ehMac banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Fools. Like any of that's going to convince an OS X user to "switch". What they miss is that you have to run that POS OS on them.

PCs SUCK -- on account of Windows.

Case closed.

[ July 09, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
591 Posts
Don't you guys think you're taking this Apple PC bashing thing a little too far - everyone's entitled to their opinion. Oh sure it's all great when Apple guys bash PC's but whoa, stop the press when they fire back - I happen to agree to some extent with they said in that ad/article. I use both, but I don't owe either company any sort of allegiance, nor do I really care all that much.

Come on fellas, there's penty of room for everyone ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Point taken. HOWEVER, the entire premise of the article is preposterous, it exaggerates, and in a way it feels desperate.

For starts, you don't pay $129.00 "for all updates". That's a lie. They surely know this.

Secondly, "Gradually increasing security concerns"? This, from an article suggesting to go Windows?? After yet, more AND DIFFERENT ways of hacking surfacing in the past weeks with Exploder AND Russian servers hijacking you from trusted websites to install trojans??! Which ALSO means that the servers of those trusted sites have been compromised, too! ROTFLMFAO.

iMacs not being available until September is justification to think about switching Platforms?? Preposterous. This line of thinking, ignoring the strengths and weaknesses of a platform -- MOST important being the OS -- is just the kind of blind attitude the Masses possess when buying a computer: "I want the cheapest PC"... and yet, it's the OPERATING SYSTEM that is MORE important as you use a computer every day than how much PC you crammed into your car's trunk for how little money one day. The iMacs will be there. Switching on account of them being late is so over-simplistic it's moronic.

The only point they make that has a mere shred of legitimacy are Apple's "persistent fulfillment problems". over the years, the announce today, ship in two months" thing can be a drag. But enough to "switch"?? Hardly. And, on the subject of iPods, they can't keep them on the shelves. What a wonderful problem to have.

In closing, there are far more significant issues to consider when switching in EITHER direction, that casually basing the suggestion to switch on their reasons is stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
RC51 - while i agree that dogmatic responses are sometimes less than objective, i think that the article in question is neither logical nor convincing. the security issues it cites are laughable, when contrasted to issues with windows. the only possible justification for that article is if it promoted buying those p.c.'s....with LINUX!! and i dunno - i'm supposed to buy a pc because i have to wait to get an imac? that makes no sense. there's emacs, towers, and apple's forte, laptops. i'm not in favour of kneejerk protectionism, but i think it's okay to flame on at anything that is so shoddily written.

and i'm a pc user.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
alot of Mac users are actually switching to PC these days, no one reason stands out.

Don't hang the messanger,

Alot of them are people who just got caught up in iMac hype and had no real long-term devotion.
It was just a fad to them,

Quite a few are people who are swithing because they have been orphaned by software that is no longer supported on the Mac. Alot of hardcore Premiere users will switch to PC before switching to Final Cut Pro.

Many people just plain hate Mac OS X,

Many people don't perceive the value of iLife.

Budgets are tighter than ever before and budgets don't look beyond the next 12 weeks anymore.

There is no one reason, there isn't any one reason people switch to macs either.

I switch people both ways all the time,
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
alot of Mac users are actually switching to PC these days
Really?

While I do agree with you on a couple of points, overall, I don't buy it.

iMac as a "fad". Sure, there'll be some who are like that, I suppose.

Adobe Premier? There may be some, but Final Cut Pro has solidified the Mac's presence in editing more than if FCP and ALL THE REST of Apple's video stuff never came about. As Premier was cross-platform, it might have ended up looking like there's no difference. With FCP and all the other technologies Apple puts out in pro DV, there's a greater distinction between the platforms. And frankly, Adobe didn't have the stomach to compete. Avid sure does, though.

Orphaned software? There'll be a BUSHEL of software they'll have to PAY FOR if they go Windows. Cross-grade discounts are not the norm. Upgrades from 9 to X would generally be far cheaper and often free with less complex software titles.

Don't see the value of iLife? Perhaps. Content creation is not everybody's cup of tea. on the other hand, there are surely more closet or unfulfilled content creators who are unknowing of how a computer can serve them in this way (on either platform), let alone those who are knowledgeable on it and yet miss the superior attributes of iLife.

Budgets don't look beyond twelve weeks anymore? Too bad for them. If they had some perspective, they might be able to grasp the whole TCO thing, and factor on all the HELL that is Windows security. unfortunately, it's a perception issue. much to their own detriment.

Now, on to OS 9:

Yes, in the earlier days of OS X, there was much teeth gnashing and moaning from people who preferred OS 9. What a solution: go Windows


XP is a modern OS, just like OS X is. It has higher system requirements for smooth operation than 95 or ME did, just like X does when compared to 9. AND there is MORE things different about Windows than there are with OS X when compared to OS 9, man. To switch from Classic to XP (or any Windows) because people are unhappy with change is kind of ridiculous. It doesn't make sense.

Frankly, once I chose to stop clinging to The Old Ways and open my mind to Apple's new UI concepts, I have found that this, along with the far superior power under the hood, makes Mac OS X WAY better than 9. Apple Menu? Application menu? BIG DEAL! You have them both in the Dock, fully configurable and with less racing around the screen from one corner to he next. Minimize to the Dock, rather than Windowshade? Whatever. I KNOW where the window is in X and can see its contents, rather than scanning across several minimized title-bars. And Exposé? Pretty well makes Windowshade -- and even minimize to the Dock -- irrelevant.

As time has gone by, I think that the user-base has acclimated to X fairly well. Yeah, there are still a lot of old macs out there that can't run it (I think of all those schools who bought those crappy performa 5200s and just shudder -- and in education, Apple's got some problems), and people are probably staying 'cause for them it aint broke. Fine. If their needs are met (possibly, those needs are simple, or established, not subject to expanding), then fine. XP's adoption rate has been nothing to write home about, too.

I do a lot of reading on the web. A LOT. Too much, as a matter of fact. I also know several PC guys who switched. I don't know where you're getting the impression of people bailing out on OS X, because from what I've seen, there are many people coming to the platform -- and a LARGE part of it IS because of Mac OS X. Now, many experienced people look at it and say, "Hey! They got a real OS cooking there now!" and, really as a result of their DISSATISFACTION with Windows, they move. When you take into account OS X's cross-platform capability, they're not talking a totally isolating existence from Windows users and networks, too. I keep an eye on new guys coming in here to ehMac, and the number of PC persons looking to switch is increasing. over the past week or so, there has had to be at least four. And that's just our wee corner of the web.

Personally, I have seen VERY little talk with the Macworld about people leaving the platform over the past say, two years at least. it's NO WAY NEAR what it was like during the dark days of '94-'97!

[ July 10, 2004, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,795 Posts
While the article is kind of dumb, Trevor has some good points.

I know a few people who jumped on the iMac bandwagon because they looked pretty and ended up more frustrated than I ever thought anyone could be by their computer.

I know some people who still think that OS X is to lickable to be taken seriously, or also just don't like the way it does things (some people, especially new users, seem to prefer Windows Wizards. They're annoying to me, but when you don't know anything they are pretty handy).

I know lots of people who couldn't give a horses patoot about iLife.

There is no one reason that these people are dissatisfied with Macs, they just are. It's naive to think that OS X is for everyone, and the same can be said of Windows. Some people switch to Macs because they are fed up with combating virus outbreaks, or hunting down spyware. Some don't like how some pretty basic settings are still not very obvious to set in Windows.

There is one thing I will say about that article, though. The point about "every update being 129$"? I'd say it's fairly valid. Certainly, every little 10.x.x update is free, but so is every critical and recommended update to Windows. It doesn't matter that major OS X updates have loads of new features (compared to Service Packs which are typically bug fixes and patches), it matters that they come out frequently, it matters that Apple only lets you play with new toys if you have the latest OS, and itmatters that every 18 months you've had to shell out 129$ to get the latest OS.

The transition to OS X is all but over. Save a few markets, pretty much everyone is now updated. But I'm not sure I believe that Apple's market share is growing. The Google Zeitgeist has had the Mac at 4% for roughly, oh, forever now. Perhaps there are enough people leaving/not upgrading as there are people switching?

Oops. I'm rambling.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Percentages are imperfect. 10% of $100.00 is LESS than 5% of $1,000.00. When did Apple enjoy its greatest marketshare by percentage? 1992 or so? 10%, maybe? Now, how many computers were there in the market at that time? Where was the internet back then? Nowhere. There are WAY MORE computers out there today than there ever has been, even during the slump. So, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is not a bad thing. In actual, total CPU units, Apple is selling more than they have year-over-year and on a quarterly perspective. marketshare % is down, but units moved are up. How does that square?

As for OS X's esthetics? People who fancy themselves to be geeks, and yet only go skin-deep when looking at OS X, aint the geeks they think they are. OS X is magnitudes more powerful than Classic was under the hood, and can duke it out with any modern OS in the world, today. Those "geeks" should get with the program.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
The number of users of either platform that care about the nuts and bolts of the opperating system is very, very small.

The problem is the hardcore enthusiest doesn't have the same perspective as the average user who doesn't. A "macaholic" doesn't have the same perspective as the average end user.

I remember talking to someone around the time Windows 95 came out, this guy was a teacher and used macs at school, but PC's at home. What he said he liked about the mac was that it never changed. He had gone from DOS, to Windows 3.1, to Windows 95 in about 4 years time.

With every PC upgrade came a new interface to learn, with the mac 7.5 worked almost exactly the same way 1.0, DOS, Windows 3 and Windows 95 had almost nothing in common.

There were never training camps ran for staff when there was a Mac OS upgrade,

With Mac OS X, you have a painfully simple interface replaced with, Candyland on crack.

These users don't look at Mac OS X and say, "cool, it has a Unix BSD core and a OpenGL accelerated interface" they look at it and say
"This is different, I hate it" this was exagerated by the fact the mac interface had changed very little in the past 18 years.

They don't want new interface concepts, they want continuity. The first thing people ask me to do when I upgrade them to XP is to show them remote support. That is quickly followed by a demand to turn off the (insert obscenity of your choice) interface.

When it comes to orphaned software, it isn't a matter of paying for new software so much as the software DOES NOT EXIST for the mac anymore. However, most companies do offer cross-grade discounts after killing mac support. This is especially true in education where alot of mac software has not been updated in 10 years or more. All the stuff I am doing now is either Quicktime or web based, and therefore the platform moot, but there is alot of old mac softwhere out there that has been abandoned for a very long time that is still used every day, there is PC software in the same camp, but much less of it.

As for Final Cut Pro vs. Adobe, alot of users are more devoted to their software than their platform. It's only natural that FCP will become solidified on the Mac, the only other option is Avid DV, which is terrible on any platform.

People who have been using Premiere for 10 years are not going to run out and switch to Final Cut Pro just for the want of their mac.

You have to turn off you Mac partisan eyes and look through the eyes of the average user.

The adoption rates of both XP and X have been poor, XP has been poor because it is just Windows 2000 with a bunch of crap thrown in and everyone knows it.

The reasons people switch to either side varies, I switched one girl last year because she needed to run some PC only software for college, and she was really into games. I switched a guy to a Mac OS 9 running mac because he was destroying Windows every other week, I switched a guy to PC because he needed alot of cheap horse power, I switched a guy to Mac because he was captivated with iMovie and iDVD. He was one of those guys who takes the camcorder to parent teacher interviews.

The people who goto macworld are serious mac partisans, that is like going to a Conservative Party rally and asking people about their affection for Quebec, the problem hardcore mac users have is they developed a distorted view of the scene because they limit themselves to such a narrow field of vision and anyone who disagrees with them is automatically wrong and worthy of nothing but the most acidic contempt.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,742 Posts
Not as easy as it used to be ...

When I had to buy my mother (who lives in another country) a computer about 2.5 years ago there was nothing like the eMac available. The combination of price and friends around her who could give a hand meant that I bought an HP + XP home.

The Wizards etc mean it worked well enough for her, but recently there has simply been too much viruses, spyware and other junk hitting her machine and I am getting tired of those long phone calls...

However, OSX has lost the simple elegance of 9 and I found it hard work to switch. It has also lost of the intuitiveness. There are also many little annoying features for users of XP. Three examples: mail displayed in minuscule characters, seemingly at random, loss of WYSIWYG in most circumstances (ie need to resize documents to see them properly, something you don't have to do under XP) and absence of a maximise button on windows.

My conclusion is that I could switch her to OSX but it would be hard work. The virus crap would stop but I would still get phone calls to deal with the interface... I'm not prepared for this just yet :(
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
I'll try to be brief.

It's hard for me to do :D

I realize that the masses are ignorant. The argument you pose to me about objectivity I have argued many times in other forums. I think our discussion has been too broad for you to level an objectivity accusation on one or two issues. If, however, more of the masses took to actually getting half a clue about the technology they use everyday, more of them would user Macs. But, they don't. They are told by friends and IT guy at work that 'Windows is it", yet it's not, and they are damned to an existence of computing with a bulls-eye on their backs, using a temperamental OS. There's a better way to compute.

My response about geeks was in regards to posterboy's comment of "I know some people who still think that OS X is to likable to be taken seriously", which assumes that the person licking and not liking Mac OS X is "serious" about computer technology. That's the assumption, anyway: to take something "seriously", you have to be serious about the subject. Okay?

As for the changes in X, God you and I have FLOGGED that argument to death.
Apple did ONE major change to the macintosh operating system in TWENTY YEARS and that's unreasonable?? Meanwhile, x86 users have gone through interface hoops starting from DOS to Win 3 (the first usable Windows) to Win 95 to Win XP. talk about a LACK of continuity! That's a helluva lot more discomforting change than the Mac userbase has had to deal with. If people can't deal with it, then it's entirely their choice to switch. Is it reasonable? I don't think so.

As for people being more attached to their software than hardware, that is true to an extent. professionals will cling to the software tools they have come to know intimately, but that doesn't explain why FCP has been adopted so well, however. It must be because it works better. And maybe there's also something to the platform's stability and dependability? Because FCP seems to have gained a nice foothold in the industry (and that's describing it, conservatively). But, therre are MORE peeople that are actually hardware-based in their thinking. The OS is not even an afterthought; it's a foregone conclusion, rarely being given a second thought (I'm talking about those masses out there you think I don't know). And the, there are the PC tweakers and hot-rodders: Truck drivers by day, Quake Gods by night.

So, I "have to turn off you Mac partisan eyes and look through the eyes of the average user"? Like all my PC using family who are paranoid to install a single thing and don't know piss all about their computers? I have to come over and change a printer cartridge and run their Windows updates? I see this quite well. And then, there's my friend who never had a computer at home before and bought an iMac. She NEVER calls. YMMV, but I see two sets of people with similar levels of knowledge experiencing two different levels of enjoyment and ease.

Switchers: Gal has to run Windows only software. Fine. Go Windows. Don't think I personally never assess a person's needs and HONESTLY guide them one way or another. guy destroys Windows every week? OS X is less destructible than either Windows or Mac OS Classic. Now, you put him on a platform that SUCKS with its memory and he has to adjust RAM, manually -- and if an app crashes, either he has to restart or the entire system gets HUNG and he loses unsaved work? Good one. Cheap horsepower? Sure. I;d put him on a PC, too. Ditto if he wanted to get into gaming in a big way.

As for Mac partisans, what about the partisanship of ignorance? What about the masses whom many of them are under the impression that Windows is the only way, yet are frustrated, distrustful and unsatisfied? What about my brother in law who thought my sister getting an iMac was a bad thing and, when I was discussing the pros and cons of the iMac and the platform in general and mentioned that it didn't have PCI slots i saw his eyes glaze over. i ask him, "You don't know what a PCI slot is. Do you?", And he replied that he DID NOT. And yet, he felt qualified to argue against the Macintosh platform. That's the shame of it all: ignorant masses, of whom a bad joke had been played on,being fooled into thinking that quantity equals quality and are damned to use Windows.

Apple's biggest battle is the battle of perception.


So, when are you leaving the Mac platform? You seem quite dissatisfied with it.

[ July 10, 2004, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I have some weird tech stuff going on with OSX, just as the Wintel brethren have. And I do occasionally miss the additional versatility of apps like Outlook -- especially the 3rd party support like Blackberry, Plaxo etc.

I tried a Sony Vaio for a bit and the attacks, invasions and notices (that actually applied to me) were discomforting, to say the least. The proliferation of viruses and privacy invasions in Windows make OS X a no-brainer choice for me.

Cheers,

R.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,139 Posts
Truly an idiotic article. It would be very generous to call any of it valid points.
I'm a former roll yer own PC user.

If you don't like the "$129" updates, then go back and run the bug ridden bloatware that costs 200 bucks for the upgrade.. er update. Oh right, there isn't gonna BE ONE til 2007 now. And will THAT be 129 bucks? phphphphphphttttttt..... yea.... it'll be wicked man.

iMacs are delayed a few months? and that'll make you go back to winblows? Buh bye.

The whole thing is dumb.

if you wanna get a peecee, then go fer christs sake. Just don't bloody well call me when your registry is bloated to hell and yer full of spyware in 3 months.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
From Windows 95 onwards PC's had continuity every bit as good as the Mac did, even "Luna" is still the basic Windows 95 interface with a poor selection of colours thrown into the mix. And Luna unlike Aqua can be TURNED OFF.

If people don't like something, give them a way to turn it off.

Saying Apple made one little change is like saying a sex change opperation is one little change, Aqua broke all continuity with the Classic Mac OS. Early on I was pretty enthusiastic about Mac OS X, I even began rolling out X beta on common access systems in mid-2000 to get people familiar with it, people refused to us them... with the exception of a few Unix types who set about to destroy them, changed passwords, ect.

Final Cut Pro has been adopted so widely because it had early support for DV, when Adobe and everyone else was showing only limited interest in DV. I have personally seen more Avid users switch to FCP than Premiere users, I personally haven't been to impressed with FCP, I have always done video on PC with Premiere and a Sony DV converter is about the depth of my interest in DV.

Mac OS X is just as fragile as Windows XP is, I have seen Macs just as, if not more screwed up than any PC. The worst I have ever seen was a G3 running 10.2, nothing worked, the user didn't know why, it wasn't permissions, all we could do was re-install, 9 by the way.

I have had exactly two Mac OS 9 freezes this year, one attributed to a firewire problem, when I was running 10.2 it crashed on me atleast once a day.

Macs may have fewer viruses, but that is a virtue of obscurity, not intrensic security, Mac OS X has security problems you could fly a 747 through. Unless, ofcourse, you believe it is just the PC biased trying to make Apple look bad.

Fortunately those mac users with the skill to do that sort of thing are the hardcore mac lovers who would never do that sort of thing.

The main problem Apple has is that it is alienating users without appealing to a large enough group of switchers, the main problem being that people don't perceive the value of macs. Most just see the sticker shock, and most have little to no interest in iLife et-al.

That being the consequence of not adapting to a changing market, people won't spend the money anymore, computers aren't "bling-bling" anymore.

The money is going to things like home theatres and iPods, the bargain basement PC suit them just fine.

I am not happy with Mac OS X at all, but I continue to use Mac OS 9 every day, and will probably use it until the last mac literally falls apart. For a Unix desktop, Mac OS X is excellent, for a replacement for Mac OS 9, Mac OS is little more than a frustration.
 

·
peek-a-boo
Joined
·
16,139 Posts
dude.... yer getten a Dell....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
The Trevor... said:
Saying Apple made one little change is like saying a sex change opperation is one little change
What IS your problem?? I did NOT say "one little change"; I called it for what it is:

Apple did ONE major change to the macintosh operating system in TWENTY YEARS and that's unreasonable??
Get it straight.

If you find one major change of an OS's UI in twenty years unreasonable, then you're an unreasonable person.

And Luna unlike Aqua can be TURNED OFF.
BAH! It's trivial to change the appearance of OS X. MEANWHILE, there are PC users who WANT Windows to look like OS X:

http://features.engadget.com/entry/8828351836181248/

http://www.aqua-soft.org/

http://www.dotico.com/home.html

http://www.softpedia.com/public/cat/13/9/13-9-204.shtml

And these are just from page one of a Google search.

Bottom line is that you can't please everybody, and there are MORE people who like Aqua/brushed Metal than there are those who do not.
DEAL WITH IT.

(deploying OS X) people refused to us them...
Maybe there was insufficient orientation? And you DEPLOYED THE BETA??!

Fool. :rolleyes:

with the exception of a few Unix types who set about to destroy them, changed passwords, ect.
With great power comes great responsibility. Next time, do NOT assign them admin status.

Final Cut Pro has been adopted so widely because it had early support for DV, when Adobe and everyone else was showing only limited interest in DV
Ya snooze? Ya lose. Apple saw the value and pushed the envelope. That's one reason why (personally) I like them. They're not perfect, however, and they snoozed BIG TIME in the pre-Windows 95 era. And then THEY lost.

I have had exactly two Mac OS 9 freezes this year, one attributed to a firewire problem, when I was running 10.2 it crashed on me atleast once a day.
Funny. I can run OS 9 slim and trim, too. You do have to know what you're doing with it. Don't you? Extension sets, memory allocation. Stuff a newbie wouldn't know and, if a nOOb installs the right brew of system components? BOOM! OH! And don't forget to load your wee apps FIRST, because if you boot Photoshop first and then Calculator, Calculator will BLOCK Photoshop's access to your gigabyte of RAM when it tries to load a plugin or do a big render! this is because Mac OS Classic ONLY assigns RAM CONTIGUOUSLY. So, what do you get? A crash. "Jeez! I got all this RAM and Photoshop crashes??!" The same would apply when doing heavy web browsing with plugins loaded if you booted in Mac OS Classic in this order: browser, email app, chat client, iTunes (a fairly common assortment of apps). AND watch out if you have more than 128 font suitcases in your system folder, because that will bloat the OS and cause instability as well.

Face it: Mac OS Classic was far from perfect. It served us well over the years, but eventually the demands placed upon it exceeded its grasp.

As for OS X? I have the odd app crash once in a while and an annual kernel panic. I'll take that over OS 9's stability ANY day. No memory tweaking in Get info. Boot whatever, whenever. I even once did the three following things at the same time on my (pre-upgraded) G4/450, just to see what would happen:

</font>
  • Printed a graphics heavy page at 1440dpi out of Graphic Convertor.</font>
  • Burned a FULL audio CD out of Toast</font>
  • Output a ten minute movie out of iMovie to VHS (which means THIS had to be done in realtime)</font>
Everything came out perfect. Of course, the printing and burning was slower, but it all ended at pretty well THE SAME TIME (when the 10 minute dub to VHS was complete).

Try that kind of activity with OS 9.

AND, I have not had to reinstall OS X since I started using it. EVER. And I'm right up to the minute in OS updates AND I install TONS of software. Shall we talk about Windows and its Registry?

Macs may have fewer viruses, but that is a virtue of obscurity, not intrensic security, Mac OS X has security problems you could fly a 747 through. Unless, ofcourse, you believe it is just the PC biased trying to make Apple look bad.
OS X is not impervious, but OS X is WAY more secure, both by nature and by design. To say it gets by on the graces of obscurity alone is ridiculous. And besides, if the Mac platform may be able to serve a person's needs AND it is more secure AND it is obscure to the hackers... then so much the better. Let Apple double its marketshare and Windows will STILL be the big target. It's all good.

The main problem Apple has is that it is alienating users without appealing to a large enough group of switchers, the main problem being that people don't perceive the value of macs. Most just see the sticker shock, and most have little to no interest in iLife et-al.
As what I said in my previous post suggests, I agree. People are ignorant and as a result, their blind assumptions get them an appropriate level of quality. And yeah, Apple needs to make a cheaper computer. A headless iMac would be great. And Apple needs to fire their ad agency and get some damned nuts-and-bolts advertising out there.

I am not happy with Mac OS X at all, but I continue to use Mac OS 9 every day, and will probably use it until the last mac literally falls apart. For a Unix desktop, Mac OS X is excellent, for a replacement for Mac OS 9, Mac OS is little more than a frustration.
I say that, for a replacement for Mac OS 9 it is superior.

[ July 10, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Macaholic ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
921 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
This has topic has certainly received a reaction.

I would just like to clarify why I was annoyed with the article. It states:
The conventional wisdom is that most people use PCs because they have to, and Macs are the easier, safer, and more reliable option. But if you're a Mac user, you already know about their persistent fulfillment problems, the $129 price tag for all OS X updates, and gradually increasing security concerns. The latest? Apple's planning to release a new iMac, but it won't be available until September--well after Apple stores run out of the current model. Maybe it's actually time to think about switching to a PC. Consider these alternatives.
The solution to switch to PC's is based on disproving the conventional wisdom that, "Macs are the easier, safer, and more reliable option" - three points.

As proof, it outlines three "proofs":
1) persistent fulfillment problems - true
2) $129 price tag for all OS X updates - true
2) gradually increasing security concerns - true

So let's see how these three "proofs" disprove the three conventional wisdoms.

MACS ARE EASIER:
1) Persistent Fulfillment Problems - It's not like a computer user buys a new computer every month - ie this is not dreaded daily/weekly/monthly part of the overall experience of owning a Mac. Based on this BB, ordering custom configured systems is a bit of a game in terms of when it's shipping, but it's not a valid criticism of Mac's being easier than PCs. This is a huge stretch.
2) $129 price tag for all OS X updates - When 10.3 came out, I noticed that 10.2 completely stopped working and started threatening me to upgrade or die.
If you're not interested in the new features, stay where you are. In the PC world, how many users are still on Windows 95?!?!? - Lots. Again, not a valid criticism of Mac's being easier than PCs.
3) Gradually increasing security concerns - The best analogy I ever heard about Mac security vs PC security was this, "It's like worrying about winning the lottery, vs, worrying about paying taxes." Add in theoretical viruses and virtually non-existent spyware and the Mac is a clear winner. Will OS X always be 'virus-free' and impossible to compromise because it's perfect and Apple made - umm, NO. This is a comparison with PCs and currently/historically Macs win.

MACS ARE SAFER
1) Persistent Fulfillment Problems - doesn't really apply.
2) $129 price tag for all OS X updates - doesn't really apply.
3) Gradually increasing security concerns - this was covered above. Currently Macs beat out PC's in terms of security, viruses and spyware. Is the OS X, OS 9 or OS 8 perfect? - absolutely not. Is it currently better than Windows? - absolutely.

MAC ARE MORE RELIABLE
1) Persistent Fulfillment Problems - doesn't really apply
2) $129 price tag for all OS X updates - Again, it's not like Jaguar became unreliable when Panther came out. From my experience, I feel that both systems are absolutely more reliable than anything Windows based. Have I had issues with 10.2 or 10.3? - YES! Are they huge headaches? - NO! When Safari crashes, everything else keeps running along, happy as can be. When Internet Explorer crashes on my PC, I feel either a restart or blue screen coming.
3) Gradually increasing security concerns - Please see winning the lottery vs paying taxes.

This article's argument is completely unsupported. It's misleading and it doesn't use any valid failing of Apple computers or Mac OS X as support.

And by stating this, I'm not saying there aren't problems/issues/failings with Macs or the OS. No computer is perfect. No OS is perfect. I just feel that in comparison to PCs, Macs are about as close to perfection as we're going to get. :D ;)

[Edited fur spelin an gramerr miztaks]

[ July 10, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: interact ]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
I'm not saying there aren't problems/issues/failings with Macs or the OS. No computer is perfect. Not OS is perfect. I just feel that in comparison to PCs, Macs are about as close to perfection as we're going to get.
Exactly. It's a matter of degrees. Some subtle. Others HUGE in difference.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
It doesn't even have an author mentioned. Albeit the reasons are valid (Apple does have it's worms), but it's nothing but flame bait.

It proves that journalism can stoop to new lows. :rolleyes:

Personally I'd like to see some more new highs.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top