PC vs MAC

[orpheus]

Nowdays, I have no idea what the pros/cons of either are, frankly.

Neither do I. I do know this: I really love using my Macbook. Stunningly easy. Stable. It let's me do what I want to. YMMV. If so, FSM bless you. There's room for us all.

Having said that (which I really do believe, btw), I should also say this: when I think about all the tools us earth-dwellers have invented, computers are just so magnificent - really astounding, come to think about it: it's a little box. What does it do? Well, what do you want it to do? Because it can do just a [rule8]ing, jaw-droppingly amazing variety of things.

I'm not trying to be cute here. I can only speak for myself, but when I use a computer, I'm aware that I'm "interfacing" with a world (to be maybe a bit hyperbolic. ) And the aesthetics of that interface then begin to matter. (Didn't someone ask about this some posts back?) By aesthetics, I don't mean 'it should look cool'. I mean that my entire sensory experience of using the machine - look (both visual appeal and, for example, low production of eye-strain), sound, tactile feedback - all that should grace the experience of using this most amazing tool.

Perhaps a bad analogy, but it just came to mind: I can write with anything. Pencil stub, ballpoint pen, my niece's crayons - anything. They get the job done. But for preference I use a fountain pen - for the above reasons. The aesthetics keep me in touch with how amazing an achievement writing is. I don't give a [insert favorite Rule 8 word] about how the pen looks to others. It's not a matter of snobbery - not at all. It matters to me. The aesthetics of it - the look, feel, weight on paper, sound of nib moving on fine paper. With anything else, I'm writing. With a fountain pen, I'm writing.

 

[CFLarsen]

which part of "To the extent that other companies do that, they also are culpable." did you not understand?

I'm asking jim.

 

[Zygar]

I'm pretty sure it's the same. At least, my understanding of it is that, anyway.

At least the American form of democracy is meant to prevent majoritarianism. In theory. The whole point is to give all peoples a voice, so that they are not drowned out by a simple majority.

 

[brodski]

representative democracy with a constitution is a far cry from "majority rules".

[political pedant] Representative democracy is majority rules, all governments have a constitution (whether codified or not) that doesn’t stop theme from being based on "majority rules", what you are talking about is a liberal democracy, where society tries to square the circle of protecting the rights of the individual as well as the rights of the masses. [/political pedant]

Teaks point that "majority rules" wasn't some plea for the oppression of minorities it is a simple stamen of reality. "Majority rules" in economics and the market is very different from "majority rules" in politics.

Using a PC allows Teek to work and communicate more easily with more of her clients than using a Mac would. It is simple economic reality which means that the majority rill rule in this case.

 

[Ian Osborne]

But it becomes a real problem when the product provider servicing the 'majority' turns this into a monopolistic position by deliberately locking out the minority. This is a clear abuse of power, and it's a situation we find ourselves in with Microsoft.

And Teak, if you'd rather dismiss your clients' efforts to send you files by arrogantly blaming them for compatibility problems rather than working together to solve them, maybe they should find another marketing consultancy? Just a thought...

 

[CFLarsen]

At least the American form of democracy is meant to prevent majoritarianism. In theory. The whole point is to give all peoples a voice, so that they are not drowned out by a simple majority.

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy...

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

...is majoritarianism even a real word?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy...

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

He made no claims or implications about the state of democracies outside America.

 

[brodski]

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy...

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

...is majoritarianism even a real word?

Look at the first two words of Zygar's post. Try to understand them, in context.
What implications do you think those two words have?
Do you find the answer to the first question in your post in those two words?
If not, go back and read them again.

 

[Darat]

As Admin:

I suggest folk look up at the title of this section. Take discussions about political matters to... well I'll let you work it out as an exercise in critical thinking...

 

[CFLarsen]

He made no claims or implications about the state of democracies outside America.

I asked. I didn't say he claimed.

Look at the first two words of Zygar's post. Try to understand them, in context.
What implications do you think those two words have?
Do you find the answer to the first question in your post in those two words?
If not, go back and read them again.

No, I don't. Which is why I asked. Asked.

As Admin:

I suggest folk look up at the title of this section. Take discussions about political matters to... well I'll let you work it out as an exercise in critical thinking...

Oh, hush. It doesn't get more political than PC vs. Macs...

 

[Starthinker]

Of the vast majority of people I know who use linux, "it's cheaper" is the bottom of the list of reasons why they do. Perhaps you are confusing "free" with "cheap"? As they say, free as in speech, not free as in beer (aka libre as apposed to gratis).

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the majority of Linux users I know didn't want to make Bill richer. But while they're touting "I'm free from Microsoft" they then say under their breath that they do dual boot because they still need Windows for some things. Is that "free from microsoft"?

I was talking to avid Linux user last summer and he was touting that he's had people use his system and never realized it wasn't Windows. "So they copied Windows, that's a switch," I said. He actually got mad and said just because the GUI was similar doesn't mean a thing and started ranting about all the pros of using Linux. Again it's like cars. All cars basically have 4 wheels and an engine and a place to sit and drive. It's when you get into the details that the "Ford-Chevy" debate starts. Same with OSes. Once you launch your program, are you thinking about the OS or the program? Isn't each OS basically a program launcher? If someone came out with an office suite that ran identically on a Mac, Linux, or Windows machine, and everyone was using it, would you really care what the OS was? Sure, I can hear you guys already launching into the security debate but once Macs and Linux has the numbers to make it profitable I'm sure virus writers and malware will start to show up for them as well.

Again, the point I'm making is that we are entrenched, in the business at least and from what I hear, the gaming world as well, with Microsoft. As soon as vendors have programs that will run on any platform we will no longer need Microsoft and it will just be another choice. Problem is, the biggest vendor out there is trying to prevent this from happening so it may take a while.

At this moment, can any large organization, especially the ones that deal with other large organizations, be completely 100% Linux? Or 100% Mac? No Windows machines in the corner for this task or one that dual boots for that task. Not so much as a single Microsoft product anywhere? Is that possible yet? I don't think so and that is why Bill is rich, not because Windows is the best, but because of the marketing that got us to this point.

 

[Mercutio]

All of the people that I know, that I know own a mac, also own a PC.



QED Biatch.

Just curious--since it is the people that you know, you should eventually be able to find out the answer to this: The people what you know, who own both a mac and a PC, which one did they own first? Your "QED" implies that a mac by itself is insufficient (at least, that was my interpretation; I could easily be wrong); if, however, these folks you know bought their macs because they were dissatisfied with their PCs, your Q is not nearly so ED.

(I honestly have no idea which would be the case; I could see it going either way, or with no clear pattern. I do know that I had access to PC, Mac, and two different mainframes while crunching data for my dissertation too many years ago for it to be relevant to this debate. My advisor wanted me to do all my stats in SPSS on the mainframe--which was a VAX, then upgraded to a UNIX machine, either of which were probably less powerful than home PCs available now--but I found it much easier to use SuperAnova on a Mac. So I did both; I used the Mac first, so that I knew what the numbers would be, then ran what he wanted on the mainframe. Anyway, my point is, the choices of computer are liable to be influenced by any number of variables, and it is perfectly reasonable to think that a given individual with access to Computer X would also find reason to then buy Computer Y. Where X and Y could each be any number of different OS.)

 

[tsg]

Maybe it's more accurate to say that the majority of Linux users I know didn't want to make Bill richer. But while they're touting "I'm free from Microsoft" they then say under their breath that they do dual boot because they still need Windows for some things. Is that "free from microsoft"?

I can't attest to the motivations of the Linux users you know, but the Linux users I know gravitate towards Linux partly because of Microsoft's business practices but mostly because they want more control over what their computer does. As far as claiming that they're "free from Microsoft", few of us really are (including Mac users), but Linux users are closer.

I was talking to avid Linux user last summer and he was touting that he's had people use his system and never realized it wasn't Windows. "So they copied Windows, that's a switch," I said. He actually got mad and said just because the GUI was similar doesn't mean a thing and started ranting about all the pros of using Linux. Again it's like cars. All cars basically have 4 wheels and an engine and a place to sit and drive. It's when you get into the details that the "Ford-Chevy" debate starts.

If Fords came with their hoods welded shut it might be a closer analogy. Copying Windows "look and feel" while keeping the back end services Linux is a valid strategy to making the switch from Windows to Linux very easy. Few people arguing against Windows systems have the GUI as a significant motivation. While it may not be the best in the world, it is certainly the most well known. One of the benefits of Linux is that you can put any one of a dozen different windowing systems on top of it. Choice is good.

Same with OSes. Once you launch your program, are you thinking about the OS or the program? Isn't each OS basically a program launcher? If someone came out with an office suite that ran identically on a Mac, Linux, or Windows machine, and everyone was using it, would you really care what the OS was?

That is entirely the point. You shouldn't have to care which OS it was. Then you could choose your OS based on what suits you best and not because the applications that everyone else is using don't run on it and don't share data with other apps.

Sure, I can hear you guys already launching into the security debate but once Macs and Linux has the numbers to make it profitable I'm sure virus writers and malware will start to show up for them as well.

The "bigger target" argument. Unfortunately it's not true. Apache and sendmail are very much more popular server applications than either of Microsoft's versions but Microsoft's server apps have more vulnerabilities. Will Linux viruses start showing up when Linux is more popular? Sure they will. But the damage they can do will be very limited compared to what Windows virsuses are capable of.

Again, the point I'm making is that we are entrenched, in the business at least and from what I hear, the gaming world as well, with Microsoft. As soon as vendors have programs that will run on any platform we will no longer need Microsoft and it will just be another choice. Problem is, the biggest vendor out there is trying to prevent this from happening so it may take a while.

I agree with this. But I don't believe it should stay that way. By dual-booting Linux and Windows, the user is able to use Linux for what he can and Windows for what he has to. And everyday the list of reasons for having to boot Windows gets shorter. And while the dual-booter may not be completely free of Microsoft, he is not as beholden to them as other pure Windows users are. The chains may not be completely off, but they are significantly looser then they were yesterday. And tomorrow they will be looser still.

At this moment, can any large organization, especially the ones that deal with other large organizations, be completely 100% Linux? Or 100% Mac? No Windows machines in the corner for this task or one that dual boots for that task. Not so much as a single Microsoft product anywhere? Is that possible yet? I don't think so and that is why Bill is rich, not because Windows is the best, but because of the marketing that got us to this point.

I think you'll find that 100% Windows shops are exceedingly rare as well, but I don't see why being 100% Microsoft free matters. The world I'm aiming for, and it is a view shared by many Linux enthusiasts, is not one that is void of Microsoft, but one where Microsoft doesn't have a stranglehold on the market forcing people to use their particular brand of software. Choice is good for the consumer. And when Windows doesn't have a 90% or 95% share of the market, Microsoft will be forced to write apps for other operating systems or give up that portion of the market. Meanwhile there are a number of free software applications that already run on very many different operating systems, including Windows.

Being free of Microsoft is not about being Microsoft-free. It's about having a choice. And I, personally, don't want that choice to be based largely on what everyone else is using simply because Microsoft doesn't play well with others.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Being free of Microsoft is not about being Microsoft-free. It's about having a choice. And I, personally, don't want that choice to be based largely on what everyone else is using simply because Microsoft doesn't play well with others.

Very well said.

 

[tkingdoll]

And Teak, if you'd rather dismiss your clients' efforts to send you files by arrogantly blaming them for compatibility problems rather than working together to solve them, maybe they should find another marketing consultancy? Just a thought...

Sigh. Seeing as you've just made what appears to be a business ad hom, with precisely zero knowledge or understanding of my business or working practices, I can't even be bothered to defend it. I doubt many people won't think what you said here is stupid and ill-informed, personal even, so it's really no big deal to let it stand, although for the sake of my business I will point out, quite simply, that you are utterly mistaken in your assertion about both my working practices and my attitude.

Your attitude, however, is clear from the nature of your nasty little digs, and you just earned yourself a place on my ignore list.

 

[Zygar]

Now that you bring up the American form of democracy...

Are you saying that non-American forms of democracies allow majoritarianism, so that minorities are drowned out?

No. I clarified the American form simply because it is what I know. I make no implication that I understand any other form of democracy, nor do I intend to assert that any other form does or does not allow majoritarianism.

...is majoritarianism even a real word?

Majoritarianism^WP. Although I'm as surprised as you are. I suspected I may have invented it on the spot.

 

[Barrytown]

By now, most people buy Office because it's compatible with what everyone else has. I need to buy a new Office suite for my PC and I'll be forking out for the MS product because I'm not about to start sending OpenOffice documents to clients. What's standard is what's expected.

Just to point this out, because it doesn't look like it's been mentioned yet: with OpenOffice you aren't obligated to save in their format - you can save documents as Word docs or Excel workbooks, etc. Additionally, you can save as PDFs, or as XML files, which I believe is the format that the new version of MS Office will use.

I made sure of this for myself when I decided to ditch MS Office - I checked out the Beta version of MS Office 2007 and loathed it.

 

[tkingdoll]

Majoritarianism^WP. Although I'm as surprised as you are. I suspected I may have invented it on the spot.

That would be weird, as I used it twice in this thread before you did. Here and Here. I even supplied a very basic definition.

This is like that Fast Show sketch...

 

[russell_morris]

Just to point this out, because it doesn't look like it's been mentioned yet: with OpenOffice you aren't obligated to save in their format - you can save documents as Word docs or Excel workbooks, etc. Additionally, you can save as PDFs, or as XML files, which I believe is the format that the new version of MS Office will use.

I made sure of this for myself when I decided to ditch MS Office - I checked out the Beta version of MS Office 2007 and loathed it.

Office 2007 will be able to save things in XML - but that's not saying much in and of itself. The contents of the XML docs written by Office 2007 will not be auto-magically readable by OpenOffice (or any other office suite). MS has promised to release the format and schema of the XML they use to store Office 2007 docs, but there is uncertainty (at least last time I checked) that they'd be released under a license that made them useless to developers of competing office suites (like OpenOffice). As far as I am aware, the reality of the situation is not known yet.

MS had planned (and mostly implemented) built-in "Save as PDF" in Word 2007 (and perhaps other members of Office), but Adobe (creator of the PDF format, and Acrobat, the canonical PDF creation program) threatened to sue them for it. Adobe was afraid that if people could save to PDF in Word out-of-the-box, then their Acrobat product would take a major hit in sales. I believe MS still plans on having a freely available add-on to save as PDF, but it'll be something you have to download from them, instead of being built-in. The details may have changed since the last time I looked.

OpenOffice can currently open Word, Excel, etc.. files, and can save in that format as well. However, in my usage, I've found that round-tripping documents between Word and OpenOffice's Write is always an excercise in sadism.

 

[bigred]

Apparently some of you missed this the first time so IMO it bears repeating:

I suggest folk look up at the title of this section. Take discussions about political matters to... well I'll let you work it out as an exercise in critical thinking...

Still hoping someone has an at least semi-objective and semi-concise recap of pros/cons of one vs the other-? No big if not as it's mostly just curiousity (boredom) than anything. Seems to me PCs still have far more selections of s/w, although I suspect with emulators etc this might not be a big deal anymore? Is it otherwise largely a personal preference/social status thing?