...that either do not work, stop other stuff working, require licenses, introduce bugs, or demand you upgrade all your hardware just to let them run!
I've Moved To Mac
- Thread starter Miss Whiplash
- Start date
Kenny 10 Bellys
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
- Messages
- 290
Mac pros and cons...
Pro:
looks pretty
no one can be bothered making virus's for it
more built-in software
Cons:
more expensive to buy
very difficult to upgrade
tiny software selection compared to PC
You can debate all you want, but it looks like people are still buying PCs at about 20 times the rate they're buying Macs so they must be doing something right. The main reason people get down on PCs is because of Windows or Microsoft in general, not the device itself. I think they believe Steve Jobs and Apple are some sort of workers cooperative out to save the world or somesuch, and not a billionaire businessmen exactly like Gates and Microsoft.
Pro:
looks pretty
no one can be bothered making virus's for it
more built-in software
Cons:
more expensive to buy
very difficult to upgrade
tiny software selection compared to PC
You can debate all you want, but it looks like people are still buying PCs at about 20 times the rate they're buying Macs so they must be doing something right. The main reason people get down on PCs is because of Windows or Microsoft in general, not the device itself. I think they believe Steve Jobs and Apple are some sort of workers cooperative out to save the world or somesuch, and not a billionaire businessmen exactly like Gates and Microsoft.
That is precisely the crux of the matter.
If Macs are all that much more better, why do Macs have such a pitiful market share?
Is it...
...a conspiracy?
...because pc users are just plain stoopid?
...what?
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Quite possibly, but the biggest take-up of PCs in recent years has been bottom-of-the-range, get-me-on-the-net budget doobries which is never a market Apple has targeted anyway.
Sure! Just watch the "Survival Of The Fittest" whittle the REAL choices of professional quality back down to a handful...just like on the Mac!You want diversity or not?
Besides (stirring the pot!), Macs don't need a lot of choice. The programs there already do everything necessary on a personal computer - Mac people aren't reinventing, nay, rediscovering the wheel every few years!
Claus, Claus, Claus. Tsk, tsk. You wouldn't know a straight line delivery if you tripped over it on your doorstep!
Fixed that for you so that it required no judging!
There is no such thing as an intuitive user interface. There is easy to learn (consistent, explorable, safe (everything is undoable)) and there's other. I think the mac interface is slightly easier to learn than windows, but not by much. But who cares? I can open a terminal and it is Unix, and that's what makes me really happy 
chown -R US /baseThere is no such thing as an intuitive user interface. There is easy to learn (consistent, explorable, safe (everything is undoable)) and there's other. I think the mac interface is slightly easier to learn than windows, but not by much. But who cares? I can open a terminal and it is Unix, and that's what makes me really happy
Oh, gosh, yes. The only thing that made it possible for me to get some Macs to play nice in a Windows network. The oh so simple Mac GUI wuldn't let me change everything to work properly. vi to the rescue!There is no such thing as an intuitive user interface. There is easy to learn (consistent, explorable, safe (everything is undoable)) and there's other. I think the mac interface is slightly easier to learn than windows, but not by much. But who cares? I can open a terminal and it is Unix, and that's what makes me really happy
Then you're doing it wrong somehow! My daughter did it in 2 minutes, and she had never even SEEN a Mac, let alone driven it before.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
If Ferraris are all that much more better, why do Ferrari have such a pitiful market share?
Is it...
...a conspiracy?
...because Ford drivers are just plain stoopid?
...what?
Reeco
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 551
Ferrari don't want a bigger market share, Apple do.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
[larsen mode]
Evidence?
[/larsen mode]
Evidence?
[/larsen mode]
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
And Apple is getting it. I'm of the opinion, like many other, that it's mainly due to the iPod "halo effect". It will be interesting to see where their market share is in 5 years (I believe it's doubled in the past 5).
..and which of the 4 anti-trust acts does this violate exactly??
Be specific because I want to see where it mentions standards. Standards is not a new idea so you cannot convince me with "what they really meant" junk.
The Sherman Act deals with restraint of trade, but makes no mention of standards. Is this what you really meant? "restraint of trade"? If so, then if Microsoft was guilty, then Apple is guilty.
The Robinson-Patman Act deals with selective pricing. Basically outlawing "I'll sell this to you for $X and to your competition for $Y" - Doesnt apply, and makes no mention of standards.
The Clayton Act, as applied to this issue, deals with exclusive distribution. I could be said that Microsoft was exclusively distributing its own browser, but then Apple is also guilty, right? (and not just for browsers...) Oh, it makes no mention of standards.
The FTC Act, right? Is this what you were talking about? The wide-sweaping ever-growing Consumer Protection laws .. perhaps one or two mention standards?
No, I do not buy that "exactly the kind of manoeuvre which antitrust laws were written to prevent."
P.S. .. by standards compliant you mean specification compliant, right?
Getting access to a Windows network and using shared folders and printers is easy.
Getting the Mac to play nice in a Windows environment without being allowed to join the AD system is not easy. The problems are not something you would even notice in a home environment.
1. There are several places where the computer name has to be setup under OSX. Not all of them are accessible though the GUI.
2. The effects show up in places like the list of assigned addresses on the DHCP server, and in the DNS server.
3. If all of the names aren't set correctly, you can end up with a Mac showing up under the name of a PC in the name resolution. Like this: Mac IP 192.168.0.4, name MAC1. PC IP 192.168.0.5, name PC1. If the Mac isn't setup properly, doing nslookup 192.168.0.4 could return PC1 - and nslookup 192.178.0.5 will also return PC1.
Getting A Mac and A PC to talk is trivial. Making them play really nice in a large network can be a pain.