I've Moved To Mac

[NobbyNobbs]

I'll chime in on a few things...

Why I bought a Mac: Because the last one I had was nigh-indestructible. Also because I'm proficient on both Macs and PCs, but find the Mac desktop much faster and cleaner. I like the little details that make working on my laptop enjoyable, like the nav bar that hides and pops up with big, easy to identify icons that balloon bigger when I mouse over them; the pan & scan screensaver that cycles through my photo collection; the way I can just throw away nearly any CD that comes with my electronics, like how I just plug in my camera for the first time and there's iPhoto, downloading pics and video quickly and organizing them all for me; I like the look of the machine, all crisp white; I like the iSight that came built into the monitor; I like the power cord that attaches magnetically, so every time I trip over the cord I don't cause havoc (effing brilliant!); I like how someone with a really good eye for design made everything work beautifully together visually, all the way down to the box the thing came in; and I like that right now I'm sitting at a picnic table outside a pub working, and a sweet 60-something Jewish man just stopped by to talk about how much he loves his old 12" G3 that's lasted forever, and he doesn't need to upgrade but thinks my MacBook is so cool he might pick one up anyway. (Edited to add: Oh, and the lack of viruses. I forgot to mention those because I give them absolutely zero thought.)

I'm sure someone will be able to pick all those reasons apart and show me the error of my ways (oh save me from my foolishness please!), but who cares, it works for me and I like it.

My complaints: the monitor plug is a mini-DVI and it didn't come with the adapter, so I had to go to the Mac store and pick one up for $15 or so. Bastages!

As far as the red yellow and green buttons go . . . if someone hasn't figured them out in the first 30 seconds of turning on the computer, I fear for his mental health. If that's Mystery Meat Navigation, than so is a stoplight. I mean, why don't they just say STOP, SLOW TO A STOP IF ABLE, and GO AHEAD, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FINE?

Seconded.

I'm chiming in as a very average computer user. That is, I want to use my computer. I do not know, and do not want to know, how to change network settings, install new systems, interface with whatnot, and all that other techno stuff. I just want to sit down and use my computer to write, email, edit photo albums, surf the net. I suspect most other computer users are in a similar situation.

So, with that in mind, here's a case in point. My friend and I sat down to print stuff out from our respective computers. We were quite excited, because I had just purchased a new printer, having never had one before. I was on my Mac, he on his PC.

He turned off his computer, connected the printer to the USB port, turned on the computer, installed the disk, rebooted his computer, and clicked "Print".

My turn. I connected the printer to my USB port and clicked "Print".

And that, really, is all I ever want out of it. For those who want to dig into the virtual guts of the thing, maybe a PC is better. For me, however, the choice is obvious.

 

[Darat]

I bet if your PC pal had just plugged it in it would have worked but he wouldn't then have had the additional software the printer manufacture supplied.

Please don't get me started with printers and the bloody Mac - getting a border-less print out of my Mac and my Epson printer without losing half the damned picture is in fact impossible!!! The fact of which took me hours over the course of a week of messing about to find out!!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

..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.

Well, if you want me to be that specific what they actually got done for in that instance was breaching a previous settlement agreement with the DOJ, which forbade them to bundle up any other software with Windows whatsoever.

However the reason why the issue was worth fighting over was that it was an attempt to extinguish competing browsers by abusing their OS monopoly, and their browser was a piece of dangerous rubbish.

Of course the vital bit of the Clayton act you missed is that it forbids "tying" (bundling) if and only if it has a substantial impact on competition. A not unreasonable take on the matter is that IE as it was released was an instance of tying which was substantially anti-competitive because of the issues I have already mentioned, and which was therefore illegal whether or not Microsoft were bound by their earlier agreement not to bundle anything at all. If IE had simply been a regular, standards-compliant browser then they would still have been in breach of their 1994 agreement to bundle it, but I think it would have been much harder to argue that it was a breach of Clayton in addition to being a breach of their agreement.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I bet if your PC pal had just plugged it in it would have worked but he wouldn't then have had the additional software the printer manufacture supplied.

Please don't get me started with printers and the bloody Mac - getting a border-less print out of my Mac and my Epson printer without losing half the damned picture is in fact impossible!!! The fact of which took me hours over the course of a week of messing about to find out!!

We wondered the same thing. So afterwards, he deleted the drivers and reset everything back the way it was. He tried plugging in the printer and printing, but the computer refused to recognize it. After several attempts, he found he had to go through the process all over again.

As far as printing a picture, I'm not sure why it's giving you such trouble. I haven't had any problems doing it.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Whoa, whoa... Macs have been on the market for decades. Don't give me any of this "recent years" crap.

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!

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!

They sure aren't. Apple decides what is good for you, to loud cheers from the converted fan(atic)s.

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

Perv.

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.

Ah, but Mac users are supposed to be able to do it right from the start.


....aren't they?

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?

Macs were from the start meant to be a computer for everyone. Plug it in, use it.

....right?

[larsen mode]
Evidence?
[/larsen mode]

Of what?

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).

Again, Macs have been on the market for decades. Just when are we going to see this major breakthrough?

Any data?

The overwhelming majority of third-party Mac applications look and feel just like the Apple applications, they cut and paste between each other just fine and so forth. There are clear guidelines for developers and most developers follow them. It's nothing to do with whether the actual software is written by Apple or not.

The same can be said for Windows. Now what?

As for the antitrust issue, the problem with Explorer bundling was not so much that they were bundling a browser, but that the browser was not standards-compliant. Bundling Explorer was an attempt to make their (crappy) browser the de facto standard, replacing the existing open standards. That was exactly the kind of manoeuvre which antitrust laws were written to prevent.

Thanks to the intervention of the US government we now have a variety of good browsers to choose from and they all work with almost all web pages. Back in the day I used to regularly come across pages which would only work with Explorer, but thankfully that has not happened in years.

If Explorer had been standards-compliant I very much doubt it would have been seen as being any more problematic than Solitaire or Minesweeper.

I still think the earlier poster was probably a troll, trying to start a Microsoft/Mac flame war just for giggles.

Until 1997, what browser did Macs come with? Why is that any different that putting IE on WinPCs?

Seconded.

I'm chiming in as a very average computer user. That is, I want to use my computer. I do not know, and do not want to know, how to change network settings, install new systems, interface with whatnot, and all that other techno stuff. I just want to sit down and use my computer to write, email, edit photo albums, surf the net. I suspect most other computer users are in a similar situation.

So, with that in mind, here's a case in point. My friend and I sat down to print stuff out from our respective computers. We were quite excited, because I had just purchased a new printer, having never had one before. I was on my Mac, he on his PC.

He turned off his computer, connected the printer to the USB port, turned on the computer, installed the disk, rebooted his computer, and clicked "Print".

My turn. I connected the printer to my USB port and clicked "Print".

And that, really, is all I ever want out of it. For those who want to dig into the virtual guts of the thing, maybe a PC is better. For me, however, the choice is obvious.

So, your computer came with the printer driver installed, hm?

Well, if you want me to be that specific what they actually got done for in that instance was breaching a previous settlement agreement with the DOJ, which forbade them to bundle up any other software with Windows whatsoever.

However the reason why the issue was worth fighting over was that it was an attempt to extinguish competing browsers by abusing their OS monopoly, and their browser was a piece of dangerous rubbish.

Of course the vital bit of the Clayton act you missed is that it forbids "tying" (bundling) if and only if it has a substantial impact on competition. A not unreasonable take on the matter is that IE as it was released was an instance of tying which was substantially anti-competitive because of the issues I have already mentioned, and which was therefore illegal whether or not Microsoft were bound by their earlier agreement not to bundle anything at all. If IE had simply been a regular, standards-compliant browser then they would still have been in breach of their 1994 agreement to bundle it, but I think it would have been much harder to argue that it was a breach of Clayton in addition to being a breach of their agreement.

...standards-compliant...what standard?

 

[Ohmer]

chown -R US /base

Thank you. My coworkers are wondering why I am cackling in my cubicle.

I am amazed that your 2 year old daughter can use vi. A true prodigy she it.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Again, Macs have been on the market for decades. Just when are we going to see this major breakthrough?

Any data?

What "major breakthrough" are you talking about? I said their market share has been increasing and it has been.

Here's your data...

Statistics from late 2003 indicate that Apple had 2.06% of the desktop share in the United States, which had increased to 2.88% by Q4 2004.[18] As of October, 2006, research firms IDC and Gartner reported that Apple's market share in the U.S. had increased to about 6%.[19] The latest figures, from December 2006, showing a market share around 6% (IDC) and 6.1% (Gartner) are based on a >30% increase in unit sale from 2005 to 2006.

 

[Ohmer]

... a previous settlement agreement with the DOJ, which forbade them to bundle up any other software with Windows whatsoever. ...
...
abusing their OS monopoly
...

I have quoted what I think is key to the argument I am making. Apple is allowed to bundle software with it's OS. They do not have an OS monopoly to abuse. Therefore, they can do things that Microsoft cannot. When comparing the two, we should keep that in mind. Microsoft is restricted due to it's success.

I agree that IE is rubbish. That's not the point.

 

[CFLarsen]

What "major breakthrough" are you talking about? I said their market share has been increasing and it has been.

Here's your data...

After 20 years. I'm impressed. Not.

 

[Quakeulf]

I have Windows, Linux & Mac PCs - I like to be able to bash all three from intimate knowledge of their various failings!

Did I mention I love you? I love you.

 

[Almo]

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.

Microsoft IS guilty of this one. Judge Jackson's finding of fact stated that MS charged Gateway and IBM extra money for their Win98 copies because both companies did something MS didn't like. Gateway's offense was using Netscape Navigator on their corporate intranet!!

 

[rockoon]

Well, if you want me to be that specific what they actually got done for in that instance was breaching a previous settlement agreement with the DOJ, which forbade them to bundle up any other software with Windows whatsoever.

I knew this. You didnt appear to and went on about how anti-trust laws were meant to prevent blah blah blah

Now you fess up to knowing the truth of the case, and that makes you a liar. Lying to advance your biased point is not honorable.

However the reason why the issue was worth fighting over was that it was an attempt to extinguish competing browsers by abusing their OS monopoly, and their browser was a piece of dangerous rubbish.

Judging by your recent lies, and your clear bias, of what worth is your opinion on the quality of IE? Further, how reliable must we expect your conclusion as to Microsofts motives must be...?

Clearly Apple doesnt have the same motives you claim Microsoft had, right? Why, Apple is just so damn innocent when THEY bundle Safari for their users, right?

Of course the vital bit of the Clayton act you missed is that it forbids "tying" (bundling) if and only if it has a substantial impact on competition.

Which part of the Clayton Act is this?

I am looking right at Title 15 sections 12 through 27, and do not see a basis for your claim.

I am simply not going to accept the claims of a known liar, but if you can cite precisely where to look and it is infact in there we can move on with you having told the truth for once, else I am going to assume that you lied again.

A not unreasonable take on the matter is that IE as it was released was an instance of tying which was substantially anti-competitive because of the issues I have already mentioned ...

(those issues being that you dont like IE)

, and which was therefore illegal whether or not Microsoft were bound by their earlier agreement not to bundle anything at all.

So you are saying that Apple, who is doing the exact same thing, is also guilty of 'tying'?

That is a Yes or No question.

If IE had simply been a regular, standards-compliant browser then they would still have been in breach of their 1994 agreement to bundle it, but I think it would have been much harder to argue that it was a breach of Clayton in addition to being a breach of their agreement.

Standards compliant? Whos standard? Are you saying that Microsoft must follow someone elses standard, or else they are breaking the law? You seem to not know what the hell you are talking about.

What you are describing is a forced legal end to private competitive innovation and is clearly not what any of the anti-trust acts are for, nor how they are legally interrpreted.

(iTunes is bundled on the Mac .. under your interpretation of the law, ILLEGAL)

 

[rockoon]

Microsoft IS guilty of this one. Judge Jackson's finding of fact stated that MS charged Gateway and IBM extra money for their Win98 copies because both companies did something MS didn't like. Gateway's offense was using Netscape Navigator on their corporate intranet!!

Indeed they are guilty of that..

..but that wasnt the point the liar tried to make. He had learned just enough information about some Microsoft anti-trust cases to hang himself wih his own bias.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

So, your computer came with the printer driver installed, hm?

Beats me. All I know is that it worked when I wanted, the way I wanted, without any fooling around necessary. Which, I suspect, is what the average computer user wants.

I also suspect that it wouldn't have mattered what printer I bought. I say this because I purchased one more or less at random (price was the only factor considered, not compatibility), as well as the fact that I can repeat the story concerning my track mouse and scanner. Both came with software to install, and neither required installation, or rebooting, or searching for drivers and such.

 

[HarryKeogh]

After 20 years. I'm impressed. Not.

Putting "not" at the end of a statement stopped being clever about 20 years ago.

Anyway, I think you're just upset over the lack of "I've moved to PC" threads.

 

[CFLarsen]

Putting "not" at the end of a statement stopped being clever about 20 years ago.

Anyway, I think you're just upset over the lack of "I've moved to PC" threads.

Not.

 

[Darat]

Did I mention I love you? I love you.

No - but I like chocolates.

Seriously I do find all these threads funny - there are things bad with all OSs (sorry Zep even your favourite ).

 

[Rat]

Beats me. All I know is that it worked when I wanted, the way I wanted, without any fooling around necessary. Which, I suspect, is what the average computer user wants.

I also suspect that it wouldn't have mattered what printer I bought. I say this because I purchased one more or less at random (price was the only factor considered, not compatibility), as well as the fact that I can repeat the story concerning my track mouse and scanner. Both came with software to install, and neither required installation, or rebooting, or searching for drivers and such.

Then I'll join in with my own anecdotal evidence. I have never had to reboot or put a CD in for a mouse or scanner, nor for a printer. And this, despite the fact that my last two printers came at a bargain price from Mac users who had bought commonly available printers off the shelf and found them to be incompatible with Macs.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Not.

True. I doubt there's a single thread on this forum where the OP says they're done with Macs and moving on to PCs.

I'm sure Vista will change all that though. As soon as people upgrade their computers to handle it.

 

[Rat]

True. I doubt there's a single thread on this forum where the OP says they're done with Macs and moving on to PCs.

I'm sure Vista will change all that though. As soon as people upgrade their computers to handle it.

OK, I work for a company that moved over to PCs some time ago. I didn't feel the need to start a thread about it at the time, but I can do so now if you'd like. That was about 100 machines. PCs served our needs a lot better. Now, the gap is not so great. We can run Macs on Intel processors and run Parallels, and it's just like running a PC. Oh, wait, it is running a PC, only more expensively.

We are upgrading to Vista as and when, one machine at a time.