In 1998, Apple ran a television commercial aimed squarely at its competitors. The “Toasted Bunny” ad, as it came to be known, portrayed one of Intel’s Bunny-suited workers being hosed down by a firefighter. “Apple Computer would like to apologize for toasting the Pentium II processor in public,” the voiceover intoned. “But the fact remains, the chip inside every new Macintosh G3 is up to twice as fast.” Read the article at Wired.
Mac vs. Windows: Who Cares?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Nobody!
… it wasn’t Mac vc. PC
It was Atari 800XL vs. Commodore 64.
Stupid “Commode Door” users.
—
Just goes to show that it’s just something that some people do. They need to feel they have the biggest and best. This is for both sides of the fence. If what you have works for you, great. It may not work best for me.
The only credence to advocacy is when you feel that you need to gain enough acceptance of a platform so that commercial development is viable. After that, who cares.
Ignorance of Time Cube dooms humans, inflicting their own created “word hell”.
I fail to see how this applies to “exploring the future of computing”
Educators are actually “evil word gods”, teaching commercial plunder of Nature.
Nobody would care if we had a fair and competitive market, the better* product would the one most commonly used and most likely hold the greater market share.
However, this isn’t a fair and competitive market and people will snow just hout at each other informing them that their product is better.
* i don’t mean technicially supperior i mean better in the way that brings it the bigger market share, like availablity or the price as 2 such examples.
“it was Atari 800XL vs. Commodore 64. ”
Hah ! Computers for girlies, Spectrums rule !
Hmmm many a playground argument about that, rubber keyboards, bad sounds and dodgy colours vs high price and slow load times…ahhh times gone by….
Eat my Vic 20!!!
My Mac is great to use, fast and does everything I want. I don’t worry about Mac vs. PC debates. I’m sure a PC user feels the same way.
I certainly don’t care. I just want something that works CORRECTLY 99% of the time.
The CoCo is king! That was my first machine. Later I moved to one with an 80 character display, the TRS-80 Model 4, with dual 180k drives, and 128k of RAM, way more than one would ever need. Raw power (4mgHz), unlimited storage, automated, randomized file corruption, flakey power supplies, and the ability to beep when it crashed. I miss the good old days.
The fight between Mac and PC doesn’t really matter to me. I don’t like attitudes or marketing on either side.
I’d be 100% Macintosh right now if it suited me. It just doesn’t. Then again, neither does Windows/PC. That’s why I”m not 100% Windows/PC either. Instead, I use all three. Macs (running Mac OS uniX and True Mac OS) and PCs running Windows XP. Oh yeah, number three is Macs and PCs running BeOS, of course. Combining the use of all three, I get most stuff done, mostly comfortably. Mostly.
I wish I had a simplified computer appliance (like a Palm) for each of my big computing needs (audio, graphics, information)…
“Hmmm many a playground argument about that, rubber keyboards, bad sounds and dodgy colours vs high price and slow load times…ahhh times gone by….”
yes, but those rubber keyboards gave the highest fire rate on games!
Atari computers were never a success here in the UK, it was definately Speccy and Commodore 64.
I rather miss those days, when new machines came out they would have interesting new features and architectures, and different manufacturers would approach things differently.
As for who cares about Mac Vs Windows? I do, because it would be a less interesting world if only one of them existed, though personally I get pissed off at the people on both sides who insult each other and use half truths, poor research and twisted logic in what could and should be an interesting debate and discussion.
For example Mac people are forever saying that the Mac makes you more productive, but I can only remember seeing one post where somebody actually gave any indication as to WHY they felt it makes you more productive (other than the common claims of Windows crashing every ten minutes and 90% of hardware having crappy drivers versus “it just works”.. neither of which is a universal truth). I would be interested to know what about the mac environment means you can get your work done more quickly than on a Windows machine.
I use SuSE Linux to get all my work done I have a couple of Macs that I havent turned on in almost a year I even have BeOS floating somewhere on this 60 gig drive of mine. I have Windows doing the same thing, just somewhere dont really boot into anything else. What works is what works no need to sit there and have this debate, i cant make people switch and they sure cant make me switch.
C64 and Speccy fans are all lusers, anyone who was really 1337 had a BBC Micro.
My Amiga r0x0rs you’re n00b aTari ST!!!!!1111 (etcetera)
…appleforever 🙂 Especially on the note that Apple zealots were easy targets 🙂 (Hey no offence).
Besides, I’m really getting bored of the Mac vs. PC argument (notice how I stayed out on the most recent thread?) mainly because it is more of a preference. Mac zealots would like to think most PC users can live with Macs comfortably, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.
I personally would never give up the PC unless the Mac gives two things I like about PCs – performance, flexiblity and price. Even if they start using x86 processors for their Mac, for by some luck GPUL is actually temporarily faster than x86, I would stick to PCs.
“Apple Computer would like to apologize for toasting the Pentium II processor in public,” the voiceover intoned.
Are they going to apologize for still trying to sell that the processor that competed with the Pentium 2, now, and still claiming it’s “fast” ?
When I got into PCs in 96, it wasn’t on the basis of price vs performance. My Amiga, gave me more bang per buck. But the simple fact was that Amiga was no longer supported. Had it of been, I wouldn’t of switched. Since that time PeeCees have become more competetive, they have opened up the R&D I dreamed for the Amiga all those years ago. Granted the PeeCee lacks the spirit and ingenuity of Amiga, I have very little choice now. I have to always side with the team that gets the best support, i say the same holds true for joe consumer. My gf happens to think the same about her underwire bra. Toodles.
The debate mac versus PC is interesting to me, mainly for the curiousity of how hard Windows PC people struggle to deny that the mac is a better designed platform.
The questions aren’t even interesting and you can get to the bottom line in seconds: PCs are faster (right now, with respect to desktops), cheaper (although not too much if any for laptops) and — the big one — more “compatible” (every game is there, every program, no problems exchanging things, using websites, etc.)
In almost every other respect, the mac is better in terms of design and quality. Clearly and obviously. Mostly it’s superior in terms of software design, but the computer really is the software.
But most people place a higher value on price and compatibility. So windows it is.
The funny and dumb thing to me, is why not just admit it (Macs are better designed, esp. on the software)? Mac users have no problem admitting PCs have more games. But try to get someone like rajan to admit that the iApps collectively are better than the windows equivalent. You can’t.
You know if people just said, you know what, why can’t windows have a little more quality to it, like the mac. MS might actually do something. well, maybe not.
Anyways, it’s not about zealotry. I think PCs are good for lots of things. I own PCs and use PCs. They have advantages (price, speed, compatibility). But as nice? As innovative? No. again, this is so obvious it’s crazy.
A lot of the denial here seems to come from the fact that people like to build and modify and upgrade their PCs and you can’t do it on the mac anywhere close to the same degree. Again – here I am admitting something — you have much less flexibility with Apple.
But whether you can build your PC — that’s not better design. It has nothing to do with design. It’s an advantage — but not one related to design. It’s a difference in the platform, an advantage, but not evidence of better design.
I’m really just a zealot about the truth.
Quoth appleforever: “Blah blah blah design blah blah blah better blah”
Wow. It’s like the thing you *didn’t* say was, “Hey! Even some of my best friends are PC users!”
Like, you know, they can’t help it, it’s just the way they are.
You mistake your idea of good design (still trying to figure out what you mean, by the way) for a universal.
Price and flexability pretty much define what I’m after in a computer. The x86 schema is centered around the idea that it’s a good thing to be friendly to tinkerers. I like to tinker. Ergo, it’s a good design for me.
Speed is a nice extra, but I’m used to living on the slow end of that particular bell curve. I don’t have many demands on that account. Price and flex are far more important to me. On both accounts, Mac fails my expectations.
Mac does *not* fail my expectations of stability in performing rigid, pre-defined tasks of a certain philosophy. Macs have, I think, a well-deserved rep for stability. It also does not fail my expectations for matching my designer pillows. The OS and app designers also seem to be very right-brain oriented, which is also swell.
I’m a left-brain guy. Go figure.
Macs do what Jobs wants them to do. My PC does what *I* want it to do. In some cases Jobs’ desires overlap with mine. Then, a Mac is desireable, and I’ve spent time wishing I had a bigger paycheck so I could afford one. In many cases, though, Jobs’ desires don’t fit with mine. So I enjoy my PC.
I don’t know. Maybe I sound like a twit to say it, but if I want a computer that’s as cute and loyal and fun as a puppy, I’ll get a Mac. If I want a computer that I can make sit up and bark in Esparanto, I’ll stick with my PC.
You say that the debate is interesting to you. I think you’ve mistaken the word “interesting” as being synonymous with “an opportunity to be condescending while maintaining a facade of intellectual distance.”
Me, I think *you’re* interesting, like a new species of bug is to an entymologist. Trouble is, your species has been around forever.
GMFTatsujin
PS: C-64, all the way. C-Net was the last, best BBS system ever!!!
You keep going on about how macs are better designed, as though it is an obvious truth, but where is this superior design you’re talking about?
Sure macs are physically attractive as a whole, and the G4 I looked inside a while back was lovely, solid attractive case, easy to get into, cables routed neatly out of the way, and so on. But high quality attractive easy to get into cases are available for PCs too, and it’s perfectly possible to route cabling as neatly.. I’ve heard alienware systems are very nice for example.
So perhaps you’re referring to the quality of the other components? Hard disks, graphics cards, memory… no better than you would find in an average PC, generally lower performance than you would find in a top of the range PC, the overall architecture doesn’t seem so blindingly impressive either.
The powerPC and altivec are nice designs I’ll admit, but they are nice in that they are clean and efficient, it’s hard to argue that a processor design is “better” when it’s so far behind the competition on performance. Conversely I also find it hard to argue that Intel processors are “better” because they are fairly ugly from a coding point of view (I know, I have to use the things!)
Now there’s software. Firstly the OS itself. I haven’t used OSX, and I’ve got very little experience of previous Macs (just enough to get cross platform code I was working on to compile and run). But it seems to me that Mac zealots claimed that their OS was superior to everything else back before OSX… and then Apple threw it out and restarted from a Unix base, which indicates it was not superior on every level at that time, I doubt OSX is now. In fact from what I’ve picked up on this site it seems that this better design of OS experience may be a step back in terms of speed and responsiveness, so in some aspects it is inferior to its own predecessor, never mind the competition.
I’m sure there are a lot of positive things to say about the Mac user experience… I’ve never hung around long enough to get over the missing mouse buttons and the menu bar being stuck at the top of the screen… would love to, but I’m a software engineer and I make my living from PCs, I don’t have time to learn to love the Mac.
As for applications, well they are not part of the computer design. They are not part of the OS. They are part of the out of the box experience admitedly, and the general verdict on IApps seems very positive, but are they all better in every way than similar applications on the PC (note I am not assuming bundled Microsoft Apps here).
I like Macs, I like many aspects of their design, but to claim that they are inherently and obviously better designed than PCs only works if you
a) Limit your criteria of what constitutes better design to the Mac’s strengths
b) Ignore the fact that there are hundreds of PC manufacturers, making thousands of different models, with varying designs, build quality, and bundled applications.
condescending? I don’t really care. I’m not trying to be polite
Want some more truth you can’t handle? OK, the core reason the mac works so well and reliably and consistently is that there’s less hardware options, and apple controls it all Just about everyone recognizes this. Maybe one day open hardware can work as well as an integrated solution – it’s just that day seems far off at this point.
Open hardware also has a harder time innovating on things that take hardware and software. So while MS and Dell, and various third parties and app. developers etc. are fumbling about, trying to coordinate, apple just implements the new thing (taking hardware and software) in a way that works.
So you see the flexibility, build-ability on the PC side comes at a high price. Of course you won’t be able to admit this. PC people rarely do.
Oh, the ol’ “macs are just pretty” thing is tired. Yes, they are nice looking. But it goes way beyond that.
If you really want to know, the first step is losing the fixation on speed. Or some other crude numerical quality as the be all and end all.
In the world of marketing of electronic gizmos, there’s an undue focus on statistics (number of megapixels, megahertz, watts per channel)
Instead, the real measure of good design on tech gadgets is usability. Computers are too hard to use. Cell phones are too hard to use. Digital cameras are too hard to use. Usability is not paid any attention to because the assumption is that buyers won’t be able to evaluate it or make buying decisions based on it. The assumption is that people will just buy based on a few crude measures. Unfortunately, it’s a safe assumption. It’s not that people are dumb. It’s more that they don’t have time to evaluate usability, or research it. They are just busy. They go with what’s simple.
The result is that usability is paid way, way, too little attention. And since nobody is paying attention to it, people have low standards. We literally expect our cell phones to be a bitch to learn.
Apple basically says, we don’t care. We’re going to make it very usable. That’s important to us. This is manifested in many ways, but a big one is that Apple software UI design is very uncluttered.
Just like it takes longer to write a short essay than a bloated one, it takes longer and more effort to make an interface with fewer rather dozens of elements. That way you don’t need a “Wizard” to do it for you. Instead, you do it yourself.
iMovie – you make a movie in minutes without even opening a manual. iPod – how is it that it’s so much easier to use than all the others? I don’t know, it’s hard to explain but it is.
Part of the excellent design in apple products is attention to detail. Apple prioritizes and makes sure that certain things work as advertised. Like battery life (notebooks and iPod).
You know, it’s not just me saying apple has great design of hardware and software. There are literally dozens and dozens of glowing reviews of apple software and hardware products that have been published over the last several years. Does anyone see anywhere near the same kind of thing for Dell, or MS, or Gateway? No.
I want to clear – when I say better design, I mean better functioning. A PC that you can build – it doesn’t work better because you can build it. Once you build a windows PC, it works just like any other windows PC. It’s nice to be able to build it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the functioning or the design. It was a kit you put together.
When you guys complain about speed, really you’re just tallking again about price.
The dual 1.42 powermac is by any measure a very fast computer. I tried the dual 1.25 in the store and it was so fast I couldn’t believe it. In no way can you call this thing slow.
Of course this machine is not cheap. That’s what you’re really complaining about. you know PRICE/performance. it’s not really performance alone. It’s PRICE — you can “get” 3 gigahertz for $699, etc. etc, compared to X for the mac.
Hey, I am not saying that a PC is not a better choice for many users (heavy intensive rendering 3d stuff, cad/cam), at least right now.
Yes, ihatmac.com has changed long time ago content-wise — this doesn’t mean that the pro/con debate isn’t going on anymore as ever and it in fact does. Even here at Osnews, admittedly, the forum here is somewhat more disciplined in this respect. But apart from that, there’s no difference in the forums out in the wild. And a MS add for Mac Office certaintly doesn’t change this either. Show me _a_single_place_ where the discussion is not exactly the same as ever… you can easily see it whenever benchmarks like at digitalvideoediting.com are done, etc…
The only reason things got calmed down a bit is that Mac users are so few nowadays that due to this fact not really many people care anymore, what those leftbehinds are doing at home…
In almost every other respect, the mac is better in terms of design and quality.
If you happen to stop by any Mac help forums, you would notice is this plain and simple propaganda. The PC I’m using here, only been to the shop a few times. Only once to repair (lighting, thunderstorms, internal modems, hope you get the picture), rest of the times to upgrade (e.g. Celeron 400Mhz to Pentium III 800mhz).
Yet all the people I know personally have problems with it. All of them have problems with the modem for example. Remember when Cube was release? Remember how much Cubes Apple have to pull back merely because the casing became mouldy?
Apple computers are made by the same people making PCs in Taiwan.
Mostly it’s superior in terms of software design, but the computer really is the software.
Well, maybe for you, but Mac OS X for many isn’t all that “quality”. New features maybe, but that doesn’t go down as quality. How many revisions still Apple got it to be at least minimally responsive?
The funny and dumb thing to me, is why not just admit it (Macs are better designed, esp. on the software)?
Because it is tantunum to admiting that the earth is flat and Australia doesn’t exist.
But try to get someone like rajan to admit that the iApps collectively are better than the windows equivalent.
I never said they were less better. Yes, iApps is good. iLife together is very good. Would it make a lot of people buy Macs? Nope. I have many people asking me recommendations to buy a new computer, and if any of them say “I just got a new digital camera, and I want a computer that is just right for it” or “I got a video camera, I want to edit my movies”, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Macs if their budget is more than a thousand bucks.
But have I ever recommended a Mac for iApps? Never. Simply because of all the hundreds of recommendations I give out, no one simply fits this category.
you know what, why can’t windows have a little more quality to it, like the mac.
Well, Mac OS 9 had more quality than Windows 98, but I have a much smoother ride with Windows XP than Mac OS X ever gave me. Too slow, Finder sometimes crashing, just a horrible experience. They fixed most of the problems with Jaguar, but after how long?
Anyways, it’s not about zealotry.
Oh, yes it is.
But as nice? As innovative? No. again, this is so obvious it’s crazy.
I may not own a Mac, but are they “wildly innovative”? If you can seriously say yes while following the real defination of innovation by Oxford and Webster, serious, the PC, especially in recent years, is far more innovative.
Who got SDRAM first? PCs. Who got DDR RAM first? PCs. Who got RD RAM first? PCs. Who invented USB? A PC company. Would NVIdia have exist without PCs? Doubt it. I can go on and on, but you obviously have made up your mind that PCs are copies, not innovative.
I have a very high defination of innovation. Therefore, I wouldn’t say neither Mac or PC are all that innovative. Innovative does NOT mean great solutions for you and me. PARC was wildly innovative, Xerox is axing it because it never made money.
You see the thing is that Apple is a trend setter. Some PC makers too are trend-setters too, it is not only Apple. Being a trend-setter doesn’t mean you are innovative. It means you commercialize an idea to a point that it becomes so popular and it affects the entire industry.
Microsoft is one example of a company that is NOT a trendsetter. It doesn’t mean they are not innovative, it just means it isn’t a trend setter.
It’s a difference in the platform, an advantage, but not evidence of better design.
No one ever said that PCs had better designs because of that reason. You never once went into technical reasoning, just the outside packaging. In other words, you are practically saying that just because you can open up a package, plug for cables and viola, a working Mac that can edit video and manage photos, therefore better design.
Did Apple first come up with the idea of iMovie? Nope, not innovative. Did Apple first come up with the idea of iPhoto? Nope, therefore, not innovative. Did Apple first came up with the idea of iTunes? Nope, again, therefore not innnovative. Did Apple came up with the idea of integration between applications? Nope, not innovative.
I’m really just a zealot about the truth.
So in other words, you are saying Apple is the truth? Please, your nick itself speaks volumes about your zealotry. I’m a zealot for ball point pens, hating pencils. Do I exclusively use pens? Nope. But does that mean I’m not biased against pencils?
You are obviously using the PC for things you can do better on that than the Mac. Does that mean you aren’t a Apple zealot? Nope.
Instead, the real measure of good design on tech gadgets is usability.
Your fixation on usability is that how easy it is for Joe Blow to do a task, then how fast can a Mac user for many years can complete a task if he had been so used to PCs.
Apple basically says, we don’t care. We’re going to make it very usable.
Then what caused Apple to fire its famous usability team once the merger between NeXT and Apple was completed? Or why so many good usability practices in OS 9 was thrown out the window for some really really cool feature that looks better on ads?
And while on the subject, why does Apple overly uses eye candy, particulary animation? I don’t mind animation to smooth things, but what Apple does is ridiculous. Yes, I think Windows need more animation to make it more usable, but please, not to the degree of OS X.
Then Aqua look itself is a accessiblity nightmare. Can half-blind people use Mac OS X comfortably? A lot of them said due to the strips (perhaps influenced by Californian prison dress code), this isn’t all that possible.
And what about the first two major versions (and maybe Jaguar too) of OS X that don’t provide adequate ways for users to ditch the mouse and use the keyboard. Once you get used to the keyboard, it is hard to move your hand to the mouse everytime you click a button.
Part of the excellent design in apple products is attention to detail.
Maybe that explains the heaps of negavity on the UI for every 1.0 product by Apple for the consumer market.
There are literally dozens and dozens of glowing reviews of apple software and hardware products that have been published over the last several years.
There are dozens of reviews that say DOS is heaps more usable than UNIX in the early 80s. Do you take that as a fact? Sure, it is easier to learn DOS, but you can be more productive with most of the shells, particulary bourne on UNIX.
when I say better design, I mean better functioning. A PC that you can build – it doesn’t work better because you can build it.
Actually it does. I can pick out the best hardware or the worst hardware. Anything that goes wrong is my blame, not the company who makes it. Besides, most of the PC market DON’T make the hardware.
It’s nice to be able to build it, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the functioning or the design.
You obviously never even read an article on building your own PC. Just say I’m a guy that hardly uses resource-hogging graphics, but compile a lot of code, I can make myself a dual processor system with heaps of RAM and perhaps a RAID hard disk. But just say I’m a gamer, I would pick the fastest graphics card and best sound card I can afford.
In other words, you decide what you do with the system.
I tried the dual 1.25 in the store and it was so fast I couldn’t believe it. In no way can you call this thing slow.
Except if you used a faster PC than it. Of course, comparing with your Mac, it is obviously faster, but comparing to a PC that vintage, it isn’t.
The BBC Micro was for wusses.
Real hardcore programming was done on it’s baby brother – the magnificent Acorn Electron.
Now THAT was a machine and a half (or rather half a machine).
If this old, tired discussion still gets you fired up you really need to get a life. Nothing puts me to sleep faster than a Mac vs PC article/discusssion. Matter of fact I think… zzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Acorns were for losers. The cool kids had a Spectrum the geeks an Oric Atmos or something like that.
“Who invented USB? A PC company.”
Oooo that’s not quite Rajan, USB was in fact invented by a group of companies. And I’m afraid that Apple’s Firewire is a better standard (although USB 2.0 is closer), held back by Apple requiring royalties (to begin with).
But apart from that I’m staying out of this one.
😉
You kids with your newfangled hard drives and cable modems, bah!
My 450 pound teletype had a punch card reader and a tape reader!
And we liked it!
If firewire is so much better then why were macs the first machines to make usb essential, and thus boost its popularity?
Could it be that for certain uses (such as connecting up keyboards, mice, printers etc) USB is actually the better solution on a cost/performance basis?
Firewire is definately the more powerful of the two (it stays a step ahead in terms of speed and it’s peer to peer)… but as the mac fans keep telling us, more powerful is not neccesserily better, it depends on your application
MSX…
720Kb floppyes, FM Sound, up to 4MB of RAM, lot’s of stunning games! And with some hacking you can get IDE Hardrive support, ZipDrives and SCSI!
And know what? There’s even a UNIX clone for it, check at [http://uzix.sf.net] !
In general, I think the argument never goes anywhere. PC’s can be bought new for $199 on up. Mac’s can be bought for $799 on up (G4 $1199 on up, which I hear is recommended for OSX). Pc’s run numerous operating systems, while Mac’s are designed just to run one. I’m not arguing against apple, what I’m saying is that PC users vary so greatly that the argument becomes too widespread.
What frustrates me about Apple zealots is this. A computing buddy who uses Macs (who knows I only use GNU/Linux on my home network), still spouts the same ‘win-tel’ arguments at me in a debate. Why? I have no love for MS or Intel? I use AMD chips, GNU software, and OpenBSD. I hear that assumption here from mac users too.
Why don’t I use Mac? The same reason I don’t use dell. I build my own machines. And I rip them apart from time to time. If I paid for a warranty, it would be useless at that point. And though I’m curious about OSX, I’m not $1200 curious. Do I discourage other people from using them? Not at all. I would recommend an apple to a lot of non tech users.
A lot of it comes down to what you’re already comfortable with. My parents use a Wintel box to check email, surf the web, and do their taxes. Am I going to call and tell them that their world will be revolutionized by buying a $1200 machine? no. But a kid who hasn’t learned either, maybe.
It isn’t all black and white.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, so nice to see everyone so civilized, but I think the argument is kept alive more by the Mac zealots than the PC guys/girls. Everytime someone brings out a benchmark test that says PCs are faster than the Mac. Its like they are crushed. They are so distrought that the most beloved thing in their life is indeed not the supercomputer that Apple touts, their dreams are shot down like SKUD missles over kuwait, gone like a virgin on Prom night. That they search feverishly for something that says the Mac is faster. Its like they need it, they crave it and they will rest until the Macintosh is sitting back in a place of glory. I used to be the same way until I woke up and I bought the Gateway Profile. I thought it looked cool, then I installed SuSE Linux 8.1 pro and it everything worked out of box and I found that the PC was indeed faster than the Mac. Macintosh is like a drug for some people. And as previously stated I find that SuSE is much better than Mac OS X I had so many problems with OS X that the Profile with SuSE was much awaited relief. I still have that old G4 I use YDl on it. I found that talking to a Mac cultist is like trying to chew glass, slightly amusing, mostly painful. They just cant seem to wake up and just say ” WHO CARES ” they tout design and stability when the only thing a Mac has going for it is that it looks cool, There is truly nothing I can do on a Mac that I cant do on a PC…..
However, it’s not just mac zealots saying what I’m saying.
Why are so many people excited about OS X and Apple products and nobody excited about windows? Go to the apple switcher stories. Here’s one:
“I am the President of a company that helps companies run their web sites.
We have about 500 servers in our data center. We run both Free UNIX (Linux and FreeBSD) and Microsoft NT and 2000 Servers. About 50% Microsoft and 50% UNIX. I am very familiar with both operating systems.
I have been following what you are doing with OS X for some time, but never had actually used it. I heard several people in our company mention it, and would always listen with interest.
I stopped by your Apple store in King of Prussia, PA, and spoke with Jeff Elliott. He took over 1 hour to explain the new system to me and get me interested in it. I bought a iBook the very next day from apple.com.
I am so incredibly impressed with OS X 10.2 and your iBook that I bought 200 shares of Apple stock today and have been telling everyone about it. I am buying one iBook for my father, another PowerBook to replace my desktop at work and several more for people that work here.
Working closely with computers and technology for over a decade, with 9 years of commercial Internet experience, I just wanted to say that I have not been so impressed IN YEARS!”
Why does MS have to make stories up and have fake testimonials on their website?
Why is OS X winning awards and MS not?
Infoworld 2002 Technology of the Year: Apple platform. http://infoworld.com/article/03/01/24/2002TOYmac_1.html
Wired Magazine – awarded OS X development team award. Best software development or something like that.
CNN — writes in CNN, “Quite simply, Jaguar is Unix for the masses — a consumer version of the most stable operating system on the planet. Business users will love its ability to detect a wireless connection no matter where they roam. Consumers will be blown away by its simplicity and stability, as well as applications like iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie and iChat.”
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/02/technology/winners/index.htm
Man… thanks for setting me straight with your tough love, appleforever. I feel much better now.
It’s like the world was a swimming, swirling miasma of disjointed impressions; a chaotic revelry in anarchy and self-deciept. Then I gazed upon the true beauty and majesty of tight design, interoperability, innovation, attention to detail, and a flexible user-friendly interface, and lo, the veil was lifted from mine eyes and I SAW.
Boy, KDE 3.1 is nice. My home-cobbled AMD has never been slicker.
“I’m not trying to be nice…” Yeah, apparently you’re not trying to be cogent, either.
I have tons of respect and excitement about Linux. It’s just not there yet for ordinary people with a full spectrum of things they want to do on the desktop including digital media management. It’s 95 percent of the way there for the desktop for corporations and consumers with limited needs (email, web, etc). Put in a good app. installation, and I might even give you 99.9 percent of the way there for these consumers with limited needs (I guess there is lindows, but it seems expensive).
So I don’t think it’s even fair to compare the mac to Linux for consumer use. It’s not a fair comparison right now. However, windows and the mac — that’s a direct comparison.
I’ll give you ‘not there yet for ordinary people’, and I don’t shove GNU/Linux or *BSD on them. But tell the rest of the tribe to relax next time they talk to one of us, and not to start yelling at us because our AMD processors are Intel knock-offs. Without free software (which runs the cheapest on i386 boxes), apple would still be selling OS9 to high school yearbook producers. Now, apple will bring some legitimacy to political fights against a mandatory palladium chip. And free software will bring support and a user base to OSX. PC vs. Mac should be referred to as MS vs Apple.
Good point Jon, I was just pointing out that not all innovations come from PC companies, I for one have far more USB devices than Firewire.
Hell, anything’s better than my Timex Sinclair 1000 or the blue-chicklet-keyed Matell Aquarius!
Why are most PCs still languishing with only a single processor and 32 bit architecture?
Why are Apples still crawling with years-behind processor speeds?
The solution: dual 3ghz processors, 64-bit system, with 15+ primary partitions allowed, that can run OSX or Windows! And a desktop that you don’t “trash” the floppy to get it eject…
-Bob
This is another old one people pull out in arguing against the innovation on the mac.
It doesn’t matter who invents in, or who puts it in first in some form (working or not). What matters is who can IMPLEMENT IT IN A WORKING WAY ACCESSIBLE TO ORDINARY PEOPLE. Intel invented USB, but Apple really gave it the push. Apple didn’t invent wireless networking, but they really came out with the first easy to use solution. Same with video editing. yes, it existed before iMovie and firewire — on 100,000 avid systems.
There is no reason to argue about Macs vs. PCes. If you love computing, you try to see the strengths and weaknesses of every platform. That type of discussion is interesting and useful. But, the moment someone starts to defend a platform or bash a platform, then it all goes bad. Why can’t people see this? I’ve been using Apple computers ever since the Apple IIe, but I have no compulsion to deny the Mac’s weaknesses, nor do I have any problems praising XP Pro’s strengths (and vica versa). I want to learn. If people just try to neutralize each others rhetoric, nothing is gained and the possibility of learning is lost.
Forbes
Keynote Vs. PowerPoint
Paul Maidment, 01.30.03, 10:00 AM ET
“How does Keynote stack up against PowerPoint? The snapshot summary of our head-to-head user test of the two programs is that they fundamentally do the same thing, and do it well, but Keynote does it with a superior elegance and simplicity of use that is Apple’s design trademark.”
“The novice presenter will easily produce the more stunning-looking slideshow using Keynote. A seasoned colleague for whom style is as important as substance will feel as if they are using a powerful graphics program rather than a presentation one thanks to Keynote’s graphics layering and pixel-precise positioning tools.”
“But with Keynote, Apple gives Mac users that haven’t yet moved up to Jaguar one more reason for doing so. And for any Mac user who just wants their presentations to look that bit more polished–and have their belief in the Apple’s design elegance confirmed–then Keynote is well worth the indulgence.”
http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/30/cx_pm_0130tentech.html?partner=yah…
Last time I checked Avid were not Apple. Perhaps you also want to credit Apple with inventing the spreadsheet, since Visicalc first appeared on the Apple II?
And of course it matters who invented something, because without the innovation required to produce the original techonology, the innovation of implementing it in an easy to use manner would be a non starter, wouldn’t it?
I agree with you. Personally what interests me is the details of what is nicer on each platform. For example the power pc has a beauty of design, but the intel processors are no less impressive in their own way. Similarly I am sure there are neat ideas in other areas of hardware on both platforms, and in software.
OK, sure it matters that somebody innovates something. But here’s my point — the fact that other people invented things does not take away from the fact that apple has first implemented a lot of those things in a way real people can actually enjoy the benefits of that invention.
also, I didn’t say avid was apple. I said that before iMovie, you had to use expensive (avid) and/or difficult stuff. apple made it easy, with its control of the hardware and software.
I actually hear more excitement from people that switched to Linux, Movie studios and schools are going to Linux, Apples losing share in those Markets. Many commercial companies are starting to develop software for Linux. On that note I have seen a few companies dropping Mac support and discontinuing their Mac products, Only three software Apps were discontinued for Windows, two from Apple and one no name non important App that I cant even remember the name of. everyone has their software reviews. Some good some bad on any OS. What is the need for a discussion, a computer is a computer. Use what you like and what gives you results. I like Linux I get better results from Linux then I do Windows XP or Mac OS X, guess what I use, I use Linux. As for Apples switcher ads, I hold them in the same regards I do pro wrestling, 10% truth 90% fake. Janie Porche for example one ad says she saved christmas the other one says that her mac got her a date and they publish it like its a new user. One “switcher” says extensions are not a big deal and that he has a flat panel imac, okay, only one problem with that Mac OS X doesnt use extensions like OS 9 did and being a new Mac user he wouldnt have to boot into OS 9. As for the dude that says he bought 200 shares of Apple, well he is either crazy or not a very good business man because Apple reported a profit loss and they dont see it getting any better and from an investment point of view it was a very sorry buy. But hey if he is telling the truth and not some 12 yr old playing on mommy and daddys computer, it is his money and not mine. But PCs have won they are the dominant system in the world they are economically sound and they work. Apple had a chance to be the dominant computing platform in the world and they blew it, get over it…
>Besides, I’m really getting bored of the Mac vs. PC argument
>(notice how I stayed out on the most recent thread?)
(On vacation?)
Admit it rajan r, you live for this.
🙂
Aaaaahhh and to think it used to be GTOs and Camaros, Pontiac and GM would KILL for this kind of passion again.
This is FAR more fun and you seldom have to even scub under the fingernails as much.
KDE 3.1 is a lot nicer desktop than Windows XP and Mac OS X and it even does something that Mac OS X will never do, it has theme support. You dont have to worry about using some 3rd party hack to change the appearance. Maybe Apple will use some of KDEs engineering to offer Mac OS X that type of functionality since they seem so keen on using KDEs Source for somethings now. It also has some things that Mac OS X doesnt, compatibility with Exchange servers and the ability to lock users out of certain parts of the system, quite easily.
ha, windows being the dominant (monopoly) OS is one reason it sucks. Monopolies don’t have much if any incentive to make a better product. Apple only stays alive as long as it makes a better product.
One thing we’ve figured out is that people need incentives. If they are rewarded for doing nothing (MS right now, just collecting rent on their dominance), why should they do anything?
there is a lot of excitement about linux. rightly so. any for windows? not much
linux “overtaking” the mac — this is another one where mac haters aren’t thinking straight. The biggest thing holding back the mac is not the price. Is the “compatibility” issue. This issue only exists in a world where there’s a dominant proprietary OS like windows and the perception that there’s literally no other choice for most people. In other words, the current situation.
Now, imagine a world where linux has just 20 percent of the desktop in corporations, schools, govt agencies, consumers’ homes. The whole situation changes. There’s not just “one choice.” People say, hey, there’s multiple choices and the mac is one of them.
Also, if Linux gets that much of the desktop, macs will interoperate with them without even the slightest issue. Everything written for linux can be ported over and recompliled for the mac without much difficulty. So all that commercial software available for Linux available at Best Buy, etc. — in this hypothetical world where Linux has 20 percent of the desktop — all of sudden can be made to run on the mac in a cinch.
Bring it on, Linux “overtaking” the mac. That’s a world I like very, very much.
Appleforever your passion and the points you made on this topic are impressive, as for Windows lets see we have the PocketPC and we have the new Tablet PC each hasd their own excitement in each category. I cant wait to get Linux running on it. Just because you dont get excited about it doesnt mean that that others dont. Microsoft is a very impressive company and it makes very good products. Windows XP is the best OS yet that Microsoft has produced and one thing that I do give kudos to Microsoft is their will power. They havent gone running to adopt any open source operating system just to stay alive. They do an impressive job with Windows. Apple on the other hand HAD to do something otherwise theyu were going to go under, so what they did by trying to unite the UNIX community with the Mac community was a good thing. Its just not catching on as much as Apple would like it too. By that I mean I havent seen to many Linux programmers running off to buy a Mac and go Mac OS X. And I dont think we will see that many do so, not many people can afford the hardware prices and many of them dont want to because Linux does what they need it to do. Sure, Linux doesnt have all the Apps that Macintosh does and certainly not as many as Windows does but it is catching up if things go the way I think it will Linux will soon be the number 1 OS with Apple holding at #2. Apple has to realize the hardware issue. They could make a ton of cash on OS X x86 If they do it well, dont do like Sun and release a product that is so buggy everything falls apart. But if they release a good implementation of OS X x86 they will be the #1 company. If they continue the PowerPC route and dont release an OS X x86 they will always be #2 because more people buy x86 hardware. Im not bashing Apple, I havent tried OS X 10.2 Im sure its wonderful but my point is that people are not going to spend the money on a computer just for the OS not when they have a cheaper solution right next to it on the shelf.
Im sure its wonderful but my point is that people are not going to spend the money on a computer just for the OS not when they have a cheaper solution right next to it on the shelf.
There wouldn’t be ANY Macs sold though if this were true, no? The main thing is their is a market for everything. NO system, Mac, Win, nor Linux can service 100% of the market. People buy what works or them reguardless of what others think. Not every solution is always won by the same platform 100% of the time. Sure the marketshare may be small but there are people who like those options and the solutions they provide, and obviously there is profit there or the companies wouldn’t exist, we all can agree I’m sure.
Apple prioritizes and makes sure that certain things work as advertised.
I’d be a hell of a lot more comfortable with Apple products if OS X and all that it contains was one of these things that Apple put a priority on making “work as advertised.” We’ve got Jaguar. It’s no better than the previous incarnation; still not good enough to be a commercial product version 1. I’m NOT going to go listing all the bugs and inconsistencies AGAIN. Suffice it to say all the hardware we have is 100% Apple certified Macintosh compatible.
Maybe the iPod works great, but that’s because Apple knows that owners of little electronic gadgets aren’t as complacent about acceptable functionality as general computer users (and geeks) are about computers.
As for the Apple switcher stories… I think they’re all a load of bunk. Any system has its supporters and detractors. It doesn’t take much to find people who have switched from one THING to another THING for this that and the other problems they couldn’t stand any more. I even admit to having problems with BeOS, and I am a HUGE BeOS supporter; I’m just lucid about all of this computer industry nonsense.
I think it’s important to remember the context within which Mac users defend their platform. Windows users have always been able to be complacent — they have never had to worry about MS going out of business. Mac users, on the other hand, have been told numerous times that Apple was going under. I think that brings out the passion (some would call it zealotry) in Mac users — they don’t want to see the platform they prefer disappear. It’s kind of like sparrows (MS) and bald eagles (Apple) — both are worthy of being on this Earth, but because sparrows are in no danger of going extinct, people don’t get too worked up about them. But people are passionate about protecting the bald eagle.
appleforever: This is another old one people pull out in arguing against the innovation on the mac.
I can turn around and say exactly the same thing against you This is another old one people pull out in arguing against the innovation on the pc.
Innovation (Webster)
Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: “i-n&-‘vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
You’re defination is extremely off base.
It doesn’t matter who invents in
Actually it does. That’s exactly what innovation means.
What matters is who can IMPLEMENT IT IN A WORKING WAY ACCESSIBLE TO ORDINARY PEOPLE.
So when Microsoft do that, it isn’ innovation, it is copying. When Apple does that, it is innovation. Double standards. Where is my “Mac Zealot” rubber stamp?
Intel invented USB, but Apple really gave it the push.
Only mac zealots would like to believe that. Who gave USB a push? Intel, for including it with their chipsets. Not Apple, who remove every known port for USB. There is no possible way that it was Apple pushing USB. When the iMac came out, all useful USB devices were Apple-specific, not all that needed on the PC (e.g. external floopy drives).
Apple didn’t invent wireless networking, but they really came out with the first easy to use solution.
I can turn around and say Linux is innovative because they really came out with the first secure solution. Sounds stupid? It is. Making Wi-Fi easy to use is dead simple once you had the support built it. A front end, automatic configurations, blah blah blah. Microsoft also have their own rather easy to use wizard and is the main one pushing WiFi. Innovative? hell no.
Same with video editing. yes, it existed before iMovie and firewire — on 100,000 avid systems.
It wasn’t as consumer-targeted as iMovie was (and I never said FireWire wasn’t innovative although it is pretty much a extended version of SCSI). Avid is more prosumer.
Keynote Vs. PowerPoint
I have one link for you:
http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2630
Oh, so it is okay for Apple to do this, but not for Microsoft? That’s what I call double standards. Besides, you don’t have to copy and paste the review because a link is sufficient. Plus, would I use this to show whether or not Keynote is good? nope. Why? It is 11 paragraphs long, and it doesn’t go into detail. Certainly NOT a review in my books, just a editorial.
also, I didn’t say avid was apple. I said that before iMovie, you had to use expensive (avid) and/or difficult stuff. apple made it easy, with its control of the hardware and software.
Before Apple’s iMovie, Sony had its own solution. Since you take software + hardware control as a feature, Sony’s solution takes it a higher step. It is software+ hardware+ video camera control.
Yes, iMovie was easier than Sony’s solution. But was it the first? innovative? hell no.
hylas: Admit it rajan r, you live for this.
🙂
Do I live to bash Mac day and night? Nope. If there was a Windows zealot to the strenght of appleforever (windowsforever?), guess what? I would be bashing to that side :-).
Personally, I stay at OSNews because combined, I spend less than an hour a day here (hard to believe, but I come on and off here during the whole day) but I learn A LOT from this forums.
appleforever: ha, windows being the dominant (monopoly) OS is one reason it sucks.
It sucks to you. Mac OS X sucks more than Windows XP. Is Mac OS X a monopoly product too? Oh, I didn’t know.
appleforever: Everything written for linux can be ported over and recompliled for the mac without much difficulty.
yes, but if Linux reaches 20%, most of the apps available on Linux would be propreitary and porting it, no less recompiling it, for Mac OS X is next to impossible. So I go back to your earlier point:
The biggest thing holding back the mac is not the price.
Actually it is. I can recommend the Mac to a thousand more people if it was far more cheaper, closer to the price of a PC. For many people, Mac OS X has sufficient compatibility. They have Office, networks works fine, most of the famous consumer apps are there (Quicken, for example).
Price remains to be the only issue.
Excalibur: There wouldn’t be ANY Macs sold though if this were true, no?
Actually, the people willing to pay the premium are a minority. A shrinking minority (in terms of %).
Actually, the people willing to pay the premium are a minority. A shrinking minority (in terms of %).
You missed my point.
Innovation, I’m really fascinated to see how people define innovation.
For example Why many people did find the new iMac (should I say iLamp) innovative ? As always style over substance.
The only thing innovative was the design, and I’m sorry but I didn’t find very attractive and not very innovative. As for the iApps, they are really well design application, but when you know that Apple didn’t developp them internal but rather bought the technology to small company, it makes me wonder who is the real innovator.
Computers are about computing not design. The design is only eye-candy, it does not get the job done.
And I agree with rajan r, I would recommend a Mac to a lot of people but they are not willing to pay the premium price. The only people willing to pay this price would be hardcore gamers, but when you see how Apple treat game developpers (and developpers in general), and when you count the numbers of games available on the Mac, you just buy a PC. Games are the reason why Windows 95 was so succesfull in his time, this is something Microsoft understood a long time ago. Computers at home at really used for gaming.
But if Apple would port MacOS X on x86 hardware, I would know a lot of people that will switch overnight. The market would become really different.
Most of the time, I found that people that have choose Macs needs somehow to justified their choice, when 95% of people have choose another plateforme. They try to justify to themselves that they made the right choice.
There’s no right or wrong, life is about what you do or what you don’t do. Just live up to the personn you say you are.
I reread that paragraph, I don’t see how I could have missed your point. Perhaps you could rephrase it? Your point from that paragraph that Mac, Windows, Linux etc. all can’t get 100% of the market because they have different uses. My point was that the people using Macs, percentage-wise, is a shrinking minority.
Why are people so excited about Apple products?
Look, I just love computers. If Windows was as exciting, or more exciting, or as good or better as the mac, why the hell would I be so enthusiastic about the mac and think windows is such mediocre dull stuff. There is no reason. I would be excited about windows.
However, I am not. It’s dull. It’s mediocre. It’s almost always behind on the new thing (video editing or wireless or whatever is next). The hardware, for the most part, is just a race to the bottom (cheapest price, no room for making it cool).
I have a PC. XP recently stopped booting and I stopped trying to get it to work. I’m going to install XP in my copy of virtual PC and forget about it.
Why are people so excited about Apple products?
Two reasons
a) Cult attraction (wonder how Apple survived the toughest times?)
b) The same people who gets all exicited visiting any shop genre they hardly visit.
If Windows was as exciting, or more exciting, or as good or better as the mac, why the hell would I be so enthusiastic about the mac and think windows is such mediocre dull stuff.
Because Windows (or PCs) were never marketed that way! In other words, you are mainly getting all excited about how they market their products, not merely of the products. January is the first time I watched the Macworld, it is easy to understand *why* this happens. Distortion Field.
The hardware, for the most part, is just a race to the bottom (cheapest price, no room for making it cool).
Yes, you can buy a $400 PC from WeAreReallyCheapWithoutLindows.com, but in the same vein, you can buy a $20,000 PC with a quad of Xeons, a few gigs of RAM etc.
How cool it is depends on how cool your wallet is. If you buy a cheap PC, you would get a cheap PC. If you buy a PC that has everything in it, you would get a PC with everything in it.
I have a PC. XP recently stopped booting and I stopped trying to get it to work.
From your post here, that PC is either old, cheap or both. You never gave details on what your PC was like or how old it is.
no if windows computers were as cool or good I would use my PC. I don’t. It sits getting dusty. windows is dull. MS cares a lot more about making money, conquering markets and so on than quality and innovation.
there’s no science or support to back up the cult claim. It’s just a ridiculous and absurd exaggeration that helps PC users feel better.
Cults are very specific things. Sucking in people that are mentally disturbed in a rather severe way, and taking advantage of them. To the point where the people are willing to kill themselves, drinking purple coolaid and so on.
no if windows computers were as cool or good I would use my PC. I don’t. It sits getting dusty. windows is dull. MS cares a lot more about making money, conquering markets and so on than quality and innovation.
How do you define “cool” and “good” ?
It’s ok for to Apple make money, but it’s a sin for someone else ?
[i] there’s no science or support to back up the cult claim. It’s just a ridiculous and absurd exaggeration that helps PC users feel better. <i/>
Here a definition of “cult”
cult n 1: adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices 2: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal: “he always follows the latest fads”; “it was all the rage that season” [syn: {fad}, {craze}, {furor}, {furore}, {rage}] 3: a system of religious beliefs and rituals [syn: {religious cult}]