obviously you have no experience in a mixed environment like most Mac users have with PC’s or you could answer that question yourself. Settling on one platform is the wrong way to go, it’s placing all your eggs in one fragile basket.
I own my own business with 126 Mac’s and a 6 PC’s, a person like you with a limited and bias attitude would have no place working for me.
FYI, it takes a windows user on average less than two weeks to become handy with Mac OS X and vise versa. The Mac users protest having to use Windows and the Windows users on average are thrilled to use the Mac’s as it makes them “more experienced” being able to “do either”.
Do I have a IT department? NO. There are a clique of Mac users that have gotten quite proficient at both platforms. I pay them $2 a hour more and my problems are nil.
When the PC’s went down to blaster, my majority of Mac’s kept my business IN BUSINESS. Since I gross $100,000 per day it’s paramount my equipment works all the time. 24/7.
My problem is not the Mac’s, but the PC’s and a few hard, hard to find people that unfortunately can’t make the switch to a Mac.
Eventually they will be replaced, and their machines with them.
Mac OS X is the greatest cost saving measure to come from the computing world in a long time.
My business stays in business and that’s what’s important to my clients.
-
Anonymous
I believe you are either not assessing the hidden costs of retraining/redeployment, or you are just turning a blind eye, because studies have proven it to be a big deal.
I believe the shift (with nothing that massive) is because of the ipods, and the apple stores which are propping up like starbucks. People come in looking for an ipod, they see the ultra cool UI in the computer, notice that they can do all the basic junk that is possible with pcs, and splurge on that. It looks like a end user thing.
For a corporation, Macs are not viable choices, (unless used with other systems) their interopability is poor and they are fairly expensive. Their choice in hardware is daunting since many of the new systems, are high end and usually provide more functionality then what is actually needed. The OS provides way more then what is needed for a productive enviornment. Support for legacy software is pretty poor. Retraining and IT pros will be needed. (like with windows). If you were in a company that actually has a us for their computers, you will notice that retraining and redeployment is VERY VERY expensive. Yeah the users will know what they are doing in a week, but if they are actually using that pc for something fairly relevant, problems will arise. This an end user system, nothing really for efficiency.
Granted some companies might benefit from switching to macs. But chances are you are spending a lot more money by using Macs in the corporate world then PCs.
-
Lumbergh
PURE FUD. Obviously you have no experience in a mixed environment like most Mac users have with PC’s or you could answer that question yourself. Settling on one platform is the wrong way to go, it’s placing all your eggs in one fragile basket.
Ooohhh, fragile basket. Ok, you’ve some credibility since its “fragile”. Nice try, but no dice. In the real world it makes much more business sense to standardize your desktop as it reduces costs.
I own my own business with 126 Mac’s and a 6 PC’s, a person like you with a limited and bias attitude would have no place working for me.
I doubt your story, but I wouldn’t work for you anyway since you have no business sense.
FYI, it takes a windows user on average less than two weeks to become handy with Mac OS X and vise versa. The Mac users protest having to use Windows and the Windows users on average are thrilled to use the Mac’s as it makes them “more experienced” being able to “do either”.
Your stories are meaningless. I’m talking about reasons for switching to macs.
When the PC’s went down to blaster, my majority of Mac’s kept my business IN BUSINESS. Since I gross $100,000 per day it’s paramount my equipment works all the time. 24/7.
It sounds like you are pretty incompetent with your systems if your story isn’t fiction.
Mac OS X is the greatest cost saving measure to come from the computing world in a long time.
I proclaim the Vic20 is the greatest cost saving measure to come from the computing world in a long time.
2005-08-01 10:00 pm
gdanko
Right. People see the value in it. Unfortunately it’s gotten to the point where MS has its comfortable monopoly position. I know MANY IT types who would love to dump Windows but the problem is that MS pitches its snake oil to the non-tech types who don’t know any better, but are in a position to write the checks. It’s sneaky and underhanded but effective. However, I see this tactic waning in its effectiveness over time. For example, my company is about to kill off 120-150 Windows servers because there is absolutely no sense in spending $800 or whatever in licensing fees when Linux can do the job for free. The only place here where Windows is mandatory is with the databases and internal email. With the size of our databases, migrating to Oracle or some other platform would be too time consuming. And Exchange shines in the groupware area (Outlook sucks though). When you come down to it, the rest of our machines can easily be migrated away from a closed platform.
2005-08-02 3:26 am
Arun
Hey you know what? Let’s take the SB AL2ZS + metallic casing + upgrade the processors to dual 3.6GHz. Then there will be some compensation for the FSB too, right? Still $180 short of the price of a dual 2 GHz G5 with 4 GB memory.
I would first understand how FSBs and memory bandwidth works before talking about compensations. A faster processor will just be waiting for memory longer with a slow and higher latency FSB…. you really won’t see much benefit from higher clockspeeds if you are moving large amounts of data. Infact it is a waste of cpu cycles and money to get a faster cpu if your load is memory bandwidth bound.
2005-08-02 3:39 pm
gdanko
So, if someone standardized on all Macs or all Linux, is that bad in your eyes? You say standardize on a single platform is the way to go. Or do you mean standardize on Windows is the way to go? Please elaborate.
By the way, Ernie Ball (ernieball.com) removed every trace of Microsoft from their organization and is doing wonderfully with Linux on both the desktop and server. I guess they were ignorantly out of compliance for some licensing and M$ sent them threats first, instead of trying to resolve the issue. So EB paid the fine and dumped every copy of Windows in the company. Are they crazy too?
2005-08-03 4:29 pm
gdanko
Lumbergh acts like a shill for Microsoft. He derides any notion of removing Microsoft or using any non-Microsoft platforms. He also ignores the myriad of security vulnerabilities that plague Windows. This is somehow acceptable in the corporate environment because it is what people have become accustomed to.
You made a good point about the 1000s of Unix utilities available for OS X that are not available for Windows.
Open Source is the way to go, whether Big Bill likes it or not. Steve Ballmer can sweat on stage and spread FUD as long as he likes, but people are realizing that OSS is not going anywhere. This frustrates MS because they can no longer use the tactic they used to kill Netscape. You cannot undersell free software.
It is going to be an interesting thing to watch, that’s for certain.
the halo effect is on people who don’t read IT news. The switch to Intel doesn’t matter to them because they don’t understand the implications, and it’s Apple’s job to make sure that they don’t even notice the implications, and Apple has been planning for it for a few years now.
I think your right – most people who are affected by this wouldn’t even know about it!
But for those who do I guess it just means that the “Halo Effect” will increase when they have (hopefully) successfully transitioned to Intel.
Good Luck to Apple, but I won’t be buying a Mac until they are Intel (and before anyone whines, it’s not my choice – i’m a student, I just can’t afford one yet! And no, the Mac Mini is still not within my budget!)
When the switch to Intel will be done, I hope that the price of their PC will be closer to HP/Compaq/DELL. Using the same hardware, better looking casing and OSX, they can’t sell it 1000$ more than a DELL !!!
If they do that, stay with high price, they will fall…
“When the switch to Intel will be done, I hope that the price of their PC will be closer to HP/Compaq/DELL.”
Don’t count on it. Pricing of the new Intel Macs will not be different from current PPC Macs. Remember, Apple is a company, and they can’t tell their shareholders that Apple is gonna earn less money per computer because they’re using a different processor.
Other than that, Apple had huge price cuts from IBM, and still Macs were more expensive than their x86 counterparts (which I don’t agree with, as I don’t find Macs expensive, taking into accoutn they show less value loss than x86 computers, who lose value like the Dollar).
Thirdly, this switch will prove to be a serious strain on Apple’s financial resources, and they must earnt that money back *somehow*. You do the math.
“Don’t count on it. Pricing of the new Intel Macs will not be different from current PPC Macs.”
Yes, they already were priced the same of not less than comperably equipped PCs. There’s no reason to think the price would go down even futher.
“Other than that, Apple had huge price cuts from IBM, and still Macs were more expensive than their x86 counterparts”
Huh?! Macs actually cost less. I understand why some might think that Macs cost more. Apple limited the number of configurations you could buy thus requiring you to pay more because you were getting more. Its not because they were priced disproportionately. A PC equipped with the same specs in hardware, software and OS will actually cost more (at best the same) as any Mac.
“Thirdly, this switch will prove to be a serious strain on Apple’s financial resources, and they must earnt that money back *somehow*”
I don’t see howe you think there’s any strain. They’ve been maintaining dual chip development OSes all this time and yet have continued to price their hardware and software competatively.
What I’ve noticed is that Dell/HP/IBM/Gateway/others will use the cheapest parts that they can find, in order to be competitive with each other, while Apple uses only quality parts. This means that your initial cash outlay for a Dell may be slightly lower, but you’ll pay more in the long run due to shoddy parts, construction and bad design of the system.
You may initially pay more for quality, but you will pay much more later for crap.
And the whole time, you’re stuck with Windows and its plethora of malware.
Apple uses quality parts you say http://www.insideapple.com/articles/iMacG5_reliability.php ? Clearly they take the cheap road too but mac fanbois have been brainwashed to believe otherwise and pay extra for the priviledge.
“Clearly they take the cheap road too but mac fanbois have been brainwashed to believe otherwise and pay extra for the priviledge.”
Apple does in fact use quality parts but its not at the expense of price. Apple’s hardware is priced the same (sometimes less) than comperably equipped PCs (in hardware software and OS)
Apple does in fact use quality parts but its not at the expense of price. Apple’s hardware is priced the same (sometimes less) than comperably equipped PCs (in hardware software and OS)
Ehh…a Power Mac with dual 2 GHz G5 goes for $2k and up.
Now, I find it hard to find $2k PC systems that aren’t horribly overpriced. But compare the 2 GHz dual G5 Power Mac with the Sony VAIO VGC-RA842G Desktop PC, as sold on Amazon. A desktop PC by a good brand, with a sleek design. The videocard is comparable, it has twice the memory, multi-card-reader is built-in, there’s 2 firewire-ports and not to forget 7(!) USB 2.0 ports, and it runs on a 3.0 GHz dual-core Pentium D. Oh, and instead of a 160 GB disk it comes with a 500 GB disk..
The price? Listprice is $1910, $1800 if you buy it from Amazon.
Oh and although I’m pretty darn sure Doom 3 runs better on the PC system, I think any Photoshop benchmark will be crushed as well. Which means you’re paying 200 dollars more for far inferior specs and OSX.
And granted, OSX is nice, but please stop spreading the myth. And posting the same opinion 4 times in this thread.
“Oh, and instead of a 160 GB disk it comes with a 500 GB disk..
The price? Listprice is $1910, $1800 if you buy it from Amazon. “
The sony has a single processor, the Mac has a dualprocessor, the Mac almost certinly has a greater frontside bu, the Mac has digital and analog audio in and out, bundled software and probably has the better OS (OS X rather than XP consumer). The point is, a Mac costs more, but only because you get more. A PC costs less but only because you get less. If you were to equipe the PC with the EXACT (or as close as possible) same specs in hardware, software and OS, the Mac would come out the same price or be less money then the PC.
“Oh and although I’m pretty darn sure Doom 3 runs better on the PC system”
Right about that. Mac gaming specs have never been Apple strongpoint… that will probably change withthe switch the x86 though.
“I think any Photoshop benchmark will be crushed as well.”
In some benchmarks yes, but in most no.
*sigh*
“The sony has a single processor, the Mac has a dualprocessor”
The Sony has a dual-core CPU, which allows for much faster cache-coherency circuitry, thank you very much. They have 1 MB of L2 cache each, which is twice what the G5s have each.
the Mac almost certinly has a greater frontside bu[s]”
You’re right about this one: the dual-core shares a 800 MHz frontside bus, the dual G5 1 GHz unshared. (I don’t really know what this entails; I admit I’m not completely savy in respect to all these terms, I get most info from wikipedia and the tech-specs
“A PC costs less but only because you get less.”
Less? Let’s see…
160 GB vs 500 GB HD
1 MB L2 cache vs 2 MB L2 cache
512 MB vs 1 GB memory
3 USB ports vs 7 USB ports
2 GHz Dual Processor vs 3 GHz Dual-core
sleek design, brandname vs sleek design, brandname
Mac’s only advantages in terms of hardware are the extra firewire-800 port, Gigabit ethernet (both are not real advantages in 98% of home situations) and the faster frontside bus (for a slower older processor).
How can you maintain you get much less for less? You actually get a lot more for less in terms of hardware when you go with the Sony. And if I build my own system without the superfluous stuff and from practically equally reliable non-top brand stuff, I can get an equally powerfull system for a quarter of the price of the Mac. Please deactivate that reality-distortion field.
You’re paying for the OS, (and thus the software you mentioned). You do not pay for the better hardware, because it isn’t that much better. And that’s the point I’m trying to make here. But you just went around and flat-out made up that the system I mentioned was inferior. Less for comparably equipped systems my ass. If it’s inferior in any way it’s that it doesn’t run the right OS.
“Mac’s only advantages in terms of hardware…”
Could you provide me a link to the specific computer you’re referring to so we can do a proper comparison?
“How can you maintain you get much less for less? “
I’ll show you if I have a computer to compare it to.
“And if I build my own system without the superfluous stuff and from practically equally reliable non-top brand stuff, I can get an equally powerfull system for a quarter of the price of the Mac.”
You hit the nail on the head. a PC allows you to buy a computer more specific to your needs. This is an asset that can not be undermined because CAN mean a lower price if you want to buy less and pay less.
“Could you provide me a link to the specific computer you’re referring to so we can do a proper comparison? “
Argh! You’re really stubborn aren’t you? Not only did I list all the specs in my posts, but I also gave you the exact name and the site where it’s listed. If you had looked for ‘Sony VAIO VGC-RA842G Desktop PC’ on either google or amazon it would’ve been the first result listed. Now make use of that search-box in your browser, dammit.
From your article:
Though I’ve seen many first-generation iMac G5’s break down on numerous fronts, I haven’t witnessed nearly as many second-generation iMac G5’s break down on the same scale – and I’m confident – without any real facts to back it up – that of all the negativity I may witness in the iMac line of Apple products, that there are many, many Mac users out there that haven’t had a single problem since handing down the cash for their very own iMac G5. Despite that, however, I’ll still stick to my theory that the iMac G5 could of been designed to be a little more reliable from the beginning.
Yes, because there was an issue (that I never experienced with those we have at work) with one of lines of iMacs, it must mean that Apple clearly takes the cheap road. That must be why my 8500, two 9500, two PowerMac G4s (from 1999), and three PowerMac G5 2x2GHz machines have never had any hardware issues. What is even more is that after the B&W G3s, Apple’s PowerMac enclosures are my favorites for adding expansion cards, hard drives, and DVD burners to (G4). No wires in the way, and on the G3s and G4s the motherboard actually exited the case on the door for ease of access. This is not cheap, but rather well designed.
Not every company puts out great products 100% of the time. My friend who used to only drive Hondas (switched to a GM model a year back) will tell you this. Even if they have a good record, no one is perfect. The original iMacs’ had main-board issues, and went through multiple revisions (A and B that I know of). The difference between the companies doesn’t solely rest on their first edition, but also their following editions and how fast they repair their errors. Apple was very good during the first generation iMac revisions (I know, I installed them at a Micro Center) and I respected them for this.
The reason I switched to Macs is because of the very low numbers of Mac that came into our shop. For how many we moved off of the sales floor in comparison to all the PCs, the amount that came in for service was considerably less than PC sold proportionally. Even more remarkable, the majority that required service were never even checked in, but rather diagnosed and repaired on the triage. It usually only required a <$5 battery replacement.
So please stop spreading this one sided perspective. I acknowledge that all companies can (and in many cases will) have a product that doesn’t live up to its name in quality. But, when compared to the remainder of the products, if this is very uncommon then I look at it from the perspective that it is not a true representation of the company’s product line.
“What I’ve noticed is that Dell/HP/IBM/Gateway/others will use the cheapest parts that they can find, in order to be competitive with each other, while Apple uses only quality parts. This means that your initial cash outlay for a Dell may be slightly lower, but you’ll pay more in the long run due to shoddy parts, construction and bad design of the system. “
Well thats partially right. Those computers you mentioned do use lower quality parts, and yes Apple does use higher quality parts, but Apple’s Macs aren’t more expensive for having done so. As a matter of fact, Apple’s computers, in many instances cost less than comperably equipped PCs.
…”they can’t sell it 1000$”
Why not. When someone buys a Mac, they are not soley interested in the hardware, they’re interested in the complete computing solution. So, why should this change just because there’s a new hunk of silicon inside?
A Mac will still be a Mac and a PC that runs Windows will still be inferior.
“When someone buys a Mac, they are not soley interested in the hardware, they’re interested in the complete computing solution.”
That’s simply not true. When you buy a Mac, you’re interested in the hardware as well as the complete solution. To suggest otherwise makes it sound like Apple has been at a disadvantage hardware-wise as compared to a PC.
“A Mac will still be a Mac and a PC that runs Windows will still be inferior.”
That’s simply not true either. A PC can be just as well equipped as any Mac when the transition occurs. Apple will offer differentiation in that they will have the ability to run OS X while the other PCs will not be able to. As long as Apple continues to sell their hardware for the same (sometimes less) money than comperably equipped PC manufacturers do… they stand to sweep up the market.
Maybe you need to re-read what the original posters said:
“When someone buys a Mac, they are not soley interested in the hardware, they’re interested in the complete computing solution.”
He clearly pointed out, “complete computing solution”, which is the marriage of hardware and software.
For all the screaming, hyping, whining, and so-called “R&D” that HP and the like claim they do; Apple has perfected it; those who can control the operating system and hardware platform will always be destined to providing a better solution for the end user.
Be it Apple providing MacOS on their hardware, or SUN offering Solaris on their Opteron machines.
“When the switch to Intel will be done, I hope that the price of their PC will be closer to HP/Compaq/DELL. Using the same hardware, better looking casing and OSX, they can’t sell it 1000$ more than a DELL !!!”
Woah there… Apple’s Macs actually cost less than a comperably equipped PC… if the exact (or as close as possible) specs are matched in hardware software and OS. You might not think so because the sheer number of PC manufacturers allow you to buy less and spend less… that doesn’t mean priced less.
Why do people assume there’s a halo-effect responsible for increased Apple sales and not just a critical mass+momentum for Macs? There’s plenty of better reasons to switch to Apple now than portable audio-players! How about waning monopoly power of MS, an attractive OS, and finally a decent amount of (ported) apps and games for Mac? Putting mp3s onto iPods can be done with $50 Linux boxen as well.
I believe the halo-effect of the ipod is a bigger myth than the original Osbourne Effect myth.
Agree 100%. This “halo effect” is an oversimplification
But when people buy an iPod, they see what Apple has to offer. It’s not that they need a Mac because they bought an iPod, it’s that they realize that they might want one.
Will it be possible after all? I see a lot of people jumping up and down saying they will finally have 2 or 3 OSes in their machines, but will Apple really use PCs?
Yes, you will be able to boot Windows on the coming Intel Macs. Apple obviously will not promote it, but they said that they aren’t going to prevent it either.
>Apple obviously will not promote it, but they said that they aren’t going to prevent it either.
Do you know Apple won’t promote running Windows (or Linux) on their hardware? I would think this capability would be a huge boon to them. I presume OS/X won’t run on any Intel hardware. But, I think it will be *very* positive if people can buy an Apple setup and know that if it doesn’t work out, they can use the hardware to run something they are familiar with.
This could reduce the impediment many people (myself included) have to buying an Apple. If I knew I could use the hardware (when it’s outdated) to run a Linux server, etc., I’d be more inclined to throw my money that direction than buying a generic Intel system.
It seems like Apple would make the most of this.
Mark
My purchase of a Powerbook is totally contingent on being able to triple-boot windows, linux, and OSX. It would be incredibly stupid for Apple to try and make it hard to dual-boot.
“It would be incredibly stupid for Apple to try and make it hard to dual-boot.”
Apple has said that they were not going to restrict this in any way. As a matter of fact, it will be among one of their biggest selling points. People can now consider a Mac without fear of losing their Windows or x86 Linux investments.
*sighs*
I have to go out on a limb here and say I don’t think you have any idea, what so ever, what you are talking about. To quote: “This could reduce the impediment many people (myself included) have to buying an Apple. If I knew I could use the hardware (when it’s outdated) to run a Linux server, etc., I’d be more inclined to throw my money that direction …”
The problem I have with your statement is that you mention that you are waiting to buy an Apple until such time as Apple can run Linux so you may run a server on your “outdated” Apple gear. I have a 68K based Mac II here I’d like to sell you, because it runs Linux just fine.
Though the 68K Mac may not be the best system to use comparatively as it doesn’t have a new kernal. Heck, it uses a Mach subsystem, but that’s neither here or there, the point here is valid. Linux has ran on Apple gear for years.
In the spirit of How do I love thee …
Let me count the distros,
Ubuntu, who is receiving massive press and is favored as a Debian done right (not my words) will happily mail you a PPC CD with their latest system on it with all the bells and whistles of their Intel system.
Yellow Dog, and by association Terra Soft Solutions, has been an Apple reseller with their Red Hat based distribution pre-installed for several years now. Doing well too, by the looks of things, just received a contract to support Genesi and their PPC ATX based Workstations with Linux.
CentOS 4.0, a good Red Hat Enterprise clone, is in beta for the PPC architecture. I could go on here, but frankly it would just get boring for those reading.
I apologize, but I must call BS on this entire statement. You can not possibly be waiting to run Linux on Apple hardware, or you would have already purchased a Mac to use as a server. Next time, please be more honest in regards to what you are making up or at least stop trolling.
“Will it be possible after all? I see a lot of people jumping up and down saying they will finally have 2 or 3 OSes in their machines, but will Apple really use PCs?”
Yes, Dual booting will be possible. You won’t be able to run OS X on any old PC… but you will be able to run any x86 OS on your Mac.
It is my understanding that the Intel processor that Apple will be using is 32bit, so since apple made such a big deal when they launched their 64bit capable computers how will they go about convincing people that going back to 32bits is one of the nice new features of the new Mac? I mean naming it the Mac shuffle wouldn’t be appropriate now would it?
Well, the Pentium D is a 64-bit chip. When the iMac, Power Mac and Xserve finally make the switch, they will use some descendant of this chip.
As for portables, eMacs and Mac minis (these systems are expected to switch first), they are still 32-bit chips, so it won’t matter from a 32 v. 64-bit POV.
“It is my understanding that the Intel processor that Apple will be using is 32bit”
Actually, they haven’t specified any processor thus far. Youmay be thinking that because the developer boxes Apple has distributed use 32 bit processors.
Indeed. While the iPod may have put Apple back on the map for average people, there’s more to the amount of switchers than that.
I for one recently got a Mac Mini simply because there finally was an affordable Mac to try out Mac OS X. THat was about two months ago. Now I’m getting a PowerMac because I’m hooked.
Never owned an iPod, am running my own IT consultant and systems development business, have used and worked with AmigaOS, Windows, Linux (Ubuntu is the prefered flavour), BSD (OpenBSD is the preferred flavour), and now MacOS X.
There’s also little point in waiting for the Macintels. Prices will likely not drop much, if at all, and the way I see it it’ll be at least 3 years before Intel Powermacs are tried and tested enough (not to mention the software ported) that it’ll be a safe purchase. Hence I’m getting a dual 2GHz G5 now.
/Lennart Fridén
I’m guessing that Apple will lose some of it’s latest customers who will be left out to dry when Apple finally makes the switch. I know that I would not consider buying or recommend Apples current hardware knowing that they are about to make the big jump in less then a year.
On the upside here we can finally boot the three major Desktop OSes (OS-X/MS-Windows/GNU/Linux) on one machine, albeit at a steep price.
I’m guessing that Apple will lose some of it’s latest customers who will be left out to dry when Apple finally makes the switch. I know that I would not consider buying or recommend Apples current hardware knowing that they are about to make the big jump in less then a year.
<BR><BR>
You’re not very bright, are you?
<BR><BR>
The truth is, most people won’t notice the switch at all, thanks in part to Rosetta technology. And it’s 100% backwards-compatible. And furthermore, this is not less than a year. The full transition is on a 3 year timescale. Don’t bash Apple unless you have some factual data to back it up.
100% compatible? Well, it’s clear that you have only been reading Apple’s marketing hype and you have not been reading Apple’s developer documentation. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, look here:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universa…
In a nutshell: most Carbon and Cocoa applications which were compiled for the G3 will work. What won’t work? You won’t have “Classic” applications, anything targetting the G4 or G5 processor (ie. no altivec), device drivers for your existing hardware will be toast (ie. time for yet another new scanner), and there are even incompatibilities with applications which use Java.
Furthermore, anything which runs in emulation will take a performance hit.
“anything targetting the G4 or G5 processor (ie. no altivec)”
It will work. It just wont take advantage of altivec without the developer making some relatively minor adjustments to the code.
“device drivers for your existing hardware will be toast (ie. time for yet another new scanner),”
That’s what rosetta is for. No need to get a scanner.
“Furthermore, anything which runs in emulation will take a performance hit.”
But the performance wit will be only margionally noticable on the lower-end hardware. On the faster gear, the increased processor performace will negate any lost performance as compared to the higher-end Macs that were used previously.
It will work.
Not according to Apple. AltiVec is not supported by Rosetta, and any applications which try to execute AltiVec instructions will almost certainly fail. Unless, of course, they do a processor check and use non-AltiVec code on non-AltiVec processors.
That’s what rosetta is for.
If that scanner uses a kext (as many device drivers would), then the scanner would not work. Perhaps scanners don’t use kext’s so that was a bad example on my part, but it doesn’t change the fact that anything which uses a kext won’t work.
But the performance wit will be only margionally noticable on the lower-end hardware.
I will believe that when I see that. Until that point, I will base my judgement based upon every other emulator I’ve seen. (Remember, this is software not magic.) I’m also quite certain that it will depend upon the application. Non-CPU intensive applications will probably seem to run as fast as before, but they will degrade performance overall. If Apple is calling x86 API from PPC applications, I would still expect CPU bound applications to run somewhat slower.
“AltiVec is not supported by Rosetta, and any applications which try to execute AltiVec instructions will almost certainly fail.”
The application wont fail. The advantage of using Altivec will simply be negated.
“If that scanner uses a kext (as many device drivers would), then the scanner would not work.”
Again, that’s what rosetta is for.
[i]” will believe that when I see that. Until that point, I will base my judgement based upon every other emulator I’ve seen.”
You’re assuming the emulation speed will be akin to emulating Windows on PPC. Asside from the fact that these test have already been done and people are saying that the spped is only a moderate slowdown unlike other emulation enviornments. Remember, OS X was native on x86. They ported the OS to PPC rather than the other way aroundThe native PPC OS code is more easily transvered when the company doing the transitioning is responsible for both OS versions.
“I’m also quite certain that it will depend upon the application.”
I’m sure it will. At the most recent world wide developer’s conference they tested PhotoShop on resetta. Though the slowdown was apparent, it wasn’t akin to the slowdowns existant on other emulated OS enviornments such as Virtual PC when used on Macintosh to emulate WIndows.
> The application wont fail. The advantage of using
> Altivec will simply be negated.
Code that naively requires AltiVec will not run. The instructions just are not emulated at all. If your code stream makes use of the instructions your program will not work. In this case there is no alternative to fall back on to fail to realize the “advantages” of AltiVec.
> Again, that’s what rosetta is for.
Applications that depend on kernel extensions will not run. This is quite clearly stated in the universal binary guidelines provided by Apple.
> You’re assuming the emulation speed will be akin to
> emulating Windows on PPC.
You mean emulating the x86 on the PPC. Virtualizing an entire computer to run NT/x86 is naturally more expensive than simply emulating a processor core. Translating calls into libraries shipped with OS X will be the most obvious performance win compared to full virtualization. Code that is largely self-contained will naturally see worse performance as it spends more of its time in translated code paths.
> Though the slowdown was apparent, it wasn’t akin to
> the slowdowns existant on other emulated OS
> enviornments such as Virtual PC when used on
> Macintosh to emulate WIndows.
That’s because you aren’t emulating Windows with Virtual PC, you’re emulating a x86-based personal computer and running Windows on it.
“I’m guessing that Apple will lose some of it’s latest customers who will be left out to dry when Apple finally makes the switch.”
Why would Apple be leaving these buyers out to dry? Its not as if these computers will suddenly stop working when the transition occurs.
I don’t understand why people wouldn’t hold off on their Mac purchases. If you have a large investment in PPC based software or “classic” software, you are best off waiting for the last generation of PPC models about a year and a half from now.
If you don’t care about the PPC processor and still want a Mac, why not hold off for a couple of years anyway. Any investment in PPC hardware and software now will be flushing good money down the drain. Worse yet, the first generation of x86 software is probably going to be buggier than heck — so why not let other people pay the price of being early adopters?
Then again, everyone and their dog seems to have iPod buds plugged into their ears. Something tells me that these people don’t treat their computer purchases seriously.
Maybe you’d like a computer today, rather than a few years down the road? There’s always going to be something better in the pipeline — at some point, you’ve got to take the plunge.
Apple does not use “quality parts” for their computers, they use the same crap as everybody else. The difference is, all other vendors use Windows, there is little to differentiate them from each other, so they mostly compete on price. The margins are low and few of them make profit. Apple differentiates itself with design but mostly with the OS. Since there is no competition for the people who want to run Mac OS, Apple gets to charge more. They use the same crap components as everybody, so they have higher margins on their hardware. This will not change with the Intel switch.
BS. You’ve obviously never taken a look inside a Mac.
So what if they use crap components – they still work better than anyone else manages…
“So what if they use crap components – they still work better than anyone else manages…”
The reason why they typically work better than most PCs is because they don’t use “crap” components.
They use the same crap components as everybody, so they have higher margins on their hardware. This will not change with the Intel switch.
Exactly. It’s not like the plastics and silicon that Apple uses is somehow magically of better quality than the plastics and silicon used by Dell. What sets Apple apart is the complete package, the integrated solution which goes from the mouse the user uses all the way up until the software it controls.
That’s what you pay for when buying an Apple computer. This will not change.
Just try to explain that to someone new, who wants to buy a new computer….
Since everybody use Windows, going with something else is scary. And when you look at the price, their wallet get scared.
I love my Mac and OSX, but i’ve not been able to sell it to my friends because of the price alone. They don’t understand the «complete package» thing. And some of them are gamers, so they don’t care for Mac.
“Since everybody use Windows, going with something else is scary. And when you look at the price, their wallet get scared. I love my Mac and OSX, but i’ve not been able to sell it to my friends because of the price alone. They don’t understand the «complete package» thing. And some of them are gamers, so they don’t care for Mac.”
Macs typically cost more than the PCs most people buy but only because you’re getting more. No, I’m not talking about more quality and more integrations, though thats there too… I’m talking about more specifications in hardware, software and OS. For example, if you were to equip a PC with the same (or as close as possible) parts in hardware, software and OS the PC will either cost the same as a Mac or it will cost more.
“Exactly. It’s not like the plastics and silicon that Apple uses is somehow magically of better quality than the plastics and silicon used by Dell.”
Where Dell would use cheap plastic or steel for their case, Apple uses much higher quality materials, such as acrylic or aluminium (even titanium or magnesium!). Yes, the actual “meat and potatoes” so to speak, the internals, they may be nearly identical to the stuff inside a Dell, but the whole package is of much, MUCH higher quality than anything Dell puts out right now.
Whether this higher quality case etc materials are really worth the premium one pays remains in question, but you can’t sit there and tell us that Apples use all the same cheap materials that other companies use, and that they’re simply getting a higher profit off their products.
but you can’t sit there and tell us that Apples use all the same cheap materials that other companies use, and that they’re simply getting a higher profit off their products.
I’m sorry, but in what sense is the plastic of my iBook of higher-quality than the plastics used by for instance my Canon scanner, or the plastic on the front bezel of my Sun machine? Where is the plastic in my iBook different than the plastic front vezel on my off-the-shelf x86 case, or the casing of my 7 year old Compaq laptop? They’re all scratched, you know!
Really, I like my iBook and Apple’s hardware, but claiming that they’re using higher quality raw materials than Dell, Sun or whatever is complete nonsense.
“Really, I like my iBook and Apple’s hardware, but claiming that they’re using higher quality raw materials than Dell, Sun or whatever is complete nonsense.”
It’s interesting that you used Dell and Sun in the same breath there. Sun, a maker of higher-margin servers and workstations, spends a lot more effort and money on both industrial design and case material quality than a low-margin volume manufacturer like Dell.
There’s probably more variation in the cost of a computer case than just about any other component. Dell probably spends less than ten dollars on their cases, while Sun and Apple’s cases probably cost them somewhere between fifty and a hundred dollars to manufacture. I don’t think Apple is spending much more than Sun or Alienware, or another maker of more high-end boxes, but they’re certainly spending more, and using better industrial design and materials than Dell or another volume manufacturer.
And if you don’t see how the plastic on your iBook is better, then that tells me you haven’t held a Dell Latitude laptop in your hands lately. Apple uses a thicker, higher quality, more expensive plastic than Dell does, and you can tell just by touching it.
Now, people have often claimed that Apple uses better components inside its computers, and in this case I think that it’s not always true. Things like video cards and hard drives are generally of the same quality as components in their competitor’s products. Obviously, the components in a new G5 tower are better across the board than those in a bargain basement $300 econobox PC, but if you compare what’s inside a high end, $1500+ Dell workstation, you’ll find components of comparable quality: hard drives, video cards, RAM. A real hardware geek migh find that the Apple motherboards and its onboard components are more elegantly designed, but that’s probably more subjective than anything else.
“Now, people have often claimed that Apple uses better components inside its computers, and in this case I think that it’s not always true. Things like video cards and hard drives are generally of the same quality as components in their competitor’s products”
When people say Apple has better quality components. They’re typically referring to the Ram and hard drive etc.
To an extent that’s true, but this is mostly stuff that you can buy “off the shelf.” In regards to raw materials, they are in fact much better quality than, say, Dells or Gateways. I invite anybody who disagrees to do just a tiny amount of research into plastics. I’m sorry, Thom, but I do know what I’m talking about, and it sounds like I know more about this than you do.
You probably ought not make this sound like this is the Macs primary differentiating factor. It was at one time, but you can buy PCs that are just as well made as a Mac. The difference comes in that if you were to buy a PC, you have the choice of using shoddy parts or well-made ones. Buying a Mac only entitles you to well-made parts.
The differentiating factor in a Mac has become more about the bundled software, OS and price rather than just build quality and OS like it was before.
“I’m sorry, but in what sense is the plastic of my iBook of higher-quality than the plastics used by for instance my Canon scanner, or the plastic on the front bezel of my Sun machine?”
I think the origional poster confused the issue. Its not necesseraslly the plastics and metals… though it has been in the past, the quality components are quality ram, or better hard drives etc.
I think the origional poster confused the issue. Its not necesseraslly the plastics and metals… though it has been in the past, the quality components are quality ram, or better hard drives etc.
Better hard drives? The harddrive in my iBook is a Hitachi (model: IC25N030ATMR04-0), and doing a Google search for the thing brings 1410 results, listing mostly ordinary online shops selling them. Nothing special there.
The videocards Apple uses are also ordinary Ati and nVidia ones, nothing special there either.
Apple’s PPC processors also aren’t magically different from the ones used by for instance Genesi.
These are just some examples– it’s just an utter myth that Apple uses special higher-quality compontents. Seeing that Apple in itself doesn;t build RAM or components, they must resort to other companies to build their components– ordinary companies that have no special connection to Apple.
A good exmaple are the various problems with laptop batteries that Apple has experienced– it wasn’t Apple’s fault, it was the fault of Apple’s suppliers. Supliers that also make batteries for other companies.
Again, I like my iBook and it’s my main machine, but it’s just a very stubborn myth that Apple uses magical hardware components that are unavailable to other PC manufacturors. Of course an Apple machine is of higher quality than a $399 Dell machine, but on comparible price levels there is no reason whatsoever that x86 computers somehow use less-quality components.
The point as a whole was an oversimplification because the price of quality components has come down so much that this is not the same differentiating factor that it once was in the past. Yes, Apple uses quality components, but then, so does everybody else now. They key areas where Apple is differentiating itself is with the OS, bundled software and price.
These are just some examples– it’s just an utter myth that Apple uses special higher-quality compontents. Seeing that Apple in itself doesn;t build RAM or components, they must resort to other companies to build their components– ordinary companies that have no special connection to Apple.
Sorry you are wrong here. Having worked on a JDM model for a reputable computer manufacturer I can tell you that a vendor provides what you ask for… Also when you put the machine through rigorous tests and find issues with components the vendor usually will fix it for you. The amount of verification and the contract with a supplier makes the difference.
Again, I like my iBook and it’s my main machine, but it’s just a very stubborn myth that Apple uses magical hardware components that are unavailable to other PC manufacturors. Of course an Apple machine is of higher quality than a $399 Dell machine, but on comparible price levels there is no reason whatsoever that x86 computers somehow use less-quality components.
I think you are confusing the issue.. nobody claimed that comparably priced x86 hardware doesn’t offer Apple level of quality. People usually don’t buy IBM thinkpad and highend more expensive PCs they go for the $399 el cheapo PC and claim Apple is more expensive. Look at Dell’s latitude and IBM’s T series line they are comparable to Macs in build quality and price. But the consumer line from Dell is fairly shoddy.
You pay more with Apple because they use better components… you would pay a similar amount for the same featureset from a x86 vendor for a similarly built product.
“You pay more with Apple because they use better components… you would pay a similar amount for the same featureset from a x86 vendor for a similarly built product.”
But you DON’T pay more. You pay the same, actually sometimes less.
But you DON’T pay more. You pay the same, actually sometimes less.
Please cut the nonsense. I am writing this on the first generationg AL 15″ powerbook. You do play more… Just as IBM/lenovo thinkpad are more expensive than Dell’s or gateways.
Interms of processing power a $1100 gateway m250x can play an uncompressed HDTV capture smoothly so can a $1500 thinkpad R52. But the latest powerbooks can’t at twice the price.
“Please cut the nonsense.”
Pardon?
“I am writing this on the first generationg AL 15” powerbook. You do [pay] more.
Yes, because you get more.
[i]”Just as IBM/lenovo thinkpad are more expensive than Dell’s or gateways. “
That’s what I was trying to say. A PC will cost the same when equally spec’d as that which comes standard on a Mac (assuming hardware, OS and software are matched equally).
Yes, because you get more.
What did I get more of for $2500…? compared to a IBM R52 15″ …..
Quanitify more…….
That’s what I was trying to say. A PC will cost the same when equally spec’d as that which comes standard on a Mac (assuming hardware, OS and software are matched equally).
No both the PCs are more than a $1000 cheaper. It is impossible to match the hardware equally with the PCs because no matter how you configure a powerbook you can’t get anything that is close in performance.
Trust me… my main computer is a Powerbook G4 running Tiger. After playing with HDTV captures on my powerbook and my Dad’s thinkpad A realisation came about that basically says Powerbooks today are extremely underpowered for the price. A 1.67 ghz G4 for me is not a worthwhile upgrade because for video editing it can’t hold a candle to the performance of PCs half the price.
That said I would still only buy a Mac…Because I like the “it just works” experience and OS X…. I was looking at G5 towers or imacs…. I will only get another Apple laptop after the switch to Intel.
“What did I get more of for $2500…? compared to a IBM R52 15″ …..
Quanitify more.”
Can you give me al ink to the computer and its specific config you have in mind?
“No both the PCs are more than a $1000 cheaper.”
Yes, when equipped with $1000 less gear.
“It is impossible to match the hardware equally with the PCs because no matter how you configure a powerbook you can’t get anything that is close in performance.”
Laptops are a bit more tricky a comparison because you cant custom build a laptop like you can a desktop, but you can get PCs within similar processors as that which come standard in a powerbook.
“A realisation came about that basically says Powerbooks today are extremely underpowered for the price.”
I will agree with you on that… assuming that we’re SOLELY talking about performace. As far as the powerbook is concerned, Apple makes up for the powerbook’s performace problems with other pluses. UnfortunatelyThe powerbook advantage is nothing like it used tobe.
Can you give me al ink to the computer and its specific config you have in mind?
Not have in mind actually have at home to use.
http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/product.do?subcategoryin…
ThinkPad R52 1849-4WU
Original description: P M 750(1.8GHz), 512MB RAM, 80GB 5400rpm HDD, 15in 1400×1050 LCD, 64MB ATI Radeon X300, CD-RW/DVD-R Multi-Burner, Intel 802.11abg wireless(MPCI), Bluetooth/Modem(CDC), 1Gb Ethernet(LOM), UltraNav, Secure Chip, IEEE 1394, 6 cell Li-Ion batt, WinXP Pro
The system also has an harddrive shock detection and aribag system. It has a x16 pci express based graphics card, 533Mhz FSB and a 533Mhz DDR2 memory system uprageded to 1GB of memory. Also came with a free port replicator.
Yes, when equipped with $1000 less gear.
Let’s see you don’t even know the config and have decided it has less gear!!!
Laptops are a bit more tricky a comparison because you cant custom build a laptop like you can a desktop, but you can get PCs within similar processors as that which come standard in a powerbook.
Of course you can just not with Apple…. which is fine…..
I will agree with you on that… assuming that we’re SOLELY talking about performace.
NO the IBM is on par feature to feature and blows away the powerbook in performance.
Like I said the intangibles is what keeps me from buying a PC… the IBM is for my dad… I can’t say that I am not jealous looking at the performance discrepency ecspecailly at the price.
“It’s not like the plastics and silicon that Apple uses is somehow magically of better quality than the plastics and silicon used by Dell.”
Huh? Why would it have to be magically? We all know that some components are of better quality standards than others. Dell uses lower-quality parts to get prices down. Apple uses quality components but requires that you buy more to keep prices down. The differences comes in that Apple requires you to buy more and pay more, but if you were to spec a PC with the same components in hardware, software and OS, the PC will either be the same or will cost more.
“Apple does not use “quality parts” for their computers, they use the same crap as everybody else.”
That hasen’t been my experience. They use quality parts in their hardware and do so for the same (sometimes less) then comperably equipped PCs.
“The difference is, all other vendors use Windows, there is little to differentiate them from each other, so they mostly compete on price.”
Asside from the quality parts Apple builds, Apple competes on Aesthetics, hardware performance, OS, bundled software and price. They can offer so many more differentiating charactics because they own the platform. PC manufacturers can’t really compete any anything other than price because every PC manufacturer can incorporate the same components as anyone else. As a result, PC manufacturers will be forced to consolidate or go out of business until there is only one left. We’re seeing this play out already.
“The margins are low and few of them make profit. “
Apple is able to keep high margins by limiting the number of configurations you can buy a Mac in. As a result, they require you to buy more than what you might have otherwise done of given the choice. With that in mind, they still sell their gear for less than comperably equipped PCs
“Since there is no competition for the people who want to run Mac OS, Apple gets to charge more.”
Thats a falacy. They require you to buy more and pay more. They’re not simply requring you to pay more. As a matter of fact, a PC that is comperably equipped to any Mac in hardware software and OS may often cost more than the Mac.
I disagree. While I think there is some momentum towards Mac just because people think it’s better, don’t you think that the iPod helped at all? Before the iPod, Apple was nothing – now they’re a household name. Having a top-of-the-line product makes people think about your other products, too.
I, for one, am going to be waiting for the new Intel Macs, because I’m a powerbook user, and I just can’t imagine that there’s going to be another PPC powerbook coming out that’s going to be a compelling enough upgrade from my 1.25 GHz G4.
However, I think that I was in good company, before the Intel announcement, waiting to see if Apple was going to come out with a better Powerbook story, that is, a G5 or some faster permutation of the G4 for the powerbooks. We all recognized that these minor bumps of the current G4 line were not interesting, especially considering the relatively poor battery life of the current G4 Powerbooks already, which would only be worsened by speed increases.
I’m sorry, but in what sense is the plastic of my iBook of higher-quality than the plastics used by for instance my Canon scanner, or the plastic on the front bezel of my Sun machine? Where is the plastic in my iBook different than the plastic front vezel on my off-the-shelf x86 case, or the casing of my 7 year old Compaq laptop? They’re all scratched, you know!
Apple does use better plastic an materials… Having just bought a thinkpad and having seen my colleagues dells and gateway laptop. I is easy to see that Ibm and Apples are better built than Dell and Gateway and are obviously more expensive.
My power book feels and is more solid than any IBM T series.
Apple never claimed that the ibook case was scratch proof!! unless that case was made out of diamond or some factory grown substitute i would expect a harder object to scratch it.
It is foolish to expect apple to make every compontent in thier systems, however sourcing better components is the difference. There are many vendors that offer variying quality components at different prices and striking the cost performance balance is key.
For example, VW jetta’s had an infamous coil pack failure recalls and VW took a lot of heat for it. However, BMW and other manufacturers that used the bremi ignition coils also had similar issues and were to a far extent unscathed reputation wise. The bottom line is bremi had a defect in thier part which many manufacturers used but other factors determine how serious and painful the problem is reallty.
Did any journalist ever cared to check if this “halo” exists, with hard data? Sounds like one of those buzzwords created out of the blue. I’m not sure if Joe User feels more compelled to quit their good old Windows to try something completely different just because they like their iPods.
“Did any journalist ever cared to check if this “halo” exists, with hard data?”
Yes. Its actually try. Both Apple’s US and worldwide sales have increased significantly as of late. Not only have they increased (Apple’s PC sales have alwayse increased… but they’ve been increasing at a faster PC than that of x86 PCs as of late.
“I’m not sure if Joe User feels more compelled to quit their good old Windows to try something completely different just because they like their iPods.”
The statistics are proving you wrong actually. A great deal of the reason is because of the usability and virus problems that have plauged Windows as of late.
The fact that the sales have risen lately does not prove the so-called “Halo”. It proves that the sales are growing, that’s it. You can’t just get 2 facts and create a cause-effect link between them out of the blue, gotta have some data to prove that, such as a poll among recent switchers asking how much the iPod popularity influenced them.
“The fact that the sales have risen lately does not prove the so-called “Halo”. It proves that the sales are growing, that’s it. You can’t just get 2 facts and create a cause-effect link between them out of the blue”
The reason people came to that conclusion is because research showed that people bought their Mac after being impressed with the iPod. Its not an assumption. There’s market research that shows it.
The reason people came to that conclusion is because research showed that people bought their Mac after being impressed with the iPod. Its not an assumption. There’s market research that shows it.
Which is exactly what I was asking in the first place..btw, do you have any of these researches to point?
“btw, do you have any of these researches to “
I’ve come across several others in my time of reading Mac news, but heres a few examples after googling for it:
http://www.themacobserver.com/article/2005/02/21.9.shtml
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/6170/
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/07/20/halo/index.php
I’ve come across several others in my time of reading Mac news, but heres a few examples after googling for it:
http://www.themacobserver.com/article/2005/02/21.9.shtml
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/6170/