Mac vs PC

[gumboot]

I just think that Macs are overpriced. Especially the Mac Pro, which is the only one that can really be upgraded. There is just no reason for that computer to cost $2500. For that money I could build (or just buy) a computer that is much, much better. But then again, it wouldn't have the pretty case.

If you really want a pretty case on a non-Apple PC you can get one. There's an endless range of cases, from the plain, to the classy, to the blingy, to the cute and funny. Anything from a super cheap box up to a ridiculously expensive case with a touch-screen display built in.

 

[gumboot]

In my humble experience, about 99% of computer errors ultimately boil down to user error. A computer will only ever do exactly what you tell it to do. If it takes you four hours to install printer drivers on a computer (any computer) the problem is you, not the type of computer.

I've mostly used non-Apple PCs, and never owned an Apple, primarily because I originally learned to operate on the Windows system, and prefer that particular interface. I don't see anything particularly with Mac OS, but having to relearn an entirely new system would waste a lot of time I could be doing something else - and I really can't see any benefit it learning it. As others have said, bottom line is the latest operating systems all do the same things.

In my time I've spent lots of time trying to deal with computer issues, and I've seen Mac users waste lots of time likewise. Almost without exception my issues were a result of something I did - user error. Almost without exception the Mac users' issues were a result of something they did.

 

[gumboot]

For some people it's worth extra money to have a beautifully designed computer on their desk. Like I said, it's a personal preference. And I think there are legit reasons it costs $2500.

The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

I have only briefly scanned the article, but there's one particular major issue I have with it.

The specs are incomplete. Now it may be that the unmentioned specs are all identical, but given they're the sort of specs that are often not even advertised, that can't be guaranteed. As we will see, they're rather important.

Problem is, those specs are often vastly more important.

For example. Hard drive. We're given capacity only. What about cache size and speed? Those specs are vitally important when it comes to performance.

For memory we're again only given a GB rating. But a 2GB DDR3 12800/1600MHz RAM is going to run circles around a 2GB DDR PC2700/333MHz RAM.

The same applies for many specs.

As a last point, the article just doesn't seem to be honest anyway. If we take the first comparison between the MacBook Pro and the XPS M1730, there's some serious issues with their assessment.

It cites the Apple as having a back lit keyboard, and nothing for the Dell, thus giving that category to the Apple.

Anyone familiar with the M1730 will know that it was famous for its "blingy" LED features which included an LED black-lit keyboard that could colour-change based on user or by software. It also featured a small gamer's LCD display - something not mentioned at all in the article.

There's other small details that the article fails to mention, which are rather important.

1. The M1730 has dual 200GB Harddrives in RAID
2. The M1730 has dual Graphics Cards in SLI, with 256MB RAM (why the article claims it has shared memory I don't know)

The M1730 also has a Core 2 Duo Extreme CPU as opposed to the Core 2 Duo CPU found in the Mac.

The XPS HDD is 7200RPM compared to 5400RPM in the Mac.

Need I go on?


Here's an accurate review of the XPS.

 

[rwp]

Why? According to you they are the same.

I don't really know. Pick an answer. I collect operating systems.

One reason is to develop iPhone apps at home, but if Apple just relaxed a bit and let people develop from other environments that would work too.

 

[dtugg]

If Pystar was smart they would sell the computers without any OS installed and then sell OSX separately.

 

[phantomb]

The whole Apple Vs PC thing makes no sense. I mean people do realise that Apple make PCs, right?

They're jargon terms. Macs are the computers built by Apple, usually running OS X, PCs are pretty much anything else, usually running Windows.

If we want to talk companies however, you can distinguish between Apple and "Anyone Else". And "Anyone Else" comes out on top for one obvious reason.

Apple does its best, in everything it does, to retain absolute control over all aspects of its products.

Every company does this. Apple doesn't want people to run their OS on non-Mac computers, which makes complete sense when you consider that the revenue that keeps Apple running comes from hardware sales, as well as the advantage that comes from being able to know precisely what hardware your software will run on.

They make using any other products with theirs incredibly difficult, and instead force most users to use only their products. They're the epitome of "Evil Corporation".

For example? Most of their devices (ipods, input devices, routers, etc.) are easy to use on platforms other than Apple's, and OS X has the full range of plug-and-play device and driver support (I believe it even comes with Windows device drivers so Windows will install cleanly on Apple computers) and as far as I know is pretty good in terms of standards compliance.

By stark contrast, other companies (such as Microsoft) tend to produce products that are as widely compatible as possible, able to be used with a vast myriad of different products produced by different companies. The epitome of "Open Corporation".

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean. You'd be hard pressed to find hardware by Microsoft or Apple that isn't plug-and-play or supported with easily available drivers. OS X can't easily be run on any machine with any parts like Windows can, but again, it isn't supposed to.

That is why Microsoft is vastly more popular than Apple, as it should be.

IMO, Microsoft is vastly more popular than Apple because the business world is in Microsoft's pocket and because of the inertia Microsoft has in the consumer marker (which also results in less third party development for the less popular system).

 

[moopet]

Actually, I have another perspective to throw in.
I used to do computer repair (I worked in a laptop repair shop for 3.5 years, possibly because I was too lazy to get a real job) and I'm throwing this experience out there without trying to interpret it too heavily.

In all that time, having repaired literally thousands of machines, I had to repair maybe 20 Macs. Could be they don't break (but we know that is far from true) or could be that most Apple users have repairs done under warranty then upgrade to a new machine as soon as the adverts tell them to. Could be because Apple support, the genius bar and the man in the casual shirt make them think Macbook != laptop, and must be fixed by Genuine Appletons. This last is my guess - the Apple business model extends to its customers in that they do not realise there is a world outside.

Otoh, of the repairs I did, say £150 for a macbook screen, fitted, £90 for a replacement drive, fitted (ballpark figures from over a year ago) versus Apple's quotes, which were around £400 and £250 respectively. And our repairs usually took a day, unless we had to order parts, obviously. A good proportion of the parts are standard enough (LCD, HDD, optical drive on earlier models, RAM etc.)

I have friends with Macs who talk about how their repair service is good. The conversation usually goes something like this:
Me: broken again?
Them: Applecare is wicked! They fixed it, polished it and sent it back within days!
Me: That sounds good
Them: That's 5 times in the last month they've fixed it perfectly! Go Apple!

Ok, that last bit isn't representative of anything pertinent at all, but it is pretty much a copy of a conversation I had last month. Everyone has horror stories about their new kit that never worked right, but there is a certain Apple fanboyism that manages to turn it into something good.

 

[rwp]

IMO, Microsoft is vastly more popular than Apple because the business world is in Microsoft's pocket...

Conspiracy theorist? The business world does whatever it likes. Most business like interoperability.

It is as gumboot says. Why limit your choices to one company? You can purchase your computer from Apple or you can purchase your computer from one of a thousand others and change your mind as often as you like.

 

[phantomb]

Conspiracy theorist? The business world does whatever it likes. Most business like interoperability.

Um, no. I'm not talking about some sort of conspiracy, I'm talking about the fact that the business world does indeed use PCs, and has been using PCs for a long time. It's auto-catalytic. Because PCs are so prevalent, the average office worker is used to Windows and PCs are easy to integrate into an office.

It is as gumboot says. Why limit your choices to one company? You can purchase your computer from Apple or you can purchase your computer from one of a thousand others and change your mind as often as you like.

Oh, there are some good reasons, but in general I agree. That's not what gumboot said though, gumboot said that Apple creates products that are intentionally incompatible, which I don't think is true.

 

[nota]

no apple just creates products that are massively over priced
and there by intentionally incompatible with my budget

 

[GreNME]

Conspiracy theorist? The business world does whatever it likes. Most business like interoperability.

Um, no. I'm not talking about some sort of conspiracy, I'm talking about the fact that the business world does indeed use PCs, and has been using PCs for a long time. It's auto-catalytic. Because PCs are so prevalent, the average office worker is used to Windows and PCs are easy to integrate into an office.

But you're insinuating that as if Microsoft somehow led the world to use PCs. That's simply not the case. In that case you should be criticizing IBM, whose dominance in the small and cheap business computing market is what led to the dominance of the x86 "beige box" systems, which the IBM-clone market then took to greater lengths and wider audiences. Microsoft managed to get their operating system bundled with those initial IBM machines as a default, which was mutually beneficial because IBM could consider itself a standard and MS was raking in royalties for an OS they essentially only built a boot loader for and bought for ridiculously cheap (DOS).

The monster who brought Microsoft to the market was IBM, not Microsoft.

 

[phantomb]

But you're insinuating that as if Microsoft somehow led the world to use PCs.

How so? I haven't said a single thing about how or why Microsoft and PCs became popular, I've just said that Microsoft's dominance in the business world and significant inertia in the consumer market is helping to keep them popular today.

 

[dtugg]

I think that I think that the biggest reason that Windows is more popular than OSX is that Windows can be installed on anything - from cheap netbooks to very expensive dual Xeon workstations, while Apple requires you to pick from their rather limited and expensive lineup. If Apple allowed OSX to be installed on any computer, the gap would would be significantly less. But there is no way that this is going to happen as they would not be able to charge as much for their computers as they do.

 

[GreNME]

How so? I haven't said a single thing about how or why Microsoft and PCs became popular, I've just said that Microsoft's dominance in the business world and significant inertia in the consumer market is helping to keep them popular today.

Um,

IMO, Microsoft is vastly more popular than Apple because the business world is in Microsoft's pocket and because of the inertia Microsoft has in the consumer marker (which also results in less third party development for the less popular system).

How the heck else do you expect a comment like that to be taken? The fact is that you're wrong, whether you were just expressing an opinion or whatever, and placing the cart before the horse to justify your statement about third-party development. But yes, Microsoft's focus in the 1980's on the business world is what led to their dominance in the market in the 1990's, and why they hold more than 90% of the market today.

 

[nota]

I think that I think that the biggest reason that Windows is more popular than OSX is that Windows can be installed on anything - from cheap netbooks to very expensive dual Xeon workstations, while Apple requires you to pick from their rather limited and expensive lineup. If Apple allowed OSX to be installed on any computer, the gap would would be significantly less. But there is no way that this is going to happen as they would not be able to charge as much for their computers as they do.

sorry but that time has past
OSX can be installed on a wide variety of intel and amd boxes
from cheap net books to quad core overclocked desktops
apple may not like it but there is little they can do about it
sure they can sue the guys who try to mass market like psystar did
the systems with OSX preinstalled
but apple has little recourse against the private home user
who builds and uses a hackintosh

the duped mac fanboys will get upset
as will the apple bean counters
but the days of the mac OS running only on a mac built box are over
and as robert zimmerman sang
they best get on the new road
because the times are a changing

 

[jnelso99]

I think that I think that the biggest reason that Windows is more popular than OSX is that Windows can be installed on anything - from cheap netbooks to very expensive dual Xeon workstations, while Apple requires you to pick from their rather limited and expensive lineup. If Apple allowed OSX to be installed on any computer, the gap would would be significantly less. But there is no way that this is going to happen as they would not be able to charge as much for their computers as they do.

I would think they wouldn't do it as they would then have to support hundreds and hundreds (thousands and thousands?) of hardware configurations instead of just the comparatively few configurations they need to support by controlling what hardware goes into their systems.

 

[kookbreaker]

sorry but that time has past
OSX can be installed on a wide variety of intel and amd boxes
from cheap net books to quad core overclocked desktops
apple may not like it but there is little they can do about it
sure they can sue the guys who try to mass market like psystar did
the systems with OSX preinstalled
but apple has little recourse against the private home user
who builds and uses a hackintosh

the duped mac fanboys will get upset
as will the apple bean counters
but the days of the mac OS running only on a mac built box are over
and as robert zimmerman sang
they best get on the new road
because the times are a changing

"I bet I you cut that Goose open it will be *full* of gold" said the farmer.

 

[phantomb]

How the heck else do you expect a comment like that to be taken?

How about in context. The context was a post about why Microsoft is more popular today. And what did I say about why Microsoft is more popular today? I said that in my opinion Microsoft is more popular today because the business world is stuck using PCs and Windows, and because Microsoft has inertia in the consumer market, as opposed to the claim that Microsoft and PCs are popular today because Apple makes products that are intentionally incompatible. I said absolutely nothing about how or why Microsoft and PCs became popular, just that the fact that they are popular in the business and consumer world today is helping to keep them popular. That's it.

The fact is that you're wrong, whether you were just expressing an opinion or whatever, and placing the cart before the horse to justify your statement about third-party development.

Wrong about what? The business world is stuck using PCs and Windows mostly for the reasons I've named above. Microsoft does have significant inertia in the consumer market. These facts do result in less third party development for non-Windows and non-PC platforms.

But yes, Microsoft's focus in the 1980's on the business world is what led to their dominance in the market in the 1990's, and why they hold more than 90% of the market today.

That's nice, but again, not the topic I was discussing.

 

[phantomb]

sorry but that time has past
OSX can be installed on a wide variety of intel and amd boxes
from cheap net books to quad core overclocked desktops

You can't walk into a store and buy any of those machines with OS X installed. Most people don't have the time and the know-how and the motivation to go to the trouble of getting OS X and installing it on a non-Apple machine, so the fact that it can be done isn't really helping in terms of large scale popularity.

apple may not like it but there is little they can do about it
sure they can sue the guys who try to mass market like psystar did
the systems with OSX preinstalled
but apple has little recourse against the private home user
who builds and uses a hackintosh

As far as I know they can and do work to make it hard to run a hackintosh. I'm sure it takes work and possibly time to get all the updates and patches on an illegitimate system.

the duped mac fanboys will get upset
as will the apple bean counters
but the days of the mac OS running only on a mac built box are over
and as robert zimmerman sang
they best get on the new road
because the times are a changing

I doubt it. I work with IT people who are into computers, I have friends who are into computers, I've gone to school at two universities for Computer Science. I've never seen OS X running on a non-mac.

 

[kookbreaker]

You can't walk into a store and buy any of those machines with OS X installed. Most people don't have the time and the know-how and the motivation to go to the trouble of getting OS X and installing it on a non-Apple machine, so the fact that it can be done isn't really helping in terms of large scale popularity.

No kidding. This is like saying "I put together my own computer!!! The secret is owt! Dell and HP are running for the hillz!!!!". At best hackintoshes will be a fraction of a fraction of the computer market, much like home-built PCs.