What's so fantastic about Apple?

[Kid Eager]

Well, there's your first fallacy right there. "Windows" does not make personal computers. Microsoft is a company that produces a line of operating systems, called Windows, that runs on x86 "PC" architecture.

Apple is another company that produces another operating system that runs on that same x86 "PC" architecture, called "Mac OS," that it sells pre-installed on its own x86 "PC" computers.

The "Mac vs. PC" thing is a false dichotomy promoted through a marketing scheme intended to collectivize and deride all other computer manufacturers.

If you know the truth of the matter, you realize that Apple's hardware is the same as that of other machines their marketing department calls "PCs," and their machines are jointly manufactured by a number of those very same manufacturers.





What about a Dell netbook running Mac OSX? Is that a "Mac" or a "PC"?

How about an Apple MacBook running Windows? Is that a "Mac"? Or is it a "PC"?

It's a false dichotomy. It's a marketing gimmick, nothing more. To believe it's a real distinction is basically falling for a scam.

o noes! beat me, whip me. pardon the shorthand in my quoted posts - I should have referred to "IBM PC compatibles running Windows"

Now that we've got that out of the way, repeating the same thing over an over again isn't making it any more true. Common usage distinguishes Apple Macs from IBM compatible PCs, made by various manunfacturers, running windows, by their short descriptor Mac and PC respectively.

Having just worked with an organisation where they bought Macbooks for the hardware and installed Windows on them to the tune of several thousand units, every single person refers to their laptop as a Mac, as a matter of course. Some caveat it by saying "but we're running Windows on it".

 

[Kid Eager]

Well I personally wouldn't consider as tablet one, unless it's built on the x86 platform, can run a full-fledged OS just like a laptop and desktop, and has the ability to accept the same kinds of devices and peripherals that any other PC would. Some tablets might in that case be considered "PCs."

I naturally assumed he was talking about an iPad.

Here's something you prepared earlier that appears to suit the occasion....

Because you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about, and I do.

ETA - amusing as it is to watch ongoing flailing around, my adoring fans in the real world desire some of my time also. I shan't be back for a while.

In the meantime, don't run with scissors, and make sure you keep an eye on your hands - they seem to be going off and doing stuff without your knowledge....

 

[John Albert]

Common usage distinguishes Apple Macs from IBM compatible PCs, made by various manunfacturers, running windows, by their short descriptor Mac and PC respectively.

Yeah, well objective, empirical facts show that they're basically the same thing, and that the popular distinction is a false one.

You still have not answered my questions:

Is a Dell netbook running Mac OSX a "Mac" or a "PC"?

How about an Apple MacBook running Windows? Is that a "Mac"? Or is it a "PC"?

What if the same Apple MacBook has Windows installed instead of OSX? Is that a "Mac"? Or is it a "PC"?

 

[Kid Eager]

Yeah, well objective, empirical facts show that they're basically the same thing, and that the popular distinction is a false one.

You still have not answered my questions:

Is a Dell netbook running Mac OSX a "Mac" or a "PC"?

How about an Apple MacBook running Windows? Is that a "Mac"? Or is it a "PC"?

What if the same Apple MacBook has Windows installed instead of OSX? Is that a "Mac"? Or is it a "PC"?

Wow, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Count back 2 posts (from your post) and you'll see the answer to part 2.

Answer to part 1 - Dell running OS X is a Hackintosh - another term in common use to describe that particular combo.

Bye.

 

[OCaptain]

Because you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about, and I do.

Yeah, you're right. It's not you. It's the rest of the world that are crazy.

 

[Brian-M]

The "Mac vs. PC" thing is a false dichotomy promoted through an Apple marketing scheme, intended to collectivize and deride all other computer manufacturers.

It wasn't always a false dichotomy, at one time Macintosh computers used different hardware. I those days "PC" referred to computers with hardware compatible with the IBM PC model computer, while Mac referred to computers with hardware compatible with Apple Macintosh model computers.

Since then, non Macintosh computers have changed considerably, while Macintosh has switched to the to the same hardware that other computers use.

But by convention, Mac still refers to computers manufactured to be sold under the Macintosh brand name, while PC is used to refer to everything else.

While not strictly accurate, it's generally handy because if you assume that PC means it's running Windows, and that Mac means it's running OS X, you'll be right most of the time, which makes it a convenient conversational shorthand.

 

[John Albert]

Common usage distinguishes Apple Macs from IBM compatible PCs

"IBM compatible PCs" is an outdated term. IBM doesn't even make PCs anymore. They sold that part of their business off to Lenovo, back in 2004.


You seem to be ignoring my point, in favor of your idiotic argumentum ad populum about "common usage."

What the average tech-tarded user who believes TV commercials thinks is kind of irrelevant to the actual facts of the matter.

The "Mac vs. PC" thing is a false dichotomy promoted through a marketing scheme intended to collectivize and deride all other computer manufacturers.

If you know the truth of the matter, you realize that Apple's hardware is the same as that of other machines their marketing department calls "PCs," and their machines are jointly manufactured by a number of those very same manufacturers.

 

[John Albert]

It wasn't always a false dichotomy, at one time Macintosh computers used different hardware. I those days "PC" referred to computers with hardware compatible with the IBM PC model computer, while Mac referred to computers with hardware compatible with Apple Macintosh model computers.

Yes, I understand that.

Macs used to be based on the Motorola 68000 series CPUs, then they switched over to PowerPC processors in the late '90s.

Since then, non Macintosh computers have changed considerably, while Macintosh has switched to the to the same hardware that other computers use.

Yep. Apple switched again in 2002 to the same exact x86 architecture as the "PCs" that Apple always claimed superiority over.

But by convention, Mac still refers to computers manufactured to be sold under the Macintosh brand name, while PC is used to refer to everything else.

Which is what I'm saying is a false dichotomy. It covers up the fact that the two machines are basically the same thing. Apples are made of the same hardware with the same technology, by the same manufacturers that make all the same hardware for the other PC manufacturers.

Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ad campaign was based on a disingenuous duplicity, and it reinforced the misconception that Macs are fundamentally different, when in fact they are not.

While not strictly accurate, it's generally handy because if you assume that PC means it's running Windows, and that Mac means it's running OS X, you'll be right most of the time, which makes it a convenient conversational shorthand.

But it's wrong for any arguments of relative merit. The only appreciable distinction is between the operating systems.

It also fails to consider that there are other operating systems besides Windows and Mac OSX that run on that same platform. All non-Apple PCs do not run Windows, and therefore they do not all share the same traits.

Apple Macs can run Windows too, and non-Apple PCs can also run OSX, rendering the comparison doubly pointless.

 

[Zelenius]

Here is part of the problem. You have not demonstrated apple products are not top of the line or masterpieces. You simply assert they are not.

I don't need to demonstrate that Apple prodicts are not "top of the line" or "masterpieces". I leave it to Apple and it's users to demonstrate this. Just because someone says they are "masterpieces" doesn't make it so, and I ageee 100% that my saying they are not masterpieces doesn't mean they are not masterpieces either. But the burden is on those saying they are masterpieces. Earlier in this thread, plenty of info regarding batteries, USBs, Itunes and other issues were brought up, much of it exposing Apple as not being particularly "user-friendly". No need to repeat this, and I admit that Apple isn't the only one that engages in such behavior. I still haven't seen a good justification or any reason for Apple's ridiculous battery policies with regard to portable devices.

I provide statistics of sales, ratings by independent third parties, price comparisons etc, and it is all magically dismissed by hand waving as 'marketing.'

In fact, anything positive gets dismissed as marketing. Marketing is powerful woo you get to keep throwing around. It absolves you from having to actually prove anything.

Then how did Apple acquire this reputation of being so "different" from everyone? Their quasi-countercultural public image, their association with hipsters and coolness? Call it whatever you want, but I know what I'll call it.

Sales numbers don't really prove anything either way.

Again, you haven't demonstrated they are not better. You know why ? It's hard to prove a negative. So you assert they aren't better, and then suddenly, it's the crazy apple 'fanboy' who has to come in and demonstrate that apple products are, for example environmentally safer than other comparable products. Or corporate benefits. Or whatever. There are a myriad of factors that can, in fact, make apple a better company than other companies. But you ignore them.

Again, waiting for some facts that prove Apple products are superior or the company is "superior". Still haven't seen any. All you have are your opinions and I have mine. Even the company's incredible success isn't necessarily "evidence" of superior products; by that line of reasoning, Apple's products in the mid 90s must have been very "inferior" compared to the competition in the mid 1990s when they came close to going out of business.

Also, I didn't discuss their environmental record at all in my posts before, but based on the evidence you provided and my readings, they do appear to have made some significant improvements, and I applaud them for this. Ok one point in their favor

Evidence ? Or did you just make that up ? Again, I love that the fact that so many people think apple has a superior design, it couldn't be because they , you know, actually do, but has to be 'marketing' and an argument ad populum.

You conflated superior design and 'pretty', then attack pretty. Design has to do with more factors than 'pretty'

No, no straw men there ... You know, those off the shelf logic boards just magically fit all the components inside the case. No engineering required. Etc.

There is just so much that is subjective about "design" and "attractiveness", that it is pointless arguing over it. I don't know how often I have to say it but even I think Apple's products look much better than most of their competitors. I still wouldn't buy them though - internally, they are basically the same thing as PCs.

No other tech company has such a devoted following. Who else but an Apple fan boi camps outside the Apple store overnight so they can be the first one to buy Apple's new "product X".

For the record, I do not consider Apple's customers to be a stupid. Maybe my opinions have offended you or some others, but that wasn't my intent. I'm glad I live in a society with so many different opinions and choices.

And as for the whole PC versus Mac debate, and what truly qualifies as a "PC": I typed this message(and a few of the others) on a Toshiba laptop running Linux(no Windows or Mac OsX on it). Am I using a PC or not?

 

[Stray Cat]

Maybe this will help you to understand my point: please define "Apple hardware."

It's probably stuff made by Apple that ware's hard... or something.

How would you define it?

 

[John Albert]

It's probably stuff made by Apple that ware's hard... or something.

How would you define it?

I would define it as the computer parts that make up an Apple computer, that Apple specs out and then commissions other manufacturers to build for them.

My point was that Apple hardware being essentially the same as any other computer manufacturers' hardware, is really no more "robust" or reliable. It's just as prone to breaking as any other manufacturer's stuff.

As you pointed out, the CD/DVD drive that busted on Fast Eddie's MacBook Pro was not even made by Apple. Nor was the CD/DVD burner drive on my 7-year-old Dell laptop made by Dell. But mine is still working fine, and his is busted.

What does that say about Apple's reliability? It's not better than that of some other manufacturers.

 

[Stray Cat]

The "Mac vs. PC" thing is a false dichotomy promoted through a marketing scheme intended to collectivize and deride all other computer manufacturers.

Not really.
If a company has a USP, they will promote it as such.
The Mac was and remains different from non Mac computers despite the fact that they have become essentially the same. That's why you can't buy a Mac case with Windows pre-installed.
That's why you can't buy a Ford with a Toyota engine pre-installed.

Ford sell Ford's, not cars, but essentially all cars have the same parts, some are more powerful than others and have more extras, but essentially they are all four wheels, an engine and some seats.

Distinguishing your brand name from the others is not evil.

Also I've been meaning to add for a while that for us Mac users that remember Apple nearly going bankrupt back in the day didn't chose our Macs because of marketing. There wasn't any marketing. Apple could hardly afford to pay it's designers and engineers let alone have a big clever marketing campaign. The whole of the Advertising and marketing industry grew up very quickly because of the Mac despite the lack of marketing for the product they all bought.

And us people who work in the advertising and marketing world know that 50% of all advertising is completely useless. It's just that no one knows which 50% it is.

 

[John Albert]

I provide statistics of sales, ratings by independent third parties, price comparisons etc, and it is all magically dismissed by hand waving as 'marketing.'

The price comparisons were proven wrong by examining the specs. The only way you could make them appear competitive is by comparing the entry-level Mac prices to another company's top-of-the-line machines whose specs simply trounced the entry-level Macs.

Comparison 1: This one was totally ignored, instead sidetracked into an infantile appeal to incredulity that specs are unimportant because the poster doesn't understand what they mean.

Comparison 2: This one was dismissed out of hand for the bombastic assertion that it was unthinkable for even the lowliest of Macs to be compared to any other company's entry-level machines.

Comparison 3: Kajata proposed that I compare the entry-level MacBook AIRs to Acer's most overpriced line of laptops, and even those handily bested the Macs' specs, for 20-30% lower prices.
​

Of course, when it was pointed out to you that your comparisons were unfair, you were the one who invoked marketing-speak ("Ultrabooks") to defend Apple.

 

[Stray Cat]

I would define it as the computer parts that make up an Apple computer, that Apple specs out and then commissions other manufacturers to build for them.

My point was that Apple hardware being essentially the same as any other computer manufacturers' hardware, is really no more "robust" or reliable. It's just as prone to breaking as any other manufacturer's stuff.

Then we are in agreement.

As you pointed out, the CD/DVD drive that busted on Fast Eddie's MacBook Pro was not even made by Apple. Nor was the CD/DVD burner drive on my 7-year-old Dell laptop made by Dell. But mine is still working fine, and his is busted.

Yes, it was the fact that I had to point it out that was my issue.
In other circumstances you are quick to point out that many of the internal components are not made by Apple. Certainly if someone was singing the praises of their Mac DVD drive, you'd have no trouble pointing it out that bit wasn't Apple. But because Fast Eddie was saying his DVD drive had failed, you didn't mention it, preferring instead to imply that it was an Apple problem.

What does that say about Apple's reliability? It's not better than that of some other manufacturers.

I don't think that one anecdote about a DVD drive says much about much really. In the same way that me telling everyone that I still have every Mac I've ever bought (since I bought my IICX second hand for £2,500 in 1990) and they all still work (even though I don't use them, there seemed to be no point disposing of them because they are all in perfect working order), doesn't prove that Macs are ultra-reliable or even any more reliable than other computers.

I used to manage a design studio that had a network of 15 Macs in constant use. I know they sometimes break. My experience is that most of the time, it was down to operator error, but like anything with electrical components and moving parts, there is no such thing as 100% reliability.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Also I've been meaning to add for a while that for us Mac users that remember Apple nearly going bankrupt back in the day didn't chose our Macs because of marketing. There wasn't any marketing. Apple could hardly afford to pay it's designers and engineers let alone have a big clever marketing campaign. The whole of the Advertising and marketing industry grew up very quickly because of the Mac despite the lack of marketing for the product they all bought.

<snip>

You mean aside from little efforts like a $1.5 million (1984 dollars) Superbowl ad directed by Ridley Scott, and buying all the ad space in an entire issue of Newsweek (another couple of million bucks). Insignificant odds and ends that I'm sure most people didn't even notice if they weren't already Apple fans.

 

[John Albert]

Not really.
If a company has a USP, they will promote it as such.
The Mac was and remains different from non Mac computers despite the fact that they have become essentially the same. That's why you can't buy a Mac case with Windows pre-installed.
That's why you can't buy a Ford with a Toyota engine pre-installed.

You're stretching my analogy past the breaking point. A Toyota engine won't even fit into a Ford car, but you can install Windows onto a Mac, and Mac OSX onto a non-Apple computer.

Apples are the same hardware as any other computer, in a fancier box, and running a different OS. That's the only difference.

I have a computer that runs Mac OS. It's not a Mac, but a computer I put together myself. I mainly use it for cross-platform software testing. By the same token, I could get a Mac and install Windows on it without having to make any modifications whatsoever.

Macs are the same machine as any other x86 computer. Don't let them tell you any different.

Ford sell Ford's, not cars,

Fords are cars. Just like Macs are PCs.

but essentially all cars have the same parts, some are more powerful than others and have more extras, but essentially they are all four wheels, an engine and some seats.

Again, that analogy doesn't work with computers. When I initially mentioned it, I was merely pointing out that Apple's marketing-speak made as much sense as Ford saying that its SUVs aren't SUVs but everyone else's are. Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ads promoted an equivalent false impression.

Personal computers, unlike automobiles, are all built on a standard hardware platform. Macs used to be built on a different platform, but doing things that way almost ruined the company. Now they're the same kind of machine as all the other companies are building, yet they've created a false impression that they're fundamentally different when they really aren't.

Distinguishing your brand name from the others is not evil.

I never said it was.

It may not necessarily be "evil," but that doesn't mean it's good to believe everything a company says in its marketing, without bothering to question or inquire into the actual facts.

 

[Stray Cat]

You mean aside from little efforts like a $1.5 million (1984 dollars) Superbowl ad directed by Ridley Scott, and buying all the ad space in an entire issue of Newsweek (another couple of million bucks). Insignificant odds and ends that I'm sure most people didn't even notice if they weren't already Apple fans.

Hardly when they were nearly going bankrupt was it?

That was the launch.

 

[John Albert]

Yes, it was the fact that I had to point it out that was my issue.

In other circumstances you are quick to point out that many of the internal components are not made by Apple.

Yeah, and it's also beside my point.

Certainly if someone was singing the praises of their Mac DVD drive, you'd have no trouble pointing it out that bit wasn't Apple.

Hey, don't go putting words into my mouth.

But because Fast Eddie was saying his DVD drive had failed, you didn't mention it, preferring instead to imply that it was an Apple problem.

He was boasting about how "robust" Apple stuff is, then said his MacBook Pro had a bad CD/DVD drive. Whose problem is it then?

It sounds to me like you're insinuating that the reliability of Macs is a given, so naturally when a part on one breaks, it's not Apple's fault because the parts are made by other manufacturers. Does that mean that tech companies are not responsible for the reliability of their own machines?

My point, as I stated above, is that Macs are not considerably more reliable than other decent manufacturers' brands.

The reason I keep mentioning that the parts for Macs are made by other companies is not to make Apple look bad, only to dispel the notion that they're some kind of magical miracle engines made out of pixie jizz and unicorn farts. It seems that pointing out that Apple is just another tech company, and Macs are just like other computers, really gets some under peoples' skin.

 

[Stray Cat]

You're stretching my analogy past the breaking point. A Toyota engine won't even fit into a Ford car, but you can install Windows onto a Mac, and Mac OSX onto a non-Apple computer.

You can make anything fit into anything if you have a big enough hammer to screw the bolts in with.
http://www.northwestoffroad.com/parts/manualadapters.php

It can be done both ways, but why would Ford (or Toyota) want to do it?

Apples are the same hardware as any other computer, in a fancier box, and running a different OS. That's the only difference.

Yes, I know and have already agreed with this description.

I have a computer that runs Mac OS. It's not a Mac, but a computer I put together myself. I mainly use it for cross-platform software testing. By the same token, I could get a Mac and install Windows on it without having to make any modifications whatsoever.

Yes, I know.

Macs are the same machine as any other x86 computer. Don't let them tell you any different.

I'm not letting them (who ever "they" are) tell me anything.

Again, that analogy doesn't work with computers. When I initially mentioned it, I was merely pointing out that Apple's marketing-speak made as much sense as Ford saying that its SUVs aren't SUVs but everyone else's are. Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ads promoted an equivalent false impression.

No they didn't. Mac have always been and remain different from non Macs.
Apple is selling a Computer designed by Apple, with it's own OS pre-installed, it's the only computer manufacturer that does that. It's a USP. It's what distinguishes them from other computer manufacturers.
It was even more relevant when Apple ran the series of Mac v PC ads, because Macs were even more differenter than non Macs.
If Apple had simply ran ads that said "Buy an Apple computer" they would still have had to point out to people that Windows applications wouldn't run on it and I'm quite sure that some people would still be knocking them for that strategy too.

But I'm not saying I agree that making out like your competition are crap is a good strategy BTW. Apple would have been more ethical if they had simply concentrated in their strengths instead of adding fuel to the fire that had already been burning for years before they caught up and joined in (god, weren't the Apple marketing dept. slow to move on that one).

Personal computers, unlike automobiles, are all built on a standard hardware platform. Macs used to be built on a different platform, but doing things that way almost ruined the company. Now they're the same kind of machine as all the other companies are building, yet they've created a false impression that they're fundamentally different when they really aren't.

OK, let's refine the analogy a bit. The same manufacturer makes the same car on the same chassis, but with different options for different people's needs. Some have a more powerful engine for those who want to go fast, some have bigger space in the back because they have dogs, some are stripped down to basics for families on a budget and some are filled with all the extras.

When the marketing department come to advertise those (essentially the same car with different options), they highlight the different options to the people they are trying to sell that option to.
"If you want to go fast, you don't want the 1.6 standard, you want the 3.6iS"
"If you're doing a lot of miles, you don't want the gas guzzler, you want this one which is more economical"
"If you don't like what we sell, there are plenty of other dealerships in town"

If you want a computer that does exactly what a Mac does nothing more and nothing less, you'll be wanting a Mac. It may not be the fastest most powerful thing we've got in the showroom, but it's comfortable on long journeys.

Notice I'm not slagging off other computers or operating systems here.

I never said it was.

It may not necessarily be "evil," but that doesn't mean it's good to believe everything a company says in its marketing, without bothering to question or inquire into the actual facts.

Well I've been in the advertising and marketing industry a long time and I say never believe anything that an advert says, be it implicit or explicit. They are nothing more than appeals to self authority.
As we both know, an advert is simply an anecdote and we both know that anecdotes are not evidence, they are just claims that need evidence to support them.

 

[Stray Cat]

He was boasting about how "robust" Apple stuff is, then said his MacBook Pro had a bad CD/DVD drive. Whose problem is it?

He wasn't "boasting", he was mentioning his own experience, if he had been "boasting" I doubt his next sentence would have been to tell everyone about his faulty DVD drive.

My point about the parts being made by other companies was not intended to make Apple look bad, only to dispel the notion that they're some kind of magical miracle engines made out of pixie jizz and unicorn farts.

But you didn't make the point about parts being made by other companies.
I did.

Your reply was:

But with my Dell laptop, I don't even need to do that. Sounds like my $1500 top-of-the-line Dell has turned out to be more reliable than your $2500 Apple MacBook Pro. Guess Apple hardware might not be so robust as you're so eager to give it credit for.

Which was just you involved in one of those mythical Mac v PC competitions. Fast Eddie wasn't comparing his Mac to any other non Mac computer when he mentioned his non working DVD drive, he wasn't saying that Macs are betterer than non Macs or that non Macs are less reliable. He was simply talking in isolation about his Mac.

It sounds to me like you're insinuating that Macs are reliable, but whenever a part on one breaks, it's not Apple's fault because the parts are made by other manufacturers. Does that mean that tech companies are not responsible for the reliability of their own machines?

When you say "insinuating" do you mean when I say things like:

I don't think that one anecdote about a DVD drive says much about much really. In the same way that me telling everyone that I still have every Mac I've ever bought (since I bought my IICX second hand for £2,500 in 1990) and they all still work (even though I don't use them, there seemed to be no point disposing of them because they are all in perfect working order), doesn't prove that Macs are ultra-reliable or even any more reliable than other computers.
I used to manage a design studio that had a network of 15 Macs in constant use. I know they sometimes break. My experience is that most of the time, it was down to operator error, but like anything with electrical components and moving parts, there is no such thing as 100% reliability.

So we now know that Apple are the same as any other compute because Apple don't make the bits, they are the same bits as other computer manufacturers. And we know that when those bits fail, it's apparently because they are in Apple computers.

Whilst the rest of the world just realises that stuff breaks with no regard for what badge is on box.